“The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement—I want to say it solemnly,” he said. “It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.”- Nicolas Sarkozy
Someone needs to take a chill pill. What’s next, banning thong bikinis on the Riviera?
I mean, I admit to finding the burka a slight bit annoying, but it’s nothing compared to wearing your pants around your knees.
Why should YOU find it annoying? You don’t wear it – do you?
I just do. I find many fashions mildly annoying. In this particular case, it looks uncomfortable and I like to see people’s faces.
Does this mean I’ll have to wear my pants up while commenting at the Trib?
if you’re even wearing pants, you’re doing fine, bob.
I’ll check.
BooMan likes to play dressup sometimes.
Body language is an important part of communication. To eliminate that is to alter communication in profound ways.
If that is of critical importance to you then don’t wear a burqa, and don’t communicate with anyone who is wearing one. :o}
Gosh, how DO blind people manage to communicate effectively?
Communication is a two-way street, Hurria. And there are often problems with blind people communicating to sighted people. The difference is that most blind people aren’t intentionally blind. Or made to be invisible.
No need to be hostile. I simply said it would alter communication not make it impossible or ineffective. It us undeniable that being unable to see people’s faces, arms and hands, etc. would alter communication.
We were recently in the Middle East, and I would say it’s both spooky and chilling to see in person. I had no idea I would react so strongly.
Where in the Middle East?
Turkey. We saw this and other types of dress in the airports both in Turkey and in Frankfort, esp the latter with all its connections to Middle Eastern countries.
Or, maybe that should read décompresser pastille.
What an ignorant moron. Has he bothered to ask women who cover what THEY consider it a sign of?
And what does he mean by “burqa” anyway? Does he even know what that word actually means?
That’s the rub, Hurria. Sarkozy is talking about French society, not what “women who cover” feel. Doesn’t what a burqa means to the French have any relevance? And isn’t it moronic to presume that practices seen as antithetical to a culture would and should be accepted? I suspect that there are places in Islam where I can’t buy a bottle of Jameson’s and meet a local lady and take her to my hotel room for a one-night fling. But it’s my culture. Why shouldn’t my culture be respected in Kabul?
And it’s not so simple as religion and culture. A couple years ago Muslims in Europe were chanting “death” to what they considered to be blasphemous cartoonists. Who gets to choose Sharia or whatever religiously-justified outrage over someone else’s right to free speech?
When people immigrate into a new culture with new religions and new laws, if they expect all the old rules to apply then they are in for some disappointment. Expect friction.
“Doesn’t what a burqa means to the French have any relevance?“
Not even a little bit.
And how very revealing that you make such a clear separation between Muslims who are citizens or residents of France, and “the French”.
“And isn’t it moronic to presume that practices seen as antithetical to a culture would and should be accepted?“
Isn’t it moronic to suggest that a society that accepts people of different faiths and cultures as residents and citizens should not accommodate religious and cultural practices that are strictly personal and do not in any practical way impact anyone else and do not require anyone else to change the way they conduct their own lives?
“I suspect that there are places in Islam where I can’t buy a bottle of Jameson’s and meet a local lady and take her to my hotel room for a one-night fling. But it’s my culture. Why shouldn’t my culture be respected in Kabul?“
I now know far more than I ever wanted to know about your “culture”. I believe TMI is the appropriate acronym.
Actually, though, you could do all that in Kabul. All you would need is to know where to go for it. After all, prostitutes are available just about everywhere in the world. It is called the “oldest profession” for a reason. In fact, if you don’t like dark, swarthy women I’ll bet you could even find plenty of blonde, blue-eyed “young ladies” (wink) from the former Soviet Union in Kabul.
Of course, if drinking and screwing random “young ladies” (wink) is your “culture” Kabul would probably not be your first choice as a place to immigrate. I suggest Bucharest as one possibility. It is a prime destination for horny, commitment-phobic males (my apologies to my dear female friends in Bucharest, but of course you know exactly what I am talking about).
But why do you persist in trying to equate a woman’s choice of clothing with men indulging in the primitive behaviours of drinking alcohol and using “young ladies” as objects for one night of selfish, uncommitted sexual gratification?
“And it’s not so simple as religion and culture. A couple years ago Muslims in Europe were chanting “death” to what they considered to be blasphemous cartoonists.“
Now you are attempting to equate a woman’s choice of clothing with a hysterical reaction by a few unhinged religious fanatics? What next? Will you equate wearing crucifixes with homosexual pedophilia? Or having those fish thingie bumper stickers on your car with the assassination of doctors who perform abortions?
“Who gets to choose Sharia or whatever religiously-justified outrage over someone else’s right to free speech?“
And now you bring Shari’a, about which I am sure you know absolutely nothing (except that it is really, really baaaaaad) into the mix? Oh, well.
You leave me breathless!
Hurria answers this question: “Doesn’t what a burqa means to the French have any relevance?”
with: “Not even a little bit.”
I guess that resolves the question. You believe that the French belief system, how they perceive the burqa, as irrelevant, even in France. Perhaps the French should hold that how Muslim immigrants perceive the burqa as irrelevant to their public policies in France?
Or are you saying the cultural practices from Algeria should trump cultural practices in France because… Islam is the true religion and thus trumps everything else?
I’m trying to figure out how this one-way street works in your mind.
How about paraphrasing it this way – if you don’t like burqas then don’t wear one. That’s why the French impression of it is irrelevant – Americans weren’t too fond of the afro a few years ago, and some on the left are still referred to as “dirty hippies.” Those perspectives don’t matter either. The problem is in trying to make people conform to their own standards, the very thing that the French are supposedly opposing.
This is why the 1st Amendment is so important over here…
Oscar, believe me, I felt the opprobrium of the “dirty hippie” meme years ago and when I was drafted into the army (that should date me) and shorn of hair I was amazed at how well I was treated by the public, law enforcement, etc. And I don’t think that there would ever be a state-sanctioned bar to wearing burqas in the United States. Our government just hasn’t rolled that way over the last few decades. I don’t think that would stand up to our legal standards.
We’re talking about two issues here. First and foremost is Sarkozy’s statement: “The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement…” Then there is the proper state response, if any, to the burqa.
By the way, I choose not to wear a burqa but I suspect that I would get grief from Muslims if I did.
Bob In Pacifica,
First I do want to assure you that none of my comments were ever meant to be personal affronts to you, & hope I did not come off that way.
I understand the change in treatment by law enforcement as to your shorn look, although I believe it did not disaffiliate you from being a DFH.
If you did decide to wear a burqa, you`d maybe find that not only might you not be getting grief from muslims, but from the law enforcement agencies that were accepting of you when you were shorn.
Plus, I like your sense of humor & your ability to not let this give & take allow you to lose sense of civility, definitely a quality of a DFH, which I`ve been a charter member of. (I guess I`m dating myself also.)
I don’t recall any time that you’ve held back from slamming US and Western ways, and yet you want to put a wall around anything Islam and Middle East culture to shield it from any critical eye. Westerners are supposed to tiptoe around the cultures you favor, but accept every attack from members of that culture.
You are obviously well informed about the Middle East, so I have to think you’re simply being disingenuous when you claim that the burqa is simply an individual choice. We all know of Muslim women for whom the forced wearing of that garment represents the very core of cultural repression of women. French suspicion of the burqa is not so much a matter of imposing their own cultural values but of choosing sides in the cultural wars raging among Muslims. Your claim that the issue is “a woman’s choice of clothing” simply ignores much more difficult realities around the treatment of women in the culture. You can argue that the Muslim way is better, but to pretend this is just a fashion issue is simply not honest.
If I were visiting/moving to Kabul, I wouldn’t be wearing a Hooters tshirt or trying to convert the populace to atheism or going out on a public drunk. I’d respect the culture of my host place whether I agreed with all of it or not. Why should a different standard apply to people from the Middle East? I don’t think there’s a good answer to the cultural clashes as the world’s borders become more porous. But your constant use of the double standard, the predictable resort to the victimization card (an eerie echo of the Zionist Holocaust-excuses-everything line), does nothing to shed light.
Well said.
I don’t recall any time that you’ve held back from slamming US and Western ways…“
You bet I have slammed U.S. policy and practice, especially as it pertains to the way the U.S. views and treats the rest of the world and the people in it. But I challenge you to show me one instance in which I have criticizing “Western ways”. Show me where I have ever slammed western culture or social practices? Show me where I have slammed Western styles of dress, or ever suggested that I had the right to tell women western women how to dress or behave in public or private. Show me
“you want to put a wall around anything Islam and Middle East culture to shield it from any critical eye.“
You don’t tell me what I want, I tell YOU what I want. :o}
And not at all. What I want to do is challenge people’s prejudices and misconceptions and misunderstandings, and their tendency to generalize the most extreme negative cases to an entire, extremely varied population of more than one billion people. What I want to do is encourage people to get past the knee-jerk negative judgments they have been encouraged to make and look at the actual reality. What I also want to do is encourage people to consider the possibility that they don’t have an exclusive claim on the right way to do things and that everyone else must become like them, and that different is not necessarily wrong, it is simply different.
Criticizing a religion – any religion – is a questionable thing to do, and if you want to do it you had better make sure your criticism is grounded in real knowledge and not prejudice and fear or some nonsense you have read on the web or heard from the ever-growing ranks of self-appointed “experts” who are cashing in on the Islamophobia band wagon. A better practice when discussing with someone more knowledgeable than you are about a religion would be to ask about things rather than to try to tell them how it really is.
It is very risky to criticize other cultures, particularly when in place of real knowledge and experience you have often-questionable generalizations about an entire, very diverse region based often on the most extreme, non-representative cases. A better practice would be to ask questions about the things that concern you. You are far less likely to offend, and you are far less likely to get a defensive reaction that way. And by the way, it is very off-putting to be told things about something you are well educated on and intimately familiar with.
“Westerners are supposed to tiptoe around the cultures you favor, but accept every attack from members of that culture.“
I have not asked anyone to tiptoe, I have asked people to show a bit of respect, and not insist upon labeling a very large and diverse population based on prejudice and generalization of the most extreme and non-representative cases. And again, I suggest you find at least one instance of me criticizing western culture or any religion at all before you accuse me of attacking it.
“You are obviously well informed about the Middle East, so I have to think you’re simply being disingenuous when you claim that the burqa is simply an individual choice.“
First you acknowledge that I am well informed on this subject – presumably far more informed than you are, and then you imply that you are more qualified than I am to know what is real and what is not. And you follow it up by attributing to me a claim I have not made. I have not said that the burqa is “simply an individual choice”. As with almost everything to do with human behaviour it is not that simple and clear cut. What I have objected to is the denial of personal choice based on assumptions that do not stand up to scrutiny.
Believe it or not, most Muslim women choose to dress in one way or another for a variety of reasons of their own. Muslim women, including those who cover partially or completely, are not all weak, submissive creatures who meekly submit to the demands of males. Many dress as they do – one way or another – against the express wishes of their male (and female) family members. No one, including the State of France, has a right to deny them this choice on any basis, especially cultural ignorance and prejudice.
“We all know of Muslim women for whom the forced wearing of that garment represents the very core of cultural repression of women.“
Of course there are Muslim women who are compelled in one way or another to dress in a manner they would not independently choose to dress in. I have known a few myself. That does not justify denying other Muslim women the right to dress as they wish.
“French suspicion of the burqa is not so much a matter of imposing their own cultural values but of choosing sides in the cultural wars raging among Muslims.“
Cultural wars? Oh, my!
And yes it is a matter of imposing their own values. By the very act of taking sides they are imposing something, and given the side they are taking it is indeed their cultural values that they are imposing. And what on earth gives them or anyone else the standing to insert themselves into this matter and impose a “solution”?
The correct way to deal with this issue for a society that prides itself on its freedom is to support Muslim women’s freedom of choice either way, not to take away freedom of choice from the women whose choice makes you feel uncomfortable. Support the right of those women who are being compelled against their will to wear a covering to choose for themselves, and support the same right for women who choose to cover.
“Your claim that the issue is “a woman’s choice of clothing” simply ignores much more difficult realities around the treatment of women in the culture.“
There you go again, grossly generalizing to an extremely diverse group of more than one billion people based on your prejudices founded on very limited, highly selective information.
“You can argue that the Muslim way is better, but to pretend this is just a fashion issue is simply not honest.“
Please do not invent arguments in order to make your point. I have never argued that the Muslim way or any other way is better, nor have I ever pretended it is “just a fashion issue”.
“If I were visiting/moving to Kabul, I wouldn’t be wearing a Hooters tshirt or trying to convert the populace to atheism or going out on a public drunk.“
Good for you. And how does this equate in any way to a woman covering herself in public for religious or cultural reasons? Is wearing a hooters tee shirt, converting the populace to atheism, and going out on a public drunk something you are compelled to do by religious conviction, or social comfort?
“I’d respect the culture of my host place whether I agreed with all of it or not.“
Would you respect it if it forced you to act or dress against your own religious convictions or forced you to abandon your culture or to do things that you considered socially wrong?
“Why should a different standard apply to people from the Middle East?“
It shouldn’t and it doesn’t. Or do you suggest that people from the Middle East must conform to your culture by wearing hooters tee shirts, and getting drunk in public?
“I don’t think there’s a good answer to the cultural clashes as the world’s borders become more porous.“
You think that the answer to “cultural clashes” is to force people to abandon their own cultural and religious practices and conform to your idea of correct culture?
“But your constant use of the double standard, the predictable resort to the victimization card (an eerie echo of the Zionist Holocaust-excuses-everything line), does nothing to shed light.“
I have not used a double standard whatsoever here. Of course, I do not equate wearing sexually explicit tee shirts, or public drunkenness or picking up random “young ladies” in bars for casual sex with being faithful to one’s religious convictions and dressing according to the norms of one’s culture. If you do, then we need to have a different discussion.
What I find sad is how clearly this argument points to the unwillingness of some western progressives to accept the differences among human beings. What ever happened to the idea of embracing diversity? Very disturbing indeed.
Actually I do agree with you about all this, Hurria.
DaveW,
My take on this subject, apart from anyone else`s, is that why should a person not be able to wear the clothing of their choice.
I remember reading a rant on bikers & their black leather wearing choice.
Called “black leather wearing outlaws with no morals etc, etc”, they decided to wear pink leathers, a seemingly non-confrontational color, but pretty soon, the “others” started recognizing their fears & calling the bikers “those pink leather wearing outlaws with no morals etc,etc.
I don`t think it`s the garb so much as it is the difference of choice of dress, & the fear it evokes in the people set in their comfort zone of sameness.
The difference in color of the bikers garb had nothing to do with being different from anyone else, it was the safest material to wear, regardless of the color.
At the same time many bikers might ridicule a tourist from Anytown USA, for wearing a Hawaiian shirt with Bermuda shorts black knee socks & sandals.
It does not make it OK, and it would be no different if his knee socks were pink.
Now cover both people, a black leather wearing biker, & a tourist with knee socks, under a burqa, & the problem is solved.
Except for those who decide that burqa`s should be outlawed.
Being all in lockstep removes individual choice & subject to those who would advocate conformity.
I`ve prepaid my order for a black leather burqa that I`ll be wearing to a reunion of knee sock aficionados. I`m riding to it on my Harley.
What does burqa mean? I’m probably not the only one who’d like to know.
It is generally believed by Americans to refer to that awkward-looking blue head-to-toe covering many Afghan women wear, but I have heard it applied to everything from a standard-issue Muslim-style headscarf to a black cape-like head-to-toe garment that Iraqi women often throw over their clothes when they go into a mosque, or other places where they feel a need to be fully covered, and then remove and go about their business. Iraqis call it `abayya, Iranians have a similar garment that they call chador.
Why do you refer to the head-to-toe garment which a good section of (nearly all?) Afghan women wear as ‘awkward’? They must find it just fine. What does burqa mean generally? Just as chador is the common word for tent in Farsi (I’ve been told), burqa must also have a more general meaning in Arabic. Or isn’t it Arabic? If I’m not mistaken the same garment is worn by women in other places, too (Yemen?).
I referred to it as awkward-looking, not awkward. Having never worn one I can only say how it appears to me, not how it is to wear one. Having worn an `abayya on occasion, and based on the consistent complaints of women in my family when they wore them, I can with considerable confidence tell you that THEY are awkward, although women who wear them daily are astonishingly adept with them and seem to find them no impediment at all. :o}
I am not familiar with burqa as an Arabic word, and it is difficult to relate it to the consonantal root it would have to be derived from. It might be a Farsi word.
I have never been to Yemen and don’t know a lot about it, although right-next-door `Oman is one of my favourite places on earth, and I have never seen anything resembling a “burqa” in the Afghan sense there.
Now you are really getting into the realm of cavilling, Hurria. Like a lawyer (Mr. Clinton-like) Okay, they’re not awkward but awkward looking. Give me a break You write some of the most interesting comment on this blog but I must say you never seem to admit ignorance or confusion. And rarely do you pay a compliment. Now you’re going to say that that’s not so. Good, say it. Or that you’re not here to show any such frivolity. What I’d like to know is what women wear in Oman. And is there a study of the dress of Muslim women? The subject interests me.
I don’t know what you are getting at in the beginning here. I said it was awkward looking because it looks awkward to me, and I do not know whether it actually is awkward to the wearer or not. There is a significant difference between describing how something looks to me and how it actually is, and I don’t find it trivial to correct you on that point.
Most `Omanis, male and female wear a jallabia. Women usually wear a black headscarf, which is usually decorated with a pattern (flowers are common) of beads and sequins. Women’s jallabias are usually black, men’s are most often white. It is a very graceful-looking, slimming garment and I find it very attractive, especially on the women.
PS There probably are studies of Arab women’s dress, but I have not seen one. It is not one of my primary areas of interest.
root is barq’a “veil or drape” – (guessing maybe a passive form of the verb, my arabic pretty much rusty to the degree that it’s rusted away).
I mean barqa’a, sorry
Ah – thanks. That helps. I was barking up the wrong tree as to the root.
yes, fine! Addition: I’m thinking too complicated, seems to be just a noun formation from the root!!!
So the question is: “What is the Islamic reason for a WOMAN covering herself?” Saying that the Koran says that men should not dress flamboyantly is not an explanation for the burqa. Why must women, according to some Islamist thought, cover themselves?
We are talking here about what the burqa symbolizes. What Sarkozy and other French believe it symbolizes. So we should at least give the official explanation for why women wear burqas at all. Saying that it is actually comfortable, etc., does not approach the religious reason for why women should be covered up.
It has been explained to me (by someone long ago and far away so I certainly don’t presume its accuracy and thoroughness) that Muslim women should cover themselves because of the potentiality of desire that may arise in male observers. Thus the burqa “protects” women from sexual advances and protects society from inappropriate sexuality. That would indicate that the burqa is a Muslim means of controlling sexuality among the people. Since that is one of the major ways that all religions control population it would not be a surprising strategy. Controlling a group’s fertility through controlling sexuality has been a function of all religions since the beginning of agriculture. And the more interference a religion has on human sexuality the more frustrated individuals become and the more their sexual energy can be redirected to other areas.
So what is the social function of the burqa? What is the purpose to hiding a woman’s body and face?
The religious reason for women covering themselves is the instruction to dress modestly, cover their bosom, and not display themselves in a provocative manner.
And PLEASE stop misrepresenting what I say. It does not say that men should not dress flamboyantly. It says that men should dress modestly and not display themselves in a provocative manner. This is not cavilling. There is an important difference, particularly since the instructions for men and women are nearly identical.
The original reason for this directive is to be found in the condition of pagan Arab society at the time, and the position of women in particular. Few women were given any status or respect. The majority were entirely dependent on men, and if their father, brothers, or husband were killed they were without any protection or support at all. Easy and obvious sexual availability was one way they could survive. They were treated like objects to be used for whatever purpose, including sex, and then thrown away – kind of like those “young ladies” you wish you could pick up in bars in Kabul for one-night stands.
One exception was Mohammad’s wife, Khadija, who was well-educated, and an independent and well-to-do businesswoman. She was older than Mohammad was and in the beginning she was his employer. Eventually she proposed marriage to him and he agreed. He had great respect for her, and was concerned about the condition of women in society.
Islam, in fact, raised the status and the rights of women considerably. Modest dress and behaviour was one of several means of bringing some form of order to an out-of-control society, and yes, of protecting women. There were other means as well, including .
Why do you find preventing out-of-control sexuality so objectionable? Why do you find it so objectionable to take steps to protect “young ladies” from being picked up in bars by men, being used for sex, and then discarded? Do you object to all societal rules, laws, and morays, or just the ones that give you an excuse to slam on Islam, Arabs, and Muslims?
And God, Bob, would you PLEASE stop attributing claims and statements to me that I have not made? I never said the burqa is “actually comfortable”. On the contrary, I said it was awkward-looking. I also described how awkward the `abayya was for me and my family members on the occasions that we wore it.
One thing that is frustrating is how so many people fail to understand how early feminist reforms in both Christianity and Islam became anti-feminist a millennium later.
For example, the strong focus on banning infanticide in the Roman Empire mainly benefited girls. The insistence on marriage/monogamy prevented women from having to raise children without support or from being second or third wives that might lack sufficient support. The prohibition on divorce mainly served to protect women in societies without mechanisms for forcing child support payments. And so on.
It was only later that these same policies became the opposite of feminist reforms, as women sexuality was treated with a double standard, laws against infanticide morphed into laws prohibiting medicinal or elective abortion, and the prohibition on divorce kept women from escaping abusive relationships without compensating them with added support.
In Islam, a similar pattern unfolded. Mohammed limited the number of wives and insisted that a man must be able to support each new wife. But the rest of world moved on and was more aggressive (insisting on monogamy), leaving Islam to look retrograde.
Yup.
Okay, so the burqa is not comfortable, and the face is now part of the bosom.
As for the condition of pagan Arab women, are you saying that easy sexuality still exists in Islam but for the covering of its women? That the social and economic condition of women in Islam is so bad that they cannot live independent lives without resorting to prostitution? Are you saying that there is no middle ground for women between covering and prostitution? Perhaps you are suggesting that the Koran is a sentimental religious text and that its adherents cling to its directives in dress for sentimental reasons? Why should women in France in 2009 cover themselves because of a social condition that existed in the Arabian desert 1400 years ago?
As for my extreme example of a western man going into an Islamic city and disrespecting the moral code, it had nothing to do with me picking up women in Kabul. I actually never intend to go to Kabul, and I don’t intend to pick up women there, as you know. The example was used to represent how a foreigner in another society should recognize the host society’s customs. You see this only one way. You can be offended by westerners disobeying local customs and religious strictures but you express no respect or sense of French customs. That is a recipe for a group’s marginalization.
Bob, you asked what the religious reason was for women covering. I answered your question, and added a bit of historical background (which you then used to get in a few nasty snipes at Muslims)
Your questions are impertinent and prove nothing of any significance. You know as well as anyone else does that religious beliefs, practices, and customs tend to continue long after the conditions that gave rise to them have changed, and you know as well as anyone else does that this is the case in every religion. Whether or not covering for women is necessary in today’s world is not the issue. The issue is whether Muslims who choose to follow that tradition should be denied their basic human right to freedom of religious practice because some people in the West view a practice in a particular way and are uncomfortable with it.
In order to be effective in an argument your example must have at least a scintilla of relevance to the argument you are trying to counter. Your example of a western man actively and intrusively disrespecting the “moral code” of a Muslim city (trying to convert people to atheism is not a violation of any moral code) is not even remotely analogous to a woman minding her own business while wearing a full-body garment in a western country unless you are making the absurd assertion that wearing a full-body garment is an active and intrusive violation of western morals.
So complicated – a combination of religious and cultural factors played out over time. To say more is too complicated for a comment (but I recommend reading Mary Douglas’ Purity and Danger for some fascinating examples of cultural valuing of women in a range of cultures and some interesting theory – no examples with Islam in her book though). I’m interested in the religion in the public sphere in the 21st century issue, so I’ll say something about that. France’s (Sarkozy’s) position, following up on Corvus’ observation above, has nothing to do with freedom of religion, it’s about the public sphere being religion-neutral. Here in the usa we have a different issue – freedom of religious observance but state cannot sanction one tradition, so there arises conflict between state law and religious practice (parents who won’t take their kids to the hospital) – matters where the state has an interest in the individual- and prayer in public schools (overlap or conflict of public and private), etc.
No, it’s about the public sphere being religion-free – it’s state-mandated atheism in the public sphere, and that is just as bad as state-mandated Christianity or state-mandated Islam or state-mandated (insert your worldview here) in the public sphere.
It’s wrong.
Good point, Oscar.
And yes, it IS a denial of freedom of religious practice to deny people the right to wear clothing and other items that conform with what they believe are their religious obligations.
I wonder how Sikh men in France are coping with this. It is not only their turbans. Their religion requires them to keep their hair long and to have facial hair. Are they required to cut their hair and shave in order to be compliant?
yes, you’re right; religion-free.
Maybe a mandated agnosticism, but the issue isn’t belief it’s practice. I don’t think it is the same but can’t think of much of an argument – Arabic roots wore out my brain for the day.
(emphasis added)
Now, France isn’t the US and there’s no 1st Amendment in France, but as a statement of American principles the 1st Amendment is 1st for a reason…
yes, that’s us!
there’s an interesting discussion on this at ET…for anyone interested..
personally, l think it’s a bit over the top and nothing more than a recycling of a previous brouhaha over head scaves in schools.
sarkozy’s an âne, imo, so l generally ignore his rants.
I’m really getting a kick out of folk who adamantly support a libertine freedom of choice except when those individual choices do not correspond to their own set of personal preferences. Submission? Denying the deity of the autonomous self? BLASPHEMERS!
Too funny.
Well said.
a few people missed school when liberte, egalite, fraternite was being covered.
I beg to differ. The principle of laïcité is one of the bedrock principles of the French Republic, and one I think we would do well to emulate. The recent (since 2004 or so) intensification of its application is in many ways a revival of the old revolutionary ideals that sprang from the Age of Reason.
The bottom line, which the French lead the way in recognizing, is that religion, especially overt public religion, is a menace to free society, as free societies are built upon a foundation of rationality. Moreover, overt public displays of religion — as I would think American liberals would know all too well — are too often covert means of intimidation directed at non-believers, to say nothing of a means of keeping would-be apostates from escaping their religious communities.
And yes, Sarkozy is a douchebag, but on this point he has it exactly right. Probably precisely because he was in school when Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité were covered, he recognizes that religion is the enemy of all three. We may lament that, as a conservative, he can’t quite bring himself to recognize inequities in wealth as an enemy of a free society as well, but I’ll take what I can get.
In any case, whether some Muslim women wish to wear that horrible garb is beside the point. Many people would, because of upbringing or desperation, voluntarily submit to indentured servitude or selling their organs, too. That they should do so would be their business except that it would send a message to their children that this is normal and healthy behavior, in addition to cheapening the value of human life and liberty in society at large.
It’s bad enough that we have to fight two or three major wings of Christianity on a daily basis to preserve our liberties (and especially that of our daughters, wives, and mothers). That we should have to open a front against the equally pigheaded, anachronistic, superstitious, and reflexively oppressive two wings of Islam is more than the West should have to submit to. A free society is a secular society, and for whatever other faults Sarkozy may have — and I know they are many and grievous — for once he has chosen the right course.
Vive la Révolution!
Give me a break!
I generally view anything that Sarkozy says or does with suspicion. I’m not even sure why he’s spouting off in this way: I have to read his entire statement and consider the full context of what he was saying and why. E.g., was his appearance planned in advance? What prompted his statement? Was he answering a question from a reporter or participant or was this part of his planned remarks?
Those caveats out of the way, it’s a stupid thing to say. How will he enforce it? Fines? And how do you welcome a garment or not? Will officials snatch it off and hand women Hermes scarves to replace them? It seems he’s being deliberately provocative for his own sake. Heat, not light.
But my view on covering is that it is a huge double standard for women. I’d defend the right to wear it, but I’d never believe it was a true “choice.”
I understand modesty, but men aren’t required to cover and they wear Western garb and seem to meet the modesty requirement just fine. The “protection” against lascivious males doesn’t hold water with me, either. Besides, who are these “males” who, just by the sight of a bared arm, just lose all dick control…AND why is HIS lack of dick control a woman’s problem? It’s like the notion of “protecting” women in this society–if we had equality (in this instance, enforcing the same moral behavior among men that is expected of women) and justice then women wouldn’t have to worry about protection. Problem solved.
It seems like if you’re covered, you’re trying to erase a woman–it’s as if she doesn’t exist. I find it interesting that you mention how women and girls are “exposed” because I rather find covered women and nearly naked women opposite sides of the same coin. With a woman wearing next to nothing, you see only tits and ass. You don’t see the person. You don’t see her; only body parts. She doesn’t exist.
You can say my view doesn’t matter, and it’s fine. I fully recognize that the reason lots of folks latch on to covering has nothing to do with women being truly free to live their lives as they see fit. I don’t have to be offended seeing a woman wearing next to nothing, because there’s nothing making me dress that way. I don’t have to be offended seeing baggy jeans hanging off someone’s backside, either–there’s nothing making me do it.
But there is something driving why others would present themselves either completely covered or nearly naked, and it’s not merely because a style is in or out of season. To pretend otherwise is folly.
.
Remark off the cuff? Not quite AP … well planned and rehearsed for a speech at Versailles adressing both houses of parliament. The first time since Napoleon Bonaparte … or whatever.
No, readers of the New Atlanticist did not miss out on the news of a second Bourbon restoration, but President Nicolas Sarkozy’s historic address to French legislators at the former seat of royal power sent a not-so-subtle message about who is in charge in Paris.
For the first time since 1875, the French chief of state spoke directly before the assembled members of the legislative branch. Until last year’s reform of the French Constitution, the President could only address Parliament through written notes. This long-standing rule limited the power of the presidency and protected a once-fragile republican form of government from manipulation by excessively talented orators.
The King of France returned to Versailles"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."AP, you’ve said what I’ve been trying to say, and a lot better.
well, my bedrock principle is that people should be free to believe whatever the hell they want to and dress however the hell they want.
Are women really free to wear the burqa? That’s the real question. In many cases, the burqa is imposed by abusive husbands and fathers to powerless women. I certainly don’t see this garnment as a symbol of emancipation.
.
A sign of tolerance in society … should immigrants assimilate or are strangers feared and talked about with little knowledge of culture and religion?
Btw mostly family members (women) impose dress code of a veil or burqa.
Black Veil: Towards a Social History of the Burqa’
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."You have to err toward assimilation or eventually you get culturally alienated groups in a country. Names are one thing, that’s stupid, but as a hispanic I think assimilation has to be the eventual goal. That’s not to say that new aspects of culture can’t be added to the existing ones, but as a nation bound only by shares ideals you have to follow them whether you’re from Mexico, Saudi Arabia, or if you’re from South Carolina and wrap yourself in the abominable rebel flag.
That sounds like a religious conviction, by your definition a menace to free society…
I agree wholeheartedly, the Burka is a manner of subjugation nothing more nothing less. Arguing cultural mores is just B.S. Sarkozy may be many things but in this instance he represents the spirit of France. The idea that some man believes a woman is only for his personal use is despicable.
“I agree wholeheartedly, the Burka is a manner of subjugation nothing more nothing less.“
Oh, really! And you know this exactly how? You have discussed it with how many women who actually wear them? You have done what psychological or sociological or anthropological studies that led you to this conclusion?
If you’ve missed the many Muslim women publicly identifying the burqa as a form of subjugation by the male-dominant society, you’re not the expert you pretend to be. I suppose the fact that women can’t drive or go out alone in many Islam-dominated societies has absolutely nothing to do with the religion either. I find your points of view interesting and educational much of the time, but when you just dismiss what local womens’ rights leaders have to say, you lose credibility.
And so we are back to what is the symbolism of the burqa in France.
not exactly. we’re back to: why should the opinions of those who see it as a negative symbol outweigh the opinions of those who see it as a positive or unimportant symbol?
What I see is a majority forcing its rules on an unpopular minority because they can.
Nice diversion. But not so fast. What does the burqa mean?
What does it mean to Muslims in France? What does it mean to non-Muslims in France? In the history of the world millions of people have killed each other based on differing opinions on what a symbol means. So if Sarkozy represents one side, what does the burqa mean to Muslims? Why is it so important?
There was a guy over in Berkeley a few years back who got some notoriety from walking nude all the time, and going to class nude. He was arrested a few times. (Those who followed the story know he ended up being schizophrenic and recently committed suicide in jail, but for the argument here, we’re just talking about public standards of dress or undress.) Does a society have the right to set standards of dress? Where should they draw the line?
A wedding ring packs a lot of symbolism and depending on one’s personal beliefs you can read a lot (or nothing) into wearing one. That’s public symbolism.
And yet there is more than just a religious significance. It is also a cultural sign, a statement of sexual roles in society, but a society that does not really exist in France and other places in the West. The unstated fight in the streets of Tehran is between the 21st Century and the 8th Century.
While Sarkozy is a dick and tends to shoot off his mouth about such things, he’s touching on an issue that resonates in Europe and the West: What to do with Islam? Islam is not monolithic. As with other religious movements, it tends to accommodate local customs. But like Judaism, and Christianity as a divergence from Judaism, it is no longer just a religion practiced by rural peasants. Just as Islam changed as it spread, now Muslims settling in France and elsewhere in the West will find their beliefs and customs and the beliefs and customs of their children butting up against everything around them.
“it is no longer just a religion practiced by rural peasants.“
Pardon me? Bob, with all respect, Islam has never in all its history been “just a religion practiced by rural peasants”. On the contrary, its origins and history are very urban.
It is really quite annoying when Americans with no Middle Eastern, let alone Muslim background, most of whom have never even set foot in a Muslim country, pontificate on the true meaning of traditional Islamic dress.
Muslim women have dozens of reasons for covering, including purely religious ones. Many, many women choose to cover simply out of a religious impulse and for no other reason. Sometimes it is out of a sense of tradition, or just habit. Often they choose to cover in direct opposition to their families’ and/or husbands’ wishes. I personally know a number of such women, especially when they live in the West. Covering is often a political statement, or a statement of identity. As often as not it is a fashion statement more than anything else. And some women who cover their faces find the anonymity gives them a degree of freedom they would not otherwise have.
There are many reasons for women to cover themselves, and apparently in Islam these same reasons don’t apply to men. In many places these reasons are enforced by gangs of men who stone women for violating them. Above the Artic Circle there are reasons for women to dress up warmly from head to toe, and those same reasons apply equally to men.
I think that we can eliminate “practical” reasons for covering when such reasoning doesn’t apply to the other gender. Religious “impulse” is taught and in many places enforced.
Religious strictures are a means to control the population in a society and often more effective in controlling minds than the laws of government. That’s the way all religions work in all societies. However, when they don’t work in conjunction with society they are viewed as subversive.
Regarding the term “just rural” in referring to the origins of Islam, I could have found a better turn of phrase. But my intent was not to diminish the original circumstances of Islam. My point is that the world in which Islam was created, like the worlds in which Judaism and Christianity were created, was a lot different than what the world is today. That whole world was more rural. Even in ancient metropolitan Baghdad they didn’t have Twitter.
Islam is not static and absolute. There are variations in what is practiced throughout it. Many of the women in those demonstrations in Tehran weren’t wearing burqas, some not even scarves on their heads. The young woman who was shot was in Western garb and it probably was not a coincidence that she was targeted by the Basiji. She was a college student. That kind of woman was a threat to the theocrats in Iran. They want to enforce an ancient culture in a modern world. That works in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but not in Tehran.
My point is that the cultural rationale for, say, covering a woman does not apply to France or the rest of the West (and maybe not so much for urban Iran anymore). It is antithetical to equality for women as equality is defined by most in the West.
How will this problem resolve? Over time some Muslims in the West will abandon religious beliefs altogether or convert to Christianity. Others will moderate their practices to be more consonant with their host culture. And there will be enclaves that will isolate themselves in order to preserve their religious and cultural practices against all that surrounds them just as there are tiny Hasidic enclaves in New York City. Some people will still be annoyed with burqas like some people will still be annoyed with Hasidic garb. Burqas will be modified and restyled and non-Muslim women will wear mini-skirt varieties that will mortify some Muslims.
This is what happens.
Arctic Circle.
Why would they convert to Christianity?
When a group immigrates into another society at least a segment of them will adopt the local customs and religion. Why? Because it’s easier to get along that way.
You can find the children of Vietnamese Buddhists who are Christian all over America. Some are Buddhists, some aren’t much of anything. It’s human nature. Since religion in France is not as predominant as in the US I’d suspect that there Muslims who abandon their faith will just become more secular, like the French around them.
I understand secular reasons. I was only asking why Christianity which you answered.
“There are many reasons for women to cover themselves, and apparently in Islam these same reasons don’t apply to men.“
Bob, I mean no disrespect at all, but your views are based on, at best, partial, very selective, and not altogether accurate information. Further, you appear to be generalizing the most extreme and unrepresentative cases to the entire Muslim world. You are displaying an uncomfortable degree of western-supremacist thinking for a progressive. And finally, as a woman of Middle Eastern inclinations I find your point of view incredibly patronizing.
If you had ever studied or even read the Qur’an you would know that in the very same passage in which women are exhorted to dress modestly, men are as well. It might also come as a surprise to you that modest dress for men is also enforced in various ways in parts of the Muslim world both by societal pressure and by law. Did you know that a number of years ago when the government of Indonesia found out that Barry Manilow had removed his shirt in a previous performance they canceled a scheduled concert because it would violate the standards of male modesty.
“In many places these reasons are enforced by gangs of men who stone women for violating them.“
I have never heard of a woman being stoned for improper dress. Usually that is reserved for more “serious” offences, and even then it is not mainstream and is usually only found in isolated, backward areas of a handful of countries. Certainly stoning for “improper” dress is not official policy anywhere, and if it happens it is outside the “norm” even in the small number of places that have any type of official enforcement of dress. Not that I am approving in any way of forced covering or stoning for any reason, but it is important to be factual and realistic.
“I think that we can eliminate “practical” reasons for covering when such reasoning doesn’t apply to the other gender.“
As I told you, modest dress does apply to the other gender. As for practical reasons, they do exist, and are the reasons that some women choose to cover.
“Religious “impulse” is taught and in many places enforced.“
First, you are not representing what I said accurately. I didn’t use the word impulse, I used the word conviction. They are two very different things. And I am talking from real-life examples, many of them well known to me. I have discussed their decision to begin covering with quite a number of friends and other women of a very wide range of ages in different parts of the world. You might be surprised how many have made and acted on that choice against the wishes of their fathers, mothers, brothers, and/or husbands. You might also be surprised at how many other women are supported by their fathers, mothers, brothers, and grandfathers in their choice not to cover. There are also a lot of families in the Muslim world, and even moreso in the West, in which some of the women and girls choose to cover and others do not. So, tell me who is enforcing in all those cases?
And no, it is not enforced in “many” places. In fact, it is enforced in very few places.
The Qur’an is very general about dress, saying only that women should dress modestly, cover their bosoms, and not display their “assets” in a provocative manner (rough paraphrasing). Men receive roughly the same instruction, including the bit about displaying provocatively. There is a broad variety of interpretations of what this means, and there are significant regional differences in the manner, time, and degree to which women (and men) dress. In Pakistan women commonly wear short sleeved or sleeveless clothes as well as long sleeves, and they carry a long shawl called a dupata which most of the time is worn draped, often artfully, around their shoulders or neck. They might put it over their heads when they are out walking in the street, but they will take it down when they approach a shop or enter an office or store, only putting it back over their heads when they go back onto the street.
In other places you see most women, especially the young ones, dressed in skin tight, very fashionable tops and jeans, sexy sandals, and colour coordinated, beautiful and artfully draped headscarves. There are as many styles of scarves and ways to wrap and drape them as there are clothes for the body. And in many if not most places, such as Syria, you see everything from sexy clothes with no head covering and the latest hairstyles to women covered head to toe, including their faces, and with black gloves on their hands. And you often see them walking together, talking and laughing and playing just like women do in the West. So who is enforcing what in those cases?
“Regarding the term “just rural” in referring to the origins of Islam, I could have found a better turn of phrase.“
You could have found a factually accurate turn of phrase. :o}
“That whole world was more rural.“
But the centers of Islam were always the most advanced urban centers, and they were THE centers of knowledge in the world.
“Even in ancient metropolitan Baghdad they didn’t have Twitter.“
Oh, come on. They had the most advanced technology of the time. They invented a lot of it, in fact. And one day people will talk about how primitive we all were in 2009 using Twitter, so don’t be too smug.
“My point is that the cultural rationale for, say, covering a woman does not apply to France or the rest of the West…“
I am disappointed to see this kind of western supremacist statement from you. I also note your choice of the phrase “covering a woman”, as if this is being done to the woman and not by herself for herself. The rationale for how a woman dresses applies to the woman and her cultural or religious or fashion sense or lack thereof. It is not the prerogative of the West or westerners to restrict women’s freedom in that way.
“It is antithetical to equality for women as equality is defined by most in the West.“
What complete nonsense. And by the way, who says the West has the only or even the most valid definition of equality for women? Your position is based on a combination of blinkered, western-supremacist thinking, and ignorance. It is also very sexist since it implies that Muslim women need someone else to decide for them how to achieve equality and manage even their mode of dress.
“Over time some Muslims in the West will abandon religious beliefs altogether or convert to Christianity.“
I simply cannot believe you said that. Tell me you don’t mean it. That has to be one of the most appalling, offensive – and revealing – things I have ever heard from a western supposed “progressive”.
And what a fascinating dichotomy of choices you present to Muslims. They can become acceptable either by abandoning religion, or by converting to a superior, more “western” religion. How nice to have choices.
“Others will moderate their practices to be more consonant with their host culture.“
“Host culture”. Well, that just about says it all, doesn’t it?
What a disappointment.
Hurria,
This is why I love reading your comments.
So you’re on the theist side?
I did not choose any side at all.
I was commenting on hurria`s quote & counter statement style.
It`s easy to follow the thread in that form.
Hurria, I’m not going to go point by point.
But here’s your response to the most “offensive” thing I wrote: “I simply cannot believe you said that. Tell me you don’t mean it. That has to be one of the most appalling, offensive – and revealing – things I have ever heard from a western supposed “progressive”.”
Tell me what group of people, when relocated into another dominant culture, doesn’t have members who convert to local customs, practices and religion. All people do. The nature of humans is to go along to get along. You will probably find plenty of non-practicing and former Muslims around the world just like you find non-practicing and former Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus who once they are away from the culture and influence they their old religions. To that Islam alone can hold onto its believers is a bit centric. And false.
So again the question is what happens to the friction between a minority religion and a majority in France? The friction resolves. You may believe that all of the world will eventually learn to accept Islam as their belief system, but even within Islam there is friction between factions and sects.
Bob, let me explain as clearly and briefly as I can why the comment below is so egregious and so beyond offensive, and so sad and unfortunate.
“How will this problem resolve? Over time some Muslims in the West will abandon religious beliefs altogether or convert to Christianity. Others will moderate their practices to be more consonant with their host culture. And there will be enclaves that will isolate themselves in order to preserve their religious and cultural practices against all that surrounds them…“
And then, there is that incredibly revealing “host culture” remark, which I have already discussed.
I still cannot believe I am reading such blatantly jingoistic, anti-multicultural, anti-diversity stuff from a supposed progressive. What a shame that not much has changed since the Jews or the Irish or the Chinese or the Japanese or the Viet Namese or the Italians were the new immigrant group.
“…just as there are tiny Hasidic enclaves in New York City. Some people will still be annoyed with burqas like some people will still be annoyed with Hasidic garb. Burqas will be modified and restyled and non-Muslim women will wear mini-skirt varieties that will mortify some Muslims.“
And all you can see is the differences, and how annoying it all is for the “host culture” that some people just insist upon being different. God forbid you should try to welcome the opportunity to be exposed to a different perspective, look for the many things we all, as humans, have in common and welcome the richness and progress that diversity brings to a society instead of thinking of it as a problem, and figuring out ways to erase it. And it seems your point of view is more common than I thought among “progressives”.
So disturbing. So sad.
PS And the level of intolerance is downright scary.
Hurria writes: “What complete nonsense. And by the way, who says the West has the only or even the most valid definition of equality for women? Your position is based on a combination of blinkered, western-supremacist thinking, and ignorance. It is also very sexist since it implies that Muslim women need someone else to decide for them how to achieve equality and manage even their mode of dress.”
We are talking about the burqa in France. I don’t say France has the most valid definition of equality for women. They just have a French definition, which, in France, is valid. Or are you saying that the French definition isn’t valid in France?
I haven’t said that all western thinking is supreme. If you’ve read what I wrote carefully, you would see that I’m talking about dominant cultures versus immigrant minorities and their religious beliefs and cultures. When cultures clash there is friction and eventually that friction resolves.
Regarding how Muslim women “manage their mode of dress”, I think you’re being a bit disingenuous here. No one comes to a decision to wear a burqa completely independently. A Muslim woman has plenty of help managing her mode of dress, from other Muslim women who want her to follow the rules, to men who love them and protect them from the wrath of the divinity against bad behavior, to the voice within that is cultivated over the course of a life.
You continue the “rural” argument when I have explained it already:
“But the centers of Islam were always the most advanced urban centers, and they were THE centers of knowledge in the world…
“Oh, come on. They had the most advanced technology of the time. They invented a lot of it, in fact. And one day people will talk about how primitive we all were in 2009 using Twitter, so don’t be too smug.”
The key word here is “were”. And the dollar WAS the strongest currency in the world.
My point was that the world was simpler more ignorant world in the 7th Century. Would you go to war with the most advanced technology of the 7th Century against today’s technology? I’m not being smug about Twitter (I don’t tweet myself).
Of course, a vaster percentage of population throughout the world was more rural, so you’re not debating that. Are you arguing my point that people knew less, were more controlled by local customs, and that those beliefs and customs are not under greater attack now by access to more information and different cultures? Why would the regime of Iran want to shut down the internet, ban films and broadcasts? They threaten the old order of things.
It is striking, to say the least, that men don’t cover themselves. Well, as far as I know. Not anywhere. Only women have reason to do so. Why? Some ‘modern’ Muslim couples in the west are fashion wonders. The man has a baseball cap, shaved head, tight T-shirt, baggy pants showing his bottom and bouncy shoes. The woman is, well, she’s covered. Under the ‘tent’, as in Iran, her clothes match the man’s. Only she’s not allowed to show them. Curious. Why not? I’m not denying that it’s not my business. But it is to the extent that I walk on the street too. It’s curious. I guess I’m required to add that I find the way a lot of western people – I probably have to say traditional western people – appalling and embarrassing. But I belong more to the western cover-up crowd of women as well as men.
Right, Muslim men don’t cover themselves? Other than on a soccer field or beach, find me a picture of a bunch of Muslim men in shorts. Find me pictures of adult Muslim men wearing short sleeve shirts.
You will find them, of course, because local customs vary.
But modesty is the norm in the Muslim world among both men and women.
And, this debate is not about governments that dictate dress codes…oh wait…it is about that. In France. The question is one of coercion vs. freedom of choice. And that means that no one is suggesting that enforced codes are appropriate where they impose the burqa. The debate is over whether such codes are appropriate when they ban it.
Yes, I stand corrected. But go to Syria, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Indonesia, Pakistan and I don’t know where else – yes, even France – and see who’s covering up. Yes, the men generally dress quite decorously. And I don’t think it makes sense to ban the burqa. What a pointless, futile exercise. Sarkozy knows how to get attention.
In some regions Muslim fishermen often don’t cover their chests, or men in work crews, depending on where you are. As far as Muslim men who DON’t cover their faces, that’s pretty much universal. Even in your picture you see… FACES!
Besides, the topic is about the burqa. We are not talking about Muslim men having to go to state buildings in France shirtless. What is the difference in modestly dressed men versus modestly dressed women? There is a symbolism to the burqa which, when viewed in Western culture and in France specifically, connotes an inferiority.
I know, I know. In the Koran we are all equal in Allah’s eyes. Just unequal application of the rules. And in the Bible you can find justification for slavery and unequal roles for the sexes but we’re all equal in God’s eyes. “God loves you. Just go get me my dinner and shut up.”
“It is striking, to say the least, that men don’t cover themselves.“
Really? Have you been anywhere at all in the Muslim world?
The Qur’an instructs men to dress modestly and not display themselves in a provocative manner. Barry Manilow was barred from performing in Indonesia because he took off his shirt in a previous concern. How many men have you seen without shirts in the Middle East?
And yet men show their faces all the time. So even as you promote a general rule we see that the rule is unequally enforced. How many men in France will be banned from school for wearing a burqa?
I won’t debate theology. Quite frankly, the covering of women differs throughout Islam so even Muslims disagree on how a burqa relates to theology.
And in the West, men bare their chests all the time while women are required to keep theirs covered.
How debasing! How oppressive! How terrible! If men can show their nipples, it is wrong to deny that right to women.
Are you saying that you think women should be able to show their breasts? Because they can on French beaches. There are beaches in the San Francisco Bay Area where people of both sexes wear no clothes. Are you in agreement? If not you don’t have to go to those beaches.
Did you really miss my point so completely, or are you being disingenuous?
How many Sikh men have been banned from school for wearing turbans?
There have been issues with Sikhs wearing turbans that have those symbolic little daggers in them.
However, let’s get back on target here. Sarkozy said: “The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement.” He’s obviously wrong in the first clause. It IS a religious sign. The adherents of the burqa use the Koran to justify it. When he says that it’s a sign of debasement, that is dependent on it being a sign of subservience.
Making oneself invisible because 1400 years ago women had two choices, either be covered up or become a prostitute, is not a logical rationale for dressing that way today. It is a religious ritual that has negative connotations in the Western world today. Many Muslims ignore it now. Some don’t. Religious strictures which make women invisible is apparently offensive to many in France.
To a Sikh man wearing the turban, the small dagger, the hair and the beard are all religious obligations. They are also very obvious, and unmissable religious signs. I repeat, how many Sikh men have been kicked out of school for wearing turbans? Have they been required to cut their hair and shave their beards as well?
“1400 years ago women had two choices, either be covered up or become a prostitute“
You really ought to study history before you pontificate about it. You clearly have no idea what choices women had 1400 years ago.
“…is not a logical rationale for dressing that way today.“
Women, including Muslim women, are not obligated to provide rationales that you or any other man, consider logical for anything they do, including how they dress.
“It is a religious ritual that has negative connotations in the Western world today.“
Then the Western world should get over it. And while they are at it, they should get over themselves.
“Many Muslims ignore it now. Some don’t. Religious strictures which make women invisible is apparently offensive to many in France.“
Then let them get over it, and let them get over themselves.
Again, this jingoistic, determinedly closed-minded, anti-multiculturalism, anti-diversity attitude is very disturbing coming from a supposed progressive.
>>an issue that resonates in Europe and the West: What to do with Islam?
I agree that the issue is talked about. I think the question is absurd. Islam is a religion, whose practice is widespread, and it should not be viewed differently than any other religious practice.
I understand that France has a tradition of viewing all religious practice with suspicion, but I think that taking this to the extreme of regulating clothing is ridiculous.
It would and should certainly be ridiculous in America.
It is ridiculous in any modern country that 1) makes claims to freedom, 2) has signed all the human rights documents, 3) admits immigrants from countries with religious and cultural practices different from their.
And yet, as others have pointed out, there are limits to religious freedom. Female circumcision is against the law in the U.S. but it is justified by religious rationale.
Are you saying that if I was granted immigrant status to, say, a Muslim country that I should be allowed to practice whatever my religious beliefs are? Or are you saying that Muslims countries don’t have religious freedom?
“as others have pointed out, there are limits to religious freedom. Female circumcision is against the law in the U.S. but it is justified by religious rationale.“
And as I have said, it is allowable to limit religious practice when a particular practice violates existing laws or is dangerous. Female genital mutilation is against the law, therefore it is not a violation of freedom of religious practice to ban its practice.
What religion provides the rationale for FGM, and specifically what is the rationale under the tenets of that religion?
“Are you saying that if I was granted immigrant status to, say, a Muslim country that I should be allowed to practice whatever my religious beliefs are?“
Of course you should, and in most Muslims countries you would be free to practice your religion as long as none of those practices violated the law.
“Or are you saying that Muslims countries don’t have religious freedom?“
Most Muslim countries have religious freedom. Those few that don’t are not only violating international law, they are violating Islamic principles based on the Qur’an and the Hadith.
Oh, by the way, he IS right about one thing. For women who wear it out of religious conviction, it is NOT a religious “sign”, it is a religious obligation. Therefore, denying them the right to cover themselves is a denial of freedom of religious practice, which I do believe a universal human right.
Apart from the matter to what degree women wish or are forced to cover themselves, there is no such thing as a universal human right. You know that better than I do.
“there is no such thing as a universal human right”
Just because it`s not in the book does not mean it isn`t.
I say fish have a universal right to swim.
Trees have a universal right to grow.
Birds to fly.
Bugs to bite
Shit to stink
Are those universal rights? Yes, you can say that but I might disagree, even if I don’t write anything down, and I’m also part of this ‘universe’, believe it or not. The activities seem more their nature. People worry about rights which they confer or withdraw only because it’s their nature to keep an eye on one another. As in the matter of dress, for instance. And to keep an eye on fish (food), flies (disease), shit (hygiene) and everything else. They have no choice in the matter. Or do fish claim their rights?
I should not have to worry about rights that are inherently mine, nor should I have to claim them.
The question should be, why would anyone deny me them, & by what right.
Does anyone have an inherent right to kill someone? I’m not about to claim the right, definitely not. But others have, here and there. ‘Bomb Iran’. Get it. The only rights we today have are what others have fought and died for and which are conferred by society and governments. To a lesser extent, religious organizations The U.S. claimed the right to all the land from sea to shining sea? Problematically one wo(man)’s right is another (wo)man’s curse.
Quentin, google the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and read the document. Then you might want to google the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Genevan Conventions 1- IV. There you will begin to learn what human rights are.
You will find that not only do you not have the right to kill someone, every human being has the right not to have his life taken by someone.
You are equating killing people with a mode of dress?! WTF?!
Quentin, there are certain, specific rights that are considered to be the entitlement of all human beings. You don’t get to choose, nor do I, nor does anyone else. These rights are codified into laws and agreements that have been accepted and signed by all but a tiny few of the countries of the world. You can agree or not as you like, but that does not change the fact that human rights are universal and belong to all human beings no matter what.
It’s amusing how often the very same people who scream the loudest and longest when Islamic regimes deny freedom of – or from – religious practice to their citizens are the first to want to deny observant Muslims that same right when they come to the West.
Tell that to those people who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the nations, which include France, that signed it.
I encourage you to consider that human rights must be universal. If we do not demand them for every human being then we cannot depend on them for any human being. If we accept that one person can be denied these rights then we accept that any person can be denied these rights. So, it behooves anyone who believes he is entitled to certain basic human rights to demand that they be applied universally.
In the US practitioners of Santeria can’t do animal sacrifices. Mormon men can’t have multiple wives. Members of certain African cultures can’t practice female “circumcision”. Hindus can’t bring along their caste system (although adapting to the far less humane American caste system is much applauded).
There is nowhere in the world where there’s absolute freedom of religious practice.
And parents who refuse to allow treatment of sick children based on religious beliefs are compelled by courts to have their children treated. That is a very intrusive act by the state against the individual, and against the religious beliefs of the people involved.
(Of course, with the current healthcare debate there is a lot of irony in this, but that’s another issue altogether.)
Religious rights are curtailed when they bump up against existing laws. Thus Mormon men cannot have multiple wives (and neither can Muslim men). Of course having multiple wives is not a religious obligation for Muslims (and I don’t think it is for Mormons either), so it’s really not much of a big deal.
What French law prohibits covering one’s body with a burqa?
Apparently, there are rules against the burqa.
Yes, reactionary “rules” made after the fact and intended specifically to target the burqa. How convenient. And according to Sarkozy – and you – the reason for those “rules” is a set of ignorance-based assumptions about what the burqa “symbolizes” combined with a large dose of western-supremacist thinking.
Oh, and something I have not mentioned is the rampant anti-Arab racism and anti-Muslim bigotry in France that is equally directed at assimilated, entirely secular, highly educated and productive citizens from Arab and Muslim backgrounds. It is so bad, in fact, that a number of them have chosen to emigrate. I am sure that racism and bigotry have nothing at all to do with the denial to Muslims of their right to freedom of religious practice, or remarks such as the one quoted at the top of this page.
Ah…what exactly is Sarkosy planning to do to those women who will continue to wear them, either against their will or not?
What the end game?
Good question.
the only places they can’t wear them are to public schools, government buildings, and anywhere else that is controlled by the state.
So they can leave there house, but they can’t go into any gov’t building. That’s stupid. So are they now gonna have “burqa removal enforcers” next to the metal detectors? Do they have metal detectors in gov’t building in France? It’s a piece of clothing, not a weapon!
There are places in the US where people may be strip-searched or even cavity-searched to gain entry. Whenever I take a plane I have to empty my pockets and take off my shoes. There may be some religion where people are supposed to take off their shoes. They won’t be flying in America.
Is it okay to have religious beliefs which deny your children medical care? Even if the child is “inspired” to refuse medical care by his religious belief? Is it okay for a woman to wear clothing which announces a second-class citizenship based on the craziness that a woman’s physical appearance causes a man to do?
Hurria, what the burqa symbolizes to you or to some women is not what it symbolizes to the average Frenchman or Frenchwoman. Somewhere the argument falls short. What is reasonable accommodation? That’s the hard part. Myself, I tend to side with the individual. But is not allowing burqas in French schools worse than, say, stoning an immodest woman fifty miles outside of Kabul?
…where people are not supposed to take off their shoes…
It’s getting late.
Of what possible relevance is what the “burqa” symbolizes to the average Frechman or Frenchwoman? It is none of their damned business.
“is not allowing burqas in French schools worse than, say, stoning an immodest woman fifty miles outside of Kabul?“
Oh, come on! Get some sleep, then in reread this bit of incoherence after your morning coffee and blush for shame. :o}
Hurria says: “Of what possible relevance is what the “burqa” symbolizes to the average Frechman or Frenchwoman?”
That you ask the question shows a lack of concern for French culture.
What is the relevance of French culture in France? I believe it’s the point of this discussion.
Exactly how does wearing a full body covering violate French culture? Is there anything in French culture that defines how much skin one is required to show in order to fit in? How much of the face does French culture require you expose before you have offended French cultural sensibilities? Are the French so hypersensitive and inflexible that they cannot adjust to other ways of dressing?
This is not about French culture, it is about the government restricting freedom of religious practice.
Hurria asks: “Exactly how does wearing a full body covering violate French culture?”
Go back and read Sarkozy’s quote. It is a public display of female subservience. In 2009 in France this is not accepted.
Western people also used to kill black cats because they were symbols of evil.
So, Bob, bottom line, what you are doing here is demanding that Muslim women dress not in a way that makes them comfortable but in a way that does not make you, a western male, uncomfortable. Or, to put it another way, that they dress to avoid displeasing you.
On how many different levels is that sexist? Let me count the ways.
And so on.
Not at all.
I’m not demanding anything. I go to local grocery stores and see women in burqas. No problem. No problem.
I am discussing the topic of minority culture and religious strictures versus the tenets of the host culture.
You are building a strawman with your presumptions. You are wasting your time. We are talking about France.
By the way, in 1971 I hitched across France and more than one motorist would buzz me on the side of the road, so I am not completely in sync with all French cultural traditions.
Your insistence on pretending that the burqa is simply a fashion/comfort accessory just destroys your credibility. You know better.
In perusing the internet I am surprised at how little explanation of the symbolism and purpose of the burqa is supplied at the websites where I’ve gone.
If the burqa is so great to wear why aren’t men wearing them?
The burqa is not a symbol of anything except in the minds of some (mostly western) people who have conveniently chosen to make it a symbol. It is an article of clothing worn by a very, very small minority of Muslim women who have a right under international law to wear it if they willingly choose to do so. What ignorant westerners have decided it symbolizes to them should not be used to deny a fundamental human right to people who choose to exercise it.
If pink lace thongs, push-up bras, lipstick, and eye shadow are so great to wear, why aren’t men wearing them?
Grow up, Bob. No one has said burqas are great to wear.
Stop attributing claims to me that I have never made, please. I have never suggested that the burqa is simply a “fashion/comfort accessory”, and I think you know that.
From what I can gather from your statements it is a Muslim garb justified by social conditions which existed in the Arabian desert 1400 years ago where when women exposed a substantial portion of their faces and bodies they were presumed to be prostitutes. Therefore, covering was required because all men in Arabia could not differentiate between women and prostitutes.
Despite over a thousand years of the teachings of Muhammed, Muslim men still are incapable of discerning between prostitutes and women who are not prostitutes. Therefore, Muslim women must cover themselves up.
This is ridiculous, Hurria. I think the Biblical bans on eating certain foods is ridiculous, or the ban against fabrics made of two different materials. Or the ban against homosexuality. There may have been good reasons to ban such things in primitive societies, but they are ridiculous rules which no longer apply in the modern world. Making half of all humans invisible because of the lust of the other half is a form of subservience, one that is rejected in France.
The French find the wearing of the burqa to be symbolic of making women subservient. In America, with our long history of slavery and class divisions, it’s not such a big deal.
I have, at your request, explained the religious and historical basis for modest dress for Muslim women. You should take that for what it is – an explanation – and no more. Do not take the liberty of interpreting it as a justification for the burqa and basing one rant after another on that interpretation.
You are entitled to your views on religious practices and traditions and how much sense they make in the present day, and you are fully entitled to express those views. You might even find, if you could present them in a less offensive manner and context, that I share many if not most of them. You are not entitled to dictate to religious people how they should behave based on your personal views no matter how logical or rational those views may be.
Religiously observant people have an absolute right to continue their religious practices and traditions, no matter how outmoded or ridiculous you or I might consider them, as long as they do not break any existing laws, or violate the rights of others. Your rights are not violated by Muslims practicing their religious traditions, including choosing to cover all or part of their bodies, nor are the rights of the French (which category apparently excludes Muslim citizens of France) violated simply because they have decided, based on misconceptions and prejudice, that those practices symbolize something negative to them.
And stop concocting ridiculous – and offensively racist – stories that have absolutely no basis in reality. You don’t know jack about the history of Arab society, Islam, or female Muslim dress and its place in the lives of Muslims throughout history, or the evolution in opinion and practice that has taken place over the centuries, or the changes that have taken place just in the last couple of decades, or why those changes have happened. You have no clue about the internal debates over female dress (or anything else for that matter), or the number of different views and how widely they differ. You are also utterly ignoring the great variation in views and practices temporally, geographically, culturally, and socio-economically, despite the fact that I have alluded to some of them here.
Oh yes, and you clearly have no idea the extent to which Islamic social rules, including rules of female dress, were modeled after the rules that made the Jewish and Christian societies so much more orderly than the Pagan Arab society was.
Oh – and by the way, part of your ignorance-based rant is quite amusing in view of the fact that not all that many years ago in some parts of the Muslim world (e.g. Iraq and Syria), it was the very small number of women who covered their faces who were assumed to be prostitutes, and in most if not all cases, they were.
To some people, what you wear is a threat, especially if one has been taught to fear or to hate, those who choose to dress differently, from themselves.
Some people have even lynched people who wore black skin, & lets not mention those who were slaughtered by the millions who wore the fatal mistake of being “redskins”.
It has nothing to do with what you wear, but all to do with the fear of the observer of what you wear.
Those observers should be reminded that they are naked.
It’s context.
Context means little if it is only regarded by the beholder.
What of the context of the wearer, who should have the freedom of choice.
Stoning someone is the same thing, it`s denying someone`s choice.
Take religion out of the context.
Take language out also.
Let`s get rid of skin color too.
Eliminate geographic boundaries.
Let`s also take out education.
I think we end up with just a planet with humans, one not so different from the other.
In that context, why shouldn`t one wear what they feel like, live where they do, be educated as they are, & walk freely in peace from those who would deny them that freedom.
Whose context?
So if I drink my Jameson’s and try to pick up local girls in Kabul, the locals should consider what I am thinking and feeling and what my beliefs are before they kill me?
As someone pointed out above, burqas tend to cut down on interpersonal communication, which is precisely their purpose. To some the burqa proclaims a second-class citizenship based on one’s sexual organs and the threat to society that femininity poses to men. I suppose women can walk around with “Kick me, I’m a woman” sign around their necks if they like, but surely you can understand how the message received by others might be offensive.
In a society, it’s not just the individual. Do I think that women in burqas should be banned from state buildings? No. But then I’m not French.
I don’t think you mean to suggest that people would be justified in killing you for getting drunk and hitting on local girls in Kabul or any other place.
But that is what you are suggesting.
In truth, the Koran says that there should be no compulsion in religion. No doubt, the Koran also suggests that there should be compulsion in religion in other Suras. But the truth is that no religion is worth much if it must use coercion to make people believe and follow its rituals.
Here is something that you might consider. In all the major religions you have something equivalent to a monk. This is a person who leads an ascetic life to help them better separate the mundane from the spiritual. So, they often forego sexual relations, they eat sparingly and plainly, they often seek silent places, and these things bring them a better environment for contemplation.
A woman who is caught up in her physical appearance and is spending a lot of time concentrating on how men react to her clothing and gestures and mannerisms, is caught up in the mundane. In going behind the veil, they shut all of that out, which gives them more time to concentrate on God.
This is why it is simplistic to think the burqa is an automatic ‘kick-me’ sign that indicates second-class citizenship.
Maybe if men didn’t treat women the way they do and if women didn’t react to that they way they often do, it would be a simple double standard. But, men wouldn’t gain the same benefits from covering as women.
It isn’t sexist when a woman joins a convent. It isn’t sexist when a woman wears a burqa, either.
Unless, of course, the choice is taken away from them and all women are compelled to wear it. That would be like forcing all women into a convent.
I don’t think I should be murdered in Kabul if I run afoul of local customs but I know that when in a foreign land I should not flaunt local customs. If I chose to live in Kabul I would realize that I would be making all sorts of changes in my former dissolute behavior. That is the burden of all immigrants, to fit into a foreign culture.
Of course, being simplistic about what a burqa means is being, well, simplistic. But when we see others in public that is precisely what we do. We make instant judgments. Baggy pants, nose piercings, hair coloring, tight versus loose clothing. They are all interpreted immediately. And what Sarkozy says is apparently what the dominant culture in France sees: “The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement…”
I’m not saying that Sarkozy’s observation is the overwhelming majority opinion in France, I don’t know. When there are conflicts between cultures there is friction and then eventually the friction resolves. France is in the friction part now.
Wow, Bob, you keep making argument after argument for enforced conformity, and against diversity. I sure wouldn’t want to live in your world. I’d be bored to death in hours.
In my world people are allowed to live as they please. Women have a choice of wearing burqas in my world. My world is California. We have burqas and naked beaches here. There are no state-sanctioned religious police who beat up people on naked beaches. It’s 2009 in my world.
In your world what happens when I young woman doesn’t want to wear a burqa and her parents and friends insist that she must? Not only what happens in France. What happens in Afghanistan? Or Saudi Arabia.
My guess is that there are a lot more dress codes enforced in your world than my world. Maybe a lot more than in France too.
It appears that your world is a one-way street, only opposing those rules which go against your interpretation of the practice of your religion.
You don’t know jack about “my world”. You don’t even know what my world is. So please don’t presume to tell me about it.
Freedom of religious practice is a basic human right, even when it makes you, or the French, or me, or anyone else uncomfortable.
That’s one area where America is as good as its word.
Yes, it is one of the positive aspects of the United States.
PS Bob, you don’t have the slightest idea who I am or what my religion is or is not or how I might or might not practice it, so do not presume to know.
“So if I drink my Jameson’s and try to pick up local girls in Kabul, the locals should consider what I am thinking and feeling and what my beliefs are before they kill me?“
I see. So, you are equating a woman walking down a street in your town in a burqa with some guy picking up your daughter in a bar and having his way with her? Interesting logic.
“As someone pointed out above, burqas tend to cut down on interpersonal communication, which is precisely their purpose.“
And that is your business exactly how? Are you saying you have the right to demand that everyone make themselves available for interpersonal communication at all times?
“To some the burqa proclaims a second-class citizenship based on one’s sexual organs and the threat to society that femininity poses to men.“
And to some wearing any clothes at all represents a refusal to accept oneself as god (or nature) made one, so I guess they should be able to dictate that others go without clothes?
“I suppose women can walk around with “Kick me, I’m a woman” sign around their necks if they like, but surely you can understand how the message received by others might be offensive.“
Your prejudice and sense of western Christian superiority are on full display today, Bob. Sorry to see it.
Hurria writes:
“So, you are equating a woman walking down a street in your town in a burqa with some guy picking up your daughter in a bar and having his way with her? Interesting logic.”
No. In discussing ideas you use extreme examples. What is acceptable in one society is unacceptable in another. You get that point, right?
Regarding the process of “covering” as interfering with interpersonal communication, you write:
“Are you saying you have the right to demand that everyone make themselves available for interpersonal communication at all times?”
Your argumentation has moved from the topic to personal. Stop attacking me and discuss the issue, Hurria. What I like when I talk with people is not the issue. You may not find any difference between talking over a telephone with talking face-to-face with someone. That’s your predisposition. What we are discussing here is the burqa in France.
“In discussing ideas you use extreme examples.“
If you want to make a coherent, effective argument you do not choose absurdly unrelated extremes as counter-examples. That is called, among other things, an apples and oranges comparison.
When arguing, you should not presume that an argument in a blog is necessarily a statement of actual fact. It is absurd for me to go to Kabul to pick up women and drink liquor publicly and expect not to offend the locals. However, right now (unfortunately) there are plenty of American men in Kabul. There are Westerners, Christians or non-believers, who are all over Islam as we speak. So while there is absurdity in the example of me going to Kabul, it does not diminish the argument that just as Westerners should heed local customs and traditions (that was the point, the point was not that I was looking for a place to go clubbing in Kabul), so too is there an obligation for Muslims to heed local customs and traditions when relocating into Western societies.
Comparing and contrasting is an old and prized means of thinking for mankind. You know, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” By the way, for someone who has argued quite a bit here to not be familiar with “reductio ad absurdum” strikes me as curious and no more than another disguised ad hominem you fall back to when your one-way logic fails.
Bob, are you really that poorly versed in logical argument? One of the most basic rules is that if you want to construct a logical and effective argument based on a counter-example, then your counter-example must be at least remotely analogous to the example you are attempting to counter. In other words, it must at least be in the same ball park. Your example was not even on the same continent. Therefore, your counter-argument was ludicrous, and completely ineffective.
Why would you mention Kabul.
If you have a little of the Jameson`s & are in a bar in Anytown USA, & try & pick up on a “local” girl, you might be in more trouble from the locals than those in Kabul.
On the other hand, as in the movie “The Accused” with Jodie Foster, the way she was dressed was to some Jameson addled punks, an invitation to molest her.
Where`s the context?
I am not saying you overindulged the whiskey you mentioned, (I love Seagrams) but you brought up that context, & locals are, & should be protective of the ladies in their community, regardless if they are wearing a veil on their head or simply a veil.
Why can`t women walk around in the clothing they wish to wear, without someone considering it to be debasing or, as you say, “kick me, I`m a woman” sign.
It is a little strange that some men who wish to wear their clothing of choice have also been targeted for violence, or abuse, often by those who`ve “Jamesoned” a little too much, or at other times St. James`bibled too much.
Context?
Absolutely, drunks beat up gays and minorities. As opposed to sober men stoning women to death. Your point? That people from Western cultures can be hypocrites, or violent, or use violence to try to assert cultural norms? Yes, they do. It’s wrong. Now back to the topic.
It’s bigotry and prejudice. It’s ignorance combined with a sense of superiority.
Different cultures have different bigotries and prejudices. All cultures have a sense of superiority. Most cultures have such a sense of superiority that they feel that they can flaunt theirs in others’ faces. How many western women have to be counseled on their dress when in Saudi Arabia?
Own-group exceptionalism is human nature. It is also toxic and destructive.
Different societies have different norms for behaviour, including dress, even within the same country. In Florida beach communities it is considered quite normal for women to go about their daily business dressed in little more than a couple of postage stamps and a handkerchief. That is extremely unlikely to go over very well in certain parts of the deep South, or in Middle America. It is a good idea to know the difference and adjust accordingly unless, of course, you thrive on negative attention.
Exactly.
And the burqa is now bringing on a lot of negative attention in France, despite the inability of Muslim men to control themselves in ancient history.
Then let the French get over it.
No woman has a religious obligation to wear the equivalent of two postage stamps and a handkerchief. Going out in public naked or nearly naked is a violation of public standards of dress in many parts of the western world. For many women, covering their face is a religious obligation, and covering too much skin is not a violation of public standards.
“the inability of Muslim men to control themselves in ancient history.“
Grow up, Bob.
Thank you.
Corvus’ point, which I find very interesting, has to do with what is legislated for the public sphere. Whether the religious practice causes harm or not isn’t the point. This kind of distinction is pretty foreign to our discourse in the usa these days because any concept of the public realm has been eviscerated by the wingnuts, esp. the radical religious right. Here’s hoping we can recover a concept of the public realm, the public good, etc and all those things that are part of democratic discourse.
Riviera when you refuse to wear a thong in public. They will if you are female and wear one in Saudi Arabia though of course and a few other choice places. This is an ignorant quote of the day from you but what’s new?
Fascinating assumption, french. Who, exactly, will murder you if you are female and wear a thong in public? And can you cite a case to support this interesting claim?
We have video evidence of a young woman who was shot through the heart in Tehran for wearing western clothes and standing on the streetcorner. However we don’t have a confession from the killer. Perhaps he was aiming at the woman in the burqa.
Don’t be childish, Bob. It doesn’t help your argument. In fact, what it does show is your growing desperation.
But since you brought it up, by what evidence do you conclude that the reason that young woman was shot was because she was wearing western clothes and standing on the street corner as opposed to some other reason?
I enjoy the discussions here at the frog pond very much but can we do with a little less rancor and personal attacks on the motivations of various fellow bloggers? Several times I was tempted to place warnings on some of the comments here but I did not because (1) I didn’t want to impede discussion and (2) I would have to go back to the beginning and reread each and every post.
I don’t think we gain much, if anything, by disrespecting another person’s thinking and I hope the ad hominem attacks cease. They have no place in civil discourse.
You are right, Don. I do try to keep personal attacks out of my comments to people, but I don’t always succeed, and I regret that.
Should we also insist then the the Amish dress more modernly? Or that Jews no longer wear yamakas (or however that’s called/spelled)?
I get annoyed when I see anyone walling themselves off visually, saying, this is my culture and you aren’t part of it. that just kind of pisses me off. But should it be outlawed? I wouldn’t go that far, even if I agree that it is debasing. To some degree, all religions that I’m familiar with are unfair to women. Whether one dresses the part or not, the religion itself is the culprit, not the dress.
The funniest part is this, though. I could never worship any god who judged me by what I wore. Never.
The question isn’t what we should insist, but what the French should insist or have insisted. Or whether Sarkozy’s opinion of the burqa is correct.
I’m still waiting for the justification for “covering” and for wearing burqas. What’s the point?
And just so we don’t get personal (Hurria), I tend to favor the individual in these matters. As a youth in the sixties I was thrown out of high school for growing a beard and went to the ACLU. I would have pursued the matter into court but I was a minor without support in the issue from my parents.
In the instant matter I wouldn’t have banned the burqas in state institutions. But I’m not the King of France. Don’t make a straw man over what you think I may be thinking.
Bob In Pacifica,
Don`t feel too bad, I was thrown out of Grade school for the same offense.
I kid you.
When an untenured language teacher I was told to shave my beard or lose my position.
My father a longtime prof at the same university/CEGP decided to grow a beard also, in support of my position that appearances had nothing to do with educating students. His rationale for this was not apparent in his support of me but as a contestant in a beard contest for an upcoming winter carnival.
He could not be fired, because of his tenure, so there was no case to fire me.
Muslims are not required to justify their religious practices and social customs to you, Bob. And if you really were a progressive you would be more accepting of differences among people.
Nope. But if you care to discuss the burqa but refuse to give a reason for making the female half of all Muslims invisible then you’ve pretty much left the debate to the Sarkozys of the world. Sarkozy says it is a symbol of subservience and debasement, Hurria says it’s none of your business. Round one goes to Sarkozy.
Thanks for your participation if not your elucidation on the matter of the burqa in France.
And again, this is not about me or my acceptance. I personally don’t care who does or doesn’t wear a burqa. As I find the justification for the state of Israel based on ancient religious texts intolerable I find your inability to justify the burqa (except by ancient religious texts addressing an alleged social problem over a thousand years ago) laughable.
I find your inability to acknowledge that local customs and philosophy in France have relevance to the French when compared with how you can wax eloquently about the social customs within Islam (you had quite a post about weddings once) to show a moral smugness that’s, well, quite inpenetrable.
“making the female half of all Muslims invisible“
As you consistently have done here, you are talking off the top of your head, and speaking out of prejudice and lack of full or accurate knowledge. In this case your premise has no basis in reality. Only a very small minority of the “female half of all Muslims” wear a burqa or cover their faces even partially. A large percentage of Muslim women don’t even wear head coverings. Why, the wife of the President of Syria, considered one of the most stylish women in the world, has been known to wear skinny jeans.
Your assumption that women who wear burqas or other face coverings are all being kept invisible is based on a complete lack of knowledge of reality. Wearing a face covering is by no means an indication that a woman will be either invisible or silent, or the least bit meek or submissive, as a friend of mine discovered recently when he taught a seminar at a university in the Gulf, and as I have observed in the Middle East.
The fact that Sarkozy says something does not make it even a little bit connected to reality. It is his opinion, and in this case his opinion is based mainly on ignorance and prejudice.
“And again, this is not about me or my acceptance. I personally don’t care who does or doesn’t wear a burqa.“
Maybe not, but whether you intended to or not, you certainly have very clearly and repeatedly revealed your general attitude about Islam and Muslims, their (alleged) practices and culture (as if all 1.2 billion Muslims have the same practices and culture), and their place in the West. According to you, Muslims in the West are a problem that must be resolved by eliminating Islam (they will give up their religion or convert – to Christianity, of course), or having Muslims learn to keep their religion invisible so as not to annoy their “hosts”, and those who insist upon sticking with their religion and practice their customs openly will be isolated from the rest of society so as not to annoy anyone. That pretty much says it all.
“I find your inability to justify the burqa (except by ancient religious texts addressing an alleged social problem over a thousand years ago) laughable.“
What on earth are you going on about? I have not tried to justify the burqa on any basis because it is not and has never been my argument that the burqa is justified. My argument has been and remains that forbidding the wearing of the burqa to those women who freely choose to do so is a violation of their right to freedom of religious practice, which is a fundamental human right codified in several international instruments, every single one of which has been signed by France. I further argue that no one has the right to never be annoyed, and no one has the right to deny a basic right to anyone in order not to be annoyed.
“I find your inability to acknowledge that local customs and philosophy in France have relevance to the French…“
Bob, will you PLEASE stop making stuff up to argue with and argue with what I have actually said? I never said that they didn’t have relevance to the French – that would be an absurd statement. What I said was that they are not relevant to the question of whether women who freely choose to wear the burqa should have their right to freedom of religious practice violated by being forbidden to do so. No one has the right to deny a fundamental human right to anyone in order to avoid being annoyed by the practice of that right. Different people have different customs. Deal with it.
“…when compared with how you can wax eloquently about the social customs within Islam (you had quite a post about weddings once)“
Good grief, Bob! What on earth does my describing a wedding in Pakistan have to do with your trying to justify the denial of the basic human right of freedom of religious practice? Have I ever “waxed eloquently” (sic) about social customs within Islam in an effort to justify denying anyone any right whatsoever? Have I ever attempted in any way to justify the denial of rights of any kind by anyone in any place at any time?
And for your information, the wedding customs I described are not Islamic at all. They are Panjabi regional customs, and are practiced in the Indian and Pakistani Panjab by Hindus, Muslims, and (probably, though I don’t know for sure) Sikhs and others in just about the same form.
“…to show a moral smugness that’s, well, quite inpenetrable.“
LOOOOOOL! Who ever could have predicted that somehow, at some time, by simply sharing information about Panjabi wedding customs I would open myself up to accusations of moral smugness? My goodness!
Lisa,
Yarmulke. :o} Orthodox Jewish women are required to dress in a particular way, and I recall that in some “ultra-Orthodox” groups women cover their faces. In fact I vaguely remember seeing a story about women from some ultra-Orthodox sects in Israel who are covering their faces and ostracizing women who will not comply. Judaism is full of misogynistic ideas and practices. In fact, Orthodox Jewish women are considered so unclean during their menstrual periods that they are untouchable for men, and even afterward they are required to take a special ritual bath before they can touch a man or a man can touch them.
Why do you assume that women who cover their faces are saying “this is my culture and you aren’t part of it”? In your mind are women who live in Muslim societies saying that to their fellow Muslims as well?
“it is debasing.“
Why do you see it as debasing?
“To some degree, all religions that I’m familiar with are unfair to women.“
Religions do tend to be misogynistic, don’t they? Probably because in the overwhelming majority of religions men hold enormous power, and get to make self-serving rules, and have the fear of god to back them up.
“Whether one dresses the part or not, the religion itself is the culprit, not the dress.“
The religion is not the culprit at all. The culprits are the men who distort the original meaning and intent for their own ends.
“I could never worship any god who judged me by what I wore. Never.“
There is nothing in Islam that says Allah (aka God) judges women by what they wear. If that were the case there would not be such a huge range of acceptable means, styles, and degrees of covering, including no covering at all, nor would there be such controversy within Islam about what is or is not required.
Islam is really quite a practical religion. It requires a great deal from its adherents, but the most important thing God judges Muslims on is will and intent. Therefore, for example, if during Ramadhan you honestly forget and eat something, no problem, you just lose that day and have to add an additional day at the end of the fast. It is required that you do nothing to harm yourself. Therefore, after the Qur’an gives a list of forbidden foods, it then says that if a forbidden food is the only thing between you starvation, you should eat the forbidden food. Some very devout men will not touch an unrelated woman at all, including shaking hands. There is on the other hand a line of thought that is more in keeping with Islam that it is the intent behind the touching that matters, and if you can touch a woman without sexual intent you are OK. Therefore, many devout men will touch a woman as long as they are sure of their own intent.
So, women’s dress requirements are not set in stone at all, and vary a lot as anyone who spends much time in various parts of the Arab world can easily see.
Hurria, don’t confuse Jewish customs practiced in America with the burqa being worn in passport offices in France.
By the way, if the “forbidden food” is between you and just being hungry, or between you and malnourishment and an early death some years down the road, what does the Koran say? Why does the Koran say anything at all about what kind of food you eat in 2009 and why should anyone obey it?
The function of all organized religions is to control the population. In more primitive times there were medical reasons (spoilage, infection from disease) for not eating certain foods. Those reasons don’t exist univerally anymore. But religions are still used to control people for the purposes of the state. That’s why despite all talk about separation between church and state George W. Bush was always invoking God and God’s will. He even invoked the Grace of God when bombing Beruit. Nice to know that God’s on our side, eh? Makes the killing go down easier.
There are various means by which religion controls people. One threat is that if you fail to abide by proper religious strictures things will be bad for you in the afterlife. A powerful subset of that threat is the creation of all sorts of religious rules about sexuality. Wilhelm Reich in THE MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM goes into this quite a bit.
From all appearances the burqa is one of the methods used by civil authorities in Islam to control populations. The proposition is set forth that without covering women and men will not have the discipline to keep their hands to themselves and society will collapse. With that rationale Muslims are sexually repressed and women are sexually repressed. The more repressed one is the more easily authorities can redirect that repressed drive into zealotry and used for the state’s purposes, according to Reich. He was using the example of the Nazi youth movement, but it can be used for just about any organized religion.
The line between the state and religion is often not very clear in Islam, but it should be noted that what strictures are enforced or neglected in Islam often depends on local customs and circumstances and how they affect the needs of the government.
The civil authorities in France find this method of control (the wearing of the burqa) abhorrent as well as in competition with French methods of control.
“if the “forbidden food” is between you and just being hungry, or between you and malnourishment and an early death some years down the road, what does the Koran say?“
As I said before, Muslims are enjoined first and foremost not to harm themselves as a result of their religious practice. Harming oneself is a greater sin than not following correct practice. Here is what the Qur’an says.
“2:173 (Asad) He has forbidden to you only carrion, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that over which any name other than God’s has been invoked; but if one is driven by necessity – neither coveting it nor exceeding his immediate need – no sin shall be upon him: for, behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace. ”
As you can see, Bob, this is sufficiently general to cover any case in which a Muslim genuinely finds it necessary to eat forbidden food for any reason. So, if a Muslim needs to eat and the only food available is a forbidden food, then he may eat it without committing any offense. This also covers situations in which ignorant, bigoted American idiots have found it cute to force Muslim prisoners to eat pork, thinking they are making them commit a sin. The joke is on them. It is no sin if it is forced on you.
“Why does the Koran say anything at all about what kind of food you eat in 2009 and why should anyone obey it?“
What makes that your business, or mine, or anyone else’s? How are you affected by Muslims – or Jews – following their dietary laws? Why do you care?
Bob, if your objection is to organized religion in general, we can have that discussion without singling out Islam or any other individual religion, can we not?
With all due respect, your theories are based on your own prejudices and grossly inadequate and inaccurate information rather than on the knowledge necessary to make a meaningful analysis. Muslim dress, and certainly Muslim sexuality, are internal Muslim matters and are, to say the least, none of your business.
“Hurria, don’t confuse Jewish customs practiced in America with the burqa being worn in passport offices in France.“
So, Jewish women wearing the equivalent of a burqa is off limits. How convenient.
I thought your argument was that Muslim women wearing a burqa was too offensive to French people’s delicate sensibilities to be allowed. Now it is burqas being worn in passport offices in France? I am too simple minded and easily confused to deal with shifting arguments, so perhaps you should stick to one argument for my sake.
And it is not outside the realm of possibility that a Jewish woman could show up wearing a face covering in a passport office in France. What about that?
Bob, you are a saint. I have no idea of where you get the patient from. Your main interlocutor brings to mind this passage from Slavoj Žižek which, coincidentally, I’ve just read:
My mind knows this is stupid, but I really hate full body coverings like that.
Substantively, you should have to show your face in your driver’s license and for the authorities if they ask so they can ID you and while serving as a public employee but otherwise I really am not about to ban it on the street. I’ll just think you’re silly for wearing it, and no crime on that.
I have a bias against full body coverings myself, and though I am a very open and friendly person, I hesitate to approach women who wear them. I would like to overcome this bias. I have found that women who cover their faces are pretty much like women who don’t in their range of personalities, intelligence, level of education, and so on.
Full body coverings ARE the exception in most of the Muslim world, and they are actually somewhat rare in most Muslim countries.
You DO have to show your face in your driver’s licence, and you also have to show your face on request to, for example, a police officer if s/he has a legitimate need to confirm your identity. There have been court cases around these questions, and they are considered reasonable requirements by most Muslims and every mainstream Islamic organization.
Anyone else puzzled by the last sentence??? is there a typo in the article?
A leading French Muslim group warned against studying the burqa
My head is spinning after reading these comments.
Boran2,
Take off the burqa.
How`d the art show go.
Thanks, it’s this coming Saturday. I’ll post the results, if any.
“The difference between theists and atheists is that the atheists don’t set the theists on fire for refusing to agree with them.”
True, they just burn down their synagogues and churches and send them to Siberia.
priscianus jr
Almond Joy`s got nuts, Mounds don`t.
Certs is a breath mint… or is it a candy mint?
I think it`s simply a Condimint, & great with Rice.
The French have long believed that they define civilization. “International” culture means “on the French model.” It’s well known that they have long suppressed even the regional cultures and languages of France itself (e.g., Breton, Basque, Ocitan, etc.) With that attitude, how can they possibly tolerate the wearing of the burqa in metropolitan France? — I like France, they have a great culture, but in this respect they really have their head up their ass, and Paris could really learn something from New York.
for your convenience, if you want to discuss this further you would benefit from a fresh thread. You can create one in the diaries if you would like.