According to this WP Article John Ashcroft, the US attorney General, leads a bible study class every morning. This class is called “RAMP – Read, Argue, Memorize and Pray” . Now, this class is also held in the main Justice Department building in DC. I know that Ashcroft’s fundamentalism is well known, and was even an issue that was addressed before he was confirmed. At that time he assured congress that his personal beliefs would not factor into his execution of his duties. While this does not appear to directly conflict with his position, the fact that he holds this meeting in a federal building certainly seems to skirt the separation of church and state line. Also, it would seem that an easy way to assure that you are noticed by the big boss, would be to go to these meetings. The question I put before the dopers today, is A) Does this violate SOCAS rulings, and B) Even if it doesn’t, should Mr. Ashcroft cease holding these meetings on federal property to avoid the appearance of a violation, and to avoid allegations of favoritism toward those who attend his meetings?
Ouch, my first Great Debate thread and I screw up the subject. That should read, Separation of Church and State. Mods, could you please fix that?
Thank You
Jeeves
**
Does he make people come to these meetings? I have no problems with public buildings being used for religious purposes.
Well either it volates SOCAS or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t then it won’t appear to violate it will it?
Marc
No, he does not make people come to these meetings. But, if I worked with Ashcroft, I would certainly feel that a good way to get ahead, and assure that I stay in the political favor, would be to attend these meetings. This falls into line, just as knowing Ashcrofts beliefs, should I work with him I would do my best to make sure he didn’t know about my homosexuality or my athiesm.
As head of the Justice department, he has a responsability not to officially favor any religion over the other, yet that appears to be exactly what he is doing. WHile I believe that it would be impossible to prove that these meetings allow him to filter how he treats his employees by their religion, it also stinks of a way to filter out those who do not have the same religous beliefs as Ashcroft.
But personally, I do not feel that stepping right out and banning private meetings on any subject on federal property is the way to go, I also feel the Ashcroft should think less like a evangelical and more like the boss of the Justice department.
If other clubs are provided the same opportunities, I see no problem with it. If RAMP is the only group allowed to use the Justice Department building, then that strikes me as being a blatant sign of favoritism towards the activities/religion that RAMP use and believe in.
He may not be violating any rulings but his certainly being a lousy. I can’t believe anyone can pretend his staff members wouldn’t feel pressured to attend regardless of their beliefs, or that those whose beliefs do keep them from attending won’t feel they are being discriminated against. Even if that is not his intention, he should know what kind of effect it will have.
And perhaps I should leave this to an actual Christian to say, but even if Ashcroft is sincere, isn’t he encouraging others to possibly pray for hypocritical reasons (see Matthew 6:5-6)? That’s not very Christian of him.
On a side issue, what would reaction be if Cheney decided get together a Minyan from his staff?
If Ashcroft were jewish, wouldn’t that mean that he favors judaism? Our public officials are free to have whatever religious beliefs they like, there is no requirement that they must be irreligious. In fact, the constitution would prohibit a ban on religious people.
This is pretty much like the the “flagpole meetings” that bible groups have a public schools. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it would be unconstitutional to prohibit them. (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”)
But what’s he supposed to do, betenoir? Leave his faith at the door?
As long as the prayer meetings are not mandatory and not during working hours, I see no problem with them. Before 8:30 AM, Ashcroft is a private citizen and so is his staff. At 8:30 AM he becomes a public servant and so does his staff. Anything that happens before 8:30 AM is non-government business.
jayjay (not a Christian, so no bias here)
It’s not illegal, but it’s certainly in poor taste. Ashcroft knows what a tremendous amount of power he has. By holding Bible meetings (in the very building where he and his subordinates work, at that), he is clearly creating a very precarious situation. Employees who are not Christian or who practice a different variety of Christianity than he does feel uncomfortable. And, whether he admits it or not, Aschcroft can’t help but feel closer to those who choose to attend, feelings which could translate into better assignments, promotions, raises, and other preferential treatment.
Of course, religion is not unique in this respect. A boss and an employee who went to the same college, golf at the same club, or even root for the same sports team are going to have this same situation. But, considering just how important religion is to Ashcroft, and considering the fact that these sessions appear to be open to employees only, this is a more problem-laden area than most.
Imagine a boss who held a special “root for the Broncos” club every day before work. Attendance is, of course, completely voluntary. But wouldn’t we feel that a boss who did this was going out of his way to create potential problems? Might some employees feel pressured to attend, even if they aren’t Broncos fans, just to get on the boss’ good side?
On the other hand, there’s not much that Ashcroft can do to fix the situation. Even if he had decided to lead a Bible study group outside of work, at private residences, without even mentioning it at work, somebody would have found out. And then certain employees would attend, others would be pressured, and we’d be right back at square one.
Originally posted by Jeeves *
** I know that Ashcroft’s fundamentalism is well known…*
Ashcroft is NOT a fundamentalist, but rather is a Pentecostal Christian. According to Dictionary.com:
*Fundamentalism. An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in 1920 in opposition to Liberalism and secularism.
Pen·te·cos·tal – A member of a Pentecostal congregation: “Pentecostals rejected the belief of many fundamentalists that . . . God had ceased to reveal himself to man”
(John B. Judis).*
(Can some poster explain this difference?)
**The question I put before the dopers today, is A) Does this violate SOCAS rulings, and B) Even if it doesn’t, should Mr. Ashcroft cease holding these meetings on federal property to avoid the appearance of a violation, and to avoid allegations of favoritism toward those who attend his meetings? **
The First Amendment says:*
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*
A prayer breakfast is not held pursuant to any law made by Congress, so it appears Constitutional to me.
The 1st Amendment bars Congress from making a law “prohibiting the free exercise of religion” just as they are barred from “abridging the freedom of speech.” These two freedoms appear equally protected. Congress couldn’t pass a law prohibiting federal employees from engaging in free speech in their offices before work hours. Therefore, these prayer meetings appear not only Constitutional, but Constitutionally protected. (If some lawyer wants to correct me, please be my guest.)
As to the appearance of favoritism, I had a personal experience. My former manager conducted regular bible study luncheons. I was invited to attend, but as an atheist, had no interest. The people who attended formed a closer relationship with him. When he left to start a new company, I was not invited; several of them were.
However, I’m also not a golfer. Employees who went golfing with the boss also formed a closer relationship with him.
The bottom line is that sucking up to your boss may be a good idea, but I don’t see any difference between praying with him or golfing with him.
BTW prayer breakfasts for Senators of both parties are quite common. Even Hillary has attended, but she wasn’t criticized in a page 1, above-the-fold, Washington Post article.
LEt me get this straight: even if he did this outside of work, at his own home, in his own spare time, would THAT be inappropriate?
That’s stretching it quite a bit. I may not agree with Ashcroft, but the guy does have a right to practice his own beliefs, as long as he’s not forcing them on people.
**
Big deal? How’s that different then other offices that host Toastmasters meetings or encourage employees to sign up with United Way?
**
How is he “ofically” favoring one religion over another?
Marc
But what’s he supposed to do, betenoir? Leave his faith at the door?
As long as the prayer meetings are not mandatory and not during working hours, I see no problem with them. Before 8:30 AM, Ashcroft is a private citizen and so is his staff. At 8:30 AM he becomes a public servant and so does his staff. Anything that happens before 8:30 AM is non-government business.
jayjay (not a Christian, so no bias here) **
[/QUOTE]
Of course not. I don’t think I said anything of the kind. I was talking about his position of power in regards to doing this.
Faith is an important part of ones humanity and should not have to be abandon when one walks into work. So is sexuality. But there are some expressions of sexuality that might otherwise be perfectly appropriate but are not when the happen between an employer and a subordinate. Because of the potentially cohersive nature of the relationship. And that goes even when the employer did not intend it to be cohersive.
I think it’s rather disingenuous to say after 8:30 Ashcroft becomes the guy who hold your career and your livelyhood in his hands but before 8:30 he’s just like any other guy. Note I didn’t say it was govermental business or that it violated any goverment regulation, just that he was a lousy boss (except that I forgot to type “boss” in the first sentence. But I think my point was still clear.)
december understand this point, on the other hand he says…
-
President Bush prays every morning at his desk in the Oval Office(alone, before anyone comes in). Is that against the law?
-
Doesn’t it seem like we have reached a state of “hyper-sensitivity” when it comes to religous activity within our government. People are religious. People are in our government. People in our government are religous. Get used to it.
-
Would it be better if meeting were mandatory? I think the fact that the meeting is totally optional and open to anyone in the justice department(no matter what your beliefs) makes it acceptable.
-
There are over 30 separate prayer meetings held in the House and Senate. Should all these be stopped? BTW, I heard this both from a Michigan rep. who started one and on television the other day, so I’m pretty sure it’s reliable.
On the other hand he says…
Well I think it is.
I don’t think a boss should force you to pretend to like some stupid game, either. But it is just a stupid game.
But conterfiting my most basic beliefs about the nature of the Universe to get on the guy’s good side? Yeah, I think that’s different.
It would be a big deal for me and I’m an agnostic. How much worse for somebody with a faith that actively prohibits praying to his God?
That’s asking to much. And a good boss not would set up a sitution like that for his employees. Is what I’m saying.
[hijack]
My reaction would be incredible surprise. AFAIK, the VP is not Jewish. Given the media attention to Joseph Lieberman’s religion when he was nominated as Gore’s running mate, I’m pretty sure someone would have mentioned if Cheney had been a landsman, too. ;j
[/hijack]
On the OP, I thought I read a quote from an Orthodox Jew in the Justice Dept who attends the Bible study sessions. The quote was approving.
Personally, I doubt there’s any kind of Constitutional issue here. I do think, however, that even if the AG shows absolutely no favoritism to those in the group, there is the appearance (to the public, at least) that this is a way to get ahead. I think there’s a reason that the military prohibits fraternization between people of different rank (they still do that, don’t they?): there’s just no getting around the unequal power dynamic, and favoritism can really sow discontent.
I don’t think bosses should use “optional” golf games to get to know their employees better, either.
Rick (Conservative Jew, moderate Democrat)
Pentecostalists believe,as the above says, that God still constantly reveals himself to man. This happens mostly via glossolallia, or speaking in tongues (someone stands up in the pews in the middle of service and starts spewing gibberish). Here’s a full decription from the Religious tolerance web site, which also contains a fascinating link about glossolalia.
I’ve been at a Pentecost church when someone broke out into glossolalic speech. It was wild, watching someone hijacked by their own mind. Too bad what they speak is total nonsense. Another beautiful mystery defiled by science. 
Personally, I have issues with this man as my attorney general - but hey, I didn’t finagle my way into the White House, so not my call. So long as he’s not respecting an Establishment of religion in the eyes of the law, he’s in the clear.
My stepdaughter’s high school hosts student prayer circles offered by several denominations, so there’s clear precedent. Of course, you can’t lead a mass prayer at a school football game, but the House and Senate often open with prayers. What I wouldn’t give for a little consistency in this country.
Mahaloth, great point about hypersensitivity. I think people get hypersensitive on this issue, though, because Ashcroft’s religion is so tangled with his politics (which is frightening in itself) that people fear he’ll eventually cross the line. Eternal vigilance, and all that…
-J-
Please find a cite that indicates that Ashcroft “forces” his employees to attend these prayer meetings. If you can’t, your argument has no merit.
And none of this “he’s IMPLYING that his staff should attend the meetings” rubbish. They have their own free will. If they want to get in good with the boss - no matter how many of their core beliefs they may need to stomp over in the process - that’s their perogative.
Oops. I’m an idiot.
And after I was so proud of remembering the word Minyan.
Though I work for an organization that pursues SOCAS offenders to the ends of the earth and beyond, I am not particularly worried about Ashcroft’s prayer meetings.
First, he knows quite well that the eyes of every left-wing organization are glued right on him. Even a spurious accusation of favoritism could explode overnight into a monumental, career-ruining debacle. Not to mention that working for the federal government entails a high degree of scrutiny and extremely restrictive employee policies.
Second, as much as I dislike Ashcroft, I freely admit that he believes in the rule of law over all. Fifty years of jurisprudence have defined the relationship between church and state, and Ashcroft has enough respect for the laws of this country not to trample them with impunity.
I am a Jewish-born agnostic: if I worked in Ashcroft’s office, I would probably go to these meetings, for I find biblical exegesis quite fascinating. I would not feel that my core beliefs were being challenged whatsoever. Those who wish to go may learn something, regardless of whether they believe that Jesus saves or that glossolalia is anything other than insane muttering.
My only issue is that his meetings flagrantly discriminate against federal employees who can’t drag their asses out of bed in time to get there by 8:30 AM.
MR