Religous signs
-
Then why aren't the parents being sent to detention along with their kids? All they get is a note and sometimes a parent-teacher conference. Adults still make decisions without feeling responsible for them.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school (especially this semester). Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
nssone wrote: Then why aren't the parents being sent to detention along with their kids? It depends on the juristiction. I believe that in England and Wales that parents get fined for their children's constant bad behaviour, the fine can be waived if the parents agree to participate in a good parenting programme. nssone wrote: Adults still make decisions without feeling responsible for them Whether they feel responsible for them or not is a different matter. They are still responsible for their desisions. Adults can face penalties for what they do. Children don't face the same sort of penalties. As a child grows the penalties they face grow too. Somewhere around the ages of 10 to 12 a child can be held responsible for murder, before that age the law considers that the child does not have a great enough grasp of "right and wrong" and "cause and effect" to be held fully responsible. Bringing this back round to the original topic. "Gang" colours in schools are like the "red rag to a bull". Children mirror what the see at home. Pubs often ban "Football Colours" because it incites violence. For the same reason so should schools. If the father is violent towards supporters of opposing football teams in the pub, so will the child be in the school. Remove the "red rag", allow the children to get on with each other. When one day they do find out the "horrible truth" they will realise it doesn't matter. If on the first meeting they see each other wearing opposing colours then a friendship, a bridge of understanging, might not be built. It takes effort to destroy a bridge - it must be done deliberately. It takes no effort not to build it in the first place. --Colin Mackay--
"In the confrontation between the stream and the rock, the stream always wins - not through strength but perseverance." (H. Jackson Brown) Enumerators in .NET: See how to customise foreach loops with C#
-
Eco Jones wrote: Geez, why do parents think they have the best insight into all kids? The only kids they ever really deal with on an extended basis are their own, which they think can then be extrapolated to all kids everywhere. Know why this doesn't work? Because kids are individuals. Fair dinkum, I hate it when people with no kids presume from a distance to know *all* about kids. How many kids do YOU know on an 'extended basis' ? I know a lot more than my own, it's called getting involved in my kids lives. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
The education system has less to do with dealing with kids as individuals and more to do with dealing with kids as a distinct sociological group. I could know 500 kids individually and it wouldn't really matter. As a parent, it's _your_ job to foster their individuality. The school's responsibility is to give the kids the skills and lessons and access to resources they need to succeed in the world. And I contend that one of those lessons should be to not to judge on appearance; I contend that uniforms help that lesson, I contend that if parents don't teach that lesson (and many don't because they're as easily manipulated as their kids with respect to rampant consumerism) then the school system should at least try. And I've been getting a little snarky, I apologize. :) Eco
-
Eco Jones wrote: Christian Graus wrote: Because it sends a message that their individuality is being controlled and suppressed. So what? Kids are generally remarkably naive about the world, that's why they're in school. So they learn that individuality has nothing to do with how you dress. Presto! Education! Read my post that's lower lower down the page and you'll see how wrong you are with that statement.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school (especially this semester). Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
nssone wrote: Read my post that's lower lower down the page and you'll see how wrong you are with that statement. Which post, brainiac? I'm not a friggin' mind reader, and if you don't have time to directly address my point, I'm sure not gonna make time to discuss it with you. ;P Eco
-
Do we not also judge clothing by how it feels? Sure, we can ignore how it feels because of how it looks? I am no stranger to being judged by what I wore. I used to just wear jeans and metal bands shirts. But you're also talking to a person who had little to no place in school period. But I also had friend who were quite different from me and wore different clothing than me. Even as adults, we still judge clothing by what image we project. I can't remember the last time I've seen a corporate executive wear blue jeans and a Metallica shirt to a business meeting. It would make him look low-class. And I'm in martial arts also. Your image is often defined by your uniform also. If you have a dirty uniform, you are then judge as undisciplined in keeping your uniform clean and maintained. No matter what we do, we all fall into a uniformal dress code in our society. When those of us who go into the business world, we have to conform to a business or business casual dress code. High school is sort fo a last hurrah for those of which want to be ourselves when sorrounded by our everyday peers. School is really your last chance to be yourself without truly risking your career or reputation.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school (especially this semester). Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
nssone wrote: School is really your last chance to be yourself without truly risking your career or reputation. If you actually believe this, then you're going to have a really boring life. Having some responsibility doesn't take away from who you are, it just means you can't be a lazy asshole and suffer no change in lifestyle. Eco
-
BadJerry wrote: ganging I mistread this word at first, and then the mental image I saw forced me to verify. Thanks God, I was wrong! :rolleyes: BadJerry wrote: I am ganging against you with Terry Shame, shame on you! ;):laugh:
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
KaЯl wrote: BadJerry wrote: ganging I mistread this word at first, and then the mental image I saw forced me to verify. Thanks God, I was wrong! I don't get it - what did you think it said????
-
There's a great debate there about the necessity to make a new law forbidding schoolboys and schoolgirls to wear ostentatious religious signs (cf. http://www.swisspolitics.org/en/news/index.php?section=int&page=news_inhalt&news_id=4521696[^]) What's your opinion on the subject?
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
So this means that jewish schoolboys cannot wear skullcaps ? Its esaier to do something like this than look at the root problems they have there I suppose which is disappointing :( The tigress is here :-D
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Just because a school is public doesn't mean it should ban religious expression amongst the students Isn't it nonetheless the best way to keep the system secular, and let religious conflicts as outside of school as possible? Can a secular school tolerate religious propaganda?
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
KaЯl wrote: Isn't it nonetheless the best way to keep the system secular Not at all. A school system is secular if it doesn't promote one religion above others and if the school doesn't conduct religious rituals. A child wearing a cross or a t-shirt with a menorrah doesn't transform the system into a religious school. A religious t-shirt or piece of jewelry is no more provocative then wearing a t-shirt of a band that others might not like. It should be up to the system to determine a dress code, but singling out religious symbols for banning doesn't seem to make sense.
-
Ther's no such thing in public schools, at least with religious symbols. There may be a christmas tree, garlands and santa claus, but there's no direct reference to the birth of Jesus.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
Easter ? The tigress is here :-D
-
By the way, I cannot believe I am ganging against you with Terry! I love codeproject! Anything can happen!
BadJerry wrote: By the way, I cannot believe I am ganging against you with Terry! Gaulophobia transcends all.
-
The education system has less to do with dealing with kids as individuals and more to do with dealing with kids as a distinct sociological group. I could know 500 kids individually and it wouldn't really matter. As a parent, it's _your_ job to foster their individuality. The school's responsibility is to give the kids the skills and lessons and access to resources they need to succeed in the world. And I contend that one of those lessons should be to not to judge on appearance; I contend that uniforms help that lesson, I contend that if parents don't teach that lesson (and many don't because they're as easily manipulated as their kids with respect to rampant consumerism) then the school system should at least try. And I've been getting a little snarky, I apologize. :) Eco
Being that this is the Soapbox, it's more than understandable, it's expected. :-D
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school (especially this semester). Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
-
Being that this is the Soapbox, it's more than understandable, it's expected. :-D
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school (especially this semester). Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Sometimes tolerance doesn't mean letting everybody do anything. Take away the veil and the "little muslim girl" becomes the "little girl". There really needs to be an undo here. Type it again. :mad: I agree with tolerance does not mean “letting everybody do anything.” But your veil comment goes to far. I work with a Muslim Lady and she wishes to be judged by her work not her beauty. What right do I have to not respect that. What if we take that on a different route. Lets ban clothing from the waist up, or ban covering your thighs! In one culture one is nothing and it is very offensive in another. I would prefer to be exposed to other cultures and learn from them, than to ban their existence in mine. "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I work with a Muslim Lady and she wishes to be judged by her work not her beauty. This is not an opinion restricted to Muslim lasses. Allying the Qur'an with feminism requires serious theological jujitsu. Both Judeaism and most forms of christianity consider their holy books to be written by man. The Qur'ran is of divine origin, no argument, Try it.. Makes it a little tricker to reinterpret the text as society changes. Hopefully this is how things change. Liberal Christians are pretty much humanists who like communal singing. Ryan.
-
I agree with a lot of the earlier posts that, in general, the state should not try to regulate religious-themed clothing which is an expression of their own beliefs. I also think that having a secular democracy means that the state does not try to push a particular religious belief - when individuals are the source of religious expression, it doesn't fall into the category of "violating the separation of church and state". However, those ideas seem nice and good as long as we can think about them abstractly and without context. To bring things back to reality a little bit, there is some trouble getting Muslims to integrate into the mainstream. This produces a minority situation which can irritate people in the minority and the mainstream, and can help generate divergent views and lifestyles. For Muslims, the veil is generally put into the context of "being a good Muslim". Hence, Muslim girls who don't wear the veil can be easily identified as "bad Muslims". The veil can also introduce barriers to personal contact with non-Muslims. This may also be part of the intention - since religious Muslims probably loathe French sexual expression. Hence, when a Muslim cleric pushes Muslims to wear the veil, he is also building barriers to French liberalization (which he believes is bad), and as a side-effect, prevents integration with French society. The ultimate effect is that they maintain a foreign culture on French soil. This lack of contact can lead to stereotyped views on both sides and makes both sides more vulnerable to propaganda. When people say "if we ban the veil, then we should ban nuns from wearing their religious clothing, too", they are right based on the principle of "being equal to everyone", but when you look at the world of realities, rather than principles, banning the Muslim veil affects society in a different way than banning a nun's religious clothing. If the intention is to head-off problems in the future and avoid friction between different groups in society, then the practical measure of banning the Muslim veil may be the way to go. Should you prefer principles to realities, even if doing so exacerabates societal problems, then don't ban the Muslim veil. ------------------------------------------ The ousted but stubbornly non-dead leader reportedly released an audiotape this weekend, ending by calling on Iraqis to, quote, "resist the occupation in any way you can, from writing on walls, to boycotting, to demonstrating and taking up arms." adding, "you know, pretty much a
Brit wrote: To bring things back to reality a little bit, there is some trouble getting Muslims to integrate into the mainstream. I absolutely agree with you here, and what you said as a whole in your post. But you know how fundamentalists are. If you ban them from doing their thing, they will stop sending their kids to such schools. Probably they'll start their own schools or let their kids go uneducated. It's not an uncommon thing in the fundamentalist Muslim society to have their female kids deprived of any education. This will further stifle any interaction and mingling with others. What's more, there will be an increased bitterness among the Muslim population because of this law. Wearing veils is taken very seriuosly by those who wear it and their families. Accepting Muslims into the mainstream will let them realize quickly what a stupid idea it is to cover your face with a cloth all the time. Plus, they are being educated in a modern society, remember. This will further neutralise their fundamentalism. In India, we have a situation where the majority of the population is Hindu, while Muslims are the largest minority. India has had a history of communal tensions between the followers of these two religions, but we are not dealing the problem by pretending it's not there. Or like you do to the kids in school when you teach them the Bohr's atomic model, and later tell them, "Not so fast smartyass, there's more". The riots that happen are always, always, perpetrated by those who want to gain power in a group, and unfortunately people keep falling for it each time. But if you go to the common man, and see him, you'll find he's really tolerant and understanding towards the other religion. I'm talking about both Hindus and Muslims here. We celebrate Eid and Diwali together. No, really. And this love and affection, and bond of oneness is not there because in school we were told Muslims don't exist, and upon growing up, hey, know what, your best friend is a Muslim, so Muslims are cool people (like we were with the Bohr's atomic model). No, we were not only freely allowed to mix together, but taught about each other's religion and culture in text books, and encouraged to participate in cross cultural programs. We knew very well which guy was a Muslim, who was a Sikh, who was a Christian, and so on. And yet we were friends. By getting exposed to other people early on, I learnt that they were people too, and not much different from me, except in matters that don't really matter t
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I work with a Muslim Lady and she wishes to be judged by her work not her beauty. This is not an opinion restricted to Muslim lasses. Allying the Qur'an with feminism requires serious theological jujitsu. Both Judeaism and most forms of christianity consider their holy books to be written by man. The Qur'ran is of divine origin, no argument, Try it.. Makes it a little tricker to reinterpret the text as society changes. Hopefully this is how things change. Liberal Christians are pretty much humanists who like communal singing. Ryan.
Not sure if I understand your meaning. Ryan Roberts wrote: Both Judeaism and most forms of christianity consider their holy books to be written by man. Still Divinely inspired so not that different. "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
-
KaЯl wrote: BadJerry wrote: ganging I mistread this word at first, and then the mental image I saw forced me to verify. Thanks God, I was wrong! I don't get it - what did you think it said????
-
BadJerry wrote: By the way, I cannot believe I am ganging against you with Terry! Gaulophobia transcends all.
-
Easter ? The tigress is here :-D
-
So this means that jewish schoolboys cannot wear skullcaps ? Its esaier to do something like this than look at the root problems they have there I suppose which is disappointing :( The tigress is here :-D
Yep, they cannot in a public school. However, I don't remember having heard about any conflict about jewish schoolboys refusing to remove their skullcaps, as it happened several times with muslim girls refusing to remove their veil. Trollslayer wrote: Its esaier to do something like this than look at the root problems they have there I suppose which is disappointing You're right, that's just a part of the problem, and enforcing secular rules in school can't be the only solution.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
-
I agree with a lot of the earlier posts that, in general, the state should not try to regulate religious-themed clothing which is an expression of their own beliefs. I also think that having a secular democracy means that the state does not try to push a particular religious belief - when individuals are the source of religious expression, it doesn't fall into the category of "violating the separation of church and state". However, those ideas seem nice and good as long as we can think about them abstractly and without context. To bring things back to reality a little bit, there is some trouble getting Muslims to integrate into the mainstream. This produces a minority situation which can irritate people in the minority and the mainstream, and can help generate divergent views and lifestyles. For Muslims, the veil is generally put into the context of "being a good Muslim". Hence, Muslim girls who don't wear the veil can be easily identified as "bad Muslims". The veil can also introduce barriers to personal contact with non-Muslims. This may also be part of the intention - since religious Muslims probably loathe French sexual expression. Hence, when a Muslim cleric pushes Muslims to wear the veil, he is also building barriers to French liberalization (which he believes is bad), and as a side-effect, prevents integration with French society. The ultimate effect is that they maintain a foreign culture on French soil. This lack of contact can lead to stereotyped views on both sides and makes both sides more vulnerable to propaganda. When people say "if we ban the veil, then we should ban nuns from wearing their religious clothing, too", they are right based on the principle of "being equal to everyone", but when you look at the world of realities, rather than principles, banning the Muslim veil affects society in a different way than banning a nun's religious clothing. If the intention is to head-off problems in the future and avoid friction between different groups in society, then the practical measure of banning the Muslim veil may be the way to go. Should you prefer principles to realities, even if doing so exacerabates societal problems, then don't ban the Muslim veil. ------------------------------------------ The ousted but stubbornly non-dead leader reportedly released an audiotape this weekend, ending by calling on Iraqis to, quote, "resist the occupation in any way you can, from writing on walls, to boycotting, to demonstrating and taking up arms." adding, "you know, pretty much a
Could you please do once an analysis whih is not pertinent nor well argumented? :-D Some muslims extremists are trying to promote the use of the veil as a religious weapon, and that's the core of the problem.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
-
Brit wrote: To bring things back to reality a little bit, there is some trouble getting Muslims to integrate into the mainstream. I absolutely agree with you here, and what you said as a whole in your post. But you know how fundamentalists are. If you ban them from doing their thing, they will stop sending their kids to such schools. Probably they'll start their own schools or let their kids go uneducated. It's not an uncommon thing in the fundamentalist Muslim society to have their female kids deprived of any education. This will further stifle any interaction and mingling with others. What's more, there will be an increased bitterness among the Muslim population because of this law. Wearing veils is taken very seriuosly by those who wear it and their families. Accepting Muslims into the mainstream will let them realize quickly what a stupid idea it is to cover your face with a cloth all the time. Plus, they are being educated in a modern society, remember. This will further neutralise their fundamentalism. In India, we have a situation where the majority of the population is Hindu, while Muslims are the largest minority. India has had a history of communal tensions between the followers of these two religions, but we are not dealing the problem by pretending it's not there. Or like you do to the kids in school when you teach them the Bohr's atomic model, and later tell them, "Not so fast smartyass, there's more". The riots that happen are always, always, perpetrated by those who want to gain power in a group, and unfortunately people keep falling for it each time. But if you go to the common man, and see him, you'll find he's really tolerant and understanding towards the other religion. I'm talking about both Hindus and Muslims here. We celebrate Eid and Diwali together. No, really. And this love and affection, and bond of oneness is not there because in school we were told Muslims don't exist, and upon growing up, hey, know what, your best friend is a Muslim, so Muslims are cool people (like we were with the Bohr's atomic model). No, we were not only freely allowed to mix together, but taught about each other's religion and culture in text books, and encouraged to participate in cross cultural programs. We knew very well which guy was a Muslim, who was a Sikh, who was a Christian, and so on. And yet we were friends. By getting exposed to other people early on, I learnt that they were people too, and not much different from me, except in matters that don't really matter t
Rohit Sinha wrote: or let their kids go uneducated That's impossible here. School is mandatory till the age of 16 years. Rohit Sinha wrote: Thinking that you can prevent tensions by making people hide their differences is similar to the belief that keeping boys and girls in different schools will reduce teenage sex and associated problems. But you can reduce these tensions by providing a neutral zone where these differences are leveled, to enable people from different origins to mix without having religious preconceived feelings used as a propaganda weapon. The goal of school is IMO to make French citizens, not to learn knowledge only. And in France, secularism and separation between the State and the Churches is one of the important pilars of our Republic. Because of the events in the Near East, religious intolerance is gaining ground in public schools, also because we have the strongest muslim and jew communities of Europe. Acts of antisemitism are growing, intolerance is winning ground. Exacerbating differences isn't IMO a good way to reduce these conflicts.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien