I am relaying the exact words I read from the woman in the article. I never asserted my opinion. She is concerned about other religious customs on her daughter's hands during Christmas. Those were her very words. I'm not making this all about Islam, but now you have.
ATW you asked what do Muslims have to do with it. He answered you on what they have to do with it. The lady specifically said she was concerned of its connections to Muslims/Islam. Here's a post that shows this:http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=10209064&postcount=51 Now you're claiming across110thstreer is trying to make it seem like her motive is all about Islam. He just answered your question. You shifted the argument to being "all about Islam" which he never presented as a fact. He showed you "what Muslims have to do with it" which was your original question. And the "facts" prove she has a concern about it. Was it the main concern? None of us know. It was definitely a part of it as relayed by multiple news sources. Those are the facts. Don't be obtuse. I'm not sure how the convo shifted goal posts here. It was pretty straight forward.
I have seen multiple Iranian and Arab women with henna tattoos and they were not brides on their wedding day. In fact a lot of times their face were completely covered and only the henna on their hands show. And if it's besides body marks and has to do with religion SO WHAT? I don't want my child to have any religion mark on their body too. They can come back from school with the cross marked on their face and I would raise hell to the teacher and the school. Now the woman here should better educate herself before signing any letters and should have no place to complain. Maybe she should stop a minute and consider about the education and examples SHE gives to her daughter when she can't inform herself about papers before she signs them or something public knowledge to most of the world henna. I don't think for a moment she should have gone public and go to the media but seriously if religion is involved so what? Why should a parent want their child marked with another religion mark? Or even their own religion for some parents.
This is a silly and inapplicable example. Schools would never brand a child with hot iron unless they are both evil and stupid and such an act would be illegal even with parent permission because it is assault and child abuse. Henna, on the other hand, is not a violation of criminal law. I think we all agree about parents needing to be notified and have an opportunity to grant or deny consent. Even if I disagree with her position and believe that she is ignorant, I would not have a child henna over her mother's objection. The issue here is whether the school provided notice in a reasonable form and I believe that it quite clearly did.
One would expect that schools would be smart enough to never use semi permanent ink on a 7 year old without express written consent by the parents of the child spelling out exactly what would happen, yet.....well here we are.
1. It's not semi-permanent. 2. They sent a notice to the parents who chose to remain ignorant on what would be occurring during the event. If your child's school sends you a letter noting what all will be taking place during the day and you do not understand some of it, then it is on you to go find out what that is. The mother was given the opportunity to not be ignorant and only decided to look up information on it after the fact.
Not according to the article linked in the OP. According to that, the school sent an e-mail saying something about a multicultural day and henna. The article doesn't say that she ever signed anything.
Again, it was already pointed out that it wasn't "semi-permanent" (an oxymoron). Must be code word that helps make the political point. And that a simple Google will bring up all sorts of methods to remove using numerous things found in most homes). The woman's story has changed a few times...ie., she didn't know what Henna was, the email came to her husband, but appearntly she knew enough to search to find it was somehow connected to Hindu and Muslim ceremonies. You'd think she would have also searched on how to remove. But again, that wasn't her goal or issue... it was to make a political point about schools and Muslims. Much in the same way as those lining up alongside her here.
What does it really matter? Besides the blatant obvious bad decision to do this, what if the ladys primary issue was with the religious connotation? Unless you have a complete disrespect towards all religious beliefs, do you not think other religions would be offended if they had ink stained into their body parts of other religious festivities? As religious sensitive people are these days, especially the atheists, you would think they would be wiser to the situation.
Basically. “Learning about culture is awesome, but I don’t want it tattooed on my daughter, it is not our culture,” Samour said http://kfor.com/2015/12/24/texas-mother-outraged-after-daughter-is-given-henna-tattoos-at-school/ "It's upsetting to go through Christmas with another religion's celebratory symbolism all over my daughter's hands," she told KHOU. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...enna-tattoo-outrages-Seabrook-mom-6720241.php Samour told KHOU, “Tattooing another culture’s expressions on my daughter is not acceptable.” http://www.fox23.com/news/news/educ...nna-tattoo-school/npmPm/#sthash.oaBB7BYQ.dpuf
Well it's that you wingnuts are trying to create an illusion that she's just upset that her child's skin was marked up but it's really that her kid was marked up with something she thinks is Muslim. Just call it what it is and then we'll move on. The fact is probably all of us have been given these dye tattoos and had our faces painted at different events in school as children and no damns were given.
It's sad how many window lickers in here don't know what semi-permanent ink is, and don't know that henna would qualify as one. Just try to not eat the crayons.
sem·i·per·ma·nent adjective: semi-permanent less than permanent, but with some stability or endurance.
Semi permanent seems like a bit of an oxy moron. A tattoo is permanent. Permanent marker is temporary on the skin since we shed skin cells constantly and the marks on the skin would just be removed over time from shedding. EDIT: Someone already pointed this out. Durr durr durr.
Yeah, you certainly sound like you are pretty simple. Do yourself a favor and google "semi-permanent ink" and see what you come up with.
Explain how something can be semi-permanent? Permanent means unchanging indefinitely. If something was only semi of that, then it would not be permanent by any means. You're an idiot. When you can adequately explain how something can be semi-permanent then you may have a point. Something that is permanent means it cannot be changed. If it has the possibly of being changed then it would not be permanent by any means. Calling henna semi-permanent is just a way for idiots to make it seem like this teacher has left this child marked for a significant portion of her life. The facts are that the mother chose to remain ignorant and allowed this to happen. She only chose to look up what henna was after the fact. She could have just as easily Googled how to remove henna safely, which can be done quite easily. Instead she over-reacted and went to the media as if her child had been branded with religious symbols (when the picture only shows a flower on each hand with some other lines on her fingers).
