I disagree with most of the conculsions in the article you cite. I have a couple of rhetorical questions:

-Is there anything in the history of mankind that suggests to you that people of very different beliefs, cultures, economic status, religions, and yes, race, can or should live together in harmony?

-The third world countries I've been to have zero concept of tolerance and political correctness. So why are we flagellating ourselves in The West over intolerance when, no matter our flaws, we are orders of magnitude more tolerant than the ethnic groups we are accused of discriminating against?

David St. Hubbins

-Is there anything in the history of mankind that suggests to you that people of very different beliefs, cultures, economic status, religions, and yes, race, can or should live together in harmony?

If you're asking whether or not I've lived or ever heard of a perfect nation, the answer is no. We can still, however, strive to be better than we are, right?

-The third world countries I've been to have zero concept of tolerance and political correctness. So why are we flagellating ourselves in The West over intolerance when, no matter our flaws, we are orders of magnitude more tolerant than the ethnic groups we are accused of discriminating against?

Because this, and all other forms of moral relativistic arguments are a load of crap. It is not about our morality relative to other nations, it is about our morality period.

it's my understanding the rationale for the french law prohibiting religious dress and symbols in schools is based in the concept that french citizens are french first and members of whatever other affiliations after that.

it's an overreaction to the power catholicism once held in france and dates back to their revolution. the major difference between our culture and that of the islamic world is the renaissance, one major result of which was europe rejecting its theocentric worldview in favor of a humanist one.

what's being done in france is not dissimilar to the dress codes schools here have instituted to eliminate any kinda of 'us vs them' divides.

since the restrictions affect only students, im not sure how it's prevented women from voting or marriage.

a chick in the uk was just granted the right to wear a full-length islamic garment. while it's a victory for her, muslim girls who dont wish to wear traditional dress will have no excuse for not doing so.

having said all that, those european countries who happily sucked the life outta their colonies have a lotta balls trying to keep out the descendants of their former empires.

Interesting article about a topic that's perceived quite controversial here in central Europe, specifically concerning headscarfs.

The separation of church and state is something that is regarded as very, very important in central Europe. Looking at our history may explain that: We had centuries of wars fought in the name of religion. Especially in the mid-17th century, central Europe was totally devastated after a series of confessional wars, leaving industry and trade shattered and the populace starving. This is not the sole reason, but one of the important reasons why we prefer a clear-cut line that separates church from state.

This separation can also be seen in day-to-day politics. For example, I noticed that George W. Bush often seems to mention God in his speeches. This doesn't seem to be a problem in the US, however I think that here in Germany this would feel totally inappropriate. (Please note; I'm not saying that Bush is doing something wrong there; that would be different discussion. I'm merely stating the difference without judging the action itself.) I can't remember a single speech of any German chancellor where God was a topic. Some do talk about Christian values, but not about God. In fact, German politicians, with the possible exception of the extremely conservative, very rarely mention God at all, except when taking their oath of office. Even there, our constitutional law explicitly states that the oath can be spoken with or without a religious affirmation ("So help me God"); Chancellor Schroeder for example didn't use it.

This separation of church and state extends to other areas like, for example, school. In Germany, public education is a state affair (there are some private schools, but they are so few that they can safely be neglected here). Teachers for the most part are public servants, employed by the state. As such, they are supposed not to express political or religious beliefs in office, as these should not be relevant for their work. As an example: In school, one of my teachers in religion also was the priest of our village. When he was in church, he wore his priestly clothes. When he was in school, he did not. In church, he taught about God. In school, he taught what the school curriculum (decided by the state) said. This curriculum does not present any religion as being the "true" one, quite the contrary, it is designed to give the students a broad overview and an understanding about the world's major religions. So, despite of being a priest, our teacher was obliged to *objectively* teach us the five pillars of Islam, or the concept of Atman and rebirth in Hinduism as these religions see them. In school, he was not allowed to actively promote his church's views. He, too, had to regard the separation of church and state in the two offices he held.

Another good example of how important this separation of church and state is regarded here is a legal procedure that happened in Germany about 10 years ago. Until then, the law in one German state said that every classroom had to have a display of Jesus on the cross. After some people filed a lawsuit against this, the law was revoked by the German Federal Constitutional Court, on the basis that church and state have to be separated.

This may help to understand why it is such a controversial topic here whether, for example, teachers who happen to be muslims should be allowed to wear headscarfs in school or not. The decision requires balancing the religious freedom of the teacher with the neutrality of public servants, and furthermore with the religious freedom of the students; which is not easy because of the implications mentioned above. This question has been discussed in Germany for years now and is still unsolved. (The Federal Court was expected to make a final decision in 2003 but kind of shirked.)

There are also from time to time discussions about a "headscarf ban" for students, but I doubt that these will lead anywhere. Any state who thinks about such a law would have a hard time to explain why, for example, cross earrings are allowed and headscarfs aren't.

Personally, I do appreciate the separation of church and government. However I think a headscarf ban is taking this over the top. As long as a teacher does not actively promote his religious beliefs in class and tries to influence his students, I don't see a problem. The constitutional right of freedom of religion applies to the teacher too, he just has to be aware that he must not constrain the same freedom of his students by using his position to promote his beliefs.

(Necessary caveat: Not everything I said above is true for every federal state of Germany; and there also is admittedly a lot of hypocrisy going on. But I simply can't cover every aspect here, so I'll just add that this comment only represents some parts of a complex topic.)

it's my understanding the rationale for the french law prohibiting religious dress and symbols in schools is based in the concept that french citizens are french first and members of whatever other affiliations after that.

I think this is a matter of attitude more than one of physical appearance. If anything, taking a student's right to wear a headscarf is going to encourage a notion that one is indeed not French, by bringing attention to the difference that separates two important aspects of the same person. I am a Hispanic American, not because the nation tells me I am, but because this is what I feel I am. Preventing me from wearing Hispanic themed things would, in my mind, alienate me from this feeling.

since the restrictions affect only students, im not sure how it's prevented women from voting or marriage.

I'm going on the information from the article, which implied total separation of church and state, not just in schools.

a chick in the uk was just granted the right to wear a full-length islamic garment. while it's a victory for her, muslim girls who dont wish to wear traditional dress will have no excuse for not doing so. having said all that, those european countries who happily sucked the life outta their colonies have a lotta balls trying to keep out the descendants of their former empires.

I think this is my sentiment as well. No one should have to "win the right" to wear the clothing they want to wear. As I mentioned in the original article, when you accept everything, you get the same effect as when you exclude everything. You make culture so heterozygous that it really isn't.

Another good example of how important this separation of church and state is regarded here is a legal procedure that happened in Germany about 10 years ago. Until then, the law in one German state said that every classroom had to have a display of Jesus on the cross. After some people filed a lawsuit against this, the law was revoked by the German Federal Constitutional Court, on the basis that church and state have to be separated.

I think I have problems with both laws that say you have to have a cross, and with laws that say you can under no circumstances have one. I know that the latter was not expressed in the revocation of the law you mentioned, but I'd just like to make a point that I think both extremes are unacceptable. If you want to put a cross up in your classroom you should be free to, but if a student feels offended, you should adhere to basic rules of conduct and not require a lawsuit to take it down. Either take it down from respect for your student, or offer to put a symbol of the student's religion up as well. There is no reason to get the law involved with what common sense and compromise could solve.

Personally, I do appreciate the separation of church and government. However I think a headscarf ban is taking this over the top. As long as a teacher does not actively promote his religious beliefs in class and tries to influence his students, I don't see a problem. The constitutional right of freedom of religion applies to the teacher too, he just has to be aware that he must not constrain the same freedom of his students by using his position to promote his beliefs.

My thoughts exactly. It is not about what you wear, it is about what you preach.