Headscarves Vote

[xane]

All this talk of religion being a "right" is nonsense, religion is a lifestyle choice for you, or the way you bring up your kids. No-one is forcing anything on people who wish to engage in collective worship, if people consider the laws of the country to be intolerant, then nothing is stopping them setting up a private concern (school in this case) or moving to another "tolerant" country.

There have been similar issues in the UK; long ago Sikhs with turbans wanted an exception to the compulsary motorcycle helmet regulations, and there is also Rastafarianism and drug use.

I fully support the French decision, in an earlier thread (here or GAME I can't remember) I explained how Halal meat was being served in schools in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, even those schools with small numbers of Muslim pupils, the meat may be offensive to those who disagree with the methods of slaughter used, or who might even disagree with fundementals of Islam itself (like Christains for example). The best solution is a secular one, that way you either offend everyone or no-one

As I said, _nothing_ is stopping anyone practising their religion, as long as it conforms to the laws of the country. France is an openly declared secularist state, it's not like anyone hadn't got a clue what their laws would be before they arrived there.

Overall I get the feeling this issue represents a general sea change in Western policies. For too long Western governments have bent over backwards to accomodate cultures like Islam, and all we get in return is hatred, violence and intimidation. To say the French attitude will only encourage extremism is an admission of giving in the terrorism, nothing the West will do can ever please most extremists.

 

[xane]

I think you'll find that Buddhism and Buddhists are, almost without exception, accepted with open arms wherever you may go. Basically because it's not really a religion - it doesn't make any claims about supreme beings or whatnot. There's no "I'm right, you're wrong" stuff involved really. Won't go into it.

Absolute Bollocks.

Buddhism has its own parallels with any religion, you don't need a "god", the same goes for polytheist religion and other types of worship, e.g. Confusionism or "ancestor worship".

All religions have their nutcases, Buddhism is not without exception.

 

[Tom]

For too long Western governments have bent over backwards to accomodate cultures like Islam, and all we get in return is hatred, violence and intimidation. To say the French attitude will only encourage extremism is an admission of giving in the terrorism, nothing the West will do can ever please most extremists.

Got to be the first occasion I've disagreed with you Xane, I think you're guilty of a bit of stereotyping there. I don't really have any Islamic friends, but I've worked with Indians/Pakistanis plenty of times, and they're basically just the same as anybody else. But I'm nit-picking, I bet you didn't mean it quite that way.

 

[inactionman]

Got to be the first occasion I've disagreed with you Xane, I think you're guilty of a bit of stereotyping there. I don't really have any Islamic friends, but I've worked with Indians/Pakistanis plenty of times, and they're basically just the same as anybody else. But I'm nit-picking, I bet you didn't mean it quite that way.

A good friend of mine is from Pakistan, and another is from India. The young people tend to be fine, although you do get extremists. It's the older people (the first generation immigrants) that tend to be sexist & xenophobic. They particularly dislike their daughters mixing with western people, especially western men, as they fear that western culture will 'corrupt' them, and they won't live according to tradition.

Most religions are like communism, very good in theory, but they are soon subverted for people's selfish aims.

I've got no problems with anyone's beliefs, as long as they don't hurt anyone, and they don't force anyone to hold those beliefs.

 

[Tom]

Yes, but you could also say the same thing about older people from our own country, referring to blacks as 'darkies' and 'pakis' (my own parents call them pakis). Thankfully, my own generation, and the generation coming out of school now, are a little bit more enlightened.

 

[inactionman]

Actually you're right! My dad is a good example of this, the alchoholic racist bigot that he is. Strangely, I don't get on very well with him, and he hasn't approved of some of my girlfriends....

 

[dysfunction]

Topic of head Scarves:

You should be able to do what you want as long as it doesnt harm anyone else.

Saying that I'm not religeous and I cant really see the point in headscarves.

 

[xane]

but I've worked with Indians/Pakistanis plenty of times, and they're basically just the same as anybody else. But I'm nit-picking, I bet you didn't mean it quite that way.

I was indeed referring to extremists - of any religion, although I did mention Islam directly - mea culpa.

 

[Wij]

I'm as secular as you can get but I don't agree. As far as I was aware the headscarves are more a cultural thing. Some women want short hair. Some like long. Some prefer to cover theirs with a scarf. I know that covering the whole face is more overtly confrontational and more of a show of 'see how Islamic I am' than the more traditional scarves but at the end of the day it's a matter of degrees and not kind. Leave them to make their own choice I say.

 

[xane]

I know that covering the whole face is more overtly confrontational and more of a show of 'see how Islamic I am' than the more traditional scarves but at the end of the day it's a matter of degrees and not kind. Leave them to make their own choice I say.

Yes, but I think you'll find its a little more than a simple "headscarf" ban. A woman could put a paper bag over her head and confirm to Hajib but that's likely to be against the wishes of her peers because they are insisting on particular traditional styles of head covering, in effect it becomes a uniform and thus goes beyond a simple religious practice.

Its more a case of "see how many Muslims we can show", by insisting on a uniform. The law applies only to religious symbols, so in fact it is not asking people to not cover themselves per se, just not using overt symbolism.

"Devout" Muslims shouldn't attend mixed schools anyway (mixed meaning either "boys and girls" or "muslims and non-muslims"), so an element of hypocrasy exists. If the girls attended a same-sex Islamic school like they should be doing then there would not be a problem as the ban only exists in public schools.

I've attended plenty of Jewish ceremonies, under that religions you must cover the middle part of your head whilst attending a ceremony. Most "liberal" jews accept a hat, headscarf, even a baseball cap, but there are also the more extremist for who nothing less than traditional yarmulkes (which incidently are also under the same ban) will conform.

 

[Gengi]

The French attitude toward the separation of State and Church is a long held standard, going back to Napoleon AFAIR, this 'new' legislation is merely an underpinning of the separation brought on by cultural changes in the country. As has been previously stated, if you wish your chilren to have a particular flavour of 'religious' education you should send them to an appropriate school.

Later

 

[Mazling]

Wouldn't sending kids to seperate, single-religion schools only fuel the hatred, and seperatism ? It's hard to look at an issue such as this on it's own.
xane, you're right. And so was I. I was talking about the fact that Buddhists are adopted into most communities without problems, with a better record than most other religions. People *will* use any excuse to force their views on other people, rather than accept that things have to change in order for a community to thrive; rather they kill someone, than think their (interpretation of) religion is "wrong".

My own personal view on religion, is that they are all pretty much the same - be nice to people, think about what you're doing, and so on. The aliens will think arguing over whether or not to wear hats is silly, and will probably eradicate us, to let the dolphins have a go.

 

[Daf]

Wouldn't sending kids to seperate, single-religion schools only fuel the hatred, and seperatism ? It's hard to look at an issue such as this on it's own.

So maybe its time to think about removing religious-based schools?
Education should not be dictated or influenced by religion in the first place.
Religion is a choice people can make, but i feel all too often is just enforced on kids by parents.

 

[old.user4556]

Xane to replace Kilroy !!!11one!




j/k - I agree with what you said in your big post at the top of the thread, except maybe the last wee bit .

G

 

[Tom]

So maybe its time to think about removing religious-based schools?
Education should not be dictated or influenced by religion in the first place.
Religion is a choice people can make, but i feel all too often is just enforced on kids by parents.

People can raise their children however they like. You can't tell people otherwise, its not right.

 

[Frizz]

People can raise their children however they like. You can't tell people otherwise, its not right.

Sounds like forcing something upon someone, without their consent. The child or maybe when they grow up, should make the choice.

 

[Wij]

State education shouldn't be about religion, agreed. I don't see why you should exclude people who wear certain items as part of their religion though. What harm does it do ?

Anyway, as was mentioned above, I don't think the Koran says anything about headscarves so why pick them out as a religious symbol rather than a cultural one ?

 

[Wij]

Sounds like forcing something upon someone, without their consent. The child or maybe when they grow up, should make the choice.

Trouble is, if you try to raise your child as a 'blank slate' and expect them to make their own choices from being able to walk you'll end up with a pretty fucked up kid. You have to try and install some values in them and then if you're an enlightened parent allow them to make their own choices as they get older and more responsible. Of course most of us here would prefer kids not to be indoctrinated with a religion but if someone tried to tell you how to raise your kids you'd ask them to fuck off surely ?

 

[xane]

Children don't have a choice, what they have is de facto the choice of their parents, by insisting children wear certain clothing is actually the choice expressed by the parent not the child.

Any claims as to what children are forced to do or wear is actually what the parent is forced to do. The argument then follows that this is not actually "forced", i.e. the parent forces the child, but nothing forces the parent to do that.

Of course "child" is strictly a definition, certainly the above applies to a 7yo, but perhaps a 15yo is not a "child" except in the eyes of the law (in Islam a "child" is 12yo or less).

 

[Frizz]

Trouble is, if you try to raise your child as a 'blank slate' and expect them to make their own choices from being able to walk you'll end up with a pretty fucked up kid. You have to try and install some values in them and then if you're an enlightened parent allow them to make their own choices as they get older and more responsible. Of course most of us here would prefer kids not to be indoctrinated with a religion but if someone tried to tell you how to raise your kids you'd ask them to fuck off surely ?

Well, yeah sure. It is quite hypocritical, but i'd try and make my child as politically correct and moral as possible. If i saw anti-social behaviour for instance, i'd tan its hide.

But religion as a whole, should be like a career choice. You can only make the choice when you understand certain values.

I myself, was raised as a "blank slate" in the religion dept. and have made my choice. I'm glad i was given that choice tbh.

 

[Frizz]

Children don't have a choice, what they have is de facto the choice of their parents, by insisting children wear certain clothing is actually the choice expressed by the parent not the child.

It's not that simple though. Its not just the parent who helps mould the child, it's also what the child interacts with. My stupid sister now dresses like a townie, no matter what i say, and the stereotypes associated with it, i still can't convince her that this dress code is unacceptable (my parents say i'm ultra right wing :/).

 

[old.user4556]

I know a lot of catholics who were raised with a strict religious upbringing, but as soon as they reached about 4th year in high school (about ~15/16) a lot of them stopped going to church and thought that it was all a lot of crap.

So yes, they were forced into a way as a kid but as soon as they were old enough then it was all out the window. However, a good few of them continued to take their faith seriously.

G

 

[Daf]

Well, yeah sure. It is quite hypocritical, but i'd try and make my child as politically correct and moral as possible. If i saw anti-social behaviour for instance, i'd tan its hide.

But religion as a whole, should be like a career choice. You can only make the choice when you understand certain values.

I myself, was raised as a "blank slate" in the religion dept. and have made my choice. I'm glad i was given that choice tbh.

Same here, I think being brought up on 'generic' moral values is infinitely better than enforcing a specific religious set of values. Of course the person is free to choose to follow a religion if they wish, but it should be an informed choice made solely by the individual.

 

[Shovel]

I think it boils down to a fairly simple hypocrisy:

Much of the objection to religious schools and religious symbolism on children is that they're forced to do so by their parents. The solution is to force them not to.

Whatever the baggage that comes with it, Religion does a very good job of instilling values - from friendly to terroristic - which isn't replicated through secular education. It's my opinion that if you were to find some way of totally removing religious moral influence from society then social standards would crumble within 2 or 3 generations. That is of course, if nothing replaced it. The difficulty in replacement - say through "Morality Studies" at school - is that all you've done is move the command of morality from one party to another. Right back to the hypocritical dilemma I started with.

Personally I think that "Morality Studies" is not a bad idea as an eventual conclusion to the state/church separation, teaching about the world in an open way that relates to here and now society would probably work (consider a discussion about sex before marriage based on 21st centuary motivations, rather than "God says so").

Wont happen over here though, not for a very long time indeed.

Either that or we need to make up a Utopian religion of our own. "The House of Freddy" anyone?

 

[Mazling]

Either that or we need to make up a Utopian religion of our own. "The House of Freddy" anyone?

Argh, you barrys/freddys old timers would probably start an anti-DAOC crusade

Suppose now we have to decide, is a parent bringing up a child "forcing" values, or merely imparting what they think is best? Looking at individual parents is the only way to decide that. I'm with the "generic" values idea: people should be taught to not only respect others beliefs and try to influence as little as possible, yet not totally at the cost of their own. Paradoxical, I know. It only works if you look at it from the perspective of single cases, which is what matters.

 

[xane]

Religion does a very good job of instilling values - from friendly to terroristic

Yeah Right ?

Give us an example of a "friendly" value, and don't go for the no-brainers like "not killing everyone you meet" or "be nice to people" that anyone with an ounce of social preservation is going to adopt anyway, religion or not. Leave out the "Captain Obvious" examples and you get left with a bunch of outdated, xenophobic dogma that was relevent at some point in the dark past but no-one can remember what it was all about, those are the ones people are worried about.

Religion is a personal issue, the days when religion ruled the uneducated population are long gone.

Secular education forces people to think for themselves and make up their own mind, and in most cases its pretty positive what the human brain can come up with when not fettered by religion.

 

[Tom]

Shovel I think you're confusing values with morals. Terrorists have plenty of the former, but none of the latter. Since religion is basically a moral crusade, terrorists have no right to call on religion to fund their beliefs.

 

[Shovel]

Frankly, that leaves an awful lot of people without an "ounce of social preservation".

I never said it was exclusive to religion, but regardless of relevence in the past or today, you can't just say "name something good, but you can't say anything good, because all of that has been absorbed into our Christian moralistic society". You're saying that religion only does a good job of instilling harmful values? Yeah, right. In children it is used as a way to encourage solid social beliefs. I don't mean to say that this is somehow as good as the secular manner you go on to describe, which I agree with, but it still happens.

To put it in more 21st century friendly, hostile terms then: Religion was and is (on a global scale) very good at indoctrinating the small and vunerable. What is being fed to them though, is not all bad by default.

 

[Shovel]

But is one person's value another persons moral? I do appreciate the distinction, but are they not the same, depending on where you individually are standing?

 

[xane]

Religion was and is (on a global scale) very good at indoctrinating the small and vunerable. What is being fed to them though, is not all bad by default.

"Indoctrination" is a good choice of word, and in the context of children is nothing but a bad thing.

Human existance owes much to the ability for a vulnerable child to believe everything their elders tell them, things like "don't go down to the river because it is infested by crocodiles and they'll eat you", under other circumstances a child may well find this out for themself and it'll be the last thing they ever do find out, as such it is essential for survival.

Religion abuses this human ability and exploits it. The childlike dogma of "don't be naughty or you wont get into heaven" is a million miles away from what a child needs to avoid death or injury. The no-brainers are moralistic things like "don't go around hitting people with a big stick because one day someone with a bigger stick is going to hit you" which were being told before religion got into the world, so it can't claim that ground.

By manifesting conceptual images and subverting moral laws based on them, a religion exploits the child's natural gullibility, how anyone can view this as a "good thing" needs their head examined. Better to teach a child what makes the world work and let them come to their own conclusions, you can be pretty sure they'll be close to what religion tries to teach, but without the moral baggage that comes with it.

"Opium of the people" is dead right, we spend our whole adulthood in cold turkey.