R Duke,
you haven't expunged anything but your own credibility extended as a 'benefit of the doubt' kinda fig-leaf generally, that folks give to noobies, in a simple cultural norm kinda construct. Folks'll generally give newcomers the benefit of the doubt until a pattern develops showing them acting in an increasingly reprehensible way. The C-word in english is usually recognised as a no-no in hardly any context and yer use of it here is really unnecessary anyway and understandably also gonna trigger strong reactions in itself. Power to Aspy (and Sabby too) fer bein cool and not ripping yer ear off and makin you eat it.
It seems maybe yer more use to the use of the word (hear it more often) but maybe haven't grasped some of its broader ramifications. It seems too, that you would want to equate the word with a meaning like 'stupid'. Which rather limits the use of the word. On the other hand, if that was what you were going for, I for one can testify that Aspy is NOT stupid, nor have I ever seen her be a cunt, or a bitch for that matter. What would be the point?
But you don't have to just go on my and others' testimony.
In fact, since the point in question is of a teacher wearing the hijab and whether or not this should be allowed on the merits of either
religious expression or of
it being instead unacceptably influential on students
I'd have to go with the latter.
In fact, R Duke I see you denied at all the possibility of influence by the teacher as a person, on the student. You alluded to professionalism as the rule which would keep the 'good teacher' from propounding their personal beliefs, when actually, if the teacher is any good at all, what every teacher should want to be, as a teacher, is a good example, as a person. This is whateverybody wants as well. How can you be a good teacher if you set a poor example for your students? And how do people become good examples? They uphold and live their lives by maintaining the qualities of goodness, and for many, these are bound up in their religious beliefs.
So the teacher, in being a good example, according to your model of professional detachment [my synopsis, your idea] can't show the very thing that animates her goodness, her faith. So wearing the hijab at all would be hypocritical

, i.e. merely symbolic, a token without the substance: in other words she would maintain a professional 'teacher-ness' and not allow any awareness of her faith to dawn in her student's minds, with the hijab ON. A real impossibility.
Refusing to accept this REALITY, that people can and do see themselves as symbols, as part of a larger group and can wear this 'uniform' to project a set of beliefs and effect their environment, their world, shows aspy to be a lot sharper than you.
In the states, if you want a religious education, you go to those places to get it. If you want the nuns and the preachers to teach you, you go to the schools that do that. But you know ahead of time that's what you're getting. In the case in point, if a devout muslim woman or a Catholic nun were to teach in the states, she couldn't wear the habit or the hijab in class, unless it were a private school. The issue hinges on the public school so therefore GOV funds it problem. That's where the real issue lies and still doesn't give you the right to call people names.