You would think police officers would be keen to attend Law Enforcement Appreciation Day.

Sure, if that were the agenda and not merely the name.  Regretfully, it was not, hence the officer's  reluctance to volunteer which resulted in the leadership decision to unlawfully order their attendance.

It was an opportunity for officers to learn about Muslim beliefs and practices.

Absolutely!  But it's not about the value of the agenda.  It should have been their choice to decline if attending conflicted with their religious beliefs.  Or are some religious beliefs more worthy of protection than others?

If the officer was Muslim, would you be equally in favor of ordering him to attend a similar event at a synagogue despite his objection on religious grounds?  Personally, I would not feel threatened by attending.  But the Libertarian in me is convinced that attendance should be a matter of personal choice, not state ordered and enforced with negative personnel actions. 

I do have to admit that when I was in the academy in the early 90's, we had a couple hours of orientation to Wiccans.  It was not optional either. I never felt threatened by their beliefs or inspired to participate in ritual animal sacrifice.  But looking back, we should have had the option to decline.

I have been reluctant to enter a church for the past 40 years for fear that the pews would burst into flame as I entered.  I do not wish to be an arsonist.

LOL.  I think you might be surprised just how fire resistent those pews really are.  They survived my return!

I had to search a bit to find the other side of the story. 

http://www.istulsa.org/

Islamic Society of Tulsa - Law Enforcement Appreciation Day

During the past five months The Islamic Society of Tulsa worked closely with Tulsa Police and other local law enforcement in response to a serious threat to our community and congregation. In response to the countless hours, meetings, phone calls, emails and support from local law enforcement, the Islamic Society of Tulsa (IST) chose to host a Law Enforcement Appreciation Day. IST has hosted law enforcement appreciation days in the past with excellent feedback and formed relationships with law enforcement to help make our community a safer environment for all Tulsans.

~~~~

"FOX23’s Abbie Alford obtained a memo from Deputy Chief Daryl Webster to Captain Paul Fields that states when there are not enough officers to voluntarily attend community events like this then officers would be assigned.

“Since you are not required to participate or assist in any religious observance, make any expression of belief, or adopt any belief system, this meeting is a secular law enforcement function that happens to take place at a venue associated with a religious belief,” says Webster. “Were we to pick and choose which belief systems we would associate ourselves with as an agency or which religious venues we would enter for secular or ceremonial purposes and which we would not, then I believe there would be an issue of disparate treatment that would reflect dishonor upon us all and possibly subject the Police Department to liability.

http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/TPD-Captain-Files-Suit-After-Refusing-To-Attend/_8-lo2TL7keXWu6DOAtakw.cspx

I see the Tulsa case has been taken up by a law firm with an anti-Muslim agenda.

The Thomas More Law Center is a not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life.

Their argument is against the state compelling someone to attend an event which is in conflict with their religious convictions.   This is about state power over individual choice. 

"The lawsuit and others from this center are about promoting a mindset that Christians are being victimized..."

I disagree.  It is Civil liberties which are being victimized.  The same argument applies no matter what the individual's religion or no religion at all.  The state has no business supporting an event promoting any religion or infringing on individual choice of religion.

In the UK we have a similar outfit to the Thomas More Law Center, the Christian Institute. They fund cases on behalf of Christian 'martyrs' who are being prevented from discriminating against homosexuals or whose employers don't allow them to display crosses. They take on very flimsy cases and seem to lose every time. The objective appears to be getting stories into the media to create an impression of Christianity under threat rather than a concern for the 'martyrs'.

While both cases deal with religious freedom, I think there is a fundamental difference between your examples in the UK and this one in the US.  Being compelled by the state to do something affirmatively in violation of one's faith is more serious than an employer setting dress and appearance standards in the workplace.   I am unaware of any Christian faith tradition that compels believer to wear a cross.  That is a personal expression of one's faith; they are not compelled by their faith to make that expression.  Would this same orgaization in the UK defend an observant Jew denied the right to wear a yamulka which is compelled by his faith tradition?  More importantly, what is constitutional basis for the challenge? Likely that is the missing link which causes UK challenges to fail.

I think the US case goes to the heart of the civil rights defense and includes examples such as health care workers compelled by the state to perform or participate in abortions in violation of their faith. The deciding factor is not the specific expression of faith, but the state's infringement of their rights guaranteed under the constitution.

Your offering of "discrimination against homosexuals" is too broad to comment upon without you providing an example.  But I would offer that one example of legitimate objection might be a transvestite or a homosexual activist teacher refused employment in a parochial school where the religious values are a fundamental part of the curriculum.  You cannot advocate for an employer's right to set appropriate workplace standards (i.e., banning the wear of crosses in one venue), without supporting the school's rights to also set workplace standards consistent with the school's curriculum.

I disagree.  It is Civil liberties which are being victimized.  The same argument applies no matter what the individual's religion or no religion at all.  The state has no business supporting an event promoting any religion or infringing on individual choice of religion. Iron Mike

That's not what happened.

Webster stated in his memo, “There is no distinction between performing our lawful duties in a reactive manner (call response) and doing so in a proactive manner (community outreach).  Both are policing responsibilities and both are essential to our mission,” says Webster.

 “I must take exception to your expression that requiring attendance at a community outreach event is unlawful,” says Webster. “Personnel attending the Islamic Society’s Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, whether voluntarily or on detail, do so as representatives of the Police Department in a community policing program, on duty and as a part of their duties. 

As with any other community outreach event, they are not required to participate in any religious ceremony, make any profession of faith, or express opinions on or sympathy with any religious belief system. 

They are simply expected to meet with members of the public who have expressed a desire to meet with them at a place of lawful assembly.

Since you are not required to participate or assist in any religious observance, make any expression of belief, or adopt any belief system, this meeting is a secular law enforcement function that happens to take place at a venue associated with a religious belief.”

It's a bogus lawsuit playing to the lunatic crowd that believes that Obama is a secret Muslim, secretly trying to "Islamize" this country. (and worse)

I understand your argument, but there are certainly contradictions about statements characterizing the nature of the event and whether this was part of the city's community outreach.

The day "had nothing to do with any official police function. It clearly fell outside of the police department's policy on community policing, and based on comments made by police department officials in a closed door meeting, it was not 'community outreach' as it has been previously portrayed," the law firm explained.

No other religions were included as part of this alleged "community outreach."  Surely, the community is more diverse than just Muslim.

Since you are not required to participate or assist in any religious observance, make any expression of belief, or adopt any belief system, this meeting is a secular law enforcement function that happens to take place at a venue associated with a religious belief.”

But the quote above is completely irrelevant.  It's not whether the state is requiring the officer's participation in an observance or make any expression of belief.  It is being forced to endure Islamic recruiting which offends the officer's faith tradition and the state does not have the right to compel his participation in the event.   Perhaps you would be just as supportive of a Jewish officer required to participate in a community outreach to farmers and their annual pig-roast?  Doesn't matter if he is required to eat or not; what matters whether merely being in the presence of roast pork is religiously offensive to him.  If it is, then compelling him to violate his personal conscience is illegal.

Hey--I don't know or care about any of the conspiracies or hidden agendas that you find behind all this.    There is no evidence to support your speculation.   And if you find some, I'd like to see it. 

But there is certainly no speculation about the agenda that is right out in the open and that is the state's authority to infringe on constitutional civil rights.  Within the scope the civil rights argument alone, the state's case has no merit.  

This is the kind of case that the Christian Institute takes up; this was yet another that they lost. Essentially, these hotel-keepers are against 'vice', particularly homosexuality. Since discrimination against homosexuals is illegal, the legal team had to pretend that they stopped any unmarried couple from sharing a bed in their establishment. Since same-sex couples cannot be legally married this was a strategy to discriminate against homosexuals under cover of a general morality clause. Of course, if they actually did checks into the marital status of every couple and patrolled the corridors at night to ensure nothing improper was going on, the business would collapse.

The Christian owners of a Cornish guesthouse which restricts double rooms to married couples are embroiled in a battle over their policy.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, the owners of the Chymorvah hotel in Cornwall, were taken to court by a homosexual couple.

 

http://tinyurl.com/3o4fm5g 

No other religions were included as part of this alleged "community outreach." Surely, the community is more diverse than just Muslim.

If the event (law enforcement appreciation day) was for the purpose of "Islamic recruiting", why would the Muslim community in Tulsa invite only law enforcement?? Why would any community choose to reach out to others by way of law enforcement? Thats what you were saying, right? Or is it that you thought Tulsa police was supposed to invite reps from other religions.

"Perhaps you would be just as supportive of a Jewish officer required to participate in a community outreach to farmers and their annual pig-roast? Doesn't matter if he is required to eat or not; what matters whether merely being in the presence of roast pork is religiously offensive to him. If it is, then compelling him to violate his personal conscience is illegal." Iron Mike

Why Jewish? Of course I would be just as supportive. Interesting that you would compare going to a mosque to being in the presence of roast pork, though.

If the American military was being honored by Muslims for working with them in a Middle Eastern country to address threats to a mosque but no soldiers wanted to go, what do you think should happen? Is it illegal to "compel" a soldier to violate their personal conscience?

The state is secular. If you want to function as an employee of the state then you can leave your touchy-feely issues about religion at home or get a another job.

If the event (law enforcement appreciation day) was for the purpose of "Islamic recruiting", why would the Muslim community in Tulsa invite only law enforcement?? Why would any community choose to reach out to others by way of law enforcement?

I'm not prone to conspiracy theories, but given the fact that sponsoring mosque has ties to Muslim Brotherhood whose published agenda includes propogation of Sharia Law, it does make sense for them to prep the legal environment to be receptive to Sharia by targeting law enforcement for recruiting.

Or is it that you thought Tulsa police was supposed to invite reps from other religions.

No, I mean that Tulsa police have not compelled officers to participate in events sponsored by other religions. It might be because there were sufficient volunteers to make an order unnecessary. But it does create the perception of favoritism to a single religion...Islam.  Singling out a particular religion for favorable treatment is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

Is it illegal to "compel" a soldier to violate their personal conscience?

Actually no, it is not legal and might well be considered an illegal order punishable under the UCMJ. 

 Interesting that you would compare going to a mosque to being in the presence of roast pork, though.

It was not compared, it was contrasted using a different faith tradition, but the same moral and legal dilemma.

The state is secular. If you want to function as an employee of the state then you can leave your touchy-feely issues about religion at home or get a another job.

First, with the exception of military, state employees do not abdicate their civil rights as a condition of employment.  (There are some limitations to free speech that are inherent in military service.)  Second,  the "job" at issue here is law enforcement, not public relations.  Compelling employees to perform duties outside the scope of employment, especially outside duties which violates their conscience, also violates their rights.

So I gather you would tell that Jewish officer to enjoy his ham sandwhich and avoid offending community farmers or get another job.  I'm shocked!  J/K

the "job" at issue here is law enforcement, not public relations. Iron Mike

Yeah, no kidding!

Mike, you've said that moderate Muslims need to reclaim their religion from the extremists, yet you've talked extensively here about how you believe Islam supports terrorism.You have also supported engagement with Pakistan for security reasons. You said, " like Democracy in the Middle East? thank Bush", indicating your support for and belief in  Bush policies. Our involvement was supposed to make everyone more secure.

Now when law enforcement works with Muslims in our country to help address threat(s) made to their mosque and Muslims there have a Law Enforcement Appreciation Day,  inviting them into their mosque even for this (an opportunity for both sides) you side with a lawsuit that attempts to color the event as the Tulsa police now being a part of a conspiracy (call it whatever you like) to overthrow Christian values (or whatever the exact complaint is) and bring on the Sharia. I wonder what this politically motivated lawsuit does for the credibility of the Tulsa police department or the safety of the Muslims that go to that mosque.

Without politics and considering what you've argued for here in the past, it doesn't make sense that you would support the lawsuit.How about: law enforcement doesn't hate Muslims, or  "no,  American Muslims are not in fear of Law Enforcement in this country.. Why instead is there "no speculation about the agenda that is right out in the open and that is the state's authority to infringe on constitutional civil rights" along with your belief that Muslims could be trying to "recruit" through law enforcement

So I gather you would tell that Jewish officer to enjoy his ham sandwhich and avoid offending community farmers or get another job.  I'm shocked!  J/K

Are you trying to ask me if I'm Jewish or have you already decided that I am.

Let's take the last first.  I was not asking and nor would it make a difference to me whether you were Jewish or not.  My facetious remark whether you would compel a Jewish officer to violate his conscience in order to appease the community he serves is still an issue of civil rights, not religion.  It's not so different from the lawsuit. 

I wonder what this politically motivated lawsuit does for the credibility of the Tulsa police department or the safety of the Muslims that go to that mosque.

So not only is he wrong for failing to abdicate his first ammendment rights, he must also relinquish his 14th ammendment rights to due process as well?  Any other rights he must give up as a condition of employment by the state?  If so, they should have been right up front in the employment application so he could have made an informed decision whether to work there or not.

The fact remains that an officer was disciplined for refusing to violate his conscience on a matter not related to job description.  My argument was and continues to be one of civil liberties and the limitations of state authority, not religion, not conspiracies, not hidden agendas.  In fact, I barely have time to address the visible agendas and no time to address the hidden ones that you allege are there.

My argument was and continues to be one of civil liberties and the limitations of state authority, not religion, not conspiracies, not hidden agendas. In fact, I barely have time to address the visible agendas and no time to address the hidden ones that you allege are there.

Your argument is political. The lawsuit is political. You are inconsistent, Republicans are inconsistent. That is what my post is pointing out.

And no, I am not Jewish. I certainly wouldn't be ashamed to admit it if I was.

Have a nice day.

Your argument is political. The lawsuit is political. You are inconsistent, Republicans are inconsistent. That is what my post is pointing out

You cobbled together threads of many arguments out of context to create a strawman that I am just not buying into. My argument is entirely consistent because it has been solely about state infringement on individual civil rights.  My argument is about the law and the political ideology that seeks to undermine it.  

Your ideology is what seeks to undermine law. You are pretending that Christians are victims in this country to try to gain support for an extremist candidate in office (like Michele Bachman) so we can learn what real state infringement on individual rights civil rights are.

What happened with Law Enforcement Appreciation was a positive event for the people of Tulsa.  Security is important, don't you think so? What kind of work can the Tulsa police do with that Islamic center now with the looney Right Wing thinking that they're being recruited into Islam, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood?Give me a break!

Why don't you get your law center to sue the military? They do spend a lot of time with Muslims over there. Who knows whats happening. argh

My ideology of protecting civil liberties is undermining the law?  Seems rather contradictory to me.  You still cannot conceive this is not about Christianity or Islam.  Consider that I have no problem with the event itself.  I even agree with you that it might well promote a better understanding of Islam and while the mosque might have their own agenda to recruit, no one is being forced to convert.   Had this been attended by volunteers, this would not even be a story.  The TPD crossed the line when they forced employees to attend the event in violation of their faith tradition. 

"You still cannot conceive this is not about Christianity or Islam." Mike

Gee Mike, have you read your posts?

Have you read the title of this thread?

You are one well oiled political machine.You're full of it and you know it

I have read my posts.  The question is, have you?  If you read with a discerning mind, you would see a Libertarian consistency in my arguments.  For instance, you focus in "Islam" in the title of the thread, when the real focus is on "political correctness."    You could easily substitute "climate change" or "diet" and the point remains the same--the state exceeding it's authority under the constitution.

You are pretending that Christians are victims in this country to try to gain support for an extremist candidate in office (like Michele Bachman) so we can learn what real state infringement on individual rights civil rights are.

Really?  Then perhaps you can back that up with a few policy examples advocated by Bachman that would create state infringement on individual civil rights?   Can you name any unconstitutional policy position of Bachman?  Or is this just more fear mongering?  This is no different than the foolish hysteria of the sixties that JFK would be unduly influenced by the Vatican, just because he was Catholic. 

Bachman's faith, like Perry's is their personal choice and contributes to the formation of guiding values for their decisions, along with other factors like the law, their education and personal experience.  While faith contributes to shaping their world view, there is no evidence they would (or could) implement any faith-based policy in violation of the constitution.   

For instance, you focus in "Islam" in the title of the thread, when the real focus is on "political correctness."  Iron Mike

The real focus of the Thomas More Law Center is on Islam.  Since they cannot make that the basis for a legal case they use civil liberties as a (transparent) mask for their 'Christian' agenda.

The real focus of the Thomas More Law Center is on Islam.

If by that you mean their focus is the prevention of Islamic infringement on the practice of Christian faith and corruption of our legal system with Sharia law, then you are correct.  Those are issues of  religious freedom and due process and thus appropriate individual civil/constitutional liberty issues for legal challenge.  That is their "Christian agenda" which you and Candace find so ominous.  

BTW, they have also taken on cases challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare.  Nothing illegal about that either.  Does that send a shiver up your spine as well?  Evil Christians using lawful and peaceful means to advocate their values in the marketplace of ideas.  Ooooo how scary!  Exactly what evil is in this imaginary "Christian agenda" which they advocate and you find so personally threatening? 

Since they cannot make that the basis for a legal case they use civil liberties as a (transparent) mask for their 'Christian' agenda.

I guess you missed the basis for their legal case is the fact that religious freedom is a civil liberty.  Yes, this is consistent with their Christian agenda; there's nothing unlawful or sinister in that.  Just not sure why legal challenges provoke your opposition.  I do find Liberal support of Islam and fear of the Christian bogeyman rather mystifying.

The agenda which should spark your concern is at the mosque and why the state is supporting rather than investigating it.

"...the Law Enforcement Appreciation event was held just five days after the Tulsa mosque hosted a dinner featuring Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing." 

I guess you missed the basis for their legal case is the fact that religious freedom is a civil liberty. IM

As a legal ploy, claiming that cops are being denied religious freedom by being given an opportunity to meet Muslim citizens and learn about their religion, is very feeble. An argument might be made under employment law that officers can' t be ordered to learn anything they don't want to know.  That would be a question of what's in their contracts.

As a legal ploy, claiming that cops are being denied religious freedom by being given an opportunity to meet Muslim citizens and learn about their religion, is very feeble.

I've always considered our constitutional liberties and our access to the courts for relief to be much more than a ploy.  It's our right to seek redress when the state's "opportunity to meet" turns into the state's "order to comply."  I'm surprised you don't see the distinction. 

Respect for another's religion is never feeble, whether that be Islam, Christianity, or Liberal secular humanism.  But there is a limit to respect and that limit is the constitution.

If by that you mean their focus is the prevention of Islamic infringement on the practice of Christian faith and corruption of our legal system with Sharia law, Iron Mike

That sounds like something from the Onion! What a freak show Republicans have become.

I do find Liberal support of Islam and fear of the Christian bogeyman rather mystifying.

Are you trying to say that the Christian majority is being treated unfairly by a minority or part of the majority?

What could you possibly be thinking or trying to get people to believe...?  Is it that the people who are against merging religion with politics really wanting Islam to take over? Or is it that because some people don't want one religion to dominate and oppress another (the Islamic bogeyman you're obsessed with) you believe this country will become helplessly Islamic?

We'll lose in the 'spiritual warfare' that you believe is currently going on? Is that what you're afraid of?

"The agenda which should spark your concern is at the mosque and why the state is supporting rather than investigating it." ". IM

..the Law Enforcement Appreciation event was held just five days after the Tulsa mosque hosted a dinner featuring Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."

How do you know they weren't investigating it?

How do you know they weren't investigating it?

I don't.  But it is likely that if the mosque were under investigation, large numbers of investigating officers would not have been assigned by requesting volunteers.  Hmmm. That's a real stretch.  But you get an "A" for effort.

No comment on the fact the mosque played host to someone linked to terrorism and affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood?  It's all just community out-reach.  Nothing to see here.  Just move along now....

I don't.  But it is likely that if the mosque were under investigation, large numbers of investigating officers would not have been assigned by requesting volunteers.  Hmmm. That's a real stretch.  But you get an "A" for effort.

Why is it important for law enforcement to build a positive relationship with any community.. especially if there's any problem(s) with them and/or against them? Why? Like you don't know.

Along with your MB fears, you know there were threats against that mosque. The Tulsa police had been working with Muslims from that mosque. What kind of investigative work can the Tulsa police do now with the popular belief if they go anywhere near the mosque they're really being recruited into Islam?

No comment on the fact the mosque played host to someone linked to terrorism and affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood?  It's all just community out-reach.  Nothing to see here.  Just move along now....Mike

Why shouldn't the police be involved with this mosque for that reason and more? .. but  of course, YOU of all people know that. With Obama in office we're supposed to think its a different story. You want people believe that the Tulsa police force is being manipulated by the state/Islam/pc forces (they're all the same, right?)and then let the chips fall (with all of the paranoid extremists Republicans court) where they may. You didn't actually say that the sky was falling, how can you help it if some freak believes it is? As long as you make points for your political team, you've done your job.

Why is it important for law enforcement to build a positive relationship with any community.. especially if there's any problem(s) with them and/or against them? Why? Like you don't know.

It absolutely is critical for law enforment to build positive relationships with any community.  And those relationships should be built with mutual respect to each other's faith tradition and entirely promoted by volunteers.

What kind of investigative work can the Tulsa police do now with the popular belief if they go anywhere near the mosque they're really being recruited into Islam?

There are no limits on undercover investigation and I'll bet there are plenty of volunteers.

As long as you make points for your political team, you've done your job.

Nope.  As long as I've defended the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, I've done my job.