The move to get headscarves out of school is part of the same French liberal-radical tradition that led to the Associations Law and the banning of religious clothing in France at the beginning of the 20th century. Back then, the target of the secularists was Catholicism, and now it’s Islam, but the goal is the same…to remove religion from political and public life.
In both cases, btw, largely because the practice of the religion is/was seen as antithetical to liberal democracy.
Would you be willing to specify those personal behaviours of which you approve, and that we are therefore able to practice in public? It sounds like quite a minefield, I must say. Thank you.
Well, given that no such post is likely ever to exist, it’s a bit moot really. I don’t believe any such ruling would be made in the US, and am glad that this is the case.
This is a terrible idea. Religious expression by private individuals should not be infringed upon unless it infringes on other people in an active, not passive way.
Furthermore, if it’s primary purpose is to prevent fanaticism from increasing and violence between ethnic and religious groups or better assimilate people, then there’s plenty of good arguments as to why it’ll be a failure.
-
It’ll force the more devoutly religious to have to leave the public school system, making their experiences even more insular. If you believe that the extremists are most heavily represented among the devout (which is a questionable assumption in itself), then you are basically just creating a situation in which it’s HARDER to get people to assimilate, and extremists will have a insulated audience.
-
Kids don’t need religious displays to tell who’s the Jew and start gang wars over it.
-
Someone else’s passive religious expression is an invitation to learn about their religion, not a threat.
That said, France does face a real problem here. Anti-Semitism is a real and growing problem with no easy answers. The question is not that different from what Pim in the (Netherlands?) was arguing with: how does OUR culture deal with and tolerate the mass influx of people who do not share what we consider to be our core values, including our value of tolerance?
Don’t they get it? This is what civil society is for. The problem with France is that the government has eclipsed most of civil society, strangled it, so that the actions of people and of government are entangled at every turn.
France might be a democracy, but it is not liberal (in the sense of "liberal democracy). The three pillars of liberalism in that sense are capitalism (decentralized trade), democracy (decentralized power), and the liberal scientific method/free market of ideas (decentralized authority over truth). France fails in both capitalism and the free exchange of ideas.
I’m hoping they make simmilar law in Sweden, and that they outlaw all non-governmental schools.
Bandit: I demand that you reimburse me for the expense of cleaning off my monitor and keyboard!
According to my local paper (SJ Mercury News), Chirac has also “rejected that proposal”.
I agree with those who say that this will simply drive the more fundamentlist types even further into isolation. Not to mention the fact that I find this abhorant to the most basic concept of personal freedom.
Perhaps they could take an example from the Japanese who, at one time, forced Koreans to take Japanes names. “Ahmed, you are now Arnaud!”
Can jewish men still wear their yalmulke?
Nope. But this is a restriction on schoolchildren’s dress, not the general public.
Yarmulke, hell! Will Jewish guys have to reverse thier circumcisions?
This does for stupid what plutonium does for bang!
Even though this is the Pit and, thus, not the place for “intelligent, rational comment,” there are some points in your posting that need to be addressed. First (setting aside your arrogant tone), I generally agree that one’s religious beliefs are, ultimately, a private and personal matter. However, I don’t believe the state has any business interfering with one’s public expression of these beliefs unless they are clearly disruptive. Regardless of what Chirac and his hypersensitive Gallic ilk think, a Muslim schoolgirl wearing a headscarf does not present a threat to other students let alone the French nation as a whole.
(By the way, I should state that, in terms of my own religious beliefs, I’m somewhere in the range between agnostic and atheist depending how I feel that day.)
This might be news to you but, in addition to religion, people are divided by a lot other things (e.g., political opinions, allegiances to sports teams, differing tastes in music, movies, and television, etc.). For the sake of unity, do you want to bar public expression of those too?
Very well said, Apos.
Regards,
Shodan
Capt Amazing, I said “secularist statism”, not “secular state”. DeadBadger understood what I meant- the mentality that suppresses religious expression in allegedly upholding a homogenous civil order. Any Christian state regime that would require cross-wearing, Jewish regime requiring yamulke-wearing, Islamic regime requiring scarf-wearing … that is the poison of religious statism. Fuck them, too.
NDP says:
Even though this is the Pit and, thus, not the place for “intelligent, rational comment,” there are some points in your posting that need to be addressed. First (setting aside your arrogant tone), I generally agree that one’s religious beliefs are, ultimately, a private and personal matter. However, I don’t believe the state has any business interfering with one’s public expression of these beliefs unless they are clearly disruptive. Regardless of what Chirac and his hypersensitive Gallic ilk think, a Muslim schoolgirl wearing a headscarf does not present a threat to other students let alone the French nation as a whole.
(By the way, I should state that, in terms of my own religious beliefs, I’m somewhere in the range between agnostic and atheist depending how I feel that day.)
Apos says:
This is a terrible idea. Religious expression by private individuals should not be infringed upon unless it infringes on other people in an active, not passive way.
I say: lofty ideals but are they appropriate for children and schools. Should the schoolyard be the place for determining individual rights of expression, I think not.
The school is the place for learning the basics of life, the ability to read and write, use a computer and perhaps some math. The state has a responsibility to provide basic education and to that end the distractions of the world should be minimized.
Parents in the U.S. who disagree with school policies are free to provide home schooling, provided it meets basic minimum standards, I presume that France has a similar arrangement or has no requirement that children attend school.
NO, fighting your particular political and religious wars has it’s place, but not in the schoolyard.
County:
No one is fight a war, they’re simply observing what they believe to be their religious strictures. As for the “they can school their kids themselves” comment, as I said in another thread about this, you’ve basically dredged up the “Let them eat cake” line. And we all know how well that worked last time.
You’ll have to show that someone wearing a head scarf or a yarmulkle is being “distractive”. One might equally argue that the an important lesson to learn in school is that all people are not alike, and it’s important to respect differences even if you don’t agree with them.
But the real issue is whether or not the state has the right to prevent the free exercise of religion without an overwhleming case being made that the exercise thereof is dangerous to society as a whole. That’s it.
Excuse me, I didn’t mean to literally fight a war, I simply mean’t that the school is not the place to determine what is or is not properly freedom of expression or freedom of religion.
Your “real issue” is not accurate. You should have said:
“whether or not the state has the right to prevent the free exercise of religion IN SCHOOLS without an overwhelming case being made that the exercise thereof is dangerous to society as a whole. that’s it”
And even that is, IMO, flawed because the test should be whether the state has the right, in the state’s schools, to take appropriate action regarding situations that interfere with the education process. (The education process is the issue- not whether the children get free speech of freedom of religious expression - they can have that stuff after they pass the reading and writing examinations)
Wearing a head scarf interferes with the education process? In what way?
Regards,
Shodan
This thread and the other one in GD make a very sad reading. Based on political threads, I thought that posters here are split about equally right and left, which seemed about right combination. Now I see that practically everybody here is a multi-culti barbarian, one way or another, with few honorable exceptions. “Freedom of Religion”, forsooth!
Secular, fair and equal primary schools are one of the last vestiges we still preserve from the XVIII century “Age of Reason” . Most noble ideas of those great times were perverted and abused by murderous dictators, mendacious demagogues, sleazy politicos and rapacious plutocrats. Now the forces of unreason assault the best primary schools in the world, and most people side with barbarians against civilization!
Really? I see children whose learning should be encouraged while they themselves should not be discriminated against.
Definitely. But I don’t think it’s his only motivation.
No political suicide here, at the contrary. A large part of the population is supporting such a law.
A significant part of the muslim population doesn’t vote, so their opinion isn’t as important as you might think, politically speaking, and anyway when they do vote they tend to vote for the left, so it’s no like he’s going to lose a lot of electors.
Beside, a non negligible part of the french muslim poulation supports this ban too…