OT: religious identification

Redwolf · Post by **Redwolf** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:16 pm

Answering both Jim Stone and Celtoid here:

Jim...I agree with you 100%. Free exercise of one's religion is a fundamental human right.

Celtoid...we DO make allowances here for such things as Muslim prayer. In fact, public schools with a significant Muslim population have been known to set aside a room where the students can go to do exactly that...precisely because prayer of a specific type at specific times of day is REQUIRED of Muslims, and we consider it abhorrent to force a person to choose between a free public education for their children and their religion. Cases in which schools have tried to prevent individuals from freely expressing their religion, either in what they wear or in what they say or in what they do are routinely settled in favor of the individual, unless they actively impinge on another individual's right to believe as they please and/or to express those beliefs. Some things that are not required forms of expression are often left up to the option of the local school board...for example, my daughter's public kindergarten in North Carolina allowed the teacher to teach the children about Christmas, Hanukkah and Ramadan, and to have symbols for each in the classroom. She also taught them about various Buddhist and Hindu holidays as they came along, as well as about Easter and Passover. This was perfectly legal because a) she wasn't trying to persuade any of the children to favor one belief or another, b) she gave equal treatment to any holidays occuring at the time.

A public school is entitled to place restrictions on individuals only if the safety and well-being of the greater student body is at issue, if a student is trying to strong-arm other students into his/her point of view and/or purporting to speak for the entire student body (as would be the case with public prayer in schools...personal prayer, however, is not prohibited) or if the religious activity is potentially dangerous or seriously disturbing to the majority of students (your sacrifice analogy would fall into that category), in which case they must still give the student time off to go to another place to perform that activity. In general, it works pretty well.

Redwolf

claudine · Post by **claudine** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:35 pm

Islamic fundamentalism - or any other religious fanatism - is a menace for the human rights and for "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité". France defines itself as a laicist republic. Every citizen is free to have his own religion as long as he respects the laws.
There have been many problems with islamic machos who consider their wives, sisters or daughters as some kind of private property and treat them like slaves. There have also been a lot of incidents in public hospitals where the same islamics prevented their women from having medical treatment by male doctors. Some doctors have even suffered physical attacks by raging fanatics.
This has to be stopped. The French people do not want to live under sharia, they do not want to live under the pseudoreligious tyranny of fanatics. They have a right to defend their own values. Immigrants coming to France can be expected to respect the laws of this country.
The headscarve is not a religious symbol, it is mainly a symbol of the suppression of women. In Saudi-Arabia a woman can not drive a car, but in France they can join the army or do whatever a man can do.
Former generations of women have been fighting for emancipation. Today women have the right to vote, to study, to learn a profession, to be a soldier, to have private property, to be elected to a political function, to have the guardianship of their own children. These rights did not come naturally, but some women have been fighting to get them. We should be thankful and not throw these things away in a thoughtless manner.
We don't want religious fanatism and we have to fight again for our values. This law is just an attempt to stop the tyranny of the bigots.
P.S.: little personal anecdote. During my studies in a french public hospital, I had seen a young arabic woman who came to the gynecological emergency on her wedding day with a bleeding vaginal injury (it had to be stitched). She had been raped by her impatient husband right after the marriage ceremony.

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:48 pm

And the yamulka?

pthouron · Post by **pthouron** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:55 pm

I don't know exactly where this is going but: since all outward signs of religion can be divisive or offensive to others, isn't it better to have none at all? I mean, what is it about religion (of any type) that it feels the need to be advertised?

claudine · Post by **claudine** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:56 pm

Egalité - no headscarves, no yamulkas, no nuns' costumes.
They say small symbols are allowed, but big ostentative symbols are not.

seanny · Post by **seanny** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:07 pm

by dressing in religious garb people bear witness to their beliefs - why would anyone want to iron out the differences in humanity reducing us all to a bland homogenised uniformity?

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:14 pm

pthouron wrote:I don't know exactly where this is going but: since all outward signs of religion can be divisive or offensive to others, isn't it better to have none at all? I mean, what is it about religion (of any type) that it feels the need to be advertised?

Some people find those of another race to be offensive. Should we make everyone cover up their skin? These religions require certain attire, and by enforcing these dress codes the French government is starting down a very dangerous path. It is possible to be too PC. You cannot make everyone the same and it's pointless, and harmful, to try.

Seth

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:20 pm

I wear my habit everywhere I go.

elendil · Post by **elendil** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:33 pm

And the yamulka?

Are we gonna have to start a new spelling thread? It's yarmulka, even if the "r" and the "l" aren't usually pronounced in America.

Redwolf said:

Jim...I agree with you 100%. Free exercise of one's religion is a fundamental human right.

and

my daughter's public kindergarten in North Carolina allowed the teacher to teach the children about Christmas, Hanukkah and Ramadan, and to have symbols for each in the classroom. She also taught them about various Buddhist and Hindu holidays as they came along, as well as about Easter and Passover. This was perfectly legal because a) she wasn't trying to persuade any of the children to favor one belief or another, b) she gave equal treatment to any holidays occuring at the time.

Redwolf, I'm gonna take issue with you here. I'm sure you don't really don't believe what you wrote. If some Aztec fundamentalists wanted to revive human sacrifice, you would surely be among the first to oppose that time honored religious practice. If Hindus in the U.S. wanted to practice suttee, I'm sure you'd be against it. What it comes down to is, we're all for religious freedom here, as long as it falls in line with our own Christian influenced mores, but we're sure not in favor of religious freedom, willy nilly. I know, I know, everyone will want to say, "oh, well, we're in favor of religious freedom as long as it isn't against the law or doesn't harm anyone." Well, the law is firmly based on our 2000 years of Christianity and, as for harm, which is more harmful--physical or spiritual harm? Shouldn't the French protect young women against the spiritual harm done to them by Islamic practices? And where would you want to draw the line? This first amendment talk was all fine and good in an essentially homogeneous country, but we and other countries are discovering what true pluralism can be like.

And that wonderful kindergarten for your daughter? That was all based on the religion of secular humanism, teaching that all religions are equally acceptable, none is better than the next, it's all nothing but personal (and therefore irrational) preference--de gustibus non est disputandum. What the teacher was doing was very definitely an inculcation of a religious attitude.

DCrom · Post by **DCrom** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:35 pm

Cranberry wrote:I wear my habit everywhere I go.

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence? (Sorry - that's a very SF area reference, I guess)

On-topic:

I gather from the descriptions of French policy by those who grew up under it, France makes an explicit policy of separating religion from public life because, in large part, it was believed that such strict separation was required to produce a secular republic - and it was originally aimed specifically at the Catholic church. And that, rightly or wrongly, organized religion was viewed as the enemy of equality under law.

If I'm not too far out in this characterization, this in large part explains the typical American reaction to this policy - although there is a lot of back-and-forth here on the issue of religion in the schools, the American tradition separates Church and State primarily to protect the Church from the demands of the State.

Or to put it in an over-simplified nutshell: it appears that France fears the influence of a too-strong Church on the State; America fears the influence of a too-strong State on the Church.

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:47 pm

The headscarve is not a religious symbol, it is mainly a symbol of the suppression of women.

I think you will find that Moslem women disagree with you
about that. However suppose you're right. Then the French
law, which bans religious symbols, doesn't apply to
head scarves, which aren't religious symbols.
And there is no equality in banning yamulkas and
nun's outfits, too, as they, unlike head scarves,
are religious symbols.

Supposing, though, that the law isn't entirely misguided,
and is right in saying that head scarves are
religious symbols, I do think there's a fundamental
human rights issue here, which I've tried to
express above.

You say several things about the bad status of women
in Islam, and so on. Also that the French don't want
to live under Sharia. All of this makes sense to me.
I wouldn't want to live under rabbinical law,
as folks do in Israel,
and I could tell you stories about what
my childhood was like in Flatbush Brooklyn
that would curl your hair, and not just pertaining
to me. If I may express a personal view,
Judaism can be a real piece of work.
But I don't see the connection with banning
head scarves and yamulkas in public schools.

The idea that a particular religious persuasion
is pernicious, so we will ban or limit it's public expression,
is very old in Europe. It's led to awful trouble so
often. I think there are much more positive and
effective ways
of treating religious minorities, also, more ethical
ways, for the reasons I've given. If I were
European, I wouldn't touch this sort of thing
with a ten foot pole. Best

pthouron · Post by **pthouron** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:47 pm

Seth wrote:
pthouron wrote:I don't know exactly where this is going but: since all outward signs of religion can be divisive or offensive to others, isn't it better to have none at all? I mean, what is it about religion (of any type) that it feels the need to be advertised?

Some people find those of another race to be offensive. Should we make everyone cover up their skin? These religions require certain attire, and by enforcing these dress codes the French government is starting down a very dangerous path. It is possible to be too PC. You cannot make everyone the same and it's pointless, and harmful, to try.

Seth

Sorry, I really don't see the parallel. You can make any point using arguments like these. Race is not a choice, religion is. Americans don't mind it popping up everywhere and it's their right, the French do mind it popping up in schools, and it certainly is THEIR right. To each his own.

At least, French officials never meddled in American practices with religion. US State Department officials did make public comments regarding this French law last week.

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:13 pm

jim stone wrote:The idea that a particular religious persuasion
is pernicious, so we will ban or limit it's public expression,
is very old in Europe. It's led to awful trouble so
often. I think there are much more positive and
effective ways
of treating religious minorities, also, more ethical
ways, for the reasons I've given. If I were
European, I wouldn't touch this sort of thing
with a ten foot pole. Best

I don't understand what you mean here. What are you refering to historically?

If you are talking about anti-semitism, here in connection with the the French policy, I think you are off. The modern French secular state is a direct result of the French revolution, and the relgion attacked was the Roman Catholic Church. It had enormous power and privilege and a major part of the Revolution was breaking that power, removing social power, wealth and privilege of the Church and restricting it to the realm of personal beliefs rather than political/social power.

This btw is the enlightenment view that the state should be secular that began to dominate Europe in the 18th & 19th century. It motivated the American revolution, too, but never took the same cultural hold in the US as it did in Europe. I think there are two reasons for that. First of all, the US was historically founded for religious reasons so that the purpose of the state was/is to permit free exercise of (protestant Christian) religion. Second, arguments from principle are somehow less convincing to Americans than they are to Europeans. The argument "We subscribe to the principle that state and church should be separated and that therefore state-required public education should be secular and religiously-neutral. Therefore no demonstrations of any religion are appropriate at a public school." seems more convincing in Europe, where as "what's the harm of a yarmulka, it's such a little thing" seems more convincing in the States. Admittedly mushy stuff.

Finally, you keep talking about "fundamental" rights. I don't quite understand that either. What makes a right "fundamental" and why does a "fundamental" right matter more than a non-fundamental right? Do you mean that "fundamental" rights apply to all of humanity and not just the US? I could see that, but am confused by your listing of the right to jury trial by peers. That one is a very particular one that most of the world's democracies have decided against. It is guaranteed nowhere outside the US (even in England there is no right to a jury in civil cases) and historically and philosophically the jury trial in modernity has typically been characterized as a systemically desirable consequence of democracy and not as a right of the individual.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:19 pm

Quote @ DCrom

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence? (Sorry - that's a very SF area reference, I guess)

Actually, I am one of the the Mister Sisters.

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:26 pm

jim stone wrote:The idea that a particular religious persuasion is pernicious, so we will ban or limit it's public expression, is very old in Europe. It's led to awful trouble so often. I think there are much more positive and effective ways of treating religious minorities, also, more ethical ways, for the reasons I've given. If I were European, I wouldn't touch this sort of thing with a ten foot pole. Best

I hope you don't think I'm gunning for you, Jim, since I just put a message on another of your thought-provoking threads. Let me say first off that I am SO thrilled that you and Cranberry successfully started OT threads, both of which, which exceedingly controversial and nerve-touching, are devoid of the typical, "This forum is no place to talk about Ouija boards and egg beaters!" post. Actually, I guess those posts are usually from the same small group of people . . . and they are often in response to my hijacking (no pun intended vis-à-vis the terrorism thread!) an on-topic (but, in my defense, usually boring) thread about the Proper Angle of the Blade of Whistles Made from North American Hardwoods . . . or I Can't Play a Cran So How Do I Fake Something Bubbly on Low D. Or you name it. But I digress.

I think you have to get a grip on whether or not you're grinding a particularly sensitive perceived-persecution problem, or an actual problem about intolerance of religious expression? That might be the real issue. IF the French government, and I hardly find the French as a good example of tolerance in any realm (le Pen, mes amis? Les pieds-noirs?), allowed female children in a particular school to wear abbayas, allowed male children to wear kaffiyas, but denied male children the right to wear yarmulkas, then yep, that's singling out a group and that's wrong. If, however, they seek to "level the playing field," as it were, and as Celtoid may have implied, then they need to disallow all of it.

However, even that might be problematic . . . whence the abbaya, whence the yarmulka? Are either required by the religion? I honestly don't know. I think I know the modern justifications of the abbaya, but is it from the Qur'an, or not? Where does the practice of wearing the yarmulka come from . . . ? Do we know?

I guess my opinion would be that you either allow none of the symbols, or allow any of them. I'm all for dress codes in schools. But how on earth could you ever make school a neutral environment? It's not! And in fact, it shouldn't necessarily be. I think that school districts have an obligation to present all the information in as unbiased a fashion as possible, but there'll always be some bias. This is coming from me, someone who lives in a state which has had its own versions of textbooks for years because of dicta regarding the amount of space that needs to be given to creation when evolution is mentioned . . . or how they can't say, in a TX textbook, that the earth is BILLIONS of years old because that contradicts creationism.

I think that's worse, personally, than whether or not you get to wear your yarmulka.

But my comment about schools and what the kids wear, be it abbaya, kaffiya, yarmulka, or crucifix, is that what service do you do the kids to make them take off those symbols when they come to school? That won't prepare them for the real world. Like someone else said, should you then dip everyone in grey paint so no one knows what anyone else's skin is like? Intensive speech therapy to rid kids of regional or ethnic accents? Yikes!

I do also have to side with Elendil (et al) on the issue of fringe groups. We have already drawn several lines, and can't act like Western society has any kind of track record when it comes to curtailing religious freedoms. We've already picked things we consider OK, and things which aren't. In the US, for example, some aboriginal groups can use hallucinogens in religious ceremonies. Oh, and how about groups whose religions we as a society have deemed wacko? How often (I know the answer to this one) is the child of Jehovah's Witness parents remanded to the custody of the State to receive blood transfusions? Probably, across the US, on a daily basis. Likewise, how many children of Christian Scientist parents are given medical treatment against their parents' wishes?

We may preach religious tolerance, but we practice more or less rationalized tolerance in the US. Tolerance of the palatable. Actually, looking back over my post, I realize that I equivocate. I don't think this is an easy issue.

Excellent use of de gustibus non est disputandum, by the way. Chacun son goût, as long as I find it tasteful.

Stuart