| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
This Seattle Times story, "Preserving modesty, in the pool" (thanks to T-ham), emphasizes that the Muslims-only days in Seattle's Meadowbrook Pool are paid for as private rentals:
It's Saturday evening, the end of a hot day, and a group of women and children have gathered at North Seattle's Meadowbrook Pool for their monthly swim.Most of the pool staff has left, except for two female lifeguards, who on this day will be on duty for the next two hours.
The women and children — all Muslims — have been swimming in private once a month at Meadowbrook as part of a program organized by the North Seattle Family Center.
Because Islam requires Muslim women to fully cover themselves in public, swimming in pools or the ocean is largely off-limits for many.
But across the Puget Sound area, that's starting to change as public and private pools at times are sending home their male staff members, covering up their windows and allowing women of faith to swim alone and in private.
It's occurring here as it has elsewhere across the country, as the Muslim population increases and families seek more ways to stay active.
Access to these pools is not free; the groups, like all others that use these facilities, pay a rental fee.
However, the Sound Politics blog (thanks again to T-ham) has discovered that the Muslims are not the ones paying the rent:
I made some calls and learned that the program, called "Muslim Sister Swim", is treated by the city's Meadowbrook Pool as any other private rental, which would be exempt from the city non-discrimination policy. However, the outfit that organizes and pays for the Muslim Sister Swim is the North Seattle Family Center, a unit of the Children's Home Society, a non-profit that gets most of its money from various government sources. As such, it should strictly comply with non-discrimination guidelines. Nevertheless, the Muslim Sister Swim is open exclusively to Muslims, no infidel women need apply. I asked a representative of the North Seattle Family Center to explain this, and she told me that it was to respect these immigrant women's culture.But if there's ever a reason for taxpayer dollars to be used to support an immigrant's culture, it should be to support them in learning to shed whatever aspects of their culture are incompatible with American culture. The last thing we need to teach immigrants is to expect publicly-subsidized religious apartheid.
Would the Children's Home Society fund a Whites-Only Pool Night? A Christians-Only Pool Night? Where is the ACLU?
Posted by Robert at August 15, 2005 9:41 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
It's occurring here as it has elsewhere across the country, as the Muslim population increases and families seek more ways to stay active.
So, they don't consider rooting out terrorists in their neighborhoods staying active I take it?
Posted by: Unbridled![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 15, 2005 10:39 AM
let me preface this with an apology regarding my spasm of self-congatulations, but regarding previous comments about Mr. Spencer and Co. not listening, or paying attention to tips from the fans, uh....cough....ahem.
made my day.
Posted by: t-ham at August 15, 2005 10:49 AM
"...allowing women of faith to swim alone and in private"
I most definitely am a woman of faith - the ROMAN CATHOLIC faith -- faith and reason tell me that a) my body was created by God and He expects me to respect it, care for it, clothe it properly but not be ASHAMED of it and b) He expects men to exhibit control over their desires and c) there is something dysfunctional about a system which believes that women are bewitching creatures with necks and hair that will drive a man into lustful madness if not fully covered at all times. WHY oh WHY are we paying for this nonsense to be shoveled down the throats of another generation of Muslim girls?
at August 15, 2005 10:50 AM
This action at the Meadowbrook Pool, a Muslims-only swim time, is ultimately funded by the North Seattle Family Center, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. This North Seattle Family Center is not a private group -- it receives most of its money from the government. That means that Infidel taxpayers are helping to pay for a Muslims-Only, Unclean-Infidels-Keep-Out Swim Time.
This is not a private organization, renting the pool for private purposes. There is state action: the significant government funding. There is discrimination on the basis of -- well, let's call it "religion" even if Islam is far more than a religion. There is no "compelling state interest" to justify such discrimination.
End of story. Unconsitutional.
Now the question is: what will happen? Who will express outrage, and what groups, that are supposed to express outrage, will not express it, because they will always and everywhere be seen to do the bidding of organized Islam, and of individual Muslims, and will never ever see that Islam violates the very idea of pluralism?
The ACLU? With such professional anti-Israel propagandists such as the sinister Nancy Murray at the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU(not to mention her daughter Rebecca). Mr. Bowles, that National Co-ordinator who tried to shout down the free speech of Daniel Pipes, and was caught on camera? No, they are unlikely to protest this behavior.
What about Diane Eck, who had Karen Armstrong as one of the well-wishers at her recent wedding? Will she, the "Pluralism Project" pusher, suggest that government support for a "No-Infidels-Swim" is not exactly the way to show support for the great American experiment in pluralism?
One has reason to doubt.
Posted by: Hugh at August 15, 2005 11:21 AM
This is not the inclusiveness and pluralism America envisioned. Instead of joining the American society of openess and 'coming together', Muslism separate themselves from the society that welcomes them. It's kinda sad, really.
Posted by: Jan Vink at August 15, 2005 11:35 AM
I sent this story on to the Lars Larson radio show.
Maybe that will drum up some interest in how this organization is using taxpayer dollars.
Posted by: treehugger at August 15, 2005 12:09 PM
Swimming pools are just the latest in the "We have a different culture and you non-Mulsims must accomodate us." Wasn't there a effort by Muslims in Tennessee to have a all Muslim housing suburb with their own mosque, school and all the homes owned exclusively by Muslims. Does anyone know how that was resolved with the local government? Now, the Muslims will start on the public school system...the Ramadan curriculum is just a beginning. They will push for Muslim-girls-only academic classes, Muslim girls-only-PE times.
Posted by: maryrose at August 15, 2005 12:34 PM
Balkanization anyone?
http://www.bartleby.com/59/13/balkanizatio.html
at August 15, 2005 2:01 PM
Maryrose -
I think the segregated new housing suburb you mention was in Little Rock, Arkansas. Here is the link to the article:
Little Rock Officials Approve Zoning for Islamic Community
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003465.php
Posted by: miira at August 15, 2005 2:02 PM
A dangerous precedent continues to be set as the United States and other Western countries continue to reinforce and maintain cultural characteristics and values that should have been left at the door as they are inimical to their national interests and generally harmful to the rest of the population.
Only idiots voluntarily subscribe to their own cultural demise. Muslims have the peculiar habit of rapidly extinguishing any culture that thwarts their own interests, turning the other into slaves or useful dhimmis.
Posted by: epg at August 15, 2005 2:04 PM
Sharia Law's camel nose edges under the tent of the Constitution.
If they want private Muslim clubs to swim, let them start their own.
No public facilities for private imbecilities.
Posted by: BigSleep at August 15, 2005 2:19 PM
Creeping Sharia, step, step, one step at a time. As Niel Armstrong could have said, One small step for Sharia, one giant leap for Allah.
Question: Why wasn't the pool just opened up for kids and females of all faiths?
Answer: Because non-muslims are unclean.
This little incident isn't about modesty, it's about implementing Islam in America step, step, one step at a time.
Our melting pot is slowy coming to a boil and us lobsters are slowly falling asleep. Wake up America before it is too late.
Posted by: William The Crusader at August 15, 2005 3:09 PM
actually posted by moi to july 19 "Pressure on British Gov..."..column..didn't send to Robert..
..good find on the "Sound Politics" blog comment..
Posted by: otterfisher at August 15, 2005 3:15 PM
This IS a case of taxpayer monies being spent to accomodate a RELIGIOUS belief!
Ann Fuller is the executive director of the North Seattle Family Center. The statement that this taxpayer subsidized, Muslim women only swim night is "to respect these immigrant women's culture" is truly Dhimmified nonsense. How do American born white, black or Hispanic reverts fit into that 'culture'?
The Family Center telephone number is 206-364-7930. My initial contact with them them this morning was somewhat icy.
I remember reading this article either here at DW, or at JW last month.
It clearly indicated that "Access to these pools is not free; the groups, like all others that use these facilities, pay a rental fee."
I called the author, Lornet Turnbull (206-464-2420 or lturnbull@seattletimes.com) this morning about this.
She did not feel that funding for this particular RELIGIOUS belief is terribly significant (you know, there are far worse things that her taxpayer money is spent on, a tax-exempt Synagogue does the same thing {but not with taxpayer money}, it's for women, those who can afford to pay, do pay, I'm splitting hairs, special needs students programs receive taxpayer funds, etc.).
Later in the conversation she stated that some of the funds come from the city, and suggested that appropriate officials be contacted.
Well, that's two calls on my part. So, for those interested in conversing with people who simply cannot distinguish right from wrong, here's another contact number. It's for the Seattle area Congressman Jim McDermott.
Congressman Jim McDermott
7th District Office - 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1212 Seattle, WA 98101-1399 Phone: (206) 553-7170 Fax: (206) 553-7175
The bottom line is that liberal-minded people are willing to use other people's money to subsidize Muslim beliefs, because it's the uninformed thing to do.
at August 15, 2005 3:38 PM
If non-Muslims are "unclean" shouldn't the pool be drained before the Muslim women and children swim, and at their expense? Perhaps the fragile Muslim women didn't think of all the germs we Americans shed while swimming? Just a sarcastic thought.
The US needs to review, carefully, the policies Britain established while non-assimilating the Muslims in that country (and allowing terrorism to fester within the protected communities). Remember how London were rewarded on July 7th and 21st for their civil libertarian efforts.
Posted by: Moonflower54 at August 15, 2005 4:01 PM
Several notes here:
1) Some of the women are not immigrants.
2) It's not cultural. It's religious.
3) The folks reporting such stories don't get it.
4) It's taxpayer money.
5) The culprits are in damage control mode, and are aggressively arrogant.
The program director returned my call. She has now stated that this is a cultural issue, not religious. She has also stated that it is open to all women, not just immigrants, and that she's pretty sure that no taxpayer money is used for this event.
So, let's see if the name changes from the 'Muslim Sister's Swim' to something less religious.
Posted by: PRCS at August 15, 2005 4:31 PM
Well,
The brain-dead program director called me again to explain the funding for 'Muslim Sister Swim'.
First, they didn't name it. The Muslim women who requested the event did. And, by golly, if that's what they want to call it, that's up to them.
20% of their funding comes from the United Way. 80% comes from the City of Seattle.
I suggested that they could solve this whole problem, as she claims that it's open to ALL women, by renaming it 'Women's Swim Night'.
But, Noooooooo.
They CAN'T change the name. It's the name chosen by THAT community, and they are trying very hard to accomodate THAT communities CULTURAL need for modesty.
No, Sir, it's definately not a RELIGIOUS mandate. It's CULTURAL.
No, we will definately NOT be dropping 'Muslim' from the title.
Another moron in charge of taxpayer funds.
Posted by: PRCS at August 15, 2005 5:02 PM
The beaten wife always asks herself what she has done to deserve such treatment from her husband. Her road to freedom will begin only when she realises she is blameless and her husband evil. Thus exactly are we, Western civilisation: we will not begin to be free of Islamic aggression until we believe in our righteousness and their wickedness.
Posted by: Michael Zaretski at August 15, 2005 5:15 PM
This is a religious requirement and should be accomodated as a Women's Only Swim time. Other religious groups (such as Orthodox Jews) do not allow mixed-sex swimming. Thus, while I agree that there could be separate Men's and Women's times (as at many Jewish Community Centers), restricting it to Muslim women is wrong.
at August 15, 2005 6:14 PM
Sabba Hillel:
The issue is not separate swim times, but who is paying for it. It's illegal to use government funds to discriminate.
Posted by: CGW at August 15, 2005 6:28 PM
This is all part of the cultural apartheid system which was so vociferously opposed by liberals when it happened in South Africa but has actively been encouraged through multiculturalism. We are suffering exactly the same bull**** in the UK. My local swimming baths run a "women only" evening so women can swim in peace without being intimidated by youths or yobs. That is fair enough. If Muslim women want to come along and join in, they would be welcome. Why set up such unnecessary tensions by segregating people - particularly women who need to stick together at the best of times - like this?
Posted by: londongirl at August 15, 2005 6:30 PM
This sort of thing would be easy to stop. Just get a bunch of Christian females, using taxpayer money to demand the same thing.
All the trendy lefty organisations will rush to take them to court with "Separation of Church and State" and that this is Christians "discriminating".
Then all you would have to do is show that the Muslims are doing the same thing.
Its like putting out a bush fire. AT times water doesn't cut it - and you have to fight fire with fire.
Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at August 15, 2005 7:19 PM
Rather than attempt to have a taxpayer-funded Christian Swim Time, it would be more telling to have a "Non-Muslim Swim Evening" in which the only criterion would be to be a non-Muslim. for this is the mirror image of the "Muslim Sister Swim Time." It would point out, by bringing Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and others all to the same pool, that the Odd Man out in a pluralist society is Islam. It is Muslims who divide the world between Believers and Infdiels. And so, it is only natural that Infidels should do likewise, as they are beginning to, and with reason: dividing the world between all Infidels, on the one hand, and all Muslims, on the other. If that is how they see the world, and believe that all Infidels are to be ultimately dominated or conquered, it behoves all Infidels to collaborate, to make common cause, against all Muslims.
It makes sense.
Posted by: Hugh at August 15, 2005 7:36 PM
To PRCS:
Good show.
Its time to start calling people out.
The issue is not that a Muslim group wishes to have its own night: if its willing to pay the money OUT OF ITS OWN POCKET then God bless.
The specific issue at hand is that it is having a discriminatory event that is LARGELY PAID BY TAXPAYERS. I don't care if the event is cultural or religious or racial or whatever: bottom line is that the city of Seattle should NOT be paying for it.
Until we stand up and let people know that we won't tolerate this foolishness in our midst, it will not only continue, but grow worse.
Posted by: Nightwing at August 15, 2005 7:50 PM
"We don't swim in your dhimmi ghetto; please don't infidel in our pool."
Posted by: counterjihadi at August 15, 2005 8:11 PM
Y'all gotta lighten up. It's not like this is something dangerous to the furure of the country like a plaque or poster of the Ten Commandments somewhere near a courtroom.
Posted by: Peter at August 15, 2005 8:51 PM
I wonder how the sanctimonious civil servants who arranged this travesty would feel if they knew the real reason behind the muslim sisters swim; physical or close personal contact with non-muslims is forbidden because muslims consider them filthy. Heaven forbid if one of the kaffir lifeguards had to jump in and save a muslim from drowning. I can just imagine the ritualistic purification litany that would ensue after being groped by a filthy infidel. Drowning would probably be preferable to such a humiliating indignity.
Do they swim in their hijabs and burkas? Surely they don't wear bathing suits because they're not supposed to expose their bodies to anyone, even their muslim "sisters." If I were a municipal official in charge of swimming pools, I wouldn't want the potential liability presented by women attempting to swim in billowing shrouds.
Posted by: Susanp at August 15, 2005 9:15 PM
Peter,
Actually it is very dangerous to the country. Perhaps you are much too young to remember when the "separate but equal doctrine," ruled as constitutional by the US Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, applied to public facilities. Perhaps you never saw a drinking fountain in a department store labeled "whites only" or "colored only." Perhaps you never had to attend a public school that was segregated by race. Perhaps you never bought a piece of real estate and saw a restricitve covenant in the deed prohibiting colored, Jew or Catholic from enjoyment of that property.
All of those separate but equal laws were expresly overturned in 1954 by the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. If you think publicly funded "separate but equal" is not a threat to the future of this country, take 30 minutes of your precious time and read the Brown case. It will enlighten you. You can easily find it on-line.
at August 15, 2005 11:03 PM
I guess Muslim women don't go to the beach then. Now that I think about it, I don't believe I've seen any around my way, unless of course they dress like everyone else. I wonder when we'll be getting them agitating for separate beaches?
I was at a waterslide park a while back. I noticed a Muslim family nearby. The men and boys wore bathing suits like everyone else, while all the females wore head to toe black garb. It was a very hot day. No breeze. So while the blokes were off having fun, cooling off, the women sat under a tree trying vainly to keep from melting. I found it so silly because if the men are so concerned about other men looking at their chattel, oops, sorry, their women, if they wore bathers like everyone else, and joined in the fun like the rest of us, nobody would really notice or care. They'd blend in. It's not as if they're real stunners or anything. Such dumb, unnecessary paranoia. Instead, everyone noticed these poor women and pitied them, especially when one had to lay down and fan her face. She looked like she was going to throw up. But I guess that's all okay. That's better than infidel men looking at their woman's knees or hair.
Posted by: feralee at August 16, 2005 1:42 AM
Lisa:
I think Peter was being ironic.
Londongirl: ...but your proposal would have the Muslim women risking exposure to najis by swimming with infidel women and we couldn't have that, could we?
Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 16, 2005 10:24 AM
It is so nice to find other people whose ideas about Islam are like my own. Mohammed was a fiendishly clever man, who set up an endlessly violent, destructive, thieving, woman-hating world movement and dressed it up as a religion. It's no more of a religion than is the KKK, or Nazism, or the Mafia, or Communism, and has all the worst elements of all those and some spectacular wickednesses of its own, detailed in Sergei Trefkovic's terrific book, "The Sword of the Prophet". The Mohammedans us our famous religious tolerance against us, to import their "religion", and then will at some point try a violent takeover. They have never, in all their history, lived peacefully with non-Moslem neighbors for long, and have never lost a war to anyone but the Israelis. In history, if given an inch, they take 1000 miles, and we need to contain them, for starters, and persistently use INtolerance and SEGREGATION and DISCRIMINATION on THEM, as THEY ALWAYS have done to non-Moslems in Moslem countries, as part of their holy law barbarism. If we resist them TOGETHER, and KEEP resisting them, maybe they'll take their Dark-Age religion and go back to where people LIKE living in the 8th century (i.e.,the Arab world).
I cannot understand how Moslem women can fight for the "right" to cover themselves completely, as if they LIKE being treated like they are the cause of lust and rapes in men, and being under total male control their whole lives,which can be taken from them legally by their husbands or fathers under the sacred, holy shari-a law. The slaves embracing their chains...I just don't get it.
at August 17, 2005 2:11 AM
The religiion of peace has no place for the infidel: Christian, Jew, or any other flavor of believer or headless non-believer. Awaken to the worshipers of meteorites or die the death.
Posted by: MIGHTY OAK at August 17, 2005 3:03 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)