Once Again.... If You Don't Like France...

[Chas]

You don't have to disagree with Franklin. The context of that quote is grossly misinterpreted by modern readers who have no idea what the fuck Franklin was talking about in 1755.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-...ally-said/

In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade.

But it is necessary to read the whole article.

Thank you - very enlightening.

---

6. Many Middle Eastern countries base their laws and social conduct on Islamic doctrine, and that seems to have been commented upon. Western laws and social conduct are based upon Christian doctrine. There are many atheists here levering their opinions of Islam against subsumed Christian principles, and they don't know they are doing it. It does not bode well for atheism that people cannot recognise the relative religious positions they are arguing from.

Much of Western law, governance, and social institutions are based on Enlightenment thinking and values.

Christianity does not support free speech, freedom of conscience, democracy, and on and on.

Christianity is more like Islam than not.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's a criticism of their thinking, which seems pertinent, to me. If someone's being hypocritical, then that necessarily undermines their point, don't you agree?

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is your assumption that "their" refers to some monolithic group for which this law primarily applies.

I'm not making that assumption. My use of "their", in this case, refers to those who are complaining about government interfering with clothing while in France but not in their home countries, which is certainly not all Muslims. My apologies for not being clearer.

In reality, however, this law limits the free expression of individuals who are undoubtedly as equally outraged at barbarism committed in the name of their religion as you are. I suspect this applies to the majority of those who choose to wear the niqab.

Perhaps. However, this law also provides those women who don't like to wear the niqab with a convenient excuse to exercise their own freedom of choice, rather than their husband's.

You're basically saying in equivalence that since there are a few crazy right-wingers who advocate violent action in the US, the government is justified in imposing law that specifically limits the liberties of all citizens with right-wing views.

No, I'm not. If you'd do me the favor of rereading my posts, you'll see that my support for this is based on the fact that criminals of all stripes use masks when carrying out robberies, and that I find banning those masks justified. You'll also find that I generally agree with the SCOTUS that the presumption of privacy in the public sphere is unsupported by common sense.

In short, I've specifically stated that I'm not in favor of singling out niqabs, but rather, all masks which hinder identification in the public sphere. I had thought I had made that obvious.

This is what governments do to expand their power over individuals all the time, targeting minorities first. The measure of freedom that exists in a society is noted by how minorities are treated, and in this situation, I think it is a step in the wrong direction for any liberal democracy.

Given that I'm am not advocating singling out the Muslim minnority, your point is nugatory.

I only meant that their standards, hypocritical or not, are irrelevant to ours.

We're in agreement here, then, for, as I've already stated, I don't think we should take anyone's standards as our own guideposts, but rather, we should formulate our own.

I still think it's entirely valid to point out hypocrisy, because thinking which is internally contradictory is almost always internally flawed.

[Minimalist]

They believe to be fulfilling what's right.

That's the problem with all believers, isn't it? They believe what they think is right.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Who are 'they'?

As noted above, "they" are those Muslims who would complain about the French law while giving their own countries a pass on the issue; and as noted above, I don't think that is a majority of the Muslims in France.

This complaint was brought by a French national about a French Law, the only 'they' in the discussion is the European Court of Human Rights who effectively established that in the absence of a unified position in the European Council, France could have its way.

I'm not addressing the case itself, but rather, public response to it.

It's not a 'distinction' that's 'important', it's just not relevant.

MM

Irrelevant to the court, surely. But this is a discussion board where folks opine, and my opinion is that it is fair to point out thinking which is internally contradictory. In the same way, I criticize my own country for "exporting democracy" while at the same time eroding our own rights, even though that is not pertinent to any active court case.

It's only my opinion. If you don't find it relevant, feel free to move on.

---

3. The law in question refers neither to Islam nor to veils, it prohibits the wearing of anything that hides the face, one assumes this will include other articles such as Halloween masks, face-paint, scarves, balaclavas, etc. (It will be interesting watching the French implement this one).

This is the crux of my support for it. Indeed, a few years back on Adam Lee's Daylight Atheism blog, I argued against the French law that was written specifically with religious headdress in mind, for exactly the reason that it was discriminatory.

[vorlon13]

While I am frequently encouraging Christians to legislate here in the US against people appearing in public wearing 'linsey woolseys', or rather clothing items made from different kinds of cloth, should they actually try it, I of course will take them to task for being medieval throwbacks.

Christians that want to wear clothing items of the same fabric are just fine with me, I like seeing them expending considerable time, effort and expense in doing so.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, I'm fine with outlawing Speedo-style swim trunks -- or the potbellies that typically depend above them.

[dimonautical]

So I love France expecially the women!

[Jacob(smooth)]

Just a thought from a pragmatic point of view. Lets say I'm an abusive, sexually insecure muslim man who coerces my wife into wearing a niquab so nobody else gets to see her. That's the kind of bastard I am, I want my wife downtrodden, dis-empowered etc. Then the gubbermint, heathen goddless swines that they are, pass a law which means I can't force her to wear the thing any more.

I'm probably not going to be any less abusive. At best I'll be suspicious and distrustful when she's out. At worst I'll just stop her leaving the house. It won't stop be being an abusive bastard or her being oppressed.

[pocaracas]

Just a thought from a pragmatic point of view. Lets say I'm an abusive, sexually insecure muslim man who coerces my wife into wearing a niquab so nobody else gets to see her. That's the kind of bastard I am, I want my wife downtrodden, dis-empowered etc. Then the gubbermint, heathen goddless swines that they are, pass a law which means I can't force her to wear the thing any more.

I'm probably not going to be any less abusive. At best I'll be suspicious and distrustful when she's out. At worst I'll just stop her leaving the house. It won't stop be being an abusive bastard or her being oppressed.

That sort of person is, sadly, a reality in every society... Muslim or otherwise.
But it seems to be more prevalent in Muslim societies... why?...
Maybe this sort of law will enlighten the next generation of French Muslims into being less abusive?... and the generation after that will be even less, perhaps?... a man can dream!

[Losty]

Lets say I'm an abused, sexually insecure muslim woman who is coerced by my husband into wearing a niquab so nobody else gets to see me. That's what this indoctrination has done to me, I feel downtrodden, dis-empowered. Then the government, passes a law which means not only that my husband can't force me to wear the thing any more, but I cannot even wear it on my own free will.

He's probably not going to be any less abusive. At best he'll be suspicious and distrustful when I'm out. At worst he'll try to stop me leaving the house. The law alone won't stop him being an abusive bastard or me being oppressed. The law may however, give me hope. I can leave the oppression of this religion and this marriage and I have an entire nation at my back. I have my government making a stand for me, telling me I don't have to be oppressed.