Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I don't think I or the article claimed that one example is the prevalent situation. The reason I brought it up was to counter your impression of an exclusive or all-prevalent situation (which was free of any data, anecdotal or not).

I must have read it a dozen times

Yet you ignore it.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 07:33:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I neither made nor implied any such claim; on the contrary, I made it clear that, regardless of the different motives that might have inspired girls to want to wear scarves in school, their education would be better served by not wearing it. And that this is within the purview of the schools.

And yes, I remain unpersuaded by the writer's thesis. Sure, the spirit of the law of 2004 is not the same as that of the law of 1905; times have changed. The question was seen as stopping a snowballing situation (the holiest girls wear scarves, others are shamed into joining them...) which ends up with a strongly proselytizing effect.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 09:29:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series