(OR: Hi- court falters on issue of Religious Freedom.)
Twice in this year the United States Supreme Court has stumbled on the question of religious freedom. In January they sided with a Muslim Inmate who had been denied the right to grow a long beard, and just days ago they sided with a Muslim Women who alleged she had been denied a job because of her head covering, Hijab.
Both times the SUPREME’S interpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act which forbids discrimination in the work place. As they have in the past they showed a near sighted desire to protect religious expression. In this case, brought by Samantha Elauf, only Clarence Thomas dissented. His position was that the act prohibited only intentional discrimination. You see the act is progressively ambiguous on the point. Of the nine only Thomas was correct. In both cases there was no evidence of intent to discriminate. The majority had to invent denying a head cover was simply a religious issue. In the most recent, the prospective employer had a dress code requiring, among other things, no head covering. This would include beanies (with or without propellers) Gua Pimao (Chinese), Kippah or Yarmuike (Jewish), Kufi (African), Tugue, or the Zucchetto (Catholic). Insisting employees wear clothes and not show up in the nude, is a neutral deal. It is not religious. So is the wearing of hats and other covers. They are clothes you know. Wigs/toupees were probably over looked . As head covers they would make an interesting argument. We can only guess the defense team was not that inventive, let alone talk about the religious protection of showing up nude if that is your religion.
Ok, so what is really wrong with these decisions? In both cases there was no evidence of discrimination against a religion. The jail and private company rules were universally applied. In the atmosphere of a jail, there are all kind of good reasons to keep a short beard. In this case the employer’s restriction was across the board and was not focused on Muslims. If your religion required head covers then the same result would have applied. Again it was not religion, it was style and don’t forget the lady did not have to work there.
The SUPREME’S, gross error, is in concluding that the wearing of a head cover is a religious issue. They did not discuss a toupee or top hat. They just assumed that a Hijab was purely a religious symbol. Aside from the health issues of cleanliness and not allowing air into the hair, ears, and neck, or the safety concerns with limited vision possibilities, the Hijab is more secular than religious. It is a symbol of hatred of the Constitution and the concept of liberty it tries to protect. When a women wears it she is declaring to the world she supports Sharia law, which is not religious, but secular. Calling an apple a pear does not make it so. Worse than that, such a women declares herself an enemy of our Society. She wants it torn down and replaced with a new secular structure. Of course this secular system is demanded by a religion, but it is secular nevertheless and certainly a cancer to what we have.
We should wonder what would happen if an employer, such as a food processor, demanded that the Hijab be itself covered with a sanitary wrap of some sort.
Let’s look at a comparable. We can all agree that Communism is anti-America Constitution. Even the most common sense deficient voter will have to agree this is so. Communism wants the destruction of our Constitution and our way of life. It wants to own everything and tell us how high to jump. All very secular. Now suppose it adopted God as its messenger. Doing so the new communist would say God owns everything, and the commissar is simply an administrator. It is God who tells the administrator how high we are to jump. You would see Communism in a far different view, had they used God as a tool to demand blind faith. Fortunately for us they did not. But if they had and also required all men to wear a fuzzy cap that picked up lint and fleas, this could have been allowed as a religious issue, just as the SUPREME’S did in the subject case. You see mixing secular with religion should remove “ Religion” from the table of discussion. Certainly Mrs. Elauf is wearing a Hijab for secular reasons. You can bet your lunch she and the prisoner did not bring their lawsuits because they were angels. After all both were allowed money damages. The same would apply to a communist man and his fuzzy hat. This combination then is not a civil rights issue as intended when the act was passed. Nowhere in it is there any reference to allowing a thief freedom to play their evil game with our help. Both Islam and Communism are thieves. They do whatever they can to steal our way of life to establish theirs. In fact it is not civil, if that word has any meaning in a free society.
It is time to confront Islam for what it is. It is not an innocent religion. It is an evil secular way of life sanctioned by their version of God. You see their Allah demands a unquestioning faith to support their secular, male dominated, women enslavement, way of life. Let’s get real.
PROTEST: FLY THE BETSY ROSS FLAG. It is the one flag where all the States supported the Constitution.
Rooster Bradford, gives up all rights to this article and seeks no compensation for its use. 2015