The French gov't is nutty

Remove all ads!

Well, I think that the Bavarians will pass a law like this (or better talking loudly about it to the choir of voters). Bavaria has no tradition of religious neutrality as far as I know and obviously doesn't intend to change that, Bavaria is really only aiming at muslims with this law. If they pass it, I do not think it will be upheld by courts. Well, the point for me is clear, if you allow crucifixes, you have to allow scarves.

The Baden-Württenberg law, I think will be different. If they do it, they will ban any kind of religious symbols, including christian and jewish.

The BBC seem to focus on Bavaria. This is about the other states:

http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/dl/Qgermany-islam-justice.RDAi_DO1.html

Edit: At BTA: Well, in the end, I think it worked well ->here

[ December 16, 2003, 20:47: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

@ Laches: Just to get a clear picture of the "german" laws according religious symbols: There are just two states who will establish a bill to forbid the scarf for now. It's not the federal government, which is not allowed to do so. Each state has to make it's own law. My (city-)state will probably ban all religious symbols from schools and other public buildings.

The reason for the bills in Bavaria and Baden-Wurtemberg are the conservative governments they have. The majority of people there is very catholic. So the decision of the governments is rather populistic. They barely tolerate the kipa. If not for our history, it would probably also be banned.

This bigotry is making me sick. But the parties ins control of these states tend to have this effect on me regulary.

 

According to the bbc, 6 German states are considering bans on scarves by teachers and 3 are considering bans on scarve anywhere in public (Berlin, Hesse and Saarland). Apparently 2 already have the ban (thanks Fabius) and I'm not sure if those 2 are part of the 6 considering it or are separate.


@ Iago (who I didn't realize until just now is the artist formerly known as Yago)

Check the article you quoted again as well as the bbc links on the issue in Germany. The German court apparently struck down the ban because there was no specific law allowing them to ban the scarves. In response, the German states have begun to pass laws that allow the banning of the scarves - which the court hinted would be allowable. Here is a money quote:

From another bbc article regarding France:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3311485.stm

I suspect that article is largely correct in that the recent proposed ban and the reasons purportedly supporting it simply mask an underlying unease with a growing Muslim population.

Oxymore writes:

To me, the line that sticks out is, "It's ok when there's not too much of them, until at some point it becomes the rule and not the exception." I've heard similar things said in California regarding Mexicans, similar things were said historically about the Irish in the US as I understand it, and similar things were said about blacks in America during integration. I'm sure he didn't mean it the way it came out but it sounds ugly. Why is it ok for a few Muslims to wear scarves but you'd better watch out when there get to be more and more Muslims wearing scarves?

 

Well, I agree with both sides of the argument here, as I can see valid pints being brought up by everyone so far (except me perhaps )

My thoughts run that it is equally expectable that those without religious affiliation understand that some feel they want to express themselves, and that it doesn't really matter, as it would be equally expectable for those who wear such symbols to understand that they are offending some people (whether intentionally or not) and to therefore refrain from doing so, as it doesn't really matter.

However, this gets tricky when dogma is involved, and some may truly believe that they and/or others must or must not wear such a symbol, and it is true that those who wear such things can treat those who do not just as unfairly as those who do not treat those who do.

So I think the most important thing to monitor is that neither party is given un-fair allowances, and that teasing or snubbing by either group isn't tolerated. This again gets tricky with children as a young boy who has to remove his cap in class may be annoyed that the young girl next to him doesn't have to remove her head-scarf. Again, it isn't hurting anyone to let her leave it on, but the kid doesn't understand it is a religious beleif, so thinks he is being treated unfairly.

You see, when you look at it this way, it does get confusing. I guess the best way to sort things out is to become un-involved alltogether. I don't actively endorse people wearing such religious items, but I also don't care if they do wear them (or at least now that I'm not friends with that kid with the cap I don't )

So with much deliberation I guess I'm going to have to throw my lot in with Laches and BTA. I guess the best stance to take on this is one f total non-involvement. But one must be very careful that it does not extend further. I remember a case where some muslims were aquitted of an assault (in a western country) becasue according to their culture it was permissible, and this seems to be rediculous. I am with the French and Iago on that if one moves to another country, one should be expected to live by their laws. If they don't like the laws, they can always live elsewhere, so in places where such a law banning things exist I see absolutely no problem.

But, as far as creating new laws is concerned, I think it is more about teaching the kids (and parents and teachers in some cases) better attitudes, rather than a ban on something which I agree does not cause anyone any harm, and such a ban does not adress the true problem.

So yes, let them wear whatever they want, it doesn't hurt anyone.

Gee, agreeing with Laches, this must be a first hey

 

Ahm, the name change was ... ahm ... an accident. I made a notice in the random babbling post.

Well, the legal situtation is acutally clear and upheld by the European human rights court (has nothing to with the EU). A secular state, with according laws in it's constitution or normal laws, has the right to ban teachers from wearing scarves. As they have banned christian symbols from schools already. As it is French and in some Swiss cantons already the case (and again, for a long, long time). The Gemran constitutional court overruled courts having decided, that the constitutional neutrality of schools would be enough.

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1432_A_978043_1_A,00.html

Now, obviously, the states that will inact such laws, will also forbid religious symbols of the christian flavour, i.e. inact religious neutrality. Which I find good, as already said. This completly legal and ok.

And you have to see the other side of the coin, if one would allow veils, one would have to allow christian symbols and nuns and preachers teaching again in public schools. This can not be, culture war again all over.

 

But, you're missing the point that this is not what has happened. Here is the timeline:

1.Teacher forbidden to wear scarf.
2.Court says this is illegal because no law supports it BUT states can make those laws.
3.States make laws forbidding scarves BUT not forbidding any other religious imagery.

This is the state of things in at least one and now apparently 2 German states. You keep saying they will have to ban other religious images as well to ban scarves - but they haven't. Unless the bbc is wrong.

Iago also quotes a passage as reflecting a legitimate concern, in his mind, regarding scarves - that they are a symbol of fundamentalist Islam and there are questions of whether large Muslim immigrant populations are compatible with largely Christian Europe. This situation sounds exactly like fear of a growing Muslim population, 'it's ok as long as there are just a few of them.'

Well, guess what - banning head scarves won't make everybody suddenly integrate. And why should they have to integrate? So long as they follow the laws why does it matter whether they like to sit at a local cafe and drink wine? Europe gets very upset about an American cultural hegemony but apparently forcing your culture upon others is acceptable under those circumstances. What happened to the battle cry of multiculturalism?

And I once again fully agree and would emphasise what BTA said. Religious neutrality means not favoring one religion over another AND not favoring religion or non-religion over one another. France is favoring non-religion over religion (and disproportionately over Muslims who the laws are primarily aimed at and Jews). German is favoring all religions and non-religion over Muslims (I know it's just currently 2 states but if the German nation doesn't stop them then it is complicit in the same way that the US would have been complicit if it had allowed the Governor of Alabama to prevent blacks from attending public Universities 50 or so years ago).

These laws are not neutral.

 

The two states I spoke of will pass a bill. They count in this 6 state group. In Baden-Wurtemberg there are still discussions (as Iago wrote). In Bavaria they have a law already that allows parents to ask the school to take away the cross in a classroom. The bill against the scarf adds to this.
There is a basic discussion in germany now wether the scarf is a religious symbol or not.

As for the federal government is comlicit for discrimination: I do not know exactly if it could overrule the state government. The law for civil servants (I don't know if this term fits) of the states lies under the jurisdiction of the states, IIRC. The fed has only marginal possibilities to intervent here.
The only possibilitiy for people to fight this discrimination is a lawsuit against the state governments at the constitunional courts of the states. And if the law bans all religios symbols then they stand no chance.

 

Well, sometimes that Christian jewelry upsets me as a Christian. I don't want to see a crucifix between two naked boobs in a porn scene. I know, exaggerating now. But still.

Seems to me that the French government ifringes on people's rights here. Besides, it's too much for good taste.

Also, it seems to me a part of the current anti-Christian fad. There's no cheapass magazine without *****ing random nonsense about Christians or Christianity. Well, or just downright insults and calling names and who cares for logic behind statement.

Silly and childish. Too much freedom going to people's heads and too much free time on their hands.

 

Ahm, no that timeline is wrong. And as I stated, the BBC is obviously focussing on Bavaria, while that constitutional decision was about Baden-Wüttenberg. And as my link showed, the federal administrative court upheld the decision first, while the constitutional court said, that the legal base in Baden-Wüttemberg has to be made more clear. And my other link states the justice minister of Baden-Wüttemberg, that banning a veil without banning christan symbols is impossble. Which reflects my opinion. Is this prerequisite given, then the law will pass. I am not accustomed with the laws in Baden-Wüttemberg, but obviously, they had already secular laws, but now they need some legal-improving. This should not be mixed in anyway with France on the other hand, where veils for teachers as any other religious symbols worn by teacher are forbidden since a long time anyway. And this then should not be mixed with the usus in other European countries, predomenantly the UK, which has no secularity at all.

Ahm, no, that's not a legitimate concern in my mind. It was just inside the quoted article which sums up some main points about it in the lot of different European countries. My point is clear, secularity is one of the smartest and wisest things ever introduced. And I do not want any kind of religious symbols on any teacher or public servant. As it has been for some time.And again for France. France has a long standing secular tradition. "Anti-clerical" if you want to dub it that way. And it also has veil-discussions since decades.

Now, for the kids, I have my doubts on a practical level that it really would make sense to ban their veils.

And then further, a "secular state" does not say it is somehow "christian Europe". A secular state is based on secularity, not on christanity, therefore a secular country is certanly not officallly a christian country. Which in the case of France is clearly a secular and not a christian state. The Germans are mixed, because of the different history and customs of the states, which were "unified" through Prussia, in my view. The conflict between the different traditions and viewpoints on the christian-issue did cause a lot of EU-internal problems recently, as the secular states will not tolerate any "references to christian culture", while the "christian" ones will not tolerate the lack thereof.

Now for a further complicating thing. As mentioned by Maximus. Is the veil a religious symbol at all ? And then, for whom. I've been to school with muslims too, indeed many muslim girls and women do not wear veils, because it is actually not demanded by muslim religion. Or at least not by their flavour, as there are as many flavours of muslims as there are many flavours of christians. And wearing a veil is not interpreted by many muslims as a demand of their religion. Which then actually causes conflict among the different flavours of muslims. Now, I do not think that banning the headscarf of children will solve that problem. On the other hand, I do not think that a "coalition of christians and muslims" (Yes, yes, the jump on the same train, as they have an interest to put up their own signs again) should be allowed to overthrow secularity.

Not in my mind. For me, this is religious neutrality as it should be. But as I said in my very first post, it propably has a lot to do with the culture, customs and history one comes from. Two examples, for me personally, it is unthinkable of having a phrase "in god we trust" printed on state money. Nor is it thinkable, to have the picture of a "nun" on a pound-note, like the Irish do. Nor is it thinkable to dub the head of state as "defender of the faith" like the British do. And is further unthinkable, to have a high-goverment offical to end his speeches with the words "god bless you". Which god anyway ? The one or the other one ? The one which allows monasteries, or the one who does not allow them ? But then again, all this countries do not claim to have a lot of secularity in them. And indeed, one of the federal councils has come close to do it recently, I tell you, that caused some uproar. Further, this may be "anti-clerical". Well, again, having had to major religions with huge hostilities against eachother in a sort of bloody power-stalemate for centuries, somehow called for a sensible solution, to balance them out. And that "anti-clerical" rigid neutrality forced at some places, worked wonders. Ok, evil people say, it's only presbyterianism hidden in a modern dress. Whatever. It worked well.