I don’t claim to really understand what the purpose of state atheist policies is, perhaps someone can ELI5 It me, but at least It seems fair honestly, as:
The school is part of the GO! network, which has a general ban on wearing religious symbols.
If it was a ban explicitly on Muslim headscarves it’d be discriminatory. Another question is whether this will be enforced in equal measure on a white kid wearing a cross though…
It is equal because it applies to everyone, but not equitable because it affects some religions more than others (clothing is more important to some religions than others).
Let’s be honest here. The goal of the 2004 law was to ban the Muslim scarf. It was written in a generic way to be non discriminatory but the goal was clear from the start.
If it was a ban explicitly on Muslim headscarves it’d be discriminatory.
It’s a bit trickier than that. In France schools are secular by law. In principal this is great. In practice chistians never had an issue wearing their cross neckless, even in a visible manner. Muslim girls from conservative families on the other hand can be forced to quit school at a young age, since they are not allowed to wear a scarf there.
Seems self-defeating to me. Most effective way to fight radical religosity is to educate people. Let em go to school and half of them will be ex-Muslim by college.
Yes and education is very positively associated with abandoning a religion. In fact, most highly educated people are not religious. Among scientists it is extremely rare.
It seems obvious to me that the first step to leaving a religion is critical thinking and exposure to other beliefs. That’s entirely what college is for.
In a way I kind of agree with everything you mention.
On the other hand if we think of how long education has existed in Europe, it alone, would not justify the percentage of existing christians now a days.
It is important to take into consideration, who is in charge of the education. In Europe, it’s very often christians. Those in power who are not christians, more often than not, do not dare go against the prevalent religion in europe.
Nah, the government. Trying to de-radicalize people with ingrained beliefs is hard and unlikely. Accept the parent’s wierd beliefs, let the kids go to school wearing whatever the parents want, and you get much less radical kids out the other end.
Yah, every graph of % of religious people is trending solidly down.
It was coined in 1989 by professor Kimberlé Crenshaw to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics “intersect” with one another and overlap.
[Edit: Even tho race is not a scientific thing anymore, we had this narrative for so long that the term is still in use. At least it is used as a social construct. And we struggle as societies with racism. Still]
Religion is a choice, an unverifiable one at that. There is no reason that such a choice should grant special privileges that someone non-religious, or of another religion would not be granted. Each such request must stand on its own merit.
In Europe the concept of freedom from religion is something that many different cultures have fought hard for - secularism.
What about my statement is brutal? It’s not the law at fault, the law is impartial about all religious symbols. The problem is the lack of equal enforcement. Which is essentially what you’re saying in different words
Right, so maybe if it’s now being applied in a discriminatory fashion, it’s now due for a change? My point is that enforcement of the law cannot be considered separate from the law. A law that cannot be enforced does nothing, and a law that creates discrimination in enforcement is a discriminatory law.
Why would we discuss changing the law, rather than ensuring that it is applied indiscriminately? ANY law and punishment can be used to discriminate, and many are. By your logic if the police started prosecuting murderers in a biased manner, we should remove the law against murder.
Seems like I’m being attacked for something I didn’t say. My statement was purely a very minor thing, about how the issue is enforcement, not the actual law. And I certainly did not imply anything with it, but it seems a lot is being read into those few words that were not at all intended
I suppose if you feel this way, we better leave it here for today. Maybe if you take a look at this interaction of ours tomorrow, you will have a different point of view? At least I hope so.
I think it’s because most religions, by their exclusive natures, are divisive and offensive to many. Many current and historical wars have been fought over religion, so some of their outward symbols carry a political message, whether intended or not.
Wearing outward symbols with a political message is banned among civil servants. If you wonder why, ask yourself how you would feel showing up to the welfare office and asking for service from an employee with a gold Trump necklace or a MAGA hat. Or, more prosaically, imagine getting pulled over by a cop for speeding. You are a Muslim wearing a keffiyeh and the officer is a Jew wearing a yarmulka (skull cap). You know that police have discretion to give you a ticket or a warning. He eyes your keffiyeh skeptically, you respond with a look of defiance, and he gives you a ticket. You might suspect that you got a ticket instead of a warning because the cop is a Jew and he saw your apparent support for the Palestinians. Now, of course, all of this could happen without the overt symbology, but the government would rather not open itself up to such obvious accusations.
These laws ban overt religious symbols only. If you want to wear magic Mormon underwear or a small cross or star of David or crescent moon under your shirt, you can. You can even wear Trump-themed butt plug if you want to.
When I was a kid (1970s & 80s US), openly wearing religious symbols to school was a little weird, but it wasn’t against the rules. They were just another piece of jewelry or clothing. It amazes me that a reasonable and evenly applied dress code needs a ruling from a human rights court.
The 1901 secularist law is about separating Church and State. It’s about freedom of religion and not having any official religion, it wasn’t supposed to be about forcing people to hide their religion.
France’s obsession with laicité comes from a long deep war against catholic entrenchment, which was hard won and not to be thrown away for another stubborn religion that comes along.
Add comment