Happy Monday, and welcome to the nonprofits this week. I am your host Rob, and we also have joining me. Is Tracy and aj starting offs off today?
Though?
Is Tracy telling us about a recent memo from the Office of Personnel Management.
Well, in what I can only assume is a performative stunt to combat non existent anti Christian bias in the US government, the current administration's Office of Personnel Management has released a five page memo that the director has said is aimed at protecting religious expression in the federal workplace, a thing which I was unaware was under attack, and
which wasn't prohibited in the first place. In its simplest form, this memo can be seen as pro proselytization, as it says very clearly that federal employees are free to attempt and convert their coworkers at the workplace. Other ancillary details are allowing employees to decorate themselves and their assigned workspaces with religious imagery, totems, and texts. Don't fear friends, as the memo specifically says that the attempts to convert must
not be harassing in nature. I just hope that everyone can agree on what's harassing and what isn't. This story is from The Friendly Atheist by Hem and Meta on July twenty eighth, twenty twenty five.
Yeah, thank you, Tracy. So, just from the very end of what you have there, let's just hope everyone can agree on what's harassing and what isn't. Do you have any idea how we can even begin to answer that question, because I think it's a good one, and I don't know what do you think?
So when I used to work for the Missouri government and when I you know, when you have these jobs, you go through all these classes to make sure you're aware of the policies that the government has for certain things and all that. And one of the things we really do into was harassment and what does harassment mean? Because a lot of people, turns out don't really get it, at least here in Missouri among the state Department of
Corrections and probably across the entire government. Is that there's if I remember correctly, it has to be three details have to be so in order for it to be harassment, it must be repeated unwanted contact. It's a three word thing. Of course, you can talk about how the person has to be willingly doing it but you know, that's another thing.
It has to be repeated and unwanted. The problem with it being unwanted is somebody doesn't know it's unwanted until you tell them, and so that kind of puts the onus on you, the victim of harassment, to report it, which I do have a lot of empathy for. I would not empathy, probably sympathy for. I just feel like that's true of every crime that's committed against you, the onus is on you to report it. Except for fire. I think that if somebody is doing arson, somebody else
will report it for you. But like a lot of crimes that are done against you, that's just how it's got to be.
So the point of this of this memo is that it's trying to make clear that people not only are allowed to, but possibly maybe even should have the ability to proselytize within the workplace, specifically federal places. But as you said, harassment requires the person who's being talked to to say so, So, how how does this affect power structures? Like what happens if my boss is talking to me about it a j Do you have any do you
have any ideas? And like, what do I do if my boss is telling me about stuff that is not work related and I don't want to hear they're telling me about the flying spaghetti Monster. What would I do in this case?
I don't even know if there's anything you can do. And like you said, power structures right there, that's that's a big breadth live for me, because people are going to feel like they can't pick up to their supervisors or whatever leadership is above them talking to them about you know, spaghetti monster role on the Closer Goblin or whatever. Maybe they're going to feel like really really uncomfortable first of all, and then like like there's nowhere else to go.
What do you go? Hr? Maybe but they're not gonna want to do anything against a supervisor more than likely, or I'm like, well, you know history, boss just split up with it whatever, So I don't know. Without any type of safeguards, these rules are really really treated to handle.
Well, Tracy, you said in the very beginning that you're you were unaware that the speech like this was under attack, and it already wasn't prohibited. So let me let me play Devil's advocate. Isn't it good? Then this memo exists so that people can know that they are able to engage in something that they were always able to and perhaps fearful to have done so in the past.
I don't know. I don't know if it's good. I think it's unnecessary. I mean, you can even look at older notifications from older administrations to say that this has already been talked about, it has already been established. Nineteen ninety seven, the administration at that time called for agencies not to suppress employees private religious speech in the workplace,
while leaving unregulated other private employee speech. So like there was already a special carve out for this in nineteen ninety seven, which I get that was a long time ago. I think I have a pretty I was born in nineteen ninety seven, so that's my whole life ago. I get that that was a while ago for some people. I don't know when there's already when it's already been a thing we've talked about, something we've already cleared up, made a special little carve out for. I don't feel
like this was necessary. I think it's actually a little bit harmful because maybe they were uncomfortable doing that for good reason. Maybe there was a social stigma against it, and maybe there was a social stigma against it for good reason. Maybe I'm not saying that was what the case was. Maybe in that maybe maybe they're they're coworkers will just be thrilled that this is happening, But I can't speak to that. It just seems like unnecessary playing around.
See.
I think it's going to be difficult just because, like we've already talked about the harassment thing. How do I know when it's harassment? And as you said, it needed three things? Uh what was it?
Uh?
Repeated? It's three words repeated unwanted contact, repeated unwanted contact, which, by the way, I actually really appreciate.
That you had such a very specific history that allows for such a very specific answer. That's nice. But also in this like harassment puts the onus on that person, which I guess I'm not really sympathetic towards because they should It is impossible to know whether it's unwanted until they said so, and so they're just gonna have to say so. Now that does create a power structure, but like a power dynamic problem, but that just is how
communication works. However, what I thought was interesting in the title was that quote Title seven does not cover all beliefs. For example, social, political, or economic philosophies and mere personal preferences are not religious beliefs within the meaning of the statute.
This is like what is like what the Clinton administration was doing. It's exactly like what the Clinton administration did in nineteen seventy seven, which is like, hey, you guys get special permission to do religious speech, but we're not gonna actually protect like you talking about, Hey, maybe let's not do slaves. Why because I just prefer to not do slaves. But if I say that my invisible best friend doesn't want us doing slaves, that's okay.
Well, now it's a godly conversation.
Yeah, I'm just going to start If they're only going to protect religious speech, I'm just going to start lying and saying, my God wants me to do that my first held religious belief. Yeah, it is my personally held religious belief that the creator of the universe wants us to have less taxes on cars, Like I don't know.
So this is a tricky one for us because I can totally understand Christians who have a religious belief belief system. I want to talk about a thing or maybe any other religion. Maybe there's somebody who's Jewish, maybe there's somebody who's Muslim. It doesn't matter, literally, any other religion, somebody who's Wicca, if you want, if you want to go that, right,
But like, what about atheists? Would atheistic conversation be included within this protection given that it is explicitly non religious, but it's content is surely religious?
Do we out.
Aja? Probably not? I don't think so now. Honestly, I think atheists will probably be one of the ones that will benefit the least from these type of rules what we going to call them laws? I mean there were there even laws before that prevented people from talking about religion in the workplace and federal workplaces.
I know, not that I'm aware of.
That's the point explicitly allowed.
Actually yeahs to me what Tracy was mentioning, right, like they this was not necessary. They didn't need to put these forward because they were already allowed to do that just on the basis of that it wasn't forbidden. Right, So you can tag politics, you could tag religion or whatever. Is it socially acceptable maybe not? People try to stay away from those topics, But it wasn't like definitely, you know, like prohibited on the books.
So that was a lot. It would be explicitly protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, like not for any other employer. But if you're employed by the federal government, yes, so you can work in McDonald's and they can say you're not allowed to talk about religion here, but the federal government is not allowed to tell you to tell you that.
So then, AJ, you said it was not required this memo galvanizing people to engage in religious discussion, even literally quote within the article the correctness of their position. It was not required, right, AJ.
Well, yeah, I mean I feel like, why did it happen?
Why do you think it happened.
I think that in this specific case, they're just trying to be really insidious with these type of rules. It may sound like a small thing to most people, but the reason I think it isn't a small thing is, for example, one of the quotes from an article, like you said about you know, the correctness he said, employees may engage in conversation regarding religious religious topics with fellow employees, including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their
own religious views. Providing that these efforts are not harassing in nature. Then it goes on to say, during a break, an employee may engage another and polite discussion of why his faith is correct and why the uh the person who isn't of the faith should readink his religious beliefs. However, if they're none a theerent requests such attempts to stop, the employee that brought up the conversation should honor that request.
And three, personally, I'm sorry, but that's a big no, thanks. Like, can you imagine the awkwardness of trying not to engage in a religious conversation with somebody that comes to you and starts trying to convince you that you know the correctness of their views, that ges is king, and like they're concerned about your servation and your eternal life, and you know, like walking away from somebody that's ex suddenly bursts into prayer right in front of you, trying to
save your soul, talking in tongues whatever, attempting to remove your demons from your body. Like there's a reason why public schools and federal spaces are normally be supposed to be kept secular, and it should stay that way. So to me, it seems really clear that the reason they're making this move is not to safeguard freedom of religion, but rather a move to be able to spread Christianity, or rather Christian nationalism. Let's just call it what it is.
Yeah, So, like I was, actually, you're right up and see your very final point. I was going to say, Okay, we understand, especially we here today, we really understand that we are the minor already in it. We'll just call it religious beliefs for shorthand, even though it's not right. So that's kind of the point. So that means that if a if a if a Christian wants to engage in talking about the correctness literally quote of their religious position.
We imagine that most people would support this memo because they'd be religious and they want to be able to do that. I imagine that's going to happen. Therefore, they must also support that the Jews are going to come talk to them, or the Muslims are going to come talk to them about the correctness of their position. They will clearly support this.
Yes, I can help but laugh at that.
Yeah, can you imagine I'm here, I'm here to where the Satans, the Satanist gospel to you guys, would you like to learn more about Satan?
So this is this is kind of a problem I have with uh with with things like this when they start saying things like in the article they talk about what was the exact verbiage does not cover all beliefs, social, political, or economic philosophies and mere personal preferences are not religious beliefs. Okay, then what is a religious belief?
Right?
Because because here's the thing, Rob, you were saying, you said it a couple of times, and I wanted to interrupt you, but I didn't because I'm a good little boy. Is that interrupt Theists? Atheists aren't religious, and that's not necessarily true. You can be an atheist and be religious. I'm not, but like you know, Buddhists are atheistic, and so that that's or at least by and large atheistic, and so you could go and talk about Buddhism.
One of my one of my best friends is a secular Jew who's practicing, right, Like, that's actually very common within Judaism if.
It's a So I'm just looking at this, I'm like, Okay, what does it mean to be a religious belief that isn't social, political or economic.
I'm actually glad you said that because I was reading it and I didn't want to get like too semantical about it, but it was like, Okay, okay, they're trying to hate religious thoughts. Awesome, And then it literally says it can't be these things. Oh, I had it social
political or economic philosophies and mere personal preferences. Can you imagine the insanity where some guy comes up to you and it comes up to like a queer coworker and it's like, Hey, I just want to let you know, like I think that you are the devil incarnate and you will go to Hell, but like I hope to see you at the work function on Friday.
But like, here's the deal. How is that not a social philosophy?
I suspect I deeply wonder if this question even makes sense where in America, how religious someone is or isn't is so deeply interwoven into our society and our politics in general that do we actually like literally us right now? AJ Tracy and I have just a skewed idea of what it means to be religious, Like, is it actually possible to be religious and not have it intersect with your society or politicalness, and that just is the norm
in America. I can't imagine it not intersecting society and your politicalness.
That's that's the thing. I can't think of an example. I can't say that that's impossible, but like, I can't think of an example where it isn't the case.
I haven't ever met a hardcore question that wasn't also a conservative Republican.
So well, I a religious person who didn't. I've never met a religious person who their social, political, or economic philosophies were not in any way involved in their religion. Yeah, I kind of don't. Then what's the purpose of the religion.
I even know someone who went from being both conservative and religious to be in non religious liberal Like all sort of happened at the same time. So it's like they're so connected you can't really separate them anymore.
More we talk about it, the more I'm convinced that they have to be connected, because like even just super quick example, whip the bankers, like it's literally in the book.
Well like even like I don't even want to make this like I'm not a conservative by any means, but like let's say I'm not even going to try and marry religious beliefs and conservatism because they aren't married. You can have religious people who are very who are very liberal in their beliefs, and they pull that they claim at least to pull it from the same place. And so I'm like, okay, I don't see how you can escape them being touching at the very minimum, Like well, I.
Mean, reminder, Luther started the schism and this all that all started because people who were discussing religious ideas. So what happens in the very very real chance of just a Christian talks to another Christian, but they're not the right sort of Christian.
That's That's the thing that a lot of people who vote, who vote in accordance with these kind of laws and who put their hat in with this kind of uh posturing on the on the sake of the government, who who who support it and give cover to it. What they don't understand. And it's something that I've heard many many times. I still don't really quite get why people don't know this. But they're not fighting for your Christianity.
They're fighting for their Christianity. And there's so many different kinds of Christianity that the chances it's the same one are really small, and theirs could be the Christianity where they're okay with marrying fourteen year olds. Let's let's let's be a little bit more specific and not just endorse an entire religion an entire person because they say they have the same religion as you.
I absolutely That's why I clarify earlier hardcore Christians, not average Christians.
Oh, we should endorse specific people and not necessarily a religion. I can get behind that because it is a necessary truth that the vast majority of all criminals are religious, simply because there are more religious people than non religious people. Maam, Well,