1
   

Chiraq bans Muslim head scarves in State Schools

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 09:43 am
From the 'Jerusalem Post", online edition:Jan. 5, 2004
Quote:
Germany evaluates head scarf ban
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
BERLIN
German President Johannes Rau on Sunday urged legislators to be "consistent" in drawing up any ban on Muslim head scarves for public school teachers, arguing that if the veil is banished from the classroom as a religious symbol, those of other faiths also would have to go.

Rau, whose largely ceremonial post is seen as the nation's moral voice, attracted criticism from several prominent conservative politicians and church figures after entering the debate last week with a call for equal treatment of all religions.

"I am just saying that the decisions that will now be made in the states should be consistent," he said in a newspaper interview. "That means that if one bans the head scarf in schools as a religious symbol, it is difficult to defend the monk's habit."

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Tex-Star
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 10:59 am
I for one would like to see a world where people practice religion outside of public school & government agencies. Perhaps that's futuristic thinking but some day it probably will come about. So, we (humanity as a whole) are beginning a change that may bring us together. What is wrong with that?

Thinking only of our present excitement at government "telling people what to do, how to dress, etc." I may agree with Hamburger's post away back there on about page 3.
0 Replies
 
Tex-Star
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 11:04 am
sorry, the top of my comment should have spelled out it is the wearing of religious clothing or articles in public schools, and NOT the practice of religion itself.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 02:09 am
Quote:
The Catholic Church strongly attacked the President of Germany yesterday for suggesting that schools should prohibit Christian symbols if they went ahead with plans to ban the wearing of Muslim headscarves in the classroom.

Cardinal Karl Lehmann, the head of the German Bishops' Conference, said Johannes Rau was wrong to equate the "political" headscarf with Christian symbols, which were an established part of German culture.

He told Focus magazine: "Many women consider the headscarf to be a symbol of discrimination but Christian crosses and religious clothing have not the slightest trace of political propaganda about them. These differing symbols cannot be lumped together as missionary garb."

Cardinal Lehmann's remarks, which were sanctioned by the Vatican, are the latest development in a growing row about the wearing of headscarves in German state schools. The dispute mirrors similar controversy in France, where President Jacques Chirac has asked parliament to ban headscarves from the classroom along with overt Christian and Jewish symbols.

In France and, to a lesser extent, in Germany, the moves are seen as an attempt to protect the secular nature of state schools from Muslim fundamentalism. In Germany, teachers' unions and human rights groups are strongly opposed to a headscarf ban. But several of the 16 federal states have said they will implement a ban.



from today's INDEPENDENT
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 03:34 am
I think all this just shows what a millstone around the neck of society religion really is.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 03:36 am
I also think many muslim males are really insecure arseholes.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 03:42 am
Wilso wrote:
I also think many muslim males are really insecure arseholes.


Yes, and Christian, atheistic, Hinduistic, Buddhist, ...

Many males are, and even some women - although I didn't meet any of the latter, but many of the first. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 09:04 am
It was interesting that the German bishop? said the hajib was political but Christian symbols/dress was not.

In a way this gets to the heart of it. In Islam there is no division between "church" and state.

I'm glad I posed this question, there have been some very good responses thanks.

I said originally that I supported Chirac's position. I would like to say that the state has no authority to dictate how one should dress...but then again there are accepted norms and common customs that do in fact make it unacceptable to wear or not wear certain clothing in public.

Perhaps we should go back to dressing how nature intended and forget about burkhas hajibs or indeed fig leaves.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 09:16 am
Perhaps we should refer to the utility argument.

Why are you wearing those badges/political slogans? Because I associate with them. Well this is a school, not a university...take them off.

Why are you wearing that scarf, are you cold? No, I wish to identify with Islam. Well this is is not a madrassah ...conform to the standard dress code like everyone else. Or attend an Islamic school.


Why are you wearing that prayer shawl? Because I'm Jewish. Well its appropriate in the Synagogue but not at this state school....


Why are you wearing that Schalke 04 shirt?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 09:18 am
The Bishop may be correct in his asserting that the wearing of a head cover was a political statement. However, the same could be said for the wearing of outsized religious symbols such as the cross. It is an advertisement that says look at me I am a Christian. He appears be just another religious leader who sees only his side of the coin. Don't they all?
I agree if you are to ban anything ban it all.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 09:24 am
Steve

Quote:
Why are you wearing that prayer shawl? Because I'm Jewish. Well its appropriate in the Synagogue but not at this state school....

Let's not get carried away. Prayers shawls are worn during prayer. Never as a piece of clothing.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 10:14 am
the real tragedy is that its come down to banning things.

How much better would it be if religious and political symbolism was not overtly displayed out of common courtesy to others.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 10:19 am
Prayers shawls are worn during prayer. Never as a piece of clothing

OK Au I stand corrected on that one.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 11:00 am
au1929 wrote:
Commentary > Opinion
from the January 05, 2004 edition

French tussle over Muslim head scarf is positive push for women's rights

[..] For most Muslim women, a head scarf is just a small part of oppressive attire that includes large, bulky garments that impair vision, impede movement, stifle breathing, and are unbearably hot in the summer.


Brilliant bits of argument in that article for any liberal Muslim to use in arguing against the burqa, niqab and other Taliban-like ways to make women invisible.

But, considering the article headlines itself as being about the French law, it should probably be pointed out that when we're talking Europe, here, the issue overwhelmingly is simply about a headscarf.

Half the Muslim girls here wear headscarves. I've only once or twice ever seen a Muslim woman wear those "large, bulky garments that impair vision, impede movement [and] stifle breathing" in this town. There's been a rare news item about two girls wearing the niqab to school in Amsterdam, but basically, any law such as the French one will overwhelmingly affect girls who are just wearing a headscarf, nothing more.

Just to get the proportions of the thing right.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 11:06 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Perhaps we should refer to the utility argument.

Why are you wearing those badges/political slogans? Because I associate with them. Well this is a school, not a university...take them off.

Why are you wearing that scarf, are you cold? No, I wish to identify with Islam. Well this is is not a madrassah ...conform to the standard dress code like everyone else. Or attend an Islamic school.


What about:

... Why are you wearing that scarf, are you cold? No, I'm a Muslim and I consider it more decent to wear a headscarf ... ?

Wearing a headscarf is not necessary a political symbol, a means to profess Islamic conviction with, at all - not unless or until its made an issue.

For many young Muslim girls, wearing a headscarf is just something you "ought to do". This norm is culturally determined, for sure, but not necessarily a priori some kind of statement about anything. They're not necessarily proselytising - they're just dressing according to what is normal and decent to their standards. Its no different from how you can immediately recognize girls from protestant villages here by their long skirts. Hell, girls in some fishing villages and countryside towns here used to wear traditional Dutch headscarves .. thats just how you were supposed to dress, as a good modest Christian girl.

It doesn't become a symbol unless one has been forced to wear it - as some who wear it have been, but many have not - or is refused the right to wear it. For the French - and for a group of Muslim girls who have successfully fought off their folks because they did not want to wear it - not wearing a headscarf is a political symbol about freedom. But for a group of Muslim girls who do want to wear it, but now have to fight off white teachers and politicians to be allowed to, it's also becoming a symbol of freedom - the freedom to dress like you consider right, instead of like what the government of the dominant ethnic group says should be.

It is becoming political, very quickly. But for many Muslim girls, its just a feeling of it being more proper to wear one .. Now they're being told that their peers can freely wear miniskirts and tanktops, but their headscarf is somehow a scandal. That's incomprehensible to many of them, and to me kinda too.

I think noone should be forced to wear a headscarf - or anything specific, for that matter. And I'm glad Au posted that article that gives lots of ammunition to liberal Muslim folks in arguing that one doesnt have to, in order to be a good Muslim. But I also think noone should be forbidden to wear what they consider right or decent, just cause we don't like the look of it. If it doesn't get in the way of learning what you're there to learn, you can wear it.

The whole discussion of whether one should or shouldnt to be a good Muslim, should be left to the Muslims. Hell, we can give our opinion about it, or even fund progressive Muslim organisations who are fostering more liberal interpretations. But womens emancipation cant be enforced by school rules. Basically, either we say, OK, no more bother about any of this ****, we'll reintroduce school uniforms - or we accept that each schoolboy and -girl by definition expresses his or her identity, culture subculture, in every item (s)he wears - whether its an "Eat the Rich" t-shirt, a David's star. a shaved head, a headscarf, a long skirt or a tie-and-jacket.

Thaz what I say ;-)
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 11:11 am
Tie and jacket... now that is subversive!
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2004 07:45 am
Thaz what I say ;-)


And you say it very well Nimh! Your post deserves further reading...no time just now.

Except to say if a Muslim girl says its more decent to wear a scarf as a Muslim...isnt the implication that non scarf wearers are indecent?

I have no problem with anyones personal religious beliefs, providing they dont impinge on my freedom to remain untainted by supersticious nonsense. Forcing me to accept religious intrusion in the secular world, halal/kosher butchery, Sikhs excemption from wearing crash helmets on motorcycles, and demanding to wear inappropriate religious garb is an affront to me!

Interesting that the Dutch Protestant girls wear long skirts. I had no idea one could guess a girl's religious inclination by the length of her skirt, on the other hand perhaps it explains why Catholics have so many children! Wink
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2004 08:26 am
Quote:
I have no problem with anyones personal religious beliefs, providing they dont impinge on my freedom to remain untainted by supersticious nonsense.


Steve (as 41oo) - As a totally non-religious person, I scratch my head at your remark. Dress, in general, makes a statement about a person. We are constantly being bombarded by signs and signals given off by people by way of their appearance.

If I went along with your line of thinking, I might take umbrage at piercings, tattoos or jeans that practically fall off a person's butt. Would having to look at lime green hair "taint" me?

I think that freedom goes both ways. I do my thing. He does his. I don't think that curtailing someone else's freedom to preserve mine is quite fair. Do you?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2004 09:14 am
Nimh

I agree that making it an issue is the thing that makes it an issue!

Its being required either to wear or not to wear when the individual prefers the opposite that challenges freedom of expression etc.

I can understand why some girls who feel happy to wear the hajib must find it quite amazing when their headwear is criticised but girls wearing miniskirts are not.

But I would say both styles of dress go outside the accepted norm for what is suitable in school. Unless you want to make the school look like a mosque or a brothel.

And what about boys wearing skirts. (or a scarf) Is that legitimate freedom of expression or is it outside the bounds of what is acceptable?

I'm not suggesting that the rules should be completely inflexible. I might even be pursuaded that the hajib is ok but I'm not pursuaded yet!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2004 09:27 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Interesting that the Dutch Protestant girls wear long skirts. I had no idea one could guess a girl's religious inclination by the length of her skirt, on the other hand perhaps it explains why Catholics have so many children! Wink


Hehhehheh ... yes, you can recognize the "gereformeerden" quite easily. Mind you, we're not talking all protestants, here. Most protestants have become so 'liberal' in their religion, they cant be distinguished from seculars in any way, it sometimes seems. But Holland has several communities of quite orthodox protestants, "Bonders" and the like, who live in a countryside "Bible Belt" that goes from Zeeland in the southwest to Staphorst in the East. They have their own political parties, too, subdivided by denomination, which get some 4-6% of the vote altogether. And their own schools, public broadcaster, newspapers, etc.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Forcing me to accept religious intrusion in the secular world, halal/kosher butchery, Sikhs excemption from wearing crash helmets on motorcycles, and demanding to wear inappropriate religious garb is an affront to me!


I'm puzzled. The crash helmets thing I can understand, cause it affects your safety, too. But what bother is a halal butcher to you? You dont have to shop there, you can go to the regular butcher ... its just another shop in between the DIY store and the newspaper kiosk. What does it "force" onto you?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 05:21:04