Should we all adapt to other religious beliefs and the law accordingly?

Question

This is a controversial topic, many a discussion has been held.

Backgroud story: A female Muslim student refuses to attend.school in Spain if she is not allowed to wear her "Hijab" (head cover) which she claims to wear out of respect and her own free will (sic). The school rules forbid any kind of head cover.

Is is acceptable that a father tries to impose his will on his daughter, on one hand, and to impose his religious tradition above the laws of the country he lives in?

You can post in English or Spanish , let's see what you think I personally agree with the author of this article.

This was our latest "killer thread", masterfully translated by Birdland

Drawing A Veil

Once again a student attends a class wearing a headscarf, in defiance of the college rules. The problem arises when a father wants to cause trouble, even if, due to this, he has to single out his daughter in order to assert his religious identity or whatever it is he wants to cover up. The young girl insists that it is a personal decision but her subconscious lets her down when she speaks of submission to her god. If, at 16 years old, it's time to embrace submission, something is going wrong.

“Whatever happens I'll wear the headscarf.” There are those who see this as provocation. Think what would happen if a Western student entered an Islamic college without the veil and wearing a crucifix. Test that out in a mosque. “The hijab is worn at the express desire of women.” Right, and the burka is worn because they love being humiliated and invisible.

The father appeals to religious freedom protected by the constitution, the same argument held by the muslims who assaulted the Cordoba mosque. How quickly they learn statutes that are in their interest while ignoring others. Religious respect has to be reciprocal; that's known as tolerance. Spare us from lessons about freedom. What passes for some as tradition is for others crime: female circumcision, polygamy, child marriage, stoning, the burka. Let's not draw a veil over it.

• The veil as a sign of female inferiority, (Catholics used to wear it not long ago inside the church, never the men) should not be tolerated in Western societies. Equality and other values, such as this, should be upheld as achievements. - agigle10 Apr 28, 2010
• "attend" school (false friend) - Izanoni1 Apr 28, 2010
• agigle10 Catholic women wear the veil not as a sign of female inferiority but as a symbol of humility and reverence for God! PS the veil is still worn by many women in The Church. - adecker Apr 29, 2010
• what adecker said is the same for Muslim women - sunrise Apr 29, 2010
• yes decker, but not in the school! - Heidita Apr 29, 2010
View 4 more commments >>

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 1

I agree with Ray76 that if our only gripe is that we don't like their religion, we need to back off and let them practice their religion in peace. However, in the case of Islam there are many legitimate public safety concerns with allowing them to do whatever they want to do in the name of religion.

For one, the garments mandated by their religion makes it impossible to identify them. There have been cases in the US where Muslim women wanted to have their ID photos taken while wearing a veil. This is ridiculous, and to my knowledge, the Muslims have consistently lost in these cases.

Just as one does not allow someone to enter a bank wearing a Halloween mask, common sense should prevail over religious expression in public.

• como siempre estoy de acuerdo con mi novio:) jejeje - Heidita Apr 28, 2010
• WHAT??!!!! You can't enter a bank wearing a Halloween mask??!! I am both shocked and appalled - Izanoni1 Apr 28, 2010
• lol, I thought you were saying this !whaaat" because of the novio bit! lol, jejejeje - Heidita Apr 29, 2010
• Goyo - couldn't not have said it better myself. - ian-hill Apr 29, 2010
• So Ian, you're telling me that you somehow object to wearing halloween masks in a bank? Bunch o' maskaphobes in here if you ask me. - Izanoni1 Apr 29, 2010
View 11 more commments >>

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 2

We have to be very careful in criticizing another for wearing a garment that we find offensive merely because it makes their religious beliefs obvious. Many years ago most,if not all Christian denomination nuns wore a habit of some description ,a lot of us were taught in schools by nuns who were wearing a very restrictive and obvious religious "costume" . And yet I cannot ever recall hearing anyone saying it was wrong . Therefore is it the Burqua and Hijab that they object to , or the religion?

The Hasidic Jewish men wear very distinctive clothing,they are normal citizens, as are the women of the "Assembly of god "who wear a scarf at all times, Orthodox Jewish people wear a type of head wear ,all these people are free to wear what they like without authorities making moves against them . This discrimination and criticism of Muslim peoples is disturbing and we must examine and question our reasoning behind this phobia which has arisen in the past few years. The problem is always within us , not from outside us.

• intersting opion, ray - Heidita Apr 28, 2010
• But a non hs dedicated her life to the church, here we are talking about a" normal" citizen, I dont think this can be compared - Heidita Apr 28, 2010
• nun - Heidita Apr 28, 2010
• Wearing something that identifies your religion is one thing - wearing something that makes you "invisible" is something else. - ian-hill Apr 29, 2010
• Very wise advice Ray but some people find it hard to understand differences. It would be wonderful if everyone thought more deeply about pretty well everything. Also Ian I became invisible when I turned approx 55 and I've been invisible every since.... - margaretbl Apr 29, 2010
View 2 more commments >>

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 3

I'll make this observation, admittedly as a Catholic Christian. When South Park skewered Christians, Jews, Scientologist, and every other religion, they were protested but enjoyed the publicity and refused to alter the show to accomodate the sensibilities of the offended groups. When South Park's recent episodes offended Muslims, the network censored all references to Mohamed. Now why do you think that is?

• You tell us ocb. - ian-hill Apr 29, 2010
• I did in my last post ian, simplemente tenemos miedo, es decir, estamos "cagaos";) - Heidita Apr 30, 2010
• Plitical pressure what do you think. - sfrenchie Apr 30, 2010

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 4

For those living in a democracy with no official state religion:

1. Practice your religion in your home, religious community, and church/mosque/synagogue/temple/whatever.

2. When making use of public/official facilities (e.g., schools), abide by the laws and rules set forth.

3. If you don't like number 2, petition your government to change the laws.

4. If number 3 doesn't work out in your favor, live with it.

5. If you don't like number 4, it could be worse. I could be dictator of your country and not allow you to practice your religion at all.

Having laws which are designed to protect minorities does not necessarily imply that the majority should always be forced to bend to accomodate the minority.

• What do you do when religion says the laws of God supersede the laws of man? Just live with it is a naive viewpoint. Look at the Right to Life advocate that bombs an abortion clinic. Telling him to ignore what he sees as God's law won't work. - qfreed Apr 29, 2010
• that was a very bluntly said solution to this situation...i like that - sunrise Apr 29, 2010
• No, when the law of God says you cannot kill and you believe abortion is murder, you must find a way to protest abortion withou engaging in killing yourself. Otherwise you are internally inconsistent. - Robear Apr 29, 2010
• Which is exactly why I cannot comprehend pro-life people who simultaneously support the death penalty. How wierd is that? - Robear Apr 29, 2010
• Just elect me as dictator of the planet and I will end alll of these debates with the swift stoke of my mighty, omnipotent sword. - dogbert Apr 30, 2010
View 7 more commments >>

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 5

I don't think that this passage should be misconstrued as an actual rational discussion regarding the wearing of the scarf. Nearly from the start, the author sets the tone with the almost palpable xenophobic fervor with which he attacks the girl and her father's religion. It's stunning, the tremendous leap that is made in comparing a girl's (or her father's) religiously based desire to practice modesty (which, as far as I can tell, does not pose as a significant source of distress let alone harm to anyone) with the obviously more heinous practices of female circumcision, polygamy, child marriage, stoning, and the burka. I will try to avoid falling into such an obvious pitfall of discussing the clearly flawed logic of this argument and focus instead on talking about what is actually occurring in regards to this young girl.

I find the mandate to obey all laws no matter how absurd they might be a bit robotic and even worse offensive. This line of thought comes as a direct slap in the face to the countless people throughout history who were brave enough to speak truth to power and who often risked their own lives to stand up against injustice. It is particularly troubling, having grown up in a "free" country such as our own, to hear the argument put forth to the effect that as a citizen, it is obligatory to obey the law no matter what. This sort of assertion seems to gloss over the fact that in a just society, laws should be enacted for the people and by the people and not against the people or said another way, "laws are put in place at the pleasure of the people" and not the other way around (i.e. that "people be put in their places at the pleasure of the law"). "The law" is not an entity of and to itself. Moreover, it should be noted that because laws are made by the people, all laws are subject to error. Because all laws are creations of imperfect people living in an imperfect society, it should be recognized that laws are just as susceptible (if not more) to the same imperfections (including prejudices) that plague their creators. In a free society restrictions on freedom should typically only be in place should some particular "freedom" be a cause for potential harm to another individual.

The first question that comes to my mind is what possible purpose this restriction might serve. Personally, I find nothing offensive nor troubling with a girl of 16 years old attempting to maintain a modicum of modesty in observance of her chosen religion. From my own observances, most kids (young men and young ladies alike) of this age group could benefit from a lesson in modesty. If I had to choose between seeing young teen girls at the mall walking around wearing head scarfs and the same girls walking around with thongs hanging out of their barely there shorts and 3 sizes too small tops that hardly cover anything (which appears to be the trend nowadays), I would much prefer the former.

I am no practicing Muslim by any stretch of the imagination, nor do I subscribe to the idea that head scarfs and full length flowing dresses be mandatory for all women, yet I do believe that modesty is a virtue and not a vice, and should a parent decide to teach it and, more importantly, should a young lady choose to (1) receive, (2) internalize and (3) practice such lessons, I find nothing harmful or detrimental to society nor to the young lady in doing so. More importantly, I don't find it particularly palatable that the same young girl should be punished for such virtues. And let's be clear, denying this girl her education is a punishment that certainly does not fit such a heinous "crime."

End diatribe.

• Well said, amigo. - --Mariana-- Apr 28, 2010
• i totally agree. - sunrise Apr 29, 2010
• Hardly a diatribe, Izan, and well said. The text does not discuss the nature of the institution. If private and receiving no tax monies, it also has the right to demand compliance with a dress code for volunteer enrolees. - CalvoViejo Apr 29, 2010
• I agree with you here that private institutions should not be held to the same standard as public institutions. In the US, private schools are actually guided by contract law and any violation of school rules is actually treated as a breach in contract. - Izanoni1 Apr 29, 2010
• I never cease to be impressed with how articulate you are, Izan. Now, say that equally as well in Spanish and I will be truly in awe. - alba3 Apr 29, 2010
View 17 more commments >>

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 6

“Whatever happens I'll wear the headscarf.” There are those who see this as provocation.

Los que lo tomen como provocación son los que también buscan tres pies al gato. If you interpret all expressions of other religions/customs as offensive insults directed at you, then you should really be living in a small village, isolated from the rest of the world and free from exposure to 'foreign' influences. It is your right (in most countries) to be a xenophobe but not (in most countries) to impose your xenophobia on others.

Think what would happen if a Western student entered an Islamic college without the veil and wearing a crucifix.

So, if other societies are intolerant we should be equally intolerant? We should allow our sense of justice to be dictated by the most unjust societies that exist? This sounds much more like "an eye for an eye" than it does like "turn the other cheek".

For one, the garments mandated by their religion makes it impossible to identify them.

Now this is an interesting argument. On the other hand, should we therefor outlaw the dying of hair or the wearing of glasses with "window glass" lenses, simply because they could serve as a disguise? Should we outlaw face-lifts? Ease of identification poses special problems. Should a person with a birthmark on the (for example) left buttock be required to not wear 'nether garments' because that would hide an identifying trait?*

But a non (sic) hs (sic) dedicated her life to the church, here we are talking about a" normal" citizen, I dont (sic) think this can be compared - Heidita 9 hrs ago

I suspect you mean to say "the one, true church" (i.e.. the Roman Catholic church). So what of those who dedicate themselves to the Islamic "mosque" or the Jewish "temple" or the Shinto "shrine"? Are they to be denied the expressions of their faith because they violate the prevailing "dress code"?

You must adapt to the place you live/move to.

Following this logic, one should be imprisoned (or, perhaps) have his tongue cut out for failure to speak the local language? MacDonald's should have been outlawed in Spain (along with the eating of hamburgers/pizza) because they were not local/traditional cuisine? When in Spain, one should eat only paella and tortilla de patatas (y otros tantos platos típicos)?

When we look at a country like Iran, for example, there is no separation between Church and State, they are one and the same. There is also no freedom of religion.

Certainly true of Iran. However, it it also true, to a very large extent, of the U.S.A. We pay lip service to religious tolerance but, in fact, this tolerance extends only to religions in the Judeo-Christian mold.

.it doesn't matter where but you are going to obey the rules/laws in place. So speak English, pay taxes and do as you are told to do. And in complet (sic) Freedom, if you don't like it you may move to another place.

Ah, essentially the ultimate expression of intolerance! Translated: Do as we do or !eave!. None of that liberal crap about tolerating differences or freedom of belief. Simply, my/our way is the only way!

• very well said Samdie. - Izanoni1 Apr 28, 2010
• crap - Heidita Apr 29, 2010
• I agree with a lot of what Samdie says...we are too intolerant of other religious practices and "foreign" people. - --Mariana-- Apr 29, 2010
• No WE are not ! - ian-hill Apr 29, 2010
• i really don't think we are intolerant. We just need to have people who just talk without real facts or experience, learn and become friends of different religions in order to better understand that religion and person. - sunrise Apr 29, 2010
View 2 more commments >>

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 7

OK get this!

ALL states should be secular.

ALL people should have the right to follow whatever religion /doctrine / hobby they so wish.

ALL of us who don't believe in organized religion should be left in peace.

ALL who break the law of the country they are in should face the consequences.

I am fed up with what "organized" religion is doing to the human race.

There are so many religions that that in itself means none of them can claim to be the "right one"

God must be crying.

Chosen ones - infidels - unbelievers - original sin - face masks - circumcision (of either gender)... etc. etc.

What a load of ( ____ ) fill in the blanks.

Update: People only believe in religion because it gives them an advantage in life and that advantage is that they get another life when they die.

• If only we were in charge of this planet . . . - dogbert Apr 29, 2010
• haha...most people like to let others rule so that when mistakes are made they can blame them and feel no guilt or responsibility. - sunrise Apr 29, 2010
• Should those who DO believe in organized religion be left in peace as well or is this simply a case of what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander? - Izanoni1 Apr 29, 2010
• Depends how far they wish to impose their beliefs on others. - ian-hill Apr 29, 2010
• Should it also then depend on how far they wish to impose their DIS-beliefs on others? - Izanoni1 Apr 29, 2010
View 7 more commments >>

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 8

I don't know what this has to do with Spanish, but here is my opinion.

Like the founding fathers of the United States, I think there should be freedom of religion. People should be able to practice their religion with freedom (as long as it doesn't involving blowing people up). Muslims should be able to openly try to convince me to me a Muslim and I should be able to openly convince them to be a Christian in a wide open logical debate.

However, unlike the Koran, the Bible teaches to obey the laws of the government until the laws become contrary to God's laws. So let the girl wear a head covering if she wants to and practice her religion as she pleases but if the school has a policy that says don't wear a head covering then she shouldn't wear one or she has the right to go to a different school.

If every public organization tried to bend over backwards for the thousands of different beliefs people have, it would turn impossibly chaotic. You could never please anyone. This is where common sense comes in, which is being lost all over the world at a rapid pace.

• chaotic - nizhoni1 Apr 28, 2010
• Gracias - scottdoherty Apr 28, 2010
• ¿Qué tal si lo dices en español? - margaretbl Apr 29, 2010

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 9

Yes scottdoherty!! Agreed.

First off, yea, this has absolutely nothing to do with spanish which is why it´s on the general discussion board .

Anyways, yes! Government laws and regulations supercede those of religions. Yes, there is a ´freedom of religion´ section in the Constitution (though the story comes from Spain, I´m talking from a U.S. point of view), that means you can practice whatever you want, however you want, as LONG as it doesn´t violate any governmental law. The government is designed to protect the interests of everyone in general, that is why they supercede the ´laws´ of religion because, duh, not everyone is of the same religion.

Totally true what was said that we can´t bend over backwards to appease religion because there´s just SO many out there. Once you make an exception, you have no reason not to change many other rules and laws to appease all the other ones.

-Charlius-

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 10

Plain simple, you come to our country, our state, our school, our backyard...it doesn't matter where but you are going to obey the rules/laws in place. So speak English, pay taxes and do as you are told to do. And in complet freedom, if you don't like it you may move to another place.

However those simple guidelines are twisted everyday by politicians with interests.

• very simple and very true, I think all this politcal correctness is just too much to put up wiht - Heidita Apr 28, 2010
• Why the issue with "English"? It's not the official language of the US (there is no official language in the US), but don't expect me to speak every language of every potential resident. - CalvoViejo Apr 29, 2010
• I thought that English was voted as the national language of the USA - just pipping German in a vote. Am I wrong in that? - ian-hill Apr 29, 2010
• Actually there is an official language in 30/50 states, English (Wikipedia) - sfrenchie Apr 30, 2010

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 11

Many people on this thread seem to have this opinion:

if you don't want to obey the rules, go somewhere else.

What are we in the military...a police state?

The U.S. was founded on freedom of religion. Would you object if a student wore a crucifix to school? Probably not because it's a sign of an approved religion, e.g., Catholicism.

What are we so afraid of if others express themselves as individuals instead of conforming to what others dictate to be the "norm" in the U.S.?

What happened to the U.S. being a "melting pot" of all races and religions?

I think we need to be more tolerate of "others" who are not like "us" (whoever "us" is).

Please remember that it was too long ago that it was against the law for interracial couples to be married; however, that law was ridiculous. Now that we've partially woken up to what's morally right the law has been changed.

As you can see, any argument that "it's the law and must be obeyed not matter what" doesn't make sense. Laws change everyday to keep up with the changes we face.

• Is that why America is persecuting Arabic countries through war started on false pretends? Is that OUR way of showing the world how tolerant we are? Well as long as it benefits us it's ok, isn't? - sfrenchie Apr 30, 2010

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 12

Religious practices like wearing veils or headscarves seem especially oppressive when considered in the context of the religion - do the men need to subject themselves to such practices also? What is the real purpose? Is the veil or scarf or hat truly worn as a symbol of piety, or is it prescribed because the woman is supposed to be an evil or tempting object that must be hidden so that she won't lead men astray?

Actually, (in reference to your first question) yes. Although I am no Muslim, so by no means am I an expert, the Quran teaches men the importance of modesty as well. Hijab applies to Muslim men as much as women. These requirements to cover differ from women, but the rationale for Hijab is to fortify modesty between the sexes.

Just like women, men should wear loose, long and non-transparent clothing so as not to attract attention from the opposite gender to their physical appearance. Men are not required to cover their hair, but many Muslim men do, with turbans or keffiyahs.

It should be recognized that the idea of modesty (when it comes to clothing oneself) is not an inherently Muslim idea. There are also numerous references to the importances of being modest in the Christian Bible:

1 Timothy 2:9 - "And I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes."

---

1 Peter 3:3-4 - "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight."

---

Gal.5:22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity."

---

1Corinth.11:5-10 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head,[a] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

• Someone in Iran recently said that earthquakes were "God's" way of punishing us because of "improperly" dressed women. Give me a break! - ian-hill Apr 29, 2010
• Yes and a Christian minister in America said that AIDS was "God's" way of punishing the fags and at a soldiers funeral said that dead soldiers are God's way of punishing us for our sins. - Izanoni1 Apr 30, 2010
• You might want to wise up and recognize that it is not being religious that is bad, it is when you try to force your belief system on others that oppression is bad.....I wish that you could see this.....It is no more just to tell a woman who does not wish - Izanoni1 Apr 30, 2010
• to wear a head covering to wear one than it is to tell a woman who sincerely values her modesty to remove hers. - Izanoni1 Apr 30, 2010
• "no more wrong to..." - Izanoni1 Apr 30, 2010
View 6 more commments >>

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 13

This topic is quite interesting. Being myself a Muslim girl, I believe as a Muslim and a citizen of U.S that the poor girl should be allowed wear a hijab. You know, that is what living in a essentially 'free' country means. If you want to do something, then do it. I mean, we are all going on and on about individualism and uniqueness, so isn't wearing a hijab to a non-Muslim school original, and unique???

I read all the comments and saw a comment about wearing a Burqua is a humiliation for women. First of all that is very wrong. The original idea of a Burqua is for a women to wear outside so that men will not tease them (not because she is inferior). Also, now in a Muslim country (Pakistan) wearing a Burqua is the latest fashion for some while a religious duty by another. (have you seen some of these Burquas, they are very pretty).

I have always wanted to comment on people saying that Muslims bomber only bomb Christians or that the religion is all about killing others. That is false! First of all, the terrorists attack not only Christians but also Muslims (their own brothers and sisters). Read the News! Like any other religion Islam is all about love but like we have seen in history, we know that people twist the words for their own gains. Also, something people often forget that some of these suicides bombers have been lied to (like if you do this you will go to heaven) or are in desperate situations to get money so they kill. However, i believe that killing others is not justified, but at times we must be sympathetic.

Every religion or organizations have their extremes...right now Muslim terrorists are in the headlight. Still, I believe we should find these people and jail them because they not only killing Christians but making their women out to be inferiors (both of this is not advocated by Islam).

Lastly, I think that when Muslim women become sick of the hijab or Burqua and want to stop wearing it, they will protest. Therefore anyone that is not related to the issue in any way, should not be the one protesting, until the so called 'poor women' do so themselves.

If i offended anyone, in any way, please do consider me as a youngster and forgive me. These are only my opinions. Feel free to comment on them as you wish.

• Thank you for your comments, Sunrise. - --Mariana-- Apr 29, 2010
• Thank you Sunrise, I like the way you think. - margaretbl Apr 29, 2010
• Wonderful perspective Sunrise - Izanoni1 Apr 29, 2010
• More like you Sunrise............:) - ian-hill Apr 29, 2010
• thanks guys :))) - sunrise Apr 29, 2010
View 2 more commments >>

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 14

I´m going to have to agree with Heidi on this one.

Key concept here. You must adapt to the place you live/move to. It´s like moving to another culture and country and continue to speak english expecting everyone else to learn it while you shouldn´t change and adapt. That´s just wrong.

Another thing here. When we look at a country like Iran, for example, there is no separation between Church and State, they are one and the same. There is also no freedom of religion. I just looked this up, couldn´t believe it..apparently if someone there tries to convert to another religion, the penalty is death! Talk about severe.

-Charlius-

• But we *do* have freedom of religion! Why not let the girl wear her headscarf if she really wants to and it's a ligitmate religion (Muslim) ? - --Mariana-- Apr 28, 2010
• Probably for the same reason that caps and hats aren´t allowed to be worn in schools. You find that out, you´ll find out the answer to the headscarf to. Personally, I could care less and think caps and headscarves are fine, but those are the rules.. - Charlius Apr 28, 2010
• and regulations and I don´t think that they should need to change just for a religion. - Charlius Apr 28, 2010
• Very ture of Iran, there is no freedom of religion and the penalty for converting is death. Throughout the world 400 Christian a day are killed for their conversion from Islam. - scottdoherty Apr 28, 2010

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]

Answer 15

So we are xenopobic because we believe that the rules and laws should be obeyed?

My comment about being xenophobic was directed at the pair of sentences that I had just quoted; especially, "There are those who see this as provocation." (emphasis added) To find different customs/lifestyles 'provocative'/offensive/insulting squares nicely with the definition of xenophobia. (At the risk of being repetitive, I did not say that anyone who agreed with any of the points in the article was a xenophobe.)

This "eres racista" is a very silly thing to say.

Perhaps so but that is not what I said. It may be the case that all racists are xenophobes but the two terms have quite distinct meanings ('xenophobia' being the much more inclusive one). 'xenophobia' is a fear of 'strangers'. They may be perceived as 'strangers' because of their physical appearance, language, dress, religion, preference for "funny" foods, etc. (in short, anything that sets them apart).

• I know what it means, thank you, racista is used here, that's why I said it in Spanish. - Heidita Apr 29, 2010
• Did I miss something? What has this discussion got to do with race? - ian-hill Apr 29, 2010

[Additional commenting is closed on this post]