OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 16, 2014, 09:07:37 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Muslim family taking Greek Orthodox school to High Court over hijab ban  (Read 8773 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,401


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #45 on: December 22, 2012, 09:24:54 AM »

Ahh big deal. Screw them. Muslims consistently persecute us in their countries but no one gives a rat's behind, let us extract some vengeance on them in our territory. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Is this attitude what our Lord taught us?
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,889


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #46 on: December 22, 2012, 09:32:56 AM »

Quote
Right and when they enrolled her there was a policy to respect their religious beliefs (within reason) and no mention of a ban on hijab or headcoverings. What is the problem with this young girl wanting to display a show of modesty to her peers? The school damn well knew the traditions of Muslims before they enrolled her and now want to make an issue of it?

Maybe these Christians aren't being convincing enough to compel the family to possibly convert away from Islam to begin with and this certainly isn't going to accomplish anything but cause them to despise the school and perhaps Orthodoxy itself.

The only "dhimmitude" going on here are by the secularists.
WHY DO YOU ASSUME they were unaware of the policy on headcoverings?

Frankly, YOU are aiding the dhimmitude by tacit agreement with a non-existent "wrong" that needs righting. And the secularists are jointed by the anti-Christians, any religion but Christianity is fine with them and worthy legal cover.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 09:41:16 AM by Αριστοκλής » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 2,760


« Reply #47 on: December 22, 2012, 11:15:36 AM »

Quote
Right and when they enrolled her there was a policy to respect their religious beliefs (within reason) and no mention of a ban on hijab or headcoverings. What is the problem with this young girl wanting to display a show of modesty to her peers? The school damn well knew the traditions of Muslims before they enrolled her and now want to make an issue of it?

Maybe these Christians aren't being convincing enough to compel the family to possibly convert away from Islam to begin with and this certainly isn't going to accomplish anything but cause them to despise the school and perhaps Orthodoxy itself.

The only "dhimmitude" going on here are by the secularists.
WHY DO YOU ASSUME they were unaware of the policy on headcoverings?

Frankly, YOU are aiding the dhimmitude by tacit agreement with a non-existent "wrong" that needs righting. And the secularists are jointed by the anti-Christians, any religion but Christianity is fine with them and worthy legal cover.
And why do you ASSUME they were? They told them their religious beliefs would be respected, nothing else. There's nothing in the article suggesting otherwise. All we have here is a young girl coming of age and in her tradition she is obligated to cover up a little in a display of modesty. I don't know the substance of Islamic modesty laws in proper dress for young females. I'm sure it varies within it's scets. But for a Christian school to have a problem with a young girl displaying a little modesty sounds a little off to me, God knows we have a hard  enough time trying to stop our young women from dressing and acting like two-bit whores, personally, I welcome a young girl displaying a little modesty, I don't care what religion she comes from.

I'm not "aiding" in anything and there is a wrong here with the school demanding that she expose herself regardless of her religious beliefs in humility and modesty. From a Christian vantage point, this family is morally correct. And if Christians would start acting more like Christians and standing up for their mores and values the secularists would back off a little or at least know that their in for a fight.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,889


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #48 on: December 22, 2012, 12:10:12 PM »

Quote
Right and when they enrolled her there was a policy to respect their religious beliefs (within reason) and no mention of a ban on hijab or headcoverings. What is the problem with this young girl wanting to display a show of modesty to her peers? The school damn well knew the traditions of Muslims before they enrolled her and now want to make an issue of it?

Maybe these Christians aren't being convincing enough to compel the family to possibly convert away from Islam to begin with and this certainly isn't going to accomplish anything but cause them to despise the school and perhaps Orthodoxy itself.

The only "dhimmitude" going on here are by the secularists.
WHY DO YOU ASSUME they were unaware of the policy on headcoverings?

Frankly, YOU are aiding the dhimmitude by tacit agreement with a non-existent "wrong" that needs righting. And the secularists are jointed by the anti-Christians, any religion but Christianity is fine with them and worthy legal cover.
And why do you ASSUME they were? They told them their religious beliefs would be respected, nothing else. There's nothing in the article suggesting otherwise. All we have here is a young girl coming of age and in her tradition she is obligated to cover up a little in a display of modesty. I don't know the substance of Islamic modesty laws in proper dress for young females. I'm sure it varies within it's scets. But for a Christian school to have a problem with a young girl displaying a little modesty sounds a little off to me, God knows we have a hard  enough time trying to stop our young women from dressing and acting like two-bit whores, personally, I welcome a young girl displaying a little modesty, I don't care what religion she comes from.

I'm not "aiding" in anything and there is a wrong here with the school demanding that she expose herself regardless of her religious beliefs in humility and modesty. From a Christian vantage point, this family is morally correct. And if Christians would start acting more like Christians and standing up for their mores and values the secularists would back off a little or at least know that their in for a fight.

From the article: "The pupil in question came to us from a private school. Her parents actively chose us and, before she arrived, we held a meeting which included details of the uniform plan. We are the only Greek Orthodox Primary School in the whole country. The parents actively sought our school. They must have done so with their eyes open."

Seems they were duly informed. Hence, I must dismiss your rant.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #49 on: December 22, 2012, 12:22:35 PM »

Kerdy, while this case isn't the US, the rights of a person apply even in private institutions. If I go to a private school here in the US, I retain every single right within the bill of rights.

Your attitude towards this could also be used to defend the segregation and prejudice against blacks.
Based on the logic you exhibit here, you could also say that if blacks want to be treated equally with others and even be able to use the same restrooms and drinking fountains as others, they should attend a public school or a private school that allows them to.

Human rights don't work like that. Human rights are universal, and it doesn't matter if you're in a private or public institution.
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


« Reply #50 on: December 22, 2012, 12:26:31 PM »

Quote
Right and when they enrolled her there was a policy to respect their religious beliefs (within reason) and no mention of a ban on hijab or headcoverings. What is the problem with this young girl wanting to display a show of modesty to her peers? The school damn well knew the traditions of Muslims before they enrolled her and now want to make an issue of it?

Maybe these Christians aren't being convincing enough to compel the family to possibly convert away from Islam to begin with and this certainly isn't going to accomplish anything but cause them to despise the school and perhaps Orthodoxy itself.

The only "dhimmitude" going on here are by the secularists.
WHY DO YOU ASSUME they were unaware of the policy on headcoverings?

Frankly, YOU are aiding the dhimmitude by tacit agreement with a non-existent "wrong" that needs righting. And the secularists are jointed by the anti-Christians, any religion but Christianity is fine with them and worthy legal cover.
And why do you ASSUME they were? They told them their religious beliefs would be respected, nothing else. There's nothing in the article suggesting otherwise. All we have here is a young girl coming of age and in her tradition she is obligated to cover up a little in a display of modesty. I don't know the substance of Islamic modesty laws in proper dress for young females. I'm sure it varies within it's scets. But for a Christian school to have a problem with a young girl displaying a little modesty sounds a little off to me, God knows we have a hard  enough time trying to stop our young women from dressing and acting like two-bit whores, personally, I welcome a young girl displaying a little modesty, I don't care what religion she comes from.

I'm not "aiding" in anything and there is a wrong here with the school demanding that she expose herself regardless of her religious beliefs in humility and modesty. From a Christian vantage point, this family is morally correct. And if Christians would start acting more like Christians and standing up for their mores and values the secularists would back off a little or at least know that their in for a fight.

From the article: "The pupil in question came to us from a private school. Her parents actively chose us and, before she arrived, we held a meeting which included details of the uniform plan. We are the only Greek Orthodox Primary School in the whole country. The parents actively sought our school. They must have done so with their eyes open."

Seems they were duly informed. Hence, I must dismiss your rant.

"There is no mention of a ban on headscarves in the uniform policy on the school’s website. Girls are required to wear a dark blue coat, an optional blazer, a skirt, a white blouse, a navy blue pullover and navy blue or white socks and black shoes."
Logged

no longer posting here
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,295


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #51 on: December 22, 2012, 01:17:57 PM »

Kerdy, while this case isn't the US, the rights of a person apply even in private institutions. If I go to a private school here in the US, I retain every single right within the bill of rights.

Your attitude towards this could also be used to defend the segregation and prejudice against blacks.
Based on the logic you exhibit here, you could also say that if blacks want to be treated equally with others and even be able to use the same restrooms and drinking fountains as others, they should attend a public school or a private school that allows them to.

Human rights don't work like that. Human rights are universal, and it doesn't matter if you're in a private or public institution.

A public high school, like the one i attended, has every right to restrict freedom of the press, and censor articles in the high school paper deemed to be unsuitable.
Logged
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,295


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #52 on: December 22, 2012, 01:19:22 PM »

Quote
Right and when they enrolled her there was a policy to respect their religious beliefs (within reason) and no mention of a ban on hijab or headcoverings. What is the problem with this young girl wanting to display a show of modesty to her peers? The school damn well knew the traditions of Muslims before they enrolled her and now want to make an issue of it?

Maybe these Christians aren't being convincing enough to compel the family to possibly convert away from Islam to begin with and this certainly isn't going to accomplish anything but cause them to despise the school and perhaps Orthodoxy itself.

The only "dhimmitude" going on here are by the secularists.
WHY DO YOU ASSUME they were unaware of the policy on headcoverings?

Frankly, YOU are aiding the dhimmitude by tacit agreement with a non-existent "wrong" that needs righting. And the secularists are jointed by the anti-Christians, any religion but Christianity is fine with them and worthy legal cover.
And why do you ASSUME they were? They told them their religious beliefs would be respected, nothing else. There's nothing in the article suggesting otherwise. All we have here is a young girl coming of age and in her tradition she is obligated to cover up a little in a display of modesty. I don't know the substance of Islamic modesty laws in proper dress for young females. I'm sure it varies within it's scets. But for a Christian school to have a problem with a young girl displaying a little modesty sounds a little off to me, God knows we have a hard  enough time trying to stop our young women from dressing and acting like two-bit whores, personally, I welcome a young girl displaying a little modesty, I don't care what religion she comes from.

I'm not "aiding" in anything and there is a wrong here with the school demanding that she expose herself regardless of her religious beliefs in humility and modesty. From a Christian vantage point, this family is morally correct. And if Christians would start acting more like Christians and standing up for their mores and values the secularists would back off a little or at least know that their in for a fight.

From the article: "The pupil in question came to us from a private school. Her parents actively chose us and, before she arrived, we held a meeting which included details of the uniform plan. We are the only Greek Orthodox Primary School in the whole country. The parents actively sought our school. They must have done so with their eyes open."

Seems they were duly informed. Hence, I must dismiss your rant.

"There is no mention of a ban on headscarves in the uniform policy on the school’s website. Girls are required to wear a dark blue coat, an optional blazer, a skirt, a white blouse, a navy blue pullover and navy blue or white socks and black shoes."


The only thing that be construed from this is: since the headscarf is not mentioned in the school uniform, it is not part of it, and as such, is banned.
Logged
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,906


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #53 on: December 22, 2012, 01:19:51 PM »

Quote
Right and when they enrolled her there was a policy to respect their religious beliefs (within reason) and no mention of a ban on hijab or headcoverings. What is the problem with this young girl wanting to display a show of modesty to her peers? The school damn well knew the traditions of Muslims before they enrolled her and now want to make an issue of it?

Maybe these Christians aren't being convincing enough to compel the family to possibly convert away from Islam to begin with and this certainly isn't going to accomplish anything but cause them to despise the school and perhaps Orthodoxy itself.

The only "dhimmitude" going on here are by the secularists.
WHY DO YOU ASSUME they were unaware of the policy on headcoverings?

Frankly, YOU are aiding the dhimmitude by tacit agreement with a non-existent "wrong" that needs righting. And the secularists are jointed by the anti-Christians, any religion but Christianity is fine with them and worthy legal cover.
And why do you ASSUME they were? They told them their religious beliefs would be respected, nothing else. There's nothing in the article suggesting otherwise. All we have here is a young girl coming of age and in her tradition she is obligated to cover up a little in a display of modesty. I don't know the substance of Islamic modesty laws in proper dress for young females. I'm sure it varies within it's scets. But for a Christian school to have a problem with a young girl displaying a little modesty sounds a little off to me, God knows we have a hard  enough time trying to stop our young women from dressing and acting like two-bit whores, personally, I welcome a young girl displaying a little modesty, I don't care what religion she comes from.

I'm not "aiding" in anything and there is a wrong here with the school demanding that she expose herself regardless of her religious beliefs in humility and modesty. From a Christian vantage point, this family is morally correct. And if Christians would start acting more like Christians and standing up for their mores and values the secularists would back off a little or at least know that their in for a fight.

What about burqas?
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

Πρὸς δὲ τὸν ἀξιοῦντα δημοκρατίαν ἐν τῇ πόλει καταστήσασθαι ὁ Λυκοῦργος εἶπε 'σὺ πρῶτος ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ σου ποίησον δημοκρατίαν.'
-Lycurgus
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


« Reply #54 on: December 22, 2012, 01:21:58 PM »

What about burqas?

Like these?

Logged

no longer posting here
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,906


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2012, 01:26:29 PM »

Isn't is a rule in schools that hats and other headgear aren't allowed in class?
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

Πρὸς δὲ τὸν ἀξιοῦντα δημοκρατίαν ἐν τῇ πόλει καταστήσασθαι ὁ Λυκοῦργος εἶπε 'σὺ πρῶτος ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ σου ποίησον δημοκρατίαν.'
-Lycurgus
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #56 on: December 22, 2012, 01:28:36 PM »


That would be an abaya.

A burqa is this:


And a niqab just to complete the picture:
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,889


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #57 on: December 22, 2012, 01:29:17 PM »

Quote
Right and when they enrolled her there was a policy to respect their religious beliefs (within reason) and no mention of a ban on hijab or headcoverings. What is the problem with this young girl wanting to display a show of modesty to her peers? The school damn well knew the traditions of Muslims before they enrolled her and now want to make an issue of it?

Maybe these Christians aren't being convincing enough to compel the family to possibly convert away from Islam to begin with and this certainly isn't going to accomplish anything but cause them to despise the school and perhaps Orthodoxy itself.

The only "dhimmitude" going on here are by the secularists.
WHY DO YOU ASSUME they were unaware of the policy on headcoverings?

Frankly, YOU are aiding the dhimmitude by tacit agreement with a non-existent "wrong" that needs righting. And the secularists are jointed by the anti-Christians, any religion but Christianity is fine with them and worthy legal cover.
And why do you ASSUME they were? They told them their religious beliefs would be respected, nothing else. There's nothing in the article suggesting otherwise. All we have here is a young girl coming of age and in her tradition she is obligated to cover up a little in a display of modesty. I don't know the substance of Islamic modesty laws in proper dress for young females. I'm sure it varies within it's scets. But for a Christian school to have a problem with a young girl displaying a little modesty sounds a little off to me, God knows we have a hard  enough time trying to stop our young women from dressing and acting like two-bit whores, personally, I welcome a young girl displaying a little modesty, I don't care what religion she comes from.

I'm not "aiding" in anything and there is a wrong here with the school demanding that she expose herself regardless of her religious beliefs in humility and modesty. From a Christian vantage point, this family is morally correct. And if Christians would start acting more like Christians and standing up for their mores and values the secularists would back off a little or at least know that their in for a fight.

From the article: "The pupil in question came to us from a private school. Her parents actively chose us and, before she arrived, we held a meeting which included details of the uniform plan. We are the only Greek Orthodox Primary School in the whole country. The parents actively sought our school. They must have done so with their eyes open."

Seems they were duly informed. Hence, I must dismiss your rant.

"There is no mention of a ban on headscarves in the uniform policy on the school’s website. Girls are required to wear a dark blue coat, an optional blazer, a skirt, a white blouse, a navy blue pullover and navy blue or white socks and black shoes."


Argumentative, aren't we today? The quote SPECIFICALLY says they were informed in a meeting. I know you can read. If one doesn't see something on the Internet does not mean it does not exist or that it did not occur.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


« Reply #58 on: December 22, 2012, 01:36:37 PM »

Argumentative, aren't we today? The quote SPECIFICALLY says they were informed in a meeting. I know you can read. If one doesn't see something on the Internet does not mean it does not exist or that it did not occur.

What sense would be in publishing some randomly chosen rules on the website, and some not? How can you prove headcover ban is included in those rules at all?
Logged

no longer posting here
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,889


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #59 on: December 22, 2012, 01:37:54 PM »

Argumentative, aren't we today? The quote SPECIFICALLY says they were informed in a meeting. I know you can read. If one doesn't see something on the Internet does not mean it does not exist or that it did not occur.

What sense would be in publishing some randomly chosen rules on the website, and some not? How can you prove headcover ban is included in those rules at all?

Read the cited article CLOSELY. Why is this so hard? The "proof" is contained therein.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 2,760


« Reply #60 on: December 22, 2012, 01:40:53 PM »

Quote
Right and when they enrolled her there was a policy to respect their religious beliefs (within reason) and no mention of a ban on hijab or headcoverings. What is the problem with this young girl wanting to display a show of modesty to her peers? The school damn well knew the traditions of Muslims before they enrolled her and now want to make an issue of it?

Maybe these Christians aren't being convincing enough to compel the family to possibly convert away from Islam to begin with and this certainly isn't going to accomplish anything but cause them to despise the school and perhaps Orthodoxy itself.

The only "dhimmitude" going on here are by the secularists.
WHY DO YOU ASSUME they were unaware of the policy on headcoverings?

Frankly, YOU are aiding the dhimmitude by tacit agreement with a non-existent "wrong" that needs righting. And the secularists are jointed by the anti-Christians, any religion but Christianity is fine with them and worthy legal cover.
And why do you ASSUME they were? They told them their religious beliefs would be respected, nothing else. There's nothing in the article suggesting otherwise. All we have here is a young girl coming of age and in her tradition she is obligated to cover up a little in a display of modesty. I don't know the substance of Islamic modesty laws in proper dress for young females. I'm sure it varies within it's scets. But for a Christian school to have a problem with a young girl displaying a little modesty sounds a little off to me, God knows we have a hard  enough time trying to stop our young women from dressing and acting like two-bit whores, personally, I welcome a young girl displaying a little modesty, I don't care what religion she comes from.

I'm not "aiding" in anything and there is a wrong here with the school demanding that she expose herself regardless of her religious beliefs in humility and modesty. From a Christian vantage point, this family is morally correct. And if Christians would start acting more like Christians and standing up for their mores and values the secularists would back off a little or at least know that their in for a fight.

From the article: "The pupil in question came to us from a private school. Her parents actively chose us and, before she arrived, we held a meeting which included details of the uniform plan. We are the only Greek Orthodox Primary School in the whole country. The parents actively sought our school. They must have done so with their eyes open."

Seems they were duly informed. Hence, I must dismiss your rant.

"There is no mention of a ban on headscarves in the uniform policy on the school’s website. Girls are required to wear a dark blue coat, an optional blazer, a skirt, a white blouse, a navy blue pullover and navy blue or white socks and black shoes."


The only thing that be construed from this is: since the headscarf is not mentioned in the school uniform, it is not part of it, and as such, is banned.
That would definitley be a reach.

Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


« Reply #61 on: December 22, 2012, 01:41:37 PM »

Argumentative, aren't we today? The quote SPECIFICALLY says they were informed in a meeting. I know you can read. If one doesn't see something on the Internet does not mean it does not exist or that it did not occur.

What sense would be in publishing some randomly chosen rules on the website, and some not? How can you prove headcover ban is included in those rules at all?

Read the cited article CLOSELY. Why is this so hard? The "proof" is contained therein.

Can you quote it?

I agree with Charles Martel. The world has ended indeed.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 01:42:14 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

no longer posting here
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,889


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #62 on: December 22, 2012, 01:42:38 PM »

Argumentative, aren't we today? The quote SPECIFICALLY says they were informed in a meeting. I know you can read. If one doesn't see something on the Internet does not mean it does not exist or that it did not occur.

What sense would be in publishing some randomly chosen rules on the website, and some not? How can you prove headcover ban is included in those rules at all?

Read the cited article CLOSELY. Why is this so hard? The "proof" is contained therein.

Can you quote it?

I agree with Charles Martel. The world has ended indeed.

Can you read? Already done in Reply #48 above.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 01:44:34 PM by Αριστοκλής » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


« Reply #63 on: December 22, 2012, 01:45:34 PM »

Argumentative, aren't we today? The quote SPECIFICALLY says they were informed in a meeting. I know you can read. If one doesn't see something on the Internet does not mean it does not exist or that it did not occur.

What sense would be in publishing some randomly chosen rules on the website, and some not? How can you prove headcover ban is included in those rules at all?

Read the cited article CLOSELY. Why is this so hard? The "proof" is contained therein.

Can you quote it?

I agree with Charles Martel. The world has ended indeed.

Can you read? Already done in Reply #48 above.

In the uniform plan they published there is nothing about headcoverings.
Logged

no longer posting here
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,889


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #64 on: December 22, 2012, 01:51:52 PM »

Argumentative, aren't we today? The quote SPECIFICALLY says they were informed in a meeting. I know you can read. If one doesn't see something on the Internet does not mean it does not exist or that it did not occur.

What sense would be in publishing some randomly chosen rules on the website, and some not? How can you prove headcover ban is included in those rules at all?

Read the cited article CLOSELY. Why is this so hard? The "proof" is contained therein.

Can you quote it?

I agree with Charles Martel. The world has ended indeed.

Can you read? Already done in Reply #48 above.

In the uniform plan they published there is nothing about headcoverings.

So what? They were obviously informed DIRECTLY two years earlier.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


« Reply #65 on: December 22, 2012, 01:53:04 PM »

Argumentative, aren't we today? The quote SPECIFICALLY says they were informed in a meeting. I know you can read. If one doesn't see something on the Internet does not mean it does not exist or that it did not occur.

What sense would be in publishing some randomly chosen rules on the website, and some not? How can you prove headcover ban is included in those rules at all?

Read the cited article CLOSELY. Why is this so hard? The "proof" is contained therein.

Can you quote it?

I agree with Charles Martel. The world has ended indeed.

Can you read? Already done in Reply #48 above.

In the uniform plan they published there is nothing about headcoverings.

So what? They were obviously informed DIRECTLY two years earlier.

They were informed about regulations which are silent about headcoverings.
Logged

no longer posting here
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 2,760


« Reply #66 on: December 22, 2012, 01:53:41 PM »

From the article;

""The pupil in question came to us from a private school. Her parents actively chose us and, before she arrived, we held a meeting which included details of the uniform plan."

Ok, so this still doesn't reveal anything about a definitive headscarf ban. We can't just take it on assumption that this particular issue was discussed at the time and why the heck doesn't the school just come right out and say they did discuss it prior to her admittance if their so damn adamant about the whole issue.

What we do know is that there isn't a headscarf ban on the school's website of rules. And they will respect others religious beliefs. I know that can get kind of messy, but not in this instance. all the girl wants to do is cover her hair as a sign of modesty and  obedience to God in her religion, I can't see why this is such a problem. And I damn sure don't see how it's "absolutley" clear that this issue was settled in a privet meeting.

Also, she seems to be an exemplenary student as far as the school's religious practices, you should take this into consideration.


Again, from the article;


"Mrs Magliocco said the girl had otherwise observed all of the school's Greek Orthodox practices."

Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 2,760


« Reply #67 on: December 22, 2012, 01:56:14 PM »

Argumentative, aren't we today? The quote SPECIFICALLY says they were informed in a meeting. I know you can read. If one doesn't see something on the Internet does not mean it does not exist or that it did not occur.

What sense would be in publishing some randomly chosen rules on the website, and some not? How can you prove headcover ban is included in those rules at all?

Read the cited article CLOSELY. Why is this so hard? The "proof" is contained therein.

Can you quote it?

I agree with Charles Martel. The world has ended indeed.
Even broken clocks are right twice a day. Grin
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,889


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #68 on: December 22, 2012, 01:59:03 PM »

From the article;

""The pupil in question came to us from a private school. Her parents actively chose us and, before she arrived, we held a meeting which included details of the uniform plan."

Ok, so this still doesn't reveal anything about a definitive headscarf ban. We can't just take it on assumption that this particular issue was discussed at the time and why the heck doesn't the school just come right out and say they did discuss it prior to her admittance if their so damn adamant about the whole issue.

What we do know is that there isn't a headscarf ban on the school's website of rules. And they will respect others religious beliefs. I know that can get kind of messy, but not in this instance. all the girl wants to do is cover her hair as a sign of modesty and  obedience to God in her religion, I can't see why this is such a problem. And I damn sure don't see how it's "absolutley" clear that this issue was settled in a privet meeting.

Also, she seems to be an exemplenary student as far as the school's religious practices, you should take this into consideration.


Again, from the article;


"Mrs Magliocco said the girl had otherwise observed all of the school's Greek Orthodox practices."



What a ridiculous stretch. You're reading your own spin into the article. Bah... a waste of bandwidth this is.
Please go feel offended about something else.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #69 on: December 22, 2012, 01:59:08 PM »

From the article;

""The pupil in question came to us from a private school. Her parents actively chose us and, before she arrived, we held a meeting which included details of the uniform plan."

Ok, so this still doesn't reveal anything about a definitive ban on wearing crosses. We can't just take it on assumption that this particular issue was discussed at the time and why the heck doesn't the school just come right out and say they did discuss it prior to her admittance if their so damn adamant about the whole issue.

What we do know is that there isn't a ban on wearing crosses on the school's website of rules. And they will respect others religious beliefs. I know that can get kind of messy, but not in this instance. all the girl wants to do is wear a cross as a sign of modesty and  obedience to God in her religion, I can't see why this is such a problem. And I damn sure don't see how it's "absolutley" clear that this issue was settled in a private meeting.

Also, she seems to be an exemplary student as far as the school's religious practices, you should take this into consideration.


Again, from the article;


"Mrs Magliocco said the girl had otherwise observed all of the school's Muslim practices."



Edited it in some parts to illustrate a point.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 01:59:44 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,885


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #70 on: December 22, 2012, 02:28:01 PM »

Kerdy, while this case isn't the US, the rights of a person apply even in private institutions. If I go to a private school here in the US, I retain every single right within the bill of rights.

Your attitude towards this could also be used to defend the segregation and prejudice against blacks.
Based on the logic you exhibit here, you could also say that if blacks want to be treated equally with others and even be able to use the same restrooms and drinking fountains as others, they should attend a public school or a private school that allows them to.

Human rights don't work like that. Human rights are universal, and it doesn't matter if you're in a private or public institution.

A public high school, like the one i attended, has every right to restrict freedom of the press, and censor articles in the high school paper deemed to be unsuitable.

Actually this isn't entirely correct.  While the schools certainly have much greater freedom to censor, it isn't entirely unlimited, IIRC.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,726


« Reply #71 on: December 22, 2012, 05:25:02 PM »

You know...I'm not going to go all Allahu Admiral Akbar on the Greeks for restricting Moslem symbolism but this brings up a question...why weren't the Greek girls wearing head coverings???

Because school isn't church.
But how many women wear headcoverings in Church these days?
I attended an Orthodox liturgy a while back and I didn't see it.
Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #72 on: December 22, 2012, 06:07:55 PM »

You know...I'm not going to go all Allahu Admiral Akbar on the Greeks for restricting Moslem symbolism but this brings up a question...why weren't the Greek girls wearing head coverings???

Because school isn't church.
But how many women wear headcoverings in Church these days?
I attended an Orthodox liturgy a while back and I didn't see it.

Depends on where you go. My old parish is half and half. Many OCA parishes the women wear them, GOA they don't, AOCNA they do, Serbian they don't.

Of course that is my personal experience and not possibly all encompassing.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #73 on: December 22, 2012, 07:03:13 PM »

Kerdy, while this case isn't the US, the rights of a person apply even in private institutions. If I go to a private school here in the US, I retain every single right within the bill of rights.

Your attitude towards this could also be used to defend the segregation and prejudice against blacks.
Based on the logic you exhibit here, you could also say that if blacks want to be treated equally with others and even be able to use the same restrooms and drinking fountains as others, they should attend a public school or a private school that allows them to.

Human rights don't work like that. Human rights are universal, and it doesn't matter if you're in a private or public institution.
And that's the thing, her rights were not violated.  Just like a military members right to freedom of speech isn't violated when joining the armed forces, because it’s a voluntary action with known expectations.  Even better, a male Muslim, or Orthodox for that matter, can’t grow a beard for religious reasons.  They know this prior to joining and accept these restrictions upon joining.  Can I join a Quaker or Amish community and expect them to allow me to do what I want?  Can I go to a Protestant university which requires men to wear a tie and show up in a T-shirt and expect no reply from the school?  If I'm Native American and the school rule is no smoking on campus, but I claim its religious, should they make exception?  No.  This whole way of thinking is incorrect.  She can wear whatever she wants, off school property.  No rights violation, anywhere.

And to address you silly racial attempt, are there not black organizations which allow no one else to join?  Indeed.  Are my rights violated?  Nope.

There are all male and all female schools as well?  No rights violations.

There are religious organizations which allow no one but that religion, no rights violation.

My advice is to stop always thinking as a victim.  Life is too short to consider one’s self a victim every day for every reason known to man.  One persons perceived rights at the costs of another's actual rights is not how things should work.

EDIT:
I really need to stop posting from my phone so I don’t have to go back and change so much. 
 laugh
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 07:31:13 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #74 on: December 22, 2012, 07:12:37 PM »

Argumentative, aren't we today? The quote SPECIFICALLY says they were informed in a meeting. I know you can read. If one doesn't see something on the Internet does not mean it does not exist or that it did not occur.

What sense would be in publishing some randomly chosen rules on the website, and some not? How can you prove headcover ban is included in those rules at all?

Read the cited article CLOSELY. Why is this so hard? The "proof" is contained therein.

Can you quote it?

I agree with Charles Martel. The world has ended indeed.

Can you read? Already done in Reply #48 above.

In the uniform plan they published there is nothing about headcoverings.

So what? They were obviously informed DIRECTLY two years earlier.

They were informed about regulations which are silent about headcoverings.
My kids used to attend a charter school.  They changes regulations all the time.  Deal with it.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,401


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #75 on: December 22, 2012, 07:18:40 PM »

From the article;

""The pupil in question came to us from a private school. Her parents actively chose us and, before she arrived, we held a meeting which included details of the uniform plan."

Ok, so this still doesn't reveal anything about a definitive headscarf ban. We can't just take it on assumption that this particular issue was discussed at the time and why the heck doesn't the school just come right out and say they did discuss it prior to her admittance if their so damn adamant about the whole issue.
Why does it matter to you what they did or did not discuss in a private meeting? You obviously were not there.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,726


« Reply #76 on: December 22, 2012, 09:20:18 PM »

Repeat...a school is not a church. 
Although a school is not a Church, education, especially in a religious school, does have religious undertones and significance for many people. If it is a religious school, then presumably prayers are said, religious values and morals are taught, and as well being a good student and well informed and educated citizen is seen by many as being a worthwhile virtue for Christians.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,090



« Reply #77 on: December 22, 2012, 09:34:09 PM »


That would be an abaya.

A burqa is this:


And a niqab just to complete the picture:


All of those would do a good job in fighting the muffin-top epidemic amongst our teenagers.  Unfortunately, I think the niquab and burka would need to go as not being able to identify students is a problem.
Logged

One day we will talk about why people fetishize children, but for now I'll keep on the side of humanity that doesn't think the height of life is a drinking a juice box and eating a tater tot while defecating in their pants.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,090



« Reply #78 on: December 22, 2012, 09:35:10 PM »

You know...I'm not going to go all Allahu Admiral Akbar on the Greeks for restricting Moslem symbolism but this brings up a question...why weren't the Greek girls wearing head coverings???

Because they're not Russians and they don't live in church.

The Theotokos lived in the temple.  Why should these other girls act any different?
Logged

One day we will talk about why people fetishize children, but for now I'll keep on the side of humanity that doesn't think the height of life is a drinking a juice box and eating a tater tot while defecating in their pants.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #79 on: December 22, 2012, 10:26:21 PM »

Repeat...a school is not a church. 

If school is not a religious entity, then why should Muslims be allowed to conduct their religious beliefs there?
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,099


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #80 on: December 23, 2012, 01:31:28 AM »

You know...I'm not going to go all Allahu Admiral Akbar on the Greeks for restricting Moslem symbolism but this brings up a question...why weren't the Greek girls wearing head coverings???

Because they're not Russians and they don't live in church.

The Theotokos lived in the temple.  Why should these other girls act any different?

The Mother of God was dedicated to the temple by her parents to fulfill their vow to God to do so if He granted them a child. Last time I checked, schools are not temples, nor are children consecrated to live there to fulfill solemn vows to God.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2012, 01:32:59 AM by LBK » Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,193


WWW
« Reply #81 on: December 23, 2012, 01:52:35 AM »

The girl now attends a CoE school.  Does she wear her hijab there?
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 2,760


« Reply #82 on: December 23, 2012, 02:18:00 AM »

From the article;

""The pupil in question came to us from a private school. Her parents actively chose us and, before she arrived, we held a meeting which included details of the uniform plan."

Ok, so this still doesn't reveal anything about a definitive headscarf ban. We can't just take it on assumption that this particular issue was discussed at the time and why the heck doesn't the school just come right out and say they did discuss it prior to her admittance if their so damn adamant about the whole issue.
Why does it matter to you what they did or did not discuss in a private meeting? You obviously were not there.
Neither were you or anyone else on this forum, so no one can assume anything that was said at it.

Which I haven't.


Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #83 on: December 23, 2012, 02:18:58 AM »

The girl now attends a CoE school.  Does she wear her hijab there?

I am not certain, but the article states her brother still attends the school.  I wonder why.
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 2,760


« Reply #84 on: December 23, 2012, 02:22:02 AM »

From the article;

""The pupil in question came to us from a private school. Her parents actively chose us and, before she arrived, we held a meeting which included details of the uniform plan."

Ok, so this still doesn't reveal anything about a definitive headscarf ban. We can't just take it on assumption that this particular issue was discussed at the time and why the heck doesn't the school just come right out and say they did discuss it prior to her admittance if their so damn adamant about the whole issue.

What we do know is that there isn't a headscarf ban on the school's website of rules. And they will respect others religious beliefs. I know that can get kind of messy, but not in this instance. all the girl wants to do is cover her hair as a sign of modesty and  obedience to God in her religion, I can't see why this is such a problem. And I damn sure don't see how it's "absolutley" clear that this issue was settled in a privet meeting.

Also, she seems to be an exemplenary student as far as the school's religious practices, you should take this into consideration.


Again, from the article;


"Mrs Magliocco said the girl had otherwise observed all of the school's Greek Orthodox practices."



What a ridiculous stretch. You're reading your own spin into the article. Bah... a waste of bandwidth this is.
Please go feel offended about something else.
What on earth are you talking about? You're the one who 's getting all huffy about someone else's opinons.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,726


« Reply #85 on: December 23, 2012, 04:00:37 AM »

The Mother of God was dedicated to the temple by her parents to fulfill their vow to God to do so if He granted them a child. Last time I checked, schools are not temples, nor are children consecrated to live there to fulfill solemn vows to God.
How often do officially approved icons depict the Holy Mother of God with Her head uncovered? I don't see anything wrong with women following a custom of covering their head as did the Mother of God? If the Mother of God covered Her head, then why can't any girl, muslim or not, cover her head also?
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,889


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #86 on: December 23, 2012, 04:03:11 AM »

Repeat...a school is not a church.  

If school is not a religious entity, then why should Muslims be allowed to conduct their religious beliefs there?

Where is that here?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,099


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #87 on: December 23, 2012, 04:54:46 AM »

The Mother of God was dedicated to the temple by her parents to fulfill their vow to God to do so if He granted them a child. Last time I checked, schools are not temples, nor are children consecrated to live there to fulfill solemn vows to God.
How often do officially approved icons depict the Holy Mother of God with Her head uncovered? I don't see anything wrong with women following a custom of covering their head as did the Mother of God? If the Mother of God covered Her head, then why can't any girl, muslim or not, cover her head also?

Another false comparison.

A school is not a house of prayer (though it may contain a chapel), the female students are all minors (the Orthodox tradition of head covering in church was and is intended for women who are of age), and the Mother of God was, essentially, a monastic. None of the non-Moslem schoolgirls are nuns.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2012, 04:55:21 AM by LBK » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 7,817


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #88 on: December 23, 2012, 06:26:42 AM »

The Mother of God was dedicated to the temple by her parents to fulfill their vow to God to do so if He granted them a child. Last time I checked, schools are not temples, nor are children consecrated to live there to fulfill solemn vows to God.
How often do officially approved icons depict the Holy Mother of God with Her head uncovered? I don't see anything wrong with women following a custom of covering their head as did the Mother of God? If the Mother of God covered Her head, then why can't any girl, muslim or not, cover her head also?


Because St. Mary's role was to give birth to Christ, not to provide an example for us to follow. Just as Christ came to to atone for our sins, not to set a moral example. Oh wait, I'm not Protestant anymore. Nix that.


Selam
Logged

“Lord, I say too many uncharitable things about people every day. I say them because they make me look clever. Help me to realize how cheap this is. I am stupid, quite as stupid as the people I ridicule. Help me to stop this selfishness, because I love You dear God." ~ FLANNERY O'CONNOR ~
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,401


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #89 on: December 23, 2012, 03:15:59 PM »

From the article;

""The pupil in question came to us from a private school. Her parents actively chose us and, before she arrived, we held a meeting which included details of the uniform plan."

Ok, so this still doesn't reveal anything about a definitive headscarf ban. We can't just take it on assumption that this particular issue was discussed at the time and why the heck doesn't the school just come right out and say they did discuss it prior to her admittance if their so damn adamant about the whole issue.
Why does it matter to you what they did or did not discuss in a private meeting? You obviously were not there.
Neither were you or anyone else on this forum, so no one can assume anything that was said at it.
I've not made any assumptions about what was said there.

Which I haven't.
You seem to have some very strong opinions about what they should have discussed, however. You also seem to think they owe you an explanation.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2012, 12:17:32 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.181 seconds with 72 queries.