• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michigan courts given leeway to force veil removal

Reasonable request.
There is no need to cover face in a court and no it does not infringe her right to practice seeing the niqab is not a religious practice in any shape or form.

YEH !! That makes sense since that nitbob thing you mentioned is a cultural thing not a relligious item.
 
YEH !! That makes sense since that nitbob thing you mentioned is a cultural thing not a relligious item.

The hijab is a religious object, if that was asked to be removed. Then she would be right to refuse. The niqab is not nor has it ever been part of Islam and compulsory. It is a cultural practice inherited from pre islamic traditions and incoporated later on.
 
Many Arab Muslim women consider it to be religious in nature.

If a judge asked a Christian to take off a particularly disruptive crucifix, that Christian would have to comply even though the crucifix is "religious in nature".
 
If a judge asked a Christian to take off a particularly disruptive crucifix, that Christian would have to comply even though the crucifix is "religious in nature".

I'm trying to imagine how exactly a crucifix could be particularly disruptive, but my imagination is failing me. :roll:

Absent a compelling reason, judges should not be interfering with people's religious beliefs. And I don't see any compelling reason in this case.
 
I'm trying to imagine how exactly a crucifix could be particularly disruptive, but my imagination is failing me. :roll:

Well it's the same way a T-shirt with a bible quote or a religious signature on a member's profile is "hate speech".

Absent a compelling reason, judges should not be interfering with people's religious beliefs. And I don't see any compelling reason in this case.

Of course you don't see a compelling reason, you support students wearing pitot costumes into the class in support of a bogus 'religion' :lol:

I mean if you don't see what's wrong with that then your judgment is pretty wak.
 
Well it's the same way a T-shirt with a bible quote or a religious signature on a member's profile is "hate speech".



Of course you don't see a compelling reason, you support students wearing pitot costumes into the class in support of a bogus 'religion' :lol:

I mean if you don't see what's wrong with that then your judgment is pretty wak.

When, where, and what was the case of anyone being charged for "hate speech" over a bible quote or a religious signiture ? Was it maybe a school administrator banning a student for something such as "Jesus hates qeeers". ?
 
If a judge asked a Christian to take off a particularly disruptive crucifix, that Christian would have to comply even though the crucifix is "religious in nature".

I also would like to know what exactly is a "disruptive crucifix"! Is it one that has flashing red lights where the nails are and running neon red lights in the side gash? Otherwise I do not comprehend a "particularly disruptive crucifix".
 
Well it's the same way a T-shirt with a bible quote or a religious signature on a member's profile is "hate speech".

I don't know what you're referring to, but a judge has no business making someone cover up a T-shirt with a Bible quote on it. I'd question why they were wearing a T-shirt in a courtroom in the first place, but that's a different topic. ;)

Jerry said:
Of course you don't see a compelling reason, you support students wearing pitot costumes into the class in support of a bogus 'religion' :lol:

I mean if you don't see what's wrong with that then your judgment is pretty wak.

Now I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. But I suspect that was your intention.
 
I also would like to know what exactly is a "disruptive crucifix"! Is it one that has flashing red lights where the nails are and running neon red lights in the side gash? Otherwise I do not comprehend a "particularly disruptive crucifix".

Google FTW :2wave:
 
I don't know what you're referring to...

So after a couple days do you just forget threads we have here on students wearing t-shirts quoting homosexuality as a sin and how you people call such shirts hate speech? Or do you only forget about the pastapherians with ACLU lawyers who sue the school district for making them change out of their pirate costumes? Bong Hits for Jesus ring a bell? No? Short memory you have.

but a judge has no business making someone cover up a T-shirt with a Bible quote on it. I'd question why they were wearing a T-shirt in a courtroom in the first place, but that's a different topic. ;)

...talkin about "disruptive" religious clothing per-se, not neseseraly what happened in a court room...tryin to make a specific point here and you just aren't following along...
 
She said nothing about them taking over the country.

It has more to do with moving the bar by demanding special accomidations. THis has proven a successful strategy in the U.K. where the accomidations have now become such that certain practices of Sharia law now receive the full support of the British legal system.

This is a POLITICAL move aimed at exerting pressure upon our own legal system towards similar ends (althouth the position reached in the U.K. is by no means an endpoint).
Do you have proof about these allegations towards Britain? I know that the gov't is very PC and out of control but I don't believe what you are saying about Sharia law is correct. Not that the right of a private person to wear a veil is Sharia law.
 
30 years lol. Around the same time we let black people drink from the same fountains as white people. The same time gays were killed because they were gay. That was soooooooooo long ago.
Well Society has to have ritualized disdain for someone! Today smokers, the overweight and the unborn are acceptable victims.
 
I don't know what you're referring to, but a judge has no business making someone cover up a T-shirt with a Bible quote on it. I'd question why they were wearing a T-shirt in a courtroom in the first place, but that's a different topic. ;)

Now I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. But I suspect that was your intention.

Actually a judge can eject a person or hold them in contempt of court for being inappropriately dressed.
 
I also would like to know what exactly is a "disruptive crucifix"! Is it one that has flashing red lights where the nails are and running neon red lights in the side gash? Otherwise I do not comprehend a "particularly disruptive crucifix".

Google FTW :2wave:

I think Jerry's talking about the high school student who came into school wearing an over-sized cross that doubled as an electric guitar.
 
Do you have proof about these allegations towards Britain? I know that the gov't is very PC and out of control but I don't believe what you are saying about Sharia law is correct. Not that the right of a private person to wear a veil is Sharia law.

Read it and weep. If Americans don't think this is the goal of Islamics in some sections of the U.S., they're delusional.

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts -Times Online

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom