NationStates Jolt Archive

As a knee jerk thing, I share your aversion to conformity. Many of the more worrysome aspects of contemporary society, as I see them, can be laid at the door of conformity (bear in mind, I still haven't made up my mind which way to vote on this issue). Do you not see the possibility, however, that it could be the part of an education system to provide the freedom to a child to form a code of beliefs, at least in part, away from the controlling influence of their patriarchal forebears?

A child has no freedom to form a code of beliefs if it is not exposed to varying views. If a child never sees a headscarf, how can that child be aware that some people wear them and be able to ask why? Likewise, if child feels so uncomfortable without one that she can only attend a school with others who wear them, how will she ever be exposed to the viewpoints of those who do not wear them, in order to determine whether or not she really wants to?

I'm not American so it makes little diffence to me. If a religon demands you to break the law should the religion be excused?

That's just the thing, the law demands freedom of speech and free exersize of religion as long as they don't directly violate someone else's rights, which a head scarf clearly doesn't.

A) While that may or may not be true, if it targets all head wear/all religious symbols it is not raceist. Also if the school says "Uniform specified only" and not "No X, Y, or Z" then its hardly raceist. Its just a case of "That doesnt conform to school rules"

A rule made specifically targetted at a given group is bigotted, even if the actual language is not.

B) No. But there is a simple reason for that. Shirts are the primary and simplest of torso garmentry. Without it you would be very cold. And also it is banning a piece of clothing in a specific enviroment because of specific rules.

Wrong. You cannot say that a school can ban one article of clothing that a student feels they should wear and that the school cannot ban another. If a school can force a girl to go without something that is a primary article of clothing to her, it can do the same for *all* students. As such, it could ban undergarments, shirts, pants, shoes, or what-have-you.

Look out, your hypocrisy is showing.

That's just the thing, the law demands freedom of speech and free exersize of religion as long as they don't directly violate someone else's rights, which a head scarf clearly doesn't.

What about rule of law (In schools is a little bit mean but you get my idea) ie everyone treeted equally under the rules. Muslims get an excuse. Thats a little unfair to all the others who are not allowed to wear headgear.

Wrong. You cannot say that a school can ban one article of clothing that a student feels they should wear and that the school cannot ban another. If a school can force a girl to go without something that is a primary article of clothing to her, it can do the same for *all* students. As such, it could ban undergarments, shirts, pants, shoes, or what-have-you.


There is a simple practical reason not to ban shirts. You would get cold. Their is no such reason for headscarfs. I quite support the principal of schools banning whatever they want, I am just saying its stupid to do the shirts one as you would get cold. Go on, ban whatever you want. Die of hypothermioa, whatever.

A child has no freedom to form a code of beliefs if it is not exposed to varying views. If a child never sees a headscarf, how can that child be aware that some people wear them and be able to ask why? Likewise, if child feels so uncomfortable without one that she can only attend a school with others who wear them, how will she ever be exposed to the viewpoints of those who do not wear them, in order to determine whether or not she really wants to?

Dem, I just wanted to take a moment to express that I find you defense of personal freedoms to be in the highest order of true American values that this country was founded on. And that it is exemplary and worthy of commendation.

A child has no freedom to form a code of beliefs if it is not exposed to varying views. If a child never sees a headscarf, how can that child be aware that some people wear them and be able to ask why? Likewise, if child feels so uncomfortable without one that she can only attend a school with others who wear them, how will she ever be exposed to the viewpoints of those who do not wear them, in order to determine whether or not she really wants to?
Absolutely. And representatives from various different faiths should be encouraged to come into schools in order to raise awareness of their beliefs. I simply feel that it is more important in a contemporary climate to emphasise the similarities between people, and then celebrate the cultural diversity, than it is to segment sections of society from day zip.

What about rule of law (In schools is a little bit mean but you get my idea) ie everyone treeted equally under the rules. Muslims get an excuse. Thats a little unfair to all the others who are not allowed to wear headgear.

Everyone should have the right to wear a headscarf if they so chose. Being treated equally under the law doesn't mean everyone should be the same. It means everyone should have the same freedoms. In this particular case, freedom of speech and free exersize of religion.

Dem, I just wanted to take a moment to express that I find you defense of personal freedoms to be in the highest order of true American values that this country was founded on. And that it is exemplary and worthy of commendation.

Wow.

Thank you. =)

Everyone should have the right to wear a headscarf if they so chose. Being treated equally under the law doesn't mean everyone should be the same. It means everyone should have the same freedoms. In this particular case, freedom of speech and free exersize of religion.

So you oppose uniforms of any sort? By your logical conclusion of freedom of speech it would seem so.

So you oppose uniforms of any sort?

I oppose the violation to freedom of speech and free exersize of religion and I find it unlikely that any "uniform" can accomodate all religion and speech issues. Please note, this need only apply to public schools that are bound to uphold in every particular the freedoms of the Constitution as they are an extension of that government.

There is a simple practical reason not to ban shirts. You would get cold. Their is no such reason for headscarfs. I quite support the principal of schools banning whatever they want, I am just saying its stupid to do the shirts one as you would get cold. Go on, ban whatever you want. Die of hypothermioa, whatever.

Meanwhile, there is no simple, practical reason *to* ban headscarfs, other than "we don't like dem dere Muslims." It is equally stupid to ban headscarfs and to ban shirts.

A woman who is used to wearing the scarf would likely get cold without it. After all, you lose quite a bit of body heat through the head.

So you oppose uniforms of any sort?
This kind of gets to the nub of the issue for me. If we are to suggest that there is a function to children wearing uniform, then surely children's couture should be, as the name would suggest, uniform; otherwise the entire doctrine of wearing uniform is clearly facile, and kids should be entitled to wear whatever they want (or their parents make them)

Wow.

Thank you. =)


I try to give credit where I believe it to be true. That doesn't mean I won't disagree with you tomorrow. :D

This kind of gets to the nub of the issue for me. If we are to suggest that there is a function to children wearing uniform, then surely children's couture should be, as the name would suggest, uniform; otherwise the entire doctrine of wearing uniform is clearly facile, and kids should be entitled to wear whatever they want (or their parents make them)

Then it would seem we agree to disagree. IE I support uniforms, you dont. I'm happy to leave it at that.

Then it would seem we agree to disagree. IE I support uniforms, you dont. I'm happy to leave it at that.
sorry dude, could you clarify that... didn't think I took a position either way...

Meanwhile, there is no simple, practical reason *to* ban headscarfs, other than "we don't like dem dere Muslims." It is equally stupid to ban headscarfs and to ban shirts.


There is however a good reason to ban headwear of all sorts, in the sense that it would mean baseball caps, top hats etc all sorts of absurditys. The only way to deal with it is to say either "No headwear" or "Headwear of only X sort"

Let's do an analogy:

A woman should be allowed to wear a headscarf because it is a question of modesty. Without it she feels naked.

A woman should be allowed to carry a gun to school bacuse it is a question of security. Without it she feels naked and unsafe.

Do you support the right to carry gun at school? Of course not! It would disrupt the school environment. Then why should you support the right to wear a garmen that disrupt the school environment because it causes discrimination?

Freedom of religion? Let's say I'm in the church of the 2nd amendment. My religion expressly tells me that I should wear a gun at all time. Not wearing a gun is akin to being naked. What do you do when I send my children to school with his .9mm?

sorry dude, could you clarify that... didn't think I took a position either way...

I was thinking the same thing. If I am reading you correctly, you were suggesting one extreem or the other, correct?

sorry dude, could you clarify that... didn't think I took a position either way...

Sorry, my mistake, I was adressing the entire of my opposition here not just you. (Specificly demi)

There is however a good reason to ban headwear of all sorts, in the sense that it would mean baseball caps, top hats etc all sorts of absurditys. The only way to deal with it is to say either "No headwear" or "Headwear of only X sort"

I see no reason to ban headwear of all sorts. The only logical reason to ban any headwear would be that which was so large as to block the view of other students, offensive, etc. Such things would be covered by other school rules.

Meanwhile, it would be pretty simple to ban hats, and not to ban other articles of clothing that happen to be placed on the head.

Sorry, my mistake, I was adressing the entire of my opposition here not just you. (Specificly demi)
No worries. Didn't think that I really counted amongst your opposition... I simply feel that a uniform that isn't uniform is kind of a nonsense...

Let's do an analogy:

A woman should be allowed to wear a headscarf because it is a question of modesty. Without it she feels naked.

A woman should be allowed to carry a gun to school bacuse it is a question of security. Without it she feels naked and unsafe.

Do you support the right to carry gun at school? Of course not! It would disrupt the school environment. Then why should you support the right to wear a garmen that disrupt the school environment because it causes discrimination?

Freedom of religion? Let's say I'm in the church of the 2nd amendment. My religion expressly tells me that I should wear a gun at all time. Not wearing a gun is akin to being naked. What do you do when I send my children to school with his .9mm?

This is simple. Guns are a danger to other students. As such, the school has a vested interest in keeping them off of school grounds.

A headscarf is not a danger to anyone.

A headscarf is not a danger to anyone.

Oh I don't know. You could probably strangle somebody with it! ;)

Then it would seem we agree to disagree. IE I support uniforms, you dont. I'm happy to leave it at that.

I don't like the idea of uniforms, although I wouldn't argue that all uniforms are an abridgement of rights. Like I said before, a school could certainly institute a uniform that said "no headwear." However, such a move would be misguided as it would result in one of two things: (a) Some students are unable to make the change at all, and thus are unable to attend or (b) Some students attend, but feel so exposed that they are unable to effectively learn. A school should take these factors into account when instituting a uniform, and should attempt to keep things as diverse as possible.

For instance, a school could ask that students wear a white, button-down shirt, black pants or skirts, black dress shoes, and a black coat. Asking this would not preclude a headscarf, it simply wouldn't require it.

Let's do an analogy:

A woman should be allowed to wear a headscarf because it is a question of modesty. Without it she feels naked.

A woman should be allowed to carry a gun to school bacuse it is a question of security. Without it she feels naked and unsafe.

Do you support the right to carry gun at school? Of course not! It would disrupt the school environment. Then why should you support the right to wear a garmen that disrupt the school environment because it causes discrimination?

Freedom of religion? Let's say I'm in the church of the 2nd amendment. My religion expressly tells me that I should wear a gun at all time. Not wearing a gun is akin to being naked. What do you do when I send my children to school with his .9mm?

First, that garment isn't likely to kill someone. Second, that garment isn't going to disrupt the school environment in an unreasonable manner. Third, a minor with a gun in an unparentally supervised setting is would create parental liability for that child's actions.

This clearly has nothing to do with the piece of clothing. It has to do with bigotry against a particular religion/culture. You'd think we were in Nazi Germany or something.

I don't like the idea of uniforms, although I wouldn't argue that all uniforms are an abridgement of rights. Like I said before, a school could certainly institute a uniform that said "no headwear." However, such a move would be misguided as it would result in one of two things: (a) Some students are unable to make the change at all, and thus are unable to attend or (b) Some students attend, but feel so exposed that they are unable to effectively learn. A school should take these factors into account when instituting a uniform, and should attempt to keep things as diverse as possible.

For instance, a school could ask that students wear a white, button-down shirt, black pants or skirts, black dress shoes, and a black coat. Asking this would not preclude a headscarf, it simply wouldn't require it.

A view of one that has been affected by a dress code. I did public school for a spell, then we moved and I joined a catholic school with a dress code. Boys: White shirt, brown cords, brown shoes belt. Girls, white blouse, plaid skirt(icky color), white socks, black shoes.

In the public there was the cool factor to where who could get the best shoes and what not. In the private, we all consoled our blandness. ;) From the parents point of view, it was slick because the clothing was cheap and you didn't have to buy a great deal.

The public tended to group into "clicks" while the private tended to merge pretty well. We really didn't have outsiders.

Mind you from the one side there are advantages. I managed to be a rebel eventhough I was "forced" to conform! ;)

The school did grant free dress days.

Now the case of the Muslim girl. If for whatever reason one made it in. I remember the principle. She would have allowed it. In fact, I would go as far to say that she would have asked the girl and her family to talk to her class about it. I remember her telling me to learn about people and why they do things. It avoids fights from misunderstanding. She was a great lady. I got to know her well as I was on punishment detail for about a year! ;) For a Nun she had the best damn hookshot I have ever seen! :D

Ah well......

PS: The T-shirt is most certainly freedom of the press.

ROFL! Funny.

Anyway, from what I can tell, I think we agree on this issue overall.

However, your Religious viewpoints don't override everybody elses. If that was the case, then the murder of Theo Van Gogh was justified.


Please tell me you're not comparing a teenage girl who feels it appropriate for her to wear a head covering to a brutal murder ...

Forcing a viewpoint on someone is not enforcing equality - it is, in fact, enforcing the viewpoint that you are only equal if you conform exactly to whatever the government says.
I never said State forced a viewpoint, the State exposes facts, trying to take the more possible his distances with point of views. In school, the religions are taught, we learn what they are, how, when where etc, idem for political views, but the teacher and as a consequence the State (and the reciprocity also) are neutral.

And as said sometimes in this thread, the school rules say that you must not wear something on the head covering your head (for various reasons like to clearly recognize the pupil), no matter what this piece of tissue is for you or your family.

Don't forget we have in France freedom of religion and beliefs, written in the Human and Citizen Rights, the basis of our country since the Revolution.

Afaik, I never heard about a non-Muslim complaining he must remove his kippa, or his Christ cross, or other religious ornaments, so i don't really understand why Muslims absolutely want to keep that piece of tissue.

In my opinion, school MUST stay neutral because the rest of the time, the children are exposed to any kind of propaganda you can imagine (no bad meaning for propaganda here :)) and of the views of their parents. School is where they can ask questions without biased responses, it's where you can learn without being influenced by point of views coming from religion or politics.
Children are easily manipulated, so let's give them all the facts, all the things, then when they reach the age we assume they are major, let them make their mind :) and discuss about it in the superior schools and anywhere they want.

Please tell me you're not comparing a teenage girl who feels it appropriate for her to wear a head covering to a brutal murder ...

Of course not, I was just baiting.... ;)

Some form of education is mandatory, by Texas law, from the time a child is 5 until the child is 17. That education can be public, private, or home based.

The only State level requirements on public school education is proper vaccination. Religion aside, if your kid isn't vaccinated, they cannot attend public school and the parents are required to find alternative education.

Now, disregarding the question of vaccination, the public school system has been set up for those people who cannot afford private education. Private education is expensive, but education is mandatory. Hence, free public education.

The rules set forth in a particular school district are mandated by the community at large to the school board. If the school board decides that head scarves cannot be worn - even to the exclusion of devoted Muslims - then they must also declare that no religious symbol - from Atheist to Zoroastrian - can be worn in that district.

In the adult world, things are different. I wear a beard. I've almost always worn a beard. I do not want to get rid of my beard. If I am applying for a job and the potential employer says, "You gotta shave", I walk out the door with a "No thanks".

Kids don't have that perrogative. If my daughters feel they want to wear headscarves, then that is their right. They have to decide that for themselves. However, the mandatory education system cannot force me to send my daughters elsewhere just because of a rule that didn't take into account the possibility of Muslims in the community at large.

In such a case, I would appeal to the Texas Supreme Court on the basis that such segregationism is no longer considered appropriate. Telling me that I have to send my children to a different school at my expense or inconvenience because they have a different cultural view on something is just that: segregationist.

I've heard all the arguments about nudity, goat sacrifice, ritual feces throwing, naked dancing, and all manner of "what if" situations ... but none of these can be compared to a simple head scarf that hurts nobody, disrupts nothing, and only serves to make a person more comfortable in their educational surroundings.

However, give it time. Someday, somewhere, in some community, a school board will say that bringing crosses to school violates zero-tolerance weapon policies and there will be an uproar the likes of which humanity hasn't seen since the assassination of Archduke Ferdinad.

As long as its only a few Muslims or Jews (they cover their heads, too) being affected, the US will do little to nothing about it.

Not rearly. It says "No headwear" at all. Its not just Muslims affected by this. Its anyone who wants to wear headwear.

Maybe you don't understand the difference between wanting to wear headwear and being religiously/culturally commanded to wear headwear.

Of course not, I was just baiting.... ;)

I didn't think so ... but I had to clarify. :D

I never said State forced a viewpoint, the State exposes facts, trying to take the more possible his distances with point of views. In school, the religions are taught, we learn what they are, how, when where etc, idem for political views, but the teacher and as a consequence the State (and the reciprocity also) are neutral.

The teacher and the State *should* be neutral. However, forcing that upon the *individual* is an abridgement of rights.

Don't forget we have in France freedom of religion and beliefs, written in the Human and Citizen Rights, the basis of our country since the Revolution.

You may have them, but this law clearly violates any such freedom.

Afaik, I never heard about a non-Muslim complaining he must remove his kippa, or his Christ cross, or other religious ornaments, so i don't really understand why Muslims absolutely want to keep that piece of tissue.

Would you walk out of the house naked?

In my opinion, school MUST stay neutral because the rest of the time, the children are exposed to any kind of propaganda you can imagine (no bad meaning for propaganda here :)) and of the views of their parents. School is where they can ask questions without biased responses, it's where you can learn without being influenced by point of views coming from religion or politics.

Again, the *school* should be neutral. However, that does not mean that the students are not allowed to have religious views, or even to demonstrate them in some way.

Children are easily manipulated, so let's give them all the facts, all the things, then when they reach the age we assume they are major, let them make their mind :) and discuss about it in the superior schools and anywhere they want.

They cannot make up their own minds if they are never even introduced to the idea.

I dont think so. On the simple grounds that it is a school, and the school reserves the right to have rules that govern the behaviour and dress of the pupils. But what do you think and why?

Obviously not, since there is no such thing as the 'muslim' race.

Personally, my view is that ALL corporate logos, and ALL visible 'articles of faith' should be kept out of the classroom. COMPLETELY.

No Coca-Cola t-shirts, no John Deere baseball caps, no crucifixes, no muslim headscarves.

For one simple reason: Peer-Pressure.

Simply put, if there are 30 children in a class, and 29 wear a cross, and one doesn't... who do you think is MOST likely to be the 'bullying victim' in that class? Same with all other faith articles.

I know, when I was at school, children got into fights over the 'label' on their casual clothing. It's idiotic - but, it happens.

Keep ALL visible icons out of the classroom, and cut off ANY possible contention.

There is no reasonable excuse to forbid a muslim girl to wear a headscarf.
Those people that make ridiculous analogies to things that have no connection need to get a grip. You can take anything to ridiculous extreme. Take any right you have, and there can be found some reason for you not to
have it.

...who do you think is MOST likely to be the 'bullying victim' in that class?
The one with glasses,
are you going to ban glasses?

The one with glasses,
are you going to bas glasses?

You probably don't even realise how you just made my point for me, do you?

Obviously not, since there is no such thing as the 'muslim' race.

Personally, my view is that ALL corporate logos, and ALL visible 'articles of faith' should be kept out of the classroom. COMPLETELY.

No Coca-Cola t-shirts, no John Deere baseball caps, no crucifixes, no muslim headscarves.

For one simple reason: Peer-Pressure.

Simply put, if there are 30 children in a class, and 29 wear a cross, and one doesn't... who do you think is MOST likely to be the 'bullying victim' in that class? Same with all other faith articles.

I know, when I was at school, children got into fights over the 'label' on their casual clothing. It's idiotic - but, it happens.

Keep ALL visible icons out of the classroom, and cut off ANY possible contention.Kids will always find a way to ostracize each other, religious symbols or none. Your analogy is bad anyway. If there's a kid living in a community where their family is one of the few that is not Catholic, he's gonna be ostracized no matter what.

So you believe we should relegate these kids to certain places - wall them off - make sure the rest of society doesn't see them, eh?
It would be their choice to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. Either they deal with ditching the headscarf, or they choose a private religious school.

You probably don't even realise how you just made my point for me, do you?
Bulling is wrong, it has to be punished,

Bulling'n'taxing will not stop when you remove symbols.

WTF is your point?

Yeah, give up your rights to express your beliefs or give up your right to a public education. It's the American way. :gundge:

Kids will always find a way to ostracize each other, religious symbols or none. Your analogy is bad anyway. If there's a kid living in a community where their family is one of the few that is not Catholic, he's gonna be ostracized no matter what.

And again, someone (unwittingly) makes exactly my point for me, in an attempt at refutation.

People are equating muslim dress with hatred...but that is narrowminded....now a swastika, regardless of its early, innocent beginnings is associated with hatred, and shouldn't be allowed. A scarf, if it makes the wearer feel more comfortable, (emotionally, not physically) shouldn't be a problem.
Not all muslims who wear scarves are extremists. Nor are Christians who wear crosses. Yes, there are religious schools...but they may not have them in your area, or you may not be THAT religious. I think this boils down to less of a religious issue per se than one of tradition and comfort.
Your argument doesn't add up. Firstly, not all NAZI's were necessarily evil. Stupid bastards, yes, but not evil. Secondly muslim dress is associated with a religion that has an inordinate amount of followers who are essentially trying to subjugate the rest of the world and other religion, often times by force. Ergo, the headscarf can be seen just as twisted as the swastika is. So either you allow all symbols, except those that offer direct violence, or you ban said symbols.

Bulling is wrong, it has to be punished,

Bulling'n'taxing will not stop when you remove symbols.

WTF is your point?

Re-read my original post.

Re-read what you just typed.

If you REALLY can't see it... I'll explain.

And again, someone (unwittingly) makes exactly my point for me, in an attempt at refutation.Then get off your high horse and explain it all ready, since we're all obviously too stupid to realize what you're getting at.

The headscarf is absolutely NOT a symbol (if it were, why would Muslim men not have to wear it?). It is a part of everyday dress, according to the Islamic principle of Hijab (covering up) - so yes, forcing a Muslim girl to remove it is equivalent to forcing another girl to go around topless - it robs her of her dignity.
No it's not. It's from the Iranian mullahs being crazy. The burka, on the other hand, would be the proper following of hijab.

The teacher bears an unreasonable prejudice and, as such, has no right to be protected from his own bigotted viewpoint.
Ah, now what says the views of a certain religion or a certain tradition aren't unreasonable?

Then get off your high horse and explain it all ready, since we're all obviously too stupid to realize what you're getting at.

"High horse"?

"Too Stupid"?

Perhaps you would like to calm down for a little while.

If you examine the content of both of our posts, you and I, you would notice something.

Yes - People WILL always find ways to ostracise each other.

And, yes, " a kid living in a community where their family is one of the few that is not Catholic, he's gonna be ostracized no matter what".

Look at those two points, in conjunction with what I consider the HEART of my post, "...Simply put, if there are 30 children in a class, and 29 wear a cross, and one doesn't... who do you think is MOST likely to be the 'bullying victim' in that class? Same with all other faith articles."

You are saying that those who are different will be persecuted. You are saying that THAT is human nature.

I am saying that those who are encouraged to LOOK different, will be persecuted - because that is human nature.

You are making the exact same argument as me.

I can't believe this thread has spawned so much debate. I though this was an open an closed kind of thing. Abridgement of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion out to be sufficiet grounds to get this issue resolved quickly. I'm just dumbfounded at this discussion.
Does France have constitutional amendments to that effect?

Re-read my original post.

Re-read what you just typed.

If you REALLY can't see it... I'll explain.
go ahead...explain

"High horse"?

"Too Stupid"?

Perhaps you would like to calm down for a little while.

If you examine the content of both of our posts, you and I, you would notice something.

Yes - People WILL always find ways to ostracise each other.

And, yes, " a kid living in a community where their family is one of the few that is not Catholic, he's gonna be ostracized no matter what".

Look at those two points, in conjunction with what I consider the HEART of my post, "...Simply put, if there are 30 children in a class, and 29 wear a cross, and one doesn't... who do you think is MOST likely to be the 'bullying victim' in that class? Same with all other faith articles."

You are saying that those who are different will be persecuted. You are saying that THAT is human nature.

I am saying that those who are encouraged to LOOK different, will be persecuted - because that is human nature.

You are making the exact same argument as me.Alright, for some reason I thought you were going for something else that I was missing entirely. The high horse comment was because you kept saying "this reinforces my point" without explaining why. The stupid comment was just an expression of my frustration.

We're starting from the same premise, but coming to different conclusions. My conclusion is that kids will still bully other kids, no matter what we do to prevent it. If we ban any and all symbols, kids will still bully each other, they'll just find another excuse. So, if the goal is to prevent bullying, why ban the symbols at all? There will still be bullying. You might as well allow them.

Are you serious? Do you not understand the difference between public and private education? Public education, paid for with public funds, must be open to EVERYONE, no exceptions. Private schools that are privately funded can do whatever the hell they want as long as they follow government approved curriculum.
I wasn't aware muslims were being banned.

Alright, for some reason I thought you were going for something else that I was missing entirely. The high horse comment was because you kept saying "this reinforces my point" without explaining why. The stupid comment was just an expression of my frustration.

We're starting from the same premise, but coming to different conclusions. My conclusion is that kids will still bully other kids, no matter what we do to prevent it. If we ban any and all symbols, kids will still bully each other, they'll just find another excuse. So, if the goal is to prevent bullying, why ban the symbols at all? There will still be bullying. You might as well allow them.

Yes, I'm sure you are right.

We should let them call each other 'Niggers" too, right?

The whole point is that pack-instinct drives the dominant to prey on the weakest... and, in the absence of physical weakness, the most OBVIOUS weakness is isolation... is separation.

So - you homogenise your society, you reduce diversity. And, reduced diverstiy equates to greater uniformity - which means less PERCEIVED weakness.

If you have ONE Muslim, with the scarf... it doesn't matter what the colour of skin, or nation of origin of the rest of the class (probably), the most LIKELY target will be the MARKED target.

Similarly, ONE crucifix in a classroom, same result.

So - keep your personal faith items personal. Keep your 'politics' out of the classroom.

Otherwise, you end up with the clan-mentality... and every little detail reinforces that us-and-them perspective.

go ahead...explain

Despite a bumpy start, Stormforge has picked up, and run with this.

Read the interactions he/she and I have had - it should shed some illumination on your confusions.

*snip*I have to leave work now, so I'll try and comment on this when I get home, because you bring up some interesting points. If the thread hasn't progressed too far, I'll just edit it into this post.

EDIT: Unless my family has been lying to me all these years, I am most definitely a "he."

However, many women *voluntarily* wear said veil. No one is talking about people being forced to do so here.
And therein lies the crux of my problem with said headscarf. It represents a form of social control that relegates females to a lower level than males for no other reason than some guy said so. It is "voluntary" because they have been indoctrinated from birth that that is the WAY THINGS ARE. A true measure of the value of headscarves would be to see how many women who willingly convert to Islam would willingly wear a headscarf in public all the time.

Addendum - For that matter, does anyone know the disparity, if there is any, between the number of men that convert to Islam and the number of women?

I have to leave work now, so I'll try and comment on this when I get home, because you bring up some interesting points. If the thread hasn't progressed too far, I'll just edit it into this post.

EDIT: Unless my family has been lying to me all these years, I am most definitely a "he."

Regarding the 'he' thing... it never pays to jump to those sorts of conclusions, so I always try to offer alternatives... :)

I beleive it's pathetic and woul dprotest to the death for the womans right to wear it if she wanted.

I beleive it's pathetic and woul dprotest to the death for the womans right to wear it if she wanted.

I wouldn't protest to the death - because I think it would be ridiculous, in a world so filled with tyranny and injustice, to mayrty myself for something as flippant and superficial as a hat.

Yes, I'm sure you are right.

We should let them call each other 'Niggers" too, right?

The whole point is that pack-instinct drives the dominant to prey on the weakest... and, in the absence of physical weakness, the most OBVIOUS weakness is isolation... is separation.

So - you homogenise your society, you reduce diversity. And, reduced diverstiy equates to greater uniformity - which means less PERCEIVED weakness.

If you have ONE Muslim, with the scarf... it doesn't matter what the colour of skin, or nation of origin of the rest of the class (probably), the most LIKELY target will be the MARKED target.

Similarly, ONE crucifix in a classroom, same result.

So - keep your personal faith items personal. Keep your 'politics' out of the classroom.

Otherwise, you end up with the clan-mentality... and every little detail reinforces that us-and-them perspective.You will find no bigger proponent of "personal religion" than I. But some religions require that certain articles be worn at all waking hours. This is why I could understand the banning of crucifixes (unless the Church requires them, I don't really know), but do not understand the banning of Muslim headgear. How can a public institution deny someone the right to practice their religion? Either the person chose (or their parents chose for them) to wear such things, so they are responsible for whatever response results. It's unfortunate that, in the case of Muslims, the response will often be hate, but the solution to that problem is not censorship, but education.

Oh, and people call each other "******" all the time. But that's a different issue for a different debate.

I see no reason to ban headwear of all sorts. The only logical reason to ban any headwear would be that which was so large as to block the view of other students, offensive, etc. Such things would be covered by other school rules.

Meanwhile, it would be pretty simple to ban hats, and not to ban other articles of clothing that happen to be placed on the head.

Its simple. If the school has a uniform but says nothing about headwear then people could come in in whatever they want. This makes a mockery of the uniform policy as they are all wearing exactly the same thing EXCEPT the head wear. If you have a uniform policy it should be consistant.

No it's not. It's from the Iranian mullahs being crazy. The burka, on the other hand, would be the proper following of hijab.

What are you talking about? I already proved that there is basis in the Qur'an for the headscarf ... several pages ago.

The burkha is crazy. Nothing says to cover your face except the Taliban - though I'm not sure what the Taliban has to do with Iran.

It represents a form of social control that relegates females to a lower level than males for no other reason than some guy said so.

No, it has nothing to do with that. Men are required to cover themselves as well. Your understanding of Islam is clearly nonexistent.

Secondly muslim dress is associated with a religion that has an inordinate amount of followers who are essentially trying to subjugate the rest of the world and other religion, often times by force.

Considering that it says in Qur'an that there can be no compulsion in religion, and shows itself in many surahs that you cannot force Islam even on your own children, my point stands. You have no understanding of Islam.

Go read Qur'an - and I don't mean copy/paste internet sources - and then you can debate it.

It would be their choice to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. Either they deal with ditching the headscarf, or they choose a private religious school.

In other words, the state is allowed to say "Your beliefs are teh stoopid!! We don't want you in our country!!!"

And again, someone (unwittingly) makes exactly my point for me, in an attempt at refutation.

This doesn't make your point at all Grave. Denying a student their own individuality will not even come close to saving them from ridicule.

Ah, now what says the views of a certain religion or a certain tradition aren't unreasonable?

Bigotry is unreasonable. Period. A teacher who cannot set his/her bigotry aside has made a poor career choice and, if they will not leave voluntarily, should be fired.

I wasn't aware muslims were being banned.

Orthodox Muslim girls are being asked either to go to school in what is, to them, the equivalent of me walking around school topless.

Would you support a school that required that all girls walk around topless, in mini-skirts, with crotchless panties?

Yes, I'm sure you are right.

We should let them call each other 'Niggers" too, right?

The whole point is that pack-instinct drives the dominant to prey on the weakest... and, in the absence of physical weakness, the most OBVIOUS weakness is isolation... is separation.

So - you homogenise your society, you reduce diversity. And, reduced diverstiy equates to greater uniformity - which means less PERCEIVED weakness.

If you have ONE Muslim, with the scarf... it doesn't matter what the colour of skin, or nation of origin of the rest of the class (probably), the most LIKELY target will be the MARKED target.

Similarly, ONE crucifix in a classroom, same result.

So - keep your personal faith items personal. Keep your 'politics' out of the classroom.

Otherwise, you end up with the clan-mentality... and every little detail reinforces that us-and-them perspective.

Actually, Grave, banning such articles *INCREASES* this mentality. If students are never exposed to the very real fact that there are different people in this world, with different customs and views, they will grow up to be *naturally* afraid of what is different and bigotry will be even more prevalent. You may reduce the bullying in the classroom, but you will increase bigotry across the entire adult population.

And therein lies the crux of my problem with said headscarf. It represents a form of social control that relegates females to a lower level than males for no other reason than some guy said so. It is "voluntary" because they have been indoctrinated from birth that that is the WAY THINGS ARE. A true measure of the value of headscarves would be to see how many women who willingly convert to Islam would willingly wear a headscarf in public all the time.

Addendum - For that matter, does anyone know the disparity, if there is any, between the number of men that convert to Islam and the number of women?

Way to make unfounded generalizations. Some women do see the scarf as "social control", etc. Others see it as a form of clothing that simply makes them more comfortable. Very few people like to be ogled. Next you'll be telling me that I wear pants more often than shorts and prefer an on-the-shoulder shirt because I've been "indoctrinated".

i think it is wrong to ban .0a student from wearing muslim dress (or any other religion's dress) if you allow people (including teachers) to wear cross pendants and other christian symbols

Its simple. If the school has a uniform but says nothing about headwear then people could come in in whatever they want. This makes a mockery of the uniform policy as they are all wearing exactly the same thing EXCEPT the head wear. If you have a uniform policy it should be consistant.

Really? So does every uniform policy have a specific sweater and jacket combination? Does every uniform involve a specific set of jewelry? Does every uniform delineate exactly how your hair is cut and styled? Does the uniform delineate what color lipstick a girl wears?

If it doesn't, then by your logic, all of these things are a "mockery of the uniform policy" as they are wearing the same thing EXCEPT the sweater/jacket/jewelry/makeup/hair products.

It would be their choice to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. Either they deal with ditching the headscarf, or they choose a private religious school.
that seems rather nazi-esque to me, ditch being a jew or go to a concentration camp

Your argument doesn't add up. Firstly, not all NAZI's were necessarily evil. Stupid bastards, yes, but not evil. Secondly muslim dress is associated with a religion that has an inordinate amount of followers who are essentially trying to subjugate the rest of the world and other religion, often times by force. Ergo, the headscarf can be seen just as twisted as the swastika is. So either you allow all symbols, except those that offer direct violence, or you ban said symbols.
you mean like christians who are trying to ban muslim dress in their schools?

islam isn't a race. even if it was discrimination, it wouldn't be racism.

islam isn't a race. even if it was discrimination, it wouldn't be racism.

Give Neo Cannen a break - he has never understood the difference between the words "bigotry" and "racism."

I don't consider it racist, per se, but I believe there's a word for someone who forces a child to do things that child considers inappropriate or immodest ...

Now what was that word again .........

hmm how about this word...
Abusive

Anyway if Christians ACTUALLY OBSERVED a Christian dress code, they'd hardly differ from Muslims. Middle Eastern Christians at least on Sunday observe similar rules of dress. I consider anything in the lines of school uniform in public school illegitimate. In private schools, it's another matter. Then I believe it is up to the specific community in that school, not the children or their parents.
I personally observe correct Christian dress and have since I began to turn into an adult.
I believe it is mandatory for Christians to observe modest dress as an aid to maintaining the correct behavior of both men and women. I have objected to school dress codes on Christian grounds as in mandateing inadequate coverage.

funnily enough, i've just finished a topic on this kind of thing in Legal Studies.....

Law can be split into three categories: Customs, Rules, and finally, Laws.
A custom is something that is seen to be right by the majority of the population. For instance, putting your feet up on the seats on a train- started as a custom. There was no rule against it, it was just wrong. There's a better description than that, but i can't be bothered. It's 1.30 am :p

A Rule is a kind of law that can be set by an institution, but it only applies WITHIN that institution. The example we used was a dress code- to get into a restaurant, for instance, you must have followed their guidelines on what to wear.

A Law is something everyone has to follow. But we all knew that.

Supposing that you can call a school uniform policy the same as a dress code, from a legal standpoint the school has the right to tell it's students to wear whatever the hell it wants, regardless of religion.

At my school, we have a uniform. For the girls, it's just a light blue shirt, and dark blue skirt or pants. All the muslim girls here just wear a school shirt, jeans and a headscarf. There used to be a girl who wore the full head-toe muslim thing, and got into a fight about it with the department of education. I'm not sure how it turned out, but she doesn't go here anymore, so i'll assume badly.....

Supposing that you can call a school uniform policy the same as a dress code, from a legal standpoint the school has the right to tell it's students to wear whatever the hell it wants, regardless of religion.

A public school is run by the government and requires that students be there. As such, any discriminatory rules must either have a damn good reason, or the school can't make them. In addition, it's not like there is the option of saying "If you don't like it, just don't come here." They are *required* to be there.

The one with glasses,
are you going to ban glasses?
Is a headscarf necessary that the student in question would not be able to learn without it. Rarely so.

Is a headscarf necessary that the student in question would not be able to learn without it. Rarely so.

How well would you learn if you were forced into the classroom naked?

islam isn't a race. even if it was discrimination, it wouldn't be racism.
To be fare "race" can be any people considered in a group

How well would you learn if you were forced into the classroom naked?
I wish we could get an Islamic female in here to really tell us how she feels without it … I work with 4 girls all from different (but Islamic backgrounds) 2 are orthodox (we are in collage so no dress code) and they honestly have no issues (I asked them about it)

Not saying that people don’t but we are starting to just assume what they think and feel…

How well would you learn if you were forced into the classroom naked?
After about 2-3 weeks I'd be fine.


Unless they kept the temperature rather low.

I wish we could get an Islamic female in here to really tell us how she feels without it … I work with 4 girls all from different (but Islamic backgrounds) 2 are orthodox (we are in collage so no dress code) and they honestly have no issues (I asked them about it)

Not saying that people don’t but we are starting to just assume what they think and feel…

I have spoken to more than one Muslim female, as well as many males. Of course, it's hearsay to you - but I have had 1st-hand accounts.

After about 2-3 weeks I'd be fine.

Ah, conformity. So good to know that you would conform to anything placed upon you and you think that all of our children should be the same way.

I have spoken to more than one Muslim female, as well as many males. Of course, it's hearsay to you - but I have had 1st-hand accounts.
Me to (talking) and like I said 2 orthodox co workers without issues with it. I dont know thats why I am confused

as well as many males.
Because of course males would know what it feels like, just like as a male I know what menstruation and childbirth are like

Ah, conformity. So good to know that you would conform to anything placed upon you and you think that all of our children should be the same way.
is that not part of becoming any group? (again not advocating anything just arguing to argue)

Because of course males would know what it feels like, just like as a male I know what menstruation and childbirth are like

If and only if I had stated that I had only ever talked to males, would this have any place in the conversation. As it is, you are just trying to be inflammatory.

"have spoken to more than one Muslim female, as well as many males"

What happened to the terms 'man' and 'woman'? Last time I checked, words like 'female' and 'male' are more commonly used to describe animals.

I personally used to live in an almost entirely islamic neighborhood in Brooklyn and I can tell you right now, some of those women would rather die than go without the dress.

is that not part of becoming any group? (again not advocating anything just arguing to argue)

Not really. You can join a group because the group meets *your* expectations and goals, without changing yourself in the least.

Really? So does every uniform policy have a specific sweater and jacket combination? Does every uniform involve a specific set of jewelry? Does every uniform delineate exactly how your hair is cut and styled? Does the uniform delineate what color lipstick a girl wears?


Not all uniforms are as strict at your descriptions. But it does have specifics as far as clothing goes. And clothing is what a hat is. Yes a uniform does have a jumper jacket combination rule (Ie black jumper black blazer) and it does have a specific jewlery policy (One set of gold stud earings only). While it doesnt go so far as to say how you hairstyle is cut/styled it does say lipstick is not allowed. If you dont like school uniforms thats fine, but dont insult the policy under which they come by trying to undermine its logic. Just accept that while it has logic, you disagree with said logic.

Not all uniforms are as strict at your descriptions. But it does have specifics as far as clothing goes. And clothing is what a hat is. Yes a uniform does have a jumper jacket combination rule (Ie black jumper black blazer) and it does have a specific jewlery policy (One set of gold stud earings only). While it doesnt go so far as to say how you hairstyle is cut/styled it does say lipstick is not allowed. If you dont like school uniforms thats fine, but dont insult the policy under which they come by trying to undermine its logic. Just accept that while it has logic, you disagree with said logic.

It has logic, but the logic need not abolish all individual traits. By your logic, a uniform should be exactly uniform. You can't just say "any gold earrings", it would have to be "these exact specific 14K gold stud earrings." You can't say black blazer, but must say "This exact blazer."

Otherwise, allowing headgear to be different is exactly the same as what you already have. The policy could say "No headwear other than black scarves or hats which do not extend more than 2 inches from the head." This would allow different hats and scarves, but would still meet the uniform mentality.

Obviously not, since there is no such thing as the 'muslim' race.

Personally, my view is that ALL corporate logos, and ALL visible 'articles of faith' should be kept out of the classroom. COMPLETELY.

No Coca-Cola t-shirts, no John Deere baseball caps, no crucifixes, no muslim headscarves.

For one simple reason: Peer-Pressure.

Simply put, if there are 30 children in a class, and 29 wear a cross, and one doesn't... who do you think is MOST likely to be the 'bullying victim' in that class? Same with all other faith articles.

I know, when I was at school, children got into fights over the 'label' on their casual clothing. It's idiotic - but, it happens.

Keep ALL visible icons out of the classroom, and cut off ANY possible contention.

Hey GI,
I usually at least have respect for your arguments, but how in the world did you come up with this one. Don't you see what a huge abridgement of first ammendment rights that is?

"High horse"?

"Too Stupid"?

Perhaps you would like to calm down for a little while.

If you examine the content of both of our posts, you and I, you would notice something.

Yes - People WILL always find ways to ostracise each other.

And, yes, " a kid living in a community where their family is one of the few that is not Catholic, he's gonna be ostracized no matter what".

Look at those two points, in conjunction with what I consider the HEART of my post, "...Simply put, if there are 30 children in a class, and 29 wear a cross, and one doesn't... who do you think is MOST likely to be the 'bullying victim' in that class? Same with all other faith articles."

You are saying that those who are different will be persecuted. You are saying that THAT is human nature.

I am saying that those who are encouraged to LOOK different, will be persecuted - because that is human nature.

You are making the exact same argument as me.

So the way to solve it is to make everyone the same rather than teaching, articulating differences, valueing differences and enforcing the rights and freedoms that this country was founded on.

You lost me on this one GI. You're solution only prolongs the bigotry and prejudice toward differences.

Does France have constitutional amendments to that effect?

I have no idea. If they don't they can't possibly claim to value personal freedoms.

I wish we could get an Islamic female in here to really tell us how she feels without it … I work with 4 girls all from different (but Islamic backgrounds) 2 are orthodox (we are in collage so no dress code) and they honestly have no issues (I asked them about it)

Not saying that people don’t but we are starting to just assume what they think and feel…

I'm a Muslim female, I wear the headscarf, and yes, I do feel naked without it. People have already compared a Muslim woman without a head covering feeling how a non-Muslim woman would feel topless though, so I won't go into that.

It really depends on what the school's policy is on other religious dress. If it has a policy that no religious dress can be worn whatsoever, it may be inconsiderate but it's not racist.

I don't think it's racist. I think it's stupid though and very disrespectful of peoples religions and beliefs.

Umm..."Students do not shed their rights once they pass through the school gates." I see no reason to not let people show their religious diversity no matter what faith they have.

I think that, if it is a public school, it has no right to prohibit the free exercise of religion, provided that it does no harm to others.
:sniper: But you see, we aren't telking about ppublic schools. if there is already a school uniform, it seems it wouldn't matter if the variation were Musim or other, it is a break in the school uniform.

It really depends on what the school's policy is on other religious dress. If it has a policy that no religious dress can be worn whatsoever, it may be inconsiderate but it's not racist.

I believe the words "seriously misguided" would be in order.

:sniper: But you see, we aren't telking about ppublic schools. if there is already a school uniform, it seems it wouldn't matter if the variation were Musim or other, it is a break in the school uniform.

Then perhaps the uniform should take into account the fact that there are different cultures that allow different things. As I pointed out above, it would be relatively easy to include a clause that "No headwear other than a black/white/blue/etc. scarf or hat that does not extend more than 2 inches beyond the head may be worn."

If a school wishes to enact a dress code or uniform, it needs to be responsible in doing so.

:sniper: But you see, we aren't telking about ppublic schools. if there is already a school uniform, it seems it wouldn't matter if the variation were Musim or other, it is a break in the school uniform.


Actually, this whole discussion has been about public schools, with the side note that private schools can do whatever they want. Read a little before you go shooting at people please.

my response to the private school uniform argument would be that, I assume the school allows students to use slings, casts, arm/leg braces, etc. Why? Because if they dont it has serious consequnces, which are generally worse than the consequences that come from having the uniform worn incorrectly. What are the consequnces of wearing a headscarf? That depends on your personal beliefs, but I'd say it's akin to refusing to serve kosher meals to a jewish student

It has logic, but the logic need not abolish all individual traits. By your logic, a uniform should be exactly uniform. You can't just say "any gold earrings", it would have to be "these exact specific 14K gold stud earrings." You can't say black blazer, but must say "This exact blazer." Otherwise, allowing headgear to be different is exactly the same as what you already have. The policy could say "No headwear other than black scarves or hats which do not extend more than 2 inches from the head." This would allow different hats and scarves, but would still meet the uniform mentality.

Well the black blazer is exact, since the school sell them from the one uniform supplier. And as to your statement, the school does not abolish all traits of individuality, but to a specific level. The studs are allowed, the hat is not. In my school this is simple reason. If hats were allowed then hats with expensive logos (Addidas, Nike etc) would be the fasion, causing problems for those families who cannot afford those sorts of things. If headscarfs were allowed on the grounds of religion then everyone would be comming in in one claiming "I am a muslim! I wanna be able to do this" and then there would be more and more people wearing more and more ornate headresses and dealing with any protest by saying "its my tradition" and if you point out to them that its clear that their only doing this to be allowed to wear the headscarf, they cry raceism. Its just far simpler to say "no headwear" and leave it at that.

Well the black blazer is exact, since the school sell them from the one uniform supplier. And as to your statement, the school does not abolish all traits of individuality, but to a specific level. The studs are allowed, the hat is not. In my school this is simple reason. If hats were allowed then hats with expensive logos (Addidas, Nike etc) would be the fasion, causing problems for those families who cannot afford those sorts of things. If headscarfs were allowed on the grounds of religion then everyone would be comming in in one claiming "I am a muslim! I wanna be able to do this" and then there would be more and more people wearing more and more ornate headresses and dealing with any protest by saying "its my tradition" and if you point out to them that its clear that their only doing this to be allowed to wear the headscarf, they cry raceism. Its just far simpler to say "no headwear" and leave it at that.

I am constantly amazed at your lack of reading skills. Did you miss the part where I stated that a dress code could call for the only headwear to be black scarves or hats which meet certain requirements? The school could easily state the following:

"Only the following headwear shall be allowed: Plain black scarves or hats which extend no more than 2 inches from the head and contain no logos or advertisements."

This would alleviate the problem without forcing anyone to come to school in the equivalent of being naked.

I would very much appreciate it if you would bother to read a post all the way through before replying - I'm really sick of repeating myself every time I reply to you.

I think that, if it is a public school, it has no right to prohibit the free exercise of religion, provided that it does no harm to others.



if its a public school then it is a government establishment and there is always the separation of chuirch and state so its not prohibiting the free-exercise of religion. and if theres a uniform then the children should have to wear the schools uniform not the clothes they want to or that their religion says, unless the school has an opt out policy and the childrens parents opt them out of it.

I just had a second thought about this to my first opinion, which I never posted.

Yes. of course it is racist. Why bother outlawing it in the first place? sure it might not simply target Muslims, but on the matter concerning modesty, I agree. Why make covering yourself up illegal? it makes no sense whatsoever, and regardless of any rationale you apply, disproportionately targets Muslims. Whether or not Muslims are a race is irrelevent. It's discriminatory for no good reason, and that's bad enough.

Jordaxia, I like your style, COMMON SENSE! It's beautiful! :)

if its a public school then it is a government establishment and there is always the separation of chuirch and state so its not prohibiting the free-exercise of religion. and if theres a uniform then the children should have to wear the schools uniform not the clothes they want to or that their religion says, unless the school has an opt out policy and the childrens parents opt them out of it.

Separation of church and state only applies to the school - as the school represents the state. The individual student should not be forced to give up their religion just to walk onto government property. Would you force a woman to take off her headscarf in court? On public buses? On public sidewalks?

I just had a second thought about this to my first opinion, which I never posted.

Yes. of course it is racist. Why bother outlawing it in the first place? sure it might not simply target Muslims, but on the matter concerning modesty, I agree. Why make covering yourself up illegal? it makes no sense whatsoever, and regardless of any rationale you apply, disproportionately targets Muslims. Whether or not Muslims are a race is irrelevent. It's discriminatory for no good reason, and that's bad enough.


it makes sense if the school has uniforms that are mandatory. now like i said before if the school has an opt out policy its fine if they are opted out first. but if not the children should have to wear the uniforms.thats a good reason if you ask me.

Separation of church and state only applies to the school - as the school represents the state. The individual student should not be forced to give up their religion just to walk onto government property. Would you force a woman to take off her headscarf in court? On public buses? On public sidewalks?


you forgot about the opt out policies i mentioned. most schools have one and if they dont the parents should petition the school board for one.
in a court i might if there were security cameras i would not allow anyone to wear any head covering for security reasons only. public buses and sidewalks have nothing to do with schools and government buildings.

I'm a Muslim female, I wear the headscarf, and yes, I do feel naked without it. People have already compared a Muslim woman without a head covering feeling how a non-Muslim woman would feel topless though, so I won't go into that.

I am a Catholic Christian female and I too feel naked without my scarf, I feel naked in a skirt which exposes my legs and I don't like trousers as it's dress suitable for a male, and like your Scripture mine as well prohibits it.
Of course the Catholic faith allows for extenuating circumstances, for example a nurse in a hospital, pants would be more modest than a short skirt and far more practical than a long one in that setting, or for example a military person, same thing.
I've been saying for AGES that Christians in the Middle East observe very similar rules about clothing to Muslims, not because of locality, but because of actually reading the Bible and living by it's actual rules.
Orthodox Jews as well do, and it used to be that

In Mexico during the time Mexico was modernizing politically and culturaly, particularly people of the intellectual elite, the MOST liberated women, not the least, observed modest dress. This was an expression of national pride in being Mexican. Wearing American style clothes was seen as unpatriotic.
The immodest dress of Northern European and North American women is a result of a group called the 'Rational Dress Movement' an atheist movement which rightly objected to the excesses of Victorian era dress in Europe and North America, and a result of clothing rationing in WWI and WWII. That time lasted long enough that Western societies forgot the real rules, and anyway modesty wasn't 'modern'.

I am a Catholic Christian female and I too feel naked without my scarf, I feel naked in a skirt which exposes my legs and I don't like trousers as it's dress suitable for a male, and like your Scripture mine as well prohibits it.
Of course the Catholic faith allows for extenuating circumstances, for example a nurse in a hospital, pants would be more modest than a short skirt and far more practical than a long one in that setting, or for example a military person, same thing.
I've been saying for AGES that Christians in the Middle East observe very similar rules about clothing to Muslims, not because of locality, but because of actually reading the Bible and living by it's actual rules.
Orthodox Jews as well do, and it used to be that

In Mexico during the time Mexico was modernizing politically and culturaly, particularly people of the intellectual elite, the MOST liberated women, not the least, observed modest dress. This was an expression of national pride in being Mexican. Wearing American style clothes was seen as unpatriotic.
The immodest dress of Northern European and North American women is a result of a group called the 'Rational Dress Movement' an atheist movement which rightly objected to the excesses of Victorian era dress in Europe and North America, and a result of clothing rationing in WWI and WWII. That time lasted long enough that Western societies forgot the real rules, and anyway modesty wasn't 'modern'.




but orthodox jews also follow the old testament not the new so its different but i havent seen anything in the new testament about women wearing head scarves. but i know people over here dont have the restrictions or what you like to call them partially because some women saw it as chauvenisitc(Sp?) or anti womens rights. but its your opinion and if you want to wear or if your religion requires you to then do so but not if it violates laws or policies.

you forgot about the opt out policies i mentioned. most schools have one and if they dont the parents should petition the school board for one.

Why should they need an opt-out policy? A uniform can easily be devised that doesn't preclude a scarf.

in a court i might if there were security cameras i would not allow anyone to wear any head covering for security reasons only.

So you would make a child with cancer walk in without their wig?

public buses and sidewalks have nothing to do with schools and government buildings.

Public buses and sidewalks are public areas, paid for with government funds. If the government can ban individual clothing decisions in a school, it can do so in these places as well.

Why should they need an opt-out policy? A uniform can easily be devised that doesn't preclude a scarf.



So you would make a child with cancer walk in without their wig?



Public buses and sidewalks are public areas, paid for with government funds. If the government can ban individual clothing decisions in a school, it can do so in these places as well.


i meant i would not allow them to wear any head covering if it would possibly prohibit security cameras from catching their face.
and yes they could also redesign the uniforms but one major point of uniforms is so that everyone dresses the same so no one is made fun of for being different. and yes sidewalks and buses are public places paid for by the government but there generally are not security cameras in these places so it shouldnt be prohibited nor do people in the generally more mature real world make fun of others for being different so i dont think those arguments stand. and buses and public places are not the topic of this thread.

i meant i would not allow them to wear any head covering if it would possibly prohibit security cameras from catching their face.

A headscarf will not do this. A burqua would, but not a scarf.

and yes they could also redesign the uniforms but one major point of uniforms is so that everyone dresses the same so no one is made fun of for being different.

If the uniform does not delineate every single possible detail, there is room for diversity. For instance, as Neo Cannen pointed out, some uniforms require that any jewelry worn be simple and sparse. The uniform doesn't say "Every single girl shall wear a single pear of gold stud earrings and a small gold chain." It states that a girl may, if she wishes, wear such things. A uniform could do the same with a simple head covering.

How well would you learn if you were forced into the classroom naked?

If you were naked then yes I wouldn't learn.

If I was naken then I wouldn't learn because I would be declared a disruption!

I leave that to your intpretation! :D

pple stop thinkin useing american ideas. in france is where this happened. they dont hav public schools. the recognition example that was mentioned must hav contributed. and they didnt onli ban headscraves, they banned crosses and jewish skullcaps. if pple of those groups had a problem with it, there are religious schools for them 2 go 2.

A headscarf will not do this. A burqua would, but not a scarf.



If the uniform does not delineate every single possible detail, there is room for diversity. For instance, as Neo Cannen pointed out, some uniforms require that any jewelry worn be simple and sparse. The uniform doesn't say "Every single girl shall wear a single pear of gold stud earrings and a small gold chain." It states that a girl may, if she wishes, wear such things. A uniform could do the same with a simple head covering.


it is possible that a headscarf could block a camera.

and yes i know that the uniform require everything to be the same but small gold jewlery is much less noticable than a headscarf

Not really. You can join a group because the group meets *your* expectations and goals, without changing yourself in the least.

Really? Well try taking a stroll in Saudi wearing a skirt and holding you dads hand.

it is possible that a headscarf could block a camera.

Only through concentrated effort (ie. grabbing and holding it in front of your face), which could certainly be prohibited.

and yes i know that the uniform require everything to be the same but small gold jewlery is much less noticable than a headscarf

A uniform should never be made to force someone to uncover more of their body than they feel comfortable doing, unless there is a security issue involved. It doesn't matter how noticeable it is. If the general uniform was a mini-skirt and a tube-top, you can rest assured that most people would be complaining.

Really? Well try taking a stroll in Saudi wearing a skirt and holding you dads hand.

I didn't say that all people join a group for that reason. I said that it is possible.

Only through concentrated effort (ie. grabbing and holding it in front of your face), which could certainly be prohibited.



A uniform should never be made to force someone to uncover more of their body than they feel comfortable doing, unless there is a security issue involved. It doesn't matter how noticeable it is. If the general uniform was a mini-skirt and a tube-top, you can rest assured that most people would be complaining.


and thats why in most places people are able to opt out of the uniform policies so they dont have to uncover more than they have to.

Then perhaps the uniform should take into account the fact that there are different cultures that allow different things. As I pointed out above, it would be relatively easy to include a clause that "No headwear other than a black/white/blue/etc. scarf or hat that does not extend more than 2 inches beyond the head may be worn."



Ahh but if the school is private, they can do what ever they want. You don't have to go there as in the case of hte public schools.

If a school wishes to enact a dress code or uniform, it needs to be responsible in doing so.

Isn't that basically saying the schools have to conform to what you think is right? ;)

Ahh but if the school is private, they can do what ever they want. You don't have to go there as in the case of hte public schools.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that the school *should* be responsible.

Isn't that basically saying the schools have to conform to what you think is right? ;)

Not in the least.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that the school *should* be responsible.



Not in the least.


what do you mean by responsible?

if its a public school then it is a government establishment and there is always the separation of chuirch and state so its not prohibiting the free-exercise of religion. and if theres a uniform then the children should have to wear the schools uniform not the clothes they want to or that their religion says, unless the school has an opt out policy and the childrens parents opt them out of it.

Close but no cigar. True a public school take goverment money.

Now the fact the girl wears her scarve as her Religion and Culture dictacts is not an endorsement of Religion by the school. Now if the school said all Girls have to wear a scarf because Islam.....that is an endorsement of a Religion and thus it violates the establishment clause.

Just the same as if the school sets up a room for the Muslims to pray and yet don't allow the Christians to have a space for prayers.

Now the interesting case would be the gal can wear her scarf and no crosses are allowed.

Close but no cigar. True a public school take goverment money.

Now the fact the girl wears her scarve as her Religion and Culture dictacts is not an endorsement of Religion by the school. Now if the school said all Girls have to wear a scarf because Islam.....that is an endorsement of a Religion and thus it violates the establishment clause.

Just the same as if the school sets up a room for the Muslims to pray and yet don't allow the Christians to have a space for prayers.

Now the interesting case would be the gal can wear her scarf and no crosses are allowed.


true true
but unless its a private school if you remember that atheist lady i forgot her name she got mad because they said an optional prayer before the school started

yes are the head scarves banned in many places if any in the U.S.?

Actually, Grave, banning such articles *INCREASES* this mentality. If students are never exposed to the very real fact that there are different people in this world, with different customs and views, they will grow up to be *naturally* afraid of what is different and bigotry will be even more prevalent. You may reduce the bullying in the classroom, but you will increase bigotry across the entire adult population.

On the contrary, I don't think banning such articles DOES increase bullying mentality.

This insistence on enforced actions to show how 'different' we all are confuses me. As far as I can see, it is that pressure of separation that leads to the fear and bigotry.

A classroom where all children are equal, where they all learned with the same access, and were not immersed in difference - well, that seems like the kind of environment that could promote understanding - far more than allowing individuals decide how they want to force their 'separation' in each other's faces.

I believe it WOULD lower classroom bullying, dramatically - certainly along such cosmetic boundaries.

But, I ALSO believe it would have the possibility to drive people along together, to a common ground, where education would unify people... to the fact that our differences are ENTIRELY superficial... and, largely irrelevent.

Hey GI,
I usually at least have respect for your arguments, but how in the world did you come up with this one. Don't you see what a huge abridgement of first ammendment rights that is?

First - I don't think first amendment rights SHOULD have any sway in the education system.

I am not entirely sure ANY of the rights accorded to "all citizens", ARE allowed in the classroom.

Furthermore, I am not convinced they SHOULD be.

First - I don't think first amendment rights SHOULD have any sway in the education system.

I am not entirely sure ANY of the rights accorded to "all citizens", ARE allowed in the classroom.

Furthermore, I am not convinced they SHOULD be.
Why not? (and yes, most first amendment rights are allowed in the classroom)

it is possible that a headscarf could block a camera.


So can a textbook ... ban them.

yes are the head scarves banned in many places if any in the U.S.?

There is one case. It was one of a woman wanting to be a cop. She wanted to wear one that covered her face(not birca). The police said not going to happen. She sued on Relgious grounds and lost.

Scarves in general? Not really......

So can a textbook ... ban them.

It happens! Can't have that evil Evilution corrupting the minds of students!

So why not for secruity reasons?

Hmmm some of my math and physics books were rather thick! They can be used as weapons! Got to ban those to follow the zero tollerance rules!

:D

If the general uniform was a mini-skirt and a tube-top, you can rest assured that most people would be complaining.

The boys wouldn't! And some girls for that matter :D

The boys wouldn't! And some girls for that matter :D

I would, I don't like tube tops.
The miniskirt would get no complaint though, hehehe.

And as stated several pages back, why ban the head scarf? I think it's quite attractive.

I'm a Muslim female, I wear the headscarf, and yes, I do feel naked without it. People have already compared a Muslim woman without a head covering feeling how a non-Muslim woman would feel topless though, so I won't go into that.

I for one would be curious to an answer from your Iman. What's his insight to the wearing of the scarf if it would cause problems for people and especially for you?

One Iman said take it off as it does not make you more of a Muslim. I would be curious to anothers viewpoint.

Again it is genuine curiosity. I really doubt the US would ban it's wearing.....

I would, I don't like tube tops.
The miniskirt would get no complaint though, hehehe.

And as stated several pages back, why ban the head scarf? I think it's quite attractive.

Different strokes! ;)

As to the Birca, I learned why the Taliban wanted them. After the war some of the women tossed them. They were stunning! ;)

I'm fully in favor of topless mormon girls. Let's pass that law.

Vote number n.

It is not descrimination so long as everyone is treated equally. I.e. all headgear is banned.

Why not? (and yes, most first amendment rights are allowed in the classroom)

Why should a child have 'freedom of religion'?

To be honest - they probably understand little or none, of the implication, or even the doctrine, of their particular faith - especially the way religion is often idiot-proofed for children.

So, why allow them to 'express' something they can clearly not fully appreciate?

There is no freedom of speech in school, their is no right to keep and bear arms... etc. Why SHOULD as divisive an issue as faith, be allowed ANY public exhibition, in a place like a school - which serves a sole purpose of education?

Why should a child have 'freedom of religion'?

To be honest - they probably understand little or none, of the implication, or even the doctrine, of their particular faith - especially the way religion is often idiot-proofed for children.

So, why allow them to 'express' something they can clearly not fully appreciate?

There is no freedom of speech in school, their is no right to keep and bear arms... etc. Why SHOULD as divisive an issue as faith, be allowed ANY public exhibition, in a place like a school - which serves a sole purpose of education?

Are you a victim of the Socratic method? :D

Why should a child have 'freedom of religion'?

To be honest - they probably understand little or none, of the implication, or even the doctrine, of their particular faith - especially the way religion is often idiot-proofed for children.

So, why allow them to 'express' something they can clearly not fully appreciate?

There is no freedom of speech in school, their is no right to keep and bear arms... etc. Why SHOULD as divisive an issue as faith, be allowed ANY public exhibition, in a place like a school - which serves a sole purpose of education?
Because it's a right granted in the Constitution, that's why. Sorry, that's just how it goes.

Different strokes! ;)

As to the Birca, I learned why the Taliban wanted them. After the war some of the women tossed them. They were stunning! ;)


Well, I think the Burqua is just weird. But if anyone wants to wear it, tat's their buisness, not mine.
Head scarfs though (I keep forgetting the name), are a different thing.

Grave_n_idle, I was under the impression, from my Religious Studies prof, that Muslim children are taught full well the religion they are borne into, and that's it's not "sugar coated" like Christianity is.
I've never seen a "Children's Qu'oran", but I have seen Children's Bibles.

On the contrary, I don't think banning such articles DOES increase bullying mentality.

This insistence on enforced actions to show how 'different' we all are confuses me. As far as I can see, it is that pressure of separation that leads to the fear and bigotry.

A classroom where all children are equal, where they all learned with the same access, and were not immersed in difference - well, that seems like the kind of environment that could promote understanding - far more than allowing individuals decide how they want to force their 'separation' in each other's faces.

I believe it WOULD lower classroom bullying, dramatically - certainly along such cosmetic boundaries.

But, I ALSO believe it would have the possibility to drive people along together, to a common ground, where education would unify people... to the fact that our differences are ENTIRELY superficial... and, largely irrelevent.

A situation in which students are forced to conform, regardless of their own beliefs cannot teach that differences are superficial, as it hides the fact that there are differences at all.

The boys wouldn't! And some girls for that matter :D

Even if it was the same uniform for the boys?

Why should a child have 'freedom of religion'?

To be honest - they probably understand little or none, of the implication, or even the doctrine, of their particular faith - especially the way religion is often idiot-proofed for children.

So, why allow them to 'express' something they can clearly not fully appreciate?

There is no freedom of speech in school, their is no right to keep and bear arms... etc. Why SHOULD as divisive an issue as faith, be allowed ANY public exhibition, in a place like a school - which serves a sole purpose of education?

You do realize that young children generally don't wear it in the first place, correct? It is girls after puberty - who are old enough to begin making their own religious decisions, who may choose to wear the hijab.

Because it's a right granted in the Constitution, that's why. Sorry, that's just how it goes.

And how is that even vaguely relevent?

Grave_n_idle, I was under the impression, from my Religious Studies prof, that Muslim children are taught full well the religion they are borne into, and that's it's not "sugar coated" like Christianity is.
I've never seen a "Children's Qu'oran", but I have seen Children's Bibles.

My Muslim friends have told me the same thing... that Islam doesn't make cute-fat-hippo versions of the end of the world.. but, most of my Muslim friends have also told me (as have most of my friends of OTHER faiths) that they didn't really understand their faith as children..

Personally, I think the evidence points to the fact that MOST 'religious' people don't 'understand' their faith, even as adults.

A situation in which students are forced to conform, regardless of their own beliefs cannot teach that differences are superficial, as it hides the fact that there are differences at all.

I don't know whether to agree or disagree.

The way I see it, your assertion and your conclusion do not mesh...

Since, removing the 'superficial' also removes difference.

And how is that even vaguely relevent?
Because we're in the US and citizens have first amendment rights. You can't violate them unless they explicitly interfere with the workings of the school, which religious symbols on a person do not.

Even if it was the same uniform for the boys?

HMmmm Well if there are some boys with boobies, then you have a point! ;)

Hmm, would the suggestion of banning a necklace with a cross in it be considered racist?
I was horrified when I heard this first suggested- because I cannot for the life of me imagine one good reason to ban head coverings. I've tried to invision a time at which it would be potentially offensive or dangerous, and I've come up short each time.

A situation in which students are forced to conform, regardless of their own beliefs cannot teach that differences are superficial, as it hides the fact that there are differences at all.

Welllllllll I am not sure on that.

From my catholic school days we were all forced to conform on the dress code. We still managed to notice differences. Standing out from the crowd is not exactly a common thing for children, then tend to want to group anyway.

Now if you are talking military type conformity, then yes.

I don't know whether to agree or disagree.

The way I see it, your assertion and your conclusion do not mesh...

Since, removing the 'superficial' also removes difference.

It does not remove the difference - it only removes the appearance. An orthodox Muslim girl is still orthodox Muslim, even if she is forced to not wear her hajib. A Christian boy is still a Christian boy, even if he gets punished for attempting to read his Bible during private reading time. A Hindi girl is still Hindi, even if she is not allowed to come to school when she has ritual Henna tattoos. Most likely, as soon as it is their choice, they *will* go back to their religious views. Meanwhile, other students will have grown up without exposure to the idea that someone may have these different views.

Not to mention that hiding cultural and religious differences in the school could prevent many students without decent parents from ever knowing that the indoctrination they receive at home is not what everyone believes. On the other hand, if a girl in the class wears a hajib, another student may ask. She may explain. This doesn't mean that the other student will want to convert or anything, but it may get them thinking about the new idea.

It is the equivalent of sweeping such differences under the rug. Instead of teaching that they are irrelevant, we are saying "These are bad differences, so we don't want to see them. Just pretend they don't exist."

Because we're in the US and citizens have first amendment rights. You can't violate them unless they explicitly interfere with the workings of the school, which religious symbols on a person do not.

I'd be interested to see if this could be proved to be true, on both counts...

First: It doesn't appear that children are offered the same "protections" as adults, in the Constitution...

But, also... as far as I can see... this debate means that religious symbols CAN be argued as 'explicitly interfering' with the workings of the school.

I'd be interested to see if this could be proved to be true, on both counts...

First: It doesn't appear that children are offered the same "protections" as adults, in the Constitution...

But, also... as far as I can see... this debate means that religious symbols CAN be argued as 'explicitly interfering' with the workings of the school.
Not to mention current limitations on things that "interfere" as much as the proposed head gear

Because we're in the US and citizens have first amendment rights. You can't violate them unless they explicitly interfere with the workings of the school, which religious symbols on a person do not.

American Arrogence! We ARE NOT IN THE US! We are on the net. The Net is an international domain. I am British, so please respect that

I am constantly amazed at your lack of reading skills. Did you miss the part where I stated that a dress code could call for the only headwear to be black scarves or hats which meet certain requirements? The school could easily state the following:

"Only the following headwear shall be allowed: Plain black scarves or hats which extend no more than 2 inches from the head and contain no logos or advertisements."

This would alleviate the problem without forcing anyone to come to school in the equivalent of being naked.

I would very much appreciate it if you would bother to read a post all the way through before replying - I'm really sick of repeating myself every time I reply to you.

They could say that, but they could equally say "no headwear" and there is nothing wrong. Its not racist because they have a legitamate reason to do so, as I have demonstrated. Also, there is no need for personal insults.

You do realize that young children generally don't wear it in the first place, correct? It is girls after puberty - who are old enough to begin making their own religious decisions, who may choose to wear the hijab.

What makes them capable of making their own decisions?

Is this because they are considered old enough to vote? Or to die in the armed forces of their government?

Perhaps, I can see a valid claim for 'children' who are older than the age of majority, being allowed to wear such iconography.

Of course, they would need to be in a separated school from the younger children.

What makes them capable of making their own decisions?


Religious adulthood and societal adulthood are two different things. A Jewish boy becomes a bar mitzvah and, thus, an adult in the eyes of the community at age 13. He still can't vote in US elections, still can't enter contracts, and still can't join the military, but he now has a voice in the community and within the synagogue and, thus, is expected to act a certain way.

Muslims are pretty much the same way. As a matter of fact, in most families I've seen, kids get to decide how they wish to dress well before they are of voting age.

First - I don't think first amendment rights SHOULD have any sway in the education system.

I am not entirely sure ANY of the rights accorded to "all citizens", ARE allowed in the classroom.

Furthermore, I am not convinced they SHOULD be.

I guess you need another ammendment to the Constitution that states when and under what circumstances we have those rights. Personally I think that would be yet another errosian of the principles this country was founded on.

Why should a child have 'freedom of religion'?

To be honest - they probably understand little or none, of the implication, or even the doctrine, of their particular faith - especially the way religion is often idiot-proofed for children.

So, why allow them to 'express' something they can clearly not fully appreciate?

There is no freedom of speech in school, their is no right to keep and bear arms... etc. Why SHOULD as divisive an issue as faith, be allowed ANY public exhibition, in a place like a school - which serves a sole purpose of education?

Spoken like a religous atheist zealot.

My Muslim friends have told me the same thing... that Islam doesn't make cute-fat-hippo versions of the end of the world.. but, most of my Muslim friends have also told me (as have most of my friends of OTHER faiths) that they didn't really understand their faith as children..

Personally, I think the evidence points to the fact that MOST 'religious' people don't 'understand' their faith, even as adults.


That doesn't negate their right to practice them.

I don't know whether to agree or disagree.

The way I see it, your assertion and your conclusion do not mesh...

Since, removing the 'superficial' also removes difference.

The issue here really shouldn't be about removing superficial differences. It should be a teaching process. Specifically, teaching respect and tolerance for differences. Some of the difference may be superficial, some of them run way deeper than that and to force anyone to subjagate those differences in the hope of not being persecuted defeats the whole foundation for the freedom of religous practice. It is just another form of the Dark Ages mentallity that anyone that doesn't conform, must be forced to.

What makes them capable of making their own decisions?

Is this because they are considered old enough to vote? Or to die in the armed forces of their government?

Perhaps, I can see a valid claim for 'children' who are older than the age of majority, being allowed to wear such iconography.

Of course, they would need to be in a separated school from the younger children.

Even if it isn't the child's right under the Constitution, it would be a violation of parental rights and responsibilities as legal guardian for the child.

They could say that, but they could equally say "no headwear" and there is nothing wrong. Its not racist because they have a legitamate reason to do so, as I have demonstrated. Also, there is no need for personal insults.

Pointing out that you clearly failed to read my entire post is not an insult, dear. Please come off the martyr complex.

I for one would be curious to an answer from your Iman. What's his insight to the wearing of the scarf if it would cause problems for people and especially for you?

One Iman said take it off as it does not make you more of a Muslim. I would be curious to anothers viewpoint.

Again it is genuine curiosity. I really doubt the US would ban it's wearing.....

Wearing the headscarf has never really caused problems in school even though there's a uniform, mostly because the rules say 'wear X' instead of 'Y is banned' (except with football colours).

As for what the imams say (just so you know, it's imam not iman), I've never heard or heard of any of them saying it doesn't make you more of a Muslim. Most say that if it causes any real problems (e.g. after 9/11 a lot of hijab-wearing girls were getting attacked) that you could replace it with something less obvious that still covers your hair, like a hat or hood and a high-necked sweater. However, since hijab is a personal thing for most women they tend to go by their own knowledge rather than what an imam says.

What makes them capable of making their own decisions?

Well, there's this thing called the brain...

Perhaps, I can see a valid claim for 'children' who are older than the age of majority, being allowed to wear such iconography.

One need not be older than the age of majority to begin making your own decisions. Surely, you know that children mature gradually and must gradually be given the chance to make their own decisions?

Of course, they would need to be in a separated school from the younger children.

You seem to have this view that children should not be influenced by anyone at all, ever. This is an impossible view, as they *will* be influenced by others. Perhaps it is best to make sure that they are influenced by a broad range of others.

Pointing out that you clearly failed to read my entire post is not an insult, dear. Please come off the martyr complex.

No, but calling me dear is, love.

No, but calling me dear is, love.
She calls everyone dear at some point or another ... just a name refference

She calls everyone dear at some point or another ... just a name refference

I feel a fluffel attack coming on...

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I feel a fluffel attack coming on...

:fluffle: ... :fluffle:
You started it! :) I was being good for your sake :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Religious adulthood and societal adulthood are two different things. A Jewish boy becomes a bar mitzvah and, thus, an adult in the eyes of the community at age 13. He still can't vote in US elections, still can't enter contracts, and still can't join the military, but he now has a voice in the community and within the synagogue and, thus, is expected to act a certain way.

Muslims are pretty much the same way. As a matter of fact, in most families I've seen, kids get to decide how they wish to dress well before they are of voting age.

I appreciate that society has certain ages of majority... depending on what is being discussed. Those dates are pretty much arbitrary, and have little, really, to do with capacity to comprehend or make good decisions.

The right to vote, is set at an arbitrary age.

The age of bar mitzvah is set at an arbitrary age.

Neither of those ages reflects anything about the maturity or understanding of the person - not really. They are just based on assumption, and a kind of 'best guess' approach.

And, since the neurology of a teenager is noticably different to that of an adult - since they lack the same fundamental mechanisms as the more adult brain - I think it is misguided to suggest that they really 'understand' their religion, or comprehend the ramifications of their decisions.

I appreciate that society has certain ages of majority... depending on what is being discussed. Those dates are pretty much arbitrary, and have little, really, to do with capacity to comprehend or make good decisions.

The right to vote, is set at an arbitrary age.

The age of bar mitzvah is set at an arbitrary age.

Neither of those ages reflects anything about the maturity or understanding of the person - not really. They are just based on assumption, and a kind of 'best guess' approach.

And, since the neurology of a teenager is noticably different to that of an adult - since they lack the same fundamental mechanisms as the more adult brain - I think it is misguided to suggest that they really 'understand' their religion, or comprehend the ramifications of their decisions.


I know I did not 'understand' my religion at that age

I guess you need another ammendment to the Constitution that states when and under what circumstances we have those rights. Personally I think that would be yet another errosian of the principles this country was founded on.

This country (one assumes you mean the US, even though our forum is a wroldwide community, based in the UK) was based on the principle of personal liberty - and the thing about PERSONAL liberty, is that it is only PERSONAL liberty when it doesn't infringe the liberty of another.

By THAT token, by the founding principles... the US should NOT allow any evidences of affiliation of any kind, within classrooms, which are supposed to be a venue for education (free from other constraints) and NOT a recruiting ground for any cause.

As a curiousity, DOES a child in school (or not in school) have ALL of the rights 'allowed' by the Constitution?

This country (one assumes you mean the US, even though our forum is a wroldwide community, based in the UK) was based on the principle of personal liberty - and the thing about PERSONAL liberty, is that it is only PERSONAL liberty when it doesn't infringe the liberty of another.

By THAT token, by the founding principles... the US should NOT allow any evidences of affiliation of any kind, within classrooms, which are supposed to be a venue for education (free from other constraints) and NOT a recruiting ground for any cause.

As a curiousity, DOES a child in school (or not in school) have ALL of the rights 'allowed' by the Constitution?
Simpily stated
No

No, but calling me dear is, love.

Really? I've never been told that dear was an insult before.

Really? I've never been told that dear was an insult before.
So is it an insult if I get ... um distressed and say "oh dear me?"

I know I did not 'understand' my religion at that age

If anyone ever gets to the point where they think they "understand" their religion, they've lost their faith and don't understand anything.

Meanwhile, I know for a fact that I was coming into my own around that age and, while I didn't know as much about myself/religion/etc. as I do now, I was beginning to start making these decisions for myself. It would have been sad indeed if someone had suggested, just at that vulnerable age, that even considering the question was socially unacceptable.

This country (one assumes you mean the US, even though our forum is a wroldwide community, based in the UK) was based on the principle of personal liberty - and the thing about PERSONAL liberty, is that it is only PERSONAL liberty when it doesn't infringe the liberty of another.

By THAT token, by the founding principles... the US should NOT allow any evidences of affiliation of any kind, within classrooms, which are supposed to be a venue for education (free from other constraints) and NOT a recruiting ground for any cause.

There is no way in which one student expressing affiliation to something can be said to infringe upon the personal liberty of another, any more than me stating that I am a Christian infringes upon you.

This country (one assumes you mean the US, even though our forum is a wroldwide community, based in the UK) was based on the principle of personal liberty - and the thing about PERSONAL liberty, is that it is only PERSONAL liberty when it doesn't infringe the liberty of another.

By THAT token, by the founding principles... the US should NOT allow any evidences of affiliation of any kind, within classrooms, which are supposed to be a venue for education (free from other constraints) and NOT a recruiting ground for any cause.

As a curiousity, DOES a child in school (or not in school) have ALL of the rights 'allowed' by the Constitution?

You mean for any cause but sex ed., passing out condoms, preservation of natural resources, evolution, atheism and what ever issues you happen to agree with.

Wearing a headscarf, or a cross, or reading a Bible during ones free time doesn't constitute recruting.

As for Constitutional rights of children, between the child and his/her parents all of those rights are granted.

There is no way in which one student expressing affiliation to something can be said to infringe upon the personal liberty of another, any more than me stating that I am a Christian infringes upon you. or me claiming that someones theory on human origins infringes on my personal liberty.

or me claiming that someones theory on human origins infringes on my personal liberty.

Wrong. This would only be true if any scientific theory were taught as pure fact. It is not, unless the students are too lazy to understand the first chapter - in which case they deserve to be misled.

Really? I've never been told that dear was an insult before.

It's patronising, which is a form of insulting.

It's patronising, which is a form of insulting.

I'm sorry. Next time I'll make sure to say something like "READ MY F***ING POSTS!" instead.

I'm sorry. Next time I'll make sure to say something like "READ MY F***ING POSTS!" instead.

No need to swear. Swearing is merely indicative of a lack of vocabulary

No need to swear. Swearing is merely indicative of a lack of vocabulary

Well, I figured you might like it better than my normal vocabulary, which you apparently find to be insulting.

Well, I figured you might like it better than my normal vocabulary, which you apparently find to be insulting.

If you cant draw a line between swearing and patronising your vocabulary is in need of serious work.

If you cant draw a line between swearing and patronising your vocabulary is in need of serious work.

Hmmmm......Hypocrisy anyone?

Hmmmm......Hypocrisy anyone?

Care to explain why?

Care to explain why?

Not really. It's more fun to watch, and I don't think it would help anyways. Examine the conversation, and maybe you'll get it.