US Sues School Over Denial Of Muslim Pilgrimage

You're just wasting a lot of perfectly good quote function here, YF. Whatever persecution of Christians that may be going on elsewhere in the world doesn't have a flying fuck to do with the fact that some ruling about creches in public places isn't really a big crimp in the celebration of Christ's birthdaywith a shitglut of gifties. Worrying about such court rulings, in fact, trivializes the real suffering of some Christians around the world. And whatever suicide killings Muslims have done have fuck all to do with a peaceable Muslim's wish to exercise her religion, regardless the merits of the case.

 

Oh, we can do a whole thread on Creches.

The Scarsdale case was the one that went to the Supreme Court, but we had our own court case in Larchmont.

My dad was one of the lawyers in Russell v. Town of Mamaroneck, and was later the President of the Larchmont Creche Society.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16386262100119313240&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

The Creche was stored on our garage, and in the years that the Village Council voted in our favor, we put it up on the Village Lawn.

Despite our best efforts -- the pieces were wired together & locked -- and the fact that it was erected right in front of the Police Department's headquarters, the baby Jesus was stolen one year.

Years later, the thief admitted to the crime anonymously in a letter to the local paper. The figure was recovered from a crypt in a nearby cemetery and returned to us -- just in time for Easter.

We used to get vicious hate mail and two years in a row all of our Christmas lights were stolen from the bushes in our front yard. They stole the individual light bulbs, not the entire strands.

The outward, public expression of religion can be a beautiful thing. Regardless of the religion, it does not offend or threaten me.

 

Couple of things to keep in mind here:

1. Comparing teaching in a public school to other jobs in the private sector, especially at newspapers, isn't a fair comparison. Public schools are held to different standards because they receive public money. If they weren't different, believe me, I'd certainly enjoy the shit out of tenure.

2. What's the standard practice for granting sabbaticals for other religious purposes? If most school districts honor a teacher's religious calling to leave for mission work or other similar leaves, then you gotta honor this lady's request for this trip. If they don't, then they don't have to honor it.

For the love of God, why the outrage?

Obviously, the justice dept. feels that the lady's rights were trampled. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. A court will decided, based on precedent and evidence, if that's the case. If it is, she'll go. And a class in whereeverthehell will get a sub for three weeks. Life will move on.

Is it just the word "muslim" that sends people into a screaming fit?

 

No, it's the fact that people feel entitled to something just because of their religion.

I get it. She wants to go on her pilgrimage. Good. Have fun. Send a postcard.

But to try and say that she's entitled to do so, and that in this economy anyone has to hold a job for someone for any reason other than, say, maternity leave, is ridiculous.

She's a teacher. She works, what, eight months a year?

Yes, they get paid shit. Yes, they deserve more but the fact is, she knew the scheduling and how the job was going to be long before she took that job. If she really cared about going to fulfill her religious obligations, she should have done so right out of college.

She's no more entitled to three weeks off than I am entitled to tell my bosses I can't get the paper to them on deadline Wednesday because of Festivus.

 

Fine, in theory.

The problem is, there's a good chance that we've established that is OK by giving teachers who practice other religions time off for similar trips. That's the question here -- the only question.

You can argue all you'd like that teachers shouldn't get the time off in general, and I'd tend to agree. But the shit's very likely out of the bag at this point.

As I said, comparing this to a situation in the private sector isn't a fair comparison. Unless, of course, Bob in the next cubicle just went on a three-week leave for a mission trip and you're being denied a three-week leave for your Muslim pilgrimage. Find a similar situation at a newspaper or anywhere else and I guarantee you that the pilgrimage gets granted or the company settles a lawsuit in the near future.

When it comes to civil rights law, religions in this country are equal. When everyone gets that through their heads, we'll all be better off.

And honestly, I still don't get why everyone's so pissed. Seems like a fair way to handle things.

 

Why is maternity leave an acceptable alternative and religion isn't?

Sounds like another example of journalists so used to being crapped on by their bosses that they can't imagine that normal working environments are different.

 

Oh, I agree about the distinction. If they've given others extended time off for religious purposes, then fine, she can sue their pants off. But if they haven't? What right does she have to demand it?

And as for the person above, maternity leave is guaranteed by law. All the law states in this case is that the government can't stop her from freely expressing her religion and they haven't.

 

The law, in this case, mandates "reasonable accommodation" as defined by law.

In this case, the burden of proof is on the school to prove that granting the leave would be an "undue hardship" on the school's ability to do business. Since there's already a simple mechanism in place to replace teachers for leave of this length, and the leave is unpaid, then there's almost no way the school can meet that standard.

 

Is she asking for unpaid leave?

 

Yes. That was clearly stated in the first sentence of the quoted portion of the story.

 

Be interesting to know what their policy is. If they don't normally grant it in these situations then she'll have a tough time winning. But if they do she's got a case.

Still don't understand why the Feds are involved though.

 

It doesn't matter what their standard policy is.

Federal law says you must make reasonable accommodation for any religious request. The feds are involved because this appears to be a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Federal law says that if you deny a request made on religious grounds, you must first offer a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue in a way that both sides can agree on. If an agreement cannot be reached, then the burden of proof is on the employer to prove that accommodating the request would be an undue hardship on their business.

There isn't anything in the story that says the school made any good-faith effort, although they might have. It just says they rejected her request.

So can the school prove that it's an undue burden on their business to hire a substitute for three weeks to replace her? Probably not, especially if the substitute is cheaper for those three weeks than her pay would have been.