School forces girls to wear head scarves

[Russ]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

no need for that at all mr moderator. i find you equally hard work.

Again, you appear to be the only one. Looks like just about everyone else taking part in this thread can see my point.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Anyone else fancy trying to get through to him?

explain why then a school should be allowed to incorporate christian iconography within its uniform (tthrough the logo_ - which is worn by pupils of all faiths and denominations (and decorates school signage, notepapers etc) but an islamic school cannot.

you see to be contending that the logo is entirely value free; that it just helps identify that school and carries no further message. do you really belive that?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

you see to be contending that the logo is entirely value free; that it just helps identify that school and carries no further message. do you really belive that?

All schools have logos - only specific ones have veils as part of the uniform. And you know what the reasons for them are.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

explain why then a school should be allowed to incorporate christian iconography within its uniform (tthrough the logo_ - which is worn by pupils of all faiths and denominations (and decorates school signage, notepapers etc) but an islamic school cannot.

you see to be contending that the logo is entirely value free; that it just helps identify that school and carries no further message. do you really belive that?

Except it looks like wearing the logo isn't compulsory, where as the scarf is

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by Russ D

All schools have logos - only specific ones have veils as part of the uniform. And you know what the reasons for them are.

indeed all schools have logos. they do not however need to incorporate christian iconography. many do. many dont. equally you know the reasons why some schools use the iconography - to highlight and promote the faith to which they are aligned, to create a shared christian identity. this is what logos do.

like i say i would like to see faith schools taken out of the equation. that remains my position. but whilst we have them id like to see a bit of fair play over the use or alleged use of religious symbols and articles of faith.

---------- Post added at 17:16 ---------- Previous post was at 17:11 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Except it looks like wearing the logo isn't compulsory, where as the scarf is

http://www.heart-england.solihull.sc...oluniform.html black blazer with badge.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

If I sent my daughter to a church of england/RC school which had a logo on its blazer of christ on the crucifix would she have to wear it? From what I am reading here then the answer is (I think, correct me if im wrong) Yes, as this is not a symbol of religion but represents a school?? Sorry Im a bit cionfused, can someone clarify that to me in laymans terms as its a long day.
Now as a muslim I would not like my daughter to have to wear any such symbol as to me it symbolises the death of a prophet on a cross (a view we donot share) and it also symbolises majar difference in our religions. However as its a complusory part of the uniform (and it does, whatever u say identify the fact that my child goes to a christian faith school) and I have chosen to send her to that school, for whatever reason, then she will have to wear it.

Now why is it so hard to apply that reasoning to the school in question. You can argue what you want about religious symbols/interpretations or whatever else, the principle is the same. At the end of the day the logo on a blazer identifies that the school belongs to a particular faith, it has to be displayed on your blazer whether you like it or not. The scarf represents a muslim faith school. Simple as that really.

As a muslim, wearing a logo with a cross on it would make me uncomfortable, we generally stay away from such icons/symbols, but it wouldn't compromise my faith as a muslim. I would not be compelled to convert to christianity, and see this as just something I have to wear. Can a non muslim not apply the same reasoning here?

[hatedbythemail]

the simplicity seems to elude ;-)

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

explain why then a school should be allowed to incorporate christian iconography within its uniform (tthrough the logo_ - which is worn by pupils of all faiths and denominations (and decorates school signage, notepapers etc) but an islamic school cannot.

you see to be contending that the logo is entirely value free; that it just helps identify that school and carries no further message. do you really belive that?

Several posts have already been made - I have made more than one of them - that explain that to you. You have chosen to ignore them.

Let me set out the key points as I see them, again:

1. Equating the cross and the headscarf makes for a poor analogy. The cross is a common symbol of the religion, the headscarf is a deliberate statement of a personal, moral position. A better equivalent would be the crescent. For example, here is the crest of the Nottingham Islamia School, about which I recall absolutely no controversy whatsoever:

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

2. The school crest identifies, to some greater or lesser extent, the moral atmosphere, direction and aspirations of the school. It does not make a statement about the personal morality of the wearer. An item of religious attire, on the other hand, most certainly does suggest that the wearer subscribes to a particular ideology or doctrine. Although mainstream Islam generally agrees that all muslim women should cover up to some extent or other, muslim women themselves only do so if they personally agree and wish to identify with the teaching on modesty. On the other hand there is no teaching in Christianity that says you must wear certain symbols in order to properly show accord with any doctrine or expression of morality. Plenty of people do use Christian symbols, such as the cross or fish, as statements of belief, but this is far from universal and to try to claim it's in the same category as the headscarf is simply absurd.

3. If you see a nun walking down the high street in her traditional headscarf, I predict you would *assume* she was a nun under holy orders. If you see a woman in identifiably Islamic dress with her head covered, I predict you would *assume* she was a muslim who wished to honour her religion's teaching on female modesty.

On the other hand, the thrust of the row over Fiona Bruce's crucifix necklace the other week was that nobody outside of loony-liberal BBC management would assume she was actually making a statement of religion by wearing it during the 10 o'clock news. The cross, due to its status as an item of jewellery and the fact that nobody executes by crucifixion any more (nor knows what crucifixion is, in many cases) has lost a lot of its impact as a religious symbol. So, even when it is worn with specific religious intent, its meaning is likely to be lost on a significant proportion of people.

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

If I sent my daughter to a church of england/RC school which had a logo on its blazer of christ on the crucifix would she have to wear it? From what I am reading here then the answer is (I think, correct me if im wrong) Yes, as this is not a symbol of religion but represents a school?? Sorry Im a bit cionfused, can someone clarify that to me in laymans terms as its a long day.
Now as a muslim I would not like my daughter to have to wear any such symbol as to me it symbolises the death of a prophet on a cross (a view we donot share) and it also symbolises majar difference in our religions. However as its a complusory part of the uniform (and it does, whatever u say identify the fact that my child goes to a christian faith school) and I have chosen to send her to that school, for whatever reason, then she will have to wear it.

Now why is it so hard to apply that reasoning to the school in question. You can argue what you want about religious symbols/interpretations or whatever else, the principle is the same. At the end of the day the logo on a blazer identifies that the school belongs to a particular faith, it has to be displayed on your blazer whether you like it or not. The scarf represents a muslim faith school. Simple as that really.

As a muslim, wearing a logo with a cross on it would make me uncomfortable, we generally stay away from such icons/symbols, but it wouldn't compromise my faith as a muslim. I would not be compelled to convert to christianity, and see this as just something I have to wear. Can a non muslim not apply the same reasoning here?

Religious clothing is totally different. What if you sent your kids to a Jewish school and they were forced to wear a skullcap?

Originally Posted by Macca371

Religious clothing is totally different. What if you sent your kids to a Jewish school and they were forced to wear a skullcap?

A very good point, especially as Jesus very specifically reversed the Church's ideas about covering/uncovering the head as compared to those held by the Jews. The teachings of the two religions are poles apart on that issue.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

explain why then a school should be allowed to incorporate christian iconography within its uniform (tthrough the logo_ - which is worn by pupils of all faiths and denominations (and decorates school signage, notepapers etc) but an islamic school cannot.

For a start, this is England........

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Without proper religious education people grow up thinking all religion causes wars.

Russ, which "proper religious education" would you be referring to?

Can you be a bit more specific as I cannot think of a single mainstream / populist religion that has not caused or been the root cause of a war.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Macca371

Religious clothing is totally different. What if you sent your kids to a Jewish school and they were forced to wear a skullcap?

This is the point Im making, if I sent my kid to whatever school, I would expect to abide by the uniform/logos/hats/scarves/gym kit etc etc whatever it might be. I have chosen the school with the knowledge of what is expected before hand.

If an item of clothing compromised my religious way of thinking or made me uncomfortable as a muslim, I'd probably not send them there in the first place. If it was a question of lack of choice and my kid had to go to that school then she would wear the uniform thats expected.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Russ, which "proper religious education" would you be referring to?

Can you be a bit more specific as I cannot think of a single mainstream / populist religion that has not caused or been the root cause of a war.

Surely you mean 'has not been used as an excuse for a war'?

Christianity and Buddhism, to name but two, explicitly forbid violence in their holy writings. That hasn't stopped people perverting them in order to provide justification for their actions of course.

Arguably, Russ' idea of 'proper' religious education would ensure people are generally more able to see past the erroneous tendency to see 'religion' or 'religions' as a homogenous mass about which glib generalisations can be made.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

http://www.heart-england.solihull.sc...oluniform.html black blazer with badge.

Like I said I can only talk from my own experiences, although it would seem that I am not the only parent whose child's uniform doesn't have to have school badges and logo's on it. What might be interesting to know is how far the school you use as an example enforce the rule, my sisters children's school's dress code is described as strict however anyone can opt out if they have good reason, it would seem that such compromises aren't available at the Islamic school.