France is Simply Saying Non to the Abayah

[arewethereyet]

Bold mine - Citation needed. 

This looks more like something pulled out of your ass than an actual fact.

Dafuq do you know about US schools?

I watched “Dangerous Minds” (Michelle Pfeifer – 1995)
 

---

 
Correct me if I am wrong. But I am used to seeing huge crosses being worn by Afro-Americans and also by Hispanic Americans with smaller / less visible Christian symbols being worn by Americans with European ancestry.  So the 2011 law in France has banned these also. And I never saw such symbols being used so extensively in any European country either. But you are right, I didn’t see US schools for myself.
 
But anyway, I don’t think anyone can think or believe that the way in which we are dressed is completely neutral and is not related to any philosophical or religious view of the world. See China has now banned “clothes that may hurt the Nation’s feelings.”
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-resid...48873.html
 
So it may be a headscarf, It may be a Manowar T-shirt, it can be a Thor’s hammer necklace or a Tattoo on you face like Mike Tyson’s tattoo (or a Hangover II tattoo on your face if you prefer). Objects are talking. So a veil that covers the entire body of a woman turning her into some sort of shadow or ghost is also not neutral and innocent either. In fact I did experience that last week in our south-western coast. If you can fill a place with enough women dressed like that, you end up with a huge trophy that says “See, see, this is the Land of Allah, this is a Muslim country, All of you beware”.
 
So although the issue is completely childish and Ego based (like on a second Chakra level), it’s still quite serious. And it’s not only about France. All European nations have their own sets of law that regulate dresses with religious connotations in schools, public areas and any other area as well.

---

 

I wouldn't be basing what happens in the real world on a movie from nearly 30 years ago.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're missing the point, which is that the freedom of conscience overlays both freedom of religion and freedom from religion -- your suspicions aside. I think repression solely on the basis of religion or its lack is wrong, and don't really appreciate you trying to tell me what my opinion is.

That shit is both rude, and revealing of your own incomprehension of my point.

 I don't get many compliments for my manners, lol.  I'll try again.  

Anoms comment got me considering how, despite that affinity for the principle and right of religious freedom, I understand and I agree with a great many ways that we suppress expression of any number of religions because, we assert, it is overwhelmingly in the public and secular interest to do so,.  Not because they are religious, or because a thing is religious, but because of the content of that religious ideation.  I think that we can all agree that this is -not- repressing people based solely on the basis of their having or lacking a religion, or thing being or not being religious - so we can save ourselves arguing something we agree about, whether or not that would be garbage.   

I don't think that by agreeing with anom, that it's not automatically or intrinsically wrong to suppress expression of specific religions, we are agreeing with anything about repressing people based on religion or it's lack. When I suggest that you (and I) likely agree with anom about the one thing - I don't mean to insult you about the other.  

In general, I think clothing bans in schools are ridiculous.  This one as much as any other.  I also think it's amusing that the faithful are perfectly fine with everyone else not being allowed to wear this or that, but they throw a fit and end up with alot of well meaning but, imo, misplaced support when they insist that they be allowed..and indeed have the right, to dress their kid how they want.  I would not be shocked to find that the people wringing their hands about being religiously persecuted in this are also the same people who would be very eager to take rulers to skirts.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't get many compliments for my manners, lol.  I'll try again.  

Anoms comment got me considering how, despite that affinity for the principle and right of religious freedom, I understand and I agree with a great many ways that we suppress expression of any number of religions because, we assert, it is overwhelmingly in the public and secular interest to do so,.  Not because they are religious, or because a thing is religious, but because of the content of that religious ideation.  I think that we can all agree that this is -not- repressing people based solely on the basis of their having or lacking a religion, or thing being or not being religious - so we can save ourselves arguing something we agree about, whether or not that would be garbage.   

I don't think that by agreeing with anom, that it's not automatically or intrinsically wrong to suppress expression of specific religions, we are agreeing with anything about repressing people based on religion or it's lack. When I suggest that you (and I) likely agree with anom about the one thing - I don't mean to insult you about the other.  

In general, I think clothing bans in schools are ridiculous.  This one as much as any other.  I also think it's amusing that the faithful are perfectly fine with everyone else not being allowed to wear this or that, but they throw a fit and end up with alot of well meaning but, imo, misplaced support when they insist that they be allowed..and indeed have the right, to dress their kid how they want.  I would not be shocked to find that the people wringing their hands about being religiously persecuted in this are also the same people who would be very eager to take rulers to skirts.

My point is that if we're going to have a wall of separation here, that's what we should have. And what France has is not a wall of separation; it's the government leaning into the control of the expression of faith.

Faithless though I am, I find that obnoxious.

[The Grand Nudger]

A wall of separation is also an attempt to lean into the control of the expression of faith. This is immediately obvious with our nutters here, as the expression of their faith...they keep telling us... is theocracy. They cannot live out their religious values so long as some girl named margaret insists on being called mike, or vv. They cannot live out their religious values if babbies are bein borted by bitches. They cannot live out their religious values if their kids dress bad. They cannot, to put it bluntly, live out their religious values if there's even the slightest suspicion that anyone, anywhere, is having any fun that their god would not approve of.

France has had a law on the books since 04 stating that religious symbols or clothing in schools is a no go. I return to my own opinion on clothing bans being ridiculous, but the law is very much an attempt at the separation of church and state, and it may be obnoxious for any number of reasons (such as disparate enforcement, that ones been brought up), but if we don't believe that a separation of church and state is obnoxious even though it's an attempt to control religious expression - then this would not be the reason that the clothing ban is obnoxious. This is the light in which I considered Anoms comment...and in which I think he's correct.

This issue is a convenient passive aggressive flex for the faithful. They insist that they are being persecuted while demanding that they be exempt from or separate to rules and laws which they support strongly insomuch as they suppress some other person doing some other thing they think their god doesn't like. IMO, the utility of this issue to (weak or strong) theocrats lies exclusively in it's ability to generate a friendly reaction from outside allies that often does not, upon close inspection, match the ideological viewpoint of those well meaning actors. I, ofc, believe that these religions are filth and that they are manipulating our societies - taking advantage of and perverting our best impulses in an opportunistic bid to secure perpetual minority control. So, that colors my view, lol.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A wall of separation is also an attempt to lean into the control of the expression of faith.  This is immediately obvious with our nutters here, as the expression of their faith...they keep telling us... is theocracy.  They cannot live out their religious values so long as some girl named margaret insists on being called mike, or vv.  They cannot live out their religious values if babbies are bein borted by bitches.  They cannot live out their religious values if their kids dress bad.  They cannot, to put it bluntly, live out their religious values if there's even the slightest suspicion that anyone, anywhere, is having any fun that their god would not approve of.  

France has had a law on the books since 04 stating that religious symbols or clothing in schools is a no go.  I return to my own opinion on clothing bans being ridiculous, but the law is very much an attempt at the separation of church and state, and it may be obnoxious for any number of reasons (such as disparate enforcement, that ones been brought up), but if we don't believe that a separation of church and state is obnoxious even though it's an attempt to control religious expression - then this would not be the reason that the clothing ban is obnoxious.  This is the light in which I considered Anoms comment...and in which I think he's correct.

This issue is a convenient passive aggressive flex for the faithful.  They insist that they are being persecuted while demanding that they be exempt from or separate to rules and laws which they support strongly insomuch as they suppress some other person doing some other thing they think their god doesn't like.  IMO, the utility of this issue to (weak or strong) theocrats lies exclusively in it's ability to generate a friendly reaction from outside allies that often does not, upon close inspection, match the ideological viewpoint of those well meaning actors.  I, ofc, believe that these religions are filth and that they are manipulating our societies - taking advantage of and perverting our best impulses in an opportunistic bid to secure perpetual minority control.  So, that colors my view, lol.

Right, and others draw the line at a different spot. I just don't care if someone dresses funny, because it doesn't harm me; so I'm not wanting to use the gub'mint to defend my precious little feelings.

In the meantime, it does aggravate a sense of persecution in some religious folk that pushes them away from compromise. It also forces others to violate their own beliefs, though that doesn't radicalize them. In either case, I don't my legislators worried about penny-ante shit when there's bigger issues to solve. And France has plenty of bigger issues. This has the stink of distraction, to me.

[GrandizerII]

I wouldn't consider the abayah to be religious clothing. Do those schools also ban saris as well?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's more an issue of whether or not the religious have made it a sticking point. There's nothing intrinsically unchristian about short skirts..or specifically christian about long ones - they made it a thing - for an example this side of the pond. If france says you cant do a thing, and you do the thing, then you're sideways with the law - well crafted or otherwise.

It's not even, when you think about it, france doing something as an initiator, they're not in control of what people choose to employ as a religious identification. It's a response (arguably a reactionary one) to what other people are doing, how other people are identifying and employing those items.

Say we banned overt displays of crosses as a consequence of banning religious symbolism in public schools, and people started sending their kids to school with jesus fish to get around it. I think we might realize that the christians are not being oppressed in the sense that we're all likely to agree is garbage, they're finding ways to game regulations that they wholeheartedly expect to bind other people - because that's what people do. Whatever we think about other issues, related or otherwise, I think it's important to recognize such priveledge seeking behavior as the first salvo in a theocratic volley. That the law must protect but not bind them, while binding and not protecting others.

I think that clothing laws are ridiculous, but if we're going to have them, there will not be a muslim exception, an islamist carveout... to them. They can cry rivers of salty tears. I remain completely unmoved by their wardrobe based plight. I reserve the right to change my mind when I find them shoulder to shoulder with me advocating for my daughters being able to wear tank tops because it's fucking hot. So, you know, other side of the heat death of the universe.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The headscarf, Christian crosses and Jewish kipas were already banned in France since 2004. The Burkini is also banned in some public beaches. Now a particular middle eastern clothe called “Abayah” has also been banned.
 

---

That’s because schools needed clear guidance’s on which item is to be seen as “a clear sign of belonging to a religious group or religious belief system”. And that’s the principle of Laicité. Meaning that you cannot wear any sign of belonging to a religious group in schools or in any public institution.


 
I think I totally support this idea of strict separation between church and state but I also believe in “let the woman decide”. I would rather set an age limit (like alcohol and tobacco) and after that age (16 or 18) I would let anyone wear anything they want. / And I just checked to see that women are allowed to wear whatever they want (even head to toe clothing) in French Universities.  

---

Lovely if the woman can actually decide freely.

[Leonardo17]

I wouldn't consider the abayah to be religious clothing. Do those schools also ban saris as well?

No, but be prepared to attract attention and if they decide you’re doing it on purpose there might be disciplinary measures


Grandnudger:

This issue is a convenient passive aggressive flex for the faithful.  They insist that they are being persecuted while demanding that they be exempt from or separate to rules and laws which they support strongly insomuch as they suppress some other person doing some other thing they think their god doesn't like.  IMO, the utility of this issue to (weak or strong) theocrats lies exclusively in it's ability to generate a friendly reaction from outside allies that often does not, upon close inspection, match the ideological viewpoint of those well meaning actors.  I, ofc, believe that these religions are filth and that they are manipulating our societies - taking advantage of and perverting our best impulses in an opportunistic bid to secure perpetual minority control.  So, that colors my view, lol.

I just cannot disagree with any of this.
 

---

 
2 weeks ago there was another “religious leader” who was saying that “Nobody could confine religion to the mosques”. And I was like “Excuse me? Where else is religion supposed to be? You can have it in your private life, you can have it in your church / mosque / synagogue” and that wraps it all (as far as I know).
 
So whenever you advocate freedom of religion, you are also advocating freedom from religion.
 
+ I was greatly opposed to clothing regulation in schools too. But now that I graduated, I think there might be limits imposed on non-religious clothing too. What do you do with sexually explicit clothing for instance?
 
Also: There is no “limitation on clothing” here and no one is forced to go to other schools either because in continental Europe there is public school, then there is public school and then there is public school. The only alternative is to leave France because education in France is compulsory until the age of 16 (for everyone).
 

---

[Silver]

Let's not solve any real world problems. Instead, let us argue over who wears what.