A few days ago a couple friends and I got into a discussion on the on-going religious debate in France (for those not sure what I'm referring to, see
this 'Economist' article). Personally, I've never been much for politics because it's shocking how quickly "friendly debates" become blood in the upholstery. That said, I do latch on to certain topics, and this whole notion of what's acceptable dress vs what isn't really fascinates me.
One of my friends (who is American, which is pertinent) said it's not at all right to impose such a law when it so clearly targets the Muslim portion of the population. Small crosses or stars of David can be slipped beneath shirt collars and are therefore permitted because they're not "ostentatious." This implies that the burqa should not be allowed because it can't be hidden. This makes it somehow dangerous.
Another friend (who is French, also pertinent) replied that while, yes, she agreed it was a blatant attack on a crucial tradition of Islam -- one which, throughout history, has been in flux and has meant very different things depending on the time, place, and political atmosphere in which it was worn -- this still doesn't change the fact that the French government is very different compared to the American one.
In America, she argued, there's this notion of separation of Church and State: this doesn't mean, necessarily, that all things State will also be secular, but rather that American citizens are free to practice whichever religions they so choose without fear of government intervention. In some cases the Church and State are very much intertwined, it's just that no one can legally take away your right to not be religious -- or to be religious in spades if you so choose.
In France it isn't the same, she said. You don't have that freedom of "going either way." If you are religious you keep it a private affair. The government goes through hoops to keep all traces of religion out of the school systems, public venues, government decisions, etc. It is seen as a danger (and a betrayal) to the State if one's religion gets too much stage time. We had to understand, she implored us, that in the eyes of France these women were French citizens first and Muslims second. And that's how it had always been.
I sat back and watched the two of them argue, both so passionate and somewhat understanding the other's viewpoint but
still not quite getting it, and I got to thinking: how much are we a product of where we're raised...how we were brought up?
My country is at best idealistic, at worst narrow-minded, with a peppering of war-torn contradictions and a reluctance to admit mistakes. It has ferocity and brilliance and potential. It has stupidity and contrition and epic foul-ups. It is both star-struck and unaffected; pathologically polite and unforgivably rude; young and old. It smokes hashish and pipe tobacco, drinks vodka and port. It is forgiving and kind, it will flash you an encouraging smile, but it still has brutally high expectations.
Am I not the same?
So many times I've heard people say,
I can't help it, it's just how I was raised. Or,
No, I understand -- it's hard to fight against how you were brought up, eh? But what does that mean, exactly? Of course we'll always take on characteristics of the people with whom we are raised. It's nigh on impossible not to. But does that leave no room for our own (somewhat) unique mannerisms, beliefs, and outlooks on the world?
At any rate... I think I'm just being rambly at this point. If you got to the end of this post, you're clearly some sort of demi-god.
And I owe about five of you letters, still.