German Supreme Court Fails to Settle Dispute ,Muslim Headscarf in School

[demdave]

KARLSRUHE, Germany (AP) - Germany's highest court left open whether a Muslim teacher who wears a headscarf in class is violating the constitution, giving new momentum to a debate over the place of Islamic symbols in German public life.

The headscarf, after all, is not just folklore and a mere symbol. Rather, it is a demonstration of an expression of faith. This has no place in Hesse's schools," said Karin Wolff, the Hesse minister responsible for schools.

Margot Kaessmann, the Lutheran bishop of Hanover, suggested the headscarf was a symbol of women's oppression that did not belong in schools.



http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAX1XKM0LD.html

Note: headline edited for length

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. The idea of banning headscarves seems very intolerant

it's not as if it's a fundamental change from 'traditional' European clothing - except that it's outdoor clothing for a Christian. Have they also banned Sikhs from wearing turbans in German schools? Any comments, people in Germany?

Also, do they ban crucifixes worn around the neck? That's an obvious expression of religion - and not even one that your religion asks you to do. The article seems to talk about crucifixes as classroom decoration, not personal.

Though I must admit I wouldn't like a teacher who also wore a veil. Maybe my personal limit is when someone's face gets covered - it has a taint of denying their personality, somehow.

[Atreides73]

2. Not if all religious symbols are banned

The supreme court ruled that she is allowed to wear a headscarf in school unless state legislature establishes laws against it.

Basically I understood the german supreme court ruling so, that it is the task of the state legislature to establish laws, in which it is defined whether headscarfs, or any other form of religious signs, are allowed in classrooms. This also includes crucifixes and similar signs. They want the states to establish a 'either all or nothing' rule.

This could get pretty easily out of hand, because even a fashionable 'ankh' is a religious symbol.

I personally think it comes down to, when a female muslim teacher is allowed to wear a headscarf, a nun must also be allowed to teach in nun clothing. If not then there mustn't be any signs of religion in classrooms.

What peeves me most is that Religion (catholic and lutheran) is a compulsory subject in german schools. Students who don't want to have Religion as subject can substitute Ethics, if their parents agree.
Even though non-christians do not have to attend I don't think a public school is the right place to teach religion unless in a historical or social context. Whether your teacher is wearing a crucifix or a headscarf is a minor issue compared to that.

[lanlady]

3. double standard?

My kids went to German public schools when they were very young. Being used to US-style church/state separation, I was surprised at the pervasiveness of religious (in this case, Catholic) teachings and practices in the classroom. Seems hypocritical for Germany to make an issue out of a Muslim headscarf, although the laws in Hesse might be different.

[GermanDJ]

4. No double-standard: All religious symbols are banned from schools

Please correct me, if I'm wrong.

But as far as I know the German supreme court banned all religious symbols eight years ago.

In this court order the supreme court explicitly referred to Christian crosses which were used in Bavarian schools. If I remember correctly some non-christian parents complained about a Bavarian law which instructed local authorities to decorate class rooms with crosses.
The supreme court decided that school authorities have to respect each and every faith, so that it definitely would be against the law to force students to spend their learning hours in rooms with Christian crosses.

[lanlady]

6. my experience was in Bavaria--

--and it was about 10 years ago, so it seems things have changed. Thanks for the interesting info.

[Kellanved]

5. not yet

This has to be seen as a follow-up to the "cruzifix"-debate and the "Leitkultur"-controversity. The "cruzifix" decision stated that classrooms (in fact all official rooms) have to be devoid of religious symbols.

The court practically denied to answer the new question (are public servants allowed to express their faith?), but the calls for a new and fundamental decision are very loud at them moment.


At the moment the states have to decide if they want a clear regulation as in France (public servants are not allowed to wear ANY religous symbols ), or formalize the current standard (rooms should be devoid of religous symbols; public servants are free to express their faith). The hypocritical approach of allowing crosses, but banning scarfes has little to no chance of passing any supreme court, be it state or Federal.


This has little to do with Hesse, as the central and northern states tend to be less religous than the southern states and have a clearer state/church divide (the conservative party (which is especially powerful in the southern states) has a "christian" in its name and its pre-war precedessor was a arm of the catholic church).

The religous lessons are still offered in the schools, ethics classes are offered for students not wanting to attend one. Islam isn't offered AFAIK (at least not here), as there are no qualified teachers and there is no consensus which muslim organisation should/could send teachers (the teachers are selected by their churches; this is no problem with most religions (even bhuddism is offered in some schools), but seems to be one with Islam).

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Love that French rule

No religious symbols. I guess they don't believe much in either individual or religious liberty if that is their policy.

[Paschall]

8. Not just French civil servants...

...(though that is why you'll never hear a French politician invoking God or prayer in a public address) but French students are also prohibited from all religious "displays" in schools.

The French principle is that, to ensure equality among all students and among all citizens, schools and other public facilities are religion-free zones.

French civil servants and students are of course free to practice their religion openly off the job and outside of the classroom.

The rule is perfectly compatible with government neutrality in religious matters, and ensures French citizens the right to the privacy of their faith (ie employers, banks, or others cannot ask you any questions about your faith; even the French government cannot gather data on your faith for census purposes).

[Kellanved]

9. thanks for the details

I'm am very much in favour of a ruling like this - religion has no place near the state. I hope the decision of the court will lead to a ruling exactly like the French.

Almost 100 years with this rule do not seem to damage civil liberties in France in any way.

[Paschall]

12. This is kind of a hard one for Americans to grasp

But it's logical when you realize that the French Revolution was fought against the French aristocracy which was ideologically buttressed by the Catholic church.

A completely different take on religion than the American one.

But the revolutionaries did fight for and obtain the right "to freedom of conscience."

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Not compatible with anything

The government has no right to tell me I can or cannot wear a cross, a star of David or anything else. This sounds like the ultimate expression of those who fear or hate religion. If my cross bothers you, too bad. It's my choice.

[Paschall]

11. Then you'll never get a job in the French civil service

Or be allowed to teach or study in a French public school classroom. But you can always look to a Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim private school and "express" to your heart's delight.