Chiraq bans Muslim head scarves in State Schools

I understand the problems that could posibly be engendered by girls wearing Muslim head scarves. Saying that, I think that the French government was overstepping by banning people from wearing religious symbols.

Somehow, I don't know how a person wearing a cross, or a star of David, or even a Muslim head scarf, would violate separation of church and State. If the state REQUIRED people to wear symbols of their faith, yes, but not the other way around. To me, that is a personal choice.

It is interesting. I would assume, that up until this law was passed, school children WERE wearing religious symbols. I think that the government passed this law on account of the ill will that has been engendered by the goings on in the Muslim world. If so, the law is dealing with a specific situation, and not a broad principle. I think that that is wrong.

0 Replies

While I agree in principle with much of what Phoenix had to say on this issue...

...I don't think they "overstepped" and I don't think it "is wrong."

I also don't think it will hold up.

I think the crosses and stars of David will be back -- and so, more than likely, will the head scarves.

But I wish that kind of stuff could be banned. I think society would be better off.

0 Replies

Quote:

But I wish that kind of stuff could be banned. I think society would be better off.

Frank- From what I know of you, I could extrapolate from your remark that society would be better off if were not so connected to religion. I definitely agree with you, but that is not the way that most people think, unfortunately.

The symbols are simply an outward expression of their inner belief system. Whether the people who espouse religion, who wear the symbols of that religion, are correct or not in their evaluations, IMO, is besides the point. The fact remains that these people choose to believe, and in free societies, people ought to be able to express those beliefs by wearing those symbols.

That does not mean that you or I have to approve of it.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

That does not mean that you or I have to approve of it.[/color][/b]

Absolutely not! You are right.

I was just sharing a wish.

But let's examine a bit of your reasoning:

Quote:

The fact remains that these people choose to believe, and in free societies, people ought to be able to express those beliefs by wearing those symbols.

I bring to the table "swastikas" "hooded bed sheets with stylized crosses" "tee shirts with kiddy porn pictures"...

We already do have laws restricting certain areas of "freedom to express beliefs."

My wish really was just to extend the ban.

It is a rocky road -- and I'm just indulging myself here, Phoenix. Giving a personal view of religion in a way appropriate to the subject of the thread. Having a bit of fun. Laughing

I know you realize that.

As I said -- I don't think the law will ever hold up.

QUESTION: Is this a law presently on the books? Steve's wording seems to indicate that it is something just being contemplated. I haven't actually read about it -- and heard about it in this thread for the first time.

0 Replies

I taught in a public high school in a fairly wealthy community just north of Boston.

In this school there were a fairly significant number of kids from evangelical Christian families. They would wear crosses and even "He died for your sins" T-shirts.

There were also a fair amount of kids who were decidedly anti-religous (perhaps as a direct backlash).

I felt and feel strongly that all students should have the right to express their beliefs and religion in school. I also feel that students benefit from being exposed to people with different religious beliefs and backgrounds.

There was a devout christian and a devout atheist in my Earth and Space science course who both wanted to use it to express their ideas about God. This was an interesting discussion and since I set very clear boundaries for discussion it ended up being an interesting conversation.

In society people need to deal with these issues. The school is the best way to provide a structured way to have a reasoned discussion.

The students in my school were allowed wear almost any message (as long as it was not vulgar). This did not interfere with education and I think it added to the experience of living in a diverse community.

In addition to the religious t-shirts, I saw "arm the homeless" buttons and messages against the President.

One student would often wear a Che Gavara t-shirt. My biggest disappointment was that no one knew what this signified.

I feel strongly that diversity of ideas, beliefs and faith is very positive in a society. I feel even more strongly that diversity is essential to an education.

Keeping students from expressing their identity goes against the very purpose of education.

0 Replies

Oh phooey, Frank. I think that if you had your "druthers" religion would be wiped off the face of the earth. I really don't think that is going to happen, anytime soon! :wink:

0 Replies

Frank,

What laws are you referring to that "restrict certain areas of freedom to express beliefs."

There are harassment laws that restrict actions that "create a hostile environment". But this is a different standard. These goals "freedom of expression" and 'freedom from hostile" environment are sometimes at odds with each other, but not usually.

A student who believes that Jews are diabolically controlling the world should be able to express this in school. As a teacher, I would love to discuss this in class as it would be a chance to learn about anti-semitism and the discuss the untruths that are required to support such a belief. It is much better to have these ideas expressed in the open.

This is different than drawing swatstikas on a wall (this happened in my school). This action clearly creates a hostile environment for students and it is clear that it should be forbidden and punished.

There is some gray area, i.e. whether a student could wear a swatstika. Here an administration needs to balance the damage to the school environment for allowing it with the damage to free expression by no allowing it.

But a Gray area does not mean a "slippery slope". The head scarf clearly expresses a culture, a faith and individual belief. It does not create a hostile environment for anyone.

There is no question in my mind that head scarves should be allowed in schools.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Frank,

What laws are you referring to that "restrict certain areas of freedom to express beliefs."

There are harassment laws that restrict actions that "create a hostile environment". But this is a different standard. .

Why?

Why is that different?

Why is a swastika considered "harassment" but a star of David or a Cross is not?

Surely you realize there are people who are harassed by these kinds of symbols. Right here in the United States.

0 Replies

I whole heartedly agree with Phoenix's first post.
I voted: "the State has no right to determine how one should dress".

There is a big difference, though, between wearing a muslim scarf, a crucifix or a cross of David and wearing a swastika.
The former are religious symbols, and whether or not I like religion, they are meant to identify the user's faith and present no harm to society.
The swastika, instead, is a symbol of hatred, racism and death.
I've seen people wearing swastikas (usually dumb kids who think it shows how "tough" they are), and I don't mind it in the streets or in a bus.
But once a student of mine showed to class with a swastika pin. I told him to take it off. He refused on the grounds of self-expression. So I said: "Either you take it off, or you leave the classroom, or I'll leave the classroom. I will not teach when a student is wearing a swastika". He refused to do either, so I left. His fellow students made him take the pin off, I returned to class and we discussed about the meaning of the swastika and nazism.

0 Replies

Fbaezer has a valid point about the meaning of various specific symbols--some relatively benign and some very obviously inimical.

However, there has been a tradition in France since the third republic of militant secularism in public education. And interesting view of this can be found in Maurice Pagnol's La Gloire de mon pere. Chirac's move to ban modes of dress which are readily identifiable with a religious point of view is, in fact, in line with a persistent agenda in public education in France for more than a century to remove the least influence or whiff of religion.

Anyway, he's the democratically elected head of state there, and he, or his political allies, will pay the price if this is not acceptable to the majority of the French.

0 Replies

Firstly as Setanta points out secularism has a long tradition in French education. The French thought girls wearing the scarf were in breech of this and the new law was brought in to re-inforce it. Chiraq has put his weight behind it.

I fully support it. In my opinion, religion should be an entirely personal, family or cultural aspect of life, to be actively kept at arms length from state education.

I don't think it insignificant that whilst wearing skull caps and overtly Christian symbolism has not officially been allowed in French (state) schools for many years with hardly any comment, uproar has ensued when Muslim girls are told to remove scarves.

I will go on to admit that whilst I'm prejudiced against all forms of religious indoctrination of immature minds, I'm prejudiced against some religions more than others.

Thanks btw for all your comments.

[There is of course a crucial difference between religious instruction, and learning about religions]

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

I whole heartedly agree with Phoenix's first post.
I voted: "the State has no right to determine how one should dress".

There is a big difference, though, between wearing a muslim scarf, a crucifix or a cross of David and wearing a swastika.
The former are religious symbols, and whether or not I like religion, they are meant to identify the user's faith and present no harm to society..

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion -- but I dare say more people have been tortured and died at the hands of the religions you mentioned -- than at the hands of the Nazis.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion -- but I dare say more people have been tortured and died at the hands of the religions you mentioned -- than at the hands of the Nazis.

Come on Frank!

Do you really want to say that Muslims and Catholics and Jews are comparable to Nazi's?!?!

You are not your normally rational moderate self today.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Anyway, he's the democratically elected head of state there, and he, or his political allies, will pay the price if this is not acceptable to the majority of the French.

Quoting from the BBC-website:

Quote:

The announcement by French President Jacques Chirac at the Elysee Palace today came as no surprise.

This will be a popular decision, with some 70% of the French electorate saying they support a ban on religious symbols in schools - a ban aimed mainly at the Islamic headscarf.

Setanta is completely right refeering to the strict separation of church(es) and state in France.
And it's quiote logical: if you don't allow one (here: scarf) you can't allow the others.

However, small religious are allowed - nothing against the david star or cross as necklace.

Quote:

As the Catholic church and others warn, a ban is no way to make Muslims feel welcome in France.

Here, I think, they are more concerned about themselves than about the clothings of female Muslims.

But I may be wrong.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion -- but I dare say more people have been tortured and died at the hands of the religions you mentioned -- than at the hands of the Nazis.

Come on Frank!

Do you really want to say that Muslims and Catholics and Jews are comparable to Nazi's?!?!

You are not your normally rational moderate self today.

I did not say that Muslims, Catholics, and Jews are comparable to Nazi's.

I said "...more people have been tortured and died at the hands of (those religions) than at the hands of the Nazis."

Are you suggesting that I am wrong in that statement?

0 Replies

This has some basic estimates and if you do a quick tally you'll find that Frank is correct.

The swastika is also much older than the nazi's. It annoys me greatly that nazism is all it is connected to anymore. (Especially by teachers who should know better!)

In MY perfect world religious symbols of all kinds would be banned from school, but that 'aint gonna happen so I say let 'em wear what they want.

Although why not just enforce the wearing of uniforms in schools and make religious paraphernalia NOT part of the uniform?

0 Replies

I feel weird defending religious symbols. I profess no religion.

Yes, Frank, religions have killed and tortured more people over the centuries than the Nazis did in 12 years.
But religions don't promote (overtly, at least) racism, prejudice, hatred and war.

As for the swastika, yes I know it means other things in other cultures. But a swastika in India is different than a swastika elsewhere, specially when the other swastika has both the Nazi design and the Nazi colors.

0 Replies

Just one other thing to think about. Hitler was a devout Catholic.

Quote from Mein Kampf;
"Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

I feel weird defending religious symbols. I profess no religion.

Yes, Frank, religions have killed and tortured more people over the centuries than the Nazis did in 12 years. But religions don't promote (overtly, at least) racism, prejudice, hatred and war.

I can't be sure if you are jesting here -- or if you are being naive.

0 Replies

Chiraq bans Muslim head scarves in State Schools

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know