NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/02/france.school.ap/index.html

Why don't we start banning praying? Students obviously should not be allowed to pray.

How about not abstaining from pork or beef? Should we force students in public schools to eat pork/beef because it is on the menu?

While we're at it, why don't we start forcing little Christian girls to bow to Satan? If they don't bow to Satan, they can't go to school. That's basically the option they just gave those young Muslim girls.

What's wrong with bowing to Satan?

What's wrong with bowing to Satan?
yeah, it would just cancel out all the "under God" stuff they have to say. oh wait, that's not France, that's the United Theocracy of America...

Either France is trying to secularize itself in a rather crude fashion or is just plain stupid

Either France is trying to secularize itself in a rather crude fashion or is just plain stupid

Or the government there is full of bigoted bastards who think all Muslims must be terrorists.

What's wrong with bowing to Satan?
They should make a law that places up side down crucifixes and pentagrams in the classrooms.

What's wrong with bowing to Satan?

To you, nothing. To a little Christian girl - she thinks she's going to hell. Would you like to force her to do it?

To you, nothing. To a little Christian girl - she thinks she's going to hell. Would you like to force her to do it?
Bah. She's born in sin and goes to hell by default. Unless she spreads them for the son, the father and the Holy Ghost.

They should make a law that places up side down crucifixes and pentagrams in the classrooms.

The pentagram is not a Satanic symbol - I'm pretty sure it dates back to Greek times, however the RCC conducted a smear campaign against it so that it would be considered so

The pentagram is not a Satanic symbol - I'm pretty sure it dates back to Greek times, however the RCC conducted a smear campaign against it so that it would be considered so
I thought Satanists use them, the one with 2 points up?

Maybe you should study a situation before commenting on it. Such as what is the political climate on this in France? This law bans every obvious religious signs in schools. schools only. And every religion. Hats were included in the lot for some reason.
This law was first applied today. Maybe read news that are not too biased.

So would a white power christian, be allowed to wear religious clothing with swastica's racial slurs etc in an american school?

Thought not.


Frances banning of religious clothing is an excellent step forward to a more progressive society with equaility for all. There should be no religious exceptions made to rules that exit. The school has a dress code, its ok to bypass it, if its in your religion to wear something, bullshit pure and simple. Its a case of people wanting special treatment.

By making this ruling france is standing out as a champion of liberty.

Or the government there is full of bigoted bastards who think all Muslims must be terrorists.


Someone forgot to read the article...

It includes jewish symbols and large christian crosses (IE, ones people see)

This law was actually passed last year. It's not that they don't want people to change religion, they just want less attention draw to the differences. I don't think it was the right move, but it doesn't make france anti-religious.

I thought Satanists use them, the one with 2 points up?
Teenagers with far too much free time on their hands and trying to do something 'cool'? Those Satanists?

America is also supposed to be the land of liberty, but where is HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE?

That's what I thought.

It's the land of liberty, but only for a select few.

Someone forgot to read the article...

It includes jewish symbols and large christian crosses (IE, ones people see)

This law was actually passed last year. It's not that they don't want people to change religion, they just want less attention draw to the differences. I don't think it was the right move, but it doesn't make france anti-religious.

I read the article and of course it includes those things - otherwise it would be blatant. But the truth is that the purpose of the law is to ban head scarfs, even the politicians who wrote it admit to that.

But the fact is, that by denying a girl the right to wear her head scarf, you are denying her right to freedom of religion. Telling her she has to not wear it is like telling a Christian that she has to worship Satan or telling a Hindi that they have to eat beef. It is just plain wrong.

Teenagers with far too much free time on their hands and trying to do something 'cool'? Those Satanists?
I dunno. But it's pretty much on the cover of every book on satanism or every frontpage of every website on satanism I've ever seen.

Frances banning of religious clothing is an excellent step forward to a more progressive society with equaility for all. There should be no religious exceptions made to rules that exit. The school has a dress code, its ok to bypass it, if its in your religion to wear something, bullshit pure and simple. Its a case of people wanting special treatment.

By making this ruling france is standing out as a champion of liberty.

So your definition of "equality" is liberty for all, unless their religion requires that you wear something. Your definition of "equality" denies religious freedom. Well, you can take that definition and shove it, because it doesn't make sense.

The rule itself was made specifically to abridge religious freedom. Therefore, it is an unjust law and should be overturned.

What you are all forgetting is that France is based on a fundamental of Secularism. As much as America is founded on "Christian values" (add sarcastic tone here) so France was founded on the value of Religion staying the hell away from government.

In Europe, this is a good idea, because Europeans had to see the horrible problems of when countries are run by religion, even though there was a dissenting sect. I mean seriously, the Polgroms, the Crusades, the Holocaust, the Aryan movement, the counter-reformation, all are the results of what happens when a bunch of intolerant bastards use religion to justify their intolerance.

France is doing a very wise thing here. Religion is used to justify blind hatred, and blind hatred leads to death.

Yada, yada, yada. Like you even realy care about it. For you it's just a chance to attack France.

I read the article and of course it includes those things - otherwise it would be blatant. But the truth is that the purpose of the law is to ban head scarfs, even the politicians who wrote it admit to that.

this is not true. they say they want to avoid any communautarism. Which is something seen as bad in political culture of the country.

The headscarf itself isn't required by Islam anyway, what is is modesty, which means covering up certain parts of the body. How it is done isn't relevant to the injunctions of modesty. When schools go and ban all headgear, they step over the line.

I thought Satanists use them, the one with 2 points up?
They do, but that symbol was originally the male form of the pentagram, the other way up being female. It was painted as a satanic symbol before it was actually used as one though.

They do, but that symbol was originally the male form of the pentagram, the other way up being female. It was painted as a satanic symbol before it was actually used as one though.
So the one used by Wiccans, 1 point up, is the female form then? What do they stand for?

What you are all forgetting is that France is based on a fundamental of Secularism. As much as America is founded on "Christian values" (add sarcastic tone here) so France was founded on the value of Religion staying the hell away from government.

In Europe, this is a good idea, because Europeans had to see the horrible problems of when countries are run by religion, even though there was a dissenting sect. I mean seriously, the Polgroms, the Crusades, the Holocaust, the Aryan movement, the counter-reformation, all are the results of what happens when a bunch of intolerant bastards use religion to justify their intolerance.

France is doing a very wise thing here. Religion is used to justify blind hatred, and blind hatred leads to death.

But what France is doing here is injecting government into religion. They have completely trashed the freedom of those girls to choose their own religion. Now, they must either choose their religion, or going to school - which is not a choice, it is a no-win situation.

I am all for secular governments and you are absolutely right that having a religion-run government is a horrible idea, but being secular in nature does not mean taking away the rights of people to follow their religion (when it does no harm to others). The way they are going about it is equivalent to if we in America had said "Slavery is bad!, so we're going to put all the white people in slavery and give them to the black people."

Again I ask, should the school also force Hindi students to eat beef and Jewish and Muslim students to eat pork just because they want to be secular?

It's a rather crude and heavy-handed way to support feminism. They can't get Muslim women treated equally simply by passing a law.

Yada, yada, yada. Like you even realy care about it. For you it's just a chance to attack France.

You don't even know me. I have no need to "attack France." However, they have stepped over the bounds and taken rights away from their citizens. I speak out against the same types of problems in my own country, as well as in others.

this is not true. they say they want to avoid any communautarism. Which is something seen as bad in political culture of the country.

I'm not familiar with that word, and it's not in the dictionary.

But I would like to point out that the politicians have said that the purpose of the law is to stem the "rise of Islamic fundamentalism" in their country. What they fail to see is that all orthodox Muslims are not fundamentalist - and they are not going to get anywhere by taking away the religious freedoms in their country. If anything, they are going to *increase* fundamentalism.

However, they have stepped over the bounds and taken rights away from their citizens.
No they haven't. They have exercised their right to enforce secularism in public schools, funded by the state.

So your definition of "equality" is liberty for all, unless their religion requires that you wear something. Your definition of "equality" denies religious freedom. Well, you can take that definition and shove it, because it doesn't make sense.

The rule itself was made specifically to abridge religious freedom. Therefore, it is an unjust law and should be overturned.

We do not live in a free world and never will do, You can not have freedom when there is laws. They are self excluding options.

Equaility is making people the same, this is what this law does, it not not grant special treatment for any minority, group, religion, its a law that creates equaility, A good thing really. Not unjust, but positive. Oh and equaility is not about freedom, you can have equaility without freedom.

No they haven't. They have exercised their right to enforce secularism in public schools.

By taking away the religious freedom of each and every little girl who feels the need to wear it. Now, if their parents cannot afford to educate them some other way, those girls must choose between their faith and their education.

This is idiotic. Secularism in public schools means that the schools themselves cannot support religion. What an individual student does bears no reflection on the views of the school. They are abridging religious rights, not enforcing secularism.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/02/france.school.ap/index.html

Why don't we start banning praying? Students obviously should not be allowed to pray.

How about not abstaining from pork or beef? Should we force students in public schools to eat pork/beef because it is on the menu?

While we're at it, why don't we start forcing little Christian girls to bow to Satan? If they don't bow to Satan, they can't go to school. That's basically the option they just gave those young Muslim girls.


Tommy rot!

Or the government there is full of bigoted bastards who think all Muslims must be terrorists.


... and Muslims are not bigoted bastards?

This is idiotic.
No. It's France's full right to do so. Just like it is Turkey's right.

We do not live in a free world and never will do, You can not have freedom when there is laws. They are self excluding options.

You are more or less right, except for the first sentence. We can live in a free world.

But what France is doing here is injecting government into religion. They have completely trashed the freedom of those girls to choose their own religion. Now, they must either choose their religion, or going to school - which is not a choice, it is a no-win situation.

I am all for secular governments and you are absolutely right that having a religion-run government is a horrible idea, but being secular in nature does not mean taking away the rights of people to follow their religion (when it does no harm to others). The way they are going about it is equivalent to if we in America had said "Slavery is bad!, so we're going to put all the white people in slavery and give them to the black people."

Again I ask, should the school also force Hindi students to eat beef and Jewish and Muslim students to eat pork just because they want to be secular?


That is a very intelligent argument, fo shizzle. But the thing is, the French Government is paying for the schools that the children are attending. If the government was telling Muslims that they couldn't wear head scarves at home, or in a Mosque, you can be assured that I would be the first one to take a shot at their president.

True, freedom of speech is at question here, but you have to put it into perspective. The rules that our very own Supreme Court made state that, if Freedom of Speech causes a public disturbance (such as if a Nazi walked into a Jewish Synagogue and starting quoting Hitler) then the right to Freedom of Speech is revoked.

France is making a wise choice here. I lived in Germany for a year, and I know that in Europe, Muslims are disliked. Jews and devout Christians are too. Religion is disliked, period. So the reason for the removal of these objects is more for the safety of the children in the school.

If you were (or are) a parent, would you want your child safe, or free?

... and Muslims are not bigoted bastards?

All of them? Nope.

You've also missed the part where most have chosen to take off their headscarves, and that those who have not have not been kicked out of the school. It is not choosing between religion and education.

If you were (or are) a parent, would you want your child safe, or free?

Safety means absolutely nothing if you are not free.

Safety means absolutely nothing if you are not free.
Tell that to Mr. Bush.

No. It's France's full right to do so. Just like it is Turkey's right.

And it was Iraq's right to take away the rights of their citizens too? How about Sudan?

Tell that to Mr. Bush.

I will, by not voting for him in the next election.

And it was Iraq's right to take away the rights of their citizens too? How about Sudan?
Technically. Yes. But comparing Iraq and Saddam or Sudan to a ban on visible religiouse items in French public schools, now thats idiotic.

I know. I value freedom more than almost anyone. For god's sakes, I am a social anarchist and an economic Marxist! But I have been in France. I've witnessed the harassing of the Muslims. It is very depressing. But seriously, in Europe, people tend to be more racially and ethnically prejudiced than here in the U.S! It seems shocking to know, considering how liberal European governments and people are, but the truth of the matter is, unless you were born in the country that you live in, and are white, you are not going to be very safe.

I read the article and of course it includes those things - otherwise it would be blatant. But the truth is that the purpose of the law is to ban head scarfs, even the politicians who wrote it admit to that.

But the fact is, that by denying a girl the right to wear her head scarf, you are denying her right to freedom of religion. Telling her she has to not wear it is like telling a Christian that she has to worship Satan or telling a Hindi that they have to eat beef. It is just plain wrong.

Actually its like telling a Christian to not wear a cross.
A Hindu to not wear those little dots on their forehead.

Look most high schools disallow anyone to wear a hat or more on their head so its fair to not allow certain people to have special priviliges.

Plus the Koran isn't sayng they have to wear that. The religious guys in the Arab culture say this.
Originally said they this because some Muslims had a habit of raping people and they nneded a way to distinguish between good girls and bad girls. Good girls were told to dress up so they wouldn't be raped.
It worked well, but its not a good reason I think.

I'm not familiar with that word, and it's not in the dictionary.

sorry, my first language is not English. It means being enclosed in your community.


But I would like to point out that the politicians have said that the purpose of the law is to stem the "rise of Islamic fundamentalism" in their country.

where are you quoting from?

What they fail to see is that all orthodox Muslims are not fundamentalist - and they are not going to get anywhere by taking away the religious freedoms in their country. If anything, they are going to *increase* fundamentalism.

so far the new funded French Muslim Organisation said they would abide by the law. Moreover, the law is enforcing the 1st amendment of the French Constitution (Article premier: La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l'égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d'origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances. )
Today was the first day of that law. there was no recorded major uprising, nor demonstration. (BBC source)

You are more or less right, except for the first sentence. We can live in a free world.


I sincerely doubt that would work. People are savages, without laws there would no civilisation. Freedom is the price we pay to live in a civilised world. I do think it would be rather chaotic without those laws, no structure, no reason sounds far too self destructive.


Off course you can always have the dream of living in freedom, but then again you can dream about doing anything.

I suppose it's great that you care.
But I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you're not Muslim or French.

Actually its like telling a Christian to not wear a cross.
A Hindu to not wear those little dots on their forehead.
I think it's more like telling extremely body-concious young girls that they can't wear a bra and they have to wear a thin, semi-transparent school uniform shirt. It's about modesty and the way they were raised. Thery're being told to go out in public semi-naked.

I don't live in France, but I know this has been under discussion for months or years now. It's the intransigence I don't get. "Accomodations will not be made."

A Hassidic jew without a hat is naked before God. It just isn't done in that culture. Why must we define how people conform, when it doesn't hurt anyone directly?

Why must we define how people conform, when it doesn't hurt anyone directly?

The problem is that in Europe any kind of religious sign was pretext for an new crusade. Too many people died on those ideas. What the belief is in France, majoritarily even among muslims, is that religious has to be a private matter. It is felt aggressive to show yours to people.

Christians killing muslims (already in 14th century spain)
Christians killing Jews
Catholics killing protestants
Anglicans killing protestants
Muslims killing christians.and so on...

It's not a new matter, and it happened for two milleniums on that land now...

Couple of things you have to know before jumping to conclusions:

1. The law is for public school only. Private school (like Jewish school) are not subject to the law.

2. The constitution of France clearly state that the religion has no place in a government institution. Public school, hospital, etc. are government institution. The law simply restate a article of the constitution that was not really enforced.

3. France is having big problems within his muslim communities. Radicals are taking over and are subjecting women to huge pressures to follow the rules of the Charia (sp?) which give them the short end of the stick in most situations. The French government is trying to stop this.

4. It's not taking away the right to religion more than trying to stop racism (children attacked because they are wearing star of David) and secularism. The muslim communities are slowly forming gettoes where there is racism and intolerance preached. If you look at how the middle east is faring these days, you can see how this is a concern for the French government.

5. There have been cases of older children taking the important tests for their sisters using the muslim headscarf to hide the deed.

6. The director of some school has been threathened by fundamentalists because he refused the use of headscarf in his school as was clearly stated in the school dress code.

It was high time the French government did something to stop the racism that is slowly tearing their country apart. Kudos to them, I say.

America is also supposed to be the land of liberty, but where is HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE?

That's what I thought.

It's the land of liberty, but only for a select few.

More like a heavy majority. Where the issue has faced public votes, it has been overwhelmingly defeated in most of the country. Liberty never has meant "do whatever you want". I feel quite certain that if I wanted to go , say, on a killing spree, people would have a problem with it.

I sincerely doubt that would work. People are savages, without laws there would no civilisation. Freedom is the price we pay to live in a civilised world. I do think it would be rather chaotic without those laws, no structure, no reason sounds far too self destructive.

So? What's so great about order and civilization? Alienation from nature? Pollution? Hierarchy? Consumerism? These don't seem like good things. I don't know where you got the idea that being "savage" is necessarily a bad thing. Nazi Germany, a very orderly country, killed far more people than any of those "savage" hunter-gatherer societies. While civilization has given us a lot of good things, the amount of evil it has done is pretty close to the amount of good.

So? What's so great about order and civilization? Alienation from nature? Pollution? Hierarchy? Consumerism? These don't seem like good things. I don't know where you got the idea that being "savage" is necessarily a bad thing. Nazi Germany, a very orderly country, killed far more people than any of those "savage" hunter-gatherer societies. While civilization has given us a lot of good things, the amount of evil it has done is pretty close to the amount of good.


I believe they should set aside a corner of the world where people who think like this can be sent to live in their "utopia". This would make them happy. It would also make the rest of us happy..a win-win scenario. In this utopia, to be fair, there could be no modern conveniences, including computers, so we wouldn't have to listen to them that way either.

So? What's so great about order and civilization? Alienation from nature? Pollution? Hierarchy? Consumerism? These don't seem like good things. I don't know where you got the idea that being "savage" is necessarily a bad thing. Nazi Germany, a very orderly country, killed far more people than any of those "savage" hunter-gatherer societies. While civilization has given us a lot of good things, the amount of evil it has done is pretty close to the amount of good.
Well, I for one like the advantages of civilisation like
writing
mathematics
culture
food all year round I don't have to grow myself
metal like steel

and on a lighter note:
my watch, I'd be really lost without my watch.
computers
the internet
clothes not made of hide
pizza; I wouldn't have had the joy of tasting pizza as I never went in Italy.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/02/france.school.ap/index.html

Why don't we start banning praying? Students obviously should not be allowed to pray.

How about not abstaining from pork or beef? Should we force students in public schools to eat pork/beef because it is on the menu?

While we're at it, why don't we start forcing little Christian girls to bow to Satan? If they don't bow to Satan, they can't go to school. That's basically the option they just gave those young Muslim girls.
I have to agree with you, here. Even in the US, while hats in general are banned, an exception is made to hats and headscarves for religious or medical purposes. Not in France. Judging by the Frenchmen I've met on this forum, they're proud to be "secular" (a code name for athiest). I assume they are good representitives of their country. As France tends to be more democratic than even other Western nations, it sacrifices some liberties in the process, as Alexis du Tocqueville warned. Thus, we are seeing the tyranny of an athiest majority beginning to oppress a religious minority, and it is scary.

I have to agree with you, here. Even in the US, while hats in general are banned, an exception is made to hats and headscarves for religious or medical purposes. Not in France. Judging by the Frenchmen I've met on this forum, they're proud to be "secular" (a code name for athiest). I assume they are good representitives of their country. As France tends to be more democratic than even other Western nations, it sacrifices some liberties in the process, as Alexis du Tocqueville warned. Thus, we are seeing the tyranny of an athiest majority beginning to oppress a religious minority, and it is scary.
Your assumption is false. The French have an atheist government. Most french are religious in one way or another. The atheist majority is not opressing the minority so much as the minority is trying to disregard the laws that they don't like.

Some French Iman have come out and supported the bill. It's the religious fanatics that use the 'racist' card.

Your assumption is false. The French have an atheist government. Most french are religious in one way or another. The atheist majority is not opressing the minority so much as the minority is trying to disregard the laws that they don't like.

Some French Iman have come out and supported the bill. It's the religious fanatics that use the 'racist' card.
Ok, fine. I have never been on an anthropological mission in France, so I don't know. But judging from what Frenchmen I have met (all of whom are athiests), they would seem to be elated by this. Besides, something tells me that, when Chiraq leaves office, his successor will not push to end this ban.

Well, I for one like the advantages of civilisation like
writing
mathematics
culture
food all year round I don't have to grow myself
metal like steel

and on a lighter note:
my watch, I'd be really lost without my watch.
computers
the internet
clothes not made of hide
pizza; I wouldn't have had the joy of tasting pizza as I never went in Italy.

Well India and Native American cultures like I think it was Aztec made up conceot of O first thus are they not advanced civilization?
Had writings.
Had a culture.
Had food all year round.
Had metals many strong as steel, steel isn't always plentiful.
Had sundials to tell time.

Many nations didn't make watches for a ling time. Computers neither. ijternet kinda always existed but couldn't see it.
pizza? Peh, Chocolate is better from Native americans!

Well India and Native American cultures like I think it was Aztec made up conceot of O first thus are they not advanced civilization?
Had writings.
Had a culture.
Had food all year round.
Had metals many strong as steel, steel isn't always plentiful.
Had sundials to tell time.

Many nations didn't make watches for a ling time. Computers neither. ijternet kinda always existed but couldn't see it.
pizza? Peh, Chocolate is better from Native americans!
Yes and they WERE civilizations. Thank you for prooving my point.

Well... I woudl say that the democratically elected parliament of a democratic country can pass any bill it sees as neccessary. I f the people disagree, they can vote for another party in the next election. I would argue that, if Jean Averaga does not see the law as a bad thing it should stay. If the French find out that the law does not work they will get rid of it. Anyway, wearing any kind of hats in schools here is banned, so the law does not seem to target the Muslims especially. If such a law is passed for security reasons, fine for me. I will take safety over freedom any day, if it means that I will have 2 hot meals, a non-leaking flat to live in and certainity that nothing threatens my immediate existance.

It is I agree a stupid law to ban all religious garments from public schools (as far as I know, not just Muslim garments but garments for all cults and religions). It simply breeds hate and more private schools where hate and intolerance can be taught more easily. But it isn't like there are any truly free nations, except for those in anarchy.

The pentagram is not a Satanic symbol - I'm pretty sure it dates back to Greek times, however the RCC conducted a smear campaign against it so that it would be considered so
Satanists do use something similar to a two point up pentagram, think it's a bahumut, might be off on spelling. It can be simplified to simply a two point up pentagram.

Bah. She's born in sin and goes to hell by default. Unless she spreads them for the son, the father and the Holy Ghost.
Hahaha.

Actually its like telling a Christian to not wear a cross.
A Hindu to not wear those little dots on their forehead.

Last time I checked, there is no denomination in Christianity that *requires* you to wear a cross all the time. Nor do I know of one in Hinduism that *requires* the dots. The comparison is valid because we are talking about requirements of the religion. It is not just "another article of clothing" to them.

Plus the Koran isn't sayng they have to wear that. The religious guys in the Arab culture say this.

The Bible doesn't say you have to go to church every Sunday. Does that mean that the view of Christians who think they should do this is not valid?

Originally said they this because some Muslims had a habit of raping people and they nneded a way to distinguish between good girls and bad girls. Good girls were told to dress up so they wouldn't be raped.
It worked well, but its not a good reason I think.

Your assessment of someone's religious reasoning has absolutely no bearing on their right to practice it.

Couple of things you have to know before jumping to conclusions:

1. The law is for public school only. Private school (like Jewish school) are not subject to the law.

Yes, and I'm sure that all the Muslim parents can afford private schools.

2. The constitution of France clearly state that the religion has no place in a government institution. Public school, hospital, etc. are government institution. The law simply restate a article of the constitution that was not really enforced.

Are you telling me a woman would be kicked out of a hosipital if she was wearing a head scarf and needed to get a broken wrist looked at?

Secularism means that the institution itself cannot be religion-based, it should not restrict the religion of the citizens who use that institution.

3. France is having big problems within his muslim communities. Radicals are taking over and are subjecting women to huge pressures to follow the rules of the Charia (sp?) which give them the short end of the stick in most situations. The French government is trying to stop this.

So the French government thinks they can stop the spread of a radical sect by attacking beliefs held dear by many Muslims outside of the radical sect. Smart, considering they are now more likely to have *more* radicals.

4. It's not taking away the right to religion more than trying to stop racism (children attacked because they are wearing star of David) and secularism. The muslim communities are slowly forming gettoes where there is racism and intolerance preached. If you look at how the middle east is faring these days, you can see how this is a concern for the French government.

Taking away freedom is not the way to ensure it.

5. There have been cases of older children taking the important tests for their sisters using the muslim headscarf to hide the deed.

Then punish them. Soundly. The head scarf does not typically cover the entire face, it covers the head - teachers don't know what their students look like?

6. The director of some school has been threathened by fundamentalists because he refused the use of headscarf in his school as was clearly stated in the school dress code.

I would threaten someone who denied me the practice of my religion also. Again, I ask - would you support a law that said everyone had to eat whatever the school gave them and they served beef or pork to Hindis or Jews?

It was high time the French government did something to stop the racism that is slowly tearing their country apart. Kudos to them, I say.

This is like saying that if we denied African Americans the right to "jump the broom" it would stop racism.

Either France is trying to secularize itself in a rather crude fashion or is just plain stupid

Not TRYING TO. They have been a secular nation for as long as I can remember; the recent ruling is, they claim, a clarification of previous ones. You can read about it in The Economist, or I am sure there are articles online.

It is not aimed solely at Muslims, as some would like you to believe -- yarmulkes and crosses are banned as well. ANY ostentatious religious symbol (and they are defining it as "noticeable" is equally banned.

It is not aimed solely at Muslims, as some would like you to believe -- yarmulkes and crosses are banned as well. ANY ostentatious religious symbol (and they are defining it as "noticeable" is equally banned.

Except crosses and yamakas (to my knowledge) are not *required* by their religion. Orthodox Muslims believe that a head-covering *must* be worn. You are asking these girls to go out feeling like they are naked. This is akin to saying that a Hindi has to eat beef at a public school, because that is what is being served and the institution is secular, so they should just deal with it.

It's just unbelievable that a modern democracy would pass such a law. Even the conservative Christian school I went to allowed a Muslim student to wear her headscarf. I don't care what your government is based on, it doesn't have the right to prohibit the free, non-invasive exercise of anyone's religion, whether they're in a government building or not.

By taking away the religious freedom of each and every little girl who feels the need to wear it. Now, if their parents cannot afford to educate them some other way, those girls must choose between their faith and their education.

This is idiotic. Secularism in public schools means that the schools themselves cannot support religion. What an individual student does bears no reflection on the views of the school. They are abridging religious rights, not enforcing secularism.

You are judging France by your own standards, and by the American Constitution. American law does not hold water there any more than France is able to impose its laws on the US.

There is always the possibility of a parent, who feels the need, sending their child to a religious school.

They are applying the ruling equally. How in your view that equates to bigotry against Muslims is shaky.

They are applying the ruling equally. How in your view that equates to bigotry against Muslims is shaky.

(a) They have come out and said that the purpose is to get rid of the head scarf in schools. Banning the rest is just an added corollary.

(b) Orthodox Islam is the only widespread religion I know of that *requires* its followers to wear a head scarf. A girl who is not wearing one feels naked, just like I would feel naked if I walked outside in my underwear. If public schools in the US suddenly started requiring that children should be forced to go to school in their underwear, I would complain about that too.

(c) It is wrong to force religious views on others, *especially* in the name of a supposedly secular government. The government is basically saying that the Muslim religion is lesser than other religions and disallowing free practice of religion just because it is in a public place.

So? What's so great about order and civilization? Alienation from nature? Pollution? Hierarchy? Consumerism? These don't seem like good things.


Says the man posting from his computer....

Except crosses and yamakas (to my knowledge) are not *required* by their religion. Orthodox Muslims believe that a head-covering *must* be worn. You are asking these girls to go out feeling like they are naked. This is akin to saying that a Hindi has to eat beef at a public school, because that is what is being served and the institution is secular, so they should just deal with it.

Yarmulkes are indeed REQUIRED by Orthodox Jews.

The question is also this: Should a nation's culture change for people moving there, or should the people change to fit in?

Think carefully about this -- and think of Sharia law being imposed on non-Muslims in Africa, the Phillipines, Indonesia, and, of course, traditionally Muslim nations..

:)

Yarmulkes are indeed REQUIRED by Orthodox Jews.

At all times? I didn't know that, but I don't dispute it. None of the Jewish people I have known have been orthodox.

The question is also this: Should a nation's culture change for people moving there, or should the people change to fit in?

Unless it is hurthing someone, you should not ask someone to change their religion. France aside, in the US, someone may be laughed at or even looked down upon if they wear a head scarf. However, the government (and most of the people) recognize that it is a part of their religion and it is their right to practice it. We don't ask that they stop wearing it just because it doesn't fit our culture.

Should the religions with eating requirements change *just to fit in*? Should people whose religion is against promiscuity be promiscuous just because much of the rest of Western society is? Or should we admit that different people have different views, and if it is not hurting us, we should just leave it alone?

Think carefully about this -- and think of Sharia law being imposed on non-Muslims in Africa, the Phillipines, Indonesia, and, of course, traditionally Muslim nations..

:)

*Imposing* a religious law on someone is, of course, a bad thing. I never said it wasn't. However, denying someone the right to freely practice their religion is just as bad. Allowing those who wish to follow their religion to do so is a far cry from forcing anyone else to follow it.

Or the government there is full of bigoted bastards who think all Muslims must be terrorists.

Though this refers to France originally ... I can only keep thinking.

MMmmmmmm ... American 'racial profiling'.

But what France is doing here is injecting government into religion. They have completely trashed the freedom of those girls to choose their own religion. Now, they must either choose their religion, or going to school - which is not a choice, it is a no-win situation.

I am all for secular governments and you are absolutely right that having a religion-run government is a horrible idea, but being secular in nature does not mean taking away the rights of people to follow their religion (when it does no harm to others). The way they are going about it is equivalent to if we in America had said "Slavery is bad!, so we're going to put all the white people in slavery and give them to the black people."

Again I ask, should the school also force Hindi students to eat beef and Jewish and Muslim students to eat pork just because they want to be secular?

I disagree, France is ensuring that its school children do not get treated differently because of their religion. Religion is a private matter in France, and no concern of the state. The French Republic does not want children to be treated differently from others whilst at school because they are wearing obvious statements of religious belief.

In fact for many Muslim girls it is probably freeing them from the pressure of their parents and the Muslim community in which they reside to wear such Muslim headdresses, therefore denying their opportunity to choose.

Additionally, one must view this rule in the context of France. The French hold the opinion that government must be absolutely secular, this extends to all government institutions, including schools. Of course, its citizens are free to practise any religion they so wish, but it is not appropriate for them to wear symbols that influence others or cause different attitudes towards them than towards other students in the classroom.

I do also find it quite ironic that countries such as Saudi Arabia have critisised this move, despite making the establishment of Christian churches in their country illegal - thus they do not even believe in religious freedom. (Sharia law is a clear example of this).

America is also supposed to be the land of liberty, but where is HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE?

That's what I thought.

It's the land of liberty, but only for a select few.
That's if you're a white Christian with mucho money... *smirk*

Or, you're just plain lucky and you won the lottery, unfortunately, most of which, in the form of tax, goes to pay those poor starving underpaid paid politicians who aer impoverished with their very opulant and lavish life styles. :rolleyes:

(a) As far as I remember from my european history AP class, and we had to remember it, the Declaration of the rights of man doesn't guarentee religious freedom in and of itself. This is as far as i remember, and this is assuming this is still the primary constitution.

(b) These orthodox muslims can go to private school, or not go to school at all. Its like refusing to be searched for weapons to get on a plane, even though its the rules. You dont have to fly, but if you do, you have to follow their rules. It is your choice.

(c) This is a secularist move. Do not read into it further. Some of these people are as bad as the left wing conspiracists(me being a kerry supporter saying this).

Religion is a private matter in France, and no concern of the state.
And that's why the French government goes and passes a law concerning religion. Obvious.

The French Republic does not want children to be treated differently from others whilst at school because they are wearing obvious statements of religious belief.
If that was the goal, they should have passed a law against religion discrimination, or enforce it if they already have one. If you don't want people to tease a girl because she's wearing a scarf, why should you punish the girl?

In fact for many Muslim girls it is probably freeing them from the pressure of their parents and the Muslim community in which they reside to wear such Muslim headdresses, therefore denying their opportunity to choose.
So the state assumes a 'daddy knows best' position, because they - somehow - know most of the Muslim girls in fact don't want to wear the scarf... So those girls must stop wearing the scarf... therefore denying their opportunity to choose. Oh, come on.

Additionally, one must view this rule in the context of France. The French hold the opinion that government must be absolutely secular, this extends to all government institutions, including schools. Of course, its citizens are free to practise any religion they so wish, but it is not appropriate for them to wear symbols that influence others or cause different attitudes towards them than towards other students in the classroom.
Once again, a secular government does not mean religion must be forbidden when in public institutions. The institutions themselves must be free of any religion influence. Not the people.

I do also find it quite ironic that countries such as Saudi Arabia have critisised this move, despite making the establishment of Christian churches in their country illegal - thus they do not even believe in religious freedom. (Sharia law is a clear example of this).
So you think the best move is to become as stubborn as those guys, right? How clever.

Compared to how much personal freedom is taken away from pupils in a lot of american schools this issue is pretty harmless. Consider dress codes, unwarranted searches of lockers, camera surveilance etc, this takes much freedom from the average teenager.
The quran does not require scarves. Scarves are just the traditional way of securing the modesty of women. A baseballcap, hat or anything else that covers the hair will actually do.
On the issue of religious freedom, is a follower of Rastafarianism allowed to smoke wisdom weed (aka ganja), like included in the teachings of most sects? Or is he a low down drug user to be thrown in jail?

You have dress codes?

Hhahahah...omg, that's just beyond silly.

And that's why the French government goes and passes a law concerning religion. Obvious.


If that was the goal, they should have passed a law against religion discrimination, or enforce it if they already have one. If you don't want people to tease a girl because she's wearing a scarf, why should you punish the girl?


Once again, a secular government does not mean religion must be forbidden when in public institutions. The institutions themselves must be free of any religion influence. Not the people.



The law is to stop discremination of the children, ie so that those wearing obvious religious symbols (remember, not just Muslim ones) are not treated differently from those who are not in school.

The French government is freeing the institutions (schools in this case) of religious influence by getting rid of religious symbols in them. That is the whole point of the law.

The law is not a punishment of anybody, so I'm puzzled by that remark.

hahahahahhahah

dress codes.... heheheahhah

I know. I value freedom more than almost anyone. For god's sakes, I am a social anarchist and an economic Marxist! But I have been in France. I've witnessed the harassing of the Muslims. It is very depressing. But seriously, in Europe, people tend to be more racially and ethnically prejudiced than here in the U.S! It seems shocking to know, considering how liberal European governments and people are, but the truth of the matter is, unless you were born in the country that you live in, and are white, you are not going to be very safe.

I don't know where you have been in Europe to make such a statement but I assure you that's not true.

Compared to how much personal freedom is taken away from pupils in a lot of american schools this issue is pretty harmless. Consider dress codes, unwarranted searches of lockers, camera surveilance etc, this takes much freedom from the average teenager.
The quran does not require scarves. Scarves are just the traditional way of securing the modesty of women. A baseballcap, hat or anything else that covers the hair will actually do.
On the issue of religious freedom, is a follower of Rastafarianism allowed to smoke wisdom weed (aka ganja), like included in the teachings of most sects? Or is he a low down drug user to be thrown in jail?

Survey cams? Unwarranted search of lockers? Those stuff is supposted to be used in prisons, not in schools. Its no wonder Pupils tend to run Amok once every few years. If my taxes would be spend on such useless things I would sincerely consider to take my child into a private school, there it could at least get a good education without being harrased by armored security forces...

Hello I'm french and I'm pleased some people here understand this law. I expected much more ignorance than that.

Those who say the muslisms can't afford private school are clueless. This may be true in the US, but in France private school receive funds from the government. They are private because they are privately run. They are not privately funded (or just partly).

And to the one who said the next government would not support this law : This law dates back from 1901.

Facts to consider for the really clueless people here :
France has the largest jewish population in Europe.
France has the largest muslim population in Europe.
See what I mean?

Let me explain why this law was originally implemented. It was implemented because christians were preaching at school and trying to convert. They were exercising a pressure on other pupils to become catholic. Imagine the teacher teaching biology and just after that some religious wackos spreading ignorance and calling the teaching lies...
The school was supposed to teach science but was hijacked by christian fundamentalists.
Both political and religious symbols are banned, it includes banners and clothes. This is the only way to form a secular democracy. You can't have a democracy if the pupils are brain-washed. Once they get older and once they know science they will be more free to choose their own religion. And if they don't choose a religion, it's even better.

Let me explain why this law was originally implemented. It was implemented because christians were preaching at school and trying to convert. They were exercising a pressure on other pupils to become catholic. Imagine the teacher teaching biology and just after that some religious wackos spreading ignorance and calling the teaching lies...
The school was supposed to teach science but was hijacked by christian fundamentalists.
Both political and religious symbols are banned, it includes banners and clothes. This is the only way to form a secular democracy. You can't have a democracy if the pupils are brain-washed. Once they get older and once they know science they will be more free to choose their own religion. And if they don't choose a religion, it's even better.

Don't some American schools forbit the teaching of natural history (regarding the evolution theory) on religious grounds or at least heavily restrict it? (I could be wrong). So, it is a familiar problem in many countries.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/02/france.school.ap/index.html

Why don't we start banning praying? Students obviously should not be allowed to pray.

How about not abstaining from pork or beef? Should we force students in public schools to eat pork/beef because it is on the menu?

While we're at it, why don't we start forcing little Christian girls to bow to Satan? If they don't bow to Satan, they can't go to school. That's basically the option they just gave those young Muslim girls.

The worlds press seem to portray this as an anti-muslim step, when in fact it was to try to make everyone the same.

Although it does remove some personal freedom, it removes it for everyone, Jews, Christians, Sikhs (they can't wear turbans in school). All religious symbols are banned from schools.

However, CNN, Reuters, Bloomberg, BBC, News Corporation etc, seem to want to stir up anti Muslim sentiment, as it makes for big stories, which sells papers etc.

It could give a radical fantatic the excuse to go and kidnap french journalists in Iraq. Oh HOLD ON, TOO LATE!

I'm guessing that Al Jazeera also got its information from CNN etc and used to cause trouble also!

The law is to stop discremination of the children, ie so that those wearing obvious religious symbols (remember, not just Muslim ones) are not treated differently from those who are not in school.
Again, if that's the goal, then enforce equal treatment (sp?) to anyone, be him/her wearing whatever he/she pleases.

The French government is freeing the institutions (schools in this case) of religious influence by getting rid of religious symbols in them. That is the whole point of the law.
So the schools must be free of any religious symbol. The schools, not the pupils.

The law is not a punishment of anybody, so I'm puzzled by that remark.
It is, because it takes off my right of wearing something culturally and/or religiously important to me, just because the government assumes that a) some other people will treat me badly, b) I would even care if they do, and c) I don't want to wear whatever symbol it is anyways, and I only do because someone else forces me to. What if I really wanted to wear a, let's say, purple elephant upside-down pin because I'm a purple-elephant-upside-downist, and proud of it? What should I stop wearing something I really want to wear, just because the government says so?

This is the only way to form a secular democracy. You can't have a democracy if the pupils are brain-washed. Once they get older and once they know science they will be more free to choose their own religion. And if they don't choose a religion, it's even better.
So in fact they are being brain-washed by the government so that they don't choose a religion, because the goverment thinks that's good. That's just so great.

Mind you, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any religion. It's just I think everyone has a right to believe in what they want, as long as they don't bother me trying to convert. It's a personal choice. Who's the government to decide whether religion is good or bad for me?

And why whould a secular democracy be wanted? I understand, and I fully support, the idea of a secular government. By that I mean no church should have a say in how the government rules the country, no church should get public funds. But it should work the other way around, too.

Again, if that's the goal, then enforce equal treatment (sp?) to anyone, be him/her wearing whatever he/she pleases.


So the schools must be free of any religious symbol. The schools, not the pupils.


It is, because it takes off my right of wearing something culturally and/or religiously important to me, just because the government assumes that a) some other people will treat me badly, b) I would even care if they do, and c) I don't want to wear whatever symbol it is anyways, and I only do because someone else forces me to. What if I really wanted to wear a, let's say, purple elephant upside-down pin because I'm a purple-elephant-upside-downist, and proud of it? What should I stop wearing something I really want to wear, just because the government says so?

But the pupils are inside the school, and thus affecting the other pupils and themselves.

The French are merely trying to ensure children learn together as equals. They are not obstructing anyone from practising any religion or belief outside of the school.

It could give a radical fantatic the excuse to go and kidnap french journalists in Iraq.
As if radical fanatics needed an excuse for doing those nice things they do... Come on, if they can't find a better one, they always have the old "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm afraid I must kill you" line.

Again, if that's the goal, then enforce equal treatment (sp?) to anyone, be him/her wearing whatever he/she pleases.


So the schools must be free of any religious symbol. The schools, not the pupils.


It is, because it takes off my right of wearing something culturally and/or religiously important to me, just because the government assumes that a) some other people will treat me badly, b) I would even care if they do, and c) I don't want to wear whatever symbol it is anyways, and I only do because someone else forces me to. What if I really wanted to wear a, let's say, purple elephant upside-down pin because I'm a purple-elephant-upside-downist, and proud of it? What should I stop wearing something I really want to wear, just because the government says so?

You'll just have to suffer that badly with the lack of the upside down thing.

But the pupils are inside the school, and thus affecting the other pupils and themselves.

The French are merely trying to ensure children learn together as equals. They are not obstructing anyone from practising any religion or belief outside of the school.
Look, this is going nowhere. You think the government is free to restrict my rights if they think that way they are going to protect me. I think the government should protect me, period. If they want equal treatment, that's what they should enforce. But to me it seems what they want is equal people, everyone with the same idea - that, just by coincidence, is the idea the goverment itself supports - about religion.

You'll just have to suffer that badly with the lack of the upside down thing.
Irony? Sarcasm? You're not related to some Vetinary guy, are you? ;)

See the response as a mix of all things related to subjects in general.

what bothers me is the arguments about "religious freedom" being used to advocate the rights of the wearers of certain religious paraphenalia, as though religious beliefs were somehow more important than other beliefs. if i want to wear a head scarf because of my secular belief that it keeps out cosmic rays, nobody (except the ACLU) is going to waste time defending my right to do that if it is against school dress code, but as soon as i tell people GOD wants me to wear the head scarf it becomes this massive process.

never mind that secular beliefs are just as important and strong as religious ones. never mind that we are supposed to treat ALL beliefs as equal under the law, whether or not they have God in the subject line. never mind that the theory of non-theocratic rule is that religious orientation is not a free pass for any and all behavior.

personally i think all kids should be able to wear whatever they want to school, with no limitations. if they want to go naked, fine. if they want to wear Hitler t-shirts, fine. if they want to wear head scarves, fine. as long as the article of clothing doesn't have flashing lights or make noise (since those would directly interfere with learning), or at least as long as those effects could be shut off during class, i don't see any reason to limit clothing.

however, i think "religious freedom" is irrelevant to this issue; the reason WHY somebody wants to wear something shouldn't impact the exercise of their freedom to do so. i don't care if you think God told you to wear it, because to me that is like you saying Santa told you to wear it.

Look, this is going nowhere. You think the government is free to restrict my rights if they think that way they are going to protect me. I think the government should protect me, period. If they want equal treatment, that's what they should enforce. But to me it seems what they want is equal people, everyone with the same idea - that, just by coincidence, is the idea the goverment itself supports - about religion.

Yes, I know it's unlikely that we shall ever agree !!

You also have to view it in the French context, the French are very proud of their secular system of government.

You also have to see it in a wider European context, we tend to be far more willing to have the authorities taking sensible moves to foster social equality than the Americans and British tend to do.

France believes this is right for its country, as do the majority of the French in opinion polls. We must respect this. Of course, that doesn't mean it would be right for USA or other countries, but France believes it is right for it. I suppose you the USA could always do another regime change ;) !

Yes, I know it's unlikely that we shall ever agree !!

You also have to view it in the French context, the French are very proud of their secular system of government.

You also have to see it in a wider European context, we tend to be far more willing to have the authorities taking sensible moves to foster social equality than the Americans and British tend to do.

France believes this is right for its country, as do the majority of the French in opinion polls. We must respect this. Of course, that doesn't mean it would be right for USA or other countries, but France believes it is right for it. I suppose you the USA could always do another regime change ;) !
Ehm... I'm from Spain. Just FYI ;)

the reason WHY somebody wants to wear something shouldn't impact the exercise of their freedom to do so. i don't care if you think God told you to wear it, because to me that is like you saying Santa told you to wear it.
Amen to that... errr... well, maybe 'amen' is not the right word to use in this context... :)

Or the government there is full of bigoted bastards who think all Muslims must be terrorists.

The law is not aimed at Muslims. The law forbids conspicuous religious signs or apparel in public schools, including Jewish skull caps and large Christian crosses. I think most of the people posting on this have no idea what they are talking about.

The law is not aimed at Muslims. The law forbids conspicuous religious signs or apparel in public schools, including Jewish skull caps and large Christian crosses. I think most of the people posting on this have no idea what they are talking about.
I´m not a great fan of France at all. I dislike their gaullist foreign policy they conduct since the 1960s.
But in that respect I think that France is right. Turkey by the way has simular laws. So is Turkey, a country which is 99% muslim, a muslim-hating country?
They are good reasons for that law. Better a secularized country than one full of lunatic religious fanatics like in other parts of the islamic world. I applaude Turkey and I congratulate France for that law. I have great sympathy for it.

It's pretty interesting to read all the more or less ignorant positions on this issue. France is a secular state. That's all. And even the muslim groups in France have now accepted the new law, there have been only 70 (!) cases in all of France where girls came to school with their headscarfs. If children go to a state school together, they should all be treated equally and they should live together with respect of each other. Too prominent religious signs like headscarfs or kipas or oversized crosses always create a certain distance between people, because it signalizes the values that stand behind those three great religions that bow to Yahweh, and one of the center pieces of those three religions is the devaluation and even demonization of those, who do not share their religion. A secular state cannot in its school allow such symbols of human discrimination.

Look, this is going nowhere. You think the government is free to restrict my rights if they think that way they are going to protect me. I think the government should protect me, period. If they want equal treatment, that's what they should enforce. But to me it seems what they want is equal people, everyone with the same idea - that, just by coincidence, is the idea the goverment itself supports - about religion.
This law is valid for public schools. And public schools shouldn´t be affiliated with any religion. If people have a problem with it: fine. They can sent their children on private schools. France has actually a lot of catholic schools. The muslim community can found theirs - of course under state supervision to enshure that they don´t preach hatred. And in those schools they could wear the scarf as much as they like. But this is not the case in state schools. And it is the same with other religious symbols. That is what the law is all about.

So in fact they are being brain-washed by the government so that they don't choose a religion, because the goverment thinks that's good. That's just so great.

Mind you, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any religion. It's just I think everyone has a right to believe in what they want, as long as they don't bother me trying to convert. It's a personal choice. Who's the government to decide whether religion is good or bad for me?

And why whould a secular democracy be wanted? I understand, and I fully support, the idea of a secular government. By that I mean no church should have a say in how the government rules the country, no church should get public funds. But it should work the other way around, too.
The government as well as the majority of the population.
Science is experimented, whereas religion is some wild guess in the dark (sometimes it has not even anything to do with something percieved, just some weird concepts that are perpetuated out of stupidity).
Pupils do not have a right to vote before 18 because we suppose they don't know enough about politics. They should first learn and then make a judgement. We can't have a democracy if the people don't know what politics is about.
Every pupil should have a common education where they learn the basics of politics, science how to write and how to count, how to talk as well. This free of religious brain-washing. Then when they are old enough and when they know, they can choose a religion out of the religions they know and have learnt and they can choose politics.
Democracy needs education, real education not some weird propaganda.

This law is valid for public schools. And public schools shouldn´t be affiliated with any religion.
Fine by me, up until now. It's just I feel you and me do not mean the same thing when we say public schools must not be affiliated to any religion...

If people have a problem with it: fine. They can sent their children on private schools.
You are assuming every muslim/jew/catholic/whatever can afford paying for a private scholl. That might not be the case.

France has actually a lot of catholic schools. The muslim community can found theirs - of course under state supervision to enshure that they don´t preach hatred. And in those schools they could wear the scarf as much as they like.
Agreed. But I still don't see why shouldn't they wear scarfs/whatever in public schools. As long as noone forces anyone else to wear a scarf... as long as the school itself does not have a cross/crescent/jewish star adornment... as long as you just go and learn things as any other pupil in the classroom.

But this is not the case in state schools. And it is the same with other religious symbols. That is what the law is all about.
And that is what I don't agree with. But I guess it's just my oppinion.

yeah they dont want to ofend anyone they dont want groups first you are french then you are french and finally french all religous symbols were banned but personally the french have treated the Muslims fair so far why would you want to rock the boat if frande supported the U.S. in iraq it might change things a bit

You are assuming every muslim/jew/catholic/whatever can afford paying for a private scholl. That might not be the case.There are free private muslim schools (although those should not exist in my opinion, or at least not replace the public ones).

The government as well as the majority of the population.
I can't say you're wrong, so I'll assume you're right.

Science is experimented, whereas religion is some wild guess in the dark (sometimes it has not even anything to do with something percieved, just some weird concepts that are perpetuated out of stupidity).
As if I didn't know... I'm an atheist, didn't you read my previous post? Even if you quoted it? Tsk, tsk... :rolleyes:

Pupils do not have a right to vote before 18 because we suppose they don't know enough about politics. They should first learn and then make a judgement. We can't have a democracy if the people don't know what politics is about.
You know... theoretically, I should agree. Pity that most of us (including me, of course) do not know a word about politics, and anyway have the right to vote just because we are older than 18.

Every pupil should have a common education where they learn the basics of politics, science how to write and how to count, how to talk as well. This free of religious brain-washing.
Fully agreed and supported.

Then when they are old enough and when they know, they can choose a religion out of the religions they know and have learnt and they can choose politics.
I'm afraid you're mixing things. One thing is not to allow immature people to vote (well, at least I guess that was the goal, but judging maturity just by age..., ok, ok, I'm digressing), and quite another one to say you can't choose a political ideal because you're too young.

There's a reason why people under a certain age shouldn't vote; they are not supposed to be mature enough to decide about the way the country should be ruled. But that has nothing to do with religion. Religion is personal. Noone is affected by my religion, as long as I don't keep bothering people trying to convert them.

Democracy needs education, real education not some weird propaganda.
Right! And that's why I keep telling the school, as an institution, should be free from it! I don't want school preachers! But I don't want school atheist preachers, either.

Just let people be, is it so hard?

The eat pork thing that was posted, What a completely retarded strawman.


and france is a hell of a lot more anti-jewish than anti muslim at the mass level of populace.

There are free private muslim schools (although those should not exist in my opinion, or at least not replace the public ones).
Didn't know that. I agree they should not replace the public schools, nor receive funds from the government... but I don't see why some Muslim philantropist should not give free education to muslim children, if he wants to.

That suerly leads to the question, why muslim girls wear headscrafs at all. Because they decide to do so out of free will or because their parents, namely their fathers, tell them to do so? Is the headsccarf an expression of one's own belief or is it a symbol for the spiritual oppression by others?

And it was Iraq's right to take away the rights of their citizens too? How about Sudan?

Now I really don't think the war in Iraq had anything about protecting the Iraqui citizens. If so, it would have been wiser to do it ten years ago. So it comes donw to one thing, petrol. Do you see the US make any move to protect the sudani people ? No and there will be none. ask yourself why.

I do not agree with the idea of a law, and I was myself as a french living abroad shocked when I learned about this law. But I also know that there were serious threats to the security in the schools and something had to be done.

Before watching what your neighboor is doing, I think you should watch your doorsteps, I saw a very interesting movie, as a defender of freedom and people's right, I'm sure you saw it too, it's called Bowling for Columbine.

Another problem with headscart (in school or not) is that it is a now seen as a symbol of oppression against the women. If the integrist have their way, it will relegate muslim women to second-class citizen. France, as a whole, doesn't want that.

The eat pork thing that was posted, What a completely retarded strawman.


and france is a hell of a lot more anti-jewish than anti muslim at the mass level of populace.

How do you know that ? Do you live in france ? Or do you watch constently the same news channel with the same biased subjects ? I saw one about french jewish moving to israel because they felt unsecure in france, and supposedly this was a growing case. That's just the same bullshit as when we've been told there were WOMD in Iraq, just another way to put discredit onto the country that fought against a war that proved foolish.

Fine by me, up until now. It's just I feel you and me do not mean the same thing when we say public schools must not be affiliated to any religion....
Probably not.


You are assuming every muslim/jew/catholic/whatever can afford paying for a private scholl. That might not be the case.....
I don´t know the regulations in France. In Germany for exapmple private schools need to be registered. And if they fulfill certain criteria they get 75% or even 87,5% of the money per student a public school gets. I would favour to say: they should get 100% and people should freely chose a school (like in the Netherlands). The fees are actually not very high and many private schools are actually over reduction for parents with a lower income or even give it for free if the parents prove that they have a very low income.
But again: I don´t know how France is handling this issue. But given the fact that many people in France are sending their people to church schools I assume that they actually get some money per student from the state as well.


Agreed. But I still don't see why shouldn't they wear scarfs/whatever in public schools. As long as noone forces anyone else to wear a scarf... as long as the school itself does not have a cross/crescent/jewish star adornment... as long as you just go and learn things as any other pupil in the classroom..
Would you favour a ban of crosses in class rooms or on teachers? Would you favour a ban of the scarf for teachers, then?

Ehm... I'm from Spain. Just FYI ;)

Oh, apologies! I made an assumption. Sorry!

Would you favour a ban of crosses in class rooms or on teachers? Would you favour a ban of the scarf for teachers, then?
You got me there. On classrooms, sure. On teachers... hm, tricky question. I'd say as long the teacher -on a public school, I mean- does not preach, I wouldn't see the need for the ban.

BTW some German states have made laws forbidding teachers to wear headscrafs.

Oh, apologies! I made an assumption. Sorry!
No worries. Didn't hurt at all :p

What's wrong with bowing to Satan?
US students have to pledge to a f***ing flag every day anyway, so it wouldn't be that different. :rolleyes:

Just let people be, is it so hard?
If you just let the people be they stay uneducated and they finally die out of virus or eaten by the wolves.
There is mandatory medicine and health care for pupils and there is ban on sects for pupils and this is a good thing.

The eat pork thing that was posted, What a completely retarded strawman.


and france is a hell of a lot more anti-jewish than anti muslim at the mass level of populace.
At least France didn't elect a white evangelical leader who is so close minded that he can allow torture in his American led prisons against Muslims. :sniper: Also, there is a hell of a lot more anti-Semitism in America than there is in France. There are more hate groups, and more hate filled people.

Didn't know that. I agree they should not replace the public schools, nor receive funds from the government... but I don't see why some Muslim philantropist should not give free education to muslim children, if he wants to.
In addition to the public one ok but not in replacement.

If you just let the people be they stay uneducated and they finally die out of virus or eaten by the wolves.
There is mandatory medicine and health care for pupils and there is ban on sects for pupils and this is a good thing.
What does that have to do with people chosing their own religion, though? :rolleyes:

In addition to the public one ok but not in replacement.
We agree on something, finally! And it didn't hurt! At least, not me... :)

So would a white power christian, be allowed to wear religious clothing with swastica's racial slurs etc in an american school?

Thought not.


Frances banning of religious clothing is an excellent step forward to a more progressive society with equaility for all. There should be no religious exceptions made to rules that exit. The school has a dress code, its ok to bypass it, if its in your religion to wear something, bullshit pure and simple. Its a case of people wanting special treatment.

By making this ruling france is standing out as a champion of liberty.

;) Wow. FINALLY somebody on this forum actually has a brain. Could not agree with you more, pal.

Public schools, as their name implies should be secular.
If parents desire to have kids learn religion , send them to a catholic(or whatever else) / private school.

What does that have to do with people chosing their own religion, though? :rolleyes:
When they are in school they are pupils, not jews, christians or muslims or satanists or whatever. They should learn about science. They should learn it with their mind free of religious pressure.
Pupils are easily influenced, you know?

At least France didn't elect a white evangelical leader who is so close minded that he can allow torture in his American led prisons against Muslims. :sniper: Also, there is a hell of a lot more anti-Semitism in America than there is in France. There are more hate groups, and more hate filled people.
Indeed

Does anyone know enough about Islam to tell me what particular passage in the Quran makes headscarfs a religious requirement?

Public schools, as their name implies should be secular.
If parents desire to have kids learn religion , send them to a catholic(or whatever else) / private school.

When they are in school they are pupils, not jews, christians or muslims or satanists or whatever. They should learn about science. They should learn it with their mind free of religious pressure.
Why must I repeat I agree with that? There should be no religion teaching/preaching in public schools! But that doesn't mean pupils must be forced to wear an uniform, does it? That doesn't mean pupils should quit believing whatever they believe as soon as they enter the clasroom!

Does anyone know enough about Islam to tell me what particular passage in the Quran makes headscarfs a religious requirement?
Not that I'm an expert, but as far as I know, none.

Does anyone know enough about Islam to tell me what particular passage in the Quran makes headscarfs a religious requirement?
Sura 24:31
Sura 24:60
Sure 33:59
but also most important
Sure 2:256

:D

Not that I'm an expert, but as far as I know, none.

Sura 24:31
Sura 24:60
Sure 33:59
but also most important
Sure 2:256
Ehm... I'm glad I did say I was not an expert... :)

Why must I repeat I agree with that? There should be no religion teaching/preaching in public schools! But that doesn't mean pupils must be forced to wear an uniform, does it? That doesn't mean pupils should quit believing whatever they believe as soon as they enter the clasroom!
If what they believe is in conflict with what they learn, they should stop believing it, but that's another matter.
Yes it does mean pupils should be forced to wear an uniform, because they are influenced by their wearings. It doesn't matter if this uniform is blue or red or green. It does matter if this uniform is influencing ('austentating' as put in the law)

having grown up in a very catholic country and then a secular one, i think that religion should be kept separate from state schooling.
but the transition is never easy.

Ehm... I'm glad I did say I was not an expert... :)
:D Well, all those chapters make recommendations, but like anything else in Islam, headscarfs are not required.

If what they believe is in conflict with what they learn, they should stop believing it, but that's another matter.
Yes it does mean pupils should be forced to wear an uniform, because they are influenced by their wearings. It doesn't matter if this uniform is blue or red or green. It does matter if this uniform is influencing ('austentating' as put in the law)
Look, I grown in a Catholic country. Well, now it's supposed to be secular, but that's a blatant lie - they still teach Catholic Religion in public schools.

It was rather weird learning about evolution and suddenly change topic and hear about how God created the Earth and so and so. I made my choice, and I'm an atheist.

My point is, if what they believe is in conflict with what they learn, sooner or later they will decide which way fits their mind. As I did, even if I was under a heavy catholic influence.

I'm not for teaching religion in public schools, not just because I don't believe in any religion, but because it would be a discrimination. Against those people that, like me, are atheists, and against those people who follow some minoritary creed no public school would teach.

But there are such thing as tolerance, and this, IMO, is the most important thing a school can teach. If your perception is that everybody is the same, you won't learn to respect difference. If your perception is that, even if there are people out there thinking different than you, they have all the same rights you have, and they are treated the same way you are, then you will learn respect for other people's ways of thinking, for other people's beliefs, for other people's likings...

But then again, it's just my opinion.

You got me there. On classrooms, sure. On teachers... hm, tricky question. I'd say as long the teacher -on a public school, I mean- does not preach, I wouldn't see the need for the ban.
That is currently a discussion in Germany.
I mean we usually don´t have cases where there are teachers who want to wear a scarf. But there was one Afghan woman who said that she wanted to wear the scarf in school. That was rejected as a violation of the neutrality principle of the state.
She went to court and lost: Finally to the Supreme court which in a way refused to rule on it. It said that the german states (school is a state matter) have to make a legislation on this issue. Afterwards most states have made a ban of the scarf for teachers. Mostly conservative-liberal ruled states passed such laws - but interestingly also the socialist-communits state of Berlin.
I think those decision are right. I don´t see a difference between a cross on the wall of the classroom and a headscarf on the teacher. The cross by the way doesn´t preach either but it stands for a certain religion; and the headscarf is not just a form of clothing: it does stand for a certain religion either. I think it is inapropiate if a teacher directly or indirectly (via clothing) may influence pupils in their religious faith.
Actually if it is not just on the wall but on the teacher that is in my view even more a violation of the religious neutrality of public schools.
The supreme court actually ruled against a bavarian law which mandated in certain schools crosses on the classroom. They didn´t like that verdict. But if today one objects to the cross it has to be put down and in most areas it was put down. I would favour if the state of Bavaria does it everywhere. It is after all the only german state who had such a law after all.
I´m actually a bit disapointed that the Supreme court ran away from making a clear decision about the scarf. But it gave this issue back to the state or rather for every of the 16 states to decide. I think that all arguments speak for a ban of the scarf on teachers and I´m glad that my state - Hesse - has passed a law in that respect.

:D Well, all those chapters make recommendations, but like anything else in Islam, headscarfs are not required.
As far as I know Islam demands woman not to show their atractivness. But it doesn´t say how this ought to be done. As a matter of fact there are many different forms of scarfs. Many muslims women don´t wear a scarf at all (especially it is very unusally that children wear a scarf: they don´t have a sexual atraction after all. It is a very rude or even fundamentalists interpretation of Islam that young girls should wear a scarf actually).
They are scarfs who just cover the hair, some the entire faces except the eyes or even everything of the body - like the Burqa in Afghanistan. Should we allow all that? Freedom for the burqa?
And if not: Why have we the right to decide that this scarf is ok and the other isn´t?
So, isn´t it logical to ban the scarf and other religious symbols in public schools alltogether?

That is currently a discussion in Germany.
I mean we usually don´t have cases where there are teachers who want to wear a scarf. But there was one Afghan woman who said that she wanted to wear the scarf in school. That was rejected as a violation of the neutrality principle of the state.
She went to court and lost: Finally to the Supreme court which in a way refused to rule on it. It said that the german states (school is a state matter) have to make a legislation on this issue. Afterwards most states have made a ban of the scarf for teachers. Mostly conservative-liberal ruled states passed such laws - but interestingly also the socialist-communits state of Berlin.
I think those decision are right. I don´t see a difference between a cross on the wall of the classroom and a headscarf on the teacher. The cross by the way doesn´t preach either but it stands for a certain religion; and the headscarf is not just a form of clothing: it does stand for a certain religion either. I think it is inapropiate if a teacher directly or indirectly (via clothing) may influence pupils in their religious faith.
Actually if it is not just on the wall but on the teacher that is in my view even more a violation of the religious neutrality of public schools.
The supreme court actually ruled against a bavarian law which mandated in certain schools crosses on the classroom. They didn´t like that verdict. But if today one objects to the cross it has to be put down and in most areas it was put down. I would favour if the state of Bavaria does it everywhere. It is after all the only german state who had such a law after all.
I´m actually a bit disapointed that the Supreme court ran away from making a clear decision about the scarf. But it gave this issue back to the state or rather for every of the 16 states to decide. I think that all arguments speak for a ban of the scarf on teachers and I´m glad that my state - Hesse - has passed a law in that respect.
In fact, you are wrong. The German Supreme Constitutional Court did NOT rule against crosses, instead it ruled, that crucifixes (i.e. a cross with the dead body of Yeshua attached to it) must be removed from a classroom if a pupil or his/her parents demand it.

Look, I grown in a Catholic country. Well, now it's supposed to be secular, but that's a blatant lie - they still teach Catholic Religion in public schools.

It was rather weird learning about evolution and suddenly change topic and hear about how God created the Earth and so and so. I made my choice, and I'm an atheist.

My point is, if what they believe is in conflict with what they learn, sooner or later they will decide which way fits their mind. As I did, even if I was under a heavy catholic influence.

I'm not for teaching religion in public schools, not just because I don't believe in any religion, but because it would be a discrimination. Against those people that, like me, are atheists, and against those people who follow some minoritary creed no public school would teach.

But there are such thing as tolerance, and this, IMO, is the most important thing a school can teach. If your perception is that everybody is the same, you won't learn to respect difference. If your perception is that, even if there are people out there thinking different than you, they have all the same rights you have, and they are treated the same way you are, then you will learn respect for other people's ways of thinking, for other people's beliefs, for other people's likings...

But then again, it's just my opinion.
I agree they should learn tolerance and that is why I think they should not wear an obvious religous symbol.

That is currently a discussion in Germany.
I mean we usually don´t have cases where there are teachers who want to wear a scarf. But there was one Afghan woman who said that she wanted to wear the scarf in school. That was rejected as a violation of the neutrality principle of the state.
She went to court and lost: Finally to the Supreme court which in a way refused to rule on it. It said that the german states (school is a state matter) have to make a legislation on this issue. Afterwards most states have made a ban of the scarf for teachers. Mostly conservative-liberal ruled states passed such laws - but interestingly also the socialist-communits state of Berlin.
I think those decision are right. I don´t see a difference between a cross on the wall of the classroom and a headscarf on the teacher. The cross by the way doesn´t preach either but it stands for a certain religion; and the headscarf is not just a form of clothing: it does stand for a certain religion either. I think it is inapropiate if a teacher directly or indirectly (via clothing) may influence pupils in their religious faith.
Actually if it is not just on the wall but on the teacher that is in my view even more a violation of the religious neutrality of public schools.
The supreme court actually ruled against a bavarian law which mandated in certain schools crosses on the classroom. They didn´t like that verdict. But if today one objects to the cross it has to be put down and in most areas it was put down. I would favour if the state of Bavaria does it everywhere. It is after all the only german state who had such a law after all.
I´m actually a bit disapointed that the Supreme court ran away from making a clear decision about the scarf. But it gave this issue back to the state or rather for every of the 16 states to decide. I think that all arguments speak for a ban of the scarf on teachers and I´m glad that my state - Hesse - has passed a law in that respect.
Well, as I told you, I've got a bit of a conflict there. So somehow I can understand German's Supreme court... ;)

Anyway, my only objection to that is that religion is a personal choice. As is dressing, by the way, so I don't know why that teacher didn't just say she has a right to dress the way she wanted, as long as she was decently dressed... but that's a different thing.

Schools, or rather public schools, are an institution. Institutions, at least public ones, should not have religious influence. Mainly because the government rules over every single person in the country, and should not favour (sp?) the ones with a particular belief.

Teachers are individuals (duh!), so they can choose a religion. It's their choice. Noone should make them change that. But of course they should be 'monitored' in order to avoid preaching in the classroom.

Anyway, I still can't make my mind about the topic... you know, I work for a company that requires me to wear a suit & tie, and I don't like that... but I've got the choice to quit this job and find another one without 'dress code'... so yep, I'm a bit in a messy situation here ;)

I agree they should learn tolerance and that is why I think they should not wear an obvious religous symbol.
But how would that be tolerance? If anything, the child will think the government is intolerant because it forces me to dress the way they want!

In fact, you are wrong. The German Supreme Constitutional Court did NOT rule against crosses, instead it ruled, that crucifixes (i.e. a cross with the dead body of Yeshua attached to it) must be removed from a classroom if a pupil or his/her parents demand it.
The supreme court ruled against the crucifix. It would be interested to research the exact wording. The state of Bavaria didn´t like the verdict and interpreted it that way that it meant that the crucifix has only to be put down if one pupil/student (or its parents) demand it.
And thats the way Bavaria changed its law in that respect.
I see that as a half solution by the way. It would be consequent to put them down everywhere.
Especially in our times there should a consequent policy in respect to the seperation of state and religion. I criticize the state of Bavaria for its policy in that respect.

But how would that be tolerance? If anything, the child will think the government is intolerant because it forces me to dress the way they want!
This is not about teaching to the government to be tolerant. This is about teaching it to the pupils.

This is not about teaching to the government to be tolerant. This is about teaching it to the pupils.
I know, I know... but this government action can be perceived as intolerance against those who want to dress according to their beliefs. So it's not the best way to teach tolerance to pupils, IMO...

Equality doesn't mean making everyone equal. That's communism or far left. Equality is giving everyone voluntary schooling, welfare services and the right to vote no matter race or religion.

And stop calling other people names just because they disagree with you, please.

Personally, I'm all for it - IMO, true equality can only come when all people are treated as Human Beings - nothing more, nothing less. By making or allowing exceptions for special interest groups (even vast, established ones, such as Religion), you move away from equality. As soon as people acknowledge that we all are human FIRST, and anything else, a distant second, then things will improve.

Why does Bavaria have to conform with the rest of Germany? It's not like they're going to start a civil war or something...

I know, I know... but this government action can be perceived as intolerance against those who want to dress according to their beliefs. So it's not the best way to teach tolerance to pupils, IMO...
IMO pupils are already tolerant to religion if they want to wear religious clothes. They should then learn to tolerate secularity.

IMO pupils are already tolerant to religion if they want to wear religious clothes. They should then learn to tolerate secularity.
Touché. But then again, what about tolerance to other religions?

Personally, I'm all for it - IMO, true equality can only come when all people are treated as Human Beings - nothing more, nothing less. By making or allowing exceptions for special interest groups (even vast, established ones, such as Religion), you move away from equality. As soon as people acknowledge that we all are human FIRST, and anything else, a distant second, then things will improve.

School uniform.
If one can wear nothing but the school uniform then the person will be nothing but a student. Is that good?

Touché. But then again, what about tolerance to other religions?
This should be teached as well, but not at the risk of having the pupil contaminated by it.

School uniform.
If one can wear nothing but the school uniform then the person will be nothing but a student. Is that good?
It's good, although not necessary.

IMO pupils are already tolerant to religion if they want to wear religious clothes. They should then learn to tolerate secularity.

Being told not to wear your identity would be told to BE secular. You seem to think of secularism as a way of thinking, a belief. If it's a belief then religious people are being forced to accomodate another belief system. If it's not I don't see the point in the first place.

Well, as I told you, I've got a bit of a conflict there. So somehow I can understand German's Supreme court... ;) ;)
The supreme court didn´t say that she has the right to wear it either: it just avoided a decision by stating that the state legislature has to decide about it. At the end people are certainly running to the court again.

Anyway, my only objection to that is that religion is a personal choice. As is dressing, by the way, so I don't know why that teacher didn't just say she has a right to dress the way she wanted, as long as she was decently dressed... but that's a different thing.
Schools, or rather public schools, are an institution. Institutions, at least public ones, should not have religious influence. Mainly because the government rules over every single person in the country, and should not favour (sp?) the ones with a particular belief.
Teachers are individuals (duh!), so they can choose a religion. It's their choice. Noone should make them change that. But of course they should be 'monitored' in order to avoid preaching in the classroom.;)
But teachers are also in a position of responsibility towards their students. So, they should not directly or indirectly influence them for the sake of a certain religion. And that is and argument for the ban of the scarf on teachers - and also of big crosses or other religious symbols which people may wear by the way.
What people are doing privately is their thing, but when they are employed by the states they have to play by the rules and principles of that state.

Anyway, I still can't make my mind about the topic... you know, I work for a company that requires me to wear a suit & tie, and I don't like that... but I've got the choice to quit this job and find another one without 'dress code'... so yep, I'm a bit in a messy situation here ;)
Your employer has the interests that his company appears in a certain manner. Sometimes companies have a specific dress code with the company logo on it or something.
That is of course designed to create a certain image of the company, also to make the company visible to the public.
And that is a right of the employer which falls in his right of freedom of business.
That is a freedom as well: so too basic rights can clash. And there is no way around: one has to move. But too say that the freedom of religion should stand above all other rights is pretty unreasonable. That is not the case in any constituition of the world. And why should it by the way. They are religions and religious practises who are in violation of basic rights, like female genital mutilation for example (there are others as well). Should they be tolerated in order not to "discriminate" against a religion?

This should be teached as well, but not at the risk of having the pupil contaminated by it.
Agreed!

Psylos, it's been a pleasure to debate with you, but now I've got to go. I'll be back in more than a week... I look forward for further debating! ;)

The supreme court ruled against the crucifix. It would be interested to research the exact wording. The state of Bavaria didn´t like the verdict and interpreted it that way that it meant that the crucifix has only to be put down if one pupil/student (or its parents) demand it.
And thats the way Bavaria changed its law in that respect.
I see that as a half solution by the way. It would be consequent to put them down everywhere.
Especially in our times there should a consequent policy in respect to the seperation of state and religion. I criticize the state of Bavaria for its policy in that respect.Why? If no one objects to the crucifix, it's ok to have it on the wall.
The entire case was about a girl's parents' argument, that showing a dead body on a wooden cross is something that a small girl can impossibly understand and bring into any relation with the theology behind that image.
The court ruled also, that the a Bavarian law demanding crosses and crucifixes was unconstitutional.

Being told not to wear your identity would be told to BE secular. You seem to think of secularism as a way of thinking, a belief. If it's a belief then religious people are being forced to accomodate another belief system. If it's not I don't see the point in the first place.Secularity is a way of thinking.

Agreed!

Psylos, it's been a pleasure to debate with you, but now I've got to go. I'll be back in more than a week... I look forward for further debating! ;)It was my pleasure. I hope we can continue this later.

I know, I know... but this government action can be perceived as intolerance against those who want to dress according to their beliefs. So it's not the best way to teach tolerance to pupils, IMO...
How far is a seven-year old girl able to make this decision herself? It are the parents who do it.
And quite frankly spoken: why should they have the right to do it and to push the children in a direction on an age where they are simply not capable of making such a decision themself based on their free will?

I've just find it funny how they have managed to make something that traditionally symbolises the repression of women into an object that sybolises defience and liberty of religion.

Well I got to go soon.

Headscarfs might be used by muslim parents to enforce that the girls keep their muslim identity, but I don't see how religious symbols in general can harm anyone. Given, it's a different matter if the religious children bother each other about it, but forcing someone to wear this and that is infringing on their freedom.
I'd rather be expelled from school then told not to pray while I'm in it.

I've just find it funny how they have managed to make something that traditionally symbolises the repression of women into an object that sybolises defience and liberty of religion.

The French government tried to force it off... Empathy goes to the poor muslim girls who aren't allowed to be good girls. (Some of them do want to wear the head-scarves even if it's a symbol of having to be promiscous.) This is not a battle the French goverment can win by enforcing laws.

Why? If no one objects to the crucifix, it's ok to have it on the wall.
The entire case was about a girl's parents' argument, that showing a dead body on a wooden cross is something that a small girl can impossibly understand and bring into any relation with the theology behind that image.
The court ruled also, that the a Bavarian law demanding crosses and crucifixes was unconstitutional.
You are actually hitting the point: The Supreme court declared the law demanding the crucifix unconstituitional: and Bavaria which first wanted to defy the verdict - which of course doesn´t work, they are part of the Federal Republic and have to obey the law and rulings of the Supreme court as well - looked for a way still to keep the cross without being in defiance with the verdict. And the "solution" was to say: if no one objects it can remain.
Such a solution works in a society that is 90% or 95% christian or christian-catholic, but not in a society that - regardless whether we like it or not - more and more loses its religious bindings. Membership in churches are dropping and other religions are growing. That are the facts. Well, not so much in Bavaria but every where else in the country.
So, the assumption that an overwhelming majority of people are faithful christians is wrong. And the rules and laws of the state should take that into account. They do that actually - however Bavaria is lacking behind in that respect. That is my view on the matter.

I've just find it funny how they have managed to make something that traditionally symbolises the repression of women into an object that sybolises defience and liberty of religion.
The question is whether this is not merely propaganda and a flagrant turn-around of the facts. Or do you think that seven or eight year old girls are moving only on their own motivation and not out of the motivitation of their parents and of their rigid and (often) intolerant interpretation of Islam.

The French government tried to force it off... Empathy goes to the poor muslim girls who aren't allowed to be good girls. (Some of them do want to wear the head-scarves even if it's a symbol of having to be promiscous.) This is not a battle the French goverment can win by enforcing laws.
They don't know if that's what they want. They are not mature enough to know such things. They just know their parents told them that and they also like to defy the law like any other young pupil.

This if off topic, and may have already been answered, but I'm bored and too tired to go off on this 'reading' stuff.

The pentagram is not a Satanic symbol - I'm pretty sure it dates back to Greek times, however the RCC conducted a smear campaign against it so that it would be considered so

The five pointed star in a circle is older and more widely spread than just greece. In mystic circles it is reffered to as "The Star of Solomon" as often as anything else. The five points represent the 'five elements' of the occult, usually Air, Earth, Water, Fire, and Void or Spirit (or blood, or quintessence, etc).

I thought Satanists use them, the one with 2 points up?

Yes some satanists, as well as some jews, wiccans, celts, druids, greco-roman pantheists, and many followers of other occult practices use them. It's a very common sybol, much the same way that a cross is.

Geeezzz... What am I doing here?
Christians, Falun Gong and Buddhists are dying like flies in China, persecuted by the government for being a "potential threat" to the Party while most of them are actually patriotic!

Meanwhile we fight for scarves and crucifixes, both of which are dubious religious symbols to be worn and hung around school.

They don't know if that's what they want. They are not mature enough to know such things. They just know their parents told them that and they also like to defy the law like any other young pupil.
Mmmm... reminds me of my political view when I was younger. Still, I don't think the French government should make the children defy their parents if they don't want it themselves. Bye, btw. ;) cya all around later maybe

Geeezzz... What am I doing here?
Christians, Falun Gong and Buddhists are dying like flies in China, persecuted by the government for being a "potential threat" to the Party while most of them are actually patriotic!In palestine and Iraq as well, unfortunately.

Mmmm... reminds me of my political view when I was younger. Still, I don't think the French government should make the children defy their parents if they don't want it themselves. Bye, btw. ;) cya all around later maybe
Was a pleasure. c ya. :-)

Some very interesting points have been made. So I see one question that have been rised but not formulated : what is exactly tolerance ? Ok, it is basically to accept the other's difference. BUT as some have stated, we could also add that tolerance is to not offend the other. That includes for example the fact of wearing clothes or saying things that would offend the other. After all, it is as much a mark of respect to accept what people wear than to accept yourself not to wear clothes that could offend the other's beliefs.

And that is one of the main reasons of this law after all, teachers complained about the lack of respect shown by some pupils. As they were wearing their scarf even when attending a class, so that the teacher could sometimes not know if the pupil was paying any attention to the class at all.

Another funny point is the following : most of you must be aware of the fact that when you take the american nationality, you are required to vow on the holy bible. I personally consider this much more against the freedom of religion than the law in france. If I was jewish, muslim, catholic or buddhist or whatever is not protestant, I'm not sure i'd take that in a nice way. fortunately, I'm atheist, so I'd be required to vow on something I don't believe in (god) which after all will be the same as if I hadn't vowed at all... :D

Some very interesting points have been made. So I see one question that have been rised but not formulated : what is exactly tolerance ? Ok, it is basically to accept the other's difference. BUT as some have stated, we could also add that tolerance is to not offend the other. That includes for example the fact of wearing clothes or saying things that would offend the other. After all, it is as much a mark of respect to accept what people wear than to accept yourself not to wear clothes that could offend the other's beliefs.

And that is one of the main reasons of this law after all, teachers complained about the lack of respect shown by some pupils. As they were wearing their scarf even when attending a class, so that the teacher could sometimes not know if the pupil was paying any attention to the class at all.

Another funny point is the following : most of you must be aware of the fact that when you take the american nationality, you are required to vow on the holy bible. I personally consider this much more against the freedom of religion than the law in france. If I was jewish, muslim, catholic or buddhist or whatever is not protestant, I'm not sure i'd take that in a nice way. fortunately, I'm atheist, so I'd be required to vow on something I don't believe in (god) which after all will be the same as if I hadn't vowed at all... :D
Well, tolerance is the opposite of acceptance.

The question is whether this is not merely propaganda and a flagrant turn-around of the facts. Or do you think that seven or eight year old girls are moving only on their own motivation and not out of the motivitation of their parents and of their rigid and (often) intolerant interpretation of Islam.
I would go for the later. But I do not think that 7 & 8 year olds are the only to flout this rule.

By the way, the kidnappers of the two journalists have abandonned their idea, and this without any casualties. So basically, France won the battle without any gunshot where the americans have ended in a no-end (civil ?) war. To me, this looks like a demonstration of what you should do to Mr .ush (I'm not telling the name of that d***head).

HA :cool:

Well, tolerance is the opposite of acceptance.


What's your point ?

By the way, the kidnappers of the two journalists have abandonned their idea, and this without any casualties. So basically, France won the battle without any gunshot where the americans have ended in a no-end (civil ?) war. To me, this looks like a demonstration of what you should do to Mr .ush (I'm not telling the name of that d***head).

HA :cool:
This is off topic though.

This is off topic though.

Not really, after all the subject is about the "head scarf" law (shouldn't be called this way really) and the terrorists who kidnapped the two journalists wanted this law revocated. This shows how less important is this law against the life of two innocent people, but also the fact that the majority of the muslim community, by supporting the french government, also supported the law in some way, and after all, aren't they the first to complain about it ?

and that's a shame it is (off-topic), yea...

Not really, after all the subject is about the "head scarf" law (shouldn't be called this way really) and the terrorists who kidnapped the two journalists wanted this law revocated. This shows how less important is this law against the life of two innocent people, but also the fact that the majority of the muslim community, by supporting the french government, also supported the law in some way, and after all, aren't they the first to complain about it ?
Actually no. The muslisms are not the first to complain about it. The young pupils are because they like to rebel. And that's not only the muslims ones.

What's your point ?Tolerance means to only endure something without dealing with it. Tolerance does not include understanding, that is why for me the concept of tolerance is not sufficient for the interaction with others.

I can remember reading about a similar situation in Britain, although it occured in a single school, with one pupil objecting to the enforced dress code. The reasons for it were pretty much the same as those cited here, i.e. It's not a religious requirement, kids bully anyone different regardless of rules telling them not to, the headscarf anyway is a way of turning women into second-class citizens.

I thought it was good sense then, so I support the French law now.

here's my question:

the law is being presented as a ban on conspicuous religious parephenalia and garments, but does that include garments that may resemble religious ones but are not worn for religious reasons? what if a Christian student wanted to wear a headscarf to school, just for style? what if a Jewish student felt like wearing a t-shirt that featured a large Christian cross? if the student doesn't view their apparel as religious or wear it for religious reasons, is it still covered by the law?

The law is not a punishment of anybody, so I'm puzzled by that remark.

That's because you can't step out of your own worldview and see things from another angle. To a Muslim girl who wants to wear the head scarf, being without is being exposed - it is like walking outside in your underwear or even naked. These girls are clearly being punished when they are told they either have to go to school essentially naked, or not go at all.

This law is valid for public schools. And public schools shouldn´t be affiliated with any religion.

Banning the free expression of religion by people who do not run the school is the same thing as being affiliated with religion. They are still letting a religion make laws for them, it is just in a reactive fashion.

If people have a problem with it: fine. They can sent their children on private schools. France has actually a lot of catholic schools.

I thought the point of this law was to make sure people interact? You think that will be done by saying Catholics in this school over here, Muslims over there, Jews over there. No mixing because you might offend somebody! Yeah, that's really smart.

The muslim community can found theirs - of course under state supervision to enshure that they don´t preach hatred. And in those schools they could wear the scarf as much as they like. But this is not the case in state schools. And it is the same with other religious symbols. That is what the law is all about.

Taking away religion is just as bad as forcing it on someone. The law, if it refers to secularism, is about not establishing a religion - it is NOT about taking the religion of individuals away.

here's my question:

the law is being presented as a ban on conspicuous religious parephenalia and garments, but does that include garments that may resemble religious ones but are not worn for religious reasons? what if a Christian student wanted to wear a headscarf to school, just for style? what if a Jewish student felt like wearing a t-shirt that featured a large Christian cross? if the student doesn't view their apparel as religious or wear it for religious reasons, is it still covered by the law?
A school uniform would be a solution for that. Britain has school uniforms for example. That has many advantages. For example it enshures that students aren´t so much discriminated against because of poor clothing because they don´t wear brands or something.
I used to be an opponent of that idea, but quite frankly spoken I see more and more arguments for it given the really cruelty that its caused by the brand-terror of our time.

Another funny point is the following : most of you must be aware of the fact that when you take the american nationality, you are required to vow on the holy bible. I personally consider this much more against the freedom of religion than the law in france. If I was jewish, muslim, catholic or buddhist or whatever is not protestant, I'm not sure i'd take that in a nice way.

Last time i checked the Bible was still the holy scripture for the roman catholic, greek orthodox and russian orthodox churches. :D

On the issue of seven or eight year old girls wearing scarves, this is an exemption, even among fundies. It means that they had a very early first period and thus are considered women and not children anymore.

I only got to page 5 so far of this thread, but this Dempublicents quote basically sums up the entire issue:

"Secularism means that the institution itself cannot be religion-based, it should not restrict the religion of the citizens who use that institution"

And to take it one step further, in a free society, it MUST NOT restrict the religion of citizens who use that institution. So far, nobody has brought up Sikhs, maybe there aren't many in France, but there were plenty where I grew up. Their turban is the most important outward symbol of their religion. If you tell them to take it off, they have no choice but to quit school! This law is ludicrous.

That suerly leads to the question, why muslim girls wear headscrafs at all. Because they decide to do so out of free will or because their parents, namely their fathers, tell them to do so? Is the headsccarf an expression of one's own belief or is it a symbol for the spiritual oppression by others?

Those that I have known wore it of their own volition. I don't claim to know about French society, but the girls I have known in the US who wear it do not feel oppressed, they simply have a different idea of what is modest than I do. I would feel really weird if someone forced me to go to school in a white see-through tank top with no bra and a pair of panties because I would feel exposed. A Muslim girl who wears the head scarf feels the same way without it as I would in my underwear.

Taking away religion is just as bad as forcing it on someone. The law, if it refers to secularism, is about not establishing a religion - it is NOT about taking the religion of individuals away.
The students don´t loose their religion if they don´t wear a scarf though. So, what is the problem with it?
There are actually very few people even among muslim who have a problem with this law. It is highly unusally actually that little children wear a scarf. It is a certain (rather intolerant) interpretation of Islam which sees the scarf for children as necessary. By the way: Would you accept the burqa as well?
But if not, who gives you the right to "discriminate" between a scarf and a burqa?
It is logical to make a clear cut. I actually like the French solution (which by the way is the same solution as in Turkey).
And now a last question: How far do you really think seven or eight year old children are acting out of their own initiative? And not rather on the initiative of their parents who force a certain religious lifestyle on then on an age where they are simply not able to make a free decision on their own.

here's my question:

the law is being presented as a ban on conspicuous religious parephenalia and garments, but does that include garments that may resemble religious ones but are not worn for religious reasons? what if a Christian student wanted to wear a headscarf to school, just for style? what if a Jewish student felt like wearing a t-shirt that featured a large Christian cross? if the student doesn't view their apparel as religious or wear it for religious reasons, is it still covered by the law?
It is still covered by the law as it is a religious symbol. One kid might find the cross cool to wear but it still delivers a message. Just like if someone would wear a swatiska (sp?). They might find it a cool design but it is still a slap in the face to some people.

Another thing: Most school have a dress code that states no head garment (be it baseball cap or scarf). So if some kid want to wear it for non-religious purposes, he must obey the dress code.

I dunno, maybe it's because I'm an atheist, but I don't really see this as a problem. It's not singling out one group over the other, but all groups. It also only applies to PUBLIC schools which are funded by tax payers thus a branch of the government. To me I see it as a true separation of church & state. I'm sure they have private schools and Catholic schools and Muslim schools and so on and so forth where these religious symbols are allowed. After all just last year in the States a judge not only had to remove the ten commandments from the court house, he lost his job for refusing to do so. Why? Because it's a PUBLIC building as is a PUBLIC school. Religion and government don't mix!

If what they believe is in conflict with what they learn, they should stop believing it, but that's another matter.

That's an idiotic thing to say. Schools should *teach*, not brainwash.

Myself, I am confused by this whole ban thing. Its meant to be a step toward equality and tolerance and such, but how are we equal if some of us are allowed to say "I dont believe in any God", while others are forbidden from showing they do. how can tolerance be taught if Children are Isolated from other religions?

I myself am still in school, and I have not been forced to wear a cross about my neck, yet i happily do. Not because of having a religous upbringing (which i didnt anyway) but because i believe something and want to show it

It is still covered by the law as it is a religious symbol. One kid might find the cross cool to wear but it still delivers a message. Just like if someone would wear a swatiska (sp?). They might find it a cool design but it is still a slap in the face to some people.

Another thing: Most school have a dress code that states no head garment (be it baseball cap or scarf). So if some kid want to wear it for non-religious purposes, he must obey the dress code.
thanks, i'm simply not familiar with the details of the law, so i wasn't sure how it worked.

I agree they should learn tolerance and that is why I think they should not wear an obvious religous symbol.

In order to learn tolerance, you have to be aware that there are different types of people out there. I have known girls who wear the head scarf. They were very willing to explain (if asked) why they wore it. However, they were also very understanding of the fact that other people would not want to wear it.

The intolerant people here are the ones who either claim to be bothered by it or are trying to ban it. They are the ones not respecting the fact that some people are different from others. Do you really want schools teaching kids to be little automotons who think that everyone is and should be exactly the same?

You can see this ban of ALL religious symbols as an infringement on religious expression. I think it isn't fair to say this is somehow directed against muslims though. This law, written in the beginning of last century, and only now being enforced, was an attempt of curbing the political power of the Catholic Church. Radical secularism, yes - aimed against muslims, no (well, maybe a bit, cos all other religious groups have conformed).

Can't you just see this "scarf ban" as France's latest attempt, however clumsy, to grapple with a problem unparalleled in any other country: How to integrate a large Muslim minority, some of whom are fundamentalist and anti-democratic, into the world's most aggressively secular liberal democracy. France explicitly bans religion from the public sector, including schools. That notion conflicts with Islam, which in its purest form does not recognize a separation between church and state. That makes it all the more difficult for secular France to integrate Europe's largest Muslim population.

I have a proposition for those who feel strongly about keeping their scarfs: they can begin attending Catholic schools, which allow the head scarf.

P.S. I'm all confused! Last week, and the week before that this forum was full of posts about France hating the Jews.... now they supposedly hate the Muslims... baffling. They DO still hate the Americans, right?

I dunno, maybe it's because I'm an atheist, but I don't really see this as a problem. It's not singling out one group over the other, but all groups. It also only applies to PUBLIC schools which are funded by tax payers thus a branch of the government. To me I see it as a true separation of church & state. I'm sure they have private schools and Catholic schools and Muslim schools and so on and so forth where these religious symbols are allowed. After all just last year in the States a judge not only had to remove the ten commandments from the court house, he lost his job for refusing to do so. Why? Because it's a PUBLIC building as is a PUBLIC school. Religion and government don't mix!

I do not agree with this. the goverment may not be one with any church, but does that mean they should discourage all religion (wich is what they seem to be doing here), or not differentiate due to religion?. Should more religous people have to pay money to go to a private school, merely because the goverment a fussing over equality and tolerance. this, to me, does not seem perticuarly tolerant.

Those that I have known wore it of their own volition. I don't claim to know about French society, but the girls I have known in the US who wear it do not feel oppressed, they simply have a different idea of what is modest than I do. I would feel really weird if someone forced me to go to school in a white see-through tank top with no bra and a pair of panties because I would feel exposed. A Muslim girl who wears the head scarf feels the same way without it as I would in my underwear.
Well, in France there is more pressure on women to wear the scarf. It's not a choice made by the women most of the time. Some women are beaten if they don't wear it. That's why the government had to step up and make this law. There was abuse and discrimination.

One question I ask to those who oppose the law: Why should the French government give special rights to wear the scarf when the dress code states no headgear? Bear in mind that the school is strictly non-religious.

Should more religous people have to pay money to go to a private school, merely because the goverment a fussing over equality and tolerance. this, to me, does not seem perticuarly tolerant.

Well couldn't the same argument be made (Since churches are tax exempt) why should I pay taxes to support any church that I don't believe in, or any one for that matter? You know how much government revenue is lost by exempting churches from paying any tax? Why don't they use all that money they save off of the back of the tax payer who makes up for their deficit in not paying any and build some religious schools for their flock? Who they fleece out of about 10% of their incomes every year. When was the last time you got any thing tangible back from the church for all the money they have? I think it's the very least they could do for the faithful.. no?

I do not agree with this. the goverment may not be one with any church, but does that mean they should discourage all religion (wich is what they seem to be doing here), or not differentiate due to religion?. Should more religous people have to pay money to go to a private school, merely because the goverment a fussing over equality and tolerance. this, to me, does not seem perticuarly tolerant.
Some private school are free in France. Even in the one that cost money, about 87% of the cost is paid by the state.

Another thing: why should the government bow to religious pressure when it was founded on a separation of church and state?

The Q'uran (http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html)

The Q'uran (http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html)

Your point?

Do you people realise the only reason why this law was passed and is being enforced was because certain sectors of the Muslim community complained about displays of other religious icons at schools, including private Catholic schools. They demanded that all other religious imagery be taken down, but that it was the fundamental right of Muslims to wear the scarf.
France did the only thing it could do: Ban all religious imagery from the classroom and now the Muslims are complaining saying it's racist that they're not allowed to wear their scarves.
I've got no sympathy for them. What right do they have to demand changes to a country they (mostly) have immigrated to? Would they support me demanding the display of a Crucifix or star of David in a state school in a Muslim country? The thought is laughable.
I'm worried about the hostage situation. I hope the French don't cave in. If they do, what next? Will the Western world have to ring up Arafat or Osama for their thoughts on any domestic issue from then on. It certainly sets a dangerous precedent. I think the Western world needs to take a much harder stance against these kidnappers. Simply tell them they will be hunted down and killed, whatever the cost. I remember a few years back (so can't quiite remember all the facts sorry) athere were a string of Russian kidnappings and the last one was a Rusian diplomat kidnapped with demands made for the release of several prisoners. The Russians sent back either a prisoner or the diplomat of the particular country. In a box. With his dick in his mouth. There weren't any further kidnappings after that.
The French did something similar in the '70s in the Algiers. When the embassy got overrun and the usual demands made, the French simply sealed up the building and flooded the basement where all the kidnappers and hostages were. Unfortunate collateral damage, but kidnapping dropped to zilch after that.
We need more of that. It's the only thing that lot of fanatics will understand.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/02/france.school.ap/index.html

Why don't we start banning praying? Students obviously should not be allowed to pray.

How about not abstaining from pork or beef? Should we force students in public schools to eat pork/beef because it is on the menu?

While we're at it, why don't we start forcing little Christian girls to bow to Satan? If they don't bow to Satan, they can't go to school. That's basically the option they just gave those young Muslim girls.
What in the Hell are you talking about? :confused:

This should be teached as well, but not at the risk of having the pupil contaminated by it.

This is a problem. If you teach a child that they should not be "contaiminated" by relgion, you have just taught that all religious belief is bad. Thus, you have already destroyed your secularity, by placing the viewpoints of one group (athiests) above *everyone* elses.

I've just find it funny how they have managed to make something that traditionally symbolises the repression of women into an object that sybolises defience and liberty of religion.

Forcing a woman to wear it is repression. Not letting a woman who wants to wear it do so is also repression.

Some women go out in tops that cover less than my bra. I think that is fine, since they want to do so. However, I wouldn't do that - because I would feel uncomfortable. A woman who wants to wear the head scarf but is told she cannot feels the same way as I would if someone forced me to wear a revealing top in school.

But teachers are also in a position of responsibility towards their students. So, they should not directly or indirectly influence them for the sake of a certain religion. And that is and argument for the ban of the scarf on teachers - and also of big crosses or other religious symbols which people may wear by the way.
What people are doing privately is their thing, but when they are employed by the states they have to play by the rules and principles of that state.

I understand your argument here, although I disagree with it. After all, do the children only have one teacher their entire life? So maybe an especially impressionable child thinks, "Teacher is a Muslim and wears a pretty scarf - I wanna be just like her!." That same child, the next year with a new teacher might think "Teacher plays basketball a lot and that is fun - I wanna be just like her!" Children need to be exposed to many different viewpoints so that they can later make their own decisions.

However, this is not the issue here. The kids that go to these schools are not "employed by the state." They are there as individuals and should be treated as such. State-run hospitals are also secular, but are they going to ask that you remove all religious symbols before they treat you? State-run transportation systems are secular, but do they ask that you leave your religious symbols at home if you want to ride the bus?

What if you have religious symbols that cannot be removed, such as Henna tatooing, will you be forced to stay home from school for a month until it fades?

They are religions and religious practises who are in violation of basic rights, like female genital mutilation for example (there are others as well). Should they be tolerated in order not to "discriminate" against a religion?

As horrible and disgusting as I find this practice - the thing I find most disgusting is the fact that the woman is often not a willing participant. If the girl is *forced* to be mutilated, it is bad. But if she decides that she wants to have it done, it is her decision.

I understand your argument here, although I disagree with it. After all, do the children only have one teacher their entire life? So maybe an especially impressionable child thinks, "Teacher is a Muslim and wears a pretty scarf - I wanna be just like her!." That same child, the next year with a new teacher might think "Teacher plays basketball a lot and that is fun - I wanna be just like her!" Children need to be exposed to many different viewpoints so that they can later make their own decisions..
I had the same class teacher for eight years for example.
So I do believe that it would make a difference if this teacher would have worn a scarf, a big cross or whatever symbol expressing and advocating strongly one specific religion.



However, this is not the issue here. The kids that go to these schools are not "employed by the state." They are there as individuals and should be treated as such...
Counter-question: Are you against school-uniforms?
Is it a piece of clothing that makes a person individual. I don´t believe that. And I don´t think that it can be assumed that 7 or 8 year-old girls make a decision completly out of themself. It are their parents who are pushing them to wear the scarf. They though that out of a rigid and (mostly) intolerant interpretation of Islam. This law is only affecting a very small amount of people.
I heard about a few dozens or hundred actually.
It is not a common interpretation of Islam which says that children have to wear the scarf.
I can completly understand the French decision to take measures against that. I personally wouldn´t go that far though. I would only ban it for teachers. But that is only the case because my country - Germany - has a different historic tradition. This extreme cut wouldn´t fit to it.
France has a much deeper and stronger seperation between religion and state. I actually like that very much and think that they are doing right.


State-run hospitals are also secular, but are they going to ask that you remove all religious symbols before they treat you? State-run transportation systems are secular, but do they ask that you leave your religious symbols at home if you want to ride the bus? ...
Now you are using a slippery-slope argument which you would certainly reject if I use that in another context. So forget that. Nobody has suggested that.




As horrible and disgusting as I find this practice - the thing I find most disgusting is the fact that the woman is often not a willing participant. If the girl is *forced* to be mutilated, it is bad. But if she decides that she wants to have it done, it is her decision.
And that is a thing I disagree with you: you say: whereever there is consent it is OK. By the way: how far can 7 or 8-year old girls give consent. Or 10 or 12-year olds?
But I would say that there are things who are just so wrong and are violating the human dignity that the ought to be illegal even if there is consent. For example dwarf-throwing (if you know that) is illegal in my country in contrast to the US even with consent.
Or also denying the holocaust, using symbols related to that era, founding new nazi parties, music and hate-speech. Most of those things are allowed in the US and many people use this - in my view- blind eye of the US towards the exploitation of freedom of speech for their purposes.
And quite frankly spoken I don´t see any reason why those laws should not be used against Al-Quaida or muslim hate-speech (like advocating terrorism or killing the infidels) as well. I can´t see any difference in the totalitarian character of the Taliban or Al-Quaida to the Nazis.
That goes a bit away from the topic. But one reason for those laws are of course to fight against extremists tendencies within the muslim community.

This is a problem. If you teach a child that they should not be "contaiminated" by relgion, you have just taught that all religious belief is bad. Thus, you have already destroyed your secularity, by placing the viewpoints of one group (athiests) above *everyone* elses.

Well religion can be taught in churches (which it is) at home etc.. you may believe as you wish.. but what about the large group of people like myself who don't want my children to grow up being taught religion? There are many places to "teach" whatever your religious views are, public schools are not one of those places. Or are you saying only the religious should have rights? How do we protect our children from religion? There are so many places for religion.. can't school be a place for a child to learn math, English, science, etc.. there is no need for religion to be in PUBLIC schools in any way shape or form. I think religion has more then enough venues then to also take over our public schools.

Some very interesting points have been made. So I see one question that have been rised but not formulated : what is exactly tolerance ? Ok, it is basically to accept the other's difference. BUT as some have stated, we could also add that tolerance is to not offend the other. That includes for example the fact of wearing clothes or saying things that would offend the other. After all, it is as much a mark of respect to accept what people wear than to accept yourself not to wear clothes that could offend the other's beliefs.

Saying you have a right to not be offended is ludicrous. Do you really want every human being to act exactly the same way just because it makes you uncomfortable that they don't? When a Muslim at my school pulls out his/her prayer rug in the middle of the day and prays, it does not bother me. But even if it did, it would not be my right to stop him/her.

And that is one of the main reasons of this law after all, teachers complained about the lack of respect shown by some pupils. As they were wearing their scarf even when attending a class, so that the teacher could sometimes not know if the pupil was paying any attention to the class at all.

A teacher never knows if a student is really paying attention. Wearing a religious symbol is not a lack of respect unless you are pointing to it and saying "I am better than you, you must be like me and wear this or you are a doody head." It is telling someone that they cannot be religious that is disrespectful.

Another funny point is the following : most of you must be aware of the fact that when you take the american nationality, you are required to vow on the holy bible. I personally consider this much more against the freedom of religion than the law in france. If I was jewish, muslim, catholic or buddhist or whatever is not protestant, I'm not sure i'd take that in a nice way. fortunately, I'm atheist, so I'd be required to vow on something I don't believe in (god) which after all will be the same as if I hadn't vowed at all... :D

Actually, this is not true. The Bible is the default, as it is in a court of law when you are asked to swear to tell the truth. However, if you ask to swear on something else, it must be provided. If you wish to swear on the Koran or the Torah (although I think the former is forbidden by religion), a copy must be brought or you must be allowed to bring a copy. If you ask to swear on a copy of the Constitution, this is also allowed.

The students don´t loose their religion if they don´t wear a scarf though. So, what is the problem with it?

Yes, they do. Their religious beliefs state that they should wear it - and you are telling them they cannot. This means that they are being told their religion is wrong.

By the way: Would you accept the burqa as well?
But if not, who gives you the right to "discriminate" between a scarf and a burqa?

How does someone else wearing a scarf, Burqua, cross, or a purple dragon pin hurt you? No, I make no distinction. I find it harder to understand the wearing of the burqua, but as long as it is a personal choice to wear it, I would not deny it to anyone.


And now a last question: How far do you really think seven or eight year old children are acting out of their own initiative? And not rather on the initiative of their parents who force a certain religious lifestyle on then on an age where they are simply not able to make a free decision on their own.

Well, I can't speak for all 7 or 8 year olds (who would not be the majority hit by this - unless French teens do not go to school), but when I was that age I was following my religion out of my own volition. I asked to be Baptized into my church and I was. I asked my mother every Sunday to drive me to church (as she did not go herself), so it had nothing to do with my parents forcing anything on me. I have no problem believing that many of the children are acting of their own volition.

After all just last year in the States a judge not only had to remove the ten commandments from the court house, he lost his job for refusing to do so. Why? Because it's a PUBLIC building as is a PUBLIC school. Religion and government don't mix!

This is not a valid comparison. By placing the 10 Comandments in a publicly funded building, the judge was establishing a government-accepted religious belief. The comparison would be if a Muslim woman were to enter the courtroom with a head scarf on and were forced to take it off or leave. *She* does not represent the government, she is simply trying to use the services offered therein. And, in the States, if a someone wants to wear a head scarf/cross/yamahka/whatever in the courtroom, they are allowed to do so.

You are right that religion and government don't mix - and by denying individuals the right to religious expression just because it happens to be in a public place, the French government is just as bad as a theocracy. Are we next going to tell Muslims that they cannot pray in the middle of the day because they are in PUBLIC buildings. Are we going to tell a girl that she cannot wear a head scarf in a cab because the road they are driving on is a PUBLIC road? Seriously.

Yes, they do. Their religious beliefs state that they should wear it - and you are telling them they cannot. This means that they are being told their religion is wrong..
Their religious beliefs (in their writing form) don´t specificly state that. They speak about decent clothing. Actually it is not common for children to wear a scarf. That is for adult woman who may otherwise get to much attention from men. Thats the argument behind it.
But that is certainly not the case for seven or eight year olds.
You are doing a big mistake if you buy the propaganda of islmists groups. This is not a conflict: muslim minority versus France. It is a conflict of a tiny, tiny minority within the musim community and France.



How does someone else wearing a scarf, Burqua, cross, or a purple dragon pin hurt you? No, I make no distinction. I find it harder to understand the wearing of the burqua, but as long as it is a personal choice to wear it, I would not deny it to anyone...
It is creating a barrier between them and the rest of the people. Do you know what a burqa is? You can´t see the other person at all - those people walk around like ghosts. A specific Afghan thing though, not used here. But if we allow everyting in schools why not that?
No, that is not acceptable in my view. I see it also as very problematic if radical muslim parents (a tiny minority though) refuse their children to go to the sports lessons, to swimming or to class trips.
And quite frankly spoken: we are here not speaking about adults. We speak about children, even children at the age of seven or eight. They don´t make their decision. Its their parents decision. And the question is whether we have to accept every decision the parents make. Do we have to accept if they want a female genital mutilation of their child?


Well, I can't speak for all 7 or 8 year olds (who would not be the majority hit by this - unless French teens do not go to school), but when I was that age I was following my religion out of my own volition. I asked to be Baptized into my church and I was. I asked my mother every Sunday to drive me to church (as she did not go herself), so it had nothing to do with my parents forcing anything on me. I have no problem believing that many of the children are acting of their own volition.
Oh, Sancta Simplicissima. Do you really believe that is the case in every family. Aranged marriage are still a common practise in many parts of the world and also partly among the muslim community in Europe. Wake up.
It is the parents who are leading this movement and mainly radical muslim groups. They are fighting for the scarf ban.
Moderate muslims - and that are the overwhelming majority - have no problem with it.
That are the facts.

Do you people realise the only reason why this law was passed and is being enforced was because certain sectors of the Muslim community complained about displays of other religious icons at schools, including private Catholic schools. They demanded that all other religious imagery be taken down, but that it was the fundamental right of Muslims to wear the scarf.
France did the only thing it could do: Ban all religious imagery from the classroom and now the Muslims are complaining saying it's racist that they're not allowed to wear their scarves.
I've got no sympathy for them. What right do they have to demand changes to a country they (mostly) have immigrated to? Would they support me demanding the display of a Crucifix or star of David in a state school in a Muslim country? The thought is laughable.

Your comparison makes no sense. Having a symbol on the wall of a public place suggests that the government supports that religion. Having a cross or a star of David on the wall means that it has been placed there by the establishment. An individual wearing a symbol of their religion does not in any way suggest that the government endorses that religion.

Now you are using a slippery-slope argument which you would certainly reject if I use that in another context. So forget that. Nobody has suggested that.

No, in this case I am using the exact same logic you do. You claim that since a school is a public building, no one wearing any religious symbol should be allowed into it. This, you say, is an attack on the secularism of the schools. If you truly believe this, then it must be true for all public places. This would include public hospitals, public transportation systems, public roads, and government buildings. If you do not believe that individuals wearing religious symbols should be banned from all public places, then you must come up with a new reasoning for why they should be banned from schools.

Yes, they do. Their religious beliefs state that they should wear it - and you are telling them they cannot. This means that they are being told their religion is wrong.

False. They are not being told their religion is wrong. They are being told that there will not be signs of any religion.



How does someone else wearing a scarf, Burqua, cross, or a purple dragon pin hurt you? No, I make no distinction. I find it harder to understand the wearing of the burqua, but as long as it is a personal choice to wear it, I would not deny it to anyone.

The problem is that most of the time, it is not a personnal choice. And people get hurt for wearing a cross, burqua or scarf right now in France. Hate crime is way up.


Well, I can't speak for all 7 or 8 year olds (who would not be the majority hit by this - unless French teens do not go to school), but when I was that age I was following my religion out of my own volition. I asked to be Baptized into my church and I was. I asked my mother every Sunday to drive me to church (as she did not go herself), so it had nothing to do with my parents forcing anything on me. I have no problem believing that many of the children are acting of their own volition.

That point is moot as most of the cases I've heard are from older women (16-17 years old). I think we can assume they know what they are doing. But for some of them, it is a choice between wearing it or being beaten by their siblings. It is that serious. I think both sides of the issue should drop the 8 years old argument.

One thing you have to bear in mind is that French values and American values are different. The French see the laicity of the government as more important than various religous demands. Are they right? Most of the French population think so. Who are you to judge that their value system is not as valid as yours?

Well religion can be taught in churches (which it is) at home etc.. you may believe as you wish.. but what about the large group of people like myself who don't want my children to grow up being taught religion? There are many places to "teach" whatever your religious views are, public schools are not one of those places. Or are you saying only the religious should have rights? How do we protect our children from religion? There are so many places for religion.. can't school be a place for a child to learn math, English, science, etc.. there is no need for religion to be in PUBLIC schools in any way shape or form. I think religion has more then enough venues then to also take over our public schools.

Is your child really so impressionable that simply sitting next to a girl in a head scarf is going to force him to become a Muslim?

No one is suggesting that the public schools teach religious views. I am suggesting that they not teach that religion is a horrible thing that should be hidden away in a box somewhere. The children's ability to learn math, English, science, etc. is in no way impaired if the girl next to them is wearing a head scarf, any more than it would be if she were wearing purple socks.

Would you rather your child get the impression that nobody believes in religion so that when he/she grows up they will lash out at anything different, having never been exposed to someone with different beliefs than you?

Their religious beliefs (in their writing form) don´t specificly state that. They speak about decent clothing. Actually it is not common for children to wear a scarf. That is for adult woman who may otherwise get to much attention from men. Thats the argument behind it.
But that is certainly not the case for seven or eight year olds.
You are doing a big mistake if you buy the propaganda of islmists groups. This is not a conflict: muslim minority versus France. It is a conflict of a tiny, tiny minority within the musim community and France.



It is creating a barrier between them and the rest of the people. Do you know what a burqa is? You can´t see the other person at all - those people walk around like ghosts. A specific Afghan thing though, not used here. But if we allow everyting in schools why not that?
No, that is not acceptable in my view. I see it also as very problematic if radical muslim parents (a tiny minority though) refuse their children to go to the sports lessons, to swimming or to class trips.
And quite frankly spoken: we are here not speaking about adults. We speak about children, even children at the age of seven or eight. They don´t make their decision. Its their parents decision. And the question is whether we have to accept every decision the parents make. Do we have to accept if they want a female genital mutilation of their child?



Oh, Sancta Simplicissima. Do you really believe that is the case in every family. Aranged marriage are still a common practise in many parts of the world and also partly among the muslim community in Europe. Wake up.
It is the parents who are leading this movement and mainly radical muslim groups. They are fighting for the scarf ban.
Moderate muslims - and that are the overwhelming majority - have no problem with it.
That are the facts.

I agree completely with the above.

Arranged marriage is a disgusting human rights abuse of those being forced to marry against their personal choice.
I remember the state prosecuting a Muslim parents here a few years back for forcing their daughter to marry against her will. I am at least glad that when the state does find out, it does something about it, but of course, i'm sure many more go undetected.

Your comparison makes no sense. Having a symbol on the wall of a public place suggests that the government supports that religion. Having a cross or a star of David on the wall means that it has been placed there by the establishment. An individual wearing a symbol of their religion does not in any way suggest that the government endorses that religion.
You are assuming that the religious symbols were on the walls. They were on students. It was not a cross on the wall of the class, it was a cross on some chain around some students necks and star of David on binders.

(Just noting the facts. Not implying anything.)

Your comparison makes no sense. Having a symbol on the wall of a public place suggests that the government supports that religion. Having a cross or a star of David on the wall means that it has been placed there by the establishment. An individual wearing a symbol of their religion does not in any way suggest that the government endorses that religion. .
That is a very bureaucratic interpretation. What do you think a child is looking more at: at the wall or at the teacher. And the teacher is not another student: he/she plays an important role, especially for younger pupils. That is why we have class teachers often for many years. And those people should not promote directly or indirectly any religion.



No, in this case I am using the exact same logic you do. You claim that since a school is a public building, no one wearing any religious symbol should be allowed into it. This, you say, is an attack on the secularism of the schools. If you truly believe this, then it must be true for all public places. This would include public hospitals, public transportation systems, public roads, and government buildings. If you do not believe that individuals wearing religious symbols should be banned from all public places, then you must come up with a new reasoning for why they should be banned from schools.
Well, I´ve stated that I wouldn´t go that far as France. But a ban for state servants (especially teachers) as happened in most German states I see as completly justified.
And I also see the French as completly justified.
The British have their school uniforms after all. It is to avoid discrimination among the students because of clothing. I see that actually as a good modell. And I see the idea to ban religious symbols inside the scholl compound as a good idea, especially in a country like France were (in contrast to other countries) religion and state are very, very strictly seperated. Turkey has the same regulations actually. And they are certainly the most modernized muslim county. That has to do with the fact that under Atatürk the rule of religion was broken and a clear seperation was established.

Their religious beliefs (in their writing form) don´t specificly state that.

A belief has to be put on paper for it to be valid? That's an interesting idea, but makes no sense whatsoever.

You are doing a big mistake if you buy the propaganda of islmists groups. This is not a conflict: muslim minority versus France. It is a conflict of a tiny, tiny minority within the musim community and France.

You are making a big mistake if you buy whatever you hear about "islamist groups" and never even speak to someone who wants to wear it before making your decision.

And who cares how small the minority is? Mennonites are a very small minority in the US, but we don't force them to wear store-bought clothes and make-up.

Is your child really so impressionable that simply sitting next to a girl in a head scarf is going to force him to become a Muslim?

No one is suggesting that the public schools teach religious views. I am suggesting that they not teach that religion is a horrible thing that should be hidden away in a box somewhere. The children's ability to learn math, English, science, etc. is in no way impaired if the girl next to them is wearing a head scarf, any more than it would be if she were wearing purple socks.

Would you rather your child get the impression that nobody believes in religion so that when he/she grows up they will lash out at anything different, having never been exposed to someone with different beliefs than you?
Who's to say that they teach that religion is a horrible thing? They are simply not mentionning religion. Just because you don't talk about something doesn't mean you're against it.

You are assuming that the religious symbols were on the walls. They were on students. It was not a cross on the wall of the class, it was a cross on some chain around some students necks and star of David on binders.
(Just noting the facts. Not implying anything.)
We were talking about something different: cross on walls in Bavarian schools mandated by Bavarian law (an unique thing; doesn´t exist in any other german state). The German Supreme Court declared that law unconstituitional in 1993.

False. They are not being told their religion is wrong. They are being told that there will not be signs of any religion.

And since their religious views say that they should cover their heads, and you say they can't - you are telling them their religion is wrong.

My religion requires me to take Communion. If you banned Communion in my country, wouldn't that tell me that my religion was wrong?

And people get hurt for wearing a cross, burqua or scarf right now in France. Hate crime is way up.

So anyone who is a victim of hate crime should just conform to the norm? Tell that to homosexuals in the US. Intolerance is a problem with the intolerant, not the person who is being targetted.

One thing you have to bear in mind is that French values and American values are different. The French see the laicity of the government as more important than various religous demands. Are they right? Most of the French population think so. Who are you to judge that their value system is not as valid as yours?

If a system denies the rights of its citizens to live their lives without harming anyone, it is a poor value system. Do you really think all systems are equal? Is it ok then that the Vietnamese government forcibly sterilized women, since that was ok in their value system? Is it ok that people who didn't agree with Hussein were tortured and raped in Iraq, since that was ok in their value system?

Allowing an individual to follow their religion in no way attacks the secularity of the government.

Who's to say that they teach that religion is a horrible thing? They are simply not mentionning religion. Just because you don't talk about something doesn't mean you're against it.

In order to learn tolerance for something, a child must be exposed to it. If you allow a child to believe that no one has different relgious beliefs, or that, if they do, they should not follow them but should conform instead - you are indoctrinating these children into intolerance.

Do you really think the students don't recognize any of what is going on around them? And when the girls who used to be in their class are forced to go to another school so that they don't have to feel naked all day, doesn't that send a message to them that obviously that girl's beliefs are wrong?

A belief has to be put on paper for it to be valid? That's an interesting idea, but makes no sense whatsoever..
Roman law: It needs to be written down. I know a difficult concept for somebody from a common law background. But that doesn´t make this idea wrong.
Anyway: It is not what the religion says. And it was unusally that children wear a scarf. So why has this increased in the last years? Certainly it has nothing to do at all with the rise of Islamism. And lets beging to believe in Santa Claus (sp?)



You are making a big mistake if you buy whatever you hear about "islamist groups" and never even speak to someone who wants to wear it before making your decision...
You are American I assume? So I would say you should sweep before your own door.

And who cares how small the minority is? Mennonites are a very small minority in the US, but we don't force them to wear store-bought clothes and make-up.
And you assume that children are adults and make their mind up freely as if they are adults. That is just plainly wrong. And it is also against the law. Here you are adult at the age of 18. And the legal right to make religious decision you get at 14. So, it are the parents who make the decision.
And it is the right of the state to have a supervision in that respect to enshure that there is no abuse of parental rights.
I see it therefore as entirely justified if the state passes legislature in that respect.

And when the girls who used to be in their class are forced to go to another school so that they don't have to feel naked all day, doesn't that send a message to them that obviously that girl's beliefs are wrong?
Why is the girl feeling that way if she does? It is because the parents have indoctrinated her that she has to feel naked if she doesn´t wear the scarf. That are the facts how things work.
And children can be more easily manipulated than adults. Come on, how naive are you playing here.

Roman law: It needs to be written down. I know a difficult concept for somebody from a common law background. But that doesn´t make this idea wrong.

We aren't talking about law, we are talking about belief systems. Do I have to write down everything I believe so that it is valid?

Anyway: It is not what the religion says. And it was unusally that children wear a scarf.

It is what *their personal* religion says, and that is all that matters. And it is not unusual for teens to wear a scarf within orthodox Muslim groups.

You are American I assume? So I would say you should sweep before your own door.

I have spoken to someone who wears a scarf because she wishes to. I have also spoken to Muslims who do not take the orthodox interpretation. And I have heard the intolerant bull that many people in my country and others like to throw around about Islam. So I'm pretty sure my doorstep is swept clean.

And you assume that children are adults and make their mind up freely as if they are adults. That is just plainly wrong. And it is also against the law. Here you are adult at the age of 18. And the legal right to make religious decision you get at 14. So, it are the parents who make the decision.

I have met many younger than 18 who have decided upon their own religion. I have met many below 14. Don't understimate people just because they are younger than you.

.. But the thing is, the French Government is paying for the schools that the children are attending. The Gov is paying with the Citizens Taxes....All Citizens....Protestans, Catholics, Jews...and Muslims

Why is the girl feeling that way if she does? It is because the parents have indoctrinated her that she has to feel naked if she doesn´t wear the scarf. That are the facts how things work.
And children can be more easily manipulated than adults. Come on, how naive are you playing here.

Why do I feel naked if I walk outside without a top on? Why would I feel bad if I went out and had sex with 30 men?

And to get personal, why do *you* believe that homosexuality is wrong?? Why? Because you learned that as a child.

As a child grows up, they are influenced by many things. Some of them choose to hold to the beliefs of their parents, others do not. But all beliefs are learned from somewhere. This one harms no one, and is no different from your more irrational beliefs.

And since their religious views say that they should cover their heads, and you say they can't - you are telling them their religion is wrong.

My religion requires me to take Communion. If you banned Communion in my country, wouldn't that tell me that my religion was wrong?

The government doesn't say they can't they say that religion, ANY religion has no place in a public school. I don't get why you equate that to stating that religion is wrong. In the US, there's a ban on religion in government text, does that mean that America says that religion is wrong?


So anyone who is a victim of hate crime should just conform to the norm? Tell that to homosexuals in the US. Intolerance is a problem with the intolerant, not the person who is being targetted.

And in order to curb the rise of intolerance the French government decide to enforce the laws that say that school is for teaching and not religion. That way, intolerance is actually harder to do and propagate.


If a system denies the rights of its citizens to live their lives without harming anyone, it is a poor value system. Do you really think all systems are equal? Is it ok then that the Vietnamese government forcibly sterilized women, since that was ok in their value system? Is it ok that people who didn't agree with Hussein were tortured and raped in Iraq, since that was ok in their value system?

What is to say that the French philosophy is not better? They are in NO WAY denying religious rights. They even gone so far as to finance a parallel private system to help encourage religion and religious teaching. Tell how is that denying the French's rights?


Allowing an individual to follow their religion in no way attacks the secularity of the government.

But letting people wearing headscarf despite a dress code that states that no head covering will be permitted is an attack to the secularity of the government.

And it is the right of the state to have a supervision in that respect to enshure that there is no abuse of parental rights.My uncle has decided that my 7 years old Cousin cannot wear G-string + low jeans...
Is that abuse?

My uncle has decided that my 7 years old Cousin cannot wear G-string + low jeans...
Is that abuse?
No, but wouldn´t you think that he would be allowed only to wear a G-string that that would be abuse?

In order to learn tolerance for something, a child must be exposed to it. If you allow a child to believe that no one has different relgious beliefs, or that, if they do, they should not follow them but should conform instead - you are indoctrinating these children into intolerance.

Do you really think the students don't recognize any of what is going on around them? And when the girls who used to be in their class are forced to go to another school so that they don't have to feel naked all day, doesn't that send a message to them that obviously that girl's beliefs are wrong?
I disagree with your conclusions. It is my belief that you can have time where you don't talk about religion and it doesn't necessarily mean you are against religion. I think that the students are exposed to religion without it being teached in school. And I don't agree with your interpretations of what the law does for the girls and their interpretation of the law.

Your conclusion may be well thought out and valid, but I don't think it this is what is actually happening.

No, but wouldn´t you think that he would be allowed only to wear a G-string that that would be abuse?
LOL he. oh wait are you are is your primary language french then I understand there is only one form of cousin no femine and masciline

LOL he. oh wait are you are is your primary language french then I understand there is only one form of cousin no femine and masciline
No, my native tongue is German. But I know that the world cousin refers to both sexes, like mostly in English.
The issue of banning religious symbols is one I have to defend the French for, though I didn´t like Chiracs populists policy in the matter of Iraq. The same is the case for Schröder, who I never voted for and never would vote for. In the case of France Chirac is still the lesser evil.
But if Sarkozy becomes his successor the relationship may improve a bit.

The government doesn't say they can't they say that religion, ANY religion has no place in a public school. I don't get why you equate that to stating that religion is wrong. In the US, there's a ban on religion in government text, does that mean that America says that religion is wrong?

No, because the American system does not deny religious expression by the individual.

And in order to curb the rise of intolerance the French government decide to enforce the laws that say that school is for teaching and not religion. That way, intolerance is actually harder to do and propagate.

You're kidding right? The way to teach tolerance is to tell the people being discriminated against to chage. Yeah, that makes sense.

And intolerance is not harder to propagate when you start abridging the rights of people. In fact, all the French have done is to increase the likelihood of an extremist minority gaining influence in their country.

What is to say that the French philosophy is not better? They are in NO WAY denying religious rights. They even gone so far as to finance a parallel private system to help encourage religion and religious teaching. Tell how is that denying the French's rights?

Separate but equal. Seems like I've heard that somewhere before.

But letting people wearing headscarf despite a dress code that states that no head covering will be permitted is an attack to the secularity of the government.

First off, if the right to freedom of religion is being abridged by a law, and what is being asked does not hurt anyone, the law should be changed. That may not be the way things are done in France, but it certainly should be. Besides, as long as they allow any religious headcovering, whether it be a scarf or a yamahka (I know I don't spell this right) or any other type - they have not embraced any particular religion.

I disagree with your conclusions. It is my belief that you can have time where you don't talk about religion and it doesn't necessarily mean you are against religion. I think that the students are exposed to religion without it being teached in school. And I don't agree with your interpretations of what the law does for the girls and their interpretation of the law.

Who says they have to talk about it? I'm not saying we should force them to talk about it at all. However, if the students talk amongst themselves (not during class of course), that increases their knowledge of the world around them.

Your conclusion may be well thought out and valid, but I don't think it this is what is actually happening.

::Shrug:: Have you ever personally met someone who wished to wear the scarf?

No, but wouldn´t you think that he would be allowed only to wear a G-string that that would be abuse? :confused:

It is what *their personal* religion says, and that is all that matters. And it is not unusual for teens to wear a scarf within orthodox Muslim groups..
we are here also speaking about seven or eight year girls. And that is not a thing which was at any time common to make them wearing a scarf.
That usually started at the earliest with adolescence.


I have spoken to someone who wears a scarf because she wishes to. I have also spoken to Muslims who do not take the orthodox interpretation. And I have heard the intolerant bull that many people in my country and others like to throw around about Islam. So I'm pretty sure my doorstep is swept clean...
And have you also listened to the intoleratn bullshit muslims spill around? Or do you think that they are all innocent sheep and there is just the evil west - evil Europe and (certainly in your view) less evil US?



I have met many younger than 18 who have decided upon their own religion. I have met many below 14. Don't understimate people just because they are younger than you.
Don´t overestimate people either. Or would you abolish laws regarding the protection of children? There are good reasons for those laws after all: they are too protect the children- sometimes from their parents or even from themselves.

No, because the American system does not deny religious expression by the individual.

Neither does the French system. They say that ostentatious religious icon have no place in school. You can still bring small effigy, not just big ones.


You're kidding right? The way to teach tolerance is to tell the people being discriminated against to chage. Yeah, that makes sense.

And intolerance is not harder to propagate when you start abridging the rights of people. In fact, all the French have done is to increase the likelihood of an extremist minority gaining influence in their country.

The people were not discriminated against. There were rules. Some Muslim decided to break those rules saying that their freedom of religion is more important. The Government said 'not under this constitution'. It's religious activist who try to force rules to be changed for their purpose.


First off, if the right to freedom of religion is being abridged by a law, and what is being asked does not hurt anyone, the law should be changed. That may not be the way things are done in France, but it certainly should be. Besides, as long as they allow any religious headcovering, whether it be a scarf or a yamahka (I know I don't spell this right) or any other type - they have not embraced any particular religion.

How in the bloody hell makes your point of vue and your value system the be all and end all of what is right? Who died and made you boss? Most of the French people agree with the law ESPECIALLY most Muslim. To me that says that their decision was right under the circumstace. (/rant)

If there is a rule about head covering is a secular government, they have no reasons to let religious covering to pass. The best thing the muslim can do is petition the various school to change their dress code.

Who says they have to talk about it? I'm not saying we should force them to talk about it at all. However, if the students talk amongst themselves (not during class of course), that increases their knowledge of the world around them.

And how is that hindered by the law?


::Shrug:: Have you ever personally met someone who wished to wear the scarf?

One and she told me that there was pressure from the community to wear it. I'm not saying that they all are pressured but I am saying that it's not always the choice of the person. And I am more angry at the religious orthodox that force their religious belief than at a government that enforce a separation of church and state.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/02/france.school.ap/index.html

Why don't we start banning praying? Students obviously should not be allowed to pray.

How about not abstaining from pork or beef? Should we force students in public schools to eat pork/beef because it is on the menu?

While we're at it, why don't we start forcing little Christian girls to bow to Satan? If they don't bow to Satan, they can't go to school. That's basically the option they just gave those young Muslim girls.

I wouldn't get worked up over it. "Tolerant" France is in the process of being overrun by Muslims. They'll reform the laws soon enough. Hell, they might be the only ones making them a couple of decades from now.

we are here also speaking about seven or eight year girls. And that is not a thing which was at any time common to make them wearing a scarf.
That usually started at the earliest with adolescence.

You are speaking about seven or eight year old girls. I am speaking about orthodox Muslim females in general.

And have you also listened to the intoleratn bullshit muslims spill around? Or do you think that they are all innocent sheep and there is just the evil west - evil Europe and (certainly in your view) less evil US?

Of course I have heard what intolerant Muslims say. But they are just that, intolerant Muslims. Do you think the way to convince them otherwise is to turn around and sterotype them? If a Muslim thinks I am an "evil Christian capitalist," should my response be "Whatever turban head, we bombed your country!"? Or should it be to try and understand their point of view and try to prevent it from spreading by demonstrating my respect for their religion?

Don´t overestimate people either. Or would you abolish laws regarding the protection of children? There are good reasons for those laws after all: they are too protect the children- sometimes from their parents or even from themselves.

A law that protects a child from being abused for not wearing a head scarf protects the child. One that prevents them from wearing it of their own volition does not.

Neither does the French system. They say that ostentatious religious icon have no place in school. You can still bring small effigy, not just big ones.

Right, and as soon as you find a "small" way for a girl to cover her hair, then I'll agree that that is ok.

The people were not discriminated against. There were rules. Some Muslim decided to break those rules saying that their freedom of religion is more important. The Government said 'not under this constitution'. It's religious activist who try to force rules to be changed for their purpose.

So if I make a law that says three can be no churches, the people should just sit down and take it? Suppose if I made a law that said no one who held religious beliefs of any kind could go to my school - that would be ok?

How in the bloody hell makes your point of vue and your value system the be all and end all of what is right? Who died and made you boss? Most of the French people agree with the law ESPECIALLY most Muslim. To me that says that their decision was right under the circumstace. (/rant)

My value system is based on not oppressing others or putting unneeded hindrances on their freedoms. This is an objective view of morality - basically, no one should push their own morals on another. Orthodox Muslims hold stricter morals than the majority of the French, so the majority of the French think they can spit on those morals. That is obviously a bad thing.

One and she told me that there was pressure from the community to wear it.

Well, then you have not spoken to a girl who wants to wear it then, have you. I have. I listened to her viewpoint on the matter and, though we disagreed on exactly what boundaries are placed for an action to be moral, we both respected each others views. That is all I am asking of any government.

I'm not saying that they all are pressured but I am saying that it's not always the choice of the person. And I am more angry at the religious orthodox that force their religious belief than at a government that enforce a separation of church and state.

This goes far beyond "separation of church and state." This is government-enforced conformity. Believe me, if every one of those girls was being forced to wear the scarf, I would be the first to speak out against it. But the solution is not to disallow it for those who wish to wear it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/02/france.school.ap/index.html

Why don't we start banning praying? Students obviously should not be allowed to pray.

How about not abstaining from pork or beef? Should we force students in public schools to eat pork/beef because it is on the menu?

While we're at it, why don't we start forcing little Christian girls to bow to Satan? If they don't bow to Satan, they can't go to school. That's basically the option they just gave those young Muslim girls.

Look please get your facts straight. France has not banned the wearing of Muslim headdress at school. It has banned the wearing of ANY RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS. Ie people wearing crucifixes, or jewish hats, or turbans, are breaking the law. In the modern day of Islamphobia, CNN decided only to report on one aspect of it.

France has been a secular nation for a long time- the Government has no official religion, and cannot enforce values upon people according to a religion. France therefore has no Religious Education in state schools, because this goes against the secular nature. I applaud the french for rejecting religion- all it does is cause War and conflict and poverty. Want to know how/why? Telegram me

Look please get your facts straight. France has not banned the wearing of Muslim headdress at school. It has banned the wearing of ANY RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS. Ie people wearing crucifixes, or jewish hats, or turbans, are breaking the law. In the modern day of Islamphobia, CNN decided only to report on one aspect of it.

No, they reported *correctly* that it affects Muslims more than others. Orthodox Muslims feel that they are required by their religion to wear a scarf. The only Christians I have met who feel the need to wear anything special are Mennonites, and I think they are localized to the US (although I could be wrong).

The French government themselves have also said that this is directed at the Muslims, but that they are banning *all* religious symbols too, so its ok.

France has been a secular nation for a long time- the Government has no official religion, and cannot enforce values upon people according to a religion.

By banning the values of a certain religion, they are in effect enforcing their own values upon that religion. Secularism goes both ways - the religion cannot control the state, but neither can the state control the religion.

France therefore has no Religious Education in state schools, because this goes against the secular nature. I applaud the french for rejecting religion- all it does is cause War and conflict and poverty. Want to know how/why? Telegram me

How is a girl wearing a scarf because her religious beliefs require it "Religious Education"?

Dempublicents, you seem to be under a wrong impression. You seem to think that the law was passed and then that there was protestation when it was the contrary. There was protestation before that some Muslim were going too far and were using the scarf to disobey the laws. The government enforced the laws that were already in place.

It would be akin to me trying to go in the US with drugs on me, getting turned back at the border and screaming to the rest of the world that my rights of ownership were denied. Laws are laws and if the muslim want to change them there is far better way to do it than what they are doing right now.

Are the law suppressing freedom of religion? I don't think so and neither does the French court. They statued that a director of a school has the right to turn back a muslim who wears a headscarf if she doesn't want to remove it.
Ther is a strict separation of church and stae and France shouldn't have to change that because some girls feel naked without their scarf.

Also, you seem to think that religious rights are denied. This can be acceptable in a civilized society. For example, Sikh have a ritual dagger than must be worn at all time. Do you want every Sikh man to go to church with a deadly weapon? Some rights may have to be curtailed in order for society to work. This is simply another example.

There's nothing in the Koran that says muslim girls should wear a scarf. So saying people should take their scarf/hats off in class wouldn't interrupt their religious freedom. People just made it up(I somehow think male muslims to make their wifes ugly) and they got used to it but it has nothing to do with being a muslim.

I wasn't aware that students were properties of the government to mold.