French Veil Ban

[LostMyMap]

Thought there would already be a current thread for this one. (did I miss something?) The French are starting to enforce their ban on veils. Aimed directly at Muslim women it seems.

I found myself on the other side of the fence on this one. Ordinarily, if asked, I would say that a culture that oppresses women the way certain ones do is about 1000 years out of date. In fact, women's rights is one of my thumb rules to gauge the modernness of a country.

But this law itself seems oppressive. Maybe it's just my American viewpoint, but how can a national government dictate clothing styles? I mean how can they do that at all, let alone clothing styles that have cultural or religious meaning?

One thing I read pointed out that the law was enacted supposedly to help out women who are 'forced' to cover up when going out. Really? I don't really see this as a good way to bring about that kind of cultural change. If a man thinks of his wife as his property, this law isn't going to change that.

Or was there another, unspoken reason behind this law? I don't want to cause any unfounded rumors, but I just wonder if there weren't larger scale cultural reasons behind the law that go beyond just the women involved.

Someone more familiar with this care to elaborate on it?

What do the rest of you think about the law? Helpful, not, good, bad, not really a big deal???

BBC News - Women in face veils detained as France enforces ban

[NDN Scholar]

There's a lot of intolerance for the Muslim population in France. Long story.

But yeah, I can understand your uneasiness with this law. It... It pulls you in two different directions at once.

[ZephyrusX]

Quebec (Canada) tried to do something similar. I'm not sure if they actually went through with it. The issue revolved more around the matter of security in Canada. Some people argued that allowing people to cover their faces in public would jeopardize public safety. I don't buy that argument. Even if there is some merit behind the claim (covering your face may facilitate criminal behaviour), the majority of people covering their faces are not doing so for criminal intent. Taking away someone’s religious (or other) identity because of a minority of extremists (Muslim or non-Muslim) is preposterous.

I’ve never heard the argument that we ought to enforce a ban on the veil in order to protect women’s rights. I think I have to disagree with that stance as well. Western culture doesn’t have the right to interfere with other cultures. There are some women out there who wear the veil because they want to. There are probably other women out there who wear the veil, but would prefer not to. However, empowering these women with education and economic, political and social opportunities seems like the more appropriate solution. And you are absolutely right about educating men. This is the reason why family planning in third world countries failed in the past. Family planning centres only sought to provide sex and reproduction education to women, but so long as men continued to see women as property more so than anything else, this education amounted to diddly squat. You have to change the culture and the attitudes of people in order to empower women. Banning a veil does not do this. The claim is rather laughable actually... You empower women by giving them academic, economic, political and social opportunities. Then they will change our culture and they will decide for themselves what they will do. They don’t need someone else deciding what they can and cannot wear.

[Le Roi]

It's a clash of two cultures.

France has experienced tremendous influx of immigrants the last twenty years from Muslim countries. The immigrants of Northern Africans in Frances rival the Hispanic immigration into the border US states.

So, you have the French who are very comfortable with the sexuality of their body, who have nude beaches and nude colonies dotted around the coast, who have no problem with a woman being topless on regular beaches, and who even have women being topless in regular TV commercials for soaps. Nudity and being very comfortable with your body is a normal part of French society (much more so than in the US)

Then, this past two decades you have this huge massive immigration of these Muslims coming in the past two decades, some of them women who wear their veils. All of these Muslims covering themselves up, covering their women, and stories of abuse coming through.

So you have a clash of a modern society that openly embraces their body and a recent massive wave of immigrants who hides their body.

I don't like that law because I feel for those women for whom a full veil is part of who they are. However, I understand why the French society has reacted as it has. It reminds me a lot of the "English-Only" language movement in US states with a lot of Hispanics, and "Americans Citizen-Only benefits" as well in US states with a lot of illegal immigrants. It's unfortunate these backlashes happen, but it make sense.

[AlmostGodess]

I can see why this law is frustrating. But I suppose that it will be only partially enforced. They will probably try to get those who force women to have veils first and don't really apply the 150 euro fine for only wearing the veil.

France is a non-religious country, the separation of the Church from the State being one of the values they cherish the most. In France, priests are forbidden from entering schools. There is a space where people can practice their religion - the Church - and this space is separate from the public space.

Now, if you as a country, stem your democratic tradition from the fight against the Church, does it really make sense to promote any religious signs even if they belong to other religions?

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

Now, if you as a country, stem your democratic tradition from the fight against the Church, does it really make sense to promote any religious signs even if they belong to other religions?

I wouldn't say allowing it is equivalent to promoting it. The ban strikes me as a very bad idea, despite the fact that forcing it is also a very bad idea.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

France is a non-religious country, the separation of the Church from the State being one of the values they cherish the most. In France, priests are forbidden from entering schools. There is a space where people can practice their religion - the Church - and this space is separate from the public space.

Now, if you as a country, stem your democratic tradition from the fight against the Church, does it really make sense to promote any religious signs even if they belong to other religions?

I think I get what you mean. But if there is a separation between the State and religion, why is the State getting involved at all? Shouldn't it be neutral?

[sorter]

The state shouldn't be involved in religion or dress codes at all, period.
Laws should protect anyone from discrimination.
A veil, in and of itself, is not a discrimination issue.

I could understand an argument for security.
In that case, no one would be allowed to cover their face including a
full face motorcycle helmet while not on a motorcycle.

But I'd rather err on the side of freedom than security unless maybe we
were in a declared war on our soil.

By the same token, muslims who try to enforce sharia law on anyone should
be charged if doing so is a crime in France.
.

[gingerbaker]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

France is a non-religious country, the separation of the Church from the State being one of the values they cherish the most. In France, priests are forbidden from entering schools. There is a space where people can practice their religion - the Church - and this space is separate from the public space.

Now, if you as a country, stem your democratic tradition from the fight against the Church, does it really make sense to promote any religious signs even if they belong to other religions?

:snorts: Make all the schoolgirls take off their crosses first, and then tell me it's a "nonreligious" country.

This law is...unfortunate, at best.

[glow]

To me this ban doesn't make sense at all.
I know many women who choose to wear the veil. They are not pressured to do so by their families or the society. Its them excercising their own free will to dress as they like.

There is a biased thinking that in Islam women are somehow supressed.
Woman got their rights in Islam fourteen hundred years ago. They could own a property. They got the right to inherit from deceased relatives. They were recognised as a vital part of the society. They were encouraged to educate themselves. Husbands were instructed that their wives have rights over them, etc.
Women in the modern west had to fight for these basic rights. And they didn't get them until some decades ago. A century ago, these basic rights were only a dream for them. While the women in Islam have enjoyed these rights since much longer then a millenium!

Even if we don't accept that women in Islam are given all their rights, this ban doesn't help & doesn't change anything.
It' baffling. France is denying their citizens their basic rights.

[Elrond]

Just more evidence of the west thinking it's the best, I reckon.

[Alstar]

Originally Posted by glow

To me this ban doesn't make sense at all.
I know many women who choose to wear the veil. They are not pressured to do so by their families or the society. Its them excercising their own free will to dress as they like.

You don't really believe that? There is most certainly a cultural expectation for them to dress that way. They are made to believe that they are good people by dressing that way, and bad people for not dressing that way. It may not be entirely forced but the pressures and stigmas are blatantly obvious.

I don't think this is much to do with religion and more to do with culture. After all, showing too much skin isn't just stigmatized in Muslim countries/cultures. India, for example.

There doesn't seem to be any valid reason to ban this type of clothing. I'm finding it difficult to shed a tear, however. If this is France's way of trying to enforce integration, I can get behind that. There's no reason for them not to integrate.

[glow]

Originally Posted by Alstar

You don't really believe that? There is most certainly a cultural expectation for them to dress that way. They are made to believe that they are good people by dressing that way, and bad people for not dressing that way. It may not be entirely forced but the pressures and stigmas are blatantly obvious.

I don't think this is much to do with religion and more to do with culture. After all, showing too much skin isn't just stigmatized in Muslim countries/cultures. India, for example.

There doesn't seem to be any valid reason to ban this type of clothing. I'm finding it difficult to shed a tear, however. If this is France's way of trying to enforce integration, I can get behind that. There's no reason for them not to integrate.

You are right in the sense that this more cultural then religion. Some cultures are less liberal then others.
But I think you are somewhat gernalising the situation. There are cultures that lead people to believe that the veil is the right way to dress. But there are also people that choose to veil their faces even thought their culture dictates otherwise.
More man & women convert to Islam then any other religion even in America or Europe. Many of them choose to veil their faces, and many don't. It's a choice they make themselves.

However, what it comes to is this: no goverment should dictate what it's people can or can't wear. That should be a completely personal choice. You may choose be a naturalist, or you may choose to clad yourself in burqa. It should be your call! Nobody else'.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by Alstar

You don't really believe that? There is most certainly a cultural expectation for them to dress that way. They are made to believe that they are good people by dressing that way, and bad people for not dressing that way. It may not be entirely forced but the pressures and stigmas are blatantly obvious.

I don't think this is much to do with religion and more to do with culture. After all, showing too much skin isn't just stigmatized in Muslim countries/cultures. India, for example.

There doesn't seem to be any valid reason to ban this type of clothing. I'm finding it difficult to shed a tear, however. If this is France's way of trying to enforce integration, I can get behind that. There's no reason for them not to integrate.

What do you mean by integrate? Are you talking about a cultural melting pot? I see merit in integrating immigrants into the state and country in some respects, but not culturally. Immigrants need to be able to have some political will to pursue their needs. They need to be able to find viable economic opportunities. So in Canada, this may involve immigrant nurses lobbying federal and provincial governments to create a better system that is able to recognize their qualifications. That way, they are not being grossly underpaid for doing the same work as registered nurses in Canada.

I don’t get the cultural integration that seems to be favoured by some countries. You can point out that cultural differences create tension in the country, and to a small degree, it produces extremists. But the answer to this is not eliminating cultural differences. If you try to do so blatantly through state policy, I think you will end up creating more tension and more extremists. I say just let immigrants come in with their own culture. That culture will likely intermingle with the other cultures in the country and create something that is unique. I find that awesome my self. Why kill off creativity?

[JSB]

Originally Posted by gingerbaker

:snorts: Make all the schoolgirls take off their crosses first, and then tell me it's a "nonreligious" country.

This law is...unfortunate, at best.

French law bans all religious symbols in schools, Christian as well as Muslim. Personally, I support it.
French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[gingerbaker]

Originally Posted by JSB

French law bans all religious symbols in schools, Christian as well as Muslim. Personally, I support it.
French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, it's bans "conspicuous" symbols. All the girls there (generalizing here, but you know what I mean) wear small gold crosses. The problem is, consipcuous is in the eye of the beholder.

I would absolutely support banning all signs of religion in school, if it were in fact equal across the board.

[Alstar]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

What do you mean by integrate? Are you talking about a cultural melting pot? I see merit in integrating immigrants into the state and country in some respects, but not culturally. Immigrants need to be able to have some political will to pursue their needs. They need to be able to find viable economic opportunities. So in Canada, this may involve immigrant nurses lobbying federal and provincial governments to create a better system that is able to recognize their qualifications. That way, they are not being grossly underpaid for doing the same work as registered nurses in Canada.

I don’t get the cultural integration that seems to be favoured by some countries. You can point out that cultural differences create tension in the country, and to a small degree, it produces extremists. But the answer to this is not eliminating cultural differences. If you try to do so blatantly through state policy, I think you will end up creating more tension and more extremists. I say just let immigrants come in with their own culture. That culture will likely intermingle with the other cultures in the country and create something that is unique. I find that awesome my self. Why kill off creativity?

It's a nice ideal but it doesn't work that way in reality. Once they choose to leave their home country and live in another, they should fully prepare to adjust to the cultural conditions of their new homeland. Why else would you move, otherwise?

I'm not saying that immigrants should wipe their personalities clean and start over, because that's not what integration is. Clinging on to cultural ideals which work in their old country should be discarded without question when they choose to live in a country where that ideal is not valid. The point is not to adopt a new culture entirely, but to come to terms with it enough that you can operate and function within it without it being messy or awkward. Arab ghetto's in France are one such example of an awkward and messy integration. There's also the factor that if you raise your children in one culture at home, but they're exposed to an entirely different one each time they step outside their house, you're not going to get well-balanced children being raised. Instead of some hybrid person capable of experiencing and functioning in two cultures, you will just get kids who grow up resentful of one culture or the other. Again, Arab youths have a reputation for being a part of a resentful and violent sub-culture in France ("ratailles" I think they're called?). It's not because their original Arabic culture is resentful and violent, it's because they're resentful of growing up in a place where they're not fully accepted, and that's their own fault for not being integrated.

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Originally Posted by Alstar

There's also the factor that if you raise your children in one culture at home, but they're exposed to an entirely different one each time they step outside their house, you're not going to get well-balanced children being raised. Instead of some hybrid person capable of experiencing and functioning in two cultures, you will just get kids who grow up resentful of one culture or the other.

That seems sort of assumptive on your part...did you experience this as a youth and are resentful of it and generalize your experience to other immigrants? Because I grew up like this and I am happy for it! I have perspective that my mono-culture friends just simply do not...it was woven into what I experienced growing up.

it's because they're resentful of growing up in a place where they're not fully accepted, and that's their own fault for not being integrated.

I don't think this is true, either. This seems very xenophobic.

I mean, just from my personal experience, and my family, and my many friends who are immigrants.

Think of yourself first and foremost as a citizen of the world, my Dad always said.

Anyways - this will all end in tears, re: veil banning.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by gingerbaker

I would absolutely support banning all signs of religion in school, if it were in fact equal across the board.

I don't think that's productive. Where would you draw the line? One could argue that the crosses are as much a cultural/aesthetic as they are religious. Heck, there's a Church of Cannabis...would we ban someone wearing a shirt with a drawing of a pot leaf under the rationale that it's a religious symbol? (Probably not the best example as I'm sure people can think of other reasons to ban that one, but my point is that it would be incredibly hard to define "religious symbol"). What about the word "angel" or depictions of angels?

More broadly, why is it a good idea to limit the self expression of the students on these matters? I'm certainly against any coercion or promotion of religious ideas by the schools, such as led prayer or even the words "under God" in the American pledge, but why would we ban the students themselves from expressing those things in that venue? The only place I see that leading is a hiding of religion, leaving it unexamined...

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by Alstar

Again, Arab youths have a reputation for being a part of a resentful and violent sub-culture in France ("ratailles" I think they're called?). It's not because their original Arabic culture is resentful and violent, it's because they're resentful of growing up in a place where they're not fully accepted, and that's their own fault for not being integrated.

Even if we were to accept for a moment that this is true (I personally like Laky's perspective better), you seem to be adopting a 'blame the victim' mentality. So I brought up immigrant nurses in Canada in my last post. Of course these nurses are resentful of the fact that they are grossly underpaid for doing the same work. It leads to economic, political and social marginalization (is this the reason for the French Arab Ghettos?). In my experience, resentment over immigration, culture and religion has very little to do with immigrants, culture and religion per se. Underneath all the political rhetoric, it usually has more to do with political power and being treated with dignity and respect. Very few people actually care about another person's religion or culture and why in the world would they?

If Arabs are indeed as resentful as you imply, I have a simple solution: treat them like human beings deserving of the same economic, political and social opportunities as you are. Don't treat them as terrorists or threats. Don't imply that their culture is inferior to Western culture. Don't imply that they themselves are the reason for all this conflict.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

I think this law is dangerous. The law is in and of itself discriminatory. A woman wearing a burqa is not harming anyone, certainly not herself. One does not have to parade their genitalia about in order to be comfortable with who they are. If who they are happens to be a Muslim and they are not harming anyone by practicing that faith then what right does the French government have to impose on that? This is a violation of human rights. A human being should have the right to walk around naked OR cover themselves up entirely as they see fit because this does not harm anyone. In Islam it is considered honorable for a woman to cover herself so as to not entice any other man but her husband. Now this may come as a surprise to some people but some Muslim women actually like that idea.

Some Muslim women do not feel at all oppressed by this, not every Muslim husband is physically abusive either. Now, there are numerous cases of Muslim men who have raped women exposing themselves because they considered it the right thing to do and yes the Koran does say to kill nonbelievers but this should only be of import if it is acted upon. But these should be individual cases to be prosecuted and the perpetrators dealt with in a just fashion in a court of law. Vain attempts to use the law to stamp out the "source of the problem" will set France on the fast track toward tyranny.

Now, one of the biggest concerns for the people who championed the idealism of this law was the burqa being used to hide signs of physical abuse. This is not as large an issue as the lawmakers make it seem. Many women who have never worn a burqa in their life and are not Muslim hide signs of physical abuse willingly every day. These are adults who are in most cases capable of making their own decisions. A Muslim woman in France is undoubtedly going to be aware of all the legal services at her disposal should she choose to press charges against an abusive husband. By forcing these woman to forego a religious tradition which they may be comfortable with the French government is only alienating potential victims of abuse. If the woman is being coerced into wearing the burqa, being coerced into taking it off will only be seen as more of the same attitude. Coercion is not the solution and will only drive these potential victims of abuse further away.

Let's assess the risks on both sides here. France doesn't ban burqas. Muslim women who are victims of abuse may not have big bruises seen by the neighbors. The woman who is the victim can still go to the police if she can work up the courage to do so. Muslim women who want to wear a burqa because they are comfortable with the tradition continue doing so. Radical Islam loses one more talking point as to why their religion is being oppressed and embattled, thus the radicals lose ground. Abusers and abuse victims are still prosecuted/given help respectively. Radicals are still treated as lawbreaking criminals.

France bans burqas. Abuse victims might now have signs of abuse visible. A neighbor calls. Instead of courageously overcoming her predicament on her own, help is foisted upon the potential victim and complications arise. Some women are grateful. Others are merely distraught, perhaps left destitute with children to raise. Hopefully she overcomes the hardship but she will feel some uneasiness toward the French government for elements of her religion being banned which she likely will not leave even after such an ordeal. Radical Muslims gain another reason to commit random acts of violence. Muslims who were perhaps just on the edge gain reason to see themselves as oppressed and decide to become a radical. Non Muslims see the government move and begin to see Islam as having dangerous elements to it (which it may regardless) and their prejudice toward Muslims increases. Muslims begin to feel persecuted, non Muslims begin to be paranoid and start seeing Muslim couples as potential abusive relationships and campaigning lawmakers begin to look with more scrutiny at other religious practices which 'should be banned' despite not causing any harm to anyone. Radical Muslims who commit acts of violence start to become distinguished from the common violent criminal.

Which seems like the better option here?

[curiouslyrandom]

Originally Posted by LostMyMap

I found myself on the other side of the fence on this one. Ordinarily, if asked, I would say that a culture that oppresses women the way certain ones do is about 1000 years out of date. In fact, women's rights is one of my thumb rules to gauge the modernness of a country.

Two thoughts on this paragraph:

1) It's not 1000 years out of date, it's 100. Yes, even here in the "progressive" west. Our generation takes womens' rights for granted. Our mothers and grandmothers did not.

2) You are aware the phrase "rule of thumb" had to do with the width of a switch a man was allowed to beat his wife with, right? Couldn't be any wider than his thumb. Nice.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

More broadly, why is it a good idea to limit the self expression of the students on these matters? I'm certainly against any coercion or promotion of religious ideas by the schools, such as led prayer or even the words "under God" in the American pledge, but why would we ban the students themselves from expressing those things in that venue? The only place I see that leading is a hiding of religion, leaving it unexamined...

I agree with this and I especially like the point about forcing an issue underground so that it is left unexamined. But where do you draw the lines of 'the school' or any other institution for that matter? Can teachers wear religious clothing or should they be barred from doing so? This is an issue that is brought up occassionally in the private sector in Canada (at least in some parts of Canada ie Ontario). Department stores want to remove the promotion of Christianity by propping up big Christmas trees and whatnot so that they won't alienate their customers. I don't have a problem with this. But they go as far as to prohibit ther employees from wishing customers a Merry Christmas at the check out. I don't really like that one as it denies the self-expression of employees (who are before anything else, human beings).

[glow]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

...Koran does say to kill nonbelievers...

Wow! You are taking that verse way out of context!! And thats very, very misleading!

Koran tell Muslims to kill nonbelievers who take arms against them! Muslims are commanded to never strike first, they must always be the second to strike. And if their enemy surrenders, Muslims are to not just let them go, but to move them to a safer place! And Muslims are commanded not to harm women, children, old, trees, places of worship, etc in a battle or war.

But the current reality of some muslims like Qadafhi does lead many people to gernalise the situation & place all the people who call themselves muslim in the same catergory.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by glow

Wow! You are taking that verse way out of context!! And thats very, very misleading!

Koran tell Muslims to kill nonbelievers who take arms against them! Muslims are commanded to never strike first, they must always be the second to strike. And if their enemy surrenders, Muslims are to not just let them go, but to move them to a safer place! And Muslims are commanded not to harm women, children, old, trees, places of worship, etc in a battle or war.

But the current reality of some muslims like Qadafhi does lead many people to gernalise the situation & place all the people who call themselves muslim in the same catergory.

Oh well thanks for clearing that up. Mind linking the verse in question? It's not that I don't believe you I'm just curious to see what it actually says. It actually singles out trees as things that are not to be harmed? Does this mean a Muslim can't live in a wooden house in the same way they can't eat pork?

Either way this point only supports my argument against the ban.

[glow]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Oh well thanks for clearing that up. Mind linking the verse in question? It's not that I don't believe you I'm just curious to see what it actually says. It actually singles out trees as things that are not to be harmed? Does this mean a Muslim can't live in a wooden house in the same way they can't eat pork?

Either way this point only supports my argument against the ban.

Well I don't recall the exact verse; but some part of this are verses immdiately after the verse you mentioned. I'll get back to you when its morning in my part of the globe!
And no not like the pigs. In the sense that they are forbidden to destroy or deface the cities they attack. Of course they can live in wooden houses & burn firewood!

And yeah, your argument against the ban still stands quite valid! I was just clearing out this verse.

[secrets0stolen]

Very few people actually care about another person's religion or culture and why in the world would they?

Many people care about others' religions, especially if a belief is inherent in their own religion that others' go to hell. I've observed for years that in many conservative Christian communities people are very concerned about others "corrupting" their children. That's the root of the much of the prejudiced against homosexuals, atheists, and Muslims (although some of that is just xenophobia). Lots of Christian Americans are threatened by "alternative/ New Age" religion, atheism and Islam in particular, because those are the fastest growing categories, and they don't want there children to convert. In one of the camps I was sent to, they went over how to rebut evolution (and tied up with that was atheism), New Agers, and did a demonstration against Islam with the intent of making Muslims look, to put it simply, wrong. (Although some of the things they said were laughable. "Girls, don't talk to Muslim men even if you're trying to convert them because they'll think you want to marry them" lol).

[Andrew Brunelle]

I guess France doesn't have freedom of expression. How can they ban articles of clothing? That is a direct rights violation, but if they want to do it, what can we do? I don't live in France, so I really have no pull there. Some people must like wearing them, and even though it comes from an oppressive religion, some people enjoy the veil and burka. Not many, but a lot of people wear them as part of their religion, and they don't mind it. But I'm in no position to change the law, so all I can do is rant about it.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I agree with this and I especially like the point about forcing an issue underground so that it is left unexamined. But where do you draw the lines of 'the school' or any other institution for that matter? Can teachers wear religious clothing or should they be barred from doing so? This is an issue that is brought up occassionally in the private sector in Canada (at least in some parts of Canada ie Ontario). Department stores want to remove the promotion of Christianity by propping up big Christmas trees and whatnot so that they won't alienate their customers. I don't have a problem with this. But they go as far as to prohibit ther employees from wishing customers a Merry Christmas at the check out. I don't really like that one as it denies the self-expression of employees (who are before anything else, human beings).

As far as the public sector goes, I think there should be no official promotion, but certainly no silencing. Teachers do present an interesting issue though, because as much as I think they should be allowed to express their view as individuals, the students shouldn't feel pressured to agree for grades. I wonder what the best way to handle that would be?

In America, the attempt to not alienate customers by being more inclusive with wording backfired massively, so now most stores are back to being mostly focused on Christmas. I'm not a Christian, but I certainly don't experience "Merry Christmas" as alienating. I think the companies have the technical "right" to mandate customer service in the way they want (there are lots of things deemed offensive, but in a non professional context would be considered legitimate self expression), but I dislike draconian policy as much as the next person: both in principle and because in customer service at least it ends up sounding contrived and impersonal, even terse.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by glow

Well I don't recall the exact verse; but some part of this are verses immdiately after the verse you mentioned. I'll get back to you when its morning in my part of the globe!
And no not like the pigs. In the sense that they are forbidden to destroy or deface the cities they attack. Of course they can live in wooden houses & burn firewood!

And yeah, your argument against the ban still stands quite valid! I was just clearing out this verse.

Ah okay, interesting. Are you a Muslim or do you just happen to know a bit more about the Koran than the average joe?