BBC: US opposes Oklahoma headscarf ban

[NashVegas]

Yay. It's our turn.

The US justice department has filed a complaint on behalf of a Muslim girl who was twice sent home from school for wearing a headscarf.

The education authorities said the hijab breached the dress code of the school in Oklahoma.

But the justice department says it amounts to religious discrimination.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3585377.stm

[guitar man]

1. Yep,this has been going on for a while down here

I guess the school will have to let all the kids wear their ball caps,do rags,cowboy hats and everything else now.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Glad to see religious freedom

isn't entirely dead in this country!

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Yeah, pretty scary

When Asscroft is more for freedom than France.

[sushi]

8. Weren't you against France's new law

banning the wearing of the Muslim scarf in state schools? Does't that mean that you agree with Ashcroft? I'm for school uniforms. It looks neat.

[guitar man]

4. I have no problem with religious freedom

I applaud this girl and her family for standing up for it. However,I believe that if they are forced to bend the school dress code to allow her to wear scarf,then all the other kids must be allowed to wear the headgear of their choice.

I would feel the exact same way if the dress code prohibited jewelry and this were a Christian child and a cross. I just don't believe religion should grant special priveleges to people.

[varun]

5. I wonder if a Sikh...

...would be allowed to wear his turban in the class?

Will he be able to carry a small knife to school (part of Sikh religion)?

[guitar man]

6. That's a good question

Would Native Americans be allowed to carry a prayer stick? Big can of worms could be opened up here.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Turban yes, knife no

There is no issue of public safety with a turban. There is with a knife.

[mobuto]

12. Sikhs are normally allowed to carry their knives

on domestic airline flights, or at least that's my understanding. Not being Sikh, I have never put it to the test.

Carrying the kirpan is an integral part of their religion and there really has to be an overriding public interest against it for you to prevent them from exercising it. Since I haven't heard of a recent spate of kirpan-stabbings, I don't think its a huge risk.

[nodehopper]

17. if they ever were, I doubt they are allowed post 9/11

[sushi]

9. Never heard about carrying a small knife

being part of the Sikh religion. What is it (the knife) for?

[ramapo]

11. A baseball cap is not religious

A scarf worn as part of your religious principles does not compare to headgear of choice.

Would Oklahoma ban Jews from wearing yarmulkes?

[guitar man]

14. I know it isn't religious

Well,if it is an OU Sooners cap,some people in these parts might disagree,LOL.

But seriously,if the school dress code says no headgear,it should mean no headgear. I don't think it is fair to use religion to legitimize the wearing of one when the other is banned. It should be all or nothing.

Let's say,hypothetically,that a group of students actually DID found a religion,part of which was the wearing of baseball caps or whatever. would the government have the right to step in and declare one religion,for instance the Muslim or Sikh,to be a valid religion and the "Holy Order of Dale Earnhardt Disciples" not to be a valid religion. According to the First Amendment,I think not.

I am just very wary of setting the precedent of using religion to grant special priveleges.

[mobuto]

10. There's an enormous difference

between what Oklahoma's doing and what France is doing.

France has a valid reason for its headscarf ban; Oklahoma does not. Moreover, Oklahoma is subject to the First Amendment, whereas France is not.

[guitar man]

15. To clarify

This isn't something Oklahoma is doing as a matter of State law or policy. It is the Muskogee Public Schools dress code. It simply prohibits the wearing of any kind of headgear in school.

[oldmanpeacenik]

19. Different part of the 1st amendment applies

Thing is, the 1st amendment also says that "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof" . Making the girl take off her hijab prevents her from freely exercising religion and so the rule cannot stand. *All* US laws and policies created by public institutions are subject to the Constitution.

I've heard of other folks coming up with mock "religions" that required you to eat pizza every day or wear shirts with "F*** this school" on it or something. I think the usual principle is that the religion has to be reasonably well-established. The bar is very low but kids who make up a religion to suit their needs don't clear it.

[guitar man]

20. I could see that

Although,it seems like technically,setting any bar at all would be making laws "respecting the establishment of religion" It seems to me most religions were created to suit someone's needs.

The scary thought that ran through my mind a while ago is,I believe the KKK considers themselves to be a church. I wouldn't put it past those sick fucks to send their kids to school with klan hoods on and try to use this ruling to justify it. I sincerely hope it doesn't happen.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. Boy, Ann Thrax Coulter's head is going to explode over that one.

Must... praise... Ashcroft... must... bash... Islam... GAAAAAA *pop*

[Zynx]

16. Good. Oklahoma is being bigoted.

This has nothing to do with the seperation of church and state just because someone wears something religious on public property. This is being both extremely bigoted(sp?) and secular to the absurd level.

[oldmanpeacenik]

18. Great news

Maybe they're only doing this to take a slap at the French, but still. Good to see that we still have religious freedom in this country. I only wish France would do the same.

Incidentally, I've just spoken with a Sikh man who lives down the road from me a ways. He says that kirpans can't be brought on airplanes. I recall a few years ago reading that a Sikh boy was permitted to wear his kirpan in school provided that he demonstrated to the school staff that it was not sharpened and was permanently attached to the sheath. My understanding is that the kirpan is usually not sharp anyway and is more symbolic than anything else. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me--even if the kid never intended to hurt anyone with it, it could still do damage in the wrong hands if someone knocked him down and took it from him.