So I'm trying to figure out what I want to do with my trial.

[Josh]

I'm saying the same right that someone has to wear head garb because the court says it is OK, should extend to all, regardless of religious affiliation, or lack there of.

People should not be treated special because of religion, so the way to treat everyone equally, is to either make everyone take hats off, or let everyone wear one.

I vote for let everyone wear one if they so choose of their own free will
I can see I am not making any friends with this line of thought

I, for one, couldn't agree more. At the end of the day, it's a bunch of fucking rags used to retain heat. I also see it as a separation of church and state issue.

[Free libertarian]

just a stupid thought for discussion

So what is the recognized religious observance that he is going to argue his membership in doesn't permit him to remove his hat?

Gangstarians?

"recognized religious observance" ?????    Is there a special list that is "real religion" and all the rest are uh "made up"?

[BillKauffman]

just a stupid thought for discussion

So what is the recognized religious observance that he is going to argue his membership in doesn't permit him to remove his hat?

Gangstarians?

"recognized religious observance" ?????    Is there a special list that is "real religion" and all the rest are uh "made up"?

Isn't that what he is doing - making something up?

Isn't that why Kat is critical?

[Russell Kanning]

so what do you think you will say at the trial or hearing?

[Free libertarian]

just a stupid thought for discussion

So what is the recognized religious observance that he is going to argue his membership in doesn't permit him to remove his hat?

Gangstarians?

"recognized religious observance" ?????    Is there a special list that is "real religion" and all the rest are uh "made up"?

Isn't that what he is doing - making something up?

Isn't that why Kat is critical?

Kat being critical? I can't answer for her.    "Recognized Religions", "Made up" religions, lists of approved religions
etc.  -  I'm not exactly a religious person now, but way back when I was a kid, I went to Sunday School.  If there is one memory I have of many practicioners of "recognized religions" it's that they will allow you the freedom to choose, just as long as you choose their religion.   Who is to say which religions should be "recognized" is my point.  I find it almost funny that the IRS and apparently courts determine if your religion is real.
  One thing I seem to remember is "thou shalt not kill".  Only god and governments are allowed to do that I guess.  The really ironic thing is if Jesse refuses all overtures, invitations to pay fines etc. from the take your hat off gang he could literally be killed, for his own good of course.  Wonder what god thinks about that? Doesn't he (or she) like hats either?
Concerning Jesse saying he refused to doff his hat on religious grounds rather than on some other moral position? Fine with me if you consider that for some people their personal philosophy is sort of their "religion".  Or maybe he  was so taken aback it was the best answer he could come up with under the circumstances.  Whatever his reasons are I give him credit for taking a stand.     
     

[Lloyd Danforth]

I hear from our resident paralegal that there is no rule prohibiting wearing a hat in court.  Go with that.

I'm not much on rules but if there was a rule, I would expect them to make everyone observe it regardless of their religion.  One of the next best thing to 'no law' is absolute equal treatment to everyone under it.

[Coconut]

Jesse says in another thread : http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=17043.75

"I'll just take the plea offer they gave me and go with a "No Contest". Heaven forbid I should say something wrong again, right? Wouldn't want to put myself in such a position as that again. ... I'll call the MDC tomorrow and let them know."

Clearly emotionally charged. So I don't know if he did call or not.

[Josh]

Were the officers involved wearing their hats when this happened? Were they in the court at any time with their hats on?

[FTL_Ian]

Were the officers involved wearing their hats when this happened? Were they in the court at any time with their hats on?

Yes.  It would have made a great pic.  Maybe the video from the court can be retrieved.  Has anyone attempted this?

[Josh]

Well, that just takes an already disgusting situation and makes it many times worse.

[Russell Kanning]

usually the cops don't have hats on in the courtroom ... but it is possible
I don't think bill is advocating that the government have recognized religions ... just pointing out that they have their list ... I would guess that nothing that jesse observes, would be acceptable. All of us seem to be outside of their approved categories.

So what are you doing Jesse?

[Josh]

All of us seem to be outside of their approved categories.

Ain't that the truth! 

[BillKauffman]

I don't think bill is advocating that the government have recognized religions ... just pointing out that they have their list ... I would guess that nothing that jesse observes, would be acceptable. All of us seem to be outside of their approved categories.

It has to be a recognized organized religion.

Unless you can consider the cult of Rand organized, I don't think it is going to fly because I am not sure membership includes wearing at all times a hat with a grenade emblem on the side.

[Josh]

Bill... Do you feel it is ok for a bunch of men wearing hats to keep someone else from wearing a hat?

This is a serious question, and I am not looking to attack your response. I am just curious.

[BillKauffman]

Bill... Do you feel it is ok for a bunch of men wearing hats to keep someone else from wearing a hat?

This is a serious question, and I am not looking to attack your response. I am just curious.

In a collectively owned building our delegated authority decides what the rules are for it's use including how people must dress. Then we allow the discretion of the judge in each courtroom for specific decorum.

The natural question then falls back to how is authority delegated? First via elections (majority rules) and at it's core all issues are really a discussion of the "social contract doctrine" of consent vs. "poly-centric law".