French Ban on Religious Symbols in Schools

[Jester]

In response to this law, Human Rights Watch issued this statement:

The proposed law is an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice. For many Muslims, wearing a headscarf is not only about religious expression, it is about religious obligation in salaat.

Do you agree or disagree with the Human Rights Watch's reaction (and, of course, give your reasons)?

[WinePusher]

In response to this law, Human Rights Watch issued this statement:

The proposed law is an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice. For many Muslims, wearing a headscarf is not only about religious expression, it is about religious obligation in salaat.

Do you agree or disagree with the Human Rights Watch's reaction (and, of course, give your reasons)?

There should be no problem with a student wearing a cross pendant or a Muslim wearing their headscarf unless it is intentionally done to inflict emotional distress and stir contreversy.

I hope this law is challenged in court. The government has no right to regulate a student's attire. This falls under an infringement of freedom of speech.

[micatala]

I tend to find the law objectionable but am not sure about it violating human rights.

If the law applied to the public at large, it would definitely violate human rights in my view. Given that it only applies in schools, I give the government a little more leeway. I would say that the law seems to be going beyond wha the French Constitution says:

Since 1905, France has had a law requiring separation of church and state, prohibiting the state from recognising or funding any religion. Schools directly operated by the national or local governments must not endorse or promote any religious dogma (whether endorsing an existing religion or endorsing atheism or any other philosophy). Schools funded totally or in part by the national and local governments by law must not force students into religious education; they should remain equally accessible to children of any, or no, faith. For example, even though a majority of the population nominally professes Catholicism (although far fewer regularly practise Catholicism),[2] government-operated French schools have no communal prayers, religious assemblies, or Christian crosses on the walls. The Constitution of France says that France is a laïque (roughly, secular) Republic.

To me, allowing students to wear religious garb is not an action of the school or state and as such, is not an endorsement or promtion of religious dogma or philosophical viewpoint.



I also find the application vague. What counts as ostentatious?

Finally, it seems to me the authorities are trying to address a social and political issue with the relgious rationale. If they objection is that head scarves represent subjugation of women or an unhealthy separation from the larger society, then that is not the same as objecting to the promotion of a religious view. To me, if these are the rationale for objecting to the scarves, they need a new law spelling out what is objectionable and why rather than trying to shoe horn the behavior they find problematical using the separation of church and state rationale. This is especially true if they think crosses or stars of David or OK, simply because they are perceived as not as ostentatious.


Personally, I think the law is a bad idea because it is too vague, it does not seem as if it is being applied equitably, is playing too much into subjective perceptions, and is likely to be counterproductive to avoiding further religiously or socially based tensions in the society.

[Goat]

I tend to find the law objectionable but am not sure about it violating human rights.

If the law applied to the public at large, it would definitely violate human rights in my view. Given that it only applies in schools, I give the government a little more leeway. I would say that the law seems to be going beyond wha the French Constitution says:

Since 1905, France has had a law requiring separation of church and state, prohibiting the state from recognising or funding any religion. Schools directly operated by the national or local governments must not endorse or promote any religious dogma (whether endorsing an existing religion or endorsing atheism or any other philosophy). Schools funded totally or in part by the national and local governments by law must not force students into religious education; they should remain equally accessible to children of any, or no, faith. For example, even though a majority of the population nominally professes Catholicism (although far fewer regularly practise Catholicism),[2] government-operated French schools have no communal prayers, religious assemblies, or Christian crosses on the walls. The Constitution of France says that France is a laïque (roughly, secular) Republic.

To me, allowing students to wear religious garb is not an action of the school or state and as such, is not an endorsement or promtion of religious dogma or philosophical viewpoint.



I also find the application vague. What counts as ostentatious?

Finally, it seems to me the authorities are trying to address a social and political issue with the relgious rationale. If they objection is that head scarves represent subjugation of women or an unhealthy separation from the larger society, then that is not the same as objecting to the promotion of a religious view. To me, if these are the rationale for objecting to the scarves, they need a new law spelling out what is objectionable and why rather than trying to shoe horn the behavior they find problematical using the separation of church and state rationale. This is especially true if they think crosses or stars of David or OK, simply because they are perceived as not as ostentatious.


Personally, I think the law is a bad idea because it is too vague, it does not seem as if it is being applied equitably, is playing too much into subjective perceptions, and is likely to be counterproductive to avoiding further religiously or socially based tensions in the society.

I will point out that one of the other items that is being banned at schools are cross necklaces, as well as yarmulkes. It is not like Muslims are specifically being targeted. All religious symbols are.

[micatala]

I tend to find the law objectionable but am not sure about it violating human rights.

If the law applied to the public at large, it would definitely violate human rights in my view. Given that it only applies in schools, I give the government a little more leeway. I would say that the law seems to be going beyond wha the French Constitution says:

Since 1905, France has had a law requiring separation of church and state, prohibiting the state from recognising or funding any religion. Schools directly operated by the national or local governments must not endorse or promote any religious dogma (whether endorsing an existing religion or endorsing atheism or any other philosophy). Schools funded totally or in part by the national and local governments by law must not force students into religious education; they should remain equally accessible to children of any, or no, faith. For example, even though a majority of the population nominally professes Catholicism (although far fewer regularly practise Catholicism),[2] government-operated French schools have no communal prayers, religious assemblies, or Christian crosses on the walls. The Constitution of France says that France is a laïque (roughly, secular) Republic.

To me, allowing students to wear religious garb is not an action of the school or state and as such, is not an endorsement or promtion of religious dogma or philosophical viewpoint.



I also find the application vague. What counts as ostentatious?

Finally, it seems to me the authorities are trying to address a social and political issue with the relgious rationale. If they objection is that head scarves represent subjugation of women or an unhealthy separation from the larger society, then that is not the same as objecting to the promotion of a religious view. To me, if these are the rationale for objecting to the scarves, they need a new law spelling out what is objectionable and why rather than trying to shoe horn the behavior they find problematical using the separation of church and state rationale. This is especially true if they think crosses or stars of David or OK, simply because they are perceived as not as ostentatious.


Personally, I think the law is a bad idea because it is too vague, it does not seem as if it is being applied equitably, is playing too much into subjective perceptions, and is likely to be counterproductive to avoiding further religiously or socially based tensions in the society.

I will point out that one of the other items that is being banned at schools are cross necklaces, as well as yarmulkes. It is not like Muslims are specifically being targeted. All religious symbols are.

True, as long as they are sufficiently "ostentatious."

One additional problem is that a religion which has a tradition of using symbols or clothing that are "bigger" or deemed to be "more ostentatious" will necessarily be affected more by the law. Crosses and stars can be made smaller. This is more difficult with head scarves and yarmulkes.

One wonders if someone came out with a yarmulke that was 20% or 50% or 75% smaller, would that be OK? How small would it have to be? What about a scarf reduced to a head band? What if you wear the scarf around the neck? Are neck ties with religious symbols on them to be banned?

[Cephus]

Nope. In general, there's no such thing as human rights, rights are granted by the society in which you live. If the French government, and by extension, French society, decides to ban religious symbols, it's entirely their place to do so. I'm sure their laws give those affected or who disagree legal means for challenging the decision.

[Lux]

I don't like it. It does sound to me like it targets muslims, because of the fact that religious symbols are only forbidden if they are "conspicuous". A small cross or star of David pendant would probably not be considered conspicuous, while a khimar is impossible to miss.

You can switch to a smaller crucifix if reprimanded for wearing one too ostentatious, but there is no way of making a khimar less noticeable.

[Jester]

I will point out that one of the other items that is being banned at schools are cross necklaces, as well as yarmulkes. It is not like Muslims are specifically being targeted. All religious symbols are.

I don't know that a lack of a specific religion as a target has much bearing on whether or not it is a human rights violation to refuse to allow public school children to display symbols of their beliefs.

Nope. In general, there's no such thing as human rights, rights are granted by the society in which you live. If the French government, and by extension, French society, decides to ban religious symbols, it's entirely their place to do so. I'm sure their laws give those affected or who disagree legal means for challenging the decision.

This seems to be the same sort of reasoning that some use to argue that the majority has every "right" to disallow homosexual marriages. In terms of democracy, the majority certainly has the power to do so, the question as to whether or not one should is the issue at hand.
If you mean to take a nihilistic position with regard to ethics, you are certainly allowed. This, however, precludes the possibility of commenting on ethics at all or claiming that any group should or shouldn't do anything.

[Jester]

I normally agree with you too thoroughly to comment, so I thought I'd jump at the chance.

I tend to find the law objectionable but am not sure about it violating human rights.

"Human Rights" has always been a vague term in my opinion, but I would think that freedom of expression, so long as that expression is not hurtful, should be part of it.

If the law applied to the public at large, it would definitely violate human rights in my view.

I would consider a law regarding public school children something that does, in one sense, apply to the public. Children are (rightly) required by law to attend school, and may therefore only avoid this law by attending some non-public form of school. This could, then, be viewed as an ageist or classist law, which disallows less wealthy children to express (and, therefore, to fully practice) their beliefs.

[Cephus]

This seems to be the same sort of reasoning that some use to argue that the majority has every "right" to disallow homosexual marriages. In terms of democracy, the majority certainly has the power to do so, the question as to whether or not one should is the issue at hand.

If you mean to take a nihilistic position with regard to ethics, you are certainly allowed. This, however, precludes the possibility of commenting on ethics at all or claiming that any group should or shouldn't do anything.

The fact of the matter is, the majority *DOES* disallow homosexual marriages, people go to the ballot box to vote on it and it gets either allowed or disallowed based on the vote of the majority. In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that isn't open to change if you can get enough people to vote to change it. There are no rights that are sacrosanct.

Recognizing this reality doesn't mean you're not allowed to comment on it, it just means you cannot comment authoratatively. You cannot make a claim that this is right or this is real because it's written down in some book or document. You actually have to try to make a logical, rational case for why it ought to be accepted as true, something very few people actually manage to do.