[RE] French Ban

In response to Mr. Sutherland's post about the french oppression over the Muslim people, I feel that the ban on Muslim public prayer takes away their unalienable human rights. It also takes away from the culture of the people. Democracy and government nowadays is based on the principles of Life, Liberty, and Property from John Locke. Now, this ban only affects the Muslim people's liberty, but it is still taking away from their human rights. These people have a right to follow their culture, and it is supposed to be the government's duty to protect their rights. The French have given the Muslim people a place to pray at, but some of the people feel as though it is a slap in the face because they are not allowed to do as their religion intends for them to do. They do not like the fact that the practices of their religion are being altered.

On the other hand, I can see why the French government has placed a ban on public prayer. The french are simply trying to preserve their own traditional culture. However, since there are so many Muslims that have relocated from the middle east to the western European regions, it seems as though the Muslim people account for much of the population. I feel that the french government should not be held completely at fault because they just want to avoid a "take over" by the Muslim people.

Like Mr. Sutherland said, "But what happens when you have a large and growing number of Muslims, both immigrants and native-born, in your country? At what point does Islam stop being a "foreign take-over" and simply become French?" Well, this question is unanswerable at the moment because no one can tell how far the French government is going to go to preserve their traditional cultures. What if they oppress the Muslim people to the point where they rebel against the government? or What if the French government allows itself to become Islamic?