Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #601  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:06 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I am happy to see Omar get tripped up by her fishy actions regarding her various marriages even if I don’t care about them on the merits, but I’m not willing to even obliquely seem to support Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition of Iron Age theocrats.

What fishy actions? And don't trot out that bullshit about "married her brother".

Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
So, umm, no link to the official FBI webpage that lists 'anti-Semitic organizations as designated by the FBI' then?

Fun fact: I just did a web search for "anti-semitic designated by fbi". I got a lot of links where the FBI is accused of being anti-semitic. I certainly did not get anything showing the FBI "designates a group as anti-semitic".
  #602  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:11 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
CAIR is a bullshit organization, but not because of anti-Semitism.

How so? Be specific. Show your evidence. Yeah, I know; that last word is to you like garlic is to a vampire.
  #603  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:11 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Holy shit this thread. Tried to post it weeks ago, apparently had to wait for moderation approval? Gave it a few days and saw nothing in the forum so gave up and didn’t really follow up. Discovered it just now.

There are some MASSIVE hypocrites in this forum.
You are a liar.
  #604  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:34 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
BDS is not the organization of which I spoke.

Also not what I was referring to but...

https://twitter.com/Ilhan/status/1113171033689874433

https://twitter.com/Jkbadawy

Translation of the "about" for Jkbadawy, according to Google, "The street that Mustafa and the palace of the emirate did not # glory_for martyrs".

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/voice-of-america/

https://www.voanews.com/africa/somal...tion-militants

https://www.un.org/press/en/2012/sc10545.doc.htm

https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1165688109176172544
About Hoda Abdelmonem, you really do think that people that defend unsavory guys in a law setting should lose all human rights? Do tell. /s

As for the rest: Conspicuously missing: VOA does not say that Omar was involved or mentioned along with the terrorist groups. Now why when AOL does not make even the second hand connection to Omar you are not then dismissive of the ones trying to set those connections with Omar? When VOA is not making connections but just pointing there at what terrors groups are doing?

This is because the claimed connections I have seen coming from unreliable bloggers out there about Omar being in league with guys like Jim’ale are very similar to the claims that tried to claim that Obama was in league with Bill Ayers, a second hand connection that is pumped up as if the target was in league with the devil (again, not what VOA said) when it was just bait for the naive.



You seem to still think that what the trollers out there don't use mainstream or less biased press to hide the hook with the bait.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-12-2019 at 09:38 AM.
  #605  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:33 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
I am not, and you’re thread isn’t going like you planned.

You fucking fool.
  #606  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:39 AM
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
He's not lying. I PM'd a mod and verified that what Annoyed is true.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #607  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:04 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
you’re thread isn’t going like you planned.
It's still going better than yours.
  #608  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:15 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
It's still going better than yours.
Uh huh. Nothing like a self-own to REALLY show em.
  #609  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:05 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
How so? Be specific. Show your evidence. Yeah, I know; that last word is to you like garlic is to a vampire.

You’re a liar or an idiot. (Or maybe both!) I consistently provide more detailed cites, with links and relevant excerpts, then 95% of the people who post here. Just like I did upthread from the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Now, CAIR. They are Islamists who provide rhetorical support for the oppression of women, and play footsie with terrorists like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...didate_ba.html
Quote:
Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's second-leading Democrat, has said that CAIR "is unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its association with groups that are suspect." Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has stated flatly that CAIR "has ties to terrorism."

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/w...on/14cair.html
Quote:
Some Muslims, particularly the secular, find CAIR overly influenced by Saudi religious interpretations, criticizing it for stating in news releases, for example, that all Muslim women are required to veil their hair when the matter is openly debated.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under...-public-030922
Quote:
A federal judge's long-secret ruling that federal prosecutors violated the rights of three major American Islamic organizations and others named as unindicted co-conspirators in a Texas terrorism support case finally became public on Friday.
However, publication of the ruling is a mixed blessing for the groups: the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust. That's because U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis found that the government presented "ample evidence to establish the association" of the three organizations with Hamas, a Palestinian group that the U.S. has labeled as a terrorist organization and with a defunct charity convicted in the terrorism support case, the Holy Land Foundation.

I can’t quote from Google Books, but you can read about their Muslim Brotherhood connections here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=CS...q=CAIR&f=false

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-12-2019 at 02:08 PM.
  #610  
Old 09-12-2019, 06:33 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Now, CAIR.
As I pointed out to Sage Rat concerning his own FBI-document cite on CAIR, all your cites are from 2010 or earlier. There is of course still a lot of controversy about CAIR, but more recent descriptions tend to tend to do a better job of sorting out the controversial issues. As in this 2019-updated RationalWiki overview:
Quote:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, is, depending on who you ask, either a human rights and civil liberties organization founded to protect the rights of Muslims in the U.S., or an Islamist lobby group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. It should be noted that it's perfectly possible for both to be true. [...]

CAIR was founded in 1994. While it has often been accused of being a Hamas-connected front group, this largely stems from a single prosecution in which for procedural reasons CAIR was named as one of some 250 unindicted co-conspirators in an investigation into organizations funneling money to Hamas via the Holy Land Foundation. The Foundation was a charity providing aid to Palestinians, and "set up food banks on the East Coast, helped victims of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and provided assistance to people after floods and tornadoes devastated parts of Iowa and Texas in the 1990s." The Foundation -- not CAIR -- was held liable for the death of a U.S. teen killed by Hamas and his parents were awarded money damages. CAIR has never been prosecuted for a crime. [...]

The good
In 1995, CAIR fought to protect the rights of Muslim women to wear the hijab. This would become the most common type of court case they would be involved with.

After the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing in which over a hundred people were murdered by Timothy McVeigh, a number of Muslims became the victims of retaliatory hate-crimes, in spite of McVeigh not being a Muslim. CAIR attempted to raise awareness of this problem in order to prevent further injuries.

In 2005, coordinated a fatwa that condemns religious extremism and violence against civilians (though CAIR was criticized for not denouncing attacks on military targets; most definitions of terrorism don't include these).

The meh
Wrote a letter to the chief justice of the Supreme Court asking to have a sculpture of Mohammed removed from the US Supreme Court building in 1997.

Convinced Nike to remove a design of sneakers because the letters look like something else in Arabic

The bad
CAIR has been listed as a terrorist organization by the UAE, mainly due to an ongoing pissing match between the UAE and the Muslim Brotherhood, whom the UAE feels is giving CAIR their marching orders.
  #611  
Old 09-12-2019, 06:42 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,661
Quote:
The good
In 1995, CAIR fought to protect the rights of Muslim women to wear the hijab.

That’s “the good”? That’s like saying Atwood’s Eyes are good because they fight for the rights of handmaids to wear those big bonnets.
  #612  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:04 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
That’s “the good”?
Speaking as a card-carrying ACLU member, yup, that's good. If free American Muslim women (including a few of my own colleagues at work) want to wear the headscarf, or free American Jewish men (also including a few of my own colleagues) want to wear the kippah, or free American Christian women (likewise) want to wear a cross necklace, then they should not be denied their right to that form of religious expression. Same goes for any other similar personal faith observance by anyone of any religion and/or gender.

As a lifelong atheist, I wouldn't wear any religious symbol as a form of personal religious expression even if you paid me, but I absolutely will not tolerate or condone attempts to deprive non-atheists of their constitutional right to do so. You got a problem with that?
  #613  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:53 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,661
Do you honestly claim that CAIR (or most of its members) believe Muslim women should feel free to wear whatever they like?
  #614  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:03 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Do you honestly claim that CAIR (or most of its members) believe Muslim women should feel free to wear whatever they like?
I don't claim to know what the various members of CAIR personally "believe" about Muslim women's clothing choices.

What I do know is that CAIR as an organization, often in cooperation with local ACLU chapters, has frequently challenged in court unconstitutional discrimination against Muslim women for wearing a headscarf, which their constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties entitle them to do.

I consider this a good thing, because unconstitutional discrimination that infringes people's constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties is bad.

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-12-2019 at 08:04 PM.
  #615  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:12 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Here's an example of the ACLU and CAIR joining forces to defend a Christian woman's right to wear a religious headscarf:
Quote:
When Yvonne Allen of Tuskegee, Ala., went to renew her license in December, she was reportedly forced to remove the headscarf she wears for religious reasons. The clerk explained to her only Muslim women were allowed to cover their hair in the photos.

On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama filed a lawsuit on her behalf.

“I was devastated when they forced me to remove my headscarf to take my driver’s license photo,” Allen said in a statement released by the ACLU. “Revealing my hair to others is disobedient to God. I should have the same right as people of other faiths to be accommodated for my religious beliefs.”

Lee County’s refusal to grant Allen a religious accommodation contradicts state rules and violates her rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Alabama Constitution, according to the lawsuit.

On Wednesday, the Alabama chapter of America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) showed their support for the suit, saying that Christian women in Alabama should be able to wear a headscarf for a driver’s license photo, just as Muslim women and Sikh men are allowed to wear religious head coverings.

“Alabamans of all faiths should have the right to wear religious apparel in driver’s license photos,” said CAIR-Alabama Executive Director Khaula Hadeed. “The right to practice one’s faith is a universal right, one that should not be limited to Muslims and Sikhs.”
Now, the issue of how traditional patriarchal oppression of women influences customs prescribing religious headcoverings for women---not only in some Muslim communities but also in some Christian and Jewish communities as well---is an important one that shouldn't be ignored. But it is separate from the broader issue of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religious expression and its defense by the courts.

As a general principle, if a competent rights-bearing grown woman of any faith says that she wants to wear a religious headcovering, she shouldn't be unconstitutionally prevented from doing so, or unconstitutionally discriminated against for doing so.
  #616  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:30 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,661
That is true but doesn’t make CAIR awesome for selectively “defending” this while not standing up for other rights like freethinking.
  #617  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:37 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
That is true but doesn’t make CAIR awesome for selectively “defending” this while not standing up for other rights like freethinking.
Dang. I'm SURE I left those goalposts somewhere around here. Where could they have gone off to?
  #618  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:47 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,840
Pssst. They're hiding in the parking lot!
  #619  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:05 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,701
I, for one, take great umbrage with CAIR's lack of a position on the infield fly rule.

CMC fnord!
  #620  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:44 PM
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
I, for one, take great umbrage with CAIR's lack of a position on the infield fly rule.

CMC fnord!
For me, it was their refusal to take sides in the "Tastes great/Less filling" controversy of 1992.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #621  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:46 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
That is true but doesn’t make CAIR awesome for selectively “defending” this while not standing up for other rights like freethinking.

And FUCK The March of Dimes for just focusing on "moms and babies"! What's their fucking problem? They don't like fathers? Last I heard, it took a guy to help get the woman pregnant.

Almost any other poster would realize that stupid argument is exactly like your asinine complaint about CAIR. But, you? Nah, you're far too fucking stupid to think rationally.
  #622  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:48 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
Dang. I'm SURE I left those goalposts somewhere around here. Where could they have gone off to?

These yours?

Last edited by Monty; 09-12-2019 at 10:48 PM.
  #623  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:06 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,661
So I suppose you all feel that organizations who defend the “right” of cake bakers not to make gay wedding cakes (or conversely, the right of conservative Christians to order antigay cakes from gay bakers) are also civil liberties crusaders?

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-12-2019 at 11:07 PM.
  #624  
Old 09-13-2019, 04:24 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So I suppose you all feel that organizations who defend the “right” of cake bakers not to make gay wedding cakes (or conversely, the right of conservative Christians to order antigay cakes from gay bakers) are also civil liberties crusaders?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
Too late - they're off again.

We're now talking about homophobic cake bakers in order to draw a tenuous link to an Islamic organisation which has a not-particularly-material link to Omar. At this point we've just reached the "If I shovel enough horseshit I'm bound to find a pony in here eventually" argument style.

Again - I don't really care that much about Omar but Jesus Christ, these arguments are just terrible.
  #625  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:28 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
That is true
Okay, just so we're clear: You are now acknowledging that CAIR's defense of the civil liberties of Muslim women being unconstitutionally discriminated against for exercising their right to freedom of expression by wearing a religious headscarf DOES in fact belong in the category of "the good"? As in, it's a good thing to do because it's defending civil liberties?

Fine. Because just a dozen posts or so ago, you were seeming quite confused about that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
but doesn’t make CAIR awesome for selectively “defending” this while not standing up for other rights like freethinking.
I don't see anybody here (or in the RationalWiki article on CAIR I cited) making any claims that CAIR is "awesome", so you can put that strawman away.

Secondly, I don't know where you get your claim about CAIR "not standing up for other rights like freethinking". Their support for freedom of religion and freedom of expression in general, which includes "freethinking", is right there at the top of the list of CAIR's Core Principles:
Quote:
1. CAIR supports free enterprise, freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
If you have any specific criticisms of specific actions taken by CAIR that you think are in conflict with this principle, feel free to state them. Otherwise I think it's appropriate to fall back on the default (though not universally applicable) assumption about your critiques of anything Muslim, namely that you're just parroting ill-supported Islamophobic blather that you picked up from listening to some posturing self-described "independent thinker".


By the way, going back to the earlier exchange about CAIR and the FBI, here's an interesting 2013 letter from the ACLU to the Inspector General's office about the FBI's policy of "de-partnering" with CAIR:
Quote:
[...] Over the past several years, the FBI has engaged in an untoward public campaign to vilify CAIR, the United States’ largest Muslim civil rights advocacy organization. Through its public comments and policy, the FBI, has insinuated that CAIR has vague connections to terrorist organizations, although, of course, the government has never charged CAIR with a crime. The centerpiece of the FBI’s public campaign against CAIR is its policy of publicly and selectively ostracizing CAIR from its official outreach events with Muslim communities based on the ambiguous assertion that CAIR is not “an appropriate liaison partner.” The FBI’s public statements and policy appear designed to impair CAIR’s ability to organize and advocate effectively on behalf of American Muslims, which are activities clearly protected by the First Amendment. CAIR has been put in an untenable position: the FBI casts derogatory public aspersions on CAIR and its representatives, while the organization has no forum in which to challenge government-imposed stigma and clear its name. [...]

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-13-2019 at 08:30 AM.
  #626  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:10 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Okay, just so we're clear: You are now acknowledging that CAIR's defense of the civil liberties of Muslim women being unconstitutionally discriminated against for exercising their right to freedom of expression by wearing a religious headscarf DOES in fact belong in the category of "the good"? As in, it's a good thing to do because it's defending civil liberties?

No. When I said “That’s true”, I was referring specifically to:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
As a general principle, if a competent rights-bearing grown woman of any faith says that she wants to wear a religious headcovering, she shouldn't be unconstitutionally prevented from doing so, or unconstitutionally discriminated against for doing so.

(And looking at it more carefully, I would add the caveat that she does not have the right to wear a head covering and work as a runway model, nor to cover her face when entering a bank or airport etc., or when taking a drivers license photo.)

I would also say “that’s true” if someone stated in general terms that we should remember and recognize historical figures, and preserve classic public art and architecture. But if they then argued that this was a “good” aspect of the tiki torch crowd in Charlottesville, I would call bullshit on that.
  #627  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:04 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Okay, so you think it's true that individuals should be able to legally exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of religious expression in their choice of headcovering, but you don't think it's a good thing for CAIR to defend that right by legally challenging unconstitutional discrimination against individuals who exercise it. Got it.

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-13-2019 at 10:06 AM.
  #628  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:23 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
(And looking at it more carefully, I would add the caveat that she does not have the right to wear a head covering and work as a runway model, nor to cover her face when entering a bank or airport etc., or when taking a drivers license photo.)

You should try being right sometime. Funny thing, this is not one of those times.

Last edited by Monty; 09-13-2019 at 10:26 AM.
  #629  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:46 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,824
Plenty of Muslim catwalk models, FWIW. It's a huge market, even in the US.
  #630  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:51 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
You should try being right sometime. Funny thing, this is not one of those times.
Distinguo: I don't think it's unreasonable, or unconstitutional (though IANAL), to put more limitations on religious expression via face coverings than via head coverings. (I'm not convinced, however, that merely entering a bank or an airport should or does automatically make one subject to those stricter limitations.)

I also doubt that constitutional protections apply (though again, IANAL) to what one wears while working as a runway model. An intrinsic part of being a model, or an actor or a Disney World "character" or any similar job, is presenting your physical appearance in a specific way determined by your employer.

I personally think it's great to see a more representative variety of models depicted, including, say, Halima Aden modeling in a hijab or a burkini, but I'd be surprised to learn that anybody's successfully upheld on constitutional grounds a model's right to wear a hijab for a photoshoot if that's not the look the director wants.

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-13-2019 at 10:52 AM.
  #631  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:51 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,701
I think he's established that any weapon he can wield against those he opposes is fair game,
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
{...} Which is why I said I personally don’t think it’s any great ethical lapse, as I was going to enter into a sham marriage myself if my friend was willing to conspire with me. But I’m happy to use this awkward scenario to damage a politician I oppose for other reasons. {...}
CMC fnord!
  #632  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:05 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
You should try being right sometime. Funny thing, this is not one of those times.

Ironic how you provided no cite. But if you do provide a clear high court opinion about all of those things, I will change my assertion from “does” to “should”. I am strong on civil liberties generally, but I don’t think those situations should qualify. If I can’t go to the bank with a ski mask on, or take my drivers license photo in a Lone Ranger mask, why should a woman wearing a hijab (because she believes the rantings of an unhinged 6th century dictator are accurate representations of the edicts of an invisible man in the sky) have some kind of special rights that I don’t?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Distinguo: I don't think it's unreasonable, or unconstitutional (though IANAL), to put more limitations on religious expression via face coverings than via head coverings. (I'm not convinced, however, that merely entering a bank or an airport should or does automatically make one subject to those stricter limitations.)

I also doubt that constitutional protections apply (though again, IANAL) to what one wears while working as a runway model. An intrinsic part of being a model, or an actor or a Disney World "character" or any similar job, is presenting your physical appearance in a specific way determined by your employer.

I personally think it's great to see a more representative variety of models depicted, including, say, Halima Aden modeling in a hijab or a burkini, but I'd be surprised to learn that anybody's successfully upheld on constitutional grounds a model's right to wear a hijab for a photoshoot if that's not the look the director wants.

Very reasonable, kudos. Now you will have to really lay into me about something else to regain your street cred.

What do you think about the high profile case from a couple years back of the teenage Muslim girl who wanted to work in a teen fashion store (Forever 21 maybe?) but would not wear the clothes they sell because they are too immodest? I think that should fall under the same umbrella as Disney characters and models, but IIRC the courts ruled otherwise.
  #633  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:08 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,824
I'm not convinced anyone who spends time arguing on internet messageboards could be said to have "street cred".
  #634  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:11 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,661
LOL, fair. Board cred then.
  #635  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:33 PM
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Ironic how you provided no cite. But if you do provide a clear high court opinion about all of those things, I will change my assertion from “does” to “should”. I am strong on civil liberties generally, but I don’t think those situations should qualify. If I can’t go to the bank with a ski mask on, or take my drivers license photo in a Lone Ranger mask, why should a woman wearing a hijab (because she believes the rantings of an unhinged 6th century dictator are accurate representations of the edicts of an invisible man in the sky) have some kind of special rights that I don’t?











Very reasonable, kudos. Now you will have to really lay into me about something else to regain your street cred.



What do you think about the high profile case from a couple years back of the teenage Muslim girl who wanted to work in a teen fashion store (Forever 21 maybe?) but would not wear the clothes they sell because they are too immodest? I think that should fall under the same umbrella as Disney characters and models, but IIRC the courts ruled otherwise.
Part of the whole thing is that your Lone Ranger religion isn't officially recognized by the government as being a religion, I don't think.

If memory serves, I believe that Jedi is officially recognized. Maybe try weilding a laser sword instead of guns next time.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #636  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:37 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
Part of the whole thing is that your Lone Ranger religion isn't officially recognized by the government as being a religion, I don't think.

If memory serves, I believe that Jedi is officially recognized. Maybe try weilding a laser sword instead of guns next time.
Pastafarianism is gaining traction as well. Some states and countries have allowed drivers license photos to include a colander worn as headgear.
  #637  
Old 09-13-2019, 04:29 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,661
Having official government recognition of a religion is an odious concept IMO and ought to be seen as a direct violation of the Establishment Clause. The way freedom of religion should work is simply that you can go ahead and believe stupid shit and act accordingly, as long as you don’t make it other people’s problem. The idea that a group of a certain size and/or history believing stupid shit gets more leeway to do things than an individual would, if they came up with the stupid shit all by their lonesome, makes me sick.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-13-2019 at 04:30 PM.
  #638  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:24 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
As I pointed out to Sage Rat concerning his own FBI-document cite on CAIR, all your cites are from 2010 or earlier. There is of course still a lot of controversy about CAIR, but more recent descriptions tend to tend to do a better job of sorting out the controversial issues. As in this 2019-updated RationalWiki overview:
I am absolutely sure that nearly everyone in the organization is innocent of everything both in 2010 and 2019.

But, so far as I can tell, the top leadership has not changed since 2005 and it's the top leadership that matters. Minus reason to believe that Nihad Awad has changed in some fundamental way since that time, it's not very meaningful that 9 years have passed. The FBI still has their policy in place and the organization still seems to be active in trying to spread a message that one must not talk to the FBI. Nihad Awad is still the boss.

But whether they are actually benevolent or not, Omar is innocent either way on this front. For the topic of the thread, it was irrelevant. I found confirmation that was from reliable sources but didn't see the scope of the defense that exists, in my initial scan. As said, that's large enough that I would expect almost anyone to make the determination that the organization is completely benign from a basic search.

When you do the work, the picture can change as you continue to dig. Generally not, but it happens.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 09-13-2019 at 07:25 PM.
  #639  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:43 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,701
I'm still waiting for that list of "anti-Semitic organizations as designated by the FBI" Sage Rat.

CMC fnord!
  #640  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:16 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
What do you think about the high profile case from a couple years back of the teenage Muslim girl who wanted to work in a teen fashion store (Forever 21 maybe?) but would not wear the clothes they sell because they are too immodest?
I don't recognize the case and would need a cite for the specific details before I could form a specific opinion about it. I have read of cases where clothing stores' firing sales assistants for wearing hijabs was held to violate federal antidiscrimination law, for example. But I'm not familiar with a case about a Muslim sales assistant not being willing to wear the store brand(s) for reasons of modesty.

Personally, my own general preference for clothing store employment policy is the same in the case of hijab-wearers or modest dressers: As a shopper, I don't give a rat's ass whether a sales assistant wears a headcovering or not, or wears the store brands or not, or maintains some specified level of "modesty" or "immodesty" or not, or is slender or plump or whatever. As long as they look reasonably clean and tidy so I'm not worrying about what sort of gunk they're getting on the clothes, can give practical help and reliable advice about items and brands, and handle their inventory and their cash registers in a competent manner, I couldn't care less about the specifics of their appearance.

If a clothing store wants to present their garments as part of a certain predetermined "look", that's what the shop-window mannequins are for. The job of a sales assistant, on the other hand, is to help customers. I'm not super impressed with a retailer who's demanding that their service-job employees receiving service-job wages are required to provide free labor as clothing models at the same time, while also submitting to rigidly dictated criteria for their appearance and their wardrobe.
  #641  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:17 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rate
The FBI still has their policy in place
Did you read my cite in post #625 about what the ACLU has to say about the FBI's "policy" regarding CAIR?
  #642  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:17 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
I don't believe that I mentioned anything about human rights.

Do they even exist in Egypt in any meaningful way? The link says that there was no arrest warrant and that she was not given information about where Hoda was taken.

But, by similar token, let's say that I pick up a box of lard. The box proudly proclaimed, "Zero Carbs!" It's technically true, but the statement that lard is carb free is an advertising gimmick to falsely make you believe that other lard isn't. It is a sort of lie, trying to catch people who don't know better.

Should there have been a warrant? Is that novel? Should there have been a location reference? Being pissed off about how the police operate doesn't mean that they operated in an unreasonable fashion for their area.

The daughter approves of murder. The mother is, purportedly, a leader in a section of the Muslim Brotherhood - an organization that is likely active in terrorism but also sometimes a very useful ally and it depends on country and location which is which.... Do we have any reason to believe that the daughter's ideas on the sanctity of life - regardless of race and religion - are out of alignment with her mother? What do you actually know about Hoda Abd al-Moneim? Egypt's police seem to believe that she is a threat and it is not inconceivable that they have some information guiding that choice.

Supporting Hoda is very questionable minus greater information. I'm pretty doubtful that, if Omar asked someone in the CIA if it made sense to advocate for this woman or it might come back to bite her, that they would tell her to go ahead.

And that's without even considering hanging out with the daughter and taking a selfie.

If Steve King takes a picture with a neo-Nazi, because the neo-Nazi's dad was wrongly convicted of jaywalking and sentenced to five years hard time, wouldn't you wonder to yourself, exactly what relationship of King's it was that brought him into this particular bit of special pleading? Aren't there other injustices in the world? Did King really need to hang out with the skinhead son and completely gloss over the fact that the son has a "Death to blackies!" about section on his Twitter account? Isn't there some way for him to have bypassed that step and advocated for the jaywalking dad independent of the son?

Quote:
As for the rest: Conspicuously missing: VOA does not say that Omar was involved or mentioned along with the terrorist groups. Now why when AOL does not make even the second hand connection to Omar you are not then dismissive of the ones trying to set those connections with Omar? When VOA is not making connections but just pointing there at what terrors groups are doing?
I personally find it better if my sources are written independently of one another. If the person is writing about Hormuud without mentioning Omar then I do not need to worry that it was written as an attack on Omar by some person at the VOA who has some personal animosity against her. Whether VOA checks out or not, it's still safer.

Who contacted Omar to ask for her to write a defense piece for Hormuud? Why, of all things happening in Somalia and the world is that the one that she decides to support?

Let's say that it's a person she knows who is affected by telephony outages because of military actions. Does that person contact her and complain, "The telecommunications company Hormuud is being attacked by the military, you must defend them!"? Or is it more likely that an average, every day person would simply say, "The military keeps destroying all the frickin' phone lines! Make them stop Omar! I can't call my mom! What if she's hurt and I need to go help her, but she can't call me to all for help!?"?

What person, not associated with Hormuud, is liable to specify that company and ask specifically for a defense of that company? No one. Even an employee of the company is unlikely to ask for help for the company unless they're high up in the totem pole. So who at the company does she know?

Like King and the neo-Nazi, you sort of have to wonder how this particular message got to King. Of all wrongful arrests in the world, why is this the one that connected through and was followed up on?

Quote:
You seem to still think that what the trollers out there don't use mainstream or less biased press to hide the hook with the bait.
Chairman Mao believed strongly in the equality of the sexes (by the standards of his time). That almost everything he did was horrible and evil doesn't negate the things that are provably good.

The trolls are the ones looking for accusations to make. They will almost certainly identify the majority of problematic things that Omar has done. Most of those are stupid, overwrought, or stretch the complaint far beyond anything reasonable.

But if it checks out, it doesn't matter where it came from.

Omar had a lady who advocates the murder of Jews in her office, in Washington DC, put her arm around her, snapped a selfie, and posted it to the wide public. The right wing did not use a mind control raygun to force her to do that. They didn't mock up the picture, hack into her account, and post it.

As said, even if we accept that Hoda was a sweet ol' granny just being tormented without cause by those nasty police officers, you have to blow by the "chillin' with the murder-lovin' antisemite in your office" in order to raise that defense. I don't see a reasonable way to do that. There are plenty of human rights violations in the world. Why did you pick this one? How did you even hear about it? And why did you decide that it made sense to handle it in this way?

Even if we accept that there was not meant to be any indication of support for the whole "Death to the people of Israel!" thing, it's still a really bad decision.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 09-13-2019 at 08:19 PM.
  #643  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:42 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Having official government recognition of a religion is an odious concept IMO and ought to be seen as a direct violation of the Establishment Clause. The way freedom of religion should work is simply that you can go ahead and believe stupid shit and act accordingly, as long as you don’t make it other people’s problem. The idea that a group of a certain size and/or history believing stupid shit gets more leeway to do things than an individual would, if they came up with the stupid shit all by their lonesome, makes me sick.
I don't understand the relevance of this rant to the issue of freedom of religion in the US. AFAIK the government does not, and constitutionally speaking may not, discriminate between individuals' religious beliefs based on how "recognized" they are. If a Muslim woman is allowed to cover her face with the niqab because of her religious beliefs, then a Jaina monk from some obscure sect gets to cover his face with the muhapatti because of his religious beliefs, even though her religion is far better known than his.

You may perhaps be thinking of the Department of Defense's list of recognized religions? AFAICT the point of that is that the DoD is required to respect the civil rights of all servicemembers but cannot provide literally unlimited options for chaplains and other religious services. Because servicemembers are so often in isolated environments and/or on foreign territory, they depend on the military rather than on their local communities for religious support. So the military has to designate a finite list of religious denominations that it recognizes and provides support for, or else things would just get totally crazy with the North Lincoln Street Walterville Missouri Synod Lutherans demanding a separate chaplain from the South Lincoln Street Walterville Missouri Synod Lutherans and so forth.

If what you're complaining about is that a religious believer wearing a face covering for religious reasons "gets more leeway to do things" than some rando just putting on a Lone Ranger mask for shits'n'giggles, I don't agree with you. People in general regard their religious beliefs as much more serious and important matters than their idle whims to walk around in a Lone Ranger mask just because. It's reasonable for the government to recognize distinctions between "doing things" for serious religious reasons and "doing things" for an idle whim that doesn't really matter to you. But that doesn't require the government to identify a list of "recognized religions" to apply to civilian life, and AFAICT the government does not in fact have any such list.
  #644  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:06 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
You may perhaps be thinking of the Department of Defense's list of recognized religions? AFAICT the point of that is that the DoD is required to respect the civil rights of all servicemembers but cannot provide literally unlimited options for chaplains and other religious services. Because servicemembers are so often in isolated environments and/or on foreign territory, they depend on the military rather than on their local communities for religious support. So the military has to designate a finite list of religious denominations that it recognizes and provides support for, or else things would just get totally crazy with the North Lincoln Street Walterville Missouri Synod Lutherans demanding a separate chaplain from the South Lincoln Street Walterville Missouri Synod Lutherans and so forth.

The list has the most groups for the convenence of the servce member concerned and for the convenience of the military as you say. Also, the military's list isn't all that finite. On their list, IIRC, is a nifty category: "Other". You can pack a lot of outfits into that one.
  #645  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:13 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,486
That should read "the most common groups".
  #646  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:14 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
If what you're complaining about is that a religious believer wearing a face covering for religious reasons "gets more leeway to do things" than some rando just putting on a Lone Ranger mask for shits'n'giggles, I don't agree with you.

Yes, that’s what I’m complaining about and I don’t agree with you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
People in general regard their religious beliefs as much more serious and important matters than their idle whims to walk around in a Lone Ranger mask just because.

They have the right to think that and I have the right to think they are stupid.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
It's reasonable for the government to recognize distinctions between "doing things" for serious religious reasons and "doing things" for an idle whim that doesn't really matter to you.

No it’s not. It really isn’t. Someone who has baseless, irrational ideas about the metaphysical nature of reality should not get greater rights than I have because I don’t have those baseless, irrational beliefs about the metaphysical nature of reality. It’s this fundamental assumption that I really find offensive and galling. And I know I’m not the only one. This is exactly why people create “religions” like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And this does have real world implications beyond thought experiments about Lone Ranger masks. In some states, people can exempt their children from vaccinations based on their religion but not based on “I’m an atheist and I just don’t want my kids to get vaccinated.” And this may well be something that “really matters” to the atheist parent. We may not think either type of parent is making a terribly good decision, but to say one decision is legally allowed and the other is not is total fucking bullshit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
But that doesn’t require the government to identify a list of “recognized religions” to apply to civilian life, and AFAICT the government does not in fact have any such list.

I was just taking Superdude’s word for it. A lot of your post reads like you didn’t read his, and therefore didn’t understand that it was what I was responding to:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
Part of the whole thing is that your Lone Ranger religion isn’t officially recognized by the government as being a religion, I don't think.
  #647  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:52 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
No it’s not. It really isn’t.
Yes it is. It really is.

Well, that was a fun discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
Someone who has baseless, irrational ideas about the metaphysical nature of reality should not get greater rights than I have because I don’t have those baseless, irrational beliefs about the metaphysical nature of reality.
In the first place, an idea doesn't have to be "baseless" and "irrational" about "the metaphysical nature of reality" to qualify as "religious". Governmental accommodations for religious belief are just a practical acknowledgement of the fact that what people call their "religion" generally reflects what is most important to them in a serious and meaningful way. There's nothing wrong with making allowances for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
This is exactly why people create “religions” like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If people want their beliefs about what is most important to them in a serious and meaningful way to be granted the importance of religious beliefs, they are perfectly free to classify them as religious beliefs, whether about the FSM or anything else. There is no requirement that any of them be baseless or irrational, either.

Just because your impulse to wear a Lone Ranger mask for the fun of it isn't regarded with the same seriousness as somebody else's sincere religious belief about covering their face doesn't mean you're being unfairly discriminated against. Complaining that you don't get the same official deference for things that aren't important to you as other people get for things that are important to them is just shallow-minded sulking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
In some states, people can exempt their children from vaccinations based on their religion
Now you're moving the goalposts again. Nowhere have I claimed that religious beliefs should be accepted as justification for people to do absolutely anything they want, and some religious exemptions are indeed bad. But what's bad about them is not the fact that they get an exemption because of a belief that's important to them while you can't get an exemption because of a whim that isn't important to you.
  #648  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:37 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,661
We should either both get the exemption or both not get it. Period. Anything else is discrimination and is flat out wrong.
  #649  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:51 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
We should either both get the exemption or both not get it. Period. Anything else is discrimination and is flat out wrong.
Nonsense; there is a valid distinction between doing something for a serious and sincere reason and doing it for a frivolous or insincere reason, and the government is entitled to take that distinction into account.

That's why, for example, the government is willing to issue a green card to an immigrant who genuinely and mutually wants to be married to a particular US citizen, but not to an immigrant whose only interest in the marriage is to get a green card. In both cases the married couple is carrying out the same action---i.e., getting legally married to each other---but their intentions in the two cases are very different.
  #650  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:10 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,661
Do you get the impression that I am not serious or sincere about feeling that I should have every bit as much right to cover my face in a drivers license photo as someone who believes in a magical sky father? Does it strike you that I don’t really care about this? You’ve seen me post for quite a while: do you not notice that I am actually unusually exercised over this?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017