Re: Question of the Month: Do you agree with France's ban on religious garb or symbols in their Public Schools?

3/6/04 The question has several facets.  First, does France have legal restrictions on religious symbols in official areas, such as schools, similar to our First Amendment?   If so, then the law ought to be followed until and unless changed in accordance with French law.

Second, does French law allow open personal expression, such as religious symbols, in public, in schools, and in public forums?  If so, what are the conditions for such expressions?

Third, does France have legal exceptions to either of the above, such as expressions which may be hidden below clothing?  Again, without knowing the context, it is difficult to judge at this point.

The major societal question is whether such individuality should be allowed to supercede expressions of solidarity.  I am unfamiliar with the history and culture of France in this regard, and thus cannot make a judgment for that nation.  Hank Kocol via Internet.

3/7/04 No I do not. I am an atheist, but as long as those symbols are not imposed by the schools themselves, or by a government authority, people have the right to wear whatever symbols or culturally derived clothing they want.  It will also just increase the enmity between religious and secular (atheist, agnostic, etc.) people.  William J Gonzalez, via Internet

3/7/04 It is my understanding that France does not have the same concept of freedom of religion that we do, and that this is not much of a problem there.  Nevertheless, it rubs me the wrong way, mainly because "small" crosses are allowed.  It seems to me that, once again, Christians are being given special privileges that are not accorded other groups.  Isaac, via Internet.

3/7/04 As much as I love the idea, I think it is at the same time a terrible idea.   First, I strongly believe in keeping government out of religion, and having the government restrict a person's religious freedom is wrong and dangerous.  And the other reason I am against it, is that policies like this have a tendency to backfire.   For example an unintended consequence may be increased attendance at religious schools.  David Zilkha, via Internet.

3/7/04 I've been fairly torn about this issue.  I could see why it deserves support.   Schools should be able to establish a reasonable dress code, and attire outside of those limits shouldn't be allowed, even if it is religiously mandated.  Surely the extreme burkas mandated by some strict Islamic sects would be disruptive.  If wearing of headdresses is so important for the girls and women this ban effect, then let them attend private schools that support their religious display.  If they cannot afford such private schools, but it's important to the Islamic community, let them provide scholarships for the girls.  If the question is how important this principle is to the Muslim community, they can solve it for themselves.

On the other hand, the ban does not seem to be equitably distributed.  The wearing of crucifixes or other symbols of Christian religious identity is not prohibited.  If the people who decide what's excessive or not share in the cultural heritage of only one group, then bias and discrimination is inevitable, and that's not right.

So I'd support a complete ban on the wearing of religious symbols, but as I understand the implementation of this prohibition, I'd have to disagree.  Bob, via Internet.

3/7/04 YES!  Katy Fischer via Internet.

3/7/04 Oo la la, Oui!  France is setting the right example of separation.  Too bad they are getting such heat for it.  Cheers, Pete via Internet.

3/7/04 Yes, I agree with Frances' ban on religious garb and symbols in their public schools, noting however, that small symbols of religious were not banned.  Students can still wear small crosses, stars, and etc.  The ban is against symbols and clothing that causes a distraction or could jeopardize security.  We do the same thing in America.  J.E. Hill, Washington, via Internet.

3/7/04 Certainly France sees things more clearly than we do under our misguided leader who is so anxious to push vouchers.  Separation of Church and State has separated us from many of the so called civilized nations who have embraced Governments supporting Religions.  This is only a short step from the Religions being subservient to the States.  Wes via Internet.

Response: Typically we should raise our antenna when the government either encourages or discourages religious expression.  Unless religious garb could be demonstrated to causing harm, such as in leading to intimidation, it should then be unregulated.  However, this would only apply to students; teachers and employees of the state should appear to be neutral.   France may be overreacting, but then again, they've experienced religious wars on their own soil.  Read Don Ardell's article for another point of view.  G.D.

Re: CFI Metro NY Director Susan Jacoby in the NY Times, “One Nation, Under Secularism”

1/8/04 Kudos to Susan Jacoby, director of Metro N.Y.  Center for Inquiry, on her well-written Op Ed piece in the Times decrying the tendency of presidential candidates to get on the religious bandwagon.  Entitled "One Nation, Under Secularism," Jacoby points out that "it would take genuine courage to stand up and tell voters that elected officials cannot and should not depend on divine instructions to reconcile the competing interests and passions of human beings."  This, of course, is preaching to the freethinking choir -- but hopefully, some of the uncommitted might sit up and take notice.  David Shobin, M.D. via Internet.

Response: I'm sure Susan will appreciate your comments.  G.D.

1/15/04 In my lecture (on alternative medicine) I used the quotation from Confucius: "When words change their meaning, men lose their liberty".  Reading the papers lately has provided too many examples: "No Child Left behind" translates into less funding for education; "Clear Skies program" = increased legal pollution; "Patriot Act" defines patriotism as willingness to eliminate basic civil liberties for anyone the authorities don't like; "Prescription Drug Benefit = giveaway to the drug companies and increased drug prices; Concern for the environment = willingness to tear up Alaska for a tiny bit of oil.  Words are losing their meaning, and I'm more and more afraid that we are losing our liberty.  Regards, Chic Schissel. Long Island, via Internet.

Response: Regardless of the effectiveness or benefits of the above programs mentioned, there is no doubt that there is a deliberate effort to “market” these and other programs in a manner designed to mislead the general public from the real intent, because, in the opinion of the ideological program makers, it's for “our own good.”  That is no way to run a “free” country.  G.D.

2/25/04 Using the term "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, is in a sense, imposing the majorities will on others by offending non-believers, and those that believe but desire a secular society, and insist that religion should be confined to the private sector.  Our founding fathers consisted of men who were believers, deists, agnostic, and atheists-so their patriotism was not predicated on the need to believe in a God.  

Separation of Church and State has been a fundamental tenet of American society.  To reinforce that tenet, the 9th Circuit Court showed great courage in declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God," despite the fact that most Americans believe in God.  Fundamentalist Muslims when in the majority want only a Muslim state - likewise many fundamentalist Christians would prefer America to be a Christian state.

The true mettle of a society is not what it does for those in power, but what it does for those with little or no power.  Joe Brooks, via Internet, Whitestone, NY.

Response: Thanks for a simple but focused explanation of the Pledge fight.  G.D.