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
 

Beanies are "atheist headgear"? Haha :D

Anyway, I think the whole ban on wearing headgear, providing it is open faced, is stupid. What does it really matter who wears what on their head? Whether for religious or other reasons.

Ninjamedic:

Tell me, what aspect of their belief allows them to bend the rules in this manner? And how would that belief or idea be any different than a moral opposition not infleuenced by belief?

It's hats, dude. Hats. Stop giving so many fucks. They aren't needed.

TheDarkEricDraven:

Ninjamedic:

Tell me, what aspect of their belief allows them to bend the rules in this manner? And how would that belief or idea be any different than a moral opposition not infleuenced by belief?

It's hats, dude. Hats. Stop giving so many fucks. They aren't needed.

What is the point of posting what amounts to "Don't talk about this" if your real point is that this is pretty irrelevant? What, is this thread stopping us from doing something important like talking about Mass Effect?

Mortai Gravesend:
What is the point of posting what amounts to "Don't talk about this" if your real point is that this is pretty irrelevant? What, is this thread stopping us from doing something important like talking about Mass Effect?

Lol, that's what I wanted to post. Stop reading my mind! It's private! :P

TheDarkEricDraven:

Ninjamedic:

Tell me, what aspect of their belief allows them to bend the rules in this manner? And how would that belief or idea be any different than a moral opposition not infleuenced by belief?

It's hats, dude. Hats. Stop giving so many fucks. They aren't needed.

Did you read my posts with Tyler? I can say my patience with this is gone. My point still stands, if you can't provide an actual reason for defying a rule in a public school beyond "I have to", I'm not going to let you have privilege over others because of your specific beliefs. Either allow all to wear hats or don't allow any.

Danyal:

Mortai Gravesend:
What is the point of posting what amounts to "Don't talk about this" if your real point is that this is pretty irrelevant? What, is this thread stopping us from doing something important like talking about Mass Effect?

Lol, that's what I wanted to post. Stop reading my mind! It's private! :P

Mind reading is part of my religion ;D

But really... it's kind of an obvious silencing tactic and it's getting annoying seeing people using it. I never like it regardless of how inconsequential the talk because well... we're not exactly doing anything important here anyway -__-

Ninjamedic:

TheDarkEricDraven:

Ninjamedic:

Tell me, what aspect of their belief allows them to bend the rules in this manner? And how would that belief or idea be any different than a moral opposition not infleuenced by belief?

It's hats, dude. Hats. Stop giving so many fucks. They aren't needed.

Did you read my posts with Tyler? I can say my patience with this is gone. My point still stands, if you can't provide an actual reason for defying a rule in a public school beyond "I have to", I'm not going to let you have privilege over others because of your specific beliefs. Either allow all to wear hats or don't allow any.

I understand the idea; however, as I was trying to put across a little more bluntly before being tsk-tsk'd for no apparent reason, was that in the greater scheme of things, this is a rather petty issue to be getting all up in arms about.

Tyler Perry:

Mortai Gravesend:

Tyler Perry:

Cool fucking story bro. "Obviously upset." Wow, you must be like a psychic or something.

Or I can read your posts.

Your post is utter word salad. Step away from the keyboard and come back later when you're not so angry.

Not at all. You could come back when you have something to contribute besides saying we shouldn't talk about this because it makes you unhappy or whatever BS reason. First you go with the implication there are more important things, but that's kind of obvious bullshit considering the forum. Who knows what nonsense you'll come up with next?

Well, if you knew how to read, you'd see that I had previously weighed in on the subject with my two cents.

This post right here for the internet challenged: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.378886-Poll-Atheist-headgear-banned-on-school?page=4#14833049

However, since you seem more concerned with playing Forum Police and chiding me for no apparent reason except because you seem to think it makes your e-dick bigger, welcome to ignore.

Your previous post doesn't make your current ones any less pointless and any more of an attempt to shut down the discussion because... well because no real reason apparently. But really, ignore from you doesn't mean much.

Tyler Perry:

Ninjamedic:

TheDarkEricDraven:

It's hats, dude. Hats. Stop giving so many fucks. They aren't needed.

Did you read my posts with Tyler? I can say my patience with this is gone. My point still stands, if you can't provide an actual reason for defying a rule in a public school beyond "I have to", I'm not going to let you have privilege over others because of your specific beliefs. Either allow all to wear hats or don't allow any.

I understand the idea; however, as I was trying to put across a little more bluntly before being tsk-tsk'd for no apparent reason, was that in the greater scheme of things, this is a rather petty issue to be getting all up in arms about.

Because posting on the internet is 'all up in arms'. Also, I think there was a comment someone made about psychics, but I guess hypocrisy is cool. You're pointing out something even more petty.

Tyler Perry:

I understand the idea; however, as I was trying to put across a little more bluntly before being tsk-tsk'd for no apparent reason, was that in the greater scheme of things, this is a rather petty issue to be getting all up in arms about.

I guess I'm more harsh to organised religion as a result of the whole Catholic Theocracy thing.

As I've said, I have little patience for things like this. Though you're right, there are more important issues to deal with.

Mortai Gravesend:

Because posting on the internet is 'all up in arms'. Also, I think there was a comment someone made about psychics, but I guess hypocrisy is cool. You're pointing out something even more petty.

Look we get it, your persistence in lecturing him isn't helping.

Ninjamedic:

Mortai Gravesend:

Because posting on the internet is 'all up in arms'. Also, I think there was a comment someone made about psychics, but I guess hypocrisy is cool. You're pointing out something even more petty.

Look we get it, your persistence in lecturing him isn't helping.

Geez, I put the cat on ignore and he's still whining at me.

Mortai -- you can stop now.

Tyler Perry:

Ninjamedic:

Mortai Gravesend:

Because posting on the internet is 'all up in arms'. Also, I think there was a comment someone made about psychics, but I guess hypocrisy is cool. You're pointing out something even more petty.

Look we get it, your persistence in lecturing him isn't helping.

Geez, I put the cat on ignore and he's still whining at me.

Mortai -- you can stop now.

Guess you won't see it, but I'm going to keep pointing out your BS regardless of whether you have my on ignore or not. Why you care, I don't know. But rest assured, if you're going to make posts that exist solely to accuse me of whining I will report them. Just in case you actually read this.

Tyler Perry:

Look we get it, your persistence in lecturing him isn't helping.

Geez, I put the cat on ignore and he's still whining at me.

Mortai -- you can stop now.[/quote]

What to talk about now.....

TheIronRuler:

.
I wonder what's the school's view is on the Yamakah.

Orthodox/Conservative Jews wear it and nobody really says anything.

OP:I rather there was no headgear, but if that is not a choice then I would say as long as they don't wear a niqhab or something that block other students views in class if they sit behind them.

Question:

If you're a girl in that school and everyone knows you're not Muslim can you still wear those scarfs?

The reason for no headgear rule in general was to prevent its us as a symbol gangs used and because it considered impolite to wear certain hats indoors. A religious group having a type of head gear that could not be used by a gang and is not consider disrespectful to wear in their place of worship kind of gets around both of these reasons. A law not suppose to be blindly applied, but follow the reasons for its existence.

Put another way, headgear allow if its known association is with an establish group that the school doesn't want to break apart or find disrespectful. It is discriminatory, but its design to be, specifically targeting groups it doesn't like and yah stop individual expression that is seen as reckless. I don't exactly see any issue with excluding groups you don't want to precise as trying to break apart.

As an Atheist myself I have to say you really sound immature here. Allowing Islamic students to wear head scarfs is done so out of respect for another's culture and beliefs. To deny these people what they consider to be an integral part of their belief just because you think you should be able to wear a beanie as well is extremely disrespectful.

As an atheist, one should still respect and be open to the beliefs of others. Not believing in God does not make one superior another and to act in such a way makes one no better than those "church zealots" they themselves look down upon.

Tyler Perry:

Cool fucking story bro. "Obviously upset." Wow, you must be like a psychic or something.

No, he's like you in that he can read minds. Funny how you of all people would bring up the psychic things when you were so pissed that I did it.

The law on this matter is simple:

Is it a private school? Then as discriminatory as it is, they are allowed to do so. Is it a public school? Then they are part of the government and the government may not show preference to one religion. (or no religion) So then you can sue them for it.

That being said, there is no such thing as 'atheist headgear'. Not in the way you claim it to be. Atheist headgear would be something like a cap with the words 'there is no god' on it. But a plain beanie? It's neither atheist not religious. It literally has nothing to do with religion. Unless that beanie is sentient and doesn't believe in god, which I highly doubt.

I think the "atheist headgear" should be Choda Boy's dildo hat from the movie "Orgazmo."

Matthew94:
Like I said before which you ignored. What if it was illegal?

Sorry, I've got a lot of people shouting at me on a lot of different threads and I can't always remember to reply to every one.

When it comes to illegal issues every country is going to handle it differently, but since you cite drugs as an example I think the way the US handles it works just fine. Peyote is a class 1 controlled substance in the US because of it's psychoactive properties. However, members of the Native American Church are allowed to cultivate, harvest, and ingest the drug as a part of their rituals.

Now this is a little bit different from heroin, because heroin does serious harm to the body. Peyote as far as I know when used in the traditional manner has not been shown to do harm. The only risk of harm comes when someone is "tripping out", which in the context of ritual use is safeguarded against. So peyote does no harm. So it is allowed for religious usage despite being otherwise illegal. This is a perfectly sensible way to balance religious freedom against public safety.

If this hypothetical religion used heroin in a very different way from a junkie on the streets- perhaps in very low dosages so as not to do harm or cause addiction or they ingested the heroin in a more traditional way (perhaps eating part of the opium poppy plant rather than injecting heroin) so that the traditional use of the drug cannot be part of the illegal heroin trade, and if the use of the drug was in a tightly controlled situation so it could be assured that ritual users of the drug would not be a threat to others or themselves, then I would support a religious exemption on the grounds that in that situation it does no harm. If there was any concrete evidence that even religious usage of the drug would have a reasonable risk of doing harm to people, then I would have no problem making it illegal.

Godavari:
But Muslims don't have to wear head coverings any more than Americans have to shoot off fireworks on Independence Day or go door-to-door asking for candy on Halloween.

You're not the Pope of Islam, so you don't get to make that call.

Why does a religious/cultural belief trump a secular belief?

It doesn't. I never said it did. For you to assume that it does suggests to me that you're approaching this from the incorrect perspective that Danyal does.

If you have a secular belief that for whatever reason you are required to wear a hat, I welcome you to do so. Though you might mention what secular reason you come up with, because I can't think of what one might be.

And before you cite freedom of religion, I direct you to Board v. Grumet, in which the Supreme Court decided that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." The school cannot allow an exception for religious reasons but not for secular reasons.

Your case is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Your case is about a school board trying to aid a religious group over a non-religious group. Permitting students to follow their religion in a non-disruptive way is not aiding their religion, it's merely permitting its free practice. It's a sign of how truly disturbingly twisted up and tribal the discussion has become when the distinction between permitting a religion to exist and aiding it is lost on so many people.

Katatori-kun:

Godavari:
But Muslims don't have to wear head coverings any more than Americans have to shoot off fireworks on Independence Day or go door-to-door asking for candy on Halloween.

You're not the Pope of Islam, so you don't get to make that call.

Islam doesn't get the special privilege of deciding what a necessity is.

Mortai Gravesend:

Katatori-kun:

Godavari:
But Muslims don't have to wear head coverings any more than Americans have to shoot off fireworks on Independence Day or go door-to-door asking for candy on Halloween.

You're not the Pope of Islam, so you don't get to make that call.

Islam doesn't get the special privilege of deciding what a necessity is.

Islam doesn't, Muslims do. At least for deciding what is necessary for their religion. What you think is necessary doesn't enter into it.

Ninjamedic:

Yosarian2:

That's not "favoritism" at all. A discriminatory policy would be "anyone with a headscarf is not allowed into the building", which in practice is a lot like the racial segregation of the south in the 1950's. I guess that's what you're arguing in favor of?

Yep, because it is equal, it doesn't make exceptions to specific groups. By setting a rule that implies "You can't wear a scarf, unless you hold this belief" it becomes discriminatory.

Equal DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY.

The law against gay marriage is technically "equal", in that everyone, gay and straight, is allowed to marry people of the opposite gender. It still discriminates against gay people.

If you had a law that everyone had to go to church on Sunday, that would be equal. It would also be discriminatory.

Katatori-kun:

Mortai Gravesend:

Katatori-kun:

You're not the Pope of Islam, so you don't get to make that call.

Islam doesn't get the special privilege of deciding what a necessity is.

Islam doesn't, Muslims do. At least for deciding what is necessary for their religion. What you think is necessary doesn't enter into it.

No, they don't get to either. What they think is necessary shouldn't fall into what the government recognizes as a necessity.

Mortai Gravesend:

There is no general rule of tolerance, please don't make shit up.

It's called "the first amendment of the Constitution".

There are specific rules, and it is quite possible to change them to protect one thing and not another. Maybe it completely missed you in the rush to give me that awful argument, but I just said 'not impose a religion on them'.

Ah, I see. You don't care about anyone else's beliefs, so long as yours are protected. Gotcha.

Mortai Gravesend:

Katatori-kun:

Mortai Gravesend:

Islam doesn't get the special privilege of deciding what a necessity is.

Islam doesn't, Muslims do. At least for deciding what is necessary for their religion. What you think is necessary doesn't enter into it.

No, they don't get to either. What they think is necessary shouldn't fall into what the government recognizes as a necessity.

Without acknowledging a religious believer's perspective on what is necessary for the practice of their religion, freedom of religion can't exist. It's patently absurd to pretend an outsider like yourself can just decide what is necessary based on your own personal biases against the religion (or against religion in general).

Katatori-kun:

Mortai Gravesend:

Katatori-kun:

Islam doesn't, Muslims do. At least for deciding what is necessary for their religion. What you think is necessary doesn't enter into it.

No, they don't get to either. What they think is necessary shouldn't fall into what the government recognizes as a necessity.

Without acknowledging a religious believer's perspective on what is necessary for the practice of their religion, freedom of religion can't exist.

Sure it can.

It's patently absurd to pretend an outsider like yourself can just decide what is necessary based on your own personal biases against the religion (or against religion in general).

Oh look it's Katatori baselesly accusing people of bias again.

Yosarian2:

Mortai Gravesend:

There is no general rule of tolerance, please don't make shit up.

It's called "the first amendment of the Constitution".

Doesn't really fit the bill.

There are specific rules, and it is quite possible to change them to protect one thing and not another. Maybe it completely missed you in the rush to give me that awful argument, but I just said 'not impose a religion on them'.

Ah, I see. You don't care about anyone else's beliefs, so long as yours are protected. Gotcha.

Oh, so you don't care to speak without being dishonest, gotcha. Since, you know, all I was doing was refuting YOUR claim about how it did something for me when I was pointing out it wasn't necessary. You're the one that brought up my personal benefit, why the hell are you now accusing me of being selfish here when I was just refuting your bullshit?

Mortai Gravesend:

Katatori-kun:

Mortai Gravesend:

No, they don't get to either. What they think is necessary shouldn't fall into what the government recognizes as a necessity.

Without acknowledging a religious believer's perspective on what is necessary for the practice of their religion, freedom of religion can't exist.

Sure it can.

It's patently absurd to pretend an outsider like yourself can just decide what is necessary based on your own personal biases against the religion (or against religion in general).

Oh look it's Katatori baselesly accusing people of bias again.

Kindly don't waste my time. Either make your argument or don't, but going "nyu-uh!" with your fingers in your ears is of no value to anyone.

Mortai Gravesend:

Yosarian2:

Mortai Gravesend:

There is no general rule of tolerance, please don't make shit up.

It's called "the first amendment of the Constitution".

Doesn't really fit the bill.

There are specific rules, and it is quite possible to change them to protect one thing and not another. Maybe it completely missed you in the rush to give me that awful argument, but I just said 'not impose a religion on them'.

Ah, I see. You don't care about anyone else's beliefs, so long as yours are protected. Gotcha.

Oh, so you don't care to speak without being dishonest, gotcha. Since, you know, all I was doing was refuting YOUR claim about how it did something for me when I was pointing out it wasn't necessary. You're the one that brought up my personal benefit, why the hell are you now accusing me of being selfish here when I was just refuting your bullshit?

You didn't "refute" anything. And I don't know why you're calling me "dishonest" when I'm just reading what you're writing here.

The first amendment both protects freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. For all intents and purposes,it's the same thing. You have the right to not have to pray to something you don't like in school; other people have the right to have their religious practices so long as they're not disruptive.

You really should at least *understand* what your rights are and how you make your entire lifestyle possible before trying to throw them away.

You keep dodging the issue here. In English class, the teacher decides that you everyone should read and memorize parts of the Bible; he says it's in order to improve your English. Everyone else in the class is fine with this. You are not, because you are an atheist. What legally gives you the right to complain? Why should you get a special exception just because of your belief system? You can talk in vague terms about the difference between "not allowing someone to have religious beliefs" and "forcing your religious beliefs on someone", but for all practical purposes, it's the exact same thing.

If you want to ban people from wearing a headscarf because you think they shouldn't or you think it's "unfair", then you are forcing your religious beliefs, your value system, down someone else's throat. And they'll hate you for it. It makes civil society impossible. Religious tolerance was the end result of hundreds of years of horrible religious wars in Europe, after which point everyone decided "You know, let's not try to force other people to change their religious beliefs through force of law, it just gets ugly and accomplishes nothing."

Esotera:

Polarity27:

If you thought my response was solely about what's appropriate for a school, you missed my point completely. I can't imagine that your notion that a hijab is "degrading to women" was confined to school attire, and not about your attitudes toward women's clothing in general.

In reading a story like what you're talking about, I'd look to see what kind of sources it had on the "forced to wear it by husbands/family" and see who these quotes were coming from. If they're coming from women within that culture, that's one thing, but if they're coming from people outside of it, that's something else entirely. Could you find a link to what you're talking about, please?

As I said, I got confused with terminology, and think I meant the burqa. Anyway, firstly you have a lot of adverse health effects associated with wearing a burqa[1]. And also it does appear like very few people wear them.[2][3]

The hijab is completely fine to wear in schools as there's no way it could obstruct learning, and it's down to a person's choice. The burqa can obstruct learning by providing a communication barrier for starters[4] and is harmful to health, so I don't see why it should be allowed.

I wondered if you were talking about a burqa, but since there really has been attempts to ban the hijab in French schools, I wasn't sure.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked