Speaking of conservative victimology over phony cries of religious oppression
– because let’s face it, that’s how the liberals sell it, and more and more, “sophisticated” Republicans who claim to be conservative scoff right along with the left — here’s another example of whining by some orthodox religious kook upset that he wasn’t permitted to wear his kippah in court:
A Jewish man was barred from participating in his own trial after a circuit court judge removed him from the courtroom for insisting on wearing a head covering in keeping with his Jewish beliefs.
Stephen Orr, a resident of Chesapeake, Va., was tried in absentia and found guilty, after a Circuit Court judge denied his request to wear a hat, or “kippah,” into the courtroom in keeping with a Jewish mandate that persons wear a head covering at all times. The judge allegedly based his denial on the fact that other Jewish litigants appear in court without a head covering.
– I’m sure some Scots show up in court as litigants without kilts. Just as I’m sure some tranny hookers will show up without the falsies and the bad wigs. Meaning that a de facto norm is created, except when it isn’t. So the logic here is…well, there doesn’t really appear to be any, does there? Just something rather arbitrary.
Having said that, I do wish to remain hip and be considered one of the more nuanced mouthbreathers, so let me ostentatiously proclaim that religious people whining about their rights being trampled on bothers me. I mean, it’s just so Jim and Tammy Faye, you know? Why can’t they just shut up and concentrate on fiscal policy? For the MODERATES AND INDEPENDENTS!
“As Jewish Americans prepare to celebrate Yom Kippur, one of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar, we would do well to remember that in many parts of this country, the right to freely practice one’s religious beliefs remains an uphill battle, and that’s true no matter what your religious beliefs, whether you’re a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, or an atheist,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, which has filed an appeal on Orr’s behalf.
In coming to Orr’s defense, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that under Virginia’s Religious Freedom statute and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, any requirement that Orr remove his hat in violation of his religious beliefs is enforceable only if the court’s no-hat rule serves a compelling state interest, and no such interest justified the demand that Orr violate his beliefs.
Not so! The hat signifies that the wearer answers to a higher power than some Virginia judge drunk on his own power. And we can’t have that! If the Lord wants to take part in the trial, he’d better dress his ass up as George Burns and take the goddamn stand his own self!
Rutherford attorneys also assert that Orr’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to confront witnesses and present evidence on his behalf were violated by his trial in absentia because Orr’s wearing of a hat would not have significantly disrupted his trial.
Commenting on the incident, Rabbi Aryeh Spero called Orr’s ouster from the courtroom “outrageous,” noting that the kippah is worn at all times by religious Jews. Thus, Spero said, a practicing Jew wouldn’t don the kippah to “make a statement” – he’d always have it on during his daily activities.
Spero also noted that wearing the kippah poses no disrespect to the judge or distraction to the court – and does not impose on another person to make any type of accommodation to the religious practice or belief.
Well, maybe not. But it’s hardly worth bitching about, is it? I mean, take the damn thing off and you get a fair trial. Refuse and you don’t. It’s quite simple.