Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, May 15, 1994 TAG: 9405130061
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Cody Lowe
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Once more, some agents of government seem oblivious to the precepts of the Constitution or the concept of common sense when it comes to matters of religion.
This time the offender is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That's the agency that does the legitimate and good work of trying to blot out unconstitutional discrimination in the workplace.
Although it hasn't eliminated bias against employees on the basis of race or gender or age, that didn't stop the EEOC from deciding it needed to come up with more work to do.
Now it wants to root out "religious harassment" on the job.
No, I am not kidding.
I know, some of us occasionally have had to work with someone who went on and on about religious beliefs we found stupid or boring or wrong-headed.
That can be irritating.
However, hard as it may be for federal regulators to believe, most people will lay off that kind of talk if they are asked to - if it's pointed out to them that they are ticking people off. Persistent deafness or hostility to such conversations usually stops it, as well. If none of those approaches work, employers have every right to restrict employees' conduct - including religious speech - if it interferes with those employees or their co-workers doing their jobs.
What has happened to us if we've reached a point we can't tell people to shut up or get lost without government regulations?
Religious people have good reason to be worried about this proposal.
Why is this particular kind of speech being singled out for punishment? The EEOC has assured critics that only speech or actions that are "hostile and denigrating or abusive" will be targeted for investigation and punishment. The implication seems to be that religious speech can somehow be MORE "hostile, denigrating or abusive" than other kinds of irritating speech.
Is a co-worker who drones on about religion being more "abusive" or "harassing" than another who talks about baseball all day, every day? If the boss invites you to church should that be grounds for a lawsuit? If your co-worker at the next desk wears a star of David every day can you file a harassment complaint? If someone reads the Bible to herself in the break room should you contact a lawyer?
Obviously, those are frivolous cases, but when we abandon civil discourse in favor of governmental regulation to resolve communications problems that's exactly what seems to happen. Government lawyers insist those kinds of cases won't be pursued, while in the same breath acknowledging that the rules are likely to be defined on a case-by-case basis.
There have been times an employer went overboard trying to force his or her religious beliefs on employees. But don't employees already have recourse to the courts if they believe their religious freedom has been violated by an employer who overzealously presses his or her beliefs?
One wonders if President Clinton - who has not been averse to expressing his religious faith in public - might be liable to investigation on such a complaint. Let's face it, the man insists on talking about being a Christian, on the need for public discussion of religious values, on joining in worship services, on having "prayer breakfasts" in the White House - a government-owned building, for heaven's sake.
Are non-Christians - or the non-religious - denigrated by such activity? Will some of his employers - that's us - or his employees - on the federal payroll - have to go to court to get him to stop this harassment?
There is little evidence that "religious harassment" in the workplace is a widespread problem that needs a new set of government regulations to curb. There seems to be no class of citizens clamoring for protection from oppressive evangelists in the workplace.
Of the 150,000 workplace discrimination cases filed in 1993, the EEOC said, 1.8 percent were related to religion. Perhaps that percentage would increase with specific rules on the subject, but it is reasonable to expect the rate would still be pretty small.
Some religious liberty groups - including the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs - say the proposed regulations may actually protect religious expression on the job IF the rules are written in a way that specifically does that. That means the rules would have to spell out precisely what kinds of religious speech are protected - a religious slogan on a desk, a simple invitation to a religious event, the wearing of a cross or star of David.
How long would the list have to be, though, to cover everything that should be allowed? The idea that laws should specify activities that are legal, as opposed to those that are not, is absurd.
Since the EEOC is seeking comments on proposed regulations, we ought to give them some. Maybe we could tell them to "get lost" on this one.
Cody Lowe reports on religion and ethics for the Roanoke Times & World-News.
by CNB