In a surprisingly honest but disturbing decision, the European Court of Human Rights upheld France’s ban on the full-faced veil because veiling makes people uncomfortable.

S.A.S. is a 24-year-old French Muslim woman who wears a full-faced veil or niqab. She challenged the 2010 French law–which we’ve covered before–that bans wearing clothing that covers the face in public and imposes a fine of 150-euro ($205) and/or citizenship instruction. The ban, S.A.S. argued before the European Court of Human Rights, violates the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and the prohibition of discrimination. The Court, however, disagreed and upheld the ban in a decision that cannot be appealed.

Why, according to the Court, is the ban OK? Is it a safety issue related to concealing ones identity? No. And, it is worth noting, S.A.S. willingly removes her niqab for identity check purposes at places like airports and banks, for example.

Is it about protecting women from alleged coercion? No. As the court said, “The applicant also emphasised that neither her husband nor any other member of her family put pressure on her to dress in this manner” and that she “wished to be able to wear it when she chose to do so… to feel at inner peace with herself.” And the Court explicitly rejected the claim of the French government that the ban related to women’s rights: “The Government referred to the need to ensure ‘respect for the minimum set of values of an open democratic society’, listing three values in that connection: respect for gender equality, respect for human dignity and respect for the minimum requirements of life in society (or of ‘living together’).” Though the Court ”dismiss[ed] the arguments relating to the first two of those values, the Court accepted that the barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face in public could undermine the notion of ‘living together’. In that connection, it indicated that it took into account the State’s submission that the face played a significant role in social interaction.”

So, according to the Court, “living together” requires being able to see people’s faces. And, according to the Court, covering ones face violates the rights of individuals who, “might not wish to see, in places open to all, practices or attitudes which would fundamentally call into question the possibility of open interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established consensus, formed an indispensable element of community life within the society in question. ” Forcing people to see other people wearing veils violated “the right of others to live in a space of socialisation which made living together easier.”

Amnesty International’s John Dalhuisen described the ironic consequences of the ruling: “As the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly insisted, discomfort and shock are the price democratic societies must pay precisely to enable ‘living together’. The reality is that in forcing people to ‘live together’, this ruling will end up forcing a small minority to live apart, as it effectively obliges women to choose between the expressing their religious beliefs and being in public.”

If France and the European Union are really committed to “living together” they must defend and protect the rights of all citizens, not just the majority.

Originally posted on Feministing.com

These are some of the most cringe-inducing signs deemed appropriate to place in front of houses of worship.

Last month, we rounded up up some of the most absurd right-wing Christian billboards that accost drivers with messages of fire and brimstone. But the billboards are dwarfed by the seemingly countless number of offensive plain old church signs. Apparently, creativity flows when there are fewer financial constraints. So, without further ado, here are 10 cringe-inducing signs deemed appropriate to place in front of houses of worship.

1. Offensive and illiterate. To make this sign, just take the Obama/Osama classic and add three pinches of stupidity. First assume that parents give their sons the same name, minus one letter. Then misspell “hmmm” or “hmm.” And finally, omit all punctuation. The genius behind the sign, Pastor Roger Byrd of the Jonesville Church of God in Jonesville, South Carolina, explained his process as well as the deep meaning not immediately evident: “See, it asks a question: Are they brothers? In other words, is he Muslim? I don’t know. He says he’s not. I hope he’s not. But I don’t know.” Byrd was going for totally non-offensive fear-mongering, Muslim-baiting: “And it’s just something to try to stir people’s minds. It was never intended to hurt feelings or to offend anybody… It’s simply to cause people to realize and to see what possibly could happen if we were to get someone in there that does not believe in Jesus Christ.”

2. The meek shall NOT inherit the earth.Contrary to Jesus Christ’s consistent and unequivocal “I’m with team poor” teachings, this church thought a good way to honor the son of God would be to adorn his house with a sign saying, “laziness and poverty are cousins.” The saying is so catchy, it has graced church signs from Sylva, North Carolina to Portland, Oregon.

3. A three-word poem. This “Turn Or Burn” sign gives haiku a run for its money. In a mere three syllables, it gets right to the point, which is that you should embrace God or suffer eternal damnation. The fact that the poem rhymes is another reason it should be studied by all those interested in concise fear-based conversion poetry. The sign pictured is from the First Baptist Church Main St. of Little Rock, Arkansas. In addition to its poetic virtues, the message is extremely customizable! For example, it was adapted for homophobic purposes in Wilmington, North Carolina, to read, “God loves gays but hates a perverted life style. Turn or burn.” Tammy Heuring, the wife of the Seagate Community Chapel pastor explains the medicinal powers of the hurtful sign: “It’s kind of like salt in a wound… However, salt does heal a wound. It just hurts really bad at first.” Hurt so good!

4. Short and not so sweet.This is another sign that doesn’t waste any time, though it lacks poetry or rhyme and is more specific in its bigotry than the sign discussed above. The Islamophobia expressed in this sign is based, apparently, on a time-travel sect of Christianity which allows Jesus, who died nearly six centuries before Mohammed was born, to travel to the future, observe Islam and declare it diabolical. This sign was from the Florida church of Pastor Terry Jones, who was arrested on his way to burn 2,998 Qur’ans, one for every victim of the 2001 attacks.

Read the rest of this post at Alternet.org

No, this isn’t a headline from The Onion. How does the Mormon Church respond to a woman critical of the Church’s treatment of women? By ex-communicating her. I guess they want to show and not tell.

Kate Kelly has been a Mormon all of her life. She served as a missionary in Spain when she was 21. She was married in the Salt Lake Temple. She has been a proud Mormon and, up until very recently, a regular church-goer. But on Monday, she found out that the Mormon Church, also known as the Church of Latter-Day Saints, ex-communicated her for apostasy, the repeated and public advocacy of positions that oppose church teachings.

The symbolism couldn’t be any better (or worse); Kelly was excommunicated in absentia by an all male panel for questioning the all male nature of the Church’s leadership. Specifically, Kelly advocated for allowing women to be ordained as priests. According to the Mormon Church, only men can become priests because all of Jesus’s apostles were men. That’s men. Not boys. Yet the Mormon Church has no problem ordaining boys as young as 12. Why do they follow Jesus’s example when it comes to gender but not age?

It’s easy for me to ask that question. I have nothing to lose. I’m not Mormon. But questioning the Church proved extremely difficult for Kelly, a human rights lawyer from Virginia who now lives in Utah. Kelly started the organization Ordain Women, which “aspires to create a space for Mormons to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.” She also organized demonstrations at the Church’s conferences at Temple Square in Salt Lake City.

Kelly was warned to take down the website for Ordain Women. But she refused, as she explained in a letter to the church:

I will not take down the website ordainwomen.org. I will not stop speaking out publicly on the issue of gender inequality in the church… I cannot repent of telling the truth, speaking what is in my heart and asking questions that burn in my soul.

I’m an atheist but have always admired and respected people who use religion to fight for social justice, ranging from Dorothy Day to Martin Luther King Jr. to Oscar Romero to Desmond Tutu. And, of course, I admire respect and agree with Kelly. But I have to admit that part of me couldn’t help thinking, “Of course the Mormon Church is sexist. It’s also racist. (It used to not let Black men become priests either, until God told the Church president that Black priests were actually fine. And totally coincidentally, that communication took place right after the IRS threatened to revoke the Church’s non-profit status if it continued to discriminate.) All Churches are sexist. In fact all official institutions of organized religion are sexist. Why be naive and try to change it?” Huffpost Live host Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani seemed to read my mind when she said to Kelly, “You were born into [The Mormon Church]… But you have the right to leave. So why not just leave it?”

After hearing Kelly’s response, I respected and admired her even more:

If an institution needs to be improved, if there’s ways that it can be more inclusive, I’m just the type of person who likes to invest and dig in and help make that institution a better place, whether that’s the United States of America, where I live, whether that’s my church, that I love. I disagree with the U.S. government on some of their policies but that doesn’t mean that I move to France… And I’m the same way with the church.

Kelly crystallized exactly what I’ve thought and felt but have been unable to express as eloquently so often. On more occasions than I can remember, someone has responded to my critique of some U.S. policy or historical intervention by saying, “If you hate it so much, why don’t you just leave.”

We all have, or should have, the right to leave a church or a country. And there are times when an institution or nation makes people’s lives so unbearable that leaving them behind is the only escape. But others can and choose to fight to make change from within. And Kelly is urging others to do exactly that, despite her ex-communication:

The decision to force me outside my congregation and community is exceptionally painful. Today is a tragic day for my family and me as we process the many ways this will impact us, both in this life and in the eternities. I love the gospel and the courage of its people. Don’t leave. Stay, and make things better.

Sadly, The Mormon Church made it very clear that it remains officially and undeniably  sexist as an official institution.  Luckily, there are countless Mormons who support Kelly and her beliefs, as evidenced by the over 1,000 letters written to her bishop on her behalf, and the over 50 vigils held in 17 countries around the word, and a rich tradition and thriving culture of Mormon Feminism. Hopefully, The Church hierarchy will adapt.

Originally published on Feministing.org