This page was last updated on June 30, 2011.
Unacceptable; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 30, 2011.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.
“The United States isn’t France.”
[RWC] I’m confused. Doesn’t the BCT routinely tell us we should adopt this or that policy because “everyone else is doing it?” One example is “Doing as others do.”
“France, perhaps the most secular nation in the world, bans the wearing of head scarves in public by Muslim women.”
[RWC] Why does the BCT continue to make this false claim? As I noted in my critique of “Breach of faith,” France does not “ban the wearing of head scarves in public by Muslim women.” Anyone can wear a headscarf in public regardless of religion, just without the covered face. According to The Telegraph (UK), Italy has “a 1975 anti-terrorism law, which prohibits people from wearing anything that obscures their faces and impedes identification.” Finally, Turkey is nearly 100% Muslim and it too bans a covered face in public.
“Such a move should be unthinkable in the U.S., but apparently it’s not at Abercrombie & Fitch. The retailer is being sued in federal court by a former stockroom worker who claims she was fired for refusing to remove her hijab.”
[RWC] I know it may come as a shock to the BCT, but the government and “We the People” have different rights according to the U.S. Constitution. For example, the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise” of religion, but there is no such restriction on the people. As a result, while I believe it would be illegal for the feds to fire a federal government employee in a similar circumstance, I don’t believe there’s constitutional authority for the feds to enact laws governing whom a business must hire and under what conditions. In general, I think it’s stupid and poor personal behavior for a business or individual to discriminate against or in favor of someone based on irrelevant things like religion, skin color, et cetera. My parents and grandparents taught me better. That said, it takes a very creative reading of the Constitution to conclude it grants government the authority to rule on private-sector employment requirements. Consider the following quote by Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, an FDR appointee: “The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.”
If a non-Muslim employee wanted to wear a headscarf, would it then be OK for A&F to fire that employee “for refusing to remove her hijab?”
“The court needs to send a clear message that this encroachment of religious freedom is unacceptable.”
[RWC] It seems the BCT would like us to believe freedom of religion means anything called for by a religion must be allowed by both government and individuals. That’s not the case, however. For example, could I get out of paying taxes if my religion forbad it?
If the BCT really believes “encroachment of religious freedom is unacceptable,” perhaps it should check out this story about the VA allegedly “censoring religious speech” at a Houston National Cemetery.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.