1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Shaking Hands

Discussion in 'Education news' started by Iftilsi, Jun 7, 2016.

  1. MsNiChearuil

    MsNiChearuil New commenter

    That was really interesting @NoseyMatronType ! Is there a specific article that William Dalrymple's piece came from? I'd like to read more.
  2. abacus1982

    abacus1982 Established commenter

    As I have said now on a number of times. I would not agree with any child being taught purely by the person who is the same sex as same and the same religion regardless of that religion or sex.

    I did not bring up the 'west' this was commented on by the original post. I simply replied to the assertion from the original poster.
  3. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter

    Best answer is to ban all 'faith' schools. Pupils of all (& increasingly no) faith are all taught together at school with no religion encouraged. Let religious indoctrination, if it has to happen, happen at home.

    Then this 'debate' becomes totally academic.
    monicabilongame likes this.
  4. NoseyMatronType

    NoseyMatronType Star commenter

    Thank you.

    It's from Dalrymple's review of Jason Burke's book on Al-Qaeda:


    It stuck in my mind because Dalrymple seemed to have succinctly described the nefarious influence that Wahhabism is having on the wider Islamic world in a couple of paragraphs. David Commins' recent book Islam in Saudi Arabia goes into more detail and is very readable too, almost a page-turner.

    The quotations from earlier commentators on Islam came, I think, from notes I made on Reza Shah-Kazemi's The Spirit of Tolerance in Islam. But I can't be exactly sure as the book is at home and I am at school.
    slingshotsally likes this.
  5. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    So you would not have Christian girls taught by Christian women. You're allowed to express that opinion but it is not inherently different in tone from @Iftilsi's view that Muslim girls should be taught by Muslim women.
  6. slingshotsally

    slingshotsally Star commenter

    Thanks for replying.

    The Devils in the detail, unfortunately.

    Handshaking- they should be left to do what is comfortable.

    It's the other matter that I thought was unreasonable.

  7. abacus1982

    abacus1982 Established commenter

    Vince what is it you do not understand about what I have said? I have never said I disagree with Christian girls taught by Christian women. I most certainly do not disagree with a Muslim girl being taught by a Muslim woman or an atheist boy being taught by an atheist man. I have not expressed that opinion once.
    [This comment/section/image has been removed for breaching our Community Guidelines/Terms and conditions]

    I have clearly said that I would not agree with any child going to a school where the all of the teachers were of the same sex and same religion exclusively. I would not think it was good to have a girl/boy attend a school for her/his entire education where she/he was only taught be the same sex as her/him and the same religion; regardless of what that religion was. Your claim that I have said that Christian girls should not be taught by Christian women is quite clearly wrong.
  8. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    I understand what you have said, although I cannot speak for you (which makes two of us). I did not say what you said that I said that you said. I drew a fair inference from what you actually said, going to the trouble of quoting you. Why would I misrepresent you after I went to the trouble of using the quote function to capture what you said?

    Nor has @Iftilsi said that Muslim girls may never be taught by non-Muslim men.

    This is the first time you have said that. It's not what you said in post #122. Even so, that's just your opinion and you're as entitled to it as @Iftilsi is entitled to his.

    Well, again that's your opinion. Fine, although it has nothing to recommend it over @Iftilsi's opinion.

    No, I did not say that you said that. I drew a fair implication from what you said. You said:

    From this a fair inference may be drawn that you would not agree with a Christian girl being taught exclusively by a Christian woman. You did say 'regardless of that religion or sex'. Do you wish to retract your opinion?
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2016
  9. abacus1982

    abacus1982 Established commenter

    In #122 I used the word purely instead of exclusively. Mean the same thing in this instance though.
    In #50 it was said that Muslim girls should go to Muslim schools with female teachers.
    He has also said that non-Muslims should not teach in Muslim schools.

    The implication you drew from my posts were neither fair nor accurate. The assumptions you have made are neither fair nor accurate. Your comment that I cannot speak for myself is childish and again pathetic and antagonistic.

    I have now said on numerous occasions that I would not agree with any sex of any religion being taught exclusively/purely/only by someone of the same sex and same religion. Therefore I would not agree with a Christian girl being taught exclusively by a Christian woman.
  10. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Yes, I know. Thanks for that.

    As I've said, it's possible to express opinions as imperatives without implying compulsion. You do it, I do it and there's no reason why @Iftilsi can't do it.

    No, the inference was fair. If you feel your opinion was interpreted incorrectly then you are welcome to rethink it and post again, but ultimately it's just your opinion.

    Yes, I know this is your opinion. I've quoted you saying it.

    Great. You realise that this is the inference I drew in post #125, don't you? Look, I'll quote myself saying it so you don't have to go through all that tedious business of paging up:

    Again, in post #128:

    Happy now? Perhaps you should take a break.
  11. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    The evidence of history shows that when Christianity is persecuted, it grows.
  12. abacus1982

    abacus1982 Established commenter

  13. slingshotsally

    slingshotsally Star commenter


    Have a lovely weekend.
  14. delnon

    delnon Lead commenter

    I am not a Catholic: I'd hesitate to call myself a Christian, but I've taught full time and on supply in Catholic single-sex schools. So yes, being of the faith is not necessarily a requirement.
    agathamorse likes this.
  15. delnon

    delnon Lead commenter

    Vince, you're all het up. :( Take a break, have a cool drink and then read that comment again.
  16. monicabilongame

    monicabilongame Star commenter

    They say they are, and it's their religion so they should know.
  17. monicabilongame

    monicabilongame Star commenter

    Totally in agreement with this. Follow the French model. Education is for everyone and is secular. If you want to get religious, do it in your own time. That way schools can contribute at least some moderating influence on extremist religious views being pumped into children.
  18. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    You're the second person to completely ignore the rest of that post:

  19. delnon

    delnon Lead commenter

    Some of the most un-Christian people I've met were self-proclaimed Christians.
  20. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Despite Jesus Christ's condemnation of hypocrisy, it can be found in the Church as frequently as anywhere. However, Monica's tautology isn't a successful argument.

Share This Page