Religion in the Workplace.

[Sand]

Colrom, Alanschu does make a very good point about the interview where she didn't cover her face. Perhaps she wasn't as commited to her conviction at that point, or she wanted to put her best face (pun intended) to ensure her getting the job, but now she recanted and believes she needs to remained veiled.

 

The question is her motives. Is it to cause a stir and controvesy for her 15 minutes of fame or is it actually for her faith and/or culture? On reading the various opinions and testimonies here convinced me it is the former than the latter.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Sand

[~Di]

If said teacher doesn't want to remove her veil (which, btw, is NOT a requirement of Islam)...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is actually (although, some people consider it more of a request)... and, yes, I've read the Qu'ran in the original form (yes, arabic) and understood it before people want to tell me what they think they know about my religion

 

Regardless of that, I take the side of the school and BA in both these cases... one should respect people's religions... and the terms and conditions of a company/workplace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I've read and been told otherwise by dozens of Muslims. Representatives of Islam are staples on cable news shows, and according to them, whether to wear a full burka, a veil, a scarf or nothing at all is up to the individual in accordance with the traditions where she lives. In Saudia Arabia, the majority of females wear head scarves (according to a relative who was stationed there). The same in Qatar and Dubai and Kuwait. In the more progressive areas of Afghanistan, there is a mixture of no head covering at all and headscarves. In the villages, there are more veils. I suspect the interpretation of various sects of Islam are as varied as the interpretation of various sects of Christianity.

 

That said, I obviously agree with you that the requirements of the job should be respected. This particular Muslim woman attended the interview for a job teaching the English language without wearing a veil. She then appeared in the classroom wearing it. Can you imagine trying to teach a language while covering one's mouth so the students cannot see the context and structure of the words? She then went public with her outrage at being asked to remove the veil. Can we spell "set up", boys and girls? Reminds me of the woman who sued the state of Florida because they wouldn't let her keep her veil on for her driver's license photo.

 

The only abuse I see in the case of the Muslim teacher's assistant, is a woman abusing the system for publicity and personal gain.

[Atreides]

Reminds me of the woman who sued the state of Florida because they wouldn't let her keep her veil on for her driver's license photo. 

Lol I remember that one. What happened in the end?

[~Di]

I believe the court upheld that she either removed the veil for the photo, or no drivers' license. Not 100% positive, but I believe that was the outcome.

[Sand]

I think we have reached a concensus. Great thread and discussion I have to say.

[Colrom]

The issue is entirely rediculous.

 

The fact that it was made a national and international issue by the leadership in the UK and others of like mind around the world - including people on this forum -indicates that there is more involved here than one Muslim woman and a question of whether she should be allowed to wear a veil while acting as an aid in a school.

 

This issue like other divisive issues was publicised and framed to foster hatred.

 

For the benefit of those who benefit from hatred. :angry:

 

I don't see any consensus for good. That's too bad.

 

But I don't see any consensus for bad either. And that's good.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Colrom

[Sand]

Good or bad are abstract concepts relative to the individual, Colrom.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Sand

[Colrom]

Good or bad are abstract concepts relative to the individual, Colrom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Troll! (w00t)

[taks]

i don't see this as an issue framed to foster hatred, rather, i see this as an attempt to avert hatred by pointing out how much nonsense this "politically correct" attitude has become. everyone is running around making all sorts of claims of oppression by intentionally pushing "politically correct" buttons of the masses. it's become insane. nobody can say or do anything, even if there was no intent or implication, without being labelled a racist, or a hate monger.

 

taks

[Sand]

I do agree that people have taken the "political correctness" idealogy to extreme. In moderation however it can be a good thing for it keeps people attuned to the need of diversity, but in some cases it can be detrimental of good sense.

[Colrom]

i don't see this as an issue framed to foster hatred, rather, i see this as an attempt to avert hatred by pointing out how much nonsense this "politically correct" attitude has become.  everyone is running around making all sorts of claims of oppression by intentionally pushing "politically correct" buttons of the masses.  it's become insane.  nobody can say or do anything, even if there was no intent or implication, without being labelled a racist, or a hate monger.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I used to think the same thing. But I don't anymore.

 

If there is any pressure at all for people to be "politically correct" then what is meant by "politically correct" must be behaviors which are homophobic, anti-black, anti-semetic, anti-catholic anti-muslim, pro-violence, etc., etc......and of course, anti-politically correct.

 

Politicians regularly deliver even racial and religious slurs and then pretend to appologize. Most folks know it's just a pretend appology.

 

One great politician took the occasion of not being called a bigot to say, "I don't appreciate being called a bigot", immediately establishing a lasting rapor with all those who knew just how he felt.

 

These things are all on public display every day with only occasional comments against them - and those who comment are quite often ridiculed.

 

That says alot about what really is "politically correct".

Edited October 25, 2006 by Colrom

[thepixiesrock]

Wow.

[taks]

That says alot about what really is "politically correct".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually, that says absolutely nothing. your rant was next to not even on topic and basically bereft of substance.

 

this has nothing to do with politicians, and otherwise public presence. this goes beyond that to the point where any moron can make some sort of "oppression" or "racism" claim, and then sue to get their way. in the end, all they are trying to do is push an agenda. political correctness is simply the term people use to suppress others' free speech.

 

taks

Edited October 26, 2006 by taks

[Colrom]

Like I said. :D

[kirottu]

Wow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed.

[Colrom]

That says alot about what really is "politically correct".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually, that says absolutely nothing. your rant was next to not even on topic and basically bereft of substance.

 

this has nothing to do with politicians, and otherwise public presence. this goes beyond that to the point where any moron can make some sort of "oppression" or "racism" claim, and then sue to get their way. in the end, all they are trying to do is push an agenda. political correctness is simply the term people use to suppress others' free speech.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps what I said earlier about political correctness is off the mark. I'm not sure I understand political correctness at all.

 

Here are some thoughts:

 

So far as I can tell what it is politically correct to say varies from group to group and every group, right, left, and center, both has politically correct speach and complains about the need for politically correct speach in so far as they feel it constrains them from saying what they want to say.

 

What is politically correct to say on these boards is not politically correct to say in my church or my school or even in my house - but the flip side is true also.

 

Politicians rarely miscalculate such things since that is one of their areas of expertise but the rest of us sometimes do.

 

I have participated in conversations which have altered substantially as the members involved changed - a person who was careful about what they said about a minority group started talking differently when others (of like mind I guess) showed up.

 

My take is that comments which are derogatory about Muslims are politically correct throughout the Western world. I base this on the observation that such comments are widespread and are generally met with aclaim in the West. The fact that this aclaim is often accompanied by ridicule of Muslim complaints on the grounds that they are "attempting to enforce politically correct speach or behavior" just shows how powerful the political force is behind this criticism.

 

Not only must Muslims endure the derogatory characterizations they are told that any efforts they make to criticise this behavior will be viewed as suppression of free speach and won't be tolerated and will be cause for further derogatory characterizations.

 

I really don't understand what is and is not politically correct speach at all and whether I should be happy that it exists or not.

 

So far as I can tell though, like politics everyone does it whether they admit it or not.

Edited October 27, 2006 by Colrom

[Sand]

The problem with Muslims, and any fundamental religious person regardless of religion or sect, is that they seem to think it is their right to impose their beliefs on others. They think they have the right, a calling from God or whatever, to dictate the behavior of others and if these other people do not submit or make allowances they have basically a temper tantrum. Some use litigation, others use protest marches, some use bombs.

 

What these fundamentalists or extremists need to learn is to leave people alone. Just because you don't like the fact he doesn't worship god the same way as you do doesn't give you the right to blow him up. Just because they have a rules and social norms that you don't agree with means you have the right to sue them for it. And so forth.

 

Religion needs to be practiced in private for it is a private affair between the individual and his or her deity.

[thepixiesrock]

That's sweet how you group all Muslims into the same group like that.

[Walsingham]

That's sweet how you group all Muslims into the same group like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Point there, Sando. Care to reconsider?

[Dark_Raven]

God? I thought they referred to their deity as Allah?

[metadigital]

I really don't understand what is and is not politically correct speach at all and whether I should be happy that it exists or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So far as I can tell though, like politics everyone does it whether they admit it or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. Nice swingeing generalisation, but I KNOW of AT LEAST ONE person (namely, ME) who doesn't. Therefore, your statement is false.

[taks]

colrom, i'll buy your restatement. i think you are viewing what i was referring to differently than i view it.

 

i don't necessarily agree that "comments which are derogatory about Muslims are politically correct throughout the Western world," however. this may be true with some, but racism/prejudice is not solely a western problem (ask an indian what he thinks of a pakistani, for example). such things just get more attention in the western world as a result of politically correctness.

 

my point about this, btw, and sole reason for mentioning PC in the first place, is that the western world (US in particular) has become so afraid of "hurting feelings" that they have allowed every misstatement whether intentional or otherwise, to become grounds for major litigation. furthermore, every perceived slight is taken to be the most extreme, even when its true intent was benign, or otherwise beneficial. it has been pushed to the point where, in this case, a company cannot dictate any rules of conduct for their employees without fear of a lawsuit.

 

we forget that companies, even those that are so-called "public" (which is different that using the term public when referring to government), have rights too. they have a right to define their image, and if an employee does not like such definition, they have a right to leave (employees, OTOH, do not have a right to work there). companies also have a right to set minimum standards of performance, and a language teacher, no matter how many religions he/she is beholden to, simply cannot expect to hide his/her face when teaching students to speak.

 

taks

Edited October 27, 2006 by taks

[kumquatq3]

God? I thought they referred to their deity as Allah?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nope, he's just the messiah.

 

They think Jesus was a prophet as well.

 

 

EDIT: I'm wrong, thinking of muhammed

Edited October 27, 2006 by kumquatq3

[taks]

God? I thought they referred to their deity as Allah?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

a rose is a rose...

 

taks

[Walsingham]

God? I thought they referred to their deity as Allah?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

a rose is a rose...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Buy your beloved a dozen skankahoapepetalblossoms"?

 

Good explanation about PC there, if you don't mind my saying so. Captured everything wrong with it for me. The counter is of course how you prove intent.