FRANCE banned all religious symbols from their schools, should Canada do the same??
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/02/world/main597565.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/02/world/main597565.shtml
missile said:If one believes in the total separation of Church and State,and the schools are state-run..why,of course,keep all religious symbols out of the classrooms.
missile said:If one believes in the total separation of Church and State,and the schools are state-run..why,of course,keep all religious symbols out of the classrooms.
LadyC said:And then what? Do we ban the wearing of certain colours if they have connections to gangs? How about sports jerseys? I bet more "issues" have come up in schools because of team loyalty (fanaticism) than religion. How about symbols relating to drugs... should they be banned too?
Let the Muslims wear their head scarves. Let the Christians wear their cross necklaces.
Live and let live.
moghrabi said:No. Canada is not France. We pride ourselves of being multiculture. We pride ourselves of tolerating each others religions. France was forced by a large Jewish community to force moslems to take off their head scarfs. We do not have this issue here.
missile said:If one believes in the total separation of Church and State,and the schools are state-run..why,of course,keep all religious symbols out of the classrooms.
DasFX said:missile said:If one believes in the total separation of Church and State,and the schools are state-run..why,of course,keep all religious symbols out of the classrooms.
Touchy subject. We have a separation of church and state, yet we advocate freedom of religion. I would say that since the mere presence of religious apparel does not advocate one religion over another, then I say a complete ban is not necessary. The only requirement is that the religious apparel does not violate any other school rules. Such as the Sikh dagger should not be allowed as it violates weapon rules.
But that's exactly what they did ban... they expelled the girl for refusing to remove her head scarf.I don't believe clothing, or a cross around ones neck is the issue in the article.
I think not said:I don't believe clothing, or a cross around ones neck is the issue in the article. Imagine yourself being a muslim sitting in a classroom and having to look at a crucifix. That may be insutling to someone. What would be the point having religious symbols in a classroom?
DasFX said:moghrabi said:No. Canada is not France. We pride ourselves of being multiculture. We pride ourselves of tolerating each others religions. France was forced by a large Jewish community to force moslems to take off their head scarfs. We do not have this issue here.
Yes, let's blame the Jews, they're always a fan favourite for persecution!
moghrabi said:DasFX said:moghrabi said:No. Canada is not France. We pride ourselves of being multiculture. We pride ourselves of tolerating each others religions. France was forced by a large Jewish community to force moslems to take off their head scarfs. We do not have this issue here.
Yes, let's blame the Jews, they're always a fan favourite for persecution!
Now do not start crying about prosecutions of Jews and call me anti-semetic because I blamed the Jews here. It is true that the Jewish Community is responsible for what happenned in France. Like it or not, but it is true.
DasFX said:Is a headscarf a necessity of the Muslim faith or is it a choice? Then I think it becomes a bit trickier. From what I know, the headscarf for women is a symbol of modesty, however it is not required. That is why you see millions of Muslim women without them.
So if it really isn't a necessity, why allow the possibility of "offending" someone? I mean, you aren't allowed to wear baseball caps in school, but couldn't someone argue it was religious apparel? No quick answer.
What is better, possible insulting some groups of people or angering all groups equally?
DasFX said:Is a headscarf a necessity of the Muslim faith or is it a choice? Then I think it becomes a bit trickier. From what I know, the headscarf for women is a symbol of modesty, however it is not required. That is why you see millions of Muslim women without them.
So if it really isn't a necessity, why allow the possibility of "offending" someone? I mean, you aren't allowed to wear baseball caps in school, but couldn't someone argue it was religious apparel? No quick answer.
What is better, possible insulting some groups of people or angering all groups equally?