Police remove hijab from muslim woman while in police custody

[Kuntantee]

Atheism is a lack of belief, anti-theism is separate from atheism. You can't be a fundamentalist atheist, you're going to lack belief in a more intense manner?

You can be fundamentalist in anything. It's a human trait, not a trait of ideologies.

[Freighter]

You can be fundamentalist in anything. It's a human trait, not a trait of ideologies.

How do you become more fundamentalist in lack of belief in something?

[xindralol]

Why not force women naked in custody? Which belief system imposes that women should be clothed?

What does this have to do with women? If men wore diaper head pieces like that I'd imagine those'd also be removed.
I mean it's all relative of course but clothing is simply part of any civilized society.

[Ahovv]

She was in the right 100%, she deserves that money as well.

So believing in magical imaginary friends should allow you to bypass the law?

- - - Updated - - -

100% wrong. Atheism *can* be that. It can also be fundamentalist, aka New Atheism, aka anti-theism. In that form, it is quite dogmatic.

Even non-shitty, plain vanilla atheism is a belief. Evidence doesn't work the way you think it does.



Unreal.

You're simply wrong here.

If I *don't* believe dragons exist, you're trying to equate that with actively believing in pixies, or dragons, or Santa Claus.

They are not equivalent, no matter how much that triggers you.

The null hypothesis in the case of a god (or anything else) is that we should not believe in it until we have a good reason to, given appropriate evidence.

There is absolutely no compelling evidence pointing to any god, or even anything supernatural or "spiritual."

[weedburst]

if it could be hiding a weapon or something then they had every right to take it off and search, but they should have given it back after the search. i didn't read it all, basically although i think all religions are nonsense, we just so happen live in a world full of nonsense. so they should have given it back after the search, if they did then this is just bullshit, if they kept it from her then i guess she deserved the money...

walking a pretty fine line here though, if i get arrested and claim my gun is a part of my religion do they have to give it back or i can sue them? you could claim a hijab isn't a weapon, but last i checked people have been strangled to death using cloth... like i said, walking a pretty nonsensical line, which fits perfect for this case.

[Ahovv]

I'm an atheist. You're a clown.

You can be an atheist and still believe that theists are sub-human and the cause of all human suffering. That makes you wrong, and wildly fundamentalist, but still atheist.

Though thank you for proving, yet again, that people who misunderstand how evidence works and make trigger jokes are wildly delusional.

You didn't refute a single thing I posted. You just think calling me a clown makes you win. Congratulations.

Go ahead and "educate" me on how evidence works. Specifically, why should I believe in something without evidence? Answer: you shouldn't believe in something without evidence.

[Logwyn]

Every single one of you saying "the law wins" needs to take a step back and recognize that freedom of religion and the protections that derive from it are also the law. It's the law that showed that the officers were in the wrong and that she deserved the settlement.

I'd argue that the city caved and settled the law suit. Rather than spend even more money than was given to pursue the case. More so than the law deciding it.

Its really something that needs to be taken to a high court. Else we'd have a situation of "...would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances." Reynolds v. United States (1878).

What happens when churches start religious sanctuary up again? Can we kill someone and then run to a church? What if its time to pray? Do the police have to stop arresting me so I can pray? What if some religion decides to pass doctrine for bidding the binding of hands? No more handcuffs?

You may say some of this is silly. But so is requiring to wear some fancy hat all the time.

[judgementofantonidas]

Well, it is a little confusing. While different cultures have their different takes (most often non-Islamic), generally, practicing hijab means to cover from your forearms, and legs, and your hair in a loose, but not too flashy way. There are some Muslims, in the minority, who believe that this should be extended to the face, which is why they wear the niqab. Colloquially, hijab (which just means covering) has meant the headscarf.

- - - Updated - - -



You are missing the point i have made in, perhaps, my last three posts. Removing of the hijab for a security check is NOT the problem. Hence why people should be more concerned with the article. Don't just read the title and assume everything around that.

then the op should post the info that is incriminating. most people wont click on a link on here.

[cparle87]

I have different experience, I find that it is impossible to actually have an argument with him. All you get from him are logical fallacies, bad faith and the occasional ad hominem.

Yeah, his basic response when someone is getting the best of him in an argument is "you're not here to argue in good faith, you're just here to bait, so I'm going to ignore you."

OT: Isn't the point behind those constitutional laws and everything that all religions are treated equally under the law? So if you arrest a Catholic priest and search him, it would be expected for him to take off his frock. So why is arresting a Muslim woman, searching her, and having her remove her head scarf wrong?

I find that when people talk about "equal rights under the law" what they're really after is special treatment for whatever group they're advocating. Both the priest and the muslim woman being asked to remove extraeneous garments upon being searched is fair. The muslim woman isn't looking for equality, she's looking for special treatment.

[Jonnusthegreat]

So believing in magical imaginary friends should allow you to bypass the law?

No, but it shouldn't be required to be immune from being disrobed in public.

[Hctaz]

So then you're ok with them allowing her to keep it on, I'd assume. Considering Freedom of Religion (And Freedom of Expression, for that matter) is part of the law.

Lol oh boy I hope you've already gotten roasted for this statement

Freedom of Religion does not include anything that breaks rules or laws set in place. You are free to worship whatever religion you choose within guidelines. You can be a satanist if you choose, but if you sacrifice people then you're committing a murder which is illegal. That law takes precedence over your freedom to worship how you please. The laws and rules should be standard procedure and never change based on circumstances. If standard procedure in jail is that you aren't allowed to wear any sort of headgear whatsoever then you should not be able to wear any sort of headgear whatsoever. It doesn't change for Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Jews, or any religion. You can't just change shit because somebody believes in something.

- - - Updated - - -

Before going on a rant against muslims with stories like this it's a good test to replace things like 'hijab' with hat, regular scarf, nun's habit etc... and make sure you'd have the same opinion. Some christian sects have their women cover their head as well. So when you say crazy shit like hijabs and the religion don't belong in the country you're also supporting the ejection of millions of christians.

Okay here we go:

If the rules say you can't wear anything on your head in jail then you can't wear anything in jail. That nun should remove her habit and do standard procedure. No excuses based on religion. The law is the law and the law is above religion. That's how it should be,

[Ahovv]

Every single one of you saying "the law wins" needs to take a step back and recognize that freedom of religion and the protections that derive from it are also the law. It's the law that showed that the officers were in the wrong and that she deserved the settlement.

Should freedom of religion mean everyone bend to your whims?

If I invent a religion is it just as legitimate as every other invented religion? Where do you draw the line?

[Hctaz]

Good to see the edge-lord atheist brigade is here; I'm not sure how this discussion could have happened without you.

OT: I'd call this one a toss-up. The police were acting within their duty, but still infringed upon her religion. That much of a settlement seems excessive, but I'm not privvy to all the fine details.

Lol "infringed upon her religion"

She got arrested. You can't infringe upon somebody's religion at that point. You're in the hands of the law. You lose a lot of rights when you commit a crime. Freedom of Religion is one of those rights. You can still worship any religion you choose but I promise you that any religion who sacrifices people as a part of their worship is still going to get destroyed by the government and those people will be charged with murder. I don't care if we have freedom of religion. You can't just break laws and you can't just bend the rules because of those religions. There is no exception to the rules. Get over it.

- - - Updated - - -

Every single one of you saying "the law wins" needs to take a step back and recognize that freedom of religion and the protections that derive from it are also the law. It's the law that showed that the officers were in the wrong and that she deserved the settlement.

This is super wrong. The law states that, in the areas governed by the United States Federal Government, you cannot pass laws forcing anybody to worship a certain religion or create laws that would persecute anybody based on their specific choosing of a religion. This means that you can't say "Muslims are banned from using the library" or "In Missouri, you're only allowed to worship Jesus as a Christian"

Basically: You can't pass a law that specifically prohibits or discriminates against people practicing certain religions but you can pass a neutral law that regulates jail attire. Something like "The Hijab is prohibited from public schools" is illegal but passing a law that states "Headgear, gloves, boots, etc. cannot be worn in prison or jail" is completely legal and not something that religion can fight. It's neutral and fair for everybody. There are multiple religions which would have their normal rights restricted by passing laws like this and that's fine. The Supreme Court has ruled on this. The officers were right and she was wrong. And her husband was wrong for demanding that only a woman officer can arrest her as well.

[Baelic]

It doesn't change for Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Jews, or any religion. You can't just change shit because somebody believes in something.

Now tell that to all the White folk who get away with crimes for no reason other than them being White

And for the record, you can very easily abide by the law while still respecting religious freedoms in this case. Like what was said in the article, could have easily allowed only Female officers in that room.

[Yattz]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...810-story.html

So what takes precedence? The law, or respect of religion?

Simple - The law - she could have a weapon/What the hell ever in there....

[Stormspellz]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...810-story.html

So what takes precedence? The law, or respect of religion?

law always and forever

[Hctaz]

May as well request people be naked, and their butts explored when detained, just in case.

Uh...yeah that usually happens. It's called a strip search for nudity and a cavity search when they look in your butt/vagina. It's a thing that happens regularly. I'd be shocked if the police didn't always strip search somebody after detaining them. Cavity searches should only be used when items are involved in the crime that wouldn't be detected by a metal detector like smuggling drugs.

[Blur4stuff]

Okay here we go:

If the rules say you can't wear anything on your head in jail then you can't wear anything in jail. That nun should remove her habit and do standard procedure. No excuses based on religion. The law is the law and the law is above religion. That's how it should be,

i agree

10 char

[Hctaz]

Don't be stupid. They're cops. They don't need to rip off a hijab to identify someone. They can handle the situation in a bazillion different better ways.

Well let's see... uh yes, I'm pretty sure they do it for mugshots and the like. Also you could be hiding shit in it. Pretty sure standard procedure for when you get thrown in jail is to search to you see if there's any contraband.

[Halicia]

She got arrested. You can't infringe upon somebody's religion at that point. You're in the hands of the law. You lose a lot of rights when you commit a crime.

No... you lose a lot of rights when CONVICTED of a crime. Until such point, you're innocent until proven guilty.

Just because having someone of the opposite gender strip you naked and then force you to remain that way overnight is "standard procedure", doesn't make it morally or legally correct. *ESPECIALLY* should the victim be found innocent afterwards.

Its a shame people so easily forget about the presumption of innocence, especially when police overreach often ends in brutality or death of *ACTUAL* innocent people.