It becomes disruptive when this sort of thing happens, the symbol becomes politicized. Or rather, re-politicized. Think about it from a historical perspective, and remember that most of these symbols originated as intentionally disruptive symbols, meant to distinguish one group of people from another during rebellion against the existing powers. Christianity was a political, as much as spiritual, revolution against the Judaic and Roman state cultures. Islam was a rebellion against a number of polytheistic cultures.

Sikhism is one of most explicit with regards to symbols - the turban, uncut hair and beard, bracelet, and kirpan are very much intended to create a communal identity, and this has very political roots. Those symbols were not originally part of the Sikh faith, but were instituted after violent religious purges that their community suffered, as an act of defiance.

The same thing is happening with the headscarf. Check out Turkey, a pretty uniformly Islamic country. Banned in universities and government buildings, the hijab has become a very potent political symbol. Every year the universities spend the first several weeks doing battle with students attempting to attend classes in hijab, and there are mass expulsions across the country. Seems ridiculous to our ears, but understand the history and situation of the Turkish government (military, actually - they guard the constitution), who are determined not to become a religious dictatorship like so many of their neighbors.

All that said, I'm highly conflicted about the French situation as well.

> Are you claiming that wearing a cross or a headscarf is akin to
> standing on a soapbox in the middle of the playground and
> preaching?

No, I'm not. I've forgotten where I was going, but it wasn't there. It was a genuine question, rather than one asked to make a point.