France wants to prevent students from wearing religious garb...

[jerseydevil]

France wants to prevent students from wearing muslim head scarfs or covering themselves and now they have just suggested that all religious garbs should NOT be permitted in the schools at all. This I feel is infringement on personal freedoms. Here in the United States we have jews and muslims sitting next to each other in classes, they wear their clothing. jews are aloud to wear yarmulkas and muslims can wear head scarves or be covered. There is no restriction on wearing religious jewelry either.

On French news a couple of weeks ago they had about a jewish school where the students are being terrorized. They have to be walked to the corner of the street with a teacher, but then they are basically on their own hoping nothing will happen to them. They have resorted to wearing baseball caps to hide their yarmulkas. A couple of days ago the news interviewed students who just beat up jewish kids waiting for the train and stuff - they said it was funt o just beat up jewish students because they are weak. Two weeks ago, a jewish school was burnt to the ground.

Now France argues that they have a seperation of church and state in their public schools and therefore do not allow students to show any outward appearance of their religion. This to me is infringing on the individual rights of the student and creates a misunderstanding between the different religions. I think it is ridiculous for anyone to have to hide their religion just because they have entered school. I think it is great that here you can see a muslim wearing a headscarf and next to her, a jewish boy wearing a yarmulka. We don't teach religion in school, unlike in France - so why do they have a have a far greater prejudice problem than we do here? And how is it in the rest of Europe, form looking at the news it seems as if Germany has a huge problem - as well as other European countries.

continued...

[jerseydevil]

French report backs veil ban

PARIS, France (Reuters) -- France should ban Muslim veils, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses from its public schools, but also create new holidays to respect holy days of its minority religions, an official report said.

The long-awaited report on church-state relations, the centerpiece of a national debate over integrating Muslims into French society, advised Paris to stand firm against militant Islamists trying to undermine official secularism.

At the same time, Thursday's report urged traditionally Catholic France to respect "all spiritual options" in a society becoming ever more diverse through immigration.

President Jacques Chirac said he would announce next Wednesday whether he would seek a law banning the veil, now a major issue in France amid concern of failed Muslim integration and growing Islamist influence. He has hinted he backs a ban.

"Secularism essentially means respect for differences," commission chairman Bernard Stasi told a news conference.

But he added: "We must be lucid -- there are in France some behaviors which cannot be tolerated. There are without any doubt forces in France which are seeking to destabilize the republic and it is time for the republic to react."

Christian, Muslim and some Jewish religious leaders have urged Chirac not to seek an outright ban on religious symbols in public schools. Muslims have been outspoken in defending the veil as a religious obligation they have a right to wear.

The commission proposed barring "conspicuous signs of political or religious affiliation," but said discreet medals -- such as a small cross or Star of David -- were acceptable.

It also suggested adding Yom Kippur, the Jewish day of atonement, and the Eid al-Kebir festival at the end of Islam's Ramadan fasting month to a list of school holidays.

Companies were advised to consider ways of allowing employees to take off the religious holiday of their choice.

France, once so Catholic it was called "the eldest daughter of the Church," is now eight percent Muslim. Islam is its second-largest religion.

Its five-million-strong Muslim community and its 600,000 Jews are both the largest minorities of their kind in Europe.

Apart from the veil, the commission also investigated issues such as Muslim women refusing treatment by male doctors, pupils challenging teachers about the Holocaust and a "new anti-Semitism" among disaffected Muslim youths.

"This anti-Semitism is real in our country," commission secretary Remy Schwartz said. "We found children have to leave public schools in some areas because they are not physically secure... This has profoundly shocked the commission."

The commission was also shocked by cases of discrimination against women and said sexual equality was one of the guiding principles it used for reaching its conclusions.

Schwartz said Muslim girls said they were pressured into wearing veils by family and "outside groups" -- a reference to activists officials say are promoting strict religious practices among French Muslims, who are of mostly North African origin.

"Many asked for protection from the state, that the state forbids the wearing of religious symbols in school to guarantee their protection and their individual freedom," he said.

Kamal Kabtane, head of the Grand Mosque of Lyon, said Muslims would respect an anti-veil law but added: "This decision will resolve nothing at all. It will only add to the confusion."

Here is the french report from France 2 - La commission sur la laïcité a proposé une loi interdisant Ã* l'école les signes religieux et politiques ostensibles

[brownjenkins]

while i'm strongly for the separation of church and state i also believe that everyone has a right to express their beliefs as long as they do not infringe upon others

for example, i think it is wrong to require prayer in school, but i have no problem making it optional... i put nationalism (i.e. the pledge of allegiance) on the same level, since i have always seen nationalism as a form of state theology

let the kids wear what they want... there is no point in raising kids in a sterile environment that does not reflect the reality they will become a part of when they become adults

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Now France argues that they have a seperation of church and state in their public schools and therefore do not allow students to show any outward appearance of their religion. This to me is infringing on the individual rights of the student and creates a misunderstanding between the different religions. I think it is ridiculous for anyone to have to hide their religion just because they have entered school. I think it is great that here you can see a muslim wearing a headscarf and next to her, a jewish boy wearing a yarmulka.

But we apparently do not have the same problems as those being experienced by the French public schools, at least this is what I gleaned from the article you provided. Hypothetically, I would certainly have a problem with children wearing crucifixes to school if those children wearing crucifixes were beating up the kids who wore crosses; likewise, I would expect those wearing crosses to stop that practice as well.

Regards,
Dave

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
But we apparently do not have the same problems as those being experienced by the French public schools, at least this is what I gleaned from the article you provided. Hypothetically, I would certainly have a problem with children wearing crucifixes to school if those children wearing crucifixes were beating up the kids who wore crosses; likewise, I would expect those wearing crosses to stop that practice as well.

Wouldn't it be better to bring understanding than to ban outward display of who you are? Also- I know you are really religious - so what happened to the teachings of Jesus that you should stand up for your religion - even as people throw stones at you? The Roman's fed catholics to the lions in the Coloseum.

The whole thing started by the way - not becuase people were getting beat up - it started because two girls were wearing headscarves in school and the government said it promotes the muslim religion and therefore they were suspended,

[hectorberlioz]

The French are very anti-christians, jews, or anything else religious.
this issue on not bieng able to wear a yamulka or whatever else is getting a little silly. i think someone should be able to wear a cross on his neck to school. or a yamulka, or whatever else.

edit: I decided that remark was a little too rude..., but i see its too late....

[sun-star]

I have no problem with people wearing religious symbols. I agree with jerseydevil that it can promote religious understanding. However, I think that France has some issues with this that go deeper than we may realise.

Thanks hectorberlioz

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Wouldn't it be better to bring understanding than to ban outward display of who you are? Also- I know you are really religious - so what happened to the teachings of Jesus that you should stand up for your religion - even as people throw stones at you?

I understand what you are saying, but then again I ain’t misbehav’n.

it started because two girls were wearing headscarves in school and the government said it promotes the muslim religion

If that’s the case, then I agree with you, and it is somewhat disturbing. However, that wasn’t clear from the article which seemed to emphasize anti-Semitism and equal rights. Just as there are some archaic Christians out there, there are some archaic Muslims as well. It very well could be that burning crosses is an important religious expression for some people, and you can’t say that such a thing is not part of this world in which we live, but I definitely don’t want these archaic people burning a cross at my children’s grade school, and I fully expect the competent authorities to prevent such things from happening. It isn’t wrong for the duly appointed authorities to enforce public order when these archaic people threaten said public order... its in everyone’s best interest.

[Artanis]

I'm afraid that a ban will lead to segregation, which is too sad. I'd say it is better to display the differences in the open and talk about them, maybe make people curious and wanting to learn more about other religions, than to make everyone look alike. The differences will be there anyway, they will just be more hidden and subject to myths and prejudices, and that is a pity because I think it will lead to more intolerance.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

admit it. the french think they invented the world.

Think?? We did!

Edit: we did get some help from a few Spaniards and Italians, but the direction was all ours.

[Radagast The Brown]

I think it's outrageous. The Franch should let students go to school with any jewlery they want (except a little group, that include the sign of nacism).

The problem with me is, that I don't know how it is in Israel - Israel is a religious country, jewish country. I don't know of any muslims or christians in my school, so I don't really know how it is to have a person with different... customs in my class. I can tell though that many of my class wouldn't except this person.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
If that’s the case, then I agree with you, and it is somewhat disturbing. However, that wasn’t clear from the article which seemed to emphasize anti-Semitism and equal rights.

I've posted the history of the suit in other threads. I was going to look for them again - but I didn't yet. Also - I think I was getting them mostly from the french website.

Just as there are some archaic Christians out there, there are some archaic Muslims as well. It very well could be that burning crosses is an important religious expression for some people, and you can’t say that such a thing is not part of this world in which we live, but I definitely don’t want these archaic people burning a cross at my children’s grade school, and I fully expect the competent authorities to prevent such things from happening. It isn’t wrong for the duly appointed authorities to enforce public order when these archaic people threaten said public order... its in everyone’s best interest.

Preventing people from harrassing others and killing or things becuase of someone's religion is one thing, telling the people - you can not have any outward appearance to what you believe because of what some fanatic will do is another. That is putting the blame on the victim.

[jerseydevil]

I foudn my previous post with the french article from last month...

Laïcité : bas les voiles?

Le 10 octobre, Alma et Lila Lévy étaient exclues définitivement du lycée Henri Wallon d'Aubervilliers.

L'affaire avait tout pour plaire aux médias: père juif athée, mère kabyle ne pratiquant pas de religion... A priori, le terreau familial ne portait pas Ã* l'islamisme. La décision du conseil de discipline intervenue cet automne était la conclusion d'un bras de fer entre l'administration scolaire et les deux lycéennes. Manipulation, entêtement d'adolescentes, ou conviction personnelle profondément enracinée ? Le temps tranchera.


Mais les réactions, elles, ont fusé. A commencer par l'émouvant témoignage de Ginette Lévy, la grand-mère des deux jeunes filles, qui écrivait dans "Le Monde" du 10 octobre "Je déteste leur conversion, leur voile, leur foulard et leur prière Ã* Allah, mais je les aime et souhaite qu'elles puissent vivre heureuses, et je crois que ce n'est que par la culture qu'elles recevront au cours de leurs études qu'elles pourront, peut-être, ne plus avoir besoin de l'islam, qui pour l'instant leur est nécessaire."

A l'opposé, le socialiste Malek Boutih, ancien président de SOS-Racisme, estimait que le foulard ne devait pas entrer Ã* l'école. Et d'ajouter sur LCi qu'il n'entendait pas pleurer sur deux filles d'avocat, qui trouveraient solution Ã* leur problème dans le privé ou ailleurs.

Education, exclusion, intégration, les grands mots étaient lâchés. Et la nécessité (ou non) de légiférer sur les signes religieux refaisait surface. Nommée en juillet, la commission Stasi doit rendre d'ici la fin de l'année ses conclusions sur l'opportunité d'une loi. Parallèlement, l'Assemblée a créé une mission d'information de 30 membres sur la question des signes religieux Ã* l'école, chargée de dresser un état des lieux et d'émettre des propositions.

Que disent les textes officiels pour l'instant ? Petit point de droit ci-dessous.....

Sorry it's in French. There are translation programs on the web - although none of them work the greatest, but it should give you an idea of what they say. I'll have to see how well it translates it myself I suppose.

Here is the translation from Google.

October 10, Alma and Lila Lévy were excluded definitively from the college Henri Wallon of Aubervilliers. The business had very to like the media: atheistic Jewish father, mother kabyle not practising a religion... A priori, the family compost did not carry to Islamism. The Council Decision of discipline occurred this autumn was the conclusion of an iron arm between the school administration and the two high-school girls. Handling, entêtement of teenagers, or deeply enracinée personal conviction? Time will slice. But the reactions, they, fused. To start with moving testimony by Ginette Lévy, the grandmother of the two girls, who wrote in "the World" of October 10 "I hate their conversion, their veil, their scarf and their prayer with Allah, but I like them and wishes that they be able to live happy, and I believe that it is only by the culture which they will receive during their studies that they will be able, perhaps, not to more need the Islam, which for the moment their is necessary." At the opposite, the Socialist Malek Boutih, former president of S.O.S-Racism, estimated that the scarf was not to enter to the school. And to add on LCi which it did not intend to cry over two lawyer girls, who would find solution with their problem in deprived or elsewhere. Education, exclusion, integration, the great words were released. And the need (or not) for legislating on the religious signs remade surface. Named in July, the Stasi commission must return by the end of the year its conclusions on the law appropriateness. In parallel, the Parliament created a mission of information of 30 members on the question of the religious signs at the school, charged drawing up an inventory of fixtures and with putting forth proposals. What says the official texts for the moment? Small point of right below.....

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

“Je déteste� came from the grandmother of the two girls. The woman is Jewish, I would suppose, and to be honest, given the present state of unrest from the Middle East to Europe to around the world, I can understand (not condone, mind you) this woman’s emotion. On the other hand, the school’s reasons were not provided in the above quote, and I seriously doubt that the grandmother was speaking for the school. I imagine that the school’s reason has something to do with the upcoming legislation.

By the way, it would be easier to learn French than try to unscramble the instant translator.

Preventing people from harrassing others and killing or things becuase of someone's religion is one thing, telling the people - you can not have any outward appearance to what you believe because of what some fanatic will do is another. That is putting the blame on the victim.

The way I understand it is that the racism is coming from the fanatic Muslim minority, and the schools are attempting to end this problem by not allowing Muslim dress. Of course, if you are going to do that to all Muslims, you will have maintain the same policy for everyone no matter what their religion is.

I think I should clarify that I’m not on either side. I understand, though, the emotionally charged environment in which this debate is taking place. I definitely don’t see anything wrong with the public display of one’s religious beliefs, within reason. If people can’t play together nicely, then bad things happen for everyone. Perhaps the French are missing the mark... but just imagine the furry if the French were to force Muslims to accept a no-tolerance position regarding Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Semitism. Such measures would be immediately interpreted as racism directed toward a minority. The issue is too complex just to boil it down to a free speech thing.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
“Je déteste� came from the grandmother of the two girls. The woman is Jewish, I would suppose, and to be honest, given the present state of unrest from the Middle East to Europe to around the world, I can understand (not condone, mind you) this woman’s emotion. On the other hand, the school’s reasons were not provided in the above quote, and I seriously doubt that the grandmother was speaking for the school. I imagine that the school’s reason has something to do with the upcoming legislation.

I watch French news everyday and it did not. The legislation is a RESULT of students being expelled from school. The girls sued the school over being expelled. Also - the whole article is there, plus I had seen the news item on Le Journal, with the grandmother and also the father of the girls. They were against them being muslim - but respected their beliefs and felt they should NOT be restricted from wearing their headscarves in school.

By the way, it would be easier to learn French than try to unscramble the instant translator.

Yes translators suck, the do it literal translation. I can pretty much read the French though.

The way I understand it is that the racism is coming from the fanatic Muslim minority, and the schools are attempting to end this problem by not allowing Muslim dress. Of course, if you are going to do that to all Muslims, you will have maintain the same policy for everyone no matter what their religion is.

I think I should clarify that I’m not on either side. I understand, though, the emotionally charged environment in which this debate is taking place. I definitely don’t see anything wrong with the public display of one’s religious beliefs, within reason. If people can’t play together nicely, then bad things happen for everyone. Perhaps the French are missing the mark... but just imagine the furry if the French were to force Muslims to accept a no-tolerance position regarding Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Semitism. Such measures would be immediately interpreted as racism directed toward a minority. The issue is too complex just to boil it down to a free speech thing.

Well I don't think that anyone's freedom of religious expression should be infringed upon. And anti-semitism and fundamentalist, if it turns violent is a crime anyway. So how are people hiding their religion going to teach tolerance?

[Anglorfin]

I believe this goes WAY far BEYOND the separation of church and state. The basic idea is that religion should not interfere or influence government in any way. I can understand students not having class prayer in public schools and I can even understand the debate about having everyone to affirm a deity every time they recite our Pledge of Allegiance but not being able to wear traditional religious clothing or ornaments is stupid.

So what happens when they ban that from schools because they are owned by the government? Is that any different than saying "Because this country has a government, you are not allowed to wear any items that relate to religion while under the jurisdiction of this government." At a certain point it just gets absurd and wrong.



Sorry if I got carried away, but it just struck a nerve in me right now I guess.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, I can't help feeling this is terribly counter-productive.

From my experience, racism in France is an even more serious problem than it is elsewhere; you just need to look at the results of the recent presidential election for confirmation of that.

On the face of it, in principle this recommendation (which is all it is at the moment) treats everyone the same, but in practice, of course, it will have the greatest impact on Jewish and Muslim minorities. So it wears a secular, left-ish mask but implements a right-wing agenda.

The result will be to reduce mutual understanding and increase, and even justify, racism. If the EU has any balls, they'll be hauled into the European Court of Human Rights.

since i have always seen nationalism as a form of state theology

I see what you mean, and I think I agree, but how far does the analogy go?

[Earniel]

Saying they need to promote mutual understanding is easy. It takes a little more than saying: "We all need to get along." It's just not that easy. Personally I think mutual understanding of culture and religion is a terrific idea. But it's -like so many things- easier said than done. It takes time, it takes generations. It takes more than a life-time. It takes goodwill. And truck-loads of effort. Prejudices are darn hard to get rid of, even when you know yourself you have some.

The French banning of any obvious religious signs is a solution to inter-religious clashes. I'm not saying it is a good solution but at least they're recognizing and trying to resolve the problem. It's a little drastic to try and remove the problem by removing any object that might give offence. And a bit of the easy way out of things as well IMO. It may deteriorate the situation further.

In a way I find it is sad that they try to 'solve' the situation by restricting the religious rights of those students to the wearing of discreet items. On the other hand, it might just work. School isn't for life after all (except perhaps for teachers, who may probably be hit the worst by this new rule.) and the students can resume their veils and other signs of religion at home and afterwards again.

And maybe, just maybe the students will learn that under the veil, yarmulka or other religious items, their fellow students are rather alike. Without any outward sign of religion, the students may mingle more, and thus contribute some understanding. I just hope that whoever wrote that study which they used as basis for this new rule bloody well knew what he was doing! This is not a thing you suggest so casually.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
From my experience, racism in France is an even more serious problem than it is elsewhere; you just need to look at the results of the recent presidential election for confirmation of that.

I disagree wih the last part of the sentence. To use the last French presidential election as an argument for supposed France racism is pulling it out of context. Just because people voted for Le Pen doesn't mean they did so out of racism-inspired reason. There were a lot more factors involved.

[The Gaffer]

Fair enough; it was a bit of a generalisation. What do you think about racism in France then?

I disagree regarding the removal of these items. For a start, it discriminates against people (like Jews, Sikhs and Muslims) who have a garb. Although many Christians wear crucifixes, these are not "official", and therefore it hardly impacts them at all. It seems like the ruling would insist that people deny some profound aspect of their identity during their childhood, which in turns seems not only unrealistic but downright provocative (towards the communities concerned).

The second thing I disagree about is that what happens in school doesn't matter for later life. If your schooling teaches you that religious garb has no place in public life, then any antipathy you might have towards a particular religious group is likely to be reinforced rather than counteracted.

To my mind, it is giving in to the prejudice (let's deal with it by pretending everyone's the same instead of dealing with it by encouraging people to be accepting of each other and celebrating our diversity).

IMO, this would result in people seeing other religions as more "other", not less. Far better would be to interact with all kinds of people in a normal setting so that the fact of equality is better internalised.

I compare this with my own experiences of a segregated educational system, which perpetuates sectarianism between Catholics and Protestants. Obviously, this is not outright segregation, but it is tantamount to the same thing: it is are segregating religious life from school life.

Interested to hear your thoughts.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Saying they need to promote mutual understanding is easy. It takes a little more than saying: "We all need to get along." It's just not that easy. Personally I think mutual understanding of culture and religion is a terrific idea. But it's -like so many things- easier said than done. It takes time, it takes generations. It takes more than a life-time. It takes goodwill. And truck-loads of effort. Prejudices are darn hard to get rid of, even when you know yourself you have some.

Them banning them because of prejudism is just a secondary reason. They are using that now as an excuse. The french news before NEVER stated this as a reson before. It was more like "we want a reason for people to accept our decision in this, now what can we use? Aha - let's say that we are doing it to promote understanding and prevent racism, people will go for it then."

The French banning of any obvious religious signs is a solution to inter-religious clashes. I'm not saying it is a good solution but at least they're recognizing and trying to resolve the problem. It's a little drastic to try and remove the problem by removing any object that might give offence. And a bit of the easy way out of things as well IMO. It may deteriorate the situation further.

Why does France and other parts of Europe have such a racism problem? From what I see on French news it's SERIOUS - not just against Jews, but Muslims also face it, and blacks although not as bad as jews do. What does Europe have against Jews? And I say Europe, because I know it is NOT restricted to just France. If people here were able to see some of the things I have seen on French news, they would see that our problems pale in comparison. Sometimes you might get slashing of tires, or graffiti, but hardly ever as brutal and everyday like it is there.

Like I said, here people generally get along. This summer a group of Asidic Jews were at Great Adventure, the boys in their tight curled hair and black hats, girls in dresses. There were no problems, but I don't think those extreme jews get that kind of respect in France. There they have problem with jews who just wear yarmulkas.

In a way I find it is sad that they try to 'solve' the situation by restricting the religious rights of those students to the wearing of discreet items. On the other hand, it might just work. School isn't for life after all (except perhaps for teachers, who may probably be hit the worst by this new rule.) and the students can resume their veils and other signs of religion at home and afterwards again.

I disagree that school isn't for life, if it's not - then what is it for. There is more being taught at least in the US than book knowledge. In school you learn life lessons, how to get along, how to deal with people, etc. And why shouldn't students who feel that it is a sin to show their hair or skin, not be allowed to cover themselves. Now we're not talking full burgues here. If the person is that extreme, their parents aren't going to be sending them to school with boys anyway.

And maybe, just maybe the students will learn that under the veil, yarmulka or other religious items, their fellow students are rather alike. Without any outward sign of religion, the students may mingle more, and thus contribute some understanding. I just hope that whoever wrote that study which they used as basis for this new rule bloody well knew what he was doing! This is not a thing you suggest so casually.

Wouldn't better understanding be done, by seeing students wear different things, instead of everyone looking the same and pretending to be the same?

As I said - it was not part of the racism before, it was strickly their view on seperation of church and state, they only just now threw in the racism part.