| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| France is banning headscarves in schools |
| 2003-12-12 |
| Too long to post the whole article France is set to ban Muslim headscarves and other obvious religious symbols in its schools after a recommendation by a presidential advisory panel. President Jacques Chirac is likely to take up the recommendations and his Government will introduce a law in the coming months. It’s an extension of existing rules that haven’t been enforced as they stir up a great deal of emotion – Jewish skullcaps and large jewellery crucifixes are also not allowed. It’s not an absolute ban, but a broad prohibition of overt religious symbols in schools. It doesn’t apply to other public buildings. Civil servants are reminded that they are not supposed to wear overtly religious attire – but there’s no ban. Personally I think France is making the right step, by strengthening the secularism with such a decision. Freedom of religion in Churches, Mosques, Synagogues etc., but secularity at public places, I congratulate the French decision. |
| Posted by:Murat |
| #24 to impose a universal "vanilla" appearance ooooooo! Fashion statemnt khaki Burkhas? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-12-12 4:31:02 PM |
| #23 Murat I suggest you read a bit about Algeria and you will understand the differnce. That Jew with a yarmulke will not kill you, he is not going to rape your {fiancee,wife,daughter} or burn your baby alive. The Islamists have given ample proof in Algeria and elsewhere that they will gladly do this and more all while congratulating about how holy and virtuous they are. |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-12-12 3:42:51 PM |
| #22 Oh, and what was that "evidence" you had about my identity? I'm still waiting to see it. I seriously doubt that he'll find out who you are, Mr. Rums^H^H^H^H...Sir. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-12-12 2:19:04 PM |
| #21 Murat, the answer is something called tolerance. Your inability to tolerate differences is no reason to impose a universal "vanilla" appearance on everyone else. Not to mention the problem of who defines "exaggerated symbolism". |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-12-12 12:53:35 PM |
| #20 BTW, I used to chain my Harley to my bed, too. Can't be too careful with Baby. |
| Posted by: ,com 2003-12-12 12:36:53 PM |
| #19 That may be the answer: Sonny Barger, CEO, Jihadi Hunters, Inc. Offer them up to 10% of the budget spent in the Wot in exchange for shutting down their Meth labs and ceasing killing each other and the occasional DEA Agent. Instead, they count Therapeutic and financially rewarding. 5 years of this and these guys would be so mellow they'd be watching Oprah - between drunken brawls, of course, in their Carmel By The Sea hideaways. Murat's bearded Islamist would find out what terror really was on his trip to Paradise. |
| Posted by: ,com 2003-12-12 12:33:36 PM |
| #18 Murat: Sharing the subway with all manner of weirdos is called living in a free society. As for their garb provoking you -- you gotta learn to chuckle (quietly if it's a a Hell's Angel). |
| Posted by: SLO Jim 2003-12-12 12:17:04 PM |
| #17 Did you guys ever share a place next to you in the subway with a member of the hells angels? It gives you a creepy feeling, you get uncomfortable because of his dressing, his tattoos etc. that symbols a violent nature. No offense, but the same feeling I get with an radical long bearded islamist with a Palestinian headscarf or a bearded Jew with curly hairlocks and yarmulke who looks like a kach member. I am in no way against religious symbols, but I am sceptical against those who show their religion in such an exaggerated way as if they want to provoke. Once again I think the rest of Europe should follow the French example, IMO banning exaggerated symbolism in public places would only enhance the peaceful coexistence of different religions. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-12-12 11:55:16 AM |
| #16 Oh, and another thing. This ban would require Sikhs to remove their turbans. But Sikhs are forbidden to do that. What happens then? |
| Posted by: growler 2003-12-12 11:18:29 AM |
| #15 BTW - posted this last evening |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-12-12 11:07:35 AM |
| #14 Robert, that’s not for sure yet, investigation is still proceeding and can still lead to anywhere. Really? Then why has Turkey made dozens of arrests, all suspected or confirmed Al-Queada. And why did Turkey say Al-Queada did it? Is your government lying to you about who killed the Jews in Turkey? |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-12-12 10:49:33 AM |
| #13 The US military is different. If you're in the service, you abide by their rules. Plus, I believe that the military wants to foster the idea of the troops being one unit, with their common goal to be of utmost importance. Hence, standard uniforms and no allowance for "personalizing" them. |
| Posted by: growler 2003-12-12 10:47:27 AM |
| #12 Murat, reasonably, endorses the secular state that brought Turkey into the modern world. Yes, I know how important symbols of religious belief are and I know how they have become, in some instances, deemed mandatory. This is as true of headscarves or veils for Moslem women as it is of yarmulkes for Jewish men. And ideally, we would all agree to respect freedom of belief and practice, so that these symbols are not divisive. School uniforms go a long way towards this, but of course then there would be fights about what is and is not allowed as part of the uniform. Growler, how do you feel about the US military's restrictions on display of religious jewelry etc.? |
| Posted by: anonymous on this one 2003-12-12 10:42:50 AM |
| #11 Dress code in public? You're off your nut, Murat. Anyways, it would make an Orthodox or observant Jew feel "less Jewish" were he not to wear a yarmulke. You can read about a case in Texas, where a Jewish man was forced to take off his yarmulke before testifying in court. The lawyer who wrote that page said the following: My religious upbringing has taught me that the custom of Jewish men covering their head to foster humility and Yiras Shomayim (Heb.: fear of Heaven) is of undisputed pedigree. A covered head is widely recognized as the mark of an observant Jew. The Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 31a) notes that "Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua would not walk four cubits bareheaded saying, 'The Divine Presence is above my head.'" Thus covering of one's head is considered a formal symbolic manifestation of the constant presence of God. As the Psalmist (King David) states (23:4): "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for Thou art with me." God is always above us. We are covered by the protection of God. The Yarmulke is a constant reminder that a Jew is never alone. He walks with God. It is a feeling of assurance and comfort. At the same time, it is an ever-present conscience to withhold one from going astray. Perhaps while Judge Lykos was focusing on the prejudicial effect the Yarmulke may have on the jury, she missed the more fundamental issue - the effect of the Yarmulke on its wearer. The Talmud (Berachos 60b) further notes that the placing of a covering on one's head is as natural to the Jew as rising in the morning and getting dressed with clothes. The Talmud contends that each process of awakening has a concomitant blessing. For example: "When he opens his eyes, he should say, 'Blessed is He who opens the eyes of the blind.'... When he dresses he should say, 'Blessed is He who clothes the naked.'... & When he places a covering on his head, he should say, 'Blessed is He who crowns Israel with glory.'" In other words, the covering of one's head is part of the process of getting dressed in the morning. It was once inconceivable that the Jew would not place a covering on his head. |
| Posted by: growler 2003-12-12 10:36:25 AM |
| #10 RC - your secret identity has been exposed. |
| Posted by: Raj 2003-12-12 10:35:15 AM |
| #9 "I think that public schools should require uniforms." -Right on. Simplifies things. Focus is more on learning then what that slut Suzy wore to home room or that lil' Johnny's trousers are sagging down his ass & he's impressing everyone w/his fruit of the loom display. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-12-12 10:32:24 AM |
| #8 I think that public schools should require uniforms. I'm uncomfortable with the practice of prohibiting the wearing of crosses or headscarves or other religious symbols. But if taxpayer dollars are going to pay for schools, maybe uniforms are a good way to remind us all of the separation of church and state. If one doesn't like it, they can pay to send their children to a private school. |
| Posted by: B 2003-12-12 10:12:03 AM |
| #7 When you tell someone what they can and can not wear, you have taken a position on those items. It is very disingenuous to describe any anti-religious expression as neutral. |
| Posted by: Mahatma 2003-12-12 8:43:57 AM |
| #6 Robert, that’s not for sure yet, investigation is still proceeding and can still lead to anywhere. Yeah. Sure. You just keep on living in your dream world, then. Oh, and what was that "evidence" you had about my identity? I'm still waiting to see it. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-12-12 8:38:39 AM |
| #5 Glenn, with Church, temple, Mosque, Synagogue etc. I mean actually, religion should be free and everyone should be able to practice his/her believe. But when a state has accepted secularity she has to stand at a position that is equal to all of these groups (religions), namely being neutral. And therefore I personally do believe that religious expressions don’t belong in public offices, schools etc. Walk and dress as you wish in your own house, temple, private estate etc. but not public offices etc. IMO there should be a dress code for everyone in public areas, for instance being not naked but also not in an Afghan chador. I agree partly with your #2 post, religious expression should not be a problem but in practice it sometimes is. If you don’t wear a chador, headscarf etc you are not less Muslim, if you don’t wear a yarmulke/Mogen David you are not less Jewish, if you don’t wear an oversized huge crucifix you are not less Christian, but you do show you are tilting towards the extreme and that is IMO not right either. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-12-12 7:51:11 AM |
| #4 Robert, that’s not for sure yet, investigation is still proceeding and can still lead to anywhere. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-12-12 7:50:37 AM |
| #3 Meanwhile, Murat valiantly ignores the evidence that the bombings in Turkey were, in fact, carried out by Islamists and not his Dreaded Kurds. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-12-12 7:22:05 AM |
| #2 Never mind, I do have a position to assert. Asserting religious identity by headscarf/viel is not the problem. Asserting religious identity by yarmulke/Mogen David is not the problem. Asserting religious identity by crucifix is not the problem. Asserting religious identity by rocks/bullets/bombs is the problem. |
| Posted by: Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-12 6:55:02 AM |
| #1 I wanted to assert something definitive but managed to confuse myself so badly I'm not sure what side I'm on. Murat, you're in Turkey, right? A Church(/Temple/Mosque)-State wall could be interpreted several ways. I don't know how your (written and unwritten) Constitution works regarding religion, but France and the US are different. The US Constitution has been interpreted to say it takes the position on religion that it takes no position on religion. This reflects reality already obvious in 1787. France, on the other hand, |
| Posted by: Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-12 6:43:51 AM |
