A Philadelphia policewoman is suing the government, claiming that it has infringed upon her religious rights.  This time, the government is doing it appropriately.  Kimberlie Webb, who converted to Islam soon after joining the police force, is engaged in a legal battle against the Philadelphia Police Department, according to the Religious News Service. The action stems from a recurring struggle between Webb and her supervisors over whether the officer should be allowed to wear her traditional head-scarf, called a khimar, while on duty.  Webb’s lawyer, Jeffery Pollock, has argued that wearing the khimar is a fundamental religious necessity. Webb was quoted in a Philadelphia Weekly article, complaining that without her scarf, she “feels naked,” and she “wants to cover.”  Pollock also argues that several officers have been spotted wearing crosses, so forbidding a scarf presents a double-standard.   The police department counters that it is necessary to have, in the words of their attorney Eleanor Ewing, “neutrality among police officer uniforms.” The department is claiming Webb’s head-scarf would destroy this neutrality and severely hamper her personal image and ability to effectively enforce the law.Wearing a cross on duty is also forbidden according to police code. Ewing argues this is not religious discrimination, merely an unfortunate oversight. Webb’s case is now being heard in the Third U.S Circuit Court of Appeals after a district court ruled in favor of the police. Even if we don’t like to admit it, in the wake of 9/11 and the resulting conflicts, prejudice against Arab-Americans and Islam has never been higher. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a law enforcement officer to command respect if she is wearing a symbol of a concept that is broadly hated by Americans. Don’t get me wrong — this is tragic. In a perfect world, we would respect every individual for their beliefs. In a perfect world, a police officer could wear a khimar or turban and nobody would blink. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world and we must deal with the world we have. This means that sometimes religious freedoms conflict with a person’s need to do their job. In this case, the person needs to change jobs, not change the job.The case brings up a difficult dilemma that has been raised frequently in recent years, both in America and abroad. At what point does religious clothing become an undue burden on an employer? At what point should practical concerns outweigh religious inclinations?  For example, should an LSU professor be allowed to wear a khimar to class?  The university is a government institution as is the PPD. And as much as law enforcement requires neutrality, doesn’t a college professor require a high degree of academic neutrality? The inherent problem with this dilemma is that no cut-and-dry rules can be legitimately enforced.Religious clothing can have dramatic impacts on different occupations. A college campus is a tolerant environment where the unhindered expression of ideas and concepts is absolutely necessary. Therefore, there is no reason a professor should not be allowed to wear a khimar.It is imperative that we as       citizens be alert to the fine balance between ideals and necessity that is highlighted in this case. Our freedom of religion is worth fighting for, and the second an employer unjustly restricts that freedom we as citizens should do everything we can to prevent them from crossing the line.—-contact Matthew Albright at [email protected]