Maryland Students Protest in Support of Jewish Officer

[struggle4progress]

.. Reports showed he requested time off from sundown Friday, Sept. 22, through sundown Sept. 23, but the university police department denied his request.

Brown said last week, "All I want is to have the Sabbath off so I can spend time with my family, so I'm not violating my religious beliefs."

"Stuff like this is still happening, discrimination because of religion, race. I think it's important to get the message out," said protester David Dov Shar, a student at Towson, Thursday.

Marzana Parvin, another student protester, said, "It bothers me. I am a Muslim girl. If they did something like that to me, I would be really mad." ..

http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?id=32949&siteSection=1

[tocqueville]

1. both haven't understood the separation of Church and State

in a secular country religious beliefs cannot overrule civil obligations. If your beliefs are so important that they conflict with the job, don't take it. Applies to pharmacists too...

or else society will split according to communities founded on religion, race etc.. and the concept of nation loses its meaning.

the police department is right.

[struggle4progress]

2. Reasonable accommodation should be made whenever possible

Certainly someone who opposes killing animals shouldn't take a job in a slaughterhouse, just as someone who opposed all use of pharmaceutiucals should not work in a pharmacy. These are obvious assertions -- and therefore not very helpful.

Similarly, one does not want fire, EMT, or police services staffed entirely by people who don't want to work on Sunday. But in most parts of the country that's really not a problem.

Instead of ideological purity we should aim for a workable society, working with people when feasible. One gets in this way happier and more productive employees.

[tocqueville]

4. this is not comparable

(and I took the pharmacist example not for the chemicals, but for the abortion/contraceptive stands) even if of course the swapping of days - in that case - doesn't cause any problems, then why not.

But the point is not there. The point is in this case religion (could be race, gender, sexual orientation etc...).
The claim of "because I have such beliefs" I cannot do that and that is irrelevant in a secular society. As I said it's not a VALID argument. Society should be NEUTRAL regarding religion and consider it as a purely private matter. If the belief comes in conflict with the exercise of a duty, it cannot be use to make exceptions , unless of course the request has no incidence on the work.

If you don't apply this principle, everybody will ask for exceptions. In the end the general consensus will implode. It's a matter of principle. European experiences in letting communities rule over the general organisation of life has only been leading to the creation of ghettos, criminality (specially regarding race, but where religion can play a big role).

The French scarf law is exactly an example of the police department decision. Because allowing a scarf (when the schools of the Republic have to be strictly neutral by law) allows soon no sexual education, not visits to the swimming pool etc... But our (the French) Republic says by voted law representing the majority of citizens, that sexual education and how to swim is essential for the health and future well being of the children. And that is what counts. What some bigots on the Islamic side think isn't relevant. Or else you'll soon have forced marriages, polygamy and stoning to death because the local Iman applies sharia in the neighbourhood. That's why no exceptions are allowed, specially when they interfere with work itself.

The British were warned about that, but let the Pakistani grow in secluded communities. They regret it bitterly today.

I know that the concept is foreign in the US, it's called laicity (wiki it), but it's basically a concept with roots in both the French and American revolution, called the social contract. On one hand the society as a whole shall protect the minority against harrassment and prejudice, but the minority cannot ask for exceptions from the general voted rule, unless those are irrelevant to the general rule.

[struggle4progress]

6. Frankly, I find your argument ridiculous. I believe in a secular society

and I recognize that as a member of the society I have duties that result from that membership. But I also recognize the claims of conscience.

You want me to adopt the view that, because I have such beliefs I cannot do certain things, should be irrelevant to the society as a whole. But the history of my political heroes is a history of struggling for the space to live according to conscience, in public and in private.

Your view -- that giving somebody their religious holiday off, when possible in context, is the first step to a society governed by sharia law -- presupposes society is a giant mechanism that proceeds only according to some immutable laws and further supposes that you know these immutable laws. I find both implicit claims unlikely.

[kwassa]

7. I also think this is ridiculous

tocqueville:
"If you don't apply this principle, everybody will ask for exceptions."

That hasn't proven to be true anywhere.

The French scarf rule is a case in point. Look at the problems it has caused in France! Protest marches everywhere. Here in the United States young muslim women are permitted to wear head scarves, if they chose, and they do, and we all go on about our business. There are many muslims around here; some wear the clothing, some don't.

On the other hand, France has done a TERRIBLE job integrating immigrants into French society, as seen in the riots last year that exposed the falsehood of secular French stand that everyone is treated equally in French society. They, like England, also have separate ethnic communities and many of the same problems.

I think your view of separation of church and state to be more than a bit extreme. Reasonable accomodation is possible, with the emphasis on reasonable.

[eyesroll]

3. The key is "reasonable accommodation."

If the job absolutely required work that one day, and letting him have that one day off would create an undue burden on the school (or the rest of the department's employees), then the school is right.

If there are lots of shifts, and plenty of people willing to work that one day, then accommodating an observant Jewish employee isn't a big deal and it should be done.

Most observant Jews want the High Holidays off to attend services, just as most observant Christians want Christmas and Easter off to attend services. Thing is -- most jobs already give you Christmas and Easter off. Those that don't usually still grant some people leave (based on seniority, lottery, or first-come, first-serve), and offer incentives (i.e. overtime pay) to make it worth it for those who may not be very religious to come to work anyway.

I'm wondering, really, why this one was so hard to accommodate.

[Jim Sagle]

5. And I'M wondering why tocqueville needs this explanation.

It sure ain't rocket science.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. This isn't discrimination, it's absence of discrimination.

Brown is - not unreasonably - asking the police force to discriminate on religious grounds by allowing him certain time off. Unless they're allowing other officers time off for religious reasons, the police force isn't in any way discriminating. They probably should be, but I think that not discriminating on religious grounds isn't as serious a charge as doing so unfairly.