Voices
in
Japan

poll

In some countries, there is a ban on adults and children wearing religious clothing and symbols such as burqas, veils, head scarves, skullcaps, turbans and crucifixes in public places like schools, re

95 Comments

In some countries, there is a ban on adults and children wearing religious clothing and symbols such as burqas, veils, head scarves, skullcaps, turbans and crucifixes in public places like schools, recreational facilities and so on. What’s your stance?

© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

95 Comments
Login to comment

I oppose the ban. Except for in schools.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

I absolutely support it in every way, especially for schools. But it must not be selective. You can't just ban burkas and allow crucifixes and other stuff, even if a country has a Christian tradition or whatsoever. In my very opinion, religion is an anachronism, and since it's not possible to get rid of it at all (because it only comes back stronger than ever), the impact on our society has to be minimized at least.

23 ( +31 / -8 )

Oppose, except for covering of the face, for security. People should wear what they want. School dress codes minimal. French ban is racist.

-13 ( +12 / -25 )

Freedom is wearing what you want..

7 ( +20 / -13 )

Why should we all have to wear the same clothing?

I think people should get used to the different styles of clothing and learn to tolerate differences in race, religion and so on.

If there is one thing that's increasing lacking in the world today, it is tolerance.

8 ( +16 / -8 )

I can't understand why anyone would support the ban other than because they don't like religion. In that case, what gives you the right to force your views on others? Many in the religious crowd do the same thing, though.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

It's fine if it's fair.

If a christian country ends up banning christian motifs so they don't offend muslims living there, it's wrong. If you are a muslim living in a christian country and christian stuff offends you, go live in a muslim country.

If things covering the face are not allowed in the country you live in and you're a muslim woman who "has to" wear a burka, either take it off, or go live in a muslim country. Even if you were born and raised there. If your beliefs don't fit with that, you should go somewhere that does.

I can't understand why anyone would support the ban other than because they don't like religion. In that case, what gives you the right to force your views on others?

That is what a lot of the "victims" do.

6 ( +18 / -12 )

For once the French are actually showing some guts. Totally agree with their laws on this issue.

And honestly, lets not try to compare a crucifix worn under your shirt with a full black body suit. The former is normal and many many non-Christians wear such jewelry, the later is an affront to normal thought, and adopted by extremists only.

6 ( +19 / -13 )

I think people can wear what they like in their own time. However, employers should be able to set dress standards to suit their business without regard to the tenets of made-up religions (i.e. all religions). The same applies to schools and school uniform.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

I support a ban in schools in particular, and as pointed out, it must not make any exceptions. Religion very often divides societies and contributes to the dangerous isolation of groups within that society. That is not what governments should be promoting.

14 ( +17 / -3 )

The question is very badly formulated. The ban is valid in pubic places and based fundamentally on separation of state and church since in France, public places - like public schools - are funded by the state. The wearing religious symbols in private religious schools doesn't come under this law.

It is obviously not a matter of race but a cultural one, as separation of church and state exists in most Western democracies.

On the other hand, many countries in the Middle East have their own dress code, rules and regulations so I don't see why you should not follow the Law of the Land when you come to a Western country like France.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

I support the ban whole heartedly. But in actuality, that's just treating the symptoms and not the root cause of the most pervasive form of mental illness to ever inflict humankind: religion!

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Alot of people are mentioning France, but every country is different and it's a fairly nuanced issue.

The ban in France is an extension of France's strong historical egalitarian values and a desire to repeat conflicts about state sponsored religions. The exact same ban in the Netherlands, a country that has always accepted diversity, has no such historical justification and therefore seems more xenophobic. The ban in Turkey is designed to send a message about the secular aspirations of the government. A potential ban in the United States would be so antithetical to its founding values that it's almost unimaginable. So you can't just say France is right to ban the burqa and therefore so should everyone else.

Japan, of course, could never ban the burqa until they ban the mask, but thats another debate.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

As I read over in the Facebook group Japan Atheist Society countries a majority of countries are secular in founding and nature. So when you are saying a specifically Christian country you should give an example @probie

3 ( +3 / -0 )

if you were born and raised there. If your beliefs don't fit with that, you should go somewhere that does.

Are you serious? Can you be any more closed minded? We're living in the 21st century. Get with the times. Everyone has the freedom to express themselves no matter what their religion or race is ESPECIALLY if they are born and raised in that very country. Citizens should be tolerant with each other. Stop dividing the country by the dumb logic of 'majority rules'. We're not second graders here. Let's act like adults.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

It raises the larger and more controversial question of whether imposing certain religious beliefs on children could amount to child abuse.

If someone were to ban their child from having any friends, the authorities might step in. If someone forces their child to wear a burqa on the playground in France, it might achieve the exact same outcome for the child.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Strongly support.

Secular humanism is the defining philosophy of all modern, civilized societies. Toward that end, obtrusive public expressions of religion should be banned.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

I am against it... this measure is a clear violation of each people freedom to wear (and belief/think) what they want. So much for the Liberte, fraternite, igualite...

This does not mean I support some fanatical level religions (abrahamic mostly)... the philosophy is in each persons heart, not in the clothing, in the symbols, on the land or it what people eat and drink.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

turbotsat: French ban is racist.

Was going to say, oops, my bad, because I got burqa (face covering) confused with head covering (hijab).

But then if the reason to impose the ban is to forcibly integrate people into society, why permit convents? Ban convents, too. Nuns ought not to live segregated from society at large. For the exact same reasons used to justify burqa ban.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

'And honestly, lets not try to compare a crucifix worn under your shirt with a full black body suit. The former is normal and many many non-Christians wear such jewelry, the later is an affront to normal thought, and adopted by extremists only.'

'Normal' according to whom? The wearing of a crucifix still advertises division in certain places with a Catholic/Protestant problem. I agree that covering yourself in a cloth bag is more extreme than a crucifix but is walking around with an representation of an instrument of torture 'normal'? I think it was Lenny Bruce who observed that if Jesus had been executed in modern day America, Christians would be walking around with little electric chairs around their necks.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Personally I believe that the ban should only apply to anything that hides a person's identity (aka the burqa or anything else that specifically covers the face to hide one's identity). Just because someone else might take offense to someone's turban, or cross, or niqab, etc, just means people who become too PC will lose their freedom of expression.

Once again, the state should not be ruled by religion, and religion should not be slave to the state. Keep that in mind.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Its just a complicated issue I don't think 3 options cover it.

People have rights and freedoms, but those freedoms and rights should not extend to effecting others rights and freedoms, this of course means quite a lot of compromise.

I wish we lived in a world where we valued substantive evidence based truth and weren't subject to woo filled superstitious nonsense and I wish that religion, religious dogma, and religious iconography was a completely private matter and that it wasn't a public issue, however in reality that isn't the situation we find ourselves in.

First and foremost public safety and welfare in my opinion outweigh someones private religious beliefs all the time and every time every time, this means of course in situations where a positive visual ID is required for example that should be given without delay.

Then it gets more complicated, should people be able to wear certain things or not.. it seems to me either you have to allow it all or allow none of it, other than when it is in direct conflict with another persons rights or the public good.

So in a school or in certain business situations where are compromise can't be made I would support it being banned.

I find it a little amusing that rational people can discuss this, but oddly the very people whose freedom and rights we would be protecting and are concerned with in many cases wouldn't extend those same freedoms to others.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Typical ignorance of the western world! Religious dress should never be banned. Too many atheists in politics today with their hate against religion.

-7 ( +10 / -17 )

@CGB Spencer

Too many atheists in politics today with their hate against religion.

On the contrary. Secularism is slowly being swallowed up by religious fascism. Look at the US - with no separation of church and state. Creationism is being taught in government schools! What the HELL? (pun intended) Look at the UK - there are 1500 mosques nationwide, with hundreds in London alone. Can you believe that some areas impose Sharia law, parallel with local laws?! There are actual Islamic "officers" that patrol the streets! In Australia, parts of Sydney are slowly becoming closed-off Islamic communities. Extremists have been indoctrinated in mosques there, and are now fighting for ISIS.

This is how it starts. I'm happy for people of any faith to wear whatever they like, but they must adhere to local laws AND cultural values. Assimilation is key. By covering themselves up, this makes assimilation impossible.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

I can't understand why anyone would support the ban other than because they don't like religion.

There's a difference between pro-secularism and anti-religion. Many religionists support secularism.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Are you serious? Can you be any more closed minded? We're living in the 21st century. Get with the times. Everyone has the freedom to express themselves no matter what their religion or race is ESPECIALLY if they are born and raised in that very country. Citizens should be tolerant with each other. Stop dividing the country by the dumb logic of 'majority rules'. We're not second graders here. Let's act like adults.

Are you saying that countries should abandon hundreds of years of their history and society, because a group of people with different culture/beliefs don't agree with it?

How would you think it would go across if christian went to live in Saudi Arabia, and wanted to build a church and walk around wearing a crucifix? Hint: not well.

Why is it alright for some countries to force people to do something, while others are vilified?

People shouldn't move to a country and expect the country to adapt to them.

14 ( +17 / -3 )

@CGB Spender

Typical ignorance of the western world! Religious dress should never be banned. Too many atheists in politics today with their hate against religion.

Unfortunately, I think you are missing the point with this simplistic world view. What if my religion dictates that I wear no clothes at all in public? Society has already decided that there are limits to religious expression and this debate is just about where to strike the balance.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

One should respect the country they are living in and adapt to the lifestyle there or leave. There should be restrictions on aliens, like myself, on our dress codes and other things like behaviour and the likes. I wouldn't go to the middle east walking around with shorts, sleeveless t-shirt holding a can of beer while eating a pork sandwich. I would respect there dress codes and the way they live so they need to do likewise here. So its time to put on the salary man suit and the mask

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Should be banned in public institutions in same way that political statements are banned, especially seeing that some religions have political goals.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

turbostat - 'French ban is racist.'

In what sense is it racist? Religions are beliefs, not races. Most religions now love to tell us that we are all God's children no matter what our ethnicity is. The division and intolerance from many is between believers and non-believers. Even the Mormons had to change their racist views of humans to conform to the law about 40 years ago.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Freedom is wearing what you want.

Umm, no. It goes a little bit deeper than that. Freedom is also linked to a responsible exercise thereof. Schools can and should be an environment of secular learning. Religion of any type has no place in public schools.

Private schools? Wear what you like, believe what you like. But most definitely not public.

The pap that still keeps getting paraded around even to this day is that this country or that country is or was founded on some sort of cosmically unique, fantastically original religious tenet. But anyone with an appreciable degree of education -- or the ability to point and click their way through the World Wide Web -- can determine pretty much on their own that all of the supposed exclusive values of charity, compassion, respect, fairness, and goodwill are not unique to one region or another, but rather universal across the breadth and width of humanity's brief existence on this planet. We all share the same essential ideas about how to not be asshats to one another.

Take religion out of the equation, however, and all of those ideals that I mentioned above, charity, compassion, respect, fairness, and goodwill, can and do flourish just as well in a balanced, professional secular school environment as in a school steeped in religious tradition.

Some religious conservatives scoff and bristle at this idea of a universal humanism, but this speaks more to the almost pathological impulse to thump one's chest in a display of "We're Number One" than any serious indictment of the irrefutable truth that no one religion has a monopoly on basic human goodness.

Brazen or even subtle displays of "We're Number One" have no place in a multi-cultural public learning environment. None whatsoever. Which is why I've got no problem whatsoever with school uniforms.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Readers, in discussing this topic, please do not post inflammatory remarks about religion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is about security. You have to remove a motorbike helmet when you enter a bank or a store. It should be the same for religious headdress and for masks as well. One world = One rule! Ban the burqa!

8 ( +11 / -3 )

I find it interesting that many of those against the ban are using the "freedom of choice"rant to say it shouldn't be banned. I just wonder if the ladies wearing them have a choice or freedom, as we know it??

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Public safety is of the foremost importance... Wearing a full bodysheet thst completely covers one including face in public is a safery issue.

The countries laws and civil safety codes take precedence over clothing.

Not to mention but that sort of forced upon religious clothing is somewhat against womens rights.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

If you live in a Western country and cover yourself in a face-concealing burqa, you de facto cut yourself off from the rest of society. This leads to isolationism and ghettos. It is not good for society overall.

It is not purely a relative thing. If a Jewish guy wears a skull cap, that is fine, and barely sticks out. If he wears some ultra-orthodox Hasidic outfit, with a black hat,beard and ringlets coming off the side of the head, it looks odd. The latter rarely integrate much with wider society and it is disconcerting for wider society.

Even if you choose to keep your faith alive, you can never be a true part of society if your wear an outlandish religious costume. The message is clear - I reject the cultural norms of your society and place the customs and identity of a foreign culture far above it

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Who draws the lines? Head or body garb, tattoos, pierced body parts, manicures, pedicures, lingerie-like clothing, dyed or straightened hair...the list goes on and on. Even some women are not allowed to wear their hair in its natural form in the military...they must have it straightened and treated in an unnatural way to keep within the uniform requirements,which costs a lot of money beyond just having their hair bobbed or in the case of men, shaved and that is completely secular, but still enforcing a code of acceptable attire or appearance on women and men. I am in favor of tolerance. I expect to receive tolerance and I try (though admittedly hard at times) to be tolerant.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

wearing whatever you want for freedom is fine wearing whatever you want for restriction is not fine uniform is uniform I even dislike school uniform.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

These campaign is well drafted, dress is the part of culture and tradition, you can not dictate others what to wear, the aim is to target just one minority. actually the man wants to dress the women for his own pleasure, ironically these people never criticize bikini, skirts and semi-nude cloths but they do have problem with full covering. This choice should be only entitled to the person what she/he wants to wear.

all these champions of the women freedom never criticizing the so called cat walk, where a brain washed woman walking for the pleasure of the man in the less dressed clothes and the under aged girls in the clubs, these girls are just paid- slaves. do not you think that it is more disgraceful and disrespectful for a woman when she display her body in less cloths while selling a toy or pictures with a second hand trucks. woman is not a showpiece.

The corporations, the bosses of the business, the sports authorities oblige the woman to dress herself what they choose for her, is it freedom?

This is about security. You have to remove a motorbike helmet when you enter a bank or a store. It should be the same for religious headdress and for masks as well. One world = One rule! Ban the burqa!

woman in the Burq or with covered face has to show her face if security is concerned. you are talking about the security what about the woman security when some thugs place camera in their legs and taking pictures of their skirts do you have any thoughts for that as well.

Again, this choice should be remain only with the person what they choose for themselves.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

I agree that symbols of one's religious affiliation should be allowed, since they present no danger to the general public. However, covering one's face so that no one can see who you are is a security issue and banning it is not a sign of intolerance, but simply a matter of public safety, since there is no guarantee that the person under the veil is in fact a Muslim woman.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I voted for disagree but if you think about it Islam teaches segragation between sex and burqa is only required when segragation is not possible. There are all female private schools so if the family really feels strong about their relegion then they should make financial effort in placing their children into those schools.

Another point is Quran doesn't explicitly teach that burqa is required but only talks about segragation and burqa is only an interpretation of how this should be achieve in public. So it's not purely religious either.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"Again, this choice should be remain only with the person what they choose for themselves"

Too bad in some Muslim-majority countries the person doesn't have a choice as to what they wear, they have to wear what the Islamic code dictates.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

How many crimes happened in which a person wearing burqa ? how many crimes happened in which a person wearing a facial masks with caps? how many crimes happened in which a person wearing helmet on the motorbike?

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

'Normal' according to whom?

Normal according to the western civilizations we are talking about. So normal in fact that millions of people who don't have any religion at all wear a crucifix.

Interesting that you cite Lenny Bruce as your authority ... a guy who was once arrested for dressing up as a priest (crucifix and all) to fraudulently collect money for himself, and a man who sadly, died naked on the floor of his bathroom with a syringe sticking out of his arm. I'm going to go out on a limb and ignore anything he had to say about society.

Mostly I agree with probie. If you can't assimilate to the cultural norms of a society in which you choose to live (usually one that you ran to in order to escape the brutality and poverty created by the backward religion of your home nation) then gtfo.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Serrano: you should visit to each Islamic country, In Indonesia, Bangla dish, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt in almost 55 countries more women are with out scrap.

again this is a woman choice, if she does not want to be pictured in public places, or does want to be glaring by men or wants to keep herself safe from sexual harassment at trains, offices and public places then it is her right what to wear.

This right should be given to the person it should not be imposed by others.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Ali Khan: Are you serious when you say: "Again, this choice should be remain only with the person what they choose for themselves"?

woman is not a showpiece

As a counterargument, if this is her choice to be a showpiece, why could't she choose for herself?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

this is simply become a showpiece if YOU decide for them what to wear

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

actually the man wants to dress the women for his own pleasure

Ridiculous. Sounds like something the ayatollah would say.

ironically these people never criticize bikini, skirts and semi-nude cloths but they do have problem with full covering.

And this is ironic how exactly? The aforementioned items of clothing are normal in western society, unlike full black body suits.

This choice should be only entitled to the person what she/he wants to wear.

And does the muslim world give women the choice to wear "bikini, skirts and semi-nude cloths" if she wants?

7 ( +8 / -1 )

I'd suggest that a more pragmatic approach be taken. Firstly, lets consider how we can stop Weird Person's dressing up in Berqa's and wandering around Women's Changing rooms taking Child-Porn pictures with their Google-Glasses... all concealed from view, and as we're all totally "Politically correct" unchallenged....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If your religious beliefs come down to what you wear then your faith is clearly lacking.

Christians don't need to wear anything to be Christians, Buddhists don't need to wear anything to be Buddhists, and Muslims don't need to wear anything to be Muslims (and this includes the ladies, their religion just asks them to dress modestly, not to wear a full burqa - that's a cultural tradition, not a religious requirement and it is actually a very MODERN cultural tradition, only resurrected recently).

Religion belongs in the home, in the heart and in the church/synagogue/temple/shrine/mosque/etc.

It does not belong in the public areas where it may cause offense. If your religious beliefs are so fragile that removing your fish bumper sticker and wearing your crucifix under your shirt causes you problems then I really think you need to go and spend some time in prayer and re-evaluate your relationship with God.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Ali Khan: I currently live in an islamic republic in south east Asia (not Brunei). The women have no choice but to wear the veil. A few of them discussed openly this topic with me (they initiated the discussion not me!) and they were not happy at all to be forced to wear it.

When in an islamic country I am not going to argue but when in a laic country, I cannot accept that!

10 ( +10 / -0 )

@Ali Khan

again this is a woman choice, if she does not want to be pictured in public places, or does want to be glaring by men or wants to keep herself safe from sexual harassment at trains, offices and public places then it is her right what to wear.

It is this way of thinking that gets you into trouble. We live in a modern democracy where women are allowed to wear whatever they want (and so they should be able to). Women should feel empowered to dress nicely & look good. That's the beauty of a modern democracy. Who said anything about sexual harassment? Why is the woman to blame?

Case in point: There was an extremist Islamic cleric in Sydney a few years ago who outlandishly claimed that women dressing in risqué outfits on a Saturday night brought it upon themselves (by "it" I'm referring to sexual assault). This is absolutely disgraceful and should not be tolerated.

This right should be given to the person it should not be imposed by others.

Yes, that is precisely what everyone on here is arguing!

this is simply become a showpiece if YOU decide for them what to wear

You just said that it's the woman's choice... Who's side are you on exactly?

7 ( +8 / -1 )

i said anyone should not imposed,, and likewise when the Olympic committee or any sports organizations compel the woman to wear this particular dress or leave the game, or any Business organization ask the women to wear the particular dress or leave the job then i think you would also not accept that.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Ali Khan: your examples are totally irrelevant. These are dress codes for both men and women that you adhere to when you freely decide to join an organization. Then in most of the cases, these dress codes evolve with the society. And you can leave it anytime if you do not like it.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

'this is simply become a showpiece if YOU decide for them what to wear'

I think it's fair to say that all major religions have treated women as second class citizens ( not surprising if you consider they were created by men ) but a quick look at the gender equality stats from around the world puts Muslim majority countries at the bottom. It's also no coincidence that the countries that do best on this score tend to be secular in nature. I'm a little doubtful of a woman's 'right to choose' in Muslim cultures or even in some Muslim families or communities in secular states. My wife ( hardly a militant feminist ) wonders how any woman could be an adherent of any religion after reading the texts.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Oppose. As long as no one is forcing others to practice their religion they should be allowed to wear the items associated with it. Religious tolerance and all that.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I oppose bans like this. Too much like censorship taken to the extreme. However, I think the people who wear the clothes or whatever need to be considerate. For example, we have a few Muslims working in a store in my neighborhood, where I shop regularly. The men don't seem to wear anything special, the women wear simple head scarves and are always in dresses. No problem. They adhere to their beliefs and, at the same time, are considerate of others.

It's the 'in your face' stuff that causes problems. I agree with not wearing inflammatory religious T-shirts and stuff in schools. But that's for EVERYBODY, no matter what religion it may be, as well as many non religious T-shirts that cause problems. But in society at large, I really don't think clothing should be a major consideration. But those people from different cultures need to realize that they're not in their country any longer and show consideration for others. When I lived in Japan, I was not the most welcome of people until I was able to speak Japanese. Once I could speak well, all the doors were open to me, even those that didn't normally allow gaijin. I believe if you move to another country, you should learn the language, respect and appreciate the culture and adapt to the differences. If you're not willing to do that, why be surprised if you're disliked? I don't feel any country should have to adapt to other cultures beyond welcoming them. It's the other culture's responsibility to adapt to the country they have CHOSEN to live in.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I support the right of a democratic people to enact laws to define and restrict liberties in places considered to be public, as long as it does not place an undue burden on anyone.

An example of undue burden would be trying to restrict a person going from their home to a church, mosque or synagogue from being able to travel by public conveyances and on public streets. When the destinations are schools, parks, government offices, etc. restrictions can apply. The people have a right to enact such laws.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The problem here is that you have to be on the one side or the other,, as some suggested above ..you can not discuss the issue with open mind,

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Jimizo:

turbostat - 'French ban is racist.'

In what sense is it racist? Religions are beliefs, not races. Most religions now love to tell us that we are all God's children no matter what our ethnicity is. The division and intolerance from many is between believers and non-believers. Even the Mormons had to change their racist views of humans to conform to the law about 40 years ago.

In that headscarves would not considered an issue worthy of legislation were it not that non-French-ethnicity Muslims were wearing them.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I really don't see the need to ban religious clothing/symbols, except in workplaces. Particularly when the company you work for has branches around the world and supports diversity. These companies can't be seen to be supporting some religions and not others, so then a ban is necessary to that end. But in schools and public places, it isn't necessary. We each have our own faith and beliefs, we shouldn't be oppressed from those beliefs. Especially due to the actions of a small faction that takes its beliefs to an extremist level. But, because of this rogue minority earning notoriety through their violence, we have these bans appearing. It doesn't help that these extremists are warping public opinions of religion. I'm pretty sure that the prophet Mohammed never said "Go and decapitate everyone who doesn't believe in me." Yet, because some people are doing that, the public is starting to assume that that is the norm.

So no, I don't support the ban. Not when it is being enforced as a result of the actions of a few bad eggs.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I support the ban, because when a religous person is entering a foreign country it is the religous persons responsibility to respect the rules in the foreign country!! We western people, when we are entering for example UAE many western women pay respect to the UAE with wearing a burqa for example. If the religous people who are visiting a foreign country are not showin any act of responsibility and respect to the country, it is then i think the ban is necessary. I dont like for example the niqab when the whole face exept the eyes is coverded, i am dependent on the persons facial expressions when i talk to the person wearing a niqab! The niqab rule is a silly rule beacuse why should women prevent showing their faces to different men, it is not fair at all. If they don`t wear a niqab when talking to another man then their husband they need to cover their face with something else!! It is like the women never were invented and that the women are just for having child with in that case a son!! It is an violation on the human rights and equality, of course there are going to be a difference on a man and a woman but not a very big difference!!!!!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Kasper123:

I support the ban, because when a religous person is entering a foreign country it is the religous persons responsibility to respect the rules in the foreign country!! We western people, when we are entering for example UAE many western women pay respect to the UAE with wearing a burqa for example.

We look down on the Middle Eastern countries as lesser nations for forcing women to wear religious clothing styles. Now we can look down on the French, as well.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I'm a Christian, and I've worked in places as a teacher and professor where the rule was no overtly religious symbols being worn (the Muslim Ladies received a pass, however). Didn't bother me then and doesn't bother me now. Really, if one needs a symbol to represent his or her faith, why bother following Jesus Christ at all? Why not live for him, treat others as you'd want to be treated, and say things that keep the peace and, above all of this, do the best job you can do (and then some [remember? Christ DID say to go the extra mile {see Matthew 5-7}])? I'd rather have the marks of the Cross and the Marks of Jesus Christ show through what I do and how I live and how I treat others rather than having a symbol dangling around my neck or pinned on my lapel or on my tie.

And for Christians who disagree with this, that's fine. I think all too often we Christians get whiny and whizzy because we can't put a nativity scene on our desks or a votive out on display or some other Christian symbolic trinket during some Christian Holiday when, in reality, we should do more to let Jesus Christ be seen in what we do, how we treat others, and how we live and, yes, what we say (and, yes, I'm talking to myself here, as well). So what if the Muslims protest at not being allowed to wear abaya, burkha, and hijab? Do we really want to be like them? Do we have to be that way?

I'm not for bans of religious expression, but, really, why would I want a symbol to be the thing that defines my faith in Jesus Christ? Why not let living for him, treating others as I want to be treated, and doing the best at my job as I can (and then some) be what defines my faith in GOD? Ban the symbols all one wants; one cannot be stopped from living for Jesus Christ.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I'm against the ban, because it seems pretty discriminatory itself, since in western countries it does not do any harm to wear symbols, tattoos or clothing (yarmulke in the case of Jewish people) or not wearing them, whereas in the Muslim religions it makes great difference to wear them or not, they chose that or were born into that religion so it is their right to wear them. The discriminatory part is to oblige people who use clothing that covers the face not to wear them by banning that dress code it goes against freedom.

On the other hand, if the countries that are Muslim oriented would ban the use of a crucifix on the neck or a bracelet or a brooch with religious symbols (the virgin mary tatooed, for example or a little buda in a bracelet) whereas the use of a full head covering clothing as part of a culture we didn't have any discussion, it would go directly to protest against such kind of ban...

Freedom of religion is an important asset to anyone who choose to believe, the part what is is difficult is the tolerance of other religions and the extremes are always bad, a fanatical religious person or group of people will be equally dangerous than those that would like to ban religion completely.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Strongly oppose the ban. I support individual freedom to dress as you want in public places. It's not surprising that this happens in France, since they strive for equality rather than freedom. This is where egalitarianism eventually leads.

However, I also support the right of private places to deny entrance. So if I don't want you wearing burkas in my private home or business, I can rightfully refuse to let you in or serve you.

I disagree with telling these people to "just go home". However, if the prospect to move to another country put me in a position to choose between my beliefs and a financially better life, and I deemed my beliefs to be more important than my material well-being, I simply wouldn't go there. The fact that these people are in France means they already made their choice and they should own it. Moving to another country expecting that people there accommodate me, rather than I accommodate them, is at best silly and at worst arrogant. Especially when Muslim countries don't accommodate foreigners.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Our university daughter is travelling in a country that is primarily Islamic with people of other cultures living there from way back. She is safe and having a great time meeting a variety of people, some dressing traditionally, Western, with hajibs, etc. and learning about the influences of the Silk Road. I have always enjoyed conversations with women from Central Asia, South Asia, Middle East, no matter what they were wearing. Very clever and interesting and it would have been my loss to ignore them based on outward appearances, just like choosing not to talk to a woman (we seem to be focusing on women here) because she had a pierced belly button or nose or wore only black make up or raw meat like Lady Gaga. What saddens me is that when telling family or friends about her journey, inevitably people ask, "But, is is she safe?" I do not want to judge any group based on what I am told. Murders and crimes happen and there are dark histories worldwide. I still want to believe that people are the real peace keepers if we choose to have open minds. I don't want to be afraid to listen to others based on outward appearances, including fashion or race.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The reason for the ban is to prevent crime. Isn't it obvious that face covering on a large scale is increasing the potential for crime against the state? France is right to enact laws against this as the very resins Islamic adherents cover their faces is against the values to be found in French culture.After all drinking a can of beer in Saudi Arabia would get me arrested and likely flogged. How many posters here would agree with that? However the UK has seen fit not to introduce the ban which leads to surreal gatherings of hundreds of black garbed women around Marble Arch every weekend in the summer-a strange sight but peaceful.....for now....

0 ( +4 / -4 )

lasolitaria

It's not surprising that this happens in France, since they strive for equality rather than freedom. This is where egalitarianism eventually leads.

You seem to misunderstand it. In "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" liberte, i-e freedom comes first. Now remember that your freedom stops where the others' start.

Now as a couple of commenters noted, there are bans on the hijab in quite a few countries beside France, including some more progressive, Muslim-majority countries. The hijab is a cultural matter, not a religious one.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

totally against the ban... I think at that tender age students should be taught tolerance they should understand sharing space with other religions and race. Of course completely covered robes should be removed on request by security staff in public places...but once security check is done it is again the free will of the person.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

'totally against the ban... I think at that tender age students should be taught tolerance they should understand sharing space with other religions and race.'

Surely the bigger question should be why those of a 'tender age' are identified with a religion that they are too young to understand and may be dressed in something which marks them out as a member of a particular belief system. I find it really sad, wrong and in some cases potentially dangerous that parents do this to their kids. I remember one writer asked if it would be okay for children to introduce themselves as Marxists, Libertarians or Keynesians because that's what their parents are. Parents should not advertise their often divisive beliefs through their children. I think it's also worth considering the growing popularity of 'faith schools' in the UK for example to see who is often promoting not 'sharing space with other religions'. It's generally not the non-believers.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

To be honest, any religion, philosophy or -ism that demands blind obedience without understanding or reason is not healthy. This applies whether it's about not eating pork, not eating meat on Fridays, covering the face, head, not getting married on "butsumetsu," worrying about the Chinese, or terrorism or watching only NHK or automatically voting LDP or any other superstition.

I think, as I said above, we should tolerate these things, but try to encourage people to open their eyes and look a little.

1 ( +3 / -3 )

I personally oppose it, but if it's going to exist I agree with those people who say it needs to be 100% fair and non-selective.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I'm against any ban if they wear it in their home...country.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

LeChatBotte

You seem to misunderstand it. In "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" liberte, i-e freedom comes first.

Are you really drawing conclusions out of slogans? Check the facts, they all point to this: the French Revolution was all about equality, not freedom (and it certainly wasn't about fraternity). This is why France passes laws that sacrifice the individual freedoms of her citizens in order to achieve a society that looks to some extent homogeneously secular.

Now remember that your freedom stops where the others' start.

How does the fact that other people wear religious symbols stop my freedom at all?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I support such bans but only in certain contexts like school and public service. My take on it is that freedom of religion as a concept should be the protection of individuals from religious dictates. The basis of true freedom of religion is the right to blasphemy, the right to heresy and the right to apostasy.

Banning religious symbols from given public areas send a strong message that:

1- Religion is a choice, never an obligation. Religious obligations have no basis in law, not only are they not upheld by the law, but the law will consciously ignore them and punish anyone trying to force people to respect religious practices.

2- Any religious practice is a choice for individuals. As individuals are free to choose their religion and are not, and can not, be obligated to do anything for their religion, it means the law needs not bend to accommodate religious practices. If you can choose to wear a religious symbol, you can also choose not to wear it, and you must assume the consequences of choosing to wear it.

3- Religion is primarily a private matter, not a public matter to impose on others.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

hagenAUG. 26, 2014 - 09:32PM JST I'm against any ban if they wear it in their home...country.

Key words in this sentence. Home country. If a female arab comes to USA and refuses to take the veil off for an official photo, you should return to your home nation and keep your right to limit public exposure.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

BAN it forever in any public spaces, you can wear your costumes at the privacy of your home, same as you would with sex toys or other private things.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Religion is a SCAM, totally absurd how people get sucked into this, the concept of an all mighty spiritual being existing, REALLY! LOL. Tis the blind being led by the BLIND? No its the blind who have the in ability to rationalize, being conned by opportunists, for the purpose of amassing wealth, and living off the hard work of people! Religeon was created to control SHEEPLE and explain the unknown, blind faith! LOL Id believe ancient astronaut theorists, before I believe, these other cons, the various star religeons from thousands of years ago make more sense. Drp that in your offering basket!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I agree with Probie. People should not move to a new country and expect that country to adapt to them. My grandparents immigrated to Canada from Europe after WW2. They tried their utmost to fit in to Canadian culture as it existed at the time. I moved to Japan in 1997. I did not expect the country to change its ways to suit me. I tried to fit in the best I could. Did that mean giving up certain things? Sure. If I don`t like it, I can go back to where I was born.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Religion is a SCAM, totally absurd how people get sucked into this, the concept of an all mighty spiritual being existing, REALLY! LOL. Tis the blind being led by the BLIND? No its the blind who have the in ability to rationalize, being conned by opportunists, for the purpose of amassing wealth, and living off the hard work of people! Religeon was created to control SHEEPLE and explain the unknown, blind faith! LOL Id believe ancient astronaut theorists, before I believe, these other cons, the various star religeons from thousands of years ago make more sense.

Moderator: This inflammatory post has already been removed twice. Do not post it again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lasolitaria

I'm afraid you're oversimplifying things. Those three words are not a slogan but founding principles of the Republic. The Revolution was not purely about "equality" in the marxist sense but about abolition of privileges earned by birth. Trust me, French society is in many ways less "egalitarian" than you may think.

How does the fact that other people wear religious symbols stop my freedom at all?

I am not going to attempt to explain existentialism to you because I most likely do not qualify to do so. Just ask yourself this: why do you need to wear visible signs of your faith, when as many on this forum noted, your God is in your heart. And again, the ban is a ban in public places; public places are funded by the State and there is separation of the State and Religion in the French constitution. It was challenged at the European Court and upheld based on a "certain idea of living together".

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yes Ban all of it!! Religeon is fake anyways!

Moderator: If you post this again, you will be removed from the discussion board.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BAN it all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you want to teach tolerance, allow tolerance. This is pretty much saying "We don't tolerate you for who you are". Who are we to decide who wears what? It's not like they're showing up in no clothes. This is absolutely absurd.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You can't come to my house and do what you want

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Who are we to decide who wears what? It's not like they're showing up in no clothes.

Actually, it is the same thing. As we don't allow nudity or certain uniforms in public, we may as well prohibit the covering of the face, hair or whatever for the same cultural reasons. Because western culture is not just a spineless, ahistoric construct.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You can't come to my house and do what you want

The House Rule in America is do what you want.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think we should focus on human behavior and acceptable conduct in society. This after the fact clothing ban is ill conceived by the host countries. These banned clothing laws cause countless problems for the citizens or immigrants who have invested in their new countries of choice. Oh well I guess that's one way to Hate !

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It sounds Orwellian ........

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Safety issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

turbotsat: "French ban is racist." / Jimizo: "In what sense is it racist?" / turbotsat: "In that headscarves would not considered an issue worthy of legislation were it not that non-French-ethnicity Muslims were wearing them."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools#History

The fact that most Muslims in France come from former French colonies has added a racist/antiracist tint to the debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, I am opposed to such a ban.

Because the clothes aren't really the issue - the lack of understanding and acceptance between religions is. I support people's right to be religious, providing it doesn't interfere with their sense of universal brother and sisterhood. In a secular society, there should be no such ban providing the people adhere to the recognition of the importance of the ideals of the group as a whole and the common bond amongst all members, which is our humanity first and foremost.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

OK all you safety people. How about the face masks here in Japan? It has been shown in studies that few people need them because of pollen or sickness. More often than not the wearer uses it to be anonymous in public. I have seen people literally brought to tears in airports because security said they HAD to remove the mask.

What about the crosses, stars of David, Tao, and other religious adornments the Japanese wear. You do realize few people here even know it is a religious symbol at all they bought it because it was kawaii. Even if they do know they usually do not know the meaning.

I am against any censorship. It is historically proven to be a slippery slope that leads to ALL rights being ripped from under people. This shows this mentality today that those who disagree are enemies and my view is the right view. A good dose of maturity is needed for today's Participation Trophy mentality.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

People who commenting that you "should have the freedom" to wear whatever you want, you should realize that NOTHING about school is freedom. Your children are required by LAW to attend school, and as such it should be as neutral a zone as possible separate from religion.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites