I don’t think it would if it was an impromptu thing. The problem with Ashcroft’s prayer meetings is that they are scheduled time explicitly set aside for the purpose of religious instruction. That’s “over the line”, as it were. I don’t have a problem with employees chatting about religion over lunch or otherwise in their spare time. It’s the organized, regularly scheduled, dedicated time for religious instruction that pushes it into prohibited territory for me.
Yes, I am drawing lines in the sand. The law is often all about that. Ashcroft and other government employees are free to have impromptu discussions of religious topics in the workplace (as long as doing so does not interfere with their official duties); they are not free to conduct worship services in the office. I don’t see this as an abridgement of any of their rights.
**
[/QUOTE]
Everything has its place. Don’t shit where you eat. Eat in the cafeteria, shit in the toilet, work in the office, pray in Church… That’s what I would do… although i understand praying in the toilet if you are very constipated… even if you are agnostic… does the Constitution say anything about constipated agnostics? …
Would somebody please cite a single example of any instance in which Ashcroft pressured anyone to join his prayer group, discriminated against someone who didn’t join, or rewarded in any way someone who did?
All these objections are based on the fear that Ashcroft might abuse his position. Would anyone argue that his free speech rights should be revoked proactively, because he might yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater?
It appalls me that we are assuming that religious speech is automatically second class speech, and that we need to restrict it in advance because someone somewhere might possibly take offence.
If you have accusations, let’s hear the proof. If you don’t want to join the prayer group, don’t. If I do, I will and the rest of you can sleep an extra half hour - and leave me in peace to enjoy my rights as an American to worship as I choose.
And yes, I have been part of prayer groups at work (and I am a manager with both Christians and non-Christians reporting to me). I make no assumptions about the intentions of those who do not care to join, and also make it clear that joining will convey no work related benefits. That is not what prayer groups are for.
Kelly, why can’t people say, “Hey, we had a great time discussing the bible at lunch today. Why don’t we get together tomorrow morning and do the same?” How is the fact that they schedule their discussion in advance make it a violation of SOCAS? How is this inappropriate? They are not holding worship services.
If they aren’t doing their job, if they are harrassing other employees, then it is inappropriate. But Ashcroft has hundreds of voluntary associations that he is part of…maybe he’s a golfer, or owns a particular car, or his kids go to a particular school, or he likes a particular kind of music, or he’s a smoker. Office suck-ups might try to do the same things in order to curry favor.
But this is not a SOCAS issue. Ashcroft is not establishing a state religion by getting together and holding prayer meetings. Yes, people might feel uncomfortable with this…but is their discomfort reasonable? I believe it is unreasonable to expect people to give up their religious beliefs at work. And it is my belief that prohibiting religious expression at work is unconstitutional, as long as people do their work and don’t harrass people.
It seems to me that the first amendment protects Ashcroft’s prayer meetings instead of prohibiting them. He has a constitutionally guaranteed right to the free exercise of religion. If you have evidence that he is using these prayer meetings to harrass, or proseletize, then we can start this discussion again.
This is not the point being addressed–this is not the issue at all. Why this argument exists has already been explained, discussed, and repeated extensively in this thread. The concerns you raise in these messages are valid, but they have already been discussed as well, also right here.
You are adopting a “show me” approach in a situation that does not call for one. This is a question of inappropriateness. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there is a difference between wrong and inappropriate. Ashcroft’s prayer classes are inappropriate (please refer to the slew of arguments above before posting the same thing over and over again). The actions may be wrong (unconstitutional) and they may not be–we don’t know yet.
Asking for every scrap of evidence to prove Ashcroft behaved unconstitutionally in this situation is simply raising the bar and switching argument; the relevant evidence to the relevant argument has already been provided, and several posters have thoroughly explained why the situation is inappropriate. The actual details you mention can prove whether his actions were unconstitutional, which is (I believe) merely a speculation here. As of now his actions are inappropriate, for the reasons discussed exhaustively above. Arguments to the contrary should address the issue of inappropriateness, not unconstitutionality.
I work for the DOJ in the same building where this is going on. I’m even a mid-level manager.
Now I hear the boss man, the chief law enforcement officer in the land, is a member of a Pentecostal church.
The Pentecostal church has conducted a public campaign against the religion that I follow and asked its members to publicly campaign against my religion.
Next I find out that I, and the rest of the management level employees in the building, have been “invited” by the boss man, the chief law enforcement officer in the land, to attend a Pentecostal religious observance every morning.
Hmmm.
Let’s review.
A man who:
has taken a public stand against my religion and
who controls my employment future
has:
“invited” me to a religious event
that HE is sponsoring
in the building where both he and I work
to promote his religious views
one of which is that mine is a false religion.
I’m sorry but no. No employer has any right to put any employee in that position. If I found myself in this position I would file a religious discrimination law suit.
I would feel pretty comfortable about my prospects of winning to. This isn’t about anyone using their free time to worship as they please. This is about using office politics to promote a religious view. Something that is expressly forbidden by discrimination laws.
Of course I don’t think The AG is subject to most of the laws they claim to enforce on others so I don’t even know if he could be sued.
Inappropriateness is in the eye of the beholder. Why should you be controlled by my feelings of what’s appropriate or vice versa.
Frankly this “inappropriate” argument reminds me of Victorian ladies who put cloth coverings on piano legs, because it was inappropriate for people to look at bare limbs.
I don’t think time has anything to do with it. I’m quite sure he isn’t hourly ;). The way I see it Ashcroft can only be a private citizen when he is not at the office. Everything he does at the office is by definition done in an official capacity.
By your logic, if he tells someone to do something and it’s 8:00 AM, they can ignore him because he’s not ‘at work’ yet. :rolleyes:
Now the OP indicates that he’s doing this at the office, so I’d say that he’s over the line. He should find a church nearby or go out on the lawn if he wants this to be part of his private time.
You are either not reading the points made on this board, or you are deliberately wasting our time. This is not, as you keep trying to make it, a situation in which merely the sensitivities of people are at issue. These arguments were all addressed and pretty much resolved by quite a few people; I see no point in attempting to split hairs on an issue that is so clearly laid down by a number of people here.
This is the most obtuse metaphor to date in this thread, and there’s been a few shiners. Attempting to ridicule the reasoning behind why people think the AG is out of line is not going to prove your point. Try reason instead, and make sure you actually weigh the arguments on this board–so far all I am seeing is strongly subjective denial backed by miserably inadequate metaphors.
Here’s a tip: illogical extensions of arguments, obtuse metaphors, intellectually bankrupt illustrations, and similar tools have never proved anything beyond the poster’s obstinacy in a serious discussion. Please people, can we try to conduct arguments based on reasoning instead of (as it would appear) on the principle that the other side of the argument must be mocked and overwhelmed with out of place mischaracterizations?
It’s clearly not that simple, or everyone would have understood it by now and would be providing valid arguments against the issue. The AG is not a 9 to 5 job any more than the President’s is. That also has already been covered. To assume that the highest attorney in the land, one of the most powerful men in the USA and a member of a fundamentalist sect for crying out loud, is able to divest himself of his status and teach (to his subordinates) a prayer class down the hall is ridiculous for the reasons already discussed. Live in denial if you will, but if you post objections here please ensure they address properly the material already covered.
The assertion was, from the moment Ashcroft is in the building, he is ‘on the job’. I feel that this is absurd. That it is obtuse. That it is intellectually bankrupt. My examples were intended to point out that. In my view, the absurdity was reflected, not created.
I believe it is possible for Ashcroft to be in the building and not working. I think I’ve provided examples of such times. I am making no current assertion about the times he spends in his bible studies.
A lot of people don’t understand simple things. It’s part of being human, some times you have to turn ideas around a lot of different ways before you can get them to fit into your head.
My assertion is, if Ashcroft is doing DOJ-related work, he is working as Attorney General. When he is not, he is not.
You seem to believe that he is always embodying some Attorney General-ness. If that were so, he could not follow any religion without violating SOCAS. I suppose it is possible that you believe this.
I’m guessing, though, that I just don’t understand you. Can you state your position on this in one sentence or so? When is Ashcroft being the Attorney General, and thus violating SOCAS if he shows religious preference? If it is whenever he is in the building, does this not include the examples I gave in my first post? If so, why should this exemption not also apply to his religious services?
I never claimed that it was. I said that using his location inside the building is a foolish way of measuring his ‘on the job’ status. I suggested that what he was actually doing would be a better yardstick. You mocked me for it.
You seem to believe that this argument has already been resolved. Is this an accurate statement of your beliefs? It seems to me that people are still disagreeing and arguing with you; i.e., that has not been decided to be ridiculous by all people, and to say I am in denial for not agreeing with you is a curious definition of denial.
I am not sure what you are talking about in your last sentence. My post dealt solely with the assertion that Ashcroft is working whenever he is inside the building. Since that idea was new when I posted, there was no material already covered.
This is the argument part of my post. The following is a personal reaction to your post. I believe that you are lumping me in with everyone you are arguing with in this thread. I believe that your tone in this post was sactimonious and pedantic, and that you are in no position to lecture me about debating. I think that your debates would be more productive if you were not so rude, and if you did not treat people like idiots without cause.
You are not doing anything against the rules, but you are annoying me. If this behavior continues, I’m going to give up posting in threads that you have posted in. This is not meant as a threat or warning, just a statement. I don’t need the aggravation.
Constitutionality and legality are objective concepts. This thread compared JA’s actions against the words in the Constitution and the Law. At this point, I believe the SDMB has acquitted JA on these charges.
Appropriateness is subjective. The posts accusing JA on this score essentially said, “The prayer group is inapproprate because I consider a prayer group inappropriate.”
High marks to Abe for his first and last sentence above. By attacking my motives and claiming that my point was already “resolved by quite a few people,” he avoided the need to respond. This was polemically prudent, since Abe and his supporters haven’t got any objective basis for their position.
I’d just like to point out to those folks who were arguing that “PC is just common courtesy” in the PC=Polite? thread that this issue of appropriate/inappropriate is also what an awful lot of people consider PC. It’s not just a matter of calling people what they want to be called.
We’ve pretty much agreed, I think, that the prayer group/Bible study group isn’t unconstitutional, as there’s no requirement to participate. But we’re still stuck on the appropriate/inappropriate question, and this is pure PC, in my opinion. There’s a significant difference between mass-emailing a joke about African-Americans and meeting with like-minded people at a convenient place and time outside of working hours for the discussion of one’s holy book.
I just don’t see any malice in this. Understand that this is coming from a current seeking agnostic, former atheist, former Wiccan, former Catholic. I’m not right-wing by any means. But I just can’t see why this is such a horrible thing. And I really have to wonder how hostile the reaction would be from the same people were Ashcroft a member of the Metropolitan Community Church or a Unitarian?
Well first off I don’t think we are all agreed that this is legal. As I said if I found myself in this position I would sue on Hostile working environment grounds.
I don’t see the relevance really. You describe two entirely different forms of harassment and intimate that one is worse than the other.
Also you mischaracterize this as being in a place outside of work. These meetings as I understand it are taking place in the office building.
Well fortunately one needn’t prove malice to win a civil rights case.
Well there is the point exactly. The Metropolitan Community Church and Unitarian Churches have not been campaigning to take away the religious rights of others. Ashcroft is one of those Bible thumpers who has decided that the religion you once followed and the religion I still follow are not “real” enough to be “given” constitutional protections. Both Ashcroft and his boss have said this.
Now do you see the problem?
Let me spell it out again. From my last post:
Let’s review.
And you don’t see how that could amount to a Hostile working environment?
Except, he’s not “promoting” a religious view. He, and people who believe the way he does, are getting together before work, to practice their religion. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that he forces the bible study on people who don’t want it, or that those who attend are treated differently than those who don’t.
Yes. That is the point exactly. For the government to remain true to “no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it must treat Fundamentalist Christianity exactly the same as it treats the MCC or Unitarians. Period. You can’t say “He can’t do that because he doesn’t like Unitarians or Wiccans or MCCs.” You appear to be advocating the practice of treating Fundamentalist Christianity like some sort of infectious disease, requiring quarantine. What are you saying in the paragraph above?
It’s quite all right for you not to agree with the tenets of Fundamentalist Christianity. It’s not all right for you to demand that those who hold a Christian viewpoint be suppressed in the workplace unless you also demand that those who hold other religious views be suppressed in the workplace as well.
Except, of course, that he is promoting his religious views. And it’s happening at work and while he claims that this is before he starts his regular duties for the day. It’s still happening at work. If I worked there and interacted with him daily, I would certainly wonder whether or not people who went to his prayer meetings didn’t have more say in the department.
Also, I think it unlikely in the extreme that there’s a whole group of believers in his particular (rather rare) religious sect working at the DOJ. Though you seem to be saying that.
Pentecostals being the 4th largest Christian denomination in the US, according to Religious Tolerance.org, behind Roman Catholic, Baptist and United Methodist, I don’t see where you get “rather rare” from.
I’m actually starting to see why the right-wingers get so tetchy at the left on occasion. What I said before stands…if this were a Wiccan AG or a Jewish AG, you folks wouldn’t even have looked twice at the article. But since it’s a pentecostal (and I apologize to those for whom the difference is more than incidental for calling him a fundamentalist before) conservative Christian, you get up in arms. You can’t discriminate because of someone’s religious beliefs or lack thereof. How many times has that come from the keyboards over on that side of this debate?
This is always the test which proves exactly how committed to actual Constitutional principles the people on any side are. If the Constitution protects something that you don’t agree with (and by don’t agree, I mean blood-boilingly, gut-crunchingly, viscerally disagree), do you accept that the other guy has the right to do his thing, or do you try to stop him?