A secular school system should not put undue pressure on children to practice any religion - which is why teacher-led prayers are out. It should not appear to be endorsing any one religion - so no Nativity plays. And it should not prevent anyone from practicing or expressing their religion insofar as this does not violate the first two principles - so pupils must be allowed to wear headcoverings they believe to be religiously mandated, necklaces with crucifixes or other religious jewelry, and so forth. The overriding principle here is that a secular school system must favor neither any particular religion nor a lack of religion.
There are other reasons that the ban on headscarves is a dumb idea, but that’s the main one from a human rights perspective.
The two girls who sparked the recent controversy wear the veil out of personal choice, not because their parents insist that they do so - in fact, their mother does not and their father is rather bemused by the whole thing. Please consider the implications of your rather blasé assumption that headscarves are only worn under duress. Again, I say that true freedom is not having the “right” choice made for you by others, it is the freedom to do what the hell you want. If we feel that there exist children who are unfairly oppressed into wearing such garments, then we should give them our support in choosing not to wear the veil. This does not extend to making that choice for everyone, because that is stupid.
When you’ve thought of a better analogy to headscarves than forced labour, by all means feel free to get back to us. In case it really is necessary for me to point it out, the key difference is that, unlike slavery, some people choose to wear the veil/headscarf.
I apologise: I assumed you would want to implement a law that would make things better in some way. If you could explain to me how further polarising society is meant to reduce radicalism “in the long run”, that’d be ace. I’d also be interested to know why you feel that exchanging personal freedom for some completely nebulous and unspecified benefits some time in the future is a good deal.
Yeah, damn me with this obsession I have with personal freedom. What was I thinking? Merry Christmas to you too, buddy.
Thanks for the French perspective, Clair. My posts below are meant to understand the situation, not to criticise your posts (BTW):
Isn’t that pretty transparent, and shouldn’t it be so to the courts? And how are Jews reacting to this? The observant Jews I know who wear yarmulkes would be outraged. I can’t imagine them giving in without a fight.
Interesting. I can’t see how it could be called proselytizing, but then IANAFL. I certainly do see that proselytizing should not be allowed in schools, though. I don’t think many of the folks here who are arguing in favor of allowing the scarves have a problem with that concept.
Hi Miller. Either I’m not expressing myself very clearly (entirely possible), or you are criticising me for advocating views which you have attributed to me but which I do not, in fact, hold or support.
I haven’t said anything about trying to stop people practising whatever religion they want. Nor have I expressed any hatred, or anything even apporaching hatred, for any person or any group. I am not a hating person.
What I have done is describe religious beliefs as mythologies (using the word in the sense it is commonly used in literary and sociological work). I believe this is what they are. This is my point of view, which I am free to express, and neither you nor anyone else has offered any reason for me to think or feel otherwise - but I’m willing to listen, as I have been all my life. This is not ‘mockery’. I use the term ‘mythologies’ only because it seems to me, based on my experience to date of many different faiths and religions from all over the world, to be the fairest, most accurate and most apt description. Give me a reason to think or feel otherwise, and maybe I’ll change my mind. It’s happened before, and it could happen again - I haven’t finished living yet, so I haven’t finished learning.
Does this appellation (“mythologies”) mean that I hate anyone? No, it does not, and I do not hate anyone.
Does it mean I look down on people who observe these mythologies, or that I feel superior to them, or that I have a lack of resopect for them? No, it does not, and I do not look down, I do not feel superior, and I do not lack respect.
I respect the right of people to observe whatever religion they want. I maintain my right to describe these religions as mythologies if this is what they are (and I think I’m correct to do this until I’m better informed). Maybe we can have a separate discussion about what the term ‘mythology’ actually means, in literary, semiotic and sociological contexts, and whether a religion can be thus described. I believe it can, and in a way which involves no contempt, no lack of respect and certainly no hatred.
I have a friend on these boards who observes (I think) the Muslim faith. She has every right to do so, of course. She believes that there is a supreme being, whose message was represented by a prophet, and with whom she can have a direct and personal relationship. That is her belief. I believe she is observing a mythology, and that this supreme being does not exist except in her imagination and that of many other people. I believe this because nobody has ever given me any reason to think or feel differently - not any of the religious community with whom I grew up, not a long-term girlfriend of mine who was a Christian Scientist (!) and whom I loved very much, not any of my other friends who observe many different faiths and points of view.
It’s just two points of view. There is no mockery, no lack of respect, no hatred. When my Muslim friend’s brother was recently attacked and ended up in hospital, I went and got a card, and wrote a message inside it for him, and sent it to my friend, and she gave it to him, and then at the Dope Fest she quietly thanked me for ‘being a good friend’. And yet you take it on yourself to say that I only respect and love people who are the same as me? Or what about the charity show I did for a Jewish organisation which raises money for sick children (documentation on request if you don’t believe me)? Or what about some of the time I took in Indonesia to help and support people whose mythologies range from Hinduism to Catholicism, and in some cases a blend of these and animism? It’s easy to make accusations when you don’t know the facts, isn’t it?
So, while I’m no better or wiser than anyone else, and while I’ve no need to feel defensive as far as your own limp invective is concerned, all I’m saying is that perhaps I’m not quite the hate-filled fascist you seem to think I am.
And so to headscarves. To repeat: my belief is that it would be to the greater good of all if we learned to regard one another as equals, one species sharing one planet and facing pretty much the same set of problems. I’ve travelled all over the world, and while the social and cultural differences are interesting, I find people are pretty much people wherever you go. A lot of time, mythologies don’t do any harm and can advocate virtuous principles. But a lot of the time, equally, they promote division and this unhelpful sense of “Us = GOOD, not-us = BAD” which I believe lies at the heart of a lot of hatred, separatism, division and people just not caring for each other.
I can see some merit in the argument that in a public place, in this case a school, which is ostensibly about nourishing the young mind, expanding the intellect and learning how to socialise constructively, agreeing to leave behind overt and value-laden symbols of one’s private mythology might be a help rather than a hindrance.
I think such policies might help young people to see one another as people, and to stop perpetuating notions of someone being acceptable or not acceptable, or superior or inferior, purely because they come from a different tradition or were taught a different mythology when they were young.
This statement is reasonable, but it is not necessarily reality here in the U.S. I don’t have cites, but I know the following have at least been challenged, if not in fact outlawed, in some U.S. jurisdictions:
Student-led prayers
After-school use of classrooms/facilities by student religious groups
So which is it? Some looney-lefties want NO religion in public schools, but (I suspect) the very same looney-lefties criticize France for trying to uphold France’s version of NO religion in public schools, on some stretched-out “human rights” grounds. Sorry, can’t have it both ways.
Unless it’s only a “human rights” violation if its against Muslims in Paris, but OK against, say, Southern Baptists in Austin.
And there is the rub… I don’t see it as something being done to piss off the parents…I see it as doing something to further the educational process. I see a gain and I don’t see a loss. The parents have options.
ianzin: Some of your best friends are Muslims, eh? Where’ve I heard that before? Look, if all you’d done was refer to religious belief as “mythology”, I wouldn’t have a problem with your post. I would, in fact, wholeheartedly agree. However, your first post in this thread went far beyond that. Let’s look at some highlights.
Here you imply that religion and education are mutually exclusive, and state out-right that religion equals delusion and emotional imbalance
Now you’re saying that religion is inherently bigoted.
Religion doesn’t do this, human psychology does this. Religion is just one of the excuses we use. The same could be said for nationality, employment, favorite sports team, or hair color. This does not mean we should abolish national borders, industry, pro sports, or force everyone to bleach their hair.
Learning to respect, care, and love on another is a noble goal. Doing so by enforced conformity is abominable. Passing a law forbidding religious people to wear symbols of their faith isn’t respecting them. If you want to love other people, you’ve got to love the ways they are different from you as well as the ways they are the same as you.
This reminds me of the time I got in a fight with a friend of mine, and he accused me of being “the sort of person who has to label everybody.” You’re the one creating divisions here: on one side you have the rational, the modern, the lucid, the fair, and the free, and on the other side you have people who believe in God.
And here you say that religious beliefs and intellectual pursuits should not, or cannot, be mixed.
Your initial post here was filled with hypocrisy, condescension, and venom towards anyone who doesn’t share your beliefs. (Or lack thereof.) I only quoted the most objectionable parts: there were plenty of other little digs in there, too many to adress each individually. If you think I’m wrong, go back and read your post again, and tell me where you show love or respect for anyone who isn’t an atheist, 'cause I’ll be damned if I can find it.
Ah, but in the end you are trying to stop people from practicing their religion. Either that, or you’re arguing that if they do, they should remove themselves from mainstream education.
Look, I’m not a religious person, steadfast maintenance of culinary/musical traditions nonwithstanding; my proselytizing is pretty much confined to rugelach. But having spent much of my upbringing with those who are religiously observant, I know that it’s not something one can check at the schoolhouse door for 8 hours and pick up when the dismissal bell rings. Part-time religious observance defeats the entire purpose. Those who believe in God and the Ten Commandments don’t believe that there are provisions for a partial reprieve during school or work hours.
And if you want to go down the road of “well, the hijab isn’t directly mandated by the Koran,” well I’m certainly not enough of a religious scholar of my own religion - such as it is - to argue knowledgeably with you, much less of a religion of which I have unfortunately been pretty ignorant for most of my life. But in the end, what the actual book prescribes doesn’t matter nearly as much in most religions as how those prescriptions (and proscriptions) have been interpreted by each religion’s past and present leaders and scholars. Peronally I don’t see what pork has to do with spirituality or morality, but why should I get bent out of shape if someone else disagrees?
As long as nobody is trying to make me wear a hijab, I really don’t see what the fuss is about. And if you’re going to ban the hijab now, are long skirts next, for those who believe their religion demands modesty in dress? Personally I think students who can’t view other students who happen to wear different headgear as individuals are the ones who need the educating and mind-expanding, not the ones wearing the headgear.
(Oh, and I hate to see you and Miller squabbling. Come here and have another rugelach, and everything will be alright. ;j )
Actually, both are true. Though in a number of cases, the hijab is worn due to parent’s pressures (particulary amongst recent immigrants from countries where people don’t traditionnally immigrate to France : say, Pakistan rather than North-Africa), quite often it’s the girl’s choice, with the agreement or sometimes despite the opposition of the parents, especially amongst second or third generation muslims.
A number of girls strongly revendicate the right to wear the hijab. It’s due for the most part to a religious “revival” in the young muslim population (itself certainly related to the way muslims are excluded in the french society), but in many cases, the girls clearly state that they wear the hijab at least partly because they’re more respected this way, and get less crap from the boys (this would be true essentially in the immigrant’s ghettos of the “banlieues”, where an extreme “macho” mindset seems to have developped).
It’s totally transparent. All the arguments, debates, etc…here, refer to the “muslim veil”. The observant jews are opposed to this planned law, and actually, so is the catholic church.
As I already wrote, until now, the courts ruled that it wasn’t. IIRC, and though I don’t remember the exact wording, the highest court which had to make a ruling about this issue, the “Conseil d’etat” left some room for the possible ban of a too blatant display of religious faith, but stated that the hijab didn’t fall in this category, hence could be forbidden only if there was a safety risk involved.
As long as the law isn’t passed (currently it hasn’t even been written), the courts will have to follow the “conseil d’etat” (last resort court for such cases) ruling, IOW, they can forbid the hijab in gym or chemistry classes, for instance, and they can expell a girl who would refuse to remove it during these classes or would plainly refuse to attend them (that’s the majority of the cases until now), but can’t forbid it as a general rule.
By the way, there’s a cultural perspective which is probably lacking to several posters. The general concept in France (at least in people’s mind, not necessarily legaly speaking) isn’t merely that children shouldn’t be compelled into a given religion in school, but that religion should be totally be left out of school.
Historically, not only the republic built itself against the catholic church, but also, at the lowest level, the teacher has been perceived as the personnal ennemy of the priest, as leading an enlightened crusade against the obsurantism of religion,etc…I would say that at least until the 50’s - 60’s the direct oppostion teacher/priest was culturally a given, especially in the countryside. You could notice this in many movies, novels, etc… Though things had changed since, this long standing cultural perception didn’t completely dissapear, and teachers who consider they have a duty to fight back any religious intrusion in school aren’t that rare. When this intrusion at the same time looks like promoting the oppression of women, there won’t be many teachers willing to accept it.
More generally, religion doesn’t receive nearly as much respect in France than in the US. It is connoted way more negatively. For most people, religion should stay a private matter that one keeps for himself, not blatantly displays in public. People, on the overall, couldn’t care less about the free expression of religious beliefs not being allowed on public property. That’s not limited to school, anyway. For instance, the president quoting the bible in the US might be perceived as using his right of free expression as an individual, but in France such an event would be perceived as a blatant and unnaceptable endorsement of religion by an elected official.
This free expression ranks low on french people’s radar, generally speaking. And obviously in this case lower than a possible infringment on women’s rights, or than the separation of church and state, or than getting rid of these muslim scumbags who are invading us and are going to force their values upon us, or whatever other reason any given individual might have to dislike the hijab.
Those are your words, not mine, and not equivalent to what I wrote or meant. You attacked me personally, saying I obviously only liked/tolerated people who are the same as me. I was offering some factual refuation, and what I wrote was the truth. I don’t entertain any discrimination or prejudice based on someone’s religion. Muslim? Jew? Hindu? Follower of Swedenborg? Christian Scientist? I don’t care - people are people to me. If I can have a positive relationship with them (friendship, working relationship, love, whatever…) then good, and this is almost always the case. There are only 2 or 3 people in my whole life that I never found a way to get along with (frustrating, but sometimes you just have to say you tried and move on). And if I can occasionally do a nice thing or a favour, well, that’s fine too… after all, people do enough kind things for me, and what goes around comes around.
I know this kind of view can be criticised for being saccharine or self-serving or Pollyanna or sanctimonious or x other things, and hey, this is The Pit, so fire away (like I care), but then something like Sept 11th happens and everyone starts saying, Sheesh, maybe there is too much hate around and maybe we should try to get along a bit more and hate a little less. For a few weeks, anyway. Then things go back to normal.
I realise that the ‘some of my best friends… where have I heard that before’ jibe refers to the traditional assertion attributed to hypocritical racists. But look, if a lying hypocrite makes a statement which is just a cover for his actual beliefs, this doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone who says something similar is a lying hypocrite. It just doesn’t follow (there’s a formal name for this kind of logical error, but I’m not smart enough to know what it is off the top of my head). If a racist says ‘Some of my best friends are black’, it is right to pick him up on this and point out the hypocrisy where there is evidence of his racism. But suppose, as it happens, that some of my best friends really are black… why should I not claim this to be true, if it is? It only becomes something to sneer at and dismiss if there is contrary evidence indicating that the statement is mendacious or deceptive. And you don’t have any such contrary evidence, because there isn’t any.
Again, you’re putting words into my mouth, so to speak. I never mentioned ‘emotional imbalance’. I did use the word ‘delusion’ and I can see that this could be misconstrued and perhaps wasn’t the best choice. I was using the word as a corollary to ‘mythology’, since some people I’ve read suggest that to act as if a mythology is real is de facto to entertain a delusion. But, yeah, it was a needlessly provocative word. I apologise, retract and sit corrected.
Correct. I am saying this and I say it because it’s true. If you refer to the dictionary definition of a ‘bigot’, it seems to me this is self-evidently the case.
This paragraph seeks to rebut the case for abolition, but I haven’t advocated abolishing anything. I don’t see how I can write this more clearly than I did in my last post. Maybe I should use bold text, block caps or red colour? Not about abolishing. Not about preventing someone from observing whatever mythology or religion (if they are distinct terms) they want. Just about the possible detrimental effects that religion has (as I see it), in terms of divisiveness, and - as a corollary - the possible consequent merits of setting aside the overt symbolism associated with religious beliefs in a public place such as a school. That’s all.
As for the ‘it’s human psychology’ point, yes, of course it is. But we have the privilege or faculty of reviewing our own psychological inclinations and modifying how we behave. There was a memorable documentary shown this year about a white, racist police officer who asserted it was ‘natural’ to hate black people. This is just ugly, of course. And I do have problems with the way some religions seem to insist on labelling some other people as inferior or wrong or incapable of salvation etc. It may not be ‘hatred’, exactly, which is why I’ve been careful not to say so, but it does promote division and tribalism which I don’t think is the healthiest or most productive outlook.
Yes, we agree. I haven’t advocated enforced conformity. I said I could see the merits of everyone leaving these symbols behind during school hours.
What’s I find interesting about our exchange, Miller, is that we can both start out from a position of deploring enforced conformity and yet see the poison in different places! You see the French govt seeking to institute a ban on certain overt symbols during school hours as a deplorable kind of ‘enforced conformity’, but (so far as I know) you have no problem with enforced conformity by religious leaders, of which there is plenty. In other words, even though we may disagree, I can see why you might say it is wrong for a French school to say ‘you cannot wear that symbol during school hours’. But I’m puzzled as to why you then don’t also have a problem with a religious leader saying ‘you must wear this symbol at all times’ or ‘you must not eat that particular food stuff’ or ‘you must not make love with someone unless you are married to them’ or ‘you must not use a given method of safe and reliable contraception’ (I could have invoked any number of examples from any number of faiths - choose your own pick’n’mix to suit). I think this too is an attempt at ‘enforced conformity’, and moreover of a type that is far more potentially damaging and less respectful of individual fulfilment than anything the French givt are up to - after all, these rules aren’t just about a temporary ban in a specific context and place, but rules for the subject’s entire life.
I know a certain amount of heat has entered our exchange, and if that’s a regrettable thing then I regret it. But, all heat and invective aside, I’m genuinely interested in how you reconcile the two. In short, if it’s wrong for the govt to say ‘you must not wear something temporarily and in this one place’ then why is it OK for a religious organisation to say ‘you must wear it in all public places, all of your life’?
First of all, I can only account for my own words, not yours, and I haven’t used the terms ‘modern’ ‘lucid’ ‘fair’ or ‘free’ in terms of separating my view from someone else’s.
Secondly, to perceive and note a distinction is not necessarily the same as ‘creating’ it. I can see the Golden Gate bridge is red but it doesn’t mean I made it red.
Thirdly, even if I am spotlighting some distinctions, there is nothing wrong with recognising distinctions provided there is no hatred, mockery or lack of respect involved - which I think is the main point. Just because some people may use a term in a hateful or disrespectful way does not necessarily mean that I do too. Look, some of my countrymen use the term ‘American’ as an insult, a derogatory and contemptuous term. I don’t (I love America and go there often.) I can describe someone as having red hair, doesn’t mean I hate them or lack respect. Likewise, I can say someone observes a given religion and say that in my opinion it’s a mythology (this being my honest attempt to describe it as accurately as I can) but I believe I can do this without hating anyone, or showing a lack of respect, or looking down on them.
Nope. I’m saying, for the nth time, that I can see some merit in leaving all such symbols out of school hours, for all the reasons I presented before. Can mix, yes. Might be best if they didn’t - possibly, in my view, if this helps young people to see each other as people, not labels, and to recognise what they have in common rather than what divides them.
You may think so, and perhaps many others do too. That’s one interpretation, and of course you’re perfectly entitled to it, and I can learn from it. It isn’t my interpretation, and I am entitled to take the view that if you see those things, this says more about the observer than the observed. I don’t think what I wrote was venomous because I know my own heart and I know I’m not a venomous or a hating person. However, your feedback is something I can learn from, particularly about the words and terms I use, and the way I express (or try to express) what I believe. For that, and much besides, and for knowing quiz answers that I didn’t, I thank you.
Chiming in here as a (rather Westernised) European Muslim woman, I’d like to make a couple of points:
In the “West”, yes the veil (hijab, headscarf, whatever) is seen as a symbol of opression. Indeed, many of my female, traditional Muslim friends have refused point blank to their parents’ wishes that they wear the burkha and hijab. Yes, its caused problems with their families, but the long and short of it is, is that it is seen as a symbol of oppression, and in many cases these friends have felt that they would not be taken seriously by others. (This was 10 years ago however).
Contrarily, by Muslim women, wearing the headscarf is seen as a choice. One is not required to wear the headscarf if one chooses not to. I have family members (of a far more orthodox branch of Islam than the one I belong to) who do wear the headscarf, and family members who chose not to. It is a choice. They have not been pressured into it by fathers, grandfathers, brothers, husbands or any other male relative. The headscarf is a choice not a requirement.
Now, to France, headscarves, and religous freedom. France is a secular state. Religion and State have always been seperated. Also, in France, there is a lot of religous intolerance, persecution, etc etc. There is one line of reasoning, to which I fully subscribe, “if you don’t look like an outsider, and don’t flaunt the fact that you’re very different to the people around you, then things are easier on you.” There has been a lot of tension in France because of religion, and whilst, I wish that there could be a situation in this world where you could express your religion freely without fear, its not going to happen in the current political climate.
By banning religous symbols in schools, France will eliminate at least one form of highlighting differences that I’ve talked about above. This is a good thing. Religion is a personal thing, and it should remain personal. There’s no need to go round shouting your religion from the rooftops, it causes more problems than it solves. To be honest, I don’t care what religion anyone is - its what kind of person they are that matters.
And before anyone asks, yes, I do practice what I preach. You can’t tell what religion I am by looking at me. I can talk as confidantly about Christianity, Hinduism, and to a lesser extent Judaism, as I can about Islam. Even friends generally have to ask outright if I’m Muslim. This is what I believe France is trying to do - ensure that one’s religion, what one does in one’s private time, is not exhibited on the public stage. Quite frankly, if it works, it’ll do a lot of good.
One thing I ought to clarify, in case people aren’t sure is terminology:
headscarf = scarf merely covering one’s hair, from the hairline/top of forehead.
hijab = headscarf plus a veil over the face
burkha = full (generally black) body covering.
Its the hijab/burkha combination that’s seen by many Muslim women as oppressive…
As to context, there was recently an article in the New York Times (I’ll find a cite if you want) about this muslim girl in Paris’ immigrant suburbs who was raped by some neighborhood toughs. She was not wearing a headscarf. Apparently, these ignoramuses believe that this is a sign of provocation - a girl “acting up”, I guess - rape puts girls like her in their place. It’s apparently not that uncommon, and some of her neighbors didn’t seem all that sympathetic to her. Therefore, it is understandable to me that there are muslim girls in France who DO feel a need to, as you put it, “go round shouting” their religion for fear of retribution. If the elites in France are uncomfortable with muslim girls wearing headscarves, they can get serious about fighting crime first.
If you don’t care, then I don’t understand why you support oppressing someone else’s passive expression of their own personal religion (aside from the question about personal safety I’ve raised above).
But why should the state insist that everyone pretends to be alike? Why should the bigotries of others dictate what forms of personal expression are permissible? Do you really believe that the best way to combat tension caused by differences is to pretend they don’t exist? I have to say that this presumption that the state ought to dictate behaviour in public (particularly to such a personal level) bothers me greatly. Just your phrase “private time” implies that the time you spend outside your house is in some way not your own. In my opinion, one should not be subject to gratuitous personal infringements merely because you choose to make use of a government service which your tax money has paid for.
I also don’t see how religious symbols impinge on others in any meaningful way, as you yourself acknowledge when you say you don’t care what religion other people follow - you seem to feel that the main purpose of this law is to minimise discrimination against minorities. However, it’s attacking the wrong end of the problem. It is already entirely within the power of any muslim, jew or sikh to avoid persecution by divesting themselves of identifying garments. That many choose not to surely proves that they value their religion more highly than many consider. Certainly, banning such things may reduce persecution, in the same way as compulsory chastity belts would probably reduce rape. The wrong route is being taken, merely because it is easier.
Thank you for the perspective on headscarves, though; good to hear an “insider’s” view :).
Yeah, I’ve read that news piece. However, the fact of it is, is that it was the neighbourhood toughs that were the downright bastards, and would very probably have raped her anyway. The girl was not “flaunting herself” by making a conscious decision not to wear a headscarf; its more than likely that these bastards just used it as an excuse. And believe me, a swine who wants to rape someone will find any excuse - “she was flirting with me”, “she made it (the rape allegation) up after I spurned her advances” (yes, I speak from bitter personal experience here).
A headscarf, that I will add, is in no way whatsoever mandated in the Koran. The Koran commands both men and women to dress modestly, not to cover themselves completely. The only mandatory time when a woman’s hair must be covered is during prayer - whether that be communal or private.
The point is, is that its not passive. The moment you step out of your house looking like a Muslim, you become, for want of a better word, a target. And in this day and age, looking like a Muslim makes you a target for racist abuse, and, leads others to believe that you subscribe to a certain set of views.
Believe me, in an ideal world, I wouldn’t deny anyone the right to show the world what their religion is, without fear of persecution. However, until we get to that ideal world, why can’t we keep religion as a personal and private thing, where it can’t cause damage?
Dead Badger, I see your point. Yes the state is being restrictive, but its not saying that these differences don’t exist, its saying “yes, they do exist, but must we be so bloody obvious about highlighting these differences?” At the end of the day, in France, one is seen as French first, and then whatever personal religous/philosophical viewpoint may be.
Of course, there is then the link between the wearing of headscarves and Islamic Extremism. Speaking from personal experience, when I was at school, one of the girls suddenly decided to take up wearing the scarf. Turned out she’d been recruited by Al-Hamas, and that they’d effectively convinced (well, brainwashed, I think) her to wear this, as a mark of her fundamentalism…
