Conference 7.286::digital

    God is about Love...I didn't think that there were any conditions
    attached.
    
    B.

If the subject of this topic didnt belong before, why does it now?
Because the name was changed?

If this is allowed to continue we will have another 500+ replies
ala 1616.
A discussion of religion does not belong in this notes file.....

    Sorry .1 .... but your problems were with people, not religion.  I
    hope you see that now.  Religion is a very important part of my
    life both in and out of work.  I try to go to mass and communion
    almost every day, and TRY (it ain't easy) to apply Christian
    concepts to my dealings with other people.

   RE: 1638.3 <CIS1::FULTI>

   >A discussion of religion does not belong in this notes file.....

       I agree!  A discussion of religion does not.  However, a discussion of
   religion IN the work place; or how religion effects one work at DEC; or...
   does!!!

   Tony

    This subject is completely appropriate.  If it breaks down into
    arguing pro's and con's of various religions, then it has to fo
    though.

    
    	The reply in .1 was originally posted as an anonymous reply.
    	My original response was deleted, so I will say it again.
    
    	If the author of .1 wants to argue with religious people that
    	disgree with her sexual orientation, then take the discussion
    	to one of the religious notes conferences.
    
    	If the author of .1 wants to point out that *some* religious
    	zealots would condemn her to hell because she is a lesbian, 
    	let me remind her that *some* religious zealots would condemn
    	you to hell if you smoke cigarettes, enjoy a beer, or watch TV.
    	I would advise her to ignore them and get on with her life the
    	way that she chooses to live it.
    
    	And pre-judgement is not limited to religious people.I know some
    	atheists that aren't too open minded.
    
    	Bottom line is, I believe that your religious beliefs are personal
    	and have no place inside the office. Toleration of everyone's
    	religious beliefs, however, should know no boundaries.
    
    	John

The  contents of .1 have nothing to do with "The Digital Way of Working"
thus should not be part of this conference.

Lee

    With respect to religion in the workplace, the one thing which I
    have found is that this seems to be the one thing which is routinely
    CENSORED from the workplace.  Those who would push for communication
    about many other things which some would find offensive often push
    equally as hard to censor any discussion of religion at the work
    place.  Letters to the editor in the VNS news were eliminated soon
    after some discussion of religion appeared there.  Some notes have
    been removed because they used Bible verses to argue their point,
    yet at the same time, Digital facilities can be used for G/L/B
    awareness day.  I think that a uniform set of rules should apply
    for all people.  Either decide that all groups can freely discuss
    their views in media such as notes files and awareness days, or
    do not allow the use of Digital resources for any 
    political/religious/non-work-related discussions.  I would strongly
    favor the first of these two options as I think that a DIVERSITY
    of political/religious/philosophical views should be allowed to
    exist.  Let all groups present their arguments, and the best of
    the arguments should triumph.
    
    Bob 

    I wish DEC had a more flexible policy regarding religious holidays of
    non-Christian religions.  Sitting around trying to restart my digestive
    system after the end of Yom Kippur this year (which was a miserably hot
    day, which makes the total fast a lot harder due to dehydration) with
    some other folks from our synagogue who work for other central-Mass.
    high-tech companies, I was complaining about having to use up
    invaluable vacation days dying of thirst in my seat in the synagogue,
    whereas since Christianity is the mainstream religion in this country,
    Christian holidays everything is closed and I usually spend the day
    doing chores since our building is closed.  Several people mentionned
    that their companies have "excused absence" days, which can be taken
    for sickness, taking care of a sick child, religious holidays, doctor
    appointments, and so forth.  Thus these people were not using up their
    vacation days in order to observe Yom Kippur.  I wish DEC had this!  I
    know that some people take the various holidays as sick days, but that
    is somewhat under-the-table, and I don't do it (even though, as someone
    who is seldom sick, I take less than one sick day a year, which I am
    sure is way below average).
    
    Granted, I cared more when I was relatively new at the compnay and only
    got 10 days of vacation - I have been here for 16 years, so it isn't
    quite so important if I have to 5 vacation days doing my religious duty
    (on the average) and the rest as real vacation time.  But I still feel
    somewhat slighted since members of other religions can both do their
    duty to G-d and enjoy their free time.  A system like these other
    companies have would also benefit parents, and anyone else who
    sometimes has a bonafide reason to not be in their cube but is not
    "sick".
    
    /Charlotte

    
    	re .9
    
    	Yep, I agree with you that Digital should be more consistent in
    	deciding what extra-curricular stuff is allowed or not allowed
    	within DEC. 
    	
    	But then, I don't think that whole hulabaloo discussion about the
    	G/L/B day belonged here either. There must be a notes conference
    	for discussion of those types somewhere on the net. And there's
    	probably one for valuing diversity, too. Put pointers here to the
    	discussions in those notesfiles, if you want to. But this file
    	should be for internal business discussions. Just my opinion, of
    	course.
    
    	John
    

    
    
    	Whoops...
    
    	My rep .11 should have read "discussionS of those types". I meant
    	nothing else and did not want to be mis-interpreted.
    
    	Joh

   re: 1638.10 <CADSYS::HECTOR::RICHARDSON>

   Charlotte,

   >I wish DEC had a more flexible policy regarding religious holidays of
   >non-Christian religions.

       I agree.  Although, I'm not sure but, I would bet that DEC's holiday's
   "just happen" to fall on Christian holidays.  What I mean is this:  DEC
   closes down on Christmas because most other business, whom they might
   otherwise be able to do business with, are also closed on those days.

       I think the issue of company holidays needs to be address across the
   business world and not just hear at DEC.  Although we as "christian"
   employees  may appreciate having christmas off as a holiday; you can bet
   that DEC's reasons for closing has more to do with business rather than
   religious reasons.

   Tony

re:               <<< Note 1638.10 by CADSYS::HECTOR::RICHARDSON >>>

While I agree that Digital should be flexible in regard to Religious
holidays.  I think it is reasonable for an employer to expect employees
to take vacation/personal day/choice holidays for religeous observances.
In fact, the is what I always interprested as being the purpose of the
latter two.  I should point out that Christmas is the only Christian
celebration that Digital observes. 

In fact I would say that it would be legally risky for Digital to give
free time off for religious observances.  If you look at the Roman
Catholic calander there a inumerable minor feasts.  Employees could be
taking 50 days off each year.  WHo would decide how many and which
people could take off.

Scheduling Digital holidays for religious holidays would be equally
disasterous.  For example Eastern and Western churches celebrate Holy
Week at diferent times of the year.

John

re .-1:

There's a difference between what you call "minor Catholic feasts" and
Jewish holidays.  Jewish religious law forbids Jews from working on
Sabbath and on 13 holidays.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe
there are no such strictures in Catholicism.

I don't think Charlotte was arguing for DEC to close its doors for
every religion's holidays.  She was complaining that DEC's official
policy makes it extremely difficult for people with minority religions
to take off their holidays.

Re .10:

Charlotte, as long as the systems are up over the times that you consider
Christian holidays, then work a deal with your management to work those days
from home and take them as comp time on your Holy Days.  If the systems aren't
up, review paperwork at home.  I'm sure you can find plenty of things to do if
you try.

If your management isn't interested in such arrangements, find a new group that
isn't dying from lack of Slack.
				/AHM

   RE: 1638.15 <NOTIME::SACKS>

   Gerald,

   >I don't think Charlotte was arguing for DEC to close its doors for every
   >religion's holidays.  She was complaining that DEC's official policy makes
   >it extremely difficult for people with minority religions to take off
   >their holidays.

       Maybe Charlotte will need to clarify because I though that her
   complaint was that Christians don't need to use a vacation day for
   Christmas, but she has to use vacation days for her religious holidays.  If
   that is her complaint, I agree that it is unfair.

   Tony

    
    I find that being a Christian, at work, at home, whereever, is the
    most wonderful part of my life.  I find it exciting to know I can go
    to God when I'm down and need guidance and His love or when I'm "up"
    and feeling great...it's just a peaceful feeling to know that He is
    there to guide me and to love me.
    
    As for being a Christian at work, most of my co-workers know I am one
    and I think they respect that...they try not to swear or tell dirty
    jokes around me and when they slip, they apologize...I tell them not
    to apologize, but to be themselves...I accept them for them as they
    accept me for me.  I'm not a holy roller, but I do hope that those 
    around me see Jesus in my actions and the way I live my life.  If they
    don't, then I'm not living the Christian life I should be.  
    
    There are many other Christians that work here in Maine and the
    fellowship is great...it's nice to know that I can go to any of these
    brothers or sisters at any time for a friendly word and just to know
    that someone takes the time to care.
    
    As for .1, I back you 100%...When Jesus died on that cross, he did it
    for everyone...when he looked around and saw those laughing and
    spitting at him, His eyes were full of love...He didn't look around
    and say, "well, I'm doing this for all of you, except for you on the
    end...I know you're a tax collector...and oh, yeah, it's not for you
    either, you, the one on the left...I know you to be a murderer...and
    oh, yeah, you, too...the one in the middle...I know you to be a thief."
    Jesus died for everyone, no matter what sin we have committed.  Whether
    it's theft, murder, child moestation, hate, whatever, Jesus still loves
    us...He hates the sin, but he loves the child.  Let Jesus be the one to
    judge us on judgement day, not each other.  This woman in .1 loves God,
    you can tell.  And so doesn't her partner.  Let God know her heart as
    he knows mine, and yours, and let's not waste time on hate and
    prejudice, for that is what it is.  
    
    For God so loved the World (fill in your name...) that He gave His only
    begotten son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have
    everlasting life.
    
    It's that simple...let's not complicate it.
    
    
    I am loved and I am glad...
    
    

    I will try to respond to the original "theme" of this note as I
    understand it.
    
    I find that discussing "religion" with people at work is very 
    interesting and often fosters a valuing of differences, theirs and the
    differences of the beliefs discussed.  
    
    I hesitate to label this religion because, I think, it is often a
    discussion of their spirituality, their views of morality (for lack of
    better terms).
    
    If this is in keeping with the request for input from the topic author,
    I'll expand on what I mean.  If not, I'll go back to my standard mode
    of "read only".
    
    

    re: .14
    
    I agree, I thought that the choice holiday was specifically to be used for 
    an individual's religious holiday that might not be designated as a 
    company holiday.
    
    Teradyne in Nashua accrues flex time weekly. It is to be used for
    absences of any kind -- illness, religious holiday, vacation, daycare
    problems. It was instituted in part because employees were taking
    significant time off for other reasons, yet expecting to receive their
    full vacation time. 

Okay, I'll admit I was mildly shocked to see the anonymous reply (.1) to
the base note and *original* title, which purported to discuss religion at
Digital.  I would have preferred that it were entered into one of the G/L/B
conferences as I avoid those notes and entries.  It is difficult to dismiss
however, an entreaty to discuss serious social and interpersonal issues as 
they may effect company matters, when addressed in an intelligent and an
articulate way.  It is my opinion that this reply, irrespective of its 
apparent sincerity, was merely made to make a statement, not stimulate
discussion.

With regard to -.11, although I am sympathetic to the concerns of the noter,
I nevertheless feel that in business and the private sector, productivity 
and the marketplace dictate the work week and holiday schedules.  Even the
public employers (Civil Service) are attempting to arbitrate these costly
"holidays" as give-backs.

/Mike

    	DEC holidays are based on a selection of days from the National 
    	holiday list.  Nothing more.  Religious holidays should only
    	come from your vacation, personal day, assignable day, or unpaid
    	leave.
    
    	As for religion in the workplace, I think people should be allowed
    	to hang religious articles in their office/cube to the same extent
    	they are allowed to hang family pictures.  However religious 
    	practices should not be allowed to interfere with your work, just
    	as it should not be allowed with the work of others around you.
    	Interfering with others around you might be things like chanting,
    	proselytizing, etc.  Interfering with your own work may even be
    	simply practicing your religion (meditation time, reading bible/
    	koran/whatever, etc.) WHEN YOU SHOULD BE DOING YOUR JOB.  Your
    	religious practices should be done on your own time.  (Break time,
    	lunch hour, before/after work.)  You should schedule your job
    	to fit your practices if need be.
    
    	IMHO.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    If every deeply religious person had the attitude of the person in .18,
    the world would be a better place.
    
    But there are great numbers of people in the world who use religion as 
    a reason to hate people. To try and convert those people to their
    version of "the one true way". To hate them more when they "refuse to 
    see the way". I believe that these kinds of people exist in all
    religions. They are the ones start the religious wars that have
    ccurred throughout recorded history, and continue today.
    
    The reason religious discussions are "censored" (as mentioned in one of
    the earlier notes) is that the discussion will inevitably draw the
    people who feel they have to convert people to their beliefs. But 
    you can't prove a religion is true. Or false. 
    
    I've had many enjoyable conversations about religion with people of
    many different beliefs. I hope this topic turns out to be one of them.
    I've also had some discussions where a change of subject is the only
    way to keep from open hostility. 
    
    So what's the point? you may ask. I think it's this: We live in a
    society (and a workplace) in which many different conflicting belief 
    sets NEED to coexist for us to prosper. So let's put our differences
    aside, and focus on on things we have in common. 
    
    Well, my son wants dinner. That takes precedence over philosophical 
    rambling. Anyway, as Bill and Ted say, 
    
    
                   "Be EXCELLENT to each other."   
     
    
    

    In my opinion, if you want religion in your workplace, go to work for
    your religious institution.
    
    Re - last, you forgot  "And, party on....dude."

    re: "censorship"
    
    Employee interest VAX Notes Conferences are permitted by Digital policy
    to communicate matters of opinion and common interests.
    
    "Censorship" such as it is being practiced here is only to keep the
    conference on track.
    
    As I wrote in 1616.131, people involved in an Digital-sponsored event
    should have no role in changing my beliefs.  On the other hand, VAX
    Notes Conferences are a good way to communicate matters of opinion and
    common interests, which includes persuasive writingg.
    
    I don't particularly know why or care to know why this particular
    conference is being used for revealing the personal details of one's
    sexual identity, but I'm pleased to have this conference and the others.

    I was deeply moved when I read this very personal statement.  I don't
    know where the line should be drawn in terms of what is or is not
    approppriate in a notesfile, however I viewed this statement in the
    context of our inability to value differences in the workplace.  Our
    judgements of others frequently stem from the religious frame of
    reference and impact others at the office.  So .1 seems to be saying
    that I am the way I am for very profound reasons.  The discrimination I
    feel - I assume that this occurs at DEC - stems from people's religious
    views which go largely unstated, but their actions still harm, either
    in the comments they make, or in the way they respond to this person's
    ideas at business meetings, in their general attitude toward or valuing of
    this person's contributions, or at performance/salary review time.
    
    Does making all of this undiscussable perpetuate the discrimination?

| I find that discussing "religion" with people at work is very
| interesting and often fosters a valuing of differences, theirs and the
| differences of the beliefs discussed.

	Boy does it. :-)

| I hesitate to label this religion because, I think, it is often a
| discussion of their spirituality, their views of morality (for lack of
| better terms).
| If this is in keeping with the request for input from the topic author,
| I'll expand on what I mean.  If not, I'll go back to my standard mode
| of "read only".

	Oh, please do.


Glen

    	I fail to see how .1 gets Religious Pressure and intolerance at 
    	work here at DEC.  About the only reference she made to it was
    	reading opinions in specific notesfiles.  Correct me if I'm
    	wrong, but aren't such notesfiles intended to be "clearinghouses"
    	for employee opinions?  In addition, such notesfiles aren't a
    	part of anyone's job descriptions.  Nobody is forced to participate
    	in these notesfiles.  They are no different from a gathering of
    	people at a picnic table for lunch or after work.  Where can a
    	person express his/her personal beliefs if not in an appropriate
    	notes conference, or at an informal gathering after work?  Has
    	this person been equally religiously-chastized for her lifestyle
    	while on the job -- like from her boss or co-workers?  Has her
    	job reviews suffered because of religious intolerance for her
    	lifestyle?

    	That's what this topic is all about in my opinion.

    	I'd be interested in hearing how people experience religious
    	intolerance WHILE DOING THEIR JOB.  Has someone been refused the
    	right to wear a yarmulke?  Or read a Bible on their lunch hour?
    	Has someone NOT been allowed to take a vacation day on one of
    	their religious holy days?  Has anyone been chastised for saying
    	a quiet prayer of grace before eating their lunch?  Has their
    	job review been adversely (or even POSITIVELY) affected because
    	of their religious beliefs?

    	I know a person who did receive heat for reading his Bible while
    	on the job.  To me that is no different from reading the newspaper
    	at the same time.  If reading the paper is OK at certain times,
    	reading the Bible should be too.  But if reading the paper is
    	not appropriate at certain times, reading a holy book is equally
    	inappropriate at those times.  Just because your book is "holy"
    	does not raise it above business policy here.  Just as DEC does
    	not discriminate against religious belief/practice, it also does
    	not give preference.

    	Joe Oppelt

| Okay, I'll admit I was mildly shocked to see the anonymous reply (.1) to
| the base note and *original* title, which purported to discuss religion at
| Digital.  I would have preferred that it were entered into one of the G/L/B
| conferences as I avoid those notes and entries.  

	Well, religion and homosexuality are just ONE part of the whole
picture. This note is for anything that deals with religion and those who
work for DEC.


Glen

    I am a 41 year-old white lesbian, reared in the middle of the 
Bible Belt by fundamental, teetotaling Southern Baptist parents.  
Church was a large part of my childhood...attending every service was 
mandatory.  A bad cold or sore throat might get you exempted from 
school for a day or two, but was not an acceptable excuse for missing 
a church service... if you were sick, then you NEEDED to be in church.
    My earliest memory of Sunday School was a nightmare.  There was a 
color picture in my Bible of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son 
Isaac.  Isaac was depicted as a curly haired youth with a puzzled 
expression, laid across a large rock.  Abraham kneeled over him, 
long gray beard and white robes billowing in the wind.  The sun 
glinted on the knife in his raised hand, while God's angel hovered 
above and held his wrist.  We were told the story.  Now, I had seen my 
Mother's fervor first hand.  There was no doubt in my 5-year old mind 
that if God "told" her to sacrifice *me* she would obey.  I did not, 
however, harbor any illusions about God sending an angel to stay her 
hand.  I was a five year old cynic and I dreaded being sacrificed.
    When I was about 14 or so, the instructor of my Sunday evening 
class reprimanded me in front of my classmates.  His teeth clenched, 
his finger shaking in my face, he admonished, "This is *just* the sort 
of thing that will send you straight to *hell*, young lady!".  I had 
somehow managed to dash out of the house without my Bible and lesson 
book.  It had never happened before...and you can be assured it did 
not happen again.  As an adult, I have had very little use for or 
faith in "organized" religion.  It has nothing to do with God, or our
Savior Jesus Christ, or my faith...just the idea of "church" as a club with
rules and self-appointed enforcers; people telling you these things while
you're still young enough to take them literally and they are the authority
figures whose wisdom is not questioned... (shudder) still makes me queasy. 
    I was convinced of my doom... there was no way I would ever 
measure up to these metrics for eternal salvation.  Partly to escape 
this oppression, I eloped and married when I was 17.  My husband was 
raised with the same Southern Baptist dogma--he is now an elder in a 
Presbyterian church.  We were married for 13 years and produced two 
beautiful girls (now 17 and 14).  These were 13 years of hell because 
he was an abuser.  I almost lost my identity and sanity; I did lose my 
self esteem.  It was a long road back.
    My lesbian partner and I have been together in a committed, 
monogamous relationship for 11 years.  Together we have built a home 
and reared my (our) two children.  She is the most honest thing that 
has ever happened to me.  Her kindness, generosity, and understanding 
have provided me with more emotional support than I had ever before 
experienced or could have hoped for.  Our lives are inextricably bound 
together in every way...financially --> emotionally.  That "first 
blush" of passion has long since faded, leaving us with a comfortable, 
secure relationship that sustains us through our good and bad times.  
Together we can weather any storm life tosses our way, because there 
is trust and love and friendship and commitment and respect.
    While we are not "legally" bound, we did make a solemn commitment.  
We drove down to the coast one weekend (about 300 miles), stood on the 
beach at sunrise, and with only God as our witness, promised to hold 
each other in the highest regard through all the trials of life.  We 
promised to refrain from hurting one another as much as possible.  We 
promised each other respect.  We knew our families and society at 
large would object mightily...but felt God's blessing shine on us that 
morning. 
    Now, as a read-only in the Christian, C-Perspecive, Soapbox, 
and Digital notesfiles, I hear so many righteous folk telling 
me that if I want to inherit the blessings of eternal life with my 
Lord, I *MUST* renounce my deviant relationship.  I *must* set aside 
this woman who means everything to me and has never failed me in even 
the smallest way.  What does this mean?  Where do we draw the line 
between this "perversion" and the love we feel for one another?  At 
what point does an embrace become an abomination?  Or, must we 
completely sever ties to receive Christ's blessing?  I'm sorry, it's 
just too much for me to comprehend.  My faith is in God, not you.  My 
love for my companion and my family and our quiet, gentle life 
together is a gift from God, and I have never doubted that...not even 
when my mother said she would rather see me "laid out in a casket" 
than "live like a queer."  As a matter of fact, when my own mother 
wished me dead (the symbolic sacrifice I had dreaded since I was 5?), I
finally understood what love *doesn't* mean. And my sweet partner teaches
me a new lesson in what love should be every day. 
    I guess my point is, you don't know me.  Before you read this, you 
didn't even know I existed.  Yet, somehow many of you presume to know 
my relationship with the Lord and the status of my soul simply because 
of the gender of my lifetime partner.  I personally don't care that 
you have set youselves up as God's special ambassadors or expert 
interpreters of the Scripture or the watchdogs of societal morals.  I 
refuse to let you interfer in my relationship with Him or my family.  
It doesn't bother me to be disfellowshipped from *your* Family in 
Christ; I would never impose myself on your exclusive (allbeit pious) 
Family and I neither need nor desire your approval.  I just don't 
understand why some of you would deprive me and my family of the same 
legal rights and protection, and the same social courtesies and 
benefits, afforded all other voting, tax paying, law abiding, 
productive members of society.  You can quote Scripture, send fervent 
prayers for my soul straight to heaven, vomit at my feet in disgust, 
compare me to molesters and murderers... those are words and sounds 
and I can shut my ears and turn away; but don't deny me any of the 
rights, protections, or courtesies that you can take for granted.  

I want equality and human dignity.

	The following is a reply from the anonymous person. 



Please post this as a reply to .28 in HUMANE::DIGITAL topic 1638. 

Doesn't the fact that I feel I must post my opinion and request for equal 
rights anonymously indicate some of the pressure I am under at work because
of my sexual orientation?  Not every DEC facility is the same, not every
state has the same laws.  However, IMHO I feel a large part of the
discrimination g/l/b's suffer is a direct result of the vocal moral
majority and their influence on legislators.  This social/moral prejudice
toward us spills over into the workplace and creates tension, pressure,
hostility, fear, anger, hurt.....many unproductive feelings and emotions.

This prejudice may or may not be more prevalent in specific geographic
regions, I cannot judge because I have only worked here in the Bible belt
where g/l/b's have virtually no legal rights in such matters as custody of
one's own children should the "straight" parent decide to pursue it.  This
is a threat I have lived with (literally) for many years; it has only been 
in the last year or two, since my children are in their teens and past the 
age for legal custody battles, that I can breathe a little easier. 
Finally, I can tell my ex to go to h*ll if I want!  I don't have to
"appease" him out of fear of losing my kids.  The state I live in has a
fairly strictly enforced "employment at will" law and *no* gay rights. 
Therefore, we can be fired or refused employment for being gay and there's
no legal recourse for us.  This is legal discrimination and this is what we
are trying to change. 

While you may not consider this a "religion in the workplace" issue per se,
this prejudice is founded on religious beliefs and ultimately the battle
for gay rights ends up a on God's battlefield; and discrimination against 
gays occurs in the workplace, sometimes subtly and sometimes overtly.

Thanks for all your replies to my note.

    The search for identity and the affirmation of identity reminds me
    very strongly of my younger days of reading Kierkegard, Buber, Sartre
    Camus and others.  I see almost a revival of existentialism and it is
    deeply moving for me.  Not that the pessimism that went with much of
    existentialism is at all appealing but rather that we are looking at
    these questions again without the '50's and '60's threats of doom.
    The existentialists got nowhere back then and may offer little now
    but the questions they addressed are as old as man.

    Chuck

    Just by chance, my wife is studying the subject of religiion and
    personal ethics in one of her college Business Admin courses.  Of
    particular interest is the February/March 1988 issue of Boston
    Business which has a feature article titled "Divine Intervention"
    by Charlote Bruce Harvey which delves into this subject based on the
    activites surrounding prayer and religious brkfast meetings sponsored
    and attended by various business leaders.  In particular, Ken Olsen,
    Tom Phillips (Raytheon), and many others are examined for their role
    in using religion to strengthen their business approach.
    
    Quote:  "Another oft-cited management trailblazer is DEC.  Some of the
    firm's most distincitive and praiseworthy policies--paying the sales
    staff straight salaries so there is no incentive to foist unnecessary
    products on customers, its generous benefits package, its touted
    refusal to lay off workers--have been attributed to Olsen's religious
    philosophy and personal ethics."
    
    The story also identifies the all male aspect of these religious clubs
    and prayer meetings, and highlights how workers might be impacted from
    a promotion and support perspective if they do not fit the leader's
    religious stance.
    
    Interesting reading & right on this subject, which is perhaps one of
    business's most covert subjects.
    
    Mark
    
                                   

Re:                   <<< Note 1638.20 by TYGER::GIBSON >>>

>    I agree, I thought that the choice holiday was specifically to be used for 
>    an individual's religious holiday that might not be designated as a 
>    company holiday.
    
Tell that to those who work in Massachusetts.  The only choice you get is to 
take it on Patriot's Day, or not to take it...

-  David (former Mass. worker)

    re .last
    
    In Massachusetts, Patriot's Day is the "location choice" holiday.  We
    still get a "personal" holiday, also - total of 11 holidays.  I am just
    as glad to get Patriot's Day off since it fairly often falls during
    Passover and saves me taking a precious vacation day for that holiday
    (doesn't happen this coming year, though - Passover is very late due to
    the leap month next spring).  But I read somewhere (in this file?) that
    the average employee takes ten sick days a year.  I take maybe one sick
    day every two years, since I am seldom sick.  But I have to take
    several vacation days each year to cover non-vacation things like
    religious holidays when I am not at work, and I wish there were a more
    flexible "excused absence" plan like some of the other people at my
    synagogue were discussing their employers provide, so I could have more
    real vacation - which I certainly could use, the stress levels in this
    company being what they are these days.  Maybe part of the problem is
    that the word "holiday" anymore has a connotion of people being "on
    holiday", sitting on the beach, playing tennis, going fishing, or
    whatever.  It might be clearer if I said "Holy Day" instead.  otherwise
    you get strange reactions from well-meaning co-workers, like one of the
    managers here wishing me a "good Yom Kippur", like it was a "nice
    weekend".... the most hearty wish I can in good conscience come up with
    for that particular holiday is to wish you an "easy fast", especially if
    the holidays are early like they were this year and Yom Kippur falls on
    a real hot day, like it did.
    
    I think the count of thirteen Jewish holidays where work is forbidden
    is right - would have to check on a calendar - but some precentage of
    those fall on weekends, so the real number of vacation days it takes
    under the current DEC system to cover them is approximately five.  When
    I first started working here, that was *HALF* of my yearly vacation!
    The days holidays fall on is not real simple to compute because there
    is some fudging of the calendar because certain holidays are not
    allowed to fall on certain days of the week, thus perturbing the system
    (which of course is based on a lunar calendar anyhow).
    
    Actually, I think a couple of DEC facilities in Boston take Martin
    Luther King Day instead of Patriot's Day.  I'd rather have a free day
    in April (even when it does not fall during Passover) than in January,
    since I have a lot of outdoor work to get through that time of year.
    
    I actually sort of wish DEC took more of the civil holidays as well.  A
    lot of people here were out last Monday for Columbus Day, because the
    schools were closed, most other businesses, banks, post offices, etc.,
    were closed or open only for "blue laws" hours (12-8, in this town),
    and they could not get child care.  This is a sort of separate issue than
    providing flexible excused absences, though.  Taking the same civil
    holidays as other businesses would simplify logistics for a lot of
    people with family or other outside commitments.  I mean, I am not
    going to use up a vacation day to go watch my neighbors kids march in
    the town Clumbus Day parade, much as I like those kids (whereas I *am
    required* to take vacation days if I have to be in the synagogue).  But
    if they were my own kids, I'd have to do it.
    
    /Charlotte

    I know of one case where a DEC employee had to remove ALL religious
    oriented material from his walls.  Also he had to stop playing his
    relious music tapes.  His "office" was one frequented by most people
    in the building and someone must have taken offense (?) at his
    religious posters and music.  So much for freedom here in Mass/DEC.
    
    I didn't like his posters, but then I'm not a very religious person.
    I feel that if someone is, it's his business as long as that person
    doesn't start preaching to me like those door-to-door preachers do.
    If having religious posters and music around him made him happy and
    gave him a pleasant work environment, then he should have been 
    allowed to.  It was a lot better than looking at gorgeous women in
    tiny bikinis that ARE allowed to be hung in labs and cubicles with
    no problem.  Doesn't say much for that complaining employee(s)
    does it?
    
    Linda
    

re .35:

Could you hear the music in the next cubicle?  If so, it should have been
banned, whether it was religious, heavy metal, or classical.  Headphones
should be no problem (unless they interfere with work).

The poster issue is trickier.  Posters visible from the outside probably
should have a higher standard than those that can be seen only inside the
cubicle, because they impinge on more people.  Still, if I have to enter
someone's cubicle for work-related reasons, and they have a poster that
I consider offensive, it won't be good for our working relationship, and
thus for Digital.  The hard part is determining what can be reasonably
regarded as offensive.  I don't know of any religion whose tenets require
religious displays in the workplace, so it's probably safer to ban all
religious displays.  Unfortunately, that isn't done here at Digital --
witness the annual semi-official decorations and activities for various
religious holidays.

	The poster should be allowed to stay up as long as it isn't obcene. Now
the question is who defines obcene? When I first came to DEC, one of my friends
had an R.E.M. poster up. It depicted the members of the group with a gargoyle
in the background. A religious woman got upset over that and made an issue out
of it and it had to be taken down. I had always thought that gargoyles were
there to protect from evil spirits, but it still bothered her.



Glen

	re .30  (re .28)

    	Sorry, but you still failed to demonstrate -- EVEN IN YOUR OWN
    	PERSONAL CASE -- religious intolerance at DEC.  

>Doesn't the fact that I feel I must post my opinion and request for equal 
>rights anonymously indicate some of the pressure I am under at work because
>of my sexual orientation?  

    	Your FEELINGS are your own responsibility.  In addition, what 	
    	you project into DEC business practices based on your treatment 	
    	outside of the company is of your own making.  At the risk of 
    	offending you or seeming insensitive to your situation, your
    	above statement implies nothing more than paranoia to me.

>However, IMHO I feel a large part of the
>discrimination g/l/b's suffer is a direct result of the vocal moral
>majority and their influence on legislators.  This social/moral prejudice
>toward us spills over into the workplace and creates tension, pressure,
>hostility, fear, anger, hurt.....many unproductive feelings and emotions.

    	This is not a DEC issue.  It is a societal issue.  A governmental
    	issue.  A global issue.

>where g/l/b's have virtually no legal rights in such matters as custody of
>one's own children should the "straight" parent decide to pursue it. ...

    	Again, this has no bearing on religion IN THE WORKPLACE short of
    	what you have projected to it based on your life outside of DEC.

>This is legal discrimination and this is what we are trying to change. 

    	Again, my point is:  Have you experienced this legal discrimination
    	on the job?

    	Joe Oppelt

    	re .35

    	Does one incident define DEC policy?  Does one incident offest
    	100 situations where such material would be allowed to stay?

    	I think that the employee who was made to remove the articles
    	allowed an intolerant manager to walk all over him/her.  (This
    	is a judgment based on the limited facts presented so far.)
    	There are processes in place to handle such situations, and it
    	appears that the employee failed to follow through with them.

    	Were the posters offensive?  Was the area the person's designated
    	working space, or a common area shared by all.  (Your wording
    	leaves alot of room for interpretation.  Actually, it sounds
    	like a secretary's area.)

    	The person needs to find out if it is a common area or his/her own
    	personal work area.  If the latter, the incident was poorly
    	handled.  If the former, then the person needs to ask for his/her
    	own personal area to hang personal effects.

    	Playing music of any flavor is a different matter.  It is
    	difficult (short of using a headset) to play music that will not be
    	heard by others.  Someone is bound to take offense sooner or later,
    	if for no other reason than that they need quiet to work
    	effectively.  

    	Joe Oppelt

As far as I can tell, those that espouse 'equality' come in
two types, according to belief:

1.  No view is to be expressed which does not accord with the
    beliefs of everyone.

2.  You can express any belief you like as long as it does not
    offend a "reasonable person", whatever that mythical creature
    may be.

#1 is the easier to implement, since you just have to react to
all complaints, no matter how trivial.  #2 is much more sensible,
but requires thought and discussion, and will inevitably lay you
open to charges of bias.

   re: 1638.36 <NOTIME::SACKS>

   Gerald,

   >The hard part is determining what can be reasonably regarded as offensive.
   >I don't know of any religion whose tenets require religious displays in
   >the workplace, so it's probably safer to ban all religious displays.

       I think the issue is not whether or not a person's religion requires
   them to display posters in their workplace, but rather, do they have the
   same right as the next guy to display posters of interest to them.  If the
   company is going to ban "religious" poster, then they should ban all
   non-DEC-related posters, all together.

   Tony

    	But "Banning them all" is not the Digital way.  DEC would rather
    	make a blanket policy supporting TOLERATION than BANNING.  At
    	least that has been the character of DEC up until now.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

   RE: 1638.42 <CSC32::J_OPPELT>

   >But "Banning them all" is not the Digital way.  DEC would rather make a
   >blanket policy supporting TOLERATION than BANNING.  At least that has been
   >the character of DEC up until now.

       Then if we are going to practice toleration, we must practice it fairly
   across the board...and not just on "politically correct" issues.  Agreed?

   Tony

>       Then if we are going to practice toleration, we must practice it fairly
>   across the board...and not just on "politically correct" issues.  Agreed?

	No.  There are some views which are tolerant, and hence tolerable,
	and other views which are not.

	For example, I don't see that it is reasonable to allow anyone
	to erect posters which advocate violence towards <insert any group
	name here>.

    re .43
    
    	Are you trying to say that allowing religious posters is a 
    	"politically correct" policy?
    
    	Is freedom to express religious belief currently a PC issue?
    	I would expect that the opposite would be the case.  The PC
    	position would disallow a Christmas display in your cube, for
    	instance.
    
    	What is the point you are trying to make?
    
    	For what it's worth, I don't believe a person should be denied
    	the privelege of displaying his/her pagan symbols (I specifically
    	did not use the term RIGHT) any more than another is denied the
    	privelege of displaying Christian symbols.  Or family tokens
    	(photos, kids' drawings, etc.) whether the family is a traditional
    	heterosexual unit, a group marriage, a homosexual relationship,
    	whatever.  Or calendars.  Last year a had one with Norman Rockwell
    	drawings.  This year I have a goofy calendar called "It's a Dog's
    	Life."  Next year I may want to have one from my church.  Or Gary
    	Larson.  (Some people find him offensive, you know.)  It's all a
    	matter of COMMON SENSE.  Some things go beyond the bounds of
    	obvious propriety.  Certain nudity.  Certain violence.  Would
    	a "Vulgar joke of the day" calendar be out of line?  How would you
    	know what was on it unless you specifically came into my office
    	and read it?
    
    	The problem here is not company policy, but people who want to
    	MAKE ME RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR FEELINGS (on either side of the
    	extreme.)  Someone doesn't like a poster with a male and a female
    	bodybuilder posing.  I enjoyed seeing such a poster in a nearby
    	cube.  Perfect examples of the ART of body sculpting.  Today it's
    	down, and it's easy to assume that someone complained (as I 
    	expected would eventually happen.)  Someone else doesn't like
    	religious posters in a person's cube as was previously reported.
    	Both sides of the spectrum are represented here.  
    
    	NOBODY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR FEELINGS BUT YOU.  
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    It could be possible that someone puts up a St. Pauli girl beer 
    poster so that they could worship the holy god of beer every day...
    
    :^):^)

    <<< Note 1638.41 by WMOIS::BALSAMO_A "The Rock that is higher than I" >>>
                               -< Ban them all >-

What about a non-DEC poster with no words, only a landscape scene?

And I guess you would have to remove the non-DEC artwork hanging in halls (we
had a display here last year as a way of showing the county (and the
struggling artists in the county) that DEC is a good corporate citizen.  Guess
that would kill the art and photography contests. 

We probably can't sponsor anything affiliated with any government activity 
(DEC helps with the county fair here each year, or at least did so for several 
years in the past).

And how would this "ban them all" philosophy affect local AIDS benefit walks, 
collecting toys for homeless children, etc., since these involve advertising 
Digital's role in activities with which not every employee may agree.

And...ad-nauseum.............

What I really object to is people coming into cubes after hours leaving 
literature.  If I want information on a subject, I generally know where to 
find it and I am VERY short with door-to-door solicitors of any type.  I 
equate leaving pamphlets in my cube with a solicitor walking into my home when 
I am away and leaving literature, and I certainly won't allow that.

Steve

    The banning of posters reminds me of an incident I experienced.
    
    I obtained a poster of the Bill of Rights.  It is a black-on-white
    reproduction of one of the "original copies" of the twelve proposed
    amendments.  Diagonally across it in red, as if stamped on, are the
    words "VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW".  I put this up outside my office,
    where I have other items (e.g., a satellite view of this area) and
    where other people have placed posters and other displays, including
    religious material.
    
    Management insisted that I remove this poster because somebody had
    complained but refused to tell me:
    
    	o who was complaining,
    
    	o why they were offended,
    
    	o what they thought the poster meant, or
    
    	o any information that would tell me what I needed to know
    	  to avoid giving offense in the future.
    
    Only Digital-approved differences are valued; others are suppressed.
    Digital is intolerant.
    
    
    				-- edp

    The posters were hanging in a Petty Cash office.  The office was
    completely isolated and no where near any cubicles so the noise
    (music) was not interfering with any work.  He could not even keep
    up any posters if he put them on a wall that was not seen by anyone
    in the corridor.  
    
    The posters were not offensive in nature, just Christian, most with
    Christian sayings or exerpts from the Bible.  The artwork was really
    beautiful.  One poster was in shades of purple with a silouette of
    a plain cross on it, but can't remember what words were there.
    
    L
    

re .49:

But surely a petty cash office has customers who might be disturbed by the
music.  I don't see any place for second-hand music (you know, like second-
hand smoke) in the workplace.  That includes Muzak (TM) and music on hold.

   re: 1638.45 <CSC32::J_OPPELT>

   >Are you trying to say that allowing religious posters is a "politically
   >correct" policy?

       No, I actually believe the opposite.  What I was trying to do was
   indicate that although I believe DEC leans towards practicing toleration, I
   believe that they only practice toleration of politically correct issues.
   So, to be fair to all, they either need to be completely tolerant of all
   differences, or band all non-DEC posters completely.

   >Is freedom to express religious belief currently a PC issue?  I would
   >expect that the opposite would be the case.

       I think we are in agreement.

   >The problem here is not company policy, but people who want to MAKE ME
   >RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR FEELINGS (on either side of the extreme.)  Someone
   >doesn't like a poster with a male and a female bodybuilder posing.

   >NOBODY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR FEELINGS BUT YOU.

       This is true, but what if my job requires I spend time in your office
   where a poster, to big for me to ignore, that offends me is displayed?

   Tony

   re: 1638.47 <NEWVAX::SGRIFFIN>

   >What about a non-DEC poster with no words, only a landscape scene?

       I guess I'm not really saying I'm in favor of either toleration or
   banning.  I'd just like to see a little consistency/fairness on DECs part.
   I do tend to lean towards the total banning of all "potentially" offensive
   material as the only fair thing for DEC to do.  As to who decides what is
   potentially offensive: I have no idea.  Perhaps an employee representation
   committee could approve or reject any questionable material.  Who decides
   which artwork, if any, get hung in the halls, conferences rooms, and open
   offices currently?

   Tony

This reply is being posted for a noter who wishes to remain anonymous.
If you wish to reply to the author, send mail to FULPWR::AINSLEY.  Unless
you request otherwise, your message will be forwarded to the author with your
node/username combination attached.

Bob - co-moderator DIGITAL



First, I believe that the original author has suffered some discrimination
because she is lesbian, by people who think they are being Christian. I'm sorry
about that and if that happened to me I would be angry too.

She posted it here thinking there is an issue with religion at Digital. Well
there certainly is from my viewpoint. I'd like to reply to 1638.28, Joe
Oppelt---you asked:

    <    Has their
    <	job review been adversely (or even POSITIVELY) affected because
    <	of their religious beliefs?

I know of an engineering group in this company where ALL the managers go to
the same church and are active in the church. Further, they had a manager
slot open and - presto - the new hire is going to be another buddy from the
church.    All of these are men. They all have bibles on their shelves.

Maybe if the people in that group were to get bibles on their shelves and
drop little hints about what they did at church last weekend they might be
in the running for a promotion soon.  What do you think?  I think it *ucks*!!

Can we PLEASE keep our religious life separate from work?? Its just like
keeping your sexual self separate from work. Its not part of work, period.

    	re .48
    
    	I heard about that very situation somewhere.  It is disturbing
    	to me.  You raised some very important points about being able
    	to confront the accuser in SOME fashion if for no other reason
    	than to avoid being offensive in the future.  What bothers me is
    	that I see nothing that could be constued as offensive in that
    	poster.  Usually when you see a poster (or a posting in a notes
    	conference!) you can tell (with a gut instinct) when there is
    	something that can be taken offensively.  Sure enough, sooner
    	or later it often gets removed.  But I don't understand what
    	is so offensive about that poster.
    
    	I made a drawing once that was based on a play on words from
    	the title of our local DEC publication "View From The Peak."
    	Mine was entitled "View From The Peek", and had a person trying
    	to peek under the clothes of another person.  It got alot of
    	chuckles, and I even found photocopies of it here and there.
    	I had it posted outside my cube.  But my manager told me to 
    	remove it.  I knew that was coming sooner or later.  What 
    	bothered me was that he said it offended someone, but wouldn't
    	tell me who that was.  I didn't want to know so that I could
    	exact revenge or anything like that.  I wanted to know who
    	to be careful around if I was going to tell an off-color joke
    	or anything like that.  (I don't want to find out who that person
    	is when I am up for Supreme Court nomination, you know!)  I
    	never did find out.  I guess that's OK, but I think alot more
    	people would be comfortable if we all knew who to be careful 
    	around.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

	re .51
    
>       This is true, but what if my job requires I spend time in your office
>   where a poster, to big for me to ignore, that offends me is displayed?
    
    	So then we work in your office instead!
    
    
    	re .53

>I know of an engineering group in this company where ALL the managers go to
>the same church and are active in the church. Further, they had a manager
>slot open and - presto - the new hire is going to be another buddy from the
>church.    All of these are men. They all have bibles on their shelves.

    	Let me reply to that with something I posted in .39 --
    
.39>    	Does one incident define DEC policy?  Does one incident offest
.39>    	100 situations where such material would be allowed to stay?

    	Anecdotal evidence does not show that DEC policy sways one way
    	or another.  I still believe that DEC does an excellent job at
    	removing and preventing religious bias.  Has the above incident 
    	been brought to the attention of the group's upper management?
    	Do we know all the facts about that incident?  Was anybody hurt
    	(career-wise or otherwise) by the group described above?  Was
    	the majority of people working in that area also from that same
    	church (making the statistical likelihood that the next manager
    	would also attend that church that much greater?)
    
    	Joe Oppelt

   RE: 1638.55 <CSC32::J_OPPELT>

   >>This is true, but what if my job requires I spend time in your office
   >>where a poster, to big for me to ignore, that offends me is displayed?
   >
   >So then we work in your office instead!

       Perhaps you missed the word "requires" in the above.  Picking up a
   moving to a non-offending office is not always an option.

   Tony

re:    <<< Note 1638.56 by WMOIS::BALSAMO_A "The Rock that is higher than I" >>>


>   RE: 1638.55 <CSC32::J_OPPELT>

>   >>This is true, but what if my job requires I spend time in your office
>   >>where a poster, to big for me to ignore, that offends me is displayed?
>   >
>   >So then we work in your office instead!

>       Perhaps you missed the word "requires" in the above.  Picking up a
>   moving to a non-offending office is not always an option.

What is wrong with party "A" asking party "B" to 'please take that poster down
while I am here'?

- George

    re .10
    
    	You mentioned Jewish holidays, but didn't mention Shabat. What
    about during the winter months when sundown(start of the day for Jews)
     approaches 4:00 in many areas. Perhaps your aren't strict orthodox about
     such things. Do you know any Jews in DEC who require accomodation on this?
    
    	In our office there is a Seventh Day Adventist who quietly
    disappears about 4:00 during the winter months. He hired in as a "high
    volume" engineer partly to avoid the issues of weekend standby. He's
    never made an issue about it, but I think he avoids anything resembling
    confrontation about it.
    	The fact that most businesses close on Sunday has nothing to do
    with religion directly, but it nevertheless has roots in religious
    observance. It certainly creates hardship for those who conscientiously
    believe something else. 
    
    
    john

    Oops, its appears I wasn't very clear in -.1 I was referring to Friday
    afternoon when Friday ends and Shabat begins at sundown.

    Actually, we used to have very strict orthodox woman in my group, who
    also happened to live 45-50 miles from here.  During the winter months,
    she worked 4 10-hour days, and did not come in to work on Friday at
    all, since she would have had to leave real early to be home before
    sunset.  This was an unofficial arrangement between her and her
    management.  She also took vacation days for *all* of the holiday days,
    which didn't leave much "vacation" time.  I'm not shomer shabbas
    myself.
    
    /Charlotte

    When I worked at different times in a couple of European countries,
    I found that:
    
          - there were many more holidays
    
          - more vacation time (minimum 4 weeks even for new employees)
    
     yet both these countries are doing extremely well economically and
     rank very high in terms of per capita productivity.
    
    I just don't understand why in the U.S. businesses cling so adamantly
    to the 2 weeks vacation for all new employees and slow ramp up
    of vacattion time.  We seem to erroneously equate total hours
    worked with productivity.  This is probably based on Frederick
    Taylor's (now widely discredited) theories of worker productivity.
    
    A couple of extra holidays and more vacation time would easily
    help accommodate those whose religious holidays do not fall on
    national holidays.  
    
    d

    This is just an aside, but I was somewhat amused by Tony's comments
    about posters because he has a large 'Vern' poster in his office that
    can be somewhat startling the first few times you see it. 

    Bonnie

    I have an Arnold Schwarzenegger Terminator II poster in my cublcle...
    
    "It's nothing personal"  below Arnold sitting on a harley, holding a
    shotgun.
    

.61 -
    
    >When I worked at different times in a couple of European countries,
    >I found that:
    >
    >      - there were many more holidays
    >
    >      - more vacation time (minimum 4 weeks even for new employees)
    
      This doesn't apply to all European countries, and not all
    DEC subsidiaries take all "public" holidays.   A few people here,
    who've worked in the US, reckon US Digital take more "public" holidays
    than Mfg here in Scotland.
    
    > yet both these countries are doing extremely well economically and
    > rank very high in terms of per capita productivity.
    
      Maybe Britain isn't one of these, though...
    
    >...  This is probably based on Frederick
    >Taylor's (now widely discredited) theories of worker productivity.
    
      Also Max Weber's theory of the Calvinist/Protestant work ethic?
          
    

	Another posting for the anonymous person






Re: Note 1638.38 (J_OPPELT)      re .30  (re .28)

    	Sorry, but you still failed to demonstrate -- EVEN IN YOUR OWN
    	PERSONAL CASE -- religious intolerance at DEC.  

I cannot demonstrate something that hasn't happened to me personally.  It 
hasn't happened to me because I'm not "out" at work.  I know of a few gay 
people at this facility, but none are out.  Maybe this is something you 
have to "live" to understand.  Maybe things are different here than at some 
other facilities, particularly those in Mass. where I understand there is 
some legislation for gay rights.  Down here we are on our own and I know of 
few who take the chance.

    	Your FEELINGS are your own responsibility.  In addition, what 	
    	you project into DEC business practices based on your treatment 	
    	outside of the company is of your own making.  At the risk of 
    	offending you or seeming insensitive to your situation, your
    	above statement implies nothing more than paranoia to me.

I'll will admit to fear, but not unfounded fear.  Because I have been
married, have children, and look decidedly feminine, I can pass for
straight, so I do. However, I have seen it happen to more than one friend. 
You know... I'm a lesbian (or gay) and not ashamed, so I'll come out at
work because I do a good job and they respect me and I feel like I'm living
a lie this way.  It wasn't long in each case before some other reason came
up for dismissal or layoff.  No, it wasn't DEC.  But it was in this same
geographic/politically conservative area.  I did not imagine it.  There are 
no guarantees that it will not happen to me and there is nothing I can do
about it if it does. 

>However, IMHO I feel a large part of the 
>discrimination g/l/b's suffer is a direct result of the vocal moral
>majority and their influence on legislators.  This social/moral prejudice
>toward us spills over into the workplace and creates tension, pressure,
>hostility, fear, anger, hurt.....many unproductive feelings and emotions.

    	This is not a DEC issue.  It is a societal issue.  A governmental
    	issue.  A global issue.

You're right.  It is not a DEC issue.  It is much broader than that.  But, 
if it affects DEC employees in the workplace (i.e., me and the others I 
know of right here who are not out), then it is worth trying to change in 
the workplace.  Reform has to start somewhere.  Since we're talking about 
protection against discrimination in employment, as well as in housing and 
family court matters, why not start in the workplace?  

Civil Rights was not a "school" issue per se, but that's where reform 
started.  I was a school girl here during the 50's, and I remember the 
moral outrage in this Southern community at the idea of their little white
girls being forced to go to school and ride the same bus with those....
well, you get the picture.  Some of the rhetoric surrounding the G/L/B
Awareness at MRO was very reminiscent of those days.  Sort of a blind
hatred with lots of moral indignation, backed by scripture and social
mores and traditional values, but with very little logic.  Legal
discrimination had existed for a long time, it was perpetuated through fear
and ignorance, many were hurt in the fight, but they won.  The few who
would argue against Civil Rights *now* are the lunatic fringe of society. 
My, my... the world moves on, doesn't it? 

>where g/l/b's have virtually no legal rights in such matters as custody of
>one's own children should the "straight" parent decide to pursue it. ...

    	Again, this has no bearing on religion IN THE WORKPLACE short of
    	what you have projected to it based on your life outside of DEC.

You're right.  The relationship between my personal legal rights and my
work life is very tenuous at best.  It is a very delicate balance of trying 
to live an honest life while simultaneously living a little white lie... it 
doesn't sound like much when you write it down, but it is my life and it is 
important to me.  I would like to be free from the pressure, being by 
nature an honest person.  If you are so sure that this discrimination does 
not exist in the workplace, then either you are blind to it (understandably 
if you are not gay), or things are very different in your part of the 
world.  I'm not trying to "build a case", just telling you how it is from 
where I sit.


    	Again, my point is:  Have you experienced this legal discrimination
    	on the job?

No, I have not experienced this legal discrimination on the job because I 
am not out at work.  Would I experience it if I were?  I'm almost positive 
I would, and in some form I couldn't fight.  Is it possible that I wouldn't 
have a problem...of course, it is a possibility.  Do I want to take that 
chance?  No, I have too much to lose and I've seen it work out the other 
way too many times (in the conservative South, not at DEC...I know of no 
openly gay employees at this facility, a fact that IMO supports my "case").

My only objective in submitting my note was to present myself as honestly 
as I could.  Hopefully, one person who has written a letter to a politician
requesting he/she vote "NO" to some gay rights legislation, will rethink
his/her views.  I hoped to change one person's fear and revulsion toward
gays by showing that we are not ALL from the lunatic fringe that so often
appear in news reports.  I wanted one person to understand that when you
oppose gay rights to prevent "the freaks" from infiltrating the schools and
molesting your children on taxpayers time... or whatever it is you are
afraid will happen... then you are really opposing *my* rights and I could
be the person in the next cubicle who worked all weekend to help you meet
your project deadline; or the mother of the teenager who babysits for your
kids; or the coworker you frequently sit with at lunch and who laughs at
your jokes.... it was not an indictment against DEC.  If my note was posted
in the wrong conference, I apologize. 

    Re: posters
    
    Now that workstations have become fairly common, you also have root
    windows to worry about.
    
    Mike