Constructive gadfly
Published on April 2, 2004 By stevendedalus In Current Events
 Multiculturalism is rapidly becoming questionable as a positive value. Witness France’s overwhelming support to ban conspicuous religious articles in its schools. Though motivated by Muslim girls wearing the hijab, it also bans the yarmulke and the crucifix. What with the French paranoia over the Catholic heritage that brought about their own separation of church and state a century ago [Laïcité], it is perhaps understandable if not forgivable. Still, I wonder if before 7% Muslims and on the rise, there was ever a problem when an overwhelming majority of kids came to school on Ash Wednesday with ashes on their foreheads? To be fair, however, it is but one day and not a daily display as the hijab, but then again so was the Janet Jackson display of another kind of day and perhaps of infamy.

Of course, our nation has always taken pride in diversity — what else, inasmuch as we are a nation of immigrants. Yet our schools have a history of instituting dress codes from time to time depending on fashion trends. In the sixties and seventies, disappointing boys’ inherent salaciousness, hot pants and extreme miniskirts were banned. Since Columbine, boy’s loose fitting clothes and shirt tails were essentially a matter of security. Not only private but some public schools are insisting on uniforms. However, this is not simply a matter of prohibiting trends or religious expression, as well as in France, but rather, a matter of distraction from study and possible causal agent for disruption. It is one thing for a teacher to court a green tie on St. Patrick’s Day, and quite another for one to wear a rag-head through out the school year. Even an ordained priest from a catholic university recruited as an adjunct professor in a public university is expected to wear civilian clothes.

Aside from my own personal taste that a woman’s hair is beauty to behold and my suspicion that a fundamentalist family insists the girl wears the headdress, the harm that hijab effects is primarily out of the low-level of religious tolerance. Multiculturalism is, I fear, causing more problems than it is worth. No salad bowl thank you; bring back the melting pot.

        

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: April 2, 2004.


Comments
on Apr 02, 2004
I can't say I understand what you mean by multiculturalism. It appears to me that what you are criticizing is secularism taken to extremes. The moves in France are controversial, but I don't think it is a phenomenon of multiculturalsim. Perhaps you are talking about a misinterpretations of multiculturalism. But I don't see how you can question the value of respecting other cultures as they are without condemnation. All cultures are worthy of praise and condemnation.

I think you are attacking the wrong thing. France's overt and possibly intrusive secularism is alarming to people, but it is in my opinion definitely not a reflection of multicultural values. However, it might just be fair to argue that they are trying to keep public schools out of the culture wars, considering how Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are in practice intolerant of other cultures.

Another point, if multiculturalism is what you are against, then why are France's moves repugnant to you? It appears they are trying to create a homogenous setting in their schools that is definitely not far from your idea of the melting pot
on Apr 02, 2004
Since the Hijab controversy have been highlighted, I have been explaining french position a lot. It seems that there is clearly a cultural misunderstandung between french and anglosaxon about that.

Historically, the french revolution start the the fight to separate state and religion. It might sounds weird to people that have just been knowing democracy, but monarchy is only justified by religion, because king are the representant of god. French republic is not against personnal belief but against the religion as an endoctrinement. Religion is considered as a personnalB] belief. not less, not more.

On another hand, public school is suposed to support citizenship, to form and provide the same education to all french, regardless their background, their class or religion. that's why religion is not accepted in school . because you are french before everything else.

If you look the number, France has both the highest jew and muslim community in europ. I don't think you could say it is because of too much secularism.

I know that anglosaxon struggle to get that, US and Uk are so much more religious than french, and consequeltly ideologic influence on state. I don't think that any french president could use vocabulary such as god, evil, good, and so and so... without being in big trouble...
on Apr 03, 2004

Lee, I don't think you understand me. I'm not criticizing the French positon at all. Considering the flood of Muslim immigrants they are doing what they have to do in order to keep order. The seed of the problem, however, is definitely multicultural but, aside from schools and government property, little can be done about it in a free society. Were it not for the influx of diversity, France would be perfectly content with the display of crosses in schools.

In this country there is far more diversity and as a result a national identity is at stake.

on Apr 05, 2004
I am a big fan of separating the state from personal belief. I think the approach France is taking will slowly spread to other institutions and other countries. I believe that any person who represents the state represents all the citizns of the state and as such should not overtly display religious or political affiliation. Where a religion requires a particular dress code the question should be asked why? Because it's my religion is not good enough. Why is it part of your religion? When did it become part of your religion? Why at that time did it become part of your religion? Is this answer then compatible with the secular laws and ethos of the state?

Paul.
on Apr 06, 2004
I think banning the hijab is a ridiculous move. Though it may be viewed by others as restrictive, it's a completely individual decision. Islam doesn't even really require it, as much as it prefers it among women who feel most comfortable to do so.
on Apr 06, 2004
The hijab is not banned. It's just not allowed in state secular schools. This is an important difference. Those schools are suppossed to be secular and so all religious symbolism has been removed from them.

Outside of those schools people are free to wear the hijab as they see fit.

paul.
on Apr 06, 2004
Schools are a hotbed of biggotry anyway. Paul pointed out the most important fact here....

you have inspired an article.

BAM!!!
on Apr 06, 2004
Steve,

Good article but no need to use terms like "rag-head". It's really unnecessary.

I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all response. The US has always put a premium on individual rights so banning people from wearing religious symbols goes against the grain. As Jepel noted, in France the history is different and the emphasis is on separating religion from the state. If the French want to go ahead with this ban (and there was a huge vote in favour in parliament) then that's fair enough. Tolerance is a two-way street, both immigrants and locals have to give a little.
on Apr 06, 2004
OG, I admit it was ill advised. Why is our heritage any different? Surely France believes in individual rights as well. As I mentioned in another blog the first amendment does not emphasize that relgion too should make no laws upon the government. 
on Apr 06, 2004
Sorry for the bold writing, I wantesd juste to higlight a few words but I did an obvious mistake

OG: You made better points that I did.

steven: france believe in individual right, may be differently than US, but we do.

Regarding history, church has been condiered with apprencion since revolution, but the separation from school date from 1905 with Jules Ferry. I consider writing a little article to clear this history. But in short, keeping church away from school was a way to prevent having to much power on the state. At this time, church was very far of being progressive and the left wing government was seeing the school has a way to enhance the nation as a whole. It made the school free and compulsory. Then realising that church was using school to promote its own agenda and to maintain itself as a powerful and influencial institution, they decided the separation.

Regarding individual right, I would say that religion must be embrase by choice and not because of your background and familly. After all, if you are going to follow values and a way of life. It might be better and more sincere for you to choose it in first place.

I'm atheist, I chosed it. I have nothing against religious people, to some extent I find them fascinating and sometime i envy their strong belief. But I want children to be able to become religious by conviction, not copying because they have to.

Finally, you can be a good muslim and not wearing beard or hijab, believe that faith is before inside and doesn't require to be demonstrated by a dress code. As OG say tolerance work both way and secularism in school has been around for 100 year, (except under german occupation), and had allow religious communities to develop independantly from school. Why should religious people be entitled the right to modify the secular republic just based on their belief?
on Apr 18, 2004
Do you still say the same thing now?!

Regards
Jenny

BTW, can anyone please / does anyone want to help me fight illegal online pharmacies?

A short while ago, the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) ruled that online pharmacies that provide so called "online doctor consultations / prescriptions" were illegal. I did not know, and ordered some medications from www.phentermine-gs.com. I now know why they are illegal (the owner I believe is an Iraqi Bath Party fund raiser, and they took my money only to fail to ship my medications, they said the physician declined me, and then it took a whole week to get my money back, they say it takes my bank that long to show refunds - I do not believe them!).

Anyway, they sell all manner of drugs which I believe they should not, for example (check this out) Diet Pills - I mean, what happens if a 12 year old girl with some desire to become a waif model and using her mom's credit card orders these pills? Because the doctor does not see the patient, I am sure it happens. What amazes me further that many of the slimming pills they sell are controlled drugs! For example, Phentermine AKA Adipex and Ionamin. Also other classified appetite suppressants such as Meridia, Bontril and Tenuate! But the worst of these obesity medications is Didrex, which I understand is a class 4 drug!!!! OK, one of their weight loss pills Xenical is a fat blocker, not an appetite suppressant. But just imagine it getting into the hands of someone with anorexic tendencies!

But they do not just sell diet pills, oh no! They also sell things like Viagra male impotence pills from Pfizer. I saw a report the other day linking Viagra to making men unable to have babies (or contribute to having babies). So I think a real doctor with the patient in front of them needs to prescribe such drugs, and only a real doctor! I mean, I heard that drugs like Zyban smoking cessation tablets and Propecia male pattern baldness pills have several nasty side effects. And Ultram pain relief capsules can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Also, what women in her right mind would want to order Ortho Tri-Cyclen Birth Control Pills from a medical web site?!

Even the skin creams they sell maybe harmful. I mean, you know how much pressure on teenagers there are these days. How many of them would love to get their hands on some Retin-A acne remover, Vaniqa facial hair remover and / or Renova skin wrinkle remover?

Do you see what I mean, it is wrong yes? Pease help me stop this illegal RX meds site and file a complaint against them with the DEA!
on Oct 14, 2004
The hijab issue shows that France instead of positively responding to minority presence is becoming insular and intolerant. I do not think that a school girl wearing a scarf is attacking the principle of church-state separation. In any case, France is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic and hence singling out the Mislims for such motivated attack seems to be a negation of the values of the French Revolution, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
Obviously, some are more equal than others in France.