Article 9 of the European Court of Human Rights: 1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2) Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others. The argument that ‘religious symbols in state schools should not be visible’ creates a tension between church and state with the former being personal whilst the latter is specifically public. Through 9.1 and 9.2 above, one can observe the distinction between the *internal* and *external*. Although the ECHR maintains that the inner realm of thinking and believing should be free with no coercion that could impair this freedom, it also clearly maintains that the external manifestation of such free thought and belief may be limited by the law if necessary. This distinction, therefore, seems like a clear indication that ‘religious symbols in state schools should not be visible’. In 2004, France, as a secular state, saw banning religious symbols in public as necessary and since then many other countries have had to appeal to the law to solve issues of the sort. In the case of Shabina Begum (2006), decisions were conflicting as the High Court and the House of Lords favoured this proposed argument whilst the Court of Appeal disagreed that her choice in the Muslim jibab instead of the shalwar-kameez school uniform should be banned. With Cherie Blair (the ex-Prime-Minister’s wife) backing this pupil, it is clear that such argument is highly controversial. Begum lost the case against her school on the grounds of 9.2, her religious symbols could be limited due to the health and safety of herself and others. For example, other female students of the Luton-based Denbigh High School could feel pressure to adopt this more extreme religious dress, but also, she could face exclusion and bullying. Myfanwi Franks (2000) reported that white British Muslim women received racial abuse while wearing the hijab proving that such bullying was much less about ethnicity and more about clothing. Furthermore, as well as violating school uniform policy, religious symbols can make it difficult for pupils to integrate and for teachers to interpret facial expressions, both of which inhibit a pupil’s learning experience. However, the law favoured against the stance that ‘religious symbols in state schools should not be visible’ in the case of Lautsi vs Italy (2011) where, strangely, it was the state not the individual that was advocating for the display of the crucifix. After a mother of two raised concerns about her children’s freedom of religion (agnosticism and atheism are included in this term in law), the Lower Chamber of the ECHR agreed whilst the Grand Chamber denied the request of removing symbols. The Grand Chamber concluded that no violation of freedoms was occurring, instead the crucifix is a passive symbol and a part of the Italian history and state. This ECHR decision, however, becomes very controversial when set against the Dahlab vs Switzerland case in which a primary school teacher was prohibited from wearing a hijab because of the “impact that a powerful external symbol such as the wearing of a headscarf may have on the freedom of conscience and religion of very young children… [the headscarf] might have some kind of proselytising effect”. Therefore, lines between state and religion become blurred meaning that authorities in law provide varying contentious opinions. To keep things simple though: ‘religious symbols in state schools should not be visible’. European Court of Human Rights (2020). ‘Freedom of thought, conscience and religion’, Guide on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Accessible at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_9_eng.pdf The Editors (2006). ‘Begum v Headteacher and Governing Body of Denbigh High School’, Croner-i. Accessible at: https://app.croneri.co.uk/law-and-guidance/case-reports/begum-v-headteacher-and-governing-body-denbigh-high-school-2006-ukhl Franks, Myfanwi (2000). ‘Crossing the borders of whiteness? White Muslim women who wear the hijab in Britain today’. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23(5): 917–29.

I understand that religious symbols may and do create prejudice and reinforce bullying in many cases, which is one of the primary arguments for banning religious symbols in state schools. However, schools are places where people are in the process of developing their own identities, and for religious people religion is a big part of their identities. Banning religious symbols in state schools, therefore, can be a violation of a person's personal freedom. Noshin Jannat acknowledges this by arguing that 'we become socialised and conditioned in these settings [schools], to believe what we are shown and what we are taught. Therefore, teaching young children that wearing religious emblems is wrong is dangerous, because they might internalise beliefs and values that religion has no truth, or that it is not ‘normal’ to follow one by marginalising those who wear such garments'. Stigmatising religious people (whatever religion this is) is a violation of human rights and as much a serious discrimination and bullying as other forms which can affect a person's perception of themselves and their lives. State schools are public places that should foster difference and respect personal beliefs. A case in point is Sarika Singh from South Wales who 'was not allowed to wear a religious bangle to school' and made a case for discrimination, which she won. The school's argument was that her religious bangle was violating the school uniform policy, and therefore should be removed. However, the court ruled that wearing the religious symbol was 'an expression of her Sikh faith and that she was a victim of unlawful discrimination'. There are many cases like this in the UK, and they create real problems for a lot of people. Therefore, I believe that religious symbols should not be banned from state schools. Works Cited 'School and religious symbol cases' (2008) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7530726.stm> [accessed 15 January 2021]. Jannat, Noshin, 'Should the Display of Religious Symbols in Schools be Banned?' (2018) <https://www.theylj.co.uk/should-the-display-of-religious-symbols-in-schools-be-banned/> [accessed 15 January 2021].

This opinion is ambiguous. Does it mean that the state shouldn't be endorsing religious imagery, or does it mean that the students shouldn't be allowed to, say, wear a cross that they brought from home? Any school endorsing religion needs to be fixed or burnt to the fucking ground. No exceptions, no compromise: Religion, outside of its academic value, has no place in schools. Any school that would stop a kid from wearing a cross, or praying during downtime, ALSO needs to be fixed or burnt to the fucking ground. ALSO no exceptions, no compromise. Schools should be given as little freedom as possible to fuck with the lives of their students.

As long as they are used in a proper way (educational rather than propaganda) I have no problem. If the school were trying to force children to be religious then I would not like my children there.

Surely this depends on the religion of the state in question? Here in the UK our state religion is the Church of England and so there are many schools which contain symbolism relevent to that. (For what it's worth there are Catholic as well). But in the same way I would think it normal to have Islamic schools in say Pakistan or Iran which contain their religious symbols.

The visibility of religious symbols in state schools is a contentious issue, and there are strong arguments for maintaining a secular environment in public education. For: Secularism: Public schools should maintain a neutral stance on religion to respect the diverse beliefs of all students. Visible religious symbols can be seen as an endorsement of a particular religion, which goes against the principle of secularism. Inclusivity: Removing visible religious symbols can create a more inclusive environment for students of all backgrounds. It helps prevent the alienation of those who may not share the dominant religious beliefs and promotes equality. Focus on Education: The primary purpose of schools is to educate. Visible religious symbols can distract from this goal and lead to unnecessary conflicts and divisions among students and staff. Legal Precedents: Many countries have legal frameworks that support the separation of religion and state, including in public education. Ensuring that religious symbols are not visible aligns with these legal standards and helps avoid potential legal disputes. Against: Freedom of Expression: Opponents argue that banning religious symbols infringes on individuals' rights to express their religious beliefs. However, in a public school setting, the focus is on maintaining neutrality rather than limiting personal expression in private or non-state contexts. Cultural Identity: Some believe that religious symbols are an important part of cultural identity and heritage. While this is valid, state schools need to balance cultural expression with the principles of secular education.