France Bans Head Scarves In School

[dArKeR]

A law banning Islamic head scarves in France's public schools was adopted Wednesday in the Senate by a vote of 276-20.

The vote mirrored similar overwhelming support by the National Assembly, the lower chamber of parliament, which passed it 494-36 on Feb. 10.

President Jacques Chirac must now formally sign it into law within 15 days. He had said such a law was needed to protect the French principle of secularism.

The law forbids religious apparel and signs that "conspicuously show" a student's religious affiliation. Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses would also be banned, but the law is aimed at removing Islamic head scarves from classrooms.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/02/world/main597565.shtml

If they can ban scraves then surely ties should be banned too. What use are ties? And is make-up banned too?

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. Every single religious student should walk out

F--- them and their anti-religious bigotry.

[bicentennial_baby]

2. Yep

As much as it surprises me, i'm glad there is at least one issue we can agree on Muddle! :hi:

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Thanks

I honestly don't think taking away freedoms is a good way to secure them.

[Voice_of_Europe]

21. Religion only important for some few young people

You won't find many in Europe...
Religion is broadly seen as a source of conflict and war among the young here, so why bother talking about "my God is bigger than your God"...

Most believe in some sort of higher being/Karma/afte and in the concept of Good and Bad and basic human values... but they don't care who died on which cross or who was whose prophet...

And if you're religious than it's your own business to you and you don't push it into anybody elses face.



France of course has this special "problem" because of their long north african colonial history.. no other European country has so many islamic people in their daily life...

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Wearing a scarf

Is not pushing my religion in someone else's face. If they do not like the scarf, too bad.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

26. Well, I'll be damned.

First thing you've ever posted that I agree with (maybe the last but I hope not). As much as I can't stand religion. I have to say this is bullshit. It will acomplish nothing and it is a slap in the face of all these people. I would encourage them to walk out as well.

[PsychoDad]

39. Agreed Muddle...

There are some issues we don't see eye to eye on, but when it comes to civil rights and personal freedom, you are always spot on!

Peace

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sam7]

90. Good for France

France, and all of Europe, has a serious demographics problem. They have a huge muslim population that for whatever reason, refuses to assimilate. Due to low birthrates among native French and high immigrant birth rates it's projected that in 20 years the muslims will outnumber the native born French. Already in the Netherlands the most popular name for children is Mohamed.

The mulsims openly reject western values of democracy and womens' rights and have stated their wish to impose sharia law in Europe. The headscarf issue is an attempt to say to the muslims, "you are a guest and you'll abide by our rules".

[chimpy the poopthrower]

95. Thanks for not hiding your true feelings

I think your post sums up the true motivation behind this law pretty well.

[sam7]

100. The alternative

to making muslims adopt western values is sharia. That's all there is to it. Muslim leaders are on record as striving for an islamic republic in France. Would you want your sister, wife or mother to live in an islamic republic?

[chimpy the poopthrower]

101. We don't force Muslims in the U.S. to adopt Western values.

Does that mean the U.S. is going to become an Islamic republic?

[sam7]

107. The demographics are entirely different.

We aren't in the immediate danger that France and the rest of Europe are in. Additionally mulsims here have done a much better job of assimilating. In Europe they're concentrated in muslim enclaves with a culture all their own.

[PsychoDad]

122. France and the rest of Europe are in Danger?

From what, becoming muslim?
Losing their identity?

This is just another crusade.

Immigrants around the world tend to form communities around people like themselves. It is/was the same way in America. Little Italy, chinatown. Remember these places? There are enclaves of muslims in america also.

[Barkley]

108. How will banning headscarfs promote assimilations?

If anything the law seems to have antagonized relations between Muslims and the rest of French society.

Black Americans have gone out of their way to become "assimilated":

1. worship white Jesus
2. straighted their hair, noses, etc
3. speak english (only)
4. wear western clothes

But blacks are the least socially accepted racial group in the USA.

Of course France has a different culture.

But I suspect that many Blacks that have lived in France over the years have undergone an analogous cultural transformations as African Americans with relatively the same meager results.

[JoFerret]

117. Not bigotry but secularism

and I say hurray for it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

118. That's just a rationalization

Nothing more.

[sushi]

4. Well, like it or not

both the Senate and the National Assembly passed this law overwhelmingly, and once Chirac signs it, that's it. Those who don't like it can start their own schools.

Why should ties be banned? A tie doesn't show a student's religion. Ties are unnecessary but neat.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Yeah, who cares about public education

I really mean it. Anyone who is religious in France should take to the streets today.

[Spentastic]

6. That's

Exactly why religion should not interfere in the business of statehood.

What's next? Witch burnings?

Cheers for Dave for the spelling lesson.

[demdave]

7. Your point is somewhat muddled by your misspelling of "witch".

So please explain what "That's" refers to.

[Spentastic]

8. Yeah

I was gonna change it too. Are you one of those damn kids?

[demdave]

11. Now you have lost me again. What kids?

Could you clarify your position? I am having a difficult time trying to see your point. Thanks.

[Spentastic]

16. My position is simply this

France is not the U.S.A. It is not governed by Americans and it's laws are not based on the U.S constituion.

France has a strongly secular tradition. Separartion of Church and state is a total as it can be.

This legislation protects that tradition. The very fact that the argument always comes down to headscarves seems odd to me. All conspicuous symbols are banned. The sensistisation of the headscarf issue is divisive. This is not about muslims. It's about maintaining a secular state. Of course religious people don't like it. They don't like lots of things, evolution, contraception etc etc. Should the state cater to those positions too?

I support the French in this regard. Freedom from religion is as important as freedom of.

[itcfish]

17. I Understand Your

Point of view, but this can prevent Muslim girls from attending Public school of course it will not affect men. Jewish men who wear skull caps can be covered by a NY Yankees Cap, but what does a Muslim girl do? Do like the Taliban? Prevent women from getting educated. Great world.

[Spentastic]

20. If that happens

Then perhaps religion is imcompatible with a secular democratic state.

If so, should the state pander to ever increasing demands, like teaching kids that the world is only 6000 years old?

[VelmaD]

96. Muslim girls can go to school without a scarf...

since there's NOTHING in the Koran that mandates that they wear one. It is purely a matter of custom NOT religion. There are plenty of Muslim women the world over who live in countries where the scarf (or burka or abaya or chador) is not required who DO NOT wear one.

I'm sorry but for me the whole scarf kerfluffle is about sexism pure and simple. Hyper-male dominated cultures read the stricture in the Koran that both men and women dress modestly as permission to force women (but not men) to cover themselves from head to toe. It's ridiculous. What the French government is saying is that despite what you think your religion teaches we WILL NOT let you practice sexism in the name of religion in our public spaces.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

98. What makes your interpretation of the Koran the correct one?

I'm not an expert in the Koran, so I won't try to argue what the Koran does or does not say. But surely you must agree that individuals should be free to make their own interpretations of religious texts. Many, many adult Muslim women in "free" countries choose to wear headscarves in order to comply with their interpretation of Islam. No one is forcing them to do so. Why do you assume that not a single Muslim girl in France would choose to wear a headscarf of her own free will? You argue that Muslim parents should not be allowed to "force" a daughter to wear a headscarf, yet you have no problem with the French government forcing a Muslim girl to remove this article of clothing whether she would choose that for herself or not?

[VelmaD]

99. How do you know "no one is forcing them to"?

I'm at work so I don't have my links handy but there has been more than one story out of Europe of Muslim boys and men threatening Muslim girls and women that don't wear a scarf in public. The parental and societal imperative can be plenty strong to force a girl to wear one against her will.

My point again is not so much an objection to the scarf per se so much as a serious problem with the fact that the "religious" dress code is not applied equally to men and women. Gee...I wonder why that is?

[chimpy the poopthrower]

103. And Jewish women don't wear yarmulkes.

And Amish women wear dresses and bonnets, but Amish men get to wear trousers and hats. And Catholic women used to wear headscarves in Church but men did not. So what? That doesn't mean it's oppression.

If Muslim girls and women are being assaulted, their assailants should be prosecuted under French law. But you're not ever going to convince me that at least some Muslim women don't wear a headscarf simply because they want to.

But we aren't talking about adults, we are talking about children and teens. Should parents be able to decide what is appropriate attire for their children? You seem to think they shouldn't. Is that a principle you extend to everyone or is it just for Muslim families?

[VelmaD]

104. Actually the requirement for Catholic women was...

sexism as far as I'm concerned. It sprang from the same ridiculous notion that women are responsible for the thoughts and behavior of men and by covering them up men wouldn't be tempted. Sexist societies pretty much always focus on controlling minute details of women's appearance.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

105. Whether or not it was/is sexist...

...it was still a choice freely made. There are women who choose to say "obey" in their wedding vows. I wouldn't make that same choice, but I won't pretend that only a woman who was living in fear for her safety would make such a choice. Not everyone thinks the same.

[VelmaD]

106. It is not a choice freely-made...

if your are threatened or coerced or ostracized for not doing it.

We can argue about this all day and never agree on it.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

109. I meant Catholic women wearing scarves, which you characterized as sexist.

If adult women are threatened or assaulted into wearing a head covering, that should be treated as any other crime. If they are influenced by societal pressures from their cultural group, that is a different matter entirely. Societal influence is not a crime.

[VelmaD]

110. IT is not a crime but...

it does contradict your assertion that they make the choice of their own free will.

[Muddleoftheroad]

111. Based on that silliness

Then none of us ever has free will since we are all under societal pressure.

Of course Catholic women have free will to decide their choices. Influence does not excuse them of that.

[VelmaD]

112. Catholic women NOW have a choice not to wear...

a head-covering in Church...but for a long time pre-Vatican 2 they did not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

113. They had a choice, church is optional

[PsychoDad]

114. there's NOTHING in the Koran that mandates ... errrrr

Please see post 60.

Whereas individuals may differ in opinion for personal reasons, all four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence do state that the Quran and Hadith does mandate the wearing of at least the Hijab, As they also agree upon other dress strictures for men and women.

Therefore if a Muslim woman or man feels that their dress is important, there is sound basis.

But, I may be wrong. Please cite me the fatwa or scholar who states otherwise.

[BonjourUSA]

116. I prefer to listen to the French girls than the Koran !!

A ridiculous percentage of the French girls (and women) of arab origin wants to wear "islamic style" dress.

Just a recall : 83% of the French population (all religions) want a strict application of the secular principles.

[PsychoDad]

119. So, because they are the minority

In france they have no rights, and are subject to the rule of the mob?
How french.

BTW Bonjour. You don't have to wear a hijab. You still have a choice.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Thank God France is not the U.S.

Because this is a ridiculous example of the uber state.

Separation of church and state applies to institutions and should not control the actions of individuals in regard to their CLOTHING.

You understate the reality of this law, which is designed to bully Muslims into fitting in with French society.

As for your comments about religion, they are wrong. Many religious people embrace those things like evolution and contraception.

Liberte. Egalite. Insanite.

[Spentastic]

23. You like your little digs don't you

One nation under God sounds pretty opressive to me.

Do we have to have a logic 101 lesson for you?

Does "religious people" = all religious people? If not what's your problem? I won't have to look far for an example of religious people who don't like those things, how about the Pope? That good enough?

Why you would choose to twist my words is beyond me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. We're not bigots, we're just French

No one here is forced to embrace God or to deny him, unlike France.

Notice my comment said "MANY." You seek to paint ALL religious folks with the same broad brush. It doesn't stick.

[Spentastic]

29. Look Muddle

If someone said Fotball will now be played nude and said "Of course football fans would be upset...." Would you think I meant all football fans? If so then I suggest that a little reading comprehension is in order. If I mean ALL religious people I'd use that qualifier. If MANY makes you feel better, fine.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. Here is what you said

"Of course religious people don't like it. They don't like lots of things, evolution, contraception etc etc. Should the state cater to those positions too?"

Nowhere did you place a qualifier saying only some felt this way. You indicted all and only retracted after you were called on it.

[Spentastic]

38. Er no

I've not retracted, nor will I. There's no need to.

[Flagg]

52. "We're not bigots, we're just French"

look out


your xenophobia's showing

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. I didn't pass the law, they did

It's THEIR bigotry that's showing. Not mine.

It's not bigoted to call them on THEIR actions.

[Flagg]

73. We're not bigots, we're just French"

that's called a generalization of an entire people


how about some French are bigots, some are not (an overwhelming majority) ?

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. Not the entire people

Just the MASSIVE number of legislators who voted for this and their millions of supporters.

[sushi]

64. France does NOT deny God, Muddle

People can have any religion they want. Immigrants who don't like the new law can go back to where they came from. Now that they're in France they have to obey the law. I'm all for secularism. Religion is a private matter. They can wear their religious things to church, mosque, synagogue, or whatever their place of worship is called. This law also prevents arguments in school. School should be for studying only.

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. School should be for LEARNING

Not for a political statement that religious folks -- in this case mostly Muslims -- are not welcome unless they bow to the French culture and assimilate.

Actually, they DON'T have to obey this law. Instead, many will simply be unable to avail themselves of an education and THAT is what this is about. Either knuckle under to the uber state or you can't get an education.

Religion is NOT a private matter. It is a personal one. What I wear as part of my religion OR my culture is none of your concern or the state's.

[Rochambeau]

66. yes

School should be for LEARNING not for ANY political statement that's why France decided to ban head scarves. And WE are not confusing religion and politics, not us but those who are aimed by that law do that! It had to be stopped.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. Head scarves are NOT a political statement

They are a reflection of a religious belief. However, in typical French fashion, they don't accept that others might hold some beliefs above that of the uber state.

France went fascist once before. I guess they go again.

[Rochambeau]

71. No comment.

:silly: :silly: :silly:

[Flagg]

74. France went fascist once before. I guess they go again.

LOL

we went fascist more than once

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. I meant recently

Lol.

[sushi]

77. Okay, learning...

or studying, it's the same to me. Private or personal, it's the same to me.

I think what will happen is that Muslim leaders in France will start their own schools, where traditional students, who don't like this law, can go with their scarves on. I'm sure there are modern Muslim girls who will be glad to get rid of the scarves their parents force them to wear.

What's wrong with assimilating? People who don't like another country's culture shouldn't move there.

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. The Borg

Not everyone wants to be assimilated. We all have our OWN defintions about what it means to be American or Irish or French. Many people in American don't like hyphenated Americans. Too bad. It is OUR choice. In this case, they are simply choosing to represent for their religion. I fail to see a conflict -- other than the one France has created to drive them away.

[Voice_of_Europe]

36. Religion has a different place in Europe...

Modern US still shows much of being founded by very strict chistians who left Europe.
- Evangelists
- Lutherans
- Free Churches
- Amish
- Mormons
They all went to America to live their ideas and their way of life


Religion plays a much much smaller role in Europes daily life...
Every guy I know tells me "I'm Catholic/ Evangelic"... "Why?"... "Because my parents are and it would hurt them if I left church."

In the last decade people left churches like rats leave sinking ships.
None of my friends ever go to church except for marriages, births and burials... and I can tell you they are not the devil but very very nice and polite reasonable people...

Europe just handles religion totally different than America.
Phrases like "God bless America" sound totally ridiculous to our ears (no offense intended). It would never ever come to my mind to say "God bless Switzerland"

[PsychoDad]

37. "God bless America" sound totally ridiculous to our ears

Or God save the Queen?
Or something totally silly and un-euro like that :silly:

Many muslims will still wish to practice Islam (that's what makes us muslim) even if they are in france.

[Voice_of_Europe]

41. How many WANT? And how many MUST ?

Give me a statistics please:

How many young girls MUST wear a scarf vs. how many young girls WANT to wear a scarf.

Freedom of religion does not mean that a father can force his daughter to comply with HIS religion.. but that the daughter can choose herself.

But they don't let them choose...

so here comes the state and bans them in Schools to give the daughter a picture of how it's like "western style".

[PsychoDad]

59. But kids are "forced" to do a lot of things...

They don't want to do.

I had to go to sunday school and eat brussul sprouts.. Against my will for many years. And my mother dressed me, and NEVER the way I wanted to be dressed! Yuck!

Then I became an adult and made my own decisions.

Now I have my own children. I allow them to make decisions within limits. I also "drag" them to masjid (which they enjoy :) ). when they become adults they may dress asnd do as they please.

As far as I know, america and europe are the same in that parents have a right to decide what their children will wear, irregardless of what the child wants to wear. Is this not so?

Peace

[chimpy the poopthrower]

61. I agree.

Parents do need to have some say in what their children wear. That's called parenting, not oppression. Now, if you saw some of the outfits my Mom made me wear... that's oppression. ;)

[BonjourUSA]

72. A little short like argument !

For you, to decide what your children will wear between pants or skirt, between a color or an else is on the same level than to decide they have to wear a religious sign !

[PsychoDad]

88. decide what your children will wear

Bonjour, as a parent, I do dress my children based on our religion.
No short dresses or tight clothes are allowed, no excesive makeup. I also forbid them the eating of pork, alcohol and gambling. I also require moral and ethical behavoir consistant with our religious values.

I guess I'm just oppressive.

Point is, once they become old enough, they are totally free to move out from mom and dad's house and do as they please.

Until then it is my obligation as a parent to insure that they have , what is in my opinion, a proper upbringing.

peace

[Voice_of_Europe]

48. God Bless....

agree...
God bless the Queen is as ridiculous as God bless the President...

Apropos BLESS:
Did you know that HEIL as in "Heil Hitler" means "no harm come to" ?
A word similar to "heilig" which means "holy"
The phrase "God Bless the President" isn't that far from "Heil Hitler" as you might think... and that's why I wouldn't dream of saying something like that.
I'm really not trying to be offending here (although I see the flaming coming)... just showing parallels.. the firm believe in one person to solve all problems and guide you is widely spread..

Anyway...
I'm a firm believer of equality... nobody is better or worse than me and I wish health and long life to everybody... not just queens and presidents...
Queens and Presidents and Pop Stars are no idols to live up to! And they have the same problems and sins as you do.

And I'm a firm believer of thinking yourself! No need for polititians, priests, religious books or gods to tell you how you have to lead your life! And no giving away responsibility to your president, commanding officer or God who gives you orders!

[Romulus]

19. a better extrapolation of this issue

would be to consider the ramifications of banning any item deemed "religious" from any public place owned by the government, in the name of enforcing "secularism," as this French law suposedly enforces it in public schools.

Those public places would be anywhere outside your front door.

edited to add:
I guess your walkabout is over, Spen? (I think that's the right term):hi:

Edited again:
Or was it PertUK who was going to Oz?:evilfrown:

[Spentastic]

31. It was Pert

He should be back soon. He's still in touch.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Statehood is interfering with religion

Not the other way around.

[Spentastic]

10. So

Taking to the streets in an attempt to influence state policy would be what?

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Exercising freedom

Via protest.

[Spentastic]

14. Hmmmm

Would you agree that the Frech legislature has already made its decision in this regard? You're right to protest would not be abridged.

Knock yourself out. What it would acheive is beyond me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. What it would achieve

Is making the legislature know their actions are NOT accepted. Should we just accept a loss of rights?

No religious parent should send a child to school in France until this is changed.

[itcfish]

30. Nor Pay Tax

If you cannot send your child to public school, you should not pay taxes

[Spentastic]

33. WTF

Where's the ordinance banning children? Point to it. You also can't send your children to school armed. Should the 2nd amendment mentalists in the U.S. refuse to pay taxes too?

[Voice_of_Europe]

24. why religion should not interfere in the business of statehood.

First:
Ever heard of Sharia?
That's what you get when you let religion take over the state.

Secondly:
Which religion of them all should influence the state then?
You have to choose one since you can't allow them all, that would be a big chaos.
Which then would violate the principle of all being equal.

Therefor the state should not be influenced by religion.

[itcfish]

34. The State Should

not prevent any citizen from practicing their religion either. A muslim woman is required to wear a scarf in public. She will not be able to receive a public education if she is not allowed out of her home. This is just another way to control women and prevent them from getting an education.

[Voice_of_Europe]

40. Required by whom...?

Wait a minute there...
WHO exactly is controling those women? WHO does require them to wear a scarf... it's not religion, it's their MEN...
Not letting them out of the house?? Hello??!

That's called kidnapping or restriction of freedom in MY country!

Keep them out of school? BANG! Another law broken!

The head scarf ban is a chance for those girls to be NORMAL in a normal western society. In the media you only see the "Freedom of religion" issue but never the girls who throw away their scarf as soon as they're out of their fathers home! If you ask young girls the big part tells you they MUST wear the scarf and only some few tell yuo they WANT to wear it because really want to live up to their religion.

I know plenty of cases of young muslim women running away from their families! It's heart breaking! They love their families but at the same time they can't live under those strict rules in a western society.

And that is where STATE collides with RELIGION!

[itcfish]

45. You may be right

but, what better way to liberate these women than to educate them. It is a vicious cycle. Their religion oppresses them, but we should not enable any religion to do so. Sorry. I feel education opens the minds and hearts of people. Let's not keep people in the Middle ages.

[PsychoDad]

47. WHO does require them

Islam requires specified behavior and dress from it's praticioners.. male and female.

"The head scarf ban is a chance for those girls to be NORMAL in a normal western society."

Now they are free to obsess about their weight, the latest fashons, and how they look to others. And when all attempts to fit in and be "accepted" fail because as human beings they are not perfect, like the madison ave models, they can become depressed and turn to alcohol and drugs to releive the emptiness within. And like their "normal" western counter parts they can become racist, shallow and xenophobic...demanding everyone with any cultural or racial differances to conform or get out.

Just like their normal western counterparts.

Sorry, there's a lot to be desired from your great western society, which is on the verge of collapse.

[Voice_of_Europe]

49. MY western culture?

Good point...
But the problem of the western people to be beautiful and eternally young and thin is something entirely different.

By the way... I like girls with curves and without make up...
Most super models may be beautiful... but they are just not cute and cuddly anymore... it's like the difference between a greek shiny white alabaster statue and a the average girl next door...

^_^

And it's not MY western culture although I live in it...

But it's still my believe that women should be allowed to choose if they want to commit all those western sins...

[PsychoDad]

51. Then we do agree on something ;)

Women in any culture should be allowed to choose. :)

Peace

[Flagg]

53. "A muslim woman is required to wear a scarf in public"

says who ?

prove it

you won't find it in the koran.

"She will not be able to receive a public education if she is not allowed out of her home"

every children in France is required to go to school at least until he/she is 16. don't have a choice in that. The parents won't let them out of the house. Well, either they'll have to send their kids to Iran (no madrasas in France) or the kids will be taken away from them.



"This is just another way to control women and prevent them from getting an education"

yeah, sure that's France's master plan

[chimpy the poopthrower]

58. Let's put it this way...

...since there is no point in arguing who interpretation of a religious text is the "correct" one:

Many Muslim women choose to wear a headscarf for cultural reasons and/or as their interpretation of Islam.

[PsychoDad]

60. says who ?

Al-Ahzab 33:59

"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils)* all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. "

In context, the arabic word here is Jalabeeb (plural of Jalbaab), which is the loose outer garment that covers all a woman's body. It says here to use the Jalabeeb to cover all, and all scholars say this means to use it to cover her head and some scholars, but not all, her face and one or both eyes, in order for it to be known that she is a free woman and so not to be exposed to any harm.
Therefore in the historical context, the hijab was never a symbol of oppression, but of freedom.

[PsychoDad]

42. VOE

"Ever heard of Sharia?"

Have you?
Beside the western hype and spin on it?

Islamic jurisprudence has developed over fourteen centuries. Over that span of time, various schools of jurisprudence have emerged, each with its own interpretation and application of the Sharia. Many schools splintered farther, creating schools following different interpretive approaches and applications.

The flourishing abundance of ideas and views attests to the intellectual depth and breadth of Islamic jurisprudence. However, nothing precludes a given state from codifying the Sharia so as to provide for more certainty of the law and clarity and consistency in its application. Many Muslim states have done so, the most advanced being Egypt, where the presence of the thousand-year-old Al-Azhar University (originally devoted solely to Islamic studies but now to all disciplines) and centuries of legal tradition have converged to make Islamic law a source of inspiration for the entire Muslim world.

Sharia is not a "boxed product"

Fourteen centuries ago Islam was a spiritual, social, and legal revolution. Its potential for effecting progress remains unchanged. This is essentially the belief of enlightened fundamentalist Muslims. Islamic fundamentalism is not, therefore, a regressive view of history and contemporary reality. Islam at the height of its civilization, between the seventh and eleventh centuries, was neither repressive nor regressive. It was a progressive, humanistic, and legalistic force for reform and justice....This is borne by history

In the west Sharia is a buzz word much like jihad. You have been programed to have a knee jerk reaction to the mention of it.

[rman]

102. i think you got it backwards

in this case it is the state interfering with (expression of) religion.

I'm not religious myself, but as far as i am concerned religion is covered by freedom of thought. Any expression of religion is fine with me as long as it doesn't interfere with existing laws and regulations.

[republicansareevil]

13. A head scarf is not a religious symbol.

They are worn for the sake of modesty, not to identify a person as Muslim. Throughout history and in many different places, non-Muslim women (and even men) have covered their heads. Even in the 50s many women didn't leave their home without a little hat and gloves.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

27. That's true peole in Greece and other countries do it as well.

[Voice_of_Europe]

32. old hags do..

You're thinking of the old widowed women clad in black in bright white little fishermen towns here, dont you?...
Ever seen any halfway modern woman younger than 40 in greece wearing a scarf??!?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

44. No, actually not the three times I've been there.

My wife would probably pimp slap you for calling her older relatives "old hags". But that's another matter. My point was that it is a cultural thing for some people and it should be respected. It is still bullshit for the state to tell people what to wear. It's almost fascist.

[Voice_of_Europe]

28. Islam made headscard a symbol recently

true...

But also many muslim women didn't wear the scarf and especially not the burka (the black head to toe cloak) in less strict muslim states. Look at Syria, Egypt, Marocco..

Strict (extremist) Islam ITSELF made the headscarf a religious symbol only recently! Mostly to discriminate women. And that's France's point: Everybody is equal! Even women (sad sarcasm here).

[PsychoDad]

50. In most of the Islamic world.

the way people dress is based upon culture. Dress like the burka or the men's Abaya are cultural, not religious.

The quran and hadith do state what acceptable dress for Muslim men AND women is. (Personally, I think the dress restrictions are more restrictive for men from a western viewpoint than for women).

The idea that the hijab is a new thing is simply wrong. Women in the middle east have been wearing head coverings for thousands of years, and a scarf or other head covering is accepted as part of a modest womans wardrobe all over the Islamic world...

And that covering style differs from Africa to Indonesia.

[itcfish]

43. I Sent My

Children to Catholic school, because that was my wish. I used to live in Queens many Muslims wanted their children to attend a religious school. Our parish welcomed the Muslim students scarf and all. The only requirement is they had to wear the school uniform. Dam if Catholics can be tolerant..........

[EV1Ltimm]

46. France needs to knock it off.

I see this as nothing but religious intolerance. it's ridiculous and i hope the french people see it as such.

Wearing a headscarf to school isn't a religious promotional tool.

[Flagg]

54. it's ridiculous and i hope the french people see it as such.

sorry but they really really don't

[pacifictiger]

55. I agree with their position on this

I see nothing wrong in insisting on a dress code for a secular school system. Why should taxpayers support symbols of separation rather than insist on integration? It helps kids focus on the tax paid education during school hours, not family background or religious beliefs. If parents insist on something else, they can always send their kids to a private school. There might be less school problems in this country if a uniform dress code were implemented too - more attention would be paid to actual classroom learning rather than who was wearing what to outdo whom.

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. So, either violate your beliefs or pay double

That's fair.

[toopers]

83. You are absolutely right.

We should force all public schools in the US to institute a dress code!

[chimpy the poopthrower]

56. I seem to be seeing two separate arguments (in favor of the ban) here.

The first is that allowing students to wear head scarves somehow violates the separation of Church and State (whatever that means in France).

The second argument is that the headscarf is an object of oppression because Muslim men are forcing Muslim women to wear them.

Does that sound about right? Those of you who support this ban, do you do so because of the first argument, the second argument, a combination, or for an entirely separate reason?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

57. I just want to congratulate you on a cool ass name. No further comment.

:thumbsup:

[pacifictiger]

69. I support the ban

because secular education is not the place for overt religious expression. Its only about 1/4 of time out of a full day after all! They're supposed to be learning about things other than god while in school - its up to parents and churches to teach faith during the remainder of those hours. Even the bible says worshipping god should be done in private. And they're not targeting moslems only - they are outlawing religious symbols period.

[Zynx]

68. I know many defended France during the Iraq War build up, but

France is truly a screwed up country. Head scarves are free-expression as far as I'm concerned. I'm a fairly loosely practicing Christian, but I still say that this is secularism gone mad to full blown anti-religious nonsense.

[Nihil]

75. Can we just step back for a minute?

Maybe I've missed something here but my reading of the various reports
has only mentioned the wearing of head-scarves in the school.

Nothing I've seen to date has mentioned banning headscarves, yarmulks or
whatever in public, i.e., in the street. If they did, they would
be banning nuns from appearing outside of their convent (most orders
wear a rosary), male Jews from being seen in public (skullcap or hat,
both are religious symbols), any Sikh or Hindu ("turban") and even the
canons & cardinals of the Catholic church (forgotten the name of the
little hat & skullcap too).

This isn't going to happen in a liberated, non-theocratical society and
I seriously doubt that anyone would seriously advocate it in France.

As a result, no-one is asking Muslim girls to walk out of their house
with a bare head or even appear anywhere (outside of the school
buildings) with a bare head.

Inside the school building, the school rules are in charge.
If they say "wear a white shirt and a striped tie", you wear them.
If they say "no baseball caps allowed in class", you take yours off.
If they say "no headscarves allowed in class", you take yours off on
entry and replace it on exit.

It really IS that simple people. There are far too many things that
divide us at the moment, why pick a new one to inflame emotions when
it is totally unnecessary?

Yes, it is being *portrayed* as anti-Islamic ... in the same way that
resistance to it is being *portrayed* as pro-democracy. Another way
to view it is as anti-Semitic or anti-Christian or anti-Hindu.
Or as another school rule (like no chewing gum, drugs or guns).

If anyone's faith is suffering because they prefer their daughter's
education to be muffled by a head-scarf, I would really question how
well they have read their holy books.

Talk about a mountain out of a mole-hill ...

Nihil

[Guaranteed]

76. The school is "in public."

And the headscarves are being banned for *religious* reasons (or, rather, they're trying to squelch religion). That's totally different than making a kid take their hat off in class or not letting them put their feet up on the desk or chew gum.

It's plain wrong. I'd say that it's unAmerican, but...I guess they're in France. But it's still wrong, and goes against the ideal of religious freedom.

[Spentastic]

78. This really gets on my fucking wick

Who's idea of religious freedom? Can I hazard a guess? The U.S.American idea of religious freedom? "Squelch religion"? How about recognise that religion is not appropriate / helpful in all circumstances. How about airplane pilots evangelising? Fuck that.

Perhaps the French view religious freedom differently. Perhaps God forbid (pun intended) they wish all of their citizens to be given a chance to be free of their religions in certain institutions.

If you don't like France, don't live there. It's hardly the oppressive state that some here would wish to make out.

[Nihil]

79. "Public" ends at the school gates

The school is not "in public" (unless they are on a visit off campus).

You try walking into a school (in this country certainly) without a
good reason and you will quickly find that it is not "public" at all.

All headscarves are being banned.
Not "Islamic headscarves are banned but Protestants are allowed".
Not "Jewish skullcaps are banned but Sikh turbans are allowed".
Yes, the headscarf issue is *now* a rallying banner for Islamic or
anti-Islamic mouthpieces.

> That's totally different than making a kid take their hat off in class

No, it is exactly the same as making a kid take their hat off
in class. Any hat, not just a religious one.

If they were trying to pick on religion, they would allow hats (or any
head-coverings) with secular statements (e.g., Reebok, CocaCola) while
forbidding non-secular ones.

Can't you see? They are trying to maintain equality by not allowing
any preferences, any exceptions. The rule is that no religious item
is to be shown preference inside a state school. All are equal in
that particular, well-defined, private environment.

By saying that no baseball caps are allowed but a turban is, there is
an exception - a special case - that can then act as a wedge to be
driven further to separate group A from group B. This allows the
extremists to legally, legitimately and truthfully say that "group A
has been given special privileges while you (group B) are not".

If group A also has a different colour skin, guess what happens next?

Nihil

[toopers]

85. Yes, but in doing so they are taking away personal freedoms.

Granted, we are talking about France and I know little or nothing about the Rights of the French People. Therefore, I can only compare this to the rights guaranteed to the American people -- This is tramples all over an individual's right to personal expression or freedom of speech. The French may not have a protection such as this.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

84. You are so wrong on so many levels.

First, they ARE public schools. That's why the first sentence of the news item says: "A law banning Islamic head scarves in France's public schools was adopted Wednesday in the Senate by a vote of 276-20." (emphasis mine) Just because public schools don't let just anybody come to the school and walk around unsupervised doesn't mean they aren't public. They are paid for with public funds, are they not?

Second, even if you want to quibble about the technical meaning of "public," students in school are certainly out in "public" in the everyday sense of the word. If I told you I would never walk around "in public" wearing just my bathrobe, would you try arguing that a grocery store is not really a "public" place? Get real.


I realize that this is France and not the U.S., but you might want to see what those evil, Godless lib'ruls at the ACLU say about similar issues in this country:

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9007&c=139

"Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools

Student Garb
17. Religious messages on T-shirts and the like may not be singled out for suppression. Students may wear religious attire, such as yarmulkes and head scarves, and they may not be forced to wear gym clothes that they regard, on religious grounds, as immodest."


Here is more from the ACLU:

http://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/godinschool.html

"Sally and Tom bring their Bibles to school so that they can read them during free time. They also pray together at lunch before they eat. Should school officials allow them to continue these practices?

Yes. Although critics frequently declare that the Supreme Court has "kicked God out of public schools," the fact remains that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate." Students may freely practice religion in public schools as long as their behavior neither disrupts school activities nor inhibits the rights of others to freedom of conscience.

Stewart's religion requires that he wear a yarmulke, or head covering, at all times, including while he is at school. His gym teacher, Mr. Hamilton, asked Stewart to remove the yarmulke during gym. Is Mr. Hamilton's request appropriate?

No. Absent a compelling state interest, schools must accommodate a student whose parent or guardian wants the student to wear clothes that differ from those prescribed by school policy if the request is based on a sincerely held religious belief. In addition, if the policy creates exceptions for other students, it must then allow an exception for students' religious beliefs. However, a student's right to have his/her sincerely held religious beliefs accommodated does not include the right to change or eliminate an activity or policy for all the other students. For example, the school's accommodation of Stewart's request to wear his yarmulke would not mean that a ban on baseball caps during gym would now be lifted for everyone else."


And just in case there was any doubt as to the motivations behind France's law, here's what was said in the news item:

"(Prime Minister Jean-Pierre) Raffarin insisted the law was needed to contain the spread of Muslim fundamentalism and ensure that the principle of secularism on which France is based remains intact.

'We wanted to send a strong and rapid signal,' he said."

edit: fixed italics and other formatting issues

[BonjourUSA]

86. If Chirac would like to get a remake of the French Revolution...

.... he just says : "God bless France". And millions of French, ALL RELIGIONS MIXED, demonstrate in the streets very little time later. :)

[Nihil]

92. That's because you have true religious freedom ...

... i.e., the freedom to say "no thank you" as well as the freedom to
choose your own particular brand of redemption.

(And the state doesn't get upset about "godless lib'rals" either)

[BonjourUSA]

94. I don't know what it's the religion of my co-workers

because the discussions about religion is very very rare, even with our friends. It's very well like that.

Only 8% of the French with arab origin practice a religion. (4% for all the French population, all religions include) I'm not sure that my co-workers with this origin are muslim !

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. Good citations

And I join with others complimenting you on your login name as well.

[PsychoDad]

89. Thank you Chimpy

Great post and very good citations from the ACLU.

[rman]

91. according to your logic (which i think i mostly correct)..

there is no need for a law on this issue.

There probably already is a law that says you should follow the dress code of the school (which may range from anything like 'no basball caps' to 'wear the school uniform').
If there is no such law then schools have been illigaly forcing dress code on students for a couple of centuries - which i think isn't very likely.
If there is such a law then a school can call upon that law in order to prohibit the wearing of headscarfs.

This anti-headscarf law is different though: it makes not-wearing of headscarfs mandatory in any school - so this part of school dress code is no longer up to the school to decide. This is very different then the examples you cite.

So what's next? State mandated school uniforms?

[Spentastic]

93. The reason for the law

Is that students, predominantly Muslims have been refusing to comply with existing rules. In order to introduce fairness France has banned ALL overt religious symbols in schools.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

97. That makes no sense.

If individual schools in France have dress codes which forbid the wearing of headscarves for religious/modesty reasons, that is already a problem as far as I am concerned. I don't know how France interprets the concept of Church-State separation, but in the U.S. schools are not permitted to have dress codes prohibiting yarmulkes, headscarves, and the like. There are two parts to the separation of Church and State: preventing the establishment of religion by the State, and preventing infringement on religious freedoms of citizens.

However, even if schools in France are permitted to have such dress codes, what is the purpose in making it a national law? Why shouldn't individual schools be responsible for making and enforcing their own rules?

[JoFerret]

115. Great plan

I am with the French leading rabbi on this. Let's keep public schools secular and hold secularism up high. Let's remove religion practice and religious symbols from public schools.

[PsychoDad]

121. Let's remove religion practice

You mean to say you would also force Jews and Muslims to eat pork when it is served at the schools?

Their religous pratices are their way of life.

[mot78]

120. Normally I don't agree with fundies, but this is an outrage!

It's trampling on free speech, and it's blatantly racist.