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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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’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
This is where I landed. They should simply continue to permit children to remove it at school if they choose, while they are under the guardianship of the state.
The kids won’t, because they’re too scared to disobey their parents.
That has nothing to do with the purview or remit of the state.
Why not
I feel like conflicted is the “correct” way to feel. On one hand, the government is literally enforcing clothing laws. On the other hand, this may prevent children from being forced into something they did not choose. I feel like a religion wrapping up your child in cloth so they lose their individually as a human being is cult-like behavior.
It would be better if the religion just wasn’t allowed to make them do this, but then they would just “suggest” women do this. This “suggestion” of course is actually coercion at best.
It’s a dress. It isn’t a headscarf or something. It’s just a loose dress.
The accompanying image appears to be showing a head covering? I am visually impaired though so correct me if I’m wrong.
This article clarifies that they sometimes do and sometimes do not include a head covering, so thanks for that clarification. The information under the rationale heading is what I had in mind when making my comment. I was in a Christian cult that controlled the way we dressed, and wanted us all to be very uniform (no personality, that would detract from God’s message) and modest (we’d be tempting men of skirts weren’t long, etc.).
France has been enforcing secularism since the turn of the 20th century. If you turn up with a turban, or a yarmulke, or a cross you’d be sent home too. If parents feel so aggrieved that the state disallows religious symbolism & clothing on state property they can send their kids to a private school.
What’s your thought on school’s uniform?
I never felt like there was much of a point for them. It was annoying for my family because we always had to buy specific clothes for school
The whole point nowadays is to stop kids being bullied for not being able to afford the “right” clothes; that’s part of the point of this law too
Prevention of tribes is the best benefit imo. I remember on school there were a number of ethnic/cultural groups that didn’t socialize with people out of their group. I don’t believe that fosters a healthy community, and behaviors or symbolic garments to identify you as a member of a group reinforce those group identities instead of all being human beings.
Yup. I’m thankful for school uniforms. I came from a poor family and being mocked for wearing cheap clothes would’ve been awful, I was already ridiculed enough for my background as-is.
Personally I’m with France on this one.
At this point they should just mandate school uniform.
I’m not against it, honestly. I have seen the pros and cons of each. We had a loose dress code at my school but no uniforms, and style of dress certainly became one mode of division among students. Rich kids, poor kids, athletes, nerds, etc. were all separated by dress.
I’m not the biggest fan of conformity, but uniform dress codes allow the students to basically be at a level playing field as far as visual expression goes. I’ve worked in schools with uniforms and the students there seem to prefer not having to put any thought into what they wear.
But religion and family should? 🤔
Is condemning one thing endorsing another? Do two things wrongs make a right?
I get you, but… isn’t religion supposed to be a free decision? you’re agreeing to their terms and conditions (I know, I know, you can stop the laugh track).
You really believe that families religious enough to force their kids to wear certain clothes would accept that they renounce their religion?
Yep, hence the laugh track. I was raised as a Christian (atheist now) and I know first hand you don’t get to choose lol but renouncing a religion is not a crime (in my country at least)
No, it those shouldn’t either. Which is why I’m conflicted here.
I’m playing Devil’s advocate honestly. I’m much more comfortable with Quebec’s take than France’s (which is similar but one step above, in Quebec it only applies to government employees in a position of authority)
As for religion you have the choice to follow it or not, and following it comes with the burden of wearing certain things but you can choose to not follow that religion whenever you want if you want to dress differently. In a public school you should be able to choose what you wear, because you pretty much have to go to school.
You can stop following it whenever you want?
You realise that we’re talking about kids here, right?
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
I don’t know the law in France, but I’d worry it’ll cause religious parents to just keep their kids out of state school and do some form of private religious education, causing a greater divide. The best counter to these attitudes is exposure to diversity and other viewpoints. Maybe the kids going to school and seeing that there are other ways is better.
“Maybe the kids going to school and seeing there are other ways is better”. Yeah, but they aren’t the ones deciding how they dress. They parents are the ones that do.
Of course. And if the parents dress them in that and keep them isolated the kids will pass that on to the next generation. If the kids go to school and see there are other options, maybe they’ll choose to be different when they’re independent or raise their kids differently. This is why cults always seek to isolate their members – exposure to diversity breaks the cycle.
I agree.
Nah, girls just won’t be sent to schools.
This will be “the last straw” for many of their fathers.
Some will go, and their parents will begrudgingly accept (or turn a blind eye to their daughter dressing down as soon as she’s near school.). The majority reaction will be similar to what you see in other nations that don’t respect women enough to let them keep their autonomy.
That’ll get the fathers at least 6 months in prison in France, probably more for negligence etc.
And homeschooling requires a very good reason why they can’t go to school (pretty much always a health condition, and that needs proof) there are annual inspections and every other year the reason for homeschooling is verified.
Just not sending the children isn’t an option in pretty much every place in Europe
can you explain why other people wearing culturally traditional clothing is “religious propaganda and artificial separation”? do you feel this way about other traditional garb, or is it just the scary muslims?
Yes i can explain. Literally nobody else does it. And if someone would, then my position will be the same: wear regular clothes in public institutions.
i think enforcing the local culture by telling women what they can and cannot wear is bad, actually
can you explain why you disagree with that stance
we are talking about underage girls here, not exactly adult “women” so I reject the idea that those girls could choose/buy their outfit. Regardless, I disagree because:
-
- We are choosing between either parents imposing a robe, or the state imposing a robe; wearing that robe would clearly differentiate the ethnicity/religious background of the pupil, while wearing regular “whatever everyone else is wearing” would help the integration and erase the boundaries. Note that parents cannot just withdraw the kid out of school, so they have to integrate; private education is almost never an option
-
- It avoids the whole can of worms like “professor didn’t like my muslim robe, that’s why I got bad grades”
-
- Personal take: I HATE religion. Yes, churches too, I have enough hate for every religious nut out there. And no need to tell me “abaya is not a religious dress”, who are you fooling.
Ideally, I agree, State should just fuck up and let people live. But that’s not taking into account any local context, and nobody lives in a vacuum, people live in some particular society. As an immigrant myself, I do think that it’s best for foreigners to integrate to host country as much as possible.
-
What about the Jews and their Yamakas? The Catholics and their Rosary? Other religions have certain dress codes and accessories, too. They are just not always a full body covering.
I would hope that schools in France ban other religious items like those if they are banning Muslim clothing and accessories.
They are actually. That’s literally said: “no religious symbols in school”.
That’s good then I see no problem as long as the rule is enforced equally. Religion has no place in schools, unless it’s history class.
Best comment.
Have you ever lived in France?
Oui ça fait 20 ans que j’y suis, indeed
That made me laugh
Un bon petit enfant de Petain
Où ?
If there was a uniform at school it would be different. Here it’s fashion police. Specifically targeted at Arab culture.
It’s an atheist theocracy. Also called fascism.
I don’t think you understand what fascism is.
It’s obviously targeted, but at religion not a specific ethnic group. Moreover, that law will make those pupils look like anyone else, so if anything, this will reduce the stigma
It’s not targeted at religion because it’s not a religious dress. Ergo it’s a culture that’s targeted and it’s blatant racism.
Stigmatising people for their culture or religion never integrate them.
We should teach fascists how to read what’s written on our townhall though.
It’s clearly associated with religion, so technical details do not matter. This law is literally erasing the difference between all, stop repeating the same argument guys, it’s not stigmatizing anyone because they all damn look the same
No point explaining racism to a racist I guess…
Yeah pretty easy to throw around insults instead of elaborating, but who cares now
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.
I don’t see it as separation. Requiring something religious or banning something religious are both state mandates. It’s moreso a strict secular enforcement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think they’re more pro French than Americans are pro American. Then again, we could just be seeing right wing French people, and that would be pretty similar to ours.
The French fucking love being French, man. Warts and all. They’re a super charming people to me in that way. Their love honestly seems more genuine than a lot of American patriotism to me.
However, no one on Earth hates their government more than the French. People in open revolt probably bitch less about their government. It’s a very French thing to be as dysfunctional as humanly possible, even if things are going good. Shit, especially then.
You think Macron had gutted unions and pissed on their ashes Thatcher-style based on the past few months, but he like, raised the equivalent of social security age by like 2 years lol. Like I get disagreeing and voting against that but shit got real.
French people are amazing. Like that ratchet cousin everyone has
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
The best cure for religion is Education and Opportunities to fully integrate in the wider society.
So France needs to invest into giving the kids in even the baundelieres (the poor neighbourhoods around the major cities) as much Education and as many Opportunities as possible and most will naturally drift away from the snake oil which is religion.
You see the single biggest mechanic of racial descrimination (not just in France) is poverty: those kids from low education hence low income immigrant parents - who lack the education (hence the income) because they hail from countries with worse Education systems - are stuck in high crime low opportunity ghettos with much lower lifetime opportunities than the rest, impacted by poverty every day of their lifes (outright racism comes as events, poverty is every waking hour of every day) for the “crime” of having popped out of the “wrong” vagina.
Some manage to come out of this, but theirs is a much taller ladder to climb so their chances of reaching a good life are less than most.
The thing is, genuinelly flattenning the playing field (which, beyond the massive boost to average quality of life, would have the minor side effect of most of the next generation leaving the claws of religion) would cost lots of money and there’s no will in France to have people like the wealthiest man and woman in Europe (both of which live there) and their circle of friends part with a small fractionof their wealth to make it possible: hard-right neoliberal with authoritarian streak Macron would never do even the mildest of wealth redistributions (as it would impact his mates and his clients) so instead out comes another “let’s force them to not look ‘wrong’” authoritarian “solution”.
If you pardon my french (hehe!), this shit is all related and all boils down to how society is structured to help a few prey on the many resulting in massive inequality in access to resources and opportunities and constant, relentless discrimination on the basis of wealth, all of which then causes all sorts of “secondary” issues which are then papered over using the cheapest method there is to cover it up: abusing the Law and Legal Violence to coerce the most powerless of all to “keep up appearances”.
Compared to the US, France has massive taxes and wealth redistribution. You actually have an estate/inheritance tax that captures tax not only from the inheritance but from gifts made during the lifetime of the deceased. You have universal healthcare. You also have a massive influx of immigrants, not all of them from former French colonies, many of whom don’t give a fuck about France’s highly valued secularism and other cultural values. You don’t come to a France looking for a better life and simultaneously demand that France make an exception for you to allow the offensive visible symbolic separation of women from society because your religion/culture demands it. It is entitled in the extreme that people want to make France like the country they fled.
It’s not about stopping people from being coerced, it’s about the state forbidding religious symbols on state property including schools. France is strictly secular and forbids religion in the public sphere, i.e. state property like schools, politics etc.
It just so happens to have the pleasant side effect that kids in state schools are free from the segregation, clothing and other religious bullshit they might have to endure in their private life. The government has no control over that other aspect however it might lead to kids growing into adults who are less orthodox in their own lives.
This is not freedom.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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.
The French state literally making laws governing fashion is the most French thing ever.
No, it’s fascism.
I fully agree that’s it’s an authoritarian measure that needlessly targets a vulnerable minority.
But it’s also something we should laugh at the French state for. Orwell memorably mused that the reason the goose-step never made its way into British military marching drills - at a time when many other European armies were adopting it - was because if British civilians saw soldiers on parade goose-stepping down the road then they would laugh at them. He thought that instinct to laugh at pompous displays of authority was something that helped insulate the British from the fascist and communist totalitarianism that took root elsewhere in the first half of the 20th century. Fascists tend to have very thin skins.
The French state is making laws to regulate women’s fashion. They should know that doing this makes them look ridiculous to normal people.
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.
