Integration Debate Heats up in Germany | Germany | Deutsche Welle | — Germans to Muslims: Change or get out!
Leading German politicians have said Muslims will have to integrate themselves better if they wish to remain in the country. This coincides with conservatives’ calls to emphasize patriotism and Christian values.
Speaking at his party’s convention in Munich, Bavarian Premier and Christian Social Union (CSU) leader Edmund Stoiber demanded a clear commitment from immigrants to the basic values of German society.
“Yes to openness and tolerance, no to Islamist head scarves,” Stoiber told delegates, who unanimously voted against a Turkish EU membership and for cutting social welfare benefits for foreigners who are unwilling to integrate.
Head scarves are not inherintly “Islamist” even when worn by Muslims. Besides the Germans must be aware of the popularity of the Eastern European Babushka. This, to me, has always epitomized the head scarf. Something an old lady wears. In parts of the world where there is a shortage of hair salons or no desire to even do more with your hair than just cut it, scarves are popular. This sort of thing always has practical roots then somehow gets morphed into a symbol. It’s still a Babushka to me.
Still, if someone moves to a Western country from a non-Western country you’d think it was because they wanted the benefits of being Western not just different weather. That’s unless the plans are to take over the place and throw out the natives. It’s been done before. It’s easy if the natives don;t fight back hard enough.
related link:
How to tie a Babuska and other scarves
Interesting discussion
Offbeat analysis of French ban on scarf
AP News story — about a teacher pulling off a scarf
GRETNA, La. Misdemeanor charges were dismissed Tuesday against a Jefferson Parish history teacher accused of pulling the scarf off the head of a Muslim student.
Parish Court Judge Roy Cascio dismissed the simple battery charge because the studente failed — for a second time — to show up in court.If he had been convicted, teacher Wes Mix could have gotten up to six months in prison and a 500-dollar fine.
As he left the courthouse, Mix told reporters that he feels better.
The AP story also says that the headscarf is “required” by the Muslim religion, which is just wrong and propagates a divisive myth.
Then again there is this commentary below worth reading and which harkens back to the German assertion that the headscarf is a symbol of Islamism.
Muslim Headscarves on Western Streets
In her article “Veiling Resistance”, which appeared in the March 1999 edition of Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body & Culture, Professor El Guindi said, “Women’s Islamic dress, known as al-ziyy al-Islami, is an innovative construction that was first worn in the mid-1970s by activists. It does not represent a return to any traditional dress form and has no tangible precedent. There was no industry behind it-not one store in Egypt carried such an outfit. Based on an idealized Islamic vision gradually constructed for the Islamic community in the seventh century, it was made in the homes by the activists themselves.”
Egypt, Iran, and Turkey all took steps when that activist dress appeared to ban it because they understood it to be a militant challenge to the growing women’s rights movement in the Middle East and the moderate Islam that had been the norm. However, by the mid-1970s, the radical Islamic clothing became so commonplace that it began to compete with and replace western dress and native costume. Sometimes, as in Iran and Afghanistan, the entire form was clothed in the black chador or completely obliterated in the burqha. In Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey, just the headscarf, which covered the head, forehead and chin, was adopted
.
“Yes to openness and tolerance, no to Islamist head scarves”
This comment underlies the current contradiction in terms regarding the debate of headscarves in Europe.
How can there be tolerance and openness if one is not allowed to profess a religion as they see fit? But, is the profession of a religion a right that is ubiquitous, in all places and at all times?
Or, is there a place for religion and a place for other things? – and that is what the debate comes down to. Most Europeans look with a bad eye towards the public display of religious affectation. They feel also that a public school is just that, a public institution. It is not the place for Christians to display humongous crosses hanging from their necks, or Jews to be wearing yarmulkes … or Muslim girls to be wearing headscarves. Even the law passed in France regarding the wearing of headscarves applies only to the confines of secondary schools.
Beyond that, people can display their faith pretty much as they like. And, they do – without shouting it from the rooftops.
This comment underlies the current contradiction in terms regarding the debate of headscarves in Europe.
How can there be tolerance and openness if one is not allowed to profess a religion as they see fit? But, is the profession of a religion something ubiquitous, in all places and at all times.
Is there a place for religion and a place for other things? – and that is what the debate comes down to. Most Europeans look with a bad eye towards the public display of religious affectation. And, they feel that a public school is just that, a public institution. It is not the place for Christians to display humongous crosses hanging from their necks, or Jews to be wearing yarmulkes … or Muslim girls to be wearing headscarves. Even the law passed in France regarding wearing headscarves applies only to the confine of secondary schools.
Beyond that, people can display their faith pretty much as they like. And, they do – without shouting it from the rooftops.
[i]Beyond that, people can display their faith pretty much as they like. And, they do – without shouting it from the rooftops. [/i]
Um .. do you also feel that being gay is OK, as long as it’s “in the privacy of your own bedroom”? How about nuns being forced to remove their wimples when in public? Should hassidic Jews shave off their earlocks? Needless to say, I completely disagree with you.
[i]Most Europeans look with a bad eye towards the public display of religious affectation.[/i]
You mean, like wedding rings? Where does your definition of “affectation” begin? Where unquestioned Christian tradition stops?
I’m an atheist, and I respect the rights of believers as long as they don’t break any [b]civil laws[/b] (public nudity, say, or child abuse). I expect no discrimination for my lack of religious beliefs, and I don’t intend to discriminate against others for having theirs.
The German headscarf debacle (Stoiber is the John Ashcroft of Germany) is downright painful. Ever since the first EU debates a decade ago re. allowing Turkey to join or not, the most spurious arguments have been made repeatedly chalking the decision up to “economics.” (Other poor states – Greece – have been accepted with barely better national economies than Turkey.) Reality: the EU is extremely uncomfortable with Islam, if not downright uneducated about it (as are most Western states).
Another factor rarely mentioned: if Turkey were to join the EU, that would give it direct national borders with Iraq, Iran and Syria. Something for Brussels to chew on from now until 2015.
Why is it that “openness and tolerance” are always expected from from non Muslims or non islamist? Are they exempt from openness & tolerance? It certainly seems that way! They expect others to be tolerant of them, but they seems to be the least tolerant of all!
Hey Tony, there is no contradiction in Europe. The Muslim extremists have long been exploiting European tolerance to the maximum doing stupid things like recruiting jihadists in mosques.
The European message: no more b.s., get your act straight or get out.
The Europeans are long overdue in proving that if push comes to shove that they are willing to shove. In fact, I never thought they had it in them.
Watch for conservative movements gain momentum in the coming years in Europe; also watch for liberalization movements in North Africa and the Middle East.
For far too long, Muslims have behaved like angry children, playing the victim, breaking laws and advocating atrocities … it’s time for them to grow up and be responsible.
They need some “tough love” and they are gonna get it.
Well, to borrow something Zeyad at Healing Iraq wrote,
“When Islamic clerics today say “This isn’t the real Islam.” or “Islam is a religion of compassion and peace.” one should ask them which actual Islam are they referring to? The Islam of Sunni subsects of Hanafiya, Malikiya, Shafi’iya, and Hanbaliya? The Islam of Shia subsects of Imamiya, Zaidiya, Ismaeliya, Allawiya, Nasseriya, and Darziya? The Islam of Sufiya? The Islam of Wahhabiya? Of Salafiya? Of Kharijiya? Which and whose interpretation of Islam? That of Bin Laden? That of Qardhawi? Of Sha’rawi? Of Sayyed Qutb? Of Khomeini? Of Sadr? Of Sistani? There is no consensus whatosever on any verse of the Quran despite 14 centuries of exegesis and debate, because ‘only Allah knows the hidden explanation.'”
So which Islam are you talking about? If you mean the Islam of Wahhabiya/Sayyed Qutb/Khomeini/Bin Laden, among others, then yes, the headscarf certainly *is* required.
The majority of Americans obviously “understand” when our President lies to start a war, when he decides to abridge our Bill of Rights, when he and his Party make a demagogue’s ritual of homophobia to facilitate re-election. These are very “American” political practices, regardless of how we wish our history to be written.
European concepts and perceptions of honesty, liberty, acceptable behavior vary from nation to nation — and certainly should be expected to diverge from our own. Even a basic experience like surviving invasions by a foreign power, lasting years and including despotic occupation, are alien to Americans. That is unless you’re Native American.
The tawdry portion of this discussion is the premise that only Americans can “get it right”. Obviously acceptable to most participants — whether they’re appearing in the pages of this blog, in the Letters column of most American dailies, or the definitive core of democratic discussion, say, the bar in the local American Legion Hall.
European concepts and perceptions of honesty, liberty, acceptable behavior vary from nation to nation – and certainly should be expected to diverge from our own.
I’m not sure I follow where this takes you in reference to the Stoiber statements. Are you arguing that the conservative German stance is OK because it’s founded in a different cultural concept of acceptable behavior?
The tawdry portion of this discussion is the premise that only Americans can “get it right.”
If one is basing a critique on the premise that America has no racist, discriminatory political practices, of course. But surely it’s OK to point out the racist/intolerant aspects of the politics of another nation as well?
Or do you see this as moral imperialism on our part?
Helen,
Ed is saying that because America is hypocritical, we can’t criticize anyone else. This dovetails nicely with the liberal’s bedrock idea of moral equivalence, and that no one has the right to judge anyone else. Especially if they have done the same thing in the past (within, say, 300 years or so.)
Just because someone is wrong, doesn’t mean you can’t point out that somone else is wrong, too. And be correct about it. That’s why a jailhouse informant’s testimony is admissible in court. 🙂
According to Plato, or some other ancient dude from my Rhetoric class, credibility (ethos) is only 1 aspect of an argument. The other 2 being logos (logic) and pathos (emotional appeal).
Pathos secretly dominates most debate in the world, while ethos is most often cravenly used in a negative manner. I, myself, wish for more logos in the world, and especially in our politics.
But it’s not there, for the most part, which is why I agree with Ed’s first paragraph. But it doesn’t disqualify us from anything. It show we are human, and proves the system works.
Did anyone mention the word, “flaunting.” No matter what your cause, belief, sexual orientation, religion etc. other people not of the same persuasion, will find it objectionable if you in any way “propagandize” (to use a broad term). Keep it quiet, keep it within the bounds of your own kind and don’t make any disply that might influence me or my circle of friends and relatives. Then, I say do whatever the hell you want just don’t do it in front of me.