and now the school is being sued: "After barring the girl on two separate occasions, the Muskogee Public School District finally relented and re-admitted her on October 19 after two advocacy groups intervened on her behalf. " http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0/ts_alt_afp/us_muslim_education_031030010258
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a second... why is it ok for the girl to wear a headscarf, but not for a teacher to wear a cross on the outside of her shirt?
If indeed teachers are not allowed to do that, I suppose it would be because they are authority figures representing the school.
That would be my guess, too. If that's the case anywhere. Is it, Dante? In my opinion, if it is that's a pretty gross overapplication of that idea (viz, authority figures displaying particular religiousity impinge upon their subordinates' freedom of/from religion). For one thing, I don't buy the notion that kids would actually be oppressed by the simple fact of their teacher wearing a crucifix. For another, how could this be evenly enforced? Certainly, there are thousands of less familiar religious symbols a teacher might wear and get away with simply because that religion is less familiar to the people who are supposed to police that sort of thing. Wouldn't that then be discriminatory, de facto, against the more familiar religions? Okay, I'll just sit here and wait for the lawyers to come kick me around.
Maybe not oppressed, but certainly influenced. Is there anything kids aren't influenced by? Especially when it's coming from the one authority figure in a room full of 11 year olds?
They wouldn;t be influenced by it unless the teacher preached about Jesus, which they arn't allowed to do.
Teacher fired for wearing crucifix I found this, but have no idea what ultimately happened in this case: http://www.shenangoinstitute.org/brief/5.7 An Expression of Faith.htm
Why in the world are people still comparing this to a teacher wearing a cross? First, one is a student and the other is a teacher - students have a wider array of rights in what they can wear and do. Second, Islam requires the head scarf to be worn while nothing in Christianity requires a cross to be displayed. There is absolutly no similarity at all.
Because Christianity is under attack by fundamentalist Islam and its natural ally, secular humanism. Why are teachers given parking places at elementary schools, while students aren't? Blatant discrimination, I tell you.
Radical fundamentalist Islam requires a head scarf to be worn, yes. I'm sure there are sects of Christianity that require followers to wear a cross at all times too.
Alex and spejic, you're both wrong, though Alex is closer. Head scarves are worn by some Muslim girls. Certainly it's not "Islam" requiring it. Often, it correlates to a more conservative family philosophy (which is where Alex was going, I guess), but it's definitely common with many who are not radicals. In some families, one girl will choose to wear it, while her sister or aunt may not. In any case, the cross analogy is beyond moronic. A cross is THE symbol of Christ and the religion based on his life. A scarf worn by an 11 year old girl is merely her family's interpretation of "modesty." It has no religious symbolism for Islam or any other religion. Anyway, bravo to the conservative rights group for tackling this issue. The principal and schoolboard should be fired. Doubly nice that this is happening during Ramadan!
Influenced by, perhaps, but influenced how much? More than a child's parents? And while I agree that kids are amazingly receptive to influence they can also be amazingly resistant. I can easily see a situation wherein an a authority figure, such as teacher or a boss, could build an environment that oppresses by numerous indirect or subtle acts, including the wearing of religious symbols (similar to sexual harrassment). But to my mind, that's still a long way from your sixth grade teacher wearing her plain gold crucifix as (we assume) a personal expression of her faith. Without addressing Spejic's point about the lack of comparability between the two examples, but I'm curious. If it's true that a teacher, or teachers in general, have been prevented from wearing crosses in school I haven't heard about it. Can anybody save me the backbreaking labor of another google search? Should it be protected under the rubric of freedom of religion, then? You're certainly right, I realize, about the degree of choice involved in whether to wear a scarf or veil or the more elaborate versions of personal cloistering. However, many religions make similar choices available to their worshippers, and these are valued within those communities as expressions of faith, or fealty to God's will, or something along those lines. So in this case I would class this particular expression of modesty as a religious act, despite the fact that there is such a thing as secular modesty.
Re: Teacher fired for wearing crucifix She won her suit, and has been reinstated with back pay. I don't have the link in front of me, but it was decided prior to the school year starting.
Re: Teacher fired for wearing crucifix Sorry monop_poly, I was a little too zippy with my wheel mouse and missed you the first time through. Thanks for the link, and thanks to HC for the update.
> Head scarves are worn by some Muslim girls. > Certainly it's not "Islam" requiring it. The Koran doesn't specifically ask for a head scarf, but if you ask the parents of the girl doing this they would almost certainly tell you that they are doing it for religious reasons. If it was just a token of modesty, there wouldn't be any fight, would there? > I'm sure there are sects of Christianity that > require followers to wear a cross at all times too. I don't know of any. Can you name one?
I'm not following you here. Why would there be no fight? My understanding from the article is that the school has a policy against ALL "headgear." I'm guessing they didn't want guys in bandanas or baseball caps. So this girl's family, like many Muslim families, interpret their religion's call for girls to dress modestly as saying that she should wear a scarft. So yes, it is about their faith, even their Islamic faith, but not about "Islam," as I think we agree. Lots of followers of conservative religious groups have similar dress codes: Amish, orthodox Jews, Catholic nuns, etc.
You could (and indeed, the teachers aide did) make the same arguement for wearing a cross as for wearing the head scarf - religious reasons. I can't think of any Christian sects which require wearing a cross, but I do know several women who have had crosses soldered on permenantly. FYI - I don't wear a cross.
I saw a picture of a girl's HS soccer game here in Jersey and there was a girl dressed head to toe in Arab garb. I guess a bicycle kick for her is out of the question.
Yes, I think it should fall under rubric of religious freedom. My point was not that this did not represent a religious choice for the girl. I was merely pointing out that this was not "Islam" or even specifically "radical Islam." Nonetheless, clearly this is a religious choice for the girl's family. Would the school prohibit a Jewish boy from wearing a yammukah? That's a better analogy. The teacher wearing a cross comparison is dumb on a couple levels: 1) It seems like a red herring in that we've no evidence that it's ever been banned. 2) The cross is a specific and universally recognizable symbol. A head covering is not. 3) Teachers and students have different roles and rights in school settings. In any case, I'd be very surprised if teachers aren't allowed to wear crosses. I'd be pissed at that, and I'm not religious.
yeah im gonna need some proof of this teacher cross business... even if it did happen, i'd chalk it up to an overzealous administrator (much like the one in this case) - some teachers in my school wore crosses or stars of david on necklaces