Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1-Because he actually believes what he claims to believe and,
2-He actually cares about you.
It is possible for a Christian to 1) be a true Christian who honestly cares about you and 2) be rude and/or arrogant when they bring up subjects that are inappropriate in the workplace.
In other words, Alpha's 2 explanations are valid but do not excuse the behavior.
But they are(were?) friends....I'm just responding to the specifics of this situation.
I have many atheist friends, and it is odd sometimes on how to pick and choose words.
Most Christians don't have the exposure to atheists we get on this board, so they just don't know how to act/react.
But I truly believe in Troop's case, he has a situation where someone generally cares about his eternal security.
First, Troop did not characterize them as "friends." He said they had friendly banter and he kept quiet about the guy babbling on and on about his church and stuff. That alone should have clued the guy in that he was on tenuous ground. Troop gave no indication that they ever had a non-work relationship at all that might change the dynamic. People to whom you are friendly with at work but nowhere else are co-workers and there are both legal and social boundaries in effect to eliminate just this sort of coercion. The trepidation Troop expressed about the possible fallout tells us all that there is a form of social coercion in play here, and that is why Troop chose to simply not volunteer his opinions at work until directly challenged.
News flash for all the socially challenged people: When you make a statement about your beliefs and the response is ... nothing or a change of subject, it means the other person does not agree with you but chooses not to start a war of words or challenge your belief. People who agree will usually engage in the conversation. The only appropriate response is to drop it and steer clear of the subject in the future.
As for the weak excuse that Christians just don't know how to react to atheists - it is the same way if you found out he was Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Jan, Sikh, Hindu, or any of the other myriad of other religions. At work, creating an uncomfortable working environment by attacking such beliefs is inappropriate and if taken far enough, constitutes illegal discrimination. The only appropriate response would have been "oh" and drop it since it was obvious the two have fundamentally differing values where that is. Why is this basic civility so hard to understand?
Why do folks like you think you have a special suspension of the civil rules? You take umbrage if others proselytize you and try to get you to change your beliefs. I was heartened to see that even some of more strident proselytizers on this board understood this basic rule of civil discourse at work and how out of bounds this sort of coercive behavior is.
Again, at work, the people you work with are obligatory relationships. You have more say over the social discourse you have with your near blood relatives than you do with the people you work with. People from all sorts of beliefs are thrown together and must get a job done with a minimum of friction. That's why we have anti-discrimination laws and why the civil discourse is to avoid hot-button issues like religion and politics.
Just as creating a climate where women (or sometimes, men) are being forced to put up with inappropriate touching and coercive requests for sexual favors is illegal, so is trying to convert someone or attacking their belief system inappropriate at work. If a whispering campaign crops up because of this revelation and he is systematically shunned, then his livelihood is seriously affected. It would have nothing to do with his performance at work, but people of various other minorities have experienced this sort of crap and it literally costs them money. I hope this doesn't happen, but that is why he has trepidation in the environment he is working in.
Regardless of whether this guy or anybody else genuinely cares about Troop's "eternal life", it is none of his business and completely inappropriate to follow up on at work. That constitutes illegal harassment.
I think that Alpha and I are on two different pages of the same book?! While I do think that speaking about my faith should be OK in the work environment, I do not think that it is OK to continue the discussion once I find out that the person on the other side of the conversation is not interested. I feel that it is almost similar to some of the anti-Catholic threads that I have finally stopped posting in. There is a point when it is just plain rude to continue a discussion and it is obvious that you are just continually circling around the barn and someone is going to eventually get angry. I also believe that there is no reason why the two people of opposing opinions should not be able to carry on their friendship and certainly maintain an amicable work relationship.
First, Troop did not characterize them as "friends." He said they had friendly banter and he kept quiet about the guy babbling on and on about his church and stuff. That alone should have clued the guy in that he was on tenuous ground. Troop gave no indication that they ever had a non-work relationship at all that might change the dynamic. People to whom you are friendly with at work but nowhere else are co-workers and there are both legal and social boundaries in effect to eliminate just this sort of coercion. The trepidation Troop expressed about the possible fallout tells us all that there is a form of social coercion in play here, and that is why Troop chose to simply not volunteer his opinions at work until directly challenged.
News flash for all the socially challenged people: When you make a statement about your beliefs and the response is ... nothing or a change of subject, it means the other person does not agree with you but chooses not to start a war of words or challenge your belief. People who agree will usually engage in the conversation. The only appropriate response is to drop it and steer clear of the subject in the future.
As for the weak excuse that Christians just don't know how to react to atheists - it is the same way if you found out he was Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Jan, Sikh, Hindu, or any of the other myriad of other religions. At work, creating an uncomfortable working environment by attacking such beliefs is inappropriate and if taken far enough, constitutes illegal discrimination. The only appropriate response would have been "oh" and drop it since it was obvious the two have fundamentally differing values where that is. Why is this basic civility so hard to understand?
Why do folks like you think you have a special suspension of the civil rules? You take umbrage if others proselytize you and try to get you to change your beliefs. I was heartened to see that even some of more strident proselytizers on this board understood this basic rule of civil discourse at work and how out of bounds this sort of coercive behavior is.
Again, at work, the people you work with are obligatory relationships. You have more say over the social discourse you have with your near blood relatives than you do with the people you work with. People from all sorts of beliefs are thrown together and must get a job done with a minimum of friction. That's why we have anti-discrimination laws and why the civil discourse is to avoid hot-button issues like religion and politics.
Just as creating a climate where women (or sometimes, men) are being forced to put up with inappropriate touching and coercive requests for sexual favors is illegal, so is trying to convert someone or attacking their belief system inappropriate at work. If a whispering campaign crops up because of this revelation and he is systematically shunned, then his livelihood is seriously affected. It would have nothing to do with his performance at work, but people of various other minorities have experienced this sort of crap and it literally costs them money. I hope this doesn't happen, but that is why he has trepidation in the environment he is working in.
Regardless of whether this guy or anybody else genuinely cares about Troop's "eternal life", it is none of his business and completely inappropriate to follow up on at work. That constitutes illegal harassment.
OUCH!!
In a much less aggressive manner, I have to say that I agree.
Its dangerous for him if he doesn't hear about Christianity at work? I don't understand that at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
You know that scripture, right?
Whether or not I know it doesn't really matter here does it? Because it says it in the bible does not mean you or I or anyone else has one inkling of a reason to discuss such things at work.
Finally.. whether or not Troop felt "attacked" is not the point.
Would you want someone going to your work talking about Vaginas all the time? I'm sure other people wouldn't feel attacked but is it really something to talk about at work?
And no.. I'm not comparing religion to a vagina.... and yes.. if you work at an OB/GYN office.. I suppose its ok to talk about such things (vaginas.. not religion)
It would appear you are the better "christian" in your approach. perhaps he needs to learn more from you than you from him. Arrogance of course stands in his way... and his development. Just smile and change the subject.
Title VII clearly states that it doesn't matter if Troop is harassed but doesn't object!
"If the harassed employee does not object, but it is clear that the religious expression is objectively abusive, intervene."
I'm telling you.. religion is not something to be discussed at work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that Alpha and I are on two different pages of the same book?! While I do think that speaking about my faith should be OK in the work environment, I do not think that it is OK to continue the discussion once I find out that the person on the other side of the conversation is not interested. I feel that it is almost similar to some of the anti-Catholic threads that I have finally stopped posting in. There is a point when it is just plain rude to continue a discussion and it is obvious that you are just continually circling around the barn and someone is going to eventually get angry. I also believe that there is no reason why the two people of opposing opinions should not be able to carry on their friendship and certainly maintain an amicable work relationship.
