Legal pact permits NYC transit workers to don religious head wear

[rug]

By Jessica Dye
NEW YORK | Wed May 30, 2012 3:39pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City's transit system has agreed to allow Sikh and Muslim employees to wear religious head coverings in public, such as while operating buses and subways, as part of a legal settlement filed on Wednesday in Brooklyn federal court.

The settlement brings an end to what Sikh and Muslim plaintiffs dubbed a "brand or segregate" policy enforced by the New York City Transit Authority following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center.

According to the settlement papers, Transit Authority employees will no longer be forced to choose between branding their religious head coverings with the logo for the rail and bus operator's parent, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, or working in jobs out of the public view.

Bus drivers, train operators, conductors and station agents will now be allowed to wear their headscarves, turbans and other religious head wear, provided they are in the same blue color as their transit uniforms, according to court papers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/us-newyork-transit-religion-idUSBRE84T1D220120530

[cbayer]

1. Good move.

[rug]

2. And it only took eight years.

[cbayer]

3. The court system is unbelievable.

I have a case that is now entering it's 4th year and I have only been in the courtroom once (and was not permitted to speak).

This is a straight forward case for compensation from an insurance company.

[longship]

4. This is good, but I am still conflicted.

Where does one draw the line between a person's willing adoption of religious garb and a religion's imposition of a specific garb in order to subjugate?

I have no answer to this question. But I am extremely uncomfortable with e.g., burkaed women. Or any other subjugation imposed by religion.

It's a fine line and I cannot say where I would draw it, but it would not include burkas.

[rug]

5. I'm pretty sure the decision to be, or remain, a Sikh, is voluntary.

What strikes me about this story is not subjugation but their determination to maintain their identity in what is often a hostile and derisive environment.

[longship]

6. I support freedom

But I am much more concerned about those who have no choice in their garb. For instance, women in many societies.

That's my conflict.

[cbayer]

7. The burka debate is a hard one.

While there are women who do not object, I agree that there are many more who do but have no say in the matter.

However, I think that is more true in countries other than the US>

I recently visited Turkey and was fascinated by the burked women. They were everywhere and seemed to be leading very full lives - shopping, out with their kids, reading on park benches, talking animatedly in small groups.

The argument has been made by some that the burka prevents women from being publicly sexually harassed. This has a more encompassing impact, as I saw no signs of sexual harassment in Turkey (unlike Italy, Greece and Spain where it is rampant).

[longship]

8. To me there is NO debate. Burkas are nothing but male subjugation of women.

Because women never just get the burka. They also get a whole spectrum of other subjugations along side. The sole reason why a women gets away with saying it is a choice, is that it is a choice made for her, not by her, or at least not willingly.

This is where I draw a line with respect for religion. I have no choice but to stand firmly on my ground on this particular issue.

But a scarf over the head? No big deal, but if I even have a glimmer that it was coerced, I would despise the scarf as much as the burka.

I know that this is an immoderate position, but I tend to be less moderate about human rights when they collide with religious beliefs.

[cbayer]

9. But let's just suppose there are in fact women who choose that.

I know that the argument can be made that no woman chooses that voluntary, but what if there really are? Should they not be permitted to do so? How would saying that they could not be any different than saying that they must?

[longship]

13. Do they also accept female circumcision?

Do they also accept laws against education? Do they also accept laws against being in public without a male family member? Do the also accept the death penalty for adultery when they're raped?

I could go on here for some number of DU post inches, but I don't think I need to.

To me, these are all the same damned thing. The only reason why a woman says that they choose such things is because their culture tells them that they have no choice. And it's invariably a culture determined solely by religious beliefs.

Here I have to stand. As a feminist supporter and an atheist, to do otherwise would be immoral.

[cbayer]

14. I don't know what else they may or may not believe in or support.

I only ask that we consider this one thing.

Should they be allowed a choice of clothing or not?

I think there are some pretty good points in the article that Rug posts and I have read others.

As a supporter of women's rights as well, I support a woman's right to choose - including to choose what she wears.

The question comes down to this - is it her choice or not? That's where it gets tough.

[longship]

15. This is precisely why I am firmly with Dennett here.

And Dawkins, too.

Both feel strongly, and I am convinced as well, that we need to look very closely at religion as scientists of human behavior.

And concerning clothing. I do not believe for a second that it really is a choice, especially when it comes to women. Not even for a split second! My reason is that these proscriptions and prescriptions have history which inevitably trace back to men deciding for women. Where does choice come into that? Without exception!

So when a woman claims choice I know that it was not her who chose, but some guy, whether in the past, or -- horrors -- today.

And here's the most important point. It is always religion which does these things. Again, no exceptions that I know of.

If I were to change one thing and only one thing about religion it would be the elimination of the subjugation of women. Nearly all religions do it and it is the worst thing about them.

[rug]

10. Here's another view.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/19/battle-for-the-burqa

[backscatter712]

11. Great! This allows me to wear my colander if I ever work for NYC transit! n/t

[rug]

12. Not if you work on the third rail.