The government of France has just established a vitally important precedent in the battle against the Islamization of the planet. Citing "insufficient assimilation," France has denied citizenship to a Moroccan woman who is "totally submissive" to her husband and male relatives, and who is forced to dress in a full Islamic veil, i.e., a burqa/burkha, chador or abaya.

Of course, we can expect to hear from those who believe that women should have the "right" to dress and live in this oppressive manner. These "liberal" cries appear to be based entirely on the blatant bigotry which supposes that anything done in the name of religion - no matter how vile - is just peachy keen. If, however, a Western, non-Muslim woman were living in a totally submissive state and forced to cover herself from head to toe not in the name of religion, would not the same people be yelling for intervention, to help this woman free herself of her abusive husband and this patent imprisonment? The woman in this current story would be freed and sent to a domestic violence shelter, with protection from the law against her husband - if she were not imprisoned by so-called religious ideology.

What truly "religious" ideology is based on the mistreatment and enslavement of women? How can there possibly be any good, decent and merciful god behind such egregious abuse of human rights? Millions of women around the world are suffering horribly because of manmade cults seemingly designed specifically for the purpose of enslaving them - yet, where is the outcry from the "bleeding heart" segment of society? "Religion" is not an excuse and should never have been an excuse for the abuse of women and the denial of basic human rights. If one is truly a "bleeding heart" one will feel the pain of these women in their daily enslavement in the name of Islam - and one will demand an end to it NOW, no "ifs," "buts" or "ands" about it. This enslavement of women is EVIL, period.



Fortunately, France has finally grown a backbone and made this moral decision that could open the door to ending this vile abuse in the name of God. No god who demands abusing women is worthy of the name or of any sort of worship. No ideology that believes women to be inferior or mere sexual objects in need of being enslaved and covered up should be deemed a "religion" and be given special status. Any such ideology must either change or die.


"All the 'bleeding heart' multicultists who do not demand an end the severe, worldwide abuse of women, regardless of the fact that it is done in the name of religion and God, are part of the problem."


They are in effect and indecently aiding and abetting these vicious, ongoing crimes against humanity. Let us hope that such characters do not succeed in overturning this ruling in France, as they are attempting to do, some of them quite likely at the behest of and financed by Muslim organizations who thrive on enslaving women. In reality, France should take this act a step further and deny or revoke the citizenship of this woman's husband and male relatives, and boot them out of the country. She should then be allowed to live in France with her children, provided she obtains counseling and is freed from her psychological and spiritual enslavement.



By taking this powerful step against the abuse of women in their country, France is leading the way in containing the virulent anti-woman sickness that is spreading throughout the world. All civilized countries must follow suit - and they must then put pressure on the uncivilized, backward nations to do likewise, or there will be no acceptance into the global family of humankind. No woman anywhere on the planet should be abused and enslaved in this manner, period. To invoke religion and God as excuses for this wanton evil represents the height of savagery and depravity.

Vive La France! France is the country that brought enlightenment ideas and democracy to Europe in the age of Absolute Monarchs. They have shown leadership again despite the insulting comments coming from so many Americans because France opposed the illegal Iraq War. And guess what? Jacques Chirac was right. There were no WMDs, no Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection, and Iraq did not commit 9-11. He and Gerhardt Schroeder knew Bush was a mentally deranged moron alcoholic but Tony Blair was fooled by an inarticulate idiot.

Amergin

__________________
Militant Agnostic: I don't know, and neither do you. There is no evidence of God so belief is optional.

Merci, merci! Especially poignant when one considers that it's Bastille Day next Monday.

Interesting shaw-n..

Do you have any sources for the story? I hadn't heard much about it.

- Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

This links to the story.


Or, for those who do not like following links:

France rejects veiled Muslim wife

A French court has denied citizenship to a Muslim woman from Morocco, ruling that her practice of "radical" Islam is not compatible with French values.

The 32-year-old woman, known as Faiza M, has lived in France since 2000 with her husband - a French national - and their three French-born children.

Social services reports said the burqa-wearing Faiza M lived in "total submission to her male relatives".

Faiza M said she has never challenged the fundamental values of France.

Her initial application for French citizenship was rejected in 2005 on the grounds of "insufficient assimilation" into France.

She appealed, and late last month the Conseil d'Etat, France's highest administrative body which also acts as a high court, upheld the decision to deny her citizenship.

Story from BBC NEWS:


Published: 2008/07/12 19:34:01 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

A huge part of the difficulty, of course, is in trying to disentangle the notions of subservience to her husband and obedience to a religious belief.

It is not entirely unlikely that the woman, when asked "are you doing this willingly?" would answer, "yes." But can we ever sort out whether she's answering "yes" because she means it, or she's afraid her husband will kill her for the sake of his "honour" if she answers otherwise?

The fundamental ideas that make living in a pluralistic society possible do not coexist easily with fundamentalist religious (or other dogmatic) beliefs.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Well stated.

Another thing to consider if the woman in question would answer yes would be the training (domestication process) which she received from childhood on where such values would be reinforced at every step of the way by all the others she was exposed to.
Such peer pressure is very difficult to deal with and children do not know that such values are inappropriate.
They accept the authority imposed on them (which is by force) and are thusly psychologically molded for life.

"train a child in the way they are to go and when they are old they will not depart from it".
So can you "teach an old dog a new trick"???????

Am i the only one who sees this woman being made a further victim by the policies dictated by a government?

If she complies she may be doing so against the dictates of HER conscience, and face possible physical and certain pshycological abuse by both her family and her community, everyone she knows intimatly. Her children may be removed from her influence, in affect leaving her a marginal person.

If she doesn't comply it does leave her open to exportation, seperation from her children as they and her husband ( i presume) are French citizens. Back in her own islamic country she will also be a marginal person without husband or children.

Once again, the men who dictate female place and behavior in her society are not directly affected, or answerable.

IMO, this solves nothing. It's a turniquet on a finger, and when the finger drops off they can feel good about healing the hand.

i don't know what the answer is, i only know what it's not, and this isn't it.

the French should not cave in and pander to religious pressure.
A hard choice, yes, but you cannot make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
I can sympathize for the woman plight, but to give in would set precedent which would make many more suffer.
You must weigh it all out, not just the immediate, but the rest waiting in line as well.
It is the price we pay for our religious superstitions.
Hopefully someday soon we will wake up enough to realize that such things are not necessary.