Islamophobia

[Copernicus]

Right. We nice Westerners try to remain neutral by paying lip service both to religious freedom and to the rights of women in the Muslim community. But something rings very hollow about the way we bend over backwards to avoid characterizing Muslim communities as oppressive to women. It's all about choice, we say, so we can ignore the tradition of coercion, dehumanization, and repression of women by making them conceal themselves in ritual garb. The situation, I submit, would be vastly different if it were men who were being attacked or killed for not submitting to these cultural norms. But we can keep patting ourselves on the back for our commitment to neutrality in these matters, because we're afraid to impose our mores upon a minority community. It's all good.

I'm not quite sure how to interpret your response to my post. First of all, I disagree with your overly broad characterization of "we nice Westerners". Let's not forget where Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco came from not that many years ago. What freedoms we have now came at a very heavy cost in loss of lives and wealth. And we haven't been all that "nice" in our relations with Muslim countries even in recent years. It isn't nice to bomb people's neighborhoods, even if there does happen to be a terrorist cell located there. We don't do that to our own neighborhoods.

Now, if you think that I bend over backwards not to characterize Islam as misogynistic, you are not only wrong, but you could find that characterization in the post you were replying to. My point was that the government has no business in interfering with religious practices unless they violate the civil rights of others. Wearing a headscarf in a classroom in no way violates anyone's civil rights. Forcing someone not to wear a headscarf because it is a religious symbol is a violation of civil rights. A Muslim woman who chooses not to obey the guidelines of her religious community faces the same tough life choices as a young Hassidic Jew or Mormon or Mennonite or etc., who does the same thing. It is tough to be in that situation, but the government should not be interfering in such cases.

Its always about the face. No one is persecuted for covering the hair, ankles, hands or what ever. But the face is needed for identification.

Perhaps I am unfamiliar with the French law. You live right next door to France, so you should know it better. The news reports I have read on the subject say that it is a ban on headscarves in classrooms, not a ban on face coverings. Am I wrong about that? Or are you talking about a separate law that bans face coverings in public?

Yet many people act like the french government wants the muslim women naked on the street.

Actually, nobody acts that way. It is perfectly reasonable for people to debate and oppose laws that they think violate basic human rights.

 

[elmarna]

Fearing anything without true understanding of it is indeed wrong!
Fearing something because your objectivity is not willing to support it is questionable.
I say do not fear.
UNDERSTAND & maintain a way where the concerns are managed wisely!!!!!

 

[Flankerl]

Perhaps I am unfamiliar with the French law. You live right next door to France, so you should know it better. The news reports I have read on the subject say that it is a ban on headscarves in classrooms, not a ban on face coverings. Am I wrong about that? Or are you talking about a separate law that bans face coverings in public?

No there is a ban on headscarfs if you want to call it that way in publicschools. But guess what crosses are banned too and so are yamulkes or skull caps.

This is because those schools are operated by the french state and france is a secular country.

Actually, nobody acts that way. It is perfectly reasonable for people to debate and oppose laws that they think violate basic human rights.

I doubt that its a human right to cover your face at any given moment.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

It is tough to be in that situation, but the government should not be interfering in such cases.

She's trying to say thank you for my religious freedom, but there's still nerve damage around her mouth.

-Nato

 

[Yerda]

Fearing anything without true understanding of it is indeed wrong!
Fearing something because your objectivity is not willing to support it is questionable.
I say do not fear.
UNDERSTAND & maintain a way where the concerns are managed wisely!!!!!

Seems fair enough.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is because those schools are operated by the french state and france is a secular country.

No, this is because those schools are operated by the french state and france is a secular country promoting Islamophobic law.

 

[Copernicus]

She's trying to say thank you for my religious freedom, but there's still nerve damage around her mouth.

Nato, are you reading my posts at all? I find your implication both disgusting and insulting. Do you equate wearing a headscarf with horrific acts like murder and mutilation? What I said in my previous posts was that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting civil rights, but that it should not cross the line of trying to dictate what items of clothing people should wear. The criterion is whether the practice violates a right, not whether it is disrespectful of a gender or even a race. Freedom of expression and freedom of religious conscience are also civil rights. Sometimes it is hard to draw a line between conflicting rights, but we have no choice but to draw lines.

 

[Copernicus]

No there is a ban on headscarfs if you want to call it that way in publicschools. But guess what crosses are banned too and so are yamulkes or skull caps.

I consider such restrictions an unjustified and counterproductive interference of government in the rights of students. How are we to teach people respect for the rights of others in an atmosphere where their own rights are not respected? How can we teach religious tolerance while lacking tolerance of different religious beliefs? Secularism is about government neutrality in matters of religion, not government promotion of religious or non-religious beliefs.

That said, a classroom is a place in which participation is usually not voluntary. So disruptive behavior--e.g. trying to prevent biology teachers from teaching their subject because it conflicts with a religious belief--cannot be tolerated. I just do not see religious symbols as things that the school usually needs to pay attention to. One of the roles of the educational system is to teach social values, and if society values tolerance of differing opinions, especially religious opinions, then its schools need to teach by example. As Thomas Jefferson put it: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Children need to be taught that lesson if they are to respect it as adults.

This is because those schools are operated by the french state and france is a secular country.

I've got no problem with secularism, but it is not secularism when a particular religion is singled out for discrimination.

I doubt that its a human right to cover your face at any given moment.

It is a right if it has little or no potential to cause harm to other people. Governments do not have rights apart from those that people collectively cede to them.

 

[Invisible Pink Unicorn]

To be honest I think that anti-semitism is a bigger problem than islamophobia in Europe. To the religious, "oppression" is not letting them shove their beliefs down everyone else's throughts. In this case, Shariah law.

In America we have a huge problem with Christians trying to legislate morality, so I can sort of relate to what's going on with Muslims in Europe wanting to legislate morality.

 

[Flankerl]

No, this is because those schools are operated by the french state and france is a secular country promoting Islamophobic law.

So thats why all religious gear is forbidden.

I've got no problem with secularism, but it is not secularism when a particular religion is singled out for discrimination.

How do you single out one faith when you do the same to the rest of them?

I consider such restrictions an unjustified and counterproductive interference of government in the rights of students. How are we to teach people respect for the rights of others in an atmosphere where their own rights are not respected? How can we teach religious tolerance while lacking tolerance of different religious beliefs? Secularism is about government neutrality in matters of religion, not government promotion of religious or non-religious beliefs.

Everyone is disrespected the same way. Religion is not part of the french school system. This way no one gets favoured or disciminated.

 

[Copernicus]

So thats why all religious gear is forbidden.

Flankerl, you have not given a secular reason why any religious gear should be forbidden. I certainly have no objection to rules that promote learning in the classroom, but a case must be made that the policies really do have the intended effect and are not just in place to discriminate against a religious or ethnic minority. It isn't always easy to figure out where to draw the line, but you do not promote a tolerant society by displaying unnecessary intolerance. The question comes down to what motivates the policy.

How do you single out one faith when you do the same to the rest of them?

First of all, there is the question of whether your policy, rule, or law is reasonable or necessary. It might be that allowing children to wear religious or political symbols is disruptive of the teaching environment. If that were the case, then one would have cause for a blanket ban on such symbolism, if it could be shown that the policy actually led to an improved atmosphere in the classroom. But that is not what motivates laws passed by legislatures that are far-removed from the classroom and not-so-far-removed from the ulterior motive of popular resentment towards a specific segment of the population.

Everyone is disrespected the same way. Religion is not part of the french school system. This way no one gets favoured or disciminated.

It is correct that religion is not, and should not be, part of the French school system. But that is no excuse for banning headscarves and other religious symbols on children. There are many countries where no such bans exist, and teachers still seem able to function normally. When adults are behind a movement to ban certain types of symbols in school, it just encourages children to mimic the intolerant behavior of their mentors. It is not just about treating everyone with equal contempt. It is about treating everyone with equal tolerance.

 

[Yerda]

To be honest I think that anti-semitism is a bigger problem than islamophobia in Europe.

There appears to be a shifting of focus from Jews to Muslims. In any case, whether antisemitism is a bigger problem is not relevant as to whether Islamophobia is real and dangerous. For instance, there is a vocal opposition to specifically Muslim immigration. This seems to be based on the perception that Muslims are suicidal fanatics. The English Defence League and its sister organisations on the continent are primarily motivated by, and consistently appeal to, anti-Islamic sentiment.

To the religious, "oppression" is not letting them shove their beliefs down everyone else's throughts. In this case, Shariah law.

I see. I don't see how it is relevant. Can you explain?

 

[Starsoul]

Something about it...


[youtube]ovf8vujOX6Q[/youtube]
‪Islamophobia - Nouman Ali Khan‬‏ - YouTube

 

[otokage007]

I think it's real, and of course it's wrong. It can lead to the misunderstanding and unreasonable hatred towards muslim culture, which is, in my opinion, dangerously backward. However the solution isn't throwing bombs at them.