Praying at work

[tommyhtown]

What do you guys think about it, especially those of you who are not a christian?

OK, so today we had a thanksgiving lunch at work. The head of my department asked if anyone would be offended if we all say grace. Personally I was cool with it even though I am not a Christian. I wasn't offended by it since I feel I can be spiritual in my own way while everybody was saying grace. Anyway, a lady there just abruptly said 'no' to the question posed by the department head without giving anyone time to response (which I doubt anyone would say anything anyway). I guess she was hungry. :)

I think the last time the issue of praying/or saying grace at work came up was a day or two after 9/11. We all gathered around and said a prayer to the people whose life was lost or changed after that event. Again, I used that opportunity to give the moment of silence to mourn the human loss. I remembered asking my mother who is a Buddhist about this issue and how it was when she was working in Thailand. She said that is something that people dont' do in the office environment in Thailand, buddhists or christians. The subject didn't come up to me again until today.

So at this day and age, where we see lawsuits on discrimations whether it is sexual, racial, religious, or someone being obese and what not, why do companies or rather individuals feel the need to express his/her religious beliefs in the workplace? I mean I can easily see someone of a different faith being alienated in that situation.

[Faithless]

I don't get it -- did one person say grace and everyone else just bow their heads?

Like starting with, "heavenly father" or something like that.

Either way -- you pick your battles. I don't know if something like this, although I'd hate it, would be enough for me to say, "keep your Christian beliefs to yourselves!"

[tommyhtown]

Everyone including me was bowing their heads. Whether they all were saying grace I don't know. I didn't. And yes, it started with 'dear heavenly father.'

Like I said, I am cool with it, but I can easily do without it. It is definitely not something that I would make a big deal out of it at work, for sure.

[Emperor_Mike]

No, we keep things strictly secular in the company even though we're Roman Catholic. Religion in the workplace when there's no tie in to business doesn't make sense.

[Kuchana]

Well how about this. The people who don't want to participate in the prayer can leave or vice versa so the people who are cool with prayer can do it at their own leisure. The least thing the woman could have done was to be polite about it.

But I think it was considerate of your department head to ask anyone before going into prayer. That shows respect on his/her part.

I don't mind prayer, I should do it more often, especially over my food! :)

[Faithless]

I would silently have a problem with it, then. "Dear heavenly father" is specific to a particular faith.

When I'm asked to say grace, I really have a hard time saying it.

I try to say something like "Dear god...".

Thank god no one's tried to push that around here.

[tommyhtown]

Well how about this. The people who don't want to participate in the prayer can leave or vice versa so the people who are cool with prayer can do it at their own leisure. The least thing the woman could have done was to be polite about it.

But I think it was considerate of your department head to ask anyone before going into prayer. That shows respect on his/her part.

I don't mind prayer, I should do it more often, especially over my food! :)

Yeah, the department head is a really cool guy. But still I doubt anyone who has a problem with it would get up and leave. I think that would make everyone else uncomfortable and not to mention the possiblity of making yourself a black sheep.

[DragonKnight]

Either way -- you pick your battles. I don't know if something like this, although I'd hate it, would be enough for me to say, "keep your Christian beliefs to yourselves!" Or like people with too much (pda)..."get a room." :biggrin:

[Faithless]

Or like people with too much (pda)..."get a room." :biggrin:
:biggrin: That's what I do.

I go to this room with a flushing device. I squat. I say, "oh, goood! oh goood!"

Sounds like the law gives protection to this --

Faith on display (http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/business/10231237.htm?1c)
Posted on Mon, Nov. 22, 2004

Civil Rights Act requires fair accommodation for religion

Before kicking Baby Jesus out of workplace manger, check the law

By Erika D. Smith

Beacon Journal staff writer


When has an employee taken tidings of good cheer too far?

When he posts a picture of Christ's manger scene in his cubicle for Christmas?

When she sets up a menorah in her cubicle to mark Hanukkah?

Both have got to go, right?

Not so fast, Mr. and Ms. Employer.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires companies to ``reasonably accommodate'' the religious observances, practices and beliefs of their employees.

The law, of course, applies to situations far beyond those that crop up in November and December. But this is the time of year when its guidelines are sometimes put to the test.

In a nutshell, employers must find a balance between their business needs and their employees' personal beliefs. A company doesn't have to accommodate an employee if it would cause an ``undue hardship'' on business. But the company must show that it made a serious attempt.

What constitutes a ``reasonable accommodation'' and ``undue hardship'' is hazy at best. (Often, the courts make that determination.) But the best advice is to use common sense and consistent policies.

``Employers can't have a policy that only restricts religious items,'' said Solvita McMillan, a trial attorney for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Cleveland.

``If the employer allows their employees to decorate their areas in wild and bizarre ways,'' she said, ``anything goes.''

That means, if you allow one employee to have pictures of her children or stuffed animals in her cubicle, then another employee can put up a statue of Buddha or a painting of the Virgin Mary.

And it's not just recognized religion that counts.

The law protects all ``sincerely held religious beliefs.'' That goes for anything from Islam to the Church of Body Modification. It also goes for employees whose beliefs are separate from any organized religion.

``Still, a vague assertion of spirituality isn't enough,'' McMillan told a room full of employers last week in Mayfield Heights. ``You have to be able to explain your personal convictions.''

Cindy Stankiewicz, an EEOC outreach manager in Cleveland, said she breaks down religious accommodation into three categories.

The first is religious garb in the workplace. That has become more of an issue since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

``We've seen an increase in the number of backlash issues. It could fall under national origin, possibly race (discrimination),'' said Eric Dreiband, general counsel of the U.S. EEOC.

Between 2001 and 2004, 944 charges were filed by employees of Arab descent alleging backlash discrimination in the workplace, according to EEOC figures. That trend is slowing, though, Dreiband said.

The second category involves scheduling and time off.

Employees who want to observe their religious beliefs on certain days must help resolve conflicts with their job duties. But at the same time, an employer can't ask an applicant questions about his religion or the holidays he will need off during an interview.

Again, from the employer's perspective, the goal is to strike a balance between business needs and your employee's religious needs.

The third category, Stankiewicz said, is prayer time, especially for Muslims whose religion requires them to do it during the workday.

Employers can't stop a person from praying. To do so, would invite a lawsuit.

Besides, prayer in the workplace is something that companies should get used to, said John C. Green, a political science professor and director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron.

Religious groups, especially evangelical Christians, have been pushing for two decades to hold Bible readings and prayer sessions at work. The trend has picked up steam in recent years, and Green said it's not likely to slow down anytime soon.

``It's very common for them to have prayer groups in the workplace,'' he said.

[moJo]

i don't have a problem with people saying grace either, personally, but i do think that ideally religion should not be incorporated into the workplace.

a suggestion? why can't the people who say grace, whether it's one person or more, just bow their heads briefly to pray on their own. like, not involve the non-praying bunch. that is what my friends usually do when we eat together.

[>:^|]

I think the fact that he was a department head is problematic. Basically, what are peons going to do?

[Faithless]

I think the fact that he was a department head is problematic. Basically, what are peons going to do?
that's a good point.

Supposing a peon does have a problem with it.

Does he speakup at the risk of being on the department head's shit list?

[Yeahman]

No, we keep things strictly secular in the company even though we're Roman Catholic. Religion in the workplace when there's no tie in to business doesn't make sense.
Religion belongs in every aspect of our lives (at least for the religious). It doesn't have to be practiced as a group but each individual should. Religion isn't just for Sundays.

But I feel like the liberal here now. I think it's entirely inappropriate for someone, especially a department head of a non-Christian organization, to request that the employees who are not all Christian to participate in this religious activity. I pray on my own before I eat. I pray together when I'm with family or other Christians.

[Emperor_Mike]

Religion belongs in every aspect of our lives (at least for the religious). It doesn't have to be practiced as a group but each individual should. Religion isn't just for Sundays.

But I feel like the liberal here now. I think it's entirely inappropriate for someone, especially a department head of a non-Christian organization, to request that the employees who are not all Christian to participate in this religious activity. I pray on my own before I eat. I pray together when I'm with family or other Christians.

Well, let's just say that the likelihood of us shooting off a memo to Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, General Santos City, Singapore, Vancouver and every other big or small branch office asking employees to say a prayer at the start of the day is non-existent. We're Catholic and we attend Mass on Sunday, say daily/nightly prayers, and what-have-you, but as you said, it's not proper for us to impose our beliefs on our personnel. The religion our workers choose to observe is their business and theirs alone. If for some stupid reason a manager somewhere pisses off a Muslim or Buddhist employee with forced prayer sessions, you can bet that he or she will get a warning and if the problem persists he or she will be relieved of his or her responsibilities.

Ultimately, we want our people to feel comfortable with their workplace. Well...I want them to be comfortable. I'm not sure if my father cares either way. Happy workers are productive workers and productive workers help businesses increase their size and profitability.

[Faithless]

"The Workplace Ministry". Talking jesus to your coworkers.

That's one thing. But the big boss -- the CEO? Of course, that isn't the exact jist of this article. But it is interesting how this stuff is evolving.

One of the big promoters of this evangelizing at work concept is an outfit called "Marketplace Network".

Boston College professor Alan Wolfe agrees. "I think it's wildly inappropriate and offensive," says Wolfe, who heads the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life. "We say in America that we like religion because it's inclusive, but we get nervous about religions, because they are exclusive."

The constitutional separation between church and state covers only government property, Wolfe points out. In private offices, the law actually affords more protection to those wanting to practice their religion. "It's a blind spot in the Constitution," he says. "Because the state is protected but religion is powerful, it almost automatically goes everywhere else."

That doesn't sit well with some workers. "People come in to work to earn a living. They don't come in to work to be exposed to Catholicism or Judaism or anything else," says Tony Daniels, president of the Greater Boston Business Council, a gay business group, who is also an evangelical Christian. "I don't come into the workplace trying to convert people to be gay. I don't want to hear someone say, 'Hi, I'm Bob Smith, and praise the lord. Come to church.' If my boss sent me an e-mail saying there is a Bible study, I would have a problem with that."

Jesus @ Work: Christ is coming to a cubicle near you. (http://www.bostonmagazine.com/ArticleDisplay.php?id=593)

by Michael Blanding * From the June 2005 issue.

Then the Lord said to [Moses], "What is that in your hand?" — Exodus 4:2

Make no mistake — the 500 or so early risers gathered in the Woburn Crowne Plaza ballroom have come to see a rock star. As they sit around banquet tables, runny eggs and rubbery home fries digesting in their bellies, the anticipation is palpable. After all, the speaker on the program is Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life and one of the nation's best-known evangelical Christians. Let's put it this way: When Time magazine did a cover story on America's 25 most influential evangelicals, Warren graced the opening spread. It was his book that Ashley Smith famously read to her kidnapper after the courthouse killings in Atlanta.

Presumably, most of the people in the room have read the book already. I'm asked twice if I've read it before I finish my eggs. As they wait for Warren to take the stage, the men around me make small talk. "How did all the women get in here? jokes one to my left, leaning in conspiratorially. "They must all be women's libbers." Across the table, an earnest man named Mike, who runs an auto-body shop in Jamaica Plain, tells me that since he accepted Jesus as his personal savior nine years ago, he's doubled his annual revenues. "There are some crooks in the collision business," he says. "People respect it when you are honest with them."

Mike isn't the only one here who is in the habit of bringing Jesus with him to work. This breakfast is being sponsored by the Marketplace Network, which encourages its members to practice Christianity on the job. Since its inception two decades ago, the group has attracted more than just your average nine-to-fivers. The parking lot outside is crammed with Lexuses and Mercedeses. At the table next to me, I spy anchorwoman-turned-minister Liz Walker. Near the front sits Brad Warner, former head of Bank of America's small-business division. Other attendees include the former chief operating officer of the New England Patriots, several Harvard professors, and the former head of Raytheon.

After some glitches with the sound system are worked out, Warren takes the stage. Wearing an inexpensive-looking blazer pulled over a paunchy belly, he has an unremarkable appearance that belies his prominence. "Yesterday, I had breakfast with the governor and dinner with [former General Electric head] Jack Welch," he says before playing to the audience: "But I saved the best for last."

The well-practiced sermon Warren delivers begins with a question: "What do you have in your hand?" That was the question God asked Moses from the burning bush, he drawls. Moses' answer was a staff — the symbol of his profession as a shepherd. When God commanded Moses to put it on the ground, it became a snake; when he picked it up again, it returned to dead wood. "God is saying, 'I want you to surrender your identity, your influence, and your income to me," explains Warren. "And if you surrender it, it will be alive, and every time you pick it up, it will be dead again."

By surrendering his own identity to God, Warren has achieved wealth, prominence, and a flair for spreading Jesus across the country. He continues: "Jesus took 11 men and turned the world upside down. I think today God could . . . start a spiritual force beginning in New England that all the forces of Hell could not stop. I want the Boston area to be an embarrassment to the devil."

Sound familiar? In the 1700s, the Reverend Jonathan Edwards preached hellfire in Northampton, launching the evangelical movement in America. Anyone who reads the news today, however, knows that hard-core Christians are more apt to see Massachusetts, and Boston in particular, as an embarrassment to God than to his rival. The Northeast has the lowest church attendance of any region in the country. Here in the bluest city in the bluest state in America, we marry gays, research stem cells, and provide abortions on demand. And we frown upon mentioning God unless the word is followed quickly by "-damn Yankees."

It's surprising, then, that the Boston-based Marketplace Network is one of the first and most influential groups in the movement to bring Christ to a cubicle near you. The group's thesis is simple: Jesus was a carpenter, his disciples fishermen and a tax collector; they clearly had some experience with the working life. Between them, they built the biggest corporation in the ancient world. So why not use the Bible as a manual for business success? In the eyes of these true believers, asking "What would Jesus do at work?" is the best way to bring ethics back to the boardroom.

And behind that goal is another, more controversial one: saving your soul.

"Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet." — John 13:14

Situated on the Freedom Trail, Park Street Church is one of the most recognizable landmarks in Boston. The sidewalk outside its front door used to be known as "brimstone corner," a reference to the gunpowder stored there in a crypt during the War of 1812. Over time, the name took on a different meaning as abolitionists delivered fiery speeches from the church's pulpit. In a sparse office in the back of the church is the headquarters for the Marketplace Network. Here I meet Kent Kusel, who left a job as marketing director of a Boston mortgage lender to become president of the group five years ago. "As I pursued my dreams and climbed all those corporate ladders," he says, "I realized that God's definition of success and mine were different." He then describes the group's multipronged approach, which includes hosting breakfast forums like the one with Warren; sponsoring Bible studies in offices and churches; and offering guidance to people around the country who want to talk to coworkers about their faith.

In the last 20 years, "workplace ministry" has grown to include more than 900 groups in the United States. But the concept was still nascent when the idea for the Marketplace Network first occurred to the late Dan Smick, a healthcare executive who left the field to attend a seminary on the North Shore. After graduating in 1986, Smick founded Touchstone Ministries and started holding prayer groups in local hotel conference rooms to tell executives about his experiences. Today, the Marketplace Network, Touchstone's successor, boasts about 2,000 active participants in the Boston area, according to the organization, with online adherents in at least 30 countries. Local supporters work at Bank of America, Gillette, State Street, John Hancock, Mass General Hospital, Harvard, MIT, the EPA, the IRS, law firms, the Museum of Science, and other major Boston-area institutions.

One of the people Smick reached out to was Tom Phillips, former chairman and CEO of Raytheon, who was widely known as a born-again Christian and had been holding his own prayer breakfasts at the Weston Golf Club. "Profits are important, no question about it. But the question is, how do you get the profits?" says Phillips. "Jesus said that 'I am truth.' It's important to me that there is truth-telling throughout a company."

In an age in which Enron and WorldCom are the new Sodom and Gomorrah, adherents to workplace ministry see Jesus' example of "servant leadership" as an antidote to immorality in the boardroom. Former Bank of America executive Warner says he used biblical principles to improve employee morale during the merger of BankBoston with Fleet four years ago. Warner took a poll of employees and followed their suggestions. Within 18 months, the percentage of satisfied employees doubled. "It's hard to say where these good business practices stop and some of these biblical principles start, but you don't [make that kind of improvement] just by thinking this is a good thing to do. If people are made in the image of God, then they are capable of much more than they think they are."

While Jesus himself never had to balance a budget or file a weekend report, those who follow him consider him the acme of managerial acumen. "Jesus was like, in my mind, the ultimate manager and leader and business visionary," gushes Nancy Matheson-Burns, president and CEO of specialty food distributor Dole & Bailey. "I'm a shepherd of a flock. I'm responsible for them and how their jobs affect their family and affect their lives."

At Matheson-Burns's warehouse and office in Woburn, there are few overt symbols of Christianity — just a sign that says, "God, I love this business" over her desk. But Matheson-Burns says her company is "faith friendly," meaning that religion is encouraged and talked about openly. "It's such an important part of people's lives, you can't just pasteurize it out," she explains.

Practicing what she preaches, Matheson-Burns has hired several mentally retarded workers and once took aside an employee who was working nights as a strip-club bouncer. "I had no right to do this, and it wasn't probably legal or anything else. But I said, 'Why are you doing this? How much money do you need?' When he told me, I said, 'I'm going to split the difference with you, and I want you to quit that job.'"

She emphasizes that she never tries to force her beliefs on anyone. (She lets a rabbi hold prayer sessions with Jewish employees, for instance.) As I'm on my way out the door, however, she offers me a box full of steaks . . . and a new, cellophane-wrapped book. "I usually don't give out Bibles," she says. "But this one is so great."

At the Marketplace Network's Bible-study sessions, ordinary employees learn ways to apply Christ's teachings in mundane situations. One such study occurs weekly at John Hancock. The group's coordinator is Jean Squire, a senior staffing consultant in human resources. Squire says she invokes Jesus when she needs to call someone back to tell them they didn't get a job. "It would be easy to let something like that slide, but I have to think, If it were me, what would I want [an employer] to do? Jesus encourages me to think about treating others as I would like to be treated."

I thank Squire and am about to hang up the phone when she asks, "As I think about you, is there anything in particular that you would like me to be praying about?"

"Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water?" — John 4:11

Despite the influence attributed to them after the last presidential election, evangelical Christians only make up about 7 percent of the U.S. population. Here in New England, the percentage is even lower. What distinguishes them isn't their numbers so much as the passion of their beliefs. To evangelicals, the Bible is the infallible word of God, Hell and Satan exist, and Jesus really meant it when he said, "No one comes to the Father except through me." Unless you accept Jesus as your savior, they'll tell you, you have booked a hotter ride to the afterlife. Unlike fundamentalists, who separate themselves from nonbelievers, however, evangelicals feel they are obligated to bring those they care about to Jesus, a practice they call the "great commission." That's the topic at a Bible study I attend with a men's group on the North Shore.

The sun is barely over the trees when 20 men gather in a basement room at Gordon College in Wenham. Plastic flowers sit in vases on green tablecloths, and a Coke machine buzzes in the corner. To a man, they are dressed in collared shirts sans ties. Salesmen, lawyers, executives, a car dealer — they've been coming here weekly for months to put the G in their TGIF. As I enter I'm greeted by Randy Kilgore, the Marketplace Network's senior writer, who pumps my hand warmly and tells me how glad he is I could come. With his self-deprecating humor and the perfect part in his hair, Kilgore calls to mind Ned Flanders without the glasses and mustache.

After a short opening prayer, we get to the lesson of the day: how to talk about faith to non-Christians in the workplace. "The challenge is how to communicate timeless truths in jargon-free language," Kilgore begins. Opening up the workbooks that he wrote, the men read through a selection of Bible stories to see how Jesus communicated those timeless truths. First there's the adultress about to be stoned by the Pharisees. Jesus' response to that, as we all know, was: Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. "That's the response we have to have to sin in our workplace," says Kilgore. "We waste way too much time trying to condemn that."

In another case, however, we learn that Jesus reproached a Samaritan woman who was living a life of sexual promiscuity. Knowing the woman wasn't married, Jesus asked her to go call her husband. In response, the woman repented her sins and returned to her village, where she converted countless other Samaritans. "There is a different barrier for each person between them and God," says Kilgore, "and we need to identify what is the barrier between our coworkers and God and use the best tool to remove it."

The workplace is like a mission field, he goes on to explain, comparing workplace ministry to the efforts of missionaries who travel to Africa and Latin America. "When missionaries go overseas, they use examples from the culture to explain Christianity," says Kilgore. "We have to learn to introduce Christ into the workplace using workplace situations. So how do we do this?"

Someone suggests showing grace to coworkers when they make a mistake. Another counsels "turning the other cheek" when attacked. A lawyer says that just talking openly about Jesus on the job can pique someone's interest. "When people ask me how I get clients, I tell them God brings me the clients I need," he says. That method is not always easy, though, he acknowledges, "because people don't want a wack job for an attorney." Rob, the car dealer, says staying closed on Sundays actually helps him get clients. "They might not want a wacko lawyer, but many people want a wacko Christian car dealer."

"We're fearful of this," says a seminary student named John, "but we shouldn't shrink back from the culture of Christianity taking over the world. One day the wackos might be the people who don't have a relationship with God."

Like any good teacher, Kilgore provides his own answer: It's about relationships. "If you walk into a new job and say, 'I got this job because of Jesus,' they are going to say, 'Oh no, we have got a wacko here.' But if you work for 3 years or 15 years, working shoulder to shoulder, and say the same thing, it will be received differently."

As in the case of the Samaritan woman, it's knowing enough about a person to say the right thing at the right time that counts. "If you want to change a coworker," Kilgore explains, "you have to demonstrate that you care about them. Only in the context of [the] relationship are you able to demonstrate what is true."

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." — John 14:6

For every image of natives being cared for by altruistic missionaries, there are stories of missionaries trampling on native practices, spreading smallpox, or softening up lands for military conquest. So what happens when your coworker simply doesn't want to hear about Jesus?

At Dole & Bailey, a Catholic employee complains about an evangelical coworker: "He keeps asking me to go to his church, but I haven't gone. He doesn't want to come to my church; I don't go to his."

An employee at John Hancock is unsettled by the fact that a Bible study is held in the conference room. "I think it can only lead to a more divided working environment," he says in an e-mail.

Boston College professor Alan Wolfe agrees. "I think it's wildly inappropriate and offensive," says Wolfe, who heads the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life. "We say in America that we like religion because it's inclusive, but we get nervous about religions, because they are exclusive."

The constitutional separation between church and state covers only government property, Wolfe points out. In private offices, the law actually affords more protection to those wanting to practice their religion. "It's a blind spot in the Constitution," he says. "Because the state is protected but religion is powerful, it almost automatically goes everywhere else."

That doesn't sit well with some workers. "People come in to work to earn a living. They don't come in to work to be exposed to Catholicism or Judaism or anything else," says Tony Daniels, president of the Greater Boston Business Council, a gay business group, who is also an evangelical Christian. "I don't come into the workplace trying to convert people to be gay. I don't want to hear someone say, 'Hi, I'm Bob Smith, and praise the lord. Come to church.' If my boss sent me an e-mail saying there is a Bible study, I would have a problem with that."

Complaints to the federal government about religious discrimination in the workplace have increased nationally by 84 percent since 1992 and 30 percent since 2000. The Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination received 167 complaints last year concerning workplace discrimination based on faith. The few legal cases that have made their way to court, however, have generally been decided in favor of those promoting religion in the workplace. In one such case, tried in Massachusetts Superior Court, a woman sued her employer, Electro-Term (which billed itself as a "Christian company") for requiring her to attend a training seminar at which scripture was used to support the inferior status of women in the family. The jury decided against the woman, saying the seminar didn't conflict with her religious views and that the company had not discriminated against her by requiring her attendance.

"I think this stuff is screwy," says Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts. "If you know the boss is a born-again Christian and pushing this stuff and you are a Jew or a Muslim, it would be almost impossible not to have this affect your employment."

In a federal case, a Jewish employee working at a Minnesota car dealership complained in 2000 that Christianity pervaded the atmosphere, right down to the boss saying he wanted everyone to be a Christian or "that will be their demise on Judgment Day." After the employee objected to opening management meetings with a prayer, he was fired. The court, however, found that it wasn't clear whether he'd been subjected to a "hostile work environment," a high threshold that means harassment must be "severe or pervasive" and must present "an ongoing nightmare for the employee," according to the ruling. On the issue of discriminatory firing, however, the judge allowed the case to proceed, and it was later settled, with the terms not disclosed.

Kilgore says a group like the Marketplace Network can ease such a situation by setting boundaries. "We are only 10 or 12 years into thinking about these issues, so we haven't figured out manuals for this yet," he points out.

One issue under discussion in the group is whether supervisors and managers should conduct Bible studies in the workplace. "It's dangerous for a manager to be a leader in a Bible study," Kilgore acknowledges. "On the whole, I would say you should have someone who doesn't have authority over people running the Bible study."

Despite these difficulties, Kilgore takes umbrage at the suggestion that it's advisable — or even possible — to keep religion to oneself. "It's like being a Red Sox fan in New England. Even if you wanted to make people stop talking about the Red Sox, you couldn't. It's so important to them."

As for all of the political and spiritual baggage that comes with the evangelical movement, he says he sympathizes with those who may find its message harsh. "The reality of the workplace is that sensibilities will be offended," Kilgore says. "The question is, are you being mean-spirited? I don't think that honors God. But to suggest that something so central to our faith is off-limits is not fair. I reject the notion that I don't have the right to talk about it."

[hooligan]

doesn't bother me because this is what i say, "OMG, please work, please let this dissection go through without me hitting an artery."

[Faithless]

Interesting article, showing Christians how they can interject their faith in the workplace -- by using the provisions provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html) ...

(j) The term ``religion'' includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.

Do you think that was the intent -- to allow what this article suggests you can do; that is, practically preach the gospel to coworkers?

Christian Rights in the Workplace (http://www.saworship.com/article-page.php?ID=1957&Page=marketplace.php)
by American Center for Law and Justice

Most employees work for private employers and these employees are primarily protected only by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They may also be protected by laws in their State similar to Title VII. State laws protecting the religious freedom of employees may provide more protection than Title VII, but generally they are very similar to the federal law. This article does not attempt to describe individual state laws therefore employees should consult an attorney who is licensed in their particular state to determine if state law provides them with added protection.

Here, we explain how employees of private organizations are protected by Title VII. The rules of law stated also apply to government employees, but focus on private employees because Title VII is usually their only remedy.

Can I share the Gospel with co-workers at work?
If required by their religious beliefs, an employee's religiously motivated expressions of faith are protected by Title VII. For instance, in conversations with other employees, you may refer to Biblical passages on slothfulness and "work ethics." Employees can engage in religious speech at work as long as there is no actual imposition on co-workers or disruption of the work routine. Generally, no disruption of the work routine will occur if an employee's witnessing takes place during breaks, or other free time. If other employees are permitted to use electronic mail and screen savers for speech that is not related to work, an employee who has a sincerely held religious belief to communicate their faith with others should also be able to use these modes of communication.

To ensure that their religious speech is protected by Title VII, an employee should first of all be able to honestly say that their religious beliefs require them to share the Gospel whenever possible with willing co-workers during breaks or other free time. The employee must then inform the employer of this religious belief (preferably in writing). At that point, the employer must attempt to accommodate this religious belief unless it will cause the employer "undue hardship."

Can I keep my Bible or other religious items at my desk?

Yes. As with witnessing to co-workers, an employee can bring his Bible to work and keep it at his desk if he is required to do so by sincerely held religious beliefs. To ensure that this religious belief of having a Bible or other religious items at work is protected by Title VII, an employee should first of all be able to honestly say that their religious beliefs require them to bring these items to work. The employee must then inform the employer of this religious belief (preferably in writing). The employer is then required to attempt to accommodate this belief.

Do I have to work on Sundays if my religion prohibits it?

Employers must accommodate requests by employees for absence on their Sabbath or other religious holidays. An affirmative duty arises under Title VII for the employer to make a good faith effort to arrange the employee's schedule to allow the employee to have Sabbaths off. The employer will be in violation of Title VII if they have "made no real effort" or have taken a "don't care" attitude.

For instance, courts have held that an employer is required to accommodate a World Wide Church of God employee who observed his Sabbath from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday. The reason for this decision is that the employer did not incur additional costs from the accommodation because they employed extra men at all times to cover unscheduled absences.

The employer's affirmative duty to attempt to accommodate the employee's request for time off is not limited if the employee asks for more than one accommodation. For instance, an employee who belongs to the World Wide Church of God requested time off in view of two sincerely held religious beliefs: (1) attending a religious festival during her normal working shift, and (2) refraining from all work during the religious festival. The employer argued that accommodating one of these religious beliefs satisfied their duty under Title VII. But the Court ruled against the employer, refusing to "condone an employer's entire lack of effort to accommodate a given conflict merely because the employer offered to accommodate other ones."

The same rule applies where an employee's religious beliefs prevent him from working on Sundays, and prevent him from asking someone else to engage in this prohibited activity for him. Merely allowing the employee to swap shifts with someone does not constitute reasonable accommodation in this instance. In addition to allowing the employee to be off on Sundays, the employer has an affirmative duty to arrange a swap for the employee. Employees must be careful to specifically inform their employer of this religious belief not to ask anyone else to work on Sunday either.

In sum, employers must attempt to accommodate an employee's need for days off due to religious beliefs. At a minimum, the employer's duty to accommodate includes allowing employees to trade shifts, and may require the employer to arrange for the trade.

Can I go to work dressed in the particular fashion required by my religion?

Employers must accommodate religious beliefs requiring an employee to dress or groom in a certain manner, unless the rule prohibiting certain religious dressing is justified by a business necessity. The EEOC has ruled that a nurse whose Old Catholic faith required her to wear a scarf was unlawfully discharged for refusing to come to work without the scarf, because requiring the nurse to wear a cap instead of the scarf was "not so necessary to the operation of [the employer's] business as to justify the effect that this policy has upon the religious convictions." Title VII has also been found to protect an employee's religious belief that she must wear a Pro-Life button at all times, even at work.

An employer, however, does not discriminate against an employee by requiring him to shave his long facial hair and refrain from wearing a turban, if both of these religious practices result in safety hazards by preventing a hard hat and respirator from being worn properly.

Are there any types of religious beliefs or behavior not protected by Title VII?

Generally, all sincerely held religious beliefs are protected by Title VII. When a Title VII religious claim fails, it is often because the employer is able to show the employee was discriminated against for inefficiency, bad work product, or an inability to get along with co-workers rather than because of the asserted religious practice. A frequent example is when an employee's religious speech is couched in an argumentative, confrontational style that inhibits cooperation with other employees. In such cases, the court is likely to determine that the employee was not discriminated against because of his religious beliefs, but because of his offensive conduct in the office.

Do I have to attend training if it violates my religious convictions?

An employee cannot be required to attend training that will violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. The EEOC has ruled that an employer violates Title VII if it requires an employee to attend training containing a philosophy that conflicts with the employee's religious beliefs. The EEOC found that the employer failed to show how accommodating the religious convictions of these employees by not requiring them to attend the training would result in an undue hardship.

How do I file a claim under Title VII if my religious rights have been violated?

It is recommended that the employee contact an attorney before beginning this process. Because the process must be completed correctly in order to preserve your claim and because it may vary from state to state, it is important to obtain competent legal counsel before beginning.

Title VII first requires that the charge be filed with a state agency if the violation occurs within a state that has set up an agency for handling discrimination claims. If your state does not have its own human rights commission or similar agency, you should file directly with the EEOC. Practically speaking, this means contacting the state agency or EEOC in your state by telephone and informing them that you wish to file a complaint. They will then instruct you on how and where to fill out the necessary paper work. In states that have an agency for handling these claims, filing with the state agency must be followed by timely filing the charge with the EEOC. Some state agencies will do this for you.

Usually the complaint must be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory act. The time period is measured from the date that the discriminatory act occurred. Upon the filing of the charge there is a 180 day mandatory waiting period, during which time the EEOC is given the opportunity to mediate and resolve the complaint. The private litigant then has 90 days in which to file suit. This limitation period runs not from the discriminatory act, but from the date the private party receives notice from the EEOC or state agency that conciliation was completed, or the date the party receives a right to sue letter.


Government Employees

Government employees are protected by both Title VII and the United States Constitution against religious discrimination. Public employees do not forfeit their First Amendment rights upon entering the public workplace. Therefore, the religious freedom of government employees has the additional protection of the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Below, we explain how government employees are protected by the First Amendment above and beyond the protection they have from Title VII.

As a government employee, is all my religious speech at work protected by the First Amendment?

A public employee receives greater speech protection when speaking "as a citizen upon matters of public concern" than he does when commenting on employment matters of personal or internal interest. When evaluating these cases, the Supreme Court has traditionally utilized a test which balances the importance of the employee's speech on a matter of public concern against the government's need to run an efficient workplace. Religious speech will always be a matter of public concern.

For example, in Tucker v. State of California Dept. of Education, a federal Court of Appeals found religious speech to be a matter of public concern, and used Pickering to protect the religious liberties of a state education department employee who believed that he was commanded to "give credit to God for the work he perform[ed]." He engaged in religious discussions, and kept religious material around his work area. Tucker prevailed when the court weighed the state's asserted interests of efficiency, protecting the liberty interests of other employees, and avoiding Establishment Clause issues against the weight of a "broad ban on group speech." The court rejected the employer's contention that the religious speech reduced efficiency since other types of non-work related speech were permitted. The court also rejected the argument that the employee's speech violated the Establishment Clause because there was no way it could have been attributed to the state.

Therefore, religious speech of government employees is protected so long as it does not significantly reduce efficiency in the workplace, and so long as it will not be attributed to the government employer.

As a government employee, can I keep religious items in my personal work area?

The First Amendment also protects the right of public employees to keep items with religious messages on them at their desk. In a case where an employee had a Bible and plaques containing the serenity prayer, the Lord's Prayer, and one that said, "God be in my life and in my commitment" in his office, the government employer violated the First Amendment when it demanded that these items be removed because they might be considered "offensive to employees." The fact that other employees may find these items offensive is irrelevant when considered in light of First Amendment freedoms.

As a government employee, can I advertise events at my church on the bulletin board at work?

If a government employer allows employees to post non-work related material around the office, they cannot prohibit the posting of religious material. "[I]t is not reasonable to allow employees to post materials around the office on all sorts of subjects, and forbid only the posting of religious information and materials." Religious speech is given the same expansive protections offered to secular speech inviting "employees to motorcycle rallies, swap meets, x-rated movies, beer busts, or burlesque shows." Allowing this speech while prohibiting advertising for religious events "is unreasonable not only because it bans a vast amount of material without legitimate justification but also because its sole target is religious speech."

Doesn't religious speech by government employees violate the "Separation between Church and State?"

The oft cited phrase "separation between church and state" is found nowhere in the Constitution. This phrase has been misused by many in this country to mislead people and trick them into believing that the government can have absolutely nothing to do with religion. The truth is the Constitution only prohibits the establishment of religion through the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not provide the government with any justification for prohibiting religious expression in the workplace. As the United States Supreme Court said in this regard: "The Establishment Clause does not license government to treat religion and those who teach or practice it, simply by virtue of their status as such, as subversive of American ideals and therefore subject to unique disabilities.

We emphasize, too, that fear alone, even fear of discrimination or other illegal activity, is not enough to justify such a mobilization of governmental force against [an employee]…. A phobia of religion, for instance, no matter how real subjectively, will not do. As Justice Brandeis has said, ‘…Men feared witches and burnt women.’"

In August of 1997, President Clinton took the remarkable step of issuing guidelines confirming that federal workers can express their faith on the job. These guidelines direct federal agencies to "permit personal religious expression by federal employees to the greatest extent possible…." The guidelines are instructive for all government employees and employers.

In sum, governmental employers may restrict religious activity in the workplace only if it prohibits the government from running an efficient workplace, or there is clear evidence that it is intimidating or harassing to co-workers. Speculative fears of offense or employee discontent do not provide the government with an excuse for discriminating against religious employees who express their faith through words, actions, or symbols.


Employer Religious Beliefs

Many employers have sincerely held religious beliefs which they want their businesses to reflect. But federal and state laws prohibiting religious discrimination in employment have discouraged many business owners from communicating their religious convictions at work. The good news is that, just like employees, business owners do not have to check their religion at the door when they come to work. The following information provides some guidance for religious employers who want their business to reflect their faith.

Do employers unlawfully discriminate if they base business objectives and goals upon Biblical principles?

No. An employer does not discriminate on the basis of religion by affirming the faith of its owners in business objectives. "Title VII does not, and could not, require individual employers to abandon their religion." Employers must be careful, however, not to give prospective or current employees the perception that employment or advancement with the company depends on acquiescence in the religious beliefs of the employer. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. For instance, applications for employment should state that applicants are considered for all positions without regard to religion. This statement should also be included in any orientation materials, employee handbooks, and employee evaluation forms. Of course, employers must also be sure that this statement is accurate but not discriminating on the basis of religion.

As the owner of the business, can I witness to my employees?

An employer can talk about his religious beliefs with employees as long as employees know that continued employment or advancement within the company is not conditioned upon acquiescence in the employer's religious beliefs. For instance, one court has held that an employer did not discriminate against an employee by sharing the gospel with him and inviting him to church. Employers must be careful, however, not to persist in witnessing if the employee objects. Such unwanted proselytizing could be deemed religious harassment. Employers cannot impose their religious beliefs on their employees.

Am I permitted to give my employees religious literature?

As with spoken religious speech, employers can share their religious beliefs with their employees in print form such as pamphlets, books, and newsletters. Employers must be careful, however, not to give employees the impression that they have to agree with the employer's religious beliefs in order to keep their job or get a promotion. For instance, in one case a Jewish employee was wrongfully terminated for complaining about the printing of Bible verses on his paychecks and the religious content of a company newsletter. If an employer shares religious convictions with employees, and the employee disagrees or protests, no adverse action can be taken against the employee.

Furthermore, employers should be ready to accommodate any employee's objections to the religious speech contained in publications distributed to employees. Sufficient accommodation may be to provide the objecting employee with a publication that does not contain the religious content. In order to counter any impression given by publications that job security and advancement are contingent upon faith, it is also recommended that publications with religious material state that the employer does not discriminate on the basis of religion for purposes of continued employment, employee benefits, or promotion.

Can an employer hold regular prayer meetings or chaplain services for employees?

Employers can hold regular devotional meetings for employees so long as attendance is not required. Moreover, active participation of management in these meetings does not make them discriminatory. To ensure that employees understand that devotional meetings are voluntary, notice of the meetings should state that they are not mandatory and it is wise to hold these meetings before the work day begins, during breaks, or after work.

Can I require my employees to attend training based on Biblical principles?

Employers can use training programs that are based on the Bible. For instance, requiring an employee to attend a management seminar put on by the Institute of Basic Life Principles which used scriptural passages to support the lessons it sought to promote did not violate a Massachusetts civil rights law. Employees cannot, however, be required to undergo religious training, participate in religious services, or engage in behavior that would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

[tommyhtown]

I would be more comfortable at a workplace where people keep their faith to themselves.

[kimpossible]

I don't mind if someone prays as long as they don't stop someone else from praying differently and give the people who don't want to pray some sort of opt out.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

I'm a Catholic too but I'm a real asshole to people who people who try to evangelize to others at work without even getting to know them beforehand. (And to pastors who try to justify the practice of becoming friends with people, especially in a work environment, solely for the purpose of evangelism). Happened a lot in college, but never in government or my present job.

I specialize into tricking fundies into reciting the shahada. Mormons missionaries too.

[Faithless]

What if a fundy (sp?) spouts his religious philosophy as a writer in a popular (internet) magazine? Does his employer have the right to fire him (if not council him)? (Actually, this is tricky in some ways, because what about the people who write Letters-to-the-Editor bits?)

Allstate fires employee for criticism of gay marriage (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=38058)

Chicago, Jun. 27 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - An employee of the Allstate Insurance Company has been fired from his job for comments that appeared in a men's journal denouncing same-sex marriage, even though the article was penned in the employee's own spare time and from home.

"I explained to Allstate that the article was a reflection of my personal Christian beliefs, and that I had every right to both write it and to have it published," J. Matt Barber told WorldNetDaily.com. "I further explained that I had written the article while at home on my own time, that I never mentioned Allstate's name, and that I neither directly nor indirectly suggested that Allstate shared my Christian beliefs or my views on same-sex marriage."

In a statement, Allstate said, "The claimant was discharged from Allstate Insurance Company because an outside organization had complained about an article he had written while on his own time." The company also attempted to have Barber denied unemployment insurance, which can be withheld if a person was fired for a violation of company policy or rules.
...

This might be Barber's commentary from mensnewsdaily:

INTOLERANCE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED: The Gay Agenda vs. Family Values (http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/barber/2004/barber121204.htm)

December 12, 2004 * by J. Matt Barber

We were in elementary school – morning recess by the jungle gym. My buddy Kyle presided over the ceremony. I was the groom and Karen Smith was the blushing bride. The mock wedding lasted about three minutes. The mock marriage lasted about half-a-day. Oh, I was faithful…until Christina McCarroll caught my wandering eye during Math class. Of course we weren’t really married – we were fourth graders – but we sure had fun pretending.

Flash forward about twenty-five years – San Francisco, CA – An activist Mayor, Gavin Newsom, taunts the State’s voters and defiles both the rule of law and the sanctity of marriage as he cons thousands of “same-sex couples,” including the corpulent Queen of crass herself, Rosie O’Donnell, into taking part in a number of mock weddings held in San Francisco’s City Hall. Of course they weren’t really married – but they sure seemed to have fun pretending.

Websters defines marriage as: “The legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife…” a definition consistent with humanity’s own since the very beginning of recorded time. Marriage between one man and one woman, and the nuclear family have forever been cornerstones of civilized society. Regrettably, there are at present, many within the militant homosexual lobby who wish to take a sledge hammer to those cornerstones – many who hope to undermine both the historical and contemporary reality of marriage and family – many who, through judicial fiat, aim to circumvent the Constitution, the legislative process, and the overwhelming will of the people in an effort to redefine marriage. Accordingly, the unsolicited, oxymoronic and spurious expression “same-sex marriage” has been forced into popular lexicon.

As more and more Americans begin to unite against the radical concept of “same-sex marriage” we learn that our northerly Canadian neighbors are once again on the cutting edge of societal de-evolution. The Canadian Parliament is considering passage of legislation, which would legalize “same-sex marriage” nation-wide. To Canada, we offer this sincere admonition: If you pass it, they will come – that is, along with all the Blue-State fringe lefties despondent over our recent Presidential election, expect to see droves of American “same-sex couples” crossing the border in search of their own little slice of “progressive” utopia… but we digress.

As the “same-sex marriage” battle wages on within the larger culture war here in our own Country, it’s important to accurately define the terms. Aside from the obvious, what is homosexuality? Is it a status – a state of being – a word that typifies one’s membership in a suspect, minority class no different than Black or Female? Let’s consider… To be Black or Female, one need only be Black or Female. Membership in either class is contingent upon nothing. It’s a state of being, which represents entirely neutral qualities (i.e., skin color and/or gender). On the other hand, homosexuality is contingent upon something… behavior – a person’s actions – choices made – their “sexual preference.” It’s the end result of choosing to define one’s identity based upon with whom, and how one elects to have sex.

There are those who hold to the theory that people who engage in homosexual behavior are “born that way” – that they’re merely acting upon intrinsic characteristics of their own, unique genetic make-up. They desperately cling to, and repeatedly cite various “studies” which seem to support the “born that way” theory. They entirely disregard the fact that to date, there has been no credible, empirical evidence to support the theory, nor has the “respectable” scientific community embraced even one study. In fact, the vast majority of studies have been debunked outright, and the associated “scientists” have been exposed as homosexual activists attempting to further an extremist agenda. Additionally, the theory’s proponents have been wholly unable to reconcile its central theme with the so-called “bi-sexual” condition, which on its face would seem to eliminate any illusion of merit.

By the same token, there’s a growing movement among adulterous heterosexual men with estranged wives, who likewise embrace the theory that they were “born that way” – that their genetic makeup precludes the monogamy option, and requires that they have multiple sex partners…Charming, no?

At the risk of being arrested, charged with a “hate-crime” and dragged away to a “progressive” re-education camp, I’ll put aside for a moment the flawed, emotion based, irrational silliness that is “Political Correctness” (in the event I’ve been overly PC thus far). Rather than approaching our analysis of homosexual behavior from the traditional, liberal, PC perspective, let’s look at it from the rarely visited “Biologically Correct” (BC) vantage point. For one to believe that homosexual behavior, the act of sodomy in particular, follows the biological order of things, one must ignore the fact that sodomy violates natural law – you know… wrong plumbing…square hole/round peg. The whole thing really is a testament to man’s creativity. Give us something good, and we’ll bend over backwards to twist it into something else.

Without delving into the overly descriptive mechanics, suffice it to say that, scientifically speaking, the sexual act was designed for procreation – nothing more, nothing less… I know, not very romantic, but we’re talking science here. Further, the design behind the human digestive system was solely and entirely intended for digestion, not for makeshift sexual activity – there’s not a sex organ in the mix. The notion that the act of sodomy is a natural, biological event simply does not square with biological reality. It may be PC but it sure ain’t BC.

Still, perhaps the most troubling aspect of the homosexual lifestyle in general, is its destructive nature… Destructive not only in terms of the emotional harm it may cause, but destructive also in terms of the health related issues that will almost certainly arise as its consequence.

You may have noticed that you’re barraged on a daily basis by the left’s self-righteous indignation, as they wax eloquent about the harm caused by tobacco, pollution, drugs, alcohol – fatty foods – name your poison. Countless lawsuits have been filed under the pretext of recovering damages to cover health care costs relative to these vices… and they are vices, no doubt. But, these vices are fair game; they don’t fall within a PC protected class. Consider this: When was the last time you heard about the dreadful and preventable health related pitfalls, which stem from the homosexual lifestyle? You don’t – you won’t – you can’t – you shan’t – Don’t confuse the left with the facts… That’s “insensitive!”

As a result of the concerted effort by liberals to mask the devastating effects of the gay lifestyle, many people are shocked to learn that the average life expectancy of a homosexual male is only about 45 years old – 30 years younger than that of a heterosexual male.

One study determined that homosexual males have from between 20 to 106 sexual partners per year. It’s no wonder that homosexual men account for over 50% of all hepatitis cases, and still account for over 50% of all AIDS cases despite the fact that they only make up 1-3% of the population. Homosexual men and women share a markedly increased risk of contracting nearly all forms of STD. The men frequently suffer from other sodomy related injuries, and are far more likely to be murdered (likely by another homosexual) than their heterosexual counterparts; this, due to the typically raucous and oft anonymous nature of the gay lifestyle.

All of these things considered, and given that the cost to treat an AIDS patient averages nearly $350,000, the homosexual lifestyle shares responsibility, by no small measure, for this Country’s skyrocketing health care costs.

Fortunately, for those who wish to escape the homosexual lifestyle, there is support. A number of homosexual recovery organizations such as Exodus International and NARTH have helped thousands of people who have been addicted to homosexual behaviors, successfully leave the lifestyle. Many have gone on to have happy and fulfilled heterosexual marriages, to include the greatest of all blessings… children.

But the militants don’t want to hear it. In fact, they don’t want you to hear it, and have proposed legislation to ban such recovery organizations claiming that any mention of homosexual recovery is “hate-speech.” But it’s predictable – any time anyone dare expose the aforementioned truths about the homosexual lifestyle, or criticize the homosexual lobby for its radical anti-marriage, anti-family agenda, there’s an enormous backlash. It’s an age-old tactic geared toward silencing one’s critics. It consists primarily of the ad hominem atack – Homophobe! Hate-Monger! Bigot! Gay Basher! Neanderthal! – And on and on it goes. It grows old…it wears thin, but it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Many homosexuals choose not to recognize that the majority of their detractors really do care for them as individuals, hold no animus toward them, and would not presume to dictate what sexual anomalies they entertain behind closed doors, whether self-destructive or not. However, when militant homosexual activists attempt to quell all criticism of their behavior, force society to accept that behavior, and further attempt to alter the fabric of society by changing it to correspond with their own morally relative, androgynous notion of marriage, then those same activists shouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that they’ve angered those who value the sanctity of marriage – they shouldn’t be taken aback to find that they have one hell of fight on their hands – to expect anything less would be queer indeed.

[Chad]

The person who asks if a prayer is OK is playing a game. They're hoping that someone will say "no, it's not OK" so that they can then either act offended and brutalized, or so that they can play the all-forgiving father role and reply "Ok, I understand." Either way the person feels satisfied in the result. If nobody protests and the group proceeds to pray, the person who suggested the prayer can be satisfied that it was his good idea that the group went along with. It's a win-win situation for the person who starts this ego-driven game.
It's similar to junior high school teachers who will ask the class for a "moment of silence" knowing all too well that the group of rambunctious adolescents would never be silent for a moment. The silence is disrupted by a student and then the teacher feels licensed to give a harsh scolding or to play the all-forgiving godfather role.

One of my coworkers prays at least twice on every shift but she doesn't tell anybody and usually does it in the break room when nobody else is around. I've accidently walked in on her praying and so she told me what she was doing. At first I thought she had passed out on the floor or something.