• Killing_Spark@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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:

    In Frankreich herrscht Kopftuchverbot an Schulen

    Bereits 1994 trat ein Gesetz in Kraft, dass in Schulen nur noch diskrete - nicht aber auffällige - religiöse Symbole erlaubte. Zehn Jahre später wurden Kopftücher in Schulen vollständig verboten - Kippa und Kreuz nicht. 2010 folgte das Verbot der Vollverschleierung in der Öffentlichkeit.

    France bans headscarfs at schools

    In 1994 a law was passed that said that only discrete - but not prominent - religious symbols would be allowed. Ten years later headscarfs where banned from schools - while kippa and cross were not. 2010 the ban of the full body veil in public was passed.

    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.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      Allowing kippas and crosses while disallowing a dress that is at most a religious gesture not even a concrete symbol is just weird

      Sure, all should be banned

      • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        Definitly agreed!

        Sure, all should be banned

        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.

        • Akasazh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            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 is a bit unconstructieve, and a bit childish.

            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.

            Like I said if you enter into a scholl system it is proper behaviour to abide by 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.

            But in a school setting I would say that that is not a place for religious signalling. […] 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 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.

            • Akasazh@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              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.

              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 agree fully.

              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.

              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)

              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.

              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.

              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

              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.

              • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Agree, but theres a nuance. […] Not all messages are the same.

                Oh most definitely! It’s not easy to exactly define that line.

                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)

                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.

                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.

                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.

                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

                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.

                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.

                • Akasazh@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  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.

                  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’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.

                  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 free

                  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.

                  • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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. [ … ] Crosses as well, but they tend to be condoned, and in that lies the mistake.

                    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.

                    Kippas are banned as well I’d be surprised if that is enforced, but I have a german viewpoint on this and we tend to be a bit touchier with restricting jewish habits than other countries. So it could very well be that only christians get to wear their crosses.

                    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.

                    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

                    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?

                    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 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.

    • sederx@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      How is an abaya disrespectful to a school?

      any kind of religion is disrespectful to any education facility since they teach exactly the opposite from one another.

      • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That sentence is so general that it has to be wrong.

        1. One could imagine a religion that bases it’s belief on the scientific method
        2. Education does not necessarily mean it’s all based on scientific facts

        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.

        • sederx@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          One could imagine a religion that bases it’s belief on the scientific method

          it doesnt make any sense,religions are about dogmas not evidence. if they are based on science they are not a religion by definition.

          Education does not necessarily mean it’s all based on scientific facts

          ideally it all is. just because we are not smart enough doesnt mean we should entertain stuff that has even LESS validity, like religions.

          where they should be free to express themselves

          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.

          • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            it doesnt make any sense,religions are about dogmas not evidence. if they are based on science they are not a religion by definition.

            Citing Wikipedia here:

            Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements[1]—although there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3] Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine,[4] sacredness,[5] faith,[6] and a supernatural being or beings.[7]

            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.

            Education does not necessarily mean it’s all based on scientific facts

            ideally it all is. just because we are not smart enough doesnt mean we should entertain stuff that has even LESS validity, like religions.

            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.

            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.

            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.

            • sederx@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • sederx@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    children being abused with brainwashing is absolutely your business even if you dont understand it.

                    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.

                    just because you managed to escape it doesnt mean the average child is able to. look around, they clearly are not.

                    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.