pretty sure you lose MOST of your rights

[Tilted]

I know you know more than I ever will about the law, and always take great stock in your posts. I just see it as I see it in everyday life and via the news. I am just Mrs. Joe America.

I have to say I wouldn't want to show my parts to anyone that is non-familial, as well. Butt that is how it goes when you get arrested. Pun intended.

What do you think about how Muslims try to circumvent US laws in favor of their own, or want different treatment because of their religion?

I started to type a substantive answer for you, but halfway through I thought - geesh, that response is sounding terribly mealy-mouthed, and that's not the intent, so maybe I should start over another time and for now leave it at this: I think it's way too complicated an issue to get much into tonight.

But let me leave you with a notion to ponder. In your previous post you said:

Religion does not trump the law. Period.

And then in this post you say:

What do you think about how Muslims try to circumvent US laws in favor of their own, or want different treatment because of their religion?

Can you think of any times in recent memory when some Christians might have wanted and fought for much the same thing - e.g., to be treated differently because of their religion, to not have to obey particular laws based on their religious convictions, perhaps where they thought that certain laws or rules weren't proper because those laws or rules impinged on their own religious beliefs or exercise?

If so, because I suspect you can recall such circumstances, what position did you take on those issues? Religion does not trump the law? Period?

 

[mamatutu]

I started to type a substantive answer for you, but halfway through I thought - geesh, that response is sounding terribly mealy-mouthed, and that's not the intent, so maybe I should start over another time and for now leave it at this: I think it's way too complicated an issue to get much into tonight.

But let me leave you with a notion to ponder. In your previous post you said:



And then in this post you say:



Can you think of any times in recent memory when some Christians might have wanted and fought for much the same thing - e.g., to be treated differently because of their religion, to not have to obey particular laws based on their religious convictions, perhaps where they thought that certain laws or rules weren't proper because those laws or rules impinged on their own religious beliefs or exercise?

If so, because I suspect you can recall such circumstances, what position did you take on those issues? Religion does not trump the law? Period?

Yes, we can leave the discussion for another day. I never considered my self mealy-mouthed. I say what I think, and stick to my convictions, and what I believe. I appreciate your response very much.

I know you will be glad when you can play golf again when the weather gets better.

Maybe, I am just in a bad/sad mood because we watched Schindler's List tonight. That combined with our current state of the world makes me think too much. Especially with Liam Neeson's latest comments about guns in America. But, that is not the topic of this thread. At least, I think!

 

[BOP]

Not to mention anything that conceals your identity.

I'm unimpressed with this woman's religious persecution. She was driving on a suspended license, which tells me that she has committed infractions in the past and now feels she doesn't have to abide by the terms of her punishment. She sounds like a Muslim only when it suits her - when she's being arrested, for example.

Isn't the fact that she was driving a car by herself a violation of her religion? The fact that she was unchaperoned in public without a male relation a violation of her religion? Sounds like she's a fair-weather muslim alright.

 

[GregV814]

I can sum this up quite succinctly, "F her". Case closed, next...

 

[Hijinx]

I can sum this up quite succinctly, "F her". Case closed, next...

To me one of the reasons Muslims love America is that they can use our own Constitution against us.
They take every advantage of our Constitution while plotting Sharia law for us when they get strong enough.
We see it happening in other countries and we stand there and allow it to happen here.

Keep giving them rights, and soon ours will be gone.

Yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus, and there are No-Go sections in France.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

I saw a survey about this someone did on fb this morning. Most answers were "if she doesn't like how things are done in this country, she should leave".

Facebook sounds like it's full of sensible people.

 

[BigDogT]

How far does it go........

No, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that - of course the government can compel her to remove something that conceals part of her face in order to finish a reasonable booking process, i.e. to take her picture.

But another bottom line is that we have a federal law in this country that likely (though, again, I'm not entirely convinced it applies here) compels the government - e.g., the arresting officers in this case - to, if it has to substantially burden her sincerely-held religious beliefs in furtherance of a compelling government interest, do so by the least restrictive means. That very well could mean having a female officer take her photo, similar to how some departments have a policy of having female officers do strip searches on female arrestees when necessary.

And then what.....will I be sued for looking at her picture because she did not have her jihab in place...or will the Baynet be sued for publishing her photo, sans jihab, in the crime reports section?.....Just where do her "rights" stop?

 

[GURPS]

Well, I have no problem believing that many Muslim women sincerely believe that they should not expose certain parts of their bodies to non-familial men.

I am going to go out on a limb here and state ONLY Saracens will get this special treatment ..... because everyone is afraid of them.

 

[PsyOps]

Can you think of any times in recent memory when some Christians might have wanted and fought for much the same thing - e.g., to be treated differently because of their religion, to not have to obey particular laws based on their religious convictions, perhaps where they thought that certain laws or rules weren't proper because those laws or rules impinged on their own religious beliefs or exercise?

If so, because I suspect you can recall such circumstances, what position did you take on those issues? Religion does not trump the law? Period?

Would you be referring to the ACA and the mandate for providing contraception (Hobby Lobby)? Is there an immediate public safety issue here? I think most of us would agree that our rights end where exercising those rights puts our immediate safety at risk.

 

[PsyOps]

And then what.....will I be sued for looking at her picture because she did not have her jihab in place...or will the Baynet be sued for publishing her photo, sans jihab, in the crime reports section?.....Just where do her "rights" stop?

When it's believed the public safety is at risk. Being arrested can result in a hostile environment, and cops never know their subject and how they might react to being arrested. It's always assumed they could become a threat in a snap.

 

[itsrequired]

I might have a different take on this, but I think the jails are going to have to rethink their policies. They can get paper hijabs so as not to endanger the inmate, but should make reasonable accomidations when possible. That doesn't mean her religious rights, and she still has religious rights, should trump safety, but when possible accomidations should be made.

 

[PsyOps]

I might have a different take on this, but I think the jails are going to have to rethink their policies. They can get paper hijabs so as not to endanger the inmate, but should make reasonable accomidations when possible. That doesn't mean her religious rights, and she still has religious rights, should trump safety, but when possible accomidations should be made.

I'm all for solutions to answer for these things. I want peoples' rights to be preserved when all possible. But, in your instance... how does a woman get into this 'paper hijab'? Doesn't someone still have to witness her changing to ensure no weapons are on her person? I mean that's the whole point right?

 

[itsrequired]

I'm all for solutions to answer for these things. I want peoples' rights to be preserved when all possible. But, in your instance... how does a woman get into this 'paper hijab'? Doesn't someone still have to witness her changing to ensure no weapons are on her person? I mean that's the whole point right?

When she comes into the jail, she is searched. That is done in private by a female guard. At that time, if they are going to be staying they are given jail clothing. It's not rocket science.

 

[Midnightrider]

I'm all for solutions to answer for these things. I want peoples' rights to be preserved when all possible. But, in your instance... how does a woman get into this 'paper hijab'? Doesn't someone still have to witness her changing to ensure no weapons are on her person? I mean that's the whole point right?

what part of "her issue is that she was forced to remove her headdress in front of MEN" dont you understand?

THATS the whole point....

 

[PsyOps]

When she comes into the jail, she is searched. That is done in private by a female guard. At that time, if they are going to be staying they are given jail clothing. It's not rocket science.

This assumes that a non-family female is acceptable. This is where my understanding of the different facets of their religion ends. Turkish Muslims are likely to have less a problem with this sort of thing than say, a Saudi Muslim; who are far more fundamental in their thinking. And, would they consider a 'paper hijab' also a violation considering it was not provided by a Muslim? I think there are a lot of angles you aren't considering here. Many Muslims (particularly women) are considered unclean if even touched by a non-Muslim.

 

[itsrequired]

This assumes that a non-family female is acceptable. This is where my understanding of the different facets of their religion ends. Turkish Muslims are likely to have less a problem with this sort of thing than say, a Saudi Muslim; who are far more fundamental in their thinking. And, would they consider a 'paper hijab' also a violation considering it was not provided by a Muslim? I think there are a lot of angles you aren't considering here. Many Muslims (particularly women) are considered unclean if even touched by a non-Muslim.

Now you are simply being obtuse. There is no complaint about a woman seeing her without her hijab, it was about men. You seem to lose the word "reasonable" accomadations.

 

[Hijinx]

Interesting that of all the posts made, you were the only one that called the head cover a rag.

Go ahead say it. Don't just think it. LOL

 

[Hijinx]

Now you are simply being obtuse. There is no complaint about a woman seeing her without her hijab, it was about men. You seem to lose the word "reasonable" accomadations.

Some of the women guards are more likely to make a pass at her than the men. This is 2015

 

[itsrequired]

Some of the women guards are more likely to make a pass at her than the men. This is 2015

You're point is?

 

[Midnightrider]

Go ahead say it. Don't just think it. LOL

he did.....