Boss-led "fellowship" with prayer "...in Jesus Christ, our lord's name Amen"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: I think the prayer in the name of "Jesus Christ ... blah, blah" kind of rubs me wrong more than something like the pledge of allegiance, and particularly because the praying was directed by my supervisor (like, let's all bow our heads and pray...).

I've never been asked to pray at work in any way that made me uncomfortable. (It's possible that there was a more generic prayer/statement before "holiday" parties at past offices, but never Jesus centered b/c many people were Jewish).

(I am 100% certain that the co-worker was not "donating" the food b/c it was a sizable amount of food and she is not making more than GS-9 or 11. I also think they would have mentioned that when I asked who brought the food and I commented on how much there was and how much work it must have taken. The response I got was "XX has a catering business." People with catering businesses don't give food away.)

I was just wondering about whether other people would have felt as uncomfortable as I did or whether I am over-sensitive to this.

OP, I would've felt very uncomfortable and more than a little coerced.

OP, I would definitely have felt uncomfortable. We have someone in our office who is Jewish and is very vocal when things like this come up. I'm secretly grateful to him. I'm not Christian, but either way, it's unacceptable in a government office!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not PP, but how is it hypocritical? She respects their right to believe. She doesn't have to respect the beliefs themselves. I also think most forms of religion are weird (to say the least) but I respect people's right to their beliefs.

Because this is a deliberate finger -- it's totally gratuitous, has nothing to do with the thread topic, but she knows christians are on DCUM, so she thought she'd give them the finger, just for fun.

I don't care what she says about christians, FWIW. But she's an immature jerk. Doesn't speak well of Wicca. I can't believe she's in HR.

It's not a finger for fun. It is attempting to get people who think Christian religion is the only "normal" one to THINK about how bizarre even some of your "maintream" beliefs might appear to someone who does not share your world view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

(I am 100% certain that the co-worker was not "donating" the food b/c it was a sizable amount of food and she is not making more than GS-9 or 11. I also think they would have mentioned that when I asked who brought the food and I commented on how much there was and how much work it must have taken. The response I got was "XX has a catering business." People with catering businesses don't give food away.)

I was just wondering about whether other people would have felt as uncomfortable as I did or whether I am over-sensitive to this.

I would personally be uncomfortable with prayer at work, but short of it being held at a mandatory attendance work meeting, wouldn't put that much thought into it.

I also don't think that you can say their pay grade means that they were paid for bringing in the food. You need to know whether people actually paid for it instead of making an assumption on the basis of their salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One last thing: I did not take it as "optional" at all. This is what everyone was doing. Maybe in the future I could stay away, but b/c of the race/education/cultural difference, it might possibly look like I'm shunning everyone, which is not going to be good.

"Everyone is going to breakfast" does not equal "mandatory."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's not a finger for fun. It is attempting to get people who think Christian religion is the only "normal" one to THINK about how bizarre even some of your "maintream" beliefs might appear to someone who does not share your world view.

Yeah, it's totally a finger for fun. Nice try. But I'm sure even you realize that engaging somebody doesn't mean calling them bizarre, other names, and making fun of them.

You totally know that if a christian or anybody else trashed wicca with similar language, she'd be all outraged about how "intolerant" we are. I agree, she's an a$$. An a$$ times two!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One last thing: I did not take it as "optional" at all. This is what everyone was doing. Maybe in the future I could stay away, but b/c of the race/education/cultural difference, it might possibly look like I'm shunning everyone, which is not going to be good.

"Everyone is going to breakfast" does not equal "mandatory."

Sure it can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not a finger for fun. It is attempting to get people who think Christian religion is the only "normal" one to THINK about how bizarre even some of your "maintream" beliefs might appear to someone who does not share your world view.

Yeah, it's totally a finger for fun. Nice try. But I'm sure even you realize that engaging somebody doesn't mean calling them bizarre, other names, and making fun of them.

You totally know that if a christian or anybody else trashed wicca with similar language, she'd be all outraged about how "intolerant" we are. I agree, she's an a$$. An a$$ times two!

Well, if you're using multiplication, then you must be right.

[Anonymous]

A side question for anybody BUT the Wicca poster:

Are all Wicca immature jerks? I'm curious. The only one I know is the one on DCUM. And geez, she is a real doozy - intolerant, rude, and totally immature.

Please persuade me there are some nice, mature, tolerant Wiccans out there!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One last thing: I did not take it as "optional" at all. This is what everyone was doing. Maybe in the future I could stay away, but b/c of the race/education/cultural difference, it might possibly look like I'm shunning everyone, which is not going to be good.

"Everyone is going to breakfast" does not equal "mandatory."

Sure it can.

I think the OP would have a very hard time proving that this breakfast is mandatory based only on the fact that everyone attends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One last thing: I did not take it as "optional" at all. This is what everyone was doing. Maybe in the future I could stay away, but b/c of the race/education/cultural difference, it might possibly look like I'm shunning everyone, which is not going to be good.

"Everyone is going to breakfast" does not equal "mandatory."

Sure it can.

I think the OP would have a very hard time proving that this breakfast is mandatory based only on the fact that everyone attends.

Probably. But what happens at the breakfasts? Is work discussed? Are work assignments doled out? Would it be harder for OP to do her job if she didn't go to the prayer breakfasts? Would she be retaliated against? I'm just saying, it can be mandatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One last thing: I did not take it as "optional" at all. This is what everyone was doing. Maybe in the future I could stay away, but b/c of the race/education/cultural difference, it might possibly look like I'm shunning everyone, which is not going to be good.

"Everyone is going to breakfast" does not equal "mandatory."

Sure it can.

I think the OP would have a very hard time proving that this breakfast is mandatory based only on the fact that everyone attends.

Probably. But what happens at the breakfasts? Is work discussed? Are work assignments doled out? Would it be harder for OP to do her job if she didn't go to the prayer breakfasts? Would she be retaliated against? I'm just saying, it can be mandatory.

You're reaching. The OP said nothing to indicate that this was a work meeting at which work assignments are doled out.

And again, I think a brief prayer before breakfast does not equal a "prayer breakfast" a la John Ashcroft. And unless she is retaliated against for not attending or has been told that there will be consequences for not attending, she doesn't seem to have a case.

[Anonymous]

OP here:

I think it is meant as a social function during work time. Is it "mandatory,"? I supposed it is technically not. Was I given the option the first time?... no. I was just told that "we are all meeting in conf. room."

It would be noticeable if I was not there in the future... boss addressed the group initially, so I'd feel like I might miss something if I wans't there. (plus the stigma of "not one of us.")

[Anonymous]

Totally and completely inappropriate in a government office. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here:

I think it is meant as a social function during work time. Is it "mandatory,"? I supposed it is technically not. Was I given the option the first time?... no. I was just told that "we are all meeting in conf. room."

It would be noticeable if I was not there in the future... boss addressed the group initially, so I'd feel like I might miss something if I wans't there. (plus the stigma of "not one of us.")

I skip pizza lunches, birthday cake parties, and coffee and cookie get-togethers that most people in my office go to that that boss might say a few words to people before. That doesn't make it mandatory. A coworker passing by and saying "we're all meeting in the cafeteria" instead of saying it's an optional pizza lunch get-together doesn't mean that it's mandatory.

[Anonymous]

I agree that it is inappropriate, in any office, for a boss to kick off a gathering by asking everyone to bow their heads in prayer, or even ask someone to lead the group in prayer (even if they want to). That said, what can OP do about it that won't turn into a huge clusterfuck?