Three children walk into a European state school””a Muslim, a Sikh, and an atheist. The Muslim and the Sikh are expelled because they wear religious clothing: a headscarf for the Muslim girl, and a turban for the Sikh boy. The atheist is welcomed into the school, but feels uncomfortable because her classroom has a crucifix on the wall. Whose religious freedom has been violated?
If you said the Muslim and the Sikh, you are wrong””at least according to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court recently shocked Europe by striking down an Italian law that put a crucifix on the wall of every state classroom. (Lautsi v. Italy) According to the Court, the presence of a crucifix interfered with students’ right to choose their own religion (or nonreligion).
Just four months ago, however, the same Court upheld a French law that forbids children from wearing any religious symbols in French government schools. (J. Singh v. France) Under that law, 14-year-old Jasvir Singh, a devout Sikh, was expelled from school for wearing a keski””a small, cloth under-turban similar to the Jewish yarmulke. He was forced to complete his schooling at a more tolerant Catholic school.
If one plays the Sesame Street game of “Which One of These is Not Like the Others”, the display of a crucifix in classrooms of a government school seems to stand out. It is a government expression of religious belief, rather, as is the case with student attire, an individual’s expression of religious conviction. Putting crucifixes on the walls of American government schools would certainly be a pretty much slam-dunk violation of constitutional principles in the United States and, it seems to me, it is not at all surprising that a European Court would find it unacceptable, even under a different constitutional foundation. I’m not sure if the author was trying to say that the crucifix decision is as unacceptable an outcome in his view as the European Court’s upholding of the religious dress prohibitions in France and Turkey, but it strikes me as being a much different issue.
The current French campaign to outlaw all religious-required attire (I think this extends to religious ornamentation also, like visible crucifixes on pendants etc.) is hugely problematic from a human liberties standpoint. I understand that the politics go beyond religious considerations to cultural and social issues. Not sure that means much, however, in the context of this article, which is concerned with freedom of religious expression. It is ironic that the Sikh boy in the article had to go to a Catholic school in order to remain compliant with his religion’s dress requirements. In public schools in the United States, Muslim dress requirements for females appear to be honored. I would think any effort by governments here to limit hair coverings etc. would last about as far as a summary judgment motion in a federal court.
The crucifix decision is problematic because it amounts to a pan-European secularist elite imposing its standards on a member nation whose culture is very different. Italy’s response so far has been, “the court has made its decision, now let it enforce it.” I can see lots of possibilities for straining or breaking the fabric of the European Union in the future if the Brussels busybodies decide that they have been appointed to mold the continent, not just economically or politically, but culturally as well.
#1: US schools used to have daily prayer and Bible reading. For most of American history nobody thought that a violation of the Constitution.
#3: Until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, some areas of the U.S. used to have separate schools for blacks and whites. For a long time nobody thought that a violation of the Constitution.
David Fischler : It’s nothing to do with a “pan-European secularist elite” – why do so many conservative Americans have to conjure up devils everywhere? – but merely a result of the fact that European countries are becoming religiously highly diverse for the first time since the pre-Christian Roman Empire.
Nearly all European countries have poor histories of respecting their religious or ethnic minorities, and it is in the light of that history that we now need to be sure that there is a level playing-field, a situation which is still some way off, as churches across Europe have all sorts of privileges denied to those of other religions or none.
Fortunately for the religious community of this country, No. 3, our constitutional principles caught up with reality. It is very dangerous for religion when government starts monkeying around with non-secular issues. I would no more let a government employee address theological issues with my kids than I would let my mechanic perform open heart surgery on them.
Ember, your offensive reply defies logic and good sense. Re Logic: If nobody thought that a violation of the Constitution, there would never have been a Brown v. Board of Education. Re good sense: With hundreds of thousands of people denied equal access to quality education, it makes no sense that many of them would not have thought that a violation of the founding principles of our nation as found in the Constitution and the bill of rights.