Religious Freedom and the Government

This.

The two situation are pretty equivalent, at least in France. The only reason anyone wears either head-coverings or fashionable clothes when they don't really want to is due to peer pressure and a desire to fit in. Esp. in France. So, to be fair, if they prohibit one, they should prohibit both.

When I first heard about this ruling I was outraged. The government has no right to the dictate the dress choice of it's of its citizens. But this laws effects children who have been forced to wear the hijab to appease the parent's sense of cultural identity. So it's not like they ever had a choice in the first place :/

hashtagsarestupid

Just a FYI, Religious Freedom in France (I think) and other countries (I think) is only protected if there isn't any law prohibiting an action.

For example, Kosher and Halal slaughter techniques can be banned by law on animal cruelty grounds

Sikhs in the UK couldn't ride a motorbike because of their religious duties either

Dutch Lesbian

And rightly so.

Personally speaking I don't care what religion reasons there are for wearing clothing piece x myself, I just get it pissy when the state decide to tell people what they can and can't wear.

hashtagsarestupid

But it's not what you can or can't wear in the street. It's what you can or can't wear when in the charge of the State or when doing the State's work in its name.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Why does being in the temporary care of the state or working for the state give it the right to dictate what forms of religious expression you may be permitted?

Presumably because the State wishes to avoid the appearance of endorsing any religion. Thus, its workers wearing religious garb in the course of their official duties could be read as an endorsement.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The French state IIRC is well obsessed with being a secular country which is the opposite of the United States which is well obsessed with being an explicit Christian nation

Dutch Lesbian

@Fighteer: This isn't about the workers, but the students. Anyway, an employee wearing a religious symbol doesnt represent the opinion of the employers, provided everyone understands the employee to have a right of self-expression.

@Whale: Only a small part of the US population is obsessed with being an explicitly Christian nation. Most of us are satisfied with the separation between Church and State.

edited 10th Apr '12 11:33:29 AM by DeMarquis

Well, if we're talking about minors, then their rights are abridged specifically because they're minors. I think we have ample precedent for that. Clearly, however, you need some sort of justification, and I'm not entirely sure that I am comfortable with the idea of banning dress that is a form of religious expression unless it hinders the school's educational objectives or creates a hazardous environment.

Some schools have a dress code/uniform, and may or may not grant religious exceptions to it. If they don't, I don't really see it as a matter of freedom of speech/religion, as long as the same standards apply to everyone.

edited 10th Apr '12 11:35:09 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Yes, but they arent abridged arbitrarily. There has to be some compelling state interest in abridging the specific right.

Somehow you ninja'd me...

Right, as in when a school declares a dress code in response to gang violence.

edited 10th Apr '12 11:36:39 AM by DeMarquis

To me, students and/or teachers wearing religious garb reminds me of those stories of people refusing to be examined by medical personnel of a different religion or gender.

The ban of ostentatious religious stuff on both sides is a countermeasure to that.

edited 10th Apr '12 11:37:57 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

"To me, students and/or teachers wearing religious garb reminds me of those stories of people refusing to be examined by medical personnel of a different religion or gender."

Which I think they have every right to do if they are an adult.

Only if it doesn't interfere with their performance of their job duties.

From my perspective, a teacher ostentatiously dressed as a Christian would make me uncomfortable, because I might feel intimidated against expressing a point of view that is not Christian. The same with Islamic garb, or Jewish, or whatever.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Ah, if the garb in question can reasonably be shown to intimidate others, then the right to wear it can be abridged. The burden of proof would be on the party claiming the intimidation, however.

edited 10th Apr '12 11:43:24 AM by DeMarquis

Why risk a lawsuit if you don't have to? Establish a professional dress code for teachers and state that religious symbols, if present, must not be ostentatiously displayed. A cross necklace is fine if it's under your shirt. A burqa is not.

It's the same basic idea as not allowing female teachers to wear miniskirts and Hooters tops, or male teachers to dress in Bermuda shorts. You do not want the teacher's appearance distracting the kids from their studies.

edited 10th Apr '12 11:47:19 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

"...Establish a professional dress code for teachers and state that religious symbols, if present, must not be ostentatiously displayed."

That is a lawsuit, at least here in the states. Who gets to define what is or isnt "ostentatious?" Why should an employer get that right?

Requiring professional appearance, or restricting skirt length, doesn't suppress anyone's freedom of religion. All forms of expression are not equal.

Why should religious expression get a pass when other forms of expression don't? If you allow religious displays while forbidding others, you create the impression of endorsing religion, which is exactly what the First Amendment says governments cannot do.

There is a Double Standard, and that is that it's fine to wear something that's against your business or school's dress code because your religion says to, but not for any other reason.

(Edited because I made an error.)

edited 10th Apr '12 11:58:55 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Sounds like the start of a good porn...

edited 10th Apr '12 12:23:23 PM by Vericrat

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

Honestly read that as "Sounds like the start of a good plan..."

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Fighteer got the Double Standard part in before me, but I'll add that restricting skirt length doesn't suppress anyones freedom of religion only until Flying Spaghetti Monster gives me a prophetic vison ordering me to go in a short skirt.

edited 10th Apr '12 1:44:59 PM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

"Why should religious expression get a pass when other forms of expression don't?"

It's not just religious forms of expression, it's forms of expression that identify one as a member of a demographic group that has been discriminated against in the past. That includes religious affiliations, but also race, ethnicity, gender, etc. In American law, these are considered "protected categories".

"but I'll add that restricting skirt length doesn't suppress anyones freedom of religion only until Flying Spaghetti Monster gives me a prophetic vison ordering me to go in a short skirt."

For purposes of the first amendment, "religious affiliation" is considered to be a community of people with a documented history. Thus, you cant just make up your own religion.

edited 10th Apr '12 2:38:29 PM by DeMarquis

The First amendment doesn't apply to 95% of the worlds population though so you can't really apply it to like France or the UK which believe the supremacy of the law of the land over religious freedom

Dutch Lesbian

Not to strike a sore note, but does that mean that we need to let black teachers dress in hoodies and bling, with their pants around their knees? That sounds bad, I realize, but I don't even know what would constitute "ethnic" dress in the black community. Or the "female community". Do Native American students and teachers get to come to public schools wearing warpaint? Feather headdresses?

Being a part of a "protected class" doesn't mean you get to wear whatever the hell you please in an environment with a dress code and cite the First Amendment to defend it. Within tasteful limits, sure — if you want to pin a Star of David to your clothes or wear a cross or a bead necklace or something, I don't see the harm. I'm pretty sure that most dress codes even allow wearing a yarmulke, given that your other attire is appropriate.

edited 10th Apr '12 3:00:42 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"