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.
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.
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? :dubious:
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.
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.
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:
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:
No. When I said “That’s true”, I was referring specifically to:
(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.
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.
You should try being right sometime. Funny thing, this is not one of those times.
Plenty of Muslim catwalk models, FWIW. It’s a huge market, even in the US.
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.
I think he’s established that any weapon he can wield against those he opposes is fair game,
CMC fnord!
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.
I’m not convinced anyone who spends time arguing on internet messageboards could be said to have “street cred”.
LOL, fair. Board cred then.
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.
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. :smack:
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.