Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → News and Events → UK news and issues → Religious clothing in schools

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 07:25 AM
New Britain
Today at 12:05 AM
Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM
عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM
Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM
What's happened to the fo...
April 11, 2024, 01:00 AM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 01, 2024, 12:10 PM
Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM
Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM
Pakistan: The Nation.....
January 28, 2024, 02:12 PM
Gaza assault
January 27, 2024, 01:08 PM
Nawal El Saadawi: Egypt's...
January 27, 2024, 12:24 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Religious clothing in schools

 (Read 23727 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #90 - April 16, 2014, 06:57 PM
     mysmilie_977. I am the luckiest person on Earth yes. Princess Jasmine has fallen for me 001_wub, woohoo! By the way I am typing this wearing a magenta babydoll.
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #91 - April 16, 2014, 06:58 PM
    o you sexy thing you  Kiss Kiss Kiss
    "I Knew who I was this morning, but I've changed a few times since then." Alice in wonderland

    "This is the only heaven we have how dare you make it a hell" Dr Marlene Winell
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #92 - April 16, 2014, 07:58 PM
    Quote from: Lynna on April 16, 2014, 01:17 PM
    Just like Osmanthus and his implied or very direct Jehovah's Witnesses let their children die because they don't accept blood products. Whereas in reality Jehovah Witnesses parents are more informed then most about what their options are to get good treatment for their chidren and their self.

    Umm, Lynna, there actually have been cases where JW parents would have preferred to let their child die rather than giving consent for a blood transfusion.  IIRC, there have also been cases where the parents have been overruled by the medical staff and have consequently flipped out.

    Obviously blood transfusions are not necessary in all cases. However, they are necessary in some cases. This is why blood banks still want blood FFS.

    I did not say anything about how well-informed or otherwise JW parents are. I asked what you would do in the case of a child that did actually need a blood transfusion. You have avoided this question in favour of defensive blustering. Care to answer it?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #93 - April 17, 2014, 06:41 PM
    I factory resent my phone yesterday now the forum sign in is saying my password isn't  what I thought it was. So I'm being someone else for a while.
    Quote from: osmanthus on April 16, 2014, 07:58 PM
    ... actually have been cases where JW parents would have preferred to let their child die rather than giving consent for a blood transfusion

    Osmanthus did these parents tell you personally that they preferred their child to die? How did you obtain this information? I would really like to know.
    Like parents the world over Jehovah's Witness parents want the very best for their child. What the very best is many vary greatly among individuals. Witness however love live now and the hope of living on into paradise. That desire for the health and god care of their children is no doubt why they got them medical help in the first place. As well as why they took the time to learn about medical care that does not use blood products.

    Quote from: osmanthus
     ....where the parents have been overruled by the medical staff.


    I don't believe it's actually the medical staff. It would have to be a court order but perhaps that is a technicality. But yes, there are cases when the medical personal and legal system allow their own options,  biases and prejudices to determine against the Jehovah's Witness family. Not so different then some other court cases. Neither do these loses diminish the many victories in Superior and International Courts.

    Quote from: osmanthus
    ...(parents) consequently flipped out.


    Yes I guess so. Wouldn't you? Your beloved child is very ill or gravely injured. You desire this child to have the very best care. Care that you have informed yourself about with the greatest hope that you'll never have to use that knowledge. However that day is here. Not only are you in fear for your child's life you have a bunch of strangers accusing you of wanting to let your child die. There could be nothing farther form your mind. In fact in many cases there is a hospital and doctors waiting to take over the care of the child but it is policy for the one facility to release the patient. But it won't, instead you are taken to court and a treatment you find dangerous and repulsive is forced on your child.
    If you Osmanthus don't find yourself even just a little flipped out perhaps you are the one who ought to examine how you feel about your children.

    Quote from: osmanthus
    Obviously blood transfusions are not necessary in all cases.... necessary in some cases. This is why blood banks still  still want blood

     
    Blood banks are big business. There is a lot of profit there. You every notice what the cost to the patient is for a product that is donated to the blood bank.
    But besides that it an option. A surgeon can be sloppy in her techniques. Then just give s unit of blood. Most people wouldn't even question it. It is just procedure.
    It is much the same in a lot of things. The easy way out. Take a pill instead of eating correctly. Have gastric surgery instead of excrising. Should choices ve taken away. No. People should have the right to choose for them self and there children.

    Quote from: osmanthus
    I asked what you would do in the case of a child that did actually need a blood transfusion


    I can't think what that circumstance might be. With the numerous options to treat without using blood it should never real be a problem.
    Did you have a certain situation in mind?

    ]















    child that did actually need a blood transfusion. You have avoided this question in favour of defensive blustering. Care to answer it?
    [/quote]
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #94 - April 17, 2014, 10:35 PM
    You seem to be highly emotional about this.

    I didn't say JW parents wanted their kids dead. I said they would prefer death to a blood transfusion, which is pretty much undeniable since they absolutely refuse blood transfusions. I mean if you're in a situation where a transfusion is necessary and you refuse it, it's a no-brainer that you're preferring death in that case.

    Blood transfusions have saved a lot of lives. That's why they were invented. Treating them as something horrific is just irrational. Then again, most religious beliefs are irrational anyway and JW's certainly have their fair share.

    Quote
    I can't think what that circumstance might be. With the numerous options to treat without using blood it should never real be a problem.
    Did you have a certain situation in mind?

    Ok, so you're seriously telling me you cannot think of any situation in which a transfusion might be necessary. That the transfusion method is never required for any patient? This may be why you're a nurse instead of a doctor.

    Everything I can find online says that transfusions are avoided when it is possible to avoid them, but are not avoidable in all cases.

    Me? I'm not a doctor either, but if a doctor told me I needed a transfusion I'd see no reason to argue. Can you give me any reason why I should refuse a transfusion?

    As for an example situation: what if blood volume has been reduced to the level where oxygenation is not sufficient, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy is not available? What are you going to do then?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #95 - April 17, 2014, 11:01 PM
    Ok, I'm on a roll now. This is interesting. Apparently the JW powers that be have changed their minds several times. Dunno if this also means Jehovah is changing his mind, or just his earthly representatives.

    Anywayz....



    Quote
    Current Standard

    The Apostles had no physiology manuals. They made no distinction between blood components. Blood referred to just that; blood. No distinction was made to allow for the separation of blood into fractions, allowing the consumption of one blood component and not another. Biblical blood law was not about nit picking but respect for life.

    The current Watchtower position to allow blood fractions is unscriptural and inaccurate. To justify what these major components are the 2004 Watchtower article contains the following quote;

        "The 2001 textbook Emergency Care, under "Composition of the Blood," stated: "The blood is made up of several components: plasma, red and white blood cells, and platelets." Thus, in line with medical facts, Witnesses refuse transfusions of whole blood or of any of its four primary components."

    The book the Society chose to use as a reference is not a medical textbook and is a simplification of the major components of blood. As shown in Medical textbooks such as Modern Blood Banking and Transfusion Practices by Denise M. Harmening, Ph.D., the major components of blood can be considered to include;

        "Red blood cells, RBC Aliquots, Leukocyte-reduced red blood cells, frozen - deglycerolized red blood cells, platelet concentrate, single donor plasma, cryoprecipitated antihemophilic factor, granulocyte concentrates, factor VIII concentrate, porcine factor VIII, factor IX concentrate (Prothrombin Complex), immune serum globulin, normal serum albumin, plasma protein fraction, Rho(D) immunoglobulin, antithrombin III concentrate."

    Since 2000, Jehovah's Witnesses have been allowed to transfuse many of these blood factors. For instance, whereas white blood cells compose less than 1% of the volume of blood allowed serum proteins compose 6%. Hemoglobin is an allowed component makes up over 15% of the volume of blood. Quite startling, once broken down into fractions a Witness can transfuse 100% of blood.


    Also this:

    Quote
    View of the Medical Fraternity

    In general, doctors are encouraged to follow the wishes of their patients, and many will respect the stand that a Jehovah's Witness will make for their convictions. Doctors act in the best interests of their patients and recognise that blood carries risks and will avoid it where considered possible.

        "Alternatives To Blood Transfusion
        Because the blood transfusions carry risks and because the blood supply is limited, doctors try not to transfuse when possible. In some cases, alternatives to blood product transfusions may be available. Volume expanders: When a patient has lost a lot of body fluids but does not need red blood cells or other specific blood components, volume expanders may be given to prevent or treat shock caused by fluid loss. The most common volume expanders are normal saline (salt water) and lactated Ringer's solution (saline plus additional chemicals). Other volume expanders include albumin, hydroxyethyl starch (HES), dextrans, and purified protein fractions (PPF)." cancer.org (as of Feb 28th 2006)

    However, blood is at times deemed essential for survival and even though a Witness may question the ethics of the Medical fraternity,3 they should not ignore that a doctor has financial incentive to act in a manner that gives patients their best chance for survival. Increasing litigation insurance costs ensure doctors give blood because they believe it increases a person's chance of survival. To feel otherwise is based on misinformation presented in Watchtower publications (as demonstrated in "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation" by Kerry Louderback-Wood)

    As of 2010, there are no alternatives for red blood cells; this is still the only known way for the body to successfully carry oxygen. As medical research has progressed full blood transfusions have become less necessary for survival, but there are still situations where a blood transfusion is the only option.

    rsc.org (Jun 6 2010) stated that "Human blood substitutes have been in the pipeline since the 1980s. But, for a combination of scientific and political reasons, there are none currently on the market in either Europe or the US. ... The study, led by Charles Natanson, a senior scientist at the US National Institutes of Health, revealed a threefold increase in the risk of heart attacks in patients who received the substitutes, compared with the control group who received donor blood." Click for a PDF of the full article. If whole blood transfusions were simply unnecessary, there would not be so much effort going into trying to find a substitute.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #96 - April 18, 2014, 12:16 AM
    Quote from: Lynna on April 16, 2014, 05:00 PM
    Do tell why do you feel a need to respond to that part of the conversation? You were not one of the people that brought up those topics.

    My first thoughts were that biblically Armageddon is a place, not an event if I recall correctly. The other is the choosing to die. Are you talking about people being murdered for what they think is true/untrue or suicide?

    I actually didn't want to derail the thread with the old "Because you don't think my religion is true that means you're making the choice to be murdered" argument that just goes around and around.

    As for the blood thing, it's curious to me. If one has an alternative to blood that does the same thing as blood to whatever degree, isn't this shaky ground? For instance if tomorrow blood banks the world over no longer needed donors because a synthetic blood had been created, would this be allowed? Again it seems rather like a cop out.

    As to your later comments, it's an interesting take. Saying a blood transfusion is the easy way out, comparing it to a diet (I'm assuming) pill or gastric surgery strikes me as a little odd. It's not like the average person is having a blood transfusion for the sake of vanity, it's done for genuine medical reasons. You can't compare that to not having the willpower or motivation to eat a salad once in a while or take a walk around the block.

    Regarding the parents, I think it's a question of where religious rights end. If I was a doctor treating a child and I was concerned enough that I felt the need to take the parents to court, that's saying something. This is not an easy way out. I can't imagine doctors doing this simply because they can't be bothered to do something that will work equally well without the need to do against the wishes of the parents.

    May I ask if you would support me in this instance?

    I have an underage patient with schizophrenia. If he doesn't get help and take his meds, he will go insane. He'll hear voices, be delusional, possibly be violent. His parents are scientologists. They view therapy as evil.

    Now there have been cases like the one I just mentioned. Scientologists who view therapy as wrong and refuse to have medication for religious reasons and end up not being able to function in normal society, commit suicide, murder or all of the above. Would you be against me taking the parents of my schizophrenic patient to court to ensure the wellbeing of my patient? Should religious beliefs be allowed to impact on the welfare of others?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #97 - April 18, 2014, 02:20 AM

    Quote from: osmanthus on April 17, 2014, 11:01 PM
    Ok, I'm on a roll now. This is interesting. Apparently the JW powers that be have changed their minds several times. Dunno if this also means Jehovah is changing his mind, or just his earthly representatives.

    Anywayz....

    (Clicky for piccy!)

    Also this:



    I think the JW powers that be change their minds on some pretty important things, frequently. Aren't they one of those religions/cults that claim the end of the world was nigh, and then kept pushing the date back another decade or two?

    The JW family beneath me is really not a stellar example of concerned parenting. They seem to think the Bible and prayers will magically fix their children and all their issues. I was lucky enough to get JW dawah from one of the kids.
    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #98 - April 18, 2014, 02:52 AM
    Quote from: three on April 18, 2014, 02:20 AM
    I was lucky enough to get JW dawah from one of the kids.


    Slightly related:

    My father and my mother both met each other when they were already deep in committed relationships. My mother was married with a kid, and my father, a younger guy, was engaged. They wound up hitting it off and having an affair and leaving their partners for each other, and it was about as messy as you'd expect--but I'm never going to complain. They've gotten 26 or so years of marriage out of it, and I got to be born.

    But the point is that the sister of my father's ex-fiance is a Jehovah's Witness, and she still comes to our house and has ever since we were kids to preach to us. And my sisters and I all have this weird sins of the father guilt? So whenever she comes to share the good news with us, we welcome her in and listen to her patiently and politely, and the whole time all we're thinking is, "Our dad cheated on your sister, dad betrayed your sister, oops." But she gives us the newest literature and reads some passages from the Bible and tells us a nice story and quizzes us a little bit on the literature she left for us last time.

    But this is how and why I was a regular reader of The Watchtower up until college.  wacko
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #99 - April 18, 2014, 03:07 AM
     Cheesy Priceless.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #100 - April 18, 2014, 01:09 PM
    It’s not surprising how the JWs weasel around this issue. Parents shouldn’t have the right to refuse life-saving blood transfusions for their kids, period. The fact that there are people out there who’d choose to kill their child – like it or not, that’s what they’re doing when they know the only options are death or a blood transfusion – fucking horrifies and disgusts me. Jesus, even Islam makes a concession for life or death situations.

    Quote from: Lilyesque on April 15, 2014, 08:01 PM
    What about if this clothing causes rickets or in pregnant women causes vitamin D deficiencies to the unborn child? Who's right comes first? Rickets and vitamin deficiencies are extremely important things to prevent otherwise life quality is severely impacted.

    So, should we ban pregnant women from covering too? While we’re at it, what are we going to do about pregnant crack whores and women who smoke and drink during pregnancy? Heard of fetal alcohol syndrome? I hear it has a tendency to severely impact quality of life too. Let’s be real here, this isn’t about children’s rights or anyone’s health, it’s about suppressing the expression of a religion you don’t like.
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #101 - April 18, 2014, 01:10 PM
    Quote from: Cornflower on April 15, 2014, 08:08 PM
    No, no, don't you know that a child's vitamin D intake doesn't matter because what matters most is that the parents can indoctrinate the child with whatever they want as long as it's about religion. It doesn't matter that the child's (finer) motor skills are impaired because the child's mobility is restricted and it can not partake in normal day to day activity as it did before having to cover up both body and hair. I mean, any other type of neglect or harm caused on the child would end up bringing social services in to the picture but since it's religious we have to stay quiet. Roll Eyes
    By the way, where does it stop? The neighbors I had who made their 8 year old to wear the niqab, do they also have the right to do so? Nobody cares about the children. Typical for religious people.

    First of all, I’m not religious. Like, at all. I’m an ex-Muslim atheist. This isn’t even really about religion, it’s ostensibly about children’s welfare; you’re the one who has chosen to target religion, namely Islam, completely ignoring that all manner of non-religious kooks engage in child abuse and aren’t deprived of their children or their right to raise them as they see fit. It’s not mandatory to vaccinate one’s child, despite the obvious danger of not doing so, and those folks don’t get any attention from social services despite exposing their children to fatal diseases. I don’t know how it is where you live but it actually takes some pretty extreme child abuse for social services to get involved with anything here; by extreme I mean constant bruises and visible injuries or persistent extremely unusual behaviour.

    Obviously, an 8-year-old wearing a niqab is atrocious and something needs to be done there. I doubt a school with a uniform would allow that and I doubt 8-year-olds in niqabs is something that happens often, definitely not more often than more serious child abuse that gets ignored. Also, I don’t see how this one freakish occurrence justifies a blanket hijab ban. Would you feel better if extremist families locked their daughters indoors to evade the ban so people like you don’t have to be subjected to seeing little girls in hijabs in the streets?

  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #102 - April 18, 2014, 01:27 PM
    Quote from: Al-Alethia on April 18, 2014, 01:09 PM
    So, should we ban pregnant women from covering too? ...............

    NOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    If the women is pregnant and her partner happened to be a Muslim hero WITH THAT STUPID ISLAMIC MINDSET  that his better half must wear a Niqab., Then that burkha along with spoon and pots must be transferred to that  rascal,  so not only he will be covered fully but he should be cooking to feed her and their kid..  
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #103 - April 18, 2014, 01:41 PM
    Quote
    but he should be cooking to feed her and their kid.


    n my love for yeez grows
    "I Knew who I was this morning, but I've changed a few times since then." Alice in wonderland

    "This is the only heaven we have how dare you make it a hell" Dr Marlene Winell
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #104 - April 18, 2014, 02:14 PM
    ^Lol, that makes two of us, confudeagno.
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #105 - April 18, 2014, 09:07 PM
    Hmm .,   here is a funny story from a lady., For those RASCALS who insist that Muslim women folks must wear burkha because they are going out to visit friends/family member/ buying groceries etc..etc or they are pregnant.,   you all ladies who read this thread should also add THE ITEM that is there  in that story and gift it  to those  rascals along with Pans/pots and spoons..  
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #106 - April 19, 2014, 02:51 AM
    Lol!  Cheesy

    Yeez, I gotta love you for this one, too.
    Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

    The sleeper has awakened -  Dune

    Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish!
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #107 - April 19, 2014, 04:02 AM
    Replying to Quod

    Armogeddon
    There was a place in Biblical Israel called in English the Valley of Mageddo. (right now I can think and don't  feel well enough to look it up if the place is still called that). Armogeddon to my best understanding is a transliteration of mountain of Mageddon. There has never or wasn't in Bible time a physical place by that name. The Valley of Mageddo was a strategic battle ground. So Armogeddon is to symbolicallyused in the book of Revelations to talk about a strategic destruction of those humans and spirits who knowingly and willingly oppose God's sovereignty. So I suppose it could be for both what they believe and what they don't believe. What method will be used. I have no idea except that truth believers will not have to raise their hand in battle.

    As to you question about the scientologist with the schizophrenia child (or themself) that they would like to treat without medication. Yes I would support them. Medication is also not without risks. There many, many side effects to the medications for schizophrenia Suicidal and aggressive behavior is not the least among these. So if the family haves the desire and is showing a willingness to work a plan this may well be as good for the patient as anything. You could of course come back with some case of some schizophrenic that turned out to be a serial murder. There however is no guarantee that that would not of happened had the person been on medication.


    The question about the Sciencetologist
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #108 - April 19, 2014, 05:22 AM
    More stuff in reply to Quod

    Perhaps in some/many occasions a blood transfusion is not like a quick fix pill or as least shouldn't  be. You would perhaps bee surprised how many patients as for because "I'm cold all the time", "am feeling a little weak", "might bleed during surgery", "have been losing weight", "feel like my iron is low". Okay for real. Yes those are just  a few of the things I've heard. Not everyone is crazy but I've also seen doctors write orders for blood transfusions for some of these "say what" reasons. However if the patient really  wants to took the risks for a reason like those and the doctors will write the order that is their choice. Go for it. When I worked in the hospital we had a standard list of pros and cons and answers to their question when we did their informed consent paperwork with them. I never attempted to influence people. Informative and neutral. Only one time did I mention to patient that I was Witness during transfusion paperwork.  It was when a ppatient signed her consent without reading  it. I questioned her about it. She said smugly if I have any problems I'll just say you pressured me. So as I signed to witness her signature I said,"I'm well know as Jehovah's Witness here. No one would believe I pressured you into signing this paperwork.


     
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #109 - April 19, 2014, 05:44 AM
    Quote
    As to you question about the scientologist with the schizophrenia child (or themself) that they would like to treat without medication. Yes I would support them. Medication is also not without risks. There many, many side effects to the medications for schizophrenia Suicidal and aggressive behavior is not the least among these. So if the family haves the desire and is showing a willingness to work a plan this may well be as good for the patient as anything. You could of course come back with some case of some schizophrenic that turned out to be a serial murder. There however is no guarantee that that would not of happened had the person been on medication.


    ^I find it interesting how you would rather get no treatment which is isn't going to solve anything, than take treatment with a relativity small chance of adverse effects. That sounds a lot like many religious folk who don't take treatments hoping God will work something out. It's not going to happen.

    Quote from: Al-Alethia on April 18, 2014, 01:09 PM
    So, should we ban pregnant women from covering too? While we’re at it, what are we going to do about pregnant crack whores and women who smoke and drink during pregnancy? Heard of fetal alcohol syndrome? I hear it has a tendency to severely impact quality of life too. Let’s be real here, this isn’t about children’s rights or anyone’s health, it’s about suppressing the expression of a religion you don’t like.


    The risks of taking substances such as alcohol with regards to fetal development are well known and I'm pretty sure most women are actively told by people to not do so (though I'm not a women so I can't say for sure), so yes there is an effort to reduce substance abuse during pregnancy. However, taking substances is not part of a belief system, which is what makes Islam so dangerous; it's a belief which promotes several unhealthy behaviours, in this case causing vitamin D deficiency. Many women are forced to wear the niqab, either by the government (in some Islamic countries) or by religion itself (fear of hell), which makes it very different to substance abuse.
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #110 - April 19, 2014, 07:29 AM
    ^I believe there were people here arguing for banning hijabs/niqabs, which is why I used the analogy that drinking/drug use during pregnancy is far more dangerous but not illegal. I'm all for women being informed of the health risks involved with lack of sun exposure; I don't oppose awareness at all. I also know that Islam is a dangerous and destructive belief system for many reasons. 

    I know Muslim women with vitamin D deficiencies and every single one was told about needing to get more sun; continuing to covering up is their own, sometimes foolish choice, in the face of knowledge that it's unhealthy. No different from a person on the brink of obesity who won't stop eating crap. It's not even really comparable to drinking during pregnancy because a hijabi/niqabi can still take measures to alleviate any health risks just by sunbathing in her backyard for a bit everyday and taking vitamin D supplements, which is usually sufficient to maintain healthy vitamin D levels. I'd say it's an exaggeration to claim that wearing a hijab is a health hazard. 
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #111 - April 19, 2014, 08:56 AM
    Ok so I'm gonna make a final post here and make my stance as clear as I possible can given the fact that I find this discussion exhausting and boring.

    First of all, I do not target out Islam in particular when I'm talking about children's rights and wellfare vis a vi the parents' freedom of religion. As mentioned, the issue of "freedom of religion" and the parents rights to impose their own agenda, ideology and values upon the children without bearing in mind the best of the child, is a problem not only when dealing with people from the Muslim faith but also those of other faiths (example given was JW and blood transfusions). This has nothing to do with me personally finding it "difficult" to see little children covered up. I can be honest, even as a Muslim I found it extremely disturbing that little girls just 6 years old were completely covered up. But this is not the issue. My emotional side is not a part of my arguments and why I think that hijab shouldn't be allowed for children in school.

    Second of all, when I discuss this topic, my point of view is from the society and culture I'm living in. I don't know much about other countries laws concerning child abuse but I do know what my own country has to say and what our neighboring countries have to say. For example, Norway has already passed a law that pregnant women who excessively consumes alcohol (thus putting the fetus in direct danger) can be put in the state's care until giving birth. Whether or not she can keep the child is up to social services to make a decision afterwards. This has been debated in whole of Scandinavia to pass similar laws (in Sweden we already have laws concerning this but the discussion was about further measurements). In Sweden, we have, very strongly enforced, laws concerning child abuse. You do not need "recurring bruises" for a long period of time for social services to get involved, and hearing that this is the case in other countries is very disturbing. Sweden has one of the world's strongest laws against child abuse.

    Now a clarification; I think that laws and regulations that imposes on people's freedom of expression whether that is freedom of speech, religion or whatever, should be kept at the bare minimum. However, when it comes to children, they themselves have not chosen any particular political or religious opinion but have it imposed on them from their parents. Personally, if you ask me what I feel, I wouldn't want any child to be exposed to any religion at all. But intellectually, I don't think it is right. Parents should be free to raise their children however they want. But a line must be drawn somewhere between the parents' rights to raise their children according to their own belief-system, whether that be a religious or political ideology, and the rights of the child.

    When I mentioned some examples why I find it problematic that young children in their developing age cover up in bulky clothes from a young age, it had nothing to do with "emotional arguments". If a grown woman chooses to cover herself up, thus suffering from vitamin D deficiency, that is her own choice. If that leads to obesity and bad health, that is consequences she herself must bear. But when you cover up your child at the age of 6, in hijab or niqab, that is something that will undeniably and directly cause harm to the child. Once again, I have my point of view in the society I actually live in, and the majority of the population do not have access to "a backyard" where they can take of their clothes and sunbathe in a gender segregated environment. I would say almost no one has, which makes that argument as silly and obsolete as it can get. Throwing "alternative", but unrealistic, "solutions" to the problem does not solve the actual problem.

    As for my comment on motor skills, this is something I have observed and noticed not only in the children of my friends, but in young girls in general who are forced to wear hijab and skirts from a young age. Perhaps it is a bit emotional for me to react with sorrow and disgust (against the parents) when I see a little 8-year old who can barely run after her friends playing hide and seek because she has a big long skirt that prevents her from taking fast and long steps and a hijab that reaches her waist. But it's not about emotion when parents are preventing this child from healthy exercise and ability to develop motor skills. If you prevent your child from participating in swimming classes and PE classes in general, on the basis of religion, you are not only putting your child in danger (being able to swim can save lives), but also from getting the same education as everyone else.

    Parents cannot "keep their children locked up at home", because elementary school (up to year 9) is mandatory and home schooling is not an option in Sweden. Every child must go to school. Failing to do so will result in social services taking the child. This is why I don't think it wise to ban the hijab in high school (which is not mandatory in a legal sense, but not having a high school degree means you are unemployed for life. Literally) because then the parents could keep the child "locked up".

    A comment to Lynna who criticized me for bringing up "the beach" when she meets children in her professional life who visits their parents in prison. If anything is emotional, that would be it. Just because some children due to their geographical place of living and/or social and economical status do not have a decent standard of living does not mean that we shouldn't care about those who have the opportunities but are prevented from it due to parents' silly beliefs. Once again, it's not about the beach for fucks sake, it was just a lame example to illustrate a point which apparently failed. With that type of argument that you Lynna presented, you could say that American children who can't afford eating fruits and vegetables on a daily basis should stf up because children in Africa eat once a week.
    "The healthiest people I know are those who are the first to label themselves fucked up." - three
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #112 - April 19, 2014, 11:48 AM
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=426_1181556194

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4M0umEbqWk

    Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

    Quote
    ........Women training in several hospitals in England have raised objections to removing their arm coverings in theatre and to rolling up their sleeves when washing their hands, because it is regarded as immodest in Islam.

    Universities and NHS trusts fear many more will refuse to co-operate with new Department of Health guidance, introduced this month, which stipulates that all doctors must be "bare below the elbow"..............

    that is what STUPID RELIGIONS and their rules do to folks..
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #113 - April 19, 2014, 12:46 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 18, 2014, 02:52 AM
    Slightly related:

    My father and my mother both met each other when they were already deep in committed relationships. My mother was married with a kid, and my father, a younger guy, was engaged. They wound up hitting it off and having an affair and leaving their partners for each other, and it was about as messy as you'd expect--but I'm never going to complain. They've gotten 26 or so years of marriage out of it, and I got to be born.

    But the point is that the sister of my father's ex-fiance is a Jehovah's Witness, and she still comes to our house and has ever since we were kids to preach to us. And my sisters and I all have this weird sins of the father guilt? So whenever she comes to share the good news with us, we welcome her in and listen to her patiently and politely, and the whole time all we're thinking is, "Our dad cheated on your sister, dad betrayed your sister, oops." But she gives us the newest literature and reads some passages from the Bible and tells us a nice story and quizzes us a little bit on the literature she left for us last time.

    But this is how and why I was a regular reader of The Watchtower up until college.  wacko

     

    I have had a liking for my JW dawah crews since I was a child. My mother would not allow them in the house, but every Saturday morning found me outside in my jammies and bare feet as a kid, arguing politely with them.
    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #114 - April 19, 2014, 01:40 PM
    Quote from: Descent on April 19, 2014, 05:44 AM
    ^I find it interesting how you would rather get no treatment which is isn't going to solve anything, than take treatment with a relativity small chance of adverse effects. That sounds a lot like many religious folk who don't take treatments hoping God will work something out. It's not going to happen.


    I agree, although I am afraid it's not limited to religious folk where I'm from. It seems to be more a problem with gullible people with no true understanding of science and medicine, but who fell victim to pseudoscience or their own faulty intuition. Recently, we've been contending over in the states (especially in my area) with outbreaks of viruses that we had once gotten to say that we got rid of in our country because of diligent vaccinations. The absolutely mind-numbing parade of human stupidity that is the anti-vaccination movement has had a large role in bringing back, you know, the measles and other fantastic things.

    I hate sticking with absolutes and extreme state interventions, but I think this is my big problem with this entire subject. I totally support the right of an adult individual to ruin his or her own life by believing in some asinine nonsense. Do your thing, man. But I have no tolerance for their misinformation putting other people in danger, even if they are the parents of the people that are being put in danger. Could not care even a slightest bit less about parental rights over a child when we get into the territory of denying them lifesaving treatment or putting the general public at risk of once again becoming infected with diseases that we had once gotten rid of.
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #115 - April 19, 2014, 02:02 PM
    Quote from: Descent on April 19, 2014, 05:44 AM
    ^I find it interesting how you would rather get no treatment which is isn't going to solve anything, than take treatment with a relativity small chance of adverse effects. That sounds a lot like many religious folk who don't take treatments hoping God will work something out. It's not going to happen.


    Having a plan to treat Schizophrenia without medication is not "not treating it at all". Medication is only put of treating any mental / emotional / behavioral issue anyhow. There is should be a consideration of the complete person. Having a successful environment, Having a support group. Educating the person about their condition. Behavioral management . Medication alone is not always effective.  It is generally thought that a combination of methods is needed. HOWEVER an adult person (or person of reasonable age) should have the right to self determination. There would be some exceptions to this. Those determined insane, those who are without a doubt a danger to himself and others.. Differing opinion would not be a cause to take someone's rights away.
    One of the main thoughts I take from this forum is that in general most of you are as intolerant (or more so) of other peoples right to choose a life course or lifestyle then you claim people are of your choice to be atheists or agnostic or indifferentt..
    I actually wasn't asked nor did I answer what I would do. Was ask if I'd support a no medication treatment of schizophrenia. So that is the question I answered.
    As to your lack of understanding about how severe the side effects of some medications can be take the time to read a PER sometime.  Or maybe you could Google how many medications have death listed as a side effect. I really don't know the answer to that. I have however seen people die from adverse reactions that were misdiagnosised. The doctor just didn't think it could have been that little ol' antibiotic. I wouldn't stop taking antibiotics because of it. However if I got a red rash all over my body and felt like I was on fire I'm stopping the antibiotic and getting immediate medical help.
    There are a lot of ideas in this world. People have the right to their idea and to the results to their ideas and actions. Yeah we live a world we have to share so there are rules but those rules shouldn't take away an individuals right to make choices. The way I see it God didn't  even take ay a persons right to choose what they would do during their life.








     generally thought a com
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #116 - April 19, 2014, 02:08 PM
    Quote from: Ussarn on April 19, 2014, 02:02 PM

    There are a lot of ideas in this world. People have the right to their idea and to the results to their ideas and actions. Yeah we live a world we have to share so there are rules but those rules shouldn't take away an individuals right to make choices. The way I see it God didn't  even take ay a persons right to choose what they would do during their life.



    I'm going to say upfront that I didn't read this whole thread because I am super lazy, so maybe I missed something. If I missed something, I apologize. But just from this last page, I think the problem most people are talking about isn't taking away the individual's right to choose. It's more the right to choose on behalf of minors with paranoia or religion as your guide.
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #117 - April 19, 2014, 02:12 PM
    Yep. I've not heard single person talking about limiting adult people's freedom and rights. But this is about these adults imposing their silly beliefs on minors who have no say in the matter, but then suffer from the obvious poor choices of their parents.
    "The healthiest people I know are those who are the first to label themselves fucked up." - three
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #118 - April 19, 2014, 02:19 PM

    Quote from: Al-Alethia on April 19, 2014, 07:29 AM
    I know Muslim women with vitamin D deficiencies and every single one was told about needing to get more sun; continuing to covering up is their own, sometimes foolish choice, in the face of knowledge that it's unhealthy. No different from a person on the brink of obesity who won't stop eating crap. It's not even really comparable to drinking during pregnancy because a hijabi/niqabi can still take measures to alleviate any health risks just by sunbathing in her backyard for a bit everyday and taking vitamin D supplements, which is usually sufficient to maintain healthy vitamin D levels. I'd say it's an exaggeration to claim that wearing a hijab is a health hazard. 


    Fair enough. I can agree with everything you say, except that last bit.
    Sunlight is needed for Vitamin D synthesis and blocking the skin prevents this so it is a health hazard.  I wouldn't call it a complete exaggeration as there is a strong correlation with hijab wearing and Vitamin D deficiency, which I'm sure you have noticed.
  • Religious clothing in schools
     Reply #119 - April 19, 2014, 02:26 PM
    As for Ussarn, I don't think anyone is interested in forcing you or any consenting adults to take medicine. The problem comes when minors are prevented from receiving better quality health. For example, many Muslims in India & Pakistan refuse to get their kids immunized for polio and the result is that many children are affected by a disease they need not be. I find that incredibly despicable.
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »