is that even really about separation of church and state? Somehow I doubt it.

Also the US takes the, IMO, "better" position of saying that individuals practicing private religion doesn't break separation of church and state. Organized religion does.

Of course the US also effectively forces their children to recite a pledge (which includes "under god"), which I find rather distateful.

That's not separation of church and state, that's suppression of unpopular religion by the secular state, which is no different than suppression of unpopular religion in favor of a popular religion by the state. (And its not just in schools, though that was one of the focal points in the debates, the ban applies in all public spaces in France.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_c...

The French do have a fairly rigorous approach to separation of church and state. Where do they cross the line into something blatantly discriminatory?

On the face of it, sure; OTOH, the specific targeting of traditional attire of certain Muslims was overt among the promoters of both the ban you link to and the broader ban on face covering in public spaces.

You might think that only because it doesn't resonate in the English-speaking press, but that's far from true. In reality, France is historically involved in any goings-on in Northern Africa, and is a fundamental partner to US and UK in Middle East policies. They were the main proponents for "blowing up" Lybia, while UK and Italy had built bridges with the regime and were preparing for an eventual transition. They started military operations in Syria only a few months ago, but mostly because they have troops continuously engaged in various African countries and have to keep an eye on their limited resources.

Across radicalised groups all over Africa, ME and Asia, France is still seen as an old-school, violent colonial power with an anti-muslim bent. You could be surprised if Spain or (to a lesser degree) Italy were targeted, but France easily makes the "Top 5 Targets List" of most violent nutjobs in that part of the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34372892

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-09/french-def...

I agree with your point of fuck them, but still.

We consistently rank with top-notch nations, thank you very much.

Certainly they're closer and easier to get to from the Middle East than other parts of the world and contain a larger Arab population making it easier to hide within and recruit from.

But I would imagine French intelligence is deep within that same population and I remember members of the military on patrol in the streets of Paris.

I'd hesitate to assume that French intelligence operatives have thoroughly penetrated terrorist groups and their sympathizers. My experience suggests that French authorities have for years underestimated the threat posed by such groups and are also significantly underfunded/under resourced.

The military patrol is primarily a form of security theatre, though that does depend upon the location. Some areas truly do need greater protection, such as repeatedly targeted venues, and those populations do need reassurance that they are not completely vulnerable. I also want to make clear that those forces can actually intervene in the unlikely situation that the protected venue is attacked, but it's also likely that their presence displaces the attacks to alternative sites.

Anyway, France has a significant population that is sympathetic to jihadi terrorism's goals and practices, and my understanding is that counterterrorism and terrorism response operations in France - both strategically and tactically - leave much to be desired. France/Paris is not like Munich circa 1972 (shit-show level of unpreparedness), but there's significant room for improvement.

Maybe because they let into their borders too many losers whose worldview renders them incapable of finding their way around the western the world? Maybe no more reasons are needed? No politics, no aims, nothing to gain, just a bunch of frustrated losers?