132
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
132 points (95.8% liked)
Europe
8332 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So many people here either intentionally or not misunderstanding the point...
There's freedom of religion, but not in official governement settings. This is not to infringe on rights, it's just the opposite. Just for your religion you shant get treated differently. This is why you don't get to advertise your religion as a governement employee, nor as a citizen when appealing to the governement. This is exactly the inverse of authorianism, it's a reaction to a state forcing people from a certain religion to wear a distinct mark (star of david) by which they were discrimnated against and eradicated.
Furthermore there should be some norms in place for what can be worn in school. I'm no advocate for uniforms, but dressrules respectful of the institution can be demanded (e.g. not wearing headwear in church or covering ones hair when visiting a mosque)
How is an abaya disrespectful to a school? If anything it's one of the more appropriate kinds of clothing.
France may have banned large crosses from their schools but it is not forbidden afaik to wear necklaces. I did not find an english source, here is a german one with my translation:
https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/frankreich-verbot-abaya-schulen-100.html
Allowing kippas and crosses while disallowing a dress that is at most a religious gesture not even a concrete symbol is just weird.
Yeah I regret this topic being made into a value weighting thing. I hate the hypocrisy in the current discussion. Although I also hate how signalling religosity somehow finds a way.
My point is that the reason behind the policy is pretty solid. The state should be blind to my religion and no-one should get preferrential/or malign treatment because of it.
Sure, all should be banned
Definitly agreed!
I guess that's where opinions just differ, and honestly my point of view isn't really relevant here as I am not french and I have a very limited knowledge of their culture in this regard.
This is already a more constructive discussion then most of this thread. The way I read it is that there was always a big part of the population that was Islamic, only that folowing the ban on headscarfs the wearing of more traditional cloathing has increased, obviously as a way of making a statement. So it goes a bit the way of 'So you forbid to me to wear x, then I will wear Y symbolicly instead'.
That is a bit unconstructieve, and a bit childish. I'm not really a fan of school uniforms, but the one thing I really can't get around is auto-uniformization aka dressing a particular way, not because a job or other cirumstaces require it, but as symbol of personality or faith. Its one of humanities quirks that I just don't grasp. I can't get around peoples insistance to be different, but only in a big group doing the same.
But in a school setting I would say that that is not a place for religious signalling. Like I said if you enter into a scholl system it is proper behaviour to abide by the rules. Like when I get to visit a religious building I will respect their rules, even if it's not my own religion.
I think that is one of the things where humans just differ. There are people that value belonging to a certain group very highly, and also like to communicate that. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I wouldn't object to people wearing lets say football shirts of their favourit team. I wouldn't do that but it doesn't really concern me. People are allowed to build their personality around whatever they want, as long as they don't actively annoy people.
I wouldn't say wearing clothing is actively annoying anyone. Clothing for me is (at most, some/most clothing just has no to little meaning) a kind of passive communication. But I do understand that that is my opinion and that others have an opposing opinion on that.
Where I would draw the line with clothing and messages is when the messages are about other people. Wearing clothing showing you are a strict christian? Fine. Wearing a shirt that says: death to all non-vegans? Not fine. Even though I personally like vegans way more than christians.
I think where a lot of this conflict stems from is that in the western world we associate uniforms or just clothing with an explicit message with mostly bad things. My mind jumps straight to military, bikers, or other violent groups. In my opinion it's important to acknowledge that this is different for other cultures.
That's true, but it's also a very human thing to do. I wouldn't fault them for being a bit rebellious if they are staying inside the rules.
Totally. But the rules should apply to everyone equaly. If there are no muslim signs, not even gestures like that dress allowed, then no crosses, no fishes, nothing christian should be tolerated either.
I think that those two things are not comparable though. A religious building is dedicated to one specific religion. I would consider it offensive to go there uninvited and showing your disbelief in this religion.
A school is a public place where you are allowed to show who you are in many ways. You can wear merch of your favourite band, you can show what sports you like and dislike, you can even communicate your sexual preferences if you so choose (as long as it stays SFW). But for some reason just showing which beliefs you carry is a very hot topic. If I understand correctly part of it is getting the influence of the church out of the french schools, which I support. The church should have no influence in the teachings in public schools. But I wouldn't mind people showing that they are catholic, with the same restrictions as every other topic. Don't actively annoy me with it.
Agree, but theres a nuance. For instance if I have a Bad Religion shirt with an upside-down cross or satanistic metal shirts (which people at my school definately wore) I don't mean that to kill or harm all people that are catholic. If I wear a swastika or an confedrerate flag then I'm probably getting sent home (for obvious reasons). Not all messages are the same.
I agree fully.
I differ on this. In school one is explained the scientific method. Even if one is atheist, one would have to agree that that is a certain belief system, however different from theist belief it is. For this to work, one should al least respect the fundamentals of scientific thought. One can see in the USA how things go if you let religious nutcases get away with pruning the colloquia. A school is dedicated to that task, so needs to be afforded the same level of respect. So when in school one doesn't religion (of any kind)
It is, however its also a bit of a lesson about how to learn hwo to behave . The rules need to be even, like you said, a catholic or jewish person can now technically wield a token solely to grieve their muslim co-students and that is unacceptable.
Ideally, sure. But if there is a signalling 'struggle' taking place between different groups, which sows division, I'd argue that that freedom is not earned yet.
Oh most definitely! It's not easy to exactly define that line.
I think you are mixing two things here: Showing your religious belief and letting people of that belief influence the colloquia (or any other important decision). Firstly: Just showing your religion does not mean you want to influence others to conform to your beliefs. Secondly: Hardliners can still influence the decision making even if they hide their beliefs. If anything it's easier to spot why someone does what they do, and more closely monitor their decisions, when they show colors.
Well as far as I understand it, they were already allowed to wear crosses and kippas so I don't see how that would make a difference.
I don't think that signalling struggle is happening, and even if it were, just banning signalling from one side is definitely not the way to go, and I'd argue even banning all sides from signalling isn't the way to go, it's in my opinion not compatible with the right to express yourself freely.
Sure. My point being more along the lines of respecting the institution. If there's certain rules set, one should abide by them, no matter what religion.
I've read some more on this. Kippas are banned as well. Crosses as well, but they tend to be condoned, and in that lies the mistake. The same rules apply for every bit of signalling. Now a crucifix pendant is more easily hidden than an headscarf or a kippah, but that's an enforcement issue.
Ideaogically I'm in agreement. I mean wearing a bad religion shirt is ok in my book, hell even a Charlie Hebdo Mohammed pic would be ok for me, but the murder of Samuel Paty shows that those aren't the same. I think that last part weighs in on this whole discussion.
I guess but you cant fault people to try to get around the rules if other people are allowed to get around them. You yourself say that that is the original issue, so I don't think only adressing the abayas is a good way to go about things, it's at most fighting the symptoms.
One interesting thing would be the traditional hair style jewish males might display. I'm honestly interested where you stand on that. Or lets take the face tatoos that some people of indigenous heritage might display. Just things that aren't easily changed or hidden. What would you do about that? I know the face tatoos are a thing that isn't likely to be an issue because they are rare but I wanted to give another example besides hair styles.
This strikes me as a bit odd. You don't want to allow people showing that they belong to a certain religion but you want to allow people to openly criticise peoples religions? It's still communication about religion but just in a different way right?
I agree that extremistic views and actions of extremists are weighing on this discussion, and I'd agree that islamists are currently the bigger immediate threat, compared to other extreme religious groups. But I think we all should make a concient effort to separate violent extremists from normal religious people. The vast majority of muslims are peaceful people just like the vast majority of christians and atheists are peaceful people.
That is not a quote of mine, I don't know how that got in here. I'll answer your question, though.
I would order them to wear some kind of hair cover in order not to show this. <- A joke, as I feel like I have to clarify. There's not much to be done about this. If I'd notice an increase in wearing of the hairstyle if wearing the Kippah is banned, I think a ban might be in order (as there's substitute signalling). Of course that way I would get a bit pity.
That's my personal opinion. I think everybody must be able to say anything. Nobody nor no religion can be exempt of ridicule. Obviously if people take offense or seek difference in treatment over religious grounds then a problem occurs. Thats why the seperation of church and state was so rigidly written into French law. If that is what it takes, and if students fail to observe the decency of abiding by those rules on their own account they should be held in contempt of the institution.
Agreed. And I subscribe to the idea of treating everybody favoribly and according to the same rule. Unfortunately laws are usually written to apply to the worst kind of people. I think in most cases it's not the students that are the source of the problem. I think the (self)isolation of the moslim population has something to do with it and the ideas of modern education are at odds with that. This is very unfortunate, I lament the downfall of the Islamic Golden age...
any kind of religion is disrespectful to any education facility since they teach exactly the opposite from one another.
That sentence is so general that it has to be wrong.
But let's assume you meant that "The currently most practiced religions are teaching something that is not aligned with the scientific method and facts we want to educate people on in the public education system".
Even then you are still saying just by being religious you are disrespecting the educational facility. But again let's assume you only meant that showing that your belief in this religion is disrepectful.
I'd argue that a school is still a public place, where minors are forced to be a big part of their waking day, where they should be free to express themselves. That may include challenging religious beliefs but also the teachings in the school, as long as it happens in a respectful way. Challenging ideas and disagreeing is not the same as disrespect.
it doesnt make any sense,religions are about dogmas not evidence. if they are based on science they are not a religion by definition.
ideally it all is. just because we are not smart enough doesnt mean we should entertain stuff that has even LESS validity, like religions.
no child gives a flying bird about "expressing their religion" they are only religious because their parents are forcing them to. no other reason.
so no the right of the parents to express their own religion through their unwilling kids doesnt trump anything about an education syste.
Citing Wikipedia here:
I'd say I could build a belief system around "designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations" that tries to understand the "supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements" by using scientific methods. Where "supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements" are just stuff we don't yet understand like for example dark matter.
Try teaching ethics based on only scientific facts then. Try teaching art and music based on scientific fact. Those are disciplines where opinions and feelings have a meaningful impact on the subject at hand.
You do understand that people in schools are not just 6 years old kids right? A big chunk of them are old enough to make decisions about themselves. Calling all of these individuals "unwilling kids" because they might be religious is very belittling.
none of those people sat down and said " i want to become a christian". speaking about this like its a choice is really messed up, children dont have a choice.
I did not sit down to be raised an atheist and yet here I am, raised as one without having had a choice. Parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, within some parameters of course. And I think that is a good thing, I wouldn't want anyone to force me to raise my kids in a specific way. At a certain age teenagers are able to have their own thoughts though, and there are a lot of people that turn away from the beliefs of their parents. Others stay religious though and I think that is absolutely fine. I might not agree with a lot of what they believe in, but it also is just none of my business.
children being abused with brainwashing is absolutely your business even if you dont understand it.
just because you managed to escape it doesnt mean the average child is able to. look around, they clearly are not.
Being raised religiously is definitely not generally abuse, and I would say only a very small portion of it goes into abusive territory. Which, of course, yes should be everyones business.
I did not escape anything, I am still an atheist. What I am saying is that it's not inherently better to "escape" religion than to keep believing. I would even oppose that framing of religion being something you need to escape.
give one positive.
sorry but you centrist people can really go to absurd places just to be right...
As I said I myself am not religious. It doesn't work for me. But to just flat out deny that religion has benefits to people is blatantly dismissive of the things that make a lot of people happy.
If we are going to get down to namecalling here you go: You libs can really go to absurd places just to prove that pure logic and rationality will make us prosper.
To be honest we wear headwear in churches in france now
Oh. Well whenever I'm in churches in France, it's usually not during service. Then again, it's a bit beside the point.
(Hi! French and Christian here. Nobody wears headwear in churches, except for nuns.)
Thnx, it seemed like a weird assertion from the other person. Didn't really question it as it was quite beside the point anyway
Yes