Spreading Sharia, e.g. the Suit against Amazon

[Bob the Unbeliever]

and yet, a suit has been filed

Indeed. Religionists think they are Special, and deserving of Special Accommodations-- to the detriment of everyone else they work alongside.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What if he's working through breaks others are taking to make up for it?

That almost never happens, does it? They get Special Exemptions from normal work rules, because they believe in some unprovable myth.

And they filed a lawsuit to get special privileges.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Smoke breaks were the reason work was on the few times/places I smoked. As long as we weren't busy and not taking an excessive amount of smoke breaks, nobody cared.
At least the Muslims aren't going outside to kill themselves. And there is much laughing at them all huddled together and jumping around trying to stay warm during the winter. And they wont come back stinking.

I have a problem with paid smoke breaks too. Besides being a detriment to health, the smokers bring back carcinogenic out-gassing, that everyone else has to endure.

But that's another example of Special Privileges. It's not helping the case here...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Some more details about this situation. I gotta say, this seems like whining to me, not a legitimate grievance:

Amazon’s security contractor under fire for allegedly failing to accommodate Muslim workers

It's whining.

That's the Tradition among True Believers: We are expected to accommodate their unproven delusions, because they always believed this way.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Quote from the above post:"There are limits to how far we should be expected to accommodate the stupidity of religious BS."

"Is there a stance of non-religious stupidity BS" as well or there is none?
Regards

Absolutely! I should not have bothered to qualify it as just religious....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Of course. I drew the line fastest when it came to smokers wanting a smoke break after not even an hour of work and constantly badgering and hounding me about them. It would get to the point at times they'd complain about "labor law this" and "labor law that," and a couple times told them who to get a hold of for taking away their smoke breaks if they believe I violated any labor laws (I never did).

Agreed-- an excellent example.

 

[Glaurung]

I have the exact same issue with smokers taking excessive breaks to support their addiction.

There's the word, excessive.

I would have a problem if a smoker were taking constant or prolonged smoke breaks. But one or two three minute breaks per day when things are quiet is no particular problem. Heck when I'm not particularly busy I sometimes go sneak myself another coffee. Especially if I'm about to get started on some tedious paperwork. The key here is to exercise discretion and commonsense.

And smoking is just as destructive as religion...

No, smoking is tangibly destructive. But as moronic of a habit as it may be it is nevertheless not the point.

As for religion, I disagree. The danger is ideology divorced from reason and compassion. Yes, this ideology can be religious (Wahhabism) but it by no means needs to be. We have plenty of historical precedent from just the last century of a particular line of explicitly atheistic ideologies wherein the implementation of which resulted in the deaths of millions. We know from historical experience that atheism is no immunity from extreme and even murderous dogmatism.

IT IS NOT APPLES AND ORANGES--IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING!

No it isn't. Someone trying to live (within legality) to their well established and sincere religious convictions is not in the same category as someone whose claims to a religious devotion are facetious. You'd have to prove to me that not only is your belief in Bast is sincere, but also that such belief translates into the need to watch YouTube while at work. The difference is that regardless of what your views towards Islam are, Muslims aren't making it up on the spot.

Prove to me that the muslim's "god" is more real than BAST?

This isn't about the veracity of any particular religion. All that matters here is that people have religious beliefs which are important to them. The question is to what extent should an employer make accommodations for the religious beliefs (or other circumstances) of their employees. The OP thinks that something as banal as allowing a few minutes each day for a Muslim employee to say his afternoon prayer is somehow opening the floodgates to theocracy. To that I say, get a grip.

It is NOT a mountain out of a molehill! Bast worshipers take watching kitten videos VERY seriously.

Begrudging an otherwise productive Muslim employee a few minutes for prayer is making a mountain of a molehill.

no. that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING-- you are INSISTING that only those religions YOU approve of, get Special Exemption from normal working hours...

It has nothing to do with what I approve of. Stay on the tracks and you may understand what I'm actually saying.

Also, try to make your reply on one or two posts. Spamming me with half a dozen different replies is bad form. It will make me less inclined to bother with you.

 

[Quintessence]

A worshiper of Bast would find watching kitten videos equally obligatory!

No, no they would not. If you are going to use Pagans as your instrument of mockery, at least get it right.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Oh knock it off. If the smokers are permitted breaks then a Muslim getting three to five minutes to say his afternoon prayer is not something to get your panties in a twist about.

Having worked with smokers, who's to say they should get a break either? I've worked with a lot of smokers, and it's always a pain in the arse. We're swamped, with a line to the door, and it was always

"Where's Lulu?"
"Out back smoking with Lena."
"Bloody wonderful."

Or they get "super flustered" with a moderate amount of work, and they gotta go smoke to relieve the tension. Whether they take one break or fifteen, as long as they've got that tobacco in hand, no one says anything. And it's just ridiculous; if you're at work, you're there to work. Not to smoke, not to pray, or feed any other addiction.

But regardless of what you believe religion is an essential aspect to the lives of many people. They should never be forced to put their deepest convictions aside because people such as yourself want to create a mountain out of a molehill.

When one member of a team disappears for an indeterminate period of time to talk to their god, that can cause serious problems with the work flow. Hell, one member jotting off to take a leak for longer than five minutes can cause problems. As a deeply religious person, I would not consider "mandatory prayer" to be a "deep conviction" of a religion so much so that it must burden their co-workers.

And if they're more worried about getting to pray while they're getting paid, I don't really think they can be called "productive".

No one is saying that religious people be given special treatment, we're saying that not a betrayal of secularism to make reasonable accommodations for sincere religious convictions.

Reasonable accommodations, yes. For example, the one time I've ever invoked religious practice was to continue wearing my oath ring. My boss never had a problem with it, as a light piece of jewelry it doesn't get in the way, but there's always one co-worker that gets a stick up their arse.

But leaving during a shift to pray? As I said above that does affect everyone, and not in the "oh no, religion in the workplace!" way either. The best form of negotiation for something like this would be for those muslims to find a job that is flexible enough that they don't have to take breaks to pray, they just aren't at work when they have to pray.

Unless they are a Bastite

Kemeticist*

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Begrudging an otherwise productive Muslim employee a few minutes for prayer is making a mountain of a molehill.

"otherwise productive"? Seriously? Taking a paid break--when the other employees get no such consideration-- cannot be productive.

Nor can it help the overall employee morale... there has to be resentment among non-muslims that this one guy (or small group of guys) get a break anytime they want one.

It does not actually matter if the don't actually get one anytime they want-- that is the perception of those employees who do not do such things.

What is worse, since these paid vacations are by the clock? That means that Mustapha cuts out of his shift-- in mid-rush! Because the clock demands he go hide in a breakroom somewhere-- to do what, nobody else on his shift knows or cares-- all they know is that Mustapha isn't at his post.


Next up: More religious apologizing for doing weird and irrational things, but expecting "respect" for them anyway.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Also, try to make your reply on one or two posts. Spamming me with half a dozen different replies is bad form. It will make me less inclined to bother with you.

Less inclined? Oh, like you bothered to actually answer? Instead, you focus on the irrevelancies?

LOL!

No-- I will keep my posts ONE POINT PER POST-- feel free to keep ignoring them, or posting a non-answer, as you have so far.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No, no they would not. If you are going to use Pagans as your instrument of mockery, at least get it right.

That would depend in which sect, would it not? I do not recall there being a magical "holey" book that commands what is appropriate for worshipers of Bast.

But, being a Cat-God, I would quite presume Bast would find the fact that the Internet is driven by two principle things most of all:

1) Porn (of course)
2) cat videos, which are primarily of kittens.

I seriously doubt Bast would have a problem with either, what with being... a cat.



P.S. Who said I was mocking? Of all the gods described by humans, Bast is actually a god that could be real-- I have lived with cats all my life, and a Cat God certainly would fit within the available data (or, more importantly, the lack thereof). If there be gods, their #1 trait seems to be one of capriciousness. But is not that the very definition of.... a cat?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Kemeticist*

Oooooh.. you made me Google. Thanks!


Kemetism (also Kemeticism; both from the Egyptian kmt or Kemet, the native name of Ancient Egypt), also sometimes referred to as Neterism (from nTr (Coptic noute) "deity"), or Egyptian Neopaganism, is the contemporary revival of Ancient Egyptian religion and related expressions of religion in classical and late ...
Kemetism - Wikipedia

 

[Quintessence]

P.S. Who said I was mocking?

My mistake for being generous there, then. Apparently you are simply unaware that calling Bastet a "cat god" is a horrible oversimplification of Her nature.

Next up: More religious apologizing for doing weird and irrational things, but expecting "respect" for them anyway.

Gods forbid we treat all people with basic dignity and respect regardless of our cultural differences. We simply can't have that!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

My mistake for being generous there, then. Apparently you are simply unaware that calling Bastet a "cat god" is a horrible oversimplification of Her nature.

My bad... apparently I missed the Message from the Universe where the Official Manual™ was given out, outlining all the Official Descriptions.

I've seen Bast being used in literature for literally decades, from very complex to quite simplified and everywhere in-between. I had no idea there was an Official Description that I was required to adhere to...

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

But of course. One can't really try to claim that Bastet is the goddess of rivers. Rather she's the goddess of cats, protection, joy, dance, music, and family.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

But of course. One can't really try to claim that Bastet is the goddess of rivers. Rather she's the goddess of cats, protection, joy, dance, music, and family.

She sounds like a Goddess I could really get behind.

Of course-- being behind a God-like cat is very likely safer than being in front.

But I do like Her qualifications: cats, protection, joy, dance, music and family.

What's not to like? (and I am not being sarcastic, in case that didn't come through)

 

[Glaurung]

Having worked with smokers, who's to say they should get a break either? I've worked with a lot of smokers, and it's always a pain in the arse. We're swamped, with a line to the door, and it was always

Obviously it depends on the circumstances of your workplace. In a hectic workplace such as a fast-food joint you obviously can't have people walking on and off the job. I work at a chemical manufactory, and unlike a restaurant our workload on any given day is static. My work situation is such that while I have a job to do I'm not necessarily going to be busy at any particular moment. (Especially if I'm doing clerical work). The same applies to others.

Or they get "super flustered" with a moderate amount of work, and they gotta go smoke to relieve the tension. Whether they take one break or fifteen, as long as they've got that tobacco in hand, no one says anything. And it's just ridiculous; if you're at work, you're there to work. Not to smoke, not to pray, or feed any other addiction.

I am not saying that smokers should be able to take off and smoke whenever they want. Neither have I ever suggested that an employer has any obligation to accommodate all whims to religious belief. I'm saying that to the extent it is reasonable, it is not anti-secularism to accommodate for the circumstances of an employee simply because those circumstances happen to involve religious belief. What is reasonable is a case by case basis. It is reasonable that a subcontracted security guard should be afforded the use of a prayer room which is already provided to other employees to begin with.

And I only brought up smokers, in that if they are afforded breaks then there's no basis to begrudge a Muslim three to five minutes per afternoon.

When one member of a team disappears for an indeterminate period of time to talk to their god, that can cause serious problems with the work flow. Hell, one member jotting off to take a leak for longer than five minutes can cause problems. As a deeply religious person, I would not consider "mandatory prayer" to be a "deep conviction" of a religion so much so that it must burden their co-workers.

And if they're more worried about getting to pray while they're getting paid, I don't really think they can be called "productive".

Let's have some perspective here. A workday is eight hours, the guy I use to work with would take three to five minutes everyday at three o'clock. It's barely a blip on the radar. Now obviously our workload isn't subject to momentary change, thus my co-worker's prayer obligation was a an easy factor to accommodate.

Reasonable accommodations, yes. For example, the one time I've ever invoked religious practice was to continue wearing my oath ring. My boss never had a problem with it, as a light piece of jewelry it doesn't get in the way, but there's always one co-worker that gets a stick up their arse.

Cool, and if I were your boss I'd tell that co-worker to mind their own business.

But leaving during a shift to pray? As I said above that does affect everyone, and not in the "oh no, religion in the workplace!" way either. The best form of negotiation for something like this would be for those muslims to find a job that is flexible enough that they don't have to take breaks to pray, they just aren't at work when they have to pray.

Not necessarily. Not all of us work at hectic restaurants or super intensive production lines. I've said multiple times what is reasonable can only be determined on a case by case basis. A Muslim paramedic stopping halfway through CPR to pray would obviously not be acceptable. A office worker taking a few to pray hurts no one. Heck, most office workers spend half the day on Facebook anyway it seems.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I only brought up smokers, in that if they are afforded breaks then there's no basis to begrudge a Muslim three to five minutes per afternoon.

I would say the same, so long as it's handled properly. One of my biggest gripes with smoke breaks was that no work was being done - even when it was slow - and they were getting paid for it. This is where the issue of prayer breaks gets touchy. Five minutes? Yes, not that impacting to a schedule. But I don't think they should be getting paid for it - and to note: I don't think anyone should get paid to pray. When I worked for the Air Force, I had to clock out to eat - my lunch break was not paid, and that's a necessity.

Now, one can make all the arguments that one wants for prayer and faith being integral to their being, but the fact of the matter is that it's a personal issue. No one should be paid for personal indulgements, no matter how "sacred". If someone wants to pray at work, I understand that god hears thoughts. But taking time out to get down on one's knees, prostrate oneself, and conduct a ritual prayer on company dollar? No. Clock out, then pray.