- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Good. Religion shit has to stop.
kinda, yes, but not through state-enforced bans
Through what then?
people losing interest on their own. yes it’s slower, but true change can only happen through internal motivators.
It doesn’t, though. Instead religious conservatives build parallel societies. Children should grow up knowing that in a secular state religious bans and rules have no power.
It’s the hobby of their parents and nothing more. Than they can decide if they want to participate in the hobby or not. The veiling of women and girls can be a powerful tool in keeping control over them through separation, for example.
You have to get off the internet mate, none of your arguments ever make it past the edgy 14 year old stage.
Well you’re just being condescending, that’s not going to convince anyone either.
If i see a dumb opinion without any argument behind it i will call it out, especially if its always by the same person.
If i see a dumb opinion without any argument behind it i will call it out
Not in that immature form though
Isn’t it already illegal in Turkey to wear headscarfs in some places to help preserve secularism? I think that’s a good move
So many people here either intentionally or not misunderstanding the point…
There’s freedom of religion, but not in official governement settings. This is not to infringe on rights, it’s just the opposite. Just for your religion you shant get treated differently. This is why you don’t get to advertise your religion as a governement employee, nor as a citizen when appealing to the governement. This is exactly the inverse of authorianism, it’s a reaction to a state forcing people from a certain religion to wear a distinct mark (star of david) by which they were discrimnated against and eradicated.
Furthermore there should be some norms in place for what can be worn in school. I’m no advocate for uniforms, but dressrules respectful of the institution can be demanded (e.g. not wearing headwear in church or covering ones hair when visiting a mosque)
but dressrules respectful of the institution can be demanded (e.g. not wearing headwear in church or covering ones hair when visiting a mosque)
How is an abaya disrespectful to a school? If anything it’s one of the more appropriate kinds of clothing.
France may have banned large crosses from their schools but it is not forbidden afaik to wear necklaces. I did not find an english source, here is a german one with my translation:
In Frankreich herrscht Kopftuchverbot an Schulen
Bereits 1994 trat ein Gesetz in Kraft, dass in Schulen nur noch diskrete - nicht aber auffällige - religiöse Symbole erlaubte. Zehn Jahre später wurden Kopftücher in Schulen vollständig verboten - Kippa und Kreuz nicht. 2010 folgte das Verbot der Vollverschleierung in der Öffentlichkeit.
France bans headscarfs at schools
In 1994 a law was passed that said that only discrete - but not prominent - religious symbols would be allowed. Ten years later headscarfs where banned from schools - while kippa and cross were not. 2010 the ban of the full body veil in public was passed.
https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/frankreich-verbot-abaya-schulen-100.html
Allowing kippas and crosses while disallowing a dress that is at most a religious gesture not even a concrete symbol is just weird.
Yeah I regret this topic being made into a value weighting thing. I hate the hypocrisy in the current discussion. Although I also hate how signalling religosity somehow finds a way.
My point is that the reason behind the policy is pretty solid. The state should be blind to my religion and no-one should get preferrential/or malign treatment because of it.
Allowing kippas and crosses while disallowing a dress that is at most a religious gesture not even a concrete symbol is just weird
Sure, all should be banned
My point is that the reason behind the policy is pretty solid. The state should be blind to my religion and no-one should get preferrential/or malign treatment because of it.
Definitly agreed!
Sure, all should be banned
I guess that’s where opinions just differ, and honestly my point of view isn’t really relevant here as I am not french and I have a very limited knowledge of their culture in this regard.
How is an abaya disrespectful to a school?
any kind of religion is disrespectful to any education facility since they teach exactly the opposite from one another.
That sentence is so general that it has to be wrong.
- One could imagine a religion that bases it’s belief on the scientific method
- Education does not necessarily mean it’s all based on scientific facts
But let’s assume you meant that “The currently most practiced religions are teaching something that is not aligned with the scientific method and facts we want to educate people on in the public education system”.
Even then you are still saying just by being religious you are disrespecting the educational facility. But again let’s assume you only meant that showing that your belief in this religion is disrepectful.
I’d argue that a school is still a public place, where minors are forced to be a big part of their waking day, where they should be free to express themselves. That may include challenging religious beliefs but also the teachings in the school, as long as it happens in a respectful way. Challenging ideas and disagreeing is not the same as disrespect.
One could imagine a religion that bases it’s belief on the scientific method
it doesnt make any sense,religions are about dogmas not evidence. if they are based on science they are not a religion by definition.
Education does not necessarily mean it’s all based on scientific facts
ideally it all is. just because we are not smart enough doesnt mean we should entertain stuff that has even LESS validity, like religions.
where they should be free to express themselves
no child gives a flying bird about “expressing their religion” they are only religious because their parents are forcing them to. no other reason.
so no the right of the parents to express their own religion through their unwilling kids doesnt trump anything about an education syste.
it doesnt make any sense,religions are about dogmas not evidence. if they are based on science they are not a religion by definition.
Citing Wikipedia here:
Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements[1]—although there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3] Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine,[4] sacredness,[5] faith,[6] and a supernatural being or beings.[7]
I’d say I could build a belief system around “designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations” that tries to understand the “supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements” by using scientific methods. Where “supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements” are just stuff we don’t yet understand like for example dark matter.
Education does not necessarily mean it’s all based on scientific facts
ideally it all is. just because we are not smart enough doesnt mean we should entertain stuff that has even LESS validity, like religions.
Try teaching ethics based on only scientific facts then. Try teaching art and music based on scientific fact. Those are disciplines where opinions and feelings have a meaningful impact on the subject at hand.
no child gives a flying bird about “expressing their religion” they are only religious because their parents are forcing them to. no other reason.
so no the right of the parents to express their own religion through their unwilling kids doesnt trump anything about an education syste.
You do understand that people in schools are not just 6 years old kids right? A big chunk of them are old enough to make decisions about themselves. Calling all of these individuals “unwilling kids” because they might be religious is very belittling.
Calling all of these individuals “unwilling kids” because they might be religious is very belittling.
none of those people sat down and said " i want to become a christian". speaking about this like its a choice is really messed up, children dont have a choice.
I did not sit down to be raised an atheist and yet here I am, raised as one without having had a choice. Parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, within some parameters of course. And I think that is a good thing, I wouldn’t want anyone to force me to raise my kids in a specific way. At a certain age teenagers are able to have their own thoughts though, and there are a lot of people that turn away from the beliefs of their parents. Others stay religious though and I think that is absolutely fine. I might not agree with a lot of what they believe in, but it also is just none of my business.
The problem with religious clothing is that the more people who wear it, the more pressure can be put on children to wear it or stand out/be condemned. It gets worse when the clothing is gender-specific.
It also puts children in a situation where their religious background can be seen from afar, making them Christian/Muslim/Jew etc. first and citizen second, when in a secularised country it should always be the other way round.
It is twice as bad when teachers wear religious clothing, because how can you not wear it if your teacher is wearing it. And when children wear religious clothing and have to defend wearing it, they get into a situation where they may have to defend it and wear it and even be part of peer pressure because there is no way out, you are either pushed from one side or the other and many choose to then rather push themselves.
Religious freedom is a double-edged sword: Freedom to live your religion, but also the freedom to live without religion, and especially children who are brought up in a religious family need the school as a place where religion isn’t a thing, so that they have a place to even think about what it feels like to live without it. Religion needs to be a personal choice and only if you have a place to check what it means to be without it you can choose.
If your religion can not give children a place to be without it so they can then freely choose, there is something severely wrong with that religion. Unfortunately I have yet to find a religion that does allow it.
how can you not wear it if your teacher is wearing it
What logic is this? Just make everyone know that a school is a safe space where nobody is made to wear or not wear anything unless it’s offensive (such as profane, racist or too revealing).
Because a teacher is a role model and if your teacher is a role model for religion in a place that should be the one place free from it, then that’s not working.
School can only be a safe place for children to take a breath from a religious background if religion stays completely out of it.
You think it can be a safe space when the girl gets told by its parents “look the teacher is wearing this, so you need too” even if the teacher isn’t saying it?Unfortunately religious clothing isn’t just clothing like every other and religions of this world (not just one specific) are not about safe spaces, they want to be everywhere and they want to occupy school too. A secular country can not allow that.
You know, the solution to women being told what to wear is not to tell them that they cannot wear it.
I don’t agree with this prohibition, and I doubt that it’s likely going to achieve much, but if my experience looking at past government restrictions on things that people want to do is predictive of the situation here, it’ll mean that someone will sit down and figure out the exact limit that the French government prohibits and then figure out a garment or combination of garments that accomplishes as much of the original aims as possible without crossing whatever specific garment line is there.
I mean, what’s a women’s garment that does the head and neck? The bonnet?
googles
Hmm. Apparently it actually did have some religious background.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnet_(headgear)
Bonnets remained one of the most common types of headgear worn by women throughout most of the 19th century. Especially for a widow, a bonnet was de rigueur. Silk bonnets, elaborately pleated and ruched, were worn outdoors, or in public places like shops, galleries, churches, and during visits to acquaintances. Women would cover their heads with caps simply to keep their hair from getting dirty and perhaps out of female modesty, again, in European society, based upon the historical teaching of the Christian Bible. In addition, women in wedlock would wear caps and bonnets during the day, to further demonstrate their status as married women.
But, as far as I know, they aren’t banned. So someone says “Okay, so people can’t wear (religious) abayas, but can wear (secular) trenchcoats? This new garment isn’t an abaya. This is a bonnet and trenchcoat.” Or, you know, whatever.
Wanna know why this whole thing isn’t about a pupil wearing something that shows their religion? They sure as hell don’t ban the kippah, sikhi turban or buddhist and hindu garnments.
For some reason it only goes after Muslims and there mostly after women with the guise of “protecting them from oppression! ;-)”. And it never involves actual talk with the “oppressed” women in question, it’s always the assumption, that of course these women can’t decide for themself and obviously all are forced to wear such garnments.
It started with the burqa and niqab but the people in favor of that promised that it’s just about the face covering, that there is no reason go after the hijab or similar garnments. Surprise surprise, only a few years later here we are and they still fight against “oppression” by limiting what Muslim women can wear. One would think that fighting oppression really was the goal of these people they would ask for actual support measures like providing education campaigns about personal rights and better support network for women. But no, these people think or pretend that such bans will magically solve the issue without any flanking measures. And that tells you all you need to know about their sincerities regarding this topic. It’s not about the girls and women, it never was and never will be.
Good, bodily autonomy ought to be respected only when it aligns with western values 🤡
Much feminism. 🤡
Kipas are banned too. France is a laicist country. You don’t like it, you don’t have to live there - there are enough religious states out there that let you opres women to your hearts desire.
there are enough religious states out there that let you opres women to your hearts desire.
Oppressing, like this very ban? Prohibiting a woman to wear what you don’t like is exactly as oppressing as forcing her to wear something. Hiding behind secularism doesn’t make it okay, it’s still anti-feminist, and paternalistic.
My point is about the lack of respect for body autonomy, which is binary: either there is or there isn’t. Either you own your own body or the state does, which compiles the list of what you can and cannot do with it.
How do you get by without the ability to read? It is equally forbidden for other religion and men (example Kipa) to wear religious symbols in school) - same rules for everyone.
Either you own your own body or the state does, which compiles the list of what you can and cannot do with it.
Wait till you hear of the tyranny of school uniforms. Basically Afghanistan. When you grow up, I’m sure you will learn to not to think in absolutes and also to read. Save my post and read it whet the time comes.
How do you get by without the ability to read?
That should be my line. I’ve already said twice that I’m arguing this under the lens of feminism and twice already you’ve conveniently ignored it to hide behind the excuse of laicism. And if that wasn’t enough now you’ve resorted to infantilizing who disagrees with you.
Forcing someone to do something because of religion is wrong and oppressive, but that doesn’t mean that forcing someone NOT to do something in the name of laicism isn’t any less oppressive.
I’m questioning whether the law is just and is applied justly, you are running on the assumption that the law must be just because it oppresses everyone equally. That’s an example of negative peace.
Anyway, I hate internet screaming contests, so I’m done. Enjoy your neoliberal state slipping into authoritarianism. Peace ✌
under the lens of feminism
And again, just for my amusement since - you can’t read, same rules apply to men, women and different religion.
to infantilizing who disagrees with you.
Nah, mate - you have done it to yourself, but just not engaging with what I write and making weird absolutist statement. Obviously I don’t know if you are a teen, but I sure hope so.
but that doesn’t mean that forcing someone NOT to do something in the name of laicism isn’t any less oppressive.
So how do you make sure that girls that don’t want to wear religious closing are not forced to to so? Sometimes you have to chose, whose rights to oppress - and sorry I will be always on the side of moderates and not fundamentalist. Since as mentioned before - there is no point in appeasement of fundamentalist.
you are running on the assumption that the law must be just because it oppresses everyone equally.
No, I was more like: you don’t like secular countries - move to a religious one. Because we have a lot of the second and only a few of the first. But again - you can’t read so you will never know.
Anyway, I hate internet screaming contests,
Sure buddy.
Enjoy your neoliberal state slipping into authoritarianism.
Sure, gay Europe is in it’s downfall and will end surly soon, just after capitalism collapses. I know that argument from somewhere - and not from feminists.
The fact that it also applies to men is not an argument in your discussion.
It’s sad that freedom has to be given up for those few who are oppressed.
All these laws do is divide people. They’re racist laws wrapped in a thin layer of good intentions and nationalism.
Nah, mate - religious rules that only apply to one sex don’t belong in the modern world. You can try to spin it all you want - but it’s conservative Islam that tells women what to wear.
Prohibiting a woman to wear what you don’t like is exactly as oppressing as forcing her to wear something.
nice reversal, we only have to do this because countless women are being forced or pressured to wear those clothes. Stop doing that and no ban is needed
I’m all for letting people wear whatever they want. What is the harm?
Here in Canada I’ve seen police officers wearing turbans. Works for me. Nude beaches? Sure thing. I’ve seen people in my neighborhood wearing Saudi-style niqabs and Afghan-style burqas.
Who am I to tell people what they should or shouldn’t wear? How could it be my business?
I’m also for people burning the Qur’an if they so please. Or the bible, or the rainbow flag, or the national flag if that’s how they want to protest. Ideas are there to be challenged.
I draw the line at threatening or harming people.
France is a secularist Republic. Freedom of religion is guaranteed but every religious sign is banned in the public space.
I understand that’s how things are, but I don’t think that is how they should be. And while I’m an atheist, I also understand many people aren’t. Why force my irreligiosity on them?
So while students should not be indoctrinated on any particular religion in school, I don’t see the harm in letting both teachers and students wear whatever they like, including religious symbols.
In fact, it would be great if we taught all students the basics of multiple world religions in school and let people of different faiths talk to each other about what is important to them.
I can see where you are coming from. How can we forbid clothing if the goal is to not dictate what to wear?
But consider that in a community, be that at school or in the neighborhood, classmates and neighbors can uphold unregulated, religious rules. Is it free choice of clothing if the law doesn’t forbid anything, but only girls with (insert appropriate clothing) are allowed to join in the play? And there is plenty precedent of religion that causes precisely such group behavior.
There is plenty of precedent of non-religious informal rules around clothing. E.g. men wearing skirts, dresses, or soft “feminine” colors. Do those informal rules bother you as well? Should we change the law accordingly, or are we okay with informal norms of conduct in that case?
In general, yes I do think that we should get rid of such informal rules. And I would appreciate a law that e.g. ensures an employer can not discriminate against men wearing dresses or skirts. For what it’s worth, there have been protest by bus drivers, who are not allowed to wear shorts in the summer, who showed up in skirts on a hot day.
If we change the garment from abayas to pants it would be “to ban male students from wearing pants in school”, meaning they’d be forced to wear skirts or dresses. But two points make this different from the OP:
- Since this is not linked to religion it has a slightly different spin. I can’t put it into words that well, but a guy choosing to wear a skirt is just that, a clothing choice. But Islam is pretty explicit that women should cover themselves. So if a guy goes against the informal law people would make fun of him. If an Islam woman wears short clothes she is not only made fun of, but can also get in trouble with her entire community.
- While dresses/skirts are almost exclusively worn by women, pants are worn by men and women. So a guy wearing pants is not the outlier, he is wearing the gender neutral clothing. If abayas are also worn by a significant fraction of male students in France I would heavily oppose the proposed ban, but I found nothing that would indicate such a practice.
Well if that really were the fears of people proposing such bans, then there would be a lot of better ways to achieve this. At the very least they would try to support such bans with flanking policies such as better infrastructure to support such women who are oppressed in a religious ways as for example better integration courses and public information.
And for some reason it’s always only about Muslim women! Other religions which can also coerce or force family members to follow a certain dress code, not a single word about them.
And for some reason it’s always only about Muslim women! Other religions which can also coerce or force family members to follow a certain dress code, not a single word about them.
Because right now and in Europe those are rather rare. Afaik there’s some Christian groups where women always wear long skirts, but those groups tend to get called “cults” (“Sekten” here in Germany) so I don’t really see a double standard there.
That said, there are surveys regarding why women wear hijabs and - at least in Germany - those say that the vast majority wears them voluntarily.
It’s a smoke screen to get right wing voters on their side once again. Public services in France are in shambles, our education is getting noticeably worse by the decade and this is what these fucks focus on.
They’ve been doing this shit for years, though…
I draw the line at threatening or harming people.
Except these bans are harming people.
Anyone dictating what others can or cannot wear is harming people.All this “enlightened” centrism bullshit does is enable oppressors.
I draw the line at threatening or harming people
Except these bans are harming people
Sorry for not being clear in my statement. I mean harming as in: beheading, stoning, bombing, shooting, etc. Not as in hurting their feelings.
But we agree: nobody should impose on other people what they can or cannot wear, whether it is religious symbols or pirate regalia.
All this “enlightened” centrism bullshit does is enable oppressors
Could you please elaborate?
The fact that you think this is about “hurt feelings” rather than what it is - actual oppression that leads to real life marginalisation, violence, and death, you’re either not paying attention or are being wilfully ignorant and obtuse.
All this “enlightened” centrism bullshit does is enable oppressors
Could you please elaborate?You could open your eyes, or simply take the idea of dictating what people do and don’t wear to it’s only conclusion (it is literally oppression in its own right, no matter your personal feelings on the matter), but here, I’ll save you having to do any hard work:
specifically:
https://socialistworker.co.uk/what-we-think/stop-islamophobic-attacks-on-the-veil/
https://daily.jstor.org/muslim-women-and-the-politics-of-the-headscarf/
generally:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
https://blacklikemao.medium.com/how-liberalism-helps-fascism-d4dbdcb199d9
Sorry, I truly have trouble understanding your sentences. I gather that you are upset, but I’m not sure about what, exactly. I hope things turn out okay for you.
Lmfao, go fuck yourself you condescending wilfully ignorant fascism enabling prick. Was that clear enough for you?
go fuck yourself you condescending wilfully ignorant fascism enabling prick
I will do so thinking of you 😘
these bans harm people because they
- encourage shitty men in the lives of these women to limit their education
- encourage these hardcore religious communities to form and utilize their own school systems, which will indoctrinate their youth
- encourage these families to leave France and potentially return to repressive theocratic states.
burning rainbow flags doesn’t only hurt feelings
Can you elaborate? What else does it do? I’m queer, and while I don’t like seeing the rainbow flag being burnt, it doesn’t compare with receiving a beating.
it is a precursor to beating. Attack the symbols first and if it is socially accepted you can escalate to violence against the people. The Nazis didnt start by gassing the jews. they started with making it okay fo be hostile to them in public, denouncing them in every way and slowly ramping up the violence. Same story for any discrimination of minorities escalated into violence and murder.
I agree, but there is a somewhat thorny question here: Where does the dictation start?
Many of these students and their families are being dictated to by Sunni wahabbist imams trained and funded by Saudi oil money, and they actually come from cultures and religious traditions that didn’t give a shit about the abaya in the ‘60s and ‘70s.
Well how about they tackle the foreign financial support of such extremist religious subgroups then? How about they provide more public information about the personal rights of women to choose themself what they wear? How about providing better infrastructure with properly trained social workers to better help such women to flee from such oppressive households?
Any of these examples would be several times better at actually improving the lives of such women. Definitely more than them being forced to not wear something. Women who are forced to wear such stuff should be helped to understand that it isn’t right for them to be forced to wear something they don’t want. Guess what certainly doesn’t help in that task, the state also dictating what they can’t wear.
I did not know what an abaya is, but it did not matter to know this is a stupid ban. Just let people wear whatever the fuck they want to wear.
The thing is some children do not have a say in the clothes they get. Those children still deserve the same conditions in school
If that were genuinely the motivation and it would be handled with the appropriate nuance, I could get behind that. But as it stands, this is saying, for completely arbitrary reasons, you can’t wear your clothing that you wear all the time, the clothing you’re likely comfortable in.
Makes sense. Anyone who needs it probably needs integrate better, or possibly their male relatives.
Yeah, the western value of telling women what they can and cannot wear… In this regard the male relatives you speak off are very well integrated according to this logic.
You are altering facts. We are not talking about women, we are talking about little girls. Whatever your opinion is, you still have to remember this
what constitutes little girls to you? Normalment this kind of attire is worn for religious reasons starting with puberty, so 12+. And even then the question still stands, why the state should decide what girls must not wear
Considering 12 years olds as women is insanity. The legal boundary is 18
Considering 12 years old to not have any form of self consciousness and decision making is insanity. Also what kind of pedo-stuff is it to force teenage girls to wear clothes that are deemed revealing enough?
Who the hell said children had no form of self consciousness and decision making? It’s funny to see you trying to reverse the implicit accusation I made in my last comment. Doesn’t make sense btw
That is the implication when you say it is necessary to ban them from wearing certain clothes bevause you falsely assume they’d all be forced to wear it and never could wear it out of their own decision
Because it is an excellent tool to oppress and separate woman and girls from, for example, non-believers. It’s also a way to make them remember the religious nonsensical rules all the time. That’s the whole reason these veils exist.
So we should try to appeal to them for our values by doing the same thing, making opressive rules about what they can and cannot wear?
Yes, I think when rules can counter opression that’s a good thing.
opressive rules do not countrr opression. They just change the opressor
So much for freedom of religion.
“When you walk into a classroom, you shouldn’t be able to identify the pupils’ religion just by looking at them,”
What a dumb fucking reason. Really, that’s the best he could come up with? Why not? What’s so bad about knowing someone’s religion, when they are obviously not shy about it?
I get banning religious symbols from schools, because the institutes themselves are supposed to be non-religious (seperation of state and church and so on), but if the students themselves want to express their religion, let them.
Before being muslim you are French. Disallowing any religious symbols allow people to bond easily because they are not blocked by religion.
They can see something else at school, it allows them to widen their perspective. Either, since childhood, the only thing they’ll do is practice a religion their parents have forced unto them.
After high school, I see no problems about showing your religious symbols because normally at this point of your life, you are educated about a lot of things and able to choose for yourself…
That’s nationalist at best. Why is French more important than Muslim? Because they write the laws? Doesn’t that seem a little unfair?
I hate organized religion, but I don’t give a shit what someone does if it doesn’t hurt anyone else. I also hate authoritarianism that limits people’s options and attempts to force then into some sort of cultural hegymony.
In the Americas (both he us and Canada), we forces native Americans to attend schools to attempt to remove their culture and make them “American.” This has generally been viewed as a horrible atrocity. Hopefully France doesn’t attempt to follow the mistakes of history.
France literally gave me everything: free school, free healthcare, open culture for all, it has literally been a super important part of who I am today thanks to all the things I got access to for free.
It’s the true country of freedom, with intellectuals that paved the way for the American independence, the first to assert the importance of the humans over religious dogma and violence.
You just want to get rid of this because wearing religious symbol « don’t hurt anyone ». Well, let me tell you the truth, those little girls don’t know why they have to wear those scarves. They don’t know that this is a symbol against women’s rights because they weren’t educated about it, so yes it does hurt people.
So yes, this is a nationalist POV, does this make my point less valid ?
EDIT: you are really rooting for this ?? Here’s what those symbols really mean.
Why is French more important than Muslim?
because france is a real thing that actually exists.
France exists as much as Islam exists. It’s a made up belief that enough people agree to follow the rules of. Before modern times, borders were basically invisible and could be crossed freely. Many wars were fought because borders couldn’t be defined well, because they’re made up. I fact, Islam was originally created as a state and religion together as one, so it exists at least as much as France.
nah, the name might be made up but you can touch it.
Can you touch it any more than Islam though? You can touch ground it says is it’s own, but that was called another thing before and will be called something else after. It’s not called France. There is nothing fundamentally “French” about the ground. If I take a scoop of dirt from France and take it to Germany, it doesn’t maintain it’s France-ness. It isn’t any more real than money is. It’s a useful concept that we all agree to believe in, but it’s not fundamental. The government is something you can touch I guess, but the same is true for leadership in Islam.
Yes
Sorry to burst your bubble, but people in other countries (like Germany) where they are allowed to display religious symbols are able to bond just fine. If you can’t “bond” with someone because they’re wearing a cross on a chain or cover their head with religious clothing, that sounds like a you-issue. Regardless of why they practice their religion, it’s not up to you or the state to tell them how to practice it. Sure some are forced into it by their parents, but banning religious symbols in schools isn’t going to fix that. What it does do however, is stop students from practicing a religion they freely chose.
This law is made by people who are intimidated by things they don’t understand and that probably have their roots in racism and islamophobia.
People in Germany have trouble to “bond” though. Unless you want to ignore the multitude of troubles some immigrants (even second and third generation) face here. To deny these also have to do with religious conservatism isn’t helpful.
That some of the children here are still forced into religion, sometimes living in a basically parallel society, is a problem that shouldn’t simply be brushed aside.
I agree. I’m American and live in an area with a large Indian immigrant diaspora and I’m able to “bond” with them just fine. Many of them wear religious symbols and wear every day, but they’re just normal people. They dress differently, but so do many non religious people also.
The specific religious traditions matter though. The context and rules surrounding covering of girls and women are a more problematic matter. The same goes for other religious practices that are rooted in values that have no place in a secular and more or less egalitarian state.
You have a very odd understanding of what “secular state” means. It doesn’t mean that the state can dictate where or how you’re allowed to express you religion. It doesn’t mean that some parts of religion are to be tolerated, where as those that you see as bad can be forbidden at will.
All it means, is that the state institutions, can’t force you to partake in a religion or activities related to that religion. Kids who voluntarily want to express their religion are free to do so. Whether that kid is forced into following that religion, is not an issue of a “secular state”.
It also means a certain collection of values. And having rules for girls and women that include them having to cover their hair and body “because religion” is going against those values.
And yes, it absolutely does matter in a secular state whether people forcing their children into religious beliefs. At least in school the children should learn that these rules only exist in the minds of their parents or communities. Freedom also means to be free to choose. And grooming your children into religious practices is not freedom.
This is why not
“Secularism means the freedom to emancipate oneself through school,” Mr Attal told TF1
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Yes the freedom to do so. You should be free to NOT do that though. You should be free from pressure in both directions.
You can’t have a parallel religious law system in a secular state. So there absolutely should be pressure on people to accept that religious “rules” have no power there.
Yes but forbidding the choice to wear a cross necklace or a headscarf is not exactly freedom is it?
Nobody is arguing for a parallel law system
I think you underestimate the influence of religious symbols. It’s not just any type of clothing. It’s a tool for religious communities that has considerable impact, especially when your parents make you wear it, it has beliefs attached to it and is easily visible to everyone around you.
I mean parents so have a lot of freedom to raise their children as they see fit. And I think that is a good thing. I would not do a lot of things that other people do, but it’s totally in the rights of people to raise their children religiously, and that can include wearing certain kinds of clothes.
Well, that’s were we disagree. I don’t think parents should be free to raise their child however they want to. And it’s also not in their rights in every country.
France has enforced a strict ban on religious signs at schools since the 19th Century, including Christian symbols such as large crosses, in an effort to curb any Catholic influence from public education.
It has been updating the law over the years to reflect its changing population, which now includes the Muslim headscarf and Jewish kippa, but abayas have not been banned outright.
So going by the article, some religious clothing is outright banned while crosses are allowed as long as they are not large?
All crosses are banned. Totally unacceptable. Source: I’m a 20yo french.
Another step towards criminalizing Muslims. They are a convenient scapegoat for the fascists and libs to channel the anger and hate away from themselves and towards marginalized groups.
No, like already pointed out, in France, Religion has no place in schools. This has nothing directly to do with muslims
Secularism is not the motivation behind this. If it was, this law would have already been on the books for centuries. But Islamophobia is a great way to get the racist vote right now.
I you believe this has nothing to do with Muslims, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
The law has already been in the books for one century. Laïcity is the removal of any religious sign from schools and is one of the pillars of the French Republic. Yet, recently France failed to enforce it and that’s why explicit stances are taken now, which looks bad of course but it is a necessary course correction.
“When you walk into a classroom, you shouldn’t be able to identify the pupils’ religion just by looking at them,”
Sir I’m sorry but a abaya doesn’t prove someone is religious. You can wear one if you so please even if you’re not Islam. It’s just a dress.
Sure, and you an atheist could wear a cross and speak a prayer every morning. They just usually don’t and until we can telepathically determine what someone actually believes such insignia are the best way to show support for religion.
But the abaya is not a religious symbol, it’s literally just a fucking dress like any other, it’s just what they wear typically in that part of the world. It’s like saying that pants are a christian symbol because all Europeans wear pants, and Europe is majority christian.
Do you really think those girls wear abaya inside school not because of religion?
I think saying this largely denies the cultural implications of many religiously associated garments and symbols.
Most religious symbols are not just that, they’re cultural ones. People adopt them, change them, redefine them. Drawing lines between religion and culture is very difficult so attempting to stop someone dressing some way is just a restriction of freedom, regardless of religion.
Many of these girls are brought up to believe it is wrong to not cover your body as a girl and woman. How is that freedom?
Forcing someone to stop smoking is not giving them freedom
When they got addicted it may very much give them freedom.
These veils are not chosen by girls out of freedom. No 10 year old girl suddenly stands up and thinks “Better to cover my body, otherwise I may tempt the men around me”.
It does not matter if a vice is chosen or unchosen. Smoking is a great example. You may not choose a tobacco addiction.
Situation A: you have the freedom to choose to quit or not. Quitting results in more freedom. Not quitting results in less. The total freedoms available to you at any time are the freedom TO quit and the freedom OF quitting
Situation B: You have no freedom to choose to quit. Your total freedoms are: freedom from quitting.
So your freedoms have decreased in situation B. We have to ask if personal freedoms are preferable to better outcomes.
The difference is that freedom is independent of opinion. You are either free to do so lawfully or not. But if I say “it would be better for you to not have that freedom”, I need to demonstrate what “better” means. And there everyone often disagrees.
If you really want to take smoking as an analogy the situation would be like this: Your parents forced you into a tabacco addiction. You are growing up being told that you can’t go anywhere without smoking and those around you who do not smoke are doing a bad thing.
Is it good or bad if these children have a place where their parents have no power to force them to smoke?
Is it a bad idea for me, a non-religious person, to wear one in solidarity? (As well as for privacy, sun protection, etc.)
(I do not live in France.)
I fail to see why not. It’s just a dress. You shall wear whatever resonates with you.
It’s not just a dress, unfortunately. It’s a dress, strongly associated with female oppressive rules of Islam.
I have been in some pagan veiling online circles and have discovered that a lot of non-Muslims use Muslim-style veils and it usually is not considered offensive, so I think that it would be okay for an irreligious person to use one.
