Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-05-2017, 04:13 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(05-05-2017 03:49 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(05-05-2017 12:46 PM)morondog Wrote:  Apparently you think that you're getting offended is grounds for trying to define how people are allowed to dress? Apparently you don't understand what non-discrimination and equal opportunity mean.

For your benefit I will educate you:
  • Non-discrimination means that you will not be targetted e.g. by cops, teachers or other people, for wearing religious dress, or conversely for not being religious.
  • Equal opportunity means that practising your religion or the lack thereof does not preclude you from economic and other opportunities.

This is not difficult, although to be fair lots of people the world over seem to love prescribing what people - most often women - shall wear or how they shall behave in order to be accepted in "their" society.

I can see some problems here as regards providing equitable treatment for all religions; also some possible conflict with the establishment clause of the Constitution. What is in fact being done, is favoring one particular religion above others.

There are numerous cases of public schools, for example, disallowing the wearing of religious paraphernalia during class time or school sponsored events. These have included, but not been limited to: crucifixes, turbans, crosses, yarmulkes, etc. The push to allow the hijab in similar contexts is a request for special treatment, not equity. Will Buddhists play in ankle-length saffron robes? Will worshipers of Apollo be allowed to play naked? Suppose a Sikh student insists on being allowed to wear his kirpan while playing basketball?

The general standard adopted has been that it is simpler and more equitable to deny all religious clothing and iconry, than to start making exceptions that might be perceived as showing favoritism.

I also question whether the girls are, as someone said "free to choose" to wear the hijab, when they are being told by parents and their other Islamic teachers that they are required to wear it.

For the record:

* The official federal definition for "discrimination" is:

"Any distinction of one person or a group of persons from others, either
intentionally, by neglect, or by the effect of actions or lack of actions based on
race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or disability."

States, counties, and even municipalities may add additional classes, and even different branches of the federal government sometimes add more categories (e.g., veteran status), but this is the basic, cover-all definition.

The way this is usually interpreted in civil rights trainings -- which I have both participated in, and given -- is to say "'discrimination' is treating someone differently, based on their membership in a protected class."

* "Equal Opportunity", again, as defined by the federal government, applies to:

"...applicants to and employees of most private employers, state and local
governments, educational institutions, employment agencies and labor
organizations."

Note that neither sports organizations, nor students are specifically mentioned.

I hardly see that giving the girls the option to wear religious dress *if they choose* is a problem. If they're being coerced... well, how much *would* you like the state to interfere in parenting? If they're brought up thinking that that is the standard of modesty they may well choose it purely because it doesn't occur to them that there's another option.

It somewhat grates me this idea that it's fine as long as all religions are banned equally, specifically with regard to wearing religious symbols or dress. Anything could be a religious symbol, so effectively the state are then becoming fashion police. To me that's a level of state power that's too much.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
05-05-2017, 05:09 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(05-05-2017 04:13 PM)morondog Wrote:  I hardly see that giving the girls the option to wear religious dress *if they choose* is a problem. If they're being coerced... well, how much *would* you like the state to interfere in parenting?
I would like for the state to not be involved with supporting religious displays in secular contexts.

And I lean towards Dawkins' notion that religious indoctrination -- parentally sourced, or otherwise -- is a form of child abuse.

Quote:If they're brought up thinking that that is the standard of modesty they may well choose it purely because it doesn't occur to them that there's another option.
Precisely. And that is not a free choice.


Quote:It somewhat grates me this idea that it's fine as long as all religions are banned equally, specifically with regard to wearing religious symbols or dress. Anything could be a religious symbol, so effectively the state are then becoming fashion police. To me that's a level of state power that's too much.
It may grate on you -- and it grates on a lot of people -- but how else would you ensure equity, if the state's going to be involved? In a mixed society, your choices are basically: allow everything, or allow nothing.

Personally, I'm OK with banning the hijab from the gym floor, if it means that the game also doesn't start with a Christian prayer, or have to end with a sacrifice of rice cakes at ancestral shrines.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2017, 05:58 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
[Image: 21690748dadd6552f7c7ce1803bef2ba.jpg]

[Image: article-queen-420x0.jpg]

[Image: hijab.jpg]

I donno.......whatever.

I saw a young muslim woman wearing a beautiful combination of fabrics yesterday. Her headscarf was stunning. It had flecks of gold in a flowered pattern. It was not cheap fabric. Then she was wearing a long gown (can't remember what the name of those things are) in a beautiful blue color. It looked like an expensive light wool crepe and it fluttered in the breeze when she walked. She knew she was stunning looking. Her face was not covered. She was really beautiful.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
05-05-2017, 06:19 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(04-05-2017 12:38 PM)SYZ Wrote:  I consider this sort of thing to be yet another example of the insidious nature of the Islamic religionists to—literally—contaminate otherwise nominally Christian or largely secular Western societies...
...

I completely agree.

In a predominantly christian country, sports-persons should dress accordingly:

[Image: http%3A%2F%2Fa.amz.mshcdn.com%2Fwp-conte...uns-13.jpg]
[Image: 6bcb0466d486666fdcec9b4b5fdca3fb.jpg]
[Image: junk-dump-271223.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
05-05-2017, 06:30 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(05-05-2017 05:58 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  [Image: 21690748dadd6552f7c7ce1803bef2ba.jpg]

[Image: article-queen-420x0.jpg]

[Image: hijab.jpg]

I donno.......whatever.

I saw a young muslim woman wearing a beautiful combination of fabrics yesterday. Her headscarf was stunning. It had flecks of gold in a flowered pattern. It was not cheap fabric. Then she was wearing a long gown (can't remember what the name of those things are) in a beautiful blue color. It looked like an expensive light wool crepe and it fluttered in the breeze when she walked. She knew she was stunning looking. Her face was not covered. She was really beautiful.

I had one like the red one when I was a kid, and several others. Moms would have daughters wear them to school on windy days, so your head stayed warm and your hair didn't blow all over the place. We'd take them off at school and put them back on for the way home.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2017, 02:40 AM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(05-05-2017 05:09 PM)Dr H Wrote:  It may grate on you -- and it grates on a lot of people -- but how else would you ensure equity, if the state's going to be involved? In a mixed society, your choices are basically: allow everything, or allow nothing.

Personally, I'm OK with banning the hijab from the gym floor, if it means that the game also doesn't start with a Christian prayer, or have to end with a sacrifice of rice cakes at ancestral shrines.

And oppositely, I'm happy to allow everything. The day some policeman tells me what to wear is the day I tell that policeman to get fucked. I think if *you* were in that position you would too.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
06-05-2017, 02:45 AM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
Dr H, shall the state prescribe what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to teach your children, in the name of ensuring that you are not indoctrinating them? I mean *your* children specifically.

I think plenty of people who make or are comfortable with what I think are overly intrusive laws are perfectly comfortable with them as long as they don't apply to them.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
06-05-2017, 02:46 AM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
Furthermore, how do you square prescribing what people can and cannot wear with the principle of freedom of expression?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
06-05-2017, 03:46 AM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(06-05-2017 02:45 AM)morondog Wrote:  I think plenty of people who make or are comfortable with what I think are overly intrusive laws are perfectly comfortable with them as long as they don't apply to them.

The operative point in all of these discussion. It's always freedom, liberty, but everyone only means their own liberties and freedoms. Others be damned if they don't toe the same line.

As much as I dislike someone intruding in my way of life, I extend the same courtesy to others, as long as they don't attempt to change me.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like abaris's post
06-05-2017, 12:25 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(05-05-2017 12:46 PM)morondog Wrote:  Apparently you think that you're getting offended is grounds for trying to define how people are allowed to dress? Apparently you don't understand what non-discrimination and equal opportunity mean.

For your benefit I will educate you:
  • Non-discrimination means that you will not be targetted e.g. by cops, teachers or other people, for wearing religious dress, or conversely for not being religious.
  • Equal opportunity means that practising your religion or the lack thereof does not preclude you from economic and other opportunities.

So if I, as a woman, attempt to cross the threshold of an Islamic mosque whilst not covering my head, I'll (rightly) be refused entry because my lack of head covering is deemed "offensive" by Muslims. But, as an atheist, if I find (as is my right in a democracy) it "offensive" that women wearing hijabs come into my club basketball arena, then I'm not allowed to either complain and/or ask them to remove their head coverings?

Aren't each of these scenarios about offending a person's sensibilities? Why then are atheists/irreligious expected to be somehow less offended and suck it all up, as compared to Muslims who expect to have it all their way?

I still maintain—as with government—there must be maintained a separation of church and the rules and regulations international sports. I've also noticed this Islamic influence creeping into some beach volleyball contests in the US—of all sports!

Quote:This is not difficult, although to be fair lots of people the world over seem to love prescribing what people - most often women - shall wear or how they shall behave in order to be accepted in "their" society.

All countries and/or societies prescribe what people wear in order to comply with the normal expectations of an ordinary member of that society. That's why a woman can't can't wear a bikini on a Pakistani beach—due solely to their oppressive religion, or an Australian bloke can't skinny dip at Bondi Beach due to offending others' sensibilities.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: