We pride ourselves on being a tolerant nation, but....

totally ridiculous ,should I be deported because I dont stand for the national anthem ? I never have and I have no intention of standing when its played..much to the dismay of my in-laws ..before I was married .They learned that I have no allegiance to the royal family and as its still a free country I have no legal necessity to do it.
Shaking hands is just a custom...nothing more and it shouldn't be compulsory to anyone.My D has chronic OCD if she had to shake hands with folk she'd likely scrub her skin off in the following hours.Plainly a load of nonsense to suggest that everyone must conform to traditions and customs .

So you begin the battle against intolerance by being intolerant? In fact the words you quote could be applied exactly to the restrictions you are suggesting. If you are different if you do not conform you will be dealt with.
I prefer
‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’

The short answer is No! We should not tolerate such things.. Sadly, as the Frenchman Voltaire said "Common sense is not that common" so it probably won't happen here.

I was told that if we blindly allow it to happen it will be "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people and then all those who protest or disagree in ny way and it can be done in any order at all if it happens that way".

Fennel I agree in some ways about your post. But it seems even more sad, and it reflects very badly on our society if we are judging all Muslims because of the actions of a few.
You are right though that perhaps that is why very Orthodox Jews are not treated the same, although many of the cultural practices are identical. What it means ultimtely is then I suppose that the only way we tolerte such differences is if the group concerned keep themselves completely seperate.

Joelsan I would not presume to condemn the restrictions that people believe their religion puts upon them as long as for the most part they are law abiding citizens, or to assert that they were cultural requirements. I am not, and neither are you I suspect, an expert in the intricate details of all faiths, and even if I were there might still be a chance that some particular branch of a religon supported their views. Nor would I condemn sincerely held beliefs as "virtue signalling". If Mormons do not drink coffee, ifJehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate birthdays, if Muslim women cover their heads, if Jewish men wear a Yarmulke and a tallit I really do not condemn them. In a free and open society they are entitled to practice their religion and unless it interferes with others they should be allowed to do so. And I fail to see how one woman refusing to shake one official's hand makes the slightest bit difference to any society. Whereas I see the creeping intolerance that begins with condemning any group's actions as the thin end of the wedge that leads only to more and more discrimination and a less fair and equal society.

trisher ......give it up, there is no ‘very real prejudice and bias on this thread is shocking’ neither is there any hint of fascism!
People who become citizens of another country are talked through exactly what will happen at the ceremony, therefore she could have worn gloves if it mattered so much.
If a Jewish Rabbi was seeking citizenship, and was told the official was female, he could have explained beforehand and it wouldn't have been a problem.
Presumably the woman in France simply refused to shake hands when the official extended his hand to her in congratulation.It sounds as if it was calculated to me, to prove a point.As Atqui says, in any case there may be more to this than refusing a handshake.

I wonder when it will get through to some that shaking hands, covering etc. Are NOT religious requirements. They are cultural requirements coopted into some religions by those who wish to virtue signal to you that they are more pious than you.
Whatever religion and yes Trisher your issue with Jews should be included, should we be demeaned by those who consider that their particular actions wrapped in the name of religion is done do display disdain.
With reference to educated ladies covering, again this is virtue signalling. I am showing you that I am more pious than you and your culture.

Perhaps there was more to it than the refusal to shake hands, which in itself seems understandable as long as she politely explained her religious reasons. Presumably no one would have had a hissy fit if she had declined a bacon sandwich.!

How hard it is - I know that if I took the decision to become a citizen of another nation, I would do my utmost to absorb and observe their customs, and learn their language. Presumably if I did not approve of their customs I would not have chosen to live there - or I would have been a bit nuts if I had.

I have no objection at all to people observing their religions, provided that those religions do not overstep important lines: no child mutilation (boys or girls); no separate legal system; no denial of equal gender rights etc.

Where do you draw the line? I would guess we all draw it in different places; but when it comes to citizenship, I guess each country has the right to choose where their lines lie. If France decides that shaking hands is so important to their culture that it is a prerequisite of citizen ship, then they have the right to make that choice - just as a Moslem country, for instance, would have the right to refuse me citizenship if I flouted their customs about modesty.

Trisher your message of 12.40:
I see now, I missed your point.
The only explanation of the different reactions that I can think of is that Jews tend to keep a low profile about their laws, and are mostly law abiding and peaceful.
Whereas a few Muslims have been involved in violence and disrespect of white women, so give the rest a bad name.

Try reading posts Day6 and you would know. But it is significant I think that having accused me of being "loony left" you are now labelling me Muslim. The very real prejudice and bias on this thread is shocking.

You were invited to a private function,you dressed accordingly we all do that.
If the woman was, so ,every time they refuse, are Jewish rabbis and yet you refuse to condemn them.
It seems there is one rule for women who are Islamic and another for men who are Jewish.

Rituals which break established law are of course not to be permitted but some of the things being posted on this thread are bordering on fascist

Oh I wondered when you'd use the F word Trisher. Bingo!

Liberalism and tolerance to an extent that it offends a whole cultural way of life isn't an attractive situation either, is it? It's likely to cause division and anger. Human nature.

Macron is a fascist now then> France is also a fascist country according to your left wing reasoning. Are you a Muslim by any chance?

I attended a wedding at a Sikh Gurdwara a few years ago.

It was requested that women cover their heads, so I did. I could have said this is not MY norm and refused. Why would I do this? What would I be trying to achieve - that MY religious ways took precedence?

This woman was doing just that and ignoring a cultural norm.

Just imagine how insulted and angry those Sikhs would have been if I'd done my own thing?? Within the confines of a religious institution or behind closed doors at home religious practice does not offend many people and that is a tolerance I respect.

Respect has to work both ways too. It is not respectful to change cultural norms to satisfy a small minority for religious reasons.

Day6 You said
So, the handshake, a western tradition of greeting, warmth, friendship and congratulation has now become insulting to some and we have to appreciate it? This is loony left ideology
A Jewish Orthodox Rabbi will not shake hands with a woman in a social situation -are they then anti-western?.
Rituals which break established law are of course not to be permitted but some of the things being posted on this thread are bordering on fascist.

Mutilation, not mutation!

I do think people should be allowed to practice their religion as they choose

I don't.
Satanic rituals? Klu Klux Klan? Ritual slaughter? Genital mutation?

We DO have to draw a line, and rightly so.

Fennel I know the religious concepts behind the not shaking hands, my point is that most people would not condemn this practice in Judaism. They would however (and France has) condemn a woman who refused to do exactly the same thing. The roots and the ideas behind both are similar. I don't subscibe to them , I do think people should be allowed to practice their religion as they choose.

If a rabbi declines to shake the hand of a woman, would that also be seen as acceptable grounds for denying citizenship?

My local vicar wears funny robes and on Sundays in church he asks people to eat wafers and sip wine. No one is denying him this action - or Rabbis theirs, although if you do some research you'll discover that touching the other sex is encouraged in much Jewish religion. I have no objection to Muslims insisting shoes are removed and heads covered in a holy place.

I WOULD object if they insisted I do this when visiting Tesco! At an awards ceremony (in the west) handshaking is the norm, just as bowing a lot happens in Japan and visitors/residents tend to comply. Why would you offend or make a stand?

This woman was making a stand for her religion, which imo was totally unreasonable given the circumstances.

Should she also be allowed to slit the neck of a goat on her back garden lawn?

ps in connection with the OP - many Muslim traditions derive from the Old Testament, following Judaism.

Trisher re orthodox Jews not shaking hands with someone of opposite gender:
This is related to the many protective 'fences' around risk of sexual inpropriety.
Jews are very aware of the power of the sex drive and the need to channel it in the right direction ie marriage.
Another point - in rural France farmers often refuse to shake hands if they've been working in fields of with animals etc. Offer their forearm instead.

"I do not like the implication that Muslim women are all weak, ignorant, and browbeaten."

The Muslim women I knew who took to the veil were not ignorant. I did not say they were. They were intelligent women, persuaded this was what their religion required them to do.

Why the orthodoxy all of a sudden (which offended colleagues and clients (who remarked on it) when to all intents and purposes they'd already adopted a much more liberal, western lifestyle?

I am not sure I'd be offended if people don't dance or drink at a wedding. It's hardly the same thing. I know lots of abstainers from all walks of life and different religions.

I have attended many graduation ceremonies. The new graduates shake hands on receiving their degrees. Not once have I seen a hand refused and these students come from all over the world.

The question that trisher posed has not been responded to. If a rabbi declines to shake the hand of a woman, would that also be seen as acceptable grounds for denying citizenship?

I do not like the implication that Muslim women are all weak, ignorant, and browbeaten. There are, sadly, many white British women who are under the control of their husbands, 'not allowed' to do this that or the other. That is why we have refuges and WA services.

On the other hand you only have to watch TV to see many muslim women who are prominent in public life and the media, juggling family and professional lives as all working mums do.

I had a sudden flashback to our wedding 50+ years ago. It was the standard Church wedding with a meal, speeches and dance band in a hotel to follow. However, all of DH's Uncles/Aunts/cousins belonged to a weird Mission Church and would not dance, nor drink alcohol. So the MCs attempts to organise toasts and the first dances, traditionally Bride and Groom, then Bride's Father with Groom's Mother etc. fell totally flat and I was left like a wallflower at my own wedding, until someone from my side came to my rescue. Total clash of cultures with all present White, Christian, Scots.