There are a bevy of rights in the real world, sometimes they conflict but thankfully commonsense usually wins and in the case of the prison guard I would think the carrying of a dagger would be exempt under religious discrimination in the interests of safety. There would be few religious people that would disagree.

If a person under his religious beliefs was not allowed to work with women then perhaps he needs to rethink his choice of residence and respect the laws and freedoms of his chosen country or he could seek work in an all-male field (there might be some left). Laws are made to protect all people and protecting a religious right does not imply ignoring all other rights or 'rules' to ensure religion first place in that priority.

How does wearing a burqa infringe your rights (excepting the usual security scenarios) for example? Forcing of the wearing of the burqa is a different thing and in breach of a women's right, but voluntary?

If a religion required wives to whip their husbands, clearly that is a breach of his rights, which most would agree overrides those religious rights or practices.

The law is not perfect but most would have faith in being able to judge based on reason and rationality in these sorts of cases no matter how you spin it.

Sorry Pericles.. I kinda summarized Shaw's point in modern terms.

He speaks about the man faced with natural resources and life without any guidance other than "Opportunity"... he shows how people tend to exploit this for the benefit of 'the winners'..his gambling thing was referring to that process.... his primary thought was about how wealth is acquired by individuals for their own interests.

But let's not waste a lot of time on that here..
The point of including something from Shaws writings was to link the present back to the fundamental idea of "An Agency which has the POWER and 'good will' to distribute things justly"

THAT concept has carried through into Political Correctness and the work of the socialist social theorists who have infected academia in an almost terminal way.

The Equal employment commissars are very much wearing Grandma's clothes when they speak of 'equal' and 'just'.

Now..PELLY.. you say:

The law is not perfect but most would have faith in being able to judge based on reason and rationality in these sorts of cases no matter how you spin it.

Reason says "No one can wear a weapon in a prison" Agree ?

Here is the case in point which is the focus of this topic.

http://www.suntimes.com/photos/galleries/2831921-418/district-khan-muslim-teacher-hajj.html

Now.. the important point re the Civil Rights Act is that the complainant must demonstrate some employment related disadvantage as a result of the alleged discrimination.

The facts of this case are as follows:

1/ The HAJ is a rite which only has to be performed ONCE in a LIFEtime. (any time)

2/ The woman was not sacked...she quit.

3/ The woman claimed discrimination..... how is this possible in the light of fact 1?

FINAL POINT. Given the very flimsy case the woman has, it shows and confirms my long 'ranted' point that minorities will seek to bend, extend and change the law to suit the interests of their own community to the detriment of the host society.

ie.. MultiCulturalism AS PRACTICED and UNDERSTOOD by minorities is dangerous and harmful to our society.

Once again, Boaz, you are absolutely, precisely and categorically... wrong.

>>THAT concept has carried through into Political Correctness and the work of the socialist social theorists who have infected academia in an almost terminal way. The Equal employment commissars are very much wearing Grandma's clothes when they speak of 'equal' and 'just'.<<

Political correctness is a thoroughly modern concept. Grandma would be dumbfounded at some of the present day practices. And it has no connection at all with Fabianism, however hard you try to squint.

There is also absolutely no comparison, whatsoever, with what the equal employment commissars (whoever they may be) consider today as equality and justice, and those same concepts in prior generations.

Certainly not back in good ol' GBS' day.

A long bow, Boaz. A very long bow indeed.

It just snapped.

As for the example you gave, that's also rather threadbare.

Unpaid leave, denied, on the basis that it was "not related to her professional duties"... yeah, right.

Since when has the granting of unpaid leave been dependent upon its relationship to the job?

Sounds much more like petty vindictiveness to me. It will be interesting to see what is presented in evidence, when it gets to court.

>>...it shows and confirms my long 'ranted' point that minorities will seek to bend, extend and change the law to suit the interests of their own community to the detriment of the host society.<<

Sorry - who is doing the bending here?

The suit is being presented by... The U.S. Department of Justice.

Presumably, they are of the opinion that it is the school district that is bending the rules on what does and does not constitute reasonable granting of unpaid leave.

Take another look at it, Boaz.

Without your Glenn Beck glasses on, this time.

Am I the only one here who finds this
obsession with some kind of persistent
Fabian socialist uber-conspiracy theory
rather weird? Tangled up as it is in a
confusing web of other weirdness about gays
and Muslims, among others.

Why is this nonsense considered worthy of
repetitive 'discussion'?

Why is this nonsense considered worthy of
repetitive 'discussion'?
Posted by talisman, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 9:44:10 PM

Its not...........:) This is Al,s way of getting off on him self:)

BLUE

Dear Pericles
your viewpoint is always of high value, because it illustrates part of the problem.

Now.. the connection here with Fabianism is actually quite mild if at all, but the 'wolf in sheeps clothing' aspect of Fabian origins does help to make the point in my view.

The stronger connection by far is with the Frankfurt school of social theorists.

In the early 60s, these "post" Marxist socialist academics, looked for a surrogate for the working classes as the object of their revolutionary zeal. i.e..they recognized (as you do in spades) that the chance of stirring up the "oppressed working classes" into violent revolt against 'evil' capitalist regimes, was buckleys and none.

This didn't cause them to lose interest or heart about what they felt was 'appropriate' for how a fair and just society should work.

So they changed their focus to all manner of 'oppression' and inequality, and ended up with

-The environment
-Gay rights
-MultiCulturalism (Minority rights/affirmative action)
-Destroying national borders/sovereignty of states.
-Animal rights

In other words, they shifted from ECONOMIC to CULTURAL revolution.

If you look at the writings of Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse,Gregory Lukacz and Jurgen Habermas, this will become clear.

Now..to the case in point of the Muslim woman demanding time off for the Haj.

You seem to have missed the point about the Haj being a "once in a lifetime" requirement and thus I put the shoe on the other foot of this woman simply seeking to find an 'issue' over which she can '
a) Assert her religion.
b) Make a lot of cash with a lawsuit.

If there is no religious obligation to take time off for that purpose 'then'.....the school is quite within it's rights to deny it.

The contract between the Teachers Union and the School board provides up to 3 days for 'religious holidays' and also 3 days for 'pressing personal business' but NO provision for 3 weeks for a religious act which is not an obligation