| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"L. Raymond" |
| Date: |
01 Sep 2007 02:27:29 AM |
| Object: |
Darn that religion hating ACLU |
It looks like the ACLU has struck again. But I guess our fundy friends
will just say they'll only move to defend non-Christians.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5100291.html
DALLAS ¡X A justice of the peace was sued Friday for allegedly ordering a
man from his courtroom for refusing to remove his turban while defending
himself in a traffic citation case.
The lawsuit charges that Judge Albert B. Cercone violated Amardeep
Singh's religious rights because the turban is a religious article for
Sikh men.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on Singh's behalf
in state district court in Dallas. It asked that Cercone and other
judges be prohibited from forcing people to remove clothing required by
their religion.
Singh said he tried to enter Cercone's courtroom in June 2006 to contest
a speeding ticket, but a guard barred him under a policy barring hats,
and court personnel told him to speak to the judge.
Singh said he tried to explain that his faith requires wearing a turban
but that the judge ordered him to leave the courtroom or face arrest.
According to the lawsuit, Singh consulted his uncle, a high priest,
before removing the turban and putting his uncut hair in a pony tail to
return to the courtroom in a "personally compromising and humiliating
position."
The judge did not respond immediately to a request for comment left with
his staff.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darn that religion hating ACLU |
01 Sep 2007 04:26:00 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 02:27:29 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
It looks like the ACLU has struck again. But I guess our fundy friends
will just say they'll only move to defend non-Christians.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5100291.html
DALLAS ?X A justice of the peace was sued Friday for allegedly ordering a
man from his courtroom for refusing to remove his turban while defending
himself in a traffic citation case.
The lawsuit charges that Judge Albert B. Cercone violated Amardeep
Singh's religious rights because the turban is a religious article for
Sikh men.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on Singh's behalf
in state district court in Dallas. It asked that Cercone and other
judges be prohibited from forcing people to remove clothing required by
their religion.
Singh said he tried to enter Cercone's courtroom in June 2006 to contest
a speeding ticket, but a guard barred him under a policy barring hats,
and court personnel told him to speak to the judge.
Singh said he tried to explain that his faith requires wearing a turban
but that the judge ordered him to leave the courtroom or face arrest.
According to the lawsuit, Singh consulted his uncle, a high priest,
before removing the turban and putting his uncut hair in a pony tail to
return to the courtroom in a "personally compromising and humiliating
position."
The judge did not respond immediately to a request for comment left with
his staff.
Sikh, and ye shall fined.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob N. Enweiven" |
|
| Title: Re: Darn that religion hating ACLU |
01 Sep 2007 09:27:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 02:27:29 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
It looks like the ACLU has struck again. But I guess our fundy friends
will just say they'll only move to defend non-Christians.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5100291.html
DALLAS ¡X A justice of the peace was sued Friday for allegedly ordering a
man from his courtroom for refusing to remove his turban while defending
himself in a traffic citation case.
The lawsuit charges that Judge Albert B. Cercone violated Amardeep
Singh's religious rights because the turban is a religious article for
Sikh men.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on Singh's behalf
in state district court in Dallas. It asked that Cercone and other
judges be prohibited from forcing people to remove clothing required by
their religion.
Singh said he tried to enter Cercone's courtroom in June 2006 to contest
a speeding ticket, but a guard barred him under a policy barring hats,
and court personnel told him to speak to the judge.
Singh said he tried to explain that his faith requires wearing a turban
but that the judge ordered him to leave the courtroom or face arrest.
According to the lawsuit, Singh consulted his uncle, a high priest,
before removing the turban and putting his uncut hair in a pony tail to
return to the courtroom in a "personally compromising and humiliating
position."
The judge did not respond immediately to a request for comment left with
his staff.
Why should religion get special treatment? What if a man feels
"personally compromised and humiliated" because forcing him to remove
his hat exposes his bald spot?
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Darn that religion hating ACLU |
01 Sep 2007 01:53:25 PM |
|
|
Bob N. Enweiven wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
According to the lawsuit, Singh consulted his uncle, a high priest,
before removing the turban and putting his uncut hair in a pony tail to
return to the courtroom in a "personally compromising and humiliating
position."
The judge did not respond immediately to a request for comment left with
his staff.
Why should religion get special treatment? What if a man feels
"personally compromised and humiliated" because forcing him to remove
his hat exposes his bald spot?
That's always been my question. For some reason in the US it's
considered a sacred duty to give in when someone whines because he
really, *really* thinks some weird thing is true, like removing a hat is
embarrassing.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: Darn that religion hating ACLU |
01 Sep 2007 06:29:21 PM |
|
|
In article <1vxrs3t6phtwa.12wok8c195lh5.dlg@40tude.net>, L. Raymond wrote:
Bob N. Enweiven wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
According to the lawsuit, Singh consulted his uncle, a high priest,
before removing the turban and putting his uncut hair in a pony tail to
return to the courtroom in a "personally compromising and humiliating
position."
The judge did not respond immediately to a request for comment left with
his staff.
Why should religion get special treatment? What if a man feels
"personally compromised and humiliated" because forcing him to remove
his hat exposes his bald spot?
That's always been my question. For some reason in the US it's
considered a sacred duty to give in when someone whines because he
really, *really* thinks some weird thing is true, like removing a hat is
embarrassing.
The other question is why the hat ban; does it serve a secular
purpose? Also did it apply to men and women and to all headgear?
Would the judge have ordered a nun to remove her headdress? Note that
removing hats by men is considered a sign of respect to a superior so
one reason and probably the primary one for the hat ban may have been
to enforce respect for the judge. Male Quakers at one time were
rather notorious for not doffing their hats (at a time all men wore
hats) to superiors including judges since they considered all men
equals.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darn that religion hating ACLU |
01 Sep 2007 11:51:37 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:27:33 GMT, Bob N. Enweiven <blah@blahhhh.com>
wrote:
Why should religion get special treatment? What if a man feels
"personally compromised and humiliated" because forcing him to remove
his hat exposes his bald spot?
Register as a religion, make it a tenet of the religion that removing
your hat in public is a sin and demand that your religion be
respected. (And apply for a grant from the government, so you don't
waste the entire day.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Darn that religion hating ACLU |
01 Sep 2007 06:55:50 PM |
|
|
On Sep 1, 10:27 am, Bob N. Enweiven <b...@blahhhh.com> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 02:27:29 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
It looks like the ACLU has struck again. But I guess our fundy friends
will just say they'll only move to defend non-Christians.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5100291.html
DALLAS X A justice of the peace was sued Friday for allegedly ordering a
man from his courtroom for refusing to remove his turban while defending
himself in a traffic citation case.
The lawsuit charges that Judge Albert B. Cercone violated Amardeep
Singh's religious rights because the turban is a religious article for
Sikh men.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on Singh's behalf
in state district court in Dallas. It asked that Cercone and other
judges be prohibited from forcing people to remove clothing required by
their religion.
Singh said he tried to enter Cercone's courtroom in June 2006 to contest
a speeding ticket, but a guard barred him under a policy barring hats,
and court personnel told him to speak to the judge.
Singh said he tried to explain that his faith requires wearing a turban
but that the judge ordered him to leave the courtroom or face arrest.
According to the lawsuit, Singh consulted his uncle, a high priest,
before removing the turban and putting his uncut hair in a pony tail to
return to the courtroom in a "personally compromising and humiliating
position."
The judge did not respond immediately to a request for comment left with
his staff.
Why should religion get special treatment? What if a man feels
"personally compromised and humiliated" because forcing him to remove
his hat exposes his bald spot?- Hide quoted text -
Religion get special treatment up to a point, the court tradition of
removing your hat to show respect is not as important to the court as
the persons religous need to cover their head is to them. If the
opposite was true, lets say someone whom had a religion that held
wearing clothes was a sin, the court can treat it as irrelavent.
I'm not saying this is right, just how things happen in practice. It
also has the unfortunate side effect of supporting the tenents of the
majority religon over the minority because they conincide historically
with ritual behaviors of the court of the land.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Darn that religion hating ACLU |
01 Sep 2007 05:18:01 AM |
|
|
On Sep 1, 3:27 am, "L. Raymond" <badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
It looks like the ACLU has struck again. But I guess our fundy friends
will just say they'll only move to defend non-Christians.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5100291.html
DALLAS - A justice of the peace was sued Friday for allegedly ordering a
man from his courtroom for refusing to remove his turban while defending
himself in a traffic citation case.
The lawsuit charges that Judge Albert B. Cercone violated Amardeep
Singh's religious rights because the turban is a religious article for
Sikh men.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on Singh's behalf
in state district court in Dallas. It asked that Cercone and other
judges be prohibited from forcing people to remove clothing required by
their religion.
Singh said he tried to enter Cercone's courtroom in June 2006 to contest
a speeding ticket, but a guard barred him under a policy barring hats,
and court personnel told him to speak to the judge.
Singh said he tried to explain that his faith requires wearing a turban
but that the judge ordered him to leave the courtroom or face arrest.
According to the lawsuit, Singh consulted his uncle, a high priest,
before removing the turban and putting his uncut hair in a pony tail to
return to the courtroom in a "personally compromising and humiliating
position."
The judge did not respond immediately to a request for comment left with
his staff.
No. No. No. You've got it all wrong. It's ok to discriminate against
religion as long as it's not "Christian"
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Darn that religion hating ACLU |
01 Sep 2007 06:00:29 AM |
|
|
Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
No. No. No. You've got it all wrong. It's ok to discriminate
against religion as long as it's not "Christian"
No!
If it isn't "Christian" it's a false religion. A false religion
is no more a religion than a duck lure is really a duck.
And, just as laws regarding the treatment of ducks do
not apply to false ducks (duck lures), laws applying to
religion do not apply to false religions.
Now go and sin no more....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Darn that religion hating ACLU |
01 Sep 2007 08:54:12 AM |
|
|
On Sep 1, 7:00 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
No. No. No. You've got it all wrong. It's ok to discriminate
against religion as long as it's not "Christian"
No!
If it isn't "Christian" it's a false religion. A false religion
is no more a religion than a duck lure is really a duck.
And, just as laws regarding the treatment of ducks do
not apply to false ducks (duck lures), laws applying to
religion do not apply to false religions.
But ALL religions are false religions.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Darn that religion hating ACLU |
07 Oct 2007 05:37:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 06:54:12 -0700, Martin Phipps
<martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 1, 7:00 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
No. No. No. You've got it all wrong. It's ok to discriminate
against religion as long as it's not "Christian"
No!
If it isn't "Christian" it's a false religion. A false religion
is no more a religion than a duck lure is really a duck.
And, just as laws regarding the treatment of ducks do
not apply to false ducks (duck lures), laws applying to
religion do not apply to false religions.
But ALL religions are false religions.
Sure, but there are those who can't handle reality and imbibe the
superstition drug.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
