- cross-posted to:
- news@kbin.social
- europe@feddit.de
- cross-posted to:
- news@kbin.social
- europe@feddit.de
Pupils will be banned from wearing abayas, loose-fitting full-length robes worn by some Muslim women, in France’s state-run schools, the education minister has said.
The rule will be applied as soon as the new school year starts on 4 September.
France has a strict ban on religious signs in state schools and government buildings, arguing that they violate secular laws.
Wearing a headscarf has been banned since 2004 in state-run schools.
You must log in or # to comment.
I’m not very comfortable with these type of bans.
People say women shouldn’t be forced to wear certain items of clothing and deal with it by forcing them to wear different items of clothing.
Doesn’t seem very productive.
I always think of that meme with a women in full body coverings and a women wearing a bikini and they’re both thinking about how awful it is that society pressures women to dress like the other.
Playing the advocate of the devil: the reason given is clearly stated as not being about being forced to wear anything, but about a general ban on religious signs in state schools. For example I imagine wearing a Christian cross around your neck is also banned.
A consistently enforced bad law is still a bad law. All consistently means is that everyone has to suffer.
Yeah, I simply stated what reason was given for the ban by the minister, which the comment above me seems to have read over.
Still, schools shouldn’t be able to dictate how people can dress as long as they cover their genitals and their clothes aren’t dangerous.
Eh, maybe… In my public, absolutely standard highschool we still had a dress code, you couldn’t have bare legs or excessively low collars
And here in sweden the justice system has to dole out yearly reminders to schools that dressing freely is protected by the constitution, and dress codes or uniforms are literally illegal.
That’s….amazing tbh
That’s amazing, why don’t we have something like this in Germany
I seriously doubt it. And I’m sure if it is, no one enforces it.
It is 100% banned. Any religious apparel or trinkets are banned.
No it isn’t. The 2004 law banned “large” crosses and allowed small ones but banned ALL hijabs.
It was never equally enforced.
Allowed small ones, obscured by clothing.
A necklace under your shirt is fine. That applies as equally to a cross as it does to an islamic moon and star.
They just aren’t allowed to be massive so that they’re visible even under some clothing.
Actually,
ostentacious religious insignia
Up for debate.
Maybe you should be less confident about things you don’t know. In this particular regard, the French are quite consistent.
ostentacious religious insignia
That’s the law. That’s pretty vague. So, I’m pretty confident not everyone is enforcing a tiny cross necklace.
If you’re going to copy and paste something several times, and are representing it as a quotation from law, maybe spell-check it? Also, I think there are good arguments to be made on both sides of this issue, but comparing an inconspicuous piece of jewelry to an abaya seems disingenuous. If small crosses were allowed, but small star and crescents weren’t, that would obviously be wrong.
It’s a quote. It’s copy and paste. If someone spelled it wrong, it’s not me.
Either way. If a tiny cross is allowed and a tiny star is not, that’s bad.
No symbols should be allowed of any kind. 🤷♂️
I wonder how they handle tattoos.
I always think of that meme with a women in full body coverings and a women wearing a bikini and they’re both thinking about how awful it is that society pressures women to dress like the other.
Equating the pressure of society, at large, when you’re an independent adult, and the pressure of your parents, when you’re still under their authority is not fair.
It’s not the point of the ban. You shouldn’t wear any religious signs. It’s the same as banning christian cross (which is obviously already banned since years and years)
I agree that it will not be effective in reducing the amount of these types of robes that will be worn. But it will be effective in reducing the visibility of this particular religious clothing, and thus the religion itself. We (everyone everywhere) already ban lots of clothing styles, there are minimums you have to attain. can’t have nipples or genitalia showing, and even though that might sound nitpicky, I’m from team #freethechest and having a covered chest is something I personally do not think should be required. It’s just nipples/boobs, everyone should just grow up and let it fly
fuck off. no family has every stoned their wife, sister, or mother to death, for not wearaing a bikini
Neither have these families I would imagine. How common is that in France?
Well, that’s called an honor killing. For a start, This article defines that concept in detail (which I tell you to forewarn that I’m immune to sealioning about the definition), has tables of trends, and has credible sources at the bottom. Honor killings, also known as shame killings, have attracted the attention of the EU as a major issue to be solved as a consequence of their spread. I can’t find a lot of data related to France specifically, but I do know the French consider their country to have a Femicide problem in general, and it’s reasonable to expect that if the total number of women being murdered is on the rise, the raw number of honor killings is climbing even if the proportion remains fixed.
I get this completely. This is nothing new for France, they have been blocking Christians from wearing crosses and Jews from wearing kippah’s for a very long time, it’s only reasonable that the Muslim population gets treated equally. Schools should remain completely secular, I am in complete agreement with France there.
Except abayas are basically just some loose-fitting clothes that can be worn by anyone regardless their religion. It’s like banning kimono or sari.
How people dress is none of the government’s business. This is just authoritarism.
Except when you want it, because you like it when you don’t see other people’s genitalia. Then it suddenly is the governments bussiness. In this case it’s even just for during your attendance at a public school.
ah yes, France, the country famous for its prudence in regards to nudists.
Whoever people sleep or get married with is none of anyone’s business, but Muslims are against homosexuality.
Funny, I know Muslims who aren’t against gays but they still wear headscarves. Maybe it’s more complex than the Saudi policy line?
Also, are you saying authoritarian government is good if they only discriminate against people you don’t like? I guess that’s something an Auth would say…
Authorarian government is good when people are attacking minorities.
Muslisms dont want to accept homosexuality? Then ban them and make them go back to their countries. You want to stay? Its time to accept homosexuality in their religion. Simple.
Funny, I know Muslims who aren’t against gays but they still wear headscarves. Maybe it’s more complex than the Saudi policy line?
Funny, because you never see people with headscarves on the pride parades. There are thousands of them living in western Europe, but somehow they dissappear during pride parade. Funny, isn’t?
you never see people with headscarves on the pride parades
What does that even mean? That you yourself have never seen someone wearing a headscarf at pride? Personally, I think it’s a huge leap to take that and say no/very few Muslims in western Europe go to pride.
It wouldn’t matter even if that was true. Plenty of people support the LGBTQ+ community and don’t go to pride, same goes for many people who are part of the community.
Isn’t it curious how this argument is never applied to bigotry broadly. People always seem to be so on-board with banning Muslims from France for this reason or that, and always retreat into criticizing their beliefs, as if that were some consistent policy. But some hick in West Virginia doens’t accept gays? Why not call for banishing him from America?
Oh they are immigrants? Funny because plenty of muslims are born in France/America and have lived there their entire lives. And even the ones who haven’t - it’s called a fucking refugee. A good nation is one that takes someone in who is hurting, regardless of who they are and what they believe, and do their best to provide an environment that protects everyone and gives them a chance to learn accepting beliefs.
Notice how none of this shit has anything to do with headscarves btw… almost like there’s another agenda here…
It is tho. We need to erradicate homophobia from everywhere. You have to understand the background tho.
Yeah, all religion are against homosexuality, but christianity and catolicisism is at least trying to integrate homosexuality into the religion. There are gay fathers, churches have the rainbow flag, the pope (the head of the religion) just last week advocated for same sex couples. Is it perfect? No it is not, but at least there are some people in the religion trying.
What about muslim? No, they are not trying. Countries where muslism is the main religion have death penalty or life sentences for homosexuals. And the problem is that is not the main problem of the religion, for them to be able to accept homosexuality, they would first need to realize that they are misogynistics, and that is not happening any time soon.
It is the same thing white people vs mideast people. Are all white people queer friendly? Not they are not, but there are a lot more that support homosexuality. Are all mideast people homophobic? Not they are not, but I am probable to be beaten up by a mideast guy than by a white guy (in Europe).
Notice how none of this shit has anything to do with headscarves btw… almost like there’s another agenda here…
I agree it hasnt, but if mideast/muslim people keep being homophobic, then I am glad that the government is taking measurements to ban mideast/muslim cultural things like headscarves.
They want respect and inclusion? Then respect and be inclusive of others. It is this simple.
Oh, so two wrongs do make a right now?
nobody cares about your whattaboutism
They banned crosses for Christians because they ban Muslim headwear. They had to do something for Christian or it would have been the most obvious racism.
Read the article. Crosses have been banned for a long time, before the Muslim headwear.
I’m not sure I like this. I sort of get not allowing religious symbols to be worn, but you’re forcing people to dress in a certain way. I don’t think the government should be able to do that
This is where I landed. They should simply continue to permit children to remove it at school if they choose, while they are under the guardianship of the state.
The kids won’t, because they’re too scared to disobey their parents.
I feel like conflicted is the “correct” way to feel. On one hand, the government is literally enforcing clothing laws. On the other hand, this may prevent children from being forced into something they did not choose. I feel like a religion wrapping up your child in cloth so they lose their individually as a human being is cult-like behavior.
It would be better if the religion just wasn’t allowed to make them do this, but then they would just “suggest” women do this. This “suggestion” of course is actually coercion at best.
France has been enforcing secularism since the turn of the 20th century. If you turn up with a turban, or a yarmulke, or a cross you’d be sent home too. If parents feel so aggrieved that the state disallows religious symbolism & clothing on state property they can send their kids to a private school.
At this point they should just mandate school uniform.
I’m not against it, honestly. I have seen the pros and cons of each. We had a loose dress code at my school but no uniforms, and style of dress certainly became one mode of division among students. Rich kids, poor kids, athletes, nerds, etc. were all separated by dress.
I’m not the biggest fan of conformity, but uniform dress codes allow the students to basically be at a level playing field as far as visual expression goes. I’ve worked in schools with uniforms and the students there seem to prefer not having to put any thought into what they wear.
But religion and family should? 🤔
Is condemning one thing endorsing another? Do two things wrongs make a right?
I get you, but… isn’t religion supposed to be a free decision? you’re agreeing to their terms and conditions (I know, I know, you can stop the laugh track).
You really believe that families religious enough to force their kids to wear certain clothes would accept that they renounce their religion?
Yep, hence the laugh track. I was raised as a Christian (atheist now) and I know first hand you don’t get to choose lol but renouncing a religion is not a crime (in my country at least)
Well up that laugh track to 11 when you hear what islam thinks about that last part
Yeah, I know such cases exists.
No, it those shouldn’t either. Which is why I’m conflicted here.
I’m playing Devil’s advocate honestly. I’m much more comfortable with Quebec’s take than France’s (which is similar but one step above, in Quebec it only applies to government employees in a position of authority)
As for religion you have the choice to follow it or not, and following it comes with the burden of wearing certain things but you can choose to not follow that religion whenever you want if you want to dress differently. In a public school you should be able to choose what you wear, because you pretty much have to go to school.
You can stop following it whenever you want?
You realise that we’re talking about kids here, right?
I agree with this. But my girlfriend would certainly not. We’re in France and yet the pressure of her family on religion makes it that even on point she doesn’t care much about, there is so much behind her that it’s a real real pressure to respect the religion, which is hard to sometimes imagine, and to me an atheist seems ridiculous, you should make your own choices, well, for her, simply because of the people she is with. Not following certain religious rules can cost her a lot. Economically or Mentally for exemple
What’s your thought on school’s uniform?
I never felt like there was much of a point for them. It was annoying for my family because we always had to buy specific clothes for school
The whole point nowadays is to stop kids being bullied for not being able to afford the “right” clothes; that’s part of the point of this law too
Prevention of tribes is the best benefit imo. I remember on school there were a number of ethnic/cultural groups that didn’t socialize with people out of their group. I don’t believe that fosters a healthy community, and behaviors or symbolic garments to identify you as a member of a group reinforce those group identities instead of all being human beings.
Yup. I’m thankful for school uniforms. I came from a poor family and being mocked for wearing cheap clothes would’ve been awful, I was already ridiculed enough for my background as-is.
Personally I’m with France on this one.
The especially dumb part of this is that abayas aren’t specifically Muslim or religious in nature, they’re cultural. They are a long flowing dress, without even a head covering. A bunch of non-Islamic women wear them in a variety of countries.
So this is more attempting to ban entire cultural outfits, which is ridiculous.
You forgot to mention that the abaya is compulsory in Saudi Arabia (except for tourists) and Qatar.
And that’s bad. Can we agree that making a dress compulsory and making a dress banned are both bad, because they both restrict choice?
I agree let’s promote shorty and crop top in Quatar.
I agree let’s promote shorty and crop top in Quasar.
Saudi Arabia overturned that requirement in 2019, so you’re quite a few years out of date. It is required in Qatar though, yes.
For context, the French are very strict about any form of symbol on what students wear. I couldn’t even wear a baseball cap with a team logo and that’s not religious.
Lol what the only reason they could prevent you from wearing a cap is because it’s considered ‘rude’ to keep your hat inside classroom. A private school can do whatever they want and force student to wear uniforme but in public school you can wear whatever you want except specific banned religious symbole (cross, kippa, headscarf etc…)
For a 200 year old law, it’s pretty straight forward. And for all it’s flaws, the Nth revolution didn’t like the Catholic church for … reasons, so they wanted to make a law to get them out of politics and make them liable for their shenanigans. Thankfully they didn’t discriminate when they wrote the law.
- PROHIBITIONS AND LIMITS TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF “LAÏCITÉ”
The principle of secularism means that the State and religious organisations are separate. There is therefore no state-run public worship. The State neither recognises, nor subsidises, nor salaries any form of worship. Exceptions and adjustments to the ban on funding are defined in the legislation and case-law; they concern in particular chaplaincies, which are paid for by the State1
No religion can impose its prescriptions on the Republic. No religious principle can be invoked for disobeying the law.
Laîcite is the right for each, to practice his/her religion, without the state interfering, if not against laws and in the respect concerning other peoples. Without being prosecuted for this…
They now change the word to be against Muslims in France. Because “laicite” is always use against them.
Novlangue.
Abayas are not religious dress nor a symbol of a religion, and the law does not speak to individual choices about wearing religious symbols anyway. This is no different to banning ‘Black’ hairstyles or imposing sexist dress codes. It’s racism, not secularism.
deleted by creator
Hair covering is an Abrahamic thing. But abayas are not hair covering so what the fuck are you on about?
No religion can impose its prescriptions on the Republic. No religious principle can be invoked for disobeying the law.
I don’t see how wearing cultural clothing would be imposing anything. I have Indian heritage – would I be banned from wearing punjabis in public, despite it having no religious bearing at all?
You’re not from the religion that has been plaguing the country with terrorism for years, that’s the difference. I know it’s cultural, but we have history. Something like 2 years ago a teacher got beheaded. Since then we’re seeing lots of “cultural expression” in schools. This is not the french way. In France you act like French, period.
if the state doesnt recognise any form of worship, why are they seemingly banning perceived symbols of worship? how does any of the law you quoted justify banning folks from even wearing perceived religious symbols?
unless this isnt a religious symbol anyway, in which case the above law is even less relevant and this is a blatant case of cultural discrimination
Except banning anything at school is the opposite of what’s written here: the Republic forbid wearing some dress because it’s wrongly associated with religion.
The government is turning atheism into an oppressive religion.
Lol sorry but could only laugh on “turning atheism into oppressive religion”…
Religious freedom is a human right. Self determination is a human right. As long as whatever you do does not cause a negative impact on other people (see the second right) or society at large, then gtfo.
There is no “second right” in France. The law is simple : Don’t wear visible religious sign at school. There are private religious schools if you disagree with the public system.
Is it so insane to think there could be a school with both religious and areligious people at the same time? A secular school that doesn’t support a religion, but allows students to express themselves how they choose? When did that become a radical idea?
It’s not insane, but this separation has been done in 1905. In France the state is separated from the church (and by extension the religious). It’s not radical it takes roots in the principle of equality.
Separation of church and state is always a good thing, I’m not arguing against that, but this feels like a whole different level. If anything, this is the state taking an active role in changing the rules of the church. That’s not separation, that’s state sponsored atheism
The public schools are the one from the state. Those one are separate from the church. But everybody can go tothe private schools those can be religious or not.
That’s secularism, not atheism.
Students should express themselves how they choose.
That’s why you protect them from indoctination/religion forcing a certain outfit upon them.
“Self determination is a human right” There’s nothing I agree more on. Unfortunately some muslim communities do not agree, and the men and the women aren’t on the same level. Many women are forced to port the abaya and other vests that cover their figure in entirety, and I don’t think they should be forced to if they don’t want to. 85% of the muslim women in France that I know do not want to port it, but they’re obligated by their family. Banning it entirely is not the perfect solution, but it’s a step in the the direction of eradicating religions in France. The time of Christianity and Islam is way beyond us.
i like the slow stumble from “self-determination is a human right” to “eradicating religions in france”
“85% of the muslim women in france ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᶦ ᵏⁿᵒʷ” really adds to the experience too, thank you
Yeah, sorry, I didn’t exprime myself correctly here. Let me rephrase it:
If you want to be christian or muslim, please be, I don’t have nothing against you. But I’m not ok with parents forcing their religion down the throats of their kids.
And, let’s face it, religion it’s at an all time low, especially with newer generations like mine, and I don’t like how boomers force their kids to “go to church”, “dress in a certain manner”, ecc, when the kids don’t even believe.
Nope. Religion should be banned.
Also the girls are likely forced to do that so you are Dubble wrong.
I don’t deny that there are occurrences where some girls are forced. What about the 95% others?
You can’t put forth a law punishing the majority for a “likely”. What happened to the “Liberté Egalité Fraternité” which this liberticide law is obviously trampling?
The population has been fed the islamophobic narrative long enough to have such laws pass without anybody thinking about how ridiculous they are (replace hijab/abaya with dreadlocks or other piece of clothing… What do other people care?). The divide is so deep and constantly maintained by the politicians who, since they find no real answers the actual problems plaguing the day to day life of citizen, prefer to turn them against each other: divide to better rule.
Having gone to school with many muslims, sadly, it’s more like 4/5. As in, 4 out of 5 of those girls are forced to wear their religious garment. If they don’t it’s seen as shameful for their entire family.
Some are beaten but most of them are given a free choice: they can choose not to wear it and leave their family (and most friends). Or they can choose to abide and show how much they love god. Not many 10 year old girls choose to leave their family though.
And the other 1/5th are the full on religious fruitcakes.
I have anecdotal experiences too: my sister is Muslim and was wearing hijab in France. Of her own will. My parents argued repeatedly AGAINST it because of all the problems she’d have (and she did have) in that glorious free country. But she wouldn’t budge, because she didn’t want a human to dictate to her what she could wear.
In many places such dress code is more cultural than religious. From the religious point of view, yes women are to wear it however one cannot FORCE them to. In some places they do, but the scripture does not allow this.
In secular countries people do not know the difference or don’t even bother because it mostly affects non whites. Instead of tracking the cases where there is abuse and dealing with them accordingly, they just ban it wholesale across the board. It’s like banning knives because some people use them violently.
Thats dogshit
name a video game that doesn’t have some element of religion in it. pac man? ghosts = belief in afterlife. space invaders? I’d call “belief in aliens” a religious belief of sorts. bubble bobble? maybe?
you also gotta reprint every single piece of American paper money.
what about my tarot card collection? you gonna lock me in jail because I think the art is cool?
what about how I listen to Bach or Mozart in the bath?
you gonna arrest me for saying “Jesus fucking christ” when my cat brings up a hairball?
I also enjoy “what we do in the shadows”, Yellowjackets, home alone, lord of the rings, dune… all banned by you.
Even chess has a bishop, king and queen…
There’s no need to be a redditeur about it, nearly everything is a religious experience or adjacent, and I say that as a secular person and atheist myself.
What? Shut the fuck up idiot.
You can practice your religion inside your home. Once you’re out in public you should respect others and hide your religion away. This is the way!
Reading all the anti-privacy and self expression things that France are pushing…wouldn’t understand why anyone would want to move to france in this day and age.
If I agree with some anti-privacy woes, France (and more broadly Europe) is way more privacy friendly than the US. We have to fight for it from time to time, but for now it goes mostly in the right direction.
As for religious stuff, to understand that you have to understand France. We are, due to our history, mostly irreligious (50% of the whole population in 2017), with most religious people being non-practicing. Like every country we have our religious nutjobs, but they are mostly irrevelant compared to the US ones.
As such, we as a whole generally consider that religion should not impact public life and public places nor be displayed in there, with some specific exception (nuns and priests, as it is considered as being an uniform mandated by their trade).School is a public space, as such public display of religion are forbidden. This is not specifically agains Muslim, the same would apply to a nun when going to school as a student. Other less ostensible religious sign, like crucifixes, are also banned.
All that is (mostly) to fight communitarianism, which is viewed here as a threat to society.Pretty progressive. Nice.
Laicite has been a thing for a very long time. Simply put, France recognizes your right to believe any crap you like in your private life and recognizes religions under law, but people don’t get to practice their religion in the public sphere, e.g. on state property.
This is as opposed to US secularism which is barely lip service and constantly undermined. If you want an analogue, France erects a steel barrier between religion and governance whereas US erects a 4ft chain link fence.
What a narrow understanding of religion. That law is based on the understanding that “religion” is something completely inside the mind and maybe something you attend once a week. That may have been nice in 1700s Europe when the only religion around were denominations of Christianity but it doesn’t account for the many religions that mandate looks and dress and even some that require tattoos. Instead the state implicitly labels those religions as inferior or less civilized and goes out of their way to single them out for law enforcement.
And the “obey or leave” mindset in this thread is ignorant of history, as France involuntarily made all Algerians French citizens and declared their lands French territory. This 2004 law and new amendments singles them out.
Laicite has been a thing in France for over a 100 years. There is nothing “narrow” about it and it affected religions LONG before Muslims became the latest to experience it.
Laicite was created after Christians went to war against Christians. It still is trapped in that paradigm and is narrow because it fails to take into account the practices of other religions. For example, Christianity has almost no dietary laws but that’s not the case for Jews, Hindus, or Muslims. Should French schools require beef on the menu to avoid religious accommodation for Hindus? Should circumcision be banned in order to prevent Jewish boys from standing out in locker rooms?
Laicite is a narrow and antiquated mindset and there’s a reason other secular countries haven’t embraced it.
I’m pretty certain you know these are stupid arguments.
I’m not going to respond to ad hominem attacks. Peace.
Calling your arguments stupid is not ad hominem. But if you want me to elucidate then by all means:
-
Forcing people to eat beef (or pork) is not covered by laicite. Wearing religious clothing & symbols on state property is. I’m sure a case to be made that schools should be sensitive to religious dietary restrictions and provide alternatives, but that’s not what you were saying.
-
Circumcision is not covered by laicite at least insofar as school is concerned. Maybe there are regs about how it is performed in public hospitals. Wearing religious clothing & symbols on state property is.
All clear now?
-
Yeah, let’s ban garments because garments can be attributed to religion or fashion or culture or comfort or any or all combination of the above, in public spaces and alienate religious groups, let them homeschool their children, which may/may not breed more dogmatic/extremists views and then cry about immigrants screwing things up by not integrating just because setting up laws that separate religion and state weren’t enough. Laws can’t be enforced right? Like laws don’t discourage behaviors in a secular civil society right?
Genius moves there. I like the 5D chess this government is playing.
Homeschooling is a thing in every country. I don’t see how you can claim laicite is the cause of it, or even increases the risk of extremism.
Wow. As a religious minority it’s incredibly depressing to see how many people on here support this violation of religious liberty.
It’s been part of France’s political culture that religious signification has no place in public institutions. Given that Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Britain offer ways to religious groups to punish others through the legal system for not accepting their criteria regarding what constitutes legitimate criticism [*], but France doesn’t, I’d argue that France is doing something right.
This event emboldened fanatic religious organizations, which sought charges against an actor for saying “I shit on God and Virgin Mary!” in a restaurant. Fortunately he wasn’t declared guilty, but he suffered a judicial process of 2 years. This doesn’t mean they didn’t achieve their goal: they sent everyone the message that you should think twice the next time you consider you have freedom of expression.
If you let religious people think their beliefs must be protected from any criticism, many of them will start to see their privilege as the norm, and eventually encroach the freedoms of everyone else.
France may be good for not respecting a religion and disallowing abuse of religious systems that would attack the freedom of non-religious/minority-religious citizens, but are going to the opposite side of this problem. Abayas don’t hurt anyone and, from what I can tell/correct me if wrong, are used as a religious observation. France is going out of their way to impose restrictions on elements that are generally harmless that these people may see as a religious necessity, attacking the freedom of religious citizens. There has to be a balance and they’re off on the other arc of the pendulum swing here.
Abayas don’t hurt anyone
Enforcing Muslim girls and women to hide their hair does definitely hurt someone: those who want to leave religion. It is a very common problem for ex-Muslim women and teenagers to suffer harassment both at home and elsewhere from bigoted Muslims who think they do not have the right to apostate. As soon as you stop complying with an enforced form of clothing, you’re signalling those people that you’re a sinner.
old.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/9cnyvl/help_muslim_security_guard_at_work_told_my/
So surely forcing them to take it off while at school is exacerbating that problem. They either comply with the state and be seen as a sinner by their religion, or stick to their religious belief (forced or not) and are at odds with the state.
Yeah honestly. As much as we’ve struggled with developing and even enforcing it today, I think America has a good balance between freedom to practice and freedom from state sponsored religion
Probably not the best moment in that country’s history to make that claim
This term, the Supreme Court decided two cases involving religion: Groff v. DeJoy was a relatively low-profile case about religious accommodations at work; 303 Creative v. Elenis was a blockbuster case about the clash between religious exercise and principles of equal treatment. (The legal question was technically about speech, but religion was at the core of the dispute.)
In both cases, plaintiffs asserted religiously grounded objections to complying with longstanding and well-settled laws or rules that would otherwise apply to them. And in both, the court handed the plaintiff a resounding victory.
These cases are the latest examples of a striking long-term trend: Especially since Amy Coney Barrett became a justice in 2020, the court has taken a sledgehammer to a set of practices and compromises that have been carefully forged over decades to balance religious freedom with other important — and sometimes countervailing — principles.
Yeah I agree with you. It’s one thing to say the school can’t promote a religious creed to the pupils, it is another to limit self-expression of dress when it doesn’t impact other students
French secularism is way different than what americans have, it is pretty unique. Remember it
Religion has no place in the modern world.
And the real reason is unmasked. This isn’t “freedom,” this is pushing atheism. There’s a reason the US Supreme Court has struck down similar policies for nearly a century, because it privileges atheism over any religion.
The US Supreme Court has struck down similar policies because US population are religious zealots.
You say that as if atheism is just another religion, which is missing the point. It’s not an unreasonable bias if the government agrees with me that 2+2=4 and that those trying to convince you 2+2=3 are doing you intellectual harm. I know religious people love the “but atheism is just another kind of religion!” adage, but it doesn’t hold water. Nobody is being denied human rights in the name of just atheism, nobody is being oppressed by just atheism.
Remember when we were kids and we were told not to judge people by how they look or other factors they can’t control, but rather to judge them by the things they say, do, and think? Yeah somewhere religious people started this lie that religion is some intrinsic part of being, like sexuality/sexual identity, but this isn’t the case. Religion is a choice. Religion is a belief. Exactly the kind of thing you should judge people for, same as any of their other beliefs or opinions.
The idea that a government shouldn’t endorse atheism, or at least legislate from an atheistic point of view, is insane to me, tbh.
I honestly don’t understand the contradicting argument of “there should be no religious symbol in a state school, if you want that go to a religious school” and “no religious symbols allowed will set them free”.
Surely if you are funneling all of these kids into religious schools and away from the state system, you’re going to entrench them in that religion further, not “set them free”. It just serves to divide kids even more than if you allowed them all the freedom to mingle in the same school with all their religious garb.
The people here do not represent what the world outside looks like and anonymity emboldens extreme views.
This is not freedom.
Removed by mod
Forcing a person not to wear a type of clothing is just as bad forcing them to wear it. The reasons for either are not important.
You hear that the military? Stop forcing people in those ugly camo uniforms! Reasons for wearing them aren’t important!
No.
The same “I know what’s best for them” and “the law applies equally to everyone” arguments in favor of bans on drugs that many in liberal spaces will detest, they will happily use when supporting shit like this. We all know that everyone doesn’t suffer equally under laws like this. Religion may be the opium of the people, but does that mean we should be the narcs? You don’t eradicate religion by banning it. You eradicate it by having secular institutions provide the things people go to religion for, like a sense of purpose, assistance, and community.
Banning something is as opressive as making it mandatory.
Nope. You aren’t allowed to have religious shit on you in general public in france.
No it’s not. making something mandatory for a group of people makes that group of people well separated from the rest. here is exactly opposite : they are trying to make them look like anyone else.
this ban is as dumb as banning heavy metal, dungeons and dragons, skateboards, backwards baseball caps, etc etc
it’s all just trying to look tough enough to court right wing racists on targets too vulnerable to fight back.
if you want to protect vulnerable young girls, you don’t start by ostracising them from the community.
“trying to make them” is a problematic phrase and why this doesn’t make sense. Nobody should be “made” to do anything, if people are choosing to look different they should be free to do so.
But they don’t choose tho. Parents do, but not kids
deleted by creator
I get the reasoning, but really it feels like papering over cracks rather than addressing the root cause.
Set up proper support structures to prevent people from being coerced into things they don’t want to, make sure people are given places to get away from controlling people and exposed to the fact that things don’t have to be like that.
The best cure for religion is Education and Opportunities to fully integrate in the wider society.
So France needs to invest into giving the kids in even the baundelieres (the poor neighbourhoods around the major cities) as much Education and as many Opportunities as possible and most will naturally drift away from the snake oil which is religion.
You see the single biggest mechanic of racial descrimination (not just in France) is poverty: those kids from low education hence low income immigrant parents - who lack the education (hence the income) because they hail from countries with worse Education systems - are stuck in high crime low opportunity ghettos with much lower lifetime opportunities than the rest, impacted by poverty every day of their lifes (outright racism comes as events, poverty is every waking hour of every day) for the “crime” of having popped out of the “wrong” vagina.
Some manage to come out of this, but theirs is a much taller ladder to climb so their chances of reaching a good life are less than most.
The thing is, genuinelly flattenning the playing field (which, beyond the massive boost to average quality of life, would have the minor side effect of most of the next generation leaving the claws of religion) would cost lots of money and there’s no will in France to have people like the wealthiest man and woman in Europe (both of which live there) and their circle of friends part with a small fractionof their wealth to make it possible: hard-right neoliberal with authoritarian streak Macron would never do even the mildest of wealth redistributions (as it would impact his mates and his clients) so instead out comes another “let’s force them to not look ‘wrong’” authoritarian “solution”.
If you pardon my french (hehe!), this shit is all related and all boils down to how society is structured to help a few prey on the many resulting in massive inequality in access to resources and opportunities and constant, relentless discrimination on the basis of wealth, all of which then causes all sorts of “secondary” issues which are then papered over using the cheapest method there is to cover it up: abusing the Law and Legal Violence to coerce the most powerless of all to “keep up appearances”.
Compared to the US, France has massive taxes and wealth redistribution. You actually have an estate/inheritance tax that captures tax not only from the inheritance but from gifts made during the lifetime of the deceased. You have universal healthcare. You also have a massive influx of immigrants, not all of them from former French colonies, many of whom don’t give a fuck about France’s highly valued secularism and other cultural values. You don’t come to a France looking for a better life and simultaneously demand that France make an exception for you to allow the offensive visible symbolic separation of women from society because your religion/culture demands it. It is entitled in the extreme that people want to make France like the country they fled.
It’s not about stopping people from being coerced, it’s about the state forbidding religious symbols on state property including schools. France is strictly secular and forbids religion in the public sphere, i.e. state property like schools, politics etc.
It just so happens to have the pleasant side effect that kids in state schools are free from the segregation, clothing and other religious bullshit they might have to endure in their private life. The government has no control over that other aspect however it might lead to kids growing into adults who are less orthodox in their own lives.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Students will be banned from wearing abaya, a loose-fitting full-length robe worn by some Muslim women, in France’s state-run schools, the education minister has said.
“When you walk into a classroom, you shouldn’t be able to identify the pupils’ religion just by looking at them,” Education Minister Gabriel Attal told France’s TF1 TV, adding: “I have decided that the abaya could no longer be worn in schools.”
The garment has being increasingly worn in schools, leading to a political divide over them, with right-wing parties pushing for a ban while those on the left have voiced concerns for the rights of Muslim women and girls.
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.
The debate on Islamic symbols has intensified since a Chechen refugee beheaded teacher Samuel Paty, who had shown students caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, near his school in a Paris suburb in 2020.
The announcement is the first major policy decision by Mr Attal, who was appointed France’s education minister by President Emmanuel Macron this summer at the age of 34.
The original article contains 388 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 49%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
France has a strict ban on religious signs in state schools and government buildings, arguing that they violate secular laws.
Is this a case of being lost in translation or something? I wouldn’t consider religious garb to be a “sign.”
Signs should be better translated to symbols here
The French state literally making laws governing fashion is the most French thing ever.
No, it’s fascism.
I fully agree that’s it’s an authoritarian measure that needlessly targets a vulnerable minority.
But it’s also something we should laugh at the French state for. Orwell memorably mused that the reason the goose-step never made its way into British military marching drills - at a time when many other European armies were adopting it - was because if British civilians saw soldiers on parade goose-stepping down the road then they would laugh at them. He thought that instinct to laugh at pompous displays of authority was something that helped insulate the British from the fascist and communist totalitarianism that took root elsewhere in the first half of the 20th century. Fascists tend to have very thin skins.
The French state is making laws to regulate women’s fashion. They should know that doing this makes them look ridiculous to normal people.
