Scarf ban? Not in Toronto

[PsychoDad]

I hadn't seen this here yet. It's a great lesson in tolerance and respect. An example of how a democratic society should be - to "live freely and openly".

Scarf ban? Not in Toronto
Students respect others' beliefs
French proposal unpopular here


LESLIE SCRIVENER
FAITH AND ETHICS REPORTER

Every day students in Toronto schools see classmates wearing religious symbols — crosses on Christians, skullcaps on Jewish students, head scarves on Muslim girls following the Qur'anic instruction to dress modestly. They also see few outward signs of religious affiliation.

And their reaction to head scarves and other religious attire that have caused the French government to introduce legislation to ban such symbols in public schools starting next September?

No problem.
...
"It's so multicultural. We are encouraged to practise our religion. We're taught in school to accept all religions. It's the way we've grown up."

In Toronto, where 17 per cent of the population is Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or Buddhist, and another 17 per cent say they have no religion, educators have chosen an alternative to banning signs of religious affiliation. It's called accommodation.

More here:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1076887505348


Peace

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. Cool! It is sad that the booklet of prayers could not be used in the US

The same Christian theocrats who want prayer in schools would have a fit if their kid was exposed to prayers of other faiths.

[outinforce]

2. I Might Suggest

that it is the people who don't want their children exposed to any prayers of any faiths who go nuts whenever prayer -- any prayer -- in school is ever suggested.

People who don't want their children exposed to any prayers are seldom "Christian theocrats".

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. There are relatively few atheists so opposed to any prayer at all

compared to the number of extremist Xtians, theocrats, born-again, bible-based, whatever you choose to call them, who want prayer in schools only if the prayer reflects their particular sect.

Indeed, many atheists' objection to prayer in schools has more to do with a disinclination to have the state indoctrinate their children with the tenets of a particular sect than an opposition to the study of comparative religion, under which rubric the use of such a booklet, and the prayers in it, could arguably fall.

[outinforce]

5. I See.

"There are relatively few atheists so opposed to any prayer at all compared to the number of extremist Xtians, theocrats, born-again, bible-based, whatever you choose to call them, who want prayer in schools only if the prayer reflects their particular sect."

Exucse me for asking you this, but do you have any actual figures to support what you are saying here, or are you simply reflecting a bias against people of faith?

It does seem to me that it would be very difficult for American public schools to introduce any curriculum of comparative religion into the classrom, precisely because there is so much distrust -- both from the people of faith, regardless of what that faith may be -- and people of no faith.

It is my own view that you are laying the blame for this level of distrust at the feet of people of faith. I would simply point out to you that the Supreme Court case outlawing prayer in public schools was not brought by a person of faith who objected to a prayer that did not reflect her own particular sect. It was brought by Madelyn Murray O'Hair, an atheist. Similarly, the legal case against the Pledge of Allegiance was not brought by a person of who found the words "Under God" objectionable because it did not precisely reflect the God of his own sect. It was broguth by an atheist.

Who do you think would be more likely to object to the introduction into the classroom of a booklet which shows and discusses the differences (and the similarities) of the world's major religions? A Christian? A Jew? A Muslim? A Hindu? a Buddhist? My own guess is that no one of any of these religions would object -- provided their own faith was presented in a clear and accurate manner.

My own guess is that the objection would come from the person who does not want his or her child exposed to the dangerous notion (or, if you prefer, the "myth") that there is a God.

That is just my own guess.

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. I guess that my bias is that I do not consider "people of faith" to be a

synonym for extremist Christians.

We will just have to agree to disagree on that.

You can assemble your own figures. Ask some Christian fundamentalists if they would support having a prayer from a different faith in the classroom every day, no participation required, for the purposes of teaching comparative religion.

Then ask some people who are not Christian fundamentalists, but who are opposed to prayer in schools the same question.

Lather, rinse, repeat with followers of the faith of your choice.

[outinforce]

8. I Think We Can Agree

I think (or at least hope) that we can agree that there are "extremists" within all religions. I would even be willing to suggest that atheism and agnosticism have their "extremists".

So I'm not quite sure why you continue to single out Christians in our discussion.

I don't happen to agree with y our underlying premise here -- that it is only "fundamentalist Christians" who would object to "having a prayer from a different faith in the classroom every day, no participation required, for the purposes of teaching comparative religion."

I knopw of several people, from a variety of faiths, and even from no fiath background at all, who would object -- and objkect very much, if their child were forced, within a public school, to either sit through a prayer or to be "singled out as different" because they opted out of something that everyone else was doing.

Canada is not the United States. One way in which they are much different is contained in the article from the Toronto Star: "n 1980, when the Toronto public school board made it clear that the Lord's Prayer was not to be read exclusively during opening exercises in its schools, prayer wasn't banned. Despite objections from the province, led then by Progressive Conservative premier Bill Davis, the Lord's Prayer was dropped, but the board replaced it with a booklet of prayers and readings from all faiths, chosen by a 40-member inter-faith panel."

This would never ever work in the United States -- because of the "wall of separation" that exists here between church and state. Studying texts of ancient religions would be one things. But actually saying and reciting prayers -- in a public classromm -- would be something else altogether. It would simply not pass Constitutional muster.

And my guess is that the cases that would take the issue into the legal realm would not be from "fundamental Christians", upset over having thier children being exposed to other religions.

My own guess is that the suits would come from atheists, who would (rightly, in my view), object to the fact that their children would be forced into doing one of two things, both of them objectionable: either praying to a diety in whom they did not believe, or excusing themselves and thereby making themselves "different" from their classmates.

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. Because in the United States, Christianity, specifically Protestant sects

are very popular. If I am not mistaken, it is the most popular religion in the country, and therefore has the largest number of extremists, who tend to a higher level of political activity as relates to certain issues they feel strongly about than average.

Most Christians, of whatever sect, do not go sending off angry letters composed for them by Jerry Falwell because they saw Janet Jackson's bosom on TV or because they saw two sweet old ladies getting married in San Francisco.

Nor do they have a cow if someone suggests that their kids might benefit from being taught science facts regarding human reproduction and sexuality, or a prayer popular with Sikhs.

Atheists and agnostics, for the most part, stand with their Christian brothers and sisters in these matters, and join them in their lack of letter-writing or cow-having.

Christian extremists have much stronger views about such issues; some actually exist in a perpetual state of theological crisis, considering themselves monotheists on the one hand, while objecting to the prayers of other faiths as being in conflict with their beliefs due to being addressed to the 'wrong God.'

[outinforce]

10. Geez!

In the words of Bart Simpson, "Don't have a cow, man!"

I could be wrong here, but I think there may be justs as many Roman Catholics in the USA as there are Protestants.

And I do happen to think that it is really imprecise to speak of "Protestantism" as one religion. The different sects of Protestantism differ eidely -- all the way from the "high church" Episcopaleans to the non-credal Baptists (and I mean no disrespect to Baptists).

I still hear you saying that extremism, when it comes from Christians, is somehow more virulent or more threatening.

I just don't think that is the case.

I think ANY form of extremism -- whether from Christians, Jews, Moslems, or any other religion -- or from people without any religion at all -- is virulent.

And I also happen to think that anyone who feels strongly about an issue should certainly write letters and get involved. And I understand that there are issues which I "have a cow" about, and there are other issues that do not concern me in the least, but which other people "have a cow" about.

That's what makes this country great. We can all have our opinions about things that we fell strongly about =-- and we can express our opinions.

I think I hear you suggesting that it is a good thing not to have a cow and not to write letters.

I disagree with that.

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. I think the home is a great place for people to teach their kids all about

their preferred religious doctrine.

School is a great place for kids to learn science, and history, and comparative religion.

You are correct that some people would prefer that the public schools confine their instruction of all subjects to that which relates to or is in accordance with their own religious beliefs, and they do tend to be extremists, and because Christianity is the most popular religion in the US, they tend to be Christian extremists.

I do not doubt that smaller numbers may be found among less popular religions.

In all cases, their freedom to have their child learn only their religion ends with their neighbor's desire to have their child learn about all religions.

Within their homes, they are free to teach their children that the world is flat, that there is no such thing as global warming, and that their classmates will be hurled into a lake of fire thanks to the guidance of Gary Bauer in helping the US develop a Rapture-Ready foreign policy, and as the children grow, they have the freedom to make their own decisions.

[outinforce]

12. The Difficulty, I Think,

in teaching comparative religion within a public school is that it is very difficult to teach comparative religion without some sort of bias.

I kow of no public high school in the USA that teaches comparative religion. And I would think that the number of parents who would want their children to receive such iunstruction within a public American high school would be very, very small.

For two reasons.

First, most Americans I know (and I say this as a life-long American) feel really uncomfortable with the government meddling in religion. That is true, I think, regardless of religious affiliation of non-affiliation, and cuts accross all religious affiliations -- Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, and any others. Public Schools are supported by tax dollars, and I think I am correct when I say that most Americans, regardless of how they feel about Jesus, Vishnu, Moses, or anyone else, do not feel good about using tax dollars to give a "stamp of approval" to any religion or group of religions.

Seocnd, I think most Americans feel that it is just impossible to teach comparative religion without some sort of bias. I think most Americans would think (rightly or wrongly) that comparative religion taught by an atheist would be slightly different if taught by a devout Roman Catholic. I think this feeling also cuts across all religions and non-religious people.

Canada is different. In Canada, if I remember correctly, ALL schools - even, for instance Roman Catholic schools -- receive money from the government of Canada. Canada's tradition regarding religion is different from ours, owing in part, perhaps, to their need to maintain at least two cultures -- different in language and religion -- at the same time.

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. I'm not sure US culture is so homogeneous, although I recognize

that there are some who would like it to be.

Indeed, the US, as well as Canada and Europe, are becoming more and more multicultural daily, and since those who are displeased by this tend to hail from a ethno-demographic that comprises about 14% and dropping of the global population, their choices are pretty limited: either form their own ethnic-based, completely self-contained, self-sufficient and isolated state, or lift up their faces and enjoy the breezes of the gentle twin zephyrs of Mendel and Math.

[outinforce]

15. My Own Thought Is that Minority Populations

often (but not always) tend to "form their own ethnic-based, completely self-contained, self-sufficient and isolated state"

Look at Canada, for instance. I might suggest that the Province of Quebec is just such an isolate state.

Or the various ethnic groups composing the Balkan peninsula. The notion of a unified "Yugoslav" multicultural state held only while Tito was in power, but rapidly disinitegrated after his death -- with each little ethnic group forming its own state.

Or the various ethnic groups in sub-Saharan Africa.

Or the separatists within Sri Lanka.

Or the various nationalities that used to compose the USSR.

I do hope I did not mis-interpret your post as suggesting that somehow people whose skin is white are unique in forming self-contained states. Forgive me if that was not your intention.

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. To the best of my knowledge, they have not yet done so

I said that those whose displeasure at the reality of global demographics have very limited choices, as efforts to eliminate non-white populations have met with little success, and advances in technology and communications, not to mention the opposition of most white people to the idea, make the idea increasingly less practical.

[kiahzero]

14. No, it's really not that hard

It's done on college campuses all the time. The problem is that the Christian Coalition took over the school boards a long time ago.

[outinforce]

16. Colleges are Much Different From High Schools.

Most states require attendance in high school. I know of no state that requires attendance in a college.

And where I live, the Christian Coaltion has most assuredly NOT taken over the school board. But I think that most people where I live would still feel really uncomfortable with the teaching of comparative religion within a public high school.

[DuctapeFatwa]

18. Ignorance is a traditional American value, but I am afraid it

may be endangered, thanks to the afore-mentioned changing demographics.

[outinforce]

21. I Resent That!

I don't know if yopur comment about ignorance and American value was meant in jest or not. If it was, my apologies for what follows.

I deeply resent your inpugning of me and the people who share my nationality. I frankly resent your saying that Ignorance is a traditional American value.

It is certainly the case that contributions to art, literature, science, and the humanities have come from places outside the USA, but it is equally true that the USA has provided the world with great contributions in each of these fields.

You first began bashing Christians, and now you appear to be intent on bashing Americans. You also appear to have some sort of bias against folks whose skin is white.

Perhaps I misread your posts here, but it does seem to me that your own biases toward people of certain relgions, races, and nationalities has blinded you to the contributions of these people.

[DuctapeFatwa]

22. You are contradicting yourself

You just pointed out that most American Christians prefer that their children not be taught comparative religion.

To illustrate my point that it is on the decline, in 2002 I think it was, National Geographic did a study with high school kids and found that over 11% of them could find Afghanistan on a map, and over 40% could find Florida.

[outinforce]

25. Once Again, I'm Afraid,

you show your bias.

What I said was that most Americans (and that includes not just American Christians, but also American Jews, American atheists, American Hindus, American Buddhists, American Scientologists, and American agnostics) prefer that there children not be taught comparative religion in public high schools.

That, most assuredly, is not the same thing as saying that "most American Christians prefer that their children not be taught comparative religion."

You'll excuse me once again, I trust, of pointing out that you seem to wish to paint Americans and Christians in the most unfavorbale light possible. I'm not really quite sure why that is.

Now, what does the preference that most Americans have for not seeing that public high schools do not teach comparative relgion have to do with the lack of geographical knowledge on the part of American high schoolers? Are you suggesting that American parents (or is it just American Christian parents?) do not wish to have their children instructed oin US or world geographry in public high schools?

If so, then I might suggest that you are, quite simply, wrong. It would appear to me that the figure you throw out shows nothing of the sort. Nor does it prove your assertion that ignorane is a tradional American value.

I think it demonstrates a failure of the US public education system.

But that is a different topic.

Sorry that it doesn't seem to fit your pre-conceived notion about Americans and, it seems, about Christians.

[DuctapeFatwa]

28. not sure how stating that Xtianity is the most popular religion in the US

is indicative of bias or painting anyone in an unfavorable light.

And while I don't agree with your assertion that most people do not want their kids taught about comparative religion, in the public high schools, or in private ones, if they have the $ for that, I think that enough of them do object to it to render it a less effective argument against the fact that ignorance is not perceived as a bad thing in mainstream American culture.

Although the majority may not have voted for him, a lot of people chose as their President a man who, during a week in which there was a coup in Pakistan and elections in India, when asked by a reporter, could not name the leader of either country.

Your point about the public schools is well taken, and I am afraid not a good argument for your contention that Americans prize education and knowledge.

[kiahzero]

26. Comparitive Religion would be an elective, obstensibly

So only those interested in the subject matter would be taking the class.

Whereabouts do you live, if you don't mind my asking?

[achtung_circus]

23. My world almanac tells me that the population of the United States is

70% Protestant
25% Catholic

[outinforce]

27. I Stand Corrected

Does your almanc happen to show whether there is any single Protestant Denomination which has more adherents within the USA than ROman Catholicism?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. Canada is taking the right approach

When the majority of Jewish immigrants came to this country 75-100 years ago, they dressed distinctively and practiced the Orthodox variety of their religion.

Three generations later, while there is still an Orthodox minority, most American Jews live like everyone else in most respects while maintaining their identity and practicing new forms of their religion adapted to the environment they live in.

If we don't make a big deal of it, I predict that in two or three generations, most Muslim women will NOT be wearing head scarves and American Muslims in general will have developed a local variant of their religion, just as Indonesian Islam is not the same as Saudi or Albanian Islam.

The French need to lighten up. By banning head scarves, they may actually harden opposition to assimilation into the larger society.

[iverglas]

7. good point

The French need to lighten up. By banning head scarves, they may actually harden opposition to assimilation into the larger society.

What it does raise, though, is the difference between the French approach to "citizenship" and, say, the Canadian approach. I use "citizenship" in the French sense, as distinct from "nationality", the formal kind of citizenship. A citoyen ("citizen") is not someone with a French passport, it is a member of French society.

The French approach is that everyone be French, first and foremost. Membership in any other group -- religious, cultural, whatever -- is subordinate to membership in France. There is no "mediation" between the state and the citizen. Assimilation is definitely the objective when it comes to immigrants -- they are to become members of France first, and members of any other group second.

The Canadian approach, "multiculturalism" (which means something different in Europe), is somewhat the opposite. We do not strive for a melting pot, as in the US, but for a "mosaic". From the very beginning, the country was an association of groups: the French and the English; the initial constitutional bargain was between those groups, not between individuals and the state.

We recognize individuals' membership in their own groups as important. In fact, it is increasingly recognized, at the international level and in the human sciences, that membership in a "culture" is essential for an individual to flourish. And research has found that the ability of individuals to integrate into (which is different from being assimilated into) a new society is enhanced where they have affinity groups (cultural, religious, linguistic) to "mediate" their integration -- to shepherd them into the broader society, to explain it to them and them to it, to facilitate their ability to function in it, their feeling of membership and acceptance in it, and their commitment to it.

I'm pretty firmly opposed to the wearing of headscarves, period, and particularly by children in schools. I believe that it is counter to the value of the equal worth and dignity of every individual that is fundamental to Canadian society. I believe that it is a misogynistic expression of contempt for women and demeaning to women and girls, and negatively affects girls' personal development and growth as full human beings.

But that, obviously correct as it is, is just my opinion. And it only applies in an "all other things being equal" situation, which we aren't in. Girls in the cultural or religious minorities that impose this dress code would be further alienated from the society they live in if their cultural/religious practices were banned in the public places where they spend their time, the schools. They would not feel equal, they would feel lesser, not respected. The part of them that is central to them would have been rejected by the majority.

They would feel isolated and excluded from their milieu, not integrated into it. The link between the individual and the society would be weakened, not strengthened. An individual who feels accepted by society is much more likely to be engaged with and committed to that society than an individual who is rejected for reasons that are truly central to his/her personality, i.e. his/her religious and/or cultural beliefs and practices.

France needs to ban headscarves in the schools in order to weaken the individual-cultural/religious group link and strengthen the individual-state/society link. It should be noted that France takes the same approach to the majority RC religion: individuals' religion is separate from their "citizenship", and is not expected to intrude in the individual-state/society relationship. France is genuinely, and quite validly within its own model, concerned that some minority groups are insisting on being the main point of adhesion and allegiance for their individual members, supplanting the state/society in that role. Within the French model, that could spell a disastrous breakdown of the state and society. But the model itself, and the actions taken to reinforce it, are really contrary to human psychology. Individuals need affinity groups, particulary individuals for whom such a group is already their point of connection.

Within the Canadian model, "tolerating" cultural/religious expression by individuals, and actively fostering the link between individuals and their religious/cultural groups, is regarded as more likely to strengthen the individual-state/society link.

Canada has learned from sad experience what the result of doing the opposite will be. Our attempts in the last century to "assimilate" First Nations people into "Canadian" society were an abysmal failure. Aboriginal children ("Native American" in the US) were placed en masse in residential (usually Christian) schools, forbidden to speak their language or engage in their spiritual/religion practices, kept away from their families and communites. And we now have a generation of Aboriginal people adrift, truly rootless in society. Without connections to family, community, culture -- including the controls that those groups exercise over their members to shape their behaviour -- they had no base for developing as individuals. Spousal and child abuse, alcoholism, crime, suicide -- symptoms of unhealthy personality development -- are the fallout from trying to remove the individual from the culture, and the culture from the individual.

So yeah, I'll take the present-day Canadian approach. But that, too, is a cultural choice. ;)

.

[Lisa]

29. at a summer festival in Victoria, B.C. ...

... I noticed the Jewish and Muslim groups had adjacent booths in the food court, an arrangement which attracted some curious (and approving) glances from passersby. An popular Iranian-run specialty shop downtown has an entire shelf of kosher products at the back!

I am told that some East Indian stores in Toronto have similar arrangements, for their Pakistani customers.

[DuctapeFatwa]

30. You can see the same thing in many cities

Just because people worship differently does not make them automatic enemies. Getting them to hate and kill each other requires concerted effort on the part of those who seek to make money selling both sides guns.


In earlier years, it was spears and arrows, and before that, rocks.

[Cleita]

19. I've never been one to advocate dress codes.

If a person wants to dress a certain way, whether it is because of their religion or just bad taste, no one should tell them what to wear, if no one is being harmed. France is wrong to do this ban on Muslim women. They are overstepping their secular authority in interfering with another person's religion and right to freedom of expression.

This is the same as telling Amish women that they can't wear bonnets, nuns that they can't wear veils and Jewish men that they can't wear Yarmalukes.

[Minstrel Boy]

20. Toronto, says the UN, is the "world’s most ethnically-diverse city."

There's a line in a Bruce Cockburn song: "You want pure you're gonna have caves again." All hail the Great Impurity.

[iverglas]

24. and unfortunately

Yet another thread in which there was an opportunity to discuss other places, other people, other approaches, has become yet another thread about the US of A.

Ho hum.

.