Is it possible for religion to be a "private matter"?

Great Debates
1

I’ve been wondering about this lately. Here in America, a person’s religion is considered to be his/her own business. It"s a private affair and it"s considered in bad taste to bring it into the more public aspects of your life (work, school, etc.) I submit that if a person is truly a person of faith, who believes what his/her religion teaches, rather than being a Sunday Christian (or a Friday Muslim, etc…) it is impossible to separate your religion from other aspects of your life. For a person of faith, a very large part of their moral and ethical beliefs are derived from the teachings of their religion, and many religions teach that certain things are wrong, or immoral, that would not be regarded as wrong by another religion, or by the secular world. This can create some interesting dilemmas. Religion is not merely a social activity, it’s an integral part of who you are.

I started in the massage therapy program at CCSN a few weeks ago. One of the instructors, in his orientation lecture, told us, in effect that whatever our personal beliefs are, political, religious, or whatever, we were not t bring them into the class.

I begged to differ. I told him I couldn’t keep my religion out of it. I’m a practicing Catholic, and there was already talk of energy work being floated around, and I have some pretty strong religious objections to getting involved with that sort of thing. I made it clear that I wasn’t going to do energy work, and I wasn’t going to have energy work done on me. Not that I don’t believe in it, to me, it just smacks of occultism. The instructor was very understanding about this, and we both silently agreed to let the matter lay where it fell.

But there are other areas where religion could become an issue outside the walls of church or your prayer corner at home. In the past several years, there have been blurbs in the news about such things as a Jehovah’s Witness who was fired from her job at a restaraunt for refusing to sing “Happy Birthday” to a patron who was having her party at said restaraunt. JW’s do not celebrate birthdays, or any of the generally recognized holidays, regarding them as pagan or sinful.

I think it was just over a year ago a police officer in, was it Indiana? was suspended and I think eventually fired because he refused to accept security duty in a casino. He was a fundamentalist Christian with strong religious proscriptions agaist gambling, and he felt that his very presence in the casino would have been an endorsement of something he very strongly believed to be sin.

Greek Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics still observe the proscriptions against eating meat on Friday, and some Hindu and Bhuddist sects forbid eating any kind of meat whatsoever which, I can tell you, creates no end of fun at company dinners because the people arranging the catering often don’t take religious dietary proscriptions into account (except for making sure there are Kosher options for Jewish employees) so a Greek Catholic/Orthodox person in attendance basically ends up with some macaroni salad and a bit of spaghetti with parmesan cheese and no sauce.

A Christian doesn’t stop being a Christian when he puts on his work uniform, a Muslim does not cease to be a Muslim when she leaves the Mosque, a Hindu is still a Hindu when he is sitting behind the desk at his office.

I’m certainly not saying that it is appropriate to engage in theoligical debates in the workplace or a non-religious or philosophcally oriented class at a college or university, nor am I saying that we should expect others to comply with the teachings of our own relgions. But in day to day life, we are going to encounter situations where we will be asked to do things that are in conflict with our religious beliefs, and, it seems, at least some employers are not willing to make allowances for an employee’s religion.

2

I’d assume as a baseline that, absent any anti-religious discrimination laws, an employer has the right to set whatever conditions are necessary for employment. These will occasionally and legitimately clash with an employee’s religion.

Having said that, I often suspect that our society is becoming increasingly (and sometimes disturbingly) polarized between, say, religious and nonreligious, conservative and liberal, pro-life and pro-choice, etc., ad infinitum. It’s inevitably going to be stupid for employers in general to take an anti-religious stance, because statistically, at least some of their employees are going to have some kind of religious practice that gets in the way of something.

I’m a Catholic. I’m also a law…something-or-other…that is, I have my Juris Doctor but I haven’t passed the bar exam yet (cross your fingers, the results come in a month). I realize that law is a particularly sticky area for us religious folk, as we’re torn between our religious obligations and our legal duties. The classic example being that I couldn’t nor wouldn’t take a pro-abortion side of a lawsuit, but also consider: I’m severely disinclined to do work on a Sunday. All I can say at present is that 1) I hope to avoid situations where a religious clash would pop up, and 2) if they did, I’d hope my employers would make allowances for me.

3

Many of us on the other side of the fence don’t have a problem with people being influenced openly by their religion. If you don’t want to join me in happy hour due to some religious belief, that’s just more beer for me. The problems usually arise when it has a negative impact on others, or when someone tries to force their religiously derived morals and ethics on us. I find murder just as bad as the next guy, but not because I fear eternal torture.

I personally find “energy work” to be just as faith based as religion, so it does seem a bit odd that they’d be so adamant about leaving beliefs out of the class.

Was the employee aware that singing Happy Birthday was part of the job description? At many restaurants, that’s part of the job. There are jobs I can’t get because I’m an atheist, so if someone’s religion precludes them from performing their job duties at a specific job, perhaps they need a different job.

A policeman’s job is to protect and serve. If that includes protecting a casino, so be it. I’m not ready to have a police officer decide not to protect someone because they are one of those “Devil Catholics”, or gamblers, or atheists, etc…

A person should never be fired because of their religious beliefs or the lack thereof (I’m sure it happens, but it’s wrong), but people are fired all the time due to not performing their job duties. If your religion conflicts with the standard duties of the job, then you probably shouldn’t have accepted that job.

4

Render onto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and all that. If your beliefs make it impossible to function at certain jobs (without a reasonable compromise) you’ll just have to find a job that you can work without offending your beliefs.

Do you have sites for the examples you used? I can see the security guard thing they don’t pay him to make moral judgments of who he guards if he can’t handle it so be it. But I can’t see a boss firing a ‘good’ waitress for not singing a song she could have just gone back to the kitchen and waited so I suspect she was either lousy and that was the final straw or she made a scene.

Food? Please I’m diabetic I CAN’T eat certain things or I might go to the hospital. So I make sure to eat before I go to a company dinner in which there might not be anything I can eat. I certainly don’t expect them to cater to my special needs.

5

A short answer to the OP question, "is it possible for religion to be a “private matter” (certainly not the answer, either long or short) is no. Unless you live in a highly insular and self-contained community I’d say it’s pretty much impossible to have a strong religious belief that never conflicts with a homogenious society in any way. I think it is possible, however, with a little planning, to minimize the potential conflict by selecting jobs, schools, etc. where your particular differences will either be accomodated or not be a problem in the first place.

For example, if you’re a Jew who expects your kids to keep the Saturday Sabbath and the dietary laws you probably wouldn’t be wise to enroll them in a Catholic school.

Regarding the Jehova’s Witness waitress who was fired from a job for refusing to sing “Happy Birthday” to a customer, I would say she had a pretty good cause of action against her employer. I’ve never seen a job description that was so detailed that it would include, "must sing “Happy Birthday,” as a condition of employment. Unfortunately for the waitress, I don’t think Jehova’s Witnesses believe in suing people. I may be wrong about that. Anybody know for sure?

In American commerce, at least, it is customary, if not legally mandated, to make certain allowances for employees’ deeply- held religious beliefs. The break times, which surely are mandated by law, could easily be scheduled in the case of a Muslim or an Orthodox Jew to accomodate prayer times.

I think what is really meant by “keeping religion a private matter” has more to do with potential proselytizing than practice. If you practice your religion quietly, but keep it to yourself in the workplace or at school, you aren’t likely to have a problem. If that’s what the OP meant, then the answer (okay, an answer) is yes.

6

Could we get a definition of “occultism”, please?

7

Please forgive my ignorance but what is “energy work?” I’d also like to echo TVAA’s request for a definition of “occultism.”

As to the substance ofthe OP. People should make a reasonable attempt to be quiet and discrete about their religious beliefs at work. They shouldn’t be forced to do anything which would violate those beliefs but there can be reasonable exceptions to that (if you’re a firefighter or a cop you’re probably going to have to work on the sabbath). People should at least try a little bit to seek out jobs that would minimize religious conflicts (don’t work in a butcher shop if you can’t touch pork) and definitely, all proselytization should be off limits.

Of course religious beliefs are a part of many people’s identities and those beliefs can’t be hermetically sealed off from people’s professional lives but those people should also make an attempt not to be jerks about it. I don’t think that most people are.

8

Thea said, "Not that I don’t believe in it, to me, it just smacks of occultism. "

Why would you take a class that obviously has practices that go against your religion? Can you pass the class without partaking in “energy” work (whatever THAT is:rolleyes: )?

Maybe you’ll need to look into the particulars of classes (and employment) to make sure it doesn’t clash with your religious beliefs.

9

You have a right to believe your religion.

You have a right to express your religion and to practice your religion as long as you don’t harm people.

In some places, you have a right not to be fired for reasons unrelated to your work performance and ability to get along with others.

But you don’t have a right to take a job and force your employer to change the duties of the job. You would be harming your employer with your religion. Why would you want to do that?

If your employer wants to accomodate your religion, fine; if your employer doesn’t want to accomodate your religion, go find another job, and continue practicing your religion which is your right.

We find out how important people’s religion is to them when they have to find another job to continue practicing it. If you believe something worthwhile, I suspect it will inconvenience you every once in awhile.

Oh, and I just had to say it: "energy work :rolleyes: "

10

TVAA, technically, the word “occult” means hidden but in general usage, it usually refers to anything having to do with magick or “witchcraft”, fortunetelling or divination, astrology. Kind of a loose definition, I know, but for my purposes…

Magick would consist of any deliberate attempt to manipulate psychic energies to achieve a particular purpose. (Again, a loose definition.)

Anyhoo, IMV, energy work would fall into the category of “magick” which would be strictly verboten for a believing Catholic.

**Actually, “energy work” is not taugt as part of the curriculum. This is a community college. There are, however, a few students in the class who have experiene doing energy work, and the subject does come up in class from time to time.

When it comes time to look for work, it will become more of an issue but I really don’t see it as being a problem for me. Energy work is a pretty specialized modality, and if it was on the menu at your run-of-the-mill day spa, the place would have one or two therapists on staff that they would give clients seeking that type of work to. It’s not unusual for spas to have therapists who specialize in particular modalities.

11

It’s m-a-g-i-c, not “magick.”

12

M-a-g-i-c denotes the use of sleight of hand and misdirection to create a particular visual effect that creates the appearance of psychic forces at work for the purposes of entertainment.

M-a-g-i-c-k would be the actual manipulation of those forces. In many books on ritual magicks, the ‘k’ is used on the end to distinguish is from the parlor tricks.

Of course, if you believe that energy work is simply charlatanism…

[sub]Thea hasn’t always been a nice Catholic girl[/sub]

13

I don’t know what you mean by “psychic forces” but it may reassure you to know that all such things as spell-casting, fortune telling, astrology, ouija boards, channelling, etc. are totally bogus parlour tricks.

After googling on “energy work” I see it has to do with manipulating the so-called “chi” and other non-existent bodily “energies.”

I think “energy work” is bullshit and that no “psychic forces” are involved but if it makes you feel religiously uncomfortable you shouldn’t have to do it.

14

BTW, Thea, have you talked to a priest about the energy work project. It might not hurt to get a more authoritative opinion on it. If nothing else, maybe you could simply watch it and mock. :smiley:

15

** Ah, like Transubstantiation. Or radio. Gotcha.

16

So, Teev, did you post to this thread in order to engage in rational debate, or did you just drop by to mock my religious beliefs?

Since you claim to be an exprert on the Orthodox Chrstian faith, which holds the same beliefs about Transubstantiation as the Catholic Church, you would know that this does not fall under the category of “Magick” because it is God, not a man, who does the work of changing the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Diogenes, there is no energy work project. If there was, and refusal to participate would have a detrimental effect on my grade, you can bet you sweet bippy I would be in the administration office making a complaint of religious discrimination, or at least of activties inappropriate to an acedemic environment (“energy work” being of questionable scientific validity).

17

Not much to add, other than a timely anecdote.

Just yesterday my HS soph daughter - a devout atheist - observed that it bothered her when kids brought up their religion in public school class discussions. For example, she provided the example of a student stating in English class, “I don’t believe in killing. But that is because I am a Christian.” My daughter’s response (to me, not in class) was that SHE didn’t believe in killing either, but it had nothing to do with her being a non-Christian. My daughter considered the statement about christianity unnecessary, potentially divisive, and adding little to constructive debate/discussion. She also expressed frustration at the lack of insight of so many teens who appear to simply parrot religious dogma thhey have been spoonfed.

Moreover, in our overwhenlingly christian community, my daughter does not feel welcome to freely express her non-religious beliefs. I agree with her, that such openness is generally not a good practice.

I suggested to my daughter that a lot of teens might be going through an important period with respect to the religions they have grown up with, where they are trying to figure out how relevant their religious upbringing will be as they near adulthood. Moreover, they will undoubtedly be the object of various appeals by their denominations, hopeful of maintaining ties with members as they pass from childhood to adulthood.

For those asking about energy work, search “reiki.” Quite common in massage schools and practice. IMO, similar to therapeutic touch.

18

** The former necessarily implies the latter.

** No, I just know more about it than you do.

** Without the proper ceremony? The petitioning is what’s important. How is petitioning a divine entity to change bread and wine into flesh and blood without it actually becoming flesh and blood less magical than petitioning “energy force” to have a particular effect on the body?

I presume you’re also opposed to all forms of technology, since those involve humans invoking cosmic forces instead of petitioning a divinity.

19

Maybe TVAA was saying that Transubstantiation was like radio: invisible but real. OK, maybe not.

In addition to Thea’s point regarding Transubstantiation being caused due to God’s actions and not due to human powers or spirits under control of humans, perhaps we should note that Transubstantiation, unlike magick, does not seek to affect physical (e.g., detectable) reality. Transubstantiation alters the “substance,” not the “accidents” of the host. The “accidents” (in the technically philosophical sense of the word) are those characteristics which are scientifically detectable or otherwise perceivable by the objective senses of man, and which remain unchanged. The substance is the essence of the host, which is undetectable but very real (according to Thomas Aquinas), and which is transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus, Transubstantiation leaves the physical world unaffected while altering the spiritual world, and so cannot be magick since magick seeks to control the spiritual world to affect the physical world.

I’m no theologian, though; this is just my understanding to the best of my ability from my limited training by the Catholic Church. As always, I’m remain open to being further educated. Thus my presence on SDMB.

20

:stuck_out_tongue: :slight_smile:

That’s a good and legitimate question. I may not be expert enough to answer, but let me give it a shot.

I’m going to throw out these definitions, which I’ve been using, and see if anyone can critique them.

Petitioning/prayer = lack of control, and supplication of the supernatural (ask, and you will be answered, just not always the way you want, and not always in physical reality, but always at the whim of the supernatural, not under the control of natural man)

Magick = control and manipulation of the supernatural (do the motions right and say the right words, and something thing will happen to physical reality; human power is involved)

Transubstantiation involves a promise by a deity to do a certain thing when certain actions are done by certain people (agents of the deity’s church). Since the Deity is a sentient actor, He can make promises, and He can abide by them.

Magick involves control of the supernatural, not supplication before it.

Too fine a hair to split???

If I am wrong, TVAA, let me know. I know more about Catholicism than I do “magick” so if my use of the term is wrong, I’d like to know.

I missed your point here. What are “cosmic forces”? Are they natural or physical forces? If so, then why would the Catholic Church have a problem with using them to achieve legitimate goals? If they are supernatural, then they are not technology, they are magick.