What do you think of this? - ZEFRANK.COM

Klynne · 01-16-2005, 08:56 PM

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.

Frieda · 01-16-2005, 09:05 PM

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.

Gatsby · 01-16-2005, 09:16 PM

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 · 01-16-2005, 09:17 PM

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.

zenbabe · 01-16-2005, 09:18 PM

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.

Gatsby · 01-16-2005, 09:20 PM

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."

Klynne · 01-16-2005, 09:22 PM

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.

Frieda · 01-16-2005, 09:27 PM

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!

Large Marge · 01-16-2005, 09:28 PM

I think that "under God" should be removed from the Pledge, courtrooms, the oath one takes before testifying and money.

Gatsby · 01-16-2005, 09:33 PM

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.

Klynne · 01-16-2005, 09:34 PM

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

Gatsby · 01-16-2005, 09:35 PM

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.

Frieda · 01-16-2005, 09:37 PM

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.

Klynne · 01-16-2005, 09:40 PM

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.

Gatsby · 01-16-2005, 09:43 PM

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!

01-16-2005, 08:56 PM	#1
Klynne monkey 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.

01-16-2005, 09:05 PM	#2
Frieda in limbo Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 19,506	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

01-16-2005, 09:18 PM	#5
zenbabe Lollypop! 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

01-16-2005, 09:28 PM	#9
Large Marge monkey 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.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

01-16-2005, 09:16 PM	#3
Gatsby I used to be a girl 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.

01-16-2005, 09:43 PM	#15
Gatsby I used to be a girl 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!