Religion at work

No doubt, it would be preferable for the company from a liability standpoint if nobody brought up religion. But I want to know what constitutes bashing here. According to the legal definition posted above, some criticism would not meet the definition of legal harassment. If I say "Catholicism sucks and Catholics should be ashamed of themselves for following its evil teachings," I would expect to be sanctioned. If I said to a co-worker, "I object to the idea that women can't be Catholic priests and think they should change the rule," I'm not so sure a jury would agree that I met the legal definition. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think it's cut-and-dried that any speech critical of a particular religion in the workplace constitutes legal harassment.

What some people are saying here is that an aggrieved party can bring a harassment lawsuit. Of course. But not all of those lawsuits end up favoring said party, precisely because there are gray areas.

 

Eh. She was gay anyway.

 

And there's your harassment.

 

FDP,

Without further bashing of Nutty's religion, I can only imagine what kinds of things might be said. And if there were jokes about pedophile priests or whatever, it's not an instant lawsuit.

But if Nutty when to his boss and said that the Catholic bashing really bothered him and the boss said "Ah, lighten up!" and encouraged it and it continued, then it is harassment.

If it stops, it's not.

 

That's the best policy.

If your request to have people not bash your religion is polite, the people doing it should have simply apologized and dropped it.

 

Conversations about politics, religion, heck,even sports — it all depends on the civility of the people involved. I used to work with a couple of guys on the other side of the political aisle and we used to have the best political conversations because we respected each other, didn't try to shout down the other and didn't make it personal. So, yeah, a lot of times those convesations are OK.

There was another guy at work. We got along great and joked around a lot. Still get along great today. But once we had discussion about politics, and I made a joke about something (I actually disagreed with the joke, but it was still funny) and he got all defensive. He was buildingto that point anyway, which is why I made the joke to try to lighten things up. He's the type in political discussion who is going to interupt and not let you make your points. He's a great guy, but I learned to stay away from politics with him.

Personally, I believe that in a newsroom there should be nothing off-limits, especially the most irreverent jokes. As for the original post, just criticising Catholics (I'm Catholic too) shouldn't be a problem, but I can understand how it can easily become bashing that crosses the line. At that point, yeah, they should shut up.

 

Again, I think both are in the eye of the beholder. I also think both depend very heavily on context.

If someone objected to your first example, I think he or she'd be right to object. If said person engages you in dialogue based on your comment, then be prepared to say why you think Catholicism is so evil and why you think anyone who practices should be ashamed, but in a civil manner. Now, if you make it obvious that you're joking (add in a bunch of laughter and a shit-eating grin that never leaves your face), I still think you should have a right to speak up when you feel the Catholic church is in the wrong.

In your second example, I think if said person objected, you should have a right to say something along the lines of, "I realize you have a right to believe what you do, but I have a right to believe how I do and to express that right."

The First Amendment gives people the right to speak their minds, but it also gives people the right to not be compelled to listen to something they don't want to hear.