CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The excepton to when it is unacceptable for a woman to cover her face is when it interfers with the rights and freedoms of others. For example, Muslim women covering their entire face in classroom then this has been held to be a problem as the inhibits communication between the teacher and her students.
Secondly, I can understand how it can be argued that hijab is an oppression. To have to wear it is clearly a sacrifice of a woman's freedom. However, it seems to me that many women embrace this in order to also embrace the positive things in the Islamic religion. Despite this though if woman wanted to leave this Islamic way of life then the government should support those women by assisting them to live apart from their family.
I suppose I put the argument in this column because I believe it should be unlawful for muslim women to wear it in schools; it should be banned in that context.
I have always found the argument that such things are "distracting" to be without merit, there simply has to be more than what might or might not be another person's personal preferences who might happen to be annoyed by something or another while they are in a position of athorithy to make a law, if a teacher or other students are distracted by another student doing anything, should that anything be banned? perhaps they can't focus on school because they are distracted that their sister at home is moving away for college and they won't hang out, should that be banned? Perhaps the teacher is distracted by black or gay students being in his class room, perhaps they should be segregated just in case the teacher is a racist?
I didn't use the word distracting. It's more than that. When someone has their face covered then they are more difficult to hear and the message they're trying to convey is more difficult to grasp. When you pay some to teach it is essential that they can do it properly.
You don't see the difference between someone being distracting and someone being unable to do fulfil their job role?
I'll answer each one of your examples in turn then, so you can follow:
"there simply has to be more than what might or might not be another person's personal preferences who might happen to be annoyed by something or another while they are in a position of athorithy to make a law,"
No. A 4 year old children, for example, does not necessary have a personal perference that would mean that be annoyed by someone. If someones mouth is covered, then the child is less likely to understand what they are trying to say. Similarly, they are less likely to understand what they are trying to convey emotionally if they cannot see the facial expression. It is not distracting, nor based on the childrens personal prejudices.
"if a teacher or other students are distracted by another student doing anything, should that anything be banned?"
I think that you could agree that a student doing something that that interfers with the learning of other students is a negative thing. In some cases it will be just that the student is easily distracted and thus it is not the other students fault. However, thereare things that are objectively distracting e.g. a student shouting all the time so the teacher can't communicate effectively to the rest of the class or a teacher covering their face so they can't communicate effectively to the rest of the class. There is then an argument that these distracted things should bebanned, yes. Many forms of behaviour that are distruptive to a class are banned in the form of school rules.
"perhaps they can't focus on school because they are distracted that their sister at home is moving away for college and they won't hang out"
I don't understand how this is relevant. We're talking about the actions of someone that is responsible for childrens education and how it impacts on those children with the educational setting.
"Perhaps the teacher is distracted by black or gay students being in his class room, perhaps they should be segregated just in case the teacher is a racist"
This is the teachers problem. But its a problem that should be remedied. If the teacher can't do the job properly because of this issue then they should consider moving to another profession or be given counselling to deal with those issues. Similarly, the school should act against a teacher that is covering their mouth.
If a teacher is distracted by another's student's religious expression which does no harm to anyone else, that is probably the teacher's problem and she/he should find another job or be given consoling to help with those issues.
I'm not sure youve read anything I've said or else you don't understand it. This has nothing to do with a students religious expression. We're talking about the teacher wearing it in class. Not the student. Distracted is not the right word as I keep saying.
The first problem here is that it 'inhibits communication between the teacher and her students'. Well, there are so many other examples of other teachers, both men and women who also do things that inhibits communication between teacher and student. For example, students may feel that the sight of a teacher wearing braces may hinder effective communication, not physically (as in difficulty in hearing), but psychologically, as they might feel disgusted by the braces and would not be paying attention during classes. Of course, sometimes people wearing braces also find it difficult to enunciate their words clearly (what do you expect from someone with a mouth full of metal?). However, nobody bans braces as it is something unavoidable. People use braces to straighten their teeth, which in many cases, is essential. The same thing applies to the hidjab. Many Muslim women feel that it is necessary to wear their hidjab to cover their faces, just as people with mouth problems feel it is necessary to straighten their teeth, or devout Christians feel it is necessary to go to the church on Sundays. But neither of the two are banned. Why???
So you're saying if a little kid can't follow what their teacher is saying because their mouth is covered. This its the child's problem and they should move schools?
Kids DO NOT follow what their teacher is saying by looking at their mouths! They listen to the words! And someone, like I said, with braces is just as difficult to understand as someone with a piece of cloth in front of her mouth!
because they have strong laws! but what about UAE and Saud Arabia? People in these countries have absoluteluy freedom of wearing hidjab BUT all the same women wear it!
It is the Muslim Law! Muslims are instructed to wear it, just like Christians are instructed to go to church on Sundays and Hindus are prohibited from eating beef!
There is no 'Christian' country. And maybe some governments are not as strict with the laws of religion as others. So what? What do we need next? A world government? Oh, and, of course, one that would originate from America???
it's not the true Religion! it's extemly muslim people, who is crazy! i don't say about them! people always confused because of this. this 'Muslims' are wrong! they don't support real Islam roles!
Well I can only talk from a UK point of view. There is a freedom of religion and conscience. If those women want to wear the hijab then they should be permitted to. So long as they're not interfering with the rights of others.
Freedom of religion is something different that freedom to force someone in region... They do not want to wear it. They have to want it otherwise they will be punished.
It is the principal argument of racists that they take a extreme thing from a minority within the community they hate and try and convince people that it is represenative of the whole.
Yes, it absolutely okay! Islam suggests women to wear it, but u have choice. Countries like Iran, Iraq, Afhganistan is EXTREAMLY Islamic countries where women absolytelu have no rights and it's WRONG! Religion doesn't say oppress women.
Yes but as far as I am aware this wasn't anything to do with islamic clothing. It was the fact that they didn't want people being able to cover their face in riots and such. It is illegal to cover your whole face on the streets in France.
So if someone has a horrible growth on his face that would infect other people, he can't cover it up? Or if someone has the flu and he wears a flu mask, he'll get arrested for trying to ensure other people don't get sick? The hidjab covers just as much of the face as the flu mask!
As far as I know the Hidjab is only a requirement when Women go to Mosque as they must have their heads covered when they go to the Mosque a lot of Muslim Women choose to wear the Hidjab at other times and a lot of them choose not to.
No, she has to wear it pretty much all the time. Death sentence is a common punishment. In less primitive countries it's like 100 lashes... It's nothing voluntary. They usually have to say that it is ...especially in places where someone else could hear them...
I cant comment on everywhere because unlike some people I dont pretend to know the laws in every country in the World but from a UK persective banning the Hidjab would infringe on peoples freedom of religion and freedom to dress how they choose banning, it is the thin end of the wedge what would be next freedom of speech?
of course! it infringes on human rights! most of us live in Democratic countries and it's absolutely not acceptible for that type of government system!
I'm really curious about exactly what countries you are referring to. It seems as though nations which practice Sharia law, where there is a national law stating that you must wear a hijab, aren't the places where the government would ban it. So if you live in a nation which would possibly ban a hijab then there are no death penalty laws. What does banning a hijab in those nations have to do with nations which practice Sharia law as you describe. Every Muslim that I have known (both those who do and do not wear a hijab) have stated it as a personal choice, not something they are told they must or must not do.
I am a Muslim woman. Ok, girl really. I agree it is my choice if I want to wear the hidjab or not, and I agree that I want to. Real Muslim women do not want men to stare at their faces with lust if they are pretty or with disgust if they are not. We do not want to be noticed by people on the street. That is why we wear the hidjab, so that men would not even glance at us because there is nothing to see. That way, men do not try to ravage us, as they do not find us attractive in any way. The hidjab (the whole attire of a Muslim women, actually) is not a symbol of oppression! It is a protection for Muslim women against the lustful desires of a non-Muslim man!
Wearing a hijab should not be legally prohibited, but nor should it be legally sanctioned nor required. People ought to be free to express themselves as they personally see fit.
Why would you want to see a woman's face? So you can see if she is good-looking enough to marry? If you are a not a Muslim man, she will not want to (will not be allowed to) marry you. If you are a Muslim man, you should respect her modesty, and you should love her, nomatter what she wears!
as long as it is not being forced or obliged on people, i do not see any reason for the hijab to be banned. it is a part of personal freedom, it is a part that is favorable in a religion. therefore if those wearing the hijab do not mind it and are not forcing it on other women, then the government has no right to ban it.
What's a "hidjab"? I'm familiar with hijab, tudong, niqab, and of course burka. But I've never heard of a "hidjab". Anyway, assuming it's still an item of women's clothing then no, it shouldn't be banned. What kind of a misogynist goes around banning women from wearing clothes? Women should have the right wear whatever they want to wear, just like men.
Hidjab is actually the same as Hijab. It is just that these names are all originally written in Arabic, so there are many variations to the romanized version.
Some people wear half of open clothes. It is worse than hidjab. Why government should not banned? Because it is people's choice. You can wear whatever u want.
we live in a secular state...everyone has his/her rights...but I do not understand why should we cover our body if we are young and beautiful??? Girls who wears hi jab, why are you doing this? there is no proof that God DOES exist!!!
Why should we cover our body if we are young and beautiful?
We should find it EVEN MORE important to cover our body if we are young and beautiful. This is so that men do not see us, ogle at our bodies and feel inclined to ravage us (rape, molestation, etc.). How often do you hear of a Muslim woman who has covered up her body being raped or molested.
There is no proof that god exists?
There is proof everywhere. You just have to be bright enough to see it.
What about America, which dropped the atomic bombs on completely innocent people in Japan? Islam promotes peace, not violence. What country has been destroyed by Islam??? The whole world was made for one man, and one man alone, and he was the Last Prophet of Islam, Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. If you say that whole countries were destroyed by Islam, I can say that, if it hadn't been for the one man who was a Muslim, the whole universe would not have been created!
I am not talking about some imagined antagonist called 'Mohamed'. I am talking about The Prophet Muhammad who freed slaves, brought about peace in almost half the world and yet was merciful enough to allow the Christians to worship freely...
so called "prophet" Mohamed was psychopathic mass murder who has started 24 wars, personally, publicly beheaded prisoners and a proud child molester. He was pretty much a bronze age version of Adolf Hitler.
Violence to everyone who is not Muslim and is not retarded enough to convert. It's strictly against human rights, no music, no clubbing, you are ordered how to live your life or you will be killed. If you decide to leave that insanity you will be killed. If they find out that you are gay you will be killed... and many many more happy islamic things...
