Did Frannce recently pass a law...

[c0rbin]

...against head coverings (and yamikas) in public schools?

link (http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=6354)

link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/20/wwide20.xml)

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/251265.stm)

Haven't had a lot of opportunity to look into this cause I have a sick infant sleeping on my shoulder, but this would reek of double-think in my book.

[The Don]

They are in the process of trying to eliminate "overtly religious" items of clothing and jewelry from state schools. France is a very secular country schoolswise and they see no reason to wear religious garb which may excite religious intolerance.

Students are free to wear whatever they wish outside school and if they attend a religious school.

In a poll a little over 50% of muslims said they supported the idea

Wassa problem ?

[Larspeart]

What Don said.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by The Don


Wassa problem ?

Hmmm....I don't know if I agree with this....

In some religiions appearing anywhere without your respective lid is against the doctrines of that religion. I think that's idiotic, but if school is a compulsory and (I think important) part of being a citizen, something as harmless as a head scarf should not be banned.

Personally I think this is government intrusion on religion. Granted it's France, but If I were to apply the same standards I am used to considering here in the US, as much as I'm personally not religious, I always remember that the separation of church and state clause works in both directions.

If various garments are causing heated religious tension, or obstructing the student's ability to have quality educational time,well that is the fault of the students who are intolerant and belligerant, not the fault of the religions or its various accoutrements.

I'm just getting really tired of this attitude that's become so prolific here in the US and apparently elsewhere, that because of the small percentage of bad apples, the government is going to punish the entire citizenry. It's a bunch of BS.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by c0rbin
...against head coverings (and yamikas) in public schools?

link (http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=6354)

link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/20/wwide20.xml)

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/251265.stm)

Haven't had a lot of opportunity to look into this cause I have a sick infant sleeping on my shoulder, but this would reek of double-think in my book.

Outrageous if true. The wearing of a head scarf or even a large crucifix by an individual inside a public building being somehow interpreted as a violation of church and state is the best evidence that drugs should not be legalized because they make you an idiot and a hazard to freedoms. :)

They have to be on crack. Seriously.

[DanishDynamite]

I don't see a problem.

There are already lots of laws or regulations that determine what you can or can't wear. Now, if they had only banned head scarfs and not other religious garbs, that would be discrimination.

Suppose I invent a religion that requires members to always be butt-naked. Would members of my US chapter have any problems with the local cops? :)

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I don't see a problem.

There are already lots of laws or regulations that determine what you can or can't wear. Now, if they had only banned head scarfs and not other religious garbs, that would be discrimination.

Suppose I invent a religion that requires members to always be butt-naked. Would members of my US chapter have any problems with the local cops? :)

Depends on state or country regs, honestly, And frankly whatever. If you're religion requires you to be naked in February in Chicago. I have no problem with that.

What people are missing here is that everyone has the right to be an idiot.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Depends on state or country regs, honestly, And frankly whatever. If you're religion requires you to be naked in February in Chicago. I have no problem with that.

What people are missing here is that everyone has the right to be an idiot.

No. Schools and any institution have a right to lay down a law saying what people should or should not wear within their boundries. Otherwise stay out. What if I say my religion dictates that I have to have a CD on my person containing hardcore anal child porn?

[DanishDynamite]

Andonyx:Depends on state or country regs,honestlyAre you saying that in some states, walking around butt-naked in all public areas would be legal?
And frankly whatever. If you're religion requires you to be naked in February in Chicago. I have no problem with that.I didn't ask if you had a problem. I asked about the legality of doing it.
What people are missing here is that everyone has the right to be an idiot. What's the relevance?

[Andonyx]

Yes, in some places it is. The UC berkely campus comes to mind.

So the answer to your first two questions is the same. It depends on your local state and county laws.

Although it is very rare for that not to be considered public obscenity.

As to your third question, I assumed you were comparing headscarves to nakedness as an act of stupid excess and then using the slippery slope argument.

So idiocy is apparently not the factor. The factor is that we already have laws that infringe on absolute freddom to practice religion, so why not a few more.

Sounds good, why don't we then abolish the practice of religion because people fight about it?

Sounds also like a slippery slope does it not?

The difference here like it should be in almost any case, is this. The right to believe and manifest that belief in physical practice is always considered a right first and foremost. To infringe on that right, here (in the US) you must demonstrate a compelling public interest. That's the idea behind laws that infringe on rights. Interest of public safety, good, or other freedoms.

If you can't demonstrate that interest, then the law should not be made.

The rational for this measure in France is heightened racial / religious tensions that may disrupt the educational process.

Here's a tip for you, Frenchy, spend some time in that school teaching people that violence and hurtful behavior is a poor way to resolve differences between people instead of trying to hide or eliminate those differences. How does that sound?

It restrict the individual freedom of belief and practice far less, and it is for the common wellfare.

[c0rbin]

If I recall, the banning of the scarves was a step toward opposing extremism in the school. Some parents forbade history classes, swimming athletics, or physical exams by male doctors (for female mulim students).

I would seem that banning scarves for reasons listed above (as a means for stemming extremism in public schools) is a little wacky.

Are there female doctors? Are there alternative athletic activities? Prevent a student from graduating if they don't take required (history) classes.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


No. Schools and any institution have a right to lay down a law saying what people should or should not wear within their boundries. Otherwise stay out. What if I say my religion dictates that I have to have a CD on my person containing hardcore anal child porn?

Really?

You wanna think carefully about that statement again...

Other institutions have a right to pass LAWS?

Regarding what you SHOULD, or shouldn't wear?

So my local school district can pass a law....

That I have to wear hound's tooth on my person at all times?

Wow, no wonder Britain is so screwy.

First No schools here can pass laws. They can have policies and dress codes, which I also disagree with up to the extent mentioned in the above post.

And they cannot tell you to wear say a cross...


They can tell you not to wear big johnson tee-shirts.

But that's a separate issue, what we have here is a central state government determining the policy for all public schools based on something that should not be an issue anyway.

What pisses me off about this is once again it's a head in the sand approach that punishes perfectly innocent citizens either for a potential crime, or a crime comitted by a small minority.

If they don't like religious tension deal with the people who make religious tension an issue. Don't make religion the culprit.

[Mendor]

I talked to a French person this morning about this matter of laïcité (secularism) and the Muslim headscarf. He said that the French government has always been very keen on keeping religion out of the state schools completely, for historical reasons (I assume the Catholic Church interfered quite a lot in the past), and that there were private schools where this sort of thing was allowed. I then asked him why the pupils weren't allowed to display their religion through wearing these clothes and he spluttered a bit and said that he didn't have an answer. I got the impression he wasn't wholly behind this law.

This is interesting stuff. I'm thinking of writing an essay on it for French class...

I'm an evil godless atheist, and I'm certainly all for the separation of church and state, but I'm not for this. For a start, it is not a government agent displaying their religion; it's the pupils. Secondly, I just don't see that a headscarf or a yarmulke can cause offence. It's not comparable to carrying around hard core child porn; that would be illegal, inside school or out.

But the most bizarre aspect, I think, is this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3309885.stm): The report also recommends that Yom Kippur - the Jewish Day of Atonement - and the Muslim Eid al-Kabir festival be celebrated in state schools. :confused:

So they're secular enough to ban the headscarf/yarmulke/crucifices, but they celebrate religious festivals? WTF?

Pour ceux qui lisent le français: http://www.laic.info/ , un site du web sur la laïcité. (Yes, I am showing off, although a French person will probably be along in a minute to laugh at my French. More likely 61 minutes, actually, just so I'll miss the editing deadline...)

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Mendor


I'm an evil godless atheist, and I'm certainly all for the separation of church and state, but I'm not for this. For a start, it is not a government agent displaying their religion; it's the pupils. Secondly, I just don't see that a headscarf or a yarmulke can cause offence. It's not comparable to carrying around hard core child porn; that would be illegal, inside school or out.



Thanks, that's a more elegant argument than I am making.

And if we take this further. I simply don't like their rational. The article I read said it was to stem tensions over recent events that have involved religion and politics. If thats the case are they going to restrict politically sensitive speech and thought and writing in the schools as well?

Maybe they just shouldn't cover the events of the middle east right now and their religious motivations either.

The whole thing is just stupid.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Other institutions have a right to pass LAWS?

Regarding what you SHOULD, or shouldn't wear?

So my local school district can pass a law....

That I have to wear hound's tooth on my person at all times?

Wow, no wonder Britain is so screwy.

First No schools here can pass laws. They can have policies and dress codes, which I also disagree with up to the extent mentioned in the above post.

And they cannot tell you to wear say a cross...


I never said they should have the power to make laws that apply nationaly or internationaly.

What I did say is that any institiution should have the right to say that you must or must not wear a 'Hounds Tooth' should you wish to enter the institiution at any time.

This is no different from saying 'you must or must not wear clothing to cover your gentitals' at any time should you wish to enter this institution.

[DanishDynamite]

Andonyx:Yes, in some places it is. The UC berkely campus comes to mind. The UC berkely campus is not a state or a county.
So the answer to your first two questions is the same. It depends on your local state and county laws.Do you have an example?
Although it is very rare for that not to be considered public obscenity.Exactly.
As to your third question, I assumed you were comparing headscarves to nakedness as an act of stupid excess and then using the slippery slope argument.No. I was countering the argument that just because something is considered religious by some people doesn't mean it always falls outside the rule of law.
So idiocy is apparently not the factor. The factor is that we already have laws that infringe on absolute freddom to practice religion, so why not a few more.Of course we have such laws. Just as there are laws which curb free-speech. The reason, of course, is that these rights aren't and can't be absolutes.
Sounds good, why don't we then abolish the practice of religion because people fight about it?

Sounds also like a slippery slope does it not?No, it isn't a slippery slope. There are limits to everything.
The difference here like it should be in almost any case, is this. The right to believe and manifest that belief in physical practice is always considered a right first and foremost. To infringe on that right, here (in the US) you must demonstrate a compelling public interest. That's the idea behind laws that infringe on rights. Interest of public safety, good, or other freedoms.So you are admitting that there are limits to the right of practicing your religion. OK.
If you can't demonstrate that interest, then the law should not be made.Fair enough, I suppose. Who decides whether that interest has been demonstrated?
The rational for this measure in France is heightened racial / religious tensions that may disrupt the educational process.

Here's a tip for you, Frenchy, spend some time in that school teaching people that violence and hurtful behavior is a poor way to resolve differences between people instead of trying to hide or eliminate those differences. How does that sound? "Frenchy"?
It restrict the individual freedom of belief and practice far less, and it is for the common wellfare. Going back to my example of the Butt-Naked Religion, what public interest is being demonstrated by banning this physical practice of my new religion?

[DanishDynamite]

Mendor:I'm an evil godless atheist, and I'm certainly all for the separation of church and state, but I'm not for this. For a start, it is not a government agent displaying their religion; it's the pupils.
Why would this matter? The act is happening in a school, which is the place where this law applies.
Secondly, I just don't see that a headscarf or a yarmulke can cause offence. It's not comparable to carrying around hard core child porn; that would be illegal, inside school or out.I don't see how being naked can cause offence.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Andonyx:The UC berkely campus is not a state or a county.


No, but being on the campus of the U and buck naked in public view means that the gentlemen in question is still subject to the laws of California, and The Bay County? (Bay, what county is that anyway?) So if this was legal for him is wasn't because Berekely campus said so, it was because the loacal law enforcement jurisdiction said so. I used Berkely campus because that's what I remember from the story.


"Frenchy"?

Not you, the imaginary French people I'm talking to in that sentence.


Going back to my example of the Butt-Naked Religion, what public interest is being demonstrated by banning this physical practice of my new religion?

The burden is NOT on me to demonstrate how my practice is in the public good, or interest. The burden is on you to show how it harms or damanges public interest or good. See, we have rights given by birth, they can only be taken away by an act of congress.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I don't see how being naked can cause offence.

Picture a naked Newt Gingrich...

Aggggghhhhhh!

[Andonyx]

After seraching, apparently, Andrew Martinez, Berkely's "Naked Guy." Didn't make it too far. he was eventually expelled, and although he never faced charges from the state of country two students who tried something similar recently were threatened with arrest.

So I guess it's illegal there too.

But ultimately I think that's dumb.

I'm not going along with DDs perspective that because it's a law that makes it okay. The laws passed around here are not always internally consistent, so just because a law against religious practices that would mandate child porn makes sense does not mean a law about naked people in religion does.

They are two different things in real life even if the law doesn't see them that way.

Just like the fact that Head coverings and slaughtering chikens during prayer are two completely different things, even if they are treated the same in France.

It's a stupid stupid measure.

[DanishDynamite]

Andonyx:No, but being on the campus of the U and buck naked in public view means that the gentlemen in question is still subject to the laws of California, and The Bay County? (Bay, what county is that anyway?) So if this was legal for him is wasn't because Berekely campus said so, it was because the loacal law enforcement jurisdiction said so. I used Berkely campus because that's what I remember from the story.But this is my point. The French law only applied to schools, not other public or private areas. The law of "no nudity", on the other hand, applies everywhere, except if specifically exempted. So what is the problem?
Not you, the imaginary French people I'm talking to in that sentence.OK.
The burden is NOT on me to demonstrate how my practice is in the public good, or interest. The burden is on you to show how it harms or damanges public interest or good. See, we have rights given by birth, they can only be taken away by an act of congress. What? I have no problem with the law. You do. It is therefore on your shoulders to show why it is a bad law.

[DanishDynamite]

Andonyx:After seraching, apparently, Andrew Martinez, Berkely's "Naked Guy." Didn't make it too far. he was eventually expelled, and although he never faced charges from the state of country two students who tried something similar recently were threatened with arrest.

So I guess it's illegal there too.Thanks for doing and reporting your research, even if it was detrimental to your stance.
Just like the fact that Head coverings and slaughtering chikens during prayer are two completely different things, even if they are treated the same in France. They are? Does the law concerning head coverings include references to chicken slaughtering as well?
It's a stupid stupid measure. I fail to see why.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

What? I have no problem with the law. You do. It is therefore on your shoulders to show why it is a bad law.

No....

Do you agree the law restricts some freedom of religious practice, that before the law passed was not restricted?

If so, then why should that law be passed. You see that is the burden.

If laws in the past said, you cannot commit ritual sacrifice as part of your religious practice...well I think that's pretty easy to defend in the interest of the public good.

This law says you can't wear religious hats.

Now, I say that's not a good law because it restricts my freedom of religious expression and no one has yet to tell me what the compelling public interest is yet.

If we go by your rational that I have the repsonsibility as a citizen to demonstrate why any law is bad, then we can restrict damn near anything, anytime for any damn reason. That's moronic.

Now, please explain to me what benefit they will derive from restricting religious articles and garments.

[Andonyx]

And you're argument that it doesn't matter because it only applies in the schools is specious.

That argument applies to private places such as, "If you don't like the policy, don't go there." arguments. This is a public school, you do not have the choice of NOT going there, unless you pay for a private or parochial school.

[DanishDynamite]

Andonyx,

Were you against the introduction of the 10-Commandment sculpture in that Alabama court house? If so, why?

[Mendor]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Mendor:
Why would this matter? The act is happening in a school, which is the place where this law applies. If the government agent is wearing their religion on their sleeve, then you could argue that that was the government pushing religion onto the pupils (although it might be a very tenuous argument). Pupils, however, should be allowed to express their religion in any way that does not harm anyone else's freedom; to do otherwise is an abridgement of religious freedom.I don't see how being naked can cause offence. Neither do I.

If I ruled the world, your Butt-Naked sect would have the right to come in naked to school. If other people's sensibilities are offended, they can not look, or better, learn to ignore it. That's tolerance.

I don't rule the world, of course, and I would think the Butt-Nakeders were rather silly (not to mention probably quite cold), but hey, it's their religion - and they're not abridging anyone else's freedoms by practising it.Originally posted by Andonyx
This is a public school, you do not have the choice of NOT going there, unless you pay for a private or parochial school.I think I read somewhere... or heard somewhere... or something... that you can send your kid to a private school in France and send the government the bill. I have only the haziest recollection of this, so I'll look into it.

If it's true, it knocks our argument for six a bit, so I'll not look very hard ;)

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I never said they should have the power to make laws that apply nationaly or internationaly.

What I did say is that any institiution should have the right to say that you must or must not wear a 'Hounds Tooth' should you wish to enter the institiution at any time.



So you would be fine with all public schools making their students wear a big cross around their necks with a t-shirt that says "Jesus is my saviour, atheists are liars"?

You'd just smile and say "That's perfectly within their power, I will merely take my child to a private school and pay the extra money"?

Adam

[Mendor]

Originally posted by Mendor
I think I read somewhere... or heard somewhere... or something... that you can send your kid to a private school in France and send the government the bill. I have only the haziest recollection of this, so I'll look into it.It would appear not to be true.From here (http://www.settlement.org/cp/fre/france/learning.html)
Environ 17 % des jeunes Français fréquentent des écoles privées, pour la plupart catholiques. Ces écoles reçoivent des fonds du gouvernement et exigent des frais de scolarité. my poor attempt at a translation
Around 17% of young French people go to private schools, mainly Catholic ones. These schools receive government funding and levy fees.

[plindboe]

I personally think the law is stupid, and I fear that similar laws will be passed in other European countries within a few years. The problem is that none of the girls will take their head scarfs off, but will instead be taken out of public schools, and join private islamic schools instead. It will isolate them even more from the rest of the population, and will make integration a great deal more difficult.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by plindboe
I personally think the law is stupid, and I fear that similar laws will be passed in other European countries within a few years. The problem is that none of the girls will take their head scarfs off, but will instead be taken out of public schools, and join private islamic schools instead. It will isolate them even more from the rest of the population, and will make integration a great deal more difficult.

This is a good point. Majority or minority, one of the reasons you send a child to public school is not just the academic education, but also the social education of learning to adapt and deal with others who are different. This law is harming that benefit by removing those differences, or forcing those who are different to leave.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Andonyx


This is a good point. Majority or minority, one of the reasons you send a child to public school is not just the academic education, but also the social education of learning to adapt and deal with others who are different. This law is harming that benefit by removing those differences, or forcing those who are different to leave. The French law is no different from laws banning prayers in American schools.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The French law is not different from laws banning prayers in American schools.

I think you conception of American law is Waaaaay off.

First any student is allowed to pray in American school if he or she wants to. The restriction is it cannot be organized prayer, and it cannot be led by a school official so as to give the appearance of state endorsement.

And why so quiet on the main point of our argument which is you still have not demonstrated in any manner why the law has a benefit which outweighs its restrictiveness. Until you can do so, I stand by the fact that it is a bad law.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I support the idea. Personally I am against dress codes, but I don't see why we should make an exception for the religious.

Also this really peeved me: (taken from an article)

But Muslims ? for many of whom the scarf is a mark of modesty and a symbol of identity ? say a ban is discriminatory and violates their freedoms. They warn it could provoke a backlash, pushing Muslims out of France's mainstream life and fueling militancy.

Oh, so since they don't get their way...they'll be militant?

One wonders, had it been Soviet symbols or nazi satstikas banned and the "victims" said they would be "militant" if that would create more backlash.

In any event, I wonder how people who acccuse France of favoring and catering to Muslims are going to handle this.


Is there going to now be a 180 in which France is now accused of discrimination against Muslims?

[DanishDynamite]

Andonyx:I think you conception of American law is Waaaaay off.

First any student is allowed to pray in American school if he or she wants to. The restriction is it cannot be organized prayer, and it cannot be led by a school official so as to give the appearance of state endorsement.Well, excuuuuse me for forgetting to put the word "school-sponsored" before the word "prayers".
And why so quiet on the main point of our argument which is you still have not demonstrated in any manner why the law has a benefit which outweighs its restrictiveness. Until you can do so, I stand by the fact that it is a bad law. The benefit is that religion isn't mixed with government institutions. Just like the 10-Commandment statue. BTW, why so silent on this question?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Andonyx:Well, excuuuuse me for forgetting to put the word "school-sponsored" before the word "prayers".
The benefit is that religion isn't mixed with government institutions. Just like the 10-Commandment statue. BTW, why so silent on this question?

Not the same at all. If the school required a specific kind of religious dress, that would be the same as school-sponsored prayer. The kids can pray any time they want, just like individual students should be able to wear headscarves, You're anology is simply wrong. The difference is choice and freedom of the individual our law only restricts stae endorsement not practice. The French law prohibits personal practice of that religion.

And I'm not silent on anything.

This is a bad law because:

1. It is unecssarily restrictive of right to personal freedom of religion and religious expression...

2. Without demonstrating a considerable benefit to the populace, in fact this may actually exacrebate religious tensions since kids are taught to ignor differences between each other or pretend they don't exist instead of learning to deal with them...

3. It has not demonstrated any specific threat of harm, injury, or infringement of other liberties as a result of the action they are curtailing.

In short there is no reason to pass this law other than people being freaked out over religious deifferences.

Finally your stament that it is separating religion from governmental insitutions then applies to any government worker, anyone who works in a government owned building or facility, or is an independant government contractor. Should they be held to the same dress-code?

The ten commandments monument was removed because a state judge had placed it there as part of a government edifice.

You do understand there is a difference between the state's implicit support of religion through use of public resources or through public authority and the freedom of the individual to express religious belief, yes?

[c0rbin]

I personally think the law is stupid, and I fear that similar laws will be passed in other European countries within a few years. The problem is that none of the girls will take their head scarfs off, but will instead be taken out of public schools, and join private islamic schools instead. It will isolate them even more from the rest of the population, and will make integration a great deal more difficult.

Earlier someone (The Don?) asked me why I thought this law was bad. This point above sums up a negative nicely.

DD said:

The French law is no different from laws banning prayers in American schools.

It is. The school is not advocating a religion by forcing students to pray, it is restricting freedom to religion by banning personal displays of religion.

I think there is a middle ground that the French law makers are missing.

Danish, let me put it to you. Do you think there is a better way--within reason-- that a society can handle this sort of thing?

[sackett]

You say the French are being xenophobic again? Well of course they are! Where the hell do those damned arabes and juifs get off? Why can't they be Frenchmen and LOOK like Frenchmen!

You say the French are taking it out on children? Again, of course they are! You can't expect La France to try this stuff on with grownups; grownups can fight back, and that's not fair!

I'm really getting tired of all this francophobia. Can't you recognize superior people when you see them?

[DanishDynamite]

Andonyx :Not the same at all. If the school required a specific kind of religious dress, that would be the same as school-sponsored prayer. It does require a special kind of dress. A dress which doesn't include specific religious ornaments.
The kids can pray any time they want, just like individual students should be able to wear headscarves,I don't see the connection. See above.
You're anology is simply wrong. The difference is choice and freedom of the individual our law only restricts stae endorsement not practice. The French law prohibits personal practice of that religion.Complete bollocks. The students have a dress code. They can practice all the personal religion they want.
And I'm not silent on anything.

This is a bad law because:

1. It is unecssarily restrictive of right to personal freedom of religion and religious expression...This is your opinion. Apparently, it isn't the opinion of the French parliament. Or a majority of Muslims, as witnessed by a poll referenced upstream.
2. Without demonstrating a considerable benefit to the populace, in fact this may actually exacrebate religious tensions since kids are taught to ignor differences between each other or pretend they don't exist instead of learning to deal with them...No other reason is necessary aside from the clear distinction between religion and government institutions. Would you like to attempt a defence for allowing this mix?
3. It has not demonstrated any specific threat of harm, injury, or infringement of other liberties as a result of the action they are curtailing.What harm was there in the 10-Commandment statue? Please demonstrate.
In short there is no reason to pass this law other than people being freaked out over religious deifferences.In short, you are wrong, as has been shown.
Finally your stament that it is separating religion from governmental insitutions then applies to any government worker, anyone who works in a government owned building or facility, or is an independant government contractor. Should they be held to the same dress-code?Personally, I would say yes. The French law is quite limited, though.
The ten commandments monument was removed because a state judge had placed it there as part of a government edifice.You have yet to show which harm to the public this would entail.
You do understand there is a difference between the state's implicit support of religion through use of public resources or through public authority and the freedom of the individual to express religious belief, yes? I certainly do. Do you?

[DanishDynamite]

c0rbin:Earlier someone (The Don?) asked me why I thought this law was bad. This point above sums up a negative nicely.I don't have quite the same fear of this problem. The school is afterall only part of an individual's day. Television, newspapers, shopping, jobs, etc. means that even private pupils cannot excape the mores of the society they are in.
It is. The school is not advocating a religion by forcing students to pray, it is restricting freedom to religion by banning personal displays of religion.In what way is the banning of the display of the 10-Commandments different from this?
I think there is a middle ground that the French law makers are missing.Which is?
Danish, let me put it to you. Do you think there is a better way--within reason-- that a society can handle this sort of thing? There are certainly other ways. Restrict immigration. Require immigrants to learn the local language within a certain time period. Promote the hiring of adjusted and quailified immigrants. Etc, etc.

[DanishDynamite]

(Sorry Mendor, I've neglected to address your post)

Mendor:If the government agent is wearing their religion on their sleeve, then you could argue that that was the government pushing religion onto the pupils (although it might be a very tenuous argument). Pupils, however, should be allowed to express their religion in any way that does not harm anyone else's freedom; to do otherwise is an abridgement of religious freedom.Pupils should be allowed to pray, whenever the schedule allows. I see no reason they should be allowed to indirectly promote their religion by wearing (or not wearing) whatever their religion demands. See my religion of Butt-Nakededness.
If I ruled the world, your Butt-Naked sect would have the right to come in naked to school. If other people's sensibilities are offended, they can not look, or better, learn to ignore it. That's tolerance.Now we are getting somewhere.
I don't rule the world, of course, and I would think the Butt-Nakeders were rather silly (not to mention probably quite cold), but hey, it's their religion - and they're not abridging anyone else's freedoms by practising it.But just suppose they were. Suppose they went to school with some kids whose religion forbade them to see naked people, or to even be within the vicinity of naked people. How would that be handled?

[c0rbin]

In what way is the banning of the display of the 10-Commandments different from this?

Displaying the 10 commandments is an act by the state endorsing a religion versus restricting an individuals expression of their religion.

I understand that the French see it differently which is yet another reason France might be a cool place to visit, but not to raise (my) children.

I understand the slippery-slope arguments of naked people seeking religious freedom. But there are potential health risks (foot injuries, exposure in cooler climates)---I could understand why a school might ban the practice of self-crucifixion (like some folks in south asia) for the same reasons.

But a scarfe?

Lets be real here.

[DanishDynamite]

c0rbin:Displaying the 10 commandments is an act by the state endorsing a religion versus restricting an individuals expression of their religion.The 10-Commandment statue was a symbol for a religion placed in a government institution. The headscarves, yamulks, etc are likewise.
I understand that the French see it differently which is yet another reason France might be a cool place to visit, but not to raise (my) children.OK.
I understand the slippery-slope arguments of naked people seeking religious freedom. But there are potential health risks (foot injuries, exposure in cooler climates)---I could understand why a school might ban the practice of self-crucifixion (like some folks in south asia) for the same reasons.Health Risks?! You would suppress this expression of my religion on a spurious charge of Health Risks?! Has the risk of wearing a headscarf on hot summer days been investigated? Come on!

What happens if the parents of the Butt-Nakeders sign a release form removing any blame for the school if their children should have an above average case of sniffels?
But a scarfe?

Lets be real here. Yes, let's be real.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Andonyx :It does require a special kind of dress. A dress which doesn't include specific religious ornaments.

Yes, which as I asaid is the SAME as state sponsored prayed, which is ILLEGAL Here.

What do you not get or are you just not paying attention? State sponsored prayed is an infringement against the personal freedom to express religion. So is requiring a special outfit which bars any personal religiously significant accessories. You have actually just agreed with my entire point by saying this.

I don't see the connection. See above.

I did see above, you agreed with me.


Complete bollocks. The students have a dress code. They can practice all the personal religion they want.

Unless it involves the part of their religion that says a woman may not be bare of face or head in the presence of a man other than her husband, or the Part in which the Jews demonstrate part of their covenent with Abraham by keeping their heads always covered in the site of God. Apparently they can practice their religion all they want if they just forget about those parts, because the state in France gets to decide which parts they can practice and when.


This is your opinion. Apparently, it isn't the opinion of the French parliament. Or a majority of Muslims, as witnessed by a poll referenced upstream.

Yes it is my opinion. It is laso my opinion that it's a stupid law. I supported the logic I used to reach that opinion with the other two statements.
Which are that they have demonstarted no compelling public interest, and they have not demonstrated public benefit yet. They are passing it simply because they want to. That does not fly in an American interpreatation of rights.


No other reason is necessary aside from the clear distinction between religion and government institutions. Would you like to attempt a defence for allowing this mix?

I cannot defend a different idea of what rights a person carries constitutionally rgeradless of being in a state establishment. If you want me to do that then you want me to defend the American ideals of freedom from religious persecution, freedom from state sponsored religion, and freedom to express religious belief. If you do not believes these rights trump governmental authority, than our interpretations of government differ and I cannot speak to that.

In America another reason is certainly necessary because you do not restrict rights without good reason (at least you're not supposed to even though it happens sometimes.)

But at the beginning of this entire argument I stated that If I considered this the same way I would consider an American law, it does not hold, up which it doesn't


What harm was there in the 10-Commandment statue? Please demonstrate.

Because it was placed there by an official of the court as an ostensibly offical action which could be considered state sponsorship of a particular religion. When a child or adult wears a head scarf to a class or even a courroom hearin it is clear that it is that individuals choice, and not beacsue the government told them to. There is a difference. individuals are not property of the state. And as such they can make choices that do not reflect the opinion or the endorsement of the state in any way.

When a judge does it on federal courthouse grounds, that is another matter entirely.


In short, you are wrong, as has been shown.

You have shown nothing of the kind, Yoou have repeatedly failed to answer what benefit it provides for the students, or the citizens at all. Keeping church and state separate is one thing, but the church and state is already separated, Now they are separating church and individual citizens which is wrong.


Personally, I would say yes. The French law is quite limited, though.
You have yet to show which harm to the public this would entail.
I certainly do. Do you?

I don't understand what you mean by limited.

A to show what harm it would do, I already told you by our standards I don't have to show harm, I only have to demonstrate that is restrictive without a benefit commensurate with the level of restriction.

I believe it would be harful to social development for the children and harmful to religious relations, but I cannot prove that. That is my personal experience on the matter. But once again. I don't need to prove that. Someone needs to prove to me why the law is necessary at all.

[Andonyx]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DanishDynamite
[B]c0rbin:The 10-Commandment statue was a symbol for a religion placed in a government institution. The headscarves, yamulks, etc are likewise. [quote][B]

They are not placed their BY the state that is the key difference. Why are you so incapable of understanding this?

At least here freedom of religion means the government can't tell you what to believe or not believe as such they cannot openly sponsor religion by promoting one over another or actively forcing anyone to participate. Letting someone participate is entirely different and letting a student attend school in religious attire is not sponsorship, its respect of incividual rights.

[Andonyx]

And you also never answered the quesiton about working in a government office?

Or government jobs?

Would you then be banned from wearing scarves and religious attire there too?

What if you had on a head scarf but had to run into the post office for a moment. Must you take off your scarf to mail a letter or buy stamps?

It seems to me that your argument is that merely by letting people choose to dress in religious attire of their own accord in any government affiliated building constitutes stae sponsored religion. If that is so, then people should not be allowed to dress this way in any government building.

[Mendor]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Mendor:Pupils should be allowed to pray, whenever the schedule allows.We agree here.I see no reason they should be allowed to indirectly promote their religion by wearing (or not wearing) whatever their religion demands.1) Why not?
2) Is it really promotion? I walk past pupils wearing the headscarf every day, and I've not felt any compulsion to convert to Islam.
3) It shouldn't be about seeing no reason why they should be allowed. It should be about seeing a reason why they shouldn't be allowed - and I don't see one. (yet) But just suppose they were. Suppose they went to school with some kids whose religion forbade them to see naked people, or to even be within the vicinity of naked people. How would that be handled? I can't say I know. My gut feeling is that the two religions should try and handle their differences, and if they're irreconcilible, try private schools for the two religions. Then the state doesn't have to get involved, or abridge anyone's freedom of religion.

But we are in danger of getting bogged down in theoreticals here; there are no Butt-Nakeders, there are headscarves and yarmulkes. Do many people feel threatened or insulted by these items? And if they do, does it go beyond the stage where we can just say "deal with it"?

It's a thornier question than I thought, I acknowledge. But I still think this law is an intrusion on religious liberty - particularly in the case of religions where you are required to wear something specific (like Sikhism and turbans).

Can I convert to Butt-Nakedism, btw? Sounds quite liberating.

[Skeptic]

Suppose I invent a religion that requires members to always be butt-naked. Would members of my US chapter have any problems with the local cops? :)

To answer a tongue-in-cheek question seriously: walking around people would offend the community in obvious ways. Walking around with a shirt saying "DEATH TO THE JEWS!" (or blacks, or whatever) would do the same. Offering human sacrifice would do the same and would be murder to boot. Wearing a scarf or a Yarmulka would not.

There are three serious problems with this law.

1). First, it grossly violates the student's rights to free expression.

2). Second, it is draconian: it bans not obscure or extreme religious practices, but common ones.

3). Quite apart from (1) and (2), there is a BIG asymmetry between banning crosses and banning headscarves and yarmulkas. While the christian faith encourages, but certainly does not require wearing a cross as an expression of faith, judaism and Islam REQUIRE wearing a headscarf or a yarmulka. If they are banned in public schools, the result would be that religious jews and Muslims--and ONLY them, not christians--would simply not be able to attend, and would HAVE to go to private school.

In this sense, the apparently "equal" law severly discriminates against jews and Muslims. As Voltaire said in another context: "the law, in its magnificent equlity, forbids the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets, and stealing a loaf of bread."

[Skeptic]

D'OH!

In the post above, the first sentenced should say "walking around people NAKED would offend the community", not just "walking around people", of course (then again, I suppose that if you walking around actually manages to offend the community, you probably shouldn't be in school at any case).

[Soapy Sam]

I think we may be missing the point here. The French have a history of defending traditional French culture. The many objections from the Academie Francaise to the incorporation of English terms into French are a well known example.

This is another example of that traditionalism. It reflects an attitude which I believe is growing in most European countries- a fear of being swamped in an unarmed invasion of alien ways and attitudes. People (and sometimes governments) are trying to defend their turf.

Ultimately, I think they are wasting their time. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose Europe is post-colonial and must learn to live with it. Ultimately, large parts of Europe will become Muslim, or Sikh, or Mormon, with varying degrees of secularism. Then they will be something else - and after that, a third thing. In the long run, it matters not at all, so long as we educate people to understand the difference between belief and knowledge.

In it's heyday, let's remember, Islam was THE religion of science. Perhaps it will be again.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Suppose I invent a religion that requires members to always be butt-naked. Would members of my US chapter have any problems with the local cops? :)

To answer a tongue-in-cheek question seriously: walking around people would offend the community in obvious ways. Walking around with a shirt saying "DEATH TO THE JEWS!" (or blacks, or whatever) would do the same. Offering human sacrifice would do the same and would be murder to boot. Wearing a scarf or a Yarmulka would not.

There are three serious problems with this law.

1). First, it grossly violates the student's rights to free expression.

2). Second, it is draconian: it bans not obscure or extreme religious practices, but common ones.

3). Quite apart from (1) and (2), there is a BIG asymmetry between banning crosses and banning headscarves and yarmulkas. While the christian faith encourages, but certainly does not require wearing a cross as an expression of faith, judaism and Islam REQUIRE wearing a headscarf or a yarmulka. If they are banned in public schools, the result would be that religious jews and Muslims--and ONLY them, not christians--would simply not be able to attend, and would HAVE to go to private school.






Basically then that makes the matter one of exceptions and popularity contests. You have already stated that if a practice offends a community, it can ban the practice at whim, so long of course I presume that the banning does not cause serious, serious harm.



However at the same time you maintain that a practice cannot be banned by a community on whim, even one where it can be argued that it leads to harm.


First off, I doubt it grossly violates anything. People's religions may require things, but they have options and they are attending a public school, with public values.

Secondly, they can *heaven forbid* change their religions. So as to not have the Almighty require one to wear a paticular piece of clothing. Religion, is not like homosexuality or race, it can easily be changed, and I doubt removing or altering a dress code is that much of a change. The whole issue of the Muslim that wanted to wear cloth over her face for her photo ID comes to mind. I mean, isn't it a bit extreme when the Cosmic Creator can't understand the removal of a piece of clothing for part of the day? Wouldn't He honestly have more important things to consider?


Third, your standards don't simply seem to demand that the religious get freedoms but that they get extra freedoms. For example, according to you if certain clothings are required by religions: its ok. But if its not sanctioned by religion its fair game.

Simply put, I think the issue is being exagerated. This is hardly a "gross violation" of anything, even if it is a violation. These people can simply compromise a little, or go to a private school. If this was a secular case, I doubt anyone would be up in arms about a kid not allowed to wear a hockey mask, or something. Even if it was a minority religion I bet, like some Native America shamanist or New Age. Of course in this case its because "the community can set its own standards" though the exception should be noted in fine print "so long as it does not offend a major religion." Because of course they get special priveldges.



In summary, if this was a secular article of clothing, or something from an unpopular religion/ideology that was causing fights, nobody would have a problem banning it. But make it religious and its a sacred cow.

That is sadly, something I cannot agree with. Especially when advocates are trying to exagerate it as some sort of disasterous attack on, or "gross violation" of religious expression.

[c0rbin]

Well, excuuuuse me for forgetting to put the word "school-sponsored" before the word "prayers".

This is exactly the crux of the matter. "School sponsored" ie "State-Sponsored" is against our constitution.

The 10-Commandment statue was a symbol for a religion placed in a government institution. The headscarves, yamulks, etc are likewise.

Is there a smilie for scratching one's head in confusion? Are you saying that female childeren in Islamo-Fascist states are forced to wear them? This is not, I believe the case in France. What are you saying here?

Health Risks?! You would suppress this expression of my religion on a spurious charge of Health Risks?! Has the risk of wearing a headscarf on hot summer days been investigated? Come on!



Firstly, we are talking in the hypothetical here. Nudity hasn't been an aspect of any major religion. Secondly, if you want to be pedantic about my hypothetical scenario, in the US, school is in sesion during the winter. Here in Texas, that ain't so cold. But up in Minnisota, winters are deadly. You think it is healthy to walk to school naked in Minnisota in the winter? Conversely, what the hell are all those arabs doing wearing scarves on their heads amidst the dunes of their home lands?

This is your opinion. Apparently, it isn't the opinion of the French parliament. Or a majority of Muslims, as witnessed by a poll referenced upstream.


Welcome to what is known as a "forum." Here we share "opinions." It is my opinion that those muslims polled are a little nervous at all of the press they are getting and might be willing to sway toward moderation out of fear of dissenfranchisment rather than secular enlightenment.

Please, don't focus too long on thislast paragraph, it is merely conjecture and skepticism.

[Jon_in_london]

I like the way a French guy put it on TV last night.

"Perhaps instead of France becoming more muslim, the muslims should become more French".

If you said that in this country, you would be race-carded into resignation.

[epepke]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The French law is no different from laws banning prayers in American schools.

There are no laws banning prayers in American schools, and such laws would be unconstitutional.

There is a Supreme Court ruling against public school officials leading students in prayer.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I like the way a French guy put it on TV last night.

"Perhaps instead of France becoming more muslim, the muslims should become more French".

If you said that in this country, you would be race-carded into resignation.

Same here, but it seems like the PC nazis in your country are worse and have more power.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
c0rbin:The 10-Commandment statue was a symbol for a religion placed in a government institution. The headscarves, yamulks, etc are likewise.


Wow, DD. Even though you and I are almost always on opposite sides of issues, I have always respected you a great deal. But this one bowls me over. I can't believe you can't see the difference between a government institution directing a religious object being placed on its property and a government institution preventing an individual from wearing a religious object on their person. The first is the promotion of one religion over all others. The second is an oppression of religion.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The Lemon Test goes:

"
--First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;

--Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion;

--Finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion."

--Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/constitution_center/6167746.htm


The French law is arguable here. First it does serve a secular purpose; curbing violence.

Second, I don't see how this advances or harms the spread of any religious viewpoint. Unless one is somehow converted or deconverted upon seeing exuberant displays of dress.


Third, whether or not it causes excessive government entaglement of religion is questionable, I don't see how simply not allowing some extravagant clothing constitutes a huge entaglement with religion.

Note however these are our laws. French laws, to my understand, have an even stricter policy of Church State separation. The French policy it has been argued aims more for secularization of government, whereas the american aims more for religious neutrality in government.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
The Lemon Test goes:



http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/constitution_center/6167746.htm


The French law is arguable here. First it does serve a secular purpose; curbing violence.

Second, I don't see how this advances or harms the spread of any religious viewpoint. Unless one is somehow converted or deconverted upon seeing exuberant displays of dress.


Third, whether or not it causes excessive government entaglement of religion is questionable, I don't see how simply not allowing some extravagant clothing constitutes a huge entaglement with religion.

Note however these are our laws. French laws, to my understand, have an even stricter policy of Church State separation. The French policy it has been argued aims more for secularization of government, whereas the american aims more for religious neutrality in government.

How is what a person wears in any way a government entanglement with religion?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Luke T.


How is what a person wears in any way a government entanglement with religion?


It's not. But the banning does have secular merit, that would be the basis for it, according to our laws at least.

[epepke]

Are there any Europeans who think this is a dumb ruling?

So far, the score seems to be that the few Europeans here think it's just peachy, and the Americans don't. This is just an approximate measure, based on user info, so I apologize if I have mistaken an American for a European or vice versa.

[Mendor]

Originally posted by epepke
Are there any Europeans who think this is a dumb ruling? - me
- my French teacher (i.e. my teacher of French - she isn't French herself)
- the French assistant at my school (see my first post, though I can't be wholly sure where he stands on the issue, as he doesn't seem to like expressing opinions; he actually is French)
- most of my friends that I've talked to about it

[DialecticMaterialist]

I'm an American and I'm ok with this ruling. Personally I think a better policy would be to have harsher punishment on those who assault others, or harass others, as I am against most dress codes in general.

However the frequency of Europeans being ok with this as opposed to Americans does not surprise me. According to scientific american's later measure of modernity, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00054CD9-1A5C-1FA8-97F983414B7F0000&catID=2, most western and northern European nations are ahead of the US in terms of being rationalist/secular.

This may be imo, due a lot to Southern and Midwestern "Heartland" states.

[c0rbin]

I'm an American and I'm ok with this ruling. Personally I think a better policy would be to have harsher punishment on those who assault others, or harass others, as I am against most dress codes in general.


I think this is a middle ground that I was thinking about. A woman who wears a scarfe is not proselytizing, she is doing what she thinks is decent.

A school system can cater to that to a point...female doctors, alternative athletics. However, if an extremist refuses to take a class because of their religion, the school system will have to be rigid and recommend religion-based schools

Promoting tolerance by making examples of those who are violently intolerant is the method I would choose, not "circumcising" a segment of society with oppressive dress codes--the opposite extreme comes to mind in the form of arm bands with Stars of David on them.

[Luke T.]

I'm thinking about starting a religion in France that requires you to wear shoes just to see what happens.

"Shoes are banned in our school from now on."

[Luke T.]

Actually, most religions ban going naked in public. So why aren't clothes banned in these public institutions?

[Tony]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


However the frequency of Europeans being ok with this as opposed to Americans does not surprise me. According to scientific american's later measure of modernity, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00054CD9-1A5C-1FA8-97F983414B7F0000&catID=2, most western and northern European nations are ahead of the US in terms of being rationalist/secular.




This has nothing to do with being religious, it's about respecting individual freedom.

[crackmonkey]

Absolutely. I can't understand why anyone could see this as anything but tyrannical.
I wonder if those who support this law would be so supportive if the religious symbols were replaced with political ones?
Would you support a ban on any political or social symbols? No AIDS ribbons or the like?
This is oppression of individual rights if expression... I am baffled by the acceptance of this.

[epepke]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Absolutely. I can't understand why anyone could see this as anything but tyrannical.
I wonder if those who support this law would be so supportive if the religious symbols were replaced with political ones?
Would you support a ban on any political or social symbols? No AIDS ribbons or the like?
This is oppression of individual rights if expression... I am baffled by the acceptance of this.

Thanks, also Mendor and DialecticMaterialist. So perhaps it isn't a Europe versus US thing. Still and all, it makes me kind of glad of a written constitution.

I agree with you completely. It reminds me of the scene in The Lathe of Heaven where George Orr is asked to dream away racism, and he does it by making everyone the same shade of grey.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Absolutely. I can't understand why anyone could see this as anything but tyrannical.
I wonder if those who support this law would be so supportive if the religious symbols were replaced with political ones?
Would you support a ban on any political or social symbols? No AIDS ribbons or the like?
This is oppression of individual rights if expression... I am baffled by the acceptance of this.

This legislation also bans many political and social symbols as well, just so we're clear.

Decisions as to which such symbols qualify will be left to school administrators.

Perhaps someone who can read Le Monde can provide us with some direct quotes, but here's something from Jacob Levy (http://polisci.spc.uchicago.edu/~jtlevy/):

The proposed law is really quite repressive. One item that hasn't been much mentioned in the English-language press is that it also prohibits wearing any visible political symbol (buttons and badges and so on). One article I read about that proposal in Le Monde last week made quite clear how arbitrarily that will be enforced, with school administrators drawing their distinctions between what is and what isn't political. An AIDS ribbon? An anarchist's A button? A button in support of SOS-Racisme? One administrator said that that wouldn't be prohibited, because anti-racism, isn't a political value but a republican value. But the ban clearly isn't restricted to a bright-line rule against partisan affiliations, either. It is going to leave tremendous discretion in the hands of principals to ban what they dislike and allow what they like.Source (http://volokh.com/2003_12_14_volokh_archive.html#107169013649272834)

MattJ

[DanishDynamite]

Andonyx:Yes, which as I asaid is the SAME as state sponsored prayed, which is ILLEGAL Here.

What do you not get or are you just not paying attention? State sponsored prayed is an infringement against the personal freedom to express religion. So is requiring a special outfit which bars any personal religiously significant accessories. You have actually just agreed with my entire point by saying this.You're right, I wasn't paying attention. My bad.

However, just to be clear, are you claiming that requiring a school uniform is illegal in the US?
Unless it involves the part of their religion that says a woman may not be bare of face or head in the presence of a man other than her husband, or the Part in which the Jews demonstrate part of their covenent with Abraham by keeping their heads always covered in the site of God. Apparently they can practice their religion all they want if they just forget about those parts, because the state in France gets to decide which parts they can practice and when.They can practice their religion to their hearts content as long as it doesn't the violate the national school uniform law. Why is that a problem?
Yes it is my opinion. It is laso my opinion that it's a stupid law. I supported the logic I used to reach that opinion with the other two statements.
Which are that they have demonstarted no compelling public interest, and they have not demonstrated public benefit yet. They are passing it simply because they want to. That does not fly in an American interpreatation of rights.Give me a break! please explain the compelling public interest/benefit which the "no nudity" laws enforce.
I cannot defend a different idea of what rights a person carries constitutionally rgeradless of being in a state establishment. If you want me to do that then you want me to defend the American ideals of freedom from religious persecution, freedom from state sponsored religion, and freedom to express religious belief. If you do not believes these rights trump governmental authority, than our interpretations of government differ and I cannot speak to that.Is a school dress code implicitly illegal? Is a school dress code of "no bare midsection" or "skirts hem not above the crotch" or similar dress codes an infraction of constitutional rights? If so, why are these codes being practiced? If not, why is a ban on head coverings any different?
In America another reason is certainly necessary because you do not restrict rights without good reason (at least you're not supposed to even though it happens sometimes.)And who decides what reason is good enough?
But at the beginning of this entire argument I stated that If I considered this the same way I would consider an American law, it does not hold, up which it doesn'tI don't see why it doesn't.
Because it was placed there by an official of the court as an ostensibly offical action which could be considered state sponsorship of a particular religion. When a child or adult wears a head scarf to a class or even a courroom hearin it is clear that it is that individuals choice, and not beacsue the government told them to. There is a difference. individuals are not property of the state. And as such they can make choices that do not reflect the opinion or the endorsement of the state in any way.I concede the 10-Commandments statue was a bad analogy. I was in a...uh...feisty state of mind. That statue was a hilarious abomination.
You have shown nothing of the kind, Yoou have repeatedly failed to answer what benefit it provides for the students, or the citizens at all. Keeping church and state separate is one thing, but the church and state is already separated, Now they are separating church and individual citizens which is wrong.As I said before, it serves to divide religious observance and governmental institutions. The law is non-discriminatory as any explicit religious parafenelia, no matter its religious background, is treated equally.
I don't understand what you mean by limited.It is limited as it only applies to schools.
A to show what harm it would do, I already told you by our standards I don't have to show harm, I only have to demonstrate that is restrictive without a benefit commensurate with the level of restriction.If this is the case, then I'll drag in the 10-Commandment statue again. Please show which harm this statue had. Or, if you prefer, please show which great benefit its absense would give.
I believe it would be harful to social development for the children and harmful to religious relations, but I cannot prove that. That is my personal experience on the matter. But once again. I don't need to prove that. Someone needs to prove to me why the law is necessary at all. See the case of the Butt-Nakeders vs. the People.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I'm thinking about starting a religion in France that requires you to wear shoes just to see what happens.

"Shoes are banned in our school from now on."

Or a religion that is really into urine. But France would just declare a fascination with urine a Republican Value™.

[DanishDynamite]

DanishDynamite: The 10-Commandment statue was a symbol for a religion placed in a government institution. The headscarves, yamulks, etc are likewise.

Andonyx: They are not placed their BY the state that is the key difference. Why are you so incapable of understanding this?I've already conceded that this analogy was faulty.
At least here freedom of religion means the government can't tell you what to believe or not believe as such they cannot openly sponsor religion by promoting one over another or actively forcing anyone to participate. Letting someone participate is entirely different and letting a student attend school in religious attire is not sponsorship, its respect of incividual rights. And would this freedom of choice for attire cover my Butt-Nakederes? If not, why not?

[DanishDynamite]

Andonyx:And you also never answered the quesiton about working in a government office?

Or government jobs?

Would you then be banned from wearing scarves and religious attire there too?Sorry if I missed a question. Not sure I understand the question, though. The French law we are discussing concerns schools.
What if you had on a head scarf but had to run into the post office for a moment. Must you take off your scarf to mail a letter or buy stamps?No. The law doesn't concern Post-Offices.
It seems to me that your argument is that merely by letting people choose to dress in religious attire of their own accord in any government affiliated building constitutes stae sponsored religion. If that is so, then people should not be allowed to dress this way in any government building. We are into hypotheticals here, but yes, if an institution has a dress-code, then you must follow it.

[DanishDynamite]

Mendor:1) Why not?
2) Is it really promotion? I walk past pupils wearing the headscarf every day, and I've not felt any compulsion to convert to Islam.
3) It shouldn't be about seeing no reason why they should be allowed. It should be about seeing a reason why they shouldn't be allowed - and I don't see one. (yet)The reason it should be banned is that everyone would be equal. This has TMK always been one of the main reasons for school uniform rules.
I can't say I know. My gut feeling is that the two religions should try and handle their differences, and if they're irreconcilible, try private schools for the two religions. Then the state doesn't have to get involved, or abridge anyone's freedom of religion.That doesn't really address my question.
But we are in danger of getting bogged down in theoreticals here; there are no Butt-Nakeders, there are headscarves and yarmulkes. Do many people feel threatened or insulted by these items? And if they do, does it go beyond the stage where we can just say "deal with it"?We have a saying here in Denmark (which probably has an equivalent in English): "Equal children play together best".
It's a thornier question than I thought, I acknowledge. But I still think this law is an intrusion on religious liberty - particularly in the case of religions where you are required to wear something specific (like Sikhism and turbans).It is only an intrusion if your particular religion requires you to break the school uniform code. Such is life. My Butt-Nakederes are likewise greatly harrased by the authorities.
Can I convert to Butt-Nakedism, btw? Sounds quite liberating. Certainly you can. Should I PM you our Articles of Faith? :)

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Andonyx:Sorry if I missed a question. Not sure I understand the question, though. The French law we are discussing concerns schools.
No. The law doesn't concern Post-Offices.
We are into hypotheticals here, but yes, if an institution has a dress-code, then you must follow it.

Okay I'll work backwards.

You originally said the benefit of this law was simply the separation of church and state, and that was enough to justify it in your mind.

If that's the case, then any state agency of office must also follow this rule, after all if it works for a public school in that interest it should also work for the post office, the state museums, election halls, etc.

If there's a specific reason that it can apply to schools but not other government run agencies, then so far I do not believe you have stated that reason or made it clear.

Post to follow for your previous post.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic: To answer a tongue-in-cheek question seriously: walking around people would offend the community in obvious ways. Walking around with a shirt saying "DEATH TO THE JEWS!" (or blacks, or whatever) would do the same. Offering human sacrifice would do the same and would be murder to boot. Wearing a scarf or a Yarmulka would not. Please explain why walking around naked would be harmful to the community. Or why wearing a "DEATH TO THE JEWS" t-shirt would be harmful.
There are three serious problems with this law.

1). First, it grossly violates the student's rights to free expression.It is a school dress-code. Are these illegal?
2). Second, it is draconian: it bans not obscure or extreme religious practices, but common ones.Not understood.
3). Quite apart from (1) and (2), there is a BIG asymmetry between banning crosses and banning headscarves and yarmulkas. While the christian faith encourages, but certainly does not require wearing a cross as an expression of faith, judaism and Islam REQUIRE wearing a headscarf or a yarmulka. If they are banned in public schools, the result would be that religious jews and Muslims--and ONLY them, not christians--would simply not be able to attend, and would HAVE to go to private school. Complete bollocks. Jews are not required to wear the Yarmulka at all times. And Muslim women aren't required to wear head scarves.
In this sense, the apparently "equal" law severly discriminates against jews and Muslims. As Voltaire said in another context: "the law, in its magnificent equlity, forbids the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets, and stealing a loaf of bread." As I said before, there is no discrimination as everyone must abide by the same dress-code. This, unfortunately, includes my Butt-Nakeders.

[DanishDynamite]

c0rbin:This is exactly the crux of the matter. "School sponsored" ie "State-Sponsored" is against our constitution.OK
Is there a smilie for scratching one's head in confusion? Are you saying that female childeren in Islamo-Fascist states are forced to wear them? This is not, I believe the case in France. What are you saying here?I presented a flawed analogy. :)
Firstly, we are talking in the hypothetical here. Nudity hasn't been an aspect of any major religion. And yet this expression of basic freedom is generally banned. How is this possible?
Secondly, if you want to be pedantic about my hypothetical scenario, in the US, school is in sesion during the winter. Here in Texas, that ain't so cold. But up in Minnisota, winters are deadly. You think it is healthy to walk to school naked in Minnisota in the winter? Conversely, what the hell are all those arabs doing wearing scarves on their heads amidst the dunes of their home lands?Are you saying there are laws against acting unwisely?
Welcome to what is known as a "forum." Here we share "opinions." It is my opinion that those muslims polled are a little nervous at all of the press they are getting and might be willing to sway toward moderation out of fear of dissenfranchisment rather than secular enlightenment.I'm very interested in your opinion. I'm more interested in your opinion if you can back it up.
Please, don't focus too long on thislast paragraph, it is merely conjecture and skepticism. :D

[DanishDynamite]

epepke:There are no laws banning prayers in American schools, and such laws would be unconstitutional.

There is a Supreme Court ruling against public school officials leading students in prayer. True. What are the rules regarding school dress codes? How has this infringement of personal rights been justified?

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T. Wow, DD. Even though you and I are almost always on opposite sides of issues, I have always respected you a great deal. The feeling is mutual, Luke.
But this one bowls me over. I can't believe you can't see the difference between a government institution directing a religious object being placed on its property and a government institution preventing an individual from wearing a religious object on their person. The first is the promotion of one religion over all others. The second is an oppression of religion. You are right. This particular analogy was crap.

[epepke]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
And who decides what reason is good enough?

Well, ya know, that's why I asked the question about Europeans versus Americans. In the US, while not perfect, there are reasonably clear guidelines about when and where you can restrict certain things. Individual rights, including religious rights, are a given, and one has to show a compelling state interest for infringing upon those rights. Even then, the infringement is supposed to be kept to a necessary minimum.

Who decides is answered as the judicial branch of the government, and there's a fairly clear line up to the Supreme Court. This isn't a perfect answer. Far from it, as some judges are elected, and some are appointed by the Executive Branch. However, it it an answer of sorts, and it usually works reasonably well. There are stages of escalation, and the deliberations have to be made public. So there is a procedure, and at the very least, there's a public hearing on issues like this.

It isn't arbitrary or at whim, which is what a "who decides" comment makes me think of.

Which again is why I asked about Europeans and Americans. I'm fairly well versed in American, English, and French law, and they all have their interesting properties. However, I don't have a sense of grokkage of European law in general, except that it seems to me that English and American law are more similar than either is to French law.

[DanishDynamite]

Andonyx:Okay I'll work backwards.

You originally said the benefit of this law was simply the separation of church and state, and that was enough to justify it in your mind.

If that's the case, then any state agency of office must also follow this rule, after all if it works for a public school in that interest it should also work for the post office, the state museums, election halls, etc.

If there's a specific reason that it can apply to schools but not other government run agencies, then so far I do not believe you have stated that reason or made it clear.

Post to follow for your previous post. Again, we are discussing hypotheticals.

Most governments, including the US government, have certain minimum requirements when people apply for a service or a contract. You must fill out a particular form, you must wait your turn, etc, etc. Is there some reason they shouldn't have minimum requirements in regard to your attire?

[epepke]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
epepke:True. What are the rules regarding school dress codes? How has this infringement of personal rights been justified?

As far as I know, there have been none against head coverings. When I was growing up, there were essentially no school dress codes. I'd guess that the existing dress codes vary in their justification from place to place, so it would be too big a question to answer. In the US, school matters are largely local to the school district, which is generally much smaller than a county.

Only a small number of public schools require school uniforms. I don't think there are any challenges to these currently. You have to understand that any citizen or group of citizens can do a civil challenge against just about anything. There are organizations such as the ACLU that provide free legal support for such actions. The actions go up on a hierarchy that eventually leads to the Supreme Court.

On the negative side, that's why you see so many ridiculous lawsuits in the US. On the positive side, it provides a way for the citizenry to challenge just about anything.

[DanishDynamite]

epepke:
Well, ya know, that's why I asked the question about Europeans versus Americans. In the US, while not perfect, there are reasonably clear guidelines about when and where you can restrict certain things. Individual rights, including religious rights, are a given, and one has to show a compelling state interest for infringing upon those rights. Even then, the infringement is supposed to be kept to a necessary minimum.

Who decides is answered as the judicial branch of the government, and there's a fairly clear line up to the Supreme Court. This isn't a perfect answer. Far from it, as some judges are elected, and some are appointed by the Executive Branch. However, it it an answer of sorts, and it usually works reasonably well. There are stages of escalation, and the deliberations have to be made public. So there is a procedure, and at the very least, there's a public hearing on issues like this.

It isn't arbitrary or at whim, which is what a "who decides" comment makes me think of.

Which again is why I asked about Europeans and Americans. I'm fairly well versed in American, English, and French law, and they all have their interesting properties. However, I don't have a sense of grokkage of European law in general, except that it seems to me that English and American law are more similar than either is to French law. Thanks, epepke. I have to admit, though, that I'm not sure I'm much wiser in regard to my question.

Perhaps you could answer another question: "Where is it stated that any law which appears to infringe on personal freedoms must first be shoen to be of public interest/benefit before it can be passed?

[Mendor]

DD:

I will try to better answer your question.Suppose they went to school with some kids whose religion forbade them to see naked people, or to even be within the vicinity of naked people. How would that be handled? Let's suppose there are two worlds.

1) France's world. The Butt-Nakeders are forced to cover up. The Anti-Nakeders are appeased, but the Butt-Nakeders are offended, and go off in their droves to private schools.

2) Mendor's world. The Butt-Nakeders are allowed to come to school, well, butt-naked. The Butt-Nakeders are appeased, but the Anti-Nakeders are offended, and go off in their droves to private schools.

In both worlds, sadly, somebody is offended and somebody ends up in private school. However, in my world, the State is saying nothing about the observance or displayal of religion, or oppressing someone's religious liberties. Because I do see it as oppressive if the State says that someone can't follow the tenets of their religion in schools, assuming that that religion doesn't cause actual harm to others. If offence is caused, well, that's life. The offended people will have to live with it. Seeing as they would have to live with it outside of school anyway, where this law wouldn't apply, I don't see a problem.

---

WRT the rest of your post: What exactly do you mean when you refer to "equality" in this context?

And you have to have articles of faith? I thought all you had to do to convert to Butt-Nakedism was let it all hang out, so to speak.

On second thoughts, Scotland's bloody cold... (yet we invented the kilt, the only garment specifically designed to ferry cold air somewhere where cold air should not go)

hmm... wonder what would happen if I wore a kilt to school?

[DanishDynamite]

epepke:As far as I know, there have been none against head coverings. When I was growing up, there were essentially no school dress codes. I'd guess that the existing dress codes vary in their justification from place to place, so it would be too big a question to answer. In the US, school matters are largely local to the school district, which is generally much smaller than a county.

Only a small number of public schools require school uniforms. I don't think there are any challenges to these currently. You have to understand that any citizen or group of citizens can do a civil challenge against just about anything. There are organizations such as the ACLU that provide free legal support for such actions. The actions go up on a hierarchy that eventually leads to the Supreme Court.

On the negative side, that's why you see so many ridiculous lawsuits in the US. On the positive side, it provides a way for the citizenry to challenge just about anything. Once again, thank you for the interesting info.

Still, my question remains unanswered. Why isn't it an infringement of rights for public institutions, such as schools, to require certain types of attire?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Andonyx:You're right, I wasn't paying attention. My bad.

However, just to be clear, are you claiming that requiring a school uniform is illegal in the US?

I've never seen it when I was growing up, but I am aware that it had become more common recently even in some public schools in order to stem violent trends and reduce instances of gang colors in some schools. Interestingly enough if you go to CNN today there is an article about the dress codes with regards to this very topis that appeared last night. It appears it is far more widespread than I thought.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/12/17/religious.garb.ap/index.html


They can practice their religion to their hearts content as long as it doesn't the violate the national school uniform law. Why is that a problem?

I think this may be a cultural difference between US and Europe, although I don't know what your story is, if you are or were a US citizen and are temproarily relocated, or what, so maybe i'm wrong...(I'm just saying nothing in your writing style or word choice would tip me off to you being anything other than American were you not called DD and had location listed as Denmark.)

Here religious freedom and separation of church and state are closely and inextricably linked. Now other Americans please correct me. But I believe, the separation of Church and state was adopted as a measure just as much to keep people to practice religion in any manner they see fit, as it was to prevent religious leadership from influencing social and political policy, or from disenfranchising minorities.

The country was somewhat founded by religious pilgrims seeking freedom to express and practice their religion, and although that was a far cry from the first draft of the constitution many fo those ideas and fears stuck.

So as such the American attitude is that we are free to practice and express any religious and political belief as long as we want. Of course there are practical limitations as you have suggested but those limitations are defined by what infringes on another individuals's rights and freedoms to express themselves without fear of intimidation or retribution.

"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins," that sort fo thing.

Especially of consideration to this is the government. The government being of course more able to excersize power and intimidation than individuals is especially proscribed from using its influence or power to favor any religion or belief system over any other.

So you ask what's wrong with the policy as long as all religions are treated equally, and I say it intereferes with our right to express our own religious beliefs, WITHOUT demonstarting that this kind of expression or practice substatially infringes on the rights or freedoms of others. That's why I use the chicken slaughtering or human sacrifice analogy. That particular form of practice I think quite obviously DOES infringe on others individual liberties. I have yet to see why wearing a head scarf of yarmulkah does.

And by the same token as long as the government allows any similar form of religious dress that does not either infringe on rights of others or interfere with the purpose of the institution, in this case educaiton, then the government is not endorsing any one religion over another, or even over ateheism, and at the same time it is not restricting freedom of worship and religious expression.

I hope that's a more coherent explanation than yesterday.


Give me a break! please explain the compelling public interest/benefit which the "no nudity" laws enforce.

I'm not sure there is one, and frankly I don't care if someone does run around nude, althought I understand many people do...but see more below how the laws get reviewed.


Is a school dress code implicitly illegal? Is a school dress code of "no bare midsection" or "skirts hem not above the crotch" or similar dress codes an infraction of constitutional rights? If so, why are these codes being practiced? If not, why is a ban on head coverings any different?

Again, where to draw the line in those cases is a difficult question. I hate dress codes in general, and I would most likely have flaunted one at my school if it existed, valiantly, even though in real life, I dress quite conservatively and non-descript. People are always going to act in abuse and stupidity of any freedom, but I personally resent having it taken away form me because someone else acts like a jerk.


And who decides what reason is good enough?

Here we get to the heart of the matter. When something like a dress code is enforced from a state or federal level, it may or may not have yet passed a test of the standards of constitutionality. This is kind of a cool self correcting mechnism of our legislation. if enough people complain, or write letters or seek court review of a law, it can get struck down by the judicial branch for violating any of the conditions of constitutionality. However, even if it unconstitutional, if everyone in the affected area has no problem with it, it will stand until times and attitudes change. So if they passed this law in say heavily mormon Utah, maybe people would just not give a crap, and it would sit on the books for a while.

In NYC, it might face a court challenge and that's where the utlimate decision is made. The same thing happens with the nudity statue, which I assume not enough people or not loud enough people really want to stroll around nude. Personally I don't care.


As I said before, it serves to divide religious observance and governmental institutions. The law is non-discriminatory as any explicit religious parafenelia, no matter its religious background, is treated equally.

But we already have that division. The school itself and none of it's staff can while acting in any official capacity lead, participate in or endorse any religion or lack thereof. Boom! If that restriction is abided by then we have all the separation we need, AND at the same time people are free to observe their religious doctrines as they see fit.

What I resent is that this law is a type of discrimination in that it curbs unecessarily a type of speech. In this case religious. I also disagree with dress codes that prevent certain colors from being worn, or certain styles of coat (remember columbine?). Moving to a single uniform which is somewhat unusual in public schools makes some sort of economic and adminstrative sense, but that's not about curbing speech, it's about eliminating hassles. This particular measure does not prescribe a uniform, but in fact simply limits religious expression. It's a type of speech the school has decided they don't like and has so limited it.

If the true purpose is to separate church and state, well as I said, here it would be redundant, and as such would be an unresonable restriction of religious freedom.

In the specific case of France, they claimed it was to reduce religious tension. I personally do not see that being a reasonable outcome of this process either, but then I am not French and am not qualified ot make a judgement on their culture.



If this is the case, then I'll drag in the 10-Commandment statue again. Please show which harm this statue had. Or, if you prefer, please show which great benefit its absense would give.
See the case of the Butt-Nakeders vs. the People.

You just stated this was a poor analogy, and yet you dragged it out again, Explain that logic to me?

The harm in it stemmed form the fact that it was placed there by a state judge presiding over a state court. In so doing the judge made two things implicitly clear. He believes that religion has some connection to the courts, and if you are not of that same religion you are instantly at a disadvantage in his court.

That second point may not be 100% clear but logically speaking if he believes Judeo Christian tradition has some basis in the law of the land, then if you do not subscribe to Judeo Christian tradition you are automatically at odds with the beliefs of the court and the laws, and have that onus to deal with before even the facts of any proceedins are dealt with.

That is exactly what government endorsement of religion is meant to eliminate.

In the case of children wearing religious garb to school. It is never implied that the children's dress reflects the school's position at all. And as long as all religious dress is allowed equally, there is no preference demonstrated. In addition your treatement, and fate in the system of the public school is not in the hands of the students wearing headscarves, it is in the hads of the staff and faculty, as opposed ot being at the mercy of a judge who has placed a symbol of a different religion on his doorstep.

I and like five other posters have tried to explain this to you several times. You even said it's a bad analogy yourself. If you simply are incapable of understanding why this is a poor analogy, then I can't help you anymore. But it is a different circumstance, and it is treated differently under the laws of the US.

[CapelDodger]

from Danish Dynamite:
Suppose I invent a religion that requires members to always be butt-naked. Would members of my US chapter have any problems with the local cops?
The actual religions involved here are well-established, with significant histories, traditions and congregations (sad, but there it is).

from The Don:
In a poll a little over 50% of muslims said they supported the idea
From what I've read on this subject, opinion is polarised by age to a marked extent. The young women choosing the veil are mostly daughters of women who've never gone veiled. It's become the choice of a French-born generation or two that have grown up in a world very different from their parents'. Older Moslems are generally opposed, since their ambition has tended to be the assimilation that the younger generation has given up on. The important point is the effect that this is going to have on an already disenchanted Muslim younger generation. I can't see it being a positive one, from a peace and love point of view. A great deal more could be done by addressing discrimination and unemployment.

from Adonyx:
Sounds good, why don't we then abolish the practice of religion because people fight about it?
Excellent question. The problems are caused by this shilly-shallying and half-measures. We're not even having a proper War on Islam, despite the accusations. Ban religious indoctrination of the next generation and the human race can move on. There'll be some kicking and scratching for a while but we'll have to steel ourselves to that. Omelettes, eggs, yadda-yadda. (This is not entirely motivated by my eagerness to see the CruiseCam shots of the Great Mosque looming up. Not entirely.) People are free to be idiots, and one measure of idiocy is getting yourself stepped on for the sake of an imaginary friend.
Here's a tip for you, Frenchy, spend some time in that school teaching people that violence and hurtful behavior is a poor way to resolve differences between people instead of trying to hide or eliminate those differences. How does that sound?
Sounds great, but concurrently with the previous.

from plindboe:

I personally think the law is stupid, and I fear that similar laws will be passed in other European countries within a few years
The French situation is very particular. French democracy and republicanism long been consciously secular, since the Catholic Church has always been an active supporter of monarchy and reaction. This dates back to before the French Revolution, and the same ideas are reflected in the US Constitution. Most other European nations treat these matters less seriously.

It is a stupid law, though - and hasn't yet been passed yet, as far as I know. Chirac was reported today as calling on parliament to pass the bill.

from Jon_in_london (greetings to london):
f you said that in this country, you would be race-carded into resignation.
Some junior minister just did, as I recall. He basically told a gathering of Muslims that they should be more outspoken in praise of British qualities like, oh, tact and sensibility and not blowing things up. He's still got his job.

[DanishDynamite]

Mendor:I will try to better answer your question. Let's suppose there are two worlds.

1) France's world. The Butt-Nakeders are forced to cover up. The Anti-Nakeders are appeased, but the Butt-Nakeders are offended, and go off in their droves to private schools.

2) Mendor's world. The Butt-Nakeders are allowed to come to school, well, butt-naked. The Butt-Nakeders are appeased, but the Anti-Nakeders are offended, and go off in their droves to private schools.

In both worlds, sadly, somebody is offended and somebody ends up in private school. However, in my world, the State is saying nothing about the observance or displayal of religion, or oppressing someone's religious liberties. Because I do see it as oppressive if the State says that someone can't follow the tenets of their religion in schools, assuming that that religion doesn't cause actual harm to others. If offence is caused, well, that's life. The offended people will have to live with it. Seeing as they would have to live with it outside of school anyway, where this law wouldn't apply, I don't see a problem.Damn! I hate to admit it, but I sort of agree with you.

The problem with this Mendor World, I suspect, is that it is too idealistic. It doesn't cover the nitty-gritty of the consequences.
WRT the rest of your post: What exactly do you mean when you refer to "equality" in this context?Equal as in not being ostrazied for being different.
And you have to have articles of faith? I thought all you had to do to convert to Butt-Nakedism was let it all hang out, so to speak.:)
On second thoughts, Scotland's bloody cold... (yet we invented the kilt, the only garment specifically designed to ferry cold air somewhere where cold air should not go)

hmm... wonder what would happen if I wore a kilt to school? epepke, I have just declared you an Honorary Butt-Nakeder. "Neither sleet nor snow shall hinder you from the fullfillment of your obligation". :)

[DanishDynamite]

Yikes!

Two very long replies to address. Gentlemen, please allow me a little time to check out the rest of the forum. Your posts will be addressed, I promise.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite


Perhaps you could answer another question: "Where is it stated that any law which appears to infringe on personal freedoms must first be shoen to be of public interest/benefit before it can be passed?

I'll jump in here, as I tried (badly) to explain above...

this may be a US-centric point of view, but here individual liberties come first and BEFORE the rights of any government.

Of course there ARE limits, as you have noted before.

The first level of those limits is where your rights overlap with someone else's right. Like I said about the punching and the nose before.

The next level, and this is tricker, is when a legislative body (state or local) can demonstrate with reasonable logic or evidence that the measure is necessary to the continuing well being or protection of the community.

And even then, the law can be challenged and eventually removed or re-written if enough people disagree with it.

I think this may ultimately be a cultural thing here. The turht is except in times of war, depression, or struggle, We aks not what we can do for our country but what our country can do for us.

And I don't even mean that in a bad way. I mean that in a very real and sensible way. We are "endowed by our creator (interpret that as you will) with inalienable rights" according to the constitution, and among those are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness.

If the state or federal government wants to prevent us form doing something, even something that just makes us happy, they better have a darn good reason for doing so.

And as much as I bash our politicians, more often than not, they do have a good reason.

In this case (CNN Article, not France) I'm not sure they do, or at least they haven't made it abundantly clear.

[epepke]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
epepke:Thanks, epepke. I have to admit, though, that I'm not sure I'm much wiser in regard to my question.

Perhaps you could answer another question: "Where is it stated that any law which appears to infringe on personal freedoms must first be shoen to be of public interest/benefit before it can be passed?

It isn't explicitly stated, but it's the traditional interpretation of Amendment X. American law relies heavily on precedent.

[epepke]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
epepke:Once again, thank you for the interesting info.

Still, my question remains unanswered. Why isn't it an infringement of rights for public institutions, such as schools, to require certain types of attire?

It is an infringement.

I'll try to explain, as the American system is very different from the Parliamentary sytem. Maybe this relates to your other question as well.

There are three branches of government: the legislative, the judiciary, and the executive. The branches are supposed to be independent. This does not always work out as planned. But at least in theory, they are to form a system of checks and balances. At times, the legislative branch seems to be merely a puppet for the executive branch. However, despite flaws, the judicial branch has remained pretty separate.

In theory, the legislative branch can pass any laws they like. However, the judicial branch can also declare laws unconstitutional. This requires action on the part of citizens.

Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, the rules apply to states as well as to the Federal government. This includes school districts.

Again, in theory, any school district could impose any dress codes or whatever that they desire. However, when they are imposed, any citizen or group of citizens can challenge them through the judiciary. The judiciary branch has the power to overturn or nullify any law or rule or portions thereof.

The upshot of this is that all laws and rules are tentative, subject to evaluation by the judiciary. Upon passage, they can be vetoed by the executive branch, and the veto can be overturned by a two-thirds vote. But any law can always be challenge later by a suit by any citizen, which will be decided by the judiciary.

I hope this makes it clearer.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Andonyx
this may be a US-centric point of view, but here individual liberties come first and BEFORE the rights of any government.


It's an English Common Law view, from which the US draws its legal history. The people give powers to the government.

The French (and most of mainland Europe) draw from the Napoleonic Code. The government gives rights to the people.

[The Don]

It's not unknown in the UK for state schools to still have a very strictly enforced dress code/uniform.

I agree that it's an infringement of an individual's right to wear whatever they want (or are dictated to wear by their religion). From reading this board and considering the time I've spent in the U.S., as societies the Europeans seem to guard their individual rights less jealously in exchange for the "common good" than people in the U.S..

I think that the objectives of the move (to make individual students less of a target) are both laudable and sad. Laudable because at least by enabling people from different religions to share a school they may in time come to understand each other. Sad because this is clearly not the case at the current time.

Not subscribing to a religion, I find it difficult to understand how you'll go to hell for failing to wear a scarf or for eating some bacon or whatever. I suppose it's something to do with surrendering your free will to a greater power (like perhaps a school board ?)

[epepke]

Originally posted by The Don
It's not unknown in the UK for state schools to still have a very strictly enforced dress code/uniform.

Yes, it's much more common than in the US. I don't know that it's necessarily the result of a greater propensity to sacrifice individual liberties. Rather, it seems cultural. The uniform in "public schools" (which in the US would probably be called "prep schools"), the "old school tie," the insistence until very recently of gowns and mortarboards at university point to a greater role of academic costumery in the UK. So it was only natural when producting state schools (which would be called "public schools" in the US) to follow the culture.

Not subscribing to a religion, I find it difficult to understand how you'll go to hell for failing to wear a scarf or for eating some bacon or whatever. I suppose it's something to do with surrendering your free will to a greater power (like perhaps a school board ?)

Well, I had a pub sausage at the Princess Louise in High Holborn, and it almost made me believe that stuff about pork and Satan. There's a reason that they're called "bangers."

[c0rbin]

That statue was a hilarious abomination.


Agreed. It chaps my hide to hear about cases like this--purely political in my mind.



The reason it should be banned is that everyone would be equal.


Chaps my hide as well, could be the anti-commie gene we Americans are born with :)



We have a saying here in Denmark (which probably has an equivalent in English): "Equal children play together best".


I can't think of an American equivilant--maybe "Birds of a feather flock together." I don't think it is exactly the same, though because "equal childeren..." seems imposed while "Birds of..." seems like a natural consequence of similar traits. I do know that, to the disdain of some of the US posters in this forum, there is a philosphy that suggests one embrace diversity to allow the widest horizon. In the corporate world (which feeds me), the value diversity is thought to bring to the table is different perspective, approaches, ideas, etc to solve a problem or complete a task. When those cultural expressions are suppressed, you lose that diverse insight.

I agree. I feel lucky to live in Houston, Texas, a sprawling town with huge segments of not only hispanic/latino, but Asian and African as well. My 3 year old's Montessouri school has these folks represented and I see it is a part of his education. I would be very disappointed if he were denied exposure to those cultural nuances.


Are you saying there are laws against acting unwisely?


Yes there are. We have speed limits. We have drunk-driving laws. Though I think this might be a bit of a sidestep from the thread.


Where is it stated that any law which appears to infringe on personal freedoms must first be shoen to be of public interest/benefit before it can be passed?


Anyone can challenge or test a law in the US. If you can show it to be unconstitutional. I am not sure where this is implicitly stated, but there is a process called trial, there is direct representation, referrendum. I mean we do all have guns, we could just march on washington and force change, right?


Why isn't it an infringement of rights for public institutions, such as schools, to require certain types of attire?


I think common sense can be applied here. A school uniform can help an administrator identify students if they went on a field trip in town, I am sure there are other practical benefits to having a student body in uniform. One is always free (in the US) to wave these personal freedoms (for their childeren who are, after all minors and still subject to their parents) by sending them to a private institutions. This is my background. I attended private schools before going on to universty. I found comfort in not worrying about what I was going to wear. Certainly a head scarf would have been acceptible in my school.

Public schools are probably a little different. Mostly I have heard "no shorts" or "you must tuck in your shirt." Someone else will need to address the public school expirience.

[DanishDynamite]

Andonyx:I think this may be a cultural difference between US and Europe, although I don't know what your story is, if you are or were a US citizen and are temproarily relocated, or what, so maybe i'm wrong...(I'm just saying nothing in your writing style or word choice would tip me off to you being anything other than American were you not called DD and had location listed as Denmark.)Thank you for the implied complement, but I can assure you that I'm 100% Danish, at least as far back as the 1500's on my mother's side. I just happen to have spent 10 years of my youth in an International School where the language of instruction was English.
Here religious freedom and separation of church and state are closely and inextricably linked. Now other Americans please correct me. But I believe, the separation of Church and state was adopted as a measure just as much to keep people to practice religion in any manner they see fit, as it was to prevent religious leadership from influencing social and political policy, or from disenfranchising minorities.

The country was somewhat founded by religious pilgrims seeking freedom to express and practice their religion, and although that was a far cry from the first draft of the constitution many fo those ideas and fears stuck.

So as such the American attitude is that we are free to practice and express any religious and political belief as long as we want. Of course there are practical limitations as you have suggested but those limitations are defined by what infringes on another individuals's rights and freedoms to express themselves without fear of intimidation or retribution.

"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins," that sort fo thing.

Especially of consideration to this is the government. The government being of course more able to excersize power and intimidation than individuals is especially proscribed from using its influence or power to favor any religion or belief system over any other.OK.
So you ask what's wrong with the policy as long as all religions are treated equally, and I say it intereferes with our right to express our own religious beliefs, WITHOUT demonstarting that this kind of expression or practice substatially infringes on the rights or freedoms of others. That's why I use the chicken slaughtering or human sacrifice analogy. That particular form of practice I think quite obviously DOES infringe on others individual liberties. Why? Why does chicken slaughtering infringe on others liberty?
And by the same token as long as the government allows any similar form of religious dress that does not either infringe on rights of others or interfere with the purpose of the institution, in this case educaiton, then the government is not endorsing any one religion over another, or even over ateheism, and at the same time it is not restricting freedom of worship and religious expression.

I hope that's a more coherent explanation than yesterday.I understand what you are getting at. But until everyone has the Constitutional right to attend school butt-naked, your arguments regarding how particular types of attire must be allowed because of the Constitution, sound hollow.
I'm not sure there is one, and frankly I don't care if someone does run around nude, althought I understand many people do...but see more below how the laws get reviewed.I can understand how you yourself don't sympathasize with restricting the Butt-Nakeders, but if your argument regarding the Constitution guarenteeing anyone's right to wear what they wish, is to be acorded any relevance, you need to explain why the right to nakedness isn't allowed.
Again, where to draw the line in those cases is a difficult question. I hate dress codes in general, and I would most likely have flaunted one at my school if it existed, valiantly, even though in real life, I dress quite conservatively and non-descript. People are always going to act in abuse and stupidity of any freedom, but I personally resent having it taken away form me because someone else acts like a jerk.I applaud your personal feelings, but you haven't answered my question: In what way does the requirement in schools for "no religious garbs" differ from requirements of "no nudity"? And why is one setting you off is rightuous indignation while the other, which has existed for generations, hasn't?
Here we get to the heart of the matter. When something like a dress code is enforced from a state or federal level, it may or may not have yet passed a test of the standards of constitutionality. This is kind of a cool self correcting mechnism of our legislation. if enough people complain, or write letters or seek court review of a law, it can get struck down by the judicial branch for violating any of the conditions of constitutionality. However, even if it unconstitutional, if everyone in the affected area has no problem with it, it will stand until times and attitudes change. So if they passed this law in say heavily mormon Utah, maybe people would just not give a crap, and it would sit on the books for a while.

In NYC, it might face a court challenge and that's where the utlimate decision is made. The same thing happens with the nudity statue, which I assume not enough people or not loud enough people really want to stroll around nude. Personally I don't care.The judicial system you have in the US isn't unique. Not by a long shot. The Supreme Court in most European countries can likewise declare a Law unconstitutional.

BTW, if you "don't care" regarding fighting for the people's right to walk around nude, why do you care about the fighting for their right to wear a scarf?
But we already have that division. The school itself and none of it's staff can while acting in any official capacity lead, participate in or endorse any religion or lack thereof. Boom! If that restriction is abided by then we have all the separation we need, AND at the same time people are free to observe their religious doctrines as they see fit.Bullsh*t. They can't be practising members of my chapter.
What I resent is that this law is a type of discrimination in that it curbs unecessarily a type of speech. In this case religious. I also disagree with dress codes that prevent certain colors from being worn, or certain styles of coat (remember columbine?). Moving to a single uniform which is somewhat unusual in public schools makes some sort of economic and adminstrative sense, but that's not about curbing speech, it's about eliminating hassles. This particular measure does not prescribe a uniform, but in fact simply limits religious expression. It's a type of speech the school has decided they don't like and has so limited it. This law is dress-code. Nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't prevent practicioners of any religion to attend school. It just sets limits to what they can wear.
If the true purpose is to separate church and state, well as I said, here it would be redundant, and as such would be an unresonable restriction of religious freedom.I don't see how it is redundant.
In the specific case of France, they claimed it was to reduce religious tension. I personally do not see that being a reasonable outcome of this process either, but then I am not French and am not qualified ot make a judgement on their culture.I agree with the reason. But the reason really matter?
You just stated this was a poor analogy, and yet you dragged it out again, Explain that logic to me?It was a poor analogy as far as showing "state sponsorship" of religion for clients of the state. It isn't necessarily a bad analogy when addressing the criteria by which a law is deemed to require to show "special benefit" or conversely "harm" to society at large.
The harm in it stemmed form the fact that it was placed there by a state judge presiding over a state court. In so doing the judge made two things implicitly clear. He believes that religion has some connection to the courts, and if you are not of that same religion you are instantly at a disadvantage in his court.Exactly. It favors a particular religion. Which isn't the case for the French law.
That second point may not be 100% clear but logically speaking if he believes Judeo Christian tradition has some basis in the law of the land, then if you do not subscribe to Judeo Christian tradition you are automatically at odds with the beliefs of the court and the laws, and have that onus to deal with before even the facts of any proceedins are dealt with.See above.
That is exactly what government endorsement of religion is meant to eliminate.But the French law has NO government endorsement.
In the case of children wearing religious garb to school. It is never implied that the children's dress reflects the school's position at all. And as long as all religious dress is allowed equally, there is no preference demonstrated. In addition your treatement, and fate in the system of the public school is not in the hands of the students wearing headscarves, it is in the hads of the staff and faculty, as opposed ot being at the mercy of a judge who has placed a symbol of a different religion on his doorstep.I think this is the crux of the matter. Either "allow ALL religious garbs" or "allow NO religious garbs" in schools. Both views can be encompassed if school uniforms are allowed by the state (federal).
I and like five other posters have tried to explain this to you several times. You even said it's a bad analogy yourself. If you simply are incapable of understanding why this is a poor analogy, then I can't help you anymore. But it is a different circumstance, and it is treated differently under the laws of the US.I understand the philosophical difference. I just don't see the practical difference.

[DanishDynamite]

CapelDodger:The actual religions involved here are well-established, with significant histories, traditions and congregations (sad, but there it is).And how is this relevant?

[DanishDynamite]

Andonyx:I'll jump in here, as I tried (badly) to explain above...

this may be a US-centric point of view, but here individual liberties come first and BEFORE the rights of any government.

Of course there ARE limits, as you have noted before.It seems to me that this at the philosophical heart of our disagreement. I'm yet unconvinced that it has shown a difference in practice.
I think this may ultimately be a cultural thing here. The turht is except in times of war, depression, or struggle, We aks not what we can do for our country but what our country can do for us. I agree.
And I don't even mean that in a bad way. I mean that in a very real and sensible way. We are "endowed by our creator (interpret that as you will) with inalienable rights" according to the constitution, and among those are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness.Lovely words, but the truth is that the Constitution is just a piece of paper. In reality, you have just those rights which a majority believe that you should have.
If the state or federal government wants to prevent us form doing something, even something that just makes us happy, they better have a darn good reason for doing so. Indeed.
And as much as I bash our politicians, more often than not, they do have a good reason.According to you.
In this case (CNN Article, not France) I'm not sure they do, or at least they haven't made it abundantly clear. They have declared a national school dress uniform. That is all.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by epepke


It isn't explicitly stated, but it's the traditional interpretation of Amendment X. American law relies heavily on precedent. OK

[DanishDynamite]

epepke:It is an infringement.

I'll try to explain, as the American system is very different from the Parliamentary sytem. Maybe this relates to your other question as well.

There are three branches of government: the legislative, the judiciary, and the executive. The branches are supposed to be independent. This does not always work out as planned. But at least in theory, they are to form a system of checks and balances. At times, the legislative branch seems to be merely a puppet for the executive branch. However, despite flaws, the judicial branch has remained pretty separate.

In theory, the legislative branch can pass any laws they like. However, the judicial branch can also declare laws unconstitutional. This requires action on the part of citizens.

Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, the rules apply to states as well as to the Federal government. This includes school districts.

Again, in theory, any school district could impose any dress codes or whatever that they desire. However, when they are imposed, any citizen or group of citizens can challenge them through the judiciary. The judiciary branch has the power to overturn or nullify any law or rule or portions thereof.

The upshot of this is that all laws and rules are tentative, subject to evaluation by the judiciary. Upon passage, they can be vetoed by the executive branch, and the veto can be overturned by a two-thirds vote. But any law can always be challenge later by a suit by any citizen, which will be decided by the judiciary.

I hope this makes it clearer. Thanks, epepke. But I more or less knew this already. The situation is similar here in Denmark, although the Supreme Court's decisions going against legislative laws are quite rare.

[DanishDynamite]

c0rbin:Chaps my hide as well, could be the anti-commie gene we Americans are born with :):)
I can't think of an American equivilant--maybe "Birds of a feather flock together." I don't think it is exactly the same, though because "equal childeren..." seems imposed while "Birds of..." seems like a natural consequence of similar traits.I think the "Birds of a feather..." is closer than you might think. Still, it doesn't quite convey the same sentiment. The upshot of the Danish saying is that people who are fairly equal in some important way (usually status, but it could also be intelligence or something else) can interact in an uncluttered way because they aren't hampered by other social considerations.
I do know that, to the disdain of some of the US posters in this forum, there is a philosphy that suggests one embrace diversity to allow the widest horizon. In the corporate world (which feeds me), the value diversity is thought to bring to the table is different perspective, approaches, ideas, etc to solve a problem or complete a task. When those cultural expressions are suppressed, you lose that diverse insight.I agree that diversity in the corporate, adult setting is often a plus.
I agree. I feel lucky to live in Houston, Texas, a sprawling town with huge segments of not only hispanic/latino, but Asian and African as well. My 3 year old's Montessouri school has these folks represented and I see it is a part of his education. I would be very disappointed if he were denied exposure to those cultural nuances.The French law doesn't attack cultural differences or the freedom of expressing other views. It just demands a dress code in schools.
Yes there are. We have speed limits. We have drunk-driving laws. Though I think this might be a bit of a sidestep from the thread.I feel the need to start a new religion. The Unlimited Speedsters. Why must my flock be harassed by trafic cops? :)
Anyone can challenge or test a law in the US. If you can show it to be unconstitutional. I am not sure where this is implicitly stated, but there is a process called trial, there is direct representation, referrendum. I mean we do all have guns, we could just march on washington and force change, right?Again, this is no different from here in Denmark. Anyone can challange a law. There is, TMK, however noexplicit requirement for showing the benefit or harm to society at large.
I think common sense can be applied here.What relevance does "common sense" have in regard to Law? :)
A school uniform can help an administrator identify students if they went on a field trip in town, I am sure there are other practical benefits to having a student body in uniform. One is always free (in the US) to wave these personal freedoms (for their childeren who are, after all minors and still subject to their parents) by sending them to a private institutions. This is my background. I attended private schools before going on to universty. I found comfort in not worrying about what I was going to wear. Certainly a head scarf would have been acceptible in my school.As it would in my mine. But a bare butt wouldn't.
Public schools are probably a little different. Mostly I have heard "no shorts" or "you must tuck in your shirt." Someone else will need to address the public school expirience.I understand, but this illustrates my point. Why is requiring a certain minimum attire any different from requiring certain types of attire banned, different?