Muslim woman told to remove scarf sues Mich. judge

[jimjames418]

And on video after she was asked to remove her scarf says:
"This one?" she asked, touching her scarf. "Ah, OK. It doesn't matter."

Muslim woman told to remove scarf sues Mich. judge (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5glJaKUaZ1Okb1orDGallDjO93lUwD9AAQ4NG3)

[OldSchoolConservative]

And on video after she was asked to remove her scarf says:
"This one?" she asked, touching her scarf. "Ah, OK. It doesn't matter."

Muslim woman told to remove scarf sues Mich. judge (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5glJaKUaZ1Okb1orDGallDjO93lUwD9AAQ4NG3)

I think that a federal judge will likely order the Wayne courts to allow the headgear and the Michigan Supreme Court's decision will likely be overturned by a federal judge. However, I do believe the judge would have allowed the headgear if the request was made that it was for religious reasons. The no hat rule IMHO is for decorum and respect for the court in general. There are different reasons for wearing a ballcap and a hat for religious expression.

[jeepers]

Depends upon what KIND.

Does it cover her hair? Is she a suspect where she has to be identified?

No coverings on face, I would include dark glasses for that one, too.

This is court, not a beautfy contest. If your religious clothing doesn't prevent identification and the ability to ascertain your response to questions, I have no problem. If it interferes with the process it, sorry but you get to ditch it.

[notluzn]

Sorry woman take that crap off your head and respect our countries rules

[OldSchoolConservative]

Sorry woman take that crap off your head and respect our countries rules

While I am inclined to agree it is not an easy position for any local state judge to be in.
In that the current climate of the federal judiciary is very sensitive when it comes to religious expression. A local state judge is subject to the rulings of a federal judge.

[Andrew_980]

The judge did no wrong here, he told her to take off her "hat", she said ok. She did not say that it was a symbol of her religion, said nothing but ok. She just saw the chance at a suit later.

[chip]

"Ah, OK. It doesn't matter."

Case closed.

[NascarGirl2448]

Sorry woman take that crap off your head and respect our countries rules

Our country's rules would be the Constitution, which guarantees Freedom of Religion, whichever religion it happens to be. If she was wearing the scarf because she is indeed Muslim, I don't see the judge getting away with violating this lady's Constitutional rights.

[gdoane]

Totally ridiculous on its face. The Pope wouldn't be allowed to wear his big silly hat in a courtroom so why should some uppity bimbo think her religion gives her a pass on whatever freakish headgear it takes to make her look holy?

There are PLACES for practicing religion and by God, if the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public court of law then her head hankie should be kicked the Hell out too.

You can bet your bottom line that little miss muffet here would be suing the crap out of the court if she saw a cross on the Judge's bench for promoting religion in the courthouse but it's perfectly okay, even PROTECTED if she does the same thing that the judge is prohibited from doing.

According to the article, she was in the courtroom to change her name. I think a person willing to change a name ought to be willing to change some clothes.

[merickson]

Sorry woman take that crap off your head and respect our countries rules

Are Hassidic Jews required to remove their yamulkes (sp?) (I doubt it.)

Jehovah's Witnesses are not required to "swear to tell the truth", they are allowed to "affirm".

Our country's rules include allowing people to practice odd religions and not exclude them from public venues because of those odd practices.

[NascarGirl2448]

Totally ridiculous on its face. The Pope wouldn't be allowed to wear his big silly hat in a courtroom so why should some uppity bimbo think her religion gives her a pass on whatever freakish headgear it takes to make her look holy?

There are PLACES for practicing religion and by God, if the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public court of law then her head hankie should be kicked the Hell out too.

You can bet your bottom line that little miss muffet here would be suing the crap out of the court if she saw a cross on the Judge's bench for promoting religion in the courthouse but it's perfectly okay, even PROTECTED if she does the same thing that the judge is prohibited from doing.

According to the article, she was in the courtroom to change her name. I think a person willing to change a name ought to be willing to change some clothes.

Somehow I doubt the Pope would be in this predicament. I think any judge worth their law degree would recognize that the Pope is the Pope and not try and make waves.

Also, the 10 commandments CAN be displayed in the courthouse, so long as the rules are followed and they are not singled out, but placed with other founding documents of this nation. The problems have come when people have tried to display the 10 commandments EXCLUSIVELY.

[gdoane]

Are Hassidic Jews required to remove their yamulkes (sp?) (I doubt it.)

If women are not subject to the same rules as men in a religion then the religion is invalid and a violation of the equal opportunity act in any public venue. Courts cannot support sexist discrimination before the bench.

Jehovah's Witnesses are not required to "swear to tell the truth", they are allowed to "affirm".

Which has what to do with wearing a hat in a court? Courts are extremely high security environments for obvious safety reasons. There are killers and politicians on trial in those places. It's not a place for clowning around with silly religious fashion shows, it's a place for serious stuff.

Our country's rules include allowing people to practice odd religions and not exclude them from public venues because of those odd practices.

Our country has some common sense and doesn't let threats to public security like wearing Osama bin Laden's gang colors in court.

[notluzn]

Our country's rules would be the Constitution, which guarantees Freedom of Religion, whichever religion it happens to be. If she was wearing the scarf because she is indeed Muslim, I don't see the judge getting away with violating this lady's Constitutional rights.Life sucks and rules are rules. There is a time and place for everything. Safety first and respect to our system comes first not religious customs.

[Andrew_980]

Our country has some common sense and doesn't let threats to public security like wearing Osama bin Laden's gang colors in court.
So all muslims are osamas pals and threats to our nation? Major disrespect of religion dude.

[gdoane]

Life sucks and rules are rules. There is a time and place for everything. Safety first and respect to our system comes first not religious customs.

A few years ago Sheriff Arpaio ordered that prisoners all get haircuts after crooks were caught smuggling contraband in their hair.

Some Indians claimed that their custom doesn't allow men to get haircuts. Joe's answer was simple: You're getting a haircut, Shaggy.

[gdoane]

So all muslims are osamas pals and threats to our nation? Major disrespect of religion dude.

CLOTHING HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH RELIGION.

If Osama Bin Laden were stark naked, would he still be a Muslim??

Anybody who claims that their clothes are part of their religion is stark raving stupid and should be treated like morons.

[Greyclouds]

CLOTHING HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH RELIGION.

<snip>

Oh boy...

Maybe not to YOUR faith, but I think you need to step outside the box just a bit... I'm a-religious and I realize that there are many faiths that wear sacred garb for religious reasons.

[chip]

Our country's rules would be the Constitution, which guarantees Freedom of Religion, whichever religion it happens to be. If she was wearing the scarf because she is indeed Muslim, I don't see the judge getting away with violating this lady's Constitutional rights.

:rolleyes:

Read the article.

The judge didnt violate anyones Constitutional rights.

[gdoane]

Oh boy...

Maybe not to YOUR faith, but I think you need to step outside the box just a bit... I'm a-religious and I realize that there are many faiths that wear sacred garb for religious reasons.

By that logic, naturists can go to court naked to practice their faith.

Maybe nobody should be allowed to stop suicide bombers either, after all they only want to show their religious ferver to a few infidels.

Court is not the place or time to be religious. People can go play witch doctor games in their own place and on their own time.

[notluzn]

So all muslims are osamas pals and threats to our nation? Major disrespect of religion dude.
I don't think so Drew. I say keep religion out of the courts just like you don't want courts in your religion. Got it?

[jimjames418]

Oh boy...

Maybe not to YOUR faith, but I think you need to step outside the box just a bit... I'm a-religious and I realize that there are many faiths that wear sacred garb for religious reasons.
A court room is not a religious setting. There is a place for everything, and everything should be in its proper place.

[jimjames418]

I don't think so Drew. I say keep religion out of the courts just like you don't want courts in your religion. Got it?
We keep religion out of schools, we should also keep it out of court rooms. :D

[Greyclouds]

A court room is not a religious setting. There is a place for everything, and everything should be in its proper place.

Agreed; that wasn't why I responded to GDoane's post though.

[chip]

Oh boy...

Maybe not to YOUR faith, but I think you need to step outside the box just a bit... I'm a-religious and I realize that there are many faiths that wear sacred garb for religious reasons.


Where exactly is the requirement for a hijab in the qur'an?

[Wake-Up]

What about the yarmulke for our Jewish friends?

Seems a scarf or anything covering one's identity should be looked at differently than a cap or style of dress like the Amish wear.

[Cav Scout]

Where exactly is the requirement for a hijab in the qur'an?

That's one of them FAR's, (flat ass rules) that is not in the book, like honor killing, marriage at age 8 and other neat things, stoning etc...

[NascarGirl2448]

:rolleyes:

Read the article.

The judge didnt violate anyones Constitutional rights.

I read it. I also know Muslim women are required to keep their heads covered. Why I have no idea, but is the rule under Islamic law, and therefore should fall under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. I can't wait to see how this case comes out, if it ever makes it to court.

[notluzn]

I read it. I also know Muslim women are required to keep their heads covered. Why I have no idea, but is the rule under Islamic law, and therefore should fall under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. I can't wait to see how this case comes out, if it ever makes it to court. Keep religion out of the court. Rules of safety over rule religious practice. unless some of you want the court inside your church.

[TexasForever]

Our liberal government continously attempts to take God out of all aspects of American society. If we, as Christians, aren't allowed to practice our religion openly, then Muslims need to uncover their heads, Hindus need to take the dot off their forehead, etc.. What goes for one must go for all.

[chip]

I read it. I also know Muslim women are required to keep their heads covered. Why I have no idea, but is the rule under Islamic law, and therefore should fall under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. I can't wait to see how this case comes out, if it ever makes it to court.

So I guess you missed the part where the woman said

"Ah, OK. It doesn't matter."

She was asked to remove it and did so willingly with ZERO conversation regarding here alleged requirement to wear it. It is not a rule under Islamic law as many Islamic countries do not require it.

[NascarGirl2448]

Keep religion out of the court. Rules of safety over rule religious practice. unless some of you want the court inside your church.

I find it rather ironic that people scream that there is no separation of church and state when they are wanting to inject religion into government, but when the shoe is on the other foot, they whine when the government won't let them stick religion into matters of the state.

The 10 commandments controversy is a perfect example if you ask me. People want the 10 commandments in courtrooms, fine. Just put it with other founding documents of this nation, no problem. Putting the 10 commandments by themselves is gonna cause problems. Yet there are people who claim they are being "persecuted" because the law is the way it is.

[NascarGirl2448]

So I guess you missed the part where the woman said

"Ah, OK. It doesn't matter."

She was asked to remove it and did so willingly with ZERO conversation regarding here alleged requirement to wear it. It is not a rule under Islamic law as many Islamic countries do not require it.

I guess she decided not to make a fuss right then and risk getting into real trouble, but to fight back later and have a better chance of being heard. Just my opinion, but sometimes its better not to make waves at the time, but to take a step back and then explore options as to how to fight back against what you perceive as wrong.

The thing about Islam not actually requiring head coverings is interesting. I went to school with international students in high school (private boarding school) and there were girls there from Egypt, who yes, wore head scarves. I'd like to know which countries don't require it or whether its a certain sect of Islam that requires this.

[chip]

I guess she decided not to make a fuss right then and risk getting into real trouble, but to fight back later and have a better chance of being heard. Just my opinion, but sometimes its better not to make waves at the time, but to take a step back and then explore options as to how to fight back against what you perceive as wrong.

The thing about Islam not actually requiring head coverings is interesting. I went to school with international students in high school (private boarding school) and there were girls there from Egypt, who yes, wore head scarves. I'd like to know which countries don't require it or whether its a certain sect of Islam that requires this.

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, Turkey

[NascarGirl2448]

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, Turkey


Must be different sects of Islam that require it then. I see no mention of Iraq or Iran in that list. Interesting that Egypt is on that list.

[jimjames418]

I'd like to know which countries don't require it or whether its a certain sect of Islam that requires this.
It is not required in any country that has Islam as the official state religion. It is required only in those countries where Islam is not the official state religion. :evil:

[chip]

Must be different sects of Islam that require it then. I see no mention of Iraq or Iran in that list. Interesting that Egypt is on that list.

As I stated it is not a rule under Islamic law.

[NascarGirl2448]

As I stated it is not a rule under Islamic law.

It must be in certain sects if Iran and Iraq require head coverings. It must not be a "blanket" law but its obviously the law in some places.

[chip]

It must be in certain sects if Iran and Iraq require head coverings. It must not be a "blanket" law but its obviously the law in some places.

So tell us. Which sects require it?


Sufi
Sunni
Shia
Ahmadiyya

[NascarGirl2448]

So tell us. Which sects require it?


Sufi
Sunni
Shia
Ahmadiyya

Which one runs Iran and Iraq? You listed the countries where headcoverings are not law, but curiously, Iran and Iraq were not on said list.

[chip]

Which one runs Iran and Iraq? You listed the countries where headcoverings are not law, but curiously, Iran and Iraq were not on said list.

Shia

But Shias dominate countries like Bahrain where no hijab is required.

[NascarGirl2448]

Shia

But Shias dominate countries like Bahrain where no hijab is required.

Can Muslims ever make up their minds? :think:

[smyrna]

I think that a federal judge will likely order the Wayne courts to allow the headgear and the Michigan Supreme Court's decision will likely be overturned by a federal judge. However, I do believe the judge would have allowed the headgear if the request was made that it was for religious reasons. The no hat rule IMHO is for decorum and respect for the court in general. There are different reasons for wearing a ballcap and a hat for religious expression.

I would disagree. When in Rome...do as the Romans do. This is the law in Michigan. Change the law, abide by the law or be punished for breaking it.

[smyrna]

The judge did no wrong here, he told her to take off her "hat", she said ok. She did not say that it was a symbol of her religion, said nothing but ok. She just saw the chance at a suit later.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

[chip]

Can Muslims ever make up their minds? :think:


Yeah kinda my point.

There is no requirement for a hijab in the qur'an or Islam.

[notluzn]

I find it rather ironic that people scream that there is no separation of church and state when they are wanting to inject religion into government, but when the shoe is on the other foot, they whine when the government won't let them stick religion into matters of the state.

The 10 commandments controversy is a perfect example if you ask me. People want the 10 commandments in courtrooms, fine. Just put it with other founding documents of this nation, no problem. Putting the 10 commandments by themselves is gonna cause problems. Yet there are people who claim they are being "persecuted" because the law is the way it is.I guess you don't understand the Commandments then. Where does Religion over rule Safety? NO WHERE.

[Clintville]

The 10 commandments controversy is a perfect example if you ask me. People want the 10 commandments in courtrooms, fine. Just put it with other founding documents of this nation, no problem. Putting the 10 commandments by themselves is gonna cause problems. Yet there are people who claim they are being "persecuted" because the law is the way it is.
A bit off topic, but how are the Ten Commandments a founding document?

[OldSchoolConservative]

I would disagree. When in Rome...do as the Romans do. This is the law in Michigan. Change the law, abide by the law or be punished for breaking it.

You might have a point if Michigan was a sovereign nation but the last time I checked Michigan and the laws of Michigan are subject to the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. State judges per the United States Constitution must abide by federal law and if the federal district court rules in favor of the woman than by law the state judge has no other choice but to abide by the federal court ruling.

[smyrna]

You might have a point if Michigan was a sovereign nation but the last time I checked Michigan and the laws of Michigan are subject to the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. State judges per the United States Constitution must abide by federal law and if the federal district court rules in favor of the woman than by law the state judge has no other choice but to abide by the federal court ruling.

Oooops, there it is...

[gdoane]

It must be in certain sects if Iran and Iraq require head coverings. It must not be a "blanket" law but its obviously the law in some places.

Such laws are misogynistic and barbaric. Those kinds of laws are EXACTLY why the pilgrims fled to the New World seeking freedom from religious persecution.

The headgear as a government order is closely related to the Nazi government order that Jews wear yellow stars on their clothing as a "religious" symbol. It's not about religion, it's all about discrimination and hate.

Hate will not be tolerated in an American court of law nor will the symbols of hate and oppression be allowable. Are white supremacists allowed to wear their KKK hoods and sheets in the courtroom? No!! So why should any other stupid symbols of hate and oppression be allowed? They bring dishonor and disorder to the court.

[Broseph]

Good for this woman.

Once again, we have a case of a judge determining that they can help themselves to using the state and it's power to fulfill his personal agenda at the expense of a woman's right to dress as she sees fit.

I'm not surprised. Judges, like most agents of the state in today's world, are not concerned with keeping the rights or privacy of the private citizen in tact but rather shredding those rights in the name of tyranny while using the excuse of keeping the public safe.

It's just too bad that the taxpayers might have to pay up. Take it out of the judge's paycheck... oh wait a minute, that would be taking it away from the taxpayers as well. Oh well, fire the judge and give the people their money back.

[NascarGirl2448]

A bit off topic, but how are the Ten Commandments a founding document?

Laws in the colonies, if I recall, were based on the 10 commandments, therefore a lot of people believe them to be part of the founding documents of this nation. The courts have ruled on it several times to boot.

[NascarGirl2448]

I guess you don't understand the Commandments then. Where does Religion over rule Safety? NO WHERE.

I understand it just fine thank you. Where in the Constitution does the government have the right to interfere with religion? NOWHERE.

[chip]

I understand it just fine thank you. Where in the Constitution does the government have the right to interfere with religion? NOWHERE.


The judge didnt interfere with her religion. There is no requirement for a hijab in the qur'an or Islam.

[spinach]

"Ah, OK. It doesn't matter."

Case closed.


the judge's defense will bury her with that statement
it may even get thrown out regardless

[NascarGirl2448]

The judge didnt interfere with her religion. There is no requirement for a hijab in the qur'an or Islam.

Then why on earth do Muslim women cover their heads then? I've seen women from countries where its not even the law wear head coverings.

[chip]

Then why on earth do Muslim women cover their heads then? I've seen women from countries where its not even the law wear head coverings.

What difference does it make why? Its not required which is all that is pertinent to this thread.

I cant speak to the dress habits of some muslim women.

[gdoane]

Then why on earth do Muslim women cover their heads then? I've seen women from countries where its not even the law wear head coverings.

You're serious?

I live in Phoenix, Arizona. The Sonoran Desert. I wear hats when I go out as a matter of course because I don't want to get sunburns and skin cancer and all of the pain that goes with discounting the power of the Sun God.

Why in the heck do you think Arabs wear robes? It's because they don't have Coppertone. It's either robes, or lotion, or go crispy critter in the merciless desert sun.

The men wear headgear too, they wear turbans. For the same reasons. It's not religious, it's cultural and it's basically common sense in a desert but the logic really doesn't apply in a courtroom all that well.

When you live in a desert and the sun is baking, the temperature is 110° in the shade and you're NOT covering up, then your painful fate will be solidly in the sucks to be you category.

The requirement is not religious at all, it's just common sense disguised as religion so the priests wouldn't have to spend a whole lot of time explaining it to illiterate dumbasses.

It's the same thing as the forbidding of eating pork. It was to prevent trichinosis because it's easier for high priests to tell people not to eat pork than it is to explain that they need to cook it to an internal temperature of over 170° to kill the parasite.

There's a whole science to be had about why things are against a religion. Usually it was because priests were educated men who figured it was easier to explain things as "the will of God" than to actually explain UV rays from sunburn or parasites from undercooked meat products.

[Andrew_980]

Such laws are misogynistic and barbaric. Those kinds of laws are EXACTLY why the pilgrims fled to the New World seeking freedom from religious persecution.

The headgear as a government order is closely related to the Nazi government order that Jews wear yellow stars on their clothing as a "religious" symbol. It's not about religion, it's all about discrimination and hate.

Hate will not be tolerated in an American court of law nor will the symbols of hate and oppression be allowable. Are white supremacists allowed to wear their KKK hoods and sheets in the courtroom? No!! So why should any other stupid symbols of hate and oppression be allowed? They bring dishonor and disorder to the court.

Pilgrim women kept covered as most muslims, for the same reasons.

[NascarGirl2448]

You're serious?

I live in Phoenix, Arizona. The Sonoran Desert. I wear hats when I go out as a matter of course because I don't want to get sunburns and skin cancer and all of the pain that goes with discounting the power of the Sun God.

Why in the heck do you think Arabs wear robes? It's because they don't have Coppertone. It's either robes, or lotion, or go crispy critter in the merciless desert sun.

The men wear headgear too, they wear turbans. For the same reasons. It's not religious, it's cultural and it's basically common sense in a desert but the logic really doesn't apply in a courtroom all that well.

When you live in a desert and the sun is baking, the temperature is 110° in the shade and you're NOT covering up, then your painful fate will be solidly in the sucks to be you category.

The requirement is not religious at all, it's just common sense disguised as religion so the priests wouldn't have to spend a whole lot of time explaining it to illiterate dumbasses.

It's the same thing as the forbidding of eating pork. It was to prevent trichinosis because it's easier for high priests to tell people not to eat pork than it is to explain that they need to cook it to an internal temperature of over 170° to kill the parasite.

There's a whole science to be had about why things are against a religion. Usually it was because priests were educated men who figured it was easier to explain things as "the will of God" than to actually explain UV rays from sunburn or parasites from undercooked meat products.

You would think that Muslim women in this country would have a little bit more, oh I don't know, exposure to the real world, than their counterparts back home, and not wear the scarves on their heads. Yet, plenty of them still do. Living in the desert has nothing to do with it. You can get sunburnt anywhere, even in the mountains.

Also, I would think that people are little bit more educated in today's world and would be smart enough to figure things out when it came to stuff like cooking meat.

[NascarGirl2448]

What difference does it make why? Its not required which is all that is pertinent to this thread.

I cant speak to the dress habits of some muslim women.

If its not the law, and supposedly not a "custom" of Islam, there has got to be a reason why, and not just that they live in a desert. If that were the case, Muslim women in this country wouldn't be seen wearing the scarves in the first place.

[captusa]

By that logic, naturists can go to court naked to practice their faith.

Maybe nobody should be allowed to stop suicide bombers either, after all they only want to show their religious ferver to a few infidels.

Court is not the place or time to be religious. People can go play witch doctor games in their own place and on their own time.

I am absolutely sure that requiring an Orthodox Jew to have his head uncovered would not be an acceptable demand in a US court.

[mgifford]

In the past I've totally supported "Separation of Church & State". However, I no longer do because I know that the government will go against the "Christians" & fully support any other faith that cries foul. IOW, the government will throw Christians in jail for expressing our rights and succumb to the aclu & lawsuits for the rights of Muslims.

[gdoane]

You would think that Muslim women in this country would have a little bit more, oh I don't know, exposure to the real world, than their counterparts back home, and not wear the scarves on their heads. Yet, plenty of them still do. Living in the desert has nothing to do with it. You can get sunburnt anywhere, even in the mountains.

I was just pointing out why the tradition started. Once started, it doesn't have to make sense anymore.

For example, I was having a conversation with a friend about jewelry and I said I didn't think guys should wear jewelry. I was referring to an earring at the time, but my friend pointed to my Timex and said "Well, what's that then?" I replied "It's a watch." He then asserted "It's jewelry, they sell watches in jewelry stores!" So I said "I bought it to tell the time, not for jewelry." and my friend said "Gene, look. You've got two cell phones, a pager, and an iPod that all tell the time, so what in the heck do you need the watch for when you want to know what time it is??" So I took off the watch and said "I use it to cover up the tan line."

I've worn a watch since I was a little kid and my grandpa gave me one. I don't feel right without one on my wrist even though my friend was right, my cell phone clock and calendar and such blow the Timex out of the water. It's a habit that I developed long before we had cell phones and iPods and such gadgets and I just continue to wear a watch for no better reason than I always wear a watch. That and to cover the tan line I got from wearing the watch all the time.

Traditions and habits that made sense years ago still get followed even with no good reason for it.

Also, I would think that people are little bit more educated in today's world and would be smart enough to figure things out when it came to stuff like cooking meat.

Have you talked to any kids lately? They don't seem to be getting smarter to me. Heck, back when I was their age I knew everything. These kids today are about dumb as rocks.

[gdoane]

I am absolutely sure that requiring an Orthodox Jew to have his head uncovered would not be an acceptable demand in a US court.

Betcha they'll be taking it off when they do their jail time.

[mgifford]

I was just pointing out why the tradition started. Once started, it doesn't have to make sense anymore.

For example, I was having a conversation with a friend about jewelry and I said I didn't think guys should wear jewelry. I was referring to an earring at the time, but my friend pointed to my Timex and said "Well, what's that then?" I replied "It's a watch." He then asserted "It's jewelry, they sell watches in jewelry stores!" So I said "I bought it to tell the time, not for jewelry." and my friend said "Gene, look. You've got two cell phones, a pager, and an iPod that all tell the time, so what in the heck do you need the watch for when you want to know what time it is??" So I took off the watch and said "I use it to cover up the tan line."

I've worn a watch since I was a little kid and my grandpa gave me one. I don't feel right without one on my wrist even though my friend was right, my cell phone clock and calendar and such blow the Timex out of the water. It's a habit that I developed long before we had cell phones and iPods and such gadgets and I just continue to wear a watch for no better reason than I always wear a watch. That and to cover the tan line I got from wearing the watch all the time.

Traditions and habits that made sense years ago still get followed even with no good reason for it.



Have you talked to any kids lately? They don't seem to be getting smarter to me. Heck, back when I was their age I knew everything. These kids today are about dumb as rocks.

My daughter really isn't a kid, but she has started college again, at 39. She was amazed yesterday when the instructor asked, how many know what "affirmative action" means? He waited and waited, then my daughter, out of a room full of blacks had to answer the question. My daughters are very well learned concerning our heritage and freedoms, because I sent them to Christian schools and I also taught them. AMEN

[mgifford]

I am absolutely sure that requiring an Orthodox Jew to have his head uncovered would not be an acceptable demand in a US court.

Colored fonts make me nauseous!

[Paul31]

I was just pointing out why the tradition started. Once started, it doesn't have to make sense anymore.

For example, I was having a conversation with a friend about jewelry and I said I didn't think guys should wear jewelry. I was referring to an earring at the time, but my friend pointed to my Timex and said "Well, what's that then?" I replied "It's a watch." He then asserted "It's jewelry, they sell watches in jewelry stores!" So I said "I bought it to tell the time, not for jewelry." and my friend said "Gene, look. You've got two cell phones, a pager, and an iPod that all tell the time, so what in the heck do you need the watch for when you want to know what time it is??" So I took off the watch and said "I use it to cover up the tan line."
The only piece of jewelry guys should wear is a wedding ring.

[jimjames418]

I am absolutely sure that requiring an Orthodox Jew to have his head uncovered would not be an acceptable demand in a US court.
That colored font you use does not show up well in other settings. Might want to consider going back to the default.

Individual judges do not set the rules. Each state's court system has a set of rules that all must follow.


Michigan Court Rules (http://coa.courts.mi.gov/rules/)
The Michigan Rules of Court are the rules adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court to govern Michigan's legal system and the judges, lawyers, and other professionals who are charged with preserving the integrity of that system. The purpose of the Court Rules is to establish uniform rules and procedures for all levels of Michigan's court system. These regulations ensure that cases are resolved without undue delay and that those who appear in court receive due process and equal treatment under the law.

[chip]

If its not the law, and supposedly not a "custom" of Islam, there has got to be a reason why, and not just that they live in a desert. If that were the case, Muslim women in this country wouldn't be seen wearing the scarves in the first place.


Again

What difference does it make why? Its not required which is all that is pertinent to this thread.

[gdoane]

I thought I'd heard a story like this before.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Fla.+Court+rejects+Muslim%27s+veiled+driver%27s+li cense+photo-a0138443461

A Florida state appeals court has upheld the suspension of a Muslim woman's driver's license because she refused to have her picture taken without her veil.

Although Florida law requires drivers' licenses to bear a full face photograph, when Sultaana Freeman of Winter Park obtained her license in early 2001, she was photographed in her veil and issued a license. Ten months after the license was issued, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ordered Freeman to submit an unveiled photo for her driver's license or lose driving privileges.

Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Freeman sued the Department maintaining its actions had violated her constitutional rights, including her religious liberty rights as protected under the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Upholding a lower court, a three-judge panel of Florida's 5th District Court of Appeal concluded that Freeman had failed to prove that the state law regarding driver's licenses substantially burdened her free exercise of religion.

The ACLU plans to appeal the Freeman v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ruling to the Florida Supreme Court.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems to me this dog has been fought before and lost. When the safety of the public runs up against the claim of religious freedom, the safety of the public wins that one.

What I thought was kind of odd about that old Florida veil on the driver's license photo case was that Ms. Sultaana here wouldn't even be ALLOWED to drive a car in most nations operating under Sharia Law.

Don't believe me? Believe CNN then.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/05/saudi.arabia.woman.driver/index.html

Woman arrested in Saudi Arabia for driving


(CNN) -- Police in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca Wednesday arrested a woman for violating the country's ban on women driving, according to the Saudi English-language daily Arab News.


The woman, whose nationality and name were not released but who was described as being in her 20s, attempted to flee when she realized police had spotted her driving, Saudi authorities said.


"The woman tried to escape when she saw a police car and in the process hit another car, which was slightly damaged," Maj. Abdul Mushin Al-Mayman, a police spokesman, told Arab News. According to the spokesman, the woman was turned over to the Saudi Prosecution and Investigation Commission for investigation.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mecca is, of course, the Holiest city in Islam and all Muslims are required by their religion to make a pilgrimage to Mecca in their lifetimes.



Looks like the women are going to have to hoof it because they're not driving in Mecca.

[Gabby]

Somehow I doubt the Pope would be in this predicament. I think any judge worth their law degree would recognize that the Pope is the Pope and not try and make waves.

Also, the 10 commandments CAN be displayed in the courthouse, so long as the rules are followed and they are not singled out, but placed with other founding documents of this nation. The problems have come when people have tried to display the 10 commandments EXCLUSIVELY.

The Pope is not required to wear a hat at all times. He usually does not. I doubt he would wear one if he ever showed up in an American court.