US EEOC and DOJ Sues to Protect Pilgrimage to Mecca.

[GreyICE]

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.

Oh stop lying. I know it's what you're good at, but learn a new trick.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

I didn't misread anything. The fact that it's unpaid is irrelevant. Employees can't just willy nilly take unpaid leave from work - I've never worked for an employer where I could just say - "boss, look, I need to go for 3 weeks here - don't bother paying me, but hold my job for me 'til I get back...righteo!" Then you leave it to the employer to find your replacement, and in the case of a school you saddle the kids with a substitute teacher, who can never fully replace the teacher who had already established a rapport, etc. A substitute teacher is not the same as the students' regular teacher.

What if I, a secular person, wants a 3 week unpaid hiatus to take a pilgrimage to Athens to explore my Epicurean philosophy? I can take a 3 week unpaid leave and not do my job?

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?

This case is not about Freedom of Speech or freedom of thought. This is about a teacher who took a job to teach 180 odd days out of the year and knew what holidays were being allowed off. She doesn't get the Hajj off for the same reason Catholics just can't take off "Holy Week" before Easter.

[GreyICE]

I didn't misread anything. The fact that it's unpaid is irrelevant. Employees can't just willy nilly take unpaid leave from work - I've never worked for an employer where I could just say - "boss, look, I need to go for 3 weeks here - don't bother paying me, but hold my job for me 'til I get back...righteo!" Then you leave it to the employer to find your replacement, and in the case of a school you saddle the kids with a substitute teacher, who can never fully replace the teacher who had already established a rapport, etc. A substitute teacher is not the same as the students' regular teacher.

What if I, a secular person, wants a 3 week unpaid hiatus to take a pilgrimage to Athens to explore my Epicurean philosophy? I can take a 3 week unpaid leave and not do my job?

This case is not about Freedom of Speech or freedom of thought. This is about a teacher who took a job to teach 180 odd days out of the year and knew what holidays were being allowed off. She doesn't get the Hajj off for the same reason Catholics just can't take off "Holy Week" before Easter.

First, many places do provide unpaid leave for very similar reasons. The most ironic part is there is an actual program for teachers where they take a leave of absence that has received a formalized name - sabbatical. So it's reasonably obvious that this undue burden you're hypothesizing is horseshit. A three week sabbatical to Athens to explore Epicurean philosophy is a perfectly good reason for a sabbatical. I'd say it most likely should be granted if there are compelling reasons why you would like it to occur at a certain time (there is an important site they will restrict public access too, an important scholar is giving a short lecture series, they are uncovering something new that you have an opportunity to see in progress, that sort of thing). So what's your point? I really don't know.

As for this case not being about the first amendment, again, horseshit. Go read it. The first amendment protects everyone, not just people I agree with.

[Coito ergo sum]

I didn't misread anything. The fact that it's unpaid is irrelevant. Employees can't just willy nilly take unpaid leave from work - I've never worked for an employer where I could just say - "boss, look, I need to go for 3 weeks here - don't bother paying me, but hold my job for me 'til I get back...righteo!" Then you leave it to the employer to find your replacement, and in the case of a school you saddle the kids with a substitute teacher, who can never fully replace the teacher who had already established a rapport, etc. A substitute teacher is not the same as the students' regular teacher.

What if I, a secular person, wants a 3 week unpaid hiatus to take a pilgrimage to Athens to explore my Epicurean philosophy? I can take a 3 week unpaid leave and not do my job?

This case is not about Freedom of Speech or freedom of thought. This is about a teacher who took a job to teach 180 odd days out of the year and knew what holidays were being allowed off. She doesn't get the Hajj off for the same reason Catholics just can't take off "Holy Week" before Easter.

First, many places do provide unpaid leave for very similar reasons.

And, they are free to do so, or not.

The most ironic part is there is an actual program for teachers where they take a leave of absence that has received a formalized name - sabbatical. So it's reasonably obvious that this undue burden you're hypothesizing is horseshit.

Public school teachers aren't entitled to take sabbaticals. College professors take sabbaticals, which they work out privately with the administration. If the college doesn't want to give a professor a sabbatical, they don't have to. And sabbaticals aren't for three weeks; they are for entire semesters or full years. Taking 3 weeks off from teaching a grammar school class fucks up the students' education.

And "sabbatical" is not a legally required thing. Teachers don't get to just declare themselves on sabbatical.

A three week sabbatical to Athens to explore Epicurean philosophy is a perfectly good reason for a sabbatical.

Says you. If the school thinks it needs teachers who commit to teaching during a 180-odd day school year to not take 8.33% of the school year off when they should be teaching their students, then that's up to them. Public school teachers in elementary school and high school don't take sabbaticals, anyway.

As for this case not being about the first amendment, again, horseshit. Go read it.

I can quote it from memory. Which part is it that you think requires public school districts let any teacher harboring religious views to take whatever time off the teacher deems necessary to adhere to their religious beliefs?

[GreyICE]

You just plow forward, carefully scrutinizing the issue so you can shape your facts with only the most well-supported opinions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/16/nyreg ... urned.html

"A labor arbitrator ruled yesterday that the City Department of Education violated the public school teachers' contract last year when it rejected sabbatical requests from hundreds of teachers in a budget-cutting move that saved $35 million."

Well gee, look at that. That's rather a problem for your entire "public school teachers don't get them" fact, right? Is this the new gold standard for skeptical thinking, you make up whatever nonsense best helps you 'prove' your ideology and then claim that the ideology is supported by facts? Did you know that they found a dinosaur bone that carbon dates from 4,500 years ago, and that it was shown that virus markers were caused by ingesting certain types of plant proteins? What do you darwinists say about that?

Now, you mention it could screw up the kids education. This is fair, and it would be entirely within the rights of the school to insist that she take a longer sabbatical, and make the sabbatical conform to the lesson plan so the teacher switch would be accomplished with less disruption. This is an example of a reasonable accommodation.

As for the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Now read that clause, and think, "what did the framers intend?" Did they really intend that Congress can designate officials who can prohibit the free exercise of religion? I think they did not. Congress can designate no such individuals, nor can Congress designate individuals who can then designate such individuals. That argument sounds like some kid saying "I didn't eat any of the cookies in the jar! I took them out first, then they weren't in the jar!" Yeah, right, that isn't even compelling logic at age 5.

And the first amendment? At all levels of all government in this country. And this action? This action shall not pass strict scrutiny. This seems very readily apparent.

[Coito ergo sum]

If I worded my post to absolutely, and stated that they "never" take sabbaticals, then I misspoke. Sabbaticals are possible, but not particularly common, and certainly not universally allowable to all teachers. They aren't required by law to be allowed.

Teachers on sabbaticals are paid up to 70 percent of their salary for a year of study

They don't just take three weeks off for a "sabbatical."

This subject has nothing to do with "sabbaticals" - but, don't let the facts get in the way. This teacher was not asking for a sabbatical.

The issue described in the New York times is peculiar to that school district's collective bargaining agreement. Schools don't have to allow sabbatical leave, and it's not very common in the US for teachers to take sabbaticals from elementary or high school level schools. It's not some constitutional right of teachers to take time off work whenever they damn well please.

When sabbaticals are allowed, they are generally allowed to take a semester or a year off to do further study and other professionally related things. Sabbaticals are not taken for the Hajj or to take Holy Week off.

[Coito ergo sum]

As for the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Now read that clause, and think, "what did the framers intend?"

They didn't have one homogeneous intent.

Did they really intend that Congress can designate officials who can prohibit the free exercise of religion? I think they did not. Congress can designate no such individuals, nor can Congress designate individuals who can then designate such individuals. That argument sounds like some kid saying "I didn't eat any of the cookies in the jar! I took them out first, then they weren't in the jar!" Yeah, right, that isn't even compelling logic at age 5.

Technically, the "framers" of the Constitution were talking about the United States Congress in Washington DC, which has nothing at all to do with school boards in New York State. It was not until the 14th Amendment in about 1865-69 (approx) when the States were prohibited from depriving a person of "liberty" without due process of law. Over time, the Supreme Court held that fundamental liberties - like the liberty of and from religion embodied in the first amendment - were applicable to the States. The "framers" never intended that the First Amendment would prohibit anything other than federal Congressional action - hence their use of the term "Congress" (which refers to the federal Congress).

Presently, Constitutional law is built on an application of the fundamental freedoms embodied in the bill of rights, through the 14th Amendment, to state activities including the actions of school boards. Nothing in the first amendment, however, has ever been held to require government employers to give employees, whether state or federal, three weeks off for religious reasons. We shall see what the courts do with it.

If your interpretation prevails, then someone hired by the government who doesn't want to work Thursdays for religious reasons must be permitted that time off. I am quite sure none of "the framers" intended the First Amendment to require that.

[Santa_Claus]

I guess it's a pragmatic decision. and fear.

if they didn't let her go then a risk she might explode at an inconveniant time.

[JimC]

All that really matters in this argument is that the code of practice in granting unpaid leave, whatever its details may be, should be 100% secular, in the sense that religious reasons for requesting leave not be privileged over non-religious reasons. As long as any rules involved in granting leave are applied universally, it would not be an issue to worry about.

[GreyICE]

Technically, the "framers" of the Constitution were talking about the United States Congress in Washington DC, which has nothing at all to do with school boards in New York State. It was not until the 14th Amendment in about 1865-69 (approx) when the States were prohibited from depriving a person of "liberty" without due process of law. Over time, the Supreme Court held that fundamental liberties - like the liberty of and from religion embodied in the first amendment - were applicable to the States. The "framers" never intended that the First Amendment would prohibit anything other than federal Congressional action - hence their use of the term "Congress" (which refers to the federal Congress).

Presently, Constitutional law is built on an application of the fundamental freedoms embodied in the bill of rights, through the 14th Amendment, to state activities including the actions of school boards. Nothing in the first amendment, however, has ever been held to require government employers to give employees, whether state or federal, three weeks off for religious reasons. We shall see what the courts do with it.

If your interpretation prevails, then someone hired by the government who doesn't want to work Thursdays for religious reasons must be permitted that time off. I am quite sure none of "the framers" intended the First Amendment to require that.

Really? You want the interpretation of the Bill of Rights that the framers only intended it to effect the Federal Government, and that states were free to do as they wish? States were free to imprison people without trial for as long as they wish? That they intended States be free to force people to testify against themselves? That they wished for the States to be allowed to break into people's homes and take whatever they wanted whenever they wanted? That they sought to allow States the right to forgo Jury trials in favor of having a single Judge decide the verdict in any case? That they wanted States to have the right to torture prisoners, to stone them, to beat them to death? Just none of this could be done by the Federal Government?

You realize this insane position is not held by a single Supreme Court Judge, that you have to go digging deep into the theocracy wing of the lunatic right to find a single person calling themselves a Constitutional Scholar who adheres to this? You realize that the founders clearly used the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution to show that they were denying powers to the States, right?

The First Amendment of the United States of America applies to everything at every level of government. Federal, State, County, Town, whatever.

This is not an 'interpretation.' This is what is. That was what was intended at the very first.

P.S. If there is an employee who has a sincere religious belief that requires them to not work Thursdays, the government must accommodate that belief unless the accommodation of such would cause undue disruption. For a teaching position, losing 1/5th the week would cause undue disruption. But say it's a postal worker. Is there any issue with the postal worker working Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday/Friday/Saturday? Why no. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to have happen. So there is no undue disruption. This is always what was intended. That the government does not have state religions, or persecute someone for their religion or lack thereof, or deliberately have religious events, or attack people for their beliefs.

[GreyICE]

If I worded my post to absolutely, and stated that they "never" take sabbaticals, then I misspoke. Sabbaticals are possible, but not particularly common, and certainly not universally allowable to all teachers. They aren't required by law to be allowed.

*snip OT stuff*

One small problem - you just conceded the point. Sabbaticals do not cause undo disruption, or the schools would not be able to function with them. In fact there's a zillion ways to demonstrate this. Being a teacher does not excuse you from jury duty (no undue disruption), schools have been able to accommodate parental leave with no undue disruption, etc. etc. etc. So your idea that the state has a compelling interest in restricting this because of some lost educational quality is completely bogus. There's plenty of precedent for a three week leave, your idea that it is impossible is just silly.

[GreyICE]

All that really matters in this argument is that the code of practice in granting unpaid leave, whatever its details may be, should be 100% secular, in the sense that religious reasons for requesting leave not be privileged over non-religious reasons. As long as any rules involved in granting leave are applied universally, it would not be an issue to worry about.

Don't worry, the Supreme Court has ruled for a very broad definition of belief. If you have a sincerely held conviction that would cause you to seek leave, you would be granted similar rights to a religious person. They have very purposefully avoided narrowing the definition, and focusing on whether it's sincerely held. That avoids most of the nonsensical "I don't have to work whenever I don't want to" religions that people throw around.

[Coito ergo sum]

If I worded my post to absolutely, and stated that they "never" take sabbaticals, then I misspoke. Sabbaticals are possible, but not particularly common, and certainly not universally allowable to all teachers. They aren't required by law to be allowed.

*snip OT stuff*

One small problem - you just conceded the point. Sabbaticals do not cause undo disruption, or the schools would not be able to function with them.

No. Sabbaticals are not what we're talking about here. Sabbaticals are generally taking a year off to get education or do other professionally-related tasks. They are not related to taking 3 weeks off in the middle of a year. That's not a sabbatical. A teacher teaching from September to November, then taking 3 weeks off, does disrupt the school year for the students. Moreover, it's unfair to secular folks, who are not allowed to take time off to practice their secularism.

In fact there's a zillion ways to demonstrate this. Being a teacher does not excuse you from jury duty (no undue disruption),

Far from excusing one from jury duty, an employer, including a government employer, MUST - as a matter of law - allow an employee to attend jury duty. That, of course, is not what we're talking about here.

schools have been able to accommodate parental leave with no undue disruption, etc. etc. etc. So your idea that the state has a compelling interest in restricting this because of some lost educational quality is completely bogus. There's plenty of precedent for a three week leave, your idea that it is impossible is just silly.

I didn't say it was impossible. I said it's not the employer's (even a school employer's) obligation to accommodate someone's three week Hajj trip. It's "possible" for a school to allow anyone to take any time off they want. Maybe I want 3 months off unpaid from December 21 to March 21, maybe because I'm a nature worshiper and honor the god of winter by taking the winter off of work. They can always get someone to do my job for me while I'm gone. But, should they have to? Of course not.

The whole idea that teachers should just be able to announce their desire to take time off for some religious reason and it must be honored by the school is ludicrous. They get their sick days when they're sick. If the collective bargaining agreement allows personal days, then they can use their personal days for religious purposes. To give religious people additional days that they see fit to take, like three weeks on the Hajj is downright ridiculous. And, why 3 weeks? We have airplanes today - maybe she can do her pilgrimage in one week - travel there, spend a few days and fly back home. Is it the employee who decides how long she must spend there to fulfill her religious obligation? Moreover, the Hajj doesn't have to be fulfilled every year - and in fact only must be fulfilled once in a lifetime. Why must the school accommodate this when she can do it another year? The Hajj can be completed in 5 days - why does she get 3 weeks?

[Coito ergo sum]

All that really matters in this argument is that the code of practice in granting unpaid leave, whatever its details may be, should be 100% secular, in the sense that religious reasons for requesting leave not be privileged over non-religious reasons. As long as any rules involved in granting leave are applied universally, it would not be an issue to worry about.

Don't worry, the Supreme Court has ruled for a very broad definition of belief. If you have a sincerely held conviction that would cause you to seek leave, you would be granted similar rights to a religious person. They have very purposefully avoided narrowing the definition, and focusing on whether it's sincerely held. That avoids most of the nonsensical "I don't have to work whenever I don't want to" religions that people throw around.

That's not correct. The decision of a philosophical person that they want to visit Greece to learn more about Stoicism would not be sufficient. It's not something that requires one to be somewhere at a particular time. The Muslims can only go to the Hajj during the Hajj. There is no similar secular required activity.

[Warren Dew]

Don't worry, the Supreme Court has ruled for a very broad definition of belief. If you have a sincerely held conviction that would cause you to seek leave, you would be granted similar rights to a religious person.

And yet, you don't think leave would or should be granted for similar once in a lifetime occasions for the nonreligious when I mention that possibility.