U.S. to defend Muslim girl wearing scarf in school

CNN Washington Bureau ^ | 03/30/04 | Terry Frieden

[coffeebreak]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Justice Department announced Tuesday the government's civil rights lawyers have jumped into a legal case to support a Muslim girl's right to wear a head scarf in a public school.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Alex Acosta said government lawyers would support 11-year-old Nashala Hearn, a sixth-grade student who has sued the Muskogee, Oklahoma, Public School District for ordering her to remove her head scarf, or hijab, because it violated the dress code of the Benjamin Franklin Science Academy, which she attended.

The girl continued to wear her hijab to school and was subsequently suspended twice for doing so. The family appealed the suspensions, which were upheld by a district administrative hearing committee.

Her parents filed suit against the Muskogee School District last October.

On Tuesday the federal government filed a motion in a federal court in Muskogee to intervene in support of Nashala's position.

[spunkets]

There were a lot of artistic variations of the cross historically. The swastica rotates in the opposite direction of the rare artistic variation of the Christian cross it resembles, if I remember right.

[philosofy123]

The French have nothing to do with it. Islamic garbs (raghead/beards...) is something new. It is like: OK America: you want to fight the Moslem terrorists, I love the Moslem terrorists, and I identify with them so openly, and I defy you to touch me - I will scream religious oppression! The reason we are in this mess IS SIMPLY because we failed to recognize the incursion of the Islamic movement as a fifth column throughout the West. Our government is very STUPID to defend people who are rubbing salt in our wounds.

[CobaltBlue]

I am in graduate school at George Mason part time. I noticed that right after 9/11, a lot more Muslim women than before were wearing the hijab. Some of them were being escorted to and from school by their parents and older brothers. They appeared to me to be fearful but resolute.

I think it's a Muslim backlash against the anti-Muslim backlash. Many people in this country are full of hatred and rage against all Muslims. But then, a lot of people became more religious after 9/11. Watershed events like that have a tendency to cause people to think about what's important in life. But lashing out against Muslims is not the answer.

"What you resist, persists, and intensifies."

That's why the Bible says, "A soft answer turneth
away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." - Proverbs 15:1.

[DannyTN]

"The one-size-fits-all school system can't possibly accommodate everybody, but many small voucher schools certainly could. "

The question is can it accomodate anybody? I think not. I think it's suboptimal on so many levels.

[Carry_Okie]

It seems that some people may not have seen the sarcasm in my post regarding the Amish.

Not at all (and she's a lovely child), but your post evoked a point to be made about the important distinctions between the Constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion and religiously sponsored sedition.

[coffeebreak]

I was talking about putting the Ten Commandments in a court house or maybe placing the Nativity Scene in the PUBLIC town square. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects both of those actions even if the government does it. If the government said that all Americans HAD to be Christians, that would be attempting to establish a religion. Our government doesn't do that because the Constitution prohibits it.

[OXENinFLA]

Another thing, Isn't the school year coming to an END why is this being brought up now?

[CobaltBlue]

I like it better the way it was when the country was founded - nobody put statues or plaques of the Ten Commandments in courthouses then. It's a 20th century invention. Cecille B. DeMille, the director of "The Ten Commandments" funded it in order to promote his movie, and the Fraternal Order of the Eagles did his legwork.

You're welcome to try to change things to suit yourself. It is, after all, a free country.

[Stagerite]

The head scarf of these muslims ought to be viewed the same way we view swastikas or female mutilation.

I agree.

Symbols associated with evil ideologies are offensive.

[CobaltBlue]

I repeat--the hijab is a gangland marker

Where do you teach school? Because the hijab isn't a gangland marker here in Fairfax.

We don't have as many gangs as some other places do, so maybe that's why I've never seen a Muslim gang. We have mostly Latino gangs, and some Vietnamese, and there are the white dopers, and for some reason - maybe money? - we don't have much in the way of black gangs compared to places like LA. I've even seen some Sikh kids in an Asian gang.

I am not saying that Muslim kids never form gangs, just that I've never seen it. Especially not Muslim girls. The Muslim girls in hijab around here are very quiet and studious.

[Michael.SF.]

your post evoked a point to be made about the important distinctions between the Constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion and religiously sponsored sedition.

Fair enough. However, do you really think banning the wearing of a Ha jib in public schools is going to stop such religiously sponsored sedition?

I can think of several more effective ways:

1. Elimination of visa's (not the credit card) for people from countries deemed to be sponsors of terrorism.

2. Elimination of tax breaks for any such church that is guilty of seditious practices.

3. Prison, then deportation of non citizens who practice sedition.

4. FBI infiltration/monitoring of such Churches to determine if they are in fact practicing sedition.

But banning Ha jibs?

Your right, she is a lovely child. The reason I picked that picture was because of the look of total innocence that she evoked.

[spunkets]

" Isn't the school year coming to an END why is this being brought up now?"

The girl's been kicked out, because she refuses to bow down to the tyrants. She is entitled to attend school. NOW!

[coffeebreak]

False. George Bush can go to church and even speak to an interviewer about his Christian faith, and there is no legal sanction. Roy Moore could have put his slab in his yard or even his office. The Establishment clause means that government and its agents, the latter in the official role, cannot take actions which promote or inhibit religion.

You are wrong. The First Amendment says the government can't establish a religion. Roy Moore can put the Ten Commandments anywhere he wants, including in the court house lobby. If he told everybody that came in the building that they had to switch to Christianity when they came through the door, he would be violating the Constitution. If you listen to groups like the ACLU they will argue that putting that symbol in the court house IS establishing a religion. They are wrong, just like quite a few of the people who post in this forum are wrong.

[Mark17]

Why do the American people put of with this crap.

PC. I know it sucks, but I think that is the answer.

[Carry_Okie]

Fair enough. However, do you really think banning the wearing of a Ha jib in public schools is going to stop such religiously sponsored sedition?

Not in the least.

1. Elimination of visa's (not the credit card) for people from countries deemed to be sponsors of terrorism.

Obviously.

2. Elimination of tax breaks for any such church that is guilty of seditious practices.

I'm a little more radical. Sedition is a federal crime. Arrest any cleric advocating sedition. Close the church. Sell the property to pay for the prosecution of the case.

3. Prison, then deportation of non citizens who practice sedition.

Correct.

4. FBI infiltration/monitoring of such Churches to determine if they are in fact practicing sedition.

Also correct.

But banning Ha jibs?

I didn't advocate that in my original post. Allow me to elaborate with something I wrote last year:

There are, however, limits to free association. There is one major religion operating within this country with a written doctrine that effectively advocates complete overthrow of the Constitution and replacement of our entire body of laws: Islam. When free association is used for purposes of sedition and bigotry we must make exception concerning free exercise. It is a test of our ability as a nation to make distinctions upon individual behavior that may do more to transform an ancient religion for the better than all the soldiers in the Middle East.

Your right, she is a lovely child. The reason I picked that picture was because of the look of total innocence that she evoked.

Yup. It was understood. BTW, I saw it more as irony than as sarcasm.

[coffeebreak]

You're welcome to try to change things to suit yourself. It is, after all, a free country.

This won't work with me. The Constitution is quite clear; it says 'establish'.

Swearing on the Bible in court doesn't violate the establishment clause either. Now if a state's legislature passed a law saying that all residents will convert to the Muslim religion at the start of the following year, they would be in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[CobaltBlue]

My point is that you are not starting with a blank slate. There is already a very large body of caselaw on this topic, and I am sure you are familiar with the term "stare decisis". So if you want things to be the way you prefer them, you'll have to change them.

[E Rocc]

The Rutherford Institute is an excellent organization, situated in my home state of Virginia, which has a long, long track record of taking religious freedom seriously.

They are intelligent and consistent in backing the Hearnses and Nashala's parents are playing this smart as well. Rather than bringing the ACLU to Muskogee, they are bringing a conservative group with strong religious ties.

I just started reading a book written by a Baptist minister about the history of Virginia's Declaration of Religious Freedom. Many people do not realize that circa the Foundation, Baptist preachers were persecuted in Virginia for "preaching the gospel contrary to the law". Dozens, maybe hundreds, of Baptists were jailed and fined all over the state.

The author claims in the preface that George Mason, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson helped the Baptists, which I knew, but also mentions Patrick Henry, whom I thought was in favor of the establishment of a state religion in Virginia. So I am looking forward to reading more about the role of Patrick Henry in this matter.

Patrick Henry was in favor of Establishment (at least at the state level), but also some degree of religious liberty. Baptists were severely persecuted during that era, some were even killed. Baptists, Catholics, and Mormons were probably the most consistently persecuted religious groups in this nation's history.

Some Baptists seem to have forgotten this. The most recent major Separation case (the football game prayer case) involved Catholic and Mormon families suing a Baptist dominated school district.

The key to restoring religious liberty in the public schools will be cases like this. Those who would address the real problem of some districts establishing non-religion by establishing religion are playing with fire. Never set a precedent that you don't want your adversaries to be able to use.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

False. George Bush can go to church and even speak to an interviewer about his Christian faith, and there is no legal sanction. Roy Moore could have put his slab in his yard or even his office. The Establishment clause means that government and its agents, the latter in the official role, cannot take actions which promote or inhibit religion.

You are wrong. The First Amendment says the government can't establish a religion. Roy Moore can put the Ten Commandments anywhere he wants, including in the court house lobby. If he told everybody that came in the building that they had to switch to Christianity when they came through the door, he would be violating the Constitution. If you listen to groups like the ACLU they will argue that putting that symbol in the court house IS establishing a religion. They are wrong, just like quite a few of the people who post in this forum are wrong.

Establishment does not mean merely saying that this church is the official church of the government. It also means deeds that do the same thing. Moore gave the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments exclusive access to his courtroom in a manner that clearly implied endorsement of that message by an agency of the government.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

Swearing on the Bible in court doesn't violate the establishment clause either.

If it was a requirement, it would. It is not required in any court of law in the United States.

-Eric