this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
216 points (97.0% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2174 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] luk___@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

Any islamic subject is a very good way to drive people attention away from other subjects. Each time the government wants to avoid to talk about a given subject they found something new to make scandals. For example, they don't have enough teachers anymore, thousands of them are needed but the most important subject that the whole country should discuss is a few hundred people wearing abayas.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Giving these girls a chance to enjoy school life without being subjected to indoctrination every minute of their lives by their parents is a good thing.

If even some of them see past the bullshit of religion and can function as normal people it will be of benefit.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

This will probably lead to them being pulled out of state school and attending a Muslim school where they will truly get 100% indoctrination every second.

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, because turning them away is such a good way to give them a chance to enjoy school life. You know what would have been good too? Let them in the school instead of putting them in the light like this and refusing entry for some of them.

But, I suppose we have a different view of "enjoy a school life"; my vision happens in the school, yours happens in the school without some people.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (22 children)

No one in France is allowed to wear religious iconography/clothing in public schools so why do you believe there should be an exemption for abayas?

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Okay, let's look at several arguments that have been presented here in favor of this law:

  • "Display of religion must be banned for a secular learning experience": Firstly, how do you even define "display of religion"? If I say "Merry Christmas", is it a display of religion? If I grow my hair out, is that display of religion? If I wear a steel bracelet, is that display of religion? Because the last two actions are actually associated with Sikhism. If I wear the Mormons' holy underwear, is that display of religion? If I say "Jesus fkin Christ" when I hear about a fascist law like this, is that banned too now? Secularism is respecting all religious classifications and allowing them to coexist. Secularism is NOT forcing everyone to look and behave as if they are in the same religious classification.
  • "The abaya dress isn't even French/Respect the culture of the country that you are in:"

Individuals who say this seem to have what is known as the "conventionalist" ethical framework. This framework has maaany problems. However, even if we look at this law from the point of view of this framework, it becomes unethical. The official national motto of France is "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity". This law seems to contradict all three of these principles.

It contradicts "liberty", as it literally permits the government to tell its citizens what they can and cannot wear on their body. Abayas are not even inherently religious. It is like the government banning polo t-shirts because they are "Christian".

The law contradicts "equality" as it unequally affects Muslims and Sikhs, as their religious expression involves the use of clothing more than other religions. Sure, harmful clothing must not be permitted (like the knives that Sikhs are supposed to carry according to their religion). Abayas are not harmful in any way. Hence, they do not fall into this category.

Finally, this law contradicts "fraternity", as fraternity literally means "brotherhood" in this context. "No matter how different we are, we are still brothers with a goal to work for the people of France" is what this implies. Banning something as harmless as clothing attributed to a given religion is not a sign of brotherhood.

  • "Just have school uniforms": Clothing is one of the most important mediums of expression for humans. All humans have their own individual identities. The goal of schools should not be to make Stormtroopers. Rather, it should be to make students better versions of themselves. Having school uniforms goes strongly against this idea. One may argue that this also goes against the idea of "liberty".

  • "Did you know that Abayas and Hijabs are the result of an authoritarian religion?" Firstly, no. Abayas have nothing to do with religion. Sure, it is possible that a parent(s) may force their child to wear a particular type of clothing that aligns with their religious beliefs. In that case, the school can provide support to such students. However, what if a child themself wish to wear a particular type of clothing? What's the harm in that? This argument for the ban is similar to saying "some individuals are buttfucked without their consent. Therefore, let's ban buttfucking".

I'm atheist and socialist. I'm sad to see some of my fellow socialists arguing for the ban as well. Atheists have and are presently being persecuted in many countries in the world. By supporting the persecution of other religious classifications, we are essentially doing exactly what is being done to us. There is no moral difference between us and the individuals persecuting us in this case.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I'll NEVER understand the need for so many non Muslim people to defend what is absolutely a disgusting sexist practice meant to degrade, humiliate and dehumanize women. Fuck so many of you loser fucking idiots and especially fuck you idiots saying shit like, "well what if they choose to be an object?" "What if they like being obedient to every whim of men?"

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Freedom is non-negotiable.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] BURN@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (10 children)

This is BS

Let people wear what they want. If they want to wear religious clothing, let them. It’s not hurting anyone. This law, while technically applying equally to all religions is very clearly targeted at a single group that has been persecuted for this before

[–] RazorsLedge@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Giving religion safe spaces in society normalizes it. Normalizing religion does hurt people. It hurts the mind's ability to think rationally, not to mention all the intolerance that seems to come from it.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I disagree. I’m an atheist, and we shouldn’t restrict anyone’s ability to practice their religion unless it actually harms others. This isn’t a safe space, it’s simply persecuting a single religion because the population dislikes Muslims.

Religion is not an exclusively bad thing. It has done harm, but it also does have good effects.

[–] RazorsLedge@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Agree to disagree I guess. I think we're better off without sky fairies, regardless of whether they're named Zeus, Jesus, Allah, whatever. The society that I'd want to live in would discourage public practices of religion.

Another point I should have made above. As Dawkins says, normalizing religion gives the especially nutty and violent ones room to breathe. They don't stick out so badly when their neighbor believes and practices 90% of what they do.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

As you are a minority population member who supports democratically limiting the religious beliefs of members of the population, I have to ask if you've ever considered that such beliefs may backfire spectacularly against you?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Anduin1357@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Well, you are wrong that religion is a good thing when people do good in spite of religion rather than because of it. If someone's belief system is aligned with a particular religion, they can just adopt the practices of that religion without professing faith in it.

Whatever makes them less susceptible to manipulation from religious leaders is a win in my book.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It is very efficient at having people talk about it, and temporarily forget all the places missing teachers, the sad state of a lot of school buildings, the lack of recognition (and decent salary) that's been the norm for decades at this point, and actual issues regarding kids.

[–] gnygnygny@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The law is there to remind that no religious sign or clothe are accepted into the public system. People who disagree with it can go to the private school.

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Except it's been extended beyond religious clothing. An abaya is not specifically a religious clothing or something mandated by a religion, it is something worn in some places where people happens to be of that religion. No religious texts calls for it, where other things like burka and headscarfs where more directly linked to islam. Here, it's a dress, that people in arabic countries wear. It's literally fashion police.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] electrogamerman@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

You mean targeting a group that is forcing clothing?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] OttoVonNoob@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Watched a video on institutions in France today. Specifically police, I had no idea how terrible it is.

Video for context: Warning incredibly sad but its important to know how terrible people are so we don't repeat history. https://youtu.be/jUxiTdRTPMg?feature=shared

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 4 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/jUxiTdRTPMg?feature=shared

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] snek@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Set against the 12 million school boys and girls who started term on Monday, the government believes the figures show that its ban has been broadly accepted.

Lol the target was like 300 girls tp start with. What a pitiful way to call this a win.

[–] Therealgoodjanet@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] Hillock@kbin.social 37 points 1 year ago (9 children)

France banned basically all religious symbols in public schools. This includes crosses or the Jewish kippah. It's now expanded to include the abaya dresses. Veils and headscarves were already banned.

I think it's stupid since the dress isn't necessarily religious. It's just commonly worn by Muslims. Might as well ban white buttoning down shirts at this point because that's what some christians wear, especially to church.

[–] FinnFooted@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm curious as to how they even define and abaya. Like... Other than being a loose fitting dress made of a square piece of cloth, theres not much to define it. Dresses that fit the description are also worn by "westerners."

[–] Hillock@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Any dress that is too long and wide.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah, covering your head at all times is explicitly a religious thing.

[–] Hillock@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago (5 children)

That's the thing, an abaya doesn't cover your head. There might be some designs that do but in general it's just a maxi-dress with long sleeves. So that's why I think this is stupid. I can understand banning wearing it with an Hijab or other types of headscarves. But as it stand they are sending children home because their dress is too long.

[–] Zahille7@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (8 children)

America: get sent home if your skirt is too short

France: get sent home if your dress is too long

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Nighed@sffa.community 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One one hand, it seems a little extreme, on the other hand, if they have a religious exemption to a school uniform and they are blocking religious items/clothing at school then it kinda makes sense.

(Do the French do school uniforms?)

[–] ours@lemmy.film 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

French schools in France/French territories don't have uniforms. But they ban any form of group/gang/religious symbols.

That included my baseball hat with a team logo on it. We actually had uniforms but that was due to the local country imposing it on the French school. France has set up French public schools all around the World.

I'm not saying I fully agree with their approach but they are consistent in their policy and not targeting any single religion/group.

[–] Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (13 children)

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 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] dwalin@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Joke is on them, my religion forces kids to wear jeans!

load more comments
view more: next ›