Crucifix banned by school, screeches the Herald-Sun headline. The headline should be “Necklace banned by school”, but that doesn’t have quite the same ring now, does it?
Her discreet cross was outlawed as part of the multicultural college’s new rules on jewellery and dress.
[...]
Sunbury Downs principal Brett Moore said teachers had enforced a dress code policy instigated by the school council.“It is not my decision, it is the policy,” he said. “Necklaces should not be visible.”
Mr Moore said the policy was supported by the majority of parents.
From the school principal’s quote above, it sounds as though were she only to put the crucifix charm on a longer chain so that it wasn’t visible, she would be allowed to wear it. So what’s more important to her: being able to wear the crucifix, to which she has a sentimental as well as a religious attachment, or having it visible?
As that rule applies to all visible necklaces, she’s not being singled out for her faith, and for her father (who seems to be the one kicking up most of the fuss) to claim persecution is ridiculous. Particularly when he brings Muslim headscarfs into a discussion of rules regarding jewellery at school.
I know. Let’s start a youth group to which ALL young people have to belong. They can have a uniform, neckscarf, and arm-band in red, white and black. They can learn the basics of military training, and partake in history classes. Let’s call it “The Howard Youth”. Maybe this way we won’t have to keep putting up with these disturbing outbreaks of individualism and independence..
Cheers…
Sounds very Islamic, Mick.
All feminists should oppose headscarf-wearing by Muslim schoolgirls in Australia. The thinking behind this custom is that girls who don’t wear a scarf are temptresses and sluts responsible for male lust. Jihad Jack’s toddler daughter wears one, lest she arouse Mohammed-like sexual arousal in grown men. (The “prophet” himself having had a keen eye for the youngsters).
I anticipate that feminists will spring into action on this important issue of female equality.
Yep, all feminists should definitely go around telling other women how to dress. Trinny and Susannah have nothing on CL.
It is pretty clear that the principal is not comfortable with these developments. School Councils are not necessarily the solution to all problems. Often, School Councils are run by small groups with their own (narrow) agendas. Sometimes, policies are best developed at the departmental level.
Recent fuglification featuring, um, HIGHLY visible crucifix:
Nice try, Laura. No, “all feminists” should “go around” telling men not to tell their women how to dress.
Like feminists used to, in fact, before they became gentrified multi-culti cowards.
Bossy, aren’t you, CL?
Bossy about Australian women not being abused by their menfolk, yes.
Australian “feminists” used to be too.
You want to find a Qu’ranic or other reference for this C.L.
Alternatively you could admit that its a simplistic and inflammatory interpretation.
Of course men dictating the dress code of women should be deplored and opposed. It’s a very messy and compelx issue though.
Miniskirts and Headscarfs, they are perplexing things, both.
Incidentally Laura, just out of curiosity, did you mean to imply that the woman pictured above is a hypocrite, immodest or perhaps even loose? Were she to be assaulted, would she be partly to blame? Are you suggesting she should cover up?
Miniskirts and Headscarfs, they are perplexing things, both.
LOL.
CL, she’s a Big Brother UK housemate. And I am suggesting that she looks ridiculous.
The intersection of gender, sexuality and religion will always be a high accident zone. Everyone should drive carefully. But it seems that many folk have decided to ignore the road rules that have minimised the number of collisions.
There is no doubt that the cross in question was “jewellery”. Jewellery in the west was originally a product of women’s subservient position. It represented portable wealth that was immune from the patriarchy into which women were delivered when they married.
Of course, new meanings were grafted on to this patriarchal practice at the time of the cultural revolution associated with the Romantic Era. But still, jewellery signifies, at least to some degree, possession.
Jewellery also represents status. And in the case of women, transfered status from their father or sexual partner. It is not unlikely, that this status issue was uppermost in the minds of the School Council when they issued the ban on jewellery.
The School Council possibly attempted to draw a bright line based on status considerations. Unfortunately, this line drove right through the middle of religious sensitivities.
And the Hun, never wishing to forego an opportunity to blow their favourite monoculturalist dog whistle, have jumped all over the story, plastering it on Page One.
The usual gang of Christian particularists, Anti-Muslims, crypto-racists and reflex traditionalists have joined the posse.
This is very unfortunate.
Somewhere between expensive bling and a complete ban on any ornamentation there exists a reasonable position for school authorities to defend.
But these days many are busy pleading the primacy of their particularisms and asserting the legitimacy of extreme positions. These immoderate folk make it more dfficult than it should be to stake out a set of practices based on the principle of “live and let live”.
That piece was such a beat up and an obvious attempt to set up a Muslim versus Christian thing.
As soon as I read it I thought, “d’oh, we weren’t allowed to wear necklaces when we were at school either”. Of course, back in those days our parents would have accepted what the school had to say rather than making out we were victims.
I’m sure we’ll see the story on A Current Affair and Today Tonight, complete with pictures of naughty Muslim girls and crying Aussie lasses. Frankly, the girl concerned could do with a little less war paint as well. Wearing make-up to school is a bad look as well.
Blah!!!!
Katz, interesting analysis.
First man tells first woman what she should tell second woman about what Other men who want to tell second woman what to wear should be told. Now with free bonus paedophilia reference.
CL, I am no fan of Islamist nutjobbery, and no fan of people being told what to wear. But the way you “engage” in these types of discussions just looks like venting and prejudgement. You have a PhD, right? And presumably some skills in the arts of constructing a persuasive argument. Let’s see you use them.
I would like C.L. to explain, preferably without making scornful allusions to 70s rhetoric or accusing me of being on drugs, why he so frequently gets his panties in a bunch on this difficult question of being a feminist without becoming a bigot. Obviously it’s not a problem he has himself, but many of the rest of us are in daily negotiation with it.
For the record, C. L., for me, feminism trumps Islam or any other set of religious practices evey time; it’s just that I can make the distinction between defending my own freedoms and viciously going after somebody else’s. But that does not mean I feel obliged to raise Old Glory in the front garden, dust off my machete and howl for the erasure of everyone’s religious freedoms but my own.
Several individual manifestations of TEH LP COLLECTIVE FEMINIST HIVEMIND have patiently explained to you on different occasions that ‘feminism’ is not a monolithic belief system with a bunch of set rules. You seem to have consistently ignored this, which makes me wonder, when you run this line that ‘All feminists are hypocrites unless they hate Moslems and want to eradicate them from the face of the earth’, what your real agenda is.
Crossed comments, Zoe. Snap!
Just TEH POWER OF TEH HIVE MIND again, PavCat.
Heh.
I’m with Darlene and Katz.
Doesn’t anyone remember when schools (private schools as well) vigorously policed things like jewelry and makeup?
No doubt that’s the origin of the policy decision.
And what’s with calling it a “multicultural college” anyway? From the article it appears to be a state secondary college. Surely that’s only in there to insinuate something about TEH MUZZIES?
Once the menfolk of the christian right have stopped going around telling women how to run their reproductive systems, I’m sure feminism can turn its attention to more trivial but still not all that desirable phenomena such as the wearing of headscarfs.
Clothing’s a relative and generally bizarre notion anyway. If someone called for nudity in public the first and loudest group who’d be whinging and worsering would be conservative christian lobbies, yet they never miss an opportunity to deflect attention to the one religion that’s (arguably) a bit more mysogenistic than they are.
Besides, the wearing of crucifixes is often blasphemously irreverent anyway.
See Madonna, critiqued in Soundgarden’s Jesus Christ Pose.
The Hun would of course take a different view if these were upside down crosses worn by fans of norwegian death metal…
‘Of course men dictating the dress code of women should be deplored and opposed.’ You mean like male French fashion designers?
Bingo.
Here’s the root of the issue, from the local rag:
http://www.sunburyleader.com.au/article/2006/08/15/3534_srv_news.html
STUDENTS still plan to defy bans on body piercing, coloured headbands and hoop earrings at Sunbury Downs Secondary College.
And other Sunbury schools have said their uniform policy is strictly enforced.
Sunbury Downs has only recently toughened up on students under the guidance of new principal Brett Moore, angering many parents and students.
New Broom hits housebrick.
This confrontation between stickler and adolescent tribalism is at least as old as the 1960s.
Generally, sticklers learned from their experience in the 1960s to be a bit smarter about how they go about their business. Looks like Principal Moore, having forgotten the past, has saddled up to repeat it.
His biggest mistake was to unite the students and parents in opposition to him.
Silly fellow.
But there is a novel aspect to this story.
The Hun had to choose between:
“Teenagers Out of Control!”
and
“Christian Lass Martyred!”
It is indicative of the times that the Hun chose the latter angle.
Liked “crypto-racism”, Katz. Islam isn’t a race so – frustrated – you’ve gone for the next best thing. Well sort of. Secret racism about something that isn’t a race doesn’t make a whole lot of sense – not even on that intersection with all the prangs.
I just think it’s interesting that LP’s feminists always get grouchy about criticising any cultural aspect of Islam.
Very grouchy!
Coming from a virtuoso of the dog whistle CL, I’ll accept your praise with pleasure.
No CL Snookums, what gets us grouchy is you trying to boss us about how we should frame criticisms of any cultural aspect of Islam.
Particularly when it’s nearly always a diversion from the topic of the thread, attempting to deny legitimacy to one critique we’re making unless we recite the CL mantra on Islam first.
Bugger that for a larf, bossyboots.
Since what appears to be at issue is piercings, hoop earrings, and coloured headbands, C.L., perhaps you’d like to clarify whether you’re starting a moral panic about these aspects of degenerate Western culture? Or whether you’ve fallen for a disingenous media spin right from the start?
And to cross-fertilise just a little. Here is one of CL’s gems on the thread about plane evictions:
Mightn’t a “white grandmother” also be a radical islamist?
Looks a lot like you’re suggesting racial markers for a religious issue CL. Not so crypto in your case.
(I also notice you’ve dropped your Bogie gravatar. Did someone tell you that Bogart was a Leftie who came under stern scrutiny from the HUAC?)
Speaking for myself and not TEH HIVEMIND here, what I get grouchy about is being implicitly called either a hypocrite (who doesn’t believe what CL thinks feminists ought to believe) or a moron (who doesn’t understand that the world functions strictly in black and white).
But never mind the smoke and mirrors, dude, answer the question. We veterans of the Adelaide Girls’ High Debating Team would have laughed you off the stage for a limp diversionary tactical ad fem like that, back in 19*cough* *cough* *coughcoughcough*.
Cripes, I am a feminist and I have criticised some cultural aspects of Islam, however, I am getting sick of people presuming to speak on Muslim women’s behalf. There are plenty of Muslim feminists around who are quite capable of speaking for themselves.
At any rate, this wasn’t an issue about Islam, it was about a girl who wanted to be able to do what other students aren’t allowed to do simply because her necklace has a cross on it. It’s also about her parents encouraging her refused to tow school rules.
Suffice to say, it’s also about newspapers engaging in bloody nasty divisive crap.
Mightnât a âwhite grandmotherâ? also be a radical islamist?
Katz, statistically, almost certainly no. Except maybe on your prang-ridden, concussion-inducing intersection.
Moral panic, Kim? You’d have to ask tigtog. That, after all, was the point of the post. She also chose to emphasise a comparison somebody had made with Muslim headscarves. I simply say that the comparison is both useful and ideologically revealing.
I’m proud to be considered “bossy” on equal rights for all Australian women. “Feminists” used to be but they see Muslim men as “victims” too and therefore worthy of a pass.
Typed the wrong email address, thus resurrecting an old gravitar. Bogart never came under “stern” scrutiny from HUAC. The committee’s chairman went out of his way to say the actor was not and never had been a communist, nor sympathetic to communists. Bogie played a role protesting about the committee’s work – a role he eventually went cool on.
More spot-on history (not) from Katz.
Sorry I didn’t catch what year you were at school Pavlov.
Come on, we old girls have got to be loud and proud about how old we are.
I, for example, am 21.
Stop generalising about feminists, C L.
Actually, the point of the post was that The Hun was being a disingenuous division-mongerer yet again.
As Darlene says, there are plenty of Muslim feminists leading the fight against sharia and hijab, they don’t need whitey wimmin to lead them. I respect and applaud their efforts, and if they need someone to pad out the numbers in a march I’m there.
But when they ask, as most of them do, for us to keep our noses out of it while they fight against traditionalists on their own terms I’m going to respect their autonomy. Why are you demanding that we non-Muslim feminists deliberately disrepect our Muslim sisters just to keep you happy?
Stop generalising about feminists, C L.
Darlene, you are a card!
You won’t be while you believe that men should tell them what to do with their reproductive systems. Funny, women aren’t exactly receptive to men doing so then donning a cap with ‘feminist’ embossed on the front and lecturing them on how they should in turn lecture muslim women on why if they only stop wearing scarves aussie bogans will stop spitting on them. Or something.
Name one.
With links.
And then argue your way out of the undistributed middle term and the two (possibly three; line ball) begged questions in that remark, if you can.
It was inevitable that the issue of Muslim women wearing headscarves would be brought up – by a Christian male.
The pressure to wear scarves does not come from men. It comes from their female peers. I saw a forum on SBS in which a 13-y-o Muslim girl defended her right to wear a scarf to school (an Islamic school) as a “sign of piety”.
I suspect the Catholic schoolgirl has the same justification for wearing the cross around her neck – it is a “sign of piety”. However, for whom is it a sign? As she wants it to be visible, we must conclude she wants it to be a sign to others at the school. If it is for the benefit of other Catholics, it then becomes a sign of solidarity with other Catholics. If it is for the benefit of non-believers at her school, then it is a means of evangelism.
In either case it is a sign of defiance, and the school is right in banning it.
As a “militant atheist”, I will not defend the “right” of Christians or Muslims to display their faith in public. There is no such right. I will tolerate it in small doses, but we secularists always have to be on guard for evangelists exploiting the tolerance of our secular democratic system to push their religious barrows.
Pavlov’s Cat has rightly pointed out the hypocrisy of those who “howl for the erasure of everyone’s religious freedoms but their own”. This is typical of the false secularism that our dominant Christian culture champions. These Christian warriors are secular when it comes to everyone else’s religion but their own.
Religion belongs in the private sphere, not in the public sphere.
Re Katz’s comment – The initial ban may have been on jewellery, but it was probably meant to encompass religious symbols as well. However, as usual, another admirable contribution from Katz.
PS – This story was on the TV news last night – Channel 7, I think.
I’ll put a guess that I am the joker, but I would prefer the queen.
But on a serious note…no, can’t do it, must make joke.
No, really, I think there are as many different feminists almost as there are women. I’ve always called myself a feminist, even when feminists get on my nerves and other things associated with one’s body bits (eg stomach).
I get on the tram every day with Muslims, my housemate has been very involved with an organisation that assists refugees to settle in this country (many of whom are Muslims). These women are as diverse as other women. I am concerned about the hijab and when I was working for DIMIA, I took some really quite sad calls from very young Lebanese women who had been brought over here to marry very young Lebanese-Australian men. However, I am a girl from a working-class suburb in Brisbane. I have seen the way Aussie blokes and sheilas can behave. Violence ain’t all about Middle Eastern blokes.
Anyway, one of the reasons why I sick to the back whatever of reading another blog is that it is chockers with anti-Muslim sentiment.
Maybe moving to Melbourne has turned me into a pinko, commo whatever, but I think I’m mellowing in my dotage.
Cheers, C L.
Sorry, CL. I wrongly thought you said I was a card, but it was some bloke called “Patriachy Something or Rather”.
Cheers
More special pleading from CL.
According to a recent (1998) biography by Sperber and Lax,
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/2714433774/sr=1-3/qid=1156139681/ref=sr_1_3/002-8156918-9096818?ie=UTF8&s=books
Bogart made himself obnoxious to the HUAC and only after he caved in did he get the HUAC tick of approval.
Bogart wasn’t as courageous as he may have been, but he had to protect his livelihood.
What an odd world of fantasy CL constructs in his pointy little head. And what a feat of sheer will constructing those buttresses to prevent reality from crashing in.
Weirdly compelling.
There are approximately 500,000 male Muslims in Britain. Maybe 100 have been identified/accused as terrorists. That is a probability of 0.0002.
0.0002 represents a high level of statistical uncertainty.
But the question is: how do your vigilant airport scrutinisers decide that a suspect swarthy person is one of your mad islamofascists rather than (let us say) an electrician from Brazil?
Or do these awfully keen airpost scrutinisers chuck a net over every darkie, just on the off-chance?
And your airport scrutinisers do the only practical thing under the Not Really Racial (Mad Islamic) Profiling Act (2006), doesn’t that start looking like profiling simply on the basis of skin pigmentation?
Bogart did not come under particularly “stern” scrutiny from HUAC. I made no comment about his courage so – as usual – I don’t know what google-jockey Katz is banging on about.
Profiling isn’t exclusively about race and “darkies” – which I expect Katz to find out after a few hours’ research.
Security systems for aiports are not principally concerned about the comparatively straightforward business of blocking “identified/accused” terrorists. (Who are presumably under arrest, imprisoned or monitored 24 hours a day). The concern is stopping those who are NOT identified or accused terrorists. A far larger and more taxing job – not helped by politically correct grannie-scans.
Currency, I’ll go into bat for the granny-scans (a great term, by the way).
I’d be very disappointed in any airport authority that didn’t subject passengers ‘outside’ presumably risky profiles to security checks, for the same reason that I’d be disappointed in an airport that didn’t have big signs saying ‘don’t leave your bags unattended’ and ‘don’t carry luggage on for anyone else’.
Maybe the Mary Poppins lookalike granny isn’t one of Osama’s hench-pensioners, but her bag might have all kinds of nasties or goodies in it.
After all, how easy was it for those ‘baggage handlers’ to slip the dope into Schappelle’s boogie-board bag?
CL, in my observation, airport ‘profiling’ is mostly based on not race or religion but hats. People wearing headscarves and turbans and skullcaps are openly pursued by security men, at Tullamarine where I go twice a week. Just last Tuesday I watched a Sikh man being trailed up to the gate by three goons. It’s embarrassing for everyone else, especially given that when the Australian Idol contestants were annoying the crap out of everyone a few weeks back singing arpeggios and doing forward rolls on the travelator no security types bothered to profile them.
That’s an interesting observation, Laura. I’ve noticed that when I wear my beret I do tend to attract more attention from security guards than when I go hatless.
I had to stop wearing the thing outside for about a month after ETA called their ceasefire.
[As far as I know, the beret carries no religious significance whatsoever].
I’ve never seen anyone at Tulla wearing a beret, Liam. Those types probably don’t make it as far as the check-in counter.
And they say Melbourne is the cosmopolitan heart of Australia! Rubbish.
The next time I venture south of the Murray I shall make a point of never taking it off.
…
As for the student with the visible crucifix, would visible rosary beads hanging from a belt have counted—are they jewellery?
For my 2c I support a general ban on all obvious religious impedimatia in all state supported schools. However… I also support the use of the burqua in places where the women concerned risk being raped and murdered by ( mainly Xtian) Globocops. Places like ‘ Ghan and ‘ Raq.
BTW I love the way grown-up Sarah Twain carries off wearing her crucifix!
Laura, you probably remember the turbaned gentleman more readily but I’m sure the unhatted outnumber the hatted in these situations.
Liam, of course, is a member of the dangerous Ratzingerian Jihad and should be profiled to a pulp.
Damn! I must be so mouselike that even my beret doesn’t get me persecuted.
Where’s a dude’s masculinity when its needed?
Makes you wonder why our parents and grandparents had a strict school uniform policy now don’t it? No makeup and no jewellery for boys and girls. Gee whiz, egalitarian bastards too eh? What’ll they think of next?
Funnily enough the Israeli airline El Al manages to ‘profile’ passengers rather successfully so I’m told. They have some very expert profilers watching every punter at airports and when was the last time you heard an El Al airliner taken down? If our authorities won’t act in a similar fashion then the punters will dear luvvies http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=401419&in_page_id=1770
Me, I prefer such profiling to be in the hands of trained Mossad type experts, but I guess the left luvvies prefer the grass roots mass action approach as usual.
I totally support the school’s strict uniform guidelines. Schools are places for education – where each student is treated equally and a slack uniform policy threatens this neutrality. If you want to parade your sexual (jewelry) or religious (cross, headscarf, ect) views then go to the appropriate institutions. There should be places left in the western world where people don’t display their individualism. Parliament, the workplace and school, is a few of them.
I remember Gretel Killeen wearing a big fat cross on one of the nominations shows, but I neglected to mention it because I didn’t think it was important at the time. Come to think of it, it was around the time that Adults Only was about to be canned. Gretel was probably wearing it to ward off the evil eye, but it didn’t work.
Hmmm, didn’t see the airline mutiny bit on the last post so my second comment might belong there, although the side issue was raised here.
Heh, I had two Jehovah’s Witnesses at my front door this evening. I told them they were wasting their time on me as I was an atheist. That didn’t deter them, and they wanted to share their good news with me anyway, so I decided to share my good news with them, that through my long study of history I have discovered that Jesus never existed. That didn’t deter them either, and they persisted with their rambling. I got fed up, and told them politely, again, that they were wasting their time. I then made the mistake of wishing them good luck, but they took this as some kind of opening. One of them had the nerve to ask me if I knew if any of my neighbours would be open to their message. I told them no, sorry, goodbye, and I closed the door. They were probably muttering a voodoo curse under their breath after they left.
Atheists vs Jehovah’s Witnesses – Nil-all draw.
Wow – no-one else in history has ever beaten the JWs, Silkworm. You must possess super-powers of some kind. That, or the kind of door that closes…
Michael G said: “You want to find a Qu’ranic or other reference for this C.L.”
OK I’ve just looked these up from random translations on the web because I can’t be bothered typing them out from my translation of the Koran.
Surah 4:34. ‘Men are in charge of (or overseers of – qawwamuna) women, as Allah has given them more (strength) than the other (sometimes translated as made them superior to the other), and because they spend of their wealth (to provide for them). Therefore women who are virtuous are obedient to God, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what God would have them guard. As for those women on whose part you fear rebellion (nushuz), admonish them and banish them to beds apart, (and last) beat (adribu) them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them. For God is Most High, Great (above you all).
My translation of the Koran refers to guarding unseen parts
Surah 24:30 Tell the believing men that they shall subdue their eyes (and not stare at the women), and to maintain their chastity. This is purer for them. GOD is fully Cognizant of everything they do.
Surah 24:31 And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed.
Some Muslims would say the minimum dress requirements are long hems and covered chests…and that hijabs are latter additions
Surah 33:59 Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Ah getting warm. My Koran has this on 33:57. I’ll leave that to the textual critic….shall I continue? Get to the really hot bits? Before we even get to how even Muslims themselves interpret these?
Cheers Saint. I might just have to have another go at getting my head around the Qu’ran. From my last foray in those parts I suspect there are other Suras which create an opposing trend. The textual context of those you do quote are important too. And the context in which the whole book waas written.
Those texts are certainly confronting, but as you yourself admit, there is no clear cut reference to the hijab or headscarve there. To me, this is the key sentence:
If you want to go into muslim interpretation, be my guest. It would probably bring us closer to an understanding of why people where the headscarf in Australia in 2006.
It’d be good to get an islamic opinion on this, even one from someone who wears a headscarf. It’s a bit weird to have two whiteys (fair assumption, i hope Saint) batting this one backwards and forwards.
Once you’re done there, remember our hapless Kayser Trad in this interview discussing forced marriages of under age girls. Read it carefully. You’d think kids are cesspools of uncontrollable lust.
Here it is again from a local boy. Oh but that’s Satanic dress of infidels that incites men’s lust.
Here is one of the most money quotes for you. Not wearing the hijab is “asking for rape.”
No wonder blaming the victim is sometimes seen as
obligatory.
Even by muftis.
Well I have another comment which is stuck in moderation (probably because we were posting at the same time) which will give you a taste of some wonderful interpretations.
Oh and Islam is not a colour or a race Michael. I notice Hicks and Jihad Jack are “white”. We also have Koori Muslims whose radicalisation is also of concern.
You’re right. I stretched the concept of muslim to make a rhetorical point. Shouldn’t a done that.
Although there might be some interesting questions regarding how ‘white’ muslims interpret the Qu’ran.
I must admit I was hoping for a more balanced take on interpretation, but I appreciate that your links are valid, if not all local.
Oh, and why do people persist with this Jihad Jack, thing?
Because we’re Aussies and we like nicknames.
Look at how CL twists plain meaning by interpolating his own meanings, and worse, words into other people’s comments. It’s simply not “fair pool” CL. If you wish to construct straw (wo)men to argue against perhaps you could set up a website consisting of comments from your good self and assorted mind-woven hate objects.
Your earlier post is a particularly egregious example of your habitual poor form:
1. “Particularly” is your word, not mine. A perceived threat to livelihood seems to me to be “stern enough”.
2. Google jockey — hmmm, CL’s airily dismissive description for doing a bit of basic research. You should try it some time.
3. It should be clear from any fair reading of my comment that I neither said, nor implied “exclusively” or even “principally”?
It is abundantly clear that CL lives in an eldritch world well-stocked with invasive adverbs, few facts, weird notions, and choleric, self-consuming passions.
Gee, discussions about Bogart. How surreal.
In returning to the original point of the post, I’d like to reiterate that the Herald Sun story was a noxious beat up designed to create division.
Mission accomplished?
Spot on, Darlene.
Yes we all yearn for a clean debate free of distractions.
But some are addicted to lexical distortion, cavilling, interpolation, and special pleading, among other sins.
Sometimes it is necessary to point this out in the hope that either the perpetrators will desist, or that their victims will understand their intentions and methods, and dismiss them.
Katz is so right – I really miss the “TEEN OUT OF CONTROL” angle on these stories….ah, such innocent days.
In terms of school uniform, I’m a real fascist when I’m doing canteen at my daughter’s public primary school, I’m always asking where’s your proper hat darling, did you lose it? You should ask Mummy, to find your proper school hat
Tigtog
Would be interesting to catch up on the hijab ban in french public schools.
I wonder if the muslim school girls who were v. upset about not being able to wear it to school, feel any different after this lengthy period of time?
Such a huge enforced social change on a big group of girls, it will be interesting to see whether these girls become more militantly pro-hijab in the long term or less so.
I’m relieved that CL uses the ‘Islam isn’t a race’ argument to absolve himself of racism. Now I can live my life comfortably knowing that my disgust of Jews, their shoddy business practices and pre-occupation with running the world isn’t racism, as of course, Judaism isn’t a race either.
Phew!
I’m afraid hoping people will desist is too much to hope for, Katz.
Alex raises an important point about the dangers of stereotyping, whether it’s about Muslims, Jews, Indigenous people, Catholics and even naughty girls who refuse to take off visible necklaces (I do understand that the school would have allowed the necklace with the cross if it was hidden).
Too much to hope that this generation of mollycoddled youngsters will do as they are told and buy a longer chain.
The other day a bunch of Muslim girls were on the train (all decked out in trendy clothes and bright headscarves). I looked and them and thought, “Thank God Jericho and some of the other wackjobs who people the internet are not on this train”.
I meant to say, “I looked at them”.
Trying to take two seconds writing something is bad.
jo, I’ve read that the hijab ban in France has meant that a lot of girls who used to go to secular public schools are no longer allowed to go, and are being sent to Islamic schools instead (if they are going to school at all beyond the compulsory age).
I’ll try and dig up a cite for that, but if true it seems that the hijab ban has been seriously counterproductive if the goal is to produce more secular Muslim citizens.
thanks tig,
i would also think that quite alot of girls would have had to go to the local public school, as they couldn’t have possibly opened up that many new schools to cater for so many students, and i dont think they get state funding like here, so they would need funding – but i spose no problems, if the saudi wahabbi’s want to fund them….again falling into the same trap…..
So let’s get this straight tigtog, my dear self-professed militant atheist: banning the hijab (ie no special treatment) is persecution because girls aren’t going to school but banning a crucifix (ie no special treatment) isn’t because girls aren’t going to school?
Help me out. What point are you trying to make here?
Tigtog never said banning the hijab was persecution. And she is not a self-confessed ‘militant atheist’. That’s me.
You are really confused, saint.
I’m the militant agnostic, saint. I’m atheistic regarding all “holy book” deities, but agnostic about a creator – I don’t know, and nobody else bloody does either!
Someone asked about the hijab ban (as part of the ban on all religious symbols) in all state schools in France, and I responded without ever using the word persecution. I stand by my judgment that if the goal is to secularise immigrant Muslim youths the French ban on hijabs is counterproductive.
The visible-jewellery ban in one school in Australia is an entirely different event. As the school dress code also bans all visible piercings, hoop earrings and headbands in other than school colours it is fundamentally dishonest to cast the matter in religious terms.
Given that the political left is helping to reignite anti-semitism throughout the Western world, it doesn’t surprise me that Alex has come out of the closet as a Jew hater.
At least he or she is honest.
Still-obsessed-with-me Katz was wrong about Bogart. He was not given anything like “stern” attention by HUAC, despite her misleading google returns.
If the story of the hour was the banning of the hibab at some state school or other, most of the “progressives” here would be saying it was a Really Bad Thing.
… weirdly compelling…
Thank you silkworm, my apologies to tigtog.
But it still doesn’t answer my question as to why tigtog is so concerned about Muslim girls in France not going to a public school given the title of this post. Perhaps tigtog will find that the hijab ban in France is not just a hijab ban but a ban that includes other religious symbols including crucifixes. Sounds a bit like Sunbury: one rule for everyone.
And yes French Muslim girls still go to public schools and remove their hijabs at the door. And some go to Muslim schools or else don’t go at all.
Saint, your 7:14am post essentially repeats all the points I made at 10:41pm last night and accuses me of not addressing them.
Want to try again?
I think a few of you are taking this incident out of proportion (just as the paper did). Girl wants to be a rebel and break school code by wearing visible necklace – heck, plenty of us tried that 15 years ago – no big deal. I doubt she was doing it to show her ‘Christian piety’ or some other claptrap. She’s told to follow school rules, and wear a longer chain that doesn’t show. Rather than parents backing school, and telling daughter to follow rules, they cry persecution where none exists.
This is not some kind of culture war, or unfairness against Christians. She could have been wearing a letter, or a unicorn, or a diamond pendant, I am sure she would have been told she needed to wear a necklace that was longer and sat under her collar.
I might not be too clever, but I think Alex was being ironic for the purposes of making a point.
Alex, you old reprobate.
When it comes to anti-Semitism the extreme Left and the nutty Right are truly bedfellows, and what a night in the sack that would be.
Katz: weirdly wrong.
Sorry about getting the topic off course – I asked about the French situation, because I’m interested to hear what are the repercussions of this policy are.
As to the original subject, if Cross Girl can’t wear her crucifix openly, can Headscarf girl were her hijab?….. (And how big can a crucifix be, or is it just a discreet cross, and no bleeding jesus, or the full bling version or Celtic crosses?) It’s why all sane politicians from both sides, run a mile from the subject.
And this is what the Hun was trying to beat the story into…though it is obvious from the story, that the Principal the saw her cross as an ‘item of jewellery’ and NOT a religious symbol – he’s probably a paid up member of the Principal’s Association too.
I personally would love to ban the wearing of all religious symbols at state schools, but I think it might be very counter-productive in this particular political environment, if the state pushes a whole bunch of kids into the arms of religious fundamentalists from all religions. If this had been policy 30 years ago, it would have saved us a load of headaches now.
But keeping kids in the state system, not only exposes them to a broader education (didn’t say better), they also have an opportunity to mix with kids from other ethnic, religious, socio-economic groups, which has to have long term positive implications for our society. (Look at those boys from Cranbrook – Packer, Adler, Jodee Rich, to so see what happens when they are allowed to breed amongst themselves)
The whole religious symbol thing in public schools, might have to prescribed by Depts of Education, for example to: little open faced headscarves, and a plain little cross and a little star of david etc……….just so we can all move on…….or maybe not???
As to France, I was interested in finding out:
1) How many Muslim girls had moved out of the state system?
2) Had the girls who stayed in state schools, become more pro-hijab or had they enjoyed not wearing it?
And I’ll try and find out myself Tig, TA.
Exactly. But this is no reason to give up the fight now. It just means we have to fight harder.
May I suggest a strategy? How about a campaign to have headscarves banned from public schools? Although this would be a secular campaign, it might gain the support of Christian Islamophobes. If successful, we could then turn on our Christian supporters, and expand the campaign to all religious paraphernalia in public schools. By that time we would then have the support of the secularized Muslims who would be demanding an equal application of the secular rule to Christians.
I think everybody should be allowed their religious symbols to an extent. In NSW, most schools seem to have a rule for Muslim students where a regulation head-covering in the same colour as the school tunic/trousers is worn, so it fits right in with the rest of the uniform. They also have rules about visible jewellery and as long as the Wiccan kid can wear a pentangle on a necklace if the Christian kid can wear a cross, then fine.
I don’t think the answer is to pretend that religion doesn’t exist, but to prohibit intrusive displays of religious symbology (as defined by clear rules about size/colour/etc of symbols) in the school situation.
And again, this school had a jewellery ban, not a religious symbols ban.
At the end of the day, the whole thing is v. silly and we as a society, shouldn’t be pandering to any group to accommodate their nutty belief systems in state schools…but as I posted previously – it’s really not a good time to be taking on nutters…
Itâs like when my daughter and a bunch of other kids get to watch wonky old videos while everyone else troops off to their nominated religion class… they are now debating whether they should be allowed to teach these kids anything – I think the St James Centre is working on an ethics course – however, it was considered that teaching the âno-religionâ? kids anything, would mean that the other kids would be missing out on something!! So, meanwhile they just get to colour in, and waste a whole morning.
So much for the separation of church and state.
Should teach them science.
I too, Darlene, took it for granted that Alex was employing irony and C.L. missed it.
I hope we’re right.
jo, when I was in non-scripture classes I used the time to get ahead on homework so that I could go to the beach after school (summer) or spend the afternoon curled up with a good book (winter).
Perhaps your daughter and the other kids could start a satirical magazine?
It probably won’t be a good time to take them on until Labor comes back into power.
…while the kids who are being indoctrinated with religion are wasting a whole morning too.
With RE in schools, everybody loses!
Of course Alex was employing irony.
And of course CL proclaimed to miss it.
Daleks are deeply unironic.
CL likes behaving like a Dalek.
Why CL likes behaving like a Dalek is anyone’s guess.
But he does it because he chooses to.
(I wonder if CL pretends he can’t walk up and down stairs.)
… yes, his behaviour is weirdly compelling…
jeez tig – wot a swot – i learned to smoke in non-scripture.
my daughters 8 – satire is pretending you are the teacher, a mummy or daddy and usually involves sending ‘the children’ to bed, or telling them off. They all laugh like drains at this wonderful crap, and parents cringe at the brutal punishments and lectures handed down.
Anyway, I am waiting for the day when an ethics or comparative religions class is finally offered to children in the state primary system, to those not attending religious instruction.
Senior high school is different – kids can make choices for themselves
At my daughter’s school currently, a few people are sending their kids to the Buddhist Scripture and others are sending them to the Catholics – so they can get a place at a catholic high school.
Sorry…I meant a few people who are non-religious, are sending their kids to these Scriptures
Most kids get sent along to whatever religious instruction, their parents got sent along to…irrespective of whether they themselves are believers
Much the same way people just vote for whoever their mum and dad voted for…..
Katz is a Zygon.
And always weirdly wrong!
I quite liked Davros myself. Just sayin…
I think there’s more irony being employed because would be way too cool to look like a Zygon.
I consider it a testament to my coolness that I didn’t know what a Zygon was until I looked at the link.
Of course, when people talk about each other a look it sometimes mean they have a crush on each other.
I think there’s more irony being employed because (Katz) would be way too cool to look like a Zygon.
I remember a couple of little smartarses at my (state) high school who’d deliberately go to the optional once-a-term Religious Education sessions to pick arguments with the proselytisers. They’d bang on about Jesus, and my classmates would demand proof of God, it was usually great theatre, like the Scopes trial remade as straight-to-video. When the people running the show were Jesuits or Catholic nuns it was the best, because both of them really truly relish a bit of persecution by unbelievers, and they loved the stoush more than my classmates.
One time, though, the class literally broke down this poor ex-alcoholic Baptist convert in front of all of us, who admitted that he wasn’t sure whether there was a God at all. Let me tell you, it’s really, really, really disturbing to see a grown adult cry in front of schoolkids.
I’ve not supported religious education in schools since then—I don’t think it’s fair for the genuinely faithful to expose them to the verminous little creatures in the classrooms.
See Sally Morrell in today’s Herald Sun for more about this topic.
I completely agree Darlene. I too didn’t know what a Zygon was.
However, I’d just like to observe that Zygons do appear to bear a more than passing resemblance to Donald Rumsfeld.
Perhaps CL also perceives this Rumsfeldian resemblance. CL, perhaps is thereby projecting an attractive image upon the persona of my good self.
And indeed it may not be beyond the realms of possibility that CL intends to attempt to mate with me.
Ewwwwww.
AFFIRM-A-TIVE.
AND THIS “DALEK” REQUIRES NO ACCESS TO THE KATZ BEDSIDE BATT-ERY SUPPLY.
O-BEY! O-BEY!
C. L., are you sure there aren’t two of you?
My niece goes to a NSW state primary school where she and the other non-religious children have “World R’n'B” (religion and belief) when the others have scripture. They have people of all kinds in to talk, and it is The Cool Thing, with some kids who’ve been sent to religious classes desperate to go. They’re actually learning rather than smoking or doing nothing, and they love it. Although apparently there was some upset when they weren’t allowed to mummify a cat in Egypt week.
That’s the first time I’ve heard that General RE was offered in direct competition with Special RE. In NSW, as far as I know, all schools are supposed to offer both Special and General RE.
Pav, is that more Katzian flirting?
Enough already.
Zoe, where religion is narrowly understood to relate to the Bible and teaching the Bible, that sort of gulf is not uncommon. The more experiential approach to teaching Studies of Religion and R ‘n B opens up a more diverse and attention-getting range of teaching strategies. In the less Scripture-oriented RE found in Catholic schools, that diversity can also be employed to maintain interest.
Kids will tend to like subjects that feature visiting performers, videos and group discussions etc. As demonstrated by the debate over fact/narrative in history and the catechetical debate in Catholic schools about the mix of instruction/experience, it becomes a question of balance. “Cool” subjects are sometimes considered cool because they’re breazie nonsense but most teachers wouldn’t lumber students with a Scripture Madrassah approach either.
One problem, I think, is that some well-meaning Bible teachers brought in to attend to nominally Christian students’ needs in State schools are not trained well enough to do the mixing in an efficacious way. Little wonder, in those circumstances, that visiting Buddhist monks, an Us & Them role-play on sectarianism, a movie with a Sikh theme or teacher’s taped episode of Tuesday night’s Status Anxiety (ABC – excellent) create more interest.
Aww, c’mon CL, you like to think of yourself as a feisty controvoersialist.
But deep down, you’re just a big cuddly bear with a core of dark, sweet chocolate.
I rather like that in a man.
Don’t change.
Everybody say, “ahhhh”.
A core of dark, sweet choccie.
Cripes, I’m hungry now.
Couldn’t agree more CL. My state high school had a once a term visit from a nice old man who spent an hour talking about “horses hoofs! you know! poofs!”. Not the greatest advertisement for Catholicism. I far preferred the podgy nun on the Vespa I had in primary school.
Interesting Zoe – when I asked for something better than colouring-in, when she first started in kindy – I was just fobbed off with what I posted above.
I had a very spunky young Minister named Rector Dick, who came to visit us in primary ooh ahh …Rector Dick!!
In the 60’s, they didn’t offer a no-religion alternative even in state schools, so I picked my own religion when the class divided in that first week in kindy – and I instinctively went to the biggest group, and it also had the 2 blond haired girls in it – so, it had to be the best option, I deduced.
I faithfully recorded C of E as my religion, until I was at least 12.
Rector Dick?
Cripes, going to a public school without nuns or Rector Dicks was a bit sad in retrospect.
I think we had a priest who popped in, but I don’t think I was allowed to go.
I think I really missed out on something by not getting a religious education when I was young.
We had two religion teachers at our (religious school). One was a fruitcake who (sadly) claimed God had cured her of her breast cancer, only to die of, er, breast cancer. She thought meditation was evil because it “opens you up so the devil can enter you”, so we used to have great fun with her by starting her on uncontrolled rants about such things by oh-so-innocently asking questions like “Is it wrong to have a seance?”
It’s not quite as good as my brother’s religion teacher who went to India to convert the natives, and was killed when she drove round a corner too fast smack bang into an elephant (Ganesh’s revenge, perhaps?) (The elephant was unharmed, in case you’re worried).
The other was a relatively sensible man, but I used to take delight in tormenting him with fiendish philosophical questions like “Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it himself?”. Despite the fact that tormenting the poor man was the highlight of my (very bored) life at that point, he was very fair-minded and once gave me the unprecedented score of 11 out of 10 on a religion test (I got a bonus point for knowing something really obscure as I had been reading the bible to get information to trip him up with). When I wasn’t tormenting him, I was sitting up the back of the class turning the illustrations of Jesus in my Bible into pictures of the Doug Anthony Allstars (I had a big crush on Paul McDermott).
On reflection, I think the whole thing was a big waste of time (if somewhat diverting for poor bored me) and would have more usefully been spent teaching us extra calculus. Or something. Although the comparitive religion with Buddhist monks etc sounds actually quite cool.
Darlene,
I read in my local paper that Rector Dick only recently retired from St Marys at Waverley, after a surfing accident on the gold coast last year!
Obviously, still in good shape! The Lord helps those that help themselves….
We once had a Born-Again come in to talk to the kiddies.
Some of the usual suspects up the back were not giving the Eternal Questions appropriate attention.
The Evangelical Chappie pulled his false eye out of its now empty socket and rolled it down the aisle.
The whole class drew back.
EC identified the major malefactor and insisted that he dive under the seats to retrieve the staring orb.
Gingerly the now thoroughly abashed bad boy carried the unblinking tom-bowler back to Jesus’s Missionary.
He took it from the bad boy, put it in his mouth to clean off the grit of the classroom floor. He then replaced it in its socket.
“Now remember, youse blokes,” he warned. “I’ve got my eye on you!”
I don’t recall now the theme of his talk.
Zoe: “…state primary school where she and the other non-religious children have âWorld Rân’Bâ? (religion and belief) when the others have scripture…”
Well I’ll just take my R ‘n B straight up: as Rhythm & Blues, the way that God and Brother Ray intended, thank you very much.
Bartender! Another boibon ‘n branch! And get these multiculturalist unbelievers a nice Thai iced coffee, or a mango lassi, or whatever the hell it is that they drink…
[pours]
http://www.ethics.org.au/things_to_read/articles_to_read/education_and_training/article_0383.shtm
Special Religious Education may be a voluntary subject, but for the most part it is not a subject that the child gets to choose whether to do or not. SRE must be the only subject that the parent gets to choose.
Furthermore, SRE is an ‘opt-out’, rather than an ‘opt-in’ subject. In other words, the child will end up doing it by default, unless the parent objects.
If you read further on into the article provided in the link, you will find that the “no useful alternative” provision has been made for the benefit of religious organizations!
The article, written by the St James Ethics Centre, is admittedly several years old, but probably still holds. However, I disagree with their assertion that “religious and spiritual formation are important public and private goods that ought to be fostered.” I think SRE should be abolished from public schools, and left to Sundays Schools.
If defenders of SRE think that it is necessary that religion be taught in schools because of its ethical or moral content, then why not design a theology-free ethics course for all students? I think the answer is obvious. Proponents of SRE are more interested in teaching their brand of religion rather than ethics.
i go to the school that Jamie goes to
and i think it is pothetic what mr moore
is doing. What has wearing a crucifix got
to do with education??? Thats the reason
we go to school, we dont go to school
because we want to show off our jewellery,
so why all the fuss. At school we are taught
about individuality and how it doenst matter
what we look like, its whats inside that counts
but then the principal says that he wants
our school to look good to others? id say thats a bit of
a contradiction… Instead of him worrying so
much about uniform, he should be making a
difference with our educations, getting good
teachers and getting rid of the nut cases
that teach at our school. Im not just saying
that because im a teenager and supposed
to be all “rebelious” im serious. i dont know
90 percent of these teachers got there jobs.
I seriously think some of them have a mental
illness.
As a student of sunbury downs i just want to
say to anyone considering going, or sending there
kids to my school, dont, really, if i wasnt already
nearly finished school i would leave.
This place is hell!
Hang in there, mc. It’ll soon be over and believe it or not it’s even worse on the outside. Mr John Howard (the principal out here) upbraids the general citizenry on their behaviour too. Trouble is there’s no graduation day from his skool.
mc, I can understand why the dress/jewelry code seems bizarrely misplaced to students, particularly when the previous principal didn’t enforce these rules. Yet I can also see why it appeals to many parents and educators.
As long as the jewelry ban applies to everybody equally, and everybody just doesn’t wear jewelry to school, it doesn’t have to be a big deal except for those students determined to make it so.
i understand why they want to make us not wear jewelery,
its because they want us to all be equal, and some people cant
afford pretty jewerly and the kids who cant would probly feel
left out because all the rich kids can wear beautiful things.
but this guy (the new principal) is going a bit over board,
he even makes us give him a standing ovation when he walks
in the room. Even a some 40 year old stranger on the bus
was telling me hes a bit of a hitler trying to make us perfect.
Urk. I agree the standing ovation bit makes him sound rather a tosser.
Is “standing ovation” really the right way to phrase, or to look at, this sort of thing? (Granted I’m not at yr school, so maybe it really is.) But when I was a kid in school, it was customary for the class to rise, out of simple respect, when the headmaster or a monsignor or some other important person entered the classroom. It wasn’t a ‘standing ovation,’ though, just a species of formal etiquette. The way you do in a courtroom. Perhaps outmoded now.
Point, j_p_z. I forget that schoolkids sometimes get terms not entirely straight. If he’s just asking that they stand when he enters a room, that’s not a standing ovation, mc – an ovation requires you to clap as well.
If he’s just expecting people to stand, it’s currently unfashionable formal etiquette, which may indeed be startling if your school life thus far hasn’t included such marks of recognition towards people in authority. Which it may well not have – I can’t remember the last time I saw a school body stand up for anything other than the national anthem, and that doesn’t get played all that often.
He might have a tough time with the older kids at the high school for the first few years with this more formal apporach, but as the student body turns over he will, if he can stick it out, have the sort of etiquette aware students that parents are increasingly keen to see.