Since the ban was enforced, thousands of women have forgone a formal education since it would otherwise mean abandoning the head scarf; some families "make the same decision for their children, pulling them from school in their teens," reports Reuters.

Can a person who values wearing a piece a cloth over their head more than going to school and who is further capapble of rationalizing than an omnipotent deity cares whether s/he personally wears said head covering actually capapble of being educated in any meaningful sense?

I mean sure that many such people can learn a multiplication table or even triple integrals, but are they really capapble of critical thought and rational inquiry? As for learning the former without the later I am not sure any society should relax notions of egalitarianism or pander to absurd superstition (which all religious head coverings are) just to boost the potential earning power of religious conservatives (which is all a technical discipline does in the end).

Symbols have power and a President with his goodly hijabed wife in tow would be a powerful image sent out to the world about what kind of country Turkey really is both internally and abroad.

"We need to understand that women covering their heads is a tradition in the continuum among Jewish, Christian and Muslim beliefs."

What's your point? Most educated people are aware of that. Are you suggesting we endorse sexist superstitions because Chistians and Jews do or have done the same?

Slavery also has deep doctrinal and historical roots in all the Abrahamic religions (in fact Muslims still carry out slavery in Africa today), was accepted by those in bondage for the most part (if slave revolts were the rule rather than the exception slavery would not have lasted long anywhere) and was defended on grounds of cultural tolerance in the case of the American South.

The hijab may not be as bad as the veil, but debating which form of inequality is least oppresive seems to dismiss the option of freedom.

...it's going to happen again. The rubes in the flyover states are going to get scared of big bad "Islamofacism" and stick us with another loser.

FIrst of all the slurr "flyover states" belongs alongside racial epithets in terms of mature conversation. It is an ignorant, elitest term which just alienates people. Of course I am biased myself, residing at one of those bastions of ignornace in the Big Ten university system (where an awful lot of kids from the coasts seem to come).

As far as being concerned with "Islamofacism" what do the Islamist insurgencies in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Thailand, Sudan and Iraq mean to you? What about the politial radicalization of Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Nigeria and other Muslims countries? Just because Bush has abused and mishandled the threat of Islamic terrorism is now reason to dismiss its importance. Do be so dismissive of it is chilling in it ignorance.

"Publicly humiliating mentally ill individuals seems to satisfy the general public's sick desires more than it does anything to deter would-be pedophiles."

That little quote encapsulates Salon's perverse fetish for victimhood. For only Salon could be so out-of-touch with society that one of its writers is uncomfortable with attempts to catch and deter paedophiles.

Notice how Clark-Flory states matter of factly that paedophiles are mentally ill as if that were like saying the Earth revolves around the Sun. Does she offer any evidence for that view? Is she really incapapble of considering that paedophiles are simply perverse, depraved people with a normal psychology (especially when they pursue undergae, post-pubescent girls)? Is all deviant behavior the result of metal illness? Does that view taken to extreme not absolve paedophiles of moral responsibility for their crimes?

But to Clark-Flory the real bad guy here is "the general public" with their "sick desires". Society is the real criminal when hunting down paedophiles...hmm, is this some unconscious self-parody?

Finally public exposure and the resultant shame can have a tremendous motivating capacity and in this is a case where the crime is so extreme in its effects on victims that public censure is necessary and just. Again though Clark-Flory can only think of the poor, mentally-ill paedophile. I guess I just expect better from a Broadsheet Chick.