User:Clarkebrad

Domestic policy

Religious symbols: In March of 2004 President Jacques Chirac proposed a law that banned people from wearing any religious headscarves or symbols in French hospitals and schools. Chirac’s law did not include the banning of a small cross or the Star of David worn around a person’s neck. The law was passed with 494 in favor and just 36 against. France prides itself on keeping the separation of church and state a very serious matter. “Secularity is one of the republic's great achievements," said Chirac. "It plays a crucial role in social harmony and national cohesion. We must not allow it to be weakened."1 Jacques Chirac felt that religious symbols were getting in the way of how people interacted amongst each other and this was the change he saw fit. This law went into use in September of 2004 at the beginning of the school year and has been active ever since.

The United States and religion expression: The American reaction to France’s banning of religious symbols in schools and hospitals was public outrage. The United States spoke out against France’s decision and made it clear that they did not agree with Chirac’s new law. In the United States citizens are protected by the free exercise clause that forbids laws to be passed that “prohibit the free exercise of religion”. This clause gives American residents the right to worship whatever religion they please, but does put limitations on certain practices. “As the courts themselves once asked, “Suppose one believed that human sacrifice were a necessary part of religious worship?”2 Throughout US history many people have been protected by the free exercise clause. "For example, in 1999 the Third Circuit Court of appeals ruled in favor of two Muslim police officers in Newark, New Jersey, who claimed that they were required by their faith to wear beards and would not shave them to comply with the police department’s grooming policy. A similar case was brought in 2001 by Washington D.C., firefighters who were suspended for violating their department’s safety regulations regarding long hair and beards. Muslims, Rastafarians, and others refused to change the grooming habits required by their religions and were successful in court.”3 These people felt that in order to respect their religion they must look a certain way, fortunately for these individuals the US government agreed with them as well.	Although the United States government agrees with most religious practices, some are not tolerated. In 1878 in Reynolds v. United States, Reynolds was a Mormon with two wives. Polygamy is against federal law, but Reynolds argued that it was an encouraged practice of his religion. Reynolds was convicted and he appealed the case stating that it infringed on his freedom to exercise the practices of his religion. The court disagreed and said that if they allowed Reynolds to practice polygamy then it would make religious beliefs superior to the laws of the government. The United States and France have two very different attitudes towards the expression of religion. France believes that being able to decipher what religion a person belongs to by their appearance hinders the way people treat each other. Jacques Chirac want kids and adults in schools and hospitals to treat each other equally on their character not their religion. The United States feels that a person should be able to express their religion any way they please as long as it does not go over a certain line.

Foreign policy

France's role in Iraq: When President Jacques Chirac was in power France’s outlook on the situation in Iraq was very different from what it is today. Chirac was against the United States invasion into Iraq and said France would only take part in a U.S. led attack if Iraq were to use biological and chemical weapons against allied countries. Chirac did not agree with the United States initial assault on Iraq. Chirac was looking to work together to rebuild Iraq, but was not interested in creating a war. France and Iraq’s relationship took a turn for the worse around 2004 when the French ban on headscarves was instated. Muslims were outraged and retaliated against France.4 Overall Jacques Chirac was very anti-Iraq and disliked the war. In May 2007, new President Nicolas Sarkozy debuted and France’s stance on Iraq took a slight shift. Sarkozy believes that France has no intentions on joining the military side of the war, but is very interested in the political mediation in Iraq. “The shift was one of the most concrete consequences yet of the thaw in French-American relations following the election in May of President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose administration no longer feels bound by the adamant refusal to take a role in Iraq that characterized the reign of his predecessor, Jacques Chirac.5 Sarkozy may not be headstrong into the war in Iraq, but he is re-examining France’s role in the situation and will do what’s best for his country and its supporters.

The United States and Iraq: The United States had one goal in the first assault of Iraq and that was finding weapons of mass destruction. On March 20, 2001, after a 48-hour standoff for Sadam Hussein to turn himself over to authorities, the United States invaded Iraq. After many months of searching the troops found no weapons of mass destruction and Bush was forced to create new goals. Bush stated and continues to confirm that he is committed to building a solid democratic government in Iraq. He succeeded in ending Sadam Hussein’s rein as dictator and keeps his faith in his strategy. "The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected. Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more." (footnote six) President Bush is dedicated to ending the “war on terror”, but will not do so until he feels he has done his job.

Multilateral v. Unilateral:

France has a multilateral foreign policy. When making major decisions they check with their allied countries to make sure it’s in the best interest of everyone. Experts agree that the war on terror is going to need multilateral cooperation. Countries need to band together and share inside information if they’re going to beat the terrorists. (EVIDENCE) American foreign policy currently is unilateral. They make decisions that sometimes will only benefit the U.S. “We will...[defend] the United States, the American people and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.”7 CONCLUSION – TIE THINGS TOGETHER – MAYBE NOTES HOW DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLITY ISSUES ARE SOMETIMES INTERTWINED LIKE THE CASE OF FRENCH DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY (THE HEADSCARVE ISSUE AND MUSLIMS)