Well, my boss, for the NCAA tournament, organized a basketball pool, at work. I participated, but I didn’t feel any pressure to, and didn’t feel that I had any more say than somebody who didn’t participate.
What if, instead of a prayer meeting, Ashcroft organized a DoJ bowling league. Could the same criticisms be made?
It seems to me, 2 issues are really of concern here.
Ashcroft is engaging in the practice of his religion at his work place. I don’t see that that’s a problem. The supreme court has ruled that employees, even government employees, have the right to practice their religion in the workplace. Ashcroft, as does any government employee, has the right to read religious texts, and discuss these texts with other people, so long as he is not doing so when he should be working, and it does not interfere with his job performance.
It’s possible that Ashcroft might show favoritism to those people who participate in an activity with him, or at least, it might appear to be so. This is possible, but the only solution to that would be to say that a supervisor should never have any non-business contact with someone he or she supervises. I see problems with that, though, too.
Those are some big general categories. I know for a fact that there are many many types of Baptist churches that disagree rather violently with each other. They are more of a federation of churches than a single religion. Fundamentalist baptist’s make up only a fraction of those lumped under ‘baptist’ by this link. My understanding is that pentecostals are much the same.
I use the word ‘rare’ in the sense that while I have met self-identified Baptists, Mormons, Catholics, Lutherans, etc. I have met only one person who professes to believe the things that Ashcroft has said he believes.
Even if you buy the argument that all pentecostals are the same all flavors of pentecostal together make up less than 10% of christians according to your link.
Like most religions, I’m sure that pentecostals of his stripe cluster by region, so while it’s certain that there is a whole church full in his hometown, it’s quite a bit less certain that there is at the DOJ.
Ad Hominum attacks don’t really advance your case.
Your understanding of my motivation and belief system is nonexistant, not that you made any attempt to determing that before slandering me. But hey, I’m a nice guy so I’ll correct your [sub]willful[/sub] ignorance: If a Wiccan or Jewish AG and was holding services at work I would have the same reaction as I have now: Disgust.
He can go to church wherever he wants. But he doesn’t have the right to create a workplace hostile to non-believers no matter what god tells him to do Get it?
Once again a Ad Hominum attack. I think Ashcroft is out of line, so I must be hypocritical eh?
John Ashcroft can say and belive what he likes. But the Attorney Generalmay not promote any flavor of religion.. When he is at the office, he’s the AG, and should act accordingly. If they only way he can do that is to turn his faith off when he steps in the door, then so be it. That’s what the job requires. If he (or anyone) can’t do that then they aren’t qualified for the job.
The Constitution has nothing to say about separation of Church and bowling. I’m guessing this because the founders (wisely) recognised that religion is somewhat atypical. While there a many examples of religious persecution in the history of the world. There are very few examples of bowling persecution.
He has gone beyond practice. There is no objection if, for instance, he prays before meals. But there is an objection if he (for instance) insists on praying for the table before anyone eats. Both are ‘practice’ but one is personal, while the other imposes on others. (note: these are only examples, I’m not saying he does this.)
By holding services in which people are invited to join him at the office, he’s moved beyond privately practicing his religion. The issue here isn’t that he studies the bible, the issue is where and whether or not his ‘invitation’ to study is truely optional.
Begging the question.
You persist in ignoring the fact that this is at work. At work contacts are presumed to be work related. If he met with these people at a local church, then there would be no problem. By doing this at work, he’s made religious discussion part of the business of the DOJ, which is against the law.
The crux of the problem here (which you keep ignoring) it isn’t clear that this is in fact a non-business contact. Your position seems to be that even though this is happening at his place of business. Since it would be illegal for this to happen if it was work related, it must not be work related!
Okay…first of all, I apologize for the ad hominem. I’m extremely irritated that I’m being forced into defending John Ashcroft. I’m extremely irritated that I’m finding myself on the other side. I try to be fair, but it’s trying sometimes.
Now, as to what I quoted above, I have to ask for clarification. Do you mean “at the office” to mean “when he walks in the door of his actual office” or do you mean “when he walks in the building” or do you mean “when he gets to the executive suite of the DoJ”? Would holding the prayer meeting in the lobby make you feel better? How about outside on the plaza (if DoJ has a plaza…can’t remember from the last time I was in DC)? What about if they meet at a coffeehouse a block away?
Are you objecting to the place? Or are you objecting to the practice? If he were to have non-employee members of his church come in to the office with him in the morning and have a short prayer/bible study before work began for him, would this be a problem? If he were to have a prayer meeting/bible study in a nearby coffeeshop with employees, would this be a problem? Is it the place or the people?
If he organized an employee car-pool for the Christian employees and conducted a prayer meeting/bible study during this car pool on the way to work, with the consent or at the suggestion of all involved, would that be ok?
When does a grouping of like-minded people who happen to work together become a sinister attempt to promote religion in government?
*Originally posted by Tejota *
**The Constitution has nothing to say about separation of Church and bowling. **
The Constitution also doesn’t mention separation of church and state. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I’m guessing this because the founders (wisely) recognised that religion is somewhat atypical. While there a many examples of religious persecution in the history of the world. There are very few examples of bowling persecution.
Yes, there have been many examples of religious persecution in the history of the world. If Ashcroft and his friends were prevented from praying at work, there would be one more such example.
IMO, when he walks in the building. I’d buy “when he walks in the executive suite” if it could be shown that he never conducts business anywhere else in the building.
The place is the most serious issue. I’d be fine if the practice was in a coffeeshop, though not if it was during office hours. (if it’s normal office hours, then it’s either official, or he’s giving time off only to those who pray with him, either way that’s out of line).
No problem here. Unless giving rides were part of his official duties
Oh, I’ll grant you that his doesn’t represent a real and present danger to the union. But I’d like to think that the guy charged with directing the legal aparatus of the government would have the highest standards, not just adequate ones. Especially when it comes to civil rights issues.
He claimed in his Senate hearings that his religion would not interfere with his ability to be fair and just in the conduct of his job. But it doesn’t seem that he can tell the difference between his job and his religion.
As a side issue (but somewhat related). His religion tells him to believe some things that, if he acted on those beliefs, would cause him to violate other people’s civil rights. (His beliefs about pagans or gays, for instance.) So it’s important that he is able to separate his job from his religious beliefs in order for him to do his job properly.
I’d have to say that anyone who can’t manage to NOT talk about god to co-workers at the office isn’t really capable of the kind of fair-mindedness I’d like to see in an AG. Living your beliefs and spreading them are just two entirely different things.
Tejota, I’ll raise this again. Are you saying anytime Ashcroft is inside the building, anything he does is representative of the Office of the Attorney General?
If so, he is still representing the O of the AG when he drinks coffee, goes to the restroom, calls his wife to say he’ll be late, talks about sports with his office assistant. And it implies that if he is called at home to make a split second decision, he is not the AG.
The idea that one’s physical position determines one’s political responsibility is silly, in almost any case I can think of. If Ashcroft is acting in his duties as AG, he is responsible for all limitations on the office. When he is not, he should not be. A public office does not remove one’s private life.
Also:
Would you be upset about this if it were taking place in a nearby building? Why or why not?
Yue Han, while I didn’t realize you had just joined in the argument, the blind objections I mentioned that keep being raised over and over again have been handled in an apparently (so far) valid manner in this very thread by myself and others. On the other hand, the majority of the arguments forthcoming by those who deny Ashcroft is doing anything inappropriate consist of two things: 1) repeating over and over the same unsupported and flawed argument, 2) providing obtuse metaphors that have little or nothing to do with the issue (illogical extrapolation of the argument). Therefore, while you were not necessarily being obstinate and I apologize for implying it, it appears that some others (who are arguing along lines similar to yours and who have been providing similar illogical examples) are being obstinate.
As to December and others: I find it amusing that, having already done so a number of times, I am challenged to present my view again in a single sentence. And never mind the efforts of others here who hold a similar point of view to mine, they have just been speaking at the walls! If you think Ashcroft’s behaviour is fine, you have a volume of contradicting material here, but I don’t see it being addressed. For an example of a simple point by point illustration of the problem, see Degrance’s reposting of his argument (on this page), though it is far from being the only one.
What I don’t fully understand in the arguments against Ashcroft is, do the people who object to the bible study do so because he’s expressing a religious belief on government property and government time, or because of the content of that religious belief? As to the second, I would argue that, although I don’t agree with him about gays or pagans, for example, the mere fact that he holds those beliefs shouldn’t matter, in this case. As to the first, I still see no evidence of coersion on his part. The people he studies the bible with are there willingly, because they have an interest. No one has presented any evidence that he treats DoJ staffers who attend any differently than those who don’t. This is something he’s doing on his own time, before business hours, and the Supreme Court has ruled that government facilities may be used for communal prayer or religious study, assuming that the prayer or study is voluntary. Let me give another hypothetical that may be closer to the mark. Muslims are required to pray five times a day, communally if possible. If John Ashcroft was Muslim, and met with other Muslims at the DoJ to pray with them, would that be inappropriate?
No Captain, the problem those who object to Ashcroft in this case have is not specifically about the content, nor about any single isolated item. This is what I mentioned is going in circles. The problem, simplified yet one more time, is that Ashcroft is:
not just a religious man but
member of a fundamentalist sect well known for its controversial views
Himself an exponent of controversial fundamentalist views
Attorney General-- the most powerful attorney in the land
24 hours a day (not 9 to 5 by any means)
employed by the US
which is a country where religious diversity and freedom are supposedly encouraged
but church and state must be kept separate and distinct
Now this person has to tread carefully, just as all senior officials anywhere have to tread carefully. When he:
holds prayer events of a clearly religious intent and content
in offices that are federal property
that his subordinates are invited to attend
in a country described as above
then you have a recipe for trouble as already explained exhaustively. Additionally, as Degrance pointed out this is a potentially illegal activity because Ashcroft’s sect has rather drastic views of Degrance’s own beliefs (and others I would suspect).
In this thread we’ve seen a lot of utterly illogical comparisons, examples, hypothetical situations (always a bad argument), and metaphors that do not illustrate the argument at all, but instead extend it well beyond reason in order to ridicule the opposing point. If anyone wishes to make their point by metaphor, I encourage you to weigh your metaphor carefully and ensure that it is equivalent with the original situation. In the hypothetical case Captain Amazing brings up with Islam, prayer 5 times daily is a specific requirement of the religion–one of the Pillars. Were Ashcroft a follower of Islam as per your hypothetical situation, he would not be meeting with other men to discuss prayer or religion, or to instruct anyone, but simply to pray to his god. In fact, there is no requrement to be in the company of others when praying daily to Allah, and most Muslims who work in offices do not pray together every day by any means. Muslim office workers do of course pray communnally, but they do so at a mosque (which is hardly a federal building) and usually on a Friday lunch-time (Friday is considered the most important day for prayer).
However, to consider your example, if Ashcroft held prayer classes as a Muslim (especially a fundamentalist Muslim), he would be receiving heat for it for very similar reasons some of us object to him now. I am not aware of any Christian sect that requires you to invite your subordinates to “prayer class”. In addition, the term “prayer class” specifically implies instruction, which in Ashcroft’s particular case (fundamentalist) I consider as the preaching of religion to his subordinates–on federal property.
Nobody has even suggested that Ashcroft be denied the right to pray, but there is a huge difference between praying at your place of work, and leading prayer sessions in a government building, near work hours, with attendence possibly required to gain favor.
If he wants to go to his church and lead religious discussions when not working, there wouldn’t be much of an issue, but by placing these discussions on federal property, in the building that he works, on a regular schedule, I’d say it’s almost guaranteed that people will feel pressured to attend.
Ashcroft is a very important government figure, and holding these meetings seems to be promotion of his religion. While it’s probably not a violation of SOCAS because bias against non-atendees can’t be proven, it is without a doubt completely unfair and irresponsible. If there is any legal way to stop this, I think it should be taken immediately. If not, I think Ashcroft should just move it away from the building and provide assurance that there is no favor given to people who attend. This wouldn’t solve the problem, but maybe more people would feel like it wasn’t required of them to show up and pray with the boss.
No, my position is that this is not work related because it doesn’t involve the Department of Justice or the John Ashcroft in his position as Attorney General. This morning, for example, I talked about the chances of Sen. Jefford switching parties with the office manager and one of the secretaries. We also talked about an HBO movie and the trouble the office manager is having getting his internet connection hooked up. This conversation happened at work (outside my office door, actually), but it wasn’t work related. One of the partners at the office takes a few minutes every day to figure out chess puzzles online. One of the associates starts each day by having a bagel and doing the crossword puzzle. I check the SDMB. All of these things are done “at work”, but none of them are done in our professional capacities. No one is “on” all the time, and in Ashcroft’s case, when he is attending the bible study before work starts, it’s not as the Attorney General. It’s as a member of his faith doing what he believes his faith wants him to do with other members of his faith who believe the same thing. There isn’t any evidence that he puts influence on other people to attend, or that he allows attendance or lack of attendance to influence his professional relationship with them. Ashcroft organized a bible study in his office for the six years he was senator, and I believe before that, and no one complained then, or showed any evidence it interfered with his duties.
You seem to agree that Ashcrofts actions, while not violating SOCAS, are likely supported by the constitution. Per a previous post of yours:
You have also stated numerous times that you feel the issue is really one of inappropriateness rather then legality. Regardless of the validity of your reasons for believing that Ashcroft’s RAMP is inappropriate can you at least agree that appropriateness (or lack of it) is a subjective matter as december suggested?
You miss the point. Ashcroft the man can believe that I should be burned at the stake and, as long as he doesn’t try it or incite others to try it, that isn’t a problem. It is only when he sets up shop preaching his hatred in the office building where he works as my boss that it becomes a problem.
I’m not talking about constitutionality here. I’m talking about a hostile working environment.
Look at it this way. Some guy could believe that groping women is a harmless activity that women really like and encourage all men to do it. He can form a Gropers Club outside of work and put forth his views with constitutional protections on his speech. However as soon as he starts an office chapter of his little club and starts holding meetings in the breakroom, inviting his subordinates, his speech is no longer protected. He has now created a hostile working environment for every female in his employ.
Likewise Ashcroft has created a hostile working environment for every subordinate in that building who follows a religion that Ashcroft denounces.
It isn’t a SOCAS issue at all. It isn’t even a freedom of speech issue. It is an issue of a boss needlessly creating a hostile work environment which his employees must then endure.
“John Ashcroft’s religion states that my religion is false”
“John Ashcroft has publicly stated that he believes my religion to be false”
“John Ashcroft has used his power as a government employee (by voting record, budget allocation, whatever) in an attempt to get the government to not recognize my religion as valid”
Or something else altogether? I really couldn’t tell your exact meaning from the post, nor could I find any information about John Ashcroft and your religion. I checked http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Ashcroft.htm which has a plethora of info on Ashcrofts voting record and views but I couldn’t find any reference to stances on religious/legal issues pertinent to your hypothetical situation.
Per the article cited in the OP:
This doesn’t sound like he’s canvassing his employees for attendance, rather this “invitation” sounds like it’s presented in the spirit of “Everyone is welcome to attend this poetry reading” or “Everyone is welcome to attend the openhouse”. Is this how you’re perceiving the “invitation” as well?
I’m not convinced that the purpose of the meetings is to promote his religious views. Another quote from the cite in the OP:
The term ‘Christian’ could be applied to numerous religions, many of which disagree with each other on points of doctrine. Obviously an Orthodox Jew isn’t a Christian and holds views contrary to most christian sects. And the name of the meetings, RAMP (Read, Argue, Memorize, Pray) seem to indicate a willingness to debate the meaning of scripture. To me, these factors indicate that the purpose of the meeting is for attendees to gain insight via study and discussion rather then to promote the tenets of a single christian denomination. I get the impression that you’re viewing these meetings as a pulpit from which to gather converts to the pentecostal viewpoint. Am I incorrect?
Exactly, He isn’t in violation because whenever he would be in violation, he suddenly (and invisibly) stops being the AG for that period of time.
And if you whip out a playboy during your “private time”, you and your company can be sued for sexual harassment. If you have a drink, then you can be fired. If someone drops a brick on your foot while you are thinking of things other than your job, then you are still elegible for workmans comp.
The fact that you are slacking is completely irrelevant, you are getting paid for that time and your company is liable for your conduct during that time.
I can’t find a quote but the issue I am talking about stems directly from the Fundamentalist attacks on Pagans in the military. During the campaign Dubya came out with a quote about Paganism not being a real religion and therefore should not be tolerated in the military. This was followed up by several of his ilk going, “a yup, yup, yup”. Ashcroft was one of these yes men. I wish I could find the quote but searching on something this nebulous and this old is resulting only in frustration.
I don’t really see that it matters how he is advertising his meetings. This is irrelevant. The point is that they are being publicly announced by the AG.
I guess these things look different depending on which side of the door you are on.
I am a member of a persecuted minority. Ashcroft is a self professed persecutor of the group I belong to. He is holding meetings for others who tend to persecute the group that I belong to. He is holding those meetings in the building where I work (hypothetically). He is my boss (hypothetically).
Does that not create a hostile environment for me to do my job?
If my boss were a self professed racist and he formed a little group to honor “Great southern public servants before 1960” using the same parameters as Ashcroft’s meetings would that fly do you think? Even if they promised never to discuss race?
The topic of discussion isn’t really the point. My boss belongs to a group (Pentecostal / Fundamentalist / Republican) that is targeting me because of what I am. He has started a club expressly for people who hold views similar to his (Believers in the Bible). Just because it is a different prejudice being expressed I see no reason to denounce it in just as strong of terms as the “southern public servants” group. The only difference I can see is that Ashcroft’s prejudice is broadly more socially acceptable than the racist’s.
If John Ashcroft were a Satanist, and his morning meetings were devoted to worshipping Ye Red Horned One™, would the folks having the argument in this thread still be taking the same positions?
