Record number of Muslim workers filing complaints of employment discrimination

Record number of Muslim workers filing complaints of employment discrimination

New York Times
September 23, 2010

A record number of Muslim workers are complaining of employment discrimination, from co-workers calling them "terrorist" or "Osama" to employers barring them from wearing head scarves or taking prayer breaks.

Such complaints were increasing even before frictions erupted over the planned Islamic center near ground zero in New York City, with Muslim workers filing a record 803 such claims in the year ended Sept. 30. That was up 20 percent from the previous year and up nearly 60 percent from 2005, federal data said.

The number of complaints filed since then will not be announced until January, but Islamic groups say they have received a surge in complaints, suggesting that 2010's figure will set another record. The rising number of complaints by Muslims exceeds even the amount filed in the year after 9/11.

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has found enough merit in some of the complaints that it has filed several prominent lawsuits on behalf of Muslim workers.

"There's a level of hatred ... that is shocking," said Mary Jo O'Neill, regional attorney of the EEOC's Phoenix office.

Although Muslims make up less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for about one-quarter of the 3,386 religious discrimination claims filed with the EEOC last year. Complaints filed by Jews rose slightly in fiscal 2009, while complaints filed by Catholics, Protestants, Sikhs and Seventh-day Adventists declined. Claims of race, sex and age also fell.

Experts say many factors are behind this surge. "There are intense concerns about many issues -- immigration, the faltering economy, the interminable wars" and the erroneous belief, held by many Americans, that the first nonwhite president is Muslim, said Akbar Ahmed, a professor of Islamic studies at American University. "In all of these, there's one link, Islam. Islam is the lightning rod."

the wide spread hatred of any kind of Muslim has been encouraged by the fox channel and tea-party's continued rantS at the building of Mosques.. "Muslims killed us"

which begs the question is this a Religious question or is it a political stance.. as expressed by tea-party / fox channel ?

cable2 wrote:
which begs the question is this a Religious question or is it a political stance.. as expressed by tea-party / fox channel ?

To "beg the question" means to argue a conclusion which is already assumed in the initial proposition (i.e. "God exists" because "the Bible says so" and therefore "God exists).

cable2 wrote:
which begs the question is this a Religious question or is it a political stance.. as expressed by tea-party / fox channel ?

merkwurdigliebe wrote:To "beg the question" means to argue a conclusion which is already assumed in the initial proposition (i.e. "God exists" because "the Bible says so" and therefore "God exists).

the question I was begging was.. is this a religious question or a political stance.. but it is up to the reader to chose to answer or no.

cable2 wrote:
the question I was begging was.. is this a religious question or a political stance.. but it is up to the reader to chose to answer or no.

"To beg the question" does not mean the same as "to raise the question".

cable2 wrote:
the question I was begging was.. is this a religious question or a political stance.. but it is up to the reader to chose to answer or no.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:"To beg the question" does not mean the same as "to raise the question".

Beg the question
Meaning

This is one of those rare phrases in which the meaning is more debated than the origin.

The usage which has become common in recent years has a meaning something along the lines of 'prompt/raise the question', that is, 'beg that the question be asked'. This is usually seen in circumstances where something is described and then an explanation is sought. For example, this piece from a 2003 edition of the Jamaican newspaper The Gleaner:

What we are saying here is that every 2 days a juvenile is arrested and it begs the question, "What is really happening to our parents?"

This usage is understandable and has presumably come about by interpreting the 'beg' of 'beg the question' as 'request' or 'humbly submit'. This is the meaning of the word in the similar phrase 'beg to differ'.

The original meaning was quite different though. To 'beg the question' was coined as a rather over-literal translation of the Latin phrase 'petitio principii'. The Latin version was itself a translation of Greek text 'en archei aiteisthai' taken from Aristotle's Prior Analytics. The phrase was known in English by at least 1581, at which date it was recorded by William Clarke:

"Ffiij, I say this is still to begge the question."

The logical constructs that Aristotle was describing were statements which assume the truth that one is attempting to prove. Those might be questions which have an assertion smuggled into them, like 'Why has England fewer trees per acre than any other country in Europe?'. Or, more commonly, the fallacious reasoning that we now usually call a 'circular argument'. For example, 'He must be speaking the truth because he never lies'. The 'truth' being assumed in advance isn't always so blatant. René Descartes' famous 'I think, therefore I am' can be said to be begging the question as he must exist before he can think - it is hardly a proof of anything to state 'I exist, therefore I am'.

If things weren't obscure enough with this phrase there was a version of the meaning that emerged between the two given above. That was its use to mean 'avoid the question'. This presumably also came from a misreading of 'beg' to follow the meaning of 'beggar description' or 'beggar belief'. That meaning of beggar, which seems to have been coined by Shakespeare in Anthony and Cleopatra, 1606, is 'exceed the resources of; go beyond':

"For her owne person It beggerd all discription."

Most authorities now view the current 'raise the question' meaning as acceptable, even if that is a somewhat grudging recognition that the weight of numbers of those who use it that way is overwhelming. It is also suggested by some that the minority who know and understand the original version should avoid using it, unless they are amongst consenting adults, as they aren't likely to be understood. That would be an unfortunate route to take. Whatever we might prefer, it is very likely that the percentage of the population that knows, or cares, that they are using the phrase incorrectly will continue to decline.

you pays your money and you takes your pick

cable2 wrote:Most authorities now view the current 'raise the question' meaning as acceptable, even if that is a somewhat grudging recognition that the weight of numbers of those who use it that way is overwhelming.

Those "authorities" would not be ones worth consulting with over definition and meaning of phrases, whomever they are. Despite what people think, words do not just change meaning simply because many use them in a different manner, they just use them incorrectly. And don't bother citing that the Oxford English dictionary included the "other" meaning of the phrase - they lost credibility when they decided to democratise the English language.

cable2 wrote:the wide spread hatred of any kind of Muslim has been encouraged by the fox channel and tea-party's continued rantS at the building of Mosques.. "Muslims killed us"

which begs the question is this a Religious question or is it a political stance.. as expressed by tea-party / fox channel ?

This is what gets people into flame wars on internet boards. You're painting a news channel and a political movement with a broad brush. That's not allowed in here. Now, if you want to make a point of numerous individuals or a specific individual spreading hatred or a news personality as spreading hatred, then go ahead but be ready for a debate on that.

This is what gets people into flame wars on internet boards. You're painting a news channel and a political movement with a broad brush. That's not allowed in here.

Many of the news stories you C&P from whatever sources you use often contain the very same broad strokes. "Islam must turn other cheek" for example claims a whole religion apparently needs to "grow up". Yes it does mention a "lunatic fringe" but it gives the reader no indication (according to the author of the piece) between who is "fringe" and who isn't.

Nearly every other piece you post uses adjectives to describe "liberals" (which ones in particular, I wonder) "unrealistic", "ignorant" or even worse.

Sorry but the other poster is correct, the tea-party's very existence makes the political climate much more divisive.

TexasBlue wrote:You're painting a news channel and a political movement with a broad brush.

Tex, you and dblboggie do exactly the same thing.

I do not paint all liberals with a narrow brush. Those on the left of center may think that way.

We went thru this with Allen a few months back when he pasted the Tea Party as racists. It's no more fair than a right winger calling all liberals communists or socialists.

We can allow this broad brush and have a very divisive board. Or we can have what we have already.

For the record, i consider none of you posters that are left leaning as far-left. There is a distinction.

As far as m postings go, it's to draw debate. I'd prefer others to do their thing as they wish as far as postings go. I have no complaints.

Sometimes you do. I'd much rather this place didn't descend into the mudslinging that next door has become.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Sometimes you do. I'd much rather this place didn't descend into the mudslinging that next door has become.

We all have painted one another with a broad brush at one point in time here and elsewhere. Some is fair and some is not.

We all have painted one another with a broad brush at one point in time here and elsewhere.

I haven't! You former-SPers always talk rubbish!

There's always an exception, Bec. But you know how us guys can be at times.

TexasBlue wrote:We all have painted one another with a broad brush at one point in time here and elsewhere. Some is fair and some is not.

So it is OK, just sometimes now? As opposed to it really wasn't earlier?

Sorry but the other guy was right, one of the only few things that unite all Tea-Party members across the US is opposition to the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque", even turning it into a political point. If there is an intelligent argument against it, the TP has not made one - its reaction towards it is little more then an emotional knee-jerk reaction.

It also appears that Fox News has made it an editorial policy to egg on silly people. Given some of the more recent outbursts from some of FN's highest paid commentators on the topic, I cannot see how anyone could say FN is not at all divisive.

TexasBlue wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Sometimes you do. I'd much rather this place didn't descend into the mudslinging that next door has become.

We all have painted one another with a broad brush at one point in time here and elsewhere. Some is fair and some is not.

I agree. I'm sure I've been guilty of it at times too.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:We all have painted one another with a broad brush at one point in time here and elsewhere. Some is fair and some is not.

So it is OK, just sometimes now? As opposed to it really wasn't earlier?

Sorry but the other guy was right, one of the only few things that unite all Tea-Party members across the US is opposition to the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque", even turning it into a political point. If there is an intelligent argument against it, the TP has not made one - its reaction towards it is little more then an emotional knee-jerk reaction.

It also appears that Fox News has made it an editorial policy to egg on silly people. Given some of the more recent outbursts from some of FN's highest paid commentators on the topic, I cannot see how anyone could say FN is not at all divisive.

Not really. My point is the human factor in we do things we shouldn't. Fair enuff?

The point you miss on the NYC mosque issue is that 70% of people in this country oppose where it's proposed to be built. Most New Yorkers oppose it. Most New Yorkers are liberal-minded people, i might add. I can't personally speak for them because i don't live there. If i did, i would oppose it no matter my ideology.

Nobody opposes any mosque being built in general except the most far-right among us in this country.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Sometimes you do. I'd much rather this place didn't descend into the mudslinging that next door has become.

We all have painted one another with a broad brush at one point in time here and elsewhere. Some is fair and some is not.

I agree. I'm sure I've been guilty of it at times too.

The point you miss on the NYC mosque issue is that 70% of people in this country oppose where it's proposed to be built. Most New Yorkers oppose it. Most New Yorkers are liberal-minded people, i might add. I can't personally speak for them because i don't live there. If i did, i would oppose it no matter my ideology.

Since when did liberal people become immune to prejudiced feelings, insecurity or bigotry? Since when did freedom to exercise religious beliefs become a matter of democratic action? Nobody should blame anyone for feeling "sensitive" about the proposed building, but to bring it into the political arena, as the TP and FN has successfully done, is quite another matter.

Nobody opposes any mosque being built in general except the most far-right among us in this country.

A minority, but a significant minority shares that very exact sentiment.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:Since when did liberal people become immune to prejudiced feelings, insecurity or bigotry? Since when did freedom to exercise religious beliefs become a matter of democratic action? Nobody should blame anyone for feeling "sensitive" about the proposed building, but to bring it into the political arena, as the TP and FN has successfully done, is quite another matter.

My POINT was that you were painting all who oppose the mosque as Tea Party people. It isn't true nor is it factual. I had to bring the liberal equation into to make that point. New York is a very progressive city.

It's a matter of people exercising their rights under the constitution here. The Muslims to build it and the people who oppose it.

Fox News has reported on it like any other news outlet here. Now, point out how they brought it into the political arena.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

Nobody opposes any mosque being built in general except the most far-right among us in this country.

A minority, but a significant minority shares that very exact sentiment.

The far-right is a minority in this country. They don't speak for everyone. Anyone who opposes this is not far-right... despite what people try to imply.

Btw, the polls show 60 to 70 percent of New Yorkers opposing the mosque. Why don't people go ahead and slam them instead of taking pot-shots at the Tea Party and FNC? Because it's convenient to lay the blame at the TP and FNC's doorsteps.

TexasBlue wrote:

merkwurdigliebe wrote:Since when did liberal people become immune to prejudiced feelings, insecurity or bigotry? Since when did freedom to exercise religious beliefs become a matter of democratic action? Nobody should blame anyone for feeling "sensitive" about the proposed building, but to bring it into the political arena, as the TP and FN has successfully done, is quite another matter.

My POINT was that you were painting all who oppose the mosque as Tea Party people.

No, the other way round. I was saying that Tea Party members are almost unanimously in agreement with each other on this issue. I'm sure there are other opinions on this among TP members, but they are likely a tiny, tiny minority.

Fox News has reported on it like any other news outlet here. Now, point out how they brought it into the political arena.

Except the balance of their report appears to be skewed in favour of one side of the argument over the other. To begin with, from what I've seen of the reporting, it is almost always referenced to incorrectly as the "Ground Zero Mosque" and not it's more neutral (and factually correct) names. Oh, and the reporting of unrest in Europe (whether it is the youth riots in Paris 2005, or the similar troubles in Sweden the year before) is always reported (incorrectly) as a clash of civilisations, and not about unemployment and disfranchisement.

Btw, the polls show 60 to 70 percent of New Yorkers opposing the mosque. Why don't people go ahead and slam them instead of taking pot-shots at the Tea Party and FNC? Because it's convenient to lay the blame at the TP and FNC's doorsteps.

Why should I stop? I see nothing I said so far is wrong.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:No, the other way round. I was saying that Tea Party members are almost unanimously in agreement with each other on this issue. I'm sure there are other opinions on this among TP members, but they are likely a tiny, tiny minority.

But by pasting them into the equation doesn't change the fact that a majority of this country opposes it. That includes libs, cons and independents. Independent minded people/voters make up the majority of the electorate here, not Dems and Repubs or libs/cons.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:Except the balance of their report appears to be skewed in favour of one side of the argument over the other.

Please give me an example.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:To begin with, from what I've seen of the reporting, it is almost always referenced to incorrectly as the "Ground Zero Mosque" and not it's more neutral (and factually correct) names.

It's called that by most news organizations here. I watch ABC Evening News each night and they refer to it as that also.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:Oh, and the reporting of unrest in Europe (whether it is the youth riots in Paris 2005, or the similar troubles in Sweden the year before) is always reported (incorrectly) as a clash of civilisations, and not about unemployment and disfranchisement.

I can't say because i haven't seen a broadcast segment on this.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Btw, the polls show 60 to 70 percent of New Yorkers opposing the mosque. Why don't people go ahead and slam them instead of taking pot-shots at the Tea Party and FNC? Because it's convenient to lay the blame at the TP and FNC's doorsteps.

Why should I stop? I see nothing I said so far is wrong.

I didn't say you should stop. I just said that if one is going to blame the Tea party, then they should hold most New Yorkers to the same standard... since it's the same feelings from them.

I never said opposing the proposed community centre automatically makes you a Tea Partier, so I'm not sure what's your issue with what I simply said. Since this was about the Tea Party and Fox News, I don't see what has the people of New York have got to do with this, perhaps they are, or perhaps they aren't.

Given the range of opinions over the proposed centre, I wonder why is it that Fox's more visible contributors when prompted seems to be uniformly opposed to it.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:I never said opposing the proposed community centre automatically makes you a Tea Partier, so I'm not sure what's your issue with what I simply said. Since this was about the Tea Party and Fox News, I don't see what has the people of New York have got to do with this, perhaps they are, or perhaps they aren't.

Given the range of opinions over the proposed centre, I wonder why is it that Fox's more visible contributors when prompted seems to be uniformly opposed to it.

I'm not a member of the Tea Party. I never suggested that you thought i was. Maybe you misinterpreted it that way in one of my statements. For the record, since you're new here, i'm a registered member of the US Libertarian Party and also with the Minnesota Independence Party (on the state level). I didn't vote for McCain. I didn't vote for Obama. I voted for 2 Democrats in the last election (US and state representatives). I couldn't wait to see Bush leave the White House. I have no stake with the Tea Party. None of my candidates running right now have a tie with them. There. Now you know where i stand.

What the people of New York have to do with it is that that a majority of them oppose the mosque being built where it is. If you're going to hold Tea party people to the standard many label them with on this issue, then one needs to take the same attitude with the citizens of that city since they feel the same way.

On FNC, i don't hear news anchors giving an opinion on it. You'll hear opinion hosts give an opinion. As it's been stated in here before by someone else, one needs to separate the two. You'll also have guest on there giving an opinion... and more often than not, it will be opinions from each side of the subject (one for, one against). Why that's bias, i don't know.