Jump to content

Woman sues, claims judge forced her to remove hijab


Duchess Jack
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/26/michigan.hijab.lawsuit/

 

Whatever, it is a boring article. But - what constitutes a religion? Can I write some things in a book and say it was divinely inspired and then walk about with my Shlong out and say its my religious right? Where is the lie drawn with this one? Like with driver licenses... folk fight to keep this stuff on, they sue. Driving isn't a right so nobody is making you take it off. This is a little different though because it is a courthouse and people should feel comfortable going to court, but when is a religious right BS? How many people have to believe it and to what level can you break the laws. I bet you there are many in the US that would say Jihad is their religious right - that donating to Hammas is their religeous right, but they are not allowed to. Is there a legal line here? Breaking the law is breaking the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part, religion can't be used as a reason to circumvent rules of general applicability... unless you're a native American casino in a state that forbids gambling. Somehow that's okay.

 

That's not because of religion... I think it's because of treaties that guaranteed them some sovereignty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But - what constitutes a religion?

To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

Source

 

So in other words, it's like the test for obscenity. They don't know exactly what it is, and they can't define it, but they know it when they see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

Source

 

So in other words, it's like the test for obscenity. They don't know exactly what it is, and they can't define it, but they know it when they see it.

 

I guess that's as clear as it gets - but it does not explain why wearing hoods in court and on drivers licenses is okay, but donating to 'Islamic Charities' is not. Its all the same religion and their actions are dictated by the same texts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not because of religion... I think it's because of treaties that guaranteed them some sovereignty.

No sure why their sovereignty extends beyond their reservation, but I hear what you're saying on it not being because of religion. I was just being a little sarcastic, which I know you wouldn't expect coming from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that's as clear as it gets - but it does not explain why wearing hoods in court and on drivers licenses is okay, but donating to 'Islamic Charities' is not. Its all the same religion and their actions are dictated by the same texts.
I don't thin that there is any question that Islam is an active, legitimate religion, one who's customs can include women wearing some type of a head covering. Wearing the head covering may at times come into conflict with the purposes of a drivers license (identification) or activities of court (identification of an individual, observing demeanor, etc). The courts have needed to rule whether the the religious practices take president over the legitimate needs of the state (or court) and if the needs are in actual violation of the individuals religious freedoms.

 

In the case of Islamic charities, most where shut down due to their ties to terrorism, or at least the accusations of ties to terrorism. It wasn't that they were Islamic charities, it was their ties that shut them down. If they were a Catholic charity but had similar ties to a Neo-Nazi terrorist organization, I would expect similar efforts to shut it down. I'm not trying to judge the legitimacy of the charities or whether shutting them down was justified, just that there is a difference between the two religion-related situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No sure why their sovereignty extends beyond their reservation, but I hear what you're saying on it not being because of religion. I was just being a little sarcastic, which I know you wouldn't expect coming from me.
According to a wiki article, there are only 3 casinos that are actually "off reservation" or otherwise not on indian land. My limited understanding from what I've read is that those that aren't under indian lands may need to operated as a traditional casinos.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't thin that there is any question that Islam is an active, legitimate religion, one who's customs can include women wearing some type of a head covering. Wearing the head covering may at times come into conflict with the purposes of a drivers license (identification) or activities of court (identification of an individual, observing demeanor, etc). The courts have needed to rule whether the the religious practices take president over the legitimate needs of the state (or court) and if the needs are in actual violation of the individuals religious freedoms.

 

In the case of Islamic charities, most where shut down due to their ties to terrorism, or at least the accusations of ties to terrorism. It wasn't that they were Islamic charities, it was their ties that shut them down. If they were a Catholic charity but had similar ties to a Neo-Nazi terrorist organization, I would expect similar efforts to shut it down. I'm not trying to judge the legitimacy of the charities or whether shutting them down was justified, just that there is a difference between the two religion-related situations.

Okay - but the Jihad is more part of the Islamic text than wearing a hijab is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in California theses days. There is no max limit to stupidness out here. You still holding down the fort in Tejas?

 

Yeah, a condition of my parole.

 

Where you at now? Used to live in Pt. Arena up north and did boot camp and IC-A school down in San Diego. I love California, even Bakersfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, a condition of my parole.

 

Where you at now? Used to live in Pt. Arena up north and did boot camp and IC-A school down in San Diego. I love California, even Bakersfield.

We landed in San Jose. Aside from the cost of living and loco politics, the area has been good to us. Love the weather, and its hard to beat the great outdoors here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information