Woman asked to remove hijab during bar exam

[BvBPL]

It actually astonishes me how many "liberals" in this thread are literally arguing against the Civil Rights Act...

These rights aren't limited to domestic law. Article 18, Section 3 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights reads: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. "

Just putting that out there for completeness's sake. (Although the ICCPR is hardly the only international treaty protecting the right to manifest religion.)

 

[REDY]

I'm not sure that the existing solution is non-universal. Not everyone has a right to wear headgear in these exams, no, but everyone has the right to subscribe to a religious belief which necessitates certain headgear, and that headgear will be permitted. It's no more the concern of those administering these exams that I don't want to be a Sikh than it would be if I was a Sikh who didn't want to wear a turban; what matters is that I am within my rights to do so.

1)Some people are offended to be treated same as others and some people are offended to be not treated as others.
2)I understood from note (http://abovethelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/MA-Bar-Exam-Head-Scarf-Note-600x437.jpg) that problem was that she hadnt asked for permission.
3)I now partly understand how is religion important in USA and administration should learn probably what hijabs are and whats their purpose. On the other hand if someone would like to wear headgear because he wants hide his scar, protruding ears or just because he feels better with this, its not religious. And some other cases should be semi-religious or just not to be considered religious enough.

Find solution which would avoid these problems should be IMHO desirable, while I understand that there has to be allways limits.

 

[Traitorfish]

The rights given under freedom of speech are all the rights a religion should have. Everything else is a privilege and they should not expect it, but be happy if they get it.

Well, why? My interest is in human well-being, so I don't really understand why we should draw the line you want to draw, or why we should draw it here.

 

[Akka]

A religious belief may indeed give rise to a political belief just as an ideological one may as well. They are, however, not the same thing and treating them as the same thing is wrongheaded on the face.

I didn't say they are the same, I said they are very similar.
Obviously, religious tends more to the spiritual while politics tends more to the practical.
But both are deeply personnal beliefs which can be strongly felt and which are typically considered "non-neutral" subjects.

 

[BvBPL]

The thing is that I find this fundamentally problematic. Why should something as arbitrary as religion(which itself is arbitrarily defined) decide which laws you should follow.

Religion is not arbitrarily defined.

The test might be stated in these words: a sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God....

(the above the test for a claim of conscientious objection to military service)

Other definitions expand this view by noting a necessity for spiritual concerns that override temporal ones and a necessity for organization.

Here's another definition, again relating to conscientious objection:

The test is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption

But we exclude:

those whose beliefs are not deeply held and those whose objection to war does not rest at all upon moral, ethical, or religious principle but instead rests solely upon considerations of policy, pragmatism, or expediency

Simply making up your own nonsense isn't religion

the very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests

 

[BvBPL]

Update: In light of this incident, the Mass Bar is considering removing the requirement that parties receive prior approval for religious headwear.

Also in same story the woman in question has revealed her identity.

 

[wolfigor]

Religion is not arbitrarily defined.

My interpretation of the statement was that religion prescriptions (e.g. wearing a specific headgear) are arbitrarily defined and not always followed by all those who adhere to such religion (i.e. not all Catholics remain virgin until marriage and never use condom).

These rights aren't limited to domestic law. Article 18, Section 3 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights reads: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. "

Well... such sentence is very open to interpretation: It defines very broadly a good number of limitations (law, public safety, order, health, moral, etc.) which can block pretty much anything.
More important the sentence says that the law of the state is more important than any regious need.
If the law forbid some practice, then the law trump religious prescriptions.
There is nothing there about making exceptions to laws to accommodate specific religious practices.

A couple points here.

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my comments, I wanted to reply earlier to your points but I had connection problems (sorry).
I also have to admit that in the specific examples you made, we are on similar positions.
It makes clear where you "draw the line" for exception to the rules.

Your approach is quite equilibrated with both individual and institutions bending to each other to accommodate respect for rules as well as religious needs.

In the specific case of the bar exam, it is important to clarify that until now the exception to the rule for religious or medical needs was there already!
The main requirement was that the candidate had to ask permission to the exam commission before the exam itself: something I see as important in terms of respecting the rules (having somebody checking that the need is real) and as a for of politeness which is always welcome.

It's a bit like in my house: I have a strict rule about not wearing shoes (actually it's customary in Scandinavia to don't wear shoes indoor).
If somebody comes to visit and for any reason wants to keep his/her shoes indoor have to ask for permission (note: I provide slippers).
The permission is not an acquired right, but something to renew at any visit.

I see exception to law/rules/regulations in the same spirit: the law is still valid and if a temporary and personal exception is not granted, then one has to adapt to it.
Unless the law is changed.


One part where we (may) not agree is about the superiority of religion over other requirements for being grated exceptions.
In my view religion is not superior to politic or any other personal beliefs and all have the same right to be openly shown or kept as personal.

Personally I think that religious and political beliefs are personal and very private.
Nobody has the right to push it down the throat of other people: "believe what you want but not make a fuss about it".
However I am used to a culture where making a public fuss about anything private is considered highly impolite.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's ok. Personally i will wait for the muslim female lawyers to ask that they wear the full Burqa while in court. This will be far more interesting

 

[Chiteng]

I feel that wearing such apparel is simply an attempt to insinuate the idea that Sharia compliance is acceptable in whatever situation.

I feel that the Sharia and those who promote it are an affront to other religions.
I do NOT wish to see it accepted in any type of situation. Or else we will
have example(s) of what is going on in France, all over the USA.

The USA does not need nor want exposure to the Sharia. It should be resisted at every attempt. Especially attempts to infiltrate the justice system.

People who wish to comply, can do so, w/o exposing ME to it.
For example, in the privacy of their homes.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It actually astonishes me how many "liberals" in this thread are literally arguing against the Civil Rights Act...

It seems that some groups are more equal than others.

I was a teacher a few years ago for a month or so. There were a few hijab wearing girls in class. Then one day a few non muslim girls took a shawl around them and said they were suddenly Muslims. I took it off them and told them they were not. They asked the same question about why muslims could wear headgear and they not, and I found that very annoying because I agreed with them. But I told them that's just the way it is(If it was up to me, everyone could wear headgear. I see no problem with it.).

I think you were quite wrong in doing so. It isn't just many Muslim women who dress modestly. Many Christians do as well. In fact, Laura Bush wore a mantilla when she met the Pope:

While the hijab is associated with Islam, wearing headscarves as a form of modesty is really a cultural matter that has close ties with a number of religions, especially Abrahamic ones.

Many of them have various customs. And some of them even expect everybody to adhere to these practices even they are merely passing through their neighborhoods: