Comments on: thinly veiled http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2010/07/13/thinly-veiled/ exciting, informative, snarky, and very likely fabricated tales of life as an american expat in london Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:06:21 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: blues http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2010/07/13/thinly-veiled/comment-page-1/#comment-4370 blues Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:15:57 +0000 http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/?p=3113#comment-4370 You so eloquently put into words exactly how I feel about this issue. It's something I've spoken about many times with Spanish people who definitely lean towards the French way of viewing this. I think as Americans we have a real problem with the state imposing their will over how we will dress and whether or not we will choose to wear religious symbols, the feminist issue aside. The Free Exercise clause allows us to express our individual religiosity in any public setting and this goes so deep into what it means to be free as Americans. In France, though, the state is seen as protector of the people from religious influences - the only one compulsory association that may be manifested in a public setting is the French nationality. It's as if any other signs of identification are viewed as a threat to French nationality and people are effectively stripped of this expression of individualism. They coat this in feminist rhetoric but it is what it is. Here in Spain, where religion is synonymous with Catholicism, the debate is quite different, and mostly Muslims here that argue in favor of allowing the headscarf don't want religion to enter the public sphere in a new and different way, they simply want religion here to be redefined as a plural phenomenon. For example, in schools, Muslims are requesting that a place for them be made in a system which already accommodates one religion fully. We have a tendency in the West to categorize those whose definition of religion entails more than what is relegated to the private sphere as radical fundamentalists instead of seeing them as people who belong to a culture whose concept of religion is not cross-culturally translatable to our understanding. Whether or not these indicate an incapacity on behalf of secularists to comprehend other cultures or the incapacity of the religiously devout to accept religion as a private element of life depends on where one stands culturally and ideologically. Many Muslim groups, like many Christian groups, are fundamentally at odds with many current notions of the public/private divide that is inherent to many Western nations. They cannot enter the public realm and leave their religion at the door because their religion is a way of life and cannot be kept to the closed doors of their homes. Women that adhere to this religious law can't just leave their headscarves behind when they walk into a public building without completely changing their cultural views about what religion is and means. It can't just be brushed aside as radical fundamentalist notions, a quick fix to a discriminatory practice engaged in by women against women. As a woman, it bothers me to see them covered as well and it's difficult to understand, but for me it's a matter of the lesser of two evils. But I find it really interesting that a group of people that are accused of being incompatible with modernity, democracy and secular culture engage a discourse of freedom, democracy, and equality in this debate and it really makes you have to look a little deeper than the surface on this. Thanks again for an interesting post! You so eloquently put into words exactly how I feel about this issue. It’s something I’ve spoken about many times with Spanish people who definitely lean towards the French way of viewing this. I think as Americans we have a real problem with the state imposing their will over how we will dress and whether or not we will choose to wear religious symbols, the feminist issue aside. The Free Exercise clause allows us to express our individual religiosity in any public setting and this goes so deep into what it means to be free as Americans. In France, though, the state is seen as protector of the people from religious influences – the only one compulsory association that may be manifested in a public setting is the French nationality. It’s as if any other signs of identification are viewed as a threat to French nationality and people are effectively stripped of this expression of individualism. They coat this in feminist rhetoric but it is what it is. Here in Spain, where religion is synonymous with Catholicism, the debate is quite different, and mostly Muslims here that argue in favor of allowing the headscarf don’t want religion to enter the public sphere in a new and different way, they simply want religion here to be redefined as a plural phenomenon. For example, in schools, Muslims are requesting that a place for them be made in a system which already accommodates one religion fully.

We have a tendency in the West to categorize those whose definition of religion entails more than what is relegated to the private sphere as radical fundamentalists instead of seeing them as people who belong to a culture whose concept of religion is not cross-culturally translatable to our understanding. Whether or not these indicate an incapacity on behalf of secularists to comprehend other cultures or the incapacity of the religiously devout to accept religion as a private element of life depends on where one stands culturally and ideologically. Many Muslim groups, like many Christian groups, are fundamentally at odds with many current notions of the public/private divide that is inherent to many Western nations. They cannot enter the public realm and leave their religion at the door because their religion is a way of life and cannot be kept to the closed doors of their homes. Women that adhere to this religious law can’t just leave their headscarves behind when they walk into a public building without completely changing their cultural views about what religion is and means. It can’t just be brushed aside as radical fundamentalist notions, a quick fix to a discriminatory practice engaged in by women against women.

As a woman, it bothers me to see them covered as well and it’s difficult to understand, but for me it’s a matter of the lesser of two evils. But I find it really interesting that a group of people that are accused of being incompatible with modernity, democracy and secular culture engage a discourse of freedom, democracy, and equality in this debate and it really makes you have to look a little deeper than the surface on this.

Thanks again for an interesting post!

]]> By: daddio http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2010/07/13/thinly-veiled/comment-page-1/#comment-4353 daddio Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:39:04 +0000 http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/?p=3113#comment-4353 some people are just stupid, afraid, intolerant and insecure. too bad stupid, afraid, intolerant and insecure people elect them to office. some people are just stupid, afraid, intolerant and insecure. too bad stupid, afraid, intolerant and insecure people elect them to office.

]]>