The Oklahoma School Board and 11 year old Muslim girls.

[Rhum_Runner]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
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.

This is exactly the kind of value judgment re religion that we are supposed to avoid. Who decides what a legitimate religious reason is?

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.

Wrong. The guy wearing the hat for fashion reasons can claim that he is expressing himself. What if the hat says “Fuck the Draft” on it. He is making a political statement. 1st amendment speech and all that. So, now we have a hat making a political statement and one that is based on religion. Are you going to tell me that the school can prevent the Fuck the Draft hat but not the religous one? Not in my mind. Either there is a rule of general applicablility or there isn’t. No exceptions for religion.

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 probably has a legitimate interest in regulating what kids wear to school, all I’m saying is that regulation should be religion neutral.

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.

But in this case the school has banned all headgear, not just gang related headgear. Maybe the ban is too broad and not narrowly tailored to the problem.

[milroyj]

*Originally posted by Mr. Babbington *
**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. **

So personal expressions of faith, i.e., Under God in the Pledge or praying in school should be allowed, right?

It seems the Loony Left wants it both ways. Christians can’t have any symbols of their religion in public life, but Allah forbid that the school prohibits expression of Muslim religion.

[Jodi]

RHUM RUNNER –

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?

The Constitution doesn’t prevent the government from treating people differently based on their faith. To the contrary, it arguably requires the government to treat people of a particular religion differently when they can show that being subject to a regulation applying to everyone violates their religion. The First Amendment provides:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So the government “can make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].” In fact, however, the government can prohibit the free exercise of religion to a large extent, so long as it can show a compelling state interest to do so. For example, if your religion required the sacrifice of virgins to the Volcano God, the government could certainly prohibit your free exercise on the grounds that it has a compelling state interest in preventing the sacrificial deaths of its citizens.

So the question becomes: Does the government have a compelling state interest in prohibiting this girl from wearing her hajib. Probably not. The stated reason for the regulation in question is to prevent the wearing of gang-related clothing, but no one could seriously argue that hajibs are gang-related. So the government most likely cannot prevent this girl from freely exercising her religion by wearing the hajib. Note that if another girl wanted to wear a hajib for non-religious reasons – like she thinks they’re pretty – the government clearly could prevent her from doing so because the regulation applies to all students except those who can show a legitimate reason why it should not apply to them – and religion is generally considered a legitimate reason to refuse to comply with a given law. Which is not to say that every claim of religious exercise will be allowed – a court will have to inquire as to the legitimacy of the belief, the burden on free exercise, and whether a compelling state interest exists.

In sum, this girl can point to a specific infringement on a specific right if this regulation is applied to her. What right could her nonreligious fellow students point to – the right to wear hats?

[Fionn]

*Originally posted by Ryle Dup *
**No, they can’t, according to the dress code, they can not. Take your scarf and wear it at home. **

It ought to be an interesting meeting if the school board officials actually tell this girl’s father that they’re perfectly willing to practice religious discrimination because their own rule forbids other students to wear hats.

There’s no basis for government like petulance.

[Guinastasia]

milroyj, since it’s getting near Halloween, why don’t you put that strawman out on your front lawn where it belongs, instead of constantly dragging it in here?

[Jodi]

RHUM –

This is exactly the kind of value judgment re religion that we are supposed to avoid. Who decides what a legitimate religious reason is?

The courts do. Though to further clarify, what they really inquire into is whether the religous beliefs are truly held and are not simply offered as a pretext to evade the law or regulation in question. So it’s not judging the value of one religion over another. And if you have a problem with the government valuing religion at all, in any way, take that up with the framers, who included freedom of religious exercise in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Wrong. The guy wearing the hat for fashion reasons can claim that he is expressing himself. What if the hat says “Fuck the Draft” on it. He is making a political statement. 1st amendment speech and all that.

Sure, if the hat says something on it. But kindly don’t tell me I’m “wrong” based on additional facts you’re only adding at this point. If you’re talking about a hat making a political statement and a student arguing that the regulation violates his right to free speech, then you would have to make the exact same inquiry regarding that fundamental right – namely, is there a compelling state interest justifying the infringement, and is the regulation the least restrictive means of accomplishing that interest? Though, insofar as speech is concerned, the court would also probably look at whether there are not acceptable alternative means by which the kid can exercise the right – meaning, he doesn’t have to wear a hat to exercise the right to free speech. The girl has to wear the hajib, religiously; she can’t exercise her religion properly by wearing, say, a T-shirt instead.

Either there is a rule of general applicablility or there isn’t. No exceptions for religion.

A rule of “general applicability” is called “general” because it generally applies – except when there’s reason it shouldn’t, like that it violates the constitution. So, yes, exception for religion, maybe. Also, maybe exception for speech and for other fundamental rights, though it’s hard to see how the wearing of a hat could implicate, say, the right to a free press.

The government probably has a legitimate interest in regulating what kids wear to school, all I’m saying is that regulation should be religion neutral.

The regulation assumably is religiously neutral. It probably just says “no head gear.” You are saying that if it is not applied to all kids, without regard to religion, it won’t be applied neutrally, and that’s of course right. The question is, does this girl have a good reason to argue that the regulation shouldn’t apply to her? And the answer to that is yes. It violates her right to the free exercise of her religion, which is a right guaranteed in the constitution. This argument isn’t limited to religious freedom, it would apply equally to any fundamental constituional right; it just happens that in this case the right we’re talking about is freedom of religious exercise.

[Rhum_Runner]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
So the government "can make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]."

You have conveniently ellipsised (is that a word?) out the establishment clause. Obviously there is some tension between the two. In this case the thrust of my argument is that by treating the religious more favorably than the non-religious you are elevating religion over non-religion, which is, to my mind, an impermissible establishment of religion. In essence the message to the kids is no hats in school unless they are religious hats. That is an establishment violation. The rule is neutral on its face, and should be applied that way.

So the question becomes: Does the government have a compelling state interest in prohibiting this girl from wearing her hajib.

Now, that is no way to frame the question. The question is whether or not the religion neutral rule of general applicability re hats should be modified to accomodate this person’s religion.

So the government most likely cannot prevent this girl from freely exercising her religion by wearing the hajib. Note that if another girl wanted to wear a hajib for non-religious reasons – like she thinks they’re pretty – the government clearly could prevent her from doing so…

Can’t you see the can of worms you are opening here? There are alot of muslim women out there who don’t wear the hajib. Why not say to this girl that it isn’t required since some other women don’t wear it?

**In sum, this girl can point to a specific infringement on a specific right if this regulation is applied to her. What right could her nonreligious fellow students point to – the right to wear hats? **

I know you didn’t see my post before you posted this, but I think that other students can point to other potential first amendment protections. Just for the record.

[Kyla]

*Originally posted by milroyj *
**So personal expressions of faith, i.e., Under God in the Pledge or praying in school should be allowed, right?

It seems the Loony Left wants it both ways. Christians can’t have any symbols of their religion in public life, but Allah forbid that the school prohibits expression of Muslim religion. **

What Chicago, IL, US do you live in in which “Christians can’t have any symbols of their religion in public life”? Because the one I live in has plenty of visible symbols.

I can’t believe some people in this thread don’t see the difference between a public school endorsing a particular religion by putting up symbols of a religion and a public school allowing freedom of religion by permitting students to follow their own religious-based dress codes.

And no, a hijab is not equivalent to a baseball cap. A hijab is a head covering worn for religious reasons. A woman (or eleven-year-old girl) wearing a hijab because she believes that god wants her to cover her head is not in any way similar to someone wearing a baseball cap because it looks cool.

[Mr.Babbington]

Yeah. What Kyla said.

[Rhum_Runner]

Jodi I agree with most of what you are saying, I just reach a different result. What if the rule were redrafted to say:

No student shall wear any hat, scarf, bandana or other article of clothing on or about their head while on school property, unless they are doing so for legitimate religious purposes

Isn’t that what she is, in essence, asking for? Doesn’t that bother you re establishment? It bothers me.

[Kyla]

*Originally posted by Rhum Runner *
**
Can’t you see the can of worms you are opening here? There are alot of muslim women out there who don’t wear the hajib. Why not say to this girl that it isn’t required since some other women don’t wear it?

**

Not everyone, even in the same religion, have exactly the same beliefs. There are a billion Muslims in the world. Shockingly, they don’t all believe the same thing.

[DocCathode]

*Originally posted by milroyj *
**So personal expressions of faith, i.e., Under God in the Pledge or praying in school should be allowed, right?

It seems the Loony Left wants it both ways. Christians can’t have any symbols of their religion in public life, but Allah forbid that the school prohibits expression of Muslim religion. **

I very rarely do this but, :rolleyes: .

Yes prayer in school should be allowed. As long as it is not lead by a school official, or part of routine school activities. Many high schools do have prayer clubs in which students can gather for prayer.

I don’t want it both ways. If a judge had installed a stone copy of the Quran in a courthouse rotunda, I’d oppose that as well.

I want to be free to practice my religion. I want the same freedom for all other Americans. I want the government to refrain from endorsing any religion.

[Kyla]

*Originally posted by Rhum Runner *
**
Isn’t that what she is, in essence, asking for? Doesn’t that bother you re establishment? It bothers me. **

I’m not Jodi, but I’ll answer anyway (this thread is great for padding my post count! I’ll stop here, I swear). If the school was making special considerations for one religion and not for others, I would be concerned re: establishment. If a kid could get Eid al-Fitr off, but their classmate couldn’t get Yom Kippur off (or vice versa), I would be steamed.

[Larry_Mudd]

People here who are arguing that a blanket ban on head coverings is religiously neutral are being unbelievably obtuse.

Such a policy effectively excludes orthodox muslims and jews from access to public services, period. There might be some grounds for a healthy debate if we were talking about carrying a sharp kirpan, since you might take the position that it might be used as a working weapon. There are compromises that can be made there, and I think most Sikhs aren’t going to grumble about being limited to nice non-threatening blunted, tiny-scale pendant-style kirpans – or in sheaths that are tightly sewn shut and worn beneath clothing - so they are still allowed to be observant without getting anyone’s back up. But a hijab or a yarmulke isn’t going to threaten anyone except a religious bigot.

Of course, this is coming from the perspective of a “Looney Left” Canadian, who’s pleased that his “Looney Left” justice system has ruled that it’s just fine for RCMP members to wear religious headgear, pre-existing rules about conforming to uniform dress notwithstanding.

[Rhum_Runner]

*Originally posted by Kyla *
**Not everyone, even in the same religion, have exactly the same beliefs. There are a billion Muslims in the world. Shockingly, they don’t all believe the same thing. **

Obviously they don’t all believe the same thing, nothing shocking about that. That is why the entire undertaking of inquiring into the legitimacy of a person’s beliefs is so fraught with danger. Who is the court to say what is, and isn’t, important to the religion?

I’m not Jodi, but I’ll answer anyway (this thread is great for padding my post count! I’ll stop here, I swear). If the school was making special considerations for one religion and not for others, I would be concerned re: establishment. If a kid could get Eid al-Fitr off, but their classmate couldn’t get Yom Kippur off (or vice versa), I would be steamed.

But apparently you aren’t steamed about treating religious people differently from non-religious people. Interesting.

[Jodi]

RHUM –

You have conveniently ellipsised (is that a word?) out the establishment clause. Obviously there is some tension between the two. In this case the thrust of my argument is that by treating the religious more favorably than the non-religious you are elevating religion over non-religion, which is, to my mind, an impermissible establishment of religion. In essence the message to the kids is no hats in school unless they are religious hats. That is an establishment violation. The rule is neutral on its face, and should be applied that way.

But it’s not that simple, obviously, because if every accommodation of religious expression constituted a violation of the establishment clause, then there’d be no way to reconcile the two, right? Any time the government allowed an individual to evade a regulation for legitimate religious reasons (based on the “freedom of religous exercise” clause), it would be violating the establishment clause, and any time it refused to allow it (based on the establishment clause), it would be violating the free expression provision. So let’s assume for a minute that we go with your equal application of the rule to all. How then would you answer this girl’s contention that her right to free expression of her religion has been violated?

But you’re right, there is some tension there. (Not in this case, IME, but in theory.) Generally, the courts have held that a “benefit” that accommodates the free exercise of religion will be okay, while a “benefit” that unjustifiable awards or * assists* religion will not be. So the question becomes whether allowing a person to wear a head covering for religious reasons rewards them for practicing their religion, or assists their religion. I think that’s a pretty tough argument to make when the “benefit” in question is a dubious one, like the right to wear a head covering that most secular Americans don’t want to wear anyway.

Now, that is no way to frame the question. The question is whether or not the religion neutral rule of general applicability re hats should be modified to accomodate this person’s religion.

You can frame the question any way you want, of course, but legally, this is incorrect. Once a fundamental right like freedom of religion is violated, the question is whether the government has a compelling state interest in the goal advanced by the law or regulation, such as would justify violation of the right. These are no words I’m am using inadvisably; “compelling state interest” is what the government must demonstrate under the law.

Can’t you see the can of worms you are opening here? There are alot of muslim women out there who don’t wear the hajib. Why not say to this girl that it isn’t required since some other women don’t wear it?

Because isn’t whether she is required to do so, but whether she is freely exercising her religious freedom by doing so. Some fundamentalist Christians believe women should always wear skirts. Just because not every Christian woman believes this doesn’t mean these Christian women do not, or that their wearing of skirts instead of pants is not part of their free exercise of their religion. If this appears to be a can of worms to you, so be it, but it seems to me to be inarguable that some Muslims include in the their practice of Islam the provision that a woman should keep her hair covered by a covering such as a hajib.

And I certainly admit that other students could make similar arguments based on other fundamental rights, if those rights were infringed upon. But what other students could or could not do under other circumstances doesn’t impact this girl’s right at all: She has a right to religious freedom under the constitution. The government must reasonably accommodate her religious expression unless it can show a compelling state interest to fail to do so.

[Jodi]

. . . And it should go without saying that avoiding violation of the establishment clause would be a “compelling state interest” that would justify refusing to allow the accommodation. But then you’d have to make the argument that the wearing of head coverings actually advances religon in some meaningful way. I think that’s an extremely tough argument to make.

[Mama_Tiger]

Folks, can we at least call it a hijab, not a hajib? I don’t know what hajib means in Arabic, but it’s not what’s being talked about here. A minor point, but at least LEARN what it is you’re arguing about.

My son went to a school that banned all headgear (for the typical gang-related causes). Except that it also had the good sense not to interfere in students’ personal expression of their practice of religion (a good idea, being in a heavily Jewish neighborhood, as well as an area with a lot of immigrants from all over the world), so kids were ALWAYS allowed to dress according to their religious beliefs. A lot of the girls wore the hijab with a long-sleeved shirt and long pants; a few even went further and wore full-length robes. And they were allowed to wear special modest clothing for P.E. classes.

And you know what? The kids had no problem with it, nobody thought anybody with a yarmulke or hijab was in a gang, nobody got in an uproar because they were being told by the state to do something that is (IMHO) none of the state’s damn business, and everyone got ALL the religious holidays off.

If we’re going to tell Moslem girls not to wear the hijab and orthodox Jewish boys not to wear the yarmulke, are we going to mandate that the Moslem and Jewish kids also have to eat pork if that’s the only item on the school lunch menu? How far do we go in saying, hey, we’re not allowing ANY personal expression of religious beliefs in a school setting?

If what a kid is doing to express religious beliefs is passive, as in clothing and dietary choices, it’s NONE OF MY DAMN BUSINESS and NONE OF THE STATE’S BUSINESS. Now, if the kid starts preaching about their religion and how all Christian infidels should convert or die under the sword, THEN it becomes the state’s business.

I had a coworker a few years ago who’d married a Moslem, and started wearing the hijab to work. A few weeks later I saw her one day without it and asked her why. She said that people kept giving her strange looks and acting like it bothered them. I told her that it was her choice to dress any way she wanted as long as it was professional, and if they had a problem with her hijab it was THEIR problem, not hers. I was pleased to see that she resumed wearing it until she left the firm. It’s not my choice, but if it’s her choice, it should BE her choice and nobody else’s damn business!

[Kyla]

*Originally posted by Rhum Runner *
**But apparently you aren’t steamed about treating religious people differently from non-religious people. Interesting. **

Excuse me? What the fuck are you talking about?

[Soup_du_jour]

Excuse me? What the fuck are you talking about?

I’m not RR, but I think it refers to the (supposed) different treatment of religious headgear vs non-religious headgear. Apparently, one is permissable simply because it is religious. The other is not.