• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Banning Religious symbols at schools in France

kaspacanada

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
I know this has been going on for a while, but any thoughts on this????

French cabinet moves on religious symbols

Associated Press

Paris â ” French cabinet ministers on Wednesday adopted a bill to ban all conspicuous religious symbols in public schools â ” the first step to a law banning Islamic head scarves in the classroom.

The bill, containing three articles, goes to the parliament for debate on Tuesday.

It stipulates that â Å“in schools, junior high schools and high schools, signs and dress that conspicuously show the religious affiliation of students are forbidden.â ?

It would not apply to students in private schools or to French schools in other countries. The law would forbid Islamic head scarves called hijabs, Jewish skullcaps and Christian crosses.

Conservative President Jacques Chirac, who called on legislators to move ahead with such a law in a nationally televised speech in December, had asked that the legislation be succinct, quickly passed and in force by the new school year in September.

The planned law is viewed as discriminatory by some and has drawn criticism from Muslims in other countries, including Canada.

Mr. Chirac said Wednesday that France needed to act to head off danger to the country‘s secular foundations.

â Å“To do nothing would be irresponsible. It would be a fault,â ? the President told the closed-door cabinet meeting, according to government spokesman Jean-François Copé.

Not acting would mean â Å“leaving teachers and school principals alone in the face of growing difficulties,â ? Mr. Chirac said.

The legislation, he said, would protect schools against what the French call communautarisme â ” minorities and ethnic groups living apart from mainstream society. This is seen as hindering the assimilation that France expects from its immigrant citizens.

France has the largest Islamic population in western Europe, estimated at some five million, and there is growing concern that Muslims are failing to fully integrate. The concern is magnified by fears of a rise in Muslim fundamentalism.

The legislation culminates 15 years of often bitter debate over the wearing of Islamic head scarves in classes, perceived as an affront to the constitutional principle of secularism that underpins French society.

Most, but not all, public schools have observed guidelines forbidding head coverings. However, schools have been left to decide on taking action against those who flout the rules, and decisions have been made on a case-by-case basis.

Scores of young girls have been expelled over the years for refusing to respect school rules.

Under the legislation, sanctions for refusing to remove conspicuous religious signs would range from a warning to temporary suspension from school to expulsion.

The legislation â Å“lays down a clear principleâ ? and â Å“enables us to address concrete problems confronting our schools while always favouring dialogue,â ? Mr. Copé quoted Mr. Chirac as saying.

Cases of civil servants and private sector employees insisting on wearing head scarves also have arisen, but the planned law is limited to public schools.

Mr. Chirac specified that the legislation â Å“obviously does not forbid signs of religious affiliation in daily life.â ?

His party, the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), has a large parliamentary majority that is expected to approve the measure quickly, although some party members have recently voiced dissent.

The opposition Socialists favour a law, too. However, one Socialist official, François Rebsamen, said Wednesday that the party plans to seek amendments to improve the bill‘s â Å“comprehension and application.â ?

------------------------------------------------

Uhm, I am not really a fan of this legislation. I think that it masks differences that children should be taught to tolerate and accept. If the purpose is to head off extremism and fundamentalism, this does not discourage that. In fact, I think it is plausible that it will encourage resentment among parts of the population. Any other thoughts?
 
It seems like they‘re trying to create somewhat of a "melting pot" society whereby differences are swept under the rug, rather then a more multicultural approach where the differences are out in the open and people have to deal and learn from them.

I believe France is fiercely secular, which has something to do with this legislation. Is anyone more familiar with the reasons for France‘s secularism? It must have something to do with wanting to avoid "communautarisme", but that cannot be the only reason.

I do disagree with the legislation, as it could do more harm then good as far as minority resentment and ignorance of other cultures goes, but it would be interesting to know why France insists on being so secular.
 
Well, once again this proves my point that France sucks
 
Che,
Your a little off in your def‘n of a "melting pot" society. Differences aren‘t swept under the rug, they are "melted" together creating new and wonderful holidays such as Chrismanakkuh and the Day of the Dead Easter Bunnies and...Santa Clause.

I believe France merely has an inferiority complex about how little they actually measure up to the rest of the G-8s. National pride is derived from military success, something which France is in short order of in recent history. What this equals is a country whose current claim to fame is wine and cheese and a few white sprinters who always lose the 100m. This complex translates into why they hate foreigners so much, immigrants (and everybody not French) remind them of how much they suck by comparison. Anyone who‘s been to France knows how they look down upon people of Middle Eastern descent. Of course they aren‘t that stupid to just outlaw Muslim symbols but all other religious symbols as well so as to appear "fair" to everyone. They figure if they amalgamate all their immigrants and make them French, maybe they‘ll stop losing at everything and appear socially tolerant, two birds with one stone. Ever notice how the French appear to be aloof and somewhat snobbish? It‘s basic Psych, they just want to cover up their inferiorities. The world according to me, Vol 1: Why does France suck so much.
 
Originally posted by gate_guard:
[qb] Che,
Your a little off in your def‘n of a "melting pot" society. Differences aren‘t swept under the rug, they are "melted" together creating new and wonderful holidays such as Chrismanakkuh and the Day of the Dead Easter Bunnies and...Santa Clause.
[/qb]
Pretty much what I was driving at, I think in the process the differences are swept under the rug, and people are supposed to walk around pretending that everyone is simply "French" when there are obviously differences between everyone.
If anyones seen gangs of New York, there is a moderate melting pot effect being displayed there.

Point is, if they ignore the differences or force everyone to instantaneously become "French" and melt together then eventually the pots going to boil over (F-unny...ha)

Although I must admit, Day of the Dead Easter bunnys is one of my personal favorite holidays.
 
GAte_Gaurd,

Although I agree completely that France has personality issues at times, I do not belive that national pride is only the result of military success. (Take a look at New Foundlanders..hehehe...there‘s a lot more than military pride there...and quebecois too)

I see national pride simply as coming from a shared sense of identity and the fact that one is born or adopts an attitude of commonality - an ‘us‘ and ‘them‘ attitude. Pride comes from a wide variety of achievments, yes among them are military. But it also comes from military losses. Look at Scottish nationalism or the Georgian culture. A ‘nation‘ can be defined in many ways but often include shared language(s), shared history, generally shared values, possibly at times customs, religion and race, are all factors into how some people define a ‘nation‘. I being Canadian and somewhat multi-cultural in my beliefs don‘t specifically subscribe to race, and religion being key aspects, but some people do and that is their perogative. (As much as I will always try to convince others of the so-called ‘betterness‘ of the multi-cultural stress on comonality over differences.)
 
I see national pride simply as coming from a shared sense of identity and the fact that one is born or adopts an attitude of commonality - an ‘us‘ and ‘them‘ attitude. Pride comes from a wide variety of achievments, yes among them are military. But it also comes from military losses. Look at Scottish nationalism or the Georgian culture. A ‘nation‘ can be defined in many ways but often include shared language(s), shared history, generally shared values, possibly at times customs, religion and race, are all factors into how some people define a ‘nation‘. I being Canadian and somewhat multi-cultural in my beliefs don‘t specifically subscribe to race, and religion being key aspects, but some people do and that is their perogative. (As much as I will always try to convince others of the so-called ‘betterness‘ of the multi-cultural stress on comonality over differences.)
Thanks for another text-book reading...France still sucks.
 
I really don‘t see what the problem is.

I have friends in France, and even they are divided about it...but I can‘t understand why.

You go to a *Public* school to get a good, non biased education. You do not go there to be converted to people‘s religions, or to convert people to a religion.

France is doing the responsible thing that should be done in any secular country, and not allowing religous fundamentalists to muscle their way into learning institutions and contaminate impressionable kids with their ideals.

They are not just banning Muslim religous symbols as the article would have you believe, but being fair, and banning all religous symbols.

This is the year 2004...not 1204 and I applaud the French for being forward and progressive thinking in their policies...even if this should have been done long ago..

The government controls *Public* schools, so they can do what they see fit. If the fundamentalist student‘s parents dont like it, they can move their kids to a private school.
 
Geez infanteer, You make it sound like I am protecting France. As for my writing, I will try to take that as a compliment as not all people are as wise as you are. :D What makes you think that comes out of a text book? :eek:
 
Differences do not always teach people to accept one another; much of the time they serve to drive people apart. For example, look at that canadian white supremacist organization, "The Northern Alliance" or some trash like that. could you see those animals respecting and tolerating the differences of others?

That said, France has problems the likes of which neither Canada nor the US can fathom. The rise of religious extremism in the country could indeed be worrying, as France is the "doorway" into Europe for much of the Middle East. A large influx of immigrants from a single source could bring both political and economic unstability throughout the country, and perhaps even the EU. Why do you think western nations only accept a certain number of immigrants from each country every year?

Attacking the French for their military track record and desire to maintain their sovereignty and cultural identity is petty at best. That France managed to emerge with its culture relatively intact and borders more-or-less unchanged despite two occupations is testement to the will of the French people.
 
Nbk:
"You go to a *Public* school to get a good, non biased education. You do not go there to be converted to people‘s religions, or to convert people to a religion."

I don‘t honestly think that you believe wearing a religious symbol such as a Cross, or any kind of headdress, will convert someone to your religion or incline you convert yourself.

"France is doing the responsible thing that should be done in any secular country, and not allowing religous fundamentalists to muscle their way into learning institutions and contaminate impressionable kids with their ideals."

By this definition anyone displaying a religious symbol is guilty of being a fundementalist, my sister and mother wear Hijabs, however my family is far from Fundemental (I am living proof of that) and there are many others like us. As well, I see hundreds of Crosses around peoples necks, and I highly doubt they are fundementalist Christians. Anyone wearing a Jewish cap (forgive me the name escapes me) is a fundementalist? I‘d say they are just adhering to some of the things they believe in.

"They are not just banning Muslim religous symbols as the article would have you believe, but being fair, and banning all religous symbols."

I cannot speak as far as the other symbols go, however the Hijab has a great significance in the Muslim religion for many people. It is a comfort issue as well as a confidence issue for many women, and is something that everyone of them has the right to wear if it makes them feel safer.(Which it truly, truly does)


As for the idea that this is forward thinking, there could be arguments that it is not, it is simply trying to create a melting pot culture which in recent history has not worked at all. A melting pot, is not a new idea nor is it a forward thinking one.

That‘s not to say religion is perfect by any means and that it should be allowed a dominance over the state like it enjoyed in 1204, but it must at least be acknowledged that some people do practice religion rather then denying its existence in a public institution like school.

As for Impressionable youngsters not learning all of these "fundementalist" ideas, is it better to teach them that everyone is completely the same? And that there are no religions at all?

Sorry for the long post, but when I saw that wearing religious symbols were being confused as a sign of Fundementalism I had to.
 
NBK,

Someone wearing a headscarf or some other religious item isn‘t always trying to convert you. Would you take off your helmet in a shower of shrapnel because a recruit told you to? To some, wearing this item is their religious duty and the feel that they must for whatever reason (going to h*e*L*L etc...) Restricting this, I feel has more potential to create more fundamentalism and intemperance than it will absolve. But hey, it‘s France, and they can tear their own country apart if they so choose to do so. It‘s not my place to tell them what to do.

How does this work? We let anarchists and freiks parade around wearing black leather and freakin dog collars and stuff screaming F the free world while they bathe in it‘s freedom? The least we can accept is a simple piece of religious clothing.

Sure it‘s ‘fair‘ but, it was deliberately targeted at the Muslims and the only reason it includes the others is because they wanted to be able to use the ‘fairness‘ argument. I do not see this helping their problems. The same debate is going on in Germany, my gf completely supports not allowing Kurds there to wear their religious articles (eg/ headscarves etc...) in school and such and I just can‘t seem to understand her.

Null,

we are not talking about the right to bomb people but the right to fufill religious obligation (in the case of consenting muslims). I completely agree that attacking their military track record is indeed ‘petty‘ however, their borders were only restored at their allies expenses. Not to say that they didn‘t play a role, but if the other allies didn‘t get into it, then they would be much different today and that stands as a testement to the will of the rest of the western world (and Russia).
 
Che, thanks for the input on the ‘Hijab‘. Is that the headscarf we are all referring to? I am not sure of the significance but am going off my own limited presumptions and likely inaccuracies about why it is worn.
 
Hijab is the headscarf, Burka is the full body cover (I‘ve only ever seen one woman wear it)and there is another one which escapes me right now.

There are alooooot of reasons that Muslim women wear Hijabs, and I do not want to get into it at all (I go through this on a daily basis outside of this forum) They‘re easy enough to find on the internet.

The biggest reason behind this being such a big deal is that many Muslims see wearing the Hijab as a command from God to wear it making it mandatory, which the Jewish Kippa and the Christian Cross are not. My personal feelings aside, this is what many think.
 
Che: I fully understand where you are coming from, but I still do not see what the problem is.

People will still be allowed to wear them out on the streets, or in their homes, so it is not really hindering their freedoms.

Public schools are government institutions. You are not allowed to smoke in government institutions either (I‘m not sure if this is the case in France, as it is here). Is it a huge issue when smokers are not allowed to smoke when they enter a school? Smoking, like religion, is a choice that people make. If the government wants to stop allowing people to smoke in its buildings, then why not? Its not going to kill you if you dont smoke, in fact its better for you...the same applies to religion...

I still don‘t see the problem...
 
nbk,
You have severely undermine the value that some people place on religion. Your comments border on offensive with your little comment "in fact its better for you...the same applies to religion..." but I think you already knew that before you posted it. Grow up.

Aside from your little juvenile attempt at provocation, your comparison is completely out to lunch. How many wars do you know of that have been fought over smoking?
 
NBK, If they feel it is a religious OBLIGATION to wear it all the time, that is their perogative and it makes no difference to me. The Hijab is not an obligation that affects me, or any person other than the ones fufilling thier religious duties. I am afraid to see how you would respond to a Sihk RCMP officer in a Turban. Or do you think that religious custom has no place in the Canadian Police force because it is supposed to be secular?
 
Cultural divides and stereotypes are taught to children at home (largely) and school is where they spend most of their day...

...see the problem?

What if you have a classroom of Jewish and Arab students, each dressed in their own cultural attire. The very items that would ideally serve to give them a sense of identity could be used as a way to exemplify their differences, to set them apart.

I know I have a good point here, but I‘m lacking the motivation to write it down in a convincing manner.

Anyone who thinks the french are "stupid" or "suck" because they want the children in public schools to not be restrainined by pre-determined cultural barriers should go to an inner-city public school rife with gangs in Toronto or LA.
 
Originally posted by kaspacanada:
[qb] I am afraid to see how you would respond to a Sihk RCMP officer in a Turban. [/qb]
I would not care. The government even makes special allowances for Sikh headgear in the forces, they do not oppose the wearing of them, so why would I even care? The government has deemed it appropriate to wear them, so as far as I‘m concerned...well I‘m not concerned.

You really can‘t compare the two. You are talking about adults who are doing their jobs on one hand, and impressionable young kids on the other hand.

And of course I believe religion should not be promoted in a secular country...but if the government does not care, and allows it to be promoted by government officials...then why should I care? It just reflects poorly on the government, I‘m not gonna lose any sleep over it.

And I think nULL raises a good point...I went to high school in downtown Toronto, in what some would call a "bad" neighbourhood. The school did not allow *any* headgear at all, which is the case for most schools in Toronto, and probably across the country. They were worried about gang apparel, bandanas and soforth, that would hinder the institution.

If one member of a gang was at one end of the hall and another member of a rival gang was at the other end, would you want to be inbetween them? One of them sees the red bandana of the rival gang member, and the other one sees the blue bandana of the first kid. You get all the gang members hanging out in their groups and likely would turn into some sort of violence which would jepordize the safety of the other non gang affiliated majority of the kids.

Is it really so much of a jump to substitute people of different religions into the place of the gang members? After all, are religions not just organized large scale gangs?

My point is that religous headgear is something that does not need to be worn at school, and their are good reasons for it not to be worn. Are christian students going to fail school because they dont have a cross around their necks? It is unnecessary, and could cause problems.

What if someone brought an elephant to school everyday? He does not need to bring it. He just brought it because he felt like it. Should he be allowed to? He does not need an elephant at school, it will not help him do better in school, and their are good reasons why he should not have one. It may distract people and may hinder the learning process at the school. Therefore he should not bring one.
 
Back
Top