NationStates Jolt Archive

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?If it is not a religious symbol, then you can wear it. The law is pretty clear about it.
It is not a matter of wearing a scarf or a cross. It is a matter of wearing a scarf or a cross saying "I'm muslim/christian". You can wear a scarf however and because it looks cool, as then it is no more a religious symbol.
This law is about preaching at school, nothing more.
This is the same with a nazi cross. It you have it because you like the shape, fine. If you have it to say you're nazi, it's illegal.

As an interesting note, the girls are allowed to wear a bandana, and many do, because it covers their hair and it is not a religious symbol.

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

.

Like most anti french americans, you have a double standard.

It is for example also forbidden to wear the scarf in the US army and for female judges in court. In fact the whole scarf debate on NS is one of reasanable people against extreme right extremists that try to attack France were they can. But again, double standard.

Like most anti french americans, you have a double standard.

It is for example also forbidden to wear the scarf in the US army and for female judges in court. In fact the whole scarf debate on NS is one of reasanable people against extreme right extremists that try to attack France were they can. But again, double standard.

I'd leave the left/right arguments out of this thread, the differing ideologies involved sit mainly among political and social spectra perpendicular to the traditional left/right-handedness one and and 'pure' political direction has much less bearing than most people think.

As for the army ban, the uniform is the thing and (at least in the ranks) individuality is not a good thing. Imagine a firefight where you have to decide if the person entering your sights is on your side or not. In the military, strict dress-codes should be enforced for the common soldier (obviously with appropriate leeway for more advanced and independant ranks, such as special forces), otherwise it might as well be a militia or rabble, regardless of training and officiality.

The judiciary is a funny example, my only experience (and not even in first person) with our own system has people in ermin-trimmed red robes and white wigs, so I'd be one to talk... :)

My own arguments in favour of the ban of headscarves/skull-caps/prominent cruiciforms/etc are nowhere near as strongly defined as that for the military (nor of those for the judiciary, a practice a person generally chooses to participate in) but are based on the fact that the existing state and school rules appear (from an outsider's POV) to disallow them. This may be at odds with the reasoning or specifics of the situation (secular/religious differentiation) but is an opinion that hold that supports the way things appear to be (to me). Even when a school does not have an official uniform (fair enough, though I personally like the idea of one, as already mentioned) if there are rules against headwear or overt religious symbology that does not prevent a person from believing their own faith then I see (through my possibly myopic eyes) no problem with that. That the French government has apparently restated the rules with specific reference to religious garb is perhaps more a PR issue (bringing the issue to everyone's attention) than a legislative one (with no novel ruling really being involved)...

Also, in all the above examples we must not forget that rather than exclusively targetting Muslims (a tendency that this thread appears to have been concentrating on, for much the same reasons as the world's media has) it is a blanket issue that covers everyone, from Christian to Jew to Muslim to Goth to Transvestite to 60s Throwback to NASA wannabee. If you want to wear safety-pins through your ear, walk around in obvious gender-opposite clothing or insist on a hermetically-sealed garment and oxygen pack then you're going to have the same issue (if not others, unrelated to the local version of the dress-code).

And don't attack Homesteads under the anti-French thing, I'm English and thus demand first-refusal on the right to not like the French... :)

(The argument that I would use as a reply to Homesteads's comments is that, in school, it is a whole group of external personal expressions that are suppressed, religious or otherwise, for the sake of the proper running of the establishment, not specifically religion. But your right to internally be of a particular religion, sexual pursuasion, poitical orientation, etc, is untouched by the rules against superficial appearances. No-one who is willing and able to be a member of the scholastic community concerned should have any issues with that.)

Actually, I've found that religious institutions and people don't have issue with their members not displaying their religious symbols in school. Unsurprinsingly, those who have a problem with this are the children on who the rule applies. This is because children are usually against any rule and they like to defy the law. It is good that they are conserned about politics, even when their opinions are not totally informed and founded. This law has sparked many discussions and forums inside the schools. I think this is a good thing as it teaches them to be involved in politics.

It is for example also forbidden to wear the scarf in the US army and for female judges in court. In fact the whole scarf debate on NS is one of reasanable people against extreme right extremists that try to attack France were they can. But again, double standard.

Wow, this is the first time I've ever been called a right-wing extremist. Of course, I am confused, as it is generally the left-wing that fights for individual rights.

As for the army/female judges - there are compelling reasons to ban them. For the army, well, the army doesn't want you to demonstrate any individuality - they wish you to have no influence other than what you are ordered to do.
As for judges, these are people who represent objectivity and justice. Any judge that gives the impression that something other than the law may be affecting their judgements is not properly doing their job. They also are direct representatives of the government, which cannot endorse any particular religion.

Schoolchildren are meant to keep their individuality (unless you want to breed mindless automotons) and are not direct representatives of their govnernment. Try again.

Now, someone else mentioned cross-dressing, and it reminded me of another question I have. The Bible explicitly states in the OT that crossdressing is a sin (for either gender). By the French standard, this means that a boy or girl who is not crossdressing is wearing overt religious symbols. Will the French force all the little Jewish and Christian kids to crossdress now?

Now, someone else mentioned cross-dressing, and it reminded me of another question I have. The Bible explicitly states in the OT that crossdressing is a sin (for either gender). By the French standard, this means that a boy or girl who is not crossdressing is wearing overt religious symbols. Will the French force all the little Jewish and Christian kids to crossdress now?No, because the french don't recognise the bible as an official book.
I think you get confused by this law because in your country the first amendment protects religion.
In France we have different standards for freedom (the human right, etc...). Religion is not considered as an entity which has rights.
This is a matter of culture.

Wow, this is the first time I've ever been called a right-wing extremist. Of course, I am confused, as it is generally the left-wing that fights for individual rights.

As for the army/female judges - there are compelling reasons to ban them. For the army, well, the army doesn't want you to demonstrate any individuality - they wish you to have no influence other than what you are ordered to do.
As for judges, these are people who represent objectivity and justice. Any judge that gives the impression that something other than the law may be affecting their judgements is not properly doing their job. They also are direct representatives of the government, which cannot endorse any particular religion.
And what is with teachers at public schools who are employed by the government?

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?

I don't know... why don't you tell me why I've been harangued by Christians about my beliefs? I don't believe the same way they do, and that has offended many Christians I know. (I have lost friends over it.) People get touchy when it comes to religion. I'd love to live in a world where I could wear my tree of life or my fairy star (or bardic pendant) to work and not get hassled by my administrators/students/parents, but it's not that kind of world. All of my symbols are less than a half inch in diameter. I wear them on long chains (that lie under my shirt necklines). It'd be great to live in a world where everyone could just accept that others have different beliefs, but I don't think we're there yet (in a lot of countries).

No, because the french don't recognise the bible as an official book.
I think you get confused by this law because in your country the first amendment protects religion.
In France we have different standards for freedom (the human right, etc...). Religion is not considered as an entity which has rights.
This is a matter of culture.

You missed my question entirely. If every article of clothing that you wear as a result of your religion, then every Jewish and Christian that goes to French school must be forced to crossdress (something which is against their religion). Otherwise, the French are allowing them to wear obvious religious symbols.

It has nothing to do with whether or not the French recognize the Bible as an official book. The French are trying to regulate when and where a person can wear articles of clothing if said articles of chlothing might be affiliated with their religion. Thus, the French must keep anyone from wearing anything that is worn due to religious beliefs.

And what is with teachers at public schools who are employed by the government?

Teachers are a grey area, but let it suffice to say that "employed by the government" and "representative of the government" are not the same thing. In addition, children will see more than one teacher in a day, you are unlikely to see more than one judge in a day (unless you are very unlucky or constantly breaking the law).

You missed my question entirely. If every article of clothing that you wear as a result of your religion, then every Jewish and Christian that goes to French school must be forced to crossdress (something which is against their religion). Otherwise, the French are allowing them to wear obvious religious symbols.

It has nothing to do with whether or not the French recognize the Bible as an official book. The French are trying to regulate when and where a person can wear articles of clothing if said articles of chlothing might be affiliated with their religion. Thus, the French must keep anyone from wearing anything that is worn due to religious beliefs.
No it's only the "ostentatoires" religious symbols.
BTW I don't know what "cross dress" mean .What does it mean please?

No it's only the "ostentatoires" religious symbols.

An entire set of clothing is pretty ostentatious.

An entire set of clothing is pretty ostentatious.
Explain a little more please. I don't know what "cross dress" mean.

An entire set of clothing is pretty ostentatious.
hence the burqa ban.

Besides, there ARE article of clothing associated with one religion or another. Whether you want to associate crossdressing with the christian religion is entirely up to you, but it is not culturally associated with it. The veil IS associated with the Muslim cultural baggage of female-oppression.

hence the burqa ban.

Besides, there ARE article of clothing associated with one religion or another. Whether you want to associate crossdressing with the christian religion is entirely up to you, but it is not culturally associated with it. The veil IS associated with the Muslim cultural baggage of female-oppression.Exactly.
It is like the camel. I don't know if you have it as well where you live, but here there is a brand of cigarettes called "camel". Advertising for cigarettes is forbidden. They could put just camels and everybody recognize it is talking about cigarettes, even if it is not explicit, because it has become cultural that this camel with this face is about cigarettes. It is the same with an ostentating religious symbol. If everybody can see you are saying with insistance you are of that religion, it is forbidden.

Explain a little more please. I don't know what "cross dress" mean.

Crossdressing means dressing in the clothing of the opposite gender. It is forbidden in the Old Testament of the Bible or in the Torah, for Jewish people.

Teachers are a grey area, but let it suffice to say that "employed by the government" and "representative of the government" are not the same thing. In addition, children will see more than one teacher in a day, you are unlikely to see more than one judge in a day (unless you are very unlucky or constantly breaking the law).
Depending on the court I will see one, three or five judges - or even more. You only think from your legal system.
Furthermore: Probably the child sees on one day only one or two teachers a day - especially if there is a class teacher system. And this class teacher or confidence teacher should not represent or beeing seen as representing one group or religion. Teachers should stand out of this - especially does employed at public schools.
Private schools is another matter. They can handle things as they see fit. There are after all confessional schools.
But public schools have to be neutral in this respect since they have to be open to all.

It is the same with an ostentating religious symbol. If everybody can see you are saying with insistance you are of that religion, it is forbidden.

Ok, so in my example above, the French would forbid Mennonites from entering French schools unless they were naked or wearing clothing obviously made in a store, because otherwise it is obvious that their clothing was handmade and that they are Mennonites.

Depending on the court I will see one, three or five judges - or even more. You only think from your legal system.
Furthermore: Probably the child sees on one day only one or two teachers a day - especially if there is a class teacher system. And this class teacher or confidence teacher should not represent or beeing seen as representing one group or religion. Teachers should stand out of this - especially does employed at public schools.
Private schools is another matter. They can handle things as they see fit. There are after all confessional schools.
But public schools have to be neutral in this respect since they have to be open to all.

Like I said, teachers are a grey area that can be argued either way.

Students are not.

Ok, so in my example above, the French would forbid Mennonites from entering French schools unless they were naked or wearing clothing obviously made in a store, because otherwise it is obvious that their clothing was handmade and that they are Mennonites.
No because a lot of people have hand made clothes and are not mennonites.
That and the fact that there are nearly 0 mennonites in France. And the mennonites don't see their clothes as a religious symbol anyway, from what I understand.
And it is not in the spirit of the law at all.

Crossdressing means dressing in the clothing of the opposite gender. It is forbidden in the Old Testament of the Bible or in the Torah, for Jewish people.
Then it is not a religious symbol. You should see a religious symbol as a brand symbol.

And the mennonites don't see their clothes as a religious symbol anyway, from what I understand.
And it is not in the spirit of the law at all.

Most Muslims don't see the headscarf as a symbol either. It's just following a principle.

No because a lot of people have hand made clothes and are not mennonites.
That and the fact that there are nearly 0 mennonites in France. And the mennonites don't see their clothes as a religious symbol anyway, from what I understand.
And it is not in the spirit of the law at all.

Lots of people in France wear handmade clothing in all muted colors and no adornments whatsoever, do not wear makeup, do not cut their hair (girls) or shave their beards (males), and wear little bonnets (females)?

And who cares how many Mennonites there are in France? That is not the issue here. The issue here is whether or not clothing can logically be termed an "ostentatious religious symbol" and banned on that reason alone. When I am in Macon, GA and I see a Mennonite, I know immediately from their clothing that they are Mennonites. Thus, by your logic, they would be banned from French schools unless they went naked or changed their mode of dress. According to you, being able to look at someone and determine what religion they are is an inherently bad thing and this is what the "spirit of the law" is addressing.

And Orthodox Muslims don't see headscarfs as a "religious symbol" any more than Mennonites see their clothing as such. They are simply another article of clothing that they wear. Yes, they wear it because of religion, but it is not a symbol of their religion.

Then it is not a religious symbol. You should see a religious symbol as a brand symbol.

It is a religious symbol just as much as any other article of clothing is.

Like I said, teachers are a grey area that can be argued either way.
Students are not.
So you would accept a ban of religious symbols for teachers at public schools?

So you would accept a ban of religious symbols for teachers at public schools?

Personally, I would argue against it as long as they were not actually preaching to the children, and were teaching the curriculum as it was given to them. Unfortunately, administrators would feel the need to watch them much more closely.

However, I can see the reasoning behind it and wouldn't make a fuss over it if such a law were passed.

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.

That's bunk. The school I teach at has a very strict dress code. Students are not permitted to wear spaghetti strap tank tops. Students are not permitted to have ANY skin showing between the bottom of their shirt and the top of their pants. Skirts must be no more than six inches above the knee. Students cannot wear shirts that expose one shoulder. Students are not permitted to wear flip-flops that have exposed fasteners on the bottom of the shoe (if you can see the dot where the flip-flop strap holds the foam on the bottom of the shoe, they're against the dress code). Students are not permitted to have any undergarments showing above their pants. Students are not permitted to wear clothing with profanity printed anywhere on the garment. ... anything else?

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.


You are talking like any extreme-right party leader!!

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?

I'd be fine with it. I am a nature lover, and the thousands of sacrifices the Christians make to their gods every year (as a bastardization of a Celtic tradition) upsets me a little. Those trees are not treated as the yule trees of old, they are laced with hot lights, kept alive for days, bleeding to death, and systematically tortured for the perpetuation of a tradition that took a pagan tradition to excess and perpetuated it as Christian tradition. Down with pine murder!

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 the laws that govern that country.

I wish to emphasize one thing regarding this part of your argument. Our concept of "religious freedom" doesn't keep angry parents from trying to get pagan teachers fired. I, as a result, steadfastly refuse to expose any of my religious symbols in front of my students. We're supposed to be free to express ourselves, but minorities still suffer despite all the well-intentioned "supposed to"s in the world.

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.

I have to wonder if they have the right idea. As I stated before, we get angry about not being able to express our individuality, but that doesn't keep people from being extremely distracted by the same individuality. Officially, I'm a druid. In front of my class, I am without religion. Why? Because I don't want students pulled out of my class because the parents don't agree with my beliefs. (I have had students fire a barrage of questions at me regarding my beliefs... I always respond with the same thing, "This is not the time, place, or forum to discuss my religious beliefs." I don't discuss it with them further. If we were really free to express, I could answer their questions without fear of losing my job or having angry parents pull students from my classes.) Freedom of religious expression isn't what it claims to be here. ("One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all..." isn't an appropriate thing for an athiest student to be forced to recite. What about her freedom of expression?)

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

No. It's to remove possibly distracting things from classes. I have girls show up in tshirts with Jesus plastered on them. They are a significant distraction for non-Christian students in my class. They frequently come to me and ask how they should feel about it. The best I can do is tell them to tolerate the way they'd like to be tolerated. Either way, it makes the learning experience a little more stressful for these students.

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.

While I don't work at a school with a uniform, I do work as a teacher in a school with a very strict dress code. It's easy to break dresscode and slip through the cracks. Teachers don't want to remove students from learning environments, aid them in getting behind in class, and send them to the office for breaking dresscodes. We do not want to constantly fight with young men to get them to keep them from exposing their jockeys. We do NOT want to focus our classroom management energy on asking young girls why they can't be bothered to wear CLOTHING to class. I almost wish our kids did wear uniforms (and none of this, "girls in skirts, boys in pants" crap... they should get three choices, skirt, pants, shorts...). Until I worked as a teacher, I had no idea how much time was taken up in class trying to override the distracting garments of some of the students.

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.

That's what the French did. I think that was the whole idea. No visible religious symbolism exposed in schools, period. You don't seem to have any teaching experience. I teach in an inner-city school. The problems of my kids:

Shootings in their neighborhood keeping them up all night
Same clothes for the past three years
No food
No parent
Homeless
No Social Security Number (parents emmigrated illegally when student was a baby)
Drugs
Pregnancy
Religious intolerance
Gangs

With all due respect, getting even one thing off that list would be a breath of fresh air for me. If the kids in their "WWJD" t-shirts would stop harassing the athiest (or pagan) kids and vice versa, it would just be one less thing to worry about in class. I just want them to learn. I want them to know how to think critically. I want to help turn out the best kids possible. But sometimes, classroom management isn't as easy as it sounds. What do you suggest I do to make my class safer the next time one of my kids throws something at the athiest girl in the front row? I can't be everywhere at once. (Parents lose their children to drownings because they turned their backs for a second... I have 35 kids in each class, 170 on a daily basis... what do you suggest I do?)

So you would accept a ban of religious symbols for teachers at public schools?

I would. And I'm a teacher. It isn't the business of my students what religion I practice, and I don't want their opinion of me to be that of a religious entity. I am an educator. I want them to see me as someone who cares about them (and the development of their minds and their ability to use them). It shouldn't make a difference to them what I believe, but it does, so I don't tell them what I believe at all.

I would. And I'm a teacher. It isn't the business of my students what religion I practice, and I don't want their opinion of me to be that of a religious entity. I am an educator. I want them to see me as someone who cares about them (and the development of their minds and their ability to use them). It shouldn't make a difference to them what I believe, but it does, so I don't tell them what I believe at all.
The discussion about this exists today in many European countries. Like in Germany:
There was a case where a muslim teacher insisted on the scarf and was therefore rejected by the school. The Supreme Court - to which she went - ruled that there needs to be a legal basis for the rejection. And that it it a state issue (an issue of each of the 16 states to decide).
Most state legislatures have afterwards passed laws banning religious symbols (like the scarf) for teachers of public (state) schools.
In that sense following the French example.
Though not going that far, since those laws are only affecting teachers but not students.

The discussion about this exists today in many European countries. Like in Germany:
There was a case where a muslim teacher insisted on the scarf and was therefore rejected by the school. The Supreme Court - to which she went - ruled that there needs to be a legal basis for the rejection. And that it it a state issue (an issue of each of the 16 states to decide).
Most state legislatures have afterwards passed laws banning religious symbols (like the scarf) for teachers of public (state) schools.
In that sense following the French example.
Though not going that far, since those laws are only affecting teachers but not students.

See, now I think also that if the teachers are affected, the students should also refrain from wearing religious symbols... but that's just me. I've seen a lot in my years of teaching that I didn't expect before I became a teacher. I just think school is not the environment for religion of any sort. Learn. Study. Discuss. Relate to eachother. Think. Anything else is extraneous.

See, now I think also that if the teachers are affected, the students should also refrain from wearing religious symbols... but that's just me. I've seen a lot in my years of teaching that I didn't expect before I became a teacher. I just think school is not the environment for religion of any sort. Learn. Study. Discuss. Relate to eachother. Think. Anything else is extraneous.
I agree with that actually. I don´t have made personally experience with that though (when I was a student). Religion is not so important in many parts of Central Europe. That is different for parts of muslim minority though.
The question is however whether it should be mandatory.
There are also some discussions about school uniforms now. Britain has made good experiences with that model. I think it could be useful since it avoids the "brand terror" which sometimes exist.
It would take some individuality in the form of clothing but on the other hand it would avoid problems (like the brand question or also social status) which destract the students from learning. Especially before High School that could be an option in my view. It is of course very controversial since it is argued - due to historic reasons- that this is an uniformisation of society.
I think that is a natural reaction due to our history. But it is wrong, since Britain has with this model the oldest parlamentarian democracy.
The same can be said for opposition of full-day schools in the 1990s: I think, given the fact that there are more full-working parents it should be offered more. In that sense I even agree with the current federal government which encourages the states (financially) to do more in that respect.

Sorry if I didn't read all the 19 pages that preceded - that's just too long for me -, here are just the 2 cents from a french person who doesn't display conspicuous religious signs, and who is neither a pupil in a state-owned school nor a teacher. First, I find this law unfair as an attack against liberty of conscience. The law must forbid only what is a trouble to public order; and there is, indeed, trouble to public order in schools due to religion, but it has nothing to do with conspicuous religious signs. It's rather about things like prayer times, refusal to attend some lessons like biology or sports, contestation of the study of some authors etc... this indeed should be repressed, not religious signs as such. I must say I'm feeling offended, as a woman and as a human being , by some of the concerned signs, but people feeling offended by something has never been a criteria for banning it - if you should ban everything that offends me, George W Bush should never utter one word nor appear anywhere. Second, I find this law utterly irrelevant in the current context of Muslims feeling, rightly or wrongly, persecuted and discrimined against. It will only fuel the flames without any benefit. And finally, in the case of hijabis, it puts once again women in the front line; they're not only being marginalised by their outfit but also by the scholar system that rejects them.

I think the ban makes emminent sense. A lot of religious symbols carry behind them history which can inspire deep feelings, often negative, in others. Indeed some religious symbols can also be viewed a symbols of oppression from another perspective. Schools however, especially at the secondary level, offer no forum in which the opinions and beliefs behind the symbols can be debated, nor do they offer adequate opportunity for the wearer to explain their position fully.

As religious symbols often incite high emotions on both sides of any given dispute, their prominent display where any other further debate is restricted results in a situation where many are subjected to seeing daily symbols that can cause resentment hurt or anger. This is an uneeded distraction from the already oneorous task of trying to educate the students.

In this the French ban is not unlike the nation states ban on Nazi iconography on a nations homepage; I'm surprised there is so much debate about it.

(I could at this point quote the "First they came for x..." passage, but the irony would be lost).

I disagree. There is a difference between taking away one's right to express his or her religon, and having a group of people pray to a God they might not believe in.

A child with a cross in the school? Fine
A child preaching about God in school? Fine
A public school announcement telling everyone to pray? Not fine
School officials forcing kids to say stuff about God? Not fine

There's a fine line.

Just to add a bit...


A child with a cross in the school? Fine
A child preaching about God in school? Fine [so long as she is not doing so during class time, when she should be paying attention]
A public school announcement telling everyone to pray? Not fine
School officials forcing kids to say stuff about God? Not fine

There's a fine line.

I disagree. To a palastinian refugee, the sight of a yarmulke may be abohrent. To a jew who has survived a sucide bombing, the sight of tradtional muslim clothing may inspire fear. Both may view the crucifix with suspicion.

Even who are not survivors of any particular religious conflict may, because of their affiliation to a specific religious group, view the religious symbols of others with distaste, revulsion, fear, anger or a combination of all of the proceeding. Given that there is no adequate forum to debate respective viewpoints in secondary school the advantage gained by prohibiting the display of these symbols, by eliminating the passionate responses they can arouse, far outweighs the benfit gained through allowing this minor freedom of expression.

No-one's saying that people can't have they're own religion. They are just trying to keep the animosity between groups down, as well as protect everyone's feelings. Again not unlike the Nazi Flag ban in nationstates.

Just to add a bit...
well....of course.

I disagree. To a palastinian refugee, the sight of a yarmulke may be abohrent. To a jew who has survived a sucide bombing, the sight of tradtional muslim clothing may inspire fear. Both may view the crucifix with suspicion.

This is their problem, not that of every single person of that other religion.

Even who are not survivors of any particular religious conflict may, because of their affiliation to a specific religious group, view the religious symbols of others with distaste, revulsion, fear, anger or a combination of all of the proceeding. Given that there is no adequate forum to debate respective viewpoints in secondary school the advantage gained by prohibiting the display of these symbols, by eliminating the passionate responses they can arouse, far outweighs the benfit gained through allowing this minor freedom of expression.

I disagree. By banning the religious expression, you are simply reinforcing the view of the person who feels distaste, revulsion, fear, anger, or a combination. It is important to demonstrate that these differences are not absolute and that such feelings about all people of any particular viewpoint/race/etc. are completely irrational. And if your secondary schools have no forum in which to debate respective viewpoints on different issues, then I can state that there is at least one thing US schools can trump you on.

By banning the symbols, you have not eliminated the passionate response, you have merely postponed and possibly strengthened it. Meanwhile, that child finishes their formative years with a deep-seated and most likely irrational hatred of all members of a particular religion, simply perpetuating the cycle of hatred.

So you're against the Nazi Flag ban then too?

Oh and I am from the US. You weren't allowed to debate religion in math class. At least not at my school.

Oh and I am from the US. You weren't allowed to debate religion in math class. At least not at my school.
Seems rather odd to debate religon in a math class. I'm sure our Language Arts class would permit it.

Oh and I am from the US. You weren't allowed to debate religion in math class. At least not at my school.

No one suggested that you were. But, unless your school was vastly inferior to mine, there were forums in which to discuss many issues, freedom of religion just being one.

I never suggested there were no fora available for debate, just that by necesscity they are limited. The core curricula of a good secondary school does not allow unlitmited time to sponsor numerous debating societies in respect of religious tradtion etc. As such there is, and always will be, the potential for students to be exposed to symbols that they find offensive without the opportunity to air their grievences.

BTW what is language arts? I was at school a while ago.

And my question still stands. In light of what you have said, do you therefore oppose the Nazi flag ban on nation states.

I never suggested there were no fora available for debate, just that by necesscity they are limited. The core curricula of a good secondary school does not allow unlitmited time to sponsor numerous debating societies in respect of religious tradtion etc. As such there is, and always will be, the potential for students to be exposed to symbols that they find offensive without the opportunity to air their grievences.

BTW what is language arts? I was at school a while ago.

And my question still stands. In light of what you have said, do you therefore oppose the Nazi flag ban on nation states.
Yes I do.
More because of the offence it will cause to some than for any other reason. And if some one wants to cause offence, be honest and come out and say what they mean don't pontificate and dance around the subject!

My bit.

If the school is based on a church of some kind, then where the icons of that church.

If its just a regular school, with a uniform, make people stick to that uniform.

Hold on................why not just ban religion. Or make people realise they are all praying to the same dude, whatever name is used.

Yes I do.
More because of the offence it will cause to some than for any other reason. And if some one wants to cause offence, be honest and come out and say what they mean don't pontificate and dance around the subject!

I am not a nazi, nor do I agree with any fascist ideals. Although you you seem to be implying that I do.


But, how can you advocate the banning of some symbols because they cause offence to one group while permitting symbols that cause offence to other groups. That is my point. As far as I am concerned the government should either ban all offensive symbols or none. Anything else is the government interposing its own value judgments about what is, and what is not, legitimate expression; also which groups can, and which cannot, fairly be insulted. And that my friend, is the very sine qua non of nazism.

Also I am not the pope, nor am I administering his office.

But, how can you advocate the banning of some symbols because they cause offence to one group while permitting symbols that cause offence to other groups. That is my point. As far as I am concerned the government should either ban all offensive symbols or none. Anything else is the government interposing its own value judgments about what is, and what is not, legitimate expression; also which groups can, and which cannot, fairly be insulted. And that my friend, is the very sine qua non of nazism.

But isn't this where the whole pc-debate should start?
Besides, the government is at least supposed to represent the people, and in that position should also be allowed to interpose their value judgements.
Otherwise we're on our way to anarchy ;)

No. It's to remove possibly distracting things from classes. I have girls show up in tshirts with Jesus plastered on them. They are a significant distraction for non-Christian students in my class.
You earlier say that clothing should not have have swear-words, by your school's dress-code. Have you considered mumbling in the right ears (not necessarily the decision makers, but perhaps the ones who will repeat and amplify the idea to generate an anonymously-started groundswell) that there's a distinct possibility that those images are blasphemous and thus covered under swearing..? Just an idea. Might not work, depends on the base attitude of everyone else and how they react to "You know what someone said to me..." rumour, but it might help that it tackles the problem from the Christain perspective, not "Yet another godless heathen complaining about nothing"... Who knows.

<snip list>
With all due respect, getting even one thing off that list would be a breath of fresh air for me. If the kids in their "WWJD" t-shirts would stop harassing the athiest (or pagan) kids and vice versa, it would just be one less thing to worry about in class. I just want them to learn. I want them to know how to think critically. I want to help turn out the best kids possible. But sometimes, classroom management isn't as easy as it sounds. What do you suggest I do to make my class safer the next time one of my kids throws something at the athiest girl in the front row? I can't be everywhere at once. (Parents lose their children to drownings because they turned their backs for a second... I have 35 kids in each class, 170 on a daily basis... what do you suggest I do?)

*applause*

Oh and I am from the US. You weren't allowed to debate religion in math class. At least not at my school.Though some parts insist on religion in a science class, but that's a whole other thread... :)

Will croissants be allowed in French Schools?

Will croissants be allowed in French Schools?
It will be mandatory. Bad coffee will be outlawed as well.

Though some parts insist on religion in a science class, but that's a [I]whole]/I] other thread... :)

Yes, and that's just as ridiculous - but a different issue. Maybe someone should start a thread about how schools set curiccula. That, in its own way is just as bad as the government making value judgments about the content of speech.

Never happened in my day ;)

I never suggested there were no fora available for debate, just that by necesscity they are limited. The core curricula of a good secondary school does not allow unlitmited time to sponsor numerous debating societies in respect of religious tradtion etc. As such there is, and always will be, the potential for students to be exposed to symbols that they find offensive without the opportunity to air their grievences.

You have no right to not be offended. If a symbol offends someone and they haven't yet learned to deal with it, secondary school is a good place to do it.

And my question still stands. In light of what you have said, do you therefore oppose the Nazi flag ban on nation states.

Honestly? Yes. I would be suspicious of the motives of anyone who wanted to use it, but banning it is banning an expression of free speech just because someone *might* be offended. Offense and physical harm are not the same.

Honestly? Yes. I would be suspicious of the motives of anyone who wanted to use it, but banning it is banning an expression of free speech just because someone *might* be offended. Offense and physical harm are not the same.
Point of note: some people in France *are* offended by the headscarf. This is why there was so much pressure on the government to do *something*.

The French, much like the Canadans, are simply too PC-possessed.

(( PC = politically correctness ))

The quality of rudeness USED to be a salient feature of the French. Then, for some reason, they became wusses.

So what happened..?

Was it the massive influx of non-european frenchmen..?

Is it their slow conversion into La République française Islamique..?

I want my rude french waiter back, damn it..!! :)

I miss that occassional twang of highly nicotined sputum in my latté.

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Comic Sans MS]The French, much like the Canadans, are simply too PC-possessed.

... I must have missed something, - you must be referring to some post above I couldn't find, I'm just wondering what on earth can be considered politically correct about France???


The quality of rudeness USED to be a salient feature of the French. Then, for some reason, they became wusses.

So what happened..?

Was it the massive influx of non-european frenchmen..?

Is it their slow conversion into La République française Islamique..?

I want my rude french waiter back, damn it..!! :)

I miss that occassional twang of highly nicotined sputum in my latté]


I don't know where you're talking from or expatriated to, lol, but don't be afraid, rude café waiters are still exactly where you let them. I've been sooo ashamed about it last time a foreign friend visited me (he happens to be a Muslim, by the way - but there's no link with the above...) Rude anyone else too, also, - only café waiters must have specific genes and/or training for that...

Just nicotine is on the way out because of these crazy increases of the taxes... I myself had to give up my 2 packs a day a few months ago, sobs, couldn't afford them any longer... There's something rotten in the french republic, yeah, though it has nothing to do with islam as you seem to assume...

[Freedomfrize #309]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The French, much like the Canadans, are simply too PC-possessed.

... I must have missed something, - you must be referring to some post above I couldn't find, I'm just wondering what on earth can be considered politically correct about France???

Quote:
The quality of rudeness USED to be a salient feature of the French. Then, for some reason, they became wusses.

So what happened..?

Was it the massive influx of non-european frenchmen..?

Is it their slow conversion into La République française Islamique..?

I want my rude french waiter back, damn it..!!

I miss that occassional twang of highly nicotined sputum in my latté.

I don't know where you're talking from or expatriated to, lol, but don't be afraid, rude café waiters are still exactly where you let them. I've been sooo ashamed about it last time a foreign friend visited me (he happens to be a Muslim, by the way - but there's no link with the above...) Rude anyone else too, also, - only café waiters must have specific genes and/or training for that...

Just nicotine is on the way out because of these crazy increases of the taxes... I myself had to give up my 2 packs a day a few months ago, sobs, couldn't afford them any longer... There's something rotten in the french republic, yeah, though it has nothing to do with islam as you seem to assume...

Heh he he he he..!! :D

Ah,.. it's good to see that rudeness is alive and well in the fair state of France..!

Too bad abot the nicotine habit that you had to give up. Yet another leftist ploy to soak money out of the populace, eh..!?

On the PC thing. It just seems the whole planet is drenched in anti-funniness,.. in anti-sarcasm,.. in "mustn't OFFEND anyone"-ness,.. you know..!?

Verbal jabbing is routinely elevated (dropped?) to physical violence at the least provocation.

That is one reason I LOVE to prod people (almost exclusively leftist though, as the population is so overpopulated in that direction, and leftists tend to be MUCH more hysterical in reaction) in these forums.

No end of fun,.. and enlightening as well.

:D

Point of note: some people in France *are* offended by the headscarf. This is why there was so much pressure on the government to do *something*.

It still doesn't matter. If human beings start thinking they have a right to not be offended, they are breaking the cardinal rule - "Your right to X stops with me." A person's right to not be offended stops with them, not with the next person over doing the offending. Basically, if the French are offended by the headscarf, they need to deal with it.

I am offended by hunters, but I don't go out trying to ban them from my schools.
I am offended by Bush/Cheney stickers, but I don't try to ban them from people's cars at my school.
I am offended by bigots, but I allow them to speak their mind.

Meanwhile, I am sure many people are offended by my push to uphold civil rights - I will not allow them to ban me from speaking my mind.
I am sure many people are offended by the fact that I sometimes wear strappy shirts and that I have short hair - I wouldn't let them force me to dress to please them.
I am sure many people are offended by the fact that I occasionally refer to naughty body parts in polite conversation (when it is relevant, but people still get offended), but that is their problem, not mine.

It still doesn't matter. If human beings start thinking they have a right to not be offended, they are breaking the cardinal rule - "Your right to X stops with me." A person's right to not be offended stops with them, not with the next person over doing the offending. Basically, if the French are offended by the headscarf, they need to deal with it.

I am offended by hunters, but I don't go out trying to ban them from my schools.
I am offended by Bush/Cheney stickers, but I don't try to ban them from people's cars at my school.
I am offended by bigots, but I allow them to speak their mind.

Meanwhile, I am sure many people are offended by my push to uphold civil rights - I will not allow them to ban me from speaking my mind.
I am sure many people are offended by the fact that I sometimes wear strappy shirts and that I have short hair - I wouldn't let them force me to dress to please them.
I am sure many people are offended by the fact that I occasionally refer to naughty body parts in polite conversation (when it is relevant, but people still get offended), but that is their problem, not mine.So you are offended by female genital mutilation? live with it. You are offended by parents beating their children? None of your business.

So you are offended by female genital mutilation? live with it. You are offended by parents beating their children? None of your business.
Strappy shirts and hunters do not hurt anybody, beating a child does.

Strappy shirts and hunters do not hurt anybody, beating a child does.Forcing children to wear the headscarf does as well.

Forcing children to wear the headscarf does as well.
what makes you think the children are forced to wear them? if that's their belief they won't question it, like a christian would never think he'd force his kids to wear that cross on their necklace.

what makes you think the children are forced to wear them? if that's their belief they won't question it, like a christian would never think he'd force his kids to wear that cross on their necklace.Do you think female genital mutilation is forced on the children or is it just a belief?
To me it doesn't matter.

Do you think female genital mutilation is forced on the children or is it just a belief?
To me it doesn't matter.
as sad as it sounds, but i don't think the children realize what is happening. as you said, it's their belief. imagine growing up in a place where fgm is normal, nobody questions it... im guessing no internet to chat up with others and casually ask them how their 'festivities' went...how would they know that in places they have never heard about people don't do that?
(i'm not advocating fgm, i'm strongly opposed to it, myself, but there's too many people out there comparing everything to our culture without even trying to understand theirs.)

*hestitates to post, because this is likely to provoke strong reactions*

as sad as it sounds, but i don't think the children realize what is happening. as you said, it's their belief. imagine growing up in a place where fgm is normal, nobody questions it... im guessing no internet to chat up with others and casually ask them how their 'festivities' went...how would they know that in places they have never heard about people don't do that?
(i'm not advocating fgm, i'm strongly opposed to it, myself, but there's too many people out there comparing everything to our culture without even trying to understand theirs.)

*hestitates to post, because this is likely to provoke strong reactions*
According to me it doesn't matter whether it is a belief or not. FGM ough to be banned because it harms the child.
I agree it is part of a culture, but this is not an issue to me, because cultures which don't evolve are dying cultures. And anyway, there is only one culture IMO. All the things you call cultures are all part of one global culture.