On the nature of workplace harassment

[jyb]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Can you really be this retarded?

Why yes, evidently I am exactly "this" retarded.

Gee Bob, you really go to considerable lengths to avoid answering questions that make you uncomfortable, don't you? (I'm referring to the yarmulke question here.) Don't worry, I won't bother asking again, because I'm sure you'll just avoid it again.

But let me just connect these dots, and we'll let the forum decide on just how retarded "this" is:

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

However, accusing me of harrassment and bigotry for suggesting that
religion belonged in church (i.e. my pushing back at the religious essay)
is clearly crazy.

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Harassment, like beauty is in the mind of the beholder....
What is fine to one person is harassment to another...

Uh-oh, looks like P ^ ¬P to me.

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

However, it is 100% clear that ASKING SOMEONE TO STOP an action
that can be harassing is in itself not harassment and can not be
interpreted as harassment. Nor is suggesting that religion belongs
in church rather than the workplace a form of bigotry. But accusing
someone of bigotry is harassment.

Really? Is that 100% clear because you can point to a relevant statute or precedential case law on the matter? Or is it 100% clear just because you say so?

Personally I don't think that (nicely) asking someone to take down a religious essay constitutes harassment. But then, it's not clear from your account that you actually did that. Saying "religion belongs in church, not in the workplace" is not asking anything, it's playing the authority, which is very different. Of course you might have had an actual request in your note which you didn't tell us about, rather than just a directive.

But in any case, I don't see how you can say that harassment is in the eye of the beholder in the same breath as saying that this guy has no right to accuse you of harassment.

[jyb]

Originally Posted by jasong

If it talked about Islam instead of Jesus, would you still be this stressed out about it?

Where did you get the idea that the essay talked about Jesus? Bob never said that. Stop making unwarranted assumptions.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by jyb

Where did you get the idea that the essay talked about Jesus? Bob never said that. Stop making unwarranted assumptions.

If it was only talking about Christianity, Bob could safely ignore it, since it wasn't aimed at him. Claiming to be a Christian witness without claiming Jesus is the religion of a either a madman, a liar or an idiot. And even if it wasn't outright claimed in the essay, a lot of the essay might not hold up without the assumption of Jesus being Lord. It's not a blind assumption on my part, just the knowledge that it's damn hard to be a Christian witness without at least vicariously acknowledging Jesus.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by jyb

Why yes, evidently I am exactly "this" retarded.


But in any case, I don't see how you can say that harassment is in the eye of the beholder in the same breath as saying that this guy has no right to accuse you of harassment.

Proving that you are retarded.

The actions that CAN constitute harassment are well defined.
My action was NOT one of them.

OTOH, whether an action that CAN be harassment actually IS
harassment depends on the beholder, as I said.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by jyb

Saying "religion belongs in church, not in the workplace" is not asking anything, it's playing the authority, which is very different. .

No. It is a subtle hint to anyone with two working brain cells that
they have crossed the line.

Saying that religion does not belong in the workplace is not playing
the authority. It is QUOTING the authority, which is of course, the
rules defining workplace harassment.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

It is QUOTING the authority, which is of course, the
rules defining workplace harassment.

I trust you mean paraphrasing? Or rather, giving a presumptive paraphrase?

[jasong]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

No. It is a subtle hint to anyone with two working brain cells that
they have crossed the line.

Saying that religion does not belong in the workplace is not playing
the authority. It is QUOTING the authority, which is of course, the
rules defining workplace harassment.

Not to be an ass("But you're so good at it." *BLUSH*) But if you look up the word religion, I'm pretty sure atheism fits in with at least one of the definitions.

Relevant quote:

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...

Rest of the quote

, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

You have a set of beliefs different from mine which you allow to control your behavior and shape your moral views. If your co-worker agrees to stop talking about Christianity, would you agree to stop talking about your belief that we're all just hairless apes?

[jyb]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Proving that you are retarded.

Hmm, your "proof" seems to be missing a few steps. That's quite disappointing, as I believe your mathematical proofs tend to show a little more rigor.

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

The actions that CAN constitute harassment are well defined.
My action was NOT one of them.

OTOH, whether an action that CAN be harassment actually IS
harassment depends on the beholder, as I said.

Oh Bob, you are funny. I would ask that you provide some sort of evidence of the well-definedness of such actions (e.g. a statute or case law that actually gives a concrete list), but I find that I have lost my appetite for continuing a conversation where you simply ignore all requests for concreteness. Really, what is it about this exchange that has you so threatened that you've turned what could have been an interesting discussion into an argument, even though we agree on almost everything of substance?

I will leave you to your 100% clarity. Good luck with your workplace issue. Uh, peace out yo. Or something.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by jyb

Hmm, your "proof" seems to be missing a few steps. That's quite disappointing, as I believe your mathematical proofs tend to show a little more rigor.




Oh Bob, you are funny. I would ask that you provide some sort of evidence of the well-definedness of such actions (e.g. a statute or case law that actually gives a concrete list), but I find that I have lost my appetite for continuing a conversation where you simply ignore all requests for concreteness. Really, what is it about this exchange that has you so threatened that you've turned what could have been an interesting discussion into an argument, even though we agree on almost everything of substance?

I will leave you to your 100% clarity. Good luck with your workplace issue. Uh, peace out yo. Or something.

As I said before (but you are obviously too stupid to listen), a quick
google search turns up MANY references.

[BotXXX]

Originally Posted by xilman

Fair enough.

These days I'm a Pastafarian and that will be my answer to the (IMO impertinent) question on the up-coming UK census. At the previous census ten years ago I registered myself as a Jedi. I have since then been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Offtopic, but yes here we have a census comming up as well. Not participating /refusing to participate could end up with 2 years in jail. But just as you I am a "loose" Pastafarian. Just funny that this religion is quite known as a side track.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

As I said before (but you are obviously too stupid to listen), a quick
google search turns up MANY references.

That is a non-answer. What are the laws you are referring to in your jurisdiction? Are you referring to an HR policy?

BTW, your saying that people should not be allowed to pray (quietly) in public or in their private office at work is against most policies that I am aware of. Catholics are allowed to cross themselves when they pray for their lunch. Muslims are given leave to use prayer rugs. Having hands clasped or palms together is also permitted.

Sikh's are allowed to wear their turbans by both the UK and US governments instead of most official headgear. So, I think that you lose on the point about head wear. And expect France, most western countries allow head scarves for Muslim women. For Muslim, orthodox Jews, and Sikh men beards are part of their religion (not culture, religion), would you require them to shave? The ancient Egyptians shaved for religious reasons, would you require them to wear a beard and long hair? And would you require the Sikh men to cut their hair?

Many people have names that are religious in nature, would you ban those in your work place? Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Abraham Lincoln, Queen Elizabeth, Mohamed Ali, among others; all have names that are religious. Would you bane them?

Would you ban people for wearing religious garb that is not visible?

Can they have a copy of their religious text in their own office? Can it be open? Does this apply to digital versions (would they have to erase their texts before walking in?)

If you were so offended, you should have personally told the person or reported the action to your supervisor, HR person, or the designated person; that is what we are taught in harassment awareness training.