Discussing religions and worldviews at the workplace

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

What question do you think you asked that I replied to with the answer to a different question?

The context of the article you linked to was ideological (ie, supposed transphobia) so I responded in kind. It’s a distinction without significance though – “views” is fine instead.   

Why?

No, my position is what I said it is: “freedom of speech should be restricted only in exceptional cases” and “the right to say something is not the same as the right to insist that someone listen to it” both seem pretty clear to me.

Also by the way it’s not about “what you think should be openly expressed“ – it’s about what the law says should be openly expressed which, in this country at least, seems broadly sensible to me.   

The question was:

'I take it that you agree that people shouldn't have their views shut down, or be disciplined simply because others find them disagreeable?'

The thing that I'm having a problem understanding is how you can have a right not to hear a view, which seems to be something you support,  without a restriction on someone being able to express a view.

[ProfessorDavey]

No – see above. My workplace experience has been that in general businesses treat their premises as places of work, not as places for proselytising religious, political etc opinions but they also make accommodations for personal beliefs where they can – with prayer rooms for example.

That's correct.

And there is a difference between what you might be permitted to say, as an employee, in your spare time under the auspices of freedom of speech and what you may be permitted to say at work, in work time, using work communication routes etc, etc as an employee. So there are plenty of things that you might be fine saying to mates in the pub that would have you disciplined within a work context as the comments might not comply with the expected workplace standards of professionalism and respect for other workers and/or clients. That seems completely reasonable to me as when you sign and employment contract it will likely have requirements for code of conduct within that professional context.

The tricky one, is where private comments come to the attention of employers who might (not unreasonably) have concerns that the individual (for example someone routinely making racist comments on-line) might act in a disciplinary manner in employment. Moreover if those comments aren't private and there is a clear link to the employment status of that person the employer may also have concerns that the comments might bring the employer into disrespect if those comments do not align with the organisation's stated values.

[Nearly Sane]

That's correct.

And there is a difference between what you might be permitted to say, as an employee, in your spare time under the auspices of freedom of speech and what you may be permitted to say at work, in work time, using work communication routes etc, etc as an employee. So there are plenty of things that you might be fine saying to mates in the pub that would have you disciplined within a work context as the comments might not comply with the expected workplace standards of professionalism and respect for other workers and/or clients. That seems completely reasonable to me as when you sign and employment contract it will likely have requirements for code of conduct within that professional context.

The tricky one, is where private comments come to the attention of employers who might (not unreasonably) have concerns that the individual (for example someone routinely making racist comments on-line) might act in a disciplinary manner in employment. Moreover if those comments aren't private and there is a clear link to the employment status of that person the employer may also have concerns that the comments might bring the employer into disrespect if those comments do not align with the organisation's stated values.

Same question then as to bhs:

'I take it that you agree that people shouldn't have their views shut down, or be disciplined simply because others find them disagreeable?'

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

The question was:

'I take it that you agree that people shouldn't have their views shut down, or be disciplined simply because others find them disagreeable?'

I thought I’d already answered in the affirmative, but if not I do now. “…simply because others find them disagreeable” is not sufficient reason to restrict someone’s freedom of speech. Indeed it’s precisely when something is offensive or disagreeable that the right to say it should be protected.     

The thing that I'm having a problem understanding is how you can have a right not to hear a view, which seems to be something you support,  without a restriction on someone being able to express a view.

Take an example: a busy office has a staff restaurant that lots of employees use at lunchtime. Should, say, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to stand in the corner evangelising his views? I think not because the other diners have the right not to be forced to listen to it if they also want to have lunch in the staff restaurant. Is that a restriction on the evangelical's right to freedom of speech? In some ways yes, but there are competing rights here so the answer should be a compromise such as another room that people could visit or not as they chose.

In other words, the right to free speech doesn’t necessarily include the right to exercise it wherever and whenever the (in this case) evangelist wants to. We see this in real life when, for example, pro-lifers are told they can protest but not at the front doors of abortion clinics.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I thought I’d already answered in the affirmative, but if not I do now. “…simply because others find them disagreeable” is not sufficient reason to restrict someone’s freedom of speech. Indeed it’s precisely when something is offensive or disagreeable that the right to say it should be protected.     

Take an example: a busy office has a staff restaurant that lots of employees use at lunchtime. Should, say, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to stand in the corner evangelising his views? I think not because the other diners have the right not to be forced to listen to it if they also want to have lunch in the staff restaurant. Is that a restriction on the evangelical's right to freedom of speech? In some ways yes, but there are competing rights here so the answer should be a compromise such as another room that people could visit or not as they chose.

In other words, the right to free speech doesn’t necessarily include the right to exercise it wherever and whenever the (in this case) evangelist wants to. We see this in real life when, for example, pro-lifers are told they can protest but not at the front doors of abortion clinics.       

Thanks for the answer.

And yes, I get that there are certain times when a 'platform' does not need to be given. The issue is in terms of work how could you have a more generalised right of someone not hearing something while still allowing normal freedom of expression for others. This isn't about offering a platform in the sense of forcing people to attend a meeting. As with the example I used earlier, if someone from the Westboro Baptists wanted to be able to not hear about someone supporting gay rights then I don't think you mean the person supporting gay rights should have to remove themselves from the room the Westboro Baptist person is in and go down the corridor to the 'King Midas has asses' ears' room and say it there - yet that seems to be the implication of some of your statements

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Thanks for the answer.

And yes, I get that there are certain times when a 'platform' does not need to be given. The issue is in terms of work how could you have a more generalised right of someone not hearing something while still allowing normal freedom of expression for others.

It seems to me to be impossible to derive a one size fits all solution to that. If, say, an employee tells a colleague that he’s an evangelical Christian that’s ok, but if he proceeds to evangelise and the colleague doesn’t want to hear it then she shouldn’t have to.     

This isn't about offering a platform in the sense of forcing people to attend a meeting.

That’s not it. In my example no-one is forced to attend the staff restaurant, but they have a perfect right to do so without having to listen to an evangelical sermonising there at the same time.

As with the example I used earlier, if someone from the Westboro Baptists wanted to be able to not hear about someone supporting gay rights then I don't think you mean the person supporting gay rights should have to remove themselves from the room the Westboro Baptist person is in and go down the corridor to the 'King Midas has asses' ears' room and say it there - yet that seems to be the implication of some of your statements

That’s not the implication of what I said. An equivalent would be a gay rights activist demanding the right to announce his convictions at the staff restaurant, which would also be not acceptable. The issue here isn’t the content of what people want to say but rather the place and time in which they say it, and the competing rights of others not to hear it when they do.   

[ProfessorDavey]

Same question then as to bhs:

'I take it that you agree that people shouldn't have their views shut down, or be disciplined simply because others find them disagreeable?'

I agree, but that right is tempered within an employment context.

Firstly on the basis that it may be perfectly reasonable for an employer to discipline an individual who expresses those views within a work context. And secondly they may also do so in circumstance where the expression of those views, even if outside of the work context, are reasonably considered to bring the employer organisation into disrepute.

To what extent those two circumstances may come into play is subjective, based in the individual circumstances of each case and dependent on a number of issues, including the nature of the employment contract, the nature of the role in which the employee is employed, the values of the organisation etc. That others find those views disagreeable may also play a role in determining whether a threshold is met for a 'quiet word' or even disciplinary action.

[ProfessorDavey]

Take an example: a busy office has a staff restaurant that lots of employees use at lunchtime. Should, say, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to stand in the corner evangelising his views? I think not because the other diners have the right not to be forced to listen to it if they also want to have lunch in the staff restaurant. Is that a restriction on the evangelical's right to freedom of speech? In some ways yes, but there are competing rights here so the answer should be a compromise such as another room that people could visit or not as they chose.

In other words, the right to free speech doesn’t necessarily include the right to exercise it wherever and whenever the (in this case) evangelist wants to. We see this in real life when, for example, pro-lifers are told they can protest but not at the front doors of abortion clinics.       

Spot on - the right to freedom of expression is context dependent and there will be certain circumstances where it is inappropriate for an individual to say certain things while be perfectly free to do so in another context. Evangelising within a work context would appear to be one of those - not only because others within a work context should have the freedom not to be on the receiving end of evangelism. But also within the context of an inclusive environment certain employees may feel excluded, uncomfortable or harassed by that evangelism and are unable to detach themselves without losing their freedom to enjoy the work-based canteen.

And it cuts both ways - an individual loudly 'preaching' about 'god-botherers' and their hypocrisy in the same work environment would also be inappropriate and a 'quiet word' or stronger action may be appropriate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

Actually yes I do, but in any case the right to express something is not the same as the right to make anyone else to listen to it. If, say, someone wants to stand on the office roof and shout nazi propaganda that's up to them, but I don't agree that they should also have the right to stand in the crowded staff canteen at lunchtime and shout "kill the jews".

I haven’t experienced this and I don’t suppose you have. Interesting that the nearest analogy to discussing religion in the work place is this extreme one

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Take an example: a busy office has a staff restaurant that lots of employees use at lunchtime. Should, say, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to stand in the corner evangelising his views? I think not because the other diners have the right not to be forced to listen to it if they also want to have lunch in the staff restaurant. Is that a restriction on the evangelical's right to freedom of speech? In some ways yes, but there are competing rights here so the answer should be a compromise such as another room that people could visit or not as they chose.

In other words, the right to free speech doesn’t necessarily include the right to exercise it wherever and whenever the (in this case) evangelist wants to. We see this in real life when, for example, pro-lifers are told they can protest but not at the front doors of abortion clinics.       

I’ve never experienced the Westboro Baptists in my workplaces and I don’t suppose you have.
That’s two goes at a sensible argument and the second go even more muffed and extreme than the first. You seem to have gone nuclear and it just sounds like more antitheist wankfantasy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spot on - the right to freedom of expression is context dependent and there will be certain circumstances where it is inappropriate for an individual to say certain things while be perfectly free to do so in another context. Evangelising within a work context would appear to be one of those - not only because others within a work context should have the freedom not to be on the receiving end of evangelism. But also within the context of an inclusive environment certain employees may feel excluded, uncomfortable or harassed by that evangelism and are unable to detach themselves without losing their freedom to enjoy the work-based canteen.

And it cuts both ways - an individual loudly 'preaching' about 'god-botherers' and their hypocrisy in the same work environment would also be inappropriate and a 'quiet word' or stronger action may be appropriate.

What is wrong with evangelisation though, since you suggest elsewhere it has no effect so must be perfectly harmless why are you now portraying it as some kind of special danger as if the topic of God must be dodged at all costs?

[Nearly Sane]

I’ve never experienced the Westboro Baptists in my workplaces and I don’t suppose you have.
That’s two goes at a sensible argument and the second go even more muffed and extreme than the first. You seem to have gone nuclear and it just sounds like more antitheist wankfantasy.

I introduced the Westboro Baprists to argue against bhs's position in reply 13.

[Enki]

I can remember clearly when I was a teacher in a Middle School we had student teachers who would take over the classes at certain times. It came to light that one particular student teacher who was of a strongly evangelical disposition was filling the pupil's minds with all sorts of religious humbug, including the threat of punishment by God if they didn't accept Jesus as their saviour. Most pupils ignored her threats but some were understandably confused and upset. She was reported to our Headmaster(himself a practising Anglican) who very soon sent her packing.

Quite recently my wife and I were in Bath. It was a hot day and we decided to have a drink and a sandwich, sitting outside of one of the many cafes in the central area. Soon after we sat down, a small group of people appeared and set up a small table opposite. From here, one after the other, they started on their evangelistic mission, proselytising through a loudspeaker at all and sundry. I don't think that we should have had to endure their particular brand of meaningless rubbish(from our viewpoint), but endure we did as we were already eating and drinking by this time.

I suggest that these are two instances when public expression of religion are totally inappropriate.

[Nearly Sane]

I can remember clearly when I was a teacher in a Middle School we had student teachers who would take over the classes at certain times. It came to light that one particular student teacher who was of a strongly evangelical disposition was filling the pupil's minds with all sorts of religious humbug, including the threat of punishment by God if they didn't accept Jesus as their saviour. Most pupils ignored her threats but some were understandably confused and upset. She was reported to our Headmaster(himself a practising Anglican) who very soon sent her packing.

Quite recently my wife and I were in Bath. It was a hot day and we decided to have a drink and a sandwich, sitting outside of one of the many cafes in the central area. Soon after we sat down, a small group of people appeared and set up a small table opposite. From here, one after the other, they started on their evangelistic mission, proselytising through a loudspeaker at all and sundry. I don't think that we should have had to endure their particular brand of meaningless rubbish(from our viewpoint), but endure we did as we were already eating and drinking by this time.

I suggest that these are two instances when public expression of religion are totally inappropriate.

And presumably all ideological views?

[Maeght]

What is wrong with evangelisation though, since you suggest elsewhere it has no effect so must be perfectly harmless why are you now portraying it as some kind of special danger as if the topic of God must be dodged at all costs?

People shouldn't have to listen to stuff that they don't want to - regardless of whether that is religious in nature or not. I don't think the street preaching such as mentioned in Bath should be allowed in the public shopping areas, nor should the busking be allowed. People can chose to go to places to hear preaching and music if they want to but it shouldn't be imposed on people going about their normal business. Evangelising etc in the work place shouldn't be allowed by employers I feel as this could lead to break down in working relationships and effect the team ethos.

[jeremyp]

No, my position is what I said it is: “freedom of speech should be restricted only in exceptional cases” and “the right to say something is not the same as the right to insist that someone listen to it” both seem pretty clear to me.

There's also no duty on anybody to provide you with a platform for your speech. I think that is quite pertinent when talking about what expression your employer can restrict and must permit.

[Enki]

And presumably all ideological views?

If you mean related to their religious beliefs,  it seemed so.

[Nearly Sane]

If you mean related to their religious beliefs,  it seemed so.

No, I mean that you would apply it to any type of ideological beliefs, say political?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I haven’t experienced this and I don’t suppose you have. Interesting that the nearest analogy to discussing religion in the work place is this extreme one

I’ve never experienced the Westboro Baptists in my workplaces and I don’t suppose you have.
That’s two goes at a sensible argument and the second go even more muffed and extreme than the first. You seem to have gone nuclear and it just sounds like more antitheist wankfantasy.

What is wrong with evangelisation though, since you suggest elsewhere it has no effect so must be perfectly harmless why are you now portraying it as some kind of special danger as if the topic of God must be dodged at all costs?

You’re missing the point. These were thought experiment examples to illustrate the argument, not descriptions of actual experiences.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

There's also no duty on anybody to provide you with a platform for your speech. I think that is quite pertinent when talking about what expression your employer can restrict and must permit.

Yes, especially regarding employers but as a matter of practical expediency some will nonetheless provide spaces for people to pray or I suppose even evangelise if they want to provided they can't bother anyone else who can't readily avoid it.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can remember clearly when I was a teacher in a Middle School we had student teachers who would take over the classes at certain times. It came to light that one particular student teacher who was of a strongly evangelical disposition was filling the pupil's minds with all sorts of religious humbug, including the threat of punishment by God if they didn't accept Jesus as their saviour. Most pupils ignored her threats but some were understandably confused and upset. She was reported to our Headmaster(himself a practising Anglican) who very soon sent her packing.

Quite recently my wife and I were in Bath. It was a hot day and we decided to have a drink and a sandwich, sitting outside of one of the many cafes in the central area. Soon after we sat down, a small group of people appeared and set up a small table opposite. From here, one after the other, they started on their evangelistic mission, proselytising through a loudspeaker at all and sundry. I don't think that we should have had to endure their particular brand of meaningless rubbish(from our viewpoint), but endure we did as we were already eating and drinking by this time.

I suggest that these are two instances when public expression of religion are totally inappropriate.

We seem to have wandered from discussing religion at work to a zealous but rogue teacher at a school. Abject mission creep by the looks of it on his part and yours.

I believe it was that revered antitheist Stephen Fry and others who claimed that we shouldn’t worry about what is said and upsets people.

[Enki]

No, I mean that you would apply it to any type of ideological beliefs, say political?

In the case of these two instances, yes indeed.

[Enki]

We seem to have wandered from discussing religion at work to a zealous but rogue teacher at a school. Abject mission creep by the looks of it on his part and yours.

I believe it was that revered antitheist Stephen Fry and others who claimed that we shouldn’t worry about what is said and upsets people.

Actually it was a her, and are you saying that a school doesn't count as a workplace?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

We seem to have wandered from discussing religion at work to a zealous but rogue teacher at a school. Abject mission creep by the looks of it on his part and yours.

No we haven’t. The point here involves the right to speak vs the right not to have to listen to it. The content of what’s said is neither here nor there.

I believe it was that revered antitheist Stephen Fry…

Has he said he’s an antitheist, or is that something else you’ve made up?

…and others who claimed that we shouldn’t worry about what is said and upsets people.

No, he said that the right to freedom of speech is very important. He didn’t though argue for a right to make people listen. They’re very different things.

[Nearly Sane]

In the case of these two instances, yes indeed.

What types of speech, if any would be, exempt?