As for the problem of parents coercing their children into doing things they do not want to do, that is a problem in all countries, cultures, and religions. I wish I could have a year of Sunday mornings back from all the times I was dragged to church as a child. I don't think we should pass a law making it illegal to force your child to attend religious services.
It is better to err on the side of giving families the freedom to settle such issues internally. If a child is being compelled to wear a burqa against her will, they should be able to appeal to the same authorities that protect them from physical abuse. If they are too scared to do that, it's unfortunate, but no different from the child that won't report regular beatings. You ought to keep the laws as free as is possible.
I don't think we should pass a law making illegal to force your child to attend religious services.
Some people may be able to break the conditioning. Some will rebel. But both options are only available in pluralistic cultures which can model different behaviours and belief systems.
In all honesty I'd suggest the opposite would be more effective - children should be brought up in a secular culture, and then only allowed to choose religion after 18.
The fact that this would deprive all religions of most of their followers highlight how essential indoctrination and coercion are to religious experience.
children should be brought up in a secular culture, and then only allowed to choose religion after 18.
would yo do the same for soccer games? For soccer teams? Which culture-generated identity items you would not allow adn which ones you would? Maybe there is a criteria I am missing. Make-up? Short pants? friends gathering? Language use? Book reading? TV/tale surroudned structures? Narrative self-structures (from games to "personal talks with your child"? religious gathering? Rithual gathering (as sports)? Which one out, wich one in
Can a crrteria be generated to force parents not to do any of these? We can force them to do something.. and society does it constantly, my question is about forcing not to do something. You can force parents to make their children look for the doctor but what is the criteria to prevent them to look for other alternative/non-legal/foreign/chaman structures? You cannot even force parents not to kill or beat their chidlren, only prosecute afterwards...and beating and killing does not construct the identity narrative directly, something which the three main religious and the secular all consider a good thing.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
There's a difference between giving children hundreds of options and leaving them to find something that works for them, and giving them the One True and Holy Option and telling that if they try something different they will die, burn in agony for eternity, and so on.
Would I like to see tribal and caste identities being diluted in a similar way? Personally, I would - not necessarily into insignificance, but certainly to the point where they can't be used as an excuse for exclusion and physical or emotional violence. (I'm including class within caste.)
Tribal and caste identities seem to cause a lot of problems while offering very little that's useful or positive.
Of course this means making diversity an indoctrinated value. But since it probably isn't possible to avoid indoctrination altogether, I wouldn't see that as a completely bad thing.
So we should force parents to take their children to different religious gatherings, to different soccer teams.. and so on and so on.
It is forcing diversity.. more or less like my idea of forcing parents to send kids overseas (with state support). Something I have long ago advocated.
Of course you can not force parents not to attend mass regularly on a catholic church with their kids, but you can indeed force them to go to a synagogue, to a mosque and to a flying spageutti monster gathering or to a star-trek/BSG gathering.
The only problem of course is that diversity indoctrination is going to be a tough sell.. but if we can make kids and parents go to school...everything is possible.
In the case of short pants, it is not necessary for the State to intervene, as whether kids (or adults) wear short pants does not have the potential to interfere with the State's existing functions. In the case of religious dress, the potential for widespread social/religious radicalization is clear and present, and by implication, this poses a direct threat to the French State's explicitly secular role.
To put this another way, if the burqa was not associated with religion, and in particular, was not associated with foreign religious alternatives to the French State's functions (ie the Sharia in particular and also Middle Eastern customs which clash with European ideals), then it would pose no threat and be perfectly acceptable and benign.
However, the burqa is associated with Sharia and incompatible Middle Eastern social models, and therefore is an unacceptable encroachment on the French State's role and functions. As such, the State is justified in outlawing the burqa, not because of the dress itself, but solely because of the religious role it plays and the danger if it spreads. -- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
It is all very eurocentric anyway. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Again, this is a misunderstanding between those who tags those garments as religious and those who don't ! Islam is pretty well lived in France and is not segregated (I must insist). While class, and where you live is still selective !
And by the way, the "car burqa" (the tinted windows of a car) has been unlawful for quite a while... :-) "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
BTW, I am not claiming that Muslims as a whole are not well integrated in France or that Islam must disappear, I am arguing that the minority which imposes strict rules on their women are in contradiction with the values of the fifth French Republic, and this is why there necessarily is a clash.
The State must uphold and preserve the republican values which are described in the French constitution (in the same way, the American State must preserve the American constitution, which is different, etc). If a community diverges strongly from these values (and in fact the radical Islamic interpretation not only strongly clashes with these values, but offers a completely different and well developed civilisation), then the (French) State has no choice but must take action to impose the (French) constitutional values on this community.
It is really a question of which comes first in France, the State or the religion? -- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
How can you claim that the head coverings are not religious?
What you need to argue is that covering a woman's head with a scarf etc does not imply values which are promoted by religion. One could start by asking if the head covering were denounced by early religious leaders as pagan, and only accepted grudgingly over time. I am not qualified to make socio-historical remarks of this precision. -- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
Only available at Emergency Treatment centers. You can't be me, I'm taken
-- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
10 Uses for a Silk Scarf : The List Maven - Lists of Beauty Tips, Fashion Advice and Shopping Suggestions
or this one?
This used to be the hight of fashion. I still have some of these scarves. :-)
How do you test for values?
Anyway, the obvious way is some sort of questionnaire. Adherence to values can be faked, of course.
You can then fall back on behaviours as evidence of values. This naturally leads to "a burqa disqualifies you for French citizenship".
On "which values?", there was a time when France and the US were Enlightened nations but nowadays even France has a Head of State who believes they're "Christian Nations" so the kinds of "values tests" that are applied to people are becoming less palatable to lefties... But still, Sarkozy will have some success in getting French leftists to support his racist policy because they agree on the "secular republican values" principle. Or at least he'll paralyse them into indecision over whether banning the Burqa is civic or racist. A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous
You cannot impose values.
In rrual afgan communities it has nothing to do with religion but with gender structures in rural areas (just like in Spain nowadays).
The role of burrqas in the few urban afghan posts is... well highly debatable and I do not know enough about it.
The only place where it is clearly assocaited due to an strange symbolic imaginarium, with religion is in western countries inside non-muslim communities (which would never never in their dreams associate burqa with msulim nor arab).. burqa, for muslims, is a regional and rural symbol (well, more like evocation, like when you heard someone with a different accent and you recognize where it comes from), not a religious one.
A pleasue I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
I have no data on this change of view.
Also, don't forget that the "muslim" communities in France, at least those that are going the veil or burqa way, aren't the most knowledgeable about their version of traditional islam, and a fair share of the imams are educated in the more conservative muslim countries. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Despite looking like religious, and having the stamp of religion, it is actually non-religion. The key point is gender roles which religion acts as a structure which supports the "stability" of the roles.
Same as rural Spain in the 40/50's.
My grand grand ma used cover and soemtimes face-covers even in cities when she was no longer at all religious.. it was a role marker...Not to say that the church in the town would have not protested/commented... but nothing like the non-church social control to enforce the rules
