Hesse bans burkas for state workers

[Sukerkin]

And quite right too! (in answer to your last sentence there (and bearing in mind my not exactly secret views on all religions)).

 

[Sukerkin]

As to the poor oppressed lass who wants to go to work in a sack, tough. Abide by the dress code of your employer or don't work there.

If that dress code is radically unreasonable, in it's context, then try to get a legal action going to amend it - but don't line your own pockets whilst you're doing it.

 

[granfire]

I don't think a burka has anything to do with the root of the issue. Reads more like she concocted a scheme to get money out of the state so she could stay home with her kid(s) and not have to work for awhile.

Well, considering you get parental leave in Germany, I think one year is paid, but up to three years with the guarantee your job is waiting for you. But yeah, the nest egg thing seems to be the prominent idea.

(as I recall back in the late 80s scietology got on the watch list because of reports - and rumors - of their unconventional ways to keep the flock in the fold. You know, like black mail and the likes...)

 

[elder999]

Excuse me?.

Sure, no problem.

However, the USA is unlike most governments around the world in that it does not determine what is or is not a religion, what is or is not a church. It may not grant tax-exempt status, but that does not mean it is not a religion in the eyes of the federal government. The US simply does not grant (or deny) official recognition of religion. Contrast this with Germany, which does not recognize Scientology as a religion.

I'd say you should tell all that to members of the Native American Church....or Sundancers......or Ghost Dancers....or any variety of other Native American practices that have been made illegal, or legal, over the years....or tell that to anyone who has participated in a court case to determine whether or not federal or state government action has infringed upon their religion-part of that very case typically requires the court-that is to say, the government-determining whether what they say is a religion actually is one.

We also have cases like United States v Ballard, where the Supreme Court looked to the sincerity of the believers. The Ballard case involved the conviction of organizers of the I Am movement on grounds that they defrauded people by falsely representing that their members had supernatural powers to heal people with incurable illnesses. The court determined that jurors must look not to whether the members actually had these abilities, but whether they believed that they did.

If the jurors, an organ of the court, which is the representative of the people-that is to say,the government, are determining "sincerity of belief," they're determining the validity-and recognition or lack thereof- of a religion.

 

[girlbug2]

Can she properly do her job in a burka? I'd guess yes, she could perform the technical functions, except for the social aspect. Like it or not, when one's job involves being face-to-face with other people, then one's face should be visible.

That's my personal complaint about the whole burka thing right there; it's a removal of personal identity, rendering the woman an "other" visually. In a world that's already too anonymous IMO, we don't need our service workers to be even more anonymous to the point of being literally faceless. Also, it can't be helping the office environment in terms of co worker's relations.

Not to mention the sexism inherent in the extreme religious view that women should cover up completely, but not men...but of course that's another thread. Just sayin'.

 

[CanuckMA]

Not to derail, but I've seen an increasing use of the term burka in the media to mean a niqab and a loose dress. When a news source says burka, they don't always mean the heavy burlap thing most of us think about.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Sure, no problem.

I'd say you should tell all that to members of the Native American Church....or Sundancers......or Ghost Dancers....or any variety of other Native American practices that have been made illegal, or legal, over the years....or tell that to anyone who has participated in a court case to determine whether or not federal or state government action has infringed upon their religion-part of that very case typically requires the court-that is to say, the government-determining whether what they say is a religion actually is one.

We also have cases like United States v Ballard, where the Supreme Court looked to the sincerity of the believers. The Ballard case involved the conviction of organizers of the I Am movement on grounds that they defrauded people by falsely representing that their members had supernatural powers to heal people with incurable illnesses. The court determined that jurors must look not to whether the members actually had these abilities, but whether they believed that they did.

If the jurors, an organ of the court, which is the representative of the people-that is to say,the government, are determining "sincerity of belief," they're determining the validity-and recognition or lack thereof- of a religion.

OK, I think I understand you now. Sorry, I wasn't thinking that way.

I *think* you're referring to religious practice and not religion, per se. Typically this occurs when religion brushes up against either tax, civil, or criminal law; in other words, when a given religion attempts to gain tax-exempt status or engage in activities that would otherwise be banned to ordinary citizens, such as illicit drug-taking.

Let me say this about that; unlike most governments, the USA isn't in the business of granting recognition, official or otherwise, to organized religions. If one declares a religion, then ipso facto, it is a religion as far as the US government cares. You say you're a priest or a pope or a shaman? Fine and dandy. The US government doesn't say "X is a religion and Y is not a religion." It may say "X is not a religion for the purposes of tax-exempt status," but that is not the same thing.

Most governments are not like us; they *do* make it their business to regulate, certify, or otherwise regulate religions.

It is when the beliefs, desires, or practices of a given religion conflict with existing law or with the rights of others that the government gets involved. In the desire to not oppress religion, the government has made accommodations in some areas and refused to in others. For example, possession of eagle feathers or use of peyote in religious ceremonies or ritual killing of animals to satisfy kosher or halal requirements or even animal sacrifice to not restrict the worship practices of certain religions.

In other words, it is when there is a conflict between religion and existing law that the government may attempt to make a determination as to not just the reasonableness of the request, but also the legitimacy of the claimed belief system. If I establish a religion tomorrow that uses crack as a sacrament, chances are I won't prevail if I'm arrested for crack possession and then claim a religious exemption. If I am a member of the Native American Church, however, I may be able to ingest peyote as part of a religious ceremony.

In most of those cases I am aware of, it's not just the legitimacy of the religion that is put to the test, it is the historical earnestness of the belief and the degree to which denying the claimed religious need would put an undue burden on the free practice of that religion, as well as the impact it has on the rights of others (for example, no religion, no matter how authentic and how much a sacrament to their beliefs, would be permitted to engage in human sacrifice).

I recognize now what you meant, and thanks for the explanation. But I maintain that we in the USA are essentially unlike Germany and most other countries in our recognition and regulation of religion and religious practice.

 

[granfire]

Not to derail, but I've seen an increasing use of the term burka in the media to mean a niqab and a loose dress. When a news source says burka, they don't always mean the heavy burlap thing most of us think about.

True, however, Germany has a huge population of Turkish people. The common dress for the women is a shapeless mumu type dress, or be it a coat without belt plus head scarf. That is normal, you see that a lot. Anything past that is from where I am standing an attempt to draw attention. Especially when you make a big deal of it.
If it's the black thing with the eye slot or the purple thing with the netting (I am assuming that can come in other colors?) it's not relevant.

 

[granfire]

They don't have "freedom of religion" in Germany-the government determines what actually is, legally speaking, a religion...............
..................just like in the U.S.

Well, they do have freedom of religion. Nobody gives a frog's behind how you worship.
If you are a member of a church government is so kind to draw money out of your check to give to your church. I am not sure if the local mosques have since been included, but yeah.

However the society is generally not religious, in stalk contrast to the US. You stand up and say 'I am a Christian' is special in Germany, not like the air your breath, like around here.

(Scientology is a different matter, they have those funky ways of dealing with their flock, deemed criminal, you know, black mail etc...)

However, somewhere even tolerance has to draw a line. If you work in a public service area you can't just dress as you please. Some areas have safety concerns others other types of problems. In German public offices there is generally no 'back office' everybody deals with the public, especially the 'Buergeramt'

Not to mention german burocrats are legendary for being noncommunicative, not to say rude... throw a blanket over one and you got a mess.

(Yeah, I amGerman...though removed from the deal for a few years now)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, they do have freedom of religion. Nobody gives a frog's behind how you worship.

Here's the difference as I see it.

In many (most?) countries, religions are officially recognized by the government.

In the USA, the federal government does not recognize religions. They are whatever they say they are.

In either type of scenario, sometimes certain practices conflict with existing regulations, laws, or actually may infringe on the civil rights of others. In such cases, governments are obliged to make a determination one way or the other.

So if religion X wants to dress a particular way in public as a significant part of their religious beliefs, and it conflicts with government regulations regarding dress code, then a determination must be made.

In general, in the USA, the government favors religion over law in areas where the infringement does not affect the day-to-day operation of the employee or significantly disrupt the abilities of that office to do their work.

I recall one incident at a government building I worked at briefly in Kansas City. A Christian employee wished to wear a religious medallion around their neck and go around quoting bible verses prior to saying anything else. Like you asked them "How are you today?" they would first quote a bible verse and then answer you. Someone filed a complaint. The ruling, as I recall, was that the employee could wear the religious jewelry but could not spout bible verses at customers. One did not significantly impact the operation of the office, the other did. Neither one was considered to be an indispensable part of that person's religious faith. I thought it was a reasonable result.

 

[elder999]

In other words, it is when there is a conflict between religion and existing law that the government may attempt to make a determination as to not just the reasonableness of the request, but also the legitimacy of the claimed belief system. If I establish a religion tomorrow that uses crack as a sacrament, chances are I won't prevail if I'm arrested for crack possession and then claim a religious exemption. If I am a member of the Native American Church, however, I may be able to ingest peyote as part of a religious ceremony

Are you saying then, Bill, that if an existing law, like the one in Virginia that specifically forbids going in public with one’s face covered, were used to prevent women from the “religious practice” of wearing a burkha, that would be okay? Or, at least, permissible? Even though the law was made to prevent the activities of the KKK, it could be said to be for public safety.....unless, of course, it violates the 1st Amendment.

OK, I think I understand you now. Sorry, I wasn't thinking that way. I *think* you're referring to religious practice and not religion, per se. Typically this occurs when religion brushes up against either tax, civil, or criminal law; in other words, when a given religion attempts to gain tax-exempt status or engage in activities that would otherwise be banned to ordinary citizens, such as illicit drug-taking.

What if the “practice” cannot be separated from the religion, and vice versa ? In the case of the Native American Church, laws against peyote were passed specifically because] of their ritual, which, I can tell you, is fairly pointless without peyote. In fact, examining thue history of the NAC, one can pretty fairly say that it was a determined effort by the government to keep people from practicing their religion. Same with the Sundance(illegal until 1978, though largely unenforcable) and the Ghost Dance (still technically illegal, though largely abandoned.)