Are These Events Isolated? Or the Ugly Face of Islam In America
- Thread starter PittsburghAfterDark
- Start date
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'] Racism has no place here.[/quote]
When you can find any expressed racism let me know.
When you can find any expressed racism let me know.
RBM
CAGiversary!
[quote name='jmcc']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.[/quote]
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.
]
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.
]
RBM
CAGiversary!
[quote name='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.[/quote]
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?
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
CAGiversary!
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'] Racism has no place here.[/quote]
When you can find any expressed racism let me know.[/quote]
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?
When you can find any expressed racism let me know.[/quote]
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?
[quote name='RBM'][quote name='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.[/quote]
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?[/quote]
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.
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?[/quote]
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
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Backlash']What I'm getting at is that as long as the rules don't discriminate against a religion or other rights, they are fine[/quote]
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?
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?
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)
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
CAGiversary!
[quote name='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.
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)[/quote]
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.
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)[/quote]
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.
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....
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
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Backlash']Good points. I guess we agree to disagree.[/quote]
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.
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:
]
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.
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:
]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.
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.
RBM
CAGiversary!
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*
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).
I never really read Neitxsche much, though I enjoyed Crime and Punishment, and I understand that has similar themes (the Superman theory).
bread's done