Secularism in France

Secularism in France rise QUESTION Discuss the french 2004 impartiality which prohibits asseverate direct students from displaying some(prenominal)(prenominal) unearthly signs. Briefly introduce the equity, explain the reasons why this fairness of nature was pick out and memorialise how it fits with the belief of layism in the French Re habitual.Since the French Revolution in 1789 and the law open up in 1791, requiring the state to be neutral and both everyplacet and church matters to be tot e real(prenominal)y separate, France has been considered a sacrilegious state. France has been fabulously strict on this law since it was established, believing that neutrality meant equality, which is one of the briny principles in France. After a rather massive period of time, the political relation in France eventually brought in a throttle of laws referred to as the Jules take laws. These laws decl atomic number 18 that all state schools be required, in buildings, sta ff and class to be secular, no signs of religion to be shown at all. This led to the acceptance of the 2004 law stating that all conspicuous signs of religion in school were to be banned. A law that arose from a crisis which started in the late 1980s, where Muslim girls were clothing the headscarves which represented their religion in a state school. While in the main unopposed in France, the introduction of this law brought about some controversy, at heart France itself and around the neighbouring countries. This essay sets out to explain the 2004 law, and the reasons why it was adopted. It also intends to look for how this law fits in with Frances principles on secularity, and equality.The law that president at the time, Jacques Chirac signed off on 15th of March 2004, came into effect on 2nd kinfolk 2004, the beginning of the new(a) school year. This law prohibits whatever forms of religious signs universe worn in schools. Because within the law itself, at that place is no referral to any specific signs, the law prohibits e reallything, including only if not easy lay to, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish religious symbols. The official name for this law is, in English, Law No. 2004-228 of 15 March 2004 regulating, in accordance with the principle of secularism, the slanging of symbols or clothing denoting religious affiliation in schools, colleges and public steep schools1. The title of the law itself is very specific, on that pointby tying off the loophole that existed in the previous laws, in which the crisis began in the first place.The deep roots of the secular state of France comes from the French revolution in 1789. Before this period France was command by an absolute monarchy, meaning that the poove and only the king had all the power to regularisation the democracy. There were no limits to how the king could rule, so frequently, kings do by that power. The king, during this period of time command, as he and the church retrieved, as a favour to beau ideal, and so the church was highly involved with the elbow room the king ruled. After the revolution, the way the terra firma was ruled was changed in a very large and imp portrayaling way, the state became secular, the king now ruled by the exit of the battalion, and not by the grace of god (Jones 1994) France was also now ruled under the new constitution, as a constitutional monarchy, and as a body politic. The tribe now had a rather large say in how their homeland was tickled. The constitutional monarchy brought in some new laws for how the king could rule for example, if a new law was to be passed it had to go through a series of councillors before it got to the king himself. This new constitution involved a bill for the new rights of hands and citizens (excludes women and slaves). This allowed for all men and citizens to be born(p) and remain free this involves freedom of religion and freedom of speech, for all men and citizens to be equal this involves equality of property ownership, and equal taxes, and lastly the republic is one and indivisible which includes national sovereignty and the state being secular. some a century after the start of the revolution, new laws came into government by the means of a man called Jules Ferry. Ferry is best cutn for his educational laws, which were brought in in 1882. These laws state that education for state schools in France was to be free of charge and compulsory for children aged between six and thirteen years old, and all state schools had to be secular. Ferrys schools without God were bitterly opposed by the churchmen Yet despite their contested beginnings the schools proved one of the more or less enduring cultural achievements of the early Third Republic. (Jones 1994), this goes to show that although in that respect was an opposition for these schools at first, they became very successful, and it was a strong financial support for the secularity principles of France.This practice seemed to work without a hitch for over 100 years. In 1989, a job occurred that needed to be addressed by delivery in a new law which eventually came into effect in 2004. The issue that arose was, in 1989 trine young female students were expelled from their state school which they attended near Paris, for wearing their religious head scarves to school and ref apply to call for them. They even persisted to wear them during physical activity periods, and this seemed to be extremely unnecessary. This plain harmless act in the students eyes, led to their expulsion. It was a complication, because teachers and headmasters did not know how to deal with this issue, as it had never occurred before, so it was decided upon as the students had gloomy the law they were to be expelled. Many mint found this disciplinary act excessive, and it caused a great uproar, involving young female students all over the unpolished to wear their headscarves to school as well. Because of the lar ge scale of unhappiness of the people of France, the news program was all over this case, which led the High Administrative Council to pass that some higher form of discipline had to happen to regain control of the state. This was the come across issue that led to the development, and adoption of the law in 2004.The students to the highest degree likely thought their act was acceptable, because of one key mistake in the Jules Ferry Laws of 1882. These laws only refer to the buildings, curriculum and staff to be secular at all times. There is no mention of students at all. Therefore, the three students who inadvertently started the involution in 1989 obviously saw this as a loop hole, and that nothing was wrong with what they were doing. Which in terms of the law, in that location wasnt. It in general came down to the fact that the French people had a very set in stone opinion on the way the body politic should be, in regards to the way that they were interpreting the laws. T he past events of the country led it to become secular, and the people of France believe that this consists of everything. Even as the new law has come in, in that location are still certain places which are not genuinely verbalise in the laws at all, like universities and clannish schools, the laws on this subject are rather specific.The wearing of headscarves in public places in France could be viewed as a negative also because of the links that it has with Islamic fundamentalism. Though most of the 5 million Muslims, or 8.3%2 of Frances population, practice moderate religion, there are is a small percent of those who are fundamentalists and are using the steady increase in the Muslim population to their advantage. France battles severely with the guardianship of having terrorist attacks on its hands from people of its own soil e.g. Algeria and also attacks from Saudi-Arabian Arabia. Although there is an option for people to attend religious private schools in France, there exhaust been some cases where organised Islamic militant groups have forced young female students to wear the headscarf to school in regularize to pressure other girls to do the same. There have also been cases of deny these students from certain classes in school which the groups believe are against their beliefs. This is an example of some other just reason of why the law was adopted.On the other hand, although there were many reasons for adopting this law, there were also many reasons against. One of these reasons was, the adoption of this new law faced a lot of opposition from other nations- on an international level. One of the opposing nations was Britain. A great deal of British Muslims were against the adoption of this rule, many taking on the belief that it contradicted Frances law of religious freedoms. The British government were also on board in condemning the French for assay to ban religious headwear and symbols in state schools (Adenekan 2004). The ban faced all s orts of opposition, even from other religious divides in Britain, saying that it was among their basic rights as humans to wear symbols of their religion. Many believe that is part of their identity, and taking that away willing cause divides in the community. some other nation which is severely against the law is fall in States. The nation of the United States believes that students back likewiseth wear their religious symbols in schools without challenging the secularity of the state. One of the biggest problems that America has with this law is that it does not allow the integration process, In this view, forbidding headscarves in public schools is meaningless in the face of problems that are primarily social and economic. (Vasse 2004). The United States holds a standardised secular principle, but the primary purpose for this adoption was to make sure that the government would not interfere with church business, to hang on religion protected from the state, not the other w ay around.There were groups of people who were backing the law because of the womens rights. They thought that the Muslim women who were having to wear the religious headscarves made the women inferior, as their rights were oppressed heavily by the men, and their religion. Some could press the other side of this argument though, it is said that when the protests occurred when the law was first on the cards in 2004, the women who turned up to protest all claimed to wear their headscarf of their own free will. This shows the diversity of the way people reacted to this law being brought in, there were many reasons for the law to be brought in, and just as many reasons to oppose it.The law fits in very well with the secularism principles of France, and a key example of this is the French motto itself, which is still used today in modern day auberge, Libert, galit, fraternit, meaning liberty equality and fraternity. The reasons for this law designation in with these principles are sta ted under the declaration of rights for citizens and men that were established during the revolution in 1879. The first, Libert, states that all men should have freedom of religion. The laws which France has relating to religion, is to ensure that all citizens and men have that right to their own religion. This way there is no stat church so no real pressure on citizens to conform to the normal religion. That in part is what this new law is trying to fit to, to make sure that students do not feel pressured, or offended for that fact, because everyone has different belief.The option for religious students to go to a private religious school, means that there is no real excuse for the deportment that caused the adoption of the law in the first place. The way that the French society stands, is that there is options for everyone, to fit with the principles that the state runs by, for religious freedom. There are those who will argue that people should be able to express their religious freedoms everywhere, but it is fair to say that this just does not simply fit with Frances secularity principles, if it was the case to express religion everywhere there would be too many complications.It is clear to see from the evidence that France may have had no other choice but to adopt this law. As the only way to regain control of the country, and as a way to keep to the principles and practices of the French state. After the adoption of this law, there was talk of Germany taking on similar laws. It is plain to see that although there were many protests against the law at first, the country runs smoothly with it in place, and it creates a blanket of peace, and keeps the majority of people happy. The problem of religious symbols being worn in schools was resolved by the feeling of this law, which won in government by the majority of the vote. A country that has similar principles as France is New Zealand. In New Zealand there is more leniency within the laws, as in New Zeala nd it is not against the law to wear religious symbols in public, but it is a secular country all the same.France is not the only Western country to insist on the separation of church and state but it does so more militantly than any other (Astier 2004). This is reflected in the current events of France. After the introduction of this law, it was thought that the conflict of the wearing of religious symbols in public schools was resolved. But recent news stories have revealed a new perception on what religious symbols actually are, and how other innocent pieces of clothing and appearances are being viewed. A very recent news story on BBC states how France is facing a sporting backlash against its strict secular policy after it emerged a 15-year-old Muslim girl was sent home from school because she was wearing a enormous black skirt. But the harsh reality is, how can a long skirt be considered a religious symbol? There are plenty of non-religious people who wear skirts, whether th ey be long or short, as an everyday item of clothing. The real questions are where is the line defined with the limit of what a religious symbol is? and when is enough, enough?BibliographyAdenekan, Shola. 2004. British criticism of headscarf ban. February 12. Accessed may 03, 2015. http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3477109.stm.Astier, Henri. 2004. The deep roots of French secularism. September 01. Accessed April 13, 2015. http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3325285.stm.Britannica, Encyclopaedia. n.d. Jules Ferry. Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. Accessed April 29, 2015.France, Law section of. 2004. Law No. 2004-228 of 15 March 2004 regulating, in accordance with the principle of secularism, the wearing of symbols or clothing denoting religious affiliation in schools, colleges and public high schools. 09 01. Accessed 04 30, 2015. http//www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000417977dateTexte=.Jones, Colin. 1994. Cambridge Illustrated History Of France. Cambri dge University Press.Lyon, Dawn, and Deborah Spini. 2004. UNVEILING THE HEADSCARF DEBATE. Legislative note, Netherlands Kluwer Academic Publishers.Unknown. 2015. France outcry over Muslim schoolgirls skirt ban. 04 29. Accessed 05 01, 2015. http//www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32510606.. 2004. French MPs back headscarf ban. 02 10. Accessed 04 29, 2015. http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3474673.stm.. n.d. The official website of france. Accessed 04 30, 2015. http//www.france.fr/en.html.Vasse, Justin. 2004. Veiled meanng The French Law banning religous symbols in public schools. Research report, Washington The Brookings Institute.1 Name of law acquired from http//www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ on 24 April 20152 Estimated number, retained from the work of Vasse page 3