Is the French Headscarf Ban a Violation of Religious Freedom?

[Shahil]

Okay, I ain't got a link BUt I'm sure everyone knows bout the French bill which intends on banning religious insignia in schools.

Recently I read that it's been passed through parliament and just needs senate approval or something!

I'm shocked!

I think it's probably the most racist law to be proposed for a good 10 years!

It's pure evil. It is a human right for you to practice your religion and now it's getting suppressed by the state! uh...is this like a return to 20th century dicatatorships (ie. pol pot, idi amin).

Views?

 

[Monique]

ANY religious icons will be banned from French public schools (other countries are considering it too). I think it is rediculous and very unnecessary.

IF they want to do something about equeling people in public schools, the should reconsitute the wearing of uniforms, everyone will be restricted in the same way.

Shouldn't we be teaching children to respect other religions, rather than hiding the fact that there are?

 

[Zero]

I'm sure their have been worse laws somewhere in the world...this one is just stupid.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Shahil

I think it's probably the most racist law to be proposed for a good 10 years!

Only racist if you buy into the muslim lobbying. It's a ban on ALL religious symbols, and for someone to say that the headscarve is more important than a yamaka, or cross around the neck, is extremely assumptive and arrogant.

I am still against the law because I believe in freedom of religion, not censorship of. However, I'm not buying into "this is just an attack on muslims".

 

[Monique]

Oh, I am very sure this is an attack against muslims, you are from Europe? Why on Earth would they pass a law like this?

It is arrogant to think that a scarf cannot be more important than a cross around the neck. I agree though that the meaning of the scarf has changed over the years and is used less to cover up the neck and hair and is more subject to fashion.

This way the wearing of religious items will only be frowned upon more, it creates segregation since people will have a strong inclination to go to private schools for muslims, private schools for jews and private schools for people who wear crosses

 

[Njorl]

I guess I'll play the Devil's advocate (which makes the French government the devil).

I have heard one reason for the ban is to protect less zealous Muslims from more zealous ones. The more zealous Muslims harass and even beat muslim girls who do not wear head scarves. Ideally, the solution would be to punish those who do the harassing. I don't know how it is in French schools, but I remember in my school days, no form of discipline ever had any effect whatsoever on students harassing each other. If anything, it intensified harassment.

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Monique
Oh, I am very sure this is an attack against muslims, you are from Europe? Why on Earth would they pass a law like this?

It is arrogant to think that a scarf cannot be more important than a cross around the neck. I agree though that the meaning of the scarf has changed over the years and is used less to cover up the neck and hair and is more subject to fashion.

This way the wearing of religious items will only be frowned upon more, it creates segregation since people will have a strong inclination to go to private schools for muslims, private schools for jews and private schools for people who wear crosses

I am not from Europe. They are passing the law because French law already outlaws crosses and certain other religious symbols (I'll pull a link if need be) and this simply extends it to all religious symbols. Why would they? Because fair is all or none, and France has chosen none. I think tehy should have chose all.

It's arrogant to believe that all religious symbols can be equally important to their respective religions? So tolerance is now arrogant? Regardless of whether a religion's holy book calls for the wearing of a symbol, or not, it doesn't change that a symbol of one's religion can be just as important to them as another's.

 

[master_coda]

This law is a tricky one. Any time the government enforces a dress code of some kind they generally step on some peoples freedoms. A total ban is probably the simplest solution, although I doubt it's the right one.

I don't see this law reducing fundamentalism in any way. In fact it's likely to drive the religious to private schools, and segregating people by religion only seems to encourage fundamentalism.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Njorl
I have heard one reason for the ban is to protect less zealous Muslims from more zealous ones. The more zealous Muslims harass and even beat muslim girls who do not wear head scarves.

Ok, so how does everyone not wearing a scarf solve the problem again?

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by phatmonky
it doesn't change that a symbol of one's religion can be just as important to them as another's.

That is not up for discussion. Muslim women traditionally wear the scarfs to cover up their femimity (sp?) their hair and neck have sexual value and should thus not be exposed to strangers.

That is what I mean with the fact that a scarf can be more important than a cross on the neck. It also explains why certain Muslims have a big problem with their women not wearing scarfs. What if your gf starts walking around in a see-through shirt.. just look at the amazing, absolutely amazing (in dutch relative terms) uproar that was created in the US with the 1/8 of a millisecond exposure of Janet Jackson's breast..

 

[Monique]

don't I have a point? just respect other one's values

 

[Evo]

No type of head covering, hat, scarf, etc... can be worn by children in public schools here, it's been that way as long as I can remember. The reason they are banned is because they could be "gang related symbols". The only possible "gangs" at my daughter's school might be the "Prada Shoes" or the "Versace Handbags". But it is a rule and kids will be suspended for wearing anything on their head in the classroom.

At the beginning of this school year so many kids were suspended it made the news. Kids are not allowed to wear jeans that are long enough to cover their shoes, or baggy jeans, or shirts with logos, and on and on...

So I was suprised to see that people thought that a ban of this type in school was unusual. I guess it's what you are used to.

I think it's ridiculous for a school to ban anything unless it's indecent, but I disagree with all of their stupid policies.

Njorl's point has validity though.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by Evo


I think it's ridiculous for a school to ban anything unless it's indecent...

I think that's the real question at issue here, what constitutes indecency? To many from Arab cultures, the bearing of a woman's head and neck is indecent. So, to borrow from Monique's hypothetical,

What if your gf starts walking around in a see-through shirt..

This law would be more accurately represented if the question were: "what if the government passed a law prohibitting your gf from wearing a top in public schools?" Such a law would be rediculous.

Which brings up an interesting idea for a protest; suppose school children start showing up to school in the buff? When officials try to tell them they must where clothing for the sake of decency, they can respond that the relationship between clothing and decency is a function of said officials' religious upbringing. Therefore, all clothing can be called "religious symbols". That would cause a stir!

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Monique
don't I have a point? just respect other one's values

and thus, that statement alone is reason that one's religious symbol cannot be assumed more important than someone elses.

It's rude, arrogant, and assumptive of you to tell someone that their wearing of a cross is less important to them than the wearing of a headscarve because tradition calls for it on the account of humbleness.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Monique


That is what I mean with the fact that a scarf can be more important than a cross on the neck.

Once again, I reiterate the fact that just because the group as a whole does not require the wearing of a christian cross does not mean that the wearing of such a cross is less important to a person than the wearing of the scarve to a muslim. What position is it for anyone to judge someone else's religious symbols.h

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Monique
That is what I mean with the fact that a scarf can be more important than a cross on the neck. It also explains why certain Muslims have a big problem with their women not wearing scarfs. What if your gf starts walking around in a see-through shirt.. just look at the amazing, absolutely amazing (in dutch relative terms) uproar that was created in the US with the 1/8 of a millisecond exposure of Janet Jackson's breast..

Any ornamental decoration can be considered more important than any other decoration, since the importance of a decoration is a subjective determination of ones culture.

I would oppose a ban on religious icons simply out of principle. But it really doesn't matter if Muslims in general care more about wearing scarfs than Christians in general care about wearing crosses. The real issue is that the government is attempting to restrict rights (freedom of expression and religion) using a subjective law.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Monique
don't I have a point? just respect other one's values

I tolerate the values of others if doing so does not harm me. I do this so that others will tolerate my values that do not harm them.

However respect is something very different. Values, like people, must earn respect. If your value system/religion requires continually wearning a particular piece of clothing, I'll tolerate such a value and even defend your right to have that value. But I might still think you're a fool and your beliefs are stupid.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by phatmonky
It's rude, arrogant, and assumptive of you to tell someone that their wearing of a cross is less important to them than the wearing of a headscarve because tradition calls for it on the account of humbleness.

I told you the reason why scarfs are traditionally worn by women. The same reason as to why you walk around in pants and not your underwear.

So now you explain to me how wearing a cross is the same. Does it protect you from the evil eye?

 

[Andy]

I agree with Monique.

A cross can be worn underneath your shirt without anyone else ever needing to see or know that its there. Whereas a headscarfe for a muslim woman cannot be covered up for obvious reasons. What i am saying is a someone can get away with wearing a cross without anybody else needing to know about. For a headscarfe to be worn everyone see's it, that's why this law has more effect on muslim women.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Well, the overall circumpstances are simple - all across
Europe and abviously in Muslim countries many Muslim
religious leaders attempt to force more and more
strict Islamic laws on their "subjects" and
preach "rather" undemocratic principles. It's natural
for a democratic country to take some abvious counter
measures when such a phenomenon becomes too overwhelming
in numbers and results within its borders.

Nevertheless, the law adresses all religions equally
so it's not against any particular religion, this way.

As for the law in general - for any religion, well,
in my personal opinion - LESS religion is BETTER !
So, I'd support such a law anyway temporarily, though
I agree that it's not entirely democratic, in the hope
that later on it won't be needed at all any more.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Monique]

Finally someone with a rational opinion :) thanks drag.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Once again, I reiterate the fact that just because the group as a whole does not require the wearing of a christian cross does not mean that the wearing of such a cross is less important to a person than the wearing of the scarve to a muslim. What position is it for anyone to judge someone else's religious symbols.h

There is a difference, though. Although wearing a cross on a necklace may hold profound meaning for a Christian, there is , AFAIK, no denomination of Christianity nor any Christian cultural tradition teaching that it is indecent exposure to walk around with one's bearnaked neck hanging out. To muslims, this is not just religius nonconformity, but partial nudity. Perhaps those who feel it necesarry to cover their heads could object from that standpoint; it is not just their religion, but also their cultural heritage that forbids such exposure. In general, I find that the types of liberals who fight against any form of religious expression will also fight just as vigorusly to protect the sanctity of one's culture and traditions (all the while ignoring the intimate link between the two).

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by LURCH
There is a difference, though. Although wearing a cross on a necklace may hold profound meaning for a Christian, there is , AFAIK, no denomination of Christianity nor any Christian cultural tradition teaching that it is indecent exposure to walk around with one's bearnaked neck hanging out. To muslims, this is not just religius nonconformity, but partial nudity.

I fully understand that.
But you and monique are both just going by culture based on books. The feeling of offense and being denied your right to religious expression can be stronger in a christian under this law than muslims. The mere fact that you throw in a culturally enforced feeling of embarassment on the muslim side does not have to mean that the muslims are being further persecuted than anyone else. Because they feel a different offense from this law does not mean that they feel greater offense, nor is it anyone but each individual's place to tell you otherwise. Who are any of you to tell me how offended am by a particular event?
I am sure I can find plenty of christians and jews who are more offended by this law than many of the muslims. In fact, just yesterday one of the muslim leaders in France was urging that muslims follow the law because they are French too (I'll get the link if need be. I don't remember the guy's name). Now, are you going to continue to tell me that the Jewish and Christian leaders that have condemned this law feel less persecuted than him??
This situation has to be looked at on an individual basis, and generalizations about how much certain groups are supposed to feel offended by this new law are just that...generalizations.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by LURCH
In general, I find that the types of liberals who fight against any form of religious expression will also fight just as vigorusly to protect the sanctity of one's culture and traditions (all the while ignoring the intimate link between the two).

How ironic. I would fight to protect peoples right to religious expression (within reason of course) but I would never try and defend the "sanctity" of culture and tradition. What's so special about something that's almost entirely arbitrary?

 

[Vosh]

Declaring tolerance for religion is like declaring tolerance for irrational nut jobs. Makes no sense. We mindlessly champion the right for Carries' (see Steven Kings, "Carrie") mom and Frank Burns (see "M.A.S.H.") to thrive but when it comes to inalienable rights, like health care or shelter, we scratch our monkey heads, unsure what to think. I wonder what it's like living on a planet where the dominant species isn't Homer Simpson? Put me down under zero tolerance for religion.

 

[Hurkyl]

I guess we should declare zero tolerance for political activists too, lest we allow terrorists to thrive.

(P.S. you do realize that Carrie's mom and Frank Burns are fictional characters, don't you?)

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Vosh
Declaring tolerance for religion is like declaring tolerance for irrational nut jobs. Makes no sense. We mindlessly champion the right for Carries' (see Steven Kings, "Carrie") mom and Frank Burns (see "M.A.S.H.") to thrive but when it comes to inalienable rights, like health care or shelter, we scratch our monkey heads, unsure what to think. I wonder what it's like living on a planet where the dominant species isn't Homer Simpson? Put me down under zero tolerance for religion.

These clearly are not inalienable rights, since people have been alienated from them. The reason tolerance of religion is more popular than universal health care or shelter is because tolerance or religion doesn't really cost any money.

However, the only reason to not tolerate religion is if doing so harms you. If someone wants to wear a particular piece of clothing or some religous icon, tolerating that doesn't harm you in any way. Not tolerating it in that case would involve infringing on their rights, something you should not do. It's unrealistic to expect others to respect your rights if you demonstrate contempt for the rights of others.

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I guess we should declare zero tolerance for political activists too, lest we allow terrorists to thrive.

(P.S. you do realize that Carrie's mom and Frank Burns are fictional characters, don't you?)

Right, therefore it's silly to have zero tolerance for illness and disease. A little schizophrenia should be allowed to thrive, just in case we're wrong about trying to cure ppl. of it. Or burning houses. Let a few burn, because zero tolerance for letting ppl. burn in their homes might spill over into zero tolerance for short people or the Irish.

They are characters that symbolize ppl. who are really like that and unless you've lived under your mom's shirt all your life you can find ppl. like that every where! For example, right now Frank Burns is President of the U.S.A.

 

[Hurkyl]

Sure, and it's not silly to have zero tolerance for Germans (we don't want any more Hitlers, do we?) or corporate businessmen (we can't let budding Lex Luthors thrive!).


You clearly missed the point; I was not suggesting that we should never have zero tolerance (that's another issute altogether), I was suggesting that your line of reasoning was downright silly.


Seriously! How is the logic behind:

We should have zero tolerance for religous people because of Carrie's mom.

and

We should have zero tolerance for business owners because of Lex Luthor.

any different?


BTW, what's your opinion of Father Mulcahy?

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by Vosh
Put me down under zero tolerance for religion.

Accept for your own, of course.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Who are any of you to tell me how offended am by a particular event?

I never said that. You said it is arrogant to think that values can be different. I said it is arrogant to think that values are the same, and I gave a very concrete example of it.

Sure, I too think the banning of crosses is just as rediculous. Why don't they take it another step further and just ban the wearing of all necklaces?? Than the measure won't be anti-religious, but rather anti-..expression.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Monique
I never said that. You said it is arrogant to think that values can be different. I said it is arrogant to think that values are the same, and I gave a very concrete example of it.

Sure, I too think the banning of crosses is just as rediculous. Why don't they take it another step further and just ban the wearing of all necklaces?? Than the measure won't be anti-religious, but rather anti-..expression.

I don't recall that phatmonkey saying the values were the same. Just saying that it's wrong to say for you to try and say that this law is more offensive to one group or the other.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Only racist if you buy into the muslim lobbying. It's a ban on ALL religious symbols, and for someone to say that the headscarve is more important than a yamaka, or cross around the neck, is extremely assumptive and arrogant.

Check the source..

To which I replied: "It is arrogant to think that a scarf cannot be more important than a cross around the neck"

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Monique
Check the source..

To which I replied: "It is arrogant to think that a scarf cannot be more important than a cross around the neck"

Ah, I understand where you're coming from now. I had interpreted what he said a little differently. I didn't think he was saying that their values are the same, just that you can't really compare the importance of those symbols between groups.

 

[kat]

It seems to me that you're all speaking of adult women who've made a conscious choice to wear a hijab. We're speaking of school age children who aren't neccesarily wearing a veil out of choice. In fact anyone who's been paying attention to the situation in certain areas of france you would also have to acknowledge that with the situation as it is today (girls being threatened, beaten and often raped if they aren't covering theirselves in certain areas) then you'd have to agree that there is no way when dealing with such an oppressive ideology whether these young girls are wearing their hijab by choice or out of fear.
Of course my remembrances of the introduction of the hijab are inestricably laced with this history http://www.iranian.com/History/2000/March/Women/index.html and to me it's less of a religious symbol (in fact religious symbols are not allowed in islam) and more of a sign of oppression of women...one that in many countries has snowballed to an all out loss of rights.
I think that schools are places for learning, where children should be free from the barriers of politics and religion. Where girls should at the very least understand there capabilities and rights in an atmosphere that is free from overtones of oppression.
Women in so many countries have come so far and fought so hard for the right not to cover their heads, not to have men dictate who they marry, speak to or even shake hands with that unless someone can prove to me that these young girls arent wearing their veils because of their cultural pressures and fear of repurcussions then I support the law that at the very least gives them an opportunity for freedom and at the very most allow the children to put aside the politics.