Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Politics, Religion, Society

France Parliament Votes to Ban the Burqa

The French Parliament has voted to become the second country (Belgium) to ban full burqas. The lawmakers voted to make it illegal for women to wear a full burqas or nijab in public. It is a direct assault on religious freedom from a nation that helped define the basic rights of all humans.

The vote was an astonishing 335 in favor and only one against.

The law will affect five million Muslims living in France.

The law must still be approved by the Senate after going to the constitutional council for a review.

Source: ITN

83 thoughts on “France Parliament Votes to Ban the Burqa”

  1. … or, and admittedly, I’m preparing a presentation for my Mystery book club (a Mystery/Spy novel) so my mind is in that groove:

    Could the Tootie be, really, the Tootie Group … a practice blog infiltration 101 class run by one of our Homeland Security agencies? Take on the character of a fundie Christian and challenge the legal minds of lawyers … no real goal other than skill set practice … a group effort … and our tax dollars at work.

    Probably not, but, one hell of a sub plot. (Duh, dah-dah, Duh)

  2. Putting words in my mouth is simply going to make you look crazier, Tootles.

    What I said is what the text of the Constitution reads.

    This has been interpreted by case law such as Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=602), in which the Burger SCOTUS found that the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act of 1969 and Pennsylvania’s Non‐Public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968 (both of which were laws that allowed the state to support directly the salaries of teachers of secular subjects in parochial and other nonpublic schools) violated the Establishment Clause based on what is now known as “The Lemon Test”.

    Chief Justice Burger for the majority took into consideration previously established decisions (the practice of stare decisis) that “cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years” (p. 642) established to define what an Establishment Clause violation looks like. The first prong of the three pronged test Burger used comes from Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) which stated that laws must be for a secular legislative purpose. The second prong of the three pronged test comes from Board of Education v. Allen (1968) which states that the law must have the primary effect neither advancing nor inhibiting religion. The third prong of the three pronged test was an analysis of the Burger court of whether the law created an excessive entanglement of secular and religious purposes.

    In summary, the Lemon Test of whether a law violates the Establishment Clause is:

    1) A law must have a secular legislative purpose,
    2) it must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and
    3) the law must not create excessive entanglement of secular and religious purposes.

    Many attempts over the years have been made to overturn Lemon v. Kurtzman. Notably Lee v. Weisman (1992) outlawing school prayer at a middle school graduation, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), prohibiting high school students from voting whether to have “invocations” (code word their zealot lawyers used instead of the blatantly religious term “prayers”) at football games and Zelman v. Simmons‐Harris (2002), in which considering the validity of school voucher programs, the Lemon Test was again applied and upheld.

    Lemon v. Kurtzman remains the law of the land today and contradicts your assertion that Christians are allowed to have “[your] ideas enter into the realm of law on equal footing without regard religious persuasion or penalty attached to them EVEN if they come from religious ideas.”

    Since we are talking about law and you are talking about distortionist theocratic bullshit, it would seem that not only is my contention based on the letter of the law, but that I’m in considerably better company legally speaking than you are.

    But please scream and fabricate more specious arguments about what the law says, Ms. High And Mighty.

    It only makes you look that much crazier than you already do.

  3. Buddha,

    Oh boy … I can’t wait to read your reply to the collective Tootie’s latest twist … a bunch of bodies spent some time on Google working that one up.

    The true secular nature of the Constitution really does drive these fundie Christians nuts. Are they on a holy mission similar to the Muslim fundies … one true god, one true prophet/savior … one true theocracy that will honor said god, prophet, savior?

  5. Buddha: you are embarrassing yourself. Just slow down. The first amendment doesn’t say what you claim.

    Your claim is that first amendment says “all Christian or religious ideas are forbidden to ever become law”. No one in their right mind believes that is what the amendment means. There is NO evidence from the founding era that this is what the clause means.

    A completely atheistic America could decide to forbid homosexual marriage. This has been Communist China’s policy for quite some time (even though things may be changing in that regard).

    We don’t have political rights granted to us based on who we are. I guess in your world we do. We possess those rights as law abiding citizens. And our ideas enter into the realm of law on equal footing without regard religious persuasion or penalty attached to them EVEN if they come from religious ideas.

    (except in the minds of despots and tyrants)

    The evidence from the founding era supports my claim, not yours. Many states would not have ratified the Constitution if they thought the feds could strike down their state churches and state laws grown out of Christian beliefs. You are claiming what the anti-federalists claimed would happen. The founders said what you and the anti-federalist claim is not what the Constitution would allow.

    You are in a very bad company with your opinion as well as you agree with the Ku Klux Klan member of the high court Hugo Black who interprets the clause the same way you do (because he was anti-catholic and Jews). Black didn’t want public support being used for Catholic or Jewish schools and he used YOUR interpretation to sure it couldn’t happen.

    from Professor Kevin Gutzman:

    “The purpose of the First amendment was to ensure that congress would neither establish a religion for the United States nor interfere in the religious policy of individual state–including Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire–that retained their colonial religious establishments…

    …Thomas Jefferson [who made the church and state statement] played no role in drafting or adopting the establishment Clause, he was neither a member of the first congress that drafted the First Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification, nor a member of the Virginia general assembly that voted to ratify it…it was written a decade after the First Amendment’s ratification.” page 177 The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

    What the Constitution says and means is that the FEDERAL government will not establish a government church. That has nothing to do to prevent Christians from lobbying fairly in the public square for their ideas. Or Muslims. Or Atheists. Or Art Bell and his friends.

    I realize that it is not so nice to have believed in myths and have to have your bubble burst. But you can recover from it and grow even stronger in your quest for justice.

    Your friends here are being gracious and probably don’t want to correct you in front of everyone and probably figure you’ll grow up some day and get it right. Or they secretly cheer you on in your ignorance and error having committed themselves to lies and deceptions in a desire to destroy the Constitution and drive a steak through the heart of liberty (or Christianity or whatever drives them bonkers).

    Or they are simply as ignorant and uniformed as you.

  6. Tootie:

    from my new favorite philosopher:

    “The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.”

    Guess who.

  7. What you really don’t like is, not that people impose their beliefs on each other via law (because you clearly think you do have that right), but that Christians ought not to have the same rights as non-Christians.

    You appear to have confused separation of church and state with bigotry and an wish to deny Christians their political right.
    — Tootie

    Spoken like a true Fellowship Foundation peón.

  8. Tootie

    Buddha: If it were wrong for me to impose my beliefs on others (and in fact everyone imposes their beliefs on others via law whenever law is imposed) then it is wrong for you and rcampbell to impose your beliefs on me.

    ==============================================================

    From my vantage point, Buddha quoted the law to you … rcampbell expressed an opinion to the blog

    The law Buddha quoted is imposed on you by the Constitution, not by Buddha

    rcampbell’s opinion was addressed to the blog in general and the alleged imposition on you is self-absorbed claptrap.

    I’m beginning to think that CCD is onto something ……

    Further, I am beginning to wonder if the charge made by others, that Conservative Christians are out to destroy the Constitution and the Republic it founded in order to bring about a christian theocracy, may be more truthful than I here-to-fore believed.

  10. No Tootles, apparently you still don’t understand the Separation of Church and State despite being shown the plain Constitutional language it derives from: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. You “Christians” have no right whatsoever to impose your beliefs on the legal system within the framework of the legislative branch or under the rule of law no matter your delusional thinking. That kind of behavior is prime facie forbidden by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    To assert something over and over in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is the very definition of insanity.

    You think I’m insane. That’s your opinion. I can prove you are insane simply by pointing to the nature of your actions.

  11. Buddha: If it were wrong for me to impose my beliefs on others (and in fact everyone imposes their beliefs on others via law whenever law is imposed) then it is wrong for you and rcampbell to impose your beliefs on me.

    I repeat: THAT IS INSANE THINKING.

    You are accusing me of doing something wrong WHILE you reserve the right to do it yourself.

    THAT IS INSANE.

    What you really don’t like is, not that people impose their beliefs on each other via law (because you clearly think you do have that right), but that Christians ought not to have the same rights as non-Christians.

    You appear to have confused separation of church and state with bigotry and an wish to deny Christians their political right.

    The source of ones beliefs are not the issue here. The issue is who is most successful in achieving their goals in the legislature within the framework of the rule of law.

    Apparently, you needed this explained to you.

  14. rc is neither

    1) criminally minded NOR
    2) insane

    as demonstrated by his posts.

    You, on the other hand Tootles,

    1) wish to impose your religion upon the law in contravention of the 1st Amendment – an action that can be most certainly characterized as criminal AND
    2) I don’t really have to spell out that second point of contrast for the viewing audience.

    Some things are self-evident as demonstrated by your posts.

    (Next!)

  15. Tootie:

    You’ve denied it but you’re paid per invective.
    Your performance grows fainter, as the shill’s charade wears thin.
    When does management rotate the unproductive?

  17. Whatever the reason for this legislation, it is a good thing. Since leaving Islam (becoming an apostate) is a capital offense, every Muslim woman must to be viewed as a kidnap victim who is acting against her will.

    This is a simple way to protect her during her imprisonment and torture.

  18. This is 335 to 1, but there are more than 550 MPs.
    On this unfortunately popular decision, the opposition chose to abstain…

  20. blhlls 1, July 14, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    “I have a major problem with laws suggesting that women generally can be trusted to make decisions about their own clothing, but a woman who chooses to wear the burqa is not legally competent to choose what clothing she will wear. ”

    and;

    “Woosty, I can certainly understand the view that the burqa is a tool of repression.”

    so the only response I could possibly and sanely make to those statements would be….huh?

Comments are closed.