French Secularism

[andrewgprv]

Another example of goverenment making personal decisions for us. It would be a bad move on part of the french goverenment to inact such a law.

 

[Ossric]

In Belgium, we have had the same discussions about head bands. My opinion on it, if "normal" students can't wear hats, caps & certain clothes when they attend classes, why should they allow head bands to others.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Obviously, France is free to ban religious symbols in public schools. But it must apply equally to every religion, not merely those with values you disagree with.

I totally agree on that point. Of course, if we ban the headscarve than we should also ban kippas and sikh turbans. Kinniken and I totally agree on that point. Well anyway, maybe it has changed, but when I was a school student, it was even forbidden to wear a cap in class.

I just wanted to add that the new law won't be only about banning visible religious signs. It will be also about making Yom Kippur and Eid al-Kebir as days where the kids won't go to school.

 

[Yago]

This discussion has been a lot of times here before. And I always think it turns around the same cultural/traditional/juristic differences between the continental west European laicist states with their separation of church and state and those who do have different traditions, as the "defender of the faith"-British for example.

This is silly. PC gone too far.

Not at all. It would be silly PC to let people of various religions, like them presbyterian (which have none, me lucky bastard), the evangelics, the catholics and so on, have their funny, cute little religious symbols spread all over a place where you are forced to go (going school is mandatory) and you are in a subordinated relationship to the state (a student has to stay their and pay attention). Religious neutrality of the state wherever and whenever his in a position where others are forced to obey, as in schools, is paramount for the existence of religious freedom (which obiously includes the freedom to have no religion). Is this prerequisite not given, than freedom of religion is not given and every claim to have it in those cases is pure humbug in my eyes. Of course, people from different cultural backgrounds may hold other views, it's their culture and they are free to hold on to it, in their realm they can do what they want.

 

[tonberry]

A law like this will probably be adopted soon in Quebec. I agree with the French, religion have no buisness in school.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Well, I'm actually in France and obviously I know a lot better the issue than you are.

/snip/

I understand your reasonings and agree the veils purpose is to reenforce a subservient status. Still, I believe it fails to take into consideration that religion has been perhaps the most powerful force in shaping the world and many Muslim women have been taught from birth that their headcover is their dignity. It is not the same to them as removing a trinket from around their neck. Better would first be to launch a public compaign to discourage its use.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Yago

Not at all. It would be silly PC to let people of various religions, like them presbyterian (which have none, me lucky bastard), the evangelics, the catholics and so on, have their funny, cute little religious symbols spread all over a place where you are forced to go (going school is mandatory) and you are in a subordinated relationship to the state (a student has to stay their and pay attention). Religious neutrality of the state wherever and whenever his in a position where others are forced to obey, as in schools, is paramount for the existence of religious freedom (which obiously includes the freedom to have no religion). Is this prerequisite not given, than freedom of religion is not given and every claim to have it in those cases is pure humbug in my eyes. Of course, people from different cultural backgrounds may hold other views, it's their culture and they are free to hold on to it, in their realm they can do what they want.

There is a difference bewteen school officials attempting to spread religion, but I guess I see your point. I just think of it this way, if Muslims and Christians can't have religious display in schools, then no one should. All or none policy. Thats the problem over here in the United States. Schools are actully actively promoting Buddiusm, Neo-Paganism, and Uniteratism, while restricting the religous freedoms of Christians and Jews.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Public schools are a different matter than simply the phrase "Public Institutions." A park could be a public institution, should they be made to remove their headscarves there?

The law is simple : religion is a private matter. It has nothing to do with state. So, you can practice any religion, including any religious stuff you want (as long as it's legal, of course), as long as you're not into state-run institution : forbidden in school (because it's about education, and getting critical thinking), forbidden for people working in official buildings (police, army, town/city halls...).

In other words : every aspects of the State must be strictly laic.

As a sidenote : atheism is also considered a religious opinion.

Sorry, but I have a problem with them being banned for the sole reason of being religious symbols. Me wearing a shirt that says "Buddha is my Homeboy" doesn't hurt anyone, and some woman wearing a scarf, so matter how ridiculous it might seem to be, doesn't hurt anyone either.

It's not a matter of not hurting someone. It's a matter of keeping state matters separate from private matters, and also schools free from non-educationnal subjects (politics are as much banned as religion, BTW).

All that said, I would certainly hope that no one makes the girls wear the things. But, stupid parents can't be fixed by legislation.

No, but their stupidity can be forbidden to spill into state-run institutions.

 

[Archer 007]

What I dont get is how is letting individuals choose to wear religious appeal a state pushing of religion? Will we next force people to stop wearing religious appeal at all to keep them from "pushing their religion" on you? Freedom of religion is a basis tenet of democratic societies.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I thought headwear was not allowed in public schools in most countries. End of discussion.

 

[Akka]

They are free to wear religious symbols - but not while working for the state.
While they are working for the state, they REPRESENT the state.
They are (rightly so) forbidden to display their personnal opinions on private matters while representing the state. Seems logical to me.

Any institution that belong to the state must abide by the rule of laicity, that is one of the most basic one (it's a rule written in the constitution). Again, seems logical to me : freedom of religion is a personnal freedom that is guaranteed by the state, and to do so the state itself must be separated from religion.

Don't understand what bother you. Individuals can to what they want on a personnal point of view. They are just forbidden to promote these personnal views inside a state-run facility, as the state is supposed to be neutral.

 

[Johann MacLeod]

oy, I wish I hadn't read this, I'm seeing both side of the issue and its bugging me because I can't come to a conclusion on the matter.

 

[Archer 007]

Students are workers for the state. Since when?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Students are workers for the state. Since when?

Actually the law is about public school and state institutions such as local authorities employees (City Hall, Administrative divisions).

 

[Archer 007]

Ok. Sorry about the misinterpretion. I can now start to sort of ee your agruements, yet I dont think we should take these individuals rellgious freedoms away for the sake of correctness. Only censor then if they start to get lax on work to "spread the gospel".

 

[HannibalBarka]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
France is a secular country since the end of the 19th Century. In 1905, France became totally a laic country. Actually, I know few countries which have totally split religion from politics... It's not the case of most of Western Countries (US, Britain, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc...). For example, French people are shocked to see people swearing on the Bible in the US (Witnesses, Presidents, etc...).

That is one of the things I love about France, I lived in the US and was unconfortable about how religion is present in american life.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer

The muslim headscarve isn't only a religious symbol. It's actually more a traditionnal symbol than a religious symbol. It's a way to show women's submission under the law of men. The headscarve aim is to fight against women's emancipation. Concretely, it means a lot of things. Women should hide themselves to not attract men's desire... which leads to poblems such as the choice of their husbands or their ability to choose their own job.

Well I think this is debatble. Some of the girls who wear headscarve do it because their parents ask them, or even order them to do it, but some do it because they have chosen to. The late example of the two girls from Aubervilliers shows it. For the one that are not familiar with french news, I am talking about two girls, their father is an atheist jew and their mom a catholic, they choose to be muslim and wear a headscarve. I don't really see their parents imposing this on them.
I have a little girl. I am no religious person, I am even suspicious about religion in general. But if tomorrow my little girl choose to wear a headscarve, well that is her problem, I'll try to convince her not to do so, but I am not going to order her to remove it, and don't see why should the state has this right.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer

The muslim headscarve is actually forbidden in the schools of muslim secular states such as Turkey or Tunisia.

France having as a model Tunisia or Turkey is not a move forward

Originally posted by Marla_Singer

Actually, an open society where women and men are equal isn't compatible with the Nikab, the Chador or the Burqa. The Headscarve is more a jail than an invidividual freedom. Recently, Shirin Ebadin has taken her nobel peace prize without the headscarve. In doing so, she has broken the Iranian law saying all iranian women should wear the headscarve as much inside Iran than outside.

Creating a law saying that french woman should not wear a head scarve is no better, you cannot impose "freedom" on people.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer

Actually, the main lobby in France against the headscarve at school is the one of muslim women themselves. The only way for muslim women to fight against family pressures to wear it is actually the fact that it's forbidden by the secular laws of the Republic. French muslim women want to be free to choose their husbands, to choose their job... to summarize, to choose their life. If we don't forbid the headscarve at school, then it will become compulsary because of communauties and family pressures.

I am happy to see that the muslim women themselves are the one mostly advocating against the headscarve. But being muslim and women does not give them any more legitimity to impose their views on other muslim women.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer

Here, two democratic principles are being opposed : Individual Freedom and Equality between men and women. Once we realize the headscarve is weared by women mostly because of pressures and not because of their own choice, then the choice is getting clear.

When ever I have to choose between Freedom and anything else, I always take freedom.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Originally posted by Kinniken
I strongly agree with Marla_Singer. Schools in France tries to teach a number of values, and two of them is that men and women are equal and that religion does not matter in the eyes of the state.
Both of which impossible to do with little girls wearing headscarves.

The main thing school in France should teach is Freedom. Every one has the right to do whatever pleases them, as long as it does not hurt others. And if you cannot convince a little girl to take off her headscarve, but order her to do so, is not the best way to teach her the Freedom of choice. What is better in outlawing wearing headscarve from imposing it ?

 

[Enemy Ace]

Perhaps they wish to divide the country into various sections for each difference a person may have with another so that opposing ideas may never collide.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer

Exactly. Women who are wearing it doesn't do it because they want to but because people around them are choosing for them instead of them. It's not at all an individual freedom since individuals aren't chosing. It's simple, families (mostly brothers and fathers) are saying it's a sin to not wear it. The idea is that if they don't wear it, then they are sluts. Do you realize that ? being an independant woman means being a slut !
What is plain and simple authoritarianism is actually to let that being done without caring.

That is a shame. Well I won't be against a law forbidding imposing any religious belief or behaviour upon people even when coming from their own parents.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Originally posted by Kinniken

You would be. I've never heard turbans mentioned (not an issue in France), but kippas and catholic veils are specifically targeted.
Small ornements (a cross or star of david around the neck, or Fatima's hands) are not. And the law proposal includes making Kippur and Aïd-el-Kebir public holidays in schools. The government is rightly working hard to make this more than "ban the veil" law.

How does a veil or a kippa do more proselytism than a "small" cross or david star ? and someone may make a lot of proselytism without a headscarve or a kippa. Hey I can make a lot of proselytism wearing a bikini . I think proselytism is to be forbidden not showing one's religion.
As for Yom Kippur and Aïd-el-Kebir, although I agree about making them public holidays (I won't be against two more holidays ), but including it in the same law with the veil is only showing that "OK we're hurting you here, but we are giving you this".