Hold ostensible religious signs

[atalderic]

Well, Stacker motivate me to launch new talks then....

I wanted to know if you had in your respective countries the same problem with girls who hold religious neckerchief in public offices.
With the 2 journalists taken in hostage in Iraq, this subject surface in our french society. Religous extremists menace to kill thoses two frenchs if we don't give back the law who prevent people who work or study in public office to hold ostensible religious signs.

Would like to know too if you are agree with rules we have created in France and if you have the same problems in your countries about people who want to show religious sign belongs.

First, i would like to draw you a little the situation.

In France, when you had kings, religion and estate was linked because the king was the representant of god. After the revolution, we abolished the royauty and built a republic and institutions based on right equality of persons and free religions. Then, we separated definitively the religion from the state and power. Public schools and public administrative offices were opened to everybody but nobody had to show particular sign of religion.
But thoses days, all of you know that some religious extremists around the world try to impose their visions on the world and use some pretexts to shake mentalities.

What is your opinion?

[Makiy0]

Currently, I'm studying Comparative Legal Traditions as a module in this year of my Law Course at my local university. I've just completed the topic on Islamic legal tradition. Because of this, we discussed on the new French law on the banning of any material presentation of religion in public.

I think this has to do with modernity and post-modernism. I admire France because it is past modernity and has now reached into the stage of post-modernism unlike my own country where we are still very stuck with modernist concepts such as race and religion.

Post modernism is the way forward. With the increasing speed of Globalisation, the world is smaller and no longer is there any room for talk of race and to me, religion as well. In Singapore, I say we are still lingering in modernist concepts because when people ask you what you are, they mean what race, why does it matter? Aren't we all Singaporeans despite our race?

France is making a step forward integrating its people, no longer wil people look at the Muslim girl with the headscarf and say, "oh, there's the muslim girl." 10 years later, people will stop asking, "what are you?" Because we are all French, what a stupid question.

It's hard to phrase in words in such a short amount of time all the benefits I see in secularising. Religion does not unite the people, it separates them. The countless wars waged since time immemorial in the name of religion is proof of how it has never been a way to unite the world. If people can't agree with each other's religion then why don't we do away with it altogether. Post-modernism, embarce it!

[Stacker]

Well said Makiy0.... Religion does not unite people on a national level. Government has final say, always has always will. Fight government you end up violating their laws, thus being a criminal. What stigma would like to live with?

What the French have done, I think is one of the best safety features that could have been taken. Considering the world we live in, I think it would be safer if everyone was completely uniformed. The French are doing exactly what Makiy0 said, they are making everyone French, not French-muslim or French pentacostal or French catholic.... They are simply French.

If it is not liked, move to a country where it will not matter, move to a country where the government does not put much effort into unity, move to Libya or Lebanon surely it would not be an issue there. But how safe is it? If you prefer the safety that France provides, then respect the French laws and requests simply said.

[globalwoman]

Makiyo, very good post! (Thumbs up, and an A+ for that.)

"In Rome, do as the Romans do". Each country has its own tradition. I recall a conversation with a muslim cab driver in Toronto. I had asked him for his opinion on Iraq. He gave me an interesting and long lecture about Shiites and Sunis, and concluded that it is a muslim rule to respect the country/land that you live in. So I guess even he would support French law on this issue if he lived in France.

In Thailand, people are free to observe their religious practices, a head scarf is no offense. I would not insist on Thai muslims to remove thier scarfs to show that they are Thais. (But the extremist don't seem to be happy with that.)

In one of my French classes, my teacher raised an issue of a recent news he had read in a French-Canadian local paper about Canada's debate on changing its law to allow Muslims to practise their religious allowance for 4 wives. He and most of the classmates were against it. One classmate, however made a very interesting remark, she said, it's the same as gay marriages, why accept one and not the other.

You know, Atalderic, my husband and I discussed this hostage-taking and head scarf rule on the day it hit the news. (I considered writing a blog about it, but eventually got carried away with other things). Thanks for giving me an opening to make a note here. We greatly admired how the French government handled the situation diplomatically. The French Foreign Minister visited several Arab countries and asked their opinions on this issue, and French politicians at many levels put a lot of attention in trying to reach an understanding among Muslims and non-Muslims. I thought this demonstrated the real meaning of war: being forced in a position to consider the reality of the other. If countries made as much effort in talking to the other side about what was possible or not, we would be able to avoid costly wars. Sadly for us all, it had to come to war and hostage taking for this dialogue to happen.

[mangomike]

I thought the law banned wearing all religious articles while at school, not just wearing scarves by muslim girls.
As I understand it, the law was passed to help protect French national identity.
Nothing wrong with that. If I'm correct, I also believe the French have a law to protect their language from becoming marginalized by english. It's their right.

The problem here is a few fanatics want France to change their law by intimidation which can not be allowed to happen.

[SiamJai]

The post and its replies bring about the fundamental question: who are we? What defines an individual on the most profound level? French lawmakers want all people to be defined on the basis of nationality, and I see that this notion has many supporters here . Like Stacker said, having a unified nation certainly has its advantages, safety being one of them. However, nothing's free, and this safety comes at a price too.

Such communities lose their cultural richness, forcing some people to give up their unique cultural heritage. Freedom of religious expression is usually the first thing that is being sacrificed for the sake of unity. Language may come second, followed by music and other traditions that do not conform the those of the mainstream community. This false sense of unity might comfort people who fear anything that's different from their own.

This notion of safety reminds me of the safety of the gated communities that you can find in the US and elsewhere. The rich decide to live in isolation, protected by fences and guards. They are really uniform: white anglo-saxon protestant (WASP for short). Isolated from the "lesser, common" folk, they don't have to fear that anything "strange" or "weird" will ever enter their lives.

For the same reasons, many people see America as the "melting pot of nations", where people from all nationalities go there and trade their culture for a uniform, American identity. However, anyone who lived there knows that's not really so. One of the few things America is good at is preserving the unique cultural heritage of its immigrants. I wish I could say the same thing about other nations too.

At the beginning of this post I asked the question: what defines a person? Nationhood is just one the many things that do. Imagine that muslim girl; ever since she was born, her family and the Muslim community defined her primarily by religion. Now some guys in suits come in and tell her to throw that all out. How would she feel?

Furthermore, I think that this law will not be uniformly applied. Does it mean to prohibit the public display of religious signs? Then surely no one can wear those little crosses on necklaces either.

Quote[/b] ]Religion does not unite the people, it separates them.

Makiyo, religion does unite some people, and separate others. The same thing can be said about nationality as well. It would be foolish to think that nationhood unites all, especially if it comes from above. A state-mandated sense of nationality is no match for national unity that comes from the people's hearts. Remember the Soviet Union? The Apartheid? ... please don't tell me that religion is the only source of major conflicts. Political oppression in the name of national unity has its fair share of wars too; so does overzealous patriotism, Nazi-style.

Lastly, I don't know about you guys, but a person displaying a religious sign doesn't disturb me at all. I don't see it as an imposition of their religion on others, but merely as another colorful thread in the beautiful carpet of diversity. What does bother me though, are the self-proclaimed procators who make the purpose of their lives to convert others to their Truth. Jehovah's Witnesses, I am talking about you. I wonder if anyone's gonna do anything about those intruding annoyances.

PS: I can't help but to see an irony in this situation. While French nationhood is the source of stability in France, the same thing is the source of major instablity in Canada (Quebec). Go figure... :/

[atalderic]

Hey Brother! you go out from your cave! Nice to hear you again

Quote[/b] ]French lawmakers want all people to be defined on the basis of nationality, and I see that this notion has many supporters here

It's not so simple Seeker. This law is a mean to permit people to be all equal in certain places, not to force them to become good catholics. And if this law exist for muslim, she exist too for Jews, catholics and protestants. 5 days ago, a priest has been prohibited to enter into a public school to teach about theology because he weared a catholic clothes dress. And it was the students who asked this by care of equity. Our public school is a marvellous system of integration. It work seem 200 years and now waves of Polishs, italians, spanishs, vietnamieses and cambodians immigrants are well integrated into the country. They have kept their difference, habits and right to practice their own religion. It's just impossible to manage a public system in function of religious imperative. Not wearing a neckerchief or a necklace cross do not make you a bad muslim or a bad catholic. Turkishs seem to live very well with a laic system.

Quote[/b] ]This notion of safety reminds me of the safety of the gated communities that you can find in the US and elsewhere. The rich decide to live in isolation, protected by fences and guards.

It's exactly what we don't want in France. Public schools are a mean to gather people from different ethnic and social origins. Does create only protestant school, muslim school and catholic school will permit people to know them each others, share difference, learn to understand the other?
We have all to give back some stupid signs of identity in certain places ( who do not implicate your real identity) in order to permit the others to live freely their identity too.
It can be a non sense sentence but all the stake is in there.

Quote[/b] ]At the beginning of this post I asked the question: what defines a person? Nationhood is just one the many things that do. Imagine that muslim girl; ever since she was born, her family and the Muslim community defined her primarily by religion. Now some guys in suits come in and tell her to throw that all out. How would she feel?

This girl come into a country who welcomed her by a free education and health system. She has to understand she live in a country who decided to separate the institutions from God. And if she don't want to understand that, then it's maybe our governement do not give her enough informations about habits and historical events we have all to follow native frenchs or not.
I have no intention my children was obliged to recite a prayer before each courses as in the past or have to vow on a bible. For info, we vow on the 1804 civil code. It give the weight of civil laws into our country.

[Stacker]

There are very good points to the discussion by everyone. Seeker I agree America is very good at allowing peoples maintain their culture. This is simply due to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Those two freedom's linked with other immigrants who share the same beliefs works very well together. Many of these cultures are still very proud of the nation they live in as well.

Without such freedoms, groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses could not exsist. Sure @ 9 am on a Saturday morning, I am not happy to open my door from sleeping. But at the same time, those people truly believe what they are doing is correct. Those people pay their taxes, respect people and are kind. They are very united as well, in a way no other religion is capable of doing, their unity crosses national and racial borders. They have tight-knit families that still show love, they are virtually crime-free, when something is done wrong, they force the wrongdoer out of the church (the one bad apple spoils the bunch reasoning). Strict adhearers to bible principals. Something not found easily these days. Someone did try to do something about them about 60 years ago. Hitler slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses right alongside the Jews during the holocaust.

But we all have the right to choose our following spirtually. Makiyo said religion divides people. I agree it does, but usually it divides those of a different faith... Ireland ? Nationalism divides people as well, but that is something I can not understand. I don't see how or why this is the case. Unless the country has nothing to be proud of, or the things that is does have to be proud of offend those who are not nationalistic.

I agree if the Muslim girl is not permitted her headress the catholic girl should not be permitted her cross!!

The problem is what defines a person is not always the same as what defines a country I think.

[MrBradUSA]

I want to thank all of you for this informative and well-reasoned discussion. As far as I can remember, this is one of the most thought-provoking topics I've seen on this forum. Good job.

Brad.

[globalwoman]

Quote[/b] ]While French nationhood is the source of stability in France, the same thing is the source of major instablity in Canada (Quebec).

Was, my dear seeker, was. The seperatists were defeated by a national referandum in 1980. Quebec has since not been able to recover from the economic blow that was dealt to them when people lost confidence in Quebec's unity with the rest of Canada. I think the parties involved learnt that identity cannot be given more importance than national unity. BTW, French speaking people in Quebec aren't French, they're Quebecois, and what they really asked for was to be respected for their right to speak their language and maintain their identity.

Nationhood is certainly not the best option we have for giving us an identity, but it helps makes managing a country easier. I think nationality, nationhood, citizenship can evolve into a concept where it respects the multicultural identities of its people. We're all in the process of learning. Each country has its own experience and has different paths to take. We could all learn by observing other people's experiments.

atalderic, have the french hostages arrived safely home?