With regard to this report Cite about a muslim girl who has won a landmark case to wear an extreme form of dress to school in violation of the uniform code. My question is given peoples “to manifest her religious beliefs” under the human rights act, where does it end?
Satanists wearing goats heads to schools, bizarre cults wearing who knows what.
All this can do is lead to more division between people of different faiths. School uniform is a great equalizer, perhaps we should follow France’s lead and ban all forms of religious dress in state run schools, make all pupils adhere to the same dress code.
We supposedly live in a secular society, but religious extremeists of all varieties are gaining more power every day, the christians are suing the BBC over “Jerry Springer the Opera”, the Sihks have vandalised a theatre and got a play banned, muslims in Iran have renewed the fatwah on Salman Rushdie ( a british citizen), to name but a few recent incidents.
Personally I am 100% secular humanist, if people want to believe that’s fine, but keep it at home or in the Church, Temple, Mosque etc.
My boss argues that the banning of religious dress in schools in France is an expression of the separation of state and religion - that this separation means that nobody should be allowed to express their religion in a state-run context.
I contend that this is a ridiculous statement; in intervening to try to enforce the ban on religious clothing, the state has involved itself in a matter of religion - it has moved away from a position of separation.
Obviously it’s a tricky issue, for goat-head reasons that you describe, but to me there is not a lot of difference between the state enforcing religious issue ‘A’ (like prayer in schools) and the state banning personal expression of religion ‘B’ (like clothing).
Here in the states most of us didn’t wear uniforms to school though most of us had to put up with some form of dress code. For example shorts had to be a certain length, tube and tank tops were not allowed, and clothing advertising alcohol, drugs, or tobacco on them could not be worn. I don’t know the law in the UK but in the United States children are required by law to attend school until the age of 16. There are alternatives such as home schooling, private schools, and whatever deal that allows Amish kids to quit after 8th grade. What does this paragraph have to do with anything? Nothing really, I’m just establishing that I don’t come from a uniform wearing background so there might be a few things I’m missing.
I don’t really buy the “great equalizer” concept of uniforms. Are all the kids in school over there really equal because they wear the same clothes as the next guy? Really, what’s the big deal about someone wearing one of those stupid bee keeper suits, a little beanie hat, or a turban?
Do you stop being a 100% secular humanist depending on your location? People don’t stop being Muslims, Jews, or Sihks just because they’re attending a school funded by the state. Where does religious tolerance end you ask? I guess at the point where they break my leg or pick my pocket. Part of being a member of society is coming to terms with the fact that some of your neighbors are different.
Separation of state and religion doesn’t mean having to ignore religion or religion-based behaviour. If said behaviour is seen as detrimental, then state bodies should move to outlaw it - and to do this fairly in a secular state it is important to implement regulations across the board.
Thus, I believe, separating religion and state is merely not having any particular faith dictate your actions.
There are benefits to school uniforms - speaking from the POV of a parent, they are typically hardwearing, practical and they eliminate that what-shall-I-wear-today (or I’m-not-wearing-that!) prevarication that might cause morning delays and late attendance. I don’t think the ‘great equaliser’ argument is entirely without merit either - clothing is one area where there can be peer group pressure and victimisation.
Of course none of this makes non-uniform dress codes a huge disaster, but uniforms can and do work.
However, religion is a hugely important aspect of some people’s lives - it simply isn’t good enough to say “well, it shouldn’t be”, in fact the statement:
Is quite strongly anti-freedom-of-speech and anti-separation-of-church-and-state. It might be nice if everybody kept their subjective opinions to themselves, but forcing them to do so would be a grave injustice.
Sorry if I did not make myself clear, I am in favour of people learning about others faiths to a cartain extent and was not proposing banning religion in schools, just religious symbols/dress. I am not against freedom of speach, in fact I think that only be exchanging views frankly without the fear of intimidation can we overcome our prejudices. My main gripe is that religious extremeists of all types stifle debate and threaten anyone who disagrees (like the Christian group that blackmailed the cancer charity into not accepting money from the cast of Jerry Springer)
I dont want people to stop practicing their religions, nor do I think that poeple cease to be part of their religion in certain places, I just think that overt displays of religiousity are devisive and only exacerbate the differences between people and cause more difficulties.
Just because I am an atheist does not mean that I don’t have friends of different religions and we sometimes have some quite interesting debates on the topic. It is interesting to note that a Sikh friend of mine is even more strongly in favour than I am of banning religious expression in schools.
The answer is quite simple and has nothing to do with tolerance: It ends where it conflicts with other (perhaps more important) human rights of other people.
I omitted the christians regarding Jerry Springer, because I know nothing about it. However, Sikhs vandalising a theatre conflicts with the right to own things and have them protected by the state as the citizens delegated the powers of executive rights to the state. Muslims in Iran threatening death to somebody conflicts with the right to live healthy and untouched. If a Muslim in Germany threatens somebody the same way, he goes to jail. Here it is just the lack of internationally compatible law enforcement, that prevents the Iran Muslims to go to jail.
This essentially means, you are not tolerant at all (or at least not very much). Example: If a christian prays in a restaurant before he starts to eat, how does this conflict with your human rights? It does not, but you tell him the only place, where he is allowed to pray, would be his church. Is this the tolerance I would expect from a humanist?
In Germany we have a law that’s somewhat between France and U.S. Our state is to be 100% secular, yet the individuals have every right to live their religion. This conflicts for example if a female muslim teacher wants to adhere to her religious dress code. Being a teacher, she is a representative of the state, but being an individual, she has the right to live her religion. The courts have still to decide this case, but they tend to the point that in this case the obligation of the state (and its representatives) to act secular is stronger than the right to live by a religion, because the woman does not need to become a teacher. (And even if she still wants to, she can try to become a teacher in a private school.)
There are other cases: In Bavaria there had been a law that in every room of an elementary school there has to be a cruzifix. This law has been revoked after atheist parents went to court. It conflicted with the states obligation to be secular. In another case muslim girls did not attend sports lessons, because they were required to wear short sportswear. The school ensured that these girls would be teached by female teachers only and that they were strictly seperated from the boys. The court decided here, that the girls have to attend the lessons, because every precaution was made with respect to their religious beliefs, and therefore the usually stronger right to live your religion in this case stands back behind the obligation to attend school and the right of the state to enforce this obligation.
In my personal opinion these effects of the German Constition are the best compromise possible. It’s better than in France, where pupils have to give up some of their rights during school time, and it’s better than in U.S. where you can even disallow medical treatment of children due to religious belief (at least as far as I know).
In certain circumstances (eg maybe religion in school) I don’t think it is too outrageous to compel people to keep their views to themselves. A judge can demand a disruptive person in court to be removed, for instance, simply for speaking their mind.
I once worked with two muslim women who wore those silly scarves that covered their head and most of their torso. I don’t recall it being a problem for any of my coworkers. I suppose you feel the exact same way about political accessories. Can’t have someone wearing a necklace with the peace symbol on it since such an overt display may prove divisive, serving only to exacerbate the difference between people and cause more difficulties.
I’m happy for your Sihk friend, really I am. If he doesn’t want to wear overt religious symbols then more power to him. Of course not everybody is like you or your Sikh friend. For some people to maintain the tenants of their faith they must dress a certain way.
I’m an atheist as well and I hate those stupid bee keeper outfits some muslim women wear. I might think they’re silly looking and degrading but if they want to wear them then who am I to stop them? As I said earlier, part of living in society is recognizing that some of your neighbors are different. Might as well start teaching that lesson at an early age.
Of course, and wearing a freshly-killed goat head around your neck would (in my opinion) be an example of a free expression that would be too outrageous to allow in a school, as would, say, loud and disruptive chanting. Dress code is probably about as close to the dividing line as you can get and so some people are going to see it one way, some the other.
A blanket ban on religious expression in schools (as opposed to a ban on items that are demonstrably disruptive) is in itself a religious dictate (albeit an entirely negative one).
I stand corrected, you do have a point. It was not my intention to appear intolerant, merely to test the limits of where tolerence of religious observance in schools should end.
[Completely off-topic]It is probably worth mentioning that the Christian group (Christian Voice) that campaigned against the Jerry Springer Musical charity donation thing is pretty much a small and lunatic fringe that claims to represent a larger group than it actually does. I heard a live interview with the director (Steven Green) on radio 4 the other day and he came across as having quite a messiah complex, as well as being generally rather nutty and paranoid.
[/Completely off-topic]
Just to point out - the school has a Muslim school uniform, approved by the Muslim community and everyone else appears happy to wear it. It’s not like they were forcing her to wear a mini skirt or something.
I’m a strong atheist and I don’t see a problem with allowing religious wear & symbols in schools, etc., as long as it conforms to the dress code. Meaning: the code has a rule, nothing above mid-thigh? No low-cut blouses? Then fine, the religious attire should be allowed as long as it matches.
As for religious symbols, sheesh. I’m wearing my grandmother’s ‘Om’ right now. I’m not religious, but I miss her and it’s the only thing I have from her. As long as it’s in no way school-sponsored, and the student isn’t forcing her beliefs onto anyone else, why not? Whenever someone asks me about my ‘Om’ I try to educate them a little, if they look interested, so they’re learning aren’t they?
Just to clear this up, in the U.S. medical providers cannot disallow treatment of anyone due to their religious belief. Some religions may prevent medical treatment of their adherents, preferring the well-proven power of prayer to heal and cure the sick over the cold, sterile, soulless rituals of so-called “western medicine”. Whether that constitutes child endangerment/neglect (or homicide/manslaughter) depends on the particular state’s laws. Most states permit parents to reject medical treatment in favor of faith healing, but if the condition is life-threatening a doctor must be consulted.
The state’s purpose is not to force people to look the same so we can all get along. The state is supposed to protect people’s rights, which include free expression. We accept some limits to that, but banning religious expression on the grounds that it’d divise is an extreme and unnecessary measure in my opinion. There’s an enormous difference between government endorsement of religion (a good thing) and government prohibition of religion (bad). I think this falls closer to the latter.
And I’m an atheist. Clamping down on the expression of religious people will not make society more secular or fair anyway, it will just inflame fanatics to a greater degree.
Thanks for your clarification, though it was probably only necessary due to my bad English (especially your first sentence, I never meant that doctors can refuse treatment, but only the parents). It is very comforting to know that parents are not allowed to endanger their childrens life due to religous beliefs.
You mean the fanatics aren’t already inflamed? Almost everytime I pick up a newspaper these days there is a fanatic of some religious persuasion sueing, banning, or threatening to kill someone.
If we don’t find some way of reining in the nutters now, the eventual backlash when it comes will be that much worse.
In the case of government employees, there is legitimate cause to ban political accessories in the workplace. If a bureaucrat shows up at work wearing an “Impeach The Chimp” button, it leaves members of the general public with a reasonable concern that he might be biased against Bush supporters, and even the appearance of bias is inappropriate for a government that is supposed to be working for all of its citizens. (For a soldier, it would be even worse; being a gesture of contempt for his Commander in Chief.)