JJ Ross's picture

Sharpest Debate at School

The debate about religious dress is often at its sharpest in schools where personal and religious choice conflicts with uniform policies intended to eliminate difference and promote social integration.

Muslim classroom assistant suspended for wearing a veil

""Increasingly bitter debate" about that school assistant

Last year, a British teenager took her school to court

And then there's this, the story I was remembering this morning and which I argue doesn't make it ANY better for being broader or politically cutting the other way:
Students barred from wearing Christian chastity symbol in UK school

And this comment seems to fit here:

It doesn't matter to me whether it's an expression of faith or not. The way I see it, religious freedom is simply a sub-category of freedom of speech/expression, and it is this higher freedom that is really of more concern to me. So a school should have no business saying that ONLY jewelry with a religious significance can be worn; this is discrimination against the non-religious, and it places religious freedom over all other freedoms.
But even if they have this rule, they should apply it consistently to all religions, and it's not their business to pick and choose which items they think are legitimate expressions of faith and which aren't (this strikes me as extremely arrogant).
God: proof that imaginary friends are not just for children.


Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may link to webpages through the weblinks registry
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • Images can be added to this post.
More information about formatting options

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Upcoming events

Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 1535 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them, and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does this not involve the principle of a national establishment...?"


— -- James Madison, "Essay on Monopolies" unpublished until 1946, cited in Brant, Irving, The Bill of Rights, 1965, from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom


Instant Congress

Don't know your Senators or US Representatives' phone numbers?
Enter your street address and zip code and find out right now.
Street number and name only:
Zip Code (5 digits):


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify