what is current status of the 2004 French law banning school students from wearing religious symbols?
489607
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/specials/turban.htm\n\n"Forty-three students, including three Sikh boys, have been expelled from their schools in France after refusing to comply with a new law outlawing religious insignia in state-run educational institutions, officials said today."\n\nNot much in the news, it looks like people have learned to accept it.  Just like many controversial laws on the books in many countries.\n\nLaicite means secular
368146
Schools can ban just about anything these days under the assertion that it interrupts the orderly functioning of the school in meeting its goal (education).  When challenged, often courts won't even hear the cases and when they do, they generally will side with the schools.\n\nIn this instance, they're treating a symptom of course (isn't that almost always the case) because the kids are going to get into each others' faces anyway - perhaps with a weapon next time.\n\nI'd like to see them address the real issue, but this particular one may be over the heads of local schools anyway.
223801
Printing such things about ANY prophet, Islam, Christianity, Jewism..... has got nothing to do with freedom of speech.\nIn Europe even a researcher can't say that my research has led me to the fact that the holocaust might not have taken place, it might be just a story, in France and other parts of Europe, girls can't ware hijab when they go to school, do you see any FREEDOM in this? Freedom of speech is just a tool!!
1017917
Prayer should be and is allowed in public schools by the students.  They point were prayer is considered to be crossing the 1st Amendment line is were it is an officially endorsed function of the school.  Such as if the principal led the students in prayer every day.  However not allowing a student to pray in school is a blatant violation of both free speech and freedom of religion.
105223
The abstinance until marriage stance taught to children is religious...the banning of gay marriages/rights is religous.  So yes, the government does fund religious practices.
725608
I wish every other European country would follow the Dutch example.  The burka and the niqab are not the same as symbols such as a cross (or even a headscarf) - they are an indication of how Muslims won't accept the secular and civil values of their host countries - and yet they exploit these values, demanding tolerance for their misogyny, their anti-semitism, the religious hatred frequently preached in their mosques, their forced marriages, honour killings, stonings, whippings and amputations etc.  There should be no such thing as "a Muslim community" within a town or city; if you go to a country you should integrate fully.
523433
Assuming you're in America, the idea of it being against a religious practice would be not only an irrelevant consideration, but one you were legally forbidden to consider, except insofar as making exceptions to allow for religious beliefs (for instance, if your school's dress code did not allow headgear such as hats, but made a specific exception for religious headgear such as Jewish males wearing a yamukkah, Muslim females wearing a veil, or Sikh males wearing a turban*).\n\nIf, on the other hand, you're arguing it should be more strict because of your religious point of view, I hate to sound rude, but the only appropriate legal response is "go take a flying leap", because America is founded not only on the notion you should be free to practice your religious beliefs in peace, but that everyone else should be free from you oppressing them and forcing your religious beliefs on them, which is what tightening the dress code to take into account your ideas of what it should be based on your religious views would actually be.\n\nOther than that, I believe schools which receive public funding are allowed to enforce the basic standards of decency with how revealing clothes are allowed to be, obscenities printed on them, etc... and beyond that are not allowed to limit what students wear because it would be a violation of their First Amendment rights to free expression, and therefore something the government of the United States or any institution affiliated with it is expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution to do.\n\n\n\n*I know SOMEONE with an encyclopedic knowledge of religion will quite rightly point out this opens the door to the concept of nude students since advancement in Jainism (which is a major world religion) requires its adherants to wear less and less clothing, finally requiring them to be nude once they achieve the level of "saint", but I will note right now that Jains are very particular about progression in their religion and that most people cannot even hope to come close to achieving sainthood in their lifetime, and those few who do are extremely old before they have done enough to do so, so while it may be possible, I would bet you dimes to donuts it will NEVER come up when making allowances for formally recognized religions.
335596
Let's clarify. Religious faith is itself not a problem. Spiritual belief is not a problem. Personal adherence to religious practice is not a problem.\n\nA problem DOES arise, however, when one set of beliefs is forced upon others. An earlier poster mentioned the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Ignoring for the moment that this is a US idea, and not generally acknowledged by much of the rest of the world, there are several provisions in that amendment.\n\nTwo of them are that the government will not establish or endorse any religion [Establishment Clause], nor will the government stop individuals from having/sharing/expressing their own beliefs [Free Exercise Clause].\n\nThe major problems in the world that I see (relative to this topic) are that localized majorities have gotten together and enacted laws that enforce a particular set of religious and moral beliefs. This forces everyone to follow those beliefs (or else break the law). This is true whether you're talking about Judeo-Christian morals being imposed in the US, or political ideals counter to those morals being imposed in China, or state establishment of religion as in much of the middle east, etc. \n\nFor any sort of unified government, there would need to be an explicit and deliberate attempt to REMOVE all religious influences from any adopted legal codes. Otherwise, you'll always be stuck with the majority imposing their beliefs on  the minority. And that's just might-makes-right bullying, whether performed legislatively or otherwise.
107968
Yes!  Your right to practice any religion you want is protectected by the first ammedment.  If any government agency (a pulic school system, for example) bans the practice of a certain religion, you can sue them big time!
455628
There are no good aspects to be argued that support requiring prayer in schools. Schools are public property supported by all taxpayers, and should not be used to proselytize or promote any religion.\n\nIt sounds like your report is supposed to be based on propaganda, not facts.\n\nAnd, if that's the case, make up whatever lies you want since facts aren't of any concern.
209526
The French have real problem of Unemployment of their youth .. not only muslimss but also christians youth>> their minister of the interior is most racist .. most of the trouble caused by his racist remarks.
1051899
LICRA is La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme, a French organization devoted to fighting racism and anti-semitism in France. France has a law called the Nazi Symbols Act, which makes it illegal to sell anything with a Nazi symbol on it. Yahoo's merchant site has Nazi memorabilia on it, though yahoo.fr does not. LICRA sued in France to get Yahoo to take it all down and won, but Yahoo filed suit in the US to get an order saying that France's court orders were not enforceable in the US. A district court ruled for Yahoo, but an appeals court reversed, because they did not have jurisdiction. The ruling stated that if LICRA ever sued in US court to force Yahoo to abide by the ruling, US courts would then have jurisdiction.
836593
No there is no ban in Belgium for wearing the Hijab in public although there is a preposed ban for schools and civial servants. I came back from a trip out there last month and it was fanstatic; the only ban there should be is the amount of chocolate shops there are, walking past them adds several pounds to ones thighs! Have a good time when you go there and remember to visit the Grote Market its really nice and chilled out.
577323
Yes.  Religious school.  Public school is government schooling and the government should not promote any partricular relgion or class of religions in any way.  By ensuring that schools carriculums remain secular it empowers parents and loved ones to educate their children on spiritual matters without government interference and preserves our freedom.
790433
I am very upset hearing that Muslim women are banned from wearing head scarves in France and now the Dutch are ready to ban women from wearing the traditional Burqa (covering of the body with a coat and the face). These countries are basically telling everyone that Muslims have no right to do what is in their religion. I mean, how narrow minded can these people be? Seriously! These countries are taking away the freedom to practice religion and discriminating against Muslim women (and men) because a few idiotic people claiming to be Muslim have attacked the US. The fanatics should be caught and put in jail but don't tell everyone who are not fanatic Muslims NOT to wear what they want to wear or have to wear as per their religion. \nWhat would happen if the Christian and Catholic churches were banned from having their nuns cover themselves from their head to toe? What about if the Jews were told that they could no longer eat Kosher meat and had to eat non-kosher food because Kosher was banned? \nOf course, the people in these other countries are narrow minded folks who think they are right and everyone else is wrong. How much of this can anyone take? It is NOT right to take away a person's religious freedom because of security. I agree that there needs to be precautions but women can wear hijab and other police women can check them if they need to when they go to airports or other areas that they need to do security checks. Telling Muslim women (and it doesn't matter how many of them cover or not) is basically stating to the world that Muslims have no right to practice their religion freely in public (and in private if they go too far). \nFrance and the Dutch have gone too far with their bans. They need to stop persecuting those who have done nothing to them. Look at their own countries....there are people who are not Muslim who have tried to hurt them and get away from the security. So stop screwing Muslims over with these crappy laws!
718343
It is the document that established the Roman Catholic Church as the major religion of France.  It was signed by Napoleon.\n\nThis treaty was abrogated in 1905 when the seperation of church and state law was enacted.
31635
Absolutely. In nearly every country, there are still people who face challenges, whether it's finding a job, or not getting laughed at, or even arrested, because of their religion.\n\nFor example, in France, Muslims are forbidden from wearing headscarves in school. Is this a reasonable safety measure against gangs or a violation of religious freedom?\n\nAnother example, in the US, is the "intelligent design" controversy. Can schools tell kids, whose parents may be fundamentalist Christians, that they evolved from apes? Can they tell everyone that religion is an "alternative", or would this violate the separation of church and state?\n\nQuite a few questions still remain, and I'm sure you can think of many more conflicts based on religion, or lack thereof.