Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Boges

Accommodating Religion in the Workplace

Recommended Posts

Moderator's Note: This thread was titled "Banning Pork Products at Work?"

Banning bacon or ham in office environments? No alcohol? Is this in anyway defensible?

It's not the war crime of heating of fish in an office environment. That should be followed by immediate termination.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ham-sandwiches-sausage-rolls-may-125409172.html

Kitchens that are shared between office workers may soon be banned from storing pork products like sausage rolls over fears that they are “offensive”.
New guidelines proposed by interfaith group CoExist House say that employers should consider worker’s religions before allowing ham sandwiches placed in the fridge alongside other products.
The group also suggests that alcohol should not be served at corporate events in case it upsets members of certain faiths.
Andy Dinham, professor of faith and public policy at Goldsmiths, University of London, is writing up the guidelines that will be put forward to employers this week.
Defending the controversial report, he told The Sunday Times: “It would be good etiquette to avoid heating up foods that might be prohibited for people of other faiths.
"The microwaves example is a good one.

Are Muslims really demanding this or is this just more PC crap?

Edited by Michael Hardner
Retitled thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it... one person's personal religious views are now a shared responsibility!

Not only will there be no pork, kitchens must all now be kosher.

Apparently, they're offended by women wearing skirts too... not only should the office ban skirts, but the niqab should now be considered business attire for women...

Edited by The_Squid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it... one person's personal religious views are now a shared responsibility!

Not only will there be no pork, kitchens must all now be kosher.

Apparently, they're offended by women wearing skirts too... not only should the office ban skirts, but the niqab should now be considered business attire for women...

I'm assuming you're lightly trolling but nevertheless.

What if one's religious requirements say they may not work with women?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming you're lightly trolling but nevertheless.

What if one's religious requirements say they may not work with women?

No trolling... just being extremely facetious. The entire thing is stupid. Religious views are personal. No one else has to share them. Your god is not going to send you to hell because a co-worker is eating sweet and sour pork balls.... if He does... well, then we're all screwed cuz He's a vindictive, petty dickhead!

No one will ever take away my pork bun!!

From my cold dead hands....

Edited by The_Squid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see banning peanut butter when someone is quite literally deathly allergic to it. Banning pork because some Muslims or Jews can't be around it, sorry, pal. I'm not making you eat it and you don't get to choose for me what I eat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not understand why people with stringent standards for their meals and the way their meals are stored would use public common storage areas or common kitchens. I use to drop off my roasted cockroaches lunch treat in the morning next to our office coffee maker but somebody kept crushing them into dust. I've stopped doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subway in some UK locations serve Halal and have banned pork as have some schools in London, and in France - well

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11893704/French-school-makes-Muslims-and-Jews-wear-red-discs.html

Why can't people make their own decisions about what to eat, no need to deprive other people of something because some don't want it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subway in some UK locations serve Halal and have banned pork as have some schools in London, and in France - well

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11893704/French-school-makes-Muslims-and-Jews-wear-red-discs.html

Why can't people make their own decisions about what to eat, no need to deprive other people of something because some don't want it.

Can business owners now make their own decisions about what to serve? If I'm running a fast-food franchise in a predominantly Muslim or Jewish neighbourhood, it might be in my best interests to go halal/kosher and hog-free. It's not like there's a shortage of other Subways who will happily serve you ham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't eat meat but I would never consider my coworkers not putting meat in the common fridge for my sake.

Boges, I'm not sure what you were thinking, but if if you were looking for controversy, this topic wasn't a good choice.

Edited by BC_chick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banning bacon or ham in office environments? No alcohol? Is this in anyway defensible?

It's not the war crime of heating of fish in an office environment. That should be followed by immediate termination.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ham-sandwiches-sausage-rolls-may-125409172.html

Are Muslims really demanding this or is this just more PC crap?

I completely agree about microwaving fish in the office microwave. One rule that's vital to a happy, productive team environment: no fish in the office microwave. Every workplace I've been at where people didn't that follow that advice was inevitably filled with stress, strife, and backstabbing.

I once worked in an office in Edmonton's Mill Woods district where many of my co-workers were Muslim. One day our employer had an "employee appreciation day". The food they brought in: Ham And Pineapple pizza! Sausage pizza! And hot-dogs! Plus 37 jugs of Diet Pepsi. No regular Pepsi. No Sprite or 7-Up. Diet Pepsi, and Diet Pepsi alone.

And looking over at the Muslim guys with their little paper cups and no food, and sitting there with my crappy pizza and no drink, I reflected on what dumb-asses our employers were. And I went over to the Muslim guys and said "you could probably have a hot-dog, because I doubt there's any pork in them." I don't know whether they appreciated my lame attempt at humor, but it has to have been one of the worst-planned "employee appreciation days" in history.

But as for people not bringing their own food because of other peoples' religious beliefs, screw that. "Coexist House" can go do a backflip into an empty pool.

In the famous words of Ted Nugent, "if Coexist House gets in my way, you know I'll burn it down."

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming you're lightly trolling but nevertheless.

What if one's religious requirements say they may not work with women?

Or attend a class/group with them, should religious rights trump women's rights?

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/01/08/york_u_students_refusal_to_work_with_women_sparks_rights_debate.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or attend a class/group with them, should religious rights trump women's rights?

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/01/08/york_u_students_refusal_to_work_with_women_sparks_rights_debate.html

What would happen if a student cited religious beliefs as a reason for not doing required course work? Well, if it were a Christian, what would happen is that conservatives would declare her a champion of religious freedoms and pass a law preventing the school from holding her back for not doing her course work. But if it was a Muslim, then yeah, people would probably think it was ridiculous.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No religion should trump women's rights and the outcome was a good one IMO

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/york-university-professor-who-refused-students-request-to-be-separated-from-female-classmates-broke-obligation-to-accommodate-officials

Mr. Grayson’s colleagues appeared to agree. At an October departmental meeting they passed a resolution forbidding any religious accommodations that contributed to the “marginalizations of other students, faculty or teaching assistants.”

After getting wind of the resolution — as well as Mr. Grayson’s stated refusal to honour his accommodation — the student cheerfully backed off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would happen if a student cited religious beliefs as a reason for not doing required course work? Well, if it were a Christian, what would happen is that conservatives would declare her a champion of religious freedoms and pass a law preventing the school from holding her back for not doing her course work. But if it was a Muslim, then yeah, people would probably think it was ridiculous.

-k

I did that in high school. Was a new convert to a fundamentalist Christian sect, and there was an assignment in English that I concluded, in my zealously Christian 16-year-old head, would be offensive to God. I explained this to the teacher, and he kind of shrugged and said "Ok".

Canada, eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would happen if a student cited religious beliefs as a reason for not doing required course work? Well, if it were a Christian, what would happen is that conservatives would declare her a champion of religious freedoms and pass a law preventing the school from holding her back for not doing her course work. But if it was a Muslim, then yeah, people would probably think it was ridiculous.

-k

I don't find this as clear cut as you seem to. Speaking as someone who hasn't gone to church in forty years except for weddings and funerals, adn who has precious little time for religious fundies, I still think it would have been pretty easy to accomodate this student. And frankly, I don't want people who are hostile to homosexuals being required to shut up and hide it and then council them on something because that would be bad for the client.

Had this student passed and hung out a shingle I'm pretty sure she would have made it obvious (like a big cross in the waiting room) of what kind of person she was and could have councilled other religious fundies without issue.

Now let's trade places and assume it's a Muslim student asking to not council women, to be switched to a male. Again, it would be easy to accomodate, without the client being any the wiser. The Muslim could then have councilled other Muslims, or probably men in general, in his future career.

There are times when we should not offer up any accomodation to religious people, particularly where that adversely affects anyone else. But there are also times where accomodation is easy, cost-free, and harms no one, and I think this probably falls into that category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're proposing that either this woman's (or the hypothetical Muslim guy's) future employer be forced to have a second counselor on duty when they're working, or that gay (or female) people only have personal crises when she's not on duty?

And frankly, I don't want people who are hostile to homosexuals being required to shut up and hide it and then council them on something because that would be bad for the client.

Maybe somebody who is hostile to homosexuals shouldn't be going into the counseling field to start with?

Hypothetically, would a Christian Scientist (you know, that group that believes that all illness can be cured by prayer) be able to obtain a medical degree even if they don't complete course-work that contradicts their religious views? "Well, Margaret opted out of almost the entire practicum due to her religious beliefs, but she did successfully complete the Splints & Bandages practicum, so we see no reason to deny her a medical degree!"

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're proposing that either this woman's (or the hypothetical Muslim guy's) future employer be forced to have a second counselor on duty when they're working, or that gay (or female) people only have personal crises when she's not on duty?

I'm assuming such individuals would be self-employed or working for like-minded organizations. The Muslim might work in some sort of Muslim community centre organization, and the Christian in one of those, if there are any. I doubt any gays would present themselves openly to either organization.

Maybe somebody who is hostile to homosexuals shouldn't be going into the counseling field to start with?

Maybe, but there are tons of religious communities in Canada who hold views hostile to gays. And religious people would, in many cases, prefer to be counseled by someone familiar with their cultural/religious value system.

Hypothetically, would a Christian Scientist (you know, that group that believes that all illness can be cured by prayer) be able to obtain a medical degree

The comparison is not a good one. You can be a properly trained counselor and be able to counsel people - just not gays. But you can't be a Christian Scientist and cure anyone with prayer.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming such individuals would be self-employed or working for like-minded organizations. The Muslim might work in some sort of Muslim community centre organization, and the Christian in one of those, if there are any. I doubt any gays would present themselves openly to either organization.

So are you suggesting that medical degrees and certifications should have an asterisk?

"Margaret is fully medically trained to handle some types of emergencies!*

*read back of certification for important disclaimers."

Maybe, but there are tons of religious communities in Canada who hold views hostile to gays. And religious people would, in many cases, prefer to be counseled by someone familiar with their cultural/religious value system.

Don't those religious communities go to their religious leaders, not secular counselors, for counseling anyway?

If somebody in one of those communities is seeking answers from somebody other than their pastor/imam/guru/shaman/houngan/whatever then it's quite possible that they're having problems that aren't compatible with their religious community's teaching, in which case sending them to a counselor who is trained to repeat the teachings of their religious communities is doing them a profound disservice.

The comparison is not a good one. You can be a properly trained counselor and be able to counsel people - just not gays. But you can't be a Christian Scientist and cure anyone with prayer.

Ok, so how far are you willing to bend the curriculum to accommodate religious extremists? Is there a hard line, or is it a "I'll know it when I see it" type of thing?

Also, do non-religious people get the same accommodation?

If Pat the JW isn't required to complete portions of the practicum relating to administering blood products, can Atheist Annie also get out of the blood products because blood makes her squeemish?

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't those religious communities go to their religious leaders, not secular counselors, for counseling anyway?

-k

One of my colleagues has done extensive research on places of worship as the first line of counselling services for people of faith. This is often the case and when there's a serious problem, it was heartening to see that a lot of pastors would refer their congregation to more qualified professionals and often give sermons denouncing things like domestic violence when it would come up. Since the research was focused on domestic violence, I can't really say how they handle homosexuality. However, you're right. Many times people of faith will go to their religious leaders for counselling. The problem is when they don't refer them to secular counsellors and that does happen, even in Christianity. Those religious leaders can make matters worse by encouraging the abused not to break the "sanctity of marriage." Surprisingly, this was in the minority of cases. Most often they referred to outside help when confessing these things to religious leaders. At least that's what the leaders claim. I'm sure there's some people who would just dismiss them as liars, but we have to take people at their word. Edited by cybercoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there's some people who would just dismiss them as liars, but we have to take people at their word.

Like we always take people on this forum at their word when they post a claim without a cite, right? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you suggesting that medical degrees and certifications should have an asterisk?

No, but then we're not talking about medical programs. We're talking about one of the soft sciences

Don't those religious communities go to their religious leaders, not secular counselors, for counseling anyway?

I wouldn't know, but counseling is one of those word of mouth referral businesses, usually, so if the graduate isn't any good she won't be in business long.

Ok, so how far are you willing to bend the curriculum to accommodate religious extremists?

Maybe we need to start by defining religious 'extremist'. If people who believe that homosexuality is immoral qualify as extremists that's going to swell the ranks of what we, in Canada, term 'extremist'. Are you okay as saying all observant Muslims and Sikhs are extremists, and not just observant Christians? Plus this is in the US, where, last time I saw a poll, 40% of the population felt homosexuality was immoral.

If Pat the JW isn't required to complete portions of the practicum relating to administering blood products, can Atheist Annie also get out of the blood products because blood makes her squeemish?

Clearly you can't get a medial designation if you can't do the work, but last time I checked school counselor was not a medical position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...