Special Rights For Religious People

Two stories that really get my blood pressure up.


A Douglasville woman was jailed Tuesday after a judge found her in contempt of court for refusing to remove her hijab, the head covering worn by Muslim women.

Lisa Valentine, also known by her Islamic name, Miedah, 40, was arrested at the Douglasville Municipal Court for violating a court policy of no headgear, said Chris Womack, deputy chief of operations for the Douglasville police.

Judge has a rule against headwear. Might be a wise rule, might be dumb rule. Either way, it’s a rule. She violated it. Ought to be end of story, but oh no, she has a religious excuse, so now we have to endure this self-righteous crap:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an advocacy group in Washington, denounced Valentine’s arrest as a violation of civil liberties.

Spokesman Ibrahim Hooper called it “troubling.”

“When somebody is denied access to our judicial system based on religiously mandated attire, then what does that say? No Muslim woman can have access to a courtroom in Douglasville, Georgia?” Hooper said. . . .

Hooper said he contacted the U.S. attorney general’s office regarding the latest incident. He said Eric Treene, special counsel for religious discrimination, said his office would look into it.

Give me a break. If you want access to the courtroom, do like everyone else and take the hat off. If that upsets your silly beliefs too much, then stay home and face the penalty. But don’t tell the rest of us we’re somehow the cause of your problem.

Here’s the second one:

Health care workers, hospitals and even entire insurance companies could decline to perform, refer or pay for abortion or any other health care practice that violates a “religious belief or moral conviction” under new rules issued by the outgoing Bush administration.

That’s the same self-centered crap as CAIR is shovelling. I have no problem with a company or a self-employed individual refusing to perform any procedure. But if you work at a hospital or a pharmacy, or wherever, and you won’t perform the services you are required to perform? You ought to pay the penalty. I don’t care what the excuse is.

The really infuriating part is the one about not even referring a patient elsewhere for a procedure with which the provider has religious problems. Fine, your cult tells you blood donations are evil. Don’t do the procedure. But at least explain why you won’t do it and refer the patient to someone who has a different belief. Give the patient the choice. It’s their life at stake. Hell, it’s their soul, too. But what this regulation does is say that someone can be so certain about what God supposedly wants that they can literally hide the cure from a sick or dying patient. Insane.

I’m sorry, this just aggravates me. If Bush and CAIR had their way, the law would apply to everyone except people who shared Bush and CAIR’s imaginary friends.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

5 Comments on “Special Rights For Religious People”

  1. ttownfeen Says:

    Disagree with you completely on the first one. The wearing of the hijab is not some willy-nilly fashion decision made by Muslim woman. It’s no different than then those orthodox Jewish men who keep a long beard. Would you support the decision to have them arrested if they refused to shave it because there was a rule that you have to be clean-shaven to enter the courthouse? (The no-headgear rule is equally stupid – whatever you can hide in a hat you can hide in a beard.)

  2. wheeler Says:

    yes. equal rules for all.

    i ought to have added, though, that if the judge is not in the habit of applying his no hat rule to everyone, this is a totally different case.

  3. Dumbass libera Says:

    The Hijab is not a mandate. It is a cultural custom that islamists use to push their religious agenda, Hair is part of the body, So the argument is dumb. Comparing the performance to an abortion to removing ones hat is mind boggling iodiotic.

  4. ttownfeen Says:

    Not sure where you got that the hijab was a mandate on Muslim women. It’s a choice that one can make, but its not that same as deciding to wear a scarf over your hair because you think it looks cool (or whatever goes through a woman’s mind while dressing).

  5. Murali Says:

    We can treat it as a mandate because different sects of Muslims have different standards. Neutrality with respect to religion also means that you have to respect different denominations. Assume an alternate dimension where the law says that no one is allowed to wear clothes other than underwear inside the court. This is of course perfectly fine with everybody else. However there is some minority group which has an old fashioned sense of prudery which nobody else really follows. Moreover, let us call this group C-ists. Now there are different types if C-ists. The more liberal ones have no problem with just wearing their underwear. They are sufficiently modernised and in tune with the rest of society. However, certain sects believe that they must at least wear a shirt or maybe a pants and a shirt in public. As far as they are concerned, their particular interpretations of their religion/ belief requires them to do so. We, without good reason cannot favour particular interpretations over others. And some stupid rule about headgear is not good enough

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: