Growing up outside Atlanta, the only time I was allowed to wear a hat at school was when the local baseball team was in the playoffs. It seems rather humorous to me now, but you have to consider the time I was in middle school and how bad Atlanta had actually been in the past. When the team played the Pirates, everyone showed up with their rally caps. It was a privilege to wear a hat because school policies forbade it. That was the rule. No game, no hats.

Now people are calling to question public schools’ rules about dress codes, saying such rules violate religious freedom. In Muskogee, Okla., an 11-year-old girl was suspended for continuing to wear her Muslim head scarf to school. But have no fear, the federal government stepped in to side with the young girl, saying the policy infringes on the girl’s civil rights.
After the suspensions were upheld by a district hearing, the girl’s parents decided to sue the school district for $80,000, and now the federal government wants to make sure her parents get that money. What a wonderful use of tax dollars. I suppose $80,000 is a good amount for religious discrimination, but I don’t really think that occurred.
The school stands by its interpretation of the policy, with good reason. First of all, the school is not discriminating based on religion. Headdresses of any religion are not welcomed. This is not discrimination; it’s the rule. Second of all, the policy is in place because hats and bandanas are seen as distracting in the classroom. Also, they are often linked to current problems of gang activity in schools. Religious groups might not be viewed as gangs, but can you think of anywhere in the world where people kill each other because of different religious viewpoints and fight over religious territory? Starting to resemble gangs?
So what is the answer? If Nashala gets to wear a hijab (head scarf), then Abraham will want to wear a yarmulke and who knows, maybe John will want to wear a thorny crown. That should make for a fun recess. Now, if little Suzanne wants to wear her Atlanta cap, assuming it’s not a playoff day, she’d be out of luck. That’s fair, right? The question, really, is why does religion not play by the rules? The policy applies to all children, except those with a religious affiliation that has “head gear” as part of its belief system. That is discrimination.
The rule either applies to all or none, and in this case, the Muskogee Public School District chose to apply it to all. Of course, the school district has a little bit of a battle. The state of Oklahoma passed the Religious Freedom Act in 2000, which states “no governmental entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”
Many states began to pass these religious freedom acts as a result of schools taking out phrases from the Pledge of Allegiance, such as “one nation under God.” In Oklahoma, prisoners were being punished because of their religious belief against haircuts. The RFA provided relief for these criminals. Was Oklahoma really looking to become a sanctuary for all religions or trying to prevent prison beatings and get the Bible back in schools? Let me also note that in the RFA it is stated that interpretations of the act are not to be misconstrued to “authorize same-sex marriages.” Well if that doesn’t say “freedom,” I don’t know what does!
Maybe the Muskogee School District is out of luck because of the RFA, but the act lends itself to more questions about the mixture of religion and state. You don’t need a religious affiliation to get married, so why should same-sex marriages be shunned in a governmental document outlining religious freedoms?
It is time to let rules be rules and to not allow religion to be an exception. The bad news is sometimes you have to work on Sunday, you don’t get religious holidays off (remember, it’s called “winter break”), and sometimes you have to leave your hat at home.