# Why allow small crusifixes in French schools? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2004, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129 "2004-01-18T18:57:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/21 "2004-01-20T23:58:05Z")
> [@RexDart](#): > > Well, the headscarf represents a movement that has killed alot more Americans recently than the KKK has, so I don’t see it as absurd. I presume you see every head-scarf as an allegiance to Osama Bin Laden? Well fuck you. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/22 "2004-01-21T00:16:23Z")
> [@RexDart](#): > > Well, the headscarf represents a movement that has killed alot more Americans recently than the KKK has, so I don’t see it as absurd. Really? The more I read these boards, the more I’m amazed about the complete ignorance of some posters. > [@](#): > > Puh-leaze. That smacks of _post hoc_ rationalization in the highest degree. Up until 9-11, it would have been decried as a tool of patriarchal cultural reactionaries still stuck in the middle ages. Now, because Islam is the fad du jour of the college professor crowd, suddenly it’s a pro-feminist statement? Baloney. If you think that because some non Muslims describe hidjab as “a tool of patriarchal cultural reactionaries still stuck in the middle ages” they have All Wisdom and Knowledge, then I must say you are extremely easy influenced by others. Sorry, but although there is some part of some truth hidden in such an assumption, your generalizing of it makes it only laughable. > [@](#): > > Well, the government has a say in this because they’re government schools. You wanna start a private school in France and make your own rules about headwear, be my guest. They can have all the “right” they want to wear distracting symbols of oppression in your school if that’s what you like. What you are advocating here is exactly what those Muslims who don’t fit your description above want to avoid. They want to avoid that certain people will grab the occasion to create Islamic schools where children risk to be indoctrinated in a way that doesn’t do them a favour and not only because it deprives them from being part of a mixed society in which they are “expected” to integrate themselves in. But also because the risk that such schools will be populated with people with fundamentalistic perceptions of the religion is even obvious to the blind. Is that not what Western nations are so critical about in the first place **even when it happens in Islamic nations** and what you are in fact critcizing yourself? But in the next line you are advocating it… How do you explain that contradiction? > [@](#): > > I assume a tiny crescent moon necklace would be just as acceptable as a tiny cross, those are discreet symbols with only personal significance. Muslims don’t wear “tiny crescent moons” as a symbol of their religion. They wear the name Allah written in Arabic on a medal or one that represents the frontpage of Al Qur’an. But I assume that you are saying that chassidim jews and Hara Krishnas and Bible waving proselytizers and uniformed Salvation Army members and whomever who wears something that points very clearly to their way of life or their religion are extremely disturbing in a “normal” society? Can you describe in detail such a “normal” society? Does everyone has to wear the Mao uniform or what do you have in mind. I have a question: Why do the members who take this topic for what it is not meant to be, namely an invitation to post their opinions on Islam, refuse to open threads themselves to do just that? Are you people too shy or is it just a matter of knowing that you have no idea at all of what you claim to be informed about. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/23 "2004-01-21T00:33:00Z")
> [@Eva Luna](#): > > **RexDart,** you don’t think the individual scarf-wearer has the right to decide whether she feels the scarf is a symbol of patriarchal oppression? Aren’t you basically saying to Muslim girls that you know what’s good for them better than they do? Sounds awfully patriarchal to me. What I’m saying is that it seems like a disingenuine flip-flop on the issue by the feminists to try and come up with a feminist rationale for the scarves _now_. The head-covering originated in a handful of Islamic countries as a cultural tradition, and it would be hard to deny it’s patriarchal origins. When women in parts of the world are being _forced_ to wear something by their governments, and those same governments have a history of creating a second-tier legal status for women, I find it hard to believe that object could be a symbol of liberation for them. > [@](#): > > I think if any given French student considers a headscarf to be something to be pissed off about, the pissed-off person is the discipline problem, not the scarf-wearer. That’s how it worked in my high school, anyway; we had kids wearing kippot, Sikh headcoverings, and just about every other kind of religious headcovering you can imagine. A high school is not a traditional public forum. It’s not a bizaar for representatives of every world religion to hawk their wares. Distracting displays of religious affiliation create tension, and are IMHO not appropriate in schools. > [@](#): > > The standard our school administration applied to clothing and accessories was that they should not leave the wearer too exposed (i.e. no bikini tops, but shorts were allowed), or create a physical danger for other students (i.e., there was somewhat of a controversy regarding spiked bracelets, dog collars, and other punk-type gear). It worked just dandy for us. Calling a headscarf a distraction sounds an awful lot like blaming the victim. In the high schools I attended, _all_ headgear was prohibited. They didn’t allow us to wear baseball caps because it might start a fight, could be used to signal gang affiliation, and was generally disrespectful to the teacher. Perhaps headgear is not the signal of disrespect elsewhere that it is here in the states. Nevertheless, the headgear is distracting and might very well start a fight. Perhaps you’d prefer to send the offended kids to an indoctrination center somewhere where they can be “cured” of their prejudices against the “Religion of Peace ™”. In the real world, prejudices are just part of life as much as we might find some distasteful, and in the high school context you have to balance tolerance of differences with a certain respect for keeping order. And I certainly wouldn’t want people with concealed faces walking into public schools, that presents a major security risk on top of everything else. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/24 "2004-01-21T02:35:05Z")
[QUOTE=RexDart] What I’m saying is that it seems like a disingenuine flip-flop on the issue by the feminists to try and come up with a feminist rationale for the scarves _now_. The head-covering originated in a handful of Islamic countries as a cultural tradition, and it would be hard to deny it’s [sic] patriarchal origins. When women in parts of the world are being _forced_ to wear something by their governments, and those same governments have a history of creating a second-tier legal status for women, I find it hard to believe that object could be a symbol of liberation for them. [quote] a. All feminists do not hold the same opinions, especially on this issue. I definitely call myself a feminist, and to me, feminism is about giving women the right to make choices for themselves. If a woman chooses to practice Islam, I believe she should be allowed to do so, to the extent that her rights do not infringe on the rights of others. Covering one’s head hardly counts as proselytizing. b. We aren’t talking about “a handful of Islamic countries.” We are talking about France at the moment. No government authority is going to flog or stone a teenage girl in France for walking around bare-headed. c. You don’t get to decide what a stranger does or does not find liberating, or does or does not make her feel more respected. > [@](#): > > A high school is not a traditional public forum. It’s not a bizaar [sic] for representatives of every world religion to hawk their wares. Distracting displays of religious affiliation create tension, and are IMHO not appropriate in schools. One’s own personal clothing choices hardly constitute proselytizing, or “hawking wares” as you put it (see above). Plenty of public schools in the U.S. and elsewhere allow students to wear religious headgear without incident. And yes, if others are bothered by it, I do recommend reducing the tension by education and other means that do not infringe on the right to religious expression. [quote] In the high schools I attended, _all_ headgear was prohibited. They didn’t allow us to wear baseball caps because it might start a fight, could be used to signal gang affiliation, and was generally disrespectful to the teacher. [quote] Same in my high school, except for religious headgear. And you still haven’t addressed the issue of _kippot,_ which didn’t bother anybody in the French Ministry of Education until now. Why are headscarves different? > [@](#): > > Perhaps headgear is not the signal of disrespect elsewhere that it is here in the states. You are generalizing about the States. Other religions, including Judaism, consider it a sign of respect for God to keep one’s head covered in public, even indoors. I don’t know where you went to school, but it doesn’t sound like it was a terribly diverse place. > [@](#): > > Nevertheless, the headgear is distracting and might very well start a fight. Blaming the victim again. Would you blame a Jewish kid if he was beaten up for wearing a _kippa?_ > [@](#): > > Perhaps you’d prefer to send the offended kids to an indoctrination center somewhere where they can be “cured” of their prejudices against the “Religion of Peace ™”. If they beat people up or disrupt class because other students choose to practice their religion peacefully, absolutely. > [@](#): > > In the real world, prejudices are just part of life as much as we might find some distasteful, and in the high school context you have to balance tolerance of differences with a certain respect for keeping order. That doesn’t mean we have to accept prejudices without so much as remarking on them, let alone passing judgement on them or even trying to change them. If you need to change someone’s behavior, change the behavior of those actively creating the disruption. > [@](#): > > And I certainly wouldn’t want people with concealed faces walking into public schools, that presents a major security risk on top of everything else. I haven’t read or heard of any cases where face-covering of public school students was even discussed; the stories I’ve seen all relate to covering the head only. I doubt that anyone so religiously observant as to cover her face is going to attend a secular, public school anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/25 "2004-01-21T02:42:33Z")
That’s what I get for not previewing; let’s try this again, shall we? > [@RexDart](#): > > What I’m saying is that it seems like a disingenuine flip-flop on the issue by the feminists to try and come up with a feminist rationale for the scarves _now_. The head-covering originated in a handful of Islamic countries as a cultural tradition, and it would be hard to deny it’s [sic] patriarchal origins. When women in parts of the world are being _forced_ to wear something by their governments, and those same governments have a history of creating a second-tier legal status for women, I find it hard to believe that object could be a symbol of liberation for them. a. All feminists do not hold the same opinions, especially on this issue. I definitely call myself a feminist, and to me, feminism is about giving women the right to make choices for themselves. If a woman chooses to practice Islam, I believe she should be allowed to do so, to the extent that her rights do not infringe on the rights of others. Covering one’s head hardly counts as proselytizing. b. We aren’t talking about “a handful of Islamic countries.” We are talking about France at the moment. No government authority is going to flog or stone a teenage girl in France for walking around bare-headed. c. You don’t get to decide what a stranger does or does not find liberating, or does or does not make her feel more respected. > [@](#): > > A high school is not a traditional public forum. It’s not a bizaar [sic] for representatives of every world religion to hawk their wares. Distracting displays of religious affiliation create tension, and are IMHO not appropriate in schools. One’s own personal clothing choices hardly constitute proselytizing, or “hawking wares” as you put it (see above). Plenty of public schools in the U.S. and elsewhere allow students to wear religious headgear without incident. And yes, if others are bothered by it, I do recommend reducing the tension by education and other means that do not infringe on the right to religious expression. > [@](#): > > In the high schools I attended, _all_ headgear was prohibited. They didn’t allow us to wear baseball caps because it might start a fight, could be used to signal gang affiliation, and was generally disrespectful to the teacher. Same in my high school, except for religious headgear. And you still haven’t addressed the issue of _kippot,_ which didn’t bother anybody in the French Ministry of Education until now. Why are headscarves different? > [@](#): > > Perhaps headgear is not the signal of disrespect elsewhere that it is here in the states. You are generalizing about the States. Other religions, including Judaism, consider it a sign of respect for God to keep one’s head covered in public, even indoors. I don’t know where you went to school, but it doesn’t sound like it was a terribly diverse place. > [@](#): > > Nevertheless, the headgear is distracting and might very well start a fight. Blaming the victim again. Would you blame a Jewish kid if he was beaten up for wearing a _kippa?_ > [@](#): > > Perhaps you’d prefer to send the offended kids to an indoctrination center somewhere where they can be “cured” of their prejudices against the “Religion of Peace ™”. If they beat people up or disrupt class because other students choose to practice their religion peacefully, absolutely. > [@](#): > > In the real world, prejudices are just part of life as much as we might find some distasteful, and in the high school context you have to balance tolerance of differences with a certain respect for keeping order. That doesn’t mean we have to accept prejudices without so much as remarking on them, let alone passing judgement on them or even trying to change them. If you need to change someone’s behavior, change the behavior of those actively creating the disruption. > [@](#): > > And I certainly wouldn’t want people with concealed faces walking into public schools, that presents a major security risk on top of everything else. I haven’t read or heard of any cases where face-covering of public school students was even discussed; the stories I’ve seen all relate to covering the head only. I doubt that anyone so religiously observant as to cover her face is going to attend a secular, public school anyway. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/26 "2004-01-21T04:00:28Z")
> [@Eva Luna](#): > > **AOB,** I respectfully (OK, I confess, maybe not so respectfully) ask that you state your credentials for evaluating all things Islamic. Basically, why should the rest of us pay any attention to you? On what sources do you base your opinions, and why should we believe them? Exactly where have you studied so “broadly and diligently”? Requesting credentials from **Alan Owes Bess** is pretty rich, coming from you. Your pal, and former alleged SDMB expert on MENA, refused to provide his creds, yet you apparently bought his stuff hook, line, and sinker. Hmm. ---
**Author:** ![Gomez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d78d45/32.png) [@Gomez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gomez)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/27 "2004-01-21T04:32:08Z")
> [@](#): > > [iu]Originally posted by Aldebaran\* > If that is directed to me… I’m sorry, but I’m not responsible for the obsession to disturb topics with stalking me and/or my religion/culture/traditions, as is demonstrated by AOB all over the boards where I participate. > I you have complaints about that behaviour you can always report them to a moderator. > > And I don’t feel any temptation to answer mails of that individual. My mail belongs to my privacy. So may I ask you that you don’t take the liberty to invite others to use it for sending me idiocies. Thank you. Fair enough. I checked back and it seems that AOB does have something of a fixation with you. I apologise for directing my remark at both of you when in fact he was the one in the wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/28 "2004-01-21T05:04:04Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > Requesting credentials from **Alan Owes Bess** is pretty rich, coming from you. Your pal, and former alleged SDMB expert on MENA, refused to provide his creds, yet you apparently bought his stuff hook, line, and sinker. Hmm. I believe people’s judgments after they are repeatedly shown to be correct over time and/or when they are backed up with citations from reliable sources. **AOB** hasn’t done so anywhere that I’ve seen so far. As for my so-called “pal,” why don’t you just come out and mention him by name? If you refer to the person I believe you’re referring to, he gave a lot more information about his MENA background than **AOB** has. So far all I’ve seen from **AOB** is a few out-of-context quotations that didn’t lend much credence to anything at all. If you want to believe him, that’s certainly prerogative, but so far I haven’t seen any reason why I should. Anyway, do you have anything to say that’s actually substantive, or did you just want to get your jollies sniping at me and at others who can no longer respond? ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/29 "2004-01-21T05:23:49Z")
> [@Eva Luna](#): > > If you refer to the person I believe you’re referring to, he gave a lot more information about his MENA background than **AOB** Cite please? ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/30 "2004-01-21T05:37:28Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > Cite please? Sorry, can’t right now; the search function is not being cooperative the past few days, as the database AFAIK has not yet been reindexed since the software upgrade. I’ve been searching for other unrelated stuff which I know is there and have found before, without success. From memory, though: several years (ten?) living and working in various countries in the M.E., fluency in spoken (multiple dialects) and written Arabic, academic background of which I don’t remember the specific details right now, and numerous personal contacts in area NGOs, governments, and the private sector. You are free not to believe any of that, of course, but I tend to take people at their word unless their word is flagrantly inconsistent with their actions, and I’ve seen no evidence of such in this case. And on that lovely note, I’m going to sleep, for tomorrow I must address the Huddled Masses. _Laila tov._ ---
**Author:** ![Sine\_Nomen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d26b3c/32.png) [@Sine\_Nomen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sine_Nomen)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/31 "2004-01-21T06:06:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, the headscarf represents a movement that has killed alot more Americans recently than the KKK has, so I don’t see it as absurd. _Islam is a movement that has killed Americans_. _Christianity is a movement that has killed Spaniards_. Astounding. Absolutely astounding. > [@](#): > > Puh-leaze. That smacks of post hoc rationalization in the highest degree. Up until 9-11, it would have been decried as a tool of patriarchal cultural reactionaries still stuck in the middle ages. Now, because Islam is the fad du jour of the college professor crowd, suddenly it’s a pro-feminist statement? Baloney. It is becoming clear to me that you have absolutely nothing of substance to contribute to this debate. **Muslim** feminists have been defending the hijab with the rationale I gave since long before 9-11. In any case, it’s irrelevant. You have absolutely no right to tell someone they cannot wear an unoffensive article of clothing. > [@](#): > > Well, the government has a say in this because they’re government schools. You wanna start a private school in France and make your own rules about headwear, be my guest. They can have all the “right” they want to wear distracting symbols of oppression in your school if that’s what you like. Like most Western countries, France maintains some pretense of individual rights and freedom of expression. This law flaunts it, hence the protests. > [@](#): > > What I’m saying is that it seems like a disingenuine flip-flop on the issue by the feminists to try and come up with a feminist rationale for the scarves now. The head-covering originated in a handful of Islamic countries as a cultural tradition, and it would be hard to deny it’s patriarchal origins. When women in parts of the world are being forced to wear something by their governments, and those same governments have a history of creating a second-tier legal status for women, I find it hard to believe that object could be a symbol of liberation for them. You are missing the point entirely, that the fact that _some Muslim women wear the Hijab as a symbol of feminist liberation_, and you could have saved a lot of time by simply saying, “I refuse to believe the obvious.” You, sir, are astoundingly ignorant, and your incredulousity is a poor excuse for an argument. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/32 "2004-01-21T06:12:32Z")
This controversy is so American I can’t help but, _cough_, feel sorry for the French government. It’s a real bitch trying to run a secular school system, uphold freedom of religion, but keep religious in-fighting to a minimum. I’ve said before that banning all religious symbols is one thing public schools might be forced to do in the context of problems in the United States. There was some flap over, I think, the pentacle. This is a similar problem. It’s very difficult for the government to split hairs over the divisiveness of particular religious symbols without incurring even more logical and legal problems than just banning all of them for “safety and security reasons”. That’s good enough for me. Less things for the kids to lose or get stolen. You can’t have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat. ---
**Author:** ![Sine\_Nomen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d26b3c/32.png) [@Sine\_Nomen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sine_Nomen)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/33 "2004-01-21T06:13:26Z")
[This link](http://www.muhajabah.com/onveiling.htm) should have been included in the last post. My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/34 "2004-01-21T11:22:41Z")
It’s purely a guess, but in my opinion, discreet religious symbols won’t be banned because : Reasons 1 to 28 : People wouldn’t accept such a ban. Since crucifixes aren’t perceived as a problem, it would be widely unpopular (remember : the point of this law is banning the _hijab_ in schools, the rest is only niceties included in order to avoid targeting a particular religion). Reason 29 : It’s quite reasonnable to ban only blatant displays of religious beliefs. Especially since if even discreet symbols were banned, it would be an unsolvable issue (what is exactly a religious symbol? Should, say, a tiny ankh-shaped earring be banned?) Reason 30 : A law banning all religious symbols could be struck down by the courts too easily (the french constitutionnal council or the european court of human rights, for instance). French courts had ruled in the past that even the hijab wasn’t a blatant display of religious faith and couldn’t be banned in public schools on this basis. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/35 "2004-01-21T11:50:54Z")
What about banning beards? [Beard Story](http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2789776a12,00.html) Looks like this’ll sink it… no way the courts on human rights would let this through. ---
**Author:** ![Bibliovore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Bibliovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bibliovore)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/36 "2004-01-21T13:55:45Z")
I think a major point which has not yet been discussed is that the Hijab is considered by many Muslims to be a requirement of their faith. In other words, it is mandatory, and not a matter of fashion or whim. therefore a ban on religious symbols would effectively prevent those muslim students from practicing their faith. As far as I know, crucifixes are not mandatory for Christians, but I’m not so sure about the Jewish skullcap or _yarmulke_. For those of you, like **Rex Dart** , who feel that the hijab is too disruptive to be allowed in the classroom, please bear in mind that these girls are not asking to be allowed to pray at the top of their lungs during class, they are fighting for the right to cover their hair with a piece of cloth. I fail to see how that could be distracting. ---
**Author:** ![Bibliovore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Bibliovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bibliovore)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/37 "2004-01-21T14:01:22Z")
Oh, and another point I was going to make was that asking a Muslim woman to remove her hijab in public is like asking a Sikh to take off his turban, only more so. Both items are required by the faith, but the hijab is also considered a symbol of modesty, chastity and piety. Having one forcibly removed is akin to being stripped in public - it is deeply offensive and very humiliating. I realise that no-one is saying that hijabs should be forcibly removed from girls in French schools, but I thought I would try and get across a sense of how important they are. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/38 "2004-01-21T15:43:02Z")
**Bib,** et. al.; Orthodox and AFAIK Conservative Jews believe that men and boys are required under the tenets of Judaism to cover their heads in public, whether with a yarmulke, kippa (singular of kippot, for those unfamiliar), or hat, and that married women are required to cover their heads in public (this covering takes many forms: generally scarf, hat, or wig [_sheitl_]. Reform and Reconstructionist Jews generally only cover their heads in synagogue, if at all. So why will nobody address why Jewish headcoverings have until now not been viewed as a problem to be resolved by the French public school system, while the hijab is? ---
**Author:** ![Bibliovore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Bibliovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bibliovore)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/39 "2004-01-21T16:00:17Z")
Thanks for the clarification, **Eva**. And I definitely feel that this is indeed nothing more than Islamophobia dressed up as secularism. Anti-Muslim and Anti-Arab sentiment has been rife in France for some time, fuelled in part by their resentment of Algerian and Moroccan immigrants. However this is the first time I’ve heard of an attempt to enshrine such blatantly bigoted attitudes as National Law ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129/40 "2004-01-21T16:13:58Z")
> [@Bibliovore](#): > > Thanks for the clarification, **Eva**. > > And I definitely feel that this is indeed nothing more than Islamophobia dressed up as secularism. I tend to concur. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-allow-small-crusifixes-in-french-schools/225129.md?page=3)