Religion is very complicated in France. It’s almost as complicated as anti-religion traditions in France.

This makes it very hard for journalists to draw a line between the “good” religious believers and the “bad” religious believers, as well as the “good” anti-religion leaders and the “bad” anti-religious leaders.

For example, if a politician opposes public displays of religious tradition by Muslims, is that “good” anti-religion or “bad” anti-religion? After all, it could be see as logical after generations of French opposition to similar symbolic gestures by Catholics, Jews, etc. Ah, but what this action can be seen as opposition to European Union support for welcoming immigrants, no matter what?

Those seeking a quick glance at recent scenes in this complicated drama can surf through these GetReligion posts — “France's high court clears up burkini's legality; mainstream media still muddy the waters” and “More secular attacks on burkinis: The New York Times explains why this is not about religion.”

As with the burkini battles, France is now wrestling with another conflict about women, especially school girls, who choose to be modest for bad reasons. The New York Times has published a solid, fascinating report that ran with this complicated (which is fitting) double-decker headline:

France to Ban Full-Length Muslim Robes in Public Schools

Religious symbols are already banned in French schools, but the abaya — a loosefitting robe worn by some Muslim women — was in a gray area. Critics called the measure discriminatory

Ah, but what if there is nothing distinctively or historically Muslim about a particular garment?

What is the difference between a “good” evening gown that is dramatic (and modest) and a “bad” everyday gown that is dramatic and modest? The issue, of course, is whether the gown is worn for religious reasons. In this overture, note the distinction between an “abaya” and the “niqab,” which covers the face. (Oh, and note “children” in the lede, as opposed to “girls.”)

France will bar children in public schools from wearing the abaya, a loosefitting, full-length robe worn by some Muslim women, the government said this week. It said the measure was necessary to stem a growing number of disputes in its secular school system.

But critics called the ban a discriminatory policing of teenagers’ clothing, fueling yet another debate in France over the way Muslim women dress, which has become a recurring flashpoint in the country’s relations with its Muslim minority.

Since 2004, middle and high-school students in France have been barred from wearing “ostentatious” symbols that have a clear religious meaning, like a Catholic cross, a Jewish skullcap or a Muslim head scarf. Since 2011, it has also been illegal to wear a face-covering veil in public in France.

So, what is an “abaya.”

The abaya, however — a long dress that covers the legs and arms, but not the hands, feet or head — falls into a gray area. While it is popular in the Gulf and in some Arab countries, it does not have a clear religious significance.

What is the difference between an “abaya” and a formal, secular gown? Once again, whether this is a crime against France depends on the motive of the female wearing the garment.

The Times article wades right into this issue and, frankly, it’s hard to know how to improve this next complicated chunk of background material, which open with quotes from Gabriel Attal, the nation’s education minister:

Mr. Attal said attacks on the principle of laïcité — France’s version of secularism, which guarantees freedom of conscience but also the neutrality of the state and of some public spaces — had “increased considerably” in French schools.

“When you enter a classroom, you should not be able to distinguish or identify the students’ religion by looking at them,” Mr. Attal told the TF1 television channel on Sunday.

Laïcité applies to numerous public institutions — public hospital employees, for instance, cannot wear religious clothing — and there is strong cultural aversion to public expressions of faith. …

Laïcité came out of the Enlightenment philosophy of the 18th century but was also the result of a centuries-long battle to reject the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in schools, which are now widely seen as neutral spaces that forge citizenship and where students can be shielded from religious influences.

News consumers in America will, of course, see parallels to emerging church-state, First Amendment battles on this side of the Atlantic.

Consider headlines in Maryland about the evolving role of public schools in teaching “tolerance” — which means support for “good,” progressive or private forms of religious expression, as opposed to “bad” forms of religion that actually affect public actions and statements by believers.

Now, is it “good” or “bad” to support this abaya ban? This is where things get really complicated for the Times team. Again, read this carefully:

Official statistics show the number of incidents related to laïcité reported by school officials has increased, to anywhere between 200 to 900 per month over the past year, among a middle- and high-school student population of nearly six million. …

Sophie Vénétitay, the head of one of the main teacher unions, called the ban a “political maneuver” by President Emmanuel Macron to curry favor with the right. But, she added, abayas were a real issue that should neither be “overestimated nor underestimated.”

“There would be nothing worse than for those pupils, through provocation, misunderstanding or frustration, to turn away from state schools and go to denominational or private schools,” Ms. Vénétitay said at a news conference.

Now, there’s a puzzle. Will pushing Muslim children out of state schools help, or hurt, educators whose goal is to baptize students into the nation’s unique approach to “good” anti-religion doctrines? What if this action increases enrollment numbers in Catholic and Muslims schools?

Oh, and the political implications! What if this “bad” form of anti-religion policy, in the short run, ends up helping right-wing leaders? What is a tolerant, “good” anti-religion French citizen supposed to believe about this? How about a New York Times editor?

I will end with an interesting hole in this report. The Times story does note:

France was recently scarred by the killing of Samuel Paty, a teacher who showed caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in class to illustrate free speech, which led to his beheading in 2020 by an Islamist fanatic.

That school attack is certainly relevant. But what about the recent history of increased violence in France against Catholics and churches? That trend further complicates the “good” religion vs. “bad” religion context of this debate. France has been forced to increase funding for security efforts near churches.

When reading this story, I was — yes, I admit that this is rather bizarre — reminded of this now classic Saturday Night Live skit. Does anyone else see a connection?

FIRST IMAGE: Abaya options for sale at Alibana.com