Court: Religion slurs made for hostile workplaceFriday, August 01, 2008NEWARK – Derogatory comments about a Jewish police officer’s religion were more than just teasing and constituted a hostile work environment, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday.The decision could have widespread impact, as the court determined that the standard for demonstrating religious discrimination is the same as that for sexual or racial harassment.The 5-0 decision by New Jersey’s highest court upheld a Camden County jury ruling in favor of the Haddonfield police officer Jason Cutler. It reversed an appellate ruling that characterized the remarks as “teasing.” Two justices did not participate.A lawyer for the police department said the ruling means ethnic jokes are essentially barred from the workplace, but a Jewish civil rights group applauded the ruling because it would encourage employees to think twice before making such remarks.In rejecting arguments that the remarks aimed at Cutler, who has since been promoted to sergeant, were harmless teasing, the court determined he “suffered severe or pervasive harassment that was unwelcome.”
My Letter to the Editor:Editor,As an atheist, I was very happy to read of the NJ Supreme Court?s decision that religion-based slurs contribute to a hostile work environment. New Jersey is flush with diversity ? a fact of which all New Jerseans should be proud – and we have no place for ignorance and bigotry. Some may attack this ruling as ?political correctness gone too far?, but I disagree. I hope this sends a clear message that intolerance based on religion (or lack thereof) is not to be tolerated.American Atheists (www.atheists.org) is America?s oldest nonprofit organization by and for the nonreligious population.Sincerely,David SilvermanNJ State DirectorAmerican Atheists Piscataway, NJ
Humanists Praise NJ Religious Harassment Decision
For Immediate Release – Contact Fred Edwords at (202) 238-9088 fedwords@americanhumanist.org – http://www.americanhumanist.org
(Washington, D.C., August 01, 2008) Today the American Humanist Association expressed its support for the Thursday, July 31, decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Jason Cutler v. Theodore Dorn. The justices ruled 5-0 in favor of Cutler that jokes and comments about a person’s religion, when they create a “humiliating and painful environment,” can constitute a form of on-the-job discrimination. Moreover, those claiming religion-based harassment don’t face a higher legal threshold than those claiming racial or sexual harassment.
“This is a welcome decision for atheists, agnostics and humanists,” stated Mel Lipman, a civil liberties attorney and president of the American Humanist Association. “People are sometimes discriminated against or harassed in the workplace because they aren’t religious or don’t believe in a god. Now their concerns can begin to receive recognition and legitimacy in the category of religion-based harassment.”
Fred Edwords, director of communications for the American Humanist Association, added: “Humanists and other nontheists have suffered workplace criticism, harassment or a hostile work environment simply because they don’t think or believe like most others. In response, they have often found it necessary to keep quiet and not complain. A number of such individuals have told me their stories over the years. Now we can begin to promote workplace sensitivity toward those of all beliefs and no belief.”
The New Jersey case involved anti-Semitic remarks made to a Jewish police officer in Haddonfield, Camden County.
# # #
The American Humanist Association (www.americanhumanist.org) advocates for the rights and viewpoints of humanists. Founded in 1941 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., its work is extended through more than 100 local chapters and affiliates across America.
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity.
The more I think about it, the more I fear the anti-blasphemy precedent it will set. I don’t think this ruling will protect atheists whatsoever, it will only protect monotheistic religious expression.
All Kinds of Corn
I agree this ruling is more likely to set precedent for the protection of religious nut jobs in the workplace and leave atheists in the cold. Atheism is not a religion.
Clarity Redo
All Kinds of Corn
I agree. This ruling is more likely to set precedent that protects religious nut jobs in the workplace while leaving atheists out in the cold. Need I remind anybody here that Atheism is not a religion?
I, too, lean toward All Kinds of Corn’s judgment on this, although I’m firmly in favor of the kind of protective civil-rights legislation alexatheist finds so noxious.
Atheists have been covered by the atheism-as-religion umbrella before. But if religion earns status as a class of special protection, that risks, in a legal environment that favors religious institutions and religious belief, endangering criticism of religion or even promotion of secularity.
I agree too. As I said before, no one gives a shit about freedom FROM religion.
Dave-
I’d like to expand on What’s question.
Do you wear a yarmulke while appearing publicly as a representative of American Atheists?
Matador, I haven’t worn a yarmulke since my wedding, under protest, 17 years ago. WHAT is just making trouble. He likes it and he’s good at it.
Dave
I’m just asking the tough questions. Have you apologized to Arthur yet for you childish shenanigans with his name and the website you have linked to his posts. Now that’s “making trouble”.
What, he shouldn’t have started the letter as a “jewish Atheist” because atheist isn’t capitalized unless it’s at the beginning of a sentence, or as a proper name/noun.
Mushi
I agree. He should have started and finished the letter as an Atheist only. Oh well. But I think there is hope for Dave.
I think I have a unique position in this debate over Dave considering himself a “Jewish atheist”. I was raised reform Jewish. I still consider Jewishness to be an ethnicity (you can’t deny they all look the same). However, I do not consider myself a Jewish atheist. My ethnicity is Jewish. My “religion” is atheist. The term Jewish atheist is unnecessary and not applicable in any context, especially in an atheist centric one. I’ve never heard people defining themselves as an Italian atheist or a British atheist or (insert ethnicity) atheist.
The reason why so many ethnically Jewish atheists put that moniker in front of the term atheist is because none of them have actually left Judaism. In Hebrew school, we barely learned religious teachings or principles. That explains the large number of apostate Jews. Rather, we learned loyalty to Israel above America (even learning the Israeli anthem), loyalty to the diaspora, that we should define ourselves as principally Jewish and nothing else, the utter importance of continuing Jewish tradition (harped on intensely), and other aspects of Jewish nationalism. This was the basis of my Jewish education. It’s easy for a Jew to discard the exclusively religious teachings, but not the “cultural” ones which requires not only a far more subtle analysis but also the repudiation of years of indoctrination. Jewish leaders lied to me, telling me that Jewish “culture” is distinguishable from Jewish religion. This and the other ideas presented above is what keeps Jews like Dave in the “tribe.” Jewish leaders don’t really even care that you’re an atheist because, at its base, Judiasm and Jewish thinking is communistic, considering the collective and not individuals.
I’ll stop here, but I’ve got plenty more. Oh and for my wedding, there won’t be yarmulkes, broken glasses, or a chupah. And my kids won’t even look at a synagogue without me yelling at them.
Good letter Dave. I think “teasing” can go overboard to alienate people. I mean if I was constantly called filthy atheist all day but we said it jokingly eventually it would seem normal and the label becomes standard, even to outsiders who may overhear the comments. I”m guessing dirty little Jew or something like it gets annoying to the point you want it to stop.
No offense intended, Dave – but sometimes I think that some of the best questions are the ones which induce squirming.
The Workplace:
I used to work w/ a woman whose religion apparently demanded that she bless everyone she would witness sneezing – presumably to protect their soul from escaping or whatever.
When I turned to her and pointed out that when the sneezer is at the other end of the plant, her actions could be interpreted as showing-off, was I creating a hostile workplace?
How about when my masonic employer told me that gob was the architect of the universe, whereby I insisted upon an adult level of office discourse in the future?
Frankly, I don’t support anyone promoting their superstition on MY dime, and that is just what cops like “Jesus First” and “beanie baby” are up to.
Dave-
I think you should have written your letter as a private individual.
I usually conclude my correspondence to the idiots who write for WingNut Daily(Norris, Prager, Falwell, Boone, etc.) w/ my name, followed by “Member – American Atheists”.
I even had a letter published – calling William J. Federer out on some typical xtian historical distortions in one of his articles, Tyranny of the atheist “minority”.
IMO – That’s how one is supposed the wield the influence of this organization.
I’d love a pointer to where this has been hashed over before. I identify myself only as an atheist, never as a Jew, since I never had a religious upbringing.
It’s hairsplitting to try to separate Jewishness and Judaism. Ethnicity is inherited; beliefs — and behavior reinforcing those beliefs — can be acquired and abandoned. I accept neither the religious definition (“if your mother was Jewish”) nor the popular ones (“if your parent was Jewish,” “if you look/act/vote Jewish,” “the Nazis don’t care what you call yourself”).
For atheists to identify as Jews is popular and mainstream, but it’s a choice, not predetermined.
Compare an Orthodox persepective (http://www.beingjewish.com/identity/whoisajew.html),
a Conservative Zionist one (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/about/index.shtml),
and a light but broad perspective from Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F ).
Response to comment: “Although you might have strong opinions about what ‘God’s standards’ are, other people have different opinions…[S]ome of the refugees from all this fighting-for-God founded a secular country with church-state separation…rather than religious, law….Consider yourself lucky to live in such times. You might have found the Middle Ages to be…intolerable.”
Putting man’s law above God’s law is human secularism.
Our nation was founded and grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics. Benjamin Franklin for example said: “God governs in the affairs of men, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” We have been blessed by God in our nation. Godless men today want Him out but those faithful to Him want Him to stay. We realize that without God’s hand of blessing our nation, we are headed downward not up. We see evidences of that now. “Consider yourself lucky…”. There is not such thing as luck, but if anyone is “lucky” it is the atheists because he already has what he wants– a godless nation. Atheistic “freedom” is bondage though he doesn’t know it.
According to scripture we are judged not only as an individual, but as a people or nation. As a saved man loves God’s perfect law (Ps. 2), our nation once loved God and His law. It is why we were blessed as a nation. But the unregenerate man sees God’s law as repressive. He wants God not only out of his life but out of his nation as well. We see the fruits of the downward spiral.
“You might have found the Middle Ages to be… intolerable..”. Christ followers were persecuted by the organized church as well. Men who believed in God were persecuted, rejected and killed for revealing the true Jesus of scripture: John Wycliffe, John Hus, Martin Luther, Menno Simons, John Calvin, etc… Christians want to be lead by Christ, not a church. The churches who persecuted believers and non-believers alike did not represent Christ. Scripture refers to “the bride of Christ” as His church throughout the world. She is meek and lowly not puffed up in pride. She points to Christ not herself. The modern-day Pharisees who many think represent Christ’s church do not. They are legalists– ironically never freed from the law. The atheists and believer are more closely related in that they want the same thing–freedom from religion. The former is not freed from law, the latter is. The atheist hates God’s law and is bound by it, the believer loves God’s law and is freed from it.
What said:
Arthur Brenner
brenner7@stny.rr.com
What,
Dave doesn’t need to apologize to ME. Personally, I’m glad Dave is trying to insult me. It demonstrates to everyone how childish he is and how inappropriate his appointment to the board was.
On the other hand, Dave should probably apologize to everyone else for being such a public embarrassment to the organization.
Arthur “I-have-no-life” Brenner
brenner7@stny.rr.com
For the record, I just deleted the URL (www.IHaveNoLife.com) that Dave had added to my blog Profile. It will no longer appear at the beginning of my new blog posts (or any of my old blog posts).
You’re welcome, Dave.
Arthur Brenner
brenner7@stny.rr.com
I’m going on vacation for a couple weeks. When I get back I expect an operational definition of the words “exist” and “god” from the xianbots and a resolution of the Atheist/atheist capitalization controversy.
I’m going to have fun with those Gideon Buybulls!
What
Have a great vacation! I wouldn’t count on anyone giving any operational definitions in your absence. The atheist/Atheist controversy will remain as long as there are still otters!
Looks like they’re going to print my letter in the Star Ledger in the next few days. Got a confirmation call today.
serpentdove,
The answer to your first post is NO.
The answer to your second post is no matter how much you believe and clap tinkerbell can not fly.
That IS how I wrote it! Sheesh…