US EEOC and DOJ Sues to Protect Pilgrimage to Mecca.

[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?

[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.