[Norway] Star of David banned in school, but hijab OK

Baning ANY type of religious dress/symbols is stupid, backwards, and intolerant.

I hope that teacher takes it to court and wins the case. Freedom of religion is the most basic right we have IMO (What's more basic than the right to hold your own beliefs and not be persecuted because of it?).

Europeans should look in the mirror if they want to lecture us about 'tolerance' and 'freedom', they seem to be adopting a very anti-religion stance that's motivated by secular extremism.

 

Why is a non-Jewish kid wearing a Star of David? And if he wears it under his shirt, how did anyone come to know he was wearing it?

Anyway - personally, I like the idea of getting religion out of schools. I think kids would take education more seriously if they had to wear uniforms. If it's that important to have your kid abide by religious laws, then send him to a religious school for f***'s sake.

 

Its secluding kids out of society which leads to them thinking differently of those that arent like them and in the future maybe them lashing out against others unlike them

Im all for religions in school, you want to wear a star, go right ahead, wanna wear a cross, be my guest. The religion you follow shouldnt dictate the type of education you get.

After all, were all equal right...

 

Is that really relevant? Why do people wear (insert whatever religious symbol here)? It doesn't matter, I don't think he should be banned from doing so. You try to force people to not wear "religious symbols" and all you will end up doing in the long run is segregate people (secularists go to public school, and a girl prohibited from wearing her hijab/cross/star of David would end up either not going to school at all or just joining her local private catholic school).

I just REALLY think it's a bad idea, it makes people painfully aware of their 'differences', and those whom the rules are being applied to (almost always the minority) would end up feeling persecuted by the law, could become defensive and full of resentment, and is guaranteed pretty much to lead to more extremism and could result in some sort of a 'backlash'.

 

Just to be clear, it is the teacher, not a student wearing the Star of David. I agree that he should be allowed to wear what he wants, but I think a similar lawsuit could happen here. I bet the ACLU would jump all over that case as an establishment issue, teachers being representatives of the state. I have no problem with students wearing a hijab or a burka either, as long as they are under no compulsion to do so and the student can be identified when they are doing anything that is being graded.

 

whatever happened to the seperation of church and state. I say religion doesn't have place in education outside of a religious studies class.

 

Who here wears a religious symbol of a faith they are not a member of? That's just stupid in my opinion. I'd never wear a Star of David if only because it would be insulting to Jews. I'd never wear a hijab as that would be disrepectful to Arabs. This person is stupid and stupidity deserves to be kicked out. Look, if you are really serious about religion, then why send your kid to assimilate with non-religious types? Makes no sense to me.

 

Seperation of church and state means that church shouldnt run state, doesnt mean that the participants in a state run organization must be secular or athiest or whatever...

I say religion has a huge part in rounding a student into the person he or she becomes, and the government dictating a persons religion/culture is definately not right. Especially since the Government is for the people...

Its pretty pathetic to say that you cant attend a government school just because you have certain religious morals or standards that you attain...

 

Listen secularism is important but lets not go overboard.

Europe provides the perfect example for this. In France they ban all religious symbols and all that did was build resentment across the board. No one really cares if a Muslim girl wore a scarf or if a Jewish boy wore a yamika. Secularism is supposed to be respectful of all religious traditions while not having the state imposing a dominant ideology. Unfortunately an all out ban would do exactly that. It sends the message that you can't express yourself in a peaceful manner. This logic is what upholds the foundation of the freedom of speech and even religion itself. We all have a freedom to express and peacefully practice our religion. That's what makes our country special. We can express ourselves whether it be our speech or what we wear.

 

you know for someone who hates on muslims all day...you sure as hell are ignorant.

hijab=headcovering for muslim women.

arabs=many aren't even muslim.

its amazing how ignorant people seem to be the most hateful.

i do think theres a distinction between hijab and the cross. one is a religious symbol whereas the other is a religious requirement. big difference.

that being said this european obsession with making religion a private thing with no place in the public life is ridiculous. im no fan of the christian right but i shouldn't have to hide my religion. it doesn't mean the state should support a religion but the state shouldn't discourage it either.

 

Actually they did it for two reasons (a) a spike in violence as a result of some of the religious garb and (b) the symbolic oppression involved some of the garb. Nothing wrong with the state encouraging integration as far as I can tell.

 

Oh, now i understand, you're one of those religious types. This is why religion has no place in public places - it just creates problems and friction. It just causes violence and hate. It's absolutely is the stupidist thing humanity invented.

 

Let me guess, your one of those secular athiest types. You hate anyone who follows religion, no matter what their politcal or cultural views may be. You pre judge people of religion without knowing them or getting to know them. You are the reason racism and hatred exists and people like you are the reason we have stupidity... You, sir are the reason why Muslims and other minorities in mixing pot such as America sometimes feel that they are second class citizens.

 

Oversecularizing has the opposite effect of what is intended. It breeds more resentment among religious communities and serves to give ammunition to radical religious groups who view a government as "attacking" their specific faith. When France banned Muslim head scarves, radical Islamic groups immediately declared that France was out to attack Muslims. This doesn't promote some type of unity but rather greater strife as groups fight the government.

People can express themselves in any way they want even if its religious. The government has an obligation to protect our right to religion without imposing any specific religion upon us. I may disagree with you but its senseless to say that you can't display your belief. That's the foundation of free speech and justifying a ban on religious clothing justifies the suppression of virtually any "socially undesirable speech or display."

As Voltaire said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

 

The ACLU of [NORWAY]? Wow I did not know that they had such a global reach. Either way, hopefully it will allow you another opportunity to pronounce it as an example of "our legal system run amuck"" - I really stand up and take notice whenever anybody, especially anybody with only minimal background in the area - pronounces something as an example of it run amuck. I'm very sensitive to excessive mucking, very sensitive. If there is amuck running going on, I want to know about it asap.

 

Are you translating these tenets from the original Norwegian?

That's not even an altogether accurate transcription of the US version of the concept. Regardless, European concepts of secularism are quite different from anything in the US or asia.

 

Didn't pick up much reading comprehension in law school, eh? The "here" in the second sentence refers to the United States. Maybe you thought I lived in Norway? The ACLU (that's American Civil Liberties Union) does operate in the United States of America, does it not? Also, I am pretty sure I used an alternate spelling of amuck (ie amok), so please refrain from misquoting me. :just a joke: I don't know why someone taking a case that I obviously agree with would be an example I would use of anything run amok.

 

nah, with your ambiguities I just err on a certain side.

 

I was with you up until the end. The only reason minorities (myself being one) can ever feel like second class citizens is through their own doing. Constant victimhood makes minorities feel like second class citizens. Constantly blaming others for their problems make minorities feel like second class citizens. Refusal to play by the rules others play by is the reason many minorities feel like second class citizens. I am a minority and I do not feel like a second class citizen.