Topic awaiting preservation: Banning of Muslim headscarves in French schools? (Page 1 of 3)

US Voices Misgivings on Chirac's Headscarves Stand

Opinions? Should the state prevent religious expression in order to enforce secularism? This is exactly the kind of direction I fear we are headed towards in this country.

I would particularly be interested to hear opinions on this from our French friends here. How is this playing out from where you sit?

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs: It is designed so people don't wear 'religious dress' to schools - pesonally I can't think of any good reason for this and I suspect what will happen is that the definition will be tweaked to allow most things eventually.

And what about the case of some kids who wear a cross when they aren't Christian so does that count as religious?

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Its possibly not so drastic as initially thought (although still bordering on the silly):

quote:

---

France moves on headscarf ban

Thu 18 December, 2003 12:11

By Joelle Diderich

PARIS (Reuters) - French Education Minister Luc Ferry says he plans to submit to parliament early next year a draft law banning religious symbols such as Islamic headscarves in state schools.

The measure, announced by President Jacques Chirac in a speech on Wednesday, has drawn protests from Muslims in France and across the world. But French religious leaders who voiced concern before the speech were more positive after hearing it.

"There will be a law specifically concerning schools, because this is the central issue," Ferry told French radio RTL. "It will probably be submitted in February, given that it has to be applicable by the start of the new school year in 2004."

Ferry said on Thursday he planned to keep the draft law short and simple, and although he had yet to settle the exact wording he was leaning towards prohibiting what would be described as "ostentatious" symbols of faith.

The minister, who earlier expressed concern over suggestions there might be an outright ban on all religious symbols in schools, said he was satisfied that Chirac had decided to restrict the ban to overt symbols such as headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses.

Pupils will still be allowed to wear discreet symbols of faith such as small Islamic pendants, the star of David or Christian crosses.

The proposal, designed to bolster France's 1905 law separating church and state, followed months of debate on the role of religion in French society which highlighted the difficulties of Muslim integration.

Ali Shakourirad, a member of the Iranian parliament, said the ban on headscarves would limit personal freedom and was a major failure.

But other religious leaders welcomed Chirac's decision to temper a measure they feared could stifle religious expression.

Dalil Boubakeur, president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, initially opposed the ban, which he said would single out French Muslims of North African origin. But after hearing Chirac speak he urged young Muslims not to overreact.

Fadela Amara, head of a French organisation campaigning for the rights of Muslim girls, said the move would help counter the pressure of radical Islamists.

"I want everybody to hear the message, especially those who belong to fundamentalist groups," she said.

Grand Rabbi Joseph Sitruk and Father Stanislas Lalanne, head of the French Bishops' Conference, said they were generally satisfied overall with Chirac's speech, although Lalanne said it still left room for different interpretations.

---

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=424981&se ction=news

And as said here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3330831.stm

Its trying to address the symptom not the cause.

It also is required to clarify problems in the law as this has been kicked around for a long time:
http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2308140

Headscarves and other overt Muslim clothing has been banned in Turkey for a while (as a continuation of Ataturk's work on making it a secular state) and from what I have seen it hasn't actually stopped people wearing them if they want it just makes it more difficult for religious leaders to order strict observance of their rules.

[edit: Although other people have argued that it places the pressure on the women and doesn't work]

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

all persons should be able to practice their religion and their beliefs peacefully without government interference as long as they are doing so without provocation and intimidation of others in the society.

---

Exactly.
I don't see how Muslim headscarves cause provocation or intimidation. This is right up there with banning the words "In God We Trust" on our government buildings, or trying to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. People all over the world are blowing this whole state/religion thing way out of proportion...


Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 12-19-2003).]

Personally, I totally agree with this measure.

The way religion is evolving here in France is quite stupid : some minorities are trying to divert the law to live in their own religious way. The whole problem is not worshipping a religion and showing it, the problem is replacing the French law by another one to follow religious precepts. I am not against the religious crowd, but when religious people live in France, they live in a laic country, and they have to abide by its laws.

For example, in France wearing a veil is forbidden on identity cards, which of course creates problems because some Muslims want to keep it on their identity card. Swimming pools run by Muslims are stricly reserved for women half a day because men don't have the right to swim next to them. Etc, etc... These are just examples, but when the governement wants to get rid of these problems the religious crowd groan. Personally, when I see all the disasters caused in this world by religious problems, I can only acknowledge to this law preventing religious clashes. One shouldn't understand this law as a limitation to the relious freedom, but rather as a preservation of the existing order. In France, the school system is laic. As the result, wearing religious symbols at school is forbidden (although it was tolerated for now). It is a progress. I don't see why we should go a few centuries back in time.

But frankly, I never understood why women wanted to wear headscarves. In this religion, it is the symbol of the inferiority of women. So, on the one hand, Muslims are claiming the right to wear these headscarves to show up in public, they are striving for a total religious freedom, but on the other hand by wearing a headscarf they accept to be bound by very (not to say extremly) restrictive religious laws.

Talk about religious nonsense.

If someone is offended because of a cross, skullcap, or headscarve, that's a lack of tolerance for others. I mean damn, it's not like they are preaching, we are talking clothing and jewelry.

The freedom of an individual to practice their religious beliefs should in no way be impeded by the state. Nobody's religion should be prejudiced against because of the intolerance of others, and that is what it is. The people who come up with and support these laws are intolerant.

Taking away these freedoms is what I call going back a few centuries.

Ramasax

hey hey hey! in my fundametalist school we cannot wear any kind of symbols, chains, jewelery unless they represent christianity...
girls are not allowed to wear makeup, we dress like soldiers, blue pants, no jeans, black shoes(no white stripes allowed) and stupid ugly t shirts...you must shave! you cant even have side burns...not even scratchy beard, its EVIL, SATANIC! my friend is gonna nuke the school cause they force him to shave everyday or he gets warnings and suspencions... damn even at senior year...I am not kidding... its one of the most unintelegent act of mankind and transformation of children into idiots..

and yes moon shadow...you said right! talk about religious nonsese...

Obviously, Ruski, what you've been exposed to has been Christians that are so far right wing that, well...

...I don't go to a Christian school, but I do go to church, and am familiar with the Christian community in my area:

Most people go to church in their street clothes, except for all the (really) old people. Occasionally you'll even see a Nine Inch Nails (or something to that effect) sweatshirt.

You shouldn't judge an entire population based on one isolated incident (or I beleive it is isolated, I don't know how Christianity has evolved in Russia after the breakup of the USSR).

IT's the same thinking that will get you this: If Bob owns a truck, and Bob is male, then all males named Bob own a truck.

If anyone is intimidated by a headscarf, or a cross, or a star of David, or a swastika (the Bhuddist/Oriental symobol), they should be flayed alive.

IT's the tolerance movement backfiring.

By the way you describe it, Ruski, I am assuming this is a private school?

If that's the case, they can do whatever they want, nad there's no reason for them not to set up and enforce the rules as they see fit.

As far as public schools go, I think it is sheer nonsense to ban people form wearing the trappings of their religion wherever they go.

I can see rules set up for special circumstances, where things might be disruptive for the school, but the simple wearing of scarves and pendants is about as harmless as things get...

DL said what my first thought was... If you're attending a private school, you have to go by their dress code. Because you don't have to go to a private school. You could go to a public one, and dress the way you like (within reason - you are out in public...).

If one's expression of one's faith is not disrupting the other students from learning, then it shouldn't be suppressed. It's one thing to be proselytizing in school. It's totally another to be quietly following your faith.
They ought to ask the students if they think it's a problem. Bet you'll find that most of them don't care.

CBF I am not sure what you are trying to say here...and no, I didnt mean all christians are like that...but whatever

yes DL it is private school and unfortunaitly probably the only average costing, english, private school in capital city....all public schools in Purto Rico are spanish and they suck extreme! they are small, smelly, crappy, and ugly...unfortunaitly mine is same the only difference is education is some what better. It has only like 300 students put together from both high school and junior school. The payment is $3000 for a year.
Others english schools cost up to $8000 every year, unfortnaitly I dont have this money to afford it after what happened with my mom and step dad...

well I wasnt complaining here I just wanted to provided the point that banning something religious from schools is nothing to fuss about....I survived...who cares

oops, I come a little late, but like Moon Shadow I agree with the new project of law.

The France have suffered in the past of the relation between the state and the religion. Hopefuly, since ~ one century the principle of secularism is deeply anchored here. At the point that I'm always amazed/scared to hear G.W. Bush tell "God bless the USA". Ok you can think it's just a phrase but it's heavy of sense in the mouth of a president.

I would add that in some areas in France, the young women and little girls are treated like sluts by young mens and teenagers if they wear trendy clothes and/or don't wear a headscarf. Some women ( accompanied by their husband some times speaking in her name ) refused to be cured by male doctors ( even when there was no female doctors available ) for religious reasons. This is also to avoid that kind of behaviors that the project of law have been granted.

Whatever the religion I'd be puzzled to see someone working in a public administration wearing an ostentious religious sign. This person does not represents his/herself but the state, which is secular, and thus he/she must not expose his/her personnal belief. Beside a woman passed an exam, in casual clothes, to work in a public administration then she came to her first work day with a headscarf. Why didn't she passed her exam with her headscarf ? Did she feared to be told that it was incompatible with the principle of secularity going along with her function ?

Another thing that puzzles me is to see little children wearing some religious symbols. From my own experience I don't think a child is able to have his/her own opinion about religion and that's a good thing that the state don't encourage the parents to project their religious beliefs on their children ( which is a form of proselytism ).

Jacques CHIRAC said the law will prohibit the ostentious religious symbols in public schools/highschools, and for the representatives of the state ( it includes people working in public administrations, police departements, public hospitals, courts ... ). But he also stated that discreet signs ( like small christian cross, star of David, hand of Fatima ... ) are obviously allowed. He didn't mentionned private schools nor universities where everything is allowed. Prohibiting the ostentious religious symbols put the people on the same scale. And remember that everything is allowed everywhere else but in public schools i.e. in private and in public ( in the streets, bars, restaurants, hotels, train/plane stations, ... )

Since the French calendar is, for historical reasons, based on some Christians events ( easter, christmas ... ), I regret that Jacques CHIRAC refused to add 2 new national holidays for Yom Kippur and the Aid el Kebir. The governement recently vanished a nationnal holiday linked to a Christian event to collect some funds for the old and dependant persons, so it was difficult to make 1 step in a way and 2 in the other. Whatever, it's already widespread custom to miss work/school for these religious events but it would have been a great step toward more equality.

Anyway, I can understand some countries with a different culture may see that project of law like an infringement to the private liberty.

:PS: Here goes ( an excerpt for english version ) the speech by Jacques CHIRAC, president of the French republic, on "respecting the principle of secularism in the republic" ( in english, arab and french )

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

I guess the French Citizenry is incapable of distinguishing between a persons own personal beliefs and a state institutions acceptance of its workers different religious affectations. I mean, if a person working in a state institution is wearing religious symbols it must mean the state is also wearing them as well. So, it is proper that Papa Chrac shield them from the abuse of headscarves.

Because of the average persons susceptibility to symbolism, it is important for leaders to shield them from said crosses, stars, and headscarves. Perhaps there is a world leader brave enough to stand up to the world God Squads.

Viva La France!

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

quote:

---

and that's a good thing that the state don't encourage the parents to project their religious beliefs on their children ( which is a form of proselytism ).

---

I simply cannot accept this argument.

Anyone with any serious religious convictions has an obligation to pass them on to their children. Anyone with any serious religious conviction has no choice but to view their particular religion as "the one", and therefore it could be nothing but folly to simply let their children believe/behave however they see fit.

In much the same way that a pure pacifist will be sure to teach their children non-violence, while a boxer or a soldier may be inclined to teach their children tofight, a parent simply *MUST* pass on to their children what they beleive is right. To do otherwise is total failure.

I can see no good coming from this measure. However, we must be very careful not to jump so quickly to nationalistic prejudice UC.
I read, just a few weeks ago, about a case in the mid-west US somewhere, where a muslim girl was banned from wearing here traditional headwear in school.


It's one of those "before you point your finger, make sure your hand is clean" type of deals...

The kind of lesson more americans desperately need to learn....

errr..., I was being sarcastic. I dont think the state should tell people what to wear.

I dont doubt that some corners of the US are backwards, as a matter of fact, I find it highly plausible that such a thing could happen. It's rediculous, but a sad truth that No country is immune from ignorance and predjudice. All the more reason to keep religious decisions out of the hands of legislators...

It reminds me of an article I once read that attributed a quote to Governor Cuomo from the state of New York. I am paraphrasing here; But it went something like [semi quote] The people of this country once looked at politicians as shepards, but now the flock is running things [/semi quote] and he thought it was a bad thing. Typical liberal. He is so well educated and knows so much more than the common man, that it is an affront to even consider giving decision making powers to the 'sheep'.



______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

public school,,,,,,,,,,, divorce religion connotations, no preferential treatment....

private school......... its private, who cares? they are paying for it....

DL-44: Projecting your religious beliefs on your children goes several steps further than learning them footbal, judo, dance, boxe, comedy, ... how to behave with others ( which includes to avoid to answer to violence with more violence, and I'm not talking of Pacifism but about avoiding some bruises and troubles ). I agree with the transmission of what you think is good for them, but you must also respect their free will and don't forget that they may be probably too young to understand some things that still divides the adults.

The people converting, or trying to, their children and relations, even if they view their religion as "the one", are doing some proselytism.

UnknownComic: It's "Vive la France!"

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

Think about this poi - if you truly beleive that by not accepting christ, you will go to hell where your soul will burn for eternity, can you possibly do anything but pass your beleif on to your child?

You would be essentially damning your child by not teaching them the things they need to know to survive.

As for "proselytism" - you can't convert someone who has no beleif of their own. People's beleifes are formed in large part by their parents and the environment in which they are raised.

Whether the things you learn to beleive are religious in nature or not, that's where they come from.

How can it possibly be said that to push all of your secular beliefs on a child is ok, but to push religious ones is not? That needs some real explaining, because to me it sounds like pure hypocrisy.

And of course, if you've read anything I've ever said, you know how anti-religious I am. But you're speaking of essentially taking away people's rights to practice their religion...

poi, are you a parent?

DL-44: Doing proselytism is the act of making, or trying to make, converts to a religion, opinion, party ... weither they already had one in the first place or not. So, what I said about parents pushing their religious beliefes on their children is true.

You're right, the people believing in God ( whatever the name you give him/her/it? ), heaven, hell and eternal damnation are surely not capable to resist to make their children share their religious beliefes. The fact that most people's beliefes come from their parents doesn't mean that the parents do right or wrong. Parents simply do what they think is better for their children, and I don't blame them for that.

Children are influenceables that's another reason why pushing religious beliefes on them is not ok. That's the reason why I blame some parents. Pushing the principles of secularism is "ok" because it's about tolerance ( even towards the people who don't want to know about the religious beliefs of others ) and the respect of the free will thus when the children have grown up they are able and free to follow their own spiritual road.

As you have certainly guessed I'm atheistic ( I have some difficulties to believe a superior being have created the quarks, protons, high-energy particles, radioactivity, dna, laws of physic, humans, dinosaurs, ... all that in 6 days ) but I understand that people can believe in something and respect them.

Nonetheless I see in the new project of law a modernisation of the law of 1905 and the re-affirmation that people can freely pratice their religion in both private and public but that there is some "sacred" places where religion and politic doesn't have their place. BTW political tracts are forbidden ( I don't know if it's by a law or by the internal rules of schools ) in schools since years, and each of the 3 big religions have a show on public TV every sunday morning.

mobrul: It probably shows, but nope I'm not a parent yet.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

[This message has been edited by poi (edited 01-03-2004).]

quote:

---

converts

---

That's the key word. You can't convert a fresh mind, you shape it. Whether you shape it to be religious or non-religious, you are still shaping it.

So if you teach your child to not be religious, you are guilty of the same thing as if you teach them to be religious. And by simply *not* teaching a child to be religious, you are essentially teaching it to not be religious.

Please show where the distinction lies...

Children are "impressionable". Yes. Obviously. And again, that is what parents are there for - to establish the right impressions in that shapable mind, according to what they see as the best thing for them. If they didn't, they shouldn't be parents.

quote:

---

Pushing the principles of secularism is "ok" because it's about tolerance

---

Clearly not, as your posts - and the stance of the government, it would seem - are quite intolerant.

Not allowing people to practice their religion is the very opposite of tolerance. It is, in effect, persecution.

tolerance:

quote:

---

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

2. a. Leeway for variation from a standard.
b. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent

---

You have demonstrated none of those traits in your statements so far poi, only the opposite.

Whether you are an atheist, a catholic, a jew, or a buddhist, is totally irrelevent.

I simply cannot see any purpose, or any good, in banning someone from wearing the trappings of their religion (where they do not interfere with school activities) in school. It fosters intolerance and thoughtless conformity.

Regarding the word "converts" in the definition of proselytism, I rather see it as a synonymous of adept. Whatever the end result is the same.

By not shaping children's mind that God, heaven & hell exists and that if they do not believe in the Christ their soul will burn for eternity, I think you give them a wider choice and do not prevent them to follow their own spiritual path later.

Secularism is not the negation of the religions but the separation between religions and civil affairs and public education. The tolerant aspect of secularism relies in its respect of the liberty of cult. But it also say that in some circumstances/places the religions do not have their place. It's as simple as that.

And I hope an almighty and loving god wouldn't punish its fellows if they do not wear a religious sign 24/24.

Before that project of law the law stated that is was up to the director of the schools to take a decision themselves if some students wore ostentious religious signs. It was too fuzzy and there was really few cases where the directors and the students wearing ostencious religious signs didn't found a compromise between the principle of secularism, the liberty of cult and the right to attend public education.

Again, in many districts, some girls are insulted and injured if they don't wear a headscarf and/or if they wear slightly feminine clothes. The intolerance of an active minority lead some atheist or not quite praticing girls to wear a headscarf and a jogging to hide their body and to stay home just to avoid the insults and injuries. If schools can become a sanctuary where ostencious religious signs don't have their place, the conformity you blame will at least avoid these problems of intolerance there. Obviously it doesn't solve the problems but limit their scope.

You know, the project law didn't popped up from Jacques CHIRAC's hat one morning. There has been a council of ~20 persons interviewing many teachers, students, parents of students, representatives of various associations, religious representatives, employees of public hospitals, ... during several weeks/months to come up to a list of recommendations on "respecting the principle of secularism in the republic" they gave to Jacques CHIRAC who finally proposed a project of law to be granted ( or not if the deputees decline it but it would be surprising ) and applied from september 2004.

As a French citizen, I have lived in England as a teacher and have had time to analyze and compare France to the UK. In the UK, Muslim women may wear headscarves. In France, they may wear headscarves too. The difference is that in public places they are not allowed to wear them in France. There is no sort of racism in this rule. I compare this practice to the uniforms pupils have to wear in English schools which they don't have to in French schools (in US schools pupils learn the parts of the Constitution by heart which would not be conceivable in France). On a certain level, there is a need for bringing people to a same level.
In France the reasons are historic. In the Middle Age, the Church had full powers over the country because it was the only big entity among battles of many kingdoms. It was a big machine that had to get rid of any threat to remain strong. Scientists were brave to show their discoveries as they could be called witches or sons of the devil and they could face death. Such a dogmatic religion survived until the Revolution but was eroded little by little as people needed freedom and a better life. Heavy taxes to the church and the lack of freedom were no evolution. After the Revolution, the chuch faced a lot of opponents. There was an obvious need to change society. Napoleon is going to give the state the powers it needed. The 1791 Constitution distinguishes the act of birth from the baptism ceremony, the act of death from the burial, Cimeteries are 'run' by towns, The Constitution of the Church and its cults are abolished.... The State becomes the head of France.
The Church no longer receives taxes. The state funds civil projects of the church, the renovation of buildings...only.
Living in France is very different from being in England. The UK still has its Queen, the British pay taxes to the church which sometimes gives its opinion on political matters. In France the 3rd Republic which was THE real first laic Republic was based on the separation of the church and public places. Allowing obvious religious signs would be seen as a threat if it was made common as the rules the Republic would no longer have a meaning, the Republic itself would be threatened. It would be as if some pupils in an American classroom were being rude at the American flag.
Also: we regularly hear of some Muslim men threatening Muslim young women because they don't wear headscarves, sometimes they stab them or rape them and this happens more and more often. These people are enrolled by Muslim fundamentalists and the French consider this as a step backward when women are such free citizens in France...
There is a need to unity in each country and having travelled from Japan to the US and all over Europe, I still think France is the big country of tolerance. I have many English friends living in France from professors of University to pensioners (70% of the British want to live in France or Spain), they love their life and feel no sign of racism.
Stephen

quote:

---

And I hope an almighty and loving god wouldn't punish its fellows if they do not wear a religious sign 24/24.

---

But that is not your call to make, now is it?

quote:

---

By not shaping children's mind that God, heaven & hell exists and that if they do not believe in the Christ their soul will burn for eternity, I think you give them a wider choice and do not prevent them to follow their own spiritual path later.

---

~sigh~

Again, you ingore the simple basic fact - IF a parent BELEIVES that to not accept christ is to burn in hell for eternity, then there is no choice for that parent but to teach their child to have faith in christ. PERIOD.

Just because you don't beleive you need to accpet christ, doesn't negate a devout christian parent's personal repsonsibility to their child.

quote:

---

But it also say that in some circumstances/places the religions do not have their place. It's as simple as that.

---

Certainly.

But explain to me how and why a child in school falls under this concept?

GIve me a valid reason that a child should not wear the standard garb of their religion while in a classroom.

The way I see it, the only way it can do harm would be because others would not be tolerant of that person's religion. And if the public cannot have the religious tolerance that you speak of, then hiding religion is not the answer! Educating the people is...

Stephen - I think the general history is relatively well understood, but again - the church having once been a large and powerful political entity in the region is no justification for such seemingly arbitrary limitations on religious freedom.

I also don't follow you in regard to muslim fundamentalists punishing women who don't wear their scarves - how does this relate, and what do you think is gained on this front by banning the wearing of these scarves?

quote:

---

what do you think is gained on this front by banning the wearing of these scarves?

---

More punishment?

I mean, if we are to believe the justification for this rule, how does it prevent the punishment? IF they will punish women for not wearing the scarves, what's to stop them from not allowing the women into public.

All the rationalizations in the world will not change the truth that this rule is intolerant in and of itself. I wonder if it was men wearing the scarves, if this rule would have even been suggested...



______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

DL :

I think there are here different ways to see the education of the young. I'll give you an example. My parents are openly anti-religion, in their opinion practising any religion is a slow degenerating process that leads to stupidity. So if I follow your reasonning, they should have taught me not to practise any religion, and to avoid it by all means. However, they didn't. They just let me choose my own way. I am an atheist now, but they didn't influence my choice. And it is the same for religious people ! Why should they convert their children to their beliefs, why couldn't they let their children make their own choice ? Of course any parent have to teach his children the 'right things', but converting your own children to your opinions is precisely the contrary of what I call being open-minded.

Now, I am not a parent, my opinion may not face reality, but this is what I wanted to say. And of course, I am aware that most people will disagree with this.


I also think there's a big difference between France and the USA. The USA is a religious country (well, at least much more than France). There, the religious associations are almost untouchables by the law, and I don't even speak about the televangelists etc etc... The Americans live in a religious bath. I think, but I may be wrong, that you are much more used than us to living with religious people. Even the American governement is religious; like Poi, I'm always puzzled to hear G.W. Bush tell "God bless the USA". However in France the state is laic, and therefore, religions were banned from public school not to interfere with the education. By attending to a public school, you are attending to a state school, that is to say a laic school. It is forbidden then to wear religious symbols. Of course it doesn't hinder anybody to see a religious symbol, and for you it is a symbol of intolerance, but for us, it is the mere application of our constitution.

You are asking what is the problem with wearing a religious symbol at school, but the problem is the opposite in my opinion. What is the problem with not wearing a religious symbol at school ? To the best of my knowledge, people having a *real* faith in a precise religion do not need to wear various symbols at school to practise rightly their religion. As far as I am concerned, a religion is something that works inside of us, right ?

Nonetheless, I must admit that our cultures are slightly different, perhaps that's why we see this problem under different views.

Last of all, I personally think that banning such headscarves should not be restricted to schools. Headscarves symbolize the inferiority of women, they symbolize all these idiotic rights the Musulmans have on their wives. For the good of freedom, and for the good of women, they should be completely banned.


Edit : writing proper english...

[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 01-04-2004).]

quote:

---

I am an atheist now, but they didn't influence my choice

---

Nonsense.

Perhaps they didn't say "you need to be an atheist", but that doesn't mean they did no tinfluence you - they still did the things to shape your mind in a non-religious way.

quote:

---

people having a *real* faith in a precise religion do not need to wear various symbols at school to practise rightly their religion.

---

And again, I won't disagree with the concept of that statement - but it's not for me or you to decide whether their religion calling for them to wear such things is really necesssary or not.

If their religion requires them to dress a certain way, and that way is totally unobtrusive - such as a mere head scarf - then banning them from doing so is just plain silly.


I just truly do not get it.

Banning religious law is one thing. Banning religious groups from controlling the government - great.

But banning people from practicing the harmless tennents of their religion just baffles me.

Again - please explain why it matters that it is in a school?

What difference does that make? It simply being a government run institution doesn't explain the distinction....

quote:

---

For the good of freedom, and for the good of women, they should be completely banned.

---

YAY! well said MS!

quote:

---

Now, I am not a parent, my opinion may not face reality, but this is what I wanted to say. And of course, I am aware that most people will disagree with this.

---

Not being a parent puts you kinda at a disadvantage when using parent-child argumentatives. The first child makes you insane, the whole world changes and the child is an angelic gift given especially to you...

Until the second child comes...

Then you learn how selfish and mean children can be.

The third...?

Well, the third teaches you why wild animals will sometimes eat their young... LOL!

My point? errr... the screaming hellions have blurred it from my mind. But thankfully there is coffee... and cigarettes... Ahhh, brief respites in a tumultuos world. Oh, but ya cant smoke around the selfish little brats, that being said, I need to step outside....

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

as far as parents, children and religion goes, i can only share what i've done and what's worked for me to this point. i'm a fairly open minded parent, so when nik (my son) was 5 got interested in church through a friend, i (and my husband at the time - nik's dad) didn't have a problem with it. neither his father or i subscribed to any religion but were both spiritual and felt (and still do feel) that nik needs to choose that path for himself.
he's tried several differnt religions/churches and each time either i or his father and i would go to the church first to find out exactly what they were teaching. while we didn't have a problem with him exploring religion, we weren't goin to let him attend some hell fire and brim stone church where he's taking up snakes and speaking in tongues. after lengthy conversations with the head of whatever church it was at the time, explaining the situation, how we felt etc, nik would start attending.
over the last 7 years, he's been to mormon churches, Jehovah's Witnesses churches, baptist churches etc and i think it's been a good experience for him.
but, if i were of a specific religion, i would be passing that religion on to him as the way to go. and i guess in a way, encouraging him to believe in something, regardless of what, rather than believing in nothing at all, is kinda the same.

i agree with DL on that i don't see a problem with children or adults wearing religious items in schools or where they work. it really reeks of intolerance. it makes you uncomfortable, so hide it. that's just silly.

not wearing headscarves is not going to liberate women either.

I strongly disagree to teach childtren about religion at early age, especially like 5...the most important should be given to our children is education in first place, once the kids gets education IMP he can finally start expierencing the religions if parenst let him/her to chose it. ( I did say at the age of 13) But when they start going to different churches at early age, they will be confused, might start doubting and so on( unless you are taking him to "the right" and only church and teaching him "the true" faith.)

just my 2 cents

I recently became a parent -- just a bit more than two months ago.
Something a parent learns VERY quickly is that kids are sponges. That's a cliche, certainly, but it is so absolutely true.
Even at only 11 weeks old, my daughter is already mimicing my and her mother's facial expressions. It's even more so in older children.

My wife and I, from August 2002 to July 2003, parented (exclusively cared for and raised) two children not our own. They were 6 years and 3 years old.
They came to our home with no manners and very little social skill. The six-year-old knew none of the letters of the alphabet, could not count to ten, had no interest in learning of any sort. The three-year-old was also not acting developmentally appropriate. He could not dress himself (and had no desire to try!), could not sit still for even 3 minutes, could not run, throw a ball, or stack blocks.
They were, and are, very sweet and friendly children who, through no fault of their own, simply were not exposed to the things to which kids should be exposed.
In short, they were taught nothing! They were left, essentially, on their own. They had never (or very rarely) interacted with other children. Their entire day was spent in front of the TV or game console. Their own mother did not read to them, have meaningful talk with them, encourage them or teach them. They were taught nothing...and they knew nothing.

Within the first few weeks of them living with us, my wife and I did not produce three dozen rules and regulations. We did not try to directly teach them manners or etiquette. We layed down a handful of very general household rules and then simply lead our lives. We read to them each night (as we read to ourselves or each other each night). We put our napkin in our lap when we ate. We worked in the garden and went to the park. We lived our lives.
Soon, they were putting their napkins in their lap when they ate -- simply by watching us. Within a month, the six-year-old offered to set the table for dinner, and did it with few (and only minor) errors -- simply by watching us.
The three-year-old boy became more agile, balanced and strong from playing and working with us outside (something he had never done before. Can you imagine, a 3-year-old who has never thrown a ball, ran in the yard or played in a park!) Though only three, he soon grasped the essentialls of weeding a garden and could do it without uprooting many of my herbs.
The 6-year-old girl could read at an age appropriate level -- and wanted to! -- by the time they left us. The three year old could count to ten and learned basic shapes.
They learned (as well as six and three-year-olds can) how to be a lady and a gentleman, how to live and enjoy life, how to be people.
They learned this all with very little direct influence of us on them, but a whole lot of us just being us.

To take this long story and make it short, (and DL said it clearly enough up above, but I'll reiterate) kids learn from their surroundings and their environments with extreme (almost alarming!) ease.

As a parent, to do is to teach.

While I can hope that all parents will teach their children tolerance and respect for different religions, cultures and philosophies, it is not only unwise, but simply impossible for a parent to NOT impart upon his/her child his/her religion, culture, traditions and philosophies.

[edit: spelling error]

[This message has been edited by mobrul (edited 01-05-2004).]

Can someone translate this for me;

quote:

---

To answer in a narrow mind close to yours, I will tell you that French kids, Muslim kids in France don't have to pray every morning in front of Papa Bush American flag. They are free to think. It is why France has been and will always remain the country of free thinking. In France there is no brainwash, whether at school, in newspapers or on TV. This explains a lot!! I travelled in the US, Japan, Europe, lived in the UK but like 70% of the British that dream of living in France, I don't think there is on Earth a more tolerant country than France. And if you wanted to see the trruth, coming to France, you'd realize there is no propaganda as there's no need for any here.
>America has been in war with all major countries in history except with France. In fact, it even gave the US its independence fighting against the English for the US freedom...

---

Am I being insulted? I thought maybe I was with the way this email started but after muddling through the missive I am just not sure...

And as far as US not going to war with France... What's the point? They got no oil, the women are hairy, and I'm pretty sure we already have the recipe for bread and cheese. Wasn't it Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration, who said;

quote:

---

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/babbin.htm
" . . . you know frankly, going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind."

---

I mean, if we wouldnt bring them to war, why even bother fighting them when there is nothing worthwile to plunder?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

[This message has been edited by UnknownComic (edited 01-07-2004).]

quote:

---

except with France. In fact, it even gave the US its independence fighting against the English for the US freedom...

---

That's quite the overstatement.

Helped? Certainly.

Gave? Hardly.

I don't think the continental army was just sitting around waiting for someone to deliver them throughout the revolutionary war

But that's a discussion for another thread.

I really just want to second Lacuna's statement - banning scraves is not going to liberate anybody.

It's a very superficial and arrogant view to think that by forcing people to conform, you will change their minds and spirits.

And again points towards france as being far less "free-thinking" and tolerant than you guys seem to think it is.

Quite simply I think that when you move to another country, it should be YOU that has to adapt to that country's culture, and not the other way around.

With that said, it's not going to hurt anyone to have someone wearing a headscarf. But, there are boundaries that should be set.

For example: I go to a school with alot of Muslim and asian people. It's in Canada, and they're the minorities around this area, but there just happens to be alot of them in this faculty. Because there are alot of Muslim students here, there are alot of headscarves. That's cool, it doesn't bug me. However, one day I caught a guy washing his feet in the drinking fountain. Now apparently, this is a part of their religion, and quite frankly, it was disgusting. That's an example of boundaries being crossed.

So if France thinks that wearing a headscarf is crossing a boundary, then I think the Muslims have to respect that. Especially if the school requires a dress code/uniforms which headscarves may not be a part of.

Also, DL is right when he says

quote:

---

Anyone with any serious religious convictions has an obligation to pass them on to their children. Anyone with any serious religious conviction has no choice but to view their particular religion as "the one", and therefore it could be nothing but folly to simply let their children believe/behave however they see fit.

---

Which probably explains why I'm not very religious.

[This message has been edited by synax (edited 01-07-2004).]

I'm on the fence on this one. I can see where banning of "ostentatious" religious symbology in schools can be of a benefit. To a degree, it levels the playing field regarding preconceived notions about a person. Granted, one can still make assumptions based on skin color, hair color/style etc... but it becomes a little more sketchy when one's religion is not displayed to public view. Religious symbols can be a distraction, especially to children. It draws attention to something that is "different". The question is whether the distraction is enough that it impacts how children learn.

On the other side, a secular government that supports free thinking and freedom to practice your religion of choice should not be stepping on those expressions. A state that becomes to secularly minded without sensitivity to religions is basically no better than a theocracy - without the religion. As long as disruptions are minimal and no one is being harmed by the symbol of choice then I see no reason why the practice can't be allowed.

And the latest - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3437133.stm

I want to add that the Socialist Party wanted to alter the text to ban all visible signs of religion which is an absolute NO-NO in regard of the human rights and the liberty of beliefs and practice of a religion.

I'm glad to hear that, poi.

It passes as expected: http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0204/newswire021004.htm

. . : slicePuzzle