Wow, thanks everyone. I got kinda hung up on my dislike for Ashcroft and didn’t think this through clearly. I would have to agree with those who say its not a violation, but it seems a little bit unprofessional. At least he’s not golfing
December, JayAndrewAllen ,
Thank you for posting the differences between fundamentalists and pentecostal Christian’s . I did not realize there was much of a difference. This is why I love the straightdope!
It would be nice to know what Ashcrofts reaction would be if someone started a Wiccan group for the same purposes at the same time.
Jeeves
And I’m pretty sure someone would have mentioned it if Cheney had been a lensman, too. I can’t imagine the guy making it through the first year of the Galactic Patrol academy, let alone being admitted to Arisia.
Fundamentalism is not simply a flavour of religion or sect; the term is most commonly used to describe rigid or zealous adherence to a system of beliefs, overly literal interpretation of religious scriptures, etc. Fundamentalists can be from Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and pretty much any religion.
And now for a real definition!
Pentecostals, like many other American sects, are fundamentalists. That’s the way I’d always heard it, and I was surprised when I saw the opposing definition from dictionary.com and the opinions of some posters.
At any rate, Ashcroft is behaving crassly by holding his RAMP in a federal building. Betenoir pointed out that sexuality, although it’s a fine thing indeed, is inappropriate in many situations. And so is religion, and particularly that of a sect that has fundamentalist trappings. A top level government official holding Bible classes in the federal building where he works, in a country that claims separation of church and state may not be illegal according to the Constitution (that could be argued) but it certainly is inappropriate.
Ashcroft is exerting indirect pressure on his fellow workers to attend classes that are probably fundamentalist, given Ashcroft’s own tendencies. There have been a myriad semi-parallel cases in sexual offenses all over the world, where the boss flirts with the office girls and rewards the ones that flirt back or go the extra mile (the rewards could be promotions, raises, bonuses, favourable performance reviews, etc.) and overlooks the ones that don’t. Having one’s merits overlooked because one didn’t flirt or attend a bible class or play golf on week-ends is a form of discrimination.
It is unethical for Ashcroft to put his employees in such a position.
I, also, see parallels between this and sexual harrassment and don’t think its appropriate. I don’t think it violates SOCAS, but I think it may violate EEOC religious discrimination standards (but, IIRC the fed isn’t answerable to the EEOC).
The hubby had a boss once who simply made inapproprate comments (one of the staff member’s wives was sick and she suggested everyone pray for her, and she suggested to my husband that he look to his church for childcare arrangements, and some other “everyone is Christian” comments) and HR got quite upset.
Dangerosa: Any evidence that Ashcroft is doing the kinds of things you objected to? No. He’s holding prayer meetings. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. And there is nothing innappropriate about it either.
If I was the AG, I might be biased against christians because I think christianity is stupid. That doesn’t make it unconstitutional for atheists to be in the government. What if I let my staff know that I didn’t go to church? Don’t you think that would be pressure on them NOT to go to church, or not to mention their religion in my presence?
Come on, get a grip, and grow up. This is America, we have freedom of religion here, whether you like it or not.
I’m responding to this because Dangerosa’s post, attacked by Lemur866, was in response to my post (I think).
I for one would appreciate seeing the reasoning behind that sweeping statement, if there is any.
This is a flawed argument. You are assuming that a lack of belief always presents the same kinds of social dynamics that belief presents. You are also attempting to warp the argument by setting up false parallels between an action and a lack of action. A correct version of your argument would be: If you as an atheist were attorney general AND if you organized classes on atheism in the federal building where you work, and invited your subordinates to attend, then… (insert your point here).
Unfortunately, if you tried to do that all hell would break loose and you would have to resign amid accusations of being the Antichrist. So you see it doesn’t matter whether you are teaching theism or atheism. Ashcroft’s behaviour (and the behaviour of anyone else in a senior position doing similar things, we just happen to be discussing Ashcroft) is inappropriate, if not illegal.
If you are willing to present such flawed counter-arguments and reinforce them with inane insults, I suggest you are the one who has to grow up. Freedom is also the right every individual has to avoid --without repercussions-- situations in which he/she may feel unwelcome pressure in the workplace to act in ways he/she does not desire and that are not necessary to the fulfilment of his/her job function. Ashcroft, as was explained previously, is behaving inappropriately because he has created a situation in which this freedom is compromised.
I gave a non-lawyer’s consititutionality argument ealier in this thread. The fact that prayer breakfasts are commonly held by legislators of both parties argues that they’re not inappropriate.
*Originally posted by Abe *
Abe substituted ‘always’ for ‘might’, so he did not accurately respond to the argument.
*Originally posted by Abe *
The above comment mentions repercussions, but there is no allegation of repercussions in this case, so we are left with feelings. Does a ‘feeling of unwelcome pressure’ constitute harassment? There are federal laws protecting against religious harassment in the workplace IIRC.
We all have feelings. A racist might feel unwelcome pressure if people of another race were working nearby. A deeply religious person might feel unwelcome pressure if he were prevented from praying at his desk before work. I would feel unwelcome pressure if I saw a co-worker praying at his desk. How would the law decide whose feelings took priority?
Yup, read the argument. In response to the above I submit that inappropriateness is not necessarily defined by who is or is not doing it, anymore than it is defined by who gets away with it and who doesn’t. I agree with you that in all likelihood Ashcroft’s RAMP is legal and constitutional. What I am questioning is its appropriateness in the light of personal freedom in the working environment.
Nitpick appreciated! I don’t think it invalidates my point though. Let’s eliminate the “always” and I think the sentence ought to be a fair response to Lemur866’s argument: “You are assuming that a lack of belief presents the same kinds of social dynamics that belief presents.”
I realize how tricky it is to evaluate these situations on a legal basis, and on top of it I am not a lawyer. That’s why I am arguing about the appropriateness of the situation, not its legality. Ashcroft is putting his employees in an awkward position: if they don’t come to the RAMP, they run the risk of standing out as atheists, non team players, critics of Ashcroft, etc., all of which will impact negatively on their status in the workplace. Add to this that Ashcroft is both the boss and, if not a fundamentalist, a man of very strong religious conviction; that’s not a good recipe.
This is rather similar to some cases of sexual harassment. If an employee feels that a boss is sexually harassing, or has established an environment with ‘feeling of unwelcome pressure etc.’ the court is going to listen to the case because it will want to determine whether the environment set up by the boss was inappropriate. Or am I mistaken on this point?
Religious freedom is protected; there is no racist freedom. Quite the opposite in fact.
I’m not sure that would be pressure to do anything. I think it would be more of a denial of his rights to pray and therefore a different case. It definitely sounds like it would be illegal though.
Freedom entitles your co-worker to pray if he so wishes, as long as his actions do not disrupt others or interfere with his work (and even then, many workplaces grant concessions for religion, marriage, loss, etc.). Sure, that can bother you–it bothers me tremendously when people in my office listen to really cheesy canto-pop at lunch-time, but I don’t think there’s any pressure for me to play music too. If, however, the boss announced that 10 minutes of every workday would be dedicated to prayer, I would feel a bit nervous. Neither these cases appear to be exactly what is going on with Ashcroft, but it’s nonetheless interesting to consider a bit of extra latitude in the argument.
Couldn’t agree more. However any group initiative organized by a top-level official where it doesn’t belong runs the risk of impinging upon the freedom of others, directly and also indirectly.
So you’re saying that everyone should have personal freedom in the working environment except for the boss.
Rubbish. Ridiculous. And utterly without merit.
And you are assuming that “atheism” is simply a “lack of belief”.
My contention is that this risk is very low. If the employees feel that they are at risk of this, it is due to their own insecurities and not Ashcroft’s beliefs.
This is also a ridiculous comparison. If a boss likes motorcycles, or beef, or skydiving, or Poke’mon, this can also be similar to some cases of sexual harassment. If the employee feels offended because his/her boss’s beliefs don’t mesh with his/her own, that’s their problem.
The point was that just because someone feels pressured in the workplace, that doesn’t mean it’s the boss’s fault.
And Ashcroft’s prayer meetings - done on his own time, before the workday begins - do not disrupt others or interfere with his work. Again, if people choose to go to those meetings as a means of sucking up, then that’s their choice. It’s no different than going out to get a drink with the boss when the day is done.
And why don’t Ashcroft’s prayer meetings “belong”, pray (no pun intended) tell?
That’s is not what I said at all, so feel free to apply your witty little comment (“Rubbish. Ridiculous. And utterly without merit”) to your shoddy analysis.
I was referring to both atheists and agnostics (i.e. not theists) when I mentioned “lack of belief”. Some atheists have their own agenda, and atheism can be defined as belief in the non-existence of God/s. Fine, but don’t derail the discussion. The issue I pointed out is that sitting still and doing nothing is in no way similar to taking action. I draw your attention to material that follows the line you quoted:
rather different point, you see. The equivalent action is organizing atheist classes and using federal resources (grounds), and that would not go down well at all–not with the public and certainly not with the current administration. Why should theist classes be considered any better in a system that truly believes in SOCAS? The answer we can see off in the distance is that the US may not be a SOCAS system after all.
How can you make this decision for all and not even support it with reasoning? Simply because you reject the highly sensitive dynamics of offices, SOCAS, workplace harassment, etc., why should everyone else?
Hm, you dismiss established similarities by providing deliberately obtuse analogies, and fail to justify them in any way.
You are missing not just the point, but the entire argument–and once more you are putting all the wrong words in my mouth. As above, who are you to tell others what their problems are when you can’t back up these assertions with anything more than deliberately obtuse, unjustified analogies?
There has to be a limit to how often you misrepresent my arguments in a single message. My point was that in such cases (certainly in the examples I was discussing), there is no actual comparable pressure, at least according to law and human psychology.
Are employees asked to attend these meetings? Are the ones who do not attend judged by Ashcroft in any way? Is it inconceivable that favouritism could arise from the prayer meetings? Why should the meetings be held on federal property? What happens to employees of other religions if a little prayer buddy club is set up? Because this is a very sensitive issue that opens up many opportunities for discrimination, these and many more such matters have to be considered. Until you are certain know the answers to all of them, your assertions are mere opinion without import.
The is no separation of booze and state, but there is SOCAS. Before you jump, be aware that that is a tongue-in-cheek comment. But your point is valid. My point, that perhaps I am not getting through, is that the combination of the factors involved in this situation (discussed on this board) make this an inappropriate situation. Not one or two factors by any means, but a number of them.
Because of the various factors that, combined, make this an especially sensitive situation. I don’t know much about this, but since when is a federal building suitable grounds for religious (remember SOCAS) meetings headed by one of the most powerful top-level men in the US, who also happens to belong to a fundamentalist sect? It’s suspicious, even if we don’t consider other actions by the administration (blurring of the line between Church and State earlier in the year when funding priority was given to Christian charities). There’s a difference between saying something is wrong and saying something is inappropriate. We don’t know that Ashcroft has done anythng wrong yet, but we can say that this entire prayer practice is inappropriate and could lead to trouble–part of the reason SOCAS was defined in the first place.
Please note that I don’t believe it would be considered inappropriate for Ashcroft to hold prayer classes elsehwere. If his attendees were strangers to him (in other words, if he doesn’t invite his office workers), then he would have no chance to discriminate at all.
I’m not sure what you mean by “racism”, but if you mean bigotry, your statement is incorrect. Federal law prohibits discrimination in government and public affairs, but does not (yet) accrue to private affairs. A bigot may start a Whites Only airport by calling it John’s Private Flying Club. You may discriminate with respect to race in deciding whom you will marry. You may even discriminate with respect to race in deciding whom you will hire, so long as your bigotry is sufficiently occult.
The oath that John Ashcroft swore in front of the President of the United States does not have a punchclock. His duty to uphold and defend the Constitution is with him every moment of every day for as long as he holds that office.
And, as Janet Reno can readily tell you, the job of Attorney General of the United States is not an 8 to 5 job. He’s on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week, just like the President.
As to the OP: I think it is inappropriate for the Attorney General to be holding prayer meetings on government property under any circumstance. It would be illegal, IMO, if the meetings are being held in a time and at a place where a person lacking John Ashcroft’s rank and privilege could not hold such a meeting. If the reason those meetings are permitted to be held in that place at that time is because the person holding them is the Attorney General, then they are improper.
This may very well not be true. The FAA has overriding jurisdiction over aviation in the United States and can easily adopt regulations which would prohibit discrimination even in private flying clubs. (I have no idea if they actually have, or not.) And a private flying club that owns a private field still cannot refuse to allow anyone – no matter who they are – from making an emergency landing on their field.
Now this is plain false. You may not discriminate with respect to race in employment, period. However, if you are sufficiently crafty about it, you might get away with it. However, the word “may” deals not with what one is able to do, but rather with what one is permitted to do.
This is, strictly speaking, not true. Prayer breakfasts held by legislators and the opening prayer before each session of Congress were ruled appropriate because the Supreme Court found them sufficiently devoid of real religious content and instead represented an old, venerable American tradition. Thus it was deeply ironic when conservative politicians, who defended the prayer simply as a “tradition,” were so infuriated when a Hindu led the pre-session prayer.
Ashcroft’s bible study classes represent no such hallowed tradition. The real religious content therein is undeniable.
But this combined with the “undue influence” argument squeezes a high government official into a situation where he would have to adopt a form of atheism (or at least agnosticism) to be fit to hold the office.
What if a DoJ employee saw that Ashcroft has a deep faith and attends church regularly, and decided that the way to get ahead in his job was to attend Ashcroft’s church? Okay, you say…if he’s a Christian already, no sweat. What if he’s not? What if that employee is an agnostic? What if he’s personally opposed to religion in general, but feels that he has to attend that church to get Ashcroft’s attention? Is this any less of an undue influence on Ashcroft’s employees than the prayer meetings are? So what does Ashcroft have to do to not influence his employees to suck up to him by attending a Bible study or a church service? Put his faith on hold?
Look, I’m not a fundamentalist. Hell, I’m not even a Christian, as such. But basically demanding that someone check the cornerstone of their life because it may be influencing someone else (through no fault of the original someone’s own) warps the Bill of Rights as completely as forcing someone under your authority to attend church. Ashcroft has freedom of religion, too. As do his employees.
I don’t think that he needs to “discard his faith at the office door” (although, to be honest, I wish he would, but I didn’t vote for Bush anyway). However, I do believe that he should refrain from engaging in religious instruction from within the walls of his office.
I am deliberately not dealing with the “undue influence” argument; that argument is not altered by the fact that John Ashcroft is Attorney General of the United States. I am disturbed by the use of government property not generally available to the public for the provision of religious instruction. I believe this constitutes an establishment of religion and as such is barred by the First Amendment. John Ashcroft should be free to conduct prayer meetings if he so chooses, but he (or anyone else) should conduct them on private property or on government property generally available for the use of the public, not in an office building designated by Congress to be used only for the official business of the United States government.
Kelly, if it were a group of employees who happen to meet together in the cafeteria in the morning for bagels and coffee, and the subject of their daily conversation is usually their personal Bible study experiences, is that using government property for religious purposes? Does the idea of the Attorney General pausing in the cafeteria to talk to this group about his own Bible study experiences before he makes his way to his office make it different? What about if it were a group of Wiccans gathering in the morning to discuss their preparations for an upcoming Sabbat? What about if (by some outlandish chance in some alternate world or far future) the Attorney General (also a Wiccan) were to pause on the way to her office to discuss her own plans for a Litha celebration? Does that make it different?
As amazing as it may be (and I’m stunned), I agree with december here. It’s a freedom of association situation. You simply can’t say to a group of like-minded people, “You can’t talk about religion amongst yourselves…you’re on government property.” Now if they were standing at the elevators handing out “Jesus Saves!” pamphlets and Chick tracts, yes, they are doing more than simply talking among themselves about a subject of common interest to them.
Government (in the abstract) must remain officially neutral where religion is concerned. This I believe with every bone and muscle in my body. But government (in the specific individuals who make up the mechanics of it) cannot be forced to be neutral in their own persons. On official decisions, Ashcroft must be religion-neutral. In his own person, we must not require it of him. The Constitution forbids religious tests for eligibility for office. That works both ways…you cannot require someone in public office to pretend they aren’t Christian or Jewish or Wiccan any more than you can require people to pretend they are.
