Uniting and dividing at the same time

While I was standing on the street pondering this column the other day, a strange thing happened. Well, I wasn’t only pondering the column. I was watching a parade. Parade-watching, however, is a low-bandwidth activity and I find I can combine it with any number of mental exercises, including thinking about the column.

Anyway, while I was standing there watching the floats go by, a strange figure scurried through the crowd and pressed a leaflet into my hand. I looked at the crude leaflet only to find out that I was “going to hell.” Now, that’s disconcerting news to get on a bright Sunday morning while in an otherwise festive mood, so I was relieved to see that others around me had gotten the same leaflet. At least I wouldn’t be alone on the hell-bound bus.

Produced by a somewhat fringe religious group, the leaflet promised me that if I joined their church and adopted their beliefs, I could escape my fate. I, on the other hand, prefer to cast my lot in with people who can do better than scaring parade-goers with stick figures to represent the hereafter.

I don’t recommend stick figure leaflets as an office tactic for spreading your beliefs and probably indicated as much last week when I came out against overt proselytizing at work. However, there are things besides proselytizing that can lead us astray when confronting the issue of how to deal with religion in the workplace.

Many readers seem to agree with me in general, although one reader was concerned that he suspected I was “rehashing” a similar column written by my colleague and fellow columnist Bob Lewis who tackled the same subject about two years ago (see “In the workplace it’s best to let respect — not your beliefs — be your guide,”

) . Bob and I agree on many things and that we should reach the same conclusions on this is hardly surprising. But since we come from different backgrounds and use different approaches, I hope we can each bring a different and valuable perspective.

I think that most people would agree that for a boss to openly proselytize could create the impression that some pressure was being brought — even if it weren’t — to follow the boss’ path or risk your career. This is something managers always have to guard against, whether it’s religion, joining the bowling team, attending the holiday party, or donating to a favorite charity. Bosses present a much more formidable presence than many of them realize and need to be aware of the effects that their words and actions can have.

I also think that management-sponsored prayer in the office is definitely on the “no” list, unless the organization you work for is a religious one. In secular establishments, management should not be organizing prayer meetings. This presents an uncomfortable milieu for those who may not care to join, but who are afraid to refuse.

People who have a religious obligation to pray at certain times should find, or be provided, a comfortable place to do so without turning it into a public display. Like breast feeding, people shouldn’t have to do it in bathrooms or dusty storerooms and certainly not at the staff meeting. On one hand, there’s nothing to be ashamed of. On the other hand, it’s not a spectator sport. It should be something between you and whomever you pray to. Those whose religious beliefs don’t impose an actual time schedule should do it on their own time.

As far as casual discussion about religions, I don’t see a problem. I shared a two-person office for a while with a woman who was an Orthodox Jew. We had many wonderful conversations about both Judaism and Christianity. Both of us were enlarging our understanding of the world and learning something about other people. Neither was trying to convert the other. It was a growing experience.

As long as things stay on that level, I don’t see a problem — assuming it doesn’t interfere with work responsibilities. If someone is attracted to someone else’s faith and seeks further information, then that is something best done off-site.

Discussing church-related social activity seems to be innocuous enough, as long as it doesn’t create an exclusionary climate. People who discuss these sorts of things should realize that other people may feel just as strongly as they about their own interests. At the social level, however, church activities are no different than any other area of interest, whether it’s sports, fashions, or entertainment. People with similar interests tend to stick together and conduct discussions that others find uninteresting.

One point on which I am adamant is that it’s a mistake to assume that religious affiliation, church attendance, and claims of religious belief are predictors of any type of character traits or behavior. There are just as many scoundrels “polishing the pews” with their derrieres as not. Many people join churches for the same reason they join country clubs: networking, socializing, and business advancement. And many non-religious individuals have the highest ethical standards.

I’m also opposed to taking advantage of a captive audience or what I call an “accidental platform.” Several years ago, I was flying into Washington, and as we made our final approach into National Airport, the pilot came on the PA and began making political comments about the administration. I was offended, not so much because he held views with which I disagreed, but because he took advantage of the fact that we had no choice but to listen to him — and we had no opportunity to disagree. Too many people take the same tack with religion.

The “accidental platform” is when someone is given an opportunity to be in the limelight and uses the occasion for a religious message. We see this often in sporting events, where players conduct veritable religious rituals every time they make a touchdown or hit a home run. My feeling is that if a player has something to say to the Almighty about his performance — or vice versa — it should be a private matter. The same goes for rock stars who feel the need to commandeer the microphone at the Grammy Awards to push their version of religion at us. And certainly, your five seconds in the sun for getting “employee of the week” isn’t an invitation for a sermon.

Both of these practices have an element of opportunism, if not coercion. My objection to them also extends to prayers at secular events, including sporting events, public school activities, and community gatherings. To say that those who don’t want to join in the prayer can just sit there and ignore it completely misses the point of what’s wrong with it.

As far as religious garb, I think workplaces should be fairly agnostic (pun intended). If an item of clothing or a manner of dress is required by someone’s religion, the workplace should accommodate that, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the operation. However, those whose beliefs require such dress need to be flexible too. It’s the price of having a belief system that puts you out of the mainstream. If the company requires a uniform, and you know that going in, I don’t think there’s much argument later that the company, in requiring the uniform, violates your beliefs.

One problem is that someone may have some religious beliefs that are so far outside the mainstream that companies find them hard to accommodate. Believe it or not, there is a Church of Body Modification, whose members believe they demonstrate spiritual beliefs through tattoos, piercings, and other forms of body modification. This raises the question of whether workplaces can allow one form of religious garb, such as a yarmulke, and ban another, such as a nose ring. A Massachusetts court is considering just this case, as I write this.

The bottom line, as far as I’m concerned, consists of reasonableness, respect, and consideration for others on the part of all parties — with a little dash of humility. After all, you could be wrong. It’s easy to cross from expressing your religious beliefs to stirring up trouble. Only you, in your heart of hearts, know which you’re doing.

Source: www.infoworld.com