paullud
Veteran Expediter
I didn't miss your point. The government also can't treat people with favoritism based on religion or it starts to blur the lines.
Would this apply to a Catholic nun?
- Thread starter cheri1122
- Start date
I didn't miss your point. The government also can't treat people with favoritism based on religion or it starts to blur the lines.
The separation of church and state is not a talking point, it is an essential component of the freedoms we all hold dear. Allowing religion to influence government is a good idea - if you happen to practice the same religion as the majority. But times change, demographics change, and one day, the religion that rules may not be the one you favor.
BTW: it's not "society" religion needs to be stripped from, it's strictly government. They're not at all the same thing.
My point was that the judge ordering the removal of the hijab didn't do it on religious grounds, it's a rule he has about respect [for his court]. But I'm pretty sure he wouldn't order a nun to remove her wimple, because he respects her religion, and that's hypocrisy.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I would agree ... and would add that neither should the government discriminate or treat people of a certain religion in a lesser manner.
Respect for all - regardless of the particular faith - is what is called for.
I thought this was a recent incident. This happened over six years ago. Here is more info about this story. Obviously everyone should be held to the same standard IMO.
Article:
Douglasville Police Chief Joe Whisenant said Monday at a press conference in the City Council chambers a Dec. 16 arrest of a woman in Municipal Court was tied to a contempt charge and had nothing to do with her refusal to remove a Muslim head scarf.
Whisenant presented a detailed version of the incidents that led to the arrest of Lisa Valentine, 40, for the contempt of court charge.
According to Whisenant, Valentine was stopped at the metal detector by an officer when she attempted to enter the courtroom in support of a nephew scheduled to appear in Municipal Court.
Valentine was advised by the officer that wearing her head scarf inside the courtroom would violate rules set by Judge Keith Rollins, Whisenant said.
According to Whisenant, Valentine said she would not remove the head scarf because that would violate her religious beliefs, and the officer responded that she could not enter the courtroom.
While backing away to leave the metal detector, Whisenant said, Valentine allegedly pointed at the officer while swearing and saying Rollins was “racist.”
A second officer heard the confrontation and came to assist the officer at the metal detector.
“Mrs. Valentine said she was leaving but continued to make accusations,” Whisenant said. “At that point, the officer advised Mrs. Valentine she was not free to leave and placed her hand on Mrs. Valentine’s wrist. Mrs. Valentine resisted the officer’s efforts by stiffening her arm but did not physically fight with the officer.”
Valentine was then taken to a holding cell inside the municipal court building.
“Her head scarf was removed in accordance with procedures for persons detained in the holding cell,” Whisenant said.
Judge Rollins was informed of the incident, and he later charged Valentine with contempt because of the commotion near the metal detector and sentenced her to 10 days in jail.
“Newspaper reports that Mrs. Valentine was jailed for failing to remove her head scarf are absolutely untrue. Judge Rollins ordered Mrs. Valentine jailed for 10 days on the contempt,” Whisenant said.
When Whisenant’s senior staff became aware of Valentine’s arrest, an investigation was instituted.
“As soon as it was determined that no fight took place, but that Mrs. Valentine’s actions were primarily verbal and her resistance passive, the chief of police approached the judge, explained the results of the investigation and asked that the contempt order be rescinded,” Whisenant said. “The judge immediately rescinded the order after the new information was provided to him by the police chief, and Mrs. Valentine was immediately released.”
After reiterating that Valentine’s arrest was not directly linked to the head scarf, Whisenant said this incident might have been avoided if the arresting officer had done a better job communicating the court’s rules to Valentine.
“It is apparent that this situation escalated because of a serious breakdown in communication between a court officer and a member of the public who had come to court for the purpose of supporting a family member,” Whisenant said.
Whisenant said Judge Rollins’ rules prohibit the wearing of any kind of headgear inside the courtroom, but concessions have been made in the past due to a person’s religious beliefs.
“The judge has also made an accommodation for those people who, for legitimate health, religious, or other serious reasons, either cannot remove the headgear or, where doing so, would subject them to violating religious tenants or suffer extreme embarrassment or distress,” Whisenant said. “In such cases, the judge has heard cases involving those people outside the courtroom at another location.”
Whisenant added a similar arrangement would have been made for Valentine and her nephew’s case if she had been aware of this “accommodation policy.”
“Unfortunately, in this instance, the breakdown in communication between Mrs. Valentine and the officer precluded an alternate hearing location from being established,” Whisenant said.
https://douglasnews07.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/douglasville-police-deny-arrest-linked-to-scarf/
Article:
Douglasville Police Chief Joe Whisenant said Monday at a press conference in the City Council chambers a Dec. 16 arrest of a woman in Municipal Court was tied to a contempt charge and had nothing to do with her refusal to remove a Muslim head scarf.
Whisenant presented a detailed version of the incidents that led to the arrest of Lisa Valentine, 40, for the contempt of court charge.
According to Whisenant, Valentine was stopped at the metal detector by an officer when she attempted to enter the courtroom in support of a nephew scheduled to appear in Municipal Court.
Valentine was advised by the officer that wearing her head scarf inside the courtroom would violate rules set by Judge Keith Rollins, Whisenant said.
According to Whisenant, Valentine said she would not remove the head scarf because that would violate her religious beliefs, and the officer responded that she could not enter the courtroom.
While backing away to leave the metal detector, Whisenant said, Valentine allegedly pointed at the officer while swearing and saying Rollins was “racist.”
A second officer heard the confrontation and came to assist the officer at the metal detector.
“Mrs. Valentine said she was leaving but continued to make accusations,” Whisenant said. “At that point, the officer advised Mrs. Valentine she was not free to leave and placed her hand on Mrs. Valentine’s wrist. Mrs. Valentine resisted the officer’s efforts by stiffening her arm but did not physically fight with the officer.”
Valentine was then taken to a holding cell inside the municipal court building.
“Her head scarf was removed in accordance with procedures for persons detained in the holding cell,” Whisenant said.
Judge Rollins was informed of the incident, and he later charged Valentine with contempt because of the commotion near the metal detector and sentenced her to 10 days in jail.
“Newspaper reports that Mrs. Valentine was jailed for failing to remove her head scarf are absolutely untrue. Judge Rollins ordered Mrs. Valentine jailed for 10 days on the contempt,” Whisenant said.
When Whisenant’s senior staff became aware of Valentine’s arrest, an investigation was instituted.
“As soon as it was determined that no fight took place, but that Mrs. Valentine’s actions were primarily verbal and her resistance passive, the chief of police approached the judge, explained the results of the investigation and asked that the contempt order be rescinded,” Whisenant said. “The judge immediately rescinded the order after the new information was provided to him by the police chief, and Mrs. Valentine was immediately released.”
After reiterating that Valentine’s arrest was not directly linked to the head scarf, Whisenant said this incident might have been avoided if the arresting officer had done a better job communicating the court’s rules to Valentine.
“It is apparent that this situation escalated because of a serious breakdown in communication between a court officer and a member of the public who had come to court for the purpose of supporting a family member,” Whisenant said.
Whisenant said Judge Rollins’ rules prohibit the wearing of any kind of headgear inside the courtroom, but concessions have been made in the past due to a person’s religious beliefs.
“The judge has also made an accommodation for those people who, for legitimate health, religious, or other serious reasons, either cannot remove the headgear or, where doing so, would subject them to violating religious tenants or suffer extreme embarrassment or distress,” Whisenant said. “In such cases, the judge has heard cases involving those people outside the courtroom at another location.”
Whisenant added a similar arrangement would have been made for Valentine and her nephew’s case if she had been aware of this “accommodation policy.”
“Unfortunately, in this instance, the breakdown in communication between Mrs. Valentine and the officer precluded an alternate hearing location from being established,” Whisenant said.
https://douglasnews07.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/douglasville-police-deny-arrest-linked-to-scarf/
Last edited:
It's good to hear that the judge would have allowed the headscarf, but why didn't the security people know that?
And the police chief is wrong to say it had nothing to do with her headscarf - it had everything to do with it. She went to jail because some officious security officer didn't know the actual rules he was "enforcing".
So the upshot is the judge wouldn't have made a nun remove her wimple - but neither would he have made this lady remover her headscarf.
And the police chief is wrong to say it had nothing to do with her headscarf - it had everything to do with it. She went to jail because some officious security officer didn't know the actual rules he was "enforcing".
So the upshot is the judge wouldn't have made a nun remove her wimple - but neither would he have made this lady remover her headscarf.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I loves me some conservative hypocrisy in da morning' ...