Where do you draw the line with a hijab?
Let’s assume it wasn’t this severe.
But what if it was?
Woman sues, claims judge forced her to remove hijab – CNN.com Cripes. Here we go again with another rash of this crap.
A Muslim woman and the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations sued a judge Wednesday for allegedly ordering the woman to remove her hijab, or religious head covering, in court.
Raneen Albaghdady, of Wayne County, Michigan, contends that Judge William Callahan told her to remove her hijab on June 16 when she was petitioning for a name change, according to the lawsuit, which was filed Wednesday in a U.S. district court in Michigan.
Wayne County is also listed as a defendant in the suit.
If they allow Sihks to wear their turbans and Jews to wear their yarmulkes in court then they should let Muslims wear their hijabs, since they don’t cover their faces. But they shouldn’t be allowed to wear clothes that completely cover their faces. This is American, we have American rules, and when you’re in American courts you have to do it our way. Civil law takes precedence over religious beliefs in this case. IMHO.
#18
Does anybody know why Detroit has the largest Muslim population?
To me, it’s like pirates being in a place far away from water. Like Nebraska. And I don’t mean for the amber waves of grain.
#34 because when you have nothing left to loose, you are unemployed, you have grown up in poverty and your family keeps breeding like fucking rabbits… you are a prime candidate for religions “enlightenment”.
I’m just waiting for the day when some nut job shows up in court in the full muslim regalia…with about 40 pounds of tnt strapped on.
OH how fickle the mob. We scream about religion because a judge wants a statue of the 10 commandments. YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. A judge’s courtroom is their turf, their sanctum, their rules, within the guidelines of the US Constitution. Anything else doesn’t apply. If a judge can’t have a 10 commandments sculpture on display because of separation of church & state, then the same thing goes for all the people that walk into the courtroom. I don’t care what religion you are or what your customs are, you’re on federal property and must abide within the rules of the court.
#36, sql,
Why not read the effen article before you come in your panties. Then try reading some of the opinions that prohibited the Ten Commandments on public property.
This is not Federal property. It was County Property. A Court is limited in how they can prohibit a person from expressing their religion. It would have to disrupt the court or interfere with the judicial process.
But just read the article moran.
The courts are in the right. At that point someone could walk in wearing a clown mask and ask for a name change. Sorry Ho, but there is a separation of church and state for a reason.
#38, assholetiki,
She wasn’t wearing a clown mask. She was wearing a headscarf that does not cover her face.
Ignorance is not an excuse for something already pointed out several times already.
Quote from TFA: In the 30-second video, the judge can be heard saying, “The head piece? No hats allowed in the courtroom.”
How ’bout an old lady with a wig on? Does she have to take that off & show the whispy little patch of hair that is all she has left? And sir, please remove that toupe.
On the other hand, a so-called niqab (also from TFA) that covers the face is pretty silly in a courtroom. Should not the judge be allowed to see who he’s dealing with? What if she comes back into his court at a later date & he didn’t see her the first time? Court has to be a “face-to-face” deal or your case gets thrown out. Not so tough to figure out.
#39 I said someone COULD. I suggest you read and understand my post and understand it before you go flying off the handle. Am I calling a hijab a clown mask? No. You could come in wearing a Smiley face mask, a Beavis and Butthead mask, or any other mask you see an a Halloween superstore. I was only referring to any mask and clown mask just came into my mind first.
#42,
So now you are claiming a misunderstanding of your post?
You made the illogical leap that someone “could” do something even though the concept that the headscarf has been adequately demonstrated to NOT hide the face. You then go on to call her a “Ho”.
Your suggestion there is a “reason” for the “separation of church and state” implies she crossed that line somehow. She didn’t. The Judge did. This is little different than if a nun had worn her habit or even a Catholic wearing a crucifix. These symbols do not cross the line into interfering with the court process.
Ok so here lies the “conFusion”… I thought the hijab does cover the face. This was me not realizing what a hijab was (i just looked it up). I will say that I saw the picture up top of the post of the woman in the burka, thinking it was the hijab. The egg is on me; I will admit that I was in the wrong. That and you calling me Assholetiki got me into youtube style posting madness and I never read your post past that mark. So i’ll look up words that I am not 100% sure on before i post if you hold back the insults. Deal?
#14, Orangetiki,
Well then I will extend a similar apology. I became incensed after there were several comments, including my own, pointing that out.
The picture at the head could leave a wrong impression. Your explanation is well posed and accepted.
Gee, I do feel better knowing that this is cleared up for the better.