Any islamic subject is a very good way to drive people attention away from other subjects. Each time the government wants to avoid to talk about a given subject they found something new to make scandals. For example, they don't have enough teachers anymore, thousands of them are needed but the most important subject that the whole country should discuss is a few hundred people wearing abayas.
This is BS
Let people wear what they want. If they want to wear religious clothing, let them. It’s not hurting anyone. This law, while technically applying equally to all religions is very clearly targeted at a single group that has been persecuted for this before
Giving religion safe spaces in society normalizes it. Normalizing religion does hurt people. It hurts the mind's ability to think rationally, not to mention all the intolerance that seems to come from it.
I disagree. I’m an atheist, and we shouldn’t restrict anyone’s ability to practice their religion unless it actually harms others. This isn’t a safe space, it’s simply persecuting a single religion because the population dislikes Muslims.
Religion is not an exclusively bad thing. It has done harm, but it also does have good effects.
Agree to disagree I guess. I think we're better off without sky fairies, regardless of whether they're named Zeus, Jesus, Allah, whatever. The society that I'd want to live in would discourage public practices of religion.
Another point I should have made above. As Dawkins says, normalizing religion gives the especially nutty and violent ones room to breathe. They don't stick out so badly when their neighbor believes and practices 90% of what they do.
As you are a minority population member who supports democratically limiting the religious beliefs of members of the population, I have to ask if you've ever considered that such beliefs may backfire spectacularly against you?
I'm not sure where I come down on this issue, but teaching women to be ashamed of their bodies is harmful to the young women.
Absolutely. And that behaviour should be condemned. But punishing people for their choices of clothing is not the way to go. Target the harmful ideas, not people's personal expression.
Well, you are wrong that religion is a good thing when people do good in spite of religion rather than because of it. If someone's belief system is aligned with a particular religion, they can just adopt the practices of that religion without professing faith in it.
Whatever makes them less susceptible to manipulation from religious leaders is a win in my book.
It is very efficient at having people talk about it, and temporarily forget all the places missing teachers, the sad state of a lot of school buildings, the lack of recognition (and decent salary) that's been the norm for decades at this point, and actual issues regarding kids.
The law is there to remind that no religious sign or clothe are accepted into the public system. People who disagree with it can go to the private school.
Except it's been extended beyond religious clothing. An abaya is not specifically a religious clothing or something mandated by a religion, it is something worn in some places where people happens to be of that religion. No religious texts calls for it, where other things like burka and headscarfs where more directly linked to islam. Here, it's a dress, that people in arabic countries wear. It's literally fashion police.
You mean targeting a group that is forcing clothing?
I'll NEVER understand the need for so many non Muslim people to defend what is absolutely a disgusting sexist practice meant to degrade, humiliate and dehumanize women. Fuck so many of you loser fucking idiots and especially fuck you idiots saying shit like, "well what if they choose to be an object?" "What if they like being obedient to every whim of men?"
Dude the only loser here is you. Itsa fuckjng dress. It's not even like a hijab or anything it's a fucking dress, goet over yourself you utter wank stain.
Freedom is non-negotiable.
I’m sorry... WHAT?!
France banned basically all religious symbols in public schools. This includes crosses or the Jewish kippah. It's now expanded to include the abaya dresses. Veils and headscarves were already banned.
I think it's stupid since the dress isn't necessarily religious. It's just commonly worn by Muslims. Might as well ban white buttoning down shirts at this point because that's what some christians wear, especially to church.
Nah, covering your head at all times is explicitly a religious thing.
That's the thing, an abaya doesn't cover your head. There might be some designs that do but in general it's just a maxi-dress with long sleeves. So that's why I think this is stupid. I can understand banning wearing it with an Hijab or other types of headscarves. But as it stand they are sending children home because their dress is too long.
America: get sent home if your skirt is too short
France: get sent home if your dress is too long
the dress isn't necessarily religious
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaya
essentially a robe-like dress, worn by some women in parts of the Muslim world
It is common that the abaya is worn on special occasions, such as Mosque visits, Islamic Holiday celebrations for Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha and also during the Islamic Holy month of Ramadan
I also wear a kippa on my head and a cross around my meck. But it's not necessarily religious. I just like the design. /s
France is a secular country. It's probably hard to understand for you free people of freedomland, but ALL signs of religion are banned from public institutions.
I'm curious as to how they even define and abaya. Like... Other than being a loose fitting dress made of a square piece of cloth, theres not much to define it. Dresses that fit the description are also worn by "westerners."
One one hand, it seems a little extreme, on the other hand, if they have a religious exemption to a school uniform and they are blocking religious items/clothing at school then it kinda makes sense.
(Do the French do school uniforms?)
French schools in France/French territories don't have uniforms. But they ban any form of group/gang/religious symbols.
That included my baseball hat with a team logo on it. We actually had uniforms but that was due to the local country imposing it on the French school. France has set up French public schools all around the World.
I'm not saying I fully agree with their approach but they are consistent in their policy and not targeting any single religion/group.
Well that's a 50/50 on the "not targeting any single religion/group" since they accept crosses that are not too big, meaning necklaces and earrings (at least in my experience). And since christian people tend not to wear specific attire except for cross-shaped jewelry, it's like a whole exception just for them. I also think that the abaya thing is a sign that they really fight against Muslims, since it is more cultural than religious,. But yeah, you're kinda right in the sens that they just harass every other religions than cristians in general, and would probably ban a christian with a huge cross on a shirt too.
It's probably hard to enforce such rules when teachers have their own biases. Ideally it should be all or nothing.
My experience was they were very secular. I had a small crucifix necklace (mother tried and failed to indoctrinate me) that I wore under my t-shirt so it wasn't visible. Some sad Christian fundamental kid tried bringing his religious books during class break and was laughed into not trying again with his very hard sell of no-wank/no-sex until marriage religion.
Watched a video on institutions in France today. Specifically police, I had no idea how terrible it is.
Video for context: Warning incredibly sad but its important to know how terrible people are so we don't repeat history. https://youtu.be/jUxiTdRTPMg?feature=shared
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/jUxiTdRTPMg?feature=shared
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Okay, let's look at several arguments that have been presented here in favor of this law:
Individuals who say this seem to have what is known as the "conventionalist" ethical framework. This framework has maaany problems. However, even if we look at this law from the point of view of this framework, it becomes unethical. The official national motto of France is "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity". This law seems to contradict all three of these principles.
It contradicts "liberty", as it literally permits the government to tell its citizens what they can and cannot wear on their body. Abayas are not even inherently religious. It is like the government banning polo t-shirts because they are "Christian".
The law contradicts "equality" as it unequally affects Muslims and Sikhs, as their religious expression involves the use of clothing more than other religions. Sure, harmful clothing must not be permitted (like the knives that Sikhs are supposed to carry according to their religion). Abayas are not harmful in any way. Hence, they do not fall into this category.
Finally, this law contradicts "fraternity", as fraternity literally means "brotherhood" in this context. "No matter how different we are, we are still brothers with a goal to work for the people of France" is what this implies. Banning something as harmless as clothing attributed to a given religion is not a sign of brotherhood.
"Just have school uniforms": Clothing is one of the most important mediums of expression for humans. All humans have their own individual identities. The goal of schools should not be to make Stormtroopers. Rather, it should be to make students better versions of themselves. Having school uniforms goes strongly against this idea. One may argue that this also goes against the idea of "liberty".
"Did you know that Abayas and Hijabs are the result of an authoritarian religion?" Firstly, no. Abayas have nothing to do with religion. Sure, it is possible that a parent(s) may force their child to wear a particular type of clothing that aligns with their religious beliefs. In that case, the school can provide support to such students. However, what if a child themself wish to wear a particular type of clothing? What's the harm in that? This argument for the ban is similar to saying "some individuals are buttfucked without their consent. Therefore, let's ban buttfucking".
I'm atheist and socialist. I'm sad to see some of my fellow socialists arguing for the ban as well. Atheists have and are presently being persecuted in many countries in the world. By supporting the persecution of other religious classifications, we are essentially doing exactly what is being done to us. There is no moral difference between us and the individuals persecuting us in this case.
Joke is on them, my religion forces kids to wear jeans!
Classy
Good.
Yeah, I'm not concerned by this at all TBH. I would like to see more countries fully ban them outright.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/