Replies

And banning polygamy would constitute a violation of the free exercise of religion --- or banning the buying and selling of women to the harem masters. What if there was a religion where cannibalism or human sacrifice was a part of their religious services? The world has known those religions.

Argumentem ad absurdem.

Unlike the items in your list, the wearing of a head scarf for religious purposes presents no societal threat.

The wearing of a garment for religious purposes does not constitute sociopathic behavior.

Have you ever heard of Anabaptist Christians, such as Mennonites or Amish?

Their womenfolk wear head coverings ranging from bonnets to head scarves, depending on the particular sect. They are an eminently peaceful people.

Would you force them to break the law you propose to ban one of their religious practices?

It wouldn't be the first time that the Amish were punished for disobeying an unconstitutional law.

The recognition of our right to educate our children at home was due to the efforts of an Amishman in Ohio v. Yoder. Yoder stood his ground in face of imprisonment and the threat of loss of his children to the state.

He prevailed, and we are all the richer for it.

Unlike the items in your list, the wearing of a head scarf for religious purposes presents no societal threat.

It does when the woman faces a beating or worse if she fails to wear it. There are reasons Ataturk banned the veil in Turkey --- it's about the only Islamic country where women are actually free not to wear some kind of burka. Do the Amish beat their women if they fail to wear a head covering? I doubt it.

The wearing of a garment for religious purposes does not constitute sociopathic behavior.

In Turkey they are still Muslims but Ataturk saw the need to place certain controls so that things didn't end up like in Saudi or Afghanistan. Look at the reasons Ataturk had for believing the veils had to be banned. We can ignore those reasons --- but it might be wiser to look at them.

Unlike the items in your list, the wearing of a head scarf for religious purposes presents no societal threat.

Could we clarify this a little? Are we talking about head scarves, per se, here, or does that include the "bhurka" (sp) type garb that that Florida women refused to take off for her driver's license picture (thus making it useless).

I've always wondered, if she was so "religious" that she couldn't remove the garb, why did she need a driver's license?