July 28, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Lynn Pettis (7/28/2009)
Freedom of something does NOT equate to Freedom FROM something.
You would certainly be considered a disruptive force in an orderly society that protects freedom of speech. Here in America, we have a guarantee not to be bothered with your religious feelings in the work place. It's in our constitution. In fact lots of employers get sued on these grounds. I certainly won't be hiring anyone like you. And I would certainly sue you successfully if you denied me employment for lack of faith. In fact my free speech rights also protect me from your faith-based judgments. Yes, my rights do include freedom from something -- your pronouncements.
But you exhibit a more serious lack of rational thought, which is essential for a DBA whose entire problem solving ability revolves around rational decision making. But I suppose that's a lost cause.
July 29, 2009 at 1:44 am
Hello Gail,
I do not agree that Brad will get more hate mails as this is his individual research and thought.
But speaking through the relation of nature of human to nature of work they do are not relevant in each case.
Regards,
Sashikanta Mishra!!
July 29, 2009 at 6:52 am
sashikanta.mishra (7/29/2009)
Hello Gail,I do not agree that Brad will get more hate mails as this is his individual research and thought.
But speaking through the relation of nature of human to nature of work they do are not relevant in each case.
Regards,
Sashikanta Mishra!!
Do you really have exclamation points after your name?
--
:hehe:
July 29, 2009 at 6:55 am
sjsubscribe (7/28/2009)
Lynn Pettis (7/28/2009)
Freedom of something does NOT equate to Freedom FROM something.You would certainly be considered a disruptive force in an orderly society that protects freedom of speech. Here in America, we have a guarantee not to be bothered with your religious feelings in the work place. It's in our constitution. ...
I would like to see a citation of what section and paragraph of the constitution has that. The only places where religion are mentioned in it are:
Article VI, paragraph 3, "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
First amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Those are the only ones. Whatever you think is also in there, you need to cite the specifics. It most certainly doesn't say you have some sort of right to not be bothered with religious stuff at work. The first amendment, making it unlawful to prohibit the free exercise of religion, implies otherwise.
Good manners include rules about not overproselytizing at work. Corporate policy may prohibit it altogether. But any law restricting "free exercise [of religion]" would be a violation of the Constitution. Free exercise most certainly includes proselytizing, for many religions.
(Sorry for the discourse on constitutional law. I find it appaling how many people in the US are totally clueless when it comes to the fundamental laws of the country.)
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
July 29, 2009 at 7:04 am
mtucker (7/28/2009)
Lynn Pettis (7/28/2009)
Unfortunately, rational thinking isn't the end all in solving problems. Many times I have found solutions. not through rational thought, but through inspiration and imagination both of which are the anti-thesis to rational thought.Choose what you believe, but faith (not necessarily religion) does play a role in one's maturity.
I agree that rational thinking is not the only component in problem solving. I did not say that it was.
People mean different things by the word 'faith'. For example, it can be a synonym for trust: 'I have faith in my co workers'. The faith in question in this discussion is religious faith. It is a shame that religion has been brought into this forum, I dont believe it has a place here, but the editorial stated that religious faith was a sign of maturity implying that lack of relgious faith is a sign of immaturity.
This is clearly wrong headed. There is no shortage of examples of mature atheists, and the immature faithful, and vice versa. It is not a reliable indicator of any quality that is desirable in a DBA, and probably not for any other job (except the priesthood) either.
And I think you are wrong. There are many people I know who, for them, faith and religion have a place in the work place and therefore also here in this forum. Also realize that this is an editorial and if the writer wished to interject faith and religion, they are free to do so. There is a right to freedom of speech. If this speech offends you, don 't read it. Remember, Freedom of something does NOT equate to Freedom FROM something. As long as what is said is not libel or slander there really isn't much you can do besides complain and let others know how you feel; knowing someone is going to respond in support or against your position. Your other choice is simply to vote with your feet, and leave (not that I'm suggesting that, just stating an option).
Totally agree with Lynn on this one.
Even though I do not necessarily agree with the editorial (and think religion should have been left out), its part of freedom of speech.
I first thought why a controversial editorial like this would get published (not that I'm against freedom of journalism, etc but because this promotes segregation). But then noticing the big red gate sponsored community service logo and then Brad being a director there kind of made sense.
I'll admit, it wasn't exactly rocket science to figure that one out 😎
--
:hehe:
July 29, 2009 at 7:20 am
What we noticed around here is that our data guys are largely ex-military. It's not quite what was in the article, but it's similar. And as we discussed it we identified a couple common traits that might explain it. They have lived as a part of a larger organization where everyone contributes to running a single entity. They have lived with standards and uniformity and have seen how it plays a role in consistent operation. One person's mistake is the group's problem. There were others, but what I took from it was the more abstract stuff than "he can take orders", which is both not true and not particularly relevant.
Anyway, faith/religion is a marker, not a driver. To me it indicates that a person understands that there's probably more to the world than what is comprehended by their own mind, and an openness (in one direction, at least) to accepting other input. And IMHO folks who look outside themselves make better DBAs than those who don't because they tend to be better at seeing what others are doing or might do and anticipating behavior or needs.
[font="Arial"]Are you lost daddy? I asked tenderly.
Shut up he explained.[/font]
- Ring Lardner
July 29, 2009 at 7:46 am
Lynn Pettis (7/28/2009)
mtucker (7/28/2009)
Lynn Pettis (7/28/2009)
Unfortunately, rational thinking isn't the end all in solving problems. Many times I have found solutions. not through rational thought, but through inspiration and imagination both of which are the anti-thesis to rational thought.Choose what you believe, but faith (not necessarily religion) does play a role in one's maturity.
People mean different things by the word 'faith'. For example, it can be a synonym for trust: 'I have faith in my co workers'. The faith in question in this discussion is religious faith.
Trust is essential to maturity. The last thing anyone needs is a paranoid DBA. Beyond the obvious security issues, such folk tend to spin their wheels a lot when they go off. Very low productivity.
The last DBA I managed was a very interesting mix of these traits, big hearted, stable and involved in his 'religious' community, but he got into trouble by going off on his own a little too much. He was a bit of a cowboy. Its not a great job for the ego.
July 29, 2009 at 9:26 am
sjsubscribe (7/28/2009)
Lynn Pettis (7/28/2009)
Freedom of something does NOT equate to Freedom FROM something.You would certainly be considered a disruptive force in an orderly society that protects freedom of speech. Here in America, we have a guarantee not to be bothered with your religious feelings in the work place. It's in our constitution. In fact lots of employers get sued on these grounds. I certainly won't be hiring anyone like you. And I would certainly sue you successfully if you denied me employment for lack of faith. In fact my free speech rights also protect me from your faith-based judgments. Yes, my rights do include freedom from something -- your pronouncements.
But you exhibit a more serious lack of rational thought, which is essential for a DBA whose entire problem solving ability revolves around rational decision making. But I suppose that's a lost cause.
First, I am an American. The First Admendment to the Constitution guaranttees Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press. It DOES NOT guaranttee Freedom from Speech, Freedom from Religion, Freedom from the Press; these three things are censorship and oppression.
I never said I'd deny anyone employment due to a lack of faith (neither did Brad by the way), unless I was a relgious or faith based organization where such discrimination is in fact legal. You should check out the employment application for Focus on the Family or Compassion International. Both have an entire page dedicated to ones Statement of Faith. In their job descriptions, they even talk about being involved in prayer groups an such. And you know what, you have the choice as to wether or not you wish to apply to work for them. If you don't agree with what is in their job descriptions, then don't apply to work there.
Your statement saying you wouldn't hire me sets you up for the same legal action you threatened me with. From this single thread you have already prejudged me and my abilities to accomplish a job. I am a highly skilled and educated IT professional. I have strong problem solving skills. I even had a supervisor tell me that he kept me around for those three problems a year that occurred that his pure hardware and pure software individuals couldn't solve. I know he said it half jokingly, but it was also an honest assessment. There were problems that occurred that sometimes stumped our system admin and one of our key developers. I was able to bridge that gap between them and solve those problems and issues.
Oh, and I am also an Honorably Discharged Veteran of the US Air Force, where I once served under an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. I will still continue to defend her including your right to say what you have said, even though I disagree with it.
And this:
Yes, my rights do include freedom from something -- your pronouncements.
Please, show me where in the Constitution you are protected from my Freedom of Speech?
July 29, 2009 at 10:33 am
GSquared (7/29/2009)
sjsubscribe (7/28/2009)
Lynn Pettis (7/28/2009)
Freedom of something does NOT equate to Freedom FROM something.You would certainly be considered a disruptive force in an orderly society that protects freedom of speech. Here in America, we have a guarantee not to be bothered with your religious feelings in the work place. It's in our constitution. ...
I would like to see a citation of what section and paragraph of the constitution has that. The only places where religion are mentioned in it are:
Article VI, paragraph 3, "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
First amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Those are the only ones. Whatever you think is also in there, you need to cite the specifics. It most certainly doesn't say you have some sort of right to not be bothered with religious stuff at work. The first amendment, making it unlawful to prohibit the free exercise of religion, implies otherwise.
Good manners include rules about not overproselytizing at work. Corporate policy may prohibit it altogether. But any law restricting "free exercise [of religion]" would be a violation of the Constitution. Free exercise most certainly includes proselytizing, for many religions.
(Sorry for the discourse on constitutional law. I find it appaling how many people in the US are totally clueless when it comes to the fundamental laws of the country.)
I have to agree with you Gus. It is interesting that naturalized citizens have to know more about our government and constitution than people born and raised here in the US.
July 29, 2009 at 11:05 am
Lynn Pettis (7/29/2009)
Yes, my rights do include freedom from something -- your pronouncements.
Please, show me where in the Constitution you are protected from my Freedom of Speech?
You must try reading other parts of the constitution sometime. When you run across the establishment clause, separation of church and state, and commerce clauses, you may notice the relevance. If you don't, here's a clue: we are all protected from your notions of faith and religion in the workplace, including what characterizes mature DBAs. The issue is not 1st Amend. rights, but workplaces free of taint from faith and religion as criteria. Seems like this logic escaped you as I rightly guessed the first time.
July 29, 2009 at 11:46 am
sjsubscribe (7/29/2009)
Lynn Pettis (7/29/2009)
Yes, my rights do include freedom from something -- your pronouncements.
Please, show me where in the Constitution you are protected from my Freedom of Speech?
You must try reading other parts of the constitution sometime. When you run across the establishment clause, separation of church and state, and commerce clauses, you may notice the relevance. If you don't, here's a clue: we are all protected from your notions of faith and religion in the workplace, including what characterizes mature DBAs. The issue is not 1st Amend. rights, but workplaces free of taint from faith and religion as criteria. Seems like this logic escaped you as I rightly guessed the first time.
And it seems the ability to actually cite sections of the actual Constitution continues to escape you.
Commerce clause: Article I, section 8, paragraph 3: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" Nope, nothing about religion in there.
Establishment clause: First Ammendment, already cited, nothing about regulating religion in the workplace in there either (see above).
There is actually no specific mention of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. It's implied in the first ammendment, but not explicitly stated anywhere.
Yes, I have studied the whole Constitution. I understand the whole thing.
Again, I ask you to cite specific clauses that make your statements valid. You won't find them anywhere, because they don't exist. Many people think they do, but common consensus on the matter doesn't actually change the written law.
There are laws against discriminating in employment due to religion, but they aren't part of the Constitution. Some civil court cases may exist wherein religious proselytizing was found to create a "hostile work environment", but again, these are not part of the Constitution.
So, again, I challenge you to find the actual part of the document that supports what you're saying. I'll bet you any sum of money you care to name that you can't find anything in the US Constitution that says that religion isn't okay in the workplace, nor anything that directly supports that conclusion.
If you can't find that (and you won't), then you need to find specific SCOTUS rulings that can be accepted as common-law legislation on the subject. Those may exist, but I can't think of any at this time, and don't have time right now to do another review of SCOTUS cases over the past two centuries. (I should do that again some day. Haven't done it in about 20 years. It's a very interesting study.)
I recommend checking the last 40-50 years of material. The basic anti-discrimination laws of the US date back to the 1960s, and are based on the 14th Ammendment (from the 1860s). You might find something in either of those two time periods, but it's more likely to be something in the 1980s, 90s, or 2000s, since that's when the "hostile workplace" lawsuits really came into fashion.
Many/most of those will be about sexual disrimination or racial discrimination. I've seen records on a number of religious discrimination cases, but they were all cases where an employee or ex-employee was leveling a complaint against an (ex-)employer due to being discriminated against for being religious at work. The exact opposite of what you're asserting. I even know a few people who won lawsuits against former employers because of being fired for practicing their religion at work. I don't know of any cases where anyone was legally fired for practicing their religion at work, but that doesn't mean the don't exist. I doubt it, but it's possible.
N.B.: None of this is intended to be taken as legal advice for anyone for any purpose. It's my observations and studies on the subject, and is subjective and limited. I am not a lawyer, and should not be treated as one.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
July 29, 2009 at 12:08 pm
The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the constitution. Those words are taken from Thomas Jefferson's response, http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html, to a letter from the Danbury Baptists, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/dba_jefferson.html. If you read both letters you see that Jefferson is agreeing with the Danbury Baptists that government should not prohibit, nor punish an individual for exercising his religious beliefs.
The only thing the Constitution does in regard to religion is prevent the government from establishing a state religion or prohibiting the exercise of any religion in the United States.
Certainly a private institution (business, educational, social) can establish policies about the sharing of faith. Of course, is the discussion of faith any less profitable to the business/institution than the discussion of last nights ball game/party/televsion show/movie? Is the discussion/sharing of faith any more offensive to you then someone sharing their latest sexual conquests is to me?
My personal belief/conviction is that while at work I should be working, but if the discussion turns to religion or opens up the opportunity to share my faith, I am within my rights to share what I believe. You don't have to agree, and you can choose to walk away, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to speak about my faith. regardless of if it is traditional religion, eastern mysticism, or something else.
I'm not sure how the commerce clause comes into play when talking about religion as that is the regulation of foreign, interstate, and indian commerce.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
July 29, 2009 at 12:11 pm
GSquared (7/29/2009)
... I am not a lawyer, and should not be treated as one.
Don't worry we won't. We respect you too much:-D
No offense meant to Lawyers, I am friends with several, they just take grief because of a few.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
July 29, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Not to create issues, but I have had friends work for the Catholic or Jewish hospital companies, or for organizations like CBN. They pray before meetings, nothing illegal about it.
GSquared has raised some good points. Any complaint against a religious celebration at work would be likely presented under discrimination or harassment as making an unfavorable place to work. Nothing illegal about noting your religion if you want to, or, AFAIK, if the company is preventing you from doing so in pictures, signatures, etc.
July 29, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Lynn Pettis (7/28/2009)
And I think you are wrong. There are many people I know who, for them, faith and religion have a place in the work place and therefore also here in this forum. Also realize that this is an editorial and if the writer wished to interject faith and religion, they are free to do so. There is a right to freedom of speech. If this speech offends you, don 't read it. Remember, Freedom of something does NOT equate to Freedom FROM something. As long as what is said is not libel or slander there really isn't much you can do besides complain and let others know how you feel; knowing someone is going to respond in support or against your position. Your other choice is simply to vote with your feet, and leave (not that I'm suggesting that, just stating an option).
Lynn, you are a master of a certain type of rhetoric favoured by the faithful. Your comments are a red herring. At no point did I say that the author of the editorial did not have the right, or the freedom to state his point of view. You are misrepresenting me when you imply that I did.
I will try to say it more plainly (although Im pretty sure you understood perfectly well the first time).
I dont think religion should have been brought into this forum, because it is not a forum about religion and because one's religion is not relevant to work performance.
I also disagree with the premise that religious faith is a reliable indicator of maturity.
You have not demonstrated that it is.
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 159 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply