As I'm sure most students were, I was shocked by the French's decision to ban headscarves in school. Not only is this idea fundamentally fruitless, in my opinion, but it is an unccessary and unwarranted exertion of power. However, I was most stunned by the French government's actual defense and rationalization of their banning of the headscarves, for, after reading Killian's article, I concluded that the means in which the executors of the ban operated were the far worse offense.
The french defended their choice by insisting they were preserving the separation of church and state. However, it appeared to me that church and state can hardly be exclusive entities, especially in first-world countries where religion is often a key player in education and societal systems (for instance, on Fridays, school systems elected to serve fish for catholics; this accommodation is contradictory to their claiming separation from church and state). Another rational they created was that "Islam is a threat to civil culture" (572) and is reflection of the immigrants' lack of assimilation into their society. The veil "was deemed ostentatious" as well, though, I noted, that the very purpose and definition of the headscarf preserves the modesty and sexual humility of women. The veil is a respectful and distraction-free keystone of Islamic culture, and by denying the immigrants' culture, they are stripping them of their very identity as immigrants, I understood. The French claimed the headscarf represents the Islamic women neglecting to assimilate or adapt the values of their new culture; however, there is not stated rule or regulation that an immigrant must completely abandon their own societal customs and beliefs. This process would essentially be impossible (imagine being asked to transform into an Islamic university student and leave behind every value, custom, and belief you have ever held dear!).
These are the reasons why I found Killian's article a prime account of society's oppression and lack of accommodation of immigrant groups, as well as the customs they bring alone. So much of the reason immigrants are a lively and enriching aspect of society is because they bring those unique qualities with them. I love walking through Times and Square and listening to the multitude of different languages around me.
Killian's article underscored more than a simple-minded or arrogant viewpoint of French government officials. The decision to ban headscarves in schools, I believe, was a gross exertion of power as well as a lack of sensitivity to any immigrant adapting to a new culture. I thought it was appalling.
Blair, I agree with your statement: it is extremely hard to separate church and state. People practice different religions at different levels of devotion. For some people religion is way more than just a commitment on Sundays, or religious holidays; it’s a lifestyle. In France the Muslim girls got expelled for wearing their religious veils. In the US Amish children, don’t even have to attend school after 8th grade because of their religious values. It’s interesting that different countries have very different ideas about the reason kids initially attend school, and what they are and aren’t allowed to express while on school grounds.
ReplyDelete-Tina Seretta
John Gallagher
ReplyDeleteBlair I also agree. It will always be very difficult to try and separate church and state and something that will create friction for years to come. I also want to agree with Tina above me as all countries have different view points on how to deal with religion, making it more difficult as people move from country to country, taking their religion with them. here in the United States, there is minimal discrimination against other religions, but clearly that is not the case in other countries.