Ministry decision on Muslim students’ dress code seen as divisive

[Bluespunk]

Just now, greenchair said:

The original meal option was ham and cheese sandwiches. When it was discovered that a Muslim was attending. the menu was changed,because the school did not want to offend anyone. Pork is the preferred meat of many Thais, because of the excessive hormones in chicken. Why couldn't the Muslim be offered a cheese sandwich? It was a racist act that catered to the needs of the one whilst infringing on the needs of the many. All religious and political activities should be kept out of schools. 

So just one meal option and they changed it to cater to someone’s beliefs.

 

Racist act? Don’t think so. While I sympathise with your desire to have a meal your son could eat, the change made does not seem to have been done on the basis of racism.

 

I see Thais eat a lot of chicken, those who made the change were probably trying to do their best for all. 

 

As a a vegetarian I wouldn’t have been able to eat any of the options you mention (the cheese probably has calf rennet).

 

I would understand, however why the school made the choice it did. 

 

Did you ask for a change that all could eat?

[Different]

It is a huge crisis if Muslims teach 7 century opinions so called Sunnah or the hadith that reached an alarming number reaching 1 million hadithes only 4000 are correct which caused Muslims to live backward theory about Islam.   There is a great Islamic thinker who spent 40 years reading Quran like it was reveled yesterday.   He found punishment of a thief cutting of his hand not fiscally but cults his hands off society in jail based on (Police cut off the road.   In inherit Dr. Shahrur found out that share of female equals the share of male.   if Muslims accept Shahrur reading of Quran Muslims will never pass ignorance.

Last but not least, religion is 3 different aspects. 1- accumulation of values,  2- copy of revelations

and 3- different rituals.

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, holy cow cm said:

Do you really think Muslims would go for that. Even though technically it is covered up, it is still viewable. Get it!

 

I think you meant to post that to the same person who I had replied to, rather than me.

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Nothing to do with religion. All state schools and many private schools don't allow colour codes or dress codes that show a seperation of one group to another. This includes wearing gang insignia, religious insignia, political insignia, gang, religious and political colours. Hair styles that are related to gangs, religions and politics. Religion has been removed from all state schools for more than 30 years. The children study at home with family their particular beliefs without encroaching on others. My son went to a Saturday state school class. There was 1 muslim in a group of 30. Pork was taken off the menu. The children were forced to eat chicken. We don't eat chicken because of the hormones in it. 

My sons right was violated. Apparently, he's racist if he protests that. 

 

Hormones have been banned from poultry in Thailand since 1986.

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, holy cow cm said:

Do you really think Muslims would go for that. Even though technically it is covered up, it is still viewable. Get it!

Then why did you call for head scarfs that were made of see through material?

[Krataiboy]

5 hours ago, JAG said:

Tolerance, removes the problem.

I teach in a RC school. We have a number of Muslim children. The school is in the part of town where most of the Muslims seem to live. The girls wear rather longer skirts, a few wear headscarfs, some of the senior boys don't shave. They have the same provision for RE as the Catholic children. Not a problem -after all they are all God's children.

 

Tolerance, removes the problem.

 

Agreed. Let's hope this message will get through to the Muslim children you teach and eventually help bring a little more tolerance into their religion.

[Kieran00001]

13 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

 

Tolerance, removes the problem.

 

Agreed. Let's hope this message will get through to the Muslim children you teach and eventually help bring a little more tolerance into their religion.

 

Get a grip, there are intolerant aspects to all religions, and the parents who send their children to mixed schools are not the intolerant people who need reaching, but they may become that if they are treated with intolerance.

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

Japan don't let Muslims into the country to live there - less than 200k existing people. So no school issues there. 

 

False, in fact you don't even have to declare your religion when applying for residency nor does the government keep a record of numbers of any specific religion.  Stop getting your 'facts' from Facebook memes. 

[Rimmer]

A troll post has been removed

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Hormones have been banned from poultry in Thailand since 1986.

Just because there's a ban doesn't mean it's followed. 

[Vacuum]

6 hours ago, holy cow cm said:

Let the girls wear head gear as long as it is see through material. Boys need to be clean shaven. No exceptions

Yes, well they are Thai so it would not be a big effort.

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Hormones have been banned from poultry in Thailand since 1986.

Anyway, the post wasn't about hormones at all. 

You either missed the point or don't have anything relevant to say so avoid the point . 

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Just because there's a ban doesn't mean it's followed. 

 

It is by the biggies, such as CP, their food is under such scrutiny from independent labs such as the universities that there is no way they could get away with it, far too many people want dirt on them for them to take what would be such an obvious risk.

[futsukayoi]

5 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Every school should have to sit down with someone, (who?) and argue their uniform policy?  Why?  Why not just keep it as it is considering it was working for everyone?

 

The Thai constitution says, "Section 31. A person shall enjoy full liberty to profess a religion, and shall enjoy the liberty to exercise or practice a form of worship in accordance with his or her religious principles, provided that it shall not be adverse to the duties of all Thai people, neither shall it endanger the safety of the State, nor shall it be contrary to public order or good morals."

 

Would wearing a hijab not be the exercising of a religious principle?  Does it adverse the duty of Thai people?  Does it endanger the the safety of the state?  Is it contrary to public order?  Is it contrary to good morals?

 

Wearing a hijab has nothing to do with exercising a religious principle.  It is a misogynist medieval practice and is absolutely not a tenet of Islam.  It is purely a symbol of male power and the inferiority of the gender forced to wear it.  It is exactly the same as allowing men to only allow their wived or daughters out with a slave collar or chastity belt.   The huge problem is that if wearing the hijab is permitted then it actually becomes enforced against the wished of many of the women.  If a school allows it how many children of Muslim parents would be allowed to choose not to with no pressure ? Probably none.  In KL 30 years ago almost no Muslim women wore the hijab in the office of the company I worked for.  20 years later every one did but not through free choice.  If they did not they would be sworn at, spat at and face physical or sexual assault.

 

Ban the hijab and you end the intolerance of forcing women to wear it and maybe start to address the deeper intolerance at the heart of many strains of Islam.

 

 

[greenchair]

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

So just one meal option and they changed it to cater to someone’s beliefs.

 

Racist act? Don’t think so. While I sympathise with your desire to have a meal your son could eat, the change made does not seem to have been done on the basis of racism.

 

I see Thais eat a lot of chicken, those who made the change were probably trying to do their best for all. 

 

As a a vegetarian I wouldn’t have been able to eat any of the options you mention (the cheese probably has calf rennet).

 

I would understand, however why the school made the choice it did. 

 

Did you ask for a change that all could eat?

Well no, those who made the change were doing their best for 1.

You've missed the point also.

This was a small class, I'm sure there are vegetarians, kids that don't like spaghetti, kids that don't eat bread, lactose intolerants , kids that don't eat bacon, kids that don't eat chicken, some that want chilli food and some that only eat sweet food. If 1 child had said ,I am vegetarian. 

Do you think the entire menu would have been changed? 

Well no. 

Why in state schools do they have to provide pork free choices for Muslims, but in muslim schools they don't have to provide pork choices for non muslims?

That's not right. 

 

[Kieran00001]

Just now, futsukayoi said:

 

Wearing a hijab has nothing to do with exercising a religious principle.  It is a misogynist medieval practice and is absolutely not a tenet of Islam.  It is purely a symbol of male power and the inferiority of the gender forced to wear it.  It is exactly the same as allowing men to only allow their wived or daughters out with a slave collar or chastity belt.   The huge problem is that if wearing the hijab is permitted then it actually becomes enforced against the wished of many of the women.  If a school allows it how many children of Muslim parents would be allowed to choose not to with no pressure ? Probably none.  In KL 30 years ago almost no Muslim women wore the hijab in the office of the company I worked for.  20 years later every one did but not through free choice.  If they did not they would be sworn at, spat at and face physical or sexual assault.

 

Ban the hijab and you end the intolerance of forcing women to wear it and maybe start to address the deeper intolerance at the heart of many strains of Islam.

 

 

 

Utter nonsense, in the Middle East all people covered their hair, not only women, it was done to keep sand out of their hair, nothing to do with misogyny and there was no difference except in style between what men and women wore, it has nothing at all in common with chastity belts, in fact it has more in common with a t-shirt.  What happened was the hijab was mentioned in the Quran in a verse about modesty, women were instructed to use their head scarf to cover their breasts, and this grew into the scarf being enshrined into the religion, so it really is a religious principle.  And it really isn't all that you fear, Thailand has provided a school uniform head scarf for a long time, it is not a new idea so we know what happens, and many families do not make their daughters wear them, so you are just plain wrong, you're taken by your own paranoia.

 

Malaysia is a very different country to Thailand, they have an Islamic police force, Thailand has millions of Muslims that you would not even notice were Muslims because although having the choice to, chose not to wear hijabs, but ban the hijab and you will start to notice them, believe me, there will now be more bombs, and all over a false notion of freedom, you cannot tell other people how to exercise freedom, they have to choose that themselves.

[KKr]

 

7 hours ago, kannot said:

more "belief" nonsense, show me your proof  of  God thanks and "which God" you see how daft it is.

to look down on a belief is as daft as believing one knows it all.

 

[Bluespunk]

11 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well no, those who made the change were doing their best for 1.

You've missed the point also.

This was a small class, I'm sure there are vegetarians, kids that don't like spaghetti, kids that don't eat bread, lactose intolerants , kids that don't eat bacon, kids that don't eat chicken, some that want chilli food and some that only eat sweet food. If 1 child had said ,I am vegetarian. 

Do you think the entire menu would have been changed? 

Well no. 

Why in state schools do they have to provide pork free choices for Muslims, but in muslim schools they don't have to provide pork choices for non muslims?

That's not right. 

 

If there was only one option on the menu then the change they made was perfectly rational. 

[NoshowJones]

Thailand is a Buddist country, so if they set the dress code, then the Muslims either obey it or they don't go to

that school, simple. If they want to live here, then they go by the countries rules, just as us westerners have to do.

[NoshowJones]

7 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Why do you want to be able to see the school girls hair?  What?

Hair does not matter, as long as they can be recognised.

[Kieran00001]

4 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

Thailand is a Buddist country, so if they set the dress code, then the Muslims either obey it or they don't go to

that school, simple. If they want to live here, then they go by the countries rules, just as us westerners have to do.

 

Thailand is a secular country, and it hardly fair to refer to those from an old country that Thailand conquered and made a part of their country that they "want to live here", this is where they are from.

[DrTuner]

Ah, dress codes. So when can we expect the Thai jugend military marches in BKK? Next children's day?

[greenchair]

21 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Utter nonsense, in the Middle East all people covered their hair, not only women, it was done to keep sand out of their hair, nothing to do with misogyny and there was no difference except in style between what men and women wore, it has nothing at all in common with chastity belts, in fact it has more in common with a t-shirt.  What happened was the hijab was mentioned in the Quran in a verse about modesty, women were instructed to use their head scarf to cover their breasts, and this grew into the scarf being enshrined into the religion, so it really is a religious principle.  And it really isn't all that you fear, Thailand has provided a school uniform head scarf for a long time, it is not a new idea so we know what happens, and many families do not make their daughters wear them, so you are just plain wrong, you're taken by your own paranoia.

 

Malaysia is a very different country to Thailand, they have an Islamic police force, Thailand has millions of Muslims that you would not even notice were Muslims because although having the choice to, chose not to wear hijabs, but ban the hijab and you will start to notice them, believe me, there will now be more bombs, and all over a false notion of freedom, you cannot tell other people how to exercise freedom, they have to choose that themselves.

You see almost all of your posts have references to, if the Muslims dont get what they want there will bombs, there will be violence, there will be consequences .

This threat has often worked in the past. But people have realised that every demand that is met through threats and bombs, is followed by another demand with threats. There are always going to be people muslim and non muslim that endeavour to justify the killing of another human being for something so small as wanting to wear a hat or feeling bad. 

It has worked for a long time. But the world is waking up .

There are rules. Those rules must apply to everyone. 

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, possum1931 said:

Hair does not matter, as long as they can be recognised.

 

If hair does not matter then why are we having this discussion about banning the head scarf?  The veil has never been a part of the school uniform, perhaps in part because only married women where them but also no doubt because the Muslims in Thailand do not wear them, so go and change the subject in another thread, we were busy discussing the law change not something happening in Saudi.

[greenchair]

20 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

If there was only one option on the menu then the change they made was perfectly rational. 

Well they should make that rational change for every child then. But they don't. Therefore it's racist. Because they made a menu choice based solely on the religion of one student. 

Every one else has to follow the majority of the group. 

 

[Kieran00001]

Just now, greenchair said:

You see almost all of your posts have references to, if the Muslims dont get what they want there will bombs, there will be violence, there will be consequences .

This threat has often worked in the past. But people have realised that every demand that is met through threats and bombs, is followed by another demand with threats. There are always going to be people muslim and non muslim that endeavour to justify the killing of another human being for something so small as wanting to wear a hat or feeling bad. 

It has worked for a long time. But the world is waking up .

There are rules. Those rules must apply to everyone. 

 

Isn't it just the one post that has reference to that?

 

And what demand are you referencing?  Muslims in Thailand have not made a demand, the government have changed the law.

 

As for rules allying to everyone, how about the rule in Thailand that states that religious freedoms must be allowed?  Or does that one not apply to everyone?

[NoshowJones]

5 hours ago, wildewillie89 said:

The teachers had an unnecessary whinge whilst at the same time they are making Buddhist students sit in uncomfortable positions for unnecessary long amounts of times.

So they went with the peaceful and reasonable action first, going through legitimate processes.

The teachers should remember that when the people in the South see no other option than to turn to violence when their way of life is not allowed.

I am of no religion and think all religions are ridiculous, but people do have that right under the current human right framework. 

Let people follow their religion as long as it does not interfere with anyone else, and no one should expect any special privileges just because of their religion.

[greenchair]

8 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

Hair does not matter, as long as they can be recognised.

I went to the bank the other day. I'm not allowed to wear a hat with sunglasses or any type of disguise when entering a bank. And yet there 2 muslim women  (or maybe men) with face veils right up to the eye and sunglasses on. 

 

[Kinnock]

I think the idea of using a Bronze Age book to tell people in the 21st Century how to dress and what to eat is very odd - and this applies to any religion.  It would be like people in two thousand years using the Harry Potter Books to dictate how you dress, what you eat and who to hate. 

 

And personally I think Neville Longbottom is the true hero of the Harry potter Books, and anyone who thinks Harry is the real hero needs to be stoned.  And while we're at it, that Hermione Granger needs to be written out of the books.

[Bluespunk]

9 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well they should make that rational change for every child then. But they don't. Therefore it's racist. Because they made a menu choice based solely on the religion of one student. 

Every one else has to follow the majority of the group. 

 

It’s not racist.

 

From what you’ve said it was a rational move. 

 

Did you complain about the chicken?

 

Did you put forward your objections?