|
Comments:
Dave D. - 2004-09-03 08:31:17 I don't see it as discrimination. I view it from a school-uniform viewpoint. One less distraction.* * * * * * * * * * * * Dave D. - 2004-09-03 08:50:31 How is it not? The laws ban any form of indiscreet religious symbolism, but the focus has been strictly on the headscarves, and nothing else. And who defines what constitutes a distraction anyway? The law also arose in direct response to tensions that arose from the influx of Arab/muslim students in the secular schools wearing the headdress. These are laws directly targeted at one group and one group only. I'm not a religious person either, but this is blatantly discriminatory * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-09-03 08:59:45 The focus *from this side of the pond* has been on the headscarves, since we're concerned these days with Islamic terrorists. It's also much more visible to wear a headscarf than a cross necklace, hence it draws our attention more and we tend to focus on that. But the language of the law doesn't focus on any one religious symbol. If it did, it would be discriminatory. A universal ban on religious items isn't discriminatory. People don't have an inherent right to wear pink T-shirts or Birkenstocks or striped socks either--the school has the right to make rules.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-09-03 09:21:07In all fairness it should be noted that I have no religion and privately think that the sooner we rid ourselves of such outdated cultural trappings the more evolved we'll be, a viewpoint that undoubtedly is tinting my viewpoint on this topic.* * * * * * * * * * * * Dave D. - 2004-09-03 09:36:44 Again, a "universal ban"? The focus of this ban has fallen squarely and disproportionally on the Muslim headdress. It wasn't the sudden prevalence of yarmulkes (which are just as visible) or crucifixes in secular schools that prompted this law. My right to wear a symbol of my faith doesn't infringe in any way on someone else's lack of belief or distract from the pursuit of their education, The French government is using that sad excuse to perpetuate a form of cultural superiority by saying that by simply wearing symbols undermines secularity in school, which is false and unprovable. Just my opinion.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-09-03 09:42:28 We disagree, politely, but I am enjoying the discussion Dave D. Does one have a right to wear a symbol of one's faith? Would that include, say, a T-shirt depicting a gory crucifixion, which could certainly be distressing to other students? I think the "doesn't infringe" argument is a slippery slope. At a certain gray point, one person's actions do indeed begin to infringe on others' space. School is for studying, and religion is irrelevant. Better to just remove all chance of infringement.* * * * * * * * * * * * Dave D. - 2004-09-03 10:11:56 It's not a slippery slope because there's not one iota of proof that supports the assertion that one student wearing a hijab, yarmulke, or crucifix either infringes, or detracts from, or forces their belief on other students, religious or otherwise. I want empirical proof that supports this. As far as the "gory crucifixion" example goes, schools definitely have the right to set limits on explicitly violent or sexual clothing or expression, religious or otherwise. Obviously, this is disruptive. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a goverment, ironically, perpetuating it's own form of fundamentalism in a clumsy fashion. It's not about providing a supposedly safe, secular environment for students, it's an abject acknowledgement of a society's failure to integrate all of it's citizens. And it will backfire in the long run by encouraging exactly the type of radicalism it seeks to eradicate. Too much caffeine. Going to lunch..* * * * * * * * * * * * Dave D. - 2004-09-03 10:12:42 Sorry about the bold type, did I do that? * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-09-03 10:14:00 whoopsie. sorry about that. Nope, you didn't do that--just a blip, sorry Dave D.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-09-03 10:24:52 I heard on BBC that a school in Paris reported that "boys wearing baseball hats in the hallways" was a bigger problem yesterday. It seems that backwards hat-wearing is also outside the dress code of the schools. No matter what kind of headgear, no matter what excuse for it, I don't think it' an issue worth killing for. But of course I spay and neuter my dogma. * * * * * * * * * * * * addiann - 2004-09-03 10:30:14 lol, again, Raymond* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-09-03 10:34:53 yes, I had to smile at that "dogma" comment.* * * * * * * * * * * * leighton - 2004-09-03 10:42:35 I hate all religion with a passion, but I hate these types of rules more. Because it's more a suppression of ritual and tradition than a "god". Gots to have religion to be free from it I guess. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-09-03 18:30:49 Now then, back to Dave D's good argument. As far as proof that wearing religious symbols impinges on others' education, I would say that I don't have a number to offer you, but if every person in my middle school class wore big crucifixes, including the teacher, and I were an atheist, I'd certainly feel uncomfortable. Might just be my problem. But I think such items can create a climate that can alienate some students--which can be avoided entirely by making the playing field level, i.e. with uniforms. Leighton: dunno if I agree--such items are all about god, which one you were taught to accept, &c. They seem to me to be symbols of faith, not just (wooden shoes, lace cap, other traditional Dutch stuff) of tradition.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-09-03 19:22:43 I'm not atheistic. I'm antitheistic. Yet I think like Allen Ginsberg, that All, including assholes, is holy. Emerson's Oversoul versus the scenery on Ecorse Road.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-09-03 20:33:58 Your scenario probably would interfere with your ability to learn, but it's a scenario that doesn't even exist. Dave isn't making his point by using imaginary situations. The hijab is a part of Islam's code of dress. It's not religious expression -- it's religious obligation. Perhaps the French schools would be wise to force the Muslim children to eat pork at lunch so they do not make the pork-eating students uncomfortable.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-09-03 20:47:30 raymond: my own viewpoint is similar to that. Eric: your point is well taken. You are right, that was a somewhat exaggerated situation I painted, exaggerated to make a point but imaginary nonetheless. But ultimately, I still think federally-funded schools are secular institutions with the right if not obligation to ensure that education is the mission. The temple, mosque, and church is the place to proclaim one's religion, if any--in schools, a code of uniformity ensures that rich, poor, religious, and nonreligious students all start on the same page and have the same chance.* * * * * * * * * * * * Dirtgrain - 2004-09-03 22:56:40 ". . . it's a scenario that doesn't even exist." It does exist to varying degrees. At my school, I see religious intimidation, soul saving attempts, and assumptions that there is religious uniformity. After The Passion of the Christ came out, students were promoting it, saying things about it in classroom discussions (like "if Jesus could put up with so much torture. . ."), and attempting to turn me toward Jesus (I never divulge how I feel about organized religion. Watch out for Northridge Church, though. They have special agents with powerful conversion skills out there looking for new recruits). We have a Bible club that meets after school. One day every year they have a soul-saving indoctrination carnival in the cafeteria (they have games, a moonwalk, those puffy sumo-wrestler suits, and all sorts of games to lure students in). There is a Muslim student organization, too, but Christian beliefs seem to dominate and, in some situations, to intimidate. I don't know exactly where I stand on this headscarf issue, though. The French government banned the incorporation of new English words into their language--a move that marks them as completely ignorant on how languages develop (what was their word for email?). Attempts to regulate culture have mostly failed in the past, often becoming punishing and violent. Do you remember Jane Eyre's friend (Julia?) who had her hair cut off? Will the French make Sikhs take their turbans off? What then will they do with their hair (which is never to be cut)? Cut it off? Individuals ought to have control of their bodies and what they wear. Are our kids special cases? Are they too young and impressionable? I don't know. But if someone is dumb enough to be converted to a religion based solely on religious apparel, then maybe it was meant for him or her. Then again, it just might be organized religion that makes them dumb in the first place. Organized religion should never find its way into our government and its institutions. For me, the main reason for this is not so that atheists or people of non-dominant religions live without religious intimidation. Rather, it is the evil that theocratic governments have done in the past that scares me (Inquisition, Crusades, witch trials, the Taliban, Neocons, and so on). Still, I don't feel too sympathetic for a thwarted practitioner of religion. Tough shit. If the French are discriminating against one group, however, then shame on them. I wonder, are there elements in our clothing today that have religious roots? Why can't women go topless in public? Does this stem from Puritanism? It's no big deal in Germany. Free the boobs from religious oppression! * * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-09-04 08:18:49 while we're at it, down with pants!* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-09-04 08:33:00 oh, raymond, before even reading dirtgrain's post yours caught my eye and I had to laugh. Luckily I'd just swallowed some coffee, so it didn't end up on the screen. Dirtgrain: thank you for a nuanced reply that actually draws upon a teacher's in-class experience. You sound much more patient than I'd be with child prostheletizers. I read your thoughtful reply several times. Your question "are there elements of our clothing that have religious roots" is going to keep me Googling for hours (so much for mowing the lawn). Bible clubs and Muslim groups meeting in schools makes me queasy as far as religious groups in federally-funded schools...there isn't an atheist group, I take it.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura again - 2004-09-04 08:38:46 oh, and the French word for email, which everyone including me promptly forgot, is "courriel."* * * * * * * * * * * * Dirtgrain - 2004-09-04 09:49:51 No, we don't have an atheist group. I would love to see one, though. Plymouth-Canton once banned a gypsy/fortune-telling theme from a prom in the 1980's because of its "satanic" nature (I'm surprised they let their kids walk in the woods). The outrage over an atheist group would be fun to watch (I don't want to be the advisor, though. Can you imagine the phone calls?). This makes me think of an incident that was reported in the Ann Arbor News at least six years ago. A teenager went into a gas station wearing a t-shirt that proclaimed, "F[*#!] Jesus." Two customers in the gas station got so pissed off that they followed the kid outside, argued with him (I'm thinking they preached the word of the Lord), and then beat the crap out of him. Ironic--yes. But it also shows how careful one must be in dealing with "religious" people. There are "Christians" who don't follow the Bible at all. "Do unto others. . ." and "turn the other cheek" are lost on them. Instead of serving as a model to follow and adhere to, the Bible serves as something like a defense mechanism for these people. It allows them to ignore or cope with bad feelings that they have about themselves and the world in which they live. When we take this away from people, when we shatter this defense mechanism or challenge it, bad things happen. That's why I have to be so careful as a teacher. I never know who is a Christian Scientist, a Northridge Church member, a Holy Roller (yes, in six years of teaching I have had several students who have danced with snakes before), a Jehovah's Witness, a Mormon, a Moonie, etc. I never know who will be offended if I say, "Damn." Sorry to have strayed from the topic. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-09-04 10:17:59 I hope the kid brought them to court for aggravated assault. It's odd why one would be threatened by a kid wearing a shirt. If I saw someone wearing a "f*** Noam Chomsky" shirt, I could care less. Snake-dancers? In Ann Arbor?! Oh, and the more you stray the better, dirtgrain. Very interesting comments, thank you. * * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-09-04 17:14:56 At the Ypsi Disctrict Library we helped with the "Summer Reads" program. One of the things we did was to conduct a puppet-making workshop for families of all kinds. We enabled and watched a stunning array of costume, ethnicity, group-dynamics, artistic choice, manual skill, creative discovery, deliberate design, national origin, religious statement in dress or ornamentation, silly people, and serious people create anthropomorphic and geometric animated figures. These groups of people, on their own amongst groups of much different people, had no problem with veils, crosses, head-dress, religious-messaged t-shirts, just as they didn't with people in sports apparel, zig-zag brightly-colored striped dresses, braids, buzz-cuts, laquered tresses, socks out of shoes, and work clothes. No dress code except "No Shirt, No Shoes, No-everything-else-between-your-thighs-and your-collarbone: No Service." It was culturally and visually stimulating, and we all seemed happy. But then that very active boy ran fast across the room and into the table and cut his cheek..., yet all prevailed.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-09-04 21:52:14 that sounds incredibly fun. sounds like they got the right people to lead the workshop.* * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-09-07 10:01:43 I don't care one way or another whether people wear religious symbols, but I do think that in France, the wearing of crosses should be banned in schools -- completely and outright (not depending on whether small, though if totally unseen, fine) -- if they are going to ban muslim headscarves. I'm somewhere along the antitheist line, myself, but I was raised in a New England protestant church (Congregational), and I guess because of that, religious symbolism makes me very, very uncomfortable -- especially crosses & crucifixes -- which in my former congregation were very much unheard-of as jewelry, and the latter of which wasn't even allowed in the sanctuary (idolotry).* * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-09-07 10:05:32 Wow, that was pretty schizophrenic. I guess I should have said, "as a matter of principle, I don't mind if people wear religious symbols, but on a personal level they make me uncomfortable because of my background." That, and I personally think religious jewelry is tacky -- but that's just the New Englander in me, who believes that for the perfectly appropriate outfit, one should dress up completely, and then remove one piece of jewelry.* * * * * * * * * * * * add your comment: |
