US EEOC and DOJ Sues to Protect Pilgrimage to Mecca.

[JimC]

Paid leave would be unreasonable. Unpaid leave would be OK if other teachers who wanted a few weeks off on unpaid leave for whatever reason (with plenty of notice...) had just as much chance of being granted the leave as well...

which they wouldn't, of course, if the reasons were non religious.

And if that were the case, then a special religious exemption would be wrong, and possibly even unconstitutional...

[GreyICE]

Paid leave would be unreasonable. Unpaid leave would be OK if other teachers who wanted a few weeks off on unpaid leave for whatever reason (with plenty of notice...) had just as much chance of being granted the leave as well...

Doesn't work that way. It's a reasonable accommodation. A teacher who needed a 3 week leave for a major surgery, a death in the family, or other important reasons would most likely be granted it.

With long notice, this action utterly fails basic first amendment. There is no compelling State interest in preventing once-in-a-lifetime 3 week unpaid leaves with long notice. The manner the government went about it could not really be much more burdensome. They fail basic 1st amendment, and they're going to get smacked down for it so hard.

[Warren Dew]

Doesn't work that way. It's a reasonable accommodation. A teacher who needed a 3 week leave for a major surgery, a death in the family, or other important reasons would most likely be granted it.

It may work that way, but it shouldn't. A teacher who needed a 3 week leave for a once in a lifetime visit to observe the Antarctic summer would most likely not be granted it. The teacher's religious reasons were similar to those, so treating them differently ought to constitute "establishment of religion".

I'm not even sure she'll win. Why couldn't she go during summer vacation, for example?

[GreyICE]

Doesn't work that way. It's a reasonable accommodation. A teacher who needed a 3 week leave for a major surgery, a death in the family, or other important reasons would most likely be granted it.

It may work that way, but it shouldn't. A teacher who needed a 3 week leave for a once in a lifetime visit to observe the Antarctic summer would most likely not be granted it. The teacher's religious reasons were similar to those, so treating them differently ought to constitute "establishment of religion".

I'm not even sure she'll win. Why couldn't she go during summer vacation, for example?

I prefer having a 1st amendment to not having a 1st amendment. Therefore, I think that's exactly the way it should work. Beliefs are beliefs. Assuming it passes some fairly basic tests (there is no compelling public interest, etc) I think they should generally be respected by the government. Individuals are different. Notably, they're not a government.

And, by the way, I'll just quote Wiki here:

The pilgrimage occurs from the 8th to 12th day of Dhu al-Hijjah, the 12th and last month of the Islamic calendar. Because the Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar, eleven days shorter than the Gregorian calendar used in the Western world, the Gregorian date of the Hajj changes from year to year. Ihram is the name given to the special state in which Muslims live while on the pilgrimage.

Reasonably needless to say, "wait until it falls in the summer months" is not exactly a compelling example of the government finding an accommodation that is reasonable and unburdensome.

[Warren Dew]

I prefer having a 1st amendment to not having a 1st amendment. Therefore, I think that's exactly the way it should work. Beliefs are beliefs. Assuming it passes some fairly basic tests (there is no compelling public interest, etc) I think they should generally be respected by the government.

I prefer having a first amendment and it's also being interpreted literally, rather than being interpreted to advantage people with religious beliefs over the nonreligious.

Reasonably needless to say, "wait until it falls in the summer months" is not exactly a compelling example of the government finding an accommodation that is reasonable and unburdensome.

Thanks. That answers my question on why not the summer.

[GreyICE]

I prefer having a 1st amendment to not having a 1st amendment. Therefore, I think that's exactly the way it should work. Beliefs are beliefs. Assuming it passes some fairly basic tests (there is no compelling public interest, etc) I think they should generally be respected by the government.

I prefer having a first amendment and it's also being interpreted literally, rather than being interpreted to advantage people with religious beliefs over the nonreligious.

No, that's not really how it works. The government must decide something. You're deciding the government will be Christian.

And why are you deciding the government will be Christian? Because you won't let it be anything else. We get two days off a week? What a coincidence they're the holy days of Judaism and Christianity. And if the holy day of an Indian religion is Monday? Well, if the person is a teacher, no good, we need teachers who are here on Monday. If the person is a postal worker? That's fine. Post office can reasonable ensure that someone never works Mondays. You say that's not fine? How interesting that you've established Christianity.

And if you make a government that is only friendly to atheists? Well that's establishing something in and of itself.

The government does not have a right to legislate what people's beliefs shall be, and they should never have this right.

[JimC]

I prefer having a 1st amendment to not having a 1st amendment. Therefore, I think that's exactly the way it should work. Beliefs are beliefs. Assuming it passes some fairly basic tests (there is no compelling public interest, etc) I think they should generally be respected by the government.

I prefer having a first amendment and it's also being interpreted literally, rather than being interpreted to advantage people with religious beliefs over the nonreligious.

No, that's not really how it works. The government must decide something. You're deciding the government will be Christian.

And why are you deciding the government will be Christian? Because you won't let it be anything else. We get two days off a week? What a coincidence they're the holy days of Judaism and Christianity. And if the holy day of an Indian religion is Monday? Well, if the person is a teacher, no good, we need teachers who are here on Monday. If the person is a postal worker? That's fine. Post office can reasonable ensure that someone never works Mondays. You say that's not fine? How interesting that you've established Christianity.

And if you make a government that is only friendly to atheists? Well that's establishing something in and of itself.

The government does not have a right to legislate what people's beliefs shall be, and they should never have this right.

More importantly, people's beliefs should be of no import when establishing conditions of employment...

[Warren Dew]

You're deciding the government will be Christian.

You're wrong.

And why are you deciding the government will be Christian? Because you won't let it be anything else. We get two days off a week? What a coincidence they're the holy days of Judaism and Christianity. And if the holy day of an Indian religion is Monday? Well, if the person is a teacher, no good, we need teachers who are here on Monday. If the person is a postal worker? That's fine. Post office can reasonable ensure that someone never works Mondays. You say that's not fine? How interesting that you've established Christianity.

You should make fewer incorrect assumptions about the positions of people you're responding to.

And if you make a government that is only friendly to atheists? Well that's establishing something in and of itself.

Now you're actually misconstruing what I said. I said that government should be as friendly to atheists as to the religious, not "only" friendly to atheists.

[GreyICE]

Read my post next time.

[Coito ergo sum]

*sigh*

Honestly, who cares? I've always supported the 1st amendment rights, and that's because they do a hell of a lot more to protect me from other people than they do to give other people random rights I don't want them to have. Why do I even care if a schoolteacher takes 3 weeks off? The leave was UNPAID, well, until the school district decided that they couldn't approve a request for an unpaid three week leave.

Now the judge is going to walk up, tattoo the 1st amendment on their head, and beat them with a giant paddle.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's what I'm saying - why should the Justice Department care that a school enforces a policy that teachers show up for work....?

It's a question of it being paid or unpaid leave - sooner or later, people have to show up to fucking work - full time.... nobody gets to just choose to take unpaid vacations. She's fucking damn well paid to teach - not to take 3 weeks off. If she's not willing to do that, then she can go do something else or find a school that doesn't care. Up to her, IMHO. Not a situation where the Justice Department ought to be spending its resources...

[Coito ergo sum]

We get two days off a week? What a coincidence they're the holy days of Judaism and Christianity. And if the holy day of an Indian religion is Monday?

What do you mean "we get?" Saturday and Sunday off is not legislated. That's custom (in the US). Muslims are free to close their stores on Friday. Jews are free to close them on Saturday. The restaurant Chick-fil-A, a fast food restaurant, is closed on Sundays because the ownership is Christian and wants to be closed on Sunday. There is no reason a Hindu can't do the same.

Well, if the person is a teacher, no good, we need teachers who are here on Monday. If the person is a postal worker? That's fine. Post office can reasonable ensure that someone never works Mondays. You say that's not fine? How interesting that you've established Christianity.

The school needs teachers to be there when the school is open. if they decided that the school would be closed for 3 weeks around the Hajj, that's fine. Everyone is off that day. They ought not to have to accommodate one person. If they do, that discriminates against the non-religious, who would prefer to take holidays for secular reasons, but will be denied accommodation because taking 3 weeks to go on sabbatical to Paris would not be deemed worthy of Justice Department attention.

The government does not have a right to legislate what people's beliefs shall be, and they should never have this right.

Adopting a schedule at a school where kids will be there and need to be taught things by teachers over the course of 180 odd days during the year, and expecting teachers to show up for work and do their job is not "legislating a belief."

[Warren Dew]

What do you mean "we get?" Saturday and Sunday off is not legislated. That's custom (in the US). Muslims are free to close their stores on Friday. Jews are free to close them on Saturday. The restaurant Chick-fil-A, a fast food restaurant, is closed on Sundays because the ownership is Christian and wants to be closed on Sunday. There is no reason a Hindu can't do the same.

GreyICE apparently believes it's okay for Muslims and Jews to have those options, but not for Christians or atheists.

[Trolldor]

Adopting a schedule at a school where kids will be there and need to be taught things by teachers over the course of 180 odd days during the year, and expecting teachers to show up for work and do their job is not "legislating a belief."

It is legislating against belif if you do not allow those teachers to practice their religion.

[Coito ergo sum]

Adopting a schedule at a school where kids will be there and need to be taught things by teachers over the course of 180 odd days during the year, and expecting teachers to show up for work and do their job is not "legislating a belief."

It is legislating against belif if you do not allow those teachers to practice their religion.

No, it's not. Nobody is allowed to "on demand" take time off to "practice their religion." The teacher is free to practice her religion, just like an Greek Orthodox Christian teacher is free to celebrate Christmas in January, despite having to come to work that day.

[GreyICE]

That's what I'm saying - why should the Justice Department care that a school enforces a policy that teachers show up for work....?

It's a question of it being paid or unpaid leave - sooner or later, people have to show up to fucking work - full time.... nobody gets to just choose to take unpaid vacations. She's fucking damn well paid to teach - not to take 3 weeks off. If she's not willing to do that, then she can go do something else or find a school that doesn't care. Up to her, IMHO. Not a situation where the Justice Department ought to be spending its resources...

This is the most epic failure of article reading.

She requested unpaid leave. That was ALL she requested. Not that the government give her a 3 week holiday, that they just let her take unpaid leave. If that's the question, then that's your answer - she wasn't asking for a 3 week paid vacation no one else got, she was asking for a reasonable accommodation.

As for the Justice department spending its resources, there is no right I would rather have them protect than the first amendment. If you have a problem with that, I am serious, go live in Europe or something. It's perfectly nice, and the UK and Germany have both been great about not letting people have freedom of speech. It's a serious fun times. You'll note we still lead in innovation, despite having what? Like less than half the population of Europe, AND we have worse schools (as the Europeans are always informing us?). Maybe all that free thinking is good for something?