"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:497### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 25-Jan-09 16:54, somebody wrote:
> > "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> > news:497### [at] hotmailcom...
> >
> >> - There is a distinction between culture and faith. I think that this
is
> >> more culture than faith (although not having studied this particular
> >> religion it is hard for me to judge). Even so, in this case culture
> >> should prevail over arbitrary school rules. I have probably written
> >> about this before, but for me this is a very fundamental discussion.
Too
> >> often cultural expressions (head scarfs, female genital mutilation) are
> >> claimed to be religious in order to have them accepted in a host
> >> culture. We even had a religious 'leader' who claimed that he as a
> >> muslim was not allowed to shake hands with females and 'therefore'
> >> refused the hand of a minister. As long as we don't make the
distinction
> >> between culture and religion anybody can make such things up to annoy
> >> others and get away with it because the others are not allowed to
> >> discriminate against a 'religion'.
> >
> > You have some points about "abuse" of religious freedom, but I don't
think
> > it's very productive for courts to go into long winded arguments of
what's
> > culture and what's religion, and how old the religions/customs might be.
And
> > fundamentally, I agree with your claim of distinction between faith and
> > culture. Much (in fact, all) of the practices of Abrahamic religions are
> > based on culture. Ultimately, there's no such thing as religion distinct
> > from culture - at least from this atheist's perspective - since all
> > religions are invented by men, and culture is just that - whatever
lifestyle
> > man invents. So instead of wasting time and money trying to sort all the
> > silliness, I say that the principle be adopted where so long as there
are no
> > adverse effects (health, safety... etc), let them wear what they want,
and
> > be consistent/evenhanded. Braids, long, free flowing hair is a no-no in
a
> > machine shop, food preparation.... etc, but it's hard to justfiy it as a
> > risk at a school.

> I disagree. The refusal of jews and muslims to eat pork or obeying
> Ramadan or sabbath is firmly established in the books. Your point that
> the books were written by humans may be true but is irrelevant. For the
> believers it is *provably* part of their religion.
> OTOH you have things like women to have to wear hats on sunday when
> going to church as is the practice in some circles in the Netherlands.
> This has no basis in the script but rests on an interpretation of (IIRC)
> Timothy 2:9-10 (no don't ask me how they do that). The common cultural
> idea that women have to wear headscarfs or worse also rests on such an
> interpretation of similar words by Mohamed.

It's also written in the "books" that it's just dandy to kill infidels,
homosexuals... etc. And that headscarves may not be in the books doesn't
mean Muslims don't feel as strongly about it as pork. Either way, granting
rights, priviledges and exceptions based on certain view that some people
wrote or did not write in some books, and inconsistenly at that, at some
point in history, is a bad, bad idea.

Post a reply to this message