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

Timothy
2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

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. 

Hence the discrimination, just because he doesn’t want to play the Bible group game. 

I hope the ruling goes that way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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

According to the man, the agreement was weekly team building at a homeless shelter. Not weekly Christian Bible studies. 

24 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

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?  

Be a bit difficult to pick up a job at a Catholic school blind, having been to a few the Christianity tends to bleed out around the corners.

And the "St. So and Sos big name school of so and so." 

The statements of faith and moral code they enforce. 

Oh, and the nuns and bishops and the like that tend to be about on campus. 

 Not exactly easy to miss. 

 

 Now maybe this was the Saint Vince t of Humble painters shop, but I don't think so. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

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.    

That is a completely different scenario. Drug and alcohol testing at work is for health and safety reasons, for the protection of everyone in the work place.

It is described as Bible Study ..... big clue in the title! 

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 

  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.  

Again, not the same thing at all. Slaughtering and hygiene practices directly affect the health and safety of the workforce and the public.  

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

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?  

And again, if you applied for a job at a Catholic school it would be very obvious from the start what working there might entail.

 

I hate it when people start off by doing something good for the community and then decide that that good deed entitles them to go a whole lot further.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

 I think we need to remember, that Coleman said he didn’t learn about the Bible sessions  until after he started working for the place.  And I couldn’t find on the net, any religious ties or identifications to the company. So in a sense, I don’t know if I should think  he wasn’t aware of the meeting  until he was already hired. So I would think, he already was deep into his job and then was told he had to go. Kind of makes me think of a bait and switch type thing.  Well, that is what I’m thinking while reading the article.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I think it's a violation of rights. I hope he gets his 800k payout. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
16 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

That is a completely different scenario. Drug and alcohol testing at work is for health and safety reasons, for the protection of everyone in the work place.

It is described as Bible Study ..... big clue in the title! 

Again, not the same thing at all. Slaughtering and hygiene practices directly affect the health and safety of the workforce and the public.  

And again, if you applied for a job at a Catholic school it would be very obvious from the start what working there might entail.

 

I hate it when people start off by doing something good for the community and then decide that that good deed entitles them to go a whole lot further.

I raised those questions just to get people thinking.

One problem, especially in The USA is that religion is treated differently to any other issue  The constitution had been interpreted that in govt NO religion should be allowed.

In Australia, exactly the same words in our constitution have been interpreted that ALL religions must be allowed.

Yup its called bible study but that  can mean a lot of things. What if it had been calledm  " A study of social ethics and moralities required for employment ."? 

Nothing is OBVIOUS in society and law.

Indeed there is debate in Australia whether church schools can refuse to hire people who are not of their religion, or practice  things outside of  what the religion accepts such as same sex marriage. Religions retain some special privileges in anti discrimination laws but these are diminishing.  

Ps one could argue that successful rehabilitation and  group cooperation in a workplace also affects others health and safety,  and that the studies promoted both common ethics and behaviours and a group cohesion needed for a safe business 

I've been required to attend a lot of meetings and conferences pushing values i do not agree with and beliefs i do not accept as a govt teacher  often involving the consumption of alcohol which i also do not accept.   My one legal  out is where those meetings conflict with my religious beliefs.  In that case i am protected by laws against religious discrimination,  and cannot be compelled to attend   (eg as a sabbath keeper, if i were Muslim, jew, or seventh day Adventist i could not be required to work on a Friday night or Saturday )   for things like socials or sports or conferences. 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
17 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

According to the man, the agreement was weekly team building at a homeless shelter. Not weekly Christian Bible studies. 

Be a bit difficult to pick up a job at a Catholic school blind, having been to a few the Christianity tends to bleed out around the corners.

And the "St. So and Sos big name school of so and so." 

The statements of faith and moral code they enforce. 

Oh, and the nuns and bishops and the like that tend to be about on campus. 

 Not exactly easy to miss. 

 

 Now maybe this was the Saint Vince t of Humble painters shop, but I don't think so. 

As i said in that case the agreement was not clear/explicit enough.

In Australia the circumstances are different, evolving and complex.

i do not think a Catholic school CAN refuse to employ a qualified teacher  just because they    are non catholic, have illegitimate children, are not married to their partner,   or are  gay. etc That would be against anti discrimination laws. 

BUT they could require teacher to attend set meetings which might include prayers etc and to uphold the stated moral and ethical code of the school within their PROFESSIONAL life.  if a teacher refused, it would go to arbitration.  On the other hand it would be hard  to prove that an employment panel at a Catholic school  refused a person a job simply because they were not married to their partner, or were an atheist, but it does happen.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The constitution had been interpreted that in govt NO religion should be allowed.

Actually, it has been interpreted to mean that the government shall not endorse or enforce any one religion over others.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Actually, it has been interpreted to mean that the government shall not endorse or enforce any one religion over others.

That’s an important and good clarification.

Being Australian and untrained in the specifics, what’s your opinion of this case? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

I think what the employer was attempting to do is for the most part laudable, he was paying for them to attend this Bible study after all and I think he had good intentions behind it, but he made a bad mistake in firing this guy.  You just can't discriminate against people on the basis of religion, that's been settled for quite a while now and is a law that I think the owner would recognize is valuable if he was on the other end of it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grandpa Greenman

I was thinking about this and what I would do in the same situation. The boss is paying me to sit on my ass and learn about jeSUS.  Give me month in the study group and I bet I walk out of the group with a grove of Druids. I had a manager try to bully me into going to his JW affairs, I ended up with his job. ;)  The only thing I really can't take is blasting Christian music all day. Lucky they were using CD's, I slipped  Damh the Bard in place of Elvis' gospel sing along.  Nobody complained, I don't think the boss noticed.  He did notice the Black Sabbath CD and that got broke in two. Glad it wasn't mine. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

Religious activities should never be part of an unrelated job, period. Obviously if it's directly related it's okay, such as paid church staff or whatever, but there is no reason whatsoever for a construction worker to be required to participate in religious activities of any kind.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
6 hours ago, Grandpa Greenman said:

I was thinking about this and what I would do in the same situation. The boss is paying me to sit on my ass and learn about jeSUS.  Give me month in the study group and I bet I walk out of the group with a grove of Druids. I had a manager try to bully me into going to his JW affairs, I ended up with his job. ;)  The only thing I really can't take is blasting Christian music all day. Lucky they were using CD's, I slipped  Damh the Bard in place of Elvis' gospel sing along.  Nobody complained, I don't think the boss noticed.  He did notice the Black Sabbath CD and that got broke in two. Glad it wasn't mine. 

+1 for Damh the Bard! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
10 hours ago, Timothy said:

Being Australian and untrained in the specifics, what’s your opinion of this case? 

Without knowing all the specifics of the case, it seems that the employer is in the wrong.

Granted, an employer can specify "mandatory overtime", but generally speaking, that is for work related activities.

"Team building activities", could possibly be cited as legitimate after work functions, but they are usually of a non-denominational nature.

To force an employee to attend a religious based activity, whether compensated for the employees time or not, is a violation of that employees rights.

Suppose for a moment, that the employer was a pagan and demanded that an employee attend a sabbat. 

Or that the employer was an atheist and demanded that an employee attend an anti-religion lecture.

Or that an employer demanded that you serve time on a picket line of an abortion clinic.

Or that the employer was a staunch Republican (Democrat) and insisted that all employees attend a political rally.

Or that the employer was simply a hedonist and demanded that all employees (male and female) join him at the local nudie bar after work so that everyone can "get to know each other"?

 

If any of these scenarios I've proposed strike the reader as being intrusive, overbearing, dictatorial, or just plain wrong, then look again at what the employer in the article is demanding of his employees, and tell me why he is right.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I think what the employer was attempting to do is for the most part laudable, he was paying for them to attend this Bible study after all and I think he had good intentions behind it,

As I stated earlier, his intentions are irrelevant.

He is forcing his religious outlook on his employees. What if his employees are Jewish? Or Muslim? Just because an employer provides a salary, does that mean he can force his beliefs down your throat?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

As I stated earlier, his intentions are irrelevant.

His intentions are irrelevant to the law, not to people.

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

He is forcing his religious outlook on his employees. What if his employees are Jewish? Or Muslim? Just because an employer provides a salary, does that mean he can force his beliefs down your throat?

No, I don't know why you are asking me this.  Please reread the second sentence in my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said:

His intentions are irrelevant to the law, not to people.

No, I don't know why you are asking me this.  Please reread the second sentence in my post.

I read your entire post. I was addressing the single issue that I quoted. Are his actions truly 'laudable'? Would the employer's actions be just as praise-worthy, if he were a Muslim extremist, demanding that all his employees attend a Koran reading?

And what "people" are you referring to? Christians? 

If you cannot substitute "Bible reading" with "Koran reading", or "Witches Manual", or "Torah Reading", with equal ease, then there is a fundamental problem, is there not?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
Quote

Coleman said he initially took part in the weekly, hour-long Bible classes for six months, fearing he wouldn't be able to find another job.

What? So he was happy to go for the hour for 6 months....paid. 

 

But it says if they did not attend (below) they did not get paid, which would mean, they were not forced to go....but it is unclear.

As it happens, he spent 6 months going to them, i do not believe he never knew about it, surely his co-workers were all in the same position as him, and yet none of them seem to be suing for...HOW MUCH :o

Quote

Coleman is suing for $50,000 for alleged loss of income, and an additional $750,000 for mental stress and humiliation.

 

On 03/09/2018 at 5:36 AM, 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). 

They were being paid:

Quote

Employees who attended would be paid for that hour, and employees who did not attend would not be paid.

He knew from the start...he certainly knew in the first week, what was he waiting for, his 6 months trial to be up so he could then sue them as he would be now legally covered to sue? 

Why did he not go to the papers or a lawyer earlier? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 9/2/2018 at 5:11 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

So, I would really like to know how you get this description.

I'm the REAL DEAL darlin' ,a hardcore, low bottom drunk that got SOBER in AA and I know how to recognize folks that that are dry versus sober.  Believe what you wish.  I know from which I speak and don't need to prove it to anyone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
25 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I read your entire post. I was addressing the single issue that I quoted. Are his actions truly 'laudable'? Would the employer's actions be just as praise-worthy, if he were a Muslim extremist, demanding that all his employees attend a Koran reading?

The employer is a 'second chance' employer who hires felons with drug problems, including the guy he hired, something all too rare.  That I find to be not only laudable, but personally I think it outweighs the mistake he's made in firing someone for not attending his Bible study.  I don't see any indication that he's doing it with any horrible intent, he seems mostly just clueless; he was paying them to attend instead of work which is something, and he's said some kinda stupid things that show he doesn't understand the legal basics, since this case looks pretty straightforward.

35 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

And what "people" are you referring to? Christians? 

Everyone.  Just because the law doesn't care about his intent doesn't mean that people evaluating his actions can't take that and more into account.

37 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

If you cannot substitute "Bible reading" with "Koran reading", or "Witches Manual", or "Torah Reading", with equal ease, then there is a fundamental problem, is there not?

To be clear Jodie I'm not a theist, I didn't imply anything about the Bible being more permissible than any other religious document.  What's kinda weird about it though is that if you just change the scenario slightly, it's legal.  I think if instead of Bible study he required attendance of lectures about the psychology of addiction, or poetry readings, or Elvis listening parties, it is legal if he fires them for non-attendance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
37 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

  I think if instead of Bible study he required attendance of lectures about the psychology of addiction, or poetry readings, or Elvis listening parties, it is legal if he fires them for non-attendance.

Actually, according to most labor laws in the US, none of your scenarios are technically legal, since none of them are directly work related.

40 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The employer is a 'second chance' employer who hires felons with drug problems, including the guy he hired, something all too rare.  That I find to be not only laudable,

And I do give the employer credit for this. Sincerely I do. But does that allow him to dictate how people are allowed to choose how they maintain their sobriety? And the fact that the employee was fired for ONLY refusing to attend these sessions, as far as we know, is totally illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
3 hours ago, and then said:
On 9/2/2018 at 6:11 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

So, I would really like to know how you get this description.

I'm the REAL DEAL darlin' ,a hardcore, low bottom drunk that got SOBER in AA and I know how to recognize folks that that are dry versus sober.  Believe what you wish.  I know from which I speak and don't need to prove it to anyone.

 I’m not doubting you and your experience with this. 

Your quote here:

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. 

 Is this proof  that everyone is the same in how they react to addiction? Are you always correct in recognizing it every individual? 

  Do you have proof that AA has helped every alcoholic? 

 And, I’m also talking about how you seem to think everyone has the same issues, in which I want to know how you think that way and where you get that information. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
22 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Actually, it has been interpreted to mean that the government shall not endorse or enforce any one religion over others.

In america it has meant increasingly,  in practice, that NO religious ceremonies signs prayers  etc shall be possible in govt institutions  In Australia  a govt school can hold prayers at an assembly  in any faith and must not exclude any who wish to pray.  but in america ALL are banned,  yet the wording in our constitutions is identical The amendment in america also says that govt shall not restrict or limit the role of any religion  (or words to that effect)  

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
16 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

but in america ALL are banned, 

Yes, and the reason for that is that Christians in America seem to think there is only one religion - theirs. Christians in America (for the majority) are A-OK with prayer in public school, as long as it is prayer to the Christian triumvirate.

Prayers to Allah in a state run school? Not gonna happen.

Ditto prayers to Yahweh, the great spirit, or any other deity. Hence, a ban on all. Until Christians realize that

A - The U.S. was NOT founded as "Christian nation"

and

B - They need to share the sandbox with other children,

then I fully endorse the prohibition on prayer in schools or displays of religious themes on state/federal property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
46 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Yes, and the reason for that is that Christians in America seem to think there is only one religion - theirs. Christians in America (for the majority) are A-OK with prayer in public school, as long as it is prayer to the Christian triumvirate.

Prayers to Allah in a state run school? Not gonna happen.

Ditto prayers to Yahweh, the great spirit, or any other deity. Hence, a ban on all. Until Christians realize that

A - The U.S. was NOT founded as "Christian nation"

and

B - They need to share the sandbox with other children,

then I fully endorse the prohibition on prayer in schools or displays of religious themes on state/federal property.

Well that is the law, even though it goes against the express intent of the words in the Constitution.  "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

but i don't think the reason you gave, is why the law evolved. 

I prefer the Australian model, where all religions are encouraged, and allowed, and so also is atheism. That means everyone is free to follow their own faith, or lack of faith, in govt institutions  and their freedom to do so is protected by law  No one can be prevented from attending a govt school or working in a govt job for example because they wish to wear religious clotting or articles  (The only exceptioni s where this would create a safety hazard ) Sikhs are even excused from wearing  motor cycle helmets in many Australian  states  due to the religious requirement to wear a turban. 

There is no freedom from religion intended in the american constitution only freedom OF religion The right to freedom from  religion became an incidental byproduct of the amendments over the years  The founding fathers never intended an atheist state.

They only wanted to prevent a mono  religious one as they had fled from  in Europe  

Its not fair to ban kids from  a sandbox, by not allowing them their beliefs while playing in it. eg  "No make believe in this sandbox kid, or out you go " :) 

The best example i found of this in an Australian school was in my first year of teaching in the 1970s. An atheist wanted all bibles pulled from  the school library After discussions amongst the staff and governing council it was decided that rather than this it would be made certain that the library contained the books of all faiths.  Today someone would probably insist it also included copies of an atheist manifesto or similar but no one thought of that  back in the 70s 

It was a valid point at the time as the school had over 1200 students from  almost 100 different nationalities and ethnic groups,  and so,more than the bible was needed in the reference section of the library 

Edited by Mr Walker

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.