Indian Supreme Court says no beard in school, doesn't want 'Talibanisation'

[diwana]

@Punjabee_in_USA

^ Looks like you did not read any of the previous posts

This is a private convent school, and has its own set of rules. This student went to the court protesting against the school’s rules and the court ruled against him.

Are you trying to say that not allowing someone to break the rules is justification for creation of Pakistan

Looks like you have not read my post or understood at all what I said.

Try reading line by line again if you had already done.

A stupid judge gave verdict on his own extremist, biased and hateful thoughts. Not on the basis of law (that we know and if there is such a law then its even worse). He is an incompetent judge.

Again, mixing having beard with talibanization is plain and simple moronic and is itself an extremism.

Having a rule in a private school to force people to either shave or leave school is super moronic.

Yes you made a wonderful remark to have Pakistan creation justified since according to you those who did not leave India at partition must abide with moronic rules and stupid judgment.

You admitted that at least there is no such rules or laws exist in Pakistan. One is free to have beard or not in Pakistan or judged by a SC justice in this matter regardless of which religion he belongs to. In this rregard Pakistan is better than India which does not force people to change their looks or clothings or takes the right away to attend whatever school they want regardless of religious background.. Keep pondering.

I am sorry your thread is turned against you.

[pallavpotter]

Re: Indian Supreme Court says no beard in school, doesn't want 'Talibanisation'

That school was a government-recognised minority institution, for Christians. doesnt mean that non-Christians cant go there, but when rules are made and are to be followed, they will have to be the ones the convent administration formed.
if the guy was such a pious Muslim and he wanted to keep his faith's rules alive, then let it be known, a convent is a Christian school, and there are conflicting views of Islam and Christianity. if his faith tells him Jesus was not the son of the God, and he is made to study the very same in his school, no point in being there. if you still remain there, no point in making a fuss about keeping a beard. hypocrisy?
same goes for other religious groups too.
true, over-stretching of secularity is a big no no.

[diwana]

That school was a government-recognised minority institution, for Christians. doesnt mean that non-Christians cant go there, but when rules are made and are to be followed, they will have to be the ones the convent administration formed. if the guy was such a pious Muslim and he wanted to keep his faith's rules alive, then let it be known, a convent is a Christian school, and there are conflicting views of Islam and Christianity. if his faith tells him Jesus was not the son of the God, and he is made to study the very same in his school, no point in being there. if you still remain there, no point in making a fuss about keeping a beard. hypocrisy? same goes for other religious groups too. true, over-stretching of secularity is a big no no.

Your post is absoutely out of context. Its not about christianity or islam nor it is about son or not a son.

The person attended school knowingly it was a christisan school and had no problem. He did not start problem. Besides there is absolutely nothing in christianity against having beard, hope you know it well.

*All religions proscribe to or at least are not against having beard. *

Just look around, lots of people have beard (from any religion) and are not taliban.

The decision from judge was wrong since judge represented the country law and he did not abide by it. Instead he made a judgement on wrong notion. An absurd relation to having beard with talibanization.

Tomorrow if taliban start shaving, should everyone start having beard?

Or should everyone start shaving their head since taliban are not known to do that?

They are known to use iphone, so everyone carrying iphone is taliban?

Oh, one more: Should everyone have long nails since taliban may be cutting their nails short?

Come on!

Its their bad horrible actions, not the looks which should be condemened or looked down upon.

The discussion is about not having personal freedom and that is not good on long run. Both, school and judge are wrong. Judge just wanted to please the school.

You are right, over stretching secularism is big no no,........ and is itself an extremism.

[simplyme]

Your post is absoutely out of context. Its not about christianity or islam nor it is about son or not a son.

The person attended school knowingly it was a christisan school and had no problem. He did not start problem. ,

The person when he enrolled into the school knew the existence of such a rule that prevented anybody from having a beard. He himself started the problem. He wanted some publicity and got undeserved attention. If he had a problem in following the school rules, he should not have joined the school. Why join the school and then create the problem. This kind of frivilous litigation is taking away court's time and should be severely dealt with.

[simplyme]

Re: Indian Supreme Court says no beard in school, doesn't want 'Talibanisation'

I really do not understand the fixation of the posters here to justify the creation of Pakistan. For every small incident posters here jump up and down claiming how justified it was to create Pakistan. Are you still having a complex about leaving India.

Indians understand the necessity of Pakistan. The happenings in Pakistan justify the creation of Pakistan.

[shami2k]

Re: Indian Supreme Court says no beard in school, doesn't want 'Talibanisation'

I agree with the court's ruling. Private institutions should not be forced to accommodate others religious views. The story would be different if this public school funded by tx payers.

[shami2k]

@burqaposhx

Good rule. Pakistan too should ban beard-ism in schools, colleges and madrasahs.

Dude, beards don't kill. There are many members of my family who have beards & they haven't killed anyone.

[Punjabee_in_USA]

Looks like you have not read my post or understood at all what I said.

Try reading line by line again if you had already done.

A stupid judge gave verdict on his own extremist, biased and hateful thoughts. Not on the basis of law (that we know and if there is such a law then its even worse). He is an incompetent judge.

Again, mixing having beard with talibanization is plain and simple moronic and is itself an extremism.

Having a rule in a private school to force people to either shave or leave school is super moronic.

Yes you made a wonderful remark to have Pakistan creation justified since according to you those who did not leave India at partition must abide with moronic rules and stupid judgment.

You admitted that at least there is no such rules or laws exist in Pakistan. One is free to have beard or not in Pakistan or judged by a SC justice in this matter regardless of which religion he belongs to. In this rregard Pakistan is better than India which does not force people to change their looks or clothings or takes the right away to attend whatever school they want regardless of religious background.. Keep pondering.

I am sorry your thread is turned against you.

The issue here is about forcibly exercising the right to express religious freedom and not adhering to the rules of a private institution.

One can debate about the judge's comments, but his ruling is correct.

Despite me & other posters having stated it quite clearly you still don't get it, do you ?

[LockJaw]

Re: Indian Supreme Court says no beard in school, doesn't want 'Talibanisation'

^ you dont speak for the judge, therefore alternative justifications for the ruling offered by you and other posters, such as private institutions setting their own rules, are irrelevant.

[Punjabee_in_USA]

^ you dont speak for the judge, therefore alternative justifications for the ruling offered by you and other posters, such as private institutions setting their own rules, are irrelevant.

There is not alternative justification. This guy did not want to follow the school's rule, and went to court to challenge it on religious grounds. The judge ruled against him. Its as simple as that.

[LockJaw]

Re: Indian Supreme Court says no beard in school, doesn't want 'Talibanisation'

correct. and the basis offered for this ruling (no beards because we dont want talebanization, next thing you'll want to wear abaya) is being criticised and commented on.

[ehtasab]

that is why I think the judge should simply have said, the school has the right to decide. All that talk about burka etc is stupid indeed coming from a supposedly learned judge.

but you guys from Pakistan trying to scope some point are simply lacking credibility. If you were objective you'd be looking at what religious extremism, taleban and support for taleban etc have turned people to such over reaction against the simplest sign of beards and burkas

If only you guys stop suggesting India being secular. We have our problems and you have yours. Did you guys stop poking nose in our problems?

[ehtasab]

There is not alternative justification. This guy did not want to follow the school's rule, and went to court to challenge it on religious grounds. The judge ruled against him. Its as simple as that.

Its okay that judge ruled against him, but judge should've simply discarded the application saying something like that it is school's policy and that govt rules don't dictate schools on rules bla bla... but to drag in Talibanisation suggests as if beards = Talibanism.

[Punjabee_in_USA]

Its okay that judge ruled against him, but judge should've simply discarded the application saying something like that it is school's policy and that govt rules don't dictate schools on rules bla bla... but to drag in Talibanisation suggests as if beards = Talibanism.

The point is not what the judge said, the point here is the expectation that just because my religion wants me to do something I will do that irrespective of the rules of the school/company/country that I study/work/live in.

A secular state does not mean one can do whatever one's religion calls for. It means that there is equality for all religions.

[diwana]

The point is not what the judge said, the point here is the expectation that just because my religion wants me to do something I will do that irrespective of the rules of the school/company/country that I study/work/live in.

A secular state does not mean one can do whatever one's religion calls for. It means that there is equality for all religions.

lol.

You don't even know what secular state means.

And not allowing someone to have beard is equality?........great! Please keep amusing. :D

It is ironic that when comparing Pakistan (a country based/formed on religion) to India (a country based on so called secularism), there is more tolerance in Pakistan in simple things like having a beard!

[diwana]

The person when he enrolled into the school knew the existence of such a rule that prevented anybody from having a beard. He himself started the problem. He wanted some publicity and got undeserved attention. If he had a problem in following the school rules, he should not have joined the school. Why join the school and then create the problem. This kind of frivilous litigation is taking away court's time and should be severely dealt with.

You took sentence out of context.

He did not have problem with christianity and christianity does not have problem with beard.

School and judge were both wrong.

School, for two reasons:

1- Going against personal freedom.
2- Making a rule based on something which does not even exist in Christianity.

Judge for many reasons but more importantly for three reasons:

1- Going against personal freedom.
2- Acting on his own bias and not on any law known to mankind against having beard.
3- More hilariously by mixing talibanization with having beard!:D

This dude is not only an incompetent judge but also needs his head examined.

[Punjabee_in_USA]

lol.

You don't even know what secular state means.

And not allowing someone to have beard is equality?........great! Please keep amusing. :D

Dude, first go & find out what secularism means then talk to me.

It is ironic that when comparing Pakistan (a country based/formed on religion) to India (a country based on so called secularism), there is more tolerance in Pakistan in simple things like having a beard!

Yeah, I am sure the scores of Pakistani Hindus who were forced to convert and the Ahmedis will tell you about Pakistani's tolerance.

[diwana]

Dude, first go & find out what secularism means then talk to me.

Yeah, I am sure the scores of Pakistani Hindus who were forced to convert and the Ahmedis will tell you about Pakistani's tolerance.

Your own statement is a proof of what you know about secular state. ( which India is NOT)

LOL.......... At least you admitted that there is more freedom in Pakistan on simple things like having or not having beard.:p

Other things you mentioned out of utter desperation.

[diwana]

I really do not understand the fixation of the posters here to justify the creation of Pakistan. For every small incident posters here jump up and down claiming how justified it was to create Pakistan. Are you still having a complex about leaving India.

Indians understand the necessity of Pakistan. The happenings in Pakistan justify the creation of Pakistan.

True you don't understand since you did not read why it was mentioned.

Those who live or left behind in India have to deal with ever growing intolerance as little as having a beard!

[diwana]

The issue here is about** forcibly** exercising the right to express religious freedom and not adhering to the rules of a private institution.

One can debate about the judge's comments, but his ruling is correct.

Despite me & other posters having stated it quite clearly you still don't get it, do you ?

He used proper channel not force, only to be disappointed.