News French Senate Approves a Ban on Burqas

  • Thread starter Thread starter lisab
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The French Senate has voted to ban face-covering clothing, including burqas and naqabs, reflecting strong public support, with 82% of surveyed citizens in favor. The ban is viewed by some as a symbolic measure against Islam rather than a practical solution, given that less than 1% of the Muslim population in France wears such garments. Critics argue that the legislation represents government overreach and question the justification for restricting religious practices. The discussion touches on broader themes of cultural integration and the implications of government regulation on personal freedoms. Ultimately, the ban raises significant questions about the balance between security, social norms, and religious expression in Western societies.
  • #121
Evo said:
No, accepting the culture to which you have decided to move is not revolutionary.

Again, do you understand what the topic is that we are discussing? These are people that have voluntarily moved to another country, yet are refusing to adapt. No one is meddling. Seriously, you need to get a clue about what the topic is before you post.

it didn't seem to be a problem when they moved there. someone changed their mind after they moved.

i understand the topic perfectly. I'm even sympathetic to the french.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Proton Soup said:
it didn't seem to be a problem when they moved there. someone changed their mind after they moved.
I don't know that anyone in France ever accepted anyone there wearing a burqa in their country. I think that after many years and too much uncontrolled immigration that now public opinion is turning negative. This is similar to the influx of Mexicans into the US. The number of people and the bad economic times have brought the immigrants (mostly illegal) to the forefront of people's frustrations.

The burqa is being used, IMO, as a rallying point to gather behind. They can use the fact that it is a symbol of oppression to support whatever motives they might have.
 
  • #123
Evo said:
I don't know that anyone in France ever accepted anyone there wearing a burqa in their country. I think that after many years and too much uncontrolled immigration that now public opinion is turning negative. This is similar to the influx of Mexicans into the US. The number of people and the bad economic times have brought the immigrants (mostly illegal) to the forefront of people's frustrations.

The burqa is being used, IMO, as a rallying point to gather behind. They can use the fact that it is a symbol of oppression to support whatever motives they might have.

yes, i think there is some truth in this. but i think also there are some differences. I'm not sure the mexicans in the US are pushing so hard on our culture to change to something radically different. mexicans aren't pushing for recognition of sharia law, for instance. and so some of this in france i think is a reactionary cultural push back. and to that extent, i think they are right to stand their ground. it is one thing to be a good host and show hospitality to exiles. it is another thing entirely when they start rearranging the furniture.
 
  • #124
Proton Soup said:
yes, i think there is some truth in this. but i think also there are some differences. I'm not sure the mexicans in the US are pushing so hard on our culture to change to something radically different. mexicans aren't pushing for recognition of sharia law, for instance. and so some of this in france i think is a reactionary cultural push back. and to that extent, i think they are right to stand their ground. it is one thing to be a good host and show hospitality to exiles. it is another thing entirely when they start rearranging the furniture.

Beautifully said, couldn't agree more.
 
  • #125
This is disgraceful. I say we should egg the pope.
 
  • #126
Proton Soup said:
yes, i think there is some truth in this. but i think also there are some differences. I'm not sure the mexicans in the US are pushing so hard on our culture to change to something radically different. mexicans aren't pushing for recognition of sharia law, for instance. and so some of this in france i think is a reactionary cultural push back. and to that extent, i think they are right to stand their ground. it is one thing to be a good host and show hospitality to exiles. it is another thing entirely when they start rearranging the furniture.
Agreed with Jared, beautifully said.
 
  • #127
i can't believe we actually agree on something!
 
  • #128
Proton Soup said:
i can't believe we actually agree on something!
I know, it's frightening.
 
  • #129
Let me make sure I am hearing this right. Muslims wearing burqas is 'rearranging the furniture' of the French lifestyle?
 
  • #130
dreiter said:
Let me make sure I am hearing this right. Muslims wearing burqas is 'rearranging the furniture' of the French lifestyle?
That's a pretty good analogy to explain the discomfort.

I'm French and all of my family lives in France, and I'd say that's a nice way to put it.
 
  • #131
dreiter said:
Let me make sure I am hearing this right. Muslims wearing burqas is 'rearranging the furniture' of the French lifestyle?

not exactly. in a lot of ways, islam is like christianity. it is both evangelical and attempts to transform the culture of those it finds itself in. and so you find yourself in a clash of cultures. i think it is more than simply a few women wearing burkas. it's not as if the new immigrants are all that accepting of french culture themselves.
 
  • #132
Proton Soup said:
not exactly. in a lot of ways, islam is like christianity. it is both evangelical and attempts to transform the culture of those it finds itself in. and so you find yourself in a clash of cultures. i think it is more than simply a few women wearing burkas. it's not as if the new immigrants are all that accepting of french culture themselves.

A bit like the welcome I'd give a christian missionary... annoying buggers.
 
  • #133
Proton Soup said:
not exactly. in a lot of ways, islam is like christianity. it is both evangelical and attempts to transform the culture of those it finds itself in.
Arg, no. I could see this equivocation wreck between Islam and Christianity coming above, and here it is. Evangelicals are at most a form of Christianity, maybe a sect. Christianity as relayed via the New Testament seeks to transform the individual and his/her relations with others. It does not specify what clothes to wear, it does not demand that one kill non believers, and most importantly it does not demand a religious government (e.g. sharia law) - in fact the gospel parables warn against it.
 
  • #134
So, Christianity us multi-faceted with different sects, but Islam is homogeneous?

That's the impression I get from that post.
 
  • #135
mheslep said:
Arg, no. I could see this equivocation wreck between Islam and Christianity coming above, and here it is. Evangelicals are at most a form of Christianity, maybe a sect. Christianity as relayed via the New Testament seeks to transform the individual and his/her relations with others. It does not specify what clothes to wear, it does not demand that one kill non believers, and most importantly it does not demand a religious government (e.g. sharia law) - in fact the gospel parables warn against it.

nowhere did i say that the cultures are equivalent. if that were the case, there would not be so much strife.
 
  • #136
Proton Soup said:
nowhere did i say that the cultures are equivalent. if that were the case, there would not be so much strife.
I did not say you did. I responded to what you did say, which was:

in a lot of ways, islam is like christianity. but ...
Ok, both monotheistic, etc. But this:
it is both evangelical and attempts to transform the culture of those it finds itself in.[...]
Turns things on its head (evangelicalism is a couple hundred years old interpretation (flawed in my view) of Christianity, where as it is fundamental to the Quran and Islam and employed w/ force) and the degree of culture transformation is not comparable.
 
  • #137
Jack21222 said:
So, Christianity us multi-faceted with different sects, but Islam is homogeneous?
No.

That's the impression I get from that post.
Perhaps I didn't articulate well.
 
  • #138
mheslep said:
I did not say you did. I responded to what you did say, which was:

Ok, both monotheistic, etc. But this:
Turns things on its head (evangelicalism is a couple hundred years old interpretation (flawed in my view) of Christianity, where as it is fundamental to the Quran and Islam and employed w/ force) and the degree of culture transformation is not comparable.

i wholeheartedly disagree. christianity has been evangelical since inception (regardless of whether you think it is interpreted correctly, the application is what it is), and until recently, also "employed w/ force".

this isn't about which one you prefer.
 
  • #139
Proton Soup said:
i wholeheartedly disagree. christianity has been evangelical since inception (regardless of whether you think it is interpreted correctly, the application is what it is), and until recently, also "employed w/ force".
No, you are conflating what some have done in the name of Christianity to gather power with what it is, according to the fundamental teachings of Jesus of Nazereth. Burning witches in 16th century Salem was not fundamental to Christianity. The Crusades were not fundamental to Christianity. The difference here is that sharia law, for instance, is fundamental to Islam, not just a tenet of it.
 
  • #140
mheslep said:
... It does not specify what clothes to wear,

Where did it specify what to wear? It only tell to wear decent and modest clothing for both men and women.


...it does not demand that one kill non believers

http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm"

I just can't believe people do still argue that.

and most importantly it does not demand a religious government (e.g. sharia law) - in fact the gospel parables warn against it.

As far as I'm aware of, you won't even believe that the word itself "religious" [in Arabic of course, not the translation] isn't seen in the Quran nor the Hadeith! except for one Hadeith I guess, I'll look it up and see.


Edit:
No there's non. :biggrin:
It was one about going to the extreme [aka being religious]:

Three people came to the houses of the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to ask about how the Prophet worshipped. When they were told, it was as if they thought it was little and said, 'Where are we in relation to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who has been forgiven his past and future wrong actions?'" He said, "One of them said, 'I will pray all of every night.' Another said, 'I will fast all the time and not break the fast.' The other said, "I will withdraw from women and never marry.' The Messenger of Allah came to them and said, 'Are you the ones who said such-and-such? By Allah, I am the one among you with the most fear and awareness of Allah, but I fast and break the fast, I pray and I sleep, and I marry women. Whoever disdains my sunna is not with me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #141
drizzle said:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm"

I just can't believe people do still argue that.
That 911 conspiracy site won't do Drizzle, though the phrase "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them" is an accurate and famous verse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #142
drizzle said:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm"

I just can't believe people do still argue that.
The second quote there reads to me like a call to kill idolators after some sacred period has passed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #143
mheslep said:
No, you are conflating what some have done in the name of Christianity to gather power with what it is, according to the fundamental teachings of Jesus of Nazereth. Burning witches in 16th century Salem was not fundamental to Christianity. The Crusades were not fundamental to Christianity. The difference here is that sharia law, for instance, is fundamental to Islam, not just a tenet of it.

your opinion about what it should be is not relevant. the church of rome ruled by force for centuries. it's not simply a matter of a few ergot-inspired atrocities.

and we still do this today. here in the US, we forced the Mormon church to drop polygamy. yes, we used civil authority to do it, but that law is largely derived from mainstream christian values. islam would also allow polygamy, but because of our largely christian-based culture, they will not be able to practice that in america. we don't call it something like "sharia", and we claim a separation of church and state, but even though the law is officially secular, it is based on our cultural values that are originally not secular.
 
  • #144
Proton Soup said:
your opinion about what it should be is not relevant. the church of rome ruled by force for centuries. it's not simply a matter of a few ergot-inspired atrocities.
Please stop attributing to me that which I did not say. It did not what say Christianity 'should be'. I laid out a bit of what it is, according to the original precepts of the New Testament. Humanity being what it is, the Roman Catholic church distorted Christianity for its own purposes for centuries, but because of the fundamentals, the Protestant Reformation began a cure for many of those ills. Islam has not undergone any such reformation to my knowledge, certainly not any major one.

and we still do this today. here in the US, we forced the Mormon church to drop polygamy. yes, we used civil authority to do it, but that law is largely derived from mainstream christian values. islam would also allow polygamy, but because of our largely christian-based culture, they will not be able to practice that in america. we don't call it something like "sharia", and we claim a separation of church and state, but even though the law is officially secular, it is based on our cultural values that are originally not secular.
Here's the equivocation again to which I was originally referring. Yes one could argue that Christianity imposes a culture to some degree, but to find sharia law similar, which demands religious tenets be implemented throughout civil code, is to completely misunderstand sharia.
 
  • #145
mheslep said:
That 911 conspiracy site won't do Drizzle, though the phrase "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them" is an accurate and famous verse.

For one, I’m not entitled to defend Islam from charges that’s being accused with. [and that’s why most Muslims don’t speak, IMO, no one wants to be responsible for the views that would’ve build up against the religion based on her/his opinion, s/he’ll be questioned [by God] of whatever others might’ve misled the truth. Aside from that, Islam speaks for itself, one just needs to read]
But for this very verse, here’s the reason behind it:
It is easy to cut and paste without reading the whole surah to understand. A group of pagans made an agreement with the Muslims that they would be allowed to do Hajj. The Muslims did as the agreement asked but the Pagans repeatedly denyed them the right to do Hajj and blocked them even though they had furfilled there part of the bargan. So they were given a warning over a period of of time and then if they did not allow them to do Hajj than they were given permission to fight the pagens who had violated the agreement. But were clearly told not to harm those who had not violated the agreements. In Islam at the time Muslims were forbidden to fight without permission. This was permission to go to war.

A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances
Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.
And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.
(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous. .


Two, Islam doesn’t contradict itself:
… if anyone slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.
Quran 5:32

Islam considers all life forms as sacred, and there are many MANY verses that show that clearly.

So please move on and stay on topic.
 
  • #146
mheslep said:
Please stop attributing to me that which I did not say. It did not what say Christianity 'should be'. I laid out a bit of what it is, according to the original precepts of the New Testament. Humanity being what it is, the Roman Catholic church distorted Christianity for its own purposes for centuries, but because of the fundamentals, the Protestant Reformation began a cure for many of those ills. Islam has not undergone any such reformation to my knowledge, certainly not any major one.

Here's the equivocation again to which I was originally referring. Yes one could argue that Christianity imposes a culture to some degree, but to find sharia law similar, which demands religious tenets be implemented throughout civil code, is to completely misunderstand sharia.

well... i think you're making a religious argument here that perhaps islam is not ever capable of integrating into westernized democracies, so I'm just going to withdraw from the discussion.
 
  • #147
Proton Soup said:
well... i think you're making a religious argument here that perhaps islam is not ever capable of integrating into westernized democracies, so I'm just going to withdraw from the discussion.
If that was his point then I would suggest he read up on Turkey and all the Islamic peoples that moved to the west and became citizens inside those nations.
 
  • #148
Dennis_Murphy said:
If that was his point then I would suggest he read up on Turkey and all the Islamic peoples that moved to the west and became citizens inside those nations.

That doesn't mean they integrated with the general population.

(I'm not saying they did or didn't but the fact they migrated does not mean they integrated.)
 
  • #149
jarednjames said:
That doesn't mean they integrated with the general population.

(I'm not saying they did or didn't but the fact they migrated does not mean they integrated.)
No it doesn't, but that's why I said to 'read about' them. When you read about them you may well be able to find out if they integrated, how well they integrated, or if they did not.
 
  • #150
Dennis_Murphy said:
No it doesn't, but that's why I said to 'read about' them. When you read about them you may well be able to find out if they integrated, how well they integrated, or if they did not.

I read your initial quote as "he's wrong, they can and do integrate, he should read about them before making such claims".

If that is not how it was meant then either I'm wrong and apologise or it was poorly worded.
 

Similar threads

News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Patriot Act 2: Summarized by Alex Jones
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K