[derleth]

> The argument for this law is not grounded in any religious objection, as I understand it

Wow. This is monumentally dishonest, especially given how the law came to be and how it's been applied.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/when-did-islamop...

> but rather in the fact that face coverings make identification difficult

A poor reason to assault someone's culture and religion. Rather Big Brotherish, in fact.

> and do not fit in with the expected norms for social interaction in that country.

Back in the day, allowing blacks and whites into the same schools didn't fit in with the expected norms for social interaction in the USA. We got over it.

> France also has a ban on the display of religious symbols in public schools.

This I don't have a huge problem with, even though it seems a bit over-broad. Does it also prohibit people from wearing cross necklaces, for example? How about if someone had put ashes on their face for Ash Wednesday?

[gradstudent]

I can only comment on the situation as I understand it; I.e. that the law does not specifically mention Islam and it does not prohibit, as you have misrepresented, "dressing up as a Muslim". Moreover, as others have pointed out, there are already plenty of places that prohibit face covering attire.

Also accusations of Big Brother coming from Americans at this point is rather hilarious.

[derleth]

> the law does not specifically mention Islam and it does not prohibit, as you have misrepresented, "dressing up as a Muslim"

Ah, but it bans something that it just so happens only Muslims would wear. Suspicious, no?

> Also accusations of Big Brother coming from Americans at this point is rather hilarious.

Irrelevant. If you think the NSA is alone, you're delusional.

[ItendToDisagree]

I agree with your entire comment, but the "Rather Big Brotherish" part made me laugh, considering the recent NSA scandal, and the fact that the entire public is basically carrying around a 'telescreen' for all intents and purposes.

Off-topic but funny in and of itself. Also a small note, but even in America some places view face coverings with extreme caution, wearing one in a bank for instance is a big no-no. Not a religious issue in those sorts of cases, really an identification, wariness that you might rob the place issue.

[derleth]

None of this is relevant. You can't argue the actual points, so you descend to irrelevancies.

[ItendToDisagree]

As stated in the first sentence... I wasn't arguing against your points.