Sheesh. A second comment in no time. Prolific are you?
I'm afraid I have less time than you today to carry on with the conversation (maybe somebody else - who actually understood my post - will take on the burden), but in the meantime, I'll just address the "emergency" points in your defense of the State Secularism.
There are several little details that you may want to consider first, as they may tamper a bit with your well-laid rant. For instance, when you say: "The state won't tell religious leaders what to preach in their churches, synagogues or mosques - the church, synagogues and mosques won't demand their views and practiced be endorsed in the state's own premises, where it is the state, not religion, which sets the rules."
Now that's funny. I was under the impression that "the state's own premises" supposedly belong to "the people" and that, therefore, it should be "the people" who set the rules - meaning the total sum of the individuals (including little girls) constituting the nation.
If so, "the state's own premises" (let's call them "public space" or "places" shall we?) would certainly not be some dull, bland, artificial monotonous space but the living and colorful pachwork of opinions, thoughts and beliefs (and clothing I imagine) of individuals respecting each other - as far as they're not infringing each other's rights to exist - and living their life accordingly under the willful acceptance of common moral values.
To be honest, I don't really know what "the state" should be apart from that. But maybe I'm just an idealist.
So if it's not, well... you can keep it (That's rhetorical. I know it's not. Yes, you can keep it.)
Because reading you, it seems that "the state" is some kind of immanent and omnipotent entity, separated from the society and somehow superior to it (Since it is setting its rules). Sounds like a God of some sort, if you ask me.
Well then, you can keep it too.
"They are free to have their kids pursue education elsewhere where those special exemptions are granted, if it is allowed, (…)"
Or to put it shorter: "They are free (…) if it is allowed" (by, again, the state I imagine?). That's some kind of freedom all right.
Anyway, you are closer to the situation on the French field than you think. Since the French state keeps its monopoly on education (the few private Catholic or Jewish schools have to be registered with the French Ministry of National Education anyway), you're actually quite right: they'll be free when it'll be allowed.
Hurray for allowed freedom.
Also, reading your litany on the much needed separation of the church and the state, my first reaction would be (and was) "Sure, sure. Nobody "“ besides the bearded barbarians "“ is challenging that, certainly not me. So what?"
For what's really bothering indeed, is that you seem to take for granted the fact that the ban on religious symbols (particularly the headscarf) is the magic bullet that will solve all the problems at hand (particularly militant Islam's advance).
If you can cut the Secular Slogan Spreading for one second and ask yourself that one, crucial question, then maybe you'll see through the appearances and understand that the French state is following the Al-Qaeda way with this law. Although one is yearning to impose and the other to oppose, they both attempt to coerce the whole mass of the individuals for the benefit of some of them (mainly, oh-surprise, those who are enforcing the measure).
Overall, it actually has little to do with the separation of the church and the state. The state, as far as I'm informed is not financing the Muslims' headscarf with public money. (although one could argue that as social benefits goes… But that's another question.)
Seeing how you jump to conclusions in your last paragraph ("It is puzzling that some libertarians end up siding with the fundamentalists rather than the Muslims who accept and respect secular principles.") I would conclude that you're either having a cheap shot at me (And so I won't even bother to refer you to the archive section of this blog, in case you want to check my records as far as fundamentalists are concerned) or you simply didn't read past the post's title (where it says "dissident frogman and al-Qaeda agree".)
I should therefore suggest you go back to the top of the page, and read the whole thing. You may notice that what really is bothering me, is that this restriction on people's freedom, while being a consistent conquest for the rabid anticlerical lurking in the French Statist since the Jacobins, will have no effect on the bearded barbarians. So much for "siding with the fundamentalists".
And, by the way, who the hell are you calling a "libertarian" ?