[PUG] French Parliamentary Committee Supports Burka Ban

[TheLastMohican]

A French parliamentary committee has recommended a partial ban on women wearing Islamic face veils.
The committee's near 200-page report has proposed a ban in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport.
It also recommends that anyone showing visible signs of "radical religious practice" should be refused residence cards and citizenship.

In its report, the committee said requiring women to cover their faces was against the French republican principles of secularism and equality.
"The wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is unacceptable. We must condemn this excess," the report said.
The commission called on parliament to adopt a formal resolution stating that the face veil was "contrary to the values of the republic" and proclaiming that "all of France is saying 'no' to the full veil".
Presenting the report to the French National Assembly, speaker Bernard Accoyer said the face veil had too many negative connotations.
"It is the symbol of the repression of women, and... of extremist fundamentalism.
"This divisive approach is a denial of the equality between men and women and a rejection of co-existence side-by-side, without which our republic is nothing."
The report is expected to be followed by the drafting of a bill and a parliamentary debate on the issue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8480161.stm
_________________________________________

Some other European countries have taken the "security" approach, banning veils only for their attributes, and not in relation to religion. That would have some good secular precedent: some U.S. states ban the wearing of masks and hoods, with exceptions for athletes, those in hazardous working conditions, those with Mardi Gras permits, etc. But the French government undermined that justification when it banned headscarves in schools as "religious symbols." Now the parliamentary committee goes further down that path with its report, recommending broader restrictions on "radical religious practice."

They seem to have gotten the concept of secular government twisted around, thinking that it is meant to enforce secularism in the populace, rather than to refrain from meddling with religious freedoms.

 

[Peguy]

They seem to have gotten the concept of secular government twisted around, thinking that it is meant to enforce secularism in the populace, rather than to refrain from meddling with religious freedoms.

Pretty much. The irony is that secularity itself actually derives from religious principles.

 

[TheLastMohican]

The irony is that secularity itself actually derives from religious principles.

Of what kind?

 

[Blind Bandit]

I admit I'm bit a shocked by this.

I would figure something this foolish would come out of the US.

I wonder what recourse those in France will have?

 

[NeverAmI]

How is it not oppressive to tell a woman what she can and cannot wear if it doesn't cause harm to others? There is a massive grey area about how seeing a full face viel would impact others, I am sure it does have a negative impact. But this action is fairly contradictory to the reasoning given.


This is clearly a strong stance against the advancement of Islamic/cultural fundamentalism as they state. I believe there are people that truly don't see Islam as a violent or oppressive religion. They live in a different society that coexists with others. That is all subjective and open to interpretation, but I believe there are women who honestly desire to wear the burka, that they see it as a right, and that right is being taken away for a reason that does not apply to them.

I am still kind of processing the entire debate of Islam and whether it instills violence in its followers or if some violent followers instill violence in it.

 

[Peguy]

Of what kind?

Christ's command of render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's.

Many people dont realise that seperation of church and state was conceived to defend the integrity of the church from the state. For whatever reason we seem to think it's the other way around.

 

[Barnabas]

Europe has almost killed Christianity in it's borders, now it's moving on to Islam.
Just another day in the world we live.

 

[Peguy]

Europe has almost killed Christianity in it's borders, now it's moving on to Islam.
Just another day in the world we live.

Not exactly. The rise of Islam is actually causing something of a modest resurgence of Christianity in Europe. Concerning France in particular, the irony is it's the most secular country in Europe, yet at the same time no where else is traditionalist Catholicism more popular either.

 

[Barnabas]

Not exactly. The rise of Islam is actually causing something of a modest resurgence of Christianity in Europe. Concerning France in particular, the irony is it's the most secular country in Europe, yet at the same time no where else is traditionalist Catholicism more popular either.

Ay, maybe the statement was to harsh, but none the less the cathedrals are empty.

 

[Peguy]

Ay, maybe the statement was to harsh, but none the less the cathedrals are empty.

Well that's because those cathedrals(assuming they're Catholic) offer shitty services. Traditional Catholic masses throughout France and Europe are usually generally well attended.

Philip Jenkins has written some nice commentaries on this:
Europe's Christian Comeback

Here's his basic summary of the situation:

In fact, the rapid decline in the continent’s church attendance over the past 40 years may have done Europe a favor. It has freed churches of trying to operate as national entities that attempt to serve all members of society. Today, no church stands a realistic chance of incorporating everyone. Smaller, more focused bodies, however, can be more passionate, enthusiastic, and rigorously committed to personal holiness. To use a scientific analogy, when a star collapses, it becomes a white dwarf—smaller in size than it once was, but burning much more intensely. Across Europe, white-dwarf faith communities are growing within the remnants of the old mass church.

 

[Barnabas]

Well that's because those cathedrals(assuming they're Catholic) offer shitty services. Traditional Catholic masses throughout France and Europe are usually generally well attended.

Philip Jenkins has written some nice commentaries on this:
Europe's Christian Comeback

I'm slightly weary of this as Florida Christian College has sent several missionaries over to Europe, they've reported back to us that the Churches are either dwindleing, overly liberal, impassionate or non-exsistant. Though this may not be the case in France, the areas of the U.k. where our missionaries worked had almost on real churches.

Now i''m not entirley sure if this includes the Catholic Church or not, but atleast from the stand point of the Church of Christ it seems numb.

 

[Peguy]

I'm slightly weary of this as Florida Christian College has sent several missionaries over to Europe, they've reported back to us that the Churches are either dwindleing, overly liberal, impassionate or non-exsistant. Though this may not be the case in France, the areas of the U.k. where our missionaries worked had almost on real churches.

Now i''m not entirley sure if this includes the Catholic Church or not, but atleast from the stand point of the Church of Christ it seems numb.

Well it helps to note that religiousity does vary from area to area in Europe. Generally speaking, Northern Europe and France tends to be the more secularist. Eastern and Southern Europe tend to be more religious generally - this is especially true with Poland, which is considered the most Catholic country in the world and one of the biggest exporters of missionaries in the world.

Im not familiar with Church of Christ teachings; but there's also the factor of discerning what is considered "religious" does differ not only culturally speaking but even theologically speaking. Catholic understanding of "religion" is different from say an Evangelical one for example.

 

[Peguy]

BTW Barnabas, are you familiar at all with Post-Secular studies? This is related to this in a large way too.

 

[Peguy]

Well we can discuss this in another thread.

 

[Shai Gar]

Good idea.

 

[TheLastMohican]

How is it not oppressive to tell a woman what she can and cannot wear if it doesn't cause harm to others?

It is oppressive for the Muslim males to make those demands of the females, but the solution to that problem is not to start punishing the females when they obey their kin. It's rather like trying to combat rape by outlawing sexual intercourse.

Christ's command of render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's.

That's tenuous at best. God was portrayed in 1st Samuel Chapter 8 as disapproving of the Israelites' wish for a monarchy as opposed to a theocracy. Paul wrote in Romans Chapter 13 that authorities are appointed by God, and that we should therefore obey them. Christianity and its foundation, Judaism, seem pretty friendly to mingling of church with state, because God is, after all, the ultimate authority.

Many people dont realise that seperation of church and state was conceived to defend the integrity of the church from the state. For whatever reason we seem to think it's the other way around.

How can the integrity of the church be defended from the state if the integrity of the state is not defended from the church? If one church gets inroads into government, it will inevitably impinge on the freedoms of other churches that lack its privileged status.

 

[Peguy]

That's tenuous at best. God was portrayed in 1st Samuel Chapter 8 as disapproving of the Israelites' wish for a monarchy as opposed to a theocracy. Paul wrote in Romans Chapter 13 that authorities are appointed by God, and that we should therefore obey them. Christianity and its foundation, Judaism, seem pretty friendly to mingling of church with state, because God is, after all, the ultimate authority.

Seperation of church and states does not mean the divorce of state and religion. That's literally impossible.

How can the integrity of the church be defended from the state if the integrity of the state is not defended from the church?

Cause church and state hold each other in check, thus ensuring both the autonomy and integrity of both.

If one church gets inroads into government, it will inevitably impinge on the freedoms of other churches that lack its privileged status.

History tends to show that it's the state that usually tries to exploit religion.

 

[Shai Gar]

Seperation of church and states does not mean the divorce of state and religion. That's literally impossible.

Why is separation of State, from an organised worship of imagination based entities impossible?

 

[TheLastMohican]

Seperation of church and states does not mean the divorce of state and religion. That's literally impossible.

What is the difference between separation and divorce in this context?

Cause church and state hold each other in check, thus ensuring both the autonomy and integrity of both.

I don't understand how this is a response to the quoted question. A state heavily influenced by a church is not ensuring its own autonomy and integrity.

History tends to show that it's the state that usually tries to exploit religion.

Church and state can use each other, often to the advantage of both and at the expense of the citizens. Your opinion of the tendency shown in history doesn't really matter here; it has happened both ways, and both ways must be guarded against by separation of church and state.

 

[IndigoSensor]

This is only going to cause more problems, regardless of their intentions. This is the restricton of harmless religous pratice. If history tells us anything, that leads to problems (and possibly war).