The Indian presence at yesterday’s Bastille Day events in Paris commemorated the sacrifices of Indian soldiers who fought and died in World War I and symbolized the current economic, military and political ties between the two nations. But the images of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as chief guest and the Indian troops who marched in the annual military parade, including a group pictured to the right led by a Sikh officer, also brought to mind the French law that continues to keep Sikhs out of public schools and prevents them from getting drivers licenses or serving in the military or public office.
Overlooked back in 2004 when France enacted the so-called French headscarf ban forbidding any conspicuous religious symbols in state schools or government offices, the tiny Sikh community of France has been fighting the law in and out of the courts since then (previous SM coverage). The French President encapsulated his government’s official and unnuanced position on Sikhs in France following last fall’s European Union/India Summit in Marseille. An annoyed Sarkozy, standing next to Prime Minister Singh at the time, took a reporter’s question about Sikhs wearing turbans in France.
Sarkozy, replied curtly, “Sir, we respect Sikhs. We respect their customs, their traditions. They are most welcome to France.” Visibly irritated, Sarkozy continued, “But sir, we have rules, rules concerning the neutrality of civil servants, rules concerning secularism, and these rules don’t apply only to Sikhs…
Sarkozy explained that the banning of turbans is not discrimination, that, “These rules apply to everybody, to everybody with no exception. There is no discrimination whatsoever.” (New Europe)
It seems unlikely that Sikhs in France will have much luck in their efforts given more recent developments that could broaden the reach of the 2004 ban. Last month Sarkozy spoke out to support a ban of the burqa, the full-body garment worn by an estimated 100,000 Muslim women born in France (Telegraph). In public comments he said “it is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity,” and that the burqa “is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.” (Reuters)
Kamran Pasha, a screenwriter and novelist who writes about Islam recently returned from a week in France and he offers another perspective on the proposed ban.
my own experience in that beautiful country (I lived in Paris for several months in 2007) leads me to believe that the controversy over the burqa is not really about women’s rights. It is about preserving a certain cultural heritage from the onslaught of foreign values and perspectives. The burqa controversy is really about attempting to save a beleaguered French identity from being replaced by a new and alien social tradition that is spreading through the power of demographics. But social engineering is a poor tool to curtail the realities of reproduction. At current birth rates, Muslims will become a numerically influential community inside France within this century. The same is true for many other nations in Europe. Efforts to stem the power of Muslim culture from reshaping European identity are as pointless as trying to hold back a river with one’s hands. (Lifting the Veil)
Given what seems to be another sort of Bastille Day tradition in recent years — riots and destruction in the nation’s suburban estates like those spurred this year by the death of a young Algerian man in police custody, and evidence of employment discrimination against ethnic minorities in France, I agree with Pasha that there is more at play than the stated and maybe more publicly palatable concerns for women’s rights. The desire to prevent changes to French identity and demographics seem the more likely motivations for the 2004 law and the proposed burqa ban.
But fixating on conspicuous religious symbols like the turban or burqa does not feel like an effective way to preserve French traditions and identity, especially when it keeps people out of state schools or other public institutions — just the kind of places where I imagine they have opportunities to study and participate in the culture and traditions that are part of a nation’s heritage.
Of course its normative, what else would it be? The argument that equality is desirable is also normative, not self-evidently “factual”.
This notion of “anything less” being Christian apology is totally unfair and really just assumes bad faith on my part and that of others. It would be nicer to see a response which explains to me how “religious equality” can allow all groups in the public domain to wear symbols and practice rituals that they deem are demanded by their religion, and also allow non-religious individuals to wear symbols that they consider desirable and practice rituals that they wish to practice. I agree that bans on visible symbols will have unequal effects, I think that is obvious — the Sikh symbols are more visible than a Christian cross can be. But (1) that reflects choices made within the faith and not some immutable transcendental law, and (2) some inequality of outcome is going to be a feature of equally applied laws e.g. laws on public levels of noise may well prevent mosques from broadcasting calls to prayer. Since 1/3 of the French are atheists (rough figures), it is a kick in the face for them to be denied equal rights of acting out their (non-religious) beliefs. Your argument can acquire consistency is you allow groups to carve out exemption after exemption, but I don’t know where that stops; and whenever you do decide to stop it, you are still going to implicitly and unavoidably discriminate against some group, thereby arriving back at the point you criticized.
As for this idea of America not having a separation of church and state, I agree completely. I think it disgraceful that swathes of the American right have spent decades trying to twist the constitution to circumvent government endorsement of religion. Remember the Bush-era prayer meetings, the White House bible studies? Imagine what a corrosive effect that must have had on non-religious and non-Christian individuals in the administration. But by defending the right of religious freedom in this expansive, ‘positive rights’ manner, I think that you inadvertently support and uphold such discrimination. I am not going to defend the sham American secularism, I (and many others who are being casually insulted as anti-Muslim) would fervently support pro-secular reforms in America which would have the effective outcome that Christians would be restricted in public life (and quite properly so).
Importantly, this argument has nothing to do with “people sporting rampant tents”, and it’s just assuming bad faith to keep linking it to that. I can like wearing the turban and still make this argument, since it cuts in many directions over time.
But back to the picture Pavani posted, I think if this traveling troupehad gone instead–Rajasthan meets France– in no time, all of France would be spinning multi-hued turbans. Even the niqabis and the nuns. And other strange outcomes– topless but turbanned.
I’m actually serious. As LinZi (
) and some others have pointed out, this is all about culture and some xenophobia. It is not just head scarves and turbans. Being different is not tolerated. I’m a vegetarian in France. There is no law against that yet because we are a small minority. But, I have the number of the police in my diary because I was worried the secretary in my office would hit me with something. This vegetarian thing has upset her greatly.
I was referring to this turban.
sj “Since 1/3 of the French are atheists (rough figures), it is a kick in the face for them to be denied equal rights of acting out their (non-religious) beliefs.”
Speaking as an atheist here,I don’t really understand your argument. You are saying that as an atheist, allowing others to follow their religious will somehow nullify my ability to follow my own unbeliefs.
Let’s not talk the US as a model, as many have pointed out, secularism in the US government is more like “we do christian (ahem, protestant) stuff all the time and one other religious prayer in once a year for good measure, now go pledge your allegiance, under god, swear on the bible, and put your faith that our money is backed by god” So establishing that I don’t talk the U.S. as a proper model, I don’t see how me SEEING other people’s religious beliefs acted out visibly will affect/offend/stop me from doing what I think is right for myself. I don’t see turbans and head scarfs and suddenly realize it’s not fair they can act out their religion and I can’t un-act out my not-religion. In fact as long as no one is forcing me to pray or wear a headscarf, etc… my atheist life is pretty secure.
For example, let’s look at India for a moment… living there I was constantly surrounded by religious imagery, Sai Baba photos in taxis, turbans on heads, head scarfs (by my Egyptian students, who, get this, actually CHOSE of their own free will to wear them!), Ganpatiji in the doorway to my Hindi school, pretty much anywhere I looked I could see physical and outward symbols of people’s religions. Yet, not once did I feel offended or threatened by these symbols. Why? Because no one came along screaming about what I should or shouldn’t do.
The only time anything of the sort was required was when I entered an obviously religious realm, which is all about respect. I took off my shoes when entering a temple, or covered my head in the places required. I suppose technically I could run around a Hindu temple in my Nikes, but I would only make myself look like a disrespectful buffoon. Entering someone else’s religious realm should entail respect and understanding. Entering the public realm should follow the same rule as pretty much everything else in life “As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone, do as you wish”
It won’t “nullify” anything, but my point is that you are not going to be allowed to act according to your personally-held beliefs (I like the term “unbeliefs”!), depending on what these are. A religious individual can claim religious freedom to “follow their beliefs”, and could thereby refuse to wear a state-sanctioned uniform, say. Could an atheist act on their preference (say, to wear jeans in a public school with a uniform) or is that a privilege for religions?
As for “causing offense”, I wouldn’t defend that argument — wearing even a small cross is not going to cause offense, I don’t think. Rather, there’s no good criteria by which we can allow small crosses but still disallow prominent symbolism that interferes with the job. It is only fair to apply a blanket restriction. And besides, a small cross in one context can be innocuous, but when placed at the head of the table by the US president in a cabinet meeting will have more pernicious effects. A full face-covering in an administrative role where you have no contact with others seems harmless, but a similar act by a teacher is ridiculous. I actually think it’s fair to apply criteria that ask whether someone’s preference for dress or symbols would interfere with their public duties. But that judgment has to be made without regard for the religious quality or character of those of the preference: my preference to wear a funny clown mask at work must be treated equally to a devotee’s desire to wear a Sai Baba afro wig, or a Muslim’s desire to wear a headscarf. They are just preferences, and if we treat some as more sacred than others, than that is where your “unbeliefs” are nullified.
As to what is demanded in “obviously religious realms”, that is a private matter since they are private voluntary associations. If they receive no public money or are not public institutions like a municipal authority, then I don’t give two hoots whether they cover themselves up, torture themselves like Opus Dei, perform Eyes Wide Shut like rituals, or practice consensual Satanic rituals. Without further context (and there might be some –we do regulate the private-sector workplace after all) I see no reason for the law to speak to that.
sj “They are just preferences, and if we treat some as more sacred than others, than that is where your “unbeliefs” are nullified.”
But I’m an atheist…. I don’t have any ‘sacred’ beliefs…. If I did, then I wouldn’t be an atheist anymore.
I think the distinction needs to be made between cultural norms of dress (i.e. what is proper to wear to work) and dress based on religious beliefs. Generally speaking, people are pretty good at balancing the two. For example, wearing nice slacks, a button down shirt and a head scarf meets both the rules of the workplace AND the beliefs of the person. Wearing a turban and having uncut hair and beard and a clean, pressed properly worn army uniform seem to be working just fine for the guy in this picture. In fact, he looks quite dapper.
…and I think there is a big different between ‘preferences’ and religious beliefs. Preferences don’t have a deep symbolism or meaning to you. I like green, because, well, it’s a nice color. I got a tattoo of a dog on my butt, because once a dog bit me there. I dyed my hair pink for fun. I like to wear high heels.
I wear a headscarf because it is an important component of my religious beliefs. I wear a turban as part of my religious beliefs symbolizing equality. I wear my cross to remember that my savior sacrificed himself for the good of mankind… etc.
I just don’t see how the two can equate.
Manju wrote: i can’t believe no one has challenged the original law banning religious displays by teachers. i really doubt a conervative/libertarian court would uphold it. maybe justices who practice an extreme form of judicial restraint or those who believe in an expansive establishment clause, but i doubt they are the majority.
It has been challeneged, and upheld. This, and other American laws of this sort, are a legacy of the anti-Catholic sentiment of the 1800s.
Google “Cooper v. Eugene School District”, where the Oregon Supreme Court rejected the free-exercise challenge of a Sikh teacher suspended for wearing religious clothing — a white turban and white clothes — to her special education classes. Pennsylvania has similar laws, also upheld.
I understand what you’re saying, and as I said above, I agree balancing is possible. One thing troubles me though: “rules of the workplace” aren’t specific enough to address all our concerns about what public officials should do. Under this criterion alone, a giant 50 foot cross and Ten Commandments sign in front of every American courthouse wouldn’t be a problem. It wouldn’t necessarily affect the jurisprudence applied inside. And if it was the choice of the judge in question, it would be an individual and not ‘government’ act. But it seems that allowing the accretion of such symbols of devotion would undermine faith in public offices, and create problems of credibility. Can you defend the right of a public employee to wear a turban but preclude a Christian judge from placing a cross on his courtroom desk? Or am I drawing an unfair analogy?
“Under this criterion alone, a giant 50 foot cross and Ten Commandments sign in front of every American courthouse wouldn’t be a problem. It wouldn’t necessarily affect the jurisprudence applied inside. And if it was the choice of the judge in question, it would be an individual and not ‘government’ act. But it seems that allowing the accretion of such symbols of devotion would undermine faith in public offices, and create problems of credibility. Can you defend the right of a public employee to wear a turban but preclude a Christian judge from placing a cross on his courtroom desk? Or am I drawing an unfair analogy?”
I think there is a big different between a court collectively putting up a cross or the ten commandments, and a Judge putting one in his office. The individual should retain their right to have religious symbols important to them, it has an individual meaning. A collective support of a certain faith would undermine the secular ideals.
It seems like one argument is that “If I know a public officer is religious, I won’t believe in their ability to make a fair decision based on the letter of the secular law” But people will still be religious, even if you can’t tell by looking at them. There job is based on their ability to be a religious (or nonreligious, if they so choose) person and be able to follow correct secular procedure in their government post. It is their duty to base their decisions at work on the LAWS of the government, not their religion. If anyone does otherwise, then it’s a problem. But I don’t think that is directly correlated to visual religious symbols.
A pro-life Christian Fundamentalist judge who bases her/his decisions on his religious beliefs will do it regardless of if s/he has a cross around her/his neck or in his office. And a Christian Judge who follows the letter of the law, will still do so honestly, regardless of cross-around-neck status.
Ikram: Doesn’t look like any of this went up to scotus, but rather was dealt with at the state level, where oregon law was the issue (though it appears they found the excessive punishment unconditional under the first amendment…not sure how that works).
this was 1986 and perhaps they thought at the time, given that the conservative revolution had just beugn, that a liberal scotus would put more empahisis an the establishment clause, especially where children are involved and the bar is therefore muich lower (think school prayer). since then conservatives have re-established (correctly in my view) the primacy of the free-expression clause (with the exception of the peyote case but that seems like a clear compelling state interst) and i doubt the law would pass muster now…but it could be close if the various religious displays on public land cases are any indication.
and if you can demonstrate the context was anti-catholic sentiment you can trigger a lot of empathy from liberals who are more naturally statist in this area. the state targeting a particulatr religion makes it slam dunk unconsituional, raising the ire of conservatives and liberals.
Obviously, being a “Muslim woman in France” can be a difficult position to be in. The question, then, is if a political operator (I could have used less polite words 😉 ) like Sarkozy makes this argument the way that Jack Straw did in Britain a few years ago, without any serious attempt to figure out what would make sense, what effect does this have on the position of actual Muslim women in France? Wouldn’t this just make it more difficult for them to assert their autonomy both as women and as people in France? I would think so.
Therefore, it’s bullshit. It’s similar to the Uniform Civil Code debate in India – a way for Hindu (male-dominated elites) and Muslim (male-dominated elites) to fight over who gets to determine the fate of women in family structures. If theyw ould all just stfu and make space for women (of all kinds) to organise, we would all be a lot better off. Same with the abortion debate in the U.S.
you can take degree and prominence into consideration. scotus has struck down religious dispays in court that are too in ones face so to speak but let others stand.
the small cross on the desk is a little more iffy. some would argue it displays bias while others would say its the judges first amendment right. the former argument could be used against turbaned teachers. but i don’t really worry that a turbaned teacher will punish me for being non-turbaned so i’m not sure why we must stop the judge from displaying his cross.
sj: check out County of Allegheny v. ACLU for example of degree an prominance re establishment clause.
Ganpatiji in the doorway to my Hindi school, pretty much anywhere I looked I could see physical and outward symbols of people’s religions. Yet, not once did I feel offended or threatened by these symbols.
That’s where I have to differ. My academic department at a government run university held pujas every Friday, none of which, as an atheist, I cared to attend. Now all my professors DID attend, and definitely held it against me because I was Hindu and therefore expected to participate. On being asked what my religion was (as is all too common among Indians), and on replying ‘atheist’, I was always met with the same shocked silence followed by some variation of ‘wow, I appreciate your honesty’ as if I’d just confessed some shameful secret. So now, I usually respond with ‘I believe in the divinity of potatoes.’ I’d call myself Hindu, but nobody seems to remember the Charvakas.
To my knowledge, even in my cosmopolitan city, there’s only one secular school with a high standard of education. Too bad we don’t have these. So like many middle class city kids, I went to a Catholic school.
As to the French love for regulation, I’d attribute this craving for conformity more to ideas of socialism/egalitarianism than to ingrained religious/cultural chauvinism. I’m no fan of the burqa (or polka dotted prints for that matter!), so I totally believe that this ban will just make oppressive families of oppressed women realize in a magically Bollywood-esque moment the evilness of their oppressive ways. Oppressed women will whoop with joy and discard their burkhas wholesale. There, another problem solved.
Taking the desire of religious individuals to exercise their religious freedoms at face value, it is strange that this desire extends only to things like Burkhas and Turbans – neither of which is mandated by the respective religions – while accepting state enforced conformity in issues like marriages, inheritance laws and criminal punishments. I am glad no sane state accepts the right to practice caste discrimination and polygyny.
sj, one only need look across the pond to the UK, or to the U.S., or to India, or to a number of other democracies to see how free practice of faith need not devolve into a controlling process for the non-religious or for members of other faiths. The idea that allowing Muslims, Sikhs, and Jews to practice their faith will cause offense and result in the formal institution of state-mandated religious practice is spurious and alarmist. This is akin to saying that LGBT school teachers should remain in the closet in public spaces for fear that it will offend or “convert” straight individuals. If France wants to exclude communities, including those who have lived as Frenchmen and women for nearly 100 years, then it should just be up front that it is pursuing a policy of ethnic and religious exclusion and removal.
It is not an accurate statement to say the Turban is not mandated by the Sikh faith. It is an article of faith that is required for all male adherents. I think it is a cheap potshot at minority religions to conflate the issue and argue that caste discrimination or polygamy are required aspects of the minority faiths we have discussed in this thread; specifically, Judaism, Sikhi and Islam.
Bad analogy of the year. LGBT’s don’t have a violence-soaked history of oppression and ill-treatment of the “other.”
The UK has an established religion, with 26 bishops sitting in the upper house and therefore holding not inconsiderable power over the elected lower house (rarely exercised, I should add, but still there). The monarch is formally designated the defender of the faith. (Mercifully, the church gets no government cash). I deeply resent the BBC’s ‘Thought for the Day’ which excludes non-believers but happily takes their license-fee.
At numerous state schools, Christian rituals, prayers, symbols and practices are compulsory. Faith schools are proliferating and backed by the government — they are inherently discriminatory and the state (hence the taxpayer) pays 85% of their capital costs. A Jewish faith school was recently been found to be essentially racist, since it was using a racial and not purely ‘religious’ definition of Judaism in its admission policies violating the Race Relations Act. But there is no Religious Relations Act, and so state-sponsored soft-bigotry is a key part of British education policy. See here for the left-leaning Guardian’s information. The government is also now in the business of identifying “moderate Muslim” groups to back against extremist ones, a process which I despise since it involves the government deciding matters of theology and using taxpayer money to back its chosen sects – something that I would have thought Muslims would be aghast at.
I would suggest that this is the outline of a “controlling process”, actually. There is hardly mass repression, of course, but that’s not what we’re discussing. British policy is not purely pro-religion, there are many areas where it is not – but that just serves to show that it’s highly confused.
Well, it’s not spurious. See above. If you still think it’s spurious, I’d be interested in understanding why. As for alarmism, yes, I think this can be used as a stick for bigots to hit Muslims with. That happens, and one only need read the Daily Mail for a steady stream of examples. But there are no strong pro-secularist voices in Britain (as there are in the US, where there are constitutional means with which to fight back) and I am hardly calling for armed uprising, am I? Anyway, my point is that Britain is a bad case to invoke. As has been pointed out by others here, so too is the US.
Hardly. It’s akin to saying that LGBT teachers have no business inserting matters pertaining to their sexuality in routine pedagogy any more than straight teachers do so with their heterosexuality – conversion of anyone to anything is just not the point of school. What do you mean by ‘staying in the closet’? i.e why would a teacher be revealing their sexuality to pupils in any case?? If it’s directly related to a class and their experience or personal identification offers a useful perspective, then I don’t see ‘coming out of the closet’ at all problematic. That’s why I disagree vehemently with the British “clause 28” which did in fact assume the idea you are postulating.
I don’t know what French motives are – I suppose it’s perfectly possible this is purely cynical, and I don’t endorse that. But I maintain that it’s possible to hold to a properly secular position and still make the case. The state can’t be biased simply on the ground of “inclusion”. If a parent refuses to enter a school unless it’s a faith school in which only Jews can be schooled, then I would argue that this act of “exclusion” is sad but necessary to accept and live with. I don’t know whether we should characterize the French attitude to turbans in the same way, since any putative discrimination is much more indirect than in the British examples I have mentioned above.
Can you give any direct references (qoutes) from Guru Nanak in this regard?
168: I think it is a cheap potshot at minority religions to conflate the issue and argue that caste discrimination or polygamy are required aspects of the minority faiths we have discussed in this thread; specifically, Judaism, Sikhi and Islam.
I did not say they were required aspects of anything. But they get more of a mention in respective scriptures and fall within permitted behaviours. There is no reason why arguments of freedom to practice religion cannot be used to argue in favour of them – as they are regularly used in India.
Also arguments in this thread are not restricted to some approved set of religions.
sj has a point in that the Lemon criterior and its ever mutating application to religious issues in public is a complete mess of jurisprudence. that said, the cloud will likely clear with the majority in summum ruling in favor of the govt privileging some religious displays over others. jabs about anti-catholic liberals aside, the idea that this will not lead to minority religious beliefs being massively disadvantaged by politicians in a climate which favors displays of christian beliefs is beyond ridiculous. but that can be justified under the fallacious “equality of opportunity” that minorities can be claimed to enjoy.
There is a gigantic difference between the turban and the caste system. One is a personal choice, the other infringes on others’ rights and liberties. Polygamy is more complicated. There are concerns of exploitation and coercion, but on the face of it, I have never understood what business it is of the government in the presence of informed consent by all parties.
Isn’t the decision to consider one’s caste a salient form of identity a choice in itself?
I don’t know exactly what you mean. I obviously don’t think having a last name of “Iyer” or “Trivedi” is problematic, but there is the old chestnut about where the freedom to swing one’s arm ends.
Isn’t the decision to consider one’s caste a salient form of identity a choice in itself?
Yoga Fire, there’s a huge difference between caste discrimination and caste oppression and being able to decide whether to wear your turban or hijab. The US laws, I know balances the right to expression/religious freedom with the infringement of someone else’s rights. Of course caste violence, oppression and discrimination infringes on someone’s rights.
But there’s also a difference between caste discrimination and violence and identifying by a caste. For some people, caste identities mean more than others…just like an ethnic identity, like having Irish ethnicity or French. You can still celebrate these identities and I don’t see anything wrong about it. When you get chauvinistic in your ideas I think you are stupid, thinking you are better or more qualified than someone else, well that’s just narrow-minded. But I’m sure in India, you have the right to think that way. Just when you apply that way of thinking and circumscribe someone’s civil and human rights – that’s when the Indian Constitution says no, although we know in certain areas, the law isn’t enforced properly.
there’s no such thing as a sane state. nationalism is as much a religion as anything else.
I am glad no sane state accepts the right to practice caste discrimination and polygyny
Are you talking about India or the world. There are plenty of nations that allow polygamy. And we know there are plenty of nations where legalized discrimination (maybe not caste b/c that seems unique to India or Japan) but something similar in context to caste, such as race or religion, are used to discriminate.
What I was trying to highlight was that people often say “caste system” when they mean “caste-based discrimination” and that semantic shortcut tends to cloud what we’re trying to talk about. The independence generation wanted to eradicate caste and create a “caste-blind” society, but it seems society itself didn’t want to cooperate. So we should probably be seeking some middle ground to accommodate caste identities while dealing with the discrimination by keeping it out of the public sphere.
The French are kind of going in the same direction, just pushing a lot harder. I think it’s partly just a “good fences make good neighbors” approach. Outward and overt signs of religiosity kind of compromise the fence and how much of a fence we want is going to depend on how little we like the neighbor.
What is France’s take on charter schools?
What I was trying to highlight was that people often say “caste system” when they mean “caste-based discrimination” and that semantic shortcut tends to cloud what we’re trying to talk about.
I was trying to say that too. However “caste system” today connotes and denotes, I think, hierarchy and oppression, whatever might have been the situation a long time. However caste identity to me, is benign and just an understanding of one’s past…I many people from my caste, who take pride and have visible symbols in their home about their caste.
The independence generation wanted to eradicate caste and create a “caste-blind” society, but it seems society itself didn’t want to cooperate. I’m not from India, but from my family there or my Indian American friends I don’t know anyone who sees identifying with a particularly caste as something they want to eradicate. And I don’t think it will go away, unless with time. Already we see castes in one area or in one time, move up or down the caste hierarchy. And already I know many people who have “caste-no-bar” as their stance in their marriage partner. There was a time when Anglos and Saxons viewed each other as different races…I don’t think it’s a good idea to force people to remove from their identity their caste – we’d have to go thru the Indian cultural revolution or something. Caste violence, discrimination and oppression of course needs to be eradicated and I’m glad India’s constitution supports that though we have a long way to go to change people’s mindset.
Countries have laws. If all laws were the same, there would be no difference between nations. Aggressive secularism is now a part of the French culture. Sikhs are not prohibited from going to school and joining the military. They are merely stopped from observing their religious laws while doing so. I sympathize with their plight, but France belongs to the Frenchmen, and they do have the right to legislate as they will. I would certainly hate if other people were telling me how to run my country.
Camille – “It is not an accurate statement to say the Turban is not mandated by the Sikh faith.”
Does the Guru Granth Sahib mandate that Sikh male wear the turban?
“What do you mean by ‘staying in the closet’? i.e why would a teacher be revealing their sexuality to pupils in any case??”
Showing up at the School Party with your partner? Getting picked up. Having a picture of your family… working at schools these are common occasions when you might see a school teacher with family/partner.
Again, I don’t understand what you mean. In fact, the fact that the constitution explicitly has special passages that allow measures for the advancement of disadvantaged classes, SCs and STs is a counterpoint to what I think you mean.
Further, apart from a few reactionary movements that ostentatiously shed caste honorifics in last names, the use of the terms “caste system” that I have seen in all mainstream contexts is clearly about the discrimination institutionalized and condoned by the caste system. Even the DK/DMK crew that took out lynch mobs against Brahmins and sent out thugs to snap sacred threads and hair tufts of Brahmins was not advocating caste blindness, but merely undertaking a cathartic intimidation program.
BTW, my comment is intended merely to be descriptive, I don’t intend to get into a discussion of the relative merits or otherwise of the caste based reservation system.
“Does the Guru Granth Sahib mandate that Sikh male wear the turban?”
Did anyone mandate Christians wear a cross? No, but that doesn’t make it less important to the people who choose to wear it. And that also doesn’t mean it has important religious symbols for the wearer. I think it’s the same for people who wear the turban.
This is a direct affront to Pontius Pilate’s order.
you lost me. i didn’t jab at anti-catholic liberals but rather said evidence of catholicism being singled out would raise the empathy of liberal judges to side with thsoe who’d like to display their religiousity in public as oppossed to giving them a high bar because of the establishment clause.
i don’t know why you think disdvantaging minority religious beliefs is so self-evident. the court has been going in my direction for a while now. has that happenend? can you substantiate this? examples? the very case you cite struck down the cross but allowed a jewish symbol
There is a gigantic difference between the turban and the caste system. One is a personal choice, the other infringes on others’ rights and liberties
I think it is the French position that displaying any symbols of religious expression run the risk of privileging some and discriminating against others – pretty much as caste marks and symbols did once in India.
But not to rat-hole on caste. From marriage practices, age of consent, azaans to public immersions of idols there are dozens of religious practices that governments everywhere including the American government control.
Well as long as any lifestyle choices can be equally accommodated in these circumstances, there’s no problem. As long as a homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual etc can all exercise their personal choices in the same way i.e. go to school with their partners, get picked up, have family pictures, then there is no discrimination in favor of one set of belief systems or preference systems.
Anyway, returning to the point: yes, LGBT should stay ‘in the closet’ (though it’s not really the proverbial closet in this context) to the same extent that all teachers should stay in their respective sexual closets, if you’ll forgive the awkward metaphor. They can come out of that closet (i.e. all teachers, gay or straight) only to the extent that this is compatible everyone being allowed to make similar choices with respect to their partners and lifestyles. To take a perhaps odd example: should a teacher be allowed to bring his marriage partner? If yes, then another teacher ought to be able to bring along the guy/girl he just slept with that morning, in the interests of the school (a public body) not privileging one lifestyle choice over another for its public employees.
I just came across a “Wide Angle” documentary (PBS) on being Muslim in France right after the law banning headscarfs (etc) was enacted… I haven’t watched it yet (I am about to) but I thought I would share in case anyone else was interested.. here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/video-full-episode/334/
P.S. you probably have to be in the U.S. to watch… to apologies elsewhere… 🙁
Sorry, I misunderstood you then.
As for your other question:
First off, the O’Connor articulation of Lemon has become increasingly tortured over the years, and thanks to ideological court leanings, has led to ridiculous notions of the court trying to divine secular/religious intent culminating with Breyer’s tap dance on the two cases on the same day. But till Summum, there was at least a fig leaf of an idea that the establishment clause didn’t allow the govt to thrust religious ideas down people’s throats. Summum threw all that out the window with its claim that govt speech allowed it to choose across religions. That’s a huge deal, and I’d bet that we will see its implications in the coming years.
Sure, if you live in an ideal parrallel universe. The fact remains that most parents – all around the world – are not entirely comfortable with having to explain to their children all of these various “lifestyle choices” and increasingly younger ages.
Perhaps for now Mr. Smith can call his significant other his “friend” or “cousin” ….. until he gets promoted to teaching in Jr High or something.
Yes, “the fact remains” that what I perceive as proper secularism is not popular, and most people who have relatively strong cultural or religious views wuld reject this ‘prohibition’ notion of secularism. The unpopularity of my view is obvious enough in these comments. It does lead to policies that appear extreme or silly. That doesn’t change the fact that I think Indian secularism and British semi-secularism are discriminatory and insufficiently neutral, and that French secularism is broadly on the right track.
Re: the comments on “Did Guru Nanak mandate the turban?”, etc.: It’s pretty clear that all of you have advocated for policies that undermine individuals’ rights to freely exercise their faith, and so I read your questions as largely rhetorical and relatively offensive. However, I’m going to answer in the off-chance that there was an actual request for information. The Sikh Rehit Maryada, along with numerous examples from its history, require the turban as an article of faith. The Maryada is a binding document, second only to Scripture and the decisions of the faith community when it is in congress (which are also bound by the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji). It is not unusual for religions to require specific actions in practice of their faith. Can you tell me where, in the Bible, it requires Confirmation? Or did that perhaps result from the larger development of Catholicism? But if you would like an explicit set of rules, please let me know if you will begin stoning your neighbor for wearing blended cloth, as Exodus requires.
::
I did not say that that the British system was the best, but rather, was explaining that there are other examples of multiculturalism and multireligious practice; some more successful than others. You’ve eliminated the U.S. from review, and other democracies that are doing relatively well with free religious expression. What then, is left, to analyze? States where a majority religion has been imposed by law or by practice?
::
With respect to my analogy to LGBT teachers, I obviously think there’s a strong parallel analogy, primarily in how policymakers view the “norm.” The concept is that the closet is neutral, and that if straight teachers are “in the closet” that is somehow an equal policy. Of course this is a false presumption — the majority of our society deals in heteronormative stereotypes and themes, and so the default of how we (society) is primed to see the world, even when we “remove” anyone’s expression of individuality or personal identity, does not result in a neutral space. Similarly, a requirement that religious minorities “leave their religion at home” when they enter “public space” springs from a misguided idea that “public space” is neutral. The cultural, historical, and actual creation of public space in France happens in a Catholic context. It isn’t even secular! This idea of creating a “secularism” in public space is inane and illogical; people do not partition their identities and leave pieces at home like accessories when they leave for work in the morning. Perhaps another helpful analogy is colorblindness theory, which also presumes that if one stops talking about race it will disappear. I’ll repeat: this particular brand of “secularism” advocates for freedom of religions, but freedom from (non-Catholic) religion.
::
As for the discussion regarding the freedom of the French to govern themselves, I don’t think anyone disputes that. However, this ban is an excellent lesson in the tyranny of the majority. Many of the minorities impacted by the ban are just that — French minorities. They are Frenchmen and women as well. It would do good to remember that France, despite its best attempts and its small numbers, is also a pluralistic society.
Yes, that’s a constructive and civil comment. Thank you.
I didn’t eliminate the US from review, I just commented that I do not accept either it or Britain as “doing relatively well”. I pointed out the numerous ways in which the state was not neutral between competing viewpoints, and systematically privileged religion, and certain religions over others. You chose to ignore that. Let me repeat: Britain does impose, in various ways, a majority religion. In other ways, it favors particular sects of particular religions. To atheists, agnostics, and humanists, it says “f–k you”.
As has been pointed out, as you refuse to acknowledge, French secularism is a response to Catholicism. Can you explain what you mean by the “Catholic context”? If you mean that small crosses might be permitted, then I am 100% with you: they should not be permitted. Else, I don’t see what you mean other than to justify the state giving benefits to certain groups. You call that pluralism, I call that discrimination. We’re both entitled to our respective interpretations.
You’re twisting my words. I call for freedom from all religions where they have no business intruding. Again and again, I’ve outlined the reasons for that.
I am consistent. I oppose encroachments of Christianity on the state in France, and in the US where such encroachment is long established. It is disingenuous and unfair to associate this argument with the “tyranny of the majority” when this is repudiated by my logic.
Most of all, I’m really peeved by your dismissive use of the word “offensive”. I don’t think anyone, on either side of this debate, is being offensive. But if you choose to take offense, it’s your prerogative to stifle discussion in that way. I just find it sad that you have to throw around inflammatory and insulting terms, when none have been directed at you. I and others also feel strongly about this issue, but no-one has called you offensive, others have not called you intolerant, others have not called you anti-secular. I have lurked on SM for a long time, and posted for the first time on this item. I’m bitterly disappointed that in the midst of the intelligent and insightful debate, you deem it necessary to belittle the arguments of others in this way.
sj, I was overbroad, but it is relatively clear from the context that my comment is not addressed to you, or to other apologists for France’s policy, but rather, to Manpreet and One Love. At no point have I tried to stifle debate by saying the discussion was offensive. Instead, I am arguing that the deep lack of understanding or empathy exhibited by proponents of the policy — coupled with comments that trivialize or belittle the religious practice of others — is offensive. There have been a number of comments throughout this thread that do exactly that. While your comments have been thoughtful, responsive, and thorough, there are multiple voices and audiences in this comment string. Many of my responses are not geared directly toward you, but rather, to readers who are not consistent in their approach to this policy but see it as an opportunity to espouse anti-minority sentiment cloaked as policy discussion. I don’t deal in invective as a discussion tactic, and so I am sorry if comments that were not directed to you were misinterpreted.
I understand that this notion of French secularism comes from opposition to the presence of the Church. However, a policy of secularism in public space tries to sequester religion in a way that does not make sense, both practically and philosophically. You asked how one is aware that France’s public space is Catholic — it is entrenched in the language, the customs, the norms and practices of the community. It is in what the majority French take for granted, whether it is the looming cathedrals, the natural acknowledgment of Catholic traditions, etc. However, I don’t think anyone can build inclusion by adopting anti-Catholic, or anti-other faith, policies. If this policy were truly about removing religion from public space to ensure atheists were better included, then it would have been much more strident. France chose to punish particular minorities instead of risking offending its religious majority. It also reproduces the same hierarchy and oppression that an atheist would experience by reorienting who is at the top and who is at the bottom of religious privilege. This is not sound policy, and it is not fair. Further, it encourages those who do identify as faithful to move to the extremes instead of to the middle.
In that case, I’m sorry for taking it the wrong way.
Nonetheless, I didn’t see anything offensive in Manpreet’s comments: surely religious orthodoxy should be subject to as much objective scrutiny as any other belief. Earlier, you mocked the idea that “caste discrimination or polygamy are required aspects of the minority faiths we have discussed in this thread; specifically, Judaism, Sikhi and Islam”. While I agree with your specific point there, it remains that attachments to rituals and symbols that were once seen as integral to a religion often wither away. The prevalence of caste discrimination within India and its intellectual relationship to Hinduism is something that has faded, but not without active resistance. Without equating the moral status of the symbols discussed here with caste discrimination (obviously on a different level), isn’t it legitimate to question their scriptural foundations, their centrality to the religion, their rationality? (This is linked, however indirectly, to the issue of whether denying their use in a public domain would be deeply harmful or just a peripheral issue).
In that case, I will end my contribution here by endorsing anyone who wishes to offend religious majorities who wish to claim undue space in the public sphere. Lest anyone misinterpret that, I stress that I am not calling for wanton belittling of religions (though I have strong personal views on the extent to which one may belittle religion). To the extent that Catholics work against France’s rich and illustrious history of the exclusion of theocratic forces, I hope they are intellectually and practically diminished, and pushed out of the state, in overt form and in any suffocating effect they may have on the democratic goings-on of the state (to which you allude). Such activist religions deserve contempt, and it’s important to say that, since I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with those who garb their parochial racism in the intellectual wrappings of political liberalism, and think this is just about Muslims. As you phrase it, I would approve anything “more strident”.
The caste system is not neccessarily an intrinsice part of all Hindu sects.
The overarching idea in Hinduism is the inherent equality of all living beings – including plantlife and animals. The caste thing is more South Asian cultural thing than anything else. It is not part of the spirituality of Hinduism.
Actually, I don’t think this properly engages with my case. What I am saying is that allowing the display of religious symbols on the basis that they are religious symbols that ought to be accorded respect is, ipso facto, “discrimination” against those who hold beliefs not predicated on the divine. The harm lies in the privilege accorded. I would note that I am not using Sarkozy’s case here, which is about “subjugation”. I agree wholeheartedly that he and others ought to consider with open-mind what does and does not constitute subjugation. But they ought to do this without unduly “respecting” i.e. privileging religious belief over non-religious belief.
sj: Ok, I see what you are saying. I don’t agree with you in the ispo facto discrimination aspect of the issue you are raising. The law accords all sorts of privileges to different categories of people, for example, the disabled. Giving special accomodations to the disabled is not ipso facto discrimination against the non-disabled. Likewise, some of the accomodations for the religious are need based and the non-religious and the non-disabled simply do not need them so I don’t see it as a matter of according religious sensibilities a special privilege.
I think the special privilege argument is more valid (you might be alluding to this argument as well) when an accomodation is denied to the non-religious but the same accomodation is accorded to the religious, thus privileging the religious sensibility over the non-religious sensibility. For example, in prisons, a Muslim or a Jew or a diabetic can insist on certain type of meals (kosher/non-diabetic) while a Vegan cannot insist on vegetarian meals. The Vegan can of course claim to be Hindu and then will be entitled to the vegetarian meals. I think in these cases it is undeniable that the religious sensibilities are privileged over non-religious sensibilities.