A Religious Duty, Gang Tags & First Amendment

Nashala “Tallah” Hern is an 11-year old school girl in Oklahoma. She is also a practicing Muslim. Because Nashala is a practicing Muslim she wears a hajib, the traditional head covering of the Muslim woman as a duty to her religion. But the school officials at the Ben Franklin Science Academy, the school she attends, instituted a dress code that includes the banishing of any type of headwear in order to thwart a gang problem. They have told Nashala she can’t wear her hajib because it violates the school dress code. While there are many who would say that the radical Islamists that attacked the World Trade Center on September 11th were just as bad as any gang roaming the streets of America today Nashala’s wearing of her hajib can in no way be equated to that of wearing gang symbols.

School district attorney D.D. Hayes stated, "As I see it right now, I don't think we can make a special accommodation for religious wear. You treat religious items the same as you would as any other item, no better, no worse. Our dress code prohibits headgear, period." And while many among us would consider that a fair way to treat the situation the issue goes quite a bit further then that. In fact it violates her Constitutional right to freely practice her religion.

The First Amendment to the Constitution, when discussing religion, states that the government shall set up no official religion and that all shall have a freedom to practice whatever religion it is that they choose to follow. Clearly, the situation in Oklahoma violates Nashala’s Constitutional right to practice her religion and does so quite blatantly. I defy anyone to find the passage in the US Constitution that establishes a division between the church and the state. I do so because it doesn’t exist. It never has and God willing (and I use that phrase purposely) it never will.

The separation of church and state concept is a concept born out of political correctness. Partially attributed to the atheistic ravings of Madeline Murray O’Hare, the overly intrusive matriarch of the Atheist movement who won a court ruling to have Bible readings and prayer eliminated from public schools years ago, the separation of church and state concept became a buzz word that media outlets and those who feared atheistic lawsuits came to chant as a mantra. Sadly, the concept has been completely bastardized in its current form.

The court’s ruling was never meant to eliminate religious influence from all aspects of public life, rather it was meant to assure that all people, whether they chose to practice religion or not, would be afforded the same religious rights as everyone else. It stopped the forced reading of the Bible and forced prayer in public schools for those who do not practice that particular religion. It did not, however, intend for prayer to be banished from the public arena.

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut and clearly defined the meaning and intent of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

Jefferson’s words give credence to the thought that the moral compass of religion in our society is a good thing and that at no time shall the government infringe upon that which affords us this morality. When the subject of separation of church and state was broached by the Framers of the US Constitution it was done so in a fashion that illuminated the strict limitations of government so that it could not impede upon the religious freedom by championing one religion over another, as was the case with the Church of England upon that land. While the modern day atheistic viewpoint bastardizes the idea of separation of church and state to mean that religion shall not infringe upon the public arena it is clear that the Framers saw it quite differently.

Nashala Hern’s wearing of her hajib by no stretch of the imagination infringes upon another person’s right to practice their religion. Nor does it signify her as some sort of gang threat. But what the school administrators of the Benjamin Franklin Science Academy are doing certainly infringes upon Nashala’s Constitutional right to practice her religion.

The “wall” as Jefferson noted in the above quote to the Danbury Baptist Association was, and still is, a wall of ideals that separates one entity from infringing upon another. It is not a wall that sets one above the other and it is certainly not a wall that would empower one ideal over the other in such a way as to eliminate it from our public arena. The “wall”, as it were, is there to assist the two ideals in living side by side, in harmony and for each other to benefit from. The way that the atheistic factions are abusing this incredibly insightful ideal is so blind as to destroy both ideals all together. We The People should not and cannot let this happen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant, a freelance writer from the Midwest and the Managing Editor for www.TheRant.us. He is a contributing writer to The Washington Dispatch, an d various other sites. He has appeared as a guest panelist on The O’Reilly Factor and his pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com and occasionally featured in The Washington Time sand The London Morning Paper as well as other national and international publications.

Flame warriors, unite!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

What's there is fine, but what we need more discussion of is the insane legal cobweb which has developed over the past 30 years or so, which prevents school officials from exercising common sense and discretion to maintain order in the schools. Since they're not allowed to exercise common sense and discretion, they end up promulgating and enforcing rules like this one.

Most if not all of the gang clothing problem could be dealt with by a mandatory uniform, and a policy of allowing additions or variations to the uniform only if the student's parent provides the school with a written request citing medical or religious reasons. The gang kids' parents mostly can't write and don't give a #%&* anyway, so they won't do it. End of problem.

Fact 1. The Federal government is prohibited by the Constitution from endorsing or sponsoring any religion, as well as prohibited from banning the free expression thereof, in private or public places, by individuals, groups, and/or institutions.

Fact 2. The banning of prayers and the wearing or display of religious symbols or text from Holy books from schools, courts, and other public places is, in effect, a government-sponsored endorsement of Atheism, which in itself, is an endorsement of a `religion’ or religious view.

Fact 3. The intent of our Founding Fathers was Freedom OF Religion, NOT Freedom FROM Religion. The former is the freedom to express and practice our religious views whenever, wherever, and however we choose (of course limited by the preservation of the life, liberty, and property rights of others – i.e. No witch burning, etc.) while the latter is a prohibition of all those rights.

CONCLUSION: STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENDORSEMENT OF ATHEISM.

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.