No offense, but that courtroom stunt was dumb

[Coconut]

I'll call the MDC tomorrow and let them know.

How did that go for you?

[AnarchoJesse]

I'll call the MDC tomorrow and let them know.

How did that go for you?

I don't know, to be honest.

I haven't called, most due in part to being phoneless at the moment.

Maybe I'll do this after all.

I'll talk to Shaunna.

[Peacemaker]

AnarchoJesse, Good for Liberty that you challenged The System and you did it Your Way. 

[thinkliberty]

I don't know, to be honest.

I haven't called, most due in part to being phoneless at the moment.

Maybe I'll do this after all.

I'll talk to Shaunna.

If you can get off on time served with a phone call you won't really be backing down (you don't have to go to a court and take your hat off to do it.) and you don't have to jeopardize seeing your girl when she comes to NH.

You have already shown that the court is run by a bunch of bullies.

Knowing that you will be giving up the chance to make a real connection that you have been missing does not seem worth letting the bullies put you in a cage to prove what you have already proven and if you change your mind, there will be another trial you can go to and wear a hat at again to make your stand...

You can pick when and where the fight is. If it's not convenient to you to do it now, don't.

[jaqeboy]

Jesse, I'm betting the reason Crocker was asking for that little detail, "wnere they 'religious' reasons", is that there is an incredibly inspiring history of early Quakers refusing "hat honor", ie, not taking their hat off to people of higher social rank, most notably judges and magistrates. Many went to prison and many died in prison over this very issue. William Penn tried to right this in the establishment of Pennsylvania.

See: http://books.google.com/books?id=Jl07EQtzDQQC&pg=PA368&lpg=PA368&dq=hat+honor&source=web&ots=pgK8iU8DNZ&sig=OjXfiroCprTOcRDyY3nhIdaXYjo&hl=en&ei=i86TSdu1EqGbtwfGsaisCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

Those who are familiar with the cruel sufferings which early Friends [Quakers] endured in England, even unto death, because they could not conscientiously render the homage of taking off the hat to those who arrogated to themselves the right to demand it, can properly appreciate the sagacity and foresight of William Penn in providing against the like occurrences in Pennsylvania.

See also the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends

Egalitarianism

    For more details on this topic, see Testimony of Equality.

Quakers hold a strong sense of spiritual egalitarianism,...

The Friends' attitude towards egalitarianism was also demonstrated by their refusal to practice "hat honour" (Quakers refused to take their hats off or bow to anyone regardless of title or rank), and their refusal to address anyone with honorific titles such as "Sir," "Madam," "Your Honour," or "Your Majesty." This testified to the Friends' understanding that, in the eyes of God, there was no hierarchy based on birth, wealth, or political power—such honours they reserved only for God. This practice was not considered by Friends to be anti-authoritarian in nature, but instead as a rebuke against human pretense and ego.

Today, resistance to "hat honour" does not prevail as it once did—most hat customs are not practiced in contemporary daily life—and the individual Friend is left to decide whether or not to practice "hat honour" as a matter of conscience.

Now, I don't know Crocker that well, but, if you said you were a "Friend" or "Quaker", or merely answered her in the affirmative, she might have said, "OK, you can keep your hat on." because of the Quakers' struggle. The whole hat honor thing is a holdover from the English social rank aristocracy thing. The vestigial remains of that are because the Quaker egalitarian thing didn't stick, since they were never dominant, but they made incredible strides.

There's a little legalistic thing here, The Constitution for the united States recognizes a "right of religion" in Amendment article 1, but not a "right of personal morality", or "right of beliefs", or any other similar wording, just a "right of religion."

The New Hampshire Constitution recognizes "rights of Conscience" which, to most, is not quite clear, but I personally think it is a very powerful (civil) right. I know you didn't go to that courtroom with a legal stance prepared, but I think you have a strong "right of conscience" case. Your stance was from your high moral sense, from your conscience (sense of right and wrong) and you were right in your reactions. The decision of which battle to fight is a different question.

So, Crocker may or may not know the "hat honor" Quaker history (but I bet most law students learn it), but you can bet she knows the right of religion issue. You sound like a dead-on Quaker, but you forgot to say thee and thou. 

Russell actually is religious.  Jesse made it up.

I'm not sure that Jesse said he had his hat on for religious reasons.

you do realize ... that Kat was the one there

Oh please, Russell, you weren't there either.

When I said I was refusing to remove my hat, I said verbatim "for moral reasons." When the judged asked me if these moral reasons were religious reasons, I responded "Morality and Religion are one and the same to me, so I would guess so." Never did I for a moment say that I was not removing it for "religious reasons"; indeed, I would argue that religion and morality are essentially philosophical viewpoints with differing names and subject to different interpretation.

Simply because you can't reconcile objective absolutist ethics with being on equal grounding of moralistic religion doesn't mean I was dishonest.