The French gov't is nutty

Remove all ads!

If folks in France support this, they're nutty too (I'm taking my cue from elsewhere and working on my ad homienm - how's it going?):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3309885.stm

So much for basic freedom and stuff - can't believe this is being considered.

 

Priests would have to take of their dog collars and nuns would have to remove their habits.

If I recall the satire created by the last French Government election correctly the campaign posters read;

'Don't vote for the Bigot, vote for the Thief!'

France is currently swamped with asylum seekers and bigotry (induced by fear for job security) is rife, giving right wing candidates a mandate from which to launch their politics of hate.

France has to deal with its problems, and not try and patch the symptoms of those problems.

*Bluin returns to patrolling the net in case French politians try to post instructional pictures of nuns removing their habits*

 

I quote myself from another board with the same topic-thread:

We have principally the same system of religious neutrality, whith differences in the cantons. The political correct leaning catholic-ones allow many religious symbols for state-employed people (among others, a cross around the neck, wonder why that is), while presbyterian ones more or less have a hard stance versus religious symbols. Now, evil people say, it's because religious neutrality is so much in accordance with a presbyterian world view, that they gleefully enact religious neturality, to get rid of all the colours of the other faiths, which they envy so much at the bottom of their heart.

Anyway, me myself, I am all for religious netruality calvinist-style. Surely for any kind of goverment employed person. As for school-kids, I am not so sure. As they might be driven off to private-schools. And they have no state-responsibility.

 

Personally, I'm quite relieved that I will never see America attempt this.

The Constitution - you have to love that First Amendment!

 

Doesn't your constitution say, that the church and the state should be separated ?

 

Oh, sorry about that. I should have pasted a copy of the Amendment.

Basically, banning people from wearing traditional Muslim clothing is prohibitted under the Constitution. Any such law would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

The only exception is where one right limits another's rights. For instance, it is quite legal to make it illegal to shout "fire" in a movie theater.

Basically, the United States Government cannot pass such legislation and no member state can either.

 

Banned in school, not in the streets. You know, in school, that place where you must go and must obey certain rules.

For sure, a salesman isn't permitted to go to work wearing clothes too fancy. I think a boss always forces a certain dress-code. The boss in this case is the state.

Education is compulsory until you reach the age of 18 (or perhaps 16 in France, don't remember).
Education includes gymnastics, which some won't attend to because their beliefs forbid them from wearing a sports suit in the presence of others, it includes science classes, that some won't attend to because it goes against their creationnist beliefs... and so on and so on. Till the day some girl comes with a burka or something, and won't take it off 'cause of her religion, the day after she sends someone else with the burka and skips school... ok, now that's overkill, but you get the idea, it just never ends. So as you can't permit some to display crosses and forbid others from displaying kipa's (sp?), you ban all of it.
They were bound to have some sort of backslash some day. Schools are state business, religion and state have nothing to do with each other, hence religious signs are banned. Only logical, I'd say: "finally!" but some would label me anticlerical, oh well...

It's all pretty much BS anyway, the real problems lie elsewhere. In the unemployement rate and middle-east news for example.

 

I dunno, if you had kids killing each other over religious arguments in American schools you might consider this, just the way gang colours are forbidden in some North American schools. When I was about 12 my parents pulled me out of the local French lycee after yet another playground murder between rival factions of muslims. Thanks to official religious tolerance of kids proclaiming their beliefs in school, which didn't reflect the tolerance the kids were willing to show each other, a significant number of children in my school got to see what human brains look like.

Then they sent me to an American private school, where all I had to worry about was constant bomb threats. (This was just after the US bombed Libya from English bases and all the US diplomats in the UK had their kids in my school...) Junior high is a very stressful time of life...

 

Fights between Muslim factions - in school? That is really sad.

I've never heard of religious affilation causing problems in American schools. For the most part, kids, like adults, really don't care. Muslim, Jew, Christian, Scientologist, Mormom, Buddist - it really just doesn't matter.

But back to my previous post, even if this happened in the United States, the government could not ban religious-related clothing. Instead, the local cities and states (the Feds do not have jurisdiction) would come down on those who commit any sort of harrassment with an iron fist.

 

If people interpreted the First Amendment correctly, that would be the case, Blackhawk. However, our case history is rife with people who want to wear Christian jewelry or clothing while working for a government agency or as a public school teacher. They get shot down frequently.

 

There was a case here with two girls wearing burkha to school. That was not popular and both moderate muslims and the school wanted to ban burkha and similar extremes in school. I dont really know what I think on this issue but in the case with a burkha I think it is hard to argue that it isnt degradatory towards women and that it hinders education. Scarfes and the like are very common though and shouldnt pose any problem.

There are other instances where certain symbolism is forbidden, swastikas for instance are not even legal to wear open here abouts. It is commiting a crime called "goading ethnicity" or somesuch.

 

If they are paid by the Federal or State Government and the building is public - then I definitely see the implied violation of the separation of Church and State.

 

You obviously never attended my school.

 

You know, in the US there is violence in school between gangs as well. It doesn't stop because the schools ban color. It doesn't stop if the schools ban certain gang signs. And it doesn't stop when the schools ban certain sneakers etc.

If there is one thing we've learned, violence rarely stops by treating the symptoms. Something tells me the Muslims in Europe are, on average, from a lower socio-economic class than the other folks in Europe. Perhaps that might be the problem? Perhaps telling a poor sector of society that they are now no longer allowed to worship as their religion provides may not be the best way of addressing the root cause of poverty etc?

In these violent outbreaks, how many head scarfs attacked children and what kind of harm did they do? This proposal is reactionary. It is, allow me to make up a term, over-reactionary in the same way that it was an over reaction by schools to try to ban trench coats in the US after Columbine. Yes, it was the trench coats that caused the violence after all. It is akin to blaming video games for school violence.

Only it is much, much worse. It is not just an infringement on the right of worship and it is not just an infringement on the right of expression, it hinges on an infringement on the very right to think as you will. For of what use is the freedom of thought if it is shackled and unable to be expressed even to the extent of wearing a piece of cloth - which obviously never caused anyone harm.

And let us stop pretending - this proposal is targeted at Muslims. And from the similar proposals in Germany it looks like it isn't just the Muslims in France targeted. According to the bbc, German states are making it illegal for school teachers to wear scarfs. Of course, Jewish and Christian symbols are not banned.

Couch it however you would like. It is disgusting and Europe should be ashamed.

My supervising partner is an older guy who used to be in the FBI. His job in the FBI was to integrate the schools in North Carolina and to break up the KKK. He and another few agents did precisely that. He tells that the best way to integrate the schools was to put the kids together and let them sort it out on their own - when parents and others are too closely involved it only causes problems. Maybe in this case if Europe wants to create an atmosphere of inclusiveness and yet combat violence, it could create measures that actually address the problem of violence and leave the kids deeply held religious beliefs alone?

[ December 16, 2003, 17:38: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Couch it however you would like, there is no need to be ashamed. Just cause you don't like it, doesn't make it no good.

Partially factually wrong, as the laws according to which the scarves are not allowed (at least in my country) are older then a century and where aimed at pacifiying the warlike creeds of catholic ans presbyterians. The very thurst for war, which made many presbyterians, baptists, catholics and amischi flee overseas. Now, what worked then is still law now, and in a canton, where christian signs are forbidden, muslim signs are forbidden too. There is no specific aim at muslims.

On the other hand, immigration and xenophobia always play a major role in anything. And integration of such huge numbers is not an easy task, particularly if they bring the quarrels from home with them, i.e. Turks/Kurds, former Yugoslavians, Algerians, Tamils...
And in particular, while Zinedine Zidane is the worldst best footballer, a lot of France is struggling with the huge Algerian minority. The whole problem is not easier through the fact, that a lot of immigrants are low on the social ladder, regardless by the way of religion, i.e. cheap labor from mostly bad educated Sicilians or Anatolians is more or less the same.

Now, for the scarf. No question in my mind. No employer of the state should ever be allowed to wear any kind of religious symbol. That is not tolerable. The state is there for anyone, regardless of it personal believes and espacially schools. And it is not so, that you know that before you chose any job, that with every job come certain restrictions. Now, for kids. I do not think its such a good idea. On a practical level. They would just change to private schools.

 

What BTA said. And whether or not the laws are aimed at Muslims - the French proposals are in response to the growing Muslim population. Couch that however you'd like, the intent is clear.

Regarding the German laws, they clearly are aimed solely at Muslims so long as the bbc is correct:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3304801.stm

At least two of the most important nations in Europe are targeting a Muslim's freedom of expression and worship and even in France's purportedly neutral laws there is a disproportionate impact on Muslims and perhaps Jews. Christians are not required to wear crosses. Some Jews believe they are required by their religion to wear a yarmulke. Some Muslims believe that they are required by their religion to wear a scarf. Neither jumps off a person's head and harms anyone else.

The Christian majority in these nations have created laws that disproportionately impact minority religions. The fact that two nations that purport to lead Europe and provide some type of moral compass are enacting this type of legislation designed to impact on minorities is sad.

 

Hm, the scool is mandatory. The parents of the kids want to raise their children according to their own whishes and believes. Private schools are in most cases no viable option. Therefore, in schools, teachers schouldn't make any kind of religious statement while on duty. Including statements through signs.

If your state-employed generally, your loyality should go to the state alone while at work. This loyality to the state also may mean to support goverment-decisions you personally despise. As the state should be completly neutral in religious matters, no public servant should wear any signs of religious affiliation.

Now, given the history of two creeds, traditional hostile versus eachother and a population mix out of those two plus having had some theocracies at the end of the middle-ages, it seems to me the perfect way to try to keep the state out of religious arguments and reassure the people, that the state does not favour any particular or certain belives and doesn't try to shape their minds and believes.

 

Have you spent several years in a school where a significant proportion of the girls wore headscarfs? I have.

It's ok when there's not too much of them, until at some point it becomes the rule and not the exception. Then the girls without scarfs are more and more regarded as whores and treated accordingly. To avoid problems, a girl would have to, if not wear a headscarf herself, think hard about what kind of clothes she puts on for what the school rules permit, some students don't permit. And that's impinging on other's rights in my dictionnary.