From my understanding, the law bans the wearing of a variety of facial coverings, which can be problematic for those who wear niqabs and burqas. While I have deep reservations about household that may force women to wear such garb in the home, the dress laws also confine such women to the home, where they are less likely to be able to access services that could help them.
As for here, I agree that religious freedom tends to favor Christianity, whether it be Catholicism or Protestantism. Furthermore though we espouse a separation of church and state, there are those conservatives who betray the spirit of our own laws and try to enforce their beliefs on others. I do agree with you there.
From my point of view, there isn't any real separation of church and state in the USA: after all, the President is sworn in on the bible, and every dollar bill is adorned with the sentence 'in god we trust'. Not to mention all the debates on 'religious freedom' and the vast number of people invoking their religion as a reason to not obey the laws, whether they are private citizens of government officials. From my point of view, for all intents and purposes, the separation exists only in words in the USA, not in reality.
Here in France, the law is clear and anyone trying to use religion as an excuse to not serve someone would get kicked out of government service or loose their job on the spot with no compensation, and we have a lot of laws protecting workers and making it difficult to kick them out with no compensation. Private religious beliefs have no say in what a government official is doing, the rule is the same for everyone, whether they like it or not, and they cannot refuse service on basis of faith, same with workers in private companies. That county clerk who refused to deliver a marriage license to a gay couple when the law passed would have been kicked out on the spot, and the baker who refused to make a wedding cake to another gay couple who have had a lawsuit on his head and would have lost it, no question asked.
-
About facial coverings: there's been a lot of noise around the specifics for burqa and niqabs, but, actually, it's not specifically aimed at those. It's more complex than that. I'll try to explain.
From what I know, US citizens are not required to have an ID on them at all time, French citizens do. Police can stop you at any time to control your ID and make sure that you are who you say you are, plus in many acts of every day life, you are required to show an ID. There are very specific rules that cover what kind of picture can be put on your ID card, but it all boils down to: you have to be easily recognizable. That means nothing on your head, no glasses, no jewelry, have a neatly trimmed beard, it has to be the very basic you as a human being.
Obviously, burqas and niqabs conflict with this. How can you check the identity if the person's face or entire body is covered in such a way that you have no idea who is under it? And it's not just for the police: I used to work at a phone store, and had the problem happen once: a lady in a niqab came to the shop to get a phone plan, she handed me her ID but since I couldn't see her face, I couldn't check that it was her ID and not someone else's. We were lucky to have a muslim girl working at the shop at the time, who took lady to the side to check her face, else I'd have had to refuse service. Add to that the constant scare about terrorism, and you can also understand why authorities were very wary about people walking in the streets wearing such coverings, there were rumors that some people were planning an attack and wanted to disguise themselves using burqas and niqabs to be unrecognizable and smuggle weapons underneath.
Last thing, as many people pointed at the time that it is part of the requirements of the religion, the fact is that France is a secular state, and state laws always prevail over whatever your religion requires you to do. Not to mention that there has been a lot of conflicting information as to whether they are really a requirement or a quite radical/extremist interpretation of stuff said in the holy book.
-
As someone who lives in a country that works with a single payer healthcare system, I can say that, while it also has flaws, I was able to get access to healthcare that I would'nt not have been to pay for by myself, not with a basic living wage, and no one has to ration their life-saving drugs because they cannot afford it. While getting a doctor's appointment can take a bit (from days to weeks or months depending on what kind of doctor you need to see and where you live), I only pay a few Euros from my own pocket for basic healthcare like GP, check-up at the dentists and such, and most basic drugs cost little as well, allowing people to treat minor illness and often avoid them getting worst and sending them to the hospital.
Healthcare is, in my opinion, one of the things that should never be subjected to capitalist views and never be left in the hands of private companies. You don't make profit off of other's sufferings, and certainly not by letting them suffer because it's more profitable for your company. That's inhumane.
