Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

Are there any Sikh children in RoC state schools ?

No there aren't! We apply EU rules, not UK commonwealth rules

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1w-zuq8Pfk
https://www.worldgurudwaras.com/world-g ... hib-cyprus

Not sure what you mean by EU rules and how that applies to if there is or is not a Sikh community in Cyprus ? Anyway it would appear there is such a community in Cyprus. Would be interested to know how they get on in RoC state schools if they attend such. Anyway.

I mean from 3rd countries we can only import temporary workers each one for upto 2 years.
This way they never get any citizenship rights
Temporary workers come as single (can't bring their families with them) hence there are no families and no children to attend school.
The communities you mentioned are just those single workers.

Thanks for the info.

[Sotos]

But theoretically speaking in an ideal situation, if there is a uniform, everybody should be in that uniform, otherwise what is the point of the uniform? If we are going to make exceptions to accommodate religions then anybody can wear whatever he/she wants and claim it as something mandated by their religion. Somebody could show up in a Micky Mouse hat and claim that he is a follower of the Micky Mouse religion and that he has to wear it. You can't say that his religion is "made up" and "stupid" because this is the case for all religions, so you can't discriminate against him.

I still do not see why a school uniform policy can not accommodate an appropriate headscarf ? Nor do I think it is beyond the wit of man to be able top say that sikhism is and established recognised religion and mickey mouseism is not ? The school I went to in the UK (private fee paying school - which in some Orwellian way we call a 'public school') had a very strict and strictly enforced uniform policy that was able to accommodate students following religions like sikhism and orthodox judesim without any problem.

Why children should be discriminated based on how established and "recognized" their religion is? The uniform exists to enforce uniformity. If no uniformity is going to be enforced then they might as well abolish the uniform. A relative of mine goes to a private English school where no religious symbols are allowed. There are many children from India, Pakistan, Israel, Arab countries, UK, Russia, EU countries etc (Cypriots are a minority in this school), and all children wear the exact same uniform, no exceptions allowed.

Personally I am against having anything religion related in schools, including the involvement of our own Church which is an obstacle to progress. Progress has been made since the time I was in school, but a lot more needs to be done. I am not against any ethnicity or race, but I am not happy in welcoming to my country religious fanatics. As the example I gave earlier indicates it is not a problem for Muslims, Indians, Hebrew etc NOT to wear such religious symbols. Those who think that such symbols are so important are backward people who I personally do not want in my country and I have no desire to accommodate their backward needs.

[erolz66]

I believe in tolerance myself. Nor am I fanatically 'anti religion', such that I consider anyone of faith, any faith, must be either 'backward' or a 'fanatic'. I want a modern secular Cyprus that demonstrates it's tolerance, as a society and a state. In the UK the police have a uniform. That uniform is perfectly able to accommodate Sikh police officers that wear a turban. Not any turban and certainly not Micky Mouse ears, but one that conforms to the uniform requirements of the police. There is no need to proscribe respectable head wear in my view so why do it. Sikh's also have a religious reason for carrying a specific type of dagger. This is different from head wear and no police officer or school child in the UK is allowed to carry such just because it is a part of the Sikh religion. There is no need to abandon all common sense on matters religious.

[Lordo]

But theoretically speaking in an ideal situation, if there is a uniform, everybody should be in that uniform, otherwise what is the point of the uniform? If we are going to make exceptions to accommodate religions then anybody can wear whatever he/she wants and claim it as something mandated by their religion. Somebody could show up in a Micky Mouse hat and claim that he is a follower of the Micky Mouse religion and that he has to wear it. You can't say that his religion is "made up" and "stupid" because this is the case for all religions, so you can't discriminate against him.

I still do not see why a school uniform policy can not accommodate an appropriate headscarf ? Nor do I think it is beyond the wit of man to be able top say that sikhism is and established recognised religion and mickey mouseism is not ? The school I went to in the UK (private fee paying school - which in some Orwellian way we call a 'public school') had a very strict and strictly enforced uniform policy that was able to accommodate students following religions like sikhism and orthodox judesim without any problem.

Why children should be discriminated based on how established and "recognized" their religion is? The uniform exists to enforce uniformity. If no uniformity is going to be enforced then they might as well abolish the uniform. A relative of mine goes to a private English school where no religious symbols are allowed. There are many children from India, Pakistan, Israel, Arab countries, UK, Russia, EU countries etc (Cypriots are a minority in this school), and all children wear the exact same uniform, no exceptions allowed.

Personally I am against having anything religion related in schools, including the involvement of our own Church which is an obstacle to progress. Progress has been made since the time I was in school, but a lot more needs to be done. I am not against any ethnicity or race, but I am not happy in welcoming to my country religious fanatics. As the example I gave earlier indicates it is not a problem for Muslims, Indians, Hebrew etc NOT to wear such religious symbols. Those who think that such symbols are so important are backward people who I personally do not want in my country and I have no desire to accommodate their backward needs.

you first have to remove the influence of the church and elam from the school carriculum which are very serious and leave headscarfs alone. you don't need to teach anybody how to behave. this i am better than you comes from deep insecurity and has been with you for thousands of years so much so that when you finally got independence you could not wait to hand it to greece. now on your bike boy and learn to be civilised before you demand the same from others.

[Pyrpolizer]

Can someone explain me the influence of the church at schools?
I ve been in a public school and I don't feel I 've been influenced, never became a good Christian anyway.
It's true the syllabus includes a lesson on religious knowledge but most students at my age wouldn't even spend 1% of their time studying anything. And the teachers were nice puppies giving everybody an A grade.

What actually influenced me were the history classes.
As early as the age of 9 I developed a huge hate for the Persians who were the enemies of Alexander the Great.
Simply because all history at that class was about the wars of Alexander

[Lordo]

Can someone explain me the influence of the church at schools?
I ve been in a public school and I don't feel I 've been influenced, never became a good Christian anyway.
It's true the syllabus includes a lesson on religious knowledge but most students at my age wouldn't even spend 1% of their time studying anything. And the teachers were nice puppies giving everybody an A grade.

What actually influenced me were the history classes.
As early as the age of 9 I developed a huge hate for the Persians who were the enemies of Alexander the Great.
Simply because all history at that class was about the wars of Alexander

this will explain it. can the groc government approve who the education minister is without the church approval first?

[Pyrpolizer]

Can someone explain me the influence of the church at schools?
I ve been in a public school and I don't feel I 've been influenced, never became a good Christian anyway.
It's true the syllabus includes a lesson on religious knowledge but most students at my age wouldn't even spend 1% of their time studying anything. And the teachers were nice puppies giving everybody an A grade.

What actually influenced me were the history classes.
As early as the age of 9 I developed a huge hate for the Persians who were the enemies of Alexander the Great.
Simply because all history at that class was about the wars of Alexander

this will explain it. can the groc government approve who the education minister is without the church approval first?

It's the other way round the government decides and the Church approves (almost always).
There was only one occasion the church did not approve and it was ignored.
I think it's because many schools actually belong to the church e.g both Kykkos A and B, belong to the Kykkos monastery.

I don't agree the Minister has anything to do with "influencing" the students.

[Sotos]

I believe in tolerance myself. Nor am I fanatically 'anti religion', such that I consider anyone of faith, any faith, must be either 'backward' or a 'fanatic'. I want a modern secular Cyprus that demonstrates it's tolerance, as a society and a state. In the UK the police have a uniform. That uniform is perfectly able to accommodate Sikh police officers that wear a turban. Not any turban and certainly not Micky Mouse ears, but one that conforms to the uniform requirements of the police. There is no need to proscribe respectable head wear in my view so why do it. Sikh's also have a religious reason for carrying a specific type of dagger. This is different from head wear and no police officer or school child in the UK is allowed to carry such just because it is a part of the Sikh religion. There is no need to abandon all common sense on matters religious.

I gave you an example of the private school where students from all over the world study without any need to wear religious clothing. It is one thing to be religious, and quite another to be so religious as to absolutely need to wear some specific hat because your religion says so. The UK was a colonial power. It exploited the colonized people and even took them to fight for its wars. So in a way it "owns" it to them and maybe this is why they are accommodating their various hats... and still that is probably limited to certain groups and not everybody.

And this is not about tolerance but about accommodating their unreasonable needs, e.g. changing what is allowed as a uniform in order to accommodate them, instead of them changing in order to adapt to the environment they choose to be. If I go to a country and they have certain rules then I follow their rules, I don't expect them to change to fit my needs. And if I don't like their rules I simply don't visit them, let alone choose to live among them permanently.

[Lordo]

now here is a fantastic bit of reporting. if this does not open your eyes, you are destined to die with your eyes wide shut.

enjoy

http://www.makarios.eu/cgibin/hweb?-A=3230&-V=english

i mean honestly........

<<THE MINISTER of Education’s recent circular, issued on January 19, Archbishop Makarios’ name day, has reignited the debate about who is to blame for the intercommunal clashes of 1963-64, which led to the collapse of the Zurich-London agreements. Minister Andreas Demetriou points out that the clashes were provoked by “outlaw and extremist organisations, both Greek and Turkish Cypriot.” This very general reference to an historical event occurring 45 years ago incurred the wrath of members of political parties (other than the Left), the Church and that section of the media that maintains that what happened in 1963 was a Turkish mutiny instigated by foreign centres of power, and that the Greek Cypriots were merely resisting as a legitimate state.

By far the most interesting reaction was that of the secondary school teachers union OELMEK, which issued its own circular and distributed it to schools to “correct” the Education Minister and in which it outlined its own interpretation of the events. >>

[Pyrpolizer]

now here is a fantastic bit of reporting. if this does not open your eyes, you are destined to die with your eyes wide shut.

enjoy

http://www.makarios.eu/cgibin/hweb?-A=3230&-V=english

i mean honestly........

<<THE MINISTER of Education’s recent circular, issued on January 19, Archbishop Makarios’ name day, has reignited the debate about who is to blame for the intercommunal clashes of 1963-64, which led to the collapse of the Zurich-London agreements. Minister Andreas Demetriou points out that the clashes were provoked by “outlaw and extremist organisations, both Greek and Turkish Cypriot.” This very general reference to an historical event occurring 45 years ago incurred the wrath of members of political parties (other than the Left), the Church and that section of the media that maintains that what happened in 1963 was a Turkish mutiny instigated by foreign centres of power, and that the Greek Cypriots were merely resisting as a legitimate state.

By far the most interesting reaction was that of the secondary school teachers union OELMEK, which issued its own circular and distributed it to schools to “correct” the Education Minister and in which it outlined its own interpretation of the events. >>

This actually proves the the church can have no influence on the Minister of Education, and the Minister himself cannot influence the students.

The one's who CAN and DO influence are the teachers.The teachers (all over the World) are conservative people, who together with the police make up the machine that shapes the young to become good robots like them..
And to become a good robot you must consume all the GC or TC propaganda of the 60s (according to which community you belong), no questions asked.