War against Hijab and Jilbab, now in Canada!

[Skavau]

Yes, they can make exceptions. Religious symbolism is not an arbitrary exception.

Yes it is. Especially in a secular state. I could declare that my religion is Jedi and I must be allowed to outright ignore the dress code (dressing in robes) due to that. If they allow others to ignore requirements on the basis of their personal beliefs then they must allow that also to me. I therefore insist also I must bring in a plastic lightsaber as well.

They make exception with drugs at schools. Why does little Bobby get his share of prescription drugs or inhaler at school and I can't use the methamphetamines I created in my backyard meth lab?
exactly. Well Little Bobby has believe his inhaler is a necessity/mandatory and the school system takes his word and the authority, his doctor. Just as a Muslimah has deemed it necessary for her headscarves.

Little Bobby doesn't 'believe' it is mandatory. It is mandatory. You are comparing apples with oranges. We allow these things you talk of due to health reasons. A secular state recognises health reasons. It does not recognise 'religious reasons'.

 

[transition?]

Yes it is. Especially in a secular state. I could declare that my religion is Jedi and I must be allowed to outright ignore the dress code (dressing in robes) due to that. If they allow others to ignore requirements on the basis of their personal beliefs then they must allow that also to me. I therefore insist also I must bring in a plastic lightsaber as well.


Little Bobby doesn't 'believe' it is mandatory. It is mandatory. You are comparing apples with oranges. We allow these things you talk of due to health reasons. A secular state recognises health reasons. It does not recognise 'religious reasons'.

And Yes bobby does believe. And now you are making a call saying it is mandatory....ask yourself..are you an authority on what is or what isn't mandatory?
Why does it not recognize religious reasons as well health reasons? Are people's personal beliefs to be completely disregarded when they enter school? A person's belief are not to be accommodated for, but a person's health can. You're arguing that one is less important the other. You can argue both are just as crucial.

Then bring your plastic lightsaber to school. I have no problem and the school system i went to has no issue with it either.

 

[Skavau]

Why does it not recognize religious reasons as well health reasons?

Why would it? What part of Secular here is so confusing?

As I said in my original post that you quoted, I see and have no objection with people wearing religious trinkets, items of jewellery and items of cloathing in a centre of education. I think schools can be a bit over the top if they were to not accomadate their uniform for such small things, but nonetheless if a school is to say, no headgear of any sort and have it as a part of their policy - then they have every right to do that.

Are people's personal beliefs to be completely disregarded when they enter school? A person's belief are not to be accommodated for, but a person's health can. You're arguing that one is less important the other. You can argue both are just as crucial.

Not when it contravenes the schools dress code.

Then bring your plastic lightsaber to school. I have no problem and the school system i went to has no issue with it either.

Your school would have no problem with me dressing up as Jedi while everyone else must wear a uniform? You don't see the hypocrisy the school would be doing there? They'd be essentialy declaring their uniform null if cited as offensive due to religious reasons. Did your school even have uniform requirements?

 

[transition?]

Why would it? What part of Secular here is so confusing?

As I said in my original post that you quoted, I see and have no objection with people wearing religious trinkets, items of jewellery and items of cloathing in a centre of education. I think schools can be a bit over the top if they were to not accomadate their uniform for such small things, but nonetheless if a school is to say, no headgear of any sort and have it as a part of their policy - then they have every right to do that.


Not when it contravenes the schools dress code.


Your school would have no problem with me dressing up as Jedi while everyone else must wear a uniform? You don't see the hypocrisy the school would be doing there? They'd be essentialy declaring their uniform null if cited as offensive due to religious reasons. Did your school even have uniform requirements?

I can barely understand the decision for a SECULAR state to follow UNIFORMITY at a PUBLIC school. Isn't that just against the very beliefs of a secular state? Also, it's obviously a group's personal belief what are permissible uniforms. Don't you think it's hypocritical to have someone's or a group of people's personal belief pushed on me that checkered shirts and collared t-shirts should be mandatory?!!? NOW tell me, what's so great about a secular state that maybe doesn't accommodate religious authorities by accommodates the opinions of some random people with some degrees in the school administration.

A secular state is flawed like that, it has such random authorities dictating what is necessary and what is not and what is proper and what is not. Then people complain about the "random authorities of religions."


Why does a public school ordained by a secular government, claiming certain liberties, have the right to dictate the opinions of the school administration or whatever administration is in office? I'd love to hear why people or any political party think certain skirts and shirts are better than others. Are they really the clothes experts? The top designers in the world would argue otherwise. lol. Why should I listen to Headmistress Big Bertha instead of Vera Wang? I can't believe the majority of Britain gave a right of clothing choice in school to random people. They must have so much trust in the school administration, as guided authorities on the best clothing for school.

I don't know about you, but I didn't elect the school administration, why do I have to follow them? Because the majority in school don't question jack, and follow the norm without any second thought. Should I be following the blind now?

We had a dress code, but not a specific uniform, but then again, why would they need a uniform when everyone is already in uniform. Gotta love America and its brainwashing methods. A dress code still imposes certain things which "this school administration" believes is necessary.

School systems have the right to do that ...and who gave them that authority? Even if a majority did give them that authority, who then has the authority to ignore the beliefs of the minority?

A secular state is just a giant mob of a majority of beliefs, it sways where ever it wants to, (which explains the differences even between secular states) and it can or cannot choose to give minorities rights. The authority in a secular state is either a mob or a few elites that have dumbed the mob under their control.

What a great system.

 

[M.A.S.H.]

A secular state is just a giant mob of a majority of beliefs, it sways where ever it wants to, and it can or cannot choose to give minorities rights. The authority in a secular state is either a mob or a few elites that have dumbed the mob under their control.

What a great system.

Where do you think minorities are treated better and given more rights on average? A secular state or an islamic state?

I agree with Skavau, a school has the right to enforce a dress code and discipline students who do not follow it, especially in such cases. A niqab not only vioaltes the dress code, it also poses identification and safety concerns.
Of course, an ideal school wouldn't discriminate against niqabis.

 

[transition?]

Where do you think minorities are treated better and given more rights on average? A secular state or an islamic state?

I agree with Skavau, a school has the right to enforce a dress code and discipline students who do not follow it, especially in such cases. A niqab not only vioaltes the dress code, it also poses identification and safety concerns.
Of course, an ideal school wouldn't discriminate against niqabis.

Both states are discriminatory towards minorities because it's physically impossible to give in to all minorities, especially contradicting ones. In secular countries, whatever the majority believes is moral and correct, the minorities that fall outside of that get marginalized, imprisoned, sent to death row...etc. Secularists like to argue that they adhere to logic/rationality, logic and rationality can support multiple, even contradicting things. It just depends on the judgment call of the majority.
In an Islamic state, Islam is considered the moral and correct standard. What it is outside of that cannot be considered equally.
It would be a hard thing to count the specific freedoms each one gives, although some people like to argue that one is more free than the other one, "ideally." It's stupid argument. It's hard to quantify "freedom" and so many people have so many interpretations.. some freedoms can "weigh" more than others. It goes down to personal belief. The difference is that Islam is ordained by Allah (swt) and secularism is bunch of people who give themselves authority or people give authority. And how one opinion is a greater authority or a more right authority is also questionable. Secularism is the dilemma, not an answer to the dilemma.

In such cases? I could argue any dress is a safety concern because you could tear and make a long piece and strangle someone. I could also argue large amounts of make up that makes one look a clown is an identification concern. Visual identification itself can be deceiving. Why are relying on that anyways?

 

[transition?]

Also, A SECULAR GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE ANY RIGHT/FREEDOM FROM ITS PEOPLE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE CAN VOTE THEY CAN TAKE AWAY.

It's kind of arbitrary on whether it really offers "more rights." Only if the majority want to give those rights or have those rights.
The things is most secular states are republics, so IDEALLY (which NEVER happens) a small elected minority reflects everyone else. I bet if we democratically voted for a lot of those issues, people would say no to a lot of things.

I'm pretty sure, there's a huge majority that's probably anti-taxes or anti-income taxes.

My right to the best prices under the capitalistic economy is definitely thwarted by the few individuals in the sugar lobby that have their protectionist policy that harms the consumers, who most definitely are the majority..

I guess when it comes to lobbyists and the rich, secular states do give more rights to minorities lulz.

 

[transition?]

Also, what's the point of giving certain minorities rights, while you can't accommodate all of them anyways? You're still picking and choosing and by what basis and what authority creates that basis?

 

[Skavau]

I can barely understand the decision for a SECULAR state to follow UNIFORMITY at a PUBLIC school. Isn't that just against the very beliefs of a secular state? Also, it's obviously a group's personal belief what are permissible uniforms. Don't you think it's hypocritical to have someone's or a group of people's personal belief pushed on me that checkered shirts and collared t-shirts should be mandatory?!!?

This of course, is an argument as to whether it is necessary for schools to have a dress code. I don't believe dress codes in any case need be so archaic and uniform that it insists on the removal of jewellery, trinkets (religious or otherwise) or headscarves, but nonetheless if a school has a dress code they cannot very well provide arbitrary exemptions based on 'religious reasons'.

NOW tell me, what's so great about a secular state that maybe doesn't accommodate religious authorities by accommodates the opinions of some random people with some degrees in the school administration.

In a secular state, there ought not be any such thing as 'religious authorities'. They would have no legal power.

A secular state is flawed like that, it has such random authorities dictating what is necessary and what is not and what is proper and what is not. Then people complain about the "random authorities of religions."

Why would a specific and considered uniform policy be anymore random that religious prescriptions for dressing?

Why does a public school ordained by a secular government, claiming certain liberties, have the right to dictate the opinions of the school administration or whatever administration is in office? I'd love to hear why people or any political party think certain skirts and shirts are better than others. Are they really the clothes experts? The top designers in the world would argue otherwise. lol. Why should I listen to Headmistress Big Bertha instead of Vera Wang? I can't believe the majority of Britain gave a right of clothing choice in school to random people. They must have so much trust in the school administration, as guided authorities on the best clothing for school.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. This not a fashion statement.

And by the way, they don't. If certain schools have the right to impose their own uniform restrictions then they can only impose it within their boundaries. They are of course restricted by the government if state-run and can be held to account.

In this article, it focuses specifically on the Quebecan government deciding that the hijab (or niqaab in this instance, I believe) is contrary to the 'Canadian' way of life and should not be tolerated in educational establishments. I happen to disagree with an overarching rule and have argued that it is the complete wrong way to address Muslims and affront to what liberty actually means - but nonetheless, my core point is that a specific school that has a uniform policy has the right to allow or not allow headscarves. If they begin allowing exemptions based on religion, then they open up themselves to allowing any exemption based on anything.

We had a dress code, but not a specific uniform, but then again, why would they need a uniform when everyone is already in uniform. Gotta love America and its brainwashing methods. A dress code still imposes certain things which "this school administration" believes is necessary.

??

You are now, just arguing against the power of schools and suggesting some student rebellion against uniform standards there. This is another discussion in and of itself.

And we're not even talking about America. I live in Britain and this article is from Canada!

School systems have the right to do that ...and who gave them that authority? Even if a majority did give them that authority, who then has the authority to ignore the beliefs of the minority?

They're state-run, so the government did.

Again, you're arguing against the application of law now... so I have nothing to address here.

A secular state is just a giant mob of a majority of beliefs, it sways where ever it wants to, (which explains the differences even between secular states) and it can or cannot choose to give minorities rights. The authority in a secular state is either a mob or a few elites that have dumbed the mob under their control.

^o)

 

[Skavau]

Also, A SECULAR GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE ANY RIGHT/FREEDOM FROM ITS PEOPLE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE CAN VOTE THEY CAN TAKE AWAY.

'Secular' means nothing other than separation of religion and state. That religion cannot influence or dictate what the system of governance ought to be.

Your statement is about a specific as stating that a government can take any right/freedom from its people.

And, by the way Secular does not necessitate Democracy.

It's kind of arbitrary on whether it really offers "more rights." Only if the majority want to give those rights or have those rights.

You're talking about Democracy (and direct democracy, which barely exists in Switzerland).

The things is most secular states are republics, so IDEALLY (which NEVER happens) a small elected minority reflects everyone else. I bet if we democratically voted for a lot of those issues, people would say no to a lot of things.

You appear to be ignoring the impact of public opinion on the decision of politicians and the application of politics on local, or state levels.

My right to the best prices under the capitalistic economy is definitely thwarted by the few individuals in the sugar lobby that have their protectionist policy that harms the consumers, who most definitely are the majority..

I guess when it comes to lobbyists and the rich, secular states do give more rights to minorities lulz.

Again, you're now complaining about Capitalism.

This post is just a rant.

 

[M.A.S.H.]

Also, what's the point of giving certain minorities rights, while you can't accommodate all of them anyways? You're still picking and choosing and by what basis and what authority creates that basis?

I agree that the rights a certain minority enjoys depends solely on the will of the majority, most secular states nowadays however run minority-friendly systems, that seeks to incorporate everyone's views and needs into the society as a whole. I did say which system gives more rights on AVERAGE.
Certain rights can be accomodated and some cannot. Accomodating some would also come in conflict with other people's rights. In this case you have a conflict of the schools right to enforce a dresscode and an individuals right to wear what they want. In this case, the school wins.
I've been to mosques and most require tourist women to cover their hair when inside the building? IS this not discrimination? It is, but an acceptable one, I guess so is the banning of niqabis in public schools in Quebec. It is depriving an insignificant amount of people from the right to wear absolutely everything everywhere in order to preserve the integrity of the school system.

 

[Skavau]

Both states are discriminatory towards minorities because it's physically impossible to give in to all minorities, especially contradicting ones.

Exactly.

Now you've conceded this, your entire rant above me about minorities being in trouble because pretty meaningless.

In secular countries, whatever the majority believes is moral and correct

You realise that in terms of application, this is true everywhere? If I was to relocate to an Islamic state, my beliefs on morality would marginalise me and I would be considered by the majority as 'immoral'.

, the minorities that fall outside of that get marginalized, imprisoned, sent to death row..

Can you give me an instance where a minority gets imprisoned or executed entirely for being a specific minority please?

etc. Secularists like to argue that they adhere to logic/rationality, logic and rationality can support multiple, even contradicting things. It just depends on the judgment call of the majority.

Rhetoric

In an Islamic state, Islam is considered the moral and correct standard. What it is outside of that cannot be considered equally.

This is of course, an arbitrary declaration. I as an atheist, have no reason to accept such a claim.

It would be a hard thing to count the specific freedoms each one gives, although some people like to argue that one is more free than the other one, "ideally." It's stupid argument. It's hard to quantify "freedom" and so many people have so many interpretations.. some freedoms can "weigh" more than others. It goes down to personal belief. The difference is that Islam is ordained by Allah (swt) and secularism is bunch of people who give themselves authority or people give authority. And how one opinion is a greater authority or a more right authority is also questionable. Secularism is the dilemma, not an answer to the dilemma.

The claim that Islam is ordained by Allah is in essence, to me, just your belief. You can decree it as valid, as infallible and relevant as you like. I do not accept the relevant claims to make me believe so. It is no different and I put in no more importance than I do a Christian claiming that the USA ought to become a Christian theocracy.

 

[transition?]

This of course, is an argument as to whether it is necessary for schools to have a dress code. I don't believe dress codes in any case need be so archaic and uniform that it insists on the removal of jewellery, trinkets (religious or otherwise) or headscarves, but nonetheless if a school has a dress code they cannot very well provide arbitrary exemptions based on 'religious reasons'.


In a secular state, there ought not be any such thing as 'religious authorities'. They would have no legal power.
Why would a specific and considered uniform policy be anymore random that religious prescriptions for dressing?


I have no idea what you are talking about here. This not a fashion statement.

And by the way, they don't. If certain schools have the right to impose their own uniform restrictions then they can only impose it within their boundaries. They are of course restricted by the government if state-run and can be held to account.

In this article, it focuses specifically on the Quebecan government deciding that the hijab (or niqaab in this instance, I believe) is contrary to the 'Canadian' way of life and should not be tolerated in educational establishments. I happen to disagree with an overarching rule and have argued that it is the complete wrong way to address Muslims and affront to what liberty actually means - but nonetheless, my core point is that a specific school that has a uniform policy has the right to allow or not allow headscarves. If they begin allowing exemptions based on religion, then they open up themselves to allowing any exemption based on anything.


??

You are now, just arguing against the power of schools and suggesting some student rebellion against uniform standards there. This is another discussion in and of itself.

And we're not even talking about America. I live in Britain and this article is from Canada!


They're state-run, so the government did.

Again, you're arguing against the application of law now... so I have nothing to address here.


^o)

That's the issue with secular states, it disregards religious reasons as "arbitrary" but allows for the personal beliefs of whoever is given authority. How is that even any better? Secularism is itself a state based on discrimination and hardly "equality for all." You address the opinions of certain people, but not anything "religious" because in the opinion of atheist it is incorrect but in the opinion of theist it is correct. So much for freedom. You uphold the opinions of some but disregard others. After all, I can claim any personal belief is arbitrary. Any fact is just opinion. I'm trying to point out how secular states take one authority over the other.

I just can't stand to say that secular states are "more free" when it's obvious they are not for certain beliefs, especially theists and those who deem religion is correct. Then atheist get so upset when a religious state disregards the opinion of atheists.

 

[M.A.S.H.]

I just can't stand to say that secular states are "more free" when it's obvious they are not for certain beliefs, especially theists and those who deem religion is correct. Then atheist get so upset when a religious state disregards the opinion of atheists.

A secular state, an ideal one, is free for theists. An ideal society would let the girl take the exam wearing a niqaab.
The crux of a secular society is that no one's religion can affect the life of another person. So even if catholics are the majority, they cannot enforce the lent or their views on medical ethics etc, excpet through democratic means, which are further limited by the secular idea of the state. In some countries citizens have the power to pass non-secular laws, like the case of switzerland, in some they don't.

 

[Skavau]

That's the issue with secular states, it disregards religious reasons as "arbitrary" but allows for the personal beliefs of whoever is given authority. How is that even any better?

No it doesn't. Authorities have to argue their case. They cannot just decree law based on "personal belief".

Secularism is itself a state based on discrimination and hardly "equality for all." You address the opinions of certain people, but not anything "religious" because in the opinion of atheist it is incorrect but in the opinion of theist it is correct. So much for freedom. You uphold the opinions of some but disregard others. After all, I can claim any personal belief is arbitrary. Any fact is just opinion. I'm trying to point out how secular states take one authority over the other.

What are you talking about?

You can get to any level of authority in a secular state, you just cannot declare rules based on religious scripture, or in favour of (or against) religious beliefs or influenced or directed by religious objectives.

I just can't stand to say that secular states are "more free" when it's obvious they are not for certain beliefs, especially theists and those who deem religion is correct. Then atheist get so upset when a religious state disregards the opinion of atheists.

What has to be the case for a belief in Islam to be considered 'free', exactly?

 

[transition?]

I agree that the rights a certain minority enjoys depends solely on the will of the majority, most secular states nowadays however run minority-friendly systems, that seeks to incorporate everyone's views and needs into the society as a whole. I did say which system gives more rights on AVERAGE.
Certain rights can be accommodated and some cannot. Accommodating some would also come in conflict with other people's rights. In this case you have a conflict of the schools right to enforce a dresscode and an individuals right to wear what they want. In this case, the school wins.
I've been to mosques and most require tourist women to cover their hair when inside the building? IS this not discrimination? It is, but an acceptable one, I guess so is the banning of niqabis in public schools in Quebec. It is depriving an insignificant amount of people from the right to wear absolutely everything everywhere in order to preserve the integrity of the school system.

My point is that secular states, even democratic, argue that whole "freedom for all" spiel, but it's hardly ever like that. Freedom has its limits, discrimination has to be tolerated (like age when it comes to drinking..etc.), minorities have to be disregarded. When a state decides on those certain limits, why can one form of discrimination and freedom being taken away be tolerated and not others? Every state can justify its limitations depending on your own beliefs.

Where are we getting at? Essentially we have states that dictate our limits in society to us. It's not about the righteous freedom b.s. people are fed. A secular state can have whatever reason it pleases to create certain limits. It can disregard And a religious state has religious reasons.

You can't argue "on average." I can make the opposite argument easily. In Islamic state, there are tons of rights, like the right for the government not to tax your income, that you aren't thinking of. You're thinking every secular state is some kind of "limited government utopia." But that's hardly ever the case, a state is given lots of powers, it make amendments to its powers.

I can understand why one might argue that the basis of authority is better than the other one, and that's why choose to follow it. But arguing "more freedom" is ridiculous.

 

[M.A.S.H.]

I can understand why one might argue that the basis of authority is better than the other one, and that's why choose to follow it. But arguing "more freedom" is ridiculous.

It isn't. I qwill argue a Muslims living in Canada has more rights than a non-Muslim living in an Islamic state. By more rights I am referring to the ability to practice one's religion. For instance, you are free to give dawah, a kaffir in an islamic state is not. You are free to build mosques, wear whatever you like everywhere, instances such as this one are incredibly rare. And the list could go on.

 

[CosmicPathos]

It isn't. I qwill argue a Muslims living in Canada has more rights than a non-Muslim living in an Islamic state. By more rights I am referring to the ability to practice one's religion. For instance, you are free to give dawah, a kaffir in an islamic state is not. You are free to build mosques, wear whatever you like everywhere, instances such as this one are incredibly rare. And the list could go on.

Canada is not a religious country: it is a melting pot where ALL cultures are respected as long as personal autonomy does not damage social justice. I do not think niqab is any more dangerous than a bikini. I am ok with a kaafir having less rights in a Muslim country and me being a Muslim having equal rights as a kaafir in a kaafir country such as Canada.

If Canada wants to ban niqab, Canada must ban public wearing of bikinis as well. Some people find bikini violent and it is not conducive to normal public interaction. Canada must also ban Santa. Some people get scared of that red clothe and long beard.

 

[Ishaaq]

The ulama have mentioned it is forbidden for women to attend mixed gender educational institutions, so subhaan Allaah how is this even an issue for our women!

 

[CosmicPathos]

The ulama have mentioned it is forbidden for women to attend mixed gender educational institutions, so subhaan Allaah how is this even an issue for our women!

there is no other way for them than to attend such institutions in the West. Only if the "custodians of two Holy mosques" had invested enough in the education of of this Ummah .... but no ... they need 50 rolls royce and 50 women in their harems.