Although only some 400 women in France wear a Burqa, according to French intelligence services, the fear that Islamic extremists are a growing threat to peace and security in France and the rest of Europe is ever present. France has already passed a law banning the hijab and all other "conspicuous" religious symbols in state schools and the ruling party are proposing to deny citizenship to couples in which the woman wears a burqa.
"There are principles at stake: Extremists are putting the republic to the test by promoting a practice that they know is contrary to the basic principles of our country,"says Jean-Francois Cope, the UMP party leader. So is he, I'd have to add, if that old Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité thing still stands taller in French eyes than ethnic purity.
I wouldn't be hard to find sympathy for banning yarmulkes, turbans, or any other religiously unique clothing in the US of A, but as yet, we're still more liberal in that respect than our Gallic brethren. Long may it be so. I make no secret about my distaste for religion and my fear of what happens when religion and government become too close. Yes, I am all too aware that a large number of Muslims hate our country so much that the random slaughter of innocents seems justified in their eyes, but meddling in anyone's right to express themselves by choosing clothing representing an affiliation or a belief is just such a dangerously close relationship and is anathema to me. No, I don't expect to see that happen here any time soon, but if it does, you'll be seeing me wearing anything they're throwing stones at be it monk's robes or djellaba -- and waving the flag.
Your analogy is reversed. Islam is a barbaric totalitarian ideology seething with hatred for Jews, homsexuals, female equality, and modernity in general. Banning the Islamic burqa is more like banning swastika armbands or KKK garb. I applaud the French for taking a symbolic stand for liberal Western values against the same kind of theocratic ideology that the Iranians are now struggling to throw off.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about France, but we have an equal protection guarantee in our constitution. If you can ban a veil, you can ban a habit or any other ethnic clothing or symbol.
ReplyDeleteIf you ban the free exercise of one religion you are establishing other religions and that's another constitutional no-no.
I'm old enough to remember being banned in certain hotels, clubs, golf courses and neighborhoods because of my ethnicity. My wife's mother was banned from entering the US until after WW II because people were afraid of the Chinese. They're all druggies, you know. I don't consider that to be in the plus column in American history.
The whole idea of prejudging someone is repugnant to me. I've had Muslim friends and most are as American as I am. I'd rather wait until someone breaks the law before punishing them and the constitution agrees.
The situation in many suburbs of Paris, and in other French cities, is far worse than anything we have ever seen with Muslims at home. I'm not justifying what the French are doing, just suggesting, based on the last seven years of jingoism in this country, that it wouldn't take much for us to react as badly, and possibly far worse.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that in the US such a ban would probably be unconstitutional. Not all democracies work that way, though.
ReplyDeleteIn Germany, a robust democracy and pluralistic society in most ways, Nazi symbols are banned by law. Banning Islamic symbols like the hijab (or minarets in Switzerland) is precisely analogous. It sends a message to those who embrace a profoundly evil ideology that the ideology is not welcome or respected, and that its adherents should renounce it or leave.
Try to imagine if the teabagger movement in the US not only were behaving as we've seen, but also constituted a relatively recently-arrived immigrant group in an America which had never had anything like them before. By now we'd be getting pretty fed up with them too.
Many of the Europeans who have taken the strongest stand against Islam were figures from the far left, such as Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. Even people like Sarkozy and Wilders are to the left of our Democratic party on most issues. These people are not being illiberal. They are trying to defend liberal civilization against a force which would destroy it if it could.
Depicting Muslims in Europe as some sort of oppressed group like the Jews is a grotesque misreading of the situation.
I'm well aware of the situation in Europe, but I'm also aware that you're categorizing over a billion people worldwide and millions of American citizens as potential murderers.
ReplyDeleteWe got through WW II without banning bratwurst or lederhosen. We did of course intern the Japanese and we threw out the Chinese because of their "yellow peril" before that -- which most people today see as reprehensible.
Yes, I'm aware of the slippery logic behind the slippery slope argument, but then if we can ban muslim clothing, what else can we ban? What about my wife who wears a headscarf when the top is down on the car? What about my beard, my suntan? Needless to say, we're not Muslims.
What ethno-Czar gets to seperate good cultures from bad cultures? Acceptable religions from unacceptable religions? Permitted clothes from banned clothes.
Will Prince Bandar or visiting dignitaries and businessmen have to change their clothes before arriving here? Or will we allow a foreigner more rights and clothing options than a citizen? And banning beards isn't going to stop people who are out to sink us from being out to sink us. I have a beard -- Mohammed Atta didn't.
Plotting terrorism is already illegal, we don't need a national dress code and if anyone tells me I have to call God Jesus or YHWH but never Allah I'll be loading those 30 round magazines just like some people count rosary beads. If defending my rights requires defending the rights of someone who may or may not be my enemy, so be it.
I often wonder why people who wish to remain isolated in their own traditions/religious fanatism migrate to other countries in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean I would be comfortable banning particular garments. I find the use of clothing for incitement or intimidation reprehensible and would like to ban them, but being a patriotic American, I cannot, unless we are talking about kids going to school in clothing with KKK images or Islamic words saying Death to Americans!
Still, a rational argument could be made by privately owned stores banning clothing like the burqa because of its potential as a shop lifting tool.
And while we are arguing about a country like France banning such clothing should we not also be debating the other side of the coin; specifically countries that require foreign female visitors to wear head coverings and modest clothing?
I believe it would be wrong for the United States to enact such restrictions. As for other countries, if you don't like their policies, don't go there.
We got through WW II without banning bratwurst or lederhosen.
ReplyDeleteBratwurst and lederhosen are just features of German culture, not Nazi symbols. No one is talking about banning hummus either, only things that assert Islam specifically.
Beards and suntans aren't Islamic symbols, even if many Muslims have beards. Even headscarves aren't, in most contexts.
but then if we can ban muslim clothing, what else can we ban?
Germany has had its ban on Nazi symbols for decades without going down a slippery slope to banning innocuous things. That suggests that Switzerland and France can ban Islamic symbols without going down such a slope.
What ethno-Czar gets to seperate good cultures from bad cultures? Acceptable religions from unacceptable religions? Permitted clothes from banned clothes.
Societies manage to make these kinds of decisions all the time. Again, Germany is able to ban a clearly evil ideology like Nazism without drifting into bans on harmless ideologies.
Islam isn't a culture or an ethnicity. It's a totalitarian religious ideology. There's nothing wrong with, say, Arab or Iranian culture as such (many Arabs and Iranians aren't Muslim) any more than there was anything inherently wrong with German or Japanese culture. The problem back then was fascism. Today it's Islam. Not culture.
"I often wonder why people who wish to remain isolated in their own traditions/religious fanatism migrate to other countries in the first place."
ReplyDeleteUsually so that they can be left alone -- like the Amish or the Mennonites, or the Puritans or the Quakers, the Shakers, Hasidic Jews and others. It's made us a better country IMO. Of course, their kids often assimilate and others' kids invent and join separatist cults themselves. It's America.
"Islam isn't a culture or an ethnicity. It's a totalitarian religious ideology"
So is Christianity, if it's allowed to be -- and it often has been. Don't forget that for over a thousand years it was the primary opponent of Democracy and advocate of absolute monarchy. It's supported slavery, censorship and is constantly attempting to interfere with freedom of speech the teaching of history and science and the free exercise of other religions. Putting up with it is the price we pay for freedom.
Yes, of course there's a difference between a swastika and a Frankfurter, but since when is a scarf specifically the flag of genocide and international aggression? For nearly all Muslims, it isn't and banning a scarf is prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That's one of the "freedoms" we keep bragging about but don't give a damn about when it applies to others.
What about the Confederate battle flag? Sorry, if we take away the rights of any religious group, we take away ours too. We are a greater threat to our own liberty than some teenage girl who wants to wear a scarf on her head.