Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/europe/19france.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Veil&st=cse&oref=slogin" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07...f=slogin</a> Fascinating article. What do you think?
Originally Posted By SuperDry It's a very interesting situation, and isn't too far off from the things that come up from time to time in the US. For example, what about religions that have as part of tradition the consumption of mind-altering plants? What about the FLDS and their support for polygamy? At some point, a line must be drawn, and no matter where you draw it, there will be people on the other side that are upset that their religious freedoms are being infringed upon, and others that are upset that the freedom has already gone too far. I don't think there's any perfect solution.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***At some point, a line must be drawn*** I agree, but I don't think the line belongs in front of ANY of the three examples cited here. You're hardly "free" in the true sense of the word if you can't consume or smoke some naturally grown plant of your choosing, marry whomever you wish (even more than one, if you all feel like it), and wear ridiculously modest clothing if that's what floats your boat. The rest is, frankly, religious oppression (by the Christians, based on Christian values). Now, I did agree that there needs to be a line drawn, that's certainly true. But that line should reflect practices that violate the morals of the VAST majority of the human race, not just the will of the worlds most powerful religion. Hopefully, times are changing. This woman's position and claims, assuming she's not lying, seem quite reasonable. ***His wife said that in 2000 she decided to wear the niqab, which is usually worn on the Arabian Peninsula, because in her eyes her traditional Moroccan djelaba — a long flowing garment with a head scarf — was not modest enough. “I don’t like to draw men’s looks,†she said. “I want to belong to my husband and my husband only.â€*** Sounds reasonable to me. (well, it's unfortunate she used the term "belong", but still...) And that's actually the most logical argument I've heard in favor of such modest attire for some women who really do not wish to be objectified. Coming from the land of the rising groping problem, the "women only" train cars, the related objectification issues in the worldplace and elsewhere, I can certainly understand her point!
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<The rest is, frankly, religious oppression (by the Christians, based on Christian values).>> FWIW, atheist communist societies have similar issues. One need not be religious to be a "prude".
Originally Posted By friendofdd >>>FWIW, atheist communist societies have similar issues. One need not be religious to be a "prude".<<< Am I wrong? I read this post as feeling the French government is being a prude. However, according to these definitions, it is the woman who is the prude. <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prude" target="_blank">http://dictionary.reference.co...se/prude</a> Forgive me if I am misunderstanding.
Originally Posted By Mr X No, I agree. The woman is being (incredibly) modest. My point is exactly that. It's not so much "prudish" as it is "prudish according to Christian standards". And that applies to Polygamy (an important pillar of Mormonism for their founders and throughout their early church history..certainly regarded as "moral" according to them), as well as religious drug use (found in MANY cultures in many forms, and practiced by the CHRISTIANS themselves in the form of Alcohol, but for them everything else is a "no no").
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>What do you think?<< I think I'd have gone with this headline: Woman Attempts French Citizen to No A-veil
Originally Posted By RoadTrip If a person wants go become a citizen in a country, I think it is reasonable to require that the person adapt to what is considered the norm for that country. I don't see any decision here that a Muslim cannot be a French citizen. Just that a Muslim cannot wear clothing associated with extremist Islam if they want to be a citizen of France. The courts are also not saying the woman cannot live in France, or should not be allowed to wear her naqib. Once again France beats the heck out of the United States when it comes to common sense. Specifically, when in France do as the French do if you want to become a citizen of France. Seems reasonable to me. Besides... anyone who would wear clothing that violates the rule that a 'q' must always be followed by a 'u' is clearly subversive and a security risk.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "Once again France beats the heck out of the United States when it comes to common sense. Specifically, when in France do as the French do if you want to become a citizen of France. Seems reasonable to me." << You honestly think that this type of restrictive rules of citizenship are more representative of "common sense" than a system that values freedom of expression and freedom of religion? -Jeff
Originally Posted By Mr X ***If a person wants go become a citizen in a country, I think it is reasonable to require that the person adapt to what is considered the norm for that country.*** Well, if that's the case, I suppose all women wishing to become French citizens should be required to frequently go topless.
Originally Posted By hightp I found it funny that in a country, renown for it's clothing optional beaches, would decide that wearing too many clothes is reason enough to refuse a person citizenship.
Originally Posted By Mr X Like I said, "morals based on Christian standards"...or, in other words, pure prejudice. You dress like extremists dress, you must therefore be an extremist or you'd conform, so don't expect us to treat you any differently. Frankly, the more I think about this one the more I think it's pretty darned wrong. Why should how a person dresses have ANYTHING to do with citizenship?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <You dress like extremists dress, you must therefore be an extremist or you'd conform, so don't expect us to treat you any differently.< I admit I don't like that conclusion either -- I remember all to well the days when one went to high school or just hung out - when something as simple as wearing blue jeans and long hair as a guy got your branded as anti-American in a nano second. I don't believe kids today have any idea how some things like this they take for granted at one time put you squarely in the middle of potential violence against you. watch the last 1/2 hour of Easy Rider any time - and this wasn't the movies, this was reality in many places.
Originally Posted By barboy ///watch the last 1/2 hour of Easy Rider any time - and this wasn't the movies, this was reality in many places./// Na, I'd recommend checking out 'Billy Jack' and follow it through until Coven's hit song comes on .....'One tin Soldier'
Originally Posted By vbdad55 saw them both at the show when they were released ( yeah, I'm old) - and remember them both very well even today
Originally Posted By ecdc >>saw them both at the show when they were released ( yeah, I'm old) - and remember them both very well even today<< Wow! I saw Easy Rider in a film history class! Wasn't it in black and white... Sorry vbdad, couldn't resist.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ouch - the B & w comment really hurt - LOL !! fair shot though - I am the age I am -- 53 the new 33 ? Geez, how I wish
