• 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

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
If you are going to be in favor of denying Muslims this, you should also be against Hobby Lobby refusing to provide birth control coverage, Catholic colleges having mass on Sunday, businesses closing early on Good Friday, chapels in airports, accommodations for Jews and so forth.
I am against Hobby Lobby being able to refuse birth control coverage, I'm not against Catholic colleges having mass but I am against making attendance mandatory. "Freedom of religion" does not mean the world must cater to you.
It's also a crap article. They aren't Amazon employees, they don't work for Amazon, and it's not really on Amazon to consider this, it's the contracted company that is hired to take care of the security for Amazon. This article treats them as if they are the same entity, but they aren't. They try to paint Amazon as evil, but then have this:
SIS employees, they said, are prohibited from using rooms when Amazon employees are in them.
But she claims she still encounters road blocks to her religious expression. She said her Amazon manager began tracking the time she spent praying, and claimed she once retrieved her prayer rug only to discover that someone had stepped on it.

“Cleanliness is very important to my religion,” she said. “I feel like that was telling me to get out, in a way. I was isolated from the entire team.”
Or someone didn't realize/think anything of it. There are making accommodations, and then there is thinking the world revolves around you. From what the article, both companies were very accommodating. But jumping to a conclusion to what was probably nothing as a personal insult is going into the realms of thinking the world revolves around you.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
If you are going to be in favor of denying Muslims this, you should also be against
Slow your roll.

Hobby Lobby refusing to provide birth control coverage,
Yes, there is quite a bit wrong with a secular company imposing religious opinions.

Catholic colleges having mass on Sunday,
Catholic colleges. Meaning private collages. Not funded by the state. Legally free to do whatever they want within rational parameters (no abuse, fraud, etc.)

businesses closing early on Good Friday, chapels in airports,
Yeah. Businesses closing for any religious holiday are quite annoying. And you want to pray before a flight? Pray on your own dime.

accommodations for Jews and so forth.
Accommodations like... what?
 

paarsurrey

Veteran 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
2 - Unfair terminations

I want to focus on the first point:

From my perspective, the call for "religious freedom" is often these days a call to undermine secularism. Religious freedom does NOT mean the right to bend society to your religious will.

I think it was a mistake for Amazon to provide any sort of prayer space at all. But now it would appear that the idea of a prayer space has become an entitlement. I disagree. To be fair, I also see Christians playing the "religious freedom" card, so I would be happy label these actions "spreading theocracy".

Amazon’s security contractor under fire for allegedly failing to accommodate Muslim workers
Is it a call to undermine freedom of religion in the name of secularism? Please
Had the Atheism people needed a place to pray, I would support that they should be provided a place to pray? Please
Regards
Whose fault it is that Atheism people don't pray?
Please
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Is it a call to undermine freedom of religion in the name of secularism? Please
Had the Atheism people needed a place to pray, I would support that they should be provided a place to pray? Please
Regards
Whose fault it is that Atheism people don't pray?
Please

It's about making sure that religious people can't force others to do stuff they don't want to do. If I run a company and I'm an atheist, I don't want to be forced to let my employees spend time on the job praying. They are free to do their praying when they're not at work.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It's about making sure that religious people can't force others to do stuff they don't want to do. If I run a company and I'm an atheist, I don't want to be forced to let my employees spend time on the job praying. They are free to do their praying when they're not at work.
As far as I know, most pray during break time. I would see nothing wrong with them taking brakes at certain times (of course if the position/job permits), but I would not allow them any extra time because of their religion that others do not get.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Inaccurate and inflammatory title aside, obviously Amazon didn't think this was an unreasonable request, they just worked out details of space issues. This really isn't unusual with contract work where independent contractors set their own or negotiate for their own hours and breaks. If the break happens to be used for prayer, who cares? My clinic certainly wouldn't care if someone in our very diverse group of faiths prayed quietly in an unused room.
Being needlessly antireligious is not secularism.

Signed
a long time independent contractor
 

arthra

Baha'i
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
2 - Unfair terminations

I want to focus on the first point:

From my perspective, the call for "religious freedom" is often these days a call to undermine secularism. Religious freedom does NOT mean the right to bend society to your religious will. I think it was a mistake for Amazon to provide any sort of prayer space at all. But now it would appear that the idea of a prayer space has become an entitlement. I disagree. To be fair, I also see Christians playing the "religious freedom" card, so I would be happy label these actions "spreading theocracy".Amazon’s security contractor under fire for allegedly failing to accommodate Muslim workers

In the article cited by the opening post it states..

“Our employees assigned to Amazon have always been permitted to access space (when available) to pray on breaks, even before dedicated prayer rooms were formally introduced,” he said. “Before prayer rooms were introduced, employees generally used a vacant conference room or quiet room, when available..."

Sounds fair to me...
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Inaccurate and inflammatory title aside, obviously Amazon didn't think this was an unreasonable request, they just worked out details of space issues. This really isn't unusual with contract work where independent contractors set their own or negotiate for their own hours and breaks. If the break happens to be used for prayer, who cares? My clinic certainly wouldn't care if someone in our very diverse group of faiths prayed quietly in an unused room.
Being needlessly antireligious is not secularism.

Signed
a long time independent contractor

And yet, a suit is being brought.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
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.
The sense you got, and the sense you sought to convey, and the sense you sought to invoke was one of encroaching Sharia Law. It differs in no significant way from the Yellow Peril warning of an earlier age.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
The sense you got, and the sense you sought to convey, and the sense you sought to invoke was one of encroaching Sharia Law. It differs in no significant way from the Yellow Peril warning of an earlier age.

Wrong on two counts:

1 - I raised a concern about BOTH Islamic and Christian actions to use the cloak of "religious freedom" to attempt to erode secularism.
2 - Yellow Peril was a racist idea. My criticism concerns religions not races. You should know the difference and not conflate the two.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
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.
I have experience with a Muslim co-worker first hand. At three o'clock each day he would stop work to go and pray in the first aid room. Usually this took no more than a few minutes and since knock-off was at half-past anyway the actual inconvenience to us was less than minimal. There is no basis in secularism to object to such observance.

My point is that as hard as it may be for you understand, religion is important to the lives of many people. You don't put religion aside just because you've step foot in a workplace. It may not be a 'need' that a Sikh wear a turban, but what good reason is there to object? Similarly it is not 'secularism' to insist that a Muslim can't take mere minutes each day to pray at three o'clock. All you achieve by doing so is to alienate people.

Now what is reasonable is a case by case basis. But I just don't see how taking five minutes each day for a religious obligation is at all unreasonable.The real objection seems to be nothing more than ideologically driven anti-religion.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I have experience with a Muslim co-worker first hand. At three o'clock each day he would stop work to go and pray in the first aid room. Usually this took no more than a few minutes and since knock-off was at half-past anyway the actual inconvenience to us was less than minimal. There is no basis in secularism to object to such observance.

My point is that as hard as it may be for you understand, religion is important to the lives of many people. You don't put religion aside just because you've step foot in a workplace. It may not be a 'need' that a Sikh wear a turban, but what good reason is there to object? Similarly it is not 'secularism' to insist that a Muslim can't take mere minutes each day to pray at three o'clock. All you achieve by doing so is to alienate people.

Now what is reasonable is a case by case basis. But I just don't see how taking five minutes each day for a religious obligation is at all unreasonable.The real objection seems to be nothing more than ideologically driven anti-religion.

And yet, a lawsuit is in progress.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
My point isn't about this case specifically. I take issue with your frankly ludicrous assertion that reasonable accommodations for religious observance is an undermining of secularism.

I take issue with constant pressure from some religious groups, chiefly Christian and Islamic, to use "religious freedom" as a cover to move religious agendas into the commons, and yes, encroach on the separation of church and state. Each group is biting the hand that protects it, i.e. secularism.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
I take issue with constant pressure from some religious groups, chiefly Christian and Islamic, to use "religious freedom" as a cover to move religious agendas into the commons, and yes, encroach on the separation of church and state. Each group is biting the hand that protects it, i.e. secularism.
I don't see any serious chance of that in any western society. Yes there are extreme elements within certain religious groups who do pose a growing problem for society but that's a different issue. I'm as against the notion of a Sharia court as you undoubtedly would be.

But it seems to me that there is a growing notion of secularism among people such as yourself which goes further than simple state neutrality. You want the state to proactively protect you from having to deal with the religious beliefs of others. Sorry, but you don't go to an Indian restaurant and demand beef in your curry, a Christian church and demand a gay wedding service, or baselessly insist that it's unreasonable to permit a Muslim employee a few minutes each day to pray at three o'clock. That's not secularism, that's using the state as an instrument of ideological bullying.
 
Last edited:

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
And yet, a suit is being brought.
And yet, Amazon already has a prayer space set aside for their own Muslim employers (and Other faiths as well), nullifying your OP complaint. Muslims who work there including Usama Baioumy went on record saying they had. This dispute is with the SIS subcontractor on behalf of Amazon, which has had previous lawsuits against it for things like trying to quash unionizing or providing sick pay. Sounds like this situation is very, very far from what you claim it to be
Muslims to March on Amazon Over Prayer Breaks
 

Servant_of_the_One1

Well-Known Member
U dont know the benefits of prayer rooms.
Other religious people should try that too. 5 min praying.
I dont see any issue with that, because smokers get the same time to go outside.

But i know OP's heavy war against islam and muslims. Not surprised here at all. "O You damn muslims, you spreading shariahlaw by praying at work".
 
Top