Religion and Work

Religious discrimination is unlawful.  You can’t make any employment decision based on a person’s religion.  But are our presidential candidates leading us toward self-imposed religious discrimination?

Barack Obama has decided to leave his church of 20 years, because it’s become too controversial.  John McCain has renounced the endorsement of a prominent evangelical preacher because he’s too controversial.  The Vatican is again cracking down on the notion that women should be priests.  If Rudy Giuliani were still a candidate–in a year when a woman named Hillary continues to claim she should be president and when women generally are claiming they can do anything as well as men–would Rudy have to leave the Catholic Church?  If Mitt Romney were still in the running, would he have to separate himself from his Mormon roots in light of the continuing controversy over Mormon polygamists?

An employer can’t say to the CEO or some other highly visible executive (or any employee, for that matter) that he/she should  leave a church, synagogue, mosque or religious group because it’s in the middle of a controversy which could make the executive (and, thus, the employer) look bad.  But code is often used–a severe look the day after a TV report–a newspaper article strategically held or placed during a conversation.  Powerful messages are delivered in the workplace without a word being spoken.

The law against religious discrimination at work doesn’t apply to the presidential campaign, but what presidential candidates do and say impacts the workplace.  This year, it’s happening with the issues of gender and race–age, to a lesser extent–and now, religion.  In 1960, John Kennedy held his ground and remained a Catholic.  His action, some would argue, contributed to the passage of the law making religious discrimination in employment unlawful.  In 2008, Obama and McCain haven’t followed Kennedy’s example.  What impact their action will have on the workplace, directly or indirectly, remains to be seen.

We like to talk about religious freedom–religious tolerance.  In the workplace, that means no religious discrimination.  But if the President of the United States can’t worship in the church he’s chosen or accept the endorsement of a religious leader some people don’t like, where’s the freedom in that?  And what does that say to employees in normal workplaces about their freedom from religious discrimination?

Just because politicians bend to religious pressure doesn’t mean your employees have to.  In fact, there’s a law that says you must prevent that from happpening in your workplace.

1. 

   Nae says:

   June 6, 2008 at 9:29 am

   I don’t really remember the Kennedy/religion controversy, but I thought it had more to do with the fact that he was Catholic as opposed to any political statements his personal priest made. I don’t see McCain or Obama backing away from religion, but from political statements of specific religious leaders. Obama’s minister made many of his controversial statements in church, so I guess that could make them religious as opposed to just political. I didn’t think McCain attended the church of the leader he backed away from. Am I wrong?

   Can you clarify your comments? I got the impression that you felt it would have been better if they had not backed away from these leaders (as Kennedy did not back away from Catholicism.) Is that your position?

   Did I misunderstand, or do you see Kennedy’s loyalty to his faith as equivalent to the current candidate’s relationships with religious leaders who make controversial political statements? If so, is it ok to back away from other leaders, but not those who are religious leaders? Please clarify.
2. 

   Phillip Wells says:

   June 6, 2008 at 10:24 am

   Unless I missed something, I certainly agree with McCain’s decision to not accept the endorcement of the preacher in question. Most likely he would have done the same thing and refused to accept an endorcement from a layman who would have said something very similar. It does not appear to be a religious issue, but rather an idea of someone with whom McCain disagrees.
3. 

   John Phillips says:

   June 6, 2008 at 10:29 am

   Nae, thanks for weighing in. Very good questions.

   There is a distinction that can be drawn between the Kennedy situation and the Obama/McCain situation. In 1960, there were people who felt that a Catholic would have more loyalty to the Pope than the country and, therefore, shouldn’t be president. While there were no specific controversial statements by the Pope or priests
   around the time Kennedy was running (at least, none that I recall), certain Catholic doctrines have always been troubling to non-Catholics. So, while I see some distinction, it’s not much of one, at least in my opinion.

   While I realize that in the political world everything is fair game now, religion is a very personal matter, and it’s troubling to me that a person’s faith or what a person’s preacher says can be used as a club. It’s also troubling when soneone allows it to be used as a club. What Kennedy said, more or less, was that he wouldn’t take orders from the Pope–that government and religion were separate. That’s what I think Obama and McCain should have done.

   I personally think it’s fine, probably healthy, to disagree with the leaders of your church if that’s the way you feel. I can’t imagine anyone not disagreeing with something that his/her preacher, pastor, priest says from time to time. And I suppose one can get to the point that the disagreement is so signifcant that leaving is all you can do. Obama wants to be president. That’s why he left his church. McCain wants to be president. That’s why he renounced the evangelical leader’s endorsement. I think it’s dangerous when we cause or allow that to happen. It smacks of having a national religion or a national religious code.

   As I noted in my post, what’s happened is ok in presidential politics, but not in the workplace. To me, it’s strange that we can’t make a frontline supervisor leave his church or publicly disavow a preacher, but we can make a presidential candidate do that.

   If you have further questions or want to weigh in further, I would welcome hearing from you.
4. 

   John Phillips says:

   June 6, 2008 at 10:38 am

   Phillip, thanks to you, too, for your comment.

   It’s mixing religion and politics that I find troubling, just like I find it troubling to mix religion and work. But there is plenty of room for disagreement on this, as we have seen and will continue to see I’m sure.
5. 

   John Phillips says:

   June 19, 2008 at 5:31 am

   Thanks for including my post in Lawsia.net.