Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. to defend Muslim girl wearing scarf in school
CNN Washington Bureau ^ | 03/30/04 | Terry Frieden

Posted on 03/30/2004 7:21:30 PM PST by coffeebreak

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-283 next last
To: spunkets
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

I missed nothing, you apparently missed everything.  I was pointing out the fact that the "U.S." foots the bill, in other words, the taxpayers.  Nowhere did I suggest what is/or should be a standard or precedent.  Regardless of one's point of view of this argument, taxpayers finance these fights.  In the end, it is a waste - hence my point.
101 posted on 03/30/2004 10:30:17 PM PST by quantim (Victory must be absolute, it cannot be relative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak
I'll put the way I feel on the matter in this way:

Common sense dictates that when the French do something, it's best to do the clear opposite.

Let the little girl keep her head scarf. We're better than they are over there. There are better grounds to win this battle than this one.
102 posted on 03/30/2004 10:36:44 PM PST by William Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueriver
The problem here is the girl is a Negro and was probably born here in the USA. Her parents are muslim "wanna-be's". I wish these idiots would realize that if the Islamics take over, the blacks will be put to death even faster than the Jews and Christians.
103 posted on 03/30/2004 10:36:59 PM PST by Momma Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: quantim
"Nowhere did I suggest what is/or should be a standard or precedent. Regardless of one's point of view of this argument, taxpayers finance these fights. In the end, it is a waste - hence my point."

You still missed it. The tax is paid the feds to protect rights. The tax is paid to the school to educate. The school chose to use tax money to violate rights and now the feds have to do their job thay are paid for.

You think there should be no government?

104 posted on 03/30/2004 10:43:14 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Weimdog
Bump
105 posted on 03/30/2004 10:46:48 PM PST by Clock King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
The tax is paid the feds to protect rights

Tax paid by who?  A selective "group?"  This should not even be an issue.  I do not want MY tax dollars usurped to government lawyers to "protect" a special interest.  This is not the realm of education, or government.  You can finance any fight you want, but can't suck local tax dollars, ship it to D.C., then re-distribute it to advance a cause.  Do it on your own dime.

106 posted on 03/30/2004 11:04:37 PM PST by quantim (Victory must be absolute, it cannot be relative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: yonif
Nashala Hearn says she thinks it's unfair that other students can wear crosses but she can't wear her hijab.

In Saudi Arabia no one is allowed to wear a cross or have a bible in their possession. A friend at church just returned from three months there.

107 posted on 03/30/2004 11:15:46 PM PST by MarMema (Next Year in Constantinople!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
As posted earlier - is this a RELIGIOUS garment or a CULTURAL garment? If the former - then you are correct. If the later is true, you are wrong.

Are the Ten Commandments a religious or cultural symbol? It's been part of our culture for hundreds of years. What about Christmas? Is swearing on the bible in court religious or cultural? If a student wears a cross but says they are not a Cristian does the cross just become a piece of jewelry?

If a Christian women goes to a Muslim country does she HAVE to wear a head scarf? I don't think so. I would argue that the head scarf is both religious and cultural because, like in the U.S., it's often quite difficult to separate the two.
108 posted on 03/31/2004 12:24:12 AM PST by coffeebreak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak
Just don't let anybody put a tablet with the Ten Commandments in front of the school where that girl wants to wear a Muslim scarf -- OH, No --- then the RATS would complain. Anti-Christian, Anti-American -- just like their Presidential Candidate -- Jean Francois Kerrie.
109 posted on 03/31/2004 3:39:33 AM PST by jrlc (Just for Kerry - STOP THE BUSH BASHING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak
Nice. Let's see the Justice Department defend a kid that got kicked out of school for wearing a crucifix. I'm sure they'll do that right after they bring me breakfast in bed.
110 posted on 03/31/2004 4:13:05 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (All the good taglines are taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fedora
So, Jews aren't covered by the Constitution? What country did you say you were from?
111 posted on 03/31/2004 4:16:38 AM PST by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dogbert41
If they want to wear that crap, do it back in their own damned country.

Do you have reason to believe they aren't U.S. citizens?

112 posted on 03/31/2004 4:29:30 AM PST by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
If you actually know of a case where a student was thrown out of school for wearing a crucifix, there are a number of options for finding representation. I can put you in touch with the Rutherford Society, the Federalist Society, the ACLU, and can help run interference with the Justice Department, or if it's a Virginia I can help you myself - I am a Virginia lawyer with an interest in religious freedom cases.

What you need to be clear on in your mind is that there is a significant legal difference between cases where the state is attempting to establish religion, and cases where the state is attempting to interfere with religious freedom.

These cases involve different clauses in the First Amendment, and have completely different case law and completely different outcomes.

In religious freedom cases, like the right to wear a crucifix or hijab, it's the rights of the individual that are being interfered with by the state, and those are pretty much "slam dunk" winners for the individual against the state.

In establishment cases, like Ten Commandment cases, it's the state that is promoting religion, and those are pretty much
In those cases, again, they are pretty much "slam dunk" winners against the state, but for different reasons.

Governments are not supposed to be in the business of promoting religion NOR suppressing it. That's it in a nutshell.
113 posted on 03/31/2004 5:43:36 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak
This is outrageous. The federal government is protecting the rights of everyone except christians.


And to think we put them in power.
114 posted on 03/31/2004 5:43:49 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Flood waters rising, heading for more conservative ground. Write in Tancredo in 04'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quantim
" I do not want MY tax dollars usurped to government lawyers to "protect" a special interest. This is not the realm of education, or government. You can finance any fight you want, but can't suck local tax dollars, ship it to D.C., then re-distribute it to advance a cause."

The purpose of govm't is to protect rights, not some etherial generalization titled, "special interests." In particular to protect the rights of the individual from any and all others who act to infringe upon them.

115 posted on 03/31/2004 5:58:49 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Fedora
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?

As I'd argue it, the key point at issue is what the Constitution means by "religion" in the phrase "establishment of religion".

Don't forget "free exercise thereof".
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".
Leaving aside the question of whether or not the Constitution's context can be said to include a document it does not reference in any way, these are phrases that could be uttered by a Muslim without real fear of heresy.
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).
Again, it does not say so. It merely says "religion". Madison's point was that any suppression of religion at all opens the door to any which can be conceived. Actions may be proscribed, and certainly government preference prohibited. But the rules must be the same for all faiths, or lack thereof.

Certainly your theory would suggest that atheism and areligion are not protected, while the Courts have ruled most emphatically that they are. But more to the point is your reference towards Islam. Islam proclaims that it worships the same God as Christianity. Both the leader and the official doctrine of the largest Christian sect in the US and the world proclaim agreement. Jesus of Nazareth himself has higher status in the Islamic faith than the Jewish. Your claim that Islam is not protected because it is not close enough to Christianity fails all applicable tests: the legal, the historic, and the theological.

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.
The states may no longer have established religions as the Fourteenth Amendment applied the limitations of the Bill of Rights to all levels of government. I know some deny the validity of this, but it is as accepted a part of modern law as judicial review. I would also submit that its a good thing, and that were it not already considered part of law an Amendment to do it more explicitly would pass easily.
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?
My point is that they do: dress codes should only exist to maintain order and the forbidding of passive displays such as crosses, yamulkes (sic) and Islamic veils represents protected free exercise. Rather than pandering to the anti-Islamic bigotry of the ignorant that is clear from some of the other posts in this thread (not yours), I would think that Christian organizations would support this girl.

-Eric

116 posted on 03/31/2004 6:05:00 AM PST by E Rocc (Democrats are to the economy what Round-up is to grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jrlc
"Just don't let anybody put a tablet with the Ten Commandments in front of the school "

The school is not a Christian and can't exercise any religious beliefs. If the commandments appear at all, it can only be as a historical, cultural, or community display, not connected to the school and dependent on it's funding source for existance.

117 posted on 03/31/2004 6:07:09 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: YoSoy2
Nay. It's better these people are never allowed to set foot in our country.
You're going to kick people that were born in this country out because of their religion?

-Eric

118 posted on 03/31/2004 6:12:34 AM PST by E Rocc (Democrats are to the economy what Round-up is to grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
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.
The excuse is "gang activity", the catch-all public schools use these days. I wonder if they'd ban ties if one of the gangs started dressing like P-Diddy.

-Eric

119 posted on 03/31/2004 6:16:10 AM PST by E Rocc (Democrats are to the economy what Round-up is to grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
I believe that the teacher who wore the cross was represented by the Rutherford Institute, but if she had asked the ACLU to represent her, they probably would have.
Guess what I found:

Rutherford Institute Attorneys File Suit in District Court in Defense of Muslim Girl’s Right to Wear Religious Head Covering to School

MUSKOGEE, Okla.—Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on behalf of an 11-year-old Muslim girl who was twice suspended by school officials for wearing a religious head covering. Institute attorneys argue that the school’s actions violated Nashala Hearn’s rights to free speech, free exercise of religion and due process as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Institute attorneys are asking the court to declare the school’s dress code policy to be unconstitutionally vague. The lawsuit also seeks to require school officials to revise the dress code to accommodate the religious dress of their students and expunge Nashala’s educational record of the two suspensions.

Nashala Hearn, along with her family, are followers of the Islamic faith, which requires females to wear a headscarf called a “hijab” in public places, a requirement Nashala has consistently followed in expressing her commitment to her sincerely-held Islamic religious beliefs. This fall, Nashala began attending the sixth grade at Benjamin Franklin Science Academy, a public middle school in Muskogee, Okla. On September 11, 2003, Nashala was informed by her principal that she would no longer be permitted to wear her hijab to school, because it was prohibited by the school dress code. Institute attorneys have pointed out that while the dress code prohibits “hats, caps, bandannas, plastic caps, and hoods on jackets inside the [school] building,” it makes no mention of hijabs or any other kind of religious head covering. Despite the principal’s warning, Nashala continued to wear the hijab to school in keeping with her religious beliefs. On October 1, 2003, Nashala was suspended from school for three days. Upon returning to school on October 7 after serving the suspension, Nashala was once again suspended, this time for five days. Although Nashala has been allowed to return to school until the matter is resolved and continues to wear the hijab, she is subject to sanction under the school dress code at the whim of her principal and other school authorities.

“School districts that pay lip service to pluralism and diversity but send a message of exclusion to religious adherents whose faith imposes certain dress requirements repudiate those same values in practice,” stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “The First Amendment exists to protect the devoutly religious, such as Muslims, Orthodox Jews and Christians, from such unconstitutional discrimination.”

The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.

Gotta love how they first made an issue of it three weeks into the school year, on September 11th.

-Eric

120 posted on 03/31/2004 6:19:54 AM PST by E Rocc (Democrats are to the economy what Round-up is to grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak
The hijab is a gang-marker, and schools have had some good successes in forbidding gang-wear like bandanas, insulting t-shirts, etc.

I hope the governement loses. A school system should have the discretion to get rid of disruptive clothing, and institute what uniforms it deems necessary to maintain order, and the community should support them. That includes any religious symbolism, Dixie Outfitters, obscenity, Grateful Dead, goth, whatever.

Hijab in US schools is VERY bad news. It's the way the Muslims keep track of how influential their numbers have become. Critical mass has been reached in some Euro cities.

121 posted on 03/31/2004 6:21:30 AM PST by Mamzelle (for a post-neo conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Two girls showed up in Pali-style headscarves at my rural school-- 9-30-01 ....
122 posted on 03/31/2004 6:24:14 AM PST by Mamzelle (for a post-neo conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
In this case, the headgear is cultural and is intimately connected to their historical religion. It is part of the tradition of their religion.

Just like the swastika was part of the Nazi tradition. I know Muslim women who wear no headgear at all, they wear no headgear in Turkey which is modertate Muslim --- the headgear is the symbol of the radicals.

123 posted on 03/31/2004 6:27:05 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Just like the swastika was part of the Nazi tradition. I know Muslim women who wear no headgear at all, they wear no headgear in Turkey which is modertate Muslim --- the headgear is the symbol of the radicals.
The devout, not the "radicals". There's a difference, particularly in the US.

-Eric

124 posted on 03/31/2004 6:31:05 AM PST by E Rocc (Democrats are to the economy what Round-up is to grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak
take your hats off, damn ragheads
125 posted on 03/31/2004 6:32:51 AM PST by petercooper (It's obvious, common sense is not prerequisite to voting rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
The swastika is not part of any religion's traditions. Turkey is secular and does not define Islam. The headgear is also not radical. It is cultural and part of Islam's tradition.
126 posted on 03/31/2004 6:34:31 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: YoSoy2
"...This, I'm afraid, is only the beginning. The worst is yet to come..." You are so right. My brother had a truck with a bumper sticker that read, "I'm proud of the way America used to be". The more time goes by, the truer that saying is.
127 posted on 03/31/2004 6:40:43 AM PST by NCC-1701 (Support Mel Gibson and "The Passion of the Christ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: yonif
Muslims have claimed in the past that they are religious symbols. France has outlawed them in schools because they are religious symbols. If you look at non-muslims from those areas, they do not wear the scarves. So it is a religious symbol.
128 posted on 03/31/2004 6:45:58 AM PST by looscnnn ("Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils" Gen. John Stark 1809)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Starve The Beast
You forgot the National Education Assoc.
129 posted on 03/31/2004 6:46:43 AM PST by looscnnn ("Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils" Gen. John Stark 1809)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
In establishment cases, like Ten Commandment cases, it's the state that is promoting religion, and those are pretty much
In those cases, again, they are pretty much "slam dunk" winners against the state, but for different reasons.


Placing the Ten Commandments in a court house is not establishing a religion. If the Founding Fathers meant what some people think they meant today, the Ten Commandments would have been out of the court house two hundred years ago. Our money would not say "In God We Trust" on it. The Nativity Scene would have NEVER appeared in the town square and we probably wouldn't be celebrating Christmas. For some strange reason the establishment clause has gotten twisted to mean that no one in government can even acknowledge the existence of God or say or do anything that is remotely religious in public. Roy Moore stood up against this; hopefully there will be others so this nonsense will end.
130 posted on 03/31/2004 6:47:06 AM PST by coffeebreak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
"...The swastika is not part of any religion's traditions..." I beg to differ with you. The swatika is a form of cross. It's been around for a lot longer than Hitler ever was. One story has it that when Hitler was looking for a symbol for the Nazi party, he was in a church and was looking at some of the stained glass windows and saw that cross. He obviously liked it, so he adopted that as the symbol he was looking for. Like the Confederate flag, they are both simple and unoffensive in and of themselves. But since they've been co-opted by a couple of very-less-than-wholesome organizations, they are both reviled and hated. Lord only knows what is next in line to be used in such a manner.
131 posted on 03/31/2004 6:49:32 AM PST by NCC-1701 (Support Mel Gibson and "The Passion of the Christ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
So you are of the seperation of church and state frame of mind? So you think that is what the 1st amendment means?
132 posted on 03/31/2004 6:50:15 AM PST by looscnnn ("Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils" Gen. John Stark 1809)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak
For some strange reason the establishment clause has gotten twisted to mean that no one in government can even acknowledge the existence of God or say or do anything that is remotely religious in public.

You mean, like wearing an article of clothing with religious significance to school?

133 posted on 03/31/2004 6:51:49 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak
For some strange reason the establishment clause has gotten twisted to mean that no one in government can even acknowledge the existence of God or say or do anything that is remotely religious in public.
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.

-Eric

134 posted on 03/31/2004 6:54:35 AM PST by E Rocc (Democrats are to the economy what Round-up is to grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
First Amendment be damned, eh?
135 posted on 03/31/2004 6:55:46 AM PST by coffeebreak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda; Carry_Okie
It seems that some people may not have seen the sarcasm in my post regarding the Amish. I was trying to point out what I feel is absurd by being even more absurd.
136 posted on 03/31/2004 6:55:51 AM PST by Michael.SF. (One Clinton in politics is 'probably more then enough'- b. clinton" (for once, I agree with him))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
"I force my child to wear spike heels and gaudy make-up, or perhaps a simple loin cloth is all I ever allow my child to wear in public."

I see a lot of kids dressed like that, they used to be called hoochies. Now they have become the norm thanks to Mtv, Britney, etc.
137 posted on 03/31/2004 6:56:45 AM PST by looscnnn ("Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils" Gen. John Stark 1809)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.
138 posted on 03/31/2004 6:57:29 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: NCC-1701
You are right that one version of the swastika has been a religious symbol all over the world for hundreds of years (Christians, Native Americans, Hindus) but I believe that Hitler reversed the swastika. The Nazi swastika is the mirror image of the sacred swastika.
139 posted on 03/31/2004 7:02:02 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak
Students are minors, and the admins are charged with education and protection, not the promulgation of political discourse to satisfy the restlessness of bored libertarians. Put 'em in uniforms, and teach 'em to read, write, and calculate. If a t-shirt offers distraction, make the kid take it off, turn it wrong side out, put if back on, go home at the end of the day and do not wear it again to school.

If you allow enough Muslims into the US in full hijab--they'll be assaulting women on the streets who do not wear hijab. Turkey understands this--even the French are figuring it out.

I repeat--the hijab is a gangland marker--as surely as grafitti sprayed on the walls.

140 posted on 03/31/2004 7:03:24 AM PST by Mamzelle (for a post-neo conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: NCC-1701
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.
141 posted on 03/31/2004 7:04:49 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: William Martel
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.
142 posted on 03/31/2004 7:06:15 AM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
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.

143 posted on 03/31/2004 7:10:37 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Starve The Beast
"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.

144 posted on 03/31/2004 7:10:37 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
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.

145 posted on 03/31/2004 7:11:18 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly gutless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
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.
146 posted on 03/31/2004 7:11:52 AM PST by coffeebreak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak
Another thing, Isn't the school year coming to an END why is this being brought up now?
147 posted on 03/31/2004 7:13:04 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coffeebreak
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.
148 posted on 03/31/2004 7:17:42 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Dogbert41
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.

149 posted on 03/31/2004 7:22:35 AM PST by Stagerite (President George W. Bush is looking more and more like Teddy Roosevelt -- every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
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.

150 posted on 03/31/2004 7:22:44 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-283 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson