• Leax@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    France is a secularist Republic. Freedom of religion is guaranteed but every religious sign is banned in the public space.

    • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      I understand that’s how things are, but I don’t think that is how they should be. And while I’m an atheist, I also understand many people aren’t. Why force my irreligiosity on them?

      So while students should not be indoctrinated on any particular religion in school, I don’t see the harm in letting both teachers and students wear whatever they like, including religious symbols.

      In fact, it would be great if we taught all students the basics of multiple world religions in school and let people of different faiths talk to each other about what is important to them.

      • Square Singer@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I really like this stance. Understanding other people is absolutely important. You don’t have to agree with them, but you do have to understand them and see them as people.

        • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Precisely! We have more in common than not. And I sincerely believe that we become more tolerant by talking and trying to understand each other, even if we find areas where we disagree.

          Remaining in our own little information bubble is what radicalizes people.

      • Turun@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can see where you are coming from. How can we forbid clothing if the goal is to not dictate what to wear?

        But consider that in a community, be that at school or in the neighborhood, classmates and neighbors can uphold unregulated, religious rules. Is it free choice of clothing if the law doesn’t forbid anything, but only girls with (insert appropriate clothing) are allowed to join in the play? And there is plenty precedent of religion that causes precisely such group behavior.

        • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is plenty of precedent of non-religious informal rules around clothing. E.g. men wearing skirts, dresses, or soft “feminine” colors. Do those informal rules bother you as well? Should we change the law accordingly, or are we okay with informal norms of conduct in that case?

          • Turun@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In general, yes I do think that we should get rid of such informal rules. And I would appreciate a law that e.g. ensures an employer can not discriminate against men wearing dresses or skirts. For what it’s worth, there have been protest by bus drivers, who are not allowed to wear shorts in the summer, who showed up in skirts on a hot day.

            If we change the garment from abayas to pants it would be “to ban male students from wearing pants in school”, meaning they’d be forced to wear skirts or dresses. But two points make this different from the OP:

            1. Since this is not linked to religion it has a slightly different spin. I can’t put it into words that well, but a guy choosing to wear a skirt is just that, a clothing choice. But Islam is pretty explicit that women should cover themselves. So if a guy goes against the informal law people would make fun of him. If an Islam woman wears short clothes she is not only made fun of, but can also get in trouble with her entire community.
            2. While dresses/skirts are almost exclusively worn by women, pants are worn by men and women. So a guy wearing pants is not the outlier, he is wearing the gender neutral clothing. If abayas are also worn by a significant fraction of male students in France I would heavily oppose the proposed ban, but I found nothing that would indicate such a practice.
        • Syndic@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well if that really were the fears of people proposing such bans, then there would be a lot of better ways to achieve this. At the very least they would try to support such bans with flanking policies such as better infrastructure to support such women who are oppressed in a religious ways as for example better integration courses and public information.

          And for some reason it’s always only about Muslim women! Other religions which can also coerce or force family members to follow a certain dress code, not a single word about them.

          • letmesleep@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            And for some reason it’s always only about Muslim women! Other religions which can also coerce or force family members to follow a certain dress code, not a single word about them.

            Because right now and in Europe those are rather rare. Afaik there’s some Christian groups where women always wear long skirts, but those groups tend to get called “cults” (“Sekten” here in Germany) so I don’t really see a double standard there.

            That said, there are surveys regarding why women wear hijabs and - at least in Germany - those say that the vast majority wears them voluntarily.

            • Syndic@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because right now and in Europe those are rather rare.

              So were Muslim women wearing Burqas and yet several countries have made laws against them. So the rarity of the oppression doesn’t seem to matter that much.

              But regardless, if this is a legitimate problem, then the law should be secular and apply to all religions.

      • Syndic@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I understand that’s how things are, but I don’t think that is how they should be.

        Don’t take that guy just at his word. France does force secularism on their government buildings and workers, including teachers. But public wearing of religious symbols or garnment is perfectly fine. They recently banned face covering, with the obvious target of Muslim women wearing burqa or niqabs, but everything else is perfectly legal to wear in public.

    • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Every sign being banned in public? So what about all the crosses on the churches, or the ringing of their bells? What about people wearing crosses and nunns wearing the traditional dress? What about the easter processions in some places?

      Sorry, but claiming that this would be in line with a secular policy doesnt work. It is target against muslims and muslims specifically without any actual bearing on secularism

      • Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        These laws have been made to kick of the priest out of the school. If you’re a nun or a priest and attend school you have to wear civil clothe.

        I am fine saying that these laws are over used against Muslim,but religious signs are banned in school and for government employee

        • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          While i support it for government employees in schools or other jobs with the public, i think we also need to look at the role of the attire. Priests and Nunns wear specific attire to their religious role.

          It is not day to day clothing for normal people. for the Abbaya, or we had the same discussion in Germany for Hijab or any scarf around the head i always found it absurd since my areligious grandmother wore a scarf covering her head all the time and she preffered clothing that weren’t emphasizing her body shape. For day to day clothing or accessoires it becomes muddled quickly. is the cross on the wristlet a sign of religious affiliation, or just looking cute? Are the semi-moon earrings only worn by muslims, or does Anna-Sophia just like how it emphasizes her face? What about Marcs metal-band shirt with a cross on it? The only surefire way to “solve” it, would be to define a mandatory school uniform.

    • Syndic@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Freedom of religion is guaranteed but every religious sign is banned in the public space.

      No it’s not! Thousands of people walk around with religious symbols and garnments in public all the time in France.

      Secularism is enforced in government offices and employed people.

    • Franzia
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As an American this is difficult to comprehend. I’m feeling culture shock. Maybe the first xenophobia I’ve experienced in years.

      • tal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        France doesn’t have the First Amendment. I mean, I don’t much think that this is a good idea either, but different country, different system of government.

        • Turun@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          For what it’s worth, As a German I don’ t particularly like the right to free speech as it exists in the US. It allows way too much, including harmful things. E.g. in Germany it is not allowed to glorify the Holocaust. I’m pretty sure such a thing would be allowed as free speech in the US.

          • idiomaddict@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m an American living in Germany. It’s not honestly much different in effect. In the US I could insult a police officer as much as I want (but you know… if I choose the wrong one they’ll fucking kill me), whereas it’s illegal in Germany. There’s a lot of things like that, where there’s technically the freedom to do something but it doesn’t really mean freedom

            • letmesleep@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yeah, you kinda privatized speech control. It*s interesting that in the US people can get easily fired over things they said on social media. In Germany that’s harder. Not just because of legal protections (there are some, but they’re not that strong) but also because there’s an understanding that what can and cannot be said shouldn’t be decided by people on Twitter/X but by the law.

              • idiomaddict@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yup. There’s also a much stronger line between your work life and your private life. It’s wild to me (not bad, just very unexpected) that people with drug possession charges don’t lose their jobs here, even office workers or teachers

                • letmesleep@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That people with drug possession charges don’t lose their jobs here, even office workers or teachers

                  Especially those. For criminal things to become relevant they have to be connected to the job at hand. Hence drugs would be mainly an issue in areas where you operate heavy machinery.

                  Fun fact: You are allowed to lie about your criminal past in job interviews if it’s those are not connected to the job. Hence any smart employer will only ask whether you were convicted of anything that is relevant to them. Otherwise firing you will be expensive. And of course it’s also hard to employers to find out whether an employee has any criminal convictions. Afaik only a few select areas, e.g. the arms industry and kindergartens (the later look for sex and violence related crimes, not drugs), actually check criminal records and they do have to get permission from you or you’ll even have to get the documents (“Führungszeugnis”) yourself.

            • anlumo@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              There are entire YouTube channels dedicated to people who film themselves screaming profanities at police officers in the US to get them to do something illegal.

              This group of people calls themselves First Amendment Auditors.