D.C. police will no longer intervene to remove women from mosques.

[woo me with science]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-police-won_t-intervene-to-remove-women-from-mosques-96758814.html

By: Bill Myers
Examiner Staff Writer
June 21, 2010

The D.C. police department will no longer intervene in an ongoing protest by Islamic women over their place in area mosques, The Washington Examiner has learned.

A group of Muslim women has provoked confrontations in mosques in and around the capital for months by claiming the right to worship next to men. The gestures have led to angry arguments between the women and conservative men among the Muslim worshipers.

.....

D.C.'s reversal is a victory for a small group of reform-minded Muslims in the capital region who say that their faith has to shake off its backward view of women.

.....

But the department's climb-down raised the hackles of Ilya Shapiro, a legal scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute.

"The religious angle is beside the point. This isn't a lunch counter or a restaurant or a hotel," he said. "Basically this is a private institution, and that's what this turns on -- private property rights. If you don't want a trespasser on your lawn ... you do rely on the police, ultimately, to eject people you don't want."

[email protected]

[no_hypocrisy]

1. As much as I disagree with gender discrimination in mosques, I'd expect the same

policy with synagogues dedicated to orthodox Judaism. It's their house of worship (read, private property and private organization) and they make their own rules of assembly and belief.

[theHandpuppet]

76. "By "they" I assume you mean "men"

Women don't get to make the rules.

[Brickbat]

2. Very interesting, from all sides. I have to say I like this move.

[Fumesucker]

3. The Cato Institute is in favor of government intervention in private disputes..

Now I must say that is indeed a surprise.. :eyes:

[riderinthestorm]

5. Ensuring women's secondary status, makes sense when you look at it that way.

The Cato Institute would suddenly be okay with government intervention for THAT.

[Fumesucker]

9. I was being sardonic.. Hence the eyeroll..

The Cato Institute *always* comes down on the side with the power and against the powerless..

[riderinthestorm]

16. And I was echoing your sardonic and amplifying it.

I fully agree with your sardonic and raise you to facetious.


:P We're both in agreement.

[femrap]

30. Remember how all

religions worked in absolute harmony to kill the ERA?

I'll raise you to beyond bitterly pissed. :evilgrin:

[riderinthestorm]

57. Oh yes - another old feminist here and I remember it very well.

Ah, a drink to the old days (sniff!)

I love it when old patriarchal institutions get a black eye and the women in this movement against the archaic rules of the mosque deserve some props. The police getting out of interfering with their protest is an excellent move.

[Oregone]

11. Government's only function to them is to preserve private property rights

[JDPriestly]

4. The new D.C. policy is correct.

Separation of church and state means that our police cannot enforce the theology of this or that religious group.

In the Catholic Church, only those who have been accepted into the Church take communion. (At least that is what I have been told. Correct me if I am wrong.) The police cannot arrest someone who is not a member just because that person has taken communion in violation of the rules of the Church.

That is separation of church and state.

This is an interesting story. I'll be interested in seeing what happens next on this.

[riderinthestorm]

7. Fascinating story. I hadn't heard about this before today.

I too will be following it from here on out.

[Oregone]

8. "If you don't want a trespasser on your lawn ... you do rely on the police, ultimately, to eject..."

Its not as cut and dry as you are making it, IMO. This isn't about calling on police to enforce theology. Its about calling on police to remove people un-welcomed by the church (and that criteria is religiously based). This is a very tough issue, because while I think the mosques are in the wrong, isn't it a police responsibility to remove trespassers to preserve the peace?

[WinkyDink]

12. Is a tax-exempt institution "private property"?

[Oregone]

18. Is it public property?

Now, Id imagine this issue has already been handled in the courts. Anyone know?

[JVS]

43. Separation of church and state says yes.

[NoNothing]

23. My thoughts too

Suppose, then, that the mosque authorities physically lay hands on the female members and force them out. Does this mean those females also cannot rely on the police to prevent forceful ejection? Typically you don't have the right to batter (lay hands on) someone to remedy a trespass, as that is the function of the sheriff. But - if the sheriff refuses to fulfill that function, what then? If you use law enforcement to selectively uphold the rights of some members but not others, based explicitly on their *religious* views, how is that NOT a violation of church-state separation?

[JDPriestly]

49. That would be assault and battery. That is a totally different matter

from a member of a mosque going into the wrong area of the mosque.

Would the police intervene if a parishioner went into the area of the church where the priest or pastor stands? Probably not unless the person was acting very strangely in other ways.

[NoNothing]

54. It's not a separate matter

Because it is related directly to the police *not* performing the act themselves.

Like, suppose that you have a guest in your home who is being obnoxious and won't leave when you ask them to. So you call the police and they say they won't do anything about it, and furthermore if you try to remove that person yourself you will be prosecuted for battery.

Wouldn't you feel like the police are pretty clearly taking sides in that situation?

[riderinthestorm]

56. You're equating women trying to be equal to men, to an "obnoxious guest"?

And also, the "obnoxious guest" in question is also a member of that household - you do know that right?

[NoNothing]

58. "Obnoxious" is in the eyes of the beholder

And frankly it is not up to the state to decide, it is up to the owner of the property. Nor would it matter if that person is a family member (unless they are a minor, of course) - if the person whose name is on the property deed wants you out, you have to leave. Do you think an adult child has a *right* to live with his parents indefinitely?

The question ultimately should come down to exactly who is entitled to exert control over the mosque property. Regardless of who is a member, there is basically always a single designated individual or body of individuals entitled to decide who is and is not welcome as a matter of law. Whoever is authorized to make that decision, I think the police have a duty to carry out their wishes.

[riderinthestorm]

62. Uh, you are actually defending your use of the word "obnoxious" re: the women protesters. Ooookay.

I'll just let that hang out there around your neck for now and move on.

The mosque probably does have someone who is in charge but how the bylaws are written would dictate who makes that decision on removing the women protesters.

But beyond all that, nobody has the right to use physical force against someone else. Even family members don't have that right against another family member. That's why this case is so interesting. The mosque men now have to physically manhandle (heh) the women off the floor (assault). The police have said they aren't going to "help" enforce the discrimination (civil rights).

That indicates to me that perhaps there's something about the ownership of the mosque that's giving the police pause about getting involved.

[Angry Dragon]

31. It is my understanding that mosques have seperate

areas for men and women. So they really are not trespassing. It is about where in the mosque they are doing their praying
and then that is a theology issue. The police have no business being called by the mosque and they need to work it out themselves.

[Oregone]

37. And so do restaurants. They have a place for customers, and a place for cooks

And they have every right to make sure customers don't go back to where the cooks are

[Angry Dragon]

40. Apples and Oranges

Customers are no the same as employees.

I am sorry your analogy does not compute

[JDPriestly]

50. That is completely different.

The kitchen is generally off limits for practical reasons. The men and women in the mosque are all doing the same thing -- praying, in different areas. I can understand why the men and women might want to be separate, but the men should talk to the women and find out why the women want to be in the part where the men are. There is no need to fight over this sort of thing.

[Oregone]

53. Depends on the restaurant's policies

Some places have cooks perform right in front of patrons. The restaurant alone determines what areas in their private establishment are off limits to the public

Some restaurants Ive been to have places only women are allowed in...that being, breastfeeding women.

[JDPriestly]

48. I did not understand that the women were trespassing.

I understood that they are members of the mosque but required to sit in a females only section of the mosque.

[Dogtown]

75. Not trespassing.

They are members of the mosque. Just not "equal" members.
The police are not "hall monitors", and if the women have access to the mosque at all, it's most inappropriate for the police to interfere with that access.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

10. Is it separation of church and state?

Or is it the right of a church (or anyone else) to call the cops to remove trespassers?

I think the church (or mosque) has the right to call the police.
And the women have the right (or obligation) to occupy their equal space in the mosque.
The issue will sort itself out after much protest and many arrests.

As long as there are no "honor killings" or such stuff, then yes, it's interesting.


disclaimer: I am not muslim, just barely christian, so have no deep convictions as to the correct answer in this case.
:hi:

[WinkyDink]

13. You realize that church weddings, funerals, and services are OPEN TO ALL?

And I mean all: passersby; the curious; the homeless; the huddled masses yearning to be free.

[Lance_Boyle]

14. I believe churches, temples and mosques should pay TAXES

if they wish to benefit from the services of a police force funded through those taxes.

[Oregone]

15. "The issue will sort itself out after much protest and many arrests."

Doubt it. Even if this went to the courts, I don't think anything will change. Do you think the courts will decide private Churches do not have a right to classify those as "welcome" and "unwelcome", and depend upon police to enforce this?

[riderinthestorm]

19. But the women aren't trespassers. They are members.

They're simply trying to participate in the service in a different part of the mosque. The men don't want them in THEIR part of the mosque.

[happyslug]

78. Under the law you either have a legal right to be on the property, a quest, an Invitee or a trespass

Under the law you either have a Legal right to be on the property, a quest, an Invitee or a trespass. By legal right you either OWN the property (or are a co-owner of the property), a Tenant (or a Joint Tenant) have some other RIGHT to be on the property (license, a Hunting lease, the right to hunt on a piece of property, a similar non-hunting non living on the land lease etc) or you are a Guest (Which under the law is a person who PAYS for the right to enter a property, the classic case is a Hotel Guest), an invitee, some who enters property that is clearly open to him, her or the public at large (The Classic example is a store, such as Walmart) or a trespasser, who enters the property without permission OR is a guest or Invitee who is asked to leave and does not.

When it comes to people entering a Church, Mosque or other buildings open to the public you are in Invitee, even if you give a donation (Unless the Church, Mosque or other buildings charges a fee, then you are a Guest, as that term is used under the law, almost all religious buildings are open to the public and while you can donate is NOT a requirement to enter, thus such people are invitees NOT Guests). The "Owner" of the building is whatever Corporate shell was formed to operate the building (In fact the concept of Corporation being an organization independent of its membership came out of the Middle Ages Concept that Churches were owned the the Saint they were named after NOT its members, please note soon after this concept was invented it was restricted to non-profit corporations with some rare but well known exceptions, the Hudson Bay Company, the East India Trading Company etc, it is only in the mid 1800s that you see the widespread adoptions of Corporate for profit charters, something unheard of, with some notable exception, prior to about 1830).

I bring this up for under the Law the Mosque is owned by its non-profit corporation NOT its members. While it must be open to the public to keep its non-profit nature (And the right to enter must be free, through donation may be encouraged) it can exclude people who it does NOT want on the property (As can ANY landowner). Such people, when told to leave, OR violate a rule known to them (even if they only learn of it when told to leave) are trespassers. There cease to be Invitees and become trespassers who MUST either leave the property OR be subject to arrest. Here this is strictly an internal rule of the Corporate organization that own the Mosque and as such any members MUST obey the rules of the Corporate owners of the Mosque if they want to stay in the Mosque.

Now, if I was advising the Mosque and would recommend that they talk to these women and address their concerns. Part of the problem is many of these women are coming from Southern Baptists (and other Christian) backgrounds. Christians abandoned the concept of separating Women and Men in the Middle Ages (More to in favor of the concept of Families worshiping together as opposed to making men and women equal, through one of the side affect is to make women more equal to men).

Just a comment on the underlying law coming into play. That being a member does NOT give you the right to do something the people who control the Mosque (or any other Corporation) does NOT want to do. Under the corporate charter you can discuss with the leadership HOW the Corporation is to be run, but unless the majority of people with the right to vote in the Corporation (We are Discussing NON-Profit corporations here and as such no actual stock holders) agree with you, you have to follow the rules set down by the people who control the non-profit corporation.

[riderinthestorm]

83. Thanks for the lengthy explanation. Lots to think about.

A few questions since you obviously know the laws that may be involved here.

1. What if the women are defined as "trespassers"? The DC cops seem to be saying they aren't going to remove these "trespassers" anymore. So then what? Clearly this is one of those laws the DC cops aren't willing to enforce at the moment which brings us to... what?

2. If the men get rough with these "trespassers" themselves, and the DC police are called because the men are roughing up the women, can the men be charged with say, assault? Then what happens?

3. Raindog downthread has a point that once the women (or men I guess, depending on what happens) are actually arrested by the DC police, the issue becomes a civil matter, not an internal mosque matter. The discrimination would then be aired publicly. Is that what would happen? In which case, according to what I understand of your post, the discrimination would be allowed to continue since it's a "private space". Am I correct in my line of thinking?

[happyslug]

95. The Police exist to keep the peace NOT enforce the law

If the Police do NOT want to enforce the law, the owner of the properly has the right to file a private criminal action in his Local Justice of the Peace (Or whatever they are called in D.C.). In such cases the Justice of the Peace can sentenced the trespasser to jail or a fine OR refer the case to a higher court, but most are handled at the JP level in the form of a fine).

Violence is NOT permitted UNLESS the trespass is violent in nature (i.e. you can NOT use force to keep these people out, but they also can NOT use force to stay in or get in, locking the door is sufficient, standing your ground is sufficient). You can ask the person to leave, you can lock any door that does NOT go outside. You can get other members of the congregation to stand around them with the only clear exit being to the outside. Violence can ONLY occur if the other side is violent first (i.e. you have the right to defend yourself, through the use of deadly force, in most states, but NOT all states, requires you to use every way to avoid using deadly force, even vacating the area i.e. if violence is used, you can respond, but if deadly force is threatened you must back down (please note the threat of deadly force is a FELONY so in such a case the Police will almost always come, remember the Police main job is to keep the peace).

As to the arrest, those arrest, I suspect since I do NOT know the details of the case, is for defiant trespass, i.e. when someone is told to leave and does not. That is criminal, it is generally a summary offense (i.e. subject to a fine only, just like a traffic ticket). The problem becomes one of did someone tell the trespasser to leave and the trespasser did not, NOT a case of discrimination.

As to Sexual discrimination, the 1964 Civil Rights Act does NOT include Churches, thus does NOT apply to Churches. Furthermore the 1964 Civil Rights Act clearly exempts "Private Clubs" but does NOT define what that means. This all reflects a refusal of Congress to extend such discrimination laws to include Churches, Mosques and other places of worship. Below is Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It outlaws discrimination in "Public Accommodations". Title II is the applicable section, not the more famous Title VII which outlawed EMPLOYMENT discrimination. Employment is NOT the issue here, just mixing of the sexes and since this is NOT a Public Accommodation, as defined under Title II, discrimination based on sex or race is perfectly legal:

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

SEC. 204. (a) Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by section 203, a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the person aggrieved and, upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Attorney General to intervene in such civil action if he certifies that the case is of general public importance. Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs, or security.

(b) In any action commenced pursuant to this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.

(c) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local law prohibiting such act or practice and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no civil action may be brought under subsection (a) before the expiration of thirty days after written notice of such alleged act or practice has been given to the appropriate State or local authority by registered mail or in person, provided that the court may stay proceedings in such civil action pending the termination of State or local enforcement proceedings.

(d) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has no State or local law prohibiting such act or practice, a civil action may be brought under subsection (a): Provided, That the court may refer the matter to the Community Relations Service established by title X of this Act for as long as the court believes there is a reasonable possibility of obtaining voluntary compliance, but for not more than sixty days: Provided further, That upon expiration of such sixty-day period, the court may extend such period for an additional period, not to exceed a cumulative total of one hundred and twenty days, if it believes there then exists a reasonable possibility of securing voluntary compliance.

SEC. 205. The Service is authorized to make a full investigation of any complaint referred to it by the court under section 204(d) and may hold such hearings with respect thereto as may be necessary. The Service shall conduct any hearings with respect to any such complaint in executive session, and shall not release any testimony given therein except by agreement of all parties involved in the complaint with the permission of the court, and the Service shall endeavor to bring about a voluntary settlement between the parties.

SEC. 206. (a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.

(b) In any such proceeding the Attorney General may file with the clerk of such court a request that a court of three judges be convened to hear and determine the case. Such request by the Attorney General shall be accompanied by a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general public importance. A copy of the certificate and request for a three-judge court shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the presiding circuit judge of the circuit) in which the case is pending. Upon receipt of the copy of such request it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding circuit judge, as the case may be, to designate immediately three judges in such circuit, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge and another of whom shall be a district judge of the court in which the proceeding was instituted, to hear and determine such case, and it shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date, to participate in the hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. An appeal from the final judgment of such court will lie to the Supreme Court.

In the event the Attorney General fails to file such a request in any such proceeding, it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the district (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) in which the case is pending immediately to designate a judge in such district to hear and determine the case. In the event that no judge in the district is available to hear and determine the case, the chief judge of the district, or the acting chief judge, as the case may be, shall certify this fact to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) who shall then designate a district or circuit judge of the circuit to hear and determine the case.

It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this section to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.

SEC. 207. (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this title and shall exercise the same without regard to whether the aggrieved party shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided by law.

(b) The remedies provided in this title shall be the exclusive means of enforcing the rights based on this title, but nothing in this title shall preclude any individual or any State or local agency from asserting any right based on any other Federal or State law not inconsistent with this title, including any statute or ordinance requiring nondiscrimination in public establishments or accommodations, or from pursuing any remedy, civil or criminal, which may be available for the vindication or enforcement of such right.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript

[riderinthestorm]

97. I'm not a lawyer. Can you answer my questions in something like English? Many thanks!nt

[hedgehog]

20. You are correct about communion. There have been many cases

in recent years in which protesters have interrupted Catholic Masses and/or the priests wanted people ejected from the premises. The problem is that without police interference, how violent will the dispute get?

Of special relevence to the situation of the Moslem women is the question of who owns the building? In the Catholic Church, the people pay to build the structure and pay for its upkeep. However, all real estate belongs to the bishop as a corporation sole. In practice, the parish priest can do just about anything with the buildings including total neglect if the diocese doesn't disapprove. In Florida for example, I read of a recent case in which the priest decided that the brand new church would be built according to the needs of the pre-Vatican II liturgy. The people had no say in this. The bishop can close and sell the church building regardless of the wishes of the people of the parish.

[Oregone]

28. "how violent will the dispute get"

Thats the real kicker here too. No matter how "wrong" the church is here, peace officers have to enforce the law and preserve peace. By respecting the rights of the women, this could lead to a degradation of peace.

This is a complicated issue. It is not a strictly rational matter to think through, because it is rooted in religion and religion is insane.

[riderinthestorm]

55. "Religion is insane"

Heh, I'm picking your post to respond to many others making the same point because I love your last line!

But in reality, what I'm assuming is happening in the mosque is that the women are "violating" the men's space and the DC cops were coming in and removing the women when the men called to prevent any breakout problems. What I expect the women to do next (although who knows) is that the women will go onto the mosque's main floor where the men pray and the men will have to then do the dirty work of physically laying their hands on the women and removing them themselves. I'm guessing the women won't go quietly.

That's where it will get tricky imho. A private religious space with a public altercation going on. The women being physically manhandled by their own fellow members enforcing discrimination. What's a DC police officer to do.

This is such an interesting story!

[fishbulb703]

92. "laying their hands on"... I'm sure the police would respond to battery, yes?

On a side note, the police helping keep places of worship segregated seems like a policy (aka administrative law) "respecting an establishment of religion" to me; and the capitol police is a federal police bureau.

[Angry Dragon]

32. I always like your insightful posts

Perhaps the members need to change this feature of the church owning the building.

[hedgehog]

34. Thank you. I do expect to see changes in the structure of the Catholic Church,

sooner than most people think possible.

[Angry Dragon]

41. I would think that would be a good thing

[Gaedel]

69. Depends on the church.

Some sects are "congregational" where each church is its own non-profit corporation and the congregation owns the church.

Some sects are "hierarchial" where the denomination owns the churches under a single non-profit corporation and the congregation is legally powerless.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Not really. It's a property issue.

The owners of the mosque have the right to request the police remove anybody they want.

I didn't read the article thoroughly, but I guess the owners of the mosque aren't getting involved in the debate, it's one mosque-goer against the other. (btw, what is the Muslim equivalent of a parishoner?)

[JDPriestly]

52. But, who owns the mosque? Don't members usually own such buildings?

And if the members own it, don't the women own it under our law, just as much as the men?

Our government cannot enforce private discrimination based on race or gender.

[NoNothing]

60. No

Usually the church is its own legal organization, typically a non-profit corporation, and it is that organization that owns the property. Members are sometimes but not always then granted certain powers to affect the governance of this corporation, by voting on board members and such.

[girl gone mad]

63. But..

They aren't askinhg for the women to be removed from the property, they just want them to go to a different room.

It would be a bit like calling the cops because your wife won't move off of the sofa when you want to lie down.

[happyslug]

39. Correct, but if you go to take Communion the Priest MUST give it with one exception

And that exception is that the Priest KNOWNS you are NOT in Communion. In any such dispute, the burden of proof in on the Priest AND it is automatic Ex-communication if the Priest denies Communion to a person in full communion. In simple terms if someone goes to the Alter, the Priest will give Communion. When a person is in ex-communication he or she is still expected to go to church (how else can they seek forgiveness?) but is told NOT to take communion. Thus the burden is on the person seeking Communion NOT the person giving it.

Just a note on the concept of Catholic ex-communication. One further comment, till the Middle Ages, Christians also separated into Males and Female Groups inside Churches. Sometime during the "Dark Ages" this changed to all male and female groups (With young children with their mothers) to Families going together. The Middle Ages is considered the high point of Women's Rights till the 1800s. With the re-introduction of Roman Law during the Renaissance (And the conversion of Military duties to taxes) you saw a decline in Women's rights (For example a man had the duty to perform any military duty his wife's ownership of land required, thus men received full use of her land for he had to perform the military duties tied in with that land, when this military duty was converted to taxes, women could pay taxes as while as men but the law as to the husband's full use of her land did NOT change. Thus women lost rights when such military duty was converted to taxes). Just a comment on how women and men have been treated within the Christian community and how that has changed over the last 2000 years.

[JDPriestly]

45. Interesting! But the U.S. government does not enforce any of the

current rules for the churches (not just the Catholic church). Courts usually refuse to hear cases that involve decisions about the theology or practices of a church as long as there is no illegality.

[happyslug]

59. Technically the Catholic Church has its own Court System

Technically anyone can access it, but basically since it is based on Religious rules the Bishops basically control it. Thus you have the right to appeal on any religious matter in the Church's court system. Now this has to be run by the Chancellor of the Diocese (Whose reputation for honesty must be beyond approach, a requirement NOT made as to Bishops) and you can file your complaint directly with him. The Chancellor handled how the case is to be handled, most times dismissed based on the Bishops findings as to the case, but the Chancellor can rule that this has to be decided by Rome). I mention this for it shows that a "court" can hear such cases BUT not a Civil Secular Court.

[JDPriestly]

73. Agreed. I was of course talking about civil, secular courts.

[hedgehog]

47. There are all kinds of rumors on Right wing Catholic Web sites

about people taking Communion and abusing it by leaving the host on the pew up to using it for Satanic rituals. I tend to doubt these stories since they are pushing for Communion on the tongue,but that's what some believe.

[RainDog]

81. lol!!!!!!! n/t

[UndertheOcean]

6. Great !

[glowing]

17. Its hard to say what will give them better recognition?

Continued police intervention OR violence from the conservatives.. Which calls up the arms of Muslim Faith women? IMO, it is women taking their role beside men around the world that will bring more peace and prosperity OR at least a fairer sense of balance for our world.. When women are kept in the dark, they cannot control their own lives or bodies.

[bpj62]

21. Prayer

The women are not trespassing at the Mosque. It is islamic law that the women and men pray in separate rooms. These women are simply demanding that they be allowed to worship in the same room as the men. I think the DC police are making the right the decision in this case.

[hedgehog]

22. I would urge the Moslem women to organize their own mosque according to their own rules.

I think that's doable, and it might mean the existing mosques revise their rules or end up closing if the women friendly mosques attract a lot of people.

[Oregone]

24. Or they could go to a male strip club, really pissing off the men

In but a few days, they will be welcomed.

[riderinthestorm]

25. Why can't they just have their protest at the existing mosques?

I know removing themselves and creating a "separate but equal" would be easier for everyone but that's exactly what happens in the mosque now. The women are relegated to (typically upstairs or a smaller, less grand area) a separate space.

All the women want is to be on the main floor with the men, equally.

I believe that taking themselves out of the mosque altogether doesn't actually address their main complaint - they are second status. Praying equally with men would be a big symbolic and "real" victory.

[hedgehog]

26. It comes down to a question of whose mosque is it. I'm not

certain how mosques are organized. Is there a board that sets the rules and hires someone to lead prayers?

[Oregone]

27. "they are second status"

Solution: find a religion that doesn't consider them second status anymore (Good luck with that!)

As far as Im concerned, its not government's job to make sure churches aren't engaging in "separate but equal" practices. Its their job to enforce law.

[hedgehog]

36. I think the women involved would say that Islam does NOT

consider women as having lower status than men.

[dipsydoodle]

33. are there any women here ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_hlMK7tCks

[Cleita]

35. Back wards religious thinking about women was part of the reason I left

the Catholic Church fifty years ago. Even if I hadn't changed my beliefs, I would have left because of the gender reason. Those muslim women should do the same. If muslim men want their own private club, let them. Women should form their own places of worship and ban the men. Their children will of course go with them to prayers and be indoctrinated in a different expression of Islam. The misogynistic element will fade and eventually be lost to history just like what is happening to the Catholic Church.

[hedgehog]

38. If Islam is anything like the Catholic Church, men do a lot of

talking but it is the women who keep things running. At least in the Catholic Church, it's benn that way from the very beginning:

Afterward he journeyed from one town and village to another,

preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God.

Accompanying him were the Twelve

and some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities,

Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out,

Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza,

Susanna, and many others who provided for them

out of their resources.

[Cleita]

42. Yes, and for very little if any thanks. I don't know about Islam but

I would betcha that it's the women who do the major cleaning up.

[Cleita]

44. Here's an interesting website I found about the history of women in Islam.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/Younus_Sheikh/IslamWoman.htm

It recounts the history of how the pagan Arab women, including Mohammed's first wife, were relatively equal to men to how Islamic women at large became mostly sex-slaves and breeders to the men over the centuries due to barbaric conquests. The mother goddesses were widely worshipped and Allah the male deity was mostly ignored. Khadija, Mohammed's first wife was his employer so she was freely able to own her own business and make money. Also, Mohammed did not take any additional wives until after she died. Polygamy back then was not the norm. Well, it's in three parts and too long to excerpt here, so do take some time to read it. It explains a lot of how great civilizations in the Middle East were conquered, and became the extreme theocracies they are today and why women have practically no rights except those their male guardians (father, husband, brother, or son) give them.

[Oregone]

46. If a religion is meant to spread like a virus, but be victim to man's distortion...

Then good riddance.

Everything looks great on paper. In practice, we know where these things all end up.

[slackmaster]

51. Private property = None of cops' business unless a crime is being committed

:hi:

[kelly1mm]

61. So if someone sets up camp on your front lawn is it none of the police's business? nt

[girl gone mad]

64. Well, that would be a crime, no?

Tresspassing? Vandalism?

These women are not committing any crime.

[kelly1mm]

65. Depending on the property title it is tresspassing if they will not leave. nt

[riderinthestorm]

66. But since the DC cops aren't going to be removing the women anymore, trespassing isn't it.

Obviously there's more to it than a simple trespass or there wouldn't be an issue.

Someone in a post above likened it to calling the police to drag your wife off the sofa in the living room and forcing her to sit in the family room. And then helping the guy to enforce his notion of discrimination by removing her over and over (which is what was happening to the women in the mosque from what I can ascertain from the article).

I'm guessing the ownership issue is key to understanding what's going on, and I'm also going to bet the DC cops already know it. And that's why they are now NOT going to go in there anymore.

As I said upthread, it will be interesting if the women call the cops for assault WHEN the male mosque members try to forcibly remove them from the main prayer floor. Then the cops have a legitimate reason to go into the mosque... to remove the men!

[kelly1mm]

67. Police officers do not decide what activity is and is not a crime - judges

do. Police officers DO follow police department policy though. It may well be that the title to the mosque is not vested in the one calling for assistance. The "wife on the couch" analogy breaks down when the wife has some claim of right to be in the house. In my state that could be that they are on the title/lease, their belongings are in the residence that indicates habitation (thus an eviction must be obtained) or lastly, using the mutual duty of support of spouses, if she would be homeless otherwise, an eviction would not be granted by the spouse on the lease/title.

[riderinthestorm]

68. As I said, there's more to the story. That the police are not going in there anymore is key

and highly indicative (imho) that the women involved have some right to be in there, and that the police know that. Police officers may not arbitrate the crimes but they typically know when one is occurring and when they should be involved. That's their job.

[kelly1mm]

70. You are right, there probably is more to the story. Thanks for your thoughts. nt

[riderinthestorm]

71. Peace. And a belated welcome to DU. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

72. It's funny how the same

anti-government, hands-off people demand government intervention when it suits their own purposes.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

74. Do you class law enforcement as government intervention?

I suspect most of the people who protest against government intervention certainly don't.

[JerseygirlCT]

77. You don't think they do?

How about those on the fringe of an admittedly fringey movement - like all the militia type nuts hiding out west?

Law enforcement has long been seen as the most obvious example of the government with many of these people.

Now the corporatist types (Rand Paul) probably think law enforcement is dandy so long as it protects THEIR personal interests.

[D23MIURG23]

79. Thats good. Its not the business of the police to police to enforce religious edicts.

[JoeyT]

80. I'm guessing the reason the police don't want to be involved is because

they either want the women drug into another room or they want them removed from the property over and over and over without pressing any sort of charges. Either of which puts it solidly in the "Enforcing religious edicts" category. The only way they could get the police to remove the women would be to press trespassing charges against them. Something I'm sure they're loathe to do since it would place the women in the secular court system out of their control. Plus it would draw more publicity showing that they're bigoted shits.

[RainDog]

82. great thread! thanks for all who are posting here.

this is a really interesting case of public v. private, of laws of the land v. religious beliefs....

ultimately, whatever the ruling, the issue comes down to Muslim women who are using the tactics of Ghandi to overthrow the patriarchy in their religion, even if they risk arrest. for that, I wish them much success.

[Dr. Strange]

84. Why are you posting here?

I thought this Forum was for men only?

[RainDog]

85. doctor, doctor, give me the news

or else bend over because you are being a bad, bad boy.

or both.

[Dr. Strange]

88. Both.

Yep, definitely both.

[RainDog]

91. you know where to find me...

lol.

[TZ]

87. If true that would exclude you

Mr. Hermaphrodite...:evilgrin:

[Dr. Strange]

90. Nice post, CreekDog.

[RainDog]

93. well, at least now I no longer have to ask that question...

b/c the answer is... BOTH!

[Dr. Strange]

94. Mostly male though:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=7522118

[RainDog]

96. epic thread n/t

[ZombieHorde]

86. According to my opinion, establishments which recieve federal funding or special tax exemptions

should have to follow non-discrimination policies.

[Liberal_in_LA]

89. good