|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religious Discrimination
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
It is generally acknowleged in the community that discrimination based on race, sexual orientation and disability is totally unacceptable. Loud advertisements promoted by sportsmen etc appear on the tv decrying such discrimination. Why then does the public think it is ok to make bigoted and offensive remarks about the following of religious faith, particularly Christianity. I know of someone who lost a promotion due to her mention of Christian belief. The non religious find it hilarious to make jokes at the worshipper's expense and somehow it is considered unacceptable to protest. I acknowledge that I have been guilty in the past of remaining silent due to shyness, but I'm prepared now to say 'no more'. Am I being oversensitive?
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Why then does the public think it is ok to make bigoted and offensive remarks about the following of religious faith, particularly Christianity. I know of someone who lost a promotion due to her mention of Christian belief. The non religious find it hilarious to make jokes at the worshipper's expense and somehow it is considered unacceptable to protest. I acknowledge that I have been guilty in the past of remaining silent due to shyness, but I'm prepared now to say 'no more'. Am I being oversensitive?
Yes. You've provided three examples and only one of them is actually "discrimination" (getting passed over for an earned promotion). So you seem to be running a ratio of oversensitive umbrage to real issues of about 2:1. Being an offensive asshole is not necessarily the same thing as discriminating.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You've provided three examples and only one of them is actually "discrimination" (getting passed over for an earned promotion).
And I'm pretty darn sure that this example of discrimination is unlawful throughout Australia.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You've provided three examples and only one of them is actually "discrimination" (getting passed over for an earned promotion).
And I'm pretty darn sure that this example of discrimination is unlawful throughout Australia.
I think the ACLU would jump down your throat if you tried it in the US. Although it would be hard to prove that a non-promotion was due to one's religion. You'd have to have some kind of smoking gun (email, coworkers who can corroborate conversations).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well, yes, and I'm not going to try and speculate about the accuracy of bib's statement and what there might be to prove it. I'm simply saying that I'm fairly sure there are laws against discrimination on the basis of religious belief (or lack thereof) in exactly the same way there are laws against discrimination on the basis of race or sexual orientation or disability.
So as far as that particular measure of community attitudes is concerned, religion is not worse off.
And if anyone wants to say that laws don't necessarily reflect real-world community attitudes, my response would be that's also exactly the same as with race, sexual orientation or disability. Nasty remarks on all those topics can be readily heard in parts of the community.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And if anyone wants to say that laws don't necessarily reflect real-world community attitudes, my response would be that's also exactly the same as with race, sexual orientation or disability. Nasty remarks on all those topics can be readily heard in parts of the community.
It's definitely true that the law about religious discrimination doesn't reflect community attitudes. It's also true that it is respected a lot more in the breach than in the observance. Evangelical Christians get a huge break in our country. They're bitching now because in some places they are being knocked off their pedestal and being made to live under the same rules as everybody else. Oh, how that stings. It's almost like they were being persecuted.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
bib
You mention that someone missed out on promotion quote:
... due to her mention of Christian belief...
I feel bound to ask, was her belief or religion in any way relevant to the job she was applying for?
By that, I mean would it have precluded her from undertaking any part of the job, or stopped her from being present at certain times?
If the answer to those questions is "No" then the matter of her religion or faith was irrelevant.
That does mean that to not appoint based on her faith would have been discrimination.
But it also begs the question why she decided to bring it up at interview.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Religious discrimination is illegal in Australia under Article 18 of the ICCPR. I would say your acquaintance should take it up with a lawyer to see how to pursue this.
If a non religious person is making jokes about a believer's practice in the work place, that is creating a hostile environment. This should be discussed with human resources and/or up the chain of command through the supervisor, the boss, even to the CEO, if need be. If no resolution is achieved, again, take it to the courts.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
No. The ICCPR is not the law of Australia. Cf I don't know how many High Court decisions saying that an international convention doesn't mean a damn until local law is passed to implement it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...
But it also begs the question why she decided to bring it up at interview.
Who said anything about it being mentioned in an interview? It could have come up at any time in the workplace, probably on a Monday while chatting about what she did on the weekend.
Remember we had a now-banned crusader on here a while ago from New Zealand who claimed to be in a management role and proudly claimed they would do exactly this kind of thing to stop any of "their" money (i.e. the employee's pay) from going to a church?
As said above by the thieving rodent, often this kind of "non-official" discrimination is not able to be proved without a smoking gun. The damage to a person's prospects of future employment would usually be even worse if they make too many waves trying to get satisfaction and gaining themselves only a once-off payout but a lifetime reputation as an unemployable troublemaker as it's still pretty easy to give a non-positive reference without defaming a person.
Unfortunately in Australia the only time you are safe from this in the workplace is if you work for a large enough corporation or government body that they have a fully competent human resources team. Any protection is a complete sham in a smaller company or non-profit where it's way too easy for an employer to cook up performance issues as a pretext for non-promotion or dismissal.
A similar type of "non-official" discrimination applies to people who take parenting leave as they supposedly have the right to do so, to both men and women. There is a strong perception that grudgingly acknowledges women giving birth need to be granted parenting leave because of the physical issues involved, and at the same time aggressively asserts the position that no men should ever be allowed to take parenting leave.
In the case of women taking parenting leave this discrimination often manifests itself in harsher expectations of performance on returning to the workplace (both from management and from other employees who had to pick up the missing woman's workload) and smaller businesses have been known to do restructures to squeeze them out into a minor role for a permanent replacement. Men get the same problems when they return after parenting leave, but with the added problem that everything is stacked against them in their chance of actually getting to the point of taking leave.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes. You've provided three examples and only one of them is actually "discrimination" (getting passed over for an earned promotion). So you seem to be running a ratio of oversensitive umbrage to real issues of about 2:1. Being an offensive asshole is not necessarily the same thing as discriminating.
Two, actually. Workplace harassment on the grounds of religion is illegal in Australia, and in some countries can be talked about as "verbal assault." The other workers doing that would be well advised to make sure none of their "jokes" are sent via email or recorded on a smartphone if they know what's good for them.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I've had two managers at work (in the UK) who have directly said to my face that they think religious people are stupid. When I replied that I am Christian, they sort of stuttered and tried to backpedal. Had I been fired or laid off by either of those individuals I would certainly consider that their view on my faith might be a reason for it, whether or not there are legal protections in such cases.
Depending on one's contract it can be difficult or almost impossible to pursue a case of discrimination without serious long-term impacts on one's career and earnings ability. Most contracts that I've seen say that a former employee who pursues legal action forfeits any severance payments or long-term benefits. In some industries a lawsuit against a former employer becomes an unofficial blacklist, where no one else in the field will hire you either.
So it's not so simple as "well it's illegal to discriminate."
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Just to be clear, I don't doubt that this kind of discrimination occurs.
What I doubt is whether the situation for religious discrimination is any worse than it is for a variety of other kinds. That was the premise of the OP.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The question in the OP isn't so much whether it is worse but whether the general public thinks it is OK whereas they don't think other forms of prejudice are OK.
I have to say I think substantial proportions of the general public still think racism is OK, and think that homophobia is OK. Very substantial proportions seem to think that sexism is OK.
I don't doubt there are sections of society where one can get cheap laughs about religion but other forms of prejudice are frowned on and challenged, and if you happen to be exposed to such a clique then the religious can feel quite picked on.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Just to be clear, I don't doubt that this kind of discrimination occurs.
What I doubt is whether the situation for religious discrimination is any worse than it is for a variety of other kinds. That was the premise of the OP.
I don't think you can rank discrimination on how bad it is - if you lose your job then whether it's race, gender, or religion it's pretty terrible!
I will say however that while racial and even gender based jokes are generally accepted as out of bounds in the work place, I have heard many negative comments about Christians or religious people, including former employees who were "God botherers" for example.
I worked with one person who wanted us to stop a project with a company whose shareholders were all members of a same church, saying that they were evangelical and therefore support bigotry. There is no evidence of any bigotry other than that they are Christian - not even any funding of anti-LGBT groups or anything. And this was raised in a meeting and seriously considered. That sounds like religion-based discrimination to me.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No. The ICCPR is not the law of Australia. Cf I don't know how many High Court decisions saying that an international convention doesn't mean a damn until local law is passed to implement it.
There's no doubt about that proposition at all.
I can't quickly see anything against discrimination on religious grounds in the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act and from memory there was a decision a few years ago saying that anti-Moslem comments were not caught by the provisions against racial discrimination. There's no federal legislation which covers the area (not field, Orfeo). There probably is in Victoria going from the litigation against the Catch the Fire ministry people. I don't know about other States.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Actually, religion is covered under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act. That protection isn't to the same extent as the separate race, sex, disability and age legislation, but it does cover employment.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No. The ICCPR is not the law of Australia. Cf I don't know how many High Court decisions saying that an international convention doesn't mean a damn until local law is passed to implement it.
There's no doubt about that proposition at all.
I can't quickly see anything against discrimination on religious grounds in the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act and from memory there was a decision a few years ago saying that anti-Moslem comments were not caught by the provisions against racial discrimination. There's no federal legislation which covers the area (not field, Orfeo). There probably is in Victoria going from the litigation against the Catch the Fire ministry people. I don't know about other States.
I think a distinction needs to be made between general bigotry which just causes a few people to be offended (which is where the Catch The Fire nonsense come is) and protection from discrimination in workplaces and government services that has real-world impacts, which was of course the original topic of this thread.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thanks Orfeo, as you say that Act does not make the Convention part of Aust municipal law, nor does it appear to create causes of action. It really appears to be a machinery provision rather than establishing individual and justiciable rights, in sharp contrast to the legislation on racial and sex discrimination.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
AIUI, the defence of the Catch the Fire people was that they were encouraging prayer for Moslems that they be converted. They said that such behaviour was not vilification. Really, their behaviour was very silly, much more than my brief summary of the defence implies, and the action was always doomed to fail.
Curiously, a recent MW report on a Catch the Fire group in Canada speaks highly of them. I wonder what connection, if any, there is.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Thanks Orfeo, as you say that Act does not make the Convention part of Aust municipal law, nor does it appear to create causes of action. It really appears to be a machinery provision rather than establishing individual and justiciable rights, in sharp contrast to the legislation on racial and sex discrimination.
Well, that gets into all sorts of questions about remedies and enforcement in human rights legislation, some of which is complicated at the federal level because of the Constitution. Probably more than this thread needs. And I don't really know what sorts of remedies are available in the State systems.
For employment there might be stuff in the workplace relations laws as well. I don't remember for sure, it's all too long ago since I worked on it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
It is generally acknowleged in the community that discrimination based on race, sexual orientation and disability is totally unacceptable. Loud advertisements promoted by sportsmen etc appear on the tv decrying such discrimination. Why then does the public think it is ok to make bigoted and offensive remarks about the following of religious faith, particularly Christianity. I know of someone who lost a promotion due to her mention of Christian belief. The non religious find it hilarious to make jokes at the worshipper's expense and somehow it is considered unacceptable to protest. I acknowledge that I have been guilty in the past of remaining silent due to shyness, but I'm prepared now to say 'no more'. Am I being oversensitive?
First [Citation Needed] on the idea that someone lost a promotion due to her mention of Christian belief. I'm not saying it's impossible. Merely that it's something that she could sue over because it's illegal and wrong.
Second, most supposed anti-Christian discrimination turns out to be bunk. You do not get to ignore infection control rules just because you are a Christian and want to wear your cross on a chain rather than on your lapel.
Thirdly, I have never once heard an atheist be as uncharitable, unloving, and downright offensive as one of the core Christian doctrines. I have never once heard an atheist say that someone deserves to be tortured forever - I have heard Christians say that atheists deserve to burn in hell (which is being tortured forever). There is nothing Dawkins has ever said, even about child abuse, that remotely compares to the offensiveness of telling people they deserve to be tortured forever.
Fourthly, as far as I can tell there is no one who is trying to deny Christians the right to get married just because they are Christians. On the other hand in Britain and America (and I assume Australia) the lobby that tries to prevent people marrying those whom they love due to gender is based on Christianity. This is more offensive than minor jokes ever could be.
I'm not talking about Jack Chick, Fred Phelps, Stephen Green, or former Archbishop Jensen here (although that last is an archbishop). Denial of the right of people to marry those they love is a very mainstream Christian position - and the main place where Christian values are in opposition to those of mainstream society. The doctrine of hell is a very mainstream position.
Feel free to speak out. But make sure that you speak out against your own when they are being offensive. Because that will do a hell of a lot more good if you're actually worried about people being offensive, and there are comments that can be made about beams and motes.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Curiously, a recent MW report on a Catch the Fire group in Canada speaks highly of them. I wonder what connection, if any, there is.
None, apart from the coincidental use of a rather bland and unoriginal name.
My understanding is that Catch the Fire Ministries in Melbourne is not affiliated with anything else at all primarily because nobody else is pure and righteous enough to hang out with that odorous cretin Daniel Nalliah ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Denial of the right of people to marry those they love is a very mainstream Christian position - and the main place where Christian values are in opposition to those of mainstream society. The doctrine of hell is a very mainstream position.
And, while it's not precisely an official "position," there's another aspect of some Christian practice which has unfortunate aftereffects: martyrdom, and the "sainting" of those who suffer it.
Martyred saints are Christian role models as defenders of a [once-persecuted] faith. As one result, some believers get the idea that Real Christians are meant to suffer from others' rejection of Christianity.
IME, this can lead to some Christians asserting their faith in ways that actually invite criticism, rejection, ridicule, and even discrimination, as though getting oneself persecuted is a Christian Duty and somehow "proves" one is a Christian.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
It is generally acknowleged in the community that discrimination based on race, sexual orientation and disability is totally unacceptable. Loud advertisements promoted by sportsmen etc appear on the tv decrying such discrimination. Why then does the public think it is ok to make bigoted and offensive remarks about the following of religious faith, particularly Christianity. I know of someone who lost a promotion due to her mention of Christian belief. The non religious find it hilarious to make jokes at the worshipper's expense and somehow it is considered unacceptable to protest. I acknowledge that I have been guilty in the past of remaining silent due to shyness, but I'm prepared now to say 'no more'. Am I being oversensitive?
No, you're not being over-sensitive imv. You're making an observation that has been made by many others. Some try to shout it down, but it's a valid observation. There are laws in Britain against many kinds of discrimination, but not against religious discrimination. This allows some to freely deride and belittle people of faith, and to discriminate against them with no redress.
It takes courage to come out as a Christian, but it's the only way people will come to know the reality of who a Christian is rather than the caricature that's drawn and spread around.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The irony being, most opposition to having laws prohibiting religious discrimination doesn't come from atheists wanting to have a go at Christians, it comes from religious people wanting to be able to have a go at other religions.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No, you're not being over-sensitive imv. You're making an observation that has been made by many others. Some try to shout it down, but it's a valid observation. There are laws in Britain against many kinds of discrimination, but not against religious discrimination.
Before making such blatantly false statements you might want to educate yourself.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I'm sorry in many ways that I mentioned the work colleague as people seem to have focussed on that issue rather than my main concerns which are about general community attitudes which seem to becoming more prevalent while other forms of discrimination seem to be diminishing in my observation. I've particularly noticed a rise in anti Christian letters in the newspapers. It is fine to disagree with others' views but not when statements ridiculing other people for their beliefs are printed. Talk back sessions on the radio contain similar sentiments and are permitted by the moderator. Maybe I should stop reading and listening to the media.
The colleague at work wasn't thought suitable by the boss to be promoted (he's a real tool) because he heard her talking about church. She hadn't applied for any promotion, but I was chatting to the boss and suggested that my colleague would do a great job in a senior position. He agreed at first but then followed up by saying that she was unsuitable because she was religious. I defended her to my boss but I didn't say anything to my colleague as she knew nothing about it.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
If people want to feel discriminated against, on whatever grounds, they will. The jokes made against Christians and Christianity are trivial compared to the stuff you hear in pubs, see tweeted and read on websites about certain other faiths.
[ 14. October 2013, 12:30: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
The non religious find it hilarious to make jokes at the worshipper's expense and somehow it is considered unacceptable to protest.
The Christian church used to have a lot of power in this country. Many of my parents' generation grew up with a church which had financial, legal, moral and social power over them. It has subsequently been abundantly demonstrated that the church has on notable occasions, made very poor use of this power.
it is conventional, acceptable and necessary to use humour to attack corrupt authority.
Churchgoing Christians may now be in the minority, but the person who makes fun of the church (and that person may not, in fact, be a non-believer) is, still, in their view, mocking authority. And I would defend their right to do that.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes. You've provided three examples and only one of them is actually "discrimination" (getting passed over for an earned promotion). So you seem to be running a ratio of oversensitive umbrage to real issues of about 2:1. Being an offensive asshole is not necessarily the same thing as discriminating.
Two, actually. Workplace harassment on the grounds of religion is illegal in Australia, and in some countries can be talked about as "verbal assault." The other workers doing that would be well advised to make sure none of their "jokes" are sent via email or recorded on a smartphone if they know what's good for them.
Bib never specified anything about offensive remarks or jokes in the workplace, just a general sense that religious belief should not be subjected to criticism anywhere. In fact, the origins of such remarks was specified as "the public", not "co-workers".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Bib never specified anything about offensive remarks or jokes in the workplace, just a general sense that religious belief should not be subjected to criticism anywhere.
How did you transit there from "offensive remarks or jokes" to "subjected to criticism"? Do you believe these to be synonymous?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In fact, the origins of such remarks was specified as "the public", not "co-workers".
In context, it is rather clear that the OP wanted to point to a wider problem, which however also occurs at the workplace. The argument structure was general ("the public") - specific ("lost promotion") - general ("the non-religious"). Hence it is appropriate to point out that repeated offensive remarks/jokes about someone's religion in the workplace is an offense in many countries (including the UK).
Now, I favour robust debate and I think in matters known to raise emotions - like religion and politics - it is good to allow a certain degree of heat. However, if we think that certain actions poison the atmosphere at the workplace in a non-acceptable manner, then we should seriously consider to what extent we should accept them outside of the workplace. This does not necessarily require any law though. Social disapproval often works a lot better in such situations.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Bib never specified anything about offensive remarks or jokes in the workplace, just a general sense that religious belief should not be subjected to criticism anywhere.
How did you transit there from "offensive remarks or jokes" to "subjected to criticism"? Do you believe these to be synonymous?
The problem is that what's deemed "offensive" is subjective, a matter of opinion dependent upon the hearer. For example:
quote:
Four atheist bloggers in Bangladesh are facing up to 14 years in prison for defaming Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, including one who was stabbed viciously by fundamentalist attackers earlier this year.
<snip>
Bangladesh's blasphemy laws prohibit criticizing religion, and target those with "deliberate" or "malicious" intention of hurting religious sentiments.
Were the criticisms offered offensive? Only if the hearers decide they're offensive. So yes, they can be synonymous in any case where someone decides to take offense.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I'm sorry in many ways that I mentioned the work colleague as people seem to have focussed on that issue rather than my main concerns which are about general community attitudes which seem to becoming more prevalent while other forms of discrimination seem to be diminishing in my observation.
The corollary to this observation is that most of those fighting to keep discrimination going are Christian and very visibly so.
quote:
I've particularly noticed a rise in anti Christian letters in the newspapers. It is fine to disagree with others' views but not when statements ridiculing other people for their beliefs are printed.
If you can't ridicule people for what they think and what they do what can you ridicule them for? ("Nothing" is an acceptable and indeed commendable answer here.)
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I'm sorry in many ways that I mentioned the work colleague as people seem to have focussed on that issue rather than my main concerns which are about general community attitudes which seem to becoming more prevalent while other forms of discrimination seem to be diminishing in my observation.
The corollary to this observation is that most of those fighting to keep discrimination going are Christian and very visibly so.
quote:
I've particularly noticed a rise in anti Christian letters in the newspapers. It is fine to disagree with others' views but not when statements ridiculing other people for their beliefs are printed.
If you can't ridicule people for what they think and what they do what can you ridicule them for? ("Nothing" is an acceptable and indeed commendable answer here.)
Slight tangent: is laughing at something, or even making a joke about it synonymous with "ridiculing" it? Or, rather, is "ridiculing" something always a hostile act? Lots of believers joke about faith - in a sense, we know it is "ridiculous".
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Martyred saints are Christian role models as defenders of a [once-persecuted] faith.
I would take issue with the comment that Christianity was 'once-persecuted'. In many parts of the world that is a still current reality. Article: The war on Christians - The Spectator
Having people say rude things about us in our secular western countries, although unpleasant, is pretty small fry in comparison. But being discriminated against was the lot of the church from its earliest beginnings. The alignment of Christianity with the politically powerful since the time of Constantine has meant that Christianity has forgotten that. But now the separation has happened again so perhaps we just need to get used to the fact that Christians no longer hold the power. I suspect in the long run this will be much healthier for the church.
However I wish that the discrimination, if it happened, was because Christians were standing up for the oppressed and calling the powerful to account. In other words being discriminated against because they are upsetting the status quo by being Christ-like.
[ 14. October 2013, 16:34: Message edited by: Lucia ]
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Lucia: everything you said. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Martyred saints are Christian role models as defenders of a [once-persecuted] faith. As one result, some believers get the idea that Real Christians are meant to suffer from others' rejection of Christianity.
To be fair, Jesus did say things to that effect. Blessed are you when men shall revile and persecute you and and say all manner of evil of falsely against you for my sake. When they bring you before the synagogues and rulers and authorities, do not worry about what you will say. And so on, and so on. People will think they are doing God a favor when they kill you. And so on.
quote:
IME, this can lead to some Christians asserting their faith in ways that actually invite criticism, rejection, ridicule, and even discrimination, as though getting oneself persecuted is a Christian Duty and somehow "proves" one is a Christian.
True. As Lucia points out, if we are going to be persecuted it should be for being Christ-like, not for being assholes (arseholes).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Bib, would you object to people making fun of other religions, or just Christianity?
Along with the mocking authority thing mentioned above, all religions contain things that seem ridiculous to outsiders, including Christianity. Making fun of that seems to be a pretty natural thing to do.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Slight tangent: is laughing at something, or even making a joke about it synonymous with "ridiculing" it? Or, rather, is "ridiculing" something always a hostile act? Lots of believers joke about faith - in a sense, we know it is "ridiculous".
It could be argued that ridicule is the proper reaction to the ridiculous.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I've heard certain religionists tell offensive "jokes" about other religionists, quite often within the same faith tradition. Sometimes, the statements are not intended as jokes, rather they are deliberate slurs.
In some cases, these jokes were told in a deliberate attempt to stir up dissension or to increase the power of the teller and his friends, at the expense of the target.
And the target can expect the blacklisting mentioned upthread if they do make a fuss. I had a case described to me this morning by the target of one such attack.
Exposing the problem would also lead outsiders to think less well of the specific religious group, who once thought they were the power-behind-the-throne of a certain former colony.
Can one legislate against that sort of thing?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And the target can expect the blacklisting mentioned upthread if they do make a fuss. I had a case described to me this morning by the target of one such attack.
"I object to the way you portray all Judeo-Christian clergy as drunkards. I've heard you tell several stories involving a priest, a minister, and a rabbi, and according to you they do nothing with their time except visit various bars. This kind of stereotyping is hurtful!"
Something like that?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
You know, it's not that trivial. Back in my PhD study days the head of department took after me when he learned incidentally, and from a friend if i recall correctly, that i was married to a pastor. From that point on I got shit like public dressings down in class for being a Christian freak (i had made the mistake of mentioning Maimonides positively during a dicussion of the Merchant of Venice, which shows you the intellect we're dealing with here). This running harassment culminated in an attempt to prevent me taking my degree. Fortunately, i had an old Catholic scholar's wing spread over me, and his stature was such that the head didn't dare oppose him openly. So I made it through.
It can happen, though i'm not saying it's common in the West.
[ 14. October 2013, 23:34: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
You know, it's not that trivial. Back in my PhD study days the head of department took after me when he learned incidentally, and from a friend if i recall correctly, that i was married to a pastor. From that point on I got shit like public dressings down in class for being a Christian freak (i had made the mistake of mentioning Maimonides positively during a dicussion of the Merchant of Venice. This culminated in an attempt to prevent me taking my degree. Fortunately, i had an old Catholic scholar's wing spread over me, and his stature was such that the head didn't dare oppose him openly. So I made it through.
It can happen, though i'm not saying it's common in the West.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The pendulum has swung here in the opposite direction. In one province a city bus displaying "Merry Christmas" was the subject of a human rights complaint (there is separate tribunal for these). Feeling offended has become enough to prosecute, where actual disadvantage or other negative outcome is not required. I am no apologist for discrimination of any kind in posting that, just wanting to raise the contrast from here to there. I have never heard anti-Christian discrimination, certainly heard anti-Native and anti-white, and anti-Americanism. Probably in about that order.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Lucia: everything you said.
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Martyred saints are Christian role models as defenders of a [once-persecuted] faith. As one result, some believers get the idea that Real Christians are meant to suffer from others' rejection of Christianity.
To be fair, Jesus did say things to that effect. Blessed are you when men shall revile and persecute you and and say all manner of evil of falsely against you for my sake. When they bring you before the synagogues and rulers and authorities, do not worry about what you will say. And so on, and so on. People will think they are doing God a favor when they kill you. And so on.
quote:
IME, this can lead to some Christians asserting their faith in ways that actually invite criticism, rejection, ridicule, and even discrimination, as though getting oneself persecuted is a Christian Duty and somehow "proves" one is a Christian.
True. As Lucia points out, if we are going to be persecuted it should be for being Christ-like, not for being assholes (arseholes).
While Christians certainly face danger, serious maltreatment and discrimination in various places in the world today, Christianity itself is the faith (if any) proclaimed by a majority of the populace of the U.S. and other substantial powers. Christians in these countries often advocate on behalf of others living in hostile circumstances (I've read such efforts on these boards).
The OP addresses things like missing out on a promotion -- which may or may not have been due to the subject's faith (or even arseholery of the sort described above), plus jokes or cutting remarks made at the religion's expense. That's a far cry from being excluded from political participation, abrogation of human rights, arrest, torture, imprisonment, or even execution.
Over against these real dangers (where they exist), however, I have to say: if you're a Christian who lives in, say, Saudi Arabia (where I believe Christianity is illegal), isn't it possible to practice one's Christianity in private, unobtrusive ways so as to avoid trouble with the law?
Religious affiliation and observance, unlike gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., is a matter of choice. So, at least some of the time for at least some of the population, is residence. ISTM that Christians living in an environment truly hostile to their faith can legitimately choose to keep that faith to themselves for the sake of personal safety. Equally, where they can afford to do so, they might consider relocating to an environment where it's safer to practice Christianity.
Beyond that, how widespread, how frequent, and how ferocious is persecution against Christians?
I'm a female in midlife in the U.S. I've put up with all manner of annoying, appalling, and even actually discriminatory crap over gender in my life. Sometimes I make an issue of this stuff; mostly, I don't waste my time trying to educate a worldfull of assholes one asshole at a time. But I have never felt "persecuted," and only a few times in actual danger (rape survivor, and please don't tell me rape isn't about gender. In my particular situation, it was about both gender and perceived class).
If I can put up with and/or ignore and/or muddle through snide jokes, mischaracterization of my intelligence, motives, proclivities, abilities, interests, sexuality, denial of some jobs, promotions, scholarships, pay, and other opportunities, etc. etc. etc, I don't see why Christians living in situations where Christianity is unwelcome cannot manage the same.
Christians can avoid calling attention to their faith; women cannot hide their gender, at least not for long.
Christians -- at least some of them -- can move. Where on this planet can women move where they're actually both free and equal? Iceland? Norway? These are awfully small countries to accommodate the millions of women who might prefer their paths through life made somewhat fairer, institutionally-speaking.
Meanwhile, though, I recommend that Christians still occupying space above rather than below the grass might want to toughen up over hearing the odd rude joke or ridicule, and avoid characterizing every life disappointment as "persecution." This is the world: deal.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Over against these real dangers (where they exist), however, I have to say: if you're a Christian who lives in, say, Saudi Arabia (where I believe Christianity is illegal), isn't it possible to practice one's Christianity in private, unobtrusive ways so as to avoid trouble with the law?
It's a bit tricky if you happen to belong to a Christian denomination that requires group worship (e.g. the Catholic mass), since the Saudis forbid non-Islamic religious gatherings even in private homes. Eventually someone is going to notice gatherings of people every Sunday morning.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Over against these real dangers (where they exist), however, I have to say: if you're a Christian who lives in, say, Saudi Arabia (where I believe Christianity is illegal), isn't it possible to practice one's Christianity in private, unobtrusive ways so as to avoid trouble with the law?
It's a bit tricky if you happen to belong to a Christian denomination that requires group worship (e.g. the Catholic mass), since the Saudis forbid non-Islamic religious gatherings even in private homes. Eventually someone is going to notice gatherings of people every Sunday morning.
Saudi Arabia is a particularly bad situation since everyone who is not their particular sect of Islam faces persecution (they have a fairly large Shiite minority). In addition Saudi Arabia is not known for good treatment of its guest workers (particularly those in menial jobs) even if they are the right religion (or its treatment of women of any religion). Saudi Arabia has never signed the International Declaration of Human Rights, and, it didn't get around to officially abolishing slavery until 1962 (only Mauritania was later).
However in Europe and the Americas I suspect discrimination against Christians (or Jews or Muslims or Hindus or atheists) is most likely from other Christians.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Beyond that, how widespread, how frequent, and how ferocious is persecution against Christians?
Quite, quite and quite, to put it mildly.
Check out the situation in Saudi Arabia, Comoros, Central African Republic, Cote D'Ivoire, Mali, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, the Central Asian Republics, Burma, China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, India and Cuba.
quote:
Christians can avoid calling attention to their faith
Christians -- at least some of them -- can move.
Why on earth should they?
You would not dream of saying anything as trivial, callous and ignorant as this about any other persecuted religious group.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Beyond that, how widespread, how frequent, and how ferocious is persecution against Christians?
[/QB]
OK, I messed up the coding last time so here is the link again to a recent article in a secular publication The War on Christians - The Spectator
"According to the International Society for Human Rights, a secular observatory based in Frankfurt, Germany, 80 per cent of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed at Christians. Statistically speaking, that makes Christians by far the most persecuted religious body on the planet.
According to the Pew Forum, between 2006 and 2010 Christians faced some form of discrimination, either de jure or de facto, in a staggering total of 139 nations, which is almost three-quarters of all the countries on earth. According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, an average of 100,000 Christians have been killed in what the centre calls a ‘situation of witness’ each year for the past decade. That works out to 11 Christians killed somewhere in the world every hour, seven days a week and 365 days a year, for reasons related to their faith."
Would you characterise that as widespread, frequent or ferocious?
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
However in Europe and the Americas I suspect discrimination against Christians (or Jews or Muslims or Hindus or atheists) is most likely from other Christians.
There's a whole world out there you know. Most people don't live in Europe or the Americas.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
