Posted on 03/30/2004 7:21:30 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I contend to you that no one is denying this girl her right to practice her religion. She is free to attend any religious school she wants to attend. No one is forcing her to go to public school. Religious practices have no place in the public school. That is why this country has so many private religious schools. If a parent wants their child to have a school cater to their religious requirements then they send them to religious schools. Many catholic parents send their kids to catholic schools for this purpose alone. Why should this girl be any different from them? Where do you draw the line on what a school has to do to accomadate every childs religion. A school should be able to make rules that help it maintain order in a classroom. If hats are a distraction and or cause another child to not be able to see the blackboard then the scoold should have the ability to set a policy that restricts hats. They should not have to be concerned with religious requirements as they are not a religious instituition.
The Founding Fathers were interested in Freedom and rights protection, not in establishing any particular set of authoritarian rules. This country belongs to it's citizens. The citizens that are their progeny. It does not belong to the Christians.
Hmm. You mean, why should your boss care how you dress at work? Or, why should you care whether your surgeon wears a sterile scrub suit?
Or, why does the Fashion Police say that stripes don't go with plaid?
Why does your mother care whether you wear clean underwear?
The Muskogee schools will need to prove why it is necessary to prohibit all students, irregardless of religion, from wearing hats, caps, bandannas or jacket hoods inside their buildings.
If they can show that this prohibition is necessary, then the wearing of such items including religious head-wear should be banned. Else, all wearing of such items should be allowed.
Public schools were established for the purpose of educating the children of it's citizens w/o regard for their ability to pay. They are open to all.
"Religious practices have no place in the public school."
Each and every citizen has the right to be unimpeded in their exercise of religion by any citizen, or the government. What has no place and is a crime is what you advocate, which is to violate religious rights in direct opposition to the plain English wording of the 1st Amendment.
"Many catholic parents send their kids...
Blah, blah, blah... That is not exercise of religion, it is religious education.
As I'd argue it, the key point at issue is what the Constitution means by "religion" in the phrase "establishment of religion". The context of this phrase includes the wider context of the Declaration of Independence, which opens with references to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and to men being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". This, as may be verified in the writings of the framers of the Constitution, is referring to the 18th-century concept of natural law and the underlying tradition of natural rights extending back through John Locke to Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, the Sermon on the Mount, and ultimately, the Ten Commandments. In this tradition the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule are considered to embody certain principles which are the foundation of a just social order. These principles are common to Judaism and Christianity and are alluded to in the Declaration of Independence's phrase "unalienable Rights", which are the "Rights" the "Bill of Rights" is enumerating. This is not excluding non-Christian religions (cf. my Post #24); it is, however, excluding religious practices based on principles which radically depart from the principles common to Judaism and Christianity that derive from natural rights (thus, for instance, to take an extreme example, the Constitution would not protect a religious practice involving ritual murder). Also, the Bill of Rights is addressing states' rights issues and protecting the right of individual states not to have their established religions infringed upon by the federal government (keep in mind that the states originally had established religions), whereas the legal argument in the case in question is attempting to have the federal government impose Islam on a non-federal level of the educational system. Note that I am not arguing the Constitution only protects Christianity; I am arguing that Judaism and Christianity are the paradigm of what the Bill of Rights protects, and when Islam attempts to claim rights which step outside that paradigm, it steps outside the protection of the Constitution. Christians do not have a Constitutional right to violate school dress codes--why should Islam?
I'm not fishing for links. I will just state that the headgear is ancient. It appeared in the art and writings of many from all over that region. It was cultural and Islam adopted it as a religious tradition long before the claims of that article. I saw with my own eyes long before that time what they wore. It's ancient.
Correction: I don't think Germany has any such law and the French law forbids large super sized crosses like say a rap performer wears. Small personal crosses are allowed in public schools in France.
She can attend or not, it is her choice, again no one is forcing her and therefore no one is limiting her constitution rights.
Each and every citizen has the right to be unimpeded in their exercise of religion by any citizen, or the government. What has no place and is a crime is what you advocate, which is to violate religious rights in direct opposition to the plain English wording of the 1st Amendment.
We all have the "right" to practice religion. The question is do we all have the right to practice our religion where ever and whenever we please? If so are instituions prohibited to set up rules and regulations unless it passes the religious police? Once schools are required to have to take into consideration religion over school matters the public school system is going to be unable to make any rules.
... That is not exercise of religion, it is religious education
It is both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.