NationStates Jolt Archive

The French Government had exactly the right idea by banning religious icons in schools and students from wearing them, religion has no place in public schools, am I right?

There is no right and wrong, but I agree with you.

I second the motion. In public schools, a strict dress code regarding school uniforms, hairstyles, and the like should be adhered to. We did it in Singapore and I think it's feasible in any other secular country. :D

Since when have the french had a good idea? All this is going to do is make any french people in Iraq targets for kidnapping. And a bit more trouble at Parent-Teacher meetings.

Actually, religious signs are not forbidden in French schools. They just can't be as big as before. That means, you can't wear this huge cross or star of David anymore, but have to take a small one that can hardly be noticed.

It's a fantastic idea, as are school uniforms.

The only muslims this ban angered were the sliver already angry at france because france isnt iran. Reasonable people the world over see that this is an evenhanded rule that affects christians, muslims, and jews the same.

The only muslims this ban angered were the sliver already angry at france because france isnt iran.

Give it time, give it time. Chaos is brewing in good ol' France as we speak. The Muslim population is growing and starting to transform the nation.

The French Government had exactly the right idea by banning religious icons in schools and students from wearing them, religion has no place in public schools, am I right?

Yeah, children get enough freedom of self-expression, we wouldn't want to let them express their beliefs visibly!
How do you do a sarcasm smily?

Give it time, give it time. Chaos is brewing in good ol' France as we speak. The Muslim population is growing and starting to transform the nation.

I'm glad that Muslim veils are banned in French schools now, because the veils are totally sexist, like most of Islam. I was shocked to hear that 10% of France's population is now Muslim and I think they should be deported before this figure increases much. London's population is now 10% Muslim as well.

Firstly, the French have contravened human rights by this measure - banning the right to wear religious symbols contravenes the freedom of expression and religion. Secondly, the French in doing this have merely increased the appeal of militant Islam by being authoritarian over an issue that does not really exist - who gets offended if someone wears a headscarf!? It is overly PC!! And before you ask, no I am not an extremist Muslim - I am not Islamic. But I think France has just given Al Quadea a reason to attack. Be senisble. Repeal this law.

Secondly, the French in doing this have merely increased the appeal of militant Islam by being authoritarian over an issue that does not really exist - who gets offended if someone wears a headscarf!? It is overly PC!!
Exactly.
A lot of non-Muslims say they are offended by students or teachers wearing veils and such in schools or other public places. That does not make any sense at all. How can you be offended by something you don't believe in?

Firstly, the French have contravened human rights by this measure - banning the right to wear religious symbols contravenes the freedom of expression and religion. Secondly, the French in doing this have merely increased the appeal of militant Islam by being authoritarian over an issue that does not really exist - who gets offended if someone wears a headscarf!? It is overly PC!! And before you ask, no I am not an extremist Muslim - I am not Islamic. But I think France has just given Al Quadea a reason to attack. Be senisble. Repeal this law.

Explain to me how this law contravene the freedom of religion exactly?

Bear in mind that France has a strict policy of separating the chuch and the state. The school are state property, hence the ban on ostentation religious icons.

OK, perhaps it does not contravene freedom of religion (My mistake) But I still stand by the rest of my statement

The French Government had exactly the right idea by banning religious icons in schools and students from wearing them, religion has no place in public schools, am I right?

no you're totally wrong. why is it sensible to ban muslims from wearing headscarves and christians from wearing crucifixes, but it's ok for christians to wear a scarf on their head if it's raining and ok for a moslem to wear a cross for jewellery?

Just let people wear what they want. They didn't ban hippies from wearng CND signs or ban smurfs from wearing nike air

I'm glad that Muslim veils are banned in French schools now, because the veils are totally sexist, like most of Islam. I was shocked to hear that 10% of France's population is now Muslim and I think they should be deported before this figure increases much. London's population is now 10% Muslim as well.

Is this sarcasm? Or do you really think that Muslims should be deported? How many muslims is too many?

Explain to me how this law contravene the freedom of religion exactly?

Bear in mind that France has a strict policy of separating the chuch and the state. The school are state property, hence the ban on ostentation religious icons.

It contravenes freedom of religious expression, as it stops people being able to express their religion by wearing whatever symbols they like.

Is there a ban on ostentatious religious icons on trains? I hear SNCF is still a state company.

How does it contravene the separation of church and state for a kid in school to wear a yamulke? Is the kid teaching? Is the kid the state?


As an aside, the state doesn't have any property. The state administers the people's property on behalf of the people.

I second the motion. In public schools, a strict dress code regarding school uniforms, hairstyles, and the like should be adhered to. We did it in Singapore and I think it's feasible in any other secular country. :D

In singapore you banned chewing gum. Not from schools, but from the whole country. I don't think singapore can be held as an example of an enlightened democracy.

no you're totally wrong. why is it sensible to ban muslims from wearing headscarves and christians from wearing crucifixes, but it's ok for christians to wear a scarf on their head if it's raining and ok for a moslem to wear a cross for jewellery?

Just let people wear what they want. They didn't ban hippies from wearng CND signs or ban smurfs from wearing nike air


who said anything about the bans holding true outside of school? as such, anyone coudl wear anything they want in public. the ban exists on school property. and it isnt christians cant hae this, muslims cant have that etc... it is simply, no crosses PERIOD, doesnt matter who has them, no head scarves PERIOD, doesnt matter who has them, etc.

Its a very fair law. It removes religion from the schools, and it also removes cosmetic differences from the schools. Humans are easily influenced by how a person dresses. to provide children with a chance to meet the person behind the veil or head scarf or crucifix or under the turban.. it allows you to know the person... not the culture.

The how far away are the French from banning religious icons from view of the public? The idea may have been to make peace, but eventually it will become illegal to wear the crucifix or the star of david out in public.

The French Government had exactly the right idea by banning religious icons in schools and students from wearing them, religion has no place in public schools, am I right?
Reminds me of Superintendant Chalmers.
"Thank the Lord"? That sounded like a prayer. A prayer in a public school. God has no place within these walls, just like facts don't have a place within an organized religion.
Ahh, the Simpsons... a source of neverending trivia :D

It contravenes freedom of religious expression, as it stops people being able to express their religion by wearing whatever symbols they like.

... only in school, only during classes, only in public school, only signs that leaps to the eye and can bring discrimination to the kid. It doesn't ban ANYTHING. It merely states that some things are innapropriate for a good learning experience in a cosmopolitan society.

Is there a ban on ostentatious religious icons on trains? I hear SNCF is still a state company.

The problems that France was having was not in train, it was in school and hospitals.

How does it contravene the separation of church and state for a kid in school to wear a yamulke? Is the kid teaching? Is the kid the state?

Rule of the school: No head covering.
The Muslim girl comes in and refuse to remove her headscarf (contrary to the rule of the school) because her religion tells her to wear it. The public school doesn't recognise the girl's right to contravene the rule on religious grounds.

Furthermore, there have been cases of an older sister taking a test for her younger sister. How they did it? Burqa. How is the teacher supposed to recognise his own student when all he/she sees is the eyes?

But the biggest point against religious symbols in scholl is the discriminations the children do themselves. Also, there have been beatings because the kid is Jewish (he wears a david cross) and other muslim kids were frustrated by Israel's policies. THAT is what the law is in place to stop.

As an aside, the state doesn't have any property. The state administers the people's property on behalf of the people.

Granted, but it doesn't really comes in the debate...

I actully thought it was a bad idea. I mean it isn't fair really- not for those who are that religeous. I personally never wear crosses or anything. But I heard there's a rule that Muslim women have to wear scarves(well duh! But I heard it's suppossed to protect them). Now that this law has been passed they'll probably see themselves as vulnerable.

I actully thought it was a bad idea. I mean it isn't fair really- not for those who are that religeous. I personally never wear crosses or anything. But I heard there's a rule that Muslim women have to wear scarves(well duh! But I heard it's suppossed to protect them). Now that this law has been passed they'll probably see themselves as vulnerable.
But there is some private muslim school. They can go there. And it's not as costly as priivate school in the US.

If it's anything like the ones around Ilford, they won't be able to afford it, especially not if they have younger syblings.

... only in school, only during classes, only in public school, only signs that leaps to the eye and can bring discrimination to the kid. It doesn't ban ANYTHING. It merely states that some things are innapropriate for a good learning experience in a cosmopolitan society.


It doesn't state that they are inappropriate. It states that they are inappropriate AND you can't do them. That's a ban. And I don't believe that people can have their religious symbols on in the yard, and only have to take them off during class.



The problems that France was having was not in train, it was in school and hospitals.

There is no suggestion anywhere that France was having any problems in schools. If the law is about separation of church and state, why only in school? Why is it ok to look religious in state administered property that isn't a school?


Rule of the school: No head covering.
The Muslim girl comes in and refuse to remove her headscarf (contrary to the rule of the school) because her religion tells her to wear it. The public school doesn't recognise the girl's right to contravene the rule on religious grounds.

I've only been to a couple of french schools and it was a long time before this ban, but there was no school uniform and lots of people wearing bandanas and baseball hats. So I don't think it is the head covering that is the point. In face the law states clearly that the point is the religious symbolism.


Furthermore, there have been cases of an older sister taking a test for her younger sister. How they did it? Burqa. How is the teacher supposed to recognise his own student when all he/she sees is the eyes?


Let's imagine that this were true, why ban the hijab, which only covers hair? or the yamulke, which only covers a tiny bit of the hair? or the crucifix which doesnt cover anything? Because the exam burqa thing is a total red herring.


But the biggest point against religious symbols in scholl is the discriminations the children do themselves. Also, there have been beatings because the kid is Jewish (he wears a david cross) and other muslim kids were frustrated by Israel's policies. THAT is what the law is in place to stop.


What, the way to calm religious tension is to create religious tension? Genius.
How about teaching the kids about religious tolerance? Like tolerating lots of religious symbols that actually do nobody any harm?

The French Government had exactly the right idea by banning religious icons in schools and students from wearing them, religion has no place in public schools, am I right?
Yes you are.

It doesn't state that they are inappropriate. It states that they are inappropriate AND you can't do them. That's a ban. And I don't believe that people can have their religious symbols on in the yard, and only have to take them off during class.

Actually they can wear it before class, and during recess, and after school. Also, even if it did infringe on their religious freedom, it is an acceptable restriction in a civilised society for the greater good.


There is no suggestion anywhere that France was having any problems in schools. If the law is about separation of church and state, why only in school? Why is it ok to look religious in state administered property that isn't a school?

If you ask me, it's not okay elsewehere either. However, France WAS having problem with religious discrimination in school. Little muslim kids wouldn't talk to little jewish kids, not even to little christian kids. That's why there was pressure on the government to enact this law. I'm sorry to say it, but it was mostly muslim and mostly integrist ones.

In some communities, little girls are beaten if the don't wear headscarves. It's no longer religious freedom when your father, your brother, your neighbour tell you to wear it or else... And let's not even go in the debate that the burqa, and other such garment are sexist.


I've only been to a couple of french schools and it was a long time before this ban, but there was no school uniform and lots of people wearing bandanas and baseball hats. So I don't think it is the head covering that is the point. In face the law states clearly that the point is the religious symbolism.

Different schools, different rules. I was giving you an example based on a lawsuit I read about in southern France.

Let's imagine that this were true, why ban the hijab, which only covers hair? or the yamulke, which only covers a tiny bit of the hair? or the crucifix which doesnt cover anything? Because the exam burqa thing is a total red herring.[QUOTE]

Because, the government didn't want to look racist. Imagine for an instant that the law prohibited the burqa and only the burqa. The internationnal community would have protested and quite loudly. So they did the sensible thing and restated principles that are in the French Constitution and removed religious symbols from school.

Side note, it's not a new law as much as it is a restatement of old laws that weren't really enforced.


[QUOTE=Independent Homesteads]What, the way to calm religious tension is to create religious tension? Genius. How about teaching the kids about religious tolerance? Like tolerating lots of religious symbols that actually do nobody any harm?

I fail to see how this law is creating religious tension. Most Muslim leaders in France congratulated the government's effort. And, pray tell, how this law stops the kids from learning religious tolerance? If you ask me, it helps it. Now the kid see "little Johnny" in front of him and not "little jewish guy".

I totally, completely support the French government in this... one, because the treatment of women in Muslim societies deeply offends me, and the headcovering is a symbol of that horrible attitude towards women by an entire religion and culture; and two, because I'm a bit of an athiest whose ideal world is one without any form of religion whatsoever.

I think it's a good intent, gone anal.

What's the real purpose? to separate religion from school? That is done by not allowing disruptive religious statements and actions. So wearing something like a large crucifix openly, a yarmulke, etc., is considered disruptive? Maybe to people who are overly intolerant and hateful.

Now if someone was to place a large religious icon on their desk, and begin to read scriptures and preach for example, that is disruptive and not to be tolerated. That is imposing their religious beliefs on others inside a public institution. I'm sure there are rules and guidelines to deal with such an event already.

Public schools should promote tolerance for differences, not ban them to this extent.

Viva le differance!

Future Existence...

They're kids. The kinds of things they express are not something worth waving the Constitution around and whining in a high-pitched voice about. Go champion childrens rights in some oppressed third world country instead of trying to pamper American children EVEN MORE than normal.

The French Government had exactly the right idea by banning religious icons in schools and students from wearing them, religion has no place in public schools, am I right?

The French have ideas? Really??

I'm glad that Muslim veils are banned in French schools now, because the veils are totally sexist, like most of Islam. I was shocked to hear that 10% of France's population is now Muslim and I think they should be deported before this figure increases much. London's population is now 10% Muslim as well.

The hijab is NOT sexist, it protects women's dignity and modesty. Islam isn't sexist either, it gave women rights 1400 years ago that they are only starting to realise now - like 100% equality.

The hijab ban in France (and Turkey) was utterly wrong. Wearing a headscarf is a choice, so telling women and girls they can't wear it is just as bad as forcing them to wear it, like the taliban did.

The French Government had exactly the right idea by banning religious icons in schools and students from wearing them, religion has no place in public schools, am I right?

bloody good thing.

i'm for school uniforms and no religious symbols.

The hijab is NOT sexist, it protects women's dignity and modesty. Islam isn't sexist either, it gave women rights 1400 years ago that they are only starting to realise now - like 100% equality.

The hijab ban in France (and Turkey) was utterly wrong. Wearing a headscarf is a choice, so telling women and girls they can't wear it is just as bad as forcing them to wear it, like the taliban did.

well then let a few men show there modesty by wearing them. How is it modest when it only covers your hair? are hair follicles seen as sexy?

Islam isn't sexist either, it gave women rights 1400 years ago that they are only starting to realise now - like 100% equality.

You're on crack

Question : is it right to ban alcohol for children?

Question : is it right to ban alcohol for children?

only if they can't pour it themselves! then they are too young.
Or they can drink when they can reach the beer tap unaided

Banning headscarves is not going to solve any problems. Conservative Muslim parents will just send their children to private all-Muslim schools to avoid the ban.
It's just enforcing segregation again. Ridiculous.

The hijab is NOT sexist, it protects women's dignity and modesty. Islam isn't sexist either, it gave women rights 1400 years ago that they are only starting to realise now - like 100% equality.I fundamentally and strongly disagree. Your saying "women's dignity and modesty' only shows me how very hellish Muslim societies are for women. Women do not need men deciding how to protect their own bodies from the big, bad world. The very idea that women have to ascribe to a different dress code than men is terribly sexist! This is making my blood boil just thinking about it so I'll stop now.

And it's true that Islam was founded with the help of some great women who commanded a lot of respect in their time. Unfortunately, it is only a sign of how very fucked up Islam is that Muslim societies quickly forget this and proceeded to mistreat and imprison their women in a culture and religion that opresses them as one of its fundamental doctrines.

The hijab ban in France (and Turkey) was utterly wrong. Wearing a headscarf is a choice, so telling women and girls they can't wear it is just as bad as forcing them to wear it, like the taliban did.I suppose you would have reason, if it was a ban specifically aimed at the headscarf, and banned it from all public places. That would be discriminatory and unfair. But as it is, France ought to be praised for its strides towards secularism and separation of church and state.

Banning headscarves is not going to solve any problems. Conservative Muslim parents will just send their children to private all-Muslim schools to avoid the ban.
It's just enforcing segregation again. Ridiculous.

its not meant to. Its the same a devout christian parents sending their children to all christian schools.

only if they can't pour it themselves! then they are too young.
Or they can drink when they can reach the beer tap unaidedSo you mean it should be banned to help children get alcohol?

Banning headscarves is not going to solve any problems. Conservative Muslim parents will just send their children to private all-Muslim schools to avoid the ban.
It's just enforcing segregation again. Ridiculous.
So let them. That's their choice. But keep it out of the free, public schools where most parents send their children.

ok....a question for the people who are against the banning or religious symbols. are you guys against any form of dress code, or it because this limits religious freedom?

BTW don't confuse customs with religion. Islam is not about the headscarf.

So you mean it should be banned to help children get alcohol?

no. if they can't get it themselves unaided, then its illegal for them too have any. The only problem i can see with this is if your a migget. then your screwed.

its not meant to. Its the same a devout christian parents sending their children to all christian schools.

Exactly. So instead of having everyone mixed in schools, where tolerance is learnt, you have segregation. Those going to the secular state schools, and the devout religious people instead going to a private school. This is how intolerance is born.
I really don't see the benefit of banning such a harmless thing as a headscarf, or a cross. If people want to express their faith in this way, why stop them? Someone wearing a headscarf isn't going to hurt me. If it's their choice, then there's no problem with it.
It's not like they're going around forcing their faith on others.

So let them. That's their choice. But keep it out of the free, public schools where most parents send their children.

Why? Where is the benefit? Secularism is good, but forcing atheism and uniformity is not.

Exactly. So instead of having everyone mixed in schools, where tolerance is learnt, you have segregation. Those going to the secular state schools, and the devout religious people instead going to a private school. This is how intolerance is born.
I really don't see the benefit of banning such a harmless thing as a headscarf, or a cross. If people want to express their faith in this way, why stop them? Someone wearing a headscarf isn't going to hurt me. If it's their choice, then there's no problem with it.
It's not like they're going around forcing their faith on others.It is not about you. It is about children.

It is not about you. It is about children.

It was only a few years ago that I was in highschool myself. I had no problem with the muslims attending that wore headscarves, and I don't see why anyone else should care. It's their choice, it's not grossly offending anyone.

Why? Where is the benefit? Secularism is good, but forcing atheism and uniformity is not.
By that logic, forcing mathematics and reading and writing on children is bad?

It was only a few years ago that I was in highschool myself. I had no problem with the muslims attending that wore headscarves, and I don't see why anyone else should care. It's their choice, it's not grossly offending anyone.The choice of a 8 year old girl? You kidding me?
It has nothing to do with high schools either BTW.

Why? Where is the benefit? Secularism is good, but forcing atheism and uniformity is not.
It's not about forcing uniformity on everyone. It's about making the schools an equal place to learn. They're not trying to take away anyone's religion (tho I would if I were in charge), just keep it out of places it shouldn't be.

By that logic, forcing mathematics and reading and writing on children is bad?

Er, how exactly? I think your logic is rather flawed here, not mine.

The choice of a 8 year old girl? You kidding me?

If I remember correctly, in Muslim culture, girls aren't required to wear headscarves until the age of 14 or something close to that.

It was only a few years ago that I was in highschool myself. I had no problem with the muslims attending that wore headscarves, and I don't see why anyone else should care. It's their choice, it's not grossly offending anyone.
I have problems with the girls in my classes who wear headscarfs. No, wait, not a problem with the girls themselves, but the practice. It just irks me. It's a symbol of everything that's wrong with Islam and just makes my blood boil.

If I remember correctly, in Muslim culture, girls aren't required to wear headscarves until the age of 14 or something close to that.Then why do they wear the head scarf?

If I remember correctly, in Muslim culture, girls aren't required to wear headscarves until the age of 14 or something close to that.
It's not a 14-year-old girl's choice anymore than an 8-year-old's.

I really don't see the benefit of banning such a harmless thing as a headscarf, or a cross. If people want to express their faith in this way, why stop them? Someone wearing a headscarf isn't going to hurt me. If it's their choice, then there's no problem with it.
It's not like they're going around forcing their faith on others.

Well they are using faith as a mean of discrimination. There are people who get attacked at recess because they are waering a cross. Surely, it must be stopped.

Also, if what I read in the papers is accurrate, it is a minority of the muslim girls that genuinely believe in the whole modesty before god. Most of these girls are forced by their families or neighbourhood to wear it. Surely, we must try to stop the this phenomenon.

And I disagree that letting them wear it promotes religious tolerance. Letting them wear it or not will not teach tolerance. Teachers will teach tolerance, education will teach tolerance, not a symbol on another person. If anything, it will create another barrier between children at the same school because their father has told them not to talk to the Jewish boys because they're bad.

Er, how exactly? I think your logic is rather flawed here, not mine.
You say that forcing uniformity is bad. Aren't mathematics the same for everyone? Shouldn't we let the children decide what they learn? I predict they will choose to learn barbies and power rangers...

It's not about forcing uniformity on everyone. It's about making the schools an equal place to learn. They're not trying to take away anyone's religion (tho I would if I were in charge), just keep it out of places it shouldn't be.

That's exactly what it's all about. Enforced uniformity. How does stripping someone's right to practise their religion in an inoffensive way make schools an 'equal place to learn'?

My college is in an area where there is a high Muslim population, in fact there is the UK's largest Mosque just up the road from here. There are quite a number of students who attend who wear headscarves. Hell, this college even provides a prayer room avec prayer mat for anyone (Muslim, Christian, Jew...) to pray. What is so wrong with allowing people to show an inoffensive sign of their religion? It's not as if they're attending fully dressed in a burka, shouting out passages from the Koran.

It's not a 14-year-old girl's choice anymore than an 8-year-old's.

There are also many Muslim girls here who don't wear headscarves. They have a choice; it's not as if their parents can stop them from not wearing it.

It's not as if they're attending fully dressed in a burka, shouting out passages from the Koran.Some are though. Where do you draw the line yourself?
At 14 year old, and at the burka?

You say that forcing uniformity is bad. Aren't mathematics the same for everyone? Shouldn't we let the children decide what they learn? I predict they will choose to learn barbies and power rangers...

Last time I checked, you don't go around wearing mathematics.

There are also many Muslim girls here who don't wear headscarves. They have a choice; it's not as if their parents can stop them from not wearing it.Oh yes they can. Tell to a 14 year old that she must wear the burka and she'll believe it, especially if she is not allowed to go out and to meet people.

There are also many Muslim girls here who don't wear headscarves. They have a choice; it's not as if their parents can stop them from not wearing it.How about kicking them out of the house?

Well they are using faith as a mean of discrimination. There are people who get attacked at recess because they are waering a cross. Surely, it must be stopped.

Also, if what I read in the papers is accurrate, it is a minority of the muslim girls that genuinely believe in the whole modesty before god. Most of these girls are forced by their families or neighbourhood to wear it. Surely, we must try to stop the this phenomenon.

And I disagree that letting them wear it promotes religious tolerance. Letting them wear it or not will not teach tolerance. Teachers will teach tolerance, education will teach tolerance, not a symbol on another person. If anything, it will create another barrier between children at the same school because their father has told them not to talk to the Jewish boys because they're bad.

And these are the parents who will just take their children out of state schools and send them to private Muslim-only schools. Problem solved? Not really.

Last time I checked, you don't go around wearing mathematics.
No. And?

No. And?

So your point is moot. It's a matter of culture and personal choice, not education.

And these are the parents who will just take their children out of state schools and send them to private Muslim-only schools. Problem solved? Not really.
Indeed. If this problem occurs at a large scale, we'll ban it in private schools as well.

ok....a question for the people who are against the banning or religious symbols. are you guys against any form of dress code, or it because this limits religious freedom?

oy someone answer my question!

So your point is moot. It's a matter of culture and personal choice, not education.No it's not. It is a matter of education. Personnal choice doesn't exist for religion.

How about kicking them out of the house?

So you have abusive parents. It's up to the teachers and the government to spot the signs of abuse, you can't just go and ban something just because some parents are abusing their child's right to a choice.

Your parents might kick you out of the house if you smoke or get pregnant. Does this mean smoking and should be banned and teenager's babies forcefully aborted?

Personnal choice doesn't exist for religion.Agreed. You are what you are taught to be. If you grow up having a particular view pounded into your head without a chance to hear anything else or think for yourself, you're not making any kind of choice.

No it's not. It is a matter of education. Personnal choice doesn't exist for religion.
bingo, kids dont have a choice, they do what their parents tell them, they are raised by their parents in a certain religion and are forced to follow it.

No it's not. It is a matter of education. Personnal choice doesn't exist for religion.

:rolleyes:

I can see you're one of those Stalinist atheists.

I'm an atheists. I dislike organised religion. But I sure as hell won't try to enforce my atheism on someone else. It's wrong. Just plain wrong.

Anyway this is the wonderful thing about democracy.
If religious french people don't like the ban on obvious religious symbols, they can vote for another party during the next elections.

And in my opinion this thing about headscarfs being a sign of modesty is absolute crap. Its a custom like someone earlier mentioned. I don't remember this being a french custom.

Agreed. You are what you are taught to be. If you grow up having a particular view pounded into your head without a chance to hear anything else or think for yourself, you're not making any kind of choice.

And how is banning headscarves going to stop this?

oy someone answer my question!

I have no problems with school uniforms, it's just banning religious symbols that really pisses me off. They're not hurting anyone.

I can see you're one of those Stalinist atheists.You should talk, you godless commie! :p

You should talk, you godless commie! :p

Hey! I'd abolish religion through re-education, not bans >.>

They're not hurting anyone.I guess that depends on y our world view. I'm firmly entrenched in the opinion that it IS hurting these girls forced to wear them. I'm taking a class on Muslim French literature, and the more I learn about Islam the more I feel like waving an American flag singing the Star Spangled Banner and trying to force democracy on all the Middle East. I'm not kidding, a lot of their customs really piss me off.

I have no problems with school uniforms, it's just banning religious symbols that really pisses me off. They're not hurting anyone.

Would you mind a girl of the muslim faith wearing that full length 'outfit' that only shows the eyes in school?

Hey! I'd abolish religion through re-education, not bans >.>
Well, yeah, that's the way to go about it. But until you get these kids out of their brainwashing families, any attempt to re-educate them isn't going to do any good.

I have no problems with school uniforms, it's just banning religious symbols that really pisses me off. They're not hurting anyone.

How about when the school rules is no head covering of any kind. Surely France cannot make an exception on religious ground as they have a strong separation of chuch and state policy.

I have no problems with school uniforms, it's just banning religious symbols that really pisses me off. They're not hurting anyone.
i would like to disagree

in europe especially militant muslim groups are building up and we all know christians arn't the most forgiving of people. allowing them all to walk around wearing their religion on them is bound to cause problems in classrooms and in the halls and outside school.

As i understand it, the french have always separated religion and state, since the first republic.
The rule on no obvious religious symbols in school has been in force for a very long time as well. The fact that muslim girls have been allowed to get away with wearing headscarfs for so long seems unfair to other religious groups. It seems that equality has been applied to all whereas before some groups were getting special treatment

Well, yeah, that's the way to go about it. But until you get these kids out of their brainwashing families, any attempt to re-educate them isn't going to do any good.

Yeah. Perhaps schools should actually, like teach kids to think? What a "radical" idea, huh? :)

:rolleyes:

I can see you're one of those Stalinist atheists.

I'm an atheists. I dislike organised religion. But I sure as hell won't try to enforce my atheism on someone else. It's wrong. Just plain wrong.Just like enforcing religion is just plain wrong.
In school, children learn science. They learn it at this age because they are easily influenced.
If someone come and wear a nazi flag and shouts them that jews are a plague, they will believe it in the long run.
No political and no religious symbol in school.
Every child is required to go to school.
They can shout their propaganda elsewhere, where not everybody is required to listen.
Freedom of expression yes, but at the right place and at the right time, not in school.

Just like enforcing religion is just plain wrong.
In school, children learn science. They learn it at this age because they are easily influenced.
If someone come and wear a nazi flag and shouts them that jews are a plague, they will believe it in the long run.
No political and no religious symbol in school.

hahaha
what about corporate? a child wearing a nike T-shirt?
that why i'm for school uniforms! If a child can only express themselves by what they wear, a McDonalds career awaits!

hahaha
what about corporate? a child wearing a nike T-shirt?
that why i'm for school uniforms! If a child can only express themselves by what they wear, a McDonalds career awaits!I agree. No corporate brain washing in school.

personally i dont agree with religion (own personal belief), but would you ban the french from wearing a beret, the scots from wearing a cilt, the welsh from wearing whatever it is we wear, the point is we wear it because of tradition and our beliefs, if we had to conform to christian dress code everywhere it would be chaos, there would be no independence in expressing your feelings through clothes (which actually nearly everyone does).

personally i dont agree with religion (own personal belief), but would you ban the french from wearing a beret, the scots from wearing a cilt, the welsh from wearing whatever it is we wear, the point is we wear it because of tradition and our beliefs, if we had to conform to christian dress code everywhere it would be chaos, there would be no independence in expressing your feelings through clothes (which actually nearly everyone does).
The difference is that those wearings hold no message.
When you wear a nazi flag, you're not just wearing something cool, you're saying 'hail Hitler'.

in this day and age,there is a major difference between religious dress and dress from heritage. the latter only tells that they are from that are or proud of their heritage, religious dress shows the religion of the person and every religion always asserts it is right, thus peopels religion comes into conflict v people of other religions, and their havign religious dress can lead to outright conflict before a word is spoken

personally i dont agree with religion (own personal belief), but would you ban the french from wearing a beret, the scots from wearing a cilt, the welsh from wearing whatever it is we wear, the point is we wear it because of tradition and our beliefs, if we had to conform to christian dress code everywhere it would be chaos, there would be no independence in expressing your feelings through clothes (which actually nearly everyone does).

scots are not allowed to wear kilts at school, nor are the french allowed to wear berets.
And neither of those are religious symbols, yet it would be wrong to wear either

ok....a question for the people who are against the banning or religious symbols. are you guys against any form of dress code, or it because this limits religious freedom?

First I have to say I'm really suprised so many of you think this law is a good thing.
I think churc and state should be separated, that's a good thing but why oppress people's freedom. I'm strongly against any kind of dress code. No matter what the justifications are.

First I have to say I'm really suprised so many of you think this law is a good thing.
I think churc and state should be separated, that's a good thing but why oppress people's freedom. I'm strongly against any kind of dress code. No matter what the justifications are.It is about children.

It is about children.
What you mean?

First I have to say I'm really suprised so many of you think this law is a good thing.
I think churc and state should be separated, that's a good thing but why oppress people's freedom. I'm strongly against any kind of dress code. No matter what the justifications are.

so in terms of freedom, you have no problem with clothing saying...
"Your a (insert nastiest word)
"jews should be gased"
"the only good muslim is a dead muslim"
"christ sucked penis"
etc....

The fact is we live in a society. Any social group has laws. Everyone now says, oh we should respect muslim/hindu/western/eastern/etc culture.
Well this is french culture.

First I have to say I'm really suprised so many of you think this law is a good thing.
I think churc and state should be separated, that's a good thing but why oppress people's freedom. I'm strongly against any kind of dress code. No matter what the justifications are.

actually now i'm curious. how is banning religious symbols in school oppressing peoples freedom?

What you mean?When you talk about freedom of religion. Which kind of freedom of religion does a 8 year old child have? He doesn't even know what religion is. His only freedom is to listen to what his parents are saying and do what they are saying.
Freedom applies to educated and mature people. Until they are educated, the only freedom children have is to learn.

Well this is french culture.Heh, yeah. The French have a culture of their own that some people want to protect from the encroachment of Islam... I can understand that... I don't think the immigration from Mexico is doing our country any good... but I can just imagine the reaction if my high school had tried to ban Mexican flags from the school! (Utter choas and mass rioting. It was ~70% Hispanic.)

Before anyone says something, I'm not prejudiced against Hispanics. I just don't like the rude and mean Mexicans flooding our country just to insult it, which is what most of the kids in my high school did.

so in terms of freedom, you have no problem with something saying...
"Your a (insert nastiest word)
"jews should be gased"
"the only good muslim is a dead muslim"
"christ sucked penis"
etc....

The fact is we live in a society. Any social group has laws. Everyone now says, oh we should respect muslim/hindu/western/eastern/etc culture.
Well this is french culture.
Well as far as I know we were talking about dress code, not verbal insults. With freedom you get responsibility of your acts. So even if you have the freedom of speach you have also the responsibility not to insult anyone.
I have to admit I would ban burghas too because hiding your face in public is illegal in many countries. But headscarves or crusifics are not insulting and therefore we shouldn't limit the right to wear them, not even in schools.

Bear in mind that France has a strict policy of separating the chuch and the state. The school are state property, hence the ban on ostentation religious icons.

THat explanation would be fine, if they were taking religious symbols away on all state property. From now on, France should make the subway, sidewalks, hell - anything but houses headscarf-free. After all, it's not like individuals should hvae any rights at all if the state is supposed to be secular.

As for those saying that all relgions are affected equally - get a clue. A Christian does not feel that they are improperly dressed (like they are outside in their undergarments) if they don't wear a 10-foot cross. Forcing an orthodox Muslim girl to go out without her headscarf, on the other hand - is like making a little Christian girl go out topless.

actually now i'm curious. how is banning religious symbols in school oppressing peoples freedom?
I think that when you have the freedom to believe in what ever you believe, you should be able to follow your religion as far as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Covering your head is not hurting anyone.

Well as far as I know we were talking about dress code, not verbal insults. With freedom you get responsibility of your acts. So even if you have the freedom of speach you have also the responsibility not to insult anyone.
I have to admit I would ban burghas too because hiding your face in public is illegal in many countries. But headscarves or crusifics are not insulting and therefore we shouldn't limit the right to wear them, not even in schools.Again, we are talking about children. Children should be teached not to insult anyone. You talk like children should be free to do anything they wish. Why forcing them to go to school in the first place?

I think that when you have the freedom to believe in what ever you believe, you should be able to follow your religion as far as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Covering your head is not hurting anyone.It is influencing though.

When you talk about freedom of religion. Which kind of freedom of religion does a 8 year old child have? He doesn't even know what religion is. His only freedom is to listen to what his parents are saying and do what they are saying.
Freedom applies to educated and mature people. Until they are educated, the only freedom children have is to learn.
Alright. But don't you think this kids may have big problems with this. Their school forces them to do something against their parents will. (and please not again, what if the parents ask their kid to blow a bomb, wearing headscarf is not the same thing).

Again, we are talking about children. Children should be teached not to insult anyone. You talk like children should be free to do anything they wish. Why forcing them to go to school in the first place?
Of course they should be teached not to insult anyone! How this is in contradiction to anything I've said?

It is influencing though.
Hey we live in a world where we see thousands of influencing visual signs everyday. Why this is so much worse than anything else. I believe that all those 3 meter height barely naked women in bra adverts are influencing kids a lot more (and in a bad way) than some headscarves.

I have no problems with school uniforms, it's just banning religious symbols that really pisses me off. They're not hurting anyone.
There's different sides to the argument.

On the one hand, countering the situation where some other kid says "That kid is wearing $religious_item, they are a member of $religion! Let's go and beat them up!". Banning religious items isn't the way to go here, apart from the fact that there's plenty of reasons to beat someone up, for a determined bully, you should be stamping out bullying and discrimination not making it be based upon more subtle things.

On the other hand, you have "I am expressing my individuality (sic) by adhering to my religious codes and prominently wearing $religious_item."
If it were an individual decision (as opposed to indoctrination) then I wouldn't have too much problem with the person doing this, except in such a situation as a school which has a uniform/dress-code that does not allow the item concerned. (And as long as the dress-code said something like "no headwear in classrooms" and not "no religious headwear" whether in specific or general terms.) If there is a dress-code it must apply to all and no arbitrary religious item should be immune from this rule "because it is religious". (Someone might mention beturbaned Sikhs having a get-out clause in the otherwise compulsary UK motorcycle helmet regulations. Ambivalent about that situation for reasons best explained outside of this discussion...)

Personally, I quite like the idea of uniformity within school. Where loads of children of different circumstances (culture, religion, wealth, even budding sexuality if you want to consider that) are essentially forced to learn together in such circumstances then I'm of the opinion that dampening down the excesses of individuality helps the business of learning go along much smoother. I'm not talking about making them clones, just getting rid of the excesses of youth that can still be expressed in the real-world outside schooling hours.

There are always going to be 'sub-styles' in the way a uniform is worn (length of the skirt, style the tie is tied, minor personal decorations that any kid with a felt-tip is likely to acidentally or deliberately make to the badge on their blazer at some point or other) but much preferable (IMHO) compared with what happens when some kids use excessive make-up, wear impractical shoes, populate their person with masses of jewelry around/through various body parts... And the girls can be even worse... :)

(I was often discernable from the crowd by the fact that I always wore my tie the way it was designed to go (normal length, fatter side to the front). Does that surprise anyone? :) )

No, basically the rich/poor divide might be in evidence in the state of a school uniform, much as religion might shine through, but with a stringent baseline of unoformity it becomes less of an issue and less segregational (within the same institution) than it could be otherwise. I was even fully in support of the campaign my school's girls started at school, one winter, to allow them to wear trousers instead of the henceforth compulsary skirts. This despite being an adolescent boy who enjoyed the showing of a bit of leg as much as the next spotty teenager... :)

(I'm not even going into the state of affairs where a muslim girl (or indeed any other person) is forced/coerced/indoctrinated into assuming an item of apparell for 'religious' purposes.)

I think that when you have the freedom to believe in what ever you believe, you should be able to follow your religion as far as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Covering your head is not hurting anyone.

they are allowed to believe what they want. within the paramiters set by their society. Asking them not to wear overt symbols of their religion is in no way harming them? or does it mean they will go to hell if they do not? or the equivilent

It is influencing though.

The person next to me in class yesterday was wearing a purple shirt. I think that must mean that I have to wear a purple shirt too.

(I'm not even going into the state of affairs where a muslim girl (or indeed any other person) is forced/coerced/indoctrinated into assuming an item of apparell for 'religious' purposes.)

I have been indoctrinated into wearing a bra every day - is that bad too?

well then let a few men show there modesty by wearing them. How is it modest when it only covers your hair? are hair follicles seen as sexy?

Well done! You just fell into one of the most common misconceptions! You see, hijab does not just cover the hair, it actually refers to the principle of covering anything that is attractive to the opposite sex, and for women this includes everything but the hands and face (and maybe feet). Most people don't realise this because the headscarf is the only thing that really stands out.

Maybe hair follicles aren't sexy but cover a woman's hair and she's not half as good-looking. Women flirt with their hair, don't they?

Also, men do have a 'hijab' - they are required to cover from the navel to the knee. Reason being that they are less attractive to women than women are to men.

You're on crack

maybe, but you're still an idiot (of course, that's meant in the least offensive way possible :) )

I fundamentally and strongly disagree. Your saying "women's dignity and modesty' only shows me how very hellish Muslim societies are for women. Women do not need men deciding how to protect their own bodies from the big, bad world. The very idea that women have to ascribe to a different dress code than men is terribly sexist! This is making my blood boil just thinking about it so I'll stop now.

And it's true that Islam was founded with the help of some great women who commanded a lot of respect in their time. Unfortunately, it is only a sign of how very fucked up Islam is that Muslim societies quickly forget this and proceeded to mistreat and imprison their women in a culture and religion that opresses them as one of its fundamental doctrines.


I suppose you would know all about the hellish conditions Muslim women have to endure, since you have experienced them first hand? No? Well, I'm a Muslim woman and I KNOW that I am treated fairly in Islam. I know I would rather not be stared at by perves on the street than made into an object and feel I have to look like whatever the magazines print.

You don't seem to realise that women actually CHOOSE to be Muslim, and CHOOSE to wear headscarves. Most Muslimahs are not 'imprisoned' or oppressed - people like you just like to think of them that way because they are pig-headed islamophobes.

:)

I suppose you would know all about the hellish conditions Muslim women have to endure, since you have experienced them first hand? No? Well, I'm a Muslim woman and I KNOW that I am treated fairly in Islam. I know I would rather not be stared at by perves on the street than made into an object and feel I have to look like whatever the magazines print.

You don't seem to realise that women actually CHOOSE to be Muslim, and CHOOSE to wear headscarves. Most Muslimahs are not 'imprisoned' or oppressed - people like you just like to think of them that way because they are pig-headed islamophobes.

:)

No non-Muslim nation forces Muslim woman to go uncovered out in the streets. However many Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia or Iran force all women, whether Muslim or not, to cover their heads. Islamic societies have less personal choice and freedom than do western nations.

they are allowed to believe what they want. within the paramiters set by their society. Asking them not to wear overt symbols of their religion is in no way harming them? or does it mean they will go to hell if they do not? or the equivilent
It may not harm them but it's unnecessary what so ever. And I'm against all unnecessary rules.

maybe, but you're still an idiot (of course, that's meant in the least offensive way possible :) )
I think you are delusional if you think that women in the history of Islam have had much rights or power.

I suppose you would know all about the hellish conditions Muslim women have to endure, since you have experienced them first hand? No? Well, I'm a Muslim woman and I KNOW that I am treated fairly in Islam. I know I would rather not be stared at by perves on the street than made into an object and feel I have to look like whatever the magazines print.

You don't seem to realise that women actually CHOOSE to be Muslim, and CHOOSE to wear headscarves. Most Muslimahs are not 'imprisoned' or oppressed - people like you just like to think of them that way because they are pig-headed islamophobes.

:)
And yet the moderate Muslim leaders in France agreed that the law was just and necessary.

See the thing with the banning of religious items is an odd sort. The French culture is very secularized. The ban is not on public, just in schools and it's all religious symbols displayed in public. They are not against wearing icons under the shirt or something. Also, once the law went into effect there was little to no opposition to it. The Muslim reaction to the kidnappings and the kidnappings only legitimized the ban. In essence, by kidnapping the two journalists, the Muslim terrorists made the ban legitimate and essentially caused the opposite of what they wanted. They do have the right to do this and as much as I loathe France I have to say that such is not wrong, it is their priority to keep schools secular, it has been that way since the Revolution so.

Now if that were to happen in the United States it would be unconstitutional because of the First Amendment. No such thing exists in the French constitution.

Well done! You just fell into one of the most common misconceptions! You see, hijab does not just cover the hair, it actually refers to the principle of covering anything that is attractive to the opposite sex, and for women this includes everything but the hands and face (and maybe feet). Most people don't realise this because the headscarf is the only thing that really stands out.

Maybe hair follicles aren't sexy but cover a woman's hair and she's not half as good-looking. Women flirt with their hair, don't they?

Also, men do have a 'hijab' - they are required to cover from the navel to the knee. Reason being that they are less attractive to women than women are to men.

again why don't men cover their hair to show modesty? as part of western culture which french muslims are also part off, hair is used to flirt by both sexes.

On the last paragraph...just to see if i understand.....men cover their lower body as its NOT attractive, or men as a rule are less attractive?

No non-Muslim nation forces Muslim woman to go uncovered out in the streets. However many Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia or Iran force all women, whether Muslim or not, to cover their heads. Islamic societies have less personal choice and freedom than do western nations.
Yes, so? Why taking any kind of action to be more like those naitons?
I want to bring up a different view to this headscarf issue. Veysi Altay from IHD human rights association has said that the ban isn't as simple as it sounds. Altay is Turkish and she says Turkish women don't have a shared opinion on the issue as the ban might limit the lives of women and girls. Their families may forbid them from going to school or work. This is -of course- wrong, but still an issue which has to be considered.

No non-Muslim nation forces Muslim woman to go uncovered out in the streets. However many Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia or Iran force all women, whether Muslim or not, to cover their heads. Islamic societies have less personal choice and freedom than do western nations.

Well, we do have non-Muslims in our schools, of both genders.

The Christian students wear their big-ass crosses to school every day. Do we go and beat them up for that?. No, we let them be. And we expect the same consideration from those who "founded democracy" and "created the concept of liberty" and similar self-proclaimed shit.

Don't go around claiming you uphold and protect civil liberties and freedoms when you restrict something as basic as the right to practice religion.. Reminds me of Bush and his whole "protecting freedom" bull.. Hypocritical bastard.

It may not harm them but it's unnecessary what so ever. And I'm against all unnecessary rules.

how is that?
The french institution has always felt it important to separate religion from government. Probably for historical reasons. To the the spearate of religion and state is very necessary

And yet the moderate Muslim leaders in France agreed that the law was just and necessary.

Yes they did. Because the 'moderate Muslim leaders' like to suck up to the government.

again why don't men cover their hair to show modesty? as part of western culture which french muslims are also part off, hair is used to flirt by both sexes.

Why don't men wear bras to show their modesty?

how is that?
The french institution has always felt it important to separate religion from government. Probably for historical reasons. To the the spearate of religion and state is very necessary

The separation of religion and state is very necessary. The separation of an individual from their religion just because they happen to be on public grounds is not, and is in fact just another form of indoctrination.

Yes, so? Why taking any kind of action to be more like those naitons?

When did I ever say I supported France's policy? I don't mind at all the Muslims' display of their faith anywhere. However I wanted to refute Nidnodistan's delusion that Islamic nations have "100%" equality for women and her implication that Islamic societies are some of the most tolerant

EDIT: I am Incredible Universe, btw

again why don't men cover their hair to show modesty? as part of western culture which french muslims are also part off, hair is used to flirt by both sexes.

On the last paragraph...just to see if i understand.....men cover their lower body as its NOT attractive, or men as a rule are less attractive?

Men's hair doesn't make them as attractive as women's hair does. Men don't have to cover as much because they are less beautiful, and also less vulnerable.

Why don't men wear bras to show their modesty?

we dont have mamary glands (sp?). bras are not for modesty, they are for support. Say way as men wear underwear for support.

Well, we do have non-Muslims in our schools, of both genders.

The Christian students wear their big-ass crosses to school every day. Do we go and beat them up for that?. No, we let them be. And we expect the same consideration from those who "founded democracy" and "created the concept of liberty" and similar self-proclaimed shit.

Don't go around claiming you uphold and protect civil liberties and freedoms when you restrict something as basic as the right to practice religion.. Reminds me of Bush and his whole "protecting freedom" bull.. Hypocritical bastard.
Um I am against France's policy.

When did I ever say I supported France's policy? I don't mind at all the Muslims' display of their faith anywhere. However I wanted to refute Nidnodistan's delusion that Islamic nations have "100%" equality for women and her implication that Islamic societies are some of the most tolerant

EDIT: I am Incredible Universe, btw

sorry if I wasn't clear but I don't think I even mentioned Muslim nations because i sure as hell don't consider them liberal, tolerant or fair, that's a whole other issue.

I did say that Islam grants women 100% equality though - that's no delusion.

we dont have mamary glands (sp?). bras are not for modesty, they are for support. Say way as men wear underwear for support.

Women with small breasts who don't need support are still expected to wear bras, and men with large breasts who do need support are not. Besides, none of us need support unless we are out doing something very phsyical. Either way, I would be seen as half-dressed if I didn't have a bra on right now.

And bras have nothing to do with mammary glands.

And men wear underwear for support? Only those who wear briefs. It's not like boxers really provide much support.

Basically, the headscarf is a social construct, just like a woman in most societies must wear a bra to feel fully dressed. You don't understand the social construct and you freak out because some have misused it, but the truth is that in many places, the *woman* decided to wear the headscarf herself. I have known more than one woman who made that decision - who are you to say it is wrong?

The separation of religion and state is very necessary. The separation of an individual from their religion just because they happen to be on public grounds is not, and is in fact just another form of indoctrination.

i would consider a school to be governmental grounds, not public. As not just anyone is allowed to walk into a school, unlike say a park, where if you wished you could wear a cross, burka, or what have you.

As for indoctrination...well yes. But that happens in every school in the world. The government apples the views of the people into all its instituations. Ha and vice versa

I have been indoctrinated into wearing a bra every day - is that bad too?

There are so many replies I could make there, but I won't... ;)

Seriously, though I can see a possible link between physical and religious support (IYSWIM) I think the likeness ends there.

A lot of non-muslim girls seem to be spiritually Ok without headscarves, as do those of islamic tendency who I have acquainted with. Admitedly, the parents of muslim girls who have been allowed (or tolerated) to extend their stomping-grounds wide enough to impact upon my own social radius probably aren't the fundementalist kinds who would insist on this, but therein lies the limits of my understanding.

I know of no reason why a family subscribed so strictly to such (day I say 'obselete'?) cultural rules would also be willing to allow their daughters to attend a mixed-sex multicultural and secular educational institution. By attending a school with a dedicated uniform you have to subscribe to the limitations involved.

And I would not call your use of bras 'indoctination', any more than my wearing glasses is. I see better with my glasses than without (I could also use contacts), I'm assuming your body is better supported with a bra than without (you could also use one or other of a variety of other support items). Maybe it's my lack of knowledge of the relative aspects of islamic culture in multicultural France, but it appears to me that headscarves/etc aren't in the same league and are merely a form of cultural identity that is either the girl's own choice (in which case taking away the choice is nothing to do with religion, the same as skipping classes would be a personal decision to breakthe school rules) or a family/community-enforced aspect, in which case I stand by my choice of force, coercition or indoctrination.

I knew my views on this matter wouldn't be globally accepted, but I actually thought it'd be the bit that was essentially suggesting compulsary uniforms for all school-kids that'd get the first argument...

The separation of religion and state is very necessary. The separation of an individual from their religion just because they happen to be on public grounds is not, and is in fact just another form of indoctrination.
Pray tell, how is that indoctrination?

i would consider a school to be governmental grounds, not public. As not just anyone is allowed to walk into a school, unlike say a park, where if you wished you could wear a cross, burka, or what have you.

What about a courtroom? Are you going to stand at the door and rip headscarfs off of women as they enter a courthouse? What if they are going to meet with a politician? What if they go to a government-run museum?

Either way, governmental grounds or not - separation of government and state has nothing to do with separation of and individual from their religion. You cannot ask a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Pagan/Wiccan to stop being a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Pagan/Wiccan just because they happen to walk onto government grounds.

As for indoctrination...well yes. But that happens in every school in the world. The government apples the views of the people into all its instituations. Ha and vice versa

And your indoctrination is better than all the others, I presume?

Pray tell, how is that indoctrination?
In that case the government is pressuring and indoctrinating a religious person against his or her religion, by making religious practices legally and socially unacceptable.

Pray tell, how is that indoctrination?

"Religion is bad because the government says so! You need to not be religious to fit in and be allowed to get a public education! If you don't walk around half-naked, you can't be a viable citizen of this country!"

Sounds like indoctrination to me.

When did I ever say I supported France's policy? I don't mind at all the Muslims' display of their faith anywhere. However I wanted to refute Nidnodistan's delusion that Islamic nations have "100%" equality for women and her implication that Islamic societies are some of the most tolerant

EDIT: I am Incredible Universe, btw
Sorry I quoted you wrongly. It was more against those who keep saying that everyone should be free (from headscarves) but then support a law which limits one's freedoms.

You don't seem to realise that women actually CHOOSE to be Muslim, and CHOOSE to wear headscarves.
And when you attend school you are required to follow dress-codes. If it's purely a matter of personal choice that they wear them, then the fact that they aren't allowed them in school is no more significant than banning nose-piercings and high-heels and ripped jeans...

The French Government had exactly the right idea by banning religious icons in schools and students from wearing them, religion has no place in public schools, am I right?

But what if I consider all clothing to be religiously significant to me..!

Would they ban all my clothing such that I'd have to wander around utterly naked..!?

Oh the shame..!

Women with small breasts who don't need support are still expected to wear bras, and men with large breasts who do need support are not. Besides, none of us need support unless we are out doing something very phsyical. Either way, I would be seen as half-dressed if I didn't have a bra on right now.

And bras have nothing to do with mammary glands.

And men wear underwear for support? Only those who wear briefs. It's not like boxers really provide much support.


You create those expectations yourself (and other women). I don't wear bras if I don't feel like it, which happens about once or twice a week. I don't have huge breasts but they're not very small either.
Otherwise I agree with you.

sorry if I wasn't clear but I don't think I even mentioned Muslim nations because i sure as hell don't consider them liberal, tolerant or fair, that's a whole other issue.

I did say that Islam grants women 100% equality though - that's no delusion.
Perhaps theoretically Islam gives people 100% equality. However the ideals of Islam aren't really consequential to what we are talking about. We are evaluating the real-world practice of Islam, and Islam (like any other religion) will always be filtered through the flawed interpretations of imperfect humans. Sharia law in Islamic northern Nigeria, Sudan, and Pakistan values the testimony of women less than that of men. Also, in Malaysia men can divorce his wife at any time simply by typing "I divorce you" thrice through a cell phone, but women cannot do that to men. Women in a perfect world would be 100% equal to men, but this world is not perfect and in many corners of the Islamic world there exists this heavy discrimination against women.

Women with small breasts who don't need support are still expected to wear bras, and men with large breasts who do need support are not. Besides, none of us need support unless we are out doing something very phsyical. Either way, I would be seen as half-dressed if I didn't have a bra on right now.

And bras have nothing to do with mammary glands.

And men wear underwear for support? Only those who wear briefs. It's not like boxers really provide much support.

where are women expected to wear bras? a company can ask you to cover up to a certain extent of course, or in a company. But out in public?. If the nipples show through, yes that is seen a 'sexual' thing by most countries in the world. But everytime i go out i see plenty of women wearing tops with no bras, and they are treated no differently than anyone else. But then does are the standards that have been set by the society. Same way i cannot walk down the street naked.

wonderbras and such are for support. But i was referring historically. Either forms of underwear are for support. It can be ....unconfortable

And when you attend school you are required to follow dress-codes. If it's purely a matter of personal choice that they wear them, then the fact that they aren't allowed them in school is no more significant than banning nose-piercings and high-heels and ripped jeans...
Why shouldn't you be able to wear nose-piercings or high-heels? Are they generally banned in European schools? I find all dresscodes as unnecessary limitations.

And when you attend school you are required to follow dress-codes. If it's purely a matter of personal choice that they wear them, then the fact that they aren't allowed them in school is no more significant than banning nose-piercings and high-heels and ripped jeans...
Public schools in the USA do not have dress codes. Nose piercings, high heels, and ripped jeans are not banned in American public schools. And Muslim headscarves or Jewish skullcaps or Christian crosses should not be banned here either.

And when you attend school you are required to follow dress-codes. If it's purely a matter of personal choice that they wear them, then the fact that they aren't allowed them in school is no more significant than banning nose-piercings and high-heels and ripped jeans...

It -is- more significant, because people (as far as I know) don't wear high heels and ripped jeans for religious reasons.

"Religion is bad because the government says so! You need to not be religious to fit in and be allowed to get a public education! If you don't walk around half-naked, you can't be a viable citizen of this country!"

Sounds like indoctrination to me.
Oh please! Nobody said any of those things. The French government is not going around and talking to kids about the evil of religion. It JUST don't talk about it. By that rationale, we could says that in the US anyone who ever smoked a joint is not a viable member of the country.

Why shouldn't you be able to wear nose-piercings or high-heels? Are they generally banned in European schools? I find all dresscodes as unnecessary limitations.
Alright except being nude and wearing a burkha. The reasons I have already given.

Men's hair doesn't make them as attractive as women's hair does. Men don't have to cover as much because they are less beautiful, and also less vulnerable.

Less beautiful? how sexist! its the 21st century we are all equaly beautiful! lol

But seriously, its only perspective no? I would hope women can find men very attractive! and what about being attractive to other men. The difference between hairstyles can alter appearance alot.
Less vunerable in the sense of being attacked by a women but from a man?

where are women expected to wear bras? a company can ask you to cover up to a certain extent of course, or in a company. But out in public?. If the nipples show through, yes that is seen a 'sexual' thing by most countries in the world. But everytime i go out i see plenty of women wearing tops with no bras, and they are treated no differently than anyone else. But then does are the standards that have been set by the society. Same way i cannot walk down the street naked.

As a datum point, the other day in town (during my dinner-hour) I saw a more-than-moderately-overweight lady wandering around. She was wearing a thin white woolen cardigan on top but it was obvious to even the casual observer that she was wearing a black bra underneath. Had she gone for a white number it would not have been so obvious that she hadn't any other layers of clothing on... I can't really talk when it comes to looking stylish, but this instance was definitely not the best fashion-choice... (Still, could have bee a knitted skirt as well... ;)

(We now return you to your regularly-scheduled argument...)

What about a courtroom? Are you going to stand at the door and rip headscarfs off of women as they enter a courthouse? What if they are going to meet with a politician? What if they go to a government-run museum?

Either way, governmental grounds or not - separation of government and state has nothing to do with separation of and individual from their religion. You cannot ask a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Pagan/Wiccan to stop being a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Pagan/Wiccan just because they happen to walk onto government grounds.


When going to a courtroom/museum/politician office you are going as a guest. Are the parents of the students banned from wearing religious symbols when they go to the school as guests?
How does an object help you be more of a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Pagan/Wiccan?

You create those expectations yourself (and other women). I don't wear bras if I don't feel like it, which happens about once or twice a week. I don't have huge breasts but they're not very small either.
Otherwise I agree with you.

Yes, but I feel naked without it - are you going to tell me that I can't wear it to school now?


Oh please! Nobody said any of those things. The French government is not going around and talking to kids about the evil of religion. It JUST don't talk about it.

By denying children freedom of religion, they are making it seem evil to those children. If they weren't talking about it, it wouldn't be an issue. However, they are talking about it, by denying it to those who want it. The government doesn't go around preaching about the evils of Naziism either (except perhaps in Germany). However, by disallowing it, they are giving the impression it is wrong. In the case of a belief that causes harm to others, this is a good thing. In the case of a belief that harms no one, but a few people get "uncomfortable," government indoctrination cannot be justified.

By that rationale, we could says that in the US anyone who ever smoked a joint is not a viable member of the country.

I'm not sure how this is in any way relevant.

It -is- more significant, because people (as far as I know) don't wear high heels and ripped jeans for religious reasons.
And when the french state will recognise religious reasons for their policy, you will have a valid complaint. As it stands now, the dress code is there for a reason. No exception are accepted on any grounds.

There's a difference between not forcing your religion on people, and forcing no religion on people.

As a Christian, I don't go around stuffing the bible down everybody's throat because I respect their freedom of choice to be whatever religion they want. On the other hand I demand the freedom to wear my cross and be a Christian as much as I want. Why should I be forced to be some kind of closet-Christian? So other people don't feel uncomfortable? How uncomfortable do you think it makes me feel when my gov't restricts my religious rights?

Why shouldn't you be able to wear nose-piercings or high-heels? Are they generally banned in European schools? I find all dresscodes as unnecessary limitations.

Don't know about all schools, but the one I went to (in the UK) had a uniform and banned some of the more outrageous 'additional things like piercings (with the exception of sleeper-studs in ears on application) and impractical shoes like high-heals and open-toed sandals (except where medically required).

And I think it worked and I think every school should have a uniform and similar restrictions. It may mean some expense to the parents, but they're going to be paying for a designer-clothes arms-race anyway if it's essentially a go-as-you-want fashion parade. (We had the occasional No Uniform Day for charity, and I was assured, by someone previously in a no-uniform school that the apparent expenditure for that special occasion was nowhere near what occured for everyday in his original school... And less sense of community, though so many other factors could also be involved there.)

Sorry I quoted you wrongly. It was more against those who keep saying that everyone should be free (from headscarves) but then support a law which limits one's freedoms.

Oh I have no problem with someone wearing a head scarf. But france has a very proud culture. From the french i've known, which i would say are a lot, are proud of their society. One of the reasons to be proud would be the separation of religion and state. This law did not come around be of the muslims! They just deem it now to be an overt religious symbol, thus banned

Why shouldn't you be able to wear nose-piercings or high-heels? Are they generally banned in European schools? I find all dresscodes as unnecessary limitations.

how does it limit you?

As a datum point, the other day in town (during my dinner-hour) I saw a more-than-moderately-overweight lady wandering around. She was wearing a thin white woolen cardigan on top but it was obvious to even the casual observer that she was wearing a black bra underneath. Had she gone for a white number it would not have been so obvious that she hadn't any other layers of clothing on... I can't really talk when it comes to looking stylish, but this instance was definitely not the best fashion-choice... (Still, could have bee a knitted skirt as well... ;)

(We now return you to your regularly-scheduled argument...)

Thanks for the break

Religion is a waste of time.

Alright, since the ban is on overt religious symbols, Christmas trees - and everything else to do with Christmas should also be banned. Would everyone be ok with that?

And when you attend school you are required to follow dress-codes. If it's purely a matter of personal choice that they wear them, then the fact that they aren't allowed them in school is no more significant than banning nose-piercings and high-heels and ripped jeans...It -is- more significant, because people (as far as I know) don't wear high heels and ripped jeans for religious reasons.
I was responding to a statement that it was the girl's own choice. If it is her own choice then it is not religiously enforced and thus that is not a valid reason and dress codes definitely apply.

I also have problems with religiously-defined dress-codes (those forced upon the wearer) infringing upon both secular education facilities and the wearer's own civil liberties (mostly the latter), but that's a different side of a different coin...

By denying children freedom of religion, they are making it seem evil to those children. If they weren't talking about it, it wouldn't be an issue. However, they are talking about it, by denying it to those who want it. The government doesn't go around preaching about the evils of Naziism either (except perhaps in Germany). However, by disallowing it, they are giving the impression it is wrong. In the case of a belief that causes harm to others, this is a good thing. In the case of a belief that harms no one, but a few people get "uncomfortable," government indoctrination cannot be justified.

They are not denying freedom of religion on children. I repeat,
they are not denying freedom of religion on children. They are curtailing it, perhaps but they are not denying it. Denying it would be "no religion shall be accepted". They are saying "no religious SYMBOLS are tolerated in a place of public learning." And when there is discrimination and abuse done on the name of religious freedom, something has to be done.

I'm not sure how this is in any way relevant.

You're stating that by banning a religious symbol you send the message that those who believe in God are not productive memer of society.
I'm stating that by banning marijuana you send the message that those who use it are not productive memer of society.

I'm using your brand of logic to point out that it is faulty.

Religion is a waste of time.

then you must be an agnostic!

Yes, but I feel naked without it - are you going to tell me that I can't wear it to school now?

Of course not! Wear three bras if you want. And over the shirt! Wear what ever you please. That's I've been saying all the time. I just wanted to say wearing bras is just a learnt thing, you don't have to weat them and you don't have to feel you should wear them. Hey let's burn some bras!! :D Liberation of tits.

Of course not! Wear three bras if you want. And over the shirt! Wear what ever you please. That's I've been saying all the time. I just wanted to say wearing bras is just a learnt thing, you don't have to weat them and you don't have to feel you should wear them. Hey let's burn some bras!! :D Liberation of tits.

go for it!

as long as you don't do it in school!

There's a difference between not forcing your religion on people, and forcing no religion on people.
I agree on the concept. I don't think it applies here. They didn't ban religion. They banned the symbol you use to force your religion down the throat of others. Big difference.

how does it limit you?
It limits me because I can not wear what I want. What I wear reveals something of my persona to other people. And I want to use that option.

I know I would rather not be stared at by perves on the street than made into an object and feel I have to look like whatever the magazines print. LMAO! Now you're just going on reinforcing that sexist and frankly wrong idea that it's the woman's fault for not covering up if she's eyed by men! Personally, I much prefer the idea that men should control their horny selves and if they don't, you sue them for harassment.

You don't seem to realise that women actually CHOOSE to be Muslim, and CHOOSE to wear headscarves. Most Muslimahs are not 'imprisoned' or oppressed - people like you just like to think of them that way because they are pig-headed islamophobes.Actually, my ideas have been strongly influenced by several women Muslim writers comparing marriage to a prison (dont think my negative attitude towards marriage stops at muslim marriage, heck no, christian marraige is no better, and I will never ever get married). Go ahead and insult me all you like, but it's not getting your point across, it's making you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

And Muslims born into the religion don't chose to be Islam anymore than Christians born into Christianity chose their religion. It's a function of environment, not personal choice. Unless you were raised as a heathen or something, or went through a long period of questioning your faith, don't give me that "choose" bull.

Women with small breasts who don't need support are still expected to wear bras, and men with large breasts who do need support are not. Besides, none of us need support unless we are out doing something very phsyical. Either way, I would be seen as half-dressed if I didn't have a bra on right now. Funny, I'm a fully grown women with no chest to speak of and I go without a bra all the time. Your analogy sounds interesting, but it really doesn't make sense.

Don't know about all schools, but the one I went to (in the UK) had a uniform and banned some of the more outrageous 'additional things like piercings (with the exception of sleeper-studs in ears on application) and impractical shoes like high-heals and open-toed sandals (except where medically required).

And I think it worked and I think every school should have a uniform and similar restrictions. It may mean some expense to the parents, but they're going to be paying for a designer-clothes arms-race anyway if it's essentially a go-as-you-want fashion parade. (We had the occasional No Uniform Day for charity, and I was assured, by someone previously in a no-uniform school that the apparent expenditure for that special occasion was nowhere near what occured for everyday in his original school... And less sense of community, though so many other factors could also be involved there.)
I've worked as an au pair in England. We don't have any dress-codes in Finland and I'm used to that. You're British and used to dress-codes. But I was amazed how much the appropriate cloths cost and how incredibly short the skirts were. Even during winter. And the girls kept whining how cold they felt all the time. I couldn't find a single reason why dress-codes would be a good thing.

(Bra)
Yes, but I feel naked without it - are you going to tell me that I can't wear it to school now?

On the contrary, you'd be pleased to know that there was actually a compulsive requirement for the older girls of our school to wear bras!

Though there was some sort of criteria that was used to determine when girls transitioned into the territory of this rule, no-one saw fit to inform us boys about the finer details, for some reason... :)

*Reminisces about us boys realising that more and more of the girls in our classes were wearing ahem support of some kind under their thin blouses... And trying to guess who had to and who was just bluffing* ;)

When going to a courtroom/museum/politician office you are going as a guest. Are the parents of the students banned from wearing religious symbols when they go to the school as guests?
How does an object help you be more of a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Pagan/Wiccan?

I don't know about you, but I don't go to a courtroom/museum/politician to just hang out. I go there to utilize the services offered there by the government. The children going into a public school are, likewise, going in to utilize the services there - but they are being banned from wearing religious symbols.

And Muslims born into the religion don't chose to be Islam anymore than Christians born into Christianity chose their religion. It's a function of environment, not personal choice. Unless you were raised as a heathen or something, or went through a long period of questioning your faith, don't give me that "choose" bull.


I just have to.
I was born into Christian family but haven't believed in God since I was 9 and haven't believed in anything since I was 16. Some parents don't force their believes down your throat.

It limits me because I can not wear what I want. What I wear reveals something of my persona to other people. And I want to use that option.
It shows your tastes and whether you and introvert or extrovert. School is for studying primarily. People in a school with uniforms have no problem interacting with each other.
Can people not know something about your persona by some other way?

(Bra)


On the contrary, you'd be pleased to know that there was actually a compulsive requirement for the older girls of our school to wear bras!


Gee....WHERE do you live? (I'll show up with no bra) :)

Alright, since the ban is on overt religious symbols, Christmas trees - and everything else to do with Christmas should also be banned. Would everyone be ok with that?

Yes, if that's the rule.

UK schools (used to?) have a religious assembly (most places had a form of opt-out, by arrangement, for those whose parents agreed they didn't have to/shouldn't attend) and we had Christmas and Easter and May Day. All the standard Pagan festivals... :)

I don't know about you, but I don't go to a courtroom/museum/politician to just hang out. I go there to utilize the services offered there by the government. The children going into a public school are, likewise, going in to utilize the services there - but they are being banned from wearing religious symbols.

is it not law that children have to go to school were you live?

you go to school to work. studying is not pleasure its work.

I agree on the concept. I don't think it applies here. They didn't ban religion. They banned the symbol you use to force your religion down the throat of others. Big difference.

Yeah, because me wearing a cross and sitting next to you would "force my religion down your throat." You are much more impressionable than the average child, my friend.

Funny, I'm a fully grown women with no chest to speak of and I go without a bra all the time. Your analogy sounds interesting, but it really doesn't make sense.

Actually, you have just validated my analogy. I personally feel naked going out without a bra or a shirt with a built in bra. You do not. We can both agree that the other should be allowed to wear/not wear a bra as we see fit.

An orthodox Muslim girl feels naked going out without a headscarf. I do not. We can both agree that the other should be allowed to wear/not wear a headscarf as we see fit.

You're stating that by banning a religious symbol you send the message that those who believe in God are not productive memer of society.
I'm stating that by banning marijuana you send the message that those who use it are not productive memer of society.

I'm using your brand of logic to point out that it is faulty.

Except it isn't. The fact that marijuana is banned *does* send the message that those who use it are not proper, productive members of society. I disagree with that message as well, but that is exactly what banning it suggests.

It shows your tastes and whether you and introvert or extrovert. School is for studying primarily. People in a school with uniforms have no problem interacting with each other.
Can people not know something about your persona by some other way?
Of course. But in a school where there's 600 pupils it's much more easier to find those who might share same opinions. I'm not saying one should only interact with people who are quite similar to you, actually quite the contrary. But what's wrong with showing e.g. that you're a nature lover? It certainly doesn't affect your studing in any way.

is it not law that children have to go to school were you live?

It is law that children receive some form of education. However, we go to public schools to get the education there, thus utilizing the services offered. Whether or not it is legally required has nothing to do with it. I am legally required to go to the tag office to pay for my car tags - does that mean that I shouldn't be allowed to wear a cross when I go to do so?

Part of the problem with this discussion is the different definitions of laicity, the seperation of church and state. In certain countries, this means that eople are free to express their religious beliefs as they see fit (the United States, for example). If anyone is rdered to hide their religious paraphanalia, they claim that their freedom of religion is being violated, and it is, according t the laws that govern that country.
However, the French definition of laicity is different. Since France abolished its ties with the Catholic Church and rewrote the Napoleonic code governing religious displays in public, it has been illegal for French citizens to wear ostentatious religious articles in civic arenas (schools, courts, hotel de villes, etc.). This law has been in effect since 1905, and it applies to all religions. While I was studying in France last year, I was asked to remove my cross necklace or tuck it into my shirt because the French law sees that as imposing a religious belief on others. If something is extremely subtle, it may go unnoticed, but they seem, particularly in the past year, to be pretty strict about it. There is nothing wrong with this system, because it fits into the greater historical context of French law. However, those of us who are not familiar with this historical context, myself included, should probably refrain from making major value judgements.

Except it isn't. The fact that marijuana is banned *does* send the message that those who use it are not proper, productive members of society. I disagree with that message as well, but that is exactly what banning it suggests.
In the sense that marijuana is illegal only in some countries, I would not think anyone who smokes mari is not a proper member of society. It's just a cultural thing. Eventhough I'm against legalizing it, I think alcohol is much more dangerous. But it's not the point. I know what you meant. Again I mostly agree with you :)

Yeah, because me wearing a cross and sitting next to you would "force my religion down your throat." You are much more impressionable than the average child, my friend.

First of all, I was responding to another poster using his own analogy.

Second, those who force religion down the throat use crosses, bible, burqa, etc. I'm not saying all "cross wearers" are "religion pushers", I'm saying all "religion pushers" are "cross wearers". And before we go on, I want to state that my statement is merely a logical statement and not a personnal opinion.

Except it isn't. The fact that marijuana is banned *does* send the message that those who use it are not proper, productive members of society. I disagree with that message as well, but that is exactly what banning it suggests.
Yes but does marijuana users believe that signification? Most don't. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that the same conclusion can be true to the religious situation.

I've worked as an au pair in England. We don't have any dress-codes in Finland and I'm used to that. You're British and used to dress-codes. But I was amazed how much the appropriate cloths cost and how incredibly short the skirts were. Even during winter. And the girls kept whining how cold they felt all the time. I couldn't find a single reason why dress-codes would be a good thing.

Local costs of uniforms (excuse me while my mind dribbles at the thought of the traditional au pair uniform...) are generally in line with the wealth of the buyers. (Even if only schools in poorer areas don't insist on precise shades of some colours and let Mums knit the school cardigans or whatever.)

As an au pair you'll have almost certainly been working for a wealthy family in a well-to-do area so would have witnessed the relatively high cost of living. This is a pure guess, of course, feel free to correct me.


Dress codes are good in building sens of community. Even though it might lead to an 'us against them' attitude when you meat kids from the posh school up the road, it gives you a sense of belonging. You can still strive to stand out from your own crowd (or lag behind it if you wish) but it keeps an institution like a school together, in my experience. My experience, of course, and other opinions may naturally differ. There's going to be positives and negatives to both sides of the coin.

Part of the problem with this discussion is the different definitions of laicity, the seperation of church and state. In certain countries, this means that eople are free to express their religious beliefs as they see fit (the United States, for example). If anyone is rdered to hide their religious paraphanalia, they claim that their freedom of religion is being violated, and it is, according t the laws that govern that country.
However, the French definition of laicity is different. Since France abolished its ties with the Catholic Church and rewrote the Napoleonic code governing religious displays in public, it has been illegal for French citizens to wear ostentatious religious articles in civic arenas (schools, courts, hotel de villes, etc.). This law has been in effect since 1905, and it applies to all religions. While I was studying in France last year, I was asked to remove my cross necklace or tuck it into my shirt because the French law sees that as imposing a religious belief on others. If something is extremely subtle, it may go unnoticed, but they seem, particularly in the past year, to be pretty strict about it. There is nothing wrong with this system, because it fits into the greater historical context of French law. However, those of us who are not familiar with this historical context, myself included, should probably refrain from making major value judgements.
Thank you for clarification. Makes a lot more sense now. (someone has mentioned something like this before, but not as clearly) Still, I don't think it's right...

Gee....WHERE do you live? (I'll show up with no bra) :)
I must say, I don't get offers like that every day. In fact, once every few months would be a distinct improvement!

I think you are missing a point about this ban folks (yes this is a ban and we are very itchy about that). School in France is still regarded as THE pillar of republic.
We are a nation who believe that everything is determined by how you achieve in school and what sort of diplomas you get. You need to show your diplomas when you want to apply for a public job and it's about the same for a lot of private jobs.

So basically national education is the official religion in France and schools are its temples. That's why we can't tolerate any opponent.

A bit harsh but you can't fiddle with religion, can you?

LMAO! Now you're just going on reinforcing that sexist and frankly wrong idea that it's the woman's fault for not covering up if she's eyed by men! Personally, I much prefer the idea that men should control their horny selves and if they don't, you sue them for harassment.

That's your opinion. I'd just not rather be eyed up by men at all, thanks. Or anyone else, for that matter... I don't blame women for being harassed by men, it's just that I'd rather not have it happen to me, so I try to protect myself.

Actually, my ideas have been strongly influenced by several women Muslim writers comparing marriage to a prison (dont think my negative attitude towards marriage stops at muslim marriage, heck no, christian marraige is no better, and I will never ever get married). Go ahead and insult me all you like, but it's not getting your point across, it's making you look like you don't know what you're talking about..

Right, you've read a couple of books so you know all about it (!). What you mentioned is not the experience of every Muslim woman, so please don't treat it like it is.


And Muslims born into the religion don't chose to be Islam anymore than Christians born into Christianity chose their religion. It's a function of environment, not personal choice. Unless you were raised as a heathen or something, or went through a long period of questioning your faith, don't give me that "choose" bull..

Once people get old enough to think for themselves, they can look at their religion objectively and change if they feel like it.

Local costs of uniforms (excuse me while my mind dribbles at the thought of the traditional au pair uniform...) are generally in line with the wealth of the buyers. (Even if only schools in poorer areas don't insist on precise shades of some colours and let Mums knit the school cardigans or whatever.)
heh, au pair uniform...
As an au pair you'll have almost certainly been working for a wealthy family in a well-to-do area so would have witnessed the relatively high cost of living. This is a pure guess, of course, feel free to correct me.

Yes quite wealthy, you're correct. But my a friend of mine worked in a poor family and they had to spent huge amounts on the cloths too. This is, of course, a decision the parents have made themselves. They haven't been forced to buy such an expensive items. The same problem parents have when there are no dress-codes. All kids want expensive clothes but not everyone can have them. I don't think dresscode helps this at all.

Dress codes are good in building sens of community. Even though it might lead to an 'us against them' attitude when you meat kids from the posh school up the road, it gives you a sense of belonging. You can still strive to stand out from your own crowd (or lag behind it if you wish) but it keeps an institution like a school together, in my experience. My experience, of course, and other opinions may naturally differ. There's going to be positives and negatives to both sides of the coin.
This might be true, I don't have any experience about it. But I have to say we got a great sense of community without a dresscode. It's not the only way to build the feeling of belonging. As you say, it's just our experiences. I hope there won't be dresscodes in Finland you hope you won't get rid of them. That's fair. Dresscodes can be a lot better, I can't REALLY say.

Yes but does marijuana users believe that signification? Most don't. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that the same conclusion can be true to the religious situation.

Not the point. Those around them who do not use it often *do* believe that signification. And marijuana users are affected by it to the extent that they feel the need to hide the fact that they are marijuana users. We have suggested that it is wrong, and many marijuana users believe that it is - they just do it anyways.

I think you are missing a point about this ban folks (yes this is a ban and we are very itchy about that). School in France is still regarded as THE pillar of republic.
We are a nation who believe that everything is determined by how you achieve in school and what sort of diplomas you get. You need to show your diplomas when you want to apply for a public job and it's about the same for a lot of private jobs.

So basically national education is the official religion in France and schools are its temples. That's why we can't tolerate any opponent.

A bit harsh but you can't fiddle with religion, can you?
Hey it's just the same over here and we don't have any regulations. The church and the state have always been separeted etc.

Hey it's just the same over here and we don't have any regulations. The church and the state have always been separeted etc.
Yes mate but over there you are so coooool about everything. Don't forget we are still latin and we created cartesianism. We've got to carry our burden.

I second the motion. In public schools, a strict dress code regarding school uniforms, hairstyles, and the like should be adhered to. We did it in Singapore and I think it's feasible in any other secular country. :D

Isn't Singapore a Moslem government? So does the dress code require a burkha?

Yes mate but over there you are so coooool about everything. Don't forget we are still latin and we created cartesianism. We've got to carry our burden.
:D
Of course the enviroment is very different. Over 90% of Finns are Christian (Lutheran) but very few actually are religious. Those who are Orthodox, catholics, jews, muslim, other are regularly much more religious than the average Finn. It such a small issue in my country that's very stupid of me to get involved in this kind of conversation (which btw is very interesting one), but I just have a big mouth...

I have a problem with any religion that hides behind a veil. In our times no one should be allowed to hide his or her identity in public, unless for security reasons.

I have a problem with any religion that hides behind a veil. In our times no one should be allowed to hide his or her identity in public, unless for security reasons.

Hair =! Identity

bloody good thing.

i'm for school uniforms and no religious symbols.


What purpose would school uniforms have? Stopping people from expressing themselves? Stopping people being made fun of? Stopping the wearing of revealing clothes?

To stop people from expressing themselves is wrong. It forces everyone to look the same, or to even be the same. It takes away independence that growing kids need to survive in the real world.

And many think uniforms would stop teasing. Not true at all. The cruellest of people can always find something in someone to make fun of- An school uniforms can become expensive, and people would probably be made fun of for having tattered, worn uniforms.

As for stopping revealing clothes- Thats what school dresscodes are for. Dresscodes can allow people to express themselves pretty freely without being revealing or profane.

And religion icons? If they are going to ban them, then they should ban them all- including all of those crosses, pentagrams, and everything else, or someone could find a reason to fight it- It would be too much work for little results. And if its about people being beat up- then obviously the teachers/admins aren't making the schools safe enough.

Fri October 1, 2004 6:12 PM CEST
Reuters
Une lycéenne musulmane se rase pour aller en classe
a muslim high-school girl shaves her hair to go to school.

Problem solved.

Of course. But in a school where there's 600 pupils it's much more easier to find those who might share same opinions. I'm not saying one should only interact with people who are quite similar to you, actually quite the contrary. But what's wrong with showing e.g. that you're a nature lover? It certainly doesn't affect your studing in any way.

how would your cloths show such a thing? could this not be reproduced in other ways?

What purpose would school uniforms have? Stopping people from expressing themselves? Stopping people being made fun of? Stopping the wearing of revealing clothes?

The logic behind school uniform is that it removes some distractions from the classroom. (such as revealing clothing, social distinctions like poor/rich or christian/jew)
Studies show that school uniform inproves the tests scores. School where uniform is mandatory regularly test better than school without it. Obviously, these claims can be affected by many other elements (such as private/public school, all-girl/mixed classes). To be honest, I'd like to point out that some school who adopted the uniform removed it from their rules as they found little help in them.

It is law that children receive some form of education. However, we go to public schools to get the education there, thus utilizing the services offered. Whether or not it is legally required has nothing to do with it. I am legally required to go to the tag office to pay for my car tags - does that mean that I shouldn't be allowed to wear a cross when I go to do so?

(ok this is getting a bit silly)
no you don't but its not exactly the same thing as going somewhere to be educated for 8 hours straight. I'm sure the employee in the tag office are not allowed to wear religious symbols. But being a student is quite a different thing don't you think?
Hell its even an everyday classification. you work or study. In both you have a dress code. don't you?

What purpose would school uniforms have? Stopping people from expressing themselves? Stopping people being made fun of? Stopping the wearing of revealing clothes?

To stop people from expressing themselves is wrong. It forces everyone to look the same, or to even be the same. It takes away independence that growing kids need to survive in the real world.

And many think uniforms would stop teasing. Not true at all. The cruellest of people can always find something in someone to make fun of- An school uniforms can become expensive, and people would probably be made fun of for having tattered, worn uniforms.

As for stopping revealing clothes- Thats what school dresscodes are for. Dresscodes can allow people to express themselves pretty freely without being revealing or profane.

And religion icons? If they are going to ban them, then they should ban them all- including all of those crosses, pentagrams, and everything else, or someone could find a reason to fight it- It would be too much work for little results. And if its about people being beat up- then obviously the teachers/admins aren't making the schools safe enough.

ok.....I people can only express themselves by their clothes...well that quite sad, maybe they should work on some more useful skills than clothes co-ordination.

when i went to school the uniform cost approx. 200 pounds. 1 uniform last a year. How much clothing is used in a year? everyone wheres the same, there is no problem if you dont have the latest nike or whatnot.
Making fun? yes always.

They have banned all overt icons. A muslim student could this wear a crecent moon pendent or whatever. Just nothing overt.

(ok this is getting a bit silly)
no you don't but its not exactly the same thing as going somewhere to be educated for 8 hours straight.

I don't know, when I go to the tag office I am sometimes there for 8 hours straight. If I went to court, I might be there for 8 hours straight.

I'm sure the employee in the tag office are not allowed to wear religious symbols.

Actually, this is untrue. However, it would be much more justified than them telling me, that I could not - since I am not there as a representative of the state - I am there to use the services.

But being a student is quite a different thing don't you think?

No. In either case, the person is an individual utilizing services provided by the state. The state itself should neither support nor deny the individual the right to express their relgion without a compelling reason to do so. (ie. if your religion said you had to carry and AK-47 around, the government could obviously say that no, you cannot). There is no compelling reason in a case where no one is being harmed by the particular expression of religion.

Hell its even an everyday classification. you work or study. In both you have a dress code. don't you?

No, I don't. I could wear pajamas every day if I wanted to. However, I have more choice in where I go to school now that I am no longer legally required to do so.

Fri October 1, 2004 6:12 PM CEST
Reuters
Une lycéenne musulmane se rase pour aller en classe
a muslim high-school girl shaves her hair to go to school.

Problem solved.

cool.

how would your cloths show such a thing? could this not be reproduced in other ways?
Print t-shirts, vintage cloths, the materials etc etc
I don't know how one would get the idea if everyone would wear exactly same clothes.
But I have a question for you. Why you think that choosing what you wear is a bad thing?
Why should everyone look similar when they're not similar?

I don't know, when I go to the tag office I am sometimes there for 8 hours straight. If I went to court, I might be there for 8 hours straight.

Actually, this is untrue. However, it would be much more justified than them telling me, that I could not - since I am not there as a representative of the state - I am there to use the services.

No. In either case, the person is an individual utilizing services provided by the state. The state itself should neither support nor deny the individual the right to express their relgion without a compelling reason to do so. (ie. if your religion said you had to carry and AK-47 around, the government could obviously say that no, you cannot). There is no compelling reason in a case where no one is being harmed by the particular expression of religion.

No, I don't. I could wear pajamas every day if I wanted to. However, I have more choice in where I go to school now that I am no longer legally required to do so.

do you study in france???? i guess at college level you have more choice in france. are allowed to wear religious symbols as well when doing higher education?
In the end it comes down to one thing, an individual is part of the society. This means s/he must follow the rules of the community. Correct no? The great about the EU is that if your not confortable with the rules in your area you can move to a place where they agree more with your views.

I totally, completely support the French government in this... one, because the treatment of women in Muslim societies deeply offends me, and the headcovering is a symbol of that horrible attitude towards women by an entire religion and culture; and two, because I'm a bit of an athiest whose ideal world is one without any form of religion whatsoever.

Nice message! That's exactly what I was thinking!! Death to Islam.

Print t-shirts, vintage cloths, the materials etc etc
I don't know how one would get the idea if everyone would wear exactly same clothes.
But I have a question for you. Why you think that choosing what you wear is a bad thing?
Why should everyone look similar when they're not similar?

ok.. been wearing uniforms since i was 14. So i'm used to both systems.

First when your wearing your own cloths, you spend longer on it. You worry more about your appearance in the sense of 'I need to look nice and have the latest ..... to look good infront of my peers'.
Uniforms solve that problem.
Also when you go to work, as in labour, you have to wear a uniform of some sort. Or fit within a dress code of some sort. So might as well get used to it earlier on.

Guys been alot of fun. will try and talk more later!

ok.. been wearing uniforms since i was 14. So i'm used to both systems.

First when your wearing your own cloths, you spend longer on it. You worry more about your appearance in the sense of 'I need to look nice and have the latest ..... to look good infront of my peers'.
Uniforms solve that problem.
No it doesn't. I thought this might be true but I noticed (while living in England) that they pay attention to the labels even more than teenagers did in my school. Teenagers always worry about their appearance dresscodes or no dresscodes.

Also when you go to work, as in labour, you have to wear a uniform of some sort. Or fit within a dress code of some sort. So might as well get used to it earlier on.

Guys been alot of fun. will try and talk more later!
But I can choose where I work. And get paid for it. I'm representing my employers when working. In school, I represent myself (did..not in school anymore).
I'll leave in a minute too. Enjoyed the conversation.

Nice message! That's exactly what I was thinking!! Death to Islam.
Wow! That's a hungry troll.
We won't feed you, hungry troll. Go away!

do you study in france???? i guess at college level you have more choice in france. are allowed to wear religious symbols as well when doing higher education?

No, I do not study in France. But the differences between higher education and public funded education is irrelevant anyways.

In the end it comes down to one thing, an individual is part of the society. This means s/he must follow the rules of the community. Correct no?

No. If the rules are unfair, one should not follow them - it's called civil disobedience.

The great about the EU is that if your not confortable with the rules in your area you can move to a place where they agree more with your views.

Yeah, because everyone has the money and mobility to just pack up and move to a new country.

While the whole "non-religious" icons thing was mainly a matter of separating state and religion, it's pretty scary the amount of Anti-Islamic/Ultra-Islamic response it continues to produce...

Still, if it's uniforms that this has degenerated to, I am of the opinion that you should wear whatever you want to wear as long as it's legal, wherever and whenever you like; unless there is some form of uniform enforcement whereupon you probably have to comply to remain a member of whatever militaristic school enforces it.

I've been wearing a uniform all my life and hated EVERY MINUTE. BUT there is no real way for you to be stopped from "customising", as long as it remains subtle enough. Hence wearing a bazillion anti-war charity badges.

Every system has it's loophole/it's unbothered enforcers. It'll blowover.

(BTW, I'm pretty ultra-newbie. Don't judge too harshly on my hastily formed opinions)

Nah, you know, I don't give a damn about what I wear when I wake up in the morning. Never have. I wouldn't if I was made to wear a uniform, I wouldn't if I was told I could come to school naked, I just fundamentally don't care how I look.

And kids who do care, would still care even if they had a strict uniform/dress code. It just doesn't change enough to be worthwhile.

It doesn't really matter to me if someone wants to wear a headscarf. You know, I don't like the idea behind it, I deeply and intrinsically abhorr the idea that a religion should tell someone how to dress and act and behave and think, it really bugs me that there are people in this world who let religion do that to them (again, not only talking about Muslims), and I deeply disagree with it. Which is why I agree that the French have the right idea - especially since, as some people pointed out, this secularization is an intrinsic part of the French culture itself. You don't like this part of French culture? OK, leave France.

However... I will say this. If you were to ask me, do I think this should be implemented in the US, I would say in an instant, "no". Because, I guess the most important concept government should adhere to would be, "and it harm none, do what you will".

I never thought I would hear the words "the Freedom have the right idea"

the french government doesn't have it all right though. the banning of all religious icons i agree with. but the french government bans the veil in islam, the yarmulka in judaism, and only large crosses in christianity. people may still wear small ones.

No, I do not study in France. But the differences between higher education and public funded education is irrelevant anyways.

Well, it is relevant actually because there is no restriction on what you can wear or not in college.

No. If the rules are unfair, one should not follow them - it's called civil disobedience.

And who are you to decide that the rules are unfair when they are accepted (to say the least) by the vast majority of the french including those of muslim confession?

Yeah, because everyone has the money and mobility to just pack up and move to a new country.

To start a very "no correct" debate: If you found the money to come ...

I totally, completely support the French government in this... one, because the treatment of women in Muslim societies deeply offends me, and the headcovering is a symbol of that horrible attitude towards women by an entire religion and culture; and two, because I'm a bit of an athiest whose ideal world is one without any form of religion whatsoever.

Nice message! That's exactly what I was thinking!! Death to Islam.
I'm going to go with the "you were being sarcastic and don't really think that's what I meant by my statement" approach here.

And who are you to decide that the rules are unfair when they are accepted (to say the least) by the vast majority of the french including those of muslim confession?

Who were the blacks to decide that the rules were unfair and stop sitting in the back of the bus when the vast majority of US citizens (including black people) thought the law was just fine?

The fact that you are in the minority does not mean that your views should not be seen as worthy.

The fact that you are in the minority does not mean that your views should not be seen as worthy.

No the but the fact that you are in the minority means you have to accept the rules of the majority or find a place where your ideas are welcome.


During our last elections, we had some "on the subject" parties which tried to capitalize on the idea of "opressed religion believers" . They scored virtually zilch. So what is the point of showing them as some kind of Martin Luther King?

During our last elections, we had some "on the subject" parties which tried to capitalize on the idea of "opressed religion believers" . They scored virtually zilch. So what is the point of showing them as some kind of Martin Luther King?
I'm not opposing your argument but your example is a bit too simple. Most people don't vote for a single issue. Parties that have only one or two issues regularly loose. They're there just to make a point, I don't think even they believe they would ever gather any real political power.

I'm not opposing your argument but your example is a bit too simple. Most people don't vote for a single issue. Parties that have only one or two issues regularly loose. They're there just to make a point, I don't think even they believe they would ever gather any real political power.
You are absolutely right but the elections i was talking about were the european and i can tell you that in France those elections were so boring and out of topic that every party was trying to put any other idea to try to get some votes.
The "opressed religion believers" were as appealing as the "Automobilistes vache à lait" or "Parti des socioprofessionnels" 'don't bother to translate they were absolute no hopers).

But i guess this is a different matter up in Finland :) ;)

You are absolutely right but the elections i was talking about were the european and i can tell you that in France those elections were so boring and out of topic that every party was trying to put any other idea to try to get some votes.
The "opressed religion believers" were as appealing as the "Automobilistes vache à lait" or "Parti des socioprofessionnels" 'don't bother to translate they were absolute no hopers).

But i guess this is a different matter up in Finland :) ;)
Hey I believe you French voted a Finnish rally driver to Euro Parliament. :D Ari Vatanen...
If you can't believe it, check it out
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps.short_list?ilg=FI&ictry=IT&ipolgrp=&iorig=

No the but the fact that you are in the minority means you have to accept the rules of the majority or find a place where your ideas are welcome.

Ah, the tyranny of the majority is ok in your book? Gotcha.

During our last elections, we had some "on the subject" parties which tried to capitalize on the idea of "opressed religion believers". They scored virtually zilch. So what is the point of showing them as some kind of Martin Luther King?

If one of our politicians tried to run on the idea of oppressed homosexuals, they wouldn't get very far. It doesn't make them any less right.

I am showing them as what they are, a minority that is being legislated against because people can't get their heads out of their asses and realize that it doesn't matter if the girl next to you doesn't feel comfortable with showing you her hair.

Firstly, the French have contravened human rights by this measure - banning the right to wear religious symbols contravenes the freedom of expression and religion. Secondly, the French in doing this have merely increased the appeal of militant Islam by being authoritarian over an issue that does not really exist - who gets offended if someone wears a headscarf!? It is overly PC!! And before you ask, no I am not an extremist Muslim - I am not Islamic. But I think France has just given Al Quadea a reason to attack. Be sensible. Repeal this law.

So what you are saying is, a government, must acquiesce to the demands of a terrorist group? I am not sure why they passed the law, but a government has the right to do this. They have the right to ensure good oder and discipline in a learning environment. If they roll over because of the threat of terrorism, then the people of France are not being served by their government. 50 years ago even 30 years ago, if you threatened France you could expect a visit from the Foreign Legion or their spooks. I applaud them for sticking to their guns and hope that they go after any extremist living in France and hunt them down like the dogs they are. Shame we let the extremist preach hate because our liberals are afraid that they might be offended. I would hate to have what happened in Russia happen any where else in the world but maybe that is what will have to happen before the world wakes up and does something about the extremist.

So what you are saying is, a government, must acquiesce to the demands of a terrorist group?

That was never said.

I am not sure why they passed the law, but a government has the right to do this. They have the right to ensure good oder and discipline in a learning environment.

Yes, and if simply wearing a religious symbol was actually a threat to good order and discipline, then the law would make sense.

If they roll over because of the threat of terrorism, then the people of France are not being served by their government. 50 years ago even 30 years ago, if you threatened France you could expect a visit from the Foreign Legion or their spooks. I applaud them for sticking to their guns and hope that they go after any extremist living in France and hunt them down like the dogs they are. Shame we let the extremist preach hate because our liberals are afraid that they might be offended. I would hate to have what happened in Russia happen any where else in the world but maybe that is what will have to happen before the world wakes up and does something about the extremist.

Forget terrorism or what extremists do - the point is that the law itself is useless and wrong.

But I think France has just given Al Quadea a reason to attack. Be senisble. Repeal this law.


so you think that terrorists should dictate a country's policies?

so you think that terrorists should dictate a country's policies?

Do you think that common sense shouldn't?

Let's see: Pointless discriminatory law that will have no use other than piss people off, or no such law? I think I'd go with the second option.

Saying that that would be letting terrorists dictate a country's policies would be like repealing the citizenship of all Muslims, and when terrorists attack saying "We can't go back on it now, the terrorists are here!!!"

Do you think that common sense shouldn't?

Let's see: Pointless discriminatory law that will have no use other than piss people off, or no such law? I think I'd go with the second option.

Saying that that would be letting terrorists dictate a country's policies would be like repealing the citizenship of all Muslims, and when terrorists attack saying "We can't go back on it now, the terrorists are here!!!"

it's not discriminatory. no oversized religious symbols are allowed. they're not just banning headscarves. if that was the case, then it would be discriminatory. so unless you're saying that it discriminates against religion...

and it's only in public schools, if they want to wear headscarves in school, tehy can attend private schools.

I would kick out the extremist. The problem is very real, look at Russia. If the French people decide that it is bad law, vote out the people that wrote it and get it changed. If the government rolls over because of a threat of terror..... bad for France bad for Europe. What happened in Spain will spread through Europe if somebody over there does not stand up and say enough. Kick out the people preaching hate in the mosques, hunt down the extremist and deport them.

I would kick out the extremist. The problem is very real, look at Russia. If the French people decide that it is bad law, vote out the people that wrote it and get it changed. If the government rolls over because of a threat of terror..... bad for France bad for Europe. What happened in Spain will spread through Europe if somebody over there does not stand up and say enough. Kick out the people preaching hate in the mosques, hunt down the extremist and deport them.

You are still missing the point. The point is not that the threat of terrorism should make them change the law. If it were a good law, then I would say that terrorism shouldn't change anything.

The point was that the law is not a good law. The only real result it will bring is girls who feel they can't go to school and militants who are pissed off. It is like passing a law that says "This percentage of girls has to stay at home and feel ashamed of their religion and we want terrorists to attack." That is all this law is.

it's not discriminatory. no oversized religious symbols are allowed. they're not just banning headscarves. if that was the case, then it would be discriminatory. so unless you're saying that it discriminates against religion...

Well, it does give the impression that religion is inherently wrong. But you also must remember that this is being enforced specifically to target Muslims. it also specifically hits them (and certain sects of Judaism) because their religions dictate different social constructs with respect to clothing. If I passed a law that says anal sex is illegal, sure it affects both gay and straight couples - but it affects gay couples a lot more.

and it's only in public schools, if they want to wear headscarves in school, tehy can attend private schools.

So, you believe that it is right to make someone pay more money than everyone else just because they hold different beliefs? And you think it is right for the government to dictate beliefs that have no effect other than raising sheep upon its masses? Good idea.

Doesn't the law target all religious items? I still don't see the problem. Create private or magnate schools that dictate dress code. Home school.

Lets go with your point that it is bad law. Does a majority of the French feel that way? If so there will be changes in the government when the next elections come along. If a majority of the people think that public school should be free of religious icons than that is the will of the people.

I zeroed in your comment about pissing off militants and another comment by you or somebody else about being a target. The bad guys win if the laws of the land are looked at as whether it makes the country a target. If the debate was about how good or bad a law is I would have more than likely over looked it.

I would kick out the extremist. .... Kick out the people preaching hate in the mosques, hunt down the extremist and deport them.
Sounds like you, just drop the mosque off.

Kill all the extremists!






:D
Off to bed

Well, it does give the impression that religion is inherently wrong. But you also must remember that this is being enforced specifically to target Muslims. it also specifically hits them (and certain sects of Judaism) because their religions dictate different social constructs with respect to clothing. If I passed a law that says anal sex is illegal, sure it affects both gay and straight couples - but it affects gay couples a lot more.

for one thing, the tradition of wearing a head scarf is cultural more than religious. i know muslim girls who don't wear them. it's not like we're forcing them to eat pork or something and there are reasons other than getting religion out of school that tehy have this law, there were many sisters takign tests for their other sisters.
and also, there was a case somewhere in north america where a woman wearing a scarf couldn't get her driver's lisence because she had too much of her face covered. should that be allowed?

So, you believe that it is right to make someone pay more money than everyone else just because they hold different beliefs? And you think it is right for the government to dictate beliefs that have no effect other than raising sheep upon its masses? Good idea.

the government isn't dictating beliefs. they aren't telling people what they can and cannot do outside of government-owned property.

Lets go with your point that it is bad law. Does a majority of the French feel that way? If so there will be changes in the government when the next elections come along. If a majority of the people think that public school should be free of religious icons than that is the will of the people.

exactly. if the french don't like it, they'll get rid of the law.

The french are starting to remind me of the Spanish Inquisition

The french are starting to remind me of the Spanish Inquisition
they're torturing people for not being christian? since when?

The french are starting to remind me of the Spanish Inquisition

I see the resemblance. Notice how the French are burning Jews and Muslims at stake for not being Catholic!

French have all the right to do this. Wear your religious symbols off government property. It is not some extremist Muslim country. If they love their religion so much go to Saudi Arabia where they can get beheaded for breathing too loudly.

I see that the French people are afraid of these extremists calling for a goddamned "sharia" government in France, of all places. It is Catholic and should remain exclusively Catholic before those Muslims start a rebellion and we get a radical France.

I see that the French people are afraid of these extremists calling for a goddamned "sharia" government in France, of all places. It is Catholic and should remain exclusively Catholic before those Muslims start a rebellion and we get a radical France.

The french government is not catholic. It is strictly secular as a body. Members can be whatever they want but it is not based on catholic doctrines. Hell, the French revolution was in part to overthrow the catholic oppression.

And this law was in place well before the muslim populace started making a fuss. It was just not strictly enforced.

they're torturing people for not being christian? since when?
LOL, I was just thinking it was awfully similar, since the laws removing religious symbols was designed to be Anti-Islamic

I see the resemblance. Notice how the French are burning Jews and Muslims at stake for not being Catholic!

French have all the right to do this. Wear your religious symbols off government property. It is not some extremist Muslim country. If they love their religion so much go to Saudi Arabia where they can get beheaded for breathing too loudly.

I see that the French people are afraid of these extremists calling for a goddamned "sharia" government in France, of all places. It is Catholic and should remain exclusively Catholic before those Muslims start a rebellion and we get a radical France.

France ceased being Catholic with the Apostasy of 1789 that led to brutal murder and destruction of the Church in France. The evils of liberty, fraternity and equality were put in place. Sillonism has long been condemned by the Church.

LOL, I was just thinking it was awfully similar, since the laws removing religious symbols was designed to be Anti-Islamic

it's also anti-christian, anti-jewish, hell, anti-pagan (no pentagrams on clothing/jewlry anymore) what's your point?

So, there's another issue with all of this. The law bans "symbols of religion," but the headscarf is not really a symbol of religion - it is an article of clothing. The person wears it because of their religion, but the garment in and of itself is not a symbol of religion. Let's take a few example cases:

I don't know about France, but we have sects of Christianity in this country that are like the Amish, but less strict. They allow themselves to use electricity, but wish to lead very simple lives. One of the rules is that they must make their own garments, and these garments must be very simple, with no obvious adornment. They also must wear bonnets. Men cannot shave and I believe women are forbidden from cutting ther hair (or at least from ever cutting it short). None of these things are, in fact, symbols of their relgion - but they do have to do with garments and style. Does this mean that since they are "symbols of religion" to the French government, these people would be forced to either wear store-bought clothes or go naked, men would have to shave, and women would have to cut their hair short to go to public schools?

Personally, I think the whole thing is dumb. There is nothing offensive, or even dangerous, about a religious symbol. I've always thought the more diversity in the world, the better. It's a beautiful thing.

This is similar to passing laws on skin colour. Isn't skin colour as likely to promote 'unrest' in some sections of the population? Picking on religion is easier so we have laws restricting it. It's sad because the government should be preaching tolerance. The government only lets distrust grow by restricting mere artifacts because at the end of the day we are still who we are.

i agree religion is a waste of time in school.

no offence.

i agree religion is a waste of time in school.

Teaching religion would be a misuse (not even just a waste) of time in public schools. However, a relgious individual doesn't walk into a building, become a non-religious person, and then become religious again when they walk out. It is the right of the individual to dress as they feel comfortable that we are discussing, not them trying to preach their religion from the roof of the school.