On the whole, I detest organised religion.

I detest this a whole lot more.

To me all the major monotheistic faiths are irrational and dangerous, but forcing that opinion on their adherents is more so. Never mind the small matter of trampling over people's personal freedom to wear whatever they bally well like -- it's an admission that secularism is as reactionary and intolerant as that which it opposes. Instead of the sweet light of reason we have the foul stench of a secular inquisition.

If this isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong.

Tough question.

on the one hand, children can be cruel and children wearing religious symbols (such as a turban or skullcap) might be picked out for bullying. Also, education should have nothing to do with religion, they arent the same thing (unless you are talking RE, in which case children should be taught a braud spectrum and if they arent, they can opt out of the lesson as a friend of mine was able to in school)

In the case of the ban, their god wouldnt punish them for not wearing the correct dress because no god agrees with persecution. (at least no god i have studied)

on the other hand, they do have a right to wear their religious garments providing it doesnt interfear with the schools lessons. the only way this could happen is from bullying or prejudiced teachers.

As such i think they should be able to wear what they want but a closer eye should be kept on bullying since most teachers wont openly discriminate but may allow bullying. Organisations are already in place to watch teachers, they just need to make sure they do their jobs correctly.

Teaching tolerance by banishing difference ... don't see that one catching on.

---

by Maffrew
but when you force people to stop wearing artifacts that a persons religion tells them they must wear (the validity of which i'll reserve for a different debate), you not only remove religion, you force the person to stop practicing that religion. That is unacceptable.

---

The wearing of most of these artifacts is not prescribes in the religions as a sort of law. It's the choice of the person to wear this symbol of their religion yes or no.

And I totally agree that when it comes to a public function you should not actaully showing your believes to other people. What you do in your free time is all your doing of course. A lot of people work in companies where a dresscode applies for certain work. You are not allowed to wear metal objects etc or you have to wear certain things for hygenic reasons.

When you work in a public function you have to avoid any form of biasness. And face it showing your religion already suggests a sort of biasness in a way to the outside world. If I'm off the religion thats totally against yours and we both show ours and for some reason my passport request is screwed up or my paperwork accidently gets lost it makes some people think. Sure this doesn't need to apply to everyone but I'm also sure that you can perfectly wear certain metal objects when covered when you work but still you're not allowed

Just see it as a dress code when you work in a public function.

Also don't forget that wearing religious symboles in public schools had already been forbidden (or was not done) for the last 100 years or so in France. It was an unwritten law (and sometimes part of the school rules) that you didn't. But over the last 15 years a lot of people started to do it anyways and this was mostly done by the somewhat extrimistic believers.... Well now it's a law.

(Edited by Chambler 10/02/2004 23:24)

---

by Byron
Teaching tolerance by banishing difference ... don't see that one catching on.

---

I didnt say that. i was just pointing out 2 sides.

My personal view was:-

As such i think they should be able to wear what they want but a closer eye should be kept on bullying since most teachers wont openly discriminate but may allow bullying. Organisations are already in place to watch teachers, they just need to make sure they do their jobs correctly.


BUT! while we're at it, there is an argument for banishing difference (not religious tho). My sister campaigned (excuse the pun) religiously for nike/adidus etc etc stuff for school. (talk about expensive, her coat cost £120 in the late 80's!!!!!)

How many parents can afford that? I never did ask beause we had a uniform and there was no peer pressure. there was also, however no ban on religious dress or jewellery.

this is the balance i would like to see addressed. There was also no bullying (something that has changed since i left and the head mistress was replaced) but even this is not on religious grounds.

(Edited by Cat 10/02/2004 23:47)

---

by Cat
since most teachers wont openly discriminate

---

Oh really, so that's why I got a detention for being openly Athiest and contesting the Bible, and before anyone asks it was a state school not a religious school.

The fact is that religious discrimination is rife from all parties involved. A parent of a child at my school tried to have the school change there P.E uniform to trousers and have the playing field moved so that her daugjhter wouldn't see boys legs. This i unnaceptable, what happened to me is unnaceptable, what is happening in france is unnaceptable.

---

by Havoc
(quotes)
This i unnaceptable, what happened to me is unnaceptable, what is happening in france is unnaceptable.

---

Pretty much unaceptable then

I dissagree with France's stance but I also see the problems If someone can wear a headscarf or a skullcap then surely the unreligious can wear their latest designer trainers ect.

If you are allowing the religious to show their beliefs then you have to allow the athiests/agnostics their freedom to change the uniform, otherwise you are discrinating against us nonbelivers.

I have no problem with uniformity being, literally, done away with.

The commenest argument for school uniforms is that they combat peer pressure to buy the latest gear. In my experience this is cobblers. Kids just find other ways, from bags to the design of shoes, to show their, snigger, individuality. Far better proper individuality be allowed to florish from day one: I can think of nothing better for those chav scroates than the message that world does not, in fact, revolve around the three stripe.

(Edited by Byron 12/02/2004 01:38)

---

by Chambler
Just see it as a dress code when you work in a public function.

---

If a school has a uniform and nobody is allowed to deviate from it in any way, fair enough. That's school policy and affects those without a religion as well as those with one.

That's not the same as specifically banning obvious religious symbols nationwide in schools regardless of whatever else is worn.

Although it technically covers all religions it is the muslim community which is most affected. Christians can still wear small or hidden crosses. Skullcaps cannot be worn, but the jewish population of France is 600,000. The muslim population is 5 million.

Byron more or less said what I was going to say and have said in such discussions in the past: you'd don't encourage tolerance by banishing difference.

---

by Byron
The commenest argument for school uniforms is that they combat peer pressure to buy the latest gear. In my experience this is cobblers. Kids just find other ways, from bags to the design of shoes, to show their, snigger, individuality... I can think of nothing better for those chav scroates than the message that world does not, in fact, revolve around the three stripe.

---

Hear hear! Why couldn't you have been at my school? To call that kind of thought a breath of fresh air would've been an understatement!

(Edited by Alan 12/02/2004 15:16)

---

by Chambler
(quotes)
The wearing of most of these artifacts is not prescribes in the religions as a sort of law. It's the choice of the person to wear this symbol of their religion yes or no.

---

But can someone correct me if I'm wrong - if a woman from other countries visit muslim countries - are we not supposed to cover up their same religious attire? Cover our heads and our legs and all that?

If that's the case it is imposing their beliefs on visitors to their country

If a schoolgirl wanted to wear a headscarf but was an atheist, she'd probably be told it was against the uniform (because the exception is that only religious schoolchildren can wear headscarves)

I applaud France for what they are trying to do in breaking down the boundaries to the absolute minimum within schools in their own country.

As other people have pointed out you can customise your outfits to suit yourself. Not everyone wears the same length skirts, socks, types of shoes - but they maybe the same colour.

More problems with mine and alans school: someone tried to get into a kicking match with me because i wasn't wearind "Rockies" which was a bit stupid because i was deviating by wearing a pair of British army boots

---

by Samphirette
(quotes)But can someone correct me if I'm wrong - if a woman from other countries visit muslim countries - are we not supposed to cover up their same religious attire? Cover our heads and our legs and all that?

If that's the case it is imposing their beliefs on visitors to their country

If a schoolgirl wanted to wear a headscarf but was an atheist, she'd probably be told it was against the uniform (because the exception is that only religious schoolchildren can wear headscarves)

I applaud France for what they are trying to do in breaking down the boundaries to the absolute minimum within schools in their own country.

As other people have pointed out you can customise your outfits to suit yourself. Not everyone wears the same length skirts, socks, types of shoes - but they maybe the same colour.

---

But to be fair, with those sorts of countries, people don't have the same human rights freedoms that there are in France..

From what I've read, it isn't always law, but it's a good idea to conform so you don't get lynched..

(Edited by Stoo 12/02/2004 16:18)

---

by Demona
(quotes)
Although it technically covers all religions it is the muslim community which is most affected. Christians can still wear small or hidden crosses.

---

No no no.... every religion can wear small symboles aslong as they are small or hidden. If your religion doesn't have any that not hardly the fault of the Frence government now is it?

---

But can someone correct me if I'm wrong - if a woman from other countries visit muslim countries - are we not supposed to cover up their same religious attire? Cover our heads and our legs and all that?

---

Well technically you are wrong. A lot of muslim countries it is not required to do so. Actually in the somewhat more liberal arabic nations it's very common for women not to actually wear anything we, as western people, wouldn't associate with modern women.

However there are also less liberal people. There are a lot of people who feel that it isn't "right" for a woman to wear these clothes because of their personal beliefs. However there is a relatively "big" small part of the population of some of the arabic muslim countries however feel it's their duty to do something about this.

However the changes of actually running into such a person in the somewhat modern arabic countries as a western woman are relativly slim the effect it has on you are pretty "heavy". This means that however slim the chance you might still want to avoid it And as stoo put it so nicely.... not get lynched.

In countries like Turkey it's forbidden for people in public functions to wear all these kinda things that show their religion.... called a seperation of state and religion. So if you work for the state you are not allowed to show your religion as that could influance your work or the perception of how people see your work.

---

by Chambler
(quotes)
No no no.... every religion can wear small symboles aslong as they are small or hidden. If your religion doesn't have any that not hardly the fault of the Frence government now is it?

---

...But it's not as if the French government didn't know which were the religions that didn't have non-overt symbols.

---

by Demona
...But it's not as if the French government didn't know which were the religions that didn't have non-overt symbols.

---

Uhmm do you really believe that this religion has no non-overt symbols? I know a lot of people feel that as muslims do normally use pretty overt symbols of their believes but just because you haven't encountered them doesn't mean they don't have them.

No offence but the islam is also followed in countries where they are a supressed minority now and in the past. Just like the cross for Christian's there are multiple symboles based on islamic beliefs which people are still free to wear as a neckless around their necks or on a bracelet or whatever.

---

by Chambler
(quotes)
Uhmm do you really believe that this religion has no non-overt symbols? I know a lot of people feel that as muslims do normally use pretty overt symbols of their believes but just because you haven't encountered them doesn't mean they don't have them.

No offence but the islam is also followed in countries where they are a supressed minority now and in the past. Just like the cross for Christian's there are multiple symboles based on islamic beliefs which people are still free to wear as a neckless around their necks or on a bracelet or whatever.

---

But that's not what this is about, because as you point out they're still allowed. Headscarves and skullcaps are not and they are specific to the muslim and jewish faiths without a mainstream christian equivalent.

---

by Demona
Headscarves and skullcaps are not and they are specific to the muslim and jewish faiths without a mainstream christian equivalent.

---

So you suggest that this law should be just as restricted to any form of faith? What about the athiests, this law doesn't really seem to apply to them at all.

Also that would be the same as saying the speedlimit on the motorway is not a fixed number.... no it's a fixed number substraced from the topspeed of your car. As otherwise a person in a porsche would be more limited by the speed limited as a person that bought a cheapo car which hardly makes the current speedlimit.

Also in your analogy that would make tax laws totally unfair because they don't threat people exactly the same as people that earn more have to pay more. Actually that makes any law unfair as they are a lot stricter to people breaking this law (or able to break the limits that the law puts down) than to people who don't (or can't).

So aslong as laws are still in place I don't think you argument is valid at all.

---

by Havoc
More problems with mine and alans school: someone tried to get into a kicking match with me because i wasn't wearind "Rockies" which was a bit stupid because i was deviating by wearing a pair of British army boots

---

You ain't got nothin' on me: I was given dead legs on my first non-uniform day 'cos I wasn't wearing anything bearing the (boo! hiss! etc.) "hallowed" three-stripe. Great fun, no?