Are These Events Isolated? Or the Ugly Face of Islam In America

[PittsburghAfterDark]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two men suspected of being involved with an al Qaeda affiliate were arrested in Albany, New York, on Thursday in a scheme to launder money to buy a shoulder-fired missile, U.S. law enforcement sources said.

The sources said the arrests on Thursday night were unrelated to the raising of the terror threat level over the weekend on intelligence that al Qaeda was targeting financial centers in the United States.

Arrested were Ya Seen Arif, 34, and Mohammed Hoosain, 49, the sources said. Arif is the imam of the Masjid As-Salaam mosque in Albany, while Hoosain was the founder of the mosque, they said.

One of the men is a U.S. citizen but the nationality of the other was not immediately available.

Another source said the two were believed to be linked with Ansar al-Islam, an Iraqi militant group suspected of having ties to the al Qaeda network.
Link to Albany Story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040805/ts_nm/security_arrests_dc)

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A Central Florida woman was fired from her job after eating "unclean" meat and violating a reported company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises, according to Local 6 News.

Lina Morales was hired as an administrative assistant at Rising Star -- a Central Florida telecommunications company with strong Muslim ties, Local 6 News reported.

However, 10 months after being hired by Rising Star, religious differences led to her termination.

Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean," Local 6 News reported. She was then fired for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report.

"Are you telling me they fired you because you had something with ham on it?" Local 6 News reporter Mike Holfeld asked.

"Yes," Morales said.

Holfeld asked, "A pizza and a BLT sandwich?"

" Yes," Morales said.

Local 6 News obtained the termination letter that states she was fired for refusing to comply with company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises.

However, by the company's own admission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that policy is not written, Local 6 News reported.

"Did you ever sign to or agree to anything that said I will not eat pork?" Holfeld asked Morales.

"Never," Morales said. "When I got hired there, they said we don't care what religion you are."

Attorney Travis Hollifield is representing Morales in a lawsuit against the company.

"It's just un-American," Hollifield said. "It's not in compliance with the laws of this country."

Local 6 News reported that the case has precedent-setting issues because it addresses employee rights and religion in the workplace.

"It's a classic case of religious discrimination," Hollifield said. "They have not articulated a single reason other than religious reason behind the policy."

The CEO of Rising Star, Kujaatele Kweli, told Local 6 News that they have tried to create an office that accommodates anybody's religion -- not just Islam.

"Clearly you're accommodating," Holfeld said.

"Yes." Kweli replied.

"And you have an ecumenical philosophy," Holfeld said.

" Yes," Kweli replied.

"(Then) shouldn't you be able to accommodate all faiths in the same lunch room?" Holfeld asked.

"We do, we can," Kweli said.

"But you've dismissed one of your employees for eating pork in the lunch room," Holfeld said.

"Yes, pork is considered unclean," Kweli said.

The Koran forbids Muslims from eating pork. And according to Kweli, Morales and every employee at the company is advised of the no pork policy.

"Our point of view is to respect the laws of the land and the laws of the land as I understand it is to the accommodate people's right to practice their religions if you can," Kweli said.

"Even if it impacts other people?" Holfeld asked.

"Well, it always impacts other people," Kweli replied.

Orlando attorney Mark Nejame is close to the Muslim community, Local 6 News reported. He said Kweli's intentions may cross constitutional parameters, according to the report.

"They're making it seem that if you don't follow a certain set of religious practices and beliefs then you're going to be terminated and that's wrong," Nejame said. "If this case prevails, what it will mean -- the implications of this case -- is it will eliminate accommodations of religion."

Both sides are steadfast in their belief that they are right. Morales is taking the company to court charging discrimination, Local 6 News reported.
Link to the Orlando story (http://www.local6.com/money/3614199/detail.html)

So without commenting on the politics involved in either. Muslims will hide behind mosques in this country in an attempt to buy shoulder fire missiles to kill American citizens and down our airliners? Then on top of that will not even comply with employment law in our country?

I won't even tell you the responses these stories are getting on message boards I've seen. They're obscene. The enemy lives amongst us. Never forget it.

[thingsfallnapart]

haha cool, more bad news. fuels the world.

[daphatty]

I feel sorry for peaceful islamic worshipers. I really do. Look out catholacism. There's a new bully on the block. Islam is here.

[CheapyD]

I don't see the connection between the two stories other than they both involve muslims.

[bignick]

It reminds me of the lady in Florida that didnt want to remove her head piece for her drivers licence photo.

[jmcc]

They sure sound pretty isolated to me. I suppose if you're an anti-Muslim nut you could probably link them somehow, though.

[btantra]

I know there are peaceful moslems out there, but another important fact is that Islam has been a source of trouble as well.

I have a little story to share as well. I know for a fact in the biggest moslem country in the world (Indonesia), religious tension between Catholic and Islam always presents. One time, there was a catholic stepped into a mosque wearing sandals. The moslems are furious about this and you know what they do for revenge? They burned a catholic church for that.

I am just stating the facts here...

[SilveRaven]

I know there are peaceful moslems out there, but another important fact is that Islam has been a source of trouble as well.

I have a little story to share as well. I know for a fact in the biggest moslem country in the world (Indonesia), religious tension between Catholic and Islam always presents. One time, there was a catholic stepped into a mosque wearing sandals. The moslems are furious about this and you know what they do for revenge? They burned a catholic church for that.

I am just stating the facts here...

How is that any different from the Ireland and the differences between two Christianitys. There has been millions of deaths and billions of dollars of destruction done in the name of religion throughout the world and throughout the ages.

[donssword]

Both stories are sad (pathetic?) in their own ways, but they are not connected.

[punqsux]

They sure sound pretty isolated to me. I suppose if you're an anti-Muslim nut you could probably link them somehow, though.

no way, its not isolated at all...muslims are firing everybody!!! runnn!!!!!! :roll:

[punqsux]

I have a little story to share as well. I know for a fact in the biggest moslem country in the world (Indonesia), religious tension between Catholic and Islam always presents. One time, there was a catholic stepped into a mosque wearing sandals. The moslems are furious about this and you know what they do for revenge? They burned a catholic church for that.

haha ever hear of the crusades?
..yeah

[MrBadExample]

I have a little story to share as well. I know for a fact in the biggest moslem country in the world (Indonesia), religious tension between Catholic and Islam always presents. One time, there was a catholic stepped into a mosque wearing sandals. The moslems are furious about this and you know what they do for revenge? They burned a catholic church for that.

haha ever hear of the crusades?
..yeah

And don't forget our own christian abortion bombers and Klan - putting the "fun" back into fundamentalism. [/sarcasm]

[mario23air]

Islam is not the problem people. Terrorism is the problem. There are terrorist organizations of all faiths, including Christian (Operation Rescue). Do not let propaganda confuse you. When people start making blanket statements like, “…the ugly face of Islam in America…” then the terrorist have already won. The goal of a terrorist organization is not to kill a lot of people (although they do), it is to instill a sense of fear and paranoia in people and from what I’ve read here and other places they are doing a damn good job.

Fear+paranoia=racism

[daphatty]

It's shit like this that makes me hesitant to even practice religion. Religious people can't seem to go about their business and keep to themselves. That's why we have all these issues. Mind your own business and you won't piss other people off.

[SilveRaven]

Islam is not the problem people. Terrorism is the problem. There are terrorist organizations of all faiths, including Christian (Operation Rescue). Do not let propaganda confuse you. When people start making blanket statements like, “…the ugly face of Islam in America…” then the terrorist have already won. The goal of a terrorist organization is not to kill a lot of people (although they do), it is to instill a sense of fear and paranoia in people and from what I’ve read here and other places they are doing a damn good job.

Fear+paranoia=racism

Very well stated :)

[donssword]

Frankly, organized religion sucks... it is not much better than a mob.

Christians, Muslims, Jewish, Pagans, Wicca, and all the others... all have killed in the name of "God(s)" when they found it convenient to do so.

No one person, no one religion, is above reproach.

EDIT:
And of course, mario23air hit the nail on the head...

[RBM]

Fear+paranoia=racism

I thought Fear + Paranoia = Schizophrenia

While I agree more or less with your post, the phrase "then the terrorist[s] have already won" is really rank. -1 point for resorting to a political buzz-phrase.

[Derwood43]

There is a very fine line between being a racist, and being carefully aware.

Our government has asked us, as a nation, to be carefully aware.

There are nuts on both sides of the fence. There are Muslims throughout the world who don't believe in a physical jihad. Then, there are the whack-jobs who feel it's their right to take the life of an innocent person. All for the sake of Allah. They believe that by killing themselves in a holy war (jihad), they will be guaranteed a spot in heaven with many virgins by their side.

On the other side of the fence, you have people like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Who find it necessary to blow up little children because they are mad at the government.

We cannot only be on the lookout for people who have brown skin and talk with an accent. It just so happens that all of the extremists in the middle east are committing these acts in the name of Allah.

I think that you can dismiss the second story as just a story of an employer with his head up his ass. The first story should concern us. Why in the world would someone need to buy rocket launchers? Probably not for clay pigeons.

We just have to be aware. Try not to automatically hate someone for the way they talk or look. (kinda preachy, but it can never be said enough)

[PsyClerk]

To clarify (since I didn't see it addressed), when the OP says 'are these events isolated?' he's not implying that they are connected by a specific event or person. I believe he is, in effect, asking 'is this what Islam has come to?' or 'is this what we can expect from Muslims?'

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

Wow, I knew you were a die-hard republican but I didn't think you were such a bigot. That's like every time a cross gets burned on a black family's lawn me saying "So that's what christians have come to". There's bad people in every religion, to even begin to characterize a whole religion based on the actions of a few people send you into a downward spiral of paranoia, racism, and hatred.

P.S. The department of homeland security had been notified that you are a potential right wing extremist. (Joking)

[Derwood43]

[quote="Sheik Rattle Enroll"]Wow, I knew you were a die-hard republican but I didn't think you were such a bigot. That's like every time a cross gets burned on a black family's lawn me saying "So that's what christians have come to". There's bad people in every religion, to even begin to characterize a whole religion based on the actions of a few people send you into a downward spiral of paranoia, racism, and hatred.


You make a good point.

[PsyClerk]

Why in the world would someone need to buy rocket launchers? Probably not for clay pigeons.

Speak for yourself.

[punqsux]

Frankly, organized religion sucks... it is not much better than a mob.

actully i dont think a group of buddists have ever waged war on anyone ^^

[peteloaf]

actully i dont think a group of buddists have ever waged war on anyone ^^

Don't have a link, but I read a story a few years back about two rival groups of buddist monks fighting over a temple. Lots of violence & bloodshed, surprisingly.

[punqsux]

actully i dont think a group of buddists have ever waged war on anyone ^^

Don't have a link, but I read a story a few years back about a two rival groups of buddist monks fighting over a temple. Lots of violence & bloodshed, surprisingly.wow, thats pretty shocking actully

[jmcc]

actully i dont think a group of buddists have ever waged war on anyone ^^

Don't have a link, but I read a story a few years back about two rival groups of buddist monks fighting over a temple. Lots of violence & bloodshed, surprisingly.

Was Pai Mei involved?

[peteloaf]

Was Pai Mei involved?

Don't remember, I read the article a few years ago...

[Powerforward]

So it's only ok for non-Islamic businesses to set up their business practices the way they want and to fire employees for not following them? I don't believe in the specific pork rule that this company has, but I think that as an employee one takes on certain responsibilies.

[daphatty]

Was Pai Mei involved?

Don't remember, I read the article a few years ago...

Wait. Wasn't Pai Mei the Kung Fu Master in Kill Bill 2?

[Derwood43]

So it's only ok for non-Islamic businesses to set up their business practices the way they want and to fire employees for not following them? I don't believe in the specific pork rule that this company has, but I think that as an employee one takes on certain responsibilies.

I think you're a little off base Powerforward. A Christian buisnessman cannot fire a Muslim man because he doesn't pray to a Christian God. Likewise, a Muslim man cannot fire a Christian for religious reasons (eating pork). Equal Opportunity means just that. No one can be fired because they are male/female, black/white, gay/straight...

Does that make any sense?

[PsyClerk]

Wait. Wasn't Pai Mei the Kung Fu Master in Kill Bill 2?

I thought Pai Mei was dinner last night.

[Powerforward]

If the woman ate pork because of religious reasons, then I could understand why firing her would be discrimination against religion. Otherwise, I just feel that the employee was just fired for violating company policy. Like if a Christian company said in its corporate policy that I couldn't rip up the Bible at work and I kept doing that and got fired, is that religious discrimination too?

[ZarathosNY]

If the woman ate pork because of religious reasons, then I could understand why firing her would be discrimination against religion. Otherwise, I just feel that the employee was just fired for violating company policy. Like if a Christian company said in its corporate policy that I couldn't rip up the Bible at work and I kept doing that and got fired, is that religious discrimination too?

No, its more like a Christian company firing a non-Christain for eating meat on a Friday during Lent.

[punqsux]

If the woman ate pork because of religious reasons, then I could understand why firing her would be discrimination against religion. Otherwise, I just feel that the employee was just fired for violating company policy. Like if a Christian company said in its corporate policy that I couldn't rip up the Bible at work and I kept doing that and got fired, is that religious discrimination too?

No, its more like a Christian company firing a non-Christain for eating meat on a Friday during Lent.

good analogy!

[Reality's Fringe]

If the woman ate pork because of religious reasons, then I could understand why firing her would be discrimination against religion. Otherwise, I just feel that the employee was just fired for violating company policy. Like if a Christian company said in its corporate policy that I couldn't rip up the Bible at work and I kept doing that and got fired, is that religious discrimination too?

No, its more like a Christian company firing a non-Christain for eating meat on a Friday during Lent.

Or like me implementing a comapny policy decreeing that "there shall be no defecation on business premises during the regular work week", and you get fired because you had the stomach flu. It was a law that had no bearing on company operation and was entirely religious in nature. She wasn't cramming pork down another person's throat, she was eating it on her lunch break.

[jmcc]

The problem isn't the policy itself here. It's that she didn't agree to it or wasn't told of it when she started working there. If they had told her in the interview that they didn't allow pork products to be brought in there'd be no problem. They're allowed to fire her for whatever conditions they want to set, so long as she agrees to them.

[SilveRaven]

If the woman ate pork because of religious reasons, then I could understand why firing her would be discrimination against religion. Otherwise, I just feel that the employee was just fired for violating company policy. Like if a Christian company said in its corporate policy that I couldn't rip up the Bible at work and I kept doing that and got fired, is that religious discrimination too?

No, its more like a Christian company firing a non-Christain for eating meat on a Friday during Lent.

Great analogy.

Firing someone for not following an UNWRITTEN policy that is religous in nature is not going to land them very well in court.

*Edit*
jmcc is also very correct, she didn't accept

[Xevious]

Both stories have no relation to each other.

That woman at the telecommunications company should have respected the religious beliefs of her fellow co-workers. The company should have fired her.

[PsyClerk]

Vincent: "You want some bacon?"

Jules: "Naw, I don't eat pork."

Vincent: "Are you Jewish?"

Jules "No, I just don't dig on swine, that's all."

Vincent: "Why not?"

Jules: "Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals."

Vincent: "Bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good."

Jules: "Hey, sewer rat might taste like pumpkin pie but I'd never know cause I'd never eat the motherfucker."

[PsyClerk]

Both stories have no relation to each other.

That woman at the telecommunications company should have respected the religious beliefs of her fellow co-workers. The company should have fired her.

By that token, all companies should ban pork from their premises, to keep from offending their Jewish and Muslim employees.

[jmcc]

Both stories have no relation to each other.

That woman at the telecommunications company should have respected the religious beliefs of her fellow co-workers. The company should have fired her.

I tend to agree. They were easy on her, giving her a warning at first. If she didn't like the policy then she could have quit and probably had a legitimate unemployment claim. By staying working there she was in effect agreeing to the policy, unwritten though it was, and she broke it.

[RBM]

I tend to agree. They were easy on her, giving her a warning at first. If she didn't like the policy then she could have quit and probably had a legitimate unemployment claim. By staying working there she was in effect agreeing to the policy, unwritten though it was, and she broke it.

No. If you decide that it is your company policy that no women be included in upper management, any employee who continues to work there does not in effect agree to this policy, even if it is unwritten.
"Yes, but that would obviously be an illegal & inappropriate policy!"
Yes. And so was this one regarding the consumption of "unclean" meats. Both violate the tenets against (in the one case) sexual and (in the other) religious discrimination. You can not extend such views into the workplace, regardless of whether your views are expressly written or enforced without it being in writing.

[jmcc]

I tend to agree. They were easy on her, giving her a warning at first. If she didn't like the policy then she could have quit and probably had a legitimate unemployment claim. By staying working there she was in effect agreeing to the policy, unwritten though it was, and she broke it.

No. If you decide that it is your company policy that no women be included in upper management, any employee who continues to work there does not in effect agree to this policy, even if it is unwritten.
"Yes, but that would obviously be an illegal & inappropriate policy!"
Yes. And so was this one regarding the consumption of "unclean" meats. Both violate the tenets against (in the one case) sexual and (in the other) religious discrimination. You can not extend such views into the workplace, regardless of whether your views are expressly written or enforced without it being in writing.

That sexual discrimination analogy a whole different issue and isn't really topical here. The story here is that they said "no pork in the workplace" and she had pork in the workplace. The rule wasn't "you have to obey Islamic law in the workplace." If her religion stated that she had to eat pork then there would have been a problem, but the rule the company set wasn't causing her undue hardship and as such is completely kosher, no pun intended. This isn't a religious issue at all. She's not being discriminated against for anything other than being stupid.

See (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-relig.html) also. (http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/C7AB0D98-9438-47D2-8D68115009B87244/catID/DE34C24C-9CBE-42EF-917012F2F6758F92)

[Derwood43]

I tend to agree. They were easy on her, giving her a warning at first. If she didn't like the policy then she could have quit and probably had a legitimate unemployment claim. By staying working there she was in effect agreeing to the policy, unwritten though it was, and she broke it.

No. If you decide that it is your company policy that no women be included in upper management, any employee who continues to work there does not in effect agree to this policy, even if it is unwritten.
"Yes, but that would obviously be an illegal & inappropriate policy!"
Yes. And so was this one regarding the consumption of "unclean" meats. Both violate the tenets against (in the one case) sexual and (in the other) religious discrimination. You can not extend such views into the workplace, regardless of whether your views are expressly written or enforced without it being in writing.

That sexual discrimination analogy a whole different issue and isn't really topical here. The story here is that they said "no pork in the workplace" and she had pork in the workplace. The rule wasn't "you have to obey Islamic law in the workplace." If her religion stated that she had to eat pork then there would have been a problem, but the rule the company set wasn't causing her undue hardship and as such is completely kosher, no pun intended. This isn't a religious issue at all. She's not being discriminated against for anything other than being stupid.

See (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-relig.html) also. (http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/C7AB0D98-9438-47D2-8D68115009B87244/catID/DE34C24C-9CBE-42EF-917012F2F6758F92)

Her being fired is not for religious reasons (in court). It's because she was fired for a rule she never agreed to. It says nothing of this rule being written down.

[Ericnmel99]

Could the mods move this to the political thread? I know its more religious than political, but It keeps popping up on the home page. thanks, maybe.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

[quote]

So without commenting on the politics involved in either. Muslims will hide behind mosques in this country in an attempt to buy shoulder fire missiles to kill American citizens and down our airliners? Then on top of that will not even comply with employment law in our country?

I won't even tell you the responses these stories are getting on message boards I've seen. They're obscene. The enemy lives amongst us. Never forget it.

Racism has no place here.

[RBM]

That sexual discrimination analogy a whole different issue and isn't really topical here. The story here is that they said "no pork in the workplace" and she had pork in the workplace. The rule wasn't "you have to obey Islamic law in the workplace." If her religion stated that she had to eat pork then there would have been a problem, but the rule the company set wasn't causing her undue hardship and as such is completely kosher, no pun intended. This isn't a religious issue at all. She's not being discriminated against for anything other than being stupid.

Yes, of course sexual discrimination isn't the issue here, it was just an analogy. However, you provided a much better analogy right there: if I join a Jewish company and they fire me for eating non-Kosher food in the lunchroom, then that's a no-no. That's not me being stupid for defying their company policy. That's an inappropriate company policy. Equally inappropriate, say, as one which would bar women from upper management. Eh? Eh? Know wot I mean? :lol:

[edit: Ericnmel, I assume that you're asking the mods to move this thread to a different forum and not us wee folk o' CAG. We do no have no powers o' thread movement.]

[jmcc]

That sexual discrimination analogy a whole different issue and isn't really topical here. The story here is that they said "no pork in the workplace" and she had pork in the workplace. The rule wasn't "you have to obey Islamic law in the workplace." If her religion stated that she had to eat pork then there would have been a problem, but the rule the company set wasn't causing her undue hardship and as such is completely kosher, no pun intended. This isn't a religious issue at all. She's not being discriminated against for anything other than being stupid.

Yes, of course sexual discrimination isn't the issue here, it was just an analogy. However, you provided a much better analogy right there: if I join a Jewish company and they fire me for eating non-Kosher food in the lunchroom, then that's a no-no. That's not me being stupid for defying their company policy. That's an inappropriate company policy. Equally inappropriate, say, as one which would bar women from upper management. Eh? Eh? Know wot I mean? :lol:

[edit: Ericnmel, I assume that you're asking the mods to move this thread to a different forum and not us wee folk o' CAG. We do no have no powers o' thread movement.]

That's not the case here, though. They weren't forcing her to follow every Islamic custom, just to not bring in a substance offensive to a majority (?) of their workers. It would be like making a rule to prohibit the wearing a swastika t-shirt at a predominantly Jewish company.

[Backlash]

Why is not allowing pork an inappropriate policy? It's pretty much as arbitrary as not allowing shorts in the workplace, or something like that (can't think of a better example right now).

It's not impinging on any of her religious freedoms or anything. Of course, if her religion required her to eat pork it would be different. The fact that Islamics don't eat pork shouldn't really be considered, even if that happened to be the basis for the rule - it's their company.

If we're arguing over whether she should get fired for disobeying a policy that wasn't written down, that's different.

[Backlash]

The analogy jmcc came up with while I was typing is much better than mine - thanks.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Racism has no place here.

When you can find any expressed racism let me know.

[RBM]

That's not the case here, though. They weren't forcing her to follow every Islamic custom, just to not bring in a substance offensive to a majority (?) of their workers. It would be like making a rule to prohibit the wearing a swastika t-shirt at a predominantly Jewish company.

No...I think the problem is that we each think the other's analogies are inapplicable to the situation in question. I think yours regarding the swastika doesn't work because it crosses the line from passive expression of one's faith to active repression of other faiths. It draws to mind the familiar saying: where does Free Speech end? When you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater house. In other words, where does religious freedom end? When you actively oppress others in their freedom to enjoy their own religious practices (odd that I should be typing this, since I'm agnostic, but that's neither here nor there.) Since the swastika represents a philosophy which actively oppresses other groups, then many people consider its display crossing the line ("Fire!") Similarly, you could not burn a cross on the company lawn, for the same reason. However, neither should the employer be able to enforce their own beliefs upon the employees. This would also constitute crossing the line, albeit from a slightly different perspective. If I'm not Muslim, then I should not be forced to abstain from eating what Muslims consider unclean meat, simply because I work for/with them. My eating a ham sandwich does not (in my opinion) constitute active repression of the Muslims around me. After all, I don't believe the Koran says "Thou shalt not eat of unclean meats, nor suffer your neighbors of any faith to do the same." Of course, I'm not sure of that...I haven't read the Koran.

[edit : this is completely irrelevant, but JMCC aren't you the guy who customarily posts intentionally outlandish & profane comments/jokes? If so, I'm not asking that to discredit you. In fact, it would seem to be a common trait we share. Alternating between thought-out posts and silly/inane posts when a humorous mood strikes us. :wink:]

[RBM]

It's not impinging on any of her religious freedoms or anything. Of course, if her religion required her to eat pork it would be different. The fact that Islamics don't eat pork shouldn't really be considered, even if that happened to be the basis for the rule - it's their company.

That's just it. You do not consider it impinging on any of her religious freedoms? Don't you see that by enforcing this rule, they are effectively screening against non-Muslim employees? What if the rule was not against the consumption of "unclean" meats, but rather, a requirement that women be dressed in attire which covered them from head to toe? Would this also "not impinge on any of her religious freedoms?" After all, which religious freedom, exactly, would such a rule be impinging on?

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

Racism has no place here.

When you can find any expressed racism let me know.

You're right, it's not racism, it's religious intolerance and it still has no place here. If people who are religiously intolerant are the enemy, such as the owner of the company that fired the woman for eating pork, as you say, then I guess that makes you the enemy?

[Backlash]

It's not impinging on any of her religious freedoms or anything. Of course, if her religion required her to eat pork it would be different. The fact that Islamics don't eat pork shouldn't really be considered, even if that happened to be the basis for the rule - it's their company.

That's just it. You do not consider it impinging on any of her religious freedoms? Don't you see that by enforcing this rule, they are effectively screening against non-Muslim employees? What if the rule was not against the consumption of "unclean" meats, but rather, a requirement that women be dressed in attire which covered them from head to toe? Would this also "not impinge on any of her religious freedoms?" After all, which religious freedom, exactly, would such a rule be impinging on?

Eating pork is not a religous expression, so when they disallow it they are not impinging on her religious freedoms. As far as the dresscode thing, it would be just that - a dress code, which most companies have. It would have to apply equally to both men and women, of course, or they are discriminating against women.

What I'm getting at is that as long as the rules don't discriminate against a religion or other rights, they are fine, even if they were put in place because of a religion. If one were forced to eat pork, it would disriminate against Musims. But being asked NOT to eat pork doesn't discrinimate against anyone. Obviously, those who never eat pork won't think it's a big deal, but all rules are easier for some than others.

[RBM]

What I'm getting at is that as long as the rules don't discriminate against a religion or other rights, they are fine

I guess we interpret the law against religious discrimination in the workplace differently, then. My understanding was that one could not discriminate against others in the workplace based on religious beliefs. While that is certainly a broad & general statement, I interpreted that to include forcing the management and/or the majority of the employee's religious beliefs onto their peers. In other words, that one could not actively force one's own religious beliefs onto others.

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that one can effectively do so, so long as one does not explicitely prohibit a religious freedom. For example, I could request that none of my employees wear jewelry, and thus prohibit anyone from wearing a cross or rosary beads, because not wearing jewelry doesn't technically discriminate against anyone. Or, alternatively, I could make it a rule that nobody be allowed to wear footwear in the workplace. Again, being asked NOT to wear shoes would not discrminate against anyone, since wearing shoes is not a form of religious expression. And, just to throw one more out there, could I also make it a requirement that nobody is allowed to shave? I don't think there's an explicit religious freedom regarding one's right to shave one's face every morning. Have I erred in extending your logic?

[Backlash]

No, I think you have extended the logic ok. I don't think anyone would want to work there under those conditions, but that is their choice. Also I don't think you could ask people to do things that might have health risks, such as not wearing shoes.

Actually, I have participated in many sporting events where jewelry was not allowed, now that you mention it. I don't think it was disriminating against anyone.

Just because one religion allows you to do something, then not allowing that doesn't discriminate against it, does it?

I understand your point about forcing religious beliefs on someone, but for a beinign rule like this that doesn't impinge on other religious rights, what does it matter? What if, instead of being a Muslim, the CEO just really couldn't stand the smell of tunafish, and he banned tunafish from the office? That would be ok in your eyes b/c it isn't a religious rule, just a personal preference, right? But the result is the exact same... (correct me if I'm wrong, I hate when people put words in each others' mouths)

[RBM]

No, I think you have extended the logic ok. I don't think anyone would want to work there under those conditions, but that is their choice. Also I don't think you could ask people to do things that might have health risks, such as not wearing shoes.

I understand your point about forcing religious beliefs on someone, but for a beinign rule like this that doesn't impinge on other religious rights, what does it matter? What if, instead of being a Muslim, the CEO just really couldn't stand the smell of tunafish, and he banned tunafish from the office? That would be ok in your eyes b/c it isn't a religious rule, just a personal preference, right? But the result is the exact same... (correct me if I'm wrong, I hate when people put words in each others' mouths)

Well, the thing is, if someone enforced all 3 of those hypothetical policies, then I would certainly look at their (presumably) all-Muslim work-force and complain that they were side-stepping prohibitions against outright discrimination against non-Muslim prospective employees.

And yes, your example of banning tunafish would certainly be interpreted as a personal preference. Unless someone could somehow link such a ban with some bizarre form of religious discrimination (which I can't off the top of my head,) it would be considered a personal quirk. As for the result being the same...I don't think so. If you banned tuna fish, you would wind up alienating a random portion of the population. If you ban pork, you selectively alienate non-Muslims. Of course, you could fall back on the "letter of the law" as opposed to the "spirit of the law" and claim that you had no intention whatsoever of bringing religion into the picture. But, in a court of law, everyone could plainly see that religious discrimination would wind up being the obvious practical outcome. And I believe in that scenario that such policies would be considered unlawful due to their results.

[Backlash]

Good points. I guess we agree to disagree.

On a more general note, I do feel that our country has gotten WAY too litigious.

Not that this has any bearing on this particular discussion, but it seems that everyone thinks that they have the right not to be offended anymore! Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron (short story)? That's the end result of all this crazy PC stuff....

[RBM]

Good points. I guess we agree to disagree.

Civility in an online discussion? (I smell weakness) I must heap on the arguments until your spine cracks under the weight of my words, like an Alaskan king crab leg in my hands. :P

Hehe! But, no, I am not familiar with the title you mentioned. I haven't dipped into the general Fiction aisles of the bookstores in some time (it is fiction, right?) Yes, we are nothing if not a litigation-happy country. The trouble is, you always have the ugly head of Precedent in relatively minor cases like this. I would happily have ignored the first post of this thread...were its outcome not relevant to all of us. If this case *did* go to court..and if the employer DID win...hootchie mama.

[edit: whelp, it's been fun, man. However, your posts--while entertaining--have delayed me. I must now catch the late train and I am afflicted with hunger pangs. Therefore, you leave me little choice but to moon you:
:booty: ]

[Backlash]

http://penguinppc.org/~hollis/personal/bergeron.shtml

B Kurt Vonnegut. Basically it's about a future where everyone is handicapped to the lowest common deniminator so that there is complete equality. I had to read it in high school.

If the case did go to court, I hope it would center around whether the policy was written or not, whether it was exmplicity or implicitly agreed to or not, etc. Not about religious descrimination.

[Backlash]

A better link, perhaps

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

[RBM]

Ohhhhh yeah, what do you know, I *have* read that before. I recognized it right away; I don't remember where or when, however. Most likely it was in an anthology-style textbook during high school or undergrad, and the author's name didn't stick in my memory. While I consider that a fairly entertaining work, I am much more fond of Neitzsche's work. Twilight of the Gods - Or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer was a lot of fun. It figures that one of the few philosophers I found interesting was one that went nuts. *sigh*

[Backlash]

The story is just OK, not great, but I always think of it whenever stupid people sue a company even though whatever happened was their own fault, or when PC or equality starts to get out of hand. As I said, I don't think it necessarily pertains to this case (the pork eating thing).

I never really read Neitxsche much, though I enjoyed Crime and Punishment, and I understand that has similar themes (the Superman theory).