The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

These are the "Christians" that give real Christians a bad name.

http://m.newson6.com/LocalNewsStory.html?pid=2264&parenturl=http%3a%2f%2fkotv.com%2fapi%2fgetFeed.aspx%3fid%3d4%26date%3d20110304&itemurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.newson6.com%2fglobal%2fstory.asp%3fS%3d14306289%26clienttype%3drssstory

Welcome to Oklahoma.  Don't scratch the Buckle.

Even a polar bear knows this stinks

RIP Knut

How do they give "real Christians" a bad name? Do you know anything about the Thomas More Law Center (which incidentally is out of Michigan and not Oklahoma)? Did you read the lawsuit and the supporting exhibits? What's your criticism of the lawsuit?

My main problem with this is not the content of the lawsuit, rather that Captain Fields has decided to take this to court. He should've sucked it up and just gone. I also very much dislike this statement:"not to become a propaganda prop for the local mosque." All that was happening was an event to thank the officers for their service. They were not forced to take part in the prayer service as Mr. Thompson so implied. This is what contributes to the prejudice against Christians that they are self-righteous and unaccepting. Some are, but most aren't.

Proselytizing??  Yeah, right... I saw the Muslim notice.  No proselytizing. 

Gee, I wonder how the good Captain feels about prayer in school?? 

Fine to force people to pray in a secular environment, but not to make him visit with citizen's he has sworn "to serve and protect".

It took until statement 60 to say anything that meant anything.  Yep, that sounds like a lawyer all right.
That and the following few items are what it is all about and why it was pure stupid of the department to order the Captain to go.  It was a bonehead, braindead, BS thing to try to force these guys to do that. 

The city should have just put out the word about this refusal and I bet 100 other officers would have gone in response to the slight/snubbing/implicit insult of those Islamic citizens by this group of officers.  Oh, wait, that is pretty much what happened, isn't it?

I don't see this is as simple as you do. Fields believed his first amendment rights were violated and he brought it to the attention of leadership. Shortly thereafter, Fields suffered an adverse employment action after his report. Pretty straightforward religious discrimination case which our courts deal with every day. Heck, I have even been eye-deep in religion cases.

You are hacked off because since Fields is a Christian, he should not be self-righteous and non-accepting and basically get over it. The thing, though, is that Fields claims he has suffered a compensable injury under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a result of a governmental body's violation of his civil rights. It is his right, as it is the rights of any other person who believes their civil rights have been violated, to seek redress in our courts. And for the record, I have seen literally hundreds of absolutely frivolous/mindless lawsuits. This is not one of them.

I am really struggling to not turn to this thread into another example of Christian-bashing. I'll leave it to those who think that if you are Christian you are not entitled to be treated fairly.

If he were a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or Mayan I would have said the same thing. I agree that technically his Constitutional right was violated. But for everything else, I will simply have to agree to disagree with you.

And I'm going to venture a guess and say that if this officer were a practicing Muslim, and the offer was for a show of respect from a Christian church, that a typical Christian's response would be the same...right?

That's doubtful.  If the officer declined going to that, I'm sure he'd be called Godless by many of the Christian faith.

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to turn this into Christian-bashing.  But some Christians sure can be predictable if nothing else

I'll be interested in watching this upcoming this weekend:

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2011/03/09/unwelcome.the.muslims.next.door.cnn.html

If this would have been the local rotary club wanting to show their appreciation at an event held at a local hotel convention center and Fields refused to orderr his officers to attend because he doesn't like the rotary club, would you still think he should sue because of adverse employment actions?  Unless his religious beleifs say that he is not to enter a place of worship for another religion I dont' see how his first amendment was violated. 

Personally I don't think they should have made the demand, but a suit, IMHO, is baseless.

You are comparing compulsory attendance of a police officer at a Rotary Club meeting to compulsory attendance at a religious-based event. I don't think I need to go any farther with a response, especially since it appears you never bothered reading his complaint.

Since you decided to make a point on the fact of me not reading his complaint I went ahead and read it instead of going with the cliff notes version.  Still comes out pretty much the same.  Do you not understand that this is an attempt to help people understand a culture?  That this is them reaching out and saying "this is who I am", trying to break through the hate that is directed towards them without really understanding who they are?  As I stated before, I do not endorse the action of trying to force the officers to attend, but I do not see how his religious beleifs where in any way violated by this.  This was obviously meant to teach the officers more about the people they are sworn to protect and were not required to participate in any religious activities. 

Yet, somehow you see no problem with placing "In God We Trust" over federal buildings, thus necessitating federal employees to enter on a daily basis buildings representing Christian religious beliefs.  How do you reconcile that?  (FYI, you really know very little about Judaism--for the majority, the above slogan is considered an offense to God.  Should they be able to refuse to enter, even if that is part of their job?). 

Read my latest posts over there. I do not care one way or the other on posting the motto. As for my knowledge of Judaism, not sure where that is coming from in this thread. In here, I thought we were talking about how Thomas More lawyers were making Christians look bad or something and the officer's religious discrimination lawsuit.

Now, I did mention in another thread that whenever "under God" or "In God We Trust" issues surface, the first line of attack are "those crazy Christians are at it again". I did mention that there are other religions out there that have "God" or a supreme being at the fore of their faith but those folks aren't targeted by the naysayers. I do not know if Jews are actually offended by the national motto, but in my opinion, placing one's trust in God as the motto implies isn't offensive. But I would like you to provide a link supporting your assertion.

This is essentially why I've shut myself off from 'organized religion', which is an absolute oxymoron.  For some reason, Christians in this country (not all, but many more than in other nations) feel that their religion is superior to all others.  I stated in another post almost every relative I have is Christian.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Then, I have other relatives that try and shove that religion down my throat by 'ministering' to me.  I then tell them where to shove that ministering.  People in my family finally understand where I come from when it comes to religion, but it took nearly 15 years for them to get it.  I always hated people telling me I was going to Hell if I didn't accept Jesus into my life.  That's between he and I and no one else.

Guido,
The other religions don't try to shove it on to people, like the "prayer in schools group."  That is the difference.  Whereas the co-opted Southern Baptist Convention and the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and Sarah Palin group do advocate that.

I happen to like the motto and don't mind it being on money or buildings.  The problem with my personal likes and dislikes and beliefs is that there are others who also have rights to not have my feelings forced upon them.  As I refuse to have theirs forced upon me.  

I have friends who are Jewish, Muslim, a few Gays, and even one Hindu.  None, not even the Mormons I know have ever tried proselytizing to me.  On the other hand, even though many of the neo-con Christian friends and family know exactly my religious beliefs, I, like Hoss have been 'recruited' over and over.  So, not only do we NOT have to worry about other religions trying to force their beliefs on us, we don't even have to worry about gay people trying to convert us.

Again, that's the difference.

Naw, Muslims don't do that at all  ::)  Just not the ones you or I consort with. 

Not here they don't.  While some Christian groups have a thousand year history of going to new places and converting and killing the people who were there first.  Even today, they do the first part of that.  Less killing unless you believe that Bush, Rove, and Murdoch are Christian - then we are still going to other places and killing them.  (But NOT because of oil or Daddy's embarrassment!)

Easily interchangeable

Let's see now...
Can you spell "Crusades"?
Or Ireland?  (British invasion and occupation)
Or America - repeatedly - insert list of America indigenous tribes here.
Or China
Or Central America
Or most of Africa
Or India
Or Australia

Granted, it all started with the Romans, but the western Europeans learned well and quickly.

Islam and Christianity have a lot of similarities, including a history of forcing people by penalty of death to convert.  This does not excuse an intolerance to one or the other from either. 

Well that is probably going to be their defense if the Islamic Society get sued. What we have here is a governmental entity ordering a person to attend an event held at a religious institution. You can call it an attempt to educate, I'll call it something else. In any case, I do not want my government doing that, just as you may not want our government giving me vouchers/tax breaks so I can keep my kids out of our crappy public school system.

Let's not bring history into this. Just because Christians have acted that way in the past, it does not mean that is how the MAJORITY act today! I'm so sick of every time something like this comes up the Crusades are mentioned. They were centuries ago. Move past it!

I personally don't want the government forcing anyone to attend any event that does not directly relate to the performance of their job.  While this could improve relations with the Islamic community and the Police, I really doubt it will for anyone attending by force.  Same as any similar situation.  I don't disagree that he was wronged in this situation, I just don't agree that it is a matter of violating his religious freedom.  If he was also required to participate in any of the religious parts of it, such as having to pray, then yes, I could see it as a such.  And for the record, if I could manage to get my kids in private school, regardless if it is done with vouchers or tax breaks, I would.  The only thing that bothers me about it is the lack of good, secular, private schools in the area.  HH is the closest that I've seen, but it's still there.  Giving vouchers and saying they can't be used at a private school because it's religous based is like saying you can't use food stamps to buy unlevened bread because it's a religous food, or that you can't shop at such and such store because it has church interests. 

My local voting place is usually in a church.  What if you don't want to go into a church.  Driving downtown to vote early may not be a option.

Also, I don't remember ever hearing if this event was on "company time" or the officers personal time.

That appears to be one of the problems.  Neither side is willing to either forget or even forgive.  From my perspective, the Muslims are more stubborn.

Or equating our current international voyeurism with the crusades, or war for oil, or simply deposing tin horn dictators with the crusades.

And that there is a damned excellent point. The voting booth, where everyone is in fact equal, are located inside religious institutions. Where is all the "cramming religion down our throats" at on that one? NOWHERE. Because "In God We Trust" on federal buildings or on our money is far more oppressive than having Jesus in your grill when you vote.

Works both ways.  Being invited to a Mosque for a non-religious event should be no different than voting in one.

1) I don't believe the lawsuit has merit, he was not forced to partake in a religious service and his individual speech was not curtailed.  He was ordered by his superior to attend an event, nothing more and nothing less.  The officer refused based on the religious affiliation of the host of that event.

If I was ordered by my boss to review a case or attend a client function and refused because of the religious affiliation of the person, I would be fired.  If my firm routinely refused to represent people because of their religious affiliation I could be sued or sanctioned by the bar (for denying legal services on a discriminatory basis).  If a hotel, a college, a store and on and on decided to treat a person, an assignment, or a customer differently because of their religion they would be in the wrong.

The employment action was a direct result of his insubordination.  An order is an order, unless it is illegal.  In this case, an order is an order unless a Christian Officer doesn't want to attend an event hosted by Muslims.

Treating people differently because of religion is wrong.  Refusing to attend an event because the host is an Islamic center is wrong.  The officer was in the wrong.

Any other analysis necessarily says that an officer can choose to follow an order by a superior based on the religious affiliation of the person he is being asked to interact with.  I think a Muslim can be told to attend an event at a Jewish center, a Baptist to go to the LDS center, or a Catholic attend a Lutheran event (and I would expect each group to give a tour of their center and talk about their community in a positive light).  The religious affiliation of a citizen doesn't and can't matter to a person serving the people.


2) Someone made the comment that "most" Christians are self righteous with an apologetic tone, and others took offense to this statement.  

Why?  Christianity teaches that it is THE one right way to do things and if you don't believe as they do you will be forever punish by their God (even if you don't believe in that God).  Christians even believe other Christians who don't believe exactly as they do will suffer this fate.  By its very nature it is self righteous, they believe their myths and beliefs are better than yours and all others.  

That shouldn't be an offensive notion and it is one similarly held by Muslims (and very few other religions).  It may have a negative connotation, but the definition (confidence in ones morality) isn't denied.    The officer felt belief in the one right religion trumped his employers order to attend an event hosted by a different, necessarily lesser religion.

3) The addition of the "Thomas More Law Center" certainly doesn't help the officers cause.

The Law Center seeks litigation to stop the spread of Sharia Law and to Defend the Christian United States. In their press release they alleged that the Tulsa Islamic Center is attempting to force Sharia law on Tulsans AND that the Tulsa Islamic Society is jihadist.  Their major campaigns include fighting new Mosques from being built, stopping gay marriage, denying employee benefits to same-sex couples, denying same-sex couples the right to vote (ok, all gay rights), encouraging Christian prayer in public schools, stopping education on evolution, publishing the names and home addresses of abortion doctors, and putting up protestant ten commandment monuments in public places.

Take a look at the Tulsa Islamic Society and the Thomas More Law Center's website and tell me who is waging a holy war:

http://www.thomasmore.org/default-sb_thomasmore.html?36134227

http://www.istulsa.org/default.html

4) FWIW, I vote in a Christian Church and it doesn't bother me a bit.  It is a simple matter of logistics.  If a liquor store, a Mosque, or a warehouse offered the government a secure and convenient voting location I'd go there. 

If I can can be expected to do something as important as vote in a Church, why can't an officer be expected visit a Mosque as a gesture of goodwill?

My fix is a bit more accurate and I would encourage you to read the officer's lawsuit for his take on what this event actually was.

As for the message in your post, ultimately whether being invited to a non-religious event should not be different than voting is plainly not our call. It's the officer, who was far more involved in this event than we ever were, who found it intrusive and violative of his religious freedom and eventually suffered an adverse employment action. He has every right under the law to bring his complaint to court.  

In the big picture, I would have no problem voting in a Mosque because I am mature and educated enough to realize that government isn't ramshotting anything at me. If they were so motivated, I would laugh at them for what would be a monumental fail.

Maybe it's just me, but I have never attended a church or Christian event where I was told that there was one way to do things in life, and that if you didn't do it one way, you would burn in hell. Throughout my life I have constantly been told that one should worship in their own way, as long as they keep the same core values and morals. But, I have never considered myself a religious person. I do consider myself a Christian. The word religion makes me think of useless rules and a "my way is better than your way" attitude. Highly religious people are giving Christianity a bad reputation. The sad thing is is that they just don't know it, or if they do, they are too stuck up in their own ways to realize it.

Have you read the complaint? There is far more alleged than these few points you raised in your post.

A different time and place but when I was a kid, the Catholic kids up the street (friends by the way) told me I couldn't go to Heaven because I wasn't Catholic, I ate meat on Friday and so on.  I was basically Protestant (at the time).   Funny thing they neglected was that they were the result of a Jewish/Catholic marriage. 

Wow, they were hard core.

ZYX:

Most Christian faiths believe their way is the right way and other Christian faiths have it wrong in fatal ways.  If you are not baptized as a :blank: you won't go to heaven.  Certainly if you aren't Christian you cannot.  Hence, in order to "save" people you need to convince them that you are correct and they are wrong.

Guido:

Yes, I read it.  

It contains pages about what the Thomas More Law Society has to say about the teachings of Islam - which isn't relevant.  The complaint alleges the purpose of the day was to proselytize, force Sharia law, and start a holy war.   It alleges that the Islamic Center is related to groups that were not indicted or found guilty but could be affiliated to a trial involving possible funding for terrorism that did find people with other groups guilty.  It alleges that the Tulsa Mosque is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (our new allies in Egypt).  Most of the Complaint is spent bashing the Muslim center, not making merited allegations (it doesn't matter how stereotypical Muslim they allege the Islamic Center was to win on the merits).

They then repeat the allegation that the officer had his religious beliefs trampled and that the TPS forces Islam on people for the next 10 pages.  They attach a flyer that is about as threatening as a flyer for a bake sale and a very benign looking web page - apparently to prove how Muslim these people are.

The only allegation that has any merit is that the police had a rule that attendance was voluntary and they changed it for this event.  In that case, the TPS has to show a governmental interest in treating this differently.  A threshold they can likely meet.  I really don't see merit in this case unless something more damning comes up.  The Complain really reads like they hate Muslims, they are all terrorists, and they so having the cops associate with them is bad.

Am I missing something?


How do you justify making an officer attend this event as a violation of his rights but slapping God and the Ten Commandments in Courtrooms, pledges, and on buildings as OK?  Of the two slapping God on as many official Government things as possible seems worse than requiring a government official to attend an event at a religious cite (as I stated, I have to attend a Church every time I vote).

The Complaint:
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWSon6/PDF/1103/AmendedComplaintwExhibits--Filed.pdf

You are mature beyond your years.

Some of my favorite quotes regarding religion vs. spirituality:

"Religion is trying to get God to like you.  Spirituality is discovering He already does."

"Religion is the silly things people do to try and have a relationship or to understand God or a higher being.  Spirituality is the relationship itself."

"Religion, like everything else, is great in moderation"

And so on and so on.

When I was much younger, I did attend some charismatic churches when I was searching spiritually.  They basically said it was their way or Satan's way.  ;)  I realized the God I served wasn't that spiteful and I didn't have to be perfect.  That's the whole idea behind the Christian faith anyhow is perfection is not necessary.  My beliefs now are somewhat of a hybrid from many different traditions.

CF: My experience is the majority of faiths are tolerant of other faiths under the Christian tent and other world religions.  Again that's my personal experience and perception.  I think the perception of intolerance seems more prevalent as the more extreme factions of religion or politics are the ones which seem to characterize the brand, even if they are in the minority.  Just like "radical" Muslims.  By far a small minority, yet they are the ones most others think of when they think of Islam.

Not really.  That is what they were taught.  It was mainstream religion.  Protestants had similarly prejudiced views about Catholics.

Um. Yes. This is the officer's complaint not the Thomas More's complaint. This complaint is the Plaintiff's position vis-a-vis the facts as he understands them. Whether or not these allegations are consistent with TMLC's guiding principles is irrelevant (since I am not a judge I normally don't go around ruling on evidentiary questions--how did you get that ability? :)), is a non-issue in this notice pleading state and you know that.

In my opinion, and I could be wrong, all the prima facie factors underlying his Section 1983 claim are sufficiently pled to survive a a 12(b) challenge and the court will allow this matter to proceed to discovery. A qualified immunity defense for the individual defendants? I don't know but I cannot imagine this challenge not being advanced from the onset. In my experience this will be the first significant legal hurdle for the plaintiff.

In this thread (which I acknowledge I did not start), I would really like to stay focused on the legal issues confronting the parties and not the political/cultural/religious angles that are tangential and can be argued elsewhere.

CF: I do not know what your civil rights litigation experience is. I guess we will see in this thread as the case evolves and moves forward. For me, I am genuinely intrigued with the plaintiff's theory of the case. In a weird way it's kinda like a reverse discrimination case (yes I know that expression is very passe)

I'm kind of amazed. I've studied many religions including a wide variety of christianity.  A core christian belief is that faith in jesus is require for heaven or your going to hell.  Another core tenant is to convert people to your way.  Many christians are tolerant of other religions or sects, but they still think THEY have the right way.

Per the case.

To me the 20 pages says:

These muslims are bad.  See how bad they are.  Muslims bad.
I'm christian, a good christian.
You can't make me associate with bad muslims.

The meat of the complaint was they violated their procedures to favor muslims.  But that was kind of tucked in there. 

And I'm not ruling on their allegations, just that they are merely unfounded allegations that have nothing to do with the claim.  Finally, as amended, this is the Law Centers complaint, you think the officer is in control of this case?

No where in his pleading has he asserted that he was prohibited from the free exercise of his religion.  Seriously, how has TPS stopped him from practicing his religion?  What religion prohibits you from entering into another house of worship?  Section 1983 claims must point to a sincerely held belief/practice that prohibits you or requires you to take certain actions at work, and your employer fails to make reasonable accommodations.  He has pled he doesn't like Muslims.    Period. 

There is no First Amendment guarantee that your workplace will be free from all religious expression.  As long as the religious expression doesn't violate the establishment clause or doesn't rise to the level of harassment, people are allowed to discuss religion, pray, wear religious articles, etc...  Nobody was forcing him to become a Muslim.

You still haven't responded to the illogic of your argument that it is acceptable (whether you care or not) to put "In God we Trust" over buildings & require people to enter it, but you cannot require a police officer to enter a Mosque.  If this case were successful, think of what that would mean.  You could never require a public employee to enter a structure that expressed any religious ideas counter to their own.  You couldn't require teachers to enter schools that held voluntary prayer meetings.  You couldn't have voting booths in churches.  You couldn't require firefighters to enter into burning religious structures. 

Having said that, TPF should have stuck with a volunteer policy.  Anyone who hates Muslims that much probably won't be doing TPF any good by being forced to attend a function.

It's not just about if the person is being restricted from practicing their own religion, but if the state is "sponsoring" a religion by showing favoratism to it and forcing someone to attend.  I could see that being the case if they were being forced to attend a service or ritual, and not a Law Enforcement appreciation day mixed with "get to know us" day.

pmcalk,
It's just like the arguments against gay anything - how can gays having the same rights as any of the rest of us affect our rights?  It can't.
Same with this cop.  Nothing in the event would affect his beliefs or freedom of speech or anything else.  Where I start to have problems with it is the coercive nature that was different for this event only.  That was wrong of the City.  Not to the level of this lawsuit, but they should not have done it.

And xyz,
You have obviously never been to a Baptist Church.  Or Church of Christ.  Or Pentecostal.  Or Rhema Cult.  Or Guts Cult.

Maybe why that's why I like the Salvation Army so much.  Yeah, they are preachy but they never have condemned me for not going along with them completely.

Cannon, I don't know how to get through to you. Yes, you are correct that Christians believe that if you don't accept Jesus then you will go to hell. I believe that. I also believe that my faith is the one true faith, and that others are fake, but I do not resent people that disagree with me. I accept it. Anyways, can you name me a religious person, or even a non-religious person who does not believe the whole "I am right and you are wrong" thing? I can obviously tell that you believe that you are right and I am wrong. Anyone who truly, wholeheartedly believes in something will say that anyone who disagrees with them on said subject is wrong. It's the way of the world.

I used to have a science teacher that went to GUTS. Uhhhhhh...science teacher. She was not preachy or anything like that. She taught science as a theory to how the world works. She even taught evolution. She never said whether she agreed or disagreed with it though, but that is not her job.

I believe I previously stated that I did not agree with religious beliefs. I also did not deny their existence.

An absolute faith in anything is wrong, absolutely IMO.

There should always be open mindedness but if you even have a small doubt then you burn.

(Edited in deference to others)

How is absolute faith in what I believe in wrong so long as I don't try to force that on anyone else and I don't wear it on my sleeve?

My faith in what I believe is unwavering, yet I'm perfectly open-minded about what others believe so long as they don't see it as being so superior to my beliefs that I need to believe as they do.  I know what works for me, but it might not work for others or even get them arrested in 11 out of 57 states  8)

And again, I think it's a smaller minority of Christians who take a closed-minded view.  Unfortunately it's the intolerant nut-jobs who get all the recognition and think they represent the religion the best.

And yes, Yoda is my messiah.

You just 100% proved my point.... ;D

It came with years of philosophy classes.

I believe England exists because I've been told over and over again that it's there.  Have I seen it/touched it?  Nope.  So there can always be a tiny doubt in my mind.

Does an arrow ever truly touch its target?  I used to believe it did until I divided the distance in half infinitely.

Is there a supreme being?  Maybe...but no matter what choice I make, there will always be a little doubt.  It's healthier to me.
 
If I'm wrong, well, I can't make myself believe.  If that is what gives me an eternity in Hell, then that god sucks.

Not really.

Perhaps a better way to word that would be adding an IMO before or after your statement on absolute faith.

It's not wrong to those who have it, though I will admit I arrived at what I believe via open-mindedness and my mind is always open to new ideas and new impulses, yet that doesn't mean I don't believe absolutely.  My believe is real spirituality is always evolving and growing, yet that doesn't mean what you believe or have faith in today can't be absolute.

You said that you absolutely believe that absolute faith in anything is wrong. So you basically said "I'm right you're wrong"...So yeah, really, you did.

You said you absolutely believe that one should not absolutely believe anything. You contradicted yourself. Is there not any part of you that believes absolute faith is what is needed?

Done


Our language is fallible.  Maybe our understanding of the meaning of some words differ.  Maybe it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.  (smiley winky face)

I'm with Conan on this. Just because I absolutely believe, please don't confuse that with being close minded. I'm not. Actually, I consider myself to be very open minded.

It's not a faith.  It's a statement.

We differ in opinions now that I've place the "IMO".

I never said I believe it.  It just is.

I agree that our opinions are very different on the matter.  ;)

Ditto.  Until we part for different destinations or the light is snuffed out.

Truth.

True, if as I said he were trying to make an anti-establishment argument, but he hasn't alleged facts to support that either.  It's not enough to simply say a decision favored one religion over another.  Lots of employment decisions favor one religion over another--for example, closing an office on Christmas.  Requiring work on Saturday.  You must show more--either that the purpose of the action was to further (or prohibit) a religion, or that the primary effect was to further (or prohibit) a religion.  Or, more generally, that the government (TPF) is somehow "endorsing" one religion over another.  Even requiring someone to sit through a service may be ok--for example, if it were required as part of a class on Islam. The plaintiff doesn't allege--and I don't think facts would bear out--that his supervisor required attendance in an effort to further Islam.  And I really doubt that any police officer felt any need to convert after they attended the event.  I don't think anyone doubts that the primary purpose was to further police relations with the Islamic community.  I don't even think there are facts to support the argument that one religion is favored over another--the police go into houses of worship all the time as part of their job, even during services (Check out the Synagogue on a high holiday--there is always an cop on duty).  

Bullcrap. His free expression cause of action is pled in his very first claim. Go to paragraphs 67-76. And to answer the rest of your questions, read the complaint.

http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/OklahomaMosque-AmendedComplaintwithExhibits--Filed.pdf

For some background, in Combs v. Corrections Corp. of America, 977 F.Supp. 799, 803 (W.D.La. 1997), the Court restated a legal concept set forth in the 1940s by the Supreme Court, that is "[t]he free exercise clause of the First Amendment embraces two concepts: the freedom to believe and the freedom to act. 'The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.'” Quoting, United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86, 64 S.Ct. 882, 886, 88 L.Ed. 1148, 1154 (1944). In explaining the difference between a free exercise claim and an establishment claim, the Seventh Circuit in Venters v. City of Delphi,  123 F.3d 956, 969-70 (7th Cir. 1997), pointed out that "[t]he free exercise clause...guards the individual's practice of her own religion against restraint or invasion by the government." The distinguishing characteristic between a free exercise from an establishment claim is coercion. Id. Now, as to his civil rights claims, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, prescribes in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...

   In order to exercise his remedial rights under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege "(1) deprivation of a federal right by (2) a person acting under color of state law." Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kan., 857 F.2d 690, 694 (10th Cir. 1988). That's all that is required. I think he has pled that, but if it is lacking, then he can amend to cure the defect.

As for cynical suggestion that this officer doesn't like Muslims, which I have no idea where that is coming from, this is what he alleges in paragraph 80:  "Defendants targeted Plaintiff for adverse and discriminatory treatment because he refused to engage in an association that was contrary to his religious beliefs and convictions in violation of his right to expressive association."

What is illogical about the putting of (I mean "encouraging" the placement because that is what the law actually says not what you want it to say:  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc112-13) "'In God we Trust' over buildings & require people to enter it, but you cannot require a police officer to enter a Mosque." The former is a constitutionally tested and satisfied national motto and the latter is a potential violation of an individual's civil rights. As for the rest, I never said a policeman could not be required to enter a mosque. If a crime was being committed in there, or there was an emergency situation, the officer in my opinion has a duty to enter to perform his job. The rest of your point is a rambling slippery slope that is so far flung I cannot even take it seriously.

Here is a wiki article about a Supremes opinion I quoted portions from in another thread which I hope will help you see where I am coming from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorach_v._Clauson

As I read his complaint, NO WHERE does he allege that he does not want to enter that religious institution to respond to a call. His point is that he does not want to go there and to subjected to whatever activities they had planned which he felt were inconsistent with his religious principles. PERIOD. If that makes him an Islamaphobe or bigot in your opinion, have at it.

PM, in this thread your apparent anger about this officer having the gall to not want to be forced to attend an event at a mosque has in my opinion left you with no objectivity. You may need to face a reality that some people in this country are just not as enlightened or tolerant as you--oh wait, you are the one essentially calling the officer a hater. Nevermind.

I really think you need to take a bit of time to study some Eastern Religions.  The idea of absolutes that so many in the Western world have seems to really blur there. 

The whole comment about if you don't accept Jesus you will go to hell thing pretty much says my way is the only way, and your way is not good enough, which goes back to CF's comment on the superiority. 

I'm sorry if I sound like it, but I do not think that I am superior to anybody. I do believe that the belief system that I have chosen is the best one can choose, but I do not discriminate or place myself above those that believe differently. I only believe that my beliefs are correct and that their beliefs are not. I understand if they believe otherwise. And once again, I believe that what I say is the same that the most Christians I know would tell you. I will not deny that there are "Christians" who think they are superior, but from my perspective they are not the majority.

"I'm right, your wrong" is a stance of superiority.  I understand you don't think it is, and don't feel as if your trying to be superior, just that what you say pretty much is that.  But, as you say, those that turn their noses down at everyone else with distain do not represent all of Christians and that represents a whole other level of trying to be superior, or as most want to call it "Hollier than thou".

You always revert to personal attacks when all else fails.  

While you've cited the prima facie case for a 1983 suit, you have not pointed to the facts that substantiate a violation of the 1st Amendment.  Just saying "my right to free expression was violated" may survive a 12(b)(6) motion, but it sure isn't going to survive a motion for summary judgement.  He must either allege an anti-establishment claim, or a free exercise claim.  As I said before, you have no right to be free from all religious expression at work.  This was not a religious service conducted by the police--it was by a third party.  Again, police routinely are exposed to religious services in the course of their work, as are other public employees.  Police are in the Synagogue during High Holy days.  Teachers enter school where students are conducting voluntary prayer.  Election officials work out of churches.  No one was requiring him to believe/practice/participate in any religious service against his beliefs.  He just had to be there.  If he wants to allege that they violated the free exercise clause, he must allege that he had a specific, sincerely held religious belief that prohibit him from entering a Mosque (akin to the Rastifarian who wanted to wear dreadlocks, Jew who wanted to wear a Kippah; Jehovah's Witness who doesn't want to salute the flag).  He doesn't allege that.  Instead, he alleges (in paragraph after paragraph--38 through 58) all the things that are wrong with Muslims.

As for a violation under the establishment clause, being "coerced" to attend a function is not the same thing as being "coerced" to adhere to religious tenets.  As I said before, he must assert that the intent of the employment decision was to advance a religion or that primary effect was to advance religion (i.e, the Lemmon test).  Unless you adhere to the "tinfoil" belief that Muslims have infiltrated the police force, and that the plaintiff's supervisors are part of a larger jihadist-plot, I just don't see how you get there.  Most rational people would see this for what it is--an attempt by the plaintiff's supervisors to ensure good relations with the people who live and work in this community.
  

I wonder if this will be applied to the case of the officers who recently arrested a school principal "when she started to ask questions, ‘do you have a search warrant? What are you here for? What are the names of the officers; why are you here; what are you doing?' When she started to call someone, they took her phone away and at that point, put her into handcuffs and put her into the squad car"

"Harmless speech" shouldn't be actionable under color of law, regardless of the speaker.

Fantastic. You call this officer a Muslim hater, I call you on it, and YOU accuse me of personal attacks. As for the rest, it's a matter of opinion as to whether he has pled enough. But at least I am trying to be objective.

You, objective?  Do you own a dictionary?

Read my posts in this thread. I noted that the claims are sufficiently stated, and I also noted the qualified immunity problem that is coming down the pike.
I do not like arguing with Clavins who are clueless when it comes to the complexity of civil rights litigation, so I will back off responding to your stuff as far as this issue goes. Mainly because I do not want to waste my time attempting to get you to learn something.

See pmcalk - he's calling you a Clavin.  Just like you said, always resorts to name calling.  Well maybe that's because (!! Name calling alert here !!) he's a lawyer.  (Worst name I could think of on the spur of the moment.  Well, and after much reflection, too.)

I was going to have a battle of wits with guido, but he is only half-prepared.

You can do better than that.

kinda like going after an unarmed assailant with a ball bat?

RA,
How?  I thought that pretty covered the universe!?

Maybe I misjudged you and you are not as clever as I thought.  I'm not too good at insults so I'll have to pass on suggestions.

The Universe is a big place.

Typing lagged the brain;

I thought that pretty well covered the Universe.

How can it get worse than calling someone a lawyer??
I know, it plays to all the cliches, but ya know even cliches have to come from somewhere and invariably have a grain of truth.

You know what's black and brown and looks smashing on an attorney?

A Rottweiler

I had never heard that one. Hilarious. Although, RA may have something to say about grouping an entire breed of dogs as vicious...just kidding RA. ;D

The dog gets a free pass for lawyers (and insurance salesmen).

How about a liberal lawyer?  What a horrible thought.

What, there's another kind?

(BTW, the epithet is trial lawyer)  ;D

RA,
I stand humbly and sincerely corrected.  It can be worse...

I expect Guido would resent being called a liberal.

(And anyone trying would be laughed at.)