• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Spreading Sharia, e.g. the Suit against Amazon

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
This article and the associated video seem to be a bit confused and conflate two issues:

1 - Providing the time and space at work for Muslims to pray

I'm not against any company doing this. It's up to each company how they choose to accommodate their employees. However it's not an entitlement. If a company chooses not to and you don't like it, find some place else to work.

Amazon can't discriminate against any protected status in hiring. However any individual can discriminate against a company by choosing not to work there.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Wow ... that is nuts!! Anyone who thinks that the government must protect or adhere to their opinion of "God's law" are out of their element.

I agree. I think the same thing applies to opposition to any given religion by the government as long as that religion doesn't incite violence against anyone. That's why I'm opposed to demonizing the employees who are demanding accommodation for their (harmless) religious practices.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I think it should be up to the business owner or supervisor. I don't think the government should be forcing these things on citizens.
I assume that you are consistent and would similarly oppose accommodations made to nursing mothers or the mobility impaired. I prefer a different kind of society.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I assume that you are consistent and would similarly oppose accommodations made to nursing mothers or the mobility impaired. I prefer a different kind of society.
No, I am in favor of accommodations based on need. Religious accommodations are not based on need. They are based on preference/want. Muslim prayer, for example, is a preference to either 1. praise God OR 2. avoid punishment. Nursing mothers and the disabled need special accommodation. It isn't a choice on their part.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
No. Where I have lived, a lot of people think atheists' demands for freedom of expression of their atheism amounts to spreading atheism or "undermining God's law." I would hope a civilized secular society rose above such rhetoric in the way it treated demands for religious accommodation from law-abiding citizens.

Sorry, my question must have been unclear...

Do you think that for any religious group to gain a special accommodation in the work place is a gain for theocratic thinking? (I do)

I see any move that impinges on secularism as a gain for the theocrats.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Sorry, my question must have been unclear...

Do you think that for any religious group to gain a special accommodation in the work place is a gain for theocratic thinking? (I do)

I see any move that impinges on secularism as a gain for the theocrats.

That depends on how "special" and "secularism" are defined. I don't think harmless accommodation—that which doesn't encroach on anyone else's freedoms or safety—is problematic at all.

Secularism, in my view, shouldn't be about erosion of religious expression but rather about granting everyone equal freedom of expression regardless of their beliefs. As such, demanding religious accommodation for a generally harmless practice like prayer doesn't impinge on secularism or spread theocracy.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
That depends on how "special" and "secularism" are defined. I don't think harmless accommodation—that which doesn't encroach on anyone else's freedoms or safety—is problematic at all.

Secularism, in my view, shouldn't be about erosion of religious expression but rather about granting everyone equal freedom of expression regardless of their beliefs. As such, demanding religious accommodation for a generally harmless practice like prayer doesn't impinge on secularism or spread theocracy.

Agreed. But in this case, workers are demanding that a business take on an extra expense so that they can practice their religion. It's not a huge point, but as an Amazon stock holder, this "accommodation" impacts Amazon's bottom line.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Should I gather that in this case you think the workers' demands are "reasonable accommodation"?
You should think, first and foremost, that is is more than reasonable to call out "Spreading Sharia" as the bigoted dog whistle that it is.

You might also note:
Amazon also provides stand-alone prayer rooms for employees who work high-tech jobs within the company.

But Muslims employed by the e-commerce giant’s security contractor, Security Industry Specialists (SIS), say use of prayer rooms was not fully extended to lower-paid officers who patrol Amazon’s headquarters in Seattle, Washington — even though Muslims represent a sizable portion of the roughly 800 security personnel.
Apparently Amazon saw the accommodation as reasonable with one class of its workforce.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Agreed. But in this case, workers are demanding that a business take on an extra expense so that they can practice their religion. It's not a huge point, but as an Amazon stock holder, this "accommodation" impacts Amazon's bottom line.

Providing already existent rooms for temporary use for employees' prayers hardly strikes me as an extra expense. An extra expense would be something like, say, asking Amazon to fund the construction of a small mosque for Muslim employees. What the employees are asking for is a far cry from that.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
You should think, first and foremost, that is is more than reasonable to call out "Spreading Sharia" as the bigoted dog whistle that it is. You might also note:
Apparently Amazon say the accommodation as reasonable with one class of its workforce.

It seems the "dog whistle" comment dodges the question.

As far as classes in the work force, as I said in the OP, I believe it was a mistake on Amazon's part to give anyone such accommodations. That said, capitalist corporations almost always give different levels of workers different compensation.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Providing already existent rooms for temporary use for employees' prayers hardly strikes me as an extra expense. An extra expense would be something like, say, asking Amazon to fund the construction of a small mosque for Muslim employees. What the employees are asking for is a far cry from that.

I was thinking more of the time off in the form of extra breaks. If these prayer sessions fit into the normal break schedule of all the workers that would be one thing, but the sense I get in the (somewhat confusing), article is that these breaks amount to either more break time and/or more office space to be reserved.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
... the sense I get in the (somewhat confusing), article is that these breaks amount to either more break time and/or more office space to be reserved.
The sense you got and chose to propagate was that a bunch of Muslims workers are intent on spreading Sharia Law.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
The sense you got and chose to propagate was that a bunch of Muslims workers are intent on spreading Sharia Law.

The sense I got (as stated in the OP), was that this seems similar to other efforts in the name of "religious freedom" to chip away at secularism. When Catholics do it, it's the same idea, I simply don't know what Catholic theocratic law is called.
 
Top