Religious stuff

[owl]

The French want to pass a law banning religious symbols (headscarves, kippas, and 'large Christian crosses', whatever that means) from being worn in schools 'to protect the secular nature of the state'.

The world has gone mad.

My sister told me tonight that 'did you know the Pope has absolved the Jews for the death of Jesus?' Well, isn't that nice of him. I feel like apologising for the people that say they share my religion. OTOH, I could just disown them. What's the point in claiming to be a Christian if you forget the bits about love and mercy and compassion?

Comments

[wm-law2003.livejournal.com]

I'm confused isn't this the Pope has absolved the Jews for the death of Jesus? a good thing? It means the Church has forgiven them for the role they played, doesn't it? And wasn't that part of Vatican II?

[fernwithy.livejournal.com]

The apology from the Church came during Vatican II, and this... actually, as a Jew, I'm glad to hear it. The Church was stuck in a theologically sticky position, having something ensconsed in sacred literature which it is now ashamed of. Using the power of his position to absolve Jews will negate the possibility of religiously based persecutions by Catholics in the future... ever. Cultural persecutions, maybe, but not religious ones, since the "sin" which was used as a pretext for such things has now been properly expiated and no longer exists.

[wm-law2003.livejournal.com]

That's what I thought (it's been a long while since Catholic school) but was confused as to the way the statement was presented in jediowl's post.

[owl]

Oh, I wasn't mad that the Pope had 'absolved the Jews'! I was mad that it needed to be done in the first place. I shouldn't rant at 3 am, really, it only leads to confusion.

[fernwithy.livejournal.com]

The French want to pass a law banning religious symbols (headscarves, kippas, and 'large Christian crosses', whatever that means) from being worn in schools 'to protect the secular nature of the state'.

Well, there was a school in New Mexico that tried to ban the wearing of Virgin Mary T-shirts, but that was related to a gang using them as part of its "uniform." Forbidding the display of the religious choices of individuals... well, it's right in line with much older European history. Now, the state church is secularism, and those who do not pay it obeisance will be targeted for various burdens not carried by those who believe in the True Faith. Next, people will be allowed to wear those things, but only if they pay a special tax.

:eyeroll:

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

This business with banning hijabs in public schools along with yarmulkes and crosses that are too prominent is in part due to the French government's aggressive secularism but it's also rooted in good old fashioned French xenophobia. France now has Europe's highest Muslim population, immigrants from Northern Africa and the Middle East. As the French abandon their traditions and their birthrate falls, a new non-assimilating culture is right in their midst. One with a very high birthrate.

Ergo, they try and make the non-assimilating population assimilate. But the proverbial horse is already out of the barn. Some folks think it might be a good idea to try and take the extremism out of the population. But I think all it will do is make the Muslims angry and convince them the only way they can hold on to their way of doing things is to run the show.

[fernwithy.livejournal.com]

Alas, this sort of thing is why I think there's going to be another major, horrible war in Europe, and sooner rather than later. Not because the Muslim immigrant population is getting restless--it's always been restless--but because for decades, European high culture has been essentially asking Europeans to put up with it and go quietly into the night, and people are starting to get sick of it. The existence of a law like this suggests that we're getting very close to a breaking point. Something's going to happen, and some leader or other will rally the troops. If I were an Arab in France right now, I'd be looking for the next plane out. I think a law like this suggests that it's too late to try and smooth things over.

[katsaris.livejournal.com]

"Forbidding the display of the religious choices of individuals..."

How often do school clothes of grade-schoolers signify a *personal* choice of religion? Because it seems to me that many times it's the religious choice of the parents that's in practice enforced to the children.

Moreover you run to the problem that when this "personal choice" is so obvious, not adhering to the same "personal choice" becomes a confession of no longer being true Muslims. And certain fanatics tend to feel that former Muslims who've changed their religions can be murdered at will.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not necessarily in *favour* of this law, not at all. It's just that I can also see the other side of the issue-- I can see how a ban to headscarfs might, in practice, *increase* the personal freedom of religious expressions among the students.

E.g. think about parents hypothetically forcing their children to go to school in a burka -- would you be so positive in opposing a law forbidding schoolgirls from wearing a burka when they come to school? In theory this burka would also be "religious expression" -- in practice, it'd also mean that children couldn't even show their faces without suddenly being considered to have abandoned their faith.

[fernwithy.livejournal.com]

I'd be against any state interference with religion (which is the parents' provence at that age), barring issues that actually involve physical or mental abuse of the child. If the child came to a teacher and said, "I hate wearing a burka" (which isn't required, as I understand it, of young girls, only post-pubescent ones), then I would take up the child's right to protest against the parental edict, but that's the child's right, not the state's. The state has no business making a ruling like that.

I agree

[ivylore.livejournal.com]

I agree...

The French school system is also coping with students who refuse to participate in co-ed physical education, refuse after school sports, refuse co-ed classes where sex-ed is taught, walk out of history classes that discuss sensitive religious issues. Additionally, husband have tried to refuse their wives ER treatment if the attending was male, and likewise parents have refused male doctors for their daughters.

I think the other side is legitimate, although I strongly favour it at an emotional level so that does not make me particularly objective.

But practically speaking, family pressure is exceedingly tough to stand up against in the Muslim community. You're right; the wearing of the hijab is more reflective of parental beliefs than of a young girls, and even if a girl preferred not to wear it, there's little room to rebel. It's not something I regard fondly when it impedes the ability to participate in activities which are otherwise of immense benefit to health and well-being.

I went to a University with a large Muslim population, and yet not a single, solitary Muslim woman played on any of our sports teams the entire time I studied. I always wondered about that.

Re: I agree

[fernwithy.livejournal.com]

Oh, I definitely don't like the hijabs, and I'm actually not that fond of Islam as a relgion (I'm a comparative religion major, and that was my least favorite study). And I also think that all immigrant groups need to assimilate at least enough to not offend their new nations at every possible turn. The groups in question can start their own schools if it's simply unbearable.

It's not for the sake of the Muslim girls that I object to the ruling. I think they'd be a lot better off without the hijab and wish they'd dump it of their own accord. I think that the community needs to pull its head out of...the sand...and start listening to what other people say. On an emotional level, I want to see the miserable headscarves and burkas totally eliminated and give these chauvinist men a good sturdy kick in the family jewels. However, that's not my right. I'd have to settle for trying, on a private level, to convince girls I knew to do it. And ultimately, that's the only way to change a culture--one rebel at a time.

No, my objection to it is for the French. I can see why they're upset, though the attitude of hypertolerance (not as opposed to intolerance, but as opposed to having some cultural expectations for new immigrants to meet) has created a lot of the problem. But when you start to give the government the right to determine what religions might be expressed in the public sphere by individuals--especially in the name of some overriding state ideology--you're headed into dangerous waters. You see it over and over again in European dealings with the various Jewish populations--restrictions on expression, refusal to allow the building of synagogues, rules about what Jews must wear, etc. It happens over and over again in various places around Europe. And certainly it's not healthy for the targeted population, but it's also not healthy for the persecuting population--letting that foot get in the door is flat out scary to me, not because of the targeted group, but because I can see bloody Old Europe starting to raise its fist again.

Re: I agree

[owl]

I agree with Fern. Persecuting religions never killed them. I'd have thought France would have learned with the Huguenots.

Re: I agree

[ivylore.livejournal.com]

:) Same major.

My senior thesis was on women and Iran (from the time of the Shah until the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini; a large portion of which was on education and health). Needless to say, my work definitely had a lasting impact on me. I found it difficult to study.

Emotionally, I'm with you. As far as convincing girls to buck the practice on their own, it's simply not done in the culture. That's the frustrating part. And there are claims that a large number of Muslim girls have privately asked for the ban to be enforced.

And you're right, Hyper-tolerance has created problems. France may be heavily influenced by the results of Holland's attempt to embrace multiculturalism. It's being deemed semi- disastrous; it's led to increased ethic separatism and all of the social problems that go with it. The French ideology has always been thus; adopt our values and assimilate. They see the great American melting pot as the antithesis of their beliefs, as a threat. And their secularism has a long history - they ripped the crucifixes down from classrooms a century ago too.

Here, it appears that English Canada has been very successful with supporting both cultural integration and preservation; however - hop over into Quebec and there's suddenly a form of rabid cultural preservation on the loose and its ready to censure any and all who oppose it. (It may come as no surprise that head scarfs were an issue in Montreal not too long ago.)

No, religious persecution isn't the way to go. However France is experiencing a rise in Islamic fundamenatalism and has been facing a number of social challenges that are frustrating and trying. The head scarf is, unfortunately, the visible target. That's what they're going after. Honestly, I don't know that this is the best way to handle the issue, or the only one at that, but I do feel that France has reached a point where doing nothing is no longer an option.

Re: I agree

[ivylore.livejournal.com]

I forgot to add...

This all keeps striking me as one of those scenarios where a few bad apples have spoiled the bunch, and now everyone is going to pay the price for it. (By all symbols being banned).

Re: I agree

[fernwithy.livejournal.com]

I do feel for Europe, as much as it irritates me sometimes. And I'm even paranoid enough to think this isn't an entirely unplanned situation. This is an immigrant community that hasn't bothered even trying, and it's coming up against an all-or-nothing mentality that's bound to cause problems. There's part of me that's frustrated enough with European sanctimoniousness toward us that I want to say, "They made their bed with years of these immigration policies, now they can lie in it." But I do believe the policies were well-meant, and their very genuine sense of guilt after WWII has been exploited and abused. Now, they feel exploited and abused (as we did on September 11), and the backlash is really starting to pick up steam.

Of course, nothing could suit the radical Islamists better--"Look," they can say, "you see how we are being persecuted! The Umma should go to war against all the west now!" It's a flat out race to Armageddon for the seriously loose screws.

For the girls who want to get rid of the scarves, then you know what? I'd go to the mat for them with their families. But they're not going to get anywhere in reforming their culture if they count on an outside source to enforce a rule while they pretend to disagree with it. That it's incredibly difficult for them is a given, but non-Muslims can't reform Muslim society. That has to come from within, and as long as Muslim women depend on other people to speak for them, that's not going to happen.

Now, there are Jewish women who cover their hair as well, some with hijab-like scarves, some with wigs, etc. I disagree with the practice, but every woman I know who follows it chose to do so. (This is my general grip with the popular term for convert, "Jew-by-choice"; it's 2004 in the U.S.A.--any practicing Jew is so by choice.) Of course, under the French ban, those women would be forbidden from wearing head coverings as well.

Re: I agree

[ivylore.livejournal.com]

Yes - regarding the Islamists and how this might be perceived. I was thinking the same when I typed up my reply.

I'm familiar with the Jewish head-coverings. We happen to live smack in the middle of an Orthodox Jewish community (I'm debating joining the JCC in the next week or two. They have a great pool). Every summer when it breaks 100 degrees, the women are out with their children in long skirts, tights, blouses and head scarves...

I don't know how they do it.

And ah... I finally see what you mean about Jew-by-choice.