Reading the article “Why the French don’t like headscarfs” made me think about how ridiculous it is that we are back to where we were years and years ago. Trying to decide if church and state should be together or separate. I have a hard time understanding how a Muslim women wearing a headscarf is any different than a Christian wearing a cross necklace? Why is one punishable but the other isn’t? Is there something deeper? This is clearly what they’re focusing on in this article. I see it especially when it says “The French actions puzzled most of the world, many people saw it as at best a misplaced concern and at worst a violation of religious freedom.” (pg 2) Then it goes on to focus on how the French apparently know what is proper and right when it comes to church and state…..”French public figures understand the proper relationships among religion, the state, and the individual, and how they justify their arguments and policies ….” How do they “understand” the proper thing to do?It comes off as very subjective rather than objective. I think he hit on something very important when he said that “we all write from within our backgrounds and our circles of reference and readership.” I think that plays into the idea of being subjective and having a bias.
Overall, what I gleaned from this is that we need to be skeptics. Not just a skeptic, but an informed one! We need more people in the world who aren’t just skeptics but informed about their opinions and beliefs. “I would hope that the reader finishes this volume with a sharper sense of how publicity, philosophy, and policies can combine to produce a law, and that he or she remains, as I hope to remain, an informed skeptic.”
Hannah VanDyke, Class of 2017