As indicated in my previous post, I recognize that the lines can be difficult to draw and that this will be a subjective exercise. I also recognize that France's drawing of the line - one of strict secularism - is by and large consistently applied, and this is to be respected.
However, we all can have our own views where the line should be drawn, and my own line would be drawn much more generously with respect to permissible religious expressions within public institutions than is the case in France.
Actually, I feel pretty strongly about this. I find nothing offensive at all about a student, or even a teacher, wearing a hijab, and conversely feel uncomfortable when people start to object to this. My interpretation is not to see it as a symbol of religious extremism or as a challenge to the secular nature of the state, but rather as a simple and honest expression of personal religious devotion. I continue with this interpretation unless the person?s own actions indicate otherwise.
I feel similarly with respect to other religious symbols. My middle child?s Kindergarten teacher a few years ago wore a fairly prominent Star of David necklace to school every day. It did not occur to me ? until these recent hijab cases received press attention ? that this would be a basis for anyone to object, and indeed, to my knowledge nobody did, nor, in my opinion, should they have.
The problem of Symbol (religious or not) is what they carry with them : Immanuel made a very good post, and i 'd like to quote this litte part :
Quote:
For the militant Islamist movements, the headress is a a political statement and a rallying banner, meant to vehiculate an ideology.
There's no reason that what is denied the Church of Rome would allowed to the Ummah of Islam.
if one of the two groups compared is subject to a growing groundswell of prejudice, if that prejudice is racially based and if the whole process is not an exercise in democracy but is being driven by racism (conscious or unconscious), then I call that a reason why one group should be treated differently.
No they shouldnt. Each group should have the same privileges, and the same lack of prejudice.
If you start to treat group differently it will become a total mess.
For the militant Islamist movements, the headress is a a political statement and a rallying banner, meant to vehiculate an ideology.
There's no reason that what is denied the Church of Rome would allowed to the Ummah of Islam.
There is a reason:
if one of the two groups compared is subject to a growing groundswell of prejudice, if that prejudice is racially based and if the whole process is not an exercise in democracy but is being driven by racism (conscious or unconscious), then I call that a reason why one group should be treated differently.
Just to make sure I understand, if some militantly fundamentalist person or group defying the state's secularity is from a community which is all too often the target of racist prejudice, the fundamentalist in question deserves favourable prejudice?
That would be just as racist.
Of course, one should keep in mind that anti-Muslim racists would be all too happy to use anti-fundamentlist policies not so much against fundamentalism itself, but against Muslims.
But that doesn't exempt one religion from following the same rule as others in a secular state.
The Ummah, the Church, the Qehilah, the Congregation, the Community of the Devotee Disciples of the Supreme Teacher of Rightousness, and whatnot; none should get a free pass.
The problem of Symbol (religious or not) is what they carry with them : Immanuel made a very good post, and i 'd like to quote this litte part :
I guess where we differ is that do not think that these symbols inherently "carry with them" any unacceptable ideological statements that challenge the fundamental secular nature of public institutions. They could become unacceptable in some cases, but that would depend on the additional actions of the individual.
I would draw the line differently than you, although I respect your choice, as long as it is consistent.
And just to be clear about consistency, can I confirm that you would be against the "Star of David" necklace example that I gave previously, and against a necklace displaying the Crucifix as well?
Well, it will be more of a total mess when France becomes the racist/fascist paradise it will become if we don't stop this nonsense.
That'll be your problem though Doc - that's when I leave the country.
And France will become even more racist if some religions get more rights than others. Fighting racism, that is an universal sin, is the work of every people and every group : try to respect each others, to understand them, and not try to push an agenda or gain advantages at the detriment of others.
And your sentance is weird in itself : racist/facist paradise. These words are opposite in nature. Racism and facism have nothing to do in paradise. Separation of church and state is not a value of facism. In facist governement, the religion was controlled by the gov, or all religions (for exemple the commies) where banned (the facist ideology replacing facism).
Chinney : i am against any obvious religious or political signs. BTW i will tolerate a small necklace representating a crescent, or any others symbolic little jewelry, at the condition it's very discrete ( not possible to notice it at more than one meter).
I am not especially the advocate of teachers in France for various reasons, but let me point out that racism is not promote by their teaching : in fact it's just the contrary. I have check some lessons that my 8 years daughter recieved, and one of them was dealing with racism. When i was young i never recieved this teaching (happily for me i was not educated in a racist family : thanks you to my parents who did not polluate my spirit).
I think it's a bad process to make the accusation that teachers are racist. They are probabily less racist than the average french people, (and for silly readers) less racist than the average Joe around the world.
Chinney : i am against any obvious religious or political signs. BTW i will tolerate a small necklace representating a crescent, or any others symbolic little jewelry, at the condition it's very discrete ( not possible to notice it at more than one meter).
Thank you Powerdoc, I appreciate your posts.
I pose an additional question, however: What about a Sikh turban or Jewish yarmulke?
And I do not bring up these examples just rhetorically. As I said previously, I respect a policy choice that would ban personal displays of prominent religious symbols in public institutions. Of course, as I have also said previously, I personally disagree with such a policy, because I would ?draw the line? somewhat more liberally. Also, I appreciate the distinction that would allow small, discrete necklaces bearing a Crucifix, Islamic Crescent, or Star of David (or the equivalent in other religions, as the case may be). This is a justified refinement of your test, although still not liberal enough for my preferences.
Therefore, I ask all of you (not just Powerdoc): What about a Sikh turban or Jewish yarmulke? Should these be allowed in public institutions, or not? For both teachers and students (in the ?school? example). Under my view, they should clearly be allowed, as should a hijab.
pardon my ignorance, but in France are religious schools allowed? For example here in the US there are private Catholic schools for children and private Jewish schools for children. they are basically regular schools in the sense that they teach arithmetic, social studies, history, science and what have you.
pardon my ignorance, but in France are religious schools allowed? For example here in the US there are private Catholic schools for children and private Jewish schools for children. they are basically regular schools in the sense that they teach arithmetic, social studies, history, science and what have you.
Nearly the same.
There is catholics schools, some jewish schools or protestants schools, and now some muslims schools. For example in the muslim school, the head scarve is welcome but not mandatory and you are not obliged to be a muslim to be a student of this school. I don't know precisely all the legislation of private school in France, but i think that there is obligations in term of school programs, and that discriminations are not allowed.
I pose an additional question, however: What about a Sikh turban or Jewish yarmulke?
And I do not bring up these examples just rhetorically. As I said previously, I respect a policy choice that would ban personal displays of prominent religious symbols in public institutions. Of course, as I have also said previously, I personally disagree with such a policy, because I would ?draw the line? somewhat more liberally. Also, I appreciate the distinction that would allow small, discrete necklaces bearing a Crucifix, Islamic Crescent, or Star of David (or the equivalent in other religions, as the case may be). This is a justified refinement of your test, although still not liberal enough for my preferences.
Therefore, I ask all of you (not just Powerdoc): What about a Sikh turban or Jewish yarmulke? Should these be allowed in public institutions, or not? For both teachers and students (in the ?school? example). Under my view, they should clearly be allowed, as should a hijab.
My position is that either schools should have uniforms or not. If the school does not have uniforms if a student is allowed to wear an article of clothing that promotes sports like the Dallas Stars or a T-Shirt which promotes world peace (which I believe is a great goal) I too believe students should be able to wear articles of clothing that represent their religious expression. It is expression. Some express their love of sports, others their wish for world peace, yet others should as I see it be able to express their religious feelings.
If on the other hand the school is one by where the students all 100% must wear uniforms then all students must comply and deny self expression in the form of articles of clothing.
If you will notice I advocate equal rights in either of the two cases above.
I pose an additional question, however: What about a Sikh turban or Jewish yarmulke?
And I do not bring up these examples just rhetorically. As I said previously, I respect a policy choice that would ban personal displays of prominent religious symbols in public institutions. Of course, as I have also said previously, I personally disagree with such a policy, because I would ?draw the line? somewhat more liberally. Also, I appreciate the distinction that would allow small, discrete necklaces bearing a Crucifix, Islamic Crescent, or Star of David (or the equivalent in other religions, as the case may be). This is a justified refinement of your test, although still not liberal enough for my preferences.
Therefore, I ask all of you (not just Powerdoc): What about a Sikh turban or Jewish yarmulke? Should these be allowed in public institutions, or not? For both teachers and students (in the ?school? example). Under my view, they should clearly be allowed, as should a hijab.
It depends if Yarmulke (is this the jewish rabbin hat ? ) or turban are religious symbols, or just clothes. I doubt that you will ever seen a mitred man in class ( a mitred girl will be even more doubtful).
I don't mind with clothes (anyway most students will choose to wear the same type of clothes than their friends or shcoolmates), but i mind with religious or political signs. For example the Keffie is not only a traditionnal clothe for palestinian, it's also a political sign. I have no problem wih a kid wearing a black T shirt, but if it become the signature of neo-nazis, i will be agaisnt.
So if the clothe is only a fashion, good, if it's turn in a political or religious sign bad.
I have heard that in Canada, in order to avoid this sort of problem they reintroduced school's uniform. Is this true ?
Personnaly i find it's a regression in the freedoom of the students. I think people should be mature enough to avoid this type of law (initially the purpose of school uniform was to not differenciate rich and poor)
Fship, we went over that French law in another thread and you were shown to be missing the point of the law
and
buying in to the Fundamentalist's SPIN that always likes to manipulate sentiment by portraying themselves as martyrs for the 'Truth'
The LAW leaves an option for extreme cases . . . but anyway
its besides the point of this thread.
. . . which was Scott's post about Germany
Which I also am not going to comment on,
except to say: notice how 'clever' Scott is, by supposedly turning around what he sees as the rampant Anti-Americanisms on these boards and then using theur language against another country
and then, waiting for people to jump at the bait by pointing out his assinine attitude with regards to calling a country 'dumb' etc and saying that he is a bigot
Boy almost had us there Scott!! I was tempted to point out that that language is assinine and bigotted . . . but then you would have 'GOT ME'
Of course your right sedge, but the sad thing as you point out, is that large parts of the "left" support indeed encourage this sort of racism.
Now Aquafire, just a quote from you in a thread you started before :
Quote:
Sadly, the fundamentalists look upon the past Islamic glories & want to raise it from its death bed, without examining the real resons as to why Islam became so intolerant ( and still is ) of anyone or anything that wants to seperate religion from state....
To my way of thinking, the "reformation " established the foundations of the modern western secular state and that is the dividing line between Islam & the West.
Islam needs its own "reformation" to wrench power away from the mullahs, but it is going to take a long long time..& in the meantime lots of innocent people are going to be killed all because of the dillusional thinking of a hateful fanatics..
Face your own contradictions. You canno't said that french are racist because they want that the concept of separation and church are respected and make this post.
And this link is for Scott, the defensor of the muslims rights
Now Aquafire, just a quote from you in a thread you started before :
Face your own contradictions. You canno't said that french are racist because they want that the concept of separation and church are respected and make this post.
And this link is for Scott, the defensor of the muslims rights
It depends if Yarmulke (is this the jewish rabbin hat ? ) or turban are religious symbols, or just clothes. I doubt that you will ever seen a mitred man in class ( a mitred girl will be even more doubtful).
[...]
I have heard that in Canada, in order to avoid this sort of problem they reintroduced school's uniform. Is this true ?
Personnaly i find it's a regression in the freedoom of the students. I think people should be mature enough to avoid this type of law (initially the purpose of school uniform was to not differenciate rich and poor)
The yarmulke is the Jewish 'skullcap' and both it and the Sikh turban are religous symbols. I would still be interested in your or anyone else's point of view as to whether these should be banned in public institutions in secular states. I, of course, would be against such a ban, for reasons I have explained.
Regarding the wearing of school uniforms in Canada: Public schooling is a provincial government responsibility, not a federal one, and even within provinces, regulation of details such as uniforms will be governed by local school boards in each city, or even by individual schools. Therefore I cannot speak for what is happening everywhere in Canada, since it can vary even school to school.
As far as I do know, it is my understanding that school uniforms have been reinstituted in some public schools in Canada in the last few years, but I have never heard that this was done to deal with the issue of avoiding religous symbolism in clothing. It has been my understanding, rather, that it has been done as a way to prevent kids from bringing shabby or revealing clothes to school, to encourage discipline among the kids, and to encourage identification with the school and school spirit. Even this has been done in relatively few schools.
Generally with regard to religious symbols in Canadian schools, I believe that there is a more liberal policy toward them than in France. There have been a few localized cases of individual schools trying to prevent wearing of the hijab and also to prevent Sikh boys from bringing their ceremonial daggers. These have not been a matter of federal or provincial law, but just the decisions of of a few individual schools. I have never heard of restrictions against wearing a Crucifix, Yarmulke, or turban in school (although there have been controversial cases about whether Sikh officers in the RCMP should be allowed to wear a turban rather than the regulation RCMP hat and whether Sikh war veterans should be allowed to wear turbans in Legion halls where there is a general policy of removing hats).
Canada therefore, may have generally a more liberal policy, but I think a less consistent one. Good...and bad.
Comments
Originally posted by Chinney
As indicated in my previous post, I recognize that the lines can be difficult to draw and that this will be a subjective exercise. I also recognize that France's drawing of the line - one of strict secularism - is by and large consistently applied, and this is to be respected.
However, we all can have our own views where the line should be drawn, and my own line would be drawn much more generously with respect to permissible religious expressions within public institutions than is the case in France.
Actually, I feel pretty strongly about this. I find nothing offensive at all about a student, or even a teacher, wearing a hijab, and conversely feel uncomfortable when people start to object to this. My interpretation is not to see it as a symbol of religious extremism or as a challenge to the secular nature of the state, but rather as a simple and honest expression of personal religious devotion. I continue with this interpretation unless the person?s own actions indicate otherwise.
I feel similarly with respect to other religious symbols. My middle child?s Kindergarten teacher a few years ago wore a fairly prominent Star of David necklace to school every day. It did not occur to me ? until these recent hijab cases received press attention ? that this would be a basis for anyone to object, and indeed, to my knowledge nobody did, nor, in my opinion, should they have.
The problem of Symbol (religious or not) is what they carry with them : Immanuel made a very good post, and i 'd like to quote this litte part :
For the militant Islamist movements, the headress is a a political statement and a rallying banner, meant to vehiculate an ideology.
There's no reason that what is denied the Church of Rome would allowed to the Ummah of Islam.
Originally posted by segovius
There is a reason:
if one of the two groups compared is subject to a growing groundswell of prejudice, if that prejudice is racially based and if the whole process is not an exercise in democracy but is being driven by racism (conscious or unconscious), then I call that a reason why one group should be treated differently.
No they shouldnt. Each group should have the same privileges, and the same lack of prejudice.
If you start to treat group differently it will become a total mess.
Originally posted by segovius
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
For the militant Islamist movements, the headress is a a political statement and a rallying banner, meant to vehiculate an ideology.
There's no reason that what is denied the Church of Rome would allowed to the Ummah of Islam.
There is a reason:
if one of the two groups compared is subject to a growing groundswell of prejudice, if that prejudice is racially based and if the whole process is not an exercise in democracy but is being driven by racism (conscious or unconscious), then I call that a reason why one group should be treated differently.
Just to make sure I understand, if some militantly fundamentalist person or group defying the state's secularity is from a community which is all too often the target of racist prejudice, the fundamentalist in question deserves favourable prejudice?
That would be just as racist.
Of course, one should keep in mind that anti-Muslim racists would be all too happy to use anti-fundamentlist policies not so much against fundamentalism itself, but against Muslims.
But that doesn't exempt one religion from following the same rule as others in a secular state.
The Ummah, the Church, the Qehilah, the Congregation, the Community of the Devotee Disciples of the Supreme Teacher of Rightousness, and whatnot; none should get a free pass.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
The problem of Symbol (religious or not) is what they carry with them : Immanuel made a very good post, and i 'd like to quote this litte part :
I guess where we differ is that do not think that these symbols inherently "carry with them" any unacceptable ideological statements that challenge the fundamental secular nature of public institutions. They could become unacceptable in some cases, but that would depend on the additional actions of the individual.
I would draw the line differently than you, although I respect your choice, as long as it is consistent.
And just to be clear about consistency, can I confirm that you would be against the "Star of David" necklace example that I gave previously, and against a necklace displaying the Crucifix as well?
Originally posted by segovius
Well, it will be more of a total mess when France becomes the racist/fascist paradise it will become if we don't stop this nonsense.
That'll be your problem though Doc - that's when I leave the country.
And France will become even more racist if some religions get more rights than others. Fighting racism, that is an universal sin, is the work of every people and every group : try to respect each others, to understand them, and not try to push an agenda or gain advantages at the detriment of others.
And your sentance is weird in itself : racist/facist paradise. These words are opposite in nature. Racism and facism have nothing to do in paradise. Separation of church and state is not a value of facism. In facist governement, the religion was controlled by the gov, or all religions (for exemple the commies) where banned (the facist ideology replacing facism).
Chinney : i am against any obvious religious or political signs. BTW i will tolerate a small necklace representating a crescent, or any others symbolic little jewelry, at the condition it's very discrete ( not possible to notice it at more than one meter).
I am not especially the advocate of teachers in France for various reasons, but let me point out that racism is not promote by their teaching : in fact it's just the contrary. I have check some lessons that my 8 years daughter recieved, and one of them was dealing with racism. When i was young i never recieved this teaching (happily for me i was not educated in a racist family : thanks you to my parents who did not polluate my spirit).
I think it's a bad process to make the accusation that teachers are racist. They are probabily less racist than the average french people, (and for silly readers) less racist than the average Joe around the world.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Chinney : i am against any obvious religious or political signs. BTW i will tolerate a small necklace representating a crescent, or any others symbolic little jewelry, at the condition it's very discrete ( not possible to notice it at more than one meter).
Thank you Powerdoc, I appreciate your posts.
I pose an additional question, however: What about a Sikh turban or Jewish yarmulke?
And I do not bring up these examples just rhetorically. As I said previously, I respect a policy choice that would ban personal displays of prominent religious symbols in public institutions. Of course, as I have also said previously, I personally disagree with such a policy, because I would ?draw the line? somewhat more liberally. Also, I appreciate the distinction that would allow small, discrete necklaces bearing a Crucifix, Islamic Crescent, or Star of David (or the equivalent in other religions, as the case may be). This is a justified refinement of your test, although still not liberal enough for my preferences.
Therefore, I ask all of you (not just Powerdoc): What about a Sikh turban or Jewish yarmulke? Should these be allowed in public institutions, or not? For both teachers and students (in the ?school? example). Under my view, they should clearly be allowed, as should a hijab.
Originally posted by Outsider
pardon my ignorance, but in France are religious schools allowed? For example here in the US there are private Catholic schools for children and private Jewish schools for children. they are basically regular schools in the sense that they teach arithmetic, social studies, history, science and what have you.
Nearly the same.
There is catholics schools, some jewish schools or protestants schools, and now some muslims schools. For example in the muslim school, the head scarve is welcome but not mandatory and you are not obliged to be a muslim to be a student of this school. I don't know precisely all the legislation of private school in France, but i think that there is obligations in term of school programs, and that discriminations are not allowed.
Originally posted by Chinney
Thank you Powerdoc, I appreciate your posts.
I pose an additional question, however: What about a Sikh turban or Jewish yarmulke?
And I do not bring up these examples just rhetorically. As I said previously, I respect a policy choice that would ban personal displays of prominent religious symbols in public institutions. Of course, as I have also said previously, I personally disagree with such a policy, because I would ?draw the line? somewhat more liberally. Also, I appreciate the distinction that would allow small, discrete necklaces bearing a Crucifix, Islamic Crescent, or Star of David (or the equivalent in other religions, as the case may be). This is a justified refinement of your test, although still not liberal enough for my preferences.
Therefore, I ask all of you (not just Powerdoc): What about a Sikh turban or Jewish yarmulke? Should these be allowed in public institutions, or not? For both teachers and students (in the ?school? example). Under my view, they should clearly be allowed, as should a hijab.
My position is that either schools should have uniforms or not. If the school does not have uniforms if a student is allowed to wear an article of clothing that promotes sports like the Dallas Stars or a T-Shirt which promotes world peace (which I believe is a great goal) I too believe students should be able to wear articles of clothing that represent their religious expression. It is expression. Some express their love of sports, others their wish for world peace, yet others should as I see it be able to express their religious feelings.
If on the other hand the school is one by where the students all 100% must wear uniforms then all students must comply and deny self expression in the form of articles of clothing.
If you will notice I advocate equal rights in either of the two cases above.
Fellows
Originally posted by Chinney
Thank you Powerdoc, I appreciate your posts.
I pose an additional question, however: What about a Sikh turban or Jewish yarmulke?
And I do not bring up these examples just rhetorically. As I said previously, I respect a policy choice that would ban personal displays of prominent religious symbols in public institutions. Of course, as I have also said previously, I personally disagree with such a policy, because I would ?draw the line? somewhat more liberally. Also, I appreciate the distinction that would allow small, discrete necklaces bearing a Crucifix, Islamic Crescent, or Star of David (or the equivalent in other religions, as the case may be). This is a justified refinement of your test, although still not liberal enough for my preferences.
Therefore, I ask all of you (not just Powerdoc): What about a Sikh turban or Jewish yarmulke? Should these be allowed in public institutions, or not? For both teachers and students (in the ?school? example). Under my view, they should clearly be allowed, as should a hijab.
It depends if Yarmulke (is this the jewish rabbin hat ? ) or turban are religious symbols, or just clothes. I doubt that you will ever seen a mitred man in class ( a mitred girl will be even more doubtful).
I don't mind with clothes (anyway most students will choose to wear the same type of clothes than their friends or shcoolmates), but i mind with religious or political signs. For example the Keffie is not only a traditionnal clothe for palestinian, it's also a political sign. I have no problem wih a kid wearing a black T shirt, but if it become the signature of neo-nazis, i will be agaisnt.
So if the clothe is only a fashion, good, if it's turn in a political or religious sign bad.
I have heard that in Canada, in order to avoid this sort of problem they reintroduced school's uniform. Is this true ?
Personnaly i find it's a regression in the freedoom of the students. I think people should be mature enough to avoid this type of law (initially the purpose of school uniform was to not differenciate rich and poor)
and
buying in to the Fundamentalist's SPIN that always likes to manipulate sentiment by portraying themselves as martyrs for the 'Truth'
The LAW leaves an option for extreme cases . . . but anyway
its besides the point of this thread.
. . . which was Scott's post about Germany
Which I also am not going to comment on,
except to say: notice how 'clever' Scott is, by supposedly turning around what he sees as the rampant Anti-Americanisms on these boards and then using theur language against another country
and then, waiting for people to jump at the bait by pointing out his assinine attitude with regards to calling a country 'dumb' etc and saying that he is a bigot
Boy almost had us there Scott!! I was tempted to point out that that language is assinine and bigotted . . . but then you would have 'GOT ME'
phwew . . . . pretty clever . . .
Originally posted by Aquafire
Of course your right sedge, but the sad thing as you point out, is that large parts of the "left" support indeed encourage this sort of racism.
Now Aquafire, just a quote from you in a thread you started before :
Sadly, the fundamentalists look upon the past Islamic glories & want to raise it from its death bed, without examining the real resons as to why Islam became so intolerant ( and still is ) of anyone or anything that wants to seperate religion from state....
To my way of thinking, the "reformation " established the foundations of the modern western secular state and that is the dividing line between Islam & the West.
Islam needs its own "reformation" to wrench power away from the mullahs, but it is going to take a long long time..& in the meantime lots of innocent people are going to be killed all because of the dillusional thinking of a hateful fanatics..
Face your own contradictions. You canno't said that french are racist because they want that the concept of separation and church are respected and make this post.
And this link is for Scott, the defensor of the muslims rights
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Now Aquafire, just a quote from you in a thread you started before :
Face your own contradictions. You canno't said that french are racist because they want that the concept of separation and church are respected and make this post.
And this link is for Scott, the defensor of the muslims rights
Good article. Wish more like it was published.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
...
And this link is for Scott, the defensor of the muslims rights
It's still true.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
It depends if Yarmulke (is this the jewish rabbin hat ? ) or turban are religious symbols, or just clothes. I doubt that you will ever seen a mitred man in class ( a mitred girl will be even more doubtful).
[...]
I have heard that in Canada, in order to avoid this sort of problem they reintroduced school's uniform. Is this true ?
Personnaly i find it's a regression in the freedoom of the students. I think people should be mature enough to avoid this type of law (initially the purpose of school uniform was to not differenciate rich and poor)
The yarmulke is the Jewish 'skullcap' and both it and the Sikh turban are religous symbols. I would still be interested in your or anyone else's point of view as to whether these should be banned in public institutions in secular states. I, of course, would be against such a ban, for reasons I have explained.
Regarding the wearing of school uniforms in Canada: Public schooling is a provincial government responsibility, not a federal one, and even within provinces, regulation of details such as uniforms will be governed by local school boards in each city, or even by individual schools. Therefore I cannot speak for what is happening everywhere in Canada, since it can vary even school to school.
As far as I do know, it is my understanding that school uniforms have been reinstituted in some public schools in Canada in the last few years, but I have never heard that this was done to deal with the issue of avoiding religous symbolism in clothing. It has been my understanding, rather, that it has been done as a way to prevent kids from bringing shabby or revealing clothes to school, to encourage discipline among the kids, and to encourage identification with the school and school spirit. Even this has been done in relatively few schools.
Generally with regard to religious symbols in Canadian schools, I believe that there is a more liberal policy toward them than in France. There have been a few localized cases of individual schools trying to prevent wearing of the hijab and also to prevent Sikh boys from bringing their ceremonial daggers. These have not been a matter of federal or provincial law, but just the decisions of of a few individual schools. I have never heard of restrictions against wearing a Crucifix, Yarmulke, or turban in school (although there have been controversial cases about whether Sikh officers in the RCMP should be allowed to wear a turban rather than the regulation RCMP hat and whether Sikh war veterans should be allowed to wear turbans in Legion halls where there is a general policy of removing hats).
Canada therefore, may have generally a more liberal policy, but I think a less consistent one. Good...and bad.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
It depends if Yarmulke (is this the jewish rabbin hat ? ) or turban are religious symbols, or just clothes.
They're just clothes dressed up as religious symbols.
Originally posted by aapl
They're just clothes dressed up as religious symbols.
....but it is Friday and this thread is dying anyway
...until the next time we debate this I guess