News Links : comments [purplecthulhu]

I'm reading the Indie thing at the moment, and it just gets worse. Hopefully they're back up now.

I don't think it should be for a court to judge whether that symbol is "required" by the religion in question or not

So you'd allow anything that can be claimed as a religious symbol? While I might agree that an inscribed ring has religious significance for the wearer, it's not, as far as I'm aware, something that is a broadly recognized aspect of the religion in question - unlike crosses (cf. the BA case).

Are we to allow anything that someone claims to be a religious symbol into a school? I really don't think so. It's asking for a lot of trouble from either internal squabbles within a religion, inter-religious problems, and people just claiming something is of religious significance to cause trouble. Outside school, fine, but inside the school's rules must take precedence. [Of course parents and pupils are free to argue for those rules to be changed.]

[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]

Assuming this quote from the article is accurate, it sounds as though she may have a point: Miss Playfoot said she should be allowed to wear the ring because Sikh and Muslim pupils could wear bangles and headscarves in class.

As to whether she had a case in law, that's another matter entirely.

[link] [parent] [reply]

My understanding, and I'm not a christian so I may be wrong, is that rings (or even, I think, crosses) are not required to be worn as part of the religion. Headscarves for women are required (though not the full burka despite wahabiist protestations) and I think the same is true for Seikh bangles (though I'm sure they have another name).

I thus don't think she has either a point or a case in law.

[link] [parent] [reply]

You are right regarding the bangle that Sikh's wear - it's one of the 5 K's, and no, I can't remember what they all are called, but it includes the bangle and a knife (although this can just be a symbolic knife, or so I'm told, as opposed to an actual knife). But they are expected to have all 5 on their person. I'm reserving judgement for the moment on the chastity ring - I can see why she would argue the point, but I could just as easily have done that with earrings. It's not necessary for Muslim women to wear earrings, but it is considered a good thing, faith-wise, to have pierced ears. However, I asked the school if I could wear them, they said that school policy was no, and I just didn't wear them (obviously once I started to cover my head the school relented and said it was my choice as to whether or not I did, as they would be covered and therefore didn't pose a H&S risk.)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Apparently only Khalsa Sikhs, who have been baptised or initiated through the Amrit ceremony are required to carry/wear the five K's and not all Sikhs are required or choose to be initiated in such a way. So it is an internal question within the Sikh religion as to whether or not the five K's are Sikh requirements. Regardless, they are certainly Khalsa Sikh requirements for those who have chosen to undergo that Amrit initiation, so maybe it doesn't matter that it's not a requirement for all Sikhs.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Not all Muslims think the headscarf is required, either. I think the "requirement" thing is a bit of a red herring, and headteachers and judges would do better to stay away from it. It's not a distinction they're qualified to draw, and as far as I can see, it isn't really a necessary one either.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Actually head covering is a requirement, but there is always meant to be an element of choice within Islam as to whether or not you follow a requirement after reading the scriptures. I can't remember what the exact wording is, but the hadiths' specifically state that the prophet asked women (and men) to dress modestly, and set out exactly how that should be. For women you are asked to cover your beauty, and earlier on it specifies that your hair is part of your beauty and should be covered. But this hadith also covers the tendency Arab women used to have, during a battle, to bare their breasts during fighting, so whilst the original requirement was to cover hair and chest area (which can be done with loose clothing and a shawl, so long as that shawl isn't then used to make you look *more* alluring), it doesn't cover the full hijab, with the face covering and everything. I do cover my head and dress modestly (mainly because my parents expected me to study Islam before I wholeheartedly embraced it), because the hadith are so specific about it. But I don't wear the niqab because I don't think it is a requirement for Muslim women, and I don't believe it ever was. During the time of the Prophet Muslim women would preach to flocks of new converts, which I think would have been a very difficult task if people couldn't see their faces, and nothing in Islam encourages women to cut themselves off from the world. But then I think it should be the choice (so long as it is their choice) for other women to wear it if they feel they need to. I just don't like being preached at to wear it, like I'm a bad person if I choose not to. Ok, I do realise I've gone slightly off topic, and I hope I've made sense here.

[link] [parent] [reply]

It does make sense to me, but I also know Muslim women who don't think headcovering is a requirement. Not an issue for me to take a view on one way or the other, as a non-Muslim :-)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Actually, I'd allow anything that doesn't constitute hate speech. I only commented on whether or not the ring is religious because it seems to be one of the things opponents are getting hung up on.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18 1	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

purplecthulhu

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

December