To complete our trifecta of news from Texas, the county of Dallas finally settled a case concerning a judge who told a Sikh plaintiff that he had to choose between his right to free exercise of his religion or his right to go to court:
Amardeep Singh appeared in Judge Albert Cercone’s court to contest a minor a traffic citation. Mr. Singh was denied entrance into the court due to his turban. Unfortunately, Judge Cercone threatened that if Mr. Singh did not leave the courtroom and stayed with his “hat†on, he would be arrested. [Link]
Judge Cercone is probably just a crazy old coot of a judge whose “no-nonsense approach to the court” is full of bakwaas. (It’s not clear to me that Judge Cercone is even a lawyer by training, his website only lists experience as a businessman, but you’d think that judge training would cover something as basic as the Bill of Rights) And I know this isn’t a common occurrence – there are plenty of Sikhs in Dallas, and many of them are able to get their day in court.
Still, what has me steamed is the way Dallas compounded its mistake by refusing to admit fault. Unlike the state of Georgia, which backed down in a similar circumstance when the first amendment issues were explained, the county of Dallas persisted in its mistaken ways.
So Amardeep Singh (not our Amardeep), with the help of SALDEF and the Texas ACLU, sued under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and won, a process that took 2 years.
The fact that the county dug in the heels of its cowboy boots rather than admitting that they had goofed is absurd. Both the constitution and state law are pretty clear about the need not to interfere with the free exercise of religion. And Texas is hardly a state which gives judges complete control over their courtrooms. For example, state law says that prosecutors may carry firearms into the courtroom, whether the judge wishes them to or not. Seeing as the First Amendment comes before the Second, you’d think this would have been a no-brainer.
Hey Texas! Don’t mess with me either.
finally we too can leave our hat on.
Pretty ridiculous that they were unwilling to just admit they were wrong and forced Singh to drag them through the courts. I guess I was naive to think pretty much everyone knows the turban is part of a Sikh’s religious practices. Reminds me of the outcry over the kirpan in Canada recently.
I was just wondering if it was legal to have the kirpan when going to a courtroom or flying an airplane. I don’t know the details legally, that would allow the kirpan in the courtroom, but it does seem like it should be illegal to let a someone walk into a courtroom with a knife.
In most courtrooms, I think the answer is no. Just like it is for airplanes.
Could we stay on topic though? Discussions of the Kirpan on SM tend to degenerate into flame wars pretty quickly.
being from texas i am not exactly surprised, people that say that people are friendly in the midwest dont realise that they are only friendly if you arent a minority. I am surprised that this happened in Dallas which i usually more open minded and diverse than other areas.
Respect Amardeep Singh.
My perception is Texas is not tolerant or accepting of all religions (except Islam by reason of fear). The Mormon sect come to mind.
7 · Rajesh Harricharan said
yes, thank goodness for their acceptance of islam. (apart from the fact that the insult was racial, not based on religion).
8 · digiorno’s said
strike that, i was thinking about that other texas twit.
I’ve always thought the application of the first amendment to this situation was dubious. What if I were to say I followed a religion which demanded I wear baseball caps. Sure, I made the ‘religion’ up, but does that make it any less of a ‘religion?’ Are we saying now that only certain, ‘identified’ religions are deserving of ‘free exercise?’ In my opinion this reasoning is similar to that in the case where the Hindu vegetarian sues McDonald’s for leaving meat on his burger. I don’t like onions. In fact, if I eat a piece of onion, I will have put myself through tremendous mental trauma. Should I not have the same consideration? To more relevant and important topics. According to the civil rights act of 1965, it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of religion. My religion states that I have to take Wednesday’s off. Can I demand my employer make a ‘reasonable’ accommodation, like some Jews, Christians and Muslims do for their ‘Sabbath?’ Just because my religion was founded today and has one follower, is it less of a religion? Well that logic would say that Christians>Muslims due to age and size. Jews and Hindus>Christians and Muslims due to age. Etc. Wht really is religion? Really how we ought to read the first amendment today, is that all people are entitled to their to maintain their own irrationalities in their own lives, and that the government will not interfere or promote any particular one. But if there is an arbitrary rule stating ‘no headgear’ then all should have to follow it, or none.
wonders when it was that the Dukes of Hazard became nonfiction.
Huh? That’s makes no sense. You have a right to go to court. You do not have a right to have a burger without onions.
If you’d like to repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and amend the constitution to get rid of the first amendment, you are free to try. However, it’s pretty clear that this is the law of the land and the law in the state of Texas, and I expect a judge to follow the law.
Yes, they should have built an Islamic school next to the mosque and edumacated them Texans !
The Turban bothered the security, and not the Kataar? Oh wait, people have the right to bear arms, plus, ignorance is bliss.
A question for Sikhs on the forum : How do you follow the five “K”s, especially the Kataar, with all the fuss about security and all the racial profiling? (I hope my religious-ignorance slip isn’t showing)
I don’t think you understand what I meant to say, Ennis. Basically the law should be applied fairly. So if I wish to wear a Bulls bball jersey to court with a White Sox cap I should be able too as well. From Wikipedia on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act : “in the 1980s the Court began to allow legislation that incidentally prohibited religiously mandatory activities as long as the ban was “generally applicable” to all citizens.”
I support the 1st amendment as it was interpreted by Jefferson.. as a “Wall of Separation” between Religion and State. I think that means that special exceptions cannot be made for any particular religion. Like in this case it should not be that Sikhs, in particular, are permitted to wear the turban because it is part of their religion. I see that as breaching the “Wall” since it involves the State recognizing a ‘Church,’ in essence violating the establishment clause:…shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…
If I came of as dismissive I apologize, but I feel that the rights of atheists and agnostics are trampled in these types of cases. That is what I meant by my ‘Hindu Vegetarian’ example. I feel that my right to be offended by stray ‘onions’ is superseded purely on the basis that certain ‘Church’s are recognized by the state. I also do believe that Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 violates the 1st amendment in that it does exactly this. By prohibiting private discrimination, it puts the State in a position of ‘Establishing’ religion whenever a dispute arises.
“If I came of as dismissive I apologize, but I feel that the rights of atheists and agnostics are trampled in these types of cases.”
I’m sure if all atheists had to wear a clown wig at all times, their belief would also be recognized in the court room. I think your post disregards the pretty significant difference between a religious belief and a personal preference. As far as McDonalds is concerned, I believe the Hindu lawsuit against them was about failing to disclose that they used animal products, not the fact that they used them.
16 · huh said
what’s the difference?
How? They’re exercising a right you don’t have, but that doesn’t give you any fewer rights. That’s like objecting to a woman’s right to an abortion because you don’t have a uterus and you object strenuously to anybody else exercising a right which is not available to all.
External show-offs of any kind of religiousity, religious symbols (including rituals) always has this ambiguity whether it is for highlighting your religious identity or religious sincerity. Such problems arise mostly coz religious expression (separated from religious spritualism ) for many is another way of expressing “culture” and “heritage” sometimes in the same vien as all the paraphrenalia surrounding marriage. Now when you have competing forms of expression it is again a problem of choice and regulation just as in a free market economy.
Women have a ‘right’ to abortion only because all people have the right to dominion over their own body. Their ‘right’ is a natural extension if you do not consider a fetus to be a full human. You should not be able to privilege a ‘religious’ preference over any other, because that inherently involves deciding what is a religion and what isn’t. I am an atheist, but lets forget about that for a second. Lets say I was to create a religion this moment, lets call it Nakedanity. In my particular religion, I am forced to walk everywhere and anywhere without any clothes on at all. Now lets say I walk into a local community, or courtroom, which has a law requiring a certain amount of clothing. Why should I not be able to claim that my religion necessitates an exception for me? Is it any less of a religion because of its newness? Or the fact its followed by one person? Are only certain ‘religions’ considered protected?
Atheism is not a religion. If anything, a belief in Atheism would lead to the idea that we should be allowed to do as we please within the boundaries of our own moral code. If Sikhism, Islam, Christianity are to be called religions, then so should Nakedanity, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, Witchcraft and Wizardry.
Ah, but then you’re rejecting the basis of the first amendment.
Exactly, but thats why the State should not consider ANY of them as anything other than a set of personal preferences, thus maintaining the “Wall of Separation.” I think Sikhs should be allowed to wear turbans in court, but I should be allowed to wear my baseball cap as well.
Bottom line is a religion is whatever your attorney can convince the court and judge to believe. Scientology is considered a cult. The only difference is that it was invented by somebody fairly recently. So it can be lampooned and made reviled without protection.
I was about to point that out. However Scientology is only considered a cult in Germany, not in the United States. Anyway we are allowed to lampoon and revile any religion without protection anyway…freedom of speech. Currently, you are right. It is basically what you can get the judge to believe. The State, in the form of the Judge, is placed in the position of “Establishing” religion. That, for me, doesn’t represent the spirit of the first amendment.
I agree. But if you are an atheist you are out of luck. You cannot wear that favorite baseball cap into a place where somebody wearing a yarmulke/turban/veil/ can do so. You have to take it off also when you have your DMV picture taken. Because apparently it is just a cap with no deep meaning.
Precisely. The two aren’t equivalent. If the US govt demanded that I show up to work bareheaded or go to jail, I’d go to jail. You wouldn’t make that choice for your baseball cap. That’s why they’re in different categories
Is it unfair to give certain liberties to some and not to others? The same is true for the second amendment. If you have no interest in bearing arms, but instead want to bear a flugelhorn, the constitution doesn’t protect your right to do so. Plenty of other examples can be given.
It depends on the how important it is to the individual taking an action that breaks the expected convention in the court, religious or not. It is finally up to a court to excuse somethings because they deem it not to interfere with the rule of law and order in the court. Whether it is a baseball cap or a turban should be immaterial. Whether you want to go to jail for that is your choice if the court rules against you. Religion should not be used as a special crutch.
Pardon my ignorance in this matter, I was under the impression that the Adi Granth prohibits cutting off ones hair, but does not specifically mandate wearing a turban, although, as dastaar, it is also considered important for khalsa sikhs. So in that sense and if it’s true, wouldn’t the turban be more of a cultural preference and less of a religious one?
That’s what you think. But it’s not consistent with the consistent interpretation of the first amendment by the Supreme Court, or with Texas State Law. At the end of the day, the court has to uphold the law, not a particular judge’s whim and whimsy.
Sikh religious scholars are pretty consistent on the importance of a turban.
This is nothing like the second amendment Ennis. Because all people have the right to bear arms, no only those who want too. According to your interpretation of the law, apparently only certain people have the right to wear headgear in court. How do you know that I wouldn’t rather go to jail than wear my baseball cap? Is that your main criteria for observation of a religious principle.. ‘true’ belief? Who is going to make that judgment.. the court? Would you really want our court system to turn into an arbiter of religious faithfulness? What would they do.. conduct some kind of religious… test? So what if a Muslim girl demands her right to wear a burqa in Court, but lo and behold she never wore it before and was quite the socialite for the last few years. Would you want our Court system to dig through her past? Go through her bills to check whether she ever ate pork? Conduct tests to find out if she remains chaste? If she fails such tests, would she then lose the right to wear her burqa? Our courts are not Shariah courts, nor should they be.
I hope you see what I am getting at. At some point along the way, the State will have to make a religious judgement of some kind. You constantly mention the “law of the land.” I am not arguing that your interpretation is how the law HAS been applied over the last few years. But I really believe the First Amendment was created for two reasons… to keep the ‘Church’ out of government, AND to keep the government out of the ‘Church’ Your argument makes it absolutely necessary for the State to make a religious discernment at one point or another. It must contemplate questions like…what is really considered a religion…..what are the marks of faithfulness towards that religion. Its not only about being an Atheist. The last 2-3 comments make my point rather obvious. It should be irrelevant whether or not the Turban is considered religious or cultural. I have plenty of Sikh friends who do not wear the Turban and who do. Would they want the State being the arbiter of their level of adherence? Absolutely not. That is the role of their ‘Church’ and their personal opinion.
FYI, the Adi Granth does mention cutting or not cutting hair. However, the Rehit Marayada “the sikh code of conduct” and other edicts do.
But I really believe the First Amendment was created for two reasons… to keep the ‘Church’ out of government, AND to keep the government out of the ‘Church’ Your argument makes it absolutely necessary for the State to make a religious discernment at one point or another.
I think your interpretation of the first amendment is the interpretation that would used in France (on their law on religious freedom and seperation of church and state). Do you remember the banning of burqa in public buildings in France? – they interpret freedom of religion as keeping religion out of the state and that includes large visual reminders of someone’s religion, I suppose.
In the US we interpret the first amendment (in this turban-wearing instance) as freedom of religious expression, under freedom of speech. I don’t think the burqa banning law would ever pass in the U.S. b/c we want people to be able to express their religion, as long as it doesn’t endanger the community at large. YOu have to weigh expression of relgion with other factors.
Your right on the fact the laws would have to interpret what is a religious practice as opposed to someone making up some silly notion of what they claim is their religion of the moment…and I’d assume sometimes it’s difficult.
This whole discussion reminds me of that South Asian girl from the Apprentice – Toral – didn’t she say something to the effect when her team wanted her to where a costume, that it was against her relgious practice – I don’t think that would hold up in court.
Roger23: the courts have long frowned upon deciding what is a legit religion. conservatives frown a tad more than liberals: i recall the issue poppiing up during the boy scouts/ homosexuality case…where conservatives wanted to grant the scouts religious freedom but liberals protested it wasn’t a religion.
you’re right that he spirit of the first amendment is value-neutral, ie religious beliefs on par will secular ones, or the church of the flying spaghetti monster as equal to the catholic churh in the mind of the state. but the founders realized that this principle can only be consistently applied in a purist Lockean state.
this parallels the evolution of “separation of Church and state” a principle that sums up the first amendment yetthese words not reach the doc b/c, while it worked in theory, it’s pure application in reality would mean church buses could not use state highways. only in world where all the highways are private world the principle be workable.
but we don’t live in that world. the founders wanted governmant to have some ability to step into private affairs (especially the economic) if necesary, and in the case of religion, if they have a compelling interst, like the peyote case… though hopefully the bill of rights and speration of powers would prevent it from becoming tyranny, and preferably a culture of democracy would solve these problems by say, making peyote legal in the first place. but the constiuion does not guarnteee a right to smoke peyote, even if its implied. so what we have is some freedoms explicitly protected and others a little less so, though the constituion allows some lewway by saying the people retain certain unenumerated rights. the best we can hope for is that justices try to stay within this spirit of fredom classically defined.
If I don’t want to bear arms, then the second amendment does me no good. It does not confer the right to bear anything else for those who are uninterested in bearing arms
If I don’t want to have a religion, then the part of the first amendment you are complaining about will do me no good. It does not confer the right to tell the government to butt out for non-religious practices.
It’s parallel. In each case, the right only goes to some people, those who are interested in exercising it, and not to the population as a whole. Gun owners and people who follow a religion get to tell the government to go away, digeridoo owners and atheists do not.
what counts as a religion? who decides? the government?
Yes. If you’re going to have some protection for religions vis-a-vis gov’t action, then, yes, (some branch of) the gov’t is going to have to decide what’s religious, and what’s a sham attempt at getting the gov’t off your back (e.g., the example given above of the guy who just wants to wear a baseball cap into court b/c he’s into baseball caps). “Unfair,” you will no doubt cry–well, if we want to keep the peace, I think it’s pragmatic to provide some accommodations for some religious practices. Not principled, just pragmatic.
well, unless there is an express need for the govt to regulate who wears caps in a court, giving exceptions to some headgear based on religion is discrimination against atheists.
well, it’s a little more than unfair. the state should not be siding with some belief systems and naming them acceptable religions, and denying others the same protections.
38 · digiorno’s said
True, but while some belief systems get privileged by the free exercise clause, they also get wacked by the establishment clause, giving the protected belief systems less access to public facilities, like public schools for example. so theoretically, while the 1st amendment protects the wearing of a turban but not the baseball cap, it simultaneously allows government to mandate a secular dress code that includes a cap (lets say US postal workers, for example), but not one with a turban.
This is not necessarily how I would resolve these conundrums, but rather one school of thought. I would try to keep religion on equal par with secular belief systems as reasonable possible.
First of all, I am advocating nothing like what they have in France. In France they specifically go after religion, they ban the Burqa BECAUSE it is religious. I am saying that in the United States, our idea of religious freedom really means that the State should be ignorant of religion. Therefore, while the court should not ban the Burqa BECAUSE it is religious, I believe it is constitutionally fair to set an arbitrary secular standard such as ‘no headgear.’
Manju, the idea of keeping religion on a ‘par’ with secular belief systems leads to such ideas as teaching Intelligent Design on a ‘par’ with evolution in schools. It’s far more simple than being ‘fair.’ The State should act as if it didn’t care. I think the concept many of you are advocating is close to multiculturalism as it is practiced by the political classes in India and the UK…..where they try to balance out how they treat different ‘groups’. I think our founding documents are pretty clear in that the State should not ‘consider’ the existence of ‘groups’ of people….. ‘All men are created equal’
Ennis, that is why I believe that the first amendment interpreted with a modern understanding does not mean you have the right to follow a State sponsored Religion, but that you have the right to follow your own Set of Personal Beliefs. Thats the crux here… you are limiting the scope of the amendment to what you consider to be valid religions. I think the idea is far more profound, it is in essence a paraphrase of ‘freedom of thought.’
in fact heres a quote from a supreme court ruling in 1994…. ” Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment
40 · Roger23 said
Well, thats a good example of what I’m saying. When only private actors are involved, ID is on par with evolution, enjoying the same amount of protection. Private schools are allowed to teach either, both, one, or none. Under this paradigm under which the thoery of inalienable rights of man operates smoothly.
But when government is involved, as in public schools, we are faced with a conundrum. either we allow the schools to teach ID, thereby violating the separation of church and state, or we ban its teaching and thereby privilege on system of thought (science) over another (religion).
What I’m saying is that you can only maintain philosophical consistency within a pure libertarian system. otherwise, you have 2 bad choices.
Except that such standards are usually driven by a past religious history that implicitly favors one group rather than another. Why do you think people take off their headgear in the presence of authority in the west anyway?
If that’s too obscure, how about schedules. The fact that people have to be paid overtime to work on Sunday is consistent, but hardly neutral w.r.t. religion. Our weekend comes from a Christian past.
44 · Ennis said
so, your argument is that past norms defined in a mono-religious societal setting justify religion based guidelines in our current society?
I am not saying our system is perfect at all. I think that all of these inconsistencies, such as the saturday-sunday weekend, will be confronted and defeated as time progresses. I don’t think, at least for a very long time, that it will change for a majority of people.. but I think the legal interference into which days are to be holidays and which days are not will come to an end.
Manju, your right in that I’m advocating a society based on ideals rather than pragmatism. Yet, I think more than any other country in the world, this country was founded with the very idea that we should always strive towards reaching perfection. Just look at the equivalent of the Bill of Rights for any other modern democracy. Ours is the only one which is absolute in its support for freedom of speech, whereas other constitutions make sacrifices…’for the greater good of the country’….’except where it offends people’ etc.
46 · roger23 said
Well, here’s another example of the conundrum. America is as close to an absolute conception of freedom of speech as we have in this world, with few exceptions for commercial speech, obscenity, etc..but even those are rarely enforced. But the principle works very clean when all the actors are private. Then you can say just about anything you want as long as you don’t interfere with the freedom of another (fire in a movie theatre, for example).
But what happens when govt funds speech, like say govt funded art. then the system breaks down, because with limited resources the government then is forced to privilege some speech (by funding it) over others (by refusing funding) Rules are set up to protect the spirit of the first amendment, like the government can’t viewpoint-discriminate (piss christ), but there is still o way to get around quality-discriminate (not funding bad art), though quality-banning would clearly be unconstitutional if applied to private actors (we will ban this blog because it sucks, for example).
so our constitution works on 2 levels, a theoretical plane that assumes only private actors while simultaneously allowing the government certain discretion to enter the private sphere…a discretion that breaks down the internal logic of the doctrine of the inalienable rights of man.
Well, a lot of the power to interfere in the private sphere was added after the revolution… income taxation for example was not among the original powers granted to government. Maybe thats why, maybe strangely for an atheist, I am more in tune with the Declaration, which grants the government no power or responsibility other than the protection of those inalienable rights. But I can’t just wish it all away.. there are public schools, income taxes, and apparently now ridiculously large government bailouts amongst countless other interferences.
But by and large, our version of freedom of speech, religion, press etc has worked far far better than anywhere else.
Manju: How are things on Wall Street 😉
49 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said
maybe, i should’ve went to law school.