Other stuff

[ipecac]

...and recognize the onus is on you to fit in.

Not exactly.

I mean, this.  What's the logic behind the ban?  It ain't exactly a Uyghur camp in China, but on the surface it appears to have a similar objective.

The view of the French (and Chinese, etc.) is that the onus is also on the state.

[ipecac]

  France has a real challenge integrating such a different value system into their own, and both sides need to budge for it to happen. 

Your mistake is assuming a 'melting pot' strategy, whereas France looks like most states: conform or else.

[Gustaran]

To take my mind off the stress of this election, I'll give my non French, ill informed opinion .

For muslims in France, you chose to move to a fiercely secular country; be grateful that they've given you a home, and recognize the onus is on you to fit in.  That said, there seems to be a lot of needless provocation, to no apparent benefit.  First on the cartoons, I was typing up my thoughts when I ran across this NY times article that did a much better job than I could articulating flaws in the current approach.  Second, the hijab ban is just baffling.

I still don't understand your point. The article lists two viewpoints:

1) Pierre-Henri Tavoillot, a philosopher and expert on laïcité at the Sorbonne University, said that the conflict over the caricatures has led France into “a trap.”
“In fact, they have become symbols and that turns the situation into a conflict,’’ he said. “But it’s a conflict that in my opinion is inevitable: if French laïcité gives up on this point, it will have to give up on all the others.”

2) In a subsequent statement, Mr. Moussaoui said that his suggestion to “renounce some rights” had been clumsy. But he added: “If freedom of expression gives the right to be satirical or humorous, we can understand that cartoons putting a prophet who is fundamental to millions of believers in suggestive and degrading postures cannot fall within this right.”


There can be no compromise. Either you support the right of expression, which includes making fun about religions, or you don't.
It's also interesting that the cartoon in question showed Muhammad with a bomb as his turban. It's telling that a radical muslim responds with a terror attack, confirming the message of the cartoon.

Muslim integration has been a long-running tension in France (I'm recalling some high school students visiting from France when France was banning the hijab in schools in 2004 - the hijab banning came up, and there was some confusion from us Americans why banning a student's religious attire was appropriate, because those laws just wouldn't stand here).

I mean, this.  What's the logic behind the ban?  It ain't exactly a Uyghur camp in China, but on the surface it appears to have a similar objective.

France does not only ban the hijab but all religious symbols in schools:

"The draft law bans ''ostensibly'' religious signs, which have been defined by President Jacques Chirac and a government advisory commission as Islamic head scarves, Christian crosses that are too large in size and Jewish skullcaps. Sikh turbans are also likely to be included."
But the legislation also includes a lengthy preamble that demands that public schools guarantee total equality, including ''coeducation of all teachings, particularly in sports and physical education.'' Schools, it said, are ''the best tool for planting the roots of the republican idea.''
...
Teachers have also said some Muslim girls have boycotted classes on human reproduction because they are too graphic, and have demanded sexually segregated gym classes.

The whole thing is explained here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/world...hools.html


So I fail to see the problem. If France decides with overwhelming majority that schools and students are to remain neutral when it comes to religion, it's their right, you can still practice your religion in your free time. If you don't like that I'd say there are plenty of islamic countries in the world you can move to.

The law has actually been challenged and upheld before the European Court for Human Right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.A.S._v._France

I am especially annoyed when it comes to islamists among refugees: They come to foreign country, grab the social support and then tell the local people what's acceptable according to their religion? Yeah, that's not going to go down well.

[darrelljs]

I’m too consumed by the US election to engage meaningfully, but I do understand and sympathize with your POV. I fear that if France, and other European countries that have accepted a large Muslim population (e.g. Germany with the Syrians) take a “my way or the highway approach”, it will end in disaster.

Darrell

[Cyneheard]

So I fail to see the problem. If France decides with overwhelming majority that schools and students are to remain neutral when it comes to religion, it's their right, you can still practice your religion in your free time. If you don't like that I'd say there are plenty of islamic countries in the world you can move to.

So this is where "neutrality" looks different to different people - in the U.S., banning students from wearing religious insignia would NOT be seen as neutral on religion, as students' First Amendment rights would be violated.

[mackoti]

So I fail to see the problem. If France decides with overwhelming majority that schools and students are to remain neutral when it comes to religion, it's their right, you can still practice your religion in your free time. If you don't like that I'd say there are plenty of islamic countries in the world you can move to.

So this is where "neutrality" looks different to different people - in the U.S., banning students from wearing religious insignia would NOT be seen as neutral on religion, as students' First Amendment rights would be violated.

Because of that USA is the greatest country in the world.And even more they have tools to back up the freedom.

[Rowain]

There is no alternative. Those sick minds that happily kill other people (or bring others to kill ) for their PoV will always find a reason to do it. If it isn't religious symbols it is about gay-marriage. If it is not that it is the existence of jews. It it s not that it is the existence of the state israel. If not that then women showing their face/getting jobs/have a say and so on and so forth.

And it isn't only islamistic terrorism there are also right-wing terrorists for example. Should they be appeased too?
Didn't you have a bunch of people trying to capture a governor to get their will? Should they get it?

Do you really want to live in a world where everyone with a weapon and the will to kill others can dictate what happens because the state is too afraid to take a stand?


You live here in Europe you live by our rules and the vast majority of the people does exactly that. Yes the vast majority of our muslim compatriots does exactly that.
In the terrorist shooting that just happened here in Vienna 2 muslim with immigration background saved the life of a cop risking their own lives.

As our chancellor so correctly said:„Dies ist kein Kampf zwischen Christen und Muslimen, zwischen Österreichern und Migranten. Dies ist ein Kampf zwischen den vielen Menschen, die an den Frieden glauben, und jenen wenigen, die sich den Krieg wünschen"
("This is not a fight between Christians and Muslims or between Austrians and Immigrants. This is a fight between those many people who believe in peace and those few that want war"

[Gustaran]

So I fail to see the problem. If France decides with overwhelming majority that schools and students are to remain neutral when it comes to religion, it's their right, you can still practice your religion in your free time. If you don't like that I'd say there are plenty of islamic countries in the world you can move to.

So this is where "neutrality" looks different to different people - in the U.S., banning students from wearing religious insignia would NOT be seen as neutral on religion, as students' First Amendment rights would be violated.

Oh, I am sure. But if I understand correctly even in the US only the freedom of belief is absolute, the state can impose limits on practicing religion.

Fictional example: I am an elementary school teacher and my religion demands I wear only boxer shorts on Fridays. Can I teach while wearing boxer shorts, because my religion demands it? I am going out on a limb here and say: Probably not, it would be considered inappropriate, so the exercise of my religion would likely get restricted.

I would also like to point out that in many European countries a hijab is not only considered a mere religious symbol by many people, but a political symbol of female oppression as well.

[ipecac]

Oh, I am sure. But if I understand correctly even in the US only the freedom of belief is absolute, the state can impose limits on practicing religion.

Mormons and polygamy is the classic example.

So this is where "neutrality" looks different to different people - in the U.S., banning students from wearing religious insignia would NOT be seen as neutral on religion, as students' First Amendment rights would be violated.

In other places, they don't pretend that true neutrality exists. Secular values come first, after that any religious stuff that doesn't conflict is allowed.

[ipecac]

the results of the US election are illegitimate by any international standards. If this were in Iraq, we'd have bombed a few innocent civilians for their "undemocratic standards" by now.

The First World-Third World horseshoe theory: random beheadings, grenade gang wars, extent of corruption, blatant election fraud.