The veil of truth works against Muslim woman

AP/Washington Times:

A Muslim woman whose small-claims court case was dismissed after she refused to remove her veil has sued the judge, saying her religious and civil rights were violated.
Ginnnah Muhammad, 42, of Detroit, says in the lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Detroit that Judge Paul Paruk's request to remove her veil, and his decision to dismiss her case when she didn't, were unconstitutional based on her First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
The suit against Judge Paruk also cites a federal civil rights law in asserting that Miss Muhammad was denied access to the courts because of her religion.
Miss Muhammad wore a niqab -- a scarf and veil that covers her head and face, leaving only the eyes visible -- during the October hearing in Hamtramck, a city near Detroit.
She was contesting a $2,750 charge from a rental-car company to repair a vehicle that she said thieves had entered. Judge Paruk told her he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness and gave her a choice: Take off the veil while testifying or have the case dismissed. She kept it on.
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. then filed a claim seeking a judgment of $2,000 against Miss Muhammad. A hearing is set for April 18 before Judge Paruk in Hamtramck's district court.
Miss Muhammad's attorney, Nabih Ayad, said that she unsuccessfully sought to get a different judge to hear the case and that she and her client plan to ask him to remove himself from the case.
...
The veil is clearly not required by the Muslim religion and only a few weirdos suggest that it might be. Religious practices have always been limited by the courts. For example, no one would suggest that Mayan human sacrifice should be permitted. Nor are Christian Scientist permitted to deny medical care to their children. There is no rational reason to permit veils to be worn by witnesses at a trial. The finder of fact must look at not only what is said but the demeanor of the witness. This is just another frivolous lawsuit by Muslims trying to undermine the American culture.

Comments

  1. anonymous12:00 AM

    "The veil is clearly not required by the Muslim religion and only a few weirdos suggest that it might be."

    The only person who can say what is or is not required by a person's religion is that person herself. That is what freedom of religion is all about. Anything else leads to very serious problems: Who would determine what is required by a religion? The government? Government appointed religious leaders? Government approved religious definitions? Should the government decide which form of Islam is valid Shiite or Sunni?

    If this woman can prove she wears a veil regularly, that is among strongest proof you can ask for that her religion requires it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more