John Ascroft violating the separation of church and state?

Great Debates
121

What is the source of the “right to have a religion free workplace”?

No doubt it’s a God-given right. :wink:
[/QUOTE]

Then you err severely. No doubt, in the United States of America, the Constitution of the United States, which establishes the current governemnt AND IS NOT a part of the Declaration of Independence, is the document which recognizes, nay grants, those rights.

I swear you read almost as well as the other Nine Commandments Flaming Fundamentalist Just About Illiterate Single-Book Worshippers do. Which is to say: not very well at all.

122

For the benefit of those who can’t remember that the Constitution of the United States of America does not mention deity, here is the full text of the document (from http://www.instituteontheconstitution.com:

123

Monty, it’s YOU who have trouble reading. Even worse, you seem to be humor-challenged.

My comment was a joke. It didn’t mention the Constitution. The joke referred to the Declaration of Independence, which says,

I hoped there was humor in the concept of our Creator endowing us with the unalienable “right to have a religion free workplace.”

Getting serious, when you wrote,“the Constitution of the United States…IS NOT a part of the Declaration of Independence,” I think you may have meant the the D of I is not a part of the Constitution. However looking under Google, I found this cite http://www.ncoausa.org/capitaloffice1/declaration_of_independence.htm It says,

Are there any historians or lawyers who could confirm whether the D of I has been incorporated into the Constitution?

124

The D of I is not considered to be any part of the law of the land by the Supreme Court. It is entirely irrelevant to law.

125

While I would agree with the first statement, I take issue to the second. Courts have, on occasion, referenced the Declaration of Independence as well as other writings (such as the Federalist Papers) not legally part of the “law of the land” in order to find guidance in interpreting that law, when the law is less than wholly clear. So I would not accept the statement that the Declaration of Independence is entirely irrelevant to law; it clearly is not.

126

DMC asks:

During off duty hours, yes. The Bible group is being held during off duty hours.

The rest of your post seems to be based on the premise that the public practice of Christianity is a violation of non-Christian rights. This is simple nonsense.

People’s rights are being violated by John Ashcroft meeting with like-minded people to discuss the Bible to the same extent that my right to be a Christian is being violated by the fact that there is an atheists’ group that holds public meetings - that is to say, not at all.

I don’t agree with the atheists, and don’t wish to attend their meetings. So I don’t. Others don’t agree with John Ashcroft’s beliefs, and don’t wish to attend his meetings. So they don’t.

If John Ashcroft or the atheists or anyone else is taking some action against me at my work based on my beliefs as a Christian, I would have cause to complain. Absent that, we are all free to do as we like, whether others like it or not.

Yet again, please produce some evidence that someone is being harmed. “He’s disagreeing with me, and that hurts my feelings” is not, however, evidence.

Regards,
Shodan

127

Yes it is, at a place of employment, with his employees being the invitees.

The only nonsense here is you making false claims about what I stated. Please show me where I said that public practice is a violation. I’ve stressed repeatedly that Ashcroft can pray to any damn boogieman he wants, outside of the workplace, or with by himself or with his peers (is this the word you don’t seem to grasp?), anywhere he wants. In the future, if you’d like to make absurd claims like this, at least have the decency to attempt to back them up.

Nope, as I’ve said numerous times. You are not in any way being violated by an atheist group having a public meeting. You would be correct to “call foul” if your boss was holding these meetings at the workplace and asked if you’d like to join, although it’s “voluntary.”

Apples and oranges, unless your boss is holding these types of meetings at the office.

Okay, I guess we’ll have to wait until someone decides to lose their job and sue the most powerful lawyer in the country.

I have provided evidence. I’d even argue that I’ve provided more significant laws, examples, etc. in a single paragraph of my previous posts, than you have produced in all of your’s.

You have also failed to address a large number of counterpoints that I made to your arguments in previous posts. If this is going to continue, I’m wasting my time and will continue this discussion with those who wish to actually debate the issue.

128

This may be incorrect if Senate staffers are invited to participate. If they do participate, then this is more parallel to what Ashcroft is doing.

(BTW it was only a few years ago that Senate staffers were given the protection of normal employee laws, thanks to Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America.) I

129

The meeting is held in the office and ends one second before the work day starts and is sponsored by the AG. Your argument that his activity is held during off duty hours just doesn’t float. It is held while people are working in the building.

Agreed, your perception of the argument is simple nonsense.

Absolutely if your boss “invites” you to an atheist meeting that ends when the work day begins I would back you 100% in standing up for your right to be free of that situation in your workplace.

Even if your CEO were sponsoring the meetings? What if that is the only way you could get direct access to the CEO of your organization?

You could just sit and nod, Not really buy into his position.

He would see your face get to know your name. Nod when he sees you in the hall. Just having the CEO know your name can really be a plus in your career. You would pass up that opportunity just cause you don’t agree with his opinion? Especially when the person you are competing with for that big promotion is already attending. Can you afford to take the risk that showing up will not make a difference? This is your livelihood we are talking about here.

Whether Ashcorft is intending it or not he is selling access to his official self. The price being attending his Bible classes. For Christians this is no problem. For non-Christians, well they have a choice, do without the benefits to be gained by having social interaction with the boss or betray their religious convictions.

As my comments above point out John Ashcroft has already “taken action against” every non-Christian in the organization by forcing them to choose between their faith and their employment future where Christians are free of any such conflict. Therefore the Christians are in a preferential situation directly because of Ashcroft’s actions.

Why do you persist so in the throwing of red herring? This isn’t about feelings. It is about my workplace being a more stressful, unpleasant place for me to do my job because my boss is a jerk. It does not matter before the law whether he is a sexist jerk, a racist jerk, and ageist jerk or a religist jerk. The whole point is the HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONMENT that he is creating. It matters not what tool (in Ashcroft’s case religion) he uses to create that environment. All that matters is that the environment he creates adversely affects me and my ability to do my job.

Legally that is harm. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the law. The law is clear. Cases like this have been one by the aggrieved party.
GET IT YET!?!?

130

It doesn’t look as clear to me as it does to you, Degrance. Which law do you believe is violated by these meetings?

131

From Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

I think it is pretty obvious that Ashcroft has created an environment where non-Christians are segregated and deprived of opportunities. Re-read my last post.

A quote from the Supreme Court ruling on the latter case.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1168.ZO.html

IANAL but I think that a combination of Ashcroft’s public statements about minority religions combined with his promotion of Christianity to his staff would combine to create a hostile working environment for any member of a minority religion under his supervision.

132

Degrance, thanks for a clear and cogent answer. You make a stronger case than I expected. It’s interesting that youo focus on the workplace, rather than the fact that this occurs in the government.

IANAL either, but it seems to me that a key point may be whether pro-Christian = anti-Non-Christian. A related concept has been addressed on the gay T-shirt thread. Does a Gay Pride or Straight Pride T-shirt imply hostility to the other group? Apparently the legal answer in both cases is NO. Similarly, the American Public Health Assn. convention has a specifically designated gay sub-group. Does this create a hostile working environment for straights? I don’t think so.

FWIW I would guess that to show a hostile working environment one would have to demonstrate something more directly anti-Semitic or or anti-Muslim or anti-atheist.

BTW I was unaware of Ashcroft’s public statements about minority religions. Can you tell us what he said or porvide a cite? Thanks.

133

This is going nowhere.

I keep asking for evidence that Ashcroft is harming anyone. You keep accusing him of doing so, and calling it evidence.

For instance -

DMC writes:

I understand the word ‘peer’ to refer to ‘someone who is my equal’. Outside of work, Ashcroft is an American citizen. So am I. I am therefore, legally, morally (and in the eyes of God, but you will have to take my word for that) his equal. The instant he attempts to treat anyone differently because they do or do not attend his Bible sessions (this is what I have been asking for proof is happening, and have heard exactly nothing), he is overstepping his bounds and will and should be slapped down. As far as I can tell, what you are suggesting is that we cannot possibly take the chance that this might happen at some time in the future, so he cannot be allowed his rights now. Guilty until proven innocent, and no proof will be considered.

And:

Voluntary is voluntary, until proven otherwise. Where I work, there are bowling leagues, and I don’t bowl. There are softball games, and I don’t play softball. There are volleyball leagues, and I don’t play volleyball. I have been invited to most of these at one time or another. By inviting me to join my colleagues in various activities during non-work hours I have had my rights violated? And how is this changed by making an atheist gathering? Or a Christian one? There is even a gay/lesbian support group where I work, to which there is a standing invitation (from management) to any who might wish to attend. Have I been sexually harassed? How thin-skinned am I expected to be?

Actually, a bit longer than that. We will have to wait until somebody produces some evidence of harm they have suffered, and proved their case with a preponderance of the evidence. To judge by this thread, we may be waiting for a while.

And Degrange writes:

So off duty isn’t off duty? You aren’t making any sense.

No, I would say he was taking pains to keep his official self separate, both by holding the meetings during non-work hours and by being (as far as anyone here can show) scrupulously fair toward his staff, both those who attend and those who don’t. I repeat (for the last time, I hope) my plea for a scrap of evidence that this is not the case. I am sure the ACLU and the DNC would be delighted to hear from you as well, should you have more to offer than you have shown to date.

You have made the accusation (repeatedly). What examples can you give that John Ashcroft has damaged or threatened to damage anyone’s employment future? You are afraid he might. This is an accusation. Showing how he has would be evidence. Any to offer? Or are we simply to understand that all those Christians are such obvious monsters that the rule of law and the Constitution are superfluous?

So because you think John Ashcroft is a jerk, you want to prevent him from practicing his religion in his off hours. And you want to prevent others from doing the same in his company.

How is this not about feelings? You cannot cite any instance in which John Ashcroft has done anything to or for anyone based on his or her religious beliefs. Yet you say he is creating a hostile work environment, simply because his actions show that he believes in something that you do not.

No, not even a little bit. Please show where he has segregated anyone at work, or deprived anyone of anything at work. One instance would be enough.

Do I get it, as you are screaming? No, I don’t. I do not share your visceral reaction against public displays of religious belief. And in the absence of evidence, I would not say that your reactions constitute proof of any crime.

Christians have rights. Religious speech is protected speech. And the Constitution guarantees no one the right to be protected from knowing that there are those who think differently from you.

John Ashcroft believes differently from you. This is his right. He wishes to persuade others to think as he does. This is his right. Some of his co-workers choose to join him. This is their right. Some choose not to. This is their right. Sorry if this offends you, but to shut him down? That is not your right.

Regards,
Shodan

134

You can say that again, what with the automatic gainsaying of any material provided by Degrance, Kelly, myself, DMC, Tornado Siren, and others.

There are several arguments you have yet to refute. I will let those stand, as they are still posted here. But I will address some problems I see with your response.

Apart from revealing your bias here, you are making a false statement. Ashcroft, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, is AG 24/7. His duties, status, and responsibilities do not cease with office hours, anymore than the Presidents’ do.

Exactly nothing? Please read above, as it seems you are clearly missing several relevant arguments.

You appear entirely too emotional about this topic. Guilty until proven innocent is not the tactic here. The tactic is to investigate a person who is a suspect. The motive exists, we have the evidence (please don’t deny it again until you consider Tornado’s comment, as well as Degrance’s and DMC’s several points, and that’s just on this page), and there is legislation that prevents workplace hostility, proselytism, and discrimination. In addition, cites have been provided by Degrance and DMC, and others.

Since you are having difficulties, let me quote Tornado Siren, who posted this in the last page:

Shodan, after reading this and several others like it–assuming you read them–you object to anyone even considering that Ashcroft may be doing wrong. The legal system Aschroft represents runs on the concept of litigation. There must be prosecution and defence. This message board is far from a courtoom, but it is interesting to note that it operates on some of the same principles (reliance on sound reasoning, support for positions, etc.). So far there have been several cases made for the “prosecution”, suggesting that Ashcroft ought to be investigated, and very few for the “defence”. I appreciate that you may believe Ashcroft is not doing anything wrong, but please pull out reasoning that addresses what we have been saying so far!

Off-duty? The AG swore an oath that did not include office hours. When is the president not the president? Ashcroft may claim he is off-duty, but that is a claim unlikely to fly.

Right, you would say he is taking pains to keep his job and private beliefs separate by holding such prayer meetings as a fundamentalist, on federal property, as AG, with his subordinates, etc., etc.

Were he taking the pains you mention so dramatically, Ashcroft would not be providing religious guidance to his subordinates, Shodan. He would go to his church to meet with those of his creed (which may of course involve his co-workers provided they were not in any way pressured to attend the church simply because the big boss does so), or he would keep his prayer private. Your argument on this point is simply shoddy.

The rest of your arguments are based entirely on your belief that Ashcroft can do no wrong and ought not to be investigated in spite of the clear motive behind his actions, and that his actions are considered inappropriate and even illegal in a context larger than your repeated calls for detailed evidence (which will only surface once someone sues, or once Ashcroft is investigated for such suspicious behaviour).

The examples you provide are (yet again) grossly inadequate to illustrate the situation. The example of bowling is plain silly for reasons that I hope are apparent. The example of gay/lesbian groups is slightly closer to the point; gay/lesbian groups exist because there is frequent discrimination against such minorities. In addition, such meetings are probably kept PRIVATE, and are not led by the AG.

135

Bear with me a bit here.

This discussion also points out why I quit playing golf years ago. Now, I used to really enjoy the game. It had a certain thrill for me, as it does for millions of people to this day.

Then I joined the Navy.

How’d that cause you to quit, you ask? Simple: there were far too many people cluttering up the courses on the base who were there not to play golf, but rather to be seen to be playing golf with the skipper. They were asskissing.

Given the public view of Ashcroft, Bush, and a few others in the Administration, it’s pretty obvious to a lot of folks (as indicated in this thread) that attendance at the particular religious event under discussion here can be seen as rewardable asskissing and non-attendance can be construed as punishable asskissing avoidance.

Just my 1/50 of a dollar.

136

Abe

You post two statements.

One is that John Ashcroft is attorney general twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Whether this can be considered a true statement or not is a topic independent of how many times it is posted, but let’s assume it’s true.

You also post that it would be acceptable if Mr. Ashcroft were to attend services at his church on Sunday morning.

I do not see how these two statements can be reconciled.

If Mr. Ashcroft has no off duty hours, he cannot be allowed to attend church during off duty hours (Sunday morning), either, as it might become known that he is Christian, and lead to the hostile work environment you fear. Since an off-duty-hours Bible study will be construed as proof of workplace discrimination (feel free to accuse him of commiting this if you believe it constitutes proof - it doesn’t), clearly off-duty-hours acts of religious worship have to be proscribed. So a Christian attorney general cannot be allowed any practice of his faith.

The post following yours brings up an example which is also clarifying.

The poster mentions golf as a activity used by subordinates to curry favor with their bosses. I can certainly see that, as I can with virtually any interest held by virtually any boss. There have been many posts by many posters stating their belief that 1) the public practice of a religious faith necessarily leads to such currying of favor, and 2) is a major reason why such practice must be stopped.

The Constitution, however, as I think we can agree, provides special protection to religious practice and speech. The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, as has been posted, says as much.

There is, therefore, a special duty of government to present unusually strong evidence when it concluds that a given religious practice is interfering with another’s rights, and must be stopped. The government must also present evidence that their proposed course of action (in preventing a citizen from exercising his rights to practice and promote his religion) does not unduly burden the believer.

I think we can also agree (correct me if not) that it would be a moral as well as a practical impossibility to say that no boss should be allowed to pursue some interest in his off duty hours (if any) that might be used by his subordinates to curry favor with him, or that might be construed by his subordinates who did not share the interest, as a sign that they were to be discriminated against for not sharing the interest. Thus we could not, for instance, demand that a boss who was a baseball fan sell his season tickets because some of his subordinates would try to attend the same home games. We could not require an orthodox Jewish boss to stop keeping kosher at lunch, because some subordinates might eat the same foods to get on his good side. We could further not stop a boss who owned a large house from hosting parties for his employees at his house, provided he invited all his employees equally and took no action against those who chose not to attend.

Are we in agreement on this? If you wish to draw distinctions or limitations on any of this, like the rules should be applied only to Federal employees, only to executive level or above, only to Christians, only to members of a political party other than your own, feel free to draw them, and add some justification for the distinction if you have it.

The basic point remains. What evidence (there’s that word again) can you present that religion must be treated worse than a taste for stamp collecting, despite the special right of religious freedom explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights? What is so much worse about “We talk about the Bible - come and join us if you like” that it must be eradicated in a way that “The company is taking us all to a Yankees game” is not?

I mentioned in a previous post the visceral reaction that some people have to religion. It strikes me as likely that this reaction is at the basis of a lot of the claims of hostile work environment caused by religion. People who have rejected religion seem to feel that the hostility they feel toward religion must be caused by those who profess it. I would not doubt that the feelings are real. But the First Amendment was put there to protect people from others with a very strong feeling that religion is something to be silenced and banned. And the more prominent believers are the ones with which they would like to start. Like - an Attorney General.

Slippery slope arguments are not my favorites, but here’s one anyway. Most people would agree that religious practices should not be allowed if they interfere with your job. The trend seems to be (from many posters) that they cannot be allowed at the workplace at all, even during non-work hours. Abe has posted that for certain people, work is 24/7, and so presumably, they can never be allowed their religion. I myself am a manager, and certain aspects of my job continue 24 hours a day. Does this mean that the Constitution does not apply in my case?

I cannot practice my religion during work hours, and I cannot during non-work hours. What is left to me? And what is next?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Regards,
Shodan

137

Shodan,

The point is in Ashcroft’s case, he’s basically telling everyone “hey, let’s play golf & we’ll do it right here in the building.”

It’s not his freaking building.

138

Because if the boss is a Yankee fan it harms no one if he makes it clear that the way to get access to him is to pretend an interest in baseball.

But if the boss is a Fundie who has made it clear through public statements that he does not respect the rights of non-Christians it harms every non-Christian in the organization if he makes it clear that the way to get access to him is to be a Fundie to.

No subordinate should ever have to either follow the bosses religion or even feign interest in the bosses religion in order to have the same access to the boss as his religious co-workers.

I have not rejected religion. I am the most religious person I know. I just am not Christian. The hostility I feel for Christians comes directly from quotes like Dubya’s winner about Wicca not being a “real” enough religion to deserve constitutional protection. (cite on request)

In other words just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you.

Fundamentalist Christians have been trying to limit the rights people of my faith are able to enjoy in this country, rights that they themselves will fight for tooth and nail for themselves. I didn’t pick this battle, they did. Now one of their number is in a position of great power over my constitutional rights and he himself has created a situation that threatens the religious rights of any non-Christian in his agency.

For you this may be some delightful hypothetical discussion but for me and mine it looks a lot like the first step down an ugly road.

Hogwash!

Ho one has argued that he needs to be non-religious. All we want is for him to keep his Evangelizing out of government offices and away from those who have to answer to him professionally.

You cannot hold religious meetings in you office for your subordinates either during or outside of work hours. It is as simple as that. Go down the street to the coffee house and all challenges disappear. So stop selling your straw men and address the issue.

139

Actually, the boss would be liable to charges of favouritism in such a case.

140

Monty writes:

No, it is not his building. But it is his free time. I am interested in the justification for saying that he cannot use his free time to pursure his interests, and to invite others to do the same. The analogy would be that he has, say, a standing invitation to his staff/employees to have lunch with him in the company cafeteria. If they talk golf, it’s fine, even if people use this as an excuse to suck up. If they talk religion (in a non-coerced context, and I have still to hear any evidence that anyone is attending to gain an advantage - Ashcroft’s chief of staff does not attend these Bible sessions), it suddenly becomes a major violation of someone’s rights, despite the First Amendment’s special protection of religion. In other words, unprotected free speech is fine, but protected is not. What sense does that make in light of the Constitution?

I return to my example of the gay support group (make it Alcoholics Anonymous or Women in Technology if it makes my point clearer). Why is it fine for some minorities to meet to discuss their issues, but not religious groups?

And Degrange writes:

In what way? Again, I am asking for the underlying principle (and a justification of the principle) that religious practice, which is protected under the First Amendment, can and should be sanctioned, while baseball, which isn’t, should not - even though they have the same effects? Is it the fact that he has publicly expressed his allegiance to one religion? So he should be denied freedom of speech as well as of religion?

Again, assuming (in the absence of any supporting evidence) that John Ashcroft has ‘made it clear’ that getting access to him in his role as Attorney General involves sharing his religion.

And my previous point stands. If publicly practicing your religion during your off duty hours means that others are automatically having their rights injured, then he cannot be allowed to practice his religion. And neither can any other boss, or Federal employee, or whatever group you feel must be held to this principle. In other words, religion is not protected, it is eradicated.

And:

Again we have touched on the central issue. Is practicing your religion on your own time, with others who participate voluntarily, an automatic threat to the rights of those who do not share your faith? Is it also the case that a gay support group automatically threatens the rights of straight employees? What is the principle by which we can discern what is allowed and what is not? Why is it religious speech, and (in this case) specifically Christianity that is singled out for silencing?

Let’s figure that out, and then by God we better apply it fairly.

Indeed not. However, a good way to figure out if they are out to get you is to show evidence that it is not just your fears talking.

In other words, to overcome the special protection clause of the First Amendment, someone somewhere has come up with proof acceptable to reasonable people that they are out to get you, that someone has suffered some harm from not attending a Bible study, or has gained some advantage from attending. As I mentioned, the ACLU and the Democratic party would be positively slavering with delight at the prospect of winning a lawsuit that showed that John Ashcroft had discriminated on the basis of religion.

But be aware that you will be asked to prove what you say. And not everyone will share the assumption that being able to detect that someone is a Christian is prima facie proof that he or she is a dangerous bigot.

I am not a Wiccan. Working with a self-described Pagan is as close as I have ever gotten. If I worked for one, and she had invited me to attend a gathering of her co-religionists at dawn in the office next to mine, I would decline with thanks. If as a result, I suffered some
harm to my career, I would take action as I deemed appropriate. But I would wait and see if this in fact happened before I started any (you should pardon the expression) witch hunts. I see no more reason to assume that witches are poisoning the wells or making my cattle barren than I do that John Ashcroft is plotting a new wave of Salem trials.

Evidence that they do or that he is would be welcomed. Got any?

Regards,
Shodan