On Religious Freedom

This is an interesting story that hasn't really been picked up by North American news agencies as much as I think it should, given that it speaks to a general issue of the relationship between church and state. France is planning to pass legislation banning any type of 'conspicuous religious signs' in public schools, including Muslim headscarves, Jewish Yarmulkes, and large Christian crosses, though discreet symbols of faith will continue to be allowed. This bill is being promoted under the banner of state secularism, as French President Chirac notes, "Secularism is one of the great successes of the Republic. It is a crucial element of social peace and national cohesion. We cannot let it weaken."

After a little deliberation, I've decided that I oppose this idea. According to the article, the benefits of the bill are described as bringing social cohesion to France, eliminating a symbol of women's repression in the headscarf and forcing integration by the large Muslim immigrant community. However, I believe that there are fundamental flaws in each of these arguments.

Firstly, I believe that this bill will bring social fragmentation, as groups attempting to preserve their identity are likely to withdraw from the system since it creates the decision for young women of either disobeying their religion or not attending school. Furthermore, it is likely that to compensate for this problem the Muslim community will set up their own private schools, further isolating the community from the rest of the cultural environment and possibly leading to a situation where hardline Islam is being taught to young children.

Secondly, with regards to the symbol of women's repression there are two issues. First is whether it is a symbol of women's repression at all. I have heard many Muslim women interviewed that do not see it as such, but only as a symbol of being faithful to Islam. There is no question that Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is a patriarchal religion -- mostly because it was created in a time when the idea of women's rights and equality did not exist. However, that does not mean that it can not be adapted to modern social standards; an act that will only be facilitated though by participating in larger secular society. Second, one has to remember that outside of social and family pressures, these women are not forced to wear the headscarves if they choose. France is not Iran, where it is required by law for women to dress 'appropriately.' It is therefore, outside these pressures, a choice made by these women who want to practice the Muslim faith. Although the pressures to conform can be great, there is no reason why any Muslim woman can't refuse to wear these headscarfs if she believes that it is a symbol of women's subjugation.

Finally, there is the question of integration. This is a little more of a sticky issue, since unlike Canada, France has no history of promoting multiculturalism. In Canada integration would not be as much of an issue because our system promotes the differences between immigrants. However, this is not the case in France. Thus we are left with the somewhat distasteful question of how to fold Muslim culture into the wider French culture. Given that I disagree with the premise by which this is needed, I do not have any ideas for how this can be done.

I feel that I have to differentiate this issue with other church/state issues in which I have come to the opposite conclusion, such as the placement of the 10 Commandments in public place. The difference between these two issues is that the French example deals with an individual's right to practice and express their religion, whereas the 10 Commandments case deals with the state promoting a particular religion over another. I have no issue protecting an individual's right to their freedom of expression and religion, but I am utterly opposed to the state itself directly or indirectly promoting a specific religion over all others, as is the case when you put religious icons in courthouses. The latter, instead of empowering and promoting religious freedom, only makes the United States look like the Christian version of Iran.

Unfortunately, this French legislation seems to be a reactionary responce to the problems associated with immigration, and I'm afraid that it will acheive the exact opposite of what is intended.