PARIS (ABP) — France's lower house of parliament has voted overwhelmingly to prohibit students from wearing “conspicuous” religious symbols in public schools, sparking an outcry from religious liberty advocates in the United States.
The French National Assembly voted 494 to 36 on Feb. 10 to ban “signs and dress that conspicuously show the religious affiliation of students.” The measure goes to the French Senate next month. If approved, it would take effect in September.
Debate in France over the issue has continued for about 15 years. In 1989, two girls were kicked out of a school near Paris for wearing head scarves, and many others have been expelled since then. If France implements the ban on religious wear in schools, it could violate international commitments the country has made, said Michael Young, chairman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.
The European Convention on Human Rights, endorsed by France, guarantees the rights of individuals to “manifest religion or belief, in public as well as in private,” Young noted in a statement released prior to the French legislature's vote.
“Increased immigration in France in recent years has created new challenges for the French government, including integration of these immigrants into French society, as well as problems of public order,” he said.
“But these challenges should be addressed directly, and not by inappropriately limiting the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief. The French state's promotion of its understanding of the principle of secularism should not result in violations of the internationally recognized individual right to freedom of religion or belief.”
The French National Assembly's vote to ban religious symbols in public schools is “an unfortunate decision borne out of a lot of political considerations and the desire to create a secular culture and what some in this country would call a naked public square,” said Brent Walker, director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, a Washington, D.C.-based religious-liberty group.
While some in the Religious Right have equated church-state separation in the United States with hostility toward religion, he said, the National Assembly's decision shows the French notion of church-state separation is “a whole different ballgame” from the United States' version.
In the United States, church-state separation safeguards free exercise of religion, he stressed. “In the United States, students are allowed — and should be allowed — to wear religious symbols and express themselves and their religious beliefs, as long as those expressions are not disruptive. …If the far right wants to see a truly secular, naked public square, look at the French situation.”
The National Assembly vote signals “religious liberty is at risk in France,” according to Phil Strickland, director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas Christian Life Commission.
“I cannot imagine how the French government finds a compelling reason to tell religious school children what they can or cannot wear,” Strickland said, adding government has no business promoting religion or prohibiting religious expression.
“Will the next step be to prohibit voluntary prayer in schools? The flip side would be what some in the U.S. promote — for the state to require students to pray government-approved prayers. That would be truly scary,” he said.
While the French vote bans all “conspicuous” religious garb — Jewish skull caps and Christian crosses, as well as Muslim head scarves — the measure was directed primarily at Islamic and Sikh immigrants. The danger of any minority religion being singled out always exists, and it should serve as a cautionary word to the U.S., Walker noted.
If American public school students were prevented from wearing religious symbols, it would be “wrong and unconstitutional if it were done across the board. It would be doubly wrong and unconstitutional to single out any particular religious group,” he said.
Nobody in the United States can “get inside the head” of the French legislators and judge their motivations with certainty, but it appears that “an underlying discrimination against Muslims” prompted the National Assembly vote, said Derek Davis, director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University.
“It disturbs me if, in fact, that was the motivation,” he said. “I'm glad I'm not a Muslim woman living in France.”
-30-