#2 and #3 in a Religiously Pessimistic Trilogy

GRAPHIC SOURCE: http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2011/06/02/bus-company-baloney

The two topics I'm highlighting in this blog post are a follow up to #1 in a Religiously Pessimistic Trilogy, where I reveal my point of view as a person who feels no connection to dogmatic religions and identifies as agnostic or irreligious, though I dislike such labels.

I apologize for the length of this post. Ideally I would have posted this as two separate blog entries, but given the fact that this is the last week of class, I'm taking advantage of having a little built-in audience to "listen" to me ramble on for a bit.

---

#2

Squelching the free speech rights of atheists isn't legal even though it may be socially acceptable because the irreligious are hell-bound anyhow

(AKA Arkansas bus company being sued by atheist group for First Amendment discrimination)

• Arkansas Atheists Sue Over Controversial Bus Ads - Suzi Parker, HuffingtonPost.com - 6/10/11
• Atheist Group Sues Arkansas Bus Company for Discrimination - Jeremy Byellin, WestlawInsider - 6/7/11
• Bus company baloney - Max Brantley, ArkTimes.com/Arkansas Blog - 6/2/11

I remember as a 14-year-old girl traveling to Florida for a summer family vacation seeing my first Christian billboard somewhere in Alabama. Having grown up in a loosely agnostic-ish household with irregular church attendance throughout my entire life, I was so moved in a negative way by the message behind the words (something to the effect that Jesus saves, and if you don't get on board, you are going to rot in hell). As someone that might be the intended audience (unless the group that paid for the advertisement was only looking to "preach to the choir"), I was certainly not inspired to attend church or seek salvation. This heavy-handed approach turned me off.

Since then, I've seen lots of billboards, bus advertisements, and the like that have been promoted by Christian groups.

The first story I'm touching on this week relates to the Central Arkansas Transit Authority (bus line) that has advertised Christian messages in the past but has recently chosen to deny the Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason's request to utilize the buses for a public awareness campaign that asserts "people can be good without believing in a god," a message aimed at "Atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, humanists, skeptics, non-religious, lost tourists, and the confused..."

The proposed bus ads (which would cost $5000) would read, "Are you good without God? Millions Are."

The Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason alleges in a recent lawsuit against the bus company that it was advised by the Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) that its advertising firm, On The Move Advertising, requested the Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason to pay a fee amounting to $36,000 in insurance just in case some angry Christians decide to vandalize the the buses featuring this ad (which apparently did occur with similar bus ads in other states).

This additional fee has not been required of any other group, including churches.

The Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason's complaint in this lawsuit alleges that CATA refused to lease advertising space to the Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason "on the same terms available to other advertisers in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Interestingly, Jeremy Byellin's Westlaw Insider article points out that the CATA "may have been able to make these steps appear reasonable had it not been for a series of email communications that demonstrate content-based opposition to the ads, rather than from public backlash."



Dangerous Questions?
What would you think if you saw a bus with an ad like, "Are you good without God? Millions Are"?

---

#3

My boyfriend's really cruddy day at work

(AKA the First Amendment also protects agnostics' and atheists' right to not endure workplace religious expression without being punished for holding an unpopular view)

• Religious Discrimination: The Devout, Atheists & Agnostics All Have Rights - Loring N. Spolter, Broward County Bar Association - 11/03/09
• SECTION 12: RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION - EEOC Compliance Manual - 7/22/08
• Religious liberty in public life: Workplace religious liberty - David L. Hudson, Jr., First Amendment Center - 9/16/02

Did you know?

• A 2004 Mother Jones survey found that 52% of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist as president
• A 2007 Gallup poll found that 53% of respondents claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist as president
• A 2006 University of Minnesota study showed atheists to be the most distrusted minority among Americans
  

Regarding the University of Minnesota study:

...sociologists Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann conducted a survey of American public opinion on attitudes towards different groups. 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society", putting atheists well ahead of every other group, with the next highest being Muslims (26%) and homosexuals (23%). When participants were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group," atheists again led minorities, with 48% disapproval, followed by Muslims (34%) and African-Americans (27%).... Joe Foley, co-chairman for Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, commented on the results, "I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate."...Nevertheless, atheists are legally protected from discrimination in the United States."

-- Wikipedia, "Freedom of religion in the United States: Situation of Atheists", my emphasis

I support everyone's right to religious expression--including the non-believers' rights to their own expression of beliefs without having to fear social ostracism by neighbors, friends, co-workers, employers, etc., who equate non-believers as being immoral and unethical, and worthy only as objects of potential-conversion, pity, ridicule, or scorn--especially coming from individuals who are more fundamentalist, evangelical, or newly saved.

I understand the issue of those who wish to integrate their religious beliefs within the context of the workplace, without fear of discrimination. As summarized on Findlaw.com, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

... prohibits private employers from discriminating on several bases, including race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Various state laws also prevent discrimination. The courts have recognized various forms of prohibited discrimination, including disparate treatment, disparate impact, and a hostile environment.

A private employer has a duty to accommodate religious beliefs of employees, if the accommodations are reasonable and not too burdensome on the employer. Some employers continue to make mistakes when it comes to appropriately accommodating employees' right to religious expression. Some employers choose to allow employees to hold group prayer, bible study groups, display religious icons, etc.

Some employers directly promote religious expression, such as broadcasting prayer over the intercom or having supervisors or bosses directly lead prayer/bible study groups.

For employees that are irreligious, sometimes religious expression of co-workers can become troublesome when it crosses a line from merely making you uncomfortable to hurting or impacting you in a negative way. Of course, different people have different thresholds on this "line" that can be crossed.

For some irreligious people, issues can arise from simple exchanges like having an openly- Christian co-worker ask you what church you go to. One could reasonably interpret that this co-worker is trying to size you up somehow by finding out about your religious beliefs. If you tell the co-worker that you don't go to church and that you identify as agnostic or atheist, you risk being negatively judged, negatively treated, and having to endure future proselytization efforts by your co-worker. While your co-worker simply be making small talk, there is a subtle presumption being communicated that the expectation is that you are a fellow-Christian.

If a co-worker or supervisor insists on pressing the issue once you declare your discomfort, you have the right to formally complain to your employer, at which point the employer becomes vulnerable to a Title VII/First Amendment lawsuit if the employer fails to stand up for your right to "irreligious expression".

My "agnostic" boyfriend, Chris' co-worker, "Paul", who would catch rides with Chris to the bus-stop after work and during which he repeatedly talked about his conversion and God's mission for him. Chris would simply not reply or reply in a non-committal fashion if "Paul" seemed to be asking for a response, but he felt very uncomfortable and sometimes agitated by some of "Paul's" comments, such as when he told Chris that he could not wait to get his own car so that he could give rides home to people and preach the Lord's word to them. After weeks of these kinds of "discussions", Chris finally told his co-worker that he did not want to talk about religion with him, after which time the discussions pretty much ceased.

About a month ago, Chris had a very different experience at work when his employer held a presumably required meeting where a guest organization was presenting a "thank you" plaque to Chris' employer for his employer having donated money to them.

One presenter for the guest organization spoke about how the contribution positively affected her life, invoking a religious tone for several minutes and eliciting affirmative responses from some of the attending employees ("amen", etc.). I don't know whether the employer expected this type of presentation style, but the result for Chris was that he become very uncomfortable about the overall energy the room took on for a while. As this was the "tip of the iceberg" on an already bad day, he ended up going asking to go home early that day for unspecified reasons.

If this kind of meeting (or a similar scenario) should happen again, he and I looked into his options, and we felt like talking to one of his direct supervisors about his discomfort and asking to be excused from the meeting without question (a simple accommodation) was the best option we could come up with. He documented a few notes about the occurrence, including about having spoken to a supervisor and a human resources representative about this discomfort (who incidentally granted him the freedom to express his discomfort by quietly and discreetly leaving a meeting and returning to work).

If he feels he is discriminated against by his employer in the future, now that his religious stance has been communicated to and documented by his employer, he has documentation for a potential lawsuit under Title VII and the First Amendment. Chris does not intend to pursue any such lawsuit, but at least he knows he has the right to expect that he will not be discriminated against for his own "irreligious expression," and that his employer has been "put on notice" of its responsibility for protecting his rights.




Dangerous Questions?
If you are "believer," have you ever considered that there may be a certain line that could be crossed in the context of the workplace when it comes to talking about religion to someone that has expressed a discomfort about the subject?

Have you ever considered the rights of people to express religious non-belief without fear of being discriminated against/being treated in a way that negatively affects them?

If you are more inclined toward identifying as irreligious, have you ever felt uncomfortable or discriminated against (in the workplace or otherwise)? How so?

Posted in: intellectual freedom