- cross-posted to:
- news@kbin.social
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@kbin.social
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m all for letting people wear whatever they want. What is the harm?
Here in Canada I’ve seen police officers wearing turbans. Works for me. Nude beaches? Sure thing. I’ve seen people in my neighborhood wearing Saudi-style niqabs and Afghan-style burqas.
Who am I to tell people what they should or shouldn’t wear? How could it be my business?
I’m also for people burning the Qur’an if they so please. Or the bible, or the rainbow flag, or the national flag if that’s how they want to protest. Ideas are there to be challenged.
I draw the line at threatening or harming people.
France is a secularist Republic. Freedom of religion is guaranteed but every religious sign is banned in the public space.
I understand that’s how things are, but I don’t think that is how they should be. And while I’m an atheist, I also understand many people aren’t. Why force my irreligiosity on them?
So while students should not be indoctrinated on any particular religion in school, I don’t see the harm in letting both teachers and students wear whatever they like, including religious symbols.
In fact, it would be great if we taught all students the basics of multiple world religions in school and let people of different faiths talk to each other about what is important to them.
I really like this stance. Understanding other people is absolutely important. You don’t have to agree with them, but you do have to understand them and see them as people.
Precisely! We have more in common than not. And I sincerely believe that we become more tolerant by talking and trying to understand each other, even if we find areas where we disagree.
Remaining in our own little information bubble is what radicalizes people.
I can see where you are coming from. How can we forbid clothing if the goal is to not dictate what to wear?
But consider that in a community, be that at school or in the neighborhood, classmates and neighbors can uphold unregulated, religious rules. Is it free choice of clothing if the law doesn’t forbid anything, but only girls with (insert appropriate clothing) are allowed to join in the play? And there is plenty precedent of religion that causes precisely such group behavior.
There is plenty of precedent of non-religious informal rules around clothing. E.g. men wearing skirts, dresses, or soft “feminine” colors. Do those informal rules bother you as well? Should we change the law accordingly, or are we okay with informal norms of conduct in that case?
In general, yes I do think that we should get rid of such informal rules. And I would appreciate a law that e.g. ensures an employer can not discriminate against men wearing dresses or skirts. For what it’s worth, there have been protest by bus drivers, who are not allowed to wear shorts in the summer, who showed up in skirts on a hot day.
If we change the garment from abayas to pants it would be “to ban male students from wearing pants in school”, meaning they’d be forced to wear skirts or dresses. But two points make this different from the OP:
- Since this is not linked to religion it has a slightly different spin. I can’t put it into words that well, but a guy choosing to wear a skirt is just that, a clothing choice. But Islam is pretty explicit that women should cover themselves. So if a guy goes against the informal law people would make fun of him. If an Islam woman wears short clothes she is not only made fun of, but can also get in trouble with her entire community.
- While dresses/skirts are almost exclusively worn by women, pants are worn by men and women. So a guy wearing pants is not the outlier, he is wearing the gender neutral clothing. If abayas are also worn by a significant fraction of male students in France I would heavily oppose the proposed ban, but I found nothing that would indicate such a practice.
Well if that really were the fears of people proposing such bans, then there would be a lot of better ways to achieve this. At the very least they would try to support such bans with flanking policies such as better infrastructure to support such women who are oppressed in a religious ways as for example better integration courses and public information.
And for some reason it’s always only about Muslim women! Other religions which can also coerce or force family members to follow a certain dress code, not a single word about them.
And for some reason it’s always only about Muslim women! Other religions which can also coerce or force family members to follow a certain dress code, not a single word about them.
Because right now and in Europe those are rather rare. Afaik there’s some Christian groups where women always wear long skirts, but those groups tend to get called “cults” (“Sekten” here in Germany) so I don’t really see a double standard there.
That said, there are surveys regarding why women wear hijabs and - at least in Germany - those say that the vast majority wears them voluntarily.
Because right now and in Europe those are rather rare.
So were Muslim women wearing Burqas and yet several countries have made laws against them. So the rarity of the oppression doesn’t seem to matter that much.
But regardless, if this is a legitimate problem, then the law should be secular and apply to all religions.
I understand that’s how things are, but I don’t think that is how they should be.
Don’t take that guy just at his word. France does force secularism on their government buildings and workers, including teachers. But public wearing of religious symbols or garnment is perfectly fine. They recently banned face covering, with the obvious target of Muslim women wearing burqa or niqabs, but everything else is perfectly legal to wear in public.
I don’t see harm by them not being allowed to wear it…
And you should talk about all religions, but only in a negative way.
I don’t see harm by them not being allowed to wear it…
How would you feel about somebody banning your favorite attire? What right do they have to tell you what to wear?
And you should talk about all religions, but only in a negative way.
Why? Even though I’m an atheist, it’s also clear that religion is often a source of comfort and community to many people, especially during times of hardship. And by learning a little about different religions we can learn to be more tolerant of people who see the world differently.
How would you feel about somebody banning your favorite attire? What right do they have to tell you what to wear?
Its not a favorite attire when its a religious thing that is forced on people.
Why? Even though I’m an atheist, it’s also clear that religion is often a source of comfort and community to many people, especially during times of hardship. And by learning a little about different religions we can learn to be more tolerant of people who see the world differently.
Nope. We don’t need to tolerate things that preach intolerance. There is nothing positive about religions in general.
Its not a favorite attire when its a religious thing that is forced on people.
Am I asking that we force women to cover their hair? No, I’m saying that they should be allowed to choose by themselves. Not coerced to cover it, not banned from doing so either. Let them choose.
We don’t need to tolerate things that preach intolerance. There is nothing positive about religions in general.
The only intolerance we are seeing here is your own.
Still supporting hate and intolerance i see. Get lost.
Every sign being banned in public? So what about all the crosses on the churches, or the ringing of their bells? What about people wearing crosses and nunns wearing the traditional dress? What about the easter processions in some places?
Sorry, but claiming that this would be in line with a secular policy doesnt work. It is target against muslims and muslims specifically without any actual bearing on secularism
These laws have been made to kick of the priest out of the school. If you’re a nun or a priest and attend school you have to wear civil clothe.
I am fine saying that these laws are over used against Muslim,but religious signs are banned in school and for government employee
While i support it for government employees in schools or other jobs with the public, i think we also need to look at the role of the attire. Priests and Nunns wear specific attire to their religious role.
It is not day to day clothing for normal people. for the Abbaya, or we had the same discussion in Germany for Hijab or any scarf around the head i always found it absurd since my areligious grandmother wore a scarf covering her head all the time and she preffered clothing that weren’t emphasizing her body shape. For day to day clothing or accessoires it becomes muddled quickly. is the cross on the wristlet a sign of religious affiliation, or just looking cute? Are the semi-moon earrings only worn by muslims, or does Anna-Sophia just like how it emphasizes her face? What about Marcs metal-band shirt with a cross on it? The only surefire way to “solve” it, would be to define a mandatory school uniform.
Freedom of religion is guaranteed but every religious sign is banned in the public space.
No it’s not! Thousands of people walk around with religious symbols and garnments in public all the time in France.
Secularism is enforced in government offices and employed people.
As an American this is difficult to comprehend. I’m feeling culture shock. Maybe the first xenophobia I’ve experienced in years.
France doesn’t have the First Amendment. I mean, I don’t much think that this is a good idea either, but different country, different system of government.
For what it’s worth, As a German I don’ t particularly like the right to free speech as it exists in the US. It allows way too much, including harmful things. E.g. in Germany it is not allowed to glorify the Holocaust. I’m pretty sure such a thing would be allowed as free speech in the US.
I’m an American living in Germany. It’s not honestly much different in effect. In the US I could insult a police officer as much as I want (but you know… if I choose the wrong one they’ll fucking kill me), whereas it’s illegal in Germany. There’s a lot of things like that, where there’s technically the freedom to do something but it doesn’t really mean freedom
Yeah, you kinda privatized speech control. It*s interesting that in the US people can get easily fired over things they said on social media. In Germany that’s harder. Not just because of legal protections (there are some, but they’re not that strong) but also because there’s an understanding that what can and cannot be said shouldn’t be decided by people on Twitter/X but by the law.
Yup. There’s also a much stronger line between your work life and your private life. It’s wild to me (not bad, just very unexpected) that people with drug possession charges don’t lose their jobs here, even office workers or teachers
There are entire YouTube channels dedicated to people who film themselves screaming profanities at police officers in the US to get them to do something illegal.
This group of people calls themselves First Amendment Auditors.
A camera provides a lot of insurance in this case.
So racist haha. Very on-brand for France honestly.
It’s a smoke screen to get right wing voters on their side once again. Public services in France are in shambles, our education is getting noticeably worse by the decade and this is what these fucks focus on.
They’ve been doing this shit for years, though…
Absolutely, they are way more open about it nowadays though
That makes sense. Here in Canada they use similar tactics to distract people from stuff like the astronomical cost of housing, crumbling health care, underfunded education, etc.
Yeah, last year the conversation was about banning crop tops and this year it’s long dresses, every September there’s something to talk about in french schools.
Exactly this, and it’s the perfect example of how “progressives” (that aren’t really that) enable fascism.
No one is calling Frances government “progressive” so why are you attaching that label to this?
This is an example how right wing capitalists enable fascism.
Our government hides it less and less. They are basically proto fascists that would do anything to help their rich friends keep their power.
Nude beaches? Sure thing. I
In other words: Nudist “clothing” is banned from the entire public safe very few exceptions.
In Spain you are allowed to walk around naked on any public spaces, with very few exceptions. It doesn’t happen very often in practice, but it’s allowed.
Yeah, that is how you actually let people decide to wear what they want. Afaik Spain also doesn’t have burqa ban or anything similar (at least not in general, there may be rules in special cases).
I’m just always a bit annoyed when US-Americans criticise it when European countries ban certain clothing. They have rather draconian laws at home as well. And of course we’re talking about schools here, hence school uniforms provide another relevant and rather widespread example of infringements on clothing-freedom.
Being nude in public is technically legal (but only kinda*) in my country but I don’t think forcing people to wear any clothes is comparable to banning specific types of clothes.
*It’s basically legal as long as you’re not offending anyone. So walking around naked around town might be legal, but anything you do could suddenly make it illegal.
This means that the law doesn’t really have to be changed overtime since it’s just based on what the general population thinks should be okay and not.
I don’t think forcing people to wear any clothes is comparable to banning specific types of clothes.
There are differences, but I’d actually argue that only banning very specific clothing is a lesser infraction on liberty. If you really want to be nude, you have to ditch clothing altogether. With specific garments there tends to be some wiggle room. E.g. you might try to adhere to your religious rules by wearing a wig and baggy clothing.
Edit: I agree with you that it’s based on the “offending portion” but that’s the case with religious clothing in France. A lot of people there are offended by it.
I love you
I love you too 😁
I draw the line at threatening or harming people.
Except these bans are harming people.
Anyone dictating what others can or cannot wear is harming people.All this “enlightened” centrism bullshit does is enable oppressors.
The guy you answered was argueing the opposite of what you understood. He said, there should be no prohibition of practices unless they harm people.
I agree, but there is a somewhat thorny question here: Where does the dictation start?
Many of these students and their families are being dictated to by Sunni wahabbist imams trained and funded by Saudi oil money, and they actually come from cultures and religious traditions that didn’t give a shit about the abaya in the ‘60s and ‘70s.
Well how about they tackle the foreign financial support of such extremist religious subgroups then? How about they provide more public information about the personal rights of women to choose themself what they wear? How about providing better infrastructure with properly trained social workers to better help such women to flee from such oppressive households?
Any of these examples would be several times better at actually improving the lives of such women. Definitely more than them being forced to not wear something. Women who are forced to wear such stuff should be helped to understand that it isn’t right for them to be forced to wear something they don’t want. Guess what certainly doesn’t help in that task, the state also dictating what they can’t wear.
I draw the line at threatening or harming people
Except these bans are harming people
Sorry for not being clear in my statement. I mean harming as in: beheading, stoning, bombing, shooting, etc. Not as in hurting their feelings.
But we agree: nobody should impose on other people what they can or cannot wear, whether it is religious symbols or pirate regalia.
All this “enlightened” centrism bullshit does is enable oppressors
Could you please elaborate?
burning rainbow flags doesn’t only hurt feelings
Can you elaborate? What else does it do? I’m queer, and while I don’t like seeing the rainbow flag being burnt, it doesn’t compare with receiving a beating.
it is a precursor to beating. Attack the symbols first and if it is socially accepted you can escalate to violence against the people. The Nazis didnt start by gassing the jews. they started with making it okay fo be hostile to them in public, denouncing them in every way and slowly ramping up the violence. Same story for any discrimination of minorities escalated into violence and murder.
it represents a hate crime
these bans harm people because they
- encourage shitty men in the lives of these women to limit their education
- encourage these hardcore religious communities to form and utilize their own school systems, which will indoctrinate their youth
- encourage these families to leave France and potentially return to repressive theocratic states.
The fact that you think this is about “hurt feelings” rather than what it is - actual oppression that leads to real life marginalisation, violence, and death, you’re either not paying attention or are being wilfully ignorant and obtuse.
All this “enlightened” centrism bullshit does is enable oppressors
Could you please elaborate?You could open your eyes, or simply take the idea of dictating what people do and don’t wear to it’s only conclusion (it is literally oppression in its own right, no matter your personal feelings on the matter), but here, I’ll save you having to do any hard work:
specifically:
https://socialistworker.co.uk/what-we-think/stop-islamophobic-attacks-on-the-veil/
https://daily.jstor.org/muslim-women-and-the-politics-of-the-headscarf/
generally:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
https://blacklikemao.medium.com/how-liberalism-helps-fascism-d4dbdcb199d9
Sorry, I truly have trouble understanding your sentences. I gather that you are upset, but I’m not sure about what, exactly. I hope things turn out okay for you.
Lmfao, go fuck yourself you condescending wilfully ignorant fascism enabling prick. Was that clear enough for you?
go fuck yourself you condescending wilfully ignorant fascism enabling prick
I will do so thinking of you 😘
“When you walk into a classroom, you shouldn’t be able to identify the pupils’ religion just by looking at them,”
Sir I’m sorry but a abaya doesn’t prove someone is religious. You can wear one if you so please even if you’re not Islam. It’s just a dress.
Sure, and you an atheist could wear a cross and speak a prayer every morning. They just usually don’t and until we can telepathically determine what someone actually believes such insignia are the best way to show support for religion.
But the abaya is not a religious symbol, it’s literally just a fucking dress like any other, it’s just what they wear typically in that part of the world. It’s like saying that pants are a christian symbol because all Europeans wear pants, and Europe is majority christian.
Do you really think those girls wear abaya inside school not because of religion?
I’m not an expert on religious clothing, but the Wikipedia article is pretty clear that it is strongly connected to Islam.
Your comparison is flawed, because while “christian” -> “probably wears pants” is true, the opposite is not. If I tell you I saw someone wearing pants, you would not think about their religion. They could be Hindi, Atheist, etc. But if I tell you I saw a girl in a full body dress, you’d be able to tell their religion pretty accurately.
Also, we are talking about France. If the Abaya is “what they tyipcally wear in that part of the world” then “all Europeans wear pants” is a contradiction.
I think saying this largely denies the cultural implications of many religiously associated garments and symbols.
Most religious symbols are not just that, they’re cultural ones. People adopt them, change them, redefine them. Drawing lines between religion and culture is very difficult so attempting to stop someone dressing some way is just a restriction of freedom, regardless of religion.
Many of these girls are brought up to believe it is wrong to not cover your body as a girl and woman. How is that freedom?
Forcing someone to stop smoking is not giving them freedom
When they got addicted it may very much give them freedom.
These veils are not chosen by girls out of freedom. No 10 year old girl suddenly stands up and thinks “Better to cover my body, otherwise I may tempt the men around me”.
It does not matter if a vice is chosen or unchosen. Smoking is a great example. You may not choose a tobacco addiction.
Situation A: you have the freedom to choose to quit or not. Quitting results in more freedom. Not quitting results in less. The total freedoms available to you at any time are the freedom TO quit and the freedom OF quitting
Situation B: You have no freedom to choose to quit. Your total freedoms are: freedom from quitting.
So your freedoms have decreased in situation B. We have to ask if personal freedoms are preferable to better outcomes.
The difference is that freedom is independent of opinion. You are either free to do so lawfully or not. But if I say “it would be better for you to not have that freedom”, I need to demonstrate what “better” means. And there everyone often disagrees.
If you really want to take smoking as an analogy the situation would be like this: Your parents forced you into a tabacco addiction. You are growing up being told that you can’t go anywhere without smoking and those around you who do not smoke are doing a bad thing.
Is it good or bad if these children have a place where their parents have no power to force them to smoke?
But pretty much only devout muslim women wear them. Might as well be a hijab at this point.
That s a good thing actually
You know, the solution to women being told what to wear is not to tell them that they cannot wear it.
I don’t agree with this prohibition, and I doubt that it’s likely going to achieve much, but if my experience looking at past government restrictions on things that people want to do is predictive of the situation here, it’ll mean that someone will sit down and figure out the exact limit that the French government prohibits and then figure out a garment or combination of garments that accomplishes as much of the original aims as possible without crossing whatever specific garment line is there.
I mean, what’s a women’s garment that does the head and neck? The bonnet?
googles
Hmm. Apparently it actually did have some religious background.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnet_(headgear)
Bonnets remained one of the most common types of headgear worn by women throughout most of the 19th century. Especially for a widow, a bonnet was de rigueur. Silk bonnets, elaborately pleated and ruched, were worn outdoors, or in public places like shops, galleries, churches, and during visits to acquaintances. Women would cover their heads with caps simply to keep their hair from getting dirty and perhaps out of female modesty, again, in European society, based upon the historical teaching of the Christian Bible. In addition, women in wedlock would wear caps and bonnets during the day, to further demonstrate their status as married women.
But, as far as I know, they aren’t banned. So someone says “Okay, so people can’t wear (religious) abayas, but can wear (secular) trenchcoats? This new garment isn’t an abaya. This is a bonnet and trenchcoat.” Or, you know, whatever.
Wanna know why this whole thing isn’t about a pupil wearing something that shows their religion? They sure as hell don’t ban the kippah, sikhi turban or buddhist and hindu garnments.
For some reason it only goes after Muslims and there mostly after women with the guise of “protecting them from oppression! ;-)”. And it never involves actual talk with the “oppressed” women in question, it’s always the assumption, that of course these women can’t decide for themself and obviously all are forced to wear such garnments.
It started with the burqa and niqab but the people in favor of that promised that it’s just about the face covering, that there is no reason go after the hijab or similar garnments. Surprise surprise, only a few years later here we are and they still fight against “oppression” by limiting what Muslim women can wear. One would think that fighting oppression really was the goal of these people they would ask for actual support measures like providing education campaigns about personal rights and better support network for women. But no, these people think or pretend that such bans will magically solve the issue without any flanking measures. And that tells you all you need to know about their sincerities regarding this topic. It’s not about the girls and women, it never was and never will be.
deleted by creator
I don’t think this tries to solve that kind of problem.
The problem with religious clothing is that the more people who wear it, the more pressure can be put on children to wear it or stand out/be condemned. It gets worse when the clothing is gender-specific.
It also puts children in a situation where their religious background can be seen from afar, making them Christian/Muslim/Jew etc. first and citizen second, when in a secularised country it should always be the other way round.
It is twice as bad when teachers wear religious clothing, because how can you not wear it if your teacher is wearing it. And when children wear religious clothing and have to defend wearing it, they get into a situation where they may have to defend it and wear it and even be part of peer pressure because there is no way out, you are either pushed from one side or the other and many choose to then rather push themselves.
Religious freedom is a double-edged sword: Freedom to live your religion, but also the freedom to live without religion, and especially children who are brought up in a religious family need the school as a place where religion isn’t a thing, so that they have a place to even think about what it feels like to live without it. Religion needs to be a personal choice and only if you have a place to check what it means to be without it you can choose.
If your religion can not give children a place to be without it so they can then freely choose, there is something severely wrong with that religion. Unfortunately I have yet to find a religion that does allow it.
how can you not wear it if your teacher is wearing it
What logic is this? Just make everyone know that a school is a safe space where nobody is made to wear or not wear anything unless it’s offensive (such as profane, racist or too revealing).
Because a teacher is a role model and if your teacher is a role model for religion in a place that should be the one place free from it, then that’s not working.
School can only be a safe place for children to take a breath from a religious background if religion stays completely out of it.
You think it can be a safe space when the girl gets told by its parents “look the teacher is wearing this, so you need too” even if the teacher isn’t saying it?Unfortunately religious clothing isn’t just clothing like every other and religions of this world (not just one specific) are not about safe spaces, they want to be everywhere and they want to occupy school too. A secular country can not allow that.
a teacher is a role model
Maybe in primary school but not really since middle school.
You want uniforms?
…Also I was in a school with a strict dress code (light shirts only with no print) as well as one where a “MOTHERFUCKER” hoodie was apparently permitted. I don’t really care either way but I don’t see how prohibiting religious attire would help.
I literally said that nobody is [forced] to wear or not wear anything […] - as in “total freedom unless offensive”. You’re implying I said the opposite.
But where does offensive start? People in my youth would’ve called some of our metal band shirts to be offensive.
Yeah, defining that is a bit of a problem. However, I am pretty sure most schools have had prior incidents that set a precedent. I guess some even have specific blacklist (hard curse words, depictions of nudity, revealing armpits etc.) or even a whitelist (sports gear in PE, clothing of major religions)
See, I would’ve never in a million years guessed armpits are somehow offensive to anyone.
Ever been in a teenage boys’ locker room? Armpits STINK.
Problem is, the “unless” part is different for everyone. Lot of people find religious stuff offensive, while the revealing stuff not.
I can understand you thought process buts its more of a Theoretic then this happening in Realf Life in many Families they do not care that much about it.
Kids only wear it if they are Praying or after getting older.
I did not know what an abaya is, but it did not matter to know this is a stupid ban. Just let people wear whatever the fuck they want to wear.
The thing is some children do not have a say in the clothes they get. Those children still deserve the same conditions in school
If that were genuinely the motivation and it would be handled with the appropriate nuance, I could get behind that. But as it stands, this is saying, for completely arbitrary reasons, you can’t wear your clothing that you wear all the time, the clothing you’re likely comfortable in.
And they just won’t be able to get these school conditions, the same way that they can’t play club sports and that Muslim moms can’t volunteer for school trips.
You mean they don’t want to? Because they surely can
So much for freedom of religion.
“When you walk into a classroom, you shouldn’t be able to identify the pupils’ religion just by looking at them,”
What a dumb fucking reason. Really, that’s the best he could come up with? Why not? What’s so bad about knowing someone’s religion, when they are obviously not shy about it?
I get banning religious symbols from schools, because the institutes themselves are supposed to be non-religious (seperation of state and church and so on), but if the students themselves want to express their religion, let them.
French laicite is not freedom of religion, as the Anglosphere would understand it. (Which makes their insistence that it’s just the direct translation of “secularism” frustrating.) It’s a consistent effort to make religion every individual’s private business.
Compare fucking. You can do whatever you want with whoever you want. Just not on a street corner. Other people don’t want to deal with that.
I don’t personally endorse this approach, for a variety of reasons, but you have to understand it to condemn it.
That’s very interesting, I didn’t know that.
I wasn’t talking about Frances interpretation though, as I’m obviously not well informed on that. I was more thinking about the EU commitment to freedom of religion as stated in the “EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief”, in which all EU member states commit to protijg the freedom of religion in the EU (and even outside if possible, see OSCE).
Just as a small excerpt:
(b) the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief, individually or in community with others, in public or private, through worship, observance, practice and teaching.
This includes the duty to rescind discriminatory legislation, implement legislation that protects freedom of religion or belief, and halt official practices that cause discrimination, as well as to protect people from discrimination by state and other influential actors, whether religious or non-religious
So the state has a responsibility to protect the freedom of religion, within it’s territory.
School is a special place. Religion must not get in
Said every authoritarian ever. So you don’t believe in freedom of religion and being able to express that?
Of course I do, just not in school. School is more sacred than religions
That’s literally what freedom of religion means though. To be able to express your religion in both public and private, without the state interfering. Every EU country has committed itself to the “EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief”. Freedom of religion does not mean that people are free to follow their religion behind closed doors or in places that you or the state allow them to practice it.
To be honest pupils still have the right to talk about their religion. The difference between clothing and discussion is that clothing seems more intrusive to others
Before being muslim you are French. Disallowing any religious symbols allow people to bond easily because they are not blocked by religion.
They can see something else at school, it allows them to widen their perspective. Either, since childhood, the only thing they’ll do is practice a religion their parents have forced unto them.
After high school, I see no problems about showing your religious symbols because normally at this point of your life, you are educated about a lot of things and able to choose for yourself…
Sorry to burst your bubble, but people in other countries (like Germany) where they are allowed to display religious symbols are able to bond just fine. If you can’t “bond” with someone because they’re wearing a cross on a chain or cover their head with religious clothing, that sounds like a you-issue. Regardless of why they practice their religion, it’s not up to you or the state to tell them how to practice it. Sure some are forced into it by their parents, but banning religious symbols in schools isn’t going to fix that. What it does do however, is stop students from practicing a religion they freely chose.
This law is made by people who are intimidated by things they don’t understand and that probably have their roots in racism and islamophobia.
People in Germany have trouble to “bond” though. Unless you want to ignore the multitude of troubles some immigrants (even second and third generation) face here. To deny these also have to do with religious conservatism isn’t helpful.
That some of the children here are still forced into religion, sometimes living in a basically parallel society, is a problem that shouldn’t simply be brushed aside.
Im not denying that there are problems with integration. I’m not denying that some kids are forced into religion.
I’m saying that taking away the liberty to express your religion, won’t change anything about that. All it does is appease people who are offended or threatened by religion (Islamophobia, anti semitism etc.).
A kid that is forced into religion won’t become an atheist if it can’t wear a headdress or a cross chain in school.
I think it does help people become more free from religious oppression.
Please try to imagine you are brought up with the rule you have to cover your whole body with a veil all the time you leave your home. Especially if you are brought up to do that since you are a child. It’s a powerful tool to keep control over someone with a relative simple thing. It’s not just a necklace or some other small thing.
I can imagine that just fine and it’s horrible. I love in a country with a fuck ton of Muslim immigrants and I’m sure a lot of their children would prefer not to have to cover their hair (that’s what we’re talking about, not a burka as you describe it).
Yes it’s a powerful tool to keep kids under the influence of their parents religion. But taking away the symbols of that religion won’t make the kids atheist or magically take them out of the influence of their families. If you think that parents who enforce the strict rules of their religion because the kid can’t wear certain clothing at school, you are Truely delusional. Best case the lod doesn’t wear it in school, but still has to do so every other minute in their life. Worst case the parents pull their kids out of school, because the school threatens their influence. A lot of those kids are going to end up home schooled by their radical families or simply go to a private school, where such rules don’t exist. Neither is going to help the kid.
The abaya isn’t just a headscarf, though. It only leaves the face uncovered and I have seen kids who also additionally cover parts of their face with it.
I am not sure of the details in current laws in France, many (most?) countries in Western Europe do not allow homeschooling and private schools have to follow almost all of the same laws as state schools.
Personally I think we need to do more to push back against conservatism, not less.
I agree. I’m American and live in an area with a large Indian immigrant diaspora and I’m able to “bond” with them just fine. Many of them wear religious symbols and wear every day, but they’re just normal people. They dress differently, but so do many non religious people also.
The specific religious traditions matter though. The context and rules surrounding covering of girls and women are a more problematic matter. The same goes for other religious practices that are rooted in values that have no place in a secular and more or less egalitarian state.
You have a very odd understanding of what “secular state” means. It doesn’t mean that the state can dictate where or how you’re allowed to express you religion. It doesn’t mean that some parts of religion are to be tolerated, where as those that you see as bad can be forbidden at will.
All it means, is that the state institutions, can’t force you to partake in a religion or activities related to that religion. Kids who voluntarily want to express their religion are free to do so. Whether that kid is forced into following that religion, is not an issue of a “secular state”.
It also means a certain collection of values. And having rules for girls and women that include them having to cover their hair and body “because religion” is going against those values.
And yes, it absolutely does matter in a secular state whether people forcing their children into religious beliefs. At least in school the children should learn that these rules only exist in the minds of their parents or communities. Freedom also means to be free to choose. And grooming your children into religious practices is not freedom.
You actually have no idea what you’re talking about, sorry.
I’m glad we finally landed on Islam though, it shows that this law is supported by islamophobes and people like you are the perfect way to show this to the world.
Just a one minute Google search and you could have saved yourself from this absolutely embarrassing answer. Here let me do it for you:
A secular state is an idea pertaining to secularity, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen based on their religious beliefs, affiliation or lack of either over those with other profiles.[2]
Prohibiting people from expressing their religions is strictly anti secular.
That’s nationalist at best. Why is French more important than Muslim? Because they write the laws? Doesn’t that seem a little unfair?
I hate organized religion, but I don’t give a shit what someone does if it doesn’t hurt anyone else. I also hate authoritarianism that limits people’s options and attempts to force then into some sort of cultural hegymony.
In the Americas (both he us and Canada), we forces native Americans to attend schools to attempt to remove their culture and make them “American.” This has generally been viewed as a horrible atrocity. Hopefully France doesn’t attempt to follow the mistakes of history.
France literally gave me everything: free school, free healthcare, open culture for all, it has literally been a super important part of who I am today thanks to all the things I got access to for free.
It’s the true country of freedom, with intellectuals that paved the way for the American independence, the first to assert the importance of the humans over religious dogma and violence.
You just want to get rid of this because wearing religious symbol « don’t hurt anyone ». Well, let me tell you the truth, those little girls don’t know why they have to wear those scarves. They don’t know that this is a symbol against women’s rights because they weren’t educated about it, so yes it does hurt people.
So yes, this is a nationalist POV, does this make my point less valid ?
EDIT: you are really rooting for this ?? Here’s what those symbols really mean.
Why is French more important than Muslim?
because france is a real thing that actually exists.
France exists as much as Islam exists. It’s a made up belief that enough people agree to follow the rules of. Before modern times, borders were basically invisible and could be crossed freely. Many wars were fought because borders couldn’t be defined well, because they’re made up. I fact, Islam was originally created as a state and religion together as one, so it exists at least as much as France.
nah, the name might be made up but you can touch it.
Can you touch it any more than Islam though? You can touch ground it says is it’s own, but that was called another thing before and will be called something else after. It’s not called France. There is nothing fundamentally “French” about the ground. If I take a scoop of dirt from France and take it to Germany, it doesn’t maintain it’s France-ness. It isn’t any more real than money is. It’s a useful concept that we all agree to believe in, but it’s not fundamental. The government is something you can touch I guess, but the same is true for leadership in Islam.
Yes
Probably not the reason, but don’t you remember how many assholes were at school? You express anything at all about yourself and you are open to attack.
Don’t worry kids, the school attacked you so that other kids wouldn’t be able to.
You’re not wrong. My kids have just finished school and it may as well have been a jail. Strict dress code with no ability to express themselves.
So you bar people from expressing their religion so they don’t get bullied? Absolute gigabrain move.
“Should we punish the bullies? Maybe take measures so the teachers know how to better deal with conflict? No. Let’s punish the kids getting bullied by taking away their right to express their religion. Surely the bullies won’t find anything else to bully these kids.”
I think they do punish the bullies. The through process is more that, the school isn’t omnipotent and bullies will bully not matter what but if something becomes a bullying target, then it gets blanket removed from all. The school feels like its being firm but fair, but in reality they continually nibble at the childrens freedoms to the point where it totally feels like a jail for kids.
This is why not
“Secularism means the freedom to emancipate oneself through school,” Mr Attal told TF1
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Yes the freedom to do so. You should be free to NOT do that though. You should be free from pressure in both directions.
You can’t have a parallel religious law system in a secular state. So there absolutely should be pressure on people to accept that religious “rules” have no power there.
Yes but forbidding the choice to wear a cross necklace or a headscarf is not exactly freedom is it?
Nobody is arguing for a parallel law system
I think you underestimate the influence of religious symbols. It’s not just any type of clothing. It’s a tool for religious communities that has considerable impact, especially when your parents make you wear it, it has beliefs attached to it and is easily visible to everyone around you.
I mean parents so have a lot of freedom to raise their children as they see fit. And I think that is a good thing. I would not do a lot of things that other people do, but it’s totally in the rights of people to raise their children religiously, and that can include wearing certain kinds of clothes.
Well, that’s were we disagree. I don’t think parents should be free to raise their child however they want to. And it’s also not in their rights in every country.
France has enforced a strict ban on religious signs at schools since the 19th Century, including Christian symbols such as large crosses, in an effort to curb any Catholic influence from public education.
It has been updating the law over the years to reflect its changing population, which now includes the Muslim headscarf and Jewish kippa, but abayas have not been banned outright.
So going by the article, some religious clothing is outright banned while crosses are allowed as long as they are not large?
All crosses are banned. Totally unacceptable. Source: I’m a 20yo french.
What about heavy metal band shirts with an upside-down cross on it?
Hm. Not sure about school, because I have little reason to go there. But I certainly have shirts that are work or grandma unfriendly, or that I would only wear around devote christians I trust. With that, I wouldn’t be opposed with a ban for shirts that are created to offend specific religions. It’s a different side of a very similar coin.
I was wondering how you’d word such a rule. Is the symbol forbidden, or wearing it with some intent? What’s if it’s dual use, a piece of clothes but also associated with a religion? Can I wear a Kufiya that can be viewed as a political statement? Is that okay? It also touches religion. What about a bit more subtle symbols, a fish instead of wearing a cross? It’s kind of a slippery slope.
Or the heavy metal t-shirt i mentioned. These are most of the times not religious at all but use christian or northern mythology and those imagery. They also do not mock religion except you’re a super insecure fundamentalist.
Do we only forbid religious imagery, or also that of cults? Is there a line? Can I wear my spaghetti monster shirt? Wear pirate insignia?
I’m genuinely interested in how the french people/legislator solve the issue with the whole thing being a slippery slope and kind of vague. I’m a fan of laicism myself.
The thing is, I don’t have an answer to all of these questions.
On the other hand, I know pagan bands with songs about “Killing all the christian heathens coming to colonize scandinavia”. About “Crushing the roman christians coming to take germanic women with their fairy tales of a weak god”. (BTW, this is explicitly not about german nationalism. There are nazis abusing these terms of skandinavian/germanic origins, many of them, but this isn’t part of that). Those are what I meant when I said: I’m not sure if I want to discuss those with a christian I don’t necessarily trust. Because face it, norse mythology was colonized by roman christians. maybe for good, maybe not, I don’t know.
And in another direction, a lot of metal / heavy metal / rock imagery is based around pushing and prodding and poking christians. Not just subtly. They thrived on this to establish themself as counter-culture. “You are Christians. We are sons of satan. We listen to the other music.” For those, I can very much find a foundation in christian religion. Like, look at denmark. Burning a stack of paper shouldn’t be a big thing, but now they are creating laws against burning the Koran. Not sure how I feel about this.
In that light, I’d very much be in favor of a school uniform, or a specification of unicolor shirts / t-shirts without imagery, I have to say. Concessions are bound to be abused in every way, with that hat on.
The sad thing to me personally is: IMO, we should embrace diversity. Someone wearing a weird cloth on top of their hair should be a source of curiosity. It should be an exposure to something new and an option to grow and reflect and to learn they are just a person, just a bit different. Like the first time you try to cook for a vegetarian, a vegan, or try to date a lesbian.
Thx for enlightening me with the metal. I mostly enjoy fun and pirate metal. I always forget those people also exist.
I’m not sure with the school uniform. There are advantages to it. But I’m also liberal and children might as well learn how to dress and express their individualism early in school. Just have some sane rules around it.
But I’m okay with what the french state does. It’s just saying we, the state, can’t get confused with religion. And to make sure, our employees can’t wear religious clothing while on duty.
you forgot the /s
I didn’t forget shit.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Students will be banned from wearing abaya, a loose-fitting full-length robe worn by some Muslim women, in France’s state-run schools, the education minister has said.
“When you walk into a classroom, you shouldn’t be able to identify the pupils’ religion just by looking at them,” Education Minister Gabriel Attal told France’s TF1 TV, adding: “I have decided that the abaya could no longer be worn in schools.”
The garment has being increasingly worn in schools, leading to a political divide over them, with right-wing parties pushing for a ban while those on the left have voiced concerns for the rights of Muslim women and girls.
France has enforced a strict ban on religious signs at schools since the 19th Century, including Christian symbols such as large crosses, in an effort to curb any Catholic influence from public education.
The debate on Islamic symbols has intensified since a Chechen refugee beheaded teacher Samuel Paty, who had shown students caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, near his school in a Paris suburb in 2020.
The announcement is the first major policy decision by Mr Attal, who was appointed France’s education minister by President Emmanuel Macron this summer at the age of 34.
The original article contains 388 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 49%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Good. Religion shit has to stop.
kinda, yes, but not through state-enforced bans
Through what then?
people losing interest on their own. yes it’s slower, but true change can only happen through internal motivators.
It doesn’t, though. Instead religious conservatives build parallel societies. Children should grow up knowing that in a secular state religious bans and rules have no power.
It’s the hobby of their parents and nothing more. Than they can decide if they want to participate in the hobby or not. The veiling of women and girls can be a powerful tool in keeping control over them through separation, for example.
You have to get off the internet mate, none of your arguments ever make it past the edgy 14 year old stage.
Well you’re just being condescending, that’s not going to convince anyone either.
If i see a dumb opinion without any argument behind it i will call it out, especially if its always by the same person.
If i see a dumb opinion without any argument behind it i will call it out
Not in that immature form though
And who are you?
Is it a bad idea for me, a non-religious person, to wear one in solidarity? (As well as for privacy, sun protection, etc.)
(I do not live in France.)
I fail to see why not. It’s just a dress. You shall wear whatever resonates with you.
It’s not just a dress, unfortunately. It’s a dress, strongly associated with female oppressive rules of Islam.
I have been in some pagan veiling online circles and have discovered that a lot of non-Muslims use Muslim-style veils and it usually is not considered offensive, so I think that it would be okay for an irreligious person to use one.
deleted by creator
No, I do not. Sorry I didn’t say that. Probably an important detail… I’ll edit it in.
It’s not a bad idea, it’s just really useless, especially since you don’t even live here. The dresses are pretty though, I used to have one that I wore at home pretty often, as a non-Muslim person in France. It’s definitely not a bad thing. It’s just a dress.
Great news for all women and Europe
So many people here either intentionally or not misunderstanding the point…
There’s freedom of religion, but not in official governement settings. This is not to infringe on rights, it’s just the opposite. Just for your religion you shant get treated differently. This is why you don’t get to advertise your religion as a governement employee, nor as a citizen when appealing to the governement. This is exactly the inverse of authorianism, it’s a reaction to a state forcing people from a certain religion to wear a distinct mark (star of david) by which they were discrimnated against and eradicated.
Furthermore there should be some norms in place for what can be worn in school. I’m no advocate for uniforms, but dressrules respectful of the institution can be demanded (e.g. not wearing headwear in church or covering ones hair when visiting a mosque)
but dressrules respectful of the institution can be demanded (e.g. not wearing headwear in church or covering ones hair when visiting a mosque)
How is an abaya disrespectful to a school? If anything it’s one of the more appropriate kinds of clothing.
France may have banned large crosses from their schools but it is not forbidden afaik to wear necklaces. I did not find an english source, here is a german one with my translation:
In Frankreich herrscht Kopftuchverbot an Schulen
Bereits 1994 trat ein Gesetz in Kraft, dass in Schulen nur noch diskrete - nicht aber auffällige - religiöse Symbole erlaubte. Zehn Jahre später wurden Kopftücher in Schulen vollständig verboten - Kippa und Kreuz nicht. 2010 folgte das Verbot der Vollverschleierung in der Öffentlichkeit.
France bans headscarfs at schools
In 1994 a law was passed that said that only discrete - but not prominent - religious symbols would be allowed. Ten years later headscarfs where banned from schools - while kippa and cross were not. 2010 the ban of the full body veil in public was passed.
https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/frankreich-verbot-abaya-schulen-100.html
Allowing kippas and crosses while disallowing a dress that is at most a religious gesture not even a concrete symbol is just weird.
Yeah I regret this topic being made into a value weighting thing. I hate the hypocrisy in the current discussion. Although I also hate how signalling religosity somehow finds a way.
My point is that the reason behind the policy is pretty solid. The state should be blind to my religion and no-one should get preferrential/or malign treatment because of it.
Allowing kippas and crosses while disallowing a dress that is at most a religious gesture not even a concrete symbol is just weird
Sure, all should be banned
My point is that the reason behind the policy is pretty solid. The state should be blind to my religion and no-one should get preferrential/or malign treatment because of it.
Definitly agreed!
Sure, all should be banned
I guess that’s where opinions just differ, and honestly my point of view isn’t really relevant here as I am not french and I have a very limited knowledge of their culture in this regard.
This is already a more constructive discussion then most of this thread. The way I read it is that there was always a big part of the population that was Islamic, only that folowing the ban on headscarfs the wearing of more traditional cloathing has increased, obviously as a way of making a statement. So it goes a bit the way of ‘So you forbid to me to wear x, then I will wear Y symbolicly instead’.
That is a bit unconstructieve, and a bit childish. I’m not really a fan of school uniforms, but the one thing I really can’t get around is auto-uniformization aka dressing a particular way, not because a job or other cirumstaces require it, but as symbol of personality or faith. Its one of humanities quirks that I just don’t grasp. I can’t get around peoples insistance to be different, but only in a big group doing the same.
But in a school setting I would say that that is not a place for religious signalling. Like I said if you enter into a scholl system it is proper behaviour to abide by the rules. Like when I get to visit a religious building I will respect their rules, even if it’s not my own religion.
but the one thing I really can’t get around is auto-uniformization aka dressing a particular way, not because a job or other cirumstaces require it, but as symbol of personality or faith. Its one of humanities quirks that I just don’t grasp. I can’t get around peoples insistance to be different, but only in a big group doing the same.
I think that is one of the things where humans just differ. There are people that value belonging to a certain group very highly, and also like to communicate that. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. I wouldn’t object to people wearing lets say football shirts of their favourit team. I wouldn’t do that but it doesn’t really concern me. People are allowed to build their personality around whatever they want, as long as they don’t actively annoy people.
I wouldn’t say wearing clothing is actively annoying anyone. Clothing for me is (at most, some/most clothing just has no to little meaning) a kind of passive communication. But I do understand that that is my opinion and that others have an opposing opinion on that.
Where I would draw the line with clothing and messages is when the messages are about other people. Wearing clothing showing you are a strict christian? Fine. Wearing a shirt that says: death to all non-vegans? Not fine. Even though I personally like vegans way more than christians.
I think where a lot of this conflict stems from is that in the western world we associate uniforms or just clothing with an explicit message with mostly bad things. My mind jumps straight to military, bikers, or other violent groups. In my opinion it’s important to acknowledge that this is different for other cultures.
That is a bit unconstructieve, and a bit childish.
That’s true, but it’s also a very human thing to do. I wouldn’t fault them for being a bit rebellious if they are staying inside the rules.
Like I said if you enter into a scholl system it is proper behaviour to abide by the rules.
Totally. But the rules should apply to everyone equaly. If there are no muslim signs, not even gestures like that dress allowed, then no crosses, no fishes, nothing christian should be tolerated either.
But in a school setting I would say that that is not a place for religious signalling. […] Like when I get to visit a religious building I will respect their rules, even if it’s not my own religion.
I think that those two things are not comparable though. A religious building is dedicated to one specific religion. I would consider it offensive to go there uninvited and showing your disbelief in this religion.
A school is a public place where you are allowed to show who you are in many ways. You can wear merch of your favourite band, you can show what sports you like and dislike, you can even communicate your sexual preferences if you so choose (as long as it stays SFW). But for some reason just showing which beliefs you carry is a very hot topic. If I understand correctly part of it is getting the influence of the church out of the french schools, which I support. The church should have no influence in the teachings in public schools. But I wouldn’t mind people showing that they are catholic, with the same restrictions as every other topic. Don’t actively annoy me with it.
Where I would draw the line with clothing and messages is when the messages are about other people. Wearing clothing showing you are a strict christian? Fine. Wearing a shirt that says: death to all non-vegans? Not fine. Even though I personally like vegans way more than christians.
Agree, but theres a nuance. For instance if I have a Bad Religion shirt with an upside-down cross or satanistic metal shirts (which people at my school definately wore) I don’t mean that to kill or harm all people that are catholic. If I wear a swastika or an confedrerate flag then I’m probably getting sent home (for obvious reasons). Not all messages are the same.
Totally. But the rules should apply to everyone equaly. If there are no muslim signs, not even gestures like that dress allowed, then no crosses, no fishes, nothing christian should be tolerated either.
I agree fully.
I think that those two things are not comparable though. A religious building is dedicated to one specific religion. I would consider it offensive to go there uninvited and showing your disbelief in this religion.
I differ on this. In school one is explained the scientific method. Even if one is atheist, one would have to agree that that is a certain belief system, however different from theist belief it is. For this to work, one should al least respect the fundamentals of scientific thought. One can see in the USA how things go if you let religious nutcases get away with pruning the colloquia. A school is dedicated to that task, so needs to be afforded the same level of respect. So when in school one doesn’t religion (of any kind)
That’s true, but it’s also a very human thing to do. I wouldn’t fault them for being a bit rebellious if they are staying inside the rules.
It is, however its also a bit of a lesson about how to learn hwo to behave . The rules need to be even, like you said, a catholic or jewish person can now technically wield a token solely to grieve their muslim co-students and that is unacceptable.
But I wouldn’t mind people showing that they are catholic, with the same restrictions as every other topic. Don’t actively annoy me with it
Ideally, sure. But if there is a signalling ‘struggle’ taking place between different groups, which sows division, I’d argue that that freedom is not earned yet.
Agree, but theres a nuance. […] Not all messages are the same.
Oh most definitely! It’s not easy to exactly define that line.
I differ on this. In school one is explained the scientific method. Even if one is atheist, one would have to agree that that is a certain belief system, however different from theist belief it is. For this to work, one should al least respect the fundamentals of scientific thought. One can see in the USA how things go if you let religious nutcases get away with pruning the colloquia. A school is dedicated to that task, so needs to be afforded the same level of respect. So when in school one doesn’t religion (of any kind)
I think you are mixing two things here: Showing your religious belief and letting people of that belief influence the colloquia (or any other important decision). Firstly: Just showing your religion does not mean you want to influence others to conform to your beliefs. Secondly: Hardliners can still influence the decision making even if they hide their beliefs. If anything it’s easier to spot why someone does what they do, and more closely monitor their decisions, when they show colors.
It is, however its also a bit of a lesson about how to learn hwo to behave . The rules need to be even, like you said, a catholic or jewish person can now technically wield a token solely to grieve their muslim co-students and that is unacceptable.
Well as far as I understand it, they were already allowed to wear crosses and kippas so I don’t see how that would make a difference.
But I wouldn’t mind people showing that they are catholic, with the same restrictions as every other topic. Don’t actively annoy me with it
Ideally, sure. But if there is a signalling ‘struggle’ taking place between different groups, which sows division, I’d argue that that freedom is not earned yet.
I don’t think that signalling struggle is happening, and even if it were, just banning signalling from one side is definitely not the way to go, and I’d argue even banning all sides from signalling isn’t the way to go, it’s in my opinion not compatible with the right to express yourself freely.
How is an abaya disrespectful to a school?
any kind of religion is disrespectful to any education facility since they teach exactly the opposite from one another.
That sentence is so general that it has to be wrong.
- One could imagine a religion that bases it’s belief on the scientific method
- Education does not necessarily mean it’s all based on scientific facts
But let’s assume you meant that “The currently most practiced religions are teaching something that is not aligned with the scientific method and facts we want to educate people on in the public education system”.
Even then you are still saying just by being religious you are disrespecting the educational facility. But again let’s assume you only meant that showing that your belief in this religion is disrepectful.
I’d argue that a school is still a public place, where minors are forced to be a big part of their waking day, where they should be free to express themselves. That may include challenging religious beliefs but also the teachings in the school, as long as it happens in a respectful way. Challenging ideas and disagreeing is not the same as disrespect.
One could imagine a religion that bases it’s belief on the scientific method
it doesnt make any sense,religions are about dogmas not evidence. if they are based on science they are not a religion by definition.
Education does not necessarily mean it’s all based on scientific facts
ideally it all is. just because we are not smart enough doesnt mean we should entertain stuff that has even LESS validity, like religions.
where they should be free to express themselves
no child gives a flying bird about “expressing their religion” they are only religious because their parents are forcing them to. no other reason.
so no the right of the parents to express their own religion through their unwilling kids doesnt trump anything about an education syste.
it doesnt make any sense,religions are about dogmas not evidence. if they are based on science they are not a religion by definition.
Citing Wikipedia here:
Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements[1]—although there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3] Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine,[4] sacredness,[5] faith,[6] and a supernatural being or beings.[7]
I’d say I could build a belief system around “designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations” that tries to understand the “supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements” by using scientific methods. Where “supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements” are just stuff we don’t yet understand like for example dark matter.
Education does not necessarily mean it’s all based on scientific facts
ideally it all is. just because we are not smart enough doesnt mean we should entertain stuff that has even LESS validity, like religions.
Try teaching ethics based on only scientific facts then. Try teaching art and music based on scientific fact. Those are disciplines where opinions and feelings have a meaningful impact on the subject at hand.
no child gives a flying bird about “expressing their religion” they are only religious because their parents are forcing them to. no other reason.
so no the right of the parents to express their own religion through their unwilling kids doesnt trump anything about an education syste.
You do understand that people in schools are not just 6 years old kids right? A big chunk of them are old enough to make decisions about themselves. Calling all of these individuals “unwilling kids” because they might be religious is very belittling.
Calling all of these individuals “unwilling kids” because they might be religious is very belittling.
none of those people sat down and said " i want to become a christian". speaking about this like its a choice is really messed up, children dont have a choice.
I did not sit down to be raised an atheist and yet here I am, raised as one without having had a choice. Parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, within some parameters of course. And I think that is a good thing, I wouldn’t want anyone to force me to raise my kids in a specific way. At a certain age teenagers are able to have their own thoughts though, and there are a lot of people that turn away from the beliefs of their parents. Others stay religious though and I think that is absolutely fine. I might not agree with a lot of what they believe in, but it also is just none of my business.
To be honest we wear headwear in churches in france now
Oh. Well whenever I’m in churches in France, it’s usually not during service. Then again, it’s a bit beside the point.
(Hi! French and Christian here. Nobody wears headwear in churches, except for nuns.)
Thnx, it seemed like a weird assertion from the other person. Didn’t really question it as it was quite beside the point anyway
Yes
Good. We don’t need more religion interfering with people’s life.
Isn’t it already illegal in Turkey to wear headscarfs in some places to help preserve secularism? I think that’s a good move
Another step towards criminalizing Muslims. They are a convenient scapegoat for the fascists and libs to channel the anger and hate away from themselves and towards marginalized groups.
No, like already pointed out, in France, Religion has no place in schools. This has nothing directly to do with muslims
Secularism is not the motivation behind this. If it was, this law would have already been on the books for centuries. But Islamophobia is a great way to get the racist vote right now.
I you believe this has nothing to do with Muslims, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Man, I’m Belgian and France is one of the most racist countries I know.
These laws are always targeted at the same people but always wrapped in a layer of good intentions and nationalism.
All these laws are doing is making the divide between people bigger.
The law has already been in the books for one century. Laïcity is the removal of any religious sign from schools and is one of the pillars of the French Republic. Yet, recently France failed to enforce it and that’s why explicit stances are taken now, which looks bad of course but it is a necessary course correction.
