Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Religion in the Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of German, Israeli, American and International Law pp 199–242Cite as

Religious Garments in Public Schools in Separation Systems: France and the United States of America

  • Conference paper

  • 661 Accesses

Part of the book series: Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht ((BEITRÄGE,volume 190))

Abstract

This article will examine the impact that so-called “separation systems”, in particular the French and the U.S. systems, have on the range of the freedom of religion. It is characteristic of such systems that the state keeps separated from the church in all respects, namely refrains from financing churches, using its agents, displaying religious signs in public buildings, etc. Focusing on the right to wear religious garments in public schools, either by students or by teachers, this study tries to analyse similarities and discrepancies in a closely-defined field, which is specific enough for comparative analysis and yet also allows for some further conclusions about the significance of the separation system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. For details see S. Monsma, Positive Neutrality, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See, e.g., Matthew 22:21 (“Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”).

    Google Scholar 

  3. See Judgment of the Swiss Federal Court of 12 November 1997, Entscheidungen des Schweizerischen Bundesgerichts/Arrêts du Tribunal Fédéral Suisse (BGE/ATF), vol. 123 I, 296 et seq. (X. contre Conseil d’État du canton de Genève [in French]); European Court of Human Rights, Appl. No. 42393/98 (Dahlab v. Switzerland), Reports 2001-V.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See Art. 2 of the Constitution of the Turkish Republic of 1982 (accordingly Art. 2 of the Constitutions of 1924 and 1961). For details pertaining to the wearing of religious garments in public institutions see European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 29 June 2004, Appl. No. 4474/98 (Şahin v. Turkey), §§ 27 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See C. Gusy, Kopftuch — Laizismus — Neutralität, Kritische Vierteljahresschrift (KritV) 2004, 153, at 155 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See generally J. Cornec, La laïcité, 1961; L. Mejan, La séparation des églises et de l’état, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See N. Chauvin, Laïcité scolaire et protection des élèves, Revue administrative 1997, 10, at 11: “l’école du diable”, “l’école-sans-dieu”.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See T.J. Gunn, Under God but Not the Scarf: The Founding Myths of Religious Freedom in the United States and Laïcité in France, Journal of Church and State 46 (2004), 7, at 13.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Loi du 9 décembre 1905 concernant la séparation des Eglises et de l’Etat. See R. Piastra, De la loi de 1905, Recueil Dalloz 181 (2005), 1876.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung No. 38 of 15 February 2005, at 2 („Frankreich würdigt sein Laizitätsgesetz“).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Judgment of 10 May 1912, Recueil des Arrêts du Conseil d’état 1912, 561.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See H. Franzke, Die Laizität als staatskirchenrechtliches Leitprinzip Frankreichs, Die Öffentliche Verwaltung (DÖV) 2004, 383, at 383, referring to Bedouelle/Costa, Les laïcités à la française, 1998, 6, at 9 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See, e.g., Recueil des Arrêts du Conseil d’État 1992, 389 (Kherouaa); 1994, 129 (Yilmaz); 1995, 122, at 123 (Aoukili); 1996, 187, at 188 (Ali).

    Google Scholar 

  14. See, e.g., Circulaire of 12 December 1989 of the Minister of State, Minister of National Education on Youth and Sports (socialist L. Jospin), Journal officiel, 15 December 1989, 15577; commented on by C. Durand-Prinborgne, La circulaire Jospin du 12 décembre 1989, RFDA 1990, 10 et seq. After the Parliamentary election of 1993 the new (conservative) minister, F. Bayrou, issued the Circulaire of 20 September 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Judgment of 2 November 1992 — Kherouaa, Kachour, Balo et Kizic, Recueil des Arrêts du Conseil d’état 1992, 389 (= AJDA 1992, 833, annotated by M. Schwartz, id. 788).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cf. M. Troper, The Problem of the Islamic Veil and the Principle of School Neutrality in France, in: A. Sajó/ Sh. Avineri (eds.), The Law of Religious Identity, 1999, 89, at 96.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Judgment of 14 March 1994 — N. et Z. Yilmaz, Recueil des Arrêts du Conseil d’État 1994, 129.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Judgment of 20 May 1996 — Ministre de l’éducation nationale v. Ali, Recueil des Arrêts du Conseil d’État 1996, 187.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Judgment of 20 May 1996 — Ministre de l’éducation nationale v. Outamghart.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Judgment of 27 November 1996 — Ligue islamique, Chabou, Moussaoui et alt. See Internet (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/alain.complido/CE_Ligue%20islamique.htm; 3 August 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Judgment of 10 March 1995, Recueil des Arrêts du Conseil d’État 1995, 122.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Judgment of 3 May 2000, Recueil des Arrêts du Conseil d’État 2000, 169.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cf. TA Versailles of 14 April 1992 (Brazza): “Mlle Brazza portait en permanence, dans le collège, un foulard islamique et a refusé de s’en séparer malgré la demande qui lui en avait été faite par le principal du collège; qu’alors qu’elle exerçait une fonction éducative, son attitude était de nature à porter atteinte à la liberté de conscience des élèves dont elle avait la charge.” (RJIF 1993, 77; annotated by Cayla).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Loi no 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics, Journal Officiel of 17 March 2004, 5190.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cf. P. Malaurie, Laïcité, voile islamique et réforme législative, La semaine juridique 2004, 607, at 610.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Journal Officiel of 22 May 2004, 9033. See O. Dord, Laïcité à l’école: l’obscure clarté de la circulaire ‘Fillon’ du 18 mai 2004, L’Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif (AJDA) 60 (2004), 1523 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  27. The prohibition of “endorsement” precludes government from conveying the message that a particular religious belief is favoured or preferred. See U.S. Supreme Court in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  28. See K. Sullivan/ G. Gunther, Constitutional Law, 15th ed., 2004, 1436.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cf. L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 2nd ed., 1988, § 14-3.

    Google Scholar 

  30. See Isaiah 49:23 (“Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers.”). According to this, e.g., Queen Elizabeth I was called “Nource of the Church” by the Bishop of Salisbury. See J. Jewel, A Defence of the Apologie of the Churche of Englande, London 1570.

    Google Scholar 

  31. See Library of Congress, Religion and the State Governments (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic), V. State Governments. See www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html; 1 April 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bill of Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from Account of Frame of Government agreed upon by the Delegates of the People, Boston 1780. See Library of Congress (note 55).

    Google Scholar 

  33. J. Madison, To the Honourable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia: A Memorial and Remonstrance, June 1785.

    Google Scholar 

  34. T. Jefferson, An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, January 1786 (July 1786).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Library of Congress (note 55).

    Google Scholar 

  36. See K. Sullivan/ G. Gunther, Constitutional Law (note 52), 1439.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See J. Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance (note 57), particularly Nos. 7, 9.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Cited by Supreme Court Justice Black in Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

    Google Scholar 

  39. See E. Chemerinsky, Neutrality in Establishment Clause Interpretation: A Potentially Radical Right Turn, in: S. V. Monsma (ed.), Church-State Relations in Crisis: Debating Neutrality, 2002, 211–221 (with further references).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cf. Supreme Court of Oregon, 723 Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, 298, at 310 (Cooper v. Eugene School District; see infra III.2.2.2.a) aa).

    Google Scholar 

  41. J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 594, § 1877 (1851). Quoted after Supreme Court of Oregon (note 64), at 310, note 15.

    Google Scholar 

  42. “No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, [...], shall ever be under the control of any religious sect or denomination [...].” Quoted after U.S. Supreme Court in McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, at 218.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See Supreme Court of Oregon (note 64), at 308. See also U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in U.S.A. v. Board of Education for the School District of Philadelphia (note 114) 894 respecting the Pennsylvania religious garb bill of 1895.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See H. Bastian, Religious Garb Statutes and Title VII: An Uneasy Coexistence, 80 Georgetown Law Journal 211, note 4 with further references.

    Google Scholar 

  45. See note 62.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See Sullivan/Gunther, Constitutional Law G. Gunther, Constitutional Law, 15th ed., 2004 (note 52), 1434.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 403 U.S. 602, 612–613 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 492 U.S. 573, 580-581 (1989) — County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 465 U.S. 668, 671 (1984). See J. Stronks, The O’Connor Concurring Opinion, in: Monsma (note 63) 127, at 129 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 393 U.S. 503 (1969) — Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 374 U.S. 398 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  52. 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  53. 475 U.S. 503 (1986). See for similar cases U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Sherwood v. Brown (1980), 619 F.2d 47; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Bitterman v. Secretary of Defence (1986), 553 F.Supp. 719.

    Google Scholar 

  54. See D. Carpenter, Free Exercise and Dress Codes: Toward More Consistent Protection of a Fundamental Right, 63 Indiana Law Journal 601, at 607–608 (1987/1988), approving Justice O’Connor’s “cogent dissent”.

    Google Scholar 

  55. There are few exceptions, See III.2.1. (note 81).

    Google Scholar 

  56. See, however, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board (2001), 240 F.3d 437. This case deals with the freedom of speech.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Judgment of 17 November 1981, 527 F.Supp. 637.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Judgment of 30 June 1982, 683 F.2d 1030.

    Google Scholar 

  59. See Cudahy, Circuit Judge, dissenting; and also Carpenter (note 79, at 609 et seq.) blaming the Menora Court for incompletely applying the strict scrutiny analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Judgment of 17 January 1983, 459 U.S. 1156, Justices Marshall and Blackmun dissenting.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Judgment of 12 October 1995, 67 F.3d 883, 135 A.L.R. Fed. 675.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Judgment of 30 March 1999, 40 F.Supp. 2d 335. My gratitude to S. Mahmud, Esq., Minnesota, who kindly informed me of this case.

    Google Scholar 

  63. See Find Law, Legal News and Commentary, 15 April 2004 (http://news.findlaw.com/; 19 April 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  64. A comprehensive survey on the jurisprudence was published in 1958. See L. Tellier, Wearing of religious garb by public-school teachers (Annotation), 60 ALR2d (American Law Reports, 2nd ed.) 300 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  65. See Encyclopedia Britannica (www.britannica.com/eb/article-78281/Pennsylvania#613759.hook; 2 May 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  66. See infra III.2.2.2.a) bb) on U.S.A. v. Board of Education for the School District of Philadelphia (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  67. See also Zellers v. Huff, infra (note 97).

    Google Scholar 

  68. See Encyclopedia Britannica (www.britannica.com/eb/article-78845/North-Dakota; 2 May 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  69. See Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568489_6____59/Arkansas.html#s59; 18 August 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  70. The Catholic influence traces back to the early 19th century when a great number of Catholics, particularly from Maryland, had immigrated to Kentucky encouraging the establishment of Catholic institutions like the diocesan see at Bardstown in 1808 or the founding of orders like the Sisters of Loretto and the Sisters of Charity of Nazareth. While members of the Roman Catholic Church represent about one sixth of all church members, Kentucky is a predominantly Protestant state where the “revivalist movement” has always played an important role. Cf. T. Matthews (Wake Forest University), Lecture 14: For a Review of the History of Catholicism in the United States, Catholicism in the South, published in the Internet (www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/south/fourteen.html; 5 August 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  71. See Carpenter (note 79), at 619.

    Google Scholar 

  72. This Statute, which was enacted after the judgment in Hysong v. Gallitzin Borough School District (1894) has been delivered (see supra III.2.2.1.), was attacked as unconstitutional but was upheld as reasonable restraint in Commonwealth v. Herr (1910), 229 Pa 132, 78 A 68.

    Google Scholar 

  73. See, e.g., Bastian (note 69), particularly at 213 (“court failed to address the most pressing issue”), 225 (“inartful and superficial”), 226 (inappropriately relying on summary dispositions of the U.S. Supreme Court). Despite all polemics, Bastian convincingly ponders how the garb statute could ever be compelled by the Establishment Clause, if only three other states have such statutes. This would lead to the conclusion that the remaining forty-seven states continuously violate the First Amendment.

    Google Scholar 

  74. McGlothin v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, Judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Mississippi of 30 November 1992, 829 F.Supp. 853.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Brown v. Pena, 441 F.Supp. 1382, at 1385.

    Google Scholar 

  76. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit interpreting Cooper (note 108, at 308) in U.S.A. v. Board of Education for the School District of Philadelphia (note 114), at 888: “In so holding, the Cooper court did not conclude that tolerating religious garb in the classroom would violate the establishment clause, but rather that a rule against such religious dress is permissible to avoid the appearance of sectarian influence, favouritism, or official approval in the public school. The policy choice must be made in the first instance by those with lawmaking or delegated authority to make rules for the schools.” See also id., at 889 (note 5).

    Google Scholar 

  77. U.S. Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), at 687, at 1366 (Justice O’Connor concurring).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Cf. U.S. Supreme Court (Justice Brennan) in Edwards, 482 U.S. 578, at 584; 107 S.Ct. 2573, at 2577.

    Google Scholar 

  79. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in U.S.A. v. Board of Education for the School District of Philadelphia (note 114), at 899.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Cf. U.S. Supreme Court (Justice Brennan) in Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, at 390; 105 S.Ct. 3216, at 3226.

    Google Scholar 

  81. See Bastian (note 69), at 227–228.

    Google Scholar 

  82. See U.S. Supreme Court in Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1337 (1986), Justice Burger dissenting.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Bastian (note 69), at 230.

    Google Scholar 

  84. ECHR, Appl. Nos. 31417/96 and 32377/96 (Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom), §§ 93 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Gunn (note 14), at 7. See also R. Teitel, Through the Veil, Darkly: Why France’s Ban on the Wearing of Religious Symbols is Even More Pernicious than it Appears, Findlaw Commentary of 16 February 2004 (http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/commentary/20040216_teitel.html; visited on 3 June 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  86. See, e.g., F. Bussy, Le débat sur la laïcité et la loi, Recueil Dalloz 180 (2004), 2666, at 2667: “la volonté de lutter contre le communautarisme”; A. Garay/E. Tawil, Tumulte autour de la laïcité, Recueil Dalloz 180 (2004), 225, at 226: “refus du ‘communautarisme.’”

    Google Scholar 

  87. Le Chapelier Act of 1790 prohibited every association (groupes intermédiaires).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Cf. Troper Sh. Avineri (eds.), The Law of Religious Identity, 1999, 89 (note 32), at 101.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Cf. H. Godfrey, School’s bid for headscarf ban widens French divide, “The Observer” of 15 June 2003. I would not follow the author’s presumption that “ [s]chool is to forge future citizens, and civic is secular”, because society other than state institutions must not be secular. See also Troper (note 32), at 92, according to whom “schools were to be a part of the integrating machinery of the state”.

    Google Scholar 

  90. It goes too far to blame the Conseil d’État for not really balancing the principles of laicism and neutrality against individual freedom, but using instead its balancing technique “to camouflage the commitment of its members to this ideology”. See Troper Sh. Avineri (eds.), The Law of Religious Identity, 1999, 89 (note 32), at 101.

    Google Scholar 

  91. See European Court of Human Rights, Judgments of 29 June 2004 and of 10 November 2005, Appl. No. 44774/98 (Şahin v. Turkey), §§ 99 et seq. (with further references). See also Dahlab v. Switzerland (supra note 3).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Cf. Garay/Tawil E. Tawil, Tumulte autour de la laïcité, Recueil Dalloz 180 (2004), 225 (note 139), at 228, criticising that the application of the law depends on the local circumstances, particularly that it does not apply to the province of Alsace-Lorraine. The authors also refer to the Stasi Commission according to which “laicism has not the same shape in Paris as it has in Strasbourg, Cayenne or Mayotte”.

    Google Scholar 

  93. See W. Brugger, On the relationship between structural norms and constitutional rights in church-state relations, in this volume, 21 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  94. For the convergence theory see Brugger (note 148) with further references.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law Faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg

    Dagmar Richter (started her professional career)

Authors
  1. Dagmar Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy of Law and Theory of the State, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg

    Winfried Brugger (Professor of Public Law) (Professor of Public Law)

  2. Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Jerusalem

    Michael Karayanni (Edward S. Silver Senior Lectureship in Law) (Edward S. Silver Senior Lectureship in Law)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., to be exercised by Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Richter, D. (2007). Religious Garments in Public Schools in Separation Systems: France and the United States of America. In: Brugger, W., Karayanni, M. (eds) Religion in the Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of German, Israeli, American and International Law. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 190. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73357-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation