[Zimphire]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBXCGYNX3E.html

[Demonhood]

guess they haven't issued a statement in 10 years. they're slacking. search for "scarves".

[Millennium]

Whose side would they argue, I wonder?

Either way, it's good to see that some places still allow real freedom of expression and religion.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Whose side would they argue, I wonder?

Either way, it's good to see that some places still allow real freedom of expression and religion.

Damn Mil... you're not talking about TN, are you?

[Krusty]

Where is the ACLU ? Same place they always are ... do you have absolutely no conception of where the ACLU stands on issues such as these ? They're almost uniformly FOR individual rights of religious expression -- and that goes for Christians too. They are almost uniformly against secular tax-dollar institutions promoting a particular religion at the institutional level. For example, they would fight to remove the Ten Commandments from a federal courthouse ... but they would also fight to remove the Koran from being posted there as well.

ACLU intervenes to stop a school in Michigan from banning religious (christian) yearbook entry

ACLU defends street preacher's spreading the gospel in Las Vegas

ACLU defends right of preacher to baptize in public park

Quote from last link (sums up their position pretty well:

RICHMOND, VA -- Under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Falmouth Waterside Park Manager Brian Robinson has agreed not to prohibit baptisms in Stafford County, the ACLU announced today._

Robinson also told the ACLU that the Fredericksburg-Stafford Park Authority, which controls access to the public park, expects to issue written policies making it clear that religious groups have the same right to use the park as all other groups.

�This kind of confusion over religious expression in public places is not uncommon,� said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. �Government officials often seem not to understand that private religious expression is protected in public forums. Afraid of violating separation of church and state by permitting religious activities, they end up obstructing freedom of religion.�

This is the sort of thing the ACLU fights against:

KANSAS CITY, MO -- A Kansas City Metro Area school district has agreed to stop distributing Gideon International Bibles to elementary-school children on school premises, settling a federal lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri on behalf of a Roman Catholic father of three._

�The role of the public school is to be neutral on matters of religion,� said Dick Kurtenbach, Executive Director of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri. �When public schools are neutral, they are serving both the interests of religion and the government.�

[MacGorilla]

My school has a strict policy against hats, do rags, etc. I always wondered what would happen with a Muslim or Sikh student wished to wear their head garb.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
My school has a strict policy against hats, do rags, etc. I always wondered what would happen with a Muslim or Sikh student wished to wear their head garb.

It depends on how well your administrators know the law. If they know it, then they would probably allow it without a fuss. If they don't they might try to enforce their dress code but they would lose that case if the student in question decided to make a stink over it. Jewish yarmulkes and nun's habits would be protected as well (errr .. assuming a nun was going to a public school).

Even the US Justice Department sometimes takes cases such as these on behalf of the individual against locally imposed restrictions.CNN link to US vs Muskogee School District.

The dress code in the Muskogee schools prohibits students from wearing hats, caps, bandannas or jacket hoods inside school buildings.

"We certainly respect local school systems' authority to set dress standards, and otherwise regulate their students, but such rules cannot come at the cost of constitutional liberties," Acosta said. "Religious discrimination has no place in American schools."

[CreepingDeth]

Why don't we compare it to the amount of ACLU interventions to get rid of Christian references.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Why don't we compare it to the amount of ACLU interventions to get rid of Christian references.

Please do !! I gave my linked examples already. Give your counter examples.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Why don't we compare it to the amount of ACLU interventions to get rid of Christian references.

Yeah, why don't we? That way, we'll be reminded that the ACLU is trying to protect First Amendment rights by advocating for the personal exercise of religion and opposing state endorsement of religious doctrine, including but not limited to Christianity. Since both activities serve the First Amendment and are complementary, you're more than welcome to compare them.

This thread was started in ignorance. Not surprising, but let's not compound it.

P.S.: I see that Krusty beat me to it.

[voodoo]

How is the hijab a religious item? Cultural for sure but religious? I have reservations on that.

[Cohiba]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

The good news is that people read this part a lot.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Sadly, people do not read this part enough.

Incase you wonder, the 1st amendment only says that there will be no "Church of America" and that law cannot be made on religious theology. Example of the second part, stealing can be made illegal, although it is in the Ten Commandments. The reason why is because there is a social purpose, if theft was legal, then people would steal the economy away. However, congress cannot make a law, say that, all men must become circumcised because it says so in the Bible.

Many people do not know what the 1st amendment means, but if you read all the supplementary information (e.g. what people though when they wrote the amendment), it would come quite clear that the ACLU does not support the 1st amendment how it is written, but how they want it to be perceived (read, super liberal).

The 1st amendment should only cover the two things listed above, that is all.

Now, what does this mean, can prayer be forced in public school, I would rather not but the 1st only says that no set religion be prayed for, so it can be either a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc, prayer. Just as the 1st also allows the Ten Commandments in front of a government building, it also allows the Koran to be placed there or to allow Congress to start each session with a prayer from any religion, including no prayer at all.

If there was a Church of America, then it could be Christian, and if 90% of America was Muslim per say, then the people could still be forded to pray Christian prayers. Just how kids can be forced to do the pleadge of allegiance, even if 90% of the class did not want to. The 1st protects against prayer being just like the pleadge, but if you think it denies the right for the people to choose what goes over or in front their paid in tax dollars building, then my friend you are misinformed.

The 1st actually protects a nativity scene, a star of David, and/or a crescent moon and star to be over my city hall, if the PEOPLE who pay for that city hall want it to be there. Without the 1st, then it may conceivably only be a cross, just like a American flag will always be in front of a city hall

So, in short, 1st allows anything religious, it does not mean anything religious must not be allowed. Sadly, some people are twisting the 1st to go against its original purpose because they are inconsiderate about the beliefs of others.

[Cohiba]

Originally posted by voodoo:
How is the hijab a religious item? Cultural for sure but religious? I have reservations on that.

It is actually political as the Koran says nothing about it. The hijab served the purpose to distinguish women back in the day so they were not raped by Arafat�s men, ye many years ago in Lebanon.

Wearing a hijab is like wearing an �I hate Arafat� ball cap. It has nothing to do with religion. But, then again, neither does wearing a cross/star of David/crescent and star around your neck.

In uniform, I say it should not be worn, (if your school has a uniform, a symbol can be worn, but must be hidden). Seeing how you cannot hide a hijab, you are out of luck. If your school does not have a uniform, then it should be allowed, as anything else is allowed too.

This goes for military uniforms in the military too, I think it makes sense.

The hijab is no different then the Jewish yamaka (not ditated in either the Torah or Talmud) and is not religious, but �political� or �social�. It is just saying �hey look, I am muslim�.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

The good news is that people read this part a lot.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Sadly, people do not read this part enough.

They don't read the "Congress" part either.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
The hijab is no different then the Jewish yamaka (not ditated in either the Torah or Talmud) and is not religious, but �political� or �social�.

False.

The Talmud says that the purpose of wearing a kippah is to remind us of God, who is the Higher Authority "above us" (Kiddushin 31a).

From a biblical standpoint, only the Kohanim serving in the Temple were required to cover their heads (see Exodus 28:4). Yet for many centuries, the obligatory custom has been for Jewish men to wear a kippah all the time, as the Code of Jewish Law says, "It is forbidden to walk four cubits without a head covering."

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
Wearing a hijab is like wearing an �I hate Arafat� ball cap. It has nothing to do with religion.
...

The hijab is no different then the Jewish yamaka (not ditated in either the Torah or Talmud) and is not religious, but �political� or �social�. It is just saying �hey look, I am muslim�.

This is somewhat inaccurate. You're right that the hijab is not specifically mentioned in the Qur'an as a requirement but many Muslim women wear it because what the Qu'ran does say is to dress modestly:

From the Qur'an:

Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty...And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and adornments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers...(a list of exceptions)

The hijab is not worn to say 'hey look I'm Muslim' it's worn because many Muslim women find it enables them to fulfil their religious obligations. The idea that it is compulsory is contested.

Edited to add:

Originally posted by Cohiba:
The hijab served the purpose to distinguish women back in the day so they were not raped by Arafat�s men, ye many years ago in Lebanon.

WTF did you get that bullsh1t from?

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
It is actually political as the Koran says nothing about it. The hijab served the purpose to distinguish women back in the day so they were not raped by Arafat�s men, ye many years ago in Lebanon.

Perhaps you should have the slightest clue about what you are talking about.

There are both instances in the Quran and in the Hadiths regarding the correct "dress-code" in Islam for men and women. The Holy Quran states: In the Quran, God states:

24:30Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.

24:31And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.

Also:

33:59 O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.


One Hadith states:

If the woman reaches the age of puberty, no part of her body should be seen but this --- and he pointed to his face and hands."


From this and several other references Muslim scholars and jurists have determined:

1) Clothing must cover the entire body, with the exception of the face and the hands.
2) The attire should not be form fitting, sheer or so eye-catching as to attract undue attention or reveal the shape of the body.

There are also rules for men:

1) A Muslim man must always be covered from the navel to knees.
2) A Muslim man should similarly not wear tight, sheer, revealing, or eye-catching clothing.
3) Muslim man is prohibited from wearing silk clothing (except for medical reasons) or gold jewelry. A Muslim woman may wear silk or gold.

So the next time you claim to know something about Islam remember that you don't.

[Cohiba]

Hmm, apparently my knowledge on headgear is a little below par. However, in case you are wondering (as you seem to have questioned me so politely) I am referring to what is mentioned here.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/G...20030819.shtml

Now, either this is a rumor, or there may be a good amount of truth in it. But a quick two quotes.

�This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shiite community.�

And�

�Sadr's idea was that, by wearing the headgear, Shiite women would be clearly marked out, and thus spared sexual harassment, and rape, by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian gunmen who at the time controlled southern Lebanon.�

I have heard this before, so it seemed to make sense to me.

Although again, I thank you for your civil retort.

[Curios Meerkat]

Amir Taheri, the Shah' propagandist, now at Benador Associates - the neo-con outlet. That story (like many others he wrote) is phony as a $3 bill.

He's right that particular style of hijab is a modern variant, but women covered their head in the Middle East, Mediterranean and South Asia for centuries - and not only Muslims, but Jewish and Christian women did (and some still do) the same.

Demonising women that wear the Chador as extremists is bigoted and silly, but serves well the neo-con agenda you seems so keen in propagating.

And what's up the text on your signature? It is falsely implying that cuban cigar factories employ child labor... very dishonest of you.

:lights up habanero:

[Cohiba]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
Amir Taheri, the Shah' propagandist, now at Benador Associates - the neo-con outlet. That story (like many others he wrote) is phony as a $3 bill.

He's right that particular style of hijab is a modern variant, but women covered their head in the Middle East, Mediterranean and South Asia for centuries - and not only Muslims, but Jewish and Christian women did (and some still do) the same.

Demonising women that wear the Chador as extremists is bigoted and silly, but serves well the neo-con agenda you seems so keen in propagating.

And what's up the text on your signature? It is falsely implying that cuban cigar factories employ child labor... very dishonest of you.

:lights up habanero:

Hmmm.

Um, yea, I am propagating some neo-con agenda, sometimes I just cannot help myself. Just to get a quick say in, I come here for knowledge, and to have my ideas tested. Sometimes they fail, (as it seems that this headgear one is after being tested and then doing more research for), some times they do not.

I find it pretty sad that when a man makes a mistake about customs he is perceived as a �bigot� who �demonizes women�.

But hey. Generalize how you want.

P.S. The sig stands.

[Curios Meerkat]

Yep. When reality doesn't fit your world view, lie.