Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Teacher wearing hijab

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't consider it inappropriate to teach about sex-ed in a full manner, as I was done in school. Mentioning abstinence and contraceptive methods in full. T'is royally off the topic of hijab though.

    How we're all meant to be offended at the message behind the hijab is beyond me. If you disagree with it don't wear / encourage people to wear one. It's that simple.

    Again you objected to a condom being placed in front of a student at a debs. If you don't want to have sex don't have sex, is it not that simple? Of course I doubt you think it was that simple in this instance. If I remember correctly you strongly held the position that such action increases the pressure on the student to conform to the notions the teacher is pushing, that being that it is ok to have pre-marital sex.

    I'm trying to establish a base line here Philologos.

    If you think nothing a teacher does can influence a student under them fair enough, there is not much more to say because we don't agree on that. But then I suspect if you were honest you wouldn't admit you don't think that.


  • #53
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    On the one hand I dont have an issue with it (I wouldnt mind if my Doctor or Solicitor was wearing religious garments - unless they began to advise me based on their religious beliefs).

    On the other hand I do have an issue as I dont believe religion should be advertised in schools. Id be wary that my child would see this and think its ok to have religious belief, whereas I believe that religion and/or belief in God is silly and it would not be something that I would want a child of mine to strive for. On balance I suppose I could explain to my child why I do not believe in God and why I think they shouldnt either, but the idea that someone in charge of vunerable children could be indoctrinating them would not sit well with me.
    I would not send a child to a school that had any connection to religious orders specifically to avoid this.

    Just to be clear - Id have the same issue no matter what the garment was - so long as it advertised religion to children I would not be happy.


  • #54
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    How is the garment advertising? :confused:

    Also if your child thinks its OK to have a religious belief that's their prerogative in a free society. I don't see why your child should be shielded from someone wearing a hijab just because you don't like it.

    Are you going to cover your child's eyes every time someone wears a hijab in the street. It's just an absolutely ridiculous suggestion.

    Do you think that schools should ban people from wearing the hijab or a turban?


  • #55
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    The garment has no other function than to advertise/comply with a particular religion - therefore its advertising.

    Id rather that a child not be making decisions at all about whether or not its ok for someone to have religious belief - Id rather that that decision wasnt taken til adulthood.

    No - I wouldnt shield the childs eyes on the street - but there is a difference between seeing a random stranger on the street and having a teacher that they look up to who is guiding their education and development. The teacher is a role model, whether or not they intend to be.

    Yes, I do think that religion in all its forms should be banned from schools. I dont believe its appropriate to advertise religion in schools - I dont believe in the indoctrination of vunerable children.


  • #56
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    username123 wrote: »
    The garment has no other function than to advertise/comply with a particular religion - therefore its advertising.

    Here's a post by another user describing why the hijab is worn according to Islam. Don't agree with it all myself but it is more than what you are saying.
    username123 wrote: »
    Id rather that a child not be making decisions at all about whether or not its ok for someone to have religious belief - Id rather that that decision wasnt taken til adulthood.

    This doesn't mean that anyone has the right to shield their children from the world which is what you are suggesting. There is however a right to freedom of expression and religion.
    username123 wrote: »
    No - I wouldnt shield the childs eyes on the street - but there is a difference between seeing a random stranger on the street and having a teacher that they look up to who is guiding their education and development. The teacher is a role model, whether or not they intend to be.

    What's wrong with having a Muslim role-model? Or a Christian one, or a Jewish one? You can look up to people without adopting all their religions.
    username123 wrote: »
    Yes, I do think that religion in all its forms should be banned from schools. I dont believe its appropriate to advertise religion in schools - I dont believe in the indoctrination of vunerable children.

    Then I say that positions like yours have no place in a pluralist society. A good friend of mine who was a Sikh wore a turban in school, there was no problem with it and we didn't all become Sikhs.


  • #57
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    philologos wrote: »
    Then I say that positions like yours have no place in a pluralist society. A good friend of mine who was a Sikh wore a turban in school, there was no problem with it and we didn't all become Sikhs.

    Apologies philologos, I thought you meant teachers in schools, not children.

    I realise that my position may seem strange to someone who has religious beliefs, Im not saying Im right or wrong, but from my perspective religion is a false belief system in a supernatural being or beings, with no evidence to support it and I would rather a child not be exposed to such nonsense in school in much the same way that Id rather they not be exposed to Astrology, Healing Crystals or any other nonsense in their formative years. Not by the teachers anyway. I wouldnt be particularly militant about it, but if it came down to personal choice, Id rather my child go to a school without religious accoutrements, or advertisements.


  • #58
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Again, it's not a right to shield your child from the world. A hijab doesn't stop the teacher teaching, it doesn't have some kind of adverse affect on the child. It is simply a cultural / religious item of dress. I hold it in the same was as I would regard a Jewish man deciding to wear a kippah in the classroom.


  • #59
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    philologos wrote: »
    Again, it's not a right to shield your child from the world.

    Actually I would strongly disagree with this - it is every parents right to raise their children as they choose. I dont agree with parents indoctrinating children into various religions - but that does not mean that they do not have the right to do so.


  • #60
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    username123 wrote: »
    Actually I would strongly disagree with this - it is every parents right to raise their children as they choose. I dont agree with parents indoctrinating children into various religions - but that does not mean that they do not have the right to do so.

    It's not a legal right in terms of the law and as such the legal right of the teacher to freedom of religion and expression supersedes the non-legal right. You bring your child to school, but you don't have the right to control whether or not the teacher wears hijab or not.

    Wearing a hijab != indoctrination, but also it is up to the parents to decide how best to raise their child in terms of teaching them moral principles.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    philologos wrote: »
    It's not a legal right in terms of the law and as such the legal right of the teacher to freedom of religion and expression supersedes the non-legal right. You bring your child to school, but you don't have the right to control whether or not the teacher wears hijab or not.

    Yes - i dont disagree with the above - however the OP asked for opinions on her wearing a hijab to school as a teacher and I offered my opinion on it.

    You think its fine - I disagree. Thats it.


  • #62
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    philologos wrote: »
    It's not a legal right in terms of the law

    Maybe I'm wrong but doesn't article 42 of the constitution actually say it is (in so much as they have to ensure the child receives a minimum education)?:
    "42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children."
    philologos wrote: »
    and as such the legal right of the teacher to freedom of religion and expression supersedes the non-legal right.

    When acting as an employee of the state, I'm not sure that it does. I dont think that all forms of freedom of religion and expression are effected, but a teacher certainly wouldn't be allowed to proselytise to their students simply because their religion informs them to.
    philologos wrote: »
    You bring your child to school, but you don't have the right to control whether or not the teacher wears hijab or not.

    If the teacher was a nudist, would s/he have the right to make them wear clothes?
    philologos wrote: »
    Wearing a hijab != indoctrination

    I actually agree with you (shocker). I understand where username123 is coming from, but I see a difference between children being aware that people believe in different religions regardless of their position in life and someone actually trying to indoctrinate a specific religious belief to a child. As long as the teacher isn't bringing up their religion, then it is no more indoctrination then if a supermarket sales assistant was wearing one.


  • #63
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Maybe I'm wrong but doesn't article 42 of the constitution actually say it is (in so much as they have to ensure the child receives a minimum education)?:
    "42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children."

    The hijab is an item of clothing. You'd really have to stretch that constitutionally, even then it could be a constitutional violation to coerce a teacher not to wear hijab.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    When acting as an employee of the state, I'm not sure that it does. I dont think that all forms of freedom of religion and expression are effected, but a teacher certainly wouldn't be allowed to proselytise to their students simply because their religion informs them to.

    You may have a point but it isn't really applicable in the case of hijab.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If the teacher was a nudist, would s/he have the right to make them wear clothes?

    The law claims that indecent exposure is illegal.


  • #64
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    philologos wrote: »
    The hijab is an item of clothing. You'd really have to stretch that constitutionally, even then it could be a constitutional violation to coerce a teacher not to wear hijab.

    I was saying that article 42 supports username123's "it is every parents right to raise their children as they choose." I thought you were disputing this in general. If you just meant in terms of the hijab, then I agree with you. A parent has the right to raise their child as they see fit, but thats not the same thing as the parent having the right to make other people hide their individual beliefs from their children. Eventually kids are going to encounter them, and its a good lesson to impart to kids that people have varying religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean these people cant function in society.
    philologos wrote: »
    You may have a point but it isn't really applicable in the case of hijab.

    I agree, not in the case of the hijab, as I dont see it as proselytising, but there are situations where a persons freedom of religion may be fettered as a result of being state employed (and therefore representing the state).


  • #65
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I was saying that article 42 supports username123's "it is every parents right to raise their children as they choose." I thought you were disputing this in general. If you just meant in terms of the hijab, then I agree with you. A parent has the right to raise their child as they see fit, but thats not the same thing as the parent having the right to make other people hide their individual beliefs from their children. Eventually kids are going to encounter them, and its a good lesson to impart to kids that people have varying religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean these people cant function in society.

    Agreed.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I agree, not in the case of the hijab, as I dont see it as proselytising, but there are situations where a persons freedom of religion may be fettered as a result of being state employed (and therefore representing the state).

    I don't even consider it as "representing the State". It's just in the function of teaching that one should teach what is expected of them. In RE it is fine to talk about ones beliefs where relevant.


  • #66
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    philologos wrote: »
    Agreed.

    I don't even consider it as "representing the State".

    Ok
    philologos wrote: »
    It's just in the function of teaching that one should teach what is expected of them. In RE it is fine to talk about ones beliefs where relevant.

    Agreed


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    I would just like to point out I'm not calling on this teacher being legally stopped from wearing a hijab. I don't know if others are, but I'm not.

    I don't think it is a particularly good idea, but I don't think she should be forced to not.


  • #68
    yammycat
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭yammycat


    philologos wrote: »
    From what I've read of the Qur'an it seems pretty clear Qur'anically. (Surah 24:30-31). Perhaps I am wrong and some of the Muslim posters will put me in the right direction.

    It's pretty pointless taking anything said in a holy book as literal , if so as well as wearing a hijab if her students were non believers she should also be putting them to death.

    Sura 4:89


  • #69
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    yammycat wrote: »
    It's pretty pointless taking anything said in a holy book as literal , if so as well as wearing a hijab if her students were non believers she should also be putting them to death.

    Sura 4:89

    As far as I'm concerned it is up to her as to how she intends to follow Islam. I'm not going to defend the Qur'an, only the liberties that Muslims should have in a free society like ours.

    I support the OP in doing whatever she desires. I disagree with Islam as I believe it is an impediment to the Christian Gospel spreading, but we have to tolerate others.


  • #70
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    yammycat wrote: »
    It's pretty pointless taking anything said in a holy book as literal , if so as well as wearing a hijab if her students were non believers she should also be putting them to death.

    Sura 4:89

    Tbh, thats a little out of context, I think:
    Sura 4:90 "Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them."

    It might seem odd that the quran has to specify not to kill non-believers who have peace treaties with islamic groups, but it does seem to do so. The killing of non believers is only for those that are physically attacking islam.


  • #71
    yammycat
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭yammycat


    Mark Hamill wrote: »

    It might seem odd that the quran has to specify not to kill non-believers who have peace treaties with islamic groups, but it does seem to do so. The killing of non believers is only for those that are physically attacking islam.

    Well for the words of God they are not very specific and contain no mention of 'physical' which you mention, it's quite possible to fight without physical force, some people believe drawing pictures is fighting, some people believe not covering your head is fighting.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    yammycat wrote: »
    Well for the words of God they are not very specific and contain no mention of 'physical' which you mention, it's quite possible to fight without physical force, some people believe drawing pictures is fighting, some people believe not covering your head is fighting.

    I find a lot of Quranic translations differ quite a bit in how they render words. They might be right in saying that the Arabic is the only fully reliable source of the Qur'an.


  • #73
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    philologos wrote: »
    I find a lot of Quranic translations differ quite a bit in how they render words. They might be right in saying that the Arabic is the only fully reliable source of the Qur'an.

    It is trust me. There is no direct translation to English of some Arabic words. This is partially why the translations vary. Even a small change can cause a lot of people to take a completely different meaning from a line.


  • #74
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    yammycat wrote: »
    Well for the words of God they are not very specific and contain no mention of 'physical' which you mention, it's quite possible to fight without physical force, some people believe drawing pictures is fighting, some people believe not covering your head is fighting.

    Seeing as it says not to fight non believers if they offer peace (as opposed to offer converting) I would interpret it as meaning only hostile non believers should be killed. You are right in that its not specific enough (its obviously not that hard to interpret it a different way, many muslims do), something you would assume that a god would ensure when coming up with them, but there you go.


  • #75
    Splendour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    madame rouge wrote: »
    Looking for a bit of advice here. I'm a muslim convert and a secondary school teacher. At the moment I don't wear hijab but am seriously thinking about wearing it. Although I have never hidden the fact that I'm muslim it is not something that students or parents would be aware of. I'm worried about the backlash at school from students, parents and maybe even my colleagues. Would I even be allowed to wear it at school? What about those of you that are not muslim? What would you think if one of your kids teachers suddenly turned up in hijab?
    I know that when I decide to wear hijab it will be for me and not to please or displease anybody else....still, it doesn't make it any easier!

    OP, you say you have never hidden the fact that you are a muslim. Did you wear your hiijab when you went for your job interview with the school?


  • #76
    Dun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,967 ✭✭✭Dun


    If the hijab were "just a piece of clothing", then this thread would never have started. A hijab in Ireland cannot be compared to someone wearing a cross. Christians are in the majority here, and few people are going to notice someone wearing a cross.

    Not being a Muslim, I cannot say what the hijab truly means to a Muslim, but to a Christian at least it is a very strong and very obvious religious statement. Given that most people know that Islam is a highly proselytic religion - as is Christianity, but that's well established and no longer relevant to here - I am sure that many parents will be concerned about the influence that it will have on their children. Again, I have to disagree with the point regarding seeing Islamic dress in public. Passing someone in the street wearing Islamic dress is not the same as entrusting the care and education of your children to someone that they should respect and look up to, who starts wearing Islamic dress.

    I am by no means trying to say that the OP will try to convert anybody, or preach or teach Islam or Islamic values to children. In fact when I read her first post, it is more than obvious she wouldn't - but how are parents to know that? Maybe that's a bit irrational, but it's hard to be rational when it's your own children in question.


  • #77
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dun wrote: »
    I am by no means trying to say that the OP will try to convert anybody, or preach or teach Islam or Islamic values to children. In fact when I read her first post, it is more than obvious she wouldn't - but how are parents to know that? Maybe that's a bit irrational, but it's hard to be rational when it's your own children in question.

    If parents are unwilling to trust teachers in a school they should find a school where they can trust in the teachers. The right of the teacher to the freedom of religion shouldn't be hindered by this.


  • #78
    Dun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,967 ✭✭✭Dun


    That's a very simplistic view, and hardly a decision to take lightly especially if a child has already been in a school for several years, and it's the only one in your locality.


  • #79
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It might be a simplistic view but to suggest that the parent should be able to pressure teachers into not exercising their basic freedoms and liberties is wrong in my opinion. You can decide where your child goes to school, but you can't decide the faith of the teachers.


  • #80
    Dun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,967 ✭✭✭Dun


    It's not deciding the faith of the teachers - she's already teaching there. If this were a male Muslim teacher, it wouldn't be in question. It's a question if such an overt religious symbol is acceptable in the classroom. And I'm sure that, rightly or wrongly (my own opinion being the latter), it would likely be more than one parent that might be concerned.


  • #81
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dun: One can't legally deny this liberty to the teacher. Certainly not without a legal mess. I think it would be positive for any child to be able to experience and acknowledge diversity. It is a step in maturity to know that we can respectfully disagree with others.

    If parents don't want a hijabi teacher the option is for them to move not for the school to deny the fundamental right of the teacher to practice her religion.

    This makes sense for anyone who thinks that Western freedoms, values and liberties concerning toleration are worth defending in our societies.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Dun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,967 ✭✭✭Dun


    There are always going to be limits of tolerance, and there are plenty of practices in many religions that would push those limits. It doesn't matter how much tolerance you have, I'm sure that you can find something that you would find unacceptable in another religion, that would be deemed normal or obligatory practice. I'm not saying by any means that the hijab should be something that would normally push that, but as I said before, this isn't someone in the street. This is "our Mary's" teacher, and "our Mary" is at a very influenceable age, so I don't think parents' feelings can just be dismissed as intolerance or otherwise.

    Regarding the original post, cause this is veering off into the "big debate", I feel that the OP should weigh up her feelings about wearing the hijab. If it's something that she feels she needs to do, then she should go down the routes already discussed about talking to her employers and so on. If it's something that she wants to do - obviously there are much differing views in the world of Islam on the hijab or other dress - then again, she needs to decide if it's worth it to her pushing for it.


  • #83
    JuliusCaesar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭JuliusCaesar


    I don't understand why women have to wear any kind of scarf or hide their hair.

    IN THE PAST:
    They used do this in Christianity too - you had to cover your hair in Church was the last hold-out of this custom. The only reasoning behind it is that the sight of a woman's hair is inflammatory to a man who will then not be able to contain his lust. :rolleyes: and thus rape was the woman's fault.


    MODERN TIMES:
    Nuns no longer wear habits or veil but they dress modestly - without covering up their hair.

    Men are responsible for controlling themselves.

    QUESTION:
    Is covering yourself/your head/your hair (only if you are a woman!) endogenous to PLACE or to RELIGION?
    How does it make women spiritual? Does it have the same effect on a man?


  • #84
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dun wrote: »
    There are always going to be limits of tolerance, and there are plenty of practices in many religions that would push those limits. It doesn't matter how much tolerance you have, I'm sure that you can find something that you would find unacceptable in another religion, that would be deemed normal or obligatory practice. I'm not saying by any means that the hijab should be something that would normally push that, but as I said before, this isn't someone in the street. This is "our Mary's" teacher, and "our Mary" is at a very influenceable age, so I don't think parents' feelings can just be dismissed as intolerance or otherwise.

    The law protects the freedom of religion of the individual. It's her right to wear the hijab. It doesn't interfere with teaching as there are millions of Muslim women teaching across the world. As such it seems more of an intolerance and I don't see why the school need attempt to deny a teacher her basic freedoms because some parents have a prejudice towards Muslims.
    JuliusCaesar wrote: »
    I don't understand why women have to wear any kind of scarf or hide their hair.

    IN THE PAST:
    They used do this in Christianity too - you had to cover your hair in Church was the last hold-out of this custom. The only reasoning behind it is that the sight of a woman's hair is inflammatory to a man who will then not be able to contain his lust. :rolleyes: and thus rape was the woman's fault.

    [citation needed]

    The only mention in Christianity of covering hair was in church (1 Corinthians 11) and even then it was optional if you read the passage.

    What you've said simply isn't true on a Biblical level.


  • #85
    yammycat
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭yammycat


    philologos wrote: »



    What you've said simply isn't true on a Biblical level.

    He didn't mention the bible.


  • #86
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    The primary source for what is Christian from what isn't is the Bible. Seems like the best place to look. I'm just wondering where the poster pulled that out of.


  • #87
    JuliusCaesar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭JuliusCaesar


    philologos wrote: »
    The primary source for what is Christian from what isn't is the Bible. Seems like the best place to look. I'm just wondering where the poster pulled that out of.

    Oh, from Irish Catholicism. Don't have a reference, bar my grannie, now sadly passed away. Wikipaedia has a wiki on it too.

    Now, which book in the Old Testament is full of instructions on what animals to sacrifice and how, and why priests shouldn't wear glasses? Leviticus. Never saw that followed in my life. Confession? Was that Biblically endorsed? Fish on Fridays? Mariolatry? Lots of different interpretations of not only Biblical stuff, but interpretation of different theologians.

    Never saw too many of Jesus's preachings followed either - Love thy neighbour?? Love lepers??

    Anyway, not Biblically true, but socially and culturally. Hence my question about the Hijab.

    PS I'm not a Christian myself.


  • #88
    Dun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,967 ✭✭✭Dun


    philologos wrote: »

    The law protects the freedom of religion of the individual. It's her right to wear the hijab. It doesn't interfere with teaching as there are millions of Muslim women teaching across the world. As such it seems more of an intolerance and I don't see why the school need attempt to deny a teacher her basic freedoms because some parents have a prejudice towards Muslims.
    I'm not saying that it's right, I'm saying that I can understand why people might have concerns, especially when dealing with a new convert (presumably Irish, but obviously I don't know), as she's done something that they may even as much as fear their kids doing. Islam is a religion that places great merit on proselytising, and many people know that. Put that in the mix with the fact that teenagers are at an age where they are very influencable, and they aren't in the classroom to know what is happening. Then throw into the mix that few parents know what's going on in the mind of a teenager.

    OP - I hope you're not offended, I'm not questioning your views or integrity, I'm just playing devil's advocate, pointing out a reason why parents might be (needlessly) concerned. I'm sure as a teacher you already have come across situations involving yourself or a colleague, where rationality seems to have left the door when a parent is discussing their child. It's not right, but nothing's black and white in these situations.


  • #89
    yammycat
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭yammycat


    philologos wrote: »
    The primary source for what is Christian from what isn't is the Bible. Seems like the best place to look. I'm just wondering where the poster pulled that out of.

    Have you seen a nun lately ?


  • #90
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dun wrote: »
    I'm not saying that it's right, I'm saying that I can understand why people might have concerns, especially when dealing with a new convert (presumably Irish, but obviously I don't know), as she's done something that they may even as much as fear their kids doing. Islam is a religion that places great merit on proselytising, and many people know that. Put that in the mix with the fact that teenagers are at an age where they are very influencable, and they aren't in the classroom to know what is happening. Then throw into the mix that few parents know what's going on in the mind of a teenager.

    The school shouldn't leap at parents underlying prejudices. Ultimately the hijab has no adverse effect on teaching. If we held that kind of nonsense about teaching no Christian, Jew, Sikh, Muslim, etc would ever see the classroom which would be out and out discrimination.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Palmach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 981 ✭✭✭Palmach


    philologos wrote: »
    Dun: One can't legally deny this liberty to the teacher. Certainly not without a legal mess. I think it would be positive for any child to be able to experience and acknowledge diversity. It is a step in maturity to know that we can respectfully disagree with others.

    If parents don't want a hijabi teacher the option is for them to move not for the school to deny the fundamental right of the teacher to practice her religion.

    This makes sense for anyone who thinks that Western freedoms, values and liberties concerning toleration are worth defending in our societies.

    A female guard can't wear a hijab so legally there are limitations put on it. Also in the OP she hasn't been wearing a hijab so why start now.


  • #92
    Le_Dieux
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,473 ✭✭✭Le_Dieux


    philologos wrote: »
    Dun: One can't legally deny this liberty to the teacher. Certainly not without a legal mess. I think it would be positive for any child to be able to experience and acknowledge diversity. It is a step in maturity to know that we can respectfully disagree with others.

    If parents don't want a hijabi teacher the option is for them to move not for the school to deny the fundamental right of the teacher to practice her religion.

    This makes sense for anyone who thinks that Western freedoms, values and liberties concerning toleration are worth defending in our societies.

    Have to disagree here. All would be as You paint the picture if western women could wear in a muslim country as they wear here. But as we all know, thats not on.

    So, why must we conform our customs to appease these people? She was employed as a woman to teach her pupils, why now should she be permitted to wear a sign of her belief, expecially when it is non christian?

    On another note, I am disappointed the woman came on here seeking advice, but didnt bother her ars* to give us feedback.


  • #93
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    Le_Dieux wrote: »
    Have to disagree here. All would be as You paint the picture if western women could wear in a muslim country as they wear here. But as we all know, thats not on.

    So, why must we conform our customs to appease these people? She was employed as a woman to teach her pupils, why now should she be permitted to wear a sign of her belief, expecially when it is non christian?
    Don't some Christian women wear a head scarf? How is it against "our" customs then?


  • #94
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    irishconvert wrote: »
    Don't some Christian women wear a head scarf? How is it against "our" customs then?

    Absolutely but even if it wasn't I don't think "we" have any customs that are really in common. Who is to say what is Irish from what isn't? What if I as an Irish person or indeed you as an Irish person disagree with them? Does that mean we aren't really Irish?

    I think this is a basic liberty of the teacher really.


Advertisement