John Simpson of Fox News filed this report last year from Minneapolis regarding local Somalis who are trying to push sharia law.
This is not a recent report, but it is still timely. Minneapolis received the largest share of Somali immigrants who were brought to the US in the 1990s courtesy of our State Department. Had they assimilated, it would never have been a problem. Unfortunately, too many Somalis, as Simpson states, have not assimilated. Many are committing crimes, trying to push their sharia beliefs, and some are even heading off to join the jihad in Somalia with Al Shabaab.
Thanks a lot, State Department.
This video is, on its face, an editorial, not a news report. I don't think Gary will contest that. Nor do I contest that an editorial is a legitimate form of communication. I don't have enough context to tell whether this was PRESENTED as "news" or up front as an editorial.
ReplyDeleteThe decision to bring a large number of Somalis en masse to the United States may have been poor judgement. News coverage at the time was that among the various peoples at risk in war-torn, warlord-plagued, semi-anarchic Somalia was a population descended originally from baNtu speaking people further south, who had been kidnapped and brought north as slaves centuries earlier. These people were now Arabic speaking, Muslim, but still despised as a demographic group by their neighbors.
Someone in the state department, or elsewhere, decided the humanitarian thing to do was offer them all refuge in the USA. The results do not fully justify the wisdom of that decision.
Cab drivers refusing to carry passengers who violate Islamic law is just as much an infringement on the constitutional liberty of their passengers as, e.g., a pharmacy employee refusing to fill a prescription for contraceptives. Neither should be allowed to keep their job.
I have a little more sympathy on the matter of dogs. In many Arabic and Muslim cultures, dogs are considered unclean. The driver feels himself and his car are tainted. What if a Jewish cab driver was asked to accommodate a "seeing eye pig"? It's a hard question, because seeing eye dogs, at least are vitally necessary to people with impaired or absent vision. But crying "Sharia" doesn't help to clarify matters.
Target probably did the right thing. It is general law in this country that employers must make reasonable accommodations for employee's religious beliefs. This includes, e.g., scheduling their work so as not to conflict with religious obligations. It does not mean never having any slightest contact with anyone else's free exercise.
A Muslim employee may not insist his employer cease carrying pork and bacon. If an employer can reassign an employee to useful and necessary work, within the same pay scale and skill level, that is a reasonable accommodation. If they cannot, they do not have to make an unreasonable accommodation.
The editorial is unduly sensationalist fear-mongering, but raises issues that need to be settled. The boundaries of any resolution need to affirm that the law applies to all persons within the United States, and that the law recognizes and accommodates individual religious practice when that can reasonably be done without infringing the liberties of others.
Perhaps those returning to join the Shabab have expunged themselves of the taint of past slavery by their sojourn in the United States. They left as people known and despised by their neighbors. They return, with the same skin color and language as their former oppressors, cloaked in the imagery of devout Muslim rejecting the infidel USA. Now that is a bit ironic. Perhaps their family tree should be broadcast to Shabab controlled areas?