Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On 10 Sep 2005 02:45:42 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >Iceman wrote:
    > >
    > >> Which is understandable, since Muslims are economically and politically
    > >> marginalized in France, and many of them feel alienated from the
    > >> mainstream of French society.
    > >
    > >That seems to be their own choice, insisting on wearing veils,
    >
    > Odd that nobody has banned nuns from dressing the way they do in
    > Catholic schools.

I thought that Catholic schools were mostly private in France? They
wouldn't have been affected by the ban, just as a private muslim school
wouldn't be. That said, hardly any of the latter, though that might
change as a result of the ban- which you could argue is
counter-productive- i.e. when the aim is meant to be better integration.

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
photos at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:19:41 +0100, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
offy) wrote:

    >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On 10 Sep 2005 02:45:42 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >Iceman wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Which is understandable, since Muslims are economically and politically
    >> >> marginalized in France, and many of them feel alienated from the
    >> >> mainstream of French society.
    >> >
    >> >That seems to be their own choice, insisting on wearing veils,
    >>
    >> Odd that nobody has banned nuns from dressing the way they do in
    >> Catholic schools.
    >I thought that Catholic schools were mostly private in France? They
    >wouldn't have been affected by the ban, just as a private muslim school
    >wouldn't be.

Are you sure? I thought it was all schools.

    > That said, hardly any of the latter, though that might
    >change as a result of the ban- which you could argue is
    >counter-productive- i.e. when the aim is meant to be better integration.

The ban on traditional dress is a type of discrimination. If the aim
is really better integration, then it is misguided.
--
Martin

On 9 Sep 2005 13:04:34 -0700, "Iceman" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Which is understandable, since Muslims are economically and politically
    >marginalized in France, and many of them feel alienated from the
    >mainstream of French society.

This is just as much the fault of Muslims in France as anyone else. If
they don't integrate over time, they can expect to be marginalised.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Martin writes:

    > Odd that nobody has banned nuns from dressing the way they do in
    > Catholic schools.

Catholic schools are not operated or paid for by the state, and nobody
is required to attend them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
offy writes:

    > I thought that Catholic schools were mostly private in France?

All Catholic school are private; that's why they are called Catholic,
and not public.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Martin writes:

    > The ban on traditional dress is a type of discrimination.

The ban is on religious dress, not traditional dress. There is
nothing traditional about veils on the head or black garments that
completely conceal the body, anyway.

    > If the aim is really better integration, then it is misguided.

What would you suggest?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

DDT Filled Mormons writes:

    > This is just as much the fault of Muslims in France as anyone else. If
    > they don't integrate over time, they can expect to be marginalised.

Exactly.

Of course, there are many fully integrated Muslims in France. Nobody
notices them precisely _because_ they are fully integrated.

Overally, France is a secular state. Anyone with strong religious
beliefs and obvious religious practices will thus tend to be
marginalized, just as anyone who speaks only, say, Dutch will tend to
be marginalized (because the national language is French).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Martin wrote:

    > The ban on traditional dress is a type of discrimination. If the aim
    > is really better integration, then it is misguided.

The only prosecution I have seen reported is that of a Sikh who refused
to remove his turban. Apparently it's OK to wear a turban when you're
fighting in the French army, but not in a classroom.

As you say, it does seem misguided, but then it's not easy to see what
is the best way to integrate people who are dead set on not
integrating.

G;

On 10 Sep 2005 04:15:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

    >Martin wrote:
    >> The ban on traditional dress is a type of discrimination. If the aim
    >> is really better integration, then it is misguided.
    >The only prosecution I have seen reported is that of a Sikh who refused
    >to remove his turban. Apparently it's OK to wear a turban when you're
    >fighting in the French army, but not in a classroom.
    >As you say, it does seem misguided, but then it's not easy to see what
    >is the best way to integrate people who are dead set on not
    >integrating.

Leave them alone and don't make the next generation hate their country
of birth? It always worked in the past.
--
Martin

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

    >> If the aim is really better integration, then it is misguided.
    >
    > What would you suggest?

Just let people wear what the hell they want to and not make a fuss
about it.

Regards

--
Bitte komplettieren Sie selbst.


http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de

Martin writes:

    > Leave them alone and don't make the next generation hate their country
    > of birth? It always worked in the past.

Actually, no, it has not.

The next generation never hates its country of birth by default.
Allowed to follow natural tendencies, young people always tend to join
the mainstream--that is, they integrate. The only time they do not do
so is if their elders force a different, foreign culture upon them, in
order to _prevent_ them from integrating.

It has nothing to do with what the society does, and everything to do
with what parents do.

Some immigrants (notably immigrants from the Far East, in my
experience) tend to encourage their offspring to learn the national
language of their new home, and may even forbid them to speak the
language of the "old country." With this and other policies, they
insure that new generations are almost completely integrated within a
single generation. But some other immigrants (notably immigrants from
Arab societies, in France) do just the opposite, forbidding their
offspring from joining the mainstream, and forcing the ways of the old
country upon them. These children grow up outcast, unintegrated, and
bitter, and cause problems and unhappiness for themselves and society.

When fifteen-year-old girls are killed in France for "wanting to be
French," it's not the state or society that does the killing ... it's
their own families.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

    > Just let people wear what the hell they want to and not make a fuss
    > about it.

Such as Gestapo uniforms? What if they don't want to wear anything at
all, and wish to come to school nude? What if they want to wear
spacesuits?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Martin writes:
    > > Leave them alone and don't make the next generation hate their country
    > > of birth? It always worked in the past.
    > Actually, no, it has not.
    > The next generation never hates its country of birth by default.
    > Allowed to follow natural tendencies, young people always tend to join
    > the mainstream--that is, they integrate. The only time they do not do
    > so is if their elders force a different, foreign culture upon them, in
    > order to _prevent_ them from integrating.
    > It has nothing to do with what the society does, and everything to do
    > with what parents do.
    > Some immigrants (notably immigrants from the Far East, in my
    > experience) tend to encourage their offspring to learn the national
    > language of their new home, and may even forbid them to speak the
    > language of the "old country." With this and other policies, they
    > insure that new generations are almost completely integrated within a
    > single generation. But some other immigrants (notably immigrants from
    > Arab societies, in France) do just the opposite, forbidding their
    > offspring from joining the mainstream, and forcing the ways of the old
    > country upon them. These children grow up outcast, unintegrated, and
    > bitter, and cause problems and unhappiness for themselves and society.
    > When fifteen-year-old girls are killed in France for "wanting to be
    > French," it's not the state or society that does the killing ... it's
    > their own families.

Mixi in "talking sense" shock.

Many moons ago, in a far-off country, I taught English to immigrants to
the US from Latin America (you know - the ones everyone calls Mexican,
but in fact came from Guatemala when Uncle Sam destroyed their
country). A lot of these people were distressed because their children
had learned English and REFUSED to speak Spanish, so their parents
couldn't communicate with them.

G;

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

    > Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
    >
    >> Just let people wear what the hell they want to and not make a fuss
    >> about it.
    >
    > Such as Gestapo uniforms?

Everyone will think they're shooting a WW2 movie.

    > What if they don't want to wear anything at
    > all, and wish to come to school nude?

Devout muslims are unlikely to. Otherwhise they'll not survive winter,
so the problem will be gone after a year at best.

    > What if they want to wear
    > spacesuits?

They'll suffocate before they get to school.

Regards

--
Bitte komplettieren Sie selbst.


http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 21:39:50 +0200, in rec.travel.europe, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :

... On 9/09/05 16:11, in article
... [email protected] om, "Iceman"
... <[email protected]> wrote:
...
... > Strictly observant Jews can't have McDonald's hamburgers for two
... > reasons: (1) they cook pork and dairy products on the same grills as
... > beef,
...
... What pork or diary products do they grill at all??
...
...
... > and (2) the cows that the beef comes from are not slaughtered by
... > the kosher procedure.
...
... That is true. This is true for Halal also.
...
... However, many Jews and Moslem are not that observant. But they will not
... eat pork.

That's good news - more is left for the rest of us. :))