What kind of headgear should be allowed on schools?
No headgear should be allowed
22.8% (28)
22.8% (28)
Only religious headgear should be allowed
17.1% (21)
17.1% (21)
Only atheist headgear should be allowed
3.3% (4)
3.3% (4)
Only headgear that leaves the face visible and doesn't hinder anyone's view should be allowed
55.3% (68)
55.3% (68)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Atheist headgear banned on school

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Shock and Awe:
Seeing as the issue is very important to those who wear the headgear and quite unimportant to those who do not this is an issue of accommodation.

What an amazingly generalizing thing to say. You've inspected the motivations of everyone who wants to wear headgear on that school - now, and in the coming decades? And you've conclude that all the religious motivations were all very important and that all non-religious motivation were quite unimportant?!

How did you do that?!

Shock and Awe:
It may discrimination in the strict sense of the definition but its more of a problem to keep people from wearing religious headgear then it is to accommodate it.

But instead of designing discriminatory laws, couldn't we just allow everyone to wear headgear?

Danyal:
What?! You cannot wear anything that shows you're religious?! How could you ever enforce that?
I mean, would I be allowed to wear a 'I love the Flying Spaghetti Monster'-shirt if Pastafarianism wasn't recognized as a real religion?

*Sigh*

Will you please stop forcing me to side with Katatori-kun? It feels weird.

The original purpose of banning headwear in schools is probably a combination of

a) formalised Western propriety (remove your hat and scarf at the door, be wearing a tie, tuck in your shirt, if you're wearing trousers with no belt you may as well be a caveman, etc) and

b) a method of dissuading expensive, distracting or potentially inciteful forms of self-expression. Many schools have similar regulations on jewelry, footwear, and slogan T-shirts for the same kind of reason.

A school child who turns up to class wearing religious headwear should be reasonably exempt from reason a), because most schools readily accept their intake will no longer be exclusively white or domestic-born and already accomodate this in a variety of ways, and b) isn't an issue because it's a matter of sociocultural norms, not fashion.

The only religious accoutrements that I'd say should be banned are items that don't comply with health and safety rules, like the Sikh dagger, or ones that severely restrict communication, like the full face-veil.

Trying to enforce a one-size-fits-all solution isn't egalitarian, it just steamrolls any meaningful concept of diversity.

Just to please you, perhaps the school should allow any pupil to wear a headscarf. The Muslim girls would be happy, and you'd be allowed to wear a fetching pseudo-hijab too. There's true equality for you.

keiskay:
still a false equivalence danyal. you dont see groups of people roaming europe beating up atheist because they are atheist.

I know many European organization that are founded by ex-Muslim apostates who feel insecure.

keiskay:
you dont see countries and societies tampering with crime statistics to make atheist seem like evil mass rapist.

The majority of Muslim scholars hold to the traditional view that apostasy is punishable by death or imprisonment until repentance, at least for adult men of sound mind.[2][3][4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

keiskay:

you dont see many people complaining about atheist and saying they should be removed from the society and deported.

Not 'many', just like you don't see many people advocating that Muslims should be removed from society and deported.

keiskay:
so really i could care less if a Muslims is allowed to wear a hat, because chances are some ignorant, butthurt fuckheads are gonna beat them up and assault them because they cant wear hat like the Muslim girl can. butt on the other hand if an atheist walks around with a hat with a giant A on it nothing will happen to him.

But Islamic apostates are threatened by death. But of course, this is not a reason to discriminate against Muslims, is it? Was it goblin metal in Harry Potter? That stuff that only absorbs the good stuff while rejecting all detrimental things? Are Muslims made out of it?

Danyal:

But instead of designing discriminatory laws, couldn't we just allow everyone to wear headgear?

That's a totally different issue.

"I don't like the dress code at my school" is a minor, local issue. Take it up with the school board. The school certainly has a right to set a dress code to whatever they think is appropriate, within reason

"People who have religious requirements that don't fit the dress code at my school" is a completely different issue.

(shrug) If a school has a uniform requirement, and an Amish person or a Mormon or an Orthodox Jew is required by their religion to only wear certain types of cloths or material and they have to wear something else, then obviously the school has to make accommodations. It doesn't mean the school can't have a uniform requirement.

If a person can't be in school a certain day because of a religious holiday, then schools have to accept that as an excuse; the schools are closed for the major Christian holidays, so it's only fair that students of other religions get the same privileges.

In our system, it's all about protecting the rights of the minority against the will of the majority. And, again, that benefits you directly, so I wouldn't be trying so hard to change that.

Batou667:
Trying to enforce a one-size-fits-all solution isn't egalitarian, it just steamrolls any meaningful concept of diversity.

It is egalitarian. But you just prefer some kind of strange form of 'diversity'. So allowing people to wear headgear for non-religious reasons (for example, cultural reasons) "steamrolls any meaningful concept of diversity"?

image

Yosarian2:
In our system, it's all about protecting the rights of the minority against the will of the majority. And, again, that benefits you directly, so I wouldn't be trying so hard to change that.

If you're going to make an exception to a trivial rule for any trivial reason, why don't just discard the trivial rule?!

irmasterlol:
Quit being so sensitive. If there was such a thing as 'atheist head gear' then you might be able to make an argument, but no one is discriminating against you by allowing these girls the basic right of practicing the tenants of their religion.

Yes, they are. They are allowed to wear headgear and he is not. There is no discernible difference between the two, just the personal desires of those girls get more weight because they're religious in nature. One personal desire is religious, one isn't. One is favored because it's religious... this is what we call discrimination.

Danyal:
It is egalitarian. But you just prefer some kind of strange form of 'diversity'. So allowing people to wear headgear for non-religious reasons (for example, cultural reasons) "steamrolls any meaningful concept of diversity"?

*SIGH*

You're flipping my argument on its head and wondering why the bizarro-world equivalent sounds silly. Of course it sounds silly when you get the set and subset in the wrong order and remove all context.

A rigid headwear ban isn't egalitarian, it's absolutist; and what's more it's discriminatory because enforcing such a ban is a trivial non-issue to non-(Muslim-females) but a decidedly non-trivial and very immediate issue to Muslim-females.

Let's try an analogy (because analogies are awesome and always work, amirite? Here goes nothing). You enrol at a college whose dress code is "no trousers", and this rule is enforced with zero tolerance. It applies equally as strictly to women as it does to men, therefore it's completely egalitarian, right? Actually, meeting the criteria for this dress code would be only a minor inconvenience for most of the female students, but would constitute a much bigger issue for male students. What's that, Danyal? You'd rather not be forced to wear a skirt, as it doesn't reflect your culture and personal identity, and would actually make you feel uncomfortable? Then you're at perfect liberty to not attend this college. Rules are rules, and we wouldn't want to upset the girls by letting double-standards slip in.

Get it?

[edit] Also, why aren't you supporting my super-egalitarian idea about letting all pupils wear headscarves, regardless of their gender or religion? I thought you'd like it.

cerapa:
As far as I understand things, freedom of religion means that you are allowed to follow any religion you want, and says nothing about gaining extra rights because of your religion.

This is a common misinterpretation of what freedom of religion is, often proposed by members of the privileged majority.

This isn't a case of anyone gaining an extra right. This is a case of people who have a right already promised under principles of equality causing a re-think of rules that were made by people in a time when their needs weren't even imagined.

Actually I would say that this might be a violation of the freedom of religion, simply because it treats different religions differently.

Differences are not violations of rights. This is another of the ways that members of privileged majorities enforce discrimination against minorities- they portray any instance of the minorities behaving differently as discrimination against the majority somehow.

Giving special rights to someone of a particular religion not only implies that that religion deserves more in some form, but also implies that others do not deserve that right.

Bollocks it does. If a society allows freedom of religion, then all religions must be allowed to practice their religion so long as it does no harm to others. Everyone has the right to follow their beliefs. No one is being discriminated against.

Katatori-kun:
Bollocks it does. If a society allows freedom of religion, then all religions must be allowed to practice their religion so long as it does no harm to others. Everyone has the right to follow their beliefs. No one is being discriminated against.

Second sentence: yes.
Third sentence: yes (within reason.)
Fourth sentence: no.

Because people are not being allowed to perform similar practices, discrimination is occurring. It is discrimination based upon religion. The discrimination is "if the rule is being broken for a religious reason, it is fine. If not, then it is not fine." You can argue that this discrimination is justified, but you cannot argue that it is not discrimination.

Batou667:

Danyal:
It is egalitarian. But you just prefer some kind of strange form of 'diversity'. So allowing people to wear headgear for non-religious reasons (for example, cultural reasons) "steamrolls any meaningful concept of diversity"?

*SIGH*

You're flipping my argument on its head and wondering why the bizarro-world equivalent sounds silly. Of course it sounds silly when you get the set and subset in the wrong order and remove all context.

You said...

Batou667:
Trying to enforce a one-size-fits-all solution isn't egalitarian, it just steamrolls any meaningful concept of diversity.

I thought that you meant my "no face, no view hindered, all headgear allowed"-solution when you said 'one-size-fits-all-solution'. Why would that steamroll diversity?

Batou667:
A rigid headwear ban isn't egalitarian, it's absolutist; and what's more it's discriminatory because enforcing such a ban is a trivial non-issue to non-Muslim-females but a decidedly non-trivial and very immediate issue to Muslim-females.

Read the OP:

Danyal:
It seems way more logical and way less discriminatory, to allow....
-headgear that leaves the face properly visible and doesn't hinder the view of students behind you
...or...
-no headgear

What do you think?

My first solution was ALLOWING HEADGEAR not banning it. I NEVER expressed sympathy for banning headgear in this thread, I only advocated everyone's freedom to wear what they like.

Batou667:
Let's try an analogy (because analogies are awesome and always work, amirite? Here goes nothing). You enrol at a college whose dress code is "no trousers", and this rule is enforced with zero tolerance. It applies equally as strictly to women as it does to men, therefore it's completely egalitarian, right? Actually, meeting the criteria for this dress code would be only a minor inconvenience for most of the female students,

Trousers are very normal for female Dutch students, and a lot of them would need to buy just as many new skirts as men.

Batou667:
but would constitute a much bigger issue for male students. What's that, Danyal? You'd rather not be forced to wear a skirt, as it doesn't reflect your culture and personal identity, and would actually make you feel uncomfortable?

To make this analogy proper reflect the situation I'm talking about, males would protest and be allowed to wear trousers. Then, I, female, would start a thread here on the Escapist, stating that I'd like to allow everyone to wear trousers. Then, you and Katatori and others start complaining that I am an evil majority who tramps on the rights of minorities while steamrolling diversity.

Katatori-kun:

cerapa:
As far as I understand things, freedom of religion means that you are allowed to follow any religion you want, and says nothing about gaining extra rights because of your religion.

This is a common misinterpretation of what freedom of religion is, often proposed by members of the privileged majority.

This isn't a case of anyone gaining an extra right. This is a case of people who have a right already promised under principles of equality causing a re-think of rules that were made by people in a time when their needs weren't even imagined.

So because of freedom of religion we need to accommodate religious people whenever they demand it and it's reasonably possible? This is not just 'being social and tolerant' and rethinking rules whenever it bothers a certain group, whether they are religious or not?

Well, that's a great reason to discard 'freedom of religion'.

Katatori-kun:
Bollocks it does. If a society allows freedom of religion, then all religions must be allowed to practice their religion so long as it does no harm to others. Everyone has the right to follow their beliefs. No one is being discriminated against.

Isn't it discrimination to allow religious people to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't harm others while not tolerating non-religious people in the same way?

Seanchaidh:
You can argue that this discrimination is justified, but you cannot argue that it is not discrimination.

As far as I know, justified discrimination is not discrimination. Discrimination is denying certain people for an arbitrary, not a valid reason. Denying children to get a driver's license is not discrimination.

Danyal:

Katatori-kun:

cerapa:
As far as I understand things, freedom of religion means that you are allowed to follow any religion you want, and says nothing about gaining extra rights because of your religion.

This is a common misinterpretation of what freedom of religion is, often proposed by members of the privileged majority.

This isn't a case of anyone gaining an extra right. This is a case of people who have a right already promised under principles of equality causing a re-think of rules that were made by people in a time when their needs weren't even imagined.

So because of freedom of religion we need to accommodate religious people whenever they demand it and it's reasonably possible? This is not just 'being social and tolerant' and rethinking rules whenever it bothers a certain group, whether they are religious or not?

Yay, another straw man. Quite disappointing. This isn't a case of headgear rules "bothering" a certain group. It's a case of them preventing the group from engaging in necessary practices that do no harm to the public. To portray them as "bother" shows your lack of interest in a reasonable discussion of the topic. But then, even that is just another re-tread of your first thread.

Isn't it discrimination to allow religious people to do whatever they like

Yep, you're definitely not interested in sincere discussion of the topic. You're just trying to twist it into something that can fit your anti-religion agenda. Too bad. Have a nice day.

Danyal:

Seanchaidh:
You can argue that this discrimination is justified, but you cannot argue that it is not discrimination.

As far as I know, justified discrimination is not discrimination. Discrimination is denying certain people for an arbitrary, not a valid reason. Denying children to get a driver's license is not discrimination.

That's a common connotation, but not a necessary one.

Danyal:
I thought that you meant my "no face, no view hindered, all headgear allowed"-solution when you said 'one-size-fits-all-solution'. Why would that steamroll diversity?

Yeah, that could work. It's missing the point, though. There are good reasons for banning hats in school, which don't apply to religious head coverings, as I mentioned a few posts back.

To make this analogy proper reflect the situation I'm talking about, males would protest and be allowed to wear trousers. Then, I, female, would start a thread here on the Escapist, stating that I'd like to allow everyone to wear trousers. Then, you and Katatori and others start complaining that I am an evil majority who tramps on the rights of minorities while steamrolling diversity.

Nah, doesn't work, as there are no non-Muslim-females campaigning for the right to wear hijabs. To rejig the analogy, the current situation is like you (male) trying to ban girls wearing skirts to school because, since they have the option of skirt or trousers, they're subject to a different set of rules which is the same as positive discrimination and favouritism and isn't it all unfair.

Katatori-kun:
Yep, you're definitely not interested in sincere discussion of the topic. You're just trying to twist it into something that can fit your anti-religion agenda. Too bad. Have a nice day.

Why do you complain about what you think I think instead of just answering my questions and discussing it with me? This was quite an important and fundamental subject.

You think we should accommodate religious people because of freedom of religion.

I think freedom of religion doesn't mean that. Dutch laws don't think freedom of religion means that. I do think 'tolerance for stuff that doesn't harm (/bother) anyone' is something that we should apply to anyone, not only religious people. Applying it only to religious people is discrimination, I my eyes.

By the way, you said I was privileged, and you don't want to talk with me anymore because of... something.

Well, I think I haven't said this here before, but I'm dead serious. I was recently diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. Am I now a minority without privilege? Are you going to 'accommodate me'? We have lower social skills. It's a real disorder. I don't think I can expect or demand you to accommodate me and I think I just have to try harder to 'appear social'. But, whatever. I'm interested in your response.

Batou667:

Danyal:
It is egalitarian. But you just prefer some kind of strange form of 'diversity'. So allowing people to wear headgear for non-religious reasons (for example, cultural reasons) "steamrolls any meaningful concept of diversity"?

*SIGH*

You're flipping my argument on its head and wondering why the bizarro-world equivalent sounds silly. Of course it sounds silly when you get the set and subset in the wrong order and remove all context.

A rigid headwear ban isn't egalitarian, it's absolutist; and what's more it's discriminatory because enforcing such a ban is a trivial non-issue to non-(Muslim-females) but a decidedly non-trivial and very immediate issue to Muslim-females.

Let's try an analogy (because analogies are awesome and always work, amirite? Here goes nothing). You enrol at a college whose dress code is "no trousers", and this rule is enforced with zero tolerance. It applies equally as strictly to women as it does to men, therefore it's completely egalitarian, right? Actually, meeting the criteria for this dress code would be only a minor inconvenience for most of the female students, but would constitute a much bigger issue for male students. What's that, Danyal? You'd rather not be forced to wear a skirt, as it doesn't reflect your culture and personal identity, and would actually make you feel uncomfortable? Then you're at perfect liberty to not attend this college. Rules are rules, and we wouldn't want to upset the girls by letting double-standards slip in.

Get it?

[edit] Also, why aren't you supporting my super-egalitarian idea about letting all pupils wear headscarves, regardless of their gender or religion? I thought you'd like it.

Yea. And imagine, that in that hypothetical situation, men get to wear pants, but woman do not. Wouldn't it be fair to allow women to wear pants too?

Batou667:
Yeah, that could work. It's missing the point, though. There are good reasons for banning hats in school, which don't apply to religious head coverings, as I mentioned a few posts back.

Every time when someone tries to make a point about 'Abrahamic religions' or 'Islam' here, we get told that we are evil generalizing people who fail to see how diverse the subject we're talking about is. But suddenly, all religious headgear is this-and-that and all non-religious headgear is thus-and-so?

Batou667:
Nah, doesn't work, as there are no non-Muslim-females campaigning for the right to wear hijabs.

No, there are non-religious people campaigning for the right to wear headgear. It's an anology, remember?

Batou667:
To rejig the analogy, the current situation is like you (male) trying to ban girls wearing skirts to school because, since they have the option of skirt or trousers, they're subject to a different set of rules which is the same as positive discrimination and favouritism and isn't it all unfair.

1. I can choose to wear a skirt too. Nobody is making fun of kilts here.

2. I ask freedom, not a ban!

You're the one who demands different treatment of religious and non-religious people.

The rule could also be "No headgear allowed, except for certain people with a validated reason". Then Muslim girls could go ask the head or the school or someone else if they were allowed to wear their headscarf, and they were allowed to do it. The bald cancer-patient could do the same, just as the guy who is ashamed of his red hair or the Indian who likes to wear a turban. I've got no problems with that. But I favor 'equal treatment' over 'prejudicial treatment of non-religious people and discriminatory rules'. Is that so strange?!

Katatori-kun:

cerapa:
As far as I understand things, freedom of religion means that you are allowed to follow any religion you want, and says nothing about gaining extra rights because of your religion.

This is a common misinterpretation of what freedom of religion is, often proposed by members of the privileged majority.

This isn't a case of anyone gaining an extra right. This is a case of people who have a right already promised under principles of equality causing a re-think of rules that were made by people in a time when their needs weren't even imagined.

Actually I would say that this might be a violation of the freedom of religion, simply because it treats different religions differently.

Differences are not violations of rights. This is another of the ways that members of privileged majorities enforce discrimination against minorities- they portray any instance of the minorities behaving differently as discrimination against the majority somehow.

Giving special rights to someone of a particular religion not only implies that that religion deserves more in some form, but also implies that others do not deserve that right.

Bollocks it does. If a society allows freedom of religion, then all religions must be allowed to practice their religion so long as it does no harm to others. Everyone has the right to follow their beliefs. No one is being discriminated against.

1) Sadly this is not a case of a re-think of a rule. This is an exception to a rule, giving more power to a group or groups of people. If this isnt a case of additional right, then I dont know what is.
2)This isnt differing behaviour, this is sidestepping a rule. Personally I do understand the fact that wearing some sort of hat can be very important to a person, but that is more of a reason for getting rid of the rule, rather than making an exception based on religion. An exception which carries the implication that religious requirements are more important than other requirements. A better exception would be to allow hats when it is required or badly needed, regardless of whetever the requirement is religious in nature.
3)Rules are created to prevent harm of some kind. Doing an exception like this means that religious people are allowed to cause harm. Thus violating freedom of religion(or rather not being covered by it).

(1 is for the part under the first quote, 2 after the second and etc.)

It's not for religious reasons that headgear is not allowed in school. The main worry is that hats and such are associated with gangs, and also that they can be flashy and distracting.

renegade7:
It's not for religious reasons that headgear is not allowed in school. The main worry is that hats and such are associated with gangs, and also that they can be flashy and distracting.

The debate is the exact opposite of this. We all understand the reasons, the debate is whetever exceptions should be made on the basis of religion.

renegade7:
It's not for religious reasons that headgear is not allowed in school. The main worry is that hats and such are associated with gangs, and also that they can be flashy and distracting.

We're talking about a rule that was made up in a Dutch school.

In a rural area.

In the 1950's.

image

This headgear wasn't outlawed in schools because of 'association with gangs' or 'it's too flashy!'.

I have to say no. In fact I am a proponent of uniforms in schools. Students should be focused on school, and not on how they look.

Danyal:

renegade7:
It's not for religious reasons that headgear is not allowed in school. The main worry is that hats and such are associated with gangs, and also that they can be flashy and distracting.

We're talking about a rule that was made up in a Dutch school.

In a rural area.

In the 1950's.

image

This headgear wasn't outlawed in schools because of 'association with gangs' or 'it's too flashy!'.

I'm not saying it's a reasonable rule, but whenever I ask anyone why the rule exists that is the answer I get.

Hey guys, I've got a great "devil's advocate" discussion point to throw in here.

Rules are made to be broken. If someone feels that strongly about their decision to wear a hat, they'll wear it, whether they like it or not. If they care that much about it to get expelled, then they will, on a matter of principle.

However, you don't hear of a lot of people being expelled because they were defending their right to wear a beanie hat in classrooms in winter.

Relish in Chaos:
Hey guys, I've got a great "devil's advocate" discussion point to throw in here.

Rules are made to be broken. If someone feels that strongly about their decision to wear a hat, they'll wear it, whether they like it or not. If they care that much about it to get expelled, then they will, on a matter of principle.

However, you don't hear of a lot of people being expelled because they were defending their right to wear a beanie hat in classrooms in winter.

A refusal to stop wearing a hat is often met with a confiscation of the hat. Teachers and administrators can get their way on the issue without resorting to expulsion. This would explain not hearing about it.

Now, even were that not the case, I don't think it's reasonable to expect every student to be willing to risk expulsion to secure a right or privilege. That is an indication of a strong belief, but such a strong belief ought not be necessary.

Danyal:

Shock and Awe:
Seeing as the issue is very important to those who wear the headgear and quite unimportant to those who do not this is an issue of accommodation.

What an amazingly generalizing thing to say. You've inspected the motivations of everyone who wants to wear headgear on that school - now, and in the coming decades? And you've conclude that all the religious motivations were all very important and that all non-religious motivation were quite unimportant?!

How did you do that?!

Shock and Awe:
It may discrimination in the strict sense of the definition but its more of a problem to keep people from wearing religious headgear then it is to accommodate it.

But instead of designing discriminatory laws, couldn't we just allow everyone to wear headgear?

The reason head gear is not allowed in school is because its traditionally seen as impolite or improper to wear a hat indoors at all, this can be seen in many places other then school. The reason religious headgear is allowed is because its also traditionally seen as rude to stand between another person and the practice of whatever faith they have. Its also not a law, its simply a school policy. Is it necessarily fair? Maybe not completely, but neither is not making girls tuck in shirts but I don't see you posting here about that.

Shock and Awe:
The reason head gear is not allowed in school is because its traditionally seen as impolite or improper to wear a hat indoors at all, this can be seen in many places other then school. The reason religious headgear is allowed is because its also traditionally seen as rude to stand between another person and the practice of whatever faith they have.

I understand why the situation is as it is. I am studying history. I have to understand, well, basically anything. Why America invaded Iraq, why a lot of Christians oppose gay marriage and why Hitler wanted to wipe out the Jews. Understand=/=Agree.

Shock and Awe:
Its also not a law, its simply a school policy. Is it necessarily fair? Maybe not completely, but neither is not making girls tuck in shirts but I don't see you posting here about that.

Nobody is forced to tuck in their shirts at the school I'm talking about, nor at any school I know about.

Danyal:
Every time when someone tries to make a point about 'Abrahamic religions' or 'Islam' here, we get told that we are evil generalizing people who fail to see how diverse the subject we're talking about is. But suddenly, all religious headgear is this-and-that and all non-religious headgear is thus-and-so?

Rules are made on generalities. Back when the rules were made (the '50s in your example, but similar "exceptions on religious grounds" battles are being fought in many schools all over Europe right now) "don't wear a hat" was an eminently sensible rule. However, it didn't accommodate the idea that anybody would seriously have cause to wear a hijab or a kippah or a turban - after all, that's what foreigners wear. Fast-forward sixty years, the foreigners are our fellow countrymen, and that particular part of the dress code is no longer compatible with the cultural and religious needs of all of the students, so it needs to be changed.

Your average student had no need to wear a flat cap, balaclava, sombrero or motherfuckin' propellor beanie back in the '50s, and they still don't. So there's no need to modify that particular part of the dress code. Seriously, what part of this don't you get?

No, there are non-religious people campaigning for the right to wear headgear. It's an anology, remember?

No, the non-religious people are saying "they shouldn't ought to have concessions made for them, unless we get concessions too, and what's more we want our concessions to be frivolous". Like I said; just amend the rule to say "Anybody is permitted to wear a headscarf, regardless of gender or religion". Perfect fairness, and suddenly the issue of egalitarianism evaporates.

You're the one who demands different treatment of religious and non-religious people.
The rule could also be "No headgear allowed, except for certain people with a validated reason". Then Muslim girls could go ask the head or the school or someone else if they were allowed to wear their headscarf, and they were allowed to do it. The bald cancer-patient could do the same, just as the guy who is ashamed of his red hair or the Indian who likes to wear a turban. I've got no problems with that. But I favor 'equal treatment' over 'prejudicial treatment of non-religious people and discriminatory rules'. Is that so strange?!

So... your solution is to have all final decisions at the discretion of the head teacher? Is that not EXACTLY what is happening at the moment, with the school choosing to waive the "no headwear" rule for hijabs? What purpose would it serve to have that codified into the school rules?

Come on, be honest. You didn't make this thread - twice - to protest about not being able to wear a hat in class, did you? You're not even of school age any more. You're here to complain because of a percieved injustice because "they're allowed to do something I'm not" - even if that "something" (wearing a hijab) is something you had no desire to do before and would have no use for even if you were permitted to. I can't help but agree with Katatori on this one; your whole argument is just a cheap shot at one of the most benign elements of a very specific religion. And I say that as a pro-secularist and de-facto strong atheist.

Stop worrying about what a minority of girls may or may not be wearing on their heads and have a nice beer or something.

Danyal:

Nobody is forced to tuck in their shirts at the school I'm talking about, nor at any school I know about.

Continental savages! Come to England, and we'll show you the meaning of pride in our school uniform. Our kids don't tuck in their shirts either, but they get shouted at for it, which proves our superiority!

Katatori-kun:

Bollocks it does. If a society allows freedom of religion, then all religions must be allowed to practice their religion so long as it does no harm to others. Everyone has the right to follow their beliefs. No one is being discriminated against.

What if the religion promotes something that is illegal but does no harm to others?

Like, if there was a religion that demanded the follower to take heroin once a week, what then?

Danyal:

Yosarian2:
In our system, it's all about protecting the rights of the minority against the will of the majority. And, again, that benefits you directly, so I wouldn't be trying so hard to change that.

If you're going to make an exception to a trivial rule for any trivial reason, why don't just discard the trivial rule?!

Trivial? I think it's fairly important that schools be able to set a basic dress code. You should see what some of the high school students try to wear to school around here.

Anyway, that's irrelevant. If you think the school should change their dress code because you want to wear a hat, then talk to the school board. If you want to try to have the govenrment try to use force of law to attempt change the culture of a minority group, then that's a horrible idea, because that just creates a "us against them" mindset in that minority group that discourages them from talking to the police or whatever, and it's even worse if they're using the schools to do it the way France is, because then that discourages the group from going to school at all.

Stop pretending like the two things are one issue; they are almost totally unrelated. Your desire to wear a hat to school, or talk on your cell phone at school, or go to school naked, or whatever you want to do is basically unrelated to the issue of religious freedom.

Seanchaidh:

Relish in Chaos:
Hey guys, I've got a great "devil's advocate" discussion point to throw in here.

Rules are made to be broken. If someone feels that strongly about their decision to wear a hat, they'll wear it, whether they like it or not. If they care that much about it to get expelled, then they will, on a matter of principle.

However, you don't hear of a lot of people being expelled because they were defending their right to wear a beanie hat in classrooms in winter.

A refusal to stop wearing a hat is often met with a confiscation of the hat. Teachers and administrators can get their way on the issue without resorting to expulsion. This would explain not hearing about it.

Now, even were that not the case, I don't think it's reasonable to expect every student to be willing to risk expulsion to secure a right or privilege. That is an indication of a strong belief, but such a strong belief ought not be necessary.

The kid could simply try to steal it back, kick up a fuss or otherwise continue wearing it the next day. Either way, if they really felt that strongly about it, we'd hear stories. Seriously, some kids are stubborn bastards, and some kids can get expelled for the stupidest things nowadays.

Relish in Chaos:

Seanchaidh:

Relish in Chaos:
Hey guys, I've got a great "devil's advocate" discussion point to throw in here.

Rules are made to be broken. If someone feels that strongly about their decision to wear a hat, they'll wear it, whether they like it or not. If they care that much about it to get expelled, then they will, on a matter of principle.

However, you don't hear of a lot of people being expelled because they were defending their right to wear a beanie hat in classrooms in winter.

A refusal to stop wearing a hat is often met with a confiscation of the hat. Teachers and administrators can get their way on the issue without resorting to expulsion. This would explain not hearing about it.

Now, even were that not the case, I don't think it's reasonable to expect every student to be willing to risk expulsion to secure a right or privilege. That is an indication of a strong belief, but such a strong belief ought not be necessary.

The kid could simply try to steal it back, kick up a fuss or otherwise continue wearing it the next day. Either way, if they really felt that strongly about it, we'd hear stories. Seriously, some kids are stubborn bastards, and some kids can get expelled for the stupidest things nowadays.

I suppose that's plausible. I wonder how much the social acceptability of kicking up a fuss would be involved. I mean, presumably it's more socially acceptable to kick up a fuss about such things if "my religion says so" is part of your reasons rather than you're "just a weirdo who is really into hats" or something. Social acceptability of protest, however, is not a measure of validity of complaint or strength of conviction.

Yosarian2:

Danyal:

Yosarian2:
In our system, it's all about protecting the rights of the minority against the will of the majority. And, again, that benefits you directly, so I wouldn't be trying so hard to change that.

If you're going to make an exception to a trivial rule for any trivial reason, why don't just discard the trivial rule?!

Trivial? I think it's fairly important that schools be able to set a basic dress code. You should see what some of the high school students try to wear to school around here.

Anyway, that's irrelevant. If you think the school should change their dress code because you want to wear a hat, then talk to the school board. If you want to try to have the govenrment try to use force of law to attempt change the culture of a minority group, then that's a horrible idea, because that just creates a "us against them" mindset in that minority group that discourages them from talking to the police or whatever, and it's even worse if they're using the schools to do it the way France is, because then that discourages the group from going to school at all.

Stop pretending like the two things are one issue; they are almost totally unrelated. Your desire to wear a hat to school, or talk on your cell phone at school, or go to school naked, or whatever you want to do is basically unrelated to the issue of religious freedom.

Why is their culture any more important than some other belief, hmm?

And it's quite related, people are getting a free pass on their beliefs because their beliefs are being granted a completely unnecessary 'special' status.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked