Secularism as applied in France

France, like most of contemporary Europe, is a "secular" nation. Meaning simply, that religions are 'tolerated.' No more no less. So what happens now, that France's ban on the wearing of Muslim face veils has gone into effect. The first test case occurred yesterday.

Woman Ticketed in France for Wearing Face Veil

A woman has been ticketed in a suburban Paris shopping center for wearing a face veil, in the first reported sanction under a new ban on the garments, police said Tuesday.

Another woman in another Paris suburb was stopped for wearing a veil, but was let go with a warning.

The inconsistent response illustrates the challenge for towns with a large Muslim community in enforcing a law that some view as Islamophobic.

Though such veils are very rare in France, many of the country's at least 5 million Muslims see the ban as a stigma. Islam is France's second-largest religion after Catholicism.

Read more:

What happens as this becomes an ever increasing issue of awareness here in America. America was founded upon the belief in freedom of religion and that the state has no authority to interfere with the practice of religions on any level. But is the wearing of full face veils truly a religious practice of Islam? Or is it more so in reality, simply a restrictive application of Sharia law applied to Muslim women?

In many places in America, the wearing of full face coverings or what we here consider masks, is prohibited by law in public, with the exception of one holiday festival every year when we allow masks to be worn. That holiday festival would be Halloween. And what happens when communities here in America attempt to address the wearing of full face veils by Muslims and they are immediately challenged for allowing children and young adults to wear masks under the loosely religious observance of the Catholic celebration of 'all hallows eve' and 'all saints day.'

Personally, I happen to believe that the constitution provides for the restriction of practices that injure the majority, just as simply as it provides for protections of the individual from injurious practices of the majority. I would have thought that common sense and reason would have prevailed in the most recent 'Westboro Baptist' (God hates fags) case where the court sided with the radical Phelps family from Topeka Kansas and that the court would have appropriately sanctioned and denied their protests at the funerals of dead soldiers. I was obviously wrong according to the present supreme court adaptation of the constitution and their application of it.

So how will the court rule when this issue appears before the supreme court at a later date. (and it will) Will the court rule that the wearing of face coverings by Muslim women has nothing to do with the practice of the Muslim faith and that it is in fact a draconian application of Sharia law that should not be permitted on our soil? Or will the court side with the Muslims and therefore, alter our entire legal system to accommodate an aberration of religion that serves only to challenge western laws and cultural systems?

I am betting on the latter.