Well...the title...

But we're far past that now, aren't we?

I mean what can be said about Glenn Beck leaving. There's not really much to discuss.

Any of the ones that isn't "Is Putin or SantaClausowitz" the bigger jerk?", really. I'm not terribly picky.

I do have this to say about the banning of the hijab in France though. The fact that they applied it equally so therefore the ban is "neutral" is kind of a canard (an intentionally misleading but technically true argument) really. It was designed to target Muslims, and it effects them much much more than Christians or Jews. To give an analogy, it's similar to the "Literacy Tests for Voting" used in the south up till the '60s. Yes, technically whites could be barred from voting on the basis of failing one of those tests, but the intent and effect was that blacks by and large were prevented from voting. Even if the policy made no reference to people of any specific religion, it was still blatantly and inexcusably racist. To argue that a law that bans "conspicuous religious displays" is neutral, is absurd. No one (or virtually no one) interprets the bible as saying that Christians must at all time carry enormous rosaries. But many Muslims feel that wearing hijabs, or niqabs or burqas is important to their religious identity.

If a Frenchwoman goes to Saudi Arabia, can she refuse to wear a covering? Why isn't that "racist" or culturally insensitive? It's obnoxious to me that every country has to cater to the high demands of devout Muslims but there is no effort whatsoever to cater to non-Muslims among the many rich or well-off Muslim countries who could easily do so. In fact quite the opposite, non-Muslims often find themselves attacked and nobody says boo about it. Hell, Turkey is usually rewarded for it.

I don't support or applaud regimes that conduct themselves that way. Doesn't justify France's racism either though. Whining "but Maaaaaaaaaafia...Saudi Arabia is the one who started it!" doesn't cut an awful lot of ice with me.

Start what? France has every right to do this. Laws always affect some and not others.

It's important to my religion to swim butt naked, but when I do this down at the community pool, you would not believe the fuss it causes! ;P

But only a small minority of French Muslims even bother to wear the niqab. So obviously this isn't a widespread cultural practice among them. It in fact seems to only be worn by hardline Muslims. States have a right to decide what their cultural practices are, otherwise why bother to even have states at all? The extreme Muslims shouldn't dictate policy on public religiosity anymore than French secularists should dictate Saudi Arabia's policy.

" To give an analogy, it's similar to the "Literacy Tests for Voting" used in the south up till the '60s. Yes, technically whites could be barred from voting on the basis of failing one of those tests, but the intent and effect was that blacks by and large were prevented from voting."

I would say the analogy doesn't quite work, unless the people who are wearing hijabs in France are people who are 3rd, 4th, 5th generation French. African Americans aren't/weren't immigrants. They were American citizens specifically targeted by the state for disenfranchisement. So I don't see how the two are exactly equivalent here. France has held Laicite as a longstanding cornerstone of French society for decades before large-scale immigration to France. One can easily see how the French are simply enforcing a constitutional principle before public religiosity becomes unmanageable and undermines the French way of life.

@ fiedler
"Start what? France has every right to do this." - No it doesn't. At least not if french citizens are guaranteed the right to free exercise of their religion.
If your hypothetical religion actually existed accommodations would have to be made. You'd probably be directed to nudist institutions or something.

"Laws always affect some and not others." - Naturally, but I'm not just saying that like, any law with incidental implications for one group and not another should not exist, but when laws are written as ostensibly neutral and applicable to everyone, but really specifically designed to take advantage of that fact that target one group in particular, THAT is unacceptable and racist.

But why should I have to do it in an "instituition"??? I want to wave it with pride in public! :D What's the diff Mafia?

So, if all the muslims in the world decided that it was mandatory for all muslim women to be bare-breasted all the time, then by your logic the laws against public nudity would then be 'racist' against muslims?

(note: bare breasts excellent idea, add age restriction 16-30 yrs and write to parliament)

and point of order: Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity.

"But only a small minority of French Muslims even bother to wear the niqab. So obviously this isn't a widespread cultural practice among them. It in fact seems to only be worn by hardline Muslims." - Civil rights (including free exercise of religion and freedom from discrimination on the basis of national origin) should protect everyone, not just people who are more or less in the mainstream.

"States have a right to decide what their cultural practices are" - Really? The state does? Not the people living in the state? How then do cultural practices evolve? The reality of the situation is that people decide what cultural practices are. The state then follows suit. Not the other way 'round. Except in the most authoritarian of regimes.

"I would say the analogy doesn't quite work, unless the people who are wearing hijabs in France are people who are 3rd, 4th, 5th generation French." That is a salient point, however I would argue that any policy based on the principle of favouring people with ancestry in the country is itself an inherently racist and problematic principle as well. People can't control where they are born, and to say, "well if you don't want to be a second class citizen don't leave the country of your birth", is not an acceptable counter argument. We all know there is a much better life to be made in Western Europe and North America than in many other countries in the world. Why should some people have to struggle to achieve that, while we benefit from that simply because we were lucky enough to be born here.

"One can easily see how the French are simply enforcing a constitutional principle before public religiosity becomes unmanageable and undermines the French way of life." - If France is really going to a liberally democratic republic, then public displays of religiosity should not be antithetical to the french way of life. If it is that means that the french way of life in inherently biased against minority religious groups.

"So, if all the muslims in the world decided that it was mandatory for all muslim women to be bare-breasted all the time, then by your logic the laws against public nudity would then be 'racist' against muslims?" Well not to nitpick but technically (at least in Canada) toplessness is legal for both men and women.

Secondly I suppose I'd argue that as long as there's an idea of some sort that public displays that can be construed as sexual or obscene are in some way harmful to people, the harm principle comes into effect. But if you're going to argue that a veil is obscene, I don't think you'd get a lot of support in that.

"and point of order: Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity." - Point taken, but Islam tends to coincide with a variety of minority group ethnicities to a degree that cannot be dismissed as irrelevant or as purely coincidental. The overlap is systematic. So yes, I suppose in places where I've said "racist" I really mean, "anti-a-specific-religion", but really prejudice against muslims is a prejudice against people who come from elsewhere and have different cultural practices. I call that racism, let's not split hairs.

@Mafia - targetting a religion is not racist. There is no "Muslim" race. I'm not saying I disagree with you that cloaking a law intended to target a subset of the population by making it apply to all aspects of that distinguishing factor (in this case religion) is wrong. It is wrong. I'm just saying that throwing around the racist word for something which is actually religious bigotry is incorrect.

You are correct Draugnar in calling me out about that, but the point I'm trying to make here is that I think basing the entire discussion around religious practices is yet another cloak to hide the more deep seated prejudice which actually is oriented against people who come from other places in the world, people who are not white, and who do not have the same culture and language and just way of existing as white people. Prejudices that really actually do conform to the strict definition of "racism".

However I don't think I have the time and energy to go into a rigorous defense of that rather more radical argument here. Nor do I think doing so is necessary to adequately condemn the position of the French government on the matter. So in the interests of moving things forward, I concede the point that racism and prejudice against religion are not the same thing, and that really what I'm referring to here is the latter rather than the former, and I hereby would ask everyone to replace any instances of the word "racism" in my posts with some appropriate variant of "prejudiced against religion".

@mafia - damn you and you're mature and reasonable reply! Now I have to rack my brain.....

Ah! Perhaps the veil is not literally obscene, but perhaps it is a tool of an extreme form of a religion, that *is* obscene to the French and western ideas of the rights and potentials of women. In case you need reminding, in the west women have rights and opportunities (not as much as they would like, but there's really no pleasing them), in many other parts of the world, and particularly the islamic world, the treatment of women is 'obscene' and 'harmful', in the western view.

So perhaps instead of seeing the banning of the veil as some 'horrendous violation', perhaps the french have some right to stick up for their own values? It is their country after all. And when I say french, I mean all kinds of french, not just what you imagine to be whitey oppressing darkie. This bill was democratically passed.

"in Canada toplessness is legal for both men and women" - best thing I have ever heard about Canada! Thanks.

"Ah! Perhaps the veil is not literally obscene, but perhaps it is a tool of an extreme form of a religion, that *is* obscene to the French and western ideas of the rights and potentials of women." Muahahahahahahahahhahahaa!!!!!! You've played right into my hands. I was waiting for someone to make that argument.
Now before I make my counter argument I want to make one thing perfectly and absolutely clear. Middle eastern regimes, and really any regimes, which treat women as not the equals of men are deplorable, and I cannot and do not support them in that. And you're correct. In the Islamic world, the treatment of women really is obscene and harmful. I would never argue otherwise. That being said, the argument that banning the niqab as a way to protect women's rights is extremely problematic. That argument is based on a view of Muslim women that denies them any agency of their own. The truth is, women who wear veils and such do so, not just because the men in their life have told them to, or because they are blank slates onto which religious strictures are imposed. They do it because it has meaning for them. It is important for them to demonstrate the modesty that their religious beliefs require of them. Now those beliefs may be problematic, but to "protect" these women by saying to them, your religious beliefs are crap, I know what's best for you, is as best misguided and paternalistic and since I'm feeling charitable I'll say "accidentally" misogynist.

Are you.....are you joking?

As Putin said before, maybe you should get on a jet and visit jolly arab land as a woman (get sex change op if necessary), and see what happens if you don't dress modestly.

My god. At best you're one hell of an optimist.

Again, just because Arab countries behave a certain way doesn't give us license to behave that way too.
Secondly I think you're relying too heavily on common stereotypes of Arab culture rather than reality. Yes, it is very biased, and sexist and misogynist. But that doesn't mean the women there don't make decisions for themselves. And even when norms for dress and such are socially imposed that doesn't mean that they lack meaning for the people who practice them. I realize also, that there are of course cases of women who really don't want to wear niqabs, but are forced to. I wasn't denying that, and when that does happen, it is bad. But there are also cases of women who wear niqabs to whom it really is important that they do so. And at the end of the day it's not a lot better to tell them "You're absolutely forbidden to dress this way" than it is to tell them "You absolutely must dress this way."

Ah, I see where the misunderstanding comes from. The statement "The truth is, women who wear veils and such do so, not just because the men in their life have told them to, or because they are blank slates onto which religious strictures are imposed. They do it because it has meaning for them. It is important for them to demonstrate the modesty that their religious beliefs require of them." should actually read, "The truth is, many of the women who continue wear veils and such even after they immigrate to countries which do not legally require it, do so, not just because the men in their life have told them to, or because they are blank slates onto which religious strictures are imposed. They do it because it has meaning for them. It is important for them to demonstrate the modesty that their religious beliefs require of them." - Does that make my argument clearer?

It's a tool of oppression. To say women want to wear it is a positive spin into the ridiculous. How the hell are you supposed to participate in society when people can't even see your face? I suppose you would say "they don't want to participate in society". Well maybe they are brainwashed. Maybe a bit of paternalism isn't always a terrible thing. Again, France has a right to make it's own laws reflect it's own values.

"To say women want to wear it is a positive spin into the ridiculous." - My goal is not to justify wearing niqabs. I'm not saying this is unequivocally a good thing. I'm trying to show that the issue is more nuanced than most people are willing to admit. I wouldn't say that women wearing niqabs don't want to participate in society. I'd say that they manage to participate despite not showing their faces. I've seen women in niqabs (not often of course, but I've seen them) out in public, shopping, banking, running errands, talking to people. I'd say they're participating in society. I'm not saying there isn't an element of oppression there, but to combat that you shouldn't just ban the things that they've been raised to consider important. After all who's to say that's less meaningful than the things that you've been raised to consider important?
And in response to the claim that women are brainwashed, I'd ask: what's the difference between brainwashing and being raised to behave certain ways? Apparently the distinction is whether or not it's the same way you were raised. If someone conforms to the norms you're used to, they've been raised to behave that way, but if they're different they've been "brainwashed".

Perhaps you should consider the psychological effect of being raised to hide yourself completely from everyone, forever. That is FRIGGED UP, don't you think? Do you have an identity if no-one is able to recognise you?

Perhaps instead of sitting on your high horse of universal liberal values (non-white countries excused by mafia of course), you might consider what it is like to be a woman raised in such an environment?

fiedler, I begin to worry you are perhaps not listening to what I'm saying. Of course there are effects. There are always effects. I've tried to make this clear more than once, you seem to not be listening so I'll say it in all caps. I HAVE NEVER ONCE ARGUED THAT WEARING A VEIL IS A GOOD THING. Just to be sure you got that, I will repeat it, in a slightly different way. I AM AWARE THAT NIQABS AND OTHER SUCH GARMENTS ARE PROBLEMATIC AND ARE BASED ON A SYSTEM WHICH IS VERY SEXIST, AND ARE THEREFORE BAD THINGS. Is this clear now? Good. What I'm arguing, and this is also important so I'll say it in all caps too is that INTRODUCING RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL PREJUDICE IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO FIGHT SEXISM. Finally the entire take home message THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX ISSUE AND SIMPLY BANNING ONE ASPECT WE FIND PROBLEMATIC WILL JUST LEAD TO OTHER PROBLEMS.

And as a rebuttal, unless there's something you're not telling me, I would imagine you're not really in a position to know what it's like to be a woman raised in a strictly Islamic country, any more than I am. But I'm trying to come at the issue in a way that is mindful of cultural difference while still keeping my own values in mind as well. With all due respect it seems to me you're simply looking at it from the perspective of a North American and/or Western European without any regard for the fact that there are other ways of looking at the world.

Finally I have to respond to your parenthetical statement that I am excusing or pardoning non white countries, because that is an especially egregious case of you ignoring all the nuances of my argument and just making me an absurd straw man. I've tried to make it clear, again, and again, and again that I'm not defending the countries which impose religious practices on their citizens. I am not defending oppressive middle eastern regimes. I am aware that these countries are oppressive and misogynist and sexist. I have never said they are not. I agree with you. They are. But what I'm saying is, that simply banning certain Muslim religious practices in the name of feminism or western values or whatever have you, is simply more imposition of values. At what point do Muslim women get to make decisions without people legislating what they are and are not allowed to wear. In Saudi Arabia by law their ability to live their lives as they see fit is completely curtailed by religion. And then they come over and suddenly their ability to practice their religion as they see fit is curtailed by our attempts to get them to live the rest of their lives as they see fit? How is that a solution, coercing people in the name of giving them freedom? No. There has to be a better way.

Or perhaps to generalize a little more, I guess what I'm saying is, how can you expect to integrate socially with people, when you refuse to be respectful of the fact that they hold different beliefs from you, and consider different things important. How do you expect to open a dialogue with someone, when your opening line is "The only reason you do the things you do, is because you don't know any better. But trust me, I know what's good for you."?

yes the record does indeed speak for itself

@ Santa - What was that comment in reference to? I'm afraid I don't follow.