Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,458,803 times
Reputation: 6670
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
How could I possibly have been any more clear? You related a personal experience and so did I. The experiences were very similar, but the outcomes were exactly opposite. If that's in any way confusing to you, I'm sorry, but I really don't think I could have stated it much more plainly. Furthermore, this has absolutely nothing to do with apologetics. It has only to do with discrimination in the job market.
Of course they do. So do Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Jews, Muslims and atheists. Nobody has a monopoly on intolerance. I will say, however, that Salt Lake City's unemployment rate is pretty low as compared with the rest of the nation. Since half of our population is not LDS, there's evidently a whole lot of non-discrimination going on.
Not intending to 'pick on' you, but it seems to me that our little interchange here points to a lot of the same basic problem whenever these kinda disagreements pop up between "believers" and the rest of us. And I think it gets back to the basic Narcissism inherent in many devout religious folks (which even Freud and Jung have both pointed to), namely the symptoms of "entitlement", "specialness", "defensiveness", and the lack of any empathy or accountability.
Because most disagreements, including the one in the OP, can often be sorted out with just a bit of mutual trust, empathy, respect and straightforwardness. But all that's usually damn near impossible when either party instead starts behaving much like the CIA's unofficial "motto": “Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations"!
There's a difference between discussing a topic and trying to convert someone.
True, but religious conversations are really sticky, tricky territory due to the tendency of some religions (and some of their adherents) to take the position that anyone who doesn't follow that particular religion is doomed or damned or a bad person or whatever. So there is an enormous responsibility to avoid even the appearance of implying this in the course of the conversation, if you're having it in the presence or earshot of people who may belong to a variety of faiths or none at all. Doesn't mean you can't ever say, "Hey, we just started working on a really neat piece of music in my church choir last week," but you probably shouldn't be discussing doctrinal matters with or around anyone you don't know is a member of your own faith. And it's rarely safe to assume...
Quote:
If multiple people in the office are very religious, then it's perfectly fine for them to discuss a topic that interests them during times when others are allowed to freely chat (breaks, while sitting around, whatever), just like if two men were interested in football, it would be fine for that to be discussed. Not every topic will be of interest to everyone at the company, and just like when my coworkers begin discussing fantasy football (a subject in which I have zero interest), I simply tune it out, no harm no foul.
But other than in jest, how often have you ever run into a situation where it's implied that rooting for a different football team will result in your eternal damnation / make you an unfit parent / means you must secretly be a terrorist / etc.? (And I say this as a Pittsburgh Steelers fan who's spent 13 years living in greater Cleveland... *twitch* ) That's why religion is on a different level from things you may or may not have "an interest" in. Religion often involves matters of judgment. Football doesn't.
I don't think they're any more powerful than they were in the past. Used to be, your neighbors, family, best friends, school teachers, police officers, and most certainly your upstanding bosses were 'Men of God'. At least nowadays you can at least confess in some circles that you have questions about whether a God does or doesn't exist. There's never been a more agnostic generation than the one we have now.
Eh... there is a difference these days, IMHO.
At least for a good number of decades in the recent past, most of the overt "people of God" were only a minor nuisance. They might get preachy about random things and make themselves unwelcome while making everyone else uncomfortable, but their kookiness was limited and could be controlled.
Recently, however, with the rise of the far-right evangelicals, things have taken a far darker turn. For example:
1) It's one thing to believe the Bible creation story literally and grumble about "devilution," but it's another thing to try to ban the teaching of science in schools.
2) It's one thing to mutter bad words under your breath about people of different sexual orientations, but it's another to try to make them second class citizens with no real rights.
3) It's rude, but not inhuman, to take an active disinterest in the lives of people of other faiths. It's quite another thing to actively campaign for their forced conversion to your religion at gunpoint.
The current religious nuts are far more like the deadly and ignorant ones of centuries ago - the types who'd gladly burn their neighbors for being witches / Protestants / black / Muslim / etc. and who would gladly burn a whole city to "purify it" in the name of their warped version of God. Considering how many of them I've met who consider violence a solution to every problem - including "problems" such as: black people, Muslims, gays, anyone who's different from them, etc. - they are in no way "Christian" or "religious" by any real definition of the word. Whatever god they believe in has no relationship to the ones recorded in the major faiths of the world.
If they were just the old tongue clucking, goes-to-Church-every-Sunday "proper" people, this nation wouldn't be as divided as it is and we wouldn't have people worrying about their job or worse just because they don't pray to the same God the same way as the next guy.
Not intending to 'pick on' you, but it seems to me that our little interchange here points to a lot of the same basic problem whenever these kinda disagreements pop up between "believers" and the rest of us. And I think it gets back to the basic Narcissism inherent in many devout religious folks (which even Freud and Jung have both pointed to), namely the symptoms of "entitlement", "specialness", "defensiveness", and the lack of any empathy or accountability.
Because most disagreements, including the one in the OP, can often be sorted out with just a bit of mutual trust, empathy, respect and straightforwardness. But all that's usually damn near impossible when either party instead starts behaving much like the CIA's unofficial "motto": “Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations"!
I fail to see how anything I said could possibly be interpreted as narcissistic or defensive. I actually did admit that cases of Mormon discrimination against non-Mormons in the workforce exists. Beyond that, I merely pointed out that sweeping generalizations are seldom accurate.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,458,803 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I fail to see how anything I said could possibly be interpreted as narcissistic or defensive. I actually did admit that cases of Mormon discrimination against non-Mormons in the workforce exists. Beyond that, I merely pointed out that sweeping generalizations are seldom accurate.
Well, maybe it's just a misunderstanding (as these things often start), but you sounded kinda defensive when I simply cited my own experience with (apparent) religious discrimination, which BTW, wasn't to beat up on mormons, as much as to illustrate that it doesn't happen just in the south or with evangelicals. Then I had to ask you to "clarify", which you sorta did, along with another bit of defensiveness (aka, "other religions do it too, but we do it less"). You get my drift.
So instead of feeling 'entitled' to put up the automatic "Anti-Religious Persecution Shield", you could have initially replied with something like, "Yeah, I've experienced the same thing, even as a Mormon myself… and I can see how you might feel!" And IMHO, a lot of these same kinda "religious" thangs needlessly turn adversarial in much the same way.
BTW, how is it you always seem to pop up as the 'official mormon' in these kinda discussions… or do you have the CD Search function permanently set to show all posts with the words "Mormon" or "LDS" in 'em (just kidding… sorta)?!
Well, maybe it's just a misunderstanding (as these things often start), but you sounded kinda defensive when I simply cited my own experience with (apparent) religious discrimination, which BTW, wasn't to beat up on mormons, as much as to illustrate that it doesn't happen just in the south or with evangelicals. Then I had to ask you to "clarify", which you sorta did, along with another bit of defensiveness (aka, "other religions do it too, but we do it less"). You get my drift.
So instead of feeling 'entitled' to put up the automatic "Anti-Religious Persecution Shield", you could have initially replied with something like, "Yeah, I've experienced the same thing, even as a Mormon myself… and I can see how you might feel!" And IMHO, a lot of these same kinda "religious" thangs needlessly turn adversarial in much the same way.
BTW, how is it you always seem to pop up as the 'official mormon' in these kinda discussions… or do you have the CD Search function permanently set to show all posts with the words "Mormon" or "LDS" in 'em (just kidding… sorta)?!
Her first post (#51) was "Yeah, I had an experience very much like that. The only difference was that I am a Mormon. I didn't get the job either." Sounded to me as if her prime motivation was to relate that she'd had an experience similar to yours. You then responded with "So are you saying that you don't find it odd to have a job interview that seems more concerned with your private life… or that Mormons never discriminate?" Now, I don't know if your response was colored by posts she's made in other threads, but given just the above, your response was a head-scratcher, as it seemed pretty clear that she wasn't saying either of those things
its a question the interviewer cant ask,,,civil rights violation
the interviewers today should know this-years ago alot of this stuff wasnt known
when i first interviewed an applicant (in my early 20's) I never got any formal training how to interview- so the first applicant comes in,,,she was pretty and showing some cleavage-so, i asked her out,,,she came around and gave me a kiss,,, we nearly had sex on the desk!!
a black person applied for the job, and she got it,,,because the company said "we needed more color"
At least for a good number of decades in the recent past, most of the overt "people of God" were only a minor nuisance. They might get preachy about random things and make themselves unwelcome while making everyone else uncomfortable, but their kookiness was limited and could be controlled.
Recently, however, with the rise of the far-right evangelicals, things have taken a far darker turn. For example:
1) It's one thing to believe the Bible creation story literally and grumble about "devilution," but it's another thing to try to ban the teaching of science in schools.
2) It's one thing to mutter bad words under your breath about people of different sexual orientations, but it's another to try to make them second class citizens with no real rights.
3) It's rude, but not inhuman, to take an active disinterest in the lives of people of other faiths. It's quite another thing to actively campaign for their forced conversion to your religion at gunpoint.
The current religious nuts are far more like the deadly and ignorant ones of centuries ago - the types who'd gladly burn their neighbors for being witches / Protestants / black / Muslim / etc. and who would gladly burn a whole city to "purify it" in the name of their warped version of God. Considering how many of them I've met who consider violence a solution to every problem - including "problems" such as: black people, Muslims, gays, anyone who's different from them, etc. - they are in no way "Christian" or "religious" by any real definition of the word. Whatever god they believe in has no relationship to the ones recorded in the major faiths of the world.
If they were just the old tongue clucking, goes-to-Church-every-Sunday "proper" people, this nation wouldn't be as divided as it is and we wouldn't have people worrying about their job or worse just because they don't pray to the same God the same way as the next guy.
Very true. Can't give you more rep until I "spread some around". Didn't Ronald Reagan himself in a speech as President say we as a nation need to guard against religion in politics? If a self-proclaimed conservative GOP'r said that nowadays, they'd be at the least side-eyed, if not ousted from the party!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) That's why religion is on a different level from things you may or may not have "an interest" in. Religion often involves matters of judgment. Football doesn't.
