In yet another confrontation between France and the Muslim community, the government has refused to give a woman citizenship because she is too submissive to Islam and to men. In a June ruling, the Council of State found that the Moroccan woman’s religious beliefs are incompatible with French citizenship. Notably, the woman speaks good French, is married to a French national, has lived in the country since 2000, has three children born in France, and has never been arrested for a crime.
In its ruling, the Council of State found that “She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes.”
The woman, 32, wears a black burqa covering everything but her eyes. Previously, in 2005, she was denied citizenship for “insufficient assimilation”.
For the full story, click here
http://invitationtotruth.wordpress.com
This is in line with one of the main arguments that kept slaves, women, and those who owned no land from voting back in 1776- dependence. The theory was that anyone too dependent upon another couldn’t be trusted to vote since the person they were dependent on would simply tell them who to vote for and gain an unfair advantage at the voting booth (i.e. the landlord who requires all his tenants to vote for candidate x now gets 11 votes, instead of one). We were able to do away with these dependency arguments as women and slaves gained independence from their husbands through the law. It is interesting to see France enforce this kind of idea now.
That’s just weird. It links in with the French way of dividing church and state I guess. For this woman practicing her religion is too important, feels the French Government – which obviously wants to come first…
it’s really not fair
Mespo,
I can agree with most of your statement, but if the party makes an informed decision to practice the tenets of a religion, it should not have any bearing on their citizenship application. I think that even in a democracy you are going to have people who make uninformed decisions, and some are not even in the White House or Congress. You are right to say that many people jumped on Bush’s attack them over there mentality because they were not thinking it through rationally. I think you and Marie are really saying the same thing. As long as most of the electorate and their representatives in the government are making informed and intelligent decisions, it should not matter what religion I or someone else is practicing or whether I choose to not practice a religion. Now, if the example is a religion where dangerous drugs or rituals actually endanger the participants or others, then you might have an argument. Personally, I probably lean toward your concern over her subservience, but going any further would violate the Separation of Church and State if this was an American example.
It would seem that in France’s push to become non-traditional and equal opportunity, that they have forgotten the very essence of those ideals. If she wants to use her freedom to remain in her chosen religion with its rules and practices then she should be allowed and her choice should not affect the state of her citizenship. I think their government is shooting itself in the foot with this incident…
marie:
That is an interesting take on the matter. Do you think that subservience is compatible with self-governance? Can a democracy survive if part or most of its population is willing to relinquish its liberty on social or religious grounds to an elder or church official? That’s the problem I see with your philosophy. Hiding in a subservient role afraid to voice or defend your opinion seems to be the mindset of those least equipped to handle freedom. Assuming everyone is ready or desirous of freedom was this President’s downfall, and I fear that assumption underlies your comment.
I don’t get it. She appears to have many qualities that would make her a good citizen. Her only fault seems to be that she is not sufficiently subservient to a government which apparently feels that it should be able to dictate her relationship to her husband and her religion. Personally, I have no desire to be subservient to either religion or men but I have no use for a government so authoritarian that it will not allow me to be subservient if I choose.
Jill,
Thanks for the clarification.
Amen to that brother Mespo!
Hi rafflaw,
The Borg from Star Trek-“we will assimilate” was there favorite line!
moniqueth3intern:
We should also be up in arms if we were forced to practice Christian beliefs!
She should be free to live out her believe. American would be up in arms if we(ex:Christian) was force to practice Muslim believes that go against the Christian believes.
Jill,
I don’t understand the reference to “Borgs”. I am a little slow on the weekends!
The French are starting to morph into Borgs!
Russ,
You are really good with the automatic writing, but can you be a slave when you voluntarily accept your position with your spouse? France seems very concerned about its equality of the sexes, but forgets freedom of religion. I suggest that they should be equally concerned about both.
Rafflaw, even if she was considered a slave to her husband, she still had a right, right………….rrrriiiiigggghhhhhhtttttt.
What happened to freedom of religion in France? I don’t care if the woman’s religous beliefs are not like mine. It sounds like she would be a perfect candidate for citizenship, if she wasn’t a strict Muslim. I hope she can appeal that unjust decision.
This is a good start.
Well I kind of like the concept of standards beyond just learning the language and passing the test. If the absence of servility were the rule here we would have 535 less temporary citizens of D.C. almost immediately.