As was mentioned, in the USA, prayer in school is banned, but headscarfs, and other religious headress are allowed.

I think if the headscarf is just clothing, it should be allowed BUT, if it is a expression or statement, like a prayer, it should be banned. I am starting to think that the USA should also ban headscarfs in public schools.

Well, I believe that everyone has the right to practice their beliefs.
I also think that women can attend university with their heads covered.
Not because university itself, but basically people attend university at the age of 18, which is the legal age for giving their own decisions.
I am against praying and and religious symbols in schools before university.
First I believe that although values are given by the family, I believe that society is there to protect the innocence of the child. I believe this also covers to protect the child from any extreme.
So with this reasoning, society must also protect the child from an overdose of religion. Because this may later result in a lesser free-mind.
My fear is that if we let children under 18 to have religious symbols on them, this can easliy be a race between families to express how religious they are. (And believe me it will be the case)
The families will start to express their devotion first by this symbol, amd then they will send them to arabic courses, then they will send them to memorise Q'uran and they will attend contests for the best poem to prophet. Then their families will decide on not sending them to school.

With this reasoning, I support any religious, political ... symbols in schools banned for children under 18. And this idea is not a law in Turkey, it is also approved not to be against Human rights by European Court of Human rights.

As I told after the age 18 I have no problem for the students to wear on school.

But for teachers, professors or any goverment official I am also against since state officials does not have the right to express their political or religious position while exercising their duties.

If there is any person thinking that head scarf is not a symbol, I can write a longer message to tell the historical background.

may be will be very extrem question,but need to ask,who can say mini skirt a political symbol????who can mortagage on basical human rights,if they r using ___in rules__????

Is there a limit to Human Rights? Can Any1 put a limit to rigths of others?
Basically by living in a society, we are giving up some of our individual rights.
In fact limiting religious symbols is not a direct threat to Human Rights. As one of the posters stated, it is a limitiation to wear them in the school. You can wear outside of the school. Every institution has the right to put some limits, for several reasons.
If some say that you can not attend school because you are a muslim, or you are a not accepted to a school because your father is an atheist... This is absolutely discrimination, and against HRights.
But to define rules inside the institution itself (in the name of neutrality) to me is not against Hrights.

Let me give a small example on why I am not favoring religious symbols and such in schools.

Just recently, parents of a 15 year old girl, documented that there has been a mescit (small mosque) in one of the high schools. And their girl was effected by some of her friends, and started practising.
This was my point to ban political and religious symbols and acts from schools for children under 18. To me it is the same logic to ban tobacco and alcohol. It is not because religion or politics is bad. But what is acquired at early age by the child , is against the child's wish. And this will result in a dogmatic, extremist person later.

In an ideal world people should be allowed to wear what they want.But we don't live in an ideal world, do we? People aren't free to wear what they want anywhere.Can one go to the university wearing a bikini?Or go out without wearing headscarf in some muslim countries? Or wear a a nazi swastica in germany , or religious symbols in france.One could say my human rights are violated in all of those cases.Can one say "well, im a nudist, thats my belief, so i wanna go around naked but they don't let me!", are we supposed to allow him/her to in the name of not violating his/her human rights?There are restrictions everywhere in the name of public interest.Thats clear.
Of course religion is a more sensitive issue.But 1-There are no verses in the Quran that says one MUST wear a headscarf.But as far as i know in some hadiths (although some hadiths existance is disputable among islam schoolars) it is advised.But as i stated above its not a farz to cover hair.
So expecting one to obey the laws in Turkey doesn't harm a muslims position in islam.Doesn't make her a sinner or anything.So there is no contradiction between her religious beliefs and obeying laws.
As for why those restrictions are in place in the laws of a country like Turkey which is predominantly muslim but has a secular regime, it is justified in my view.For several reasons.First of all, no regime is suicidal and tries to protect itself.Everywhere in the world.Including the countries that are considered as the bacons of democracy.And Turkey is a "secular democractic social law state" as its stated in its constitution.(And acording to ANY poll turkish people support the secular nature of Turkey with OVER 90%. Plus secularity is an essential component of democracy, in a teocracy where people have to live acording to the rules of a religion one cannot talk about democracy.)
Therefore its natural Turkey tries to protect its secular nature.In the 80's fundementalist islamist movements that want to change Turkeys secular regime and place an islamist Sheria regime started to bossom not only with the $$$$ thats been coming from oilrich sheria regimes like Saudi or Iran cus they see turkish model as a threat for their own regime, but also with the help of US supported green belt project, where the idea was to support the islamist movements in the name of combatting communism.(Taliban is another fruit of the same project )
So "türban" as we call it in Turkey ,which is different than the normal headscarf thats worn by some women in the rural areas , became a symbol for this movement.In my moms young days for instance there was noone wearing this kind of türban neither in cities nor in the rural areas.Where we less muslim then?
What i am trying to explain is , that "türban" (not the traditional headscarf=başÃ¶rtüsü ) is seen not as a RELIGIOS symbol but a POLITICAL symbol that wants to topple the secular regime in Turkey.Thats why türban is banned in government buildings and universities.Actally wearing any political symbol is banned in universities because of the terrible experience we had with the bloody right wing/ left wing clashes in the 70's which eventually lead us to a coup.
So States reason by banning türban is deffinately NOT because it has a problem with religious people and wants to opress them like some islamists like to claim, its because it doesn't want this POLITICAL fundamentalist movement to spread and devide people as religious ones/not religious ones which could result in clashes again.
Plus, it would put pressure on students to cover themselfs in time against their will, cus they would be labeled as not muslim enough kafirs, namuzsuz etc.We all know how these kind of pressure COULD force people to cover especially in conservative countries like Turkey.Immagine you live in a neighboruhood in Turkey where everyone wears chador or türban and is islamist which means= wants everyone to live acoridng to quran, not only acording to quran but acording to THEIR perception of Quran btw.Would you be able to freely dress as you wish there?Could you? Would you really feel free to go around in miniskirts for example ? Lets face it the pressure on the not covered ones would always be 1000 times more than a covered religious woman who wouldn't be condemned anywhere.After all they are just religious but according to the mentality of the fundamental islamists notcovered ones are sinners , kafirs, "namuzsuz" etc.So that kind of atmosphere would harm the secular nature of the country and violate the ones rights who don't want to cover.
Of course, i wouldn't want a womans right restricted to attend the university who carry it just because of their religios convictions, but i see türban as a symbol of political movement that wants to harm peoples rights and freedoms, although there might be ones among them who wear it without having any political agenda.So, under these circumstances, as long as this movement that tries to pressure people and change the regime is there, allowing türban in universities will not be possible in my view.Maybe in the future.

Well spoken, Leander.
When we separate "Religion" from "Politics", everybody will be free to live their religion.

and when we sperate our worries from freedooms everythings will be finer to...

What exactly is what turks apparently call a "türban", is it something like a niqab or how do you define it? Can you show us a picture please?