I know this is the Pit and all.
Cite for the assertion that all female suicide bombers in the ME have worn the hijab?
Also, what if I made the following assertion?
“I believe all the (male) suicide bombers in the Middle East over the past year have worn pants. And I would certainly classify them as members of a ‘gang’.”
Having said that, on the more general question of the thread, I still haven’t decided where I stand. Quite rare for a Doper.
I would just like to be the first to welcome Jodi to the “Loony Left”. While we know that you consider yourself more of a conservative, you disagree with milroyj, and are therefore one of us now. I’m afraid that’s the rule.
Welcome aboard. Our parties are a lot more fun anyway. 
First of all, I do think the hajib should be allowed. But the problem I have is when the infringement is a little more important than just not getting to support your favorite sports team.
For example, Shirley brought up the possibility of a girl who wore a scarf because her hair fell out due to cancer.
I don’t think it is right that the response would be “Sorry kiddo, but you ain’t religious, so tough luck.”
I also do not agree with your reasoning when you say a benefit is not being given. True, religious practice is not a benefit being given - that benefit comes with the constitution.
However, the benefit of being able to cover your head which was left hairless due to cancer, or just the benefit of being able to cover your head to block the sun so you don’t burn, IS being given, because these are not protected rights, and are not allowed to anyone who is not religious.
Granted, these benefits may be practically inseperable from the right to religious practice in this case. But that does not mean the benefits are not being given; they are being given, and only to the religious. The non-religious need not apply. And I think that that fact is a little disturbing.
I think the school administration should let Muslim girls wear hijabs, Christian girls wear crosses, Jewish girls wear stars of David, and atheist girls wear tee shirts that say, “God is Dead” — if, in each case, that is what the parents want their children to wear.
I think the administration’s policy is short-sighted and rigid, typical of the sort of centralized decision-making-by-committee that so often leads to unintended consequences like this one.
I think the administration’s policy, whatever it might be, ought to be enforced until such time as the policy is changed, just as it was here. I think that people ought to get upset over stupid policies like this one, just as they are here.
I think that people do not necessarily have to be Christian to be intolerant. I think that Saudi Arabia and Iran are full of intolerant Muslims. I think that this statement in the OP…
…is pretty mindless for suggesting that there must have been a Christian teacher involved in the stupidity — wherever there’s stupidity and intolerance, there must be a Christian.
Just as the OP suspected a Christian teacher was to blame, I’ll wager that the folks at Stormfront suspected a Jewish teacher was to blame. And I think that had the OP caricatured a Jewish teacher, few here would have given it a pass.
First of all, hijab. H-I-J-A-B. Pronounced “hi-zjahb” with a “hi” as in “hill.”
It isn’t a hajib. Hajib is a man’s name. (It surely has a meaning, though I’m not aware of what it is.) It is not the female headcovering garment.
Gang in only the most loose definition of the term, as all the suicide bombers in Israel haven’t even been affiliated with the same terror groups. However, you’re factually incorrect, as the 19 year old woman who blew herself up this summer at a mall entrance, killing a security guard, wore jeans and a sweater in order to blend in with the rest of the people in her designated target. Wearing hijab or other Islamic garb in a Jewish population center would make one a target for suspicion which is exactly what a suicide bomber doesn’t want. (The one who blew up a bus last month dressed like a rabbinical student to help avoid detection.)
But way to go in terms of inserting a meaningless strawman into the argument. Your comments have nothing to do with gangs, with hijab, with Muslim women and most certainly have nothing to do with 11 year old girls in Muskogee, Oklahoma or that city’s failure to recognize their rights under the law.
:rolleyes: Have you been READING this thread? Did you see any of Jodi’s posts directly before yours? Wearing the headgear required by ones’ religion is not a privilege to be given or denied by any entity. The ability exercise one’s religion – including the wearing of hijab, kipot, scarves, snoods, turbans or hats to as a means of fulfilling the teachings or commands of a scripture – is a RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. Not infringing upon a right is in no way the same as allowing a privilege.
All this girl is asking is that someone take a look at the fundamental document which governs this nation and get a damned clue. It’d be good if some Dopers tried the same.
As for the case of the kid with a medical issue which would cause them to need to cover their heads, there are these magical pieces of paper which are called prescriptions. My niece suffers from alopecia and between the end of ninth grade and the beginning of tenth grade, she lost every single hair on her body. Eyelashes, eyebrows, everything. Her doctor wrote 2 prescriptions. One was for a wig; because it was prescribed, it was covered under insurance. The second was a directive to my niece’s school, explaining her illness and what steps were medically mandated for protection of her wellbeing, including the wearing of scarves or her wig or a hat as she chose, to protect her head and limit her discomfort from standing out appearance wise. Doctors are good advocates for kids in school with illnesses, and are usually willing to lay the smack down on a school that would say “Well, we can’t allow…” when whatever they’re trying to prohibit is necessary for the kid. So it isn’t necessarily on point to worry that a rule like this could have a (legally mandated and necessary) loophole for religious kids while sick kids could be left out in the cold. Or the sun, as the case may be.
I agree 100% up to this point, but:
is ridiculous. Doctors issuing prescriptions to protect people’s appearances??? By that logic, a doctor could issue a “prescription” for the fat chick, skinny runt, or acne-covered teen who didn’t want to take PE because of their appearance.
Heh. What happens if the Crips start wearing yarmulkas? 
I don’t understand. What does the cited article have to do with the Bible?
Did I say anything about getting out of PE? It wasn’t about protecting her appearance, it was about protecting her wellbeing, and the prescription simply stated that she was to keep covered up, including her head. Keeping her head covered served dual purposes: protecting her from the elements and helping reduce the standing-out-like-a-sore-thumb involved with being a 15 year old girl with no hair on her head. The first was essential to her physical health, the second essential to her psychological health.
Any good doctor would do whatever possible for a patient to ensure their overall health. There are remedies for excessive skinniness, for obesity and for acne that can help those with those conditions feel less hopeless and as though they are improving themselves and their conditions. There are no such remedies for alopecia, and the best thing a doctor can do for a sufferer is to help them retain as much normalcy as possible.
I would like to be there if this goes to court and see the school try to explain where it gets the power to overrule the constitution.
I personally think the whole dress code as a response to gang violence is a silly thing anyway. It doesnt work, and it is often illegal. I believe the ACLU is fighting a school in Texas over this right about now. My sons school has a school uniform, but I was told it was really up to the parents if they wanted to comply with it or not. most students wear it, some don’t.
I’m glad you pointed this out and it’s not the first time it has been pointed out either. It was starting to bug me, too.
**
You say ‘required’ above. I don’t see how it is required at all. She has chosen to follow a particular facet of her religion (Actually, I’d say at 11 years old, her parents have chosen for her to wear a hijab). As the application of this rule within Islam seems to be voluntary then how does it stop her from freely following her religion? By not wearing a hijab she isn’t a Muslim? Obviously not, as it is already noted many Muslim women do not wear one.
For example: You have a club with a rule that in order for everyone to be in the club everyone must wear a pinky ring. Some members start showing up without their ring. If no one does anything about this and the people without rings are still members, then the rule is pretty much arbitrary and members can choose to do as they will.
Unless this girl is a member of some sect that enforces such head dress rules upon its members then by denying her a hijab is no more different than denying a person a ballcap. Because it would have been her choice to wear it, and not a required ritual of her religion even if it written down that it is.
Personally I’m all for making this Allah fellow show up in court to clear up the matter once and for all (and a few other things while HE’s at it.)
IMHO and willing to hear counter arguments with an open mind. Other than that last paragraph. I’m pretty firm in that one. I’d say that if anyone claims that what they do is because of religious reasons and expects anything extra/different because of it, then they should be required to bring their particular skypixie along to back up their statements. At least a note of some sort. Written in 500’ high letters of fire across the sky would do. Appearances in doughnuts wouldn’t be acceptable.
Try not to blow bullshit around, Uzi. Just because the wearing of the hijab is not required by all sects of Islam does not mean that it’s not required by the particular sect of Islam to which this particular student belongs.
What’s bothered me, on and off, in our post-911 world, is the Sikhs, and their religious insistance on bearing small knives. Does anyone know how that’s handled in various locations?
(Bothered: Wondered without an actual answer.)
Ok Jodi you have been very patient. I think I understand your position, and I think you understand mine, but in the interest of making a complete record, I will try to respond to your last two posts. It may be that I am on the losing side of this argument based on the law as it stands, but I am arguing for the way I see things, not necessarily for where the law is. And, to respond to an earlier comment you made about my being more receptive to arguments were it non-religion or some other religion involved, that isn’t true. I am a religious person myself, and a strict separationist. I believe that the strict separation of personal religion and government action is ultimately the best way to preserve religious freedom. But, anyway that is perhaps a differnet discussion, and one whree we probably would not disagree much.
Right then. As I see it, the girl has a right to practice her religion, the state has the right to regulate dress in school. The girl is asking for an exception to the general rule. The exception she is asking for is to wear a hat because of her religion. The school took her right to wear the hat, and now she wants it back. I think what you are saying is that the school never took the right for her to wear the hat, since it is fundamental. Maybe your approach is a better one, but ultimately I don’t think it changes the outcome of the analysis below.
I don’t think that is quite fair. I think appearance is an important consideration. If the government appears to be treating the religious more favorably than the non-religious, then I think you start to run afoul of the establishment clause. On the other hand, if the government treats everyone the same, then there is no establishment violation, but a potential free exercise claim. Obviously this is a major point where we disagree.
Religion is advanced because it is given preferential treatment. The message sent to the kids is no hats, unless you are religious. The disparate treatment of the two groups serves to elevate the religious over the non, and thereby advances religion over non-religion and gives the appearance of favoritism by the government. Is allowing this girl to wear her headdress going to result in millions of new Muslim converts? Unlikely. But, it may create animosity in other students who are suspended for wearing their ball cap in school who will then point to the girl sitting next to them who is not being suspended. They may feel that they are being singled out for their lack of religious belief. I see that as problematic, and as an advancement of religion. Furthermore, it appears that the government is endorsing religion over non-religion as well. By allowing religious headdress but not secular, the appearance is that religion, and religious people, occupy a superior position to the secular.
I wasn’t citing to Thomas because it is directly on point, but rather because I think Rehnquist does a nice job of explaining his position. I’m not sure though that the two situations are as different as you seem to think. Here, the girl is receiving a benefit, the benefit of education. If the rule were changed, but for her religion she would be suspended from school for wearing a hat, but because of her religion she is allowed to attend. So child A attends school with hat on and is suspended, and thus denied a benefit (education). Child B attends school with a religious hat on and is not suspended, and receives a benefit. We have to compare the Muslim girl to all other hat-wearers, not all other students.
I agree with your assessment of 1 and 2. For 3 and 4 I think we need more facts to really know, but I had been assuming that the answer to 3 was certainly a yes, and I am more or less operating under the hypothesis that 4 is a yes as well. Granted, I think this is a silly rule, but the fact that it is silly is not enough for me to proclaim it unconstitutional. (and I know you aren’t saying it is unconstitutional simply because it is silly.) So 4 is where the action is. More specifically, I think the issue is, if you answer 4 in the negative, how do you redraft the rule to make it not run afoul of the establishment clause but still allow the girl to wear her hat? To me, simply adding an exception to the general rule only for religion violates establishment. However, redrafting the rule to more narrowly tailor it to address gang violence only would be permissible, since redrafting it in that manner would not create an exception which advanced religion. Can we agree on that?
**
Agree on 1, hopefully I have given a more explicit statement as to why I think 2 is a yes. As to 3, I think there is potential for a yes since the rule invites educational administrators to delve into the sincerity of students’ religious beliefs. As can be seen by Uzi’s post, there appears to be some room for debate on this issue. (I assume s/he was posting an honest opinion, and based on his/her location s/he probably has more experience with the Muslim faith than I do.)
Shirley Ujest – You raise a good point. Unfortunately, wearing a hat because you have cancer is not a fundamental right, and therefore under this rule I don’t see how anyone will be able to argue that the cancer girl gets to wear a hat. Jodi has noted several times that wearing a hat is not a cognizable right. The rule is stupid, no doubt about that. But that is what you often get when you draw bright lines. My posts here should not be understood to be defending the rule itself, only the fair application of the rule.
** Spavined Gelding** – Thanks for dropping in – a little grumpy aren’t we? I am not a twit. /feigns being hurt.
Lib – well said, and I heartily concur.
According to Culture Shock! India, for some Sikhs, they just have the outline of a sword etched onto a comb. That approach would take care of any possible security concerns.
First, I think a line needs to be drawn in the logical sand: practice of religion versus practice of no religion. This strawman is actively being flung around here, and this thread is far from the only one.
The people on the right here are equating secular displays with a display of the practice of no religion. This is completely false: obviously one cannot practice religion and no religion at the same time. So if wearing blue or a Raiders cap is a practice of no religion, what you are saying is that a religious person who opted to wear a hijab or a kipah could not practice a secular belief like wearing Raiders garb.
As an atheist, I haven’t quite figured out how to display my practice of no religion. I’ll let you know when I figure it out. But there is nothing about wearing my Texans cap or my Astros shirt that implies no belief in God. I suppose a shirt saying “There is no God” or something would do it, but atheism as a belief structure does not mandate it – one could rightly say that atheism isn’t a belief structure to begin with, so there isn’t a mandated reason like modestry to wear said shirt.
It is like the old Infocom game for Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. You start out with “no tea” in your inventory. When you get tea, you can pick it up by dropping “no tea.” But if you dislodge your common sense, you can possess tea and no tea at the same time.
Second, the strawman offerers would have you believe that there is a vocal segment of people on the “Loony Left” who would abolish all public displays of religion as a SOCAS issue. This segment is in fact a fleeting minority, and much much more marginalized than the fundamentalists who would mandate a government sanctioned display of belief. The vast majority of those in the “Loony Left” are either actively religious, ecumenical, or quitely atheist, and have no problem with personal displays of faith. Just as long as it isn’t sanctioned or required by the government. School prayer being a good example.
Third, this case only does one thing. It is obviously so ridiculous, it makes the national news, and it demonstrates the total idiocy of zero tolerance policies again. This country was built on having flexibility in the law, extenuating circumstances, judicial oversight, yada yada yada. The wave of zero-tolerance that swept our country over the past 15 years, especially in school boards and three strikes policies, has tried to do away with this. Buhbye to extenuating circumstances, buhbye to any type of judicial logic. Because it is a law dammit, and it must be followed. Last week, a kid around here got expelled for giving his girlfriend a puff off of his asthma inhaler while she was having an attack (she had forgotten hers). He was “distributing dangerous drugs.” Or 50 years in prison for stealing 9 videotapes. These have become so frighteningly common that I don’t even get angry anymore. Just a resigned sigh. And our Supreme Court just laughs and plays along (5-4 in legality…)
Formal warning, Rhum Runner. Do not wish death upon other posters.
Any further transgressions along those lines will result in the revocation of your posting privileges.
Oh for God’s sake, I didn’t wish death on the poster; I made a suggestion. Not at all the same thing. I didn’t express my desire that that the poster actually die.
The linked thread gives little to no guidance, and I see things in the pit on a daily basis that are worse than what I posted.
Yeah, I don’t know how that can be construed as wishing death on a poster.
:rolleyes:
Having just read this thread all the way through I can come to only one conclusion: We are a horribly fucked up society.
Nice to see the Inquisition didn’t die at the beginning of the Renaissance.