Muslim family taking Greek Orthodox school to High Court over hijab ban

[PeterTheAleut]

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?

[Αριστοκλής]

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.

[Charles Martel]

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.

[Αριστοκλής]

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.

[88Devin12]

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.

[Michał Kalina]

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."

[TheMathematician]

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.

[TheMathematician]

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.

[Cyrillic]

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?

[Michał Kalina]

What about burqas?

Like these?

[Cyrillic]

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

[Orthodox11]

What about burqas?

Like these?

That would be an abaya.

A burqa is this:


And a niqab just to complete the picture:

[Αριστοκλής]

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.

[Michał Kalina]

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?

[Αριστοκλής]

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.

[Charles Martel]

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.

[Michał Kalina]

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.

[Αριστοκλής]

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.

[Michał Kalina]

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.

[Αριστοκλής]

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.

[Michał Kalina]

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.

[Charles Martel]

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."

[Charles Martel]

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.

[Αριστοκλής]

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.

[88Devin12]

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.

[JamesRottnek]

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.

[stanley123]

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.

[88Devin12]

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.

[Kerdy]

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. 
 

[Kerdy]

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.

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[stanley123]

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.

[vamrat]

What about burqas?

Like these?

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.

[vamrat]

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?

[Kerdy]

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?

[LBK]

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.

[SolEX01]

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

[Charles Martel]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

[Charles Martel]

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.

[stanley123]

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?

[Αριστοκλής]

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?

[LBK]

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.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

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

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Christian News (Moderator: serb1389) > Topic: Muslim family taking Greek Orthodox school to High Court over hijab ban