Comments on: School Uniforms

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Fri, 18 Jun 2004 01:10:09 +0000

Thanks for responding.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:37:51 +0000

Tom, This thread is probably dead now, but I’ll just answer your specific question so as not to be rude. The literal meaning of atheist is simply non-theist, and I take that to be its primary meaning. It is commonly used to mean, affirmatively, ‘someone who believes there is no god’ rather than more neutrally ‘someone who does not believe there is a god’ – but I think that meaning is misleading. But non-theist is also not exactly equivalent to agnostic, especially not the way ‘agnostic’ is generally used. So, in short, I take atheist to mean what it literally does mean: simply non-theist.

By: PM

PM — Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:17:49 +0000

Further to Derek and ns, I think the feeling is that the shalwar kameez and headscarf are often considered fine, as far as modesty and the koran goes. She had already been attending the school, before her ‘deepening religious beliefs’ lead her to adopt the jilbab. So presumably her parents were fine with the uniform. I was interested to notice that the jilbab the girl was wearing to court was reasonably figure hugging (more so than a shalwar kameez) and actually didn’t really cover her arms either. Combine this with the school’s fear that she would be bringing a sort of pressure to bear on other pupils (precisely the kind of thing unforms are designed to avoid), implying that she is a better Muslim, and I get the impression that there really was an elitist fashion cum religion ‘look at me’ type of agenda – if you’ve ever seen high caste Hindus wearing their caste marks you’ll know the kind of thing I mean.

By: q

Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:55:26 +0000

And I wish discussion of theism could be separate from discussion of morality and what sort of life to live. I also wish one could (more easily) resist cultural forces like commercialization and the hyper-sexualization of children independently of religion. Ophelia- I totally agree. It irritates me that people think “no religion” = “no morality”. Guilt by association I suppose.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Thu, 17 Jun 2004 02:12:48 +0000

Ophelia: “No absolute truth” was indeed inaccurate on my part; “no absolutely provable truth” is perhaps a better way of expressing my thought. Or even “no absolutely provable truth within a given system without the use of axioms from outside that system,” with apologies to Godel. As to your other point, perhaps I’m again confusing the issue through imprecise use of language. I’ve taken “atheist” to mean one who believes that there is no God, as distinct from an “agnostic,” which I would take to mean one who has no settled view on the matter. Under these definitions, I would posit that the atheist is committed to the view that I have no four-ton strawberry on my head, while the agnostic declines to commit one way or the other. Are you considering the term “atheism” to include what I’ve referred to “agnosticism” in the previous paragraph? Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you all along.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:19:09 +0000

Tom, No need to apologize, I’ve heard that joke several million times. No one can resist. “Surely we’re all pomo enough here to agree that any system of ordering one’s view of the universe, whether through belief or unbelief, ultimately rests on axiomatic, unprovable value judgments and assumptions. I.e., there is no absolute truth.” Well I’m not pomo enough anywhere, let alone here. But leaving that aside – your i.e. isn’t. Because a system of ordering one’s view of the universe is one thing, and the truth (the ‘Absolute’ truth if you really feel a need for a supererogatory capitalized adjective) about the universe is another. So your conclusion that there is no Absolute truth doesn’t follow. “As for the burden of proof, the believer posits God; the unbeliever posits a Big Bang.” No she doesn’t – not necessarily, not by definition. An atheist is simply a non-theist. That doesn’t entail any beliefs about the Big Bang – it simply entails not being a theist. And not believing someone else’s positive belief is not the same thing as having a positive belief oneself. If you tell me you have a four ton strawberry on your head and I decline to believe you, that doesn’t commit me to any beliefs about what you do have on your head. One can decline to believe implausible assertions without declaring or having any positive beliefs at all.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:36:28 +0000

q, I’ve made our conversation much too serious. Let’s compromise on quasi-crypto-fascist. Theism is a belief, and atheism is not a belief. Ophelia, that’s fine, and you go right on believing that. (Sorry; couldn’t resist). More seriously, I think we’re using the term “belief” in somewhat different ways. Surely we’re all pomo enough here to agree that any system of ordering one’s view of the universe, whether through belief or unbelief, ultimately rests on axiomatic, unprovable value judgments and assumptions. I.e., there is no absolute truth. As for the burden of proof, the believer posits God; the unbeliever posits a Big Bang. How is one more ontologically populated than another? Moreover, selecting the criterion of ontological population is itself an arbitrary value judgment; you’ve chosen it because you find it useful and consistent with your view of the world, but a believer might choose a different criterion because he finds that one to be useful and consistent with a different view.

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:33:37 +0000

Novalis, Why opt for any one wants? Why not a roulette for the kind of dress for the following day, in which the kind of dress worn is chosen from the typical, or not, of the thousands of societies, including nudists. DSW

By: novalis

novalis — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:23:19 +0000

School uniforms teach children that the solution to disagreements among people of different cultures is to smash all evidence of any culture but the dominant one. Why doesn’t the school just switch everyone over to the jilbab? There would be no “modesty” issues for Muslim students, and everyone would be wearing the same thing.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:10:54 +0000

Yup, true enough, Harry. I must say, I wish it were otherwise! I wish one could have discussions about morality, about what sort of life to live, independent of theism. I wish people didn’t take it for granted that discussion of morality has to be tangled up with theism. And I wish discussion of theism could be separate from discussion of morality and what sort of life to live. I also wish one could (more easily) resist cultural forces like commercialization and the hyper-sexualization of children independently of religion. But I agree completely about which one is easier to avoid.

By: harry

harry — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:51:28 +0000

Theism is a belief, and atheism is not a belief. Atheism is abstention from a belief. People who posit the existence of supernatural entities do have more of a burden of proof than people who refrain from doing that Ophelia, that’s interesting. Let’s suppose you are right (and I agree that the burden of proof is on the person positing the more highly populated ontology). Theism is only a part of any given religion (albeit an important part). My concern is not so much with people’s beliefs about God, but their beliefs and assumptions about how best to live their lives. I think each kid (adolescent) should have those beliefs and assumptions challenged, and in this arena I think that ways of life associated with non-theistic metaphysics are symmetrical with those associated with theism. In fact numerous young religious believers probably do ahve their assumptions about how to live more routinely challeneged (in contemporary secular societies) than do numerous non-religious kids. Its easier to avoid being confronted by religious values than it is to avoid being confronted by capitalist/commercial values.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:54:11 +0000

“what you said sounded condescending because it sounded like you considered religious beliefs to be more in need of challenge than non-religious beliefs; i.e., inherently defective ideas that needed to be overcome. Many atheists (at least in the argumentative world of the Internet) freely admonish religious folk to challenge their thinking without ever seeming to examine their own.” The trouble with this is that it seems to assume that theism and atheism are symmetrical – that each is a belief. But that’s not right. Theism is a belief, and atheism is not a belief. Atheism is abstention from a belief. People who posit the existence of supernatural entities do have more of a burden of proof than people who refrain from doing that. That’s not to say that all atheists have rational or coherent sets of ideas, of course, but it is to dispute the assumption that there is – that there can be – nothing inherently flawed in theistic thinking.

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:06:49 +0000

oops, sorry, q, I get the “fascist” part now – I thought it was sarcasm… nevermind. Personally I wouldn’t call it “fascism” by far, but I do agree with your points, and Ophelia’s.

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:55:47 +0000

q: I was only being silly, I don’t fancy girls, I have two daughters her age myself, and no, I don’t think she is a fascist and I don’t think I said so. What have you been taking?

By: NS

NS — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:48:55 +0000

Radio 5 interviewd a number of girls from this school yesterday evening; the response was generally that the girl in question’s familly had an elitist agenda. We find elitism distasteful in our own culture, yet tolerate it in others – “embracing diversity” no doubt – for fear of being accused of neocolonialism or racism, or some other simplistic, misguided right-on ‘ism’….