They say the Devil is in the details, but he’s often in the details that get left out.
An article by one “news” organization that specializes in leaving out details is making the rounds on facebook today… It’s none other than World Net Daily, an information outlet that I’ve had fun debunking in the past for their complete lack of integrity. They STILL promote the notion that Obama is not a US citizen, but a Kenyan plant.
Here’s the “news” item, as they present it.
Federal Court: Non-Muslim Cops Can Be Ordered To Attend Mosque
By Bob Unruh, WND
A panel of federal judges in Denver, in an opinion written by Judge Harris Hartz, found that it is perfectly appropriate for a police chief to order subordinates to attend an Islamic mosque where Muslims “discussed Islamic beliefs, Muhammad, Mecca, and why and how Muslims pray” in addition to encouraging officers “to buy” Islamic books and pamphlets that were for sale.
The ruling came on Thursday from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case brought by Capt. Paul Fields, who had been ordered by Tulsa police officials to either go to a special event at the local mosque himself, or order others to do that.
Fields refused based on religious freedom objections and was punished for that.
The judges on the 10th Circuit panel said that was perfectly appropriate.
The very first thing I noticed was… Where the hell is the story???? WND is a propaganda outlet, plain and simple. Lying by omission is a common trait shared by such sites. So I thought I’d flesh this out and see where it goes.
Here is the case made by Capt. Fields lawyers at the “American Freedom Law Center”, a very Conservative organization that represents Conservative causes and clients (I don’t have a problem with that BTW – if you have a case, it doesn’t matter if your Conservative or Liberal). There is more detail here thankfully. Here are portions of their stated case:
Throughout his entire career, Captain Fields has been a model for other police officers and an exemplary employee of the police department. Captain Fields is a Christian. He is not a Muslim, nor does he adhere to the Islamic faith. He objects to the City of Tulsa, its police department, and its officials promoting, endorsing, or otherwise providing favored treatment to Islam and compelling officers of the police department to attend Islamic events, including the “Law Enforcement Appreciation Day,” which was sponsored by the Islamic Society of Tulsa….
On January 25, 2011, Deputy Chief of Police Webster, who is a defendant in this lawsuit, announced in a staff meeting that the Islamic Society was hosting a “Law Enforcement Appreciation Day” that was scheduled for Friday, March 4, 2011. Friday is the “holy day” or “Sabbath” for Islam.
On Wednesday, February 16, 2011, an email approved by City police officials was sent to all police department personnel, stating, “Please see attached flier and rsvp if attending to ensure there is plenty of great food and tour guides.” Attached to the email was a flyer from the Islamic Society.
The event at the Islamic Society was not a collaborative event between the City Police Department and the Islamic Society, but simply an open invitation to “All Tulsa Law Enforcement” that was planned solely by the Islamic Society.
And then the lawyers get into the meat of the case they are pursuing:
There was no agenda on the invitation flyer—nor was one created by City police offficials—for the invited officers to discuss crime or crime related issues of any kind. Consequently, the Islamic event was not a function of what is known as “Community Policing,” nor did this event involve a “call for service.” In sum, it was a private event hosted by an Islamic religious organization.
A lot of the back and forth is covered in the case laid out by the AFLC, but here is the main sticking point:
On February 18, 2011, Webster sent a three-page interoffice correspondence to Captain Fields by email that affirmed the order and requested Captain Fields to reconsider his position. Captain Fields again refused based on his religious beliefs, convictions, and conscience.
As a result of Captain Fields’s refusal to compromise his religious beliefs and convictions and violate his conscience, Webster ordered Captain Fields to appear in Jordan’s conference room on Monday, February 21, 2011.
During this meeting with Jordan and Webster, Captain Fields again explained that he believed the order was unlawful and that he could not, in good conscience, obey the order nor force the officers under his charge to obey it…..
For at least the previous 16 years, it was the policy of the City Police Department that a police officer’s attendance at any event involving religion or a place of religious worship that was not a call for service nor organized by the department as a function of Community Policing for the purpose of discussing crime or crime related issues was strictly voluntary. Consequently, under the policies and practices existing at the time of the event held by the Islamic Society, attendance at the event should have been strictly voluntary.
On June 9, 2011, the City punished Captain Fields for exercising his constitutional rights by suspending him without pay for 80 hours/10 days, subjecting him to further scrutiny and the possibility of “more severe disciplinary action, including dismissal,” prohibiting him from being “considered for future promotions for a period of . . . at least one (1) year,” and making his temporary transfer to the Mingo Valley Division permanent. As further punishment, the City assigned Captain Fields to the “graveyard” shift.
Because the Islamic organization is Sharia, Mr. Fields, a Christian, felt he should not have to follow the orders of his superior officers to attend this event.
Captain Fields correctly believes that City police officials do not have a right to order police officers to attend an Islamic event against the officers’ personal religious beliefs and convictions.
Captain Fields also responded to the order by email. In his email response, Captain Fields stated that he believed that the order directing officers to attend the Islamic event was “an unlawful order, as it is in direct conflict with my personal religious convictions, as well as to be conscience shocking.”
Fair enough.
So the case goes to trial. Here is the results of the first trial:
“Judge Dismisses Capt. Paul Fields’ Case Against City Of Tulsa”
Why?
Here are portions of the transcripts from the first trial. In he undisputed facts section, where both sides agree that the events here are not in dispute:
Captain Fields is an Tulsa Police Department officer. (Doc. #42 ¶1). Fields’s chain of
command consisted of Major Julie Harris, Deputy Chief of Police Alvin Webster, and Chief of Police Charles Jordan. (Id.¶¶8-10). TPD has a policy of engaging in community policing. (Doc. #45 ¶30). Building trust in the community is part of TPD’s mission. (Id.¶39). TPD accepted requests for attendance at 327 religious venues or from religious organizations between 2004 and 2011. (Id.¶47).
The Islamic Society of Tulsa hosted a “Law Enforcement Appreciation Day” on Friday,
March 4, 2011. (Doc. #42 ¶11). The Islamic Society had received threats in 2010, and TPD
provided protection. (Doc. #45 ¶¶11-12). To show their thanks, the Islamic Society invited
TPD, the Sheriff’s Office, the district attorney’s office, and the FBI to their Appreciation Day.(
Id.¶16). After discussing the event with Webster, the Islamic Society ensured the invitation made clear that officers need not tour the Mosque or discuss Islam to attend.
On January 25,2011, Webster announced the Appreciation Day event at a staff meeting. (Doc. #45 ¶21; Doc. #42 ¶11). On February 16, 2011, Webster emailed the event invitation to – “All TPD Users” and asked officers to notify him if they would be attending. (Doc. #45 ¶¶2 1 -22; Doc. #42 ¶22). That day, Webster also sent an email to the three patrol division majors, requesting:
“I have advised Ms. Siddiqui to expect small group visits at 1100, 1330, and 1630. Please arrange for 2 officers and a supervisor or commander from each of your shops to attend at each of those times. They can expect to be at the facility for approximately 30 minutes but stay longer if they wish. Each Patrol Division will provide a total of 6 officers and 3 supervisors for the day’s event….”
Then:
The next day, Major Harris emailed Fields, stating “we are directed by DCOP Webster to have representatives from each shift – 2nd, 3rd, and 4th to attend” and pasting the above statement from Webster.
Fields responds:
I’m a little confused in reference to DCOP Webster’s directive to send 2 officers and at least 1 supervisor or shift commander from 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, shifts to the Islamic Society of Tulsa Law Enforcement Appreciation Day. Initially, this was to be on a voluntary basis, however now it is a directive. What has changed? I have no problem with officers attending on a voluntary basis; however, I take exception to requiring officers to attend this event. Past invitations to religious/non-religious institutions for similar purposes have always been voluntary. I believe this directive to be an unlawful order, as it is in direct conflict with my personal religious convictions, as well as to be conscience shocking.
This event is not a police “call to service”, which I would readily respond to, as required by my Oath of Office. Instead, it is an invitation to, tour a Mosque, meet Muslim Leadership, watch a congregational prayer service, and receive “presentations on beliefs, human rights, and women.” It is my opinion and that of my legal counsel, that forcing me to enter a Mosque when it is not directly related to a police call for service is a violation of my Civil Rights.
Please consider this email my official notification to the Tulsa Police Department and the City of Tulsa that I intend not to follow this directive, nor require any of my subordinates to do so if they share similar religious convictions.
We have seen over and over again that “personal convictions” does not nullify law, nor does it preclude chain-of-command orders. And, the case isn’t just about his religious beliefs, as the WND portrays it, it’s about an officer who not only refuses a direct order, but encourages his subordinates to join him in a mini-mutiny as well.
The case continues:
The next day, Webster sent Fields a three page, single spaced interoffice correspondence, clarifying that “voluntary participation is desirable and should an adequate number of personnel volunteer, assignment would not be necessary… Should voluntary response not be up to the task, assignment would be the next alternative.” (Doc. #45-22 at 1). Webster noted that “I and other personnel have either been detailed or strongly encouraged to attend community outreach events at the Jewish Community Center, churches in North Tulsa to reach out to African American residents, and churches in East Tulsa to reach out to Hispanic residents.” (Id.at 1-2). And Webster explained that “[t]here is no distinction between performing our lawful duties in a reactive manner (call response) and doing so in a proactive manner (community outreach).” (Id.at 2). Webster also agreed that “[w]ere Police Department personnel expected to participate in religious services, I would agree with you… Personnel would not be required [to] participate in religious services on duty that they would not choose to participate in off duty.” (Id.). Given the Department’s clarification that “you are not required to participate or assist in any religious observance, make any expression of belief, or adopt any belief system,” Webster encouraged Fields to reconsider his refusal to participate or identify others to participate. (Id.at 3). After conferring with his counsel, Fields responded that “there is no need to reconsider my decision.”
After Fields again refuses to either go to the event or assign others to do so, that is when the hammer comes down.
Captain Luther Breashears conducted the internal investigation. (Doc. #45 ¶68). Fields then received a pre-Action hearing. (Doc. #45 ¶77). After the hearing, Deputy Chief Larsen recommended a four week unpaid suspension. (Doc. #45 ¶78). Jordan imposed one week unpaid suspensions each for violating the duty to be obedient (Rule 6) and for conduct unbecoming an officer (Rule 8). (Doc. #45 ¶79)
So, Fields was reprimanded for refusing a direct order, an order which gave him the opportunity so send another in his place, thus providing a work-around nullifying the interference and conflict between the order to attend a Mosque and Fields personal Christian beliefs. But, in the court document, a document quotes Fields saying:
“forcing me to enter a Mosque when it is not directly related to a police call for service is
a violation of my Civil Rights.”
Again, the problem is… He didn’t even have to go. He had the choice of ordering another to go in his place:
The court finds the email [from CO Webster to Fields and other officers] unambiguously directed Fields to find volunteers or assign individuals to attend the Appreciation Day. Fields could have included himself among those volunteers or assigned individuals, but he was not required to attend.
The court ads:
In addition, even had Fields been required to attend the Appreciation Day, he was neither required to attend the afternoon prayer service nor was he required to listen to presentations on Islam.
And here is the May 22 appellate court ruling, backing the previous courts decision.
First, the Attendance Order did not burden Fields’s religious rights because it did not require him to violate his personal religious beliefs by attending the event; he could have obeyed the order by ordering others to attend, and he has not contended on appeal that he had informed his supervisors that doing so would have violated his religious beliefs. Second, the order did not violate the Establishment Clause because no informed, reasonable observer would have perceived the [*2] order or the event as a government endorsement of Islam. Third, the order did not burden Fields’s right of association because it did not interfere with his right to decide what organizations to join as a member. Fourth, Fields’s equal-protection claim duplicates his free-exercise claim and fails for the same reason. And fifth, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fields’s motion to amend the complaint to add ORFA and free-speech retaliation claims because the amendment would have been futile. He has provided no reason why his ORFA claim could succeed when his religion claims under the First Amendment do not. And his retaliation claim would fail because the interests of the Tulsa Police Department (TPD) as an employer outweighed Fields’s free-speech interests in filing his suit.
Here are some details added in this confirming ruling:
For more than 23 years TPD had engaged in community policing, in which it participated in events to build trust with the local community. As part of that mission, TPD accepted requests to attend about 3,500 community events between 2004 and 2011. Some 327 of those events were at religious venues or institutions affiliated with religious faiths, and between 2009 and 2011 there were an additional 25 meetings attended by community-education officers at religious venues or sponsored by religious organizations.
In 2010 the FBI notified the Islamic Society of a threat against it. Over the following months TPD worked to protect the mosque and the school next door. When the threat was over, the Islamic Society decided to hold an event to thank TPD for its help. During the planning stages, Webster advised Sheryl Siddiqui, a representative of the Islamic Society, that TPD officers might not be interested in or willing to tour the mosque or discuss Islam and that the invitation should make discussion of any topic discretionary.
This was an event to thank the Tulsa Police for helping to protect the Mosque. AND, there was already the understanding that some officers were not going to be interested in discussing religion, and thus that topic should be “discretionary”. So both parties were cognizant of this potential conflict and appear to have agreed to be accommodating.
Webster announced the event and requested RSVPs at a staff meeting in late January 2011. On February 16, Webster approved distribution within TPD of an e-mail from the Islamic Society that contained a flyer for the event and again requested RSVPs. The flyer invited all Tulsa law enforcement to a “Law Enforcement Appreciation Day” to be held on Friday, March 4. Aplt. App., Vol. I at 193. It read:
Casual Come & Go Atmosphere
Come enjoy a Buffet of American & Ethnic Foods:
Brownies & baklava
Baked chicken & Chicken Tikka Masala
Lots more!
Mosque Tours: 15 minutes or an hour— it’s up to you!
Meet Local Muslims & Leadership
Watch the 2-2:45pm weekly congregational prayer service
Presentations upon request: beliefs, human rights, women
All questions welcome!
So, what happens next:
When there were no volunteers by late afternoon on February 17, Major Harris forwarded an e-mail from Webster ordering each shift to send two officers and a supervisor or commander to the event.
As noted earlier, there have been over 3,500 community events, and a number of those involved the TPD and various religious organizations. Webster, Fields commander, says:
The Islamic Society was going to considerable pains to prepare a meal and tours for the event; that it would be unnecessary to order officers to attend if there were an adequate number of volunteers; that there would be an issue of disparate treatment and possible legal repercussions if TPD failed to attend; and that community policing events such as this one were as much a part of TPD’s mission as direct calls for service. He wrote that officers were “not required to participate in any religious ceremony, make any profession of faith, or express opinions on or sympathy with any religious belief system. They are simply expected to meet with members of the public who have expressed a desire to meet with them at a place of lawful assembly.” Id. at 209. He repeated that Fields himself was not required to “participate or assist [*4] in any religious observance, make any expression of belief, or adopt any belief system.” Id.
Here is the biggie:
And he urged Fields to reconsider and reminded him of the consequences of refusing to obey a lawful order, emphasizing that “refusal on the part of a leader, including extending that refusal to subordinate personnel, is particularly serious and injurious to good discipline.”
THAT is why he got disciplined! And the appellate court notes:
The Attendance Order created no improper burden. Webster ordered Fields to “arrange for 2 officers and a supervisor or commander” from his shift to attend the Islamic Society event. Aplt. App., Vol. I at 194. Fields responded that the order “requir[ed] officers to attend this event,” and, “forc[ed him] to enter a Mosque.” Id. at 195 (bold omitted). But his view of the order was wrong, not even a reasonable construction of the order. As the district court pointed out, the order did not require him to attend because he could assign others to do so.
And:
he has not claimed on appeal that he ever told his superiors that ordering others to attend (possibly in violation of their beliefs) would violate his religious beliefs.
That’s HUGE in this case. I wonder if that could have made a difference. I suspect not.
Although he made clear that he thought that ordering others to attend would be unconstitutional, that is a legal objection, not a religious one. The Attendance Order did not burden Fields’s free exercise of religion….
Because the Attendance Order did not violate Fields’s right to the free exercise of religion, TPD could lawfully punish him for violating it. An invalid religious objection to an order that does not burden your free exercise of religion does not immunize you from punishment for violation of the order.
Now… Back to the alarming WND story:
A panel of federal judges in Denver, in an opinion written by Judge Harris Hartz, found that it is perfectly appropriate for a police chief to order subordinates to attend an Islamic mosque where Muslims “discussed Islamic beliefs, Muhammad, Mecca, and why and how Muslims pray” in addition to encouraging officers “to buy” Islamic books and pamphlets that were for sale.
Notice in the whole story… Even the initial defense of Fields provided by his own counsel, there is no mention at all of anyone “encouraging officers “to buy” Islamic books and pamphlets that were for sale.”
So, there you go. WND, in case it hadn’t been obvious before, is not a “news” source at all. They are a propaganda outlet that misinforms, spreads non-truths, and sometimes makes stuff up just to get buzz.