Muslim girl told to remove scarf

Muslim girl told to remove scarf
Employee offers apology; public statement sought
By CLARISSA ALJENTERA
Herald Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 06/22/2007 01:26:50 AM PDT

A confrontation over a head scarf in the lunchroom of Seaside High School between a school supervisor and a 13-year-old student has led for a call for a public apology from the official by a major Islamic organization.

The San Francisco/Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, known as CAIR, said the girl, an incoming freshman, was told by the supervisor Tuesday to remove her hajib, an Islamic head scarf.

After explaining that she wore it for religious reasons, the supervisor, according to the CAIR statement, then demanded in front of more than 100 other students, "You have to take it off now."

The girl, who was taking a summer algebra class, then broke down in tears, said CAIR, but did not remove her scarf.

CAIR and Seaside High both declined to identify the girl's family.

School officials said the supervisor has offered to apologize.

http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_6201309?nclick_check=1

...in these times would be unaware that this is prickly issue. There have been countless cases here in the US and riots in France over the same issue.

On further in the article:

"The employee involved did offer an apology on the day of the event," said Sydney Renwick, Seaside High principal. "We offered to make a personal one, because of the situation."

But Safaa Ibrahim, CAIR's chapter executive director, said in a statement that "because the student was humiliated in public, it is only reasonable to make an apology or statement in public to mitigate the damage caused by the supervisor's unacceptable actions."

And I agree. The least this teacher should be required to do is to apologize to her in front of all the students that she was humiliated in front of.

the scarf and even full on burka is, for some people, a political statement.

Of course I come down on the side of freedom of the press in the Denmark cartoon issue and I'm completely pissed off over the violent sounding criticism over knighting Salmund Rushdie.

...I believe someone once said.

The clothes we wear have a political statement, from minis, to Birkenstock's. And even if she was wearing her hajib as a political statement, doesn't she have the right to her politics? What she was wearing wasn't disruptive, nor presented any danger to others. It was a scarf, not a burka.

I have a cousin who became a Muslim 15 years ago. She's still the same person under her scarf....


DeSwiss :)

the article was about the burka in England...full head, face and body covered. The women they interviewed who wore it said they were showing solidarity with jihad not just their religion.

In my part of the world we outlawed clothing which showed which gang a young person belonged to as TOO political and potentially violent.

Like I said, I'm so freaked out about Theo Van Gogh, the Danish cartoons and now the new (and old) crap about Rushdie that there is a part of me that says: you hate moderinty okay but you must leave us alone because we don't want to go back to the 13th century. Live in our country, live by our rules which include openness and openness includes being able to look someone in the eye and not having to have people walking around saying, by their dress "death to Americans".

I honestly think we should have published all the Danish cartoons in every one of our newspapers in solidarity to the Danish paper. I believe in multiculturalism but only to a point.

...that if this had been a burka that it would have been problematic as these garment are capable of concealing much.

Its unfortunate that we've come to the point in society, but it may have been inevitable. When I was in HS and college, many students wore what was perceived as clothing that was in solidarity with the black power movement. Tams, wearing all black clothing and leather jackets. And somewhere the colors of red, green and black. No one ever suggested that we had to wear more "conventional" clothing then. But it wasn't a gang those clothes represented, but the idea of black people having power over their lives after centuries of subservience.

As to your point about modernity vs radical Wahabbi/Islamists and where they are trying to revert everything back to a 13th century mindset, I'm in total simpatico. In many ways it is a kind of dissonance in society that has never occurred before. We have, in effect, people whose lives, beliefs, and mores follow us from centuries back, but they have at their disposal all the accouterments of modern warfare at their disposal. For example, if we looked at these radicals Islamists and their ancient beliefs as a basis point for their lives and their world, they should be fighting us with hatchets, knives and swords. But they accept just enough of modernity to fight us with our own technology.

And I also agree that every single newspaper around the world should have reprinted those cartoons. If for no other reason than as a slap in the face of this stupidity we call religion. When you consider it, religion while having brought cohesion to an otherwise disparate ancient world population, is the root of most of our conflicts. Both internal and external. We are still fighting the Crusades. What we've had in the past were simply a series of lulls in the action.

In this particular instance with the girl and her hajib, the school had its rules and policies in-place. They were simply very poorly executed. They do have rules in the Monterey school system concerning the wearing of hats and scarves to school. But its an old policy that predates the inclusion of Muslim school girls. As the school administrator said in the article, they may have to revisit this policy.

We often hear (from mostly conservatives) about how the European immigrants at the turn of the 20th century assimilated with less trouble than we see now with bilingualism and issues such as clothing. But its not a fair comparison. Back then, no one cared much if girls got an education or not. And most that did, didn't go past the required 8th grade level. So similar problems weren't encountered. But I have little doubt that had the immigrants been Muslims, they'd have probably ditched the hajib by now. And I believe that this is what will ultimately happen.

While I know this is anecdotal, beginning in the mid-90s, I began to have tenants who were Somali and Sudanese refugees in some of the apartments that my company manages (we are a http://hometown.aol.com/johnneca/index.html">housing cooperative). When they first came here, there were burkas everywhere you looked. Now, not so much. And some women have even broken totally with past tribal/religious mores to build lives of their own outside the clan/tribe. Most women are still deferential to males. But the signs of the freedom to be yourself is everywhere in evidence.

The problem for us it seems is, that it is we who are on the cusp of these changes, and for that reason we see primarily nothing but the conflicts. Fifty years from now, who'll even remember that there were any???

to say they are not allowed? Same thing with mini-minis. I do believe the school has a right to set clothing standards however there needs to be leaway for religious beliefs. What if they told a Catholic they could not wear a chain necklace with a Christian symbol. They tell students they can not wear gawdy gold chains so what is the difference?

...since the primary purpose of those colors seems to be the same as soldiers fighting for opposing sides. Its more of a uniform in that respect. But in some sense they are also political, if you can see droopy pants with underwear showing as an act of defiance against convention. They seem to be "mooning" society at-large.

But in answer to your question, yes, I do believe that today, schools have to control political expression via clothing and in similar ways, when such apparel presents "a clear and present danger" to others. Given the radicalism of Wahabbi/Islamists, and the clearly physical danger that gangs represent to most people, I don't see how schools have any other other choice if they are to insure the safety of everyone concerned.

We are traipsing into uncharted waters now with respect to many ideals we've held as secure and accepted. But the history of America has been its ability to absorb these shocks to the system and still somehow find a way for us to live within each other's worlds. The problem now is that its hard for most to separate the carnage and death that they see on TV, with a Muslim neighbor down the street who cuts his/her lawn each Saturday just like everyone else. And if nothing else, this was predictable. The same thing happened with German-Americans preceding WWI and beyond. And we all know what happened to the Japanese Americans during WWII.

When we allow our fears of each other to overtake our reason, we've already lost. The answer then is not more separation or even homogenization, but exposure to, and acceptance of those differences. Even the ones we disagree with. Until we're prepared to do this, I'm afraid that rules for what school kids can wear is the only tool we have. But there is no safety even in that. The 911 hijackers, for all intents and purposes, looked liked average Joe's. They didn't wear turbans or long robes, so our suspicions weren't raised then. They blended in easily, just like the fundamentalist student from Liberty College who had bombs in his car to use against the Phelps protesters at Jerry Falwell's funeral. No one saw that one coming either, because he was dressed up just like everyone else.

at every school my kids' have ever attended from private Montessori schools to public schools. I wonder if the Monterey school system has such a contract. If so, and the girl knowingly violated it, there is little recourse for her or her family or CAIR.

Of course, the rhetoric on the CAIR side is typically hysterical..."If I was a lawyer I'd sue him for assaulting a young girl," said Khlidy. "I think such a thing should not be taking place." Yup, let's just sue the school administrator for asking the girl to remove her head scarf... :eyes:

I also find it distasteful that girls are "required" (cough) to wear modesty garments - it's sexualizing them at ever younger ages, a concept I disagree with on every level.

My kids have gay parents. No doubt many think it's distasteful that we show up at school together.

People have the right to raise their children in accordance with their beliefs, and though there are limits there is also considerable leeway.

My daughters have gay parents, and it's well known at school. Some Somali girls they go to school with wear scarfs. They get along just fine.

I'd like to issue a big fat FUCK YOU to anyone who thinks their taste about other people's private lives matters.

We are talking about a girl in a public school who is violating a public school dress code that she probably agreed to, chances are she agreed to it in writing.

I then added my comments about the increasing sexualization of young girls in Islam which has nothing to do with you or your situation or what goes on in people's private lives. I am sorry I somehow created an impression that having gay parents was "distasteful" - nothing could be farther from the truth.

Just curious - are you okay with the increasing sexualization of young girls at younger and younger ages?

the rights of others to live their own lives.

I don't regard the veil as sexualization of girls.

And I didn't say YOU think gay parents are distasteful - but there are many who do. And they have no better ground to stand on than you do.

and violations of it and the consequences for violating it. That situation isn't personal - it's a regulation of the school that the child (or her parents) willfully or even perhaps unknowingly violated. I think it's a stupid rule and probably will be addressed and changed.

That is the issue we are talking about on this thread.

My other comment about the increasing sexualization of young girls was my own personal opinion and I believe it is a valid one with a LOT Of ground (and substantive research) to stand on. Furthermore that has nothing to do with gay parenting.

It is a stupid rule, and it ought to be changed - and it was handled VERY poorly.

I've read enough crap from anti-gay losers to recognize the same flavor in your comments. At root is the same intrusiveness into others' families.

There is PLENTY of sexualization of young girls in our culture - but a girl in scarf sure isn't any more sexualized than a peer in makeup and some of the clothes on the racks at Limited Too, aping Britney Spears.

And you find that of the same "flavor" as "anti gay losers"? Ooookay.

FWIW, I find both kinds of sexualization distasteful - dressing girls in modesty garments AND dressing them like Britney Spears. I wonder what kind of "loser" I am for expressing THAT statement? :shrug:

And when anyone's rights are diminished, so are mine. And since I have rather less than the standard set of rights, I can't afford to lose more.

Muslim families have every right to rear their children in their faith, just as you have the right to raiise your children in your beliefs.

and children in school are not afforded the same "civil rights" as elsewhere. There are different rules and expectations that apply to children at school. Period. To not acknowledge that, and furthermore to somehow impugn anyone who dares to point that out as some kind of "loser" just "diminishes" the discussion. I know you have children and I know you are aware of public school rules and probably signed a contract yourself. Can your children wear spaghetti straps to school? How about gang symbols? Can they wear a mask to school? I will lay money down that they cannot. If you DID sign such a contract and aren't working hard to eradicate that contract, then why not since you find school dress codes to somehow be so "diminishing".

Muslim families absolutely DO have the right to rear their children in their faith (and I dare you to point out where I have said that they do not have that right) but I have the right to speak my opinion about the increasing sexualization of girls both in that culture and in the greater culture at large. For an ostensible ACLU nut to call me a "loser" for saying this out loud (especially when you agree with me?!) calls your principles into question.

And where freedom of religious expression is concerned, families have considerable leeway - at least as long as they conform to Christian standards of expression.

Spaghetti straps, gang symbols and masks are not mandated by our religion. (We have no religion, but neithger are these things mandated by any other religion.)

There is no constitutional right to spaghetti straps. There is a constitutional right to religion.

You have the right to SAY pretty much whatever you like. When that turns into prohibition of things you don't like, we've got a problem. (And free speech includes me calling anyone a loser as I see fit - that's part of how it works too.)

especially as they intersect with school rules and regs. You really don't see that? I can't make it any clearer and if you haven't experienced it then the discussion is done. Yes, freedom of religious expression has considerable lee-way but freedom of religious expression and that expression in public schools is a collision that is obviously being worked out daily. You and I don't like it when schools decree that religious garb isn't allowed but schools have the ability to set their own dress codes. (And again I reiterate, headscarves are NOT required in Islam despite some zealots who want to interpret it that way).

Also, I have NEVER promoted "prohibition of things" I don't like, please show me where I have ever done that please or retract that statement. I simply stated my opinion about girls and and their sexualization. If you had stopped at "loser" regarding my comments about girls, I would have laughed in incredulity at this coming from a guy who purports to be some kind of civil rights advocate. You went further than calling me a "loser", you actually inferred that my opinion about sexualized girls somehow "diminished your rights".

And whether YOU think head scarves are required or not is not relevant - that is a matter of theological interpretation and many Muslims DO believe that.

So perhaps we can agree that it sucks but it's the truth.

I imagine this family will work to change the dress code (and the school will rapidly comply).

Islam prides itself on it's lack of "central authority" - there is great pride in their doctrine of no intermediaries between a Muslim and their faith which means that everyone's interpretation is (theoretically) as valid as anyone elses. It's both a great strength and also a great weakness, doctrinally. Be that as it may, I do believe that I have as much right as anyone to actually read the Quran and the accompanying commentary and come to my own conclusions AND to put that research out there for discussion.

And if the school dress codes implicitly permit or favor expression of some religion but not others, they've likely got a problem.

While you have the right to any opinion on the Quran, what you don't have is the right to determine in any legal sense what is a correct interpretation.

However the school would be very, very, very wise to re-examine the headgear issue and change it for the future.

Lastly, please refrain from making shit up about my posts. I have never stated that I am any kind of arbiter of legal and correct Quranic interpretation. I do however stand by my statement that I have the right to do my own research and share that. Feel free to do your own research and rebut my conclusions instead of simply slamming me.

...she or her family were aware of the school system's policies, or if any student contracts were involved. The article stated:

"the 13-year-old student, an incoming freshman, was told by the supervisor Tuesday to remove her hajib, an Islamic head scarf... The girl, who was taking a summer algebra class, then broke down in tears, said CAIR, but did not remove her scarf.... The summer session at Seaside High School started Monday. The program offers remedial classes for high school students, two academies and a special education program."

So it would appear that she may be a new student at this school.

I agree with your assessment of the rhetoric of CAIR, but being black myself, I can also understand the feelings of outrage one feels when they're singled out for being different. And the fact that she was not told to remove her hajib privately, but it was "demanded" by this supervisor that she remove the scarf in front of more than 100 students," makes me believe that the apology should be as public as the humiliation.

Still, I also agree with what you say about the requirements for Muslim women to dress "modestly." Who decides what modest is? Men. The Patriarchy is alive and well. To me, religion is a weight whose benefits (whatever they are or were) have been far outpaced the negatives they draw and generate. But that's me...

and in dialogue with other parents all over this country, they seem to be pretty universal, and universally capricious. No doubt this school is going to be re-examining theirs and I bet there will be a public apology sooner rather than later!

What's really wierd is that the Prophet Muhammed was actually really progressive for his era especially regarding women and their rights and status. I would guess he would cringe to see what's happened in his name at this point in time. As an atheist though, I'm with you - I cringe at pretty much all religion.

in an area where i have since found out, some fundamentalists feel the peace sign is anti christ, with no problems.

political statement from a 9 yr old, you bet.

who practice this girls religion as "i want to kill you". and a small faction of fundamentalist could at least put the peace sign as antichrist in the same darkness as you did with this girls religion, firstly

secondly, to be bothered about anothers modernity? well all kinds of people fall in different degrees of "modernity". i hope we dont go after the amish for NOT participating in our modern world

I am not bothered by the Amish. It's the live and let live think that's important to me.

honor the live and let live myself.

right there with you

but I'm not sure it will do us much good to argue about it here. I think you have to draw the line someplace and I'm not sure I know where to draw the line is all. If the Amish took up arms against us and insisted we all live like them or die they take themselves out of the live and let live category.

(I really gotta stop reading American Fascist and Infidel.)

I don't live in group think either...and I don't want to.

again just a small faction of the christian. BUT.... in your think that would conclude all signs of christianity, such as a person wearing a necklace that has a cross, should have to remove it.

btw: the bible would back these small groups just as the fundamentalist muslims are backed by their koran thru their own interpretation

There are Christians like the KKK who are hostile and violent - but crucifixes are not prohibited.

Likewise gang colors or confederate flags and symbols. A hajib or a cross or an Amish hat is clearly a religious expression.

And I agree with you that it's a balancing act between respecting someone's free religious and political expression and keeping a lid on kids such as gang members who want to use that freedom of expression to plot harm to others.

"non religious" expression (the KKK....although the KKK was pretty religious...hated jews, catholics, non-believers as much as they hated blacks.)

Freedom of religious express should go no further than any other expression. IMHO.

goals.

I don't see how a woman or girl wearing a veil has same goal as wearing a KKK hood.

as I understand it the KKK hood was to intimidate and hide the identity of the wearer.

I'm not thrilled about the idea that the veil seems to say "men are animals who can't control themselves and they have to be protected from themselves and women and who cares what it does/says about or to the women" (yes, an exaggeration, but still...along those lines.)

If I didn't say this earlier, I'm having trouble drawing the line.

Female circumcision is over it. I'm thinking veils are over it and if scarves become a political statement against my culture in my country I might reevaluate where scarves fall.

- this is a 13 yr old schoolgirl for crissakes. How does her headscarf (not veil, btw) threaten you in anyway? Did you pause to think that it is also HER country? That women of other faiths cover their heads? There is no rational justification for such phobia.

I tolerate the right of people to wear KKK hoods, God Hates Fags t shirts and Nazi uniforms.

I don't like any of these things, but I believe in the first amendment.

With regard to schools: I am unaware of any Christian sect that calls for the wearing of hoods, so it's a non-issue.

I believe in freedom of religion, which means I accept that some women and girls will opt to wear veils. I do not believe that freedom extends to wearing articles purely to make a statement intended to intimidate (which would include KKK hoods and other items mentioned in my first sentence above) others in school.

My kids attend a very diverse grade school (actually, one has moved on to middle school this last year). There are a number of Somali girls who wear veils. My kids have gay parents, which is well known among the students. They all manage to get along. I don't know why it's so hard for so many other people.

"Some who wear the niqab, particularly younger women who have taken it up recently, concede that it is a frontal expression of Islamic identity, which they have embraced since Sept. 11, 2001, as a form of rebellion against the policies of the Blair government in Iraq, and at home."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/world/europe/22veil.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

If it is peace symbol or anti war symbol that is one thing. If it is an in your face pro Islamist (rather than Muslim), anti Western symbol I've got problems with it. Then it becomes intimidating like the KKK hoods. (I also hate it as a woman but I don't think outlawing it helps so I reserve my urge to outlaw it only to the intimidation factor. Did you see the Hamas fighters last week? Didn't you think their masks were intimidating? I did, which I suspect is a large part of why they wear them.)

Again, I'm all for multiculturalism but I think the melting pot experiment we've got going here only works with some melting.

know that an individual is wearing it because they believe it is a religious mandate or for some other reason just because they're wearing it.

The full face veil, I admit, is a very difficult and possibly unworkable cultural collision. Just the issue a while back regarding driver license photos is a case in point, and it may just be unresolvable.

The OP story was about a girl in a scarf which I did not assume to be a full face veil, but just a head scarf, or the sort of garb I see on girls in my daughters' school, which looks like this:

That was an instance of a "fundamentalist" Christian claiming that wearing a ring, promising to remain a virgin until marriage, was a religious act, though the school did not allow jewelry. The school denied permission and insisted she remove the ring.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2889954

What if the English girl had wanted to wear a head scarf instead of a ring, but the school prohibited that also? The whole virginity dance, pledge and ring thing with some Christians can be compared to the prohibitions on premarital sex in some sects of Islam, so to some extent the head scarf "could" be considered a "purity scarf".

Should a "purity scarf" be allowed, but not a "purity ring"? There didn't seem to be much support for the English girl from DU, while the Muslim's girls support is more nuanced.

really know their laws. I also regard some issues as simply different because the US is a nation comprised of immigrants and their descendants, whereas France, let's say, has a historic culture of its own.

The other difference in this case, to my thinking, is that the purity ring may be motivated by the girl's religious beliefs but it doesn't seem it's even a tenet of her faith that she has to wear the ring. Muslims who do believe in the veil, however, maintain that they are required to wear it.

The ring and the veil are different types of adornments, just like Christianity and Islam are different. Most Muslims who are required to wear the veil are probably also expected to refrain from premarital sex. Just like these Christian girls are indicating their intention to avoid premarital sex by wearing the ring. (Obviously, there is a valid question as to whether the veil or the ring accomplish anything in this area, other than keeping the parents happy.) ;)

Those who wear the veil/scarf consider it essential to their religion - they feel they are required to wear it.

The ring, while it may be the outcome of their religious feelings, is not - even by the standards of the ring wearers - a requirement of their religion.

Similarly, someone may wish to wear a God Hates Fags t shirt to reflect their religious beliefs, but it's not a requirement of their religion.

You're blaming all of the Muslims for the actions of some.

As for modernity, it is their modernity. It is their 21st century too, whatever century they may label it. It's where they are. They are not the equivalent of 13th century Christians.

I'm not a fan of the cultural/religious imperative that asks women to cover themselves so that men won't be tempted. I think men can learn to keep it under control nicely, thanks, and women ought to be free to dress any way they wish without fear of harrassment.

BUT... this girl has made a choice based on her religion, to dress in this way. It affects no one but her -- and those who would read something violent into it that isn't there.

My local school forces students to wear uniforms, and any type of head covering is forbidden. They all look like robots.

everyone dresses similarly.

My kids' schools have many arbitrary and capricious rules about the clothes they can and cannot wear including rules on jewelry, head coverings, spaghetti straps, gang colors, political statements and more.

Schools have a lot of lee-way in creating and enforcing their dress code policies.

The article is behind a registration wall which I refuse to sign up for. Anyone have a link to the article that doesn't require registration? I would bet the school has a dress code requirement that forbids wearing hats or head coverings.

I know that children wearing headscarves is not a religious requirement in Islam. It isn't even a requirement for adults really but that is a can of worms I'm not going to go into. In France, the ban on religious gear (ie. headscarves) IN SCHOOLS has been universally accepted since this is about CHILDREN.

So either this girl is exceptionally pious and has taken to wearing a scarf at a very young age, in which case I am pretty surprised she is in a public school at all since such a pious girl is usually at an Islamic school - especially since head covering bans are pretty universal at public schools. Or she is wearing it for political reasons which would violate pretty much every school dress code I've ever seen.

I will reserve judgement though until I can read the entire article.

All head gear, including scarves.

When it tosses you to a registration wall and gives you a compound URL (which this one does - first URL gobbledygook equals second URL additional gobbledygook), you can usually get past it by removing all the extraneous stuff. In this case, the article itself is at

http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_6201309

Click the OP link, you'll go to the wall, remove everything except for that part of the URL, and you should be in. There's nothing that suggests that it was for political reasons, in any case; the school's director said straight out that it was Just A Screwup and offered an apology. Either way, I've seen quite a few head coverings in public schools around here. (Then again, I'm in Canada, which is about seventeen percent less stupid than the US about such things lately.)

That's ridiculous.

Administratium: known to have the greatest density of any element

is well taken about..
"One has to wonder how a teacher...in these times would be unaware that this is prickly issue. There have been countless cases here in the US and riots in France over the same issue."

How completely clueless and insensitive..not to mention power hungry driven.

which country she's in? As far as I know it hasn't been repealed
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html

Really the school should be grateful all they want is an apology, seems like it could be a civil rights case.

yarmulke? A Christian student to take off a necklace bearing a cross or a crucifix?

Heebus Jeebus, this is ridiculous. I agree that the apology should be made in public, because the girl was humiliated in public.

When my mom was in high school, she struggled in chemistry class. One day, her teacher taunted her in front of the whole class, and said, "You must be stupid or something if you don't understand this." When my grandfather heard about it, he went to the school, saw the principle, and demanded that the teacher apologize to my mother IN CLASS, in front of all the students, because he had humiliated her in front of them. The teacher didn't want to do it, but the principle told him he had no choice. And he stood there in the classroom and made sure the teacher DID apologize to my mother.

If anyone can post relevant pieces of the article, maybe we could find out. (You have to have a password to get access to the article.)

...to the story.

http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_6201309

And you're right, it was a school administrator. Which is worse in my book. If the people running the thing don't know the Constitution, there's no hope for any of the kids going to school there....

I, the only person in the world who matters, in order to form a more perfect world reflecting my views and my views only, establish a code wherein only items of clothing, jewelry, or religious articles, shall be authorized only by and for me, to insure a world totally reflective of my point of view, promote that point of view, and secure the blessings of whatever I want to myself and my prosperity, and do ordain this Constitution of my rights, my opinions, and my views, to the extreme exclusion of the rights, opinions and views of all others.

Oh wait. There IS a version of that Constitution already. It's the one being used by Bush and Cheney.

:eyes:

...even that version doesn't apply to Cheney. He's his own law.

I love Olbermann's suggestion that because Cheney thinks he is beyond the law, he should be seen as a rogue nation and should be invaded.

(Though I wouldn't want to be the one who had to do that! Ewwwwwww!) :rofl:

Orthodox Jewish women do. So do nuns for that matter.

Even if the girl was veiled in school, it's her business. It's only when there is a legitimate matter of identification, like passports and drivers licenses, that a woman should have to show her face.

Although when I see a woman in a burqua it squees me out. Not so much the veil.

that the Beloved Prophet had only instructed women to dress modestly, adding that they ought to do so while adopting the fashion of where they are living. So....obviously something has been lost in the translation. But a headscarf sounds like no big deal.

have also become more rigid. Many orthodox women do not wear pants because they are seen as men's clothing and the divide the legs. I have an orthodox friend who has a teenage daughter (13). She and her friends wear long skirts and under their long skirts they wear track pants so that no part of their leg is showing as they are walking.

no sexism involved there. :eyes:

Any time fundy men tell women what to wear...they're wrong. Period. The hajib is wrong as long as it is forced on women and not on men. Forcing women to wear skirts or headscarves or whatever isn't about "modesty"...it's about controlling women. It's about making us feel like there is something innately wrong with our bodies. And I for one am sick and fucking tired of it.

If they have such a problem with the thought that they might see a fucking ankle and turn into a crazed ball of unbridled lust...then maybe they should lock themselves in the house 24 hours a day and only come out to go to the fucking therapist.

by my Indonesian Muslim roommate. She said the scarf and veil are Arab custom only, not required by Islam.

Personally, I wonder if their origin wasn't more practical, like to protect the face and body during sandstorms? Living here in the Nevada desert, there've been a couple of times I had to pull a sheer scarf across my face to stop the wind from blowing dirt and sand into my eyes. And our winds are mild compared to what probably exists in Saudi Arabia. 'Course the cover-up fit so well into the fear of female sexuality that any practical reasons have long since been lost. But remember, Arabian nomad men cover their faces when walking in the desert too.

one is that they are not supposed to wear a shirt tucked in because it is considered immodest.

In a school that has a dress code.

You are right that the sura does not specify any head covering at all, even for adult women except for the prophet's wives. And they are supposed to wear clothing that doesn't draw attention to themselves so yes, they are supposed to wear modest outfits that "blend" into the society in which they find themselves. Unfortunately religious zealots want to swathe all females in a misguided interpretation - it's amazing that progressives somehow want to defend a religion that views it's women that way.

The sexualizing of young girls in Islam at ever younger ages - by making them wear modesty garments - is pretty disturbing.

both wrong.

But, where would modern Christianity be without a little hypocrisy?

guarantees freedom of religion - I leave it to the individual to interpret their religion and don't care to get into theological disagreements over what is the correct interpretation.

It's amazing how many Protestants who wear crosses or fish symbols criticize Catholics for wearing crucifixes. It's all due to a fundamental misunderstanding.

Edit: Or a fundamentalist misunderstanding!

In order not to post a long explanation here, I'll start a thread in the Catholic/Orthodox Group which you can read to understand the Commandments better.

How many would be agreeing with the teacher?

I believe there is a thread here on DU in which some girl wants to wear a ring that has some sort of religious symbolism to here. The school she is in has banned all jewelry(like how this school has banned head-wear). The consensus on that thread is that she needs to obey the school rules and suck it up.

I dunno though.

The scarf is considered by some to be a requirement of their religion.

The ring, while it may be informed by religion, is not considered a requirement even by the families in which some wear it.

crosses, scarves, and anything that could be misconstrued as religious must be removed right this minute.....

Now that's more like it!

Maybe we can get on with the business of being human beings instead of having to come up with all these ridiculous external trappings and ways to identifying ourselves as being part of some SPECIAL group. How about we all just do what we do, think what we think, believe what we believe and keep it quiet?

I think everyone everywhere should only dress in black. It's very flattering to all body types. ;)

sounds like the old USSR?

I'm an atheist, but you're lumping too many things together.

In what way?

A hijab was not against the rules, just this idiot's ethnocentric bias. Many people of varying religions and cultures wear head coverings. Unless there is a safety reason, there is no justification for forcing this girl to remove her hijab. (A hajib is not the same thing, by the way). From the student's perspective, it would be like asking another girl to remove her shirt.

And reading the subject lines, I can see that there are people equating a head scarf to kkk robes. That's complete nonsense and equates a little girl wearing a head scarf to racist killers. It's like saying you're a nazi, because you wear pants and Nazis wear pants.

I'm proud of the student for not giving in. I'm glad that the school recognizes that this is not okay. However, an apology is not enough. That lunchroom supervisor should be fired.

Rules that doubtless will be changed at this point but indisputably the school had rules banning headgear.

need to be changed!

When religious Jewish and Muslim women cover themselves, are they succumbing to chauvinistic tradition or rather making a liberating decision?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3416077,00.html

<sni>

"She was walking in front of me in a crowded Jaffa street, covered in black from head to tow: Shoes, socks, pants, a long dress on top, gloves (!) and of course – a veil, which revealed only a pair of black eyes.

It was steaming hot outside – over 30 degrees Celsius and terribly humid, and I immediately felt sorry for the poor woman. How hot she must be, I thought, how sweaty, how miserable it was to go through the scalding Mediterranean summer like this. And then feminist thoughts began running through my head – "How can women be oppressed this way? What a humiliation! Why doesn't she rebel against this? What a pity she's unaware of all the things she is missing out on in the world," etc. I practically couldn't take my eyes off of her.

While I was busy with my progressive thoughts, I noticed that the girl walking beside me was staring at me, and I was mortified when I recognized the look in her eyes. She was looking at me in the same way I was looking at the woman in front of me. Over 30 degrees Celsius and terribly humid, she was wearing shorts and a tank top, while I was wearing a head scarf, two shirts worn one on top of the other in order to cover my arms, a long (and hot) jeans skirt, etc.

"How hot she must be," she was probably thinking, "How sweaty she must be, how miserable it is to go through the Mediterranean summer like this…" and this is before feminist thoughts began running through her head - "How can women be oppressed this way? What a humiliation! Why doesn't she rebel against this? What a pity she's unaware of all the things she is missing out on in the world." She practically could not take her eyes off of me.

Naturally I became annoyed. I could see the mixed pity and contempt in her eyes, and I wanted to "let her have it" – who are you to judge me? How do you know what kind of feminist thoughts run through my head under my scarf? And anyway, who are you to do my calculations for me? Only because you're wearing shorts and a tank top, this means you are more "liberated" than me? What do you know about my sector's worldviews, or the debates that take place in my society over these issues? And maybe I'm all for it? Maybe this fits in nicely with my feminist worldview? Perhaps the scarf and long sleeves represent my true freedom?"