Road rules3 mins ago
School trip to the Mosque.
176 Answers
http://www.dailymail....--branded-truant.html
Whereas I agree that anyone visiting a mosque or any other Religious building should respect the particular dress code.
What I don't agree with that these pupils were forced to attend or be marked as a truant, as regards paying for the privilege that takes the biscuit. If there is a charge then the visit should be voluntary.
What I would like to know, was the trip the mind child of the Headmaster or not?
.
Whereas I agree that anyone visiting a mosque or any other Religious building should respect the particular dress code.
What I don't agree with that these pupils were forced to attend or be marked as a truant, as regards paying for the privilege that takes the biscuit. If there is a charge then the visit should be voluntary.
What I would like to know, was the trip the mind child of the Headmaster or not?
.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
we are far too soft in this country - we are forced to bow and scrape to other cultures and yet they can just ignore ours and get away with it
Recently a bunch of muslims were up in court in Luton for allegedly using threatening behaviour/language at a homecoming parade for British soldiers........when the judge entered court they refused to stand because it was 'against their religion to stand for anyone but allah'....of course if your ordinary bloke in the street did this they would be charged with contempt of court, but they were allowed to enter the court after the judge had entered instead
The laws of this country are not worth the paper they are written on when this sort of thing happens
Recently a bunch of muslims were up in court in Luton for allegedly using threatening behaviour/language at a homecoming parade for British soldiers........when the judge entered court they refused to stand because it was 'against their religion to stand for anyone but allah'....of course if your ordinary bloke in the street did this they would be charged with contempt of court, but they were allowed to enter the court after the judge had entered instead
The laws of this country are not worth the paper they are written on when this sort of thing happens
-- answer removed --
Attire
Head covering. In most synagogues, it is considered a sign of respect for male attendees to wear a head covering, either a dress hat or a kippa (skull cap, plural kipot also know by the yiddish term yarmulke a corruption of the Hebrew yirat hamalkut/fear of the kingship). It is common practice for both Jews and non-Jews who attend a synagogue to wear a head covering.[15][16] Some Conservative synagogues may also encourage (but rarely require) women to cover their heads. Many Reform and Progressive temples do not require people to cover their heads, although individual worshippers, both men and women, may choose to. Many Orthodox and some conservative men wear a head covering throughout their day, even when not attending religious services.
Tallit (prayer shawl) is traditionally worn during all morning services, during Aliyah to the Torah, as well as the Kol Nidre service of Yom Kippur. In Orthodox synagogues they are expected to be worn only by men who are halakhically Jewish and in Conservative synagogues they should be worn only by men and women who are halakhically Jewish.
Tzeniut (modesty) applies to men and women. When attending Orthodox synagogues, women will likely be expected to wear long sleeves (past the elbows), long skirts (past the knees), a high neckline (to the collar bone), and if married, to cover their hair with a wig, scarf, hat or a combination of the above. For men, short pants or sleeveless shirts are generally regarded as inappropriate. In some Conservative and Reform synagogues the dress code may be more lax, but still respectful.
Head covering. In most synagogues, it is considered a sign of respect for male attendees to wear a head covering, either a dress hat or a kippa (skull cap, plural kipot also know by the yiddish term yarmulke a corruption of the Hebrew yirat hamalkut/fear of the kingship). It is common practice for both Jews and non-Jews who attend a synagogue to wear a head covering.[15][16] Some Conservative synagogues may also encourage (but rarely require) women to cover their heads. Many Reform and Progressive temples do not require people to cover their heads, although individual worshippers, both men and women, may choose to. Many Orthodox and some conservative men wear a head covering throughout their day, even when not attending religious services.
Tallit (prayer shawl) is traditionally worn during all morning services, during Aliyah to the Torah, as well as the Kol Nidre service of Yom Kippur. In Orthodox synagogues they are expected to be worn only by men who are halakhically Jewish and in Conservative synagogues they should be worn only by men and women who are halakhically Jewish.
Tzeniut (modesty) applies to men and women. When attending Orthodox synagogues, women will likely be expected to wear long sleeves (past the elbows), long skirts (past the knees), a high neckline (to the collar bone), and if married, to cover their hair with a wig, scarf, hat or a combination of the above. For men, short pants or sleeveless shirts are generally regarded as inappropriate. In some Conservative and Reform synagogues the dress code may be more lax, but still respectful.
-- answer removed --
Eddie, Religious education may be a prominent part of the curriculum, but to compare that to education in the essential building blocks for life is simply ludicrous. When the constant demand for respect for religion isn't forthcoming you call it undisguised bigotry, but I call it common sense - and I see no reason to disguise that.
-- answer removed --
Eddie, I take your point. However, the thought has crossed my mind that since this is a church school, it could be that the parents never envisaged a school trip like this when they enrolled their children, and therefore perhaps it would have been wiser to offer a choice of whether to go or not. I know Christians who would be absolutely horrified at the idea of themselves or their children setting foot inside a mosque - or a temple - or anything other than a church for that matter. Irrational, yes, but we once went to Chichen Itza with one such couple - and they were a complete nightmare there!!
Wow, who would have thought it, I posted what I thought was a perfectly valid news story, one that has been widely reported by the media, not just the Daily Mail, and to date it attracts 175 posts.
I admit it has mostly been a back and fro attack on mollykins, but only a few have addressed the real issue here.
Forget the Muslim/Mosque race issue, which some of you are forever criticising me for highlighting, but then find it perfectly correct to do so when they themselves so wish.
The point I was trying to make was the fact that the trip was compulsory, and they had to pay for the privilege.
If they refused to go on the trip, they had a bad attendance mark against them, (truancy).
The charge may have been voluntary up to a point but only those parents that could not afford the charge, would be exempt.
Boo posted
/// AOG only posted this as a rant against "savages" ///
I ask you, I just can't win when I am competing against talent such as this????
stonekicker posted
/// i'd just like to know how another procative race/religion/culte question from aog ended up into a charcter dessimation of molly. she is entitled to her opinion (as people) are on here ///
I won't criticise the spelling mistakes enough to say, how my question can be construed as a provocative, race/religion/cult question I just do not know, but then coming from a person who states "she is entitled to her opinion (as people) are on here"
Every one but AOG it seems.
I admit it has mostly been a back and fro attack on mollykins, but only a few have addressed the real issue here.
Forget the Muslim/Mosque race issue, which some of you are forever criticising me for highlighting, but then find it perfectly correct to do so when they themselves so wish.
The point I was trying to make was the fact that the trip was compulsory, and they had to pay for the privilege.
If they refused to go on the trip, they had a bad attendance mark against them, (truancy).
The charge may have been voluntary up to a point but only those parents that could not afford the charge, would be exempt.
Boo posted
/// AOG only posted this as a rant against "savages" ///
I ask you, I just can't win when I am competing against talent such as this????
stonekicker posted
/// i'd just like to know how another procative race/religion/culte question from aog ended up into a charcter dessimation of molly. she is entitled to her opinion (as people) are on here ///
I won't criticise the spelling mistakes enough to say, how my question can be construed as a provocative, race/religion/cult question I just do not know, but then coming from a person who states "she is entitled to her opinion (as people) are on here"
Every one but AOG it seems.
