One mans opinion

Forums: News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Recieved by e-mail this AM.

After hearing that the state of Florida changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face covered this is an editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa newspaper. He did quite a job; didn't he? Read on, please!

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT. I am tired of this
nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.

I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

"In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian or Judaic right wing political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christians and Jewish men and women, on Judaic and Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

If Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every! citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great American freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

If you agree -- pass this along; if you don't agree -- delete it!

AMEN

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,859 • Replies: 41

No top replies

Well, this has been quite an old 'Urban Legend'!

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/american.htm

0 Replies

Walter
From the Mornings newspaper.
Hat's bias,
Muslims say

By PETE DONOHUE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Bus driver and Muslim Stephanie Lewis says TA insists she cap her headdress.

Transit bureaucrats are trying to put a lid on religious expression, union leaders say.
The union says Transit Authority supervisors have taken disciplinary action against female Muslim bus drivers who have resisted or rebuffed directives to wear Transit Authority caps over their Islamic headdress - called a khimar.

Under TA policy, a driver who wears a religious headdress is required to top it with a TA hat, according to a letter from authority President Lawrence Reuter.

But union officials and the women, who all work out of the Flatbush depot in Brooklyn, say capping their khimars would violate the tenets of their faith: that a woman be covered as an expression of modesty by nothing but the Islamic garb.

"It's religious discrimination," said Amin Khan, a vice president with Transport Workers Union Local 100. "The TA is forcing them to chose between their religious beliefs and their jobs."

Stephanie Lewis, 53, of Brooklyn drove for some 14 years wearing her khimar without any problems, she said. But when she recently returned to work after time off for an injury, she said she was told she must comply with the cap rule.

Lewis said she was hit with one written violation and assigned to nonpassenger duty. In the last two weeks, she has moved two empty buses between depots.

"The rest of the time I'm just sitting around," she said. "It's kind of stressful. I have to laugh to keep from crying. It hurts. I just want to work, do my job honestly, make my little money and go home to my family."

A TA spokesman reiterated the uniform policy but declined further comment because the matter is going to arbitration.

Union lawyer Arthur Schwartz suspects the crackdown is a backlash from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and recent terrorism scares.

0 Replies

au,

This article you post is wrong in more ways then one...

First we (American citizens) DO speak Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, German, Swahili, French and many other languages.

Geesh 40% of us speak Spanish. And factually, Spanish was spoken in this country before English.

If you don't speak another language that doesn't make you "American", it makes you *ignorant*.

Second, it is not American to ask someone to change their religion to stay here. Are you going to say to a Jewish person that they need to eat a pork hotdog because it is the "American" thing to do? No we are a mix of Catholics, Protestant, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and others. The vast majority of us are able to accept our differences and get along. Asking someone to give up their religion to live here goes against our laws and our values.

Third, Jewish and Christian men did *NOT* found this nation. The Bible specifically forbids rebellion against the king (Romans 12). People who were deeply religeous at the time opposed the revolution.

The founders of the Nation including Jefferson and Washington et. al were Deists not Christians. Washington was a Freemason. Many of the founders including Franklin where atheists. I do not know of any Jewish people among them.

Furthermore the modern society of our nation is decidedly secular. A very small percentage of us even attend a church more than twice a year. Most of us don't take God or Religion very seriously.

The author of this perposterous article suggests that people who don't like America should leave. Here I would agree with him or her.

America is a diverse, multicultural nation with laws to protect religion and freedom. We come from many nations and have many cultures.

There are countries that do have a predominate culture, a homogenous populace and a dominant relgion. I would suggest that it is the author of this article that would be happier leaving to one of these places. I would suggest China or Iran for example.

But America is a great, diverse and free country. I am not going to change this for anyone.

0 Replies

Different ethnic traditions may be followed anywhere in the world if they do not affect rights and interests of the third person. In case of Florida court decision, it seems to me a politically correct bulls**t. Driving license is an identification document[/color] by definition. What identification of the owner may be possible when the face is covered?

0 Replies

even us atheists are allowed to vote (as long as we dont make our views public)

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

Driving license is an identification document[/color] by definition. What identification of the owner may be possible when the face is covered?

Well, at least here in Germany we have another definition: a driving licence is no identification document at all. (Would be quite funny to use my 1968 photo and my parent's adress for that!)

0 Replies

This is not a new problem. People have always been forced to choose between religeous/cultural beliefs and American popular culture.

Some of us are old enough to remember Sandy Koufax. He was widely criticized for refusing to pitch the first game of the World Series becuase it fell on Yom Kippur.

Most of us now respect this decision. But isn't this the same decision the bus driver is making?

Is Islam the religeon it is acceptable to criticise now?

We should allow people to practice their religeous beliefs with dignity and respect if at all possible.

Steissd may be right about the need for identification. There is no reason why this bus driver should be forced to wear a silly hat.

0 Replies

I think there are separate issues here. First, we are a very diverse country, unique in the world, and it is this very diversity that makes us so rich in so many ways. We have people who dress according to their beliefs, from the head covering of the Muslims to the dress of the orthodox Jews, to the the dress of the Amish.

But a job or a license to drive is a different thing. These are choices, not rights. If a Muslim woman wishes to apply for a license to drive in a state that requires photo id, then she should abide by the regulations. The reasons for the photo id are reasonable and intelligent. If these reasons go against a religious belief, then one can make a decision not to apply for the license. To insist on being able to flout laws because of a religious belief opens the door to many such occurences. So it is a choice, which should be based on a willingness to follow the laws of that choice.

I should think the same thing would apply to the wearing of a TA hat. There are other jobs available for application. If a person chooses to apply for a job that carries with it certain rules, then the rules should be obeyed. If they go against religious beliefs, fine. Apply for another job that does not offer that conflict.

I believe also that people who choose to send their children to private religious schools should not make a fuss about paying school taxes. The right to a public education exists here. But private school is a choice

0 Replies

I agree with Mamajuana, Ebrown_p. There are companies that want their employees to wear a uniform, it is a part of image of the enterprise. If this contradicts some religious practices, such job should not be applied for.

0 Replies

There are specific jobs that people confessing certain religions cannot be engaged in. E.g., I cannot imagine a religious Muslim working as a sommelier or a bartender (Koran prohibits alcohol), or a religious Jew being a farmer that breeds pigs for pork. This has nothing to do with discrimination, rights, liberties, etc. These are just restrictions the people voluntarily impose on themselves.

0 Replies

Brown
To begin with as you know I did not write the article however, much being said is absolutely correct.

Quote:

This article you post is wrong in more ways then one...

First we (American citizens) DO speak Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, German, Swahili, French and many other languages

.

People can and do speak whatever language they want to each other. However, I see no reason why the government has to cater to people who are to lazy to learn the language of the land by printing documents in every language imaginable.

Quote:

Geesh 40% of us speak Spanish. And factually, Spanish was spoken in this country before English.

Were the Pilgrims Spanish? Or the Dutch who settled NYC also Spanish. The Spaniards raped Mexico and South America. The English did in the colonies and the French and English did Canada.
Speaking of who came first, I think that might have been the native Americans
The Big mistake was that English was never declared to be the official language of the USA.

As far as in God we trust is concerned it has no exclusivity Everyone with the exception of Atheists believes in a God of sorts. It is as far as I can see a vanilla statement.
What the writer was actually trying to say IMO is that the recent immigrants do not want to become part of the melting part that makes up the American culture. For instance I knew Hispanics who were born in the US that spoke English as if they just got off the boat. I grew up in a neighborhood where many of the kids were first generation. Many could speak their parents native language but all spoke English perfectly. They also did not need that English second language nonsense in school.
I expect any day to see signs in store windows proclaiming "ENGLISH SPOKEN HERE"

As far as religion is concerned I see nothing that say's you may not practice your religion. What is being said is if the requirements of the job do not meet the requirements of your religion. Don't take the job.Admittedly in this instance it's a little
late to impose a requirement after 14 years. The TA will no doubt lose.

0 Replies

The interesting question here is where to draw the line between the need to work and the need to make concessions for religeous beliefs.

The question is where do we draw the line?

For instance if I for some reason did not want Jewish people to work at my company, I could simply insist that they eat bacon as a requirement for getting the job?

Would anyone here argue that this is not grossly unfair and rightly illegal (assuming the the job had nothing to do with bacon)?

As a small business owner it is illegal if I ask potential employees if they will work on religeous holidays, for example Christmas or Yom Kippur, unless there is a pressing business reason that this is truly necessary. Isn't this fair?

We make laws against these practices because historically many groups have been discriminated against in ways that keeps them out of the job pool. This effectively shuts them out of economic opportunity. This has happened to people of German, Irish, Jewish and Chinese descent.

There is always an unpopular group to discriminate against. Right now I doubt that anyone would argue that people of Arab descent the target of this discrimination right now?

Now sure there are clear examples when there is a pressing business reason that a person can not follow a religeous belief. For example some businesses must be open on the Sabbath. Other places serve alchohol, or have naked people. These businesses can not reasonably expected to accomodate religeous beliefs.

I feel strongly, and fortunately the law agrees, that "reasonable" accomodations must be made for people of any faith to allow them to participate equally in our economy. This is crucial for any free and just society.

A TA hat has no effect whatsoever on a persons ability to drive a bus. This is a very minor accomodation to make to a person of faith who is trying to make a living.

A job is more than a priveledge it determines a persons status in society and ultimately their ability to survive. Shutting a person out of their line of work because of their culture is evil.

It is clearly wrong to penalize a person for their faith because of a hat.

The TA will no doubt lose.

Eric Brown-Muñoz

0 Replies

re language here in the southwest (not new england) there has been a longer history of spanish spoken, the fact that the area once known as Calafia incorported california, nevada, arizona, new mexico, texas and parts of colorado and oklahoma. their acquistion was under President Polk as manifest destiny ( he wanted it, he took it) Santa Fe was a capitol city before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth. America, as i know it, is not just the east coast. we have numerous languages of spanish as well as native americans and there have been attempts to dictate english only on tribal lands/schools. took the courts to toss such nonsense.

0 Replies

ebrown - I think maybe you are misreading some stuff. No one is denying the right to work. To the contrary, unless one is born to untold wealth, work is a necessity. But that is not what we are talking about.

If you, for example, made it a rule of your company that all emplyees had to eat pork, then those who objected on religious grounds could and should seek other work, if they do not want to observe the regulations of your company. It is your right to make the work rules of your company. If you impose that restriction solely as a means of exclusion, then you, in turn, are breaking the law that says you may not discriminate because of sex, age, or religion, and you may be sued on those grounds.

In the case of the TA, the hat is also used as a means of recognition, is considered part of a uniform, and the wearing of the uniform comes with the job requirements. There is no real discrimination here. To you it's a silly hat. Well, so are some other uniforms, but they are required by the job. And, if the person applying for the job objects to this, then that person can choose to sue, or look elsewhere. To object to something like this on the grounds of religious persecution makes a mockery of the whole situation.

The case in Florida should never have been brought up, and the judge's decision was questionable. There was no religious discrimination there. Try driving with a veil covering half of your face, and see what happens. Also, it could suggest a good way to perpetrate a crime - to remain half hidden legally because of religious restrictions. Where does that start and end?

So far as language. Personally, I'd be all in favor of teaching language early in this country, and Spanish I think would be an excellent second choice. But the language of the country is English, and the lack of it holds back many from getting better jobs or communicating with people. In almost every country, the required language is the language of the country, and English is the language here. So it would seem to me to be enlightened self-interest to learn it. Just as those earlier emigres from so many different countries did.

0 Replies

manjuana; here in the southwest you had best speak some spanish if you want a job. any job. spanish is the dominate language

0 Replies

dyslexia - here in the northeast a knowledge of Spanish can be more than helpful; it is often necessary. I live in a neighborhood that is very mixed, with a large hispanic population. Spanish was my second language, and I understand what you're saying, but I still feel that people who choose to live in a country should learn its language. We did business with Portugal for many years, and, while I can read Portuguese, the spoken language is more difficult. Still, I learned it because that was the language of the country. It's funny. Politically, I am far from what's happening in my country today, but I do feel strongly about most parts of it. And every country has its own characteristics, its own language.

0 Replies

I'm also with Mamajuana.

0 Replies

Dyslexia
I also know what you're saying, but for someone to get by where you live, wouldn't they need to know English as well as Spanish?

0 Replies

Au,

This discussion about language is moot. ¡Estamos Aqui!

You can see the White House web site in Spanish here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/espanol/index.es.html
... or you can just click the prominant button marked "Español" at the top of the main page.

Of course the IRS is similar
http://www.irs.gov/espanol/index.html

And in less then a month you are going to hear John Kerry, Jon Edwards and Dick Gephart saying slogans in their best rehearsed Spanish.

You say the big mistake was not declaring English the official language. You are wrong becuase that never would have worked. We are American citizens and we vote.

Your big mistake was allowing non-whites to vote. The fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution are what did in your cause for a homogenous non-pluralist society.

Since we live in a multicultural society, and people are guaranteed equal rights including the right to vote, we are going to protect our abilities to have a equal playing field without sacraficing our identities. Sorry, but that's how democracy works.

One more thing about language. All of my family including my 9 year old son and my 5 year old niece are perfectly fluent in English and Spanish. I would guess they don't need to worry about your kids taking their jobs.

0 Replies

One mans opinion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know