Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Blasphemy

Page: (1)2

15:35 / 19.04.05

A friend of mine - we'll call her Tina - was recently informed that a colleague of hers (Mary) had made a complaint about her persistent blaspheming. Tina's a well-mannered sort, and not particularly given to bad language, but does a fine line in 'Oh my God!'s and 'Jesus!'es.
Mary is not a trouble-maker, has no personal gripe with Tina, but is sufficiently religious to find her blasphemy genuinely offensive. Their manager has asked Tina (and all her other colleagues) not to use the kind of language Mary finds offensive, in the office.

Is this a reasonable demand? Would you be willing/able to meet it if it were placed on you?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

15:44 / 19.04.05

No, and no. If 'Oh my God!' and 'Jesus' cause sufficient offence to motivate someone to make an official complaint, they are too delicate for the workplace.

Well, my workplacce, anyway. I suspect Mary would need an actual exorcism after 15 minutes in the office here.

15:54 / 19.04.05

Tell 'Tina' to make a list of possible 'offensive' words that 'Mary' says.

Then tell her that she'll burn in hell for being so proud and wrathful.

Tryphena Absent

15:57 / 19.04.05

Oh god! I'd try not to blaspheme around her but it wouldn't work, it's just part of the language. I try not to swear around some people and it doesn't work, I'm so indelicate.

16:11 / 19.04.05

Have to agree, if someone finds the odd "Jesus Christ!" or "Oh my God!" offensive, they aren't suited to the modern workplace.

Perhaps farming in a nice Amish settlement would be more to her taste...

16:16 / 19.04.05

Yeah, I believe 'Oh my God!' were her first words on being admonished.
It sounds like an impractical injunction, doesn't it - but there must be workplaces where people find racist, homophobic or misogynistic language, are offended by it and reasonably feel justified in expecting something to be done about it. Or are there? Is any objection to offensive language at work just evidence that you're not robust enough to do that job?
What are the circumstances in which it might be reasonable to object to the use certain kinds language in the workplace? And in what ways are Mary's different?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

16:18 / 19.04.05

Actually, I feel really sorry for the manager, who no doubt has to uphold this sort of complaint, and could feasibly (depending on where this office is in the world) end up on the receiving end of litigation for distress in the workplace or some shit. You know the form, 'I've been off work for 6 months because of the terrible blasphemy in the office. I just couldn't take it. I got depressed, and now I'm addicted to Valium and Vicodin, and need 24 hour care, and wet myself'.

16:18 / 19.04.05

I'd ask Mary for a list of verboten expressions, agree to that and then start using others. There's nothing quite like the sound of "God's wounds!" zinging across the office.

I think it's unreasonable but I would probably try and comply nonetheless. I swear a great deal in normal speech but am quuite proficient in turning it off at work or in front of parents, etc.

Is there some sort of legal precedent here? Blasphemy isn't actually against the law is it? In any case, I have a hard time accepting that "God!" or "Jesus!" is blasphemy. Maybe if she was saying things like "Sweet Flaming Christ!" then it would be more reasonable to ask her to tone it done.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

16:20 / 19.04.05

And in what ways are Mary's different?

Beliefs are optional.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

16:30 / 19.04.05

Out of interest, did Mary approach Tina first, and mention to her that her use of the said expressions was distressing to her because of her beliefs?

If so, and the problem persisted, there is a reasonable grounds for complaint, I guess...You've been reasonable, made your position clear, and it hasn't got you anywhere...It would also open up the channels for discussion, maybe a simple apology, sorry, it's only a figure of speech i don't give much thought to, I'm not being contemptuous or anything, its just an exclamation, etc., etc.,

If not, I'd quite possibly perform the Black Mass in front of her, or wear chickens feet around the place, leave chicken heads in the toilet / by the water machine, play Cradle of Filth albums loudly on the computer, that kind of thing. I hate that pandering-to-authority-first-port-of-call nonsense.

17:31 / 19.04.05

beliefs are not only optional, they are subjective too.

perhaps tina's beliefs allow her to use her god's name in any way she pleases, and perhaps she objects to mary driving in to work in her (hypothetical) SUV...
is there a bit in the bible that says "thou shalt make sure no one else uses my name in vain"?
i am led to believe there is a similar sentiment expressed in the qur'an, restricting the freedom of expression (and therefore blasphemy/criticisms) tolerated by many devout muslims.

oh, and i wholeheartedly agree about folks whose first thought is to go above you and get you told rather than have a word. calling the cops/telling your boss should always be a last resort in my opinion.
so much can be solved without calling in the authority and often doing so makes the situation escalate needlessly.

Tryphena Absent

17:58 / 19.04.05

I don't look unkindly on Mary, if she finds the use of blasphemy offensive than she simply does. But I hope she gives her workmate space to make the odd slip up and realises that no one is actively trying to offend her.

17:59 / 19.04.05

Loomis: I swear a great deal in normal speech but am quite proficient in turning it off at work or in front of parents, etc.

Lucky you. A career in journalism and laissez faire (or given-up) parents mean that my language is pretty hard to keep under control. Visiting non-swearing in-laws next month will be a challenge.

I'm a bit torn about this one. I agree that Mary ought to have said something to begin with, but sometimes that's hard and perhaps it seemed easier to go to the boss. I would be absolutely shocked, and annoyed, if someone asked me to stop blaspheming but .. but ... it's a tricky one. I can imagine other people feeling similarly if told to stop calling things 'gay' or making jokes about 'poofs', and I wouldn't have much sympathy if they just said 'but that's how I speak - I don't mean anything by it'.

rising and revolving

18:20 / 19.04.05

Beliefs are optional.

No more or less optional than sexuality, ultimately, if both the gay-gene and god-gene factors are used in the arguement.

Yet I suspect most people would find complaints about people using the phrase "That's so gay," in the workplace reasonable. And I'd warrent that's nearly as common a turn of phrase in the US these days (at least amongst the under 25 brigade) as "Jesus Christ"

Besides, while race and sex are not optional, the *practice* of homosexuality is. So why is this different?

18:30 / 19.04.05

You're joking, yes?

18:50 / 19.04.05

Mmm. A separate thread beckons, perhaps, Sandalphon?

rising and revolving

19:05 / 19.04.05

Indeed. A separate thread. Yars. Probably in the headshop, for that matter.

Although, frankly, the second I opened my mouth I rather wished I hadn't. I have almost no desire to have this fight. Of course, while my post may not indicate it, I come from the point of view that peoples beliefs are worth respecting. As is their sexuality.

Nonetheless, I may have a stab at starting an alternate thread. Regardless, why does the optional (and that's arguable, I feel) nature of belief make it any less worthy of respect?

19:33 / 19.04.05

Regardless, why does the optional (and that's arguable, I feel) nature of belief make it any less worthy of respect?

I suppose, theoretically at least, there's a difference in terms of what one is taking offence at. If a homophobic comment is made within earshot of a gay man, I guess he might take offence because someone's insulted what he is - whereas if a "blasphemous" comment is made within earshot of a religious person, he might be perceived to have more choice in terms of 'offendedness' because someone's insulted what he chooses to believe.

*shrugs*

If we're talking about UK workplaces, it may be worth noting that religious institutions are currently exempt from a number of equal opportunities requirements under the law: it is perfectly permissable, for example, for a Church of England giftshop to fire an employee on finding out he/she is gay; conversely, Gay Times cannot legally fire an employee on grounds of religion.

This may not seem directly relevant to the question of workplace "blasphemy" but, to me, it does influence the context within which 'offendedness' takes place. Knowing employment law - ie. actual power - is generally weighted in favour of the religious makes me a little less inclined to be sympathetic over claims of 'offendedness' than I might be.

lord henry strikes back

19:37 / 19.04.05

IMHO the only time that language can really be considered offensive is when it is directed at a person with the intention of causing offense. e.g. 'Oh Jesus' is not offensive whereas 'you jesus lover' is. We cannot regulate turns of phrase to the point where everyone is happy. What really gets my goat, far more than the 'Oh gods' or 'that's gays' or even 'cunts' of this world are the 'innits', the use of 'like' as a punctuation. 'ya'know, like, I's queing for ages this morning innit', that sort of thing. Do you think I could get tautologies banned in my workplace? I think not, and so others should allow me the occasional 'bloody hell'.

rising and revolving

19:47 / 19.04.05

Knowing employment law - ie. actual power - is generally weighted in favour of the religious makes me a little less inclined to be sympathetic over claims of 'offendedness' than I might be.

I think this is a very fair point.

I also imagine (but have no facts to back it up) that there are many more cases in the US in recent history (not sure about the UK) wherein settlements have been made due to sexual discrimination over religious (although this worm is turning). In terms of actual power as represented through law sexuality is a big fish these days. And therefore homosexuals are equally undeserving of sympathy?

I don't really buy that. Maybe it's a viable point though, that sympathy should (abstractly) be relative to the degree of hardship which is often easiest to glipse through legal clout. Globally, locally, or experientially?

19:59 / 19.04.05

Tricky thing this. I've worked with devout chappies in my time and, knowing their propensity for getting offended if I say the name of their imaginary friend in a context of which they disapprove, I have tried to cut back on the "Jesus fucking Christ on a bike" type thing but, by and large, I try not to use that kind of language at work anyway. I am happy to do this for the sake of just getting along with people who see the world differently from me.

My experience with the Holy Willies has by and large been that they are refraining from pointing out to me at every opportunity that I'm going to be toast when Jehovah catches up with me, so we do that deal. I don't say every little thing that rolls to the front of my tongue and neither do they.

It's not about being right or wrong because obviously I am 100% in the right here and they are totally wrong. But, in order to function in that specific social situation, I smile and bite my tongue.

What does trouble me more is when fifth columnists of the Christian Right appear in the classroom and complain about phrases I may use during teaching sessions. Recently, I used the phrase "sexed it up" in a perfectly appropriate and correct context. Later, this woman harangued me for a good ten minutes at the end of the session for "talking about sex" and "cheapening" everything. Eejit.

20:18 / 19.04.05

Hmmm. Can I just say that I realise my analogy was ill thought through. I was just trying to say that I'm too prone to assuming people will put up with my profanities, and it's fair to be aware they might really annoy someone.

20:24 / 19.04.05

My experience with the Holy Willies

Can you really spot a holy willie? What gives it away? A certain serenity perhaps? A certain, shall we say, uprightness? Moral (e)rectitude?

20:26 / 19.04.05

I'm with all the folks who said it wasn't right for Mary to go straight to the manager.

"Blasphemy" is only blasphemy to the religious believer. To the rest of us, it's just an ordinary figure of speech. I think it's reasonable to expect a religious person living in a secular or multicultural society to tolerate behaviors and customs that don't line up with their religion. I wouldn't expect a traditional Muslim working alongside me in a downtown NYC bank to complain to the manager of being offended by my exposed hair or knee-length skirt. If Tina were walking around constantly ranting that Christianity is a poisonous lie spread by thieves and rapists, Mary would have every right to complain, because that's behavior that's hostile toward Mary's religion, rather than merely forbidden by it.

Quick relevant anecdote - when I was hired at the real estate company where I used to work, my boss warned me that they used colorful language in the office sometimes, and that I shouldn't take the job if I was offended by cursing and yelling. In fact he greatly exaggerated the threat - only a few times in a year did the big bosses get mad yell a "fucking" or two. But I thought that was a pretty smart way to avoid trouble/lawsuits on their part.

20:47 / 19.04.05

I don't look unkindly on Mary, if she finds the use of blasphemy offensive than she simply does. But I hope she gives her workmate space to make the odd slip up and realises that no one is actively trying to offend her.

i too hope mary and tina can find a middle ground that works for both as painlessly as possible. i still say fuck in front of my granny occasionally despite trying to stop myself, so i know from experience that even when willing it can be difficult to alter ones speech drastically.

do you think that the manager should force tina to a compromise if she cannot fully excise the offending words from her vocabulary voluntarily?
or do you think he should force mary to one if she cannot accept that the phrases may not fully disappear?

20:52 / 19.04.05

If Tina were walking around constantly ranting that Christianity is a poisonous lie spread by thieves and rapists, Mary would have every right to complain, because that's behavior that's hostile toward Mary's religion, rather than merely forbidden by it.

Couldn't have put it better myself.
Tina was not attacking Mary or her beliefs, therefore no harm done.

Also, the phrase "that's so gay" might be annoying but it's very rarely actaully an attack on gays, it's simply a figure of speech.

21:01 / 19.04.05

What if Tina was flatulent?

How would that change things?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:37 / 19.04.05

I'm interested to see how this pans out, as I'll soon be working in a new office with (apparently) a much stricter regime on these things, and can see problems ahead for myself.

21:49 / 19.04.05

you could get a friendly doctor to tell them you have a 'condition'...

22:09 / 19.04.05

Can you really spot a holy willie? What gives it away?

The lateral streams of urine, on micturition.

22:19 / 19.04.05

There is a wider problem than blasphemy in the office - communication has broken down between two workers... this perhaps is the bigger immediate concern...

Tryphena Absent

22:29 / 19.04.05

How do we know that Mary asked her manager to have a word? That might have been her managers suggestion.

22:42 / 19.04.05

Yeah. Although these dilemmas are perhaps best presented in the hypothetical, since this is a true story, I should clarify that Mary wasn't telling tales or instigating a formal complaint. Nina is right. She is a relatively new member of staff and, as part of her review, was asked if she had any problem or issued she'd like addressed. She is from a country where, I gather, her religion is central to her cultural and personal identity and explained that she finds certain expressions to be offensive and make her uncomfortable. I've no reason to doubt that this was sincere, and for her to raise it in those circumstances argues that her distress is genuine (if, arguably, a little precious). Her manager, in turn and without imposing draconian sanctions, asked all the people who work in close proximity to her, to avoid using that kind of language.

00:40 / 20.04.05

appropriate workplace behaviour is necessarily bound up in interactions with colleagues (unless you are an artist in your garret, or something) and the sensibilities of each member of the work unit should be considered... the manager should speak with mary and let her know that such utterances are offensive and the workplace should not tolerate them.

unless they work in an environment where references to religious figures are required, in which case tina might be ill-cast! but if this is a real story, mary should pull her head in and recognise she is causing unrest and resentment. doesn't matter how over-sensitive mary may think tina to be, if tina is genuinely offended, and mary now knows, mary has a workplace responsibility to enagage in a behavioiur that fits her [presumably chosen] environment.

07:30 / 20.04.05

Would the likes of 'Oh my God' and 'Jesus' necessarily qualify as blasphemous language in any case though - you could just easily argue, I'd have thought, that whilst in the middle of dealing with a dodgy photocopier or something, invoking the Lord's name was actually a genuine plea for divine intervention.

Page: (1)2