France’s Ban on Religious Symbols:

An Infringement on Rights or an Act to Protect Secularism?

By Mohammed ElFakhani

March/April 2004

“When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free.” The words of two-time New York Governor Charles Evans Hughes ring truer today than ever before in the wake of the recently passed laws in France banning the wearing of religious symbols in public schools.

This statement, though seemingly extreme, is rather well placed when one considers that this law is the first of its kind for any country that claims to be multicultural, multilingual, multireligious and any other “multi” one can conjure.

For most people, unaffected by the new law passed in France, the decision seems not to be of much importance. Justifications commonly heard are, “they just want to lessen the tension between people,” or “What’s the big deal? This will decrease problems between students.”

Yet, the French decision is not one to be taken lightly. The concept of freedom is extremely intertwined with that of difference. When there is freedom of speech, of dress, of action and so on, there is difference. With difference comes curiosity and intrigue. With curiosity and intrigue, comes human advancement.

Ray Bradbury, in his book, Fahrenheit 451, written in 1953, anticipated a future world where the written word is banned and the “leaders” decide to what people can have access. This is portrayed as what is “best for the people,” who are not ready to decide for themselves. A world where difference is dangerous since man is deemed too savage to handle even the smallest contrasts.

Other suggested readings include, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1931) or George Orwell’s 1984. Real, wonderful and thought-provoking books portraying a world where man arrives at a state where we can no longer tolerate difference of any kind, whether in opinions, customs or even dress code. This world is a place where books and freethinking would be banned since people could not live with difference.

It’s a sad, sad day when one student is tormented to the bone at the sight of a fellow student wearing a religious icon. It’s a sad, sad day when we can no longer tolerate people that have differing beliefs than our own.

In defense of the proposed ban, French officials state the new law would be an effort to promote secularism and a separation between religion and the state within France. This is so far from being true since this decision does no such thing. What I am saying is nothing new. Numerous politicians and academicians have said the same. The separation between religion and the state is a completely different issue that does not touch upon what people choose to wear. This is absolutely ridiculous.

The European Middle Ages were a time where the Church ruled the state, a time where conformity with religious civil laws was mandatory to all. What has changed since then? The world’s countries that we now look up to as the models of multi-everything, with utmost respect for all, have provided the simple yet complex notion of freedom to their citizens. One is free. Freedom leads to exploration and initiative, which in turn lead to human progress. The same enormous leap in human advancement we have undergone in the last 50 years.

The French decision is an extremely backwardly one. The human philosophies and cultures that we adore and cherish very much thrive on difference. Pick up the book Fahrenheit 451 and read. What would it be like to live in a world where watching mindless soap operas for hours is the norm, a world where everyone dressed the same, talked the same, and heard the same propaganda, a world lacking a freedom to choose your belief system.

It would be a sad, sad world if Pierre were walking down the hall of his school with a small cross around his neck and he irritated Maha. It would be a sad, sad world if a young woman had to show her hair to avoid the risk of offending Ivan.

Some people fear the heavy metal punk generation with their spiky hair, numerous tattoos, piercings and black clothing. I have friends whose appearance would seriously frighten my grandmother, yet whose inner sense of world responsibility would amaze anyone, people who, though always dress in black with black hair and long black trench coats, have a deep love for humanity and individuality, really interesting people. But they’re different. And the French government does not feel that its people are ready to accept such differences.

Tolerance and acknowledgement of difference are not that difficult to promote in a society. Rather than promoting intolerance and lack of difference, educational systems can instead attempt to instill tolerance into children starting at a very young age by inserting this subject into the curriculum of every year of a student’s education whether through books, artwork, movies, essays or any other form of education.

The French decision does the exact opposite of this. The next generation of students will lack respect and tolerance of difference. It will be a generation that sees difference harmful and dangerous.

What will come next? Maybe standardized clothing, or how about police road stops where all beards would have to be shaved, or maybe we could ban all religious and philosophical books. Maybe one political party would be better than three. And of course, Marilyn Manson would have to go.

Mohammed ElFakhani is a Medical Student at the American University of Beirut. He wrote this article for Alternative