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.
I’m not an expert on religious clothing, but the Wikipedia article is pretty clear that it is strongly connected to Islam.
Your comparison is flawed, because while “christian” -> “probably wears pants” is true, the opposite is not. If I tell you I saw someone wearing pants, you would not think about their religion. They could be Hindi, Atheist, etc. But if I tell you I saw a girl in a full body dress, you’d be able to tell their religion pretty accurately.
Also, we are talking about France. If the Abaya is “what they tyipcally wear in that part of the world” then “all Europeans wear pants” is a contradiction.
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.
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?
It’s a good thing that the child would be forced not to smoke. Because a 10 year old would gladly tell you she smokes of her own free will if you simply ask.
A rule like “no smoking in schools” doesn’t harm you, unless your parents already made you think there will be terrible consequences if you stop doing so. Better to learn that it’s made up bs, before the harm is done.
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’m not an expert on religious clothing, but the Wikipedia article is pretty clear that it is strongly connected to Islam.
Your comparison is flawed, because while “christian” -> “probably wears pants” is true, the opposite is not. If I tell you I saw someone wearing pants, you would not think about their religion. They could be Hindi, Atheist, etc. But if I tell you I saw a girl in a full body dress, you’d be able to tell their religion pretty accurately.
Also, we are talking about France. If the Abaya is “what they tyipcally wear in that part of the world” then “all Europeans wear pants” is a contradiction.
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?
It’s a good thing. Is it a good or bad thing that this child would be forced not to smoke?
It’s a good thing that the child would be forced not to smoke. Because a 10 year old would gladly tell you she smokes of her own free will if you simply ask.
A rule like “no smoking in schools” doesn’t harm you, unless your parents already made you think there will be terrible consequences if you stop doing so. Better to learn that it’s made up bs, before the harm is done.