The French government’s decision to ban children from wearing the abaya, the loose-fitting, full-length robes worn by some Muslim women, in state-run schools drew applause on Monday from the right, but also criticism.
The French government’s decision to ban children from wearing the abaya, the loose-fitting, full-length robes worn by some Muslim women, in state-run schools drew applause on Monday from the right, but also criticism.
Children shouldn’t have to uphold any religion imo. It’s tough here though as it’s also their freedom to wear whatever so I don’t think that ban is the best way to approach this issue here.
deleted by creator
Crucifixes and yarmulkes (also known as kippas) are also banned, yes.
The other commenter was saying ‘crosses are allowed if they’re not too big.’
Which is it?
Usually if it isn’t visible. Like a necklace worn under clothes. The idea being that you should not make your religious apparent.
He was saying that they would wear them around their necks and in their ears and nobody would bother them about it.
It is mainly up to the head of the school to define what is acceptable or not.
In my case it wouldn’t bother me me if a Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion student wore a penny sized necklace under his clothes, but not if it is a ostensible one.
That’s the problem with clothes, it shows ostensibly from which religion, caste or culture you are from.
Yeah, he didn’t make any mention of obscuring it with clothing or it being up to the ‘head of the school.’
The law is intentionally broad while leaving some space for interpretation in order to encompasse case that may not yet exist.
Law is like an onion. Each layer encompasses the previous one with more precise definition, while not contradicting it. In this case, the constitution protect the freedom of religion, but also separate religion from the state. Thus you are free to have one, but not to ostensibly display it in public (by that I mean in state owned) spaces.
From this point you have 2 way to say what is considered as ostensible according to said law. Application decrees, which is taken by the executive branch, and which is what was used in this case. And jurisprudence, which are the result of the judiciary branch.
deleted by creator
They are banned but it is not exactly the same. Those are religious items. The abaya is a whole genre of clothing.
This is correct. Even if we don’t necessarily agree with why they’re choosing to wear it, saying that they’re outright not able to is completely unacceptable.
They are not choosing shit. They are being forced to wear them by their parents. It’s indoctrination and abuse
What? None of them are choosing to wear it?
It’s all being forced upon them?
What about the government now literally forcing them to wear what is ‘acceptable’? That just gets a pass, huh?
Lol, lemmyers. Can’t expect rational trains of thought from you, I guess.
So it’s okay to support a shit tradition meant to oppress women? Tradition that pushes inferiority of women over men?
You mean support people making decisions for themselves instead of having the government do it for them?
Yeah, it is okay to support that.
Not sure why you’re advocating suppressing their culture. Did you completely ignore the first question I asked?
This is dumb. I grew up going to a mainstream private Jewish school. We had to wear yarmulkes.
Every child grows up in the guidance of parents, and everyone thinks someone’s lifestyle is abuse. Did you parents feed you meat? Yes? That’s abuse. No? That’s abuse.
Sure, they key here being private school. They’re regulating public schools.
Funny, children don’t have a choice when they go to public school.
This means that they should be even more accepting of different cultures than private schools. You’re literally forced to go there if you’re poor.
The point was about indoctrination.
You can’t call a Muslim upbringing indoctrination unless you also call Jewish, Christian, and secular agnostic upbringings indoctrination too. Which might be true, but then you’re just describing parenting.