Muslim Woman Jailed Over Head Scarf

[quote="Bells] Nor does taking a dump in public fall under the right to freedom of religion.
[/quote]

But if my religion dictates that all initiates should take a dump in public twice a day, then me taking a shit in public would fall under my right to freedom of religion? Awesome!

Does that also apply to drug use? Owning an unregistered firearm/vehicle? Shit man, don't arrest me, I'm merely exercising my religious beliefs, which are protected under the First Amendment.

What a load of nonsense. Why should the religious be allowed to defy the edicts of a judge, while the non-religious cannot?
 
Baron Max said:
No, Bells, you don't get it. Read that amendment carefully ....in the case of the woman and scarf, did congress make any laws or prohibit anything? In fact, was congress involved at all?
Click to expand...

/Facepalm..

Does this mean that next time a State legislature or a judge bans the use of firearms (eg Texas), I can tell you the same thing and you'll accept it and not scream about your right to carry arms?:rolleyes:

Remember the El Dorado church issue in Texas a few months ago? When the Texas authorities raided the church property claiming that the men were taking underage girls as wives? Should that religious practice have been protected by the first amendment, Bells?
Click to expand...
Ermm ok. Here's the thing. Bonking little girls is illegal and no, it does not fall under religious freedom. Get it now? Wearing a hijab is not illegal in the US. In fact, it falls under the first amendment.

Is it really that hard to understand?

So basically, you're saying that anyone can do anything, wear anything, as long as they proclaim that it's their "religion" to do so?
Click to expand...
Gawd.

Refer to above Baron.

According to your statements above, all they have to say is that it's their "religion" to do so and the law can't do anything about it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the laws pertaining to public nudity are not unconstitutional. This woman was arrested, not because of a law, but because of a rule that this particular judge had handed down for whatever courtroom he happened to be sitting in. Get it now? She wasn't breaking the law. Just this particular judge's personal preferences.

Just as the judge asks men to remove their cowboy hats in the courtroom, he can ask that the woman remove her scarf. It's no difference. There is nothing in the Muslim religion that requires her to wear the scarf ...just as there's no religion in Texas that requires men to wear a cowboy hat.
Click to expand...
Yes. But it's not just a scarf. It is a hijab.. religious garments worn by Muslim women. It is a huge difference. The Muslim religion dictates that it is up to the individual to decide to wear the hijab or not. She has chosen to wear it as appropriate to her religious beliefs. A judge demanding she remove it (or more to the point, a security guard demanding she removes it because the judge doesn't like "headwear" in his courtroom, and then arresting her and taking her to his chambers where she was then jailed for contempt of court) is denying her her constitutional rights. Just as a judge demanding that nuns (who do not have to wear a veil but choose to) remove her veil in his courtroom is denying said nun her constitutional rights and freedoms.

I think you already are making a mess of it, Bells.
Click to expand...
And I think you are arguing just for argument's sake. But I'll be sure to save this to remind you of it later when a time comes that gun ownership is banned by someone or other..:D

Oh, and that old man down the street from you? It's his religion to gaze at little girls in the playground and masturbate ...since it's his religion, he should be permitted to practice it under the first amendment rights ...right?
Click to expand...
Are the laws that deal with pedophilia unconstitutional in your country Baron? No, they are not. What you simply cannot seem to grasp is that she had not broken any law. There is NO LAW that demands she remove her hijab in that courtroom. Can you get that? Is it sinking in yet? She was not arrested for having broken the law. She was arrested for not obeying a judge's personal preferences and dictates.. Can you tell the difference between what is illegal and what is not? Keep up old man.

Now crawl back under that bridge my dear.
 
skywalker said:
I Knew it was coming, but you missed the important part of this news... let me help you,

"Kelley Jackson, a spokeswoman for Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker, said state law doesn't permit or prohibit head scarfs.
"It's at the discretion of the judge and the sheriffs and is up to the security officers in the court house to enforce their decision," she said.'


So, there were no fucking rules. But you had to make an excuse, I can understand that.. :)
Click to expand...

Snap.
 
distantcube said:
But if my religion dictates that all initiates should take a dump in public twice a day, then me taking a shit in public would fall under my right to freedom of religion? Awesome!

Does that also apply to drug use? Owning an unregistered firearm/vehicle? Shit man, don't arrest me, I'm merely exercising my religious beliefs, which are protected under the First Amendment.

What a load of nonsense. Why should the religious be allowed to defy the edicts of a judge, while the non-religious cannot?
Click to expand...

Sure an Rastafarians can sit in the court and fire up a blunt.
 
Bells said:
Does this mean that next time a State legislature or a judge bans the use of firearms (eg Texas), I can tell you the same thing and you'll accept it and not scream about your right to carry arms?
Click to expand...

In Texas, we have a right to carry law, Bells, but we can't carry them into courthouses or court rooms. See?

But that's beside the point you're trying to make. If you read your statement above, then read the first amendment, you'll see the difference between "congress" making a law, and the judge asking people not to wear hats or headcovers in his court. Big difference, Bells.

Bells said:
Ermm ok. Here's the thing. Bonking little girls is illegal and no, it does not fall under religious freedom. Get it now?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. In fact, the reality is that the "congress" actually and truly DID make a law preventing the exercise of religious freedoms by deeming 13-16 year old girls ineligible for marriage by a church that approves it.

See? While you're going to make a big deal about it, the reality is that the church should be free to practice it's religious beliefs ...yet congress overstepped their bounds.

Bells said:
Wearing a hijab is not illegal in the US. In fact, it falls under the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Wearing a cowboy hat or a hijab is not illegal, but both are removed in the courts in most courts that I've been in. That they don't SOMETIMES make Muslim women remove the hijab is out of compassion for their religious beliefs ....but NOT a requirement of those beliefs.

Bells said:
Get it now? She wasn't breaking the law. Just this particular judge's personal preferences.
Click to expand...

Texans wearing cowboy hats aren't breaking the law either, but THEY are understanding enough to abide by the requests of the judge. What do you think the judge would do if some cowboy refused to remove his big cowboy hat in the court ...after the judge asked him to do so?

Bells said:
But it's not just a scarf. It is a hijab.. religious garments worn by Muslim women. It is a huge difference. The Muslim religion dictates that it is up to the individual to decide to wear the hijab or not. She has chosen to wear it as appropriate to her religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Yep, she has chosen to wear it ...just like she could chose to remove it. In no way different to the Texan wearing his cowboy hat. There is nothing in the Muslim religion that says the woman MUST wear the head-thingie ...it's exactly the same thing as a cowboy hat - head decoration!

Bells said:
And I think you are arguing just for argument's sake. But I'll be sure to save this to remind you of it later when a time comes that gun ownership is banned by someone or other.
Click to expand...

That is making a law, Bells. In Texas courtrooms, all Texans must give up their guns to the security guards ....just like that woman should have given up her head-thingie.

Bells said:
Are the laws that deal with pedophilia unconstitutional in your country Baron? No, they are not.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But there's no law that says a dirty old man can't stand around near the playgrounds and THINK about how much fun he might have. As far as I know, Bells, thinking or imagining something is not illegal. And yet such men are chased away from playgrounds regularly. Why don't you stand up for their rights under the law, Bells?

Baron Max
 
It's not against her religion if she is told to remove it by an authority figure. It's not her removing it in violation of her religion, so I'm sure Allah would understand. She is free to comment that making her remove it is highly offensive to her religion. It's not like she is going to be barred from heaven for this.
 
It must be tough being Allah, or any god for that matter. Out there putting planets and stuff together, dealing with all the soul traffic, keeping heaven running smoothly, life, death, good, evil, obedience, and just when you think it can't get any worse somebody removes their hajib. Talk about a low point. It's enough to make a god join the human race. Terrible, makes me sick to think about it.
 
disease said:
It doesn't matter what you think about nudism either.
Click to expand...

You're right. It doesn't. But the law says exposure is illegal, so you can't wander around nude.

disease said:
I made a decision about trouser wearers violating the dress code, so sorry, trousers are not allowed, especially on judges from Georgia. I would tell the judge there are tablecloths, he could wrap one around his skinny white legs, if the nudity was too much. Except he would not be nude, just showing a bit of leg.
Click to expand...

Your stupid analogy continues to be stupid. Apparently, you haven't grasped the concept that your "rule" is already illegal, and thus, not enforceable by you. What's more, in a desperate attempt to achieve some kind of related argument, you're creating a false premise: That is, your restaurant is not a state or federal facility controlled by a constitutional authority whose chief concern is the security of that premise. In other words, the decision had nothing to do with tastes.

disease said:
The Justice Act is not a freedom to enact arbitrary dress-code rules, though.
Click to expand...

What is arbitrary about a dress code set down to ensure security?

Bells said:
And here I thought the Bill of Rights gave the people of the US the right and freedom to exercise their religion.
Click to expand...

No one prevented this woman from exercising her religion. They simply told her that she could not enter a building dressed as she was. As I have already written, the freedom to practice one's religion does not mean that a person can behave or dress however they like in public.
 
countezero said:
Your stupid analogy continues to be stupid. Apparently, you haven't grasped the concept that your "rule" is already illegal, and thus, not enforceable by you.
Click to expand...
And your stupid objection is patently ridiculous - you're saying it's illegal to not wear trousers in public?

And another patently ridiculous observation I'd like to make for you, about dress codes and 'security'. If there's a security 'problem' with allowing people to wear something on their head, why don't judges order that all people appearing in a courtroom must be shaved bald?

Why is there a security 'problem' if someone has a hat or a scarf on their head, but no problem if they're fully dressed?
 
disease said:
And your stupid objection is patently ridiculous - you're saying it's illegal to not wear trousers in public?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that most communities have laws against lewdness and exposure. These laws would prevent your from demanding your customers remove their trousers as part of some kooky dress code you've dreamed up in a desperate attempt to make some kind of argument here.

What matters, and what you continue to ignore, are the issues of authority and safety.

disease said:
And another patently ridiculous observation I'd like to make for you, about dress codes and 'security'. If there's a security 'problem' with allowing people to wear something on their head, why don't judges order that all people appearing in a courtroom must be shaved bald?
Click to expand...

You're being ridiculous.

Hair is an issue?

No, it's not.

Headwear is an issue for obvious reasons that have already been mentioned in this thread: Respect, slight potential weapons and gang-colors and the like.

And I continue to be amazed that the idea of banning hats or headwear amazes you. You sound English, for starters. When I lived in England, just about every "club" I went to had a no-hat policy. So please, be sensible.

Tiassa said:
I'm curious what she could be hiding under the scarf that wouldn't be either visually apparent or detectable by security systems. Is she going to hijack a plain with a bobby pin?
Click to expand...

I think the issue is more about respect and safety than harboring weapons. As someone noted, gang-colors are an issue in courtrooms, as are hats and the like, and so some judges ban headwear entirely. Seems simple enough to me . . .
 
The reason a judge has discretion over 'headgear' in his courtroom, has little to do with security and a lot to do with personal taste.

If a judge can decree "no hats or scarves", a restaurant owner or anyone who controls access to a 'gathering-place', a movie theatre say, can do the same thing and declare "no trousers allowed".
 
countezero said:
most communities have laws against lewdness and exposure.
Click to expand...
And yet, most communities have trouserless people walking around in public - why aren't they arrested for lewdness?
 
Look it doesn't matter if it IS against her religion or isn't. If the law says no you can't walk around naked in a court house then no you can not do it. People seem to think freedom means freedom to do anything. It doesn't. It means freedom of the people in society to set their own guidelines on social conduct. Islam also says you can marry 4 wives. That's a 1600 year old religious right. BUT guess the f%ck what - you're not going to do it in the USA because we call bullshit on that kind of behavior, even WHEN all 5 adults want to do that.

you know, we worked our arses off to give people freedom from religion and then along comes a dipshit like this woman who is so dense she doesn't even realize that by rocking the boat, if push comes to shove, she'll be the one tossed overboard, not the majority of the people who were sitting patently on the boat. IF she had her wish, which is to have a more religious and not secular society, her's would be the very first belief to be banned! That's what burns me the most. Just how much of a dipshit she is. Instead of appreciating this unique society where people are allowed to worship shit as stupid as Allah to Xenu, she instead feels the need to make a public offering to stuff her head up her rectum.


It shouldn't surprise anyone. Muslims have a history of this sort of behavior. Look at the red cross. It became a secular institution for pretty much everyone in the world, from China and Japan to Brazil. But, go to an Islamic country and it's the red crescent. Did we see the Chinese asking for a red hammer and sickle? No. But, Muslims couldn't see past that big fat "cross" and would only go for an Islamic symbol, Now, again, because of Muslims and their whacked out religious bullshit we have the red-diamond. Just pathetic. Maybe the SE will have a Red Shiva and a Red Buddha?
 
Last edited:
I applaud the judge and only hope such laws are applied to all overt religious symbolism.
 
spidergoat said:
It's not against her religion if she is told to remove it by an authority figure. It's not her removing it in violation of her religion, so I'm sure Allah would understand. She is free to comment that making her remove it is highly offensive to her religion. It's not like she is going to be barred from heaven for this.
Click to expand...


That is not the issue here, it doesn't matter if her religion allows her to remove the hijab under threat or persecution.

The issue here is the threat and persecution from someone in power (someone supposed to be just) - who happens to be a prick. Massive thumbs down from me.
icon13.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top