"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.

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.

Weikuboy is indeed a fundamentally dishonest person in my experience. I caught him a few weeks ago condemning Catholic outrage over the chocolate Jesus, while claiming Muslim rage over the Mohammed cartoons, etc. was justified because Islamic art banned all depiction of living things. I then pointed out to him the countless examples of Muslims portraying animals, humans and even Mohammed himself in art. Weikuboy persisted nevertheless in stubbornly clinging to his unnuanced claims and of course attcked me for my efforts in calling him out. As thorough and detailed as your response was, I fear it will have no effect whatsoever. He is a typical Salonista who does not want consistency or even facts to get in the way of their politcal agenda.