An uncomfortable situation

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

Since you asked:

[li] How would you have reacted to an animal volunteer wearing the symbol?[/li]
Frankly, I wouldn’t care. I wouldn’t have been there to discuss religion, after all.

[li] By asking her to cover it (not remove it), was I stepping on her rights, or was I protecting the organization’s reputation?[/li]
I don’t know about the legal implications, but I suspect it wasn’t the most diplomatic move. I also don’t think you were really helping the organization much.

[li] If I was stepping on her rights, does religious freedom supercede all other concerns?[/li]
No, but I remain doubtful as to whether your fears were sufficiently justified.

[li] If I’m protecting the organization, how do we move forward? I hate to have to issue a sweeping ban of religious symbols, but it may come to that.[/li]
Yes, it may. Assuming you want to be evenhanded about it. I do think that the comparison with a Star of David is valid – there’s no reason why one religious symbol should be allowed and another wouldn’t. It’s all or nothing, and if it’s “no religious symbols”, it’s best to make that clear during induction.

[li] If you have any experience in these matters, what are the legal precedents for this kind of thing?[/li]
Dunno. Sorry. Anyhow, I hope you and she can achieve a more constructive dialogue, although it doesn’t sound like she’s in the mood for one at the moment. Good luck.

22

Thanks for the responses. This is good.

There are a couple of misconceptions at work, here, though. The first of them is that I made any comment of any kind about her religion. I didn’t. People, in my opinion, are free to worship whatever they please, in whatever manner they please, as long as they don’t cause harm to anyone (or anything) else. I also didn’t ask her to hide the pentagram until she was in a situation where she would be interacting with the public. The reason there had been no reaction from the public prior to this is that, quite frankly, there was never an opportunity for there to be. However, I should also point out that she was also wearing several large rings, one of which also featured the pentagram. Since it wasn’t as obvious as the large one around her neck, I didn’t have a problem with it - nobody was going to notice it the very first thing (unlike the necklace), and by the time they did, one would hope that they had had enough interaction with the volunteer to realize that she is not going to do anything out of the ordinary. Quite frankly, I do believe that the volunteer’s religious beliefs align very well with our organization’s goals. That isn’t the problem at all. The problem, quite frankly, is the attitude a number of people will have upon being presented with a symbol, that, when you get right down to it, is on the cover of The Satanic Bible. If people in general were open-minded, I wouldn’t have had a problem. However, I’m a realist. It is a sad fact that people are NOT open-minded. They DO make assumptions. And they DON’T ask about things like this. Once again, I give you the example of Procter & Gamble. Any of you who wear one on a regular basis - how many strangers ask you about it? And how many jump to conclusions?

I have adopted to people wearing this and other controversial symbols in the past. We interview all potential adopters very carefully, making sure that the homes are appropriate for the animals in which they’re interested (different animals have different needs). Sometimes we turn people down altogether when they don’t show a commitment level to the animals. Usually, the people we turn down are mainstream types - people with alternative lifestyles generally make the very best homes. As adoption counselors, we have to be open to these possibilities. The general public does not. That’s the issue here.

I polled two family members and several coworkers. Of them, only one would not have jumped to conclusions, and he just because he used to work in the courts and doesn’t really notice things like this anymore. Sure, it’s not a statistically relevant sampling, but it was all I had handy. But it wasn’t just “family and close friends.” And, I must add - that’s why I posted it here. To get a bigger sampling from a broader cross-section.

Unfortunately, since we’re an organization that has kind of grown up and made changes as situations arose, none of us foresaw anything like this becoming an issue. So there are no policies in place. This wasn’t a momentary impulse, nor do I feel I was singling her out. I would have responded in the same way if there had be other volunteers wearing the same thing. I do still feel very strongly that if she had had a problem with my request she should have said something at the time.

And she’s still volunteering. Plans to continue, too. She hasn’t been driven away. And we’re going to let it go for now. However, we are beginning to write policies (which we will hopefully never have to put into place) in case we do run into a situation where our reputation may be at stake.

23

Well, if you haven’t lost the volunteer and are able to have a constructive working relationship with her, you can chalk it up to experience and move on. It’s not a bad idea to develop some sort of policy for the future, though.

24

I’m glad you have ALL decided to work on this situation. Perhaps it would have been ideal if she had voiced her problem to you when the initial incident occured… but a) that’s over now, and b) she could have had any number of reasons.

Many organizations (especially “Not for profits”'s have arrived in much the same situation of growing up from a small beginning and not having planned for situations of this type. My advice to you is write policies… (Fair policies if you don’t want to get sued) write them now, and put them into affect now. Before there is a problem. Ideally, have all of your volunteers (or have the volunteers choose several representatives if there are too many) meet with the board to talk about this, and to help write the regulations. As you’ve seen with this situation, it’s always better to have something planned out, so that problems don’t occur (most people are happy to follow rules… if they know what they are)

As someone posted earlier, many organizations have policies along the order of “because of our relationship to the public, we do not wish to be affiliated with any race, religion, political organization etc… in light of this, we ask that our employees and volunteers refrain from wearing or carrying any objects that can be seen by the public (clothing, jewlery, literature etc.) bearing symbols or slogans refering to any of the afforementioned groups.”
I know it seems harsh to ban wholesale in this fashion, but it is the only way to be fair and unbiased.

I have also worked for companies that did not allow shirts with any type of printing or pictures, and no jewlery except wedding rings. This is really harsh… and probably not appropriate for volunteers.

I’m glad your volunteer is staying, and I’m glad everyone is working it out, and trying to prevent future problems. It is a sign of dealing with mature people.

-pandora

25

I just wanted to add that I understand where you are coming from. Due to the general enlightenment of the board, I believe we sometimes forget that there is, indeed, a boatload of ignorance out there. There are plenty o’ people who will see a pentagram and assume the worst, haul out every bit of misinformation they’ve ever run across and associate it with it. You’re right about that.

However, I don’t think it’s for you or your organization to address, or to worry about. It’s a slippery slope. There are plenty of people who think young people are irresponsible. Or that people who dress in biker clothes are violent. [I could list pages of these]. And in each case, they might further take this to mean that someone “like that” in your organization means that the animals are at risk somehow, or aren’t getting good care. But you can’t spend your time worrying about that. You need to do the best you can to meet those animal’s needs, using the volunteers who present themselves to you. That’s your mission, and whatever cockamamie ideas out there are floating around AREN’T worth worrying about, especially if you don’t have any evidence that they have or will actually harm you.

You may have exhibited a wee bit of prejudice, yourself, to have identified the pentagram/paganism misconceptions in society as being a threat to your organization’s reputation, especially given that there are so many others you could fret over. Do you see what I am saying? Even though it’s others who make the dumb assumptions, the fact that they worried you enough to say something to her lends them some credence that they don’t deserve. Even if you don’t share the misconceptions yourself. I think that’s why some people might be jumping down your throat right now.

26

Okay, I’m donning my asbestos undies because I think I may well get flamed, but here’s my take on it.

The pentacle is a symbol that is commonly known or assumed to be associated with Satanism. It is associated with Satanism – it just also happens to be associated with Paganism. As a Christian, I have no problem with Paganism or with Wicca; I have HUGE problems with Satanism. Satanism is almost by definition the hostile antithesis of Christianity, embracing as it does the idea or entity which is for Christians the ultimate embodiment of evil.

I can think of no other symbol that is asserted to stand both for religious beliefs that are innocuous and by assertion “good” and religious beliefs that are hostile to the majority of Christians and, in their eyes, very very very bad. And I think it is asking too much of the average, largely uneducated American, to think “Oh, the pentacle is rightside up so it must be okay; it’s only bad if it’s upside down.” They see a pentacle and it has unpleasant associations. I know it does for me, and I’m in the pretty darn liberal and educated wing of Christianity.

Furthermore, I think it is unfair to expect people to know or think the pentacle represents something positive or good, when for years it has NOT represented any such thing. Like the word “witch,” and the idea of “witchcraft,” the pentacle is being either co-opted or reclaimed (depending upon your historical perspective) by Pagans (and/or Wiccans) in the face of being considered a Satanic symbol by centuries of mainstream Christians, and by society as well. And, again, it IS a Satanic symbol, depending on how you wear it.

Therefore, the volunteer was wearing a symbol that could be or would be very offensive to some – maybe a lot – of people coming in to use the organization’s services and further the organization’s ends. I do not think it was out of line for Julie to ask her to tuck it away. That said, I don’t think that legally the organization has the right to say some religious symbols are okay and others are not; if you allow self-expression of religious beliefs at all, you must allow it equally. So perhaps now is the time to institute a policy prohibiting religious imagery at all. As has already been said, the organization does not exist to promote religion, or to act as a forum for the education of an ignorant public on topics outside of the area of concern of the organization, such as religion. As far as the questions are concerned, here are my honest answers:

  1. How would you have reacted to an animal volunteer wearing the symbol?

I would not have done business with the organization. The symbol is one that is very offensive to me due to its assocation with Satanism, and if Pagans wish to attempt to co-opt that symbol that is their business. But I am not requried to consider the symbol to be anything other than offensive just because of how it is worn (rightside up versus upside down). I would assume the volunteer did not wear it to offend me, but that would almost inevitably be the effect anyway.

  1. By asking her to cover it (not remove it), was I stepping on her rights, or was I protecting the organization’s reputation?

Probably both. If you allow other volunteers to wear religious imagery, then, yes, you probably were stepping on her rights. But I do agree that you were protecting your organization’s reputation to do so. People may say “But the public is so ignorant! They take the symbol to mean something it doesn’t!” and tha may be true, but it does not change how the symbol is likely to be viewed by at least some of your patrons.

  1. If I was stepping on her rights, does religious freedom supercede all other concerns?

No, but rules and regulations must be applied equally across the board, with no perceived favoritism to some religions at the expense of others. That is why if you want to say that some religious imagery is not okay, you had better decreee that no religious imagery is okay.

  1. If I’m protecting the organization, how do we move forward? I hate to have to issue a sweeping ban of religious symbols, but it may come to that.

I think that’s what it has to come to, unless you want to allow the woman to wear her pentacle.

  1. If you have any experience in these matters, what are the legal precedents for this kind of thing?

AFAIK, and I wouldn’t take my word for this because I’m not looking it up, the legal precedent for a secular organization is that you may prohibit the display of religious symbols IF you have determined that the display of religious symbols negatively impacts the goals of your organization, to the extent that limiting the individuals right to free speech is justified; AND you ban ALL such symbols to avoid creating an equal protection problem.

My $.02.

27

For what it is worth Satanists (who have the right to their beliefs too by the way, christians are not more “right” than someone else) also use upside down crosses and crucifixs as symbols. They feature prominately in their rituals, are often seen in/on their literature, and are often worn as jewelery by believers.

Do you as a christian also shun these symbols because they are associated with satanism?
Because you know, right side up/ upsidedown, the average person can’t be expected to know that things have more than one meaning…

And you know, worn a certain way crosses and crucifixs ** ARE ** symbols of satanism.
[sub] I admit, I am pushing the point a bit here, and acknowledge that crosses and crucfixs would probably be more likely to be identified with christianity than satanism by the majority of american in a survey… [/sub]

If you are liberal, I am frightened. Symbols are personal, what they mean to the person wearing them can ONLY be understood by ASKING!. That being said, as I have stated in my other responses to this thread, the workplace is often not the appropriate place for personal beliefs (be those beliefs religous, political, racial, scientific or whatever). And if ones employees deal with the public, it is often necessary to request that they not outwardly display their personal beliefs.

-pandora

28

This thread made me think my little brain out. I live in a very relaxed, liberal town, and I’m Wiccan, so it’s hard to relate (I’ve even worked at an animal shelter, all apentacled).

I personally would feel bad if I knew someone was an animal lover and belonged to a religion that was full of animal lovers, but I not only forbade her form wearing a symbol of her religion, but also forbade everyone else from wearing symbols of their religions (because that’s what would have to happen) because of what ignorant/intolerant people might think. I admit it’s what’s probably best for the business, but this is why I would probably be a bad business owner. It’s the principle of the thing.

People just shouldn’t make assumptions like that. Yes, realistically, they will. But asking her to cheese it with the jewelry would feel too much like I was OK with the ignorant or intolerant judgements. :frowning:

29

Like it or not, Paganism/Wiccanism can be a special case, depending on the religious climate of your area. If you were in California, I would have said you overreacted. If you were in Alabama, I would have said you did the logical thing. I don’t know what Phoenix is like.

Why is it a special case? Because in the very conservative Protestant Christian religions, they perceive Pagans and Wiccans as witches, and still teach that witches are evil, against God, in league with the devil and do human sacrifices. There is a very strong emotional reaction that no other religion will generate. After all, the bible says “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” :rolleyes:

Is this true? No
Is this right? No
Is this fair? No
Should people be taught otherwise? Yes

Is it the responsibility of jadailey’s organization to change this? No.

Could it be as special concern for an animal adoption organization? IMO, possibly. Do not underestimate the power of human stupidity. The organization could have no problems at all, or you could end up with a UL that the organization provides animals for pagan sacrifices which would be as detrimental to Pagans as it would be to the organization. My question to jadailey is: would you have had the same problem if you were a blood bank, or a youth organization, etc?

How would I have reacted to an animal volunteer wearing the symbol?
I wouldn’t have thought anything about it - realize though that I was reading (unbiased) books about witchraft and the European and American witch hunts in middle school, and getting incensed about the unfair treatment then. BTW, this board is NOT a representational sample - this group is by and large intelligent, open-minded, and very tolerant of almost everything but intolerance. :smiley:

If you really want to get a good idea what the general reaction would be, find a city board (not in Phoenix, but somewhere equivalent) and post the question - what would you think if you saw a person wearing this pendant at an animal adoption table in the mall? and include a picture of a pentagram. (Don’t use the term pentagram) This will give you a better idea of how the general population is going to react.

Note that your volunteer said she could defend her the pentagram if asked - she didn’t do a very good job with you, did she? For every person that talks to her about her pentagram, there will be 10 that say nothing and make assumptions. What assumptions they make is going to depend a lot on how they were raised.

30

PANDORA, I truly feel that I was honest enough with my opinion to offend people with what I did say, without resorting to things I did not say. You say:

I never said Satanists do not have a right to their beliefs. I never said that Christians were any more “right” than anyone else. I am not required to respect the beliefs of Satanists, however, and I do not. I abhor them.

The Christian cross is used in Satanism only when inverted, as a direct insult to Christian beliefs. It is IMO therefore not properly considered a Satanic symbol but a misused Christian symbol. Am I offended by the inverted Christian cross? Yes. I am.

My point. Can you honestly say the same of pentacles? I doubt it.

In the immortal words of the angels, Be not afraid. I never said I was liberal, though in some respect I think I am. I said I was a pretty liberal Christian.

Obviously. But if a symbol is generally taken to have a particular meaning (which may not the meaning intended by the wearer), or to have more than one meaning (so that the wearer’s intent is not clear), the wearer cannot be surprised that people misinterpret his or her symbolism. If you wish to make a statement through what you wear, it ought to be a clear enough statement to be understood. If it is not then that is your problem, not the problem of the people encountering you. They have no obligation to decode your own personal “message” by quizzing you.

So basically we agree. :slight_smile:

31

I am not trying to provoke anyone.
I’m my post above I exagerated to make a point. (which I admited to)

I apologize, looking back, it does seem as if i was trying to put words in your mouth.

-pandora

32

Phoenix is an interesting spectrum ranging from very religiously conservative (large elderly population) to very religiously liberal (large Native American population + Sedona not far away). Our specific area, though, is pretty conservative.

**

For a blood bank, no. For a youth organization, probably. I can see where some (not all) parents would have a big problem with it. For most other types of organizations, it probably wouldn’t make much of a difference.

**

Yeah - that’s part of the reason I like it so much. :slight_smile:

**

Yep. Unfortunately, the vast majority were raised by people who aren’t particularly open to this kind of thing.

33

Imagine this. It’s 1930, and the south. You have a volunteer who’s black. Friends and family tell you that they’d be uncomfortable adopting a pet from a Colored person.

What do you do? Say, “I know that they’re wrong, but it’s for the good of the organization,” and tell the volunteer not to come back? Or (to draw a ridiculous parallel where one doesn’t really exist) tell them they can work at the shelter if they use cosmetics to lighten their skin?

Don’t punish her by letting their ignorance make a bigot out of you. If feel that you must ban the symbol of her religion, then disallowing all religious symbols would be the only fair thing to do–fair in practice, though, at its root, the policy is still motivated by prejudice.

It’s really sad that people would let a piece of jewlery stand in the way of providing a loving home to an animal.

Maybe she could wear a button that says, “Ask me why my pentagram isn’t Satanist!” :slight_smile:

Kudos to you, by the way, for sending a nice email, and for considering her case thoughtfully. She should have discussed it with you instead of going over your head, but she may have felt intimidated, since you don’t know each other well, and you were in charge of her training, and it’s nice of you not to hold a grudge. I hope this all works out!

34

Scylla started a thread which relates here.

35

I refrain rolling my eyes while I point out that the symbol in question is a manifestation of (presumably voluntarily embraced) inner beliefs and not an integral part of the individual that he or she is without power to change – and that no one is asking her not to be a Pagan, just not to wear a symbol that might reasonably be misunderstood to the detriment of the organization.

It doesn’t make a bigot out of DAILEY for her to recognize that some people in society at large will either (a) not understand the symbol and object to it, thinking it means something it does not; or (b) understand the symbol perfectly well and object to it anyway. DAILEY’S paramount concern must be the organization she works for, not the volunteer’s right to make statements about her faith when such statements are irrelevant to the organization’s mission and might well negatively impact it.

I agree that religious tolerance and self-expression are goals to be devoutly sought after; I just think that an organization dependent upon the good will of the public to achieve its purpose must recognize that those are goals that large segments of the public may not embrace. And too bad for them, really; it’s their loss. But there it is, and the organization must recognize that.

36

jadailey, you did the right thing, and don’t let others make you feel guilty.

Symbols are messages. The Pentagram is a clear symbol for 90% of Americans, as much as the Swastika is. They are symbols that for the majority of the people represent evil. The fact that a Pentagram is also used by Pagans is as relevant as the fact that the Swastika is also used by American Indians and Eastern Indians: completely irrelevant. Symbols are real, and evoke feelings and actions by people. The Pentagram does not evoke positive feelings or actions in most Americans.

And I’m sorry that this is offensive to Pagans, but this is reality. Blame the Satanists for stealing your symbol, or blame yourselves for not fighting the image war better. Don’t blame jadailey, whose responsibility is to her organization and it’s cause, not to first amendment rights for minor religions. Accepting a public symbol which is almost universally recognized as a symbol of evil as part of her organizations image would have been bad for her cause.

37

It wasn’t totally made clear exactly how BIG the pentagram was, and so precisely how noticeable it would be. I’m pretty open to all religions, but that being said, I know I would feel uncomfortable if confronted in a non-religious location with someone who had a big, huge blatant religious symbol around their neck, or someone trying to "impose"or get their religion noticed. It wouldn’t matter to me if that symbol was a pentagram, the Star of David, or a Christian cross, it would bother me.

In this case, it comes down to size. A regular sized pendant (an inch or so in length/diameter, whatever) wouldn’t bother me, but when the symbol becomes big enough to immediately draw attention… It makes me think of the Gideons walking up to me as I walk through my University Centre offering me a free Bible. If I wanted one, I know I could go out and just get one, but that’s not why I’m there.

I think it might have been possible to have handled the situation better, but I think allowing people to wear religious symbols is ok, as long as it doesnt shove the religion in other people’s faces. Big pentagram, please hide it under your shirt while interacting with customers. Small, not very noticeable one, whatever.

And it is my experience that people wearing large symbols affiliated with a religion are quite often the ones who want it noticed.

38

It wasn’t totally made clear exactly how BIG the pentagram was, and so precisely how noticeable it would be. I’m pretty open to all religions, but that being said, I know I would feel uncomfortable if confronted in a non-religious location with someone who had a big, huge blatant religious symbol around their neck, or someone trying to "impose"or get their religion noticed. It wouldn’t matter to me if that symbol was a pentagram, the Star of David, or a Christian cross, it would bother me.

In this case, it comes down to size. A regular sized pendant (an inch or so in length/diameter, whatever) wouldn’t bother me, but when the symbol becomes big enough to immediately draw attention… It makes me think of the Gideons walking up to me as I walk through my University Centre offering me a free Bible. If I wanted one, I know I could go out and just get one, but that’s not why I’m there.

I think it might have been possible to have handled the situation better, but I think allowing people to wear religious symbols is ok, as long as it doesnt shove the religion in other people’s faces. Big pentagram, please hide it under your shirt while interacting with customers. Small, not very noticeable one, whatever.

And it is my experience that people wearing large symbols affiliated with a religion are quite often the ones who want it noticed. People with smaller symbols are often comfortable enough with their religion to not have to “shout it out” to everybody around them, and thus would not be overly offended by a courteous request to be aware that some people might be uncomfortable and to take steps against that.

39

sorry for the double post…I cant believe the first one went through that quickly! why, then, does it take so long for the "thank-you"page to show up?

40

Hey, you are missing a major point here. While, as my name implies, I am not a fan of religion of any sort (among other things) I feel compelled to point this out.

  1. Pentacles and the Satanist symbol aren’t really the same. A pentacle is a typical 5 pointed star in a circle, the Satanist version is upside-down. A small point really, but you wouldn’t see people in either religion mixing THAT up. Ever notice how upside-down crosses are a Satanist symbol too? Same thing. Be no more offended than if it was a cross.

  2. People who don’t know this often wear one or the other as a shock tactic. Common among goths, etc. It’s just a way of pissing off the squares, something I heartily agree with.

It sounds like your volunteer is genuine and wasn’t trying to make a big deal of it, but by making an issue of it, you offended her. Christians, and I’m being way too general here, are assholes in that they assume that people of alternate or ::gasp:: no religion are running all over the place doing evil things to taunt the pious. Get over yourself. You are being a bigot and you are fighting a battle over something you know nothing about.

MarxBoy