Muslim girls are mean.

Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Muslim girls are mean.

I have some muslim friends, which is a good trick when you're openly gay and atheist, but I've managed just fine so far.

Losing some of them as friends was always inevitable, I guess, but I never thought it would be over something as stupid as the "headscarves in school" debate.

"Look, look ! I'm on tv !", my muslima friend shouts. And yes indeedy, so she is, looking very happy and smug for someone who claims she's having her religious rights violated. She with a group of friends and parents (mostly mothers), standing outside her school, shouting stuff in arabic and holding up signs, the usual protest stuff.

Now I know what this is about : The school no longer allows muslim girls to wear headscarves this year. This is mostly because the more conservative girls had started acting all morally superior, and bullying the other girls into wearing the scarves. Basically, the whole school was being peer pressured into fundamentalism.

"What's on that placard you're holding", I ask, pointing at the screen, where angry mothers are shouting abuse at scarve-less children, trying to get past them into the school.

"It sez WE WANT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY !", my friend explains, beaming proudly at the sight of her fearless protest against the infidel dogs.

"But that makes no sense", I foolishly point out, "None of the other students are allowed to wear any religious headgear either, right ? So what you're asking for is preferential treatment, not equality"

Silence...

Five minutes later, I'm explaining to her what a secular state is, and why we have seperation of chuch and state. Now this is a reasonably smart girl, but she totally zones out and doesn't get it at all.

I persist and find out she simply can't grasp the concept. Call me naive, but that shocked me.

Another five minutes later, and I'm being called a racist. End of conversation, probably end of friendship as well.

So now I'm watching more tv coverage of the same thing, and I'm starting to notice something :

They're having fun.

They don't look angry or upset at all. They look positively radiant and joyful. Especially the mothers who are attacking the teachers and other kids, look like they're having the time of their lives.

Being mean is fun ! But when allah tells you it's okay....oh, then it's as close to an orgasm as many of these women are ever going to get.

*sigh*

Today the result of all that protesting was announced : A nationwide ban on headscarves in schools, like they have in France.

And guess what ? They're still happy ! Of course they are. The muslim fundies get what they were after in the first place : seperatism. They have their excuse for getting their own religious schools now, and they get to blame other people for it.

I'm looking at an Imam who's being interviewed about this right now, and he looks like he just won the lottery.

If my friend was still my friend, I suppose I'd ask her this : If you knew it was a win-win situation for you at the start, why did you bother getting upset about it ?

Because it was fun, I suppose.

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
this is why kemal ataturk is

this is why kemal ataturk is one of my heroes.  this is also why i love the turkish army.  anytime the fundies start to edge in on the government, they step in and put them in their place--out of it.

yes, i know that's not very "enlightened" or "democratic," but the islamic fundies have proven time and again they'll do the same thing if they get a few kalashnikovs.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote: The

Anonymouse wrote:
 The school no longer allows muslim girls to wear headscarves this year.

Can you explain the situation. What's the school official statement on the ban?

But I do agree that the ban is racist. For this particular reason, it's only in western traditions that we attempt to separate, the religious, from the cultural, for the rest of the world there is little to no such distinction at all. If you were to ask the Japenese if they percieve their tea ceremonies as religious, or cultural, they'd look at you quite puzzled. 

The headscarf is also such an item,  it can be seen as a cultural garment  of arab culture. If a person desires to wear a headscarf as a proud statement of her arab heritage, she has just as much of a rite to wear it as any other ethnic group would be allowed to wear their garments. 

Secondly even if it were religious, I don't know of any public school that prohibits their students (not their faculty) from wearing religious clothing, like a jesus love you shirt. The seperation of church and state, doesn't apply to individual citizens like that. The state may not be allowed to endorse a religion, but a private citizen can. So your arguement from the first amendment doesn't sail. 

Would you be offended if i told you you couldn't wear a rainbow shirt to school?

 

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse, I'm afraid I

Anonymouse, I'm afraid I have to completely disagree with you.

Anonymouse wrote:

Now I know what this is about : The school no longer allows muslim girls to wear headscarves this year. This is mostly because the more conservative girls had started acting all morally superior, and bullying the other girls into wearing the scarves. Basically, the whole school was being peer pressured into fundamentalism.

If there's bullying going on, school officials and staff should try to crack down on the bullying, not ban headscarves. That's just silly.

Quote:
"But that makes no sense", I foolishly point out, "None of the other students are allowed to wear any religious headgear either, right ? So what you're asking for is preferential treatment, not equality"

If you think about it that way, then it's NOT preferential treatment because if you don't ban headgear, everyone can wear headgear. Of course, if you ban headgear, nobody can wear headgear. Either way, it only matters to the Muslim population. Call that whatever you want; either way, this is freedom of expression. 

Thus, I cannot support banning headscarves or any display of culture and religion, as along as it doesn't interfere with learning.

Quote:
Five minutes later, I'm explaining to her what a secular state is, and why we have seperation of chuch and state. Now this is a reasonably smart girl, but she totally zones out and doesn't get it at all.

She didn't 'get it' because your explanation was irrelevant. The first amendment promises separation of church of state, but it also promises freedom of religion for the people. Banning headscarves takes away the right of individuals to wear headscarves; it doesn't separate church and state.  

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this new policy was directly opposed to secularist ideals. They might have banned headscarves because they didn't like Muslims. 

Quote:
Another five minutes later, and I'm being called a racist. End of conversation, probably end of friendship as well.

You should apologize.

Quote:
They don't look angry or upset at all. They look positively radiant and joyful. Especially the mothers who are attacking the teachers and other kids, look like they're having the time of their lives.

Hahaha, yeah, those type of people love being oppressed. They see it as proof that they're better than everyone else, and it gets them closer to God.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Can you

theTwelve wrote:
Can you explain the situation. What's the school official statement on the ban?

Forgot to mention : the nationwide ban only applies to the community schools, not the catholic schools. Also, the students are still allowed to wear their religious getup during their religious classes.

And the situation was this : Kids who were considered not conservative enough by the "real muslims" were being bullied so badly that they either left the school or joined the group. Teachers who spoke out against this received death threaths. Many attempts were made by the school to get some kind of dialogue going between the fundie muslims and the more relaxed, headscarve-less variety, but it became clear quite quickly that the fundies were not interested in compromises.

And it's worth mentioning that many muslim girls don't actually want to wear the headscrave, but are being forced to do so by their family. The school was a safe haven for them where they could take it off and relax. Since the ban has been in place, those girls are no longer harrased all the time.

It would take to long for me to translate the entire official statement, but it comes down to this : The ban is there to promote equality and combat segregation.

theTwelve wrote:
But I do agree that the ban is racist. For this particular reason, it's only in western traditions that we attempt to separate, the religious, from the cultural, for the rest of the world there is little to no such distinction at all.

We have good reasons for seperating the two, which is demonstrated by this whole affair, I think. I'm probably not doing a good job of communicating just exactly how bad the situation was.

theTwelve wrote:
If you were to ask the Japenese if they percieve their tea ceremonies as religious, or cultural, they'd look at you quite puzzled.

Show me a Japanese high school were kids who aren't interested in tea ceremonies are being systematically bullied into submission, and you'll have a good point.

theTwelve wrote:
The headscarf is also such an item,  it can be seen as a cultural garment  of arab culture. If a person desires to wear a headscarf as a proud statement of her arab heritage, she has just as much of a rite to wear it as any other ethnic group would be allowed to wear their garments.

And a person who desires not to wear it has just as much rights, I should hope. The fundies disagree with me there.

Oh, and btw, they had no problem whatsoever admitting it was a religious issue.

theTwelve wrote:
Secondly even if it were religious, I don't know of any public school that prohibits their students (not their faculty) from wearing religious clothing, like a jesus love you shirt. The seperation of church and state, doesn't apply to individual citizens like that. The state may not be allowed to endorse a religion, but a private citizen can. So your arguement from the first amendment doesn't sail.

I brought up the whole church and state thing because my friend honestly believes that religion trumps everything, even the law.

And again, my bad for not mentioning this, but this isn't about an american school.

theTwelve wrote:
Would you be offended if i told you you couldn't wear a rainbow shirt to school?

Nope. My school has a pretty strict dress code. I express my gayness by kissing my boyfriend.

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:
Anonymouse, I'm afraid I have to completely disagree with you.

No need to be afraid. I'll be gentle.

butterbattle wrote:
If there's bullying going on, school officials and staff should try to crack down on the bullying, not ban headscarves. That's just silly.

Oh, they did. That's when the teachers started getting anonymous death threaths, the school got vandalised, and the fundies started to completely ignore the teachers. Like I said, many attempts were made to get some kind of dialogue going. Things just got worse.

butterbattle wrote:
If you think about it that way, then it's NOT preferential treatment because if you don't ban headgear, everyone can wear headgear. Of course, if you ban headgear, nobody can wear headgear. Either way, it only matters to the Muslim population. Call that whatever you want; either way, this is freedom of expression.

What about the freedom of expression of the girls who don't want to wear the stupid thing ? ("stupid thing" = their words)

butterbattle wrote:
Thus, I cannot support banning headscarves or any display of culture and religion, as along as it doesn't interfere with learning.

It interferes with the learning of the girls who don't want to wear them. When you're constantly being bullied, at home as well as in school, you're not doing much learning.

butterbattle wrote:
She didn't 'get it' because your explanation was irrelevant. The first amendment promises separation of church of state, but it also promises freedom of religion for the people. Banning headscarves takes away the right of individuals to wear headscarves; it doesn't separate church and state. 

Heh. We drifted away from the headscarves thing in those five minutes. I just didn't want to type out the whole fight verbatim and bore y'all to tears.

butterbattle wrote:
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this new policy was directly opposed to secularist ideals. They might have banned headscarves because they didn't like Muslims.

The only direct effect of the ban is that the moderate muslims are now protected, in school at least, from their fundie friends' harrasment. The fact is, there was no other way to solve this problem, unless they were going to allow the fundies to push out all the muslims they didn't approve of.

And really, you shouldn't feel sorry for the fundies. They got what they wanted. I wasn't kidding when I said they were positively jubilant about how things turned out.  Seriously, they're happy ! Don't you want the fundies to be happy ? Racist !

butterbattle wrote:
You should apologize.

For questioning her placard ? Actually, I don't think I will. Her "racist" comment was completely uncalled for, unless the scarveless girls are suddenly not arabic anymore.

I will try to talk to her again, though.

butterbattle wrote:
Hahaha, yeah, those type of people love being oppressed. They see it as proof that they're better than everyone else, and it gets them closer to God.

More importantly, there's a lot of money to be earned as well.

 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Forgot to

Anonymouse wrote:
Forgot to mention : the nationwide ban only applies to the community schools, not the catholic schools. Also, the students are still allowed to wear their religious getup during their religious classes.

Where are you from? From the looks of it, your school has a management problem, and the administration needs to be replaced. 

Quote:
And a person who desires not to wear it has just as much rights, I should hope. The fundies disagree with me there.

I agree, but apparently your school believes students don't have the right to wear it. It's the bullying that not right, and not the head scarves. But apparently your school doesn't know how to reprimand the actual students, by suspension or expulsions if the bullying continues. Its rather idiotic, and piss poor way of dealing with a situation, of allowing students to terrorize other students, and reprimanding an article of clothing.

If our public university with its large and diverse student body attempted to ban Muslim headscarves, you'd have an uproar by not just Muslim students, but an entire body of students that sympathize with their denial of a basic freedom. You'd have non-Muslim individuals wearing scarves just as a form of protest. 

It does conjure up images of racism, of the western supported Iranian Shaw, that banned non-western apparel from being worn, banning head scarves, and even those Muslim beards. It was disgrace than, as it is now.

And i would hate to be a member of a school as ignorant and incompetent as yours, that's for sure.

Quote:

Nope. My school has a pretty strict dress code. I express my gayness by kissing my boyfriend.

What if, some gay individuals at your school started bullying other gays into kissing their boyfriends on school grounds, as a way of coming out to the public, and express they weren't afraid or bashful about their gayness. And the school reacted by prohibiting homosexuals such as yourself from kissing your boyfriend on school grounds, to supposedly end the bullying. Would you support that?

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Where are

theTwelve wrote:
Where are you from? From the looks of it, your school has a management problem, and the administration needs to be replaced.
 

Actually, considering the cicumstances, they did a terrific job, and the administration has a well-earned reputation for reaching out to the muslim community succesfully. Which is why so many muslim girls go there. It only started to go wrong when the fundies decided that respect should be a one-way street.

It's not my school, btw, I just know a lot of people who go there.

theTwelve wrote:
I agree,
 

Oh good.

theTwelve wrote:
but apparently your school believes students don't have the right to wear it.
 

Er, no, that's most definitely not what they believe. They believe it's wrong for one group of students to demand the others adopt their fundamentalist lifestyle.

theTwelve wrote:
It's the bullying that not right, and not the head scarves. But apparently your school doesn't know how to reprimand the actual students, by suspension or expulsions if the bullying continues.
 

There were suspensions and expulsions. In fact, this has been going on for quite a few years before it got to this. But here's the thing : By now, this school had over 80% muslims, so the problem I described is affecting the entire school. Since all the fundie girls were happily doing the same thing, expulsions and suspensions were not doing the trick, and the few that there were, led to lawsuits and further accusations of racism, and yet more death threaths.

theTwelve wrote:
Its rather idiotic, and piss poor way of dealing with a situation, of allowing students to terrorize other students, and reprimanding an article of clothing.
 

It's easy to criticize, and I have to admit, I had exactly the same reaction when I first heard about this. But then I started talking to the people who actually went to that school. I listened to the teacher's side of things. I found out how long this was going on, and how many things the school had already tried to bring both groups of muslims closer together.

And like I mentioned in my OP, I found out how much fun the fundies were having.

theTwelve wrote:
If our public university with its large and diverse student body attempted to ban Muslim headscarves, you'd have an uproar by not just Muslim students, but an entire body of students that sympathize with their denial of a basic freedom. You'd have non-Muslim individuals wearing scarves just as a form of protest.
 

That's pretty much what they thought would happen in France when the nationwide ban went into effect. Only it didn't. No-one, not even the muslims have a problem with it now. Go figure.

And we did have an extreme leftwing student group here who joined the protest against the ban. That died down pretty quickly when they noticed the fundie girls were lying to them about what went on in the school.

theTwelve wrote:
It does conjure up images of racism, of the western supported Iranian Shaw, that banned non-western apparel from being worn, banning head scarves, and even those Muslim beards. It was disgrace than, as it is now.
 

Yeah, what they got after that was so much better.

I don't really know enough about that situation to know if that comparison even works, but really, if you know of a better way the school could have handled this problem, I'd love to hear it. I'd provide you with a list of stuff they already tried, but it would be tl;dr, I'm afraid.

theTwelve wrote:
And i would hate to be a member of a school as ignorant and incompetent as yours, that's for sure.

The scarve-less, non-fundie muslim girls disagree with you completely. Can I call you a racist now ? See, it's not that simple, is it ?

theTwelve wrote:
What if, some gay individuals at your school started bullying other gays into kissing their boyfriends on school grounds, as a way of coming out to the public, and express they weren't afraid or bashful about their gayness. And the school reacted by prohibiting homosexuals such as yourself from kissing your boyfriend on school grounds, to supposedly end the bullying. Would you support that?

Hell yes ! Support it ? I'd probably suggest it. That would be some monumentally stupid gay boys right there.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:The only

Anonymouse wrote:
The only direct effect of the ban is that the moderate muslims are now protected, in school at least, from their fundie friends' harrasment. The fact is, there was no other way to solve this problem, unless they were going to allow the fundies to push out all the muslims they didn't approve of.

And really, you shouldn't feel sorry for the fundies. They got what they wanted. I wasn't kidding when I said they were positively jubilant about how things turned out.  Seriously, they're happy ! Don't you want the fundies to be happy ? Racist ! 

Ugh, disgusting.

I still don't like it. I still think it's wrong, but the alternative.............damn Muslims! 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I think I come down with

I think I come down with twelve and butter.  Of course it is discrimination, no matter how you sugar-coat it.

 

It probably *is* a problem, but the solution they have created is counter-productive.  They have only created resentment and righteous outrage that will make problems worse, divide the school population, and help teach young minds the value of hate.

 

The issue here is bad and ignorant leadership at the school.  I don't see how they can fix it now without damage.  Schools have an opportunity to teach kids to move past this stuff, it is a shame when they end up encouraging it.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
molested wrote:It probably

molested wrote:

It probably *is* a problem, but the solution they have created is counter-productive.  They have only created resentment and righteous outrage that will make problems worse, divide the school population, and help teach young minds the value of hate.

I agree, these sort of actions only feed into the hands of the "us vs. them" mentality, of potential radicalism. And not just Muslim radicalism, but secular radicalism as well. Some guy on the RD forum, was trying to get signatures for a petition to ban the Burkha in France in public, because it's symbol of the Islamist offensive.

These sort of currents have the propensity to became disgustingly violent given the right circumstances. The French Revolution should stand as a history lesson of  the murdering of a multitude of nuns, and priests, and the destruction and banning of religious symbols, all in the name of Reason prevailing. 

What you have is two groups with a great deal of hostility between them, one a minority group, trying to carve out a sense of identity in a culture hostile to them, and a majority attempting to force them to integrate, even if by oppressive means. Without realizing that the "bullying" is a back lash against being forced to accept western values, it was their way of calling those Muslim girls who didn't wear it, as being sell outs to the west. 

What's odd is the French, who didn't participate in the war on terror, have such a difficult time integrating their Muslim population, while the US has had no such problem with theirs. In my school alone, fundie Christians and Muslims often have lunch, and hang out after school together. And these christians would have been just as offended as I would have been, if the school attempted to forbid muslim girls from wearing head scarve. 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I agree with the bans.

I agree with the bans. Wearing the hijab is a submissive act. Of course some women wear it because they like it in addition to it being compulsory, but according to polls at least 50% of Muslim women in France agree with the ban. Which tells me that there are many women wearing it because they're obliged. It's a kind of social pressure that's incompatible with western liberalism, republican principles, and French secularism.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I still disagree.Honestly, I

I still disagree with the ban.

Honestly, I find it quite hard to believe that school officials would do this just to protect moderates and try to resolve the situation. Heck, based on what I've seen of school boards, most likely, they're just smothering the radical Muslims' hate with a brand of their own. Even if they weren't religiously biased in this decision, I still think it's wrong. It doesn't provoke compromise and intelligent discussion. It discourages it. It doesn't encourage tolerance. It discourages it. The fix is petty and superficial; eventually, we may find that it does more harm than good.

  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kids get bullied for not

Kids get bullied for not joining the football team, so should we ban football?

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 It should be banned the same as wearing "colors" for gangs in schools are.

 

 

Supporting tribalism in school students is not a good thing.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I think I

mellestad wrote:
I think I come down with twelve and butter.  Of course it is discrimination, no matter how you sugar-coat it.

I'm afraid it's a little more complicated than that. These fundie girls knew exactly what they were doing. They knew the teachers would try to protect the weaker group, and they knew what would happen once they started shouting racism.

Their lifestyle was being 100% tolerated and respected in every conceivable way by the teachers and the other students. They decided not to return the favour.

mellestad wrote:
It probably *is* a problem

No "probably" about it.

mellestad wrote:
, but the solution they have created is counter-productive. They have only created resentment and righteous outrage that will make problems worse,

The solution isn't perfect, but it was the only one the fundies left room for. And you have to remember just what this "resentment" and "righteous" outrage is directed at. They're resentful and outraged because they're not allowed to do whatever the hell they want. The scarve thing is just a smokescreen. If they stopped attacking the non-fundie girls (yes, "attacking" is a word I can use here) and quit acting like the muslim maffia, then the school would have no problem with the scarves, like they had no problem with them before.

mellestad wrote:
divide the school population,

The school population got divided because the fundies wanted it that way. Once again : Their lifestyle was respected by all the other students. Even by the few non-muslims left. The school administration had a zero tolerance policy for racism, and they payed the price for that (death threaths from neo-nazi groups).

mellestad wrote:
and help teach young minds the value of hate.

Someone was teaching them hate, alright. It most certainly wasn't the school. Seriously, they tried EVERYTHING. I'm getting the impression that you guys think I'm just kidding here.

mellestad wrote:
The issue here is bad and ignorant leadership at the school.
 

Nope, the issue here is the poisonous nature of fundamentalist religion.

As for the leadership of the school, well, sorry, but calling them "bad and ignorant" is so far from the truth it's laughable. You don't have access to all the information on them that I have, so I'm certainly not blaming you for getting it wrong, but really, listing everything they did for the muslim community, not just as a school, but individually as well, would take far too long. How would you like to be a teacher there and get death threaths from both sides of the fence ? From the conservative non-muslims, for protecting the muslims against racism, and from the fundie muslims, for protecting the non-fundies from bullying and harrasment. I mean, wouldn't you just get a headache trying to keep it all straight ? When someone slashes their tires or vandalises their house or threathens their children, how can they even know which side is doing it ? "Ah, yes, you're going to kill me like a pig...okay, but can I have the name of your organisation, please ? Hello ? Helloooo ?"

mellestad wrote:
I don't see how they can fix it now without damage.
  

That's the crazy thing about it all : There doesn't seem to be any damage at all. Like I said, the fundies are happy, because seperatism is what they wanted in the first place. And the non-fundie girls have their safe haven back. It's really starting to look like they did the right thing.

mellestad wrote:
Schools have an opportunity to teach kids to move past this stuff, it is a shame when they end up encouraging it.

That's exactly what they taught the kids. Some of them weren't listening.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Kids get

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Kids get bullied for not joining the football team, so should we ban football?

 

Er...........islam isn't being banned.

Even if that comparison worked, you'd still only be talking about banning the wearing of football helmets in class.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:. How would

Anonymouse wrote:
. How would you like to be a teacher there and get death threaths from both sides of the fence ?

No one, is attempting to downplay the problem, they are criticizing what your school and society feel is a solution to it. Where does it follow that the death threats are to be lessened by banning the headscarves? Does banning the headscarves lessen the hostility among muslims and non-muslims in the society? If you believe so, how do you believe it does that. 

You're school didn't resolve the problem, they just attempted to brush it under the rug. What country are you from 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:I agree,

theTwelve wrote:
I agree, these sort of actions only feed into the hands of the "us vs. them" mentality, of potential radicalism.

The muslim radicalism was already there. It's what caused the whole mess in the first place. The "us vs them" mentality was what the school board was fighting against, and it was what the fundie girls were fighting for.

theTwelve wrote:
And not just Muslim radicalism, but secular radicalism as well. Some guy on the RD forum, was trying to get signatures for a petition to ban the Burkha in France in public, because it's symbol of the Islamist offensive.

I'm not saying the other side can't get a little nuts as well, I'm just saying that in the case of the school, the fundies were the ones who took it too far.

theTwelve wrote:
These sort of currents have the propensity to became disgustingly violent given the right circumstances. The French Revolution should stand as a history lesson of  the murdering of a multitude of nuns, and priests, and the destruction and banning of religious symbols, all in the name of Reason prevailing.

Times change. And like I said, things have settled down considerably, both groups are happy (except for the teachers. They would have prefered the fundies were still going to the school. They invested a lot of effort in those girls), so it seems the decision they took was the right one.

theTwelve wrote:
What you have is two groups with a great deal of hostility between them, one a minority group, trying to carve out a sense of identity in a culture hostile to them, and a majority attempting to force them to integrate, even if by oppressive means.

And that's EXACTLY what the school protected them against. Imagine being a teacher in a school in europe with 80% muslims, right after 9/11. Everyone working in that school became a target for violent rightwing extremists and neonazis who thought their time had come. But they stood up for their students, physically protected them in some cases, talked to them, let them talk. When the war in Iraq began, the school held a minute of silence for the muslim victims, just like they did for the 9/11 victims. As the years went on, the school earned it's reputation for respecting the muslim identity. Force them to integrate, even by oppresive means ? In their dreams, maybe. Not in that school, that's for damn sure.

theTwelve wrote:
Without realizing that the "bullying" is a back lash against being forced to accept western values, it was their way of calling those Muslim girls who didn't wear it, as being sell outs to the west.

Once again, they were NOT being forced to accept western values, far from it.

And they were actually quite happy to use western values, such as the right to protest, when it suited their purpose.

theTwelve wrote:
What's odd is the French, who didn't participate in the war on terror, have such a difficult time integrating their Muslim population,

Actually, they don't. Integration is going along quite smoothly there. A lot better than in european countries that don't have the ban, like Holland, which is now attracting a lot of salafists and other extreme muslim groups, precisely because they are tolerated there.

theTwelve wrote:
while the US has had no such problem with theirs. In my school alone, fundie Christians and Muslims often have lunch, and hang out after school together.

Oh, I'm not surprised. They have a lot in common.

theTwelve wrote:
And these christians would have been just as offended as I would have been, if the school attempted to forbid muslim girls from wearing head scarve. 

I'm sure they would be offended. Being offended is easy and fun. Actually finding a solution for problems caused by dishonest fundamentalists is neither.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:No one, is

theTwelve wrote:
No one, is attempting to downplay the problem, they are criticizing what your school and society feel is a solution to it.

Yes, I've noticed that. I've yet to notice anyone coming up with a better solution.

theTwelve wrote:
Where does it follow that the death threats are to be lessened by banning the headscarves?

Frankly, the teachers could care less about the death threaths. They're used to it. I'm just trying to get you to understand the absurdity of being threathened by the very people you've spent your entire working life protecting, especially when the ban they're protesting against ends up protecting girls from their own community.

The fact is, the ban is now in effect, the death threaths have stopped, the non-fundies have already expressed their gratitude and appreciation for the school administration, and the fundies are feeling righteous and happy.

theTwelve wrote:
Does banning the headscarves lessen the hostility among muslims and non-muslims in the society?

In society ? Nope. In school ? Oh, yes. And you should remember that the hostility is one-way traffic.

theTwelve wrote:
If you believe so, how do you believe it does that.

I don't have to believe. I can just ask them, and that's what I did.

theTwelve wrote:
You're school didn't resolve the problem, they just attempted to brush it under the rug. What country are you from 

They most certainly did resolve the problem. Like I mentioned already, everyone's happy now, except the teachers, who would have preferred the fundie girls were still there. They wanted the best for ALL their students, but they were put in an impossible situation.

All that bending over backwards to make the fundies happy, it's all been for nothing, because they always wanted more.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I still

butterbattle wrote:
I still disagree with the ban.

Okay, what's your alternative ?

butterbattle wrote:
Honestly, I find it quite hard to believe that school officials would do this just to protect moderates and try to resolve the situation. Heck, based on what I've seen of school boards, most likely, they're just smothering the radical Muslims' hate with a brand of their own.

Now you're doing exactly what the fundies did : you're simply assuming any action against a radical religious group is some form of discrimination. How should they defend their other students agains the fundies' aggression when they simply refuse to listen ? If it was just another brand of hate, then why didn't they just ban the things the monent this trouble began ? Many, many non-fundie girls were forced to leave the school before it got to this.

butterbattle wrote:
Even if they weren't religiously biased in this decision, I still think it's wrong. It doesn't provoke compromise and intelligent discussion. It discourages it. It doesn't encourage tolerance. It discourages it.

I already told you : The fundies weren't interested in compromises, and the only intelligent discussion they wanted to participate in , is one that ends with "yes, you're right, we'll do anything you say". I'm not kidding here. I don't call them fundies because I don't like their ideas. I call them fundies because that's what they are.

And once again : They ARE tolerated ! That's what makes this whole thing so damn stupid. If they never started attacking the other girls, or if they simply agreed to stop doing it, or if they even would have promised to THINK about stopping it, then they would still be allowed to wear those stupid things like they were before.

 

butterbattle wrote:
The fix is petty and superficial;

The fix works. What else would have ? If fundies don't want to mix with other people, there's no way to force them.

 

butterbattle wrote:
eventually, we may find that it does more harm than good.

Eventually we may find a lot of things. The fundie girls, for example, may find that a purely religious education isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Still, for now, the only people who got harmed are the teachers.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Where

theTwelve wrote:
Where are you from?

 

theTwelve wrote:
You're school didn't resolve the problem, they just attempted to brush it under the rug. What country are you from

 

Belgium. At least that seems to be the likely candidate from checking google news. First hit even.

 

Notice though that our intrepid OP is not only ducking that question but is also running on statements like: “if you knew what I knew” but refuses to say what exactly that is, claiming that he does not have the time to translate and asserting that we would not bother to read the material anyway.

 

Looks like he wants a one sided discussion where he is possessed of all relevant information and that we are not (nor is he disposed to pass it on).

 

In any case, today is probably the last day of this ban because it created some legal problems with the body imposing the ban not actually having jurisdiction to do so.

 

Quote:
The Belgian Council of State is expected to issue a ruling today that follows advice already issued by its advocate general that stated: “Such a ban is not lawful and that only the umbrella organisation of state schools can decide on whether or not to introduce such as measure.”

 

The Council of State’s ruling is likely to force school boards in Wallonia, the French-speaking region in Belgium, to reconsider their own advice to schools on the issue. A blanket ban on all religious symbols, including crucifixes, will prove difficult to implement due to the large number of Catholic schools in the country.


 

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0915/1224254556334.html

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Belgium. At least that seems to be the likely candidate from checking google news. First hit even.

 

Notice though that our intrepid OP is not only ducking that question but is also running on statements like: “if you knew what I knew” but refuses to say what exactly that is, claiming that he does not have the time to translate and asserting that we would not bother to read the material anyway.

 

 

Guilty on dodging the "where are you from" question, but I'm pretty sure I answered everything else. As for "if you knew what I knew", that refers to the radio, tv and magazine-interviews with involved parties that didn't make it to the net, and the long talks I've had with teachers and students who go to that school, and my personal experience of the protests and all that went before. All of which you would have to take my word for if you're not close enough to check yourself. 

But sure, you can read some of the materials if you want :

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleID=DMF20090911_069

http://streekkrant.rnews.be/nl/regio/tags-koninklijk-atheneum-van-antwerpen/1184684471923.html?params=loc%3A1194437776460%3Btag%3AKoninklijk+Atheneum+van+Antwerpen

http://www.nieuwpierke.be/forum_voor_democratie/nl/node/537

 

If you follow all the relevant links on those pages alone, you should have enough reading material to keep you busy for a month. Just point me to the bits you would like translated.

 

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Looks like he wants a one sided discussion where he is possessed of all relevant information and that we are not (nor is he disposed to pass it on).

 

I've already admitted I wasn't doing a very good job communicating how bad the situation was. As for not being disposed to pass on relevant information, excuse me, but I thought that was what I was doing in all my replies. My mistake, I'm sure. If it's links to articles you wanted, you should have just asked. So sorry for trying to summarise it all for you.

 

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

In any case, today is probably the last day of this ban because it created some legal problems with the body imposing the ban not actually having jurisdiction to do so.

 

The ban is in place. The Irish Times apparently wasn't too interested in how things eventually turned out. Check this link and have it translated by a dutch-speaking person you feel you can trust.

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/Article/Detail.aspx?articleid=DMF20090915_056

 

edit : They just mentioned it again on the news, about the ban being upheld, so I'm guessing there'll be a more recent article soon for me to link you to, if you're interested. I also found a magazine interview with the principal of that school I've been talking about. I can translate that for you, if you want. Heck, I'll even scan it and mail it, so you can check and see I'm not just making this all up.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps, a type of policy

Perhaps, a type of policy that is wrong in princicple, can, under the right circumstances, still be a useful tool?

Sigh...I'll have think about this more.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I dunno, I feel about like

I dunno, I feel about like butter.  As an American, I have been brought up to oppose discrimination, freedom of expression, etc. but...I don't know what they are supposed to do.

 

The problem is fundamentalist Islam just plain sucks.  It might be different if they were able to integrate, but that does not seem to be working.  In America the immigrant population seems to blend in far better than in Europe.  I can understand why a country/city would not want a large population to set up shop.  Even in America we have some problems with some African immigrants, as you see in stories where their culture is at such opposition to the "native" American culture.

 

I don't know what the answer is.  I do know that the policy they are pushing will cause problems, even massive problems.  But is it worse than the alternative?  I don't know.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Kids get

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Kids get bullied for not joining the football team, so should we ban football?

 

 

 

   Who the hell takes football that seriously ?


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:But I do

theTwelve wrote:

But I do agree that the ban is racist.  

 

 

Really? Racist? And which 'race' is islam exactly?

 

 

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Of course some

Gauche wrote:

Of course some women wear it because they like it ....[SNIP]

 

Yes, mainly the dog ugly girls.

 

Some people need to wake the fuck up regarding islam, cos it's not here to integrate.

 

It's a supremacist religion that will accept you submit, convert or die.

 

They do love their little victories or the chance to be lauded as a martyr by the idiotic Leftie apologists.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
A position as open as yours

A position as open as yours TheTwelve, operates effectively only if it's shared by the majority. The trouble is that tolerance is not universal and probably cannot be. Either the religious are hostile or I am or both. The idea everyone can get on as accept one another is not something that seems to be possible for humans. As a secular person I think there should be no religious garments allowed at all.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:A

Atheistextremist wrote:

A position as open as yours TheTwelve, operates effectively only if it's shared by the majority. The trouble is that tolerance is not universal and probably cannot be. Either the religious are hostile or I am or both. The idea everyone can get on as accept one another is not something that seems to be possible for humans. As a secular person I think there should be no religious garments allowed at all.

 

 

A secular ethic based on hedonism runs contrary to the idea that we should punish people for behavior that is not harming anyone, which is why I don't think there is a moral right to ban religious garb just because you don't like religion.  Essentially, you are arguing that the majority can oppress the minority simply because they feel like it, not because there is any harm.

 

In the theist majority adopted your ethical system, atheism would probably be illegal.

 

Tolerance cannot be universal, but it can be near universal as long as it is based on the moral idea of the golden rule.  Your black and white view of religion is flawed because not all theism causes direct harm, only certain sects.

 

Granted, I am explaining moderation to someone with the screen name atheistextermist, so my words might be lost.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Well, the ban is in place

Well, the ban is in place now, but the discussion is still going on. I just listened to a radio interview with a guy who indentifies himself as a "cultural muslim" (I didn't even knew those people existed), and not only is he in favor of the ban, he figures it didn't go far enough.

Meanwhile, the imam who supported the protests is under investigation. Turns out he's a salafist with some dubious connections.

And me and my friend have made up and are going bowling soon.

The end.

 

 

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, I am glad to hear

Well, I am glad to hear that you have made up with your friend.

 

Past that, you mentioned the possibility of banning all religious symbols from the public schools. That might be a better way to have handled this. So if the ban had also included crosses, rosaries and the like, then it would have been somewhat harder for the muslim community to claim that they had been singled out.

 

Of course you have quite a few catholics around there as well and you can bet that they would have gone nutty as well. But at least everyone with religion could have gone nutty at the same time.

 

So now that you have your ban in place for the foreseeable future, what is going to happen? The total nut cases are going to shift to home schooling and they will no longer be around in the public schools to cause the problems that you claim to have triggered this mess in the first place. I would bet that there will be long term consequences that you are going to deal with but that is a problem for 15 to 20 years from now when those kids enter the work force. At least private employers have more lattitude in what they choose to ban.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well, I am glad to hear that you have made up with your friend.

Thanks. I even got invited to their Id-al-fitr tomorrow. Yum ! Cakes !

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Past that, you mentioned the possibility of banning all religious symbols from the public schools. That might be a better way to have handled this. So if the ban had also included crosses, rosaries and the like, then it would have been somewhat harder for the muslim community to claim that they had been singled out.

 

All that stuff is included in the ban. The non-stop harassment of the scarveless girls was what lead to the ban, but it covers all religions. Actually, what they ended up banning was "levensbeschouwelijke kentekens". I've just not been sure how to translate that correctly. "Lifestyle attributes", I dunno... Anyway, what it comes down to is that ALL religions have to hand in their merchandise.

dutch link : http://www.gva.be/antwerpen/algemeen-hoofddoekenverbod-in-antwerpse-scholen.aspx

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Of course you have quite a few catholics around there as well and you can bet that they would have gone nutty as well. But at least everyone with religion could have gone nutty at the same time.

 

That's what I thought might happen too. Only it didn't. The protest was very localised (only two schools, only the fundie girls who'd been bothering the moderates and some parents). Even after it was announced that the ban would be nationwide, nobody else cared enough to join the protest. Not even the fundies in other towns, strangly enough.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
So now that you have your ban in place for the foreseeable future, what is going to happen? The total nut cases are going to shift to home schooling and they will no longer be around in the public schools to cause the problems that you claim to have triggered this mess in the first place.

 

Exactly.

Er..btw, it's not just me claiming that. I'm still willing to scan and translate some articles for you if you want to check my facts.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
I would bet that there will be long term consequences that you are going to deal with but that is a problem for 15 to 20 years from now when those kids enter the work force. At least private employers have more lattitude in what they choose to ban.

Actually, since it's a fairly small group that caused the trouble, and since there's no ban on wearing headscarves in the workplace (unless there's machinery involved and their personal safety is at risk), and since there's a tested and effective system in place to protect them from discrimination in the workplace should they encounter it, I'm not really sure what long term consequences that might be.

 

Btw, if that got your hackles up, then you're going to love this : Dutch politician Geert Wilders recently proposed a tax on headscarves, or a "headrag-tax" as he called it. Not going to happen, of course, but it should get him a lot of votes.

 

 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:A

Atheistextremist wrote:

A position as open as yours TheTwelve, operates effectively only if it's shared by the majority.

My position isn't open, it just doesn't involve placing a bandaid on a gaping wound, or supporting policies that only furthers the problem, by feeding the hostility that got them there in the first place. 

Quote:
As a secular person I think there should be no religious garments allowed at all.

 

so what you're saying is that only secular garments should be allowed so it doesn't offend your secular sensibilities. I'll tell u a good way to make me hostile, in an enviroment I'm already fairly neutral in, if not favorable to, try and make a law prohibiting me from wearing a religious symbol, such as a crucifix as a student at my public university. 

If you're an atheist and desire to wear you scarlet A tee, I take no issue with it, if the school attempted to prohibit you from wearing such a tee, than I'd protest with you. 

The problem in the school is not the headscarve, anymore than the problem with bloods and crypts is colored tee-shirts, it's the hostility between groups of people, that context that allows it to thrive. You have a secular society that's islamaphobic, a muslim society fairly alienated, and two cultures growing more and more hostile with each other, and only an idiot believes that banning head scarves is the solution.

If it was me, and my adminstration running the school, I wouldn't resort to pandering, when dealing with bullying. That bullying will resort in disclipenary action, that could in fact end up in expulsion if it doesn't stop. I'd hold a confrence with the parents of the bullying children, warning them of the consequences, that all though the school freely allows the wearing of headscarves, no student is allowed to bully, and ridicule the children who freely chose to not wear it, as no child is allowed to ridicule and bully their children who do. 

And i have hard time believing that the parents of these bullied children would go into uproar over this, as if they're going to argue that they're children are freely allowed to bully other children. 

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, in the USA we do

Well, in the USA we do things differently, except of course when we do them the same. For the most part, we let our religious nutjobs wear whatever they want to. If it has no other effect, it tends to put them out in the public eye where we can keep an eye on them and have a clue what they are up to.

 

When we have cracked down on stuff like that, it has had the effect of forcing their activities underground where we can't see them until they do something bad. A good example here would be that there are some states that have banned racists from wearing hoods that hide their identity. When we have done that, it just makes it harder to find them before bad things go down.

 

Possibly more relevant to your situation is a case that is working through our court system that asks the basic question of whether a woman can wear a burka in her identification photo. Most non moslem people have a problem with this.

 

Anyway, as far as a ban in the work place, I would tend to think that that is going to cause problems unless there is the safety factor that you suggest. However, in that case, it would not be a ban specifically on the one item but on loose clothing in general, so not a religious issue.

 

Actually, I worked in a factory when I was young and the managers always tucked their ties in between their upper shirt buttons before going on the floor for general safety. If you got a bit of clothing caught in a phillipsburg inserter (it builds junk mail), your day will be seriously ruined. The machine has no opinion on religious issues.

 

Regarding the potential for long term consequences, I was actually not speculating on what those would be. My crystal ball is dusty and I can't tell you what will happen a year from now. If you asked me a year ago what the price of gasoline would top out at this past August, I would have been wrong. Even so, I suspect that you will be dealing with unintended consequences at some point.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:My position

theTwelve wrote:
My position isn't open, it just doesn't involve placing a bandaid on a gaping wound, or supporting policies that only furthers the problem, by feeding the hostility that got them there in the first place.

Okay, but in this case, the hostility wasn't there in the first place. That's what rubbed me the wrong way about this whole situation : Integration was working in that school. The school board and the teachers worked their asses off to let all the different muslim factions be just as religious or non-religious as they wanted to be. There was no hostility between them. The trouble started because one ultra-conservative faction decided it should. It was like they looked at the school and realised that integration wasn't really what they wanted. You can't keep moaning about the evil non-believers when they keep catering to all your religious whims without complaining. They needed an enemy. They didn't have one, so they picked a fight.

theTwelve wrote:
If you're an atheist and desire to wear you scarlet A tee, I take no issue with it, if the school attempted to prohibit you from wearing such a tee, than I'd protest with you.

And would you do the same if you knew the t-shirts were allowed at first, but only became an issue when one group of atheists decided the t-shirt should become compulsory for all atheists, and forced them to wear it ? Sounds silly, doesn't it ? Yeah well, fundamentalism is fundametally silly.

theTwelve wrote:
The problem in the school is not the headscarve, anymore than the problem with bloods and crypts is colored tee-shirts, it's the hostility between groups of people, that context that allows it to thrive. You have a secular society that's islamaphobic, a muslim society fairly alienated, and two cultures growing more and more hostile with each other, and only an idiot believes that banning head scarves is the solution.

Obviously the school knows that the headscarves themselves aren't the problem. Duh ! The problem is the way the fundie girls treated their non-fundie schoolchums. Neither the school, the secular society or islamaphobes created that problem. The fundies did. As for the solution being idiotic, well, let's see what your alternative is :

theTwelve wrote:
If it was me, and my adminstration running the school, I wouldn't resort to pandering, when dealing with bullying. That bullying will resort in disclipenary action, that could in fact end up in expulsion if it doesn't stop. I'd hold a confrence with the parents of the bullying children, warning them of the consequences, that all though the school freely allows the wearing of headscarves, no student is allowed to bully, and ridicule the children who freely chose to not wear it, as no child is allowed to ridicule and bully their children who do.

That was tried. I thought I mentioned that. It wasn't just tried once, but many times over a period of years before it came to this. It didn't work.  Btw, if you end up expelling a muslim student over anything even faintly religious, you will get sued for discrimination. And again, ALL the fundie girls in school were doing this, not just a couple. They couldn't just expell over 50% of their students, now could they ?

theTwelve wrote:
And i have hard time believing that the parents of these bullied children would go into uproar over this, as if they're going to argue that they're children are freely allowed to bully other children. 

The parents didn't see it as bullying. They saw it as the kids exercising their religious duty. When religion comes into it , there's a fancy excuse for pretty much anything.

As for you having a hard time believing this, well, I can show a clip where you can see some of the parents joining the protest, but of course you have no way of knowing those people are related. Oh well, here's the link anyway. The imam gets to speak first (that's the guy who's under investigation now), and then the school's principal explains the reasons behind the decision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8T653DFGkc


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Possibly more relevant to your situation is a case that is working through our court system that asks the basic question of whether a woman can wear a burka in her identification photo. Most non moslem people have a problem with this.

Well, common sense would suggest that you'd need more than a tiny picture of someone's eyes (and don't some burkas have veils over the eyes as well ?) to have any hope of indentifying them. How do they handle that problem in muslim countries then ?

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Anyway, as far as a ban in the work place, I would tend to think that that is going to cause problems unless there is the safety factor that you suggest.

Yup, that's the only situation where they're not allowed to wear it. It's allowed everywhere else. In fact, it's illegal for any employer to demand they take it off.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
However, in that case, it would not be a ban specifically on the one item but on loose clothing in general, so not a religious issue.

Of course. There really are no problems in that area that I know of.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Actually, I worked in a factory when I was young and the managers always tucked their ties in between their upper shirt buttons before going on the floor for general safety. If you got a bit of clothing caught in a phillipsburg inserter (it builds junk mail), your day will be seriously ruined. The machine has no opinion on religious issues.

Lol, exactly. Even the fundies understand that. The more stubborn ones will still avoid those jobs for that reason, though.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Even so, I suspect that you will be dealing with unintended consequences at some point.

 

Heh, no offense, mate, but that's a very crystal bally thing to say, isn't it ? Sure, stuff may still happen, but the consequences of letting the fundies have their way would have been much worse.