LaughingVulcan, on May 31 2003, 06:53 PM, said:
Julie, on May 31 2003, 12:53 PM, said:
Anyway, I was reading a little about this case, and there's one aspect that really bothers me.
Unless quashed by Judge Janet Thorpe, the showdown over Islamic law could put the court system, an ardently secular unit, in the difficult position of deciding a matter of religious interpretation.
"I'm sure you can get religious scholars to pretty much disagree on anything," said Howard Marks, Freeman's Florida-based lawyer, who is working on her case pro-bono. It is not the role of a court to be the arbiter of religious scripture."
I completely agree with Mr. Marks on this point. If the court is interpreting religious scripture and deciding one's religious freedoms based on their interpretations, they're essentially mandating beliefs.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter if veil-wearing has support in the Quran. Plenty of religions don't even have a written, definitive basis.
I really hope this is an old article and the judge has already decided what a bad idea this would be.