I'm certain we all understand the idea of human-rights. An idea that everyone is entitled to safety, religion and opinion. However in France there has been a conflict here.

Now I'm certain everyone has heard about France outlawing some religious dress codes that obscure or hide the face and other features in order to protect the people living in their country.

This is the simple conflict. The argument is that if someone is allowed to cover their face then they present a potential danger to everyone else in society. Sounds far-fetched but it's a grim reality. If people are allowed to cover their faces in public areas then other people are at risk. This is simply because if my face is hidden and I harm someone it will be difficult to identify me. If I know it will be difficult to identify me there is a lower risk of getting caught. If there is a lower risk of getting caught then the fear factor that prevents people from committing crimes is lowered. Less fear of the punishment of committing crimes will always result in an increase in the rate of crime.

However human rights dictate that someone is allowed to practice their religion in their own way. This means if someone's religion says that they must never cut their facial hair then nobody can order them to cut their facial hair or deny them something because they did not cut their facial hair. An example I can think of was my schooling. I had to uphold a clean-shaven face all the time at my high-school (and I tell you I was a hairy bastard for my age, I had to shave every 3 days and for a 16 year old that's a fair rate of facial hair growth). However a middle-easterner did not have to shave his face because of his religion and they could not deny him access to the school because of this. Even when the school was a christian school.

Now the conflict is that someone's religious belief states that they conceal their face yet the law of the land states that nobody is allowed to conceal their face in order to protect the people living there. As far as I can see there are three ways to solve this conflict.

1. Anyone is allowed to conceal their face.
2. Only people who can prove for religious reasons have to conceal their face can conceal their face.
3. Nobody is allowed to conceal their face.

2 does seem like the most fair answer however it poses several problems.

First, people still have their faces concealed so not everyone is deemed safe.
Second, the extra policing and administrative requirements to uphold this law would be very costly (picture having to carry around I.D. cards that allow you to conceal your face in public).
Finally, people who aren't religious are being discriminated against, not being allowed to cover their face.

Which of the three do you think should be the norm (for your country) and why?

AFAIK, there is no religion mandating anyone to conceal their face, so I see no problem.

NR 3 the law is more importand then the religeon. If they want to conceal there faces they must not go to a country where the law says that they are nor allowed to do so.

So either live by the rules of the country you live in (Whitch means you have to make some adjustments to the laws of your religeon)Or stay in the country where your religeon is the law.

there is no religion mandating anyone to conceal their face, so I see no problemMuslim women in some religious sects are required to conceal their faces if married.

That's cultural, not religious.

If the restriction in question is ordered by a religious authority, it's of religious nature for them. For Muslim sects who don't have their women conceal their faces if married, it's cultural. For those who have their women conceal faces, it's religious. In plain words: they believe Allah bids their women hide faces. Can't get more religious than this.

It seems that they would forbid concealing faces for religious reasons, but they wouldn't forbid it in general. So if you proved you weren't hiding your face because of religious reasons, you would be allowed to keep it hidden. Flat out discrimination, I guess.

Next, France is going to ban all religious clothing, including clerical garbs of Christian clergy. Religious symbols would go next, so no crucifixes, either, in a traditionally Catholic country that has always played a major role in the history of the Church. Brilliant idea. Wonder when they will ban crosses, David stars and crescents from temple facades and towers.

Next, France is going to ban all religious clothing, including clerical garbs of Christian clergy. Religious symbols would go next, so no crucifixes, either, in a traditionally Catholic country that has always played a major role in the history of the Church. Brilliant idea. Wonder when they will ban crosses, David stars and crescents from temple facades and towers. And god dam, it's alright this way. A crucifix has nothing, aboslutly nothing lost in a school that's sponsored by the state and pupils are obliged to go there. And the separation of state and church dates back to 1905... In a decent modern western country, there is no ****ing thing as a "christian" school. I would refuse to send my children, if I had any, to a school where they would be put in front of a crucifix. That's forcing pupils to be idol-worshippers and nothing else. If someone wants to be in a branch of christianity that uses crucifixes, it's their private choice for their private place. It has nothing lost in public buildings of a modern state.

On the other hand, if someone insits on having a school with the signs of a certain religion. They can go to a private school that delivers that. Sure, private schools usually suck and cost a whole lotta money. But there is not a thing as a free lunch.

If free education is provided by the state, it can not be allowed to be perverted to be the means of spreading religions of any kind. That's one of the biggest sins there are, if your in in a zwinglian branch of christianity. Or at least were supposed to be in that branch....

I highly doubt that a religionless world is possible. I have noticed that some people need to have a belief in something greater than themselves.

Just my two cents.