Religion and school uniforms, round 94
A Sikh girl has been temporarily excluded for not removing an iron bracelet (a kara), one of the five Sikh Ks:
“Sarika Singh, 14, refused to take off her iron bangle worn by devout Sikhs as a reminder not to sin. The Aberdare Girls’ school in south Wales excluded her for failing to accept its uniform guidelines and the rules of its governing body.
The school is known for its strict policy on uniform and does not allow students to wear any religious symbols such as the Muslim headscarf or Christian cross.”
Schools need uniform policies, but I do think there should be some leeway about religious symbols (speaking as someone who is not religious). That this, and discussions about the hijab and niqab, enrages people seems a bit silly. If you want to get angry about something, get angry about ‘honour’ killings, not what somebody chooses to wear. It does not really matter at the end of the day.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: British Identity,Religion
It does matter to the girl, innit? And silly intolerent people who get enraged by full-faced niqabs, who do not understand multiculturism and the nuances of some cultures.
Schools have the right to enforce their own uniform code. And there is a lot of credit in discouraging public displays of religion in a secular country.
There is a difference between wearing a bed sheet over your face and wearing a small bracelet or cross.
One is obstructive, the others are not.
saw her on the bbc site, she looked a bit miserable over the whole thing
Agreed – I can see an objection to the Sikh sword (kirpan), niqab and the Silver Ring Thing but turbans, headscarves, small crosses and bracelets?
As long as it’s not affecting her education or as long as it can’t harm anyone else, who cares if she wants to wear it? They are only affecting her SATS results by making her miss school, and with them their own reputation as a school!
We should defend the right of pupils not to practice religion but at the same time defend the right of pupils who want to practice their religion, and if that means wearing any religious garb, then so be it.
The decision by the governors of the school is wrong, and they should allow all pupils to wear religious symbols. Going the French way, ie. imposing a secular fundamentalism by banning all religious symbols smacks of Stalin’s Russia where religious people were persecuted by atheists simply because of their religious belief.
smacks of Stalin’s Russia where religious people were persecuted by atheists simply because of their religious belief.
Atheism had precious little to do with Stalin’s Russia – Communism was an alternative belief system.
“The school is known for its strict policy on uniform and does not allow students to wear any religious symbols such as the Muslim headscarf or Christian cross.â€
At least they’re consistent.
As long as it’s not affecting her education or as long as it can’t harm anyone else, who cares if she wants to wear it?
The school, obviously. While this one’s uniform policy is clearly a bit anal, the issue is whether schools should be allowed to set a dress code or should the right of the individual to wear whatever they want take precedence. I lean towards the former view because I don’t think any such right to the former actually exists.
We should defend the right of pupils not to practice religion but at the same time defend the right of pupils who want to practice their religion, and if that means wearing any religious garb, then so be it.
Really? Even if the religious garb in question is one of these moveable tent things? And if so, would you defend my right to take my classes wearing a medieval suit of armour? God told me to wear it, y’see.
Going the French way, ie. imposing a secular fundamentalism by banning all religious symbols smacks of Stalin’s Russia where religious people were persecuted by atheists simply because of their religious belief.
Yes, very like Stalin’s Russia – minus the whole purges, Terror, collectivisation, show trials, gulags, 20 million dead – that sort of thing. I don’t really agree with the French policy either but comparing it to Stalinism is pretty offensive, if you think about it. Which you haven’t, obviously.
to the former actually exists.
Sorry – the latter.
The debate begins and ends there really.
“Going the French way, ie. imposing a secular fundamentalism by banning all religious symbols smacks of Stalin’s Russia where religious people were persecuted by atheists simply because of their religious belief.”
There you go: confusing secularism with atheism.
“We should defend the right of pupils not to practice religion but at the same time defend the right of pupils who want to practice their religion”
There is a place for “practising religion”: school should not be one of these places, not a secular school for that matter. But I am curious about this: is wearing “religion” compulsory for religious Sikhs and Muslims?
Ravi,
It’s compulsory for “baptised” (Amritdhari) Sikhs; it’s “strongly recommended” for the rest.
If the school is indeed well known for its stance on religious symbols, how sensible does it seem to choose that school (I’m assuming, perhaps erroneously, that there was a choice), then go to that school wearing a religious symbol and then complain when the policy is upheld? It all smacks a little of trying to make a point, although it is not altogether clear what that point is.
‘Even if the religious garb in question is one of these moveable tent things? And if so, would you defend my right to take my classes wearing a medieval suit of armour? God told me to wear it, y’see.’
Shuggy, that’s plain silly
“Shuggy, that’s plain silly”
Is it?
Didn’t a large percentage of the population claim to be Jedi in the last census?
Should they be allowed to come dressed in Darth Vadar’s helmet?
If the veil, why not the helmet?
It’s a serious question…why should only the “well-known” religions be privileged?
If the veil, why not the helmet?
I don’t object. Darth Vador made good in the end.
ravi’s point that it matters to the girl is a good one.
i think i cant see why it would make a difference to anyone why it should matter if one is wearing a bracelet or not, but then, i can’t see the point of a UNIFORM either – because i think that if you try and ‘uniformify’ people you end up with these kinds of problems.
However, given that for the most part, people dont seem to have an issue with uniforms, i find it interesting how the ‘exception’ seems to be religious aspects.
if we dont like uniforms so that we can have diversity of individual expression – then let’s go for it. if we want to hang onto uniforms and only make exceptions for religious expression, then we are going to have this ‘debate’ for a long time.
after all, im not against ‘religious’ expression in the form of whatever, but similarly, i think then, if we’re going to allow individuals expression, they jolly well ought to be able to express non-religious individualities too. so perhaps what we need is to scrap uniforms, or the idea that we can achieve uniformity for the most part, but must make an exception for religious preferences.
or again, maybe we just all invent our own gods/goddesses/ to use whenever we want out of rules. religion is such a good excuse, im not sure why we ALL aren’t using it more to our advantage. I’d better invent a religion of the lazy ( oops has that been done already? )
yeah good points from chris c – why only well-established religions, if we are going to allow freedom of religious expression, then it simply cannot say ‘well this is what we think is a well-established religion’ because THAT would be discriminating in favour of establishment, and discriminating against minorities. what should the jedi do to gain recognition? go on a march? we are a religion please recognise us as such. you cant go around saying what is an acceptable religious belief and what isn’t – that would set one up as a religious dictator/arbitrator, and exactly what the anti-heretics did.
No because he’s a Sith Lord not a Jedi.
i think my wider point is get rid of uniforms. if you dont get rid of uniforms, and expect everyone to stick to the rules, but make exceptions for some on the basis of religion, that would foster resentment, unless they were all also allowed to have one ‘token’ bit of expression as well. After all, why should they be denied access to that expression just because they dont have some religious caveat to follow?
Sonia,
It’s a bit of a conundrum is it not? Half the folk that seem to have any sort of handle at all on secularism seem to see atheism as ‘a form of religion’. They are obviously wrong, but leaving that to one side for a moment. If it were so, then it is in fact the world’s most individualistic religion, which you can join by declaration and define to suit yourself. So whatever you see it as, that’s what it is.
I’d have thought decent and presentable was quite enough to be going on with as a school policy. Although history being taught by a man in a tin suit has a certain appeal. It is history you teach, isn’t it, Shuggy?
I do understand the reasons behind uniform policies, however, if there is going to be leeway for religious symbols, equally, so as to not be unfair, there should then be leeway for non-religious symbols. (why do people assume only religious people are into symbols? )
personally i think there should always be leeway when it comes to rules. and then you find you are more leeway than rules, then scrap the rules. be flexible.
hail the ‘atheist’ uniform of ‘erm..wear what you like!’
This school uniform debate is all so new to me – I had better get up to speed on it – got a Governors meeting next week. Our local primary school, out in the sticks, has a uniform policy – the colour of the sweatshirt/sweater/cardigan must be available in the local Asda/Tesco etc (child labour preferrably) , black trousers, skirt and no heels. Jewelery is banned on HSE grounds as iare the heels. Quite simple stuff and no problems – but then then the children are nominally Christian of all denominations or from secret sects that are not yet known. The Head is a devout RC but very open to all ceromonies and very occassionally has to defend the school against some parent who wants to ban the Halloween disco. For some reason the other governors look to me, as ‘the only Gay in the Village’ so to speak, to explain what all the ‘foreign’ festivals are about and reassure them that no devil worship is involved
– so I just provide the reasurance that all is well as long as we don’t kill any goats. I hope that is OK with everyone.
Sonia – take your point about ‘uniforms’ breeding uniformity and perhaps dulling individuality. The flip side to the coin is that without a simple uniform, children show off their latest fashions and those without the finances or fashion sense get left out. Never underestimate how cruel children can be to each other.
I also share now your thoughts about “why should religions feel exempt from a uniform code, when other associations are not?” Why indeed.
Justforfun
There’s a certain irony in religious people complaining about a uniform policy.
Simple solution: ban all religion from schools
Give our kids a fighting chance to grow up as free-thinkers
@ Sonia
Ooops – just re-read my post- last paragraph – looks as if I’m putting words in your mouth, sorry – I was just summarising what I thought your point was.
Justforun
“Half the folk that seem to have any sort of handle at all on secularism seem to see atheism as ‘a form of religion’
Seems just about right… atheism is a form of religion: you have faith that God does not exist, otherwise you would be agnostic.
28 – bert – there certainly is!
they obviously are happy with their particular ancestral policy, just dont want anyone else’s!
jff – well i did say i saw the ‘reasoning’ behind uniforms – and actually i think its easier for some – but leeway is always needed, with any rules. otherwise the rules become the master. but my wider point is again – if people are content to have an exception to rule because of a religious belief, then that’s interesting.
Isn’t this a form of favouring atheism over secularism?
Sonia – you post too quickly ! – I’m still at the spell check stage ! and then you post again and make me look foolish!!
Agreed – rules need to be flexible – howelse can those in power be bribed! unless the rules are seen to be flexible – this summer ‘crocs’ were allowed and their chinese fakes, as long as they were in the school colour – a nice earner for the school.
Justforfun
Ravi,
The atheist/agnostic distinction isn’t that clear cut. In the wider sense of the word most atheists are simply unconvinced by the various god hypotheses:they decline to believe. Most would probably agree that while they think god to be an extremely unlikely explanation for the universe they can’t rule it out entirely.
It isn’t suprising that defining atheism is actually quite tricky – theists seem to spend so much time adjusting the definition of god that it’s hard to be sure what it is one doesn’t believe in.
Could you provide a definition of religion which incorporates someone has has no supernatural beliefs, belongs to no communion, has no rituals and no sacred text?
“Isn’t this a form of favouring atheism over secularism?”
Keep religious beliefs at home, the same way you leave cultural preferances at home. No one expects to have a seperate TV showing Zee while the rest of the kids at infant school are watching Balamorey. Not yet anyway…
Kismet,
I wish that were possible, but the best you could do would be keep it to a minimum. Otherwise there would be an acceleration of parents sending their kids to religious schools per se or even home-schooling them.
On the uniform thing, I agree that is may seem to smack of anti-individualism but in fact the advantages are real. Apart from anything else, for about 30 hours a week it means that a young person’s primary identity is as a member of the school community without regard to religion or ethnicity. At least on the outside.
If even that is too much for the religious they should either go somewhere else or lobby and persuade. Simply deciding that the rules do not apply to you, triggering an incident, then getting lawyered up and playing the pious victim for the cameras is just going to disrupt the school.
Ok, where and how do you draw the line on religious clothing?
There is obviously a difference between this bracelet and those ridiculous chastity rings that pop up every now and then, but how do you allow one, whilst blocking the other? Or do you allow both?
Don mate, the whole idea of taking kids (read: impressionable} and dressing up in matching uniform like the hitler youth is damaging enough for their growth in individuality (although I grudgingly approve of it because it stops the rich/poor divide), but to then go and alienate them by saying they can’t have a crazy emo haircut but they can carry a sharp kirpan is just bloody confusing and, as kids are prone to saying, so unfair
Hello
This story confused me as it seems the girl has been at the school for some years.. so did she only recently start wearing the bracelet? or did the school only recently decide it was inappropriate?
Plus what about the other 4 Ks? Is she wearing them or is it just the bracelet that she feels she has to wear?
Anyone get a feeling of deja vu reading PP these days?
There is obviously a difference between this bracelet and those ridiculous chastity rings that pop up every now and then
Is there, though?
‘Keep religious beliefs at home’
so you would ban the annual school Xmas fayre, kids xmas disco and the nativity play as well? December is going to be pretty boring Ebeneezer
The girls started to wear the Kara 6 months ago see
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2007/11/07/teen-challenges-school-ban-on-sikh-bangle-91466-20071444/
as far as i can see, many people define atheism in many different ways. as far as i am concerned, it is an absence of belief in deities, which doesn’t necessarily equate to ‘faith that God doesn’t exist’ – to think you know something doesn’t exist implies you know something about that something. God? what’s that? Lots of a-theists simply aren’t interested in having a belief about God specifically because they are not interested in defining that concept. why should that make someone agnostic?
and religion is something completely separate anyway, there are non-theistic religions, so I dont see that equating religion with god is necessarily correct. Some people may make a religion out of their atheistic belief, but i dont see where people would get the idea that not having a view on deities automatically equates to religion. so it all depends on how people understand religion.
Where is Sid these days? I miss the guy.
Yes Morgoth, I think there is.
One is an established religious symbol, the other a tool of propaganda dressed as a religious symbol. There is an inherent danger in distinguishing the two however, hence my question.
“The girls started to wear the Kara 6 months ago see
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2007/11/07/teen-challenges-school-ban-on-sikh-bangle-91466-20071444/”
Thanks for the background.
Given this info it seems to me that she will lose her case because.
1) The school is consistent in this policy with other faith groups.
2) She has been at the school for a long period and the policy was the same when she began.
3) As it seems that she is not wearing the other 4Ks, she cannot claim it is a religious duty — rather she has chosen this symbol whilst eschewing other less decorative Ks.
One is an established religious symbol, the other a tool of propaganda dressed as a religious symbol. There is an inherent danger in distinguishing the two however, hence my question.
I disagree. If Chastity is an important part of a certain section of Christianity, then how is a symbol reminding the person to be chaste (which I’m told is the function of these rings) different from a bracelet reminding the person to be good (which I’m told is the function of those bracelet). How is it different from say, the newly-invented religion of knife-carrying that worships the great god of “SheffieldSteel” that insists on carrying knives as a symbol of devotion.
Both the chastity ring and this braclet are utterly idiotic, mind you. It is a symptom of the religious lunacy that’s infecting our society when people think “its my religion” is their magic get-out-clause for everything.
There’s nothing idiotic about a person deciding to wear an outward symbol which serves as a tangible reminder to them to refrain from negative thoughts and actions, although the kara does have other purposes too.
“There’s nothing idiotic about a person deciding to wear an outward symbol which serves as a tangible reminder to them to refrain from negative thoughts and actions, although the kara does have other purposes too.”
err..leaving aside the symbolic nature which I think is rather poetically compelling… I would have thought that someone who needs a tangible reminder to be good is ipso facto a bit of an idiot.. a bit like someone who writes right and left on his hands.
That’s a matter of opinion, Brachyuri. Wearing a kara (along with the other 5 Ks) is a form of assisting one’s mental self-discipline, along with reminding both the wearer and the rest of the world that the person concerned is supposed to embody certain ideals and humanitarian values. It’s literally a type of uniform.
But that is only compulsory for those who are baptised Sikhs Jai. Unless she is amritdhari, it’s not compulsory for her to wear a kara, although in practise most Sikhs do wear it, it’s not compulsory. Removing it during school wouldn’t compromise her religion in the same way that it compromise a fully commited baptised Sikh who keeps the five Ks.
Jai:
I take your point..I was being flippant.
But crucially can you claim that wearing a kara is a religious duty when you reject wearing the other 4?
I know, I said that in post #14.
Technically I think she does have the right to wear it, even though she isn’t actually under an obligation to do so.
Maybe she should have just worn it under her shirt’s sleeve, out of sight. That’s how I wear my kara when I choose to wear it at work (which I don’t all the time — especially if it keeps slipping out and clanging against the keyboard !) — just secured on one’s forearm.
It’s only a ‘duty’ if you are a baptised ‘amritdhari’ Sikh. If you’re not baptised, it’s not your ‘duty’ to wear it, although in practise it is common custom that Sikhs wear it as the minimum symbol of the religion. Her religion would not be compromised if she were to remove it at 9am and put it back on at 3pm. Her family have already said that she voluntarily removes it at PE, woodwork and other classes where it might be a safety issue.
Technically I think she does have the right to wear it, even though she isn’t actually under an obligation to do so.
So if someone comes into school tomorrow wearing a massive Dark Helmet and proclaims him/herself a devout follower of the Schawrtz, then this religion card trumps all does it?
Brachyury,
No, but you can claim it’s a religious right.
Morgoth, your own argument is the reason why I feel it is dangerous to seperate the two. Personally, I’m with Jai on the bracelet, whereas I feel the ring is abhorrent. Why? Well, the Kara is a well established (and physically ‘safe’) symbol, and and (imho), only a sign of personal commitment. I feel the chastity ring has been picked up instead as an evangelical external statement in an effort to convert others towards a belief.
But even my belief is right, ie. keep the bracelet, bin the ring, how do you codify that, and entrust others to uphold the spirit of it? You’d probably have to keep a list of ‘acceptable’ religious accessories – and that’s just going too far.
you can claim it’s a religious right.
Some followers of Gerald Gardiner would claim whipping in public is also a religious right. Do you want to allow that?
Shia Muslims do whip themselves in public at Mohurram Morgoth. It is allowed, and practiced in Britain.
In schools though, Jagdeep?
I’m fine with the chastity ring. It shouldn’t be too overt IMO. Even crosses etc. As someone else pointed out, if the school is against expression of religion – will it then avoid Christmas and Easter celebrations?
Yuletide and Eostre, you mean?
Not in schools Morgoth, but shia Muslims in the UK do whip themselves in public during parades at Mohurram. The full Shia thing, drawing blood, proper self-flaggelation. Comparing it with wearing a bracelet or a cross is not comparing like with like though, is it?
no. 10 ‘God told me to wear it, y’see.’
It was not god that gave Sikhs the 5Ks, it was their 10th guru or teacher, Gobind Singh, who extolled all to:
‘Recognise ye the whole human race as one’
hence the use of the circular Kara denoting the unity of mankind which is much emphasised in Sikhism. The other Ks have meanings too, a lot to do with the social and political situation faced by the Sikhs during the wars against Moghul and Afghan invaders into Northern India. To some, they may seem Medieval, but to most Sikhs, their symbolism and meaning are just as much relevant today as they were in the past.
They are the same thing (though varying in degrees). Both are external manifestations of an internal religiousity.
I really dont know what I think about this.
As regards Xmas and Easter: these have been effectively secularised. Im personally fine with that.
As regards the difference between chastity ring and Kara: I don’t see that time alone can legitimise an idea, good or bad.
More fundamentally if somone objects to school uniform..say as a commited anarchist. Why should their secular political beliefs not be given the same weight as religious beliefs.
You might say because kids are born into their beliefs and we shouldnt discriminate on the basis of who people are. Yet this pupil has indeed only recently decided i.e. chosen to follow tis particula course.
Morgoth, they are different, because as you say they are different in degrees. Your comparisons don’t clarify.
Well, if you’re ok with the ring, then I can perfectly understand you being ok with any other religious symbols. As I’m really not happy with the ring, I’m stuck with the dilemma of how and if you should distinguish, on anything other than grounds of physical safety (e.g. knives).
You’re left with all or nothing. I’m certainly not religious now, but was brought up through a Catholic school system that nevertheless banned all ‘jewelry’ (including crosses/crucifixes). That said, worn symbols are far less important to most Christians as part of their faith, and I’m not for banning all expressions of religion in schools.
Yep, I use mine to open beer when lacking an opener.
Well, if you’re ok with the ring, then I can perfectly understand you being ok with any other religious symbols.
I’m not. I think the French model should be introduced here. Keep *all* religious influence out of schools. School is for learning, not for idiotic “my sky fairy is bigger than yours” pissing contests.
That’s true. I’ve seen some people use it as a beer bottle opener.
I follow the God of Atheism myself. He expects nothing of his followers, and they should expect nothing of him.
It’s easier that way.
Sikhism is not an “exclusivist”, competitive or evangelical faith, so the above statement is irrelevant.
To my understanding it’s to describe the nature of God, ie. the unbroken circle signifies God is also “without beginning or end” (ie. immortal).
*************
Something people have to remember is that historically, there were periods when bounties were placed on Sikhs’ lives. People would be rewarded for successfully delivering their heads (with unshorn hair) or dismembered arms with karas. Furthermore, due to being on the receiving end of religious persecution from various sources for several centuries, Sikhs would basically give up their lives rather than give up their religious affiliation, which obviously also became tied into displays of the outward symbols too.
So, many modern-day Sikhs become a little touchy when asked to remove any of the 5 Ks they may choose to wear; doing it voluntarily is one thing, but being forcibly told to remove them causes problems.
Resurgent assertive religiosity is one of the biggest problems we face in the world. At a minimum we must try to keep it out of schools. Unfortunately it is making serious inroads, largely thanks to Blair and his fondness for faith schools. So I do see this as a critical issue.
Schools should be for questioning, for critical thinking and for shared endeavour, not for revealed truths, dogma and division. Is it really so much to ask that for just a few hours a day you leave it outside the gates?
Of course teach about religion, how could you not? But do not assert the truth of one unevidenced claim over another. Yes, it would be curmudgeonly not to mark key festivals with a bit of a do ( I admit that at school at this time of year I am widely known as ‘Mr Grinch’, but by now the kids expect it. It’s a tradition.) But other than that, do it somewhere else.
The state privileges religion far too much as it is, but still there are those who, if they don’t get 100% of what they want, where and when they want it, cry victim.
Religion is something which, if you have it, matters to you. It doesn’t matter to the person sitting next to you and it absolutely does not entitle you to disregard the rules we all accept.
(Back when I was in an inner-city mainstream secondary I did actually catch a couple of year 10 lads having a sly spliff and one of them pulled the rasta card. He put his case so well that I didn’t bust him but merely confiscated his stash. So you see, I am not intolerant of religion after all.)
Jai,
before you point it out, I am aware that Sikhism is not a revealed religion in the sense that the abrahamic faiths are. I spoke generally.
However, on your point that ‘…doing it voluntarily is one thing, but being forcibly told to remove them causes problems.’ In this instance the girl (or her family) seems to have voluntarily accepted the ‘no religious delineator’ rule and then changed her mind and expected the schools concesus on this to just roll over because she had chosen to become more openly devout.
If that is accepted then school rules become reduced to whatever is demanded by the group that can shout loudest for privilege.
Don, with all due respect, do you know exactly why Sikhism has the “5 Ks”, initiated by Guru Gobind Singh ? Not just in terms of what they symbolise, but the specific sequence of historical events which resulted in their introduction into Sikhism ?
****************
The way I see it, anyone in the same situation as the girl in the main article has 3 options:
1. Remove the symbols during school hours.
2. Find another school where the wearing of such symbols is allowed.
3. Attempt to get the school to change its rules.
The first two options are the most pragmatic. Of course, if one attempts to follow the second course of action and can’t find another suitable school nearby, there’s going to be a problem.
The third option is the most idealistic. And both of the last two options are in line with Sikhism as I understand it, at least for really committed Sikhs for whom wearing one or more of the outer symbols is non-negotiable.
By the way, my first paragraph above was written before I had seen post #76, although it’s still valid in response to suggestions that one should “leave religion at the school gates”.
actually jff – you raised a good point about uniform policies when you mention the schools’ ( the one you’re a governor of) policy. its one thing to have a very strict one, and its one thing to have a loose one – the one you mention, sounds fairly ‘loose’. the school i went to for most of my life, had a super strict policy in the sense that it had to be a very specific skirt/shirt ( not jut a plain one in a colour recommended) but even to the point that there was only one place you could buy it, and it had to be that place, and of course it was expensive etc. etc. i daresay posh schools do this sort of stuff, but we always all thought it was really silly and Victorian and very dogmatic. So clearly, uniform policies – vary.. ( and aren’t uniform, heh) After all, one can suggest a ‘uniform’ within reason – which can set out something like, simple jewellery, but nothing too bulky, some makeup – not too much etc. Some places of course are really draconian.
This would make sense if we didn’t have a national curriculum.
As it is school uniform policy is just one tiny aspect of an education system that is inherently flawed.
I guess no one wants to concede what he or she feels is their right. But where do we stop? I find it amazing that this country has given the right not to wear a helmet in construction sites and motorbikes for religious reasons. Then why is it compulsory for everyone else?
If we fight for the same rights, then we should fight for the same obligations – there should not be special rules.
Jai wrote: “although the kara does have other purposes too”
Knuckleduster?
Ravi Naik, Sikhs were once refused employment and schooling because of their turbans. That to me was something worth struggling to rectify. The rest can be worked out with give and take in society. As for obligations to British society, most Sikhs are integrated and discharge their obligations as much as anyone else. On balance that is the reality. Although it’s always good to find a group small enough to finger as the latest subversives intent on gnawing at the roots of British society. Are you up for that?
I am struggling to understand why I never had any experience of this at school. Oh yeah, cos none of us really gave a shit. We were genuinely there to learn. Now I feel that people seem to want to represent their own particular group at school and parents are worried they will be assimilated by another.
I don’t buy the ‘I am fine with displays of religion as long as they’re not too showy’ because how do you define too showy? Size of cross? Blackness of hijab?
Also, can those who have criticised uniforms (Kismet and Kulvinder – the ‘two Ks’) please elucidate as to why? Genuinely would like to hear.
The rasta card…I’ve never tried that one Don, hmm…
You do realise Ravi, that I am speaking about something in the context of the current febrile atmosphere, as discussed in the post above about the resignation of Hastilow and Powell’s suggestions of ‘the black man having the whip hand’ over the white man.
I researched into the girl in Wales. It’s interesting that they are as integrated a family as you could find. She is mixed race. Her full name is Sarika Watkins Singh, her father is white, her mother Indian. Yet some people are suggesting that this teenage girl, is the needlepoint of a subversive creep. Some perpective please. Some of the comments on various message boards on this subject are little short of chauvinistic in impulse and decree.
I think its a complete farce that they are trying to restrict her right to wear the kara. Back in the day, we had the whole gamut – sikhs with and without turbans/karas, hindus with different levels of devoutness, muslims from hijab to hijabless and so on. It worked out fine. All this talk of restriction and French models is in my opinion, pathetic and a very typically British non-resolution to a problem that will not go away. Why the hell is everyone so afraid of religous expressivity? As long as religion is practised without harm to others, what’s the problem with it? It sounds to me like what people really want is a warm fuzzy feeling from making as many identical drones in school as possible – programmable, indoctrinated and conformant. Which by the way, is the opposite of ‘free thought’.
Anyway, I know raising a question like this in a thread like this (i.e. where mose people are aetheist) is tantamount to dangling a foot in piranha-infested waters, but it needs to be said, if for no other reason then perspective.
I wish you would tell me if you feel that people should be allowed not to wear a helmet for religious reasons – in either construction sites or when they are riding a motorbike. Was that something worth struggling for, when they are designed to save lives?
Of course, devout christians in Kansas believe that is a sin to teach evolution in school, and another christian sect does not accept blood transfusions even when it could save their lives. Devout catholics (my sect
) believe that using condoms makes angels cry.
I have come to accept, being religious myself, that there is some element of superstition and irrationality in practising any religion. It is a healthy thing when secular societies challenge those beliefs for the good of the common man.
Don, I believe it is. While both atheists and agnostics do not follow any religious sect or beliefs, in the absense of absolute proof of God’s existence, atheists refuse to believe in his existence, whereas agnostic are confortable that he could in fact exist, but not as manifested by organised religion.
I do agree with you that atheism cannot be defined as religion because there is no link or communication with a supernatural entity. But it is faith-based and in my view shares some elements with organised religion, which is the belief in the absence of proof.
What do you think are the reasons that keshdhari Sikhs wear turbans, Ravi ?
Ravi, it’s always good to find a group small enough to finger as the latest subversives intent on gnawing at the roots of British society. Are you up for that? You didn’t answer the question.
I did answer that in #87 if you cared to read, which is to say, it is not about one religious group, and I did throw my own religious group into this. So, do not throw me the victim card, as I don’t have any patience for that.
On the other hand, you did not answer my question in #87: what do you feel about sikhs not wearing helmets in construction sites and when riding motorbikes for religious reasons. The way I see it, the only way to attain equality here is that the government should not force anyone to wear helmets.
Jai, my first instinct is to say that Sikhs are not supposed to cut their hair, ever. And therefore, they need to use a turban.
Most religions started with a holy person, but beliefs are strongly attached to the era in which they were formed. That is why religion needs to be reformed from time to time, because societies change. The Catholic Church is way behind liberal societies, in attitudes towards sex, gays and women. This of course has nothing to do with their core teachings, but there you go. It badly needs another reform… and so do other religions.
I do believe religion is important, and Sikhism is a progressive religion which preaches a message of tolerance towards menkind.
However, I do feel that practising religion requires a good dose of common sense, rational thought, and conscience.
I don’t think that the exemptions regarding hard hats were nessecary and in practice Sikhs working at building sites do wear hard hats. In effect they were the points at which activist groups tried to secure protection against direct discrimination against them in the 1970′s at a time when it was rampant and widespread for children to even be denied the right to school. As such I view it as anomalous and an unintended consequence of that effort, over-reach, if you will.
But you didn’t answer the question I asked Ravi. Do you think that the issue of Sikhs wearing hard hats or not, or girls being allowed to wear a bangle at school rents asunder the fabric of British society? In the context of a minority group being placed as central in the narrative of the degradation of British life. And please don’t play the ‘accusation of victim card’, it’s a vulgarism and intellectually lazy piece of flypaper, and I don’t have any patience with it.
Don, with all due respect, do you know exactly why Sikhism has the “5 Ksâ€, initiated by Guru Gobind Singh ? Not just in terms of what they symbolise, but the specific sequence of historical events which resulted in their introduction into Sikhism ?
And which are utterly and totally irrelevant. There is the same uniform code for everyone. There should be NO exceptions. No matter how dear someone holds an IDEA.
Anything else is just special-pleading.
And yes, I would revoke the exemption on cycling helmets etc for Sikhs. One rule for EVERYONE.
One ring to rule them all!
“Also, can those who have criticised uniforms (Kismet and Kulvinder – the ‘two Ks’) ”
One more K and we can start a club. I have the bed sheets. Which is a uniform. See what I’m getting at?
As I’ve said, I grudgingly approve of uniforms only because it stops the rich nike boy mocking the poor kid’s hi-techs, but I think kids would be much better individuals if they weren’t regimented to look like the next person and the person beyond
Schools need uniform policies
Do they? Why? I’ve been educated at schools that enforced a uniform, and at schools that didn’t, and I don’t think the education I received at either differed because of it. If forcing people to wear the same clothes is such a good idea, then why not make the entire adult population of Britain do so?
but I do think there should be some leeway about religious symbols
If some people think the rules shouldn’t apply to them just because they believe a load of superstitious nonsense, then they should be firmly disabused of that notion. Why should I, as an atheist, have less rights than the religious?
If you want to get angry about something, get angry about ‘honour’ killings
I certainly agree there!
As I point out elsewhere, the school’s policy of allowing wrist jewellery, but only if it tells the time, is not something I find very logical or principled. (I wonder if a girl is forced to take off her watch if it stops working?
)
Isn’t that what the Nikes and Hi-Techs are doing?
Ravi,
Not quite. The turban is indeed used to help keep the uncut hair neat and in place, but that’s only one part of it. Other reasons are as follows:
1. It’s very closely connected with Guru Gobind Singh — whom all strictly-practising Sikhs are meant to aspire to emulate — so the turban is an integral part of this.
2. Historically — and still in some parts of the world — the turban has royal/aristocratic connotations. Wearing a turban symbolises a Sikh’s fundamental equality with everyone — regardless of how exalted the other party’s station may be from a worldly perspective — along with the fact that they are meant to embody and aspire to the more positive, idealistic values and conduct traditionally associated with noblemen. They’re meant to be like kings, basically, although not in an egotistical, domineering sense.
3. As you probably know, people entering a gurdwara have to cover their heads as a sign of respect & recognition that they are entering a holy place. Since, in Sikhism, the entire universe is regarded as divine in its essence, the “gurdwara example” is extrapolated and Sikhs cover their heads in recognition of God’s presense absolutely everywhere.
4. The turban itself — especially the older historical version with the steel disk, still frequently worn by “Nihangs” in India — was also worn to protect the head against blows by weapons (swords etc), so in that sense it already is a form of helmet.
You may also want to consider the (im)practicality of a keshdhari Sikh theoretically having to unwrap and wrap his turban at the start & end of any journey on a motorbike, if it is compulsory for him to wear a helmet instead. As I stated above, the Sikh is already wearing a helmet — in the form of his turban — which offers his head some protection.
This is a complex issue, because historically Sikhs did frequently wear specially-made helmets (adapted to accomodate their top-knots) on the battlefield.
However, if they are already wearing a turban then they are not required to wear a helmet instead back in India when riding motorbikes, so I do not see why this should be such big deal over here when there is already an established precedent.
Don: Schools should be for questioning, for critical thinking
I agree. Unfortunately, religions often don’t like questioning and critical thinking, particularly on certain issues.
@ Ravi #88,
Ravi, I’m going to pick away at this for a while, mainly because it crops up a lot and I’d like to clarify my position. I may go on a bit, so don’t feel obliged to respond.
I prefer the term non-theist, whenever I remember, but for simplicity’s sake I’ll stick to atheist, which originated as a term of abuse for those who were out of step with the dominant religious dogma.
As Sonia pointed out there is a subtle but real distiction between ‘Not believing in god’ and ‘believing there is no god’.
But first let us define our terms. For me, the word ‘god’ refers to the concept around which religions are built. An all-powerful and eternal creator with definable attributes whom it is appropriate to worship. Very often in these debates, theist will slide into deism or into a definition which is little more than cosmological speculation which, although sometimes fascinating, bears no relation to the concept people actually mean when they use the word.
A theist is asserting the proposition that there exists a being which created the universe, which is all powerful and eternal, which has intention and agency, which has absolute power over us both before and after death, which is the source of moral good and which requires something of us – worship, submission, love, etc.
An atheist finds this proposition unconvincing, unnecessary and unevidenced. So they decline to accept it.
This is not quite the same as ‘refusing’ to believe without ‘absolute proof’.
Citing Dawkins tends to raise hackles, so I’ll do it. Dawkins argued that belief-unbelief was a spectrum with five key positions. (This is from memory as my daughter has absconded to uni with half my philosophy shelf.)
1. Absolute belief in God, as certain as one is of one’s own existence. No doubts or questions, but utterly convinced that god not only exists but that one has a personal, real and all-important relationship with god. (Strong Theism)
2. No absolute belief, but find the idea likely or accept it as received wisdom and will therefore live life as though god exists. (Weak Theism)
3. Unproven, no opinion either way. Awaiting further evidence. (Pure Agnosticism, although largely a theoretical position as few are comfortable balancing on this particular razor’s edge.)
4. Find the arguments for god unconvincing, see no reason to accept them and will therefore live life as if there were no god. (Weak Atheism)
5. Absolute belief that there is no god. (Strong Atheism, also a largely theoretical position, as asserting the non-existence of an unevidenced posited being runs into logical difficulties which are generally expressed through analogies I’m sure you are familiar with, such as Russell’s Tea-pot and the FSM.)
Dawkins puts himself at around 4.9, but poits out that he has never met anyone who holds position 5. It was included to balance position 1, which is held by many.
Position 5 would indeed be a faith position.
I place myself in the high 4′s. I was raised in the tradition of the god of the old and new testaments, th god who smote, intervened, judged, demanded, spoke, and frequently suspended the laws of nature. This particular definition of god ultimately failed to convince me. I don’t see that as my adopting a faith position, as believing without evidence.
Don, tell the truth, when you busted that black kid for the weed and he pulled the Rasta line with you, did you keep a nibble of his stash for later personal purposes?
Jai,
On your point #4. It must be inconvenient to have to frequently re-tie a turban after every motor-cycle ride, but I am reminded of the advice given about wearing a cycle helmet (which I dislike doing). In the event of a spill it means the difference between a couple of asprin and re-learning the ability to speak.
Wear a helmet, mate. Take the time, don’t count on a turban to protect your skull if it hits the tarmac at 40mph. Not a requirement, just a concern. Putting on leathers is time consuming and inconvenient, but it means losing skin rather than deep flesh.
Jagdeep,
Who? Me?
(It was pretty good gear, as it happens)
You’re my kind of teacher Don.
Don,
I’m not actually the turbaned variety so this issue doesn’t directly apply to me, but I do appreciate the sentiment in your post. Very kind of you, buddy
74. Jai:
Sikhs would basically give up their lives rather than give up their religious affiliation, which obviously also became tied into displays of the outward symbols too.
Yes, Jai, and what a sad divergence of intention from what Guru Nanak envisaged. Won’t say more than that.
Email copied to the Sikh Federation (UK) and reproduced with the kind permission of the author
Dear Sirs
I find it odd that a school that purports to have values as those below came to a decision that will inevitably lead to confrontation where pragmatism may have avoided negative publicity and potential legal action that will drain your resources and adversely affect the integration of other cultures and faiths into British mainstream society. Indeed although I know nothing about Sarika Singh, I would guess that her family are very much British and perhaps Welsh, yet wish to practise their faith in a way that the Sikh community has done for centuries.
The Sikh community has one of the most outstanding records of any ethnic minority group in the UK of integration, and it is wrong for a dominant culture to insist on assimilation as well. The UK is only where it is today because it has a history of multi-cultural understanding and acceptance. The wearing of religious tokens is fundamentally an individual human right.
I looked at a list of the Governors, and I will do some research into their cultural awareness of other cultures, as it would appear that they are not necessarily a reflection of the Aberdare of today. I would also argue that the Welsh flag is a symbol that many in Wales regard with almost religious fervour. Indeed I bet you celebrate (as I do) St. David’s day, a Christian saint, in a country that has many faiths, and I would bet that many of the pupils, staff and parents, wear a daffodil, yet another ‘token’, that is worn with pride and even semi-religious overtones.
So I ask you!!
What care and respect have the governors shown Sarika?
How will this ban on her attending her school help her to realise her full academic and personal potential?
How does this ban encourage tolerance of other races, religions and values?
How does this ban enhance moral, spiritual and cultural values?
Have the governors shown Sarika their qualities of respect, courtesy and self-discipline?
Your Values??????????????
· The basis of all our dealings with each pupil is that the pupil will receive care and respect.
· We recognise and take account of the differences between individual children and encourage them to realise their full academic and personal potential.
· We want our curriculum to be broad and balanced and to cater for the continuous development of all children.
· At all times we will promote the essential skills of literacy and numeracy.
· We aim to encourage academic achievement.
· We will encourage a sense of enterprise and initiative so that pupils can adapt to changing patterns of employment in a modern, technological society.
· The education our pupils receive will encourage the tolerance of other races, religions and ways of life.
· Our curriculum programmes enhance physical fitness, and develop moral, spiritual and cultural values.
· We encourage the qualities of courtesy, respect and self-discipline in our pupils.
· We encourage our pupil to be responsible partners in their own education.
· We involve and consult with parents on a regular basis.
· We foster close co-operation with the community and develop an understanding of environmental awareness.
· We provide our pupils with a variety of opportunities which allows them to develop their specific talents.
· We, as a school, are committed to setting and expecting the highest standards in all aspects of school life.
See commonsense please and stop playing with the future of children in such a way.
I will be talking to the National Assembly about this, as well as my Member of Parliament.
Yours faithfully
We have bullet points.
That’s what 200 years of persecution, jihad and attempts to wipe you out and convert you all to Islam does to a people, Muhammad. I won’t say more than that.
I haven’t criticised uniforms per se, if you run a private institution you should be allowed to do whatever you want.
Its more the fact the school in question is (i presume) paid for via taxes combined with a disagreement on whether excluding girls results in them being ‘freer’ from oppressive patriarchalism or not (as in the Begum case).
But as i said uniform policy is just a tiny part of the picture from my pov. I fundamentally disagree with the education system as a whole.
nb in fairness its worth pointing out the duty to provide an education rests with the LEA not the school, and as such the taxes/education point above isn’t as simplistic as i may have made it sound.
I do think it sets bad precedents and inequality in our society. If we believe that the government has the the right to campaign against smoking, using belts, using helmets against the wishes of the individual, then it should have prevented people with turbans – which by the way do not protect against shocks – from driving motorbikes or work in construction. What you call anomaly, is in fact the result of when religion takes over common sense. Religion practices should not trump over safety, nor secular institutions.
Given that the parents have agreed that the girl should not wear the iron bangle during PE (common sense – they could have said that she should wear it at all times), I don’t quite understand she needs to wear it during school time. This seems to suggest that the parents are using her as a poster child for religious discrimination… I find that disgusting.
Yes, I believe you are right. Thanks for clarifying this.
Sonia – yeah , its a pretty relaxed policy at our school, and like you I went to schools that had scrict policies and single suppliers for the clothes.
Most schools around here haven’t got their full quota of governors. Its a thankless task, but I would urge anyone who cares for their children’s education to get involved and volunteer. Actually can I qualify that, please only those of a ‘sensible nature’ and have the ability to see the WOOD from the TREES, because to create a happy school is difficult.
I know that at our school, if a parent really wanted to make a fuss, then no matter what our numerous and lengthy ‘policy documents’ said, they could make everyones lives a real misery. But perhaps because we are a small village school (150 kids) where parents meet each other often out of school I get the chance, with other governors, to gauge the current issues and head off trouble before parents get too fired up about issues. We still get 1 or 2 complaints a year about various things, that have to be dealt with through official disciplinary committees. Nearly all have been from parents who have kept themselves to themselves and so can’t see the community point of view, and all in the last 3 years have been quite groundless and were attempts to extort from the school and the LEA compensations for apparent slights or to them and their children.
On a better note – get involved – its not that onerous and its a real eye opener.
I pray each night to God – asking that “Surely 3 full churches with lots of singing, bellring and charity events is enough to satisfy and placate any God? Please no asteroids, plagues, famine or fundementalists , we really don’t deserve it – we’re just simple village folk who want to get by – honest”
Justforfun
i’ve just read “the god delusion” on holiday and enjoyed it very much. science be praised, as those sea otters put it. more than “god is not great”, which i found amusing, but poorly argued and researched (he actually cites the sex-through-a-hole-in-a-sheet myth as a fact!!) but obviously, i’ve not been converted to atheism. i guess i take the same point of view as those sikhs who maintain that their religion is not exclusivist, evangelical or competitive. imo, this is what really pisses in the soup and i get very annoyed with jews who get triumphalist, because it shows they haven’t understood something very basic – no evangelism ought to mean no chauvinism. dimwits.
i guess the issue is that critical thought (for which school should, i agree, be a place) need not be something which religion (or, judaism at any rate) should be concerned about. nor is science. otherwise, there wouldn’t be an association of orthodox jewish scientists. i’ve read one of their books. i understand why you don’t actually need a “god hypothesis” to explain things. i just don’t see what’s wrong with it as long as you have a correct understanding of what G!D isn’t.
i suppose the issue really is that the sort of evidence i can see as self-evident is privately experienced, so, from dawkins’ PoV, it doesn’t count as evidence at all. personally, i put that down to the fact that he isn’t using the right detection equipment.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Bananabrain – I see you trust in the power of the ” “.
Justtweeky
110. Ruby
I detect anger in your response, and it seems rather directed at me. Why? Your response is so inflated with condescension that it assumes something about me? Have we met before? Your response presumes to know more about my ignorance of “Indian” history than I do.
Yes, I think we all have pedagogic urges.
My name has only one ‘m’ in it.
In some respects, past persecutions of people has bugger all to do with me. It’s what’s happening now that we must protest about.
Muhamad,
Ruby’s comment is an appropriate reaction to the fact that you misquoted me, by ignoring the first part of that sentence, ie:
“Furthermore, due to being on the receiving end of religious persecution from various sources for several centuries,…..”
In Sikhism, inner spirituality is indeed far more important than outward symbols, but the introduction of the latter was a logical evolution in response to the events of the previous 200 years, the situation at the time, and an appropriate contingency measure to consolidate Sikh unity and identity and thereby prepare Sikhs for the future.
There was no divergence from the core teachings of Guru Nanak, and Guru Gobind Singh himself made this clear by virtue of the fact that he made very little additions of his own to the existing scriptures and instructed that the Guru Granth Sahib should be viewed as the “eternal Guru” after his death, rather than his own writings which constituted the Dasam Granth.
Jai,
adding the previous sentence wouldn’t further qualify my sentiments. I don’t see how it’s a “misquote” when I’ve used the exact words of a sentence. It wasn’t even taken out of context. My response was simply an acknowledging nod to the philosophy of Guru Nanak, and not so much the subsequent religiosity. But with a name like mine, I mustn’t even say it.
Guru Nanak’s was an acute and versatile mind. Incomparable.
If violence is “logical evolution” then Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Nanak, Jesus, Mahavira, Buddha, and millions of people all over the world who express their dreams of a politically non-violent world are all an aberration.
The “outward symbols” of all religions has to do with our insecurities. Talk about “inner spirituality” has no import when the individual is enfettered by outward symbols.
Muhamad,
You did not use the exact words — you only quoted the latter half, whilst ignoring the fact that the previous half of my statement explains the latter half regarding how the warlike aspect of Sikhism developed, which places my full statement into its proper context.
In fact, “developed” is probably an inaccurate word to use; the warrior aspect has always existed within the faith, it just became manifested/expressed to a greater and more formalised degree by the time of Guru Hargobind and especially by the time of Guru Gobind Singh.
Guru Nanak himself had no fundamental objections to the principle of the use of violence under certain circumstances, as verses within the Guru Granth Sahib praising righteous warriors confirm.
The point is the context and motivation involved — there is a marked difference between using violence for self-aggrandisement, conquest, revenge etc (and/or motivated by anger and egotism), and using it only when all other legitimate peaceful means have failed whilst attempting to defend oneself or weak, innocent, vulnerable third-parties against unjustified physical attacks. The latter is the Sikh view of the matter.
Not quite. In Sikhism it was introduced both as a form of uniform — as a declaration of the principles & ideals the wearer is meant to stand for (particularly for the benefit of any third-parties who require their assistance) — and to inculcate courage in the Sikh concerned.
One cannot exactly hide behind a bush if one’s outward appearance makes it very clear indeed what one’s affiliation is, in scenarios where one many be confronted by hostile opponents; this was triggered by the fact that when Guru Teg Bahadur was executed, the Mughal authorities challenged any Sikhs present in the crowd to claim his body. Those Sikhs who were there obviously could not be identified physically, so they hid amongst the rest of the public due to fear of violent retribution. Guru Gobind Singh wanted to ensure that this type of cowardice never happened again.
Non-violence would not have worked as an adequate defence against Aurangzeb. It would not have worked against Hitler. It will not necessarily work against Osama bin Laden. It will not work against any invading army intent on the forcible conquest & subjugation of your country or compatriots. It will not work against someone physically attacking you because they are in some way prejudiced towards whatever group you happen to be affiliated or identified with, or because such sadism simply makes them feel good, or because they are cynically & opportunistically taking advantage of the fact that you are unwilling/unable to defend yourself or other innocent parties, or against someone raping a woman right in front of you.
Sikhism itself does fundamentally believe in a politically non-violent world; however, unless and until the rest of the world also believes in such ideals and has the strength and ability to effectively implement them, it is necessary to have the threat of violence under extenuating cirumstances as a defence against those malicious parties who do not share such ideals or aspirations. It’s a defensive measure against violent bullies, basically, and to prevent people with such a thuggish mindset from exploiting and oppressing others.
To believe otherwise is naive at best and self-destructive & irresponsible at worst. To quote one of the relevant Sikh concepts in this matter, submitting to tyranny is as bad as if one was being tyrannical towards others oneself. It is cowardly and unprincipled to stand by and do nothing whilst such behaviour is occurring (particularly if one has the power & ability to intervene), because one’s inaction indirectly assists in perpetuating the cycle and allows the malicious party to just carry on attacking innocents. I’m sure you’ve heard the adage about how all that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.
Nevertheless, this isn’t a licence for one to indulge one’s violent inclinations. Perhaps it is best explained by a pertinent recommendation by Guru Gobind Singh himself, who stated that one should try to be a saint first before one tries to be a soldier. Remember that in the “Sant-Sipahi” (saint-solder) Khalsa ideal, the “saint” part comes first.
Incidentally, the warrior aspect is also to do with one’s internal mindset, not just outward martial prowess or physical strength, and it applies to intellectual/psychological confrontations as well as the more obvious violent kind. But again, this is supposed to be tempered and balanced with the humane, compassionate, and fair-minded side, and this should always predominate in one’s character.
This thread is rather amusing.
- “The one rule for everyone” comment flies in a face of almost all equal rights policies and activist achievements over the past century and reeks of nothing other than an overwhelming drive for “assimilation” rather than any form of the much touted “integration”…it’s time to become “one of the boys”
- The criticisms being aired here against religion are typically a product of those raised in Abrahamic faiths, mainly Protestant and Catholic Christianity and now using the issues they have had/experienced/found with their inherited tradition against all religions (many of which do not share such issues, i.e. anti-evolution, anti-science, anti-critical thinking) owing to little more than ignorance and bigotry.
- The crux of the matter for the French ruling and those supporting such issues in the UK is simple: “We want you all out of here!” and by “you”, the main target is Muslims, however since it is not PC to attack a single group in isolation and so openly, it’s best to go around the backdoor through blanket policies and views which effectively cover all of those who are not “one of the boys”.
Next thing, let’s go back to Victorian days and place a ban on ladies wearing trousers to work, one rule for everyone right! Gosh, that would be great process for this fine democracy!