OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 11:43:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags 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 10554 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,133


« Reply #90 on: December 23, 2012, 09:23:38 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 they should have discussed, however. You also seem to think they owe you an explanation.
They owe the Muslim girl and her family an explanation.....not me.
Logged

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

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #91 on: December 23, 2012, 09:45:05 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 they should have discussed, however. You also seem to think they owe you an explanation.
They owe the Muslim girl and her family an explanation.....not me.
I disagree; however, the family was given an explaination.  They simply did not like the explaination provided.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #92 on: December 24, 2012, 05:24:19 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.
So it is not proper for a woman to imitate the Mother of God?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #93 on: December 24, 2012, 05:33:05 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
Do I understand then that according to you,  women should not follow the example of modesty that we see in the Holy Mother of God? I certainly can't agree with that. Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly. Almost every officially approved icon of the Holy Mother of God depicts her with her head covered. I see nothing wrong with women who follow the example of the Holy Mother of God. I see everything wrong with following the example of some of the modern females whose pictures we see and whose lurid stories we read about in the supermarket tabloids.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,080


« Reply #94 on: December 24, 2012, 05:46:25 AM »

Well if that isn't a false dichotomy...! The thing is, when it comes to Islam and covering (just like when it comes to Islam and everything else), the practices that look similar to our preexisting practices (that they stole and now claim as "Islamic") have very different motivations than ours. Muslim women cover, as per Qur'an 33:59, so that they may be identified as belonging to Muhammad's community or Muhammad: "O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble." Christian veiling, of course, is not to identify the woman as Christian or as belonging to a particular Christian prophet. It might be better to compare the wearing of the cross to the Muslim wearing of the hijab, but of course Muslims hate the cross, so...  Undecided

So it's not very illuminating to compare the Theotokos to Muslim women, unless you're making the point that St. Mary is a Muslim (as in, a believer in Muhammad and his blasphemies; none of this "she DID submit to God" business...yes, she did -- Muhammad did not), or one of Muhammad's wives. And both of those ideas make me want to vomit.
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #95 on: December 24, 2012, 05:52:43 AM »

Well if that isn't a false dichotomy...! The thing is, when it comes to Islam and covering (just like when it comes to Islam and everything else), the practices that look similar to our preexisting practices (that they stole and now claim as "Islamic") have very different motivations than ours. Muslim women cover, as per Qur'an 33:59, so that they may be identified as belonging to Muhammad's community or Muhammad: "O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble." Christian veiling, of course, is not to identify the woman as Christian or as belonging to a particular Christian prophet. It might be better to compare the wearing of the cross to the Muslim wearing of the hijab, but of course Muslims hate the cross, so...  Undecided

So it's not very illuminating to compare the Theotokos to Muslim women, unless you're making the point that St. Mary is a Muslim (as in, a believer in Muhammad and his blasphemies; none of this "she DID submit to God" business...yes, she did -- Muhammad did not), or one of Muhammad's wives. And both of those ideas make me want to vomit.
Mary is not a Muslim, but it is not unknown for people who are outside the Christian tradition to show their respect to Christian saints.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,080


« Reply #96 on: December 24, 2012, 05:59:36 AM »

Yes, fine, but my point is that we cannot look at Muslims and say, as you appeared to be saying in your post, that they veil as the Theotokos veiled, so it's a good thing. It's not an inherently good thing, as they're doing it for wrong reasons, so there's no real comparison to be made. They're not following the example of the mother of God in any way. If they really were, they would be followers of Christ, not the Christ-denying blasphemer Muhammad.
Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #97 on: December 24, 2012, 06:56:45 AM »

not the Christ-denying blasphemer Muhammad.

How can Muhammad be a Christ-denier as Christ in Islam is one of the most important prophets?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #98 on: December 24, 2012, 08:02:21 AM »

not the Christ-denying blasphemer Muhammad.

How can Muhammad be a Christ-denier as Christ in Islam is one of the most important prophets?

Muslims have Jesus not as the Anointed One, Christ.
Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #99 on: December 24, 2012, 08:09:00 AM »

not the Christ-denying blasphemer Muhammad.

How can Muhammad be a Christ-denier as Christ in Islam is one of the most important prophets?

Muslims have Jesus not as the Anointed One, Christ.

Wrong. They call Him Masih.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #100 on: December 24, 2012, 08:14:55 AM »

not the Christ-denying blasphemer Muhammad.

How can Muhammad be a Christ-denier as Christ in Islam is one of the most important prophets?

Muslims have Jesus not as the Anointed One, Christ.

Wrong. They call Him Masih.

Do they? And what do they mean by that?

Not the Son of God, not One of the Trinity = Christ-denier.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2012, 08:16:26 AM by Αριστοκλής » Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #101 on: December 24, 2012, 08:23:11 AM »

Do they? And what do they mean by that?

"Anointed" as everyone does.

Quote
Not the Son of God, not One of the Trinity = Christ-denier.

Are Roman Catholics or Nestorians Christ-deniers too?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,177


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #102 on: December 24, 2012, 08:31:14 AM »

Here in the UK, religious paraphernalia, of any religion, break school uniform code, and not only in secular schools (I call them that because most religious schools are public as well, so they fall under the same directive). That means no crosses, no Stars of David, no Sikh bracelets, and no hijab. End of story.

Perhaps a clearer policy over there wouldn't have muddied the waters so much.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #103 on: December 24, 2012, 08:32:53 AM »

Do they? And what do they mean by that?

"Anointed" as everyone does.

Quote
Not the Son of God, not One of the Trinity = Christ-denier.

Are Roman Catholics or Nestorians Christ-deniers too?

Your argument is silly.
Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #104 on: December 24, 2012, 08:40:01 AM »

Your argument is silly.

Really?

Everyone everywhere understand "messiah", "christos", "christ", "christus", "mashiach", "crist", "masih"  as "the anointed one". Only you for unknown reason broaden that definition to "everything the Eastern Orthodox Church believes about Jesus of Nazareth".

There are many reasons to blame Muslims of. We do not need to invent more, especially ungrounded ones.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #105 on: December 24, 2012, 08:40:34 AM »

not the Christ-denying blasphemer Muhammad.

How can Muhammad be a Christ-denier as Christ in Islam is one of the most important prophets?

His existence isn't denied, rather His divinity.  To them, Jesus is only a prophet, not even the greatest prophet, and certainly not the Messiah.  They deny Him.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #106 on: December 24, 2012, 08:45:21 AM »

not the Christ-denying blasphemer Muhammad.

How can Muhammad be a Christ-denier as Christ in Islam is one of the most important prophets?

His existence isn't denied, rather His divinity.  To them, Jesus is only a prophet, not even the greatest prophet, and certainly not the Messiah.  They deny Him.

He is Messiah for them.
Logged

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

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,133


« Reply #107 on: December 24, 2012, 08:49:50 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.
I've not made any assumptions about what was said there.

Which I haven't.
You seem to have some very strong opinions about they should have discussed, however. You also seem to think they owe you an explanation.
They owe the Muslim girl and her family an explanation.....not me.
I disagree; however, the family was given an explaination.  They simply did not like the explaination provided.
How can you disagree when you don't even know what the "explanation" detalied?

Again, they're not even telling us if they told her headcoverings were forbidden at that "private discussion" before her enrollment and if they did why don't they just come out and declare "we told them so!" before they joined the school?

Why is this so difficult? Why do we have to "read between the lines" about this private discussion?

Something fishy's going on here and that's why this Muslim family is taking them to task.
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: 10,026


« Reply #108 on: December 24, 2012, 08:51:28 AM »

Your argument is silly.

Really?

Everyone everywhere understand "messiah", "christos", "christ", "christus", "mashiach", "crist", "masih"  as "the anointed one". Only you for unknown reason broaden that definition to "everything the Eastern Orthodox Church believes about Jesus of Nazareth".

There are many reasons to blame Muslims of. We do not need to invent more, especially ungrounded ones.

Bah, so says Michal the New Theologian. I don't buy it. You don't like that, too bad.
Logged

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

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,133


« Reply #109 on: December 24, 2012, 08:51:47 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.
So it is not proper for a woman to imitate the Mother of God?
Evidently it's not in the West these days.

Oh wait, excuse me..........only if your in a Church. Roll Eyes
Logged

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

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,133


« Reply #110 on: December 24, 2012, 09:06:01 AM »

Yes, fine, but my point is that we cannot look at Muslims and say, as you appeared to be saying in your post, that they veil as the Theotokos veiled, so it's a good thing. It's not an inherently good thing, as they're doing it for wrong reasons, so there's no real comparison to be made. They're not following the example of the mother of God in any way. If they really were, they would be followers of Christ, not the Christ-denying blasphemer Muhammad.
They' doing it because they believe that once a young girl reaches the age of seven she should begin to start covering up her "adornments" or things that separate herself from the boys and not giving them temptation to sin, that's why she veils. she's doing it in order to "avoid the near occasion to sin"......sound familiar?

From the article;

"The parents believe it would be a sin for her head to be uncovered because she has reached puberty and is in the presence of male teachers."



They do it in obedience to God (Allah). Is this such a "wrong reason"?

I'm not advocating the heresy of Islam but not everything in that religion misses the mark. But here in the degenerate, secularized, pornographic West we have lost a sense of modesty and humility with our women (and men for that matter) and we are so brainwashed about our "rights" that many of our women carry themselves openly as venerable whores which we turn a blind eye or are willing to accept just about anything except small forms of common decency practiced by a people where it's culturally accepted to despise these days.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #111 on: December 24, 2012, 09:13:35 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.
So it is not proper for a woman to imitate the Mother of God?
Would you suggest, then, that ALL women become nuns? Last I heard, men can't make babies by themselves.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2012, 09:23:31 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #112 on: December 24, 2012, 09:15:44 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
Do I understand then that according to you,  women should not follow the example of modesty that we see in the Holy Mother of God? I certainly can't agree with that. Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly.
No, you aren't understanding him correctly, for you totally missed that Gebre was speaking in sarcasm, which he often does on this forum.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #113 on: December 24, 2012, 09:18:47 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.
I've not made any assumptions about what was said there.

Which I haven't.
You seem to have some very strong opinions about they should have discussed, however. You also seem to think they owe you an explanation.
They owe the Muslim girl and her family an explanation.....not me.
I disagree; however, the family was given an explaination.  They simply did not like the explaination provided.
How can you disagree when you don't even know what the "explanation" detalied?

Again, they're not even telling us if they told her headcoverings were forbidden at that "private discussion" before her enrollment and if they did why don't they just come out and declare "we told them so!" before they joined the school?

Why is this so difficult? Why do we have to "read between the lines" about this private discussion?

Something fishy's going on here and that's why this Muslim family is taking them to task.
Why do you care?
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,133


« Reply #114 on: December 24, 2012, 09:29:06 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.
I've not made any assumptions about what was said there.

Which I haven't.
You seem to have some very strong opinions about they should have discussed, however. You also seem to think they owe you an explanation.
They owe the Muslim girl and her family an explanation.....not me.
I disagree; however, the family was given an explaination.  They simply did not like the explaination provided.
How can you disagree when you don't even know what the "explanation" detalied?

Again, they're not even telling us if they told her headcoverings were forbidden at that "private discussion" before her enrollment and if they did why don't they just come out and declare "we told them so!" before they joined the school?

Why is this so difficult? Why do we have to "read between the lines" about this private discussion?

Something fishy's going on here and that's why this Muslim family is taking them to task.
Why do you care?
Why do you not?
Logged

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

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,133


« Reply #115 on: December 24, 2012, 09:31:46 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.
So it is not proper for a woman to imitate the Mother of God?
Would you suggest, then, that ALL women become nuns? Last I heard, men can't make babies by themselves.
Do you try to imitate Christ? No babies for you either then.
Logged

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

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #116 on: December 24, 2012, 09:57:58 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.
I've not made any assumptions about what was said there.

Which I haven't.
You seem to have some very strong opinions about they should have discussed, however. You also seem to think they owe you an explanation.
They owe the Muslim girl and her family an explanation.....not me.
I disagree; however, the family was given an explaination.  They simply did not like the explaination provided.
How can you disagree when you don't even know what the "explanation" detalied?

I disagree that they owe an explaination. 
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,636



« Reply #117 on: December 24, 2012, 10:32:34 AM »

So many fails on every side...

[/thread]
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #118 on: December 24, 2012, 11:16:13 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.
I've not made any assumptions about what was said there.

Which I haven't.
You seem to have some very strong opinions about they should have discussed, however. You also seem to think they owe you an explanation.
They owe the Muslim girl and her family an explanation.....not me.
I disagree; however, the family was given an explaination.  They simply did not like the explaination provided.
How can you disagree when you don't even know what the "explanation" detalied?

Again, they're not even telling us if they told her headcoverings were forbidden at that "private discussion" before her enrollment and if they did why don't they just come out and declare "we told them so!" before they joined the school?

Why is this so difficult? Why do we have to "read between the lines" about this private discussion?

Something fishy's going on here and that's why this Muslim family is taking them to task.
Why do you care?
Why do you not?
Because it's none of our business.
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,133


« Reply #119 on: December 24, 2012, 05:07:00 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 they should have discussed, however. You also seem to think they owe you an explanation.
They owe the Muslim girl and her family an explanation.....not me.
I disagree; however, the family was given an explaination.  They simply did not like the explaination provided.
How can you disagree when you don't even know what the "explanation" detalied?

I disagree that they owe an explaination. 
that's the problem.
Logged

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

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,133


« Reply #120 on: December 24, 2012, 05:07:54 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 they should have discussed, however. You also seem to think they owe you an explanation.
They owe the Muslim girl and her family an explanation.....not me.
I disagree; however, the family was given an explaination.  They simply did not like the explaination provided.
How can you disagree when you don't even know what the "explanation" detalied?

Again, they're not even telling us if they told her headcoverings were forbidden at that "private discussion" before her enrollment and if they did why don't they just come out and declare "we told them so!" before they joined the school?

Why is this so difficult? Why do we have to "read between the lines" about this private discussion?

Something fishy's going on here and that's why this Muslim family is taking them to task.
Why do you care?
Why do you not?
Because it's none of our business.
then why is there a thread about it?
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,145


WWW
« Reply #121 on: December 24, 2012, 05:13:50 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 they should have discussed, however. You also seem to think they owe you an explanation.
They owe the Muslim girl and her family an explanation.....not me.
I disagree; however, the family was given an explaination.  They simply did not like the explaination provided.
How can you disagree when you don't even know what the "explanation" detalied?

Again, they're not even telling us if they told her headcoverings were forbidden at that "private discussion" before her enrollment and if they did why don't they just come out and declare "we told them so!" before they joined the school?

Why is this so difficult? Why do we have to "read between the lines" about this private discussion?

Something fishy's going on here and that's why this Muslim family is taking them to task.
Why do you care?
Why do you not?
Because it's none of our business.
then why is there a thread about it?

Because Hyperdox Herman was looking for a little holiday fun.   Wink
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #122 on: December 24, 2012, 07:19:25 PM »

not the Christ-denying blasphemer Muhammad.

How can Muhammad be a Christ-denier as Christ in Islam is one of the most important prophets?

His existence isn't denied, rather His divinity.  To them, Jesus is only a prophet, not even the greatest prophet, and certainly not the Messiah.  They deny Him.

He is Messiah for them.
I find it interesting you leave out "the", as in THE Messiah instead of "a" messiah, simply for the sake of argument.  Why would you do this?
« Last Edit: December 24, 2012, 07:35:57 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #123 on: December 24, 2012, 07:21:27 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 they should have discussed, however. You also seem to think they owe you an explanation.
They owe the Muslim girl and her family an explanation.....not me.
I disagree; however, the family was given an explaination.  They simply did not like the explaination provided.
How can you disagree when you don't even know what the "explanation" detalied?

I disagree that they owe an explaination. 
that's the problem.

For you, perhaps.  Sometimes, we just don't get what we want.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,080


« Reply #124 on: December 24, 2012, 08:23:25 PM »

not the Christ-denying blasphemer Muhammad.

How can Muhammad be a Christ-denier as Christ in Islam is one of the most important prophets?

His existence isn't denied, rather His divinity.  To them, Jesus is only a prophet, not even the greatest prophet, and certainly not the Messiah.  They deny Him.

He is Messiah for them.
I find it interesting you leave out "the", as in THE Messiah instead of "a" messiah, simply for the sake of argument.  Why would you do this?

In common with other Slavic languages (except for Macedonian and Bulgarian), neither Belorussian nor Polish have definite articles, so Michal could have just forgotten it. 
Logged

Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #125 on: December 24, 2012, 08:28:58 PM »

not the Christ-denying blasphemer Muhammad.

How can Muhammad be a Christ-denier as Christ in Islam is one of the most important prophets?

His existence isn't denied, rather His divinity.  To them, Jesus is only a prophet, not even the greatest prophet, and certainly not the Messiah.  They deny Him.

He is Messiah for them.
I find it interesting you leave out "the", as in THE Messiah instead of "a" messiah, simply for the sake of argument.  Why would you do this?

In common with other Slavic languages (except for Macedonian and Bulgarian), neither Belorussian nor Polish have definite articles, so Michal could have just forgotten it. 

I hope that is the case, and it is a plausible explanation.  Still, I believe he likely knows the intent of what people are saying.  Perhaps we should use the word Savior instead of Messiah, although, depending on which definition is used, it would mean the same thing.  In any event, he cannot deny Muslims deny Jesus for who He really was.
Logged
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 594


« Reply #126 on: December 24, 2012, 10:44:58 PM »

The hijab is essentially a headscarf right? How can an orthodox school ban that? Its their right and all but wheres the logic in it?
Logged

Thank you.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,836


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #127 on: December 25, 2012, 03:35:51 AM »

The hijab is essentially a headscarf right? How can an orthodox school ban that? Its their right and all but wheres the logic in it?

Ethnic prejudice.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #128 on: December 25, 2012, 04:20:49 AM »

The hijab is essentially a headscarf right? How can an orthodox school ban that? Its their right and all but wheres the logic in it?

Ethnic prejudice.

How so?  Are others allowed to wear their specific type of head coverings?  Is anyone allowed head coverings?  Maybe I don't understand what you mean.  Perhaps it is as simply as school policy and there is nothing else to this.  At this point, no one has all of the specifics so I feel it may be a little premature for this sort of statement.  Even in public schools here in the United States, there are still types of clothing students are not allowed to wear.  Why don’t we all stop playing the feelings game without enough information.  Based on what we do know, nothing has been done which is legally wrong.  Morally, perhaps...that is debatable, but legally, no.  At least nothing we can say for certain.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,080


« Reply #129 on: December 25, 2012, 04:33:36 AM »

The hijab is essentially a headscarf right? How can an orthodox school ban that? Its their right and all but wheres the logic in it?

Ethnic prejudice.

"Muslim" is not an ethnicity. Try again.
Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #130 on: December 25, 2012, 06:19:45 AM »

In any event, he cannot deny Muslims deny Jesus for who He really was.

Roman Catholics also deny it. Not to mention Protestants or Nestorians.

The hijab is essentially a headscarf right? How can an orthodox school ban that? Its their right and all but wheres the logic in it?

Ethnic prejudice.

"Muslim" is not an ethnicity. Try again.

Hijab is not a Muslim thing. Try again.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #131 on: December 25, 2012, 06:40:31 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.
I've not made any assumptions about what was said there.

Which I haven't.
You seem to have some very strong opinions about they should have discussed, however. You also seem to think they owe you an explanation.
They owe the Muslim girl and her family an explanation.....not me.
I disagree; however, the family was given an explaination.  They simply did not like the explaination provided.
How can you disagree when you don't even know what the "explanation" detalied?

Again, they're not even telling us if they told her headcoverings were forbidden at that "private discussion" before her enrollment and if they did why don't they just come out and declare "we told them so!" before they joined the school?

Why is this so difficult? Why do we have to "read between the lines" about this private discussion?

Something fishy's going on here and that's why this Muslim family is taking them to task.
Why do you care?
Why do you not?
Because it's none of our business.
then why is there a thread about it?
Again, why do you care?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #132 on: December 25, 2012, 06:44:31 AM »

In any event, he cannot deny Muslims deny Jesus for who He really was.

Roman Catholics also deny it. Not to mention Protestants or Nestorians.

It may help a little if you stop talking in riddles.  It seems you are the only one who knows what you are really saying.  This limits discussion considerably.  Actually, it makes it almost one sided.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #133 on: December 25, 2012, 06:48:32 AM »

In any event, he cannot deny Muslims deny Jesus for who He really was.

Roman Catholics also deny it. Not to mention Protestants or Nestorians.

The hijab is essentially a headscarf right? How can an orthodox school ban that? Its their right and all but wheres the logic in it?

Ethnic prejudice.

"Muslim" is not an ethnicity. Try again.

Hijab is not a Muslim thing. Try again.

"the traditional head, face, or body covering worn by Muslim women or men. It does not only refer to the physical body covering, but also embodies a metaphysical dimension, where al-hijab refers to "the veil which separates man or the world from God.""

Really?

Why is it then when I google it the only references to hijab are from or about Islam?

For instance:

hi·jab (h-jäb)
n.
1. The headscarf worn by Muslim women, sometimes including a veil that covers the face except for the eyes.
2. The veiling or seclusion of women in some Islamic societies, customarily practiced in order to maintain standards of modesty.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2012, 06:49:48 AM by Kerdy » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #134 on: December 25, 2012, 07:09:21 AM »

These Muslims do not wear them:

Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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 0.232 seconds with 71 queries.