Islam and Life: Religious freedom trumped by school integration

A much needed dialogue which muslims have to have first within themselves and each muslim must first deal with this honestly. This may first be encountered in schools but seems to a part of larger society now.We have also contributed to this monster in equal measure where we made the society aware that we are the other and hence you see the reaction.A minority of us have jammed ourselves into a position where we expect society in the west to respect us and our religious beliefs (whether correct islam or not)but we have no respect for them or their values.The real base of change is home where if we stop deriding other cultures and religions we will have eliminated at least one half of the problem and as more democratic and tolerant muslim youth will emerge this problem will recede as right now the western society is reacting to our extremism by extremism.
In my humble opinion muslims have attached so much importance to symbolism like beard and scarf that the real essence of our beautiful faith is lost .

The mandate of a tax-funded school in a modern, secular democracy is to provide a standardized, basic education to all enrolled children from a local community without regard to race, religion, sex or ethnic origin. This does NOT mean that such schools are “a neutral place where people should be accepted for who they are.”. Nor is it the duty of such schools to cater to the special requests of each and every student.

Accepting the limits of religious freedom

Living in a secular, pluralistic society does not mean that “anything goes”, that everything should be welcomed, accepted or even tolerated. Social cohesion is founded upon essential, shared cultural values. Such values are expressed in laws, institutional rules and unwritten social etiquettes. No one should expect to participate successfully in a social environment if he refuses to accept and abide by its norms.

It is essential to recognize that “freedom of conscience” means ONLY that an individual has the right to believe what he wants, and not be unduly persecuted for his beliefs. Freedom of conscience does NOT guarantee the right to ACT upon your beliefs. For example, a person is entitled to believe in the existence of witches, and to believe that witches should be executed. However, in most modern states, an allegation of witchcraft is not a defense against murder — even if the murderer believes he was acting in self-defense against a threat of witchcraft. A student enrolled in a tax-funded secular school is entitled to believe in gender apartheid, but he is not entitled to demand same-sex teachers or special seating. By virtue of enrolling in the school, he has agreed to abide by its policies.

Many previously accepted religious and cultural behaviors are now almost unanimously rejected by modern societies: Human sacrifice, slavery, gender apartheid, child marriage, imposed genital mutilation, polygamy, euthanasia, capital punishment … Appealing to “freedom of religion” will not persuade anyone that Neo-Aztecs should be permitted to practice human sacrifice. The general consensus of humankind is that religious human sacrifice is not of The Good, and not therefore, a legitimate religious practice.

Religious freedom’s burden of proof

Muslim living in The West are increasingly inclined to make allegations of “islamophobia” or “intolerance,” and to assert that their freedom of conscience and right to practice their religion is being trampled upon. The crux of the problem is this: A fundamental disagreement about what legitimately constitutes a religious practice. The perception of Western non-Muslims is that most of what Muslims claim to do in the name of “religious practice” is merely inherited cultural behavior justified under an absurdly broad umbrella of “religion”.

In a pluralistic society, when a minority creates strife by engaging in abhorrent or socially divisive behaviors in the name of religion, the majority can enact laws prohibiting the offending behavior. The minority then bears the burden of PROVING that the behavior deserves to be protected, by constitutional principles or as a fundamental human right. For example, France has challenged Muslims to present rigorous evidence that female head-covering deserves to be regarded as a legitimate religious practice, rather than a cultural hold-over from the Hammurabi Code in the service of gender apartheid and the general subjugation of women. Instead of crying “Islamophobia,” Muslims should present their evidence and arguments.

Religious expression in secular schools

Professional educators in Western, pluralistic democracies have learned that permitting congregational prayer at tax-funded secular schools is highly problematic. It has been a source of perpetual conflict, with religious minorities being either excluded or heavily coerced. In order to protect freedom of conscience without inciting social conflict, most schools have adopted this policy: They prohibit congregational prayer, but allow students to pray individually, in private, during scheduled recesses.

Any parent who judges, for any reason, that free, tax-funded schools do not address their special concerns should have the right to decline free education. They should be permitted to enroll their children at tuition-funded schools which are willing and able to address their special concerns. Qualified parents should also be entitled to educate their children at home. We would not expect a tax-funded school to cater to the scheduling requirements of a touring teenage violin prodigy, or the practice schedule of an athlete with Olympic aspirations. Nor should we expect a tax-funded school to cater to the holy days or prayer schedules of every religious minority. Rather than bemoaning the restrictions of secular schools in the West, perhaps we would do well to remember that throughout most of the world, the opportunities afforded by universal free education are still just a dream.

The choice

Ultimately, every parent living in a secular democracy which provides free, tax-funded schools must decide: Shall I take the risk of supporting the noble social project of universal free education by subjecting my own precious child to its hazards? The risks of supporting free education are many: Lack of parental control, exposure to unhealthy influences, possible rejection of traditional values. On the other hand, the social risk of NOT embracing free universal education is promoting entrenched social inequality as tax-funded schools become the dumping ground of the poor while the wealthy groom their children in elite colleges.

For those who cannot, or will not, pay for elite schooling, there are ways to work with the educational system, negotiating and making minor compromises. Students can be encouraged to attend congregational prayers before and after school. A school that rejects hijab might turn a blind eye to a modified, less contentious form of symbolic head covering. In practice, schools are run by people, not policies. Parents who volunteer at their children’s schools will rapidly discover that most teachers are willing to be flexible — if they are convinced that it will promote a child’s education and general well-being.

Above all else, parents must never abdicate their essential role as the principle educators of their children. A child who is imbued with a love of learning at home will succeed in school. A child who is imbued with courage and moral values at home will not be led astray in the schoolyard. A child who is imbued with faith at home, will find a way to practice her religion wherever she is.

Salam.

Dear Tariq Ramadan,

Thank you for the stimulating dialogue!

All identities are provisional, and ultimately false. True religion has no form; is not used by form, but uses form and identity skillfully. Most problems in life have their cause in identity, but can also be solved by looking into one’s true identity (non-self, non-identity).

I think religious attributes have their place mainly in religious situations. There is no need to always manifest “your” religion. Since religion, especially “my religion” (contradictory in terms!), have a tendency to get confused with or to align with ethnic identities and politics, which often divides more than they unite, we should be careful not to religionize public life. No religious, ethnic, or national chauvinism!

Religion is basically something for grown-ups, i.e. after puberty, when existential doubts, the qustion of identity, self and others, and questions about the non-compensatorial aspects of life enters.

Of course, parents have the right and duty to inform about their religion, but it should be “religion light”, stories and legends. Later, as grown-ups, the young should have the right to choose their own path, religious or not.

In this context, I think school generally should be secular. Why? It maximizes freedom of learning and choice.

So, even if they are deeply interconnected, don’t confuse essence with form!

Cheers, Björn Lindgren

—

A further comment:

In the 50-60s, I went to an ordinary secular Swedish school, imbued, consciously or unconsciously, with Christian values. One could say these were “Christian culture”, or just empty conventions.

Ever since the 16th century, Sweden has had a State church, which, together with king, gentry, parliament, and government, ruled the country. About one hundred years ago, a quarter of the Swedish population, one million Sweds, emigrated to the United States because of poverty, lack od democray, political and religious oppression. Still today, Sweds are sceptical towards “religion”, and often view it as “oppression”.

Even without religious values in school, I hated school, because it didn’t respect the intrinsic value of knowledge and the joy of learning. School stood in my way, hindrered me to engage, widely and deeply, in what I found interesting, and, again and again, tried to teach me things I’ve never had the interest of or talent for – among them, mathematics. To no avail!

Question: What kind of school would I like to see?
Answer: No school!

Or, to be more precise, a school scetched by Ivan Illich, where learing and teaching takes place all over community and society, and which respects joy of knowledge and learning.

Cheers, Björn Lindgren.

D.N.A. means do not attack. Innate knowledge should be respected. There are some aspects involved with keeping intact: the physical state, being in the best place in the world, and being with family, all of which are associated with a closeness to Allah (S.B.T.). Body chemistry is found in the natural state, finding balance between nature and city life, with a closeness to Allah (S.B.T.). Every individual should defend himself/herself for living the truth, being close to Allah (S.B.T.). Therefore Psyche authorities and law don’t represent that person unless that person is respected. Psychological determination, brightness, smartness, and I.Q., for instance, are Western principelled concepts that adhere to Satanic play. The only accepted faulty human traits in society that are detrimental to everyone concerned are selfishness, depression/unhappiness and finishing someone off. Happy people are discontinued from moving forward.