US Criticises French Headscarf Ban

[Kirnwaffen]

Incidentally I wonder what idea of god the US citizens have, since it can be evoked without connotation indicating the reasons why he was evoked.

The bigger part of my point was that simply because you refuse to use 'God' in an oath does not mean you are of any particular faith. Maybe you're a Muslim. Maybe you are a Christian who feels it inappropriate. Maybe you don't believe either way. There are so many potential circumstances that it is impossible to make any real judgement.

As for school being a political and religious neutral zone, I don't think it is necessary to ban all political and/or religious expression for the school to be neutral. So long as the staff is neutral in their teaching and quick to halt persecution, there should be no problem with anyone expressing their political/religious beliefs. In fact, the school should be an open forum for political and religious expression, where students need not fear persecution for beliefs they express. In short, I believe the school should be teaching tolerance.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Since the students are to be ratted out by the schools' director, you can expect a case-to-case basis. That's like saying the law won't stop the headaches we had for a decade.


A protest organization is assumed to be forbidden at school. Political expression is supposed to be banned from school the same as religious expression. Now, of course, there is more or less tolerance depending on the school's director; but I haven't seen any school tolerate the formal existence of a political or religious organization within its walls.

OK, suppose one student begins to make a habit of just mentioning his or her religious affiliation whenever he or she meets someone and it catches on? How would the school deal with that?

[Imran Siddiqui]

A protest organization is assumed to be forbidden at school. Political expression is supposed to be banned from school the same as religious expression. Now, of course, there is more or less tolerance depending on the school's director; but I haven't seen any school tolerate the formal existence of a political or religious organization within its walls.

Ah, the extension of the differences between us. The US believes students should have the right to organize in groups if they wish. As long as it isn't disruptive to teaching (well, too disruptive anyway).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Why shouldn't students be allowed to express political thoughts in school in a non-disruptive manner?

The real reason behind it is that the 3rd Republic used Schools to spread its homogenized culture in the whole French territory, and it couldn't suffer any competition in the formation of young minds.

But these principles of old, despite being pragmatical, have been enshrined ever since. And it has a usefulness too. The (official) refusal of any organized political expression makes things more simple, since there would not be any need to judge if a political expression is disruptive or not. The very reason we are having so much trouble with the Scarf is that we didn't ban all religious symbols altogether; unlike the assumed complete ban of all political expression altogether.

Besides, I strongly think such rules should be enforced in Kindergarten and Little School (how do you call this?), because the kids should be protected from hearing the crap coming directly from other kids' parents.

OTOH, the ban of political expression has not been stringently enforced, just like the ban on religious expression. The students don't hesitate to use the School's classrooms to organize strikes (which are often blatantly manipulated by various leftist parties), and I even remember having no trouble at all when I wandered the highschool with Commie Newspaper l'Humanité clearly seeable (my mother warned me constantly though )
By the same token, the ban on "ostentatoire" religious signs, that happens for a long time, is not stringently enforced. Most often, the directors do discuss with scarved girls, and a compromise is found. There are only few cases where both the girls and the director have been rock-heads

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
In fact, the school should be an open forum for political and religious expression, where students need not fear persecution for beliefs they express. In short, I believe the school should be teaching tolerance.

Some classes (generally from the end of junior high and later) do have 'debates', in which the teacher tries to act as a guardian of tolerance. Language courses and history courses are where such debates are held.
Besides, an exercize of French courses is to write an essay, where the student is asked to give his opinion, and the teachers always assure they don't give bad marks to opinions not their own (I have met only a few teachers who stated and even taught their opinions, and I think it was completely inappropriate).

But these areas of political expression are within a clear frame. Non-educational politics are to be out of school. This si precisely to avoid seeing the out-of-classroom 'mob rule' we see during a strike, when non strikers are harassed to come demonstrate
I personally think religious expression, if it's hijacked by mob rule, is even worse than political expression, because you can't argue with religion.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


My english grammar is not so good that I can credibly use this tactic. ;D

Let us try to explain again :
If I swear the oath without the reference to god, it indicats that I have made a choice and decided not to ask for the help of god; from that one must deduce that I am an atheist.
On the contrary, if I swear the oath with the reference to god, it is clear that I am a believer.
The option is therefore equivalent to a disclosure of my religious beliefs.

poor use of logic. incorrect use of causality. at BEST u could say that statistically ppl who don't use god when they swear their oaths are less likely to believe in god or be religious.

maybe the guy is jewish and thinks u r refering to the xtian version and not his, or muslim. maybe he is xtian but plans on lying and doesn't want to goto hell. maybe he is xtian and feels that god's authority is not neccessary in legal matters.

there are literally innumerable reasons, u'd have to ask the guy "are u religious" not simply infer from his lack of use of swearing an oath under god.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
OK, fine. And the reasons we have a different view of the death penalty than y'all do has to do with history specific to the US - now could y'all STFU about it and allow the US as a fellow democracy to run OUR justice system as we see fit, without attempting to prevent extradition of fugitives, etc?

Sure, when it's your citizens. However when you hold OUR citizens captive, then you'd better believe we're going to want them extradited so they don't face what passes for terrorist justice in the States.

Also, when you violate international conventions, then we're going to complain.

Personally i think Chirac is going a little to far. I support a secular state, thus I think school prayer, singing hymns in school, having crosses on walls, teaching any religion as truth, etc., shouldn't be allowed. However I think personal dress should be. I think the President saying God Bless America is a bit much too, since he is supposed to represent all US citizens, many of whom are not Christians.

As for the arguments about secular vs religious law, they're not trying to say their religious law is more important, they are trying to stop a ruling on what they can or cannot wear. Would France ban the wearing of all scarves, or wearing crosses as jewelry? No, just a ruling for schools. I agree with the spirit, of removing all indoctrination and not forcing religion onto anyone. I believe in freedom from religion. But as long as they don't force it on anyone else, I don't see why they can't practise it and conform to their religious traditions.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Drogue

I believe in freedom from religion. But as long as they don't force it on anyone else, I don't see why they can't practise it and conform to their religious traditions.

funny I believe in freedom of religion.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by yavoon
xtian

What is this? Watcher of X-rated movies? "Crosstian" ?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by yavoon
funny I believe in freedom of religion.

That's nice for you Why funny though?

I believe in freedom of religion, up to the point when you start forcing it on people, or indoctrinating people. Hence I believe in freedom from religion too.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Drogue

That's nice for you

I believe in freedom of religion, up to the point when you start forcing it on people, or indoctrinating people. Hence I believe in freedom from religion too.

yes because women walking around wearing religious garments is severe indoctrination and must be stamped out immediately. quick call the department of fashion and have them pass a law that no expression of religion shall be allowed by ppl whilst in the presence of other ppl!

[Kirnwaffen]

I agree with the spirit, of removing all indoctrination and not forcing religion onto anyone. I believe in freedom from religion. But as long as they don't force it on anyone else, I don't see why they can't practise it and conform to their religious traditions.

This, I think, is the fundamental difference between the American and French perspectives (even though it's posted by a Brit). In general, we believe that you have freedom of (or from) religion, but you do not have the right not to be exposed to elements of that religion in public institutions.

[Kirnwaffen]

Yavoon, if you read his post more carefully, he is defending the right to wear those clothes.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Yavoon, if you read his post more carefully, he is defending the right to wear those clothes.

pretty sure I quoted the post I responded to. and while it makes NO mention of the muslims in school. it does give support to the basic premise that all the ppl who support the ban have said.

freedom from religion is good.

so unless u r refering to a different post I will have to disagree w/ u here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, I agree with Kirn. I think he was defending the right to wear those clothing.