Muslim teacher goes off to Mecca with Holder's blessing
76
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment
What does the first Amendment have to do with a teacher in Berkeley Illinois going to Mecca? Well this teacher, who happened to be new to the school district and on probation decided that best possible time to take off from work and go on a spiritual retreat was during the school year.
The school, in the tiny town of Berkeley Ill. population 5,245, told the teacher that she couldn't take time off during the school year. This decision which seems sane, should be one that the school is able to make since they did after all hire her to work during the school year and teach small children. However Eric Holder in his infinate wisdom, and with the blessing of President Obama sued the taxpayers, sued the school district on behalf of this woman.
The Back Story
The story that has been running in major newspapers like London's Daily Mail is that School Teacher Safoorah Kahn was denied her civil rights when she requested three weeks off in 2008 to make a pilgrimage to Mecca.
This is the excuse that Holder is giving at least for bringing suit against the Berkeley Illinois School district. A violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, had occurred. One author ostensibly comments that means it is a classic case of Racism. Pointing out once again that when it comes to Muslims they shouldn't be treated like their religious beliefs aren't tolerated, it is their Race. Muslim however isn't a race, since anyone who practices Islam is considered a Muslim, and individuals who practice Islam come from all walks of life, White, Black, Middle Eastern. There isn't just one race that practices Islam, it is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. However when the Justice Department gets involved it becomes an issue of Racism.
The Daily Mail goes on to explain that It is the duty of every Muslim to join the million of pilgrims at the Hajj in Mecca at least once in their lifetime. Which is why this Middle School teacher chose to go in the middle of her school year, just nine months after joining the district. Actually it doesn't explain why this woman desired to take three weeks off during a school year. Was she driving to Mecca? What was her justification for wanting three weeks off. Could she have taken less time off, if it was so urgent to go during the school year? Did she give the school any notice at all? If she requested months in advance to go to Mecca three weeks during the school year this would seem to indicate some sort of premeditation on her part. A way to force the schools into doing something that would hurt them.
All the news stories tell us is that Khan started at the school district in 2007 and later asked for unpaid leave of three weeks to visit Saudi Arabia. At which point the school district denied her request. Not once but twice, forcing the teacher to resign. Well no, not technically. It is not as though she stated she couldn't leave her house without her Hijab and they told her it was against school policy for someone to wear head covering. That might have been a reason to resign. Requesting personal time off for a vacation during the busiest time and having that request denied is not forcing someone to resign. Most school districts require a two year or four year college degree in education in order to work for them. At some point during that time surely this woman was made aware of the United States and more importantly Illinois school year. She knew when she filed the request that taking time off during the school year probably would have been turned down. Yet she filed her request anyway.
The real kick in the teeth of the American people is that Federal Prosecutors are arguing that the leave was unrelated to her professional duties and was not set forth in the contract between the school district and the teachers' union, thus violating her civil rights. Come again? Her request to take off three weeks for personal reasons, to take a vacation, during the school year, was obviously unrelated to her professional duties. How though is it a violation of her civil rights? Apparently taking a vacation anytime we please is now a civil right.
To make this argument stick, Holder's Justice Department is alleging that the Berkeley School District compelled Khan to choose between her job and her religious beliefs. Which isn't entirely accurate. Again, they didn't deny her the ability to pray when she wanted to. They didn't deny her the ability to wear Muslim appropriate garments. What they did say was that she wouldn't be allowed to take off three weeks for a vacation during the school year. Which is why she choose to resign. She could have take those three weeks during the summer. She could have waited until she was there longer, had a better standing with the school district and then requested the leave. She choose to push the issue of a three week vacation only nine months after joining the district, and for that she ended up choosing to resign when her outrageous request was denied.
To take it a step further, not only does Holder want the school district to adopt policies akin to Sharia Law, but he wants them to reinstate Kahn with back pay and pay her compensatory damages. Is it any wonder that the state and federal government is broke? Back pay for a woman who willing quit her job to take a three week vacation, and what kind of compensatory damages? She lost her health care plan through the school? Is that it, what possible damages could this woman have undergone because she wasn't allowed to take a three week vacation during the middle of a school year?
In November 2008, Khan filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which found reasonable cause that discrimination had occurred and forwarded the matter to the U.S. Justice Department.
What is proper accommodation?
What is proper accommodation? The Attorney General of the United States is alleging that the school district for Berkeley Illinois did not give proper accommodation to a teacher that requested leave during a school year to travel to Mecca. The allegation is that by denying the request the school isn't accommodating this woman's religious preference.
There have been other stories where teachers have been fired for displaying the ten commandments. However those stories aren't followed up by law suits with the AG of the US. So why is Holder so interested in a Muslim womans desire to take off from work during the school year to go to Mecca.
Mecca is not a requirement of the Muslim Religion. The wording used, is all Muslims are required if they can afford it, to make a trip to Mecca once in their life time. The school system is arguing that this woman could make this trip during the summer, during break. She could go after she retires, or once her tenure sets in request leave take a "vacation". The school argues that since she only worked for them for nine months and wanted to take off three weeks while school was in session.
The Constitution
DOMA the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional. For Holder and Obama at least, they will no longer being defending DOMA cases because they don't see the constitutionality of it. As far as the first Amendment, the one that states; respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof their view is a little different. Some might argue that Holder is defending this woman's free exercise of religion. However where does he draw the line, do only Muslims deserve the right to free exercise of their religion?
Following the constitution shouldn't be subjective if the Attorney General will sue because a school district will not accommodate the religious aspects of a Muslim teacher, then he needs to also sue on behalf of Christian teachers who are discriminated against.
Is it Selfishness?
Marc Schenker of the examiner suggest just that. It is selfishness that propelled this woman into requesting three weeks off during the school year. It is selfishness that got Holder involved in a pointless and selfish lawsuit.
Let's face it when we have an Attorney General who constantly sues Americans for the sheer necessity of suing we have a problem. Google the words Holder Sues, and two main articles pop up right away. One of them involves this case, the other one equally famous lawsuit on Arizona. It is only a matter of time before Holder decides to sue Wisconsin for Governor Walkers "Anti-Union" bill. When though will we as Americans decide that these Anti-American policies of Holders Justice Department must come to an end.
CommentsLoading...
rachel, great job on this hub. Surprisingly enough this doesn't surprise me at all. This action falls right in with many other actions this clown has taken. I have a bad feeling we ain't seen nothing yet.
It's crazy to say that her civil rights are being denied because her religion does not expect her to go to Mecca at a particular time in her life.She does not have a terminal Illness that makes her trip to Mecca an Imeadiate necessity.
WillStarr: Thanks for the comment. First Amendment protects Religious Freedom, but it also implies a separation or at least that is what the left would have us believe.
Old Poolman: Thanks for the comment. One has to wonder how many times this Justice Department will take on the American people before we say enough is enough.
Someonewhoknows: Thanks for the comment. I agree it would be different if she had a terminal illness. However if she had a terminal illness then chances are the school would have approved her leave.
Hi Rachell
The thing is, saying that she should have gone in summer is like telling a Christian to celebrate Christmas in May. The pilgrimage is performed at a specific time of year just like other religious holidays.
and while it is not obligatory when a person can't afford it, as soon as they can afford to go, they MUST go, it then becomes an obligatory act of worship.
I'm not familiar with US law so I can't have an opinion where that is concerned, was she not entitled to a set number of days for annual leave?
But anyway, to say that someone's request for leave is 'outrageous' seems a little over the top IMO.
Just a couple comments: not defending DOMA is a violation of the oath of office and constitutional duties. The whole mess is a shining example of the current administrations insanity.
FranyaBlue: Are you a Muslim? I am only asking because all of the research I did I could not find one thing that said that Mecca had to be done at a certain time of year. I am not doubting you. But simply saying it to make your argument without proof or knowledge isn't going to sway me. She could have a certain number of days of leave if she had worked for the school more than nine months she was on Probation during with time long leaves of absence for anything other than medical are usually turned down, no matter what your religious preference. If I got a job working for WalMart and then said I need off three weeks before Christmas because my Christian religion dictates then WalMart shouldn't be required by law, or by the Justice Dept. to give me time off. Neither should a school district. This is a power play plain and simple. It is also not a AG issue, this is a state issue and a school issue not a federal Justice Department issue.
Are you a citizen and just not familiar with the law, or are you a non citizen and not familiar with our laws? That makes a difference also. If you are a citizen I would recommend becoming somewhat familiar with the law especially if you are going to disagree with someone when they are discussing what is legal. If you aren't a citizen then I don't see how your opinion in this matter is relevant. I suppose that is rude of me, that is just how I feel, since you find my opinion in this outragesous I am going to share my opinion of your opinion.
rommergrot: thanks for your comment.
Bottom line is employers hire employees because they need them on the job, performing a needed task. Any time an employee is absent from work, it creates a hardship for the employer, and the other employees. The work this employee was hired to do needs to be spread among the remaining employees if possible, and that is not fair to them. Due to steadily increasing costs of having employees, most employers don't have "spare" employees sitting around doing nothing just in case another employee is absent.
Granted, some things are beyond control, such as death or serious illness of a family member, or illness of the employee in question. To grant time off for something I understand can be scheduled at a later date is very questionable. For the Federal Government getting involved in this issue is insane. So insane it could be the beginning of a new conspiracy theory.
Old Poolman: Thanks for the comment. I wish we could go back to the days when Employers had rights. Employees have all the rights which is why a lot of companies are struggling. An employer should be able to turn down requests like this school district did without the fear of being sued by the federal government.
Hi Rachell, thanks for the reply.
I am a Muslim. Even if you only did a quick Google on Hajj (pilgrimage), you would come across a Wikipedia entry that tells you the dates of the pilgrimage every year. It occurs in Dhu Al-Hijja which is the month of Hajj. So it can't be done at any time, it must be during that month, on those particular days.
I am not a US citizen, I'm British, but am entitled to a valid interest in what happens to fellow Muslims, regardless of where it is happening. Plus I never wanted to disagree with the legal aspects; Muslims must comply with the laws of the land. I just wanted to straighten up those aspects of your Islamic knowledge that appear lacking and felt that it was a little harsh to say that a persons request for leave is outrageous.
and just to clarify that, I never said your opinion is outrageous, I said it was OTT.
no need to be rude eh?
FranyaBlue: I believe in the hub I wrote that she could have waited until she had tenure and not during her probational time to take off three weeks. Is it necessary to take off three weeks for this? If so did it have to be done when she had a probational standing at the school or could she reasonably have waited until she was there longer and then requested the time off? My opinion is over the top because I don't think that Holder should sue the school district for refusing to give someone time off? Where do we draw the line if not here? Holder is out of control suing American citizens that is not his purpose his purpose is to uphold laws, not to go after tax payers. Her treatment wasn't bad. If they had denied her the right to dress in Muslim attire I could see her saying that it was wrong. Which is something else I stated. Again I stand by my over the top opinion of this being a power play.
Rachel
"she ended up choosing to resign when her outrageous request was denied."
That was your opinion, which I felt was OTT, not your opinion of this being a power play or any other of your opinions.
I agree that three weeks was perhaps not necessary, the period of the pilgrimage is only 10 days, but it is normal for people to take off longer simply because the pilgrimage package costs a fortune and the people want to get as much for their money as they can.
Having said that, there may have been some other reason for wanting 3 weeks instead of just 2, who knows.
With regards to waiting, it is the typical view that if you can afford it then it becomes obligatory. If she had the means to perform the Hajj and felt that not doing it was an act of disobedience then I can understand her predicament.
I'm not saying that it was right to sue people over it, because that depends on the laws, of which I am not familiar.
Just seems harsh to condemn someone for requesting leave. That's all.
"I agree that three weeks was perhaps not necessary, the period of the pilgrimage is only 10 days," Three weeks off right after starting a new job is generally considered outrageous. Which you can disagree with. She chose to resign. The whole point of this article is that Holder has no basis for suing on behalf of this woman or any Muslim for that matter. Why? Because he wouldn't dream of suing on behalf of a Christian, and until he would then there isn't equality. Christians in this country are constantly discriminated on the basis of their religion but that is considered Politically correct. So it is my opinion over the top or not that her request and subsequent law suit is outrageous because it isn't equal treatment. When a Christian is forced to resign because of their beliefs then there isn't a law suit, does that not outrage you? Or are you one of those people that is only outraged when your own beliefs are trampled upon?
"The city of Mecca has been the center of attraction for Muslim pilgrims ever since the rise of Islam. The best time to visit Mecca weather wise, is between the month of October and May. It is compulsory to visit the place at least once in life if they are able physically and financially . Usually Muslim people knows when to go Mecca as they are brought up seeing their ancestors going for the Hajj.
Generally tourist season in Mecca is during the time of Hajj. Hajj Pilgrimage happens during the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah every year. During Hajj special visas are given to foreigners. You should know some Useful Information about the city because it is not like other cities in Saudi Arabia. Mecca is a city for the Muslims only. Non-Muslims are strictly prohibited from entering the city.
Special facilities and services are provided to the visitors rather pilgrims during hajj season to visit Mecca. Mecca is connected to all other cities in Saudi Arabia by a number of roads and new age expressways. But the most convenient route is through the Hajj terminal at Jeddah Airport.
At the time of Hajj various religious rites and rituals are performed in Mecca including 'Tawaf' and Mut'ah of hajj. Prayers and sacrifices of animals are made as part of the rituals." http://www.asiarooms.com/en/travel-guide/saudi-ara
That gives link gives the argument that this teacher could have scheduled her visit during Christmas break, which usually starts the second week of December and ends the first week of January. Which would have given her three weeks off without requiring the school district hire a substitute. Perhaps I am reading the article wrong, but from that one link I would say she had other options than resigning or requiring the school make special accommodations for her.
the bottom line to me is.....she is an NEW teacher to this school. She accepted the position. Nobody put a gun to her head. It has NOTHING to do with religion at all. If she wanted to go to Disney World, the same rule applies. If her religion REQUIRED her to leave, then she should have checked with the school FIRST, BEFORE she took the job.
Holder is a moron....what else could be said about his ruling?
THANKS again Rachel for bringing interesting news to us, and keeping us in the light.
:)
Holder is a disgrace; 50% illegal activist, 50% breacher of affirmative duty. I think he's the worst AG we've ever had.
CMerritt: Thanks for the comment. I thought the same thing, that perhaps if she had let the school know before being hired then the results would have been different. I like your Disney World Analogy.
Rachel
Stu from VT: Thanks for the comment.
The Justice Department under Holder and Obama is really overstepping it's quthority. This woman has no right to demand three weaks off after working only nine months. The fact that she is Muslim has nothing to do with it it would have been denied to anyone. The outcome is uo to the school district and the state. The Obama admistration is doing everything in it's power to usurp control of the states. At the same time, many of the Justice Departments decisions have been extremely racist. It is time that someone makes a point to let them know that Obama is not King.
rebel farms: Thanks for the comment. I think this is the line in the sand for the Justice Department, if we don't stand up now and tell them that we won't stand for lawsuits against the American People any more they will trample over our freedoms. It won't stop with this school district or Arizona, Holder will continue suing us until we say ENOUGH. Thanks.
Rachel
According to the DM article, it wasn't right after starting a new job, she had been in the job for at least a year. She started in 2007 and the Hajj she wanted to go on wasn't until December 2008.
Please don't assume just because I am Muslim, that I somehow don't care what happens to others. Everyone is entitled to equal and just treatment.
With regards to that article you quoted, it doesn't say that the pilgrimage can be performed at any time, it says the weather is good between Oct and May. If I were you, I wouldn't take religious education from a travel website.
FranyaBlue: I didn't assume, I asked a question. Is asking a question as sign of making an assumption? If I were you I wouldn't quote from Wikipedia, that is notorious for being wrong. All of the arguments in all of the papers and in the lawsuit states that she was employed for nine months and on probation. Now if she was hired in 2007 and requested leave in 2008 that doesn't mean she was employed for more than nine months.
Rachel
Sorry, you're right, you did ask a question, and my answer is no I am not one of those people. Are you?
I only suggested Wiki because it's the easiest thing for people who can't be bothered to do real research, yet even wiki has the correct info, which you somehow couldn't find anywhere.
Besides, Wiki is far better than your travel site, which doesn't even have references.
Yes, she may have requested leave at her 9th month of employment, allowing plenty of notice time, but her leave wouldn't have been taken until December. If she had stayed beyond 9 months, her leave would have occurred near to or after one year, which is hardly 'right after starting'.
But like I said before, I don't necessarily agree with the suing of the school and really, I just wanted to correct your information on the Islamic aspects of your article.
FranyaBlue: I like your backhanded way of accusing me of not doing any research. You don't agree with the suing, you agree with my opinion that she is wrong for wanting to sue, but you think my opinion that she shouldn't have pursued a lawsuit is lacking. Her request was twice denied, that is a fact. She kept pushing it until the Attorney General got involved, and somehow the best you can come up with is to attack my research. Nice.
Rachel
A Justice Department lawsuit supporting a math teacher who wanted a three-week unpaid leave for a Mecca pilgrimage is spurring criticism from former DOJ officials.
The December lawsuit claims the school district in Berkeley, Ill., discriminated against middle-school teacher Safoorah Khan on the basis of her religious beliefs by denying her request and forcing her resignation, the Washington Post reports. School officials, on the other hand, claim the time off would have presented an undue hardship during a critical period at the end of the semester in December 2008.
Hans von Spakovsky, a Justice Department civil rights official in the Bush administration, says no jury would find the pilgrimage request reasonable. “This is a political lawsuit to placate Muslims,” he told the Washington Post.
Other courts that have considered leave requests have not dealt with one as long as 19 days, experts told the newspaper. One of the critics of the DOJ suit is former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
“It sounds like a very dubious judgment and a real legal reach,” Mukasey told the Post. “The upper reaches of the Justice Department should be calling people to account for this.”http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/doj_suit_su
I guess the biggest argument against discrimination is she quit. The School district didn't fire her. They refused to give her time off which should be their prerogative. As an employer we should have the right to deny time off when it isn't related to the job or the employee's health which I believe is the argument that Old Poolman made. When I quit because my boss won't give me a three week vacation I shouldn't be allowed to sue for back pay and reinstatement. That essentially takes the employer's right to decide when they give someone time off.
I never said your opinion on her wanting to pursue a lawsuit is lacking, I said your research on the Islamic elements is lacking.
If it seems like I'm attacking your research then it's because you have wrong information within your article.
Just saying. No need to be all defensive.
How can somebody actually think this is an okay thing to sue for.....this is amazing to me.
Holder should be fired.....period.
The lady should go to mecca and come back and find another job. simple.
FranyaBlue: "your research on the Islamic elements is lacking."...... "No need to be all defensive."
Idiots are fun, no wonder every village wants one.
CMerritt: Two rational suggestions, and a good point. Thank you for commenting.
Franya,
Even if Khan had been employed for a year, the terms of her vacation schedule are set by the school, not by her. Everyone is entitled to equal and just treatment, but that doesn't imply that Khan can "declare a holiday" on her own. According to the Constitution, the only way a national holiday can be declared is via a ceremonial executive order signed by the president. Khan's vacation allotment, and the weather, are completely nondispositive from a legal standpoint. Employment is an at-will relationship. If the employee does not like any of the terms of employment, she can choose not to work there. Holder's suit against the Berkeley Illinois School district is completely without legal merit.
Stu
And now you resort to calling me an idiot because your 'research' has failed you. Nice.
Surely the idiots are those who believe in and spread misinformation? Correcting an idiot's mistakes doesn't make me defensive.
@CMerritt - I agree with you, the lady should have just got another job, no need to sue anyone.
Stu: Thank you for pointing that out.
FranyaBlue: It is idiotic to state that my opinion is lacking and then in the same comment state that I shouldn't defend myself. But I forgot it is okay for a liberal such as yourself to declare a conservative and idiot, it's just not okay for us to defend ourselves. More proof that fairness only applies to certain groups.
The largest employer of people is small business. If they learn they may be sued for not granting an employee time off, it will not be an incentive to expand and hire more people. This will certainly not help with our high unemployment numbers. Just one more way the Feds plan on helping small business I guess.
@Stu - really, I am not disputing whether or not she had a right to sue or not, or even if it was discriminatory or not, I never once said that I agree with the legal action.
My aim was simply to point out that there is misinformation within this hub. Is there really anything wrong in that?
@Rachel, you keep on misunderstanding what it is I have said, I never said your opinion is lacking, I said the Islamic info was lacking because it is wrong.
I also never said you could not defend yourself, but when you have stated information regarding Islam, which is wrong and then a Muslim intends on correcting you, why the need for defence? Just accept that it was wrong.
Also, what makes you think I am a liberal? Just out of interest.
FranyaBlue:
"Surely the idiots are those who believe in and spread misinformation? Correcting an idiot's mistakes doesn't make me defensive."
Kamram Memon, Khan's lawyer, said she wanted to make the pilgrimage, which all Muslims are supposed to do at least once in their life, and had been unable to afford it. He said she would have had to wait at least nine years for the period of the hajj to fall during a school break.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/23/US-sues-
Her own lawyer agrees with what I am saying that it is possible for her to wait and go when there isn't school, and yet I am the idiot who is trying to put out misinformation? What is boils down to is my opinion and my facts don't agree with your opinion and therefore they must be wrong. However if the lawyer is willing to make the argument that she would have to wait nine years for the hajj to fall during school break my argument that she could go when there isn't school is actually backed up by her own lawyer. Is he an idiot who is spreading false information also?
Old Poolman: Thank you for your comment. That is exactly what this lawsuit boils down to. One more reason for large and small companies alike to not hire someone. The schools will cut back on the number of hires also, over burdening the teachers that are already there and taxing our education system that has too many problems as it is.
I feel your frustration!
Someonewhoknows: Thanks for the comment.
Yes, the Islamic calendar moves by 11 days a year against the Gregorian calendar. Technically, she would be able to perform the Hajj during A summer at some point (or in 9 years as you said) but not during that particular year, which was when she obviously felt she was able to afford it and when it had become obligatory for her.
"Mecca is not a requirement of the Muslim Religion"
Yes it is, to say that a Muslim doesn't have to go for Hajj is just wrong.
And so is implying that she could have taken it during the summer.
In the year that her pilgrimage became an obligatory act of worship, the Hajj did not fall within the summer, so she could not have taken it then.
"Holder's Justice Department is alleging that the Berkeley School District compelled Khan to choose between her job and her religious beliefs. Which isn't entirely accurate."
You are using the idea that her pilgrimage is not an obligatory act to defend this statement. I just wanted you to know that your belief is wrong. If she could afford it, then it was obligatory for her, making it a job or religion decision.
I was outraged when I learned about this. This teacher took this position knowing that she would be asking for something she was not entitled to. This trip is a once in a lifetime deal so tell me why it had to be now? Baloney. Holder's interference was improper.
rachel, if it were me I would just back out of this battle. It is impossible to win with someone who only wants to pick apart everything you say. Again, bottom line, the Feds have no place in this dog fight. The issue really is that employers can't possibly grant time off requests every time or they would never be able to run their business. Now they have to worry about being sued and still try to run their business.
My opinion, you said all of this very well and that is all that really needs to happen. It is very obvious where the one comment source is coming from, and where their loyalties lie. The intent of your hub was not about Islam, but about the right of Federal Government to get involved with an employees request for time off, and that is it.
FranyaBlue: Essentially what it boils down to is you disagree with my facts. Which doesn't make them wrong. I won't say that they are wrong. Something cannot be obligatory and not at the same time. Anyway, Old Poolman is right, it is pointless to discuss something with someone who is going to pick apart every little detail. I have made my point and defended it with several links, all of which aren't wikipedia. Regardless of whether or not you agree with me, the facts are there.
Pop: My dad brought this too my attention and like you I was outraged. The more I read, the more I found this unbelievable. I think the thing that stuck with me the most is the idea that when you google Holder sues two stories come up this one and the Arizona one. Both are wrong. The lawsuit is beyond frivolous and can only hurt employers.
Old Poolman: I commented on your comment in my response to FranyaBlue, but I would like to add thank you for your comment. Thanks for defending me. You are right it is pointless to continue this discussion. I won't state that I was wrong, I have a real problem saying that I am wrong when I am not and can back up my argument in fact. Stubborn old Missouri Mule I suppose. Thanks again.
Rachel
rachel, books and movies both have a page or a screen that says "The End". I think that is the point you are at with this hub. Job well done and your point was made very well.
Rachell - You're exactly right. Kahn resigned because she didn't like the terms of her employment, which is her right. But when she accepted the job offer, it was subject to the terms agreed upon. I think Holder's position on all this illegal. What if I became a teacher at Berkeley Illinois School district, had alot of relatives, and needed three weeks for Christmas holiday, even though I hypothetically was only entitled to two weeks. Would Holder sue on MY behalf?
Franya,
"I never said your opinion on her wanting to pursue a lawsuit is lacking, I said your research on the Islamic elements is lacking."
I think the thing you're missing here is that the "Islamic elements" are irrelevant. The only thing of legal relevance is whether or not both parties are living up to the terms of employment, and all applicable law. The clear truth is that Khan is not. If Khan's religious beliefs require a job with more vacation time than the employer permits, then she should have applied for a job elsewhere.
Stu
Franya,
Outragious or OTT is just a matter of semantics. The key point is that Khan cannot expect her employer to accomodate her religious wishes. America contains a vast multitude of religions, sects, races, etc. Accomodating all of them would lead to total chaos.
Khan has no "predicament." If her religious beliefs are her top priority, she should choose a job that offers the necessary time off at the time of year desired.
I don't think anyone is condemning her for requesting leave. What I'm so angry about is Holder's suing the school district in an attempt to influence municipal school vacation policy, which is clearly not within the legal purview of the federal government. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, the federal government may only exercise those powers that are specifically granted therein. The Constitution grants no enumerated power to the federal government to dictate vacation policies to states, municipalities, or private businesses.
Holder has a long and disgusting history of failing to prosecute valid cases (breach of affirmative duty) because he is biased in favor of the offender (such as the outragious ACORN, SEIU, and NPP voter intimidation cases), as well as engaging in legal meddling in cases where no wrong was done but he just doesn't like the "suspect" (the Berkeley school district case being an example). I could easily give you dozens of examples where Holder has violated the law in both manners. He is the worst AG we have ever had. He is totally biased in favor of all people and groups that support Obama, and biased against everyone else. It's OK to have personal opinions, but as AG it's his duty to execute his authority in a fair and dispassionate manner. Each potential suspect should be treated equally under the law, with the law being construed according to Congressional intent, and not what he "wishes" Congress intended.
Stu
Franya,
"You are using the idea that her pilgrimage is not an obligatory act to defend this statement. I just wanted you to know that your belief is wrong. If she could afford it, then it was obligatory for her, making it a job or religion decision."
The pilgrimage is only obligatory in a religious, not a legal sense. It's true that there was a "job or religion decision," but Khan should have expected this when vacation policy was undoubtedly discussed with her during her job interview. This whole issue is Khan's fault for not picking an appropriate job (possibly a part time job that would have allowed time for the pilgrimage).
Stu
Old Poolman: Thank your for your follow up comment, you are correct.
Stu: Thank you for your very knowledgeable comments.
Hi Rachell, most welcome, Stu
The more I think about this situation, the more ticked off I get. She knew the rules when she took the job, and then tried to pull this stunt. As an employer it makes me even more angry. It is getting more and more difficult to own and operate a business, and if this lawsuit goes through it will become impossible. If you think the unemployment numbers are high now, just hide and watch what happens if they win this one.
Old Poolman: I think that is usually the way things work. An individual knows the rules when they try to break them.
Old Poolman - Exactly. Between high taxes, high levels of regulation, the medical cost crisis, forced unionization, and government lawsuits, it is becoming very hard to operate a business at a profit. This is especially true now as so few businesses have any real pricing power. It is true that many big US corporations are doing well at the moment, but if you dig into the numbers I think you'll find that many of them are earning the bulk of their profits from overseas operations where the strains are much less onerous. If we want to get more Americans back to work, we need to make the US a more business-friendly place to operate.
Stu
Rachel - That had to be the case here. It is inconceivable to me that the school district said nothing about vacation policy at the time of hire, as employees all want to know this before accepting a job offer. Stu
Stu: I think you nailed it right there in your comment to Old Poolman, the idea that it is nearly impossible to make a profit. It goes beyond that though, companies that try to openly make a profit are vilified by the left as being evil. There is nothing wrong with making a profit or wanting to make one but the American public are told that any company that wants to make a profit is greedy and evil. No wonder so many companies are going overseas. That doesn't help us out, we need to give more control back to the employer and stop this nonsense that making a profit is a bad thing.
Rachel
Hi Rachel,
I agree with your point. Business investment is a factor of production, and it demands a return just like credit and labor does. Nobody would make the capital investment necessary to start and operate a business unless a decent ROI were possible. You could alternatively park your money in a CD, make 4% FDIC insured, and hire nobody.
Stu
Business in general works on a "risk and reward" system. The employer assumes all of the risk, but the employees share in the reward. There are many employees who resent the employer making any profit for himself.
If every employee had to "buy" their job by investing money in the company, many things would change. Then, the employee would be sharing in the "risk".
Stu: I am a small business owner, and come from a family of small business owners I know that it takes years before you see a profit, at the same time I wouldn't be doing this if there was no way I could ever see a profit. It wouldn't make any sense to do a job were you always lost. Thanks for the comment.
Rachel
OP: You know how much I love WalMart. That was Sam Walton's theory on business, that is why the company offers Profit Sharing and 401k. People tell me that in the two years since I left WalMart has gone down hill in these aspects, I don't know I haven't been there. Still his plan was if the employees invested in their company and got to see a return on that investment then they would work harder at making it a success.
rachel, I will send you some info on a couple large companies that were failing financially, and were purchased by the employees. Interestingly enough, the first thing they did was throw out the Unions. Then they set about eliminating waste and duplication of effort. All new hires had to put up their buy-in money, and be approved by a panel of existing company owners. Guess what, these companies turned around and became highly profitable for everyone involved.
OP: That would not surprise me in the slightest. Like you said when people have a vested interest they are going to make it work. Thanks
Old Poolman - no surprise here. When the workers have their own skin in the game, the nonsense stops.
It never ceases to amaze me how many employees want more than their fair share of the rewards, but of course none of the risk. Now that gas is almost $4.00 per gallon, that extra cost comes out of my paycheck. All my employees make exactly what they have been making. I have made it clear to all of them that when the day comes they are the only ones getting a paycheck, I will close the doors that day and nobody will have a job.
Yes, I am a corporation, so that will be construed as corporate greed by our liberal friends.
Old Poolman: My parents have run a business for the last four years. They absorb the cost of gas going up rather than pass that bill onto their customers. Which is why they are successful, same as you.
Rachel
you all suck!! especially u rachellrobinson!
it flagged your comment as spam tiya, I imagine more because of the long made up name you used more than the fact that your comment was pointless... although it might have been both.
To my readers: Don't you love people who are too scared to use their real name when they post pointless comments?
Rachel
rachell - As an update - since you wrote this hub I have sold my business and am no longer an employer. I was able to arrange for the buyer to assume all of my employees, so none of them lost their jobs.
I can't begin to tell you what a relief it is to no longer have employees to worry about and deal with. I know many other business people who would get rid of every employee they have if it were possible. Some have in fact. They laid off everyone and run their business as a one person show. The current laws are not in favor of the employer.
OP: Thanks for the update. I am sorry that you had to sell your business, but I am sure you are enjoying retirement, or at least I hope you are enjoying retirement.
I agree that the laws do not side with the employer. It would be nice if that were the case though.
Rachel
Well Rachel, don't be sorry I sold the business. For a cash buyer to show up in this economy is somewhat of a miracle. In reality, the laws regarding employment should not be slanted toward either the employee or the employer. Fairness from both sides would be really refreshing. The old rule of a "Fair days pay for a fair days pay" would work wonders.
OP: Well maybe this is something that you, Jim, and the Housefire Project can get accomplished.
Rachel
WillStarr Level 8 Commenter 13 months ago
Religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment, but apparently, some religions are more protected than others.