TFMF Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 We brits can be so cruel :p Muhahaha na - i think this is kind of unfair - i mean if it's their religon then they should get the wear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bones2097 Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 dude you don't get the point... you only see their eyes & the rest is like a giant black ghost sheet... imagine kids wearing those at schools in american, no think a bit harder......., how man guns/weapons can you hide under where..... think a little bit more..... how easy would it be for a crazed gun man to sneakinto assembly & hold all the kids hostage??? its any a matter of time jus cus school here aren't as bad as in america, dosen't mean there not going there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Hmmm....yeah i see your point - i also now think that people who wear them might make themselves targets for racial attacks..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 If they're banning hoodies, I can't seem them being mad crazy on burkha or jilbabs. Also - doesn't jilbab sound like something you'd have after getting hammered? I mean, I'd quite like to see a spicy dish called the jilbab - maybe some kind of chilli/enchillida/vindaloo combination/hybrid. Then we could put this whole school uniform behind us. Man, I could go for a jilbab right about now... and a few sly pints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megalith Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Can i have a Jilbab and a pint of Burkha please, yeah does have a good feel to the idea :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bones2097 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 splog a bitta sauce on that jilbab gov!!!! man it rolls off the tounge like poetry in motion!! Lol :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I can see the headlines: "Man faces death threats after starting trend of naming foods after Muslim clothing." Fortunately I'd have had so many pints of Burkha I wouldn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyCell Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 They are right, the goverment should not show favor to any ONE religion. yeah hence the law to not dispute the holcast should be changed, yeah we should not allow prejeduce agnaist any one or any group, but to say that we are not allowed to discuss a historical event is just upsurd, i do not deny the holocast as an even i deny the numbers totally my right under democracy and freedom of speech, but not in the westren world. yeah the school is right the long flowing garment is not the mandatory muslim garment. say there is some die-hard KKK member at a school and he sees some chick in that, he is gonna beat her up side the head with a brick. I know its not right, and it might not even be likely, but it still can happen. I think that ppl need to keep their religion to them selves when it comes to what they wear in schools. here in egypt wen they want to make sure of her identity they take her into a private room with a woman. he could aslo d that if she was wearing it in the street. and after all we do not do stuff in accordance to what would keep us safe from crazy people, i did publically write in a college magazine my opinion backed up by many scholars that there is no penalty for apostasy in islam only a penality for joining the enemy or for publically disrepecting islam "you may discuss it, but while using cevilized speech". many crazy people could have tasken action agnaist me. she did go out of her way though the majority of westren arabs including egypt, palasting and the other westren arab countries do not think jibab is mandatory, only that she covers her head and body it doesnt have to be flowing and bulky?? dude you don't get the point... you only see their eyes & the rest is like a giant black ghost sheet... no that is not jibab that is niqab, she wanted to show her face but wear a long flowing dress like clothes see wikioedia for more details. and here in egypt if she does cover all her identity is verified in a private room with a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steveo Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 My question is, 'what harm is wearing what you want to wear doing to others?' It wasn't as if she were wearing no clothes or clothes with swears or pictures of dead bodies on them. ... then again, I'm personally against dress codes. Contrary to popular belief, they really don't decrease bad behavior, increase school spirit, or any of those things people claim dress codes do. If people want to be bad, they'll be bad regardless of what they're wearing. That's not the point of uniforms for school, or certainly wasn't at my school. Back in my day the purpose of the uniform was to make sure people were not made to feel inadequate because of their clothes. Children can be cruel, so uniforms stop children setting upon eachother based on the clothes they can afford. It was equality for the poor. I happen to like school uniforms, they make the place look better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Heh... the only problem is, kids'll find something -else- to attack each other with than clothes, so it really doesn't change anything. Quite often those uniforms cost more than plain old normal clothes, and so the poor will be forced to buy beat up, second hand uniforms... leaving the problem of harassment by clothes. Edit: The only exception to this is if the school itself issues the clothing for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steveo Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 At my school I believe the poor were given financial aid for the cost of schoolong their children, clothing et cetera. It's one less thing for them to attack at least. You can't change the children that much, but you can alter their environment to remove oppertunities for attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnot Borg Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 People will still attack each other over anything. If all school children were taken to separate schoolrooms to be taught by computer or taught online at home, the kids would rag on each other over something they did online. JUST LIKE WE DO HERE. Tolerance and respect have to be taught at home and then shared with the world outside of that environment or fighting will just go on and on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnot Borg Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 They are right' date=' the goverment should not show favor to any ONE religion.[/quote'] yeah hence the law to not dispute the holcast should be changed, yeah we should not allow prejeduce agnaist any one or any group, but to say that we are not allowed to discuss a historical event is just upsurd, i do not deny the holocast as an even i deny the numbers totally my right under democracy and freedom of speech, but not in the westren world. I'm not aware of any laws saying we can't dispute the Holocaust. I agree it is a historical event and as such can be discussed. I don't see why you dispute the death totals, though. Approximately 6 million Jewish people and 2 million non-acceptables (gays, disabled, gypsies) still only adds up to around 8 million people. Compared to the total human population of the time, it's a very small percentage. However, compared to the population of Europe before WW2, a big chunk of people vanished. As the Nazis plan was to kill those people, how is it so hard to believe that they succeeded in murdering them? They organized gas facilities to poison people for God/dess's sake. They shipped people in cattle cars to get rid of them en masse. If they had had nuclear weapons, the Nazis would have moved all undesirables to one location and set off a bomb. They liked efficiency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyCell Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 a famous british historian has just been jailed because he denied the numbers 10 years ago even though he changed his mind later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving he has been banned from a handful of countries, where there are laws agnaist discussing the holocaust: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial what i don not beleive is that the germans hated the jews anymore than they hated all other non arian like they hatd russians and killed milllinos of them. so why only the jews hold this special status as if hitler's sole purpose of WWII was exterminating them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCOLancer Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I think it bad that this can happen i dont know how TFMF went through school or if he still does but in Inverness where im from we could wear what we wanted school uniform with flip flops if we cared or just jeans well except shellsuits for the obvious problem in science but for any 1 to ban people from wearing these in the UK is wrong if thats the case then why dont we ban hoodies in school( nowadays hoodies are sold by schools ) since we have a larger Yob problem than some girls wearing a headress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnot Borg Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Very sorry to get off-topic, folks. I'd hate to get us moved to Rura Penthe. greyCell's wrote: "what i don not beleive is that the germans hated the jews anymore than they hated all other non arian like they hatd russians and killed milllinos of them. so why only the jews hold this special status as if hitler's sole purpose of WWII was exterminating them. Well, as the Nazis started their regime in Germany and removed the Jews, among others, then stole their property. Next, going on to other countries and doing the same thing. It seems fairly evident that they claimed Jews were the main example of impurity to the Reich definition of ARYAN. Being excluded from many other occupations and services due to bigotry of their culture/religion, many Jewish students went into business, medicine, and education. Those are powerful cliques of their own. Nazis gained a lot of power by claiming that the German economy was suffering because of the Jews controlling those positions. It was one and only one step towards their goal of building an Aryan empire. Nazi Germany, just like the Confederate states, had several goals once they started campaigns of destruction. Putting healthy, white, European-descended people in control was only one. However, to get started, they had to show they had plans.... So, the extermination of non-acceptables in Germany was meticulously planned and carried out until they lost the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyCell Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 using the jewsas an eample yeah i can buy that, but why kill them first, well because they are the closest of non arian races, they were right in germany and the first countries to be occupied, every body'elses turn was coming. and of course im not saying that killing the jews was collatral, it was itentional there was a plan and a special personal hate from a psychotic mind, but not because he inherently hates them, because they were the closest of non arian race, and the one that lived in germany. but beside all that i reject the laws on basis of free spech, the right to say anything i want even if everyother single human bieng on the planet sais otherwise is an integral part of democracy. so back to the topic at hand, i think what turned this from a simple dispute around a school uniform to a lawsuit is the arab\middle eastren islamic culture after centuries of illetracy ever since the end of the first islamic era when the rulers who ruled by the name of islam banned much of science un the islamic world was plunger into illetracy, as people became shallower and shallower it became hasrder to say that the heart of relegion is a core of philosophical beleifs, a man who can't read and never has been more than 5 kilometers from his village can't grasp that, even though his ancestors who lived there only a couple of centuries ago could as a result of the great education that was established there. so relegion turned from ideas and beleifs to conducts, and the fundaminalists "not saying she is" never have enough, here in egypt we have in publich transportartion little small posterrs they hand on the walls of buses that sais that the least acceptable women clothing must be long and very bulky and it must cover all but the face, and they say that most of "thier" imam's believe that even thins is not acceptable, and that women must cover all thier bodies, and they draw 4 pics of vailed women, the first 2 one in a shirt and jeans and with a little X under it, the second is in a shirt and skirt and also with a little X, finally the 2 other pictures one of them is the jibab and it is written under it that this is the least acceptable and that alot of people still say it is unacceptable, the last is a ghos....t ehm a woman covereb by a black khimar that only shows one eye. that is why only the very knowlegable muslims who read islamic books from centuries ago know this is not islam, and that the more fundimental is the beleif system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnot Borg Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Ah, free speech. I love it and hate it. ...and women have to wear those clothes in an area with extremely hot temperatures. Unimaginable, to me, at least. It sounds basically, that you are saying the fundamentalists have undermined the true aims of Islam. I've heard that before spoken about Christians in the southern United States. Education was less important than spiritual development and cultural progress slowed down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyCell Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 no i didnt say that the fundimentalists inserted what was not there, merely they shifted the attention from the core beleif system to codes of conduct, this appeals to an illetrate society as it is easy to comply with do this and do not do this, but to get you into a philosophical beleif system where you are asked to think about the core abstract belefs is beyond them. another thing the fundimentalists shifted, they have taken away our right to do wrong, meaning that in any beleif system you are told what you should do and not do, it is up to you to see what you will follow, and in islam breaking any of these rules is a sin, but it doesnt mean you go to hell , but the fundimentalists say that not wearing this is on par with denying GOD , they say it means you have left islam, this is a powerful message, and it is also more accsisble to iletrate people who like to think in binary right and wrong hell or heaven without degrees of freedom, if the relegious authorities are responsible for making us follow the relegion by force why is there in thier beleif system judgment, if i do not follow it should be the fault of those who didnt make me follow, so and because fundimentalists are only in power in saudi arabia, else where the fundimentalists use social pressure. that is probably exactly what happend to her, probably she was convinced with the uniform the school designed, but she was socially pressured by her friends who rever fundimentalist imam's into doing this. only fundimentalists work in this way of all or nothing in islam there is the rule "what cannot be entirely reached "or obtained" is not to be entirely abbandoned". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bones2097 Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 if she don't cover here face than why did she put the religous twist on it (stupid tart, making a big fuss), just shows how scared ppl are of upsetting muslims.... i mean the point of the dress is to cover here whole body (aka no skirts), then a school uniform does the job.. theres no school in all of england that stops girls wearing trousers these days ... i think again she just made a big fuss & got media attension... stupid fundies... if they ain't blowing things up, taking other countries, forcing there views on others... they just get on the t!ts of normal ppl who just wana pass through this world with minmum of stress... before you accuse me of racism well... so what?? the above applies to the west too theyre just as bad!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now