Thursday, December 16, 2010

A clear violation of the separation between church and State

Exactly how does Federal defense of the practices of one religion jibe with the alleged "separation between church and state" that liberals routinely claim to find in the 1st Amendment?
"The federal government sued a suburban Chicago school district Monday for denying a Muslim middle school teacher unpaid leave to make a pilgrimage to Mecca that is a central part of her religion.

In a civil rights case, the department said the school district in Berkeley, Ill., denied the request of Safoorah Khan on grounds that her requested leave was unrelated to her professional duties and was not set forth in the contract between the school district and the teachers union. In doing so the school district violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate her religious practices, the government said.

Khan wanted to perform the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia which every adult Muslim is supposed to make at least once in a lifetime if they are physically and financially able to. Millions go each year.

Source

If this is constitutional, then Christian prayer in public schools is constitutional too. Prayer is a central Christian practice.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Judge ruled correctly as the Civil Rights law does require accommodation.

In the case of Prayers in School there are people on both sides of what is right. Prayers in government supported venues (schools and governmental bodies) should neither be demanded nor should it be prohibited. The same goes for religious displays in public places, that is the clear reading of the 1st Amendment.

Anonymous said...

The law requires REASONABLE accommodation. If her absence for those three weeks constituted an undue hardship on the employer then they were not legally required to give her the time off.

Anonymous said...

Of course, it can be proven (which it can, it is just not accepted) that the United States was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, so therefore Judeo-Christian principles should come first.

Anonymous said...

The question I have is why it was so important that she go that year? In Islam, it is required to go to Mecca once in your life, why does she have to go during the school year as a teacher? Why not wait until retirement?
Three weeks is a long time to be without a teacher, and substitutes do not get the respect, or have the authority (what little is left) that a teacher has. Is this a reasonable thing to ask of an employer?
Would similar accomodations need to be made for other religions? Now that I have joined the Cult of World of Warcraft-can I get time off to make sure I get my 12 hours a day in?

Spurwing Plover said...

More from the DEPT of INJISTICE and the all time worst president THIEF of JUSTICE in americas history

Anonymous said...

She doesn't need to make the pilgramage now,during the school year. It just needs to be done at some point in her life if t all possible. The demands of her job make it impossible a this time. Next, why does she need three weeks for this. The Hajj lasts five days. With two days travel on each side, she only needs a week.

Anonymous said...

I guess I have trouble spelling "at".

Anonymous said...

Does this Civil Rights Law define a religion that would qualify for this special "accommodation" - and why is it fair to favor those above other religions, cults, or secular special interests.

stinky said...

1. Three weeks needed to do a five day trip? Hmm.

2. The trip could be done at any time in her life, even while school was out, per her own religion's established beliefs.

3. Note that her original intended timing of the trip would have basically let her take off 3 full months, cuz it would have encompassed both the Thanksgiving and Xmas holidays at the school. Bink! The lightbulb goes on (or should)!

Even a fencepost can see that she tried to game the educational system in order to get an extended holiday, it didn't work, and now she wants to game the legal system instead.

Anonymous said...

1. Three weeks needed to do a five day trip? Hmm.

Actually, the pilgrimage requires time to prepare for and do certain things within the belief system itself. You cannot just "pick up and go" as if you are going to the beach.

2. The trip could be done at any time in her life, even while school was out, per her own religion's established beliefs.

Factually false. The pilgrimage must be taken within a certain three months of the year.

3. Note that her original intended timing of the trip would have basically let her take off 3 full months,

So? If that is the timing of the pilgrimage, than that is the timing of the pilgrimage. In essence you are questioning her beliefs by saying that she must accommodate the other holidays which are founded upon religious beliefs. If that is your position, open the school on Christmas and Thanksgiving. I am sure the parents would love you for that.

Even a fencepost can see that she tried to game the educational system in order to get an extended holiday,

So you really think that a deeply held, established religious belief is "gaming the system?" Talk about a "fencepost."

You may not like it, but the law says the school must make a reasonable accommodation for her beliefs.

She offered to take a leave of absence without pay to make the pilgrimage. That seems very reasonable on her part to me.

The real problem is that the school board is caught between the 1964 Civil Rights law and a legally binding contract with the teacher's union that does not allow them to do what she wants.

That is the real problem here. Otherwise, any HR person who is not a "fencepost" would know to let the woman go on the pilgrimage.

Wes said...

Union contracts specify the terms of employment and what is required of both sides. For example, if the contract states that the employee cannot talk outside of work about the business of the employer, the employee can be terminated if they violate the terms of the contract, despite the first ammendment because they have volutarily made an agreement to the terms of the contract.
If the school was inconvenienced by the actions of the individual, they were justified in denying the time off.

Anonymous said...

If the school was inconvenienced by the actions of the individual, they were justified in denying the time off.

"Inconvenienced" is not the legal standard under the law. "Reasonable accommodation" is.

In fact, according to http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html, An employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

If the contract with the teacher's union says that time off can only be granted only in situations X, Y, or Z, but the teacher is making what is not "X, Y, or Z," but a request that can be reasonably accommodated by the school the school is caught between the law and the contract.

I can't see where the school should not have granted the request. The teacher was making a request that is a basic, recognized tenant of a major religion. That is hurdle one she overcomes.

Secondly, she was asking for the time without pay. The cost to the school would be very minimum which is another hurdle she has overcome.

The last hurdle would be "substantive disruption" or "undue hardship" which means her absence would be so traumatic and disruptive to the school that they couldn't allow it. Clearly that is not the case as teachers are allowed maternity leave for longer periods of time than this.

The school is going to have a hard time making their case on this one. It appears that in Chicago, they went the wrong direction. They went with the wording of the contract when this situation makes that section of the contract legally non-binding.

Anonymous said...

Several of you have asked the question, "why is she doing it now, or at all"?

A: She's setting a precedent so that all Muslims can do the same, and get away with it. And for the govt. to get involved in favor of this religion is unconstitutional. The school board should fight it!

Anonymous said...

This is exactly how Sharia law got a foot hold in the EU.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:02 AM,

I believe you need to work more on your WOW cult status. I'm not sure 12 hours a day is enough!

PS Let me guess, you're a blood elf? N00b.

stinky said...

Anon 11:25,

Actually, the pilgrimage requires time to prepare for and do certain things within the belief system itself. You cannot just "pick up and go" as if you are going to the beach.

I'm gonna call Bravo Sierra on you for that answer. Here's the list. There is nothing in it that requires the extra time off. In fact, specific guidance is given that, as with any distant journey, one begin arrangements (bookings, etc) early so as not to be rushed come travel day.

"Factually false. The pilgrimage must be taken within a certain three months of the year."

Factually true, kiddo!. The hajj is based on the Islamic months per the Islamic calendar, which puts it at different times of the Gregorian year depending on which Gregorian year it is. So this teacher could very well have gone when school was out during a different school year. But she picked the one that would give her the longest holiday.

I'll just presume that you were unaware of the Islamic calendar and its vagaries when you first answered. Suffice it to say that there were good, practical reasons, similar to the mistake you made, that Greg VIII commissioned the creation of the one that we use today.

"So? If that is the timing of the pilgrimage, than that is the timing of the pilgrimage."

But it didn't _have_ to be the timing of her pilgrimage, which was the point, one you disingenuously ignored.

"So you really think that a deeply held, established religious belief is "gaming the system?" "

No, nor did I say so. I said that her deliberate timing of the trip, specifically maximizing her holiday time while leaving school in the lurch, was gaming the system. And I still say that because that's what the facts say.

Anonymous said...

"Inconvenienced" is not the legal standard under the law. "Reasonable accommodation" is.

Not if a contract is in effect. When a contract is entered into, rights are relinquished.

Anonymous said...

If she has a problem it is with the union and the contract she agreed with when she took up her position.

The DoJ is so far out of line with this lawsuit that it even opposes union agreements in order to pursue its bigoted left wing ways.

Time to sack Obamas henchmen/women en masse before more crap is brought needlessly before the courts.

stinky said...

JJR,

Did you remove my response to anon 11:25? It was there ... and now it isn't. Did I use a word or a phrase that got caught in a filter, perhaps?

jonjayray said...

I can't remember deleting anything but the spam filters do occasionally catch a legitimate post

stinky said...

JJR,

No probs, then. Thx for the reply.