You completely missed what I said. How will this reduce ‘the eventual backlash?’ What are you expecting to happen? Yes, religious people in this country - and not just fanatics - will be very upset if the government sweepingly reduces their guaranteed First Amendment right to religious expression.
Where does religious tolerance end?
I think here and now would be a good time to do away with it.
Britain should introduce mandatory school uniforms. Just come up with a mandatory, strictly enforced, federally approved school uniform for everyone (it’ll probably be grey). Anyone not wearing it doesn’t get to enter school premises. That solves all the problems that the various ethnic/spiritual clothing can cause, it makes for very tidy orderly looking classrooms and it’s another way for the Brits to teach their children that they can’t always get their own way (and wear whatever they please). I see no downside to it accept for perhaps how much it would cost, but whatever the price it has to be cheaper than paying for all those lawyers.
I think a better question might be: When is religious tolerance going to begin?
As soon as one declares oneself to be a member of a religion, it becomes an “us vs. them and they are all godless heathens because they aren’t members of my religion” sort of thing. Not to mention the fact that the folks sitting in the next pew aren’t as godly as I am and therefore don’t deserve to be members of my religion.
Etc., etc., etc…
We pretty much used to have a system like that, I left school in '86 and things seem to have changed somewhat since then and not for the better. On an unrelated issue something like a third of 16 year olds leave school unable to read, write spell or perform basic maths.
I’m thinking of joining the Church of the God That’s Much Better Than Yours Ever Thought Of Being, and one of the central tenets of that religion is that all women, no matter what their age or figure, should always be garbed only in a skimpy thong and pasties while indoors (in the outdoors, we accept God’s commandment to dress for the weather). If they don’t wear that and only that indoors, however, our women go straight to hell. Even in school.
I imagine women in my church should be given the same latitude as Muslim women … right?
I don’t know how it works in Britain, but I doubt it. There are exceptions for things that actually would be a disruption.
Just out of curiosity, why do you, an atheist, think that it is good for government to endorse religion (one or all?) rather than staying out of matters spiritual altogether?
Somebody else already answered that. Not banning a practice is not the same as endorsing it, so it’s not a government endorsement of religion. It’s staying out of it. Getting involved would be banning them all, which violates the students’ rights to religious expression.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting thread. The High School my kids went to wanted to ban clothing and stickers from a Goth store in the mall. They didn’t have much success.
I’m not personnely offended by religous symbols. I wouldn’t want a Christian teacher telling my kids not to wear a Yin and Yang symbol or Wiccan garb.
Nor would I accept an atheist Principle forbiding the cross.
There is some appeal to the “no religous symbols” in school but somehow it seems like giving in to intolerence instead of teaching tolerance.
Rights can mean something that doesn’t cost anyone else anything.
A big cloth goat head would be fine but an actual goat head would be a health risk.
thongs and pasties mighht be considered a health risk too, or a risk to the teachers ability to teach. Except sex ed of course.
Most US students can wear a crucifix or the devil right?
I suppose the school would have to decide when a little self expression caused enough disruption to be stopped.
There was a case of a Christian teacher who was preaching in every class and after repeated complaints and warnings was fired. I think that was justified.
Perhaps we should stress respecting and even appreciateing the differences beween us instead of trying to avoid them.
Interesting thread. The High School my kids went to wanted to ban clothing and stickers from a Goth store in the mall. They didn’t have much success.
I’m not personnely offended by religous symbols. I wouldn’t want a Christian teacher telling my kids not to wear a Yin and Yang symbol or Wiccan garb.
Nor would I accept an atheist Principle forbiding the cross.
There is some appeal to the “no religous symbols” in school but somehow it seems like giving in to intolerence instead of teaching tolerance.
Rights can mean something that doesn’t cost anyone else anything.
A big cloth goat head would be fine but an actual goat head would be a health risk.
thongs and pasties mighht be considered a health risk too, or a risk to the teachers ability to teach. Except sex ed of course.
Most US students can wear a crucifix or the devil right?
I suppose the school would have to decide when a little self expression caused enough disruption to be stopped.
There was a case of a Christian teacher who was preaching in every class and after repeated complaints and warnings was fired. I think that was justified.
Perhaps we should stress respecting and even appreciateing the differences beween us instead of trying to avoid them.
[/QUOTE]
But … but … but … thongs and pasties are an essential part of my RELIGION! That thing which passeth all understanding, especially yours. I don’t see how a nice My God Is Better Than Yours female student, sitting quietly at her desk in her thong and pasties, is disturbing anybody. If anybody is disturbed at the mere sight of her, that just means they’re sexually sick and demented. And I don’t think my rights to religious observance should be subject to the crazed thoughts of the sick and demented.
Everybody gets it, it still doesn’t work…
You may not see or understand or agree, but someone has to make the judgement call.
However if you decide to start your own private religous school I’d like to apply for some teacing postion or even janitor. At least until they shut you down.
Sorry to bring this up late, but the OP is about UK schools, we don’t have a First Amendment (or any other), only the crappy Human Rights Act, which was I understand originally created to protect the rights of civilians in war as a kind of adendum to the Geneva Convention). This lunatic piece of legislation gives rights where non should exist and is abused by every bleeding heart liberal lawyer to get scumbags out of trouble. Guantanamo bay returnees for example.
Okay. Explain to me why that invalidates the bit about clamping down on fanaticism making things worse.
Article 9
Not particularly different from our First Amendment as I see it. Are you arguing that letting this girl wear a jilbab is against public order or safety?
No it doesn’t, because not all religions impose a dress code and those that do attribute differing levels of importance to it - your suggestion is a bit like supporting a ban on homosexual marriage by saying “everyone, regardless of orientation, has the same rights - they can marry someone of the opposite sex!” - your solution is very comfortable for some and unbearably restrictive for others.
Tell you what, why don’t we all just arm all the fanatics and get it over with, thats whats gonna happen anyway.
There will always be fanatics, but at the moment with fundamentalist islam on the rise do we really want to encourage that kind of thinking. I’m willing to give up an few rights to maintain my right to a beer and bacon sandwiches.
The land of the free is hardly in a position to criticise, your own government has curbed a number of your rights, in fact, isn’t the great symbol of America, the Stature of Liberty closed until further notice?
Excuse typo, it’s Statue of Liberty, before anyone gives me grief for that.
If that’s the case, why can’t anyone wear anything to school? If expressing one’s faith makes one exempt from a dress code, why can’t a person express any other part of their personality? I say if they can wear the beekeeper outfit and the beanie and the cross and the scarf, then miniskirts, short-shorts, belly shirts, political statements, anti-political statements, KKK slogans, clothing that suggests S&M, and anything else should be fair game as well. Why do we make exceptions for faith-based costumes?
This is exactly the argument I have been making that Marley thinks everybody “gets” but I don’t think he does. As an atheist, I see all this religion crap as just another attempt to impose a special case on civil law because “its from God, y’know.” Let the religious garments, signs, etc. be governed by the same practical considerations as any other garment. Otherwise, the Church Your God Isn’t Even Worthy of Licking The Boots Of will have our high schools filled with thong-clad maidens in no time. Or the equivalent for another religion.