BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Religious clothing in French schools

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Lurid Archive
19:33 / 17.12.03
This has been in the news a little while, but I couldn't find a thread on it, so here goes.

France looks set to ban srtudents from wearing religious clothing in public schools. It looks like Chirac, with the support of much of the country, wants to uphold a tradition of secularism. But is this justifiable? Is this just Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism and a failure of multiculturalism? Or does it serve to protect the rights of women, or at least young girls?

BBC
Yahoo
 
 
sleazenation
08:02 / 18.12.03
Comic author and Iranian exile Marjane Satrapi has also written about this and comes out against the state's power to ban religious self expression.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
08:12 / 18.12.03
I think there are some very good points in her article. Most of me thinks this is a terrible idea but there's a small part of me, being an outsider where Islam is concerned, that would love to abolish the symbol of that headscarf, Jewsih skullcaps, crucifixes from everyday wear. I suspect that the French government is regarding the hajib as iconography and icons are very powerful but I'm not sure that you can regard these things in that way. It's too simplistic, they're trying to protect people from their own constructs, that very rarely works.
 
 
Ariadne
08:44 / 18.12.03
They're also trying to protect their own secular traditions. That is (at least on the surface) what it's about.

I don't know, I'm torn on this one. I intensely dislike headscarfs and the whole notion that women must be covered up. I dislike the symbolism and just the way being totally covered up seems to stop young women from doing things -when did you last see a girl in a scarf on a bike, or running?

But I don't like the state telling people that they can't practice their religion and many people obviously feel that's an important part of being a muslim.

And then there's the basic questions of - is it a good idea to alienate or piss off a huge chunk of your population? France has, I believe, more Muslim people than any other country in Europe.

So ... I'll follow this thread with interest because I haven't a set opinion on this and I'm interested in what people think.
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:02 / 18.12.03
But I don't like the state telling people that they can't practice their religion and many people obviously feel that's an important part of being a muslim. - Ariadne

There is an interesting, if slightly controversial, point that Dawkins often makes about children and religion. Imagine you met a couple who said, "This is 5 year old Leo. He's an anarcho-socialist reformed Marxist." You'd think they were bonkers, right? Why is religion different?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:41 / 18.12.03
The thing is that religion might be regarded as that type of belief system by atheists but for someone entirely engaged in it there are no other religions. It's not like saying 'ah, as a communist I'll try to change that capitalist's point of view because communism is right'. Someone really in to their religion is going to say 'I will try to save you because you are committing an offence. There is only one religion'. So in banning the headscarves you're actually taking the word of God and denying it emphatically, it might turn out to be very segregatory.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:02 / 18.12.03
Yes, but I think one might counter that there is something wrong to giving someone greater latitude just because they are more unreasonable about their beliefs.

Actually, I think that France is making a mistake on this. But, I think that the principle of making exceptions on religious grounds is also suspect, even if I agree that different cultural traditions should be given space.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
10:24 / 18.12.03
Does anyone here know exactly what the Koran's line on the hijab is? From what I gather, though it preaches that people should not be seen in a sexual light, the idea that women should remain completely covered up isn't actually stated anywhere. Anyone know the history?

That said, whether it exists anywhere in scripture or not, it's the interpretation of their religion many Muslims live by, and to say that it's illegal to believe such things (or at least to act on one's beliefs) seems a bit limiting on people's rights.

Certainly, it shouldn't be permitted for religious parents to force their beliefs on their child, but if the child chooses to adopt certain practices in order to show their devotion to their religion, it's not really the government's place to stop them.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
11:22 / 18.12.03
Ordering people to break their religion (which I believe this directive is in effect doing) never works. Talking to people and giving them evidence as to why their religion is a load of poo rarely works. The French government has just prodded a wasps nest with a stick. Where it goes from here is anyone's guess.
 
 
Ariadne
11:37 / 18.12.03
Why is religion different?
The evangelical atheist in me is struggling to burst out with a rant about superstitious rot and how of course it's not different, and how angry I get when I see teeny wee girls (and they do seem to be getting younger) all trussed up in scarves.

Ahem. On the other hand, religion is diffferent. It's a much more emotional thing than being a Marxist and not generally something that one decides on. I know people convert but most people just *are* muslim or jewish or christian or whatever.

I think I agree with Our Lady on the wasp's nest. While I do appreciate the French government's point of view, I'd question whether they've fully thought through the consequences and the anger this will cause. A devout muslim dad who thinks his daughters should wear the hijab is going to feel that he's being forced to send them to school semi-clad, physically and spiritually. The fact I don't agree with him doesn't lessen the bitterness he's bound to feel.
 
 
Ariadne
11:44 / 18.12.03
On the other hand .... (I really do swing wildly on this one) maybe it's good that the government given the daughters the chance to live, for some of their lives anyway, free from (what I see as an) oppressive symbol. They might decide later that they want to go down that path but they've had a taste of life without it and a chance to make up their minds.

But then maybe the anger they feel will drive them towards, rather than away from it?

Oh, I don't know. I'm going for some air to clear my hangover! Someone say something sensible to help me out here.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:52 / 18.12.03
I wish that I could, but instead I'll take a look at

Ahem. On the other hand, religion is diffferent. It's a much more emotional thing than being a Marxist and not generally something that one decides on.

Perhaps (though again, this goes back to my point about giving more leeway to the most unreasonable). But what about the children of religious parents? Is it right to treat them as if they have freely chosen a religion which, in all fairness, is really imposed upon them?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:58 / 18.12.03
I would imagine that there is a danger that really strict Muslims would keep their daughters at home rather than send them to school without a scarf - even if this is illegal in France (as it would be here, unless they were being adequately home-schooled). A very, very sticky situation. Not to mention that girls without scarves might be vulnerable to abuse from other members of their religion who felt they were behaving indecently, shamefully, etc. Difficult to balance the potential benefits for the children from the potential dangers to them, and I'm not sure that all of these have been considered.
 
 
LykeX
14:53 / 18.12.03
As I see it, forcing women to not wear scarfs if they want to, is just as oppressive as forcing them to cover up. Consider if the general sentiment of society was that all clothes are a sign of religious oppression, and politicians passed a law forcing you to go naked.
My position is simple: It's a mistake, it's a violation of their rights and it's only going to lead to more division between cultures.
 
 
Bill Posters
15:06 / 18.12.03
My scattered ranty 10 dinars worth:

1. Many women here on the 'Lith and in the West generally complain about being leered at and chatted up by men in public spaces. Veiled women do not have that problem.
2. Veiling may not be about hijab (modesty) so much as a statement of religious or cultural identity. The two are not necessarily the same, as witnessed by a Muslim girl in my local corner shop who once took her veil off and adjusted her hair right in front of me.
3. Pingles, The Koran just says a woman is to "cover her adornment" or something rather vague like that. The history is all rather disputed, but some say veiling has pre-Islamic origins, others that it was a marker of high-status which became popularised.
4. Many of these girls choose to veil. Their parents may not even want them to. There's this whole 'poor little downtrodden Islamic women' thing running through this thread which is questionable, at least in some cases, both in Europe and the Middle East.
5. Surely western women still have dress-restrictions? The distinction is one of degree, not kind. Men and women call women in short skirts and lots of make-up 'tarts' and everyone knows it, and god help any 'immodestly' dressed western woman wanting to claim sexual assault. And anyway, head-covering by women may not be quite as far from our own culture as we think.
6. Amongst the Taureg, the men veil, the women don't.
7. Isn't the banning of religious expression illegal under European Human Rights law? Will they really get this legislation through?
8. What on earth are the French authorities planning to do re: 'outward signs of religious affiliation' when Jewish or Muslim boys have showers?
9. Islamic culture does not believe sexual suppression is possible. Rather than being an ascetic religion like Christianity, Islam accepts that we're all sexual beings all the time and therefore puts the restraints 'on the outside' rather than leaving them 'on the inside' as in Christianity (if that makes sense).
10. Turkmenistan has more female MP's than the UK, and there are plenty of Muslim countries with female heads of state - we've yet to see that in France or the US. So much for western (so-called) feminism. Well, maybe that's a bit strongly worded, but I'm trying to suggest that Islam is no more and no less compatible with feminism(s) than Christianity, Judaism, secular humanism or whatever.
11. Islamic countries do not have wide-scale female eating-disorders, nor an epidemic of anxiety, depression and lack of self-esteem caused by women trying to attain a certain physical standard of beauty.
 
 
Ganesh
15:26 / 18.12.03
The really re-e-eally idealistic part of me can appreciate the (admittedly somewhat naively) utopian thinking behind this. It's the same little gobbet of idealism that believes children should be taught as widely as possible about as many belief systems as possible, and be allowed a period of religious/spiritual experimentation without being pressured to pigeonhole themselves.

Naturally, I recognise that it's not an ideal world, and that someone who believes firmly that Path X is the steep and thorny way to Heaven is unlikely to afford his own offspring the freedom to stray. It'd be nice, though, if school could be used as some sort of 'safe space' for putting aside the uniform of one's own belief system as a facillitating 'leveller' to better enable one to explore the belief systems of others.

Pfft. Hippy.
 
 
Ariadne
15:37 / 18.12.03
Many women here on the 'Lith and in the West generally complain about being leered at and chatted up by men in public spaces. Veiled women do not have that problem. So we should all cover up?

And I'm aware that lots of women are choosing to wear the veil but I would question why they're doing it and whether they've thought through the implications of what they're saying about themselves. I can understand the desire to state your cultural identity but I still think it's an unhealthy symbol.

From what little I know of Islam, yes, it's compatible with feminism, but I believe the wearing of veils isn't laid down in the koran?

Islamic countries do not have wide-scale female eating-disorders, nor an epidemic of anxiety, depression and lack of self-esteem caused by women trying to attain a certain physical standard of beauty. So we should all just cover up then?
 
 
Ariadne
15:43 / 18.12.03
Sorry, to get back on track, I didn't mean to turn this into an argument about whether headscarfs are evil.
I think that the French government are, by their lights, trying very hard to do the right thing. From what I've read it's not motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment or a feminist argument but by

a) their determination to keep France a secular country, and
b) a different view of how to deal with immigrants. As far as I understand it, the general feeling there is that people should assimilate, join the main culture, as opposed to having a mixed, multi-cultural society.

Whether either is possible is another matter, and I don't think that's been properly thought through.
 
 
Bill Posters
16:02 / 18.12.03
Ari, I'm not saying women should cover up either to avoid negative attention or to avoid pressure to look a certain way exerted men or indeed other women, i'm just saying such problems are less widespread in the Middle East. me, i think we should all live in the jungle and wear nothing at all. But again, that's also a bit hippietastic, innit?
 
 
Irony of Ironies
18:10 / 18.12.03
If the French do adopt this, it's almost certain to get challenged and thrown out on the grounds that it violates Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Artical 9 states:

"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

I can't see how the French government would be able to argue that the wearing of headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, or crosses (all of which will be banned) is a question of public order, health or morals, or a violation of the freedoms or rights of others.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:12 / 18.12.03
As far as I understand it, the general feeling [in France] is that people should assimilate, join the main culture, as opposed to having a mixed, multi-cultural society.

Why stop with headscarves, then?

First thing I'd do is get rid of all those weird names they all have--no one can pronounce them, and they just sound like you're clearing your throat anyway--and give them all proper French names. What the hell kind of name is "Tariq," anyway? What's wrong with "Jean"?

They should stop eating that nasty foreign food, too.

And bleach their skin: no proper Frenchman is ever that dark.

So we should all cover up?

Only if you so choose. Is it any better to be forbidden to go covered than to be forbidden to go uncovered?
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
18:53 / 18.12.03
I'm surprised and rather disturbed that legislation like this could even be considered. How can anybody doubt that this legislation is going to force Muslims to choose between their religion and the law? That's a choice no human - especially nobody in the western hemisphere - should ever have to make.
 
 
Loomis
19:28 / 18.12.03
I question whether atheism (or secularism, if that's a word) is any better a mode of life than religious belief. We all take our supernatural gamble and atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, magick, etc. are simply statements we make saying we believe x, y and z about the way the cosmos is structured. They are all on the same level in my opinion; one is not the opposite of another.

Is raising your child as an atheist and teaching it that religious people are full of superstitious rot any better than raising your child as a Muslim and teaching it that atheists are full of secular rot?

It is not the belief that is the problem – it is the way you raise your child. If you are loving, caring and supportive of your child and you teach it to respect the views of others then it will grow up with happiness and confidence as an adult. Whether it believes x or y is immaterial. And if you bring it up with hate then that is always going to be wrong, whoever the hate is directed towards. You could bring your child up as a vegetarian and teach it that eating meat is evil, or that eating meat is right and vegetarianism is superstitious rot – it’s just another belief that we hold and we try and teach our child what we have learned. And if you want that child to have the confidence and the breadth of information to make an informed choice, then the best tool you can give it is education.

Keeping your child at home and not allowing her access to education and reading material and new opinions - that is wrong. Allowing your child to live in a free society and go to school and mix with others is a great thing. If they wear a scarf on their head or a cross around their neck because that’s what you’ve taught them is proper, then I don’t see it as a problem because soon enough they’ll be able to make an informed choice, which they wouldn’t if they never went to school, and that's what's at stake here.

I don’t see why atheists are so threatened by religious expression. What you should be against is the hateful behaviour sanctioned by some (some, not all ...) supposedly religious people – not the religious expression itself. And if a parent is sending their child to a school and teaching them respect for others (assuming that that’s what they’re doing of course ...), how can we rate one belief over another?

Surely an atheist can admit that they might be wrong as well, or otherwise they’re just as fundamentalist as the religious folk they decry.
 
 
Sleeperservice
19:58 / 18.12.03
This is cool. I hope the French manage to pull it off. Of course people wearing religious paraphernalia are violating my freedom to live my life free from the superstitious mumbo jumbo of weak-mind fools who can't/won't think for themselves. ;P

Yes I understand someone elses world view carries as equal a weight as mine.

So, given that there are many, many religions & world views there seems only one fair solution. Religion in private (if you must). Not in public. Which seems to be what the French are aiming for.
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
20:26 / 18.12.03
Why on earth would anyone be threatened by public displays of religion? Why would you care, Sleeperservice? It's such a non issue.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
21:08 / 18.12.03
But what about the children of religious parents? Is it right to treat them as if they have freely chosen a religion which, in all fairness, is really imposed upon them?

Who's to say that it's been imposed upon them?

I've just posted a shedload of poorly thought-through rubbish on this in this thread on C+F, so please excuse me for being a lazy bastard and giving you the link instead of bothering to go over it again.
 
 
Ganesh
07:59 / 19.12.03
I question whether atheism (or secularism, if that's a word) is any better a mode of life than religious belief.

I'm not sure that anyone's making that particular claim, are they? I'm arguing that a sort of vaguely secular 'we're all equal here' approach is a better mode of teaching/learning for the time a child's at school.
 
 
Loomis
08:32 / 19.12.03
I was thinking of the implication of Ariadne's post whereby atheists try to save the poor kids of religious parents from having religion thrust upon them. Just meant to point out that its not partiuclarly wrong to teach your own beliefs to your child, whatever they are, and religion or lack thereof matters little compared to the more basic parenting issues of love, respect, etc.

I'm all for the "we're all equal here" approach, and would argue that if the basic values are being taught, then that will make the religious question redundant, and if those values are not taught, then there will be problems even in the absence of religion. I think the religious belief or expression thereof is a red herring and that if we have decent parenting/education, then the rest will fall into place by itself.
 
 
Ariadne
09:07 / 19.12.03
But surely the point of what the French are trying to do isn't atheist -- they're not saying that people should stop being religious, or stop teaching their children what they believe, but just that there's a 'time and a place' and that schools should be secular places, with the separation of church and state and all that.

But of course it doesn't work like that. People don't just stop believing what they believe because they're outside church.

Aargh, my brain's going in circles on this one because I really haven't decided what I do think and so I'm ending up arguing for things I don't even know that I believe. I'll step away from this for now but continue reading with interest.
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:42 / 19.12.03
Who's to say that [religion] been imposed upon [the children]?

Well, at the risk of quoting more Dawkins, the fact that religious children always have the same religion as their parents is a bit of a clue that a free, considered choice has not taken place. (I know that this fact is essentially acknowledged in catholicism, for instance.)But it is a tricky issue.

Like some, I can see that what the French are doing in a favourable light, as a separation of church and state. But it will ultimately be an infringement of rights. The particular rights involved, given that we are talking about children, is a bit more complicated than religious freedom, however. But it is still a bad idea.
 
 
Linus Dunce
11:14 / 19.12.03
Well, at the risk of quoting more Dawkins, the fact that religious children always have the same religion as their parents is a bit of a clue that a free, considered choice has not taken place.

That should be nearly always, shouldn't it? It's a bit dodgy anyway -- my parents are Elvis fans, I am an Elvis fan, therefore Elvis has been imposed upon me?
 
 
Bill Posters
12:06 / 19.12.03
As of yesterday, the Danes are sacking gals from their jobs for wearing scarfs.
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:09 / 19.12.03
Nearly always? Perhaps. I think it would be quite hard to find a Jewish child of Christian parents. I'm sure you can find counterexamples, but not many.

The point is that the correlation is so strong that it makes the idea of free choice entirely suspect. As for your music analogy...Yeah. If I saw a child who, by some coincidence, had almost exactly the same music taste as their parents then I would question the individuality, if not the freedom, of that choice. Wouldn't you?
 
 
Linus Dunce
12:17 / 19.12.03
Actually, there are quite a few young people of secular parentage who profess to be muslim, and then there are those who have joined the Nation of Islam.

I would question the young Elvis fan's choice, but I would not present it as proof of brainwashing.
 
 
Loomis
14:59 / 19.12.03
I don't think many people would question the accuracy of that notion re young children holding similar opinions to their parents. The question to my mind is not whether that is true, the question is- is that a problem?

How can you bring up a young child without interacting with it and teaching it your own ways? Below a certain age, I don't see any alternative parenting method. As long as you present other options to them, I don't see a problem with taking them with you to church or dressing them in scarves, or buying them Elvis tapes for their first birthday. I don't see the advantage to keeping them in a void until they specifically ask you for Elvis or to come along to church or to kick a football or whatever.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply