Shave the State

In a freakish twist on the Taliban's beard mandate, the French education minister says beards fall under the mulled ban of displays of religious affiliation at state-run institutions.

Only slightly less bizarre is the claim advanced by Sikh activists that Sikh turbans are not, in fact, a manifestation of religious affiliation and thus should not be subject to the ban. The Socialists -- the Socialists mind you -- call it all a farce.

Please, make it stop.

Comments

[Jean Bart]

Why make it stop? The more the implications of the ban continue to unfold the better. What was robust political support a few weeks ago has collapsed. The government makes an unwise decision, or proposes one, people bitch, the proposal is modified or dropped.

[Jean Bart]

BTW, Claude Goasguen's decision to abstain from the vote was a deathknell for the proposed law. As I recall, two weeks ago I telling the crowd here how support for the ban was waivering.

[restive]

All choices have consequences -- if they go ahead with this ban and terrorist strikes occur in France -- they get what they deserve...

[Jean Bart]

restive,

He he he. You are so ignorant Terrorists have struck in France; in 1996 Paris was bombed for several months by Algerian terrorists. A similar thing occurred in the mid-1980s. Indeed, terrorists tried to drive a plane into a target in Paris in 1994; the attack was foiled and the terrorists killed. Americans are newborns in the fight against terrorism.

[Oh No!]

If "it" stops, won't H&R stop?

[Swamp Justice]

So "non-religious" beards are OK? Who determines whether which beards are religious symbols?

[B.P.]

No one deserves to get struck by terrorists, restive. Or is this a new take on the "root causes" of terrorism?

[Jean Bart]

Swamp Justice,

I have a feeling, given what they have already said publicly, that the Constitutional Council (similar but different from your Supreme Court) would send this packing even if it passes the Parliament (more doubtful by the day).

[anon]

R.C. Dean:

"Anything that exposes the fundamentally anti-liberty tendencies of much Muslim thought .."

R.C. your comment is right on the money. Muslim though tends to be anti-liberty unlike Christian thought which is ALWAYS pro-liberty (e.g., pro-choice on abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-child-molestation, etc.).

See, I can play that game too.

[Jason Ligon]

anon:

The point could be better made by specifying that there are a boat load of Muslim theocracies in the world, and not a lot of Christian ones (any?).

If the reverse were true, we would all be more concerned about Christianity.

[Gordon Shumway]

If beards are banned, does this mean the French govt will be subsidizing razors and shaving cream for all men? Won't the women be upset with this unfair benefit, at least the handful that shave as well?

[grylliade]

The point could be better made by specifying that there are a boat load of Muslim theocracies in the world, and not a lot of Christian ones (any?).

The Vatican, that I can think of. Not really a major state, but it's still a theocracy. Other than that, I can only think of a few historical examples (England under Cromwell, Calvin's Geneva, the Papal States again).

[deja]

When beards are criminalized only criminals will have beards?

[Andrew]

JB--

On the assumption that this thing is a non-starter, what do you think is the smartest thing for Chirac to do? Allow it to die quietly? Go down swinging? Publically reverse his position?

Apart from the Supremes, how does this interact with the EU constitution, which I assume contains provisions for freedom of expression and religious identity?

I had the impression you initially favored some form of the ban-- although you may merely have been at pains to establish that the debate was not as ridiculous as remote observers may have believed (which is my own feeling, BTW).

[Jean Bart]

Main Entry: the?oc?ra?cy
Pronunciation: thE-'?-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Greek theokratia, from the- + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1622
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy

Does that make the U.S. a theocracy? Given your President's invocation of God so often? 🙂

[mak_nas]

lol -- sometimes i wonder, jb.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

I have mixed feelings about the ban now, even though I originally supported it; but now that it has unravelled into this unending conundrum it is likely more of a problem than it is a solution.

Chirac should reverse his position at this point - domestically and internationally this has turned out to be a horrible, if innocent proposal; whether he will I can't say.

And no the debate is not as ridiculous as some appear to think; as much as I hate to "label" people, we've a distinct portion of Muslims who are a problem, and discerning what to do about them is for France (and the U.S.) is problematic.

Anyway, I am glad that this has come to pass; France has been needing to debate this issue (meaning Muslims in France) for a long time. I think the attack on the new prefect who is a Muslim is a perfect example of why we need this debate.

[Russ]

Note to Americans...

Pull some spare change out of your pocket. Read the inscription. Last I checked, every coin was mandated by law to declare that "IN GOD WE TRUST".

Now lets follow that up with a rousing rendition of "God Bless America" and pledge our allegiance to "...One Nation, Under God...".

On the bright side... your founding fathers were able to exercise enough freedom of thought to write a Constitution entirely devoid of any Divine references (save for the date, 1789 AD).

[fyodor]

Jean Bart,

Maybe you should also make Jews wear Stars of David in a prominent place in order to stimulate debate.

Oh yeah, 🙂

Russ,

Sure the motto on our coinage is an unfortunate vestige of theocracy that I think we can do without, but luckily, the words on my money can't tell me what to wear or not to wear. Unfortunate as those words are, they're still fairly inconsequential and a big difference from telling people how to dress and look.

[dhex]

russ: ahh, but therein lies the genius. don't say which god! it's like saying no god at all!

god's sorta like this catchall, a giant spiritual hamper in the middle of a vast field of dirty laundry.

besides, there just wasn't enough room for "cthulu"

[ed]

I printed teeny, tiny decals and applied them to the backs of one dollar bills. There is currency out there now that says "In Ed We Trust."

My way of sticking it to the invisible man.

[Dan]

Muslim though tends to be anti-liberty unlike Christian thought which is ALWAYS pro-liberty (e.g., pro-choice on abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-child-molestation, etc.).

That's a very oddly-written sentence. I gather that the "which is ALWAYS pro-liberty" is meant to be sarcasm; that much is clear.

However, you then go on to list both being "pro-choice" AND "pro-child-molestation" as examples of being "pro-liberty". Eh? If that's liberty, I'll pass. Maybe that was a bungled attempt at saying "Christians are pro-child molestation"? If so, that remark is about as sane and intelligent as "Jews use the blood of infants to bake their bread".

It's stupid to consider abortion a "liberty" issue, anyway. It's a definitional issue. Few "pro-choice" people believe women have the right to murder other human beings for their own convenience. Few "pro-life" people oppose removing an unwanted growth via surgery. Where the two sides differ is that one side defines fetuses as human beings and the defines them as unwanted growths.

If you believe that fetuses qualify as "human", then "pro-choice" advocates are apologists for genocide, and it is the "pro-life" advocates who are fighting for human life and freedom. If you believe, as I do, that fetuses do not qualify as "human", then "pro-choice" advocates are fighting for individual rights, and "pro-life" advocates are enemies of freedom.

Anyway -- it's certainly true (from a rational materialist perspective) that Christianity is "anti-liberty" in many ways. This in no way means it's even remotely as bad as Islam. Islam, today, is where Christianity was many centuries ago. If witch-burnings were still wildly popular in Christian nations, and bishops, cardinals, and popes regularly called for holy wars against the occupiers of the Holy Land, a case could be made that Christianity was as bad as Islam. This is not, however, the case. Give credit where credit is due; Christianity has come a long way. Islam hasn't.

[Dan]

Sure the motto on our coinage is an unfortunate vestige of theocracy that I think we can do without

Actually, "In God We Trust" motto was only added to the money during the Civil War, when an evangelical Christian named James Pollock was director of the US Mint; it appeared off and on on various coins over the years, and didn't become permanent until early in the 20th century. It didn't actually become the motto of the United States until the 1950s, as part of the same surge of anti-Communist religious sentiment that got "under God" stuck into the Pledge. It replaced the previous motto, "E Pluribus Unum".

So it's not really a vestige of theocracy; it's an artifact of a more modern groundswell of religious sentiment.

[fyodor]

Jean Bart,

Oh gawd. Yes, I was making a point, but it had nothing to do with France versus US. That's somebody else's dance, not mine. My point only concerned your own logic as expressed on this thread. Try figuring it out again.

[Russ]

While it's easy to be cavalier about it and dismiss the mottos on the coinage as "inconsequential", I challenge any politician to step up to the consequences of attempting to remove the "God" references from the money and the pledge. We'll see how long your political career lasts.

Face it. The US is already trudging its way along the road to theocracy, and the people seem to want it. To most people, it's only a theocracy if it's not Christian.

"May God continue to bless America. (Applause.)"

[BigPhil]

It has always seemed to me that god is poor basis for a monetary policy. How about

In macro-economics we trust!

[Dan]

I challenge any politician to step up to the consequences of attempting to remove the "God" references from the money and the pledge. We'll see how long your political career lasts.

A politician who proposed abolishing "Black History Month" would also find himself in a lot of trouble, politically. Is this evidence that we're on the road to an oligarchy of African-American Studies majors?

Little stuff like an "In God We Trust" motto or a Black History Month are just bones Congress throws to noisy constituencies. They tend to have few serious opponents, because generally speaking they really only matter to the supporters. The average white guy has better things to worry about than whether there's a black history month, and the average atheist has better things to worry about than what's written on pennies.

The US is already trudging its way along the road to theocracy, and the people seem to want it.

The United States is doing nothing of the kind. The country traditionally meanders back and forth between "religion plays a strong role in public life" and "religion plays a very minor role in public life". We're closer to the latter than the former, at the moment, although we are certainly moving in the direction of the former.

[Larry Edelstein]

It is truly silly to assert that the US is becoming a theocracy.

But anyway. Does the drama of the proposed ban herald a new discussion in France about the wisdom of its particular take on the separation of church and state?

It seems like it should. The proposed ban generates a contradiction: people are supposed to be able to observe their religion freely, but are forced to violate their religion when they interact in certain settings.

I assert that the philsophical underpinnings of the French state's separation are flawed, and that the generated contradiction is evidence. The American ideal of a government that tolerates all religions but privileges none seems much more sound. (That this ideal is violated at times does not change its soundness.)

But my understanding of the French philosophy is limited. Does anyone know a good place on the Net to debate the subject?

[AJMB]

I love the bit about Sikhs claiming that the turban is not a religious symbol. They wer using the exact OPPOSITE claim in order to avoid having to remove them in our Legion halls. LOL

[Duke of URL]

Last in here again

Everbody has forgotten that French schools like most others in Europe have SCHOOL UNIFORMS. There there are existing rules about what the pupils can wear to school
I well remember my high school days when wearing a "cap" to and from school was compulsory. The girls had some sort of 'boater'. There were other rules about hair length and jewellery etc
Of course this had nothing to do with education but plenty about weeding out non-conformists to a cultural hegemony. Hello taleban 1965.
The teachers had 'similar but different' rules about what they could wear. Most were required to have an academic gown for daily assembly which for those of short stature almost became a 'burqa'

[fyodor]

Re Russ's theocracy charge:

I hate it when people hyperbolize about issues I essentially agree with them about but their hyperbole makes me want to take the other side, and Russ's comments are a perfect example of that.

As a matter of fact, I'd just as soon drop all discussion of "theocracy" as being hopelessly vague and ultimately pointless. I only addressed Russ's comments to point out that a policy of prohibiting certain attires and types of personal appearance was a much more concrete and therefore reprehensible infringement on liberty than words on coinage, and I'll stick to that. (Allow me to also make clear to Jean Bart or anyone else who's interested that the point of origin of said policy is of no consequence to me. I'll challenge infringements on liberty wherever they're geographically based, and I'll challenge what I consider to be bad arguments regardless of the nationality of the protagonist. Okay? Whew, talk about make it stop...)

[fyodor]

the chance of this becoming law is diminishing daily

Tres bon!!!

[Isaac Bartram]

Duke of URL & AJMB

I recall in French classes in high school (in Australia) we were taught that french schools did not have uniforms. This was held to be a *bad* thing since it meant rich children wore good clothes while poor children wore rags, thus making them feel bad(yes this "damaging their self esteem" is not so new after all). This was not like Australian schools where rich children wore new tailor-made uniforms each year while poor children wore patched up ill fitting hand me downs. Yep couldn't tell 'em apart.

Now that was 40+ yrs ago, so things might have changed. Except I don't recall any uniforms at the lycee just up the street from my cousin's apt in Nice in 1997.

Another *bad* feature of the french education system (I learned) is that it is more rigourous and demanding. Apparently too much of a good thing is bad.

It is now time for M. Bart to correct the above:).

[fyodor]

Jean Bart,

Re (d) first, nah, I didn't mean to insult you, at least not personally, or perhaps I should say gratuitously, where that's your point and intention. Hell Jean Bart, I don't know you from Adam. I only intend to address what you or anyone here says. If anything I say comes across personal-like, well I apologize because I think attacking someone personally on a thread like this is dumb, boring and pointless. I'm here to debate.

Re (a), I plead guilty. I thought this proposal had taken effect. Still... well, I'll address the "still" part later...

Re (b) and (c), that's fallacious reasoning. Just because there are differences between two items (and there always will be, otherwise they couldn't be identified as separate and distinct items) does not negate the possibility that there may be still be similarities, and perhaps significant similarities, as well. (And BTW, I generally associate the practice I brought up with Nazi Germany; whle it makes sense when I think about it that this was done in Vichy France too, I wasn't actually aware of that (I suppose you would say I was "ignorant," which English speakers generally take to be an insult, BTW), and it was not my intention at all to finger France with that example, only to draw comparisons between government decrees over how people are allowed to dress.)

Okay back to the "still." I fully admit that I went a bit far if this has merely been proposed and has not been passed. Still, what would you think about someone reacting to a proposal to have separate water fountains for blacks and whites by saying, well at least it's brought up a good debate? Oh, I'm sure you can find differences between the two instances, and of course there are, but I think they're both policies are (or would be) pretty repressive, too.

[fyodor]

Uh, editing fart in that last sentence. Subtract "they're" or add "that," your choice! 🙂

[fyodor]

Oh, and change my the last phrase in my first sentence to read, "where that's one's point and intention." I was using the generic form of "you", not fingering you personally. Using the generic form of "one" would have made that clearer.

[AJMB]

Duke: Part of the whole uniform kick is the fact that it is often a cost saving thing for parents as well as a non-stigmatizer for those who can ill-afford the latest rags from Hilfiger. That, and the fact that it makes outsiders more recognizable, are some of the reasons I support uniforms in school. The conformity aspects are a vote against.

[Will Spencer]

As Libertarians, we should all agree that the rights of people to dress how they wish should be inviolable.

This should be as true for Muslims and Sikh's as it is for Mennonites and Amish and BDSM afficianados.