HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » 'Let Noor Run' initiative...

Thu Jan 23, 2020, 06:41 PM

'Let Noor Run' initiative aims to end discrimination in sports, starting with hijab bans

From the article:

In October, a 16-year-old cross-country runner made headlines across the country when her fastest 5K of the season was disqualified from a local district meet because she ran while wearing a hijab.

One week after her disqualification, Noor Alexandria Abukaram was back at the finish line with a new personal record, once her coach had acquired a waiver for her to wear a hijab for the race. Last month, after the teen won support from prominent Muslim figures including Olympic medalist Ibtihaj Muhammad and U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, officials say they changed uniform regulations to allow student athletes to compete in religious headwear without requiring waivers.

But Abukaram, a junior at Sylvania Northview High School in eastern Ohio, isnít finished yet. The athlete aims to remind the world that her case was no anomaly with a new initiative called Let Noor Run.


To read more:

https://religionnews.com/2020/01/22/let-noor-run-initiative-aims-to-end-discrimination-in-sports-starting-with-hijab-bans/

36 replies, 1107 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply 'Let Noor Run' initiative aims to end discrimination in sports, starting with hijab bans (Original post)
guillaumeb Jan 2020 OP
msongs Jan 2020 #1
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #2
msongs Jan 2020 #3
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #4
Act_of_Reparation Jan 2020 #6
trotsky Jan 2020 #5
AtheistCrusader Jan 2020 #7
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #8
AtheistCrusader Jan 2020 #9
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #10
AtheistCrusader Jan 2020 #11
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #12
AtheistCrusader Jan 2020 #13
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #14
AtheistCrusader Jan 2020 #15
trotsky Jan 2020 #16
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #17
trotsky Jan 2020 #18
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #19
trotsky Jan 2020 #20
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #21
trotsky Jan 2020 #22
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #23
trotsky Jan 2020 #24
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #25
trotsky Jan 2020 #26
trotsky Jan 2020 #27
trotsky Jan 2020 #28
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #29
trotsky Jan 2020 #30
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #31
trotsky Jan 2020 #32
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #33
trotsky Jan 2020 #34
guillaumeb Jan 2020 #35
trotsky Feb 2020 #36

Response to guillaumeb (Original post)

Thu Jan 23, 2020, 06:44 PM

1. how odd that men are never required to wear such a thing nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 23, 2020, 06:46 PM

2. The kipa, and the kufi.

And the turban for Sikhs.

Are 3 examples enough, or should I add the hats that RCC Cardinals wear?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 23, 2020, 09:38 PM

3. those are not hijabs nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 24, 2020, 12:26 AM

4. And apples are not oranges,

but both are fruit.

All 4 examples I gave are head coverings worn by men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 24, 2020, 02:22 PM

6. Are you deliberately being obtuse?

I would hope so. Because if not... damn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 24, 2020, 09:17 AM

5. It's not sexism when it's religion, you see. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Original post)

Tue Jan 28, 2020, 08:03 PM

7. So... this is tricky.

The prohibition on certain clothing is not due to uniformity or appearance or anything like that. It's due to physics. Certain kit will improve/enhance speed (mostly aerodynamics).

In open time trials for triathlon, sleeveless skin tri suits are often prohibited. Like seriously, they require a certain percentage of the arm to be covered. In other cases, sleeved are banned. (USAT for example)

I have seen people disqualified for this.

Those folks wore the previous year's kit, and were thus disqualified for having sleeves.


For the regulating bodies in question, this isn't a matter of religious accommodation or religious discrimination. This is a result of micro-regulating every aspect of the race to flatten the playing field as much as possible. These race outcomes are measured in and differentiated in microseconds, and the rules are stringent in ways that actually make THIS issue not even the most contentious issue to consider.

Without considerable wind tunnel and other testing, they are right to ban it on potentially performance-enhancing grounds. There are SHOES that are banned for form/function.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 28, 2020, 08:47 PM

8. Thank you for that enlightening post.

And no, that is not intended to be a reference to religion.

As you can see from the accompanying photographs, Noor is wearing a wrap type hijab. If she were wearing a close fitted hat, similar to a swim hat, I would be more disposed to agree that there might be some aerodynamic benefit.

And because the hijab is somewhat bulky, my guess is that any aerodynamic effect would be negative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 29, 2020, 11:20 AM

9. I would be guessing either way. Sometimes unexpected things happen.

I assume they will wind tunnel test it, and make a ruling. But multiple different regulatory race bodies will have to do so. Rules/regulations for one kind of race don't often apply to another. Triathlon is kind of one of the most extreme examples.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 29, 2020, 01:52 PM

10. I am also, obviously, guessing at to the effect, or lack thereof.

And the entire subject of religious garments, and who wears them, has been the subject of much debate her at DU, and in the larger arena.

I have worked with a coalition of groups, Arab and non-Arab, for over 3 years. I know a number of very progressive Muslim women who wear the hijab, and defend their right to make that choice. I also know progressive Muslim women who choose not to wear the hijab.

My view is always that no one should be coerced, or feel coerced, to make such decisions, but to assume coercion always plays a part is to assume too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 29, 2020, 02:31 PM

11. I view socially enforced behaviors/rules/customs as problematic

but I recognize there's no easy way to unravel any of this from any objective standpoint, because literally every culture, including mine, has a different set of social control. (Social norms.) There is no single objective base/default. It's all relative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 29, 2020, 05:41 PM

12. And part of the issue is which socially enforced behaviors/rules,customs do we focus on?

And which of these behaviors derive from the imperative of preserving the existence of the tribe?

Obviously a gross mechanism of social control is the justice/court/prison system. But as we know, who enforces the laws, and who is chosen to be the subjects of these laws varies. Thus the plantation to prison history in the US of enslaving black males after the American civil war made chattel slavery illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 29, 2020, 05:57 PM

13. I tend to focus on the 'You Must' or 'You May Not'.

Any absolute bears deep scrutiny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 29, 2020, 06:02 PM

14. True. But part of the "you must/you may not" formulation

is inherent in the legal system.

What we decide is legal, or not legal, varies, as you noted, from society to society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 30, 2020, 04:11 PM

15. Our laws are much easier to revise, than religious dogma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 30, 2020, 05:11 PM

16. nO It'S eXActLy THe sAmE ThINg /s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 30, 2020, 06:00 PM

17. In theory.

But religious dogma is revised all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 09:15 AM

18. Does it get closer to truth?

How do you know whether it does?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 11:57 AM

19. What gets you closer to the truth as you understand it?

As Pilate said, what is truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 02:12 PM

20. Please answer my question, and I'll answer yours. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 02:13 PM

21. We cannot know.

Just as we cannot know that the Creator exists or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 02:15 PM

22. So there is no way to know if religion approaches anything closer to the truth of your creator? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 02:16 PM

23. I have said this many times.

Now, it is your turn. No further "clarifying" questions on your part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 02:21 PM

24. No, you've just completely undermined yourself.

You have made several definitive statements about the nature of your creator in this very forum - you now admit there is absolutely no way you can make them. What hypocrisy!

Regarding the discovery of truth in the realm of things that actually exist...

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 02:23 PM

25. Again, you refuse to answer, and make unsuported claims.

Predictable.

Now, following your established pattern, you must claim that I have insulted you.

Again, predictable, and showing your interest in dialogue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #25)


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 02:25 PM

27. Refused to answer what?

I gave you the tool we use to determine the truth of things that exist.

Now you're just declaring your own reality and claiming victory while once again attacking me personally.

Talk about exposing your interest in dialog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 02:37 PM

28. Here are just a couple of your distinct claims about your creator.

Thank you for admitting you are just making things up, and these have no relationship to actual truth.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218268107

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218269749#post53

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218269749#post13

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #28)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 02:38 PM

29. At least you are consistent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 02:39 PM

30. Yes I am consistent in opposing hypocrisy.

Thank you for noticing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #28)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 02:40 PM

31. Even your examples prove you are wrong.

My point/belief has been that the Creator provided the initial spark,

the Big Bang, and allowed what subsequently happened to happen. [/div


2 opinions of mine, and one example speaking of my belief. Do you really not understand that this board is a place for opinions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #31)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 03:05 PM

32. You definitely wish that were the case, because you certainly have never been able to.

You state your "beliefs" as if they are facts.

Which they are not.

As you have admitted.

QED

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #32)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 03:10 PM

33. So you are unaware that this is an opinion board?



Hint: Unless a post includes citations, one might reasonably conclude that what is expressed is an opinion.

Thus, if I say the 49ers will win on Sunday, that is an opinion.

If I say something about a belief, that is also an opinion.

If I say a mile is 5,280 feet, and include a citation to a source, that is a fact.

https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/articles/units/how-many-feet-in-a-mile.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #33)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 04:29 PM

34. I'm perfectly aware, and I am also aware when someone is engaging in equivocation.

And you have demonstrated exactly what I hoped you would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #34)

Fri Jan 31, 2020, 06:20 PM

35. You project far to much.

Or just enough, if you understand my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #35)

Mon Feb 3, 2020, 09:09 AM

36. Uh huh.

You go on behaving just like you think Jesus wants you to, g. You are an amazing Christian indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread