Reply With QuoteAha, not Muslim pupils (no such thing) but rather pupils who are children of Muslim parents.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...e/10596808.stm
>>The council guide states: "Schools with a significant number of Muslim pupils should try to avoid scheduling swimming lessons during Ramadan to remove unnecessary barriers to full participation."
Surely, the only 'unnecessary barrier to participation' is the religion?
There's a huge difference between an individual deciding to do something (or not) for religious reasons (or for a parent to take it upon themselves to make that decision for a child), and other people being expected to change their behaviour because of what someone else has chosen to believe.
>>""The overriding consideration should be that children do not feel disadvantaged in school activities because of their religious observance," the council added.
So logically, that should mean that kids shouldn't be allowed to feel excluded from eating on the basis that they know other children are having lunch?
The children concerned are being 'disadvantaged' by being denied the option of eating, but isn't disadvantage and sacrifice the whole point of a fast, whether for an individual to demonstrate their submission to a deity, or for a religion to demonstrate its dominance over an individual?
Aha, not Muslim pupils (no such thing) but rather pupils who are children of Muslim parents.
There has been a sustantial Islamic population in this country for around 50 years. Ramadan comes round every year. How come it hasn't been a problem before?
Becaue of the growth in recent years of a group of people, in positions of some authority, who take it upon themselves to act for other people - I'm willing to bet that whoever took this decision wasn't a Muslim.
If a certain group or minority object to something, let them first make the objection - there are too many people objecting on anothers behalf!
Hmm...I'd have to argue with that. I'd object to many things on "behalf" of children, whales, or newly discovered primitive tribes.Originally Posted by farmersboy
I think the issue here is why our society panders to Religion. If people choose to believe in gods they themselves must carry the burden that entails. There is no need for the rest of us to make changes to accommodate them.
However children, whales, or newly discovered primitive tribes can't really speak for themselves - Muslims can.
Here (Spain) in August I would suggest that it would be downright dangerous to drink no water whatever between dawn and dusk, particularly if doing anything in the slightest bit strenuous and there are loads of Muslims here.
Surely the solution to the problem is just to not swallow. In fact I don't even see it as a problem, I swim all the time and never swallow any water.It said swimming was acceptable to Muslims but posed a high risk of swallowing water that may break a fast.
skb
Personally, I'd have thought that drinking swimming-pool water would count more as a penance than an indulgence..
Yes, that was my point in response to Farmersboy who made a wider point about objecting on behalf of others.
I take your point (to an extent) with regard to Muslims. The same could be said of the slave trade and the Suffragette's. They could speak for themselves. Rather a good thing that others "objected on their behalf" too though!
Slaves and women could speak for themselves in the sense that they could vocalise their objections, but as both were regarded as non-persons, nobody listened. Consequently they did need others to speak up for them. This is far from true with Muslims in Britain today - they have he same rights and influence as you or I, many serve on local councils and they are represented in both houses of parliament. They do NOT need anyone objecting on their behalf.
If the reporting is correct, it would seem that the council reaction is excessive, given what the Muslim organisations are stated to have said.
At best, it seems like the council should merely have reported what those organisations had said, and then maybe suggested that schools might want to make alternative provision for the children of the fraction of Muslim parents who thought the risk of swimming was just too great to take.
Though given that children could risk ingesting water when showering afterwards, would any kind of meaningful physical activity be out for the unfortunate offspring of the *really* devout?
My point was (and is) simply that it IS correct to "object on behalf of others" on certain occasions.
Maybe, but not those who suffer from religion.
I quite agree, those women's right groups who condemn patriarchal Islam should but out. If women have a problem living in a theocratic society which effectively silences their right to speak for themselves they should speak up.
I disagree.
Matt makes the point rather well!I quite agree, those women's right groups who condemn patriarchal Islam should but out. If women have a problem living in a theocratic society which effectively silences their right to speak for themselves they should speak up.
As I said, the issue here (in the swimming instance) is pandering to religion and not "objecting on behalf of others". There are circumstances where I would object on behalf of those "suffering from religion" despite having no sympathy with their beliefs.
I rather like this quote and feel it is relevant here;
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks