French Panel Recommends Banning Head Scarves in Schools

[Nancy Waterman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/international/europe/11CND-FRAN.html?hp

This seems like a pretty radical move to me. It could really offend someone's religion and increase the separatist Islamic schools, imo.

As Europe struggles with the integration of its rising Muslim population and a new wave of anti-Semitism, a long-awaited official report on church-state relations in France is recommending sweeping changes in the way the country balances its fierce commitment to secularism with the demands of its religious minorities.

The report's most dramatic recommendation, which was delivered today to President Jacques Chirac, was to urge passage of a law banning "conspicuous" religious symbols in public schools. Such symbols would include head scarves worn by Muslim girls, skullcaps worn by Jewish boys and large crosses worn by Christians.

The report recommended that public schools provide special meals in their cafeterias for observant Jews and Muslims. It also advocated adding Jewish and Muslim holidays to the calendar, a move that is unprecedented in the rest of Europe. Employers were urged to allow their employees to choose a religious holiday, for example, Yom Kippur for Jews, Eid al-Kebir for Muslims or the Orthodox Christmas for Orthodox Christians.

[Maple]

1. Seems like

a common sense move.

Should be universal.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Not common, thank God, and no sense

What right does the government have to limit your religion? It should be none.

[ThePeat]

2. Maybe good

I'm ok with this for teachers, as they have influence over the decissions made by impressionable children, but I deffend the right of children to express their religious, um, ness.

There was a case in Germany a year ago with a turkish teacher who always wears her head scarf. I'm not certain, but I think they let her keep wearing it. I think as long as she, and other teachers don't evangalize, that's ok...

So, in short, I disagree and agree, because I'm to chicken to take a stance...

[Turley]

15. She was let go

The German High Court has left it up to the States to decide whether to ban head-scarves. Most are leaning towards a ban.

[It was not a pretzel]

18. You're right

In Germany it's up to the states to decide. Bavaria has already voted to ban Muslim headscarves because they considered by Bavaria's Interior Minister Beckstein to show "extremism".

Christian or Jewish symbols have of course NOT been banned.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Except for licenses and passports

All expressions of religion like that should be OK.

[Paschall]

63. I guess you mean indicating one's religion on one's passport

Last time that happened in France was under Vichy, when Jews' passports were marked. Current French law places such importance on preserving religious freedom and the freedom of conscience that the French government can not collect any data on citizens' religion, even for census purposes.

(The only country I've heard of that carries on this practice today is Israel, which apparently marks passports to differentiate between Israeli Jews and Muslims. But I suppose there are other countries that do likewise.)

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. No, I don't care about the religion

I care that we can see the person's face. So, they have to show their face on the passport and driver's license photo.

[Muesli]

104. How would you know

the person before you was the person on the photo?

I see no reason to ban scarfs, but I can see a reason to ban burkhas.

[Muddleoftheroad]

107. By IDing them

When using their passport of driver's license for ID, they would have to show their face. Both are priviliges. You have no inherent right to drive. You have no inherent right to travel without proper ID.

[Bush loves Jiang]

116. Bavaria's fundie territory...

The CDU/CSU candidate was from Bavaria. Good thing Schroeder used his desire to fellate the GOP on a regular basis against him.

[wingnut]

122. "Christian or Jewish symbols have of course NOT been banned."

Actually, they have. Yarmulkes and 'over sized crosses' (whatever that is) are banned as well.

I think the whole idea is bunk.

[Bush loves Jiang]

115. I could make a very inappropriate joke right now...

But since Germans seem okay at electing decent governments, I'll restrain myself.

[MrPrax]

3. I am confused...

The CNCDH --National Consultative Commission on Human Rights ( in France) a couple of weeks ago released another report about the rising intolerance and discrimination towards Islam and arabs in France...
(the report also disputed "a new wave of anti-Semitism"...?)

This appears to be more of the same...intolerance via homogenity.

Oddly enough, Quebec's educational university Tsar's are obsessed with head scarves...
In fact all of Europe is obsessed with head scarves!!!-similar cases in Germany, England, Belgium, Greece...apparantly as a commentator in The Economist last year concluded through talking to some of the people involved, it appears to be less religious and more a fad--among young women; a political symbol that really annoys western female teachers!!

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. How is it different from requiring them?

:)

[Orangeone]

5. I think

It is wrong and it goes too far. I guess I don't believe in freedom FROM religion and people should be able to practice their religion as long as they don't infringe on others. Just seeing those symbols doesn't hurt anyone.

Some women like wearing the hijab and should be able to wear them if they want to.

[Paschall]

10. The majority of Muslim women in France want this ban

Those who want to wear hijab can do so outside of school or their jobs. But not if they are students/teacher in public schools or civil servants. These state establishments are religion free zones to ensure the equality of services and equality before the law of all French citizens. See the link I posted before for more information on the French context.

[aeon flux]

6. What about the many kids who hate wearing the scarves

but are forced to by their parents to wear it at all times? Many Muslim youth wish to better integrate into the society in which they live, by not wearing the head scarves.

At the same time, how would such a ban be enforced? Arrest people for wearing head scarves? Seems a little extreme.

edit: sp.

[Paschall]

9. Currently the problem is handled like any other disciplinary problem

Offending students are required to meet with teachers and school authorities to discuss the issue. After discussion, if the student continues the prohibited behavior he/she is expelled. Almost all cases are currently solved through mediation. But school authorities want clearer rules and don't appreciate being left to make these decisions themselves without some more solid support from the National Education Ministry. Also increasing numbers of Muslim women and girls are calling for this legislation to protect them from what they consider repressive and sexist pressure to wear hijab.

Same goes for civil service employees. An employee of the City of Paris Social Services Department was recently put on 9-month leave because she refused to take off her veil when greeting the public and refused to shake hands with men.

Schools and other public institutions are considered religion-free zones in France. You're free to hold and practice whatever faith you wish here; that right is guaranteeed. But if you're a student in a public school or a civil servant you have to observe the rules regarding the secularity of the French state.

For some background, here's an article from the French Embassy in the US, "The Secular Principle."
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/secular.asp

[aeon flux]

11. Thanks for that

Since the ban would apply to all religions, not just Islam, it sounds like a reasonable idea. The veil is a symbol of female oppression, the skull cap Jewish fundamentalism. Both forms of religious extremism. Good ridance. Religion is so f*cked up.

Frankly, I'm ashamed of America's unwavering support of religious fundamentalist states such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Are we still in the Dark Ages or what?

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Not a good deal

Not reasonable. The state has no right telling these people how to dress and whether they can observe their religions.

I think the folks on this thread who support this insanity are mostly the anti-religion posters based on the comments.

[NashVegas]

70. Can One Not Be Anti-Religion and Protect Non-Secular Culture/Government?

When one's religion defines one's dress code, it's safe to say that the religion is also a culture.

France is famously protective of its traditional culture. I don't think they're making the wisest choice, but can't say I'm not sympathetic.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. kick because thinking is a good thing

[aeon flux]

12. I like your sig!

helps to demystify the term doesn't it?

[fshrink]

13. A little history:

When church/state separation took effect in France in 1901, it was not a cosmetic move. There was a deep, lingering, hostility of French people towards clergy, which had been one of the main exploiting forces since the Middle Ages. There was also at the time a very strong popular movement, organized in various ways, and with a significant revolutionary, and anti-religious component. In fact, all French social laws have been earned with the blood of revolutionary rioters in 1830, 1848, 1871, 1903, 1936 and more.
Laicity has become a part of French culture, which has its center in the school system. Had the French governement, a right-wing governement in many ways similar to ours here, pushed its agenda a little too far, there would have been a, possibly strong, popular reaction.
Recently, for example, there was a little piece of law (i.e. a driver accidentally killing a pregnant woman would be charged with the death of the foetus as well) which had to be withdrawn under similar pressures, because it was, rightly so, understood as a roundabout attack against the free abortion law.
The "school of the Republic" doesn't teach or condone religion. Period.

[OldEurope]

14. In Turkey too, neither teachers nor students are allowed to wear

veils or head scarves, and other women in public services also.

I think the scarve is not a symbol of religion, but a symbol of the oppression of women; but there are many muslims here, who don´t agree to this.

In Germany the politicians also want to ban the head scarves, but have difficulties: for reasons of equality they would have to ban the christian and jewish symbols, too. And they don´t want this (which is ridiculous, in my opinion), particularly the slightest appearance of anti-judaism is a big problem for Germans.

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. Questions for those who think the ban is a good idea

Would you feel the same if the US proposed banning women wearing pants in the school/workplace?

It is true that for many people, hijab has a religious significance. For others, it has a cultural significance. Some women wear scarves for completely different reasons, such as personal preference, bad hair day, just in the mood to wear a scarf, etc.

Should non-Muslim women be forbidden to wear scarves as well?

What other ways do you believe that women's dress should be regulated by the government? (excluding nudity, bikinis, etc)

Are your opinions based on the belief that it is wrong for women to choose what clothes to wear, or are you simply displeased by some items of feminine attire and prefer not to see them?

Some people who feel strongly that women's dress should be mandated by the government believe that scarves should be mandatory.

Why do you think they feel that way?

What are some differences between their support of regulating women's dress and your own?

[VelmaD]

20. Simple

They are trying to enforce a sexist worldview that sees women's bodies as basically sinful. They are trying to keep women in their place.

I am in favor of liberating them from a religious dogma that too often treats them as inferior human beings.

[BenFranklinUSA]

22. heehee

liberation from dogma could close down this site ;)

[DuctapeFatwa]

23. And they are in favor of liberating you from a dogma that says

that your hair must be on public display at all times :)

[VelmaD]

25. Actually I can choose...

whether to wear a hat or scarf or wear my hair loose and free.

And frankly so can the husbands of the muslim women being affected by this. As long as it is not immodest for their husbands to show their bare head then it is blatant sexism to require women to wear head scarves.

[DuctapeFatwa]

26. Why do you oppose Muslim women having the choice?

Do you feel that they are less able to decide what they want to wear than women of other (or no) religion?

[VelmaD]

28. Because too many times...

it is not truly a choice they are being allowed to make. Apparently we are not going to gree on this one. I am going to stay opposed to the muslim dress codes for women for as long as they are not applied equally to muslim men.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Muslim women have the right to choose what they wish to wear

If being part of a religion mandates a dress code, that is their choice.

[VelmaD]

33. That's funny...

tell that to non-Muslim women in some of the Middle Eastern countries that are forced into the veil. It's not about religion. It's about culture and it's about controlling women.

Don't tell me it's the woman's choice in a religion that does not give them a say in developing it's dictates. Women were not asked what kind of dress code they wanted.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. I support choice

If they choose to wear the veil, I support that. If they choose not to, I support that as well. Making France just as bad as Saudi Arabia is not the solution.

[VelmaD]

44. I would hardly say...

this makes France as bad as Saudi Arabia. Women in France can still vote and go to school and have a job and leave the house unescorted and decide for themselves who they will marry and travel wherever they want without having to have a man's permission.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. The journey of 1,000 miles begins with one step

A state that starts telling you how to practice your religion is a state that is well on the way to telling you pretty much everything -- what you can eat, who you can be friends with and what you can say.

[NashVegas]

72. Early 1990s Plane Hijacking

1994, Air France liner hijacked, and in the course of two days, the extremists who took command of the plane threatened to kill every woman who refused to wear the headscaves they thoughtfully brought with them.

Some choice.

[DuctapeFatwa]

35. So should laws regarding women's dress be based on religion?

For example, a Hindu woman could wear a scarf, but this would be forbidden for a Muslim woman because the Muslim woman is not capable of making such a decision for herself?

[VelmaD]

36. I never said...

that muslim women were not capable of making the choice for themselves...only that oftentimes they aren't really allowed to make a choice.

[DuctapeFatwa]

37. That could be said of the decision to NOT wear a scarf, and of you too

Maybe there are women who see you and think, she cannot possibly be making her own choice when she goes into the public street with her hair/knees/waistline visible.

They are looking at you from their own cultural perspective.

Just as some western women might feel uncomfortable exposing their breasts in public, even if they were in an area of the world where that is the prevailing cultural norm, there are some eastern women who feel uncomfortable displaying their hair in public.

Are there Muslim women whose fathers/husbands insist that they wear a scarf? Sure.

And there are Muslim women whose fathers/husbands insist that they NOT wear one.

What would be so wrong with they, and you, just leaving it up to the women, and letting them choose?

[VelmaD]

39. Honestly...

if we lived in a world devoid of sexism I would agree with you 100 percent. But we don't. We live in a world where what women can and cannot wear in public is still determined by and large by men. Even in the US where some cities have tried to ban women showing their breasts in public even to breast feed their babies - the politicians who make those kind of laws are overwhelmingly male. When we're living in a world where men and women are treated as equals then this whole issue will be moot.

And by the way, I did notice that no one on this thread has yet to address my point that the muslim dress codes for men and women are vastly different and the sexism inherent in that. If the head scarf is such an important symbol of the faith then why aren't the boys wearing one too?

[DuctapeFatwa]

45. Probably no one wanted to seem rude or insulting to you, and

I hope you won't take it that way, but if you will read the Koran, it says that men and women should dress modestly.

There are hadith that pertain to head coverings for both men and women, and it is damn good advice for people living in a desert climate where sandstorms are frequent.

As you continue with your reading, you will discover that head covering for women predates Islam by several millennia. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians was not suggesting a nifty new thing, he was expressing approval of an existing custom.

So your reference to women covering their heads as a "Muslim dress code" is as inaccurate as it is popular.

I think that by opposing the right of all women to choose, you are without realizing it missing out on a good opportunity to set a good example for men of any culture or religion who want to tell women what to wear - or what not to wear.

[VelmaD]

49. You are correct that...

it predates Islam and was also once a requirement for christian women as well. One that was not completely irradicated in some parts of Europe even until the last century. But just because something is a long-standing tradition doesn't make it any less sexist.

I referred to it as a "Muslim dress code" because that is essentially what we are talking about here - the requirement that many muslim women live under that they MUST wear it. There's the difference. While a head covering may be a good idea in a desert clime (believe me I understand that - I live in Texas and tend to wear a hat in the summer) there is a differnece between a good idea and the requirement placed on some muslim women. And there's still the matter of the difference in how "modest" is interpretted for men and women in the faith. How many muslim countries require men to keep their hair covered at all times? How many require men to wear the burka or the chador or the abayah?

Your last point is well taken I must admit. Like I said yesterday, as much as I would like in my heart to rip the scarves and veils off of women who wear them in the US I refrain because it is not the best way to effect change. What I do want is for those women to rise up and say "NO" we will not let you do this to us. What I hope is that this law passed in France will give them the underpinning of law to help them do that. It is not the best possible solution. But then this is a difficult issue.

on edit: I have read the Koran btw. Like most religious texts I find it fascinating and uplifting and disheartening at the same time.

[DuctapeFatwa]

50. I believe you are sincere, but legislating women's clothing

is counter-productive, regardless of whether France or the Taliban does it.

The Taliban are also sincere. They believe that their pre-Islamic customs are the only way that people should live. And that includes a certain mode of dress for both women and men.

Women in Pashtunistan who would prefer not to wear burkas did not change their opinions as a result of Taliban rule, and women in France who prefer to wear scarves will not change theirs as a result of French rule.

The message that is sent by both Taliban and Frenchmen is not that women are independent human beings with the inalienable right to decide how they will dress and when, but "You women will obey or pay."

I am not sure that is really the message that France wants to send to women of any religion, and I don't think that's the message you want to send either.

The issue is not really difficult. The issue itself, whether women should have the right to choose how they will dress themselves, is very simple.

What is difficult is that you have a very strong preference for one cultural tradition, and the Taliban has a very strong preference for a different cultural tradition.

To the Taliban, your decision to display your hair, your knees, your shape, to the public on the street represents a corrupt societal value that dishonors your family, and reduces you to a public facility for the casual sexual desires of any and all comers.

To you, the decision of a woman who prefers to choose to whom she shows her hair represents ironically - the oppression of women as practiced by the Taliban!

Until both you and the Taliban will agree to disagree on who's right and let the woman choose for herself, regardless of whether her choice is based on religion, culture, or sheer whim (for that is also her right), the oppression of women will continue to rule the day in both east and west.

I do not deny that I have higher expectations of you than I do of the Taliban.

[VelmaD]

51. I still disagree with you about whether...

or not the women have a choice. How is it a choice for those women if the government says "you can wear whatever you want" but their family or religious leaders still can force them to dress a certain way?

The biggest difference between me and the Taliban is that they seem dead set that they will NEVER let women decide for themselves. I'm all in favor of choice...as long as it really is choice.

The other difference is that I'm not personally imposing any kind of sanction on women who disagree with me. The Taliban and other oppressive muslim regimes have been known to hurt and even kill women for not following their restrictions. I don't think France will be publicly stoning anyone for wearing a head scarf.

I'm glad you brought sex into it. People on the thread yesterday would not concede that part of the dress codes for women are based on the idea that men cannot look at women without sexual desire. Perhaps you would like to adsress the question they refused to touch yesterday. Why is it that restrictions are placed on women to deal with men's behavior and thoughts?

And finally you have still not addressed a point that I think is worth noting again - why are the dress restrictions on women much more severe than those on men? What is it about a woman showing her hair that is so overtly sexual while a man showing his hair is perfectly fine?

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. How can you ever tell?

Whether or not the women have a choice? In a free society, they always have the option to walk away. They can walk away from family, husbands, religions and jobs.

But until they do that, you have to assume that what they wear is indeed their choice.

As for, "why is it that restrictions are placed on women to deal with men's behavior and thoughts?" It's backward, duh.

As you already know, in many more conservative or traditional groups, men still feel the need or desire to protect women from other men or themselves.

[VelmaD]

53. I love debating this kind of thing...

with people of good will who can have a disagreement without being disagreeable. :-) I also love it when one of these disagreements works itself to a point where we can agree on something really important. And I certainly do agree with the last two points you just made.

If you and I could figure out how to get men in "traditionl or conservative societies" to let go of that need to "protect" women we would get the Nobel prize and they'd erect statues of us. Or they'd crucify us. :shrug:

It has been a joy to talk with you. Today has been one of those days that reminds me of why I love DU. I hope it has been fun for you and that I didn't offend you anywhere along the line.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Many women feel the same in traditional societies

It is their right to do so. It's much like women staying at home or choosing to work. Both are viable options as long as they get to choose.

Yes, it has been fun and relatively mellow. :)

[VelmaD]

55. It's a very hard row to hoe...

for women (and men) in those traditional societies to step outside of the traditions. At best you are ostracized and mocked...at worst you may be killed. Hell, it can still be pretty hard here in the allegedly "enlightened" West to be different. Our own history in the West is full of people who were ahead of their time and tried to step outside of hidebound tradition only to be slapped down hard. Amelia Bloomer and the early movement for pants on women in the US comes to mind. It takes a long time but societies have to move and grow - if you stagnate for too long you die. So I hold out hope of progress - for all of us. I just get het up sometimes thinking about what people are having to endure to get there.

I said this to someone on the thread yesterday in GD and I think it goes for you too. I like you. If this qualifies as fun and "relatively mellow" for you then you'd fit right in with my family. :-)

[PsychoDad]

65. That was me :)

You said
"for women (and men) in those traditional societies to step outside of the traditions. At best you are ostracized and mocked...at worst you may be killed. Hell, it can still be pretty hard here in the allegedly "enlightened" West to be different"

That's very true.
It can be very hard sometimes here in the "enlightened" west for a woman to wear a hijab in public, of her own choice, due to the pressure of the western norm, and the perception that she is somehow lesser for it.

A personal note-
My wife wears hijab of her own choice. (no, I didn't beat her or force her to eat brussel sprouts until she wore it :silly:) She decided to wear it after her conversion to Islam. She sees the hijab as an outward sign of her faith, not of any sort of oppression. I was a bit aprehensive about it myself. After 9/11, I was afraid that it might mark my wife and bring about abuse. Wishing to protect her, I told her that it did not matter to me if she wore it. "Please don't do it for me", I pleaded. I wanted to protect her, to keep her safe from the "enlightened" west.
"I understand", she replied, "I'm also a little afraid, but I wear this for myself and for my Allah, and because I am a Muslim".

BTW- I like you too :)
Peace

[DuctapeFatwa]

56. Neither of you is willing to empower the women to make that determination

for themselves. Remember the Taliban is certain that the only reason you display your hair publicly is because you are forced to do so because you have been brainwashed by godless and corrupt people who seek only to make you into a sexual object.

They simply do not believe that you are capable of deciding for yourself whether to let other people see your hair, or cover it with a scarf.

The problem with making either exposed hair or scarves mandatory is that laws apply to everybody, unless you want to make a law that applies only to one religious or ethnic group, and say that you have the freedom to wear a scarf as a fashion accessory, or because you accidentally dyed your hair purple last night, but your neighbor who is a Muslim, or a conservative Christian, or not particularly religious at all, but from a culture in which wearing a scarf is a cultural tradition, cannot have that freedom.

All societies treat men and women differently, in their own ways. Why is it acceptable for a woman in the US to wear a lacy frilly blouse but a man who wears one in the same workplace environment would get a very different reaction?

Among people who do wear scarves for religious reasons, you can often hear the argument made that since the purpose of the scarf is not to call attention to the woman, that Muslim women in the west who do wear it are defeating the purpose, as more attention will be paid to a woman wearing one than to a woman who is not.

I remember reading something once by a very conservative Orthodox Jewish woman who when she married, as is the custom among some Jewish people, shaved her head and covered with a wig. This particular woman did not have beautiful hair - it was a dull, mousy color, frizzy and flyaway, and did not respond positively to any hairstyling strategy. The wig, however, was beautiful in color and texture, and very attractively styled. Her question: if the point of shaving your head and covering it after marriage is to avoid the impression that you are trying to make yourself beautiful for the public, why in the world did her culture now oblige her to walk around looking much more attractive and desirable than she ever had with her own hair?

So the gender-related aspects of it that trouble you are not things that CAN be legislated, either by France or the Taliban.

The Taliban can make you wear a burka, but they cannot make you interpret the Koran and/or hadith as saying that you are disobeying God if you do not.

If I were able to "enlighten" the Taliban, my wish would be that they would consider that God is more concerned with what is inside your head than what is on it, and that would also be my wish for anyone who would tell you or any woman, what she can or cannot wear.

I agree with you that sexism exists, in the east and in the west, but codifying laws that specify how women can dress is not going to diminish it.

On the other hand, sending a societal message that something as superficial as whether a woman's head is covered with a scarf, a baseball hat, or whatever that was that Posh Spice had on hers last week, or not covered at all, is one of the least important and significant things for anybody to be concerned about has the potential to help today's little boys grow up to be men who could care less whether their wives or daughters wear scarves or Wisconsin cheesehats on their heads.

Even if France does not send men into the streets to beat women wearing scarves, if wearing them is banned, and women who do are sent home from school, from work, for exercising their freedom to dress as they see fit, the difference is minimal. While I am unequivocally opposed to beating anyone, man or woman, the emotional damage, the violation of the woman's right to choose for herself is the same. The only difference is whether she is punished physically or emotionally and economically. I am opposed to punishing women at all for what they wear, on moral grounds as well as practical ones.

It is hard to imagine that France is blessed with such a surfeit of law enforcement resources that it can easily afford to enforce a clothing prohibition on millions of women.

As for women who really don't want to wear hijab but do so to please parents or other family members, they need your support for their freedom to choose most of all!

There are western women who may love to wear short skirts and crop tops, but when they go to see their elderly grandparents, they don't. They CHOOSE to make a concession to the preferences of their grandparents, and it would be hard to find anyone who would want to pass a law saying that they MUST be attired in short skirt and crop top every time they go out the door!

It is unlikely that the grandparents are going to change, they are set in their ways, and why would anyone want to prevent their granddaughter from refraining from upsetting them when she goes to visit?

How many schoolgirls wait to put on that lipstick and eye shadow until they are out of the sight of mothers who think they are too young, or that it looks slutty?

You are correct that far too much emphasis is put on what women wear, and far too many people, both men and women, would like to control it. I am inviting you to leave their ranks :)

[Paschall]

57. DuctapeFatwa, you're really getting rather carried away

This ban ONLY applies to primary and secondary school students and to French civil servants, and ONLY while they are in school or on the job.

Apart from those restrictions, everyone is free to wear whatever they wish.

[DuctapeFatwa]

75. LOL do you think so?

Well, I'll wait till someone proposes that US students and government employees be required by law to wear head coverings when they are in school or on the job and see how carried away you get :)

[Paschall]

81. Do you mean when the law might affect me personally?

I'm in France and the law being discussed here already affects me personally. And I support it--at least the ban on religious symbols in French state establishments.

[DuctapeFatwa]

82. I mean when someone says that you or your sister/wife/daughter

mother MUST wear a scarf on her head when she is at work or at school, or be sent home.

[Paschall]

84. Well, my sister has been a food worker and that's already happened to her

In that case, I supported her employer's position. A scarf or cap is required wear when you work with food.

You're not making much of a point here--or beating very widely around the bush.

[DuctapeFatwa]

88. Food service sanitation rules are not the issue here

I understand that you feel very strongly that women should not wear head scarves.

I believe that you should have the right to express that view, and if you are female, you should have the right to NEVER wear a head scarf, and to openly advocate women who do wear them taking them off. Letters to editors, billboards, print flyers, hold meetings. All your right.

What I oppose is passing laws that say that you HAVE to wear one - that if you do not wear a scarf to school or to your civil service job - you will be sent home.

[Paschall]

91. You're misreading me

I DO NOT "feel very strongly that women should not wear head scarves."

I feel very strongly that church and state should be separated.

The food sanitation rules comparison is perfectly relevant. A cannery must be kept free of disease and contamination. Similarly I think schools and other state establishments must be kept free of religion. (Please note, I'm not comparing religion to disease!) But the comparison is valid because such rules apply only on the job and at the workplace. The French state controls canneries very carefully, but it does not visit cannery workers' homes to ensure that these employees are good housekeepers. The same applies to hijab. Off limits at school. But what you do on your private time is no one's business but your own.

"What I oppose is passing laws that say that you HAVE to wear one - that if you do not wear a scarf to school or to your civil service job - you will be sent home."

I really don't understand how that is pertinent. No one is advocating what you so forcibly oppose--at least not in France. Though you may find such rules currently being enforced in Afghanistan, for example.

[DuctapeFatwa]

92. You are still trying to have a different argument

Church and state has nothing to do with it, unless you are suggesting that the French law would permit the wearing of scarves for non-religious reasons?

I think you know that sanitation regulations have nothing to do with this discussion. Doctors must wear gloves when performing surgery, but I do not think that you can extrapolate an argument that the absence or presence of a head scarf in an office or a classroom has the same public health implications as hair falling into your soup or bacteria falling into your surgical incision.

I am assuming that "sent home" would be the punishment for breaking the law forbidding headscarves. Is it your understanding that the penalty would involve fines or imprisonment? My opposition to mandating womens' dress also extends to punishing women in any way for their clothing choices.

[Paschall]

94. I'm trying to debate the real issue at hand

Church and state.

Can you please explain the purpose or logic of your question in this context?

As I understand the situation here in France, the law would probably require mediation between the student and school authorities. If the student refused to change his/her dress, he/she would be expelled. Civil service employees who refused to abide by the law would be placed on mandated leave.

"My opposition to mandating womens' dress also extends to punishing women in any way for their clothing choices."

I'll repeat my question below: How do you feel about girls being sent home from school for breaking dress codes establishing minimum skirt length?

[DuctapeFatwa]

100. You are not going to like this, but

I have had this same argument, almost word for word, on more than one occasion with people who share a lot of ideology with the Taliban and think that they are the best thing to ever come out of Pashtunistan since gunpowder first showed up in Dara Adem Khel.

The only difference is - they argue for - you argue against. The arguments themselves are mirror twins.

So one more time, it's not about church and state.

There are women who are not religious at all who prefer to wear scarves for purely cultural reasons. Remember head coverings have been around since long before Mr and Mrs Abraham first exchanged a smile across a crowded tent.

Then there are women who like to wear them sometimes, just for the hell of it, for the same reasons they may decide to wear blue one day and green the next day, or they don't like their hair one day, and want to cover it up, or they think a particular scarf looks good with - come on, you can't expect me to explain all THAT - the pertinent part is that it has nothing to do with religion.

But your concern is that for some women, the scarf does have a religious significance, and that displeases you.

The problem is that laws being what they are, unless you intend to make them sign an affadavit or something affirming that their headwear choice is made for reasons secular and not sacred, or apply the law only to certain religious groups (which if you do, you are going to run into some trouble since all 3 versions of the Abrahamic OS have some adherents who have head-covering related beliefs and you will end up, again, like the Taliban, making Hindus and Sikhs wear special badges) the law applies to everybody.

If the state wishes to ban the public wearing of any religious symbol, be it a Crucifix, Star of David, Crescent, whatever, that would be a law that I disagreed with, and on essentially the same principle. I believe that Jews should have the right to wear yarmulkes where and when they choose to wear them, and Christians should have the right to dangle all the little crosses and scapulars that their necks will hold, but in terms of passing laws about it, the head scarf may be a religious symbol, or it may not be, so not only is it a bad law, it is an impossible law!

You can neither require nor ban headscarves worn for religious reasons and permit those worn (or not worn) for secular reasons, without requiring or banning them completely, and so now we have left the Church and State building and entered the place that I have been trying to tell you we are - legislating women's clothing!

[Paschall]

105. Okay, let's look at your arguments.

Essentially, you are making two arguments. It's not particularly important that they are somewhat self-contradictory.

You oppose a ban on "ostentatious" religious symbols in school--particularly hijeb or what we're loosely referring to as "headscarves"--because you feel (1) it violates individual freedom and (2) that such a ban would be impractical or unenforceable. "Impossible" I think you called the law.

You state your first argument most succintly thus, "What I am debating is whether the state - any state ... - has any business mandating women either wearing scarves on their heads or not wearing them... {T}he question here is very simple and very specific - whether a state should mandate whether women wear scarves or do not."

However, you've acknowledged that students and workers do not have an absolute right to "vestimentary expression" in school or on the job, because you've accepted the principle that local school boards and employers can dictate dress codes for discipline, safety, health, and other reasons. So, you would have to admit that (1) it is sometimes the state's business--the state does exercise authority regarding--what women wear and, further, (2) the state should, and does rightly, exercise that authority to mandate what women wear at certain times.

Next, you argue, the nature of headscarves, fashion, and unpredictable hair make the law impractical and unenforceable, because you say (1) scarves have been worn since times immemorial and (2) women do not always wear scarves today for religious reasons.

Okay, let's back up here a second: The presidential commission report in the article speaks of "ostentatious" religious symbols. That or similar wording will surely be included in the bill when it submitted for parliamentary debate. This same wording was used in a decree issued years ago by the Ministry of National Education on this very question.

If the meaning of "ostentatious"--or the distinction between "religious" and "secular" scarves--isn't spelled out in the legislation, jurisprudence will define it. But clearly there's a difference between (1) a monochrome head covering designed to be worn attached at the chin and hanging in a rounded line over the breastline and upper back and (2) a printed square of silk or cotton knotted around the head and hair. At some point a "scarf" symbolizes religion.

It's like woven leather shoes. You can weave a shoe loose ("ostentatious") enough that at some point it becomes open-toed. Schools and employers often ban open-toed shoes to prevent accidents; I'm sure few--if any--also ban "generic" woven shoes.

So, I feel confident that (1) definitions and enforcement rules will be spelled out in parliamentary debate or the courts as usual with any legislation, and (2) the defintion will be specific enough to allow women to continue to rely on scarves--as they have for millennia--as fashion accents and bad hair fixes (whether it be for chemotherapy hair loss or just frizzy weather).

What's odd is that you've not made perhaps the most important argument against this ban: that it could be viewed as a violation of individual religious freedom. In fact, you've avoided all direct dialogue about religious freedom, except to imply that my support of secularism is motivated by anti-religious feeling. As you do when you say, "But your concern is that for some women, the scarf does have a religious significance, and that displeases you."

No, that doesn't displease me. What displeases me is that some women and girls feel the scarf has a religious significance which supercedes their obligations as civil servants, representatives, or minor pupils of a secular republic.

So we're back at square one. Do you support the separation of church and state?

ON EDIT: And, yes, I still don't like your Taliban comparison. There is a fundamental difference between a regime that thrusts invasive religious authority into every sphere of collective and individual life, and another which guarantees freedom of religion but prohibits its encroachment into certain well-limited activities involving public funds and employees. You're not the only one on this thread who's done it, but equating secularists with religious tyrants is the oldest rightwing spin in the book. Can't you all do better than that?

[PsychoDad]

66. DF- Well said.

:)

[DuctapeFatwa]

76. Thanks! :)

I was wondering when you would show up
:hi:

[Paschall]

59. The comparison with the Taliban is rather offensive

But I'll try to answer your concerns anyway. The French government's goal is not to change anyone's opinion, faith, or belief. French law guarantees those individual rights in no uncertain terms--much more clearly than does the US Constitution, in fact.

Nor is the idea merely to make girls and women to submit to this legislation for the sheer purpose of inculcating submission. On the contrary.

To speak only of schools, French law holds that all students are equal and the state is obligated to provide all students an equal education. Allowing religion into school, in the form of hijab for example, opens the door to other intrusions of faith in what is supposed to be an egalitarian environment.

Encouraged by fundamentalist parents or faith communities, a number of Muslim girls have already started refusing to participate in biology classes (where sex education is discussed), physical education (because they must wear shorts or short sleeves), or other mixed-gender activities. I suppose some here would say, "If that is their religion, then they should be excused from these classes and activities." I'm sorry, but I disagree strongly.

We know that most female Muslim students in French public schools want to be protected from this creeping fundamentalism, which seems to be exercing increasing pressure on them, particularly over the past five years. They want to be free to participate fully in school because they know that as a disadvantaged minority, education is their surest path to upward social mobility.

I think it's Muddle who says on this thread, if the girls don't want to wear hijab they can refuse, just walk away. That remark displays a total lack of understanding of sexism, particularly in a fundamentalist community. An adolescent girl simply does not leave her home because her parents (father) insists she wear hijab. The notion is preposterous. And forcing her to do so for her own freedom is condemning her to certain peril.

[DuctapeFatwa]

74. Legislating women's clothing is indeed offfensive

whether done by the Taliban or France.

I understand that both Taliban and proponents of the French law feel very strongly that their way is best.

I feel very strongly that freedom of choice is best.

Unlike you, I don't claim to know what is in the hearts of millions of girls in France.

What I do know is that you are correct, passing laws will not change anyone's beliefs. It didn't work that way for the Taliban and it won't work that way for France.

Your best hope for helping girls in the situation you describe does not lie in mirroring Taliban strategy.

You mention some very valid points that are unrelated to clothing. I agree that in France, as well as in the US and other places, there are parents with some ideas about their kids' education that neither you nor I agree with, and if you want to start another thread on US Christian fundamentalists putting their kids in segregation academies or "homeschooling" them in creationist science and the Jerry Falwell version of religious history and Pat Robertson's theory of the effect of sexual preference on weather patterns, I will be happy to discuss it with you and explore solutions.

But right now all we are talking about is whether the state - any state - should either require or forbid the wearing of scarves by females.

[Paschall]

80. No the question is not scarves and women's right to choose

You are framing the debate inaccurately. This legislation is about preserving the secularity of the French state. So the question that has to be answered is: Do you believe in separation of church and state? Headscarves are just the topical anecdote in 2003. In the France of 1905, the topical issues were crucifixes and religion classes in public schools. Regardless, the fundamental question remains the same. Secularity.

As I've mentioned, outside their public school classrooms, French girls are free to dress as they please--the choice remains theirs.

I do not pretend to know what is in the hearts of millions of French school girls; I only know what I read in the French press, and what I hear Muslim women say on French television and radio. And what my French Muslim neighbors say. Which--while it doesn't make me perfectly informed about every Muslim girl in France--probably gives me a leg up on the coverage you're getting in the States.

Yes, your Taliban comparison is offensive. Imagine if the girls of Afghanistan had been protected by laws that ensured their schools and their nation were strictly secular. There would have been no Taliban. Nor does France risk having a Taliban-like regime--be it Muslim or Catholic--if we French do not abandon our ideal of a secular republic.

ON EDIT: By the way, if I'm not mistaken, dress codes are very common in US schools, and they extend so far as to define the acceptable length of skirts, hair, sideburns, and midrif-hugging tops. And aren't black trench coats and "gang wear" banned in many schools. Where's the "choice" there?

[DuctapeFatwa]

85. That is exactly what it is - legislating scarves on women's heads

What you wish to debate, and I am not singling you out, you are not alone - but what you wish to debate is whether the scarves should be obligatory or forbidden, and your reasons for supporting the compulsion.

What I am debating is whether the state - any state - whether it is a state you find offensive or admirable, whether it is the Taliban or the French government - has any business mandating women either wearing scarves on their heads or not wearing them.

I am equally opposed to both.

I am in favor of each woman's right to choose to wear a scarf or not, in school, at work, on the street, wherever.

I do not care WHY she makes the choice she does, whether she is motivated by religion, culture, or spur of the moment frenzy.

Nor do I care WHY the Taliban says she MUST wear one, nor why France says she must NOT.

All of those things are worthy of discussion in their own right, however the question here is very simple and very specific - whether a state should mandate whether women wear scarves or do not.

[Paschall]

89. So what is your feeling about dress codes in US schools...

...if you wish to put it on the level of clothing and ignore all religious connotation (which seems ridiculous, but whatever)?

[DuctapeFatwa]

95. This should really be a separate thread, but here goes

First of all, the term "dress code" is a broad one, and can range from the minimal (decently covered) to the very restrictive (uniforms).

Personally, I'm not crazy about the idea of uniforms, for a variety of reasons, but if it is a private school, it is private property, just as your house is, and if I support your freedom to refuse entry to your home to anyone who is not wearing a large plush animal head, I can hardly turn around and oppose the freedom of a private school to make all the children wear horrid little polyester shorts.

In a public school, it gets more complicated, because on the one hand, the public school is getting us dangerously close to the actual topic, which is whether the state should mandate clothing, but thanks to the American reluctance to have government provide any more social services than it can help, the spectre of the taxpayers having to pony up for millions of pairs of horrid little shorts for the millions of kids whose parents can't afford them, the US has been spared the spectre of public school uniforms mandated by law on a large scale.

If that did happen, I would be opposed to it, and on the same grounds as I am opposed to head scarves being legislated as on or off, respectively, by the Taliban and France.

[Paschall]

98. You did not really address my question

The issue of uniforms is public schools is a diversion.

What about locally mandated (public school board established) rules that YOUR shirt must be buttoned, that YOUR pants must not be shorter than the calf, that YOUR trenchcoat must not be black? That you cannot wear YOUR 12 earrings in each ear?

Such rules exist all over the United States. And extend even to personal grooming (hair length, moustaches yes or no, etc.).

So?

By the way, the French have a HUGE aversion to uniforms. Postal employees don't even wear them; though postal unions have managed to get the state to fund coats for mail carriers--those coats are in "official" postal service colors and bear the logo.

[DuctapeFatwa]

101. I think that they are silly and counter-productive but not relevant

to this discussion. Here's why.

As you say, these are locally mandated rules enacted by a public school board, elected by the people who live in that community, and most of them have some kind of parent input mechanism in the rules adoption process, which means that in a school district where there are a lot of very conservative people, of whatever faith, it is extremely unlikely that any school board is going to get anything passed that would require, for example, boys to wear tank tops, and conversely in a community where most of the parents are more liberal, again, regardless of religion, the Miss Prims on the school board will probably have to content themselves with some vague reference to being neat and clean.

If anyone ever did lose their marbles so completely as to suggest that their be a NATIONAL dress code for public school students - a federal law on the subject of earrings and shirt buttons and skirt length - the draft process would be like Jarndyce vs Jarndyce - the great-grandchildren of today's teenagers would still be arguing out the language before any consensus was reached.

[Paschall]

102. Well, try looking at this from a less Americano-centric point of view

A few facts to refresh your memory: France is about two-thirds the size of Texas. It has a population a little less than twice that of California's.

That's to put in perspective what "national" legislation means here.

Meanwhile: France is not a federal nation like the United States. France has been a unified state with almost the same borders since the late 1400s, and for those six centuries, it has had a highly centralized governing authority. That is why I have trouble understanding your apparent shock over this proposed legislation being national.

All major decisions affecting France's schools, teachers, and educational policy are made by the central government, the Ministry of the Education and the National Assembly, with input from students' and teachers' unions and parents' associations. Curricula, textbook approvals, teacher certification requirements and employment contracts, and even high school graduation exams are all issued by the same, central authority--meaning Paris. In fact, late every spring, all French highschoolers nationwide sit down on at the same time, on the same day to answer the same questions prepared by the Ministry of National Education for their high school diploma. So, in France, there's nothing extraordinary about this issue being the subject of national legislation or the central authority exercising power over the nation's schools in this way.

You suggest that, in the United States, such a measure would be problematic. Actually it would be unconstitutional. Because--if you've taken a look at it recently--the US Constitution puts educational authority within the power of the states. The federal government only manages to influence state educational policy thanks to 200 years of accumulated jurisprudence and Congressional control of federal school funding.

France works differently. I don't think that should be a problem for you. Nor is it an valid argument against this proposed "national dress code."

And, despite what you suggest, citizen/parent input has not prevented hundreds of school authorities around the US from legislating what students can and cannot where. It is irrelevant whether those bodies are prevented from becoming ideological sounding boards by the limited size of their jurisdictions and mechanisms that allow parent/student lobbying on policy issues. The fact is that they do have--and there's jurisprudence on the question--authority to set limits on what is acceptable clothing specifically in an educational setting. Students have no absolute right to wear whatever they wish in school. Period.

Nor for that matter do employees at the workplace, as legislation concerning food sanitation and the legal responsibility of medical practioners shows.

[PsychoDad]

64. I'm sorry, but...

The muslim "dress code" is not "vastly" differnt between men and women. Both are expected to dress modestly. Both sexes do have differnt standards, tis true, but the same holds true in the west. In the west men are not expected to wear dresses, bikini tops, halter tops, or bras. Women are expected to wear a covering over their breasts while men can roam freely bare chested, except perhaps in resturants. Yes, western society opresses women by forcing them to wear a covering over their breasts in public. Yet, I have yet to hear any one advocate that womwn be forced to go without a shirt in order to liberate her from the sexism of the society.
And let us remember that these "dress codes" differ from country to country. In some places it is considered "improper dress" for a man to go out without his turban or kufi, and muslim men are also encouraged to grow a beard. In some muslim majority countries the culture mandates the berqa and others wouldn't give a second glance at a woman in a mini skirt without a hijab.

Let us place the blame for sexism where it belongs, on the culture, not the religion. This is the case once again where the religion is being used as a scapegoat. Please remember Islam is not a monolithic religion, there are many variations and flavors, as in Christanity. We Muslims may have One God, but we have many ideas and opinions.

[Paschall]

87. No Islam is not monolithic

My female African Muslim neighbors always keep their hair covered, but often do their housework bare-chested. In any event, the majority of Muslim women in France support this ban.

And I must disagree: this proposed legislation is not scapegoating religion--it is simply drawing a line beyond which religion and religious expression is prohibited. That line is at the entrance of public schools and at the employees' entrance to French state establishments (post offices, courts, etc.) Those who don't wish to abide by that rule can choose private schools (much more affordable than in the US) and choose not to become civil servants of the French Republic.

[Cheswick2.0]

67. Velma, you keep missing the point

what you are saying is you can choose to wear a scarf or not. Why do you favor forcing Muslim women to give up wearing them?
I'll put my feminist credentials up against anyone on this board. But it is not feminism that is driving your opinon on this, it is intolerance and misunderstanding. We are not talking about women being forced to wear head dress in a muslim country. We are talking about women in supposedly free countries who are being discriminated against because of nothing more than bigotry against muslims.

[NashVegas]

73. If You Think It's *Totally* About Choice

Then you must have missed, last winter, the NY Times article about how teenage Muslim girls (immigrants) in a particular pocket of France were being attacked by Muslim boys for not wearing headdress.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Nice

But what if they don't want such liberation? What if a woman chooses to wear a crucifix? What gives you the right to enforce that opinion on her/

[VelmaD]

27. Wearing a crucifix is different...

from wearing a head scarf. The scarf is not a symbol of the muslim faith. As was repeatedly noted in the GD thread on this topic yesterday - what is considered modest dress for women varies greatly from one muslim population to the next - muslim women in Indonesia have no dress requirement while women in some Middle Eastern countries are forced to be covered from head to toe with only their eyes showing. It is not a religious matter so much as a cultural one.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. I disagree

Both are being banned by the French here as expressions of religion. I support people having the right to express their own religion -- either through headscarves or crucifixes.

[VelmaD]

31. Actually they aren't...

banning crucifixes...just large, ostentatious ones. People can still wear small religious jewelry at school.

The one thing that does bother me is that the French are casting this as being about religion. I would be a lot happier if their publicly stated reasons included sexism.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. If I can wear it, I am entitled to

And it IS about religion and the state has no business telling women what they can wear.

[VelmaD]

34. No, it is about culture

I have said it before and I will say it again. Whether a muslim woman wears the scarf or a veil or a chador or has no dress requirement at all depends entirely on what culture she some from. All that is required by the Koran is that both men and women dress modestly. It is blatant sexism that the requirements for what is modest for a woman are much much stricter than what is modest for a man.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Religion is practiced differently in different places

Are you telling these women they are wrong? What gives you or France that right?

[VelmaD]

41. What gives the religious leaders...

(all men I might add) the right to tell them what to wear either?

If you are so vehemently opposed to the French government telling muslim women they cannot wear the head scarf in some public venues then I better see you out there agitating against the governments that require that they do wear it. And honestly, which one is really worse. Which one is really discriminating against women? Which one is more worthy of our time and energy to fight them?

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. You answered your own question

You said the term, "religious leaders." By the very definition, THAT gives them the authority to tell believers what they should wear.

Personally, I am opposed to forcing women to either wear something they wish not to or not wear something they wish. I oppose both equally. Saudi Arabia and other Muslim lands oppress women horribly. I do not wish to see France emulate that oppression.

[VelmaD]

47. I just finished responding to...

a similar implication that this made France as bad as the most draconian muslim country. I'd refer you to my post #44.

And btw, I totally disagree with you that religious leaders who are univerally men should be allowed to tell their women co-religionists what to wear. (I feel the same way about the all-male clergy of the Catholic church naving the nerve to have an opinion on birth control.) I especially feel this way when the clergy is also in charge of making the secular laws for a country.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. They have a choice

I responded to the one, but as long as they wish to worship in a religion, then they are probably following the dictates of the leaders. Female Catholics might not like the lack of female priests, so they have an option. They can try and chance the church internally, or they can leave.

[Paschall]

60. Why do you care what the French do?

Is it because you're really concerned about women's oppression?

The French law is designed precisely to relieve Muslim girls from oppressive fundamentalist practices--at least during the hours they spend in class.

Imagine how different the lives of Saudi Arabian girls would be if they could enjoy the same religion-free environment in their schools.

[Paschall]

62. France is a secular republic

"You said the term, "religious leaders." By the very definition, THAT gives them the authority to tell believers what they should wear."

Religious leaders do not have the authority to dictate what can and what cannot happen in public institutions in France. That's the very definition of a secular state.

In any event, at least one religious leader, the Grand Mufti of Marseilles who directs one of France's largest Muslim communities, supports a legislative ban on religious symbols in French schools and state establishments.

[lapislzi]

21. Why only women? Why not men?

I propose requiring all men to wear codpieces. This will save time at the checkout.

:evilgrin:

[GinaMaria]

83. skull caps are banned too

I believe these are worn only by men.

[Paschall]

58. This ban on ostentatious religious symbols...

...in schools and state establishments is meant to keep religion strictly out of these zones. That is all.

Your comparison with banning pants on women (1) assumes this ban in France is all-encompassing, which it is not; (2) considers all the symbols that are part of this ban as simple articles clothing, which they most definitely are not.

There is a great deal of difference--in a country that has spent centuries, and spilled a lot of blood, erecting a wall between church and state--between a female postal worker wearing pants and the same state employee wearing a veil or large crucifix.

Your questions are rather ridiculous, but to make it clear, the articles are what is banned; it makes no difference if a Christian girl is wearing hijab or an atheist is wearing a kippa. They are free to believe whatever they want; that right is guaranteed by the French Constitution. But ostentatious articles of clothing or jewelry that symbolize religious faith do not belong in the French public schools or state institutions.

I've said it before: the majority of Muslim women in France want this legislation to ban hijab in schools and among French civil servants.

[Cheswick2.0]

68. What is the difference between this and the USSR?

It sounds like anti-religious bigotry is rampant in the french government.
Here in the US we don't seem to have the same problems with rampant anti semitism and anti-Islamic bigotry... oh we have some recently I admit due to 9-11. But in general we are comfortable with religious diversity. Freedom of religion (not freedom from ever knowing someone's religion exists)is writen into our laws. It seems to work well for us.

I see what France is doing as backwards. As long as someone is not trying to covert me or telling me I am going to hell because I don't follow their religion, I couldn't care less what they are wearing at school.

PS... some of the muslim boys around here wear those knit caps (I don't know what they are called)to school and they look adorable. The girls in their head scarfs look the same. If they are being forced by their parents they will soon enough rebel and seeing me everyday without a scarf on my head and because as a teacher I am a role model, they will be free to chose for themselves. They will choose, not the government. Enforced secularism is no better than forced religion.

[Paschall]

77. Cheswick

"It sounds like anti-religious bigotry is rampant in the french government."

It may sound like a lot of things to an uninformed observer.

Freedom of religion is written into the French Constitution as well--but the state remains secular, and state institutions must abide by that rule.

At the turn of the century when the state and church were officially separated, the Catholic Church screamed about anti-religious "bigotry" then, too. Those accusations are not particularly new, and this legislation--if you see that it targets ALL religious symbols--is not anti-Islamic.

Try reading this essay on the history of secularism in France for a greater understanding of the French situation, and why our conception of secularism differs so sharply from the American.
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/secular.asp

[NashVegas]

78. The Thing to Worry About, IMO

Is that France - and every other society that's currently worried about the growth of fundamentalism - needs to come up with a strategy that allows for freedom of religion but also asserts that the society will not allow its governing principles to be subverted into a theocracy.

[Paschall]

79. Read the link I just posted above

"The Secular Principle." It's designed exactly for that purpose. Freedom of religion and conscience are guaranteed--strictly--by French law. And as I mention above, they are so well protected, the government can't even ask citizens any questions--even for census purposes--about their religion.

[playahata1]

110. The Muslim boys' caps are called KUFIS.

n/t

[supernova]

90. Is there a link for this?

the majority of Muslim women in France want this legislation to ban hijab in schools and among French civil servants

Not disbelieving you here. This is the first time I've heard anyone mention what the majority of French muslim women want. If this is the case, then the ban should stand.

[Paschall]

93. Well, polls are not democratic of course

But I do think that particular poll was telling.

Sorry, I don't have a link, but this poll result has been bandied about repeatedly in the French press recently. If I come across a link, I'll let you know.

Another interesting statistic: Of the 3-6 million Muslims in France, only 25% practice the religion.

[BonjourUSA]

96. I believe that's lesser than 25%

that's lesser than 25%

I read some stats between 8 an 15%. The muslim youth practices as catho (very few)

Je pensais bien te trouver sur ce débat... Et tu te débrouilles plutôt bien... Courage, je fuis.

[Paschall]

99. Merci

Et MERCI! :-)

(Je vais commencer à t'appeler "l'anglais" puisque tu en prends le chemin... celui vers la sortie si souvent! ;-))

[bobbieinok]

38. heard in 90-01 on NPR that Islam is the 2nd largest religious

group in France.

1 = Roman Catholic

2 = Muslim

3 = Protestant

[Paschall]

61. True

Protestants are a tiny minority. Probably outnumbered by atheists.

[cap]

69. this must be seen in the French context...

the French have historically limited religious displays in school because of the overwelming influence of the Catholic church. This move arises from the anti-clerical movement and has spread onto Muslim society.

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. The French context

Liberte, Egalite, Conformite.

Do what the state orders, or else.

[GinaMaria]

86. It effects the French Jewish population too

I'm not sure of the specific problems the French are trying to address. I've heard people talk about disruptions in schools. I'm not sure if something specific was going on. I wonder like others, if this will lead to private schools based on religeon and cause more of a separation of different religeons/cultures in France than a separation of religeon and state. They are a different culture than us and the effects of a move like this may be very different than if it happened here. I'm taking a wait and see approach.

[Djinn]

103. a few points

I'm a bit in two minds on this so rather than re-hash everything above I'll just make a few different points:

* How does a girl on my left wearing the veil and a boy on my right wearing a skull cap affect the seperation of church and state - the only problem surely is if the state pushes one ideology above/beyond another - the church and state can still be seperated without these rules

* VelmaD - if you have read the Koran I think you need to read it again because you keep stating stuff that's factually wrong - and seem to misinterpret other info - eg the wearing of the veil - whether it IS mandated by the Koran or not is a subject for debate amongst muslims and scholars. The HIjab is mentioned several times and is again referred to in the Hadith of Sahih al-Boukhari (people often forget the Hadiths and focus completely on the Koan)Much like the Bible it is IMPOSSIBLE to 100% accurately deduce what was intended - it was written down a thousand years ago and has been translated back and forth - things get lost. The point isn't really whether it is or isnt mandated (btw the bible still suggests it for women) the point is how people feel about it.

* what is the outcome of this rule for those muslim women who ARE forced to wear the hijab - do you think their fathers/brothers etc are suddenly going to change generations of chauvanism and say "well the govt says you have to so take it off and off you go"???

No they will keep their daughters/wives/sisters at home by force - their will be NO change in the status of those who choose as they have always had the choice.

[Paschall]

106. Hi

I'm not going to re-hash everything either. But I will respond to two of your remarks.

First, about keeping "daughters/wives/sisters at home by force." In any of those cases, the father would be violating French law. Schooling is obligatory in France; sequestering anyone is a human rights violation, and pressuring your wife never to leave the house is considered spousal abuse. The law's purpose is not to change minds, but to set limits and affirm rights and obligations.

Second, about the girl on your left and the boy on the right: You've got it from the American angle, hence your reasoning "the only problem surely is if the state pushes one ideology above/beyond another." The French secular principle goes a little farther. It not only decrees that there is no state relgion and that no one can be discriminated against on the basis of their faith, it also affirms that no one can be discriminated against because they do not adhere to a religion. In the French view religion and faith are private issues of individual conscience. Expressions of faith in what is supposed to be an egalitarian, republican (as in French Republic) environment violate that rule. Its cost us a lot to get that line drawn, and we know the wickedness that is unleashed when the line gets blurred.

Or you could put it another way, what we're talking about is that the only recognized authority in state establishments like public schools and civil service workplaces is the French Republic. Other authorities may not enter--or may enter only privately and discretely through non-ostentatious signs and in the hearts and minds of the faithful.

Remember we're talking about the same principle that makes any mention of religion, faith, or God taboo in French politics. The Bible has only made one appearance in the French National Assembly in recent years, and the rightwing, fundamentalist Catholic parliamentarian who brandished it there caused an uproar and was chastised by her own conservative party for crossing the yellow line.

[Spentastic]

108. Well said Paschall

You've said everything I'd want to say but better than I could.

The implication that the French are somehow Talibanesque is so absurd as to be laughable.

The Taliban's existence was predicated on the belief that the power of religion is greater than that of the state, this position must never occur in a secular state.

A applaud the French for their efforts and hope that a public debate ensures that complete separation continues to be a key component of the French state.

[Orangeone]

111. I agree

That they aren't the Taliban, but it's kind of sad that the French feel so threatened by diversity that they have to repress religious expression. In a way, the French are promoting secularism as the state religion.

Also, I don't understand why the hijab is such a hot button issue with "Western" women. Just because some feminists think it's oppressive doesn't mean it is to a lot of Muslim women.

[BonjourUSA]

112. Because it's our style of life and...

we live very peacefully without religious mess neither in our mind nor in our institutions. And want to continue like that.

The great majority of French Muslim asks a law against all the religious symbols in the public school !!

[Paschall]

113. Three quickies

1) France is not threatened by diversity, but it has a much different outlook on what it means to be an individual in a community. The law of the French Republic--though it represses hate and other crimes committed as forms of discrimination based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.--does not recognize any "minority" or "minority status" based on those criteria. The law thus does not recognize Jews, Blacks, or gays as groups provided any particular rights (I don't mean "special rights") or subject to any particular obligations. Which is not to deny that discrimination exist, but merely to say that the French Republic's ideal remains that of equality among citizens, and citizens who wear no other label but that one. That's why, for example, the French civil union law passed in 1999 made the same partnership option available to heterosexual couples. And that is no doubt why French marriage law will be opened up to gays in the nearish future.

2) No, the French are not promoting secularism, they are trying to enforce it. Read the article I linked to. The French did try to promote secularism as the state religion after the Revolution. That produced some rather inspired 18th century morality plays--or morality light operas, as it were.

3) I'm not sure whose mentioned "Western" women being opposed to hijab. I mentioned French Muslim women being opposed to it. Those were the feminists I was speaking of.

[Paschall]

114. Hey, Spentastic

Nice seeing you around.

Yes, the idea of Taliban France is laughable. Don't people watch Dior, Yves St. Laurent, and Jean-Paul Gaultier on the Fashion Channel? We get the collections on the evening news!

Thanks for the kind words. And quick, toss me my sequined burqa and my Louis-Vitton grenade launcher :evilgrin:

[Isere]

119. Thank you for the link and the excellent discussion

I'm so glad that there are some voices from France to clarify this situation. I lived in France for many years and understand their fierce devotion to the secular state. This concept is hard for Americans to grasp because religion is so integral to our public life. I applaud the French for trying to protect the secular state and wish them well, although I think it may be too late.

A Bonjour USA et a Paschall, grosses bises et mes meilleurs voeux de fin d'annee.

[BonjourUSA]

120. Merci, but I renouce to continue any discussion about this topic

I believe that's an impossible mission.

Paschall est beaucoup plus patient que moi et il manie mieux l'anglais.... Je lui souhaite donc bon courage.

[Isere]

121. Perhaps it is impossible, but don't give up

I have had some very heated discussions with friends and family about this issue and it is very difficult to convey the idea of a truly secular state to Americans. However, I would hope that someday we will work towards that ideal ourselves instead of further bringing religion into every aspect of our public life. Americans need to know that another model exists.

It should be said, however, that France gives financial support to private religious schools and in Alsace there is an exception to the strict secularism of other public schools. This was because of an accommodation made after WWII.

Your English is just fine, Bonjour. Joyeux Noel a tous et vive la Republique!

[rman]

109. Eu anti-semitism = 65% saying Israel is biggest threat for world peace

eu parlimentarians falling over themselves to distance themselves from this opinion of eu people because supposedly it is anti-semitism.
Looks like Sharon has got a lot of friends all over the place.

[drdigi420]

117. Is everyone missing the point?

While I'm not sure I agree with the ban, I think that a lot of people in this discussion are under the impression that this applies to all of France.

ITS JUST IN THE SCHOOLS AND GOVT OFFICES

People are still free to express their religion (no matter what cult they follow, be it christianity, islam, or fresh vegetables) outside of the public sector.

My personal belief on religious expression is it's akin to yelling "FIRE!" when there is none. Protected by free speech until it starts to harm others.

It seems to me that people that had REAL religious convictions would be perfectly fine keeping betweeen themselves and their diety. Obviously, most religious people seem perfectly comfortable expressing their 'personal' relationship with their 'god(s)' openly and in a very public, if not combative manner.

[ddye]

118. Hypocrisy?

Isn't it far left Democrats who want to ban wearing crosses and other Christian stuff in American schools?