the myth of freedom of religion

In my workplace, it's the Christians who get discriminated against. We have a very high population of Jewish employees. All upper and upper-middle management is Jewish, with little exception (maybe one or two people) regardless of employment history, experience, etc.. It's a bit of a running joke, actually, that we can make a list of all of the people here that will never advance based on their religion or gender.

I don't think it's a myth that you are free to practice whatever religion you choose, but I do think it's a myth that workplace decisions aren't sometimes religion-based. It isn't always pro-Christian. It may exceedingly be pro-Christian, but that just hasn't been my experience.

You cannot legislate peoples emotions. Bias, prejudice, jealousy and payback will always be with us. Everyone at one time or another has encountered it and I should add real or imagined. Many people who think they are being discriminated against are only acting on their own biases.

As the only Jew in the office (two jobs ago), I was often the subject of subtle prejudices. Things like, "Happy Easter to everyone! Oh, and hi there, ___." - said with a downward tone, as if it was such a horrible burden that I were (am) different, and so much trouble to remember that!

Took 'em three years before they started remembering to not question when I took Yom Kippur off.

One coworker bragged about going to Germany for the Nativity play (every ten years; this was in 2000), until I pointed out to her that, up until recently, that play was used as a vehicle for anti-Semitism ("Oh, I just like the music. I don't understand what they're saying." she replied).

I was never asking for special treatment, just for religion to not be a factor. But it was.

Way back when I first started practicing, I worked in a predominantly Irish Catholic law firm. It was common knowledge that the three Jewish attorneys (myself included) would never make partner. I didn't learn that until I was on the job about a month. Took me five months to find another job; there was no way I was going to hang out there any longer than I needed to.

jespah
I have as I guess we all have the same type of subtle discrimination. However, I have never let it go unanswered or unchallanged. I could always give as good or better than I got.

none the less, the continued illusion that there is "freedom of religion" disregards the millions of american citizens who suffer from the lack thereof. i do not suggest that we legislate peoples ethics, i do suggest that we embrace a legal and govenmental standing that does not "allow" religious tolerance but does "demand" equality of all citizens.

I think there are a few concepts being mixed together here that should remain seperate. "Freedom Of Religion" has little or nothing to do with the workplace. "Freedom of Religion" as a concept is a relationship between government and the governed and usually referes to the words of the 1st Amendment to our Constitution in the legal realm.

Mixing that with "Freedom from discrimination based on religious preference" (which is covered under Title VII in Federal Law) would be a mistake.

while i don't disagree with the difference between Title VII and the 1st amendment, i was posting in reference to a larger view of the myth of freedom of religion, for example in many states we have what are called "blue laws" making it illegal in Colorado as an example to purchase an automobile, boat, motorhome or a bottle of wine on Sunday-or perhaps an honest look at the laws against bigamy between consenting adults, the various laws still on the books regarding homosexuality, all of these and many more are irrational social regulations inherent in a religion dictating their dogma on others not of the same persuasion. While these examples are specific in content as well as overt, there are many more examples of covert intimidation of non-christians thoughout american society. my interest is merely in bringing to light what so many consider nonexistent bias against religious minorities, hence the topic title of "The Myth of Freedom of Relgion"

I'm not a big fan of religion, but I think it's only one of a myriad of biases that people indulge in. The reason religious bias tends to stand out is that it gathers more force through organization. When the gay bashers and mysoginists start building brick cathedrals, running TV ministries and getting tax breaks, then we'll probably find more of that in the workplace too.

I think "religion" is only a surface manifestation of tribalism which we have in common with the primates. We are social animals who depend on effective communications with each other for mutual benefit. "Group communication modes" are the equivalent of of wearing a uniform which distinguishes between in-group and out-group members and such "modes" set up a common "semantic field" otherwise known as "social reality". So the particular arbitrary aspect of reality we call "religion" is really one of the stronger form of boundary markers for social discourse. Nationality, occupation, dialect and gender *etc are others. Our comfort zone and abilities to empathize tend to be a direct function of such boundaries. This appears to be a natural phenomenon which no amount of "political correction" or one-liners about "brotherly love" can override. The fact that some religions advocate "love thy neighbour" is no more than a bit of conscience easing which all historical evidence implies is unviable. Indeed, we would not advocate such a concept if it were "natural"....like "freedom" or "rights" it is an idealistic abstraction whose "meaning" lies in the logical complement of actual human relations.

_______________________________________________________

* In some cultures the language of men and women are differentiated phonetically as well as stylistically.

While freedom from intolerance will never be completely achieved, we can keep the laws fixed and work on the public conscience to that end. There will be steps forward and setbacks constantly. It will always be war, of sorts. Never relax your vigilance.

There is a common misconception here that the Constitution is of general application. It is not. The Constitution describes the duties, responsiblities, and limits of the Federal Government. The Federal government complies with the Constitution and does not have any policy or law that either favors one religion over another, or penalize any religion. State Constitutions often mirror the U.S. Constitution, especially in States that entered the Union after 1800.

The Constitution does not require Federal sanctions against a co-worker who may hold religious prejudices, nor does it require that I publicly belong to any religion whatsoever. If I were to go to work for an outfit named something like "God's Own Plumbing Contractors", it is even reasonable that I be some sort of Christian, and the Federal government has no business telling the employer who to employ so long as the labor laws are not violated. Why would I as a Buddhist even want to work in that environment? If the money were that important, I'd suck it up and try to present as good an example of what a Buddhist is that I was capable of.

Is this fair? Probably not. I know that I used to get pretty steamed up having Christians purposely stand around my desk and make very offensive jokes about Buddhism. Running to snitch them off to the supervisor only makes things worse, so one has to grow a thicker hide and occasionally be willing to punch the lights out on the lead bully ... something learned in grade school. Uncomfortable, but preferable to having the government get involved in religious matters. In a nation where the prevailing and dominant religion is Abrahamic, us poor Buddhists and Hindus would probably fare worse than the Jews.

Both Fishin' and Asherman are riding straw ponies--Dyslexia did not refer to the constitution, but rather to the perception of religious freedom embodied in the myth that the United States is a truly secular nation. Both Fishin' and Asherman are attempting to dismiss Dys' valid and important notice taken of religious discrimination practiced in a nation which has so often prided itself on tolerance and freedom.

Who gives a rat's ass what the constitution does or does not "say"--the most important founding principles are freedom and equity, and discrimination on the basis of religion is an affront to those important founding principles.

Prevailing sentiment often trumps the Constitution and interpreting of it.

In nations that are predominantly Buddhist or Hindu, how are the Christians and/or Jews treated?

What r u saying RL......that people.......suck?

Maybe you should try rereading Dys original post: "From the 700 club we get this: "The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." or this again from the 700 club: "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them" The 700 Club, Oct. 2, 1990; "The courts are merely a ruse, if you will, for humanist, atheistic educators to beat up on Christians.""

Now please tell me how the Constitution wasn't mentioned again. Your claims that I was trying to dismiss anything are a crock - as they usually are. I dismissed nothing. The straw pony here is yours.