Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 6412804)

And covering yourself from head to toe is also backwards and also a very sexist tradition imo

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 6412957)

I agree. I wasn't expecting to read a thread of people agreeing with the college when I read the title, it saddens me that the majority of the people here so far have done so.

Originally Posted by Salman! (Post 6412869)

omg it ****in pisses me off so much how ignorant people are. it may be funny for you but it's seriously seriously aggravating that people are so judgemental going by what they see in the news. Islam has disadvantages for men too you know, and in many aspects empowers women

-In Islam, women are not required to go to mosque - they have the freedom to pray at home, unlike men who are obliged to go 5 times a day and believe me, prayers at mosques are far longer and it's tough. It's especially difficult for men in Ramadan because they're required to pray late at night after an entire day of fasting for two hours in hot cramped conditions, whereas women's prayer is much shorter and from the comfort of their home & with more flexible times.
-Pregnant women do not need to fast during Ramadan
-Islam hails mothers. they're given more value than fathers and Heaven is said to lie at their feet
-The burqa is not compulsory. Women who therefore wear it are clearly choosing to cover themselves. Banning it an infringement of women's rights and goes completely against what it claims to do
-Judging a woman who does not wear a headscarf is regarded a huge sin
-Islam teaches individuals to lower their gaze and not view people as sexual objects which empowers both sexes
-pretty sure the majority of Muslim woman will tell you they don't feel oppressed so how the **** can you speak for them

Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6413475)

I agree that they should be allowed to wear what they want, and as long as it is solely their choice, and not compulsory (like some countries), then it really isn't anyone's business what an individual chooses to wear.

However, lets not pretend that Islam is great to/for women. Islam had a decent approach to womens rights considering the time period, but that's it. The age that Mohammed married and had sex with Aisha at, continues to this day to contribute to child abuse.

I do agree with your argument, but having women at home preparing the feasts, whilst being praised by Mohammed for praying privately in their quarters is no doubt just a happy accident.

Originally Posted by Salman! (Post 6413512)

well every society used to be like that, with their treatment of women and children being married (iirc there was a European king who married a girl under 10) so it's not exclusive to Islamic societies and that isn't what Islam is about. The marriage between Aisha and the Prophet SAW was only consummated when Aisha was deemed to be sexually mature and research by Islamic scholars suggest that she was actually 19 when they consummated, but whatever it was it's irrelevant to Islamic teachings and only happened because society was less developed

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123 (Post 6422188)

If this college rule gets overturned then what next? Naturist turning up starkers? Co's if they did the whole country would kick off about that but naturists too should also be allowed to express the exact same freedom as this girl is demaning by dressing or undressing how they see fit in public just like this muslim girl has, which after all is exactly the same kind of freedom that people want.

Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6422257)

Well naturalists would have to travel to school to begin with, and they are probably breaking laws of public decency if they traveled naked on buses.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 6422785)

And if the naturists start claiming that it's a religion; that they believe covering up and part of their body (God's creation?) is an insult to Him and His work? What then? Surely, by the same rules of religious freedom that apply to the veil, it would have to be legalized... and accepted in establishments such as colleges.

You can't start picking and choosing, deeming one religion more legitimate than another... the rules have to be the same across the board. So, either it's OK for a college to disallow the veil, OR all religious freedoms are valid, and so they'd have to allow these new Naturochristians (that I have just invented AND named, awesome) to exercise their right to religious freedom by attending college buck naked.

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 6423272)

what about rastafarians? i know here in America rastafarians in prison have tried to be allowed to smoke pot as part of their religion. Also there are some South American religions that use hallucinogenic drugs in their rituals. How far does religious freedom extend?

Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6423270)

Finally, you can't just claim yourself a religion and have access to religious freedoms. There are conditions that need to be met in order to receive religious benefits. There is a name for a group of people that get together and claim they are a religion, and that is cult.

Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6423273)

I'm a social libertarian, so I believe they should be allowed to smoke what they want, regardless of any religious issues/freedoms.

I'm less interested in religious freedom, than personal freedom, and I know that's odd living in the CCTV nation.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 6423278)

We fundamentally disagree here again; I'd be more inclined to say "there's a name for a cult with more than a few thousand members. It's called a religion.". I personally find it ridiculous that one load of fairytales and nonsense can be considered "more legitimate" than another, purely on the grounds that more people happen to believe it.

I'm not necessarily saying that people would be lying about their beliefs in order to manipulate freedoms. I'm saying that, feasibly, there hypothetically COULD be a group of people who believe that hiding the naked body, supposedly the pinnacle of God's "work", could be considered blasphemy. It's a perfectly justifiable religious logic, much moreso than covering it, debatably. And if that group did exist, and was to be considered a "real" religion, would it not then follow that those people could claim the right to be naked wherever they want to be naked, on religious grounds?

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 6423280)

but you can understand how having hundreds of violent prisoners tripped out on hallucinogens might be difficult to manage? i'm just saying, there has to be SOME restrictions on religious(and personal) freedom. just out of pure practicality.

That being said, I agree that how someone wears a head scarf or their facial hair is completely a non-issue when you are talking about school kids. I think even school uniforms are ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6423282)

Isn't the whole point of prison to remove people from society, thus restricting freedom?

Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 6423283)

well exactly, but technically the prison is also their home. and they do deserve some individual rights in their own home, even in prison. So it's a balance. Same for schools on a much less intense scale, schools are also institutions where there needs to be a certain level of control. It's a large group of people being governed by a small number of people. Anytime there are large groups of people there are certain rules you need just to keep the peace, in a large group you are no longer just an individual, you are also part of the group. being part of a large group, you have to accept that you are not just an individual any more.