French Secularism

[Akka]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
If after this whole controversy, if it was shown that the scarf is merely cultural

Well, except it isn't. Which somehow defeat your entire argument.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Youre wrong Akka, sorry. Can you quote here the passage in the Koran that explicitly requires women to wear a head scarf? I'll be waiting...

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
Youre wrong Akka, sorry. Can you quote here the passage in the Koran that explicitly requires women to wear a head scarf? I'll be waiting...

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested; and Allah is oft-Forgiving, most Merciful." (S XXXIII 59)

Happy to oblige.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Sheesh, I was settling in for a long wait. Akka -1, Dumb pothead -0. I still think its wrong to prohibit the use of the scarf. Counterproductive too.

 

[Akka]

I don't think so.

As I said above, the only people that would refuse to put down religious symbols are the ones that want to force their religion on a secular state. In doing so, they aren't respecting the beliefs of others, and they are putting themselves in illegality.
They are ALREADY radicals. Giving up here would simply mean that they would then put the fight a bit further.
And on a question of principle alone : if it's forbidden for others, I don't see why it would be allowed for them. Law is the same for everyone.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Akka
As I said above, the only people that would refuse to put down religious symbols are the ones that want to force their religion on a secular state. In doing so, they aren't respecting the beliefs of others, and they are putting themselves in illegality.

If a Jew wears a yamulke, or a Muslim woman wears a scarf, or a Christian wears a cross, theyre disrespecting your beliefs? Ok. But if you prohibit them from wearing symbols of their religions, how are you respecting THEIR beliefs?

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
If a Jew wears a yamulke, or a Muslim woman wears a scarf, or a Christian wears a cross, theyre disrespecting your beliefs? Ok. But if you prohibit them from wearing symbols of their religions, how are you respecting THEIR beliefs?

First, it only applies to state-run buildings. You can do whatever you wish in your home. The state must be kept neutral, so if you go into a state-run building, you have to act neutral.

Second, a practical point I did not mention earlier, because I was too busy to battle about the very principle : what is forbidden is to wear a revendicative religious symbol (or to wear a non-revendicative symbol in a revendicative way). A religious symbol that is discreet is allowed. The problem with the veil, is that it's hardly non-revendicative (most of the battle that took place is because some say it is, some say it isn't. I don't consider that something that hide all the hair and most of the face of someone is discreet enough to be considered non-revendicative).

 

[Marla_Singer]

Pothead, public schools aren't considered at the same level than the street in France. We aren't saying that outside school it's banned to wear a large cross, a kipa or a sikh turban. Kids are by the way still free to go in private catholic, jew or muslim schools.

In France, we consider the public school as a special place which isn't like the outside life. I think that's the main difference between american and french public school system.

For example, advertising isn't welcomed in french public schools. On the opposite, in american schools we can find TV advertisement in class or McDonald's restaurants. That's strongly forbidden in french schools. French public schools doesn't welcome any proselytism (commercial, political or religious). That comes from the simple idea private interests are not compatible with public education. It doesn't make of the French system better or worst, it just makes it different.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
It doesn't make of the French system better or worst

I beg to differ.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Akka
First, it only applies to state-run buildings. You can do whatever you wish in your home. The state must be kept neutral, so if you go into a state-run building, you have to act neutral.

A student attending a school is a private citizen, not a state employee who speaks for the state. How does a student wearing a yamulke or a scarf or a crucifix interfere with the states neutrality?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Marla, but a school is a place of learning. In this environment, how is religion discussed in the classroom? Is it a taboo subject?

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
A student attending a school is a private citizen, not a state employee who speaks for the state. How does a student wearing a yamulke or a scarf or a crucifix interfere with the states neutrality?

You still, after three pages, fail to understand the concept of "neutral ground".

Sorry, but I'm tired of explaining such a simple concept. Just read the previous posts I made.

Marla, but a school is a place of learning. In this environment, how is religion discussed in the classroom? Is it a taboo subject?

The goal of the school is to teach facts and to help pupils to develop critical thinking.
Politics and religions are a matter of opinion and faith, not methods and facts, so they are a forbidden subject (again : the OPINIONS are forbidden. FACT are part of history, and as such are teached).

 

[Marla_Singer]

Pothead, are you naive ?

In France, education used to be only made by catholic authorities. Once the secular public school arrived, the first thing the catholics tried to do was to keep crucifix in classes. The purpose of such an act was obvious. Actually, in some countries like Italy, we can still find crucifix in most of public schools (there's no separation between the Church and the State in Italy).

Now about the muslim veil. Come on. When a muslim girl is wearing the veil, she's not only do it because she personnaly think it's moral... she also says to other muslim girl that it's a vice to not wear it. When a brother asks to his sister to wear it in class... he can say : "look, other girls do it, why don't you do it ? Are you a slut ? I don't want my sister to be a slut !"

A french association of girls from the "cités" in France is called "Neither slut nor Submissive". The purpose of this association is to fight against the idea more and more popular that girls are either sluts (they don't wear the veal), or submissived (they wear it). If you're a slut, then the whole class can sleep with you. If you're submissived, then you'll remain pure untill your wedding.

You may think that considering women this way should be respected since it's only a cultural difference... but then why should we be against the excision ? Is it racist to be against the excision ?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Banning religion is not a neutral act.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
Banning religion is not a neutral act.

Now, please tell me you're pretending being stupid on purpose. Please.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Religion is neutraly teached. We don't say : "look how Jesus was great ! you must baptize !". We simply say : "Jesus did this and that and Muhammad did this and that.".

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Akka, youre the one thats acting stupid by being insulting. You dont understand a simple statement like 'banning religion is not a neutral act' ? Are your poor logic skills the result of being educated in the French public school system, or is it just you?

 

[IceBlaZe]

Originally posted by Akka

Two things :
1) The goal is not to secularize the Muslims. The goal is to keep the school secular. If you can't make the difference, it's quite frightening.

I know what the target is allegedly.
However, don't be short sighted. We both know what the longterm goal is - and we both know what brought up the issue. I did not hear of any recent complaints in schools, and Jews have been wearing kippas to school for years without it being any less secular. There is NO difference between taught school material to some students wearing a kippa. It stings in the eyes of the French to see Muslim women with headscarves going to school - so there goes the ban. It is purely aimed at Islam - the kippa and the "oversized cross" (the phrase alone is a joke) are just for PC. You know, lip service.

2) Yes, we are trying to frenchiate the muslim community. France has always been a land of integration and assimilation. With all the clashes that can follow, yes, but until now, every wave of immigrant has been assimilated in the long run.

You know and I know that this one's different. You are only fooling yourself by saying differently.

Well, then they will go hostile. Our land has values. If you don't like these values, go elsewhere, or try to change them within the system.

The values have not changed - yet you are changing the laws. Are you sure the former laws did not fit those values?
The way I see it - the new law is a law regarding a new situation, not a recent important addition to the values. Secularism can be just fine while still allowing religious people to dress according to their religion. It doesn't contradict any democratic value - and it doesn't change the material taught in school. In addition, it is not missionary. To say that a kippa (the only thing I can knowingly comment on) is missionary is absurd. Actually, it isn't that visible.

There is worry about immigration. But then, there was worry about Polish immigration, and Italian immigration, and Spanish immigration. We'll see if this one is definitely too far away, culturally speaking, to be assimilated, or if it will just follow the same path.

Again, I don't know who you are trying to convince here - you are probably talking to a lot more french people than I am, and you are actually living in France. You know this immigration is different.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
We simply say : "Jesus did this and that and Muhammad did this and that.".

And while you say these things, you forbid the followers of these people from wearing symbols of their beliefs. You see nothing wrong with this

 

[Speedo]

You may think that considering women this way should be respected since it's only a cultural difference... but then why should we be against the excision ? Is it racist to be against the excision ?

What gives you the right to tell them that their culture is wrong?

I don't know what you mean by "excision." Perhaps circumcision, but I don't see how it relates to the topic.