Religious stuff

[owl]

The French want to pass a law banning religious symbols (headscarves, kippas, and 'large Christian crosses', whatever that means) from being worn in schools 'to protect the secular nature of the state'.

The world has gone mad.

My sister told me tonight that 'did you know the Pope has absolved the Jews for the death of Jesus?' Well, isn't that nice of him. I feel like apologising for the people that say they share my religion. OTOH, I could just disown them. What's the point in claiming to be a Christian if you forget the bits about love and mercy and compassion?

Comments

Re: I agree

[fernwithy.livejournal.com]

Oh, I definitely don't like the hijabs, and I'm actually not that fond of Islam as a relgion (I'm a comparative religion major, and that was my least favorite study). And I also think that all immigrant groups need to assimilate at least enough to not offend their new nations at every possible turn. The groups in question can start their own schools if it's simply unbearable.

It's not for the sake of the Muslim girls that I object to the ruling. I think they'd be a lot better off without the hijab and wish they'd dump it of their own accord. I think that the community needs to pull its head out of...the sand...and start listening to what other people say. On an emotional level, I want to see the miserable headscarves and burkas totally eliminated and give these chauvinist men a good sturdy kick in the family jewels. However, that's not my right. I'd have to settle for trying, on a private level, to convince girls I knew to do it. And ultimately, that's the only way to change a culture--one rebel at a time.

No, my objection to it is for the French. I can see why they're upset, though the attitude of hypertolerance (not as opposed to intolerance, but as opposed to having some cultural expectations for new immigrants to meet) has created a lot of the problem. But when you start to give the government the right to determine what religions might be expressed in the public sphere by individuals--especially in the name of some overriding state ideology--you're headed into dangerous waters. You see it over and over again in European dealings with the various Jewish populations--restrictions on expression, refusal to allow the building of synagogues, rules about what Jews must wear, etc. It happens over and over again in various places around Europe. And certainly it's not healthy for the targeted population, but it's also not healthy for the persecuting population--letting that foot get in the door is flat out scary to me, not because of the targeted group, but because I can see bloody Old Europe starting to raise its fist again.

Re: I agree

[owl]

I agree with Fern. Persecuting religions never killed them. I'd have thought France would have learned with the Huguenots.

Re: I agree

[ivylore.livejournal.com]

:) Same major.

My senior thesis was on women and Iran (from the time of the Shah until the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini; a large portion of which was on education and health). Needless to say, my work definitely had a lasting impact on me. I found it difficult to study.

Emotionally, I'm with you. As far as convincing girls to buck the practice on their own, it's simply not done in the culture. That's the frustrating part. And there are claims that a large number of Muslim girls have privately asked for the ban to be enforced.

And you're right, Hyper-tolerance has created problems. France may be heavily influenced by the results of Holland's attempt to embrace multiculturalism. It's being deemed semi- disastrous; it's led to increased ethic separatism and all of the social problems that go with it. The French ideology has always been thus; adopt our values and assimilate. They see the great American melting pot as the antithesis of their beliefs, as a threat. And their secularism has a long history - they ripped the crucifixes down from classrooms a century ago too.

Here, it appears that English Canada has been very successful with supporting both cultural integration and preservation; however - hop over into Quebec and there's suddenly a form of rabid cultural preservation on the loose and its ready to censure any and all who oppose it. (It may come as no surprise that head scarfs were an issue in Montreal not too long ago.)

No, religious persecution isn't the way to go. However France is experiencing a rise in Islamic fundamenatalism and has been facing a number of social challenges that are frustrating and trying. The head scarf is, unfortunately, the visible target. That's what they're going after. Honestly, I don't know that this is the best way to handle the issue, or the only one at that, but I do feel that France has reached a point where doing nothing is no longer an option.

Re: I agree

[ivylore.livejournal.com]

I forgot to add...

This all keeps striking me as one of those scenarios where a few bad apples have spoiled the bunch, and now everyone is going to pay the price for it. (By all symbols being banned).

Re: I agree

[fernwithy.livejournal.com]

I do feel for Europe, as much as it irritates me sometimes. And I'm even paranoid enough to think this isn't an entirely unplanned situation. This is an immigrant community that hasn't bothered even trying, and it's coming up against an all-or-nothing mentality that's bound to cause problems. There's part of me that's frustrated enough with European sanctimoniousness toward us that I want to say, "They made their bed with years of these immigration policies, now they can lie in it." But I do believe the policies were well-meant, and their very genuine sense of guilt after WWII has been exploited and abused. Now, they feel exploited and abused (as we did on September 11), and the backlash is really starting to pick up steam.

Of course, nothing could suit the radical Islamists better--"Look," they can say, "you see how we are being persecuted! The Umma should go to war against all the west now!" It's a flat out race to Armageddon for the seriously loose screws.

For the girls who want to get rid of the scarves, then you know what? I'd go to the mat for them with their families. But they're not going to get anywhere in reforming their culture if they count on an outside source to enforce a rule while they pretend to disagree with it. That it's incredibly difficult for them is a given, but non-Muslims can't reform Muslim society. That has to come from within, and as long as Muslim women depend on other people to speak for them, that's not going to happen.

Now, there are Jewish women who cover their hair as well, some with hijab-like scarves, some with wigs, etc. I disagree with the practice, but every woman I know who follows it chose to do so. (This is my general grip with the popular term for convert, "Jew-by-choice"; it's 2004 in the U.S.A.--any practicing Jew is so by choice.) Of course, under the French ban, those women would be forbidden from wearing head coverings as well.

Re: I agree

[ivylore.livejournal.com]

Yes - regarding the Islamists and how this might be perceived. I was thinking the same when I typed up my reply.

I'm familiar with the Jewish head-coverings. We happen to live smack in the middle of an Orthodox Jewish community (I'm debating joining the JCC in the next week or two. They have a great pool). Every summer when it breaks 100 degrees, the women are out with their children in long skirts, tights, blouses and head scarves...

I don't know how they do it.

And ah... I finally see what you mean about Jew-by-choice.