Pupils will be banned from wearing abayas, loose-fitting full-length robes worn by some Muslim women, in France’s state-run schools, the education minister has said.
The rule will be applied as soon as the new school year starts on 4 September.
France has a strict ban on religious signs in state schools and government buildings, arguing that they violate secular laws.
Wearing a headscarf has been banned since 2004 in state-run schools.
What a narrow understanding of religion. That law is based on the understanding that “religion” is something completely inside the mind and maybe something you attend once a week. That may have been nice in 1700s Europe when the only religion around were denominations of Christianity but it doesn’t account for the many religions that mandate looks and dress and even some that require tattoos. Instead the state implicitly labels those religions as inferior or less civilized and goes out of their way to single them out for law enforcement.
And the “obey or leave” mindset in this thread is ignorant of history, as France involuntarily made all Algerians French citizens and declared their lands French territory. This 2004 law and new amendments singles them out.
Laicite has been a thing in France for over a 100 years. There is nothing “narrow” about it and it affected religions LONG before Muslims became the latest to experience it.
Laicite was created after Christians went to war against Christians. It still is trapped in that paradigm and is narrow because it fails to take into account the practices of other religions. For example, Christianity has almost no dietary laws but that’s not the case for Jews, Hindus, or Muslims. Should French schools require beef on the menu to avoid religious accommodation for Hindus? Should circumcision be banned in order to prevent Jewish boys from standing out in locker rooms?
Laicite is a narrow and antiquated mindset and there’s a reason other secular countries haven’t embraced it.
I’m pretty certain you know these are stupid arguments.
I’m not going to respond to ad hominem attacks. Peace.
Calling your arguments stupid is not ad hominem. But if you want me to elucidate then by all means:
Forcing people to eat beef (or pork) is not covered by laicite. Wearing religious clothing & symbols on state property is. I’m sure a case to be made that schools should be sensitive to religious dietary restrictions and provide alternatives, but that’s not what you were saying.
Circumcision is not covered by laicite at least insofar as school is concerned. Maybe there are regs about how it is performed in public hospitals. Wearing religious clothing & symbols on state property is.
All clear now?