CNN reports that about 150 Muslims were fired from their jobs at a beef processing plant in Colorado for walking off the job to protest a workplace prayer dispute over how many Muslim workers are allowed to pray at the same time. "There are times where we have to sequence how many people are allowed to go [to pray] so that production is not slowed down," says Cargill spokesman Michael Martin adding that the company tried to work toward a solution with the workers, without success.
Ten days ago more than 200 workers walked off their jobs at Cargill Meat Solutions in Fort Morgan. Some workers later returned, but more than 100 of the Muslim employees who took part in the walkout, the majority of whom are of Somali heritage, have retained the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to represent them regarding their religious accommodation request and to work with Cargill to implement a workable policy that meets the needs of all parties. Although some circumstances surrounding the prayer dispute remain vague, Jaylani Hussein, a spokesman and executive director of the CAIR, says that a plant policy allowing short prayer breaks at various times during the day was changed, and Muslim workers were told to "go home" if they wanted to pray. "They feel missing their prayer is worse than losing their job," says Hussein. "It's like losing a blessing from God."
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2016, @10:28PM
from the what-would-YOU-do? dept.
For a Klondike bar?
...allahu snackbar!
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2016, @10:35PM
Convert the plant from beef to pork.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:40PM
I can see the heads of SJWs exploding just thinking about this comment. Well done, sir.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fnj on Sunday January 03 2016, @10:44PM
Pray on your own goddam time like everybody else. No special dispensations for weirdos.
I have no problem with them praying their asses off on their own time, of course.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2016, @10:50PM
When they're praying, they aren't blowing things up.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2016, @10:57PM
Thanks to Hobby Lobby, the government disagrees with you. The government must now prove it has a "compelling interest" in not granting people exceptions for religious practices.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2016, @11:08PM
And yes, that includes Muslims, there must be a "compelling interest" in not granting them exceptions for their religious practices the same way Christians get to blatantly ignore the law. Those Dominionist zealots are so stupid that they fail to comprehend that all those "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"s they keep passing apply to religions besides Christianity. The 14th amendment means the law must apply to everyone equally, no exceptions.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Sunday January 03 2016, @11:24PM
Of course, most of them will still refuse to comprehend it. They'll just see it as another example of Sharia law taking over America.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2016, @11:28PM
While at the same time forcing their Christian Sharia on everyone. Its disgusting.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @01:48AM
I knew that 5 prayer sessions are required daily of Muslims.
I looked up some specifics. [wikipedia.org]
- Fajr (pre-dawn)
- Dhuhr (midday)
- Asr (afternoon)
- Maghrib (sunset)
- Isha'a (night)
So,
1) there shouldn't be more that 2 instances in a typical 8-hour shift.
Now, how long can praying take?
Google cache [googleusercontent.com]
The text on the original page [yahoo.com] is a jumble for me until I remove the styling of the non-compliant HTML coding. [w3.org]
2) About 10 or 15 minutes.
Anything else involved that would eat up a lot of time?
3) Ritual washing [wikipedia.org]
150 people doing that at one time could be a real time killer.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:04AM
Actually, now that I have downloaded a browser that isn't literally shit, the website does render for me. Who knew?
Anyway, I'd just wanted to make a small update to the previous post by asking everyone to disregard the statements made therein, and I would furthermore like to inform all that I regularly perform fellatio on other men's throbbing members.
Or, in summary: Disregard that, I suck cocks.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday January 04 2016, @02:10AM
But it won't apply to everyone equally. What it means is that people with certain religions get special privileges. If you're an atheist or something, good luck getting those.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2016, @11:27PM
The government must now prove it has a "compelling interest" in not granting people exceptions for religious practices.
Well, as a Pastafarianist, I need all Wednesdays off to play video games. It's, uh, a religious holiday!
Actually, make that Wednesdays and Fridays. I need to train for the air hockey tournament.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday January 04 2016, @02:12AM
That's the problem. Things like this result in the government trying to determine which religions are True Religions, which is a blatant violation of the constitution. Furthermore, it results in religious people being given some new privileges over people who aren't religious. Religion should get no special treatment from the government whatsoever.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Monday January 04 2016, @01:19PM
The original meaning of freedom of religion was "freedom of belief". In other words, you couldn't be prosecuted for what you believe. In other words, no heretic trials.
Thomas Jefferson's letters to/from the Danbury Baptist Church are the origin of the phrase "separation of church and state". In the letters they discuss a fear of persecution for beliefs:
It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate...
To "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," wasn't about preventing religious people from being elected, so it wasn't about necessarily separating religious and governing hierarchies. And it wasn't about proving tax or military privileges to people of declared religious organizations: preventing people from having to act against their religious beliefs was the function of the 9th amendment and the entire structure of the US Constitution, by the enumeration of powers.
The real meaning of the freedom of religion was that no beliefs ever be prosecuted. Of course, even this limited meaning isn't terribly well enforced. Parole can be a function of beliefs (guilt vs defiance), and you can be kicked off a jury for believing in jury nullification.
But as you said, if Madison had known that his writing of the 1st amendment would result in the US Congress create a list of approved religions (quakers are exempt from military drafts, for instance) then I think he would have written it much more carefully.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Tuesday January 05 2016, @04:11AM
I was under the impression that it meant there was to be no state-sponsored church, a la Church of England or the Vatican.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Sunday January 03 2016, @11:03PM
Yup, same with cigarette breaks. Want to kill youself, fine, but do it outside of working hours.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Monday January 04 2016, @03:34AM
Is this sarcasm? Every smoking coworker in my office take smoking breaks *during* office hours at various times.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday January 04 2016, @11:28AM
<sarcasm>I'm never sarcastic
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday January 04 2016, @10:41PM
Failed to close tag, now we are all sarcastic.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @11:18PM
No end tag? Great. I love it when every comment is sarcastic!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Monday January 04 2016, @04:35AM
at a federal government department (not in the US) at which I used to work, some staff "ducked out" for a smoke, and while they were downstairs, had a coffee, then a second cigarette, then came back to the office.
Lucky if they worked 25 minutes in any hour.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @12:50PM
Which is still 25 minutes more than we've come to expect from civil serpents, isn't it?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2016, @11:19PM
If a bunch of Christians wanted special Jesus breaks at my office, I'd fire them so fast their crucifixes would be flapping in the wind.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday January 04 2016, @12:27AM
I modded this funny; it gave me a chuckle.
And I'm a fundamentalist Christian.
I believe you ought to be able to hire or fire whoever you want, for whatever reason. You don't like me, fire me. Unfortunately the "law" doesn't respect freedom, so it's probably not that easy. For the children, and all. Or something something blah blah racism.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Monday January 04 2016, @12:50AM
That works fine for you because you're a Christian. Christians are the main reason why those laws to prevent religious discrimination in the US exist. There just aren't enough people that practice other religions for it to be a real issue. Sure you could get fired by a Buddhist or a Jew for being Christian, but even today Christians account for over 70% of the population. It wasn't that long ago that the number would have been over 90%. Or at least 90% went to Church and claimed to be Christian for fear of discrimination.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday January 04 2016, @05:33AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @12:38PM
I think he meant that the law was not put to protect Christians, but to protect the rest (minorities including atheists/agnostics) from Christians and their discrimination. I met quite a few bible-thumbing idiots in my day, usually they are so fuckin dense it's unbelievable they make it through the day but they will be the first to tell you what a horrible person you are and what great people they are because of their love of Jesus Christ.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Tuesday January 05 2016, @04:41AM
Interestingly enough, the idea of Christians being a combined voting bloc is very recent. 100 years ago, people weren't generally labeled as Christian/Jewish/etc, especially when running for office - They would've been Baptist, Presbyterian, or even (God Forbid) Catholic [jfklibrary.org]. Whatever your religion, you could count on most of your constituents disagreeing with you. This meant that most of them chose not to bring religion into the campaign, since it would likely backfire.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 04 2016, @03:12AM
What the hell are you doing here if you're a fundie? Using a machine invented by a homosexual (computer), with an OS invented by an atheist (Windows or Linux) or a faux-Buddhist (OS X) is really hypocritical. I hope you don't go to a doctor when you're sick (James 5:14-15). And I hope you're keeping all the Mosaic laws (Matthew 5:17-20); it's Saul of Tarsus who said not to follow them, not Jesus, but I don't recall the religion being called Paulianity...also your man Joshua is about 1980 years late (Matthew 10:23).
I'm not even an atheist and the irony is making my head explode.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday January 04 2016, @05:35AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 04 2016, @06:48AM
A little more than 2/27, since IIRC most Bible scholars speak of Luke-Acts as written by the same author. Guess what: that makes your case *worse,* not better. James and Luke ought to have thought this one through a little more, no?
And I see that, like every single other apologist I have ever had the misfortune to deal with, you completely ignore the other problems brought up to you. It's all kinds of hypocritical to use Turing's machine with Gates' and or Torvalds' OS and call yourself one of the saved; at least run TempleOS!
Anyone who actually believes that the being portrayed in the Abrahamic scriptures is even sane, let alone good, to say nothing of actually being the Platonic ideal of Good, has to be at least a little misinformed if not miswired. Come on, man, the guy's literally infinite-Hitler! He runs a concentration camp for his political prisoners that's ALL crematorium and no chimney, and you worship this thing?! I will never understand this complete disconnect...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday January 04 2016, @02:32PM
It's all kinds of hypocritical to use Turing's machine with Gates' and or Torvalds' OS and call yourself one of the saved
How?
And besides it's not like Turing singlehandedly invented computing.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday January 04 2016, @04:37PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 04 2016, @05:28PM
Of course they don't; you decided they aren't. I would bet good money you don't speak a word of Koine, or know who Origen was, or have ever even examined the attributes your God supposedly has and checked for internal consistency. Yeah, it's easy not to see a problem when you refuse to.
You know, your God is basically an infinite version of Adolf Hitler who runs an eternal concentration camp that's all crematorium and no chimney for what essentially amounts to his political prisoners. The fact that this never occurred to you, or doesn't bother you if it did, really frightens me. Like, to the point I would consider lighting you on fire for a minute or so and then dousing you to give you some perspective.
It's ostensibly a free country, so no one's going to tell you you can't believe X Y and Z (hell, your kind RUN the country...). But at least try and understand why some woman you don't know from Eve thinks you need to learn a lesson at oven temperature, 'k?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by schad on Monday January 04 2016, @05:58PM
You're deliberately trying to provoke an unreasoned response, here most clearly, which is what it is to be a troll. I'm not the one modding you that way, but you expressed confusion elsewhere as to why it was happening. This is why. If you're actually interested in having an intelligent exchange of ideas, reel in the vitriol and the downmods will probably stop.
At the very least, lay off the literal death threats.
Though perhaps "flamebait" would be a more accurate mod.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 04 2016, @07:07PM
Literal flamebait, I suppose, though not in the commonly-used definition of the term :)
This is a problem I've always had with Muslims and Christians, though: they seem utterly unable to process that their God is, for the third time, Infinite Hitler with an eternal concentration camp for what amount to political prisoners. I've studied apologetics for the better part of a decade now and every week I find something one of them has said that sinks to a new low...while at the same time bringing almost nothing new to the table compared to the patristics.
Combine that with their utter arrogance, oozing smug triumphalism, and complete lack of morals (divine command metaethics does NOT ground morals...), and then add to it that they project like mad and come out guns blazing accusing their opponents of the very epistemological and logical sins they themselves stink to high heaven of, and it's enough to give you an aneurysm.
Even then, if it were just a case of SIWOTI I wouldn't mind so much, but this above is a fair description of a huge proportion of not just the US but the Middle East as well. And many of the people in power in this country think, if you can call it that, along the same lines. I'm terrified of a techno-theocracy happening here, and the country is ripe for it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday January 04 2016, @07:15PM
it's enough to give you an aneurysm.
Relaxation therapy worked wonders for my life. You might want to try it. You can get a meter that approximates your frustration level based on galvanic skin response or other metrics and then work to learn to think about something that frustrates you while still staying relaxed. It makes your brain much better at problem solving.
In the case of this discussion, I'm unclear what problem you are trying to solve or how it is possible that my inconsistencies are affecting you so strongly. You don't even know me.
complete lack of morals
These are my morals. [youtube.com] Not everyone agrees with them, but they are the morals I hold to.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 04 2016, @07:48PM
Thanks SO much for your concern about relaxation! If I ever want to use an E-Meter I'll go in the subway back home and ask a Scientologist :)
Regarding your second link: your metaethical framework is Divine Command Theory. This does not actually ground any coherent set of morals, nor any morals period; DCT proponents have marching orders, not morals. The only way you can use words like moral, righteous, just, good, evil, etc. is to steal them from the worldview of someone who DOES have these in his or her metaethics. I would be happy to discuss this one in depth; the Euthyphro Dilemma is only the tip of the iceberg here, and every single apologetic attempt I've seen to get around it only impales the would-be toreador harder on the second horn.
Luckily for all of us, you, like nearly all Christians, default to a type of ethical naturalism. It's inconsistent, but at least you don't go around murdering people for your religion...yet. Please abstain from alcohol and drugs, as I don't want you thinking you hear Yahweh's voice when you're on a bender telling you to kill stuff in his name.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday January 04 2016, @07:55PM
Please abstain from alcohol and drugs, as I don't want you thinking you hear Yahweh's voice when you're on a bender telling you to kill stuff in his name.
Tell you what: since I don't tell you what to do, how about we agree not to tell each other what to do? It seems only fair.
Regarding your second link: your metaethical framework is Divine Command Theory.
I didn't see any of that in the link I posted, but maybe I posted the wrong link and need to go re-check.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 04 2016, @08:33PM
The link you posted is a Ron Paul propaganda dump. That is ethics, or what passes for ethics, *not* metaethics. There is a difference; think of metaethics as the machinery and ethics as the product.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday January 04 2016, @07:11PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 04 2016, @07:58PM
When it comes to that, why do you care what anyone opposed to you thinks? ":)"
Christ, I hate it when you people pull this. I care because enough people who think (being charitable here) like you do have gotten enough political power in enough countries with enough money and military power to pose a threat to human civilization. I care because anyone who subscribes to divine command theory is by definition amoral and would do ANYTHING they think their God is telling them to, up to and including genocide. I care because I'm sick and tired of seeing innocent people suffer and die because of the Abrahamic delusion, including close friends of mine.
Not that I think you were truly interested in this. You just want to snark.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday January 04 2016, @08:02PM
I care because enough people who think (being charitable here) like you do have gotten enough political power in enough countries with enough money and military power to pose a threat to human civilization
Well, I agree with you there, and I believe political power should be abolished. I don't vote because I don't believe people like me should have power over people like you.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 04 2016, @08:30PM
But it's juuuuust fine for your genocidal megalomaniac of a God to toss me in the eternal deep-fat fryer for not kissing his ineffable ass, I take it? *rolls eyes*
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday January 04 2016, @08:33PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 04 2016, @09:21PM
You must have missed the part where I said I'm not an atheist. No surprise there; you also flat out ignored everything else that pokes holes in your worldview.
Sorry pal, but your "live and let live" ethos is in direct conflict with your Christian metaethics. I'm not surprised this doesn't occur to you based on how cavalier you are about your religion, really, but the inconsistency is there. Your God most certainly does not live and let live.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday January 04 2016, @09:31PM
You must have missed the part where I said I'm not an atheist
My point still holds without loss of generality.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 04 2016, @10:26PM
Okay, to hell with this. It's like trying to feed cherry pies to a black hole in the hopes it'll stop being hungry. You're been disabled by this particular cognitohazard; fine. Just stay the hell out of politics.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday January 04 2016, @10:45PM
Just stay the hell out of politics.
I think I said that's what I believe, several times. I'm not the one in this discussion who believes in controlling others or forcing my views on them.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 04 2016, @11:35PM
Oh, me either. That would be your flying Canaanite genocide fairy Yahweh.
Waiting for you to realize how utterly incoherent the mix of libertarianism and Christianity is. Not holding my breath, though, since not even Yahweh has lungs that big.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday January 05 2016, @03:29AM
Yahweh doesn't seem to be making you do anything, nor do I believe he's given me any instructions to make you do anything.
Waiting for you to realize how utterly incoherent the mix of libertarianism and Christianity is
Why do you need me to agree with you on that?
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 05 2016, @06:22AM
You're right...I really should not try to save people like you. It's beyond my ability anyway; probably beyond any reasonable human being's, because you are not actually using reason. Maybe my New Years' Resolution should be "Do not make other peoples' problems your own unless they are going to cause you harm."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2016, @10:36PM
Congratulations! That's the whole point of religion.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 04 2016, @10:10AM
Whoever the hell is modding me Troll; there is a Disagree mod for a reason. If you don't like what I'm saying, bloody well USE it. And take me on if you think you know the first thing about apologetics. But slinging Troll mods where they don't belong is cowardly and low.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @03:11AM
> If a bunch of Christians wanted special Jesus breaks at my office, I'd fire them so fast their crucifixes would be flapping in the wind.
So no Christmas holiday at your office? No 3-day good-friday/easter weekends?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @03:31AM
Nope. You get 10 sick days, 15 vacation days, and 5 holidays. Use 'em when you want to.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @05:12AM
Well aren't you a special little snowflake!
Your experience of not having xmas as an official holiday is so far outside the norm in the US that any conclusions based on your experience are not generally applicable to the rest of the country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @05:17AM
12/25; Take it on don't take, but you don't get it for free, anymore than the Jews get Ramadan, or the Jamaicans get Ire's Birthday.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:38AM
I'm a jew, own a small business. On the day before Xmas eve, I set up a projector and we watched Episode 1 of Hogfather after lunch and the I let my employees out early with pay till normal quitting time, but we had to answer the phones and pause the flick. On Xmas eve we watched the second episode starting at lunch with all the phones turned off and everything going to voicemail, and then I sent my employees home when it was over again with pay till normal quitting time.
Anyway, even atheist jews like myself like a good solar festival, and I kind of think there are some thought provoking things in Terry Pratchet's Hogfather tale, all wrapped up in a fun holiday package. Plus the film adaptation is very good.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxjat0ZorRj9jTjaMG7KeBzEObd-RwPgX [youtube.com]
On a side note -- I had such trouble playing it because my projector doesn't have HDMI and so I couldn't hook up my Apple TV. I hooked up my laptop but you can't play high def content onto a second monitor so we had to watch in standard def, which isn't really a big deal considering the projector, but instead of telling you that, iTunes just doesn't work and you have to google the solution which is to download the standard def files, then right click, blah blah blah. It's being punished like that for playing by the rules that makes people want to pirate stuff because a pirated copy would have played instantly with no headaches. Anyway, it appears the whole thing is on youtube anyway -- I shoulda tried that last week.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @02:21PM
Sorry, why does that make me a special little snowflake? Just because Mama's Texaco and Grits Stand doesn't offer a modern benefits package, that doesn't make me entitled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @02:39AM
I think we should be respectful of people of all religions which have passed the test of time (i.e., excluding Scientology and whatever Jim Jones was the head of). Cargill evidently allowed the Muslim workers to do that at this plant, but then some MBA types came along and decided to "standardize" the requirements. Why? So the CEO who was earning 8 figures USD could make even more? He wanted a bigger private jet, along with his four country club memberships and his 100 foot yacht?
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday January 04 2016, @01:38PM
They can't. It's a hard-coded, non-negotiable law in Islam that they have to pray 5 times a day at specific times: http://www.as-sidq.org/mosque/time.htm [as-sidq.org]
I suspect there are a few exceptions for life-saving operations and military-engagements and the likes. But other than that, it seems to be s a pretty rigid requirement.
If the plant can't adjust, just fire them. If an orthodox Jew worked at a food processing plant that decided to switch to some pork byproduct, he'd either quit or get fired when he'd say he can't do the job anymore.
I suspect you wouldn't see many strict Christians at abortion clinics for similar reasons...
compiling...
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday January 04 2016, @01:51PM
Ok, so I just stumbled on to this: https://islamqa.info/en/333 [islamqa.info]
The way I see it, It might be legitimate to deny driver licenses to adherent Muslims unless they declare they won't do anything that risks other people's lives while driving. Though I suspect this is just an ultra-rigid interpretation that there's no way Muslim countries follow it. But, for all I know, they might all stop traffic all at once at regular scheduled times...
Seriously, this is one of those times when "clash of Civilizations " doesn't sound silly.
compiling...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2016, @11:03PM
Okay then... They've made their choice.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2016, @11:08PM
I hate to break it to these people, but this "god" thing they are praying to... there is no such thing. It is imaginary. Someone(s) made it up to make a power grab a long time ago. That goes for all religious nutters out there, not just these guys. Grow up and get over it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2016, @11:30PM
Chew you havisfaction a singlicious satisfact to snack that up?
(Score: 5, Funny) by fishybell on Monday January 04 2016, @12:07AM
Where is the moderation for "drunk" when you need it?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Bot on Monday January 04 2016, @02:05AM
there is no such thing as "Drunk" you idiots. It is imaginary. Someone(s) made it up to justify getting found in bed with the mailman a long time ago. That goes for all reckless drivers out there, not just these guys. Grow up and get over it.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @01:13AM
*tips fedora* [reddit.com] Reddit is thataway, my good sir!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by malloc_free on Monday January 04 2016, @03:06AM
I think religion had it's time and place. Once, we were less enlightened (or should I say, we had less resources/knowledge to become more enlightened - whether we have done so is is another matter*) and we had (or came) to rely on superstition to explain things we did not understand. That time has gone, and now we are stuck with the remnants of that past. Some still cling to these notions of a 'higher power', after life, and such, and I can't help but think this is holding us back. The process behind the kind of thinking, that leads one to accept something as truth without any evidence at all, other than a book that was written a couple of thousand years ago - well, I just can't grock it.
*I don't believe in our current system or society - although I confess, I am a nihilist in almost every possible way. I think that churches and tithes have largely been replaced by malls and consumer goods, gods swapped with sports 'heros' (really?, fuck you), celebrities and clothing brands. Advertisers and marketers are the new evangelists and prophets - and they pretty much use the same formula. Some say the system works - tell that to the 800 million people in the world that are suffering from hunger. Monkeysphere for the win.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday January 04 2016, @03:35AM
Once, we were less enlightened (or should I say, we had less resources/knowledge to become more enlightened - whether we have done so is is another matter*) and we had (or came) to rely on superstition to explain things we did not understand.
I don't follow. There's nothing wrong with "I don't know." It's actually better because it increases the likelihood that you will actually investigate, rather than just saying that something supernatural is the cause of whatever it is that's happening.
If you don't know the answer to something, making up an answer and then claiming it's the real answer when you don't have any good reason to think so doesn't actually improve your understanding of the universe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @05:17AM
Your post is ironic. Your own mental model is so limited that you can only see the world as things you "know" and things you "don't know." The way regular humans live is that they have a huge range of confidence levels that they apply in different contexts based on a huge variety of factors, including the cost to increase confidence and the value derived from having increased confidence. So in effect by declaring that the world is black and white you've put yourself into the category of people who "make up an answer and claim its the real answer" and your understanding of the universe is greatly crippled because of it.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday January 04 2016, @06:51AM
Your own mental model is so limited that you can only see the world as things you "know" and things you "don't know."
I didn't give nearly enough information about my own mental model for you to reach that conclusion. It turns out you're wrong. I do care about probability.
The way regular humans live is that they have a huge range of confidence levels that they apply in different contexts based on a huge variety of factors, including the cost to increase confidence and the value derived from having increased confidence.
How did they calculate the probability that the explanation is supernatural in nature? What gives them confidence in this explanation? It doesn't seem possible for someone to be 100% rational, but I think we should definitely care about truth. And unless you have some method of demonstrating that whatever explanation you put forth is true or probably true and you have in fact determined this to be the case, your belief is probably not rational.
It is rare to see an argument for the supernatural that is not simply an argument from ignorance or an appeal to faith at its core.
So in effect by declaring that the world is black and white
Why even bother replying to me if you're just going to argue with straw men? I never said anything about absolute certainty, and my post spoke of likelihoods. I'm not sure where you're seeing this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @10:32PM
> I didn't give nearly enough information about my own mental model for you to reach that conclusion.
You've made more that one post, your extremism is well known. Your response was not unexpected, you've tried to change the issue from confidence to "probability" which is entirely orthogonal to the point BUT fits in with your black-and-white mental model while confidence, being a human state of mind is completely beyond your ken. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for being so confident in your ignorance.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday January 04 2016, @11:24PM
I also mentioned confidence in addition to probability, so you're wrong there, too.
Once again, I have to ask why you even bother replying to me if you're going to argue with an imaginary opponent. What's the point? Why not just have the argument in your mind?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by malloc_free on Monday January 04 2016, @07:00AM
Um, not too sure how you came to that from what I was saying... I was just pointing out that we 'used' to make up stuff to explain what we don't know, based on imagination or some such, and we should leave that behind. We have the tools and knowledge to do better. Didn't read the entire post possibly?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday January 04 2016, @07:11AM
You said that we had or came to rely on superstition to explain things we did not understand. Well, certainly we did do so (thus the "came" part is right), but we didn't have to do so. I did read your post, but I didn't think that "had" was the right word. You also said that religion had its time and place, and depending on what that means, I don't necessarily agree with it.
(Score: 1) by malloc_free on Monday January 04 2016, @08:31AM
Well, now that you mention it, maybe I came to the assumption that before modern sciences, philosophy and ethics, there must have been another system in place that could guide people. I never would have considered that the scientific method would have come down from a mountain carved on a piece of rock. My decidedly uneducated guess would be that society evolves as time goes on, and it took us a significant amount of time and effort to get to a point where it no longer served its purpose. I don't know enough about history to guess where we would be now had we not had religion. Thanks for your post, maybe I should look at educating myself so I can formulate an opinion that is actually worth more than the energy it took to type out.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday January 04 2016, @09:53AM
I never would have considered that the scientific method would have come down from a mountain carved on a piece of rock.
It doesn't really need to. There are perfectly reasonable philosophical objections to believing in deities. Just because you can't think of another explanation doesn't mean that the explanation you or someone else thought up must be true.
Even if you don't currently know how to investigate the matter, admitting that you don't know the answer still allows it to be investigated more quickly than it would be if most people believed that the answer is already known. I don't think it was ever a necessity to make arguments from ignorance.
It's not surprising that people believed (and still believe) in random supernatural explanations for no good reason, but that doesn't make it any less silly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @08:41AM
"I think that churches and tithes have largely been replaced by malls and consumer goods, gods swapped with sports 'heros' (really?, fuck you), celebrities and clothing brands. Advertisers and marketers are the new evangelists and prophets - and they pretty much use the same formula."
You forgot the *spoiler alert* for "American Gods"
http://ir.starz.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=918208 [starz.com]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gods [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @05:20AM
How do I mod this "no duh"?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03 2016, @11:15PM
never happens at a pork processing plant.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Sunday January 03 2016, @11:50PM
I agree that people should pray in their free-time. Or smoke. Or make personal phone calls. Or post on soylentnews. But if an employer grants his employees the right, and suddenly retracts it, that's a different story. And apparently this was not just a silently accepted prayer break, but a codified policy.
Not sure if this could be legally challenged, but personally I'd estimate that the goodwill gained by letting me post on soylentnews during working hours definitely outweighs the loss in productivity, and if these workers were - outside their prayer breaks - productive, I'd expect some competitor will hire them for lower wages plus prayer break and gain a competitive advantage.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 04 2016, @12:08AM
First, an employer can't grant a right. He may recognize a right, or he may fail to recognize a right, or he may infringe upon a right, but he can't grant rights.
Second, employers can retract benefits at will. They earn bad publicity and lower morale when they do so, but they may suspend privileges at any time.
Taking a break for prayer time is a privilege, not a right. If you want to get paid for 8 hours, you've got to work 8 hours, and those 8 hours are expected to conform to the boss' needs. We all know that taking an extra ten minutes for a break can get you fired. We all know that taking an extra break can get you fired. That include prayer breaks.
Apparently this employer weighed the pros and cons, and decided that all that extra prayer time wasn't benefitting him, and put a stop to it.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Monday January 04 2016, @12:53AM
It's probably not the time so much as the way it breaks up the day. I work for an employer that pushes high volume as well and having random breaks throughout the day for any reason screws up the scheduling and creates backups that aren't easily dealt with. Presumably that's why they restricted the prayer breaks.
I can't say I'm a particular fan, but in industries like this where choke points greatly reduce efficiency, breaks like that for some people can be quite costly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @12:55AM
The employer was actually far more amicable than that. They allowed prayer breaks, they just didn't want everyone to pray at the same time, shutting down production completely several times a day.
Sounds like they bent over backwards to let people conform to their religion and that group of religious people decided they wanted to socialize during their prayer time too.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Tuesday January 05 2016, @04:37AM
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees' and applicants' sincerely held religious beliefs as long as this does not pose an undue hardship."1 [adl.org]
The question will be whether they provided reasonable accommodations; the definition of reasonable has not been established in law.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @01:28AM
If the law says you are entitled to a 30 min lunch-break. But I negotiate with you and you sign a contract stating you will have a 1 hour lunch-break. I can't then go and arbitrarily change your work CONTRACT back to 30 mins, or take away your lunch-break entirely.
Sure there are probably clauses in said contract where I can vary the terms after giving you x notice. But employers can't just retract things at will.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Monday January 04 2016, @01:59AM
This is an American company we're talking about. Unless the employees are members of a union (which is increasingly unlikely every year), there is no contract. They're employed at will and can be dismissed at any time. Your comment prompts me to note that what is negotiated for you in a signed contract you get to keep. But what we give you to you (out of the goodness in our hearts) we are free to take away whenever it suits us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @02:18AM
If you want to get paid for 8 hours, you've got to work 8 hours, and those 8 hours are expected to conform to the boss' needs.
Well, few people would work nonstop for 8 hours. The ones who do probably wouldn't be very effective. Taking some time off every now and then can help you organize your thoughts and ultimately do a better job.
But prayer should not get special treatment, if that is the case.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday January 04 2016, @10:20AM
Not sure I'm getting this right. I'm living in Germany, don't have any work experience in the US and only know some of the rules in US just as side-notes from reading on other topics. If an employer agrees to some benefits by signing a contract with me, I don't have a right to get exactly that? And if I do have the right, in which sense did he not grant me that right in the contract?
I'd expect that depends on how the privileges were codified? If I sign a contract with a company, and they have a codified policy, I understand that existing policy becomes part of the deal.
Someone wrote further below that in the US, it is not mandatory or even common to have a contract. To me, this is a bit awkward. In Germany, an employee usually gets a legally binding contract. Also the law defines legally binding minimum cancellation periods, no matter if you have a written or verbal contract:
- Trial period (maximum 6 months): 14 days
- 0.5<=x<2 years: 1 month to end of month
- 2<=x<5 years: 2 months to end of month
- 5<=x<8 years: 3 months to end of month
....
"to end of month" in this context means, once a cancellation is filed, the period starts at the end of the month. If I receive a notice on e.g. 1st of June and I work for the company already for 7 month, the the period will start at 31st of June, and cancellation will take effect on 31st of August. Longer cancellation periods can be agreed in the working contract, but not shorter periods.
I don't expect the employer could change any terms of the contract to the employees disadvantage without his consent. He might find ways to lay off the non-consenting employees, but not without adhering to the cancellation periods. To me, this is a fundamental part of my psychological well-being; I couldn't imagine living in a situation where my whole income could be lost within an hours notice. Maybe I'm just a bit spoiled, but I'd expect there is some benefit in this for my employer as well: 1st of all, as an employee I also have a minimum cancellation period and can't walk out with days notice from an important project. 2nd, it frees my mind to focus on work where I otherwise would probably be to jumpy to react on any bad sign to brush up my resume and keep eyes open for other opportunities.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 04 2016, @11:24AM
srobert posted above, about unions and contracts in the US. Unions are weak, and few people actually have a contract. More and more people are employed "at will", that is, you remain employed so long as both you and the employer have the will to continue the employment relationship. The company handbook specifically states that the "agreement" "is not a contract", and that "no representative has the authority to offer a contract" to replace the handbook. There is also a disclaimer that the company can change the handbook at any time, although changes are generally made at the end of the year. And, changes are dictated, not negotiated.
The result is, the company does pretty much what it wants, flirting with the law, and getting away with whatever it can.
The day when companies proudly proclaimed that "people are our most important asset" are long gone. Thank globalization, and the influx of "immigrants" for that. If you don't like your job, there are 20 people lined up at the gates, hoping to replace you.
And, finally, this applies to junior management, and sometimes middle management, as well as production and office people. There are only about 6 people in my plant who have contracts, and I've seen them marched out the door too. (Most recently, one of them made a comment about a "dumb nigger", and he was gone in ten minutes, never to be seen again.)
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Tuesday January 05 2016, @04:26AM
I think that was posted using a specific form of the word right. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right [reference.com], #22 - "a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics."
I've heard it explained that no human grants rights; we already have them by being human.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday January 04 2016, @12:39AM
Not sure posting on SoylentNews has anything to do with religion. Present article excepted I suppose.
I doubt there is a legal challenge here, unless there is some obscure state law that comes into play. The Establishment Clause directly limits only the US government, and was extended to cover the States by a SCOTUS decision (I forget which one).
But nothing extends the first amendment to private industry.
And there isn't any likelihood of of competition offering prayer breaks and hiring these meat cutters, as Cargill is the only meat plant in town.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by BK on Monday January 04 2016, @03:56AM
I think you're thinking if Gitlow v New York in ~1925. Too lazy to do the link though.
Undoubtedly this will be a suit based on the civil rights act of 1964. Title vii may apply if they squint enough.
At least the lawyers will get rich.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday January 04 2016, @10:52AM
That was actually my main point. I had the impression the other comments were quite focused on the specifics of this case, and mainly objected that moslem might get something extra. There might be special rules to protect religious believes, but I'm more generically interested in the situation that employers change the existing rules to the disadvantage of employees. I'm not very religious, neither christian nor otherwise, so I'm not even sure I like the previous rule in the first place, but that's not my point here.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @02:59AM
It wasn't that they couldn't take prayer breaks. It was that they had to be staggered. So, the line can operate with 80% of the employees there, and 20% praying, but not vice versa. So the company wanted them to generate shifts for prayer breaks.
It's the same reason if enough smokers wanted to break at the same time so the line couldn't run, their boss would tell them to take turns.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by pipedwho on Monday January 04 2016, @01:22AM
I remember when there would be a twice daily 'smoker exodus' at our company. And because there was a relative high percentage of smokers 'back in the day', pretty much everyone else became unproductive for that time too. Unless you were doing something totally unrelated and independent of any smoker, then you had to wait for the smoker contingent to return before you could continue.
If just one or two left, most things would chug along uninterrupted, as those smokers would take their break(s) at appropriate times. But, when it became a group/social thing, they'd all leave at the same time so they could chat. So, you'd have a half the company (some of them in key positions) all just up and leave at exactly 10:30 for 10 to 15 minutes, and then again at 3:00pm. You could also see them slowing down and gearing up for their 'smoko' 10 minutes before, and then take another 10 minutes getting back into what they were doing.
The real solution would have been to encourage people to stagger their breaks so they can disappear at appropriate times when they aren't on a critical path. But, that was deemed to be 'discriminatory', so they just codified a 10 minute break for everybody at those times. This was 25+ years ago.
So I could see how having staff disappearing for a prayer break would only become a problem as the percentage rose to a point where it starts to impact team dynamics. Having a single worker disappear periodically isn't usually a problem. Have a whole bunch disappear is, as it affects people who otherwise don't need to go on a break at that time. So, even if the 'break time' is made up by working a slightly longer day, it doesn't necessarily recover time lost for other team members that want to get their work done and clock out on time.
(Score: 1) by moylan on Monday January 04 2016, @02:10AM
while i think their dispute was dumb i'm reminded of a dispute in ireland in 80s over handling south african produce that lead to a boycott lasting a few years.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/how-11-striking-irish-workers-helped-to-fight-apartheid-1.1618635 [irishtimes.com]
when the laws are all in the favour of the employer all the employees have is the support of the public to help them...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @03:55AM
Shut the fuck up, patty boy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @09:14AM
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/325224 [malaysiakini.com]
Perlis Mufti Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin said a Malaysia Airlines stewardess had wept in front of him as she complained about having to serve alcohol and not being allowed to wear the headscarf.
"On a MAS flight tonight, an air stewardess complained and cried in front of me about her fate.
"She is tormented that she has to service alcohol and is not allowed to put on the headscarf.
"She is only trying to support her children and this is not the first time I hear of such complaints," said Asri in a Facebook posting last night.
What next Muslims signing up to work in pig processing plants and complaining about having to handle pork?
Or Seventh Day Adventists and Orthodox Jews signing up for shift work and complaining about having to work on Saturdays?
Or Jains working for slaughterhouses complaining about having to slaughter animals?
Don't like it go start your own company with your preferred rules.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04 2016, @12:32PM
Ah, yes... Cargill, that pinnacle of humanity...
(Score: 0, Troll) by tisI on Monday January 04 2016, @05:49PM
In a day when Mexicans are the subjects of our political atmosphere and ire, ..
(for the record, Mexicans don't strap bombs to their bodies and blow themselves up in crowds of holiday shoppers, they just pick our crops and cut&water our lawns, pay taxes and SS they will never file for or collect on later in life)
We are so paranoid that we employ a class of religious fanatic, one that their core philosophy is to kill Christians, any way possible, any time possible, and give them jobs that nobody else wants to do .. Hack up animals with saws and machetes .. then piss them off over whatever .. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ?? WHAT THE FUCK CAN POSSIBLE GO WRONG HERE ?? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH US ??????
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."