Speaker 1: Happy Monday, and welcome to the nonprofits this week. I
Speaker 1: am your host Rob, and we also have joining me.
Speaker 1: Is Tracy and aj starting offs off today?
Speaker 2: Though?
Speaker 1: Is Tracy telling us about a recent memo from the
Speaker 1: Office of Personnel Management.
Speaker 3: Well, in what I can only assume is a performative
Speaker 3: stunt to combat non existent anti Christian bias in the
Speaker 3: US government, the current administration's Office of Personnel Management has
Speaker 3: released a five page memo that the director has said
Speaker 3: is aimed at protecting religious expression in the federal workplace,
Speaker 3: a thing which I was unaware was under attack, and
Speaker 3: which wasn't prohibited in the first place. In its simplest form,
Speaker 3: this memo can be seen as pro proselytization, as it
Speaker 3: says very clearly that federal employees are free to attempt
Speaker 3: and convert their coworkers at the workplace. Other ancillary details
Speaker 3: are allowing employees to decorate themselves and their assigned workspaces
Speaker 3: with religious imagery, totems, and texts. Don't fear friends, as
Speaker 3: the memo specifically says that the attempts to convert must
Speaker 3: not be harassing in nature. I just hope that everyone
Speaker 3: can agree on what's harassing and what isn't. This story
Speaker 3: is from The Friendly Atheist by Hem and Meta on
Speaker 3: July twenty eighth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you, Tracy. So, just from the very end
Speaker 1: of what you have there, let's just hope everyone can
Speaker 1: agree on what's harassing and what isn't. Do you have
Speaker 1: any idea how we can even begin to answer that question,
Speaker 1: because I think it's a good one, and I don't
Speaker 1: know what do you think?
Speaker 3: So when I used to work for the Missouri government
Speaker 3: and when I you know, when you have these jobs,
Speaker 3: you go through all these classes to make sure you're
Speaker 3: aware of the policies that the government has for certain
Speaker 3: things and all that. And one of the things we
Speaker 3: really do into was harassment and what does harassment mean?
Speaker 3: Because a lot of people, turns out don't really get it,
Speaker 3: at least here in Missouri among the state Department of
Speaker 3: Corrections and probably across the entire government. Is that there's
Speaker 3: if I remember correctly, it has to be three details
Speaker 3: have to be so in order for it to be harassment,
Speaker 3: it must be repeated unwanted contact. It's a three word thing.
Speaker 3: Of course, you can talk about how the person has
Speaker 3: to be willingly doing it but you know, that's another thing.
Speaker 3: It has to be repeated and unwanted. The problem with
Speaker 3: it being unwanted is somebody doesn't know it's unwanted until
Speaker 3: you tell them, and so that kind of puts the
Speaker 3: onus on you, the victim of harassment, to report it,
Speaker 3: which I do have a lot of empathy for. I
Speaker 3: would not empathy, probably sympathy for. I just feel like
Speaker 3: that's true of every crime that's committed against you, the
Speaker 3: onus is on you to report it. Except for fire.
Speaker 3: I think that if somebody is doing arson, somebody else
Speaker 3: will report it for you. But like a lot of
Speaker 3: crimes that are done against you, that's just how it's
Speaker 3: got to be.
Speaker 1: So the point of this of this memo is that
Speaker 1: it's trying to make clear that people not only are
Speaker 1: allowed to, but possibly maybe even should have the ability
Speaker 1: to proselytize within the workplace, specifically federal places. But as
Speaker 1: you said, harassment requires the person who's being talked to
Speaker 1: to say so, So, how how does this affect power structures?
Speaker 1: Like what happens if my boss is talking to me
Speaker 1: about it a j Do you have any do you
Speaker 1: have any ideas? And like, what do I do if
Speaker 1: my boss is telling me about stuff that is not
Speaker 1: work related and I don't want to hear they're telling
Speaker 1: me about the flying spaghetti Monster. What would I do
Speaker 1: in this case?
Speaker 2: I don't even know if there's anything you can do.
Speaker 2: And like you said, power structures right there, that's that's
Speaker 2: a big breadth live for me, because people are going
Speaker 2: to feel like they can't pick up to their supervisors
Speaker 2: or whatever leadership is above them talking to them about
Speaker 2: you know, spaghetti monster role on the Closer Goblin or whatever.
Speaker 2: Maybe they're going to feel like really really uncomfortable first
Speaker 2: of all, and then like like there's nowhere else to go.
Speaker 2: What do you go? Hr? Maybe but they're not gonna
Speaker 2: want to do anything against a supervisor more than likely,
Speaker 2: or I'm like, well, you know history, boss just split
Speaker 2: up with it whatever, So I don't know. Without any
Speaker 2: type of safeguards, these rules are really really treated to handle.
Speaker 1: Well, Tracy, you said in the very beginning that you're
Speaker 1: you were unaware that the speech like this was under attack,
Speaker 1: and it already wasn't prohibited. So let me let me
Speaker 1: play Devil's advocate. Isn't it good? Then this memo exists
Speaker 1: so that people can know that they are able to
Speaker 1: engage in something that they were always able to and
Speaker 1: perhaps fearful to have done so in the past.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I don't know if it's good. I
Speaker 3: think it's unnecessary. I mean, you can even look at
Speaker 3: older notifications from older administrations to say that this has
Speaker 3: already been talked about, it has already been established. Nineteen
Speaker 3: ninety seven, the administration at that time called for agencies
Speaker 3: not to suppress employees private religious speech in the workplace,
Speaker 3: while leaving unregulated other private employee speech. So like there
Speaker 3: was already a special carve out for this in nineteen
Speaker 3: ninety seven, which I get that was a long time ago.
Speaker 3: I think I have a pretty I was born in
Speaker 3: nineteen ninety seven, so that's my whole life ago. I
Speaker 3: get that that was a while ago for some people.
Speaker 3: I don't know when there's already when it's already been
Speaker 3: a thing we've talked about, something we've already cleared up,
Speaker 3: made a special little carve out for. I don't feel
Speaker 3: like this was necessary. I think it's actually a little
Speaker 3: bit harmful because maybe they were uncomfortable doing that for
Speaker 3: good reason. Maybe there was a social stigma against it,
Speaker 3: and maybe there was a social stigma against it for
Speaker 3: good reason. Maybe I'm not saying that was what the
Speaker 3: case was. Maybe in that maybe maybe they're they're coworkers
Speaker 3: will just be thrilled that this is happening, But I
Speaker 3: can't speak to that. It just seems like unnecessary playing around.
Speaker 2: See.
Speaker 1: I think it's going to be difficult just because, like
Speaker 1: we've already talked about the harassment thing. How do I
Speaker 1: know when it's harassment? And as you said, it needed
Speaker 1: three things? Uh what was it?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 3: Repeated? It's three words repeated unwanted contact, repeated unwanted contact, which,
Speaker 3: by the way, I actually really appreciate.
Speaker 1: That you had such a very specific history that allows
Speaker 1: for such a very specific answer. That's nice. But also
Speaker 1: in this like harassment puts the onus on that person,
Speaker 1: which I guess I'm not really sympathetic towards because they
Speaker 1: should It is impossible to know whether it's unwanted until
Speaker 1: they said so, and so they're just gonna have to
Speaker 1: say so. Now that does create a power structure, but
Speaker 1: like a power dynamic problem, but that just is how
Speaker 1: communication works. However, what I thought was interesting in the
Speaker 1: title was that quote Title seven does not cover all beliefs.
Speaker 1: For example, social, political, or economic philosophies and mere personal
Speaker 1: preferences are not religious beliefs within the meaning of the statute.
Speaker 3: This is like what is like what the Clinton administration
Speaker 3: was doing. It's exactly like what the Clinton administration did
Speaker 3: in nineteen seventy seven, which is like, hey, you guys
Speaker 3: get special permission to do religious speech, but we're not
Speaker 3: gonna actually protect like you talking about, Hey, maybe let's
Speaker 3: not do slaves. Why because I just prefer to not
Speaker 3: do slaves. But if I say that my invisible best
Speaker 3: friend doesn't want us doing slaves, that's okay.
Speaker 1: Well, now it's a godly conversation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm just going to start If they're only going
Speaker 3: to protect religious speech, I'm just going to start lying
Speaker 3: and saying, my God wants me to do that my
Speaker 3: first held religious belief. Yeah, it is my personally held
Speaker 3: religious belief that the creator of the universe wants us
Speaker 3: to have less taxes on cars, Like I don't know.
Speaker 1: So this is a tricky one for us because I
Speaker 1: can totally understand Christians who have a religious belief belief system.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about a thing or maybe any
Speaker 1: other religion. Maybe there's somebody who's Jewish, maybe there's somebody
Speaker 1: who's Muslim. It doesn't matter, literally, any other religion, somebody
Speaker 1: who's Wicca, if you want, if you want to go that, right,
Speaker 1: But like, what about atheists? Would atheistic conversation be included
Speaker 1: within this protection given that it is explicitly non religious,
Speaker 1: but it's content is surely religious?
Speaker 3: Do we out.
Speaker 2: Aja? Probably not? I don't think so now. Honestly, I
Speaker 2: think atheists will probably be one of the ones that
Speaker 2: will benefit the least from these type of rules what
Speaker 2: we going to call them laws? I mean there were
Speaker 2: there even laws before that prevented people from talking about
Speaker 2: religion in the workplace and federal workplaces.
Speaker 1: I know, not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 3: That's the point explicitly allowed.
Speaker 2: Actually yeahs to me what Tracy was mentioning, right, like
Speaker 2: they this was not necessary. They didn't need to put
Speaker 2: these forward because they were already allowed to do that
Speaker 2: just on the basis of that it wasn't forbidden. Right,
Speaker 2: So you can tag politics, you could tag religion or whatever.
Speaker 2: Is it socially acceptable maybe not? People try to stay
Speaker 2: away from those topics, But it wasn't like definitely, you know,
Speaker 2: like prohibited on the books.
Speaker 3: So that was a lot. It would be explicitly protected
Speaker 3: by the First Amendment to the Constitution, like not for
Speaker 3: any other employer. But if you're employed by the federal government, yes,
Speaker 3: so you can work in McDonald's and they can say
Speaker 3: you're not allowed to talk about religion here, but the
Speaker 3: federal government is not allowed to tell you to tell
Speaker 3: you that.
Speaker 1: So then, AJ, you said it was not required this
Speaker 1: memo galvanizing people to engage in religious discussion, even literally
Speaker 1: quote within the article the correctness of their position. It
Speaker 1: was not required, right, AJ.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean I feel like, why did it happen?
Speaker 3: Why do you think it happened.
Speaker 2: I think that in this specific case, they're just trying
Speaker 2: to be really insidious with these type of rules. It
Speaker 2: may sound like a small thing to most people, but
Speaker 2: the reason I think it isn't a small thing is,
Speaker 2: for example, one of the quotes from an article, like
Speaker 2: you said about you know, the correctness he said, employees
Speaker 2: may engage in conversation regarding religious religious topics with fellow employees,
Speaker 2: including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their
Speaker 2: own religious views. Providing that these efforts are not harassing
Speaker 2: in nature. Then it goes on to say, during a break,
Speaker 2: an employee may engage another and polite discussion of why
Speaker 2: his faith is correct and why the uh the person
Speaker 2: who isn't of the faith should readink his religious beliefs. However,
Speaker 2: if they're none a theerent requests such attempts to stop,
Speaker 2: the employee that brought up the conversation should honor that request.
Speaker 2: And three, personally, I'm sorry, but that's a big no, thanks. Like,
Speaker 2: can you imagine the awkwardness of trying not to engage
Speaker 2: in a religious conversation with somebody that comes to you
Speaker 2: and starts trying to convince you that you know the
Speaker 2: correctness of their views, that ges is king, and like
Speaker 2: they're concerned about your servation and your eternal life, and
Speaker 2: you know, like walking away from somebody that's ex suddenly
Speaker 2: bursts into prayer right in front of you, trying to
Speaker 2: save your soul, talking in tongues whatever, attempting to remove
Speaker 2: your demons from your body. Like there's a reason why
Speaker 2: public schools and federal spaces are normally be supposed to
Speaker 2: be kept secular, and it should stay that way. So
Speaker 2: to me, it seems really clear that the reason they're
Speaker 2: making this move is not to safeguard freedom of religion,
Speaker 2: but rather a move to be able to spread Christianity,
Speaker 2: or rather Christian nationalism. Let's just call it what it is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So, like I was, actually, you're right up and
Speaker 1: see your very final point. I was going to say, Okay,
Speaker 1: we understand, especially we here today, we really understand that
Speaker 1: we are the minor already in it. We'll just call it
Speaker 1: religious beliefs for shorthand, even though it's not right. So
Speaker 1: that's kind of the point. So that means that if
Speaker 1: a if a if a Christian wants to engage in
Speaker 1: talking about the correctness literally quote of their religious position.
Speaker 1: We imagine that most people would support this memo because
Speaker 1: they'd be religious and they want to be able to
Speaker 1: do that. I imagine that's going to happen. Therefore, they
Speaker 1: must also support that the Jews are going to come
Speaker 1: talk to them, or the Muslims are going to come
Speaker 1: talk to them about the correctness of their position. They
Speaker 1: will clearly support this.
Speaker 3: Yes, I can help but laugh at that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, can you imagine I'm here, I'm here to where
Speaker 2: the Satans, the Satanist gospel to you guys, would you
Speaker 2: like to learn more about Satan?
Speaker 3: So this is this is kind of a problem I
Speaker 3: have with uh with with things like this when they
Speaker 3: start saying things like in the article they talk about
Speaker 3: what was the exact verbiage does not cover all beliefs, social, political,
Speaker 3: or economic philosophies and mere personal preferences are not religious beliefs. Okay,
Speaker 3: then what is a religious belief?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: Because because here's the thing, Rob, you were saying, you
Speaker 3: said it a couple of times, and I wanted to
Speaker 3: interrupt you, but I didn't because I'm a good little boy.
Speaker 3: Is that interrupt Theists? Atheists aren't religious, and that's not
Speaker 3: necessarily true. You can be an atheist and be religious.
Speaker 3: I'm not, but like you know, Buddhists are atheistic, and
Speaker 3: so that that's or at least by and large atheistic,
Speaker 3: and so you could go and talk about Buddhism.
Speaker 1: One of my one of my best friends is a
Speaker 1: secular Jew who's practicing, right, Like, that's actually very common
Speaker 1: within Judaism if.
Speaker 3: It's a So I'm just looking at this, I'm like, Okay,
Speaker 3: what does it mean to be a religious belief that
Speaker 3: isn't social, political or economic.
Speaker 1: I'm actually glad you said that because I was reading
Speaker 1: it and I didn't want to get like too semantical
Speaker 1: about it, but it was like, Okay, okay, they're trying
Speaker 1: to hate religious thoughts. Awesome, And then it literally says
Speaker 1: it can't be these things. Oh, I had it social
Speaker 1: political or economic philosophies and mere personal preferences. Can you
Speaker 1: imagine the insanity where some guy comes up to you
Speaker 1: and it comes up to like a queer coworker and
Speaker 1: it's like, Hey, I just want to let you know,
Speaker 1: like I think that you are the devil incarnate and
Speaker 1: you will go to Hell, but like I hope to
Speaker 1: see you at the work function on Friday.
Speaker 3: But like, here's the deal. How is that not a
Speaker 3: social philosophy?
Speaker 1: I suspect I deeply wonder if this question even makes
Speaker 1: sense where in America, how religious someone is or isn't
Speaker 1: is so deeply interwoven into our society and our politics
Speaker 1: in general that do we actually like literally us right now?
Speaker 1: AJ Tracy and I have just a skewed idea of
Speaker 1: what it means to be religious, Like, is it actually
Speaker 1: possible to be religious and not have it intersect with
Speaker 1: your society or politicalness, and that just is the norm
Speaker 1: in America. I can't imagine it not intersecting society and
Speaker 1: your politicalness.
Speaker 3: That's that's the thing. I can't think of an example.
Speaker 3: I can't say that that's impossible, but like, I can't
Speaker 3: think of an example where it isn't the case.
Speaker 2: I haven't ever met a hardcore question that wasn't also
Speaker 2: a conservative Republican.
Speaker 3: So well, I a religious person who didn't. I've never
Speaker 3: met a religious person who their social, political, or economic
Speaker 3: philosophies were not in any way involved in their religion. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I kind of don't. Then what's the purpose of the religion.
Speaker 2: I even know someone who went from being both conservative
Speaker 2: and religious to be in non religious liberal Like all
Speaker 2: sort of happened at the same time. So it's like
Speaker 2: they're so connected you can't really separate them anymore.
Speaker 1: More we talk about it, the more I'm convinced that
Speaker 1: they have to be connected, because like even just super
Speaker 1: quick example, whip the bankers, like it's literally in the book.
Speaker 3: Well like even like I don't even want to make
Speaker 3: this like I'm not a conservative by any means, but
Speaker 3: like let's say I'm not even going to try and
Speaker 3: marry religious beliefs and conservatism because they aren't married. You
Speaker 3: can have religious people who are very who are very
Speaker 3: liberal in their beliefs, and they pull that they claim
Speaker 3: at least to pull it from the same place. And
Speaker 3: so I'm like, okay, I don't see how you can
Speaker 3: escape them being touching at the very minimum, Like well, I.
Speaker 1: Mean, reminder, Luther started the schism and this all that
Speaker 1: all started because people who were discussing religious ideas. So
Speaker 1: what happens in the very very real chance of just
Speaker 1: a Christian talks to another Christian, but they're not the
Speaker 1: right sort of Christian.
Speaker 3: That's That's the thing that a lot of people who vote,
Speaker 3: who vote in accordance with these kind of laws and
Speaker 3: who put their hat in with this kind of uh
Speaker 3: posturing on the on the sake of the government, who
Speaker 3: who who support it and give cover to it. What
Speaker 3: they don't understand. And it's something that I've heard many
Speaker 3: many times. I still don't really quite get why people
Speaker 3: don't know this. But they're not fighting for your Christianity.
Speaker 3: They're fighting for their Christianity. And there's so many different
Speaker 3: kinds of Christianity that the chances it's the same one
Speaker 3: are really small, and theirs could be the Christianity where
Speaker 3: they're okay with marrying fourteen year olds. Let's let's let's
Speaker 3: be a little bit more specific and not just endorse
Speaker 3: an entire religion an entire person because they say they
Speaker 3: have the same religion as you.
Speaker 2: I absolutely That's why I clarify earlier hardcore Christians, not
Speaker 2: average Christians.
Speaker 1: Oh, we should endorse specific people and not necessarily a religion.
Speaker 1: I can get behind that because it is a necessary
Speaker 1: truth that the vast majority of all criminals are religious,
Speaker 1: simply because there are more religious people than non religious people. Maam, Well,