Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Scudbuster

What, no bible study...?

67 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ouija ouija

That's just appalling. I wonder how many other companies have this policy? I guess we'll find out in the coming weeks as employees feel able to speak out against it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

This is an interesting case and I think it might rise through appeals regardless who wins.  I think Mr. Coleman's outlook on life will make his longterm sobriety an iffy proposition but that's jmo.

Coleman has a past felony conviction and served a prison sentence for child neglect and for selling methamphetamine. But he's been sober for years and recently won custody of his 10- and 14-year-old sons.

I point to this not to judge the man or denigrate his motives but to make it clear that he is the exact type of employee that Dahl wanted.  It seems to me that Dahl is trying to live his faith and sobriety by helping others to find them.  This is AA 101.  I can't believe that Coleman didn't know he would be required to participate in a study group - kind of like an AA meeting - as a condition of being "on the team".  It will be interesting to see how Oregon decides to handle businesses that are making a goodwill effort to help solve addiction and crime problems on a local level.  Remember, Dahl didn't demand that the man profess Christ.  He just required him to spend an hour of group time.  Dahl probably sincerely views that time as a gift to his employees and doesn't want anyone on the team that doesn't have the same desire to maintain their sobriety and positive outlook.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

I'm not sure what the point would be to forcing someone to attend a bible study.

An employer might be able to pressure their workers into attending if they aren't aware that isn't legal, but no one can ever force anyone to believe. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
5 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

An employer might be able to pressure their workers into attending if they aren't aware that isn't legal, but no one can ever force anyone to believe. 

I agree.  There wouldn't be any point in forcing an employee to be there against their will.   Dahl will most likely lose.  Having been in AA for quite a time and understanding the program moderately well, I was just explaining what Dahl was attempting.  He made a mistake in choosing someone who said they were sober when in fact the guy was probably only "dry".  I'm not judging Coleman.  I just know how these kinds of situations work and he was probably offered the job because he was determined to be properly skilled AND because he showed himself to be serious about continuing sobriety.  I won't try to explain the difference between true sobriety and just being without alcohol onboard but there is a huge difference.  That's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 minute ago, and then said:

I agree.  There wouldn't be any point in forcing an employee to be there against their will.   Dahl will most likely lose.  Having been in AA for quite a time and understanding the program moderately well, I was just explaining what Dahl was attempting.  He made a mistake in choosing someone who said they were sober when in fact the guy was probably only "dry".  I'm not judging Coleman.  I just know how these kinds of situations work and he was probably offered the job because he was determined to be properly skilled AND because he showed himself to be serious about continuing sobriety.  I won't try to explain the difference between true sobriety and just being without alcohol onboard but there is a huge difference.  That's just my opinion.

I think there's also a difference in wanting someone to have support remaining sober and requiring faith-based support, the latter being illegal for an employer to require.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
19 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

I think there's also a difference in wanting someone to have support remaining sober and requiring faith-based support, the latter being illegal for an employer to require.

And let’s not forget that those who attended were being paid for the hour too. No option for those who are anti-bible studies 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija

What a Christian may consider a 'gift' to someone, may be verging on mental torture for the non-believer. And before you get all excited about the phrase 'verging on mental torture', consider that an hour is a long time to be listening to someone spouting lies in a sanctimonious manner at you ......... week after week after week ad infinitum. And before anyone gets excited about the use of the word sanctimonious, I have yet to meet a Christian who could talk about their religion without putting on that creepy 'churchy' voice that is just plain embarrassing.   

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
14 hours ago, and then said:

I can't believe that Coleman didn't know he would be required to participate in a study group - kind of like an AA meeting - as a condition of being "on the team".

In the article: 

Coleman said he didn't learn about the Bible sessions until after he started working for Dahl. 

I think, there's the kicker there. I was trying to read if the job made it known, upon hiring, that it also required for employees to go to the meetings. That way, as I see it, if there is issues there, then the individual would known not to continue the hiring process. But, I read in the article, Coleman didn't know about the sessions until after he was hired. That makes me wonder about that. Kind of like, throwing you a curve ball. 

I do think, the job and it's employer is wrong and messing with the rights of it's employees. No matter how the intentions are of the employer, it's still encroaching on the rights of the beliefs or lack of them of the employees. 

9 hours ago, and then said:

I was just explaining what Dahl was attempting. 

That is irrelevant, in my opinion. One person's good attempts, could be another person's invasive judging. One person could say milk is good for you and force someone who is lactose intolerant to drink it. 

9 hours ago, and then said:

He made a mistake in choosing someone who said they were sober when in fact the guy was probably only "dry". 

Quote

Coleman has a past felony conviction and served a prison sentence for child neglect and for selling methamphetamine. But he's been sober for years and recently won custody of his 10- and 14-year-old sons.

I have never heard that, when discussing someone who is an addict (I believe one is an addict for life, if if one has stopped using) Someone is probably only ''dry''. :blink:  The article said he's been sober for years. 

Frankly, in my opinion, if the employer wants to help people like Coleman and such, he would be nonjudgmental in his belief of others, and allow them to be themselves, while they worked for him. 

I think, he is still breaking some kind of rule with his company. His company doesn't seem to be a particular company with certain beliefs like Chick-Fil-A.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Alcoholics suffer from a physical addiction to a substance but the deeper issue is their inability to cope with life on life's terms.  One can abstain from alcohol for years yet never actually attain sobriety because in AA, sobriety means living life without alcohol and being at peace with oneself at the same time.  Just being "dry" means you are not taking the chemical into your body.  All that does is make the person more angry, resentful and miserable until they can honestly assess their own faults and sincerely try to clean house.  I can easily understand why a non-alcoholic would be infuriated by Dahl's demands.  An alcoholic that is sincerely seeking sobriety would welcome such a gift that he was offering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija
2 minutes ago, and then said:

  An alcoholic that is sincerely seeking sobriety would welcome such a gift that he was offering.

Are you saying it is impossible to be sober and live a good life without embracing Christianity? :o

Please acknowledge that just because you consider what Dahl is doing to be a 'gift' does not mean that it actually is ..... that others may perceive it as the opposite. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
6 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

Are you saying it is impossible to be sober and live a good life without embracing Christianity? :o

Please acknowledge that just because you consider what Dahl is doing to be a 'gift' does not mean that it actually is ..... that others may perceive it as the opposite. 

No, I am not saying that at all.  There is no mention of a specific Deity in meetings.  In fact, a local tradition of ending meetings with the Lord's prayer was even voted down in my group in south Alabama in the early 90's.  AA founders knew this would be a huge obstacle so they kept it simple and said those seeking sobriety "came to believe in a power greater than themselves"  I'm saying that this particular businessman is trying to do a good thing in his community and it got him sued.  I guess the world will be a better place when the other alcoholics that worked for him lose their jobs and go on the dole.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
16 hours ago, and then said:

Remember, Dahl didn't demand that the man profess Christ.  He just required him to spend an hour of group time.  Dahl probably sincerely views that time as a gift to his employees and doesn't want anyone on the team that doesn't have the same desire to maintain their sobriety and positive outlook.

Maybe he didn't demand that he profess Christ, but he did demand that he attend. Whether or not compensation was given for the time is irrelevant. The employers alleged 'humanitarian' motives are also irrelevant. What is relevant is that an employer tried to force an employee to cater to his (the employers) religious outlook by attending a faith based meeting. 

I wonder how many supporters of Mr. Dahl's action would be as supportive if he was a Muslim, or a Branch Davidian, or a member of the WBC?

Or is this just another example of "poor Christians being persecuted for their faith"?

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

this all comes down to one point. 

Was he being paid whilst attending ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
8 hours ago, and then said:

Alcoholics suffer from a physical addiction to a substance but the deeper issue is their inability to cope with life on life's terms.  One can abstain from alcohol for years yet never actually attain sobriety because in AA, sobriety means living life without alcohol and being at peace with oneself at the same time.  Just being "dry" means you are not taking the chemical into your body.  All that does is make the person more angry, resentful and miserable until they can honestly assess their own faults and sincerely try to clean house.  I can easily understand why a non-alcoholic would be infuriated by Dahl's demands.  An alcoholic that is sincerely seeking sobriety would welcome such a gift that he was offering.

Is it really a gift? Is it a gift for all? And does it really help, and help all? Would it also be considered a gift, if there was a Muslim run program to help? Or, Jewish, or Wiccan, or an Atheist one, wouldn't they all be considered gifts, if they all have the same basis to help addicts and such? 

And here the thing here, is it really the spirit that is believed in that is helping them, or is it extreme will power that is encouraging them? I think, this needs to be reflected deeply on how it does the job. (And if it's a gift and from a spirit (God) and such, couldn't that spirit give the gift of helping them, instead someone on Earth?)

I agree, it's nice this employer is wanting to help others, like he's been helped.(I'm assuming he has been helped out of his addictions) But, everyone goes down different paths. 

Quote

Just being "dry" means you are not taking the chemical into your body.  All that does is make the person more angry, resentful and miserable until they can honestly assess their own faults and sincerely try to clean house. 

This sounds a bit technical here, where are you getting this info? And does that make every 'dry' person angry, resentful and miserable? And that bit about them assessing their own faults and such, I think again, it's a person by person situation. So, I would really like to know how you get this description. 

 

I was trying to find out if the company had religious roots, or was listed as a company with a religious backing or background, but couldn't find anything myself. I don't think I can, but's that's me. Though, in my search, I came across this article, which has a bit more information to this situation.   I think this makes a good point. 

Quote

Second, from a practical point of view, if Ryan loses, think about how dangerous things become for Christians (and others). A non-religious private company that has the right to compel you to attend religious meetings as a condition of your employment also has the right to forbid you from attending religious meetings as a condition of your employment. “John, this is Sandra from HR. Listen, I’m sorry to tell you this, but it has been brought to our attention that you attend a homophobic church on Sunday. We at the company feel that this is not consistent with our mission as a tolerant, inclusive workplace. We’re going to have to ask you to change churches, or we’ll have to let you go to pursue other opportunities.”

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 02/09/2018 at 7:28 AM, Scudbuster said:

I guess if it had been a NON religious mandatory meeting, paid for by the employer, then it would have been legal for the employer to fire anyone who refused to attend.

Today you can be fired for personal comments on face book which go against your company's  policies on  social or other issues.  

I wonder if you could be fired for refusing to drink alcohol, while working at a brewery :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Is it really a gift? Is it a gift for all? And does it really help, and help all? Would it also be considered a gift, if there was a Muslim run program to help? Or, Jewish, or Wiccan, or an Atheist one, wouldn't they all be considered gifts, if they all have the same basis to help addicts and such? 

And here the thing here, is it really the spirit that is believed in that is helping them, or is it extreme will power that is encouraging them? I think, this needs to be reflected deeply on how it does the job. (And if it's a gift and from a spirit (God) and such, couldn't that spirit give the gift of helping them, instead someone on Earth?)

I agree, it's nice this employer is wanting to help others, like he's been helped.(I'm assuming he has been helped out of his addictions) But, everyone goes down different paths. 

This sounds a bit technical here, where are you getting this info? And does that make every 'dry' person angry, resentful and miserable? And that bit about them assessing their own faults and such, I think again, it's a person by person situation. So, I would really like to know how you get this description. 

 

I was trying to find out if the company had religious roots, or was listed as a company with a religious backing or background, but couldn't find anything myself. I don't think I can, but's that's me. Though, in my search, I came across this article, which has a bit more information to this situation.   I think this makes a good point. 

 

Lets suppose a Muslim employer expected his employers to abstain  from alcohol.

  Is that  a religious or a social/value driven   expectation?   if it was written into the job specifications as a social  ethical and maybe health and safety issue how would the law apply.

In Australia people can be fired for failing a drug and alcohol test in many jobs. 

I would want to see the nature of that hour's exercise to determine if it was actually religious based or socially based.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 02/09/2018 at 7:28 AM, Scudbuster said:

In a sense the issue is not whether  an employee can be compelled to attend bible classes (not, i suspect under american law) but whether an employer can set a certain social and ethical group standard, that includes attendance at these classes  (much more open)  and simply  only employ people who are happy to have the same beliefs and standards as the company espouses.

  Kinda like a vegetarian or animal liberationist,   wanting to work for a butcher, but refusing to attend classes on slaughtering and hygiene practices so the butcher wont hire them.  

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
11 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

this all comes down to one point. 

Was he being paid whilst attending ? 

How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
12 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

this all comes down to one point. 

Was he being paid whilst attending ? 

From what I gather from the article, he was being paid, all of them were. I don't think that's the point, it's the fact he was being forced into it to keep his job. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

If he was going to be paid for attending, then that is ONE thing. 

If his boss expected him to attend on a voluntary (e.g. unpaid) basis, then that is an entirely different kettle of fish. (legally speaking). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

A past felon put his demons under, cleaned up his life, and regained custody of his kids. 

 In other circumstances he'd be presented as a good example of what good effort could achieve. 

 Here we see his character being demeened instead. 

 This isn't a nondenominational group, it's specifically a Christian  Bible group. 

If as he states he was misled about the nature of the program, he is well within his rights to protest being require to do it.

 Yes you agree to do a job, but that goes both ways. You agree to do the job you are presented with, not whatever your boss decides to make it later. 

 At the job I started a few weeks ago, I signed paperwork stating the requirments of the job, and what i would be paid for. I also was made aware of violations of the terms of employment, what they would be, and the punishments that would be applied.

The boss violated that agreement, from what we have so far. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
57 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

A past felon put his demons under, cleaned up his life, and regained custody of his kids. 

 In other circumstances he'd be presented as a good example of what good effort could achieve. 

 Here we see his character being demeened instead. 

 This isn't a nondenominational group, it's specifically a Christian  Bible group. 

If as he states he was misled about the nature of the program, he is well within his rights to protest being require to do it.

 Yes you agree to do a job, but that goes both ways. You agree to do the job you are presented with, not whatever your boss decides to make it later. 

 At the job I started a few weeks ago, I signed paperwork stating the requirments of the job, and what i would be paid for. I also was made aware of violations of the terms of employment, what they would be, and the punishments that would be applied.

The boss violated that agreement, from what we have so far. 

 

Rather than violate any agreement,  the agreement might not have been explicit enough, and made clear before employment commenced.  

I wonder if "you" worked at a Catholic school, and staff meetings began with prayers for the well being of all, if you could get away with not attending them?  

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

If he was going to be paid for attending, then that is ONE thing. 

If his boss expected him to attend on a voluntary (e.g. unpaid) basis, then that is an entirely different kettle of fish. (legally speaking). 

Bible studies is not a work duty. How can an employer pay employees to attend a hobby/leisure activity after work hours? Only one specific activity, and with nothing for other employees who might not enjoy the activity? 

Do you still feel that’s legal?

It’s like saying: ‘You have to play volleyball after work, it’s good for you, you’ll be paid for the hour, but only volleyball. If you like any other sports, you’re fired!’

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
19 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Bible studies is not a work duty. How can an employer pay employees to attend a hobby/leisure activity after work hours? Only one specific activity, and with nothing for other employees who might not enjoy the activity? 

Do you still feel that’s legal?

It’s like saying: ‘You have to play volleyball after work, it’s good for you, you’ll be paid for the hour, but only volleyball. If you like any other sports, you’re fired!’

I dunno.. that's for the courts to decide ? Asking him to play WITHOUT payment would SURELY be illegal. Compulsory PAID playing might be more debatable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.