Religion and Society

March 20, 2007, 10:58 PM

In the United Kingdom, it was stated today, in a new piece of Government Legislation, that schools now have the power to tell children of the Muslim religion to remove their veils and non-uniform clothes.

The topic: to what extent should religion be tolerated or, alternatively, how far should religion be able to get you in society?

March 20, 2007, 11:00 PM

The main reason for this zero-tolerance on veil shit, is mainly cause the Muslim Extremists have been identified as the public enemy number #1, if they allow Muslim girls to wear veils it will simply appear if the government has given in and they will demand some more, it may seem silly but I can see why they're doing this I think.

March 21, 2007, 11:17 PM

I think people have some so worried about people getting offended by religion that they have crossed into the territory of intolerance of religion itself. They should respect their religious customs.

March 22, 2007, 2:12 AM

I can understand if they find Muslims carrying their swords with them as some kind of a concern because it is a weapon, and could potentially harm someone. As long as the reason isn't something along the lines of "I don't like your religion", then I'd understand that. Although by not allowing Muslims to carry their swords with them, that would be some sort of religious intolerance to some degree. But that would be different if people were allowed to carry guns when Muslims couldn't carry swords with them. If it was for a shopping mall, for example though, I don't think religious intolerance is much of a concern because you're not obligated to go there or be there; at least you can still carry your sword elsewhere.

But if school is a place where religion has no place there, then I suppose I can see why they might make a rule like that; it's not like you can't wear your veils elsewhere.

March 22, 2007, 12:21 PM

so I guess if I said this is a "white only restaurant" then it's ok because black people can go elsewhere.

March 22, 2007, 7:37 PM

Because the world is full of anti-religious extremists who try to morally justify intolerance. Plus, being the UK, you're talking about an atheist majority- Christians and Muslims have been living together pretty dang well over here for the past 200 years!

Soon they won't even let public libraries have religious books. It's sickening.

March 22, 2007, 9:23 PM

No they haven't. Remember what happened during the Crusades? They were at war with each other.

But there's always two sides of the coin fighting for...religious intolerance. You have extremists on the religion side, trying to argue that their religion is the only one that can be practiced, and that everyone must adhere to it, and then you have the extremists on the other side of religion (which by the way, does not include all atheists; only a few of them) who argue that religion shouldn't be practiced at all. Either way you look at it, they both want religious intolerance. There's a middle ground where religious freedom can be satisfied.

I don't see a problem with having religion books in the library. It's not like you're being forced to read them.

March 23, 2007, 11:28 PM

All right, time for a post.

Basically, in my view, I do not think that being religious, or believing in a certain faith, should give you any type of immunity, protection or otherwise unfair circumstances. I'll try to explain a little better by giving examples, all from my school.

During the time of which the PE department holds "Social Dancing" for the Christmas Disco, as you would expect, the boys dance with the girls to whatever dances we can do, such as the Gay Gordons. Two Indian Girls, Nimisha and Lydia, are Catholic. They claimed that their 'religion" disallowed them to dance with members of the opposite sex and were permitted to exclude themselves from the activities. Nickin, their cousin, is also Catholic - he was quite the stud when it came to the dancing. Despite the fact that our school is a Catholic school, no one questioned the statement that the two girls had given. After consulting the RE department [Religious Education], it was confirmed that their statement was untrue.

My RE teacher, Mrs Adlam, is one unique person, indeed. She is very opinionated but will, unfortunately, be leaving during the summer [watch out, England xD]. Adlam wears a tongue piercing, a nose piercing, ear piercings, tattoos on her shoulder, back and chest and, when she first came to the school, had red hair. She was told to modify her appearance to suit an appropriate standard. Being on probation [as all new teachers are] Adlam has no quarrels with this. [Please note: Adlam is a qualified teacher, who teaches her subject well and deals with her pupils well - her dress and interests should not have to be interfered with] Anyway, the teachers have a 'uniform' in the school, which is a suit/skirt with a blazer/coat, basically. However, one of the Indian woman [who, ironically, helps to teach English as an auxilliary] comes into school wearing her Indian frock-dress-things, with a nose piercing and sandals. We discussed her appearance with Adlam, upon which, we came up with two reasons why she may be permitted to dress as such:

1 - The Indian Woman is claiming some sort of religious right and is, therefore, permitted to dress however she likes - in her national dress [and yet, we are forbidden to wear kilts in our own country!]
2 - The Rector does not care, because the Indian Woman is not a real teacher.

Today, in RE, we had an assessment. Nimisha and Lydia asked to complete the assessment at a later date, because they had both forgotten to revise the night before. RE is generally an easy-going subject and the course is completed through internal assessments, as opposed to sitting an exam at the end of the year, so this is mostly okay. However, when Sam, a Scottish pupil, asked if he could do the same, as he was ABSENT, he was told that he would just have to cope as best he could - it was his own problem. Nickin, who was also absent, was, instead, told he could use his revision material to help him answer the questions.

This last one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the religious aspect of them, but I can't help but feel that everyone is terrified to say anything against them incase the cliche' of "RACIST!" is used left, right and centre. Someone was excluded from my school for saying "But they take all of our money." Oh, look at that, I'm starting to ramble.

March 23, 2007, 11:35 PM

To be honest in my opinion it would be much easier if matters of religion are just decided by the LAW. There is no need to make new rules up for religious groups, as since they live in this country they should abide by this country's laws.

This also applies for "Inciting racial hatred" laws and the like, so your "white only restaurant" would be illegal.

As for issues with school uniform etc. Then I believe the headmaster/mistress should just use his/her own common sense to decide on the matter, without having his/her decision being affected by recent news or events.

March 24, 2007, 4:10 AM

Well, if schools have uniforms, then technically, your freedom of expression is being supressed. What difference does it make if you're wearing a uniform with or without a veil? You can still express your freedom to wear what you wish outside of school.