- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.de
- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.de
Pupils will be banned from wearing abayas, loose-fitting full-length robes worn by some Muslim women, in France’s state-run schools, the education minister has said.
The rule will be applied as soon as the new school year starts on 4 September.
France has a strict ban on religious signs in state schools and government buildings, arguing that they violate secular laws.
Wearing a headscarf has been banned since 2004 in state-run schools.
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m not very comfortable with these type of bans.
People say women shouldn’t be forced to wear certain items of clothing and deal with it by forcing them to wear different items of clothing.
Doesn’t seem very productive.
I always think of that meme with a women in full body coverings and a women wearing a bikini and they’re both thinking about how awful it is that society pressures women to dress like the other.
Playing the advocate of the devil: the reason given is clearly stated as not being about being forced to wear anything, but about a general ban on religious signs in state schools. For example I imagine wearing a Christian cross around your neck is also banned.
A consistently enforced bad law is still a bad law. All consistently means is that everyone has to suffer.
Yeah, I simply stated what reason was given for the ban by the minister, which the comment above me seems to have read over.
Why are government officials all-powerful and all-weak at the same time? Funny how that works. The law is dumb, problematic, impossible to enforce? Hands are tied. The law makes sense and easy to perform? Selectively enforced if at all.
Yep. Yarmulkes are also banned, and I wouldn’t be able to wander around the school with my 9 pointed star necklace or ring, even though NO ONE knows what they mean.
Baha’i?
Yes, but did you know that before looking it up? Also we aren’t the only ones to use the symbol, just the latest.
I admit I did not. I appreciate you sharing your anecdote, I learned something new today thanks to you.
Still, schools shouldn’t be able to dictate how people can dress as long as they cover their genitals and their clothes aren’t dangerous.
Eh, maybe… In my public, absolutely standard highschool we still had a dress code, you couldn’t have bare legs or excessively low collars
And here in sweden the justice system has to dole out yearly reminders to schools that dressing freely is protected by the constitution, and dress codes or uniforms are literally illegal.
That’s….amazing tbh
That’s amazing, why don’t we have something like this in Germany
God that sounds dreadful. I used to get mocked outside of school for wearing poor clothes when I was young. Imagine having to deal with that literally all the time.
Yeah here in sweden we have welfare so everyone can afford basics like that.
We have welfare too. Doesn’t change the fact that people on welfare aren’t regularly buying expensive clothing. Same goes for Sweden.
I’m really sorry to hear you have that experience that sounds awful, the concept of poor clothes doesn’t exist everywhere though so I’m not really sure what to say, I really wish I could’ve worn whatever I liked at school since I had to wear coats in summer at the cost of my health (my skin kinda sucks ngl) and the uniform they asked us to buy was so expensive and ill fitting. Again, you’ve got a different experience and I respect that.
I seriously doubt it. And I’m sure if it is, no one enforces it.
Edit: y’all can vote me down all day, but the law says “ostentacious religious insignia,” and I’m sure a little cross has been overlooked many times.
It is 100% banned. Any religious apparel or trinkets are banned.
No it isn’t. The 2004 law banned “large” crosses and allowed small ones but banned ALL hijabs.
It was never equally enforced.
Allowed small ones, obscured by clothing.
A necklace under your shirt is fine. That applies as equally to a cross as it does to an islamic moon and star.
They just aren’t allowed to be massive so that they’re visible even under some clothing.
The law is already unequal and discriminatory and that’s before we even get to the unequal enforcement. Muslims are sent home from school while Christians are not for the same rule violations (e.g. Christians in France who observe Ash Wednesday).
Don’t you think it’s culturally biased? The norm for Christians is a small cross necklace. The norm for Muslims is not. Isn’t it quite convenient that the exception fits well with one religion but not the other?
Actually,
ostentacious religious insignia
Up for debate.
Maybe you should be less confident about things you don’t know. In this particular regard, the French are quite consistent.
ostentacious religious insignia
That’s the law. That’s pretty vague. So, I’m pretty confident not everyone is enforcing a tiny cross necklace.
If I was a French teenager I would wear a cross to school and claim it was a T.
Just wear all the symbols and say you’re being inclusive.
Coexisting like a stone cold mother fucker.
Is this a “Brave New World” reference?
If you’re going to copy and paste something several times, and are representing it as a quotation from law, maybe spell-check it? Also, I think there are good arguments to be made on both sides of this issue, but comparing an inconspicuous piece of jewelry to an abaya seems disingenuous. If small crosses were allowed, but small star and crescents weren’t, that would obviously be wrong.
It’s a quote. It’s copy and paste. If someone spelled it wrong, it’s not me.
Either way. If a tiny cross is allowed and a tiny star is not, that’s bad.
No symbols should be allowed of any kind. 🤷♂️
I wonder how they handle tattoos.
You would be very wrong
“ostentacious religious insignia” is the law.
It’s difficult to say whether someone is wearing what they are wearing through choice or because it is demanded of them.
I agree with you, demanding that they wear something else is not the answer.
Especially when they’re kids. People should be able to wear whatever they want. But kids don’t often get to choose what they want. They’re often at the mercy of what their parents want and that’s it.
There’s also something to be said about pressure from family members. Even if the kid chose to wear something, did they really do so out of their own free will? Or because their parents said they’ll burn in hell for all eternity if they don’t?
And it’s not like we’re talking about something like simple taste in clothing or mild culture differences. We’re talking about clothes that are drenched in misogyny. It’s not about literal clothing in a vacuum, but rather what those clothes imply about women as a whole.
Then you’re just replacing the oppressor with the state.
Let children wear what they want.
What if their community’s pressure is the reason why they wear certain types of clothing?
This is the only reason why anyone wears any particular type of clothing. There is no style of clothing that it objectively makes sense to wear.
A solid reason not to be part of that community anymore.
Try that when you’re 10 👍
The trick when you are 10 is to memorize and record every single detail of it. Which adult did what on what day and which did nothing to stop it.
That way when you get older you can be crystal clear why you disowned the ones that did nothing and go after the ones that actively harmed you.
The religious deserve as much forgiveness as they have shown everyone else.
We’re talking about children. They don’t have choice.
And we see from Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others, that families can and will often disown you and treat you like shit over it.
I’m in agreement with France here. They’re very consistent. Go to a state school? Keep religious displays out of it, full stop.
So your solution to kids not having a choice is to not give them a choice?
The eradication of the will to wear this stuff is the answer. Without religion, barely anyone will want to wear religious signs.
It’s not the point of the ban. You shouldn’t wear any religious signs. It’s the same as banning christian cross (which is obviously already banned since years and years)
Yes. France is extremely militant about keeping religion and state separate. That extends to state institutions like state schools.
I always think of that meme with a women in full body coverings and a women wearing a bikini and they’re both thinking about how awful it is that society pressures women to dress like the other.
Equating the pressure of society, at large, when you’re an independent adult, and the pressure of your parents, when you’re still under their authority is not fair.
It’s the same reasoning behind pride parades and banning hate speech. Right wingers will hide behind “free choice” to spread their oppression of women and to shelter their children from progressive ideology, therefore we must forcibly expose them to tolerant viewpoints in the name of equity.
I agree that it will not be effective in reducing the amount of these types of robes that will be worn. But it will be effective in reducing the visibility of this particular religious clothing, and thus the religion itself. We (everyone everywhere) already ban lots of clothing styles, there are minimums you have to attain. can’t have nipples or genitalia showing, and even though that might sound nitpicky, I’m from team #freethechest and having a covered chest is something I personally do not think should be required. It’s just nipples/boobs, everyone should just grow up and let it fly
Removed by mod
Neither have these families I would imagine. How common is that in France?
I’m French, stonings occur every other Tuesday morning
I still don’t get why we can’t get an app for it or something. The paper lottery system is just so primitive. Has to be a better way to decide who gets stoned to death for conformity and harvest.
That depends hugely on the region. They do it on Thursday where they say Chocolatine.
They’re not really French though
Well, that’s called an honor killing. For a start, This article defines that concept in detail (which I tell you to forewarn that I’m immune to sealioning about the definition), has tables of trends, and has credible sources at the bottom. Honor killings, also known as shame killings, have attracted the attention of the EU as a major issue to be solved as a consequence of their spread. I can’t find a lot of data related to France specifically, but I do know the French consider their country to have a Femicide problem in general, and it’s reasonable to expect that if the total number of women being murdered is on the rise, the raw number of honor killings is climbing even if the proportion remains fixed.
I get this completely. This is nothing new for France, they have been blocking Christians from wearing crosses and Jews from wearing kippah’s for a very long time, it’s only reasonable that the Muslim population gets treated equally. Schools should remain completely secular, I am in complete agreement with France there.
Except abayas are basically just some loose-fitting clothes that can be worn by anyone regardless their religion. It’s like banning kimono or sari.
If it’s just an outfit and not religious clothes than there should be no problem, right?
It’s still targeting ethnicities. There’s no denying that these bans have a racial component to it.
I’d say it’s cultural rather than racial. Putting one culture above others is not the same as putting one race above others.
It is not. It’s targeting religious signs. If your ethnicity can’t live with the same laws as others than it isn’t not you being ostracized, it’s you being dick by forcing everyone to follow your dogmas.
Not everyone who wears an abaya is religious or Muslim. And France doesn’t target religious signs equally, which is why the 2004 law banned hijab but allowed crosses.
And if you’re mad that others have to somehow “cater to your dogmas,” someone should tell the French who visit Algeria and other middle eastern countries and demand wine and pork.
No problem meaning they shouldn’t care about not being able to wear it? Or that the French government shouldn’t care in the first place?
If it wasn’t religious sign, French government wouldn’t care about it
How people dress is none of the government’s business. This is just authoritarism.
Except when you want it, because you like it when you don’t see other people’s genitalia. Then it suddenly is the governments bussiness. In this case it’s even just for during your attendance at a public school.
I am okay with everyone walking around nude. If you really want skin cancer and everyone seeing your thunder thighs you should be able to. Me personally I am going to continue to wear clothing.
ah yes, France, the country famous for its prudence in regards to nudists.
Public indecency laws are more of a hygiene issue. Making religious clothes or jewelry illegal to wear at school sits very weird with me.
I wouldn’t say it is mostly a hiygene issue, though that is a solid perk. It’s because most people get offended at nudity. I personally don’t think they should, and I don’t, but that’s how they feel so…
Whoever people sleep or get married with is none of anyone’s business, but Muslims are against homosexuality.
Oh, so two wrongs do make a right now?
What wrong are homosexuals doing?
Wrong 1: Cultures and religions being bigoted against LGBT people.
Wrong 2: Banning all expression of those religions and cultures by anyone, even if they don’t believe in the bigotry.
When did I say that we are doing something wrong? My point is that that just because many/some Muslims are homophobes, it doesn’t mean banning certain clothes is okay.
So what should we do against homophobic Muslims?
Funny, I know Muslims who aren’t against gays but they still wear headscarves. Maybe it’s more complex than the Saudi policy line?
Also, are you saying authoritarian government is good if they only discriminate against people you don’t like? I guess that’s something an Auth would say…
Authorarian government is good when people are attacking minorities.
Muslisms dont want to accept homosexuality? Then ban them and make them go back to their countries. You want to stay? Its time to accept homosexuality in their religion. Simple.
Funny, I know Muslims who aren’t against gays but they still wear headscarves. Maybe it’s more complex than the Saudi policy line?
Funny, because you never see people with headscarves on the pride parades. There are thousands of them living in western Europe, but somehow they dissappear during pride parade. Funny, isn’t?
you never see people with headscarves on the pride parades
What does that even mean? That you yourself have never seen someone wearing a headscarf at pride? Personally, I think it’s a huge leap to take that and say no/very few Muslims in western Europe go to pride.
It wouldn’t matter even if that was true. Plenty of people support the LGBTQ+ community and don’t go to pride, same goes for many people who are part of the community.
Isn’t it curious how this argument is never applied to bigotry broadly. People always seem to be so on-board with banning Muslims from France for this reason or that, and always retreat into criticizing their beliefs, as if that were some consistent policy. But some hick in West Virginia doens’t accept gays? Why not call for banishing him from America?
Oh they are immigrants? Funny because plenty of muslims are born in France/America and have lived there their entire lives. And even the ones who haven’t - it’s called a fucking refugee. A good nation is one that takes someone in who is hurting, regardless of who they are and what they believe, and do their best to provide an environment that protects everyone and gives them a chance to learn accepting beliefs.
Notice how none of this shit has anything to do with headscarves btw… almost like there’s another agenda here…
It is tho. We need to erradicate homophobia from everywhere. You have to understand the background tho.
Yeah, all religion are against homosexuality, but christianity and catolicisism is at least trying to integrate homosexuality into the religion. There are gay fathers, churches have the rainbow flag, the pope (the head of the religion) just last week advocated for same sex couples. Is it perfect? No it is not, but at least there are some people in the religion trying.
What about muslim? No, they are not trying. Countries where muslism is the main religion have death penalty or life sentences for homosexuals. And the problem is that is not the main problem of the religion, for them to be able to accept homosexuality, they would first need to realize that they are misogynistics, and that is not happening any time soon.
It is the same thing white people vs mideast people. Are all white people queer friendly? Not they are not, but there are a lot more that support homosexuality. Are all mideast people homophobic? Not they are not, but I am probable to be beaten up by a mideast guy than by a white guy (in Europe).
Notice how none of this shit has anything to do with headscarves btw… almost like there’s another agenda here…
I agree it hasnt, but if mideast/muslim people keep being homophobic, then I am glad that the government is taking measurements to ban mideast/muslim cultural things like headscarves.
They want respect and inclusion? Then respect and be inclusive of others. It is this simple.
nobody cares about your whattaboutism
Lmao. Great argument! Definitely the right step for France!
Definitely a better argument than “some Muslims don’t like gays, so we should stop French schoolgirls from wearing a specific kind of dress, that’ll teach 'em”
Well done mate, you and Macron have solved homophobia.
Some muslisms is a BIG under statement.
If you were afraid of going to the street and hold hands or kiss with a partner because you could be beaten or killed, you would understand, so yeah, im glad France took this decision.
-
I’m gay and live in a heavily Muslim area, so stfu
-
Stopping french school girls from wearing a specific dress does… what? To stop Muslim homophobia exactly?
-
Christians also are anti gays, should we ban graphic tees as some sad, ineffectual petty revenge on them for homophobia?
-
Okay edgelord
-
deleted by creator
They banned crosses for Christians because they ban Muslim headwear. They had to do something for Christian or it would have been the most obvious racism.
Read the article. Crosses have been banned for a long time, before the Muslim headwear.
There’s an exception for the most common kind of religious expression for Christians. Small crosses are permitted. If you want to be fair, you need to ban them too.
Read the article. Crosses have been banned for a long time, before the Muslim headwear.
I’m not sure I like this. I sort of get not allowing religious symbols to be worn, but you’re forcing people to dress in a certain way. I don’t think the government should be able to do that
The especially dumb part of this is that abayas aren’t specifically Muslim or religious in nature, they’re cultural. They are a long flowing dress, without even a head covering. A bunch of non-Islamic women wear them in a variety of countries.
So this is more attempting to ban entire cultural outfits, which is ridiculous.
For context, the French are very strict about any form of symbol on what students wear. I couldn’t even wear a baseball cap with a team logo and that’s not religious.
Lol what the only reason they could prevent you from wearing a cap is because it’s considered ‘rude’ to keep your hat inside classroom. A private school can do whatever they want and force student to wear uniforme but in public school you can wear whatever you want except specific banned religious symbole (cross, kippa, headscarf etc…)
They just want to have a rule that doesn’t discriminate against any specific religion. Public schools have whatever rules the Government has elected. We had a weird mix between the local Government rules (mandatory uniform) plus the French public school rules (no outer religious symbols).
You forgot to mention that the abaya is compulsory in Saudi Arabia (except for tourists) and Qatar.
And that’s bad. Can we agree that making a dress compulsory and making a dress banned are both bad, because they both restrict choice?
I agree let’s promote shorty and crop top in Quatar.
deleted by creator
Saudi Arabia overturned that requirement in 2019, so you’re quite a few years out of date. It is required in Qatar though, yes.
It’s ridiculous either way
I am mildly in favor of that. Kids can’t decide what to wear it’s their parents who do.
This will simply reduce the artificial divide between those wear that type of stuff and who doesn’t.
I also don’t believe it’s a freedom endangering, because they’re aren’t spontaneously people wearing abayas or burka or whatever just for the pleasure of it, I interpret the fact of wearing it as religious propaganda and artificial separation.
For a 200 year old law, it’s pretty straight forward. And for all it’s flaws, the Nth revolution didn’t like the Catholic church for … reasons, so they wanted to make a law to get them out of politics and make them liable for their shenanigans. Thankfully they didn’t discriminate when they wrote the law.
- PROHIBITIONS AND LIMITS TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF “LAÏCITÉ”
The principle of secularism means that the State and religious organisations are separate. There is therefore no state-run public worship. The State neither recognises, nor subsidises, nor salaries any form of worship. Exceptions and adjustments to the ban on funding are defined in the legislation and case-law; they concern in particular chaplaincies, which are paid for by the State1
No religion can impose its prescriptions on the Republic. No religious principle can be invoked for disobeying the law.
Laîcite is the right for each, to practice his/her religion, without the state interfering, if not against laws and in the respect concerning other peoples. Without being prosecuted for this…
They now change the word to be against Muslims in France. Because “laicite” is always use against them.
Novlangue.
Abayas are not religious dress nor a symbol of a religion, and the law does not speak to individual choices about wearing religious symbols anyway. This is no different to banning ‘Black’ hairstyles or imposing sexist dress codes. It’s racism, not secularism.
deleted by creator
Hair covering is an Abrahamic thing. But abayas are not hair covering so what the fuck are you on about?
No religion can impose its prescriptions on the Republic. No religious principle can be invoked for disobeying the law.
I don’t see how wearing cultural clothing would be imposing anything. I have Indian heritage – would I be banned from wearing punjabis in public, despite it having no religious bearing at all?
You’re not from the religion that has been plaguing the country with terrorism for years, that’s the difference. I know it’s cultural, but we have history. Something like 2 years ago a teacher got beheaded. Since then we’re seeing lots of “cultural expression” in schools. This is not the french way. In France you act like French, period.
I was unaware that everyone from that religion was a terrorist and supported that beheading. The cornerstone of liberty and democracy relies on not judging people by their heritage, culture, nor religion. It’s unconscionable to persecute by association.
All this will do is create more tension and resentment. It isn’t how you end terrorism. It’s how you create it. If you want to maintain a philosophy of “in France you act French”, so be it. But recognize in doing so, you’re adopting the same way of thinking as America’s conservatives. And that should give you significant pause.
if the state doesnt recognise any form of worship, why are they seemingly banning perceived symbols of worship? how does any of the law you quoted justify banning folks from even wearing perceived religious symbols?
unless this isnt a religious symbol anyway, in which case the above law is even less relevant and this is a blatant case of cultural discrimination
Except banning anything at school is the opposite of what’s written here: the Republic forbid wearing some dress because it’s wrongly associated with religion.
The government is turning atheism into an oppressive religion.
Lol sorry but could only laugh on “turning atheism into oppressive religion”…
Says the guy with the randomly generated username from random.org
People woth randomised usernames are usually trolls or bad faith accounts because they want to make it harder for their accounts to be found by using randomised usernames
I understand you lack arguments, but wow
Religious freedom is a human right. Self determination is a human right. As long as whatever you do does not cause a negative impact on other people (see the second right) or society at large, then gtfo.
There is no “second right” in France. The law is simple : Don’t wear visible religious sign at school. There are private religious schools if you disagree with the public system.
Is it so insane to think there could be a school with both religious and areligious people at the same time? A secular school that doesn’t support a religion, but allows students to express themselves how they choose? When did that become a radical idea?
It’s not insane, but this separation has been done in 1905. In France the state is separated from the church (and by extension the religious). It’s not radical it takes roots in the principle of equality.
Separation of church and state is always a good thing, I’m not arguing against that, but this feels like a whole different level. If anything, this is the state taking an active role in changing the rules of the church. That’s not separation, that’s state sponsored atheism
The public schools are the one from the state. Those one are separate from the church. But everybody can go tothe private schools those can be religious or not.
That’s secularism, not atheism.
Students should express themselves how they choose.
That’s why you protect them from indoctination/religion forcing a certain outfit upon them.
“Self determination is a human right” There’s nothing I agree more on. Unfortunately some muslim communities do not agree, and the men and the women aren’t on the same level. Many women are forced to port the abaya and other vests that cover their figure in entirety, and I don’t think they should be forced to if they don’t want to. 85% of the muslim women in France that I know do not want to port it, but they’re obligated by their family. Banning it entirely is not the perfect solution, but it’s a step in the the direction of eradicating religions in France. The time of Christianity and Islam is way beyond us.
i like the slow stumble from “self-determination is a human right” to “eradicating religions in france”
“85% of the muslim women in france ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᶦ ᵏⁿᵒʷ” really adds to the experience too, thank you
Yeah, sorry, I didn’t exprime myself correctly here. Let me rephrase it:
If you want to be christian or muslim, please be, I don’t have nothing against you. But I’m not ok with parents forcing their religion down the throats of their kids.
And, let’s face it, religion it’s at an all time low, especially with newer generations like mine, and I don’t like how boomers force their kids to “go to church”, “dress in a certain manner”, ecc, when the kids don’t even believe.
deleted by creator
Indoctrination doesn’t make kids gay, you must know that, right?
deleted by creator
I don’t think they’re the same thing… and I really hope I don’t really give off that energy, because I have multiple friends that are gay/bisex. Plus, I’m too bisex.
Parents get to raise their kids. For instance, your parents raised you to believe that stripping someone’s rights protects their rights.
They were wrong to do that, but they get to do that
My parents are Catholics, and it’s also for that that I’ve begun disliking religions altogether.
Is banning dresses at a state-level a thing that shouldn’t ever happen? Yes.
Do I agree with the banning of a robe that strips women of their identity? Still yes.
We humans are contradictory existencies
Lol I like to joke that nothing turns you against Catholicism (or religion in general) like growing up Catholic.
I’m a hardliner on freedom and (safe) expression, full stop, but I def get where you’re coming from.
Nope. Religion should be banned.
Also the girls are likely forced to do that so you are Dubble wrong.
I don’t deny that there are occurrences where some girls are forced. What about the 95% others?
You can’t put forth a law punishing the majority for a “likely”. What happened to the “Liberté Egalité Fraternité” which this liberticide law is obviously trampling?
The population has been fed the islamophobic narrative long enough to have such laws pass without anybody thinking about how ridiculous they are (replace hijab/abaya with dreadlocks or other piece of clothing… What do other people care?). The divide is so deep and constantly maintained by the politicians who, since they find no real answers the actual problems plaguing the day to day life of citizen, prefer to turn them against each other: divide to better rule.
France has never once, in the history of the country, ever given half a shit about doing the right thing or not disenfranchising people.
They have a very cool history but France is a shit show top to bottom.
Basically all of their governing tenets only exist to prevent the French from just living in a state of constant revolution.
It’s funny that the French are romanticised as a revolutionary people, always ready to stand up to the man and fight for the people.
They’ve probably just been shit on by their own government more that most other nations, so they’ve reached that tipping point of revolution more than anyone else.
The French are the ones doing a lot of the shitting on themselves. The Reign of Terror wasn’t a government initiative.
Tbh true, yet still not everything in france is bad
Never said it was and never would. Every country has its crazy shit. France’s is just very visible.
As an American, I can relate to that.
Having gone to school with many muslims, sadly, it’s more like 4/5. As in, 4 out of 5 of those girls are forced to wear their religious garment. If they don’t it’s seen as shameful for their entire family.
Some are beaten but most of them are given a free choice: they can choose not to wear it and leave their family (and most friends). Or they can choose to abide and show how much they love god. Not many 10 year old girls choose to leave their family though.
And the other 1/5th are the full on religious fruitcakes.
I have anecdotal experiences too: my sister is Muslim and was wearing hijab in France. Of her own will. My parents argued repeatedly AGAINST it because of all the problems she’d have (and she did have) in that glorious free country. But she wouldn’t budge, because she didn’t want a human to dictate to her what she could wear.
In many places such dress code is more cultural than religious. From the religious point of view, yes women are to wear it however one cannot FORCE them to. In some places they do, but the scripture does not allow this.
In secular countries people do not know the difference or don’t even bother because it mostly affects non whites. Instead of tracking the cases where there is abuse and dealing with them accordingly, they just ban it wholesale across the board. It’s like banning knives because some people use them violently.
Thats dogshit
name a video game that doesn’t have some element of religion in it. pac man? ghosts = belief in afterlife. space invaders? I’d call “belief in aliens” a religious belief of sorts. bubble bobble? maybe?
you also gotta reprint every single piece of American paper money.
what about my tarot card collection? you gonna lock me in jail because I think the art is cool?
what about how I listen to Bach or Mozart in the bath?
you gonna arrest me for saying “Jesus fucking christ” when my cat brings up a hairball?
I also enjoy “what we do in the shadows”, Yellowjackets, home alone, lord of the rings, dune… all banned by you.
Even chess has a bishop, king and queen…
There’s no need to be a redditeur about it, nearly everything is a religious experience or adjacent, and I say that as a secular person and atheist myself.
What? Shut the fuck up idiot.
You can practice your religion inside your home. Once you’re out in public you should respect others and hide your religion away. This is the way!
Not having to hide who you are is a human right, I get where stuff like this is coming from but if there was a rule to hide all symbols of sexualities to protect people it’d become pretty obvious that it’s homophobic. Being able to exist in public shouldn’t require making changes to yourself.
You can only exist in public as part of such public.
Wow. As a religious minority it’s incredibly depressing to see how many people on here support this violation of religious liberty.
Yeah I agree with you. It’s one thing to say the school can’t promote a religious creed to the pupils, it is another to limit self-expression of dress when it doesn’t impact other students
French secularism is way different than what americans have, it is pretty unique. Remember it
Really? What’s it like?
It is less about religious freedom but more about the fact that no religion should exist in state run places like school. It is quite complicated, you might want to google it. For example american stuff like swearing on a bible thing, even if there is a non religious alternative, would be extremely controversial in france
The US over here was supposed to be that way, with the separation of church and state.
As you have likely seen—due to the ceaseless amount of news about the US everywhere—that is a fucking joke now. Our country is overridden by the devils evangelical spawn.
I guess, but it feels like your state aknowledges religions with speciak tax regimes and stuff like that. The whole religious freedom thing is kinda cringe to me
The idea was that they stay out of politics, the government stays out of religion, because that’s mutually beneficial.
Now they’re on the cusp of reaping what they’ve sowed with the unholy evangelical alliance. People aren’t interested in churches anymore and young people especially. Republicans are one election away from nonviability for president (knock on wood, and please let it be the election in 2024). Young people fucking loathe Republicans and evangelicals.
Are there young people still casting their lot with them? Absolutely. But the proportional difference is disastrous in politics. Even a 45-55 split is massive, and millennials and Zoomers are certainly more than that on Republicans.
So what is the solution for religious families then? Are they forced to private institutions/homeschool?
The solution is to not mix up faith and school
I’m interested to know if there’s any kind of religious education in the French school system?
In the UK I was in a CofE school (Christian) but our Religious Education classes taught about all religions pretty equally.
So violate their faith for school? That’s not an ideal solution
It’s been part of France’s political culture that religious signification has no place in public institutions. Given that Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Britain offer ways to religious groups to punish others through the legal system for not accepting their criteria regarding what constitutes legitimate criticism [*], but France doesn’t, I’d argue that France is doing something right.
This event emboldened fanatic religious organizations, which sought charges against an actor for saying “I shit on God and Virgin Mary!” in a restaurant. Fortunately he wasn’t declared guilty, but he suffered a judicial process of 2 years. This doesn’t mean they didn’t achieve their goal: they sent everyone the message that you should think twice the next time you consider you have freedom of expression.
If you let religious people think their beliefs must be protected from any criticism, many of them will start to see their privilege as the norm, and eventually encroach the freedoms of everyone else.
France may be good for not respecting a religion and disallowing abuse of religious systems that would attack the freedom of non-religious/minority-religious citizens, but are going to the opposite side of this problem. Abayas don’t hurt anyone and, from what I can tell/correct me if wrong, are used as a religious observation. France is going out of their way to impose restrictions on elements that are generally harmless that these people may see as a religious necessity, attacking the freedom of religious citizens. There has to be a balance and they’re off on the other arc of the pendulum swing here.
Abayas don’t hurt anyone
Enforcing Muslim girls and women to hide their hair does definitely hurt someone: those who want to leave religion. It is a very common problem for ex-Muslim women and teenagers to suffer harassment both at home and elsewhere from bigoted Muslims who think they do not have the right to apostate. As soon as you stop complying with an enforced form of clothing, you’re signalling those people that you’re a sinner.
old.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/9cnyvl/help_muslim_security_guard_at_work_told_my/
It’s obvious that the “we should give women from oppressive backgrounds the choice to volunteer to oppress themselves in public schools” folks didn’t grow up in an oppressive religion. It is actually quite easier to understand if one thinks of ALL religions as cults for a moment, to remove the veneer of the sacred.
What technically could be called a “choice” is often far from it. On the mild side, maybe your momma or daddy isn’t “forcing” you to wear an abaya/floor length jean dress/bonnet/whatever, but if you choose NOT to wear it, you face disapproval and pushback from co-religionists. On the harsh side, choosing not to wear whatever garb can lead you to being harshly punished, ostracized, even beaten.
Giving the kids half a chance to form a self-concept that is larger than their family’s own religiocultural worldview is a kind of freedom, and yes, it diverges greatly from the US view of “religious freedom,” which is includes the freedom to try and indoctrinate one’s kids to ensure that there will be a future generation of primitive baptists/mainstream evangelicals/US anglicans/muslims/etc. that continue to teach that women are subserviant to men.
So surely forcing them to take it off while at school is exacerbating that problem. They either comply with the state and be seen as a sinner by their religion, or stick to their religious belief (forced or not) and are at odds with the state.
The point is that by banning it, they remove agency from the kid. So the parents will be WAY less likely to take out their displeasure of their kid not wearing religiocultural garb on the kid, since the kid has no choice. Far better than the beatings and other less physical abuse that will rain down on a substantial minority of kids if they voluntarily opted out of the garb.
I get the idea that it’s freeing children from having to follow their parental oppression, but it would be nice to see some honest statistics on how many kids this actually is.
I would be inclined to think the more rabid fundamentalist types would simply seek a move to a school which allows their kid to wear it. Thereby not really reducing fundamentalism as is the supposed goal, instead segregating and entrenching it.
And it’s not even a niqab of hijab we are talking about here, its just a type of traditional dress.
Too bad the thing you want hard data on is virtually impossible to accurately gather with any reliability. What I do know is that as a former fundamentalist evangelical xtian examining my own former in-group, there was a ton of active coordination to poison the well of our young minds against “the world,” which meant science, evolution, sex, role of women, higher education, and anyone who was not our flavor of christian. Most kids willfully mimicked their parents opinions, like I did. And of my then in-group, it seemed that for every handful of families, half of them had insane parents (domineering fathers and submissive mothers) that were very happy that the Bible gave a divine mandate/suggestion to beat their children to enforce compliance with the dictates of their faith.
Yeah honestly. As much as we’ve struggled with developing and even enforcing it today, I think America has a good balance between freedom to practice and freedom from state sponsored religion
Probably not the best moment in that country’s history to make that claim
This term, the Supreme Court decided two cases involving religion: Groff v. DeJoy was a relatively low-profile case about religious accommodations at work; 303 Creative v. Elenis was a blockbuster case about the clash between religious exercise and principles of equal treatment. (The legal question was technically about speech, but religion was at the core of the dispute.)
In both cases, plaintiffs asserted religiously grounded objections to complying with longstanding and well-settled laws or rules that would otherwise apply to them. And in both, the court handed the plaintiff a resounding victory.
These cases are the latest examples of a striking long-term trend: Especially since Amy Coney Barrett became a justice in 2020, the court has taken a sledgehammer to a set of practices and compromises that have been carefully forged over decades to balance religious freedom with other important — and sometimes countervailing — principles.
I honestly don’t understand the contradicting argument of “there should be no religious symbol in a state school, if you want that go to a religious school” and “no religious symbols allowed will set them free”.
Surely if you are funneling all of these kids into religious schools and away from the state system, you’re going to entrench them in that religion further, not “set them free”. It just serves to divide kids even more than if you allowed them all the freedom to mingle in the same school with all their religious garb.
Religion has no place in the modern world.
And the real reason is unmasked. This isn’t “freedom,” this is pushing atheism. There’s a reason the US Supreme Court has struck down similar policies for nearly a century, because it privileges atheism over any religion.
The US Supreme Court has struck down similar policies because US population are religious zealots.
You say that as if atheism is just another religion, which is missing the point. It’s not an unreasonable bias if the government agrees with me that 2+2=4 and that those trying to convince you 2+2=3 are doing you intellectual harm. I know religious people love the “but atheism is just another kind of religion!” adage, but it doesn’t hold water. Nobody is being denied human rights in the name of just atheism, nobody is being oppressed by just atheism.
Remember when we were kids and we were told not to judge people by how they look or other factors they can’t control, but rather to judge them by the things they say, do, and think? Yeah somewhere religious people started this lie that religion is some intrinsic part of being, like sexuality/sexual identity, but this isn’t the case. Religion is a choice. Religion is a belief. Exactly the kind of thing you should judge people for, same as any of their other beliefs or opinions.
The idea that a government shouldn’t endorse atheism, or at least legislate from an atheistic point of view, is insane to me, tbh.
Religion isn’t a choice - you can’t choose to believe something. I used to be obsessed with my religion and my relationship to god. Then I had a nervous breakdown, saw a shrink, and was diagnosed with depression and ADHD. Two weeks into taking wellbutrin, ALL CARES about my immortal soul and god and whatever just turned off entirely, like a giant breaker being thrown. It was amazing, and made me realize that people’s brain chemistry has as much to do with them being religious as cultural factors.
I don’t agree with your interpretation of constitutes an intrinsic quality. I do agree elements within organized religion exist to prey on various vulnerabilities, including those related to brain chemistry, but I don’t think those pressures or vulnerabilities absolve you the responsibility of thoughtfulness and choice. I have suffered from a genuine mental illness my whole life, and that fact does contribute to my choices and and may explain some of my behavior, but it never absolves me or excuses my behavior. Religion may arguably be a difficult or loaded choice, but it is absolutely a choice. A person isn’t a Baptist in the way that they might be inherently and intrinsically gay; a person chooses to be Baptist, even if that choice is one of passive cultural acceptance.
deleted by creator
Whether a person believes they have divine inspiration or not, it is still their choice to follow it. In fact, that’s a key tenant of the faith in question. A deluded person is deluded; we don’t have to and shouldn’t indulge their delusion as if it was reality. And to be clear I’m not talking about religion here, I’m talking about genuinely mentally ill people as you describe. If a mentally ill person truly believes they are a duck it does not mean they are a duck, even if they choose to behave like one. When a mentally ill person believes they know the holy spirit Spirit it does not mean they know the holy spirit, even when they choose to behave as such.
The people here do not represent what the world outside looks like and anonymity emboldens extreme views.
Yeah its why I’m downvoting people, they seem to think Christianity is the only religon in existence and that anyone who follows religon ends up like those domestic terrorists in america
It reminds me of athiest reddit
The same law applies to Christians, too. For instance, you also wouldn’t be allowed to wear a cross at school.
I’m not against freedom of expression as long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone
Wearing symbols of a religon or faith someone subscribes to doesn’t harm anyone just like dressing with a person’s own preference of clothing does not harm anyone
People should be free to express themselves and not be forced to hide parts of themselves away in public because someone in government thinks dressing a certain way or wearing a symbol of faith or religon inherently leads to something bad happening for example americas domestic terrorists
And just to he clear I’m not supporting right wing bigotry with my comment, I will never be tolerant of bigotry and intolerance
And I’ve seen a lot of people in this posts comment section being in support of this being rude & inflammatory
YOU NEVER TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS / EQUALITY OF PEOPLE WITH GOOD INTENTIONS IN MIND
In a way I get it, your way of life is being discriminated against. But with thousands of years of history and present day to go off of, I still feel it’s a good thing.
I kinda compare it to smoking cigarettes. There are a ton of people who do it, but it’s so obviously unhealthy. I won’t go on with the analogy, but you can get pretty grim with it.
You can have a fulfilling and culture filled life without blind hope for a greater power and possibly being negatively influenced by that belief; either through authority figures in your church or you’re own interpretations of religious teachings.
Another thing I saw mentioned was that it’s a state run school. Separation of church and state is something I vehemently agree with. So while it might suck for you, your grandchildren will be better off because they’re not losing anything.
Protecting the society’s Overton window concerning women from being shifted toward any religious group’s preferred direction (let alone a minority group that has a terrible present tract record insofar as female equality is concerned) is a real hard thing to get right. Quite honestly, having grown up as a fundamentalist evangelical Christian and having spent years deprogramming myself from my childhood indoctrination, I would have zero issue seeing the same laws equally enforced against public expressions of religion in this country as well. Any space children have from their family to form their own opinions, without being forced to “other” themselves through religiocultural garb, is good space.
This is not freedom.
I get the reasoning, but really it feels like papering over cracks rather than addressing the root cause.
Set up proper support structures to prevent people from being coerced into things they don’t want to, make sure people are given places to get away from controlling people and exposed to the fact that things don’t have to be like that.
Reading all the anti-privacy and self expression things that France are pushing…wouldn’t understand why anyone would want to move to france in this day and age.
If I agree with some anti-privacy woes, France (and more broadly Europe) is way more privacy friendly than the US. We have to fight for it from time to time, but for now it goes mostly in the right direction.
As for religious stuff, to understand that you have to understand France. We are, due to our history, mostly irreligious (50% of the whole population in 2017), with most religious people being non-practicing. Like every country we have our religious nutjobs, but they are mostly irrevelant compared to the US ones.
As such, we as a whole generally consider that religion should not impact public life and public places nor be displayed in there, with some specific exception (nuns and priests, as it is considered as being an uniform mandated by their trade).School is a public space, as such public display of religion are forbidden. This is not specifically agains Muslim, the same would apply to a nun when going to school as a student. Other less ostensible religious sign, like crucifixes, are also banned.
All that is (mostly) to fight communitarianism, which is viewed here as a threat to society.Pretty progressive. Nice.
The bread
This is the way (to the nearest bakery of course)
Laicite has been a thing for a very long time. Simply put, France recognizes your right to believe any crap you like in your private life and recognizes religions under law, but people don’t get to practice their religion in the public sphere, e.g. on state property.
This is as opposed to US secularism which is barely lip service and constantly undermined. If you want an analogue, France erects a steel barrier between religion and governance whereas US erects a 4ft chain link fence.
What a narrow understanding of religion. That law is based on the understanding that “religion” is something completely inside the mind and maybe something you attend once a week. That may have been nice in 1700s Europe when the only religion around were denominations of Christianity but it doesn’t account for the many religions that mandate looks and dress and even some that require tattoos. Instead the state implicitly labels those religions as inferior or less civilized and goes out of their way to single them out for law enforcement.
And the “obey or leave” mindset in this thread is ignorant of history, as France involuntarily made all Algerians French citizens and declared their lands French territory. This 2004 law and new amendments singles them out.
Laicite has been a thing in France for over a 100 years. There is nothing “narrow” about it and it affected religions LONG before Muslims became the latest to experience it.
Laicite was created after Christians went to war against Christians. It still is trapped in that paradigm and is narrow because it fails to take into account the practices of other religions. For example, Christianity has almost no dietary laws but that’s not the case for Jews, Hindus, or Muslims. Should French schools require beef on the menu to avoid religious accommodation for Hindus? Should circumcision be banned in order to prevent Jewish boys from standing out in locker rooms?
Laicite is a narrow and antiquated mindset and there’s a reason other secular countries haven’t embraced it.
I’m pretty certain you know these are stupid arguments.
I’m not going to respond to ad hominem attacks. Peace.
Calling your arguments stupid is not ad hominem. But if you want me to elucidate then by all means:
-
Forcing people to eat beef (or pork) is not covered by laicite. Wearing religious clothing & symbols on state property is. I’m sure a case to be made that schools should be sensitive to religious dietary restrictions and provide alternatives, but that’s not what you were saying.
-
Circumcision is not covered by laicite at least insofar as school is concerned. Maybe there are regs about how it is performed in public hospitals. Wearing religious clothing & symbols on state property is.
All clear now?
-
Yeah, let’s ban garments because garments can be attributed to religion or fashion or culture or comfort or any or all combination of the above, in public spaces and alienate religious groups, let them homeschool their children, which may/may not breed more dogmatic/extremists views and then cry about immigrants screwing things up by not integrating just because setting up laws that separate religion and state weren’t enough. Laws can’t be enforced right? Like laws don’t discourage behaviors in a secular civil society right?
Genius moves there. I like the 5D chess this government is playing.
Homeschooling is a thing in every country. I don’t see how you can claim laicite is the cause of it, or even increases the risk of extremism.
I would encourage you to research how Madrasas work so that we can have a more informed discussion. Homeschooling/private schooling, or any other alternative schooling’s curriculum isn’t likely going to have the same amount of oversight as a state’s education system. Because of this notion alone, alternative education systems are more prone to spreading misinformed ideas and/or ideas with a certain slant to them.
By forcing parents to pull out of a more secular system because of stupid ideas such as these, you are automatically predisposing their children to such issues, which is why I stated what I stated and there’s plenty of material a google search away to back this up along with news/articles covering problems with integration.
.1) Nobody is being “forced” out, they choose to, 2) and home schooling is a thing EVERYWHERE, 3) extremism is a thing EVERYWHERE and usually not during a child’s education but later in life. Most extremists are in fact just losers - petty criminals, drug addicts, social misfits etc. who get sent to prison or who join forums and are groomed and radicalised. Across the pond in the UK with no laicite and you will still have extremists. In virtually every case they were groomed after the fact.
Laicite is not the cause of this, although a child’s upbringing, or lack thereof, does have some bearing. The majority of parents, regardless of religion are not fundamentalists, let alone extremists, and will sensibly choose to send their kids to a state school or private school. I daresay the vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and every other denomination in France are more than happy to send kids to a state school. I daresay the majority of people in France after a generation or two don’t even have an objection to this arrangement and consider it normal.
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!
The same “I know what’s best for them” and “the law applies equally to everyone” arguments in favor of bans on drugs that many in liberal spaces will detest, they will happily use when supporting shit like this. We all know that everyone doesn’t suffer equally under laws like this. Religion may be the opium of the people, but does that mean we should be the narcs? You don’t eradicate religion by banning it. You eradicate it by having secular institutions provide the things people go to religion for, like a sense of purpose, assistance, and community.
France has a strict ban on religious signs in state schools and government buildings, arguing that they violate secular laws.
Is this a case of being lost in translation or something? I wouldn’t consider religious garb to be a “sign.”
Signs should be better translated to symbols here
Calling clothes a “symbol” of religion is a stretch, too.
A display of religion then? It is meant as anything that could identify you as someone with a certain religion
The real question is: would they stop a kid from wearing a necklace with a cross, for example?
They did in mine. Most of my classmates found it pretty cringe too
Thats interesting. Is that purely from a religious symbol standpoint or is it a jewellery thing too? And cringe that they were banned or that they were worn at all?
Jewelry is allowed but not very common
Its cringe this person worn it even tho we all know about secularism
In the UK at my kids school, yes. No jewelry of any kind allowed. Not even studs in newly pierced ears, which is a bit annoying.
I also went to a UK school and there was no jewellery of any kind because it was against uniform policy, not for religious reasons. I was pretty sure there was no problem with religious headgear though, for example Sikh turban wearing.
I was asking about the French public schools as thats what the article was about.
Yes, obviously in the context of this story. It seems weird to assume otherwise to me
It’s not really obvious, which is why I had to ask. The article focuses on a piece of clothing which isn’t really religiously significant being banned, so I wouldn’t say it’s obvious what falls under the law.
But the reason it was banned was clearly identified as being because it is symbolic of a religion. Based on that, how wouldn’t a cross necklace also qualify?
deleted by creator
I totally support that. https://www.indigo.ca/en-ca/little-hijabi-a-little-girls-love-for-her-hijab/9781504319508.html Kids wearing hijabs, abayas (put any religious symbol here) must be considered as a form of child abuse. It is crucial to refrain from imposing outdated and fantastical beliefs onto young minds.
The Abaya is cultural and not religious though.
So why is it mandatory for women in Quater and Saudi Arabia ?
Because their law requires it for “modesty reasons”, probably like a uniform of some sort, but it’s not a religious garment in Islam. It covers the whole body except the head, feet and hands. Anyone wearing an Abaya outside of Qatar and Saudi Arabia is doing so for cultural reasons, not religious reasons.
These kinds of laws should not oppress culture, unless we want to see an extinction of diversity. They should exist solely to limit religious child indoctrination, and give children a fighting chance to make their own decisions with regard to religion.
That’s exactly what this law is doing by banning religious sign into the public school. Pretenting that the introduction of this clothe, absolutely not present into the French culture, has nothing to do with the religion is fallacious.
Please don’t do this. The culture finds its foundation entirely within religious beliefs, and the abaya stands as a tangible expression of this connection. From the Wikipedia: “The rationale for the abaya is often attributed to the Quranic quote, “O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, to cover themselves with a loose garment. They will thus be recognised and no harm will come to them” (Qur’an 33:59,[2] translated by Ahmed Ali). This quotation is often given as the argument for wearing the abaya.”
The cross is synonymous with Christianity, yet there’s an exception in this law for small crosses. If you want to go down this path, you must ban everything, with no exceptions.
