Massive Quasars wrote:Students can't wear hijabs there. That is my point. I don't care that it's a government institution, some people have no alternative but to go to public schools.
The majority should not impose arbitrary dress code upon everyone. The exception being perhaps for obscene clothing, or clothing that reveals too much in public.
What about clothing that reveals too little in public? A headscarve (you're still using only this as an example btw, which i find a little biased, but no matter) shields the ears and eyes - how can i as a teacher be sure someone is paying attention if i can't see their face?
Also; it's a matter of principles. If i were a catholic girl and i decided to go to a muslim school I very much doubt I’d be allowed to not wear a headscarve and skip prayers. Hell, they probably wouldn’t even accept me because of my religion.
Last edited by Ryoki on Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ryoki wrote:
What about clothing that reveals too little in public? A headscarve (you're still using only this as an example btw, which i find a little biased, but no matter) shields the ears and eyes - how can i as a teacher be sure someone is paying attention if i can't see their face?
I've seen 3 types of hijabs or muslim headresses, one reveals the full face, the other reveals just the eyes, and the third (in afghanistan) reveals nothing of the head. In the last case, an exception could be made because the argument could be raised that it hinders the student's ability to participate in class and therefore must be removed (or replaced with a less obtrusive version).
actually the main thing about the constitution is not religion.
firstly it actually is the fact that it is the first real step into forming a european nation.
furthermore the introduction of a european foreign minister that is actually in control of a european military force, the eurocorps, is definately a sign of europe's will to display it's interrests.
- and there are some additional changes towards a pan-european government; but there is still a need for more of a shift from constenting governments in european council towards a more democratic system with a strong parliament. recent developments included a testing of the parliaments possibilities when they forced the councils composition, that included some controversial candidates - one of them beeing a catholic harldliner openly displaying discrimination of homosexuals and repression of women regarding their role in marriage - to be reconsidered.
Yeah you’re right, it's a bit of a flawed argument - the type that reveals most of the face is the most common one here.
It's just that i find it worrysome that atheists and non fundamental religious types (the vast majority of the population) always have to consider the feelings of relifreaks whilst they completely and totally ignore our principles and cry racism every time they feel their religion is in peril. Again, noones forcing them to go to public schools, if they feel they must wear their religious symbols they are free to do so in their own private schools.
Again, they often have no choice but to go to public school because they may not be able to afford private school.
Your point about being forced to bend over backwards for these religious people is not lost on me. Their religious beliefs shouldn't interfere with the rights and freedoms of other individuals in that society.
Non-religious people should not be fined or jailed for being openly critical of certain religions. Van Gogh, for example, had every right to speak his mind in a country that claimed to be free. Realistically he should have expected threats from islamic people as a result, but it's the government's job to protect citizens and their right to speak freely.