• Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ours@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

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

        yes, i agree with, my experience was close to yours. I think the difference here is people are secular in general while system/dirigeants are less clear about it, and tend to fight harder when it’s a non-christian religion, though it was not the case when Christian religion was still in control

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

      since they accept crosses that are not too big, meaning necklaces and earrings (at least in my experience).

      If thats the case, then we should fight for them to be banned. It is a good thing that education is separated from religion.

      And since christian people tend not to wear specific attire except for cross-shaped jewelry, it’s like a whole exception just for them.

      But they used to, even now the highest priests all cover themselves, they just dont force it to other people like muslims. Thats a good thing. A religion shouldnt force people to be dressed a certain way. A person can be religious without having to cover all but their face. And exactly this ban is helping with that.

      Except muslims want to force women to dress in a certain way.

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

        Well it is not that simple. I agree on the point education and religion should be separated, but just on what children learn, not how they just dress.

        But i maintain that catholic common folks do not have any specific attire. In christian cultures, people just wore basic attire, like long skirts or dress for women. But it was not specifically religious, it just was a blend of habits, morals and fashion, so cultural things. At some point, religious people, who tend to be conservative on those subjects, did advocate those clothes because they matched some vague ideal of decency of their religion. That’s why now conservative catholics still ask their daugther to were those clothes. And it is exactly the same thing with the abaya : a cultural fact only slightly mixed with religion, and in both case people who tend to wear just long dress to cover their body. It is not proselytism, it’s just cultural .

        On a second note, i do not understand how anyone could support such a ban and still think they are doing a favor to these people. Do you think it will really help indoctrinated people to ban them from school and universities ? I mean, either

        • the person wear it by choice, and then there’s no problem
        • the person was told to, and then they should be welcomed in schools and universities more than other, to make them see other options exist.

        It’s also very weird that religion should not tell people how to dress, but a state can. It’s weird that people say “you can be religious and do whatever you like”, but at the same time they consider that “you cannot be democratic/republican and do whatever you like, there are rules to follow”.

        Muslims do not want to force women to dress in a certain way, it’s beyond religion, it’s included in morals, cultures. Some muslims do not give a fuck the way women dress. Some atheist do force the women in their lives to dress in specific ways (and this includes people of the conservative tradition). This is not something you change by hating on a religion which is just a medium for this, and which is already discriminated a lot, this is something you change by including people in a free society and help them make a real choice about it. It’s absurd to ban people of a free society because they’re not free.

        Btw it’s a common thing in france to want to control how kids dress. Religious, culturals outfits are banned, but also “indecent” clothes like crop-top. I even remember talks about forcing girls to wear bras, so their nipples are not visible (though i did not remember any political consequence for the bra part, but the crop top was explicitly banned). In some schools, coming disguised on specific days could be banned, and punished. I experienced that, along with critics against outfits like torn pants. It’s just people disliking some clothes, but some of those people become headmaster, and they ban what they dont like. And some of them become minister, and they ban what they dont like in every schools. “Secularism” and “Republican values” are always mentionned then, like they are absolute truth that enable you to prohibit things and still think you’re fighting for liberty.

        But yeah sure. Religion bad. Muslim bad. What muslim wear bad. Ban bad. When done, only good.

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

          The existence of a philosophy that makes women willingly want to cover themselves for men to think that they are pure is wrong. It is sexist and retrograde thinking.

          You can say a thousand things and decorate it with whatever you want, it is still going to be wrong.

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

            I agree that any philosophy that aims to control other’s people life is wrong to me. Based on that, a state philosophy which says “You cannot dress like this or like this” is a wrong one too. I do not like religion, i do not like muslims religion. But i do not hate on muslim people either. I do not support their -generally and imo- fucked up morals, but i support their right to live, their right to dress how they want, even if it is to respect a tradition, their right to access education and knowledge. I also acknowledge that they are historically and currently being repressed by the government and our allegedly secular society, which has just found in muslims what they had found in jews past century. I think the place where muslim people have the most chances to experience liberty and critical thinking is in a free school, not in one which represses their way of life without any further reflection than “Religion bad”. I also think that where non-muslim people have the best chance to undo their prejudices against muslims is in a school where muslim folks can come and dress freely.