Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

This is a ongoing battle in France over the head scarves.

Some wish to ban them in schools or worn by public employees.

Slightly more (49%) of the Muslim women in France were polled
to be AGAINST the wearing of the scarves than for (41%). So
the idea that this is purely a conflict between the Christian
and Muslim communities is not exactly true. There is a lot of
pressure from the Muslim religious right for ALL Muslim women to wear the
scarves. One is not a "good" Muslim girl or woman unless one wears one. The
conflict can also occur within the family with the males backing
the wearing of the scarves, the teenage girls, sometimes their
mothers not. That becomes a problem of parental or husband-wife
authority.

So there has been nasty exchanges within in the same community.

A considerable portion of the young musulmanes are for integration
into French culture and don`t want to be identified with the
backwardness implied by wearing the scarves. So we have
a ³sisterly² conflict. There is no solution to this conflict except
time.

With regard to the ethnic French community, there are a variety
of attitudes opposing the scarf wearing.

1) Some, as with the Front National, are basically
anti-immigrant. Ethnically nationalist, they would like all
foreigners to "go home". That most of the young Arab community
in France were born and raised here has not sank into their
mentalities.

2) Some French are basically conformist. Anybody who is born
here and grows up, must receive a French education, speak
and write in France and behave as French. There is no
particular room for ethnic diversity in this group.

3) Some have a strong republican attitude, anti-clerical.
The nation has a large non-religious majority. They
don`t go to church nor have strong religious beliefs.
For them there should be no religious display, no crosses or head
displays from which a persons religious beliefs are
evident in school or in public service. On the street is
a different thing. There are no Christians, Jews or
Muslims in school for this group.

4) Educators don`t like displays and especially anything which
interfers with their educational mission. That mission is
to put out ethnically French students, white, black or brown,
they must be French all educated in the same manner.

So how do Muslims girls take the required swimming lessons
with scarves on? The Islamic religious right does not want their girls in
bathing suits much less without their scarves! Other sports activities are
hard to participate in with scarves on. The religious right do not want
their girls taking biology classes where sex is discussed.

5) French feminists view the scarves as a symbol of religious
repression, so they are against it. This "repression" issue
also exists with a portion of the French left.

On the other side of the fence one has those who are for
freedom of religion and expression.

Whatever, the issue is not simple, the culture war wages.

Earl

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Following up to Earl Evleth

>4) Educators don`t like displays and especially anything which
>interfers with their educational mission. That mission is
>to put out ethnically French students, white, black or brown,
>they must be French all educated in the same manner.

what happens with orthodox jews and sikhs?
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walking-food-photos, Wasdale, Thames, London etc "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
and same for Spain at "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Earl Evleth writes:

> Whatever, the issue is not simple, the culture war wages.

The only party without an opinion is God.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

B Vaughan<me@privacy.net> staggered to the nearest keyboard and wrote:

>As far as I'm concerned, this tension between private beliefs and
>public duties is a healthy one. However, there has to be debate and
>compromise. I don't understand why only France has this huge problem
>with its Muslim students. Other European countries have dealt with
>this problem much more flexibly.

Probably for the same reason that the Academie Française worries over
the incursion of terms such as "email" into the language; and the same
reason that French Canadians go around with rulers to make sure that
on bilingual signs the font on the French version is not smaller than
the font on the English version. (Yes, they really do this.) The
obsession of the French with preserving their language and culture
against outside influence is something many of us find difficult to
comprehend, but in the end it's their own business.


--
hambu n hambu hodo

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On 11/12/03 13:35, in article skngtvks178savmhainqrmv2ovppp7qd45@4ax.com,
"Reid" <dontuse@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote:

> Following up to Earl Evleth
>
>> 4) Educators don`t like displays and especially anything which
>> interfers with their educational mission. That mission is
>> to put out ethnically French students, white, black or brown,
>> they must be French all educated in the same manner.
>
> what happens with orthodox jews and sikhs?


I don`t about the Sikhs but the Jews or anybody
else can form private schools under contract
with the state. There are a number of Jewish
schools like this and they can do anything
they want in the school, except if they
are under contract they have to teach an
approved curriculum.

That does not prevent them from ALSO teaching
religious subjects.

Few Islamic schools are under contract with the
state since they don`t want to also teach the
state approved curriculum. But there are a few.

Earl

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

chawtrey@hotpop.com (Charles Hawtrey) wrote:

>B Vaughan<me@privacy.net> staggered to the nearest keyboard and wrote:
>
>>As far as I'm concerned, this tension between private beliefs and
>>public duties is a healthy one. However, there has to be debate and
>>compromise. I don't understand why only France has this huge problem
>>with its Muslim students. Other European countries have dealt with
>>this problem much more flexibly.
>
>Probably for the same reason that the Academie Française worries over
>the incursion of terms such as "email" into the language; and the same
>reason that French Canadians go around with rulers to make sure that
>on bilingual signs the font on the French version is not smaller than
>the font on the English version. (Yes, they really do this.) The
>obsession of the French with preserving their language and culture
>against outside influence is something many of us find difficult to
>comprehend, but in the end it's their own business.

Worrying about franglais is relatively harmless; attempting to
prohibit people from behaving in accordance with their religious
conviction when that behaviour does not impinge on anybody else is not
harmless: it's oppressive. I am quite willing to tell my French
friends that. A friend who is not prepared to tell you when you are
getting something wrong is not a good friend.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On 11/12/03 15:26, in article htpgtvk8qiad3s2pqpt3nj04greri79hek@4ax.com, "B
Vaughan" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:02:55 +0100, Earl Evleth <evleth@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
I will comment on those items I felt commenting necessary.


> If many young Catholics don't want to go to Mass, the government has no reason
> to outlaw going to Mass.

The other items were about excluding visible signs of religious association,
which applies to Christians also as well as any political declartion (like
political buttons for a particular party, etc).

What one does outside the school wearing scarves or going to mass is not
covered under these kinds of laws. If the Moslem girls want to put
their scarves on on leaving the school grounds, nobody is trying to control
that.

>> 4) Educators don`t like displays and especially anything which
>> interfers with their educational mission. That mission is
>> to put out ethnically French students, white, black or brown,
>> they must be French all educated in the same manner.
>
> In other words, ethnically French means purged of all ethnic
> diversity? This is the same sort of reasoning that led France to
> forbid parents in Brittany giving Breton names to their children.

France has a list of names which you can give you children, yes.

I don`t know of Breton or Basque names are forbidden? This is the
first time I have heard of that. Do you have any information on that
law and how the EU situation might have changed it.

I gave a quick look on the www.google.fr and found nothing quickly.

>
>> So how do Muslims girls take the required swimming lessons
>> with scarves on? The Islamic religious right does not want their girls in
>> bathing suits much less without their scarves! Other sports activities are
>> hard to participate in with scarves on. The religious right do not want
>> their girls taking biology classes where sex is discussed.
>
> In a diverse society, schools have to do their best to accommodate the
> beliefs of their various minorities.

First, sports are considered part of the normal program. Swimming is
for safety reasons, or so claimed.

Are they not to be expose to the theory of evolution because it might
offend religious sensitivities? Or the flat earth people. Should society
protect the rights of parents to keep their children ignorant? Or is it the
responsibility of the collectivity to pass over the "rights of the parent"
to protect the "rights of the child" to be educated in the best manner
society seems fit? Unfortunately there is no easy answer to these
questions. Totalitarians societies will override the rights of the parents
but so will "liberal" societies who don`t want culturally crippled children.


> More recently, a young girl in New Jersey who was a committed
> vegetarian and animal rights activist won in court the right to be
> able to study biology without having to dissect animals.

I never liked that part of the course either, especially when we killed
a live frog. Am I am not a kook in that regard. I don`t remember having
learned anything earth shaking from that experiment.

I think we should avoid cruelty in all forms. This include the cruelty
of enforced exclusion.

The Arabs In France are quite sensitized by the Arabophobia present in the
country (and in the US also) and some see the scarf issue as really an
attack in the Islamic and Arab community in France. I have commented here
before that anti-Arab prejudices in France are far greater than anti-Semitic
sentiments in spite of the support in France for the Palestinian people.

So France is going to have a hard time working through this particular
issue. It is not a black and white situation however, which is why I posted
this item to expose the complexity of the issue.

Earl

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:06:55 +0100, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Earl Evleth writes:
>
>> Whatever, the issue is not simple, the culture war wages.
>
>The only party without an opinion is God.

Did she tell you that?

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On 11/12/03 16:36, in article 3fd88d38.7478155@News.CIS.DFN.DE, "Charles
Hawtrey" <chawtrey@hotpop.com> wrote:

> Probably for the same reason that the Academie Française worries over
> the incursion of terms such as "email" into the language;

The Academie might worry about this but nobody else does!

They do funny things anyway, the elected Giscard to their body today.

> and the same reason that French Canadians go around with rulers
> to make sure that on bilingual signs the font on the French
> version is not smaller than the font on the English version. (Yes, they
> really do this.) The obsession of the French with preserving their language
> and culture against outside influence is something many of us find difficult
> to comprehend, but in the end it's their own business.

Are you aware of the anti-Hispanic sentiment in the USA!!

Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
in Spanish.

Languages don`t need protecting, they take a course of evolution which
is largely uncontrolled by those who speak it.

Earl

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Earl Evleth <evleth@wanadoo.fr> staggered to the nearest keyboard and
wrote:

>Are you aware of the anti-Hispanic sentiment in the USA!!

My wife is a first-generation Hispanic immigrant, so yes.

There is no denying that there is some anti-Hispanic sentiment in the
USA. But it is not widespread beyond a few redneck elements and is
certainly not officially sanctioned. My in-laws have never had any
trouble outside of an incident at a gas station many years ago in the
deep South. At the risk of opening a new can of worms, I suspect that
anti-Hispanic sentiment in the USA is comparable to anti-Semitism in
France: there's no denying it exists to some extent, but it appears
more wide and deep from the outside than from the inside.

>Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
>in Spanish.

Which Anglos? Maybe a few protectionists. The "English-only"
movement is generally regarded as a fringe group. In fact Spanish is
by far the most commonly studied foreign language in the USA.

>Languages don`t need protecting, they take a course of evolution which
>is largely uncontrolled by those who speak it.

Agreed. But try telling that to the Academie Française. :-)


--
hambu n hambu hodo

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On 11/12/03 17:09, in article b85htv8a92e6qdf2lhbiblpbl2usfnj34u@4ax.com,
"Padraig Breathnach" <padraigb@MUNGEDiol.ie> wrote:

> Worrying about franglais is relatively harmless; attempting to
> prohibit people from behaving in accordance with their religious
> conviction when that behaviour does not impinge on anybody else is not
> harmless: it's oppressive. I am quite willing to tell my French
> friends that. A friend who is not prepared to tell you when you are
> getting something wrong is not a good friend.


Again to stress a point some Moslem women make, the wearing of the head
scarves is a political declaration to them, not a religious one.
That is at the heart of the culture war going on.

They see nothing is modern Islam which requires them to cover up an any
one of the four ways.

The scarf

The Hijah

The Niqab

The Burqa

And the object to people telling them how to dress.

The Burqa is full non-Monty, one never sees the idea so the individual.

Lastly when Chirine Ebadi received the Nobel Prize she received in without
wearing any scarf.


So the question is whether the wearing of the scarf in France is a religious
or political declaration. In either case, the long tradition in France
has that this can not be done in public schools.

So, for some the issue revolves around that issue.

Earl

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On 11/12/03 18:45, in article 3fd9aaea.15081203@News.CIS.DFN.DE, "Charles
Hawtrey" <chawtrey@hotpop.com> wrote:



>> Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
>> in Spanish.
>
> Which Anglos? Maybe a few protectionists. The "English-only"
> movement is generally regarded as a fringe group. In fact Spanish is
> by far the most commonly studied foreign language in the USA.

I thought the reaction in California was fairly strong?

>> Languages don`t need protecting, they take a course of evolution which
>> is largely uncontrolled by those who speak it.
>
> Agreed. But try telling that to the Academie Française. :-)
>

Nobody talks about them here. The only people I know who talk about them
are Americans remarking on the their trying to protect the language, with a
hahaha!

I love their uniforms and carrying of swords. Sort of like kids wearing
their Zorro outfits. But I hold a special place in my heart for the
the Pope`s Swiss Guards. And Queen Elizabeth also has some strange people
around her, travels in horse and carriage, at times, and gives 21 gun
salutes to those visitors passing through town.

In fact it is all pretty hahaha.

Earl

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:28:33 +0100, Earl Evleth <evleth@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

>Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
>in Spanish.

If you are talking about formal bilingual education programs, they
were a failed experiment in California. They did not die because
anglos were protecting the English language. They died because
English immersion is more effective, and teachers and administrators
are increasingly being evaluated (and funded) according to
standardized testing results.

Gordon

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:43:58 +0100, Earl Evleth
<evleth@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

>On 11/12/03 18:45, in article 3fd9aaea.15081203@News.CIS.DFN.DE, "Charles
>Hawtrey" <chawtrey@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
>>> in Spanish.
>>
>> Which Anglos? Maybe a few protectionists. The "English-only"
>> movement is generally regarded as a fringe group. In fact Spanish is
>> by far the most commonly studied foreign language in the USA.
>
>I thought the reaction in California was fairly strong?

California voters and legislators have turned down attempts to
discriminate against Hispanics and Spanish. In fact, the recently
recalled governor, Grey Davis, was elected to office against a
previous governor who had expressed favor of a law to limit
Hispanic rights (i.e., those of non-citizens).

That is not to say there is not a group of California curmudgeons
who regard the Hispanics with panic.


************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:50:22 GMT, Gordon Forbess
<gforbess@attglobal.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:28:33 +0100, Earl Evleth <evleth@wanadoo.fr>
>wrote:
>
>>Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
>>in Spanish.
>
>If you are talking about formal bilingual education programs, they
>were a failed experiment in California. They did not die because
>anglos were protecting the English language. They died because
>English immersion is more effective, and teachers and administrators
>are increasingly being evaluated (and funded) according to
>standardized testing results.

Bilingual education is also now out in Arizona as well, save for
certain cases. As in California, a significant part of the
Hispanic population is opposed to bilingual education as being
totally ineffective in serving the needs of their children.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Hatunen writes:

> Did she tell you that?

I do have her e-mail address, but I'm not allowed to give it out. It
gives a new meaning to top-level domain.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Charles Hawtrey writes:

> The obsession of the French with preserving their language and culture
> against outside influence is something many of us find difficult to
> comprehend, but in the end it's their own business.

Unfortunately, they indulge their obsession in the wrong way, by
treating the symptoms, rather than the cause.

For example, the decline of French is an effect, not a cause. It is the
consequence of the declining influence of France in the world. The
incursion of English words into French is a consequence of the
overwhelming influence of the United States in the world. The only way
to change the balance is to change the influence wielded by these
societies, but the French attempt to fix the problem by simply outlawing
English words and coming up with French translations for them. That
never works, alas! although it is a lot easier to attempt, I'll grant
that.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Padraig Breathnach writes:

> Worrying about franglais is relatively harmless; attempting to
> prohibit people from behaving in accordance with their religious
> conviction when that behaviour does not impinge on anybody else is not
> harmless: it's oppressive.

So you would support the right of someone to wear a KKK outfit or Nazi
uniform to work or school, right?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Earl Evleth writes:

> They see nothing is modern Islam which requires them to cover up an any
> one of the four ways.

Does the Koran explicitly require any type of covering? I've read the
Koran in the past but I don't recall what it says (if anything) on this
topic.

If the Koran doesn't say so, it's not Islam.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Earl Evleth writes:

> They do funny things anyway, the elected Giscard to their body today.

Giscard's career ambitions have been to accumulate as many honors as
possible. At least that is my impression. I read once that he quit the
Freemasons when he found out that he couldn't skip levels and just go
right to the top.

> Language protectionism is pretty strong, Anglos don`t want any instruction
> in Spanish.

Neither do Hispanics, if they want their kids to succeed in the United
States. Only a number of special-interest groups who profit greatly
from the creation and maintenance of captive audiences really support
instruction in foreign languages. If everyone speaks Spanish, then only
Spanish-speaking groups can communicate with them, and they are isolated
from the mainstream ... and a lot of Spanish-speaking groups like that
idea.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Earl Evleth <evleth@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

>Again to stress a point some Moslem women make, the wearing of the head
>scarves is a political declaration to them, not a religious one.
>
The problem, as I am sure you recognise, lies in the word "some".

>That is at the heart of the culture war going on.
>
>They see nothing is modern Islam which requires them to cover up an any
>one of the four ways...
>
I know little about Islam, but I understand that the role of women in
Islamic society is determined by history and tradition more than by
the Koran. Covering-up is a concomitant of religion rather than
something at the core. But it's there, and it is sincerely observed by
many. One encounters veiled women on the streets of Paris.

>Lastly when Chirine Ebadi received the Nobel Prize she received in without
>wearing any scarf.
>
A single instance signifies little.

>So the question is whether the wearing of the scarf in France is a religious
>or political declaration.
>
And the core difficulty is that one cannot know for sure in any one
case. To me, it seems to be the safest and wisest course to see it as
religious, and also not to make a special case of it in any way -- so
that if other students wish to use headwear, to tolerate that also.

>In either case, the long tradition in France
>has that this can not be done in public schools.
>
A long tradition is not necessarily an honourable tradition. Public
execution was also a long tradition.

French schools generally do not prescribe uniforms for students nor
even, so far as I know, enforce dress codes. In that circumstance, to
single out one particular thing and proscribe it seems targeted and
petty.

>So, for some the issue revolves around that issue.
>
There may also be some who pretend that it revolves around that issue.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Padraig Breathnach writes:
>
>> Worrying about franglais is relatively harmless; attempting to
>> prohibit people from behaving in accordance with their religious
>> conviction when that behaviour does not impinge on anybody else is not
>> harmless: it's oppressive.
>
>So you would support the right of someone to wear a KKK outfit or Nazi
>uniform to work or school, right?

Wrong.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Earl Evleth writes:
>
>> They do funny things anyway, the elected Giscard to their body today.
>
>Giscard's career ambitions have been to accumulate as many honors as
>possible...

and diamonds.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:4rhhtvs4mlfuf0ru5aj809dbt3clsjkpcv@4ax.com...
> Earl Evleth writes:
>
> > They see nothing is modern Islam which requires them to cover up an any
> > one of the four ways.
>
> Does the Koran explicitly require any type of covering?

AFAIK, no
And covering is used in the cities only, not in the countryside where it's a
hindrance to the work on the fields.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:34:43 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
<padraigb@MUNGEDiol.ie> wrote:

>Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Padraig Breathnach writes:
>>
>>> Worrying about franglais is relatively harmless; attempting to
>>> prohibit people from behaving in accordance with their religious
>>> conviction when that behaviour does not impinge on anybody else is not
>>> harmless: it's oppressive.
>>
>>So you would support the right of someone to wear a KKK outfit or Nazi
>>uniform to work or school, right?
>
>Wrong.

In the USA there are no laws prohibiting the wearing such items
in public, so far as I know; I believe such laws would be
considered unconstitutional as an infringement on the free
expression of political opinion. Nor, are there laws prohibiting
the wearing of such to school. Many school districts probably
have dress-code regulations that would prohibit the wearing of
political dress, but not KKK or Nazi specifically. Because school
kids are minors, and because schools are not considered public
areas, the constitutionality issue is evaded, although a
regulation that specifically prohibited KKK or Nazi items would
probably be challengable on constitutional grounds.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged