Ministry decision on Muslim students’ dress code seen as divisive

[phetpeter]

I am sure that when I was younger the strict dress code as laid down in the religious doctoring's relates only to women after they are married to hide them from other men's eyes. Prior to that their looks were to be on show so the men could seek a woman to marry. Somewhere along the way a jealous spurned elder has taken to rewriting the rules or is it by hearsay? That all women should cover up? Does it say that in the book? So forced by men or is it some form of religious fashion statement?

[greenchair]

7 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

A lack of sympathy to peoples cultural and religious norms will see them send their children to religious schools, you are the one promoting segregation.

 

And there is one rule for everyone regarding uniforms, the scarf is optional, as is the ribbon and bow.  Do you think they should also ban the ribbon and bow option from the girls school uniform as it is no different to gang insignia as it is promoting segregation between the girls wearing ribbons with bows and those not wearing ribbons with bows in their hair?

The ribbon is compulsory in government schools. The option of a headscarf is up to the school. Some schools allow it. Some don't. Some schools allow just short hair, some want the shave. 

They should research the rule of the school before entering. Most schools have a standard policy that everyone has to follow. 

[greenchair]

20 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

 No it’s not racist. 

 

It was a perfectly reasonable decision. 

 

Now, again, did you voice your concerns and give the school an opportunity to act upon them?

 

Hormones introduced during the farming of chickens, wasn’t it? 

 

Do they still do that?

No I didn't, but this week they were allowed cheese sandwiches. So, I guess no more ham in school because of 1 muslim. 

Too bad, nobody would change for the vegetarians. 

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, greenchair said:

No I didn't, but this week they were allowed cheese sandwiches. So, I guess no more ham in school because of 1 muslim. 

Too bad, nobody would change for the vegetarians. 

Good to see a school caring about the needs of all their students. 

 

Clearly making decisions for the good of all. 

[wildewillie89]

Didn't global health experts (WHO report) say that consuming processed meats like ham, bacon and sausages are as a bigger cancer threat as cigarettes. 

But some people are worried about the hormones in chickens (that may or may not be there - depending on where schools get their chickens from). If this is the case, then the argument isn't really about health is it? Seems more just someone having a major whinge about other's religions. Talk about segregation. 

Go talk to the school if you want to give your kids cancer just so you can complain about Muslims... not TV. 

[vogie]

On 6/16/2018 at 8:18 AM, Kieran00001 said:

Here is a picture of women in pre-Islamic Arabia, note the attire is exactly the same as after Islamification, that's because it had nothing to do with religion, it was just what they wore.

 

And here is a picture of Adam and Eve. 

 

[Kieran00001]

22 minutes ago, vogie said:

And here is a picture of Adam and Eve. 

 

 

What did you think you were achieving by posting that?

[vogie]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

What did you think you were achieving by posting that?

About the same as you were achieving posting yours. It is meaninless.

[Kieran00001]

31 minutes ago, vogie said:

About the same as you were achieving posting yours. It is meaninless.

 

Oh, I see, because you failed to understand the meaning of my post you posted something meaningless and claimed that my post also was, how childlike.  My post was in response to a claim that items of dress that are popular with Muslims originated with the religion, my post provides evidence that it is the other way around, that the religion picked up local traditional dress.

[vogie]

16 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Oh, I see, because you failed to understand the meaning of my post you posted something meaningless and claimed that my post also was, how childlike.  My post was in response to a claim that items of dress that are popular with Muslims originated with the religion, my post provides evidence that it is the other way around, that the religion picked up local traditional dress.

Why do you always start your posts with 'you fail to understand' I understand your posts alright. 

I know what your post was in response to, your post is not evidence, do you know who sketched that drawing, do you know if the artist has ever indeed been to a Muslim country, do you know when it was sketched. I could have drawn that picture from my imagination of what I think a Muslim country looks like. So unless you can prove the above questions, I'm afraid you need to withdraw your "evidence"

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Why do you always start your posts with 'you fail to understand' I understand your posts alright. 

I know what your post was in response to, your post is not evidence, do you know who sketched that drawing, do you know if the artist has ever indeed been to a Muslim country, do you know when it was sketched. I could have drawn that picture from my imagination of what I think a Muslim country looks like. So unless you can prove the above questions, I'm afraid you need to withdraw your "evidence"

 

Quite the little wannabe controller, aren't you, I suggest you get a train set.

 

Quote

I could have drawn that picture from my imagination of what I think a Muslim country looks like.

We were talking about Arab dress before Islam.

Quote

I understand your posts alright. 

I beg to differ.

 

Anyway, all historians concur, the dress that is now associated with Muslims was already worn in the 5th Century in the Middle East, check out some art from the period if you don't believe but I am not going to spoon feed you and won't be withdrawing anything to suit your silly little demands.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Quite the little wannabe controller, aren't you, I suggest you get a train set.

 

We were talking about Arab dress before Islam.

I beg to differ.

 

Anyway, all historians concur, the dress that is now associated with Muslims was already worn in the 5th Century in the Middle East, check out some art from the period if you don't believe but I am not going to spoon feed you and won't be withdrawing anything to suit your silly little demands.

So prove your silly little picture is authentic, you are wrong and like always you refuse to admit it.

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

So prove your silly little picture is authentic, you are wrong and like always you refuse to admit it.

 

I know it is all a bit much for you but if you just tried to think about it before you launched your attack you could have saved yourself this embarrassment.  Consider the very verse that Muslims feel instructs women to cover their hair, it mentions a head scarf, which you seem to think might have not existed at the time that was written, how preposterous. 

 

[vogie]

11 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I know it is all a bit much for you but if you just tried to think about it before you launched your attack you could have saved yourself this embarrassment.  Consider the very verse that Muslims feel instructs women to cover their hair, it mentions a head scarf, which you seem to think might have not existed at the time that was written, how preposterous. 

 

You are not listening, you are missing the point, my post tried to explain to you that your picture is meaninless, now stop deflecting, why do you always change the subject when you are wrong. 

[Kieran00001]

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

You are not listening, you are missing the point, my post tried to explain to you that your picture is meaninless, now stop deflecting, why do you always change the subject when you are wrong. 

 

The picture is not meaningless, it is an accepted depiction of the dress in Arabia pre-Islam.  You took the stance that the picture had to have been drawn at the time by someone who was in Arabia for it to be presented as some sort of evidence.  It was never the intention of mine to use it as evidence, that was just how your simplistic mindset led you to assume.  It is a modern picture based on what historians agree was traditional clothing at the time, if you disagree with them then present your evidence, otherwise stop embarrassing yourself.

[vogie]

12 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The picture is not meaningless, it is an accepted depiction of the dress in Arabia pre-Islam.  You took the stance that the picture had to have been drawn at the time by someone who was in Arabia for it to be presented as some sort of evidence.  It was never the intention of mine to use it as evidence, that was just how your simplistic mindset led you to assume.  It is a modern picture based on what historians agree was traditional clothing at the time, if you disagree with them then present your evidence, otherwise stop embarrassing yourself.

Tis you that has been caught out, but as per usual, when you are never wrong it is a bitter pill to swallow.

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

Tis you that has been caught out, but as per usual, when you are never wrong it is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

Caught out at what?  

[Kieran00001]

7 minutes ago, vogie said:

Tis you that has been caught out, but as per usual, when you are never wrong it is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

I like the way you looked at 19th century etching and thought it might be a 5th century painting, that to me says it all about you, you are willing to jump in and make accusations and demands in subjects you don't know a single thing about.

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I like the way you looked at 19th century etching and thought it might be a 5th century painting, that to me says it all about you, you are willing to jump in and make accusations and demands in subjects you don't know a single thing about.

Why did you portray something that is meaninless, you really need to stop posting nonsense.

[Kieran00001]

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

Why did you portray something that is meaninless, you really need to stop posting nonsense.

 

No, you are mistaking your inability to see meaning in a visual depiction of the consensus of historians with their being no meaning.  All it all means is that you are not very bright.  You have had it all explained to you in very simple terms yet you still don't get it, I can't help you.

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, you are mistaking your inability to see meaning in a visual depiction of the consensus of historians with their being no meaning.  All it all means is that you are not very bright.  You have had it all explained to you in very simple terms yet you still don't get it, I can't help you.

Read your own posts before you start insulting other posters, something you often do when you are wrong.

[Kieran00001]

Just now, vogie said:

Read your own posts before you start insulting other posters, something you often do when you are wrong.

 

Take a look at yourself, it was you who jumped in with the insults, it was you who made the meaningless post, but now that it has been pointed out to you that the pòst had meaning that was just beyond your simple level of understanding you try to pretend that it was me being insulting and me posting the meaningless stuff, get a grip, it's all here for all to see.

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Take a look at yourself, it was you who jumped in with the insults, it was you who made the meaningless post, but now that it has been pointed out to you that the pòst had meaning that was just beyond your simple level of understanding you try to pretend that it was me being insulting and me posting the meaningless stuff, get a grip, it's all here for all to see.

Pointing out that your picture was meaninless is not an insult. My last word to you as I suspect you suffer from 'I have to have the last word syndrome'