State of Protest

A few months ago, I posted an article criticizing the greatly increasing idea that over-tolerance for religious tradition should trump practical necessity. In particular, I cited a case in which a judge in Britain disallowed a Muslim attorney from advocating in court because her refusal to remove her traditional Muslim head garb made her difficult to understand and ineffective as a counselor. I proffered that it was a reasonable infringement upon “custom,” and that its purpose was not to oppress religious practice, but, instead, to facilitate something necessary, for the sake of society and government effectiveness.

On Tuesday, a judge in Georgia charged a Muslim woman with contempt of court and ordered her jailed for ten days because she refused to take off her head scarf at a courthouse security checkpoint.¹ Although she didn’t serve her full sentence, due to the intervention of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, she claims her civil rights had been violated, and she was reminded of the stories she had heard about the civil rights strife in the southern U.S. ²

The incident shouldn’t remind her of such stories. The premise is distinctly different. In the south, black people were segregated and barred from entry from places solely because of the color of their skin. That was the litmus test sufficient to perpetuate that heinous behavior. Lisa Valentine, the alleged victim of the civil rights infringement in this story, however, was not punished arbitrarily for having an attribute that was genetically gifted to her. She was punished for wearing a piece of clothing on her head that she insisted remain on her head, presumably to honor and obey her husband, Islam, and Allah. Her reasoning is irrelevant. The practical nature of the request to have her head scarf removed trumped her religious preference specifically because of the narrow scope of that request — that it was for the purpose of safety and security in a government operated public facility. In short, it’s hard to identify someone on security tape footage if that person’s head is covered.

How do we test this to determine whether Mrs. Valentine was being unjustly singled out for her religion? Walk into a Georgia courthouse wearing a motorcycle helmet, and then refuse to remove it, because, you’ll claim, “It violates my civil rights to have my cherished helmet removed.” For whatever reason you’ve donned such garb, it will be insufficient to override the universally applied restriction. You’d have to take off your helmet. I’d have to take off my baseball cap. It’s the same idea as if someone at an airport refused to succumb to a wand search, or removal of shoes. Regardless of the reason, religious, secular, paranoia, custom — that person would be refused access to the planes, and would likely spend a few hours in interrogation.

So, instead of a passive trait, such as skin color, being the target of hate-filled men with prejudice, where everyone possessing that characteristic would be equally mistreated, this is a case of a choice, an action that the actor tries to justify using religion and culture, being barred in a narrow circumstance, applied only to those who act similarly in that circumstance.

Although there is apparently no state law permitting or prohibiting head scarfs, it’s the discretion of the judge and sheriffs whether to allow or disallow them, and the courthouse security officers enforce that decision. I really would like to see if someone wearing a baseball cap could get through security. If that happened, then it’s obvious that there is a double standard at that courthouse, and Mrs. Valentine’s rights were, indeed, violated.

Despite my overall argument that religious rights should have no extra bonuses over basic civil rights, due process, and free speech, among other things, I must confess that I have serious issues with any decision a judge in the U.S. makes regarding religious tolerance or intolerance when that judge quite likely has on the wall behind him the big, bold words, “In God We Trust.”³

-Procrustes

1. Last year, the same judge apparently did the same thing to a different Muslim woman. [<]
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/muslim-woman-jailed-over-_n_151858.html [<]
3. According to Wikipedia, “In God We Trust is found on the flag of Georgia, flag of Florida, and the Seal of Florida. It was first adopted by the state of Georgia for use on flags in 2001, and subsequently included on the Georgia flag of 2003.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust [<]

Tags: Allah, America, attorney, ban, Britain, Civil Rights, Constitution, Contempt of court, Council on American-Islamic Relations, ethics, First Amendment, Florida, free speech, Freedom of speech, Georgia, god, Government, Huffington, islam, Islamic, Law, Lisa Valentine, Muslim, Procrustes, Religion, rights, Seal of Florida, secular, Sexuality, tolerance, United States, valentine

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 18th, 2008 at 9:25 am and is filed under Government, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.