- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Police captain punished for refusing to attend Muslim Brotherhood-linked mosque
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:20 pm to the808bass
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:20 pm to the808bass
quote:Meh. He sounds stupid. I don't really care when stupid people lose their jobs for being stupid.
No, I'm not. The issue isn't whether or not the police attend religiously affiliated events. The issue is whether or not it's a condition of employment.
Especially when they're allowed to carry guns and tell me what to do.
1
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:25 pm to FT
I agree to an extent. He sounds pretty provincial. But there's plenty of provincial liberals who might be atheists and I shouldn't think their rights should be subject to their intelligence quotient.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:26 pm to the808bass
quote:I agree.
I shouldn't think their rights should be subject to their intelligence quotient.
So call me when someone's rights are violated.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:28 pm to FT
quote:
So call me when someone's rights are violated.
If any other officer asked out of a religiously sponsored event and was allowed it, this cat's rights were violated.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:30 pm to Jay Quest
quote:
Doesn't seem like he could be forced to attend a religious service.
Who thought one could be forced to buy medical insurance?
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:40 pm to the808bass
quote:
And I think requiring a public servant to attend a religious service/church sponsored event as a condition of employment is ridiculous, no matter what religious organization is sponsoring.
Can I give this about 30 upvotes?
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:40 pm to the808bass
quote:That's not how it works.
If any other officer asked out of a religiously sponsored event and was allowed it, this cat's rights were violated.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:41 pm to FT
It should be how it works. That would actually be equitable.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:44 pm to the808bass
If someone asked to be let off because it was a religious event, and this guy wasn't, then maybe. But this was hardly a religious event. It was at a mosque and, during the event, prayers were going to be happening that they could go watch if they wanted.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:45 pm to FT
quote:
But this was hardly a religious event.
A BBQ at First Baptist with an voluntary altar call in the middle would not (and should not) be similarly characterized.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:48 pm to the808bass
Of course it should. Police and firefighters attend these types of events all the time. It's community outreach, and it's good for the departments. I'm sure they meet with the local Association for Retarded Citizens, Rotary Clubs, Masons, whoever, too.
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 5:52 pm
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:54 pm to cwill
quote:
Muslim Brotherhood-linked mosque
Do we have a link to that?
quote:
The city of Tulsa, Oklahoma, punished one of its own veteran police commanders for his refusal to attend a Muslim religious service being held at a mosque he said practiced radical Islamic dogma, according to court records.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:57 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 10/14/14 at 6:00 pm to the808bass
quote:I was responding to your challenge that other religious organizations would be treated the same way.
No, I'm not. The issue isn't whether or not the police attend religiously affiliated events. The issue is whether or not it's a condition of employment.
But if you want to change the subject, he wasn't required to go if he had a big objection to it. He could have picked 2 people out of the 30 under his command. He never even asked anyone if they could go. He just flat out refused the order.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 6:02 pm to FT
It doesn't matter. He still shouldn't have been fired for it. Even if it it's found that he disobeyed an order, this happens all the time. They fired a Captain- an employee with 20+ years of service that they saw fit to promote numerous times- for not attending a function. That's outrageous.
I work for the federal government and I'll be the first to admit it's almost impossible to get fired. If I blew off an order (provided it didn't result in someone's death or put anyone's life at risk), I'd probably get something between a letter of reprimand up to a five day suspension if I was a real dick about it.
The only reason this Captain got fired was because the Tulsa PD felt the need to bow down to politically correct pressure. They felt they had to show the general public that because this Captain had offended the Muslim faith, they needed to make an example out of him.
They should have punished him, gave him a reprimand or hit him with a few days off with no pay, then return him to duty. Everyone wins. The Captain makes his stand but loses several hundred dollars in lost wages and the brass get their punishment. Life goes on.
I work for the federal government and I'll be the first to admit it's almost impossible to get fired. If I blew off an order (provided it didn't result in someone's death or put anyone's life at risk), I'd probably get something between a letter of reprimand up to a five day suspension if I was a real dick about it.
The only reason this Captain got fired was because the Tulsa PD felt the need to bow down to politically correct pressure. They felt they had to show the general public that because this Captain had offended the Muslim faith, they needed to make an example out of him.
They should have punished him, gave him a reprimand or hit him with a few days off with no pay, then return him to duty. Everyone wins. The Captain makes his stand but loses several hundred dollars in lost wages and the brass get their punishment. Life goes on.
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 6:08 pm
Posted on 10/14/14 at 6:09 pm to FT
quote:
According to the Tulsa County Property Assessor, IST is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). Both ISNA and NAIT were named by the U.S. Justice Department, as recently as November 2008, as a party to the financing of millions of dollars to the terrorist organization Hamas.
In October 2006, a member of the mosque, Jamal Miftah, wrote an op-ed published by Tulsa World, denouncing al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and violence perpetrated in the name of Islam. For this, IST representatives labeled Miftah "anti-Muslim" and a "traitor to Islam" and threw him out of the Islamic center.
In June 2007, Miftah filed suit against the mosque, alleging that IST had been involved in "money laundering" and stating that the money could "ultimately be funneled to undesirable organizations for illegal activities." According to his court petition, he and IST "were not in agreement…with regard for the need to avoid funneling cash donations to organizations with close links to Jihadist terrorists."
Today, on the homepage of IST's website, one can see an announcement for a February 2011 event hosted by IST featuring Siraj Wahhaj, a U.S. government named "unindicted co-conspirator" for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and sponsored by ICNA Relief USA, a group that, like ISNA and NAIT, has been associated with funding Hamas.
LINK
Fwiw
Posted on 10/14/14 at 7:02 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:From Vegas Bengal's quote of the original ruling.
The quoted judges ruling from above makes no mention of any religious service. Where are you getting this from (besides the accusing officer)?
quote:
Paul Fields, a captain in the Tulsa, Oklahoma, police department, filed a civil- rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Tulsa; Charles Jordan, the Chief of Police; and Alvin Daryl Webster, the Deputy Chief of Police (collectively, Defendants). The suit challenged his punishment for objecting to an order requiring him either to attend or to order subordinates to attend a law-enforcement appreciation event hosted by the Islamic Society of Tulsa. (We refer to this order as the “Attendance Order.”) He claimed that the punishment violated the First Amendment prohibitions against impairing the rights of free exercise of religion and of association as well as the prohibition against the establishment of religion.
According to the OP a religious service was part of the planned event.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News