Is it possible to exclude the religious from the workplace?

[H3LL]

Is it possible to exclude the religious from the workplace?

With reports of problematic religious employees; religious drivers refusing to drive, foster mothers in religious conflict , health and safety violations on religious grounds, failing to do the job you were employed to do on religious grounds, uniform/dress code violations .. the list goes on.

Not all cases are upheld but they are costly in time, money and negative publicity.

It could be argued that the very fact that a person is religious shows that somewhere in their personality they have a greater capacity to act without evidence. Would an engineer 'pray' the strut was strong enough without checking? Who knows.

The religious are a potential liability for any business. A time-bomb just waiting to be "offended".

After all, the religious organisations have exactly the opposite structure with exclusions in place for those that don't believe in their particular faith or with no faith at all.

Jewish or hindu imams and atheist bishops are a little thin on the ground as are atheist children in "faith" schools. The requirements for senior positions within some religious organisations are less than open to all (http://www.ukpriest.org/becomingapriest.htm).

Is the phrase "The religious need not apply" ever going to be possible in job vacancies?

Could "Requires demonstrable critical thinking skills" be an alternative?

Shouldn't the religious be as equally excluded as the non-believer?


Discrimination is a nasty thing, but while special privileges, discrimination and exclusion exists within the religious community and elsewhere on religious grounds, shouldn't the same allowances be made for the non-believer?

Do they already exist?

[Gitro]

Forgive me if I misinterpret you, but meeting discrimination with more discriminatino would just undermine secular positions. Also, I think it's safe to trust that an engineer that would 'pray' a strut to be longer would not be an engineer for long. But you never know.

Also, wouldn't an atheist bishop be a bit lacking in the whole 'believing in Jesus' bit of the job? Excluding non-believers from preaching to your sheep really is the point of religion. The point about atheist being excluded from faith schools is much the same as girls not being allowed in the Boy Scouts.

[Aitch]

Also, wouldn't an atheist bishop be a bit lacking in the whole 'believing in Jesus' bit of the job? Excluding non-believers from preaching to your sheep really is the point of religion. The point about atheist being excluded from faith schools is much the same as girls not being allowed in the Boy Scouts.

Reminds me of the time (30-odd years ago) that Newcastle University Students Union banned the Uni's Christian Union from holding meetings/events/whatever in SU properties - because only Christians were allowed to join. Which was discriminatory. Or something. :boggled:

[Gitro]

Reminds me of the time (30-odd years ago) that Newcastle University Students Union banned the Uni's Christian Union from holding meetings/events/whatever in SU properties - because only Christians were allowed to join. Which was discriminatory. Or something. :boggled:

Wha?

[H3LL]

Gitro, nothing to misinterpret.

More thoughts out loud inviting discussion and turning on it's head some of the things I've been reading from the religious camp combined with claims made by atheists about what they are not "allowed" to do in some places.

I'm very mindful of Nietzsche:

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster

Also, as you say, the ideas conflict badly with a secular position and sets off a certain degree of mental dissonance.

Something which, sadly, is not the case for many theists or theist organisations.

Your quote:

...a bit lacking in the whole 'believing in Jesus' bit of the job?

hardly raises an eyebrow as being odd but the opposite;

..a bit lacking in the whole 'not believing in Jesus' bit of the job?

... screams wrongness.

The playing field is far from level.

What's the solution?

[Soapy Sam]

The playing field is far from level.

What's the solution?


A steamroller.

[cj.23]

Reminds me of the time (30-odd years ago) that Newcastle University Students Union banned the Uni's Christian Union from holding meetings/events/whatever in SU properties - because only Christians were allowed to join. Which was discriminatory. Or something. :boggled:


Yeah, this is actually a real problem - I say as an Honourary Lifetime Member of the NUS, and someone who was very involved for 15 years in Student politics. (I would not be nowadays, but that is a different story,and down to the reorganization of the NUS on the plan of Mussolini's Corporative state - you really can say "The NUS are fascists" now without any Godwin intent.)

BAsically, to be funded and supported by the NUS, a club or society has to provide equal non-disciminatory access. So if a club or society the Asian students have to accept non-Asians, the LGB straights, and the Women's group non-women, and so forth. All of these groups are therefore usually not designated as "Clubs and Societies", but as Special Interesdt Groups, so they could (and did) exclude non-relevant members. At General Conference closed sessions were held, wher eonly emebers of the relvenat group met and dictated policy, which the rest of us then got to rubber stamp - in the early 90's this was a major issue.

Howver, religious groups are generally not SIGs, in fact they are not, so they have to admit non-members of religion X. So a Jewish society would have to admit an anti-semite, and Christian Unions atheists. Well th Christians are not complaining - they want atheists to come.

The test cases however arose from the fact the christian Union constitutions required the Presidents, Scecreatries, and Treasurers of such grousp to actually hold Christian beliefs, and actively work towards those interests. This was ruled discriminatory, after non-Christians made complaints, and they pointed out they were discriminated against as they could not hold office (and lead worship).

The SU in sevreal universities over the last twenty off years then excluded the Christian Union from SU premises - which generally has little effect, because they are a) leargely self funding and b) they can meet in University property, and most Su's own very little. But it does exclude them from the Freshers mags, Fresher';s Fayre, and NUS insurance etc, etc.

So there ya go. :)

cj x

[Gitro]

The point is, though, you can be a scientist and be religious, as the two are separate. Scientific pursuits are impersonal, preaching to the masses is not. Even though a salesperson doesn't have to believe in their product, it's a hell of a lot easier if they do. Also, why the hell would an atheist preach Christianity (sadly, this just occured to me)?

There quite possibly is no solution. Science has triumphed over religious beliefs in the past, and, with enough time, it very well might again. Certainly meeting discrimination with more discrimination isn't it.

[H3LL]

Continuing a response to Gitro:

Hopefully to illustrate how my original OP sets up that mental dissonance and conflict with secular ideals you mentioned but, with many people, the opposite does not:

[Daily Mail Mode]

Is it possible to exclude atheists from the workplace?

With reports of problematic secular employees; atheists making drivers unable to drive, foster mothers unable to be religious, discriminatory secular health and safety issues, failing to do the job you were employed to do because of secularism, religious dress traditions violated .. the list goes on.

Not all cases are upheld but they are costly in time, money and negative publicity.

It could be argued that the very fact that a person is a non-believer shows that somewhere in their personality they have a greater capacity to act without moral guidance. Would an engineer care if the strut was strong enough without concern about the consequences? Who knows.

Atheists are a potential liability for any business. A time-bomb just waiting to sue.

After all, secular organisations have exactly the opposite structure with exclusions in place for those that believe in a faith.

People with little or no faith can become bishops atheist children are forces to be included in "faith" schools. The requirements for senior positions within some scientific organisations are less than open to all.

Is the phrase "Atheists need not apply" ever going to be possible in job vacancies?

Could "Requires demonstrable religious activity" be an alternative?

Shouldn't the atheist be as equally excluded as the believer?


Discrimination is a nasty thing, but while special privileges, discrimination and exclusion exists within the secular community and elsewhere on secular grounds, shouldn't the same allowances be made for the believer?

Do they already exist?

[/Daily Mail Mode]

Similar writing to the above is easy and common to find.

Similar writings to the OP are not.

[DeusPhasmatis]

I see no issue with discrimination, per se. Criminals, for example, are excluded from normal society: this is a common form of discrimination. Baseless or wrong discrimination, however, is a separate issue.

I don't find any issue with religious groups excluding the non-religious, just like I don't find any issue with the critical-thought groups excluding the non-critical.

Could "Requires demonstrable critical thinking skills" be an alternative?

It is indeed an acceptable alternative for me.

[Dunstan]

So you're making a ridiculous proposal to point out the absurdity of a different hypothetical ridiculous proposal that you say is "similar" to something you may have read somewhere?

Isn't this just flailing at a strawman just in case a real one shows up?

[This Guy]

IMHO religion is as much thought (though not the critical kind) as action. Society has no means or right to attempt to control thoughts. Only actions can be responded to.

If a person refuses to do their jobs for religious reasons, they need another job. If they persist in bothering others, and distracting them with their brand of woo, they need one or two written warnings, and a final good bye if the actions persist. If a person has poor performance because the prayers they keep doing just don't get the work done, then they need to be inspired to find work elsewhere (via a pink slip in their pay envelope ;)).

So, IMHO, no we can not ban the religious. We can only enforce policies regarding proper and improper actions in the work place, and hold all people in a similar position to the same standards.

[cj.23]

Posted this the other days, but I have to post it again!

Others agree with you --"we don't want God-bothering brought in to the workplace. The concern is this might happen" - from an Industrial Society survey, following The Turnbull Report, 1993*

If you are unaware what the workplace in question was ---

It was a comment in the survey frequently recorded, and the employees in question were the staff of the Church of England.

[Cuddles]

Also, why the hell would an atheist preach Christianity?

It's symbolic of our struggle against reality!

Monty Python aside, I think there is a serious point here. The fact that atheists don't want to preach Christianity should not be relevant to the question of whether we have the right to do so. Once you allow some discrimination, where does it end? Slippery slopes can be fallacies, but they can also be perfectly valid concerns.

I think it's also worth noting that it's not necessarily preaching Christianity that' the issue. When it comes down to it, an awful lot of sermons and Christian teachings are just moralising stories with god tacked on. There's no reason an atheist couldn't give a perfectly acceptable Christian sermon, just without the Christian bit. I have no idea why an atheist would want to do that rather than just talking somewhere else, but it's not as silly as it first sounds.

We should fight the oppressors for our right to have babies. We may not want them, and may not be physically capable of having them, but it's a right and we shouldn't let them be taken away just because we don't want to exercise them right now.