Illegal to show your religion in France.

[Voltron]

STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - A Muslim girl who refuses to remove her headscarf was expelled Tuesday from French state schools for the second time in six months, education authorities said.

Hilal, a 12-year-old of Turkish origin, was shut out of a school in the eastern town of Thann in November for refusing to uncover her hair. Another school there took her in on condition that she wear a bandana instead of the full headscarf.

But Hilal went back to the full headscarf after only a few days of wearing the bandana, sparking off a day-long strike by teachers in March demanding that she conform to the rule banning overt signs of religious affiliation.

"The agreement was never clearly put into practice, despite the contacts the principal had with her and her parents," said Philippe Hemez, a local school board official.

France has passed a ban on pupils wearing religious garb in school, judging it a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state, and plans to implement it in September.

The new law leaves some flexibility for compromise solutions such as bandanas, as Muslim leaders have proposed, but the full head-and-shoulders scarf that Hilal wears would not be allowed.

Hilal's family has a week to appeal the expulsion. If it is upheld, school officials will have to find another school for her or organize a correspondence course to allow her to continue her schooling.

A handful of other children have been expelled under the law.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004052514440002626563&dt=20040525144400&w=RTR&coview=
I wonder is Frances constitutional separation of church and state written to protect religion from government and not to protect government from religion like ours is?

[skunk]

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004052514440002626563&dt=20040525144400&w=RTR&coview=
I wonder is Frances constitutional separation of church and state written to protect religion from government and not to protect government from religion like ours is?
It's to protect the people from religion.

[Krizoitz]

It's to protect the people from religion.

Yes because obviously only religion causes bad things. And her scarf is quite obviously a threat to a secular government.

"It's to protect the people from religion."
To me that argument is getting old. Its a liberal way of saying we don't like what you think so we don't think you should get to say it, and we'll use the classification of "religion" as a way to justify that.

Why is it that someone expressing their views on something is unnaceptable if they happen to believe in God, but someone who is say, an environmentalist is treated the same way?

Both are belief systems. Both have members who use their views to justify violence. Yet no one goes around saying we need to protect people from environmentalism.

Religion isn't a bad thing. A religion is just a belief system. Just like any other belief system it can be abused by those in power.

A government is supposed to protect the rights of the people. In this case they are trying to deny freedom of expression to one group of people because it might lead to disagreement and other problems.

I understand and agree that the government shouldn't sponsor any one religion, and as far as I'm concerned THAT is what seperation of church and state is. It would be one thing if the French said you can't teach that one religion is best in schools. Its another to deny a person the right to go to school without also demanding that they give up a part of their religion that isn't harming anyone. I mean it would be one thing to ban people from bringing guns to school, even if their religion said they must have a gun at all times. That is a safety issue obviously. But this is a head-scarf. It doesn't hurt anyone. If I see a Muslim girl with a head-scarf on I don't suddenly feel like I'm being forced to convert.

Shouldn't we encourage people to be open and understanding of other cultures? Isn't that how you avoid hatred and conflict? Through understanding.

Basically these kids are being told you have to choose between your religion and being educated. What happens next if we let this keep going? You start to have no Muslim children in schools, they either can't go to school or can only attend private schools. Then what? Only the wealthy will be able to afford it, so what is happening is that poor Muslim children will either have to give up their faith or their future. Personally I find that choice abhorent.

I'd rather have my kids go to school with people of diverse backgrounds. I'd rather have them learn that they are people too, not just some nameless mass who get lumped in with people like Osama Bin-Ladin. You start dividing people and you will only breed hatred and distrust.

To me France might as well have said "Muslims not Welcome Here". Certainly the U.S. especially in recent weeks have shown that we have a ways to go in healing the rifts we have with the Middle East. What those soliders did in Abu Gharib is the result of viewing Muslims not as people but as something less. But at least in this country a Muslim has the right not only to worship but to attend school as well.

[mactastic]

Yet no one goes around saying we need to protect people from environmentalism.

Yes they do.
Or have you not heard the statement to the effect of 'Many people whose color used to be red now claim to be green" from the conservative right?

Note: I'm not saying anything about the France/headscarves thing here, I don't like the idea of a government clamping down on personal freedom.

[skunk]

Yes because obviously only religion causes bad things.
I was talking historically, not hysterically.
Even though the French have also banned skull-caps and crucifixes, I too believe it is foolish and short-sighted. They might as well ban tattoos, brown sandals, organic food, Macs - anything which is an outward indication of any paricular affiliation.

[Neserk]

As a soverign nation they are entitled to do as they please. If they want to make it illegal to display your religion. so be it. Different cultures have different values.

[numediaman]

Thank you, Neserk.

Since its revolution, France has been adamant about the separation of state and religion. Its history of dominance by the Catholic church (prior to the revolution) influences this belief. (By the way, I am a Catholic.)

Although it seems very strange to U.S. citizens, the French have made a decision that its public schools will stay secular.

There is no prohibition to practice any religion you like in France. You just can not display religious symbols in a school environment.

In the U.S., many schools will not let you wear certain "gang" related colors, or certain clothes styles because they are associated with gangs. In France, they are concerned with radical Islamic teachings, and radical clerics. I guess we don't seem to mind that here.

[I think this is the tenth time I have been forced to defend the French on this web site. I think some rich Frenchman owes me an all-expense paid trip to Paris, non?]

[Neserk]

Thank you, Neserk.



No problem.



[I think this is the tenth time I have been forced to defend the French on this web site. I think some rich Frenchman owes me an all-expense paid trip to Paris, non?]

Me too? My husband and I would love to go to France!

[Frohickey]

Yes they do.
Or have you not heard the statement to the effect of 'Many people whose color used to be red now claim to be green" from the conservative right?

Note: I'm not saying anything about the France/headscarves thing here, I don't like the idea of a government clamping down on personal freedom.

You mean the 'watermelon' reference? ;)

What do you consider personal freedom? 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th? Do we get to pick and choose, are all considered lumped together?

Read an article, don't remember where, that said those on the left love the 1st and 4th amendments and hate the 2nd and 5th, while those on the right love the 2nd and 5th, and hate the 1st and 4th. Too bad we are going back and forth from left to right in our politics, pretty soon, we are going to be left with nothing. :eek: :eek:

[Frohickey]

As a soverign nation they are entitled to do as they please. If they want to make it illegal to display your religion. so be it. Different cultures have different values.

But doesn't that infringe on their people's human right to display and worship to whichever god/deity/s they choose? How could you be so insensitive towards human rights? :eek: :p

[Voltron]

Thank you, Neserk.

Since its revolution, France has been adamant about the separation of state and religion. Its history of dominance by the Catholic church (prior to the revolution) influences this belief. (By the way, I am a Catholic.)


What revolution?
Wasn't it in 1527 that Charles the VIII King of France invaded, conquered, and took possession of Rome, the head of the Catholic church for the purpose of uniting all of Europe under one Christian banner?

Wasn't Charles the VIII that refused to allow the pope to permit King Henry a divorce from his wife, Charles Aunt, who then broke from the Catholic church creating the Church of England?

Wasn't Charles in charge of the Pope who was in charge of the church that excommunicated Martin Luther for criticizing the church thus started the refomation movement which caused Luther to start the Lutherean church?

BTW during this time period there was a controversy about priests playing with altar boys. They were more upset with the break from celibacy than with the fact of them playing with altar boys since apparently that kind of stuff was common over there back then.

I think I'm missing something here?

[Frohickey]

Little Tommy's Report Card

Little Tommy was doing very poorly in math. His parents had tried everything...tutors, flash cards, special learning centers...In short, everything that they could think of to improve Tommy's grades. As a last ditch effort, they enrolled Tommy in the local Catholic school.

On the first day at the new school, Tommy came home with a very serious look on his face. He didn't even kiss his mother hello, but walked straight to his room and started studying. Books and paper were soon spread out all over the room with Tommy hard at work.

His mother was amazed. She called him down to dinner and to her shock, the minute he was done, he marched right back to his room without a word and started hitting the books as hard as before. This went on day after day while his mother tried to understand what was making the difference.

Finally, little Tommy brought home his report card. He placed it quietly on the table and walked directly to his room to hit the books again. With great curiousity, Tommy's mom opened the report card, and to her delight, little Tommy got an A in Math! She had to know why the Catholic school was so different, so she went into Tommy's room.

"So, what was it? Was it the nuns?", she said.

Little Tommy kept his eyes to the ground and shook his head. "No."

"Was it the books....the discipline, the structure, the uniform. WHAT was it?", she asked.

Little Tommy looked at her and finally answered, "Well, on the first day of school, when I saw that guy nailed to the plus sign I knew they weren't fooling around."

[Neserk]

LOL

[Neserk]

But doesn't that infringe on their people's human right to display and worship to whichever god/deity/s they choose? How could you be so insensitive towards human rights? :eek: :p

Human Rights? No. And wearing paraphenalia (geesh, I can't spell tonight) is propaganada, imo.

[blue&whiteman]

As a soverign nation they are entitled to do as they please. If they want to make it illegal to display your religion. so be it. Different cultures have different values.

I totally hear what you're saying but right is right. oppression is oppression. its all bad.

people have been held back from being themselves in many ways for too long.

showing what religion you are hurts no one and I think people should be able to do ANYTHING they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

[mactastic]

You mean the 'watermelon' reference? ;)

What do you consider personal freedom? 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th? Do we get to pick and choose, are all considered lumped together?

Read an article, don't remember where, that said those on the left love the 1st and 4th amendments and hate the 2nd and 5th, while those on the right love the 2nd and 5th, and hate the 1st and 4th. Too bad we are going back and forth from left to right in our politics, pretty soon, we are going to be left with nothing. :eek: :eek:

Somehow you get the idea that because I don't see the 2nd Amendment as a right to own anything up to a nuclear missle that I want to take your guns away. Or that I hate guns or something. And that because I realize that the 5th amendment has that 'without just compensation' tacked onto the end of it you think I want to take your land. In your view the 5th amendment has a period after '...public use'.

I know it's a joke about who hates what amendments, but I don't see that in reality either side has any hatred towards the constitution. Oh, I know it makes good jingoism, and 'plays well' as you say, but it's just a cheap straw man.

On second thought I guess I hate the 18th amendment, but hopefully that's forgivable. I'd hate an amendment against gay marriage too I suppose. Our interpretations may be different but there's no hatred towards the rest of it.

[Neserk]

I totally hear what you're saying but right is right. oppression is oppression. its all bad.

people have been held back from being themselves in many ways for too long.

showing what religion you are hurts no one and I think people should be able to do ANYTHING they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

But what you have to realize is that is a cultural value. Spefically an American one. For many cultures it is the group that is imporant, not the individual.

That being said, I think they would argue that it does hurt people. That is part of the reason for banning it.

[mactastic]

I don't see how it 'hurts' people to see other children wearing religious garb. I understand the rationale for not allowing teachers to wear outward signs of religion, but for students? Isn't part of school a (pardon the term) voyage of self-discovery?

[Frohickey]

Somehow you get the idea that because I don't see the 2nd Amendment as a right to own anything up to a nuclear missle that I want to take your guns away. Or that I hate guns or something. And that because I realize that the 5th amendment has that 'without just compensation' tacked onto the end of it you think I want to take your land. In your view the 5th amendment has a period after '...public use'.

I know it's a joke about who hates what amendments, but I don't see that in reality either side has any hatred towards the constitution. Oh, I know it makes good jingoism, and 'plays well' as you say, but it's just a cheap straw man.

On second thought I guess I hate the 18th amendment, but hopefully that's forgivable. I'd hate an amendment against gay marriage too I suppose. Our interpretations may be different but there's no hatred towards the rest of it.

How about this for a deal?

You give the 2nd and 5th a very wide interpretation, and I'll give the 1st and 4th the same wide interpretation. That way, we both win.

[mactastic]

How about this for a deal?

You give the 2nd and 5th a very wide interpretation, and I'll give the 1st and 4th the same wide interpretation. That way, we both win.

Not if 'very wide' means nuclear weapons or an absolute right to private property.

[blue&whiteman]

But what you have to realize is that is a cultural value. Spefically an American one. For many cultures it is the group that is imporant, not the individual.

That being said, I think they would argue that it does hurt people. That is part of the reason for banning it.

thats forced conformity. just because I think the "american" way doesn't mean its just opinion. besides, not many people view america as the kind of people I am. I have a different way of thinking I guess because I don't think there is just culture and opinion that should rule. my point is that there is opinion and there is fact.

with all of this its opinion and culture ruling. in retort.. letting people be what they want is the fact of respect and rights.

just my way of thinking.. :confused:

[Neserk]

thats forced conformity. just because I think the "american" way doesn't mean its just opinion. besides, not many people view america as the kind of people I am. I have a different way of thinking I guess because I don't think there is just culture and opinion that should rule. my point is that there is opinion and there is fact.

with all of this its opinion and culture ruling. in retort.. letting people be what they want is the fact of respect and rights.

just my way of thinking.. :confused:

:confused:

[Krizoitz]

But what you have to realize is that is a cultural value. Spefically an American one. For many cultures it is the group that is imporant, not the individual.

That being said, I think they would argue that it does hurt people. That is part of the reason for banning it.

Where do you draw the line though? The extreme argument would be something like, why didn't the Germans have the right to exterminate Jews? They could argue that the group (Germany) was more important than the Jews as individuals. Now obviously I don't think you are advocating that, but it illustrates that the line is somewhat arbitrary don't you think?

To me this is the problem with moral relativism. When taken to its fullest argument anything can be justified because you can't rightly apply ANY rules because one could argue that you are violating their world view/imposing your view on them. Of course we then have the problem of absolute morality. Given that we have religious/cultural systems who don't agree under this system we are oppressing one group or another usually based on who is the most powerful.

All cultures/socities have to balance between individual welfare and group welfare. What we have to realize is that no system is perfect, and therefore it is up to us to continue to question the decisions and try and fight against injustice. We must of course be willing to accept the consequences.

That said, I don't think its wrong to say that what the French are doing isn't right, anymore than it is for them to critcize us on the war in Iraq. The idea that we should let a country do whatever it wants, to me, is a cop out. As another poster pointed out oppresion is oppresion.

[Krizoitz]

Human Rights? No. And wearing paraphenalia (geesh, I can't spell tonight) is propaganada, imo.

Propoganda? Good lord we aren't talking about a shirt that says something like "Worship Allah infidel Dogs". We are talking about headscarves that are meant to be worn out of a sense of decency and modesty.

[blue&whiteman]

culture = conformity. plain and simple. its a bad thing at the very base of the idea yet people all blindly walk through life with these ideas that have been fed into theirs heads.

people can be what they want. leave them alone.

[Ugg]

I don't see how it 'hurts' people to see other children wearing religious garb. I understand the rationale for not allowing teachers to wear outward signs of religion, but for students? Isn't part of school a (pardon the term) voyage of self-discovery?

Ahh, have you forgotten the viciousness of schoolchildren? France is a secular country where the majority is catholic, over 90% I believe. Can you imagine what it would be like to throw some head scarves, yarmulkas and orthodox icons into the mix? I don't think it would be pretty. This is not just about the personal display of religious frou-frou, but about the creation of an environment where everybody can learn free from the fear of religious oppression, of being ridiculed by being somehow different from the rest of the students.

France in no way whatsoever inhibits the expression of religion, but in the name of harmony, something has to give. It is easy for us in the US to condemn such actions where we are the most impossible mix of religions and ethnic backgrounds. This is less about religion than it is about education.

[mactastic]

Ahh, have you forgotten the viciousness of schoolchildren? France is a secular country where the majority is catholic, over 90% I believe. Can you imagine what it would be like to throw some head scarves, yarmulkas and orthodox icons into the mix? I don't think it would be pretty. This is not just about the personal display of religious frou-frou, but about the creation of an environment where everybody can learn free from the fear of religious oppression, of being ridiculed by being somehow different from the rest of the students.

France in no way whatsoever inhibits the expression of religion, but in the name of harmony, something has to give. It is easy for us in the US to condemn such actions where we are the most impossible mix of religions and ethnic backgrounds. This is less about religion than it is about education.

OK, I can see that. But no one is forcing them to wear a head scarf either, so if they are getting messed with they can always stop wearing it if they want to. It just seems like overkill to me. I'd rather keep my freedom and make the decision about whether to wear something or not myself.

[zimv20]

no one is forcing them to wear a head scarf
what about religious mores?

[blackfox]

You know, although Frances' decision does impeed a certain amount of religious expression, I do believe it is pragmatic, and fair. By outlawing all religious items, all religions are treated the same. It is perhaps the easiest path to negotiate, although obviously not a perfect one. Because once you let the genie out of the bottle...and we have seen how well and maturely humanity tolerates differences, haven't we?

[Neserk]

culture = conformity.

Yeah, those pesky cultural "laws" that cause also to stop at red lights, not break into other people's homes, and things like that really suck. They don't let us express our individuality at all...

[pdham]

culture = conformity.

culture does not equal conformity. culture is, according to sociologist J. Farely, "A culture is a design for living or, more precisely, a complex whole consisting of objects, values, and other characteristics that people have acquired as members of society". Those people that refuse to conform to "culture" (using the word the way you defined it) are just forming a seperate subculture of their own. One can never truely be counter conformist because that in itself is a lifestyle that carries beliefs and norms. Therefore, causing those that proclaim not to be conforming to infact just be conforming to a different set of cultural values.

[Neserk]

culture does not equal conformity. culture is, according to sociologist J. Farely, "A culture is a design for living or, more precisely, a complex whole consisting of objects, values, and other characteristics that people have acquired as members of society". Those people that refuse to conform to "culture" (using the word the way you defined it) are just forming a seperate subculture of their own. One can never truely be counter conformist because that in itself is a lifestyle that carries beliefs and norms. Therefore, causing those that proclaim not to be conforming to infact just be conforming to a different set of cultural values.


*that* is what I was trying to say :D

[Krizoitz]

You know, although Frances' decision does impeed a certain amount of religious expression, I do believe it is pragmatic, and fair. By outlawing all religious items, all religions are treated the same. It is perhaps the easiest path to negotiate, although obviously not a perfect one. Because once you let the genie out of the bottle...and we have seen how well and maturely humanity tolerates differences, haven't we?

Its not fair at all because it singles out religions who have specific dress requirements. You know what are the major ones that do? Islam, Seikhism, Hinduism, and Judaism. Yes Chrisitainity has religious icons, but those aren't required, unless you are an actual Priest/Nun/Brother, and my guess is they aren't going to be going to public school.

And yes humanity has trouble with intolerance of differences, but do we make people hide those differences or do we try and teach people to move beyond that, to improve themselves?

[blackfox]

Its not fair at all because it singles out religions who have specific dress requirements. You know what are the major ones that do? Islam, Seikhism, Hinduism, and Judaism. Yes Chrisitainity has religious icons, but those aren't required, unless you are an actual Priest/Nun/Brother, and my guess is they aren't going to be going to public school.

And yes humanity has trouble with intolerance of differences, but do we make people hide those differences or do we try and teach people to move beyond that, to improve themselves?
I understand your point, Krizoitz, and it is a good one.
I just tend to look at this the same way I look at Libertarianism. It seems like a good idea, especially to those who are reasonably responsible,ethical human beings. Implemented, however, it would probably be a disaster, as there are many people who would be ill-prepared for the responsibility or would take advantage of the lack of oversight. Generally I support actions like this by Governments to keep potentially volatile situations from exploding into unacceptable behavior. As I mentioned, it is not a perfect solution, and perhaps unfair in the reasons you mentioned. France has a large minority of Muslims, who generally are poorer and less-educated than other French, and with EU issues and immigration and employment problems, I believe France may be trying to dodge a larger bullet with this, to appear they are not appeasing these muslims, which would prove to be ammunition for more right-wing, racist/xenophobic elements in French politics. It is only a theory, however, since I do not live in France, and formulated it eating raspberry yogurt...take as you will

[jelloshotsrule]

Human Rights? No. And wearing paraphenalia (geesh, I can't spell tonight) is propaganada, imo.

how about wearing a shirt for your favorite band? or sports team?

[pseudobrit]

1) I don't agree with it
2) It ain't my country

[takao]

actually this discussion is around quite a while even in austria and germany

i personnaly say that all religous signs should be removed here too (actually i'm more worried about those crosses wich are hanging in every class room here) because school should treat every pupil equal ...

what if somebody comes in and say: "my religion doesn't allow mixed sport education" or something like this ? or somebody comming to school with a burka

and then a few other points:

1. in turkey,a muslim country, head scarfs(and other signs) are _banned_

2. a headscarf is considered as sign of oppression by many people

3. to wear a hat,cap etc. in a house is (historically) a "sign of disrespect" or a sign of "i don't want to be here" (at least for a man..but now you have to treat girls/boys equal)....sounds stupid ... but for me it is completly normal to take of a hat as soon as i enter a building ... sure it comes from the medival ages where people where wearing helmets made of steel...


for me this seperation of church and government is completly correct ...this should have happend long time ago...and of course last time i checked the french motto was "liberté,egalité,fraternité" and not "in god we trust"
</rant>

[blue&whiteman]

Yeah, those pesky cultural "laws" that cause also to stop at red lights, not break into other people's homes, and things like that really suck. They don't let us express our individuality at all...

now you're just being ridiculous.

[blue&whiteman]

culture does not equal conformity. culture is, according to sociologist J. Farely, "A culture is a design for living or, more precisely, a complex whole consisting of objects, values, and other characteristics that people have acquired as members of society". Those people that refuse to conform to "culture" (using the word the way you defined it) are just forming a seperate subculture of their own. One can never truely be counter conformist because that in itself is a lifestyle that carries beliefs and norms. Therefore, causing those that proclaim not to be conforming to infact just be conforming to a different set of cultural values.

the problem is that there are several people in every culture that don't respect opinion outside of the common belief.

like I said.. leave people alone.

[mactastic]

what about religious mores?

OK, let me rephrase that. The government isn't forcing you to wear anything. The worst thing you can do is persecute a religious group. It just gives them a sense that the world is out to get them.

[Chappers]

We are talking about headscarves that are meant to be worn out of a sense of decency and modesty.

They are religious items - apparently worn after said female has visited Mecca.

[Krizoitz]

actually this discussion is around quite a while even in austria and germany

i personnaly say that all religous signs should be removed here too (actually i'm more worried about those crosses wich are hanging in every class room here) because school should treat every pupil equal ...

The school hanging crosses in every classroom and an individual wearing a headscarf are two totally different situations. One is gov't sponsored religion, the other is individual freedom.


what if somebody comes in and say: "my religion doesn't allow mixed sport education" or something like this ? or somebody comming to school with a burka

What if they do say that? The difference would be a person who wishes to wear a head scarf is excercising their OWN right. A person telling others not to play co-ed sports is interfering with THEIR rights. They have every right not to participate in those sports if they want.


1. in turkey,a muslim country, head scarfs(and other signs) are _banned_

Just because another country does it doesn't mean that its right.


2. a headscarf is considered as sign of oppression by many people

But not to everyone. Have you ever talked to a Muslim woman? I have. Many of them feel better wearing headscarves and other garb because it means the men don't see them as sex objects anymore.


3. to wear a hat,cap etc. in a house is (historically) a "sign of disrespect" or a sign of "i don't want to be here" (at least for a man..but now you have to treat girls/boys equal)....sounds stupid ... but for me it is completly normal to take of a hat as soon as i enter a building ... sure it comes from the medival ages where people where wearing helmets made of steel...

And in this case its a sign of modesty, and I doubt its showing that these students don't want to be there.


for me this seperation of church and government is completly correct ...this should have happend long time ago...and of course last time i checked the french motto was "liberté,egalité,fraternité" and not "in god we trust"
</rant>
Seperation of church and state is supposed to protect religious freedom, not suppress it. How is it any different for a religiously run government to ban other religions displays of paraphenalia, than a non-religiously run government to do so?

[Krizoitz]

They are religious items - apparently worn after said female has visited Mecca.

Obviously they are religious items, but they aren't oppressing anyone else. As for them being worn after visiting Mecca, I don't see how that matters if it is true. Given that I have never heard that this is the reason Muslim women wear headscarves, I'm sceptical of that as the reason anyway.

[zorglub]

Well, well, well,

Since 732 and the battle of Poitiers (Charle Martel), we are fighting against the islamical imperialism, and the fight is not over. I said "islamism" and not islam. The problem is about the way they want to force us to live in the way they want. The strict islamical way of life is really not our cup of tea.

In France, we got 6 millions muslims for a population of 60 millions. The majority of them act respectfully with our culture and history. But a little minority is really really ACTIVE. Bombs in France ? a long time before 9/11...

In fact, we are not hysterical about the question and we are just trying to preserve the "public" school as a place without religion just because it's not the place for. Catholic, jewish and islamic schools exists in France so "very" religious people can go in.

The poor little girls have no choice for the islamic scarf wearing (they say they have but you must understand the risk for their physical integrity). That's the choice of the father or the brothers, they want to provocate some hostile reaction of the people ( voting for extreme right party )and then got a "justification" for extremist actions.

French newspapers are on free access. Le Monde, Le Figaro, Liberation...Try to read some for better comprehension like we try to read yours.

Have a nice day

z-)

[numediaman]

Thank you, zorglub. I'd be interested in your opinions on the other threads, as well.

For what its worth, here are some rankings to mull over:

WORLD EDUCATION RANKINGS

UNICEF rankings of educational systems in the world's richest countries, indicating the percentage of 14 and 15 year olds scoring below a minimum level in literacy, math and science.

1. South Korea 1.4 percent
2. Japan 2.2
3. Finland 4.4
4. Canada 5
5. Australia 6.2
6. Austria 8.2
7. Britain 9.4
8. Ireland 10.2
9. Sweden 10.8
10. Czech Republic 12.2
- (tie) New Zealand 12.2
12. France 12.6
13. Switzerland 13
14. Belgium 14
- (tie) Iceland 14
16. Hungary 14.2
- (tie) Norway 14.2
18. United States 16.2
19. Germany 17
- (tie) Denmark 17
21. Spain 18.6
22. Italy 20.2
23. Greece 23.2
24. Portugal 23.6


I believe these are from 2003.

[radhak]

...
I'd rather have my kids go to school with people of diverse backgrounds. I'd rather have them learn that they are people too, not just some nameless mass who get lumped in with people like Osama Bin-Ladin. You start dividing people and you will only breed hatred and distrust.

To me France might as well have said "Muslims not Welcome Here". Certainly the U.S. especially in recent weeks have shown that we have a ways to go in healing the rifts we have with the Middle East. What those soliders did in Abu Gharib is the result of viewing Muslims not as people but as something less. But at least in this country a Muslim has the right not only to worship but to attend school as well.
well put, Krizoitz.

this is a retrograde step, an example of extremist secularism that almost matches extremist religion as in Saudi Arabia where no girl (whatever religion) can appear in public without a full-body cover. Obviously, like Neserk says, they are a sovereign nation, fully justified in making up their own rules, but that does not make it acceptable.

But Neserk, this is not mere fashion accessory. While this new law affects all religions, only some will be bear the brunt of it (not surprising, as the Islamic Scarf was the main target). Not being allowed to display a crucifix is a far cry from a girl not being allowed to cover herself as dictated by Islam. I hear Sikh kids will not be allowed to wear turbans to school there. With whatever interaction I have had with sikhism, I feel this would be a clear "we don't respect your religion" message for them. A sikh boy/guy is expected to never be in public without proper head cover.

My understanding of secularism was 'not bound by religion'. France's secularism seems more 'afraid of religion'.

[Neserk]

now you're just being ridiculous.

NOt at all. Culture determines more things than you realize. If you have ever spent much time in someone else's culture you quickly realize how many things we do that are the cultural norm. What means one thing in one culture means something completely different in another culture. This is everything from the way we dress to how we communicate with one another. It is part of being higly social creatures. Culture exists everywhere. And it is a good thing.

[Sayhey]

French newspapers are on free access. Le Monde, Le Figaro, Liberation...Try to read some for better comprehension like we try to read yours.

What a concept! Read something about the nation and its history before going on a rant about its actions. Could it be that most of the criticism of France's policy in its public schools come from the same folks who want to "bring God back to the classroom" in the US? Hmmm...

[zorglub]

. While this new law affects all religions, only some will be bear the brunt of it (not surprising, as the Islamic Scarf was the main target). Not being allowed to display a crucifix is a far cry from a girl not being allowed to cover herself as dictated by Islam. I hear Sikh kids will not be allowed to wear turbans to school there. With whatever interaction I have had with sikhism, I feel this would be a clear "we don't respect your religion" message for them. A sikh boy/guy is expected to never be in public without proper head cover.

My understanding of secularism was 'not bound by religion'. France's secularism seems more 'afraid of religion'.

Hum,

The islamic scarf is the main target of the law because any jew nor christian is scandalised about the old french republican point of view about school. The separation beetween church and state is a fact since a century and only integrist islamical people want to protest about that.

Do you know why sikh people are wearing a turban? It's a kind of "devil interceptor" and that's the reason why you can commonly find a little knife into the turban... In France (thanks God), it's not allowed to take a knife at school, or guns, or grenade, ( so we don't have Columbine... strange isn't it ?)

It's not a "we don't respect your religion" message. It's a "don't interfere with the other religions in the place of PUBLIC EDUCATION (mean without religion and for all men) " and do what you want outside of the school, in the street. So, the poor little sikh boy is not outraged or mocked by the cruel other guys (and you know it's a real risk with the young people). And he can be "in public" covered in a appropriate way out of the republican school.

It is false to see secularism in France is "afraid of religion". France is, as you must learn in a real school, a free state since a long time. So, we are not afraid about other religions: we are in our country and we have a old tradition of separation beetween state (included state school) and religion. Now, a little minority want to change the law and only with a restrictive point of view about individual and collective freedom. Don't tell us that you think radical islamism or radical religion is a good thing for freedom and the glorious path to the universal happiness !!! Not after the centuries of barbarism and atrocities commited in the Holly Name of God !!!

In God we trust...

z-)

[zorglub]

What a concept! Read something about the nation and its history before going on a rant about its actions. Could it be that most of the criticism of France's policy in its public schools come from the same folks who want to "bring God back to the classroom" in the US? Hmmm...

In fact, the question is openly debated in the french public school...
Remember that this law is due to the forgiveness of the original concept of separation accepted by the people who want to work and live in France. A lot of people say that we are the crosspoint of Europe... But not only: We have a lot of arabs, africans, and all of the world people here. 10% of muslims. If they don't want to conform with their obligations and the Constitution, they can go back to their countries. In the same way a immigrant in USA must be respectfull to the US laws and the single each State laws. If not, he can "go to hell" with a "country of freedom and gnagnagna" kickass...

Do you know that Italie, Lituanie, Malte, Pologne, Portugal, République tchèque et Slovaquie want to refer to Christianity as a condition for future access to the European Community in the Constitution of Europe? And the "intolerant" France is against this issue.

In a other way, i think that a minimum of culture about a country is a question of intellectual probity before the public expression of so explicite opinions. If you know a little history about a nation, and use the sense of relativity, you are in a way of relativity about this kind of little problem. And the sense of mesure is not so common in this time:
After all, we don't show a little bottle full of white powder at the face of the world, screaming: Anthrax!!!

and bye, it's time to back home (20h20 in Paris).
Have a nice day all of you.

z-)

[radhak]

Hum,

Do you know why sikh people are wearing a turban? It's a kind of "devil interceptor" and that's the reason why you can commonly find a little knife into the turban... In France (thanks God), it's not allowed to take a knife at school, or guns, or grenade, ( so we don't have Columbine... strange isn't it ?)

that is pure fiction. the little knife was never 'into the turban', but just part of the sikh symbolism, necessary during historical times, but discarded in general nowadays, carried only for ceremonial occasions.

It's not a "we don't respect your religion" message. It's a "don't interfere with the other religions in the place of PUBLIC EDUCATION (mean without religion and for all men) " and do what you want outside of the school, in the street. So, the poor little sikh boy is not outraged or mocked by the cruel other guys (and you know it's a real risk with the young people). And he can be "in public" covered in a appropriate way out of the republican school.
now i get it: the victim of such outrage cannot be protected, so how about forcing him to conform and not stand out? nice, France.

And how does this boy wearing a turban interfere with anything?


It is false to see secularism in France is "afraid of religion". France is, as you must learn in a real school, a free state since a long time. So, we are not afraid about other religions: we are in our country and we have a old tradition of separation beetween state (included state school) and religion. Now, a little minority want to change the law and only with a restrictive point of view about individual and collective freedom. z-)
dunno where you were going with that rant, but France is not the only nation with the separation of state and religion, and nobody else has had to resort to such a drastic action. i fully appreciate France's position in modern democracy's evolution, but that does not condone the present French govt's leanings.

Don't tell us that you think radical islamism or radical religion is a good thing for freedom and the glorious path to the universal happiness !!! Not after the centuries of barbarism and atrocities commited in the Holly Name of God !!!

In God we trust...
by radical if you meant extremism in religion, then i agree, may cause all sorts of problems, just as in secularism. and maybe centuries later they might quote this as an instance of 'separation of state and religion gone amuck'.

[radhak]

What a concept! Read something about the nation and its history before going on a rant about its actions. Could it be that most of the criticism of France's policy in its public schools come from the same folks who want to "bring God back to the classroom" in the US? Hmmm...
wrong number, pal. many here ain't from those folks. (just a coincidence that Voltron and i/us seem to be arguing the same point ;))

but 'bring God back to the classroom' is not the same as 'allow individuals to get their God with them if they want to'; just so you understand why i am most unwilling to be lumped with those who want the former...

[Frohickey]

Not if 'very wide' means nuclear weapons or an absolute right to private property.

'Very wide' would mean normal weaponry used by infantry soldiers, and 'very wide' would mean right to myself (body) and whatever I can get with it (labor). ;)

[Sayhey]

wrong number, pal. many here ain't from those folks. (just a coincidence that Voltron and i/us seem to be arguing the same point ;))

but 'bring God back to the classroom' is not the same as 'allow individuals to get their God with them if they want to'; just so you understand why i am most unwilling to be lumped with those who want the former...

It wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the person who started the thread.

I would like you to show me where the French have outlawed "individuals to get their God with them." I'm not even sure what that means, but the prohibition of wearing religious garb in a public classroom does not prohibit the public expression of religion. You and I can disagree where the line should be drawn in secular institutions, but I think we can agree that a line must be drawn somewhere or we, or in this case the French, will be surrendering public institutions to whomever wishes to bring in their religious beliefs. Secular institutions should remain secular. If people can't accept that then their children should go to private religious institutions. I don't support public school prayer or endorsement of religion and I think the French are more than capable of figuring out that line without our help.

[jelloshotsrule]

In France (thanks God), it's not allowed to take a knife at school, or guns, or grenade, ( so we don't have Columbine... strange isn't it ?)


umm, i would assume that you realize this, but if not, it makes you look a little funny to ask other people to look at france's news, history, etc when you make somewhat of an ignorant statement about the us (ie, columbine)... i don't know why we have school shootings and such the way we do, but knives, guns, grenades... these things ARE illegal in schools.

so, that's not the exact cause...

[Frohickey]

Since the thread is about religious garb/clothing in French public schools, the solution is pretty simple really.

Just mandate a strict uniform rule for all French students.
White short sleeve shirt, blue tie, red beret (this is France after all), black leather shoes, white ankle height socks and blue shorts/trousers for boys.
White short sleeve blouse, blue bowtie, red beret, black leather shoes, white ankle height socks and blue skirts for girls.

[Dont Hurt Me]

all of this will be mute when France becomes majority muslim in about 25 years. then if you dont wear a scarf you will get the boot. Muslims are outbreeding the French. who would think? at least we wont have Jacque the Chirac to mess with just some ayalatolla fanatic or whatever.

[Ugg]

Its not fair at all because it singles out religions who have specific dress requirements. You know what are the major ones that do? Islam, Seikhism, Hinduism, and Judaism. Yes Chrisitainity has religious icons, but those aren't required, unless you are an actual Priest/Nun/Brother, and my guess is they aren't going to be going to public school.



Yeah, and I'm sure if we looked in the bible rather closely we would find something that says all women are supposed to dress chastely and children should not be educated together and a whole bunch of other stupid rules that aren't followed in this day and age by the majority of christians.

What's your point? Is it only a religious infringement if the rule isn't being ignored, if some religious fundamentalists of whatever faith choose to follow some arcane and stupid rule commanding them to do some such thing? Where do you draw the line? What about the woman who killed her sons because god told her to do so and then was only slapped for the offense instead of being murdered according to texas law?

Once again, this and most other western countries are pluralistic societies. Everyone is free to practice their own religion but because they are all so different and all have different requests by their deity, then there needs to be a line drawn as to what is acceptable in public and what is not.

Western Europe is by and large sick and tired of relgious extremism. Is Germany intolerant of religion by having banned Scientology or is it intelligent enough to recognize a sheep in wolf's clothing? You should take a look at the problems cropping up in Scandinavia concerning Muslim immigrants. It's not pretty.

Just because someone quotes a line from some mythological book that they claim to be the word of their deity does not give them any inherent rights. Society in order to function must have limitations. Religious extremism is one of them.

[Voltron]

Hum,


Do you know why sikh people are wearing a turban? It's a kind of "devil interceptor" and that's the reason why you can commonly find a little knife into the turban... In France (thanks God), it's not allowed to take a knife at school, or guns, or grenade, ( so we don't have Columbine... strange isn't it ?)


z-)
Um in what state is it legal to carry guns in school in the US?
Last I heard you can't carry knives in school either.
So how is it this makes it so you don't have a Columbine like we did?

BTW this no knives in school is bogus. When I was in high school if I showed up to ag class without a knife on my belt I got an F for the day for they were teaching how to grow things and you can't be a proper farmer without a knife. Course back then we were disciplined enough not to use these knives on each other.

[Krizoitz]

Wow that is the most arrogant and disrespectful post I have ever read. You are so full of yourself. You are just as bad as the religious extremeists that you rail against. Which just goes to show that religion isn't the problem, people are.

Yeah, and I'm sure if we looked in the bible rather closely we would find something that says all women are supposed to dress chastely and children should not be educated together and a whole bunch of other stupid rules that aren't followed in this day and age by the majority of christians.

Stupid how? Because you disagree with them? Why are you're views so much better? How exactly do you expect anyone to respect your views if you aren't willing to do the same thing? You may not agree with the teachings, but merely dismissing them as "stupid rules" is arrogant beyond belief.



if some religious fundamentalists of whatever faith choose to follow some arcane and stupid rule commanding them to do some such thing?

There you go again, just because you don't get it it must obviously be stupid. Give me a break. You are just as bad those religious nuts in this country who go around passing judgement on everyone else. You think you are different? Guess again. Both sides are so sure that they are right they aren't even willing to respect another persons viewpoint.



Where do you draw the line? What about the woman who killed her sons because god told her to do so and then was only slapped for the offense instead of being murdered according to texas law?

You draw the line where it presents a real danger. The woman who killed her sons will be punished, but just because she claims God made her do it doesn't mean thats true. People kill people for lots of reasons, enivronmental extremists do it, religious extremists do it, animal rights activists do it, communists do it. People do it for greed, power, or just to get their kicks. If we start banning any activity that one group or person uses as an excuse to do violence guess what we would have to ban EVERYTHING!


Once again, this and most other western countries are pluralistic societies. Everyone is free to practice their own religion but because they are all so different and all have different requests by their deity, then there needs to be a line drawn as to what is acceptable in public and what is not.

Yes and there are reasonable places to draw that line. Human sacrifice, obviously out. Wearing a head-scarf? Please explain to me how that causes so much harm. Unless the girl decides to garotte someone with it I think we are safe.


Western Europe is by and large sick and tired of relgious extremism. Is Germany intolerant of religion by having banned Scientology or is it intelligent enough to recognize a sheep in wolf's clothing? You should take a look at the problems cropping up in Scandinavia concerning Muslim immigrants. It's not pretty.

Not knowing the reason Germany banned Scientology I can't say for sure, but it sure seems intolerant to me. Was the church advocating and participating in illegal activities, or did they just not agree with their ideas. But you're right its a good idea to start banning ideas and cultures we don't like.
What problems are you talking about in Scandinavia? Care to give examples?


Just because someone quotes a line from some mythological book that they claim to be the word of their deity does not give them any inherent rights. Society in order to function must have limitations. Religious extremism is one of them.
Who made you the authority on what is and isn't true? Just because you don't believe its more than a mythological book doesn't make it so, and even if you don't believe in it, you could atleast respect that some people do. Of course society has limits, and extremism is a bad thing, ANY kind of extremism. Guess what, religious groups aren't the only ones, but I guess you only think its ok to suppress it if you disagree with it.

One of the criticisms often charged at the Religious right is that they are out to suppress others views and that they are condescending and arrogant about their beliefs. And there are certainly cases where that is true. On the other hand people like you demonstrate quite clearly that you don't need religion to be intolerant, arrogant, and hate filled.

In case you hadn't noticed the rest of us were having a fairly civilized discussion on this issue. You might want to try that instead of just dismissing someone elses views as "stupid". Try a little tolerance for a change. Or perhaps you prefer living in your own little world. If so fine, but leave the rest of us out of it.

[blackfox]

Perhaps I am off base here, but I believe the reason why I support Frances' decision can be found by reading through this thread. By this I mean, in the course of a couple of pages of posts on the subject, there are a myriad of opinions, and signs of at least two positions that cannot be reconciled, and a lot of rhetoric and some personal attacks(mild)...and we as posters at this forum are all relatively alike in education, ages and the like, comparative to the nation of France...an issue must be decided upon, even if the results seem unfair to some. Such is the nature of compromise. If it was only about a headscarf, that might be ok...but as always it is indicative of something more...

[mactastic]

The only good argument I've heard in favor if banning religious garb is that it really isn't the child's choice and that parents are using it as a way to cause trouble in a secular school system that they disagree with. Maybe in France it's a different situation, but I try to think about it in terms I know about and in this country there's no way kids should be prohibited from displaying religious symbols (within reason of course) at school. Kids need to learn that there are others who are different and learn to tolerate it if it's a problem for them. I can understand and support banning religious stuff from teachers, administrators, the campus facilities etc, but the kids should be able to express who they are.

Again, France may be making their decision for other reasons, reasons revolving around maintaining a teachable atmosphere in school. Ultimately I'll respect their decision tentatively unless it looks like they are using it for ulterior motives, namely the suppression of religion.

[Voltron]

The only good argument I've heard in favor if banning religious garb is that it really isn't the child's choice and that parents are using it as a way to cause trouble in a secular school system that they disagree with. Maybe in France it's a different situation, but I try to think about it in terms I know about and in this country there's no way kids should be prohibited from displaying religious symbols (within reason of course) at school. Kids need to learn that there are others who are different and learn to tolerate it if it's a problem for them. I can understand and support banning religious stuff from teachers, administrators, the campus facilities etc, but the kids should be able to express who they are.

Again, France may be making their decision for other reasons, reasons revolving around maintaining a teachable atmosphere in school. Ultimately I'll respect their decision tentatively unless it looks like they are using it for ulterior motives, namely the suppression of religion.
Here is a monkey wrench. What should the French do should the Muslims decide to start suicide bombing places to get them to change this law?

[mactastic]

Here is a monkey wrench. What should the French do should the Muslims decide to start suicide bombing places to get them to change this law?

Same thing you'd do here if the Christians started blowing themselves up to get God back in schools.

[Ugg]

You draw the line where it presents a real danger. The woman who killed her sons will be punished, but just because she claims God made her do it doesn't mean thats true. People kill people for lots of reasons, enivronmental extremists do it, religious extremists do it, animal rights activists do it, communists do it. People do it for greed, power, or just to get their kicks. If we start banning any activity that one group or person uses as an excuse to do violence guess what we would have to ban EVERYTHING!


Yes and there are reasonable places to draw that line. Human sacrifice, obviously out. Wearing a head-scarf? Please explain to me how that causes so much harm. Unless the girl decides to garotte someone with it I think we are safe.


Not knowing the reason Germany banned Scientology I can't say for sure, but it sure seems intolerant to me. Was the church advocating and participating in illegal activities, or did they just not agree with their ideas. But you're right its a good idea to start banning ideas and cultures we don't like.
What problems are you talking about in Scandinavia? Care to give examples?


Who made you the authority on what is and isn't true? Just because you don't believe its more than a mythological book doesn't make it so, and even if you don't believe in it, you could atleast respect that some people do. Of course society has limits, and extremism is a bad thing, ANY kind of extremism. Guess what, religious groups aren't the only ones, but I guess you only think its ok to suppress it if you disagree with it.

One of the criticisms often charged at the Religious right is that they are out to suppress others views and that they are condescending and arrogant about their beliefs. And there are certainly cases where that is true. On the other hand people like you demonstrate quite clearly that you don't need religion to be intolerant, arrogant, and hate filled.

In case you hadn't noticed the rest of us were having a fairly civilized discussion on this issue. You might want to try that instead of just dismissing someone elses views as "stupid". Try a little tolerance for a change. Or perhaps you prefer living in your own little world. If so fine, but leave the rest of us out of it.

People sympathised with that woman because of her deeply held christian beliefs. Had she been a muslim or a communist, I'm sure she would have been murdered by the state of texas.

The head scarf is a symbol of the second class status of women in Islam. France is a secular nation and although you couldn't tell it from the billboards and newspaper ads, holds women in great respect and does not believe in subjugating them for the sake of religion. Although, it is interesting to note that my first time in France in the mid 80s there were many elderly catholic women wearing their headscarves in church. A holdover from pre-war peasant days so I was told. A few years ago, they were not to be seen anywhere.

This is an issue where the west and the east are always going to clash. Women have the right to exist of and for themselves, not simply for the patriarchy they are born into. For many of these girls, the scarf is not a choice.

Germany banned the Ch. of Scientology because it was found to exist as a for profit organization. The basic concept of religion is that it operate as a non-profit for the benefit of its worshippers, not solely for the benefit of those in power. This is a false assumption in the US as we saw only too well when the priest abuse scandal tore apart the boston diocese. For awhile there I thought we were back in the middle ages. The Ch. of Sci. exists solely for the making of money. People who join often end up with debts of over 50,000 USD. A simple web search would reveal the wealth of information available about the power of churches and scientology specifically. Have you forgotten Tammy Faye the Raccoon?

Churches in Germany are highly regulated by the state. Wealth does not belong among religious institutions. That is why scientology was banned.


Link (http://www.amren.com/0312issue/0312issue.htm)

THis is a fascinating site, American Renaissance, they claim to openly discuss racial issues, addressing both sides of the fence. While the article in the above link does not address religion specifically, it does take a historical look at ethnic, cultural and religious diversity in Scandinavia over the past 30 years.

Female and male circumcision has been banned in Sweden. Is that religious persecution? ALL children must go to school, public or private until they are 18. Only gym class may be single gender, all other public school classes are mixed. Is that religious persecution?

Ah, so if I claim to believe in Greek mythology or the Norse gods do I have a right to have my gods' names listed in the constitution or walk around school with an untied toga and a crown of laurel leaves with open toed sandals? People can believe whatever they want and if they need so desperately for the public to condone their choice of religion that they find they need to publicly flaunt it then, hey I'm sorry but take it elsewhere. Public displays of religious or technology based symbols (the iPod comes to mind) simply to say that you belong to some exclusive club is pathetic.

As I've said before and will surely say again, religion should be practiced in private, not public. One's relationship with their deity is highly personal. I am just as offended by overt public displays of sex as I am by overt displays of religion. It's private and personal and revolting to those who don't share in the coupling.

[Krizoitz]

Here is a monkey wrench. What should the French do should the Muslims decide to start suicide bombing places to get them to change this law?

This is exactly the kind of bigotry that we should be learning to avoid. Why assume that just because they are Muslim they are going to be suicide bombing all of a sudden?

[Krizoitz]

The head scarf is a symbol of the second class status of women in Islam. France is a secular nation and although you couldn't tell it from the billboards and newspaper ads, holds women in great respect and does not believe in subjugating them for the sake of religion. Although, it is interesting to note that my first time in France in the mid 80s there were many elderly catholic women wearing their headscarves in church. A holdover from pre-war peasant days so I was told. A few years ago, they were not to be seen anywhere.

Yes in some branches the head-scarf is a symbol of status, but thats not true for all of Islam. And I don't say that because I read it in a book or on some website, I know from personal experience and personal contact with Muslim women who CHOOSE to wear it.


Female and male circumcision has been banned in Sweden. Is that religious persecution? ALL children must go to school, public or private until they are 18. Only gym class may be single gender, all other public school classes are mixed. Is that religious persecution?

Circumsision is banned for health reasons. Requiring children to go to school, as long as they have the option of going to a religious school if they so choose, doesn't seem like persecution to me.


Ah, so if I claim to believe in Greek mythology or the Norse gods do I have a right to have my gods' names listed in the constitution or walk around school with an untied toga and a crown of laurel leaves with open toed sandals? People can believe whatever they want and if they need so desperately for the public to condone their choice of religion that they find they need to publicly flaunt it then, hey I'm sorry but take it elsewhere. Public displays of religious or technology based symbols (the iPod comes to mind) simply to say that you belong to some exclusive club is pathetic.

Where does the Constitution come into this? And as for the right to walk around school in a toga and open toed sandals, I'm sure that if it doesn't present some kind of hazard that yes you should be allowed to do so. Wearing a headscarf or a cross necklace or other religious symbol does not in my mind seem to be flaunting anything. But if thats the case, and we are prohibiting things because they belong to some viewpoint that not everyone has then just about any shirt, coat or other clothing with any kind of logo, phrase or words might be game. The people I know that wear crosses do so as a reminder to themselves. The women who wear headscarves do for themselves. Its not about shoving it in anyone elses face. And if you think for a minute that they get some sort of benefit out of it, why don't you try being a Muslim or a Jew for one day and have to live with the intolerant stares and comments that come with it.


As I've said before and will surely say again, religion should be practiced in private, not public. One's relationship with their deity is highly personal. I am just as offended by overt public displays of sex as I am by overt displays of religion. It's private and personal and revolting to those who don't share in the coupling.
Why should we have to keep our views hidden? Why don't we have the right to believe what we want openly? If we start telling people not to show their views in public we better stop people from holding hands. The conservatives will jump at the chance to stop gay people from being able to associate in public, because that should be private right? Heaven forbid we are actually exposed to ideas.
If you want to go live in some closed of little world where you never have to be exposed to something you don't like, be my guest. But freedom isn't just about getting to do and say what you want. Its about standing up for the right of someone else to have their say even if you completely disagree with the message. Last time I checked, freedom was a good thing.

[takao]

Yes in some branches the head-scarf is a symbol of status, but thats not true for all of Islam. And I don't say that because I read it in a book or on some website, I know from personal experience and personal contact with Muslim women who CHOOSE to wear it.

hm i grew up in a town where about 20% of all kids are muslim (or have turkish roots) ... how many girls do i have met in the schools i were in who wear a head scarf ? one... and why ? because her father don't let her out without one...
how many muslims at my age (20) do i have met who want that their muslim girlfirend/wife wear a head scarf ... not a single one..
and now at university i have never noticed a girl with a head scarf...
of course i see a lot of women walking around with head scarfes in the streets but most of them are older ...
in one of the university courses i attend there is a guy with traditional arabic clothes and a green turban (as far as i know he is from iran or pakistan)very polite guy who speaks really good german... does he get treated different than the others ? no ... because he is old enough to dicide about his religion... you can't say that about a 12 year old girl where parents are deciding everything ...


Where does the Constitution come into this? And as for the right to walk around school in a toga and open toed sandals, I'm sure that if it doesn't present some kind of hazard that yes you should be allowed to do so. Wearing a headscarf or a cross necklace or other religious symbol does not in my mind seem to be flaunting anything. But if thats the case, and we are prohibiting things because they belong to some viewpoint that not everyone has then just about any shirt, coat or other clothing with any kind of logo, phrase or words might be game.

for religous symbols they should be allowed i agree with you ...but the head scarf is _not_ a sign of the islam (at least from the viewpoint of the muslims i met)..it's the half-moon (sp?)..there are guys walking around with the sign on a tshirt...and nobody has a problem with it


The people I know that wear crosses do so as a reminder to themselves. The women who wear headscarves do for themselves. Its not about shoving it in anyone elses face. And if you think for a minute that they get some sort of benefit out of it, why don't you try being a Muslim or a Jew for one day and have to live with the intolerant stares and comments that come with it.


_not_ everybody wears a head scarf "for themselves" ... many are educated by their parents this way...
i got a lot of intolerant stares and comments when i supported the operation in afgahnistan
i've alread gave away money (not much...you know... i'm only a student) to support the jewish community in vienna (which is in heavy financial problems and gets already 10 million euros a year from the government and free police protection) why ? because it is cultural heritage and i want to help them..the synagoge in the neubaugasse is the only old synagoge left.... and if asked to give support for a mosque i wouldn't stand there saying no either...

Why should we have to keep our views hidden? Why don't we have the right to believe what we want openly? If we start telling people not to show their views in public we better stop people from holding hands. The conservatives will jump at the chance to stop gay people from being able to associate in public, because that should be private right? Heaven forbid we are actually exposed to ideas.
If you want to go live in some closed of little world where you never have to be exposed to something you don't like, be my guest. But freedom isn't just about getting to do and say what you want. Its about standing up for the right of someone else to have their say even if you completely disagree with the message. Last time I checked, freedom was a good thing.

yes there _are_ limits which i would defend as soon as some political party wants to change this... as soon as as extremism is involved (nazi, or other ideologies which are dangerous and full of hate). the guys with that opinions shouldn't be too surprised if they get a visit by the austrian constitution protection bureau or if they are armed a even nicer visit by a GEK squad which is also known as "Schwert der Demokratie" (="Sword of Democracy")...

of course freedom of speech etc is important but also is _unlimited_ freedom an invition for violent ideologies (religoius or others) you can't deny that... to say "unlimited freedom of absolute solution" just doesn't work....germany,austria leaned that "the hard way" you can believe me on this... democracy doesn't protect itself alone .. just look at the behaviour of the american media before the war against iraq: absolutly toothless,uncritical,following the stream... far from being a doubtfull or even government criticising... for me it looks like a lot (not all) of americans would rather fight for an other country's democracy than their own :confused:
but we are getting of topic here.....
personally i would say "let them try this, perhaps it is a good decision, no one knows"

[Chappers]

Obviously they are religious items, but they aren't oppressing anyone else. As for them being worn after visiting Mecca, I don't see how that matters if it is true. Given that I have never heard that this is the reason Muslim women wear headscarves, I'm sceptical of that as the reason anyway.

Well my wife is a Muslim and thats what she told me - of course I guess it varies with different branches of Islam. My Mother-in-law doesn't wear a headscarf - she hasn't been to Mecca yet my Grandmother-in-law does wear one (guess where she has been).

[Zaid]

Well my wife is a Muslim and thats what she told me - of course I guess it varies with different branches of Islam. My Mother-in-law doesn't wear a headscarf - she hasn't been to Mecca yet my Grandmother-in-law does wear one (guess where she has been).

after going for pilgramage both men and women are supposed to dress more modestly. In most muslim cultures that means that women wear scarves.

As far as i know the Qur'aan just says that women (and men) should be modestly dressed. So covering your head as a sign of modesty is more a cultural thing (as far as i know i could be wrong)

[skunk]

So covering your head as a sign of modesty is more a cultural thing (as far as i know i could be wrong)
Exactly. It would be very helpful to any discussion if everyone took on board that there is a wide spectrum of cultural differences between different Muslim populations. Not all Muslims are the same, just like not all Christians are the same (thank God). Nor are all Muslims Arabs: Bosnians, Malays, Persians, Turkomans, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Sudanese, Nigerians, Chinese, to name but a few.

[Neserk]

Not all Muslims are the same, .

:eek: You mean they aren't all gun carrying, Christian/Jew Hating Terrorists??? :eek:

[skunk]

:eek: You mean they aren't all gun carrying, Christian/Jew Hating Terrorists??? :eek:
No, some of them only carry knives :D