An historian a hundred years from now will undoubtedly shake her head in bewilderment in reading issues we human deemed of great importance in 2009. Among the most hotly debated issues facing a world in which there is famine, war, and destruction, is the presence of something on top of the head of a woman. It reminds one of the classic “hair battles” of the 1960s in which leaders of nations had to take a stand regarding the exact length of hair that fell within the domain of being proper attire. Three Danish lawyers entered a court room wearing a headscarf to protest current discussions in Parliament over a law that would ban political or religious symbols in a court of law. Janus Malcolm Peterson said he wore the headscarf because; “We trust that the judges understand how they should be dressed in court without introducing legislation about it.”
The Judge, to his credit, ignored this childish display of pique over nothing. If the issue is how does one dress in a court of law, then judges ordinarily make such decisions. Of course, it is ridiculous for parliaments to have such discussions, but there is a point in banning all displays of religion in a secular court of law. The entire matter is a storm in a teacup and much ado about nothing. How about dealing with poverty for a few moments?