From the article,

"The deeply religious Muslim parents of the 11-year-old student were trying to prevent their son from attending swimming classes, where he would mix with girls in bathing suits."

The "religious" parents of this child are using the pretext of their son mixing with girls.

Actually, it is much more likely they do not want their son mixing with ANY infidel.

Being part of the elite has got to be lonely.

Posted by: Skeet Street at June 2, 2005 9:34 AM

As a religious Jew, I will point out that we, too, have pretty much the same laws of modesty under these circumstances.

Skeet Street, this case is not about mixing with infidels. They would not go mixed swimming with Muslim girls just the same.

What would I do if my child was in a similar situation?

First of all, I would do everything to send my child to a private religious school.

But assuming I was in some location where this option was unavailable, I would seek to find a private alternative where my child could acquire the equivalent swimming skills and qualifications. If such a possibility does exist, it's an excellent solution to the problem.

Assuming none of the above are possible, my child would suffer the consequences of not being able to participate in these lessons, whatever the consequences may be.

Posted by: Shy Guy at June 2, 2005 9:43 AM

This reminds me of a funny story I read about Pope John Paul II as a priest. Some of his clerical colleagues objected to his taking youth groups out for hiking and swimming because the girls and boys would be swimming together in swimsuits. He very politely inquired if it would make them happier if the kids swam without swimsuits. I think it is Weigel's biography but I am not sure.

Posted by: 40 at June 2, 2005 9:50 AM

Shy Guy,

Coming from a non-Jewish and non-Muslim background, you can certainly understand how my perception would be a little different.

The pretext of coed swimming being forbidden because of religious restrictions is used in the wider agenda of preserving one's culture or religious homogeneity.

Is my perception wrong?

Posted by: Skeet Street at June 2, 2005 10:10 AM

Shy Guy,

I respect your view, but come on, this is ridiculous. This type of view further alienates women. Just take the swimming classes and be on with it - maybe this is a good time to learn self-control.

Posted by: Laurel at June 2, 2005 10:40 AM

As a religious anything, it is a crock of $hit not to let the kid go swimming with his school chums because of some superstitious nonsense.

Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at June 2, 2005 10:55 AM

Here's a story that seems appropriate.

Three Buddhist monks, who had taken vows of both chastity and silence were traveling together, when they came to a deep river.

A pretty young woman was standing on the bank, afraid to cross because of the strength of the current.

One of the monks picked her up, carried her across, and put her down safely on the opposite bank.

The two other monks were scandalized.
After traveling on together for awhile, they could bear it no longer. They reproached their fellow monk for such an unchaste action.
He looked at them and said, I put put her down back at the river, it sounds like you are still carrying her.

Posted by: treehugger at June 2, 2005 11:04 AM

Oh my God! Girls in bathing suits!

Time for the guys to get a grip.

Or start their own schools.

Then they can fantasize.

And go to heaven.

Untainted.

By girls.

Hosanna!

Posted by: BigSleep at June 2, 2005 11:13 AM

I went swimming with girls from 5 years old and on in public schools,city park pools, several lakes, and the Pacific Ocean and it just seemed as natural and wholesome as a family picnic, and apple pie. And like any healthy Male, as I grew into maturity I found the female figure sexually attractive and more pleasant to look at. Why would we want to hide our children from what is natural and beautiful?

Posted by: Mackie at June 2, 2005 11:15 AM

I guess drowning is better than learning a life-saving skill like swimming.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at June 2, 2005 11:18 AM

Mackie,

"...it just seemed as natural and wholesome as a family picnic, and apple pie."

I grew up in a very similar fashion and my childhood was natural and wholesome as well.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with swimming with those of the opposite sex.

There is EVERYTHING wrong with the makers of rules and regulations which prohibit such activity.

Pent up, sexually repressed and very confused individuals who insist upon "guiding" the "simple."

F*ck them.

Posted by: Skeet Street at June 2, 2005 11:35 AM

I'm not all that well versed on the Quran.

Does anyone know where the separation of boys and girls (in a supervised group activity) is actually prohibited in the Quran?

How definitively is modesty defined?

Is this a situation where someone could actually say 'Oh, B.S, that's NOT a legitimate interpretation.'

Posted by: PRCS at June 2, 2005 12:20 PM

Oops.

Make that '...mixing of boys and girls...

Posted by: PRCS at June 2, 2005 12:22 PM

Just a quick search .

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=23464&dgn=4

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=1200&dgn=4

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=8901&dgn=4

http://www.msapubli.com/islam-qa/Volume_9/Chapter_3.htm

http://www.jannah.org/sisters/womeninsoc.html

http://www.drzakirnaik.com/pages/iisschool/index.php

Posted by: AvrageJoe at June 2, 2005 1:15 PM

"And lead us not into temptation..." doesn't mean to stop living. One has to take personal responsibility for one's actions and stop blaming the other guy (or gal).

Posted by: epg at June 2, 2005 3:05 PM

Sorry I haven't responded. Just returned home and I have much to attend to but I see a drop of closure in response to my initial post here is in order.

I'm not interested in deeply discussing the philosophical/psycological/moral outcome of attitudes and practices of modest behavior. You can all search for articles on Jewish outlook on modesty at sites like Aish.org and many more.

To Skeetstreet, in response to your first post, your perception is wrong. Jewish laws of modesty are obligatory whether the world is 0.00000000000001% or 100% Jewish. They are not relevant to cultural preservation but rather to moral and ethical preservation of one's sensuality. Again, look this up elsewhere. As to your second post, I'm not interested in responding to such ratrap.

To Laurel, this alienates women? But Jewish women are obligated in the same laws in the opposite direction. So now we have both men and women alienated perhaps? Amazing how Jews have been building familes for almost 4 millenium, no?

To ReligionOfPeaceMyArse, this has nothing to do with superstition.

To treehugger, great story! Much to learn from there.

To BigSleep, in contrast, consider today's sex-crazed society, marital infidelity, pornography and hedonism. Of course, you may have considered them already. :)

Mackie, because there are too many 15 year old single mothers today.

To 3812Michelle, I don't know about Islam but Jewish law obligates parents to teach their children how to swim, no matter where they live.

And with that, I wish you all a safe and pleasant evening.

Posted by: Shy Guy at June 2, 2005 3:51 PM

Shy Guy,

"They are not relevant to cultural preservation but rather to moral and ethical preservation of one's sensuality."

That is fine if that is what you believe, but that is not what I believe.

Exemplary morality of one's sensuality is being and has been attained by millions upon millions without the segregation of the sexes.

"As to your second post, I'm not interested in responding to such ratrap."

Why? Because my life experience doesn't intersect with yours? Because the morality I was taught didn't consist of dogmatic codes restricting my very natural and healthy human response towards life?

You said that my perception of coed restrictions being part of a wider agenda of cultural and religious preservation is wrong.

Fine again, but now you claim that the way I was raised, a life free, natural and devoid of sexually pent-up mental baggage, is "raptrap" unworthy of a response.

I also wish you a safe and pleasant evening.

Posted by: Skeet Street at June 2, 2005 4:23 PM

Skeet Street:

That is fine if that is what you believe, but that is not what I believe.

That is fine with me, too. If you'll read my posts, I'm only explaining it from my point of view - not trying to impose it on others.

Exemplary morality of one's sensuality is being and has been attained by millions upon millions without the segregation of the sexes.

I believe we have different yardsticks as to what defines "exemplary" on this subject.

"As to your second post, I'm not interested in responding to such ratrap."

Why? Because my life experience doesn't intersect with yours?

No. Try recalling the explitive at the end of your 2nd post. Hope that clarifies that.

Posted by: Shy Guy at June 2, 2005 4:40 PM

Shy Guy,

My expletive is heart-felt anger at those "esoterics" who believe that their guidance is worthy for the common man to follow and was not directed at you.

I think my post was clear on that.

Posted by: Skeet Street at June 2, 2005 4:43 PM

Shy Guy; It has everything to do with superstition . "As a religious Jew, I will point out that we, too, have pretty much the same laws of modesty under these circumstances." orthodoxy, dogma call it what you will but it is still superstitious nonsense.

Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at June 2, 2005 4:44 PM

ReligionOfPeaceMyArse, whatever you say.

Skeet Street, a clarification. I believe that Jewish laws of modesty would be good for the common man but:

1. I don't expect everyone to agree.
2. As mentioned, Judaism has no interest on imposing this on the world.

To contrast Jewish laws of modesty with Islamic one's, here's an example of something completly foreign to Judaism.

Posted by: Shy Guy at June 2, 2005 5:04 PM

Uh huh, it is the same superstitious nonsense that keeps meat and dairy apart and some households with 2 refrigerators and not eating bacon.

Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at June 2, 2005 5:19 PM

Shy Guy,

"1. I don't expect everyone to agree."

Thank you.

"...Judaism has no interest on imposing this on the world."

Thank God. :-)

Posted by: Skeet Street at June 2, 2005 5:21 PM

Yes, ROPMA, I understood completely that you are of the opinion that anyone believing in G-d given commandments believes in superstitions.

And I repeat: whatever you say.

Posted by: Shy Guy at June 2, 2005 5:22 PM

I remember a girl who was a Jehovah's Witness, who wasn't allowed to go swimming. She also wasn't allowed to cut her hair or watch television.

She was a very nice girl, but I felt sorry for her that she lived such a restrictive life.

I don't think that religion should prevent children from learning how to swim or enjoying their life.

And as for all this modesty business, if anyone thinks that it is immodest or dirty to go swimming, then they just have sex on the brain as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Voltaire at June 2, 2005 5:35 PM

Shy Guy,

All parents must teach their children to respect the opposite sex. I'm not saying that boys, girls, men and women don't benefit from being separated say on certain sports teams...an maybe even fun at times. But separating the sexes because something "bad" might happen is not teaching respect, tolerance, or self-control, it's teaching disdain, intolerance, and of course lack of personal self-control.

This of course what the Muslims fear most right. If a woman gets raped, it must be her fault, no? Maybe if they had more intergration there wouldn't be so much superstition and violence. I could care less about how long the Jews have been producing families...what does that have to do with sexual self-control? My Grandmother was Jewish and even she knew this was a load of sh*t.

Posted by: Laurel at June 2, 2005 5:46 PM

AverageJoe,

Thanks for the links. Informative.

Shy Guy, and others.

I guess the question, for Americans, is what trumps what.

Should religious beliefs that don't actually violate the 'law' (separating boys and girls at a school swimming pool, as an example) be accomodated.

As Shy Guy has stated, his faith demands similar restrictions in the name of modesty.

At a public school, where students are compelled to participate in swimming classes, what's wrong with separation. Boys and girls don't share the same locker room. Aren't PE classes typically segregated by gender?

How about verifiably religiously mandated clothing or ornaments? (Not the Saudi's whacky interpretation of modest clothing on display in Shy Guy's link).

As an adult who doesn't swim, I go to the public beach for other reasons. But, I'm not forced to go there.

Posted by: PRCS at June 2, 2005 5:52 PM

If people want to keep their kids out of swimming lessons for whatever reason, let them but how about asking what the kids would like ?

Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at June 2, 2005 6:11 PM

German Court: Muslim Students Must Swim
should be:
German Court: Muslim Students Must Swim Back Home

Posted by: Dumbo at June 2, 2005 7:26 PM

The 11 year-old kid is most probably a presexual for cripesake. This is a political power ploy by the Muslim adults, period. He needs to learn how to enjoy the company of women without having a socially debillitating flood of hormones in his brain whenever he has unexpected social interaction with the fairer sex.

The Muslim culture perpetuates the social cancer of misogyny with such nonsense as this injunction on children. As a social experiment the Islamic ideology has failed to pass muster in the 21st century (Anno Domini). It is time for a more mature humanity to toss it into the dustbin of history where it belongs.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at June 2, 2005 8:07 PM

Shy Guy- et al-

I think it is a form of sublime blasphemy for any adult to impose any religion on any child.

Shouldn't you allow them to learn everything, and then decide for themselves when they reach maturity?

I understand this would irritate 99.9% of all adult parenting 'believers' on Earth, but this isn't a question seeking to win a popularity contest, but is a matter of basic human decency and ontological honesty.

Who is anyone to foist any Deity on anyone at any age?

Isn't this arrogance?

Whatever it poses as?

Posted by: BigSleep at June 2, 2005 9:10 PM

The Muslim parents must send their boy to a Muslim school. They must stop trying to bend and manipulate the German state educational schools & system. Muslims are guests and not honored guests because Muhammad was a man without honor.

Posted by: dennisw at June 3, 2005 5:06 AM

Hulegu Khan: "The Muslim culture perpetuates the social cancer of misogyny with such nonsense as this injunction on children. As a social experiment the Islamic ideology has failed to pass muster in the 21st century (Anno Domini). It is time for a more mature humanity to toss it into the dustbin of history where it belongs."

Well said.

The many suggestions here presume a sane, decent, civil human being who thinks for himself/herself.

Religious people no longer think for themselves. They let the religion do that - think for them. They just obey.

Religion supplants a man's brain.

That's how they can commit mind-boggling stupidities, or inhuman atrocities. The religious person, after accepting religion as directives from God, throws his brain out of the window (to use it invites blasphemy), and with that goes his human decency and common sense - and more ominous, his sense of responsibility. He is no longer accountable for whatever stupidities, or atrocities he might commit (imagine the freedom surging through his head like a 1 MegaWatt orgasm). We see this everyday now, muslims slaughering people like chicken, splattered obscenely with their blood, and be unmoved, because human decency has been supplanted by divine mandate, and accountability? a non-issue since he's following God's orders.

You can't reason, or talk sense, with a religious person.

The original human has been unplugged. No brain to converse with. No one home.

Posted by: skidd at June 3, 2005 8:44 AM

Skidd and bigsleep,

I agree with you absolutely.

Posted by: Voltaire at June 3, 2005 5:41 PM

It is sad to see, that yet again we have become obsessed with religious dogma. Religious belief should be a private matter, or at most kept within the confines of the family or the religious group. The West had achieved this quite successfully, until muslims were allowed into the West. Since we have let in muslims, they have demanded special privelages for muslims in schools, universities and other public places. As a consequence, religion has now moved back into the public square; a retrograde step in my view.

As authorities caved in to muslim demands, it is only a matter of time before other religious groups demand specific religious requirements as well - all to be accomodated by the state in one form or other. It is impossible to reconcile all such requirements, without trespassing on the requirements of others.

The real tragedy is that religious dogma is now back in the public square. Our history shows that this is not a benign and harmless situation.

Posted by: DP111 at June 3, 2005 8:35 PM

You betcha dp111, Muslim "dogma" is coming to a city near you in a super decibel AllllllaaahhhhAkkkkbaaaaarrr way - 5 times a day. It seems that the Muslims have a real grip on that first amendment right to free speech. Multiple towers located in Detroit, Dearborn, and Hamtramic Mi. are pumping out calls to prayer through
meggawatt amps 5 malox inducing times a day. Yeow! Oddly, these are the same cities that find public Christmas displays (that scream at no one) "offensive" due to their "non-inclusive sectarianism." The hypocrisy is breathtaking. I sure wish the founding fathers were alive to witness the madness of it all.
I wonder how long I would last in an Islamic state if I read the New Testament through a loudspeaker 5 times a day?

Posted by: thumper at June 5, 2005 10:05 PM