BNET Insight

BNET Intercom

News and observations from the BNET staff

Transcend Your Office: When Work's a Religious Experience

October 3rd, 2007 @ 1:40 pm

21 Comments

Categories: Leadership, Management, Workplace

Tags: Microsoft Office, Religion, Worker, Recruitment & Selection, Human Resources, Workforce Management, Lori Deschene

prayer-board.jpgHow do you know where to draw the line when it comes to accommodating religion in the workplace? If clients are offended by a pentagram-wearing Pagan employee, can you ask her to keep the symbol hidden? If a worker objects to working on the weekends because of the Sabbath (as recently happened at Vonage), but the job requires that commitment, can you replace him with someone who doesn’t need accommodation? Can you offer just one weekend day off? That sounds reasonable, right?

The problem with religious discrimination legislation as it stands – stipulating that employers must reasonably accommodate “sincerely held religious practices” unless it imposes an undue hardship on the business’ conduct – is that it leaves room for interpretation. Who decides what is reasonable? For example, earlier this year, Target provided alternatives to Muslim cashiers who objected to handling pork products; they could either choose to work in a different department or wear gloves. If on any given day the store is understaffed, and Muslim employees choose not to ring up customers, this could easily impose an undue hardship on the store. Customers don’t want see tons of workers stocking the floor and just a handful behind the registers. And those customers will go elsewhere.

Religious discrimination claims aren’t new, but they’re certainly more prevalent now. Over the last ten years, religious discrimination complaints have increased more than 60 percent, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions. What’s the cause? David Steingard, assistant director of the Arrupe Center for Business Ethics at Saint Joseph’s University ventures a guess:

“…in a post 9-11 world, the rise in fundamentalism among a host of religions is also contributing. Religions have become more prominent in how they want freedom to be expressed in the workplace, and we have a ‘what’s in it for me’ kind of thing. It can become ridiculous, with everyone making a claim.”

David Miller, executive director of Yale University’s Center for Faith and Culture and author of the 2007 book, “God at Work: The History and Promise of the Faith at Work Movement,” suggests creating “faith friendly” approaches to accommodate both popular, general spirituality and more specific, orthodox religion. For example, employers can provide a space for prayer, or allow employees to swap holiday time.  

Like any personal affiliation, religion can create divisiveness within a team. How has your organization dealt with this issue?

(Prayer Board image by ninjaneil902)

 
Reply to Story

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    richard.gardner@...

    10/05/07 | Reported as spam

    Simple Solution

    Religion is really a mental health issue. If someone cites it as a reason for not doing anything at work they should be offered counselling, if they refuse you've got reasonable grounds to dismiss them. I mean really, do you honestly want someone working for you who believes in a magic invisible sky pixie who controls everything they do? Sounds dangerous to me....

  •  
    2

    jenyj89

    10/05/07 | Report as spam

    Your beliefs

    I may find it very disturbing to work for someone who believes in a man born of a virgin that was crucified and rose from the dead and who claims his father is a God who sits in Heaven......did you look at it from that point of view???? That disturbs me and might make me a little uneasy too. Maybe someone who believes all that might just believe anything that comes down the pike, so to speak!

    Just playing "devil's advocate"......all pun's intended.

    Jenyfer

  •  
    3

    TizzyD

    10/05/07 | Report as spam

    Mental illness assertions aside...

    I enjoyed the mental illness thread, but it is utterly unworkable in this present culture.

    As a Zen Buddhist, my religion does not impose such an unprovable dogma on me. There are times we use symbols as tools for considering aspects of the self, but I do not have to believe that lotus flowers sprang up under Siddhartha's feet when he took his first steps. However, I do believe that we should all understand the myriad views in this world, no one more provable than the other.

    IMHO, these items should be seen as merely tools. If a Wiccan wants to wear a pentagram or a Christian a cross around their neck, I have no issues with it, as long as I can wear my mala (meditation bracelet) as well. We all have tools to help remind us of beliefs and goals in our lives. A sales person might put a picture up of a car they strive for; I wear my mala to remind me to be "in the moment". Once they become ways to exclude others, well, then they have gone beyond the purpose. Once you start seeing the other person--Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Ba'hai, Shinto, whatever--as any different from you, that's when you need to stop and reconsider your beliefs.

    To quote President Dale, "Why can't we work out our differences? Why can't we work things out? Little people, why can't we all just get along?" (Mars Attacks, if you don't remember)

    OFFTOPIC: Now, if we could only apply the same test to our politicians. I prefer Harris' take on this...

    Imagine how our public would react to hearing that W., after serious reflection, prayer, and consultation with Thor and Odin, decided to bomb Iran. Prayer vigils in Atlanta. Riots in Berkeley. Every time you hear a someone thanking Jesus or God, replace it with Thor, Osiris, or some other not-presently-in-vogue religious figure. What's your reaction?

  •  
    4

    kkapoor@...

    10/05/07 | Report as spam

    RE: Transcend Your Office: When Work's a Religious Experience

    Religion is a personal issue and does not come into the office at all.
    Do you bring your family and issues to the office? No. Same hold true for religion. Working in India, have not seen many issues regarding religion cropping up and that is not say we don't have people from different religions in the workplace.

  •  
    5

    pdinfull1@...

    10/05/07 | Report as spam

    RE: Transcend Your Office: When Work's a Religious Experience

    Which would you rather have...

    ...an employee/employer that lives out his religious convictions of joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, selflessness, honesty, integrity, gentleness and fairness?

    or

    ...an employee/employer that lives out his religious convictions of dog-eat-dog, you owe me something, I am my own god, we're all here by chance and survival of the fittest?

    Religious beliefs should not interfere with the goals and objectives of the company, but it is foolish to believe that somehow they can be separated from the person. What???s really dangerous and disturbing is the ignorance and intolerance of some of these posts.

  •  
    6

    richard.gardner@...

    10/05/07 | Report as spam

    Not true

    You seem to be equating an ability to believe in something patently absurd with morality, which illustrates a rather blinkered view.

    Newsflash - just because I'm capable of rational decision making doesn't mean I'm morally and spiritually bankrupt, and if you think like that you're subscribing to the same religious exclusivity that is all over the old testament/koran/guide to violence and land grabbing/call it what you will.

    Some of us don't need sky pixies to tell us the difference between right and wrong, and I'd argue if you're incapable of doing so without subscribing to what is patently a load of old hogwash then you're probably a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.

  •  
    7

    pdinfull1@...

    10/05/07 | Report as spam

    Not True?

    Cute response...but it's nothing more than an ad hominem attack, and adds nothing to the discussion about the article. I simply posed a question which was not directed at anyone in particular.

  •  
    8

    richard.gardner@...

    10/05/07 | Report as spam

    Hmmmm

    Wheeling out the phrase "Ad Hominem" doesn't make your response any more valid, you know.

    My response was directed at this invalid logic :


    Quote
    "
    ...an employee/employer that lives out his religious convictions of joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, selflessness, honesty, integrity, gentleness and fairness?

    or

    ...an employee/employer that lives out his religious convictions of dog-eat-dog, you owe me something, I am my own god, we're all here by chance and survival of the fittest?"

    Which is disturbingly warped logic, and that's not Ad Hominem, that's just a fact. Have you actually read the old testament? Rather too much gang rape and genocide in it for my liking, I can't equate anyone who lives by "The Good Book" with any of the motives ascribed to your first description.

    As to your other point, no, this hasn't got too much to do with the article, apart from I find any kind of bible bashers incredibly weird and I'd never employ one, but it is a lot more fun.

  •  
    9

    Bubba Zanetti

    10/05/07 | Report as spam

    Back to the topic at hand

    Richard, I think some of the contect of your post is a perfect example of an ad hominan attack. Worse than that, you come across as rather arogant and rude.

    But more to the point of the discussion: You stated: "Some of us don't need sky pixies to tell us the difference between right and wrong, and I'd argue if you're incapable of doing so without subscribing to what is patently a load of old hogwash then you're probably a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic."

    Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist." Unless compelling reasons for God?s existence can be given, there is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael Scriven, considers the lack of evidence for God?s existence and the lack of evidence for Santa Claus (or your 'sky pixies') on the same level. However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below.

    First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God?s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true. The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All the proofs of God?s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."

    Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Most atheists, like you, are forced to fall back on ad hominan and shame based attacks because they lack a purely rational base for their own tenents. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner. The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God?s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist ? whether or not one has evidence against God?s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist?s denial of God?s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist?s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God?s existence.

    Third, in the absence of evidence for God?s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God?s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God?s existence.

    Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or sky pixies and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

    Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God. For example, one can argue that the contingency of the universe ? in light of Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will eventually die a heat death) ? demonstrates that the cosmos has not always been here. It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answers the question of the universe?s origin. Also, the fine-tunedness of the universe ? with complexly balanced conditions that seem tailored for life ? points to the existence of an intelligent Designer.

    The existence of objective morality provides further evidence for belief in God. If widow-burning or genocide is really wrong and not just cultural, then it is difficult to account for this universally binding morality, with its sense of "oughtness," on strictly naturalistic terms. (Most people can be convinced that the difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa is not simply cultural.) These and other reasons demonstrate that the believer is being quite rational ? not presumptuous ? in embracing belief in God.

  •  
    10

    Bubba Zanetti

    10/05/07 | Report as spam

    Back to the topic at hand

    Richard, I think some of the content of your posts are a perfect example of an ad hominan attack. Worse than that, you come across as rather arogant and rude.

    But more to the point of the discussion: You stated: "Some of us don't need sky pixies to tell us the difference between right and wrong, and I'd argue if you're incapable of doing so without subscribing to what is patently a load of old hogwash then you're probably a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic."

    Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist." Unless compelling reasons for God?s existence can be given, there is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael Scriven, considers the lack of evidence for God?s existence and the lack of evidence for Santa Claus (or your 'sky pixies') on the same level. However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below.

    First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God?s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true. The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All the proofs of God?s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."

    Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Most atheists, like you, are forced to fall back on ad hominan and shame based attacks because they lack a purely rational base for their own tenents. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner. The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God?s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist ? whether or not one has evidence against God?s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist?s denial of God?s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist?s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God?s existence.

    Third, in the absence of evidence for God?s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God?s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God?s existence.

    Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or sky pixies and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

    Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God. For example, one can argue that the contingency of the universe ? in light of Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will eventually die a heat death) ? demonstrates that the cosmos has not always been here. It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answers the question of the universe?s origin. Also, the fine-tunedness of the universe ? with complexly balanced conditions that seem tailored for life ? points to the existence of an intelligent Designer.

    The existence of objective morality provides further evidence for belief in God. If widow-burning or genocide is really wrong and not just cultural, then it is difficult to account for this universally binding morality, with its sense of "oughtness," on strictly naturalistic terms. (Most people can be convinced that the difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa is not simply cultural.) These and other reasons demonstrate that the believer is being quite rational ? not presumptuous ? in embracing belief in God.

  •  
    11

    Tcclr

    10/05/07 | Report as spam

    Balance

    I am not responding to offer an opinion, nor counter someone else?s. As there seems to be enough of that already going on. I work for a large corporation as a research chemist with various people working with me in a group I lead. One of these group members is a devout Muslim. One of the other members is a strong agnostic. I am also a Baptist minister for a small church in our community.

    Our differences are overcome by our human ability to allow others to have a different viewpoint. I think our strength in working together lie in these different viewpoints. We agree to disagree and do not allow anger to control us. Such as last month I sent an e-card to the Islamic believer for Ramadan.

    I have found a person?s religious beliefs allows them to have a balance in life. There are always going to be fanatics in every belief system, who tend to make all of the headlines, but for the most part a religious person is someone who thinks beyond themselves. They go beyond the ?how can this world serve me? attitude.

    As for the requirements set up by a person?s belief system, I have always found a way to allow the person?s beliefs and work to meld together. That is part of what makes life fun to live, the differences we have in how we live it.

  •  
    12

    Bubba Zanetti

    10/06/07 | Report as spam

    Middle of the road apporach?

    Note: I am not going to run this through Word to catch the spelling and grammer probs. Sorry. My last posts were full of 'errors'.... I wish there was an edit feature.

    Certainly, we all enjoy the fruits of a pluralistic culture. At the very least, good manners and consideration for the 'other', are needed to keep life from becoming (to quote Locke (I think?)) "nasty, brutish and short". Idealy, the supreme and universal ethic of 'love' is necessary for good faiths - from Muslim to New Age to Christian.

    Any world view that lacks this supreme ethic is, at best, obnoxious, or at worst, dangerous to anyone who disagrees or feels differently.

    Certainly, there are pleanty of loud mouth exclusivists out there to give their respective world view a self-inflicted black eye. Pride, ego, hubris, etc.... these are not exclusive Christian or Muslim or Athiest problems - they are human problems.

    None the less, each are exclusivistic claims as to the nature of reality. With love in our hearts and true concern for the other, answers ought to be given - espeically for those in leadership in their faiths - at the appropiate time. The work place can, I believe, provide a space for this.

    I am personally working with someone who rails against Christains, but when questioned, suddenly doesn't want to talk about it. I let it go, of course. Yesterday, after hearing him read a news story about clergy sexual abuse - and his generalizations about faiths - I teased him: "For someone who hates Christianity so much, you sure like to talk about it." He smiled and shyly agreed.

  •  
    13

    jwarrent@...

    10/05/07 | Report as spam

    Good Post

    Very well put. There are a lot of atheists out there who do fail to see their non belief in God is as much a faith as those who do believe in God.

    But one thing I'd like to point out is that, in defense of those who outright deny the existence or those that merely question the idea, if discussion and faith of most theists actually stopped at whether God created the universe or defined our humanity, I really doubt there would be much of a discussion at all. Instead, there appears to be a prerequisite for theist belief that requires a leap of faith if you will beyond what a lot of people really want to experience. Namely, control and a dampening of what I feel a big part of being human is, questioning everything. I would like to think common sense tells us that forcing others to change the way they work to accommodate your belief structure is where we should, as a society, draw the line.

    We are a software company with people from various backgrounds. One of our Muslim employees fasts all day for Ramadan and appears genuine, though contrary to popular belief not all genuine Muslims believe they need to face Mecca 5 times a day. Anyway, we allow him to leave an hour earlier because he works through lunch. Our environment is quite suited for this. However, if it were to hurt our work environment or cause other employees to suffer somehow, I believe a line must be drawn. In the States, there are lots of choices on where you can work, and I think common courtesy and self responsibility are extremely important to keep our society running smooth and preventing it from turning into a nightmare of rules and regulations. It should never hurt for an employee to ask, and if an employer has a legitimate reason, they should never be afraid to say sorry, no.

  •  
    14

    A.Lizard

    10/05/07 | Report as spam

    typo alert

    I presume you meant "cult response", not "cute response".

    The only difference between atheist fundamentalists and other kinds of fundamentalists is a lack of political power. One is as ready as the other to use law and government to impose their religious (including a belief in "NO GOD!!!") beliefs on the rest of us, and the same kind of faith in unprovable propositions is required to buy into either.

  •  
    15

    richard.gardner@...

    10/08/07 | Report as spam

    Hmmm

    Maybe in the States this is true, and I certainly find it extremely frightening that fundamentalists are such a huge part of the political landscape over there.

    In the UK it isn't really an issue. Personally, I believe Church and State should be completely seperate (as did Jefferson), and that's fine.

    There is a subtle difference between fundamentalist athiests and fundamentalist religionists, this is that athiests don't actually have a game plan or agenda, they'd just rather like all the loons to go away and stop foisting nonsense onto them. Sure, if you're religious, off you go to la la land, that's your choice, but don't bring it into work, don't let it affect the law and don't expect anyone to "respect" it any more than I'd expect you to "respect" my belief that the water cooler is a devine artifact that cannot be used between the hours of 11.00 and 3.00.

    You just have to look at all the women dying in Chile because they aren't allowed life saving abortions, or the 11 year old girl who was raped and is now forced to have a child to realise that winning elections by appealing to religious votes is really not a very christian thing to do.

  •  
    16

    slanfer

    10/05/07 | Report as spam

    RE: Transcend Your Office: When Work's a Religious Experience

    A complicated topic different folks go at different ways. Exploring different models for integrating faith and work was the subject of my MBA thesis at MIT.

    The Trinity Forum recently published a sythesis on their site: http://www.ttf.org/index/journal/detail/believing-at-work/

  •  
    17

    Bubba Zanetti

    10/05/07 | Report as spam

    Excellent article

    Thankyou.

  •  
    18

    richard.gardner@...

    10/08/07 | Report as spam

    Interesting

    Although I don't really understand entirely - there seems to be some confusion running through all these threads which seems to indicate it is not possible to do anything nice (give to the homeless, give up high paying jobs, do stuff for charity etc) except in the name of religion.

    Which doesn't quite square with my own experience. I know many many generous, kind hearted people who deal with all these kinds of issues without having to believe in a god of any description.

    I guess it's a question of morality, and I'm afraid I can't see a connection between morality and faith. People might call their morality faith, but actually in all these cases you cite people are making moral, not religious, judgements.

  •  
    19

    lduke@...

    10/08/07 | Report as spam

    Off Track

    If only you had a better grasp of Chistianity and Jefferson, you would have many things brought into focus. I don't mean to be harsh, I just see a lack of true understanding of Christian faith and beliefs and/or the constitution concerning "separation of church and state" I suggest two good resources that, if studied, would give you knowledge and wisdom. I hope you will do some serious study of these two excellent pieces, then you can speak with authority, not just opinion. Regards.

  •  
    20

    lduke@...

    10/08/07 | Report as spam

    Off Track

    If only you had a better grasp of Chistianity and Jefferson, you would have many things brought into focus. I don't mean to be harsh, I just see a lack of true understanding of Christian faith and beliefs and/or the constitution concerning "separation of church and state" I suggest two good resources that, if studied, would give you knowledge and wisdom. I hope you will do some serious study of these two excellent pieces, then you can speak with authority, not just opinion. Regards.

    Oops, the other source of information is The Bible.

  •  
    21

    richard.gardner@...

    10/10/07 | Report as spam

    Yeah

    I've read the Bible, in fact I attended a church school, I understand the Christian religion only too well I'm afraid. The old testament is just nasty and the New Testament appears to be mostly middle ages censorship propaganda.

    Your first source you don't actually quote, so I'll assume you mean Dawkins, and I couldn't agree more. We should all read the God Delusion and discuss.

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement