Workers In Tennessee Forced To Take Muslim Holiday Instead Of Labor Day

[AAAintheBeltway]

The Supreme Court ruled slavery was constitutional. Plessy v. Ferguson. It took passage of the 13th Amendment to make it unconstitutional.

You keep repeating that there was "always" a ban on religious tests for public office, but you ignore the plain language of Article VI that it was limited to offices "under" the uS, ie federal offices, not state ones. The Supreme Court danced around that by applying the First Amendment Establishment Clause to the states.

I'm finished with this thread unless someone else chimes in with something non-boring.

 

[stu]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The Supreme Court ruled slavery was constitutional. Plessy v. Ferguson. It took passage of the 13th Amendment to make it unconstitutional.

You keep repeating that there was "always" a ban on religious tests for public office, but you ignore the plain language of Article VI that it was limited to offices "under" the uS, ie federal offices, not state ones. The Supreme Court danced around that by applying the First Amendment Establishment Clause to the states.

I'm finished with this thread unless someone else chimes in with something non-boring.

If you want to quote case law, go do some homework first. Plessy v. Ferguson was to do with segregation not slavery.

I repeat it was always unconstitutional correctly , one reason being - it is devious to try and suggest a limit to its remit where one does not exist

• 
  The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

You’re trying to argue that clause .... “ was limited to offices "under" the uS, ie federal offices, not state ones.....
ALL bound by oath to support the Constitution, judicial and state legislatures, but you think that means only federal. Both of the United States and of the several states is somehow supposed to mean only the executive legislative and judicial branches of the federal government.
Shit Brilliant argument you got there. Who are you trying to kid with that apart from yourself?

Furthermore there was no dancing around by the Supreme Court. They used The First quite satisfactorily. It is a denotative ruling in line with the Constitution. .

You're a sore loser that's all. Religious pride getting in the way of sound reasoning. Nothing new there.

So by all means , don't let the facts get in the way of your boredom. I doubt anyone gives a flying f*k anyway whether you are finished with the thread or not as you can always slink off somewhere else to be a pompous jackass.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Several comments here to the effect that if a majority of workers (in a plant? a company? an industry?), want to take their own holiday in lieu of an official one, it's not a big deal. I wonder. What if the workers wanted to take off Robert E. Lee's birthday in lieu of the official MLK holiday? No problem?

Common holidays are part of the glue that holds a society together, along with common language, religion and history. Lose that and pretty soon you begin to lose the concept of a country. I know that plenty of mulitculturalists think that would not be a bad result, but history teaches us differently.

Look around the world and you see that the most chaotic countries tend to lack a strong national identity. That leads to a host of problems, eg corruption, tribalism, factionalism, separatist movements. The most stable countries, like Switzerland, Japan, the Nordic countries, Singapore, are the exact opposite.

Multiculturalism only works if everyone is dedicated to the common good; in the West, multiculturalism consists of factions fighing one another for priviledge. Western nations are losing their semse of identity and along with that their sense of purpose in being nations and their most fundamental beliefs in the implications of nationhood (eg. democracy vs dictatorship).

While the titularly democratic West is weakening in its resolve other cultures are growing stronger. For all its military hardware, the U.S. is rapidly losing its power to defend its people from the incursions of anti-democratic influences, including religious fundamentalism and runaway capitalism.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from stu:

If you want to quote case law, go do some homework first. Plessy v. Ferguson was to do with segregation not slavery.

I repeat it was always unconstitutional correctly , one reason being - it is devious to try and suggest a limit to its remit where one does not exist

• 
  The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

You’re trying to argue that clause .... “ was limited to offices "under" the uS, ie federal offices, not state ones.....
ALL bound by oath to support the Constitution, judicial and state legislatures, but you think that means only federal. Both of the United States and of the several states is somehow supposed to mean only the executive legislative and judicial branches of the federal government.
Shit Brilliant argument you got there. Who are you trying to kid with that apart from yourself?

Furthermore there was no dancing around by the Supreme Court. They used The First quite satisfactorily. It is a denotative ruling in line with the Constitution. .

You're a sore loser that's all. Religious pride getting in the way of sound reasoning. Nothing new there.

So by all means , don't let the facts get in the way of your boredom. I doubt anyone gives a flying f*k anyway whether you are finished with the thread or not as you can always slink off somewhere else to be a pompous jackass.

This is a big day for you. You are actually right about one thing. I meant Dred Scott case, not Plessy.

Otherwise, you're still batting .000. Yes, of course the difference in the two phrases you quote is determinative. Why else would they separate them out and include the states in the oath clause but limit the religious test clause to federal offices?

As for the Supreme Court, clearly they were overreaching when they ignored consistent practice since the Constitution was ratified, ignored consistent practice since the First Amendment was ratified and ignored consistent practice since the 14th Amendment was ratified, and miraculously discovered that the First Amendment barred religious tests for state offices. That pretty much is the definition of judicial activism.

Hope that clears it up for you and you have learned something from this thread.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Hansel H:

Multiculturalism only works if everyone is dedicated to the common good; in the West, multiculturalism consists of factions fighing one another for priviledge. Western nations are losing their semse of identity and along with that their sense of purpose in being nations and their most fundamental beliefs in the implications of nationhood (eg. democracy vs dictatorship).

While the titularly democratic West is weakening in its resolve other cultures are growing stronger. For all its military hardware, the U.S. is rapidly losing its power to defend its people from the incursions of anti-democratic influences, including religious fundamentalism and runaway capitalism.

We have been indoctrinated that it is somehow shameful and immoral to defend the culture that produced our country. We actually debate whether or not we have a right to enforce our immigration laws. Both presidential candidates seemingly take the position that we should not.

Islam is insidious because it poses as a religion but uses our tolerance to advance a repressive political/social agenda. Islam is profoundly undemocratic. Its edicts are neither debatable nor negotiable to true believers. Every demand that is granted becomes the floor for future concessions. Publishers are already deathly afraid to publish books critical of any aspect of islam.

It is supremely ironic to me that the same liberals who reflexively support the ACLU's jihad against Christianity largely side with muslims in their demands. While they are trying to undermine Christianity, they support the spread of a faith that oppresses women, bans abortion, mandates the death penalty for homosexuality and has zero tolerance for free speech. All in the name of tolerance ironically.

 

[stu]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

This is a big day for you. You are actually right about one thing. I meant Dred Scott case, not Plessy.

Otherwise, you're still batting .000. Yes, of course the difference in the two phrases you quote is determinative. Why else would they separate them out and include the states in the oath clause but limit the religious test clause to federal offices?

As for the Supreme Court, clearly they were overreaching when they ignored consistent practice since the Constitution was ratified, ignored consistent practice since the First Amendment was ratified and ignored consistent practice since the 14th Amendment was ratified, and miraculously discovered that the First Amendment barred religious tests for state offices. That pretty much is the definition of judicial activism.

Hope that clears it up for you and you have learned something from this thread.

Well one thing's for sure with two mistakes under your belt which you've now acknowledged , by putting my batting score at 0, your talent as a referee looks piss poor as well as your argument .

Since when did you think that a semicolon would separate anything out ? The Clause and its terms are inextricably connected with one of these ; than any other punctuation the English language provides.
It boils down to this .. Senators and representatives, members of the several state legislatures all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states; .. no religious test ever...

An argument which says something was not wrong nor unconstitutional because it was either common or consistent practice is just plain redundant.
It's already been said , slavery was common practice , so clearly more to do with the question of belated Constitutional Amendments and overdue Supreme Court ruling than any activism. However, unlike slavery -no religious test- was always in the Constitution and therefore ipso facto always unconstitutional to act contrarily .

It's just plain silly at best to say the Supreme Court is activist because it is tardy in getting to grips with bad practices. Especially those practices being undertaken by a nation which some are proud to consider was built on Christian moral standards like slavery and theocratic leanings toward religious tests.

You know, the same sort of tests any Islamic nation requires its state offices and their representatives to hold. The main idea upholding the Constitution, is that it is not destroyed by those who would willingly surrender into a mess of theocracy for the chance of enforcing their personal beliefs . Like fundamentalist evangelical Christianity for instance.

Keeping ALL religion out of ALL government IS the defense of American culture. It frees democracy . Unconstitutional concessions to any religion , Christianity or Islam or whatever, is what is profoundly undemocratic.

 

[smilingsynic]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

they support the spread of a faith that oppresses women, bans abortion, mandates the death penalty for homosexuality and has zero tolerance for free speech. All in the name of tolerance ironically.

Actually, this would be a fine description of Christianity, at least historically. Thank
God for the Enlightenment.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

How long before the religious police chase us off the streets for the five daily calls to prayer like they do in Saudi Arabia?

**********************************

Plant Drops Labor Day For Muslim Holiday
More Than Half Of Tyson Plant's Workforce Muslim


SHELBYVILLE, Tenn. -- Some workers at a local plant will no longer to be able to take their Labor Day holiday because of religious reasons.


Workers at the Tyson Foods poultry processing plant in Shelbyville will no longer have a paid day off on Labor Day but will instead be granted the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr.

According to a news release from the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, a new five-year contract at the plant included the change to accommodate Muslim workers at the plant.

Tyson's director of media relations Gary Mickelson said the contract includes eight paid holidays -- the same number as the old contract.

Eid al-Fitr -- which falls on Oct. 1 this year -- marks the end of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.

Union leaders said implementing the holiday was important for the nearly 700 Muslims, many of them Somalis, who work at the plant that employs a total of 1,200 people.

Nineteen-year plant veteran William Pentecost doesn’t agree with the decision.

"I don’t think it's right. I really don't think it's right," he said.

Tyson company spokeswoman Libby Lawson said by phone that, "This isn't a religious accommodation, this is a contractual agreement. The majority asked for it."

The change didn’t bother some workers.

"I think it's fine. I don’t have any problem with it. There's a whole bunch of them here, so they've got to do something for them," said worker John Smith.

"It shouldn't happen. I mean, I think, we're in America, you're in America, I think that they should go with our holidays," Pentecost said.

Channel 4's Cynthia Williams could not reach any of the plant’s Muslim workers, because Channel 4 News' crew was not permitted on the property.

Former employee and Shelbyville resident Anthony Proctor said he thinks what's happening is wrong.

He said he helped build a special Muslim prayer room that's located inside the plant and that no other Tyson facility has been that accommodating for any other religion.

"If we want to go pray, we don’t have one for Christians," he said.

Tyson is headquartered in Arkansas.

Lawson said they consider religious accommodations on a case-by-case basis. She said that so far, no one has asked for any other type of religious prayer room.

No one at the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union’s regional office answered phone calls placed by Williams on Friday.

A representative in New York said that no one there knew specifics about the new contract with the workers, but a person in research told Williams that holidays aren't usually replaced and are more likely to be added on.

The decision will only apply to workers at the plant who are union members. All other employees at the plant will still have their normal Labor Day holiday.

==========================
Hadn't heard that one [live in TN];
but knew Tyson has been sued lots for improper chicken waste/fertilizer disposal.LOL

 

[bigdavediode]

This is my favorite thread. Xenophobic Republicans attacking a decision of the majority
because they're outraged that a plant has gotten rid of a holiday instituted by labor unions and socialists that was achieved via a general strike.

My irony meter just exploded.

 

[jem]

Quote from bigdavediode:

This is my favorite thread. Xenophobic Republicans attacking a decision of the majority
because they're outraged that a plant has gotten rid of a holiday instituted by labor unions and socialists that was achieved via a general strike.

My irony meter just exploded.

It must especially ironic to you that a conservative supported the will of the majority even though he is concerned that liberal policies are ruining our culture. Oh wait - that normal for a real conservative.