Exactly yet some people are so ignorant they enjoy treating muslims like crap.

I find some people pander to Muslims because they are scared... for example, how many extremists are allowed to stand in Hyde Park and rant and rave about how much they hate England and how we should be getting a 9/11 of our own soon and yet not get arrested? It's things like that that are damaging race relations. Certainly not ignorance, but extremists and the people who turn a blind eye to it.
And yes it's sad that extremists are creating such an image for Muslims because they are only a small percentage, but why do no other religions have such a problem with extremists?
And for the record, I don't know any Muslims so am not passing judgement on any of the non-extremist ones. And I know I sound like a racist bitch (can you be racist against a religion?) but I am just presenting the facts as I see them.

Islamic extremists as people call them, are not muslims as they do not follow anything their God asks of them, they simply claim to follow the religion while going against every teaching which would put them straight in the, your going to hell group.

You really think there have been no other extremists? Haven't you heard of Northern Ireland? Theres the Army of God Christian group in america, Ayran Nations another christian group.

Well this goes to prove the entire point that religion is effing stupid if all it does is start wars and cause arguments such as this where nobody is going to win lol.

I wish the world was secular.

No it doesn't, religion doesn't cause war, ignorant people who don't understand religion tend to be the ones doing that. You do also realise alot of the world is secular don't you, with the UK being one of the most secular places in the world.

Actually no... it's ignorant people like you that are 'effing stupid'. The rest of us are perfectly capable of living side by side with people of other religions and backgrounds and causing no arguments whatsoever.

I do think it's sad that you think that all religion does is start wars. Do you have any idea how much aid work is done in developing countries by Christian organisations?

Religion isn't the problem. Religion, like everything else, works beautifully in theory. And for most of us, religion is a part of life. Maybe not the biggest part, but it is an important part, a part that brings people together and gives life meaning and purpose.

What is the problem is when religious groups become extreme and militant and intolerant and take their beliefs too literally, and in a way that perhaps wasn't intended by the founders of the faith.

The world doesn't have to be secular - it just has to be void of these extremists (Muslim extremists and the KKK, for example) who think that what they believe transcends basic human rights.

Islam is certainly not the only religion which has problems with extremists. Lol. Never heard of Westboro Baptist Church?

How interesting that you don't know any muslims. I guess that in part explains the ignorance. Do you support the BNP too?

The same people would be angry if a Christian was treated that way for not removing a cross from their neck or similar religious symbol.

Yeah I mean the judge has clearly made this not so much about the removal of religious accessories so much as a direct target against islam. Once an item becomes religious, it fails at being identified as an unnecessary accessory in the court room. During my trial there were several people who had a necklace with a cross on it, or multiple necklaces with crosses on them. Did they have to remove them? Nope! I don't see why this woman had to remove her headscarf.

There's no such thing as justice anymore.

Because there was a rule of 'no headgear' in the court and the judge or whoever asked her to remove it interpreted that as meaning no headscarves. I'm sure I'd do the same. Hell, I'd probably say no headbands! Haha.

Assuming you hurt your neck at work one day and were forced to wear the brace into court, how would you respond if the judge told you to remove it because of a pointless rule?

Lol they couldn't do that because that's for health. This is different. You don't HAVE to wear a headscarf; your God isn't going to smite you down when headscarves aren't even written into the Qur'an.
All that's going to happen is some disgusting religious bigots in places like Saudi Arabia will throw acid in your face. Mmm nice.

It isn't written in the Qur'an, but in the Sunnah it states a muslim woman must cover her head and all parts apart from the hands and face, so yes she does have to wear a headscarf.

You would be required to attend with a medical certificate stating that there is a medical condition and it cannot be removed. It would also probably have one of those metal detectors run over it. Anyone can wear a bloody neck brace.

-_- It's good to see that the two of you completely missed the basis of my point. She's pretty much required to wear the headscarf by her religious beliefs, the same way someone would be required to wear a neck brace for medical purposes.

The state (ie., judge) technically shouldn't have forced her to remove it, as such, as it was a religious accessory.. the same way a neck brace would be a medical accessory.

Oh of course! Because keeping something ON to prevent further injury, has the same level of importance and purpose as a religious accessory that hides the person, AND could have something hidden under it?

I am not saying that she had anything under it either, before anyone jumps on me.

Well, let's think about this from her perspective as compared with your own:

Neck braces? They prevent further injury, yo.

Now, that's your perspective.

Hers?

Scarves over the face? They prevent eternal damnation, yo.

But you're right! Headscarves are clearly unimportant to muslim women, just as they should be to everyone else. She toly coulda been hiding a few rabid monkeys and knives in that thing.

Yeah this is when it gets stupid.

I am not saying it is right or wrong to ask her to remove the scarf. Nor would I, and did I, indicate that there were rabid monkeys under it, that is just stupid and shows you just want to argue for the sake of being fucking pain in the ass. There COULD have been SOMETHING under there. It might not have been much, there might not have been anything. But it IS a possibility. No more or less of a possibility than some gangsta going in there with a hat on. I don't believe there was a single thing under that scarf other than her head, BUT that is beside the point. There is always the possibility. Wouldn't matter who she was or what was on her head.

When I originally responded to you it was nothing to do with the headscarf, it was in response to what would occur if someone had a neck brace.

Rules of the court in America, or Australia, or even England... are different to those in a predominantly Muslim country. We would be expected to follow THEIR rules. Yet it is a great big thing when it is the opposite.
If she didn't want to remove the headscarf, that is fine. If she would rather jail time, over eternal damnation, again that is fine. That is her perogative. That is her choice, and her religion, and her following what she wants to follow. I don't think she DESERVED the jail time, in fact I don't think it warranted much more than a fine, IF THAT.

Lol. Wow! Take a joke, wouldja? There's no way you could fit a rabid monkey under a headscarf! Maybe some religious freedoms, but I digress.

I know you responded to the neck brace thing. I appreciate the response, too! However, it was an example. You attempted to debunk it. My response? Show why I thought they were fundamentally the same, and why it was a good example at its roots, not at its surface.

I understand that rules are rules; however, rules often conflict with another, and a greater rule must be chosen. In my opinion (despite my lack of religious preference), I'd say that religious freedoms take precedent over a judge. They could have just patted her down for the sake of security.

It's not the same... but they could've, in respect to her religous beliefs, asked a female to see the muslim woman without her veil on and see if there's anything hiddin underneath it... They weren't really concerned about her hiding something there that's why it was offensive to the woman...

Definitely, and they could have done that. It is a shame they didn't. But maybe, she could also have suggested that too. A way to educate them I guess.

Yep, I have no idea why she didn't! Like when she was telling them that it would be a religious violation if she took it off might as well tell them she'd take it off in front of a female! Like they do it in airports and places like that...

Ah, well this just makes the south look lovely. Thanks, Georgia judge. You're not helping the image.

I don't mean to nitpick here, but I don't see what this specifically has to do with the South. I can easily see this happening in other regions of the country as well.

ANYWAY I think we should all just agree to disagree. I don't like arguing and we obviously all have different view points.
I wish you all a very Merry Christmas xxx

I have to say, I'm with Acid Fairy here. I think if she was asked to take it off, she should. I've seen something SO similar happen here, and it wasnt for religious reasons. It's a rule, and if youre going to break them, you should be punished. If it's at the judge's discretion, then they should be able to use that discretion. If youre going to come here and practise your religion, thats fine, and I'll respect you, but you better respect me just the same. And taking her headscarf off for the 20 minutes or whatever she would have been in there...would have been way easier to do than cause a scene, but these people LIKE scenes, so everyone can see how "badly" we treat them...which is utter BS in my own experience. If it was me going in there, adn I was wearing a headscarf, for whatever reason, and was asked to take it off, and didnt...and got thrown in jail for it, I bet you no one would tell them to let me out. I hate when people want special treatment. Especially when like Acid Explained, it's all interpretation.