|
Post by robeiae on Feb 21, 2017 10:20:38 GMT -5
Le Pen was in Lebanon and supposed to meet with Grand Mufti Abdel Latif Derian: I don't know what the "Edict House" is, whether it's just a name for a building, a government office, or a religious place. I note this because I think there are a number of ways to look at this stuff, whether or not one should observe cultural and/or religious requirements. Whenever I go to Temple--for instance--for something like a Bar Mitzvah, I wear a kippah because I'm a guest there and I feel I should respect the requirements in that regard. Whenever I enter a church, I remove my hat if I am wearing one, even if it's a church I'm entering as a tourist. And ditto for my shoes and a mosque. But I wouldn't automatically do these things in non-religious settings. And I would certainly feel uneasy about rules in this regard that were designed to mark me as inferior (which is what I think the rules for women covering their heads is all about, frankly). That said, there is the issue of diplomacy: leaders should sometimes accept the need to not offend, right? That said, people often forget that diplomacy goes both ways: as much as one can argue that Le Pen should have gone along to get along here, one can argue the reverse just as easily. The Grand Mufti can exercise diplomacy too, right? Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 21, 2017 10:32:24 GMT -5
If you're going into a mosque, follow the rules of the mosque. If you find them offensive, don't enter. Entering a mosque is always voluntary.
For business/diplomatic meetings? No, I don't think people should feel obligated to dress according to other people's religious sensibilities. They may choose to - for business or diplomatic reasons - but I do not think it is disrespectful to refuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 12:37:19 GMT -5
I'm with you guys. In a mosque/religious setting, absolutely you show respect for their rules. Remove your shoes and cover your head, or stay out. I am an atheist, but I regard this as an absolute, hard-line manners thing. No one is making you go into a religious building -- respect it or stay away. (If someone were forcing you into a religious building, that's another matter.)
But in a business/diplomatic meeting -- yeah, I see no reason for a woman to bow to another religion's sensibilities with regard to her own clothing choices unless she wishes to do so.
For me this hinges on what sort of building Edict House is and the purpose of this meeting.
When I visited Egypt, Jordan, the West Bank, and, for that matter, the ultra orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem, I dressed very discreetly, in loose clothing that covered my arms, legs, and chest, and I covered my head. But this was because I like to blend as much as I can to avoid unnecessary hassle and staring, not because I felt I owed it out of respect. (It was also handy if I visited religious buildings, and it minimized my need for sunscreen.)
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 21, 2017 12:59:24 GMT -5
She's running for president of France, right? I would think this would be customary.
There was this in the article.
I would think she should know before hand and if she didn't want to wear the head scarf, she should have cancelled in advance. So either someone isn't doing their job, or she did it for the exposure.
She wanted to go there, so I'm siding with the idea that she should have worn it, out of respect.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 21, 2017 13:21:55 GMT -5
She's running for president of France, right? I would think this would be customary. There was this in the article. I would think she should know before hand and if she didn't want to wear the head scarf, she should have cancelled in advance. So either someone isn't doing their job, or she did it for the exposure. She wanted to go there, so I'm siding with the idea that she should have worn it, out of respect. The flip side of this: they shouldn't have required her to wear it, out of respect. One could argue that both ideas are correct, in fact: they shouldn't have required it, but she should have done it anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 13:22:22 GMT -5
I agree that if she knew ahead of time about the head scarf requirement, the diplomatic thing to do would be politely decline the meeting ahead of time and state her reason. That is how I would have handled it.
If she knew about the request, and decided nonetheless to show up without it just to make her point -- yeah, that's not the best way.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 21, 2017 17:00:48 GMT -5
She's running for president of France, right? I would think this would be customary. There was this in the article. I would think she should know before hand and if she didn't want to wear the head scarf, she should have cancelled in advance. So either someone isn't doing their job, or she did it for the exposure. She wanted to go there, so I'm siding with the idea that she should have worn it, out of respect. The flip side of this: they shouldn't have required her to wear it, out of respect. One could argue that both ideas are correct, in fact: they shouldn't have required it, but she should have done it anyway. Sure, but the way I see it, she's running for President, therefore she is the one looking to go there and speak. She should defer to them. If they asked her to come, then the opposite would hold.
If I ask to step into your home, I should follow your rules. If you ask me in, the reverse. Although good manners on both sides say to try and accommodate. But with elected or want to be elected peeps and religion, I feel it's the one running for office that should yield.
Either way, someone should have known this was going to be a sticking point in advance and either given her a heads up, or backed out on her behalf.
Unless either her people set this up as a way of getting publicity, or they didn't tell her campaign about the head garb to make an incident.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 21, 2017 17:25:27 GMT -5
Well, I'm less concerned with the specifics here than I am with the general assumptions about kowtowing to rules that exist to demean (imo).
If you ask to step into my home and I say sure, but since you're not from Florida, you have to wear a Speedo and nothing else, even though I know that you don't usually wear Speedos (for the sake of argument, I'm assuming here), I'm being rude and inconsiderate, no?
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 21, 2017 18:52:28 GMT -5
I shall come to your home, wearing a speedo, and nothing but a speedo, unless you declare me the winner of all political arguments henceforth.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 21, 2017 20:17:05 GMT -5
Well, I'm less concerned with the specifics here than I am with the general assumptions about kowtowing to rules that exist to demean (imo). Yeah, that's interesting. I'm largely the same as you: I take my shoes off when I go to a mosque or a Buddhist temple, cover my head when I go into a synagogue, etc. There's nothing wrong with showing respect, IMO. But I agree, rules that are meant to demean-- like making women cover their hair--might be viewed a bit differently. Thing is, there are often disputes about what qualifies. I'll give an example. For a long time, there's been a dispute in Israel about whether Jewish women should be allowed to read Torah at the Western Wall. There's even a feminist group dedicated to this one specific issue: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_of_the_WallMany people think the prohibitions on women are fine, and would probably argue that they're not meant to demean, only meant to uphold tradition. Others would argue that it's discrimination and therefore demeaning as a matter of definition. To my mind, I see it as pretty demeaning. Just like making women sit in the back of a synagogue is demeaning. Just like bans on women joining the clergy are demeaning (which is actually something that exists in lots of religious sects, not just one specifically). I don't think there's necessarily a one-size-fits-all type answer here, and I think even the idea of "kowtowing" to stuff like this can be hard to define. Let's say Le Pen had worn the covering but then, after returning to France, criticized the requirement in an interview. Does that count as giving in? Or is that showing the proper deference without giving up one's principles? As an interesting side note, the word "kowtow" is actually a Chinese religious term. It meant prostrating, literally, like what a Buddhist would do in front of a Buddha statue.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 21, 2017 21:45:36 GMT -5
I don't know that Muslim women, or at least all Muslim women, would think of head garb as demeaning. Just as I don't know that all Catholic Women have an issue with there not being female priests. Stuff like that is something I prefer to leave to those in the faith to debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 23:08:15 GMT -5
By the same token, though, if a Muslim woman wanted to meet with Marine Le Pen in France and wanted to wear her usual headscarf, Marine Le Pen should accord her that privilege, not insist she remove it. I wonder if she would.
To me, this should be about someone's autonomy to choose for themselves what they wear, how they worship or don't worship, etc. They don't step on my toes, I don't step on theirs, when it comes to such personal choices.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 21, 2017 23:40:26 GMT -5
If she was going to a religious place of worship, then I suppose she should respect their traditions. But, I don't think politicians should be kowtowing to religious leaders by visiting their holy sites in the first place.
If it wasn't a religious site, then fuck them. Whether she knew about it ahead of time doesn't matter to me. Her refusing to do it calls attention to backwards ass people doing stupid, oppressive backwards ass stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 0:15:59 GMT -5
It might be a religious building. An edict is a word for a religious decree, and she was going to meet with the Grand Mufti, the highest official of religious law.
This would make a difference to me. Meeting a leader of a country to descuss secular stuff is a bit different from agreeing to meet with a religious leader in a religious building.
I suspect she was more posturing for conservatives back in France than making a feminist stance. But then, I am a cynic.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 22, 2017 0:20:00 GMT -5
I suspect she was more posturing for conservatives back in France than making a feminist stance. But then, I am a cynic. I guess that's possible, but I don't really get why they had to have a meeting in a religious building (assuming that was the case, of course). If this was just posturing, the Lebanese were dopey to give her such an opportunity, IMO. Regardless, I'm sure this is going to play awesomely with her base. Which is sad.
|
|