Hm, I suppose I only brought up cultural integration for two reasons;
1) Because it currently seems that a lack of integration is causing a lot of friction in France. Let us compare the Amish in America, who are more or less accepted, and aren't really trying very hard to expand; is there a lot of friction with the Amish?
2) Because I tend to view religions, which demand faith and are exclusive, and attempt to grow and order the rest of us about, as memetic poisons; faith is not subject to change through rational argument, because it is circular. ( The Amish actually release their kids into the outside world, to let them decide whether they want to be Amish or not. Is there a similar practice in Islam? )
In practice, Islam causes me to feel threatened in a way that the Amish do not. I look at the Islamic countries and see a lack of tolerance for alternate ways of thinking, and a variety of other things that bother me.* I can always leave (or never enter) Amish territory. The Amish aren't going to try to subvert my land's state.
We've seen Christians attempt to codify their interpretations of the laws of their religion in the US, and similarly with Muslims in Islamic countries.
I worry very much that if Islam becomes dominant, there will be an attempt to codify its laws into the laws of the state. This does not appear to be a risk with the Amish.
Furthermore, because it's based on faith, and because humans are flawed, it won't be weeded out amongst idea marketplace competition. Evolution, even memetic evolution, is an amoral force of nature. (edit: Just because an idea is more correct does not necessarily make it more accepted!
)
* For example, there is a taboo in depicting the human face in artwork; and just like the complete covering of female body, I find this very troubling as it seems to indicate a shame of the human body and of being human.
edit: For further example, in Iran, gays are forced to undergo sex reassignment surgery because their religious-oriented government is in denial about a fundamental biological fact. I find this frightening.
Christianity, for all its problems, has been somewhat tempered over the years.
---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------
Regarding the law itself, I feel it fails to reach the underlying purpose that it should, which is that you want to see people's faces to be able to perform identification.
Regarding a tolerance for diversity of ideas; this is a useful (and therefore good) thing. The problem is, in part, that some of those ideas run inherently contrary to established fact and tolerance of diversity in general.
Are we required to tolerate intolerance?
If we approach the question from the perspective that tolerance is a top-level virtue, then it results in a contradiction.
However, if we approach it as a derived or dependent virtue which comes from fulfilling some other virtue, then there is no conflict.
As a Utilitarian, I can say without contradiction that we may refuse to tolerate intolerance, because tolerance itself has only instrumental value.