As Bentham famously said, natural rights is "simple nonsense". There are no 'rights' which appear in nature (as if given by 'god'). Rights are given and taken away by government.

@ pastoralan - and yet even so freedom of religion means that it's not a problem. I'm still protected by my rights, even if I don't believe in the supposed creator of them. Also that only applies to the US. I doubt that a religious figure is credited with providing rights in France, since they're so big on lacite. (right?)

Let me give you an analogy. Just as many Islamic fundamentalists believe that female modesty is important and thus believe that women should wear niqabs, many christian fundamentalists believe that abstaining from sexual activity until marriage is necessary (though it's not actually required by the bible, and many clerics will tell you it's not necessary). Now Christian fundamentalism is also linked with a movement that supports creating a christian theocracy, (which would be a threat to the French way of life). But abstinence until marriage is just the tip of the iceberg. The real threat is christian fundamentalism. Therefore to prevent Christian fundamentalism taking over the country, premarital sex is mandatory.
Ridiculous right? For any number of reasons. Here are a few:
1) Just because you believe in abstinence until marriage doesn't mean you necessarily believe in a christian theocracy. Just because you believe one thing, doesn't mean you believe everything associated with it.
2) Even if you do believe in abstinence and theocracy, doesn't mean that forcing you to have premarital sex will make you abandon your commitment to theocracy.
3) Just because abstinence is part of christian fundamentalism, how does the act (or rather non-act) of practicing abstinence, taken in isolation, actually threaten France?
4) You can't force people to have sex. That's an affront to human dignity, having the government tell people what they must or must not do with their bodies.

Finally, even if none of those points were valid, Christian fundamentalism is STILL protected under freedom of religion. You're allowed to believe that the government should be replaced by a theocracy. You're allowed to express that view. You're even allowed to demonstrate in favour of it, as long as you follow all relevant laws. You're even allowed to try and make it happen. The only thing you're not allowed to do, is SUCCEED.

Why are we assuming that everyone who wears a niqab believes the same thing, is an "Islamist" and wants to threaten the French way of life?
What difference will it make to their beliefs if they're not allowed to practice them?
How does being allowed to wear a niqab in and of itself threaten anything?
And what right does the government have to tell people how they can dress?
And finally why are we willing to concede all these points for Christians, but not for Muslims?

Your analogy doesn't work, though.

For one, niqabs present a obvious problem for security. Veiled women refuse to be identified when receiving public services. Terrorists have been known to flee while wearing niqabs. Cheating on tests has been known to happen through the use of niqabs. The clothing is a bigger issue than what you claim it is, as is evident from the fact that numerous Muslim countries, even conservative ones like Kuwait, have restricted its usage.

Second, abstinence-only education is a belief, not a behavior. In order to be implemented, you need control of the government at some level. You do not need control of the government in order to imprison women through the niqab. The solution to the abstinence-only education issue is not to mandate pre-marital sex, but to have the government support comprehensive sex education. You're once again making your opponent's argument as ridiculous as possible in order to score points here.

Third, you talk as if the only possible threat that can come from fundamentalism is if fundamentalists control the government - that there couldn't be other threats from the fact that fundamentalists have increased autonomy over their own affairs. For example, fundamentalists can set up separate Islamic courts dealing with marriage, women's rights, divorce, child welfare, and whatnot. They do not need majority control, all they need is a government that kowtows to their every whim or else is accused of violating their so-called 'religious freedom'.

On the issue of whether or not the ban will push people away from fundamentalism. Perhaps not, but it will put the state in the way of those who harass women into abiding by this pre-medieval dress code. It will signal to the Salafis that liberal societies will not turn a blind eye to their efforts to Islamify and radicalize the Muslim populations within those societies. It will tell people that they either make an honest effort to integrate into society, or they will be turned away from public services. We'll whether or not people put their fundamentalism before their economic needs.

"How does being allowed to wear a niqab in and of itself threaten anything?"

I already mentioned this. The niqab poses substantial security risks.
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTQwMTY5MzI5Mg==

"And what right does the government have to tell people how they can dress?"

The government is under no obligation to provide public services to those who openly reject the values the government represents. The government has an obligation to protect public safety, to which as I already said, the niqab presents a substantial threat. Governments implement dress requirements for usage of public facilities all the time, and I fail to see why this is any different.

"And finally why are we willing to concede all these points for Christians, but not for Muslims?"

Christians do not have these excessive "requirements" that the state is pressed to accommodate for the most part. Furthermore, while Christian extremism is a problem in America, it really isn't a problem in Europe. I have never ever heard of Christian fundamentalist groups running around in France or anywhere else in Europe. This is a case, again, of false equivalence. Pretending that the problem is the same for all religions, when it is not. I agree that more needs to be done to curb the problem posed by Christian fundamentalism (especially as it relates to their systematic use of terrorism against women's clinics in the US). And if you'll recall, this whole debate started because I said that Christian prayer groups need to be banned from public schools.

As for whether it is true that women who wear the niqab or burqa are fundamentalist, that's like saying that we don't know if Christians who claim that gays should be executed are fundamentalist. The fact is only Salafi teachings of the Hadith interpret it to mandate that any showing of the female body is disallowed. How can this be anything but an extremely conservative interpretation? What on earth could be liberal about the niqab, a garment that's sole purpose is to eliminate a woman's personality and cover her body in a tent because it's a woman's responsibility to defend herself from predatory men?

My analogy wasn't in education. My analogy was the act of abstinence itself. But that's neither here nor there.

"For example, fundamentalists can set up separate Islamic courts dealing with marriage, women's rights, divorce, child welfare, and whatnot." - We don't have to allow that. That's clearly unconstitutional. FOR THE LAST TIME PUTIN just because we're allowing people to wear pieces of cloth on their head, if they wish, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO ALLOW ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING A RELIGIOUS PERSON ASKS FOR. You keep acting like it does. That's ridiculous and was part of my point, in the analogy you so blithely dismiss.

But the biggest issue I take with your reply is this "As for whether it is true that women who wear the niqab or burqa are fundamentalist, that's like saying that we don't know if Christians who claim that gays should be executed are fundamentalist." - You've basically just claimed that you can speak for the religious beliefs of every single last woman on earth, who wears a burqa or a niqab, that must be hundreds of thousands of people at the very least, if not millions, and you're speaking for their beliefs. Every last one of them. Think about that. My point in the analogy is that you wouldn't dare try to speak for the entirety of religious beliefs of every single Christian teen wearing one of those abstinence rings, and yet you have no trouble doing that with Muslim women who wear niqabs?

"Veiled women refuse to be identified when receiving public services." - This is patently untrue. In Canada niqab wearing women simply remove their veils in order to be identified and then put them back on once the identification is complete.

Finally Putin you completely missed the point of my analogy. I wasn't saying that Christians are a huge threat and are trying to take over France, it was a hypothetical, or possibly even counter factual, if you prefer, analogy meant to illustrate a point. Not a statement outlining something that was actually happening. Also I take issue with the claim that Islamists want to take over France. Absurd.

"We don't have to allow that. That's clearly unconstitutional. FOR THE LAST TIME PUTIN just because we're allowing people to wear pieces of cloth on their head, if they wish, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO ALLOW ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING A RELIGIOUS PERSON ASKS FOR. You keep acting like it does. That's ridiculous and was part of my point, in the analogy you so blithely dismiss. "

Yes, but your point was that Islamism poses no threat so long as they do not control the government or are capable of implementing policy. I was pointing out that that's not true. Second, I'm having a hard time divining where you draw the line on your support for 'religious freedom'. So to say it's clear that "we don't have to do this" is not true either. Why can't Muslims invoke "religious freedom" in these other cases as well? Where is the line?

"My point in the analogy is that you wouldn't dare try to speak for the entirety of religious beliefs of every single Christian teen wearing one of those abstinence rings, and yet you have no trouble doing that with Muslim women who wear niqabs?"

Abstinence rings aren't as extreme as full body coverings with eye slits. But I'd venture to guess that 95% of people to wear them are very conservative Christians. In the case of niqabs, I'd say the percentage is more like 99.99999999999%. Find me a non-Salafi who wears the niqab, and I'll accept your point. But really, it's not as if I'm the only person who associates this garment with extremely conservative interpretations of Islam. The Islamic world does. A point you continue to dismiss, I might add.

"This is patently untrue. In Canada niqab wearing women simply remove their veils in order to be identified and then put them back on once the identification is complete."

I provided you links which say otherwise. Ignored, yet again.

" I wasn't saying that Christians are a huge threat and are trying to take over France, it was a hypothetical, or possibly even counter factual, if you prefer, analogy meant to illustrate a point."

No kidding, which is why your analogy doesn't work. You keep on harping on this idea that Muslims are being unfairly singled out and this treatment somehow isn't being applied equally, while ignoring the fact that not all religious groups pose the same problem for the state. So, if you acknowledge that Christian fundamentalists are a non issue in France, why bring it up? You continue to pretend that I have some kind of pro-Christian anti-Muslim bias. As I said numerous times now, this whole debate began because I was talking about Christians in public schools.

"Also I take issue with the claim that Islamists want to take over France. Absurd."

Good thing I never said any such thing. Stop inventing arguments I never made, thanks.