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.

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • A_Toasty_Strudel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • TheBlue22@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are not choosing shit. They are being forced to wear them by their parents. It’s indoctrination and abuse

        • Andy@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • bobman@unilem.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

            • Andy@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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?

          18 upvotes

          Lol, lemmyers. Can’t expect rational trains of thought from you, I guess.

          • TheBlue22@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            So it’s okay to support a shit tradition meant to oppress women? Tradition that pushes inferiority of women over men?

            • bobman@unilem.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

      • Dremor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Crucifixes and yarmulkes (also known as kippas) are also banned, yes.

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The other commenter was saying ‘crosses are allowed if they’re not too big.’

          Which is it?

          • Dremor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Usually if it isn’t visible. Like a necklace worn under clothes. The idea being that you should not make your religious apparent.

            • bobman@unilem.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              He was saying that they would wear them around their necks and in their ears and nobody would bother them about it.

              • Dremor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • bobman@unilem.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah, he didn’t make any mention of obscuring it with clothing or it being up to the ‘head of the school.’

                  • Dremor@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

      • Magnor@lemmy.magnor.ovh
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are banned but it is not exactly the same. Those are religious items. The abaya is a whole genre of clothing.