»

[Cyberus]

Thought this was VERY topical, and really made me think...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4424776.stm

This has interesting implications, and will change the way that a lot of people view Turkey, and indeed the similar ruling in France.

<devil's advocate mode>
Will Turkey be the next place to be attacked by extremists?
</devil's advocate mode>

[Wilse]

Turkey already has been attacked but I think this is the right decision.

[Cyberus]

True but I thought the attacks had been on 'Western' targets - e.g British Embassy (IIRC?) and HSBC.

To be fair, I should probably go off and have a little read...

[Glaucus]

Well the Turkish government had a choice: 1) risk being targetted by Islamists, or 2) risk being overthrown by the *Turkish* military. They chose option 1 as option two is a greater and more realistic threat.

- Mike

[cecilia]

it's odd how they think they are being "discriminated" against. the ban on dress isn't if you are home or in a church, temple or mosque. which is where one is SUPPOSED practice religion.

in school one is supposed to practice learning.

personally, i couldn't care less what people wear. but i'm used to the idea that in certain places one wears a "uniform". I had to wear one in grammer and HS. this situation is not very different.

[Wilse]

> True but I thought the attacks had been on 'Western' targets

Correct but most of the casualties were Turkish.

"Collateral Damage" and all that malarky...

[Karlos]

@cecilia

The issue in this case is that Islam prescribes that a woman should wear the scarf in any public place. Regardless of what we may individually feel about that, there are women who take this to heart and feel that they are being forced to choose between their religious belief or their education.

Personally, I really don't understand the secularist need to dictate anything about a persons dress code in a public building provided it meets the saftey / decency laws for the place in question. I thought the secular ideal was that the state had no influence in or from religious groups.

I don't see why these issues cannot be left in the hands of the individual and that the state should concern itself with ensuring that the choice does only remain with the individual. Pressure to wear or not to wear particular articles of clothing should be eliminated, not the right to choose for oneself.

I mean, if someone wanted to dress up as Napoleon 24/7, would they be excluded entry from public buildings? If so, would it be discriminatory?

Would it be discriminatory to ban people from shaving their heads? Several religions practise this type of thing, having a shaved head if you were of that religion would be an outward expresion of your faith. Would you have to wear a wig?

[cecilia]

heck, if I was the empress of the universe, everyone could wear what they liked always and everywhere.

but my campagne for world domination is sidetracked for other activities. :roll:

i was simply trying to understand the Turkish Gov position. they may feel it's too dangerous for people to be so outwardly religious. i can't say if they are wrong or right.

at least in Turkey a person has to decide what is more important for them: getting an education or showing their religion in public.

personally, i vote for the education because that gives me tools for my future. but, then, i'm hopelessly rational.

[Karlos]

@cecilia

I appreciate that, I just find it really sad we live in such times when that is the choice an individual is expected to make :-(

but my campagne for world domination is sidetracked for other activities.

I know, it's bloody irritating that, isn't it? :-D

[Cyberus]

Sorry, for the sake of discussion I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a minute :-)

Karlos wrote:

I mean, if someone wanted to dress up as Napoleon 24/7, would they be excluded entry from public buildings? If so, would it be discriminatory?

There are lots of instances where you get discriminated against in this situation - if you were to dress as Adolf Hitler for example, or not dress at all. Whether we like it or not 'discrimination for the sake of society' seems to be quite commonplace...
Society is never a true reflection of the whole populace, and there will always be those living in that society that will suffer at the hands of public opinion. It just depends on who makes the rules as to who suffers.
Ahhh, the great question of democracy....

Would it be discriminatory to ban people from shaving their heads? Several religions practise this type of thing, having a shaved head if you were of that religion would be an outward expresion of your faith. Would you have to wear a wig?

edit: Or one of these?
http://www.amiga.org/gallery/index.php?n=846=20

Yes I think it would definitely be discriminatory :-)


Everyone should have a combover ;-)

[cecilia]

Karlos wrote:
@cecilia

I appreciate that, I just find it really sad we live in such times when that is the choice an individual is expected to make :-(

yes, it's rather silly to get all upset about someone wearing a shmata on their head. I really do feel for these ladies. I mean, I've had to make choices too. I've dressed down to look as "unappealing" as possible so people would see I'm interested in my career in the long-term. I've not had children, I've moved 3000 miles to get work, I've stayed home reading stuff to learn, sat in front of my computer for what seems like years, etc etc.
life is all about choices. and there's no getting around it. i regret nothing. i made my choices. and, contrary to what some feminists would like you to believe, you can't have everything. you just can't.

I know, it's bloody irritating that, isn't it? :-D

sure is!
but i have to admit, sometimes i'm just too damn tired to take over the universe.

[Tripitaka]

Many people would be barred entry from many places if they wore religous atire. As any Satanist, Pagan or Druid would tell you, that's just something you have to accept. It's about time other religions got with the times and realised that if you divide yourself from the majority (by dress, for example) then the majority will divide you from it (by legislation for example). To every action ..a reaction.

[countzero]

cecilia wrote:

i was simply trying to understand the Turkish Gov position. they may feel it's too dangerous for people to be so outwardly religious. i can't say if they are wrong or right.

Actually, the current Turkish government wants to remove this ban (this government is little bit islamist). But they can't because they're afraid of the army. Also the state is in favor of the ban. (the state and government are in conflict on this matter)

One of the reasons for this ban is that, islamic belief prevents the practice of some sciences. The girl who went to EU court was a medical student, and if a person (female) is really practising islam as to wear the scarf, there is no way they can be a practioner, because they can not touch the male body, or perform anatomy lessons. So usually either they fail, or they get their diploma but never become a doctor. Which is a waste of resources when you think about the 2 million students who take the university entrance exams every year in Turkey (only about %10 win I think).

On the other hand, this ban is abused by some ultra-laicist government officials. Actually, the headscarf is not only banned in the Universities, but all government offices in Turkey. The term "government office" in Turkey is in high dispute because of this matter. The places where headscarf is allowed and where it's not allowed is not clear. It's definitely banned in all military offices, the presidents hall (The president doesn't invite the wives of government ministers who wear the scarf to his receptions. very funny.), the parliament, and universities. Last year, a university dean didn't allow a mother to enter the university hall to see her sons graduation ceremony (with the headscarf) and the problem heated again (which was a really stupid action onbehalf of the dean). Now I think many Turkish people think that this ban is stupid and must be revised. Personally, I think that the ban must be applied only to government officers, not the people who use public services. And as for the universities, some sciences, which have direct conflicts with islam maybe should keep the ban (medicine faculties) but others (especially theology) the ban must be lifted. maybe it's better to leave it up to universities to decide if they want it or not (but that will also create problems, and discrimination between universities).

[cecilia]

and if a person (female) is really practising islam as to wear the scarf, there is no way they can be a practioner, because they can not touch the male body, or perform anatomy lessons. So usually either they fail, or they get their diploma but never become a doctor. Which is a waste of resources

yeah, that's nutty.

it reminds me of what just happened in Kansas with their anti-science stance. the school board just voted "intelligent" design in science classes. If I was a parent in Kansas I would move out. No kid going to classes in those schools can hold a diploma that's respected in the rest of the world. these children will have trouble securing jobs based on their poor education.

People may not want to believe me, but if you don't put your child's education as a top priority, you suck as a parent and shouldn't have kids. and if you let religion interfer with that in any way, well, you are crippling your children. period.

that's why i firmly believe that religion needs to be a private activity. if you can't learn to live and thrive in a secular society, maybe you should just live in a cave.

people like Pat Robertson/falwel/ad nauseum have no tolerance for others. and secular means being tolerant. even if you disagree (I know I do all the time). but you don't see me lobbing bombs.

(BTW, your summary of Turkish issues there was very insightful. thanks)

[Karlos]

The girl who went to EU court was a medical student, and if a person (female) is really practising islam as to wear the scarf, there is no way they can be a practioner, because they can not touch the male body, or perform anatomy lessons.

And where did you obtain this notion from? If a woman chooses to wear a scarf it does not automatically imply she has an objection to touching a male body, that is a rather ignorant statement to make.

However, I do concede there are some peope who feel this way but these people generally don't persue medicine anyway. It is generally the patient, not the doctor that has reservations about this, many female patients prefer a woman doctor (and likewise many male patients prefer a male doctor). Which is precisely why there is a demand for lady doctors. And if those doctors are more in touch with their faith, patients who feel the same way will be more inclined to be treated by them. Personally, if I was in need of treatment I would not be particularly concerned either way but not all muslims feel the same way.

At a cleric level, not all Ulema dictate that touching the opposite gender is taboo and of those that do, many agree that medical practice is an exception anyway as it can in no way be construed as sexual.

So in conclusion, your argument that she would not be able to be a practisioner and hence it's a waste of time training her and people like her is flawed on several levels.