Should Religious Symbols be Allowed in School?

[1048576]

I think we agree, and this is only tangentially related to the topic at hand, but all freedoms given to some take away a corresponding right to others. For example, if we give people the freedom to poke each other in the eye, then people no longer have the right to not get poked in the eye.

Basically religion should be treated the same as personal preference when it comes to school.

 

[Thino]

I covered that. Hats are only a distraction when someone makes it one.
No one even cares until a teacher says, "Take off your hat, it's a distraction." Then everyone looks,
"OMG HAT O.O"

I think we agree, and this is only tangentially related to the topic at hand, but all freedoms given to some take away a corresponding right to others. For example, if we give people the freedom to poke each other in the eye, then people no longer have the right to not get poked in the eye.

Basically religion should be treated the same as personal preference when it comes to school.

it furthers my point that the no hats approach , despite being merely a distraction , shouldn't make an exception of religious symbols related to it , just because its "religious".

that would be favoritism.

I do disapprove of the way the French government handle the situation in a completely tactless way though by making the ban look like a direct attack to a religion that the post-9/11 context doesnt help already.

 

[fragbait]

it furthers my point that the no hats approach , despite being merely a distraction , shouldn't make an exception of religious symbols related to it , just because its "religious".

I respond to the No Hats rule above. Anyone who says a hat is a distraction is only looking for an excuse. From my time in school, no body ever shouted out in class, "HEY! EVERYONE! LOOK AT MY TOTALLY DISTRACTING HAT!" nor did anyone care if someone wore one. Things only became a "Distraction" when a faculty member made a point of pointing it out.

Same for religious symbols. Let the kid where his Yamakha (don't know how it's spelled, the jewish hat thing) in peace, let him read his Bible in peace, let him wear his symbols in peace.

 

[Pragmatic]

Just a note, there is a difference between a burqa and a hijab. A burqa tends to cover the whole body while a hijab is a headscarf that covers the face.

Actually, hijabs only cover the head. Niqabs cover the face, burkas the entire body.

Religious expression is a fundamental aspect of freedom of speech. In Canada and other various multicultural societies, exceptions have been granted under this pretense.

However, since America and Canada are built upon Christian beliefs and practices, crosses wouldn't necessarily be banned, while let's say, a burka would be. Burkas also pose safety and security threats, which is the exact reason they're banned. The exact same concept applies to kirpans, hats, doo-rags, and niqabs.

In many schools and working institutions, women of the Muslim faith wear hijabs, especially in Canada. In fact, nobody even looks twice or questions it, because it's that culturally and politically accepted and ingrained in everyday life.

Outside of specific institutions which promptly express security concerns, burkas aren't banned, nor are kirpans.

At least to my knowledge, kirpans are not banned whatsoever. They just need to be concealed at all times, once again, due to security concerns.

So, in actuality, several religious artifacts and symbols are not banned, they may simply pose security threats, which is why they're limited in certain situations.

Now for my personal opinion, I see no problem with religious aspects being implemented in schools, as long as it doesn't breach simple security concerns.

 

[Thino]

I respond to the No Hats rule above. Anyone who says a hat is a distraction is only looking for an excuse. From my time in school, no body ever shouted out in class, "HEY! EVERYONE! LOOK AT MY TOTALLY DISTRACTING HAT!" nor did anyone care if someone wore one. Things only became a "Distraction" when a faculty member made a point of pointing it out.

Same for religious symbols. Let the kid where his Yamakha (don't know how it's spelled, the jewish hat thing) in peace, let him read his Bible in peace, let him wear his symbols in peace.

from a point of view that isnt purely aesthetical , a no hat rule , regardless of if its distracting or not , is still a rule.

teachers and school staff are free to apply it however they want or not , thats another subject.

my point is , if a school happens to have a no hat rule somehow , hats related to religious symbols shouldn't be considered an exception to that kind of rule.

I don't see the point of distinguishing hats from religious symbols that are forbidden in said school , since its for the exact same reason.

because basically from your last paragraph what you're saying is "let the kid wear his cap in peace." because they're all one and same thing , or should be considered so, when there's a not hat rule. What would be the point to have a no hats rule then?

 

[Pragmatic]

from a point of view that isnt purely aesthetical , a no hat rule , regardless of if its distracting or not , is still a rule.

teachers and school staff are free to apply it however they want or not , thats another subject.

my point is , if a school happens to have a no hat rule somehow , hats related to religious symbols shouldn't be considered an exception to that kind of rule.

I don't see the point of distinguishing hats from religious symbols that are forbidden in said school , since its for the exact same reason.

because basically from your last paragraph what you're saying is "let the kid wear his cap in peace." because they're all one and same thing , or should be considered so, when there's a not hat rule. What would be the point to have a no hats rule then?

But they're not the same thing.

Religious garments are worn for purely religious purposes, not casually.

Fitted baseball caps, for example, have no fundamental reason to be worn, it's not important.

Hijabs, for example, reflect a citizen's religious desire which must be followed, as long as security matters aren't jeopardized.

 

[Thino]

But they're not the same thing.

Religious garments are worn for purely religious purposes, not casually.

Fitted baseball caps, for example, have no fundamental reason to be worn, it's not important.

Hijabs, for example, reflect a citizen's religious desire which must be followed, as long as security matters aren't jeopardized.

the importance of religion is exactly where the problem is , at least in France , where the ban took place.

France seems to give a particular importance to the concept they call "laicism" that is to sum things up

"you are free to express your religion in private , but in public places , do not make your religion appearant"

schools obviously fall under that category , that is why French people in particular , do not make the difference between wearing caps casually and wearing religious symbols.

this situation , of course clashes with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion , but also proves that religious symbols being allowed or not is heavily context dependant.

 

[Pragmatic]

the importance of religion is exactly where the problem is , at least in France , where the ban took place.

France seems to give a particular importance to the concept they call "laicism" that is to sum things up

"you are free to express your religion in private , but in public places , do not make your religion appearant"

schools obviously fall under that category , that is why French people in particular , do not make the difference between wearing caps casually and wearing religious symbols.

this situation , of course clashes with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion , but also proves that religious symbols being allowed or not is heavily context dependant.

But France was politically scrutinized for their decision, since it infringes on basic human rights.

In essence, I was talking specifically about American and Canadian run institutions, where it can be more easily classified, and therefore, discussed.

Nonetheless, France contradicted themselves, and even so, have a different code of conduct and a different approach to human rights.

 

[fragbait]

from a point of view that isnt purely aesthetical , a no hat rule , regardless of if its distracting or not , is still a rule.

teachers and school staff are free to apply it however they want or not , thats another subject.

my point is , if a school happens to have a no hat rule somehow , hats related to religious symbols shouldn't be considered an exception to that kind of rule.

I don't see the point of distinguishing hats from religious symbols that are forbidden in said school , since its for the exact same reason.

because basically from your last paragraph what you're saying is "let the kid wear his cap in peace." because they're all one and same thing , or should be considered so, when there's a not hat rule. What would be the point to have a no hats rule then?

Because if enough people ***** about something, it becomes a rule.

 

[Thino]

Because if enough people ***** about something, it becomes a rule.

it doesnt change the fact that it becomes a rule , no matter what caused it to become a rule.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Actually, hijabs only cover the head. Niqabs cover the face, burkas the entire body.

That was a really clumsy mistake on my part. I earnestly was thinking about "head" but it came across as "face." Thanks for the correction. In reference to the past statement.

A burqa tends to cover the whole body while a hijab is a headscarf that covers the face.

 

[Pragmatic]

That was a really clumsy mistake on my part. I earnestly was thinking about "head" but it came across as "face." Thanks for the correction. In reference to the past statement.

Don't worry about it, you're still a remarkable debater.

 

[1048576]

If you get to wear a yarmulke, I get to wear a fedora. If I can't wear a fedora, you can't wear a yarmulke.

Does anyone disagree with the above statement?

 

[fragbait]

Not at all. As a matter of fact, I completely support the logic, as above.