--"the compulsory wearing of beards for men"

It cracked me up to read that men in the Taliban's Afghanistan were driven to buying fake beards, like the ladies going to the stoning in Monty Python's Life of Brian. But it flipped me out to read, several pages later in the book I was reading, that Afghanistan really did once contain a castle called the "Castle Arg." (As in the Holy Grail.)

I didn't understand why Sarkozy had done this, except as a stunt to tweak the noses of the politically correct. It didn't make sense as a domestic political move. But I also felt that he was reacting at some level to the context of years of news of the so-called "honor killings" elsewhere in Europe, partly brought on by relatives' outrage at "immodest dress"; of Algeria, a former French colony, seeing women shot and killed routinely during the 1990s civil war for failing to wear a veil; and, of course, the Taliban's Afghanistan, which 3000 French troops fought to overthrow for most of the 2000s. But now that Al Qaeda has responded, it seems clear: he was saying F--- You to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

If so, I certainly join him in saying that. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are un-Islamic, and since Mohammed's first wife was a businesswoman, I wonder if they'd be beating her as well for running her business, and not being cloistered or wearing a burqa?

However, to ban Islamic dress is just as wrong as to force it on someone. I went to school with two Turkish women, at the time Turkey's controversy erupted over headscarves in the university. One wore a headscarf, and the other didn't, but they worked together perfectly harmoniously. No-one got hurt by it. Let people wear, or not wear, what they will.

The burqa is seen as a symbol of oppression in the West, and to many Muslim women, it may be just that. But, doesn't it occur to anyone that MAYBE devoutly religious women may actually want to wear a burqa? I can't imagine what would possess some Catholic women to become nuns and wear nun clothes, but they do it. The choice to wear or not wear a burqa should not be dictated by law. The only exception I could see would be banning covering the face, since this is a taboo practice in the West, for both social and security reasons. I have to remove my motorcycle helmet when I go into a 7-11 to buy gas, for example. On the other hand, I think it goes beyond being tolerant if Western nations start trying to appease Muslims too much. I've been to Muslim countries and had no problem obeying local laws. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't like the rules in a particular country, you can just stay out.

someone should ban some of those hideous outfits Sarkozy's wife wears, which cost enough to feed a village's worth of small children for a year.

Please keep in mind that France is a very old country and has an extensive history of internal religious conflicts with astonishing amounts of bloodshed particularly between various types of Christians. Based on that experience, France and it's people decided not to recognize a right to the unfettered religous freedom we pretend to have in the USA. In france, like in much of europe, freedom of religion has limits and they are clearly written out on paper.

Where as here, we have the opposite, a 200 year old society with very little first hand experience with religious wars, that has aspirational and sweeping rights written out that bely the fact that in reality the rights here have their limits too tho not as clearly delineated.

France does limit the ostentatious public expression of pretty much all religions and has quite a history of doing so. And I think that tradition is because they actually believe it is in the best interest of their society. The idea being that you are less likely to have religious conflicts if clearly state that in this particular, proudly secular society religion is a private affair and is meant to be only a small part of the public discourse.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure that Sarkozy is a jerk and might be a xenophobe too. But whatever I feel about him, I do think that France's approach to religious freedom is an interesting one and I don't think it should be oversimplified. I am not sure if I agree or not but I think don't think it is purely xenophobic hysteria and I think it deserves a rational discussion that as you said will almost certainly not occur.

Seriously... the French burka-prohibiters had to know this would happen. The same thing happens when Al-Qaeda puts out a videotape saying "Defeat the West," and the U.S.A. responds, in turn, with a "We will root out all evildoers" broadcast.

It's just the usual suspects, the extremists on both sides, playing their roles perfectly, just as they always have. It's like taunting Uncle Bob at the Christmas table with an anti-Fox News jab. The conversation turns into a screaming match; the voices go up, the volume rises; and the 95% of poor bastards caught in the middle - in this case, real Muslim women everywhere - get crushed and drowned out by the waves of rhetoric from both sides.

The result? Noise, stupidity, much fear-mongering, hoarseness, cracked heads.

The solution? When someone figures out a way to stake out the middle ground in a debate, let me know. None has been found so far.

Tracy, thanks so much for your thoughtful coverage of these issues. I wanted to recommend to you and readers a great little art exhibit in NYC this summer. The Austrian Cultural Forum, at 52nd St. and 5th Ave. in Manhattan, has a small show of maybe 15 artists who explore multiple meanings of veiling. Most of the artists are women, many are Muslim, and they come from North America, the Middle East, and Europe. Two of the artists in the show were featured in a NY Times article a few weeks ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/arts/design/07sont.html

If only we could drag Sarkozy to this exhibit!