U.S. Shari'a watch

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Thanks for the link, Marye. This is how it should be: one law for everyone.

[Haggis@wk]

Marye,

I can't tell you how gratifying that link was. I guess my information was about a year out of date. The fact that the Canadian Govt. pulled back from the precipice of a potentially serious cliff lends greater optimism to my hope that this insanity can’t happen here.

Big,

I'm saying that your language regarding this problem was inflammatory and demagogic.

Pretty damning accusation, care to elaborate?


Demagogue: an orator who appeals to the passions and prejudices of his audience

inflammatory: instigative, rabble-rousing, seditious (arousing to action or rebellion)

[Haggis@wk]

A school in Connecticut is having its students dress in burqas, the symbols of Islam’s suppression of women, so that they can understand discrimination.

No, not the Islamic discrimination against women that forces them into these repressive garments. The “discrimination” of evil American high school kids, who are intolerant of this symbol of intolerance.

Behind Burqa, Student Gets An Education In Bigotry

It’s hard to imagine a more inverted moral lesson. Focused on teaching these kids “tolerance,” they don’t see the blatant misogyny of the burqa.

Just incredible.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

That school has a number of stupidities going on. First, the girl who actually wore a burqa for purposes of experimentation probably got more education than she expected. She'll be more cautious about making herself a target, in future. This is a valuable lesson, and she'll never forget it.

Second, the student body as a group exhibited civil rights violations, in that they discriminated against an (apparent) member of an ethnic group, without just immediate cause. It is just wrong to attack one person for the crimes of another person. And rude. To the degree that the rudeness constitutes a shooting offense. This group of kids needs some civics lessons, and civility lessons.

Third, the teacher who gave this girl the initial idea without arranging some sort of oversight is an appalling idiot. Things could have gone so much more badly than just rude comments.

All this being said, I do agree with you, Haggis, on the subject of burqas and such in general. Their proponents try to represent them as "modest" garb - what the actually are is the visible evidence that a woman's individuality and person are nothing more than the property of some male, interchangable with any other similar piece of property. They are part and parcel of the whole chattel status of women, in the eyes of their home societies. We don't have human chattels here. We don't need burqas.

[bignaf]

but those who want Burqas should be allowed to wear them. I think that unnecessary discrimination against Muslims will end up in a liberal backlash that will interfere with the legitimate security measures that need to be taken. such as ethnic profiling for security reasons. I think ethnic profiling is a great idea, but with people discriminating against Muslims unnecessarily, it gives more credibility to terrorist fronts like CAIR.

[Haggis@wk]

but those who want Burqas should be allowed to wear them

Fair enough, we're back to the original subject of Shari' a. Should a 16 yo Muslim daughter be forced to wear one in school by her parents if she doesn't want to?

[bignaf]

no one in America believes a burqa is required. they wear niqab at most. I'm not sure about general law regarding parents forcing their children to do legal acts, can you enlighten me?

[bignaf]

what we definitely don't want are headscarf laws as in France. or Burqa bans as in other European countries. separation of church and state doesn't mean putting obstacles in the way of religious people.

[barfle]

Should a 16 yo Muslim daughter be forced to wear one in school by her parents if she doesn't want to?

Should a 16 year old daughter be forced to not wear a mini skirt to school by her parents if she wants to?

I know we had dress codes when I was in high school.

[dai bread]

The problem with the burqa is simply that you can't tell who's inside. If you just want to ignore the person, as you generally do when passing in the street, that's fine, but any face-to-face work, such as shop work or reception, I for one, like to see who I'm dealing with.

In this country, many places ask motorcyclists to remove their helmets when entering the building, for precisely this reason. It's a security issue, as well as being plain politeness in this society. I see no reason for letting burqa wearers get away with concealment.

A British criminal escaped Britain by wearing a burqa. Foreign journalists have moved around Afghanistan in them, causing deep offence when discovered.

I'm reluctant to see them banned by law, but I would have no hesitation in asking a burqa wearer to show her face when dealing with me, with or without a relative present. If she wouldn't then I wouldn't deal with her, or her relative.

[barfle]

I'm a bit confused by those who wear clothing indicating that they are different, then being upset when someone says "You're different."

[Shapley]

Sort of like women who wear t-shirts with slogans written on them, and then display outrage at men for 'staring at their chests'?

[Haggis@wk]

Barfle,

That comment was an extension of a discussion about the recognition of some kind of "family Shari'a law" for Muslims in America and what would be permissable.

As for the burqa it is nothing more than a method to repress women.


Customer service and faith clash at registers

Beryl Dsouza was late and in no mood for delays when she stopped at a Target store after work two weeks ago for milk, bread and bacon.

So Dsouza was taken aback when the cashier -- who had on the traditional headscarf, or hijab, worn by many Muslim women -- refused to swipe the bacon through the checkout scanner.

"She made me scan the bacon. Then she opened the bag and made me put it in the bag," said Dsouza, 53, of Minneapolis. "It made me wonder why this person took a job as a cashier."

In the latest example of religious beliefs creating tension in the workplace, some Muslims in the Twin Cities are adhering to a strict interpretation of the Qur'an that prohibits the handling of pork products.
Instead of swiping the items themselves, they are asking non-Muslim employees or shoppers to do it for them.

The solution, of course, is simple, we need to “adapt to them”

Dr. Shah Khan, a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Minnesota...

...urged people to remember the extraordinary adjustments many Somalis have made in coming to the Twin Cities. "Many of these people are refugees. They may have been tortured. And they came here having never held a book in English," he said. "They're already adapting to our society. We need to adapt to them, too."

Anyone who refuses to provide a lawful service based on their personal religious interpretations should lose their jobs. I understand that where possible some considerations to people’s faith can be made (Sieks’ turban, for instance) but that consideration should be narrow and not interfere with the normal commerce of business.

For example a pharmacist’s refusal to sell birth control pills or even the “morning after” pill because of his/her religious faith doesn’t fall into that narrow band of consideration, they should be fired, period.

And lecturing me to “adapt to them” is the height of arrogance and is too often the response heard from “spokesman for the Islamic “ when these kinds of events come to light.

There’s your replacement motto for “In God we trust”…..

“Adapt to them”

[jamiebk]

Can't disagree with you on that one Haggis...

[bignaf]

I think it is very difficult for less religious people (who happen to be above the poverty line) to understand the importance of religion for more religious people. they don't understand the situation in which those Muslims working the cash register are in. firstly, you call for firing people with a casualness that probably indicates you don't understand the financial situation of people who have to work a cash register for a living. the phrase "for a living" is very literal in these cases. secondly, you probably think the religious requirement is some extra lifestyle choice that can come and go as the people wish, just like your lifestyle choices (or do they?). some people actually believe that that is the word of God, and that there is no point to life if they transgress His word by handling pork. so you make them face a choice between making their lives meaningless, or making their continued existence doubtful.

[jamiebk]

The point is that they should not be working jobs that put them in conflict with their beliefs. If they cannot perform the duties of the job they were hired to do then they should not be in that job.

[Shapley]

big,

I think the issue here is a question of taking a job and meeting the qualifications of the job. If the job requires cleaning toilets, and your religious beliefs or your personal preference is such that you don't clean toilets, you don't take the job.

The supermarket owner should be the one who ultimately decides what level of acceptance his store can tolerate, and that will likely be based on economics. People entering the supermarket expect a certain amount of customer service for their money, if they don't get the expected level of customer service, they will likely go elsewhere. If the owner believes requiring customers to scan and bag their own pork products is an acceptable trade, then he will allow those conditions to be set. A certain number of customers may consider that trade-off unacceptable, and will go elsewhere, others won't.

If, on the other hand, the owner decides that handling of pork products is a basic requirement of the job, then it will be up to the job seekers to decide whether or not they value a paycheck from that particular employer more than they value their religious tenets.

For my part, I do not see the problem. I know, for instance, that if I go to buy a six-pack in Wal-Mart that I have to look for a check-out line with a check-out worker that is over the age of twenty-one. That is the law. It's inconvenient, but such is life. If I get into the check-out line, and I see that the check-out girl is wearing a burqa, then I can expect that I will have to scan and bag my own pork rinds. It's not something that'll drive me to another business. I'm not going to call the manager and tell them to make the girl handle the product. It's really not an issue to me.

Restaurants have long offered Kosher meals and fish-on-Fridays as a concession to certain religious beliefs. It is said, although I don't know if it is true, that McDonald's offered the filet-o'-fish sandwich as a response to a tremendous drop in Friday business in predominantly Catholic areas.
Liquor stores in my home town include drive-in-windows accessible from alleyways behind the building as a religious concession of sorts. They claim that members of certain religions will not do business there if the business does not make an effort to protect them from the watchful eyes of their fellow congregationalists. (I'm not making this up, I worked on the design of a convenience store a number of years back, and that was part of the design criteria provided by the owner.) This, of course, is different from the check-out issue in that is a concession made to assist sinners in breaking the tenets of their 'faith' rather than in assisting them adhering to them.

Most pharmacies handle products that may shock the religious sensibilities of some of the potential counter workers. I've yet to see a pharmacy, however, that allowed the check-out workers or the pharmacy sales force to set the criteria regarding what will or will not be sold there. I'm sure some people would gladly sue a pharmacy that refused to offer certain products, and I'm equally sure that the courts would rule that, since they accept government payments for medicines, they can be compelled by the government to handle products that the store owners may object to.

I did know a check-out girl once that was too shy or sensitive or whatever you want to call it to handle certain products, so the manager or other worker always had to be called to the counter when certain products were being purchased. It became somewhat of a joke around town. Some boys would wait until she was on duty to make certain purchases, just to cause her to blush and disappear behind the counter. eventually, however, she got over her bashfulness, and began to turn the tables on those boys by announcing loudly that she needed price checks on items that they would rather it not be known they were purchasing. This, of course, was in the good old pre-HIPPA days when you didn't risk being sued for such things.

V/R

Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

Big,
My comment was very specific Anyone who refuses to provide a lawful service based on their personal religious interpretations should lose their jobs.

Their refusal is probably based on the increasingly draconian strict interpretations of the Koran by increasingly radical Saudi funded Wahabi clerics because I’ve heard some of the same claims from my Somali acquaintenances here in the DFW area. They are encouraged to push their religious viewpoints more forcibly than they might have been willing to previous to 9/11.

you call for firing people with a casualness that probably indicates you don't understand the financial situation of people who have to work a cash register for a living. the phrase "for a living" is very literal in these cases.

I could probably muster up some righteous indignation to such a snotty and condescending comment but I’ll just chalk it up to juvenile exuberance.

Having spent the better part of a year in Mogadishu, Somalia I can assure you the truly, truely poor and desperate will almost never get a chance to get a visa to come to the U.S.

I count among my friends an incredible man named Mahdi Hersi. Mahdi was a civilian Somali American translator hired in Dec. 1992 to work for the American forces in Somalia and was my translator during our patrols throughout the city of Mogadishu. I owe my eternal piece of mind to Mahdi for bravely (or stupidly) standing between me and an innocent man I was preparing to kill because I thought he was getting ready to fire on my patrol. In reality he was rushing to hand me a rifle he had found on the street. That’s why Mahdi jumped in front of my weapon, he believed I wouldn’t shoot him in order to shoot the “attacker”; a proposition that I fortunately never had to test other than that once.

Mahdi was one of those I referred to as the “truly, truely poor and desperate” in the 80’s when, through an incredibly story too long to tell here, found himself in the U.S. Madhi’s clan in Somalia was considered to be the lowest of the low. Member of the clan don’t even speak the name of their clan because it opens them up to ridicule and scorn from other “higher” placed Somali clans. Your cashier belongs to one of those clans, not Madhi’s.

Mahdi drives cabs now here in Dallas but I can assure you he has taken the vilest jobs for the rottenest wages in his climb to middle lower class.

He is devout Muslim but did/does what he has to do to support himself and the extended "family" he has adopted. Just as a devout Catholic can sell condoms to non-Catholics, a Muslim cashier should bag pork rinds for a non-Muslim. If neither can because a conflict of convictions then they need to fund other lines of employment.

I know Somalis (mostly the real poor ones from Mahdi's clan) and have helped write recommendations for others that Mahdi is trying to get visas for (a forlorn hope, unfortunately but Mahdi's unreasonable faith in my abilities humbles me so that I keep at it) The Somalis who get visas are relatively well off and have family and clan affiliations that helps tremendously in the political visa process.

I called this evening and left a message for him. I’ll pass on his comments if he will permit me. He's still very sensitive to opening himself to that scorn I mentioned earlier.

[dai bread]

Aren't the pork products wrapped (shrink-wrapped in plastic?) at the delicatessen or butchery, not the check-out counter? If so, the check-out girl doesn't actually handle them.

And Haggis, more power to your elbow re your Somali friend and his needs.

[bignaf]

I see three substantive replies to my post.

1. "I think the issue here is a question of taking a job and meeting the qualifications of the job."
I agree with this argument. and therefore I agree that people who believe they can't sell certain things sold in pharmacies shouldn't work there. this is because they cannot perform a substantial part of their job description at all. I think this is different from asking a person not to work at a supermarket, because they cannot handle a small portion of the items when they are called to do checkout duty. it does not result in the sale not occurring, it will only result in the costumer or the person who is bagging the items having to scan the item. I don't think that makes them wholly unacceptable for the job.

2."Their refusal is probably based on the increasingly draconian strict interpretations of the Koran by increasingly radical Saudi funded Wahabi clerics"
that is probably not the view of those who believe that it is the word of God. I heard people say very similar language about some religious beliefs of mine, beliefs I hold very dearly.

3."the truly, truely poor and desperate will almost never get a chance to get a visa to come to the U.S."
the fact that there are poorer people doesn't mean that these people are not critically poor. let's send them some money.