france: phony 'secular' state.?

Question

is anyone else appalled at how france pretends to be secular? They interfere in private religious observance [e.g. hijab] and then claim they are doing it in the interests of secularism; but the whole point of secularism is that the state does NOT interfere in private religious observance. Why are people so gullible as to fall for this? It's insane. Do they understand the meaning of secularism?

mr saliva, your 'answer' is utterly irrelevant. please focus on the question.

how is wearing a veil or a cross interfering with everyday life? how ridiculous!

i mean day to day matters of state?

so wearing a turban or veil or cross is 'influencing state institutions?!' nonsense. you fail to explain how they are 'influencing' state institutions by wearing what they wear.

Answer 1

The question is whether government honors freedom of religion or enforces freedom from religion.

France's anti-religion policies certainly reflect the latter.

There are those in the United States who also advocate for a government that restricts free religious observance.

Of course, such people are an extreme, hateful, zealous sort; quite a lot more troubling than most people of religious faith.

I personally do not endorse a particular faith, but restricting others from doing so is wrong.

Answer 2

France does not interfere in 'private' religious observance - what you do in your own home or private time is up to you. What has been banned is the wearing of the hijab in schools by young girls. There are several reasons for this:

1. France is proud of it's secular position that has over the past 102 years protected it from the civil conflicts that have torn apart other countries. In the school room all young people are united as one, not divided into little groups of French-muslims, French-jews etc. In the same way that wearing a uniform in UK schools helps to break down social and political barriers, the lack of clearly visible religious symbols allows children to get on with what they are there for - learning. A school is not the right forum for making a religious statement or highlighting a division in beliefs.

2. It has be found that some young muslim girls in traditional communities in France are being forced into wearing the hijab. Banning the hijab in schools gives these young women the opportunity to live as equal citizens, with the right to see and be seen, speak and be heard, at least for a few hours each day.

3. Wearing the hijab is innappropriate in several areas of the curriculum - sciences, sports etc, and could endanger the health of the wearer and others.

Having said all that, I am aware that it is a sensitive and interesting argument, and look forward to reading other contributions.

Answer 3

I think that secular government also means not letting religions interfere with the day to day matters of state. The hijab was banned in schools, not on the streets. Schools have a right to ban what they consider to be problematic, and the government backed them. Some schools here in the UK have made a stand against religious symbols if they go over the top, such as veils, chastity rings etc. The French did the right thing.

Answer 4

No, the point of secularism is that the French do not allow any religious influences in State institutions. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for them to want to ban religiously derived items such as hijabs or crucifixes in schools or other State organisations. People can wear whatever they like at home.

Answer 5

The point of secularism is also that religion does not interfere with government - the whole reason France became secular in the first place was to abolish the interference of the Catholic Church

I'm not asserting my opinion here, just reitering a point many overlook.

Answer 6

A secular state may allow 'private' observance of a faith without persecution. In this case 'private' would mean discreet and so the wearing of obvious religious symbols in 'public' could be taken as breaking the 'spirit of the law of the land' even where this contradicts the religious law of that persons faith.
This is where 'human rights law' falls down as one persons 'right' to display in freedom their belief can be objected to be someone else who feels their 'right' not to be confronted by symbols that offend them has been breached.
Relaxing such rules would for example allow a march by one group to openly call for another group to be expelled from the country. The law is intended to stop such extremes (such as Nazi demonstrations) but the law is a blunt instrument and open to all sorts of interpretation. In such cases it requires compromise on all sides so that precedent gets established on the basis of common sense.
E.G. where the wearing of a symbol or celebrating a religious event is done with consideration to others it can be tolerated, but when the event reaches a size that starts to impose itself unpleasantly on others restrictions can be applied ( such as pop concerts in parks and the grounds of stately homes)

Answer 7

France which has the popular backing of the French people in this matter, is entitled to enforce is own laws and its not pretending otherwise. Citizens who do not agree can always choose to reside in one of the many former French Colonies in either Asia or Africa.

Answer 8

France has a 10% Muslim population, it has witnessed the problems other countries have with these people and their 'religeon of peace' and is trying to protect France and the French people. It is doing a better job than the UK.