The Indian presence at yesterday’s Bastille Day events in Paris commemorated the sacrifices of Indian soldiers who fought and died in World War I and symbolized the current economic, military and political ties between the two nations. But the images of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as chief guest and the Indian troops who marched in the annual military parade, including a group pictured to the right led by a Sikh officer, also brought to mind the French law that continues to keep Sikhs out of public schools and prevents them from getting drivers licenses or serving in the military or public office.
Overlooked back in 2004 when France enacted the so-called French headscarf ban forbidding any conspicuous religious symbols in state schools or government offices, the tiny Sikh community of France has been fighting the law in and out of the courts since then (previous SM coverage). The French President encapsulated his government’s official and unnuanced position on Sikhs in France following last fall’s European Union/India Summit in Marseille. An annoyed Sarkozy, standing next to Prime Minister Singh at the time, took a reporter’s question about Sikhs wearing turbans in France.
Sarkozy, replied curtly, “Sir, we respect Sikhs. We respect their customs, their traditions. They are most welcome to France.” Visibly irritated, Sarkozy continued, “But sir, we have rules, rules concerning the neutrality of civil servants, rules concerning secularism, and these rules don’t apply only to Sikhs…
Sarkozy explained that the banning of turbans is not discrimination, that, “These rules apply to everybody, to everybody with no exception. There is no discrimination whatsoever.” (New Europe)
It seems unlikely that Sikhs in France will have much luck in their efforts given more recent developments that could broaden the reach of the 2004 ban. Last month Sarkozy spoke out to support a ban of the burqa, the full-body garment worn by an estimated 100,000 Muslim women born in France (Telegraph). In public comments he said “it is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity,” and that the burqa “is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.” (Reuters)
Kamran Pasha, a screenwriter and novelist who writes about Islam recently returned from a week in France and he offers another perspective on the proposed ban.
my own experience in that beautiful country (I lived in Paris for several months in 2007) leads me to believe that the controversy over the burqa is not really about women’s rights. It is about preserving a certain cultural heritage from the onslaught of foreign values and perspectives. The burqa controversy is really about attempting to save a beleaguered French identity from being replaced by a new and alien social tradition that is spreading through the power of demographics. But social engineering is a poor tool to curtail the realities of reproduction. At current birth rates, Muslims will become a numerically influential community inside France within this century. The same is true for many other nations in Europe. Efforts to stem the power of Muslim culture from reshaping European identity are as pointless as trying to hold back a river with one’s hands. (Lifting the Veil)
Given what seems to be another sort of Bastille Day tradition in recent years — riots and destruction in the nation’s suburban estates like those spurred this year by the death of a young Algerian man in police custody, and evidence of employment discrimination against ethnic minorities in France, I agree with Pasha that there is more at play than the stated and maybe more publicly palatable concerns for women’s rights. The desire to prevent changes to French identity and demographics seem the more likely motivations for the 2004 law and the proposed burqa ban.
But fixating on conspicuous religious symbols like the turban or burqa does not feel like an effective way to preserve French traditions and identity, especially when it keeps people out of state schools or other public institutions — just the kind of places where I imagine they have opportunities to study and participate in the culture and traditions that are part of a nation’s heritage.
And I was such a Francophile. Frustrating for someone who enjoys French literature, art, etc but who also happens to be an ethnic minority. I had a college classmate, a Palestinian girl, who decided to study abroad in France during her senior year. She made the decision to remove her headscarf before leaving for France. I understood her hesitation about exposing herself to discrimination, but found it disheartening that she felt compelled to change her identity. Oh well. Vive L’Amerique! Pass the freedom fries, please.
Thanks for this post. Yeah, it is quite an arc. How does the ban on religious religious symbols apply on different profession ? Can Nuns and priests wear their symbols or is it only for ‘other’ religions ?
France recent history on this matter is determined by a law voted in 1905 that separates religion from government. This law was an extremely fought battle and has represented the status quo on that matter ever since. There, it is not considered consistent to be the representative of the state and show your inclination for a particular religion (christian, jewish, muslim or sikh) as it provides a hint to a potential bias of the said representative. The consistency also imposes that school kids do not wear attributes of their respective religion because schools are generally public and one cannot impose one’s religion on others on those grounds. The fear mongering of the British and US press has made this issue something it is not. If you are not a representative of the state or an under-age school kid on state owned school, then you can wear whatever you want in the same way the christians can wear large crosses around their necks. One should never judge a whole country based on newspaper clippings.
With regards to the Burqa, the issue is really that, indeed, it is not part of our society to have unidentifiable people walk among us. If that is being backwards, then count me in.
I think many countries have problems with their immigrants, however, France is one of the few countries where family names rarely sound “old” french. All the people I know have had their roots somewhere else if I am looking three generation above them. I am not sure it is taking longer for people from mostly Muslim countries to be part of the french community, as a matter of fact, I think it makes great newspaper fodder and that “integration” would not stand the comparison with previous “integration” of Italians and Polish people last century.
A French person.
The consistency also imposes that school kids do not wear attributes of their respective religion because schools are generally public and one cannot impose one’s religion on others on those grounds.
Thanks French person for your perspective. How does this law work with nuns and monks?
Most Christian families I know, who have their lineage in the West do not wear any visible symbol of their religon. This is different for many Sikhs or Muslims. The law seems outdated as France is now a home to millions of immigrants who are or will become French citizens, but require visible symbols to practice their religion.
Yeah — A Sikh kid in a French public school is really “imposing” his religion on others. This from a country which has “Ascension (of Jesus)”, “Assumption (of Mary)”, and “All-saints day” as public school holidays.
Different countries have their own religious heritage — that’s fine. Its the freaking hypocrisy and self-righteousness of French secularism that’s irritating. Straight-up bigotry would be more honest.
It absolutely applies to nuns and monks except in those private (non-state) schools where they teach (Nuns, Monks and Priests were the first targets of this 1905 law) The keyword being non-state. There are schools sponsored by the Christians, Jews and Muslims where one can wear whatever their rules asked them to wear.
The French are in a rock and hard place, giving some leeway to new religions like the Muslims or Sikhs is clearly giving the green light for the repeal of the 1905 law. I know no French person who would want to open this pandora’s box with the more powerful religions like the Catholics in particular. To make my point clearer, it looks as though for the Muslim the question is pretty much being neutralized as some muslim countries are themselves trying to rid them of some of these scarf issues. For the Sikhs, it might mean their inability to hold any government job. It may also mean that if there is a large community, for the Sikhs to help create private schools where their clothing would be acceptable.
Finally, the Burqa issue does not fall in this discussion as people really feel theatened by it (and I agree with them). I do not believe that the same goes with the Sikh apparel nor with the scarf.
A French Person.
“Its the freaking hypocrisy and self-righteousness of French secularism that’s irritating. Straight-up bigotry would be more honest.”
Self-righteousness of French secularism was bought after a long hard fight with the Catholics a hundred years ago. You can say whatever you want, the people who live in France do not want religion as divisive issue in their educational and government system. When they lived with it, they were all kinds of distortion that did not make the word “egalite” whole.
As for your comment about a Sikh kid imposing his religion or not, it goes deeper than that. The religious experience should not afftect one’s ability to have friends and be socially accepted. As it turns out, you know as well as I do that as soon as you provide some excuse for “clics” in an environment with kids you are likely to bias their entire learning experience. You may want to call it bigotry, we mostly differ on that point.
A French Person.
Here’s the picture I was looking for — the 15th Sikh regiment in Marseille during WWI, off to defend the French Republic from the Germans.
This from a country which has “Ascension (of Jesus)”, “Assumption (of Mary)”, and “All-saints day” as public school holidays.
If the above is true French person than how are these holidays defended?
I know no French person who would want to open this pandora’s box with the more powerful religions like the Catholics in particular. Well, I’m sure there are French who are muslims and/or Sikh who do want to practice their religion as they see fit, and not have to pay extra for sending their children to schools. And does this law effect entrance into musuems, courts, post offices?…the list is endless. To me it’s a narrow-minded, ethnocentric law that is biased toward a France, that saw itself only as Western lineage country, and now the French come in many colors and have lineages from many parts of the world.
@No-not-really: As I recall the law lets one wear a small crucifix, but no turban, a scarf for secular purposes, but not religion. It also allows jewelry like wedding rings with deep Christian roots. You can shave your head for religious reasons, but not cover it for the same, even though both signify as loudly.
The whole thing is poorly considered and inconsistent. If they were serious about this being a secular issue rather than an anti-Islamic one, they’d have to go further to ban all symbols associated with any religion, and they haven’t done that.
@No-not-really: Also, how does it help integration to push students into private religious institutions and encourage the poorest to drop out of school altogether? After the revolution, schools were one of the key institutions that knit the nation together. Now they serve to separate.
Lastly, there’s the problem of the European Convention on Human Rights to which France is a signatory.
WHEN IN ROME, DO AS THE ROMANS DO No one asked to live in France….If all countries will have same laws and same language then these countries should not have existed. Differences have created states as well as country. So follow the rules or live in your village. Well in 200 years much of the world will become like european union or like afganistan. Choose your side.
A french person wrote:
The religious experience should not afftect one’s ability to have friends and be socially accepted.
Most folks on this very sepia site a familiar with how having a different religious background than your classmates can affect your learning experience. If you think having a similar external clothing makes religious issues vanish, you are pretty obtuse. It might make the majority group feel better (we all look the same!), but it doesn’t necessarily make the minority kid feel that way.
Thankfully for Francophiles, there is at least one secular francophone society where religious bigotry is not enacted in law. Despite popular anti-Sikh hysteria (and occasional malicious prosecution of Sikh children), turbans and kirpans are permitted in Quebec public schools. And Quebec was a society far more Catholic and priest-ridden than France, up into the 60s, .
Vive le Quebec, libre (in this case).
The Gift of India Is there aught you need that my hands withhold, Rich gifts of raiment or grain or gold? Lo! I have flung to the East and West Priceless treasures torn from my breast, And yielded the sons of my stricken womb To the drum beats of duty, the sabers of doom. Gathered like pearls in their alien graves Silent they sleep by the Persian waves, Scattered like shells on Egyptian sands, They lie with pale brows and brave, broken hands, They are strewn like blossoms mown down by chance On the blood brown meadows of Flanders and France. Can ye measure the grief of the tears I weep Or compass the woe of the watch I keep? Or the pride that thrills thro’ my heart’s despair And the hope that comforts the anguish of prayer? And the far sad glorious vision I see Of the torn red banners of victory? When the terror and tumult of hate shall cease And life be refashioned on anvils of peace, And your love shall offer memoriam thanks To the comrades who fought in your dauntless ranks, And you honour the deeds of the deathless ones, Remember the blood of my martyred sons.
— Sarojini Naidu (August 1915)
It was nice to see them Remembered after all.
Most attractive/appealing political theories allow considerable leeway for religious freedom. But no rights are absolute–thus, the sarcastic phrase “Let justice be served, though the heavens may fall.” So, the question is whether the French ban is justifiable by weighty pragmatic concerns. That’s the real question here. What measure of restrictions on religious freedom are legitimate given the circumstances (e.g., rioting in the suburbs that seems to break down along religious lines)? This needs to be the terms of the real debate. The Sikhs are collateral damage of the French/Islamic tensions.
What measure of restrictions on religious freedom are legitimate given the circumstances (e.g., rioting in the suburbs that seems to break down along religious lines)?
So true. I don’t think, like Ennis, the laws are meant to be “anti-Islamic”. There are socioeconomic problems, sometimes involving violence and religious chauvinism on the part of Muslims that the law was supposed to mend. But it’s poorly thought out and like I said before ethnocentric to the way the majority of people with Western lineage practice their relgions. Hijab does not equal oppression – forcing people to remove these religious markers isn’t necessarily going to end women’s oppression; there are other ways to target the rights of Muslim women, from Muslim French women activists that doesn’t resort to essentializing a religious garb as the reason for “problems” of gender and such.
The Sikhs are collateral damage of the French/Islamic tensions. I absolutely agree.
Ennis, you said:
“As I recall the law lets one wear a small crucifix, but no turban, a scarf for secular purposes, but not religion. It also allows jewelry like wedding rings with deep Christian roots. You can shave your head for religious reasons, but not cover it for the same, even though both signify as loudly.”
which part of no religious signs is unclear to you ? you recollection is wrong. The law in question does not allow for crucifix to be wore by either students on state sponsored ground nor by government officials. Other than that as a citizen you can wear anything you want.
A French Person.
Mixed feelings. Although I find pagris on Sikh men attractive, I can understand why France is wary of allowing pagris and hijabs to be warn in certain jobs. “Multi-culturalism” as it is taking place in small European countries and the UK is vastly different than here in the very big, wide, open USA. The face of nations are being changed, and not for the positive due to being very lenient in this regard and those countries are now paying for it.
I’ve always had a penchant for wearing unusual types of clothing for whatever place/country/culture I may find myself in, but I have found that I am able to blend in (when I want to) and affect more people in a postive way when I dress similar to them, wherever I am.
A turban or a hijab does not offend me and I personally couldn’t care less, but I think it’s reached a point in places like France and the Netherlands where the overall ethos of those countries is spiralling down because certain immigrants do not want to assimlate.
Of course it has more to do with the high number of Muslim immigrants than other groups, but in order to appear fair, France can’t have one law for Muslims and another for Sikhs.
You are all having interesting point of views, but may I suggest that the issue at hand has little to do with being anti-islamic but rather being equal to all the religions. Most French people I know would not even think that allowing the largest religious group (Catholics) to come back into the secular life of the state to be a good thing. Besides the fact that it would be a nightmare to deal with other religion, most of us are happy to have state funded abortion clinics, and are pretty happy with the fact that no money goes from the public sector to any religious fiefdoms. As for Quebec being liberal in that respect, we’ll see how long they can afford to be that way, we wish them luck.
As for the apparel being the same, in light of the scarf issue, this was an issue being talked about i.e. the politics were considering passing a law telling all students of france to wear a unique uniform. Another reason for doing that is that there is currently a race for wearing the nicest “Nike” by the youngest students that is thought by some to be detrimental to the learning process.
In effect, the scarf issue in school pretty much got us close to another Pandora’s box. In light of all this, I have to agree that the current issues with the Muslim apparels have essentially made impossible for any middle ground for any other religion.
For those of you who think this is a Muslim issue, just remember that this is more like a Catholics issue. France was considered like the grand sister of the Church and the 1905 has changed that view forever.
A French Person
whoa! i kind of fall in the middle on this. the ref to quebec caught my attention so will highlight my personal belief that quebec society resists the encroachment of religion on the public space – not out of bigotry, but because this has been a hard fought victory – well before sikhs and muslims gained mass in the province.
fyi on the quiet revolution of the sixties
i also believe that were it not for societal resistance, the hijab and the turban will become ornaments and less a statement of faith. all this brouhaha only serves froth things up.
re: compromises, I have a jewish cousin in Paris who is fairly orthodox in practice (more haredim than hasidim) and she wears a wig to work rather than the prohibited head-scarf. It’s ridiculous but that’s the compromise that most in her position have had to make
The equality argument my French friend here is making is laughable. Having said that, the conspiracy theories are pretty weak too. Yes, countries sometimes try to make a troublesome minority disappear by divorcing them from their traditional practices in the hope they forget them. But they don’t do it in these half assed ways. I don’t think even the feeblest of believers is going to forget his religion because he isn’t wearing his hat. Nor is anyone else going to forget it – hat or not hat, he is still named Omar Abdullah and talks funny. So what does this asinine law achieve? Nothing of consequence. I’d speculate though, that it had something to do with rousing the voting masses.
I dont really blame France for this.
I dont want to live in a country where Muslims are the majority.
I know it’s not politically correct to say this, but imagine what is going to happen to freedom in the future?
Say goodbye to freedom of religion and say goodbye to freedom of expression if Muslims are the majority in Europe and eventually America.
This might not be realistic, but can anyone offer any reason for why this shouldnt be a concern?
Khoofi, your view that personal belief that quebec society resists the encroachment of religion on the public space – not out of bigotry is not what the Taylor-Bouchard commission said.
We have thus observed with respect to a majority of cases that aroused controversy significant distortions between facts and perceptions
and,
Another pitfall pertains to religion. French-Canadian Quebecers have unpleasant memories of the period when the clergy wielded excessive power over institutions and individuals. However, this hypersensitive memory may be a poor reference in respect of secularism. The danger lies in directing against all religions a feeling of hostility about the Catholic past, at the cost of marginalizing certain groups of citizens and fragmenting our society.
As for the public reaction — see what happened to the report’s recommendation that the enormous crucifix in the Quebec National Assembly be taken down.
I dont really blame France for this.
I dont want to live in a country where Muslims are the majority.
I know it’s not politically correct to say this, but imagine what is going to happen to freedom in the future?
Say goodbye to freedom of religion and say goodbye to freedom of expression if Muslims are the majority in Europe and eventually America.
This might not be realistic, but can anyone offer any reason for why this shouldnt be a concern?
And this my friend is why you are the ShallowThinker.
I commend the Sikhs from WW1-WW2 for their sacrifice. I didn’t know abt this aspect of Sikh history till I came across the following book.
But it also means one should take this opportunity to condemn British practices and colonialism. In the spirit of Subash Chandra Bose – thanks to Germans and Japanese who precipitated WW2, India, Africa and rest of the Third World got independence.
Btw talking abt. france – USA is no better atleast wrt to Sikhs in US Army Sikhs fight Army over bans on turbans, uncut hair http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/15/us.sikhs.military/
People can practice their religion and still conform in manners of dress style to the “host culture” if you will. What’s wrong with that? I do it. Why can’t they?
good point
Everyone has to have their hair shorn in the army, why should new rules be made for Sikhs?
Since the Sikhs around the world are cutting their hair and abandoning the turban in droves, the Sikh parents demanding the right to tie turbans in French schools for their progeny must be very few in number and of the fundamentalist sort, who are being rightly asked to choose between the turban and the privilege of living in France. It’s simple, if religion [wearing the turban or donning the burqa or wearing the hijab] is so important to you, remain in your country or go to a nation, which will accommodate your superstitions. After all, Sikh Gurus chose to sacrifice their lives and their sons’ lives rather convert to Islam.
p.s. – I always find it a tad hypocritical when Musims, who deny or curb the right to practice religion to all non-Muslims in every country where they form a majority, including Turkey, demand special concessions from other countries.
Ditto!
In some Muslim countries, non-muslims have to risk breaking the law in order to just have religious gatherings in their homes, forget about building Mandirs or Churches or Synagogues!
Non-muslim women are required BY LAW in Saudi to wear hijab.
Physician, heal thyself.
i’m not worried about france becoming muslim majority actually, only 2-3% of french are believing muslims anyhow, but muslim majority countries scare a lot of non-muslims. hindu-majority countries scare a lot of muslims. what’s so wrong about not wanting to be in a minority when there are differences of values? until most muslims are episcopalians, or have the attitudes of nizari ismailis, we’re right to be scared. here’s how muslims think in a nation which accepts multiculturalism think: The most dramatic contrast was found in attitudes towards homosexuality. None of the 500 British Muslims interviewed believed that homosexual acts were morally acceptable. 1,001 non-Muslim Britons were interviewed.
as for church-state separation, it’s all hypocrisy. states decide what is, or isn’t, a religious expression. they also decide which religions get dispensations and which do not. even in the united states.
Well said. France should openly come out and claim that some religions are unwelcome, more like Saudi Arabia / Gulf countries. It is not the right of any person to go immigrate into another country and then want their rules to be changed to respect the stories which he/she believes.
here’s some data religion in france. ~4% in polls say they’re muslim. since around ~10% is “muslim origin” that suggests a high level of disaffiliation, just as among those of “catholic” origin. lionel jospin was an atheist from a protestant family. we should be careful about projecting american expectations, where there is a tight correlation between one’s religious beliefs and the cultural-religious identity of one’s family.
Well said. France should openly come out and claim that some religions are unwelcome, more like Saudi Arabia / Gulf countries. It is not the right of any person to go immigrate into another country and then want their rules to be changed to respect the stories which he/she believes.
what happened in the united states is that catholics and jews basically ‘protestantized’ their religion. this is happening to muslims too. the problem is that when you have strong orthopraxic demands in a religion it makes the whole position that “religious in private” by definition difficult.
Btw talking abt. france – USA is no better atleast wrt to Sikhs in US Army Sikhs fight Army over bans on turbans, uncut hair
I really don’t think there is any comparison to France’s misplaced logic to the US’s issue about uncut hair for the army. I think for the US army it is a safety issue. France’s ban on religious symbols is a ban targetted toward a religious group that they don’t understand, and many in that group has a lot of socioeconomic problems, and Sikhs are an unexpected casualty of it. French knew their ban would not effect I’m sure 99% of practicing Christians/Catholics in the country.
As far as the Muslim country’s oppressing any other religion except their own…that’s those Muslim govts. It doesn’t mean individ citizens or immigrants to a country that claims to practice religious freedom, shouldn’t claim that their rights are violated. A French person who happens to be a Muslim has as right to complain about any French law as any other French citizen.
Ponniyin Well said. France should openly come out and claim that some religions are unwelcome, more like Saudi Arabia / Gulf countries.
Yes, one option is to openly become the moral equivalent of Saudi Arabia, but I think the “universal civilization” would have some trouble with that idea.
Razib wrote: i’m not worried about france becoming muslim majority… what’s so wrong about not wanting to be in a minority … until most muslims are episcopalians, or have the attitudes of nizari ismailis, we’re right to be scared.
Incoherent. If you’re not worried about demographic takeover, what are you scared of?
It doesn’t mean individ citizens or immigrants to a country that claims to practice religious freedom, shouldn’t claim that their rights are violated.
no country allows total religious freedom. there’s a spectrum, that’s all. there are no rumblings about male circumcision in sweden. sucks when you have different norms.
France’s ban on religious symbols is a ban targetted toward a religious group that they don’t understand, and many in that group has a lot of socioeconomic problems,
most people who are affected by this might be muslims who have socioeconomic problems, but most self-identified muslims who have socioeconomic problems are not affected by this, because most self-identified muslims do not have the same orthopraxic demands. rachida dati was a self-identified muslim when she was in sarkozy’s gov., and, she got pregnant outside of marriage without identifying the father. there are many different ways to be muslim. the french just prefer particular ways. which is actually pretty much how all polities operate.
Incoherent. If you’re not worried about demographic takeover, what are you scared of?
i’m scared for muslims who will not flourish in the french way.
Countries need to make it clear to immigrants then that religion is a private matter. Those immigrants that are happy to practice their religion within the confines of their own homes, religious centers, hearts and minds, will do so. Those that aren’t, will choose to stay in their countries of origins and display boldly external signs of their “religious attire” if there even is such a thing. If that makes them feel closer to God, so be it. At some point we all have to mature to a more internalized and integrated spirituality in order to really “get it”.
I am legally within my rights here to go about town dressed oddly, but I don’t. Dressing oddly puts an unneccessary barrier up between myself and other people.
What is that “universal civilization” ?.
I think Europeans are realising that they have taken the “politically correct” stand on issues regarding religion too far and are trying to correct it. We see that from the gains of the rightist parties all over Europe.
France is making the noise now because of its changing demographics but I guess many countries will follow suit.
Countries need to make it clear to immigrants then that religion is a private matter.
yes, but the whole “private matter” thing is a public fiction 🙂 the key is you need to practice a religion which makes the fiction easier. the “public” aspects of majority religions are often sublimated into the general “secular” set of norms and practices.
France is making the noise now because of its changing demographics but I guess many countries will follow suit.
france has a long history of this. during the early 19th century there was a labor shortage in france due to demographic transition and italian, spanish and polish catholics arrived to fill the need. the secularists were worried that these religious catholic buttressed the religious faction. over the long term though these too secularized. the french won their kulturkampf by 1905.
ponniyin, i think we have to be careful about generalizing about “europe.” the different countries have very different histories and stances in regards to religion.
Everything could be solved if social welfare for both immigrants and natives were cut out and immigrants were shown movies of what life is like in whatever country they are moving to and what sort of dress and behaviour will be expected of them. Only those willing to comply should be let in. And everyone must work to support themselves or face deportation.
The West is way too liberal and kind.
Problem solved right there. Somebody make me world emperor!
no country allows total religious freedom. right, I understand…not just b/c “norms” are different but also b/c of public safety issues and safety of minors. If you have a religion that calls for killing another person than you can’t practice it that way in the US. I’m sure there’s much legal text on this issue, particularly with polygamy and groups such as Mormons that once embraced that practice. Maybe a lawyer can add more to the balance of religous freedom/freedom of expression and safety and public welfare concerns (one thing I’ve heard that is argued against polygamy, is that it is difficult for a father to be a parent to all the children that are the offspring of their many wives).
most self-identified muslims do not have the same orthopraxic demands I guess that’s true in the French Muslim population, but I don’t really know. None of my Muslim friends (not acquaintances or colleagues) walk around with a hijab but they don’t eat pork, I know that and they drink alcohol when they want to and I haven’t seen them break out into prayer when we’ve been out an about all day.
Sure, I’m just starting to learn about different countries of Europe. I’m reading about the Martin Luther (early 1500s) Vs Pope period now. Still a few centuries to catch up. But already I can see how much trouble Europeans went through because of religion through those centuries. I guess they would not like to go back to that period because of “political correctness”.
I’ll be careful about generalising. Thanks.