Seriously????

[cannon_fodder]

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?

[guido911]

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

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.

[ZYX]

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.  

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.

[guido911]

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?

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

[Red Arrow]

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.

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. 

[ZYX]

Wow, they were hard core.

[cannon_fodder]

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

[Conan71]

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.

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.

[Red Arrow]

Wow, they were hard core.

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

[guido911]

Am I missing something?

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)

[cannon_fodder]

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?

[pmcalk]

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.

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.

[custosnox]

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.

[heironymouspasparagus]

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.

[ZYX]

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.

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.