oops, not up on this issue specific incident I guess. After reading some of the posts I was under the impression that this was happening somewhere in America. Had that been true, my post would have been relevant...this however does not mean you need to get all snippy about it.

I don't know much about French law, but I do know that law comes before religion, not the other way around, so what the law does not cover, religion is free to exploit.

On your second "point" the American Constitution is an absolute, however, it only encompasses America. My point was merely that the constitution is absolute, when it is ammended, the amended version becomes the absolute.  

@ironman. Freedom of religion is considered a fundamental right and even (I believe) enshrined in your constitution =P.

And sorry for being snippy, I didn't mean to be, I was honestly confused by your post as I couldn't see the relevance.
But I do stand by my statement that the constitution isn't absolute =P. For something to be absolute I think it has to be both immutable and universal - you could argue that the laws of logic are absolute or the laws of physics, but not a constitution.

Yes, freedom of religion is a fundamental right, but that freedom ends where the constitution picks up. One example, is polygamy, it is against the law here even though it is a religion. Also, what if there were a religion that required human sacrifices? We would outlaw the human sacrifices, but not the religion itself. Religion is NOT above the law of the land. That is the distinction I was trying to make.  

I'd consider the freedom of religion to end where the other fundamental rights pick up. However its a small distinction as a many of those rights are enshrined somewhere in the US constitution anyway =P.

Thats exactly what WoW was saying actually, the rights of freedom of religion end at the point where they infringe on other peoples rights.

Although I'm not sure the polygamy example is a great one. Its a moral objection from your culture that has caused it to be made illegal in a state by state basis I think. I don't see how allowing people to commit polygamy would compromise any fundamental rights really.

And that's the point I was making in the first place. I do agree that polygamy probably wasn't the best example though. 

Keep everything legal but make routes to inform people of their freedom and that they don't need to where the veils here.

A good help would be to look back historically on why they are worn.

Just because something is used for bad... doesn't mean you should ban it if all it's use isn't bad.

Burkha's aren't the crime.

If I forced my kid via beatings to where a shirt that says "I love Dio."

It's the abuse that's the crime.  Banning the object that is the after effect will have no lasting effect.

If you target the end result, the abuse will just be moved elsewhere. 

Catholics also, but women fought back to gain some autonomy and recognition over the last decades.

I don't believe that burqa is a sign of faith in any f*cking way ! It is pure oppression to me and true moderate Islam has nothing to do with that.

I don't believe neither in women testimonies saying that they are ok with burqa.... .. they are either brainwashed or fear acts of revenge from their entourage.

Nobody can emancipate with that kind of restrictions...

My understanding of Islam is that the Qu'ran only states that women should only cover there hair and shoulders. Most of the other interpretations are actually cultural and not religious. However, a lot of people see them as one and the same and can't distinguish between the 2.

We have to go back a long way to find the orginal reasons for a lot of the rules in all religions and a lot of the them seem to be forgotten. Yet many still follow the rules without understanding. In this case however, I think the restrictions are actually cultural, but people are just as willing to accept them due to tradition.

Please note that I haven't actually read the Qu'ran, and the info above comes only from what I've learnt from muslim friends and courses on understanding different religions.

Yes you are right but I take the problem from the other side : In our modern society, I believe that the public sphere has to remain open.

Here in Belgium, we have quite a lot of young muslims from the first or second generation born in the country (parents are grand-parents are immigrants).

I see that they are really willing to abandon what they consider a family pressure about tradition/religion... when it fails, it is always because somebody else forced them too... especially the women ! And that is totally unacceptable.

IMO it is also binded to an improvement of their social condition. So when women are forced to live under those "strict traditions", it prevent them from reaching a higher social status.

In the end, it is not about faith or anything, it is about putting back religion out of the political and legal aspects of the society.

While not true on this board... nearly every atheist i've met in real life has been catholic.... despite my area being largely protestant.  The harder cultural norms are pushed on people... the more they are going to reject them if possible.

The more you attack someoens cultural ideals... the more minorities who feel disfranchised are going to cling to them.