What’s Wrong with the World

The end-game of multiculturalism is the forceful suppression of all culture and the dissolution of all social bonds. Notice also which sorts of grievances get privileged. If an individual feels "excluded" or "left out" by a public expression of the common culture, what is the right way to deal with situation? a)Suggest that the person who feels "excluded" should develop a little more psychic toughness and learn to cope with the fact that, sometimes, you find yourself in the minority or b) dismantle the local culture and all of the attendant goods that come with it so that nobody feels "excluded". I think the answer is pretty clear.

Nothing disgusts me more than mealy mouthed white liberals who bemoan the isolation and alienation of modern existence, even as they work furiously to impose that isolation and alienation upon everyone, by government coercion if necessary.

Untenured, I was thinking that the missive sounds like the Diversity people are trying to create a new victim group: those who feel "isolated and excluded." With that kind of clientele, all sorts of possibilities open up. Heck, you might even be a victim without knowing it!

is the above message in violation of employment laws, for example because by it the employer informs his employees who wish to take note of a religious theme to the holidays that their perspective is not welcome, while he welcomes other themes?

Tony, I think it certainly could be, given the expansive concept of a "hostile work environment." For example, saying, "Merry Christmas" even verbally to fellow employees would presumably be penalized, which is pretty obviously creating a hostile work environment for Christians.

Of course, the whole concept of a hostile work environment is never applied to benefit Christians but always to benefit other groups. The example I often give here is of the fellow in Massachusetts who was fired after being pursued all day by a supervisor who kept goading him with her statement that another woman was her fiance. When he finally made a mildly worded negative comment about homosexual relations (I think something like "That's bad stuff") she laughed triumphantly and got him fired. If a concept like workplace harassment or hostile work environment based on religion were meaningfully applied at all to that situation, he would have been the victim, but instead he was fired as the the perpetrator!

What's so obvious here is that there is no desire whatsoever to "reflect on" any _actual cultures_, because specific cultures are effectively banned! Presumably if several employees in a given cubicle group were Jewish and put up a Hannukah display, this would be as much in violation of the spirit of this memo as if employees put up decorations celebrating Christmas.

And my general question is: is the above message in violation of employment laws, for example because by it the employer informs his employees who wish to take note of a religious theme to the holidays that their perspective is not welcome, while he welcomes other themes? Does it matter who the employer is?

In a government workplace there might be some rather tenuous claim on the basis of preferring religion to irreligion, but the whole thing is sufficiently mealy mouthed and vague that I don't know if it would qualify even then. There's unlikely to be a hill of beans worth of a claim in a private workplace.

If you take the religious sources of festivity away from December, and are left with the "spirit of winter", isn't that spirit (a) cold, (b) dark, (c) slim food pickings, (d) colds and other illness, and (e) extra work (cutting fire wood, shoveling driveway and scraping ice off windshield)?

My thought exactly.

Titus, I agree the message itself might not be enough. Apparently (paraphrasing here) an employee made a query to his managers about the problem in the message, asking if a more carefully "diversity-promoting" message can be sent out, and one manager told him I don't like it, while a manager higher up asked him do you really want to go there?

The problems these people put themselves in. They could have made the inner message entirely clear between the lines with a message that did not _actually_ denigrate religious points of view. But no, they can't help but screw it up, because a "Diversity" office doesn't really exist to make sure all offences against diversity are prevented or stopped, an equal playing field, they exist to promote an agenda that isn't compatible with certain points of view - traditional religious ones, to tilt the playing field intentionally.

Is not the celebration of winter break discriminatory in that it neglects spring, fall, and summer breaks? In turn, are they not all discriminate insofar as thet neglect those of us who don't wish to celebrate the seasons and therefore are ignored and left out? Non-celebrators have their rights as well and maybe a sweeping investigation is required, or perhaps a new federal department, an Office of Non-Celebrations.
Except of course for Kwanza, or Gay Pride, or that thing islamists have when not bombing people, assuming they do stop for a breather.

"...broaden displays to include other holidays that others may observe or choose themes that reflect a seasonal motif rather than a religious one."

If one actually reads the memo all it seems to say is that it would be nice if organized displays and observances were inclusive - put up a tree, menorah, and a Festivus pole and everyone's happy.

Employers have broad discretion over office activities but I see nothing in the memo that would ban an individual from voicing a "merry Christmas," Happy "Hanukkah," or whatever. This isn't something that bothers me personally and, as far as I'm concerned, folks who get all exercised over displays and greetings that reflect just-so stories that aren't theirs need to get over it.

"Nothing disgusts me more than mealy mouthed white liberals who bemoan the isolation and alienation of modern existence, even as they work furiously to impose that isolation and alienation upon everyone, by government coercion if necessary."

I assume most everyone on this site is knowledgeable enough to realize that the "War on Christmas" thing was a whole cloth creation of Fox News designed to stir up the gullible. Anyway Untenured, you might take a glance just south of here. It's not the "liberals" who so pitifully long for community that they contemplate treason and sedition.

Oh, and Merry Christmas to one and all!

Tony,

The above message is almost surely in violation of the letter of the employment laws, for exactly the reason you give. But the odds of such a violation actually being prosecuted are slim to none, because pretty well everyone in the legal system knows what the law really means, which is that Christian expressions are to be suppressed so that secular folks are spared the discomfort of being disagreed with. Traditional Jewish (or Muslim) expressions are likely to be exempt, because the secularists aren't afraid of Jews (there aren't enough Jews, and Judaism hasn't got a strong proselytizing tradition) or Muslims (yet).

Regrettably, Wisdom 1:16-2:20 aren't much less topical today than when they were written. (They've been similarly topical in basically all societies, let me add—Christians aren't exactly immune from wishing that the convicting voice of the Holy Spirit would just shut up and leave us alone.)

Peace,
--Peter

Plan office parties, receptions, or open houses using terms that include, rather than exclude, such as inviting employees to celebrate the holiday season, the winter break, and a season of lights or peace.

...but I see nothing in the memo that would ban an individual from voicing a "merry Christmas," Happy "Hanukkah," or whatever.

Um, if you tell someone Merry Christmas, you are going to be using a tradition that cause some employees to feel isolated and excluded since it is religious in nature and non-inclusive.

Oh, the War on Christmas tracking didn't start with Fox News. I know the illusion based community likes to believe everything bad comes from Fox News, but it isn't the case this time. And it is happening. Why do you think an extremely minor Jewish festival has been elevated to the level it has been or a made up African holiday gets celebrated?

...a season of lights...

They can't say that because that is Diwali (Indian festival of lights).

Diversity, the crushing of all tradition and uniqueness into a barren wilderness of conformity.

"Why do you think an extremely minor Jewish festival has been elevated to the level it has..."

Because even Jews like to get presents?

"...made up African holiday gets celebrated?

Because free people like to exercise their imaginations?

I am deeply offended that you left out the bestest holiday tradition, one that is very meaningful to some of us - Festivus for the rest of us!!!

If one actually reads the memo all it seems to say is that it would be nice if organized displays and observances were inclusive - put up a tree, menorah, and a Festivus pole and everyone's happy.

Al, I welcome your input here, so I thank you for your response. Please bear with me while I work out details. I think the tone of the memo is, in places, a little stronger than "it would be nice". It says "Make choices that do not reflect", and "broaden displays," "choose themes," and "Plan office parties". These are in the imperative mood, don't include a "please" or a "why don't you", and don't give options if you don't want to follow these directives. They are not mere suggestions.

Let's first distinguish 2 parties: the management, and the employees. If the management puts up a big display on one theme (say, a 20' tree, a couple of wreaths, and a creche scene), that's going to appear all one-sided. Maybe the memo would imply: hey, management, try to not look at one tradition here, put up signs of other traditions too. Don't make it appear that the management thinks displays of other traditions are somehow not as good.

Ok, now let's look at an individual employee. He puts up a picture of a little Christmas tree, and a tiny 12" creche that sits on his desk. The APPEARANCE of the memo is that the employee ALSO needs to broaden his display, he needs to extend the appearance to include Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa most likely.

My belief is that telling an employee to broaden his display to encompass other traditions, is contrary to the tenets of free speech: the reason he puts up his little scene is that he wants to "say" this is something I believe in. If he doesn't believe in Kwanzaa, or in Frosty the Snowman, then telling him to include these is wrong.

broaden displays to include other holidays that others may observe or choose themes that reflect a seasonal motif rather than a religious one.

Secondly, the memo explicitly puts religious points of view at a disadvantage. It says that people who have a non-religious point of view about the holiday are free to express their view without restraint, and people who have a religious point of view about the holiday are to suppress that point of view in decorations and party themes. The "rather than" is, on its face, a restraint of speech.

The memo alone would not be enough, in a private employer's environment, to constitute a "hostile work environment". The additional comments by 2 managers probably do. (Remember, a manager's statement counts for a lot more than a regular employee's.)

In a government office, the memo alone would probably be illegal because it explicitly restrains religious speech by employees, not just by managers. The unfortunate "do you really want to go there" by a higher level manager can, incidentally, be taken to appear as a threat of some indeterminate penalty for pushing the issue. Whistleblower rules may come popping out of the woodwork on that.

I believe that a private employer is allowed to privilege a specific religious point of view as long as that "privilege" does not create a hostile work environment. A government employer is not allowed to privilege any point of view about religion, including that religion should stay home at the holidays, which is what this memo does.

Hi Tony, I think you over-read a bit but I need to deal with a load of concrete so more later.

Hey, Al, my cousin Rocco can prob'ly help you with the concrete. What size shoes do you wear? :-))

The diversity office shouldn't exist in the first place. Now that it does exist, it has to justify its budget (and hopefully increase it) and so it must seek out demons where none exist. The more demons the better, cause they need lots of money to fight them. NAACP, SPLC, La Raza, ACLU, the same old story over and over.

Tony, I get the manager's comment, "Do you really want to go there?" I'm not sure I get the comment by the other manager, "I don't like it." Does that mean the second manager doesn't like the diversity memo?

I wonder if this struck anyone else: Tony quotes verbatim an obviously anti-Christmas employer memo, and Al responds by telling us that the Christmas wars are an invention of Fox News.

Lydia, the "I don't like it" comment was in reference to the employee's request to send a more diversity-promoting message out to the organization. I suspect that the main thing he didn't like was (a) brewing up a storm about the matter, or (b) using up valuable time on an irrelevancy. But hey, I'm just guessing, really.

Since I don't watch Fox News, or Fox anything, I don't "realize" that the war on Christmas was their invention. It doesn't seem terribly likely that the Diversity office was taking it's marching orders from Fox. It is slightly more likely that the people in the Diversity office were watching Fox to learn what traditional Christians don't like, and plan to do just that, but even I wouldn't accuse them of it. So Al's comment about the war being dreamed up by Fox is pretty much just smoke and mirrors.

Untenured,

This comment of your struck a chord with me:

If an individual feels "excluded" or "left out" by a public expression of the common culture, what is the right way to deal with situation? a)Suggest that the person who feels "excluded" should develop a little more psychic toughness and learn to cope with the fact that, sometimes, you find yourself in the minority or b) dismantle the local culture and all of the attendant goods that come with it so that nobody feels "excluded". I think the answer is pretty clear.

Back when I was a punk kid atheist (sorry for being redundant) I used to think I was being put upon by having to say the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. Then I realized that if I was going to be true to my beliefs and be courageous and manly, then I needed to stop feeling put upon and be proud that I was willing to remain silent when those around me said "under God". In other words, I developed some psychic toughness and accepted the fact that I was in a minority and it wasn't going to kill me.

Jeff,

That sounds right. I spent a portion of my young adulthood living in a Muslim country. All around there were displays of the Islamic religion and various Muslim traditions. Never once did it even cross my mind to think that these things were "excluding" me or treating me as a second-class citizen. I just cannot fathom the kind of passive aggressive, self-righteous and self-important personality that would demand that the whole culture grind to halt in order to stop making *me* feel slightly uncomfortable. It is like that punky Atheist in Alabama who forced his school to stop holding public prayers. The liberals talked about him as if he were some kind of courageous champion of equal rights. I failed to see that he was anything more than a pathologically self-centered little malcontent who used the leverage of the judiciary to dismantle the local culture and deprive others in his community of innumerable social goods. Not because he was "oppressed" or forced to live an intolerable existence, but because public prayers made him *feel* bad.

In practice, egalitarianism always empowers the lone outlier and determined little malcontent to destroy the common good. Typical liberal outcome: Better to screw everybody than to exclude anybody.

Tony: the memo explicitly states the subject is "holiday events and displays in common work areas". How do you read that as applying to private displays or expressions? It is simply saying that for expressions that could be regarded as by the company (i.e. company events and displays in common areas), that no one religion should be favored. Would you regard a similar ban to any political posters in the common area as suppressing political expression in an unreasonable way as well?

Lydia: this seems quite a stretch to call this anti-Christian. 'Anti' implies active suppression or discrimination to me. The policy certainly doesn't favor any other religion over Christianity: it would seem to discourage a Hanukkah or Eid ul-Adha display just as much as a Christmas one. And unless it would approve displays with banners like "God doesn't exist", it doesn't favor atheism either. It simply asks that we don't favor one culture's or religion's holiday over any other . I.e it is non-Christian, non-religious. But not 'anti' either. Do you regard ecumenical prayer similarly anti-Christian?

As to Tony's original question on what meaning is left without the religious basis, Christmas (and I expect Hanukkah) are more that just religious: they are times for families to get together, exchange gifts, escape work. I.e. a distraction or relief from your cold dark winter.

As to Tony's original question on what meaning is left without the religious basis, Christmas (and I expect Hanukkah) are more that [sic] just religious: they are times for families to get together, exchange gifts, escape work. I.e. a distraction or relief from your cold dark winter.

They can do all those things anytime they choose. They probably wouldn't be doing it at this time if Christ had not come into the world.

Peter, it is individual employees who put up displays in common areas near their desk, the organization doesn't do anything, doesn't spend a dime on the decorations or festivities.

The policy certainly doesn't favor any other religion over Christianity

The memo favors the "festival of lights", which is a Hindu celebration (called Diwali in India).

It also favors secular themes over religious ones (except for the Hindu one), and if a discriminatory practice has an IMPACT that lands on 93% of a group, of which 90% are class A, and 3% are class B, it can be said to be discriminatory to class A even if it doesn't formally distinguish between A and B. But it would be more technically correct to say that the message is anti-Judeo-Christian.

are more that just religious: they are times for families to get together, exchange gifts, escape work. I.e. a distraction or relief from your cold dark winter.

Peter, you just don't get it, do you? Why do you celebrate with "families getting together" and "exchanging gifts" in December if not for the religious traditions of the Jews and Christians? Why do you celebrate July 4th: because something happened on July 4 in the past. Why do you celebrate your birthday on a special date? Because something happened on that day in the past. And why do we celebrate gift-giving on December 25? Because (in the traditions of 90% of the people in this country) God sent us the greatest gift the world could possibly receive on THAT DAY IN THE PAST.

The memo also says explicitly that it's been issued in response to complaints because of actual displays put up or that people anticipate being put up. I think we can be pretty certain those were Christmas displays, not Kwanzaa displays! (At least, if we're reasonable people we can be confident of that.) Therefore, the memo is an attempt to quash Christmas/Christian displays.

Tony,

Festival of Lights/Diwali? The memo (at least what you quoted) mentioned 'season of lights', not festival. Which I read as a reference to any of Christmas lights, Hannakah candles or perhaps Diwala (though that seems to be an October festival for most). Again, ecumenical, if a bit mealy mouthed.

And exactly what is the point I'm supposed to get? I understand the historical context. But you seem to be conflating the historical roots of a holiday with the reasons people celebrate it today. Thanksgiving is historically a celebration of the Pilgrams first year, but except for a few advertising images, Pilgrams play little part in how and why many (actually most I bet) people celebrate Thanksgiving today.

And isn't Christmas a rather unstable ground to take an historical stance? My understanding is that few historical or religious scholars think Christ was born on Dec 25 or even December: September seems to be the vague consensus. The Dec 25 date seems to be co-option of some pagan observances, and even co-ops of some of the pagan ritual (trees? mistletoe?). So if historical roots are the issue, then the Druids seem to have the legitimate complaint here.

So again, to answer your question: I celebrate Christmas because it is a tradition in my family and in my cultural group: i.e. a shared observance to help stave off Untenured's 'isolation and alienation of modern existence'. The religious aspect isn't necessary for that for me or my family.

Peter, the point is that it's a cultural lie to pretend that the reason so many people are celebrating at this particular time of year has nothing to do with the fact that Christians celebrate Christmas at this time of year. That the two are connected and that the vast majority of other people wouldn't be celebrating right now otherwise has nothing to do with whether Christ was actually born in the winter.

By the way, I was just thinking of Al's recommendation of a "festivus pole" or whatever it was at the office party and was irresistibly reminded of Linus's puzzlement about why the card stores weren't selling Great Pumpkin cards just before Halloween... :-)

Many, many years ago I was working nights at a computer center while going to school. Every department had a Christmas tree decorated in the regular fashion and other standard Xmas stuff. Our department, chance having thrown radicals of various stripes together, decided to do something special. We had the tree lot spray our tree black and we decorated it with pieces of broken mirror and, instead of sparkly rope, I punched out the spent primers and strung 30-06 cases together which we then wrapped around the tree. Add exclusively red lights and top it off with a large bronze incense burner in front and it was done. My favorite reaction was from a woman in data entry who came in. looked at our tree, and started crying.

I still can't see why folks take this stuff so seriously. People who get so offended by religious displays that they go to HR and jump up and down need to take a moment as do those who see nonexistent wars on THEIR holiday under every bed.

"Why do you celebrate with "families getting together" and "exchanging gifts" in December if not for the religious traditions of the Jews and Christians?"

And Hindus, it seems, as well as Wiccans and other assorted heathens and pagans through the ages. I dwell on the north side of a valley with tall conifers growing everywhere. One can follow the path of the sun through the year as the its daily arc touches neighboring trees. The days get shorter and then around Christmas we hit the Winter Solstice (blessed be) and the days start getting longer. We Plains Apes have observed this for millenia and, because its what we do, we have created many different stories, assigning this significance or that to this event. And, because its what we are wired to do, some of us deeply internalize these stories and see the stories of others as some sort of threat.

"...which is a Hindu celebration..."

Not so much as the concept has been thoroughly secularized arouind the world.

https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=festival+of+lights&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=UOfkTvOnAoOosALRnsWYBg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festival_of_Lights

Peter is correct on a facial reading of the memo. As with the over zealous application of their notions of separation of church and state by school administrators and teachers, the actual application of the memo by some managers may be problematic but that seems to be in the future.

"Apparently (paraphrasing here) an employee made a query to his managers about the problem in the message, asking if a more carefully "diversity-promoting" message can be sent out, and one manager told him I don't like it, while a manager higher up asked him do you really want to go there?"

Folks who are giving this paragraph the same weight as the actual memo are really reaching. What problem? What doesn't he like? Go where?

Once we have a written memo, way more weight should be given to it than to the intent of the writers and none to offhand comments reported second hand.

"Tony quotes verbatim an obviously anti-Christmas employer memo, and Al responds by telling us that the Christmas wars are an invention of Fox News."

There is no way the memo is facially anti any particular religion so I therefore went to the obvious observation. As with certain economic fallacies, these notions have consequences that injure all of us, hence I'm inclined not to be generous. Absent the political and economic harm I would probably be more understanding of the need of those of some dispensations to endure persecution and yet find themselves in the U.S. of A. with no one to throw them to the lions or set them alight.

Lydia,

Therefore, the memo is an attempt to quash Christmas/Christian displays

No: the stated intent is to not have religious displays in general. I don't see how anything else can be read directly from the text.

First, let be clear: I'm reacting to what seems to be a claim of explicit discrimination/persecution against Christians. I take both discrimination seriously and thus false-claims of discrimination seriously. If that isn't what you are implying, then please ignore the rest of this post. (Though in that case I strongly suggest you use a different term than 'anti-Christian': it smacks too much of victimhoodism)

I'm honestly not sure where you are coming from here:

• Are you implying that the intent of the memo is explicitly anti-Christian, but they are masking that intent under an ecumenical shroud? If so, on what basis do you make that rather serious claim?


• Or are you saying that anything that stops Christian expression in any way for any reason is anti-Christian. If so, do you regard getting a speeding ticket as 'Anti-Lydia'?


• Or are you saying that, being a Christian country (ignoring the details of what that exactly means for now), expression of a Christian message is by default protected, so this interference is unfair?


• Or do you simply, because of your personal beliefs, dislike the interference and are, perhaps, being a little overheated in your terminology?

http://www.zazzle.com/great_pumpkin_card-137557112640053647

If a story, any story, resonates, the people respond.

Trolls are kinda cute until they start being kinda annoying.

The Elephant

Lydia,

First, who in this discussion is claiming that the holiday has "has nothing to do with the fact that Christians celebrate Christmas"? No one argues the historical fact (modulo that pesky Druid thing) at all. All that is being said is that for many the holiday involves more than just Christ.

And what on Earth is a 'cultural lie'? I assume that is a lie about a culture? I.e. about how and why people are practicing today. If so, what culture? Your culture? My culture? Or that weak-sauce, least-common denominator, mostly secular, consumerist excuse for a US-wide culture that plays out in our media and the public square? Do you really want to try and say that in the context of that culture that Christmas is primarily, let alone exclusively, a religious holiday???

I think you are doing a variant of 'shooting the messenger': I think we can agree that in the present day public square in the US, Christmas is primarily a secular and commercial holiday. We may not like that (I mourn the commercialization, while I presume you decry the secularization), but that doesn't change the fact. I.e. it is not a 'cultural lie', it is 'cultural fact' but also a 'cultural tragedy'.

Do you really want to try and say that in the context of that culture that Christmas is primarily, let alone exclusively, a religious holiday???

No, I'm saying that in the context of that culture it is an historical fact, and not one from zillions of years ago either but one verifiable in living memory, that the cause of all the brouhaha right at this time of year, including the consumerist and commercialized aspects of that brouhaha, is the fact that a large number of people in America celebrate Christmas. In fact, the whole gift-buying thing which gave rise to the commercialization is a result of the fact that gift-giving is a Christmas tradition. It's really not that tough to understand.

The whole "Happy Holidays," "Happy Solstice" meme is a deliberate attempt to obscure this patent fact of American culture and history, including recent history. We are to pretend that people in the United States are spontaneously celebrating many different holidays, just now, in December, by coincidence, or perhaps chiefly because of some prehistoric sun-worship, that Christmas has no causal priority in explaining the phenomenon of "the holidays" in December in the United States, and other similar falsehoods.

Are you implying that the intent of the memo is explicitly anti-Christian, but they are masking that intent under an ecumenical shroud? If so, on what basis do you make that rather serious claim?

I'm implying that the intent of the memo is to suppress celebrations which the writers of the memo themselves know will be chiefly *or entirely* Christmas celebrations. That's what they're worried about and are trying to forestall. They aren't really expecting a big outbreak of Hannukah celebrations. Whether they _would_ try to forestall those too if they expected such an outbreak is an interesting question. Let's just say I don't think they would be nearly so eager as they are to get right on it and make sure people aren't doing what they *do in fact expect*--namely, Christmas. Moreover, the phrase "diverse cultures" is code which only, frankly, a moron in this day and age does not understand. Telling the recipients of the memo to reflect on and gain knowledge of "diverse cultures" *just is* telling them to get with it and find out more about non-Christian, especially non-Western, cultural practices, which supports my suspicion about their not getting too exercised if someone put up a non-Christian religious display of some sort. Let's recall too that, other than Christmas, only Hannukkah is an explicitly religious holiday celebrated at all widely in December in America. Eid is over already. Kwanzaa is a Christmas-substitute but not actually religious in the same sense that Christmas is. And it would be the sheerest sophistry to pretend that in America there is some noticeable contingent celebrating a definitely religious winter solstice. (Wicca really verges on a secular religion. Just try asking a Wiccan if she believes in the devil, and you'll get a lecture.) A lot more people celebrate Christmas than Hannukah. Hence, the explicitly anti-religious theme, which Tony has noted, is clearly directed chiefly at Christmas and perhaps as a _very_ distant second, at Hannukkah.

By the way, Peter X, I could bring numerous pieces of evidence of the differential treatment by the diversity cohort of Christianity and non-Christian religions. Christian observance is regarded as diversity-reducing. Non-Christian religious observance is regarded as diversity-enhancing. I'm not going to bother finding the links, because this is likely a fruitless exercise (you will claim not to see the evidential relevance), but

--in Canada (I believe it is) public schools adamantly refuse to allow Christian prayers to be led on-site but bring in imams to lead Muslim children in Muslim prayers on-site.

--At more than one U.S. university, Christian student groups are denied student group funding and various permissions for activities because they are religious, while Muslim groups are given the same types of recognition on the grounds that their religious activities are culturally educational.

--Christian prayers at U.S. public schools are forbidden (especially if "teacher led") while, with the concurrence of the courts, Muslim "educational" units are carried out in which teachers lead children to make banners praising Allah and to play games which designate particular Muslim tenets as "truths" or "facts."

These are just a few of many examples that could be given. People who run diversity offices do not regard all religions as created equal. Christianity is doubly disfavored in this memo by being a)a religion and b) not an example of what is meant by the phrase "diverse cultures."

There is no way the memo is facially anti any particular religion so I therefore went to the obvious observation. ...I'm inclined not to be generous.

Al, the obvious observation is that it is anti-religious. Since the two main religions in the country, by FAR, are Christianity and Judaism, it is impossible to target religion without implicitly targeting those two religions. If you were to say that the writer of the memo was targeting all religions, especially Christians and Jews, that would be little different from saying that he/she was targeting Christians and Jews.

But I really don't care whether the memo was specifically targeted at Christians and Jews, as the fact that it was explicitly restraining religious speech, telling the employees that their religious speech is not welcome the way other points of view are welcome. Given that the Organization is a government agency, I believe that this is definitely contrary to law, government entities are not legally permitted to tell employees that their religious views are not welcome.

Al, about the verbal comments, you seem to be blissfully unaware of "hostile work environment" rules. When a manager quashes a complaint without responding to its substance, and another manager quashes a complaint by what could be a veiled threat, that's not insignificant for work environment.

I am closing this thread. I have heard all I need to: the bleeding heart liberals can't stand it when a rule gores their ox, whether or not the rule is sane and legitimate in general, and at the same time they couldn't care less about when breaking a rule that they had put in place gores traditional morals and mores, it's another ho-hum non-event.