You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Turkish Women allowed to wear head scarfs in Universities
- Thread starter Zapages
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Count Dookkake said:No, they just hide in the closet, rape kids, mutilate kids' genitals, hold back science, prey on the poor and uneducated, etc.
athiests have never done ANY of these things, people
Anerythristic
Member
After reading this thread I wonder. Why do atheists preach thier beliefs on this site? I am not saying they shouldn't, I am just saying I have not seen many threads on GAF actually preaching Christian or other religous beliefs that they would have to combat it. Was there ever a large outward religous population on GAF?
I think this has more to do with being able to impose a dress-code or not than religiosity overriding it. If there IS a dress-code everyone should obey, in that case religosity should not be exempt. If there isn't a dress-code, it shouldn't matter..? The dress-code itself should be neutral also.
where are atheists holding back science?ElectricBlue187 said:athiests have never done ANY of these things, people
Stop calling atheism a religion, it's not. It's not propagating one's belief, it's calling others out on their fallacies. This is a discussion board isn't it?Anerythristic said:After reading this thread I wonder. Why do atheists preach thier beliefs on this site? I am not saying they shouldn't, I am just saying I have not seen many threads on GAF actually preaching Christian or other religous beliefs that they would have to combat it. Was there ever a large outward religous population on GAF?
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
DSWii60 said:Wait a second, some people are arguing that giving women more freedom to choose what they want to do is a bad thing. They're not forcing anyone, they are giving them the FREEDOM to choose for themselves.
The idea is that by allowing the headscarf, the country will slowly become more Islamicized and eventually fall into the state of virtually every other Islamic country. It's sort of a slippery slope argument.
It sounds a bit nutty, but I'm not convinced it has no merit. We'll see, I guess.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Chairman Yang said:The idea is that by allowing the headscarf, the country will slowly become more Islamicized and eventually fall into the state of virtually every other Islamic country. It's sort of a slippery slope argument.
It sounds a bit nutty, but I'm not convinced it has no merit. We'll see, I guess.
give em' an inch and they'll take a mile eh? where have I heard that before?
It's ridiculous is what it is. A mature society allows people to have their own beliefs and doesn't panic at an overt display of it. Certainly doesn't go into hysterics over it.Chairman Yang said:It sounds a bit nutty
Do WWJD pendants and Jesus fish bumperstickers constitue a slippery slope of "Christianatising' a whole society? Of course not.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Azih said:It's ridiculous is what it is. A mature society allows people to have their own beliefs and doesn't panic at an overt display of it. Certainly doesn't go into hysterics over it.
A mature society, yes. Pre-Ataturk Turkey certainly wasn't that, and I'm not sure current Turkey is either. Simply put, clothing has a psychological impact, and banning/allowing that clothing has an impact too. If it didn't, headscarves wouldn't have been prescribed in the first place.
Azih said:Do WWJD pendants and Jesus fish bumperstickers constitue a slippery slope of "Christianatising' a whole society? Of course not.
I dunno. I think they were actually indicators of a broadening and deepening religiosity in the US. I wouldn't advocate banning them, just like I don't advocate banning headscarves, but they concern me nonetheless.
There was no Pre-Ataturk Turkey, it was the center of the Ottoman empire before that. And while Westernising that into Turkey was I think a good idea, doing it by harshly attempting to eliminate the entire culture of the place wasn't. Not sustainable in any case.Chairman Yang said:A mature society, yes. Pre-Ataturk Turkey certainly wasn't that, and I'm not sure current Turkey is either.
Removing the ban is being done DEMOCRATICALLY, while those fighting to keep it are autocratic nationalists (same idiots who don't accept the Armenian genocide). Removing these kinds of clothing laws are a sign of a country growing less schizophrenic and more accepting.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/301258
There's an easier solution. Mandate uniformed attire in University to facilitate a cohesive education environment (which for the Turkish secularists would mean no headscarves).
No more selectively infringing on rights for secularists and it throws the spotlight back on the issue being overlooked, that religious sentiments have gone so far as to prevent people from attaining an education.
No more selectively infringing on rights for secularists and it throws the spotlight back on the issue being overlooked, that religious sentiments have gone so far as to prevent people from attaining an education.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Azih said:There was no Pre-Ataturk Turkey, it was the center of the Ottoman empire before that. And while Westernising that into Turkey was I think a good idea, doing it by harshly attempting to eliminate the entire culture of the place wasn't. Not sustainable in any case.
But could the Westernization have happened if it wasn't as harsh as it was? Are there any other Islamic countries that have succeeded on Turkey's scale without using Turkey's methods?
Azih said:Removing the ban is being done DEMOCRATICALLY, while those fighting to keep it are autocratic nationalists (same idiots who don't accept the Armenian genocide). Removing these kinds of clothing laws are a sign of a country growing less schizophrenic and more accepting.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/301258
I hope you're right.
Count Dookkake
Member
Atrus said:There's an easier solution. Mandate uniformed attire in University to facilitate a cohesive education environment (which for the Turkish secularists would mean no headscarves).
No more selectively infringing on rights for secularists and it throws the spotlight back on the issue being overlooked, that religious sentiments have gone so far as to prevent people from attaining an education.
Agreed.
LakeEarth said:I've been to Istanbul, and there is a fine mix of completely covered up women and half-dressed hoochie girls. During Friday prayer the mosques are overflowing with people, but the traffic is still thick as hell. So its modern but still very muslim.
Turkish pals tell me it is a really fun place for young people.
Steriletom
Member
Kemal Ataturk took charge of the country and pushed back hard when the League of Nations wanted to give Asia Minor to the Greeks after the end of WWI (no joke), he had the power and charisma to do whatever he wanted.Chairman Yang said:But could the Westernization have happened if it wasn't as harsh as it was?
Depends on what you mean by success. Turkey is pretty middle of the road by GDP ranking among Islamic nations and has a Human rights records that's pretty bad (what with the Armenians and Kurds).Are there any other Islamic countries that have succeeded on Turkey's scale without using Turkey's methods?
SatelliteOfLove
Member
LakeEarth said:I've been to Istanbul, and there is a fine mix of completely covered up women and half-dressed hoochie girls. During Friday prayer the mosques are overflowing with people, but the traffic is still thick as hell. So its modern but still very muslim.
Hopefully it'll stay that way; last year's pro-secular rallies are evidence that Turkey won't go quietly into any islamo-fascist state system.
The amount of paranoia in this thread is really mind blowing.SatelliteOfLove said:Hopefully it'll stay that way; last year's pro-secular rallies are evidence that Turkey won't go quietly into any islamo-fascist state system.
Azih said:The amount of paranoia in this thread is really mind blowing.
Namely because there's been a very poor record for Muslim countries allowing for freedoms, and that while a headscarf is a headscarf, it's also a symbol of tacit oppression.
After all this is in todays news on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.women/index.html
But lest we forget it's a common theme that pops up with frequency. A few months ago there was this in Iran: http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=1.0.1687095144
This should have been a non-issue to begin with, after all why should any woman feel less inclined to attend University for the sake of a scarf? Well the answer to that lies in religious sentiment over-extending itself into a form of oppression.
The way the secular government went about it may be incorrect, but their intention at blunting religious influence does hold a lot of merit. They could have gotten around this problem of selective treatment by mandating a uniform as a professional dress.
Sure is.Azih said:The amount of paranoia in this thread is really mind blowing.
Ripclawe said:Pretty much the first step in having the fundamentalists gain more power especially over societal norms.
Isn't this kind of the opposite though? The government preventing someone from doing something 'religious' ... basically secularism going too far and turning oppressive.
Fundamentalists gaining more power would be if the government mandated that women must wear a head scarf whether they want to or not.
Dark Octave said:Why would anybody in their right mind let a piece of cloth keep them from pursuing a higher education?
I knew someone would retort with that, and my answer to it is what if the woman feels uncomfortable without a hijab? How exactly is a hijab hurting anyone or what values is it destroying?
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Azih said:Kemal Ataturk took charge of the country and pushed back hard when the League of Nations wanted to give Asia Minor to the Greeks after the end of WWI (no joke), he had the power and charisma to do whatever he wanted.
That's my point. Secularization happened by fiat. It didn't occur organically or democratically.
Azih said:Depends on what you mean by success. Turkey is pretty middle of the road by GDP ranking among Islamic nations and has a Human rights records that's pretty bad (what with the Armenians and Kurds).
Well, it's #10 out of 57, so I wouldn't call it middle-of-the-road at all, but let's look at the countries ahead of it (check the link):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OIC_countries_by_GDP_per_capita_(PPP)
They're all oil exporters, and their economic success can be attributed solely to that. The one exception--Malaysia--happens to have big non-Muslim minorities, with only about 60% of the country actually being Muslim. That has naturally had a secularizing effect (although an uncertain one judging by recent events, as there's been some trouble with religious freedom recently).
Behind Turkey are more countries that are less Islamicized (aside from Iran, which from what I understand is pretty secular among ordinary people, if not state-wise). Some because they have large non-Muslim populations like Malaysia, some because they were formerly Communist. Then GDP drops steadily as you get to the other Muslim countries.
So I think it's safe to say that Turkey is a rare success story with regard to GDP, at least.
Pure and total bull. That's like saying "Why would a woman feel less inclined to attend University for the sake of not wearing a scarf? Just wear it and go since it's required."Atrus said:After all why should any woman feel less inclined to attend University for the sake of a scarf? Well the answer to that lies in religious sentiment over-extending itself into a form of oppression.
Requiring head scarves is religous sentiment over-extending itself.
Banning head scarves is secular sentiment over-extending itself.
Allowing people the freedom to wear what they wish? What a concept.
You're so adamant on getting rid of head scarves that you would take away the right of UNIVERSITY LEVEL kids to decide how they dress to freaking University?They could have gotten around this problem of selective treatment by mandating a uniform as a professional dress.
Azih said:Pure and total bull. That's like saying "Why would a woman feel less inclined to attend University for the sake of not wearing a scarf? Just wear it and go since it's required."
A)Requiring head scarves is religous sentiment over-extending itself.
B)Banning head scarvies is secular sentiment over-extending itself.
C) Allowing people the freedom to wear what they wish? What a concept.
D) You're so adamant on getting rid of head scarves that you would take away the right of UNIVERSITY LEVEL kids to decide how they dress to freaking University?
I agree with both A) and B), that's why I supported uniforms which does not go against the concept of C).
D) No, I said establishing a professional dress code would circumvent this problem. There are dress codes in the work place, in sports and the like. It's not beyond the bounds to have them in Universities at all.
If you want a religious dress code then it's perfectly reasonable to expect it in places of religious institutions. Far be it from anyone to dictate what you where whilst in a mosque or church.
However, given the headscarf leads to such an over-dependency (edit: in some) that peoples self-esteem dwindle and they become negatively impacted by it's removal, the university should stay clear of the problems of religious dress and institute it's own professional policy.
JayDubya said:Are we talking something that covers hair, or covers entire face?
Because a school would be right to be disdainful of someone covering their face during an exam.
We're talking about just covering hair.
hair.
Yang, and my point was that Kemal Ataturk could have done whatever he wanted. It didn't need to be harsh (which is what you asked).
You're putting in a few too many qualifiers (Malaysia's not *very* muslim) for my comfort in your GDP analysis. And it's a bit too simplistic to say that the oil countries are doing well solely because of that. The UAE for example is rapidly diversifying.
Turkey is doing better than average but it's not a superstar by any stretch.
Yang, and my point was that Kemal Ataturk could have done whatever he wanted. It didn't need to be harsh (which is what you asked).
You're putting in a few too many qualifiers (Malaysia's not *very* muslim) for my comfort in your GDP analysis. And it's a bit too simplistic to say that the oil countries are doing well solely because of that. The UAE for example is rapidly diversifying.
Turkey is doing better than average but it's not a superstar by any stretch.
Dark Octave
Banned
It's a security risk for one. Second, it's a double standard for anyone else who is not allowed to cover their face in class for whatever reason.GSG Flash said:I knew someone would retort with that, and my answer to it is what if the woman feels uncomfortable without a hijab? How exactly is a hijab hurting anyone or what values is it destroying?
Edit: If it doesn't cover the face then I have no complaints.
The whole POINT of a uniform is to deny people the freedom to wear what they wish which is C. That's what it does BY DEFINITION.Atrus said:I agree with both A) and B), that's why I supported uniforms which does not go against the concept of C).
Have you ever *been* to a University? I can't believe you're advocating putting uniforms on University kids with a straight face.
Dark Octave said:It's a security risk for one. Second, it's a double standard for anyone else who is not allowed to cover their face in class for whatever reason.
Edit: If it doesn't cover the face then I have no complaints.
I would never advocate covering the whole face, I think covering the whole face is unislamic to tell you the truth.
GSG Flash said:I would never advocate covering the whole face, I think covering the whole face is unislamic to tell you the truth.
Hell I think covering the hair has nothing to do with Islam. But it's their freaking choice.
Azih said:hair.
Yang, and my point was that Kemal Ataturk could have done whatever he wanted. It didn't need to be harsh (which is what you asked).
You're putting in a few too many qualifiers (Malaysia's not *very* muslim) for my comfort in your GDP analysis. And it's a bit too simplistic to say that the oil countries are doing well solely because of that. The UAE for example is rapidly diversifying.
Turkey is doing better than average but it's not a superstar by any stretch.
Bullshit. Malaysia is a Muslim country, though I will say that whatever metric you qualify Malaysia as not Muslim, it's probably a badge of honor given it's pretty much a shining beacon within the OIC, threatened only by whatever you think makes a country Muslim.
Jesus Atrus I was talking to Yang. Read his freaking comments.Atrus said:Bullshit. Malaysia is a Muslim country, though I will say that whatever metric you qualify Malaysia as not Muslim, it's probably a badge of honor given it's pretty much a shining beacon within the OIC, threatened only by whatever you think makes a country Muslim.
Azih said:Hell I think covering the hair has nothing to do with Islam. But it's their freaking choice.
Yeah true, my mom, for example, doesn't cover her hair.
Azih said:The whole POINT of a uniform is to deny people the freedom to wear what they wish which is C. That's what it does BY DEFINITION.
Have you ever *been* to a University? I can't believe you're advocating putting uniforms on University kids with a straight face.
Mandatory hardhats on a construction site is not an infringement on your right to dress, nor is censorship in what you say in your work environment an infringement on your right to free speech.
Every institution is allowed to appoint itself a standard for required conduct, and this isn't seen as a violation of your natural rights because you still possess these rights unless you assent to associating yourself as part of the institution.
In such a way, a University or any institution for that matter that incorporates a uniform is not violating that right.
To answer you're question, yes I've been to University and? It's not a very good argument on your part, given that there are universities that do have dress codes. I'd rather there not be personally, but since there is a level of social immaturity in various places that over-value articles of clothing in favor over education, the University should rise above it and institute its own policy.
GSG Flash said:We're talking about just covering hair.
That's reasonable, then. I guess.
Actually, they are.Atrus said:Mandatory hardhats on a construction site is not an infringement on your right to dress, nor is censorship in what you say in your work environment an infringement on your right to free speech.
Azih said:Jesus Atrus I was talking to Yang. Read his freaking comments.
I did and he's correct that the non-Muslim populace has had a blunting effect. It's a former Portuguese, Dutch, and British colony, it had a large influx of Chinese and Indians in it's early formation, had a constitutional groundwork borrowed largely from the British, and was up until recent times, geographically isolated enough from other Muslim countries to not borrow filthy habits.
Yang at no point stated it wasn't Muslim at all, thats why it seemed to me to be a part of your analysis and not his.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Azih said:hair.
Yang, and my point was that Kemal Ataturk could have done whatever he wanted. It didn't need to be harsh (which is what you asked).
Maybe. Other Westernizing leaders who weren't as extreme (like the Shah of Iran and Muhammad Ali of Egypt) saw their reforms fail.
Azih said:You're putting in a few too many qualifiers (Malaysia's not *very* muslim) for my comfort in your GDP analysis. And it's a bit too simplistic to say that the oil countries are doing well solely because of that. The UAE for example is rapidly diversifying.
Turkey is doing better than average but it's not a superstar by any stretch.
I think the qualifiers are important. A country's that's just over half-Muslim is naturally going to be less hardcore about the religion than a country that's 99% Muslim. The fact that Malaysia is doing relatively well is really supporting my argument that secularization is virtually necessary for the success of Muslim countries, not qualifying it.
Dubai's doing well, but I don't see how it would've gotten to the point it's at without the oil revenues in the first place, but I do have some hope that it will establish a model besides Turkey's problematic one. Same with the other oil countries that are diversifying.
Azih said:Actually, they are.
Go ahead and file a lawsuit against hospitals, government institutions, private businesses, etc. See how much your claim to a violation of your rights gets you.
The reason this doesn't happen is because it's a part of government jurisprudence regarding the institution and implementation of rights and freedoms within society. The compacts you assent to are between that institution and you (dress code, code of conducts, trust etc), while the government has it's own between the institution and they (minimum wages, working conditions, EI and CPP, etc.)
Very different time periods though (I assume by Shahs you mean the Qajars).Chairman Yang said:Maybe. Other Westernizing leaders who weren't as extreme (like the Shah of Iran and Muhammad Ali of Egypt) saw their reforms fail.
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
ImperialConquest said:A baby step in the direction of an inevitable radicalized Turkey.
Only 90 posts before your delusional ass showed up?
Horrible step for Turkey and it's awful current government.
Secularism only please.
YagizY said:As a Turkish American I am said to hear this. I am a secularist and I find head scarves to be demeaning.
With this being said though this is how I was raised, so their is no sense in trying to argue with me. I think it is wrong, some people don't.
but they are not forcing women to wear the scarf. just allowing them to.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.