Secular Society Threatened?

[Meneldil]

As I said, if it affects the ability to do their job, then the employer should have every right to reject them, and should never have to cater to their needs. I am firmly opposed to the PC-equality crap.

But why should the government tell an employer that he can't hire someone who will wear a headscarf? That's just unecessary.



Surely that is just a standard libertarian society? Laicite gives religion special treatment over all other ideologies/belief systems, apparently due to historical factors with the church being the oppressive force in past times. But really, where is the freedom in having to drop your religious belief as soon as you step over your doorstep?

Wut? Man, private employers can let the workers wear headscarves and kippa. Public workers, on the other hand, don't get that right. They can't wear a headscarf, a kippa, a S&M mask or a "punk is not dead" jacket. That's about it.
Religion gets no special harsh treatement. It actually gets the exact same treatement as any other hobby or ideology. What you clearly don't get is that religious people deserves no treatement different from goth people, gay people, gamers. They aren't an oppressed minority. Thing is, unlike goth people, gay people or gamers, religious people tend to think they should have specific rights because they're catholic or muslim. They also tend to think that the state should accomodate to their beliefs. The French state disagrees.

Plus, if you force religious folk to hide away in the private sphere or their own communities, then that will only breed extremism amidst a mess of social and economic problems.

Well, thing is, the 1905 law we are talking about was designed in such a fashion that religious folks had two choices:
- join the civil, laic and modern society and become a part of the nation.
- persist in their ancient ways and become outcasts.
Obviously, the huge majority gave up the -already dying out- catholic religion and happily jumped into modernity. If muslims can't do the same, well, who cares? They can live in their hellholes and complain about the evil oppressive islamophobe french state, I'm not going to shed a single tear for them.

It is actually only practicable in a predominately Christian country, ironically.

Ironically, you're wrong. Turkey is an example of extremely secular muslim country. Women can't wear headscarves in the university in Turkey (while they sadly can in France).
That being said, in the 50's and 60's, many arab countries tried to establish secular society (more or less based on the french and turkish model). Pretty much all of them failed and made a U-turn during the 70's.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Obviously, the huge majority gave up the -already dying out- catholic religion and happily jumped into modernity. If muslims can't do the same, well, who cares? They can live in their hellholes and complain about the evil oppressive islamophobe french state, I'm not going to shed a single tear for them.

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Flights-g..._Airfares.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ironically, you're wrong. Turkey is an example of extremely secular muslim country. Women can't wear headscarves in the university in Turkey (while they sadly can in France).
That being said, in the 50's and 60's, many arab countries tried to establish secular society (more or less based on the french and turkish model). Pretty much all of them failed and made a U-turn during the 70's.

I addressed this, Turkey's Secularism rests on a knife edge, and Islam is still favoured. Also, Turkish Secularism is also linked to extreme nationalism, much more so than in France.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

French civilisation is universal. The future of all mankind, destined to be free and equal. It's not a nationality, but a mental state.

Or, as some would have it -woe upon them - simply the state of being mental.

There is progress. Last year, the UK abolished its blasphemy laws.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1942...re-lifted.html

Not that it was a living law, but symbolism is important.

Next stop, the reserved seats for Bishops of the Church if England in the House of Lords.

I had a love thought out post about George Orwell, 1984 and the Ministry of Love, but the internet ate it.

So I shall say simply that what you call Freedom I see only as oppression, and your vaunted Civilisation looks to me to be nothing more nor less than Roman, with Lacite replacing the Imperial Cult.

[Beskar]

Next stop, the reserved seats for Bishops of the Church if England in the House of Lords.

Agreed. Let's board the train to freedom.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I have to admit, there's not really any valid reason for the House of Lords to still reserve seats for bishops.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have to admit, there's not really any valid reason for the House of Lords to still reserve seats for bishops.

Except that the Bishops are Officers of State and much more rigourously selected and vetted than the political dross that sit on those benches with them. As long as the Church remains an arm of the government; the Lords Spiritual should retain their seats.

[The Wizard]

Men in dresses with crosses have no place in any modern day legislature.

[Beskar]

Except that the Bishops are Officers of State and much more rigourously selected and vetted than the political dross that sit on those benches with them. As long as the Church remains an arm of the government; the Lords Spiritual should retain their seats.

This is why we kick them all our, and their churches with them.

Also, I still remember when EMFM was adamant about Britain being an example of secularism. Where did he disappear to?

[Brenus]

“So I shall say simply that what you call Freedom I see only as oppression”:
So freedom to choose to live the life you decide is to be oppressed.

You’re right: George Orwell wrote in 1984 the motto of all dictatureships, political and religious.: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strenght.
So for you, to have the choice is slavery, to have no guide, to have to built your own path, is oppression…

Well, as a former NCO I can tell you are somehow right. Most of the people prefer to obey than to take a decision, then fast to blame the man in charge in case of failure.
Freedom is hard. Better to have a good book to tell us what to do. We can stone to death young girls raped by their neighbours without any doubt…
Go to Holy War and you won’t see how much you are exploited at home.
Ignore the rest of the infidel world, you will have no doubt…

I would have had Ignorance is Freedom. When the Bible was in Latin, it was better as no body understood what it was said, so the control on the population by the men in charge of the link between the Creator and his/her creatures was more complete and absolute. Ignorance gives you freedom of mind which is essential. Too much questions just spoil the believers...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is why we kick them all our, and their churches with them.

Also, I still remember when EMFM was adamant about Britain being an example of secularism. Where did he disappear to?

The two have to happen together. As long as the Prime Minister chooses the Bishops they have as much right to sit in the Lords as any other Peer he chooses.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So I shall say simply that what you call Freedom I see only as oppression

Well one man´s freedom is another one´s oppression I guess.

Me, I don´t need this for an unelected senate, passing final judgement on the laws of my democratically elected government:



Citizen vs subject and all that.

I wouldn't want an unelected head of state either. Nor my head of state to be the head of the state church. Nor a state church in the first place. Nor my head of state to appoint bishops.
Nor, indeed, my state to have any opinion about my religious persuasion whatsoever - that is none of its business.

[Meneldil]

I addressed this, Turkey's Secularism rests on a knife edge, and Islam is still favoured. Also, Turkish Secularism is also linked to extreme nationalism, much more so than in France.

That is sadly an effect of the rise of islamism since the 70's. It's quite sad that secularism couldn't establish itself in the middle east outside of Turkey and that it has to use militarism and fascism to maintain itself in Turkey.

As for the oppression you're talking about, I still don't see it. For your information, you can't wear headscarve in school and high school, and school is obligatory in France (there's no home teaching except for very specific cases). Young muslim take off their weil when they enter the school and put it back when they leave. If they feel oppressed, I don't know what to say.
Why should a muslim be allowed to wear a kippa while working for the city hall, while another person might not be able to wear a leather collar and a leash? Judaism and S&M are two hobbies that influence (or not) on your way of life. Why should one be favored over the other?


Now, as a very serious question, what is France, as a nation, as a society and as a state, missing with her laicité? None answered this question so far, while it is in my opinion the only important one. The oppression you're talking about is one of our last shield against multiculturalism (which have universally proved itself to be a failure), and probably one of the main reasons why France became the epitome of the modern nation-state (and the only complete and successful one according to some searchers whom I disagree with).

Edit: One of the thing you're also missing is the historical background of France since the Revolution. Namely, the state is going to liberate you, whether you like it or not, and whatever the cost might be. Obviously, it is only a national myth, but the way France dealt with religions since then is one of the main pillars of this myth.

[Viking]

For your information, you can't wear headscarve in school and high school[...]

Which is ridiculous, IMNSHO. Might as well enforce school uniforms while you're at it, so to not having students having to endure each other's personal styles, and the opinions contained therein. If it doesn't interfere with education, it should be allowed - general rule.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hmmmmm.

I believe in Freedom of Religion. Laicite appears to be Freedom from Religion....whether I like my religion or not. I thought laicite was supposed to insure secularity of civil government (a concept with much value) and not serve as a tool to eradicate/completely marginalize religion culturally.


As to the seating of Bishops in the House of Lords:

What difference does it make. As near as I can fathom it, the only remaining purpose of the HOL is to serve as a forum for discussion and for publicly stating the misgivings and caveats some persons/groups may have with a given piece of legislation, since the legislation itself is decided by the cabinet, rubber stamped by the governing party or coalition (save in rare votes or no confidence votes that force elections) in the HOC and stops at the HOL and the Queen's desk only for forms sake.

If that be so, what harm does letting a few bishops blather do?

[The Wizard]

They can delay legislation much like the U.S. Senate, though for a more limited time and with less options.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Which is ridiculous, IMNSHO. Might as well enforce school uniforms while you're at it, so to not having students having to endure each other's personal styles, and the opinions contained therein. If it doesn't interfere with education, it should be allowed - general rule.

Exactly. Just because a belief is influenced by the guy in the sky doesn't mean it needs to be suppressed unlike any other sort of belief.

[Furunculus]

Well one man´s freedom is another one´s oppression I guess.

Me, I don´t need this for an unelected senate, passing final judgement on the laws of my democratically elected government:



Citizen vs subject and all that.

I wouldn't want an unelected head of state either. Nor my head of state to be the head of the state church. Nor a state church in the first place. Nor my head of state to appoint bishops.
Nor, indeed, my state to have any opinion about my religious persuasion whatsoever - that is none of its business.

i have always been happy to call myself a subject of her majesty, and i have no objection to the 'church' lords, even though i am not CoE, or even religious.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It is the dream of every Frenchman to find something, anything, to disagree about with another Frenchman, then start a civil war about it.

Yet for all the divisiveness, over anything, laïcité is not a source of disagreement. I think more Frenchmen believe in laïcité than in the existence of a country called 'Spain' south of the Pyrénées. The traditional opponents are extinct, or marginalised to such an extent that I want them protected as an endangered species. You'd sooner part an American from his Freedom of Speech, or five quid from a Scot, or a Texan from his cousine, than a Frenchman from his laïcité.


Wiki doesn't really seem to cut it. The BBC does have a very good introduction to this concept that is as central to French political sentiment as it is ill-understood and therefore much maligned abroad, or perfectly well understood and thus much maligned. However that may be:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

French Secularism - Laicite

• Front Page
• What is h2g2?
• Who's Online
• Write an Entry
• Browse
• Announcements
• Feedback
• h2g2 Help
• RSS Feeds

Contact Us


Like this page?
Send it to a friend!
The French concept of laïcité is often difficult to understand for foreigners, in part because the word itself is not easy to translate. As it signifies the strict separation of Church and State, the closest approximation in English is secularism. However, that does not fully convey the importance of laïcité in France.
At the end of 2003 and the beginning of 2004 the French newspapers seemed to talk about little else, due to the December 2003 report of the Stasi Commission (set up by Bernard Stasi to investigate the application of laïcité in France) and the resulting law of February 2004. This law, recommended by the commission, forbids school students to wear any conspicuous religious or political signs or symbols, such as the Islamic headscarf, the Jewish skullcap or large Christian crosses. The law is due to take effect at the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year.
Such a measure was seen as extremely unusual and almost incomprehensible by many in other countries. However, in order to better understand the importance of secularism or laïcité in France, it is necessary to trace the history of the relationship between the Church and the State, beginning at the time of the French Revolution.
A History of an Idea
Religion and Revolution
Although the idea of religious tolerance had been around since 1598, when the Edict of Nantes made it permissible for Protestant Christians to practise their religion, before 1789 the Roman Catholic Church was still a major part of the French system of government. Within the rigid social structure of the French Estates (known as the Ancien Régime), the clergy, or First Estate, wielded considerable power. Not only was the Church responsible for collecting the tithe from the ordinary workers and operating the hospitals and schools, it also had powers of censorship and owned around 15% of the land in France. The clergy can be seen as being divided into two groups. The lower clergy was made up of the parish priests and gained little from the power and wealth of the Church. However, the upper clergy, which consisted of the bishops and abbots, often used and abused their position to gain personal riches and property. These members of the Church, instead of serving the people, grew rich at their expense and were strongly resented by the French workers.
This was the situation until the Revolution of 1789, when the French people sought to overthrow not only the monarchy and its supporters, but also the whole social and political system, including the Roman Catholic Church. Although the Church survived the revolution, according to the ideology of the new republic it could no longer remain a separate estate with its own possessions. Therefore, the new government confiscated the land and assets belonging to the Church and auctioned them off to help resolve the financial problems that had led to the revolution. The state also attempted a huge restructuring of the Church hierarchy and demanded that the clergy swear allegiance to the French government ahead of the Church. Only 54% of priests complied with this request, but nevertheless, this attempt to bring the Catholic Church under state control can be seen as the beginning of the development of secularism in France.
Naturally the French government and the Vatican were at odds over the status of the Roman Catholic Church in France. This dispute was only resolved in 1801, when Napoleon Bonaparte signed a Concordat with the Pope, which officially brought the Catholic religion under state control. However, the document stated that so long as the Church confined its authority to religious affairs and kept within the rule of the law it would be allowed to run itself. Roman Catholicism was recognised as the faith of the majority of French citizens, but Napoleon also named Judaism and the Lutheran and Reformed Churches as being officially recognised by the state. Although these four 'official' religions received state funding and protection, none of them were given the status as the religion of the state. France had begun to view faith as a matter for each individual citizen rather than for a nation as a whole.
The Rights of Man
Another result of the French Revolution was the development of The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. This was a list of 17 rights to which every French citizen was entitled. The National Assembly believed that government corruption and public disaster always stemmed from the disregard of one of the essential human rights and so swore these principles would underpin all French laws and statutes from that time onwards.
Article 10 of the Declaration stated that: 'No-one should be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not upset the public order established by law.' This right of every French citizen to follow his or her own religion is the basis of the country's modern day principle of secularism. And although the word laïcité was not used in 1789, this is the first written evidence of the principle in French documents.
The 1905 Law
Despite this, it wasn't until 1905 that the principle of secularism in France was fully developed and set down as a law. This was mainly due to increased conflict between atheist government ministers and members of the Catholic Church who had been allowed to work in schools and hospitals. In 1880, Jules Ferry (an ancestor of the education minister who oversaw the 2004 law) sought to completely eliminate religious personnel from state-run schools as part of his education reforms. This was taken a step further by Emile Combes who, in 1902, closed the majority of religious schools and as Prime Minister was the behind the movement in favour of a law guaranteeing the independence of the state from religion.
Although Combes resigned in early 1905, the law was passed later that year. The law of 1905 enshrined a number of already-applied principles in law, but it also officially ended Napoleon's Concordat and imposed a number of new measures. The main terms of the law were:

1. No religion could be supported by the state, either by financial aid or political support.
2. Everyone had the right to follow a religion, but no-one had an obligation to do so.
3. Religious education at school was strictly forbidden.
4. No new religious symbols could be placed in public places, including graveyards.

A number of current French historians view this law as effectively a privatisation of religion, and it is clear that after passage of this law, religion was strictly the private business of each individual. However, the law continued to uphold the right of all citizens to follow their religion 'as much in public as in private'1 so long as this did not disturb public order.
Challenges to Secularism in the 20th Century
Despite the 1941 repeal of the 1905 laws by the Vichy government, and the subsequent restoration of the majority of these laws by De Gaulle after the liberation of France, French secularism faced little challenge until the 1970s. Due to France's growing economy in the 1960s, the government turned to immigration as a solution to their labour shortage. They enticed workers from their former colonies of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia to fill job vacancies, granting visas but not French citizenship to their families. These countries have strong Islamic traditions, although those who chose to move to France were, on the whole, not strongly religious.
However, many of the children of these immigrant workers - French citizens who had lived in France all their lives - found it difficult to discover a place for themselves in society, and perhaps as part of their search for identity they turned to a more visible version of the religion of their parents. During the 1970s to the 1990s there were a number of cases of girls who were expelled from school because they insisted on wearing their headscarves in lessons. The headscarves seemed to concerned teachers to be compromising the other students' right to an education free from religious influences.
Although the numbers of students affected were relatively small, official figures from 2003 counted 1256 young women who wore the headscarf, 20 of whom were considered difficult cases and four of whom had been expelled. Clearly, not every case ended in expulsion; more often a compromise was reached between the individual girl and her school. Nevertheless, the situation became increasingly tense until July 2003 when the Stasi Commission was set up.
The Current Debate
The Stasi Commission
This Commission was led by Bernard Stasi and had the brief of examining the application of the principle of secularism in France, particularly in the light of tensions relating to the Islamic headscarf. After discussions with 120 selected French citizens of different opinions, religious beliefs and origins, the Commission published its report in December 2003.
The principle recommendation of the Commission was the establishment of a law forbidding students at any state school to wear any conspicuous religious or political sign. It also recommended the institution of public holidays to mark important dates in the Moslem and Jewish calendars in addition to the already-established Christian feast days, and the setting up of a specialist school dedicated to the study of the Islamic religion. However, all other recommendations were forgotten in the debate over banning religious signs in schools.
The Debate in France
The most fascinating thing about the debate in France was that both those who supported the law and those who opposed it did so in the name of laïcité. The concept is now such an integral part of the country's heritage that the dispute centred on whether a more modern and liberal form of secularism was needed in the new millennium. Essentially, the law had to strike a balance between two of the central principles of the French Republic: freedom and equality. Those in favour of banning all religious signs stated that at school everyone was a student first and that individual beliefs were secondary, whereas those against argued that equality was not the same thing as uniformity and that secularism should become more encompassing as the ethnic make-up of French society changed.
Those supporting a ban argued that the headscarf was a symbol of the repression of women, although the women themselves protested and argued that it was their choice, their right and their religion. Perhaps there was some truth in both opinions, but it seemed an irreconcilable disagreement. When it came to a vote, however, the more conservative interpretation of secularism won by a huge majority. Only 16 representatives voted against the law, as opposed to 494 who were in favour. According to the surveys at the time, this is broadly representative of the opinion of the French general public.
The 2004 Law – Continuing Uncertainty
The aim of the law was to clarify previous legislation on the subject and to give an obvious political backing to teachers in conflicts over headscarves and other religious symbols in schools. Unfortunately, even the leaflet published by the French government was unclear. Two different newspapers received completely different impressions regarding which symbols were to be banned and which were not. The biggest misunderstandings were over the bandana - often worn as an alternative to the headscarf, and over beards grown for religious reasons, these are difficult to regulate for obvious reasons.
An Ongoing Battle?
In the past France, more so than most other countries in the western world, had to fight to free itself from the authority of a Church whose political and social control was virtually complete. For a long time afterwards, the forces of religion were, sometimes unfairly, associated with monarchy and autocracy and were seen as an obstacle to modernisation and democracy. Secularism won that battle, and the French freed themselves from the control of the Roman Catholic Church.
However, because of past precedent it is very easy for the French to interpret any strong religious views as a direct threat to their freedom and way of life, even when this is not the intention. Such a visible symbol of religious belief as the Islamic headscarf is seen as intimidating, a view supported perhaps by the actions of fundamentalist terrorists in the wider world. It would seem disturbingly ironic if, as many journalists in other countries have suggested, the French government ends up helping the terrorists by leading youngsters to believe that their own country will not allow them to follow the rules of their faith.
The young women expelled from their schools because of their refusal to remove their headscarves argue that their freedom is being restricted – an argument that would strike a chord in the United States or Britain. However, in France, personal freedom, though important, comes second to preserving the strict neutrality of the state. In the western world, where controversial opinions and strong convictions often have the effect of making people feel slightly uncomfortable, France has stood by and even strengthened a century-old law. Cultural differences between the countries of the West may be declining in the main, but it seems those that remain create a wider gulf of opinion than ever before.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2903663

Edit: Oh, might as well throw in one especially for Brenus:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hmmmmm.

I believe in Freedom of Religion. Laicite appears to be Freedom from Religion....whether I like my religion or not. I thought laicite was supposed to insure secularity of civil government (a concept with much value) and not serve as a tool to eradicate/completely marginalize religion culturally.

I do struggle with this. I myself would not mind seeing all religion dissapear. (I think....)
I also do not want to rule over another man's conscience.

laïcité is not anti-religious, it is a-religious. It protects your religion against others, and others against ypour religion. It doesn't favour either one, either way.


In theory it doesn't. In practice, slight differences can have ever so different outcomes, especially given enough time. If I were put in a time machine, and send back to 1790, or 1800, or 1820, I would have put my money on two centuries later the US being 80% unreligious and France 80% religious.

The reverse happened.

Both countries are fiercely protective of their freedom of religion. Yet the small differences in how this freedom was put down in law had ever so different outcomes. On a quick thought, I think it is the diversity of religions in the US, from the start, that has preserved Christianity, whereas the prevalence of a single denomination had the opposite result in France. This had drastic results on how 'freedom of religion' was laid down in law.


Religious affiliation is determined by an urge to belong. People are (a)religious for social reasons, not theological ones. When there is little public reward for being (a)religious, it will lose its social attraction.

'One Nation under God', 'In God we Trust', 'May God Continue to Bless the United States of America' - these are powerful words. More powerful, (or perhaps just as powerful) as the people who sneaked them into the American public domain envisaged. They do, in the end, decide on the religiousity of a populace. So too does a separation of a public and private sphere for religion.
Each choice will create the social benefits of religion. Will set the reward, or absense thereof, for the public identity of 'God fearing' citizen: reflexive respect, or a shrug of the shoulders.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"A-religious" is not an inherently bad idea for government. An agent of government shout have no say in my religious beliefs and should make no statements/take no actions as such an agent that fostered or harmed any particular religious belief. Yet, is it right to force such a person to discard aspects of their faith in pursuing secular neutrality in governance? Must a public agent cease to have a private self? I may be religious, and may hope to convert you to my faith by my quiet example and good works, but that is an aspect of my private self. Must such a modus vivendi be discarded upon entering a public life?

[Beskar]

"A-religious" is not an inherently bad idea for government. An agent of government shout have no say in my religious beliefs and should make no statements/take no actions as such an agent that fostered or harmed any particular religious belief. Yet, is it right to force such a person to discard aspects of their faith in pursuing secular neutrality in governance? Must a public agent cease to have a private self? I may be religious, and may hope to convert you to my faith by my quiet example and good works, but that is an aspect of my private self. Must such a modus vivendi be discarded upon entering a public life?

Idealistically, yes. You choose between working for yourself, or working on the behalf of others. Having government working for themselves brings corruption and many of the problems we face today. Since we choose who goes into government and they, themselves choose to do so, they know full well what they are getting into, it isn't as if this is being forced onto people, it is more they volunteer for this to happen and to do it this way.

[Brenus]

To add a quick comment, (not on the joke) to Louis VI Le Gros, Religion/religions in France is/are perceived as a tool of oppression (for historical reasons), not as a tool of freedom…
I, Frenchman, having (compulsorily) studied Voltaire, Diderot, Descartes, Du Belley (not Ronsard) and the Roman de Renart see religion as an enemy of free thinking, a tool of obscuratism…

[Beskar]

To add a quick comment, (not on the joke) to Louis VI Le Gros, Religion/religions in France is/are perceived as a tool of oppression (for historical reasons), not as a tool of freedom…
I, Frenchman, having (compulsorily) studied Voltaire, Diderot, Descartes, Du Belley (not Ronsard) and the Roman de Renart see religion as an enemy of free thinking, a tool of obscuratism…

Me too.

Like those stories where the Catholic church tortured those who dared comment the Earth is round. The unspeakable things such as the Earth going around the Sun! There are many things which prove this, such as the catholic church saying condoms are a sin.

[The Wizard]

Actually, as a point of interest, may an American civil servant wear religious symbols to work?

[Meneldil]

Which is ridiculous, IMNSHO. Might as well enforce school uniforms while you're at it, so to not having students having to endure each other's personal styles, and the opinions contained therein. If it doesn't interfere with education, it should be allowed - general rule.

General rule defined by who exactly?

The headscarves (aswell as other religious symbols) were banned quite recently. Good thing. Twelve years old kids shouldn't have to wear religious symbols because they've been brainwashed by their parents. If the state is the only force that can help them, then so be it. Wearing a punk T-shirt or dressing like a rock star is not the same thing as wearing a veil. While the first two option carry no political meanings and are basically meant to look cool, people who wear headscarves into school do it because they've been brainwashed by their family or friends, or because they want to show that they're different from the rest of the (infidel and white) population.

Forcing them to take them off show that you can still be respected as a woman without hiding your hair, unlike what some nutjob told you.

[Viking]

General rule defined by who exactly?

The headscarves (aswell as other religious symbols) were banned quite recently. Good thing. Twelve years old kids shouldn't have to wear religious symbols because they've been brainwashed by their parents. If the state is the only force that can help them, then so be it. Wearing a punk T-shirt or dressing like a rock star is not the same thing as wearing a veil. While the first two option carry no political meanings and are basically meant to look cool, people who wear headscarves into school do it because they've been brainwashed by their family or friends, or because they want to show that they're different from the rest of the (infidel and white) population.

Forcing them to take them off show that you can still be respected as a woman without hiding your hair, unlike what some nutjob told you.

It should be a general rule that as long it doesn't interfere with education, it should be allowed. This really relative, but it is a good starting point.

"Brainwashing" kids is a responsibility of parents, and not one of the school. Obeying a dress code means that you've adapted to a norm - not some kind of universally "neutral" or "correct" standard.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

General rule defined by who exactly?

The headscarves (aswell as other religious symbols) were banned quite recently. Good thing. Twelve years old kids shouldn't have to wear religious symbols because they've been brainwashed by their parents. If the state is the only force that can help them, then so be it. Wearing a punk T-shirt or dressing like a rock star is not the same thing as wearing a veil. While the first two option carry no political meanings and are basically meant to look cool, people who wear headscarves into school do it because they've been brainwashed by their family or friends, or because they want to show that they're different from the rest of the (infidel and white) population.

Forcing them to take them off show that you can still be respected as a woman without hiding your hair, unlike what some nutjob told you.

This, I think, is the difference between the Roman State in France and the Germanic Nation in Britain, America, and most of North Western Europe.

In the one "The Republic" is an entity to be protected from individuals, so we have Laicite. In the other the people form a Nation which is to be protected from the oppression of the State, so we have Freedom of religion.

I believe that this is the real reason America and France turned out so differently; that and the distaste for an "elite" in Anglo-Saxon culture. If you look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they are profoundly Anglophone documents, enshrining the rights of a People and how they are to be protected from interference.

[The Wizard]

FYI the German state is far closer to France in the way it operates towards the populace it controls than the United States. Simply distilling it into "Germanic" vs. "Roman" as if this is the 19th century is taking a few shortcuts that end up with you hitting a brick wall.

[gaelic cowboy]

Well the German state would not have the same hang up about firing workers as the French would and they still have church taxes in germany so they are fairly differant views of how to govern