Macron was able to push the retirement age despire widespread protests and condemnation. What makes you think he'll back off for 200 Muslim students being turned back
Exactly. Want to learn about religion? Go to a church, temple, seminary, etc.
I say this as someone who believes in secular for all, and who lives partly as a religious hermit.
Religion should only be *taught* in an academic sense. Like "people of this religipn believe this. We're going to talk about the origins of this religion", etc. Gaining religious *belief* is something that a person should discover, not because they were indoctrinated by families, churches, or schools.
However, I do find prohibitions on articles of clothing that have religious significance to be very problematic.
I dont think wearing what you want to school should be illegal. What you are saying and this situation are not the same. She will still believe it whether you prevent her traditional outfits in school. Outfits are a part of freedom of expression and i dont think those outfits harm someone in any way
You are correct. But you should also know that a lot of Muslims in France are from the colonies and are French citizens. They would probably be outraged as they have been with every other measure before this.
The other important detail is that France has decided that all religious symbols are not allowed in school. That also means that crucifixes are also not welcomed. I love that they, at least, are not hypocrites.
"Suppress religion in schools" what? Laïcité is a fundamental part of French society and education. If you don’t know what laïcité means, you certainly don’t have the knowledge to be commenting on this.
>Laïcité is commonly translated as freedom FROM religion. It's not that the state shouldn't deal with religious matters, it's that religious matters have no place within the state.
Right but this means that what is happening is not extraordinary for France but in line with how they have treated other religions. You should look up how it went for Catholics. The option is private schools or assimilation which is what the French have always pressed on. This is why it’s a yawn. Religious “suppression” in France goes back to revolution, they will never allow for any form of a theocracy or even a hint of it.
This is something that our American bros will never understand. Their vision of freedom of religion includes its public expression compared to France where it's a private matter.
They will never understand that its exclusion from the public space is to guarantee that no majority on one of them will suppress the ones in minority in state matters, so when a French citizen shows up in a public institution, they only are a French citizen, not a Christian French citizen or a Muslim French citizen or a Jewish French citizen for instance.
Privately, worship whatever you want, it's not the business of the state.
First of all I think you meant monolithic, not monolistic. Secondly as a French national I can tell you with 100% confidence that you have it backwards. Laïcité is primarily viewed as an effort to prevent religious intrusion upon or influence on secular life, political and public. The meaning of the term is not contested by a large percentage of the population. Do not confuse it with the separation of state here in the US where I admit there does seem to be considerably more disagreement on that concept.
The US just has a different group of religious people trying to use their religion to turn the place into a fascist religious state.
Well for now. The saudis paid 100% to build a mosque here in my southern home town a few years ago. Won't be long till they are competing with the evangelicals in the attempt enslave us all.
Laïcité is suppressing religion in school, I am french but let's call a duck a duck. I am for it, but it's clearly suppressing religion for a more equal footing.
I think the main difference between the Anglo view and the Franco view is that, us in the Anglosphere believe that religion is an intrinsic part of who you are. Telling someone to take off an abaya, a kippah, or a cross is like telling someone they can’t be their true self.
In the Franco world, it’s seen as just something you do in your spare time, like supporting a political party.
Yep. In France, religion is supposed to start and end at your own doorstep. In the US, for example, people identify as a christian first (shades of Mike Pence "im a christian, a conservative, and a republican. In that order.")
Here in Canada, it creates constant points of tension between Anglo and Franco Canadians. Quebec believes in Laïcité, but the rest of Canada believes in American style freedom of religion. When Quebec banned government workers from wearing any religious symbols, there was huge protest in English Canada (particularly from Muslim and Sikh Canadians).
Anglo Canada is not exactly US-style. The Canadian public school system includes religious schools that receive tax revenue. That would not fly in the US [w/ a very rare exception or two] as it’d be seen as a violation of the separation of church and state.
That’s 100% true, I meant more how it is viewed in the personal sense (nobody cares how you practice your religion). Even if you go to a state funded Catholic school in English Canada, nobody cares if you wear a hijab.
In my area (Ottawa) French Catholic schools are super chill anyways.
But the English Catholic schoolboard , well, doesn’t attend pride like literally all other schoolboards.
I’d be for merging the catholic and public schools into a single public board, having two boards for both languages is already enough. Getting rid of the split system has already been done successfully in other parts of the country, like Newfoundland and Québec.
> The Canadian public school system includes religious schools that receive tax revenue. That would not fly in the US [w/ a very rare exception or two] as it’d be seen as a violation of the separation of church and state.
*Samuel Alito: Hold my beer*
Eh, Quebec went out of its way to grandfather their own religious symbols in the legislature as ‘historical items’. They’re not as clean as you like to make them out to be. I think you and I both know the true intent was to get rid of the Muslim clothing. It just sounds better to say that everybody is affected.
Since 1796…France had a big moment overthrowing religion and though it came back several times French liberalism is still very anti established religion.
I think it’s more that people with a modicum of common sense understand that the bigger threat to people’s rights here is implicitly taking away the right to education to girls because their religious beliefs differ from the state’s. It’s not actually “solving” the “problem” it pretends to and instead is a good way to placate conservatives.
just googled abaya and I am wondering how they're gonna distinguish an abaya from a non-abaya long dress?
like what's the criteria for a dress to be considered an abaya?
This exactly what happened in Quebec. When they implemented their religious clothing ban for government workers. Despite the quebec government insisting that it wasn't racially motivated and done purely to secularize the state. No one was surprised that the ban only effected sikhs and muslim women, two religions where the primary practioners in Canada are brown people. To add insult to injury, when civil rights activists pointed out the hypocrisy of the Quebec government passing the "secularization" law while the room they passed it in had a giant ass cross, the government said that "christian iconography" is seen with more "cultural connotations" rather then "religious reverence".
Yes, our religiously influenced culture is inherently less religious than your religiously influenced culture because it's ours, and we are used to it so it's not terrifying.
Ding ding ding that’s exactly what happened, there are news segments with girls being refused entry for wearing loose, long dresses that have nothing to do with an abaya
Not really, iirc it's originally from Middle-East and it helps protecting the body from the sun. So more like a practical outfit that became a cultural thing associated with parts of the world where Islam is the main religion.
It’s like the robes and headdresses.
When I went to the Middle East I thought some things they wouldn’t want do sell, I was naive and thought it was religious.
Fuck no every Tom Dick and Harry in Jordan and Saudi and Palestine wanted to sell what robes they had.
It’d be like saying suits are all Mormon or jeans and T-shirt’s are southern Baptist.
They aren't saying an abaya is the same thing as the headdress, they're giving an example of cultural dress that they assumed was religious before visiting the region and learning otherwise.
I concur, I thought the male Saudi attire was strictly religious and that it would be frowned upon for an American to wear. In fact it was the exact opposite. People smile and love to see a foreigner in their traditional attire. Its super comfy, and keeps sun off of you. I am still a little nervous wearing it, so I don't wear it out and about very much. But when I do, I feel some sense of class while wearing it.
I figure it's less specific to Tatooine like they said, and more just in general the kind of clothes a poor person might wear in the Star Wars universe given the simplicity of the robes. The Jedi likely adopted it as a sort of uniform since they're monks and ideally try to live simple lives outside of what is required of their duties.
I have seen them in Indonesia. Like the hijab, it started as a cultural dress and became a religious dress.
Saudi influence on the Muslim world is quite dramatic
It's one of the more popular acceptable styles under the typical modesty rules, but it's not something actually specified or described in the religion beyond the general rules. There are a dozen other major styles of female Islamic clothing.
Nope. A lot of “muslim” clothes are just things that have been worn in the middle east for centuries prior to Islam, and then were adopted by Muslims considering it was their attire. The Abaya isn’t mandatory in Islam nor should it be synonymous with Islam, and the fact that people don’t get this is ridiculous. It’s literally like banning a muslim girl from wearing baggy jeans and a hoodie, which is literally acceptable attire for a muslim woman to wear.
An abaya is just a light weight, baggy dress. It’s pretty standard attire for the region. Ridiculous to ban them. Bad enough that they banned head scarves because “oppression” but these are ridiculous. I see plenty of non-religious dresses every day that would be exactly the same if they were black.
Abayas aren't even always black; you can find very colourful ones out there. They're just practical to wear when you're in a relentlessly hot, sunny, and sandy/dusty climate. I've literally worn something similar to a music festival where nudity was very accepted, because it's helpful to cover your body in a long, loose robe to protect against the sun and dust.
I saw two women who wore full length dresses driving into Boston today. Practically identical, except one had a pattern and both had their arms showing from half way down their bicep. This ban is ridiculous.
Yeah, honestly, modern-cut abaya are basically indistinguishable from a regular Western-style long dress. There are abaya that look like a classic wrap-dress, just a bit longer! If my lily-white ass wore one and visited a French school, no-one would stop me, guaranteed (I mean, apart from the fact I'm nearly 40 and my French is non-existent). I *have* shirts that look like the upper half of a fashionable abaya.
It's a distraction technique built on racism, nothing else.
If you're a Muslim in a long dress, that's out. If you're a Christian in a long dress, that's ok. It's going be discriminatory in both design and implementation
Show too much skin, get sent home. Don’t show enough skin, get sent home.
Same with banning Burkinis in public pools. Swimsuit’s too small, get kicked out of the pool. Swimsuit’s too big, get kicked out of the pool.
Now you have a generation of Muslim girls who are kept out of school and aren’t allowed go swimming. Good thing this doesn’t count as discrimination.
This is really unfair. As a woman I don't think women should have to cover themselves up. But if they want to they should be able to. What is the problem with these girls wearing a robe or a burkini? How do those burkini rules handle people who need extra UV protection and wear rash guards and stuff? People should be free to wear what they want as long as it isn't dangerous. I can understand the one that fully covers the face as teachers need to be able to identify students, but as long as you can do that I see no issue.
France has been very consistent over the years with respect to its interpretation of secularism and laïcité.
While the anglo-world has adopted a multicultural approach on the back of immigration, France has opted for assimilation and integration.
On a European level, neither policy has really succeeded in avoiding self-segregration.
Hyper religious people who are unable to comply with French law and culture should send their children to private schools. Otherwise, they should avoid settling in France.
Catholics managed to adapt, despite even harsher treatment by the state. I am sure Muslims can do the same.
I know this brushes Americans the wrong way, but for many of these girls, school will be the only chance in their lives to experience a secular environment, without pressure to be "modest".
I'm American and I'm fine with it.
It brushes some religious Americans the wrong way and somehow Evangelical Gun-Nut has become the default impression the EU has of Americans in general.
But even in the US, the religiosity right now in government far exceeds that of the 80's. And the religiosity of the 80's far exceeded 40's in terms of overt religiosity as seen in American government ("in god we trust", "under god", etc..). America is interesting in that the Government has adopted more and more overt religion despite America itself becoming less and less religious in total.
>more and more overt religion despite America itself becoming less and less religious in total.
Not that unique, my Poland is going through exact, same phase as we speak. We're one of the fastest secularising countries on planet, while religion is gaining more and more influence over politics each year.
The explanation is the same as u/iluvios said *"when a once powerful group starts to lose power, they want to keep the grip on it".* Catholics are losing grip, less and less people attend Masses but they are still significant group, with millions of potential voters. No party want to lose that potential, so they all more or less play along.
At the same time Catholic officials feeling that tides are turning against them, showcase besieged fortress syndrome and demand more and more power, recognition and exemptions. And they are being fed. I guess non-believers are simply not that demanding...
I grew up as a fundamentalist evangelical Southern Baptist. I am now - quite understandably, I think - an atheist. One of the things that finally drove me (and a couple of my friends) out of evangelical thought for good were the fruits of the spirit. I've seen it mentioned elsewhere by people completely unconnected to me as well, so it might actually be one of the bigger breaking-points driving youth away from evangelical ideology.
Here's what I mean by that: the fruits of the spirit are listed by Paul the Apostle in Galatians as the outward qualities of a person who is a true Christian. In evangelical circles, the fruits of the spirit have become kind of a go-to kid-friendly thing to teach children in Sunday school, but it's a serious spiritual/philosophical concept even though most American Christians and pastors never bring it up again with the adults. The fruits are "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control."
As a kid growing up in church, I heard about this concept a lot. And as I got older, I noticed that none of the people in my church displayed any of them. Love? They literally stood out on the street with "God hates f\*gs" signs. Joy? Some of the most bitter people I knew. Peace? Constantly fighting among themselves, not to mention their advocacy for beating children. Self-control? The youth pastor was almost certainly a child molester considering the way he interacted with the girls, and there was at least one extramarital affair going on at any given time, and it wasn't even a huge church. There's way more, but you get the point.
So a lot of people like me hit 15-20 years old and start having some pretty bad cognitive dissonance with what we're taught as children versus what we see actually going on among the congregation. For a lot of us, that's the thin end of the wedge. All it takes from there is a few blows to drive that wedge in, and that's it. Hence the falling rates of religiosity in the US.
Politics taking over the church definitely doesn't help, either, but that's a newer thing that's happened since I was a kid. There have been a bunch of stories now of evangelical pastors quoting Jesus Christ directly and being confronted by angry congregants about their "woke ideology."
Very interesting contribution, thank you. "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." I love the pursuit of those virtues, even if I'm an atheist
We've drifted away from following Christ and fallen into mindless, repetitive religiosity. Money is worshipped, hence the prosperity gospel. The odour of death fills the church.
Exactly my experience growing up evangelical Southern Baptist as well. I feel like I was part of an experiment on how to make the most adult non-believers.
I find that people like that FEAR God and don't trust his judgement. They don't believe in Him, they believe in hell. So much so, that they have more in common with Satanists than Christianity. If you are truly "saved" and "washed in the blood of the lamb" and "believe all things are possible with Christ". Then why are you so afraid of Alcohol, Music, Gays, Abortion, Gambling, Prostitutes, Sex, Drugs and a list of other things that if you don't partake, then you've got nothing to worry about? if you are going to heaven, then what do you care what someone else does? If you are trying to 'save' them, isn't that Jesus' job?
These aren't coincidences....as the religious bloc loses its power and influence on society, it reacts by trying to take more and more control of the secular power of the government in order to formally install itself as the state religion and codify its power and influence in a way that a ever decreasing number of adherents won't matter to it.
Has there ever been an openly agnostic or atheist president? Even though all of the religious ones did anti-religion things, I've never lived through any that don't include their religious association in their campaigns. Therefore as a child of the early 80s, I've gone my whole life thinking that the separation of church and state makes everything else seem like it could be a lie.
There has not.
Every single president except Tommy J and Abe are listed as some flavor of christian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#List_of_presidents_by_religious_affiliation
I don’t know why you’re pretending it’s only right wing Americans that have problems with secular laws when liberal Americans (the majority of people on Reddit) are vocally against France’s secular laws
>Americans that have problems with secular laws when liberal Americans (the majority of people on Reddit) are vocally against France’s secular laws
The basis of those complaints against this law is that it violates freedom of expression. American liberals don't have a problem with secularism.
That’s a decent argument but I’m not really commenting on the law itself; merely the statement that it’s only right wing evangelicals that are against it which is patently false
Yes but religious dressings would 100% be allowable, it’s literally a right in our constitution. The government does not have the authority to interrupt religious expression save a few very specific exceptions. Unharmful clothing is not one of those exceptions.
>It brushes some religious Americans the wrong way and somehow Evangelical Gun-Nut has become the default impression the EU has of Americans in general.
I'm not religious in the slightest and it bothers me because it's the literal opposite of freedom. Something that is pretty fundamental to our way of life here. Banning the way people dress is the same as someone forcing someone to dress a certain way. They are both the same side of the same coin. Both of those are not compatible with the idea of freedom. Especially to express ones self how they want.
There's a difference between separation of church and state and prohibiting free exercise in secular spaces. Public schoolteacher-led prayer? Unconstitutional. Kid wearing religious garb? Constitutionally protected.
Unfortunately, theocrats have opportunistically used free exercise to create a right to refuse service to people on grounds of bigotry.
When society faces an ultimatum let fall that which cannot stand.
The value of freedom France was built upon must either be preserved or take a shift towards opposing Islamic values. I think the french government is being very clear on the what sort of values it wants to nurture. Now the ball is in the other court and conservative muslims will show through their actions if they can stand by those values.
That's a choice made by the parents though, so you can't really blame the government when they provide public education for (free/a fraction of the cost). It's like saying that antivax parents not being able to put their kids in daycares the fault of the government because they made daycares reject unvaccinated kids to protect the other kids. It's still the parents' fault.
> I know this brushes Americans
I don't understand why this discussion is always being framed as "Americans vs Europe", these French policies are considered outrageous in many countries across the world. I'm from Scotland myself btw, so not a North American.
Abaya dresses aren't religious dress. They *just aren't.* They are a part of secular Arabic culture that happens to qualify as modest dress by Islamic rules. It's worn by Arab Christians, too.
Literally any attempt to ban this dress on the basis of religion is fundamentally wrong for that reason alone. It isn't religious clothing. There is no element of this that is about religion and so there is also no element of this that is about secularism. It's simply xenophobia and nothing more.
Google "abaya dress". Tell me how that's not just a baggy, long-sleeved dress.
I am forced to question whether this is a ban on baggy, long-sleeved dresses for all, or just for brown-skinned girls.
My understanding is that the abaya is not exclusively worn by Muslims. It is also worn by Christian and Jewish arab women, so it is not, in fact, an inherently Muslim garment so much as it is a cultural garment. So, can a secular girl of middle-eastern descent wear an abaya to school?
The reason it rubs Americans the wrong way is because that’s not what we consider assimilation and integration. That sounds more like coercion. Assimilation and integration requires give and take. Today in NYC I think you’ll find more halal carts than hot dog stands. And in fact Muslims in the US assimilate far better into US culture for lack of a better term than they do in France.
>On a European level, neither policy has really succeeded in avoiding self-segregration.
Yes, but multiculturalism *can* work in some contexts.
Canada and New Zealand, for example, have largely avoided self-segregation and ghettoization of immigrant minorities. However this requires societies that are more open and who generally do not view newcomers as a threat.
And BTW as a secular Humanist and someone who does not personally support policing women's attire (religious or not), not to mention the hijab sending exactly the wrong signal about women not least because it segregates and disempowers them, I think France's position is dead wrong. From a personal freedom of expression and religion perspective, disallowing religious garb is authoritarianism and trampling of people's rights. They are tackling the *symptoms* (wearing religious symbols) of what they find incompatible, not the *cause*: the religion or religious beliefs themselves.
This is cowardice. Have the guts to take on the beliefs you disagree with and debate them in an open forum, don't restrict people's rights to free expression or belief. Change people's minds by *convincing them*, rather than forcing them via oppressive laws.
French here, the french school system is in total déréliction, not enough teachers, really low wages for teachers and son on.
And what is better in France for not talking about it ?
Just forbid something related with islam ans everyone will be talking only about this .
Really few people Wear abaya in school, maybe some hundreds, but in news channels it became the main issue in school, we are morons and our ministers can use us as morons as they want ....
But hey, it's reddit. Anti-reilgion is one of the big pillars of reddit. So it's pretty in line either French policy.
Even if French policy is just a strong colonial fist in West Africa. And be racist to all the confused folk who went north and settled in colonial motherland, France.
See the recent Liverpool FC supporters experience with the police as a small insight into it
Heh, if you launch of debate that will cost you 0€ it keeps the people away from the lack of funding issue.
We're just dumb enough to not press them on the matter.
Ah, thank you for your perspective. It sounds like how American republicans are trying to distract from other issues within education by focusing on queer people and books about Black history, etc.
That's just how politics works. Here in India, we have a dozen serious issues from an ongoing genocide in Manipur to the extremely corrupt practices of an oligarch, but our leadership is more interested in renaming the country to remove any "colonial influence" than to fix the actual problems.
Yeah Modi also seems to be shit when it comes to minorities, farmers, etc. Getting more toilets across the country is good but there are still plenty of issues.
Just so you know
- 5.069.000 students concerned
- 289 showing up wearing one
- 67 refusing to take it off
And it s all over the damn fuckin "news", while they multi track drift screwin us up, we r doomed
Sure. Technically you shouldn't be able to in public schools. However throughout my entire education here I've seen countless students wear a cross, and nothing was ever said to them. If they're trying to make it seem like you shouldn't show your religion at school, they should enforce it the same way for each. That's not the case currently.
Where I were every time a teacher or the director saw a cross they always asked to the student to hide.
That said I have just a question: How big where the cross ? Are you talking about the big cross weared by very pious people or the priest ? Or are you talking about the small cross who are like 3cm big at most ?
Because let's be honest, a small cross is spotted when you are at 2 meters of the student, an hijab or an abaya, you cans spot at 100 meters, that is a difference too
And you can have a small Fatima's hand, or Jewish star, or whatever similar
Oh and it isn't about religion only, outward political opinions are to stay private too, you'll be asked to remove an anarchist patch, or a whatever party symbol. Of some fascist come back with a brown shirt party symbol that would be banned too, in public school that is
>However, unlike there, in France all religions are treated equally. You can't wear a cross either for example.
This reminds me of back when people were claiming it’s not discriminatory to ban same sex marriage because the law applied to everyone equally and anyone can get (straight) married.
Yes, technically it’s banning all visible religious clothing equally. In reality, though, even if it’s actually enforced equally(Press X to Doubt) it’s clearly targeted in a particular direction since the dominant religious group in France doesn’t have clothing requirements for the laity that stand out from standard western clothing.
Sure, you can’t wear a cross to school…but you can still probably hide it under a top, and anyway it’s not a religious requirement to do so. You can still practice your religion in a way that, say, a Jew who wears a kippah cannot.
I get there’s a very real problem in France with the issue of insular and often radicalized Muslim communities, I’m not saying I have the answers….but “state-enforced prohibition of their dress codes” ain’t gonna solve the problem either.
At best you’re addressing a shallow and mostly aesthetic aspect of it so you can pretend there’s some cultural assimilation and deradicalization going on. Really though, it’s probably just going to create even more resentment amongst the holdouts and make matters worse honestly.
This also further isolates girls that are from the most extremist families becuase they just won't let them go to school. Tbh if France really wants to ban things like this just make is so schools have a uniform. Doesn't fix things fully but I view it as a lot more fair.
Won’t the parents of extremist muslim families still not let their child go to school because they have to wear a uniform instead of their traditional muslim garments?
Yes I mentioned it doesn't fix things fully. But you have to worry less about selective enforcement, where specific lines are drawn(when does an Abaya just become a long dress), and the issue of these type of laws seemingly specifically targeting minority groups becuase the religious groups that are in the majority are pretty much completely unaffected by them.
There's an easy solution to this debate - school uniform. No Muslims wear abayas to school in the UK because nobody can wear anything that isn't the school uniform. Nobody cares (except maybe some extreme religious people who send their kids to Muslim schools, but that's another issue).
People should be required to differentiate hijab (the scarf), niqab (full-face covering), and abaya (literally JUST. THE. DRESS. ) before they are allowed to comment in this thread.
Weeeelll, to be precise, niqabs still leave a slit for the eyes, burkas are the things which actually cover the full face. Though the difference is not that big, imho.
It's just annoying that some comments seem to be under the impression that it is a burqa/niqab ban when even headscarves have long been prohibited in French state schools.
I don't any supposed threat to laïcité if they're all unveiled to begin with.
The only reason people in this thread are praising this move is because it was done by a European country, which is higher in the reddit pecking order than the US. If this was being done in Florida, everybody would be calling out how restrictive this law is. Or imagine the headline “China forbids Uyghurs from wearing the abaya” lol
I personally love that America has such strictly enshrined freedom of speech and religion laws.
I have worked in public schools where the staff and students were a diverse array of religions and cultures, and that was celebrated and we learned from each other.
Going to school in Massachusetts, teachers weren't allowed to teach about religion outside of a historical event (example: the holocaust). However, they never stopped students from educating the rest of the class why they did/or didn't wear certain clothes. Doing so made us ALL friends regardless of what religion or country we came from. I had friends from all around the world. All France is doing is making their future more bigoted.
So what happens if the girls wear maxi dresses and cardigans instead of abayas? Neither of those are religious symbols and are fairly ubiquitous Western fashion items.
Then they will pass a law forcing girls to wear shorts and to show more skin (just like they've done with the so-called burkini). This isn't about French values, it's about preventing Muslims from practicing their religion.
Abaya is *not* a religious symbol. This isn't hijab. This is just a long loose dress with long sleeves. I don't even know how they defined an Abaya. If a girl wears a long loose dress with long sleeves, what is that? Is she is brown and Muslim, it's an Abaya and if she's not it's all good?
I don't see why the state is getting into the business of enforcing fashion. If you care so much about it, have uniforms. But in any case, none of this is helping France integrate these communities.
Sometimes I get feeling that France never got over the Empire. They are having people from the former colonies come but are shocked that they aren't French and that they can change things they can see.
It doesn't matter that the abaya isn't actually religious, what matters is that it is overtly not French and is associated with religious people.
Compulsory school uniform for everyone might have been a less combative way to achieve equality and non-segregated schooling.
A specific law for Islamic dress means many French Muslims will feel persecuted and targeted, which will push them further away and cause conflict , not encourage cooperation and integration into French society and its values of secularism and equality.
I appreciate the complexity of this subject but surely it could have been handled with greater sensitivity. The national politicisation of schoolchildren's attire is a disingenuous way of addressing deep societal discord and could further alienate young people who are already vulnerable.
It's incredible watching people in the comments twisting themselves into knots trying to explain how banning clothing and freedom of expression are actually complementary ideals.
People here are seriously saying that “separation of church and state” means banning anything that has to do with religion from appearing in state-run institutions, to the point where children can’t go to public school wearing something their religion requires them to wear, even if it’s literally just a normal dress. And that’s somehow a good thing? I’m losing my freaking mind.
No, replace the country with China and Reddit would be up in arms about religious oppression of Muslims. But since it's France, so many are cheering for this.
teenage boys wearing long sleeve shirts and long pants = totally normal and secular 👌
teenage girls wearing clothes that cover the exact same amount of skin = inherently religious, must be banned
I saw the video on BBC website. The teacher proceeded to stop a girl wearing a long dress while herself was wearing a much longer dress. French hypocrisy is as old as time.
I just looked. Don't know why I thought it was BBC, it was in fact Sky news
https://news.sky.com/video/french-teachers-enforce-governments-abaya-ban-on-first-day-back-at-school-12955160
Anybody that ever read Persepolis or any other muslim woman autobiography knows this is just plain opression. Even those women who escape authoritarian regimes want their freedom to choose to wear or not wear their religious garment.
When it's done by western countries people clap, when it's done in eastern countries people hate.
250 upvotes from people who genuinely don't understand what separation of church and state actually mean. This is so depressing.
Separation of church and state means state government and officials can't make laws and policies based on religious belief. The state dictating how individuals express their own religious beliefs as non-state representatives is literally a violation of that.
The amount of people in these threads cheering for straight-up religious oppression and cultural erasure is so depressing I actually don't know how to handle it.
Personally, I don't think the state deciding what private citizens can and can not wear due to their religious beliefs is separation of church and state. It's the state mandating a lack of religious expression, which is them clearly taking a religious stance (even if it's an atheistic one).
I'm an atheist, but I don't like it.
My question is, how do they intend to separate abayas from non-religious loose ankle length, long sleeved dresses? I read several years ago an article about a muslim girl who was turned away from school for wearing a floor length skirt - something that is currently very fashionable in my country. Will we have a situation where white girls of french ethnicity can get away with wearing clothing that muslim girls are sent home for? Because that would be straight up discrimination.
> My question is, how do they intend to separate abayas from non-religious loose ankle length, long sleeved dresses?
Trick question, because it's not a religious dress to begin with. It's a very popular style in several Islamic countries, There are a dozen other major styles of dress acceptable under Islam's modesty guidelines. The Abayas is just the dress of choice for France's muslim minority.
Every time this comes up, I wonder about this.
There are certain fundamentalist Christian sects that require girls to wear long sleeves and long skirts. Why aren't those banned?
We all know why.
I'm an atheist, and I want religion kept completely out of education too. But not to the point where we start dictating that students can't dress modestly. Not all girls who dress this way are forced into it. And for the ones that are, all these laws are going to do is make it so they aren't allowed to get a proper education.
>My question is, how do they intend to separate abayas from non-religious loose ankle length, long sleeved dresses?
They are going to only enforce it against those with Muslim sounding names. It's pretty obvious it's meant to be discriminatory by design
That’s my concern too. An abaya is either a long sleeved floor length dress or in Iraq, it also refers to a long cloth that you wear as a cover. The former type could easily be worn without religious intent.
Yeah it falls apart for me when you consider an individual’s right to wear what they want. You could make a dress with similar dimensions to these and simply say it’s not a religious garment.
That's because it isn't a religious garment; it's a cultural garment worn in some Muslim-majority Arab countries. You don't have to be Muslim to wear abayas and Muslim women from outside of these Arab states don't tend to wear abayas either.
This summer I went to a music festival when it was extremely hot and sunny all day, so I wore a long, loose robe to shield myself from the sun and keep cool. It's not far from an abaya, but of course the ban doesn't depend on what the garment looks like, but on what the girl looks like.
I don't think the state saying that women can't dress a certain way is any better than saying they must dress a certain way.
Both ignore the wishes of the women.
I don't understand why the French look down on Americans for being "racist", when they're more bigoted and hostile to multiculturalism.
I'm not a fan of modesty garbs (irrespective of religion). But a ban on abayas is just going to further alienate Muslim communities in France, and that insularity could lead to radicalization within those communities. Not only is it blatantly racist, but it's also counterproductive
is a suit & tie religious wear?
this is the opposite of freedom
and discriminatory against a specific group of people
so many racist hypocritical idiots in this thread.......lol
Macron was able to push the retirement age despire widespread protests and condemnation. What makes you think he'll back off for 200 Muslim students being turned back
[удалено]
Is it actually French outrage or people in other countries outraged? Because France has a long history of trying to suppress religion in schools
Religion doesn’t belong in schools.
Amen!
Ramen!
Well done sir.
Exactly. Want to learn about religion? Go to a church, temple, seminary, etc. I say this as someone who believes in secular for all, and who lives partly as a religious hermit. Religion should only be *taught* in an academic sense. Like "people of this religipn believe this. We're going to talk about the origins of this religion", etc. Gaining religious *belief* is something that a person should discover, not because they were indoctrinated by families, churches, or schools. However, I do find prohibitions on articles of clothing that have religious significance to be very problematic.
France was really badly abused by the Catholic Church and have made their intentions of secularism very very clear for a long time.
I dont think wearing what you want to school should be illegal. What you are saying and this situation are not the same. She will still believe it whether you prevent her traditional outfits in school. Outfits are a part of freedom of expression and i dont think those outfits harm someone in any way
Religion shouldn't be taught in schools. Keeping a student from practicing their religion in a way thats non disruptive is real authoritarian bullshit
You are correct. But you should also know that a lot of Muslims in France are from the colonies and are French citizens. They would probably be outraged as they have been with every other measure before this. The other important detail is that France has decided that all religious symbols are not allowed in school. That also means that crucifixes are also not welcomed. I love that they, at least, are not hypocrites.
"Suppress religion in schools" what? Laïcité is a fundamental part of French society and education. If you don’t know what laïcité means, you certainly don’t have the knowledge to be commenting on this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Laïcité is commonly translated as freedom FROM religion. It's not that the state shouldn't deal with religious matters, it's that religious matters have no place within the state.
Right but this means that what is happening is not extraordinary for France but in line with how they have treated other religions. You should look up how it went for Catholics. The option is private schools or assimilation which is what the French have always pressed on. This is why it’s a yawn. Religious “suppression” in France goes back to revolution, they will never allow for any form of a theocracy or even a hint of it.
You are fortunately correct.
This is something that our American bros will never understand. Their vision of freedom of religion includes its public expression compared to France where it's a private matter. They will never understand that its exclusion from the public space is to guarantee that no majority on one of them will suppress the ones in minority in state matters, so when a French citizen shows up in a public institution, they only are a French citizen, not a Christian French citizen or a Muslim French citizen or a Jewish French citizen for instance. Privately, worship whatever you want, it's not the business of the state.
Thats great. You go france!
First of all I think you meant monolithic, not monolistic. Secondly as a French national I can tell you with 100% confidence that you have it backwards. Laïcité is primarily viewed as an effort to prevent religious intrusion upon or influence on secular life, political and public. The meaning of the term is not contested by a large percentage of the population. Do not confuse it with the separation of state here in the US where I admit there does seem to be considerably more disagreement on that concept.
The US just has a different group of religious people trying to use their religion to turn the place into a fascist religious state. Well for now. The saudis paid 100% to build a mosque here in my southern home town a few years ago. Won't be long till they are competing with the evangelicals in the attempt enslave us all.
[удалено]
It's their own spicy version of it. It's freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. It's why you see weird stuff like this happening.
Laïcité is suppressing religion in school, I am french but let's call a duck a duck. I am for it, but it's clearly suppressing religion for a more equal footing.
[удалено]
I think the main difference between the Anglo view and the Franco view is that, us in the Anglosphere believe that religion is an intrinsic part of who you are. Telling someone to take off an abaya, a kippah, or a cross is like telling someone they can’t be their true self. In the Franco world, it’s seen as just something you do in your spare time, like supporting a political party.
Yep. In France, religion is supposed to start and end at your own doorstep. In the US, for example, people identify as a christian first (shades of Mike Pence "im a christian, a conservative, and a republican. In that order.")
Here in Canada, it creates constant points of tension between Anglo and Franco Canadians. Quebec believes in Laïcité, but the rest of Canada believes in American style freedom of religion. When Quebec banned government workers from wearing any religious symbols, there was huge protest in English Canada (particularly from Muslim and Sikh Canadians).
Anglo Canada is not exactly US-style. The Canadian public school system includes religious schools that receive tax revenue. That would not fly in the US [w/ a very rare exception or two] as it’d be seen as a violation of the separation of church and state.
That’s 100% true, I meant more how it is viewed in the personal sense (nobody cares how you practice your religion). Even if you go to a state funded Catholic school in English Canada, nobody cares if you wear a hijab.
In my area (Ottawa) French Catholic schools are super chill anyways. But the English Catholic schoolboard , well, doesn’t attend pride like literally all other schoolboards. I’d be for merging the catholic and public schools into a single public board, having two boards for both languages is already enough. Getting rid of the split system has already been done successfully in other parts of the country, like Newfoundland and Québec.
> The Canadian public school system includes religious schools that receive tax revenue. That would not fly in the US [w/ a very rare exception or two] as it’d be seen as a violation of the separation of church and state. *Samuel Alito: Hold my beer*
Eh, Quebec went out of its way to grandfather their own religious symbols in the legislature as ‘historical items’. They’re not as clean as you like to make them out to be. I think you and I both know the true intent was to get rid of the Muslim clothing. It just sounds better to say that everybody is affected.
[удалено]
Since 1796…France had a big moment overthrowing religion and though it came back several times French liberalism is still very anti established religion.
Good point!
>, us in the Anglosphere believe that religion is an intrinsic part of who you are. Speak for yourself
I think it’s more that people with a modicum of common sense understand that the bigger threat to people’s rights here is implicitly taking away the right to education to girls because their religious beliefs differ from the state’s. It’s not actually “solving” the “problem” it pretends to and instead is a good way to placate conservatives.
just googled abaya and I am wondering how they're gonna distinguish an abaya from a non-abaya long dress? like what's the criteria for a dress to be considered an abaya?
Do you remember the meme with skin tones and Peter Griffin ?
That's my issue with it. I know how these things go.
This exactly what happened in Quebec. When they implemented their religious clothing ban for government workers. Despite the quebec government insisting that it wasn't racially motivated and done purely to secularize the state. No one was surprised that the ban only effected sikhs and muslim women, two religions where the primary practioners in Canada are brown people. To add insult to injury, when civil rights activists pointed out the hypocrisy of the Quebec government passing the "secularization" law while the room they passed it in had a giant ass cross, the government said that "christian iconography" is seen with more "cultural connotations" rather then "religious reverence".
Yes, our religiously influenced culture is inherently less religious than your religiously influenced culture because it's ours, and we are used to it so it's not terrifying.
Ding ding ding that’s exactly what happened, there are news segments with girls being refused entry for wearing loose, long dresses that have nothing to do with an abaya
I’m not even sure an abaya is Muslim. Is it?
Not really, iirc it's originally from Middle-East and it helps protecting the body from the sun. So more like a practical outfit that became a cultural thing associated with parts of the world where Islam is the main religion.
It’s like the robes and headdresses. When I went to the Middle East I thought some things they wouldn’t want do sell, I was naive and thought it was religious. Fuck no every Tom Dick and Harry in Jordan and Saudi and Palestine wanted to sell what robes they had. It’d be like saying suits are all Mormon or jeans and T-shirt’s are southern Baptist.
The abaya is just the robe, there is no head covering
They aren't saying an abaya is the same thing as the headdress, they're giving an example of cultural dress that they assumed was religious before visiting the region and learning otherwise.
I concur, I thought the male Saudi attire was strictly religious and that it would be frowned upon for an American to wear. In fact it was the exact opposite. People smile and love to see a foreigner in their traditional attire. Its super comfy, and keeps sun off of you. I am still a little nervous wearing it, so I don't wear it out and about very much. But when I do, I feel some sense of class while wearing it.
It's like how we associate robes with Jedi but in reality it was just Tatooine farmer wear that got extrapolated.
Wasn’t Qui-Gon Jinn wearing it before he ever visited Tatooine? :)
I figure it's less specific to Tatooine like they said, and more just in general the kind of clothes a poor person might wear in the Star Wars universe given the simplicity of the robes. The Jedi likely adopted it as a sort of uniform since they're monks and ideally try to live simple lives outside of what is required of their duties.
[удалено]
I have seen them in Indonesia. Like the hijab, it started as a cultural dress and became a religious dress. Saudi influence on the Muslim world is quite dramatic
[удалено]
I definitively have seen it in South Asia and Malaysia. What I've been told by my Muslim friends was that it came with Wahabism and Saudi money.
It's one of the more popular acceptable styles under the typical modesty rules, but it's not something actually specified or described in the religion beyond the general rules. There are a dozen other major styles of female Islamic clothing.
It isn’t. It literally isn’t religious garb. I know a Christian Arab woman who wears them.
Not really no, it just coincides with the region and culture
Nope. A lot of “muslim” clothes are just things that have been worn in the middle east for centuries prior to Islam, and then were adopted by Muslims considering it was their attire. The Abaya isn’t mandatory in Islam nor should it be synonymous with Islam, and the fact that people don’t get this is ridiculous. It’s literally like banning a muslim girl from wearing baggy jeans and a hoodie, which is literally acceptable attire for a muslim woman to wear.
Ay they should just say they're goth. Put a music band logo on it and call it a day. Isn't it weird so many Arab women rock Cradle of Filth?
No. Wikipedia says it’s not widely worn outside the Middle East. They’ve banned dressing too Arab.
An abaya is just a light weight, baggy dress. It’s pretty standard attire for the region. Ridiculous to ban them. Bad enough that they banned head scarves because “oppression” but these are ridiculous. I see plenty of non-religious dresses every day that would be exactly the same if they were black.
Abayas aren't even always black; you can find very colourful ones out there. They're just practical to wear when you're in a relentlessly hot, sunny, and sandy/dusty climate. I've literally worn something similar to a music festival where nudity was very accepted, because it's helpful to cover your body in a long, loose robe to protect against the sun and dust.
I saw two women who wore full length dresses driving into Boston today. Practically identical, except one had a pattern and both had their arms showing from half way down their bicep. This ban is ridiculous.
Yeah, honestly, modern-cut abaya are basically indistinguishable from a regular Western-style long dress. There are abaya that look like a classic wrap-dress, just a bit longer! If my lily-white ass wore one and visited a French school, no-one would stop me, guaranteed (I mean, apart from the fact I'm nearly 40 and my French is non-existent). I *have* shirts that look like the upper half of a fashionable abaya. It's a distraction technique built on racism, nothing else.
Its just modest dress from a particular culture.
If you're a Muslim in a long dress, that's out. If you're a Christian in a long dress, that's ok. It's going be discriminatory in both design and implementation
Show too much skin, get sent home. Don’t show enough skin, get sent home. Same with banning Burkinis in public pools. Swimsuit’s too small, get kicked out of the pool. Swimsuit’s too big, get kicked out of the pool. Now you have a generation of Muslim girls who are kept out of school and aren’t allowed go swimming. Good thing this doesn’t count as discrimination.
“Why won’t these people we persecute with laws obsessing over what they wear just integrate???”
This is really unfair. As a woman I don't think women should have to cover themselves up. But if they want to they should be able to. What is the problem with these girls wearing a robe or a burkini? How do those burkini rules handle people who need extra UV protection and wear rash guards and stuff? People should be free to wear what they want as long as it isn't dangerous. I can understand the one that fully covers the face as teachers need to be able to identify students, but as long as you can do that I see no issue.
As one of the whitest white men who's ever whited, I really should get a burkini for my next trip to the beach.
This is what I've been saying and have been downvoted every time. How can you say a long dress is religious? It doesn't add up for me.
If a Muslim is wearing it, it's a Abaya, if a white girl is wearing it, it's a dress.
And if a white Muslim girl is wearing it...brain explodes
They're just going to straight up ban all ethnic dresses in France next and the geniuses here will say it's for laïcité.
Depends on whether long dress is worn by a brown and/or Muslim girl vs white and/or Christian No "/s", this ban is nonsensical
France has been very consistent over the years with respect to its interpretation of secularism and laïcité. While the anglo-world has adopted a multicultural approach on the back of immigration, France has opted for assimilation and integration. On a European level, neither policy has really succeeded in avoiding self-segregration. Hyper religious people who are unable to comply with French law and culture should send their children to private schools. Otherwise, they should avoid settling in France. Catholics managed to adapt, despite even harsher treatment by the state. I am sure Muslims can do the same. I know this brushes Americans the wrong way, but for many of these girls, school will be the only chance in their lives to experience a secular environment, without pressure to be "modest".
I'm American and I'm fine with it. It brushes some religious Americans the wrong way and somehow Evangelical Gun-Nut has become the default impression the EU has of Americans in general. But even in the US, the religiosity right now in government far exceeds that of the 80's. And the religiosity of the 80's far exceeded 40's in terms of overt religiosity as seen in American government ("in god we trust", "under god", etc..). America is interesting in that the Government has adopted more and more overt religion despite America itself becoming less and less religious in total.
>more and more overt religion despite America itself becoming less and less religious in total. Not that unique, my Poland is going through exact, same phase as we speak. We're one of the fastest secularising countries on planet, while religion is gaining more and more influence over politics each year. The explanation is the same as u/iluvios said *"when a once powerful group starts to lose power, they want to keep the grip on it".* Catholics are losing grip, less and less people attend Masses but they are still significant group, with millions of potential voters. No party want to lose that potential, so they all more or less play along. At the same time Catholic officials feeling that tides are turning against them, showcase besieged fortress syndrome and demand more and more power, recognition and exemptions. And they are being fed. I guess non-believers are simply not that demanding...
I grew up as a fundamentalist evangelical Southern Baptist. I am now - quite understandably, I think - an atheist. One of the things that finally drove me (and a couple of my friends) out of evangelical thought for good were the fruits of the spirit. I've seen it mentioned elsewhere by people completely unconnected to me as well, so it might actually be one of the bigger breaking-points driving youth away from evangelical ideology. Here's what I mean by that: the fruits of the spirit are listed by Paul the Apostle in Galatians as the outward qualities of a person who is a true Christian. In evangelical circles, the fruits of the spirit have become kind of a go-to kid-friendly thing to teach children in Sunday school, but it's a serious spiritual/philosophical concept even though most American Christians and pastors never bring it up again with the adults. The fruits are "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." As a kid growing up in church, I heard about this concept a lot. And as I got older, I noticed that none of the people in my church displayed any of them. Love? They literally stood out on the street with "God hates f\*gs" signs. Joy? Some of the most bitter people I knew. Peace? Constantly fighting among themselves, not to mention their advocacy for beating children. Self-control? The youth pastor was almost certainly a child molester considering the way he interacted with the girls, and there was at least one extramarital affair going on at any given time, and it wasn't even a huge church. There's way more, but you get the point. So a lot of people like me hit 15-20 years old and start having some pretty bad cognitive dissonance with what we're taught as children versus what we see actually going on among the congregation. For a lot of us, that's the thin end of the wedge. All it takes from there is a few blows to drive that wedge in, and that's it. Hence the falling rates of religiosity in the US. Politics taking over the church definitely doesn't help, either, but that's a newer thing that's happened since I was a kid. There have been a bunch of stories now of evangelical pastors quoting Jesus Christ directly and being confronted by angry congregants about their "woke ideology."
Very interesting contribution, thank you. "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." I love the pursuit of those virtues, even if I'm an atheist
Lol, the irony is that the next verse says “against such things there are no laws.” As in, everyone’s for these qualities.
We've drifted away from following Christ and fallen into mindless, repetitive religiosity. Money is worshipped, hence the prosperity gospel. The odour of death fills the church.
Exactly my experience growing up evangelical Southern Baptist as well. I feel like I was part of an experiment on how to make the most adult non-believers.
I find that people like that FEAR God and don't trust his judgement. They don't believe in Him, they believe in hell. So much so, that they have more in common with Satanists than Christianity. If you are truly "saved" and "washed in the blood of the lamb" and "believe all things are possible with Christ". Then why are you so afraid of Alcohol, Music, Gays, Abortion, Gambling, Prostitutes, Sex, Drugs and a list of other things that if you don't partake, then you've got nothing to worry about? if you are going to heaven, then what do you care what someone else does? If you are trying to 'save' them, isn't that Jesus' job?
These aren't coincidences....as the religious bloc loses its power and influence on society, it reacts by trying to take more and more control of the secular power of the government in order to formally install itself as the state religion and codify its power and influence in a way that a ever decreasing number of adherents won't matter to it.
Has there ever been an openly agnostic or atheist president? Even though all of the religious ones did anti-religion things, I've never lived through any that don't include their religious association in their campaigns. Therefore as a child of the early 80s, I've gone my whole life thinking that the separation of church and state makes everything else seem like it could be a lie.
There has not. Every single president except Tommy J and Abe are listed as some flavor of christian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#List_of_presidents_by_religious_affiliation
Quincy Adams might count.
I don’t know why you’re pretending it’s only right wing Americans that have problems with secular laws when liberal Americans (the majority of people on Reddit) are vocally against France’s secular laws
>Americans that have problems with secular laws when liberal Americans (the majority of people on Reddit) are vocally against France’s secular laws The basis of those complaints against this law is that it violates freedom of expression. American liberals don't have a problem with secularism.
That’s a decent argument but I’m not really commenting on the law itself; merely the statement that it’s only right wing evangelicals that are against it which is patently false
We prefer it. Express religious beliefs all you want. Just don't let a biased school administration force those beliefs through education.
I am a liberal American and I support France’s secular laws. Religion has no place in public life.
You want the government to tell you you can't wear a robe and hat?
*I put on my robe and wizard~~'s~~ hat...*
[удалено]
People are actually saying it's OK for your government to not let you wear a robe and hat.
What if im a wizard?
I support the donning of wizard attire in the classroom. Free the wizard robe from the shackles of secularism!
Well, they're ok with CERTAIN people not being allowed to wear what they want.
Claims liberal, makes rules what others can and cannot do in public.
I am American and I wish US public schools would all have this policy.
Yes but religious dressings would 100% be allowable, it’s literally a right in our constitution. The government does not have the authority to interrupt religious expression save a few very specific exceptions. Unharmful clothing is not one of those exceptions.
If you look around, you will see that we need to save our public schools from existential threats first….
Let’s multitask.
Absolutely. We’ll start by addressing the book bans. Edit: how could I forget about the school shootings. We’re in deep trouble.
>It brushes some religious Americans the wrong way and somehow Evangelical Gun-Nut has become the default impression the EU has of Americans in general. I'm not religious in the slightest and it bothers me because it's the literal opposite of freedom. Something that is pretty fundamental to our way of life here. Banning the way people dress is the same as someone forcing someone to dress a certain way. They are both the same side of the same coin. Both of those are not compatible with the idea of freedom. Especially to express ones self how they want.
There's a difference between separation of church and state and prohibiting free exercise in secular spaces. Public schoolteacher-led prayer? Unconstitutional. Kid wearing religious garb? Constitutionally protected. Unfortunately, theocrats have opportunistically used free exercise to create a right to refuse service to people on grounds of bigotry.
You realise that they have a different constitution though right?
Yes. The comment I replied to does not seem aware of this distinction in American law. The case here has nothing to do with government religiosity.
Sending children to private schools further creates a dual society and those schools are destined to be a hotbed of radicalism
When society faces an ultimatum let fall that which cannot stand. The value of freedom France was built upon must either be preserved or take a shift towards opposing Islamic values. I think the french government is being very clear on the what sort of values it wants to nurture. Now the ball is in the other court and conservative muslims will show through their actions if they can stand by those values.
That's a choice made by the parents though, so you can't really blame the government when they provide public education for (free/a fraction of the cost). It's like saying that antivax parents not being able to put their kids in daycares the fault of the government because they made daycares reject unvaccinated kids to protect the other kids. It's still the parents' fault.
> I know this brushes Americans I don't understand why this discussion is always being framed as "Americans vs Europe", these French policies are considered outrageous in many countries across the world. I'm from Scotland myself btw, so not a North American.
It's because most redditors are American
Abaya dresses aren't religious dress. They *just aren't.* They are a part of secular Arabic culture that happens to qualify as modest dress by Islamic rules. It's worn by Arab Christians, too. Literally any attempt to ban this dress on the basis of religion is fundamentally wrong for that reason alone. It isn't religious clothing. There is no element of this that is about religion and so there is also no element of this that is about secularism. It's simply xenophobia and nothing more.
Google "abaya dress". Tell me how that's not just a baggy, long-sleeved dress. I am forced to question whether this is a ban on baggy, long-sleeved dresses for all, or just for brown-skinned girls. My understanding is that the abaya is not exclusively worn by Muslims. It is also worn by Christian and Jewish arab women, so it is not, in fact, an inherently Muslim garment so much as it is a cultural garment. So, can a secular girl of middle-eastern descent wear an abaya to school?
The reason it rubs Americans the wrong way is because that’s not what we consider assimilation and integration. That sounds more like coercion. Assimilation and integration requires give and take. Today in NYC I think you’ll find more halal carts than hot dog stands. And in fact Muslims in the US assimilate far better into US culture for lack of a better term than they do in France.
>On a European level, neither policy has really succeeded in avoiding self-segregration. Yes, but multiculturalism *can* work in some contexts. Canada and New Zealand, for example, have largely avoided self-segregation and ghettoization of immigrant minorities. However this requires societies that are more open and who generally do not view newcomers as a threat. And BTW as a secular Humanist and someone who does not personally support policing women's attire (religious or not), not to mention the hijab sending exactly the wrong signal about women not least because it segregates and disempowers them, I think France's position is dead wrong. From a personal freedom of expression and religion perspective, disallowing religious garb is authoritarianism and trampling of people's rights. They are tackling the *symptoms* (wearing religious symbols) of what they find incompatible, not the *cause*: the religion or religious beliefs themselves. This is cowardice. Have the guts to take on the beliefs you disagree with and debate them in an open forum, don't restrict people's rights to free expression or belief. Change people's minds by *convincing them*, rather than forcing them via oppressive laws.
French here, the french school system is in total déréliction, not enough teachers, really low wages for teachers and son on. And what is better in France for not talking about it ? Just forbid something related with islam ans everyone will be talking only about this . Really few people Wear abaya in school, maybe some hundreds, but in news channels it became the main issue in school, we are morons and our ministers can use us as morons as they want ....
Because they want us to fight a culture war when we should be fighting a class war
But hey, it's reddit. Anti-reilgion is one of the big pillars of reddit. So it's pretty in line either French policy. Even if French policy is just a strong colonial fist in West Africa. And be racist to all the confused folk who went north and settled in colonial motherland, France. See the recent Liverpool FC supporters experience with the police as a small insight into it
Heh, if you launch of debate that will cost you 0€ it keeps the people away from the lack of funding issue. We're just dumb enough to not press them on the matter.
Ah, thank you for your perspective. It sounds like how American republicans are trying to distract from other issues within education by focusing on queer people and books about Black history, etc.
I remember the moment when republicans started shifting national debate from January six to some inane debate about critical race theory
That's just how politics works. Here in India, we have a dozen serious issues from an ongoing genocide in Manipur to the extremely corrupt practices of an oligarch, but our leadership is more interested in renaming the country to remove any "colonial influence" than to fix the actual problems.
Yeah Modi also seems to be shit when it comes to minorities, farmers, etc. Getting more toilets across the country is good but there are still plenty of issues.
Just so you know - 5.069.000 students concerned - 289 showing up wearing one - 67 refusing to take it off And it s all over the damn fuckin "news", while they multi track drift screwin us up, we r doomed
[удалено]
Sure. Technically you shouldn't be able to in public schools. However throughout my entire education here I've seen countless students wear a cross, and nothing was ever said to them. If they're trying to make it seem like you shouldn't show your religion at school, they should enforce it the same way for each. That's not the case currently.
Where I were every time a teacher or the director saw a cross they always asked to the student to hide. That said I have just a question: How big where the cross ? Are you talking about the big cross weared by very pious people or the priest ? Or are you talking about the small cross who are like 3cm big at most ? Because let's be honest, a small cross is spotted when you are at 2 meters of the student, an hijab or an abaya, you cans spot at 100 meters, that is a difference too
And you can have a small Fatima's hand, or Jewish star, or whatever similar Oh and it isn't about religion only, outward political opinions are to stay private too, you'll be asked to remove an anarchist patch, or a whatever party symbol. Of some fascist come back with a brown shirt party symbol that would be banned too, in public school that is
These countries are not examples to follow. If we think it’s wrong there then it’s wrong here too.
>However, unlike there, in France all religions are treated equally. You can't wear a cross either for example. This reminds me of back when people were claiming it’s not discriminatory to ban same sex marriage because the law applied to everyone equally and anyone can get (straight) married. Yes, technically it’s banning all visible religious clothing equally. In reality, though, even if it’s actually enforced equally(Press X to Doubt) it’s clearly targeted in a particular direction since the dominant religious group in France doesn’t have clothing requirements for the laity that stand out from standard western clothing. Sure, you can’t wear a cross to school…but you can still probably hide it under a top, and anyway it’s not a religious requirement to do so. You can still practice your religion in a way that, say, a Jew who wears a kippah cannot. I get there’s a very real problem in France with the issue of insular and often radicalized Muslim communities, I’m not saying I have the answers….but “state-enforced prohibition of their dress codes” ain’t gonna solve the problem either. At best you’re addressing a shallow and mostly aesthetic aspect of it so you can pretend there’s some cultural assimilation and deradicalization going on. Really though, it’s probably just going to create even more resentment amongst the holdouts and make matters worse honestly.
This also further isolates girls that are from the most extremist families becuase they just won't let them go to school. Tbh if France really wants to ban things like this just make is so schools have a uniform. Doesn't fix things fully but I view it as a lot more fair.
Won’t the parents of extremist muslim families still not let their child go to school because they have to wear a uniform instead of their traditional muslim garments?
Yes I mentioned it doesn't fix things fully. But you have to worry less about selective enforcement, where specific lines are drawn(when does an Abaya just become a long dress), and the issue of these type of laws seemingly specifically targeting minority groups becuase the religious groups that are in the majority are pretty much completely unaffected by them.
There's an easy solution to this debate - school uniform. No Muslims wear abayas to school in the UK because nobody can wear anything that isn't the school uniform. Nobody cares (except maybe some extreme religious people who send their kids to Muslim schools, but that's another issue).
People should be required to differentiate hijab (the scarf), niqab (full-face covering), and abaya (literally JUST. THE. DRESS. ) before they are allowed to comment in this thread.
Weeeelll, to be precise, niqabs still leave a slit for the eyes, burkas are the things which actually cover the full face. Though the difference is not that big, imho.
It's just annoying that some comments seem to be under the impression that it is a burqa/niqab ban when even headscarves have long been prohibited in French state schools. I don't any supposed threat to laïcité if they're all unveiled to begin with.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The only reason people in this thread are praising this move is because it was done by a European country, which is higher in the reddit pecking order than the US. If this was being done in Florida, everybody would be calling out how restrictive this law is. Or imagine the headline “China forbids Uyghurs from wearing the abaya” lol
I personally love that America has such strictly enshrined freedom of speech and religion laws. I have worked in public schools where the staff and students were a diverse array of religions and cultures, and that was celebrated and we learned from each other.
Going to school in Massachusetts, teachers weren't allowed to teach about religion outside of a historical event (example: the holocaust). However, they never stopped students from educating the rest of the class why they did/or didn't wear certain clothes. Doing so made us ALL friends regardless of what religion or country we came from. I had friends from all around the world. All France is doing is making their future more bigoted.
So what happens if the girls wear maxi dresses and cardigans instead of abayas? Neither of those are religious symbols and are fairly ubiquitous Western fashion items.
Then they will pass a law forcing girls to wear shorts and to show more skin (just like they've done with the so-called burkini). This isn't about French values, it's about preventing Muslims from practicing their religion.
This because it’s a racist la since an abaya is just a cultural dress that even westerners wear in the Middle East.
It's like banning cowboy boots since most Texans and Vaqueros are Christians.
This is a great example actually but too nuanced for redditors
[удалено]
[удалено]
Abaya is *not* a religious symbol. This isn't hijab. This is just a long loose dress with long sleeves. I don't even know how they defined an Abaya. If a girl wears a long loose dress with long sleeves, what is that? Is she is brown and Muslim, it's an Abaya and if she's not it's all good? I don't see why the state is getting into the business of enforcing fashion. If you care so much about it, have uniforms. But in any case, none of this is helping France integrate these communities.
This is what I don’t get. A lot of people wear long dresses with long sleeves, that’s not that unusual.
Sometimes I get feeling that France never got over the Empire. They are having people from the former colonies come but are shocked that they aren't French and that they can change things they can see. It doesn't matter that the abaya isn't actually religious, what matters is that it is overtly not French and is associated with religious people.
Compulsory school uniform for everyone might have been a less combative way to achieve equality and non-segregated schooling. A specific law for Islamic dress means many French Muslims will feel persecuted and targeted, which will push them further away and cause conflict , not encourage cooperation and integration into French society and its values of secularism and equality.
I appreciate the complexity of this subject but surely it could have been handled with greater sensitivity. The national politicisation of schoolchildren's attire is a disingenuous way of addressing deep societal discord and could further alienate young people who are already vulnerable.
It's incredible watching people in the comments twisting themselves into knots trying to explain how banning clothing and freedom of expression are actually complementary ideals.
Reddit: Men shouldn't make decisions on behalf of women. Also Reddit: Alright gals, here is today's list of approved clothing.
People here are seriously saying that “separation of church and state” means banning anything that has to do with religion from appearing in state-run institutions, to the point where children can’t go to public school wearing something their religion requires them to wear, even if it’s literally just a normal dress. And that’s somehow a good thing? I’m losing my freaking mind.
Imagine: "Russian state schools turn away dozens of girls wearing Muslim abaya dresses".
No, replace the country with China and Reddit would be up in arms about religious oppression of Muslims. But since it's France, so many are cheering for this.
Damn, China would have been such an obvious pick. How didn't I think of that...
teenage boys wearing long sleeve shirts and long pants = totally normal and secular 👌 teenage girls wearing clothes that cover the exact same amount of skin = inherently religious, must be banned
I saw the video on BBC website. The teacher proceeded to stop a girl wearing a long dress while herself was wearing a much longer dress. French hypocrisy is as old as time.
100% believe this but would appreciate a link.
I just looked. Don't know why I thought it was BBC, it was in fact Sky news https://news.sky.com/video/french-teachers-enforce-governments-abaya-ban-on-first-day-back-at-school-12955160
Anybody that ever read Persepolis or any other muslim woman autobiography knows this is just plain opression. Even those women who escape authoritarian regimes want their freedom to choose to wear or not wear their religious garment. When it's done by western countries people clap, when it's done in eastern countries people hate.
Seriously, *Malala* wears a headscarf. Should we ban her for promoting religious extremism, or do we have functioning brains?
Ah yes, “freedom.”
Good. Let’s separate church and state for everyone
250 upvotes from people who genuinely don't understand what separation of church and state actually mean. This is so depressing. Separation of church and state means state government and officials can't make laws and policies based on religious belief. The state dictating how individuals express their own religious beliefs as non-state representatives is literally a violation of that. The amount of people in these threads cheering for straight-up religious oppression and cultural erasure is so depressing I actually don't know how to handle it.
Then get rid of the 6 publicly recognized Catholic holidays. Tell me to my face that “Saint Stephen’s Day” and “Ascension Day” are secular.
Belgium tries to do this by renaming them but it has yet to be natural to people to use official nonsecular names
That’s the opposite of separation of church and state.
Personally, I don't think the state deciding what private citizens can and can not wear due to their religious beliefs is separation of church and state. It's the state mandating a lack of religious expression, which is them clearly taking a religious stance (even if it's an atheistic one). I'm an atheist, but I don't like it.
My question is, how do they intend to separate abayas from non-religious loose ankle length, long sleeved dresses? I read several years ago an article about a muslim girl who was turned away from school for wearing a floor length skirt - something that is currently very fashionable in my country. Will we have a situation where white girls of french ethnicity can get away with wearing clothing that muslim girls are sent home for? Because that would be straight up discrimination.
> My question is, how do they intend to separate abayas from non-religious loose ankle length, long sleeved dresses? Trick question, because it's not a religious dress to begin with. It's a very popular style in several Islamic countries, There are a dozen other major styles of dress acceptable under Islam's modesty guidelines. The Abayas is just the dress of choice for France's muslim minority.
That’s the issue, right? An abaya is just like a long sleeved maxi dress. Is France next going to ban long skirts and maxi dresses?
Headscarves were popular in most of Europe in our grandparents generation.
Every time this comes up, I wonder about this. There are certain fundamentalist Christian sects that require girls to wear long sleeves and long skirts. Why aren't those banned? We all know why. I'm an atheist, and I want religion kept completely out of education too. But not to the point where we start dictating that students can't dress modestly. Not all girls who dress this way are forced into it. And for the ones that are, all these laws are going to do is make it so they aren't allowed to get a proper education.
>My question is, how do they intend to separate abayas from non-religious loose ankle length, long sleeved dresses? They are going to only enforce it against those with Muslim sounding names. It's pretty obvious it's meant to be discriminatory by design
That’s my concern too. An abaya is either a long sleeved floor length dress or in Iraq, it also refers to a long cloth that you wear as a cover. The former type could easily be worn without religious intent.
Simple, just see if they’re brown
Ssh! You're not supposed to say that part out loud!
They really don't intend to. This policy change is about oppression not liberation.
Yeah it falls apart for me when you consider an individual’s right to wear what they want. You could make a dress with similar dimensions to these and simply say it’s not a religious garment.
That's because it isn't a religious garment; it's a cultural garment worn in some Muslim-majority Arab countries. You don't have to be Muslim to wear abayas and Muslim women from outside of these Arab states don't tend to wear abayas either. This summer I went to a music festival when it was extremely hot and sunny all day, so I wore a long, loose robe to shield myself from the sun and keep cool. It's not far from an abaya, but of course the ban doesn't depend on what the garment looks like, but on what the girl looks like.
It's secular, not atheistic.
I’m also a staunch atheist and I agree with you. Demanding that people not wear religious garb is just as ridiculous as demanding that they do.
I don't think the state saying that women can't dress a certain way is any better than saying they must dress a certain way. Both ignore the wishes of the women.
I don't understand why the French look down on Americans for being "racist", when they're more bigoted and hostile to multiculturalism. I'm not a fan of modesty garbs (irrespective of religion). But a ban on abayas is just going to further alienate Muslim communities in France, and that insularity could lead to radicalization within those communities. Not only is it blatantly racist, but it's also counterproductive
is a suit & tie religious wear? this is the opposite of freedom and discriminatory against a specific group of people so many racist hypocritical idiots in this thread.......lol