Spoken by someone who has little understanding of the nature of faith; people don't believe in God (or other deity or deities) because they desire to do so. It's a deep-seated conviction of the reality of the Divine; it's not a lifestyle choice, and it's not a fashion accessory, so no, it's not a "personal desire" for a person of faith. Indeed, a fair amount of the time, it'd make life easier if it wasn't there...Originally Posted by Shogun
Why not make it simpler....
If you're sikh and refuse to wear a helmet, then don't ride a motorbike.
If you're muslim and want to wear your particular religious dress in school, then find a school that allows this!
Why should a set of beliefs be pandered to when it is called a 'relgion' and not when it is known as something else (like a 'cult' or a 'sect')?
Once again we're back to the issue; is it right to exclude here from the state school (which should be open to all, regardless of race, colour OR creed) of her choice, which she has been attending, on the basis that her faith requires a particular mode of dress. What if the other schools are of lower quality? What if they are in bad or dangerous areas? Effectively, what you're saying is that a person of a different (or no) faith has their choice of ALL schools in the area, but a person of her faith is limited to the few which allow the mode of dress dictated by her faith. That's not a good thing.
I'd dearly love to know what religions you think ARE native to this country; the Nazareth from which Christ hailed isn't the one just outside Watford...
Seriously, most of the major faiths practiced in this country have their origins abroad (and quite a few of them in the Middle East), so unless you're suggesting that the only faith we should bend over backwards to accomodate is Wicca, there goes the leg you were standing on...
Now I'd say that the vehemence expressed thus far in this debate is a fair indication of the fact that the divide of which you speak is already fairly well entrenched; all this girl has done with regard to that divide (if she's done anything at all) is bring to the fore some of the issues on which that divide is based.
Actually it's very easy to see the other side; why should she be held responsible for the possible actions of people who are nothing to do with her and over whom she has no control? It's not a needs of the many issue, since the only conflict of need is being raised not by her but by the assumed behaviour of people who have nothing to do with her. In other words, if this justification is accepted, so is the principle that one person should be punished for the misdeeds of another, which is manifestly unjust.Her responsability for others, well thats a two sided coin (a bit like this whole issue really) "When does the needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many?" (OMG I'm quoting Spock!?!). It depends how you look at it personaly, it could be called inconsiderate and selfish and when you put it like that it's very difficult to see the other side.
Since the only people who would have been affected by the law were Sikhs, and since their faith required the turban, and the allowance of this would not impact upon anyone else (like the case of this girl with the jilbab), they were allowed the exemption.
I know what you mean, but most alleged religious wars are no different from any other wars; they're all about resources. Look at the Crusades; were they really about God? No, they were more about the offspring of the aristocracy needing new lands and taking advantage of a handy McGuffin to justify taking those lands by force.
Firstly, whether you win or lose, whether you are right or wrong, it is your RIGHT to take the issue to court. No-one should be able to gainsay that, and the point at which we start saying that someone should not have access to the law to defend themselves against perceived wrong is the start of a very slippery slope, at the end of which lies the denial of due process for all of us. As to your Jedi faith, personally, I'd stop short of believing in a faith invented by George Lucas, but if you have a sincere belief in the Force ("it surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the Universe together...") then go to it, and good luck. And if you manage that levitation thing, let me know
And the point at which the application of their faith directly leads to harm to others or their rights to their own faiths (or to not have a faith) is where the line should be drawn. Note that I said "directly". In this case, the granting of the freedom to wear the jilbab would not directly affect anyone else, and the only effect that it might have would be an indirect effect which would be predicated upon the misdeeds of other people.
No, the point is not whether the law should be broken or bent, but whether the law should accomodate a person's religious beliefs or lack thereof. I'd argue that insofar as a person's religious beliefs do not directly harm others, or lead that person to intentionally aid, abet counsel or procure harm to others, then the law should allow them the exercise of those beliefs. Note; the law should not need to be bent or broken, since it would already allow that freedom anyway.
I never said that, and don't put words into my mouth. If you want to start this discussion then we should really do this in another thread. Suffice it to say that I am NOT some kind of NRA-billcap-wearing 2nd Amendment fundamentalist, and just because I don't believe that a total ban was appropriate doesn't mean that I believe in complete deregulation. As I say, though, it's a big topic, one that I'm not hugely interested in at the moment, but one that if you want to discuss, we should do so in another thread, OK?
Cool....let's start another thread then as I'd like to discuss that too. Be interesting to see what the various thoughts are on that
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
This is potentially about every school in the country as the right is there for public education, if the court ruling had been different then it would be applicable on a country wide basis due to the legal precedent being set and in fairness it already has been with the Sikh helmet case for example or even the Shalwar Kameez.
Your statement in itself is quite exclusionist in that you quite clearly markate which side of the line you stand on and also try to discount a whole swathe of opinion by discounting those who would call it racist or unfair, it is definitely unfair and discriminatory and you saying otherwise wont change that, in fact your point backs up the discrimination argument.
All are equal in the eyes of the law, it has nothing to do with needs of few Vs many, it is about human rights.Her responsability for others, well thats a two sided coin (a bit like this whole issue really) "When does the needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many?" (OMG I'm quoting Spock!?!
This is untrue the stricter interpretation of some holy scripts could be read like that but it is not the basis of any religion that I know that Westerners should be killed. No ones religious beliefs should be allowed to break or bend laws, when there is an extra provision made for something then that becomes the law.
Hmm there was talk about tolerance somewhere in this thread, a set of beliefs should not be pandered to but taken into account in a tolerant inclusive society.(??)
This looks to me like a deliberate misinterpretation, faith and desire have nothing to do with each other, faith overrides desire by a long shot as far as I am concerned, the main reason that I am not religious.
Personally I would get rid of religion totally, but when one is included they all should be.
I believe personally as previously stated that it is an attempt to suppress a more intense devotion to Islam, how can a non-muslim even contemplate judging what is acceptable to a muslim and what is not when they dont have the cultural background?
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
Even if there is only a slight chance that it might create a divide within a school, it is still a risk and considering that these are teenagers, it is not something you want to promote in the young.But the school argued an alternative uniform option for Muslim girls was on offer, while the jilbab could divide Muslim pupils and presented a health and safety problem.
Responsability for the actions of other is one of the things that is very, VERY wrong in this day and age (in my opion), nobody stops to help others even when someone is in trouble because 'it's not my problem'. A girl was seen screaming for help after being chased down a road by a man, nobody stoped to help in the end she threw herself off a over pass bridge rather than face her attacker by herself.
In this case by something this girl does could lead to and cause harm to others then it is her responability.
Your line of arguement sugests that the BNP should be allowed to publicly insite rasical hatred because they are not responsable for the action that people who listen to them take, it there right. Now that is a frightening thought.
So to start with she was quiet happy to attend the school, until she became more religious?Originally, Shabina wore a shalwar kameez to school, but her deepening interest in her religion led to her wearing the jilbab.
Now it is worth noting that teenagers arn't the most stable minded and moods swing from one thing to another.
And if it is a case that she wants to get closer to her god then surely she should find an even more religious school that openly promotes her god rather than enforcing other less fanatical muslim to her beliefs, after all that would be an infringement of there rights.
But a divide between those who are allowed to dress according to the dictates of their faith and those who are not is precisely what you propose.
No, it is not, since it is not HER actions which would be reponsible for harm to others but the actions of others over whom she has no control. All liberties are capable of abuse; that does not mean that you should withdraw the liberties, it means that you should address the abuse. In the case you cite, in an ideal world someone would have helped that girl (I hope that I would have), but it doesn't change where and with whom the reponsibility for her death lies; with the man who was terrorising her. Now unless you want to impose a legal obligation upon everyone to assist someone in distress regardless of the fact that they might be killed themselves, then that's likely to remain the case. In this girl's case, is she reponsible for everything that is done in the name of "Islam" by families with whom she has no connection? It was nominally Christian Phalangists who committed massacres in the refugee camps at Sabra and Chatilla in the '80s - I am a Christian; am I to blame for those?
No, it does not, since by delibarately inciting racial hatred and violence against others (which are criminal offences, by the way), they would be advocating the harming of other people; this girl is not. There's no comparison at all.
Right, so a deep religious faith is evidence of mental instability; I must remember that when I next go on pilgrimage, I'm SO glad you pointed out that I'm off my rocker.So to start with she was quiet happy to attend the school, until she became more religious?
Now it is worth noting that teenagers arn't the most stable minded and moods swing from one thing to another.
She isn't enforcing her beliefs on anyone else, she merely wants the freedom to exercise those beliefs herself. Consequently she is not proposing to infringe anyone else's rights. And by the way, religious conviction isn't synonymous with fanaticism.
Ah you've missed the point I was refering to, which was the other pupils who said that they would prefer not to see the dress added to the list for fear of being forced to wear it. Therefore her actions could cause someone distress and harm, it also might cause rifts in friendship because of the different factions of muslims up until till that point would have been able to hide behind the uniform and keep there veiws to themselves.
Teenagers thats a whole thread to themselves you show me a teenager who doesnt like something one min and then the other the next and then you can call me nuts (or am I just getting old
Indeed, there are few things more childish in this world that respect for the rule of law.
No, no, no. And no once more. Thrice no, impudent knave! And other such exclamations.I don't think that we should scrap the courts system, but I do think that anyone who regards the court system as infallible needs a reality check, and I know full well that the courts do make mistakes, and that simply because something is legal it doesn't make it right; conversely, just because something is illegal, it doesn't make it wrong.
You don't seem to grasp the very simple fact, that if something is illegal, then it is wrong. Break the law, and you are punished. Punished if you agree with the law or not, punished if you think the law is right or not.
Like it or lump it mate, you can't opt out. Yes the Courts make misatkes, this is why verdicts are overturned and appeals are allowed, but at the end of the day, as long as we opperate the current legal system in this country, then legal = right and illegal = wrong. Simple as that.
You do supprise me.I am a Lefty
I should perhaps point out, that all the quotes from me in this thread that you are replying to, were taken from a discussion between me and Rave. I was replying to him, as made clear by the fact that I quoted him before replying. So no, you didn't call me a racist, nor anything else, but then, I was talking to Rave.but have I called you racist?
Rave didn't call anyone a racist either, but he did retract the statement to which I was refering, which is fair enough.
Now that the Courts have rules in favour of the school, she has the right of appeal, and if she fails with that appeal, she must respect the rule of law in this country, and will not be allowed to wear her own choice of school uniform. This is the exact same system of law that everyone else in this country is expected to respect and abide by.Simply because a mode of dress is sufficient for many Muslims, it's overly simplistic to assume that it is acceptable to all.
Your problem exactly with this girl being included with every other man, woman and child in England, and also being expected to respect the ruling?
Well, I don't seem to be able to satisfy either you or Rave, so if it means that much to you, I'll give the both of you a point and conceed.Problem with that is that I've offered compromises which would satisfy your objections, yet you don't appear to pay much attention to those. And I do think that you're rather dodging the issue, with the "ring a school" line, especially since Rave already works in the education sector, as he said, for Ofsted.
Rave asked for reasons why anyone should need to wear a school uniform, I gave him several. He then decided that these were not suffecient, despite being the obvious and correct reasons why people do wear school uniform, so I suggested that rather than take my word for it, he ring up a local school and ask them, and I'm sure he will find that they give pretty much the same reasons as I gave.
If somehow that means I am dodging the issue, then yes, I admit it I am dodging the issue!
Noticed this creeping into your posts in this thread Nich. Speaking for Rave, offering his opinion almost as yours. Rave is a big boy, I'm sure he can speak for himself.The straw man argument; bound to occur eventually. I don't think either Rave or myself would support the infringement of another person's rights in this example (I certainly wouldn't), but it's an inappropriate analogy, since allowing the girl in question to wear the jilbab would only affect her, and not deny anyone else the right to dress differently to her.
As for your point, you again fail to see beyond the case in question. You can't see the wood for the trees.
It would affect other people, as it would set an example to others, religious and otherwise, that school rules are meaningless, and all you have to do is go running to the Courts with some jumped up reason for being given special treatment, and, like good little boys, they will over-rule the school, and allow it.
Then you have the whole "Well, if religious grounds are a reason to ignore the rules, what else can we get away with?"
You have to draw the line somewhere, and thankfuly, and to the complete agreement, I would think, of the majority of right-thinking people in this country, the Courts have ruled in favour of the school and common sense, and not simply bowed down beucase this girl is a Muslim, nor because they are wary of the utterly predictable cries of 'racist!' or 'Islam hater!' from the non-thinking left.
Blub2k did exactly that earlier in this thread, by way of confirming my point, didn't he? What was it again? Something about a direct attempt by the British system to subdue Islamic rights?
Now yes, I accept without hessitation that anything Blub2k says has to be taken with a large pinch of salt, as he has a rather obvious, bitter anti-UK obsession, that clouds his judgment on all issues invovling the UK, but even so, his responce is depressingly typical and predictable.
As I said, Rave is a big boy, he can reply me himself, rather than having to have you offer his opinions second hand. No offense mate, but its starting to sound like sticking up for our friends in the playground.Pardon me, but I don't think Rave said they did
All Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Budishts, Atheists, and Agnosticts will respect the rules of law in this country, for as long as they remain in this country, with no exceptions, ragrdless of the religion of the person bringing the Court case in the first place. Get the idea?All Muslims are not alike, all Christians are not alike...get the idea?
I ask again; what right has this girl, any more than anyone else, to opt out? She lost the case, she may appeal, and she may lose the case again. Apart from the right of appeal, what else are you suggesting we give her?
Well, we had the cunning plan to keep our Generals and Field Marshalls out of the front line, so we had some officers alive to give orders and maintain a chain of command. Crazy I know, but it seemed to work.Personally, I think the standards of the day were largely those adopted by a bunch of red-tabbed REMFs who never got nearer the front line than a cozy chateau thirty miles from the front. And the standards of the day were wrong.
As for the standards being wrong, what would your solution be for addressing the issue of deserters? Cut off their supply of fair-trade tea bags?
Seriously mate, all countries during this time used to shoot deserters,. Know why? It used to stop people deserting.
Then state away, young warrior. I'm sure its the perfect way to demonstrate your human rights in action. Praise be to the UK, for being an open and fair country, which allows you to protest about things such as this. Makes you realise just how lucky we are really doesn't it? After all, in some countries, you'd be locked up for daring to protest.Actually, he, like I, does have a choice. We can state that we believe the ruling to be wrong, in principle and possibly in law also. See above.
Makes you proud, doesn't it?
It worked so well in fact that a mere 900,000 or so of our young men died and countless others were injured in a war that acheived pretty much nothing except to lay the groundwork for an even more calamitous war 20 years later.
Yeah, actually it was really effective. The thought of being shot tends to snap a young man out of his post traumatic stress disorder pretty sharpish. After all, it's not like that's what gave him the PTSD in the first placeSeriously mate, all countries during this time used to shoot deserters,. Know why? It used to stop people deserting..
I'm off to bed now, but fear not, I shall respond to your other points in good time. Bet you can't wait eh?
Rich :¬)
Sleep well. Also, lets both move away from World War I, and back to your mistaken and unworkable, studenty arguement, that the Courts should be ignored, and we should all bend over backwards as soon as a member of a religious minority demands special treatment.
I cannot, as you so rightly point out, wait.
Which I have never advocated; all that I have stated is that the current law, or the current interpretation of the law may be wrong; your view appears to be that all law is morally right because it is the law, and that any dissent from the current law is morally wrong. So slavery should still be legal, as should capital punishment for theft of, say, a pig. After all, these were the law, so they were obviously morally right, and any dissent from that view is lefty student drivel. Get a grip. Laws may be wrong; this doesn't mean they aren't laws, but may mean that they are laws which should be challenged and opposed; if possible overruled. By your standards, William Wilberforce should just have stepped aside and let slavery continue, because after all, it was the law.Indeed, there are few things more childish in this world that respect for the rule of law.
Very funny; do let me know if you develop a sense of humour of your own - watching an entirely new organism in its infancy is a profound experience.
You seem to have no conception of the fact that that law is not synonymous with morality.
Something that Ghandhi recognised with the principle of Satyagraha; there is a duty to obey the law, unless that law is morally opprobrious, in which case your duty is to disobey it, openly and honestly, harming no-one but yourself. Now Ghandhi was a highly trained and successful professional lawyer, yet he recognised that there was a distinction between law and right.
No Vaul, legal=legal, illegal=illegal and these may coincide with moral distinctions of right and wrong, but are by no means guaranteed to do so. Mate. Since we're being so chummy and all.
If it's a private discussion in which all others are peremptorily barred from participation, perhaps you'd care to take it up with Rich via email or PM; unless and until that occurs, where I see an opportunity to contribute to a free and open discourse I will do so.
See above.
All of which I had already accounted for earlier in this thread. Simply restating your tired and lame objections doesn't make them any better.
We aren't, you are. We provide reasoned argument, you shuffle the responsibility off onto someone else and expect us to accept that some putative answer that they might provide should be sufficient, without further discussion...If somehow that means I am dodging the issue, then yes, I admit it I am dodging the issue!
And where that "big boy" says something with which I profoundly agree I will speak in his support, just as where he and I disagree, I will speak in opposition to him (and frequently have).
Rather your problem than mine - read on.
No, it would give an example of the school being open-minded enough to amend their rules where merited by circumstance; to give their pupils options within the rules. Rules for rules' sake are pointless. Rules that guard the freedom of all the students within the school are to be cherished; see above comments upon the lack of synonimity between law and morality.
This girl has not ignored the rules; she has asked that the rules be interpreted or amended to allow her to follow her faith as other students within the school are allowed to follow theirs.
"Common sense" naturally being synonymous with whatever particular precjudice you hold at the time...
Any time somebody starts whiffling on about "the majority of right-thinking people", it behooves us to capitalise the "R" in right and add salt to taste...
As must be mine; I mean, it's not as though I've railed against the lack of proper equipment to protect our troops in Iraq, not as though I've spoken in favour of the forcible removal of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq in the face of opposition from people on my own side of the political spectrum, and on these forums...but then it's a little inconvenient for you to have someone disagree with you who can't be so easily pigeonholed, isn't it?
I state my own opinions first hand; I'd note that you appear utterly incapable of answering Rich or myself on substantive issues; the resorting to patronising ad hominem attacks is a little disappointing, though.
Ah...usually the phrase spoken by those who know they are about to give offence, but are too lazy, discourteous or delibarately ill-mannered to avoid doing so. I do hope that it's delibarate ill-mannered-ness; mere lack of courtesy is just tediously commonplace.
Which laws were of course carried down from Mount Sinaii, by Moses, along with the tablets , fixed in stone, immovable, never to be challenged or changed, because the rules are the rules and they've always been the rules and they're right because they're the rules and they should never be changed or questioned because they're the rules and so on and so forth....
I am suggesting that the law may be the law, but may have been inappropriately applied or be flat wrong. Please see above posts upon the distinction between law and morality.
Oh gosh, thanks...really? Can I? I'm just GUSHING with joy to have your permission to post...
I had thought that up until this point I had conducted the debate with courtesy and reason, but frankly, were I of a less tolerant and open disposition myself the responses that would leap to mind at this point might include "patronising", "snotty", "supercilious"...and so forth.
And which allows anyone to go to law to defend themselves against perceived wrong, even if other people seek to curtail that freedom, and for being the sort of country where I can state the blindingly obvious fact that the law may be the law, but that it may also be wrong.
I am proud of what freedoms we have, but not blind to the fact that our society is not perfect; nor are the laws that govern it, nor the people that administer those.
Harsh Nich, very harsh.
Anyway, all points made, I think I'll retire from the thread, or at least wait for Rave to reply. Me and him seem to be able to joust without annoying the other too much, which, judging by your replies, I am not able to do with you.
Now Rave, am I still on for that pint?
Or alternatively you could attempt to debate the issue and answer some of the questions posed to you, after all it is your point of view to defend.
The Cow by Ogden Nash
The cow is of the bovine ilk;
One end is moo, the other, milk.
I have nothing to add to what nichomach has already said TBH, I'd merely be restating his points in a less eloquent fashion. While he and I have disagreed in the past I'm happy for him to speak for me on this subject.
Rich :¬)
Right, basicaly I think nows a good time to sum up
The Judge for me was right for the following reasons:
She had the choice to go to another school nearby that allows the dress.*
If the decision had gone the other way and unfairly forced other muslims in that school who didnt want to wear the dress but would be forced too, that would have been unfair and caused distress to others and therefore the wrong decision.
And on a personal level:
Both the above reasons point to a selfish person who places herself and her rights above the rights or wishes of others.
Uniform should not be religious in any form, because this does cause factions and bullying among other things.
And I hate seeing people playing the race card to there own advantage, if you want a rule changed for you religion thats fine, it's your right as a human being. But dont expect symmpathy by running around afterwards shouting 'racist' and 'your oppressing me' if it doesnt go your way, especaily if the reasons behind the desicion are valid and to protect others.
*I dont believe that any school is worse than an other not unless it has a more voilent nature, it is simply down to the individual what they achieve or dont. If the other schools in the area are more violent in nature then is that down to the Uniform? Another question that we cant really look at because we dont have the full details.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote