http://www.alrasub.com/mississippi-j...from-his-head/
Of course, that whole Sikh thing is a load of rubbish from a purely epistemic standpoint. Having said that, I agree that demanding Singh remove "that rag" is essentially discriminatory and that, unlike removals of the burqa recently demanded in France, the demand serves no utilitarian purpose because Singh's turban does not make him anonymous. You can plainly see all his facial features and if he's going to be wearing that turban all the time, you'd probably be better off seeing him with it than without it in case you need to identify him in the future. *sigh*
>Mississippi
It's pretty hard to ridicule even Singh's belief in the obvious nonsense of a syncretic 14th century religion when you compare him to police officers and a judge who are probably a few shades of skin tone and one dental mishap short of this:
Remember: if at first you don't secede, try, try again.
The ACLU has released a letter it wrote on behalf of Jagjeet Singh, a practicing Sikh, to the Mississippi Department of Transportation (DOT) in Pike County. The complaint contends that in January, Singh, a licensed long-haul trucker, was humiliated by DOT officers after being pulled over for driving with a flat tire.
According to the ACLU, the officers who pulled Singh over believed that his kirpan — a ceremonial “sword” worn by Sikhs that poses as grave a danger to the public as the crosses donned by many Christians — was a “dangerous weapon,” despite the fact that it had been sewn into the waistband of his pants.
Singh tried to educate the lead officer by “show[ing] him, and other officers present, videos stored on his phone and on Youtube about the Sikh faith.” The officers responded with mockery, one of them allegedly referring to Sikhs as “depraved” and “terrorists.”
...
The officers eventually arrested Singh for failing to comply with their commands. As if that was not humiliating enough, according to the ACLU, when Singh returned to Pike County to contest his arrest, presiding Judge Aubrey Rimes ejected him from the courtroom.
In chambers, the ACLU alleges that Judge Rimes told Singh that he wouldn’t be allowed to reenter the courtroom unless he removed “that rag,” referring to his Dastar, from his head. When Singh refused, Judge Rimes forced Singh and his attorney to wait until all other litigants had been heard before allowing him back into the courtroom.
Of course, that whole Sikh thing is a load of rubbish from a purely epistemic standpoint. Having said that, I agree that demanding Singh remove "that rag" is essentially discriminatory and that, unlike removals of the burqa recently demanded in France, the demand serves no utilitarian purpose because Singh's turban does not make him anonymous. You can plainly see all his facial features and if he's going to be wearing that turban all the time, you'd probably be better off seeing him with it than without it in case you need to identify him in the future. *sigh*
>Mississippi
It's pretty hard to ridicule even Singh's belief in the obvious nonsense of a syncretic 14th century religion when you compare him to police officers and a judge who are probably a few shades of skin tone and one dental mishap short of this:
Remember: if at first you don't secede, try, try again.
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=265976&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire