Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

US Commision on International Religious Freedom Sued for Discrimination Against Muslims

Posted on 10 June 2012 by Emperor

More on the problematic nature of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) surfaces. Remember the USCIRF is the same govt. body that appointed Zuhd Jasser as one of its commissioners:

Federal lawsuit charges religious freedom commission with discriminating against Muslims

By Michelle Boorstein (Washington Post)

Some Washington figures prominently connected with promoting religious freedom overseas are acccused in a federal lawsuit of discriminating against Muslims.

The lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court accuses members of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom of reneging on hiring a Muslim lawyer in 2009 once they learned of her faith and her work advocating for Muslim-Americans.

It quotes staff as encouraging Safiya Ghori-Ahmad, during her short period working at the commission, to call in sick on the days that particular commissioners were in the office, to “downplay her religious affiliation” and to emphasize that she is a “mainstream and ‘moderate’ Muslim” who doesn’t cover her hair.

The lawsuit, which follows an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint that Ghori-Ahmad filed in 2010, lays blame on several longtime commissioners, including Nina Shea, an attorney and writer who focuses on religious freedom crises abroad, particularly the plight of Christian minorities. The suit quotes Shea as writing that “hiring a Muslim like Ms. Ghori-Ahmad to analyze religious freedom in Pakistan would be like ‘hiring an IRA activist to research the UK twenty years ago.’”

The commission referred questions to the Justice Department, which represents the quasi-governmental organization; Justice officials declined to immediately comment.

Shea and several other commissioners have long been accused of criticizing aspects of the Islamic faith in a way that unfairly stigmatizes all Muslims. Others see Shea and her arguments as a bold challenge to Islamic extremism and terrorism.

The suit quotes the commission’s policy and research director, Knox Thames, as telling Ghori-Ahmad that the offer to be a South Asia policy analyst was retracted — weeks after being made, and after she had quit her other job — because “certain Commissioners objected to her Muslim faith and affiliation … He said he was sorry this had happened,” the suit says.

Also accused of leading the alleged discrimination was longtime commission chairman Leonard Leo, a key consultant at times to Republican leaders on Catholic issues and executive vice president of the Federalist Society.

The allegations in the suit are the most explicit in a years-long series of allegations that commission leaders are biased against Muslims, specifically people associated with groups critical of U.S. foreign policy and who work for groups that fight anti-Muslim discrimination. Questions about the Ghori-Ahmad EEOC complaint — which commission lawyers had argued the body was exempt from — and how the commission uses its resources led some lawmakers last year to almost let USCIRF close for lack of reauthorization.

Its budget was ultimately cut by a quarter and long-serving commissioners were forced out by retroactive term limits.

  • HGG

    “All religions offered optionally for those who want it just like the optional sex education.”

    All of them? Wiccans? Scientologists? Shintoists?

    It’s not feasible. You end up favoring some religions over others. How would you feel if for whatever reason Islam wasn’t offered?

  • HGG

    “So, do you approve of Americans building walls and fences?”

    I’m not sure what bringing that up has to do with anything but ok.

  • Just Stopping By

    @AJ: “It’s the atheist movement to take the prayers out of public schools and the ten commandments off the government offices whereas the truth is that both can stay there as long as the student, the teacher and the employee privately sanction it and they are not mandated for everyone by the school administration or the government.”

    I don’t think that’s legally right, and not morally right. Should the teacher decide that, for example, it’s okay to put an image of the Bible on the classroom wall but not an image of the Qur’an? I do think that teachers can allow space for any religious image that students wish to put up, but they can’t approve some and not others on religious grounds. With regard to government offices, employees generally have the right to put up religious symbols in their private workspace, but not in areas where the public could misinterpret them as state-sponsored symbols.

    I have to say that I’m with the atheists on this! And with that Jefferson guy too.

    @HGG: So, do you approve of Americans building walls and fences? ;-)

  • http://Aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

    @HGG
    All religions offered optionally for those who want it just like the optional sex education.

  • HGG

    “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. ”

    I agree with this guy.

  • Steve

    Banning religion would be crazy of course but I do feel religion should be a personal matter so complete separation of religion and state is desirable. A government based on religion won’t be a good government

  • http://Aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

    @BA

    Did I use the term “state-sponsored” anywhere? No! It’s the atheist movement to take the prayers out of public schools and the ten commandments off the government offices whereas the truth is that both can stay there as long as the student, the teacher and the employee privately sanction it and they are not mandated for everyone by the school administration or the government.

    So anyone reading this, buy your ten commandments with your private money and put them on the walls along with your family pictures :)

  • HGG

    “I am happy to know that you are not against religion taught as a subject. Now, it is totally missing from public schools even for those who want it electively.”

    What religion would that be, especifically? Christianity would be the most obvious choice, after all, the US is a majority Christian country. And once you pick Christianity, then, what version of Christianity should it be? Roughly half of Americans are Protestants, so that’s it. The most logical religion to be offered in Public Schools is Protestantism.

    I bet you don’t like the answer. Which is why having no religion taught at all is the best option. Thankfully, we don’t live in RationalSkeptic’s bizarre fascistic fantasy world and you can educate your children freely in any religion you want yourself or enroll it in a private school that suit your needs.

  • HGG

    There is some particularly bad atheism here. *sigh*

    “I don’t think banning religion would hurt logical thinking”

    As a general rule, yes, banning and/or forbidding topics do hurt logical thinking. But let’s assume, for a moment, that you’re right. Religion is evil and should be banished from Mankind’s record. I believe that, according to you, this would bring humanity’s true Utopia, where freedom, peace and logic reigns throughout the planet.

    If that does happen, I hope that someone like you is in charge, RationalSkeptic. I mean if there is one way I like my reeducation camps to be is gentle. Look, if I’m having my free will eradicated I like it to be done by people who know how to be polite. A little “Please” and “thank you” go a long when when having your neural pathways rerouted, if you know what I mean. Still, by saying that it is merely your ‘prefered’ option, you leave the option to, you know, execute the really, really hard cases.

    Also, I’m a big fan of your religious buildings policy. it’s better to repurpose the building rather than destroy them. Good call.

    Man, I’m liking this Utopia more and more already. It’s almost as if I don’t have to think anymore!

  • Géji

    @Ilisha … “Yes, in this case, I’m just borrowing his measuring tape … Maybe instead of the science of tawheed, they can make the science of negation or unbelief to keep the ideology pure, and of course, their own versions of shirk, bid’ah and takfir. The only thing left will be deciding the punishment for heretics. I suggest death by stoning”

    lol, ok get-it! at times maybe isn’t so bad after-all to run ‘borrowing’ the measuring-tape, in this case, his. As for the “the science of negation”, I’m afraid its already been “revealed”!

    > The science of tawheed

    The Oneness of Monkey, The Producer, oops! Evolver, there must be One, cause there are other false types running-around incapable of such, and dare ask why? and it is …? bid’ah!

    > Shirk

    Anything that equates Evolver with God and voila Shirk! anyone suggesting such will probably have to deal with a “militant” Takfiri.

    ” The only thing left will be deciding the punishment for heretics. I suggest death by stoning.”

    Death by stoning being for adulterers, I don’t think they’ll take it for heretics. But maybe better suggestion of hudud for heretics should be to turn them back amongst their left behind Unevolved type- chimpanzees. (By the way, I think if I remember correctly, Allah already did such for some of His staunched heretics); so, so advanced in science as they are, maybe its best for them to take that hudud. One last thing though, is Darwin the first prophet (Adan?) or the last (Muhammad?) ??

  • Believing Atheist

    @AJ,

    The Supreme Court ruled in Abington School District v. Schempp that:

    school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

    before that:

    Engel Vs. Vitale:

    unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale

    So you can do so privately in fact I had a high school teacher who did just that but…you initially wrote:

    “Secondly, why I as a parent don’t have a say in the subjects taught to my children in public schools when I pay taxes for them?”

    You can get to decide the curriculum AJ and I assume you mean religious classes or theology being taught at public schools. But state-sponsored Bible reading in public schools is unconstitutional and the same principle applies to the Quran.

    So the SC disagrees with you AJ.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/GargamelGold?feature=mhee CriticalDragon1177

    @Ilisha and @Géji

    By the way, I think the two of you also did an excellent job refuting “RationalSkeptic.” I really I hope he rethinks his anti liberty position on this.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/GargamelGold?feature=mhee CriticalDragon1177

    @RationalSkeptic

    If religion has no rational basis, doesn’t it make more sense to use reason and logic to refute what religious people are saying rather than coercion by the state? If what the believers believe is so irrational why do you have to use force to suppress their beliefs? Regardless of whether you accept it or not, you’re advocating the use of force here.

    You want us to emulate the Soviet Union except they were too violent? “Gentle reeducation centers?” You’re dreaming. You’re living in a fantasy world if you think that. As if they wouldn’t have to force people to go there that didn’t want to go and than force them to stay against their will until reeducation was complete, and that’s even ignoring what they would do if they didn’t do what they were told while they were there.

    Why on Earth should I assume a secular totalitarian state would be any more humane than a religious one?

    Also, what if the people running they anti religion regime regard some of your beliefs as being just as irrational, rightfully or wrongfully so, for any reason? What’s to stop them from forcing you into you into one of the “gentle reeducation centers” that you advocate for the clergy? Freedom of religion wouldn’t exist in the society that you are advocating, and that’s just one step away from taking away freedom to think for one’s self entirely. Oh and if they don’t force you into one of them, what about some of the people you admire who you think are perfectly rational from being forced to go to one of these centers?

    Please try to live up to the name you have chosen to go by here and please think about what would end up happening in the real world based on everything we know.

  • Just Stopping By

    @RationalSkeptic says, “I don’t think banning religion would hurt logical thinking.”

    Have you provided any studies to support that view, or is that a faith-based argument?

    “At the very least, perhaps religion should be heavily discouraged by the state, and not banned.”

    I’ll take that as a victory for now.

  • RationalSkeptic

    I don’t think banning religion would hurt logical thinking.

    Religion has no logical base/foundations to begin with, so why would banning it hurt logic if there is no room for it to begin with.

    At the very least, perhaps religion should be heavily discouraged by the state, and not banned.

    And critical dragon, yes I do think that emulating the Soviet Union on religion would be favorable, though I think they were too violent. They killed/jailed/tortured clergy often, I would advocate none of those things and it would be preferable to send clergy to gentle reeducation centers instead. Also, I wouldn’t necessarily destroy religious buildings if I was in charge. I would turn them into museums or schools or public health centers, etc.

  • http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

    @Believing Atheist

    Actually you are wrong. Public prayer existed in the USA until 1963, long after the birth of the USA, when it was stopped when an atheist sued in the state of MD. Public prayer is protected by the First Amendment as long it is not imposed by the government and is privately initiated. I am a naturalized citizen but I knew that – many others don’t. I could get a group of students and teachers together in the school’s assembly hall and still chant “Allah u Akbar” or “God is Great”, at a preset time every day, as long as that was orchestrated privately and not mandated by the school – and you as an atheist can do nothing about that. People don’t know what their rights are.

    @JSB
    I am happy to know that you are not against religion taught as a subject. Now, it is totally missing from public schools even for those who want it electively.

  • Steve

    @AJ, “Do you find this frightening that you could be put in jail for eating halal or owning a Quran or in your case replace those by kosher/Torah?”

    You choose to live in a country where owning a bible or a torah could mean imprisonment.

  • Just Stopping By

    @AJ:

    I would find it frightening if someone could be put in jail for eating halal or kosher or for owning a Qur’an, Torah, or any other religious text. Those are not realistic possibilities in the United States, thankfully.

    I would say that parents should have some say in what gets taught in public schools, but there should be limits to prevent the majority from oppressing a minority. I would not want public schools to teach only the religion that the majority thinks is the “correct” one. I also would want religion taught only for academic purposes in public schools, similar to the study of cultures, to students who are old enough to understand that concept, as opposed to teaching children how to pray or observe any religion.

    As for opting out of the school tax, that depends on what type of society you want. If one is rich and promises never to go on welfare, should they be able to opt out of the taxes that pay for welfare programs for the poor (assuming one identified such taxes)? Should people who can see be able to opt out of the taxes that pay for the
    printing of government materials in Braille, and vice versa? A society has to decide which taxes are mandatory for everyone and which are based on use (and then usually called fees). We can have museums with free admission that are paid for by taxes or museums that pay for themselves with admission fees, or even some of both.

    In the United States, we generally have taxes to pay for public education through high school and then, to a large degree, tuition fees for college. There is no magic moral line that divides the two, but that is where we are. So, returning to your question, in my view, society should provide at least some level of free education for every child, and the way to do that is to force everyone to pay taxes to fund that education. I am being deliberately vague on what that level is so that my answer is more broadly applicable than my own specific view. And, again, that is my view and not something I can say is the only way to look at the issue.

  • Believing Atheist

    @AJ,

    False logic. Public schools in the U.S. are run by a secular government, and when citizens agree to be members of the U.S. they simultaneously agree to uphold the Constitution. In fact I am not sure if you are a naturalized citizen but if you are then you agree to the following:

    I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and Defend THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

  • http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

    JSB,

    Do you find this frightening that you could be put in jail for eating halal or owning a Quran or in your case replace those by kosher/Torah?

    Secondly, why I as a parent don’t have a say in the subjects taught to my children in public schools when I pay taxes for them? Should I have the option to opt out of school tax if I don’t avail the public schools? I know its a tangent but I like to see your views on this.

  • Just Stopping By

    @DawahFilms: Thanks. To clarify, I was speaking about RationalSkeptic’s view that religion should be banned entirely, which would include scientific investigation by adults, a prospect that I find frightening.

    I am fine with the government preventing religion posing as science in public schools. So, people should keep their religious propaganda out of public schools (no particular offense indended for cinematic religious propaganda, DawahFilms!)

  • http://www.youtube.com/dawahfilms DawahFilms

    Just Stopping By,

    You said:
    _____________________
    If someone comes up with a theory of intelligent design, do we look for scientific flaws in the theory or look for evidence to refute it? No need, because your government saves us the trouble by banning it as suggesting a deity and religious.
    _____________________

    The U.S. courts, primarily on grounds of the “no establishment clause”, banned creationism out of the science class rooms. While Im against creationism being taught as Science, its just to point out that your example has already happened.

  • Ilisha

    @ Géji

    …. we run to the measuring-tape measuring the length of the silliness of their statements with “religious”.

    Yes, in this case, I’m just borrowing his measuring tape, based on the implications of what he has said, but I do agree on the points you’ve made. I’m still having a fun thought exercise imagining this utopia where religion is outlawed.

    Maybe instead of the science of tawheed, they can make the science of negation or unbelief to keep the ideology pure, and of course, their own versions of shirk, bid’ah and takfir. The only thing left will be deciding the punishment for heretics. I suggest death by stoning. ;)

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/GargamelGold?feature=mhee CriticalDragon1177

    @Wanderer

    You wrote,
    ————————————————————————-
    RationalSkeptic is proof that you don’t need to belong to a religion to be a fundamentalist/extremist/supremacist.

    It is the nature of man to seek supremacy over another. If he doesn’t find that supremacy in religion, he would find it in his lack thereof.
    ————————————————————————-

    He also proves that having the words “rational” or “skeptic” in your user name doesn’t make you a good critical thinker. He apparently assumes becouse he’s an atheist that a state that banned religion wouldn’t persecute him or that they’re would be some way to stop it from persecuting the wrong people.

  • Géji

    @Ilisha … “Your idea clearly demonstrates you don’t need to be religious to hold extremist views.”

    That’s what my above post to JSB says. But Ilisha, I don’t think its fair this inclination in vogue where every-time an atheist makes wild, intolerant statements (which most of the content are directed at religion or their adherents); immediately to refute them, we run to the measuring-tape measuring the length of the silliness of their statements with “religious”. I don’t hear much-of if example an religious-nut making the same rant about Atheism, – “Your idea clearly demonstrates you don’t need to be [atheist] to hold extremist views” – . Beside, its not like where history is concern Atheism/atheists have clean-hands, they’ve been in all fields concerning the wacky-stuffs that had happened in this world just for the past 100 years alone, and the devastation they’ve caused are just as much cruel as “religious”. In a lot of cases I’ve seen, and I think the way this so-called “new-Atheism” tend to fashion itself, the “new” atheist tend to prefer creating holes in history, forgetting the past of his/her forefathers, putting the sole blame of everything defective the world has ever produced (since religion) on “religious”, (especially monotheism). And loves to present her/himself as The-Most(highest of highest) “rational”, “logical”, “scientific” ect.. and The-Sole-Savior that this in dire-shape world, so-long-been-bruise-by-evil-religion (especially monotheism) needs. Which sorry to say, but we do have a name for those that think such and they’re called – Braggers, bragging in itself is just an empty-hole. And of course, us religious too are full of braggers.

Advertise Here
Advertise Here