Suppose your child's 2nd grade teacher wore a face veil in school,

[pnwmom]

with only the eyes showing. Do you think this would affect the teacher's communication with the children? Do you think it would affect your child?
If this issue were to come up in your district, how should it be handled?

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=3603

The simmering row over religious relations in Britain escalated further today after the government's race minister demanded the sacking of a Muslim teaching assistant who refuses to remove her veil at work.

Phil Woolas said Aishah Azmi was "denying the right of children to a full education". He added that her stand meant she could not "do her job" and insisted barring men from working with her would amount to "sexual discrimination".

Meanwhile, Shadow Home Secretary David Davis stoked the row further with a stinging attack on Muslim leaders for risking "voluntary apartheid" in Britain, and expecting special protection from criticism.

In an article for the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Davis warned of "closed societies" being created in the UK, and said religious divides threatened to "corrode" fundamental values such as freedom of speech.

[ButterflyBlood]

1. I wouldn't support my child having such a teacher n/t

[DRoseDARs]

8. I suppose yarmulkes bother you too...

...because, God forbid, people wear clothing for their own religious purposes. :eyes:

While I agree with the notion that forcing women to cover, or even if they do it of their own volition, is merely a backhanded way of oppressing them, this teacher has a right to express her religion this way. Her clothing doesn't effect her ability to teach, any more than a yarmulke effects a male teacher.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Yarmulkes don't cover your face

[DRoseDARs]

19. Irrelevent, they're still religious dressing. Read my post again. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. Teaching is about communicating

and that is mighty hard to do when your face is covered. Obviously, I disagree with you that covering her face does not affect her ability to teach.

[DRoseDARs]

Glasses can make your eyes appear squinty. Someone better protect the...

...children from these "shifty" eyeglass wearers. The way their eyes look effects their ability to teach because the children are getting the nonverbal communication that the teacher may seek to harm them.

[pnwmom]

328. Glasses don't cover up smiles or frowns.

[DRoseDARs]

335. Pedophiles smile too. What's your point?

Facial expressions can be faked, so unless you want to start splitting hairs instead of answering explicitly how her choice of clothing effects her ability to teach, perhaps going this route is a non-starter.

[pnwmom]

343. My point is that good teachers use nonverbal as well as verbal

communication.

I don't think they would appreciate your linking them with pedophiles, or suggesting that they fake their facial expressions.

Have you had an elementary school age child? (Having been one doesn't count.) If you have, I'm surprised you don't understand how much they communicate with their faces, and by reading your face. It would be a barrier for a 6 year old to have to communicate all day with an adult wearing a mask.

Female teachers in Muslim countries don't teach in face veils, because they only have girls in their classes. But in the west, they're expected to teach both genders and that's where the problem occurs.

[DRoseDARs]

348. Ok then, what of "funny" accents? I've had some that for the life of me..

...I couldn't understand or at least had a very hard time to do so. This has occured in high school and college, but what if they were elementary teachers? Would everyone here be suggesting people with heavy accents go teach their own kind?

At no point have I said that facial expressions WEREN'T important, my point is they are an irrelevant point to bring up about this woman's ability to teach. Online classes are exploding in popularity; I've had some where I NEVER saw nor heard the teacher...ever. Yet, I passed those classes just fine thank you. I don't like online classes over physical classes - quite the opposite actually - but insisting that this woman is hurting her young students by not showing her face is absurd because no one is showing it to be true. All I'm getting are what-ifs and well-I-nevers and she-should-adapt-and-by-adapt-we-mean-completly-change-to-our-culture.

Also, you should know that "Have you had an elementary school age child? Having been one doesn't count." is called (by one name at least) the Unwaranted Injunction Fallacy which is what one can use to fend off legitimate criticism of one's point or statement. The "You don't have children, so you can't talk about this subject..." is another unwaranted injunction, for the record.

[pnwmom]

393. You clearly aren't familiar with the needs of a young child.

If you were a teacher yourself, or a pediatrician, or an educational psychologist, or even just an observant parent, you wouldn't be making some of the statements you're making. (It isn't that you're not allowed to talk about the subject, but your views ARE uninformed.)

There is a huge difference between the needs of elementary age students and older children, who would be able to deal with the occasional veiled teacher. A young child needs to feel close to a teacher in order to achieve his or her learning potential. A face veil puts up an unnecessary barrier to that closeness -- in fact, that's the whole point -- to separate the woman from everyone on the other side of the veil.

And a child who is still learning English -- all young children, that is -- strongly benefits by being able to put the spoken words into the context of facial expressions. The fact that you don't need this, as an adult, is what is irrelevant. We're talking about the needs of young children, not your needs or mine.

[DRoseDARs]

403. I already pointed out the fallacy you just used there to dismiss me. n/t

[pnwmom]

416. It isn't a fallacy when it is true.

[elehhhhna]

419. Yup. Opinions are individual but FACTS belong to everyone.

Has no-one mentioned that she also cannot interact with MEN and how THAT might affect her job? Or did we bleedingly-heartedly forget that little tidbit?

[Dorian Gray]

425. And that, elehhhhna, is the actual problem here...

.I don't care about the veil. That's her freedom to choose. But the schools can not and SHOULD NOT hire only women to appease her. That's discriminatory. If she wants to work in Britain, she must follow the laws of the land, and she must work with men.

[elehhhhna]

426. I s'pose I can enforce my right to wear wooden shoes to work, yah?

lol

on edit: Pot's legal in Holland so if I fire up a spliff in the teachers lounge y'all are going to rush to my defense...right?

[DRoseDARs]

454. Thanks you two, but I've touched on the "won't work with men" point...

...what, three times now? :eyes:

[DRoseDARs]

456. Re: It isn't a fallacy when it's true.

You:
"If you were a teacher yourself, or a pediatrician, or an educational psychologist, or even just an observant parent, you wouldn't be making some of the statements you're making. (It isn't that you're not allowed to talk about the subject, but your views ARE uninformed.)

There is a huge difference between the needs of elementary age students and older children, who would be able to deal with the occasional veiled teacher. A young child needs to feel close to a teacher in order to achieve his or her learning potential. A face veil puts up an unnecessary barrier to that closeness -- in fact, that's the whole point -- to separate the woman from everyone on the other side of the veil."


Me:
Unwarranted injunction. Again, you're dismissing my viewpoint because I don't meet your standards presented here. Do you? Further, throwing in the "an observant parent" bit at the end of a list of professionals tells me loudly that you don't.


You:
"And a child who is still learning English -- all young children, that is -- strongly benefits by being able to put the spoken words into the context of facial expressions. The fact that you don't need this, as an adult, is what is irrelevant. We're talking about the needs of young children, not your needs or mine."


Me:
The burden of proof lies on your shoulders to prove that her veil harms her students, not on me to prove it doesn't. Burden of proof of her guilt lies with you, not on me to prove her innocence. Yes, we've been talking about younger children this whole time. Glad you agree on that point, but why are you bringing up older individual's? Yes, it is irrelevent, but you keep doing it.

[Divernan]

469. You've told a speech pathologist he/she doesn't know jack

in a post farther down. So first you tell someone they are uninformed because they are not a teacher, a pediatrician or an educational psychologist, and then when someone with the most relevant expertise explains it to you, you dump on them too. Hey, babe, lay out your credentials for us all.

[pnwmom]

527. Actually, Divernan

I confess - I was the one that told DRose that s/he was clearly uninformed -- unlike a teacher, a pediatrician, etc. or even a parent. She didn't make that statement about someone else.

I don't think you have to have academic credentials -- but you need to have some real understanding of how children learn -- and s/he apparently doesn't.

I've appreciated all your posts, by the way. And only had a little problem with this one!

[DRoseDARs]

573. I'd like someone to point out the post where these credentials are...

Thread too large and slow-loading at this point; patience wearing thin. If y'all are lucky dwickham, you might get me to "shut up" as you so sophomorically put it. :)

[Divernan]

598. See posts 387 & 575 by "Phylny", a speech language pathologist.

nt

[pnwmom]

530. I'm not saying she's guilty of anything. I'm not trying to prove that.

But if you want to talk about the burden of proof, the burden of proof is on the aspiring teacher to show that she can do the job.

No one is entitled to be a teacher, even if s/he has a certificate. That's not an inalienable right. The central point is that the individual hired to teach must be qualified and able and willing to do the job well. The needs of the child are paramount and in the case of a conflict between the needs of students to learn and the needs of a teacher to carry out what she deems religious duties, the needs of the students should take precedence.

Why did I bring up the way adults communicate? Because part of your argument was about how YOU don't need to see a person's face to communicate well. And YOU are an adult, presumably. But, as you acknowledged, how an adult learns and communicates is irrelevant to this discussion.

[DRoseDARs]

571. Yes, and the school hired her. We have to assume they believe...

..."she is qualified and able and willing to do the job well." Does anyone know how long she has worked as a teacher in the UK, either at this school or within this school system as a whole? Going with the assumption she's been with them beyond one scholastic year, she must have gone through teacher evaluations to determine whether she was doing her job well enough to keep her job. If she did well with her evaluations, then we must assume the school STILL believes "she is qualified and able and willing to do the job well."

[pnwmom]

599. When they hired her, she wasn't wearing a face veil and she didn't

inform them that she wouldn't work with men.

That came later.

[muriel_volestrangler]

601. She was working there from September 2005

Went on sick leave in January 2006, and was suspecned in February:

"My first question when I came to the school was 'Can I work with a female member of staff and if not can I wear my veil?' I was told I could wear it so long as it didn't stop me carrying out my job."

Mrs Azmi, 24, had been working as a classroom support assistant with 11-year-olds at Headfield Church of England school in Thornhill Lees, near Dewsbury, West Yorks, since September until she was suspended in February.

SHE took Kirklees Council to an employment tribunal and it will rule on her case in a fortnight. She said: "When I was with a female teacher I taught quite happily at the school without my veil on.

"I was also quite happy not to wear it when I was on playground or library duty as I knew there would be no male members of staff around.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=i-do-take-off-my-veil-with-kids---but-not-a-man-&method=full&objectid=17930182&siteid=94762-name_page.html

She did not, however, wear the veil during her interview, but a man did join the interview; it's not clear whether "when I came to the school" means at the interview, or when she started working there:

The school is understood to have ordered face-to-face contact was essential in her role as a bilingual support worker. It said the action had "nothing to do" with religion.

Ms Azmi said yesterday: "I was under the impression that I would get interviewed with a female - and I was interviewed by a female. So no, I didn't have a veil on because I was in the presence of a female."

However, a male member of staff surprised her by joining them "later on", she added.

Asked whether she might have given a "false impression" by not wearing the garment, Ms Azmi said: "Are you trying to question that if I had gone in with the veil I wouldn't have got the job?"

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=teaching-assistant-s-veil-storm&method=full&objectid=17934714&siteid=50082-name_page.html

She says she hasn't had any complaints from the children or their parents; the school authorities say there have been.

(why she thinks there wouldn't be any men around during playground duty I can't tell - I would have thought that highly likely, whether they're teaching staff, maintenance staff or whatever).

[Zhade]

635. So do good parents. Are you suggesting Muslim mothers are bad mothers?

It's not like every one of those who are also teachers take the veil off once they get home.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

701. I have visited a local madrasa (in Indiana),

and I can assure you there is fantastic teaching going on.

[cherokeeprogressive]

759. Connecting with students is important too

And I don't think it can be done while hiding your face.

[Divernan]

55. And exactly how are they religious? What do they symbolize?

How does a woman honor her god by covering herself? Read MY post again. The Jewish head covering is between a man and his god. The Muslim coverings are at the order of patriarchs and mullahs.

[Clark2008]

73. Hmmm... don't know much about Islam, do you?

And, I'm guessing, you don't know any Muslim women.

I do.

And they consider it between them and their God. And I'm speaking of those in free countries who CHOOSE to cover - whether with just a veil or full-faced.

[Divernan]

98. Read my other posts - I do know Muslim women

"They consider it between them and their God" does NOT answer my basic question - which is what is the underlying puropse of requiring women to cover their faces, hair and/or bodies? If it is NOT that their bodies incite men to lust (and sin) then what is it? In other words, what is the "it" between them and God that you refer to? And if it is in fact simply between them and their god, why do the mullahs (in those areas where they can get by with it) publicly beat women who do not cover themselves? Why do male members of their families beat and even murder women who "bring shame on their families" by not following such "traditions"?

[DRoseDARs]

309. The Koran is the holy word of God to muslims. Just like the Bible, there

...are extreme interpretations, and unequal applications. You can bitch and whine all you like, but this teacher is living in the UK, not Saudi Arabia. Chances are, she wears the full-body of her own volition.

Someone has yet to adequetly answer my question of how her full-body covering effects her ability to teach.

[BoneDaddy]

415. It may not affect her ability to teach

but for me that is not the point. The point is someone from another culture, who chose to come to the UK and leave their native country, really has no right to impose her cultural values upon her adopted country home. I would not think of doing that. I wouldn't go to Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan or Afghanistan and start demanding that they respect my cultural predilections.

Being from another culture does not give anyone carte blanche to do whatever they want, regardless of whether or not this their "religious" dress or belief. If you want to live like that, then stay in muslim countries where that is accepted, but don't move somewhere, receive a job from that country, live in that country and demand that the country change to adapt to your way of life.... Wrong.

Multi-culturalism does not mean the dominant culture needs to accept everything about another culture. What it does ask is that we learn to find a common ground and understand differences, not bend over backwards to change our way of living to accomodate others.

She is making a choice to wear the veil. Live elsewhere if you want to continue that tradition.

[DRoseDARs]

458. I have touched on all this elsewhere. n/t

[pnwmom]

535. Another question is how do we, as a secular society,

accomodate population subgroups (usually fundies) who, under the guise of freedom of their religion -- one of our strongest values -- would seek to undermine the very foundations of our secular society? This doesn't only apply to Muslim fundamentalists, it applies to groups like Christian Dominionists.

We saw an example of this in Canada last year, when there was an attempt to bring Sharia law into one of the provences. And we see it here, among Christians who are working through PUBLIC institutions to bring about their dream of a Christian nation.

[DRoseDARs]

584. Secular laws do not prohibit her veil. As you point out, if muslims..

...want to establish change (adopting, in part or in full, sharia law) then they have to work within the system. They have to convince non-muslims to help them change the secular laws, just like Dominionists have to work through the system here in the US. Either way, the idea is frightening, but they aren't prohibited from working towards those changes by abiding by the same legal rules for change the rest of us have to follow. Conversely, the government (or the school system) has to establish its position on whether or not they believe her veil interferes with her job. She certainly has a case if they decide she can't wear it because there was no such rule when she was hired (or else we wouldn't even be discussing all of this; there probably wouldn't be a story here beyond her violating a dress code and being reprimanded for it), though I imagine a judge would rule in favor of the government/school. Right or wrong, it isn't enough for the authorities to claim her veil harms her students, the burden of proof lies on proving guilt/harm in Western legal tradition. This minister ("Race" minister? Why does that creep me out?) simply made a claim, demanding she unveil, but provides nothing but his own opinion of her guilt.

[pnwmom]

603. In the U.S., teachers and aides who don't have tenure can be

fired at the discretion of the principal. The burden of proof in a court case would be on the teacher to show that the principal illegally discriminated against her. Since a face veil is an obvious impediment to communication, especially with young students (and there is mountains of research to back that up), that shouldn't be difficult.

[BoneDaddy]

600. Agreed

this is a tough line to walk, because we dont want to be intolerant of other people's culture, but what if the views, ideas and attitudes they bring in are "intolerant"?

[GodHelpUsAll2]

649. I have this silly

little document hanging on my living room wall. You may have heard of it. It's called the Constitution. I realize it's a bit on the old side and a little outdated but you may find it an interesting read. Try it some time.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



Freedom of religion. No matter where you are from or what your religion may be. Fancy that. What a novel idea.

[BoneDaddy]

697. What if the religion itself

is intolerant of the constitution, other's rights, is despotic, patriarchal, fundamentalist in a public institution.

This women is allowed the freedom of religion. She is not being denied the practice to worship the way she does. Just practice it privately.

All I am saying is it is not as cut and dry as you would like it to believe.

So by your logic the people who practice Santa Ria and Voodoo should be allowed to slaughter a chicken and pour blood over a child because based on their belief system it scares the evil spirits away.

Since when do we have to accept EVERY irrational belief system from every religion. We don't in the public sphere which should be absent of such behavior or practic.

Religion is a private issue. I don't want it in my public school. If this was a private Muslim school, then I think you would be correct, but as far as I recall it is not.

YOu point to the constitution. What about the separation of church and state?

[cushla_machree]

650. my friend lived in saudi arabia

Guess what, she wore a veil. When in rome.....

[Hoping4Change]

707. People have explained in length how it negatively affects

teaching ESL. Furthermore the veil is tantemont to being a religious billboard announcing the inequality between men and women. I'd have no problem with veils if men had to cover their face. The very fact men aren't required to cover their faces proves that Muslims discriminate against women for instance by denying that women's level of sexual desire is as powerful as men's desire and therefore women can be as aroused by a man's appearance as men can be aroused by women.

[cushla_machree]

648. right and that was written by men, not woman n/t

[Hoping4Change]

745. If choice regarding the veil is sooo important to Muslims, why aren't

Muslims in the West, organizing day and night to form a united front and demand that Muslim women in theocratic Islamic states who are forced to wear veil be given the right to choose?

I see no mass effort by veiled Muslim women and their supporters in the West to demand freedom of choice for their sisters? There's lots they could to to apply pressure. So why the silence? Why the passive acceptance of an injust status quo?

[DRoseDARs]

304. In the Koran, it calls upon Muslim women to be modest...

...this has been translated over the centuries into dressing conservatively (think how "dress conservatively" lloks in the West), wearing modest head coverings, and wearing the full-body coverings like this teacher. Who again are you to tell them what is and is not religious covering?

[davidinalameda]

329. not all Muslim women wear the veils

there are different interpretations of the Koran, just like the Bible

[DRoseDARs]

333. That's what I already said. Thanks. n/t

[breakaleg]

71. the objection to them is not because they represent a religion, it's

because of the severity of the attire and what it represents as well as the impact such drastic attire can have on a group of young students and their learning. The issues are many, but it's not the same as wearing a cross or any other religious artifact.

[pnwmom]

180. Exactly. The problem is not that it's a religious symbol, the problem

is that it is a mask that covers the face -- and children, especially young children -- need to see the face to really communicate.

[DRoseDARs]

338. And again think of the poor blind children. Would they be protected...

...by preventing this woman from covering face? I'm sorry, but your point is a non-starter; there are other ways of communicating both knowledge and emotion. If there weren't, the deaf and blind of this world would never be educated.

[Llewlladdwr]

414. Are you seriously suggesting....

that blind and deaf children aren't at a disadvantage in a school setting? That teaching them is just like teaching any other student? You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

[DRoseDARs]

453. No, I'm not suggesting that. Thanks for not bothering to read other posts

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

536. That's exactly what she IS suggesting in her other posts.

Maybe she is of two minds on the matter.

Also, s/he's saying you can't respond to one illogical post (without being criticized) unless you read all the others. I disagree.

[DRoseDARs]

570. But that's exactly what dwickham is doing now...

Attacking some of my messages post facto. Threads that get large like this are quite difficult to manage, which is why I focused as best I could to just this branch of it. However, important information (like the credentials people are citing now) WAS NOT posted in response to anything I had said until more recently. dwickham ran his mouth of by saying "Well that shut DRose up" as if I had even been at my computer breathlessly waiting for his pithy words. My "Already responded to" posts should be relatively easy to find since they are confined (save one or two) to this branched discussion. I apologize for not including the post#'s to all of them to make finding them easier. If you, pwnmom, have credentials beyond motherhood I certainly never saw them posted, or even pointed to either.

As for responding to posts without reading others, why would I want to repeat myself over-and-over on very specific points? It gets very exhausting and bloats the thread that much more. Others have brought up the "doesn't want to work with men" point as if it had not been brought up in response to my posts and I've said about 3 or 4 times now that she doesn't get to complain on this matter: She's working for a mixed-gender public school, she knew what she was getting into when she applied, if she doesn't like it she can find work at a muslim school or an all-girls school.



*Sigh*
This is was happens when a forum uses the branching thread system: It gets unmanangable and unavigable as it gets larger. Plus, have y'all noticed how slowly it loads now?

[DRoseDARs]

617. Sorry, that should be "Divernan" not "dwickham"...

I confused the two names; small on-screen text size. My apologies to dwickham.

[Nederland]

607. A little confused

You seem to think that pointing out that there are blind children that learn is somehow significant. That could only possibly be true of you believed one of two things:

1) Blind children are no more disadvantaged in the learning process than sighted people.
2) You want all children to be subject to the same disadvantages as blind children.

Which is it?

[RapidCreek]

704. So now you are speaking for the blind, eh?

I think you should stop with that....are you blind? Are you aware that blind and deaf children go to special schools?

RC

[Scairp]

289. She also won't work with men

If she doesn't want to work with men then she should go teach somewhere that has limited male faculty and staff.

[DRoseDARs]

323. This would be the only point I would conceed: Doesn't want to work w/ men?

Then go find somewhere else to teach, like an all-girls school. I don't know squat about the British Public School system, but I imagine it's pretty much coed from the students on up through the heirarchy.

[BoneDaddy]

417. Imagine if

He was a man and he refused to work with women because in his culture, women are subordinate to men and aren't even recognized as equals. That would be unacceptable. Again, she made the choice to come to the UK, she is the one who needs to be flexible and adapt, or at the very least, she needs to seek employment working with a Muslim school where her cultural tastes are honored. But to expect the larger community to simply bend to her cultural needs is ridiculous.

[DRoseDARs]

452. I've already touched on this point elsewhere; almost the same except...

...for your last line. No one is suggesting "the larger community" bend to her needs because it isn't illegal for her to wear the veil, nor is it yet against school policy (I'm assuming, since obviously she was hired in the first place) for her to do so.

[BoneDaddy]

457. That may be true, but

if they do make it a school policy, the response from her and her supporters should not be "my civil rights are being denied to me". As our cultures become more pluralistic we simply cannot absorb and respond to every nuance and whim of dress and cultural expression. Some lines do have to be drawn.

And although I understand the Muslim culture and love very many aspects of it, I do not agree with many of the basic tenets regarding patriarchal domination of women. It is a thin line that we walk in being open to others, but not having to agree with everything.

[DRoseDARs]

461. Again, I've touched on that too.

Forcing her to unveil is just as wrong as forcing her to put it on in the first place if we can't prove the veil harms her students. I've yet to see ANYONE provide good evidence of this. The burden of proof lies with those trying to prove guilt, not innocence. Forcing her to unveil without proving its harm is forcing her to unveil simply because we don't like it.

[riderinthestorm]

471. She interviewed without the veil. Then when she was hired she put it on

she can be fired simply for that little maneuver right there frankly.

She was deceptive in her hiring.

[DRoseDARs]

556. This is like her not wanting to work with men. She knew what she...

...was getting into (mixed gender education) and so she has no right to complain on that point. However, with the interview, was it a woman that interviewed her or a man? If it was a woman then she was well within doctrine to show her face, if it was a man then we have some hypocrisy on her part. If that's the case then again, she should find a muslim school or an all-girls school to teach at instead of a public school.

[LostinVA]

672. Yes, I find that verrrrry interesting n/t

[Divernan]

473. The speech pathologists who have replied to you prove you wrong

nt

[BoneDaddy]

474. I agree

that I don't think anyone is harmed by it. I am just soooo tired of having to accept everyone's else's cultural needs when they leave their country and have the EXPECTATION that their adopted country SHOULD simply accept them as is. I certainly wouldn't expect that kind of treatment if I was to go to a middle east country. In fact I would immerse myself in that countries traditions and show respect for them by adapting. Where is the adaptation by this woman?

Ultimately I don't think there is a legal issue that is valid in restricting her to either wear one or not. The issue for me is having to accept this simply because it is dictated by her religion and although I enjoy much of Islam, I have some serious problems with some of their dictates.

I am getting real tired of having to accept some of the fundamentalists (Christians, Jews and Muslims) irrational ideas as if they are valid and acceptable. I find the veiling of women totally irrational and as backward an idea as female genital mutilation. Granted they are two different set of issues, but share the same irrational premise.

[pnwmom]

537. The burden of proof is on the teacher to prove she can teach well.

No school is required to hire or retain a teacher unless SHE can demonstrate that.

[DRoseDARs]

552. They hired her, and if I understand correctly, they've kept her...

I'm assuming she's been a teacher at this school (or at least teaching in this school system) for a while now (beyond one evaluation cycle). If that's the case, and she got through her evaluations sufficiently well enough, wouldn't that mean the school believes she can teach well?

[RapidCreek]

710. No one is forcing her to do anything

If she wants to wear a veil she can certainly wear one...but not in my kids classroom. I don't care to have my childs educational experience hindered by her sexual problems. If she wants to express her rather warped opinion of men she is free to do so on her time...NOT MY CHILDS TIME. In addition to her expressive and ennunciative qualities being masked she is making an ascertion regarding men by wearing her veil. This ascertion is contrary to our belief (the LAW)of the equality of men and women....she is not wearing a mask to cover a deformaty...she is wearing it because people of her culture believe that men are more incapable of controlling themselves than woman are.

Such a belief structure DOES HARM MY CHILD....male or female. It propogates very strong ideologies that are CONTRARY TO THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH WAY OF LIFE....LEGAL WAY OF LIFE.

Again no one is forcing her to do a goddamn thing...if she wants to wear a veil she can wear a veil....in a private school in which such practices are the norm. I don't care to have her negativley affecting my childs self image.

RC

[Hoping4Change]

709. I think it should be illegal for anyone to cover their faces in public,.

[donheld]

666. If you'd had some of the teachers I had

You'd be thankful if they'd wear something over their faces. :evilgrin:

[pnwmom]

63. So you don't think nonverbal communication is important,

especially with young children, whose verbal skills are still developing?

[proud2BlibKansan]

203. Nonverbal communication involves facial expressions.

[DRoseDARs]

337. I guess blind children will never get a proper education then...

They'll never see their teach smile or frown. At least they'll be consoled in the fact that her religious freedoms were curtailed so that a face they'll never see won't be covered by a veil.



The Human voice can convey emotion too. Blind and deaf children are at an obvious disadvantage here, but that's true regardless.

[phylny]

387. Blind children ARE at a disadvantage both in learning language and

educationally in learning other skills. Blind children do have other areas of their brain develop to heighten senses while the optical parts of their brain do not develop. HWhile blind children obviously can be educated, they need many interventions to learn (other than braille) to be successful.

As a speech-language pathologist, I can tell you that children gain an enormous amount of information from non-verbal body and facial cues. A woman who has her hair covered isn't going to affect her students' learning, but a woman whose face is covered is cheating her students of important information. In fact, children who cannot interpret nonverbal cues are at a disadvantage socially and educationally, that's how important the nonverbal cues are.

"There is no question that most scholastic accomplishments are measured and defined through language-based communication. Yet, it has been found that more than 65% of all communication is actually conveyed nonverbally."

http://www.nldontheweb.org/thompson-1.htm

[DRoseDARs]

402. Are these children stuck with this teacher through their entire childhood?

Never seeing another teacher at another grade level, never seeing any of their fellow classmates, never seeing the doctor's face at a checkup, never seeing the faces of their own parents?

Thanks for the information about sensory compensation (I already knew and have known since I was in grade school) but once again someone brings in irrelevent information that still doesn't answer any of my questions.

[pnwmom]

541. That information was completely RELEVANT to this discussion.

But your pattern is to deem anything irrelevant that doesn't fit your argument.

It doesn't matter that the students have access to OTHER people's faces during the year or their lives. What matters is they don't have access to their own TEACHER'S face for a whole year of teaching -- a fact that is bound to make a difference in how well they are able to learn as a result of her teaching.

[phylny]

575. Of course not.

Children spend about 6-7 hours per day in a classroom learning important things from a teacher. Are you willing to let an entire year go by at whatever grade level letting the children in a class be at a disadvantage with a teacher whose face is completely covered?

As a parent and a professional, I'm not willing to let any of my children or any of the children in my practice spend a year at such a disadvantage. If you are, good for you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

463. Thanks for a sensible response from a person of

authority! And thanks for the link.

[pnwmom]

539. Thank you for the useful information. 65% of communication is nonverbal.

I knew it was high, but not that high!

[proud2BlibKansan]

397. Blind children can compensate

I am a special ed teacher. You don't want to get into this with me.

Teachers need their faces visible to teach.

[DRoseDARs]

400. BUT BLIND CHILDREN CAN'T SEE HER FACE!!!

For the umpteenth time, what is the difference?

[proud2BlibKansan]

405. They feel the teacher's face!!

Haven't you ever seen The Miracle Worker?

Have you ever spent one minute teaching a blind child? I have. Yes, I needed my face.

For the umpteenth time, yes, this teacher needs her face visible to be an effective instructor.

[Divernan]

470. Congrats! Somebody finally shut DRose up!

Although I'm breathlessly awaiting an "I already touched upon this" reply. He ridiculed one poster as not having professional expertise (although he really didn't know what expertise they had), and then when people with the ultimate expertise in the area of speech pathology weigh in with an opinion contrary to his own, he goes haring off in yet another direction. Interesting he has no personal credentials or cites to support his view.

[proud2BlibKansan]

476. Some people just like to argue

:)

[Name removed]

547. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Divernan]

595. People with weak arguments resort to name calling.

As others in the thread have noted about you.

[DRoseDARs]

616. Where have I resorted to namecalling? Apologies to dwickham...

...for confusing "dwickham" for "Divernan" due to small text size on-screen. Egg on my face.


Anyway, where besides my calling you - Divernan - an ass for this snide little post, where you were being an ass:

"Divernan Mon Oct-16-06 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #405
470. Congrats! Somebody finally shut DRose up!

Although I'm breathlessly awaiting an "I already touched upon this" reply. He ridiculed one poster as not having professional expertise (although he really didn't know what expertise they had), and then when people with the ultimate expertise in the area of speech pathology weigh in with an opinion contrary to his own, he goes haring off in yet another direction. Interesting he has no personal credentials or cites to support his view."

[Divernan]

655. In your message which has been deleted!

And I didn't even hit the alarm on you - someone else must have. LOL

[DRoseDARs]

586. dwickham spoke too soon: Possibly conceeding and a response to lips...

If the information and links and credentials posted in the past few hours since last night are strong evidence that a veil interferes with a teacher's ability to teach young children as opposed to simply showing that children benefit from seeing faces (*Note below), then I'll conceed (unless my patience with this thread's loading time runs out). My concern this whole time was that people were response to it completely as a knee-jerk reaction instead of providing evidence to back their assertions that she was harming her students.

(*Note)There is a difference because if children can adapt to the lack or loss of one sensory ability, then is it a stretch to say they can adapt to the temporary absence of this woman's face? Depending on the fabric she uses, she might find something that still hides her face (save the eye holes) but is thin enough that our hypothetical blind children could still feel her lips. If you've ever worn rayon, you know it's damned thin and really lets the the brisk chill of a Autumn breeze through. Silk works too, but that fabric might allow too much light through.

[RapidCreek]

712. The difference is.....my kid is DEAF, you *******

How the hell is my deaf kid supposed to hear her if he can't see her mouth? For shits sake use what god gave you to think with!!!!

RC

[greblc]

760. What about Deaf Children who read lips?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

80. Answer something for me...

Is it a certain sect that makes them cover their entire face? I know the muslim women here I see in the store a lot wear them around their face, so their face is showing, but everything else except for their hands are covered.
Duckie

[DRoseDARs]

313. No, it's cross-cultural. Has been around for centuries in varied forms...

The Saudi Arabians, however, have exported a more extreme from of Islam over the past few decades, so the female coverings have become more prevalent than in the past.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

632. Sort of what I asked, but doesn't answer my question.

Why do some Muslims cover their face and others don't, basically?
Duckie

[WinkyDink]

140. She has no rights to dress any way she feels like, in a public school.

And that goes for the other end of the spectrum, in revealing too much.

[HamdenRice]

674. Yes yarmulkes, crosses, all badges of organized stupidity should be banned

School is where children learn about the reality based community's views of how the world works -- science, social science, mathematics, history.

Religion is organized stupidity which teaches fairy tales about a big white man with a beard sitting on a chair in the cumulus clouds throwing lightening bolts, determining our fates and giving us money if we pray hard enough.

Unfortunately, people are too stupid, enthralled and brainwashed for the banning of religious symbols in school to happen. But in answer to your question, yes, yarmulkes, as well as crosses, veils and other symbols of militant stupidity in a place of learning, bother me.

[greblc]

758. Pharmacists who will not disperse Birth Control...

because it againt their religious beliefs. How is this issue different?

If your Religion interferes with your ability to perform your job...find another job.

She couldn't safely run a drill press with a veil on. Should an employer allow substandard or unsafe conditions to protect individuals Religious practice?

Personally...I don't think so.

[LiberalFighter]

207. I would hope that my mother would tell the principal I needed

a different teacher.

If not then my grades would deteriorate due to my hearing-impairment preventing understanding her words. If I can't see what a person is saying in most cases there would be a serious communication breakdown.

[pnwmom]

306. Our principal accepts no input from parents about teachers, although

because of ADA I think she would have to listen to your parents' concerns.

My child doesn't have an accepted disability, however -- he is just very shy. Having a teacher wearing a mask all day wouldn't have helped.

[DRoseDARs]

341. LibFighter, pnwmom: These two responses are among the most reasoned...

#'s 207 & 306

Instead of screaming about the evil and scariness of this woman's clothing (OMG I CAN'T SEE HER FACE IT MIGHT BE SOMEONE ELSE!!1 or OMG SHE MIGHT TRY TO SPEND ALL DAY EVERY DAY INDOCTRINATING MY CHILDREN!!1), your concerns in these two posts would be directed towards just moving the child to where his or her special needs could be addressed, even if it's something as simple as switching to another teacher (not necessarily a teacher that specializes in special needs education). Your reactions don't punish anyone, they just seek to shift things around so all parties are served fairly.

[pnwmom]

344. You don't seem to have actually read my post.

As I said, my principal won't accept parental input about student placement, and my child has no recognized disability that would require her to do so. He's just very shy.

If he, as an elementary student, had been placed in a class with a teacher wearing a mask, he would have suffered and there would have been nothing -- short of removing him from the school -- that I could have done.

On the other hand, no young child would benefit by being in a class all day with a masked teacher. They don't do that in Muslim countries. Even in the most conservative countries women do not wear veils inside the classroom, because they are only teaching girls.

[DRoseDARs]

350. You apparently didn't read mine. I talked about your potential reaction

...to the teacher, not your interaction with a stuborn principal.

[pnwmom]

373. Did you even read your own post? I did,

and this is what it said:

"Instead of screaming about the evil and scariness of this woman's clothing (OMG I CAN'T SEE HER FACE IT MIGHT BE SOMEONE ELSE!!1 or OMG SHE MIGHT TRY TO SPEND ALL DAY EVERY DAY INDOCTRINATING MY CHILDREN!!1), your concerns in these two posts would be directed towards just moving the child to where his or her special needs could be addressed, even if it's something as simple as switching to another teacher (not necessarily a teacher that specializes in special needs education). Your reactions don't punish anyone, they just seek to shift things around so all parties are served fairly."

I wasn't screaming about anything, anywhere, and certainly not about the evilness or scariness of a veiled teacher's clothing, or any concern that she might be indoctrinating my children or that she was impersonating anyone else. I was talking about the way that a veil prevents nonverbal communication -- frowns, smiles, raised eyebrows, etc. between a teacher and her students; and how important nonverbal communication is to young children who are still in the early stages of developing their verbal communication skills; and about how young children need to feel close to their teacher in order to be able to learn, a closeness which hampered by a teacher covering her face with a mask. (Teachers do not do this in Muslim countries because they only teach students of their own gender.)

You say that my concerns could be addressed by something "as simple as switching to another teacher." But I had ALREADY told you that our principal wouldn't have allowed such a switch, merely on the basis that my young son was shy and needed a teacher whose face he could see.

And I have no idea what you meant by your last sentence, beginning "your reactions don't punish anyone. . . " I presume that's not what you meant to say, but I have no idea what you did mean.

[DRoseDARs]

382. Well, you just demonstrated your unwillingness to read my post... again...

Read that post you're quoting VERY CAREFULLY. At no point did I say YOU PERSONALLY were "screaming" about anything in those two posts I was referring to. Further, I've already countered the points you've once again brought up from elsewhere in the thread (we're not going to get anywhere with those apparently). And let me AGAIN reiterate the fact that I was responding to what I perceived to be your potential reasoned reactions to the teacher...

...NOT THE PRINCIPAL. This thread is about a teacher, my posts have been about the teacher (both this thread's and the hypothetical one between you and I), AND YOU KEEP BRINGING IT BACK TO THE PRINCIPAL. :banghead: Bring it to the school board if you must, but he is irrelevent to what I've been talking about here.

As for the last line in the post you're quoting, firing this woman (and ending her educational career) for wearing her full-body garb is punishment ... punishment for her wearing this full-body garb. It is as wrong as forcing her to wear it against her will (we don't know whether she's forced or voluntary) in the first place.

[RapidCreek]

715. Let me see if I understand you here

My kid who suffers from a disability wich he has no control over (deafness) is suppose to to seperate himself from his classmates because a teacher chooses to make communication with him impossible? And....she chooses to make it impossible because she asserts my kid isn't capable of controlling his sexuality?

Gee somehow that hardly seems equitable treatment for my child....yep, that his education and self image should be hampered by a woman with sexual isseus hardly seems fair.



RC

[LeftyMom]

2. I don't see that it matters.

Sure, it cuts off one mode of communication, but so do a lot of other things that we don't object to in teachers. What if her face was bared but rendered immobile by burn scars or a birth defect? What if her face was visually normal but her voice carried no expression because of a developmental disability or a personality quirk? What if the loss of her hands left her unable to write on the blackboard? In all those cases, we'd adjust to the loss of one mode of communication and expect the children to adjust as well, without questioning her ability to adapt and do her job.

I fail to see why a culturally mandated veil is any different or why it precludes her ability to do her job. And I say that as somebody who thinks hiding women from the world in that manner is shockingly sexist and entirely out of step with modern society.

[Divernan]

13. Mommy, WHY does she wear a veil?

Or more likely, asking the veiled woman why she wore the veil. Obviously, one could explain to a child that someone was covering a scar or deformity, and that would not negatively affect the child. But that is not the answer this situation requires. For the veiled woman to answer is for her to be teaching aspects of her religion to students. And for a student's parent to answer would lead to expressing a serious difference of opinion with whoever in authority over the student at the school was wearing the veil. Is she wrong, Mommy? Is it wrong to make women cover their faces? What would men do to her if she showed her face? Would those men do that to me too? Should I cover my face to Mommy?

The Brits are right to nip this in the bud.

[DRoseDARs]

21. Mommy, why are those two women kissing?

Oh noes!!1 Uncomfortable questions that require careful thought and conseration to answer! :scared:

[Divernan]

42. Excuse me? We're discussing classroom behavior by people in authority.

Would all of you who are on your multicultural high horses please do some research on the purpose of having women cover their hair, faces, whole bodies? How many of you have been to Muslim countries?
How many of you are familiar with the many young Muslim women in Germany who are murdered by their youngest brothers because the family's honor is violated when the young women insist on remaining in school, dressing in Western styles and refusing arranged marriages with old Muslim men from their home countries? I read accounts of this in English language Turkish newspapers - I particularly remember one family where the oldest brother bought the gun, the middle brother called his 24 year old sister and asked her to meet him; and the youngest brother met her and shot her dead. The youngest brother is typically the killer because the father feels he will get more mercy from the courts. I know Turkish women who told me that you see fewer veils in Turkish villages than in expatriate Muslim/Turkish communities in Germany.

[Kali]

74. Veils are rare in Turkey, it is a secular country.

More conservative dress is worn in rural areas, including head covering for both sexes, but the veil is actually rare.

[DRoseDARs]

332. Thanks but I've had education about Islam for years as well as how NOT...

...to have knee-jerk reactions and how NOT to paint whole cultures with a wide brush in broad strokes. The sins of the few do not taint the many, as you have demostrated to be your belief.

[Hoping4Change]

705. Salman Rushie also has had years of Islamic education plus

the kind you haven't had since you haven't crossed horns with extremist Mullahs. In his opinion veils suck.

[Divernan]

49. Fine - Let's see you live your life covered from head to toe under threat

of public beatings if you do not conform.

[DRoseDARs]

342. Again, this is hyperbole. Not all women who cover are forced or threatened

Knee-jerk reactions and painting whole cultures with wide brushes and broad strokes.

[LeftyMom]

28. If only that were the most difficult thing I ever had to explain to my kid

Our neighbor wears a veil. Not the face-covering sort, but the kind that's more of a shawl over the head, and it's no big deal at all. My son's seen plenty of people in all sorts of different cultural dress, including women in the black all-over scarf and dress things, it's really no big deal to explain that other people wear things because of thier religion or where they come from.

All the woman needs to be able to do is explain, in an age appropriate way, what it means to her. A teacher of mine once explained about her temple garments (she was a Mormon) and what they meant to her within the context of her religion. Somehow I doubt anybody in the class converted over it. I certainly didn't, nor did it make me uncomfortable, though hearing an explanation of something that's normally much more secretive than a Muslim woman's veil was fascinating.

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. What is the age appropriate way of explaining

why she insists on wearing a face covering veil when in the presence of a grown man, but will take it off if there's not one around? That she doesn't trust any man to not think of her sexually?

Meanwhile, many people say that people learning a second language, as a lot of the children are (that's her specific function as a classroom assitant), get a lot of benefit from seeing the speaker's face, so they can see the mouth shapes used.

[mondo joe]

179. Try "Her religion has customs about how people should dress, eat and

behave, like most religions."

[muriel_volestrangler]

372. No, that doesn't explain it at all

"Why can't she allow a man to look at her? Should my mum stop men looking at her too? What does my dad think about when he looks at women? Is he wicked? All are men bad, then? Do they think that when they look at me? Should I be hiding from boys?" It's a minefield, which you're going to have to end up saying the woman is silly, but she's determined to stay that way, and teh child should under no circumstances try to follow her example.

Youre explanation would also be a lie, of course. The religion doesn't have the custom; it's certain cultures that are also Islamic that have the tradition.

[mondo joe]

412. Fine then -- "her culture has this custom".

You answer the question put to you is how you do it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

427. You mean like:

"She thinks all men have sexual thoughts about any grown woman, and such thoughts are unacceptable, so she has to hide her face from them to prevent such unholy thoughts". That's the bit you're missing out - how she believes lewd thoughts are pervasive and immoral, and human communication must be sacrificed to prevent them.

[mondo joe]

429. Yes, that's exactly what you'd say - if you're a psycho.

It's not hard to explain things to kids in an age appropriate way - unless you're trying to make it hard.

[muriel_volestrangler]

430. So try it.

So far, you've explained nothing.

[mondo joe]

431. It depends on the kid and the circumstance, and it's not

done in a typed paragraph but in an interactive dialogue.

Something MORE like "In her culture men and women have very separate lives in public. Part of that means that women cover themselves like this."

Are my daughters now supposed to ask me if they should do that? What do you think they are - idiots?

[muriel_volestrangler]

434. I'd credit your daughters with normal inquisitiveness

So they might well ask that question - I wouldn't think asking it 'idiotic' at all. After all, this is someone teaching in their local school we're talking about, not someone in a completely separate culture.

[mondo joe]

437. They're not stupid enough to ask if they should wear a veil because

someone else does. They already know there are many cultures and customs. And even if they didn't, they wouldn't be idiotic enough to forget everything they've ever known just because they see someone in a veil.

I swear, you're as bad as those con freaks who think every kid will want to be gay if they have a gay teacher.

You either don't know acual kids, or are being intentionally obtuse.

[muriel_volestrangler]

440. Neither, but I don't appreciate the comparisons to

'psychos' and 'con freaks' you're making.

[mondo joe]

441. I don't appreciate intentional obtuseness.

So we're even.

[Divernan]

478. If anyone is intentionally obtuse, it's you.

You basically advocate lying to your kids with some bland nonsense about men and women leading separate public lives. That response is barely better than a parental: "Because I said so,that's why." Muriel's explanation was honest and went to the heart of why some extreme variants of the Muslim religion demand that women cover all but their eyes and their hands in public. Farther down thread some female Muslim DUers even discuss that they cover themselves so that men can't leer at their bodies/faces.

This attitude that men are not only not expected to but also are unable to control their sexual urges, and that women who don't cover their faces are responsible for inciting men, is the sign of a psycholgically crippled philosophy/religion. I would not want someone who embraces that belief/attitude toward men and women to be teaching my children.

Teachers are extremely influential role models - children spend more waking time in the presence of their teacher than they do with their parents.

[mondo joe]

480. I've never advocated lying to my kids.

In fact, you are lying by saying so.

You have a lot to learn about teaching moments and raising kids.

[Divernan]

498. Right! That's why I got a national award for teaching a class that

incorporated a guy with a seeing eye dog, and a sign language interpreter into the learning experience. I have a certificate in teaching from UC Berkley, along with 3 degrees. I was also a National Institute of Mental Health Research Fellow for 3 years, just before I went to law school.

I have 3 successful, kind, well-adjusted, productive, Democratic adult children (1 high school valedictorian) with 7 degrees from Yale(summa cum laude), Columbia, Stanford, University College Dublin (Honors), Dickinson, Pitt & GWU (honors).

And as far as teaching kids diversity, I pretty much did that back in the 60's when I was the first Girl Scout leader to integrate a Brownie troop - going from all white to including 3 black girls, a non-English speaking Cubana and a little girl from Eastern Europe. I didn't ask permission from the state council - I just did it.

[mondo joe]

501. All the more reason it's a pity for you to lie.

And I'd expect you to know m,ore about giving age appropriate answers.

[Divernan]

505. Your proposed answer is untrue

Which is why I said it's basically lying.

Muslim women do not wear veils because their religion instructs men AND women should lead separate lives in public. If that were true, the men would veil their faces also. And I expect one of your kids would see that contradiction.

Muslim women wear veils to prevent men from lusting after them, because they believe it is a woman's fault if a man desires her, and that men have no responsibility for controlling their own sexual urges. Of course, if you explained THAT to your daughters, they would ask the questions other posters have listed. Do you feel like that about women, Daddy? So all men feel like that? Is Mommy wrong to not cover her face? Does she want all men to lust after her? Will men hurt Mommy or me if we don't cover our faces?

You raise the question of an age appropriate explanation. That would be ideal. But this is not about whether there really is an Easter Bunny. This is about how a culture views men (weak) and women (occasions of sin). This is about a role model who spends what, 7 hours a day with your kids.
This is about a psychologically crippled role model who sees all men as dangerous and truly believes that the mere sight of her face will drive men into rapacious behavior! Gimme a break! - even if she, as some posters suggest, could leave her veil off unless a man needed to enter the room, then whips it up over her face - what message does this send to the kids. Funny, Mr. Rogers never did an episode about this did he?

It would be very difficult to explain this to a pre-schooler or kid in the early grades. So better to keep the veils out of the classroom.
On edit: Some emergency comes up and you have to go to the kids' classroom, and the teacher whips her veil on. Why is my teacher afraid of you, Daddy? Are you a bad man too? Would you hurt her if you saw her face?

[mondo joe]

506. But it's not untrue.

They do live separate lives in public. And that's one reason the women are veiled.

Then my kids would ask questions and we'd talk about the answers.

You've already read the mind of this hypothetical woman, but I'd instead talk with her and my daughters about it, let her explain herself and then further discuss the answers in an age appropriate way.

Honestly, if this is the most you can show for your experience and education it's just a pity.

I'm reminded of the fundies who freak over the idea of explaining gays to 2nd graders and somehow imagine it can only be done in a salacious way.

[Divernan]

509. Why aren't the men veiled also?

It's a very simple question.

On edit: and it would be simple to explain to a second grader why a classmate had two mommies or two daddies, without being salacious.

However the rapacious/weak image of men, and the women-are-evil-if-they-don't-cover-their-faces is inherently a salacious topic. The Oxford English Dictionary definition: Salacious: lustful, lecherous, tending to cause sexual desire.

[mondo joe]

511. Because in her religion that's the split.

That's how they feel about men and women - just like lots of other inequities between the sexes that we already know about.

It's not news to my daughters that these cultura differences exist, and they already have school mates who are veiled.

[Divernan]

517. I chose not to raise my kids believing that sexual inequities

were to be tolerated or accepted. It would not be acceptable to me iff one of their teachers/role models set that kind of example. Yes, children should have the opportunity to learn about other cultures, but as parents we have a duty to teach them the difference between right and wrong. Oppression of women, whether through labeling all women as occasions of lust for all men, or genital mutilation of little girls (And I know this is not per se a Muslim practise, but I also know that it is occurring in the United States), for two examples. So how have you explained to your daughters why their classmates wear veils? And I thought it sounded like your girls were still young - like grade school age. How young were their veiled classmates when they started wearing veils?

[mondo joe]

524. How do you propose they not tolerate or accept it?

Rip the veil off the woman?

Part of right and wrong is having healthy boundaries.

And that means acknowledging differences and being polite. If a woman chooses to wear a veil, that's her right.

My daughters are 9 and 11. For some years their have been a few veiled girls in their classes. Not veiled faces, but everything else. They all get along and treat each other nicely. One of my favorite memories was sitting at an academic competition, and seeing one of the veiled girls with my daughter who was wearing leaopard print pants and a neon green jacket, sitting together whispering and giggling, oblivious to their cultural differences.

[Divernan]

533. The Caged Virgin: A Muslim Woman's Cry for Reason

This is a book review. In addition to the reviewer's comments, here's one quote:
"From a very young age, girls are surrounded by an atmosphere of mistrust. They learn early that they are untrustworthy beings who constitute a danger for the clan. Something in them drives men crazy . . .for this reason girls have to cover themselves, make themselves invisible. And for this reason they feel constantly guilty and ashamed, because it's almost impossible to live a normal life and be invisible to men."

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23110-2245016,00.html

The Sunday Times July 02, 2006

Islam
A plea to lift the veil on repression
REVIEWED BY KATE SAUNDERS

THE CAGED VIRGIN: A Muslim Woman’s Cry for Reason
by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Free Press £12.99 pp187


It is usual these days for old feminists to lament the apparent stagnation of the women’s movement, but we may have been looking in the wrong places. The next wave of energy will be rolling in from the East, when millions of chained women begin to question the religion that rules them body and soul. In Islamic countries, countless women are leading lives of appalling wretchedness. The women of the western world, who surely ought to be speaking up for them, are too timid to subject Islam to reasoned criticism. The author of The Caged Virgin, however, has no time for lily-livered political correctness. “Withholding criticism and ignoring differences,” she says in these essays, are racism in its purist form.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali lives under round-the-clock armed guard. In 2004, her colleague Theo van Gogh was murdered on an Amsterdam street by Muslim extremists. He had collaborated with Ali on a film about women and Islam, and the same extremists vowed to kill Ali. She refused to be silenced. This is a woman of exceptional toughness and bravery. In her angry clarion call of a book, she is not afraid to question some of the most sacred tenets of Islam. She also takes on the woolly liberals of the West. “Do you have to be mistreated, raped, locked up, and repressed yourself in order to put yourself in someone else’s position?” she demands. “Is it not hypocritical to trivialise or tolerate those practices, when you yourself are free and benefit from mankind’s progress?”

Ali has spent a large part of her life fighting to be free. She was born in Somalia in 1969. Her upbringing was strictly Muslim, though her father was modern enough to want his clever daughter educated. He also decided she should not go through the repellent custom of genital mutilation, in which a girl’s clitoris is removed and her labia stitched together. Ali fell out with her father, however, when she refused to marry the husband he had chosen for her. His total and cruel rejection of her, in the name of family honour, increased her fury at the sheer unfairness of her upbringing. She sought asylum in Holland, learnt Dutch and became a member of the Dutch parliament.

Ali is not particular about which political party she joins in order to get what she wants. In a way, her mission is too large for any single party. She is urging the West to judge Islam by its own standards. She is urging the Islamic world to take a look at itself. What Islam needs, she feels, is a swift dose of 18th-century enlightenment — it’s time to put down the Koran and pick up Voltaire. “We must structurally drive religion back to the places where it belongs: in the mosque and in the house.” Ali believes that religion — all religion — is the enemy of progress. The lives of Muslim women are constrained, she says, by the faith’s obsession with virginity. An unmarried girl is only as good as her hymen. If anything happens to that, the girl’s brothers may kill her to erase the family “shame” — there are 5,000 such killings around the world every year. Muslim women are the property of their menfolk. Countless millions of females are beaten and forbidden to leave the house. Ali is appalled that anyone should live by the rules of a faith that offers them so little in this world, and not much in the next. “Women can look forward to dates and grapes in paradise. That is all.”

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/islamandwomen/
Informative site on women’s role in Islam

[mondo joe]

534. Again, how specifically do you suggest my daughters not tolerate

or accept this gender inequity? Should they rip the veils from the heads of the Somali girls in their classroom?

[Cameron27]

538. Your daughter should have to do nothing.

If these unfortunate girls are not allowed or are unwilling to remove the blantant symbols of their culture's "gender inequity" then they should be taught in private schools run by the leaders of their own faith/culture.

[mondo joe]

540. You mean now these perfectly nice girls can't wear their

veils in public school?

Why?

They aren't disrupting anyone's education.

[Divernan]

546. They are not wearing face veils, you said - be clear about that

because it is a major, major difference. If their faces are not covered, do not describe them as "veiled".

[mondo joe]

554. I don't know how else to describe this other than veiled.

Seriously - I don't know of a better description.



(These aren't the ctual girls in my daughters' classes - but this is the style they wear.)

[pnwmom]

560. The issue here is not hair veils -- it is FACE veils. Masks.

All this discussion of hair coverings is irrelevant.

[mondo joe]

563. No - in this sub thread it's quite relevant.

The sub thread went on to the topic of gender inequity in clothing, how one discusses these things with kids, and how they might not be "tolerated" or "accepted".

Move along if you don't like it.

[twenty4blackbirds]

664. hajib - my colleague wears this version too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5411320.stm links to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/1.stm which I found very informative.

[Cameron27]

548. You've read through post 533

and you come up with an opinion like that?

[mondo joe]

I asked you a question - are you saying these girls can't attend

a public school in their traditional clothing?

If so, what is your basis for denying them.

Their dress does not disrupt anyone's education.

[Cameron27]

562. And I believe that I told you

that if the girls are forced (by either their culture or religion, either by indoctrination or force)to wear a costume that is blatantly symbolic of the oppression of women, then they should not attend a public school.

A traditional veil, without their faces being covered would not be blantant or extreme enough to be considered a symbol of gender inequality or oppression that would exclude them from attending a public school.

[mondo joe]

566. Why is it not blatant enough to not be gender inequality

if only the face is exposed? That's not what boys wear - only girls do. So why isn't that enough?

And are you CERTAIN you want government to decide what religious expression is oppressive and what's not?

[Cameron27]

574. Well, I'm being generous

In my opinion it would be considered sexist, but then again I'm one of those wild-eyed 70's radical feminists... so I've tempered my own opinion with what I imagine the general concensus would be.

Boys also don't generally wear dresses or skirts -- (generally) only girls do.

Yes, when it comes to BLATANT sexual oppression, then the government should step in. Can a government decide what is BLATANT oppression? Well there's no problem identifying BLATANT symbols of racism, or do you profess in the name of total freedom of expression, that white hoods are acceptable for the children of the white Christian bigots association to wear in school?

[mondo joe]

579. So who in the government should decide which opression

is blatant and which is not?

And there is plenty of disagreement about what is blatant racism. KKK hoods would fit that bill, but would generally be forbidden because they are considered threatening to other kids and even teachers.

[Cameron27]

614. Oh brother

You think that KKK hoods should only be banned because they're threatening & not because of their blatant racist symbolism?

Maybe women wearing a cloth over their faces would suffice as sufficiently blatant enough for the government to rule it
inappropriate for both teachers and children.

[mondo joe]

615. Yes.

Yes, I do think KKK hoods should (and would) be disallowed because they are threatening.

Now please answer the question: whom in the government do you want empowered to decide which religious expression should be disallowed because it is too "blatant"?

You shouldn't have trouble finding someone to disregard the separation of church and state - maybe John Ashcroft could take the job.

[Cameron27]

620. The school board should get a legal ruling

in a court of law when it comes to deciding symbols of racism and sexism. And I believe that even if the KKK spread their hatred and bigotry by blowing colored bubbles, they should be prohibited from dressing in white hoods in public classrooms.

[mondo joe]

622. LOL! I'm glad there's still an ACLU to fight for separation of

church and state. Too bad I have to point that out to posters on DU.

[Cameron27]

623. I'm a member of the ACLU

and they probably would fight it, but I doubt they'd win on this one.

BTW, how did the banning of KKK white hoods come about?

[mondo joe]

624. There's something you don't see every day - an anti-free

expression and anti-separation-of-church-and-state ACLU member.

[Cameron27]

626. Here's something I don't see everyday

a man hovering over a thread about women, arguing with other posters, that it is imperative to allow the oppressive custom of draping a woman head to toe in a cloth, and reducing her to communicating with the world through a peep hole, to continue unabated in a public classroom.

That this is the religious custom of a subsect of Islam that is being encouraged to be displayed in a public school and is not seen by this poster as a violation of the separation of church & state is interesting.

I'll leave you now for another poster to enjoy.

[mondo joe]

627. What is imperative is that we have a separation of church and

state and that people have freedom to make their own choices.

[noamnety]

604. mondo joe - thanks for that image

I love it. :)

[Cameron27]

613. Would you love it as much

if someone threw a cloth over their faces?

[noamnety]

605. That's an excellent point

What if it's not the teacher, but another student with a veil? Is the public school expected to expell them from school, so that other parents don't have to "explain" to their children why people don't all look alike and dress alike? What if you run into a woman with a veil on the street - should the police make veiled women stay at home 100% of the time so a neighbor with children won't suddenly have to explain to their children that different cultures cover up different amounts of their body in the name of modesty?

Seems to me the parents would manage to handle the oh-so-horrifying hypothetical of their child seeing another person in a veil just fine, if they are half-way decent parents. You'd have to be leading a fairly sheltered life to never run into another person with a veil.

[RapidCreek]

718. Jeez I wish you were unmarried and around 43 years old

You've made one of the first pertainant posts on this topic...KODUS! The first I've read at any point...

Peace and Inner Harmony, from a very Liberal independant.

RC

[Divernan]

729. LOL! You made my day!

nt

[pnwmom]

544. I'm sure you realize that when people resort to name calling

on some level they realize their arguments are weak.

:hi:

[RapidCreek]

716. How would a kid know he or she has a gay teacher?

Does the teacher wear a t-shirt that says "I'm gay and I'm gay because I choose to be gay not because I was born that way"?

Gay people don't choose to be gay....this woman chooses to wear a veil.

Nice try....are you a con freak? By your words I would think that you are, because your comparison is assinine.

RC

[Hoping4Change]

708. And customs change and religions evolve. This very fact is the reason

why there isn't just one strain of Islam. Muslims couldn't agree on what to do when Mohammed died so they split up into different sects. Muslims at that point decided that it was convenient to adopt different customs. So for them or you to argue that customs are inviolate, to be treated as sacred cows has no merit.

[pnwmom]

374. But a veil over the hair is NOTHING like a veil that covers the whole

face. If you had ever talked to a woman wearing a face veil, you would know that there is a huge difference talking to someone in a face veil -- someone's whose reactions cannot be gauged, except through words. Wearing a face veil is like wearing a baseball cap or a sombrero -- none of these hair coverings limit facial expression. Wearing a face veil is like wearing a ski mask -- facial expressions are obliterated.

It is like talking to someone on the phone (you only have the words to go by) except that the veiled person has the opportunity to read your facial expressions, while denying you hers. It is an off-balanced, non-mutual way of communication. Certainly not the best way for a young child to have to communicate all day with a teacher.

[Clark2008]

77. Then answer the damned question and stop "protecting" your

child from other cultures.

What a stupid, closed-minded assumption you just made.

I think the Brits are being just as over-bearing about what women wear as those strict Muslim countries who force covering.

Geesch.

[Divernan]

133. I'm neither stupid nor have I "protected" my children from other cultures

as you so kindly put it. As a matter of fact my family and I have traveled and lived extensively in other cultures - Central America, Indonesia, Germany, Ireland, Africa, Micronesia, India and the Caribbean. One of my kids is now a Buddhist. And we all respect that.

Each of my children received all or part of their undergraduate education in non-US universities. It is not close-minded to refuse to equate all religious symbols, especially those voluntarily worn, with those required under pain of pubilc beatings by extremist religious mullahs. The original article/issue under discussion concerns a situation in England, not the U.S. The British govt. is well aware of the severity of this problem in Germany and France. In Afghanistan, the mullahs are regaining power and women are being forced back into covering themselves. I submit if the women were doing this voluntarily, they never would have stopped covering themselves when the mullahs were out of power.

I am not aware of any Catholic nuns being beaten or killed by priests if the nuns decided to stop wearing their traditional habits. I am not aware of any Hassidic women being beaten or killed by rebbis for choosing not to dress according to their traditions. These things have happened to many Muslim women. You may not have followed international news enough to be aware of this. Now you are.

[High Plains]

581. In Afghanistan, the women kept their veils

I was there more than a year ago, and the vast majority of women in Kabul who were out in public wore that blue, head-to-toe burka. They were not required to by law. Some didn't, but the percentage of women out in public in Western dress was probably less than 5%.

Also, I went to meeting where these veiled women were. Their faces may have been hidden, but that certainly didn't stop them from expressing opinions quite forcefully.

[Nikia]

185. When I was very young, even before elementary school

I saw several women dressed like this woman. This was semi rural Ohio in the early 80s and I had never seen women dressed like that. My mother explained that they were from the Middle East and Muslims and that dressing like that was part of their religion. That was all the explanation that I needed at the time.

[kiahzero]

299. Right, because you wouldn't want children exposed to critical thinking

That would be wrong.

[Cameron27]

711. ...

self delete why bother at this point

[tocqueville]

14. the "visuability " is only one aspect of the problem

the ostentative wearing of a religious symbol in schools (or other public offices) is mostly followed by a demand of a PREFERENTIAL treatement based on religious beliefs. Which is not acceptable in a secular society.

Basically it's the same problem than with the US fundies. The difference is that they normally don't have a cross tatooed on their forehead. But they still will harass schoolboards with demands about creationism, prayers, special history teaching, sexual education (more the lack of it) etc...

[LeftyMom]

41. As long as they don't proselytize, visibility of thier beliefs isn't a

problem. I know what religion a lot of my teachers were, and it was never a bigger deal that knowing thier favorite team or an author they were fond of. Two of my favorite teachers (including the science teacher who first taught me about evolution, who did a very good job of it) were very devout mormons. One of the teachers at my high school held a leadership position in his (church, temple? I have no idea what messianic jews call thier place of worship- suppose that illustrates how much it came up.) We still had comprehensive sex education and a great science program in our school system.

If the woman makes a demand for preferential treatment, tell her to fuck off. It's discrimination to deny her employment simply because one assumes, based on her appearance (and by extention her religion) that she will.

[pnwmom]

69. So if you had a 6 or 7 year old who had a teacher with a face veil,

you wouldn't care.

I think it would have mattered to my elementary age kids if their teachers couldn't smile at them.

[LeftyMom]

93. I have a 5 1/2 year old. Our neighbor wears a veil. He couldn't care less.

There are plenty of ways to express affection and praise other than expression. As I said above if this was a teacher whose face was an immobile mask of burn scars instead nobody'd question her ability to teach. The problem people have is with the religius context of her veil, and it's bigoted.

[pnwmom]

167. The teacher with burns has no choice. The teacher with a veil does.

And the neighbor doesn't have a job teaching your child. My children aren't disturbed by differences in the neighborhood either -- and they are exposed to plenty, because our town has almost a third foreign born.

[philosophie_en_rose]

446. So as long as "those people" are in "their place," they're okay with you?

A burn victim could very well show his or her face, but chooses not to for personal reasons. A person that chooses not to show her face for religious reasons is making an equally valid choice.

Your responses make it clear that you think those people are good enough to be in their place but are not good enough to be in positions of authority. That's really sad.

[pnwmom]

550. Actually, we weren't talking about a burn victim covering her face

but a burn victim whose scars made her expressions unreadable -- a theoretical situation, but someone else brought it up.

A person who chooses not to show her face for religious reasons is making a valid choice. I agree.

And a principal who chooses not to hire or retain her -- if she insists on the face veil and no contact with men -- is making a valid choice based on sound educational reasons. There are speech pathologists and others on this thread who have explained in detail how children use facial expressions to learn language. Young children need to see a teacher's face in order to learn, and this should take precedence over any certificated person's desire to teach.

[philosophie_en_rose]

447. You can hear smiles in the voice. When I was 8, my teacher had a stroke.

She recovered, but half her face was paralyzed. She couldn't smile. It didn't matter a bit.

I grew up in Asia, and a few of my classmates had cleft palates. One of them couldn't smile. But I knew when she was happy.

People express themselves in many ways.

It would not bother me one bit for my child to have a teacher that chose not to show her face.

[bridgit]

245. of course it matters...

[tocqueville]

3. separation of church and state is the key

to avoid any risk of social and religious tensions in public schools (state) the wearing of religious symbols (at least the very obvious ones) must be forbidden. The Brits are coming closer to the French model because of the developing problems. Davis is absolutely right. If the symbol was only a representation of cultural diversity, it wouldn't be any problem. But in most cases it is used as a pretext to not apply regulations that have been voted by law. You cannot be Muslim AND British (or French), it's the contrary.

[Divernan]

4. I would vehemently object to it - sending the message that the sexes

are not equal - that men cannot be expected to control themselves at the sight of a woman's face; that women cannot be expected to control how men treat them. It's one thing for children to see other cultures in their community and perhaps have fellow students who cover their hair or faces for cultural/religious reasons. But to have a teacher or other person in authority over the children exhibit this behavior is provide an inherently contradictory message and example to students.

[seabeyond]

6. many many women that chose to wear it wear it for their own

religious belief. because they want to. because they believe in wearing it. for whatever reason. so you are opposed to a person being allowed to honor their religion in their dress.

[Lost-in-FL]

25. What if her religion calls for poligamy or pedophilia

would that make it ok?

[LeftyMom]

44. Those things are illegal because they harm others

Wrapping yourself in eight yards of cloth is a bit odd, but harmless.

[Lost-in-FL]

54. The point is that not because is a religious belief

is automatically accepted. Besides, the use of religious garment is optional in most instances.

[LeftyMom]

97. The point is that it's harmless.

I don't give a damn if she wears a veil to save on makeup costs, it's her own face to cover or not. As long as she's got the ability to teach (and apparently whoever hired her felt she did) she can wear anything that doesn't violate the school's dress code.

[Lost-in-FL]

99. Apparently

there's NOW a new dress code. And why can she wear a regular "burka" like most Muslim females (those who follow the traditional route)?

And besides there's plenty of Muslim schools in GB she can "teach" girls about oppression and intolerance just like other religious schools.

[LeftyMom]

106. Dress codes generally have exceptions for religious apparel.

I don't know why you think she's going to model intolerance and oppression for students. After all, if she were deeply traditional and trod upon, would she have goen to college and got a degree to teach, or would she be married off young and on her third baby by now? If anything, being able to reconcile a rather restrictive religious system with an education, a career and a place in broader society is something really valuble for her to model for her students, whether they are male or female and muslim or something else.

As for why she chooses to wear the veil she does, it's generally cultural. Muslim women in India don't dress like Muslim women in Saudia Arabia who don't dress like Muslim women in north Africa. Within a region there are differences based on the strictness of one's interpretation of the rules (excepting Saudia Arabia, where it's a matter of law because it's a theocracy,) in much the same way that different schools of thought in Judaism and Christianity have different thoughts on what constitutes appropriately modest dress.

[Lost-in-FL]

116. At least there's exceptions to the dress code

but then of course, she is unable to work with men NO EXCEPTIONS. Isn't that promoting religious intolerance?

[LeftyMom]

125. See post 117

Short answer: yes it's unreasonable. If she doesn't want to work with men it's her obligation to plan a career where that's possible rather than ask others to accomodate her belief system. I can't get a job as a checker at Safeway and demand that nobody come through my line with meat, but I can find jobs that don't involve things that I find morally unacceptable. She can find employment that meets her own restrictions or start a business that she can run according to those rules.

If not working with men is non-negotiable with her, she either needs to go into a line of work where there just aren't any men (preschool seems like a safe bet, unless the occasional Daddy drop off or pick up is an issue and I can't imagine it is beause she sees that much of men everytime she shops or leaves the house, maybe run a yarn shop or craft store or some place like that where men run screaming, or a shop selling garb for traditional muslim women, since she's strongly attatched to the veiling tradition) or get the hell over it.

I wouldn't say it's promoting intolerance, but it's expecting others to rearrange thier lives and possibly even lose thier jobs in order to accomodate her beliefs and it's rude.

[pnwmom]

178. I know a man who taught preschool for 15 years, so that's not a solution!

[LeftyMom]

184. Well, that's hardly the norm

My point was there are plenty of jobs where she'd not have to do much looking to find an all-female workplace and businesses she could start for herself with all-female clientelle.

[pnwmom]

187. That's certainly true. She has other options, and she should look

into them if she really can't come into contact with men.

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. Did you miss the part where she is demanding to not work with men?

Her values compromise her ability to teach.

[LeftyMom]

117. The thread was about veiling, and the OP suggested more of a hypothetical

than a discussion of this specific case so I responded primarily to the question asked, how I'd feel if a teacher at my child's school wore a full-face veil.

However, in this specific case, the request not to work with men is unreasonable. Should she wish to work in an enviornment without men, she really needs to plan for a career where that's possible (doing in-home day care would probably work, or she could tutor if she still wants to teach) or get over it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

126. I suggest option b

A society won't every be gender neutral if there are careers created to facilitate a religious desire to never interact with the opposite sex. I would think that it would be unnecessary to point this out here.

The full-face veil is an outward manifestation of institutionalized sexism.

[LeftyMom]

131. Oh I do too

I think the idea implied in the restriction, that men and women can't be around each other because either every man's a rapist or every woman's easy, startlingly offensive and medival. I do belive in people's right to believe stupid things though, provided they don't engage in harmful actions. If she wants to find or create a female-only career for herself and is able to do it in a way that doesn't infringe on the rights of others (ie she creates a business men have no interest in, like a nail shop or yarn store or ladies only gym or something) than more power to her.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

578. You Realize This Never Happened, Don't You?

I'm a bit amazed at how many people have repeated this ridiculously false assertion, or at least the assertion appears that way based on the actual facts of the video.

Not sure what video you watched, but I'd swear on the one I watched she only said that she has to wear the veil in the presence of men. She never demanded whatsoever to not work with men. Those were words the commentator put in her mouth. They were basically saying that if she's not allowed to wear the veil, but would only accept not wearing it if there were no men around, that she's basically saying she's demanding to not work with men. I personally found that spin to be pathetic. All she's saying is that her religion requires that she wear it in the presence of men, and since at times there are men present there she therefore must wear the veil. She NEVER demanded whatsoever to not work with men, and I'm bit amazed so many DU'ers are spreading this misconception around ignorantly as if it were fact.

[lumberjack_jeff]

621. The article in the OP was misleading on this point. Thanks for correcting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

132. Though she didn't wear the veil for the interview

She added that although she was unveiled during an interview for the job and that a man was present, her faith meant she could not be unveiled in front of male colleagues while teaching.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061015.wveil1015/BNStory/Front/home

So whoever hired her may have expected she wouldn't be wearing a veil at all, seeing as she wasn't at the time.

[proud2BlibKansan]

212. So she chose to be interviewed without the veil?

That changes things. hmm

[pnwmom]

352. That seems kind of sneaky, doesn't it?

She could be unveiled for an interview, but had to be veiled when doing her job. Right. Where is that in the Koran?

[pnwmom]

183. She wouldn't wear a veil all day if she were alone with her own

children. She would want them to be able to see her face.

Her school children deserve to be able to see her face, too. Frowns and smiles and all the more subtle facial expressions are a huge part of communication.

[pnwmom]

157. Couldn't it be harmful to a child who is deprived of nonverbal

communication -- frowns, smiles -- from his teacher?

This is not the same as a physical disability that can be corrected. This is a religious CHOICE.

[mondo joe]

182. Are blind children deprived of a complete absence of seeing

facial expressions?

[pnwmom]

186. Yes. I have a friend who is blind and she would definitely say that that

is a loss.

If a teacher's religion called for her to wear eye patches when she was out in public -- in effect, to be voluntarily blind -- should she be teaching a class? Since blind teachers can teach?

Or should we say that teachers shouldn't CHOOSE to disable themselves?

[mondo joe]

188. Funny - I have known blind people who seem quite functional and

do not appear to suffer from having not seen facial expressions AT ALL.

I think my kids would survive having one teacher whose expression they could not see without damage. I'm rather more concerned with what teachers teach than what they wear.

If a teacher chooses to cover his or her eyes in accord with his or her religion it's not a problem for me.

[pnwmom]

206. But the one teacher is the ONLY teacher for an elementary student, and

the only teacher for the whole year. This would have certainly been a hardship for my shy child.

[mondo joe]

217. It would certainly be odd. But my daughters are smart and capable.

I think they'd be just fine. And I think the other kids would be as well.

[pnwmom]

218. I'm glad for your daughters, really. But some kids are more sensitive

and they need good teaching, too.

And a good teacher communicates with EVERY tool at her disposal, including her face.

[mondo joe]

224. And if a teacher wore a mask to cover a disfigurement, or had

certain impairments, those tools would not be at his or her disposal and the kids would do fine.

I'd take an excellent teacher with a veil over a poor teacher without, if it came to that.

[riderinthestorm]

229. You have completely ignored handicapped children.

What about those who are deaf or hearing impaired in the classroom?

They should suffer so their teacher can wear a face veil?

In the west, we are mainstreaming our handicapped children. We require all of our teachers to be able to accomodate this.

PLUS the fact that our schools are not segregated by sex - most fully veiled women are demanding sex segregation.

[mondo joe]

233. I addressed that in another post.

A hearing impaired child and a veiled teacher would present a challenge the school would have to resolve.

If someone wants to work in a sex segregated workplace, that's on them.

[pnwmom]

235. What about a poor teacher with a veil?

Obviously, anyone would pick the excellent teacher over the poor teacher.

But I also think every teacher should use every power at his or her disposal to teach as well as he or she can. And for an elementary school teacher to teach with a veil over her face is to CHOOSE to limit communication, and to CHOOSE to put up a barrier between her and the students. A religion isn't a disability. It's a choice.

A disabled teacher is in an entirely different situation.

[mondo joe]

238. I don't think the veil is an issue. Quality of teaching is.

It wouldn't be my first choice, certainly, but neither would a teacher in a veil be an impairment to my kids' education.

[riderinthestorm]

266. Unless your kids were deaf, or perhaps Aspies with enough trouble

reading facial features or....

So it's okay for you, but anyone with a handicapped child, well then tough shit?

Facial veils are an impediment to communication in the west. Not just to those of us with progressive ideals who feel that this patriarchical religion is wrong in it's respect to dressing women, but for anyone who values mainstreaming children into our society who are disabled.

[mondo joe]

269. "Tough shit"? Hm, I don't recall saying that.

In fact, I do recall saying there are rare circumstances in which it would present a problem to be resolved. How it is resolved would depend on the specifics of the situation and the available options.

[riderinthestorm]

274. And what if you taught in a secular school?

with handicapped children?

Veil or not?

It's pretty simple really. What is best for the children? Aides are in the hallways, walking kids to the library or gym or art or music or esl classes or whatever. They don't just deal with their kids in their class - they deal with everyone in the school - handicapped, aspie or whatever.

What "rare" situation are you thinking of? What available options do you think a veiled woman, who won't deal with men, has when she has to work with male gym teachers, male art teachers, male esl teachers?

See, I don't get the whole "rare" argument for those who argue for religious creep into the school. It's either there, or it's not there.

I vote for separation.

[mondo joe]

276. As I said, it would depend on the circumstances and the available

options.

I've already said that if a person requires a gender segregated workplace, the burden is on them, not the employer.

I vote for separation of church and state - which meeans that unless the religious expression impairs the teacher's ability to perform, the state has no say.

[riderinthestorm]

279. That;'s all the article is pointing out too. Read it again then

and say how you could support this woman in a secular institution who wants to veil and sex segregate her workplace.

Her religious expression is impairing her ability to work.

[mondo joe]

283. I was addressing the hypothetical question posed by the OP.

And that hypothetical was only about the veil, which would not necessarily impair her ability to perform.

Requiring a sex segregated workplace was not in the hypothetical, but - as I have consistently said - that is not a reasonable accomodation.

[riderinthestorm]

307. But even theoretically addressing just the one question in the article

about wearing the veil (and not addressing her inability to work with men), that doesn't work for handicapped children.

It DOES impair her ability to perform for those children. And several parents on this thread have already testified that it would impact their own (presumably normal) children's learning as well.

Have you personally had a lot of interface with fully veiled women? I have. It's very disorienting. You cannot effectively communicate. at. all. And I am an adult who is/was seeking common ground with these women. Striving for it. Children shouldn't have to overcome this. Kids in the ME don't even have to do that - the women uncover their faces in their (sex segregated) classes and schools.

[mondo joe]

314. I'm a brazilian times more worried about non veiled teachers using the

classroom to teach their religion than I am about the exceptionally unlikely onslaught of veiled teachers.

[riderinthestorm]

321. But this is the thin edge of where church and state separation exists

It happens in cases like this. And you can try to diminish it as much as you want, but this is where the action is.

Those of us who feel strongly about this are denigrated as not being "tolerant" enough... does that sound familiar?

People like me work hard to point out these nuances. That's what it's all about.

[mondo joe]

324. Fine - you've stated your opinion, I've stated mine.

If this is where the action is, it will be decided in the courts soon enough.

[pnwmom]

351. Perhaps that's a function of the city you're living in.

I'm not living in fundie country here, but there is a growing Muslim community, and some do wear the face veils.

I don't think I could stand to live in much of the south, because of the way that a certain definition of Christianity is promoted in the public schools. I think we should all be doing everything we can to promote the separation of church and state.

[pnwmom]

354. I also suspect that a lot of the veil-promoters here

have had limited experience trying to communicate with these women. But it's basically the same as trying to communicate with someone in a ski mask. I wouldn't want my child to have to do that with a teacher all day.

[mondo joe]

408. Veil-PROMOTERS?

Is that like anti-Iraq war people being pro-terrorists?

[pnwmom]

411. Nope.

[seabeyond]

646. kinda like pro abortion..... geez n/t

[Ms. Clio]

643. here it is -- right out in the open -- "veil promoters" indeed

And you deliberately ignored the crucial facts in this case, which are that she has no problem being unveiled in front of the children -- so there goes all your saccharine sweet concern for "the children" -- but doesn't want to be unveiled in front of an adult male. I'm sure deep down you don't really think she should be able to do that, either.

[pnwmom]

302. Actually, in relation to a woman with a veil we are all Aspies, in a way,

because it denies us access to important nonverbal communication.

[mondo joe]

308. The US School Crisis: Tidal waves of veileed teachers and Asperger's

Syndrome kids.

Fact is, this is almost universally a non issue. But don't let that get in the way of a chance to go on in a thinly veiled rant that is more about wanting to coerce women than concern about Asperger's kids.

[pnwmom]

327. You're out of touch. In my son's class he has had at least two

kids with Aspies in every year for the last eight years. Sometimes as many as four. And we have a growing community of veiled women in my city (a third of us are foreign born). The situation in England is ahead of most areas in the US now, but we will be dealing with the same issues before long.

[proud2BlibKansan]

214. Their other senses are usually heightened

It's amazing how the brain compensates for the disabled.

[riderinthestorm]

223. Yeah, deaf, lip reading children can "see" just what their fully face

veiled teacher is "saying" with their extra sensory powers that their brain is providing....

They can just "read" their child's (perhaps exposed, perhaps not) exposed eyes....

:sarcasm:

[pnwmom]

253. But one way a deaf child's brain would compensate would be to

make the child that much better at nonverbal communication -- i.e., facial expressions -- which is precisely what a facial veil would prevent a deaf child from taking advantage of.

If you've ever watched deaf people speak with sign language, you must have noticed how very expressive their faces are. That's a very important part of communication for them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

399. Yes this teacher would not do well with any handicapped kids

She can't communicate effectively in a classroom with a veil over her face.

This is such a no-brainer. I can't believe all the people defending her. I guess they have never taught.

[cushla_machree]

653. most people have no idea

I taught for a year...and since i had no formal education in teaching i had no idea about a lot of things. When you don't take child development courses, you have no idea. which is why these people think wearing a veil while teaching is A-ok.

It should be a no-brainer that its not.

Head scares are one thing, full facial veils are another. You can't compare it to a yarmulke. I can't believe people can defend burka like dress here. It has nothing to do with religion! It only exists using the excuse of religion.

What did woman in afganistan do when the taliban was forced out? Threw off their burkas. It is male opression, not of their own will. Those woman who believe it to be between them and god are the same as the religious fundamentalists here who are taugh that woman should be subservient to men. It is written in the bible, so it must be so. Well, that bible was written by men thousands of years ago. Of course it would say that. But they believe it is what 'god wants.' Apparently god also wants woman in beekeeper suits. Or the men just tell them that.

[Ms. Clio]

659. it should be a no-brainer that this thread is complete BS

The woman unveils when she is alone with the children, but does not want to do so in front of an adult male. And the women in Afghanistan did not throw off their burkas -- where did you come up with that nonsense? The vast majority still wear them.

[cushla_machree]

696. In most Afghan villages, women rarely wear the burka

The Taliban forced the burka onto womam, especially in cities were woman were around men of different kin.

Why do you think the vast majority of the woman still wear them? Because of fear. In Kabul, two women wearing scarves instead of burkas had acid sprayed in their faces.

The press reported that after the taliban left, they took them off. Most woman interviewed do not want to wear them, but they do so to protect themselves. And since things have detoriorated, most woman now wear it.

[Ms. Clio]

698. No, the press did not report anything of the kind -- if you have links

to prove that assertion, then post them. I have archives dating back to 2001, although I am away from home at the moment and do not have access to them. But aside from a few heavily-publicized pieces of propaganda, the women who wore it before they were "liberated" continued to wear it afterwards, because it is an age-old tradition that predates the Taliban by centuries. Try reading RAWA's site for the actual facts about women in Afghanistan.

And did you even notice that all the hysteria about the precious children and a veiled teacher turned out to be so much crap since she is willing to unveil while teaching them?

[cushla_machree]

699. I think of a lot of it is crap since she is a teachers aid

I was reading a lot of the RAWA's site, and some mentioned stories about how woman took them off, especially woman in politics. But now, no one moves around without wearing them for fear. Everything I have read interviewing woman state that they don't wear it for tradition, but because they don't want to be harmed, raped, beaten, etc.

I wouldn't want my child taught by a veiled woman. But, since she is a teachers aid, effectively just helping out, then there are plenty of ways she could help as long as it was not situated around language and learning language.

But what gets me about all the religious intolerance debates is, it usually revolves around fundamentalists trying to force everyone else to accept their beliefs, and when you don't, its opression. The Christian right screams about opression all the time, when it is them trying to enfoce their beliefs on secular society. My main difficulty with this story is, were i go to go to saudi arabia, i would dress like everyone else because its not my culture. My personal beliefs and own personal religion do not dictate dress, and i feel it is my right to wear whatever the heck i want, and i certainly don't care how men feel about that. But, were i to travel to the middle east and participate actively in society, all that would have to be put aside. But the difference here might be religious freedom, we have it, they do not.

I have no problem with head covering, but if she is teaching students, all under age, then there is no reason why she can;t have part of her face showing. And if she had no problem with that, then this whole arugment is stupid but it just goes to show whats going on in europe.

[RapidCreek]

720. Yes..but would you deny my deaf son that luxury?

evidently so....My son should go without hearing his teacher so she can act out sexual phobias....yep that sounds great to me! Such fucking stupidity!

RC

[Cameron27]

736. Sorry, apparently

no matter what the burden that your child faces by the cultural/religious customs of his teacher, her needs are vastly more important to consider than that of her students.

And I'm reading this crap on a liberal/progressive democratic message board (and I don't even need a sarcasm sign to write that)

[RapidCreek]

761. yea it's pretty damn pathetic

This board has changed quite alot in my absence....Ive been in therapy for a year and have been unable to type because of a crushed hand. This board isn't very liberal or progressive anymore...it appears most of the sensible posters have departed.

RC

[seabeyond]

52. we are talking dress. i am truly surprised at the post on this thread

are we incapable of valuing anothers religion? must we dictate to all people. is that the party we have become. truly offensive.

[mondo joe]

191. Sadly, fascism and authoritarianism are not exclusive to the right wing.

Nothing is more disheartening to me than to find fellow lefties who only want to impose THEIR standards on others.

[riderinthestorm]

202. Like having to work together gender neutral, or perhaps accomodate

handicapped children (deaf children who lip read and can't SEE through a face veil....)

:eyes:

Look, there are bigger cultural/religious differences beyond your limited vision. I can be a progressive and see that a face veil isn't a great thing in western schools.

Women in face veils embrace a different cultural standard (like objecting to working with the opposite sex, or working with handicapped children) that don't mesh with progressive values. That doesn't make us all "bad".

[pnwmom]

213. The question is how open minded a progressive can be before

his or her brains fall out.

It amazes me the regressive practices a progressive will try to defend in the name of multiculturalism.

[mondo joe]

237. Screw multiculturalism. Just good old fashioned freedom and separation

of church and state will suffice.

Whether you force a woman to wear a veil or not wear it, it's still coercion.

[pnwmom]

246. Isn't it coercion if a parent is forced to accept a teacher wearing

a face veil, even knowing that that will limit the communication between the teacher and the child?

In my district parents are given no choice about teachers.

[mondo joe]

248. No more than if a parent is forced to accept a teacher wearing anything

else they don't like. Not every parent will be satisfied with every teacher.

The question is does the teacher perform the job in such a way as to meet a fair and consistent standard.

[pnwmom]

282. No, it is completely different. Whether a teacher wears one outfit or

another doesn't affect her ability to communicate with my child. But if she wears a mask on her face all day -- as she wouldn't at home with her own children -- then she is deliberately cutting off an important part of communication with my child.

Female teachers in even the most conservative Muslim countries DON'T wear face veils when they are teaching. Did you know that? Because they are only teaching girls, they remove the veil when inside the classroom -- unless a man walks in. So they don't restrict themselves that way when teaching in a Muslim country -- only when they are here.

[mondo joe]

293. If you think it impairs the ability of thhe teacher to perforn the

function of the job, then take it up as you would any other issue.

The case can be decided on its merits.

[pnwmom]

311. I think it would limit the ability of any elementary teacher to do the job

And, as I said, they don't try to teach wearing face veils in Muslim countries, because female teachers only teach girls. It's only here that a woman with a face veil would put up a communication barrier between herself and all their students.

[mondo joe]

316. Maybe you'll get lucky and get a face veiled teacher in your school and it

can go to court and settle the issue.

But it's not likely.

[mondo joe]

230. Obviously a hearing impaired child with a veiled teacher would present

a problem the school would have to resolve. It wouldn't be the first time a school had to figure out how to handle a challenging situation.

If a teacher wears a veil it doesn't hinder her ability to teach, except in rare circumstances.

If a teacher objects to working with men that would impair her ability to work in most schools. Like pharmacists who don't want to dispense birth control, I'd say their religion prohobits them from being able to perform basic functions of the job, so it;s their tough luck.

[riderinthestorm]

261. "Except in rare circumstances" which means either the child is considered

first or the veiled teacher?

Who should win that argument mondojoe? Regardless of how "rare"?

I believe schools should prohibit religious gear that interferes with teaching children period. That means we as a secular society need to make sure we are thinking about everyone who is impacted, and frankly, in a secular society, religious shit is secondary. You finally admit that this is a situation the school will have to resolve - well, hello! this is what the article is all about. I don't give a shit how rare the occasion may be, but if her religion IS in the way of teaching any child - it's got to go.

The teacher needs to resign, not sue the school, imho.

[mondo joe]

267. It means the rare circumstance must be addressed on its own merits,

as all rare circumstances are.

In many cases it would easily be resolved - if there is more than 1 second grade classroom, the hearing impaired child would not be assigned to the classroom with the veiled teacher.

I have no problem prohibiting anything that impairs the ability of the teacher to teach.

[riderinthestorm]

277. Nobody deals in a bubble in a school.

If you'd spent any amount of time there you would know this.

Kids are in gym class, then library, then art, then esl, then into computer lab. Any or all of these situations would require working with male teachers. Then you have the kids running in the halls - what of the hearing impaired child who is running in the hall - does the veiled teacher ignore them? What of reprimanding the hearing impaired child who is caught in the act of bullying? How is the veiled teacher going to deal with this - go get another teacher?

:eyes: Nobody has time for that.

Teachers need to be able to deal with all of the children, in all of the situations. And they need to be able to deal with all of their peers without prejudice or problem.

It's common sense!

[mondo joe]

281. Common sense:

Not every teacher is the same, nor do they need to be.

If a veiled teacher can use ASL with hearing impaired kids will that be adequate?

And - for the umpteenth time - I've already said that if a person requires a sex segregated workplace hat is their pproblem and no employer can reasonably be expected to accomodate it.

[riderinthestorm]

300. What about aspies who need intensive training on recognizing

facial clues in order to facilitate their learning/social responsiveness?

Yup, a veiled teacher would be fine with ASL IF the child knew ASL. You do know however that most hearing impaired children aren't taught ASL anymore though? The focus is exclusively on lipreading to mainstream the kids?

Not every teacher is the same, nor do they need to be BUT they need to be able to interface with every child in the school plus every faculty member. Period.

This teacher cannot do this. Fire her ass.

[mondo joe]

303. They don't all need to interact with all kids to the same degree.

Besides - the whole thing is ludicrous. It's not as if there's a tidal wave of face-veiled teaching applicants.

I am FAR more worried about teachers cramming religion into teaching.

[pnwmom]

317. Don't you think it makes sense to have a general, fair policy in effect,

based on the needs of children, before a problem takes place?


Such as one that allows teachers to wear religious symbols -- crosses, hair veils, etc. -- but not masks that get in the way of good communication?

[mondo joe]

322. Policies should be broad and should address real situations.

But any policy is subject to challenge anyway.

[High Plains]

585. What a ridiculous comment.

Poster constructs a hypothetical situation where veiled teacher has to deal with Asperger Syndrome kid, then demands real teacher be fired because of hypothetical. Please.

[riderinthestorm]

592. Aspies, blind, deaf children and other disabilities not outlined here

Look, virtually all schools are mainstreaming disabled kids into the classrooms. This teacher has to be able to teach all of them effectively. Clearly the school feels she can't do an effective job either or they wouldn't be moving this direction.

Also, she didn't wear the face veil for her interview (with a man), and now wants to wear it - that is a pretty deceptive thing to do and that alone will probably get her fired.

[Kali]

287. I think wearing a cross is just as much "in the way" as a veil.

Either NO religious artifacts or anything goes.

[mondo joe]

295. I concur. The only proper stance for a secular government is to

forbid all religious expression, or permit all - to the degree that said expression does not prevent the teacher from performing thhe function of his or her job.

[riderinthestorm]

315. Okay. Agreed! nt

[smirkymonkey]

503. I suggested that and was called a fascist.

[pnwmom]

319. A cross doesn't obstruct the face. A cross doesn't impair communication.

A cross doesn't mask facial expression.

A cross could be compared to a hair veil, but NOT to a face veil.

[seabeyond]

495. this is the argument you hold to, it is obvious your issue goes beyond

the facial expressions. children have ot learn at young ages to adapt to all different people. to deprive children of diversity, because you feel children are so incapable is appalling to me as a mother. children are much better at this than it seems many adults

[pnwmom]

555. How is it obvious? I don't care what a teacher is wearing over her hair

or around her neck. Young children need to see a teacher's FACE in order to learn and communicate well. There are teachers on this thread who explain this better than I can. You should enlighten herself.

[seabeyond]

494. since we are arguing solutions to made up problem, easy answer

and as a problems solver. a grade has three, four classes. the child that cannot hear and must read lips, (i have yet to see this child intregrated into system, generally in special ed class because no teacher unless signs would be able to meet childs need,....) can be place in the two or three other classes with teachers that are not veiled.

not hard
steps on no ones toes
problem solved

not that it would be an issue to come up

[pnwmom]

559. All young children need a teacher who communicates well

nonverbally as well as verbally. All young children are still developing their verbal skills, which are enhanced by being able to put the words they hear the teacher say into the context of her facial expressions.

So solving the hypothetical situation of a deaf or blind child doesn't take care of the fact that the rest of the class is still getting short-changed.

[seabeyond]

561. the woman can still be heard. i do not trust you women. changed the

argument. at first it was that it was degrading to women. that they were all forced to wear. andwhen people werent buying it you changed it to the face. i think the reason you oppose this is what it represents. and you are willing to deny someones right to honor their religion because you resent what that garment represents. i dont like it either. i dont like the kkk either. i will still stand up for their right to speakout and march, as i march against them.

you are now arguing she cannot do her job. i say she can.

but i think that is the bogus argument

[pnwmom]

580. "I do not trust you women."

That's the bottom line, isn't it.

Enough said.

[pnwmom]

215. Little is more disheartening to me than hearing lefties, in the name

of multiculturalism, support cultural or religious practices that denigrate women.

[mondo joe]

221. It seems you want to trade one coercion of women for another.

Whether they are forced to wear veils or forced not to, it's much the same.

[pnwmom]

355. No, it is balancing the needs of the children to be educated with

the woman's need for religious expression -- and putting the needs of the child first.

[seabeyond]

497. it is your belief that it is about children. i say poppycock to thinking

this in anyway interfers with a childs education. it is your disgust with the practiceandit appears you use a flimsy argument with the children being a concern

[pnwmom]

565. You can say poppycock but that isn't an argument.

Other posters here include teachers and speech pathologists who have explained how important nonverbal communication -- including facial expression -- is to a student's learning. But instead of addressing those thoughtful posts, you would rather just dismiss the whole idea out of hand, on the basis of . . . nothing.

[seabeyond]

568. then every muslim must have a speech impediment, seeing the mother

is the one most responsible for a childs speech,..... beyond any teacher.... thru out the muslim world.

[pnwmom]

594. Muslim mothers do not wear the face veil around their own children

and Muslim teachers in Muslim countries do not wear the face veil around their young students. (Women there only teach girls, so it isn't an issue.) And even in countries with co-ed classrooms, Muslim authorities don't require women to wear a face veil to teach young children of either sex. That information was posted elsewhere in this long thread.

[seabeyond]

496. so you are going to be our decider now. are we just switching from

one group to another telling us how we must life, what we must think how we should believe. you are no better than the repigion that coerse people into following religion rule.

[proud2BlibKansan]

216. And I was thinking we were talking about kids

and what is best for them.

[seabeyond]

491. teach your child this dress is wrong, evil bad...... then keep out of

school, because that will be the kids attitude. teach it is a dress for religion that some women chose and to be respectful,.... then teacher can do well and children flourish.

it isnt very hard blib, i have an 8 and 11 year old that read the title to the thread. i stated the varying positions. they comprehended all angles well. they would also be ones to embrace and stand up for this womans right to dress how she believed she should.

[proud2BlibKansan]

512. A teacher needs her face to communicate

so a veil would make it hard for her to be an effective instructor. That fact has nothing to do with approval or disapproval of her religion.

The #1 consideration here should be what is best for kids. And not seeing their teacher's face is NOT what is best for kids.

[seabeyond]

514. i think that is a bogus argument. i think it is silly and it suggests

further how incapable you think kids are. my kids would have no problem what so ever communicating with this teacher.

[proud2BlibKansan]

532. Are you a teacher?

How much training in instruction have you had? Teaching is about communicating. Only the best communicators and masters of language can be effective teachers. Facial expression is am important part of communicating. As I said in another post, even blind students are taught to feel their teacher's face when learning how to communicate.

I am going to respectfully trump you on this one. This woman is not being fair to her students when she covers her face. She is not an effective teacher. I am sure you want the best for your kids. This wouldn't be it.

Did you read where this teacher went to the interview without her veil? She was hired. Now she wants to wear the veil. This ended the debate for me. She misrepresented herself and her religious views to get hired, now she wants special consideration. But the real issue here is what is best for her students. A covered face is not what is best. And since it is her choice, she should choose to uncover her face when teaching or find another line of work.

[seabeyond]

557. because you are a teacher does not trump me, i still adamantly disagree

with you. being a teacher you should be open to the expectation we should have of our children. without the expectation, how will they reach for the best. i would never decide my children would be unable to learn, thru lack of acceptance, of a person wearing a veil. and i totally disagree veil means inability to communicate. i would see it as an adventure and opportunity my child being taught by someone so diverse. you see where they MIGHT lose something in the bargain. i see all they can GAIN in the experience.it is the difference between being able to find the higher in all situations

my oldest had an unveiled second grade teacher that was so disorganized and talk about inability to communicate the first year was hell for him. i sat in the class, saw what he was up against and so screwed his personality,.... being add and obtuse as all get up, needing order and structure, not the face. and we were able to find the higher in the experience and gain from that experience.

you sell children short. and you sell this woman short.

i don't do that to people

and you sell me short, putting yourself above me because you are a teacher. you know, a teacher can be wrong too.

[proud2BlibKansan]

577. I am speaking from the stance of quality of instruction

Needless to say, I have had thousands of hours of training in this. That is why I asked if you are a teacher. We are taught to use our facial expressions. It is an expectation of a well-trained teacher.

An example:
I am teaching 1st graders to read this year. We are working on letter sounds. Every time we learn a new sound, we put our hands on our mouths and our throats and feel what happens (how our muscles move) when we make the new sound. Your lips are closed when you say 'em' but open when you say 'en'. That is how the kids are taught to distinguish these two similar sounds. I cannot in my wildest dreams figure out how I would do this with a veil on.

This is not about being intolerant of this teacher's religion. It is about doing what is best for kids. Period. Yes they need to learn to be tolerant and it is wonderful and important to expose them to different cultures. But their teacher needs to have her face exposed.

[slackmaster]

564. The school has a right to determine a dress code for its employees

are we incapable of valuing anothers religion?

The relevant question would be whether or not we treat all religious expression equally regardless of faith.

[tocqueville]

27. prove it

all women organisations in Europe and specially the Muslim ones agree that the wearing of the hijab is due to COERCION among younger women. Mostly from family (often the big brother) and due to influence from some preachers. The older ladies wearing a traditional costume are not a problem. The amount of younger women wearing a veil by pure religious conviction is minimal. It can vary depending from country of origin. But Iranians are the first to throw it away when they come to Europe, most Egyptians, Tunisians, Palestinian and Lebanese don't wear it. Algerian women started to wear it again in the 90ies in pure FEAR of retaliation from Algerian extremists and Morocco has a 50% ratio. Turks don't wear it normally since they separated Church and State.

The few American muslims are not representative (not counting the US Black Muslims which have a different origin).

[Divernan]

43. I'm afraid we're batting our heads against a wall here, tocqueville

Most of the posters seem to have had a knee jerk reaction to anyone opposing a religiously linked dress code. They have no knowledge of what is actually going on in Muslim communities around the world, or the purpose behind the chaddor/veil or how many Muslim women do NOT want to wear these but are brow-beaten/brain-washed/frightened into complying.

[tocqueville]

53. At least I've tried as Clinton said...

Freedom of religion is freedom FROM religion too.

[seabeyond]

60. bullshit. to force women to dress is different than women that chose

i know there are women that chose, i have heard them. they live in the panhandle of texas. you can state that all women are being abused, as you can state all women in a funndamentalist christian faith are being abused. but.... i know these women believe in this part of their religion. whether i agree, whether i would be willing to live it has nothing to do with allowing "allowing" another to make their chose. because you deem it demeaning, cannot be projected onto another

i think strip dancing is demeaning, yet.... i am not going to tell all women they cannot do it because they do not know better. htat i know so i will protect them, regardless of what they think feel or believe

[tocqueville]

102. I am talking about women with "Arabic" background

not of a couple of religious idiots in Texas. Anyway the State has the right to intervene if it finds that those women are coerced in some way. Human rights go before religious rights. We don't live in the 16th century anymore.

Take the "Jesus Camp" for example. In France it would be considered as a dangerous cult (like Scientology) and forbidden.

All this discussion makes me understand that the Separation of Church and State in the US is mostly a fiction.
If society in a democratic consensus (of course there will be opponents) finds that some religious practices are opposing basic human rights, the State has the right to intervene and coerce.

Listening to some on this thread animal sacrifices (or even human sacrifices) should be OK because "it's their choice"

I call bullshit.

[Ms. Toad]

121. No - not a fiction

When it works, separation of state permits those of us who have religious beliefs outside the mainstream to be able to exercise those beliefs, so long as we do not insist that others also exercise them.

It is not working very well at the moment, because it is moving in the direction of prohibiting individuals from acting consistently with their religious beliefs. For example, native peoples have routinely use illegal drugs (peyote, for example) in religious ceremonies for centuries. Unfortunately, since the law banning peyote use was not directed specifically at native peoples they are bound by the law and cannot legally engage in that part of their religious tradition.

Had an old concession to religious beliefs been decided under the current test for separation of church and state, it is unlikely that there would be a conscientious objector status for people whose faith teaches them that war is wrong.

From anything I have read, this woman believes that as part of her faith she must wear a veil. You have made it very clear that you believe this practice is evil, and that she is being forced or coerced to do so, and that she will demand additional concessions from everyone around her in addition to being permitted to wear a veil, but those are not the facts as presented. Separation of church and state should mean the state is prohibited from interfering with her faith based practice of wearing a veil. When that exercise interferes with her ability to do her job, if accommodations cannot be made that permit her to perform the essential duties of her job, then she cannot hold the job. (For example, if she is a physical education teacher and as you suggested she cannot teach phys ed that is a different matter and should be dealt with if and when it arises.) If her faith practices injure others, the tests require a balancing of rights - so it is not a matter of anything goes. But the fact that religious practices create passive exposure to the outward trappings of another's faith is not a reason to bar them.

Your comment, "a couple of religious idiots in Texas," in regards to women who have freely chosen to wear a veil as part of their faith practices speaks volumes about your biases.

[tocqueville]

143. I am biased against religious oppression

Christian, Muslim of whatever.

The separation of Church and State means among other things that practices found being offensive, aiming to split, to seek SECULAR EXCEPTION for religious beliefs, not to talk about "inhuman practices" - by the democratic majority (of whatever religious or non-religious background it may be) are to be forbidden and coerced.

In a secular, separated society, religion is mostly a private matter and CANNOT interfere with public affairs.

This means no tax exemption for Churches and no "special attentions" for some.

Her faith is IRRELEVANT regarding society's organisation. But it's her freedom to practice it whenever or wherever she wants as long as it doesn't INTERFERE with the secular order, which is the order chosen by the majority.

If you start making exceptions, soon you'll have human sacrifices.

And I consider fundies as idiots yes, whatever religion they may be. It's not worse than calling Republicans idiots. It's because their beliefs are idiotic in both cases. It its stays at the Amish peaceful level that's no problem, but in most cases those people tend to be dangerous, because they are against everything what democracy and freedom stands for. Which they have shown on many occasions. If they start getting dangerous, it's better to deal with them. So you avoid crashing planes in skyscrapers for example. And the recruitment of the pilots can start with a veil... under the cry of "religious freedom"...

my ass

and the peyote story is exactly the kind of minor example which isn't relevant either. Because the fact that those
people expose themselves to possible addiction and brain damage (and in a modern society export the practice - by derivation in an uncontrolled form into campuses) is a society problem. Thus most be regulated.

Religious exception cannot be tolerated in a secular society unless the choice is not interfering. You cannot ask that your enterprise or school doesn't serve pork. But you can abstain.

[kiahzero]

305. Looks like somebody forgot about the Free Exercise clause.

Actually read the First Amendment sometime. Believe it or not, there's a whole clause dealing with people's right to exercise their religion. In short, you're wrong. You're also ridiculously overwrought ("Letting people practice their religion will lead to terrorism!" is something I'd expect to see a far-right fundie shouting, not anyone here on DU).

[Hoping4Change]

703. Freedom of religion is but one legal requirement.

"When it comes to religion, public schools must obey two legal requirements that are hard to reconcile: let it be, and push it away. These are the clashing and equally forceful commands contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution uses 16 words—known as the “religion clauses”—to create rules about how faith and government interact. One clause gives citizens the right to freely exercise religious convictions; the other prohibits government (including taxpayer-funded public schools) from establishing religion, meaning granting favorable treatment.

Yet, because the Constitution is so brief about what’s expected and so vague on how to do it, the result has been years of conflict and strife. The main questions:

How far can students or school staff go in expressing their beliefs?
When have school officials gone too far in letting religion reign?"

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.1537261/k.84BC/Religion_and_public_schools.htm

[Ms. Toad]

379. What you are saying to this woman

is that she cannot abstain - she must eat pork.

For her (taking her at her word), her faith requires her to wear a veil - just as some people's faith requires them to abstain from eating pork. Forcing her to remove the veil is the equivalent of forcing someone to eat pork against his or her religious beliefs.

You are treating her request that she be allowed to abstain (from showing her face, in this case, rather than eating pork) as if it were a request that no one be allowed to eat pork (force everyone to wear a veil). That is just not the case, no matter how many times you twist the analogy.

Separation of church and state must mean both that the state does not establish religion nor does it interfere with the free exercise of it by its people, or it means nothing at all. We're back to the days when my faith ancestors were thrown in jail for refusing to doff their hats to the king, or address him with formal pronouns. I have no desire to return to a society with as little tolerance of diverse practices of faith as the one that existed 3-400 years ago - and I find it particularly sad that I find such intolerance here in a community that prides itself on valuing diversity.

[Hoping4Change]

730. Not a good analogy because eating pork for is haraam ie

totally forbidden. The Koran is explicit about this which is why Muslims the world over don't eat pork. There is no similar injunction against women baring their faces in public. Veiling took on significance with the introduction of Wahhibism. It is in countries that have institutionalized Wahibbism where veiling is mandatory.

[noamnety]

123. Did you just equate wearing a veil with human sacrifices?

Yikes. That's fairly ugly, as is equating their religion with living in the 16th century. The tone of your post is one of a colonialism, that they are a backwards culture, uncivilized (not like us).

The reality is that in virtually all cultures, women are oppressed. In virtually all cultures, violence against women is epidemic. Blame it on the veil if you like, but we have the same problems. You can't hide all oppressed people away in closets (or superdomes) to keep your children's' lives sanitized. When people try to segregate those who are "less civilized" we call it bigotry.

[tocqueville]

135. it's a matter of PRINCIPLE, how about honour killings, gang rapes ?

if you say that the right of religious expression overrules the protection of human rights, anything is permitted.
I took an extreme example, to make my point.

I bet that some Bible fundies could sacrifice goats in the US...

Their religion AS APPLIED BY THE ISLAMISTS is LIVING in the 7th Century. Read what they write.

I don't buy the crap about culture, colonialism etc... it has nothing to do with it

reda what French progressive MUSLIM women are writing :

Ni Putes Ni Soumises

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores Nor Submissive) is a French feminist movement, founded in 2002, which has already secured the recognition of the French press and parliament. It is also the name of a book written by Fadela Amara, one of the leaders of the movement, with the help of Le Monde journalist Sylvia Zappi.

The movement fights against violence targeting women and it focuses on these areas:

Gang-rapes
Pressure to wear the Hijab
Pressure to drop out of school
Pressure to marry early without being able to choose the husband.
NPNS was set up by a group of young French Muslim women, in response to the violence being directed at them in the Muslim suburbs (banlieues) and housing projects (cités) of cities such as Paris, Lyon and Toulouse, where rape and violence towards women is all too common.

The slogan used by the movement is meant both to shock and mobilise. They particularly protest against changes of attitudes toward women due to allegedly rising radical Islam in those French suburbs that are mostly inhabited by immigrants from the Maghreb and other parts of Africa. A particular matter of concern is the treatment of Muslim women, who are pressured into wearing veils, leaving school, and getting married early. Nevertheless, the movement represents women of all faiths and ethnic origins, all of whom may find themselves trapped by poverty and the ghettoisation of the cités.

A translation of the key points of NPNS's national appeal on their official website <1>:

No more moralising: our condition has worsened. The media and politics have done nothing, or very little, for us.
No more wretchedness. We are fed up with people speaking for us, with being treated with contempt.
No more justifications of our oppression in the name of the right to be different and of respect toward those who force us to bow our heads.
No more silence in public debates about violence, poverty and discrimination.
Two high-profile cases gave a particular impetus to NPNS during 2003. The first was that of Samira Bellil who published a book called Dans l'enfer des tournantes ("In Gang Rape Hell") in which she recounts her life as a girl under la loi des cités (the law of the housing projects) where she was gang raped on more than one occasion, the first time at age 13, afraid to speak out, and ultimately seen only as a sexual object, alienated and shunned by her family and some of her friends. The second case was that of 17-year-old Sohanne Benziane who was burned alive by a Muslim gang leader.

Both of these were fresh in the minds of the members of Ni Putes Ni Soumises during their march through France, which started in February 2003 and took them to over 20 cities before culminating in a 30,000 strong demonstration in Paris on March 8, 2003. The march was officially called la Marche des femmes des quartiers contre les ghettos et pour l'égalité (The March of Women from the Projects against ghettoes and for equality). Representatives of Ni Putes Ni Soumises were received by French Prime Minister Jean Pierre Raffarin. Their message was also incorporated into the official celebrations of Bastille Day 2003 in Paris, when 14 giant posters each of a modern woman dressed as Marianne, the symbol of the French Republic, were hung on the columns of the Palais Bourbon, the home of the Assemblée nationale (the lower house of the French parliament).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni_Putes_Ni_Soumises

so PLEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZE

get out of the bubble

[noamnety]

139. If we're going to exclude potential rape victims from teaching

we're gonna have to fire an awful lot of teachers. If we're going to fire all teachers who were raised in a culture that promotes rape, we're going to have to fire an awful lot of teachers. Where are you going to find the teachers that haven't been raised in such a culture?

Hypothetically speaking, if I've been raped, you think I shouldn't be allowed to be a teacher?

[Divernan]

148. How could you so completely misunderstand !?!?!

These young women were gang raped and/or killed because they did not conform to the religious/cultural requirement that they cover themselves, drop out of school, be forced into marriage, etc. They were gang-raped, beaten, and sometimes murdered by others in the religious community at the instigation of the mullahs.

So here's the way it works, if a government, like France, Germany or the UK, refuses to allow religious extremist leaders, aka mullahs, to dictate what citizens of a country wear or instigate beating, rape and murder of young women, the governments are protecting those young women who would prefer to choose to live their lives in a freer and more contemporary way than that dictated by the mullahs. The governments are acting to stop the beatings, rapes and murders.

[noamnety]

153. violence by men against women

is not limited to that culture. Believing that changing women's dress is going to stop violence against women is a fantasy.

The problem isn't the dress; the problem is that women are second class citizens, are viewed as dehumanized sex objects, and are viewed as property. That is cross-cultural.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm going to reiterate - firing oppressed people doesn't cure their oppression. All it does is oppress them more.

[tocqueville]

181. Sorry but this is only excuses not to deal with the problem

A teacher wearing a veil is NOT oppressed, at least in most cases. The fact that she became a teacher should have opened her eyes. In the country she comes from (assuming is not a white woman on a religious trip) it maybe so that her sisters are probably not even allowed to go to school.

She maybe profoundly religious, but again it's irrelevant in a secular society
She might want to indirectly proselyte, which can be combined with above...

It's obvious that most, and I say most, young European women with Muslim background, have chosen to throw away the veil - when you don't see them topless with g-strings on the French Riviera's beaches (I'm not kidding).

They express their rights, their feminity. But nobody - not even them - harrass women of other ages or even the young ones that still wear it, because it's a matter of choice, a natural process.

What's asked of them is only NOT TO USE the religious argument to impose a behaviour on a secular institution. Do as they do in Turkey and Tunisia for example... You cannot say that THERE it's imposed by racial prejudices....

If they persist, it has been shown that in most cases there is a political-religious agenda behind.

[noamnety]

211. I would agree that it's not necessarily a sign of oppression

however, my post was in response to divernan's, who was claiming it IS a symptom of repression. If a person believes that a woman wearing a veil is oppressed, then firing her becomes an ethical problem because you are only adding to her oppression by denying her work opportunities.

It's not really my place, though, to second guess why a person is wearing it, whether it's because someone is forcing them to or because they are choosing to make a statement with it, or because they are just more comfortable with it. That's not my business.

In my school, we have a no hat/head covering rule. We make an exception for those who wear a head covering for religious reasons, and all they need to do is state that it's religious (and have a head covering that's consistent with that claim - not like a cheese-head hat or something). We aren't in the business of deciding what their motivation is for wearing it, whether they are making a religious-political statement, or cultural, or what. Not my business.

So far, the only reasonable complaint I've heard in this thread related to the veil is that it interferes with lip reading. Hard of hearing/deaf students have the right to demand reasonable accomodations, so it would be up to the school to work that out, whether it means having an assistant or assigning another teacher altogether. In this particular case, there is presumably another teacher in the room (since this was a teaching assistant), so it's hard to imagine that reasonable accomodations weren't readily available.

[Divernan]

145. Thanks - excellent account of the realities for Muslim women elsewhere

Here in the US, women may for a variety of reasons decide to become Muslim, and follow certain dress requirements - but underneath it all they always know that this has been their choice and they can change their minds. The level of debate in this thread is rather uneven. You give detailed, relevant facts, and others jump on one word and are off on irrelevant tangents. Bikinis? Hooters? Nun's habits? Very provincial world views. I would like to see everyone who thinks it's just super for a male dominated religion (there are no FEMALE mullahs, people)to order women to stay out of the public eye unless covered up, to live for one week covering everything but their eyes and their hands, and then imagine if they had no choice but to live the rest of their lives like this. I particularly would like to see the males with the flip approvals of the idea have to cope with this.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

657. What struck me when I saw fully veiled women in London

was that the men with them were invariably NOT covered up, in fact, wearing short-sleeved shirts or T-shirts in the unusually hot weather. Meanwhile, their wives and daughters and sisters were walking around encased in heavy-looking black cloth.

If that isn't oppressive, I don't know what is.

I once talked to a woman who had worked for the Saudi Arabian airline in the 1970s. (Flight attendant was not considered a decent job for a Saudi woman, so the airline hired only foreigners.) She said that the women got on the plane fully veiled, but as soon as the plane left Saudi airspace, most of them took off their veils to reveal Western-style clothes. (She also said that a surprising number of both men and women ordered alchoholic beverages.)

[jwirr]

105. Freedom From Whom? It means that I or the teacher can choose

our own religion and no one can do anything about it unless the practices of that religion are illegal - polygamy, etc. I am free from your religion and you are free from mine.

It does not surprise me that this is a British issue. Don't forget their history of manifest destiny - just another form of white supremacy. The did it to the Am. Indians, the Chinese, the South Africans and now the Muslims. Just more of the same.

[noamnety]

72. Many women don't WANT to shave their legs or wear pantyhose either

I view those things as oppressive, and did not appreciate having to explain to my daughter WHY women aren't expected to go out in public with a skirt and hairy legs.

However, I oppose banning women in heels and pantyhose from the teaching profession.

[pnwmom]

375. I never told my daughter that. I wear slacks most of the time

so the shaver doesn't get used very often. When she finally asked to borrow it, I bought her one. But I never told her that society expected her to use it. She could look around and decide for herself.

[Clark2008]

78. Some of us do... and some of us know MANY Muslim women

who cover BY CHOICE and in FREE COUNTRIES.

Maybe you should look at how YOU are forcing women to dress - by not ALLOWING them to wear a veil if they so CHOOSE.

[pnwmom]

381. Do you really know many Muslim women wearing FACE veils?

In Knoxville?

In my experience, women who wear face veils in public tend to keep to themselves.

[WinkyDink]

141. In school, as an employee? Yes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

220. I agree

[Tom Joad]

16. There is no sense here. How does it say the sexes are not

equal if they dress different... as they do in just about every culture we know about. Except nudists.

[lukasahero]

436. With you on all but one point

"that women cannot be expected to control how men treat them." Actually, the message it sends about women is that they ARE expected to control how men treat them - by modifying their behavior, not the behavior of men. Just a thought.

[seabeyond]

5. i would think it a wonderful opportunity for my children. we embrace

diversity and so little is offered where we live.

and.... i would teach my children (ok, already taught and they are young) to stand up for the persons right to wear.

[Tom Joad]

10. How rational, seabeyond.

[pnwmom]

75. One of my children was very shy. He needed to see the teacher smile.

Come to think of it, my most extraverted child did, too. I'm glad none of my kids was stuck in a room all day with a masked teacher.

[seabeyond]

103. isnt the smile in the eyes. or when a person smile do we look at the

mouth. i think if you will pay attention in the future you will find it is the connection in eyes. further there is other ways of conveying gentleness and encouragement, that is for sure. and i have always placed heavy responsiblity on my hcildren, even at the youngest of ages,to go beyond the box. i have faith, even with need of smile to be able to feel and identify kindness,they are simply that good

[pnwmom]

197. You cannot see the "smile" in the eyes if you are six or ten feet away --

but you can see a real smile across a room.

My shy son did have a preschool teacher who didn't smile -- she was an immigrant from an unsmiling culture -- and it was hard on him. You can tell a four year old whatever you want -- it is not so easy to change his FEELINGS. And her habitual frown made him feel sad. It was a shame, because she meant well.

[hsher]

7. It wouldn't bother me

I'd see it as a valuable way for my child to learn about Muslim culture and that Muslims share our world. BTW, I am Jewish.

I know the thing about "seeing only the eyes" bothers a lot of people, but if we call a foul on Muslim women wearing full chadors, how much longer before kippoth (yarmulkehs) are forbidden? Homogenous Caucasian American monoculture is not the only one, y'know.

Veils, schmeils. So long as she's a damn good teacher I'd defend her.

[Divernan]

29. There is a very significant difference between veils/chadors & yarmulkas

Wearing of a head covering (yarmulka, skullcaps, kippah ) for men was only instituted in Talmudic times (approximately the second century CE). The first mention of it is in Tractate Shabbat, which discusses respect and fear of God. Some sources likened it to the High Priest who wore a hat (Mitznefet) to remind him something was always between him and God. Thus, wearing a kippah makes us all like the high priest and turns us into a "holy nation." The head covering is also a sign of humility for men, acknowledging what's "above" us (G­d).

A yarmulke shows respect for God; veils and chaddors show disrespect for women, i.e., that women's bodies are occasions of sin for men and cannot be shown in public. This relfects the belief that men cannot control their lust at the sight of a woman's face, hair, legs; and that women are so weak and ineffectual that they cannot protect themselves from male attention. It is interesting to me that when I was in Istanbul not quite a year ago, and visiting lots of the holy sites, I saw many Muslim families with three generations. The grandmothers were in chaddors (no face veils); the mothers had their hair covered by scarfs, and the grand daughters were happily cavorting in jeans and jackets and tennis shoes - no veils; no head coverings. It's a tradition which is best left in the past and this will gradually happen. Would any woman here volunteer herself or her daughter to be compelled under threat of physical beatings by the mullahs to never appear in public without chaddors? I'm all for respecting other cultures, but we're not talking about quaint customs here; we're talking about demeaning women.

[hsher]

47. Then what about the mechitza, Rebbe? :)

Well, thank you, Rebbe, and I appreciate this discussion, but:

>>The head covering is also a sign of humility for men, acknowledging what's "above" us (G­d).

I know, this, but:

>>A yarmulke shows respect for God; veils and chaddors show disrespect for women...

To me, disclaimer here, this is only my opinion, that is a subjective statement. From what I've seen and heard, Muslims seem to think veils and chadors are a woman's way of showing respect for G-d by showing respect for herself. I respect and honor your time spent in Istanbul. I spent time in Saudi Arabia, a far less "free" religious society than that found in Turkey. Turkey is extremely western, while Saudi Arabia is not. The wearing of chador is an exhibit of more conservative Islam, so the girls in Western jeans cannot for me be examples of the kinds of conservative Islam I'm talking about, whose women feel obligated to adopt chador. In most Islamic nations the young girls in jeans you're talking about still wear them: UNDER their chadors. What do you think is under the burqas? Some of these women shop at boutiques and wear haute couture and even makeup under their burqas. Also, if they have conservative moms and grandmas, trust me, many of them will wear chadors over their western gear when they reach the age their families and neighborhoods start to put The Disapproving Gaze on them. I appreciate what you're saying, but your immediate prior statement just seems to ring "subjective" to me, and as a good Jew now in a rational argument, I can't let you slide by with that. We're either talking subjectively, objectively, or a combination of both here. Which is it? I'll conform, but I need to know from you which one it is. ;)

We are not Muslims and we cannot unilaterally, insensitively state "veils and chaddors show disrespect for women". That's your honorable opinion.

So what think you of Orthodox shmattes covering women's heads and the wigs in some cases under them? The Hasid stockings? The conservative Hasid woman attire? Is that "disrespect for women", also? How about the mechitza?

[rug]

9. I'll ask the nuns who taught me.

[HockeyMom]

22. You stole my reply!

:eyes: It's all in those. And of course, the RULERS to knuckles.

[pnwmom]

79. Which of your nuns wore masks over their faces all day?

The question wasn't about a hair veil -- it was about a face veil that covers all but the eyes.

[Rockholm]

423. IMHO, only appropiate in a religious school setting.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. It would have been a problem for me as a lip reader :^(

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Bingo!

I think it is inappropriate outside of a culture where it is more common.

[riderinthestorm]

196. Not a single person who want veiled women in classrooms is addressing you?

There have been at least two of you who are hearing impaired in this thread alone, who rely/relied upon lip reading in the classroom, yet NONE of those defending this medieval garb will touch your post???

kick.

Are we inclusive of handicapped children, or inclusive of religously garbed/face veiled women?

[proud2BlibKansan]

226. Instead of discussing the teacher's rights

We need to be talking about what is best for kids.

Thanks for making a great point.

[pnwmom]

358. Yes! It's not a question of whether it's more coercive to require

the veil or ban the veil.

It's a question of how to balance the child's needs (for effective communication and a feeling of closeness to the teacher) with the teacher's interest in expressing her religion.

[proud2BlibKansan]

398. Actually, I don't think the teacher's needs are more important

than the students. She is paid to TEACH, not to express her religion.

[mzteris]

15. suppose your child's teacher

refused to wear (gasp) MAKEUP - or "supportive garments".

Western women are required to wear a different sort of mask by society.

[hsher]

26. Amen to that Mzteris

If Muslim veils are so bad, why not stand up with us against Spike TV and places like Hooters that hire women to wear scant, provocative clothing? Both are "female uniforms" invented by men to telegraph visually to other men "This is to be objectified, labeled, reduced in power and not taken seriously." Just because other women choose to wear them doesn't necessarily make them any less provocative or political. The burqa is only the Muslim bikini, as far as I'm concerned. I ask myself why some men are so fragile sexually they need the other 51% of human beings to adopt a certain dress code to make them feel better, *not* why that other 51% chooses to adopt that code. This said, I still support people's freedom to wear what they want for whatever reason they choose. Muslim women can adopt burqa and feel it is "liberating and beautiful" to themselves, just as Western women definitely adopt bikini (and cheerleader outfits, and white fetish nurse outfits, and black latex fetish S/M outfits, and Lolita with lollipop outfits, and lederhosen madchen outfits, and full-out porn nakedness, and fake lesbian antics on porn tape drag, the list goes on and on) and say the same thing.

Burqa = Hooters outfit
Same thing
Different angle

[Lydia Leftcoast]

You wouldn't want your child's teacher wearing a bikini in class,

would you?

[hsher]

58. No opinion. It wouldn't happen

Believe it or not, I have no opinion. My theoretical child would eventually see a girl in a bikini after class anyway. Just watch her channel-surfing. She'll see more women in provocative attire on the living room television between 4 pm and her bedtime than she ever would in a classroom setting. Does her being at home or otherwise not in school suddenly "alter her brainwaves" and make her any more easily affected by what a woman in front of her is wearing? So, I have literally no opinion on whether a teacher decided to wear a bikini in front of my child and other children in a classroom. She would be removed so fast it wouldn't be an issue.

I'm just not reactionary that way. Stuff like this just doesn't bother me.

It's burqas now. Gay teachers next? Here's a question for you: how about a male teacher in front of your second grader in drag? Would that upset you? It wouldn't upset me, because I'm the freak who would be taking my second grader to Gay Pride marches and gay bars so she could, G-d forbid, meet other people who may be different from her and to broaden her human experience. My son or daughter, once born, might just turn out gay. What a good thing it would reflect on my soul, I hope, to have shown her one day downtown that someone like her is also A Good Thing. What if my son or daughter grew up to become Muslim? I'm fairly sure that remembering that his or her Jewish mommy honored Islam enough to be nice to Muslim Miss Shafez in second grade math class might make a good impression on how he or she sees Israel one day.

And you?

[Ignis]

602. What a beautiful message!

Thank you for writing that. And if you're a freak...hey, then the world needs more like you! :)

[ieoeja]

549. I would!

It would certainly make me look forward to those parent-teacher conferences this year!

[KittyWampus]

57. I wouldn't want my kids teacher to be wearing a "Hooters" outfit either

[Lost-in-FL]

38. Make up is optional not required.

I don't wear make up all of the time.

[tocqueville]

39. this is ridiculous

most French female teachers don't wear makeup and regarding supportive garments I bet that in 90% of the cases it's a question of personal choice. Besides I think that the problem with a lack of bras would be mostly for the male teachers.

Swedish women (mostly college students in the US) that I met once said to me that "in the US they are nuts about that stuff"...

But teh most important thing is that the weaéring of make up and a bra doesn't demand that exceptions are to be made about taking the children to the swimming pool, teaching contraception or participating in gymnastics.

Because it is what it is all about.

[pnwmom]

82. I don't know teachers who wear make-up. That must be a

regional thing.

And I don't check for underwear, do you?

[mzteris]

87. just sayin'

I've never seen a female teacher without makeup...... or bras.....

Can you imagine the brouhaha if a well-endowed teacher went to class sans bra???

Make=up is considered part of "good grooming" isn't it?

[pnwmom]

190. Makeup is ENTIRELY optional here in the northwest. It's not at all

considered important to "good grooming." Where do you live?

As far as bras, I don't think that would be a big deal here either. I really don't think most parents would even notice.

[mzteris]

428. I grew up in the South -

elementary school in Georgia and Alabama, Highschool in Kentucky.

I remember when a teacher (gasp!) wore a PANTSUIT to school. It almost caused a scandal! The men had to wear ties to school, too.

Funny story - my first day of classes in college - some *crazy guy* came in wearing a wrinkled, dirty t-shirt, cut-off blue jean shorts, unshaven, hair not combed, SMOKING a CIGARETTE and started erasing the board and rambling on about a syllabus, books, test/quizzes, expectations. I kept looking around wondering what the heck was going on. Who WAS this guy?!? WHERE was the TEACHER?!?!?!? Then I finally figured out he WAS the teacher. What a shock for my small town self. He didn't look like a teacher - he looked like some kind of - HIPPIE! OMG! What was I going to do? I bet he smoked pot and everything! (Turns out he did, :hippie: )

While admittedly over the years with my kids in school the dress code for teachers has relaxed somewhat - it's still pretty much required that they "dress nicely" and be "well groomed". Now that I'm in Wisconsin - at my son's school - the teachers I see are all pretty much the same, too - though granted it's only one school and I haven't seen but a handful of teachers.

As for my older son's "teacher" = well - *SHE's* been known to teach in her pajamas, wearing no makeup, hair uncombed, - heck - some days she's not even taken a SHOWER!! (Then again, he homeschools! :rofl:)

[pnwmom]

572. That older son sounds luckier than most.

He's got a teacher with more important things on her mind than make-up.

Thanks for the laugh.

:hi:

[LWolf]

95. I don't wear makeup.

That's never been a problem in my classroom.

I do wear "supportive garments." I know some blessed teachers who can get away with not wearing them, but if I let my DDs flop around, I'd hear about it, lol.

[mzteris]

100. Imagine the teacher who "normally"

goes *made-up* and her hair *nicely done* and dressed *appropriately* - showing up for school sans make-up, her hair looking as if she slept in it and wearing *whatever* - don't you think there'd be a problem?

[pnwmom]

193. If she looked ill, people would worry about her.

But appropriate dress around here means "covered." And I swear I have never heard ANY parent comment about ANY teacher's support garments or about any teacher's clothing AT ALL -- and I've had kids in school for more than 20 years.

Hair needs to be combed, yes. Clean clothes need to cover enough of the body. But makeup? No way!

One more reason I can't imagine living anywhere else . . . . (how can you guys live that way?)

[LWolf]

388. We'd probably all think

that she was showing the stress; honestly, there are days like that. I don't mean days that teachers suddenly appear slovenly, but we have less than perfect days like anyone else. Generally, people show concern. I'm thinking about all my colleagues in the last decade; most don't wear makeup. Most do something with their hair, and most wear utility clothing: slacks that can handle the floor and desk as well as a chair, shirt/blouse that can handle chalk, marker, paint and sweat, flat shoes than can go out into the field for duty.

Someone who appeared disheveled on a regular basis would have people expressing concern, and might get a private conversation with the principle. There are always some differing expectations about what constitutes "professional dress," which would probably include religious dress requirements, as well.

[ieoeja]

551. Plenty of my teachers didn't. Where is this required? n/t

[burythehatchet]

17. I often used to ask myself that question

as I was being beaten about the body by catholic nuns.

[pnwmom]

They must have been driven mad by those face masks they had to wear

all day.

The nuns I had -- without face masks -- were perfectly nice.

[Lost-in-FL]

20. Catholic Nun's face isn't covered

I don't see the comparison.

I wonder how her drivers license or passport look like. :eyes:

[Cleita]

33. Some contemplative orders do when they must interact with

outsiders, although they don't teach.

[pnwmom]

83. Exactly. Nuns in cloistered orders don't teach.

Teaching nuns don't cover their faces.

[Cleita]

96. Let me try a different perspective on this.

Having had acquaintances who were Muslim women, who were either co-workers or neighbors, including the veil wearing types, let me try a different tack on this. What if you were living in the Amazon with a bunch of naked tribe's people.

Let's say that you are with the peace corp and are assigned to teach the little naked village children in school. What if the chief comes in and says that you wearing clothes is upsetting the children and if you want to keep teaching you must also go naked. How would you feel about this demand? Not that the Amazonian people would demand this but what if?

I don't think this is much different. For many Muslim women going unveiled is like going naked. Maybe they would be more comfortable in taking off the veil in a school of women and girls, but if there are men around that are not family members it's very traumatic for them.

I just don't think it will upset the kids that much like it's upsetting their parents.

[pnwmom]

155. Actually, it would make sense to me to follow their culture, if I wanted

to teach them and they were uncomfortable seeing people in clothes.

If I were living in a Muslim culture where everyone was supposed to be veiled, then I would do that, too.

[Cleita]

234. See but they don't expect you to because they respect

our culture's need to wear clothes. We don't seem to be able to do the same for cultures that seem to be alien to us. I remember forty years ago the same argument used against women wearing pants in public unless they were working in the garden or horseback riding. The children would get confused. They would think their moms were men yadda, yadda.

[pnwmom]

349. I'm not saying the children would be confused. I'm saying they

would be denied an important part of good communication. And that elementary students need to feel close to their teachers and that the mask is a psychological barrier.

And that this is something that doesn't happen in Muslim schools, where the women are NOT veiled when they teach.

[Lars39]

23. Second graders are still learning social skills,

and a readable,expressive face contributes quite a bit to human expression.
How can you help teach kids the correct pronunciation of words if they can't see your lips?
Kids can get so much positive affirmation from a teacher's smile.
She is essentially wearing a mask.
I wouldn't approve of any teacher wearing a full facial mask, especially with kids this age.

[noamnety]

24. I would request her.

Exposing children to other cultures isn't a hindrance to a good education; it's a requirement of a good education.

As far as the communication strawman goes, since I went out of my way to use a deaf babysitter for my daughter, you can probably guess how concerned I'd be that a veil would get in the way of communication. :)


I'm not sure I'm following the logic of segregating the woman from the public, in an effort to show that segregating people from the public eye isn't to be tolerated. Is that like having a war to maintain the peace?

[Cleita]

30. Well, I was taught by nuns who, although they didn't wear

face veils, pretty much veiled everything else in starched linen and serge. It didn't seem to stymie their teaching skills one bit nor were we shocked by them because they dressed differently than the lay teachers.

I don't think young children would really care what the teacher wore if the teacher was a person they could feel comfortable learning from. Of course pointing out to them that it's not normal according to our own cultural biases could change this.

[pnwmom]

225. There's a HUGE difference between wearing a MASK all day -- which is

exactly what a face veil is -- and wearing a nun's habit and veil. I had nuns, too, and I remember their FACES very well.

Whether a teacher wears jeans and a shirt or a dark habit doesn't affect their communication skills. But covering up their facial expressions with a mask does.

[Cleita]

236. Yes, but weren't you curious about the color of their hair?

I know we all were. Also, there is the voice that kids connect to and the expression in the eyes. Also, my dentist who wears a mask the whole time I am in his chair seems to be able to communicate with me just fine. Also, is the dentist scaring the children when he fits their braces and retainers?

[pnwmom]

251. The dentist isn't with the kids all day for 180 days of the year. And he

is just inches away. You can see the expression around his eyes.

Teachers can be at the other end of the classroom. At that distance, no child can read the expression in a teacher's eyes. But they would be able to see an actual smile or frown.

Female teachers in conservative Muslim countries don't teach with face veils by the way. They only teach girls, so they pull back the face veil unless a male walks into the room.

But here the classrooms are co-ed so they limit their communication with students in a way that they would never do in a Muslim country.

[Cleita]

259. Well, your argument really holds no water. Also,

whether a teacher wears a head to toe sheet or a bikini to class has nothing to do with her teaching abilities. I'm sure their version of the ACLU will have something different to say about it if it goes to a court.

It just another form of prejudice.

[pnwmom]

334. My argument holds no water. Why? Because you say so?

You can't around the fact that wearing a mask prevents the viewer from seeing the facial expression of the mask wearer. And that it is not possible to see the "expression" of the eyes (minus the eyebrows) from a distance of more than a few feet. And that teachers in Muslim teachers don't limit themselves in this way -- only in western countries, because there are boys in the classrooms.

[Cleita]

448. No it's not because I say so. It's because it is practicing

discrimination, which is against the law in most free countries in the world. Teachers here in the USA have won discrimination suits when they were harassed or fired for having visible tattoos or punk colored hair.

Also, you talk about teachers being close to their students. There were no teachers more distant and aloof from their students than the nuns of the old school pre-Vatican reform days, yet they were excellent teachers and most of us who went to Catholic schools often got preferential treatment in applying for jobs when we became adults because prospective employers knew that "A" and "B" grades on a transcript from a Catholic high school or college assured them that they were in fact getting educated and literate employees.

[riderinthestorm]

467. The teacher in the OP is going to lose her lawsuit

and justifiably so. This isn't about discrimination, it's about being able to effectively do her job as a teacher.

She can't in a face veil. It impairs her performance with normal children as several other teachers on this thread have tried to point out. It certainly impairs her performance with handicapped kids. You can try to make the argument that the school should try to accomodate this teacher by never assigning handicapped kids to her class but that isn't going to wash in the courts - it places an unfair burden on the rest of her co-workers who have to pick up her slack. Also, teachers don't exist in a bubble in their schools: they interface with many other children outside of their particular classroom: on the playground, in joint school sessions, in the hallways etc. etc.

Pink hair and tattoos have been proven to be irrelevant to performance. A mask is easily going to be shown to be a problem.

It's not discrimination. It's performance.

[Cleita]

523. We shall see what the court decides.n/t

[pnwmom]

576. Tattoos and hair color don't limit a teacher's ability to communicate

with her students. A face veil does. It isn't illegal discrimination if a school district will not hire or retain a teacher whose religious practice interferes with her doing her job well. Young children are still learning language and need to see a teacher's facial expressions in order to put their words into context.

[KitSileya]

525. I've been reading this thread with interest.

And I cannot help but notice that not only have those in favor of letting this woman wear her face veil not answered those up-thread who are hearing impaired, but it seems so far none have addressed your point that women Muslim teachers in Muslim cultures do not cover their face when they're in the classroom because their pupils are all girls. It's only in co-ed schools - that is, in Western schools - that they do that. In other words, they feel that showing their face to their pupils is important in teacher-pupil communication. Otherwise, they would have worn their face veil - it's a public room after all, unlike in the women's part of a family house, where they also do not wear face veils.

I am against letting this teacher wear her face veil in school - I accept any covering up to and including the same as the Somalian national dress, which is everything covered with a flowing garment except face and occasionally hands. Facial communication is imperative between teacher and pupil - even at high school level, where I teach. And especially in a classroom with many children/teenagers. A simple exaggerated frown can get misbehaving students to stop without also stopping the flow of the activity in the classroom - interrupting a student reading out loud, for example, by calling out misbehaving students. A smile likewise is of incalculable worth. Blind students get smiles as well, because they see with their hands when such priceless communication is necessary.

Just as worrisome is the teacher's demand that she work separate form men - we are trying to get fathers more involved in their children's school careers - how can this happen if the teacher refuses to have anything to do with men. And her advertising on false premises by not wearing a veil when interviewing - with a male, no less - loses her any sympathy from me. I have no problem with her covering her hair, wearing a covering garment etc, but facial veils are for me unacceptable in a non-religious school setting - outside that, she can do what she wants.

[slackmaster]

567. Were those nuns in compliance with your school's dress code?

:shrug:

[Cameron27]

713. Nuns wearing habits teach in Catholic Schools

nurse in Catholic Hospitals. The nuns who I know, wear ordinary clothes when working in a secular environment.

Besides, even nuns who wear archaic habits, don't have their faces concealed, and their ability to communicate with non-verbal nuances isn't limited.

[Swamp Rat]

31. How would anyone know who the teacher really is on a day to day basis?

I am not against people wearing whatever the hell they want, but without being able to see and identify the face of the teacher, how will this promote a safe environment for the children and other faculty?

Anyway, if a teacher is allowed to wear a veil/burka, a religious uniform, then public schools should also allow other teachers to wear nun's habits, Jesus-style loin cloths, the Star of David, Greek togas, African ceremonial Ghanian Kente cloths, Wiccan pentagrams, et al.

[LeftyMom]

51. I had teachers come to school in most of those

No loin cloth (that'd be a dress code violation) but I saw all of the others at some point. Had a teacher come in dressed as mother nature covered in trash, too (I assure you this drew more stares than a veil ever would.)

Never even really thought about it until this discussion came up. It wasn't an issue at all.

[Swamp Rat]

172. If I had a choice, I would show up in a loin cloth and sandals,

just like Jesus. :D

That's kinda how I dress normally anyway - minimal clothing whenever and wherever possible.

[Pachamama]

668. I hate to say this Swamp'r, no offense, but I think wearing a loin cloth

would definitely affect your ability to communicate to a 2nd grade class room....

The giggles and snickers from 7 year olds would be too much....

:hi:

(You know I say that with love) :hug:

[Swamp Rat]

670. I was thinking more along the lines of my grad classes.

:D Toga! Toga! Toga! :party:

Still, your assertion holds true - there would be quite a bit of laughter, I'm sure. :D

I'm quite happy in my t-shirt, shorts, and sandals. :) :smoke:

[noamnety]

61. You know, in some parts of the world

there are actually entire communities where women dress like that - yet somehow, they manage to figure out who is who.

I've had friends who wore veils before. It's not that big a deal.

[Swamp Rat]

171. Yeah, I was assuming what a faction of people in the USA might think.

Just playing Bushler's Advocate for a moment.

[noamnety]

177. Ah, got it.

I thought you were being serious (and it did seem out of character for you now that I think of it).

In some of these posts (and I'm not talking about you now), I see a pattern of the same people who are freaked out about Mexicans "invading" the US also being panic stricken that their child might be taught by a woman in a veil. There's always one reason or another why those other people are a danger to our civilization, it seems, whether it's women's rights, or water usage, or language use, or immigrant neighbors being the first step in having your land condemned and seized by the government.

[Swamp Rat]

189. If it wasn't for 'invading Mexicans' I wouldn't be here.

¡ iiiibaaa ! :D

[pnwmom]

249. The men don't know who the women are. That's the point.

The women appear to each other unveiled. And in school, women teach girls and men teach boys. The sexes are kept apart -- so face veils are not an issue indoors.

We have a very different situation here, where women wearing masks want to teach boys and girls all day. Women teaching in Muslim countries aren't wearing face veils while they teach -- unless a male happens to walk in the room.

[PsychoDad]

151. nun's habits, Jesus-style loin cloths, the Star of David

Greek togas, African ceremonial Ghanian Kente cloths, Wiccan pentagrams,veil/burka, etc.

Now THAT would be a cool school :) I'd send my kids, and I'd want to participate.

Maybe under such a scheme americans could learn respect for people who are differnt from them.


Peace.

[Swamp Rat]

169. Damn straight!

I was lucky, having grown up in New Orleans during a time when folks did just that. It seems things have changed for the worse, especially since the Reagan Devolution.

[proud2BlibKansan]

231. I think I will wear my witch outfit tomorrow

:)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Mixed feelings here

The Muslims here (mostly Somali) wear the hijab (scarf), and I saw women in the full veil, with just eye slits, for the first time in my life in London this summer. I wonder how many of them are dressing like that (in the summer heat) because they really want to and how many are doing so because the men in their family are forcing them to, perhaps to keep them isolated from the more liberal British culture. On the other hand, how many are wearing the full veil as a protest against the majority society?

Any one of these could be the case. Perhaps she really is that devout. Perhaps her father has told her that she may take a job only if she is fully veiled. Perhaps she just wants to piss off the English.

As far as barring men from working with her, that's simply not the way Western culture works. A Briton going to Saudi Arabia would be expected to follow their customs. Going to another country means that you have to make adjustments, not compromising your own moral values, but adapting enough that you don't freak people out.

U.S. colleges occasionally have problems with male students from the Middle East who insist that they don't have to take orders from a woman professor. One college that I taught at had an economics professor from Egypt, and whenever some of the Saudi or other conservative Arab students objected to taking classes from women, the international students' office would sic this Egyptian professor on them to lay down the law in Arabic, basically telling them that if they wanted to be taught only by men they should go home.

When I used to give orientation sessions for students going to study in Japan, I always told them, "There are 130 million of them, and one of you. Guess who needs to make the adjustment." I told them that they didn't have to do anything that was dangerous or against their moral standards, but that they should adjust to Japanese customs and standards wherever they could, even if the standards seemed stupid to them. If they wanted everything to be like the U.S., then they should just stay in the U.S.

[Generic Other]

34. Nathaniel Hawthorne story: The Minister's Black Veil

The Minister's Black Veil
A Parable by N. Hawthorne


THE SEXTON stood in the porch of Milford meeting-house, pulling busily at the bell-rope. The old people of the village came stooping along the street. Children, with bright faces, tripped merrily beside their parents, or mimicked a graver gait, in the conscious dignity of their Sunday clothes. Spruce bachelors looked sidelong at the pretty maidens, and fancied that the Sabbath sunshine made them prettier than on week days. When the throng had mostly streamed into the porch, the sexton began to toll the bell, keeping his eye on the Reverend Mr. Hooper's door. The first glimpse of the clergyman's figure was the signal for the bell to cease its summons.

"But what has good Parson Hooper got upon his face?" cried the sexton in astonishment.

All within hearing immediately turned about, and beheld the semblance of Mr. Hooper, pacing slowly his meditative way towards the meeting-house. With one accord they started, expressing more wonder than if some strange minister were coming to dust the cushions of Mr. Hooper's pulpit.

"Are you sure it is our parson?" inquired Goodman Gray of the sexton.

"Of a certainty it is good Mr. Hooper," replied the sexton. "He was to have exchanged pulpits with Parson Shute, of Westbury; but Parson Shute sent to excuse himself yesterday, being to preach a funeral sermon."

The cause of so much amazement may appear sufficiently slight. Mr. Hooper, a gentlemanly person, of about thirty, though still a bachelor, was dressed with due clerical neatness, as if a careful wife had starched his band, and brushed the weekly dust from his Sunday's garb. There was but one thing remarkable in his appearance. Swathed about his forehead, and hanging down over his face, so low as to be shaken by his breath, Mr. Hooper had on a black veil. On a nearer view it seemed to consist of two folds of crape, which entirely concealed his features, except the mouth and chin, but probably did not intercept his sight, further than to give a darkened aspect to all living and inanimate things. With this gloomy shade before him, good Mr. Hooper walked onward, at a slow and quiet pace, stooping somewhat, and looking on the ground, as is customary with abstracted men, yet nodding kindly to those of his parishioners who still waited on the meeting-house steps. But so wonder-struck were they that his greeting hardly met with a return.

"I can't really feel as if good Mr. Hooper's face was behind that piece of crape," said the sexton.

"I don't like it," muttered an old woman, as she hobbled into the meeting-house. "He has changed himself into something awful, only by hiding his face."

"Our parson has gone mad!" cried Goodman Gray, following him across the threshold.

MORE
http://www.eldritchpress.org/nh/mbv.html

[nini]

35. Is she a good teacher?

there are plenty of shitty teachers who don't wear a veil. I would be more concerned with her ability to teach than her veil.

My kid wasn't afraid of anyone 'different' and would have probably loved learning about her culture. But then he was raised by an open minded liberal :-)

[sweetheart]

36. what's wrong with that?

[Rex]

37. It all boils down to if you respect other peoples cultures and religions.

Yes or no. Tolerance or intolerance.

I say yes, I worked with a lot of teachers these last two years that wore crosses. Some of them even talked about God in the classroom. Of course as the history teacher, it was my job to explain religions in a historical context - something I would have to do when my students would approach me about questions (usually from the behavior of fellow teachers).

Everything can be tolerated if understood from a historical context. I found my students to be very receptive to this, as opposed to giving them silly answers about a very serious topic.

[tocqueville]

48. NO ! it boils down to impose medieval beliefs in a secular society.

it has nothing to do with tolerance. It's an intolerant fringe trying through coercion too impose practices that started to be banned 200 years ago during the Enlightment.

Your examples are marginal and not really relevant for the topic. Besides I can tell you that it is forbidden to talk about God in a French school, if it is a religious message. It can only be talked about it as a neutral teaching of beliefs in history class. The mere hinting of this or that God "is the solution" gets you fired.

What the OP was about is the influence of integrist practices on children at school. It's completely different.

[Rex]

59. Oh please, a secular society should be one of tolerance.

That is unless it is a close-minded society that hates outsiders. This has nothing to do with imposing medieval beliefs; these kids are exposed to someone from a different culture. Heaven forbid! :eyes:

[tocqueville]

84. you don't understand the problem

explain to me why :

Why Turkey and Tunisia have banned the veil in schools ? And even at college for Turkey.
Why the veil wasn't a problem in schools in Europe up to the middle nineties and was "accepted" because it wasn't worn despite the fact that millions of young women attende public schools
Why there was a resurgence of demands of veilbearing in schools in the mid nineties at the same times that Islamist fundies started to preach in the suburbs ?
Why all progressive "arabic" women organisations (there are no other organisations than tose, since the ones on the other side are mostly religious fundie exceptions shown for TV purposes) fought (are fighting) for a TOTAL ban of the veil in France or other European countries ?

The US muslims are few and fear to show off after 9/11. So it hasn't been, isn't in Europe. The problem of the veil is the FLAG of special demands how to treat women in a way that is... more medieval than European medieval.

Do you know that the demands are for example not to be treated by a male obstretician or doctor for exams or delivery ? etc... etc...

The Brits woke up after the bombings. They found Talibans living among them. They turned a blind eye too long.

You are discussing a problem that doesn't exist in the US.

[Rex]

94. Well have you guys boxed and freighted all the Talibans

living among you off to other countries yet?

You're right about one thing; the problem doesn't exist among Americans because we just ignore the Talibans while our country ships them off to other nations to be tortured. Do you want to follow America as an example as to how to treat other cultures?

[tocqueville]

107. not yet, no

but it's our OWN "Talibans". And they will be boxed because they plan or do illegal things. But they will be sentenced as French or British (most of them are) and not tortured or deported. In France we have about 200 of them in jail after sentence, max sentence being 30 years in one case for participation in a bombing. Not because they are Muslims but because they are criminals.

The Non-French residents are mostly preachers that can be sent back to Saudi Arabia when their permit expires, but mostly because they overtly incite to violence.

You are mixing two things: it's not a question of culture. It's a question of preventing that a violent POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR is spread to young people using a religious cover and creating societies within society.

"The Republic is One and Undivisible" as it stands in our Constitution. The Law applies to everybody. No exceptions for race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

the melting pot is WITHIN the Republic, it's not a patchwork.

[Rex]

110. Unfortunately it is a patchwork in America.

We don't understand Republic quite as well as France does, IMO. I salute France as a successful, secular nation. I wish America was more like France in that respect.

[tocqueville]

119. On the other hand

there is (was ?) often a transparency in public affairs that we envy. But nobody's is perfect...

glad that you agree...

[Rex]

127. I'm gonna get flamed for saying it but

America is a Christian nation and that bothers me.

One that seems to be adrift in a new Crusade.

It seems it is always a battle between Islam, Judeasm and Christianity. For that reason, I think they are what shaped Western Civilization into what we see now. Politics following along, sometimes as an afterthought. We MUST examine these three religions and be tolerant towards eachother. Otherwise, what is the point of trying to progress to a better state?

[pnwmom]

347. I strongly lean toward keeping ALL religion out of schools, and

ANY religious expression that interferes with teaching.

[PsychoDad]

115. The US muslims are few and fear to show off after 9/11

??

There are 2 million Muslims in America, as contrasted with 4.2 Million in france, only 1.5 million of which are regularly observant muslims. So, while we American Muslims may be half of the total number of people who are Muslim or descended from Muslims in France, we are by no means "few".

As for "showing off" quite the opposite is true. After 9/11 many Muslims decided that now was the time to be seen and heard. That now we had to be heard and seen to dispel the main stream media's islamophobic view that was being washed with vigor in the minds of americans.

A woman should have the right to wear what she desires, to be treated as a person, and to have a female doctor examine her if she wishes.

It's not just a veil, or a hijab. It's a person.

Peace.

[Rex]

122. I'd love to work with a 'veiled' teacher of the muslim faith.

And everytime a student asked me about why she wore a veil or what have you, I'd tell them about Islam and its impact on Western Civilization. Discuss it from an educators viewpoint.

Let them have a chance at exposure to another culture, Lord knows these kids need exposure. They're dying from lack of knowledge about their world.

[PsychoDad]

130. I can understand ...

The school asking her to go without the niqab (the face covering) while in class with the children as long as no adult males were present. Indeed, I'm not sure why she isn't doing this anyway. (?)

As for a Hijab, or head covering, there shouldn't be any problem with that.

After all, every picture/statue of Mary (may Allah be pleased with her) wears a hijab ;)

Peace.

[Dorian Gray]

433. "It's not just a veil or a hajib. It's a person."

Despite the name, Psycho Dad, you are a very eloquent person. I agree with much that you've stated in this thread, and it's wonderful to have a Muslim voice in this discussion! :)

You stated elsewhere that a teacher wouldn't need to wear her veil with children, and that shouldn't be a problem. So, what do you think her goal is here in doing so? Is she trying to be provocative? Or are there Islamic cultures that would make women wear the veil with male children, as well?

[PsychoDad]

633. Is she trying to be provocative?

I read earlier that she attended her job interview without the veil. I assume that she started wearing it after she was hired.

I also assume that at the time of her interview she did not mention that she could not or would not work with men.

In all fairness to her, she may be a recent convert, coming to Islam after she was hired, and had an imperfect understanding. Or conversly she may have recently decided to try and embrace more of her "native deen" or way of life, perhaps even seeking to become more spiritual.

The article sounds as if the school made every possible effort within reason to accommodate her desire to wear the veil, allowing her to wear it wherever there might be men.

There's no Islamic culture that I know of that requires a woman to be veiled or even wear hijab around children below the age of puberty, male or female. (that shouldn't be an issue here as this was 2nd grade)

I would suspect that she either had a misunderstanding about her requirement to be veiled around children, somehow felt phobic about her surroundings and wished to use the veil to withdraw from the world or there was an ulterior motive behind her actions. I don't know, and I'm not in any position to understand her intention, I don't know what is going on in her world, her home or her heart, but the story thus far does make one wonder doesn't it.

Anyway, I think the Islamic council ruled correctly, pointing out that there was no basis for her not removing the veil when only around children, and thus no basis for her complaint.

I hope that she finds employment in an environment that offers her satisfaction, insha Allah (G-D willing), so that this may end well for all this Ramadan. :)

Peace to you and yours :)

[PsychoDad]

644. On watching the Video...

There's a bit more info.

The Sister states plainly that she did not wear the veil unless there was a male co-worker in the room. There is no indication that she ever stated that she would not work with men.

So,
She was not wearing the veil when teaching the children.
She only wore the veil when men came into the room.
Wearing a veil is not the same as refusing to work with men.
There is no indication that she refused to work with men.

So this goes back to her right to voluntarly wear a peice of cloth over her face, just as she might wear any other peice of clothing to protect her from the prying eyes of strangers.

I'm sure more about this will come out in the labor hearing. Until then we only have two sides of the story, (Management and Worker) and maybe still not the whole picture.

Peace.

[pnwmom]

256. I was with you until you said the "problem doesn't exist in the US."

As with all immigrant communities, Muslims are moving in greater numbers to certain cities -- those are the ones that are beginning to feel the impact.

[pnwmom]

255. How far should a secular society go in accomodating beliefs that

involve subjugating women?

[PsychoDad]

394. Like not giving them equal pay?

American women only receive 75% of what their male counterparts receive for the same job.

There are many ways that women are exploited and sujugated in America without veils.

peace.

[pnwmom]

542. Of course there are. So?

We won't improve that situation by accomodating more and more to the demands of fundies -- of any religion -- to assist them in carrying out practices that subjugate women.

[PsychoDad]

645. This isn't the demand of a fundy...

It's the right of a woman to wear what she will where she will.

It's not just a veil or Hijab, It's a person.

A person like you or I with rights and human dignity.


Peace.

[Quantess]

665. Fundies of other cultures.

I agree, this is just another "Fundie" demand.
To the DUers who are tiptoeing around this religious fundamental woman's demand to wear a veil at work: would you extend the same sycophantic graciousness toward a Christian fundamental? Somehow I doubt it. What makes one religious zealot more culturally dignified than another? Fundamental Christians, or Fundamental Muslims, they're all fundies!

[nini]

65. So, that woman doesn't have a right to practice her religion?

Because others see it as oppressive to her? IF she is practicing this religion by her choice - it's her choice.

As long as she doesn't teach Islam as part of her curriculum (just as any religion should not be taught) - she should be allowed to teach.

[Rex]

70. It is also her choice to abide by the schools rules or find another

job. It goes both ways. I see nothing wrong with it, as long as it does not interfere with a lesson plan. It would do these kids some good to meet someone outside of their culture, IMO.

[tocqueville]

92. it's a false argument

1) practicing "with a veil" is a strawman since the VAST majority of young women with Islamic background don't want to wear it.
2) religion is a private matter and cannot be mixed AT ALL with public offices
3) In most cases the wearing is followed by special religious demands that cannot be granted in a society with separation of Church and State.
4) The wearing in public offices gives a signal that a preferential treatment could be granted to those wearing the same symbol
5) When she leaves school she can do what she wants.

[smirkymonkey]

114. Thank you for being a voice of reason on this thread.

Personally, I would like to see all external public expressions of religious faith banned. All.

[spoony]

284. Lol, yeah that's "reason"

We have to make laws saying what people can talk about, perhaps set up speech "zones." :sarcasm:

"...all external public expressions of religious faith banned. All."

Fascism by any other name...

[Dorian Gray]

435. Scary thought.

I don't want to live in your progressive democracy, Smirkymokey.

Not. At. All.

[LostinVA]

677. I agree they should be banned in public schools

Government offices, etc.

I personally also think veils should be banned in the United States, because to me, it's no difference than if a religion says its women have to be shackled while in public. Just because it's of someone's religion doesn;'t make it either right or legal.

[Nevernose]

208. All 5 of those are logical fallacies or "false arguments"

1) practicing "with a veil" is a strawman since the VAST majority of young women with Islamic background don't want to wear it.

Appeal to Popularity.

2) religion is a private matter and cannot be mixed AT ALL with public offices

Isn't the fact that the woman in question is, by deed if not in word, espousing her religion, violating your own premise (mixing PRIVATE religion with a PUBLIC school)?

False premise.

3) In most cases the wearing is followed by special religious demands that cannot be granted in a society with separation of Church and State.

Which has no bearing on the case at hand. If the government is forbidden from promoting religion, it means ANY relgion. If a government employee is forbidden to display crosses, preach the ten commandments or the "golden rule," or anythign else religious, then it should apply to veils as well.

4) The wearing in public offices gives a signal that a preferential treatment could be granted to those wearing the same symbol

This is an argument in FAVOR of banning veils for muslim teachers. Preferential treatment should not be given to anyone in a public office that affects their use of their office in any substantial way.

5) When she leaves school she can do what she wants.

Another good argument in favor of banning teachers from wearing veils. In private, as private citizens, she can do as she pleases without influencing anyone on the public's dime.

[pnwmom]

356. She shouldn't have a right to practice her religion in a way that

prevents her from communicating effectively with her students. Young students especially rely on nonverbal communication -- and need to feel close to their teachers in order to learn. Wearing a mask puts a barrier between the teacher and child that would limit that sense of closeness, as well preventing the child from reading the teacher's facial expressions (frowns, smiles, etc.)

Female teachers in conservative Muslim countries don't wear face veils when they teach -- because they only teach girls. It is only in the west that this would be an issue -- but it should be an issue, because wearing a mask does NOT facilitate communication.

[lukasahero]

443. Do "Christian" pharmacists have the right to practice their religion?

This is a complicated issue and we have too many people here more interested in supporting their one side of the issue than considering that it may not be quite as black and white as each side thinks it is.

Case in point: you ask if the woman should be allowed to practice her religion. We have a similar phenomenon going on in the US with pharmacists refusing to issue birth control pills because it goes against their religion. Where do you stand on that matter?

Is it really as simple as all people should always be able to practice their religion in any workplace at any time?

I think the more appropriate question is do people have the right to practice their religion in their private lives. Once it is brought into the workplace, it becomes a different question.

[LostinVA]

678. Bingo

[spoony]

280. What a terrible society.

Sorry, but a public sphere that censors and silences aspects of people's lives is grotesque.

Saying "you can be a x but you can't talk about it" is bullshit, no matter what you but in the blank.

[pnwmom]

291. What about saying, "You can be X as long as you

don't let it interfere with your teaching -- and communicating well with your students, verbally and nonverbally -- is part of good teaching."

[spoony]

296. That isn't what the poster I was replying to was saying

And what, exactly, does a thin piece of fabric do to hinder communication? Should we also outlaw teachers with speech impairments?

[pnwmom]

345. The thin piece of fabric prevents the viewer from reading the facial

expression of the wearer.

If a teacher had a comparably severe speech impediment s/he might not belong in the classroom either, at least, not without a translator.

[spoony]

365. So...

If a teacher naturally has a very flat face with little expression--I've had a number of them--are they not worthy of their jobs either?

This communication nonsense is just cover for the objections of most of the posters against this woman.

[pnwmom]

371. No woman has a face as expressionless as a piece of cloth.

If a woman had a "frozen face" -- if her face was immobile because of burns, for example -- that would be out of her control.

As opposed to wearing a mask over her face, which is her choice.

This "communication nonsense" isn't a cover for anything. It's a discussion of the question of what takes priority -- a child's need to have a teacher who doesn't impose a barrier to good communication between them -- or a teacher who feels the need to express her religion with a face veil.

In Muslim countries women do not wear face veils when they are teaching -- presumably they know that a veil limits communication. They only put on the veil when a male comes into the room.

[Generic Other]

76. This is why there should be no religious symbols in the classroom

It is very hard to be asked in the name of tolerance to respect others who promote a dogma that institutionalizes the oppression and subjugation of females.

I don't care about anyone else's faith, but when you wear it on your sleeve, when you expose it like underwear, I am embarassed for you.

Wear your crosses, your stars, and your burkhas in your churches, your synagogues and your mosques. Leave it out of public view. We have suffered enough through human history because of your beliefs.

I do not want any daughter of mine ever to feel she must hide her face from view to be accepted among men. And any teacher who would give her that message directly or indirectly is not one who has a lesson I care for her to learn.

[Rex]

88. Tell that to the people in my rural south Texas town.

People around here have religion up the ass. My mother is on the school board and had to listen to a lady demand we teach Christianity next year, mom shut her up after she went off on liberals. Yeah, it is that bad here.

I was really embarrassed that I had to try and explain what other teachers meant when they said obvious religious things in class. The school has a Christian Club that prays around the flagpole every school day.

I know how bad indoctrination is, I watched firsthand kids treating eachother like animals. Because ones family is white and baptist and the others is hispanic and catholic. Unbelievable bullshit, things I couldn't believe but happen daily.

If this woman wants to work and teach, she will have to make concessions, if not then she will have to find another job. Telling her she can't wear a veil is proof of a close-minded society. Like the town I live in.

She and the school should compromise.

[pnwmom]

326. I totally agree. I couldn't stand to send my kids to a public school

that was pushing religion. Thankfully that doesn't happen here. So much so that I remember my 8 year old daughter being kind of shocked to realize how many religious symbols there were in our local shopping mall around Christmas time. (And not even religious, really -- I'm talking Santa Claus and Christmas trees.) She asked me how they could do that, since everybody wasn't Christian!

[Divernan]

101. Thanks - that is the main point I have been laboring to make here!

"I don't want my daughter to feel she has to hide her face to be accepted among men."

Only of course, veiled Muslim daughters are not truly accepted among Muslim men, that is as equals - the veil is the condition which allows them to go in public.

[plasticwidow]

154. But...

First I ask, which dogma are you referring to that institutionalizes oppression and subjugation of females?

I see everyday others wearing symbols of their religion, and many different religions at that. And we all get along, it makes for an interesting diverse culture, which is what America is made of. A diverse culture of immigrants. All of us.

And it is not crosses, stars, and burkas that caused the suffering throughout human history. It was fanatics, intolerance, closed-mindedness, greed for power and/or riches, and politics that caused that. And intolerance towards each other and each other's ways. Let's put responsibility where it really belongs.

And as far as your daughter ever feeling she must hide her face from view to be accepted among men, isn't the opposite really happening? I mean, you are stating that in order to be accepted by our current society a woman cannot wear a veil if she wants to. That men won't accept her if she wears a veil, or a hijab or niqab, or any other sort of religious adornment. Isn't that subjugation and persecution? Shouldn't she have the right to choose? In the end, it all comes down to freedom of choice, and Islam did not subjugate women. In fact, Islam prohibited the treating of women as property, it gave women a vote and voice equal to that of men, and declared that women were equal to men in the sight of God. Islam came to liberate women. There is no subjugation on the part of Islam, patriarchal cultures on the other hand, Western and Eastern, have subjugated women for centuries. Islam is a cure for that.

Peace to you and everyone else.

Sister Jean

[riderinthestorm]

161. In western culture a mask is perceived differently

It is not seen as "freedom of subjugation". It is seen as an article of coercion, brainwashing (religious indoctrination), fear (Halloween masks) or outright hate (KKK masks).

How many women mullahs or imams are there? How much does a woman inherit in the Quran? What is the value of a woman's testimony in court - equal to a man's or less so?

I can applaud Islam's historic role in enhancing women's rights but still rightly criticize it's position on women in view of 21st century ideals of HUMAN rights.

[Generic Other]

174. No culture who forces women to be genitally mutilated and hidden from view

has anything to teach me about freedom.

If Islam is the cure, I prefer the disease.

[PsychoDad]

201. Female genital mutilation (FGM)

You may wish to educate yourself on FGM and it's practitioners along with Islam's stance on it.

http://www.mwlusa.org/publications/positionpapers/fgm.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1851930.stm
http://www.minaret.org/fgm-pamphlet.htm
http://www.crescentlife.com/psychissues/fgm.htm

FGM is not a religious practice, nor is it Islamic.


Peace.

[Generic Other]

239. The Bible doesn't advocate bombing abortion clinics either

but for some reason, fundie Christians are the ones who engage in this practice.

It will be a cold day in hell when you convince me that one form of oppressing women is somehow preferable to other forms of oppression women have faced throughout human history. Stoning women, burning them as witches, mutilating them, controlling their reproductive choices, imprisoning them behind veils--all of these practices are one and the same whether practiced by Muslims, Christians or any other male supremacist groups.

As long as I have strength to speak out, I will raise my voice in defense of the economic, political and social freedoms my mothers and grandmothers fought to gain. I will not beg and grovel for crumbs from imams, priests or preachers speaking in tongues...

In a Muslim country, I would be hanged or stoned in the public square. Or my family would be forced to kill me.

In America, I am a college professor. I don't have to hide my face.

[Solon]

320. FGM is also a Christian, Jewish, and Animist practice...

People of all those religions butcher women in this manner, so should all members of said religions be blamed for those actions?

By the way, the Largest Muslim Country in the world(by population), had a woman president a few years ago.

[PsychoDad]

391. I would never argue that the oppression of women is right

In any circumstance.

Islamic law makes no demand that women should confine themselves to household duties or hide themselves away.

In fact the early Muslim women were found in all walks of life. The first wife of the Prophet, mother of all his surviving children, was a businesswoman who hired him as an employee, and proposed marriage to him. Women did not hide nor were hidden, they openly traded in the marketplace, and the Khalifah Umar, not normally noted for his liberal attitude to women, appointed a woman, Shaff'a Bint Abdullah, to supervise the market. Other women, like Laila al-Ghifariah, took part in battles, carrying water and nursing the wounded, some, like Suffiah bint Abdul Muttalib even fought and killed the enemies to protect themselves and the Prophet* and like Umm Dhahhak bint Masoud were rewarded in the same way and with the same amount as the men. Ibn Jarir and al-Tabari said that women can be appointed to a judicial position to adjudicate in all matters.

Beside being Islamic judges, Women have also headed Islamic provinces, like Arwa bint Ahmad, who served as governor of Yemen under the Fatimid Khalifahs in the late fifth and early sixth century.

The Qur'an speaks favourably of the Queen of Sheba, a woman of great political and military power and the way she consulted her advisor's, who deferred to her good judgment on how to deal with the threat of invasion by the armies of Solomon. (Qur'an 27:32-35)

1400 years ago Women were given the right to voice their opinion without fear of repercussion and to have an equal vote to men. Women were required by Islam to be paid an equal amount for the same job as a man, yet here in the much vaunted west american women have only received the right to vote about a hundred years ago and still do not get paid an equal amount as men.

You said : "As long as I have strength to speak out, I will raise my voice in defense of the economic, political and social freedoms my mothers and grandmothers fought to gain. I will not beg and grovel for crumbs from imams, priests or preachers speaking in tongues..."

And I as a Muslim could not agree more with that sentiment.

But I also think that when you disparage Muslim women who have chosen to wear Hijab or Veil you disparage the right of all women to chose their own path.

Peace.

[Generic Other]

422. You go back 1400 years to find examples of women being treated well

by Islam?

Oh brother! I say you choose your medieval path and I'll choose mine.

You want to hide women's faces from the light of day, feel free; however, no veiled woman is fit to teach my daughters anything.

I don't live under threat of fatwa for having an opinion. I don't have to go into hiding because some Muslim cleric has decided to kill me if I appear in public in western dress or without my male relatives protecting me. I can drive a car, hold a job, own property, make decisions for myself.

I do not have to hide my face from anyone.

Don't talk to me about the the choice Islam offers women. What I see is the choice to be ruled by men, to be abused by men and to be killed by men simply for being a woman.

Where is the blogger Riverbend who in her last blog from Baghdad complained of not being able to drive, to go to school or work, to wear the western clothes in her closet, to travel without a male relative at her side? Why does she complain of having to wear the veil for her own protection? This is not a choice. She faces death if she dares defy.

Why are women hanged for the crime of being raped? Who holds public executions of women who are accused of adultery? Who would let a widow and her children die rather than allow her to work for a living? Why are doctors, lawyers, teachers and other professional women being forced to "choose" the veil or death in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and every other modern Islamic state?

I am not disparaging women who "choose" to wear the veil. Just as I would never disparage a black man who "chose" to be a slave before the Civil War. That does not make slavery right or acceptable. They are victims of an institutionalized form of oppression.

Islamic women have every right to "choose" their own form of slavery. Just don't give me this shit about it being a free choice. And you can no doubt find many who will happily defend their captive state. It's called the Stockholm Syndrome.

I can't believe you can't find a modern Islamic woman to serve as an example to the free women of the world of what we are missing by refusing to "choose" the vile veil and all it represents.

[PsychoDad]

442. I can give many examples of modern Islamic women

Who are leaders.

Some examples from late 1950's on. hopefully they are modern enough.

Benazir Bhutto, the first woman to lead a post-colonial Muslim state. The charismatic Bhutto was elected Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1988.

Shirin Ebadi, Human rights leader and first female Muslim.

Megawati Sukarnoputri, currently President of Indonesia, the worlds largest Islamic nation. Who was the first woman american president?

Iktimal Hage-Ali, current deputy chair of the New South Wales Youth Advisory Council

Princess Abida Sultan Begum of Bhopal, Vice-President of the State Council and President of the Cabinet and in 1960-61 Titular Nawab Sahiba , Begum Sultan of Bhopal

H.H.Sikander Saulat Iftikhar ul-Mulk Haji Nawab Mehr Tai Sajida Sultan Begum Sahiba, Recognized by the Government of India as ruler of Bhopal. After the death of her husband, Muhammed Iftikhar Ali Khan of Pataudi, she was regent for her son Mansur Ali Khan . Under the name of Begum Sajida Sultan, she was member of the Indian Parlament for Bhopal 1957-62.

Begum Ra'ana Liquat Ali Khan, She was the widow of Prime Minister Liquat Ali Khan of Pakistan who was murdered 1951. She was ambassador to the Netherlands 1954-56, to Tunisia 1961-64 and Italy 1961-66.

Ibodat S. Rakhimova, First Secretary of the Communist Party Tajikistan

Alhaja Sheidat Mujidat Adeoye, the founder and leader of the Fadillullah Muslim Mission, Osogbo, Nigeria. Sheidat Mujidat Adeoye which gave an impetus to the founding of her movement as this has not only changed the nature and form of Nigerian Islam, but it has also introduced a new expression into the tradition, thus causing an alteration in religious stereotypes within a religiously pluralistic community.

Syeda Anwara Taimur, Chief Ministerof Assam, India. Still politicaly active.

Dr. Anahita Ratebzad, Afghanistan. She was "partner in power" with her partner, President Babrak Karmal. She was ambassador to Yugoslavia 1978, Minister of Social Affairs 1978-79, Minister of Education 1980, and Member of the Presidency of the Revolutionary Council and the Politburo of the Communist Party 1980-85. She was the highest ranking woman in the parcham faction of the party .

Caroline Diop Faye, Vice-Premier Senegal.

Roza Atamuradovna Bazarova, Acting Chairperson of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, Turkmenistan

Begum Khaleda Zia, Prime Minister Bangladesh.

Tansu Çiller, Minister President, Turkey. Assistant Professor 1974-83 and 1983-90 Professor of Economics at Bosphorus University. Minister of State and Chief Economic Coordinator 1991-93, Deputy Premier and Minister of Foreign Affairs 1996-97. She was Deputy Chairperson , 1990-93 and from 1993 Chairperson of DYP, The True Path Party. In the 2002-elections the party got 8,5% of the votes.

Maryam Rajavi, President of the Iranian Government-in-Exile. Commander-in-Chief of Muhjedin-Army operating from Iraq. She is head of the 250 member exile-parliament. Half of its members are women and the exile-government is dominated by women.

Sy Kadiatou Sow, Governor of the Capital District of Bamako, Mali.

Sheikh Hasina Wajed, Prime Minister Sheikh, Bangladesh

Dr. Masoumek Ebtekar, Vice-President Iran 1997.

Princess Hajah Masna binti Omer Ali, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Brunei.

Rima Khalaf Hneidi, Vice-Premier, Jordan

Dodo Aïchatou Mindaoudou. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Niger

Mudira Abu Bakr, Prefect of the Dukan Region, Iraq

Kétia Rokiatou N'Diaye, Vice-Premier , Mali.

This is by no means a comprehinsive list. Muslim Women are also leaders in every field.

I'm somewhat suspecting that you will blow off these women as simply pawns of a male dominated society, forced to excel in their fields from fear of being publicly beaten if they didn't become President.

I hope I'm wrong.

Because dismissing the achievements of these women because they are Muslim, dismisses the achievements of all women.

And your suggestion that Muslim women are somehow more ignorant, too brainwashed to "know better" and less capable than non-muslim women by virtue of their Muslim Identity is quite offensive... Not just to Muslims, but to women in general.

4 out of every 5 western converts to Islam are women, a true fact. would you classify them all as ignorant and brainwashed also?

I agree with you that women DO face opression in many "Islamic" countries, but that is not because of Islam, it is because of Patriarchal and Tribal norms being passed off as "Islam"

An Sister talks about Islam and the rights of women under Islam, and the abuse of those rights by many "Islamic" countries.
http://members.aol.com/yahyam/mwomen.html

"After converting to Islam I read books by maulvis which placed a great emphasis on the seclusion of women while ignoring their God-given rights and freedoms. Somehow I accepted this as normative Islam. I am writing now to say that I am sorry I ever allowed myself to be persuaded to think this way, and I have repented from this error. I have been encouraging my wife and daughters to learn and think and get the full benefit of the innumerable halâl things in life that Allah has to offer. I would like to urge all Muslims not to take at face value anything that maulvis say that diminishes women's rights. It is on this specific issue that I am concentrating my skepticism, because this issue is where the most damage has been done to the Sharî‘ah for the longest time. The ummah as a whole will remain oppressed from within their own minds as long as women's Islamic rights are suppressed.

It has recently dawned on me that North America is the only place where Muslim women can exercise the full range of rights and freedoms they enjoy in the original Sharî‘ah. In too many Muslim countries overseas women are kept in subjugation and even suffer violence because their shar‘î rights are denied. Even at the hands of the official "Islamic" authorities, which is a disgrace to the ummah. The worst violator is the Taliban regime, who oppress and beat women based on their crude tribal customs and try to pass it off as Islam. What an embarrassment to Muslims the world over. Of all Muslim countries, the one that has perhaps the best record of respecting women's Islamic rights under the Sharî‘ah is Iran. During the revolution, of course, there was so much violence that everyone's human rights were violated, women's not least of all. The situation has not completely improved yet. But the problem in Iran today is more a case of human rights in general, not specifically oppression of women. Under Rafsanjânî, and even more so under Khâtamî, Iranian women have made great strides in reclaiming and exercising their Islamic rights in society and politics, and their example should be an inspiration to Muslim women in other countries. They have demonstrated that the wearing of the chador or kerchief is no obstacle to this achievement.

Still, the only place I know where Muslim women can fully live their Islamic rights and freedoms (education, working, social & political organizing & participation, protection from violence, writing their own marriage contracts) is North America. We American Muslims have been pretty active the past 20 years or so in building Islamic communities, and this is where Muslim women's life can fully flower as it had not had a chance to since the days of the original Sahâbîyât. I realize this may offend some hardline ideologues who insist that America is nothing but the Great Satan, the mortal enemy of Islam, but I say wake up. Real life is more complex than that. Here there are plenty of open spaces where Muslims feel free to live joyfully as Muslims without having to compromise on their identity or apologize for it, and they are the ones who are helping other Americans to see and understand Islam as a lived reality. For everyone who condemns America for being un-Islamic, there are lots more Muslims here who are taking advantage of all the opportunities for building a vibrant Islamic life. "

Peace.

[Divernan]

486. That's great . How many of these leaders wear veils in public?

Women lawyers or judges wearing veils in the courtroom?

University professors lecturing to their classes?

Politicians addressing their Parliaments? Addressing constituents on TV?

Has any Muslim woman ever addressed the UN? And if so, was she veiled?

It is the veil which is the problem, and not just in that it inhibits full communication, but that it symbolizes women's responsibility to not incite lustful responses from men, and it symbolizes men's inabilty to control their behavior at the sight of a woman's face.

You are a male Muslim. Have you personally attacked any women because you saw their face in public?

[PsychoDad]

507. Have you attacked any women because you saw their face in publi

No, Not lately. :P


I don't know when of if these women wore vail/niqab. I tend to doubt that they did as they, for the most part, wern't arab and it was not part of their culture.

There is also no evidence that the veil is required from a Quranic stand. Interestingly, the Qur’an is really not that explicit about the exact definition of modest dress. By reading the Qur’anic verses above, women are advised to cover their breasts and put on their outer garments in a way that enables them to avoid harassment. In addition, women are advised not to draw attention to their "beauty" (zeenah). This term has been translated as both beauty and ornaments (as women used to strike their feet to draw attention to hidden ornaments such as ankle bracelets).

Some of them may or may not have wore hijab. In any case I doubt it impacted upon their leadership skills or political savvy.

As for women in the Arab world, I imagine a university professor would wear a veil only if adressing men in a lecture. I admit to ignorance on this part never having spent time in the arab world. I'm sure there are others here who could better answer that, I would also be interested in the answer.

That's a darn good question.

Peace

[Generic Other]

629. These women have been given power because of their family connections

I don't dismiss the accomplishments of these women. Many of them have held highly influential office in their respective countries. Yet it is notable that these women are largely the daughters, wives and sisters of influential men. Furthermore, very few of them seem to have championed the rights of Islamic women. These women do not reflect the status quo. The pictures I saw suggest all wore the hajib, only one the chador.

Benazir Bhutto--Her father Bhutto served as Pakistani president before her.

Shirin Ebadi--"Ebadi was assigned to a lower position, actually the same branch's secretary, following the Iranian revolution in 1979, when conservative clerics insisted that judgement is forbidden by women in Islam. After protests by her and other female judges, they were assigned to a slightly higher position, that of 'law expert.' She finally asked for early retirement when she could not stand her situation." on edit: This woman won a Novel Peace Prize for her work defending the rights of women and children. She is arguably the one woman on this list with accomplishments of any note. She was a judge, but was was not allowed to practice law for nearly 20 years in Iran.

Megawati Sukarnoputri--Daughter of Sukarno former dictator of Indonesia. Yes, she was elected president thanks to her father's name, but she was later ousted "partly because of Muslim opposition to a woman president."

Princess Abida Sultan Begum of Bhopal--Inherited her position from her father As a modern aristocratic woman she had the power and position to determine for herself whether she would live under purdah. Well educated, she spent her life thumbing her nose at conventions. There is no indication she did anything to improve the lot of ordinary Muslim women.

H.H.Sikander Saulat Iftikhar ul-Mulk Haji Nawab Mehr Tai Sajida Sultan Begum Sahiba--Inherited her position from her father. Ruled as regent for her son not in her own right.

Begum Ra'ana Liquat Ali Khan--Widow of former prime minister of India who was assassinated.

Ibodat S. Rakhimova--Vice-President 1955-66 and Secretary 1978-89 of the Supreme Soviet. She did not gain her position in a communist state because she was Muslim but in spite of this fact.

Alhaja Sheidat Mujidat Adeoye--"She had only an elementary education...It was claimed that Mujidat...was seized by certain spirit which at first was interpreted by the audience as a manifestation of lunacy. Today, Mujidat has become a full time Muslim missioner, healer and leader of the movement that emerged from her spiritual encounter."

Dr. Anahita Ratebzad--Very close companion of former Afghan president Babrak Karmal.

Begum Khaleda Zia--"She is the widow of assassinated president Ziaur Rahman, and leads his old party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party."

Maryam Rajavi--"In August 1993, the National Council of Resistance, the Iranian Resistance’s Parliament, elected Mrs. Rajavi as Iran’s future President for the transitional period following the mullahs’ overthrow..." She labels the mullahs "reactionaries who suppress the Iranian people, especially women...under the cloak of religion, they...exploit the name of Islam to advance their sinister, inhuman objectives. " She apparently agrees with my assessment of women's place in the modern Muslim state.

Sheikh Hasina Wajed--"She is the eldest of five children of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the nationalist leader and first president of Bangladesh....Her political and personal destiny was irrevocably altered on the fateful night of August 15, 1975, when her father and her entire family including her mother and three brothers were assassinated in a coup d'etat by a section of disgruntled officers of the Bangladesh Army, some of whom were known freedom fighters during 1971."

Dr. Masoumek Ebtekar--"On International Women's Day in 1998, Dr. Ebtekar (then vice-president of environmental affairs) shocked the Western news media when she made an impassioned speech condemning the horrific oppression of women by the Taliban Movement in Afghanistan – even though she herself was wearing a chador."

Princess Hajah Masna binti Omer Ali--"She is the sister of HM Sultan Hassanal Bolkian Muizzaddin of Brunei."

Here is a partial list of women who seem invisible to you and every other Muslim apologist:

On 15 August, 2004, Atefah Sahaaleh was hanged in a public square in the Iranian city of Neka. Her death sentence was imposed for "crimes against chastity". The state-run newspaper accused her of adultery...but she was not married - and she was just 16.

An 18-year-old Iranian woman who killed a man that she said tried to rape her has been sentenced to death for murder, according to a press report on Saturday. The woman identified only as Nazanin claimed self-defense during her trial after she stabbed a man to death in March 2005, the Etemad newspaper reported. It said that Nazanin, who was 17 at the time, had been out with her niece and their boyfriends on a road west of Tehran when two men started harassing them and then tried to rape them after the boyfriends had run away.

In 1977 a Saudi princess and her lover were sentenced to death and executed. The princess was separated from her husband and intended to leave the country with her lover. The execution was captured on camera by a British tourist and was televised all over the world.

In 1990, Iraq issued a decree allowing men to kill their wives, daughters, or sisters for adultery. In Pakistan, the current penal laws stipulate stoning to death for adulteresses.

Amina (her full name is not known) was killed on 21 April 2005 in Afghanistan's Urgu district in Badakhan province. She was dragged by policemen out of her parents' house and killed publicly and officially in execution of a death sentence passed by a local court. The killing was committed in the traditional and extremely gruesome way, Islam has in store for women accused of adultery: she was stoned to death.

I base my opinion of Islam on how the least among us are treated not the most powerful.

[PsychoDad]

637. how the least among us are treated

Yes, that is indeed the best way to judge any society. I could not agree more.

I sit inside and can see the good that Islam has done, and I know the rights that Islam promises to all men and women. You are outside and see the injustices done by men in the name of Islam, not because of it but in violation of it.

Indeed the cases you cite do show violations against the rights of these people, rights granted to them in sharia, or islamic law. The laws foisted upon them come not from Islam but from corrupted governments and men, rewritten "sharia" to empower the few, not the many.

Let me use an example that should be near and dear to both of us.

Contrast this with the crimes of G.W. Bush and the GOP against the rights granted to us by the Constitution. Are we to apply your broad brush and proclaim that all of America, indeed all Americans are rife with the desire to slaughter innocents and rape and torture on a scale beyond the ability of most of us to grasp? And because they can do it then it must be the fault of the Constitution and it's framers that they commit these abuses against humanity? Thus the constitution must be a most vile document full of hate?

We know that is not the case. We know the promise that the constitution holds for all it's citizens, not just the elite few.

But now that it has been defiled by evil men, should we place the blame on it throw all of it away?

Or do we reclaim the original promise for equality for all men and women regardless of Race?

The problem wit Islam isn't Islam, it's the evil that has been done in it's name by evil men, just like the evil done in the name of America and Democracy.

By evil men.


I am a Muslim, and to me that means that I respect the rights of all Men and Women, I recognize the brotherhood of Humanity. I am required by Islam to strive for social justice and equality for all humans, and an end to oppression of all stripes to all beings.


"He is not a believer who is a menace to his neighbor, or who can sleep knowing that his neighbor is hungry." -Muhammad (saw)

That is why I am a Muslim
That is what I judge Islam on, and every other society.

Indeed, we should judge our way of life on how the weakest in our society are treated, and what we do to change it for the better.

Peace to you my friend :)



Peace.

[Generic Other]

654. When good men do nothing, evil triumphs

Comparing Bush's interpretation of the Constitution to a powerful mullah's interpretation of the Koran ignores a central difference which is that I fight against Bush and what he has done to destroy America every day with every fiber of my being. I never defend him or offer excuses or apologies for his actions or the direction he has taken this nation. I condemn him without reservation.

That is not what is happening in the Islamic world. The fundamentalists' voices are the only voices heard. No one raises a single voice to protect the women, to protest their treatment, to defend their rights, to demand that wives, daughters, sisters and mothers be accorded basic human rights. Instead, all focus is centered on convoluted arguments about the positive benefits of imprisonment, discrimination and barbaric treatment.

Perhaps, as you say it is largely the fault of evil men, but good men must also take responsibility for their inaction because when good men do nothing, evil triumphs.

[Hoping4Change]

700. Well said. nt

:applause:

[Cameron27]

714. Excellent post

Thanks for making an important point.

[Divernan]

656. Thanks for taking the time to respond to the list of names.

I am not surprised by what you reported.

[Hoping4Change]

734. If choice is sooo important to Muslim women, why aren't

Muslims who want the right to choose between veil or no veil, organizing day and night to form a united front and demand that their Muslim sisters in theocratic Islamic states who are forced to wear veil be given the right to choose? I see no mass effort by veiled Muslim women in the West to demand freedom of choice for their sisters? There's lots they could to to apply pressure. So why the silence?

[Hoping4Change]

735. Actually when in 1998 Eypgt passed a law preventing

doctors in state owned hospitals from performing FGM (the practice was still allowed in private homes), Muslim clerics went to Court to have the law overturned.

[pnwmom]

409. A face veil isn't like a hair veil or another adornment. It is a mask,

and it conveys the message that the woman must be hidden or cut off from others.

It wouldn't convey such a negative message if the men in that culture also wore face covers, but they don't. They only require the women to.

[LostinVA]

679. I agree with you, GO

Especially this: "t is very hard to be asked in the name of tolerance to respect others who promote a dogma that institutionalizes the oppression and subjugation of females."

Especially when young child are exposed to this by a person in a position of respect and authority.

[pnwmom]

380. No. It all boils down to whether the needs of the young student

(for good communication) or the teacher (for the exercise of religious beliefs) comes first.

In a public school, I think that the student's needs come first.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

625. No it doesn't.

What it boils down to is whether or not wearing a face-veil will impede a woman's ability to teach enough to justify banning it. I think it's fairly clear that it will - young children need to be able to see a teacher's facial expression.

If a woman wishes to wear a veil, then fine. However, if she refuses to refrain from doing so then she should not be allowed to do jobs which wearing a veil will significantly impede her ability to do.

The claim that "Everything can be tolerated if understood from a historical context" is simply silly.

Saying "it's cultural" is essentially a way of pretending that doing things that are bad for other people doesn't really count - it's not harmful, because it's culture, so you're not allowed to judge it. This is moral cowardice of the first order. One should apply exactly the same moral standards to other cultures as one applies to ones own, or they're not moral standards, they're just personal prejudices.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. It Would've Completely Hindered My Ability To Learn.

I have significant hearing loss in both ears, though no one would ever know it cause I hide it so well and am extremely capable at reading lips. But in the absence of having been able to read her lips, the chances are I would've barely understood what she was saying.

[BlooInBloo]

45. If she's better educated than American teachers - I'm down with it.

[pnwmom]

406. That's an odd assumption.

American teachers all have college degrees and sometimes graduate degrees. There's nothing in the article that implies she's better educated than the average teacher.

[BlooInBloo]

438. Where did I make ANY assumption? I said "if"....

... that word is the ANTI-assumption.

lol

degree != educated. ESPECIALLY if that degree is in education.


EDIT: I know from sad experience that Americann public school (<4 year university level) teachers are not the brightest bulbs of the bunch, as an aggregate. Whatever other wonderful qualities they might have.

My initial remark was aimed at showing what was important to me, versus what was NOT important to me. Being well-educated is important to me in a teacher. Wearing a veil is not. I think it's odd that so many in this thread are so exercised about a teacher wearing a veil, and yet they're perfect ok with uneducated teachers. lol! People deserve the country they insist on, I suppose.

[proud2BlibKansan]

475. Well this American public school teacher

is offended by your remarks. You obviously have no idea how truly bright (and intuitive and well educated) teachers need to be.

I also wonder what you mean by "<4 year university level"?? You can't teach without a 4 year degree in this country.

p.s. There is only one N at the end of 'American' :)

[BlooInBloo]

647. To seriously countenance even the *notion* that pointing out a typo...

... constitutes a "zing" makes it *completely* plausible that you're an American public school teacher, with all that entails.

I meant teachers who teach kids who are themselves somewhere below the 4-year-uni. level. It was my way of saying that my claims don't apply - in nothing like a similar generality at least - to univ profs. Of course, this isn't terribly surprising - they also as a general rule have advanced degree in bonafide academic subjects, rather than in education.

I'm sorry you're offoohnded, but I'll take offense over silently letting the uneducated teach my kids any day of the week.


EDIT: Corrected one typo that I saw at a random glance. I deliberately didn't look for any others, lest I rob you of a genius "zing" opportunity. I even put one in deliberately, to cover the small possibility that there *aren't* any genuine typos - have fun!

[proud2BlibKansan]

651. "silently letting the uneducated teach my kids any day of the week"??

And what do you think I could do about that?

[BlooInBloo]

652. Sigh. Not possessed of even rudimentary disambiguation skills...

... my bad I suppose - knowing who I'm talking to, I shouldn't have stated anything in a potentially ambiguous manner.

I believe this will help: where I said "take" at a key (to someone lacking disambiguation skills), substitute "choose".

[breakaleg]

46. I would not let my child go into that classroom.

I respect her religion but I'm afraid the message that would be sent to my child would be that there is something that needs to be hidden and a 7 year old might possibly be afraid of the image she presented.

[SmokingJacket]

56. It's the quality of the teaching that matters.

Can a person in a veil communicate effectively? I don't know -- but since it's important to the teacher to have one, I'd personally give her a shot.

If my kid couldn't learn, I'd try to move my kid or homeschool, just as I would with any ineffective teacher.

People should be given a chance, for fuck's sake.

[Cameron27]

62. In addition to wearing a veil to cover her face,

she's insisting on barring men from working with her?

Swell:eyes:

[Lost-in-FL]

66. Yeah... fire all men!

So the "intolerant" can stay.

[breakaleg]

68. If she doesn't want to work with men on the basis of her religion,

then instead of getting a job where men work and asking they be fired, the onus should be on her to find a job where men don't work. She shouldn't get to change the face of her workplace to suit her religion. It should be the other way around.

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. Interesting that the first time this little tidbit was mentioned...

... was post #62.

Dictating to your employer who you will and who you will not work with is not a protected form of religious expression.

I don't give a shit what she wears, but I do give a shit that she would exclude others from her workplace.

I also seriously question whether someone with these views could fairly teach either boys or girls.

[Nikia]

195. I think this was a condition of removing her veil

That she would teach without it only if she could count of adult men not being around with her veiless.
That's how I understood it.

[spoony]

288. Correct! n/t

[electron_blue]

64. I wouldn't like it and I would fight it or move my child out of there.

[Clark2008]

67. I absolutely would not care - nor would her religion be any of

my business.

P.S. And I have the added benefit of actually HAVING a child in the second grade. And I understand Islam - since said child's father is Muslim. So, there you go. No. I wouldn't care.

[Kali]

81. It wouldn't bother me any more than a big honking cross around her neck.

Which is to say if one is allowed so should the other.

[pnwmom]

228. Does a cross around her neck prevent a student from seeing her smile?

Or frown?

[Kali]

275. Sorry that just isn't relevant to me. I think that in fact yes, with time

a person (kids too) CAN tell those things just from the eyes and other verbal and non-verbal clues. Personally, I prefer ANY religion to stay OUT of my kids' public school life.

[pnwmom]

297. At a distance of 10 feet, I defy anyone to look at eyes through a slot

and tell me whether the person is smiling or frowning or neither. And don't forget -- you won't be able to see the eyebrows.

Just a pair of eyes with a little crinkling at the corners. Is that frowning-crinkling? Or smiling-crinkling? Or just wrinkles? All it will take is a little practice? Give me a break.

Teachers have to be able to communicate across a crowded classroom. A smile or frown can be read at that distance. Little crinkles around the eye are MUCH harder to see.

[Kali]

353. and other verbal and non-verbal clues.

Look, I see your point, I just don't agree with it. I think it would be a GOOD thing for kids to learn to accommodate the differences. Its a big world, christian america is NOT the center of the universe. As I already said, I would prefer NO RELIGIOUS PARAPHERNALIA in a public school, but if some is allowed I would then PREFER a good diversity, even a veil.

[pnwmom]

383. I would completely go along with NO religious symbols in a school. Or

with religious symbols limited to a small size. (For example, a beanie or a pendant.) They're divisive and really don't belong in a public school setting.

I definitely don't think Christian symbols should have any preference in public schools. I think there should be some standard that treats all religions equally.

[NNN0LHI]

85. What kind of teacher is she? Good teacher? Bad teacher?

That is all that counts. Sure there may be some difficulty at first for my kid but it sure doesn't sound like something that would not be able to be worked out over a short period of time. Hell I had a blind teacher. He was a wonderful teacher with a great mind who excelled at his job.

Don

[jwirr]

86. I think I would first ask why she was wearing the veil. I would

want her to be able to explain to my child why and make sure that my child was not afraid. As to communication - if she has clear diction and is good at teaching my child what he/she needs to learn I would not reject her because of her dress style.

[msanthrope]

89. My Child's daycare fired a woman who insisted on wearing

a veil. And we, the parents, found it to be good riddance.

She was hired to work with the babies--all under a year old. The kids screamed their heads off--imagine trying to cuddle up to a pair of eyes peeking from a slit. Now, as I understand it, that's not how Muslims dress in their homes--but that's how she 'had' to dress to work.

Then, apparently, she began complaining that she didn't want to interact with the fathers who came to pick up/drop off their kids. Oh--and she couldn't touch food that she considered unclean, so the parents were expected to pack lunches she could handle....

It just got to be too much, and the center management fired her. Look, if you want to isolate yourself from the mainstream, that's your business. Just be prepared to face the consequences without whining.......

ETA--the 3 or 4 secular Muslim families that attend the daycare wanted her gone, too. As one Dad said "She gives us a bad name."

[riderinthestorm]

156. The women in burqas at our local library won't deal with male librarians

I've actually seen them step back if they are going to be checked out by a man. they shoo me forward and wait until a woman librarian is available (this is in the western suburbs of Chicago).

I am beginning to believe that women who are fully veiled also want restrictions against interfacing with men, and that just won't work in our culture.

Sometimes there needs to be some kind of compromise between religion and culture - when a certain percentage of Muslims won't compromise it becomes a problem, or when a religious belief butts up against a new culture. In Britain it is a really hot topic - how far with their society have to "give" in order to accomdate this religious belief. Where will they draw their lines?

[pnwmom]

242. And where do we draw the lines between our belief in

equality and equal opportunity and equal protection -- and the free expression of religions -- any religions -- that limit expression and opportunity for women?

[pnwmom]

232. A woman would never wear a veil all day around her OWN children.

It would be putting a barrier between her and them. And when that woman is a surrogate parent -- as teachers, particularly of young students, are -- she shouldn't be able to either.

[LWolf]

90. It depends.

If the teacher is teaching in a culture that keeps its women veiled, it wouldn't affect communication. Children from that culture would be used to communications from behind the veil. Discriminatory, yes, but affecting the childrens' understanding of her, no.

In any other culture, yes. Children raised in "unveiled" societies learn to look for facial expression as well as body language and tone of voice to convey meaning, and a veiled teacher would take away one of their regularly used tools for understanding communication.

In my district? It's a small, somewhat rural district. I doubt a veiled woman would be hired. If the interviewing team couldn't see her face, they probably wouldn't feel that they could rely on her responses in an interview. Would you hire someone who wouldn't let you look at them?

Schools and teachers aside, it's a sticky problem; to honor cultural differences among you, yet not participate in sexual discrimination. How do you avoid sexual discrimination and religious discrimination at the same time, in this case?

[pnwmom]

420. I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's a case of our conflicting

progressive values: not wanting to support either sexual discrimination OR religious discrimination. But what happens when the religion in question (could be Christian, Muslim, almost any religion) supports discrimination against women? Or opposes the values of a secular society? How far should a secular society (based on equality of all) go in supporting the rights of people to practice a religion that actively discriminates?

[LWolf]

671. The answer I keep coming back to

is one given to me by a professor in a political science class I took in college a few decades ago.

He was discussing constitutional rights, and their limitations. He said that all rights end at the end of our nose, where we meet with the rest of the world. That our rights hold as long as they don't conflict with the rights of others.

That includes religious freedom; a right to practice your faith of choice for yourself, but not to dictate to others. If your faith requires you to violate the rights of others, that would not be a religious freedom. Still a wobbly line, but it's a place to start.

[PsychoDad]

91. No problems here....

None at all. :)

I don't hae a problem if she wants to wear a cross, pentacle or Mogan David, either.

Peace.

[riderinthestorm]

138. Uh, she also won't work with men psychoDAD. I'm sorry but sometimes

there have to be lines drawn in accomodating cultural and religious differences.

This teacher is over that line imho.

[PsychoDad]

165. She should have understood that working with men

Was a job requirement.

If she did not wish to fulfill it, she should not have taken the job.

I can't argue with you there :) Perhaps the sister should seek a job at a Muslim school.

OTOH, wearing Hijab/and veil isn't exclusive with working with men. Many Muslim who wear Niqab work with and alongside men, always have in Muslim society.

Think that the woman that Caliph Umar placed in charge of the Markets of the young Islamic empire didn't deal with men everyday? It was a position of great power that doubtless had her dealing with and directing policy for men.

Peace.

[riderinthestorm]

170. Do you think she wore a full facial veil?

At that time only the prophet's wives were required to do so. There was a lot of discussion that early muslimahs only had to cover their breasts. So how do you (nobody really knows) that she was in a full veil?

The reality is, we don't know. And I doubt she wore a full veil then since it was reserved for the prophet's wives at the time. Umar would have been extremely sensitive to that - a nuance that seems to have been lost over time.

[PsychoDad]

222. Indeed we don't know what she wore.

I'm embarrassed that I can't remember her name... On edit: Shaff'a Bint Abdullah

My point was that she obviously had to deal with men in her position in contrast with this sister who does not wish to, in order to clarify that Islam does not prohibit women from working with men.

You are right, there is a great deal of discussion about what that particular verse concerning believing women really address when it talks about "cover" or Hijab. I tend to side with the covering of the hair as being part of a modest dress of the time, I agree that there is no evidence that the niqab was required.

Just as women prayed in the Mosque with the men in the time of the Prophet (saw), it is the male dominated cultures that changed the practice, not because of Islam, but in spite of it.

Peace.

[riderinthestorm]

244. Thanks for a fair answer.

"modest dress of the time".

When women mostly went topless in order to easily breast feed children, somehow this has come to be seen as shameful in most patriarchical religious structures....

I challenge men to whip out their breasts, modestly, 10 times/day, in order to naturally feed their children. Beyond that, children crave physical skin to skin contact. Ask anyone in the NICU units what helps the most: parental bonding, skin to skin. We NEED it to survive, yet your religion mandates against what we most seek....

This order to "cover up" goes against bodily functions and our natural state of affairs.

Islam as it is practiced today has perverted what is normal dress for women, and I resent that. It works against our biology, our heritage and our equality as humans.

I feel for you moderate Muslims. There is a titanic clash that is going to occur, is occuring as we speak.

Your prophet preached the middle way, same as most other prophets - yet the adherence to dogma will drown your good voices.
:mad:

[PsychoDad]

390. When dogma replaces reason and understanding...

everything else is lost.

There is a tale of an early Muslim traveler from Arabia who went to Africa to visit and document a number of African Muslims. When he arrived he noted that the women went about working in the fields with their breasts uncovered. (gasp)

This fellow relates that this caught him quite off guard, being a "proper" arab and un-centered him quite a bit at first, but he writes that his eyes were opened.

Were these people good Muslims, or were they committing some great wrong?

In his letter he relates that these people were fiercely devout, attending their prayers on time, loath to delay them for any reason. They were exemplary hosts and there were none in their land who had need for anything as everything was shared, no one hoarding wealth. They were modest and humble people in every way, even with their breasts uncovered.

His conclusion; they were BETTER Muslims than him or anyone else he knew of!

The Quran states that we will not be judged upon what we wore, what we look like or our wealth, but upon the content of our heart. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all adopt the same standard?

Jesus (peace be upon him) said something about us being concerned with a speck in someone's eye when we are blinded by the plank in ours. All too often, we Muslims, being human, suffer from that affliction as much as anyone else.

Peace, my friend.

[Hoping4Change]

732. Great post. I can't tell you how much I agree with your comment

that "When dogma replaces reason and understanding...all is lost." Its sums up my feelings entirely.

The story is also profound. I believe what it says is that these bare-breasted people were confident that they were in the right relationship with their God and that they implicitly trusted in his love for them.

I also believe the story can be related to the issue of veils. I believe that their bare-breastedness symbolizes openness and trust between humans, whereas veils represent distrust and separateness. And just as nakedness is a non-verbal mode of expression, so is a bared face.

Non verbal expression is one of the most significant forms of communication. Smiles between strangers establish a sense of trust, affiliation and goodwill. What could be more important in a multi-cultural society than strangers sharing smiles? When someone is masking her face, she is in effect thumbing her nose at fostering that sense of affiliation that can only be established by non verbal means. We humans are extremely sensitive to non verbal cues which tend to be regarded as more spontaneous than verbal declarations. Non verbal communication speaks volumes.

[Withywindle]

104. Now here's an issue with valid arguments on both sides, I think...

...One thing that has to be taken into consideration is that in the West there's actually a cultural taboo about covering the face. A lot of municipalities in the US actually have laws against it, I believe. Some of the laws date from the days when the Ku Klux Klan was at its peak,terrorizing people in their hoods. Some of the laws have to do with a mental image of the masked bank robber, burglar, rapist.

I think there is a general, often unconscious notion in the back of the Western mind that except under very specific circumstances--it's Halloween, you're an actor in a role, it's 10 below outside--a person who hides their face is probably up to no good. It's seen as dishonest, a sign of unwillingness to communicate and something to hide. And there's no gender differentiation there.

Someone from a culture where women are commonly fully veiled wouldn't feel this way at all; they'd be used to it. But I think we have a case of clashing taboos here.

[smirkymonkey]

124. Good point.

I know that I am uncomfortable communicating with someone whose face is covered. It automatically feels like a power imbalance - I can see you, but you can't see me.

As far as religious symbols are concerned - I don't think any should be allowed in a public educational institution. I am sick and tired of religion in the public sphere - it should be private and personal and kept in the home and church/temple/mosque where it belongs.

[Salaama]

108. As a student... and a Muslimah...

I honestly do think that she should be able to wear her veil...

If you tell her she cant... then you must tell all the other teachers to take off their crosses, and other religious symbols as well.

I honestly dont have a problem listening to a teacher wearing a cross, and when I wear my face veil, I don't see anyone having communication problems with me. As for denying a student a right to education... don't you think the students would actually learn more? Her stand would raise questions that students would ask, therefore learning about Islam, and about standing up for your religion and what you believe in.


Peace be upon you

[Divernan]

118. Could you be so kind as to explain your understanding of what the veil,

head covering and/or burkah symbolize? And whatever they may symbolize, why are only women required to cover their bodies or parts thereof?

[Salaama]

129. In Islam...

Women cover their hair to symbolize religion, and to be modest.

The burkah and niqab, are primarily cultural, it is not mandatory, and the headscarf is not as well, its a personal decision. I who am an American Muslim usually just wear the hijab, or headscarf, but when I wear niqab/burkah I feel empowered as well. My body is my own, I decide who sees it and who doesn't.

As for you stating women are only required to do this, that is wrong. Men actually have more restrictions. They cannot wear silk, or gold, and they too must dress modestly. Many Muslim men do wear head coverings as well.

Much of this isn't mandatory, it is a symbol of one's faith, and modesty. To be a muslim you only have to believe 2 things, that there is only 1 god, and that Muhammed (pbuh) is the messanger of god.

[Divernan]

136. Thank you for your response

But really, when you say "to symbolize religion", you have not told me HOW this symbolilzes your religion.

As to "modesty" it has been my understanding that the belief of those requiring coverings is that the sight of a woman's body, hair, etc., incites a sinful lust in men. I have seen women in burkahs which include face scarves of material, covering the entire face, so that they can see out, but no one can see their eyes. To me, that makes women responsible for controlling men's desires, and I think men should be accountable for controlling their own feelings.

Again, thank you for your response - like many Americans, I have a minimal knowledge of your faith. One of my daughters researched and wrote a news article about a Muslim mosque in NYC. She was very impressed with the people she met and the values by which they lived their lives.

[plasticwidow]

147. Labels, Culture, and Religion

Greetings and I am very happy to see an open discussion in the regular forums about this subject. As to the "HOW" of the symbolism, first, we have been asked in the Quran (God's word), to cover ourselves modestly, the word "hijab" just means cover... in some cultures it has come to mean the entire head and face, and in others it has come to simply mean a scarf or any other headcovering. When I go to pray at the Masjid (Mosque), I have seen many diverse "head coverings". And some of these sisters do not even wear their hijabs, or headcoverings outside of the Mosque. Indeed, this is a cultural dilemma. However, when you think about it, if you see a woman wearing a cross, you automatically label her as a christian. You see a pentacle, you assume the individual is a wiccan or some other earth or moon religion. You see someone wearing a Star of David, you see a Jewish individual. A woman wears a hijab or burqa or niquab, you automatically see a muslim. This certainly seems like a symbol of the religion to me.

I think men should be responsible for their own desires; however, in America at least (I am born American and have been a Muslim for about 5 years now), I have seen men not only have little control over their desires, lusts and their stares and cat calls and gawking over women who wear little and women who want men to notice their bodies and look at them with desire. All in all, it really is the woman, anywhere you go, who really control men's desires. So why should we not cover ourselves if we do not wish to be seen as a sex symbol or a woman who men want to desire? It is up to men to behave themselves, but what is the intention behind any woman and the way she dresses? Does she wish to be modest? Or does she wish to be provocative? In any case, she should have the right to wear what she wishes to wear. And again, we go back to women's rights now, something that women have been fighting here in America for centuries now. I remember my mother, who was catholic, who never went to church without wearing a scarf covering her head. In the bible itself, it says for women to cover their heads while in church. But many do not. And many do not wear the very symbol of their religion for various reasons, some reasons being the fear of being persecuted, others because it is inconvenient and then others simply because it either does not go along with their clothing or they do not desire to wear anything religious. It is a "choice". And people should be able to wear what they will without being persecuted. It is supposed to be a part of our Constitution, no one religion is to be favored or preferred over another, and by discouraging hijab or niqab you have a law that is favoring one religion over another.

A person should be judged in the work place on their quality of work, not the way they dress.

I think they are making this too much of a big deal, and thereby causing more problems than there really is. They could have asked her, when you are in the classroom with the children, please remove your face veil if there are no men present. And when you are finished with the classroom, or if there is a knock on the door, you can put the veil on. It also all comes down to compromise, and if a place of employment does not wish to show discrimination, there are always compromises they can make, adjustments.. in the work place. It has been done before.

Peace to you and I hope others are openminded to new experiences and learning more about Islam and Muslims. People would be very surprised to find out Islam and Muslims are not what it is portrayed in the news.

Salaam and peace to everyone.

Sister Jean

[riderinthestorm]

149. Unfortunately you are promoting the very stereotypes you seek to

transcend.

"I have seen men not only have little control over their desires, lusts and their stares and cat calls and gawking over women who wear little and women who want men to notice their bodies and look at them with desire. All in all, it really is the woman, anywhere you go, who really control men's desires."

:puke:

[plasticwidow]

160. Sorry...

I got carried away there and didn't realize what I said until after I posted. LOL ... that was not my intention. What I actually wanted to say was...

A man's desire seems to be connected to the way the woman presents herself, and thereby without her realizing it, how she dresses, acts, etc, can very easily affect how a man reacts to her, including desiring her.

Again, my apologies.

Peace!

Sister Jean

[riderinthestorm]

164. You are still putting the onus on women

I don't give a shit if a woman intentionally or unintentionally causes men to "desire" her.

It is up to the man to control himself regardless of how I am clothed.

Again you are really enforcing some negative stereotypical shite here re: Muslimahs, men, veiling and who needs to be exhibiting some control....

:wow:

[LostinVA]

681. Ugh --I cannot believe you wrote that

And, it's meant as an APOLOGY of something else you wrote.

Jeebus.

[LostinVA]

680. Agreed -- ugh

[PsychoDad]

158. It is up to each of us to control ourselves.

My gaze may be attracted by a pretty woman in a short dress, or even by a woman in niqab. What happens next in my heart and mind is up to me isn't it?

Desire, anger, modesty... I'm the one responsible.

Many men make the excuse that it is the woman who tempts him, and men are weak. Perhaps, but the turkey on the table tempts me, and I am weak, but if I become a glutton it is my fault only.

Men and women, we are responsible for our intentions and actions only, and on the last day it's my intentions and actions (or lack thereof) that I'll be judged on.


OTOH, I think the Muslimah are stronger than the brothers on the whole.

Welcome to DU sister.

Salam Alikum.

[plasticwidow]

162. Turkey on the Table...

LOL.. thank you.. you said it better than I ever could. :P

Peace!

And thanks for the welcome. :)

Sister Jean

Wa alaykum salaam.

[riderinthestorm]

166. So never serve turkey would seem to be the answer?

I don't think so.

You get it. But why is it that so many of your brethren (including one posting right here on this thread! do not?)

There are multicultural lines here that need to be navigated - true dat.

But the school in the UK has a point:
1. The woman interviewed for the position without her face veil. And is now demanding the right to wear it, which seems deceptive.
2. Now she is demanding that she isn't exposed to men.
3. The muslimah doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that there are real issues in western culture with masks.

[riderinthestorm]

137. She also won't work with men

This is a big problem in western society. We don't segregate. If she can't handle the realities of the workplace, then the veil is the least of her worries.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

285. Given that she interviewed without the face veil,

it could be that she's one of those people (not at all limited to Muslims) who have "whims of iron."

And the mention of the cultural connotations of covering the face reminds me that when I saw the fully veiled women in London, it gave me the creeps for reasons I couldn't pin down. But yes, in Western culture, you cover your face when you're doing something that could get you into trouble and want to hide your identity.

[pnwmom]

357. Do women in Muslim countries wear face veils when teaching

young girls?

If you had a child of your own, would you wear a face veil around him or her all day? Or would you see that as a barrier between you?

Do you think the situation might be different for young children -- who might need to see a teacher's face -- as opposed to high school students?

Welcome to DU, Salaama!

[Hoping4Change]

702. You are not addressing the point that her face is covered.

Furthermore the great majority of Muslim women don't cover their faces. Of course if they live in a theocratic Islamic state they don't have the choice. When Mulisms in the West devote all their energies to lobbying theocratic Islamic states to give women the right to choose whether or not to veil themselves then I will embrace the notion of Western Muslims donning the veil. Right now those who are demanding the right to mask themselves are in my opinion simply tools of Wahabbis who wish to impose their Islamic extremist views throughout the world.

[dflprincess]

112. It could be a problem if there is a hearing impaired child in the class

One of my friends has a child who has hearing problems (he is an adult now). The hearing aids available at the time really didn't help him and he does rely on lip reading to supplement what hearing he has. When he was in 5th or 6th grade his teacher had a mustache that made it difficult for the kid to read the teacher's lips. Credit goes to the teacher who removed the mustache when he found out it was causing a problem.

[RamboLiberal]

113. Well since for about the first 6 years of my education I was

taught by women who dressed like this.



And my education nor my communication didn't seem to be affected, I say let the teacher teach the way she wants for her religion - students will learn to respect diversity.

While like the good sisters I think religious prohibitions on how women dress are silly, I respect their beliefs.

[Cameron27]

Yes, but the lovely sisters of the archaic feminine as

dictated by men, teach in Catholic Schools.

[pnwmom]

331. Bingo. One of my sons had a nun just ten years ago in a secular

school -- and I had no idea, because she didn't use the name "Sister" and she wasn't wearing a habit.

[pnwmom]

325. Those women's faces are clearly visible. It's not the same.

I had nuns too and the effect of the habit was -- if anything -- to make their facial expressions stand out even more. I can still picture each of them clearly to this day.

If they had worn masks over their faces it would have been completely different.

[LostinVA]

682. Traditionally dressed Sisters don't cover their faces

Big difference. And, they taught you in a PRIVATE school.

[williesgirl]

120. My great-niece had a Muslim teacher w/veil in 1st grade. Loved her,

she was so kind and a great teacher. My niece felt she was much more engaged with the kids and easy to communicate with. And, this was in a Montessori school in a wealthy area of N.VA. In this area, most parents feel it is good to have their kids exposed to "different" types, regardless of what way they appear to be different.

As with all teachers, give them a chance. If they really mess up, then complain about the mistakes or whatever, not their religion or appearance.

Small school kids only freak out when their parents have given off vibes that something's amiss.

As a Catholic, I grew up in schools with nuns in habits. How does this differ?

[amandabeech]

192. A Catholic school is not supported mostly with government

tax dollars. As I understand it, Catholic and other religious schools run on tuition payments and support of the Catholic Church. Separation of church and state is not required in a non-tax-supported school. Thus, teachers dress in the manner expected by the religion supporting the school.

Also, the teaching nun's habit does not cover her face. I remember the local nuns doing their shopping in my home town back in the '60s. I couldn't see their arms, legs and necks, but I could see their faces and the expression on them. Some of them had pretty tough expressions on their faces and I was afraid of them.

For many contributing to this thread, the non-verbal communications evident in facial expressions are important. The veil shuts that out.

Your experience and thoughts on the necessity or desirability of seeing a person's face are different. It may be a personal preference.

[pnwmom]

241. "Small children only freak out when their parents have given off vibes"

Not true in our case. My 4 yr. old son's permanently frowning teacher arrived a few months into the year. He began to withdraw at school, but nobody told me it was happening for a couple of months. (My son couldn't put into words why he was uncomfortable, I don't think he even knew -- so he wasn't telling me.) It was only after I found out about the problem, and began to observe the class, and learned more about the teacher's culture (social smiling isn't done) that I realized what was happening. And that has made me more sensitive to this issue. I realize that we really do communicate with our faces in very important ways.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

694. A teacher of 4yos who frowns and doesn't smile?

That's like a C programmer whose religion forbids touching computers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

134. Veils?!! How about blouses? Shoes? Skirts? Earrings?

Oh, hell, just have them strip before entering the classroom so the kiddies don't get the wrong idea about anything.

[WinkyDink]

142. So, let me see: This Muslim woman wants to assert her "right"

to COVER HER MOUTH when she TEACHES (WTH??), and we should be "tolerant"; but SHE is INTOLERANT of the notion of working with MEN, like, maybe it's the 21st Century?

Whatever.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

144. I don't think we should be tolerant of men who wear ties.

Or, brown shoes.

Maybe we shouldn't be tolerant of guys who wear baseball caps.

How about the teachers in "shop" classes who wear gloves to cover the hands they teach with.

Dark glasses? Or, glasses of any kind? How about lipstick?

Yeah, I think we should be tolerant of a Muslim woman who chooses to wear a veil.

[WhollyHeretic]

146. How about not being able to work with men? You seem to be ignoring that

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

265. So, if she agreed to work with men, you'd be OK with the veil?

Which is what I thought this discussion was about. If she refuses to work with men, she should seek another line of work.

[amandabeech]

204. Dark glasses frequently obscure the expression in the eyes.

They are the opposite of the veil. Clear glasses, including safety glasses, do not obscure as much. None of brown shoes, baseball caps (if not pulled down on the face), gloves or lipstick obscure facial expression.

[WinkyDink]

363. I taught public school. No sunglasses there, either.

[WinkyDink]

364. "Dark glasses"? Have you been in a public school lately?

Not allowed in mine.
Your other examples don't equate to OP.

[treestar]

150. Sure she could do the teaching job

How it is that our culture, and by entention Britain's, cannot get the substance of anything? We get so hung up on externalities.

[tocqueville]

152. Ask those French women about the veil

http://www.taiga-press.com/features/ni_putes/

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/24/i_ins.00.html

http://www.mariebrenner.com/articles/daughters/daughters.html

http://print.signandsight.com/features/288.html

[YellowRubberDuckie]

159. I was just thinking...

A nun wears a habit and covers herself. Why is this any different? Why is everyone freaking out because a muslim woman wants to teach elementary school and dress like she dresses? Who cares if she wears a scarf over her head or her face? I don't understand the face part, but it's not really my place to understand it. I guess if the kids ask, she can tell them it's part of her religion and leave it at that. I don't see why anyone cares. I think we all just need to get over ourselves and be as open minded towards them as we wish they would be towards us. We have to kill them with kindness and understanding, or they're going to continue thinking that the liberals in this country are just as bad as the conservatives who hate them. They hate America because of Bush and the people who behave like him. They need to see we're not all like them. So let's stop freaking out, let them dress how they dress. It's not like she's shaking her boobs at the kids. She's just got her face covered. She's not the bogey man. She's a freaking muslim teacher.
Duckie

[WhollyHeretic]

163. Nuns are at private schools not public

Plus this woman is refusing to work with men.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

168. I was just talking about the dress.

And I know that.

[riderinthestorm]

173. It seems though that the dress also includes not working with men

the two go together.

Most muslimahs who are in full veil are into the whole separation of sexes thing as well from what I can see.

That is very different from the Catholic church - which by the way, I will stress has gotten out of the whole veiling thing. If even THAT institution can finally get over it's medieval excesses.....

[amandabeech]

198. Nun's habits don't cover their faces.

Some posting here, including me, think that it is important to see the expression on a person's face in order to discern the full meaning of speech or silence.

If I had a child, I would object to anyone working in the schools covering their faces unless the covering had a medical purpose or was used to cover some sort of deformity and was minimized to cover just such deformity. The religion of the face-coverer would not be important to me but the covering itself would.

[RamboLiberal]

262. Let me tell you some of those nuns had only one expression

Many of the older ones never smiled or laughed in front of us. And they scared the heck out of most of us. I'd think I might have preferred their faces were covered.

[amandabeech]

273. Touche!

Actually, I remember the nuns from the local Catholic school out doing their shopping in our small town. I could see their faces and they DID scare the heck out of me. It didn't help that my best friend in the neighborhood went to that school and told me real horror stories about the use of rulers, a la "The Blues Brothers" and the Penguin.

[pnwmom]

359. I'm sorry for you. Mine knew how to smile, and did. A lot, actually.

On the other hand, my son had a preschool teacher from a country where smiling is not a part of the culture. It really rattled him, though I didn't find out till she had been there for a couple months. (I was communicating with a different teacher.) She had an almost permanent slight frown on her face, which is kind of a mask, too. And it made me more sensitive to how important nonverbal communication is to children, especially young children.

[Cameron27]

618. LOL

I was taught Sunday school by a group of the lovely sisters, and believe me,I have no end of entertaining stories about the consequences of not being a good Catholic girl.

:scared:

[Nikia]

199. We had an academic competition and our public school

Among the schools competing against us was a Catholic school and their coach was a nun wearing a veil. Oh no.
Our school also competed in volleyball one year against a Mennonite school where most of the girls, even while they were playing, wore a head covering.
We were all damaged by this experience of course.

[WhollyHeretic]

209. Again, she worked for a private school, NOT public

It's really not that hard a concept to grasp (at least it shouldn't be)

[amandabeech]

219. The nun covered all of her face except her eyes while she was

coaching? Or are you talking about a bridal veil, which these days, usually does not cover the face of the bride? In the old days, and sometimes even now, the veil covers the whole head. The groom lifts the veil over the bride's head so that he can kiss the bride when told that he may "now kiss the bride."

What I thought that we were discussing here was a black, mostly opaque cloth covering the face below the eyes in addition to a black scarf or other covering over the rest of the head and sometimes shoulders.

A nun's scarf or a Mennonite girl's translucent white cap let the wearer's face be seen.

[LostinVA]

684. She has to mean a "bridal veil"

Nuns don't cover their faces, except a very, very few contemplative order sisters who wear a face veil if they HAVE to receive an outsider.

[pnwmom]

395. I have never seen a Catholic nun who wore a face veil, have you?

A hair veil is like a sun hat. A face veil is like a ski mask. They are completely different.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

294. Besides, most nuns these days don't wear the full habit and

haven't for about thirty years. They tend to wear just a plain dress and a wimple that's about like a hijab, or sometimes no head covering at all.

[LostinVA]

683. Traditionally-garbed nuns do not cover their faces

And, most Sisters today do not dress in a habit.

They also teach at private schools.

[Lilith Velkor]

175. I'd direct that teacher to the Muslim school down the street

She seems a bit too devout for public school.

[mondo joe]

176. I would consider it a good learning opportunity about different religions

and pluralistic society.

[Malikshah]

194. Flame away...flame away....flame away...

Geez-- nothing like diggin out the pseudo-intellectual analytical support for bigotry...

What's next-- teachers with canes... teachers who are blind... teachers who are in wheel-chairs...

At least those wearing the veil are letting their own expression of their culture/religion apparent.

Not like the others who you wouldn't guess openly detest the dark-sided....

[Cameron27]

240. Well this is the way I look at it.

Geez--nothing like diggin out the pseudo-religious-multicultural analytical support for the oppression of women.

What's next--women being accused of causing their own rape by wearing "inappropriate" clothing. Children being taught by women indoctrinated by certain religious factions, learn that the female students must always be careful to cover themselves so as not to inflame their male classmates?

At least women with a sense of themselves do not let other cultures and religious expressions that continue to demean the role of the female in any manner, including attire, to perpetuate this believe system in the secular world in which we all live.

Not like the others, we feminists could not permit this openly detested dark-side being foisted upon us.

[Malikshah]

250. Yup and that is your opinion upon seeing the veiled woman...

It's called a slippery slope...

So veiling of faces is oppressive. What about the hijab? Is that OK? Should we rip them off of others when seen? After all it is a secular world.

At least women with a sense of themselves do not let other cultures and religious expressions that continue to demean the role of the female in any manner, including attire, to perpetuate this believe system in the secular world in which we all live.

There is so much in this statement that simply underscores the point I was making. It is unfortunately culturally illiterate, superficial in its treatment of a diverse population, hypocritically arrogant in its approach to the women it purports to be supporting.

The concept of veiling, its history and development throughout world history (both w/i the Muslim cultures and non-Muslim cultures), and it's role for those who practice it in relation to those who don't it quite complex.

As a non-Muslim who studies the history of Islam, teaches it, deals with Muslim students (veiled and non-veiled) as an instructor and occasional mentor, it is clear that so much more cultural education needs to be put out there.

Everyone is free to their opinion--but just as I know mine may be wrongly viewed as enabling the patriarchal culture by some, be aware that statements such as the one quoted above may be viewed along the same lines as those Western feminists who attempted to apply feminist thought/movements to the rest of the world and were rebuffed by millions of women for being culturally ignorant and wrong-headed.

Such is the way of the world.

It's a big planet-and folks should seek to get along and not focus on that which makes us different.

[Cameron27]

252. Are you a woman?

[Malikshah]

258. I'll show you mine if ...

Nah...it's too easy.

It's easy enough to find the answer.

I won't even *try* to read into the question any sort of gender-ist issue.

[Cameron27]

268. Not a gender-ist issue?

If you think I'm going to let you pontificate about what you think a woman concealing her face and body by adhering to religious laws dictated by men should mean to ME as a woman, and you're a man.... then you're so pseudo-politically correct in your multiculturalism, that you've unintentionally let your brain fall out.

[Malikshah]

396. Wow-- read much into people's post much?

Here's the deal.

I'm a man. I'm non-Muslim. I feel that the veiling of women is a gross exageration of the Qur'anic call for men and women to dress conservatively. The issue is that this is *my* interpretation. I am not going to foist it upon the women who do so.

Do I agree with patriarchal domination? No.

Am I going to force others to do as I do? No.

Unfortunately-- there are those who feel that because they have certain chromosones they speak for all their gender. That's pretty damn wrong.

My whole focus in my posts has been on cultural bigotry and arrogance.

But, hey-- if one wants to do that-- and then go sing along with Helen Reddy and feel good about themselves-- go for it.

There are so many differences in our world and there are those who wish to take any opportunity to bring up their own internal biases (based upon the posts and quotes I've used, as opposed to imagined slights...--look into it) to drive a wedge between people

Shouldn't we be focusing on that which brings us together?

Oh-- sorry-- I forgot. I'm a man, I'm not allowed to speak of such things that deal with women. Talk about gender-ist...

[Cameron27]

450. I don't really care what you personally feel about ANYTHING

But I do care when you tell me what I should feel, as you did in post 250. And it matters in this case because you got up on your high horse and told ME as a WOMAN, what was WRONG with the way I felt about the garb that a certain group of WOMEN feel necessary to wear, based on the religious dicta provided by the MEN in her community.

On the day that a group of MEN start walking around in public, draped head to toe in repressive clothing, communicating through a peephole, unable to dress any other way without feeling that they're not respecting the religious beliefs dictated to them by WOMEN....then you can tell me how I should feel about it.

Now this conversation is over.

[Malikshah]

462. Ah-- the last word game.

Now there is discourse.

Enjoy the oblivion.

[riderinthestorm]

481. She called you out on your tortured rationale

You're the one who wasn't trying to "discourse" or understand her point.

You say that we should "focus" on our commonalities instead of pointing out problems but sometimes another's cultural norms aren't helpful, or progressive, or safe, or worthy of upholding.

And as progressives, there are a population of us who believe it is right to point out those problems. To make sure those problems aren't perpetuated here in our culture.

And it's getting tiresome to be told we are just bigoted or discriminatory or small minded about others' cultures when we argue our position. It is even more galling when it comes to children and perhaps even more so when it is about educating them.

This is a valid discussion and trying to shut it down won't work because the UK's problems with their veiled women is just a precursor to what is coming here in the US.

[Malikshah]

528. Thanks so much for the late addition

There is nothing tortured about the rationale I used.

It goes far beyond "pointing out the problems"-- what problems are actually being pointed out? Cultural myopia?

Gender limiting discussions?

Argue the positions all you want, as will I. My argument has been that it *is* small-minded to conflate the issues, to use faulty logic, and to then state that because one is a man they are not allowed to discuss issues dealing with women... *that* by the way is a debate going on within Feminist scholarly circles right now.

I bring these points up and I get "Are you a woman?" as a response. You do the math.

Please do not bring up the "progressive" label when in the same breath one discusses the fear that "those problems aren't perpetuated in our culture" (whatever "our culture" is, or that "our culture" has impermeable borders to it)

There's no torture going on here, just an attempt to get folks to realize the fallacies that some may see in their statements.

Enjoy the oblivion.

[pnwmom]

378. It is a big planet but this is the United States, a country where

women are the legal equals of men. The question is how to work with immigrants who come to our country with a different set of values. No one from the U.S. would go to a Muslim country expecting not to have to make serious adjustments in their lifestyle. But it seems that people come to the United States and expect to bring all their customs with them -- including the ones that subjugate girls and women.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

515. That's an argument for veils.

Land of the free, right?

"The question is how to work with immigrants who come to our country with a different set of values."

The answer is, everybody gets to dress thr way they want.

"including the ones that subjugate girls and women."

It seems to me, you're the one who wants to subjugate these women by telling them how they can and cannot dress.

[pnwmom]

569. I have no problem with veils, except when females are pressured

into wearing them.

But I do have a problem with face veils in the classroom, particularly in the elementary classroom.

[mondo joe]

254. Teaching the kids something like that is already unacceptable.

No teacher should be using the classroom as a platformm to TEACH their religion.

[Cameron27]

260. What exactly do you think that a woman concealing her face

and body signifies? What do you think that a woman concealing her face and body based on religious laws dictated by men signifies?

Children learn by example without one formal lesson being taught.

[mondo joe]

263. It teaches that that is HER religion.

Same as a male teacher wearing a yarmulke or a Christian wearing a crucifix.

If schools want to ban ALL religious expression, fine, but until then the boundary is not what they wear but what they teach.

(By the way, what do you think a woman being forbidden to wear certain clothes in secular law dictated primarily by men signifies?)

[Cameron27]

271. What else can it signify but that woman must hide their

own sexuality behind layers of clothing so not to inflame the male of the species. It signifies women as someone's property, who must not be looked upon by anyone else of the opposite sex.

What do you think it signifies?

Is a yarmulke hiding a man's sexual nature, or a crucifix. Can you not see how offensive it is for a woman to be forced either by indocrination or by direct force to conceal herself with clothing?

Nun's can chose not to wear the habit, but these woman cannot chose NOT to wear the veil without violence to themselves by their own fathers husbands and even their own sons.

[mondo joe]

272. If it signifies that, it signifies that SOME people believe that.

SOME people believe all sorts of things.

I think it's offensive to force women to wear certain things, and offensive to forbid women as well.

It is illegal in this country to perpetrate violence such as you speak of.

[Cameron27]

278. Really,

hmmm, then I suppose I should just ignore the rising stats on battered and abused women in this country? It would truly be impossible for an Islamic woman to be abused by her husband and family in her own home....right.

I'm very curious to know what the SOME people that you speak of, think the concealment of a woman's face and body signifies. A relationship with her God...in what way? Where did she come up with the idea that her God demands her to conceal herself and not the male of the species?

Is it a fashion statement, which unfortunately goes on until SHE DIES?

[mondo joe]

290. Of course it's not impossible for anyone to be abused.

But you've already decided this hypoethical woman is abused.

But if she CHOOSES to believe she ought to wear a veil, it's her right to wear it.

Similarly, if a man wants to wear a kilt I suppport his right. If someone wannts to dye their hair pink and green I support their right to do that as well.

The standard would properly be, does the expression prevent the employee from performing the function of the job.

[Cameron27]

298. I'll only say this and then I'm done

I have come to the conclusion, based on the culture in which this fashion derived, that the woman who choses to wear this



has been indocrinated by the males in her society, to believe that this is the correct and appropriate attire that she must wear in order to be considered a proper devotee of a certain brand of Islam.

Or she knows that she'll be beaten if she doesn't wear it.

Peace

[mondo joe]

301. People in the United States have the right to indoctrinate one another.

People in the United States do not have the right to perpetrate violence on one other.

And people ought to have the right to choose their own clothing and religious expression.

[Cameron27]

310. Yes they do,

but they should not be permitted to teach in public schools or work in government jobs, in outfits that flagrantly display their religion's oppressive treatment of women. And I'll expand that to include Nuns who continue to wear the veil...teach in Catholic schools, nurse in Catholic hospitals, but by all means keep your religion of the "second class woman" to yourselves.

edited to add: This conversation is going nowhere, so I bid you peace and goodnight.

[mondo joe]

318. Indoctrinated people already have the right to teach in public schools.

And you, frankly, are just as oppressive - or would be if given the opportunity.

Forcing women to NOT wear something is no better than forcing them TO weat it.

[Cameron27]

346. They can wear it to their hearts content

just not in positions where it can influence young minds to view woman in a peculiar way, or secular government positions where the facial covering prevents full communication through smiles, frowns etc.

Let me put it this way, suppose that a newly discovered religion has surfaced, and the sacred teachers are women. Well these great and sacred woman have come to understand that the root of all the trouble in the world rests in the unfortunate penis of the male of the species.

The penis must be swathed in layer upon layer of black cloth, never to be shown inappropriately upon threat of bodily harm. Oh, and it must always be worn over the traditional black trousers of the males in the tribe.

The little man moves with his powerful wife to the US where he decides, after getting permission from his wife, his mother and his daughters, to teach mathematics in the local elementary school.

And you guessed it, those nasty western civilization bigots do not want him to teach their children, unless he conforms to a less blatant male-oppressed attire. The more socially conscious,who appreciate true multiculturalism do stand by his right to express his religious freedoms, but alas, it doesn't look good for the little fella.

Oh and by the way he CHOSES to wear the penis swath as an expression of his faith because he knows that god wants him to...I know because I asked him.

[mondo joe]

410. Then the same would have to apply to all religious expression.

Or do you want the government to decide which religions are acceptable?

[Cameron27]

451. Ok, I give up.

Really, peace to you...and by the way, thank you for not telling me the way I should feel about a matter that I consider oppressive to women.

I wish that I could change your mind, but, like I said...peace.

[mondo joe]

477. I note you did not answer the question.

Do you want the government to decide which religions or religious expressions are acceptable?

[Cameron27]

483. If a teacher wears a "religious garment" that reflects her culture's

blatant oppressiveness towards women, if that garment conceals the non-verbal facial nuances that are included in communication, if the garment is extreme, or if it is seen as real problem for women who have children being taught in that class, then yes, the government has the right to decide that this is not an acceptable garment to be worn while teaching in a public school.

The government doesn't have the right to dictate that she should not wear it in the process of living her everyday life in public.

[scrinmaster]

247. If someonewas an Odinist, or into Christian Identity or any of that stuff,

and didn't want to work with anyone who wasn't white, would you support that? Would you be intolerant of that persons religious beliefs? If I went to Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't run around in a tank top, shorts, and sandals. You should try to adapt to the culture of the country you move to.

[Malikshah]

257. That's what is so interesting... the UK and the US are bastions of

freedom...touchstones of being yourself.

Until...

[Quantess]

756. We have the freedom

to NOT embrace an oppressive culture. I'm exercising that freedom right now. I resent face veils being introduced into western society.

[pnwmom]

407. Welcome to DU, scrinmaster!

[LostinVA]

685. Nice barrel of strawman

[Orangepeel]

200. the only question (IMO) is whether or not it interferes with communication

arguably, it does, so I'm fine with rules against covering the face. A burka? Her business. A head scarf. Her business. But I would find it significantly more difficult to learn from someone if I couldn't see facial expressions.

In that sense, I see an analogy to pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. If your religion interferes with your ability to do your job in a way that negatively impacts others, get a new job.

[jseankil]

205. What about teachers dressing up as witches if they think they're a witch?

Or what about teaches drssed in burkas? Opening up the Floodgates....

[amandabeech]

227. Burqas worn in Afghanistan are like a tent covering the woman

wearer from head to toe. There is a cloth screen at eye level that lets her see out enough so that she knows where she's going. You simply cannot see any facial or bodily features.

What a witch wears when it's not Halloween, I haven't a clue.

[Marrah_G]

484. At the moment

I have on jeans and a rose-colored, fuzzy,warm sweater.

We tend to dress like everyone else most of the time :)

And on Halloween one never knowns....we may be all covered up in a full length robe, not so different from a Muslim one or we just might be butt-ass nekkid!

[amandabeech]

676. Are you writing to us from Afghanistan?

If so, please tell us about the situation of women in Afghanistan and how women generally dress there. Do some women still wear Burkas in certain parts of the country or is Western contemporary dress worn almost everywhere? Obviously, I am misinformed. If Burkas no longer are worn, is the description that I wrote accurate as an historical matter?

If you are writing from outside Afghanistan, please re-read my post. I made and do not make any comment on the dress or, if worn, Burka style of women with Afghani heritage living outside Afghanistan.

[Marrah_G]

753. I was refering to the witch comment

You said you did not know what a witch wears when it isn't Halloween.

[LostinVA]

686. "Think they are a witch"

Oh boy -- lots of ignorance of religious followers of Wicca right there. I'm not Wiccan, but I know many. So, how do you think witches dress? Guess what? They dress like regular people because they frigging ARE. Geez. And "thinking" they are a witch? What kind of patronizing insult is that? Do Ba
Geez.

Go read the Complete Idiot's Guide to Wicca before you start spouting off about their religion.

[Lost-in-FL]

210. IT'S THE VEIL STUPID!!!

Otherwise, I wouldn't care of what religious garment she would be wearing.

I think it is important for kids to have an open communication with their teachers and when I say OPEN I mean that they can speak to someone who is not hiding behind a mask. If she loves her religion more than what she loves her occupation, she needs to make a choice.

[bridgit]

243. yes, because there is clearly more to be conveyed to a young...

absorbent mind by a teacher than can be done so imo from behind a hood, or veil...facial expressions/creative pantomime to name but a few

[BlueStorm]

264. I would have a problem with this...

Not because of religion or anything but because I am hearing impaired. I had great difficulty going to school because I had teachers that were apathetic about my difficulties. I can only imagine a poor hearing impaired child in this teacher's class, struggling to get by. Personally, I don't think it would be a good idea to be wearing this:



I know that it would be somewhat difficult for a normal hearing child to deal with trying to figure out what the teacher is saying, let alone a hearing impaired one.

On the issue of the religious need to cover oneself, I agree that it should be done by choice, but if I do remember from my Islamic studies there are certain leeways that will allow a woman to show her face, and I beleive that this may be one of them.

Blue

[fujiyama]

270. If I had a kid, I'd get him/her out of the class

if the teacher wore a ninja outfit or beekeeper suit.

I would have no problem at all if the teacher wore a headscarf and loose fitting clothing as many Muslim women in the west wear.

Masking a face leads to suspicion and awkwardness, atleast in Western nations. As another poster noted, we often associate masks with suspicion and criminal activity. Also, the fact that this woman didn't want to interact with males is really weird.

I wonder what would have happened if in school, I decided to start wearing a ninja mask or ski mask to school everyday. I think at some point the teacher would have been annoyed. Facial expressions play a role in learning. Much of the emotions we convey are nonverbal.

Schools should allow a minimal sense of religious expression that should not interfere with the learning process in any way.

[pnwmom]

286. Yes, religious expression that doesn't interfere with learning - fine.

Religious expression that limits communication, especially with young children who are still getting used to school -- not fine.

[spoony]

292. She doesn't have a gerbil in her mouth

I honestly don't know what's in some of your heads when you picture this woman, but as someone who lives and works among many Muslim women I can tell you that not once have I not been able to understand the number of them who have their whole faces covered.

[fujiyama]

339. Nonverbal communication is important

and facial expressions (other than just the eyes) do play a role in that. It's primal human behavior and part of the learning process.

If I went to Saudi Arabia, I know I would need to adjust to the prevailing culture a bit. Why can't fundamentalist Muslim adjust in slight ways to the culture of the nations they immigrate to? No one here on this thread is saying Muslim women should remove headscarves and if someone did or if policy was enacted that told them to (like in French public schools), I would be against it. That's a reasonable way to express faith, just as yarmulkas, cross chains, turbans, also are reasonable.

[pnwmom]

361. I agree.

Well said.

[pnwmom]

360. Are you six years old? I'm asking you to think about this from

the position of a small child. Young children are still learning to talk, and to listen. Nonverbal communication enhances their verbal communication skills. And feeling close to a teacher is important to a young child's ability to learn. A face veil is both a barrier to communication and the sense of closeness that a young child needs.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

508. Are you?

Gotta wonder how all of those millions of children in Muslim countries learn to communicate.

:eyes:

[KitSileya]

531. They do it from teachers and parents that are unveiled.

At home, Mom doesn't wear a face veil - and the female teacher doesn't wear it in school either. Children in Muslim countries aren't taught by women with their faces covered - because they have gender-segregated schools. WOmen teach girls, face uncovered.

[pnwmom]

596. Their mothers don't wear the face veil when alone with them

and NEITHER do their teachers. In ME countries, women without face veils teach girls, and men teach boys.

So they're not putting an artificial barrier between themselves and children, as they would be doing if they attempted to teach in a co-ed western classroom while wearing face veils.

Some of the posters here have made assertions about how well they personally could communicate with someone wearing a face veil. That is why I brought up the issue of age. Those posters are looking at the situation from the perspective of an adult, not a young child. Young children are still learning language and need to be able to put the words they hear into the context of the teacher's facial expressions.

[Ksec]

312. Id hate it

I respect someones faith but not when it interferes with my childs education experience. Not being able to look teacher in the face would be against her best interests as the face is the most important part of learning.

[upi402]

330. seperate church/state or don't work on the gov't dole

Taxes pay for teachers' slaries so they are on the government dole, therefore should stowe their fantasies while trying to impart facts.

[spoony]

336. What if they use their paychecks

to tithe at their church? Throw away the key? They may be paid by the state, but that doesn't rob them of their rights.

[upi402]

367. can't push their faith at public school s, IMHO

Religious costume is a tribal identifier. This is seen by kids who may wish to identify with an authority figure.

They can give all their money and donate their blood off campus for all I care. Leave reality based kids out of the lunacy though.

[spoony]

369. Your choice of words says it all n/t

[BoneDaddy]

728. Absolutely

This is a church and state issue. Her veil is an extension of her religious beliefs which have no place in a public setting. I don't think she has a leg to stand on.

That said would it bother me if she wore a veil, no, not personally. But where to we draw the line about people bringing their religious issues (mostly irrational) into the secular setting and how far should we bend to accomodate that.

[hsher]

340. My God, this post is still glowing in the night like Burning Man

:wow:

[JCMach1]

362. Poppycock and rubbish... you just learn to read people differently

eyes are very important and you also focus on facial expressions made underneath the cover.

Many covered women work with men here in the UAE with no difficulties. In fact, it's a necessity of the workplace.

[pnwmom]

376. How does a 7 year old read those eyes and the facial expressions made

under the face veil -- from across the classroom?

A smile or a frown can easily be seen at twenty feet. But not the expression that's hidden under a veil.

In talking as if this is an easy thing to learn, you are looking at this from the perspective of an adult -- not from the perspective of the needs of a young child, who is still learning to communicate both verbally and nonverbally.

[JCMach1]

418. Completely untrue,,, with very little experience children learn to read

adults wearing veils.

What concerns me more here is that she feels the need to wear this around children... that is neither traditional, or Koranic. I am assuming there are male colleagues who work in the school.

A common sense solution would be to keep your veil down in the classroom and just slip it on when a male colleague enters the room.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

658. The thing about wanting to wear the veil in the classroom is

what makes me think that she's just being an attention seeker, because even in the most repressive cultures, women don't veil themselves in front of children.

[oblivious]

389. True. I suppose the kids sense of tone and body language would improve.

It would be valuable for them I think.

[riderinthestorm]

464. A "necessity" of the workplace?

Wow.

I'm sorry but to be okay with that statement (that mindset, that culture, that idea) is just really beyond bizarre for a progressive imho.

No person should have to be "covered" in order to work as an equal, ever.

I'm beginning to believe that in such a place where it is a "necessity" for women to be veiled, then men should be veiled as well. Since of course it's just a matter of learning how to read underneath the veil... equality and all. Let the guys wear chadors and communicate through their screens and wear gloves when it's 110 degrees in the shade etc. etc. If it's "necessary" for women to be out in public workplaces like this, then it's got to be "necessary" for men as well.

Or it's not equal. And no spinning it can make it so.

[JCMach1]

693. Meant it is a necessity to learn how to read people wearing

cover...

[WinkyDink]

366. This ought to be the final word:

"the Muslim Council of Britain said Miss Azmi was wrong to insist on covering her face.

Spokesman Dr Reefat Drabu said that in the presence of young children Muslim women were not even required to wear a headscarf, let alone a veil."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=exclusive--teacher-axed-for-keeping-her-veil-on%26method=full%26objectid=17923551%26siteid=94762-name_page.html

[DRoseDARs]

368. I would agree with that position because it's defendable.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, muslim women don't need to cover up in the presence of children - though, it should be noted they are not required to uncover in their presence either. However, this IS NOT the position being taken by many people in this thread nor the minister that spawned the article. Misplaced rage and Islamophobia (one does not beget the other nor do they require each other) are what's going on here.

[pnwmom]

384. The UK "race minister" was correct when he said that

she couldn't do her job if she couldn't work with men.

[DRoseDARs]

386. I direct your attention to post#289 and my response post#323...

...it's a point I went over earlier this evening when the thread was young and navigable. If she's in a public school, she needs to deal with the fact that public schools generally are not segregated by gender (I've heard of some experimenting with gender segregation classroom-by-classroom but not extended to the whole school re:single-sex public schools). If she doesn't like that, she should seek work at an all-girls school. This is just like a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for emergency contraceptives (even for rape/incest victims) because "it's against his/her religion." Generally, it's a male pharmacist and he doesn't like it, he should find work at a pharmacy that shares his lack of medical ethics. Both are examples of people unwilling to perform their expected duties; both on religious grounds. In her case, I still maintain her veil doesn't effect her ability to teach, but if she's working anywhere other than an all-girls school, she has no right to complain. She chose to work at a mixed-gender public institution and she should just deal with it. Hell, the full-body dressing should be enough, but it seems she's taking one of the more extreme interpretations of a woman's place. Sad, really. And again, we don't know if she's being FORCED to wear this damned thing or if it's of her own volition: There's a major difference between the two.

[fujiyama]

608. Oh spare me

Everytime someone criticizes fundamentalist Islam, they are accused of "Islamophobia". It's like Christians whining about being victims all the time.

I'm sorry, but I think making one gender cover their face is idiotic and has no place in society, let alone a learning environment like a classroom.

[pnwmom]

377. Thank you, WinkyDink, for that breath of fresh air.

I was sure Muslims in Muslim countries weren't subjecting their own young children to this. It just goes against healthy child development.

[proud2BlibKansan]

401. Aha!

Yes that should be the final word.

[PsychoDad]

424. A sound fatwah by the councel...

And it doesn't sound as if the school wasn't trying to accommodate Ms. Azmi.

"The junior school in Dewsbury, West Yorks, said she could wear her veil in corridors and the staff room - but must remove it when teaching. Angry Miss Azmi refused, claiming the veil was part of her cultural identity, and was suspended."

This sounds completely reasonable. I applaud the school.

Hopefully the young sister will find employment where she feels more comfortable.

Peace.

[bridgit]

449. like a bulletin, or memo from The Holy See, Fatwa's are issued...

by men here on earth who are supposed to know the games they play & the emotions they incite; Fatwa is not delivered from the talons a celestial solid gold, ruby encrusted falcons; Islam is not alone in being made to tow a secular line, or use it's most sacred of symbols in a way that is meant very much less than holy...but a way to simply be offensive; 'the veil', meant as a way to curb the emotions of man women having a sensual and so disruptive an influence on some men to be sure, then becomes little more than another 'symbol' to shove down someone else's throat in a theoretically free & accepting society where church is not meant to govern civil affairs or disrupt them i.e. Judge Moore's 10 Commandments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore

[Cameron27]

455. Finally,........!

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

[Cameron27]

690. I temporarily withdraw my thanks

until I'm sure of what you're actually trying to state, by quoting Judge Roy Moore and his 10 Commandments.

[bridgit]

723. symbols dear, they are merely too often used as symbols; there's...

a big hullabaloo in the press right now about the bush admin using religion to further political agenda's...though i have not been "quoting" judge what's-his-name here that is not the case, he was simply another that was predisposed to using his religio symbology, if you will, to then shove down someone else's throat...i use it here to suggest that while this young woman may well be passioned and rightly so as to her situation; others still are suggesting to her that she do just that for their greater cause i.e. see tocqueville post #152

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2400745&mesg_id=2402136

but if that's the way you feel then...that's the way you feel :)

[Cameron27]

737. Ok, thanks, that's what I thought you were stating

but when I read through Judge Roy Idiot's ideas, I became disoriented LOL,

The original thank you stands.:)

[JI7]

370. The Muslim Council disagrees with her and criticized her

they said Islam does not require a veil in front of children.

many of the children are ethnic minorities whose first language is not English . it was the children that complained also.

[DRoseDARs]

385. Interesting point you make about the children, but...

...I still fail to see how it makes a difference. If they don't understand English that well to begin with, how is her wearing a veil in front of such children any different from these children being blind and thus couldn't see her lips to read them anyway? Are they going to be less educated, less able to learn how to speak English? Are the blind less masterful speakers of the English language (or any other, for that matter) even if their teachers' faces were completely uncovered?

[pnwmom]

392. If young ESL students are exposed all day to a teacher wearing a mask,

it WILL slow down their progress in learning English, because they will be less able to put the unfamiliar WORDS they hear into the CONTEXT of the teacher's facial expressions. This is actually true of young children in general, who are all still developing their language skills. A good teacher of young children uses her face frequently to make her meaning clear.

No one would force a child to wear blinders in school. Being blind is a disability. (In our school, a blind child is given an aide.) Why should a school place a class full of young children in the care of a teacher who has voluntarily limited her ability to communicate with them? Why should her religious expression take priority over their educational needs?

[proud2BlibKansan]

404. Actually, teachers of the visually impaired use their faces.

If you have ever seen The Miracle Worker, you may remember the scenes where Annie Sullivan held Helen Keller's hands to her face so she could feel the facial expressions and her mouth as she formed words.

Teachers need their faces. Even if their students are blind.

[DRoseDARs]

589. I respond to this point in post #586...

God, almost 600 posts! Is this thread a quagmire yet? :P

[BoneDaddy]

413. Bottom line is

that no country has to "do" anything for anybody.

I respect multiculturism for its focus on finding common ground and respect for differences.

Multiculturalism does NOT mean the a country HAS to have policies that bend towards every whim of someone FROM ANOTHER CULTURE who has restrictions placed on them from their culture. They are the ones who need to adapt, not the other way around.

I wouldn't think of going to another country and culture and imposing my views or ways on someone, that arrogant and unrealistic, why do others think that "right" extends to them. If they feel so strongly about it, why don't they return to their country where that is the custom instead of demanding their new "adopted" country (which has taken them in and providing a new life and career) bend for them.

Ridiculous.

[JCMach1]

421. There is a common sense solution here... but the veil is now political

There is nothing cultural, or Koranic that one has to be veiled around young children of either sex.

I assume she is wearing this because she has male colleagues.

Why not simply keep it pulled down and then pull it up when a male enters the classroom (how often would that happen???).


As I have said in other places, the veil has now become political... a sign of defiance in the British immigrant underclass against racism.

[PsychoDad]

444. I've seen the same with Hijab in America.

It has become a symbol of identity and a political statement. Sisters who didn't wear hijab before 9/11 have begun to wear it.

Peace.

[Cameron27]

460. If the veil is a sign of defiance in the British immigrant,

then why don't men adopt wearing it? You believe that the women of this culture wear a repressive sexist costume to protest against racism...that's interesting.

[JCMach1]

502. No, men wear traditional clothing as well...

I don't think we have to dig too deep to find the racism in Europe. I was shocked by what I saw a couple of years back.

Britain is no different. Whole communities feel disenfranchised and abandoned. Unemployment is huge... cost of living-- horrific. Racism, palpable.

[Hoping4Change]

733. As a teacher's assistant what if she is assigned to a

male teacher?

[Cameron27]

738. She will not permit that, unless she wears the fask mask

and to think, I only asked for longer breaks for the nurses & staff at the hospital where I work, and I was smacked down.:eyes:

[Hoping4Change]

739. If it is determined that the students need to have her unmasked

then it won't be straightforward.


IMO her demand to wear a veil is plain wrong in a multi-cultural society. Non verbal expression is one of the most significant forms of communication. Smiles between strangers establish a sense of trust, affiliation and goodwill. What could be more important in a multi-cultural society than strangers sharing smiles? When someone is masking her face, she is in effect thumbing her nose at fostering that sense of affiliation that can only be established by non verbal means. We humans are extremely sensitive to non verbal cues which tend to be regarded as more spontaneous than verbal declarations. Non verbal communication speaks volumes.

[Cameron27]

740. I agree with everything you've said

and I'll go further. By draping her body from head to foot, and covering her face with a cloth, she's sending signals of her culture's oppressive attitudes towards female sexuality.

I wouldn't have wanted my sons to have gotten that kind of message from anybody. If they had her as a teacher or assistant when they were in school, I'd have pulled them out immediately and THEN made the biggest stink that the school board, in their collective wildest nightmare would not have imagined.

Not all cultural customs have value.

[Little Star]

432. When MEN start wearing veils..........

Screw Veils for women only!!!!! Why don't men need to hide their faces to prove their humility?? Screw all veils, all the time. Also screw any religion that subjects women to any practice that men don't have to obey. Veils are nothing more than discrimination against women and no child should be taught that in school.

[Jacobin]

439. Well, I had women dressed as penguins in the first grade

With weird tall white hats.

And they'd whack your knuckles with a ruler if you did anything they didn't like.

[Divernan]

459. And the males/priests wore skirts/cassocks.

nt

[philosophie_en_rose]

445. This is ridiculous. It's just a veil. Parent's don't have a right to dic

tate whether teachers show their face. Whether or not the teacher can work with men is a separate, logistical issue. However, the fact that she chooses to wear a veil is simply no one's business.

Children should be expected to interact with people of varying appearances. It is not okay for schools to teach children that it is okay to discriminate against people based on mere appearances.

There is no difference between children curious about a veil or curious about a wheelchair or any other issue that doesn't affect teaching.

Children need to learn that not everyone looks alike. When a Muslim child's mother comes to school, should she be treated differently too? If a girl wears a head covering, is she to be banned from school? If a Jewish boy wears a yarmulke?

On edit: Not all teachers can teach all students. If any student has needs that a particular student cannot meet, then the school should make accomodations. However, that does not mean that parents should be able to bully teachers for the way they look.

Whether or not a lack of facial expression is a choice, a cultural expression, or a physical issue is irrelevant. To question one teacher's motivations, simply because of its cultural basis, is blatantly ethnocentric. I would be ashamed to send my children to schools where it is okay to shun people that are different.

[pnwmom]

597. It is not a question of shunning people who are different.

It is a question of recognizing how important nonverbal communication and facial cues are in a child's learning environment. Children learn words best in the context of facial expressions. A face veil prevents that from happening.

[readmoreoften]

465. What about a burqa? Would that be cool?

Face veil: no lips, forehead, chin, possibly cheekbones-- only eyes.
Burqa: no lips, forehead, chin, cheekbones, eyes.

If a face veil is okay, then a burqa has to be okay, too.

[ieoeja]

466. Black Face Veil -or- White Hood and Mask

I believe I would take my kid out of either classroom.

[progressivebydesign]

468. What if your child was taught by a burn victim or stroke victim?

Someone who could not show expected facial expressions? What if your child was blind and could not see the teacher? I don't think it matters at all. I would educate my child, at a later time, that the teacher is part of a culture/religion that is oppressive to women, though... so they'd understand why she couldn't show her face. But I wouldn't explain it while the child was that age.

[noonwitch]

472. It would definitely affect a hearing-impaired child's ability to learn

If that child was in a regular classroom, due to the combined use of a hearing aid and lip-reading skills, then having a fully veiled teacher is a burden.

I think that muslims should wear whatever they want in this country, unless they are doing something that the apparel interferes with. No burkas while driving, no veils while teaching. And id pictures are meant to be identification, so you have to take even the scarf off for the few seconds it takes to snap the photo for a driver's license or state id.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

479. What a disturbing thread.

I know there is plenty of islamophobic bigotry in this country, I was hoping they wouldn't be posting here. Moreover, I've never seen so many ridiculously stupid arguments put forth to justify their bigotry. It's pretty clear we haven't come that far since Brown v. BoE.

[slackmaster]

487. I've officially decided to adopt the pre-Christian religion of Rome

Mars is my thing now. I'm going to go to work at the elementary school dressed in Roman battle gear.

Are you happy now?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

489. "If we let black kids in schools..."

"why not let in a bunch of monkeys too."

--argument against desegregation.

[bridgit]

492. that's why Sun Day is one of my fav days of the week...

:thumbsup:

[PsychoDad]

640. All the names of the week in English...

Retain echos of their pagan roots.

Sun dat
Saturn Day
Moon Day
Tiw's Day
Thor's Day
Fria's Day

Wednesday is from Wodan's day in saxon.


Peace.

[bridgit]

725. there it is, PsychoDad, peace to you & yours, friend...

:hi:

[mondo joe]

499. If that's your religion, have at it.

:-)

[Ms. Clio]

660. Especially because it's based either on ignorance of the actual facts

or a deliberate attempt to distort them by the OP in an endless quest for flame bait, since according to another thread, the woman has no objection to unveiling in front of "the children," (rendering all the hundreds of posts here about that completely wrong information utterly irrelevant) but apparently does not wish to do so in front of an adult male.

[Fleshdancer]

482. As long as my child is learning I don't care

The issue is the education of our children, not our personal views on women choosing to cover their faces. I will not be one of those parents who uses my child as a reason to discriminate against something I don't like or understand. This whole "think about the children" argument is a load of crap.

[riderinthestorm]

500. In the ME where the teachers don't veil for their classes

even though they veil in public.

Why? Because they know how important it is for the children they are teaching to see their face. This issue is about educating children no matter how much you want to tar us with "discrimination!" charges. This woman didn't wear the veil to her interview, then veiled for work - she should/could be fired just for that deception. Also, she can't properly communicate with disabled children such as those who are deaf or blind or those with Aspergers for example if her face is covered. This is backed by study after study on learning styles for children. Lastly, she is demanding that she doesn't work with men.

As a purported progressive, how can you find it okay to take the side of a woman who basically lied in her job interview and wants to NOT be an effective teacher (basically choosing her religion over the needs of educating the kids) and wants to gender discriminate?


:crazy:

[Fleshdancer]

510. Questioning my progressive beliefs? Niiiiice.

The original post asked the general question about how we would react to a teacher wearing a veil while teaching our children. It had nothing to do with whether I'm siding with a woman who lied in an interview. Nowhere in my post do I say it's ok to lie.

In the general sense, I would not care as long as my child was learning so if it turned out that the veil somehow hindered the ability of my child doing the necessary school work then it would be a problem. I would be shocked to find out if the veil did so though. Children are able to listen and follow instructions when the teachers' back is turned or when they're still looking down at their work so while body language is important I doubt you'll see a much difference in learning ability from being taught by someone with a veil for one school year. Besides, if a student does show a decline in performance how could one prove that the veil was the reason? Other factors would have to be taken into consideration too such as family life, learning disabilities or social issues such as bullying. I get tired of teachers getting blamed for stuff that is not their fault or even in their control to begin with.

My focus is on the education. It's not about me it's about my kid. I want to know that the books are up to date and that the teacher has all the resources she needs. I care about the student to teacher ratio, not whether all faces can be clearly visible or not. Furthermore, if I wanted to tell a woman what not to wear then I'll do so by stating that I don't agree with it and not hide behind my child as the excuse because that would be cheap way of attempting to get my way.

[riderinthestorm]

587. Accusing people of "using" our children

or "hiding" behind them in an attempt to dialogue about this issue.... doubly NOT niiiicccccce.

Furthermore, you persist in calling a whole bunch of progressive parents and educators on this thread "discriminatory" for questioning the efficacy of teaching with a full face veil.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

513. ME schools are seperated by gender.

Which is why women teachers don't cover their faces.

I've heard much about doing theh same in this country, but I don't like the idea.

I haven't seen where it's said she won't work with men.

[riderinthestorm]

588. It's in the article

She was even interviewed by a man for the position, obviously without a qualm there.

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

687. Yeah, that makes this whole thing very, very weird to me n/t

[pnwmom]

591. The news report in the OP says that she won't work with men.

Yes, ME schools are separated by gender. So teachers there aren't limiting their communication by wearing a face veil in front of their young students.

No one is suggesting we separate public school classes by gender to accomodate teachers' religious expression -- so why should we accept masks that limit their ability to communicate with their young students?

[slackmaster]

485. You're damn straight it would affect communication

People get all kinds of cues from facial expressions. In young children, getting the full spectrum of communications is particularly important.

Veiled women is not the norm for our culture. She should adapt, or find another job.

[BoneDaddy]

727. Agreed

It gets a bit tiring when the people in the more progressive cultures have to adapt to every single nuance of other cultures, yet they apparantly have to show NO flexibility, adaptation and acculturation. Such bullshit.

[bridgit]

488. Mirror Neurons - When the Mirror Fogs...

'Faults in a system so central should create profound problems. And indeed it appears that dysfunctions or deficits in mirror-neuron systems may help account for problems ranging from personal coolness to autism. The apparent failure of mirror neuron systems in autism is particularly intriguing. The cause and even the nature of this strange, isolating condition has eluded researchers for decades, leaving sufferers and their families and caregivers grasping uncertainly for understanding, much less a fix. But research suggests that an inactive mirror neuron system may explain the failures in language, learning, and empathy that do so much to isolate the autistic'

http://daviddobbs.net/page2/page4/mirrorneurons.html

GESTURE: DEVELOPMENT, Evolution...

'Facial expressions indicative of puzzlement, doubt, contempt, anxiety, insecurity, or haughtiness are also easily understood between most cultures. Many gestures in fact circumvent language and illuminate or make unnecessary an exchange of dialogue; e.g. blowing a kiss, shaking hands, kissing on the cheek. In fact, certain gestures convey meaning that are very hard to put into words, such as demonstrating versus explaining how a corkscrew works and what it is shaped like.'

http://brainmind.com/GestureDevelopmentEvolution.html

it is either for the children or it is not imo

[Taoschick]

490. The BBC version

Reported that she took off her veil in order to be interviewed by the male governor. I don't know all the details and apparently the media doesn't either. If she was told that working with male teachers on occasion was a condition of her employment and that she wasn't allowed to veil in front of the children, then she's trying to change the conditions of her employment after the fact and the school isn't out of line in suspending her. She was a teaching assistant which would suggest she would, in fact, be required to work with adult men on occasion.

[AngryAmish]

493. This is a very long thread

[LanternWaste]

504. I think I'd be pretty happy with it...

I think I'd be pretty happy with. Not only would my child get direct exposure to an oft-misunderstood culture, there would also be the exposure to an oft-misunderstood religion. Therein lies one of the cornerstones of tolerance and empathy-- knowledge of additional cultures, religions and lifestyles.

Though I understand that facial expressions are but one of many, many forms of educator-student comminication, I also realize that a good teacher can more than make up for a "weakness" in one of these forms by strengthening another.

So for my part (and all other things being equal), I think I'd be pretty happy if my kids were being educated by members of different cultures and religions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

516. How about this veil?

Could this person effectively teach your children?



His "veil" is no less a reflection of his religion than hers is, and the basic presumption behind it is only less offensive by virtue of the fact that violence and terror is intrinsic to the KKK where it's more tangentially related to fundamentalist Islam.

Regardless of issues of whether the veil precludes children from learning in her class due to being unable to read expressions, it raises questions of what they will learn.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

519. You're comparing Islam to the Klan now?

How ironic.

[wtmusic]

520. No kidding. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

522. No, I'm comparing tolerance to naivety

As in other forms of speech, there are limits to religious expression.

When religious expression interferes with a civil officer's duties, their religious expression should be limited/curtailed.

Her veil interferes with her ability to effectively teach, AND it calls into question what she's teaching.

[LanternWaste]

545. "It calls into question what they're teaching."????

"It calls into question what they're teaching."????

I'll give you the benefit of a doubt you started typing that before you really knew how absurd that statement is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

558. I type fairly carefully.

Please enlighten me as to why the need to shield the female face is necessary/advisable.

If I seek employment as a science teacher while loudly professing the belief that science is the devil's work, can I adequately teach my students science?

If I seek employment as a teacher in a secular school while visibly illustrating my belief that men cannot be allowed the temptation of seeing a female face and that women should hide in shame, can I adequately teach my students secular equality?

Her agenda is even less ambiguous than a science teacher wearing a "darwin lied" bumpersticker on his forehead.

If I misunderstood your cryptic response, please correct me.

[piedmont]

590. I think that's a great analogy, Jeff

The veil makes a very strong statement about one's views of gender relations. You have a right to make the statement, but if if it goes totally against what the society wants to teach its children, then it should not be in the publicly-funded classroom, any more than creationism should.

[ContraBass Black]

529. No, that person would threaten or kill my children.

A veiled woman would signify nothing of the sort.

[proud2BlibKansan]

553. LOL

Good point.

[PsychoDad]

638. I'd have to disagree....

While I'll defend his right to wear it, he doesn't wear it as part of a religion, indeed, many of these folks are "christian"

This "gentleman" is wearing his hood/veil out of cowardace, a desire to remain anonymous, so that other upstanding members of his neighborhood won't drive him out of town for his racist views, or be reported to law enforcement...

Or that his co-workers, who are representitive of the races he disaproves of won't knock the living tar out of him.

These people require their masks and numbers to be brave. Many Muslim sisters go out of their homes everyday alone wearing a peice of cloth that many seem to hate, and thus they transfer their hate to her.

It's not the KKK hood, it's the cowardly racist.
It's not the Veil, it's the woman wishing to observe her religion in the best way she knows.


Peace.

[wtmusic]

518. No problem

Live and let live. If she wants to wear it she should be allowed to (she's not forced to wear it, now is she?)

The attempt by some on this thread to make this issue symbolic is ethnocentric and naive.

[wtmusic]

521. What if your child's teacher wore THIS to school?

What kind of message would we be sending? (Oh...the CHILDREN!!!) :cry: :cry:

[lumberjack_jeff]

543. Improper lumberjack attire

Only double-knee kilts are allowed. ;)

[PsychoDad]

639. That would be cool.

He could attend My and Swamp Rats' school of Kilts, Veils, Stars of David, Cross', Wiccan garb and native dress. :)

(have to look farther up in this thread)

[immoderate]

526. I've had several teachers in my life whom I wished had worn veils.

Good teachers transcend all of this bullshit. Would Zorro, or The Lone Ranger, or Commando Cody make good teachers? I bet they would.

I've seen many teachers who have communication difficulties without a veil. I'm sure that this makes little overall difference to the education of the child. There is so much more to setting up the proper educational environment that this is insignificant.

--IMM

[treestar]

582. I would say let her teach in the veil, because it only exposes the

children to something different, and it wouldn't affect the taught subject, but if she won't work with men, she would have to either quit or go work in an all girls' school. Where is it just her individual preference, that is one thing, but where it makes a demand of everyone, she really has no right to make the rest of the school go along with it.

[piedmont]

583. If you watch the video on that site,

there's more info than in the write-up. Basically, she says she won't wear the veil in front of the kids unless there's an adult male present. One of the higher-ups equates that with "refusing to work with men." Unless there's more to it, I don't see how he comes to that conclusion. If she did refuse to work with men, that would definitely be a problem, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

That said, I think I'd be uncomfortable if she did wear the veil in front of her students, because of what it implies to the students about her views on gender relations. Why do women in some muslim cultures wear coverings? To protect from forbidden or unwanted advances by men, seems to be the main reason. Why don't men also cover up? Why the inequality?

Also, what if a non-muslim woman, or even a male, wanted to wear a face-covering veil or mask while teaching or in public? Is that ok? If not, then why does the fact that someone is muslim make it ok? Keep in mind that it's not even a necessity of Islam-- lots of muslim women don't wear veils.

[robinlynne]

593. personally, burkas and face veils terrify me. I recognize

that everyone has the right to dress as they please, but I find it very frightening to see people with their faces covered. I always have. I don't feel the same way about a head scarf. When you can see the person's face, there is nothing frightening.

[noamnety]

606. This suggests to me

that you'd have been better off getting to know someone with a veil when you were younger, not worse off.

I'm not blaming you for being frightened of what's unfamiliar, but it is a little bit of culturally-induced xenophobia. And I mean that in its true sense - as a phobia, not as an accusation of racism.

On Stan Goff's blog, we've been talking a bit about how the dominant culture (those with privilege) tends to be freaked out when a minority (the people that are supposed to be oppressed) refuses to drop its cultury stuff. We've been talking more in terms of language, but having that conversation there, and then stepping into this one here, I am reminded of why he is adamant about not being a "liberal." (see the comments section here - http://stangoff.com/?p=385#comment-30468 - but be sure to read the article, too, because as always he's full of wisdom and knowledge.)

[aikoaiko]

609. I have nothing to say, but I wanted in on a 600+ post thread

:)

[Rowdyboy]

610. Hell, I'm with you....Anyway, its happening in Britian ...Let Tony Blair

deal with it!

[ContraBass Black]

641. Every time I load it, my PC makes straining noises.

[YankmeCrankme]

611. These posts are comical...

You can't see her smile! Oh my, the children can't see her smile! The humanity!

I got news for ya...I've seen Ted Bundy smile and George Bush and I wouldn't want any children to be exposed to that. Let's face it, there are plenty of fake smiles from phony people, even sociopaths. Sincerity is way more important and you don't have to see someone's mouth to feel or sense that.

I can't learn if I don't see someone's face!

Never read a book? Never heard a book on tape? Never had to listen to a lecture recorded on tape? Never listened to a teacher with their back to you as they write on the board? Never watched a educational show where you could barely make out the persons face or saw a documentary where the person talking wasn't visible? My, how did we learn in those situations?

The rationales some people use.

[Lars39]

619. Children learn to enunciate words correctly by seeing a real person's lips

a video does not have the same impact. We're talking 2nd graders here.

[YankmeCrankme]

628. She isn't the teacher...

She's a teacher assistant, not the actual teacher in the class. The children have plenty of opportunity to see the teachers lips move to learn proper enunciation and, even, outside of class they have parents, maybe adult family members, perhaps older siblings and adult friends to learn from. I would guess that those outside school experiences have more impact on a child's learning to talk than a few hours a day at school.

[muriel_volestrangler]

630. She's the multi-lingual teacher's assistant

brought in specifically to help children for whom English is a second language. Seeing her mouth movements is indeed helpful for her basic job.

[YankmeCrankme]

634. Interesting point...

Though, the OP's link on this thread didn't mention that fact. So, I went to another thread on this topic and viewed the article linked there and did not see it mentioned there. But, I did read on the other one that she does remove her veil to instruct the children, just refuses to do so when an adult male is present.

So, the issue isn't whether she can do her job, she can, it's whether she should be allowed to instruct the children in the multi-language class without an adult male present. Actually, has nothing to do with whether children can learn without seeing smiles or faces, yet, that was some people's rationale for firing her.

[ContraBass Black]

642. Could you link to that, please?

That information is critically important for this discussion.

[YankmeCrankme]

748. The link

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename...

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner, but I don't track many threads except for what's on the first page.

I did look over the article again, before posting the link, and it reports her as saying she was willing to remove the veiw while teaching the children as long as no adult males were present.

[LostinVA]

688. Your lack of understanding child development and learning is comical

Geez.

[pnwmom]

722. This shows how much you don't know about young elementary students.

They don't learn the same way that adults do. And they do need to see the facial expressions of the adults to help make sense of the words they are still learning.

And that goes double for the ESL students this woman was teaching.

[noamnety]

612. Just a bit of irony here

The last time I hung out with women wearing veils, it was at a big protest in Detroit.



They were taking a stand against Israeli aggression against Lebanon - going out of their way to make sure their voices and opinions were heard, which is more than most Americans do. And like them, now we have a woman, in a veil, being outspoken about what she believes in, making international news, in fact. And the complaint is that she is "corroding fundamental values such as freedom of speech."

She's too outspoken and strong in her beliefs, so they need to shut her up to protect free speech. *head explodes*

[Guaranteed]

631. Just leave her the hell alone, for fuck's sake.

The kids are getting taught just fine, it sounds like. The parents ought to just STFU with their bigoted BS.

[Hoping4Change]

742. The students who are learning English as a second language

and their parents lodged the complaint.

[Ms. Clio]

636. such a talent for posting these incendiary threads

as someone else mentioned, it's positively uncanny how the same people post both anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim crap.

[enigmatic]

661. I have nothing to say about this

I just wanted to be the 666th post:)

[Quantess]

662. Compare it to the pharmacists

who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. If they can't do it, they need to get a different job.
Either take off the veil, or get a different job. And, if she wants to drive a car she needs to take that cloth off her face.

[w4rma]

663. Burqas are sexist to begin with. I won't help anyone try to wear them.(nt)

[donheld]

667. I'm totally stunned at some of you

If she is teaching what needs to be taught let her wear the damn veil. The fact that so many DUers are opposed to this just blows me away. I thought DUers were more evolved than that. I guess not. What a bunch of narrow minded people. :banghead: Unless it was Michael Jackson under that veil who the hell cares.

[mondo joe]

675. IMO, some people just want to punish this woman for disagreeing

with them by choosing to wear the veil.

[LostinVA]

689. I don't have to accept a symbol of the subjugation of women

And, I would refuse to have my child -- male or female -- be in a classroom with an authority who wore said symbol. iT IS not UNPROGRESSIVE to believe this... it's the frigging opposite. It isn't even RELIGIOUS -0- it's a shameful cultural ct of degradation, exactly like FGM.

And, that si in addition to the issue of child development and education, and interpersonal dynamics.

France has the right idea in this spectrum: NO outward religious symbols and/or attire in public schools.

[pnwmom]

724. Did you read the posts from the speech pathologist explaining

why a language teacher (this woman was an ESL assistant) needs to use her whole face, including her mouth, to teach?

[Quantess]

669. They can take those burqas and shove it.

Why the fuck do westerners "have to" accept burqas and face veils?
They sure as hell wouldn't accept me wearing a tank top and shorts in Pakistan, which is fine, since I wouldn't choose to wear skimpy clothing if I was in Pakistan.
"Uh, hi, it's really hot here in Qatar, so I'm going to wear my shorts and halter top while I teach your kids."
Appropriate dress there does not equal appropriate dress here. If they can't figure that out on their own, someone needs to tell them. Lose the veil.

[Hoping4Change]

744. Now tell us what you really think.

:P btw good rant, I feel the same way.

[Bridget Burke]

673. Gosh, I had several crappy teachers....

And none of them wore veils.

One of them could have used one--those warts were quite distracting.

[savemefromdumbya]

691. Why should we mind. It's like saying I don't like bald teachers

[VelmaD]

692. I would be LIVID

because it sends the message to the little girls and the little boys in the class that it is ok to treat women like second class citizens...that there's something inherently wrong with women and they MUST be covered up...that they aren't really fully human.

[Beelzebud]

695. Freedom of Religion.

Don't fuck with me about being an atheist, and I won't fuck with you for being muslim, jewish, or christian.

(I don't mean "you" specifically. The general "you".)

[and-justice-for-all]

706. UK/America is NOT a theocracy.....

...So, therefore, she is intitiled to wearing her vail. I am sure she has sxplained it to her students as to why it is worn. Some female muslims ditch all that garb once the enter into a Democractic none theocratic community, but others choose to hold on to a little piece of their religious idenity.

I think she has the right to wear it as Christians can wear their Jeebus shirts and their glorification of murder around their necks(Crusifix)..which I am more affended by then someone who wears a vail.

[Cameron27]

717. I have plenty to rail against regarding the Catholic Church

but the crucifix is a symbol of sacrifice and it's historically accurate. That you would be less offended to see a woman draped from head to toe, with her face concealed with a cloth speaks volumes.

The crucifix that you find so horribly offensive, doesn't conceal the wearer's sexuality AND it can be tucked into a shirt if anyone is bothered by any religious connotations.

I'm for complete separation of church and state, but let's try to be a little less disingenuous here.

[and-justice-for-all]

719. I digress....

...The 'crucifix' that you have come to know, is not historically accurate. The 'cross' used by the Romans was wooden scaffolding made of a transversal beam called "PATIBOLUM."

The ends of the beam were placed on two forked poles set into the ground. The entire structure was called 'Crux'. The crucifiction consisted in TYING the condemmned person's arms to the beam. This type of framework used to crucify (cruci figere = fix to cross) was wxactly the same as the one used for hanging except for the for length. For crucifictions it had to allow the condemned person to put his feet on the ground and for hangings it had to beraised so that he would be hanging.
The nails do not appear until the begining of the 6th century and the first imagies showing Jeebus on the LATIN cross go back to the end of the 6th century. However, as in the paintings showing him on the T-cross,they show hiom with his arms bound to the PATIBOLUM with ropes and his feet on the gound according to the system used in the Roman crucifictions.

There is a alot more to this, but I think you get the picture. The Crucifiction you are calling 'Historically Accurate', is actually not historical nor accurate. It is also a 'murderous' symbol as it his depicted by the church, which is intended to be more grusome to those who believe that Christ crucifiction was a real event. If they were to see how Romans did crucify their criminals it would not have the same impact. This marketing ploy by the church has served them well, lying and misleading masses is all in a days work.

"let's try to be a little less disingenuous here."
I will do no such thing, the 'christian' ideology deserves no special treatment.

[Cameron27]

721. I get the picture

and I said the crucifixion was a historically accurate. I wasn't describing the type of apparatus used, but the mere fact that it occurred.

And I'll stand by my statement that the crucifix is worshiped as a symbol of sacrifice. Bogus, but the church teaches that it's a sacrifice for the cleansing of sin. I'm not defending the Catholic Church, it put me through a personal misery for years. I don't even believe in the myths that it perpetuates. I ex-communicated myself (silently) when I was 18 years old.

However,I consider the subjugation of women as a far worse offense by both Christianity and Islam, than wearing a symbolic crucifix. And the culture or religion that convinces a woman to cover her face and drape her body from head to toe to be a proper devotee, wife or citizen is, oppressive....especially since these precepts were dictated to her by the men in her society.

Side one...wearing a crucifix / Side two...draping a cloth over your face, communicating through a peep hole until you DIE

Trying to equate the two........disengenuous.

[and-justice-for-all]

726. But you must agree...

..She has, even when living in a democractic none theocratic country, decided to contiue with the vail tradition of her religion, she dose not have to and she knows this. Even though it appears as demeaning to us, she however thinks otherwise and continues with the vailing.

A crucifix may not be a vail, be it is a symbol of something that has destroyed and killed millions and for nothing. Extremisn is Extremism, it does not matter what religion it happens in, its all bad...Religion is so Dark Ages.

[Cameron27]

731. I agree that she has decided to continue the tradition of

wearing the veil. How and why she came up with that decision is up for debate...which when looking at the length, and the contentiousness of this thread right now, I feel is just too tiresome to bother with. No one's mind seems to have been changed, one way or the other after so much argument.

Yes, many religions have managed to maim, kill, humiliate, unduly burden and destroy more lives than I wish to imagine.

I happily remain a Skeptic.

[and-justice-for-all]

755. Perhaps her message is this.....

" Not all of us who wear these veils are uneducated islamic extremeist with a terrosist agenda, there is some good in islam and I am showing you this. "

I believe that is her message.

[Hoping4Change]

743. Ukrainian Catholics and Orthodox Christians do not regard the

cruxifix to be a symbol for suffering. For them the cross represents Christs conquest over death. BTW I don't share their Catholic beliefs, I hold my own idiosyncratic beliefs but I thought you might find this tidbit of info interesting.

[Cameron27]

746. I didn't know that

They don't include the sacrificial lamb symbolism in their faith, and they don't consider Christ's dying as necessary for the removal of sins?

That really IS interesting.... thanks, I appreciate the info.

[Hoping4Change]

747. They do have those symbols and they believe Christ

died for the removal of sins. What I meant to convey is that they do not dwell on his death and his suffering but rather emphasize the ressurection and the joyful news that death/Satan has been defeated. When Ukrainian Catholics meet one another on Easter, the greeting they give one another is "Christ has risen".

[Cameron27]

750. That's similar to Roman Catholicism then

The church did convey a theology that revolved around Easter and the resurrection, so although the rituals leading up to it, particularly the Easter Vigil could be very intense for me as a child, the main message was one of celebration.

Thanks again, I've been online way too long today, and I'm apparently not reading carefully enough right now.

[Hoping4Change]

749. Perhaps the head of Ukrainan Catholics in the US explains it better.

The following is from his remarks about Gibson's film.


"What is most unfortunate is that the film's shallow presentation on the life of Jesus and the significance of the resurrection will leave viewers focused on the harsh and cruel reality of the crucifixion of Jesus, offering little opportunity to identify with the life and hope offered in Jesus Christ for all mankind. The shallow presentation of the chief rabbi and his role, as well as the close personification of evil journeying with him, will give viewers an inaccurate and unjust portrayal of Jews and Judaism, and may contribute to fuel the ugly passion of anti-Semitism."
-- The Most Rev. Stefan Soroka , Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, USA

[Cameron27]

751. From what I've heard of Gibson's film

people could come away with a very distorted view of what many Catholics believe and celebrate; from dwelling on the horrific to blaming the Jews. I don't know of one Catholic who believes this about the Jews, and not one who dwells on Christ's "murder."

That was a lovely letter by the Most Rev. Stefan Soroka...and those things certainly needed to be clarified.

Thanks once more.

[Skidmore]

741. May I suggest that there are children learning in schools in

the ME from women who wear veils all the time. They learn from their veiled mothers in their homes and are not scarred for life. Not everyone who wears a veil considers themselves to be oppressed. I have no problem with someone wearing a veil if there is a clear choice not to available to them. It should be a matter of personal consciousness and cultural tradition. In the West, we have women wearing veils of makeup and exaggerated body image. Women who wouldn't be caught dead in public without paint and perfume.

[cali]

752. Do you think that an American woman

teaching in a school in Saudi Arabia or Yemen or another Muslim country should show some deference to cultural norms re attire?

[Skidmore]

754. Absolutely. I lived in the ME for a decade. I wore hejab

where appropriate. I dressed to show respect for the cultural norms of my host nation. And I did teach when I was over there for a period of time. With the exception of hejab when necessry, I did not dress much differently than I did over here. But then I have always tended to dress a little conservatively, even when I was younger.

[greblc]

757. When do Individual rights trump the majority?

A veil would impair communication. She would be unable to have a deaf child who reads lips in her class. Under the Americans with Diabilities Act she would be in non-compliance and unable to perform as a Teacher. I have a hearing loss and sometimes need to look at people to comprehend what they are saying. Religions are chosen, diabilities are not.

This is no different than the Pharmacists who don't want to prescribe Birth Control because it's against their religion.