Tolerance of intolerance is a difficult topic, of course. Should France tolerate intolerance?
> France allows insulting the Prophet (pbuh), but you'll get to jail for insulting the president.
The Prophet is dead but the French president is alive. Even if you have laws promoting a mutually polite society, they don't apply to the dead (any more than for example property rights do -- the dead can't own things either).
>the French president is alive. So what? It's still within my "Freedom of Speech" to say whatever I want, as long as it does not directly incite violence. Regardless of whatever Frances' convenient version is. I believe even the US allows insulting the president.
"Voluntarily", sure.
> So what? It's still within my "Freedom of Speech" to say whatever I want, as long as it does not directly incite violence.
Whatever the court says to be within your rights is the thing that is within your rights. It's the courts that interpret law. Are you a court? Specifically, if you're in France, are you a French court?
There are many who want to voluntarily wear hijab to school in France, but are denied this right. So, my point stands that this "secular" law is intolerant.
>Whatever the court says to be within your rights
Weak argument. Let's say an extremist court says women have no right to education. Or, that blacks are less human, say the have less rights.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/25/insulting-fren...
I still don't see the hypocrisy you speak of, though. France is a reasonably religious country overall but extremely secular when it comes to school and politics. The edicts you describe simply enforce these principles (e.g. "No religious symbols allowed in school, be it a cross, a star of David, a hijab, etc...").
About the hijab. You say "Simply enforce these principles". Yes, and these principles are intolerant, which is my point.
And this pick-and-choosing secularism when convenient, is a type of opression.
The bottom line is that all displays of religion are banned in French schools, which puts everyone on an equal footing. Even religious people should see the value of that, especially if you're part of a minority religion.
Schools are places where you learn, not practice religion. That's what places of worship are for.
Yes, intolerant. But also hypocritical (see the Macron's hypocrisy of free speech).
> which puts everyone on an equal footing
It does not. Some religions mandate certain attire. And certain religions / atheism does not. So, it is not fair for a student to be denied practicing his/her religion, if his/her religion mandates the head scarf. While an atheist has no worry, since he/she has not religous command to wear a certain attire.
> Schools are places where you learn, not practice religion
Who is any person or government to dictate this to me? If I want to voluntarily do something peaceful, I should be able to. What's next, "homes are for living, not religion".
Nobody is forcing anyone to attend public school. Send your kids to a private school if you want.
But if you want to benefit from what public schools have to offer, you have to abide by their rules. And one of them is that expression of religion is banned there.
In much the same way that a guest to your house would have to abide by your rules.
Not in the USA. In this country it's constitutionally protected.