Although I’m not religious, I believe that religion tends to promote good behavior. Do Mother Teresa and Reverend Martin Luther King fit in the same moral box as Bull Conner and Bill Clinton?
Actually, I did some digging and found that I was correct on this one. Would someone care to enlighten me as to why organized school prayer would be inappropriate, but Ashcroft’s little “get-togethers” are okay?
Here is a document put together by 30 religious and civil rights groups, including United Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church, National Council of Churches, Evangelical Luther Church of America, ACLU, Anit-Defamation League, etc. Pretty respectable group, for the most part, no matter where you stand on this issue.
An excerpt:
4. Teachers and school administrators, when acting in those capacities, are representatives of the state, and, in those capacities, are themselves prohibited from encouraging or soliciting student religious or anti-religious activity. Similarly, when acting in their official capacities, teachers may not engage in religious activities with their students. However, teachers may engage in private religious activity in faculty lounges.
Sure sounds like my earlier point. Let the employees get together and pray all they want, but keep the boss out of it. If he wants to pray, let him pray with his peers.
Once again, I’m not even arguing the legality of it, that’s for the courts to decide. I’m just pointing out that it appears extremely inappropriate.
Good cite, DMC. It looks like a down-the-middle description of current law, to help educators comply.
The parallel between school and workpoace isn’t exact. The law doesn’t regard the relationship of teacher to student as comparable to the relationship of boss to subordinate. As you point out, the teacher-student case is illegal. I guess you would argue that the parallel is close enough so that the boss-subordinate case is at least inappropriate.
That was the point. If anything, the boss/employee relationship (especially when your boss has the power of the AG) has much greater long term import than that of a teacher/student. A teacher might subconcsiously give me a “B”, when an “A” was merited. Bad, but not career threatening. Whereas a man with Ashcroft’s power could make it VERY difficult to get a new job in the political spectrum, at least until the other party takes over.
As you noted, it’s not the legality/constitutionality of the issue, it’s just appropriateness. If a possible abuse of power, or the appearance of such possibility can be avoided easily, why not just do it?
Tornado Siren writes:
Just not a good idea in whose opinion? Those who don’t want to do it? So don’t. Those who do want to do it, will. How have they hurt you?
Yes, it can be easily avoided, by not practicing one’s religion. Just as we can avoid all the problems with our mass media by simply not publishing anything, or the problems of free speech by simply discouraging people from speaking their minds, or the problems with politicians with not voting.
We may have hit on a key issue here. Christianity is traditionally perceived as a dangerous religion, because there is no aspect of human life that those who believe in it can define as outside its scope. 24x7, 365 days a year, we are to be about the Master’s business. Those who do not share our beliefs see this (in my opinion rightly) as a dangerous thing. Because once those Christians get going, God only knows what they will be up to next. It may be the elimination of slavery, or the civil rights movement, or who knows what all? A dangerous business, as I said.
Much better to shut them off right away, before they start mucking up the status quo. Let them practice their religion somewhere in private, and then we can define ‘private’ in a smaller and smaller slice every day.
We don’t have to call it illegal or unconstitutional. Just ‘inappropriate’, and then we don’t ever have to worry about that nonsense in the First Amendment.
Regards,
Shodan
The thirty various groups (your church might be among them) listed in the link I gave above.
I have no problem with them “doing” it. They should keep it to themselves or among their peers. People have enough job pressure without this thrown on top of it.
Personally, they haven’t hurt me. Of course, I don’t happen to be working for someone who has “open” prayer sessions. Do people get hurt? Sure, children may get ostracized, adults may get negative/positive gains depending on their level of “fitting in.”
You can pray to the Great Pink Unicorn in the Sky (insert deity of choice here) until you’re blue in the face, but if you’re my boss or my teacher, don’t even think about asking me or my peers to join you.
If I was your boss, I’d return the favor and not ask you to come to the forest and join me in my demon summoning circle. 
The opinion of the people who write office policy all over the country. It is widely accepted that religious activity in the workplace has a disruptive and alienating effect. Most workplaces have policy against it. The state government I work for has policy that would prevent this activity. It is not unconstitutional. I does violate generally accepted workplace guidelines. It is a stupid thing for the AG to do.
No, those who don’t want their workplace to be yet another place where the majority can act against them on the basis of their religion. Have you guys who are arguing for this actually read the thread? This is not about religion. It is about not having to work in an environment where you are made to feel that your boss is out to get you.
By forming a workplace “club” based on something as important as religion. Creating an environment where if I want the same access to my boss as my peers I must pretend to be of the same religion as he, where I must listen to his proselytizing, where I must submit to instruction in a religion that is not mine. That hurts any non-Christian in the organization.
It does not matter if we are talking about the AG’s office or Ford or Microsoft if this behavior were going on in any of these places it would be wrong for the same reasons.
Try reading my other posts in the tread to get a better understanding of this. I don’t know how many times I have to post the same arguments. A few more it seems because Ashcroft’s supporters here keep reacting as if I had never posted them.
NO, NO, NO!!!
by not promoting one’s religion AT WORK!!!
Well thanks for the implied insult.
There just might be one or two non-Christians rattling around the world somewhere who live their faith. And ya know I think I have met one or two Christians who just mouth the words and attend the “Sunday social club”.
Now back to the prejudice that this thread was originally about.
I’m sorry for all of the quotes but I just can’t let that assertion stand. Christianity was the bastion of slavery in this country and the institution would have ended decades earlier if not for the Biblical defense of slavery offered from the pulpit.
The following are all from pre civil war clergy
This is from President Lincoln on the Christian clergy and slavery.
And not to exclude our founding fathers.
I have a very hard time taking any argument seriously from someone who makes the absurd statement that Christianity brought about the fall of slavery in America. Do a little reading, eh?
Do you remember the Bible rearing it’s ugly head again post civil war in the form of laws making it illegal for blacks and whites to marry? All southern states had one. Some still do. All are based on the Bible saying that it is a sin for people from different races to marry.
Indeed.
We have a little rallying cry in the non-Christian community. It goes like this.
The last time we mixed government and religion they burned people at the stake.
A dangerous business, as you said.
You live in the USA. Not everyone is a Christian. The non-Christians have the same rights you do. Deal with it.
The first amendment has nothing to do with it. Any Christian has the right to practice their religion anywhere they like. Any non-Christian is protected from the majority religion by workplace rules that prohibit religious activities.
And yes, those who follow minority religions have needed to use these protections very, very frequently. Why should the employees of the AG’s office have fewer protections from Christians than those in the private sector.
Somebody better tell the “God hates fags” people about that one, then. And the Spanish Inquisition didn’t have any religious backing, did it?
I’d list more examples, but I’m sure you get the point. 
DMC writes:
My denomination is, in fact, among them. Since they are not the Supreme Court, nor do they hold any authority over me, I am free to argue that they are wrong. They are. Imagine the screaming if any church was allowed to set themselves in law over us on such a question as this.
They are among their peers, in that only volunteers attend these sessions. And I repeat my request for evidence that anyone has put any pressure on anyone to attend.
What ‘may’ happen is quite different from what has happened. I repeat, evidence of any positive or negative gains resulting from these prayer sessions is necessary. Or else just come right out and say that you don’t believe the First Amendment means what it says. People are free to practice their religions, subject to nobody’s veto. You don’t like that, move to Saudi Arabia or Iran or Libya, or get the Constitution amended to remove the Bill of Rights.
And Degrance writes;
And every single one of those policies are unconstitutional. Those who write such policies can go pound sand. They do not get to overrule the Constitution, and every attempt to do so will be met with resistance to the death and beyond.
And:
[quote]
No, those who don’t want their workplace to be yet another place where the majority can act against them on the basis of their religion. Have you guys who are arguing for this actually read the thread? This is not about religion. It is about not having to work in an environment where you are made to feel that your boss is out to get you.
{/quote] I repeat my request for a scrap of evidence that John Ashcroft has acted against any of his employees on the basis of their religion. Accusations that he ‘might’ do it are meaningless. Let’s see some evidence.
Prove that even one of these things has happened.
As to the rest of your post, I suggest you read a bit on the life and work of William Wilberforce, the Quakers, Martin Luther King, Jr,. and the rest of the Christians who were the motivating force behind the abolition of slavery.
And there is no Bible verse forbidding mixed marriages, so that it could not have been the motivation behind miscegenation laws. Trust me when I say you do not want to argue the Bible with me.
A statement like this works against your credibility. If the First Amendment does not address the government’s attempt to interfere with the free practice of religion, during non-work hours, amongst those who do so without coercion, and leading to no negative effects for anyone, what good is it?
The famous wall of separation of church and state is to keep the state from interfering in the practices of the church. Here is an excellent example of why we need this wall.
John Ashcroft is doing nothing wrong, inappropriate, or any other word you may look for to cover up the attempt to interfere with his faith. Unless someone can produce some evidence relevant to the case, no one has any right to interfere.
Regards,
Shodan
DMC writes:
My denomination is, in fact, among them. Since they are not the Supreme Court, nor do they hold any authority over me, I am free to argue that they are wrong. They are. Imagine the screaming if any church was allowed to set themselves in law over us on such a question as this.
They are among their peers, in that only volunteers attend these sessions. And I repeat my request for evidence that anyone has put any pressure on anyone to attend.
What ‘may’ happen is quite different from what has happened. I repeat, evidence of any positive or negative gains resulting from these prayer sessions is necessary. Or else just come right out and say that you don’t believe the First Amendment means what it says. People are free to practice their religions, subject to nobody’s veto. You don’t like that, move to Saudi Arabia or Iran or Libya, or get the Constitution amended to remove the Bill of Rights.
And Degrance writes;
And every single one of those policies are unconstitutional. Those who write such policies can go pound sand. They do not get to overrule the Constitution, and every attempt to do so will be met with resistance to the death and beyond.
And:
[quote]
No, those who don’t want their workplace to be yet another place where the majority can act against them on the basis of their religion. Have you guys who are arguing for this actually read the thread? This is not about religion. It is about not having to work in an environment where you are made to feel that your boss is out to get you.
{/quote] I repeat my request for a scrap of evidence that John Ashcroft has acted against any of his employees on the basis of their religion. Accusations that he ‘might’ do it are meaningless. Let’s see some evidence.
Prove that even one of these things has happened.
As to the rest of your post, I suggest you read a bit on the life and work of William Wilberforce, the Quakers, Martin Luther King, Jr,. and the rest of the Christians who were the motivating force behind the abolition of slavery.
And there is no Bible verse forbidding mixed marriages, so that it could not have been the motivation behind miscegenation laws. Trust me when I say you do not want to argue the Bible with me.
A statement like this works against your credibility. If the First Amendment does not address the government’s attempt to interfere with the free practice of religion, during non-work hours, amongst those who do so without coercion, and leading to no negative effects for anyone, what good is it?
The famous wall of separation of church and state is to keep the state from interfering in the practices of the church. Here is an excellent example of why we need this wall.
John Ashcroft is doing nothing wrong, inappropriate, or any other word you may look for to cover up the attempt to interfere with his faith. Unless someone can produce some evidence relevant to the case, no one has any right to interfere.
Regards,
Shodan
An opponent of religion who brings up the Spanish Inquisition has lost the debate. It took place around 500 years ago! Between then and now a huge majority of the people on earth have been religious. I didn’t say religion is perfect; I said it tends to promote good behavior. One bad example in the US and one in Spain over a 500-year period hardly disprove the general statement.
We’ll get back to this lovely quote about your disagreement with your religion in a moment.
From Websters:
peer, One of the same rank, quality, endowments, character, etc.; an equal; a match; a mate.
Are you really trying to convince someone that John Q. Staffer is equal in rank to the AG of the USA?
Poor choice of words on my part. I shouldn’t have said “may”, I should have said “sometimes do”. I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt, and assume that not all religious folks would stoop to negative behavior.
Unfortunately/Fortunately we’ve never had a “tongue speaking” AG trying to run prayer sessions before, so this one has yet to be challenged. Unless you’re arguing that negative consequences in school are worse than those in the workplace, is this what you’re looking for?
I believe in it very strongly, especially the establishment clause
As soon as it affects my rights, I do get the right to veto.
This is my favorite line in your whole message, sort of like the old “America, Love it or Leave it” slogan. I thought the point of our style of government was to counteract that attitude. Using your logic, I could say “if you don’t like your religion’s opinion on this issue, join a different religion, or get your religious leaders to change their stance”.
Here’s a link to the Supreme Court ruling that sets down the three principles in judging the establishment clause. They often refer to this case in more recent SOCAS rulings. Mr. Tolerance himself, George Wallace, is on the losing team. There was also some ostracizing going on, to add to the above links.
The Court has interpreted the First Amendment to mean that government must be neutral among religions and between religion and nonreligion. This means that officials may not organize, mandate, or participate in religious activities, including prayer. A moment of silence, however, may be led by officials, as long as it does not promote prayer over other types of quiet contemplation.
Look, if the senate wants to have a voluntary prayer/moment of silence in the morning, go for it. They are peers. If the cabinet wants one, they are also peers. If a bunch of kids want to pray to Bob the Subgenius, they are also peers. That’s my only beef with this whole issue, stick with your damn peers.
Or not.
How about this.
Gimme some lovin’.
Love, love, love.
How about the icon of love himself?
I’m just getting started. Want some more?
Sure, and please be complete. Please tell us about the harm done by the “religious bigot” Reverend ML King and about the Christian anti-slavery “hate groups” and about all the hospitals, schools and orphanages “hatefully” organized by various religious organizations. And, don’t forget to contrast the high morality of atheism, as practiced by Saint Joseph Stalin.
Seriously, to debate this topic one would need a much wider discussion. Obviously there have been bad uses of religion, but I continue to believe that it does more good than harm.
What are you talking about?!?!
The constitution gives you the right to hold to your religion regardless. It does not give you the right to disrupt a workplace public or private because you think your god told you to. There is ample case law about proselytizing. Quite simply your right to “spread the word” ends where it impedes my ability to run my business. If a customer walked into the middle of my store and started shouting bible verses I as the owner of the store would have the right to have him removed. Likewise if I am the owner of a business and an employee is disrupting the workplace I have the right to ask him to stop and if he chooses not to I may use disciplinary action to force him to stop. I am free to write office policy detailing what is and is not appropriate office behavior. This has been going on for decades and these policies are absolutely constitutional. The constitution speaks to what the government can impose as laws on the populace it does not say that we can’t manage our offices as we see fit. Equal opportunity laws, passed since the constitution and generally seen as constitutional make it illegal to discriminate against minority religions in this way.
I can’t believe that you think that a boss proselytizing to his underlings is appropriate office behavior. If your Muslim boss started trying to convert you at the office would you think him within his rights?
I have given you evidence and repeatedly. You just don’t read my posts. Hostile working environment is real harm. You can win large sums of money in court by proving hostile working environment. Hostile working environment is the only thing I need to prove to show harm. I have already proven hostile working environment in several of my previous posts.
Read the original article. If you are a Christian or willing to put your own religion aside and take Bible instruction with the AG you can have breakfast with him. That is the whole point of the article. There I have proved these things are happening.
So. Reread my the quote from Lincoln. Christianity was by far on the side of the slave holders. Sure there were some abolitionist leaders who were Christian. Most people were abolitionists despite their religious affiliation and not because of it. For example, again form one of the quotes in my last post, if you were a Methodist and an abolitionist then you were so in defiance of your religion. Much like you defy your religion on this issue.
Hey I’m not even Christian, I was just quoting the Christians who told me there was such a verse and managed to convince the state legislatures of most states that there was. So don’t talk to me about what your book says talk to the other Christians who are using and have used it to spread hate. I’ll look up the several verses they were using to substantiate their case if you like. You can do it yourself just enter interracial marriage and Bible in any search engine and you will find the sites of many Christians who still think it says that. That’s what I found.
Hostile Working Environment. Look it up. Skirting the law by holding prayer meetings in the office that end one second before the office day begins does not make the practice legal.
Wrong!
It is quite clear from reading the founding fathers that their concern was not the states meddling in religion but religion meddling in government. They were at war with the head of a religion. Many Americans stayed loyal to Britain in the war for independence because of their affiliation with the Anglican Church of which King George was the head. They were not out to protect the churches except to see that every one was treated the same. They were out to protect the citizens of the country FROM the churches.
He did something wrong as soon as he started holding Bible classes in the office for his subordinates. It is called a hostile working environment. We have laws and rules based on the constitution that say that you don’t have to put up with religious services in your workplace.
Why is John Ashcrofts right to have a religious workplace trump my right to have a religion free workplace? The same constitution that you look to for a defense of Ashcroft guarantees my right to not be preached at in the workplace.
What is the source of the “right to have a religion free workplace”?
No doubt it’s a God-given right. 
Because my religion says I don’t need to have Christianity shoved in my face 24-7 and I have as much right as you to follow my religion.
You see the constitution doesn’t guarantee freedom for Christians. It guarantees freedom of RELIGION, all religions, as well as freedom from religion for those not religiously inclined.
The continued suggestion that our Constitution requires me to be a victim of religious persecution because Christians have some Constitutional right to persecute is insulting to both the Constitution and my intelligence.
Tomas de Torquemada’s victims surely agree with you, december.
By what criteria do you measure good and harm in this context?
What makes you so certain that neither Bull Conner nor Bill Clinton is/was religious? If you are asserting that their moral behavior indicates that they are not, you are assuming your proposition as its own conclusion.
Furthermore, it goes beyond disingenuity into offense to explain away the Inquisition or the Ku Klux Klan or Christian Identity or the Taliban as anomalous, while positing Joseph Stalin as the ne plus ultra of atheism. An evil man will use whatever philosophy or theology happens to be handy for evil ends.