School forces girls to wear head scarves

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

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.

So basically, children should be segregated from each other in accordance with their parents' belief systems? What a sad world we live in.

[Xaccers]

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.

Stand back and wait for the hairs to be split

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

Indeed the simplicity certainly does seem to ellude some people. Cracking post.

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.

That would take this off in to the usual Christian-bashing thread so I'll happily reply vie PM

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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:



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.

thanks for sucgh a detailed post. i still struggle with this though. accepting your argument re the cross and the headscarf (and its reiteration by macca) as not being strictly analgous i still dont understand why the opposition as such to the headscarf. yes it is not the crescent (or cross) but it is (or isn't depending on where you stand) an article of faith; it is a way of demonstrating allegiance with and adherence to islam (or not ;-) ) in that way the two symbolic devices - the logo with the cross and the headscarf - are performing very similar functions. im not sure also that the headscarf is simply a personal moral position, as strands of islam rather than just individuals seem to interpret the need for the covering of the head/face. besides having faith is a personal moral position in itself i suppose. and a school badge may not in itself provide an indication of personal morality, but it does promote a school's theological position which may steretypically be asumed to be shared by the pupil and/or his parents (though in reality some peoole have little or no choice which school their kid atends). im sure that if a pupil wore a uniform bearing the crescent most here would asume the child was muslim.

the argument over fiona bruce's cross was tosh though. agree there :-) but one point is that it that the cross, through its use in jewellery etc, may have lost some of its potency as a religious icon in certain circumstances, but it could be argued, he said very tentatively, that the headscarf suffers from not being as widespread; it is seen outside the mainstream societal norm even though it may be the norm within muslim communities. as time goes by i venture the headscarf will become accepted - that is if uk media plc tires of its obession with criticising islam ;-)

[Jules]

I don't often post in threads like this because being a non religious person I do not think I am well enough informed to do so but on this occasion I couldn't resist so here goes.


Ok this is what I think and this is just my personal opinion.

If I was Catholic I would want my son to go to a catholic school and if the uniform had a cross on it so be it

If I was Jewish I would want him to go to a Jewish school and wear the skull cap etc.

If I was Muslim I would want him to go to a Muslim school and wear traditional dress (sorry I am not well informed enough to know what boys wear)

If I did not want my son to wear anything with a religious symbol or a skull cap etc then I would not send him to a "faith" school, problem solved.

Or am I just trying to live in a world that makes sense?

As for all the girls at the school mentioned in Salus opening post being made to wear scarves are they going to make all the boys wear skull caps or turbans and every single person must wear a cross so as not to offend anyone?


I believe in live and let live as long as no one is being hurt but it seems that we are no longer allowed to do that because no matter what anyone does someone some were is offended




Ok rip me to shreds I wont cry too much

But what if only faith schools were available in your area?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Macca371

But what if only faith schools were available in your area?

Like where?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Like where?

I meant hypothetically, but I'm pretty sure that in many cases parents will find themselves having to chose between faith schools, which is just wrong.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

My primary school was Church Of England, and I'd say just in our year the percentage of muslim pupils was a minimum 15-20%. We went to church every week, sang 'christian' songs in assembly, partcipated in harvest and productions of Navity plays at xmas, all without complaint from either the pupils or the parents.

This school in question is a muslim faith school with rules regarding uniform. A non muslim choosing to attend the school for whatever reason will be aware of these rules at time of application.

I was reading something recently about how a lot of non muslims wish to send their children to muslim schools because of the success of students in the national curriculum subjects. Well if you want to do that fair play, but while your their you should be subject to the same rules regarding uniform.

I agree with some of your post, if the school has that policy in place before admitting pupils all well and good, its a bit different to someone turning up for an interview without a headscarf and then wearing one when it suits.

If parents dont want their children wearing headscarfs, they can just send them to another school. To be hones I can't really see that many non-muslim parents subjecting their children to the dress policy of this school.

Perhaps its a clever was of racially discriminating against people who are not Islamic muslims.

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

The same should apply to all faith schools (state funded) irregardless of the religion they follow then. So lets ban the choirs at christmas, church ceremonies harvest, morning prayers, etc etc on teh same grounds.

Every school nowadays seem to have some form of selection policy, and most if not all have rules regarding uniform/jewellery/attendance/subjects etc etc. Surely when you apply to send your kids to any school (faith or non faith thats state funded ) there are conditions which you have to adhere to.

OK then how do you feel about all state funded schools NOT perm itting national dress of ANY kind, including veils.?

No didnt think you nwould like it, oppressinf muslim feeling i bet.

But as christians dont appear to be a minority group, **** em huh?

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

thanks for sucgh a detailed post. i still struggle with this though. accepting your argument re the cross and the headscarf (and its reiteration by macca) as not being strictly analgous i still dont understand why the opposition as such to the headscarf. yes it is not the crescent (or cross) but it is (or isn't depending on where you stand) an article of faith; it is a way of demonstrating allegiance with and adherence to islam (or not ;-) ) in that way the two symbolic devices - the logo with the cross and the headscarf - are performing very similar functions. im not sure also that the headscarf is simply a personal moral position, as strands of islam rather than just individuals seem to interpret the need for the covering of the head/face. besides having faith is a personal moral position in itself i suppose. and a school badge may not in itself provide an indication of personal morality, but it does promote a school's theological position which may steretypically be asumed to be shared by the pupil and/or his parents (though in reality some peoole have little or no choice which school their kid atends). im sure that if a pupil wore a uniform bearing the crescent most here would asume the child was muslim.

As has been stated by many people in many posts, whilst (to quote slm), 90% of Muslims accept the need for a headscarf, to quote French stats (and I believe the ratio is similar in the UK), only about 20% of Muslim females wear them. It is a personal preference/interpretation of some being made compulsory for all female pupils, which concerns me.

And again (to reiterate one of my earlier posts), most schools with logos allow similar coloured items of clothing - it is recommended, not compulsory.

Our local CofE junior and senior schools have pupils of all faiths and races from all over Leeds, and people do not assume by their badges they are CofE - they just assume they attend either school.

Regarding your point re "strands of islam rather than just individuals seem to interpret the need for the covering of the head/face", strands of other religions interpret homosexuality as unnatural - doesn't make the interpretation right.

[hatedbythemail]

compulsory kippa http://www.jfs.brent.sch.uk/

and an interesting article: http://education.independent.co.uk/n...cle1433332.ece i see the headscarf as part of the unform is not new (though not liked by the student quoted!)

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:52 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

As has been stated by many people in many posts, whilst (to quote slm), 90% of Muslims accept the need for a headscarf, to quote French stats (and I believe the ratio is similar in the UK), only about 20% of Muslim females wear them. It is a personal preference/interpretation of some being made compulsory for all female pupils, which concerns me.

religion is faith so the scope for interpretation is pretty wide. if you're going to have faith schools....

And again (to reiterate one of my earlier posts), most schools with logos allow similar coloured items of clothing - it is recommended, not compulsory.

but many dont. besides we're talking about one school's policy here (two if you count the one in the independent article)

Our local CofE junior and senior schools have pupils of all faiths and races from all over Leeds, and people do not assume by their badges they are CofE - they just assume they attend either school.

but it is still a badge "promoting" christian iconography and establishing the school as one favouring a christian theology. i would bet my last quid that if a kid wore a uniform with a crescent people would asume they're muslim. theyd probably be right mind, given that in the current climate of islamophobia you'd be mad to associate yourself with islam unless you had the faith

Regarding your point re "strands of islam rather than just individuals seem to interpret the need for the covering of the head/face", strands of other religions interpret homosexuality as unnatural - doesn't make the interpretation right.

like i say all faith is open to interpretation. get rid of faith schools and go for seculkar comprehensives is what i say ;-)

Here's a bit of info from the Guardian about the school -
http://education.guardian.co.uk/fait...770230,00.html
"In the dilapidated entrance hall of the Islamic Academy in Leicester hang plans for the school's switch to the state system next year. A diagram of the new, state-of-the-art building - to be renamed Madani high school- is marked by a diagonal line through the centre: on one side, shaded in pink, is the girls' area; on the other side, shaded in blue, is where the boys will study."

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

......to be renamed Madani high school- is marked by a diagonal line through the centre: on one side, shaded in pink, is the girls' area; on the other side, shaded in blue, is where the boys will study."[/I]

So it's not co-ed then?

[Ramrod]

Actually, I can think of a very good argument for the veil.......