After the scientific achievement is given, the article proceeds to the scientific failure: The optician was the start and the end of the line for Muslim innovation in optics.

Western Europeans by the late 1200s AD employed glass lenses to create the first indisputable eyeglasses for the correction of eyesight. The knowledge of how to combine fine glass lenses was extended around the year 1600 to create the earliest known microscopes and telescopes. Observations in telescopic astronomy were then used to make the first reasonably accurate measurements of the speed of light, which was shown to be very great, but finite.

I encourage you to read the entire article, which also delves into Eastern Asian achievement in science and art. We in the West know that Islam has crushed scientific and artistic curiosity, but having the facts at hand makes for a more convincing argument. I am happy to respect early Muslim achievement in science: the examples are so few that my pity is engaged. The entire picture is satisfying (because Western practices are thoroughly vindicated) but also horrifying (because the Islamic totalitarian mentality appears to be ascending today). To cut to the chase, this is the summation of the article:

Advances made during the Middle Ages in the Islamic-ruled world were relatively modest even at the best of times and declined to almost nothing thereafter. Those contributions that did exist were made primarily by non-Arabs, and often by unorthodox Muslims who were harassed for their freethinking ways. Their scholarly contributions were primarily based on ancient Greek or other non-Islamic works and rarely moved much beyond these conceptually. They were made predominantly during the early centuries of Islamic rule, while large non-Muslim communities still existed in these countries, and normally diet pills online in centers of urban culture that predated Islam by thousands of years. The Arabian Peninsula, the cradle of Islam, has contributed next to nothing of value to human civilization throughout Islamic history. Persians, who retained a few links with their pre-Islamic heritage after the conquests, produced some decent scholars, whereas Turks, who identified almost entirely with Islam after their conversion, produced practically none of any significance. If we combine these various factors, a very clear picture emerges: The rather modest – now often exaggerated – contributions made by certain Middle Eastern scholars during the Middle Ages were generally made in spite of Islam, not because of it.

Again, for the complete picture please click through to the entire article.

Americans, hearing this news, are split between those who find the ban an abominable infringement on religious freedoms and those who say it could never work here (due to the First Amendment), but France is constitutionally weird and so Sarkozy can try to enact the ban there even though the court will most likely strike it down.

However, can a justifiable argument be made for the veil ban?

Given the importance that the French Constitution attaches to liberty and the seriousness of the threat to peace and public order posed by the large, restive and nonassimilating portion of its Muslim population, the veil represents a legitimate concern. Banning it would be justified to the extent that Muslim communities in France use the veil to deprive girls of basic educational opportunities and to prevent women from fulfilling their obligations as citizens, or that terrorists create a security threat by disguising themselves in the veil.

Security from terrorism, if we can bypass our PC-ness and admit that Muslims pose a threat, is a legitimate defense for the ban. Little buy meds online without prescription girls denied their educational rights MIGHT be enough of an excuse. With a court in New Hampshire deciding that a Christian homeschooled girl had to attend public school in order to be exposed to alternate (i.e., non-conservative) viewpoints, the possibility does exist that the court system would interfere in a Muslim parent’s decisions. Doubtful, though. Christianity is the Liberal’s nemesis. Islam, with its deadly treatment of women and homosexuals, sets off no Liberal alarm bells whatsoever.

Mr. Sarkozy himself has recognized that the common French understanding of the relation between political freedom and religion can be difficult to distinguish from anti-clericalism. To correct it, he has argued for an appreciation of the historical contribution that religious faith has made to forming France, the role of faith in the moral life, and the space that freedom of speech carves out for public religious expression.

So it was noteworthy that the French president sought to outlaw the full veil partly because it ‘runs counter to women’s dignity.’ What from another politician may have merely expressed political opportunism or bigotry or contempt for faith looks in Mr. Sarkozy’s case to be a bold attempt to balance the claims of freedom and order.

In a free society, prohibiting the veil because it symbolizes or enacts the oppression of women is a more perilous step than seeking to ban it on educational or national security grounds.

Even though Sarkozy has room to run with enacting a ban for security and/or educational reasons, he will try for the more difficult defense of “women’s dignity.” How about that! Sarkozy turns out to be L’Homme! I hope he can succeed.

After wrangling with many ideas for how we could ban the veil in America, I must conclude that concern for Freedom of Religion would preclude any ban. I reluctantly agree with First Amendment-ers who worry about the slippery slope. However, women covering their faces is an offense in a free society and cannot be allowed. Sarkozy is right: human dignity has standing in this argument. A great lawyer may even find a Supreme Court-level defensible position for this argument.

Absent a successful court case, I propose that private businesses (No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service) ban the veil. They can reserve the right to refuse service to any customer. That Philly cheesesteak guy won’t serve anyone who doesn’t speak English, right?  Well, if you’re wearing the veil, take your business elsewhere. We want to see your mouth. We want the honor of communicating with another human being, expressions and all. Cover your hair; wear a full-length, shapeless gown; no problem. Your face is non-negotiable.

If human dignity is not a good enough argument, though, how about this:

A young Muslim woman had died after her burkha became snagged in a go-kart.

The 24-year-old woman, who has not yet been named, died a terrifying death today when a fluttering part of her burkha became caught in the wheels of a go-kart she was driving near the town of Port Stephens, north of Sydney.

The Muslim clothing the woman was wearing flew back as she sped around the track and part of it became entangled in the go-kart’s wheels.

She was strangled in a second and crashed the vehicle.

What business, or right-thinking person, would want to contribute in any way to this horrible tragedy? A woman walking through life with a missing face is a metaphorical tragedy. Ban the veil.