Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (13758)	5/19/2001 6:39:10 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There is a level of hypocrisy about religion going on here which I find highly distasteful. Chris, you're going to continue to see things as long as you look at the discussion we're having here from a religion-centric perspective rather than from a management/ethical/legal perspective. The complete set of employee categories protected against discrimination and harassment is as follows: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, parental status, and protected genetic information. I don't see rape or cancer victims on that list. If you're going to give an equivalent example, posit the boss holding sessions with able-bodied white men, not cancer victims. Ashcroft is singling out a category on that list, religion, AND he is giving his attention not to the minority component but to the dominant religion. A better case could be made for his holding sessions on the Koran. At least that way he'd be supporting the minority side of the equation rather than the dominant side. FYI, employers collect employee data on only four of those categories: race, gender, age, and disability. The others are considered too personal to even request from the individual. Of the four recorded, the disability record is of very poor quality because, although they are asked, most of the disabled don't report their disability because they consider it too personal. Members of minority religions are entitled to take leave on their holy days but they rarely ask for it because they don't want their religion on record. Because it's personal. It hasn't been that long that race data has been collected and the way it's been collected over the years has changed many times because of the sensitivity of collecting it at all. Race is now self reported by the employee--and some refuse to provide it or report bogus information in protest. There's the Privacy Act to deal with confidentiality of this information. You can define personal any way you want, but be aware that there is an official definition and it ain't yours. Karen

To: The Philosopher who wrote (13758)	5/19/2001 7:03:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

If Reno had held support groups for cancer survivors or for rape victims in her office, nobody would have said boo. I'm not sure about that. A lot of people seemed to have problems with the idea of Janet Reno doing anything, including breathing. If she had held Wiccan study sessions on Government premises, don't you think some people would have said boo? Don't you think some people would have said a bit more than boo? How do you think Ashcroft would react if he found out that a subordinate was holding Wiccan prayer session before work daily? Do you think he'd say "live and let live; that person has as much right as I to bring religion to the workplace"? Possibly he would. But somehow I doubt it. There is a level of hypocrisy about religion going on here which I find highly distasteful. What's hypocritical about believing that individuals should not bring their religion into the workplace? If one believed that some religions belong in the workplace and others do not, that would be hypocritical. But that's not what I'm saying. If a workplace is to function well, people of very different faiths, political beliefs, etc. have to work as a team. Common sense suggests that this effort is compromised when team members bring divisive and controversial beliefs into the office. It has nothing to do with censorship of religious speech or restraint of the practice of religion. It has everything to do with professionalism, respect for the work you're supposed to be doing, and respect co-workers whose beliefs differ from yours. How do you think the owner of a football team would feel if he walked in the locker room before a big game and found the coach in a prayer session with a few players, with the rest of the team not involved? I'd guess he'd worry a bit.