Dear Alma, I’m having to work with Bible bashers
NewsFrom our agony aunt’s maailbag:
Dear Alma,
I work in the music industry, in a medium-sized non-profit. We have quite a bit of shared office space, and so it is difficult to keep a distance from my colleagues. There is a group that has put together a bible study during our lunch hour. Originally they met in our shared space, but now – I assume because of complaints – they have their meetings at a coffee shop.
My problem is that I am offended by this, by their bible chatter, the notices they put up, and the invitations (which I decline). They say things like “God Bless You, and Amen” regularly, and I am starting to get short tempered.
Alma – what should I do?
Not Interested
Dear Not Interested,
Yes. I hear you. It’s often hard to realize that things I say to others might annoy or offend them – for example things I don’t consider to be curse words that they sincerely feel are wrong. And on the contrary, having someone say “Bless You” when I sneeze – that irks me ferociously. I didn’t ask to be blessed.
Religious freedom in the workplace is a protected right. It may feel oppressive or intrusive to you, especially since I assume you don’t share the same beliefs, but it is legal, as long as it is not affecting your ability to work effectively. It is good that they have moved their meetings off the premises, and that it is not during work hours. That being said, I do think it is important to talk to your superiors about the situation to try to find a mutually comfortable work environment.
During my career, I consistently have to politely converse with people for whom I have a deep dislike. We are, however, in a hospitality industry, and grinning and bearing it is bread and butter for the classical musician (up to a certain point, of course). I once was in a work group with a person who would dribble racist remarks into their conversations. I would do my best to politely but firmly disagree, but eventually I realized that I just needed to stay as far away from that person as possible outside of direct work situations. They weren’t going anywhere, and neither was I. It certainly didn’t feel good, or right, or noble, but I had a job to do and I was there to do it, no ifs ands or buts about it.
Not Interested, keep your distance, voice your concerns to your higher ups, and keep your nose to the grindstone. No workplace is perfect for everyone, and respecting each others’ differences is fundamental to a healthy organization. Hopefully with some clear words, the situation can change enough for you to feel comfortable once again.
Questions for Alma? Please put them in the comments section or send to DearAlmaQuery@gmail.com
Freedom of religion must by definition also mean freedom FROM religion, right? That is a freedom that doesn’t seem to be afforded much protection in this nation – and it is easily argued that the First Ammendment is really more about exactly that.
Dear Alma,
I, for one, am offended by the picture enclosed. You are bashing the Bible.
It is written:
PROVERBS 9:12
“If thou be wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself: but if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it.”
Conclusion: your platform, you keep it.
Bye.
I agree. Also I think there should be freedom from speech! And it can even be combined, isn’t there something in the Old Testament about speaking is silver but being silent is gold? And is not one of the ten commandments something like thou shalst not speak? I think in music life there is much too much speaking all around, for sure.
Sally
That is one of the most gratuitously offensive pictures I have seen in a very long time.
Shame on you.
At least it won’t get him killed, and that’s a credit to Christianity.
And I’m not a Christian.
Perhaps not. But in a site that is generally very openly sympathetic to one faith group, it is repugnant that something so offensive to another is considered acceptable. I have rarely been so disgusted, or disappointed.
Agreed.
I am happy to leave this site.
If this is the most gratuitously offensive picture you’ve seen in a while, then you’re living a very fortunate but impoverished sheltered life.
I don’t think you are considering the meaning of “gratuitous.” This is a classical music site, not a place where one expects to see a major faith, one that has survived two millennia and given succour to billions, so vulgarly mocked.
Can you imagine offering such vulgarity and offensiveness to either of the other Abrahamic faiths, or any other for that matter?
Yes, precisely since a site like this takes no stance on any particular religion, it’s a place where we can expect anything to be said about any religion. That is the basic idea of secularism, where the right to blasphemy exists. Now had this been done in a church, then yes, it’s understandable to be offended. I hope this clarification helps.
Either you are new or you are singularly unobservant. Only last week there were instances of musical offerings relative to Yom Kippur, and it is hardly the first time.
And why not; the site-owner has written — eloquently — on the subject of his people over the years, and most of us saw the film based upon his novel that centred on a young man changing his whole life based upon his feelings on his — their — religion. It is disingenuous in the extreme to think the site does not “take a stance” on a “particular religion.” Posts in response to articles or other posts are routinely not moderated during the Sabbath.
While, to its credit, the site permits vigorous discussion on activities, including recent ones, by the government of Israel, I do not think tolerance would extend — nor should it — to ad hominem attacks, or any cartoon attacks, based upon the religion of that country’s citizens.
Which is why some of us found his willingness to allow the sneering, appalling illustration that dismissed the faith of others as a circus act so revolting. It’s not the blasphemy, of which no word has been uttered. It’s the abject contempt for the beliefs of others — and the site-owner can be in no doubt that his readership includes adherents.
The site, which claims to be moderated, forbids abuse, defamation and personal attacks. I’m not sure what that illustration thought it was, but clearly many found it abusive, defamatory and very much a personal attack. I doubt I am alone in being relieved that the site-owner had second thoughts.
I’m on the side of JS Bach when it comes to these matters. In fact, I’d never be hypocritical enough to say I loved Bach but hated religion.
We cannot even entirely exclude the possibility that JS Bach hated religion as well, since he obviously was a very spiritual person. After all, he composed the music and not the words.
Norman, in your headline I think you meant to say “Bible thumper”, that vivid term for a fervent evangelical. A “basher” is a fierce critic or opponent of a phenomenon or person or group. I did google to see if “basher” in the sense that you used it is a feature of British English but I didn’t find anything.
‘Bible basher’ is certainly something that is used in British English for an enthusiastic Christian proselytiser. Offhand, can’t think off another example of “basher” being used in this way, though. I imagine the alliteration made it catch on.
Hi Baffled,
Bible basher is common English for a evangelists.
Yes it appears to contradict the usual meaning of basher but that sort of anomaly is not untypical in English!
Thank you, Mike Aldren and Mark, for the information about this colo[u]rful phrase in the divided English tongue!
To ‘Not Interested’:
It looks like you’re jealous of the group’s togetherness, their camaraderie, coziness, faith, you can name it, you know youfeel empty inside when comparing to them, they’re building their way to heaven and you have no way to anything but yourself.
Seriously, you have the option to repent of your sins and join in, or at least give the group a try. You also have the option of not caring, of not participating, in which case you shall leave them alone and happy. Your thoughts of preventing them from meeting are repugnant.
God bless you,
Pff
You are the kind that make Christians look bad. You demonstrate complete lack of reading comprehension skills. Where in this post, did this person say that they wanted to prevent them from meeting? I understand that logic may not be your strong suit, but try harder.
“It looks like you’re jealous of the group’s togetherness, their camaraderie, coziness, faith, you can name it, you know youfeel empty inside when comparing to them, they’re building their way to heaven and you have no way to anything but yourself.”
It always amazes me, how many skilled psychoanalysts give their services to comment boards; how many have the deep capacity to make subtle and nuanced diagnoses on the basis of a word or two in someone else’s post.
When I walked into my therapist’s consultation room he knew immediately what was wrong with me, and I was startled by all the correct conclusions he could draw in a very short period of time so I thought he is brilliant! Only later I found-out he had been warned beforehand by my employer. Still it did me a lot of good.
Sally
Your comment that “you have no way to anything but yourself” is absolutely apposite. It’s a generational problem.
As to the rest of your comments; you have your freedom of expression.
Great picture! I have one of the Torah floating in a toilet bowl. Will you ruin that?
Norman, are you trying to offend with your choice of image to go with this article? It really is highly offensive. Please choose something else.
Lots of posters have said they regard the original illustration as grossly offensive, but no-one has attempted to say *what* about it is grossly offensive. My own response was to see it as illustrative of some theological line, perhaps to the effect that the wisdom of the Lord is to the worldly merely the pratings of a holy fool…
I also have to politely converse with people for whom I have deep dislike, people who comment on my work and force me to pay attention to speling. But thank God, religious remarks are not part of my burden! I would advice this person to show-up now and then in a burka, not to get religious, but to make a point. Sometimes when I have to attend a concert I go in a burka to silence possible remarks people may have about my haircut and it really helps. I got mine from Abaya’s in London and it always fits!
https://theabayacompany.london/?srsltid=AfmBOop2cUwRPb1jODsSLIamJ_tuH3VjgHR3UW2vl0AyGEnYgQBgLg-v
Sally
I can’t tell if this is a serious suggestion or an ironic comment!
As Woody Allen once said, “Americans don’t get irony”.
Billy: ‘I kind of understand what you mean, Sally. Using a burka can be motivated in certain cases. I saw several such cases in my latest vacation in a Naturism camp. Individuals of both sexes should consider using a burka then and then.’
What should you do? Brush off the snowflakes and the intolerance.
Please send Not Interested to the Fundamentalist Fashion Show. That will be great for seeing just how out of fashion Christianity is these day!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmd48kLanao
Looks like NL caved to criticism and changed the image. Too bad. It’s a perfect representation of American society.
I had a situation in another job where Christian gospel music was played in the customer service area of a government agency and a worker who kept Christian literature on her desk of this government agency for the clients to take.
This was a government agency for child support enforcement where about a third of our clients had children out of wedlock One of the pieces of literature said that people would go to hell for fornication!
When I complained to the worker about it (we were on the same job level) she said that it is only through Christianity that the single moms we served could obtain the strength to go on and that some people could be convinced (to believe in Christianity) through a gentle messge but sometimes one had to “go for the jugular” (her words).
In other respects this person was a great worker. I decided to drop it since the clients were not complaining.
You cannot win by arguing or trying to impose any type of work environment that involves changing deeply held religious practice.
For many years I was involved in some political work where many of the most active volunteers were religious people and were there for religious reasons. I came at the cause from a secular perspective. While my colleagues in the movement may not have always agreed with me on my motivation they would never have refused to work with me or any other secular person in achieving a mutually important goal
I do not know what your nonprofit does but many people involved in the helping professions and the non profit sector earn less than they would in the profit making sector. They are doing what they do because it aligns with religious or spirtual beliefs. This makes them dedicated workers .
Religion also frequently, although not always, makes people more sensitive to the needs and feelings of their fellow workers. By saying “G*d bless you” they are not trying to impose their religious belief on you but simply saying that they are concerned about your welfare. Saying “Amen” to something they agree with is part of their linguistic culture and should be no more offensive than people in an English speaking office who are around Hispanic culture saying “Que pasa?” or “Adios” or non Jews in New York City saying, “Mazel Tov” to other non Jews.
I was a nurse for many years and we had a lot of discussion about “cultural competence” which meant acceptance of the culture and lifestyles of those whom we were servicing and fellow colleagues. We were told that if there was something in a patient’s or colleagues cultural expression that made us uncomfortable we should examine ourselves to try to determine why.
We cannot and should not work with only with people who live and think like us. If we did so it would not help us grow intellectually, emotionally, or artistically.
Bottom line, even if you are “not interested” it may expand your horizons to try to understand why religious practice and study is so important to some of your colleagues, but if you are unwilling to do this at least try to accept your colleagues as they are. You would want them to do the same for you.
“if you are unwilling to do this at least try to accept your colleagues as they are. You would want them to do the same for you.”
Yes, but do they? Or do they regard you as prey to be hooked in?
That’s a most unpleasant remark. The Catholic Church is opposed to proselytising. It adherents are supposed to ensure that conversions is AVAILABLE to those who are interested, but coercion is expressly forbidden by Church leaders, beginning with Pope Francis.
A cohercive convertion is impossible in the Catholic Church, and convenience conversions are especially not acceptable. The priest in charge of the conversion process has to be convinced, has to be quite sure that the conversion is real.
Exactly. Hardly a church in search of “prey to be hooked in.”
The Catholic Church teaches that one may hate the sin but must love the sinner. The destination of hell for fornication seems more indicative of a fundamentalist sector of Christianity, and fundamentalists are a pretty unpleasant lot on any religion.
“The Catholic Church teaches that one may hate the sin but must love the sinner.”
Sometimes it may not be possible to separate them. For example, to hate the sin of a homosexual is hardly distinguishable from hating something constitutive of her or him as a person.
Really? The Catholic — and other — churches have self-admitted homosexuals who practise celibacy. The Pope has embraced them. All priests are required to be celibate, and it is acknowledged that all make a sacrifice in order to serve.
Leaving aside the question of the celibacy of the clergy, the RC Church has not abandoned the doctrine that non-celibate homosexuals are engaged in evil acts. in 1986: “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
There have been two popes since 1986. And the “intrinsic moral evil” is fornication, hardly a preserve of the gay community.
If you are right, then heterosexual desire “must be seen as an objective disorder”, too, because it, too, can lead to fornication. I think you are underestimating the influence on the RC Church of the view that homosexual sex is *unnatural*.
You seem to have taken it that in my moriginal post I was attacking, specifically, the RC Church. I didn’t so much as mention it. There are lots and lots of Christian denominations.
The catholic religion has, as all people with a minimum of intelligence know all too well, a very long track record of mistakes, misconceptions, bigottry, mysoginy, homophobia, sex scandals with minors, cover-ups of the same, incurable blindness to obvious realities, and all generously compensated for with beautiful music and fantastic art and superb architecture, so that the faithfull can drink at the well of their choice without getting involved with what happens behind the façade. It has still not been able to shed the debris of the past and filter-out the universal spiritualism of which it cultivates a small part, like every religion in the world, except ISIS, atheism, communism and wild capitalism.
I know this will not be a popular comment, but if Christians had decided to dominate a communal space at my workplace, I would have been considerably upset. Communal religion should not be practised in a work place. Where would it stop? You have a Muslim group in another part, a Jewish group, a Zoroastrian group – and so on? Permit one and you have to permit all. Best if it is not permitted at all in my view – at least within working hours.
I agree with that. And from the “letter,” it sounds as if they no longer do. However if there is a group of committed Christians in the workplace, it is unlikely that their chatter will not include a few stock phrases from their religion. I have heard “Bless you” addressed to sneezers all my life, and I never tend to associate it with overt religion, even when preceded by “God.” (So, often, is “damn it,” and I don’t tend to associate that with Christian zealotry). I know a lot of secularists who use “Amen” to put the lid on a point.
Workplace supervisors can restrict what notices are put up — but any restrictions will have to adhere to the laws and to be applied fairly. If they are of the “Repent or be Saved” variety, they should be banned. If they are of “Bible study at St. Matthew’s, Friday at 7:00 p.m.,” they are certainly as entitled as if they were “Jets. v Lions Friday 7:00 p.m. City Stadium.” Or “Susie Swift in concert, Capital Arena, Friday 8:00 p.m
I always heard a lot more sports chatter in the office than religious. And what didn’t interest me I blanked out. The only out-of-office event that our boss really put pressure on all employees to attend was a trip to an out-of-town major league baseball game. I dislike enforced jollies, but like baseball, so it was all right. There was also pressure to participate in the office softball team (less, as it was an ongoing commitment). I doubt these people, who happen to share religious belief, are as aggressive.
I agree. I once experimented with bhuddism and sat meditating and humming ‘ohmmm’ for hours on end, but got scolded for indulging religiosity at work. So henceforth I ohmed at home exclusively.
Sally