Coach let go for allowing parent to try to convert Muslims

[Paranormal Inquirer]

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080529/SCHOOLS/805290380

Was the pastor within his right to do so?

[godless dave]

Depends if he did it on school grounds or during school activities. He and the coach claim he didn't.

[Prometheus]

Seems to me that everyone on all sides has acted completely within their rights. What's the big deal?

[JoeEllison]

You'd think they would just bag the assistant?

[drkitten]

Was the pastor within his right to do so?

if he was not acting in his official capacity as coach at the time, and wasn't doing it on school property, then, yes, he was.

But the school board was also within their rights not to renew his contract. Almost no one has a legally enforceable expectation of contract renewal.

[Bob Klase]

I'd think they'd find out exactly who did what, and where, before they bag anybody. Based on that article it looks like they still don't know.

[drkitten]

You'd think they would just bag the assistant?

Marszalek says he was aware for 10 years that Hancock's activities "might be a problem."

---
I can only imagine the discussion:

"Let me see, now, Mr. Murphy. We've had complaints now from customers for the past six months that all the cashiers on your shift are rude and surly, and in many cases sexually harassing. Despite this, you've by your own admission done nothing to address the problem, not even firing the most egregious offenders. I'm afraid the problem is at a higher level than the cashiers, Mr. Murphy. May I have your nametag please?"

[drkitten]

I'd think they'd find out exactly who did what, and where, before they bag anybody. Based on that article it looks like they still don't know.

Whom did they bag? His contract was up for renewal and was not renewed.

[Fnord]

Just my Cr0.02...


The school's principal, Imad Fadlallah, is a relative of Hezbollah spiritual leader Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a Specially Designated Terrorist (SDT) on the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control terrorist list, used by the State Department.

Susan Fadlallah (Imad Fadlallah's wife) is the daughter of Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who was Hezbollah's negotiator during the 1985 TWA flight 847 hijacking during which Hezbollah tortured to death Navy Diver Robert Dean Stethem.

Islamic Terrorists Ali Houssaiky and Osama Sabhi Abulhassan (a.k.a.; "The Dearbornistan Boys") are graduates of Dearborn's Fordson High School (a.k.a. "Hezbollah High"). Houssaiky was the star running back and co-captain of Fordson's football team.

Rev. Trey Hancock of the Dearborn Assembly of God, who helped Marszalek with the team for 10 years, and whose son, Paul, is now a member, confirmed that he attempts to convert Muslim youths to Christianity and that he baptized a 15-year-old Muslim student in Port Huron a few years ago. Hancock insisted that he never attempted a conversion as part of his work with the wrestling team, or on school grounds.



Golly gee, I see no ulterior motives in the coach's firing, do you? :rolleyes:

[Fiona]

Guilt by association?

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Just my Cr0.02...




Golly gee, I see no ulterior motives in the coach's firing, do you? :rolleyes:

Enough with the Debbie Schlussel sources. It'd do you some good not to source anti Islamic, racist propaganda. Besides, the first and third points you made have been refuted.

[Prometheus]

Fixed it for you:

Just my Cr0.02...



<snip>(Association Fallacy)

<snip>(Association Fallacy)

<snip>(Association Fallacy)

<snip>



Golly gee, I see no ulterior motives in the coach's firing, do you? :rolleyes:

Golly gee, I see no ulterior motives in your post. Paranoid, much, are we? :rolleyes:

[Paranormal Inquirer]

lol, nice one!

[Fnord]

No statement is racist propaganda if the stated assertions are true.

However, even conceding the first and third points does not change anything else. The coach was fired / let go / not re-contracted; and not necessarily for failing performance. The facts that his association with a Christian evangelist, and that his supervisor is a moslem would appear to have been major factors in that decision.

Last I heard about Fordson was back in 2006, when Dearborn school leaders directed their employees to de-emphasize the 9/11 attacks in the classroom. Since then, some teachers have feared for their jobs if they so much as acknowledge 9/11.

Of course, we all know that nobody is ever persecuted merely being associated with Christians in this modern and enlightened age, right?

And certainly, no one would ever dream of allowing their own religious beliefs to influence their decision-making processes, right?

Yeah, this is all one big hoo-hah over nothing. Ignore it, there is nothing going on involving religious persecution.

السلام والمحبة

[Civilized Worm]

I think Fnord may have a bit of a point. If the principal is a muslim that could explain this overreaction.

[Paranormal Inquirer]

I think Fnord may have a bit of a point. If the principal is a muslim that could explain this overreaction.

True. But he still brought up stories which were fabrications made by the bigoted Debbie Schlussel. For him to fall for such sources for information on the outside world is quite frightning. Perhaps you agreed with her and Michelle Malkin on calling Rachel Ray's recent ad for Dunkin' Donuts terrorist promoting.

[drkitten]

However, even conceding the first and third points does not change anything else. The coach was fired / let go / not re-contracted; and not necessarily for failing performance. The facts that his association with a Christian evangelist, and that his supervisor is a moslem would appear to have been major factors in that decision.

Of course the fact that by his own admission parents were complaining to that same supervisor about his association with the Christian evangelist, and he did nothing about it, is probably an even greater factor in that decision.

The coach is, by his own admission not responsive to the needs and desires of the community he ostensibly serves. Sounds to me like he acknowledges that he was fired for failing performance.

[GreyICE]

Of course the fact that by his own admission parents were complaining to that same supervisor about his association with the Christian evangelist, and he did nothing about it, is probably an even greater factor in that decision.

The coach is, by his own admission not responsive to the needs and desires of the community he ostensibly serves. Sounds to me like he acknowledges that he was fired for failing performance.
The coach is not responsible to any person or group for who he knows or is friends with, especially in the context of a government job. Right of free association and all that.

So the issue the parents were complaining about was never a legitimate issue, and he had no responsibility to respond to it in any way, shape, or form.

[Prometheus]

School spokesman David Mustonen left this statement: “Coaches are at-will employees. They sign a one-year contract. The decision was made based upon the fact that there was a union person interested in the position, and priority has to be given to that unionized person.”
Marszalek said he does not plan to take any legal action. He said he was already retired and was only coaching part-time.
Link (http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/16424315/detail.html)

[Civilized Worm]

True. But he still brought up stories which were fabrications made by the bigoted Debbie Schlussel. For him to fall for such sources for information on the outside world is quite frightning. Perhaps you agreed with her and Michelle Malkin on calling Rachel Ray's recent ad for Dunkin' Donuts terrorist promoting.


I have no idea who Rachel Ray is.

[Prometheus]

I have no idea who Rachel Ray is.

Consider yourself lucky.

[Paranormal Inquirer]

I have no idea who Rachel Ray is.

http://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2008/05/27/dunkin_donuts_yanks_rachael_ray_ad/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed1/

[slingblade]

Of course, we all know that nobody is ever persecuted [for] merely being associated with Christians in this modern and enlightened age, right?


Given my personal experiences, you'll pardon me if I hope so, very much.

[Meadmaker]

There's something I don't get. Why are there contacts between a clergyman and the wrestling team?

Do community members generally have contact with high school sports teams? It seems from the story that the preacher was not a school employee, but had a lot of contact with the wrestling team. What's up with that? Was the coach basically arranging contact with this guy because he wanted to give Jesus an inside track with the wrestlers? If so, then letting him go doesn't seem outrageous. On the other hand, if this was simply a case of nothing out of the ordinary, then why is there even any sort of connection between the preacher's activity and the coach's job?

I suspect there's a bit more to the story. As presented, a preacher had contact with some members of the wrestling team, but didn't do anything religious on school grounds or during school activities, so they fired the wrestling coach. By itself, that doesn't make sense.

[Prometheus]

There's something I don't get. Why are there contacts between a clergyman and the wrestling team?

Do community members generally have contact with high school sports teams? It seems from the story that the preacher was not a school employee, but had a lot of contact with the wrestling team. What's up with that? Was the coach basically arranging contact with this guy because he wanted to give Jesus an inside track with the wrestlers? If so, then letting him go doesn't seem outrageous. On the other hand, if this was simply a case of nothing out of the ordinary, then why is there even any sort of connection between the preacher's activity and the coach's job?

I suspect there's a bit more to the story. As presented, a preacher had contact with some members of the wrestling team, but didn't do anything religious on school grounds or during school activities, so they fired the wrestling coach. By itself, that doesn't make sense.

The preacher is also the father of the team's star wrestler, and he worked as the team's assistant coach for 10 years, so the "connections" aren't really all that strange.

[drkitten]

The coach is not responsible to any person or group for who he knows or is friends with, especially in the context of a government job. Right of free association and all that.

Wrong on at least two counts.

First, his "rights" don't enter into it as he has no "right" to contract renewal.

And second, he --- like any public employee -- is reponsible for his actions to the public and must be responsive to public criticism, and like any employer is responsible for the actions of his subordinates.

I'm sorry, but when the public complains about the way your subordinates are performing -- in any sector, public or private -- that's grounds for disciplinary action against YOU.



So the issue the parents were complaining about was never a legitimate issue, and he had no responsibility to respond to it in any way, shape, or form.

Nor does the principle have any responsibility to continue his contract in any way, shape, or form.

[Paranormal Inquirer]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-05-29-coach-muslim_N.htm

[Meadmaker]

Wrong on at least two counts.

First, his "rights" don't enter into it as he has no "right" to contract renewal.

And second, he --- like any public employee -- is reponsible for his actions to the public and must be responsive to public criticism, and like any employer is responsible for the actions of his subordinates.



Are you sure you meant that?

What is alleged, here, is that a person who happened to have contact with a wrestling team practiced his religion and attempted to preach it, but not as part of any official capacity nor during school activities. Because of that, his friend, whose contract had been renewed for the previous 34 years, was suddenly not renewed.

Meanwhile, that particular school is one of the only public schools in the United States which has a Muslim majority, and non-Muslims were on Detroit radio today saying that there was plenty of proselytizing going on in that school, but it was usually by the members of the religious majority in the school, who are Muslims.

So, there was a mob of angry Muslims who didn't like this Christian dude, and they ran him out.

I don't believe that, myself. I think there is more to the story. However, that is what is alleged.

So, strictly for the sake of argument, let us assume that is what happened. A devout Christian made no attempt to hide his Christianity, and the Muslim majority objected. When the coach refused to ban this devout Christian from contact with the team, a privilege that any parent would have had, the Muslims complained to the principal, and the principal fired the coach.

By your reasoning, the mere fact that the parents are complaining are grounds for action against the employee? That's what I think you are saying here: I'm sorry, but when the public complains about the way your subordinates are performing -- in any sector, public or private -- that's grounds for disciplinary action against YOU. (It seems like you are referring to the pastor as a subordinate in this case. Actually, he had no official role of any sort.)

(ETA: He no longer had an official role: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080530/NEWS05/805300313)

I shudder to contemplate the consequences. Anyone who is not part of the majority religion would have reason to fear for his job.

That's something that some people may be missing in this case. They might be assuming that this is a case of a religious minority complaining about the proselytzing of the majority. That's not the case. The majority religion in this instance is Islam. The minority religion is Christianity.

Furthermore, the member of teh minority religion, the Christian pastor, insists he did not engage in any religious activities as part of his participation as a volunteer or parent, nor did he engage in any religious acitivities on school grounds. Therefore, this isn't about some sort of unauthorized proselytizing. This is about, again allegedly, the religious majority being upset about the religious activities of a minority.

Can a contract be terminated because the religious majority objects to your religion? We'll let the courts sort that out, but it isn't a position that usually gets a lot of support of JREF.

[Meadmaker]

And, as suspected, there's a lot more to this story than what was originally presented:

http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=Community&article=1124


I'm still not exactly sure what to make of this story. Obviously, the story above comes from a source whose objectivity is suspect, but the pastor was clearly doing more than just minding his own business and watching his son wrestle. As is often the case when a neighborhood undergoes substantial ethnic transformation in a short time, there are clearly tensions associated, and it's hard to say, based on some spotty news reporting, what is the story behind the story.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Seems to me that everyone on all sides has acted completely within their rights. What's the big deal?

How about if the Wrestling coach was trying to convert the children to homosexuality?


:confused:

[Hooloovoo]

Seems to me that everyone on all sides has acted completely within their rights. What's the big deal?
Isn't it illegal to fire someone on the grounds of religious affiliation, though? Or can a person get a pink slip for not belonging to the right church? If the assistant really truly did abstain from evangelizing while he was volunteering at the school, what business is it of theirs what he does on his free time? Even if he converted a student a few years ago, if that was done on his own time, I'd say he's within his rights. Plus, the student would need to be a willing participant in that conversion for it to work.
Since the coach said the pastor's actions were a concern, I'm a little suspicious the preaching stayed off campus at all times. But if no religious bullying took place this sounds like a civil rights violation. Whether the school can fail to renew a contract for any reason or not, this wouldn't be right.
This story doesn't give us enough to know for sure what really happened.

[Hooloovoo]

Double post. Oopsie.

[Hooloovoo]

Woops, accident. Sorry about that.

[Hooloovoo]

How about if the Wrestling coach was trying to convert the children to homosexuality?


:confused:
What? Wouldn't that be sort of like trying to convert students to being left-handed?
Where are you going with this?

[Henners]

How about if the Wrestling coach was trying to convert the children to homosexuality?


:confused:

Confused, indeed.

Can you name a single person in the history of the human race who has successfuly been converted like that?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What? Wouldn't that be sort of like trying to convert students to being left-handed?
Where are you going with this?

Have not left-handers been converted to right-handedness?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Confused, indeed.

Can you name a single person in the history of the human race who has successfuly been converted like that?

Sure, my friend. He fully admits such. This conversion occurred at about the age of 35 years and after he had been in a traditional marriage.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Would it be O.K. for the wrestling coach to attempt to convert the children to homosexuality?

[Henners]

Can you name a single person in the history of the human race who has successfuly been converted like that?

I'm repeating the question, JdG, for you pretended that you had answered it when you had not.

For completeness, you would also need to name the person that did the converting.

No rush.

[Hooloovoo]

Have not left-handers been converted to right-handedness?
Sort of, but not really. Years ago, my great grandmother was forced to write right-handed in spite of being naturally a lefty. She was still a lefty in every other way besides handwriting, though, which shows she wasn't truly converted, just retrained a little.
My point is it isn't really fair to compare trying to change someone's inborn characteristics with religious conversion. This is getting off the topic, but I have yet to hear about an active campaign by homosexuals to convert straight kids to their team. If one exists, educate me there.

[CptColumbo]

The thing I always ask in these situations is, "Was the person doing their job?" What did the contract say regarding this situation? Of course, the school is perfectly within their rights to not renew the person's contract, but it would be helpful to his/her successor to know what their responsibilities are.

[Prometheus]

The coach was not fired. He was an at will employee, already semi-retired--and had already informed the school that he would not seek to be re-hired after the following year when his son's friend graduated. His contract was not renewed because a union employee asked for his position and the school department's contract with the union required that union employees be given preferance over non-union employees, and he had disobeyed a directive from the school principal. Even if there was any religious ulterior motive it's irrelevant because the principal has all the legal grounds he needs to justify his actions.

Also, even though it's completely irrelevant, my answer to Jerome's question is that, in my opinion, it would not have made a bit of difference if the coach had been trying to convert kids to homosexuality, though I very much doubt that many of the parents or the community at large agree with me. Unsubstantiated hearsay personal anecdotes notwithstanding, such conversion is, I believe, impossible. However, had the coach actually attempted to engage in any sort of sexual activity with students, then that would have been grounds for immediate dismissal (not merely allowing an annual contract to lapse).

That said, I'm not naive to the point where I think the school administration, or the other parents have acted entirely honorably. I just don't think they violated any laws or civil rights. There's obviously quite a bit going on in the background that is not being well-reported on in the media, and it's entirely likely that there are extenuating circumstances which might lead me to modify my opinion in either direction if I become aware of them.