WASHINGTON -- First it was France's "weaselly" reluctance to join in the war on Iraq that brought sneers from American commentators. Now America's oldest ally is enduring criticism from the United States for enacting a law that prohibits children in state schools from wearing Islamic head coverings, yarmulkes and conspicuous crucifixes.

		Michael McGough is an editor at large in the PG's National Bureau (mmcgough@ nationalpress.com).

Before the ban was approved by the National Assembly last week, John V. Hanford, a Bush administration official, served up this sermon for French President Jacques Chirac: "A fundamental principle of religious freedom that we work for in many countries of the world, including on this very issue of head scarves, is that all persons should be able to practice their religion and beliefs peacefully, without government interference, as long as they are doing so without provocation and intimidation of others in society."

If Hanford were looking for a case study to prove his point, he wouldn't have to go far. Consider the Fairfax County, Va., public schools, renowned in the Washington suburbs not only for academic excellence but also for ethnic and religious diversity.

Paul Regnier, the district's community relations coordinator, pointed out that its 160,000-plus students speak 100 different languages at home and follow several religious traditions. Some Muslim girls wear head coverings -- consistent with a provision of the district dress code that encourages "accommodation for religious beliefs."

Interestingly, however, Regnier did not denounce French educators for not following Fairfax County's lead. He recognizes that the debate there takes place against a background of a peculiarly French commitment to a secular state. It would be refreshing if the Bush administration demonstrated a similar appreciation of the cultural context of the French legislation.

There is another reason for Americans to show some humility on this issue: Official tolerance for religious diversity in this country is a relatively recent phenomenon. It wasn't until 1987, in response to an adverse Supreme Court decision, that Congress allowed Jewish military officers to wear yarmulkes with their uniforms. Only recently have Christmas pageants in public schools been repackaged as ecumenical "holiday celebrations" that also make note of Hanukkah and Kwanzaa.

Moreover, this American compromise -- governmental neutrality combined with individual religious expression -- remains controversial. Witness the widespread nostalgia for official prayer in public schools and the outcry that followed a federal appeals court's ruling that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the pledge case next month, and if it affirms the appeals court a proposed constitutional amendment to restore "under God" is a near-certainty.

It is tempting to recommend to the French that they copy the U.S. First Amendment, which the Bush administrations seems to think offers simple answers to the question of religious expression in state schools. But that amendment itself pulls in two directions: prohibiting governmental "establishment of religion" but guaranteeing the "free exercise" of religion. Into which category should we place an exception in a school dress code for religious apparel?

The sort of "multicultural" pluralism the Bush administration recommends to France took time to develop in this country and in England, where until the 19th century Roman Catholics and other "nonconformists" were second-class citizens. Earlier than that, in Elizabethan times, Catholics were presumed to be traitors because they answered to a pope who had excommunicated England's Protestant queen. The line between religion and politics in those days was a blurred and bloody one.

So it is, some would argue, in contemporary France with its large Muslim minority. Guy Coq, a French scholar writing recently in The New York Times, drew a connection between France's insistent secularism and the goal of disarming Islamic fundamentalism.

The Bush administration disagrees, arguing in effect that what is good for Fairfax is good for France. How can it be sure?