France Holds Fast

[Lilith]

France will not repeal the headscarf law. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=2&u=/ap/20040830/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_hostages_13)

PARIS - France vowed Monday to press ahead with a controversial law banning Islamic head scarves in schools, despite demands by militants holding two French journalists hostage in Iraq (news - web sites) that Paris revoke the legislation.
...
The head scarf law goes into effect when school resumes on Wednesday. It forbids public school students from wearing "conspicuous" religious apparel. Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses will also be banned...
I would like to say that I applaud the French authorities for their decision. It is about time that a civilized country stood up to its ideals of religious freedom for the population--including freedom from religious symbols in its schools, despite threats to its citizens that would force the issue to the contrary.

I am deeply saddened by the developments in Iraq with the two journalists, and I really hope that they are found and freed in some way (track record for Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and hostages is not that good), but I am grateful to France for showing terrorists that a country cannot be blackmailed and will not negotiate.

It is a horrible time we live in when people will kill in the name of God--though, of course, all the times in history have had that to a larger or smaller extent. Maybe now the nutcases just get more publicity? I wish they didn't--and I wish fewer agencies negotiated with them, for then they would have less incentive to kill innocents in the name of their cause.

[whitecrow]

This law also covers Yalmulca's, large crucifixes and other non-secular religious items, such as a copy of L. Ron Hubbards' "Dianetics"

Lilith, I am goign to have to stand on the other side of the fence here, I think it's wrong to disallow these forms of religious items in schools, it's not like they are praying or anything, it's just an item of clothing that is worn to show their religious beliefs.

It's not harmful or forcing relgion into the school system, merely an item of clothing, much like a crucifix or star of david or a peyote drink. Well, maybe not the last one.

The one time I would like France to surrender and they don't. I think it's bully tactics on behalf of the militants, and there would be much better ways to get their point across, but the law is still very wrong. Freedom of belief is a key stone of democracy, and church and state must be seperated. I appreciate those facts. But banning the head scarves is just forcing conformity on people.

[Thaum1el]

And me, I'm in the middle.

Allthough the French do what they will, for me religious freedom is the freedom to express religion, to the extent that I don't push it upon others. The only result this will bring is that religious people will be less inclined to go to public schools.

But, on the other hand, I am behind France in standing their ground. The only thing gained by givinng in to terrorist is them being more bold in the future. If they see that it works, they will just continue.

[Lilith]

WC, I have thought about that side of it as well. However, I ended up standing where I did on the issue because of living in USA for 10 years of all things--I got so tired of religious people pushing their things through into laws via the state, that a state resisting something of this sort (even as small as dress code) is a great thing from my point of view--and doesn't make your point of view any less valid.

It is no more and no less than enforcing a uniform in public schools (a lot of places have that), or dress code at work.

Also, as Griz said--one can never ever give in to terrorist demands. That just encourages them. So in many ways in this case, the militants achieved the precise opposite of what they wanted. Not a bad thing for anyone, in my eyes, except for the hostages.

[whitecrow]

WC, I have thought about that side of it as well. However, I ended up standing where I did on the issue because of living in USA for 10 years of all things--I got so tired of religious people pushing their things through into laws via the state, that a state resisting something of this sort (even as small as dress code) is a great thing from my point of view--and doesn't make your point of view any less valid.

It is no more and no less than enforcing a uniform in public schools (a lot of places have that), or dress code at work.

Also, as Griz said--one can never ever give in to terrorist demands. That just encourages them. So in many ways in this case, the militants achieved the precise opposite of what they wanted. Not a bad thing for anyone, in my eyes, except for the hostages.

Lils,
Most public schools in Australia HAVE a uniform as a matter of course, but that's for another thread. However, whilst the rules they set out dictate colour / general style of clothing, they do not disallow religious items such as headwear or rosary beads.

I am a believer in the ideals of society, but not at the loss of personal expression and freedoms. I agree with you on the points that 1) pushing your religious beliefs like a zealot and 2) not dealing with terrorists. I don't think that simply wearing a head scarf, or a yamulca or anyhting of the like is forcing one's belief on any one else.

Would you agree to the same ban at work places? No crucifixes on desks? no books of shadows at lunchtime? Where is the line drawn?

[Lilith]

I would agree to such things in workplace, yes. In my personal opinion, they belong in one's home, church and free time--not school or work. That's just what I think, though--I would have no problem not wearing my Star of David to work or school, or hiding it under clothing if such were the regulations.

I generally avoid "splashing" my religion on others, even accidentally. My religion is my PRIVATE business and needs not be displayed/advertised/pushed on others in places they can't help attending--like school and work.

[Augustus]

Well I'm predisposed to come down on the other side of anything the french do, but as a matter of decorum I do see some intelligence here. In our current environment, in a country with as much anti-semitic, anti-muslim anger as France, maybe its a good idea that kids aren't easily recognizable for their religion.

[warza bidul]

Throat cutting, suicide bombing, calling those who do not follow the faith, infidels and more is good is it?

If you wear a t-shirt with "Fuck you" written on the front then it's illegal in school but that you come to school with a veil should be allowed?

What's the point of being part of the Sheikh's entourage from Saudi Arabia if all the women carry the veil, spend money on all these clothing makes and can't show them because of something which came into existence only a few hundred years ago, more recently than the actual religion. These people are not being asked to renounce their religion, only to abide by a rule which is put onto each family. Doesn't this help women become more equal to men when they are not forced to hide their hair?

In having this new law what the people game is a standard attitude towards veils. If a student did not wear the scarf they were attacked by their family. In certain schools they were forbiden from attending. Now that a universal law has come into effect the chances that people wear the veil is far lower during school. What they do outside school is free.

In France the veil is forbidden, in the meantime in the middle east terrorists are using this as an excuse to slit two men's throats if the laws are not changed. Now tell me, who are being less reasonable?

If you're a western Woman in certain countries you'll need to wear the veil whether you're christian, muslim or other, simply because you're a woman. All France is asking is that at school you do not have it. They are not singled out, simply the media and the muslims made more of a fuss than other religions. I see no reason why you should be allowed to show your religion through nothing more simple than a symbol.

I am not religious, basing my life on what I believe to be correct rather than right or wrong. I do not need a book or knowledge from two thousand years ago to guide my views of the world. Be indipendent in thought rather than letting something based on faith guide your views of the world.

[Thaum1el]

Warza, whoever even implied in the slightest any kind of support for the terrorists? You must be joking?

You don't let 2000 year old knowledge rule your life? People have known that if you don't eat, you die, for 30 000 years. Let's forget that, right? How about basic maths, it's been known for conciderably more than 2000 years. Stuff as "don't kill each other", that's a rather good idea, huh? Guess what, it's old news.

[Lilith]

Griz, ignore warza. I do.

Augustus, good point. I haven't thought about it that way, since I have not lived anywhere antisemitic myself (and we all tend to measure by our own meterstick), but yes, that's another good side to the law.

[Thaum1el]

Perhaps. But I'm not sure about it, I mean, if someone says something of principle, there must be something behind that principle. I, for one, try to choose what to make use of, be it 100 year old knowledge or a 3 day old new fact.

[dynamitt]

Lilith said: "....I would have no problem not wearing my Star of David to work or school, or hiding it under clothing if such were the regulations."

I mean that you wearing a Star of David and a muslim girl wearing a Head scarf is a little bit different....

Do anyone here really know why a muslim girl/woman wear headscarf?

[Augustus]

Of course, to play devil's advocate (to myself), by not exposing children to these different cultures we may risk them growing up and perpetuating the same problems that lead to these rules in the first place.

[warza bidul]

Yes, ignore me, everyone ignore me. It's wiser to ignore people. It's very useful. Bang you're dead.

Oops. That worked well.

[warza bidul]

Religion is a system of beliefs. The religion was around thousands of years before it was decided they should wear the Veil. I studied at an international school and graduated with 100 students from over 70 nationalities. They all had different religions yet no conflict ever arose. More to the point in this school no religious symbols were shown. It is not because you tell everyone you're a christian that you're more religious than those who do not feel the need to force it onto others.

If you wear a hat in class you'll always be told to remove it and when you hide behind a book you'll be told to put it flat.

[Augustus]

I have a lot of friends who do wear religious symbols (I myself wear a crucifix, though its under the shirt I wear). I have friends who are muslim, jewish, various branches of christianity, hindu, and aethiest. We're all friends, which has nothing to do with the showing or not showing of religious symbols. However, I've been lucky to grow up in a very open and tolerant environment, it wasn't until I started college when I met people who had really been attacked for their faith (I have since then, apparently there are large groups of people in the US who don't like Catholics).

More to the point, I understand the reasoning for the ban of religious symbols in school, but the need for the ban is the problems of tolerance among the various religious groups. I'm not exactly sure how they should be dealing with it, I was just trying to point out two sides to the issue.

[dynamitt]

the point I was trying to make is that the headscarf worn by muslim girl/women is not really a religious sybol equal to the the cross or Star of David. A christian or a Jew wear this symbol to show what they beleive, a muslim girl/woman wear her scarf because she will save her beauty only for that one man who are going to be/are her houseband

And thats why i think is very wrong what the french government are doing

[Amaurote]

There isn't a day that goes by where I don't envy and admire France's policy of laicite, and the fact that gunmen have to kidnap journalists to overturn a 70%-backed plebiscitory endorsement of it tells you everything you need to know. Here in the UK, a nominally socialist government promotes a slavishly clerical policy of faith-based comprehensives, which invariably tend to be both race- and class-based, and in many ways just as vile, inequitable and socially divisive as the fee-paying sector. If the churches want to teach children, let them do it in church. Our schools should not be an ideological battleground. And in its own ham-fisted, hypocritical way, the state admits this, because the Ministry of the Interior - sorry, the Home Office - refused Vanessa Redgrave the right to charitable status for her proposed chain of Marxist-Leninist schools back in the 1970s, just as it scorned Strike Schools back in the 1920s. If they can have pro-clerical, pro-establishment schools, we should be able to have anti-clerical, anti-establishment schools. The logic is inescapable. The absence of it is called "government".

[Thaum1el]

Heck no. I do not believe that a majority of the world's 15 million jews would wear a Magen David out of religious, since a majority of the worlds jews are secular. Same goes with an overwhelming majority of the Christians in the western world.

But still, I do have a distinct feeling that secular children with religious parents might to a greater degree be put in private schools by their parents, yet more shunning the society in which they live, because they feel their beliefs and cultural distinctiveness is something that is legislated against, even if that's not exactly the case. And besides, just because I wear a Star of David, does not mean I'm trying to tell any single body else that they should turn to that belief as well.

[Amaurote]

just because I wear a Star of David, does not mean I'm trying to tell any single body else that they should turn to that belief as well.

I hear you, Thaum, but I think that's problematic, because ideas are fundamentally imperialistic - they either prevail or they go under. If you wear a Star of David, you may be quite legitimately proclaiming your belief that the Jews are a peculiar people of grace under God. If I go to school with a Swastika, I may be proclaiming my belief that the fuhrerprinzip is the future. But only one of us will get away with it.

Also - I fail to see why the state should fund religious activity. Faith-based, public-funded schools invariably employ only staff from their own denominational background. The same thing occurs here with NGOs, which are 50% state-funded, but scorn atheists, agnostics and non-denominational applicants. This kind of clerical opportunism should have been stamped out two hundred years ago.

[Thaum1el]

Amaroute: There would be a rather large difference, bud: judaism, as chosen people go, only defines the believers own relationship to his or her deity, and nothing what-so-ever that concerns other people - not my relation towards other people, and not the relation between other people and G-d. The swastika, in the sense of a nazi symbol, is proclaiming ones own inherent superiority and is derogatory towards people of other ethnic origins.

[Thaum1el]

Oh, and in any case: http://members.tripod.com/~goodwin_2/law.html

[Diva]

Whenever someone puts a symbol on them... be it religious or ideological they are 'announcing' what they believe in. If the school does not want the pupils to show their beliefs then it should be adhered to across the board. The scarf is not a religious symbol, but it does represent the islamic beliefs about women. In my personal opinion it is an insult. A woman should not have to hide herself to retain her purity. But whatever...

[Thaum1el]

Oh, and, just in advance, I would like to apologize to Amaurote. It is absolutely no meaning to accuse you of anything man. It's just that I moderate a Swedish forum where I get everyday that 'jews and nazis are the same'. The point in itself is taken. Although I think it's a big difference between what jews believe of themselves as a chosen people and what nazis believe about being inherently superior :)

[Amaurote]

There would be a rather large difference, bud: judaism, as chosen people go, only defines the believers own relationship to his or her deity, and nothing what-so-ever that concerns other people - not my relation towards other people, and not the relation between other people and G-d. The swastika, in the sense of a nazi symbol, is proclaiming ones own inherent superiority and is derogatory towards people of other ethnic origins.

So you're saying that theistic religions don't proclaim their ideological superiority and are not themselves implicitly derogatory towards those who don't happen to be fellow-travellers? I don't think there's anything qualitatively different between someone professing a belief in Hutu Power and someone who believes that all Jews who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God will be eternally damned. They are both dogmas. The fact that one is secular and the other is clerical does not grant the latter a get out of jail free card.

I'll give you an example of this: I work in a prison library. The other day I designed the attached throwaway poster to advertize our whereabouts to the inmates. I decided against it at the last minute because I was absolutely certain the Chaplaincy would misinterpret it as an anticlerical gibe. This is the same Chaplaincy that tells people they will go to Hell if they don't partake of the Eucharist.

[whitecrow]

Whenever someone puts a symbol on them... be it religious or ideological they are 'announcing' what they believe in. If the school does not want the pupils to show their beliefs then it should be adhered to across the board. The scarf is not a religious symbol, but it does represent the islamic beliefs about women. In my personal opinion it is an insult. A woman should not have to hide herself to retain her purity. But whatever...
Wheather or not we personally agree with the reasons *why* these women wear these headscarves, the simple thing is, that they shold have the *right* to wear them. We should all have the right to wear items that announce, not in an overt way, our own ideals and beliefs.

Schools should not have the power to quash what you personally hold dear. I'm not saying we should all rock up in wimples, but if we feel something so intrinsic to our nature and our culture must be adhered to, then we should have that freedom.

[Diva]

If the school says "No scarfs or hats" then it is making a fair rule for everyone. The bottom line is... there are laws we HAVE to obey. Having the right to wear them in public is one thing... but when you enter an institution which has rules you need to abide by those rules.

[whitecrow]

If the school says "No scarfs or hats" then it is making a fair rule for everyone. The bottom line is... there are laws we HAVE to obey. Having the right to wear them in public is one thing... but when you enter an institution which has rules you need to abide by those rules.
Yes and no, Diva. It's hardly on the same level as a baseball cap, now is it? There's a certain eastern religion (excuse me for not being able to name it) that refuses the men to *ever* cut their hair - they wind this hair up into what we, as westeners call a "turban". Excuse me for stepping on any toes, but my point is this.

Forcing our foreign nationals to abide by our western dress code is about as useful as a seive underwater. It doens't aid anything other than annoying those that are forced to shelve their items of belief / alignment so they can fit in (read: assimilate) into our culture.

There are certain concessions one makes when joining a new culture - but one should not be expected to throw away their old culture because of it.

Yes there are laws we MUST obey - but these laws are in place to protect us. I don't see how forcing people to dress a certain way protect us from anything?

[Amaurote]

Wheather or not we personally agree with the reasons *why* these women wear these headscarves, the simple thing is, that they shold have the *right* to wear them. We should all have the right to wear items that announce, not in an overt way, our own ideals and beliefs.

In a way, I agree with you, but what I want is consistency here, and since the state and society show none, I think preventing our schools from becoming an ideological battleground is the safer option. When you pose this question to people in terms of abstract principles, their response is invariably "All should be free", which is admirable. However, when you dig a little deeper and evoke particular reactions to specific instances, their responses tend to be less consistent: "No, Marxist-Leninist schools would foment class hatred"; "Swastikas are offensive" and "I think we can safely rule The Mighty I Am sect's graeco-roman fancy dress costumes out of Magna Carta, don't you?"

[Thaum1el]

So you're saying that theistic religions don't proclaim their ideological superiority and are not themselves implicitly derogatory towards those who don't happen to be fellow-travellers? I don't think there's anything qualitatively different between someone professing a belief in Hutu Power and someone who believes that all Jews who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God will be eternally damned. They are both dogmas. The fact that one is secular and the other is clerical does not grant the latter a get out of jail free card.

I'll give you an example of this: I work in a prison library. The other day I designed the attached throwaway poster to advertize our whereabouts to the inmates. I decided against it at the last minute because I was absolutely certain the Chaplaincy would misinterpret it as an anticlerical gibe. This is the same Chaplaincy that tells people they will go to Hell if they don't partake of the Eucharist.

I'm definatlely not gonna argue with you there, bud, but you still gotta see the difference between the Chriistian dogma that "everyone who believes in me will be saved", and the jewish dogma that says that a jew needs to adhere 613 religious laws to be righteous while a non-jew needs to adhere to seven, of which none is even believing in G-d. :)

[Amaurote]

I'm definatlely not gonna argue with you there, bud, but you still gotta see the difference between the Chriistian dogma that "everyone who believes in me will be saved", and the jewish dogma that says that a jew needs to adhere 613 religious laws to be righteous while a non-jew needs to adhere to seven, of which none is even believing in G-d. :)

No, I agree absolutely, Thaum, you're quite right, but that isn't really what I'm getting at - the point is that they are both dogmas, and both very arguable dogmas. The swastika is obviously a very tired analogy when it comes to this issue, but it's also inescapable: there really is no non-subjective criterion for determining what is allowable and what is non-allowable in state education in terms of religious and political comportment. If we're going to say, "Crosses, stars and veil, but red flags and swastikas are a no-no", the state is effectively taking a particular line. I'm not especially bothered whether we as societies opt for "All free" or "None free" in our schools, but what I do find admirable about the French approach is its consistency. The Anglo-American system is weighted completely in favour of the churches, even to the point of providing subsidies - which is great if you belong to a confession, but absolutely pointless if you regard organized religion as outmoded, time-wasting, obscurantist, question-begging, huckstering fantasy, which not a few people do these days.

[LizardKing]

The Anglo-American system is weighted completely in favour of the churches, even to the point of providing subsidies - which is great if you belong to a confession, but absolutely pointless if you regard organized religion as outmoded, time-wasting, obscurantist, question-begging, huckstering fantasy, which not a few people do these days.
While I agree with you that many people do not feel the need to ascribe to a particular faith or religon these days, I do think that it has and should have a place in society, after all one of the founding principles of America was freedom to worship as we see fit. I don't think, however that this includes the right to force a particular religon onto others, fortunately we have seperation of church and state. This system, while not perfect, does create a balance which tends to ebb and flow with the tide of public opinion. As far France is concerned, this law seems to be in response to public opinion and the very real threat the public feels from militant Islam. I don't think this is going to do a whole lot to help the situation of the French and very well may make things worse by creating a backlash in the very substantial muslim community of this country. Lets face it folks, Islam is doing it's best to take over in France and may very well succeed, if so what does this bode for the rest of the EU? And what can the French do to avoid it?

[Amaurote]

While I agree with you that many people do not feel the need to ascribe to a particular faith or religon these days, I do think that it has and should have a place in society

I'm with you all the way there, LK: I just think the proper place for organized religion is church...they talk a lot about the separation of church and state over here, incidentally, but to little effect: the Queen is still Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and until recently Bishops still voted in the House of Lords, in addition to the not inconsiderable sum of money the Anglican Church received from the taxpayer. Which is peculiar, frankly, because I cannot for the life of me ever recall seeing a poor Episcopalian...

[Thaum1el]

I'm with you all the way there, LK: I just think the proper place for organized religion is church...they talk a lot about the separation of church and state over here, incidentally, but to little effect: the Queen is still Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and until recently Bishops still voted in the House of Lords, in addition to the not inconsiderable sum of money the Anglican Church received from the taxpayer. Which is peculiar, frankly, because I cannot for the life of me ever recall seeing a poor Episcopalian...

*chuckles* Good point. In Sweden, we already had that separation, and it went quite well. What's now discussing is if religious congregations are gonna be allowed to hand out legally binding marriages to people, which is to say, what they want is that if you go to church, or synagogue, or mosque or temple and get married, you're still not legally married.

Which is, incidentally, something that the priests of the former state church is advocating stronger than most.

[Amaurote]

Traditional dress ruling: Your reaction

A girl was unlawfully excluded from school for wearing a traditional Muslim dress instead of school uniform, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Shabina Begum had not attended Denbigh High School in Luton since September 2002, when she was sent home for wearing the jilbab, an ankle-length gown.

Ms Begum had argued that she was being denied her "right to education and to manifest her religious beliefs".

But the school claimed the jilbab was a health and safety risk and it already offered an alternative uniform for its Muslim pupils.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4311019.stm)

When I was at school I was banned from wearing my lip ring and nose ring, and sent home for dyeing my hair blue. I can only assume that in the light of this ruling, all pupils will be allowed to dress in a way that they choose, to reflect their own cultural beliefs. Otherwise, why are members of organised religion getting privileges of self-expression that are denied to others?

Kate, London, UK

Stand by for the sound of hollow hooves pounding, folks: Oliver's Army is riding into town in the name of individual liberty.