For years, the muslim population of France (the 2nd largest religion in the nation and by far the largest muslim population in Europe) has been battling court decisions based on the 1905 law separating church and state that prohibit Islamic students from wearing head scarves and other "overt" religious symbols to school. Now, this formerly optional right of schools to expel students may become national law.
Is this where absolute secularity of the State will ultimately lead? To a usurpation of individual freedom of expression?
And what does this say for ethnic and religious struggles in a multicultural but highly anti-semitic Europe?
What do you think? Is the wearing of the veil a "statement of aggression?" Who is the aggressor here?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yet another reason for me not to visit France. Which is a shame, because I've met so many nice French people online who I'd love to meet in person.
Aside from the fact that this is a personal issue to me -- I cover my hair with a scarf or snood most of the time -- the implications of this are horrifying.
[ December 11, 2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I wouldn't make it a reason not to visit France - it's a fabulous place. I would make it a reason to kick Chirac out of office though.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While low level administrators in the US love to creatively interpret freedom of religion laws to mean no religious icons allowed in places like schools, whenever they try banning them the courts routinely smack them down. I don't see us as being in any particular danger, there.
Posted by Sugar+Spice (Member # 5874) on :
saw this story on the news this evening, and found it utterly terrifying. I couldn’t imagine how anyone could even suggest this policy. It looks like the start of state persecution. I know that France, although extremely multi-cultural, has not exactly embraced this in many areas, but for the government to consider sanctioning this policy is inexcusable.
My personal view and experience in knowing some Muslim women is that the wearing of the veil, in Europe at least, is often the woman's own choice. If she chooses not to, for personal or practical reasons, that is also her choice and we would expect other Muslims to understand her choice. So what right does a government have to disallow this?
If I were a Muslim woman in France, even if I were not in the slightest orthodox, I would START covering my head, to show solidarity. It would make me blazing mad, and probably will have this affect on many Muslim men, too. Score one for extremists who prey on young men's anger and insecurity.
Posted by Frameshifter (Member # 2967) on :
I think France's problems are more fundemental than are being seen by this one article.
There was also an article in newsweek a short while ago about women being assulted by muslim men because they did not where a veil.
That said, I think than banning head scarves is going to far, however whereing the scarve need to be the women's choice and not someing that is forced because a bunch of neandertals feel that it the appropriate way for a mere women to behave.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I rather think that a woman's reason for wearing a scarf or veil is her business, and not something the government has any business concerning itself with -- unless she's the victim of illegal behavior (assault, for example) because she is or is not wearing one.
In other words, even if women were wearing scarves because men told them to (which I don't think is the case), it still wouldn't be the government's job to interfere.
Posted by Law Maker (Member # 5909) on :
Sugar+Spice:
There was a letter in the local newspaper about just that. I'd give you a link but I can't find it.
Basically, it's a letter written by a local Muslim woman from Egypt who is complaining of the pressure she was receiving from friends and relatives to wear the veil to make a political point (to oppose the stereotypical view some have seen in American media of Muslims as terrorists). She wanted express her view that she felt how she expressed her faith is a personal matter and not a medium to make political statements.
Something to think about, anyway.
(I hope the rambling made sense)
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
We'll, trust me, I do not agree with all this story. I've got to go now but I'll post more later, from an "inside" point of view, if you're interested.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
We are very interested.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
So, I’m going to tell you my point of view about this veil story.
First, my position about religion and the way we treat it in France
I am not baptized, and I don’t belong to any religion. I believe in God, though. Now, about the separation between church and state. Generally, I think it is a good idea. As a minority, I’m happy there’s no state religion, and it would annoy me if our president told “God bless France” often. But I don’t think the veil problem is really about separation between religion and state.
The facts as I remember them
It’s been a long time since we talk about the veil problem in France. About ten years, I would tell. And the first problem isn’t a religious problem, but a practical problem. The girls who wore a veil couldn’t have technology lessons, because that implicates that they work on machines in which the veil could go and cause accidents. That was also a problem in sport, especially for the girls who wanted to wear a dress. I don’t know about the USA, but here in France going to school is an obligation till you are 16 years old, and you must participate to all lessons unless you have a sickness which prevents you to. So this was a problem, and most of the time it was resolved in a simple way: the girls wore a veil which was fixed at the back of the head, so no problem with the machines, and accepted to wear trousers for the sport lessons. End of the story. But now there are more and more girls who don’t want to negotiate, who want to wear an enormous veil which covers them from head to feet, and sometimes they even wear one which covers all the face except the eyes. So there is again a big material problem and an ideological too. And it’s not only in schools, there are even more and more persons outside the school who wear the same thing that the women in Afghanistan were forced to wear, this veil which covers all the body and even the eyes. And I must admit this shocks me a lot, because it is a negation of the person, a negation of what women fight to have for centuries in a lot of countries. So a simple veil does not bother me (even if a lot of people say there is nothing in the Koran which forces women to wear it), I find this normal. But an enormous one, or even the one of the women in Afghanistan, that shocks me.
But…
But I don’t know why these girls wear this veil. And I would say that most of the time it is not their choice. What happens if the schools fire them? Well, they will stay at home, and become what their parents want them to be: good, obedient spouses. I don’t think it’s fair. At the contrary, I think that the ideal of the French Revolution implicates that you must give everyone the right to learn, and these girls especially need to meet other girls and boys, Muslim or not, to discuss about their point of view, their life, as human being and as women. So it’s a crime to force these girls who chose (or not) to be “locked” in a veil to stay and be “locked” at home. I hope there won’t be a law, if there is one it will be, I think, a bad day for the freedom of thinking in France.
Again, forgive my grammar and spelling
[ December 12, 2003, 07:09 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Veiled students in class has been an issue in Sweden too, although it hasn't gone so far as to court battles or legislation yet. In at least one school the teachers felt that being unable to see the faces of the students who chose to wear wholy covering veils impaired their ability to teach effectively, and the school instituted a policy forbidding such garments. Not surprisingly this led to a debate in the media whether this was an appropriate measure and whether it infringed on the students' freedom of religion.
The issue is extra sensitive because it's part of a general clash of values currently happening in Sweden that has some very ugly aspects. Sweden was for a very long time fairly homogenous, both culturally and ideologically. Concepts such as the equality between men and women and the right of the individual to chose his own future and beliefs had become generally accepted. The influx of refugees during the -80th and -90th from mainly the middle-east, introduced a segment in the population for which these ideals were not as self-evident. The question that has arisen is whether we accept all these differences as legitimate expressions of cultural and religious diversity or if we sometime ought to demand that the new Swedes conform to the established norms of the society of which they've chosen to be a part. Generally we're pretty tolerant and it's almost exclusively with regards to the treatment of young girls that there has been friction.
Tragically, we've have several highly publicised cases were young girls or women from patriarcially oriented cultures have been threatened, beaten and even killed by relatives who disapproved of what they considered a lifestyle that infringed upon the "honour" of the family. And the triggering event has seldom been anything dramatic like the girl sleeping around (which wouldn't excuse it either, of course), but rather small things like the girl not conforming to the expectation of the father by socializing with the "wrong" people, going to a dance or yes, wearing the wrong clothes and acting rebellious. The veil is to many people a symbol of the oppression that women often live under in patriarcic cultures, and these cases have made some people question whether young girls wearing it -- even if supposedly volontarily -- is at all defendable.
I seem to have lost track of where I'm going with this. What I wanted to say is that while it is self-evident that everyone has the right to his own religious belief or to worship the deity of her choice, all manners of religious (if you want to call it that and not cultural) expression are not equally acceptable. Being hidden behind a veil most likely seriously affect the sense of identity in an individual, and while I'm perfectly OK with an adult woman making that choice for herself, I'm not equally sure whether society should allow parents making that choice for their children.
[ December 12, 2003, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote: Tragically, we've have several highly publicised cases were young girls or women from patriarcially oriented cultures have been threatened, beaten and even killed by relatives who disapproved of what they considered a lifestyle that infringed upon the "honour" of the family. And the triggering event has seldom been anything dramatic like the girl sleeping around (which wouldn't excuse it either, of course), but rather small things like the girl not conforming to the expectation of the father by socializing with the "wrong" people, going to a dance or yes, wearing the wrong clothes and acting rebellious.
We have these kind of problems too... That's why a lot of feminists think that we should not accept the veil at all, as a symbol of oppression.
[ December 12, 2003, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I understand where the feminists are coming from, saying this is a symbol of oppression, but there are Islamic women who are wearing this as a symbol of modesty. And this is where I think it's really unfair to force them not to wear it.
I know that what I conisder modest dress is very different from our society's norm, and I can only imagine how humiliated I'd feel if I was prohibited from wearing sleeves and long shorts. It's really the same principle; actually, it's more serious because of the religious implications.
Under the new law, any overt religious symbol wouldn't be allowed, including yarmulkes for Jewish students. This is not a practicality issue at all - it's a religious issue.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
First, it was a material problem. And now it becomes a religious problem. But trust me, this law, even if it does not stigmatizes one particular religion, will only be applicated for Muslims. And that's unfair too. There is a wind of racism in France and it is growing, I don't like that. But the problem is that here the anti-religious people and racist people have the feminists with them ont the veil problem, and they are powerful sometimes. Again, I'm against this law.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Do you know what other thing was given as a possible solution ? The uniform. That way, no religious symbol, no money differences between schoolers. I don't know what to think about that one. Since I've been stigmatized sometimes because of my clothes, I think this could be good, but the religious problem wouldn't be solved that way, if you ask me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
On the other hand, in Italy, a bill just sailed through both houses prohibiting anyone but stable couples access to sperm banks and fertility treatments. It doesn't even limit it to married couples - the couple does not need to be married, but needs to prove stability.
That's not quite enough separation of church and state, although I agree with the premise that children should be raised in a stable family with two parents.
The bill passed on the premise of the state doing everything it can to protect those who can't protect themselves, but those objecting say it is because of the Catholic church.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The separation of Church and State should mean that the State should not interfer with a person's religion.
That means veils and other religious clothing are a choice of the students and their parents. The government should not interfer with it.
Yet some religious beliefs are dangerous for the people who practice them, and the children in their care. These include anything from suicide cults to not getting the appropriate immunizations, to relying on faith healing of your child when a simple surgery would do the same thing. This also goes for mask like veils or dangerous clothing.
Here an option must be offered to those who participate. Either join a religious school that can handle your special needs or drop the veils while in class. Similarly, you can either get a drivers license showing your face, or keep your veil on and take public transportation.
The Government cannot dictate how you practice your religion unless it violates the rights of others. If my religion states I should kill all non-believers, its with in the rights of the government to stop me from practicing.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
*what Dan said. Only, you know, again.*
Q.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What do the asteriks there mean?
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
This time? Nothing. They're just for decoration.
I dunno. It started out as an emote-esque post and wound up a statement. Think of them as sparkles, to complement my sparkling wit. ^_~
Q.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Dan : you made a good point. But here in France there is almost no Muslim schools. That's why the girls, if they are fired, would be basically obliged to stay at home and maybe study with a mail system. And that sounds very bad to me, because as I said, if there is already a pressure against these girls in their family, you won't help them by making them stay at home forever.
[ December 12, 2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Exactly - expelling them and denying them education (many muslim families are poor and couldn't afford private education anyway) is not in anyone's best interest.
They're just perpetuating the problem of exclusion, cultural isolation in poor areas, that leads to cultural stereotypes in the first place by not giving these students equal access to educational opportunities. Education is the one chance these girls have to escape their economic situation.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
On a realted note, Anna, what are your thoughts on discrimination positive and the current debate with the different enterance policies for ZEP students that Sciences Po has implemented? I just finished writing a dissertation on how Sarkozy's policies on discrimination positvie conflicted with his views on laïcité and were worsening the religious and political problems.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Could you send it to me ? I'm curious !
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Sure! I'll email it when I get home this afternoon. You'll have to forgive the grammar errors - I haven't corrected them yet.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
When, since all Hatrack seems to forgive mine, I won't have problems to forgive yours - anyway your French is excellent. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In theory, I disagree strongly with Dan's suggestion.
In practice -- well, I went to religious private schools, and so do my kids. There are so many battles fewer to fight, that way. The most important one being keeping those insidious values of the larger society that I view as harmful (materialism, immorality, etc.) farther from my children.
I did, however, attend a non-religious college. And will likely encourage my children to attend one as well.
But I don't believe that a government has/ought to have the right to force people to make a choice between obeying the strictures of their religion and publicly-available services.
quote: Here an option must be offered to those who participate. Either join a religious school that can handle your special needs or drop the veils while in class. Similarly, you can either get a drivers license showing your face, or keep your veil on and take public transportation.
Why don't the religious deserve the same degree of accommodation as other groups? If the veils are a problem, work around it. There should be alternatives, arrived at by both sides.
For example, the CA DMV requires that any hat be removed for the license photo -- with the exception of those worn for religious purposes. But they can require that such a hat be as minimal as possible -- no cartwheel hats, for example. And when I had finals scheduled on a Saturday, the professor had to accommodate me -- but not necessarily as I might have chosen. There was the prof who made me write a 10-page paper, since I couldn't take the multiple-choice test. But it was reasonable for her NOT to want me to take the test at a different time than everyone else -- to easy to cheat.
quote: The veil is to many people a symbol of the oppression that women often live under in patriarcic cultures, and these cases have made some people question whether young girls wearing it -- even if supposedly voluntarily -- is at all defendable.
I seem to have lost track of where I'm going with this. What I wanted to say is that while it is self-evident that everyone has the right to his own religious belief or to worship the deity of her choice, all manners of religious (if you want to call it that and not cultural) expression are not equally acceptable. Being hidden behind a veil most likely seriously affect the sense of identity in an individual, and while I'm perfectly OK with an adult woman making that choice for herself, I'm not equally sure whether society should allow parents making that choice for their children.
I would claim that most (if not all) religious and cultural views affect sense of identity in an individual. Who gets to decide which ones are acceptable (short of those that violate laws, such as battery)?
Besides, who says that sense of individuality is more important than sense of belonging to a community? Your culture -- which you are imposing on others.
As a religious person, the idea that the French government -- or any government that calls itself democratic -- wishes to curtail the right of members of any religion to wear certain clothes is extremely frightening to me.
quote: But now there are more and more girls who don’t want to negotiate, who want to wear an enormous veil which covers them from head to feet, and sometimes they even wear one which covers all the face except the eyes. So there is again a big material problem and an ideological too. And it’s not only in schools, there are even more and more persons outside the school who wear the same thing that the women in Afghanistan were forced to wear, this veil which covers all the body and even the eyes. And I must admit this shocks me a lot, because it is a negation of the person, a negation of what women fight to have for centuries in a lot of countries. So a simple veil does not bother me (even if a lot of people say there is nothing in the Koran which forces women to wear it), I find this normal. But an enormous one, or even the one of the women in Afghanistan, that shocks me.
Give me a choice between wearing a hijaab and what the average American teenage girl wears, and I'll choose the hijaab, every time. I'd rather be "negated as a person" -- and, btw, I don't feel that my worth as a person is linked to being able to see my face or figure, so I disagree with that assessment -- than put on display like a side of beef.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It looks like this is going to happen, according to the Post.
quote:French President Jacques Chirac asked parliament on Wednesday for a law banning Islamic head scarves and other religious insignia in public schools, a move that aims at shoring up the nation's secular tradition, despite cries that it will stigmatize France's 8 million Muslims.
This is very scary to me. I wonder if symbols of anti-religious philosophies are allowed?
Dagonee
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Is this the same enculé that jumped all over our collective ass for our moves in the Middle East?
What a complete moron! And so much for the advanced, more open European society that France is supposed to epitomize. Gah, what a freaking joke, really.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I just hope the assemblé national is as unsupportive of Chirac's crap as the general public is.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
rivka--I think we agree. Accomidations should be worked at between the schools and the students.
However, there are always a few who demand total capitulation of their enemy, and in this case, they demand a total, face covering scarf to act as a barrier to the woman/student.
Public education is not a right but a priviledge. If someone makes unreasonable demands upon the school, then that school should have the right to say NO.
Whether that person is demanding their child wear a face covering that conceals their identity, or that they be allowed to bring a gun to school, or that they be allowed to show up sick because mom & dad have to work and can't stay home to watch the kids, the school should be able to say NO.
Does that mean that we can dispense with Kosher meals as a lunch option? No.
It does mean that we can't be forced into segragating white students from black students because your religion says that races should remain poor.
Annie--there are not a lot of Islamic schools in France? Sounds like there is a need. Could be a great place to start one.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
It is definietly a need, Dan, but the biggest problem is that the majority of the Muslim population lives in the economically-disadvantaged areas. The majority of Muslim students couldn't afford a private education even if it was available.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:PARIS, France (CNN) -- French President Jacques Chirac has called for a law banning religious symbols and clothing in state schools and hospitals.
Chirac's remarks Wednesday came in response to a commission report favoring the banning of Muslim head scarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses in public schools.
He said he would sponsor legislation to make the ban law by next autumn.
In an address to the nation, Chirac said: "I feel that wearing any kind of symbol that ostensibly shows faith, I feel that that is something that should not be allowed in schools and colleges.
"If we are talking about a star of David, the hand of Fatima or a small cross, those are acceptable, but when it's very obvious, in other words, when if they are worn people can immediately see what religious faith they belong to, that should not be accepted."
That is the whole point. People who believe strongly religously often WANT to look different than everyone around them. That is the whole point.
I wonder what Cirac would do with the Amish?
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
And more
quote: A poll published Wednesday, showed the majority of French people side with Chirac. The poll published in the Paris daily Le Parisien showed 69 percent favor a law banning the wearing of head scarves and other religious symbols.
Well I hope Anna's right and the parliment doesn't go along or the courts throw it out.
AJ
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I have to confess that while I in principle believe that people should be able to wear what they want, I have little sympathy for social conservatives who, on the one hand, want to call the cops on, say, a nudist sun bather, but on the other hand, want to be able to express themselves the way they wish.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Storm there is a distinct difference between rights and sympathy. Here in the US we all agree that the KKK has a right to demonstrate even if we think what they stand for is reprehnsible.
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Storm Saxon said: I have to confess that while I in principle believe that people should be able to wear what they want, I have little sympathy for social conservatives who, on the one hand, want to call the cops on, say, a nudist sun bather, but on the other hand, want to be able to express themselves the way they wish.
And which one of the people complaining about this have done that? I believe most people, including the people supporting this legislation, would agree with prohibiting students from coming to public school naked.
Chirac is basically trying to prohibit anyone from expressing their faith in exchange for receiving the benefits of a public eductation. There's talk of extending this beyond education. As government takes over more and more functions, the "acceptable" expressions of faith will be shoe-horned into a narrower and narrower area of life.
I'm totally in favor of public education, mind you, but it must be acknowledged that having public education has forcibly diverted resources out of the hands of private citizens to accomplish it. Doing this carries the immense burden of not infringing on the free exercise of religion no more than is needed to carry out the educational function.
In church-state conflicts, not enough attention has been paid to the ever-expanding role of the state. This cannot be allowed to force an ever-contracting acceptable sphere of religious expression.
Dagonee
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
My stars, this is the first bit of news that makes me sympathetic to those who claim France's government is idiotic.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Bana, my point is that many religious people do not see dressing as you wish as a 'right' and feel that it is socially acceptable to legislate what people can and cannot wear in some cases. (Edit: I just reread your post and realized what you are saying and that I agree with it and that I just basically did nothing but restate my position. Pardon. )
Dagonee, I'm not saying all social conservatives believe the state should have a say in how people dress.
[ December 17, 2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And I shouldn't put this on religious people. Pardon. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK - thanks for the clarification.
I'm pretty religious, but I can appreciate a bit of nude sunbathing now and then. Women only. Nobody wants to see that, guys.
Dagonee
[ December 17, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
French secularism. It appears that French Muslim adoption of the scarf is about as religious as a goth wearing black or a deadhead wearing tie-dye. Personally, I don't believe the government should be the fashion police.
On the other hand, I have little sympathy for idol worshippers -- whether their idol be a flag, a TenCommandments monument, a head covering, an ayatollah, a pope, or a president -- forcing their attitude onto the public.
Compromise, allow scarves. Then deport those who claim that wearing scarves is a religious duty -- whether or not they wear a scarf themselves -- including Chirac and his supporters.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Well, trust me, I don't agree with that. Still I think the assemblée nationale will second the president on the law.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well, trust me, I don't agree with me either. Just think that Chirac's solution is equally silly.
Those folks who wear scarves are gonna be part of France, regardless of whether they are educated or not. That being the case, it is better that they be educated to the maximum that their potential allows. If for no other reason than better education = higher income = more taxes. And what with the retirement boom for the next couple of decades, the French government is gonna need a LOT of really high-income taxpayers.
Those who wear scarves are gonna be a part of France, regardless of whether they are exposed to French history&culture. It is self-defeating to prevent scarf-wearers from having access to the only place that has mandatory exposure to 'what it means to be French'. Ghettoizing them into quasi-religious schools is precisely what their bigotted political & pseudo-religious leaders want to occur. Especially including the part where boys (who don't wear scarves) are educated far beyond the level of girls (who do wear scarves); matching the desire of the pseudo-religious to maximise the dominance of men over women.
France should not participate in returning French women back to chattel/property status. Refusing to educate Muslim girls is an attempt to lower the status -- and more importantly, political power -- of all French women. Which undoubtedly is "conservative" Chirac's long term goal in the first place.
[ December 18, 2003, 05:17 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Sorry aspectre, I meant : I don't agree with all that mess in my country and with the law which will probably be voted. My mistake, it wasn't clear at all. If you read my first post in this thread you will see that even if I think the veil is a problem, I don't think it's a good solution to fire the girls who decide to wear one.
[ December 18, 2003, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
By the way, does a lot of girls wear a veil in US schools? If so, how do you deal with? And what do you think about the solution of the uniform?
[ December 18, 2003, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Here in Brazil, students in public schools (and most private ones) must use uniforms, so we do not have such problems. To tell you the truth, I never saw women wearin veils over here. Maybe it's because most brazilian muslims came about 50 or more years ago. One generation already living here. A long time. But I really think people should not be forbidden to use veils, if it pleases them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Anna -- generally speaking, there are two criteria: first, does the school allow it? If the answer is yes, then yes, its allowed. If the answer is no, and the reason can be successfully defended as not religiously based or biased (this can be quite hard; a number of bans that include religious wear have been successfully fought in the courts), then a student cannot wear such a thing.
However, at most every school that forbids headwear, there are exceptions when its for religious reasons.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:aspectre said On the other hand, I have little sympathy for idol worshippers -- whether their idol be a flag, a TenCommandments monument, a head covering, an ayatollah, a pope, or a president -- forcing their attitude onto the public.
Do you have any idea how offensive referring to the pope as an “idol” is (not to mention the rest of your list)? “Idol-worshipping” has been the excuse behind an unbelievable amount of anti-Catholicism, including discriminatory laws in America and England, as well as violence.
Dagonee
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Hey, idols have a lot going for them... there they are, in front of you, a nice solid hunk of matter you can get pissed off at and break to bits if your prayers aren't answered!
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
I think most genuine idol worshippers would just get a new one.
As to the subject at hand, I oppose the policy. I feel like there can be debates as to the limits of religious tolerance when it is a matter of a child getting a surgery or vaccination- matters of life and death. This isn't a matter of life and death, this is a matter of gym and shop classes. My view may be colored in that I think those two classes are a total waste of time, but I wouldn't find it a bit objectional if they simply let the girls not take those classes if their clothes wouldn't let them. In any case, if the school compromised, I can see no real negative side effects. This is nothing like letting your child go to school with a gun (to use Dan_Raven's example) or somesuch. To me, this seems like a minor thing, very easy for the state to make arrangements for, and very hard on religious folks if the state doesn't.
On another note, I don't buy the whole "veils are symbols of repression" line. I only know one woman who wears a veil. She is currently studying to become an engineer.
[ December 18, 2003, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Hazen ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Ooo... if you want an idol to worship I suggest this one.
[ December 18, 2003, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That is quite possibly the most awesomest thing I ever did see.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, my freaking lord. That site is aweseome, rrr.
Look at this. It makes me proud to be an American, it does.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: While low level administrators in the US love to creatively interpret freedom of religion laws to mean no religious icons allowed in places like schools, whenever they try banning them the courts routinely smack them down. I don't see us as being in any particular danger, there.
But hey, at least it wasn't Kansas. Man, I'm glad it was Oklahoma, though if you don't live near here, is there really much of difference? All those states in the middle just kind of moosh together anyway, right?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think it is worth noting that the US government (quite possibly largely as a political move, granted) is fighting against this. The case absolutely should be more visible though -- this should be big news. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I wouldn't be quick to dismiss their motives as political. This type of thing has been near and dear to certain people for over a decade now, and has always attracted one of the more eclectic set of supporters from across the political spectrum. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was pretty clearly aimed at this sort of thing, although unfortunately it was struck down by the Court.
Dagonee Edit: As an example, some of the most staunch anti-drug folks in Washington drafted RFRA in response to a Supreme Court decision that said states did not have to create religious exemptions for peyote use.
[ March 31, 2004, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
The thing that comes to my mind when I hear about this controversy is that it confuses personal choice of what to wear with forcing beliefs on others.
I believe firmly that clothing and accessories are a matter of personal conscience, not to be infringed on by either state or church. In other words, I don't believe the French government has the right to force women not to wear veils. But I also don't believe that certain parts of the Muslim community has the right to threaten Muslim women who choose not to wear veils.
In the same way, I don't believe any government has the right to abridge how people practice their religion (within reasonable bounds, of course; I certainly don't think human sacrifice would or should be defended on 'religious freedom' grounds). However, I don't believe that religious groups have the right to impose their particular beliefs on the whole citizenry through legislation. Don't tell me that something that you don't do should be illegal just because you don't do it, or that I should be obligated to do something just because you do it.
I guess I generally come down on the side of a fairly strong separation of church and state, but that what you wear (or don't wear) is your personal business and nobody else's.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
And when I had finals scheduled on a Saturday, the professor had to accommodate me -- but not necessarily as I might have chosen. There was the prof who made me write a 10-page paper, since I couldn't take the multiple-choice test. But it was reasonable for her NOT to want me to take the test at a different time than everyone else -- to easy to cheat.![[Frown]](frown.gif)