I have some unease about this - though I really really dislike the headscarves (I know a few Muslims, none of my generation or younger wear them I’m glad to say) I really can’t see a problem with a kippa or a cross (unless it’s full-size of course…)
I’ve not seen any reference to Sikhs - maybe there aren’t many in France - but are schools going to demand they cut their hair?
Does the separation of church and state (which I’m all for) really demand actions like this?
At the least this seems another demonstration that there is no common European consensus on major issues - this would not have even been proposed in the UK - the mantra of Multiculturalism would be invoked at stage one.
If large crosses are banned but “‘Discreet’ medallions and pendants” are allowed, will schools have special cross-rulers?
“Your Crucifix is 2mm over-size - no lessons for you, my Boy!”
“Merde!”
I’m kind of divided over this one. I’m an atheist who thinks anyone should be free to follow any religion they want, but should not recieve any special treatment for it.
So, if the schools have a school uniform policy, then everyone should have to comply with it, regardless of religion.
If the schools don’t have school uniform, then TPTB have no right to single out religious groups to dictate a dress code to.
I suspect that France doesn’t have a lot of schools with a uniform, so it seems a little odd that they should take this controversial move. One legitimate reason to enforce this ban is the Kirpan. The kirpan is a dagger that strict sikhs wear. If you allow sikhs to carry daggers into a school, then presumably non-sikhs can argue they can carry them, or the school is discriminating one religion over another. If you don’t allow sikhs to carry them, they why should you allow any other religious group to display its bits’n’bobs.
This is indeed a tough question - it surely must be the case that no particular religious group can be singled out: either all may carry or wear whatever symbols they want, or none can.
I myself believe that “all can” is the better position. Except in the case of symbols which threaten safety (i.e. in situations where the symbol gets in the way of necessary safety gear), I think people should have the right to wear whatever religious symbols they want … I don’t really understand the necessity of taking such a step as forbidding the wearing of religious symbols.
My position is that the “default position” should be one of allowing personal freedoms. If those freedoms are to be restricted, that restriction ought to be justified by cogent reasons. I don’t think that “living together in public places” demands such a step. My own city of Toronto has lots of people who wear religious symbols, and they seem to live together and go to school together okay without such a rule. Are things different in France?
[I myself don’t wear any religious symbols]
This hijab issue is an old pain in France.
They only bring in “other religions” now to be able to say they don’t target the Muslim community.
Of course they do. Which is in my opinion even the issue here. The issue is that paranoia wins from common sense and that they
make themselves come across as a bit ridiculous focussing on a problem that even isn’t a real one. While the real problem, integration, is not adressed and shall not be solved by this rather panical reaction.
On the other hand I support the idea that when a child enrolls in a school where a well described uniform must be weared, this excludes any exception for no matter what.
My two Belgian nieces went both to a Catholic school. They weren’t even permitted to wear (visible) a golden chain with a little cross because even that - a sign of their religion in a was seen as braking the strict rules of that uniform. The same the Muslim girls weren’t permitted to wear a scarf. This is something you agree on when you decide to send your child to that particular school and there is afterwords no reason to scream murder when your child can’t wear this or that.
Salaam. A
Sorry… keyboard with unknown buttons here.
Must make a correction in my post
"They only bring in “other religions” now to be able to say they
don’t target the Muslim community.
Of course they do. Which is in my opinion even the issue here. "
Correcting the last sentence:
Which is in my opinion not even the issue here.
Just a thought, could a swastika armband be considered a religious symbol? I can’t remember the exact origin of the swastika, but I’ve got a feeling its semi-religious.
I thought the current wisdom was that the French were anti-semetic, meaning that the ban on headscarves would be a cover for a ban on Jewish symbols.
In all seriousness though, I often forget that some countries don’t have the same protections of free exercise that we do. This is clearly a case of a reasonable accomodation of religious beliefs. People should have the right to be as conspicuous about their religious beliefs as they want. It’s their behavior to each other that the law should regulate, not their expression of beliefs.
I think the decision to wear religious clothing is very personal and it bothers me to think they would deny them that choice. Particularly since these traditions are based not just in “showing one’s religion” but in fulfilling a desire for modesty and humility. Headcoverings don’t have to interfere with the remainder of a school’s uniform.
There’s a girl at my kid’s karate school who wears her hijab over her karate uniform. It’s actually kind of cool looking, seeing a girl in headscarf kicking ass.
Current French anti-Semitism is mainly linked to the recent Muslim immigrants. It seems strange that they’d be willing to give up hijab to spite the Jews, or have the power to enforce such a change.
As above, I see no reason to ban religious clothing except in extreme cases (such as weapons with religious significance or the swastika, which has significance to many cultures).
I think they should give up the headscarves, turbans, and kippot and instead wear baseball caps. Preferably ones advertizing American sports teams or American companies. That would really tweak the French.
epolo clearly has nothing intelligent to add to this debate.
Aldebaran:
Your example involving your nieces isn’t what the OP is talking about as they are attending a Catholic school. Being a private school, there is no reason that school can’t enforce any dress code it deems necessary. Public schools are another matter altogether. Unless the public school can demonstrate the dress of a particular individual is a safety issue or interferes with the educational process, it has no business disallowing religious dress. Headscarves and yarmulkes don’t fall in that category.
JM
My reference to uniform schools was following an other post mentioning schools that require uniform.
As for public schools and whatever other places, I think my post was clear enough about my opinion on the issue discussed in the OP.
Salaam. A
It is not reasonable to make a person choose a particular (non private) school in the basis that it allows for their religious clothing in there school uniform rules. This would lead to partial segregation, as people of a given religion would go to the school most friendly towards their clothing restrictions.
In the strict uniform (non private) school I weant to in UK there were many religious groups in the school, and they had rules of uniform that allowed members of each group to wear what was required of them and yet remain with a uniformed and neat appearence.
For instance between 13 and 16 yrs old the uniform required dark colours, white shirt, and maroon blazer. Sikh’s would wear a maroon coloured turban, muslims girls would wear maroon or white head scarves.
I cannot believe that French schools could not come to a similar arrangement.
Though I’d prefer an “allow all” policy, if the ban is for all religious symbols, then I can’t fault it too much. My only question is why only “large” Christian crosses would be banned by this? If someone has a small Jewish skullcap, would that be okay?
I can’t quite understand how one could feel uneasy about a Muslim headscarf but not the Christian or Jewish equivalent.
But I don’t get the size differential. If they’re really doing this to ban outward signs of religion, then ALL crossed should be banned, unless they are worn underneath clothes. Ditto Muslim and Jewish and Hindu symbols, etc etc.
On one hand I think it’s rather nice that children get to experience and learn about different religions, and the fact that other children may have different cultures from their own.
On the other hand I think it’s nice that children can get to grow up in a totally neutral environment where the differences between them are minimised.
So I’m torn.
My problem with the headscarf is the way it seems to be a symbol of the denial of the individuality, identity, sexuality of the wearer.
Islam is not unique in being identified with a negative attitude to women (I know, I know -this is all just my perception and I’m sure there have been many debates on Islam’s real attitude to women) but the Muslim headscarf does seem a very physical representation of a particular attitude.
Among the Muslims I know personally (who are “liberal” believers) the headscarf is not considered an integral part of Islam (IIRC) but a cultural leftover from particular Muslim countries.
I agree - and this seems to be what is raising suspicions that this is a specifically anti-Muslim measure.
I think the idea is that allowing the religious clothing in school is divisive. By wearing it, you’re saying to everyone, “Look at me, I’m Muslim”, or “Look at me, I’m Jewish”, or “Look at me, I’m Christian”, instead of just saying, “Look at me, I’m French”.
I think the idea is that a small cross, on a chain, say, is not noticible, any more than a small star of David on the chain, or a small crescent moon on the chain. It doesn’t draw attention to oneself the way a scarf or a skullcap does.
Captain - the difference being that the clothes are not worn for expression but to comply with tenets of the religion. A t-shirt advertising one’s religion is a lot different from a headscarf. The hijab, according to the beliefs of some Muslims (and I’m well aware of the pre-Islamic origin of the item, but that doesn’t really matter) is REQUIRED to protect the modesty of a female Muslim. It’s not worn to show off her religion, but to comply with a requirement to cover her hair, so a Muslim who is forced by a public school to wear a hijab is being required to violate their beliefs.
That can’t possibly be a positive thing.
There is nothing if the Qu’ran about a woman wearing a headscarf or veil.
It is a cultural interpretation of Islam that is manifested in no head scarves in countries like Turkey, Iraq and pre-revolution Iran and manifested in total body coverage in Saudi and Taliban-era Afghanistan.
A headscarf is not a requirement for Islamic females. It is a cultural (not a religious) distinction so it has no protection from French laws.