Well, to be perfectly honest, I think the only thing the school district is likely truly intolerant of is head gear.
Government entities tend to place a lot of stock in having rules and following them. The government mentality is not generally given to “thinking outside the box” or considering whether a rule, once duly passed, actually makes sense in every case. No, by God, we have this rule, and everybody is going to follow it. Schools are even worse in this respect than other government sectors; having rules and following rules is not only part of how they function, but also part of what they are trying to teach the students and how they govern the students.
So I would not be surprised if, thinking “we don’t want gang-related caps and 'do-rags,” the school district passes this rule, and no one bothers to think, “wait, what about kids who wear head coverings for religious reasons?”
I will be very surpised in the meeting between the school district and the girl’s family does not result in her being allowed to return to school and wear the hajib. This is just such an obvious legal nightmare for the school district, and there’s no real reason to not allow religious head wear. It’s not as if they can’t still enforce the rule against students who would wear head coverings for non-religious reasons.
Well, Jodi, we can only hope. The feathers have been scattered, though. The very idea of dismissing the hijab (a modesty measure, IIRC, that even the most right-winged conservative would have trouble disagreeing with, I’d wager) as mere headgear that is part of a gang-bond is disgusting.
Now, I’m not defending gangs or anything like that, because I find them to be scum.
But, I’m going to play devils advocate:
What is really the difference between a gangmember wearing a do-rag and some other person from another religion wearing their headcovering ?
Both those people have certain beliefs and bonds that they share with many other likeminded people.
If these gangs suddenly declared themselves as religious entities, would you people then be willing to accept do-rags in schools ? If not, then why not ?
Gangmembers are criminals ? Not all of them for sure. Is this not discrimination then ?
If I make up a religion, stating that I and all of my followers must walk around wearing womens soiled panties on my head, would any of you have a problem with that ? Would my religion be any less legitmate than any other religion ?
Regarding the prison thing, I am aware that my views are in contrast to what the laws are. I just don’t feel criminals deserve any special treatment.
On the one hand, it’s sad to see they have to get in such a hissy fit over a friggin scarf.
On the other hand, the school did have a no head-wear policy, and she is clearly violating that. If the school had a no necklace policy, and someone came to school wearing a big ass cross around their neck, then they’d probly be told to take it off or whatever.
Zero tolerance is ridiculous, but they did make a rule. Now, sure, question the actual rule itself (which is quite ridiculous) but I see no reason why she could not have simply complied and tried to have this rule changed?
Wow, nice selective reading/quoting there people. I thought you on the Loony Left wanted total SOCAS. You know, no “under God” in the pledge, no school prayer, no Ten Commandments in the courthouse, no religious displays on govt property. Well, in this case, that is exactly what you got.
Isn’t this exactly how it should be, and what some of you have claimed to want? No special accomodation for religion, treat it equally, no better, no worse. Separation. Govt doesn’t take a stand on religion one way or the other.
And, for further irony, the federal rules the school is following were promulgated by the Clinton Administration. Did you complain then?
Well, yes. New religions tend to be viewed as cults and only establish “legitimacy” over time. Legally speaking, the courts can and do inquire into the legitimacy of religous beliefs when confronted by an individual or organization claiming religious freedom as a reason to be allowed to do something – precisely because simply claiming religion should not be enough.
Except that religious freedom is not “special treatment,” it’s the norm. So the government cannot deviate from that norm without a compelling reason to do so.
If I read Daisy Cutter right, there should be freedom of religion and priviligies only for those deserving and abiding to certain beleifs. How very 1984.
If there is a general prohibition on headgear, then I don’t see what the problem is with enforcing it. If the penalty for wearing a hat in the building is suspension, why should a religious hat be treated differently? Wouldn’t that be elevating religion over non-religion and giving people special treatment based on their faith?
Privately, I would find your ritual disgusting, but if I were someone in authority, like an administrator at a school you attended or your boss, I would allow you to wear them at school/work. Just don’t get upset when people refuse to sit next to you on the bus/in the breakroom.
milroyj, I am against school prayer that forces any individual to pray, or ostracizes anyone who refuses to, which in it’s own way is a form of compulsion. I am against the usage of the ten commandments in public buildings, because that is a Governmental establishment of religion which is expressly forbidden in our Constitution. However, personal expressions of faith, i.e. clothing choices, dietary restrictions…these should never be controlled by the Gummint. Don’t presume to tell me what I want. Ask me. What I want is for people to just let other people be. That girl wasn’t bothering anyone.
And who the hell says I am a Clinton Lover? It’s a bad law, and it should be rewritten.
From what I understand, DC, the hajib is a modesty-based article of clothing. So let’s take it from there.
Say you are an average American woman. Some gangs have been using a variety of different shirts to show their affiliation. Not ALL shirts, mind you, but many different kinds. The school district, in response to this, outlaws the wearing of all shirts in class.
Are you going to show up topless and wearing only a bra? Because, from what I understand, that’s essentially what going without the hajib’d be like for this girl, except, in addition to cultural pressue, there’s also the pressure of religion behind it.
In other words: this is BS. My school had a pretty bad gang problem, but those students who were religiously inclined could still wear head coverings to class without repercussion.
That’s a horribly disappointing analogy, Ryle Dup. Someone can’t express their obedience to their religion because you can’t express your obedience to the Starter hat company?
Because we as a society have decided that freedom of religion is a specific right that we value and protect, and so in some cases we extend to people doing things for legitimate religious reasons greater leeway than we do people who might want to do the exact same thing for other reasons.
So you have two kids. One wears a hat because he thinks it’s fashionable. One wears a hat because he is required to by his religion. Only one of the two can claim that interfering with his hat-wearing will possibly violate a right that we as a society have declared is a fundamental right worthy of protection from government interference. You can certainly look at this as one student getting to do something the other student doesn’t get to do, but it might be more helpful to look at is as one student being required to do (by his religion) something the other student isn’t required to do, and asking at what point, and for what reason, the government can override that religious requirement.
The government has a legitimate interest in preventing gang activity in schools. That allows it to bar gang colors and/or head wear in schools. On its face, such a regulation won’t violate any rights of the general students, because you don’t have a particular right to, say, wear red, or wear a hat (any hat). But if you can claim a particular fundamental right that some regulation may violate – be it speech, assembly, press, religion, whatever – then the government must show that (a) its regulation doesn’t violate that right, or (b) the violation of the right is justified by the goal(s) the government seeks to achieve.
Do you think the Constitution prevents the government from treating people differently based on their faith? If so, how is it that exempting a girl from a general disciple rule is not treating her differently? Why is this girl’s identification with Islam a more important personal expression than the expression of membership in a gang? If you say, “because it is her religion” then aren’t you doing exactly what the Constitution prohibits?
Do you think the Constitution prevents the government from treating people differently based on their faith? If so, how is it that exempting a girl from a general disciple rule is not treating her differently? Why is this girl’s identification with Islam a more important personal expression than the expression of membership in a gang? If you say, “because it is her religion” then aren’t you doing exactly what the Constitution prohibits?