British Moslem girl awarded right to wear religious outfit (1 Viewer)

[Urethra Franklin]

The British courts have ruled that a moslem girl was discriminated against in being asked to remove her Islamic outfit, and that she has a right to attend school veiled.

Fundamental difference here between the British and French approaches to 'equality'
Britain: allow all to display their crucifixes, kippas, headscarves, turbans etc.
France: no religious symbols in schools, symbols of christianity included.

Who's right? Either? Both? Neither?

 

[Schweddy]

Britain is right in this position. Everyone should have the right to freedom of religion.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

The British courts have ruled that a moslem girl was discriminated against in being asked to remove her Islamic outfit, and that she has a right to attend school veiled.

Fundamental difference here between the British and French approaches to 'equality'
Britain: allow all to display their crucifixes, kippas, headscarves, turbans etc.
France: no religious symbols in schools, symbols of christianity included.

Who's right? Either? Both? Neither?

Either all people should be allowed to display their religion, or none should. It is total hypocracy to allow some to wear their crosses etc and prevent others from wearing their chosen form of dress.

Personally, I think state school is a place for education, not for religious indoctrination. This girl could have gone to a Muslim school if she felt so strongly about it.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

. Everyone should have the right to freedom of religion.

As everybody does in France. What's asked is that they don't bring it into a public school, that's all.

I think there is a fundamental difference between the two nations.

Britain: state religion (anglicanism) with religion in every state school. I don't agree with that, but if that's the law of the land, then you provide equality by allowing everyone to display symbols of their religion (or their atheism), and that should include pagans, devil worshippers etc.

France: officially secular state; no state religion. Secular public institiutions. Equality is ensured by having no religious symbolism in state schools. Those who disagree can send their children to religious schools.

I think perhaps they're both right according to their situation, but I prefer the philosophy of the French secular state.

 

[Schweddy]

It would seem that France, like many states in the US, is muting freedom of expression in schools.

How is that a good thing?

 

[Urethra Franklin]

It would seem that France, like many states in the US, is muting freedom of expression in schools.

How is that a good thing?

Quite the contrary.
The most fervent supporters of the ban on religious symbols in French schools are moslem women.
Young girls who have the veil forced upon them by fathers and brothers get "time off" when they go to school. Given what the veil represents, how do you give a young girl a sense of worth and the feeling that she's equal if she can't even show her face? Many of these girls, when interviewed, say they feel they can express themselves MORE freely without the veil - especially in classes where it matters (philosophy, political science, sociology etc). Unlike where I went to school, French kids get philosophy classes in place of religious indoctrination (which is what I had). They are taught to think for themselves, analyse and debate. I can't speak for the US states you allude to, but if you think French schools don't allow the kids to express themselves, you've been watching too much Fox news. Girls who want to cover up can do it the minute they leave the school gate. And they don't get beaten up for being moslem, as happened to US moslems after 9/11.

 

[gordontravels]

Quite the contrary.
The most fervent supporters of the ban on religious symbols in French schools are moslem women.
Young girls who have the veil forced upon them by fathers and brothers get "time off" when they go to school. Given what the veil represents, how do you give a young girl a sense of worth and the feeling that she's equal if she can't even show her face? Many of these girls, when interviewed, say they feel they can express themselves MORE freely without the veil - especially in classes where it matters (philosophy, political science, sociology etc). Unlike where I went to school, French kids get philosophy classes in place of religious indoctrination (which is what I had). They are taught to think for themselves, analyse and debate. I can't speak for the US states you allude to, but if you think French schools don't allow the kids to express themselves, you've been watching too much Fox news. Girls who want to cover up can do it the minute they leave the school gate. And they don't get beaten up for being moslem, as happened to US moslems after 9/11.

I believe the History of Religion should be taught in all schools. Not the specific religion or one point or another but the History of Religion from throughout time and from around the world. The vast majority of why countries are like they are and what they do in forming their societies is based upon the prevailing religion of their people or of their rulers. If a Muslim father directs his own daughter to wear a veil, are you the one to tell her to go against her father's wishes? If the girl doesn't want to wear the veil, are you the one to tell her it's alright? Are you the father, government or the god (not capitalized for obvious reasons).

Religion bothers people. Usually people who don't subscribe to that or any religion. I think it comes down to how much you want someone, government, religious entity or individual telling someone what to do or what they can't do. It seems it gets down to parents have rights; government has rights; religion has rights; individuals have rights; God has no rights :duel ~~~

 

[Naughty Nurse]

I think perhaps they're both right according to their situation, but I prefer the philosophy of the French secular state.

I, too, would prefer a secular state. I think comparative religion should be taught as an academic subject, as religion is (sadly) still a major force in the world. But I disagree with holding religious services in state schools.

There is another advantage to transforming the UK into a secular state: we'd have to get rid of our main parasites, AKA the Royal Family!

I do believe in religious freedom, but don't think the state should promote religion in any way.

 

[gordontravels]

I, too, would prefer a secular state. I think comparative religion should be taught as an academic subject, as religion is (sadly) still a major force in the world. But I disagree with holding religious services in state schools.

There is another advantage to transforming the UK into a secular state: we'd have to get rid of our main parasites, AKA the Royal Family!

I do believe in religious freedom, but don't think the state should promote religion in any way.

So you would agree with the teaching of Religious History? :duel ~~~

 

[Naughty Nurse]

So you would agree with the teaching of Religious History? :duel ~~~

Yes, if it was treated as an objective academic subject and included all of the world's major religions. I don't think you can look at history without looking at religion as part of that history.

 

[gordontravels]

Yes, if it was treated as an objective academic subject and included all of the world's major religions. I don't think you can look at history without looking at religion as part of that history.

Excellent! Let's kick the butts of those that disagree :duel ~~~

 

[Contrarian]

There are fundamental basis which must be adhered to when looking at this question. As someone stated, if Great Britain is truely an Anglican nation they can ascribe the same religious freedoms that might be available in Tehran. Since the Queen, as the head of the Church of England (geez, you gotta love the power trip!) theoretically call the shots for their subjects. She can say, if you don't like my religion... get out (or follow that good ol' fashioned Christian love and kill 'em).

The French, while a mystery to me (great food and wine... the rest?) have chosen to recognize that they are a secular DEMOCRACY, which means an absolute seperation of church and state (W hasn't figured that one out yet). So, if you want to go to their tax payer funded schools, you need to keep your religious artifacts at home. If you want to wear a veil... go to a Muslin school.

While people like Vauge advocate allowing everyone to express their religiousity in public, they really mean, if it happens to conform with their accepted ideas of faith. It might get alittle messy if a Haitian VooDoo worshipper decides to exercise his rights by dragging a decapitated bleeding rooster to class... or I might have caused a stir if I brought a Viking broad sword to school with a flaggon of Aquavit to celebrate the glory of Odin. I have my rights just like the cross wearing, kippa topped, veil drapped apostates of the other fairy tales. In an environment of religious "freedom" everyones bull sh*t is equal... no? If they can display their trinkets... so can everyone else. Therefore, the only reasonable thing to do, is stop everyone from strutting there stuff while learning to read and write on the dime of the public. If that isn't acceptable, pay tuition at a religious school.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

If a Muslim father directs his own daughter to wear a veil, are you the one to tell her to go against her father's wishes? If the girl doesn't want to wear the veil, are you the one to tell her it's alright? Are you the father, government or the god (not capitalized for obvious reasons).

Women are equal to men under French law.

Under Islamic law they are not. For example, their word is deemed to have half the worth of that of a man.

If you choose to live in an explicitly secualr state which respects human rights you don't treat your wives and daughters like your property. If you wish to behave that way you stay in Algeria, Yemen, wherever. You can't come to France for the economic benefits and not fulfil your part of the bargain. People can do what the hell they like, but when they impinge on the human rights of others, their wives and daughters included, that is not acceptable.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

There are fundamental basis which must be adhered to when looking at this question. As someone stated, if Great Britain is truely an Anglican nation they can ascribe the same religious freedoms that might be available in Tehran. Since the Queen, as the head of the Church of England (geez, you gotta love the power trip!) theoretically call the shots for their subjects. She can say, if you don't like my religion... get out (or follow that good ol' fashioned Christian love and kill 'em).

The French, while a mystery to me (great food and wine... the rest?) have chosen to recognize that they are a secular DEMOCRACY, which means an absolute seperation of church and state (W hasn't figured that one out yet). So, if you want to go to their tax payer funded schools, you need to keep your religious artifacts at home. If you want to wear a veil... go to a Muslin school.

While people like Vauge advocate allowing everyone to express their religiousity in public, they really mean, if it happens to conform with their accepted ideas of faith. It might get alittle messy if a Haitian VooDoo worshipper decides to exercise his rights by dragging a decapitated bleeding rooster to class... or I might have caused a stir if I brought a Viking broad sword to school with a flaggon of Aquavit to celebrate the glory of Odin. I have my rights just like the cross wearing, kippa topped, veil drapped apostates of the other fairy tales. In an environment of religious "freedom" everyones bull sh*t is equal... no? If they can display their trinkets... so can everyone else. Therefore, the only reasonable thing to do, is stop everyone from strutting there stuff while learning to read and write on the dime of the public. If that isn't acceptable, pay tuition at a religious school.

And they said the perfect man didn't exist...........

 

[Naughty Nurse]

And they said the perfect man didn't exist...........

Oh, puhleeze ....

 

[Schweddy]

While people like Vauge advocate allowing everyone to express their religiousity in public, they really mean, if it happens to conform with their accepted ideas of faith. It might get alittle messy if a Haitian VooDoo worshipper decides to exercise his rights by dragging a decapitated bleeding rooster to class... or I might have caused a stir if I brought a Viking broad sword to school with a flaggon of Aquavit to celebrate the glory of Odin.

I appreciate the kind thoughts of guessing what I think, but it is a little off. Sure I am a Chirstian and make no bones about it. But, I am also no Jesus freak. If asked, I say what I believe and go my way.

The two examples you cited are illegal in public schools. It is illegal to bring a dead animal to school, as well it is illegal to bring a weapon. As such, it would be illegal to bring a cross that is sharpened to a point that could be used as a weapon.

I have no issues if someone wanted to wear a shirt that said: "I [heart] voodoo" or "I [heart] Odin" or "I [heart] Allah". As well, many Americans would not. But, as soon as it says "I [heart] Jesus" some increadible anti-religious fanaticism erupts here in the US. Why?

My wife is a teacher and has allowed some of her Muslim kids to pray in her room (between class). I have no issues with this at all. I actully think that it is awesome that she allows them to fulfill thier religious expectations to thier almighty in her classroom when it is available and not during a class.

Express your religion all that is desired, but do not expect or attempt to force me into believing or accepting that your philosophy is true. That goes for Christians and athiests as well.

 

[gordontravels]

Then we are in agreement. Fear of even the teaching of religion is paranoia at its heights. My agreement stems from knowing how deeply seated religion is; not only in the vast numbers of our human counterparts but, in the governments and even businesses of the world. I can see the history being taught without the indoctrination.

Some of my best friends send their children to religious schools where that indoctrination along with dress codes and strict codes of conduct are in effect and enforced. Of all the people I know, it is the children that are enrolled in these religious schools or the children from the bible belt families that are the best behaved and do the best in school. I do not think this coincidence.

Although I don't think the simple teaching of Religious History would improve our MTV generation nor their peer morals I, at the very least, think it would show them the organization of religious thought and deed; the good graces of people as well as the use of religion as a weapon. My belief is that God is on humanity's side and at least understand religions and their origins and actions can't hurt the child or young adult :duel ~~~

 

[gordontravels]

I just tried to edit my previous post and ran into the draconian rule of no more than 10 minutes of editing. I therefore lost all my edit and now can't edit it at all. This would be a nice rule to do away with if you ask me and if you don't, then you are putting unworkable rules on this forum. I just wasted my time and I won't do it again. I don't expect anyone to argue for this 10 minute rule; interfering with anyone posting as they wish is wrong.

 

[Contrarian]

I appreciate the kind thoughts of guessing what I think, but it is a little off. Sure I am a Chirstian and make no bones about it. But, I am also no Jesus freak. If asked, I say what I believe and go my way.

This is exactly my point.. you have adapted a reasonable code of behavior that conforms to societal norms. But what if your religion required you do something outside the "norm"? I can think of quite a few real zingers but I will reserve it to the Mormons practice of poligamy, which our government forced them to give up in return for statehood. How does a society that promotes religious freedom allow all the variations?

"The two examples you cited are illegal in public schools. It is illegal to bring a dead animal to school, as well it is illegal to bring a weapon. As such, it would be illegal to bring a cross that is sharpened to a point that could be used as a weapon."
It is also illegal to cover your face in drivers license photos, but Muslims have gone to court to preseve that "religious freedom". For a devout believer of VooDoo, they must make a blood sacrifice to avoid hell and damnation (pretty scary stuff for them). And for believers of the ancient religion of Asatru (Norse Paganism), the sword is not a weapon but a religious necessity because if they die without a sword in their hands they lose the opportunity of going to Valhalla (heaven) forever. As I said, people of Judeo-Christian faith are supportive of religious expression as long as it conforms with their definition of "normality".

"I have no issues if someone wanted to wear a shirt that said: "I [heart] voodoo" or "I [heart] Odin" or "I [heart] Allah". As well, many Americans would not. But, as soon as it says "I [heart] Jesus" some increadible anti-religious fanaticism erupts here in the US. Why?"

I have no issue either. I applaud the expression of self. Everyone should be proud of who they are. I consider myself an aggressive non-believer, but I respect everyone freedom to worship Wal Mart if they want. However, I can understand WHY the "fanatics" as you call them, reacting the way they do. If you happen to be a non believer in this country.. an Atheist, you are treated like a derranged leper. I can speak from personal experience. People who I've known for years (and never spoke of religious beliefs etc) found out that I was not of their belief system... you could visibly see the recoil. Now I know what it would be like to announce you were gay! In addition, (not to waste your time... I'm sorry for the length) there is no chance in hell, that an announced Athiest in this country could get elected to office, which is not true of any other race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Think about why they are ****ed?

"My wife is a teacher and has allowed some of her Muslim kids to pray in her room (between class). I have no issues with this at all. I actully think that it is awesome that she allows them to fulfill thier religious expectations to thier almighty in her classroom when it is available and not during a class."

I applaud her... but how far would she let that go? Some African religions require young boys to masturbate daily as they transition to manhood... I doubt she would respect their religious rights. Think about it.

Express your religion all that is desired, but do not expect or attempt to force me into believing or accepting that your philosophy is true. That goes for Christians and athiests as well.

You are correct in theory, but until you can guarantee respect of ALL versions of religious belief (or non-belief) the "practice" of one faith cannot be condoned in publically funded venues. The "expression" of who a person is (and what they believe) is to be applauded as long as it does not infringe upon others OR require taxpayer dollars to support it. The hypocracy here is that the basic foundation of all religions is (sorry, I've said it before) that "I'm right and you are wrong" therefore if you don't beleive what I believe, you are inferior (going to hell). This hypocracy is exhibited by the desire to "save" these poor souls fro themselves... missionaries. Think about it.

Thanks Vauge, I enjoyed this thread

 

[Contrarian]

Then we are in agreement. Fear of even the teaching of religion is paranoia at its heights. My agreement stems from knowing how deeply seated religion is; not only in the vast numbers of our human counterparts but, in the governments and even businesses of the world. I can see the history being taught without the indoctrination.

Some of my best friends send their children to religious schools where that indoctrination along with dress codes and strict codes of conduct are in effect and enforced. Of all the people I know, it is the children that are enrolled in these religious schools or the children from the bible belt families that are the best behaved and do the best in school. I do not think this coincidence.

Although I don't think the simple teaching of Religious History would improve our MTV generation nor their peer morals I, at the very least, think it would show them the organization of religious thought and deed; the good graces of people as well as the use of religion as a weapon. My belief is that God is on humanity's side and at least understand religions and their origins and actions can't hurt the child or young adult :duel ~~~

History is written by the victor (sorry Urethra, it's a quote, but I'm not sure from who) Paranoia has nothing to do with it. The religious "history" that you speak of would not be taught objectively. It would be as slanted as FOX or CNN, and reflect the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of the US society. Do you think for one minute they would accurately teach the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades or even how modern Christianity's rituals and holidays have their roots firmly in Paganism? Geez, they can't even accept evolution as fact.

WIth respect to religion and educational performance. The kids may be better behaved (I'm not sure... have you checked juvenile police records?), but I have a list of about 30 studies (I'll forward if you like) over the last 50 years that show the lower religiousity, the higher the intellect. I haven't read them in detail, but it could have something to do with promoting free thought. Also, if you look at the IQ levels of the "Bible Belt" states you will find them in the lower half of the national averages.


I agee that everyone should understand the history and genesis of religion since it is the single largest influence for societal behavior (both good and EVIL) in the history of mankind, but a truly objective academic presentation is impossible.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

I agee that everyone should understand the history and genesis of religion since it is the single largest influence for societal behavior (both good and EVIL) in the history of mankind, but a truly objective academic presentation is impossible.

I agree with everything else in your post, but not so sure about this bit. I think this might be possible. We did Religious Education when I was at scholl. Sadly there was a huge emphasis on Christianity and relatively little on other religions, but there was very little in the way of attempting to persuade people to become Christians.

I think finding enough people who had the knowledge to teach religion as an academic subject, but who didn't have a strong personal agenda to put forward might be a real challenge. But impossible? Maybe not!

 

[Urethra Franklin]

We did Religious Education when I was at scholl.

But not spelling? (only teasing sweet pea )

I would rather see theology taught as a philosophical discipline, as opposed to Religious Studies, which where I went to school (a catholic school in the UK) was simply indoctrination. Indeed; it was still called "R.I." (Religious Instruction). What Contrarion says is absolutely true (quelle surprise: sigh) regarding the assumed superiority of those with religious beliefs. Indeed, we were actively taught we would be "blessed" if we only mixed with other catholics (Protestants were a no no; Jews, well, our Lord was a Jew, but aren't they a bit thick they're still waiting for the son of God to come and he's already been? Moslems, Hindus etc. savages, and as for atheists well, they're just going straight to hell).

I think the French (and indeed Italian) education systems are right to place such an importance on teaching philosophy at such a young age, encouraging powers of reflection of formulating ones own ideas. I've just seen a question that was given in a Baccalauréat paper (i.e. the school exams kids are taking at about 17 years old) "Does art influence our relationship with reality". The average British kid would be lost on a question like that, which is rather a shame.

 

[Contrarian]

A true objective approach to teaching this is next to impossible because to the years of programming that went into our virginal little heads. It has become such an emotional issue for most (present company included), that it is difficult, as empassioned humans, not to sell our agenda. Why you stated when you said: "We did Religious Education when I was at school. Sadly there was a huge emphasis on Christianity and relatively little on other religions, but there was very little in the way of attempting to persuade people to become Christians." And you also pointed out that you weren't directly persuaded to become a Christian, but subconsciously the message was (and is) that Christianity being the highlighted religion (most emphasis) is correct, and oh, by the way, these other guys exist too (invalidated). Being the human lemmings that we are, we don't want to be left out of the "In Crowd", so we drink the Kool Aid and fall into step with the accepted group. No one did anything to you directly... you do it to yourself. This is one of the great principal of marketing, and human kind has been sold this crap since the beginning of time. Oh wow, should I buy the Nike's or NEw Balance running shoes? Which one will make me look like one of the cool kids? Just substitute, Catholic, Protestant, Jew or any of their various subgroups. Everyone want to belong to something... it's a tribal instinct for survival. SO therefore, (man I can get long winded... sorry) it cannot be objectively taught, because the instinct is to bring the stray into your tribe, because in numbers there is strength (and all the money you can fleece out of them in exchange for eternal salvation). A pack of wolves kills more effectively than a single one does.