We left off from a previous article, we were in the notion of change. In the event that any judge legislates from the bench, or even worse, if a particular matter is found just a bit outside of the exact language of the Constitution, when trial is over and the dust has settled, then and only then the case gets what is referred to as a “Precedent” which something not found precisely within the law, or if a judge has used his legislative powers the case therefore becomes landmark.
From that point on any city, county, state, or federal court can cite the precedent and if there is merit then that case becomes altered in lieu of its precedents. We have written scores of articles over the years at this website warning of vague language on behalf of the court; moreover, language that inspire people to do something that goes against the very document they’ve sworn by oath to uphold – The U.S. Constitution.
So for today we have brought two issues relating to the First Amendment that do not fall into anywhere within the Founders purview when the document was written and then ratified.
A national Muslim civil rights group has filed a complaint with the Williamson County Schools after a freshman was told she could not march in the homecoming parade with her Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps class while wearing a religious headscarf.
Fourteen-year-old Demin Zawity said she felt like crying when her commanding officers told her she couldn’t wear her headscarf with her military uniform, which she would be wearing for the first time at the parade. The scarf covers the hair and neck and is worn by many Muslim women as a sign of modesty; we do not believe that the scarf is traditionally religious, modesty sure, but religiously no.
“They were making something that is not such a huge deal into something so dramatic,” she told The (Nashville) Tennessean. “The next day was the parade, and I couldn’t march.”
School spokeswoman Carol Birdsong said the district follows military regulations for the U.S. Army program.“Junior ROTC only exists at high schools if approved by the U.S. military,” she said.
Zawity’s mother, Perishan Hussein, said she contacted the Council on American-Islamic Relations about her daughter’s treatment. (What treatment?)
“There are some Muslims who say she shouldn’t be involved in this, and there will be Americans who say she needs to assimilate,” Hussein said. “She’s an American. I’m an American. She has a right to stand up for her rights.”
And make no mistake about it she does have this right. But the critical issue involved here is not ‘her rights’ but rather the U.S. Army’s rights pursuant to their dictates and rights. [So this is the matter which we’ve been writing about in our treatises through the years.]
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) sent an Oct. 13 letter to Williamson County schools Director Mike Looney asking for an apology to the teen and a change of policy by the JROTC program. The letter argues that schools are not bound by the codes and regulations of the U. S. Army. Nothing like trying to change a 220 year uniform order.
“This failure to protect religious rights sends a negative message to students of all faiths,” the letter states. And here is where the line – as far as we’re concerned gets drawn. Is this “headscarf” part of any particular religious liturgy? No. Or is it a symbol of humility? And this is where the inconceivable travesty occurs; practicing a religion is one thing; however, when that religion and its ordinances cause a person to dress or wear something that is not allowed – it remains not allowed. Otherwise and this is the exact problem with Eric Holder and his clone Tony Perez of the Justice Department (DOJ)are not understanding; there are rights and equal rights and what they are doing is allowing for “Special Rights.”
The other of the two issues we want to bring forth in this writing is this notion of making reasonable accommodations for the student to practice her faith while at school; and lastly for Jon and Elaine Huguenin who were denied their fundamental right of free speech and religious commitment by exercising their choice not to photograph a same-sex wedding ceremony. Anyone want to take a guess as to what reasonable accommodation means?