Jump to navigation
The Religion Exemption
R. Alex Whitlock
The Justice Department has seen fit to
defend a young Muslim girl's right to wear a head scarf despite the fact that it runs against an Oklahoma school's dress code.
Good.
This is a no-brainer in my mind. Freedom of religious expression is clearly outlined in the constitution. If one's religion obligates someone to wear a head scarf or
kippah, then I believe a district is obligated to bend the dress code accordingly. There are practical limits to this freedom (wearing a full burqua for identification photos, for instance), but I maintain that the freedom of religious expression must be upheld to the greatest extent possible, and that's not what the Oklahoma school is doing.
I am curious, however, how liberals feel on the matter. I'm not being facitious, but rather I can see a genuine conflict. The ACLU and their ilk consistently argue that the government should not recognize or make exceptions for religious organizations. I disagree with this position, but I can see how one can earnestly come by it if they accept that the only freedom of religion is freedom from religion.
On the other hand, liberals (who may or may not be the same or different liberals than ones that make the above argument) also take great moral pleasure in defending the rights of minorities. Followers of Islam definitely minority in this country and in some circles a very unpopular minority. If anyone is going to take up this girl's cause, it ought to be liberals.
So how does a good liberal respond on this issue?
Conservatives, for their part, may be equally in a bind. Since social conservatives in this country are generally of the Christian faith, they might see the bending of the rules for Muslims or Jews as a special protection that they are not afforded. Some might argue that a head scarf does not fall within freedom of religious expression, but given their stances when it comes to their own religion, this strikes me as somewhat hypocritical. I view the conservative position as pretty clearly being the same as the Justice Department's.
How do my conservative readers feel about the subject?
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
Observations
>> Freedom of religious expression is clearly outlined in the constitution. <<
Really? Please point me to the exact phrase guaranteeing that freedom.
You can't.
The Constitution clearly forbids Congress from making laws establishing religion and infringing speech. The rest (incorporation and the transformation of such limitations on federal government into a million "freedom of" rights applicable to states) has been effected much more recently, with scant textual support (usually relying on the catch-all 14th amendment).
This decision is entirely political. My questions are, is the person driving federal intervention in the suit a Reno holdover, or is this driven from higher up by an Administration that's dedicated to the proposition that Islam is a religion of peace and shall be accommodated in the public sphere to score political points, localities (and a proper view of federalism) be damned?
Justice should have stayed out of this one.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or *prohibiting the free exercise thereof.*
Like a score of such clauses, it bans only Congress from making such laws, but has since been expanded to include state and often local governments. Utah can't mandate statewide Mormonism; Texas can't ban long words or speech critical of Perry. Figured you knew that.
As for the government involvement; well, if it's a public school, a state school, then it's up to the government to see that things run by the government aren't acting in ways the government is explicitly not allowed to. Suspending a girl from school for the free expression of religion, a free expression that does not conflict with the goal of education, is something that state schools should not do, no matter what the religion.
So, that's what I think. :)
I meant to say "free exercise of religion, a free exercise..." in that last paragraph.
I agree with Adrianne. This falls under the free exercise clause.
As one of your more "liberal" readers, I think the Justice Department is correct in this one as well.
I also don't think there's a core conflict as you do. The ACLU might argue that the government should not make exceptions for religious organizations, but this isn't an organization, this is a person trying to exercise their religious freedom.
I don't think the ACLU is the best example on this view of religious freedom. For one, this would not be viewed as an exception for a specific religion. This would be viewed by the ACLU as one's right to wear religious garments in general. The ACLU is out to protect the civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution. The exercise of religion is a protected freedom in the Constitution as noted, so the ACLU's position would be to support that person's exercising of the freedom, not try to stop them. As long as the question is "Are students allowed to wear religious garments in schools with dress codes?" rather than "Are Muslims (but not other religions) allowed to wear religious gamrents in schools with dress codes?", then the ACLU should support the Justice Department and there is no conflict.
Anyone else who argues that all religion should be removed from everywhere to "maintain" freedom of religion, then I consider them a too far vocal and wacko minority.
What people (especially athiests) have to remember is that atheism is a religion just like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindusim, Wicca, etc... They have their set of beliefs and we have ours. If Christians and other religious people, on the left and right, feel that "freedom from religion" athiests have pushed organized religion out of public life, then the way to balance that is to frame the debate in those terms, that everyone has a religion. If done right, their own arguments could be used against them. They shout they don't want God "forced down their throats", we shout that we don't want thier Godless religion forced down ours.
Hopefully once I get my website up and running, I'll be able to address that. I've got the URL, I just have to come up with the content now.
I agree with both Adrianne and Adam.
And, dejectedly and grudgingly, I suppose with Owen, too. ;-)
P.S. Alex--how come the remember me function won't work on my browser?
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
