The ArchBishop's Hypocrisy

AnyOldIron said:
well, was there a dress code in writing that she signed on to when she was hired? If there wasn't and she feels it necessary to wear her veil and full dress, then she can not be fired for it anyold....she has rights too...

So, you are happy that these children's education will suffer just because she wants to 'exercise' her religious mental issues?

How about if I were a teacher and turned up in a mask, that restricted my communication and caused me to be unable to do my job, that would be ok?

You don't see it as hypocritical that she would attend the interview without the veil, without indicating she wore one, and then insisted she wore one in class?

and I agree with damocles, this will help the children learn about different cultures and freedom of religion from our government.

It doesn't help them learn, it merely restricts her ability to communicate with the children.

This isn't primarily a secularist issue, though the issue still stands about protecting government's freedom from religion.

Was she preaching her "religion" in the classroom? Or just robed in her cultural "dress"?

It restricts her communication.

If my job entailed constantly face to face communication and I arrived at work with my face covered, I wouldn't be able to do my job.
She deserved to be suspended, until she decided she could do her job properly...
Click to expand...

was there a dress code that she signed on to when she was hired, that she is breaking?

answer the question....

if there was not, then she has the right to wear her cultural dress....

and she is not harming the children, she is teaching them about tolerance or another's cultural dress....something you could have benefited from....when you were young :D lol
 
and she is not harming the children, she is teaching them about tolerance or another's cultural dress....something you could have benefited from....when you were young lol

How much of communication is done verbally, and how much through facial expression.

By restricting this expression, she made herself unable to do her job.

Simple as that. If I turned up for work unable to make decisions, ie drunk, I would be sacked....

Religion and culture are seperate. I am very culturally aware.

But religion is nothing more than a set of ideas. The notion that ideas should be pampered to, protected, is laughable....
 
However, if it is her culture to actually wear the veil then learning to live with people would be to learn to read body language through veils. It's silly to pretend that they don't use these... In those cultures they learn to read other visual cues, there is no reason that we cannot as well.
 
However, if it is her culture to actually wear the veil then learning to live with people would be to learn to read body language through veils.

That's ridiculous. If I were a teacher, turned up for work wearing a mask and demanding that the children don't learn via the ususal facial methods that they will use in life and instead try to work out my body language I would be suspended on the grounds that I couldn't do my job properly.

Facial expression is an important method of communication in all humans.
 
AnyOldIron said:
However, if it is her culture to actually wear the veil then learning to live with people would be to learn to read body language through veils.

That's ridiculous. If I were a teacher, turned up for work wearing a mask and demanding that the children don't learn via the ususal facial methods that they will use in life and instead try to work out my body language I would be suspended on the grounds that I couldn't do my job properly.

Facial expression is an important method of communication in all humans.
Click to expand...
Except in cultures where people wear veils. If it is as important to learn about, and to live with, other cultures making them not follow their culture simply is directly against that goal. Multiculturalism has within it certain responsibilities and hardships ignoring them because you don't like their religion isn't one of them.
 
Except in cultures where people wear veils. If it is as important to learn about, and to live with, other cultures making them not follow their culture simply is directly against that goal. Multiculturalism has within it certain responsibilities and hardships ignoring them because you don't like their religion isn't one of them

In countries where the full veil / Burkha is worn, female teachers aren't common. In Muslim countries wear women are allowed to teach, they mostly wear the hijab.

It was children from many cultures that complained that they couldn't communicate with this TA. There are plenty of Muslim women that teach in British schools without wearing the full veil.

This isn't a matter of multiculturalism, this is a matter of being effective in your job.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Except in cultures where people wear veils. If it is as important to learn about, and to live with, other cultures making them not follow their culture simply is directly against that goal. Multiculturalism has within it certain responsibilities and hardships ignoring them because you don't like their religion isn't one of them

In countries where the full veil / Burkha is worn, female teachers aren't common. In Muslim countries wear women are allowed to teach, they mostly wear the hijab.

It was children from many cultures that complained that they couldn't communicate with this TA. There are plenty of Muslim women that teach in British schools without wearing the full veil.

This isn't a matter of multiculturalism, this is a matter of being effective in your job.
Click to expand...
I can see it both ways. However, if we are to learn to live and work with other cultures it is simpy silly to deny that they live by their cultures.

Just because there are many that are willing to forgo this doesn't mean that this person should be denied it.

I understand that the kids complained about problems understanding the TA, but if multiculturalism is important then it should actually be adhered to rather than simply discarded the moment it becomes inconvenient.
 
They will meet people in that culture that are less restrictive, and some that are more restrictive on that particular issue. Saying, "Others are willing to work without..." is simply pretending that all within a culture are the same and must act the same. It is directly opposite to understanding and multiculturalism.
 
Damocles said:
I can see it both ways. However, if we are to learn to live and work with other cultures it is simpy silly to deny that they live by their cultures.

Just because there are many that are willing to forgo this doesn't mean that this person should be denied it.

I understand that the kids complained about problems understanding the TA, but if multiculturalism is important then it should actually be adhered to rather than simply discarded the moment it becomes inconvenient.
Click to expand...

could not have said it better!
 
I can see it both ways. However, if we are to learn to live and work with other cultures it is simpy silly to deny that they live by their cultures.

Just because there are many that are willing to forgo this doesn't mean that this person should be denied it.

This woman's case might be a little better if she showed some consistency.

She attended her interview for the job without the veil, and only wore it once in the classroom.

If I attended an interview dressed in a suit, yet when I started the job began to insist on wearing a face-mask, I would expect to be suspended...

This is entirely about making sure the children get the best education they can, not pandering to one woman's whims. It was children from many cultures who complained that they couldn't communicate effectively, so the multicultural thing doesn't really come into it.
 
AnyOldIron said:
I can see it both ways. However, if we are to learn to live and work with other cultures it is simpy silly to deny that they live by their cultures.

Just because there are many that are willing to forgo this doesn't mean that this person should be denied it.

This woman's case might be a little better if she showed some consistency.

She attended her interview for the job without the veil, and only wore it once in the classroom.

If I attended an interview dressed in a suit, yet when I started the job began to insist on wearing a face-mask, I would expect to be suspended...

This is entirely about making sure the children get the best education they can, not pandering to one woman's whims. It was children from many cultures who complained that they couldn't communicate effectively, so the multicultural thing doesn't really come into it.
Click to expand...
It would come into it even more if it was children of many cultures... Those many cultures need to learn to live and work with this one as well. That the complaints came from many cultures doesn't change the necessity in this to adhere to multiculturalism if it were to be considered important...

It is societal inconsistency to say, "multiculturalism is important" then ignore it when it becomes inconvenient.

I agree it would have been better for her had she been consistent. As I said I can see both sides of this issue.

How important should we make multiculturalism?
 
It depends on your definition of multi-culturalism. Where do you draw the line when conflicts occur?

How far are you willing to go to accommodate the whims of certain religions when they become detrimental?

Is a woman's right to wear a veil more important than the children's right to effective, face to face teaching? (pretty much every teacher I have discussed this with agrees that face to face is the most effective form).

If I belonged to a religion that meant I wore shrunken heads from my coat, and this upset the children to the extent that they couldn't concentrate, would my religious rights supercede the children's right to a good education and my employer's right that I carry out the work I was employed to effectively...

If nudism were a religious belief, and I wanted to be a teacher.... How would that work...? [/B]
 
AnyOldIron said:
It depends on your definition of multi-culturalism. Where do you draw the line when conflicts occur?

How far are you willing to go to accommodate the whims of certain religions when they become detrimental?

Is a woman's right to wear a veil more important than the children's right to effective, face to face teaching? (pretty much every teacher I have discussed this with agrees that face to face is the most effective form).

If I belonged to a religion that meant I wore shrunken heads from my coat, and this upset the children to the extent that they couldn't concentrate, would my religious rights supercede the children's right to a good education and my employer's right that I carry out the work I was employed to effectively...

If nudism were a religious belief, and I wanted to be a teacher.... How would that work...? [/B]
Click to expand...
Right, let's throw up strawmen. Like the people who say that bestial marriages would be the end result of gay marriage! Let's pretend that "this and this" is a religious belief so we can be fundamentally disingenuous and pretend that the problem is larger than it is!

Come on, Anyold. I expect better than silly "nudist" strawmen from you!

Anyway, it depends on the importance you put on multiculturalism. The children would get used to your silly (strawman) heads, the children can learn, just as those within that culture can, to read other body language...

If multiculturalism is truly important, and learning to live with such aspects of other cultures is clearly part of that, then we must allow such inconveniences to be present in order to get that done. If we take away the difficult portions of multiculturalism because it gets in the way there is no reason to even pretend to make it an important aspect of society.
 
Right, let's throw up strawmen. Like the people who say that bestial marriages would be the end result of gay marriage! Let's pretend that "this and this" is a religious belief so we can be fundamentally disingenuous and pretend that the problem is larger than it is!

It isn't a strawman. It is more reductio per absurdum than strawman.

I'm asking how far we should go to pander to religious desires when they become detrimental?

What you describe as inconvenients are often detrimental, for example the teaching of children in face masks. Virtually every teacher I have spoken to states that face to face interaction is vital. You could claim that it teaches about multiculturalism, why not find a method of teaching that doesn't damage the kid's education? You state that the kids should learn to communicate without facial expression; these kids live in the UK and will spend the whole of their lives expressing themselves facially.

How would you feel if a teacher refused to teach parts of the curriculum that contradict their religious beliefs. Are they entitled to do this?

Those that wish others to pander to their religious desires are often those that restrict multiculturalism and intergration far more with faith schools that great ghettoisation of education along religious grounds.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Right, let's throw up strawmen. Like the people who say that bestial marriages would be the end result of gay marriage! Let's pretend that "this and this" is a religious belief so we can be fundamentally disingenuous and pretend that the problem is larger than it is!

It isn't a strawman. It is more reductio per absurdum than strawman.

I'm asking how far we should go to pander to religious desires when they become detrimental?

What you describe as inconvenients are often detrimental, for example the teaching of children in face masks. Virtually every teacher I have spoken to states that face to face interaction is vital. You could claim that it teaches about multiculturalism, why not find a method of teaching that doesn't damage the kid's education? You state that the kids should learn to communicate without facial expression; these kids live in the UK and will spend the whole of their lives expressing themselves facially.

How would you feel if a teacher refused to teach parts of the curriculum that contradict their religious beliefs. Are they entitled to do this?

Those that wish others to pander to their religious desires are often those that restrict multiculturalism and intergration far more with faith schools that great ghettoisation of education along religious grounds.
Click to expand...
An argument can be Reduction ad Absurdam and a Strawman at the same time. Pretending that anybody mentioned nudity and shrunken heads is a strawman.

Once again, the detrimental factor is only there as long as the children do not understand the new culture that they are facing. Taking away their chance to learn the new culture is directly opposite to multiculturalist ideals.

The teacher cannot refuse to teach portions of the curriculum because of that, they too must take some aspects of mutliculturalism on and this is what would be required of them.
 
An argument can be Reduction ad Absurdam and a Strawman at the same time. Pretending that anybody mentioned nudity and shrunken heads is a strawman.

That is why it is reductio and not strawman. I didn't pretend anyone mentioned nudity or shrunken heads but used them as a comparison argument 'in extremis'...

Once again, the detrimental factor is only there as long as the children do not understand the new culture that they are facing. Taking away their chance to learn the new culture is directly opposite to multiculturalist ideals.

Not being able to understand a teaching assistant doesn't help them understand a new culture, it simply makes it harder for them to understand and thus learn. If anything it is likely to damage respect for the culture as the children become frustrated.

Teaching about cultures is fine, but why inflict it on the children in a method that detrimental to their education? Virtually every teacher I have spoken to states that face to face is essential in education.

The teacher cannot refuse to teach portions of the curriculum because of that, they too must take some aspects of mutliculturalism on and this is what would be required of them.

If we were playing chess, Damo, this would be a fatal move....

Why shouldn't the TA take on some aspects of multiculturalism and remove her veil in the classroom, as communicating with the children is required of her?
 
Last edited:
AnyOldIron said:
An argument can be Reduction ad Absurdam and a Strawman at the same time. Pretending that anybody mentioned nudity and shrunken heads is a strawman.

That is why it is reductio and not strawman. I didn't pretend anyone mentioned nudity or shrunken heads but used them as a comparison argument 'in extremis'...

Once again, the detrimental factor is only there as long as the children do not understand the new culture that they are facing. Taking away their chance to learn the new culture is directly opposite to multiculturalist ideals.

Not being able to understand a teaching assistant doesn't help them understand a new culture, it simply makes it harder for them to understand and thus learn. If anything it is likely to damage respect for the culture as the children become frustrated.

Teaching about cultures is fine, but why inflict it on the children in a method that detrimental to their education? Virtually every teacher I have spoken to states that face to face is essential in education.

The teacher cannot refuse to teach portions of the curriculum because of that, they too must take some aspects of mutliculturalism on and this is what would be required of them.

If we were playing chess, Damo, this would be a fatal move....

Why shouldn't the TA take on some aspects of multiculturalism and remove her veil in the classroom, as communicating with the children is required of her?
Click to expand...
Because her veil is the part of the culture that the children are learning to live with. This is foolishness. If you are teaching people to understand other cultures you must allow them to deal with the other cultures.

Now curriculum is not part of their culture that you are teaching to children, they are two separate things.

This is the fatal flaw in your argument....
 
Now curriculum is not part of their culture that you are teaching to children, they are two separate things.

So, religious beliefs are now not part of the culture?

Why are we discussing the face veil then, which is a religious belief?

If a teacher refusing to teach part of the curriculum because it contradicts his religious beliefs is wrong, why is a teacher who hampers children's education by wearing a full veil, right?

Bishop and knight move in to trap the king..... lol
 
Curriculum is unchanging. The people that they work with are changing. One does not follow the other. This is another fallacious argument and beneath your usual level of good argument. You have a blind spot for the religion of others that makes you spew fallacies as soon as you see it.

Checkmate.
 
I find it hilarious that the one that normally would argue for multicultural causes, the liberal, is the one attempting to defend this... and all because of the religious blind-spot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top