So, attacking religious symbols makes people, not the state, the battlefield over secularization. The reality is that “religious symbols” are not expressions of extremist, anti-social convictions. A Sikh man with a turban sitting in the first row of the classroom is not promulgating his religion; he is behaving in accordance with his beliefs. The same goes for a Muslim woman wearing a veil. The items of clothes that the French government intends to ban are intrinsically bound to beliefs about such philosophical issues as life’s purpose and God, as well as more practical prescriptions for how to behave properly. For example, a Jewish yarmulke serves to humble the person wearing it before God; a Muslim woman’s veil is a means of commanding respect. These symbols are fundamentally associated with a person’s dignity and sense of well-being, issues much deeper than what the French government’s words imply by “conspicuous religious symbols.”

Because of its misguided approach, the ban on “conspicuous religious symbols” will have more impact on questions of diversity than secularization. Another French politician, Jacques Myard’s explains the purpose and need for the law bluntly enough: "this is more a question of discipline than any religious or political affair…We are facing a genuine political policy that tries to enforce their own Sharia Law on the civil law which is not acceptable" (BBC website: “French Schools Law May Ban Beards”). It is significant that the one group which will face the least problems with the proposed law are Christians: a majority in France, whose religious and cultural influence is the strongest in state and society, and whose religious symbols are least associated with religious practice (who wears large, conspicuous crosses anyway?). It should be no surprise that Christianity lies at the core of French society as the country was founded and structured before Arabs, Chinese, Indians, and other minority groups arrived, but the fact is that these so called minority groups are permanent in France as citizens who know no other home but France. But while many people of color and non-Christians have adopted French customs and ways of life, France has stubbornly and consistently resisted change in response to their presence. For example, the popularity of extreme rightist political leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen (17% votes in 2002 presidential elections), was one of the more dramatic illustrations of the prevalence of racism in France.

So why, as this new law will have it, should an increasing number of French people be officially discriminated against by their own government? To put it more directly, the ban amounts to a political game of pretend: let’s pretend we’re all the same. Unfortunately, banning veils or yarmulke’s will not make Jews, Arabs, Indians, and Black people disappear. With about 5 million Muslims and 650,000 Jews in France (the largest populations of all European countries), and about 15,000 Sikhs just in the Paris area, pretending that society is religiously homogeneous will not hide the fact that people have different faiths. In fact, it will intensify existing problems since the law will disproportionately affect people who already face discrimination because of their race or religion.

In short, the proposed law is dangerous not only because it helps institutionalize racism and seriously infringes on people’s private lives, but also because it encroaches on basic human rights. Though it has little legal weight, it is worth drawing attention to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which French experts helped devise. Article 18 states that, “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” Secularization, tolerance, non-discrimination is possible in diverse societies, but attempting to eliminate differences is not the proper, logical or just way of going about it. In other words, secularization should make society more open and inclusive, and aim to protect the people, not the state. As it stands, the new law will not promote a separation of church and state. It will further marginalize groups that already face discrimination, accentuate racism, and in the long run, produce widespread discontent and frustration.

<< Back to Page 1