Valid Expression of Faith?

I think items of religious expression which do not hinder communication should be allowed to be worn. Regulations as to the extent however would have to be drawn up, but I don't think anyone has the right to deny someone the right to wear a ring, or a cross necklace...

I don't think wearing a whole outer body garment would be acceptable in schools where they have a uniform. However a cross or a ring, doesn't interfere with anyone around them.

JC 2K3 wrote:

They should ban the headscarves too tbh. France have the right idea. It's not even a religious necessity, just a cultural thing they've imported from the native Muslim countries. I don't see why they should be accommodated.

Actually it is a religious necessity and in no way a cultural thing.

Medina wrote:

Actually it is a religious necessity and in no way a cultural thing.

See this is the problem. One persons "irrelevant cultural thing" is another persons "religious necessity"

There is no fair way to decide what is or is not necessary.

As I've often said secularism is not about "no religion" it is about "all religions equally" The only fair way to deal with a situation like this (apart from just letting people wear what they want) is to define a secular uniform.

Everyone wears the same thing.

Medina wrote:

However this way very much stops integration and would be a step backwards as far as I am concerned. Surely allowing people of all faiths to wear what they like as part of their faith (even the pirate stuff harms no one) encourages tolerance and union between faiths.

It does, but then the idea of the school "uniform" kinda goes out the window

Medina wrote:

Actually it is a religious necessity and in no way a cultural thing.

See, that's what I thought, and then I read some things on the internet about it, including the Islam forum here, and it seems that it isn't a religious necessity at all.

From Wikipedia:

In many Muslim cultures, young girls are not required to wear a hijab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#Women.27s_dress

And since Ireland does not have a culture where headscarves are commonly worn, I can't see why it shouldn't be the norm for Irish Muslim women not to wear a hijab.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

The Guardian carried a story in the paper yesterday regarding Lydia Playfoot, 16, who has taken her school to the High Court for their insistence that she removes a 'purity' ring. This ring denotes her belief in sexual abstinence until marriage. Her argument is that the right to express ones beliefs is given to kids of other faiths in the school, but not her as a Christian. For their part, the school authorities maintain that thjs expression is not a requirement of Christianity like, for example, the turban would be in Sikhism. In many respects this case seems to resemble the BA employee who was suspended from her job because she refused to remove a cross on a chain she wore.

I'd be particularly interested to hear the views non-Christians - especially atheists - on a persons right to express their faith - be that Christian or whatever. In the case above, I would think that the ring (see the BBC link for a picture) is so unobtrusive to be inconspicuous. Of course, it is more than a mere lump of metal; it carries a specific message. But is that message so dangerous or unappealing that it should come to this?

I would be of the opinion that people should be allowed to express their personal faith - whatever that may be. However, there should be qualifiers to go along with that. For instance, something which is designed to cause offence, an inverted cross for example (haven't seen too many of those in fairness), or is culturally unnerving to some, e.g. a burka, should not be allowed in a otherwise secular environment. I work with women who wear hijab (the headscarf part) and I couldn't give a fiddlers. Why should anyone else?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6230824.stm

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2109483,00.html

I'd say she was forced to remove it because of some strict dress code that forbade jewellery in the school. I suppose if you have all the other pupils obeying that rule and she's not then it would cause problems. She can wear it out of school, it's not that big a deal.

I do agree with Sihkism and the turban though as it's a direct and intrinsic part of their faith. However, you may recall that case where some special needs teacher who didn't wear her burkha to the interview couldn't keep her job because it wasn't feesible for the children as they wouldn't be able to see her face. I don't recall the details exactly, but I'm sure you can agree that certain jobs require certain conditions that religious paraphenalia might obstruct, ie. you can't be a speech and language therapist if you have your face covered.

You should be able to express your beliefs with religious paraphenalia and if I was an employer in a bank I wouldn't mind that woman with the chain or the chastity ring or anything else for that matter. But I really think it's as simple as an institution has the right to set down rules and they must be adhered to, so long as they're reasonable of course, and I think this is reasonable.

I WOULD have a problem with a case taken to court by the parents of some high-school student in ths US on the grounds that the school was imposing on his right to religion and religious views by asking him not to wear a t-shirt saying 'homosexuality is a sin, abortion is wrong and muslims are terrorists; some things are just black and white'. Is it all of a sudden someone's religious rights to advertise their homophobic, anti-islam bigot?

I didn't see the inverted cross thing till then. In fairness, that's not so much to cause offence as to demonstrate someone's disbelief in religion. They also would wear an inverted star (pentagram I think) to show a lack of spiritual belief and that matter is in their opinion above spirituality. It's a philosophy moreso than a belief, and I don't think you can nit-pick in a case like this.

I don't get the OP's comment about not allowing burka's in a secular environment. What's unnerving about it?

Medina wrote:

Without wanting to divert the thread all I will say is that 'young girls' who have not entered puberty are not required to wear it. Any girl who has entered puberty (started menstruating) is required to wear it. But this should be by your own free will for the love of your Lord . In some countries the government make all females wear it which of course is a cultural thing and not Islamic law.

I think what you mean is that she is required to wear it by her religion, but whether or not she decides to follow this religious instruction is up to her.

Of course I think we can both agree that the reality is not so simple. Rejecting your entire religion and the religion of your family and friends, simply because you do not agree with wearing a scarf, is not easy. I'm pretty sure one could find examples of girls who do not agree with wearing the scarf yet do not want to anger their parents or reject their entire religion just because they don't agree with one aspect.

This type of manipulation is one of the reasons I personally feel religion is dangerous.

Acid_Violet wrote:

I'd say she was forced to remove it because of some strict dress code that forbade jewellery in the school. I suppose if you have all the other pupils obeying that rule and she's not then it would cause problems. She can wear it out of school, it's not that big a deal.

I do agree with Sihkism and the turban though as it's a direct and intrinsic part of their faith. However, you may recall that case where some special needs teacher who didn't wear her burkha to the interview couldn't keep her job because it wasn't feesible for the children as they wouldn't be able to see her face. I don't recall the details exactly, but I'm sure you can agree that certain jobs require certain conditions that religious paraphenalia might obstruct, ie. you can't be a speech and language therapist if you have your face covered.

You should be able to express your beliefs with religious paraphenalia and if I was an employer in a bank I wouldn't mind that woman with the chain or the chastity ring or anything else for that matter. But I really think it's as simple as an institution has the right to set down rules and they must be adhered to, so long as they're reasonable of course, and I think this is reasonable.

I WOULD have a problem with a case taken to court by the parents of some high-school student in ths US on the grounds that the school was imposing on his right to religion and religious views by asking him not to wear a t-shirt saying 'homosexuality is a sin, abortion is wrong and muslims are terrorists; some things are just black and white'. Is it all of a sudden someone's religious rights to advertise their homophobic, anti-islam bigot?

I didn't see the inverted cross thing till then. In fairness, that's not so much to cause offence as to demonstrate someone's disbelief in religion. They also would wear an inverted star (pentagram I think) to show a lack of spiritual belief and that matter is in their opinion above spirituality. It's a philosophy moreso than a belief, and I don't think you can nit-pick in a case like this.

I don't get the OP's comment about not allowing burka's in a secular environment. What's unnerving about it?

I see you borrowed that piece about the tshirt in a US school from Richard's book too.

I don't get where you are coming from with Sikhism though. A friend of mine wears the turban in school, theres not a bother with it. But why should Christians be told that they can't wear a discreet piece of jewelery to show their faith. I'd see no issue with that ring or wearing a cross. As for Islam I've also seen that girls wear the hijab to their schools in my local area. Question is this though, why can't Christians wear something to identify their faith when others can because they are of minority religions.

Yes, but is this girl obstructing communication by wearing this ring? Also you claimed that it isn't that big a deal for her to wear this ring. But what if she finds that it helps her show her faith and be proud in it. What if it is a big deal for her? I don't agree with the minority faiths being treated in a special manner, while Christians are having to put up with all this fuss over a ring or a cross as in the British Airways staff case. To be brutally honest, I think this is too secular for my liking.

PDN wrote:

As stated by Medina, the headscarf is often required by law. This kind of manipulation and repression is one of the reasons why I believe the passing of laws is dangerous. Anarchy must be the only answer?

Of course I'm being sarcastic. The answer to bad laws is not no laws, but rather good laws.

Ok, you obviously didn't get my point so I will try again.

Say Medina decides that wearing a head scarf is stupid. She still believes in God (Allah), she still believes in the Quaran, her religion etc etc. She just believes that wearing the scarf is stupid. Of course it is stupid, why would God require that women wear a head scarf? That is dumb.

Can she decide "Ok, I believe in everything else, I'm just not going to wear the scarf" and still be accepted by the religion?

The depressing answer is "Of course not" In fact such a question would probably be met with puzzlement by theists even non-Muslims. Religion doesn't work like that they would no doubt say.

If she rejects one aspect of the religion she is rejection the entire religion. That is the way religion is set up, it is all or nothing. No salvation, to eternal love from God, hell, rejection from family friends, being labeled an immoral person etc etc.

This is a form of manipulation, it forces someone to accept the bad with the good.

It reminds me of the US Senate where "riders" can be attached to bill that have nothing to do with the bill, so an Iraq war bill ends up paying for a bridge in Alaska.

Jakkass wrote:

To be brutally honest, I think this is too secular for my liking.

That isn't being secular. Being secular is not allowing anyone to wear anything other than the dress code.

Acid_Violet wrote:

I didn't say turban, I said burka. I meant I find that because turban is a direct part of their religion and because it doesn't cause any problems I'd have no problem with it.

Acid_Violet wrote:

I do agree with Sihkism and the turban though as it's a direct and intrinsic part of their faith.

Acid_Violet wrote:

I said that the reason I reckon the school aren't allowing it is because of strict dress codes. I think that school/staff regulations and dress codes is to broad a topic and to subjective to go into in detail. I don't agree either with minority faiths being granted rights that majority faiths don't get. But if she's allowed to wear this and others aren't because of her religion, as unobtrusive and subtle as it is, it could cause trouble with girls wearing other jewellery and making similar claims.

I don't see the reason why the rules shouldn't be officially changed to one item of jewelery / religious head covering, as long as it doesn't obstruct communication or otherwise. People are just going over the top about wearing a cross or a ring, turban, hijab etc. It's perfectly acceptable I find, and it would be a bad day to see ones right to this form of religious expression revoked.

Acid_Violet wrote:

Also, religion and beliefs are the rights of the individual. If she is allowed to wear the ring because of those rights then that would probably cause grounds for rights to express individuality, resulting in the dress code being consistently violated on grounds of individuality or simply made-up reasons. I'm not in favour of uniforms, I'm just trying to explain what might be the reasoning behind it, even though I would allow it myself.

Fair enough. I find it over the top to be even considering introducing such draconian measures in schools.