Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (85328)	11/10/2004 11:10:59 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793824

Commemorating Kristallnacht? On behalf of the Jews, or on behalf of the Nazis? Derek

To: LindyBill who wrote (85328)	11/10/2004 11:11:54 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793824

What on earth is happening to Europe's sense of right and wrong? Wait until the French staunchly secular society has its head-on collision with its growing, unassimilated, and increasingly militant Muslim population. It is a predestined collision thanks to population trends. The merde is going to hit le fan in a huge way. The French don't seem to know it, though the signs are obvious to anyone paying even the least attention. Christopher Caldwell is an acute observer of the French future in this regard: weeklystandard.com travelbrochuregraphics.com weeklystandard.com And since you're a fan of Powerline, here are trunk's comments on Caldwell's work: powerlineblog.com Christopher Caldwell gives the proposed French law banning the veil worn by Muslim women a powerfully sympathetic treatment in the featured article of the new Weekly Standard: "Veiled threat." Caldwell's article is an outstanding piece of journalism that provides the background to the proposed law and suggests the stakes involved. Caldwell asks whether Islam can be practiced in private; whether it can be reconciled with free government; whether it can allow others to live in peace in a secular country. He scorns the ignorance of American public officials who lack any understanding of the internal challenge France's Muslims raise to the French state. Caldwell concludes: "There are elements of laïcité [France's law of secularism] in American politics, such as the American Civil Liberties Union's efforts to ban crèches from public land at Christmastime. But the broader American system does not insist on the religious evacuation of the public square. It is probably the stronger for that. Nevertheless, Americans in government have been too quick to criticize French attempts to regulate the veil. John Hanford, the State Department's roving ambassador for freedom of religion, expressed his concern that France was violating 'a fundamental principle of religious freedom.' Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum called the law 'further evidence of the postmodern culture in Europe. When you marginalize faith, you end up marginalizing the people of faith.' (In Britain, too, the measure was attacked by both the Foreign Office and Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury.) "These are cheap shots. Americans overestimate the constitutional issues involved primarily because they are ignorant of the historic ones. Jean-Marie Colombani, editor of Le Monde, is right to say, 'It is no longer a question of religious freedom but of public order.' One can prefer the American means of dealing with religious diversity and still question the smug assumption that America's constitutional order could easily cope with the facts on the ground that exist in France--i.e., the equivalent of, in this country, some 30 million rapidly radicalizing Muslims, concentrated in a handful of pivotal cities. "Banning the veil is not about Anglo-Saxon constitutional niceties, it is about a clash of civilizations. France's Muslims bring higher rates of practice and much more passion to their religion than France's post-Christian secularists bring to the defense of the Republic. Those Frenchmen who cling to the order of laïcité have begun to fear that Islam is strong enough to overthrow it. That is a problem for people of all non-Islamic religions. Devout Catholics have at times been shabbily treated under laïcité, and many likely think the world it structures is arid and unspiritual. Yet in a country where the public square is dominated by laïcité, Catholics are able to practice their faith unmolested. What guarantee do they have that they will be able to do so in a public square dominated by Islam? "Such questions show why this law, which looks illogical and off-the-point to foreigners, is nothing of the sort. France's problem is not some short-circuiting of individual freedom due to a faulty constitutional code--in fact, looking at the problem that way is what has led France to delay acting on the veil for 15 years. The problem is finding a way to deal with Islam while it is still, as condescending editorialists put it, the second religion of France, and before it becomes, more simply, the religion of France." At the outset of the article, Caldwell quotes a statement of a Hizballah leader in Lebanon protesting the law in issue. One cannot fully comprehend the stakes here without a look at Gal Luft's frightening July/August Commentary article, now available online: "Hizballahland." (Courtesy of Little Green Footballs.) Don't miss these brilliant pieces. DEACON adds: Caldwell's piece is indeed outstanding. The issue of what, if anything, France should do about the wearing of Muslim headscarves in schools is a complex one, given French traditions and the massive problems posed by efforts to assimilate Arab immigrants. Caldwell is quite correct, I believe, in characterizing America's response to this issue as a cheap shot. Once again, our government seems to be putting a desire to grandstand for Muslims ahead of a serious analysis of the current reality, namely the clash of civilizations. Just as of our State Department routinely attempts to dictate to Israel the terms under which it can defend its status as a Jewish state, so too it is now want to advise France as to what it can and cannot do to remain French. It may also be worth noting that the infamously leftist archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has condemned France's policy. We should, perhaps, think twice before "piling on" with Williams.