Article

2003-12-12 Europe

France is banning headscarves in schools

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Murat 2003-12-12 4:53:16 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I wanted to assert something definitive but managed to confuse myself so badly I'm not sure what side I'm on. Murat, you're in Turkey, right? A Church(/Temple/Mosque)-State wall could be interpreted several ways. I don't know how your (written and unwritten) Constitution works regarding religion, but France and the US are different. The US Constitution has been interpreted to say it takes the position on religion that it takes no position on religion. This reflects reality already obvious in 1787. France, on the other hand, ~~overreacting~~ reacting to religious excesses of the past, is officially atheist, even though most French belong to one religious group or another. All this looks like is Chirac senses he's sitting on a volcano.

Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-12 6:43:51 AM|| 2003-12-12 6:43:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Never mind, I do have a position to assert.

Asserting religious identity by headscarf/viel is not the problem.

Asserting religious identity by yarmulke/Mogen David is not the problem.

Asserting religious identity by crucifix is not the problem.

Asserting religious identity by rocks/bullets/bombs is the problem.

Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-12 6:55:02 AM|| 2003-12-12 6:55:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Meanwhile, Murat valiantly ignores the evidence that the bombings in Turkey were, in fact, carried out by Islamists and not his Dreaded Kurds.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-12-12 7:22:05 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2003-12-12 7:22:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Robert, thatâs not for sure yet, investigation is still proceeding and can still lead to anywhere.

Posted by Murat 2003-12-12 7:50:37 AM|| 2003-12-12 7:50:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Glenn, with Church, temple, Mosque, Synagogue etc. I mean actually, religion should be free and everyone should be able to practice his/her believe. But when a state has accepted secularity she has to stand at a position that is equal to all of these groups (religions), namely being neutral. And therefore I personally do believe that religious expressions donât belong in public offices, schools etc. Walk and dress as you wish in your own house, temple, private estate etc. but not public offices etc. IMO there should be a dress code for everyone in public areas, for instance being not naked but also not in an Afghan chador.

I agree partly with your #2 post, religious expression should not be a problem but in practice it sometimes is. If you donât wear a chador, headscarf etc you are not less Muslim, if you donât wear a yarmulke/Mogen David you are not less Jewish, if you donât wear an oversized huge crucifix you are not less Christian, but you do show you are tilting towards the extreme and that is IMO not right either.

Posted by Murat 2003-12-12 7:51:11 AM|| 2003-12-12 7:51:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Robert, thatâs not for sure yet, investigation is still proceeding and can still lead to anywhere.

Yeah. Sure. You just keep on living in your dream world, then.

Oh, and what was that "evidence" you had about my identity? I'm still waiting to see it.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-12-12 8:38:39 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-12-12 8:38:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 When you tell someone what they can and can not wear, you have taken a position on those items. It is very disingenuous to describe any anti-religious expression as neutral.

Posted by Mahatma 2003-12-12 8:43:57 AM|| [http://www.loonaticleft.blogspot.com/] 2003-12-12 8:43:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 I think that public schools should require uniforms.

I'm uncomfortable with the practice of prohibiting the wearing of crosses or headscarves or other religious symbols. But if taxpayer dollars are going to pay for schools, maybe uniforms are a good way to remind us all of the separation of church and state.

If one doesn't like it, they can pay to send their children to a private school.

Posted by B 2003-12-12 10:12:03 AM|| 2003-12-12 10:12:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 "I think that public schools should require uniforms."

-Right on. Simplifies things. Focus is more on learning then what that slut Suzy wore to home room or that lil' Johnny's trousers are sagging down his ass & he's impressing everyone w/his fruit of the loom display.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-12-12 10:32:24 AM|| 2003-12-12 10:32:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 RC - your secret identity has been exposed.

Posted by Raj 2003-12-12 10:35:15 AM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2003-12-12 10:35:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Dress code in public? You're off your nut, Murat.

Anyways, it would make an Orthodox or observant Jew feel "less Jewish" were he not to wear a yarmulke. You can read about a case in Texas, where a Jewish man was forced to take off his yarmulke before testifying in court. The lawyer who wrote that page said the following:

My religious upbringing has taught me that the custom of Jewish men covering their head to foster humility and Yiras Shomayim (Heb.: fear of Heaven) is of undisputed pedigree. A covered head is widely recognized as the mark of an observant Jew.

The Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 31a) notes that "Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua would not walk four cubits bareheaded saying, 'The Divine Presence is above my head.'" Thus covering of one's head is considered a formal symbolic manifestation of the constant presence of God. As the Psalmist (King David) states (23:4): "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for Thou art with me." God is always above us. We are covered by the protection of God. The Yarmulke is a constant reminder that a Jew is never alone. He walks with God. It is a feeling of assurance and comfort. At the same time, it is an ever-present conscience to withhold one from going astray.

Perhaps while Judge Lykos was focusing on the prejudicial effect the Yarmulke may have on the jury, she missed the more fundamental issue - the effect of the Yarmulke on its wearer.

The Talmud (Berachos 60b) further notes that the placing of a covering on one's head is as natural to the Jew as rising in the morning and getting dressed with clothes. The Talmud contends that each process of awakening has a concomitant blessing. For example: "When he opens his eyes, he should say, 'Blessed is He who opens the eyes of the blind.'... When he dresses he should say, 'Blessed is He who clothes the naked.'... & When he places a covering on his head, he should say, 'Blessed is He who crowns Israel with glory.'" In other words, the covering of one's head is part of the process of getting dressed in the morning. It was once inconceivable that the Jew would not place a covering on his head.

Posted by growler 2003-12-12 10:36:25 AM|| 2003-12-12 10:36:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Murat, reasonably, endorses the secular state that brought Turkey into the modern world.

Yes, I know how important symbols of religious belief are and I know how they have become, in some instances, deemed mandatory. This is as true of headscarves or veils for Moslem women as it is of yarmulkes for Jewish men. And ideally, we would all agree to respect freedom of belief and practice, so that these symbols are not divisive.

School uniforms go a long way towards this, but of course then there would be fights about what is and is not allowed as part of the uniform.

Growler, how do you feel about the US military's restrictions on display of religious jewelry etc.?

Posted by anonymous on this one 2003-12-12 10:42:50 AM|| 2003-12-12 10:42:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 The US military is different. If you're in the service, you abide by their rules. Plus, I believe that the military wants to foster the idea of the troops being one unit, with their common goal to be of utmost importance. Hence, standard uniforms and no allowance for "personalizing" them.

Posted by growler 2003-12-12 10:47:27 AM|| 2003-12-12 10:47:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Robert, thatâs not for sure yet, investigation is still proceeding and can still lead to anywhere.

Really? Then why has Turkey made dozens of arrests, all suspected or confirmed Al-Queada. And why did Turkey say Al-Queada did it? Is your government lying to you about who killed the Jews in Turkey?

Posted by Charles 2003-12-12 10:49:33 AM|| 2003-12-12 10:49:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 BTW - posted this last evening

Posted by Frank G 2003-12-12 11:07:35 AM|| 2003-12-12 11:07:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Oh, and another thing. This ban would require Sikhs to remove their turbans. But Sikhs are forbidden to do that. What happens then?

Posted by growler 2003-12-12 11:18:29 AM|| 2003-12-12 11:18:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Did you guys ever share a place next to you in the subway with a member of the hells angels? It gives you a creepy feeling, you get uncomfortable because of his dressing, his tattoos etc. that symbols a violent nature. No offense, but the same feeling I get with an radical long bearded islamist with a Palestinian headscarf or a bearded Jew with curly hairlocks and yarmulke who looks like a kach member. I am in no way against religious symbols, but I am sceptical against those who show their religion in such an exaggerated way as if they want to provoke.

Once again I think the rest of Europe should follow the French example, IMO banning exaggerated symbolism in public places would only enhance the peaceful coexistence of different religions.

Posted by Murat 2003-12-12 11:55:16 AM|| 2003-12-12 11:55:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Murat: Sharing the subway with all manner of weirdos is called living in a free society. As for their garb provoking you -- you gotta learn to chuckle (quietly if it's a a Hell's Angel).

Posted by SLO Jim 2003-12-12 12:17:04 PM|| 2003-12-12 12:17:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 That may be the answer: Sonny Barger, CEO, Jihadi Hunters, Inc. Offer them up to 10% of the budget spent in the Wot in exchange for shutting down their Meth labs and ceasing killing each other and the occasional DEA Agent. Instead, they count ~~coup~~ cash via a bounty on jihadi scalps. Special bonuses offered for Hek, Michael Moore, the officers of CAIR / ANSWER / ISM / etc., Maureen Dowd, Zawahiri, the Black Hats, IndyMedia, the House of Saud, Krugman - y'know, all the really dangerously moronic types.

Therapeutic and financially rewarding. 5 years of this and these guys would be so mellow they'd be watching Oprah - between drunken brawls, of course, in their Carmel By The Sea hideaways.

Murat's bearded Islamist would find out what terror really was on his trip to Paradise.

Posted by ,com 2003-12-12 12:33:36 PM|| 2003-12-12 12:33:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 BTW, I used to chain my Harley to my bed, too. Can't be too careful with Baby.

Posted by ,com 2003-12-12 12:36:53 PM|| 2003-12-12 12:36:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Murat, the answer is something called tolerance. Your inability to tolerate differences is no reason to impose a universal "vanilla" appearance on everyone else.

Not to mention the problem of who defines "exaggerated symbolism".

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-12-12 12:53:35 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-12-12 12:53:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Oh, and what was that "evidence" you had about my identity? I'm still waiting to see it.

I seriously doubt that he'll find out who you are, Mr. Rums^H^H^H^H...Sir.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-12-12 2:19:04 PM|| 2003-12-12 2:19:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Murat

I suggest you read a bit about Algeria and you will understand the differnce. That Jew with a yarmulke will not kill you, he is not going to rape your {fiancee,wife,daughter} or burn your baby alive. The Islamists have given ample proof in Algeria and elsewhere that they will gladly do this and more all while congratulating about how holy and virtuous they are.

Posted by JFM 2003-12-12 3:42:51 PM|| 2003-12-12 3:42:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 to impose a universal "vanilla" appearance

ooooooo! Fashion statemnt khaki Burkhas?

Posted by Shipman 2003-12-12 4:31:02 PM|| 2003-12-12 4:31:02 PM|| Front Page Top

15:54 Doc H
09:47 raptor
05:36 The Dodo
01:47 ,comma
01:05 Tresho
01:01 Aris Katsaris
23:27 Anonymous
23:24 Steve White
23:13 4thInfVet
23:09 Anonymous
22:57 4thInfVet
22:50 4thInfVet
22:22 Fred
22:13 Fred
22:05 Denny
22:02 ruprecht
21:54 Fred
21:29 Kentar
21:25 NotMikeMoore
21:23 Glenn (not Reynolds)
21:21 Jarhead
21:17 4thInfVet
21:16 Jarhead
21:06 Jarhead