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.

[timm22]

Not to be catty ... but this little girl is woof-woof ... she needs a head scarf.

That's a horrible thing to say about a little girl. How would you feel if someone said that about your young daughter or neice?

[spunkets]

"the court system has declared the Boy Scouts as official open hunting grounds for homosexual pedophiles,

The SCOTUS said the Scouts are well within their rights to prohibit homos. No govm't branch has imposed any homo agenda on them.

" and that you are forbidden to use lethal self defense measures in life threatening situations? "

That is false.

[E Rocc]

The Constitution in its historical context was designed to protect both Protestantism and Catholicism, but it was never designed to protect Islam.

The Constitution protects free religious exercise except where Establishment is being violated. Where precisely in the Constitution is "religion" defined in a manner which excludes Islam?

It should be noted that two years before the Constitution was signed, the Virginia Act For Religious Freedom was debated. There was an effort to make it only apply to Christians. One of the more influential delegates objected to this idea.

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

When one considers that this particular delegate ended up being considered the primary author of our Constitution, logic does not support the idea that said document protects solely the Christian denominations. Therefore, the comparision of anti-Catholic bigotry at the dawn of the 20th Century and anti-Islamic bigotry at the dawn of the 21st retains its validity.

-Eric

[blackbart.223]

"I say wear the hajib to your madrassa... oh that's right, islamic madrassas aren't usually for little girls."

They are only to the extent little girls are willing to strap on TNT and blow up Jews. Muslims are only picky when it's convienient.

[KingNo155]

headscarf? She needs a friggin viel! Did she get her rabies shot and where's here (dog)licence?

[E Rocc]

Like I said before; the girl's religious freedoms should be protected, but ALL religious freedoms should be protected equally, not just Muslims in an election year.

The precedent will be useful to those fighting school boards which try to forbid Christian students from passively displaying their faith. Don't be suprised if some of the major religious legal groups join this case, on the side of the girl.

-Eric

[YoSoy2]

"If they want to wear that crap, do it back in their own damned country."

Nay. It's better these people are never allowed to set foot in our country.

This, I'm afraid, is only the beginning. The worst is yet to come.

[Carry_Okie]

Yet another argument for vouchers, and for privatizing our educational system.

I suppose you would have vouchers redeemable at the local madrassas?

[Carry_Okie]

The Amish don't preach sedition or replacing the Constitution with religious law.

[Fred Nerks]

'think how you would feel if someone said that about your daughter or your niece...'

If someone said that about my daughter, I would shampoo her hair and tie it up with a ribbon and make her look as pretty as I could. Think how she feels. Her own mother did this to her. She's stuck with it. In a classroom full of her peers, she must feel terrible. Yes, it's damned ugly and serves no purpose other than to gain publicity and line the pockets of a team of lawyers. They have turned her into a political instrument. Child abuse, that's what it really is.

[spunkets]

THe dress code is repugnant to the Constituiton, specifically the 1st Amend. prohibition against infringement of religious practice. That amend. was incoporated by the SCOTUS to apply to the States and their political subdivisions.

"individual freedom has always been limited by the rules and regulations of any given institution."

That's an empty statement that usually accompanies the demands and arguments of a tyrant.

" I know for a fact that many schools across the country do not allow hats in the class room."

Name the religion whose members wear hats inside as a matter of religious tradition and then you'll know which ones have the right to wear them regardless.

"Why should she be allowed to bring her religious needs religious needs"

It is not her needs. Commies talk needs. It is her religion and her exercise thereof is protected by the US Constitution.

[YoSoy2]

"Yet another argument for vouchers, and for privatizing our educational system."

Better yet an educational tax credit. Vouchers are nothing more than another wealth redistribution scheme that steals from tax-paying citizens and gives to nontax-paying ones - ie, from the rich to the poor. I don't like it.

[spunkets]

"preach sedition or replacing the Constitution with religious law."

Islam isn't going anywhere with that. I'd be more worried about the Americans that work hard to replace freedom with socialism and it's petty authoritarian nitpics.

[quantim]

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

The word "taxpayer" has not yet shown up on this thread.

[YoSoy2]

"I think in all honesty the framers of the Constitution had Christians in mind when they wrote about freedom of religion."

And they did.

The Founding Fathers founded the country for their Christian progeny.

[coffeebreak]

It's good that the government is their for the pledge, but there are hundreds of cases where Christian symbols have been under attack by groups like the ACLU and the government is nowhere to be found.

[CobaltBlue]

Why do you think hijab is cultural rather than religious? Not all Muslim women wear hijab, but it's definitely part of the religion to dress modestly, and many believe it is a requirement to cover the hair.

Some Christian sects have similar requirements, like the Mennonites and the Amish. And married Orthodox Jewish women wear wigs in public.

I have a hard time believing that our fellow freepers would tell Mennonite and Amish women or Orthodox Jewish women to "assimilate, leave, or die," but you never know . . . .

[spunkets]

"The word "taxpayer" has not yet shown up on this thread."

The purpose of govm't is to protect rights. This girls rights and being violated. You missed that. You also missed the cash value of the time wasted by the yokels violating this girls rights and the amount wasted defending their rights violations in court.

[easonc52]

Why does anyone care what somebody wears?

[CobaltBlue]

You have the right to wear the 10 Commandments as part of your clothing, say on a T-shirt, or as an item of jewelry, or on a book cover. That's entirely different from the school itself displaying the Ten Commandments, or, for that matter, the school ordering children to wear hijab.

The difference is between state action, and individual action. The government cannot establish religion. But as a private person, you have every right to express your religion.