A Muslim immigrant from Morocco was trying to attain citizenship in France. She wore a burqa. Her wearing of the burqa was not the issue though, officials say. It was her unwillingness to comply with any of the exceptions that the French government was trying to give her. 

The officials asked her to show her face so they could identify her. She told them that her religion did not allow her to do this. The officials offered to have a female officer check her passport and face and that all men would have to leave the room. Faiza M. declined again. The officials might have settled on fingerprints as a means of identification, but it is obvious that a state will need to identify a new citizen. How to issue a passport without a photograph of a face? Faiza M. declared that she was not interested in her political rights and that she would not want to vote. Clearly, it is the right of a citizen not to vote. But her reasoning raised eyebrows. She told the officials that only men should have the right to vote. The court, in the end, was not sure whether it was her own free will to sue the government – or her husband’s. On all occasions Faiza M. showed up with her husband. She declared that she had not been wearing the burqa in Morocco, but has been doing so at the suggestion of her French husband. She said she did not know what the words “laicism” and “democracy” meant.

I mean, I agree that it is her right to practice her religion. But I guess I am just confused because even when the government is trying to comply to her religious standards (like having a female officer check her passport) she declined. Why is that? The French government is trying hard to humor her, but she doesn’t really seem very grateful for all of their efforts. Therefore, I do think that it is right for them to deny her citizenship. She is not above the law - no one is. They tried making it easier for her, but she refused. Any thoughts on this?

This week’s issue has an article focusing on the south sound’s Republican and Democratic conventions. As I read through the article, I was drawn to the following passage:

The Iraq War has already entered history as one of the dumbest things in human memory, but now you have an economy going tits up, and that bothers Americans even more than shooting people they don’t know.

Before it was merely lies and corruption - now folks can barely afford to drive, and that’s going just a little too far. In Centralia recently, hundreds of truck drivers demonstrated to express their displeasure with the ruinous price of diesel fuel. It would be interesting to know how many of those guys voted for Bush.

I was, to say the least, a bit disgusted by this segment of the article. I think the attitude put forth in these kinds of writings highlight an offensive segment of the self-described “liberal-activist” portion of left-leaning America.

No doubt, this article was written by someone whose lively hood does not depend on gas prices, so it’s easy to trivialize the concerns of those whose lively hoods do. The writer of this article, a Terrence Knight, also assumes that the Iraq War is not a concern for Centralia’s truck drivers.

However, it was the last line that bothered me the most. Knight assumes, in so many words, that truck drivers voted for Bush and so they deserve what they get. How horribly offensive. I had always been led to believe that the left was a space for inclusion and a firm opponent to classism - perhaps I’m wrong.

I think it’s dangerous and rather repulsive when I see fellow “liberals” embracing stereotypes (in this case, of working truck drivers) and shunning a portion of the population’s concerns. It’s this kind of thought and this kind of writing that makes me cringe as a liberal - we should be embracing those who have become disillusioned with right wing leadership, not mocking them and we shouldn’t be perpetuating stereotypes of “truck drivers,” for example - it only makes the left come off as ignorant and out of touch.

It’s also this kind of approach that lends itself (and, in this case, rightly so) to accusations of the left being composed of the “liberal intelligista” - a bunch of self-assured, elitist jerks.

This is not what we, as liberals, need. We are grounded in an ideology of inclusion, compromise, and sharing the burdens of our society. Sometimes I think a few of us might forget those simple guidelines because of our shameless desire to win and a disturbing level of disdain for those who are not just like us.

Freudenthal endorsed Obama a month ago, saying that Obama’s intelligence and command of Western issues impressed him.

I would really like to hear what both Clinton and Freudenthal have to say on this issue. Which candidate really is better for the west?