What's wrong with (private) religious discrimination/prejudice?

[KrazyHorse]

Poly "meets" are hilarious. You wouldn't believe how much effort it was to keep the forums humming until you got here and took at least a small part of the load off my shoulders

[Heraclitus]

Nobody here but me and thee...and I have my doubts about thee...

Actually I think you are probably alone. I don't think I'm particulary congruent.



Also don't forget that means you are the panda****er site too. And counterglow, whatever that is.

[KrazyHorse]

Those are my evil twins

[aneeshm]

Actually, it does. It indicates poor reasoning.

Well, yes, that's a given, but apart from that?

Does the label "Catholic Christian" mean that the person believes that he eats Jesus every Sunday?
Does the label "Muslim" mean that the person believes that an odd number of stones are the right thing to wipe the arse with?
Does the label "Hindu" mean that the person believes in reincarnation and karma?

If someone says that they are Christian/Muslim/Hindu, may I assume that this is what they believe?

I took benign examples for a reason - it allows us to focus on the question. Let's take more controversial examples:

Should I not hire a Christian because I fear that he may attempt to murder the Wiccan who I have hired previously, because he considers it an unforgivable sin against the LORD?
Should I not hire a Muslim because I fear he may mistreat the women who I have hired, because he believes they are deficient in reason?
Should I not hire a Hindu because I fear he will be contemptuous of some types of foreigners?

All these fears are, of course, ridiculous in a modern context, but if these people really are what they claim to be, then these fears are justified. It's the new religions which catch the most flak, because they're the ones whose believers are actually believers. But the old ones are no better.

If I believed that an admission that a person is X indicates that he really believes in the tenets of X, and if I wanted to hire people whose beliefs would not compel them to commit a crime - that is, if I wanted to hire people who were not self-confessed criminals-in-waiting - I could not hire a single person of any of the major religions of the world. Employers don't have to deal with this problem because an admission of belief in X is not any longer an admission of belief in X, but what if it were?

[rah]

If someone says that they are Christian/Muslim/Hindu, may I assume that this is what they believe?

No you can not assume that.
Now if you have a Muslim who demonstrates during the interview that he treats women like crap and you think that will be detrimental to your work environment, then you'd better document it and note that that is why that person is not being hired. You have to be a bit careful because if you test for how they deal with women you have to make sure that every potential employee is given that same test. Behavioral interviewing will usually satisfy in these circumstances. Yes it's hard to sue in gray areas like this but if you document properly, you shouldn't have a problem, which is why a lot of large companies rely on behavioral stle interviews.

[Ben Kenobi]

When have Christians killed wiccans within the last 300 or so years?

I wouldn't think of it as a credible issue.

[OzzyKP]

Seriously wtf do you care?

WHY THE **** DOES ANYONE CARE?!?! Aren't you guys bored by this yet? Its the same little silly dance over and over and over again. I've been here for 5+ years and its always the same.

+1

I'm bored of it!

[Heraclitus]

+1

I'm bored of it!

Finally an adult.


Wait, that's ageist isn't it?

[Wezil]

I'd discriminate against a religious fundy (of any persuasion). Of course to avoid legal issues I'd make sure the reason given was something else.

[rah]

Yeah, document document and document. Fortunately a fundy is going to appear very inflexible in a hearing which makes it easier to show why you chose someone else.

[Heraclitus]

I'd discriminate against a religious fundy (of any persuasion). Of course to avoid legal issues I'd make sure the reason given was something else.

Silly question but can't you always do that with any kind of prejudice?

[Wezil]

Absolutely, but my prejudice in that case would be based on their faulty reasoning skills. I work in a (mainly) logical field.


Rah -

[Heraclitus]

Absolutely, but my prejudice in that case would be based on their faulty reasoning skills. I work in a (mainly) logical field.


Rah -

Which field exactly?

[aneeshm]

No you can not assume that.

So I may not assume that they are actually what they claim they are and believe what they claim to believe? Am I then to assume that they are lying?

The point is that that's what the damn label is supposed to mean in the first place. If it doesn't so mean it, why use it? What does it mean then, anyway? It shows a great deal of plain dishonesty to claim you're an X when in fact you're nothing close to an X.

Can I use this dishonesty as a basis for refusing to hire someone? I'm not talking about legality, by the way, but about ethics - would it be ethical to do so - to refuse to hire someone who claimed to be X when it is obvious from his very appearance that he is in fact most emphatically not an X?

[aneeshm]

When have Christians killed wiccans within the last 300 or so years?

I wouldn't think of it as a credible issue.

Check out what's going on in Africa - Christians are still branding women as witches and killing them. But you're missing the point - it would stand even if this were not happening.

I don't think Muslims have odd-number-of-stones as the ass-wiping standard any longer either, and the Hindu conception of barbarians died more than five hundred years ago. The questions were rhetorical, and meant to be illustrative.