What if you were having trouble finishing a major project at work and your boss suggested you “come to Jesus” because it would help you deal with your challenge? And let’s say you were a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or an atheist, and you really didn’t want to come to Jesus?
In the workplace my friends, this is a big fat no no.
Legally you are not allowed to push your religion down anyone’s throat at work. You also can’t put down a colleague’s religious faith and you can’t hinder an individual’s right to practice their faith if it doesn’t impede day to day business.
Pretty simple, no?
Well, not quite.
Discrimination in the workplace is alive and well. Actually, it’s at record levels when it comes to religion and the disabled, according to a report on 2009 bias charges released yesterday by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And I recently wrote about how religious expression in the workplace is frowned upon.
Are you surprised? Probably not if you had the pleasure of hearing Fox News newsman Brit Hume’s comments recently to Tiger Woods.
Hume put down the golfer’s faith of Buddhism and suggested he turn to Christianity to help him deal with his philandering problem.
“I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith,” Hume said. “So my message to Tiger would be, “Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”
The fact that a journalist — and I use that term loosely as it pertains to Hume — would go on a national news show and put down another high-profile individual’s faith should tell all of us that religious bigotry, and bigotry as a whole, is a growing problem in this country.
The numbers released by the EEOC yesterday are disheartening.
Religious bias charges increased to 3,386 in 2009, the highest number in the last decade. And charges for disability discrimination jumped to a record 21,451 last year, up from 19,453 in 2008. National origin bias is also on the rise, with charges climbing to 11,134 in 2009.
I asked EEOC spokesman David Grinberg why he thought bias was on the rise.
“The increases in national origin and religion charges may be an outgrowth of the fact that the American workplace has become more ethnically, linguistically, and religiously diverse,” he said.
Clearly, people like Hume don’t seem to much like the diversity. And have you listened to the constant anti-diversity rhetoric oozing from a host of commentators since the Christmas Day attempted airplane bombing.
This from Retired Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney:
“If you are an 18-28-year-old Muslim man, then you should be strip searched. If we don’t do that, there’s a very high probability that we’re gonna lose an airliner.”
When I hear stuff like this, I’m not surprised there’s discrimination in the workplace. Isn’t the workplace just a reflection of the country as a whole? If it is, it’s looking like a pretty ugly mirror image right now.
UPDATE:
EEOC Spokesman Grinberg sent me some additional information on why national origin and religious discrimination may be up:
Except for the period following 9/11, during which there appeared to
have been a backlash against Muslims and ethnic minorities who were
considered to be from a Middle Eastern country, the reasons for the
increase in national origin and religion charges are unclear.Arguably, the increase is a natural outgrowth of the fact that the
American workplace has become more ethnically, linguistically, and
religiously diverse and, as documented by the Census bureau, immigrant
groups have settled in a greater variety of locations than in the past.
In addition, the increased diversity of religious practice coupled with
the move to a 24/7 economy has increased the likelihood that employers
must consider religious accommodation requests that are unfamiliar to
them and that work schedules conflict with religious practices.Another reason for the increase may be the Commission’s concerted
efforts to reach a more diverse spectrum of the workforce and ensure
that they are aware of their workplace rights. The Commission has, for
example, launched versions of its web site in Spanish, Arabic, Chinese,
Creole, Korean, Russian, and Vietnamese, in addition to English; it has
targeted outreach for groups that traditionally did not approach EEOC,
such as migrant farm workers; and it has created technical assistance
documents concerning issues unique to Muslims, Arabs, South Asians, and
Sikhs.
January 7th, 2010 at 11:38 am
I just want everyone to remember that not everyone who claims the name of Christ is actually a true follower of Christ. Like most other faiths that have long had influence on their lands, Christianity, for many, has been reduced to something equated to their broader definition of culture rather than being a personal transformation based on the belief of the divine revelation of God in the Christ. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian.
I believe people of faith do have the right to profess their beliefs to others, but this country extends that right to others of all faiths. Yet a right expression of faith should not be a condemnation of others simply because they believe differently, but an attempt to share and explain, when given an opportunity, those things of the faith which define it and extend the divine message of (in the example of Christianity) reconciliation to the listener.
Hume’s comments were out of line, especially in a public forum. Now, if Hume had a personal relationship with Woods, and had an opportunity to share with Woods how he (Hume) had found strength, comfort, and forgiveness in his faith, then it may have been an appropriate exchange. Proclaiming that someone needs your beliefs simply because you consider the other’s moral failings to be proof that your own beliefs are superior is simply throwing stones. Better, in the words of that wise Jewish carpenter, to [paraphrased] “take the log out of your own eye, before trying to knock the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
January 7th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Hume is a commentator (not a “journalist” per se) on TV, not Tiger Woods’ co-worker or boss.
The Hume video has nothing to do with discrimination in the workplace. And your labeling of Hume as a “bigot” is very troubling.
January 7th, 2010 at 11:55 am
And if religious diversity is really important, then people need to not fly off the handle when an evangelical actually expresses his faith instead of just keeping in safe inside his own head.
January 7th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
I do like the log line a lot HikingStick. Makes a lot of sense.
And Jon, you make an interesting point. Is it bigoted if you put down someone’s religion and extol the benefits of yours? In the workplace, the law seems to state that this is bias and is not allowed, especially if it rising to the level of harassment or proselytizing.
You are right, the Hume comments don’t directly relate to the workplace. I used the Hume video and the remark about strip-searching Muslims as examples of a journalist or commentator putting down someone’s religion. If so many feel so superior to others in such a public way then what hope does the workplace have?
January 7th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Eve/Jon: “Bigot” is perhaps an overused and misunderstood word. It’s always important to first assume positive intent, and remember that just because someone is “pro-something,” that s/he is not necessarily “anti” its opposite.
However, Brit Hume was way out of line. Yes, he’s officially a “commentator,” but he attained that position based on a career in journalism, and as such, people have a valid tendency to expect a degree of objectivity in his commentary. Hume didn’t stop at being “pro-Christian” - he crossed the line and was actively “anti-Buddhist.” Not only that, but he seems to have very limited knowledge of the philosophical underpinnings of Buddhism, which could have much to say to Tiger Woods’ current predicament.
To me, the really fascinating aspect of the whole Hume/Woods story is the way in which clearly dominant groups tend to be the first to feel “marginalized” or “oppressed.” I’m sorry, but American Christians who feel like they’re the victims of religious persecution really need to take a look around the world (or a peek inside the mosque next door) to understand what religious persecution really is. Actually, I’m not sorry.
The situation is the same when dealing with white people who feel “oppressed” by an African-American president and start making wild assumptions about Barack Obama’s “deep-seated hatred for white people and white culture” (a la Glenn Beck), or heterosexuals who feel “oppressed” when a gay character appears in their favorite television show. It’s something I’d love to see more research on.
Great post, Eve - thanks!
January 7th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Well, how are Hume’s comments a putdown? Sure, you could say he’s wrong on any number of points, but I don’t see why a seemingly honest disagreement must be considered harassment or bigotry.
I think the definition of “bigotry” has been unfairly inflated to mean that someone is a bigot if he says something religious that I disagree with.
If religious diversity is really increasing, the real solution is for everyone to be a little less touchy and thin-skinned when someone disagrees, don’t you think?
January 7th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
There will always be some who will speak their piece no matter where they are. Most people with whom I’ve worked have kept things professional at work. Remember, though,if people who work together discuss any aspects of their lives with their peers (e.g., family, recreation, habits), their personal beliefs will undoubtedly come up from time to time.
I’ve had some great discussions with coworkers in various workplaces. I’ve even shared my faith in the workplace (on personal time–breaks/lunch), with the hope that my friends would consider it. When some made it clear that they didn’t want the discussion to take that turn, I’d let it go. More often than not, those topics came up because the other party had questions for me, about what I believed. If they ask, I will answer. If I probe and they respond positively, I’ll continue. If they make it clear they have no interest, I’ll find a neutral topic and keep on being a friend with the hope that, someday, they might be intrigued enough to ask.
January 7th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Again I go back to the labor laws Jon. The law does not say you need to have thick skin when managers or colleagues in the workplace harass or treat you differently because of your faith. It says that’s a legal no no.
Clearly, Brit Hume can say what ever he wants to Tiger. He’s not Tiger’s colleague or boss.
But I do think Hume’s comments were indeed intended to be a put down. He put down the Buddhist faith by saying: “I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.”
That’s the kind of stuff some Muslims told my Greek Orthodox parents when they lived in Turkey. Do you think my parents should have gotten a thicker skin? Maybe. Maybe I need one to I suppose. But you know what, my parents always respected people of all faiths even though they weren’t always given the same respect. Maybe that’s what having a thick skin is all about in the end.
January 7th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Eve, I am so glad you tackled this issue. I was truly upset when I learned about Brit Hume’s comments, and am particularly saddened by the lack of outrage that should have greeted them.
January 8th, 2010 at 7:04 am
Brit and other Christians who display an overly-eager (Pushy) motivation for converting others are simply following the Evangelical model that in my opinion is no longer applicable or relevant to today’s workplace. Christians must respect and honor all faiths and non-faiths. If Christians want to make an impact in the workplace, they should be attracting others to their leadership and management style, not repelling and alienating them. I wrote a post on this earlier this week, “Five Problems that are Killing the Faith-in-the-Workplace Movement” http://shrinkingthecamel.com/2010/01/04/five-problems-that-are-killing-the-faith-in-the-workplace-movement/
Eve - I appreciate your reporting on this subject. .
January 8th, 2010 at 7:48 am
Eve: I agree about the labor laws, when a manager/boss has an unfair advantage over an employee.
But I must continue to defend Brit Hume’s comments as an essential part of religious freedom. What I don’t understand is this new rule that you cite that says publicly disagreeing with someone’s else faith is somehow evil. Christopher Hitchens says my faith is a “wicked cult.” Is he “pushing his religion down my throat”? Is he a “bigot”? No, but he strongly disagrees with me and, as is proper, can say so out loud, in public.
I agree with Michael Gerson in this WP op-ed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/07/AR2010010703244.html
January 8th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Iwas not sure if I wanted to remain on your mailing list until now. Your comments on Hume are not justified. We are urged to accept Jihad as a religious belief and smack ourselves on the wrist for profiling but, the mere mention of Jesus Christ is huge liberal media no-no. Please remove me from your mailing immediately.
January 8th, 2010 at 11:01 am
I have removed you from the list snowbird.
I am sorry to lose you as a reader.
I am also sorry you may have misinterpreted this post. I did not take issue with the mere mention of Jesus Christ. It was Hume’s decision to disparage another individual’s faith that was the main issue.
We need discussions like this, including your insights, to help us come to some understanding of how we can all live together peacefully.
I hope you’ll reconsider some day.
Good luck.
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Christians are commissioned by God to share the gospel–which means “good news.” Brit Humes had a lot of moral courage in what he said to a man who has been openly castigated, humiliated and “put down” by society.
The great Tiger Woods has fallen from grace. This is usually when people “look up.” Brit merely pointed him towards the truth as he knows it.
As you may know, Tiger Woods was raised “Christian” on the part of his father. He was considering embracing that faith, but his mother was against it and insisted on his following her faith.
Also, I have never, nor has anyone tried to push their religion “down” my throat at work.