ZEFRANK.COM - message board  

Go Back   ZEFRANK.COM - message board > FAST CHAT
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 12 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 01-16-2005, 08:56 PM   #1
Klynne
monkey
 
Klynne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 4,543
What do you think of this?

What do you think about this?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01....ap/index.html

I am not sure how I feel about it one way or another. Personally, I don't care what people wear, or do, as long as it is not placing someone else in harm's way. I do think there are people that take themselves way too seriously, and think everyone is out to violate their rights. I am not saying that is the case for this individual though.
Klynne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2005, 09:05 PM   #2
Frieda
in limbo
 
Frieda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 19,504
in the NLs it's illegal to wear any kind of religious symbol in schools. no hijabs, no christian/catholic crosses on a necklace, nothing. the rule is there to promote equality.
__________________
zoek waar je wil, maar het zit in jezelf

oh yeah
Frieda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2005, 09:16 PM   #3
Gatsby
I used to be a girl
 
Gatsby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,152
Sounds like a good ruling to me, Constitutionally.

The First Amendment is bifurcated into two parts: the "Establishment" clause (which prohibits the creation of a state church), and the "Exercise" clause (which prohibits the state from impeding religious free exercise). By far most 1st Amendment cases in the church/state/school area are Exercise clause issues.

Generally, you have the right to exercise your religion freely, and the state cannot impede that. However, schools have an interest in a smoothly running system, and often for the "greater good," have to impinge upon personal religious beliefs, such as by regulating clothing. In order to determine whether or not this infringement has gone too far and has become unconstitutional, the courts look at (1) whether the student has a "sincerely held religious belief;" and (2) the degree to which the student's church places pressure upon the student to follow this belief. (For example, if it's a small, insignificant rule of the church, then it's probably OK for the school to require the student to break it. But if it's a major part of the church's belief system, then the school will probably have to allow it.)

Since covering the head is such a major part of the Muslim belief system, and assuming this student had a "sincerely held religious belief," requiring the student to conform to school policy in violation of her religious beliefs would probably be held unconstitutional in a court.

But note that, although it would probably be unconstitutional here, as a general rule it's pretty hard to win these cases. This case is pretty much a prime example of an Exercise clause violation. But anything less than this, and the school would probably win.
Gatsby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2005, 09:17 PM   #4
Gatsby
I used to be a girl
 
Gatsby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frieda
in the NLs it's illegal to wear any kind of religious symbol in schools. no hijabs, no christian/catholic crosses on a necklace, nothing. the rule is there to promote equality.
The courts in the U.S. generally see wearing of crosses as more of a "freedom of expression" issue, because wearing a cross isn't a rule of most churches, whereas wearing headcovering is a central tenet of the Muslim church.
Gatsby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2005, 09:18 PM   #5
zenbabe
Lollypop!
 
zenbabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: we are all made of stars
Posts: 11,690
shit...schools here wont let kids say the pledge of allegiance because its says 'in one nation under God'

It should be the way they do it in Frieda land.
__________________
Be yourself, because the people that mind don't matter, and the people that matter don't mind.

-Dr. Seuss
zenbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2005, 09:20 PM   #6
Gatsby
I used to be a girl
 
Gatsby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenbabe
shit...schools here wont let kids say the pledge of allegiance because its says 'in one nation under God'

It should be the way they do it in Frieda land.
Yup, because requiring kids to say "God" in school is an Establishment Clause issue - the creation of a "state church."
Gatsby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2005, 09:22 PM   #7
Klynne
monkey
 
Klynne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 4,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatsby
Sounds like a good ruling to me, Constitutionally.

The First Amendment is bifurcated into two parts: the "Establishment" clause (which prohibits the creation of a state church), and the "Exercise" clause (which prohibits the state from impeding religious free exercise). By far most 1st Amendment cases in the church/state/school area are Exercise clause issues.

Generally, you have the right to exercise your religion freely, and the state cannot impede that. However, schools have an interest in a smoothly running system, and often for the "greater good," have to impinge upon personal religious beliefs, such as by regulating clothing. In order to determine whether or not this infringement has gone too far and has become unconstitutional, the courts look at (1) whether the student has a "sincerely held religious belief;" and (2) the degree to which the student's church places pressure upon the student to follow this belief. (For example, if it's a small, insignificant rule of the church, then it's probably OK for the school to require the student to break it. But if it's a major part of the church's belief system, then the school will probably have to allow it.)

Since covering the head is such a major part of the Muslim belief system, and assuming this student had a "sincerely held religious belief," requiring the student to conform to school policy in violation of her religious beliefs would probably be held unconstitutional in a court.

But note that, although it would probably be unconstitutional here, as a general rule it's pretty hard to win these cases. This case is pretty much a prime example of an Exercise clause violation. But anything less than this, and the school would probably win.
Thanks Gatsby, the law is a mystery to me sometimes, and your explanation was very informative.
Klynne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2005, 09:27 PM   #8
Frieda
in limbo
 
Frieda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 19,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatsby
The courts in the U.S. generally see wearing of crosses as more of a "freedom of expression" issue, because wearing a cross isn't a rule of most churches, whereas wearing headcovering is a central tenet of the Muslim church.
actually, it's not part of muslim religion, but part of tradition. most muslims believe that it IS part of religion and therefore, dutch law has adopted the "covering the head"-part as a religious symbol. odd huh!
__________________
zoek waar je wil, maar het zit in jezelf

oh yeah
Frieda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2005, 09:28 PM   #9
Large Marge
monkey
 
Large Marge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The middle
Posts: 2,284
I think that "under God" should be removed from the Pledge, courtrooms, the oath one takes before testifying and money.
__________________
Truth serves only a world that lives by it.
Large Marge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2005, 09:33 PM   #10
Gatsby
I used to be a girl
 
Gatsby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frieda
actually, it's not part of muslim religion, but part of tradition. most muslims believe that it IS part of religion and therefore, dutch law has adopted the "covering the head"-part as a religious symbol. odd huh!
Well, regardless of whether it's something that's actually written down or not, the courts here look at the pressure the church places on the person to adopt the practice. It's called "coercion analysis" - the level of coercion that the church places on the person in re the practice.

But it's true that the line between symbolism (which is free expression) and practice (which is free exercise) can be extremely fine.
Gatsby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2005, 09:34 PM   #11
Klynne
monkey
 
Klynne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 4,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frieda
actually, it's not part of muslim religion, but part of tradition. most muslims believe that it IS part of religion and therefore, dutch law has adopted the "covering the head"-part as a religious symbol. odd huh!

I had to google the head covering thing. This is what I came up with:

http://www.understanding-islam.com/rs/s-045.htm
Klynne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2005, 09:35 PM   #12
Gatsby
I used to be a girl
 
Gatsby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Large Marge
I think that "under God" should be removed from the Pledge, courtrooms, the oath one takes before testifying and money.
I agree with you. Blatant Establishment Clause violation. But it's not going to change any time soon, what with the religious right and the Christian Coalition running the farking country.
Gatsby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2005, 09:37 PM   #13
Frieda
in limbo
 
Frieda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 19,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatsby
Well, regardless of whether it's something that's actually written down or not, the courts here look at the pressure the church places on the person to adopt the practice. It's called "coercion analysis" - the level of coercion that the church places on the person in re the practice.

But it's true that the line between symbolism (which is free expression) and practice (which is free exercise) can be extremely fine.
yeah

here they chose to avoid the discussion the whole time by just making all religious symbols in schools illegal. kind of like the easy way out imho.
__________________
zoek waar je wil, maar het zit in jezelf

oh yeah

Last edited by Frieda : 01-16-2005 at 09:40 PM. Reason: added quote to clarify
Frieda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2005, 09:40 PM   #14
Klynne
monkey
 
Klynne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 4,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frieda
yeah

here they chose to avoid the discussion the whole time by just making all religious symbols in schools illegal. kind of like the easy way out imho.
But over here, we have a bunch of lawyers and the ACLU just waiting to jump right in and start law suits.
Klynne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2005, 09:43 PM   #15
Gatsby
I used to be a girl
 
Gatsby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,152
It can't be that cut-and-dry here, although that would be nice.

Americans are too quick to point out the slightest infringement upon their rights by the government. The majority here wants the government to both:

1. Promote "sacred Christian values" AND
2. Stay out of their private lives.

Hel-LO! Not POSSIBLE! These two things are mutually exclusive!
Gatsby is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -3. The time now is 05:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.