Here, let's take a portion of what you wrote. The funny thing is, you completely dodged the question being asked. The second thing is you created a strawman.
From your post:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7867477-post609.html
Coyote: Prior to the law, what was allowed? Could they wear jewelry with crosses? Yarmakas? Could orthodox Jews wear headscarves and wigs? Was it just when Muslims became a large enough population that people objected to their wearing symbals of religion?
What you won’t allow yourself to accept is that a growing population of moslems in France, for example, presented obstacles to the French idea of assimilation and respect for their culture. There were complaints from educators in the school systems about amorphous sacks which could not be identified as to an actual person underneath the sack. There are also myriad problems with this. What will be done in a lab (study lab) environment? How are students in study groups expected to interact with someone cloaked in a burqa? My college labs always involved a study team jointly producing research papers. These teams were always competitive and involved active participation by all. I take no issue with representing that a woman in a burqa can have negative connotations regarding team participation.
The Burqa Strawman.
The French law was not about the Burqa - a garment rarely worn in France, though it includes the Burqa. It was specifically addressing the Hijab. The Hijab refers to any head, face, or body covering, including simply head scarves. The most commonly worn Muslim Hijab covers hair and neck (I'm basing this on students we have here).
The second issue is this: when it comes to safety and labs, dress codes can and should take precedence if religious garb interferes. People working in shop class with power tools can not wear dangling chains and jewelry. They take them off. A simple and adequate solution that in no way violates religious freedoms.
What’s unfortunate is a perception that a class of 30 or so people are all expected to make accommodation to one individual who is disruptive (and seemingly antagonistic) to the whole.
Really...I had no idea the wearing of a simple headscarf is considered so "disruptive" and "antagonistic"...
So no, Western culture is not obligated to accept islamist symbols of gender segregation and exclusion.
I suggest you expand your horizons beyond "emails" when it comes to learning about religion. Hijab are not "Islamist" nor are they symbols of "gender segregation and exclusion"
in and of themselves. There are many Jewish and Christian sects that believe that modesty and honoring God require covering their hair in much the same way as many Muslim sects. The Hijab can also be viewed as having a "
metaphysical dimension, where al-hijab refers to "the veil which separates man or the world from God". Rather than wasting your time on "emails" you might want to consider talking to young women wearing hijabs - you might find a variety of opinions good and bad.
Beyond the terror and gender apartheid factors of the burqa, I think the French proposal was just good news in general. I firmly believe that forcing a woman into making herself look like an amorphous, black mound of cloth is misogynistic and degrading.
France values it's secular society - but part of that principle of secularity is that according to the French law,
everyone is equal in showing and expressing their religious opinions in public and in private.
So you not only didn't answer the actual question, and created a burqa strawman but you actually support religious discrimination?
The 2003 law, as written forbids any ostentatious symbols of any religion and it also only applies to students and teachers in public primary schools. As such it's pretty narrowly defined and in many ways can be considered part of an official dress code. It also applies to nursing staff and doctors in public hospitals where sanitary garb is necessary and that makes sense.
But that is really not the direction your argument appears to be coming from - ie rational sense. You seem to support the ban, and only the ban on headscarves (not other religious paraphenalia) because they are a symbol of "evil" - aparthied, Islamism, etc. and you apply that to all forms of that religion.
More disturbing however, is the 2011 law banning full face coverings such as the chador in all public spaces. Though the law includes other forms of facial coverings such as masks - it is primarily aimed at Muslims.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/world/europe/14burqa.html?_r=0
... “no one can, in the public space, wear clothing intended to hide the face.” It also defines “public space” broadly, including streets, markets and private businesses, as well as government buildings and public transportation.
Unlike the 2003 law applying to public schools this one has no rational or safety related purpose behind it. It's aimed almost entirely at Muslims. Religious bigotry? There are an estimated five million Muslims in France, of which
fewer than 2,000 are thought to fully cover their faces with a veil. Why is there a need for such a ban?
The unanswered question: prior to these laws - there were no restrictions on the wearing of religious symbols.
