• 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

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
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
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
 

sovietchild

Well-Known 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

I herd they allowed to have beards for Hindu men in the US army. Is it a mistake?
 

leibowde84

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
I tend to agree with you on this one, but not because of Islam in particular. The establishment clause should not stop at supporting one religion over another. It should limit the government in making any law respecting an establishment of religion over non-religion.

Americans should be free to practice any religion that they want to. But, there should be absolutely no special treatment mandated by law for those who wish to pray at certain times. If a Muslim person wants to pray 5 times per day, they should do so during breaks. I'm not sure that this specific case creates that big of a problem, but there seems to be a growing number of religious that think special treatment is an entitlement.

In other words, religious adherence must be tolerated, but cannot be celebrated by the State.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
The article says that the security worker's who are raising the issue are contracted. They aren't even employees of Amazon proper then, are they? It seems a bit odd for non-campus "employees" (basically, people some other company told "Go here and do this - they hired our company to take are of this for them.") to demand campus privileges. It's kind of like a contractor for construction work coming to work on your house and complaining when you don't let them use your kitchen to cook their lunches.

I also love this part:

“Some employees are told, well, go to your car [to pray.] Some don’t even have a car.”

The second sentence is completely irrelevant - the gist is "go pray somewhere else". But it's almost as if they are trying to sneak it in there as if to convey that Amazon is responsible for their not having a car. Freaking weird... and unfortunately not surprising.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
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.
You mean, of course, the society of your kind.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
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.

Simply, I'm against that kind of extremist position. I think there should be reasonable accommodation to religious belief no matter what the religion.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
You mean, of course, the society of your kind.

Yes indeed, the separation of church and state kind, my kind. How about you Jay are you planning on finding a theocracy to move to?

OMG -- they're spreading sharia law!

^ there's a name for this kind of "Yellow Peril" dog whistle ...

It would appear that you didn't read the entire OP - well done!
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
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.

Simply, I'm against that kind of extremist position. I think there should be reasonable accommodation to religious belief no matter what the religion.
That is a slippery slope, though. Where does it end? It seems more realistic to demand that all people practice their religion on their own time.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
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.

Simply, I'm against that kind of extremist position. I think there should be reasonable accommodation to religious belief no matter what the religion.

I'm against Hobby Lobby. As long as a Catholic college isn't getting some sort of religious tax exemption I don't care what they do as it's a private institution. I'm against businesses being forced to be closed if they don't want to be. A completely non-denominational chapel at an airport doesn't bother me. What accommodations for Jews are you talking about?

If Muslims get extra breaks during the day for prayer then they should either be docked for the time off, or the company should determine that ALL employees get the same break structure.
 

sovietchild

Well-Known Member
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.

Simply, I'm against that kind of extremist position. I think there should be reasonable accommodation to religious belief no matter what the religion.

The other week, the mall was closed on eastern day. How much business did they lose? I saw people coming in and right out, parking lot was half full.
 
Last edited:

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
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
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

The thread title doesn't seem to me to match the content of the article. Putting aside the question of whether or not the dispute is justified, I don't see how demanding accommodation for one's religious practice amounts to spreading Shari'a in this case. There isn't even any preaching involved in such a demand.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
A secular government (not necessarily a secular society) is the best way to account for the rights of the religious and non-religious. There really is no other way that we know of yet.
OK, so long as we understand that rights are conferred, and I far prefer to fight for and live in a secular society that confers the right of reasonable accommodation.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
The thread title doesn't seem to me to match the content of the article. Putting aside the question of whether or not the dispute is justified, I don't see how demanding accommodation for one's religious practice amounts to spreading Shari'a in this case. There isn't even any preaching involved in such a demand.

It's a fair point, and probably some definitions are in order.

Let me ask you this, if the title of the thread had been "Spreading theocracy..." would you have agreed?
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
It's a fair point, and probably some definitions are in order.

Let me ask you this, if the title of the thread had been "Spreading theocracy..." would you have agreed?

No. Where I have lived, a lot of people think atheists' demands for freedom of expression of their atheism amount 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.
 
Last edited:
Top