Actually, these scarves are rather expressing a political opinion than a religious opinion (and displaying one’s political opinions in school never has been much of an issue in french schools, at least in recent times).
Though I remember wearing them being actually an issue. My highschool was situated in a jewish neighborhood in Paris, hence there was many jewish guys studying there, and the one guy I remember who was wearing one on a regular basis got has much hassle as he could get for it. He was also a muslim, by the way.
Besides, though I remember some young people did wear these scarves back when I was a teen-ager, I didn’t noticed them recently. They don’t seem to be currently “in fashion” in France (or perhaps I just didn’t pay atttention, but really I can’t remember seing one of those recently).
That might be true in theory (though I bet that many muslim theologians would disagree about the headscarf not being mandatory at all times), but I somehow doubt that all these girls see it that way. I’m pretty certain that many of them (I mean amongst the girls who wear it only for religious reasons) do believe a muslim woman is supposed to wear one at all times (outside home) and don’t perceive wearing it as an extraordinary act of devotion, nor that by wearing it at all times they actually mean that every of their act is an act of prayer.
It’s not like religious people are necessarily well informed about their own religion’s tenets, and a casual reading of this very board will give ample proofs of it.
Indeed, as weird as it might seem, Turkey is possibly the country where the conception of “laicity” is the closest to the french one.
Though AFAIK, in Turkey, “veils” are banned in the universities too, which isn’t the case in France (for some reason, the tradition here is that past high school, the rules about non endorsement of a religion by teachers, proselytism, political neutrality, etc…don’t really apply anymore)
Hmmm…It seems to me that in Turkey, these issues are more related to this whole “Ataturk” stuff and political traditions than to the whims of a particular miltary government…
There are many other evidences showing that separation of church and state isn’t really respected in France. For instance the fact that private religious schools receive (usually) generous public fundings (something, which, I believe, couldn’t be done in the US, precisely due to the separation of church and state).
The problem is : people (including myself) usually don’t take position on the basis of a rational analysis, but on the basis of what they’re accustomed too, of what they’ve been brainwashed in, of what “feels right” in their peculiar culture, of what they’ve been taught by their parents, of “that’s the way things are done”, etc… And quite often, the law reflects this overall subjective perception, and the courts interpret the laws on the basis of the prevalent cultural bias.
So, yes, you end up with the holydays being mostly christian holydays, the funding of a catholic school by the state being a non-issue (though it’s a little more comlicated than that) while at the same time most of the population will “feel” there’s something wrong with girls wearing a headscarf in middle school.
Anyway, I still think that religion is more strictly rejected from public life in France than in the US.
However, I must stress that this issue is a political decision made by a particular government which has an agenda which goes beyond the french traditions, or the overall feeling of the poulation. After all, these traditions/feelings didn’t change suddenly last night, the headscarf issue, though relatively recent, isn’t a novelty, and the previous governments didn’t feel they needed to pass such a law.
For instance, amongst the motivations, you could include the rise of muslim extremism, the will of the government to exert some control over the muslim religion in France (see the recent creation of the high council of muslim cult in France, which involved many deals and tractations, even with the governments of foreign muslim countries), the high scores of the extreme-right during the recent elections, the personnal political ambitions of the minister of the interior, etc…
I’m familiar with those concepts, thank you, although I don’t think you are. What you are accusing me of is a false analogy, not a straw man. In any case, my point was to show examples of conformity that people might find more relevant. There are clearly some people in this thread who aren’t that fussed about freedom of religion, be it out of simple indifference to something they find irrelevant or whatever. My point is that there are many other forms of personal expression that could just as justifiably be curtailed in the name of conformity, that might not be so palatable to people who can’t imagine wanting to wear a head scarf. I presumed that it would be easier to imagine a black person not wanting to be white, given that some here are convinced that a headscarf is only ever a symbol of masculine oppression. I also don’t see how imposing a haircut is any more onerous than requiring someone to abjure the requirements of their faith. This was my point; you find it unacceptable to have to put up with unfashionable hair in the name of conformity, others find it unacceptable to be required to disobey their god in order to learn. Neither sacrifice needs to be made, in my opinion.
Incidentally, it has been possible for fairer people of mixed race to pass as white, and some have done so in the past. Did this of itself in any way solve the problems of racism? No, it did not. As for your alleged avoidance of the slippery slope, I fail to see how only removing those rights that are easily taken in any way achieves such a thing. Indeed, the most fragile rights are in my opinion often those most worth protecting.
I’ll take it from this that you believe intellectual conformity is bad; why, then, do you you believe that expressing ones intellectual freedom is bad? Is it your contention that an intellectual position is fine, as long as it is not manifested? Should children be forbidden from talking about religion lest a peer should find out their beliefs? Why, basically, this obsession with physical uniformity? Schoolkids need no excuse to pick on others, and will find reasons no matter how much you try and make them look alike. Not only that, but they will find ways to look unalike no matter how stringent the strictures imposed upon them.
I ask again: how are our children expected to cope with a world of different people if we protect them from the shocking truth for as long as possible? Isn’t it better to try and teach them to accept differences, rather than teach them that such things are shameful, to be stifled?
Dead Badger - To summarize what was probably a rambling post - I see no reason to go to either extreme on the “what a school can mandate/ban” issue.
The French decision appears, IMHO, to be well inside the “middle ground” - neither curtailing freedom of expression in a way that affects the child outside of school (like a forced haircut would), nor going to the other extreme of allowing anything at all in the name of freedom.
I agree with you that boys will be boys (and girls, girls). So the fact that they’ll always find a way of picking on someone means we shouldn’t take any measures at all to try and minimize - or at least lower - the level of violence? Middle ground, again - just because the school can’t and shouldn’t create an environment in which no picking on other kids is possible, doesn’t mean it should do nothing to try and ease the situation.
I think intellectual freedom is a different kettle of fish from the “freedom of apearence”. Sorry - I think you’re guilty of a false analogy here, again.
Well, I guess we’ll just have to disagree - I just feel that religious freedom at all times is really important (I’m not a religious type, incidentally), and that banning any sign of it is an extreme, at least to me. I don’t think I’m adequately expressing just how much this sort of thing upsets me.
Anyway, I’m off home for Christmas; have a good one, if you’re celebrating (and if you’re not, of course) :).
The way to minimize the “level of violence” is to deal with the perpetrators of the violence swiftly and severely, not by punishing the victims. Wearing a yarmulke, a cross, a headscarf (I can’t remember the name…apolgies) does not, in and of itself, harm anyone any more than, say wearing glasses and being “bookish” does. Would you demand that all glasses students be forced to wear contacts to eliminate that difference too?
If a cretin lacks such self-control that the mere presence of one incites them to violence, France should not try to resolve that situation by punishing (and make no doubt: it is a punishment) the victims. Expelling people who can’t tolerate harmless differences would be a start.
I assume you’d be outraged if a judge absolved a rapist because the victim “dressed like a slut” and told the victim that if she didn’t want to be raped again, she should choose less provocative clothing, right? How is this any different, other than degree?
Fenris - I don’t think our views here are contradictory. Remember - we’re talking about schools, not about society at large. Schools, for example, do have a dress code (at least most of them do), where coming in to school in a cut-off, sleeveless tank-top is unacceptable whether you are a boy or a girl.
I completely agree that steps should be taken to punish the guilty. However, schools can and should take steps to keep innocents out of harms way, as long as these steps do not affect the individuals after school hours. Thus - uniform = OK; enforced haircut = not OK; enforced contact lenses = OK as long as the school pays for them (well, not really - contacts affect you outside the hours you use them. Believe me:()
And as I discussed above, differences in degree matter!. You’re paragraph about rape victims invokes the “slippery slope” argument - if dress code in school is mandatory, why not enforce a stricter dress code, on all of society, all the time. I claim that - in a centralized school environment - it (the slippery slope) can be avoided.
(well, not really - contacts affect you outside the hours you use them. Believe me:()