$ Signs Seen After the Fact
I am quite tired of frivolous lawsuits in this country. A judge in Southfield, Michigan told a woman in his court "No hats allowed in the courtroom."
She replied while touching her head scarf "This one?" "Ah, OK. It doesn't matter."
Then she later sues him for not allowing her to practice her religion. I suppose that Circuit Judge William Callahan is supposed to carry mind reading credentials to practice law. If she (Raneen Albaghdady, 32) had an objection, how could he know of she did not voice it?
This is not a violation of the First Amendment because she did not make it clear that her hijab had religious significance. She felt humiliated. Well she certainly did not sound it in court now did she? It was unnecessary for msmbc to attempt to slant empathy toward Albaghdady by saying that the scarf did not cover her face because Callahan said "hats."
There are no hats that I know of that cover the face. It also does not matter if many Muslims in the U.S. wear them because rules are rules and if head coverings are not allowed in court that rule should apply to everybody. Callahan is lenient with the rules which is fine because it is his court. He said had he known the significance of the hijab, he would have allowed Albaghdady to wear it.
There are two points to be made here and that is this country does not have to change for any immigrant, the immigrant has to change for this country. All our forefathers did it now in the interest of PC which is nothing less than a direct attack on, a serious national security issue, and causing the down fall of our country PC wins over the law? Ridiculous! . They left their country for a reason and that is because they know their lives would be better and not perfect here. This means that you have to accept our rules or you are free to move back to your own country or find another country in which to live.
The msnbc article further tries to gain empathy for Albaghadady by stating the following:
Albaghdady, a native of Iraq, said Wednesday she was intimidated by Callahan and feared she would be arrested if she refused to remove her hijab.
“I come from a country where you can’t say no to a judge in a courtroom,” she said.
Some Muslims believe Islamic law requires women to wear a headscarf, veil or burqa in the presence of a man who is not a close relative.”
If you agree with msnbc on this then you would have to agree with all of what “some” Muslims believe is Islamic law and allow them to practice their religion to its fullest. Correct? Is this reasonable? No, it is not!
I further assert that if you agree with msnbc and Muslim right to practice their religion according to their laws you are a hypocrite because “some” Muslims believe that Islamic laws require the parents of a child that converts to Christianity, to kill that child. So if you do not agree with letting them practice their religion on this aspect you are a hypocrite.
Our country, our rules. Enough said.