What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

A bureaucratic response to outrageous Muslim demands

In my original post in the Disinviting Islam series I pointed out examples of outrageous Muslim demands for special accommodation by employers and by those serving the public.

One of the purposes of some of Jeff's policy suggestions (though not the only purpose) was to make it clear that such accommodations do not have to be made.

A different route to that particular goal would be this: Since enforcement bodies such as the EEOC and various civil rights commissions have wide latitude to decide what constitutes "reasonable accommodation," a determined administration at the federal level could make a large difference to such accommodations, especially if the federal move encouraged copy-cat moves at the level of state bureaucracies.

I herewith present a suggested informational open letter to be written by the head or heads of enforcement agencies for non-discrimination laws. See what you think of it:

The laws that my agency is tasked with enforcing require that "reasonable" accommodation be made for the religious requests of employees and of customers. Unfortunately, over the years a number of demands have been made and acceded to by employers and by those serving the public under the impression that my office would require these as reasonable demands or out of fear of harassing lawsuits if these demands were not met.

It is not the intention of this agency to impose an undue burden upon employers and those serving the public in this way. In the interests of clarity, therefore, let it be understood that my agency considers the following to be unreasonable requests and will refuse to pursue any complaint brought on the basis of a failure to accede to these requests:

--Employees do not need to be released for prayer at the same time every day. This is an undue burden on the employer, particularly when there are many employees of the same faith demanding release time for prayer at the same time.

--Employees need not be given a special dispensation permitting them not to handle food items on the grounds that such items are "unclean" in their religion.

--Any employee who wears a head scarf or other unusual religious clothing item that raises concerns about public health or safety may reasonably be required not to wear that particular clothing item. The same point applies to customers in physical contexts such as roller skating rinks.

--Employees in medical contexts may be required to wear clothing that leaves their arms bare to above the elbows for reasons of public health.

--Customers who desire to pray while using a facility that serves the public may reasonably be asked to do so in a fashion that does not inconvenience other customers by loudness or by blocking normal traffic flow within the business. Businesses that serve the public are not required by non-discrimination law to install special equipment or to set aside special spaces within the business for customer prayer.

--Employers are not required to install special equipment or to set aside special spaces for employee prayer or religious ritual washing.

--Hostile work environment provisions will not be interpreted by this agency to rule out discussion of religious differences nor to rule out display of items, holidays, etc., that reflect the employer's own religious beliefs.

--This agency will not accept complaints against municipalities that refuse to grant easements of noise ordinances for daily calls to prayer broadcast over a loudspeaker system. [I don't actually know if a federal agency would normally handle such a complaint but thought I would put this in here in case that would be the route by which such a complaint would be handled.]

--Schools are not required by non-discrimination law to provide special, religiously sanctioned food for students.

--Jurisdictions that require the face to be uncovered for the use of public transportation are not required by the laws my agency administers to grant religious exceptions to such ordinances and laws.

The above are only examples. This agency reserves the right to make case-by-case decisions and issues these examples for purposes of guidance.

Now, it will no doubt be observed that many of the examples that our hypothetical bureaucrat gives concern Islam, though there is no reference to Islam in the open letter. No doubt Muslims will fuss loudly about the fact that they are "disproportionately" affected. But that is the case only because they are disproportionately making unreasonable demands.

Many of these should be no-brainers.

For an administration deliberately to appoint bureaucrats who would make such a statement would send a strong message to Muslims, and it would do so without the need to pass any new laws.

Non-hostile readers, what do you think? (I haven't really any interest in the opinions of hostile readers, and "Nazi" insults will be deleted with prejudice.)

Comments (15)

Lydia,I see nothing wrong with any of the ideas that you have put forth. The usual beeding heart suspects ( the ACLU, the ADL, the WCC, the NCC etc) will whine that's racist, that's religious bigotry, that's homophobic, ad nauseam. Let them! I'm more concerned about preserving our culture and way of life than appeasing and giving into the demands of a stirdent, hostile, minority of fanatics!

Lydia, I'm sure you don't want my opinion, but that's never stopped me before.

--Any employee who wears a head scarf or other unusual religious clothing item that raises concerns about public health or safety may reasonably be required not to wear that particular clothing item. The same point applies to customers in physical contexts such as roller skating rinks.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with this one. If you are talking about a burqa or something, that makes more sense, but I don't know of anything essentially unhealthy or unsafe about a head scarf. Nor do I follow your reference to skating rinks, is there something especially hazardous about scarves and skating?

--Hostile work environment provisions will not be interpreted by this agency to rule out discussion of religious differences nor to rule out display of items, holidays, etc., that reflect the employer's own religious beliefs.

Okay, I think you should consider what a Christian working in a Muslim employer's place of business would consider hostile. Because the way it's written it entirely favors the employer's religious beliefs.

--This agency will not accept complaints against municipalities that refuse to grant easements of noise ordinances for daily calls to prayer broadcast over a loudspeaker system. [I don't actually know if a federal agency would normally handle such a complaint but thought I would put this in here in case that would be the route by which such a complaint would be handled.]

I don't think that is federal jurisdiction, and again it seems like if somebody complains about church bells and for whatever reason the city official decides it is too noisy, this is a regulation that gives the local official a lot of discretionary power.

Step2--On the first, yes, there could be public health concerns about headscarves as possible germ carriers. For example, in a medical context it would be reasonable not to want a bulky cloth item covering the entire head and neck and carried about from patient to patient. In a context where there would be flames, a hijab could catch fire. And the roller rink example is real: A roller rink had a rule against head coverings, on the grounds that they could potentially come off and entangle other skaters' feet. They tried to enforce this existing rule against a Muslim woman in a hijab, offering her the option of wearing a helmet over the hijab. Instead, she just complained, and they backed down.

These are all situations where there are existing rules for reasons, yet Muslims want exceptions made for them. My hypothetical bureaucrat says that isn't required.

On the second one you focus on, I'm sure that Muslim employers are _already_ doing all such things as I had in mind, yet a) the EEOC isn't beating down their doors and b) nobody has died. It doesn't bother me in the slightest to allow religious employers to display symbols, celebrate holidays, play music, etc.

On the third, the whole point is that the noise ordinances are already in place, and presumably for a reason. My suggestion isn't for a "regulation." My suggestion is for affirming the discretionary power that municipalities should already have in granting easements to such ordinances. The specific example given concerns _daily_ noise. Church bells would presumably be only once a week. I think that makes a difference to what counts as reasonable, but I can imagine noise levels, times of day, and surrounding neighborhood circumstances that would make church bells might an understandable problem. This is something communities should work out for themselves, but there is nothing in non-discrimination law that should _require_ a community to grant an easement of its _existing_ noise ordinance for the broadcast of daily prayers (and sometimes many times daily) over a loudspeaker system so that the whole neighborhood has to listen to them.

Love it! This is exactly what I meant by standing up to unreasonable Muslim demands. Islam should not be "disinvited". Instead, Muslims - and Islam! - should be treated with respect and tolerance, but not "inclusion". America is a Christian (Protestant) country, and should start acting like it again.

If you can't get the federal government to go this far, you can't enact Jeff Culbreath's more draconian proposals. As I've said, I think his proposals are unjust, dangerous, and counterproductive. Still, even if you like them, there's a moral obligation, not to mention a practical requirement, to try less extreme measures like these first.

Glad you like the suggestions, Aaron. Not to quibble about terms, but I _do_ consider this type of move to be one of "disinviting" Islam. The reason I consider it that is this: Our religious non-discrimination laws with their accommodation requirements have been exploited by Muslims in unreasonable ways, and the fact that they can get these unreasonable accommodations is part of the "welcome mat." It's even worse in England where I've read of hospital visitors refusing to use hand sanitizer because it contains alcohol, prisoners have obtained the right to have the bathroom toilets oriented so that they don't point toward Mecca, and on and on. All kinds of nonsense. That kind of thing is a sign that says, "We'll do whatever it takes to make y'all comfortable here." This proposal is saying, "Okay, we _won't_ do whatever it takes. Grow up and learn to live like normal human beings in America, or if you don't like it, leave." At least, I think that is how the message would be perceived, and I think that would be good.

These look like very reasonable proposals, but I would be shocked if any agency would adopt them given the current makeup of most of them.

As for stopping harassing lawsuits, I don't think the EEOC could do that even if it wanted to. IIRC, the EEOC can either accept a case to investigate and pursue in the courts itself, or decline the case (because it does not think it has merit or whatever) and issue a right to sue letter, letting the claimant essentially go it alone. But I am not a labor lawyer so don't know the ins and outs.

C Matt, it looks like you're right about that, which is unfortunate, but it still seems to me that if the agencies dismissed complaints systematically, that would help, especially if it were also done at the state level. Notice how there was no further suit when the federal agency (I believe it was) issued instruction to the Michigan state agency recently not to pursue a complaint against the woman who advertised on a church bulletin board for a Christian roommate.

On the word "disinvite": If someone invites you to his house in Japan, and you refuse to take off your shoes at the entrance, demand that they go out and find you a fork because you don't like chopsticks, demand they find a Bible so you can say your prayers at night, etc., then I wouldn't call it disinviting you if they asked you to please show some manners or else leave.

In Part 1 you said you support measures "to make it clear that the religion of Islam...is not welcome in the United States". That's what I thought you meant by "disinvite", and that's what I object to. "Disinvite" seems a needlessly harsh word to describe the proposal in this post.

Hi, in response to Step2, there was a mother killed in a freak accident "down under" a few months ago. "A young mother has died after her hijab became tangled in a go-kart drive mechanism in a tragic accident. The woman suffered severe neck and throat injuries after the hijab - a Muslim scarf that covers a woman's head and neck - became entangled with the go-kart while she was driving at Port Stephens Go-Karts yesterday." This was in April 2010.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/family-sees-mother-strangled-by-hijab-in-freak-gokarting-accident-20100408-rvci.html

This new story demonstrates the way in which an administrative change could make a difference. It's the Obama Justice Dept. that is bringing a civil rights suit for what is clearly an unreasonable accommodation demand:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/13/sues-school-denial-muslim-pilgrimage/?test=latestnews

In Austria a gentleman was fined $1100 for "disparagement of religious symbols." It seems Herr Griese yodelled when his Muslim neighbors where praying. They accused him of trying to mock and imitate the Muezzin who calls the faithful to prayer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/austria/8207015/Austrian-man-convicted-for yodelling-while-Muslim-neighbors-prayed.html

In Austria a gentleman was fined $1100 for "disparagement of religious symbols." It seems Herr Griese yodelled when his Muslim neighbors where praying. They accused him of trying to mock and imitate the Muezzin who calls the faithful to prayer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/austria/8207015/Austrian-man-convicted-for- yodelling-while-Muslim-neighbors-prayed.html

In Austria a gentleman was fined $1100 for "disparagement of religious symbols." It seems Herr Griese yodelled when his Muslim neighbors where praying. They accused him of trying to mock and imitate the Muezzin who calls the faithful to prayer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/austria/8207015/Austrian-man-convicted-for-yodelling-while-Muslim-neighbors-prayed.html

sorry about duplicate posts. I was trying [unsuccessfully] to fix a link

Isn't that a wild 'un, Thomas? I just posted about that on Facebook. Looks like the disparagement of religious symbols law is usually used for grave desecration. Now yodeling while mowing your lawn counts. It's incredibly creepy.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.