Conference yukon::christian_v7

 So, when I was praying with a man in the caf a couple weeks ago, I coulda
been charged with harrassment by folks who witnessed it?



Jim

	I can kind of see why something like this should go into effect, but I
don't think the extreme they are going to be using is the right way. If someone
does not want to hear about religion, they should say so. This way people will
know that this person does not want to be talked to about religion and it
should be left at that. If someone continues to talk to this person about
religion, then yes, that would be harrassment. But to say religious items can't
be placed in an office is going too far, to bring someone up on harrassment
charges after saying, "God be with you" is dumb and should not be in place. I
also don't think it is a good idea to make an issue out of 2 people talking
about religion AS LONG as they aren't talking about any individual in
particular. An example might be, "Dave really needs to be saved. He's on the
road to hell and if he doesn't clean up his act, I fear he won't get into
heaven". If the person hearing this knew Dave or was just sick of Christians
spouting things like this off, then yes, I could see them getting upset. BUT,
unless people are doing something like this repeatedly, there should be no
harrassment charges. What should happen is the ones who are being offended
should talk to those who they feel are doing the offending. It should take
repeated actions before any type of harrassment occurs. And while it was not
stated in /john's note, I'm sure it ain't gonna happen on a one time occurance.
Like with any harrassment charge that is verbal and non-threatening, it will
take more than one occurance, and the person who is doing the alleged
harrassing will be spoken to.


Glen

Sounds as though something which has lost its home in the east for a while
is looking to roost in the west.... 

								Andrew 

    
    Can we count it all joy?  Is this not in a sense what we were promised
    - that we would be persecuted if we truly follow Jesus?
    
    I believe we should fight the wrong with all our might.  However, if
    you've ever prayed for the purification and power of the church and
    really meant it, you should know that nothing purifies like trials and
    tribulation, especially persecution.
    
    When we suffer for Jesus's sake and endure it properly we can know our
    God better than at any other time.
    
    jeff

  Uh, do we check our money at the door?
  we cant spend it in a DEC facility...


           IN GOD WE TRUST

     Hank

    two shays... 8*}
    

 I've always wondered why the separation of church and state crowd doesn't
 get all upset about signs on city streets announcing the presence of a
 church..maybe the churches pay for them?




 Jim

    just another basic constitutional freedom being taking away to push us
    further toward a police state.

My response:  define "religion"

Some people comb their hair religiously and the amount of attention 
given to hedonisitc pursuits is offensive to me and the way some people
treat themselves as god, it may be broadly defined as relgion and thereby
religious harrassment.

I feel this way about certain agenda groups, where the agenda is the dogma
to which they bow and live their lives.  Every other sentence is laced with
the regurgitated party line.  You want to talk about religion and evangelism;
the Agenda Pee Cee groups got both and they're out to convert you, by hook
or by crook, and by the EEOC, too.

Mark

    Mark, 
    
    Do you remember that line from Animal Farm?  Went something like - 
    
    "Well, of course all animals are equal!  But what you don't seem to
    realize is that some animals are more equal than others."  
    
    When you flip a coin with the PC crowd, remember the rules:  "Heads, I
    win; tails, you lose."  
    
    /John

    Jeff is right on.
    
    Count it as joy!

    I have mixed feeling about this.  Besides the fact that such
    regulations are utter nonsense, and totally unconstitutional, it is
    also kind of...exciting.  We were told that we would be persecuted, so
    it comes as no surprise that it comes in the form of PC type 
    regulations, set up to further push us into a police state where the
    persecution will begin in earnest.
    
    Satan hates us...and he is being given more and more power as the end
    times close in.  Prepare yourself to be purified by fire.
    
    -steve 

>>    regulations are utter nonsense, and totally unconstitutional, it is
>>    also kind of...exciting.  We were told that we would be persecuted, so


Exciting??  How about terrifying.  Go see "Schindler's List" or take a tour of 
the Holocaust Museum in D.C. to see just how "exciting" persecution can be.  
Persecution is not something to be excited about or even look forward to.  I 
certainly don't want to be around for such things.  Can we be certain that 
God will be with us?  OF COURSE!  But even so, I would not classify it as 
exciting.  But, as John said on Patmos, "Even so, come LORD Jesus!"

Greg...

Saw a bumper sticker which had "Earth" and "WBCN" (a local rock radio station).
I thought of Gaia ("Mother Earth" goddess) and how "Save the earth" and
all recycling efforts might remind us of a pseudo-religion that worships
the planet, the ecology, or whatever socio-political agenda that makes
one feel good about being a member of "an enlightened society."

What is religion?  Critics charge that religion is a crutch for the 
self-challenged.  But the purveyors of anti-religion preach a gospel
of self-sufficiency and feeling good by taking care of Mother Earth,
saving the whales, and reaching out to other life forms in the galaxy.
The very same charge that religion is something to make one feel better
about themselves and their state in the cosmos is the same thing that 
these people would offer: [insert-cause] makes you feel better about 
yourself because you're being a good global citizen.

Even given the fact that these two reasons for action (in religion or in
a non-religious cause) are the same, there is a step further that pits
the two against each other.  "They" say that religion is a matter for
the uneducated and unelightened and should be expunged through education
(brain washing) and enlightenment (regurgiated brain washing).

"They" deny that (a) their views and actions rival the worst of religious
prostelytizing zealots, and (b) the religions of the world respect the 
ecology and enviroment even if some of its adherents have not.

"They" empitomize hypocrisy.

    re: .14  Yet much of society views "them" as politically correct.  SAD!

        Re: .14

    Great note, Mark!  With all this mother Earth stuff, people are
    practicing paganism (worshiping the creation instead of the Creator)
    whether they realize it or not.  God did say He would destroy those
    that destroy the earth, but this isn't what He had in mind.

    Mike

re .16

Yes, the Gaia Groupies are definitely worshipping the Created rather than
the Creator.  ("Gaia, Gaia, why do they treat you like dirt?")

But Christians must not forget that we, too, are obliged to be stewards of
God's creation, and not wantonly destroy the environment or fail to protect
weaker species.  All within reason.

/john

    re: .13
    
    No, it's exciting to me, really...I'm strange that way.  It's also
    scary (I thought I said that, too, but maybe not).
    
    Why is it exciting?  It is part of the signs of our Lord's return.  I
    will trust God and try to look forward to any challenges He sends my
    way.  We need not be fearful in the times of tribulation, as the Lord
    is with us.
    
    Besides, fear is parylizing and worry does no one any good.  I prefer
    "excitement", personally.  Though I do not necessarily look forward to
    harder times, there is not much I can do about it when they come.
    All I can do is choose how I react to it.  Will I run in fear?  Will I
    worry too much and be ineffective for God?  Or will I trust in the Lord
    and allow Him to work through me?
    
    
    
    -steve 

I believe that Steve is right.  It is exciting, as well as ominous.  Luke 
21:28 says of such things "When these things begin to take place, stand up 
and lift up your heads, because your redmption is drawing near."  It is 
immensely exciting to realise that the time is approaching when the 
Creator, our righteous, holy and loving God is going to once more step into 
time with a physical intervention.  The depravity, degrading and opposition 
of the mass of mankind is like the trigger that precipitates it.  And we 
may actually personally witness it...!!! [uh, make that for
non-pre-trib-rapture...;-] 

"The sceptre of the wicked will not remain over the the land alloted to 
the righteous, for then the righteous might use their hands to do evil"
Psalm 125:3

It is God's hand which currently sustains creation - Hebrews 1:3 :
 "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of
  His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word."
When evil is matured (raised up against the good), it is plucked off - He
will not sustain it. Trouble is, our estimate of 'enough' isn't the same as
His! 

 "For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and
  of a sound mind."
							2 Timothy 1:7 

re .14, Mark, the deluded ones make temporal cares an end in themselves, 
responsible to 'future generations', 'mother earth', and similar concepts, 
to avoid the real responsibility to a prefect Designer, because His 
perfection in design is an unavoidable indictment of our imperfection in 
spirit.  As per Romans 1:19-20 :

 "...what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it
  plain to them.  For since the beginning of the world God's invisible
  qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen,
  being understood from what is has been made, so that men are without
  excuse." 

								Andrew

      re: .9,.14
    
      Tremendous replies Mark!  That is a concept that I have thought
      of, but never applied to the _application_ of separation of church
      and state in the workplace, public places, etc.
    
      And that is that all people WORSHIP.  All people have a RELIGION.
      Once one recognizes the above and addresses that fact honestly,
      it becomes apparent that to deny all religious conversation in the
      workplace is tatamount to denying conversation period.  
    
      I'll bet we'd be surprised about how much of our spoken words, our
      facial expressions, our body language is a manifestation of our
      worship.
    
      The bottom line is...our minds are in service to something.  Be it
      Christ, materialism, sexual lusts, etc. etc.   And to what our mind
      is in service to is simply another way of saying what our worship
      is, what our service is, what our religion is, who our god is.
    
      And once this is understood, an honest appraisel of what is going
      on is that ONE WORSHIP TYPE (the worship of God the Creator) is being
      singled out and branded as unacceptable in certain places.
    
      It is just further proof that the extent of the godlessness of our
      society is frightening.  Its as black as pitch.  From the perspective
      of warring against principalities and powers, its a very pitch-black
      manifestation we are seeing RIGHT NOW!!!
    
                                                   Thanks Mark,
                                                              
                                                   Tony

    >All people have a religion.
    
    Correct.  Some don't identify it as such because it is missing some of
    the trappings that many commonly associate with a religion:
    ornamentation, rituals, altering one's own behavior in deferrence to
    the relgious icon or god.  Upon closer inspection, though, these
    ornaments, rituals, and behaviors can be identified as something in
    which a person has invested his or her energies.
    
    Boating enthusiasts have ornaments, rituals, and behaviors, even
    superstitions.  How many people read their horoscope, "just for fun?"
    
    Religion is pervasive; no, it is all-pervasive.  And this has not been
    lost on the Almighty when He declared that "Thou shalt have no other
    gods before Me," and "No man can serve two gods..." and "Love the Lord
    your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind,
    and with all your strength" and "seek ye first the kingdom of God and
    His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you."
    
    God knew that *WHATEVER* someone puts first (or at the center) of their
    being, thoughts, and actions was their god and they would be ruled by
    it and NOT rule their god.  (Do you really think a ski enthusiast rules
    the skiiing or is ruled by it?)  Jesus said, God promises, that when we
    make Him our God, all will be well (in the eternal; not the temporal)
    and that all other gods lead to ruin.
    
    MM

More info on the topic.

HOW THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION'S PROPOSED GUIDELINES WILL
AFFECT RELIGION IN THE WORKPLACE

"How close are the 'thought police'? Perhaps a lot closer than you think.
Perhaps as close as your office.

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is currently reviewing
Proposed Guidelines on Harassment based on, among other things, religion.
If the proposed guidelines are approved, they will take effect as final
rules by which claims of harassment are determined.

"The EEOC's release states that the proposed guidelines only clarify
EEOC's position on the issues. An EEOC letter states that the guidelines
'do not set forth new law'. In fact, they depart, sometimes radically so,
from existing law. This will result in employers banning any type of
discussion or expression of religion in the workplace, creating a kind of
'first amendment free zone.'

"The proposed guidelines state that harassment on the basis of religion
(as well as race, color, gender, national origin, age, or disability)
constitutes employment discrimination. This sounds fine in the abstract.
It is when EEOC starts defining the terms that the trouble begins.

"'Harassment' is defined as 'verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or
shows hostility or aversion toward an individual because of his/her ...
religion, ... or that of his/her relatives, friends, or associates,' and
creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment,'... or
otherwise adversely affects an individual's employment opportunities.'

"This, alone, raises a myriad of questions. How does an employer know
what the religious beliefs of an employee (let alone 'his/her' relatives,
friends, or associates) are, or how they may be offended, unless the
employee has stated them? What religious activities would be seen as
intimidating, hostile, or offensive? To whom? You get the idea.

"The existing laws allow discrimination complaints on the basis of
religion. A claim must be based on (1) a good faith belief that an
employment requirement is contrary to his religious belief, (2) he has
informed his employer about the conflict, and (3) he was discharged or
adversely affected because of his refusal to comply with the requirement.
The employer may then prove that it could not accommodate the employee's
beliefs without undue hardship to the business. A harassment claim
requires more stringent evidence by the employee, since it is viewed as a
more serious claim.

"The proposed guidelines eliminate any requirement that the employee
inform the employer of the unwelcome conduct. They also add provisions
for evaluating conduct from the perspective of one offended (the 'victim
mentality'), which are not an accepted part of the present laws. Finally,
the proposed guidelines forsake existing law, by making the employer
liable for harassment even if the employer did not know of the conduct, if
there is no policy against harassment that is 'clearly and regularly
communicated to employees,' or fails to establish an acceptable (to EEOC)
complaint procedure.

"Unlike existing law, the proposed guidelines impose on the employer 'an
affirmative duty' to maintain a workplace free from harassment.

"There is no practical way an employer can meet this 'affirmative duty'
unless the employer completely bans the discussion, dissemination or
expression of any religious belief or practice. This, if mandated by the
government, would violate both free speech and free exercise or religion
clauses of the first amendment.

"What can be done?

"1. Write to EEOC, asking for reconsideration of the Proposed Guidelines
on Harassment Based on Race, Color, Religion, Gender, National Origin,
Age, or Disability.

"2. Write to your Senators and Representative, urging them to require
review and reconsideration of the Proposed Guidelines on Harassment Based
on Race, Color, Religion, Gender, National Origin, Age, or Disability.

"3. Tell a friend."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      This file was provided by Joan E. Keith from the Internet.

    Consider this.
    
    Christians who picket abortion clinics are now subject to Federal
    anti-racketeering laws.  These laws were written to attack gangsters,
    the Mafia, organized crime.  Never were they intended to apply toward
    picketing citizens.  My point is:  broadly written laws in the hands
    of a hostle government will be used against us.  Original intent
    has not bearing today on the appliation of law.  Just consider the issue 
    of how 'seperation of church and State' is twisted to meet their agenda.
    
    Just because we will be prosecuted does not mean we should not be heard
    on these matters.  
    

	While the laws origionally were written for mafia type people, they do
apply to the case of SOME pro-life groups. 



Glen

RE : <<< Note 442.24 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

>	While the laws origionally were written for mafia type people, they do
>apply to the case of SOME pro-life groups. 

Glen,

My knowledge of the RICO laws is very limited.  Could you explain them and how
they support this claim?  This is a serious request, because I have never under-
stood how RICO can be used against Pro-Lifers.

Thanks,

Jim()

> My knowledge of the RICO laws is very limited.  Could you explain them and how
> they support this claim?  This is a serious request, because I have never 
> understood how RICO can be used against Pro-Lifers.

Because the Supreme Court ruled that it could.

The argument is that pro-life organizations can constitute a "conspiracy" with 
the intent to drive abortion clinics out of business.

Eric

RE : <<< Note 442.26 by KALI::EWANCO "Eric James Ewanco" >>>
                                 -< RICO & OR >-

>> The argument is that pro-life organizations can constitute a "conspiracy" with 
>> the intent to drive abortion clinics out of business.

Eric,

OK, but how does that involve "racketeering"?  Or are Christians now associated
with the "Mob"?  It is getting scarier and scarier to live in this cess-pool of
a country we have...

Jim()

ps - I am not anti-US or anything like that.  I love this country, that is why
I get so upset when I hear about stuff like this... Are we going backwards?

| <<< Note 442.27 by NWD002::JOLMAMA "President Clinton and her husband." >>>



| The hypocracy of the current administration, as a friend of the Court, is 
| unbelievable. To use racketeering laws against Christians picketing abortion 
| clinics is unconscionable.  

	I think if people want to picket, that is fine. It is done everyday.
But where I think the law comes in handy is for those who would run inside the
clinics and chain themselves to the fixtures, to those who would lay down
blocking the clinics. Where I think the law does go too far is those who are
picketing without blocking/etc. Because then it becomes just like any other
picket that the nation can have, and therefor should not be punishable. But I
do think this is something that should be applied to any group who tries to
shut down another business that is legal by law.



Glen

Is there a reason Glen's note was set hidden?  I didn't think there was anything
that violated any conference policy.  I even wanted to reply to it...

Jim()

    .29  was set hidden due to its referencing another note that was set
    hidden.  It's just policy.

    The hypocracy of the current administration, as a friend of the Court,
    is unbelievable. To use racketeering laws against Christians picketing
    abortion clinics is unconscionable.  Consider the hue and cry should
    the Regan/Bush administrations have used this law aginst the animal rights
    groups, or the anti-nuke or the anti-Sandanista or the anti-Gulf War
    crowd in their picketing and protests.  The power companies are the
    one's who faced a conspiracy to shut down an industry, not the
    abortionists.
    
    Just like Mao's China or Nazi Germany, to speak out and to act against
    government policy is to be an 'enemy of the people.'  Be it abortion or
    taxes, or health care, speak out and you are a villain to the PC people.
    Those who profess to represent tolerance, again and again, are the least 
    tolerant, should you disagree with their views.  
      
    Christians and conservatives today are the Jews of the Nazi era.
    "If you were of the world, the world would love its own.  But because
    I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."  As
    always, Scripture is right on- we will be persected.  My struggle is to
    "consider with joy."
    
    To the previous note, stating RICO can be used against Christians
    because the Supreme Court states rule so.  This does not make the
    ruling right.  This same court also allowed for "seperate but equal"
    schools, Jim Crow laws, ad nauseum.  
    
    

    A revised version of .27 has been entered, and .29 unhidden.  (I
    replaced the original .27 with the revised version in order to maintain
    continuity within the topic.)
    
    Mark Lovik (co-mod)

    >    Christians and conservatives today are the Jews of the Nazi era.
    
    funny you should mention this.  There was a Christian author on local
    talk-radio yesterday that just wrote a book on the parallels between
    how Christians are treated today and how Jews were treated in Germany
    from 1890 up to the Holocaust.
    
    Mike

    re:  .33
    
    Heard something similar a few weeks ago on NY Christian radio.  I
    remember the author identified five steps:  
    
    	Identify them as "different"
    
    	Move them out of the mainstream
    
    	Create belief that what they say is untrustworthy
       	.
    	.
    	.
    
    These from very rusty memory, but you get the drift.
    
    The author was *very* clear, and frighteningly accurate, in his
    comparisons.  
    
    Has anyone else heard him?  Know his name?  Name of the book?
    

	The difference between the 2 would seem to be obvious. There are many
Christian groups that exist today that resemble the Waco group in some form or
another, there are some fundalmentalist groups that are seen as an uncaring
bunch (take for example the guy who goes around with a bunch of people
picketing AIDS victim funerals) and then when you look at Christians from one
extreme to the other there is such a difference between each end that it looks
totally disorganized. But if anything, the extremists are what is giving you a
bad name. Groups like OR are having a major problem saying they are loving and
caring on one hand, but do some of the things they to on the other. 


Glen

      Hi Glen,
    
        I am not going to defend the Waco group, but my own understanding
        of this situation is that it did not warrent the government's
        response.  (In fact, I'm even open to the possibility that Waco
        served as an _experiment_, i.e. how far can the government go
        in its efforts to rape its own people without retaliation?)
    
        Koresh could have been arrested several times during any number
        of days just prior to the first assault.  He could have been
        arrested at the local McDonald's or hardware store or whatever.
        In the second assault, well...there is video that makes it look
        pretty grim.  I have heard that the tank combat strategy is
        entirely consistent with what one would want to do for military
        combat and footage shows tank fire.
    
        Finally, there is no denying a biblical basis for apocalypticism.
        Something that separates sheep and goats as real as the flood 
        did.  People will cry "Peace and safety" and the Bible certainly
        forecasts religious 'shephards' as doing so.  Certainly, the
        government will outlaw the last day apocalyptic message.  I know
        this without knowing what form that message will be.
    
        In other words...prophecy forecasts an apocalyptic event that
        polarizes.  You can bet that the proponents of this message will
        be considered even "more wacko than Waco."  And you can bet the
        government will find more reason to outlaw it than anything that
        has been mentioned here.  And this outlaw and ensuing persecution
        will find complete support from (shall we say?) its more 'sane'
        citizens.
    
        This is not to say that all apocalyptic groups are kosher, but 
        only to say that there will be a TRUE one.  
    
        And that the world (including all civil governments) will most
        surely despise it.        
    
                                                      Tony

    >    Has anyone else heard him?  Know his name?  Name of the book?
    
    I wrote down his name and number and will try to post it later.  I
    remember he was from Buffalo, NY.

 Glen, note the book that Mike mentioned records the years 1890-on through
 the holocaust..it had to start someplace, and the evidence is there that
 there is a growing anti Christian atmosphere in this country.




Jim

    "Extermination of Christianity" by Paul Schank.  Phone number is 
    (800) 749-4009

 A book I've been wanting to get is "The Religious Cleansing of America"
 which David Jeremiah has been advertising on his radio program.  Haven't
 seen it in the stores yet.




 Jim

Got this off of a list I run ...

Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 17:08:03 EST
From: [email protected] (Steve Frezza)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fortune Mag. on EEOC
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [email protected]


Following up on Eric's request for relavent news, Here's a report on the EEOC
from Fortune: ...

The latest Fortune had their own take on the proposed EEOC regulations.
They line up pretty much with what Christian and Conservative
DC watchdog groups are saying.  (Even the ACLU isn't touching this
one - such is the lack of need for these regs.)

------------------------

Fortune Magazine
April 18, 1994
pg. 184

THE EEOC GETS RELIGION

It seems that the ideal of religious tolerance is now enforced by a
federal agency that writes sentences like the following, taken from a
recent "fact sheet" issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission: "An employee has redress if s/he is subjected to
repeated epithets or insults hostile to his/her religion."  Only a
question of time is the emergence of "h/is/er" as the agency's
possesive pronoun of choice.

The EEOC, now in the process of extending the laws against sex-based
harassment so as to also cover race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, age, and disability, has been taking flak in Congress on
the religious front.  On the sex-in-business front, it is of course
firmly established that harassment covers not only demands for
sexual favors but also the existence of a "hostile environment" for
women (or, conceivably, men).  The question now on the table is:
Exactly what behavior will be verboten when the EEOC finalizes its
proposed ban on hostile environments in the religious context?

The agency's guidelines speak vaguely of situations in which the
corporate environment is somehow radiating "hostility or aversion"
toward employees because of their religious beliefs.  The fact
sheet, created in an effort to help Congressmen answer
constituent mail, mentions an example that only an EEOC apparatchik
could view as plausible:  the "secular humanist" boss who goes around
ridiculing the beliefs of his Christian employees.

Ah, but the mail flowing into Congress makes it clear that the secular
humanist threat is not what's worrying religiously oriented business
people.  Eyeing the ineradicable ambiguity of the new proposals,
combined with the tendency of EEOC regulations to expand into far
more territory than initially contemplated, it is natural to
wonder:  If a pat on the (upper) back can now trigger a sexual-harassment
suit, what happens to a boss who says God bless you?  Or to a
company whose policy manual prescribes adherence to biblical
principals?

As we write, 45 members of the House are asking the EEOC to delete
the religious requirement.  Conceivably, it will do so, although
the fact sheet defensively argues the great importance of making it
clear that "workplace harassment [is] prohibited on any and all
of the bases covered by the laws the Commission enforces."

Religious bigotry is not nonexistent (i.e. it exists), but nobody
seems willing to step forward and argue that religious harassment
in the workplace is any kind of serious social problem here and
now.  The EEOC itself has not made any such contention,
and Bob Peck of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington
office has been quoted as saying he was hard-pressed to think
of any cases in this area.  To be sure, the absence of any real
problem is no guarantee against a federal solution.

ybiC,
x

The following message, included in the 22-Apr-1994 edition of the Digital 
Christian Fellowship newsletter, is reprinted with permission from the
author.

I pray that we all take a few minutes to call the enclosed telephone number
and register our complaints to our congressional representatives.  Let us not 
fall into into apathy thinking that "the other readers will call; I don't 
need to."  I am guilty of this so far.  Jesus is speaking to me through
Elin's message to "get involved" on this issue.

Anybody else feel so moved?  Why don't we reply to this note when we've 
registered a complaint with our congressmen/women.  I plan to.  How many can 
we get before the end of the week?

Call today; operators are standing by...

Bill

==============================================================================
From:	ICS::LEE_L "22-Apr-1994 1657" 22-APR-1994 17:00:24.38
CC:	
Subj:	Urgent Request                                                         1


                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     22-Apr-1994 02:55pm EDT
                                        From:     ELIN LEE
                                                  LEE.ELIN
                                        Dept:     Worldwide MFG. Log Reference
                                        Tel No:   508-493-7896

TO:  Remote Addressee                     ( _MILORD::Bishop )


Subject: Urgent Request                                              

    Richard,
    
    Sorry for the lateness of this but could you please forward it to your 
    DCF DL as soon as it gets to you, whenever that may be?  You might want 
    to add a disclaimer.
    
    Thanks,
    E

    Dear Brothers and Sisters--
    
    I listened this afternoon to Focus on the Family to get an update on 
    the new "religious cleansing" issue from the EEOC that was sent out 
    recently on the D4CREW newsletter, out of the kindness and concern of 
    that editor.
    
    The news is not good. 
    
    The EEOC buried the "public notice" of this proposed law in a 
    government publication last fall, in a section where no one was likely 
    to discover it.  No wonder no one ever saw it!  A comment on today's 
    broadcast was made that this new administration "seems to feel it must 
    be secretive about policy changes" to the extent of hiding public 
    notices that invite negative comment.
    
    As a result of how few people saw the notice last fall, there were very 
    few negative responses to the EEOC, which is now planning to go ahead 
    with this proposal by writing it up and sending it to Congress.  
    
    ****  IF IT IS PASSED, EMPLOYERS WILL BE FORCED TO PROHIBIT ANY TYPE OF 
    RELIGIOUS DISPLAYS OR EVENTS (ANYONE WALKING PAST A ROOM WHERE A BIBLE 
    STUDY IS OCCURRING COULD SUE THE COMPANY FOR "RELIGIOUS HARASSMENT"!).  
    NO BIBLES OR SYMBOLS OR IMAGES OF RELIGION WOULD BE PERMITTED.  AND 
    IT'S CONCEIVABLE OPEN FORUMS SUCH AS THE CHRISTIAN NOTES FILE AND THIS 
    NEWSLETTER WOULD BE PROHIBITED AND SHUT DOWN.  ****
    
    The EEOC is planning to adapt the Sexual Harassment law to fit 
    religion.  All subsequent lawsuits would be judged in Washington, D.C. 
    before federal authorities with possible HEAVY fines.  All would be 
    judged according to the COMPLAINANT'S PERSPECTIVE.  That is to say, if 
    someone in the workplace comforts another employee, even by offering 
    "I'll pray for you if you'd like", that employee will be able to turn 
    around in a moment of pique at almost any later time and sue the 
    company for religious harassment.  I don't know what the statute of 
    limitations is for such complaints.
    
    
    The current recommendation from both James Dobson and Gary Bauer of the 
    Family Research Council is that we GET INVOLVED!!  It's too late to 
    contact the EEOC with any effect (not that contacting them directly 
    would have had any effect anyway).  The advice now is to contact your 
    Congressman's office to register your shock/disbelief/outrage--you 
    decide!--that your First Amendment RIGHT of Freedom of Speech is being 
    taken away by this rule should it go into effect.  And don't be 
    deceived that this isn't happening, because it is.  
    
    Our religious freedom IS in the process of being taken away from us and 
    from future generations.
    
                 As Dr. Dobson said,  "Where are the troops?"
    
    He also said he wondered how long it would be before it becomes illegal 
    to meet in church to worship God??
    
    
    So, what can we do about this before it really IS too late?
    
    Focus on the Family and the Family research Council are urging 
    Christians to call the Capitol Hill Switchboard, ask for your 
    Congressman's office (if you don't know who your Congressman is, you 
    can find out by telling the operator where you live)--and tell your 
    Congressman how you feel about the EEOC porposal to eliminate religious 
    talk/activity/evidence from the workplace.
    
    The phone number for the Capitol Hill Switchboard is:
    
                                 202-224-3121
    
    
    Please call.  It isn't too late--yet.
    
    In Him (whose Name we are still allowed to say and type in the 
    workplace),
    
    Elin Lee

HARASSING BEHAVIOR

   The proposed guidelines set out the criteria for determining
whether an action constitutes unlawful "harassing behavior."

   "Harassment is verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows
hostility, aversion toward an individual because of his/her
. . . religion . .  . or that of his/her relatives, friends, or
associates.  These criteria are that the conduct: 1) has the purpose
or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work
environment; 2) has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering
with an individual's work performance; or 3) otherwise adversely
affects an individual's employment opportunities."
********************************************************************************

	Using the criteria above, I don't agree with -.1  I think there is an
issue being made that does not need to be. In other words, this is getting
blown out of proportion. Here is a classic example of it:


IF IT IS PASSED, EMPLOYERS WILL BE FORCED TO PROHIBIT ANY TYPE OF RELIGIOUS 
DISPLAYS OR EVENTS (ANYONE WALKING PAST A ROOM WHERE A BIBLE STUDY IS OCCURRING 
COULD SUE THE COMPANY FOR "RELIGIOUS HARASSMENT"!).  

	How could what was written above be done? Will a bible study off in a
room create an intimidating, hostile or offensive work enviroment? Unless
someone was directly involved in it and had proof of something was happening
(like planning against others), this will never happen. How will it interfer 
with someone's work performance? Job opportunities? Totally blown out of
proportion.  How about this next one:


NO BIBLES OR SYMBOLS OR IMAGES OF RELIGION WOULD BE PERMITTED.  

	How does a religious symbol create an intimidating, hostile or offensive
work enviroment? A symbol can't. How will it interfer with someone's work 
performance? Job opportunities? Totally blown out of proportion. How about this 
next one:


AND IT'S CONCEIVABLE 

	There is the killer right there. Conceivable. Sorry, how is it
conceivable?

OPEN FORUMS SUCH AS THE CHRISTIAN NOTES FILE AND THIS NEWSLETTER WOULD BE 
PROHIBITED AND SHUT DOWN. 

	How does a notesfile or newsletter create an intimidating, hostile or 
offensive work enviroment? A notesfile/newsletter can't. How will it interfer 
with someone's work performance? Job opportunities? Totally blown out of 
proportion. How about this next one:
    
That is to say, if someone in the workplace comforts another employee, even by 
offering "I'll pray for you if you'd like", that employee will be able to turn 
around in a moment of pique at almost any later time and sue the company for 
religious harassment.  


	How does comforting someone, even by saying to them you will pray for
them if they'd like create an intimidating, hostile or offensive work enviroment
Comforting can't. How will it interfer with someone's work performance? Job 
opportunities? Totally blown out of proportion.


	In each of these things there is one common thread. They can not by
themselves cause any harrasment claims. Only the people who are involved with 
these things can. If someone or a group of people are constantly trying to save,
talk about religion, etc, to someone or a group of people that don't want to 
hear it, then they will bring on the wrath of the others. Let's see.. I remember
that I have been told many a time if I talk about X or Y it will be considered
harrassment in here because of the "guidelines". Now the shoe seems to be on
the other foot and everyone is crying fowle. Why is that? Why is it that the
guidelines which I took from .0 seem very clear, and in each of the examples
the person listed in .43 (I think) will never happen unless the person involved
is someone who only talks about God this, saved that, etc. You can't have it
both ways. If you believe that because of your guidelines that one should not
talk about X or Y or it's harrassment, then you should not fight over this
which is really doing the same thing.




Glen

>NO BIBLES OR SYMBOLS OR IMAGES OF RELIGION WOULD BE PERMITTED.  
>
>How does a religious symbol create an intimidating, hostile or offensive
>work enviroment? A symbol can't. How will it interfer with someone's work 
>performance? Job opportunities? Totally blown out of proportion.

But it is the government that has totally blown this out of proportion.

For example -- court cases have held that the Sports Illustrated swimsuit
calendar creates a hostile work environment.

/john

	How?

    .45
    
    Now Brown Cow... :-)
    
    Because of the mentality this brings into the office towards women as
    sexual objects.
    
    I'd be real offended if I had to work where women were meat on display.
    
    

	Thank you Nancy. That is my point exactly. The symbolism it gives is of
the sexist nature. How will a religious symbol in an office offend another? 


Glen

    Were are the christians?  Why aren't they calling Capitol Hill and
    express their views?  My called the number this morning and spoke to
    someone on Senator Kerry's line.  She explained she felt this bill 
    should not be passed and wanted to give her input.  Well she was told 
    that she was the first call received on the matter?!  I thought how can
    that be.  How long will Christians remain silent on political issues?
    
    If this is indeed the case, only 1 or perhaps a small number of people
    calling in I think Christians should wake up.
    
    Just my $.02,
    
    Richard
    

 Hi Richard,

 >Where are the Christians...

  We are all still here. Some of us believe this is the beginning of the end...

  Not to worry...  "lift up your heads, your redemption draweth nigh"

    Hank

>    someone on Senator Kerry's line.  She explained she felt this bill 
>    should not be passed and wanted to give her input.  Well she was told 
>    that she was the first call received on the matter?!

Well, it isn't a bill before Congress; it is a set of regulations being
discussed by Clinton appointees.

/john

    
    
    re: some few back on harassment.
    
    I attended a seminar on harasment hosted by Ron Glover (DECs legal
    department).  The one overriding thing I remember is that intent is
    immaterial.  If someone *feels* harassed, the law says that they *are*
    harassed.  It is amazingly vague and open ended.  I walked away feeling
    like I lived in 1600's Salem, MA.  I could easily see all of the feared
    reactions coming about.  
    
    Otto

  Re .49 

  This dosnt mean I'm not concerned or dont pray to the Father concerning
  the "perilous times", but what can we do other than pray about whats
  happening and trust the Lord?

  Re the Christian Notes file (CNF)...

  Unless we are wise as the serpent, sooner or later it will (in all 
  probability) be shut down. For example...

  Suppose for instance, NAMBLA gets their way and has the "age of consent"
  for legal sexual participation between consentees lowered to, shall we say 
  10 years old (they want it to be 7 years old and openly say "by eight its
  too late), apart from the problem we as parents will have in protecting our 
  children, some child molester will be able to say "the CNF offends me 
  because they consider child molestation a sin, I want it shut down!" or
  ___________ has publicly slandered me for practising a legal activity,
  I want him/her __________.


  ??????????

| <<< Note 442.52 by DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR >>>




| Suppose for instance, NAMBLA gets their way and has the "age of consent"
| for legal sexual participation between consentees lowered to, shall we say
| 10 years old (they want it to be 7 years old and openly say "by eight its
| too late), apart from the problem we as parents will have in protecting our
| children, some child molester will be able to say "the CNF offends me 
| because they consider child molestation a sin, I want it shut down!" or
| ___________ has publicly slandered me for practising a legal activity,
| I want him/her __________.


	What is a legal age for you? In Mass it's 18. In other states it's as
low as 14. Would you like to see one age of consent for the whole country? If
so, what age do you feel is the correct one? Do you now feel that those states
that are at a lower age than what you're used to are sinning? What age does the
Bible put on things? Again, it appears as another case of blowing things out of
proportion. 



Glen

  
  Hi Glen,

  It is indeed a complex issue.

  The Scripture indicates the age of thirteen (or thereabouts) when a 
  Hebrew youngster becomes of age (Son of the "law" (Mitzvah not Torah)).
  The mitzvaim being taken from the Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

  In Maine (as far as I know) any sexual participation under the age of 16
  with an adult incurs a felony on the adult regardless of consent. There is 
  a technicality about the age of 14-16 in Maine and I believe it has to do 
  with marriage allowed by consent of the state and/or parents.  

  I would like to see a national minimum age of 18 as the age of consent 
  as a concession to those who are unable to refrain from sexual activity.
  Once that door is passed through its very difficult to go back.

  In cases such as these invloving a moveable age for different people and
  their ability to discern, a line must be drawn somewhere. Only Our Heavenly
  Father knows when that happens for each of us.

  Obviously, a sin is commited when such acts are forcible, no matter how
  young or old the victim. Coersion and seduction (limited consent) are  
  another matter. Our Heavenly father will judge.
  
  Legally consenting individuals : again thats in Our Fathers hands.
  
                Hank

    I think the Biblical view would be the age at which they were married
    is the age of consent, but then only with their spouse.
    
    p

	So I guess that would make the age of consent thing just something that
should involve marriage, and should not be applied to sex. In other words
regardless of the age of a person, they should be able to marry and live their
lives, and if there is an age of consent for sex, then it becomes more of a
legal issue. But I do agree that 18 should be the age across the country.
Thanks for clearing that up. 

	BTW, as an aside, I really don't think NAMBLA will ever get the age of
consent down any further than what it is. 


Glen

    re: .56
    
    I wouldn't place any bets on that...

| <<< Note 442.57 by CSOA1::LEECH "Homer of Borg,prepare to be..MMM,beer" >>>


| I wouldn't place any bets on that...


	I knew YOU would say that! :-)

Glen

    Re .56 Glen

   >...a legal issue

   Yes, as much as Christians may dislike this fact, every citizen has the
   right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (no matter what that
   means) as long the legal rights of others are not infringed upon.

   Age of consent and NAMBLA...  I tend to agree with you, but who knows...

   Hank

  Re .54

  oops...  mitzvaim s/b mitzvoth; feminine pl not masculine.

  Hank

   WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate is urging the Equal Employment
   Opportunity Commission to drop religion from proposed guidelines on
   unlawful harassment in the workplace.

   In a 94-0 vote Thursday night, the Senate approved a resolution
   asking the agency to remove religion from the regulations proposed
   last year to define what constitutes workplace harassment.

   The resolution, sponsored by Sen. Howell Heflin, D-Ala., and
   Sen. Hank Brown, R-Colo., also asks the EEOC to make it clear in
   any new guidelines on workplace harassment that religious symbols
   or expressions of religious beliefs are not restricted and cannot
   be used to prove harassment.

   The proposed guidelines sparked heated protests from religions
   and business groups after they were proposed by the EEOC last fall.
   The agency received nearly 100,000 comments before the formal
   period of public comment ended Monday.

   As originally drafted, the guidelines define unlawful harassment
   as any verbal or physical conduct that ``denigrates or shows
   hostility or aversion toward an individual because of his-her ...
   religion ... or that of his-her relatives, friends or associates.''

   Heflin said that language would require that employers know
   their workers well enough so they wouldn't say or do anything that
   would ``harass the third cousin of an employee.''

   With language that vague and indefinite, Heflin said, employers
   seeking to protect themselves from lawsuits would end up
   prohibiting all forms of religious expression in the workplace,
   including the wearing of a cross or a yarmulke.

   The former Alabama chief justice said the EEOC should develop
   guidelines that will ``set forth in some detail what is and is not
   religious harassment on the job.''

   As originally proposed by Heflin and Brown, the resolution asked
   the EEOC to develop a separate set of guidelines defining religious
   harassment.

   But that language was dropped after Sen. Howard Metzenbaum,
   D-Ohio, objected. He said he did not want to send a signal to the
   EEOC that it should treat religious harassment any differently than
   other types of harassment.

Whew!  Thought I was going to have to change my nodename, or risk arrest if 
I ever landed on the good old U.S. of A ever again.... ;-}  Meanwhile, I'd 
better try and find out who my own third cousins are...

Thanks John.  Seriously, there is such a thing as offensive religious
harrassment, even from honest sincere Christians, who don't know how to 
exercise a common degree of discernment.  Not meaning anyone particular.  
I don't know how one guards against that without prejudicing witness 
generally, which may be taken offensively, even though it is not out of 
place, let alone the intrusive tactics of groups who use manipulation to 
control people in the name of religion - and even in the Name of Jesus!

And those who are guarding their lives against any conviction of sin, and
against the work of the LORD Jesus and the Holy Spirit generally will find
anything which questions that false veneer of peace disturbing.  It's any
reminder of the true gospel, that they would wish to stamp out.  The
natural comfort zone for them seems to be to stay doomed.  Until.... 

							Andrew

It should be pointed out that the zealots that Clinton has appointed
may not necessarily listen to Congress, and may go right ahead with
their original plan.

/john

    How can they pass such unconstitutional restrictions without the
    blessing of Congress?  Who's running things in this country?

    Re: Note 442.64 by CSOA1::LEECH

�    How can they pass such unconstitutional restrictions without the
�    blessing of Congress?  Who's running things in this country?
    
    The courts.
    
    	BD�

    Ahhh...you are quite right, actually.  My mistake.
    And in another conference I tald about how the SC is a despotic branch
    today...
    
    -steve  

Below is the contents of the letter I received from my U.S. Congressman in
early May after calling him to complain about the EEOC's section on religious
harassment in their proposed guidelines discussed in this topic.  I apologize
for not entering this sooner; I hope it is still timely for you.  Read at least
one 'official' perspective on this EEOC matter.  I wonder if this "wishy washy"
position is representative of all the folks in Congress...  I was expecting 
more support, especially this he is a conservative Republican!

How did I get this response?  Well, in late April, I called the Capital 
Hill operator (202-224-3121) twice, once each to be connected to the office of 
my Senator and my Representative in the House.  To confirm their names, I first 
looked them up in my local phone book in the business section under UNITED 
STATES GOVERNMENT, subsection CONGRESS, US.  (Please note, I am totally 
uninvolved actively with politics other than voting; this was the first issue 
that so worried me as to pick up the phone and contact my Congressional 
representatives.)  I was able to talk to aids in both offices, despite calling 
on the day former President Nixon died, and the federal government being 
officially closed for 'mourning.'  

In Christ,

Bill

                                            William H. Zeliff, Jr.
                                            1st District, New Hampshire
                                            Congress of the United States
                                            House of Representatives
                                            Washington, DC 20515-2001

                                            May 5, 1994

Mr. Bill Wright
<address>

Dear Bill:

     Thank you for contacting my office to express your conerns about recent
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proposed guidelines on religious
harassment.  It was good to hear from you, and I appreciate having the benefit
of your views on this issue.

     I wholeheartedly share your concerns about the increase in harassment
litigation in our country.  I believe you should not have to be afraid to 
proclaim your religious faith, or display a religious symbol, for fear of a
lawsuit.

     Having said that, I would like to clear up some confusion concerning the 
EEOC's guidelines.  First, contrary to popular belief, the proposed guidelines
were not intended to be new law.  Instead, the guidelines were being issued to
     ---
consolidate various rulings, court cases, etc. on harassment which had already
formed informal guidelines.  In other words, the EEOC was seeking to put a 
handbook together for employers and employees summarizing the evolution of
harassment law over the past few years.

     Second, the guidelines were being issued to reemphasize that the original
1965 law forbidding discrimination at the workplace contained five categories:
                                                              ----
color, age, national origin, race, and religion.  With the passage of the
"Americans With Disabilities Act," disability was added as the sixth protected
category.  With the publicity sexual harassment had been receiving lately, the
EEOC wanted to remind the public that other classes were also protected.

     Perhaps the EEOC proposed guidelines were a benefit precisely because they
have highlighted how far the federal government has strayed from legitimate
enforcement of employer-employee nondiscrimination.  While religion has always
been a category covered by law, it is clear that there must be safeguards to
protect religious observance.

     I hope this information is useful to you, and thank you again for taking
the time to get in touch with me.  Please let me know if I may be of further
assistance.

                                            Sincerely,

                                            Bill Zeliff
                                            Member of Congress

Here we go.  If this goes to court, who knows what will happen.  

  From:  SkylarRa

  Effective June 1, 1994, Blockbuster Video and its subsidiary Sound Warehouse
  made effective a new dress code policy for employees designed to promote
  conservative appearance.  With regards to jewelry, the new dress code
  prohibits the displaying of macabre/occult symbols such as skulls and
  pentegrams.

  Because this policy excludes from restriction the wearing of crosses, stars
  of David, etc., it directly discriminates against the Pagan/Wiccan employees
  and their freedom of religion rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

-----------------------------

  Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 00:42:59 -0500 (EST)
  From: [email protected]
  Subject: Blockbuster

  So, how "macabre" is a pentacle compared to a cross?
  I've never heard of anyone being nailed to a pentacle.

 Great..






 Jim

The definition of 'right' and 'wrong' has moved out of reach.  Where a
declaration either 'for' or 'against' our Creator is seen as equally
provocative or offensive, and judgement is based on human perception,
preference and limited understanding, rather than on divine laws, that same
human mind is incapable of reversing the trend away from God.  The ultimate
progression to the collapse of society is inevitable. 

 "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on earth had become, and that 
  every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the 
  time."

 "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, 
  then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them..."

					Genesis 6:5 & 8:21, 11:6


 - leading to the protection of the division at Babel, which man has 
   been trying to reverse...


								Andrew

    If we understood the what the First Amendment really says, this
    wouldn't even be an issue.
    
    sigh.
    
    -steve

	Steve's back! :-)  


Glen

    I never left.  8^)

	Yer still back in the times of the 1st ammendment telling us what it
really meant! :-)


Glen

>	Yer still back in the times of the 1st ammendment telling us what it
>really meant! :-)

Who's back?

The first amendment has suffered under recent revisionist attack.
You've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker because it suits you
fine that way.

    re: .74
    
    Actually...I didn't define it this go round.  Stick around, I still
    might.  8^)

| <<< Note 442.75 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| The first amendment has suffered under recent revisionist attack. You've 
| swallowed it hook, line, and sinker because it suits you fine that way.

	Errr... Mark? How does it suit me fine? 


Glen

In the following excerpt from their July Newsletter, Focus on the Family
provides an update on the EEOC guidlines:

	TheEEOC is the governmental body that interprets federal civil rights
	law and sets the standards for what is permissible or unacceptable in
	the workplace. For example, this regulatory commission determines what
	constitutes sexual harassment, racial discrimination and like conduct.
	We have no quarrel with that regulatory function. But now, EEOC's
	acting chairman, Douglas Gallegos, and his fellow commissioners have
	decided to extend their reach. They intend to apply all the previous
	civil rights legislation to a new offense they call "religious
	harassment." In short, the commission intends to make it illegal to
	share one's faith -- or even show evidence of it -- if a single
	employee objects to that witness.

	What makes this proposal so dangerous is that the interpretation of
	illegality will be in the eye of the beholder. No objective standard
	will guide the behavior of business leaders. In other words, a claim of
	religious harassment can be made whenever anyone says it has happened
	to him or her. If an employee becomes irritated over an expression of
	religious beliefs or even the display of a religious symbol, he can
	drag the boss into court -- and if he is without means, the federal
	government will pay for his attorney's fees. These regulations will
	apply not only to large corporations, but also to any business with 15
	or more full-time employees.

	Senator Hank Brown, R-Colo., has been especially concerned about the
	implications of the proposed EEOC guidelines. In June, he authored a
	"sense of the Senate resolution" that expressed great disagreement with
	EEOC's intended changes. Then Senator Brown and his legislative aide,
	Joe Rogers, came by Focus on the Family to share their perspective and
	request public support for the resolution. I'm pleased to tell you that
	senatorial offices were inundated with calls and letters after our
	broadcast, which some have called "unprecedented." Other radio and TV
	programs publicized the issue too. The result? The resolution passed
	94-0!

	Another resolution sponsored by Congressman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., and
	introduced into the House of Representatives goes even further. It
	calls for the EEOC to exclude religion from regulation and not to issue
	any guidelines. Several pro-family groups, including the Family
	Research Council, have expressed their support for this resolution, as
	well.

	Does that end the matter? Unfortunately, it does not. The EEOC is an
	independent agency and, as such, it is not under the supervision of the
	Congress. The situation is not unlike Attorney General Janet Reno's
	unilateral decision to redefine what is prosecutable as child
	pornography. The Senate voted 100-0 and the House of Representatives
	voted 425-3 to condemn her outrageous action, yet Reno has not backed
	off one inch. So far, the president has not required her to do so.
	Likewise, Mr. Clinton has not asked the EEOC to withdraw the proposed
	guidelines.

	Of course, the Congress could pass legislation withholding funds to
	implement the guidelines, and that would be decisive. But that
	provision was not included in Sen. Brown's resolution, and as of this
	moment, the EEOC is pressing ahead. They've been bruised, to be sure,
	but Chairman Douglas Gallegos appears determined to redefine what is
	illegal in the workplace.

								(cont'd.)

	(cont'd)

	What would change if the guidelines stand as written? Listed below are
	25 actions on the job that, according to Senator Brown's office, may be
	prohibited by the EEOC:

	    1.  Wearing a cross around the neck, wrist or any openly visible
		part of the body.

	    2.  Wearing a yarmulke (Yamulkeh). A century-old tradition of Jews
		wearing a head covering while they are attending synagogue.
		Orthodox Jews, however, wear the head covering seven days a
		week.

	    3.  Displaying a picture of Christ on an office desk or wall.

	    4.  Wearing a T-shirt, hat or other clothing that has any religious
		emblem or phrasing on its face.

	   5.   Displaying a Bible or other religious book on a desk, or
		otherwise making the same openly visible in a work or lounge
		area.

	   6.   Hosting Christmas, Hanukkah, Thanksgiving or Easter
		celebrations, parties or events in any form that have any focus
		on Christ, God or other religious connotations.

	   7.   Celebrations or parties in any form which have any religious
		focus or reference.

	   8.   Opening or closing prayer or invocation at a company program,
		banquet, celebration or event.

	   9.   Witnessing the gospel, sharing your faith and generally
		speaking to other employees about religion.

	   10.  Nativity displays or scenes.

	   11.  Inviting a fellow employee to a synagogue, church, temple or
		other place of worship.

	   12.  Conversations about religion or religious groups, functions and
		events.

	   13.  Prayer breakfasts.

	   14.  Singing or humming a religious song while at a copy machine.

	   15.  Serving only pork or beef at a company Fourth of July picnic.

	   16.  Having a local church choir or school choir come in for a
		Christmas celebration and sing any song which makes reference
		to Christ, God or any religion or religious principle.

	   17.  Telling any joke (regardless of the innocence of subject matter
		or intent) that refers to any religion or religious group
		whatsoever.

	   18.  Giving a fellow employee a holiday card, birthday card,
		get-well card, greeting card or plaque which includes any
		religious reference.

	   19.  Making reference to Christ, God or any religious figure or
		subject matter in a company mission, plan or goal statement.

	   20.  Praying while in the work place.

	   21.  The display of calendars or "thoughts of the day" books which
		make reference to Scripture or religious sayings.

	   22.  Displaying any religious artwork, book, devotional, figure,
		symbol or trinket in an openly visible area.

	   23.  Hosting a bible study or other religious gathering.

	   24.  Company uniform and work apparel requirements.

	   25.  Almost any form of religious expression in the work place.(1)

							(cont'd)

	(cont'd)

	Madalyn Murray O'Hair's organization, American Atheists, has issued a
	press release about the proposed guidelines. It includes this
	statement, "Religion is, or ought to be, a private matter. Even with
	eight hours of employment per day, religious persons still have 16
	hours of time, each day, to perform religious obligations and are,
	therefore, under no real restriction. Activities related to religion of
	any employee should be anathema in any places of employment, government
	or private." The statement concluded, ". . . the right to . . .
	freedom from religion must be guarded by this regulatory agency, the
	Equal Employment Opportunity Commission."(2)

	Columnist Don Feder, put the matter into historical perspective:

		Coming soon to your office -- courtesy of Bill Clinton and the
		Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -- the religion-free
		workplace. The area in which religion is tolerated in our
		society is constantly contracting. In the '60s, school prayer
		was eliminated. Since then, invocations at graduation have been
		banned, Christmas decorations and caroling are out, and even
		voluntary, student-initiated activities (Bible-study groups,
		etc.) are suspect. Proposals to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine
		are in part an effort to drive religious broadcasters from the
		airwaves. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has
		forced church-affiliated nursing homes to remove crosses from
		their yellow page ads. In most cases, the rationale for
		excluding faith is a distortion of the First Amendment
		church-state doctrine. The EEOC regs dispense with even this
		feeble excuse and constitute a blatant invasion of the private
		sector to expunge religious expression.(3)

	Indeed!

	It does not require a great legal mind to predict what will happen if
	the EEOC guidelines become law. American businesses will submit the new
	requirements to their attorneys, who will advise them to eliminate
	every possible expression of faith from the workplace. That will be the
	only secure way to prevent a disgruntled employee from suing his
	company with the aid of the government. We can also expect that liberal
	judges will expand the interpretation of the guidelines over time.
	That's the way the system works. For example, a magistrate in
	California, Richard O. Frazee Sr., ruled recently that the Boy Scouts
	could not include references to God in their required oath.(4) That
	kind of outrageous expansion of the law has become commonplace in
	American jurisprudence.

	Twenty-six separate statutes and federal agencies now govern how
	businesses and organizations like Focus on the Family handle hiring
	practices and employee relations. Together they represent thousands of
	regulations for the business person, and keeping them straight has
	become an administrative nightmare. Those who fail to observe each of
	them (and some are contradictory) can find themselves named in a
	lawsuit. This explains why the number of discrimination cases reaching
	federal courts has increased 2,166 percent in the past 20 years!(5)
	While legitimate injustices were undoubtedly represented in some of
	those suits, I believe the net effect of more and more governmental
	regulations has been to divide Americans into individual grievance
	groups and to pit us against each other in the courtroom. Now the EEOC
	wants to extend that body of law to control everyday conversations
	about our faith in the workplace.

	Did you read a few years ago about the California judge who ruled,
	unbelievably, that a cross erected in a cemetery had to be taken down?
	U.S. District Judge Edward Dean Price ruled that the cross had to be
	removed because it created "a political division along religious lines"
	in violation of the Constitution.(6)  Believe it or not, he claimed to
	have found that interpretation in the writings of our founding
	fathers!

	That case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, of
	course.  What do you think the ACLU and the courts will do when armed
	with the new EEOC guidelines? We simply must not put this weapon in
	their hands!

	This is silly. If the proposed rules go into effect, they will only be
enforced IF someone complains about it. Like with all the other things they
protect, there will probably be little problem with false claims. 

	Out of the ones John mentioned, there are a few that actually make 100% 
sense.


9.   Witnessing the gospel, sharing your faith and generally speaking to 
     other employees about religion.

	This makes perfect sense if the people don't want to hear it. I know
many people who are religious that when you ask them to stop talking about it,
they continue on. At this point this makes 100% sense.

11.  Inviting a fellow employee to a synagogue, church, temple or other 
     place of worship.

	Same as above.

12.  Conversations about religion or religious groups, functions and
     events.

	Same as above. Where I used to work a friend of mine came back from
some religious weekend and started telling everyone about the doom and gloom of
not being saved. His boss told me to talk to him as if he did not stop, he
would be gone. He probably would have gotten just a warning though. But, like I
said, same as above.

13.  Prayer breakfasts.

	This one would depend on if they were praying before they ate
breakfast, or if they were in the cafe praising God in loud prayer. If
the latter, then it makes sense, as not everyone is going to want to 
hear it. 

14.  Singing or humming a religious song while at a copy machine.

	I WILL say that this one is pretty stupid. The only time it might make
sense is if someone has been trying to save someone, and the person told them
to bug off, and the person was singing around the other person to try and get
her/him saved.

17.  Telling any joke (regardless of the innocence of subject matter or intent) 
     that refers to any religion or religious group whatsoever.

	Doesn't this one actually HELP those involved with religion?

19.  Making reference to Christ, God or any religious figure or subject matter 
     in a company mission, plan or goal statement.

	This makes sense as work plans do not have anything to do with
religion. I do wish they would go one step further with this and also make it
so the Lord's name could not be used in vain. 

20.  Praying while in the work place.

	This makes sense if it is a loud prayer, if it interferes with the work
they are paying you to do. But a quiet prayer during lunch or breaks should not
be a problem.

23.  Hosting a bible study or other religious gathering.

	During lunches should not be a problem, as long as it wasn't a loud
study, and that it was off in an area where it wouldn't bother anyone.




Glen

 Wonder if there's any provisions in this thing for one who uses the 
 Lord's name in vain...I've heard some variations that make my skin 
 crawl.  If I were to comment on such, say in a meeting, by claiming that
 Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour, would I be the harrasser or harrassee?



Jim

re:81


>9.   Witnessing the gospel, sharing your faith and generally speaking to 
>     other employees about religion.

>	This makes perfect sense if the people don't want to hear it. I know
>many people who are religious that when you ask them to stop talking about it,
>they continue on. At this point this makes 100% sense.

    Well for me its different. At least once a month while sitting with 
    coworkers at lunch time, the topic of religion will be brought up
    by one of them, not me.(I never talk about religion unless I'am asked)
    The discussion always ends up with the majority attacking my faith, my
    church and me. As always, I'm the one that is accused of preaching.


    >11.  Inviting a fellow employee to a synagogue, church, temple or other 
>     place of worship.

>	Same as above.

           What's wrong with extending an invitation for someone to come to
           your place of  worship ?

>12.  Conversations about religion or religious groups, functions and
>     events.

>	Same as above. Where I used to work a friend of mine came back from
>some religious weekend and started telling everyone about the doom and gloom of
>not being saved. His boss told me to talk to him as if he did not stop, he
>would be gone. He probably would have gotten just a warning though. But, like I
>said, same as above.

    Same as above for me too! I wish that people who don't want to discuss
    religion would not bring the subject up.

>13.  Prayer breakfasts.
>
>	This one would depend on if they were praying before they ate
>breakfast, or if they were in the cafe praising God in loud prayer. If
>the latter, then it makes sense, as not everyone is going to want to 
>hear it. 

     I've never seen this done, but if they do, deal with it on the bases
     of the behavior. We don't need government to regulate it.

>14.  Singing or humming a religious song while at a copy machine.

>	I WILL say that this one is pretty stupid. The only time it might make
>sense is if someone has been trying to save someone, and the person told them
>to bug off, and the person was singing around the other person to try and get
>her/him saved.

        Well, we agree ! I wonder if they'll make whistling altogether 
        against the law ? After all, people from other countries find
        whistling offensive. Personally I think its their problem if they
        do get offended. After all, we should be allowed to live by our 
        customs, not theirs.

    >   17.  Telling any joke (regardless of the innocence of subject matter or intent) 
>     that refers to any religion or religious group whatsoever.

>	Doesn't this one actually HELP those involved with religion?

         I don't care if jokes are told about my religion, even the ones I
         would find offensive. I don't want a regulated environment where 
         people are afraid to speak, even when what the speak is stupid.


>19.  Making reference to Christ, God or any religious figure or subject matter 
>     in a company mission, plan or goal statement.
>
>	This makes sense as work plans do not have anything to do with
>religion. 

       Neither do most things when we talk about ourselves. This kind of 
       environment would require robots instead of human beings to do the
       work.

>20.  Praying while in the work place.

>	This makes sense if it is a loud prayer, if it interferes with the work
>they are paying you to do. But a quiet prayer during lunch or breaks should not
>be a problem.

       True, but deal with the offense of the loudness, not the subject
       being said.

>23.  Hosting a bible study or other religious gathering.
>
>	During lunches should not be a problem, as long as it wasn't a loud
>study, and that it was off in an area where it wouldn't bother anyone.

        Agreed !



     These regulations are what the former Soviet Union was like during its
     existence. They supposedly had freedom of religion, providing you 
     did not teach it outside of your church. Of course Roman Catholicism
     was outlawed and those of other faiths were eventually arrested,
     because violating any of the above rules was done easily and without
     conscience.

     When the nuns that taught me in grade school told me that we would one
     day be under the same religious oppression as the people in the Soviet
     Union, I never knew that they were giving prophecy that would come
     true. Of course back then I never believed that the prophecy of mothers
     slaughtering their own children would come true either.

     God have mercy on us !


    Jim

    Good question Jim.  Proof that this door swings both ways and might be
    just the very thing to shoot this down.  It worked for the protestors
    at abortion clinics and churches.

| <<< Note 442.83 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Living With A Honky Tonk Attitude" >>>



| >9.   Witnessing the gospel, sharing your faith and generally speaking to
| >     other employees about religion.

| The discussion always ends up with the majority attacking my faith, my
| church and me. As always, I'm the one that is accused of preaching.

	Jim, at some point in the conversation, do they ask you to stop? BTW,
why do you allow yourself to be pulled into things like that? Don't you have
better things to do? I'm being serious here.

| >11.  Inviting a fellow employee to a synagogue, church, temple or other
| >     place of worship.

| >	Same as above.

| What's wrong with extending an invitation for someone to come to your place 
| of  worship ?

	Absolutely nothing, unless you ask, they say no, and you decide to keep
asking. Oh, by no they say I'm not interested, not I'm busy tonight. 

| Same as above for me too! I wish that people who don't want to discuss
| religion would not bring the subject up.

	Had to smile at that one Jim. :-)

| >13.  Prayer breakfasts.

| I've never seen this done, but if they do, deal with it on the bases of the 
| behavior. We don't need government to regulate it.

	Remember, one has to make a claim before any of this is actually a
problem.

| >14.  Singing or humming a religious song while at a copy machine.

| Well, we agree ! I wonder if they'll make whistling altogether against the 
| law? After all, people from other countries find whistling offensive. 
| Personally I think its their problem if they do get offended. After all, we 
| should be allowed to live by our customs, not theirs.

	This is actually funny, coming from a country that is made up of people
who's customs didn't origionate from here. :-) Do we have customs? Yeah, but
unlike in a lot of countries, ours has a combination of many different places. 
Something you need to keep in mind that appears as though you might be 
forgetting, is we are all part of God's world. It appears you are seperating 
God's world and the USA. I get that impression because you talk of people from 
other countries, and saying we should live by our customs. I thought we are
supposed to live by God's customs, and the humanizing part is kept to a
minimum.

| >This makes sense as work plans do not have anything to do with religion.

| Neither do most things when we talk about ourselves. This kind of environment 
| would require robots instead of human beings to do the work.

	Jim, if someone is holding a conversation that you have zero interest
in, do you politely find a way to change it or leave? OR, do you stay and have
this conversation that has nothing to do with work that you have zero interest
in. If people are interested in what is being talked about, then there will
never be any problems. You hear many different conversations in the hallways.
BUT, you also see people running off to do stuff if conversations are about
subjects they do not wish to talk about.

| >20.  Praying while in the work place.

| True, but deal with the offense of the loudness, not the subject being said.

	Jim, you make it sound like if someone is praying loud, they will be
fired or something. If someone is praying loud, and someone does not want to
hear it, they will complain. The person praying loudly will be talked to. I
seriously doubt someone praying loudly will have their job jepodized in any way
unless they were to do it continuously after being talked to. It WILL deal with
the loudness of it.



Glen

	.85


>	BTW,
>why do you allow yourself to be pulled into things like that? Don't you have
>better things to do? I'm being serious here.
    
    	Perhaps the answer to your question could be found in your answer
    	to the question, "Why do you allow yourself to be pulled into
    	discussions about gay issues?"
    
    	This is a serious answer and not intended to be an attack of any
    	sort at all.

    Live and let live, eh Glen?  Unless it involves Christians and
    religion, then tolerance definitely reduces considerably.
    
    If it makes anyone feel better, I believe this hateful mentality (not
    talking about you, Glen) overtaking America, towards religion, is all
    part of the separation of the wheat and the chaff.  The polarization
    that will take place before Christ returns.
    
    The mentality has been slowly overtaking America, but today has reached
    a pinnacle of intollerance.  It will only get worse.  We were promised
    persecution, get used to it.  If you stand up for Christ, you will be
    persecuted in one way or another...sooner or later.
    
    Does anyone else find the irony in a nation that was founded on the
    Jud/Christ principles and ideals turning against those who follow this
    traditional belief and moral code?  It is not surprising that as we
    turn away from the things that made us a great nation, that we plummet
    into the abyss.  Call it God's wrath if you like, or just call it the
    natural consequences of taking the belief in God and absolutes out of
    everyday life.
    
    It seems obvious to me what is going on, but impossible to get
    others to see the truth.  The engineering of America's mindset in nearly
    complete.  I stand amazed at the subtleties and the power of this
    brainwashing.  Christ is truly our only hope today.  Without His help,
    we cannot break the binds that tie our minds to this worldly mentality.
    Without Him, I'd be one of the world's sheep...trapped into the ideals
    perpetrated into all of our institutions.
    
    
    -steve

    >Christ is truly our only hope today.  Without His help we cannot break 
    >the binds that tie our minds to this worldly mentality.  Without Him, I'd 
    >be one of the world's sheep...trapped into the ideals perpetrated into all
    >of our institutions.
    
    Has anyone heard the Carmen song that goes, "The only hope for America
    is Jesus".  They showed the video at our church on the 4th of July. 
    What a POWERFUL video.  I saw it again last night.  A couple of my kids
    friends spent the night and they had the video.  The whole vido is call
    "The Standard".  There are several powerful and well done songs on the
    video.  The production is as good as I've seen anywhere.
    
    
    Bing

| <<< Note 442.86 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>


| Perhaps the answer to your question could be found in your answer to the 
| question, "Why do you allow yourself to be pulled into discussions about gay 
| issues?"

	Joe, thanks for bringing it into the light. Never thought about it like
that. On a personal one on one level with human contact, I will talk about that
issue unless someone else brings it up (like Jim does with religion). No one has
talked to me face to face about it and tried to tear me down though. I do know 
if that were to happen I would not talk about the issue around that person, 
unless they were in a group of people talking about misconceptions/lies, what
have you. In notes people have many misconceptions, but you don't ever really
see anyone doing a personal attack that often. Can you see the differences? I
am not sure if I made my position clear or not. Let me know if I didn't. 

	Oh, and Joe, the "G" word is off limits in here.


Glen

    God is off limits in the Christian notes file!!  GASP!  Things really
    are getting out of hand, aren't they!
    
    (big smiley)

| <<< Note 442.87 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>


| Live and let live, eh Glen?  Unless it involves Christians and religion, then 
| tolerance definitely reduces considerably.

	I agree that in a lot of cases it does, and wrongly so. You have those
who hear the word God who instantly will shut you off and not want to hear
anything else. You've got those who like to play with your mind. Then there are
those who take the word religion, and apply to it the televangelists, which in
todays world seem to = scum. Part of it is because they are the loudest, part
of it is because those who could do a lot for fixing this identity crisis do
nothing. And of course part of it is the media. :-)  There is a MAJOR PROBLEM
with Christianity from a PR sort of view. ONLY the people can fix that. Look at
marriages of blacks and whites. Very bad PR. But people see them as people now
and the PR is MUCH better. Most people I know who are religious are very cool
people. They talk the talk, walk the walk, but in a manner that seems to be
very relaxing to be around. I think Tony Barberi (sp?) fits this mode. I may
not always agree with what he has to say, but he says what he believes, ALL of
what he believes, but I don't feel like anything has been crammed down my
throat. Jim Henderson is another who has this quality (IMHO). And you know
what? They both come from different angles, as they have their own qualities
about them, but both are very relaxing to talk to. I have learned from both.

| If you stand up for Christ, you will be persecuted in one way or another...
| sooner or later.

	I agree with this Steve. But I think it applies to much more than
religion. 



Glen

    	You made YOUR beliefs clear, Glen, but you haven't convinced
    	me that they are correct.
    
    	BTW, what G word are you talking about -- "Glen"?
    
    
    
    	:^)

    The concerns expressed by John Covert are very real.  I was the
    Information Systems Manager at Bechtel Corporation in 1981-83 for the
    Petroleum Division in San Francisco.  I was given extensive training in
    Sexual Harrassment, which was based on EEOC declaratives.  As an
    example of what can happen and did:
    
    	The Manager of Engineering had a daughter that was working as a
    dancer(Radio City Hall Rockettes, I believe).  She had given her father
    a full length black and white picture, with top hat, black body
    stocking with a full neck(looked like a long bathing suit) and mesh
    stockings, high heeled tap shoes and caring a white-tipped cane or
    swagger stick.  As a Christian I found absolutely nothing offensive or
    suggestive in the picture, but another employee found it to be sexual
    harrassment.  The Manager fought and lost the right to display the
    picture in his large and private office.  
    
    Why won't things like that happen with display and discussion of
    religion which is far more significant than a person's child's picture!
    
    Beware.

    
    	This is so ridiculous.  Saying you can't express your beliefs about
    	God or religion is no different than saying you can't express your
    	beliefs about politics.  There have been many times I've had to 
    	listen to others beliefs that I did not share, and I never thought,
    	"There oughta be a law against that."  I hope the atheist woman
    	supporting this law realizes that she too cannot express her belief
    	that there is no God - she'd be pushing her religion!
    
    	Karen
    

   What if somebody sneezes and you say "God Bless you"?






 Jim

When people sneeze around be I tend to say "God Bless you, and all who sail in 
you".

Chele

]                    <<< Note 442.93 by SIERAS::MCCLUSKY >>>
]                -< Religion will be like sexual harassament >-
]
]   The concerns expressed by John Covert are very real.  I was the
]   Information Systems Manager at Bechtel Corporation in 1981-83 for the
]   Petroleum Division in San Francisco.

	Small world!  My dad worked for Bechtel in San Francisco between
about 1974 and 1985.  He worked on piping restraints for nuclear reactors,
and used computers on occasion.  His name is Robert C. Sampson.  I don't
suppose your paths ever crossed?

    This was a story on a sexual harassment case that was on WBZ radio
    Boston about a year ago by attorney Neal Chyete sp?.


    A man  sued a cleaning company that he worked for, because he was
    fired for sexual harassment of a female coworker. According to the
    story, the man and woman were working in an office building at night.
    They were moving empty office furniture and other items. The man was
    working on a file cabinet in which he had the bottom draw completely 
    open. When he noticed that the woman coworker was waking towards him
    and was about to walk into the open draw, he put us hand on the corner
    of the draw so she wouldn't get hurt hitting the sharp corner of the
    draw. When she bumped into the draw she her knee hit the back of his
    hand instead of the draw. She said nothing, but the next day he was called 
    into the company personnel office and told he was fired for sexually
    harassing this coworker. He sued the company, but the court said
    that under the law, the employer did not have to prove that sexual 
    harassment occurred in order to take action, but they did have to act
    on the complaint made by the female worker which they did. The guy lost 
    his case.

    Sexual harassment cases will look like nothing compared to religious
    harassment cases.
    
         Jim

	We had a lady who was religious who made a friend take down an REM
poster because in the background it had a gargoyle. It works both ways my
friend.


Glen

   RE:99
    Glen,
         this lady was wrong as well.

    We're not going to correct her wrong by imposing a religious
    harassment regulation. 

    Just as sexual harassment regulations are pushing men and women away
    from each other, so will religious harassment regulations push
    religious people and non-religious people away.

    
    
    Jim

	Jim, I didn't want to to correct the wrong, I am just showing you that
religious people also push things that should not be. It is done on ALL fronts.


Glen

    RE:101

    I don't deny religious people push their stuff. I don't like
    it either, but I don't want the government to put a ban on all
    religious expression in the work place just to stop the few fanatics.
    There are laws in place already that can be used to stop them without
    making everyone subject to persecution.

    Jim

	Jim, I asked this in CP, and I will ask it here. Would you be the least
upset if someone wore a shirt that said:

                             Recovering Catholic


	You can replace Catholic with any denomination/religion. Would you get
upset? Would anyone? Would you do something or say something about it? Would
anyone?


Glen

    re:103
   
    Glen,
         "Recovering Catholic ?" I wouldn't make an issue out of it.

    Besides, the term is a sign of ignorance which requires prayer for the
    person, not persecution.


    Jim

    Even though I am not Catholic, I would find the shirt offensive.  I
    also find many heavy metal T-shirts offensive- not because I have thin
    skin, but because of the promotion of certain ideas/mentalities that
    are harmful to them and those around them (whether they realize it or
    not).  
    
    However, I would not be for banning such things, as the insuing legal
    issues would domino out of control.
    
    Please note that the trends of society for the last 30-50 years has
    been a one-way balloon of tolerance to blasphemy, godlessness,
    degredation and fornication.  As this balloon gets larger and larger,
    the tolerance for traditional morals, God, and religion gets
    proportionately smaller.
    
    At one time in this nation, we actually had laws regarding blasphemy,
    which were endorsed by the FF.  Now, even though we have the same
    Constitution and BoR as they had then, blasphemy is a protected
    freedom.  It is the same with pornography and other unhealthy aspects
    of society.
    
    And we wonder why, after lifting all restraint, that this nation is
    going down the tubes.  Society is indeed blind, and needs the Lord to open
    its eyes to the truth.
    
    
    -steve 

| <<< Note 442.104 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Living With A Honky Tonk Attitude" >>>




| Besides, the term is a sign of ignorance which requires prayer for the
| person, not persecution.


	I agree with what you have said above. But it could also have been
related to experiences of said religion/denomination. Still ignorance as not
all of those in that denomination should be looked at the same as a few, but 
it might make it a little more understandable. OR, they could have thought the
shirt was funny...


Glen

	Not the FF stuff again!!!! Don't you ever get tired of it!!!??? :-)


Glen

    It's my duty to keep reminding folks of historical reality with regards
    to the FF, their views, beliefs, etc.  It helps to clarify just how far
    astray we have gone from both moral structure, mental structure, and
    Constitutional law.
    
    Fact is, most of us (me included at times), have difficulty swallowing
    the real historical truth and intent of the Constitution and BoR.  Such
    truths don't "jive" with the reality of what we have been taught and
    what we have experienced all our lives.
    
    Trust me, arguing from this vantage point is not easy, as I have to
    continually over-come my own taught (or engineered) mind-set.  I feel
    it is worthwhile to do so, in any case.
    
    -steve

    Exactly

    And in my best Bartle's (or is it James's) voice...
    
    I thank you for your support.  8^)
    
    If you never saw those old Bartles and James commercials, then this
    will lose its desired affect.  8^)
    
    -steve

	Gee, I thought the :-) would have let ya know I was just having fun
with him.... :'-(


Glen

    I know, Glen.  But I felt the need to expand a bit on why I continually
    bring up certain elements of the past.
    
    I think the supporting notes were just that...supporting; not notes
    addressing your comments.
    
    
    -steve

	Ya think so?



Glen

    Yup.

    
    	Glen,
    
    	Read it again.  This legislatio is not aimed at protecting
    	Christians, it's aimed at protecting others from Christians.
    
    	Thus, your T-shirt example doesn't really fit.
    
    	Karen
    

         <<< Note 442.116 by CNTROL::JENNISON "Troubleshootin' Mama" >>>

    
| Read it again.  This legislation is not aimed at protecting Christians, it's 
| aimed at protecting others from Christians. Thus, your T-shirt example doesn't
| really fit.
    

	Karen, it actually does. If people feel that religious symbols should
not be displayed, and you feel this is wrong (which I too agree with), would
you feel it is wrong to display a shirt that says, "Recovering Catholic"? Both
examples are about displaying something, one that some people who are not
religious may object to (crosses, etc), the other which Christians may object
to. If you would try to make it so shirts like that could not be worn in work,
then the end result is you are trying to do the same thing to those who would
wear that shirt that others are doing about religious symbols. Can you see this?


Glen
    

	No, I do not agree.

	Wearing a cross is a statement of my faith; it is not
	an attempt at an insult of a group of people.

	Your T-shirt example is an attempt at insult or offense.

	I, however, would not vote to stifle either.

	Karen

| <<< Note 442.118 by CNTROL::JENNISON "Troubleshootin' Mama" >>>



| Wearing a cross is a statement of my faith; 

	To YOU, that is what it can mean. To OTHERS, it can be seen as yet
another way Christians bring their religion into their lives. While I do not
see it that way, there are those who do.

| it is not an attempt at an insult of a group of people.

	The t-shirt may be just that, the person had one or many bad
experiences with whatever denomination/religion is on the shirt. This
I know CAN happen as I know someone who has such a shirt, and for such
a reason.

| I, however, would not vote to stifle either.

	That is the thing that matters most. I too would not stifle either.



Glen

.119 points out that it is not the intent, but rather the perception 
that counts (eg. the example wherein a cross worn as a statement of 
faith may be taken as a symbol of offense).  This is nearly the 
identical reasoning in many sexual (or racial, or...) harassment 
cases. In these cases, reasons and intent are not important or need 
to be considered.  If someone declares they feel harassed, harassment 
has indeed occurred.

These cases are not limited to things like a poster in an office 
(which can be easily removed).  They include actions/non-actions, 
body language, verbal language, tones of voice, etc.  This all 
applies both at work AND AWAY FROM WORK.  As in the other cases, 
if someone feels harassed, harassment has occurred.  Objective or 
subjective makes no difference.  

The amazing thing I have seen in this discussion is the facility 
for some to turn on or off the importance of perception as well 
as the far-reaching effects of past EEOC actions in this issue.
On what basis can anyone feel that EEOC directives on religion 
will be of less reach and effect than the others?


Here is a scene.

Place:		McDonald's
Time:		Saturday (on an employee's off day).

      	Employee A is with friends.  Employee B is also at McD's, not 
      	with A, but within hearing.  A says (not at or about B or even 
      	with knowledge of B's presence):

      		i) racial discussion
      		ii) sexual discussion
      		iii) religious discussion (for illustrative purposes, 
      			let us say that A passionately testifies the 
      			extent to which A's faith in Christ fills A's 
      			whole life).

      EEOC and Digital guidelines support B's filing a harassment 
      complaint against A for (i) and (ii) for the above cases.  
      This new EEOC action will likewise result in the pursuit 
      of harassment complaints against (iii).  The basis is that B 
      would now feel harassed or uncomfortable working with A and 
      that A does not value diversity.


History has demonstrated the extent to which EEOC directives reach 
daily life.  No legislative restraints have been issued to temper 
EEOC's actions.  Without some such restraints in place, all Christians 
are well justified in their concerns over future persecution.

Otto
                                      

    
    Another important distinction to make between past EEOC actions and 
    this current on against religion is that some past actions are 
    designed to protect, this current one is an attack against.
    
    To clarify, past actions are to protect against racial or sexual 
    based attacks or harassment.  The EEOC is now trying to do the 
    attacking itself.

| <<< Note 442.120 by ASDG::RANDOLPH >>>



| .119 points out that it is not the intent, but rather the perception that 
| counts (eg. the example wherein a cross worn as a statement of faith may be 
| taken as a symbol of offense).  

	Wow, how you came to the conclusion that it's perception that counts is
beyond me. I gave you an example of how others could take it. I never at any
point said a word about their opinion is what should be inportant. In fact, I
even said I did not see it that way. So please, if you would, explain how you
came to the conclusion you did. I'd be interested in hearing that.

| These cases are not limited to things like a poster in an office (which can 
| be easily removed).  They include actions/non-actions, body language, verbal 
| language, tones of voice, etc.  

	You know, I somehow think you're taking what a small minority MIGHT do
with this law and applying it like everyone will do it. For the MAJORITY of the
cases in the MAJORITY of the companies, there will be NO problems. When the
majority of the problems occur, it will be with those that thump away when 
asked to stop. 

| This all applies both at work AND AWAY FROM WORK.  

	You're blowing this all out of proportion.

| Here is a scene.

| Place:		McDonald's
| Time:		Saturday (on an employee's off day).

| Employee A is with friends.  Employee B is also at McD's, not
| with A, but within hearing.  A says (not at or about B or even
| with knowledge of B's presence):

| i) racial discussion
| ii) sexual discussion
| iii) religious discussion (for illustrative purposes,
| let us say that A passionately testifies the
| extent to which A's faith in Christ fills A's
| whole life).

| EEOC and Digital guidelines support B's filing a harassment
| complaint against A for (i) and (ii) for the above cases.
| This new EEOC action will likewise result in the pursuit
| of harassment complaints against (iii).  The basis is that B
| would now feel harassed or uncomfortable working with A and
| that A does not value diversity.

	Now I know you have blown this out of proportion. EEOC guidelines apply
to the WORKPLACE ONLY. If someone is on their day off talking about religion,
NOTHING can be done about it. They aren't even on the facility, how can it be
enforced? That would be saying that fighting will get you fired. But you can
fight all you want off of Digital's property, and nothing can be done about it.
I guess I need to ask why you believe that things can happen off the property
and still have a harrassment complaint happen?



Glen

    
    re: .122
    
    What is your point regarding what you think a majority *might* 
    do or what a *minority* would do?  The point I was trying to 
    make was to show what *can be or has been done*.
    
    Actually, your point that only a minority of people would pursue 
    the EEOC laws may be important.  Sincere Bible-beliving Christians 
    do appear to be a minority today.  
    
    As far as off-work conduct being a factor in harassment proceedings, 
    I suggest you renew your acquaintanceship with Ron Glover and the 
    legal department.  This was clearly covered at his last seminar on 
    harassment in the workplace.  If you have FACTS to the contrary, 
    please list them AND THE SOURCES for our enlightenment.  We will 
    otherwise know them to be OPINIONS only.
    
    In the mean time, judging from past legal practice and Digital's own 
    views on harassment in other areas, the EEOC goals for religion are 
    of real concern for Christians.
    

    >Actually, your point that only a minority of people would pursue
    >the EEOC laws may be important.  Sincere Bible-beliving Christians
    >do appear to be a minority today.
    
    Exactly!
    

	Here is a copy of a letter I just sent to Ron Glover. I will post his
reply once I get it.



    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |d|i|g|i|t|a|l|              I N T E R O F F I C E  M E M O R A N D U M
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    TO:  Ron Glover                              DATE:  August 23, 1994
                                                 FROM:  Glen Silva
                                                 DEPT:  Supplier Quality
                                                 EXT:   225-6306
                                                 LOC/MAIL STOP:  HLO2-1/C12

    SUBJECT:  Religion in the workplace
       


Hi Ron,


	It has recently been brought to my attention that off-work conduct can
be a factor in harassment proceedings inside the workplace. It was said to be
covered in your last seminar on, "Harassment in the Workplace". The example
given to me is if people talk about race, sexist comments or religion off-work
and off-site when an employee is around, that employee can bring harassment
proceedings against that person in the work enviroment. I can't phatom that
anything done outside the work site could ever contribute to any type of
charges being brought up at the work place. Could you clarify this for me. 


Thanks in advance,


Glen

    	Fathom.

 Perhaps you should have left off the religious part.  To date, the
 laws against such "harrassment" have not been enacted.  I believe
 Mr. Randolphs mention of Mr. Glover's seminar specified sexual
 harrassment.




 Jim

    Good idea on that note, Glenn.  Ron Glover is certainly the best 
    source for clarification within Digital I can think of.  Be 
    interesting to see how he will respond.
    
    Otto

    re: .125
    
    Yes - please let us know his response (if he gives you the permission
    to do so).
    
    I suspect that one example of the off/on site harrassment would be if
    your boss is your neighbor, and over a weekend BBQ your boss tells you
    all sorts of things that make you feel uncomfortable - how do you
    handle that when you get back to the office.
    
    It's stretched a little, I know, but that may be the example Ron gives
    you.
    
    Steve

    re: .127
    
    Yes, Ron Glover's seminar was specifically geared towards 
    sexual harassment.  I was floored in this seminar to learn 
    that uncouth behavior away from work could directly result 
    in harassment charges at work.  Ron Glover's explanation 
    was that the offended person would feel uncomfortable at 
    work with this other person and would therefore suffer and 
    feel harassed in the workplace.  Many times during the 
    seminar Ron Glover emphasized that if a person felt harassed, 
    that person was harassed.
    
    Otto

	If religion is not part of it, I'm sure he will tell me. I'd like to
find out how legally they could do this as well. Once he mentions if it
is/isn't the way it is, then I will ask the legal stuff.


Glen

                 -< Religious harassment guidelines withdrawn >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  WASHINGTON (AP) -- Religious groups and conservative lawmakers declared
victory Tuesday after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission withdrew
its guidelines dealing with religious harassment in the workplace.

  The proposed rules were part of comprehensive guidelines governing
workplace harassment that the commission voted 3-0 Monday to withdraw from
further consideration.

  The controversy arose a year ago when an Atlanta lawyer began advising
business clients that they could avoid religious harassment lawsuits under
the proposed guidelines only by banning all religious expression in the
workplace, including the wearing of a cross or yarmulke.

  Church groups quickly took up the cause, flooding the EEOC and
congressional offices with thousands of letters and telephone calls.  Mike
Widomski, a spokesman for the EEOC, estimated that the commission received
more than 100,000 letters urging it to drop religion from the harassment
guidelines.

  Widomski said the commission "felt it was better to withdraw the
guidelines in light of the public outcry and the number of letters that
were received."
					Nashua Telegraph 9/21/94

	
	YES !!!


	

    Halelujah!!!
    

 re .125



 Wonder if Glen ever got that reply from Ron Glover?





Jimz

	Hey Jimz!  I've sent it 3 times now, same message, and keep asking why
I have not heard back yet. Still no answer. I haven't quite figured out why...


Glen

	Jim, I have just talked to Pat Carter on the phone. She is from Ron
Glover's office. Here is the scoop:


	If a person is outside the work enviroment and says racist, demeaning
different classes/genders/orientations of people, then people can come into
Digital and make a claim of <insert harrassment>. BUT, unless that person has a
pattern of doing the same thing in the work enviroment, then nothing will be
done about it.

	She told me about someone who wrote a book about women, and even went
on Donahou about it. Many women took offense to what he was saying, and
complained to management. They looked at this guys record, found he was
promoting, giving good raises to both men and women, and did nothing about it.
Some women said they felt uncomfortable about working with him, but management
still did nothing, as his thoughts are not policed by Digital, unless his
thoughts work into the workplace.

	So I guess it comes down to this. You can say anything you want about
any group of people. If you do not keep X from promotions, etc, because they
belong to that group, Digital, anyways, will do nothing. Remember, some women
were still uneasy about working with this guy, but Digital did nothing.



Glen