If folks in France support this, they're nutty too (I'm taking my cue from elsewhere and working on my ad homienm - how's it going?):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3309885.stm

So much for basic freedom and stuff - can't believe this is being considered.

Priests would have to take of their dog collars and nuns would have to remove their habits.

If I recall the satire created by the last French Government election correctly the campaign posters read;

'Don't vote for the Bigot, vote for the Thief!'

France is currently swamped with asylum seekers and bigotry (induced by fear for job security) is rife, giving right wing candidates a mandate from which to launch their politics of hate.

France has to deal with its problems, and not try and patch the symptoms of those problems.

*Bluin returns to patrolling the net in case French politians try to post instructional pictures of nuns removing their habits*

I quote myself from another board with the same topic-thread:

And I always think it turns around the same cultural/traditional/juristic differences between the continental west European laicist states with their separation of church and state and those who do have different traditions, as the "defender of the faith"-British for example.

Not at all. It would be silly PC to let people of various religions, like them presbyterian (which have none, me lucky bastard), the evangelics, the catholics and so on, have their funny, cute little religious symbols spread all over a place where you are forced to go (going school is mandatory) and you are in a subordinated relationship to the state (a student has to stay their and pay attention). Religious neutrality of the state wherever and whenever his in a position where others are forced to obey, as in schools, is paramount for the existence of religious freedom (which obiously includes the freedom to have no religion). Is this prerequisite not given, than freedom of religion is not given and every claim to have it in those cases is pure humbug in my eyes. Of course, people from different cultural backgrounds in ohter occidental countries may hold other views, it's their culture and they are free to hold on to it, in their realm they can do what they want. We have principally the same system of religious neutrality, whith differences in the cantons. The political correct leaning catholic-ones allow many religious symbols for state-employed people (among others, a cross around the neck, wonder why that is), while presbyterian ones more or less have a hard stance versus religious symbols. Now, evil people say, it's because religious neutrality is so much in accordance with a presbyterian world view, that they gleefully enact religious neturality, to get rid of all the colours of the other faiths, which they envy so much at the bottom of their heart.

Anyway, me myself, I am all for religious netruality calvinist-style. Surely for any kind of goverment employed person. As for school-kids, I am not so sure. As they might be driven off to private-schools. And they have no state-responsibility.

Personally, I'm quite relieved that I will never see America attempt this.

The Constitution - you have to love that First Amendment! :love:

Doesn't your constitution say, that the church and the state should be separated ?

Oh, sorry about that. :doh: I should have pasted a copy of the Amendment.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Basically, banning people from wearing traditional Muslim clothing is prohibitted under the Constitution. Any such law would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

The only exception is where one right limits another's rights. For instance, it is quite legal to make it illegal to shout "fire" in a movie theater.

Basically, the United States Government cannot pass such legislation and no member state can either.

Banned in school, not in the streets. You know, in school, that place where you must go and must obey certain rules.

For sure, a salesman isn't permitted to go to work wearing clothes too fancy. I think a boss always forces a certain dress-code. The boss in this case is the state.

Education is compulsory until you reach the age of 18 (or perhaps 16 in France, don't remember).
Education includes gymnastics, which some won't attend to because their beliefs forbid them from wearing a sports suit in the presence of others, it includes science classes, that some won't attend to because it goes against their creationnist beliefs... and so on and so on. Till the day some girl comes with a burka or something, and won't take it off 'cause of her religion, the day after she sends someone else with the burka and skips school... ok, now that's overkill, but you get the idea, it just never ends. So as you can't permit some to display crosses and forbid others from displaying kipa's (sp?), you ban all of it.
They were bound to have some sort of backslash some day. Schools are state business, religion and state have nothing to do with each other, hence religious signs are banned. Only logical, I'd say: "finally!" but some would label me anticlerical, oh well...

It's all pretty much BS anyway, the real problems lie elsewhere. In the unemployement rate and middle-east news for example.

I dunno, if you had kids killing each other over religious arguments in American schools you might consider this, just the way gang colours are forbidden in some North American schools. When I was about 12 my parents pulled me out of the local French lycee after yet another playground murder between rival factions of muslims. Thanks to official religious tolerance of kids proclaiming their beliefs in school, which didn't reflect the tolerance the kids were willing to show each other, a significant number of children in my school got to see what human brains look like.

Then they sent me to an American private school, where all I had to worry about was constant bomb threats. (This was just after the US bombed Libya from English bases and all the US diplomats in the UK had their kids in my school...) Junior high is a very stressful time of life...

Fights between Muslim factions - in school? That is really sad.

I've never heard of religious affilation causing problems in American schools. For the most part, kids, like adults, really don't care. Muslim, Jew, Christian, Scientologist, Mormom, Buddist - it really just doesn't matter.

But back to my previous post, even if this happened in the United States, the government could not ban religious-related clothing. Instead, the local cities and states (the Feds do not have jurisdiction) would come down on those who commit any sort of harrassment with an iron fist.

If people interpreted the First Amendment correctly, that would be the case, Blackhawk. However, our case history is rife with people who want to wear Christian jewelry or clothing while working for a government agency or as a public school teacher. They get shot down frequently.

There was a case here with two girls wearing burkha to school. That was not popular and both moderate muslims and the school wanted to ban burkha and similar extremes in school. I dont really know what I think on this issue but in the case with a burkha I think it is hard to argue that it isnt degradatory towards women and that it hinders education. Scarfes and the like are very common though and shouldnt pose any problem.

There are other instances where certain symbolism is forbidden, swastikas for instance are not even legal to wear open here abouts. It is commiting a crime called "goading ethnicity" or somesuch.

our case history is rife with people who want to wear Christian jewelry or clothing while working for a government agency or as a public school teacher. They get shot down frequently.If they are paid by the Federal or State Government and the building is public - then I definitely see the implied violation of the separation of Church and State.

I've never heard of religious affilation causing problems in American schools. For the most part, kids, like adults, really don't care. Muslim, Jew, Christian, Scientologist, Mormom, Buddist - it really just doesn't matter.You obviously never attended my school.

You know, in the US there is violence in school between gangs as well. It doesn't stop because the schools ban color. It doesn't stop if the schools ban certain gang signs. And it doesn't stop when the schools ban certain sneakers etc.

If there is one thing we've learned, violence rarely stops by treating the symptoms. Something tells me the Muslims in Europe are, on average, from a lower socio-economic class than the other folks in Europe. Perhaps that might be the problem? Perhaps telling a poor sector of society that they are now no longer allowed to worship as their religion provides may not be the best way of addressing the root cause of poverty etc?

In these violent outbreaks, how many head scarfs attacked children and what kind of harm did they do? This proposal is reactionary. It is, allow me to make up a term, over-reactionary in the same way that it was an over reaction by schools to try to ban trench coats in the US after Columbine. Yes, it was the trench coats that caused the violence after all. It is akin to blaming video games for school violence.

Only it is much, much worse. It is not just an infringement on the right of worship and it is not just an infringement on the right of expression, it hinges on an infringement on the very right to think as you will. For of what use is the freedom of thought if it is shackled and unable to be expressed even to the extent of wearing a piece of cloth - which obviously never caused anyone harm.

And let us stop pretending - this proposal is targeted at Muslims. And from the similar proposals in Germany it looks like it isn't just the Muslims in France targeted. According to the bbc, German states are making it illegal for school teachers to wear scarfs. Of course, Jewish and Christian symbols are not banned.

Couch it however you would like. It is disgusting and Europe should be ashamed.

My supervising partner is an older guy who used to be in the FBI. His job in the FBI was to integrate the schools in North Carolina and to break up the KKK. He and another few agents did precisely that. He tells that the best way to integrate the schools was to put the kids together and let them sort it out on their own - when parents and others are too closely involved it only causes problems. Maybe in this case if Europe wants to create an atmosphere of inclusiveness and yet combat violence, it could create measures that actually address the problem of violence and leave the kids deeply held religious beliefs alone?

[ December 16, 2003, 17:38: Message edited by: Laches ]

Couch it however you would like. It is disgusting and Europe should be ashamed.
Couch it however you would like, there is no need to be ashamed. Just cause you don't like it, doesn't make it no good.

And let us stop pretending - this proposal is targeted at Muslims. And from the similar proposals in Germany it looks like it isn't just the Muslims in France targeted. According to the bbc, German states are making it illegal for school teachers to wear scarfs. Of course, Jewish and Christian symbols are not banned.
Partially factually wrong, as the laws according to which the scarves are not allowed (at least in my country) are older then a century and where aimed at pacifiying the warlike creeds of catholic ans presbyterians. The very thurst for war, which made many presbyterians, baptists, catholics and amischi flee overseas. Now, what worked then is still law now, and in a canton, where christian signs are forbidden, muslim signs are forbidden too. There is no specific aim at muslims.

On the other hand, immigration and xenophobia always play a major role in anything. And integration of such huge numbers is not an easy task, particularly if they bring the quarrels from home with them, i.e. Turks/Kurds, former Yugoslavians, Algerians, Tamils...
And in particular, while Zinedine Zidane is the worldst best footballer, a lot of France is struggling with the huge Algerian minority. The whole problem is not easier through the fact, that a lot of immigrants are low on the social ladder, regardless by the way of religion, i.e. cheap labor from mostly bad educated Sicilians or Anatolians is more or less the same.

Now, for the scarf. No question in my mind. No employer of the state should ever be allowed to wear any kind of religious symbol. That is not tolerable. The state is there for anyone, regardless of it personal believes and espacially schools. And it is not so, that you know that before you chose any job, that with every job come certain restrictions. Now, for kids. I do not think its such a good idea. On a practical level. They would just change to private schools.

No employer of the state should ever be allowed to wear any kind of religious symbol. That is not tolerable.I don't quite get this. Why is it not tolerable? Is it somehow wrong to show others that you believe a certain way? Does wearing some type of religious symbology somehow impinge on other's rights or make some kind of statement that the state endorses only this religion? I just don't see it.

What BTA said. And whether or not the laws are aimed at Muslims - the French proposals are in response to the growing Muslim population. Couch that however you'd like, the intent is clear.

Regarding the German laws, they clearly are aimed solely at Muslims so long as the bbc is correct:

Christian and Jewish symbols are not included in the ban. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3304801.stm

At least two of the most important nations in Europe are targeting a Muslim's freedom of expression and worship and even in France's purportedly neutral laws there is a disproportionate impact on Muslims and perhaps Jews. Christians are not required to wear crosses. Some Jews believe they are required by their religion to wear a yarmulke. Some Muslims believe that they are required by their religion to wear a scarf. Neither jumps off a person's head and harms anyone else.

The Christian majority in these nations have created laws that disproportionately impact minority religions. The fact that two nations that purport to lead Europe and provide some type of moral compass are enacting this type of legislation designed to impact on minorities is sad.

I don't quite get this. Why is it not tolerable? Is it somehow wrong to show others that you believe a certain way? Does wearing some type of religious symbology somehow impinge on other's rights or make some kind of statement that the state endorses only this religion? I just don't see it. Hm, the scool is mandatory. The parents of the kids want to raise their children according to their own whishes and believes. Private schools are in most cases no viable option. Therefore, in schools, teachers schouldn't make any kind of religious statement while on duty. Including statements through signs.

If your state-employed generally, your loyality should go to the state alone while at work. This loyality to the state also may mean to support goverment-decisions you personally despise. As the state should be completly neutral in religious matters, no public servant should wear any signs of religious affiliation.

Now, given the history of two creeds, traditional hostile versus eachother and a population mix out of those two plus having had some theocracies at the end of the middle-ages, it seems to me the perfect way to try to keep the state out of religious arguments and reassure the people, that the state does not favour any particular or certain belives and doesn't try to shape their minds and believes.

Have you spent several years in a school where a significant proportion of the girls wore headscarfs? I have.

It's ok when there's not too much of them, until at some point it becomes the rule and not the exception. Then the girls without scarfs are more and more regarded as whores and treated accordingly. To avoid problems, a girl would have to, if not wear a headscarf herself, think hard about what kind of clothes she puts on for what the school rules permit, some students don't permit. And that's impinging on other's rights in my dictionnary.

The parents of the kids want to raise their children according to their own whishes and believes... Therefore, in schools, teachers schouldn't make any kind of religious statement while on duty. Including statements through signs.
How does making a statement such as "I believe this" impinge on the parents' wishes or beliefs? Wearing symbols does not say anything about what others should believe, only what the wearer believes.

As the state should be completly neutral in religious matters, no public servant should wear any signs of religious affiliation.Personally, I don't see this as religion-neutral. Looks like anti-religion to me. Neutral means you don't care, so anything should be tolerable, not nothing.

EDIT:
To avoid problems, a girl would have to, if not wear a headscarf herself, think hard about what kind of clothes she puts on for what the school rules permit, some students don't permit. And that's impinging on other's rights in my dictionnary.That's peer pressure and exists whether it's religious symbology or the latest sneakers.

Regarding the German laws, they clearly are aimed solely at Muslims so long as the bbc is correct:
Well, I think that the Bavarians will pass a law like this (or better talking loudly about it to the choir of voters). Bavaria has no tradition of religious neutrality as far as I know and obviously doesn't intend to change that, Bavaria is really only aiming at muslims with this law. If they pass it, I do not think it will be upheld by courts. Well, the point for me is clear, if you allow crucifixes, you have to allow scarves.

The Baden-Württenberg law, I think will be different. If they do it, they will ban any kind of religious symbols, including christian and jewish.

The BBC seem to focus on Bavaria. This is about the other states:

Last week, Germany's constitutional court ruled in a long-awaited case that officials in western Baden-Wuerttemberg state were wrong to ban a teacher from wearing a Muslim headscarf in the classroom.

However, it said individual states could pass new laws to outlaw religious dress in public schools.

Afterwards, Baden-Wuerttemberg announced plans to study a law formalising a ban.

Other states have said they may follow suit, including the conservative-run governments of Hesse and Lower Saxony, as well as Bremen and Berlin.

Monika Hohlmeier, culture minister of the deeply conservative and Catholic southern state of Bavaria , said she wanted a ban included in a law that would correspond to "the traditions and fundamental convictions of the people."

Ehrhard Koerting, the senator in charge of Berlin's interior affairs, said he envisaged a law that would extend to all city officials in contact with the public.

The law could also forbid teachers from wearing party political badges.

But in Baden-Wuerttemberg , there are signs of second thoughts.

Justice minister Corinna Werwigk-Hertneck said legislation to ban political or religious emblems would affect Christians more than Muslims.

"You can't ban a headscarf and allow someone to wear a crucifix," she told the Stuttgarter Nachrichten newspaper.


A law might lead to "the elimination of all Christian symbols from schools, and I don't want our children not to have Christian references any more."

Other states say they see no need for legislation.

In North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany's most populous state which includes the industrial Ruhr basin, there are 15 Muslim teachers who wear headscarfs.
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/dl/Qgermany-islam-justice.RDAi_DO1.html

Edit: At BTA: Well, in the end, I think it worked well :D :holy: :angel: ->here (http://www.geneva.ch/Religions.htm)

[ December 16, 2003, 20:47: Message edited by: Iago ]

@ Laches: Just to get a clear picture of the "german" laws according religious symbols: There are just two states who will establish a bill to forbid the scarf for now. It's not the federal government, which is not allowed to do so. Each state has to make it's own law. My (city-)state will probably ban all religious symbols from schools and other public buildings.

The reason for the bills in Bavaria and Baden-Wurtemberg are the conservative governments they have. The majority of people there is very catholic. So the decision of the governments is rather populistic. They barely tolerate the kipa. If not for our history, it would probably also be banned.

This bigotry is making me sick. But the parties ins control of these states tend to have this effect on me regulary.

According to the bbc, 6 German states are considering bans on scarves by teachers and 3 are considering bans on scarve anywhere in public (Berlin, Hesse and Saarland). Apparently 2 already have the ban (thanks Fabius) and I'm not sure if those 2 are part of the 6 considering it or are separate.


@ Iago (who I didn't realize until just now is the artist formerly known as Yago)
If they pass it, I do not think it will be upheld by courts. Well, the point for me is clear, if you allow crucifixes, you have to allow scarves.
Check the article you quoted again as well as the bbc links on the issue in Germany. The German court apparently struck down the ban because there was no specific law allowing them to ban the scarves. In response, the German states have begun to pass laws that allow the banning of the scarves - which the court hinted would be allowable. Here is a money quote:

The federal Constitutional Court ruled by five votes to three that, under current laws, she could wear the scarf. But it also said new laws could be passed by individual states From another bbc article regarding France:

French President Jacques Chirac is expected to express his support for the law next week, already having commented that there was something "aggressive" about the wearing of a headscarf.

It is a view shared by many French, even though few have had any problem with the skull-cap or a discreet cross worn in school; it is only the Islamic headscarf that seems to arouse such passionate controversy...

The 11 September attacks hardened attitudes here, with unspoken fears about Islamic fundamentalism underlying the public rhetoric about the scarf being an affront to women's rights....

France expects its immigrants to adapt to a French way of life, rather than adapting France to its immigrants' customs and culture - meaning that few in France believe multi-culturalism is the answer to the headscarf issue....

Yet most Muslim worshippers at a Paris mosque reject this argument.

Tunisian-born Noura Jaballah says it is her choice to wear a veil, as does her friend Fatima Ayash.

Both believe the furious public debate on the issue has less to do with secularity and more with French discomfort over its growing Muslim population.

"People are not at ease or happy with it, so they look for problems," said Noura Jaballah.

"This is why the headscarf has become an issue, when in reality, the headscarf has never been the root of any problems - not at school or elsewhere.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3311485.stm

I suspect that article is largely correct in that the recent proposed ban and the reasons purportedly supporting it simply mask an underlying unease with a growing Muslim population.

Oxymore writes:

Have you spent several years in a school where a significant proportion of the girls wore headscarfs? I have.

It's ok when there's not too much of them, until at some point it becomes the rule and not the exception. Then the girls without scarfs are more and more regarded as whores and treated accordingly. To me, the line that sticks out is, "It's ok when there's not too much of them, until at some point it becomes the rule and not the exception." I've heard similar things said in California regarding Mexicans, similar things were said historically about the Irish in the US as I understand it, and similar things were said about blacks in America during integration. I'm sure he didn't mean it the way it came out but it sounds ugly. Why is it ok for a few Muslims to wear scarves but you'd better watch out when there get to be more and more Muslims wearing scarves?

Well, I agree with both sides of the argument here, as I can see valid pints being brought up by everyone so far (except me perhaps ;) )

My thoughts run that it is equally expectable that those without religious affiliation understand that some feel they want to express themselves, and that it doesn't really matter, as it would be equally expectable for those who wear such symbols to understand that they are offending some people (whether intentionally or not) and to therefore refrain from doing so, as it doesn't really matter.

However, this gets tricky when dogma is involved, and some may truly believe that they and/or others must or must not wear such a symbol, and it is true that those who wear such things can treat those who do not just as unfairly as those who do not treat those who do.

So I think the most important thing to monitor is that neither party is given un-fair allowances, and that teasing or snubbing by either group isn't tolerated. This again gets tricky with children as a young boy who has to remove his cap in class may be annoyed that the young girl next to him doesn't have to remove her head-scarf. Again, it isn't hurting anyone to let her leave it on, but the kid doesn't understand it is a religious beleif, so thinks he is being treated unfairly.

You see, when you look at it this way, it does get confusing. I guess the best way to sort things out is to become un-involved alltogether. I don't actively endorse people wearing such religious items, but I also don't care if they do wear them (or at least now that I'm not friends with that kid with the cap I don't ;) )

So with much deliberation I guess I'm going to have to throw my lot in with Laches and BTA. I guess the best stance to take on this is one f total non-involvement. But one must be very careful that it does not extend further. I remember a case where some muslims were aquitted of an assault (in a western country) becasue according to their culture it was permissible, and this seems to be rediculous. I am with the French and Iago on that if one moves to another country, one should be expected to live by their laws. If they don't like the laws, they can always live elsewhere, so in places where such a law banning things exist I see absolutely no problem.

But, as far as creating new laws is concerned, I think it is more about teaching the kids (and parents and teachers in some cases) better attitudes, rather than a ban on something which I agree does not cause anyone any harm, and such a ban does not adress the true problem.

So yes, let them wear whatever they want, it doesn't hurt anyone.

Gee, agreeing with Laches, this must be a first hey ;)

Ahm, the name change was ... ahm ... an accident. I made a notice in the random babbling post. :(

Check the article you quoted again as well as the bbc links on the issue in Germany. The German court apparently struck down the ban because there was no specific law allowing them to ban the scarves. In response, the German states have begun to pass laws that allow the banning of the scarves - which the court hinted would be allowable. Here is a money quote:
Well, the legal situtation is acutally clear and upheld by the European human rights court (has nothing to with the EU). A secular state, with according laws in it's constitution or normal laws, has the right to ban teachers from wearing scarves. As they have banned christian symbols from schools already. As it is French and in some Swiss cantons already the case (and again, for a long, long time). The Gemran constitutional court overruled courts having decided, that the constitutional neutrality of schools would be enough.

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1432_A_978043_1_A,00.html

The city prohibited Ludin, a 31-year-old Afghanistan native, from taking up a post as an English and German teacher in primary and secondary schools in 1998, because she insisted on wearing her headscarf, or hijab as it is known in Arabic, in the classroom for religious reasons. The board of education in the state of Baden Württemberg argued at the time that her headscarf would violate the state’s neutrality on religion.

Last October, the Federal Administrative Court in Berlin ruled that teachers at public schools must refrain from openly displaying religious symbols in the classroom, since they are representatives of the state and function as role models for their students.

....

The Constitutional Court underlined that though Germany’s constitutional law did not explicitly forbid the wearing of headscarves in the classroom in state-run schools in the first place, the possibility remained for states to legally enact such a ban.

The court stressed that the German state’s neutrality on religion shouldn’t be understood as a strict separation of church and state. Thus, if federal states didn’t want to employ teachers wearing a headscarf, they would first need to create unambiguous laws that expressly forbid religious symbols in the classroom, the court said. In Ludin’s case, such a legal ban wasn’t in place in the state of Baden-Württemberg, he noted.

Now, obviously, the states that will inact such laws, will also forbid religious symbols of the christian flavour, i.e. inact religious neutrality. Which I find good, as already said. This completly legal and ok.

Amid heightened fears that wearing a veil is a symbol of fundamentalist Islam, the headscarf issue on another level also reflects sensitive topics such as the modern secular identities of European states, the compatibility of Islam with largely Christian Europe, the acceptance of immigrants, integration and religious rights.

And you have to see the other side of the coin, if one would allow veils, one would have to allow christian symbols and nuns and preachers teaching again in public schools. This can not be, culture war again all over.

Now, obviously, the states that will inact such laws, will also forbid religious symbols of the christian flavour, i.e. inact religious neutrality. Which I find good, as already said. This completly legal and ok.
But, you're missing the point that this is not what has happened. Here is the timeline:

1.Teacher forbidden to wear scarf.
2.Court says this is illegal because no law supports it BUT states can make those laws.
3.States make laws forbidding scarves BUT not forbidding any other religious imagery.

This is the state of things in at least one and now apparently 2 German states. You keep saying they will have to ban other religious images as well to ban scarves - but they haven't. Unless the bbc is wrong.

Iago also quotes a passage as reflecting a legitimate concern, in his mind, regarding scarves - that they are a symbol of fundamentalist Islam and there are questions of whether large Muslim immigrant populations are compatible with largely Christian Europe. This situation sounds exactly like fear of a growing Muslim population, 'it's ok as long as there are just a few of them.'

Well, guess what - banning head scarves won't make everybody suddenly integrate. And why should they have to integrate? So long as they follow the laws why does it matter whether they like to sit at a local cafe and drink wine? Europe gets very upset about an American cultural hegemony but apparently forcing your culture upon others is acceptable under those circumstances. What happened to the battle cry of multiculturalism?

And I once again fully agree and would emphasise what BTA said. Religious neutrality means not favoring one religion over another AND not favoring religion or non-religion over one another. France is favoring non-religion over religion (and disproportionately over Muslims who the laws are primarily aimed at and Jews). German is favoring all religions and non-religion over Muslims (I know it's just currently 2 states but if the German nation doesn't stop them then it is complicit in the same way that the US would have been complicit if it had allowed the Governor of Alabama to prevent blacks from attending public Universities 50 or so years ago).

These laws are not neutral.

The two states I spoke of will pass a bill. They count in this 6 state group. In Baden-Wurtemberg there are still discussions (as Iago wrote). In Bavaria they have a law already that allows parents to ask the school to take away the cross in a classroom. The bill against the scarf adds to this.
There is a basic discussion in germany now wether the scarf is a religious symbol or not.

As for the federal government is comlicit for discrimination: I do not know exactly if it could overrule the state government. The law for civil servants (I don't know if this term fits) of the states lies under the jurisdiction of the states, IIRC. The fed has only marginal possibilities to intervent here.
The only possibilitiy for people to fight this discrimination is a lawsuit against the state governments at the constitunional courts of the states. And if the law bans all religios symbols then they stand no chance.

If people interpreted the First Amendment correctly, that would be the case, Blackhawk. However, our case history is rife with people who want to wear Christian jewelry or clothing while working for a government agency or as a public school teacher. They get shot down frequently.Well, sometimes that Christian jewelry upsets me as a Christian. I don't want to see a crucifix between two naked boobs in a porn scene. I know, exaggerating now. But still.

Seems to me that the French government ifringes on people's rights here. Besides, it's too much for good taste.

Also, it seems to me a part of the current anti-Christian fad. There's no cheapass magazine without *****ing random nonsense about Christians or Christianity. Well, or just downright insults and calling names and who cares for logic behind statement.

Silly and childish. Too much freedom going to people's heads and too much free time on their hands.

But, you're missing the point that this is not what has happened. Here is the timeline:

1.Teacher forbidden to wear scarf.
2.Court says this is illegal because no law supports it BUT states can make those laws.
3.States make laws forbidding scarves BUT not forbidding any other religious imagery.

This is the state of things in at least one and now apparently 2 German states. You keep saying they will have to ban other religious images as well to ban scarves - but they haven't. Unless the bbc is wrong.
Ahm, no that timeline is wrong. And as I stated, the BBC is obviously focussing on Bavaria, while that constitutional decision was about Baden-Wüttenberg. And as my link showed, the federal administrative court upheld the decision first, while the constitutional court said, that the legal base in Baden-Wüttemberg has to be made more clear. And my other link states the justice minister of Baden-Wüttemberg, that banning a veil without banning christan symbols is impossble. Which reflects my opinion. Is this prerequisite given, then the law will pass. I am not accustomed with the laws in Baden-Wüttemberg, but obviously, they had already secular laws, but now they need some legal-improving. This should not be mixed in anyway with France on the other hand, where veils for teachers as any other religious symbols worn by teacher are forbidden since a long time anyway. And this then should not be mixed with the usus in other European countries, predomenantly the UK, which has no secularity at all.


Iago also quotes a passage as reflecting a legitimate concern, in his mind, regarding scarves - that they are a symbol of fundamentalist Islam and there are questions of whether large Muslim immigrant populations are compatible with largely Christian Europe. This situation sounds exactly like fear of a growing Muslim population, 'it's ok as long as there are just a few of them.'
Ahm, no, that's not a legitimate concern in my mind. It was just inside the quoted article which sums up some main points about it in the lot of different European countries. My point is clear, secularity is one of the smartest and wisest things ever introduced. And I do not want any kind of religious symbols on any teacher or public servant. As it has been for some time.And again for France. France has a long standing secular tradition. "Anti-clerical" if you want to dub it that way. And it also has veil-discussions since decades.

Now, for the kids, I have my doubts on a practical level that it really would make sense to ban their veils.

And then further, a "secular state" does not say it is somehow "christian Europe". A secular state is based on secularity, not on christanity, therefore a secular country is certanly not officallly a christian country. Which in the case of France is clearly a secular and not a christian state. The Germans are mixed, because of the different history and customs of the states, which were "unified" through Prussia, in my view. The conflict between the different traditions and viewpoints on the christian-issue did cause a lot of EU-internal problems recently, as the secular states will not tolerate any "references to christian culture", while the "christian" ones will not tolerate the lack thereof.

Now for a further complicating thing. As mentioned by Maximus. Is the veil a religious symbol at all ? And then, for whom. I've been to school with muslims too, indeed many muslim girls and women do not wear veils, because it is actually not demanded by muslim religion. Or at least not by their flavour, as there are as many flavours of muslims as there are many flavours of christians. And wearing a veil is not interpreted by many muslims as a demand of their religion. Which then actually causes conflict among the different flavours of muslims. Now, I do not think that banning the headscarf of children will solve that problem. On the other hand, I do not think that a "coalition of christians and muslims" (Yes, yes, the jump on the same train, as they have an interest to put up their own signs again) should be allowed to overthrow secularity.

These laws are not neutral. Not in my mind. For me, this is religious neutrality as it should be. But as I said in my very first post, it propably has a lot to do with the culture, customs and history one comes from. Two examples, for me personally, it is unthinkable of having a phrase "in god we trust" printed on state money. Nor is it thinkable, to have the picture of a "nun" on a pound-note, like the Irish do. Nor is it thinkable to dub the head of state as "defender of the faith" like the British do. And is further unthinkable, to have a high-goverment offical to end his speeches with the words "god bless you". Which god anyway ? The one or the other one ? The one which allows monasteries, or the one who does not allow them ? But then again, all this countries do not claim to have a lot of secularity in them. And indeed, one of the federal councils has come close to do it recently, I tell you, that caused some uproar. Further, this may be "anti-clerical". Well, again, having had to major religions with huge hostilities against eachother in a sort of bloody power-stalemate for centuries, somehow called for a sensible solution, to balance them out. And that "anti-clerical" rigid neutrality forced at some places, worked wonders. Ok, evil people say, it's only presbyterianism hidden in a modern dress. Whatever. It worked well.