 |
|
|
|
 A new study hints that religion and resumes don't always mix well.
July 2nd, 2014
09:24 AM ET
Why you should leave religion off your resumeBy Sara Grossman, CNN (CNN) - If you’re applying for a new job, it may be best to leave religion off your resume, according to a new study. Job applicants who mentioned any form of faith affiliation on their resumes were 26% less likely to be contacted by employers than candidates who didn't, according to the study conducted by sociologists at the University of Connecticut. Muslim, pagan and atheist job applicants were the least likely to get callbacks from potential employers. “People have a fear of the unknown,” said Michael Wallace, a co-author of the study and a sociology professor at the University of Connecticut. The study “implies that when people don't know much about a religion, they have an instinctive fear of that group.” Jewish applicants received the least discrimination of all religious applicants, with evangelicals not far behind. The researchers sent out 3,200 nearly identical resumes to 800 employers around two major cities in the South, changing only a reference to participation in a religious student group while in college, including affiliations to evangelical Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The study does not name the cities. A control group of resumes featured no reference to any religion. The researchers also included a fake religion, called “Wallonism,” to measure the degree to which people discriminate against a completely unfamiliar faith. The fact that employers discriminated against “Wallonians” confirmed this suspicion, Wallace said. The nonreligious resumes received responses about 18% of the time. By contrast, less than 11% of Muslims heard back from employers, followed by 12% of atheists and about 13% of “Wallonians,” Catholics and pagans. Evangelicals heard back just under 16% of the time, while Jews heard back about 16.5% of the time. The study showed that employers in the South - the country’s most religious region by many measures - prefer applicants who are not public about their religious affiliations, according to the University of Connecticut researchers. “While religion is central to Southern life and Southerners more openly display their religious beliefs than citizens in other parts of the country, they also embrace the secular notion that there is a proper time and place for religious expression,” the authors wrote. “Thus, even in the deep South, most employers draw the line against overt expressions of religious belief in the workplace.” Religion in the United States has become “compartmentalized,” Wallace said. It is perfectly acceptable to be religious, he said, but Americans prefer that expression be secluded to certain domains. “Social institutions are where you have a great diversity of people,” Wallace said. The worry that religious people might try to push their beliefs on other people is the biggest reservation of employers, he added. The negative consequences of open religiosity did not seem to apply to Jews, however. Although Jewish applicants received slightly less feedback from employers than applicants who made no mention of religion, this discrepancy was not enough to be statistically significant, Wallace said. The researchers cited a number of theories as to why this phenomenon might be, especially since Jews make up a tiny portion of the Southern population. For one, Jews have integrated well in the region and are not as residentially or occupationally segregated as they are in other parts of the country, Wallace said. Also, evangelicals - who make up the largest religious group in the South - have a close affinity to Jews, even more so than to Catholics, and may feel more connected to members of this religious group, according to Wallace. “Jews, and especially the Jewish state of Israel, feature prominently in evangelical Christian theology; in fact evangelicals express stronger support for Israel than any other ethnic or religious group except Jews themselves,” the researchers wrote. Rachel Kranson, an assistant professor of religion at the University of Pittsburgh, said that part of this phenomenon might be a race and class issue, rather than a religious one, as the vast majority of Jews are white and middle class. “People's religious identities do not exist in a vacuum, and intersect with categories of race and class,” she wrote in an e-mail. “Employers' preference for Jews may also indicate a preference for white workers from well-off backgrounds.” The conclusions of this research largely mirrored those of a study performed last year in New England by the same team of University of Connecticut sociologists. While sociologists found job discrimination in New England, it was not nearly as pronounced as in the South, except against Muslim applicants, according to the study. That study found that resumes that mentioned religious affiliations received 19% fewer responses from employers than the nonreligious control group. Muslims saw the worst of the discrimination, in both the North and South, according to the studies. Muslims received 32% fewer e-mails and 48% fewer phone calls than job candidates who didn’t mention religion on their resume, according to the study. In the South, they received receiving 38% fewer e-mails and 54% fewer phone calls. “This suggests, ironically, that religious discrimination in hiring is most prevalent in regions of the country where religion is most passionately practiced,” the authors wrote.
Next entry »Pope: bishops 'accountable' for sex abuse
« Previous entryThe 8 best tweets about Tim Howard and Jesus
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Keep your atheism to yourself and there won't be a problem. In other words, take your own advice atheists and keep your atheism in your own home, never to be spoken about in public.
This is reasonable. So long as the religious do exactly the same and we'll all get along just fine.
Atheists only want that done to people they don't like but exclude themselves. It's actually kinda funny. It's like their own messed up version of communism, which by the way, was founded by atheists!
Actually Communism was not founded by atheists. It goes back at least as far as the religious monastic communities, so you're again 100 % wrong. That's OK though. One of these days you're bound to say something true, despite your poor record.
"Atheists only want that done to people they don't like but exclude themselves"
------------------------
Nonsense. There would be no need for it if Christians would respect the wall of separation.
And you should do the same in return instead of doing what they do. Kinda ironic XD
It's abundantly clear to me that I do.
I guess you're not a big supporter of free speech. Do you even read your own stuff?
If you want to destroy atheism, what belief system do you want in our society?
Most atheists have deep issues with people they grew up around and they take it out on others when they become adults. How exactly is that "free speech"?
"keep your atheism in your own home, never to be spoken about in public."
You want to shut people up. That is as arrogant as it gets, and I would add, as insecure as it gets.
If you want to destroy atheism, what belief system do you want in our society?
Wrong. I was Reversing what many atheists have said over the years. I have heard many claim over the internet that should be done to non-atheists. I am destroying the atheist delusion along with your lies but you'll believe your lies no matter what.
So if I understand you correctly, your position is that some atheists were a-h.oles so you have adopted their a-ho.liness as your behavioral approach. My dad used to ask me if people jumped off a roof would I copy them? Mimicking bad behavior is childish and just makes you look bad. It is a very poor rhetorical tactic, it doesn't work.
If you want to destroy atheism, what belief system do you want in our society?
Wrong bost old boy. It forces them to look in the mirror and realize the error of their ways. No wonder atheists don't have any influence. When somebody does something you don't like, you don't confront the person, you think other people are responsible. Like if a politician creates a law you don't like, you complain to people NOT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE!!! That's how you atheists operate. You don't confront issue head on. You just add more fuel to the fire to feed your sick twisted desires and egos.
destroying...,
You are enti.tled to your opinion on that. I think you come across as childish and insecure.
What do you believe anyway? It's one thing to tear down the beliefs of others, do you have anything you do believe in?
Why on earth would you atheists waste your time with people who hold no actual power? You fight the people but never the actual people who possess the power of authority like law makers and such. You should be fighting THEM if you are getting treated unfairly or if a law is unjust. Are you afraid to confront them but feel the need to blame people who haven't done anything wrong? I guess you atheists get something from doing this. This is America not a country like Iran although money=power here. Fight people with power. Are you honestly so afraid to end this? Seriously? Grow a pair.
"You fight the people but never the actual people who possess the power of authority like law makers and such."
You must be completely unfamiliar with how our political system works. The people who make the laws are ELECTED by the citizens of our country. If the citizens elect religious idiots, the citizens are to blame.
destroying...,
Thanks for the advice, but I'll keep my own course.
What do you believe anyway? It's one thing to tear down the beliefs of others, do you have anything you do believe in?
And you can never change who people will vote for, idiot. They vote for who THEY want. You can't change that no matter what delusion you come up with. There's over 300 million Americans in this country. Want to tell all of them who to vote for? Ha! Atheism is basically an internal desire for control. Grow a friggin pair you overgrown manchild.
It's likely that some atheists had problems with family – many people do – but there's no correlation between that and atheism.
@destroying
Calling someone a manchild with the posts you put out is a perfect example of a pot calling the kettle black.
Thank you for showing us all how moronic you are.
"And you can never change who people will vote for, idiot."
I often wonder what motivates a troll like you to continually post blatantly incorrect statements, yet at the same time, implying that you are the one who is right and not a blatant moron. Rather than continuing to make ignorant statements about how our elections work, why don't we focus on what drives you to post? You clearly aren't the brightest of bulbs, so why would you want to expose yourself by posting here? There must be some sort of entertainment value for you to act like an idiot I guess?
So you basically admitted that you have a deep desire to control people? So atheists love to claim to religion is here to control while you actually possess more desire for control. So sad.
destroying...,
What is sad is your anti-logic arguments. Even if atheists were control freaks, it wouldn't diminish by one whit the controlling predilections of religious leaders.
Boston, Sea, You guys are wasting your time on rational arguments with an ignorant lunatic! You might as well be wrestling a pig! Destroying is ignorant and belligerent and will never admit any facts that disprove his precious mythology!
It is a entirely pointless endeavor!
Spectator...you are exactly correct. Guys like DA are impossible to reason with, because in order to promote their faith, they must suspend all logic and reason. Therefore, they can't argue intelligently.
Don't feed the ignorant trolls...
It would seem that thefinisher1 or maybe even Salero has come back spewing hatred and nonsense.
What a joke you are. You're NEVER going to "destroy" anything, much less atheism. Nonbelief is on the rise in educated countires for a very good reason.
When beligious religionists do the very same thing, it's called "evangelizing for Jebus" and "sharing the good news". When atheists do the same thing, they're told to keep it to themselves, and called "militant". The hypocracy is obvious to everyone.
actually..I am inclined to agree with realbucky...humans aint going to destroy atheism..but God will 🙂
I wasn't spreading my belief. Can you read, son?
You are spreading poo
Obvious troll is obvious. Back under the bridge with you!
I have never once heard an atheist mention his or her atheism in the work place. I can't say the same about religious people.
Explain how atheism is a delusion (as your WP blog says).
Russ,
God must be extremely VAIN to desire that you sweep streets to HONOR him.
If you are a parent and so have had FAR MORE responsibility for the daily raising and security of your child than God did, how much do you insist that your children WORSHIP you for what you've done for them? Do you DEMAND ONE DAY per week? if you gave them a list of the 10 most important things to know, would 40% of them be to HONOR YOU?
God must be extremely VAIN to desire that you sweep streets to HONOR him.<-its not based on feelings here observer.....in sweeping streets and all..its about humbling yourself..pride is ok..but too much and people will fall.and become too much into themselves
btw God does not demand worship....He says to worship Him, yes...its when one realizes the holiness and MIghtiness of God that they cannot help BUT to worship Him
kermit4jc,
"btw God does not demand worship...."
lol. Ever read the TEN COMMANDMENTS? FORTY PERCENT concern COMMANDS to "worship me".
semantics...command demand.IM saying he does not demans as YOU suppose..in a vainway...sheehs..context again..why don't youpeople ever read my whole posts?
kermit4jc,
You are a riot! Do you EVER use a dictionary? DEMAND is a SYNONYM for COMMAND.
I can't wait for your new bible with the TEN SUGGESTIONS.
It's fascinating to see you turn yourself inside out to PRETEND that the Bible doesn't say what it does and that the DICTIONARY doesn't say what it does. Keep it up.
uh..I GOT those defintions FROm a dictionary! just cause they are synonomous doesnot aalways mean they have same definition!
even the definition I gave for command is nOT suggestion
demand ◾something claimed as due
command ◾to direct authoritatively.
totally different things....be clear then ok?
Synonymous: having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language.
So you're saying that just because two words have the same or nearly the same meaning, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have the same or nearly the same meaning?
listen..I get the impression some of you say that or Godis up there demanding respect and worship as if likea child..or someone in vain....that cojuld be further from the truth..it isas I stated..i worship God cause I cannot HELP BUT to do so since I seen His awesomeness, Holiness and MIghtiness.....I cant help it
verb: demand
ask authoritatively or brusquely.
"“Where is she?” he demanded"
synonyms: order, COMMAND
verb: command
give an authoritative order.
Please spend less time reading the bible and more time using a DICTIONARY.
Wishful thinking does NOT change definitions. It only makes you look MORE and MORE DESPERATE.
the defintions I posted WERE from a dictionary!!!!!! so don't tell me what IM already doing
kermit4jc
"demand ◾something claimed as due
command ◾to direct authoritatively.
totally different things....be clear then ok?"
Please spend more time USING a dictionary. Maybe then you will learn the difference between a NOUN and a VERB. They are "different things....be clear then ok?"
kermit4jc
"listen..I get the impression some of you say that or Godis up there demanding respect and worship as if likea child..or someone in vain....that cojuld be further from the truth..'
Do you ACTUALLY read a Bible or just MAKE UP what you want it to say.
God not only DEMANDED respect and worship, he said to KILL ANYONE who worked on HIS day. Ooooops!
“listen..I get the impression some of you say that or Godis up there demanding respect and worship as if likea child..or someone in vain….that cojuld be further from the truth..’<-it is as I said...address thatissue..show me he is demanding it as like a child...that He is unworthy of it in the first place
kermit4jc
"the defintions I posted WERE from a dictionary!!!!!! so don't tell me what IM already doing"
If you knew what you are doing, you would know the difference between a NOUN and a VERB. That's why they have DIFFERENT definitions.
DUH..I do now the difference.again I made a point about how it is viewed...please address it..do YOUall view God as demanding like a vain little child?
kermit4jc,
If you KNEW the difference you would not have pulled the definition of a NOUN to contrast that of a VERB.
com·mand [kuh-mand, -mahnd]
verb (used with object)
1. to direct with specific authority or prerogative; order: The captain commanded his men to attack.
2. to require authoritatively; DEMAND: She commanded silence.
Again, PLEASE use a DICTIONARY rather than WISHFUL THINKING to define words. You just make yourself look ignorant.
are youreading my posts? I believe some are missing....I made it clear as to the context from which I COME from
"I cannot HELP BUT to do so since I seen His awesomeness, Holiness and MIghtiness.....I cant help it"
-– We do get that the mentally ill have very little control over their delusions and psychoses. If you "cannot help it", then you're admitting it's NOT an act of will, and not a choice, or not a call. Hmm. Very interesting what you admit. A compulsion or addiction.. How very odd for someone to admit that.
you knyou are so pathetic.....Im gald you are not anything like a true psychologist or psychiatrist....the only place I find people saying silly things like you are here on the net..in blogs and chat rooms..peole pretending to know anything abou tmental diseases....NO pscyologiist or psychiatrist has ever said such of me...I work with hundreds of them..they know my bleifs...yet none are so arrogant like you
"God does not demand worship"
--------------–
Kermit, this is what you said. Based on the Bible your statement is patently false.
Luke 14:
8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
"Thou shalt worship" is a demand, no?
Exodus 20
"24 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee."
That really sounds like a demand of worship to me. I could go on.
so you going to ignore my other posts where I put it in context as to what IM saying?
You never retracted the position in your other posts, so you are still wrong.
According to the Bible your God DEMANDS worship. This is clear.
OK..Perhaps myposts are nOT posting again..I said I am coming from the CNOTEXT that you people seem to use it in a way that makes God a demanding little child brat......you see that THIS time?
Exodus 20
"3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
So nice, so loving, so not demanding at all. Four generations of hatred by the spurned Yahweh for not worshiping "Him".
Four generations of hatred by the spurned Yahweh for not worshiping “Him<–you know what iniquity means? thismeans there will be trouble..not by God..onthse other generaitons..let meput itthis way..a man does drugs....it will affect his children.....and many children gethooked on drigs, or they siffer some kind of natural consequence of their father (being neglected, exposed to dangerous situations, physically beaten, etc etc) God is saying this will affect future generations...
"in a way that makes God a demanding little child brat
---------------------
You said it brother, the perfect definition of Yahweh in Exodus 20:5.
and so how does that make God a childish brat for saying such?
Genesis 6
"12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Yeah, no, not spoiled brat behavior at all. Not much loving and forgiveness there.
What the heck is a CNOTEXT anyway?
"The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history."
– Robert Heinlein
"you know what iniquity means? this means there will be trouble.."
iniquity: immoral or grossly unfair behavior.
So you are saying that God will be grossly unfair by punishing the children of people who reject him? That sounds about right, but I don't often see his followers admitting it so freely...
The ability of the believer to compartmentalize is quite impressive. In all other aspects of their lives, they function as normal, successful members of society, but when it comes to their religion, they turn off the mental faculties of reason and logic that serve them so well outside their belief. Imagine your stockbroker telling you to buy a stock because he has “faith” that its price will rise; a weather forecaster advising people it was safe to go into the open ocean because he believed a god will protect them; or an aircraft repairman not doing maintenance on a plane because he had a vision that everything was OK with the engine.
We, as a thinking, logical species, become super-dumb when it comes to religion, prepared to believe anything in order to be able to tell ourselves we will escape our inevitable deaths.
nice fantasy there..too bad it isn't reality of some of us "religious types" I use reason and logic all the time..yet reason and logic is not going to get you through everything ..it wont explain or answer everything....you seem to have faith in reason and logic yourself
kermit,
I couldn't agree more, we not only use intuition and instinct outside reason, we need to to survive. That doesn't mean we should allow intuition to trump reason when data is available. To allow belief to deny science like evolution, chemistry, and physics is unreasonable and unnecessary. To allow belief to support immoral practices is unreasonable and unnecessary.
data is NOT available for evolution as a whole (apes and humans from common ancestor) there is NO data...
kermit,
You are demonstrating profound denial. There is a ton of data on evolution, especially human evolution. The fossil data, the genetic data are overwhelming.
yeah? show me the link between the common ancestor of ape and man..better yet show me the fossils of this common ancestor
The best thing about Kermit's position on the fossil record is that every time a new fossil is found it gives him two more gaps to complain about.
hey..Im still waiting for the fossils of thecommon ancestor that humans had with apes;.or even the transitikonal ones
Now you are asking for a specific piece of data, you said there was no data. There is a ton of data that confirms the theory of evolution.
Evolution is not just an assertion, it is a theory. The elements of the theory can be tested. The hypothesis is that genetic variation causes functional change. Then those changes are sorted out by natural selection.
Genetic variation comes from mutations (and other sources). We can and have measured the mutation rate in humans. On average there are about 60 mutations in each child. In fact, children of older fathers have a higher mutation rate making older fathers have higher contribution to evolution. Variation comes from other sources as well as shown by horizontal gene transfer from viruses and bacteria to humans (and other animals).
There are also tests of the effect of selection. The many of animals and plants around humans were selected by us. The domestic cows, goats, horses, dogs, corn, wheat, broccoli, etc. were are created by selection pressure imposed by humans.
You can argue that selection may have unnatural components (e.g. God). Science hasn't tested that yet, but we do know that natural selection has shaped new species. So while there is still an outstanding question whether ONLY natural selection has shaped evolution, there is no question that evolution has and is happening via genetic variation and selection, and that explains the diversity of life on earth.
How old do you believe the earth to be?
Banjo: Oh, please. A far more logical explanation is the undisprovable science of Creatureism. All life was created in its present form seven thousand years ago, by a fantastical creature from outer space!
Farnsworth: Bunk!
Banjo: Oh! If your elitist, East Coast evolution is real, why has no one found the missing link between modern humans and ancient apes?
Farnsworth: We did find it! It's called Ho.mo erectus!
Banjo: Then you have proven my case, sir, for no one has found a link between apes and this Ho.mo erectus.
Farnsworth: Yes, they have! It's called Ho.mo habilis!
Banjo: Ah-ha! But no one has found the missing link between ape and this so called Ho.mo habilis.
Farnsworth: Yes, they have! It's called Australopithecus africanus!
Banjo: Oh-ho! I've got you now! [Time Lapse. The hologram now shows 19 different species of ape] Fair enough, but where, then, is the missing link between apes and this Darwinius masillae? Answer me that, Professor!
Farnsworth: Okay, granted, that one missing link is still missing, but just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
Banjo: [He scoffs.] Things don't exist simply because you believe in them. Thus sayeth the Almighty Creature in the Sky!
In all honesty if someone tells me they don't "believe" in evolution it is a sign that I should ignore everything they have to say.
so youhate differences in opinion..and dont wanna listen? ok...oh...and show me some fossils of the common ancestor between man and ape.or the transitional fossils
btw that's called intolerance
That is one of my favorite episodes of Futurama.
kermit,
Just about every fossil is a transitional form fossil. Species are always evolving. Many animals have fossil links over millions of years where they are slowly changing constantly (e.g. crocodiles, sharks, dinosaurs into warm blooded dinosaurs into birds, etc.).
There are living transitional forms. Some animals start life underwater, have gills and fins. Then later become land animals with lungs. Other animals start life underwater with gills and transition to flying animals with wings. Being able to transition is not rare. The fossil and living evidence is common.
that does not answer my question..I asked for fossils themselves showing the common ancestor of man and apes...give me links showing these fossils
@Kermit
Here's a link to a cool site with some examples of transitional hominid fossils.
http://www.efossils.org/
kermit,
We don't know which species is the LCA. We may or may not have a fossil of it. It doesn't matter, that has no bearing on evolution or human evolution.
you don't know? then HOW is it that evolutionists conclusively say we have the links?
kermit,
Rejecting evolution because we don't have the human LTA identified is like rejecting the Theory of relativity because we haven't verified the motion of all the asteroids in the solar system. There is tons of verification of that theory in many other ways.
This whole line of discussion is off track. I said: "That doesn't mean we should allow intuition to trump reason when data is available." There is clearly lot's of data supporting evolution and none rejecting it. You are beautifully demonstrating the point that people will reject data in favor of belief. You claimed we can't do it all with reason, that is true.
My point was you are reasonable if you use reason where data is available, and not reasonable if you don't (even if you use reason selectively).
the ONLY "data" is that which is foeced into the scisntists assumption that humand and paes shared common ancestor.the fact is..there is nO fo9ssil at all, only assumptions
Kermit, so, if it’s transitional fossils you want, it’s transitional fossils you’ll get. Roughly speaking, from oldest to youngest, the order of known species between the last common ancestor of man and Chimpanzees down to modern man goes something like this:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Australopithecus afarenses
Australopithecus africanus
Ho.mo habilis
Ho.mo ergaster
Ho.mo ere.ctus
Ho.mo heidelbergensis
Ho.mo neanderthalis (Neanderthal man)
Ho.mo floresiensis
Ho.mo sapiens – modern man.
This does not mean that the progression was a simple, straight line, with Sahelanthropus tchadensis evolving into Australopithecus afarenses and it evolving into Australopithecus africanus, etcetera, in a neat line down to Ho.mo sapiens. It appears that Ho.mo erectus was our immediate ancestor and that Ho.mo heidelbergensis, Ho.mo neanderthalis (Neanderthal man) and Ho.mo floresiensis all went extinct without having had another hominid species evolve from them. That is to say, they were not in our direct lineage, they were our “cousins,” although some interbreeding seems to have occurred. We non Sub-Saharan Africans carry about 15% of Neanderthal genes in our DNA. Sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal genes in their DNA. This suggests that interbreeding between modern man and Neanderthals took place in Europe after modern man had migrated out of Africa.
The above is an over-simplification, omits many other intermediate species and is not without controversy in some areas, but is a useful yardstick to gauge how humans evolved from the last common ancestor we shared with the great apes about 6 million years ago. No hominid fossil earlier than Ho.mo erectus has ever been discovered outside of Africa. This is why anthropologists put the birth of the lineage in Africa.
But the point is, thousands of the above fossils have been found. They have been found in South Africa, in Kenya, in Tanzania, in Ethiopia, in Chad, in Israel, in Georgia (the Republic, not the state where your sister married your brother) in Spain, in France, in Italy, in Germany, in China, in Indonesia and in a host of other countries.
Thousands of examples of the above intermediate species. There you go Kermit, the transitional species you seek. Your response please.
uh...lol....all of these involve controversy..and doubts! yet you aall tout as if it is CONCLUSIVE evidence! sheesh..what dishonesty in the scientific field! IM sorry..but with al lthe controversy and doubts milling around those examples you gave me..how can you positively and without a doubt say this is what happened????? IM sorry..but you people are duped into thinking its truth when it isn't even conclusive....you guys have a whole lot of faith in your science of evolution than I have in the Promises of my God
Kermit....imagine that. We have as much 'faith' in observable, provable scientific theory as you do in a musty 2000 year old bronze age mythology book. Who is more insane?
@Kermit
Doubt is the default scientific mindset. Hypothesize, test, repeat and pass it on to another to repeat some more – all in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis.
As for controversy – that comes primarily from evolution deniers like The Discovery Insti/tute.
They attempt to discredit evolutionary theory because they fear the social and cultural influence of atheistic naturalism will lead people away from religion and doom us all to fiery perdition.
The overwhelming majority of evolutionary biologists see no conflict between evolution and religion – not because they occupy separate, non-competing magisteria but because they recognize religion as a sociobiological phenomenon.
The 5 laws that comprise Darwin's original theory have never been falsified. Indeed, they have only been strengthened and expanded over the last century and a half through the daily application of those principles by thousands of scientists in disparate fields of research. Even the Vatican recognizes this!
The last bastions of denial are fundamentalists Christians, primarily situated in the United States. They are a vociferous and deliberately contentious lot who exert a great deal of economic and political influence.
Their primary goal is to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
But let me put it this way:
Have you ever heard of a Fairy Ring?
Under particular conditions, certain species of mushroom form perfect circles up to 30 feet around.
We understand now that this is a natural phenomenon resulting form the way in which fungal spores distribute themselves, but prior to scientific understanding of fungal reproduction, various cultures concocted supernatural explanations.
Germanic people blamed witches. The Dutch said they were where the Devil set his milk churn.
The Celts said they were the result of fairies dancing and quite a number of people claimed to have joined them in their revelry!
Now, imagine if some Welshmen went before their local school board and demanded that biology text books include the Fairy Design Theory. After all, kids should be exposed to all competing theories. Teach the controversy!
This is what Creationists do in the United States. The only difference between them and the Fairyists is that there aren't enough believers in fairies to exert any kind of pressure on politicians, teachers, textbook manufacturers etc.
Evolution deniers are in the same boat as climate change deniers, flat earthers and geocentrists.
Only through obstinate denial of evidence can they maintain their beliefs.
actually..wrong..MUCH of the doubt comes from within the secular scientists themselves
excuse me..doubt AND controvery
They attempt to discredit evolutionary theory because they fear the social and cultural influence of atheistic naturalism will lead people away from religion and doom us all to fiery perdition.<–prove it..prove it that fear is their motivation
It is called "The Wedge Docu.ment"
"ctually..wrong..MUCH of the doubt comes from within the secular scientists themselves"
PROVE IT. Prove that there is widespread disagreement in the scientific community regarding the validity of the 5 laws that comprise the Theory of Evolution.
Doc....he can't. That was a stupid claim for him to make. He does that often.
Sent from my iPhone
>
@joey, "In all honesty if someone tells me they don't "believe" in evolution it is a sign that I should ignore everything they have to say."
Yup, that's a big red flag with the letters S T U P I D written in bold.
YOU?? Reason and logic?? You? Have you read some of the garbage you post!! For the love of god, you still deny evolution!! You couldn't even articulate a structured rebuttal to my point. You wandered all over the place and contradicted yourself.
well I am so sorry IM not formal in an INFORMAL setting and doing this between work and clients
I can see it now, Kermie runs into a college auditorium where several credited bilogists are discussing evolution and yells "It's all false! You don't know what you are talking about! Show me the footage of apes evoloving!" and when asked to leave he shouts "well I am so sorry IM not formal in this INFORMAL setting!"
It has nothing to do with you not being formal, it has everything to do with you not knowing what you are talking about and your rejection of well established scientific fact all based on your tiny speck of bible education and a two year psyc degree. I'd complain more but there is an element of enjoyment watching you get yourself all twisted around in your collage of confusion.
wow you are some funny guy aren't ya? what a spoof of reality......get serious now ok?
GET facts..I have FOUR year degree.... ASSOCIATES degrees are two years..I have BACHeLORS.....ok? learn the terms..second...you assume I only got educated at a shristian university? I got education elosewgere too in the secular world...sorry to burst your ego bubble..i LOVE sciences and did well in the college circuit of science courses that were requirements...you don't know my education..it is apparent and you are being a jerk
"data is NOT available for evolution as a whole (apes and humans from common ancestor) there is NO data"
-- unfortunately for you, there are mountains of data. DNA. It's everywhere. AND you are a hypocrite. THAT very same data YOU would use to your benefit, if you needed to, and is used as a legal reference every day of the week PROVES common ancestory. The fact you think it doesn't proves one thing : you are totally ignorant of the state of science and Genetics in 2014.
uh..IM not ignorant of it.....in fact..just because there is much similaoryt in genstic DNA, it does nOT prove common ancestry.....sorry..but that's scientists trying to fit data into their hypothesis and beliefs
It is not. Thanks for again proving you are 100% of the actual state of science in 2014. NOT ONE major academic center IN THE WORLD agrees with you. If ONE scientists could demonstrate what you say, they would instantly get a Nobel Prize. The fact is you're full of crap, and the whole wold knows it.
It is impressive. Compartmentalization works. It must allow the beneficial aspects of fantastical thinking to come through while blocking many of the destructive aspects of fantastical thinking. Belief in God has worked. Human population is dominated by believers. Compartmentalization was probably key in enabling that domination. In social evolution, belief in God and religion has been a big winner. I'd love to see how that will go in the future, but I don't believe in an afterlife so I'll have to be satisfied with speculation.
Compartmentalization is essential for cognitive dissonance.
It is essential and even people who subscribe to being rational do it. My favorite example is Douglas Adams' Infinite Perspective Vortex. We all compartmentalize to a degree. Some much more than others.
Yup.
I believe that a Jewish zombie can make me live forever, if I telepathically accept him as my master… all because a talking snake convinced a woman created by one rib to eat from a magical tree.
Now hire me for that new job!
I'll have the Lobster Thermidor à crevette with a Mornay sauce served in a provençale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pâté, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
LOVELY SPAM WONDERFUL SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
I'm a pagan actives in my small town if i did not own my own business i would never get a job. according to the censers 42% of my city population is of a non Abrahamic faith, i mean we actually have a Pseudo-pagan festival every month regardless all large businesses that hire more then 6 employes are Christian run. it makes for anyone open about their faith imposable to get a job, i am actually in the middle of filing a lawsuit against target, for the overly Evangelical undertones in the application process, they actually ask if your household is traditional values based.
needles to say my advise is to avoid bringing up religion if at all possible,.. if your gay, Atheist, liberal or pagan don't apply at Target or wal*mart, friends don't let friends work or shop at wal*mart its a wast of time.
Heavy riff man. You hit me it the back jack, don't get all evil on the clown; he's from out of town fella, pour a gold Stella.
That's a cold Stella (with a gold rim) Jim. Slug one down for that clown. Are you picking up what I'm putting down?
Don't you think values is different from religion? Can't an atheist have traditional values?
claw
What is traditional values supposed to mean?
Who's traditions, who's values.
They liked throwing the term traditional family values around, but no one ever had a definition for that, making it a term with no meaning at all.
yes they can but the notation tends to note to the Conservative Evangelical crowd. one can say I'm traditional values based if one bases their traditions in 1500 B.C.E. Europa
" traditional values" = bigotry ??
"Traditional values" in America is usually a catchphrase associated with the religious right and "values" such as ho_mophobia. However, if you were raised in a Pagan household, for the question on the Target job application as to whether "Traditional values of my upbringing play an important role in my life", I think you could honestly select "strongly agree".
I found others complaining about Target's psychological profiling questions on their job application at Target Application Questionnaire – Worse Than Unicru at liekkisusi.wordpress.com/soapbox/target-application-questionnaire-worse-than-unicru/ and at Target Personality Testing or Humans Are The New Cattle at http://www.oocities.org/monkeyboysmith69/targethiring.htm . At the latter page, the writer, who states he studied the theories and mathematics behind personality tests in school, notes "Specifically, a number of questions seem designed to ask if you’re politically conservative, however they are careful not to say ‘conservative’ because I imagine they don’t want to get in trouble for discriminating against people because of their political leanings." He also notes "Anyone with brains can see what they’re trying to find out and tell them what they want to hear."
I can understand why a retailer might ask "Most people would steal if they thought they could get away with it", but given the association of the phrase "traditional values" in the U.S. with fundamentalism or at least the Religious Right, putting the question about "traditional values" on a job application could lead many to conclude they are screening job applicants based on criteria that includes their religious and political beliefs.
Since this article is about the impact for job applicants of mentioning membership in a religious club in college on a resume, I see Target asks about clubs that applicants belonged to in high school with "During high school, the number of clubs or organizations I belonged/belong to is", though not the type of clubs.
According to Target's mission statement, they are committed to diversity (see http://retailindustry.about.com/od/retailbestpractices/ig/Company-Mission-Statements/Target-Mission-Statement.htm)
"To support our mission, we are guided by our commitments to great value, the community, diversity and the environment."
If so, they shouldn't discriminate against Pagans in the hiring process, but it probably wouldn't be a good idea for a job applicant to wear a pentacle to a job interview.
'it probably wouldn't be a good idea for a job applicant to wear a pentacle to a job interview"
------------------------
Or to work. I can see the local news story. "customers complain about 'devil worshiping' Target checker".
The wearing of personal faith affiliations is an interesting question. No one ever gets questioned about wearing a cross or fish pendant, but in some US communities, anything else, like a hijab, watch out! For junior employees, it shouldn't matter. For management, unless the dress/adornment is required (hijab, yarmulke, etc) it should be avoided.
fortunately our community does not have that problem, once you have successfully found that job you can wear your pentacle employers will have a harder time firing some one expressing their faith then they will simply not hiring, its easy to prove in court.
You should leave religion off your resume because all religions are batpoop nuts. Not because it's useful to our career, but because it's essential to your sanity.
Job and religion don't go hand in hand.
actualkly..it does..Its how I LIVE my life..I am not a Christian on Sundays only in church..its in my lifestyle....I don't leave my life outside the door..its not in my talk only..but in my actions as well
That's what worries us kermit. I don't want a doctor who believes that certain medications are immoral because his magic friend says it is.
You can choose your doctor according to standards you adopt.
It dosnt havge to be GOD saying it is wrong! Why are you so focused in on the religious belief? I felt abortion was wrong before I was Christin...etc etc...it is not exclusively a religious thing!
for once froggy i agree accept for the christian thing but one a pagan note. i'm sure the atheist are the same way,
see look common ground
@Kermit
You carry your faith wherever you go, but that isn't the same as religion.
I as/sume you don't engage in any religious rituals while at work, nor do you demonstrate them to your co-workers.
its not mere rituals...I live it...like I don't tell dirty jokes nor do I appreciate hearing them either...I simply shut it out...etc etc
Absent a church or the means to engage in whatever rituals/rites etc. that define a religion, a believer's faith will still inform their actions and worldviews.
A Mormon will still believe what a Mormon believes even when they're not wearing their magic underwear.
A Catholic's faith will still guide their day to day actions even without a rosary to fiddle with.
I'm not trying to reduce your belief down to mere rituals – I'm saying that those things aren't necessary to practice your faith and therefore such outward displays should be (and generally are) kept out of the workplace.
"..for whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." – Mark 8:38
– Those who reject the demands of discipleship prove themselves to be ashamed of Jesus Christ and the truth He taught, thus not redeemed from sin at all.
– To be ashamed of Jesus means to be so proud that one wants to have nothing to do with him. Thus, for example, Hebrews 2:11 states, “He is not ashamed to call them brothers.” Jesus knew that not only his sworn enemies, the scribes and Pharisees, but also their many followers were in that sense ashamed of him and of his teachings; hence, he speaks of “this sinful and adulterous generation.” Christ's Jewish contemporaries were adulterous, unfaithful to YHWH, Israel's rightful Husband. They were definitely sinful, having completely missed the goal of serving and glorifying God.
– Our Lord realized that some of His young disciples might be stumbled in the path of discipleship by the fear of shame. So He reminded them that those who seek to avoid reproach because of Him will suffer a greater shame when He returns to earth in power. What a thought! Soon our Lord is coming back to earth, this time not in humiliation, but in His own personal glory and in the glory of His Father, with the holy angels. It will be a scene of dazzling splendor. He will then be ashamed of those who are ashamed of Him now. May His words “ashamed of Me ... in this adulterous and sinful generation” speak to our hearts. How incongruous to be ashamed of the sinless Savior in a world that is characterized by unfaithfulness and sinfulness!
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. – Romans 1:16
– Paul was not ashamed to take God's good news to sophisticated Rome, even though the message had proved to be a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks, for he knew that it is the power of God to salvation—that is, it tells how God by His power saves everyone who believes on His Son. This power is extended equally to Jews and Greeks.
We are not ashamed and we do not check our religion at the door. It is an honor to bear the reproach now than to be ashamed when He arrives!
You do NOT have to stop believing while you are at work. Work is NOT an appropriate environment for proselytizing.
Thats a long wait for a train that wont show. For 2k years Christians are SURE that they ve been living in the finals days, that they are the last generation.
At one time he personally made appearances whenever his rage-meter redlined, sent powerful servants or at the very least granted a mortal agent supernatural abilities....but suddenly decided to play a really really long game of hide and seek.
The First Amendment and Ti tle VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act disagree with you...
The 1st Amendment does not apply, by definition.
So when the Samaritans had come to Him, they urged Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. – John 4:40
– 1 thousand years are as a day to our Lord. The Son of Man was on this earth for 33 years.
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. – 2 Peter 3:9
– seek Him while He may yet be found, His wrath is on it's way.
Employers can and do restrict speech on a daily basis. They are not breaking the law. They are not violating the 1st Amendment. Try again.
lordssword
"His wrath is on it's way."
It's been COMING for THOUSANDS of years according to the Bible. Wrong for THOUSANDS of years.
"His wrath is on it's way" LOL, sure... We'll all hold our collective breath for the return of your petulant god...
yea, any day now...... LOL.
No one cares about your Babble quotes. BEFORE you post Babble quotes, you have to prove your holy book is authoritative, and should be listened to. You have failed in that. Not every one is a Presuppositionist, like you. Your quotes have the equivalent authority as some from "Horton Hears a Who".
The Bible is part of Christians' faith. They do not need to prove anything to anyone. Our country is founded upon, among other things, freedom of religion. You don't have to agree or adopt the faith of others, but neither do you have the right to restrict their right to believe, worship and tell others about their faith.
claw
" but neither do you have the right to restrict their right to believe, "
Then why have the christians so restricted the right to NOT believe?
I agree that nobody needs to prove that god is real to believe in god, but if someone wants to make a law and they claim they want to make it because the bible says so, then I will require proof of god or a valid reason for the law that makes no mention of religion.
"..for whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." – Mark 8:38
Sounds like your petty god has an ego problem and needs to get over himself.
Here are some comments on the resume on that table:
* Be specific about your experience, what does "over 20 years of in-depth experience" mean?
* How did you actually improve the accuracy of budget forecast? Simply stating that "improved the accuracy of budget forecast" does not mean much. Be specific.
* Do not include "religion" in your resume, it's a distraction and does not add any value to your experience.
Nobody mentions "religion" in their resume, anyways! So, what's this article talking about?!
btw, a person always does not have to mention their religion, the name 'Mohammed' automatically suggests that the applicant is a Muslim. The suggestion in this article does not hold any validity for that reason.
1. The picture is a stock photo – it has nothing to do with the article.
2. Did you read the article?
3. Did you click on the link to the actual study?
All your questions will be answered. In the study they did not use obviously Islamic names. This was a controlled experiment. The resumes were essentially fake.
Did you read the comment? Regardless of any study, a person does not need your religious belief to be explicitly stated in your resume, your name (not always) is a good indicator of your religious belief(specially Muslim names).
'your name (not always) is a good indicator of your religious belief(specially Muslim names
------------------
Sure, I never said it was or wasn't. Please give me an example of an "atheist" name.
What this study demonstrates, in a controlled way, by using involvement in extra curricular campus religious groups as the variable, that people who indicate a religious affiliation in a resume will be discriminated against by employers in the south.
It is conventional wisdom that students should include their involvement in extra curricular campus groups to demonstrate that they are more 'rounded' candidates. By this study those that include references to religious groups will be discriminated against by southern employers.
Should I include online arguing about religion vs atheism on my résumé or not?
Depends. If your employer values reason, and you take the atheist position, perhaps.
If your employer likes woo-woo and the abandonment of reason, and they're religion, sure.
Lie to them about atheism being just about a lack of belief in god or gods. It is about reason, also. Yes! Thank you, sir.
And you know what atheism is all about how exactly ?
Uh... the dictionary is always a good place to start.
do you not realize that choosing to believe in a religion requires faith, while choosing to believe in atheism requires reason as opposed to faith?
dictionaries do not apply logic. even if they did, the concept of logic clearly flies above your head.
What? You choose to believe in atheism which requires reason? It sounds like you have faith. Not all of us reason our way into atheism.
ok, you got me. I have faith that my atheistic beliefs are reasonable.
Yeppers. Not all our atheistic beliefs are resonable.
I never implied or inferred that all atheistic beliefs were reasonable. I said that reason, not faith, is what leads people to atheism. reframing my comment into another, much different context only displays fallacy on your part in a vain attempt to be "right" about something you sadly care way too much about. btw, my last comment was sarcasm.
can't wait to read your back pedaling.
Did reason lead you to atheism? Because I can't completely say that for myself. Nor can most people I speak with.
I see. Then you presume too much.
a-symmetrical : no symmetry
a-symptomatic : no symptoms
a-theism : no theism
The absence of belief is not belief in absence. Did your dictionary tell you that ?
Some people talk about their religion. We talk about our atheism. My dictionary says we are talking about our lack of belief.
Do you talk about your "lack of belief" in a teapot orbiting the sun ?
No. Do you?
The 3 letter meme pronounced "gawd" has no coherent definition.
"Lack of belief" has to be "about* something. There is nothing coherent ffor the discussion to be about.
The idea of a deity is dismissed. It's not a "lack" of anything. Do you "lack" a belief in pink unicorns ?
So serious. To you atheism means more than it does to me. It is just something I am. But it is fun to poke fun at our selves.
considering what is reasonable is entirely objective reason is not a necessary component of Atheistism
for instant i'm a polytheist and yet entirely reasonable, i actually am inspired to be reasonable because of Lilith, and Athena, and sometimes even the Deity of reason Lucifer. all of which inspire me to maintain a skeptical and reasonable mind.
I am Christian and I agree with you on this. Using reason, there is either a God (or gods) or there is not. Neither is provable (at least no one has proven it thus far). It takes an element of faith to believe in God OR to deny God's existence. It is not unreasonable to believe in God, it is just not subject to proof.
For me, there is an element of logic to believing in the existence of God, because it is hard for me to accept that this world and this universe came to be without some act of creation, and who can create a universe? Others are comfortable believing that the universe has always been there, without beginning.
FYI, I was corrected on this earlier:
The study used resumes that had "only a reference to participation in a religious student group while in college".
That surprised me, because where I work participation in any outside activity, religious or not, is seen as positive and encouraged.
OUTSIDE INTERESTS:
Picketing outside soldier's funerals and Planned Parenthood installations.
Organizing posthumous baptism of Jewish people.
Warning random pedestrians of imminent doom.
OK, not "any" outside activity.
Cannibalizing ancient dead wandering preachers on the weekend.
It was conventional wisdom to advise students to include their participation in campus associations on their resume to demonstrate a 'rounded' college experience.
The study found that when applying to employers *in the south* students who included associations with campus organizations related to religion (particularly Muslim and atheist groups) got fewer follow up calls.
Notably an earlier study did not see the same issues with employers in the north east.
in my college I'm in an extracurricular that focuses on the fin art of agitating protesters to encourage thought provoking discussion and to bring a grater rise to Dissident in general. are duty is to go around and steering up the many political leaning groups to become more active in their civil rolls
another words we are a bipartisan group who inspires people to embrace a more violent form of protest.
Nonviolent revolution is one of the great lies spread by a government controlled media, and the corporate sponsors; this is all to prevent us from doing what is necessary to retake government control.
another word we just what to watch this county burn.
should i put my extracurricular club (which i get credit for) on a resume?
the article seems to assume the employer is the only one doing the interviewing.
but any good job applicant is equally interviewing a potential employer.
wouldn't you want an environment where your religious beliefs don't have to be hidden for fear of prejudice?
would it be better to find out on the front end or after you've taken the job?
By all means Russ, go for it. I would stick with the data and keep my beliefs to myself.
@ bostontola:
the data can be understood both ways.
it says to the employee: "if you want to eliminate discriminatory environments, be honest on the front end."
and note well the not-so-subtle assumption of the article: "your God may tell you to speak out your faith, but your boss' opinion is more important." in other words, business must be your *primary* religion.
Russ,
I'm afraid those are your unsubstantiated hypotheses, not what the data is revealing. The data reveals a simple thing, resumes with no religious content get more interviews than resumes with religious content (perhaps other than Jewish).
@ bostontola:
i didn't disagree with that statement. the data simply says what people are doing. the data can be interpreted two different ways – illustrated by our differing responses...
1) (as you are seeing it) take religion off your resume to maximize your options
2) (as I'm seeing it) your resume can be a tool for eliminating – at the outset – discriminatory employers and/or caustic work environments.
Religion as *zero* place in the workplace. Save it for church on Sunday.
@ GOP: i see... so it is your BELIEF (6 days a week?) that my beliefs should only affect me one day a week.
1) as a Christian, Jesus says the direct opposite to his followers: ALL of life is His.
2) don't you see the irony? you are doing the very thing (imposing your beliefs on mine) that you are saying should not be done.
3) does it need to be discussed and/or qualified with reasonable dialogue? yes. but we haven't even broached that subject (what form of expression are we talking about? screaming at co-workers & passing out tracts OR someone asking you about your personal life & it comes out organically, etc.). you are giving an imperative without qualifications. again, i find that highly ironic considering your normally otherwise carefully qualified rhetoric here.
@Russ,
I stand by the assertion that religion has no place in the workplace. It is not a place to evangelize any religious or political point of view. This cuts both ways. No one wants to hear a preachy evangelical or a militant anti-theist while they are at work.
There is a huge social component to a working environment. When people work together it is a social interaction. Friendships form and we learn about each others interests and beliefs, and sure, at some point people might learn about each others faith, if they are willing to share, but this cannot be expected of everyone.
If someone doesn't want to share they shouldn't have to and if someone doesn't want to hear about what "pastor said on Sunday" they shouldn't have to.
@ GOP: you are saying opposite things.
on the one hand, you allow for organic discussion. great. but, on the other, you say religion has NO place at work.
1) you seem to be assuming that the only form of religion is screaming at people, and not allow for a) a much more organic type of relational discussion or b) that one's beliefs affect *everything* one does (including how & why one does one's job well).
2) which brings me back to the main point i made before: the hypocrisy of your BELIEF that my beliefs don't belong in the workplace. it is self-refuting. it is precisely because you have brought your beliefs to work that make you contend that my beliefs don't belong there.
@Russ,
Since you want to quibble in semantics, I modify my statement for you:
No workplace should endorse an official stance or preference on religion or give the appearance through management of endorsing a religious preference, particularly for a publicly held company.
Private discussion of religion by employees with mutual consent is permissible, but this can be a very slippery slope into a hostile work environment situations and care has to be taken not to offend.
Some modest personal display of affiliation should be permissible but again this can be a slippery slope and care has to be taken not to offend. Having a devotional saying on the inside of your cubicle wall is fine. Hanging a four foot cross over your cube with a sign saying "repent or burn" is not. Wearing a cross, yarmulke, hijab or turban is fine, but I would draw the line at a "JESUS SAVES" tee-shirt.
I don't agree with privately held companies who hold and enforce a religious position. It cannot help but be discriminatory. Having said that, they apparently have the ability to do so without prosecution. I think this is wrong.
@ GOP:
1) i'm not "quibbling in semantics." you said before: "Religion [h]as *zero* place in the workplace. Save it for church on Sunday."
your words were loud & clear – not merely semantic differences from my position. i appreciate that you are softening that tone.
2) why should PRIVATE companies not be allowed to hold overtly religious positions and/or agendas?
" the hypocrisy of your BELIEF that my beliefs don't belong in the workplace."
-------------------–
Where am I being hypocritical here?
Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. This is important to me. If they want to discuss it privately, that's fine. They don't need to and shouldn't flaunt their beliefs at work. How is that hypocritical?
@ GOP: i didn't think i'd have to spell this out.
1) you BELIEVE it should be kept private.
i BELIEVE God commands it to be made public (the Great Commission, etc.).
our beliefs are not merely colliding in the private sphere, but you want YOUR beliefs to dictate the policy – without qualification.
considering that your explicit position is personal beliefs should be kept private and NOT overturn others' beliefs, and yet here you are advocating the EXACT opposite... that is hypocrisy.
2) along with that notion, you appear to believe religion's only appropriate sphere is the private arena. virtually EVERY major world religion disagrees with you.
yet again, your underlying principle is an appeal to have others adhere to your *belief* over their own.
"you BELIEVE it should be kept private.
----------------–
I don't believe that workers should be subject to evangelism and proselytizing by their employers or their coworkers. I don't believe it must be strictly private but it should not be overt.
I find the "Great Commission" and what is spawns, like missionary conversion, to be contemptible practices.
"but you want YOUR beliefs to dictate the policy – without qualification.
------------------------
No I don't. How do my beliefs dictate any policy? I don't want anyone trying to convert anyone, to any position regarding religion, while they are at work.
"why should PRIVATE companies not be allowed to hold overtly religious positions and/or agendas?
--------------------------------–
Because it is discriminatory. The owners are permitted to hold whatever positions they want. I don't have a problem with companies that support a particular set of values. If they want to contribute profits from a privately owned company to some religious inst.itution, that'st their prerogative. If they want to declare what they believe in to investors or customers, that's fine. Forcing this position on employees, by creating a proselytizing environment with things like slogans or team prayer, or worse, hiring based on religion is wrong to me.
@Russ,
respecting other people and respecting their beliefs – which I do stand for – is not forcing my beliefs on others.
The conflict is that you want to assert that your faith tells you to convert others and that this is reasonable in all circ.umstances. I maintain that is wrong – it disrespects other people's rights. You can do that all day long at home or at church on Sunday. Just not in the work place and not in the public square.
If anyone comes to you and says "tell me the good news about Jesus", go for it, even if that conversation is held in a workplace. I do support free speech. Feel free to stand on a street corner (but not outside an elementary school or on the town hall steps) and proselytize if you like.
I am opposed to any overt proselytizing in a setting where people cannot remove themselves. Respect your co-workers. Don't make them uncomfortable. Leave the overt proselytizing at home or in the church.
@GOP:
1) again, your definition of proselytizing is incredibly narrow. watch the longer video of Penn Jillette. as an atheist, he defines it much more broadly – even encouraging organic discussion while labeling it as proselytizing.
2) you said: "The conflict is that you want to assert that your faith tells you to convert others and that this is reasonable in all circ.umstances. I maintain that is wrong – it disrespects other people’s rights."
a) did you watch the video? Penn Jillette (as an atheist) rather directly exposes the flaw in your argument here. "how much do you have to hate somebody to NOT proselytize?"
b) you still aren't responding to my point. you're simply repeating your BELIEF, without admitting it a) is a belief, and b) your position is overtly self-refuting.
you keep saying you respect others' beliefs and are for free speech, yet you want your beliefs to silence and/or countermand others' beliefs. you can't have it both ways. if anything, you yourself ARE proselytizing for YOUR position/beliefs while saying to others "you can't proselytize."
Russ,
I did watch the video you posted. Penn Jillette is essentially saying that he wants an even playing field to talk about atheism everywhere. This is the "beat them at their game" argument.
I think talking about atheism is as equally out of place at work as talking about religion.
Spread your "good news" all you want. Just not at work where people cannot voluntarily remove themselves and not in a publicly funded or governmental context, like a school, court house or legislature.
You may be happy to argue with an atheist in the next cubicle – which is fine privately with mutual consent. Most people won't want to listen to proselytizing at work and shouldn't have to.
@ GOP:
1) no, the video is not merely "beat them at their own game," it's an admission that proselytizing is not just over-the-top, aggressive, in-your-face forms that you seem to want to present. the man bringing him a bible is one example. simply "loving your neighbor as yourself" (as Jesus puts it) is ANOTHER form... and I don't think you'd argue against that.
but those two options represent the extremes on ONE spectrum. and there are all sorts of forms in between. again, the definition of proselytizing is the first issue on which we are disagreeing.
attempting to convert people to your point of view can take MANY forms, which leads directly to my second point...
2) you are still failing to address my second (& more direct) argument: namely, the hypocrisy of your position.
a) you hold position X, i hold position Y. you want to enforce position X – NOT thru open discussion, but rather through a *pre-em.ptive* policy. that is your form of "converting" people to your position. it is more subve.rsive & silences the Y group.
b) more problematically for you, your position is (basically) "no one should try to convert other people at work" – but that is EXACTLY what you are doing! the only difference is you want to do it at a policy level. it's political maneuvering instead of open discussion.
so not only is it self-refuting, but it's simply trying to create a different category for yourself by being more cla.ndest.ine in your efforts. but in the end, you want the effect to be silencing and/or converting the opposition to your view. under ANY OTHER circ.umstances, you would label that proselytizing (if not something worse).
"1) you BELIEVE it should be kept private.
i BELIEVE God commands it to be made public (the Great Commission, etc.)."
Ahh yes, thinking religious beliefs of all kind should be kept to ourselves on work time is the same as proselytizing...
The completely flawed logic of Russ is on full display.
@ Cheesemaker:
the only flaw in logic here is your refusal to admit your position is equally founded on BELIEFS.
1) keeping "religious beliefs of all kind" out of the workplace is impossible. it's naive and a failure to understand the comprehensive nature of belief.
2) more importantly for you, it's a failure to recognize you have *your own* set of metaphysical beliefs that are informing your position here. because you seem unaware of that fact, you think you are immune to your own critique – when in fact, it makes your position self-refuting.
"the article seems to assume the employer is the only one doing the interviewing."
-------------------–
Russ, did you read the article?
It is only about employers screening resumes. It is not about job interviews. At all.
@ GOP:
really? are you going to try to split that hair?
if you don't think resumes (whether building one or reviewing them) are *equally* part of the job interview process, then what would you call that?
How does an applicant "interview" the employer through sending resumes.
I agree with you that during the job interview, the applicant should learn as much as possible about the company, but this topic was all about discrimination based on resumes – not the interview process.
@ GOP: when you decide WHAT to put on your resume (the primary issue in this article), you have an agenda. that article seems to assume maximizing your marketability is the best thing. i'm pointing out that IF you can eliminate prejudice environments by being honest on the front end, why wouldn't you? it's a proactive way to clear the path for yourself – and it's a way to use the interview process in your own favor. but of course, that's MY assumption that the goal is not merely having a job, but having a job that fits you well.
how you construct your resume is your way not only of *being* interviewed, but also of *interviewing* your potential employer.
This study measures the behavior of employers in the south in screening candidate resumes.
People can do with the findings whatever they like.
It was conventional wisdom to include participation in campus associations on a resume. What this study says is that employers in the south discriminate (to a degree) against student applicants who do this for religious associations whether they are evangelical protestants, Muslims or atheists. They are more careful not to do so for Jews.
It doesn't say anything about the actual working conditions and the employers in the northeast do not behave the same way. Based on the data, if I were a graduate applying to a company in the south, I'd leave off the affiliation to religious groups.
Mind you I'd leave that off anyway. I maintain that religion has no place in the workplace* anyway.
* Excepting of course employment by religious inst.itutions, that's a given.
want an environment where your religious beliefs don't have to be hidden
---–
Is it truly that important that you be able to exercise your beliefs, in whatever way, while on the job? If it was to be seen as a distraction, would it in any way mean that you don't possess the same level of belief that you desire to? So, why can't you just wait until you're on your own time to exercise your beliefs?
@ Madtown: your question presents a false assumption, namely that faith is something to be compartmentalized.
the central notion of Christianity (and many other faiths, for that matter) is that ALL of life comes under Christ. it does not mean you have to scream his name at all times or put a huge bible on your desk & bring it up any time someone stops by. but – as Augustine wrote in "City of God" – it is precisely because you believe that first & foremost you are a citizen of Jesus' kingdom that you become a better citizen of whatever earthly government under which God has placed you (with the obvious exception of the instances where that govt is going directly against what God has commanded). so, if you're a street sweeper, you sweep the streets not just to earn money, but to glorify God. and as such, God calls you to sweep the streets to honor him, etc. the WHY affects the HOW (you do your job).
point being, faith is not something to be shelved all week & brought out on Sunday. it is the WHY behind EVERYTHING one does. that can equally be said of the secular mentality. (atheist) David Foster Wallace's famous "everybody worships" speech demonstrates that well.
Would you put on your resume that you believe in the Yeti? At least Yeti claims are falsifiable.
For those who believe in the Yeti, the news can only be described as, well, abominable. Science has cast its methodical eye on samples of hair reputed to have been left by the Himalayan snowman of legend... and determined they came from a bear or a goat.
Similarly crushing disappointment lies in wait for those who believe in Big Foot, the yeti's North American counterpart; in the almasty, the elusive man of the Central Asian wastes; and in the orang pendek, a bipedal hominid reputed to roam the mountainous forests of Sumatra.
The evidence, reported in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, comes from DNA testing of hair samples attributed to "anomalous primates," a neutral term for these creatures of legend.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-07-bigfoot-hair-samples-wolves.html#jCp
I know a lot of fancy dancers,
people who can glide you on a floor,
They move so smooth but have no answers.
When you ask "Why'd you come here for?"
"I don't know" "Why?"
He was great before he becaome Yusuf Islam.
Lady D'arbonville is one of my favorites.
Dangnabit, now I know why the Archdioceses of Boston turned down my application for a job as their chief spokesman. I listed my religion as "Confirmed Atheist."
Oh well, maybe Hobby Lobby or Chick-Filet have a position.
They also tend to avoid anyone who worked as a se'x crimes investigator or child welfare advocate.
Well u could do like the muslims do, hide everything until they are hired, then demand all kinds of special treatment and rewards while threatening to sue the company for religious persecution if they dont get their way.
Why in the world would you put your religion on your resume anyway? It has nothing to do with your job skills, unless you are are applying for a job as a pastor or a rabbi or something, or unless your religion will not let you perform some of the duties that the job requires. If that was the case, you shouldn't be applying for that job in the first place.
Some people might have worked previously for religious organizations.
However, what I'm really thinking is that some have a "Hobbies and Interests" section that tries to show how well-rounded the job candidate might be. I've heard of people listing that they were former college athletes and others list the organizations they belong to. I could easily see someone listing which church they belong to, especially lay ministers or deacons.
If you're applying for a job as a door to door salesman, listing experience as a Jehovah's Witness could be beneficial.
"Look – I drew up this little comic book that explains why, even if you're a good person, you'll still wind up in Hell unless you buy this vacuum."
Like a Chick Tract!
This is America...The last thing you want to do is put on a resume that you are Atheist or Muslim...However, if you are in Utah or Idaho, you can pretty much count on Mormons hiring other Mormons.
Ironically, this is why science is the most trustworthy information you can get:
Leading science journal Nature said on Wednesday it had withdrawn a flawed stem-cell study hailed when it was published in January as a "game-changer" in the quest to grow transplant tissue.
"All co-authors of both papers have finally concluded that they cannot stand behind the papers, and have decided to retract them," the journal said in an editorial.
The controversy is the biggest in scientific publishing in a decade. Nature said it would tighten procedures to vet future studies submitted for publication.
It is sad that we have to go through life making our own way to the truth while God is providing Truth to a select few. And those few admit that they can't explain it to anyone.
The whole notion of truth is too philosophical to be of any use to me (outside formal logic and mathematics).
I think if I had two candidates that were equal in all ways, but one put religious-specific items on their resume, I'd go with the other candidate. I personally don't care what you do or don't believe, but I would definitely think anyone thinking putting this on a resume would be "high maintenance" as someone else said. However, if it was simply a college extracurricular thing, I'd probably ignore it. Twenty years ago, I probably wouldn't have cared at all, but with the prevelance of fundamentalism in the U.S. these days, I'd much rather be safe than sorry.
I agree. Religion has no place on a resume unless the job applied for is religious in nature, or your previous jobs included working for a church. Putting your religion on a resume indicates that you wish to bring it into the workplace, and frankly, I'd rather hire people who come to a place of employment to simply do their job.
So If I want to work for an Italian restaurant, should I put down that I am follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster...or no?
Or at a a greek restaurant...someone who follows a god that likes the slaughter of lambs?
In my city, we have a Dinasaur Barbeque...could I believe in a young earth and work there?
Could I be a christian and work at Nike, or Saturn?
A jehovah's witness and work at a Christmas store?
To Whom it may concern,
I hereby tender my application for a position at your Dinosaur BBQ.
I have extensive, first hand experience with dinosaurs from my previous employment as a Brontosaurus operator at Slate's Gravel Pit and as the resident Dino engineer at the Creation Museum.
The most tender cuts of Dino are in the loin region, adjacent to the secondary tail motor and under the power supply.
Ok Doc...we've checked your references...you may assume the position.
Yabba dabba doo, it's the Bronto Burgers and Ribs Drive-in.