rjmacs wrote:
[quote=RgrF]
Integration seems to be the hang-up.

Americans pat themselves on the back about how they were inclusive and integrated and that would be praiseworthy, had it actually happened. It didn't and the myth that it did is one of the problems we deal with today.

America was never a homogeneous or welcoming place, it was simply and plainly a place that needed to import more people who looked like each other and were needy enough to go through the privations (they were severe beyond anything we can imagine) and then on arrival displace the people who lived here before them.

Without getting into North American heritage, imagine how horrible it must have been for a mother and father to bundle themselves and their children into steerage on a ship to escape the horror that was then their life. Think about what must have been in their minds "we can stay and starve like your aunts, uncles and cousins" or we can roll the dice and get on board and have about a 18% chance of even surviving to tell the tale.

Europe and most of the rest of the world were actually less a threat and thus did many disadvantaged (read poor) folks head West (East if you were disadvantaged, Asian and wanted to build railroads)

Muhammad pointed out that burkinis themselves are a sign that many French Muslims are relatively liberal; in conservative Muslim countries, it would be unfathomable for women to join men at the beach, let alone in the water. “This is a good news in a way because it means Muslim women who didn’t used to enjoy that day at the beach or at the pool are now taking part, they are socializing,” he told the Times.

The French argument against burkinis doesn’t translate neatly into American culture. Where the U.S. largely views religion in terms of positive rights—you have the right to practice your faith—French laïcité is a negative right, guaranteeing freedom from the religious claims of others. As reporter Mimi Kirk writes at CityLab, “in France the state is shielded from religion, while in the United States religion is shielded from the state.” But Nicolas Cadène, the spokesman for the government’s Observatory on Laïcité, suggested to the Times that the principle is being exploited “for partisan ends and to stigmatize people.” French politicians’ condemnations of the burkini have openly stoked Islamophobia. Cannes mayor David Lisnar deemed burkinis a “symbol of Islamic extremism,” and Prime Minister Manuel Valls, coming out in support of the bans on Wednesday, called the burkini part and parcel of “the enslavement of women.”

RgrF wrote:
There's a difference between coming here in shackles and coming here in either desperation or hope, who put the burr under your saddle this morning?

max wrote:
They do not see it freedom of religion the way we do.
It is much more more than that. They did not subdue the religious institutions to let them go without any state controls.
The state owns most of the religious buildings and controls them in other ways, as well.
The basic difference is that the French system promotes essentially freedom from religion and as such displaying religious symbolism is often limited by law. Burqas and burkinis are not outside of those definitions....

Ted King wrote:
A good article on this:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/08/18/burkini_bans_target_muslim_women_after_terrorism_in_france.html

The French argument against burkinis doesn’t translate neatly into American culture. ... As reporter Mimi Kirk writes at CityLab, “in France the state is shielded from religion, while in the United States religion is shielded from the state.”