General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2186616

    Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

    Locked

    by oneshoe ·

    I am at a loss as to how to handle the onslaught of junk email that is routinely sent internally throughout my company by fellow employees including the executive staff and mostly the CFO, my boss.

    This morning I received yet another “John 3:16, Jesus Loves You, forward this to ten people” chain letter email with the animated graphics and all that crap.

    The first issue I have with these is the Network Admin side of me that is annoyed that these emails go all over my network, clogging up my servers and taking up space. They are in violation of the company’s acceptable use policy and are generally a big waste of company time.

    The second issue is my personal opinion that these emails are both offensive and inappropriate in the workplace. The top executives are sending emails throughout the company pushing their religious beliefs on subordinates asking them to come to Jesus.

    I have mentioned my issue to various managers in the past, including my boss, requesting they remove me from their mass mail lists yet the emails continue. I have filters setup in Outlook, but many emails still get through because I can’t get too strict with my filtering without missing some actual business related emails.

    I do not really have the desire to make a major issue of this but I would like it to stop. Any suggestions?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3246102

      THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

      by why me worry? ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      I am sure HR would have a field day with this one, as such emails with religious overtone are in clear violation of labor laws and people’s civil rights. I personally would not like to have the bible or Jesus shoved down my throat by a bunch of right wing religious nutjobs in the workplace. If they want to have their bible studies, they should go to a church and not use corporate systems for such crap. If this were to happen in the company I work for, which happens to be a large international law firm, they would have this guy packing up his personal belonging and being escported out of the building in no time. Work is for working, not for praying or preaching one’s religious beliefs.

      • #3262712

        Hey dude

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        .
        God bless you, man.

      • #3262124

        Wow!

        by fieldse ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        I don’t mean to sound offensive; but, I’m glad I don’t work with you!!! Work is a place we spend most of our waking hours. I like to feel that I can and do delete most emails that I don’t want to recieve, and because i have a relationship with most people I work with, I can ask not to recieve such messages.
        I think what bothers me most though is that if someone is sending that kind of message to me, I tend to take it that they’re saying they care!!! I work for a large corporation too, and My biggest fear is that we’ll turn into one of those places where we are suppose to be productivity machines without beliefs, emations, or feelings. Sounds like you’re already there!

        • #3262006

          Care about what

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Wow!

          Soul savers spend time trying to save our souls in order to make sure their’s is saved.
          ‘Bout as obnoxious as you can get without wearing a swastika at Auschwitz rememberance service.

          I just wish the guy would stop shouting, no need I’m on message anyway.

        • #3260623

          Incredible Tolerance!

          by oregonnative ·

          In reply to Care about what

          I hope Tony remembers his position on this issue when someone is offended by his existence. Let’s face it; people do things that bug us every moment of every day. Loosen up and get a life! Live and let live.

        • #3261691

          Religious State

          by joe.canuck ·

          In reply to Incredible Tolerance!

          I’m a Canadian and recently travelled to FLA on Alaska Airlines. I was astounded to find a Christian prayer included with my meal. I can’t imagine finding a Muslim or any other religion being promoted on a commercial airline. America is starting to look more and more like the totalitarian mid east states they seem to find so abhorant. What’s next, I go into MacDonald’s and have Christain musac playing in the background working on my subconcience? The fundamentalist Christain machine is taking over everywhere down there, and most obviously in the White House. It’s getting to the point where if you are not a believer (the right kind) you are ostricized, like rolling back the clock 100 years. Religious commentary and sybolism does not belong in the work place or school.

        • #3261671

          Canuck is right – ’nuff of this…

          by avuncular ·

          In reply to Religious State

          That is why Canada is a far better democracy than the US. Here in the US, any religion is OK, as long as it is some flavor of Christianity. If you’re a Muslim, or a Jew, or god forbid, an Atheist, they will eat you alive. So much for the freedoms…

        • #3171867

          Life is good

          by phebert ·

          In reply to Canuck is right – ’nuff of this…

          If you think Canada is so great go live there. The US was founded on God and by good Christian men. What I see is a great country being drug down by a few uncompassionate groups that care about nothing but there on selfish wants and desires. The ten commandment are etched on the walls of many of our great justice buildings and there is a reason for that it’s because Christianity stands LOVE, FORGIVENESS, & COMPASSION. And lucky for people like you it does, it gives you a place to bitch and complain with out recourse. So you have the option to just delete the e-mail or read it YOU can thank GOD and the USA that you have that right.

        • #3240289

          if you don’t like it stay out of the US

          by avid ·

          In reply to Religious State

          you are canadian. so don’t bitch about our government or our dominant religious beliefs. in case you did not know what you said just offended about 70% of America since 70% are Christians. and also, i don’t here anyone complaining when we Americans save other countries from there atheistic conquorers i.e. adlof hitler. it is our religious beliefs that motivate the majority of us to risk our lives for other.

        • #3240221

          Religious beliefs my toohas…it’s money and power!

          by why me worry? ·

          In reply to if you don’t like it stay out of the US

          Second of all, the USA is NOT a christian country, even though the majority of its citizens are christians or some form of it, because this nation was founded and built by people of all races, nationalities, religions, and creeds.

          I don’t see christianity where I live, nor do I see it in my local gov’t, nor do I want to. Keep believing your lies about this country being a “christian country” because even Bush, with his evangelical beliefs, is not that crazy to allow this country to fall into the hands of religious zealot nutjobs, even though many of those bible thumping morons believe he will.

        • #3240176

          Well I do hope you get several

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to if you don’t like it stay out of the US

          responses from your countrymen. I would be very disappointed in them otherwise, because you rarely see such a spew of mindless bigotry on TR.

        • #3240607

          Oh, my! You believe

          by go_browns_01 ·

          In reply to if you don’t like it stay out of the US

          that seventy percent of Americans, those you think would be offended by the comment, really, really hate the separation of church and state? Really hate democracy?, don’t have a fraction of the foresight of our founding fathers?
          No, “religious beliefs” don’t motivate the majority of us to risk our lives for others. Silly, how would you explain the many lives risked by what you call “atheistic conquorers,” i.e. the Nazis?

          Pity, pity poor Christian American. With a church on nearly every corner, blaring from tv stations 24/7, and their tentacles around the throats of the government they absolutely will not be happy until the world is destroyed. What a truly pathetic way to live.

        • #3240347

          Oh yea, and…

          by go_browns_01 ·

          In reply to if you don’t like it stay out of the US

          let me be the first to apologize to our Canadian neighbors for any nationalistic hatred oozing their way and stinking up the place. I think most Americans appreciate Canada for the great neighbor they are. Many Americans recognize that it would be much better for ignorant democracy-hating fellows, regardless of where they were born, to exit the U.S. instead of any Canadians. You and your opinions are welcome, anytime.

        • #3255873

          Yikes

          by aktib ·

          In reply to if you don’t like it stay out of the US

          Whoa, 8492. I am part of that 70% Christian and I was in no way offended by the observation. What does offend me is intolerance for other points of view demonstrated in your posting.

        • #3178025

          I sure hope your coputer logic is better

          by placidair ·

          In reply to if you don’t like it stay out of the US

          than the “logic” you just spewed on religion. And Hitler wasn’t an atheist — he was a “Christian” — from the sounds of it, probably the same denomination as you are.

        • #3180878

          Hear, hear!!

          by gaijinit ·

          In reply to Religious State

          Sorry, everyne, if this is slightly off-track of TechRepulic’s normal concerns, but Canuck’s comments struck a sympathetic chord in me and I had to post this reply.
          First of all, if someone has the leisure to spend company time sending religious tracts through the Email, then they have time to do more of what they are paid to do – their job. Worse, they are misusing company resources ($) for private pursuits.
          Now for my rant: America is supposed to stand as a beacon of freedom, and that means FOR EVERYONE. Freedom of expression DOES NOT mean everyone has the freedom to slam-dunk their beliefs down everyone else’s throats 24/7, because it takes away from the freedom of others to spend their time as they wish. Having the freedom to own a huge stero does not mean you automatically have the right to play it as loud as you want any time of the day or night if you are bothering the neighbors.
          It means freedom of choice, to do as you wish AS LONG AS YOU DON’T CAUSE OTHERS HARM OR INTRUDE ON THEIR PRIVACY. America’s ‘founding fathers’ were all people unhappy with their lot in Europe, either looking for religious freedom or relief from government oppression.
          Having religious material shoved in your face everywhere is like facing a mob of Hare Krishna fanatics every time you go through an airport. You know they’re harmless, but they’re still intruding on your time and peace of mind.
          And it is becoming “Either you’re with me or against me” in today’s polarized American society, and you are right in saying that it is approaching fanaticism, especially since the White House is supporting it.
          I shudder to think of an America run by people like Jerry Falwell (sp?) and other loud-mouths who claim that because they follow a particular belief, they have the license to tell everyone else what is right or wrong or face going to Hell. When did the ‘Love of God’ change to the ‘Fear of God’? Who apointed them as God’s messengers?
          Tolerance is important, and that means just as people should be able to express themselves, others should be free to NOT be deluged with messages they do not solicit. Do you like Email SPAM and advertising pop-ups and Spyware on your computer interfering with your ability to use the Internet effectively?
          And to address one of the later postings, I love America, have fought to defend it, and resent hearing someone tell someone else that “if you don’t like it, leave!” Another ignorant redneck speaks out – people like that embarrass me as an American.
          I know this posting will bring some of the nuts out from under their rocks to harrangue me, bring it on.

        • #3179723

          Re: hear, hear!

          by darqangel ·

          In reply to Hear, hear!!

          this was the first post in this thread that made any sense, and wasn’t just another religiously garbled opinion, thank you.

        • #3170909

          good vs evil

          by joe.paul ·

          In reply to Hear, hear!!

          The farther I travel this road the clearer it becomes that everything in this world boils down to good vs evil. There are those that are on the side of good, those that are on the side of evil, and those that don’t know the difference.

        • #3170898

          Here! Here! Help stamp out Babtists!!!!!!!!

          by archeloch ·

          In reply to Religious State

          As a fellow Cannuck, what you say is very true.
          Remember when Fallwell declared the purple
          Teletubby to be gay because of the triangle on
          his/her head???
          These fundamentalists are as insane as the Arabs
          they fear. Narrow minded thought has no place in
          today’s society.

        • #3179864

          And this comment is not narrow minded?

          by gometrics ·

          In reply to Here! Here! Help stamp out Babtists!!!!!!!!

          You don’t even know what a christian is.

        • #3171738

          Two Sides

          by croberson11 ·

          In reply to Religious State

          Religious commentary and sybolism does not belong in the work place or school.
          Neither does worldly symbolism, cussing/profanity, lude remarks made to women, laziness or procrastination…. but it is there. So where is the out cry against those things. If you have the right to behave anyway you want, why don’t I have the same right as a Christian??

        • #3241353

          They won’t be the first

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Incredible Tolerance!

          and them being the last would be quite boring.

          If people bug you tell them, they aren’t going to stop if you don’t.

        • #3241619

          Setup a special folder

          by craigjv ·

          In reply to Incredible Tolerance!

          If you know what the e-mail address is that it will be coming from, setup a special folder for it, and every few days just delete it.
          This will work if you use one of the microsoft office products.

        • #3261657

          How ignorant!

          by s_lenser ·

          In reply to Care about what

          Your soul has absolutely NOTHING to do with the salvation of another. The other guy was right. They only send it because they care. Have any of you done something for another for no reward to yourself? I doubt it!

        • #3261593

          Dangerous assumptions

          by chaz chance# ·

          In reply to How ignorant!

          Why is it that when someone expresses a desire not to be proselitised (inducted into a religion) the zealots of that religion assume that they must be a horrible person.

          I think that s_lenser should avoid personal attacks, because they speak more loudly about s_lenser than anyone else.

          I AM a Christian, and I personally think that pretending to love someone that you do not know and have never met is the worst form of lie that can be told. I love they blessings that I receive from my work colleagues that I personally know, and always send my thanks. These messages, which are honestly sent, come from Hindus, Muslims, Hridanis and Christians. They are to me specifically, or from one member of a small team to the rest of the team, and not sent as spam. I get spammed also, alas.

          This does really relate to the original subject anyway. Rules are being broken, spam is being spread, bandwidth is being mis-appropriated. This is not something that we, as professionals, as responsible members of society, should approve of.

        • #3260977

          Well put!!

          by randy ·

          In reply to Dangerous assumptions

          You said what I was thinking much better than I did with my mini tirade.

        • #3241312

          Well aside from that fact

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Dangerous assumptions

          that I’m most definitely not a christian, I agree with you 100%.
          To describe me who has never done a good turn, did indeed make the fellow an ass. I feel it my non-christian duty to point this out in order to save the poor fellow’s embarassment. His soul I will leave to him and his chosen deity, after all it’s none of my business.

        • #3239631

          Amen!

          by alankuehnau ·

          In reply to Dangerous assumptions

          This is the most tolerant of all of the messages I’ve read so far. A true Christian only seeks to do his/her duty to God, by spreading love. That’s certainly not accomplishied by spamming. The person sending the emails that started this discussion (the subject of the discussion) isn’t doing that.
          Truly I’m surprised at the venom being spewed here.

        • #3261143

          Caring includes courtesy

          by joel ·

          In reply to How ignorant!

          You say “They only send it because they care.” What’s missing is courtesy. If someone says he does not want to be proselytized to, then common courtesy says the proselytizer should stop. One can’t say one cares if one isn’t willing to offer this simple courtesy. And it’s this lack of courtesy that angers those being proseyltized to.

          Or, put another way, the proselytizer’s right to push his faith ends at the other’s right to say “No, I don’t want to hear it.” And it’s the overstepping of this boundary that feels like a loss of freedom, and thus un-American.

        • #3241315

          Thankyou

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Caring includes courtesy

          And a good point, courtesy and politeness are the bedrock of any society. Without them as first principals all you have is a mob.

        • #3260986

          Care about What?

          by randy ·

          In reply to How ignorant!

          I am amazed that this topic is getting this much attention. If someone wants to preach their superstition they can start a church. The only reason to proselytize at work is to improve one’s image of one’s own world. How about this, We work at work, and we preach at church?

        • #3241310

          Sounds very fair to me

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Care about What?

          I have little choice about going to work, but I still have one about going to church.

        • #3241342

          Really

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to How ignorant!

          You sir, are an idiot. Every good deed I’ve done, do, and going to continue doing, I’ve done with no thought of reward for myself. That is why they are good deeds, I don’t need the promise of a ticket to heaven to be good. A thankyou however would be polite.
          Unfortunately for any church, I am far from ignorant, put your bible down and read some history, that way you’ll avoid being so crass in future.

        • #3261643

          Reply To: Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

          by borginva ·

          In reply to Care about what

          Actually, as Christians, we do not enter heaven by saving other people’s souls. We have to try, yes, to the people we care about or not, but we enter heaven reguardless if anyone else does.

        • #3241323

          Well I much prefer your

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Reply To: Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

          interpretation of your faith. I have no difficulty with learning of another’s faith. I simply feel no need to share it and attempts to ‘bully’ me into doing so irritate me immensely. I make this quite clear at the first attempt. After that anyone who continues, is deliberatley irritating me and will be treated accourdingly.

          Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, as someone who was proficient in social dynamics was reputed to have said.

        • #3260783

          Put in a small Email filtering , Spam control software

          by gigabouy ·

          In reply to Wow!

          I agree with fieldse…
          I had an amusing incident to site…

          I personally was inundated with CORPORATE Announcement emails, (working with the Global company with widespread interest), my email folders daily included some 40/50 emails.
          I found out the emails address and then blocked it from the server, with the help of the Email Administrator.
          After that, lot of my other colleague started to use it and then all of a sudden, the whole organization was putting spam filters.
          1 day, the boss (CEO) found that out a hard way and then told the Corporate Email Administrator to stop the whole charade of pushing information down our throat..
          What a heaven it was after that.

          \ashish

        • #3260711

          Yeah right, they care!

          by no bye-bye ·

          In reply to Wow!

          Let’s see…. They’re sending illegal chain letters using company resources to people who object to receiving them. Yeah, they care all right.

        • #3260695

          Did you read the original post?

          by placidair ·

          In reply to Wow!

          The guy says he already asked them to stop — but they’re still doing it anyway. It’s definitely time for a complaint to HR. Start replying to each one with “please don’t send me any more of these” and then save them with your replies and take them all in when you complain. It’s inappropriate, condescending and can create a hostile work environment if you don’t share their religion. Once is fine, but if you’ve asked them to stop and they continue doing it anyway, you should get their butts nailed for it.

        • #3260653

          Email Policies

          by snoel ·

          In reply to Did you read the original post?

          Don’t you have an established policy describing what a user can and cannot do? Spam, obsecenity, hate mail, company info, etc should all be covered in the policy and punitive actions should they be violated. If you like, I can forward you a copy of our policy that addresses the above issues and has gone through our legal department and been scrutinized by an audit. A signed user agreement usually follows stating that they have read and understood the policies and further understand the disciplinary actions in the event of a violation.

          You can write me at snoel@pheinc.com if you’d like a copy to work with.

          Hope this helps.

          Stan

        • #3261687

          Ups!!!

          by clarenceclaw ·

          In reply to Email Policies

          Snoel.
          In that established policy you are about to give out to the world, is there any thing about giving out company info? Looks to me like that whole document is company info, seeing as how the legal department, an audit and other company time has been invested in it.
          Don?t be a hypocrite

        • #3260627

          Did you read any of the other posts?

          by marcal ·

          In reply to Did you read the original post?

          OneShoe later stated that there is no HR, and that the only “policy” is one that he wrote and that has not even yet been accepted by the company.

          Besides, it doesn’t really matter because everyone knows that IT policies are meant to be ignored until their boss tells them they have to follow them. Which usually means the resources are being egregiously abused–otherwise, who cares?

          Hostile moves against frankly benign annoyances create a toxic environment, and the the escalating party will rightly be seen as the one at fault.

          All that has been attempted at this point are email requests. A face to face request needs to be made, but that means starting a conversation. That takes balls. Email doesn’t.

        • #3261802

          Have any of you ever worked in a small company?

          by donpreston ·

          In reply to Did you read any of the other posts?

          Having worked in the small business environment all my life, I can say this for certain. If you breathe a word of this to HR or anyone over your boss’s head, or even let him know more sternly that you don’t appreciate his religous message, you can start looking for another job immediately. All of this banter about policy enforcement and legal ramifications don’t mean a thing to the average small businessman.
          My advice is to keep a record of any conversations you’ve had protesting the emails. Then drop it. Small business policy is ‘Get along or Move along.’

        • #3261704

          Harrassment is harrasment

          by cadman53114 ·

          In reply to Have any of you ever worked in a small company?

          I work in a small company. Small companies do not have the time or money to have employees, including the boss using network resources, company time and materials to propagate their personal beliefs. This guy is using company time to send the emails, that is lost revenue. He is using company programs and resources, that is lost revenue. The employees he is sending this email to are taking company time to read and/or delete his junk. That is more lost revenue. Keep track of your time spent deleting the junk email. Then take your wages time the time to show him how much money he is loosing by having to FORCE you to wade through his junk email. Then take that number times the number of people in the company he is sending the email to. Once he see’s where HE is costing the company money, then maybe he will see the light. If he is not the owner, put this to the owner as an offical proposal to save the company money. Show the owner just how much money email from this one person is costing the company. Then show him that if everyone in the company used email like this, the company could be loosing a lot of money. If the owner is not bothered by lossing all this money (which would surprise me) then your only recourse is to keep record of emails, conversations to please stop and if you are fired for raising a beef, you have grounds to sue for harrasment. Harrasment is harrasment, whether sexual or otherwise. It creates a tense work place and makes everyone unproductive. These whiners who say live and let live are the same people who take home office supplies and think it is okay when it is STEALING (hey, I think that is one of the commandments you hipocrits). If I were this guy I would be angry. I have a right to go to work to work, not to be told that I am going to hell.

        • #3242006

          Correct – it is harassment

          by rvfrueh ·

          In reply to Harrassment is harrasment

          However, when the owner of the business is the one doing it, and there are only a few people there, you have no power. If he doesn’t value his own time, and a lot of small business owners do not, then you have no leverage

          Yes, you can sue them, but that assumes that a) you can get/afford a lawyer, and b) there’s another place for you to go to work when you’ve burned your bridge.

          I’ve lived in areas where there are only 300 people, and only a few places to work, and only one place that had a need for a “me” working at it. If it had been a hostile place, I wouldn’t have had much support or ability to do something about it.

          In larger companies/resource rich environments you have more options, but not always.

        • #3172395

          There is nothing “benign” about it…..

          by placidair ·

          In reply to Did you read any of the other posts?

          persisting in sending someone non-business-related e-mail — particularly of a nature where the underlying message is that someone is trying to alter your core beliefs, is anything BUT benign. And if there is no HR where he is, then he should still do the records keeping involved… a lawsuit may well be appropriate if it doesn’t stop.

          It’s harrassment once you’ve asked someone to stop doing it.

        • #3261610

          Perfect

          by seanl ·

          In reply to Did you read the original post?

          You hit the nail on the head. If someone won’t stop after telling them to stop, then they should feel the wrath of HR..

        • #3260507

          Sorry…

          by pysmire ·

          In reply to Wow!

          Sorry but who has the time to sort through a bunch of email garbage. And sorry, but the workplace with it’s captive audience is no place to discuss religion, sex, or politics. Be ye boss or peasant. Period!

        • #3260503

          Reply To: Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

          by bluelinecms ·

          In reply to Wow!

          Would you feel they care if the religious material they were sending to you was about Satanism? How about if it was from a Muslim sympathetic to Al-Qaeda’s “cause”?I know I wouldn’t want that kind of email in my inbox.

          Regardless, whether I can easily delete it or not, religious email shouldn’t be email sent using company resources.

        • #3261832

          But…

          by ecelsner ·

          In reply to Wow!

          These types of emails are typically a violation of the acceptable use policy for one. The other is the Company email is just that, the Companies. You do not own it, it is not yours. I do not have a problem with these emails if you keep them in your personal email and not use you work account. People use their work email for personal use. Just keep them seperate is all…

        • #3260875

          Acceptable Use Policy determined by Mgmt

          by jim gillespie ·

          In reply to But…

          I work for a small company. The acceptable use Policy is what the Boss accepts and demands.

          Therefore if these are emanating from the ownership, you don’t have much of a complaint. Your choice is to live with it, or leave. I do recognize it is not what pleases you, but the buck stops there with them, not with you.

          I worked a few years back for a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses. While I am definitely a devout Christian and strive to live by every word of God, I most certainly don’t agree with their teachings on some things. As a result, I was targeted repeatedly by management for little sit-down “discussions” which burned up many hours but I can’t say got us anywhere. I can stand my ground fine, but didn’t appreciate the pressure. But I did have a way out.. if I wanted to, I could resign and pull myself out of the environment. It was my decision. It’s yours too.. what’s the lesser evil: giving up the job, or staying and dealing with it?

        • #3261001

          Re: Wow!

          by brian.giordano ·

          In reply to Wow!

          The biggest problem I have with this as a network Administrator is not the fact that the emails are religious in nature, but the fact that they are chain letters. The ‘send this to x number of people and you will have good luck’ crap at the end of an email annoys me and wastes HUGE amounts of server space by people who actually comply with this request.

          Email in the corporate offices should be business related ONLY, especially when it comes to sending chain letters and/or jokes with pictures and video clips. If you send a 2 MB file to 10 people and those 10 people send the email to 10 people, and so on and so on, disk space on email servers can get filled up pretty quickly.

          If you want to send an email to a co-worker talking about what you did last weekend, that’s fine with me, but don’t ask the co-worker to send an email to 10 other co-workers and clog up my email servers…

      • #3261985

        Interesting….I’ve got two comments

        by tomsal ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        First the more serious one – I deem myself a Christian, yet I’m no zealot and I respect folks who don’t believe what I believe and that’s pretty much it – I’m one of those “my religion is a private thing” kind of believers. Don’t step on my beliefs and I won’t step on yours. Anyway, it is plain wrong for the executes to be sending this stuff out to their employees. They have to know that they are risking a call from a lawyer. You can’t talk about any of the “discrimation items” (religion, sex, race, etc.) as if you are supporting one over the other. So they are just stupid for that.

        Secondly, as more humorous take on this stuff….as a Christian I find it very interesting and sometimes funny (depending on mood and who is saying it) how anyone who says “God Bless” or says even one sentence of their belief in God is instantly labelled a “religious nut job”, “whacko”….”zealot”. The funny thing about it is the person SAYING these things is usually FAR FAR more worked up about it than the supposed “religious zealot, whacko, nut job!”.

        LOL

        what a world!

        • #3260771

          Put it in terms the boss will understand!

          by dmm96452 ·

          In reply to Interesting….I’ve got two comments

          Money! If these emails are 5k in size and they are going out to 100 employees your exchange database size is taking a 500k hit with each spam. That means you’ll have to compact them more often causing more down time for your email servers and more man hours or your part then would otherwise be necessary.

        • #3260651

          Storage of message w/ multiple recipients

          by ldehaan9 ·

          In reply to Put it in terms the boss will understand!

          I’m not sure your space analysis is correct. I believe that since Exchange uses single-instance storage, as long as the message resides in the server’s information store it’ll only take up 5K. There will be a ton of pointers to it though. Anyone care to weigh in on this? Note, however, that this does not make the boss’ actions less egregious.

        • #3261816

          5k no matter how many addressees

          by tjd ·

          In reply to Put it in terms the boss will understand!

          Actual a 5K email sent to 100 recipients on an Exchange server is only 5K. The server stores it once and links all 100 mailboxes to the message… okay, so its a little more than 5K with all those links, but not much, and certainly not 500K. But that’s not really the issue, is it. The issue is that the boss is creating an uncomfortable work environment. Now, how do we sue him and make money off it 😉
          TjD

        • #3261111

          Put it in terms the boss will *respect*

          by joel ·

          In reply to Put it in terms the boss will understand!

          No, not money. Religion is esstentially emotional, not intellectual, and reasoned arguments almost never work.

          Instead, say something simple and straight from the heart, such as “If I’ve asked you to stop, isn’t it common courtesy for you to stop? Do I not deserve that as a fellow human being?”

        • #3260753

          Delete it

          by plf86 ·

          In reply to Interesting….I’ve got two comments

          Just delete it and get on with your day.

        • #3260726

          Amen..

          by larfx ·

          In reply to Delete it

          For sure, get over it and delete. If the company is a private company, there is nothing you can do. Those executives are entitled to their beliefs and you are entitled to your delete button. There is no harm to you, send out your own emails. At least those folks aren’t afraid or PC’ed out of existence.

          We have our beliefs in and out of the work place. Christianity is 24/7 and is not a “private” thing by any stretch of the imagination. If we continue to hide our beliefs, we cease to belief anything.

          Nuff Said, God bless you all.

        • #3260674

          Darn right

          by sharondee ·

          In reply to Amen..

          You’re right, I shouldn’t continue to hide my belief. I should run out right now and email everyone in my company with, “God is a fairy tale; grow up!” And, “Don’t pray in our schools and I won’t think in your church!”

          Now, get over it and delete THAT.

          *Disclaimer: I would never send out anti-God spam like that. I’d appreciate it if Christian coworkers would also refrain from sending God spam. You know. In the interest of fair play and that.

        • #3261763

          Wow

          by rsgdmn ·

          In reply to Darn right

          Maybe your not from the US. If you are and the word God bothers you that much, then take the money out your wallet and throw it away as well. After all, it says In God We Trust. That, unfortunately for you, is the belief that this Country is built on. From our currency to the Pledge of Allegience and to many many other patriotic symbols that this Country stands by.

          God Bless.

        • #3241304

          Well I’m not from the US

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Wow

          So I can control my irritation at how crass your are.
          Are you saying only christians can be patriotic americans ?
          Are some denominations more patriotic than others ?
          I was also under the impression that while the writers of your constition in the main had strong christian beliefs, that religious freedom was something they enshrined within it. I think you would have at least, heartily disappointed them, I however found such tolerance, respect and understanding most gratifying.

        • #3180925

          Ever read the Constitution?

          by darwinrules ·

          In reply to Wow

          The word “God” does not appear in the Constitution. Not once. During the McCarthy era, “In God We Trust” was made the official motto of the US and “under God” was added to the pledge by people very much like you — who, at the time, were witch-hunting commies instead of liberals.

          I’m sure you can find all sorts of spiritual references made by the founding fathers. But the fact of the matter is, the founding fathers were not literal minded people. They believed in the Enlightenment — the triumph of human reason — which apparently passed you by. Many, including Jefferson, viewed the Bible largely as metaphor. You, sadly, have no idea what metaphor is.

          Isn’t it ironic that the religious fanatics wrapping themselves in the flag haven’t the slightest idea what that flag stands for?

        • #3260625

          What’s the real issue here?

          by kenneth.cottrell ·

          In reply to Amen..

          One issue is the use of the company’s e-mail system for non-work related content. Most companies allow for a certain amount of “fudge” so that employees can express with each other and outsiders as well. But if you’ve already mentioned this to your boss, it’s gone well past the “fudge factor”.

          Depending on the structure and ownership of the company, it may be your boss’s perrogative to use the system anyway that he wants.

          Another issue is the content. This is not a business issue, but a social one. I personally think that evangelism is one of the most offensive intrusions to endure. If somebody feels that they are involved in a movement that is giving them a better life and a sense of spiritual “arrival”, let their life be an example. Don’t expect others to come to the same conclusions that you have. Is religion a philosophy? Or an organization? Ideas are like viruses and have a life of their own in conversation. Organizations, on the other hand, take those ideas and use them to control others’ lives. They have a life of their own with their own political agendas. If you don’t believe that, look at the current political climate in the U.S., Persia, the Middle-East, etc. Religion is used as an excuse for the most atrocious human behavior. Consider our invasion of Iraq.

          There is something that we can do about the intrusion of religion into both our private and public lives, but it’s going to be a long exorcism. And I think it begins by not allowing yourself to be bullied by zealots. Continue to let them know how offensive their evangelism is.

          Now that I have offended most people who would read this note, I bid you good day.

        • #3261712

          I read your note and I liked it

          by jeff@customerselects.com ·

          In reply to What’s the real issue here?

          I agree with everything you wrote.

          As a practicing Jew, I am painfully aware of my minority status. I am also painfully aware that were I to get into an arguement about religion with anybody short of a Jesuit priest, I’d probably “win” the argument and piss off everybody. Growing up, I was well trained to deal with evangelists because we viewed them as a real threat. It turns out we were wrong about the threat. So I don’t argue with people about religion. It still turns my stomach to hear such stories as this guy’s story.

          And now that I have offended everybody you offended…

        • #3260616

          Get over it?

          by njack2004 ·

          In reply to Amen..

          While I tend to personally feel it is no big deal and would simply delete the emails, it is certainly a bigger deal than “getting over it” to some people. The fact is it is illegal because it can create a hostile work environment, private company or not. Regardless of whether it’s the CFO or the janitor sending these emails out, it puts the company at risk for a lawsuit.

        • #3260976

          wrong!

          by 1ronman ·

          In reply to Get over it?

          It is not illegal “because it can create a hostile work environment”. It?s illegal IF it creates a hostile work environment. Talking politics can create a hostile work environment, Talking about fords vs Chevy can cause a hostle work environment, does that make it illegal? How stupid. “IF” and I said IF with caps because having read the original post, its questionable IF oneshoe actually reached down between his legs and found a pair and talked directly to his boss. It is oneshoes right to work in an environment that is not “hostile”. The first step when you feel you are being harassed is to speak directly to the “harasser” and let them know that his emails or whatever are unwelcome. If his CFO continues, then ok, the guy has stepped over the line. But all you bozos out there saying its illegal to email something of a religious nature, you don?t know what your talking about. Your beef isn?t with the legality of what?s going on, and it sure isn?t “all the storage and bandwidth that?s being eaten up”. Your gripe is with Christ. We have become so “open” and “inclusive” in this age of “diversity”, but how dare you mention the name of Christ…out in the open! Christians, go sit in the corner and shut up! your not included in out inclusive society, we don?t want you in our diversity. We’re so open minded that when we hear you speak of God our mind closes immediately because…well… you are close minded and bigoted! So whats your beef? Had a crisis in your life and God “let you down”, so you decided he’s not real and now Christians shouldn?t be allowed to participate in society anymore? Why does sometimes say no, or allow what he does? Beats me, but it wasn?t God that moved away from you, it was you that moved away from God. Several of you said “I consider my self to be a Christian, but…yada yada”. So by what did you measure your self to be able to consider your self a Christian? Didn?t sound like it was the Bible A Christian is someone who has been born again John 3:3, 3:7, 1 peter 1:23. Being a nice person and going to church doesn?t make you a Christian anymore that wearing green and talking with a accent makes you a lepricon. Jesus said “you are my disciple if you do as I said”. Well, lets see, he said you must be born again, he said you must be baptised, he said you must believe and receive, he said you must turn from your sin (oh wait a minute, there you go gb4 shoving your beliefs down my throat,). He said you must go and share the Gosple…oh oh, Conflict alarm, Sorry Jesus, we believe in the separation of church and state and that trumps your commands. So how about if I just practice Christianity light? I’ll ignore what you told me to do, I’ll be cowed by by any knuckhead that shouts “separation of church and state” and go sit in the corner and shut up about what I really believe. However, I’ll still call myself a Christian and Maybe I’ll even go to church. NOT.

        • #3179639

          ummm, right actually.

          by tantor ·

          In reply to wrong!

          Based on the fact that religion is protected under the EEO act, while loyalty to automakers isn’t, your argument holds no water. At least the first part of your argument, after that it got a little “ranticised”. njack is right, specifically promoting or denouncing a religion, sex, race, lifestyle or disability is, in no uncertain terms, illegal.

          People win lawsuits for spilling coffee in their lap. A lawsuit here would be a slam dunk.

        • #3170587

          Nice Rant

          by njack2004 ·

          In reply to wrong!

          You’re right…talking politics or talking Ford v. Chevy can also cause conflict in the workplace but last time I checked people who drive Ford or Chevy aren’t protected under the EEO so I’ll stick to my Honda. However…religion IS protected. I’m quite certain the Jewish/Muslims/etc are not wanting to receive emails that promote other religions, although I’m sure they probably respect other’s rights to worship as they please. I’m sorry if this upsets you, but the fact remains that the religious emails puts a company at risk of a lawsuit…a lawsuit that they would likely lose! Sure there are steps that should be taken before an employee files suit which include speaking with the author of these emails, but things don’t always work out that way in the real world. In the real world people win lawsuits because they spill hot coffee on themselves and they get superficial burns on their lap. Is it Mcdonald’s fault the idiot dropped the coffee in their own lap? Probably not. And who woulda thunk it that the coffee would be hot? They probably would have complained if it wasn’t. But no…now there are warnings on the coffee cups…another cost the company had to absorb which is ultimately passed on to the consumer. In regards to the rest of your bible thumping post…I respect your religion and your right to be an evangelist. Please respect my right to shut the door in your face while you’re trying to save me.

        • #3260604

          So, you won’t object if I send out spam promoting atheism?

          by rlk2k ·

          In reply to Amen..

          Larfx, so obviously you would not mind if I were the person in the OP, if I were to send out spam promoting atheism? I find most Christian religious wackos love to spam for Jesus, because Christianity is the one true religion, and they feel suddenly persecuted if they are not allowed to push their beliefs on others. Yet, they strongly object to anyone promoting a “false” religion or philosophy (read NOT CHRISTIAN). Perhaps you would not mind receiving spam promoting Krishna? How about Taoism? Where do you draw the line?

        • #3260549

          Only if

          by joe ·

          In reply to So, you won’t object if I send out spam promoting atheism?

          the spam included hostile or demeaning rhetoric like “religious wackos”. In fact, I have received such email (non-Christian evangelism). Some I have read. Some I have deleted. If the boss is saying cruel or thoughtless things about or to you then complain. If you simply disagree with the philosophy then, yeah, get over it.

        • #3261145

          You can’t possibly be that naive

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Only if

          Religion is not just a statement of philosophical principles. You don’t see proponents of Jung and Nietsche threatening each other with eternal damnation do you.

        • #3260232

          Actually, it might surprise you…

          by larfx ·

          In reply to So, you won’t object if I send out spam promoting atheism?

          Honestly, Christianity is not about placing stumbling blocks in the way of others. If the emails will not get the result intended, then they are better off not being sent. I personally would not shy away from being honest and truthful about my beliefs, as everyone should be free to be honest, however I would not be comfortable in being pushy.

          Of course, if a company is private and the owner has a belief system, then they have the right to say whatever they want, but I wouldn’t advise them to do so.

          I don’t think that I have given you the answer you probably wanted or was expecting. I don’t believe in pushing views on people, as I fully believe that the Gospel is strong enough to thrive through honest and kind comments and living a good example and that Jesus does not need us to be pushy to get His message across.

        • #3260576

          Respond in a similar manner

          by maxpower1111 ·

          In reply to Amen..

          I don’t know what if any religion you follow. but you can try circulating your own religiously oriented emails. Use your own or any other religion as a basis. You may want to have some fun and make up your own religion. ?Loyal order of the Penguin? perhaps, or the ?Church of the Red Fedora?. What the heck, have fun with it.
          Make sure to save all of his though. That way when he sends you another calling you a heathen, destine for the fiery pits of hell, you can retaliate with a lawsuit the likes of which, no oppressive zealot has never seen.

          Or if he/she is a reasonable person, they?ll understand that you have no interest and cease.
          ~MaxPower

        • #3260544

          Law Suit?

          by joe ·

          In reply to Respond in a similar manner

          Just because someone expresses an opinion? Talk about thought police. If the boss shows obvious discrimination aka promotion denial then maybe.

          You degenerate!!! So ya going to sue me or what?

        • #3260527

          on a hair trigger?

          by maxpower1111 ·

          In reply to Law Suit?

          Well most of it was tongue in cheek. But the lawsuit part was referring to, the inevitable event of his boss pulling a ?do as I say no as I do?.
          My, aren’t we quick-tempered. Amazing how worked up some people can get when they can?t take a joke. Get out side and take a stroll in the sunlight. 🙂

        • #3260504

          Well there he is…

          by pysmire ·

          In reply to Amen..

          Well folks, there he is. No doubt one in spirit with the religious spammer One Shoe had complaints about in the first place. Totally misses the point here…Your living should be your testimony, not obnoxious emails to employees.

        • #3261834

          Please spare us the religious bullcrap!

          by why me worry? ·

          In reply to Amen..

          If christianity is a “24/7” thing, then become a missionary and join a church. Don’t enter a company, public or pivate, and expect to be liked if all you do is shove your beliefs down the throats of others. How come I don’t see jews, muslims, hindus, seiks, atheist, etc going around and preaching their religious nonsense to others? The problem is with christianity, everyone needs to be converted and assimilated.

          Watch some of the episodes in Star Trek with the Borg and you will see yourself in it. “We are Christian..resistance is futile..you will be assimilated”

        • #3261113

          Not PC, just courtesy

          by joel ·

          In reply to Amen..

          If you asked someone to stop talking to you about a subject, and they continue anyway, isn’t that discourteous? It’s not a matter of whether it’s proper for him to be public about his beliefs; it’s a matter of whether it’s proper for him to direct them at you after being asked to stop. You would just be asking for a little courtesy, a little respect for your wishes.

        • #3241307

          Not even I would ask you to hide your

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Amen..

          belief. You can make it clear in your every transaction for me, all I ask is that people have the respect for my beliefs that they wish accorded to theirs.
          If you wish to put God bless you all at the end of your emails, that is fine with me I will stick with

          Regards Tony
          That’s the core of my beliefs. Politeness
          It’s true I don’t always live up to this, but there again I’m sure you’ll admit God has had reason to be miffed with you on one or two occasions.

        • #3170051

          Wicca

          by tek1 ·

          In reply to Amen..

          So, if you worked for me and I was a Warlock you would have no objection to me trying to convert you to Wicca?

        • #3172390

          You’re supposed to LIVE BY your beliefs….

          by placidair ·

          In reply to Amen..

          not spend your workday shoving them up other people’s noses. In fact, doing so is antithetical to anything Jesus ever taught or said….. therefore it’s directly the opposite of being anything resembling a “Christian”.

        • #3260738

          essentially agree

          by russ_it@millweb ·

          In reply to Interesting….I’ve got two comments

          I am annoyed with the volume of these types(religious chain letters)and in fact any of the forwarded chain type e-mails. It’s tough to control wants it gets rolling, especially when comming from one or two indviduals close to the recipient. A well documented company policy should take presidence and be uniformly inforced regardless of the origin.

        • #3260613

          Why get so worked up?

          by gawiman ·

          In reply to Interesting….I’ve got two comments

          TomSal, you noted that the nonChristian often gets very worked up at religious proselytizing in the workplace or elsewhere. Try to imagine yourself in the other position.

          Sure, the Christian isn’t “worked up” – he’s inline with the majority opinion and feels protected and comfortable. The nonChristian is often told, “you must believe in our sky fairy or go to hell” and after a while it /does/ get old.

          After about the zillionth time you stop being polite about it, and people ask; “what’s he so worked up about?”

          I have not reached this point yet but sometimes I do feel this way. My role in computer support takes me into many people’s offices and a poster that says what God was up to on 9/11 and concludes that atheists are “without hope” does grate on my nerves a bit.

          I am an atheist but I don’t send out emails challenging people’s faith even though I feel religion is generally a harmful delusion. It’s their private belief and if they want my opinion, they’ll ask me for it or go read my non-work-related blog.

        • #3261701

          two comments

          by cadman53114 ·

          In reply to Interesting….I’ve got two comments

          TomSal obviously does not get it. If you have told someone to stop doing something, and they don’t, then you tell them again, and again. Then you try to ignore it…. after while the volcano is going to erupt. If I tell you to stop I expect you to stop. If you don’t, you are telling that you think I am scum, and my wishes and opinions mean nothing. So I ignore you…. but you come back…. pretty soon I will fight back. Then you say I am wrong because you abused by privacy.

        • #3241281

          You do him an injustice

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to two comments

          He professed his faith and agreed it was wrong to force his beliefs on others.

          He does not understand why we get upset. It’s quite simple really most aetheists are ardent non-believers, zealous in stating their unbelief and outright non-religious whackos when it comes to the crunch.
          LOL

      • #3260737

        Better Check

        by knot_mine ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        There has been an assertion that these emails constitute a violation of labor law or civil rights. My response — show me! While not a lawyer, I was a union steward for many years, successfully prosecuting many EEO, FLSA and wrongful dismissal complaints. As far as I know, if this is a private company and he is the owner, you have no recourse. These are company resources, and in the case of a privately held enterprise, that means they are HIS resources to do with as he pleases.

        Certainly, religious zealousness that disrupts the good operation of a company is bad business. But, there are lots of bosses that do much worse.

        If the messages cause you to believe that your career is jeapordized, because you are not sufficiently devote, the boss has crossed the EEO line. Simply espousing radical views is his right. The line is whether you have a well founded fear that you will lose promotion opportunities, otherwise deserved raises, or worst your continued employment.

      • #3260730

        Use a Filter/autoreply with the added policy reminder

        by senior program analyst ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        Since you have already asked him to take you off the list then place an auto reply into your email system which everything he sends you you is included as an attachment to a reply sent by the system which states “Please remove me from your non-business related email list”.
        Have your email sort out all messages that come from this person to the list stated can then be Categorized, sorted to folders, Color Coded, etc so its easy for you to sort through (in case he uses that group for something actually business ariented). Or if you prefer have it auto-delete it. (if you do that you may want to include in the reply message that “this email box will not except email sent to this group”

        As a futhur note: Religion has nothing to do with this issue. This could be E-cards, Funny pages, Religious notes, Political adverts, Anti-War, Pro-war…. whatever Non of which has any Business related purpose and most companies have a policy against it, or a anti harrasement policy which these could be against it. You may want to send out an ALL employee message stating that this is the case as a reminder and that Law Enforcement can and has used email as evidence.
        (If you send out this policy reminder ASAP after he mass sends a message it will be of little doubt who prompted the message without you directly pointing fingers).

        • #3260606

          I second that!

          by loca319 ·

          In reply to Use a Filter/autoreply with the added policy reminder

          Sending out a company-wide memo stating that chain letters are not acceptable would probably help things. In any instance when you are dealing with this issue within your company, it would be wise to refer to “chain letters” as opposed to mentioning religious content, so as not to discourage people from simply hearing your message that it’s a nuisance.

          Also state in the memo WHY it’s a problem.

          1. It’s a waste of employee time.
          2. Chain letters clog up the inboxes so real e-mails are delayed or never get through, and real e-mails might get accidentally deleted with the large number of chain letters.
          3. The chain letters are creating hostility within the workplace, which is detrimental to the company and can easily be reversed by simply not sending any chain letters at all.

          The WHY is the most important bit. The people that send this crap think it’s harmless, but they have no idea that they are just making an already severe spam problem worse and wasting everybody’s time.

          Once that memo has been dispersed, it should be perfectly within reason to notify anyone who abuses the e-mail that they are damaging the company and should cease their actions.

        • #3241056

          Thanks

          by senior program analyst ·

          In reply to I second that!

          Thanks for addition of the WHY, I usually do that here when sending out messages relating to policies and standards; It was a missed point in my message. I agree it is very important to explain in VERY short form the why’s as well as the what. (normal email isnt read past the 1st line or so unless it has a direct purpose to the person – quite likely due to the amount of spam and general email everyone gets these days).

        • #3172389

          Perfect!

          by placidair ·

          In reply to Use a Filter/autoreply with the added policy reminder

          Great idea, and you’re right it’s not about religion.

      • #3260689

        Oh?

        by redcell ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        …and what are you doing then? Everything you say or do is “preaching” your beliefs to those around you. So knock off of the idea that you can live and work without expressing you ideas in the work place. As for the mass emails? I don’t like them either but that is up to you corp. policy on email use. I would discourage those mass emails whenever possible. Including jokes and pictures for personal use. Although I don’t believe in being like the Gestopo either.

      • #3260620

        It happened in my company

        by pims ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        I used to work in a jewish company with tighs with Israel. People of all type of religions were also working with me. On day, a guy sent a message about his way of seeing God. The next day, he was let go.
        For a company, religion is as much feared as sex. Harassment and discrimination is clearly defined in the law, and religion is among one of them. Explain it to your boss. Send emails and maintain records of all his/her emails. If the boss does not understand, make money with it and sue the company for religion harassment.

      • #3260598

        I feel like I should apologize

        by big jerry ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        I am a Christian myself, but I hate it when Christians do this kind of thing. The workplace is where a Christian should set an example of doing his/her job well – which means not conducting evangelism operations on company time.

        Fellow workers come to do their work – not to ‘go to church’. Taking advantage of a work situation (and worse, subordinates), to spout religious views is entirely inappropriate. I know that some Christians tend to think that the ‘work of God’ takes precedence over everything else, but the work of God includes kindness, consideration, and work ethics.

        Christians are taught the ‘golden rule’: “Treat others like you would want to be treated by them”. Ask you boss how he would feel if a Muslim or Mormon or Moony (or whatever) conducted evangelism at work.

        I feel embarrassed by this kind of behavior from Christians, and I am sorry you have been placed in this awkward position.

        • #3261103

          Thanks for being an adult Christian

          by joel ·

          In reply to I feel like I should apologize

          Thank you. It’s folks like you that made this country great. Seriously. From its beginnings as a haven for those who weren’t the right flavor of Christian, to the great immigrations of Jews escaping persecution, to today’s simple fact of 6 million Muslims living in peace within our borders.

          Here’s my question: Why does your point of view seem so rare these days? Why isn’t it taught along with all the other Christian teachings? To those of us on the outside of your faith, it looks as though your opinion is rare indeed.

        • #3261072

          Answer

          by mdbarnett ·

          In reply to Thanks for being an adult Christian

          The reason that you don’t see many Christians that act this way is because they are either too quiet about it or the other types drown them out. There are a lot of Christians today that are evangelizing with a sledge hammer. This approach doesn’t work very well, or at least not very often. People are very turned off by this approach.

          It is sad that a lot of people live this way, and being a Christian myself I understand the need to tell others about your faith, but sending spam emails or cornering people or any method like that is not the right way to go about it. I prefer to tell my friends and aquaintences because I already know them and they understand my viewpoint and will listen to what I have to say. If someone you don’t know comes up to you and starts talking about anything the way some Christians do it’s going to turn people off.

          There are a lot of Christians out there but it’s the most vocal that often give us a bad reputation.

          I also am sorry that this has happened to so many people and I hope that you can bear with some people and not judge our entire faith.

          Thanks.

      • #3260575

        Robert Browning, Samuel Rutherford & Mr. Twain

        by havenmoth ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for? – Mr. Browning

        Since He hath looked upon me my heart is not my own. He hath run away to Heaven with it- Mr. Rutherford

        Forgiveness is the fragrance the violets sheds on the heel that has crushed it? – r Twain

      • #3261790

        Delete them. ALL of them.

        by d_v_b ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        I’d start deleting all of the boss’s e-mail. Then, when he asks if you got/read his e-mail, I would reply with, “Maybe, but I probably thought it was more of that nonsense I asked you not to send me, so I deleted it.”

        He’ll get the message.

      • #3261155

        Good Luck but you are DOOMED

        by a_liss ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        Your only real chance of getting this to stop is to express your concerns about the legality of the spam. That they are opening up the company to a harassment suit if the posting are being sent out to everyone. Of course you will have to broach this subject as the concerned for the company employee you are or they will look down there nose at you as the person threatening them. As for company policies in a small company where the executives are the culprit?s they mean nothing and throwing up company policy to get them to stop will only get you fired.

      • #3260948

        No, it’s not (but should be)

        by afhavemann9 ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        No, it’s not illegal, nor is it a violation of labor laws, I only wish it was. But it IS the province if HR and management to control though, and they should. I?m the SysAdmin and even I, who should know better, would just love to set some filters that would look at the author and content and block many.

        What it?s not is your responsibility to control it without full management support and permission unless overall company policy grants you that authority without question. Not good, but that’s the way it is.

        I have to deal with this crap every day and I only wish there were a way to throttle these worthless spammers. Spam generating people and companies are killing email. I set spam filters that allow in messages only from a white list of maybe 50 addresses, everything else is blocked; whole domains like AOL,MSN,HOTMAIL and so on, all because of spam.

        /BeginRant

        We?ve had some spirited debates over what?s appropriate and what?s not in our office, especially the religious email. I don?t always win because management doesn?t always back me up, but the religious nut messages get very unfriendly replies from me, and since I work for the Federal Government, I can get away with it.

        In the past, some of these fools would occasionally show up in my office (we have quite a few with a missionary bent); I would flip the light switch on and off, intoning, ?Let there be light,Let there be light? and challenge them to produce a miracle equal to that, right now and none of that babble about ?isn?t a child a miracle?? either. Turn my water into wine, fly out the window (10th floor), do something to produce a REAL miracle, right now! Put up; or shut up and get out.

        Eventually they all got the message; no one?s bothered ?old Al? for a while now with that crap.

        Worthless spammers! I wish it was legal to use them for target practice; that way, they?d at least be good for some tiny, tiny bit of good in this vast universe, instead of the absolutely worthless scum they are now.

        //EndRant

      • #3241005

        I find it interesting…….

        by farmist ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        that your bias instantly assumes the religious messages are Christian, and/or right-wing.

        • #3239831

          Well having bumped into

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to I find it interesting…….

          more than a few Christian Right Wingers, bias has been rather difficult to avoid. One even told me I was unamerican for not being a christian and being a socialist. Leaving aside the fact that I’m a brit, how do you deal with that level of prejudice. If people don’t want to be treated like a right wing bible thumpers they should avoid sounding like them.

        • #3179854

          Its Ironic, Brits were instrumental…

          by gometrics ·

          In reply to Well having bumped into

          in spreading Christianity around the world. Sometimes in a not so polite way. It used to be your national religion…maybe still is. I guess you’ve learned to tolerate your ancestors so perhaps that is how you can tolerate the “prejudices” of today.

      • #3191156

        Hipocracy

        by papawhiskey ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        It’s not okay to “have the bible or Jesus shoved down my throat by a bunch of right wing religious nutjobs in the workplace”, but’s it’s perfectly okay to shove homosexuality as a normal lifestyle down my throat in the workplace, a.k.a. “diversity training”? I find homosexuality to be very offensive, where’s my rights?

        Don’t call me homophobic, I fear God, not homosexuals.

      • #3057184

        Hallelujah and Amen to that

        by andy ·

        In reply to THIS IS INNAPROPRIATE USE OF COMPANY SYSTEMS AND VIOLATION OF LABOR LAWS

        Oops

    • #3246100

      THREATEN THEM WITH LEGAL ACTION

      by why me worry? ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      they are supposed to be a corporation, not a church or religious entity

      • #3260721

        Hmmm…

        by larfx ·

        In reply to THREATEN THEM WITH LEGAL ACTION

        God is not confined to a church or religious organization. God is part of real life, not just some private and minimized part of life.

        • #3241273

          God is

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Hmmm…

          part of your life.
          There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

          God is not part of my life
          and there’s nothing wrong with that either.

          To disagree is your privilege, to make me agree is not one you will be accorded.

      • #3260590

        Step back and look at the big picture…..

        by robertlt ·

        In reply to THREATEN THEM WITH LEGAL ACTION

        I have read through the responses to this issue and believe that a good many are knee jerk reactions to a very sensitive subject. I am an agnostic/atheist and believe are country is headed down the same path as other Theocratic type governments. The religious right in this country is bent on forcing their ideas and morals upon those who feel or think differently. From abortion (which I disagree with by the way) to the FCC (thanks Janet) to hypocrites like Delay threatening retribution on judges for the Schiavo case as well as the Bush government interfering in what was a personal family matter.

        However, you can?t ?really? win in this situation. Any action you take will make you persona-non-grata. My mother sends me this stuff all the time and she knows exactly how I feel about religion. I don?t complain, I just decided not to let it bother me and delete what I do not wish to keep/read. I recommend you decide to do the same on your end. If you find this too hard to do, than I recommend you polish up your resume and make as good an impression there while you look for greener pastures.

        Good luck!

        Robert

      • #3260533

        What if

        by joe ·

        In reply to THREATEN THEM WITH LEGAL ACTION

        the corporation exists for the purpose of religious evangalism?

    • #3246073

      Reply To: Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      by jbaker ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Unfortunately, there is very little that you can do, if you want to stay in the job. If you raise too much of a stink, they will make your life miserable (or simply terminate you for “performance” issues). You could try speaking to HR quietly. If you threaten legal action they will probably terminate you, especially if it is a privatley owned comapny, and the owner is one of the “religious nutballs”.

      Be sure that your email is server is set so that it is a single-instance server, then you do not have to worry about numerous copies of these emails, there will simply be one copy, with links to everyone it was forwarded to.

      • #3246069

        I’M PRETTY SURE THIS COMPANY IS IN ONE OF THEM “RED STATES”

        by why me worry? ·

        In reply to Reply To: Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

        not to get political or anything, but this sounds like a dilemma in most Red State companies where a day does not go by without Jesus or the bible being mentioned

        • #3246057

          Yeah, not to get political or anything…

          by gralfus ·

          In reply to I’M PRETTY SURE THIS COMPANY IS IN ONE OF THEM “RED STATES”

          Seems to have touched a nerve with you since you keep on posting, and in all caps. Give it a rest, you made your point the first time.

        • #3246035

          It wouldn’t be as much of a problem

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I’M PRETTY SURE THIS COMPANY IS IN ONE OF THEM “RED STATES”

          if some of these people actually practiced what they preached.

        • #3262196

          Right!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It wouldn’t be as much of a problem

          Because that would mean selling everything they own, giving the money to the poor and following Jesus.

          There’s really not much room for interpretation there, is there? You really cannot claim to be a Christian AND own property simultaneously. Maybe quote that verse to your bosses.

          Sorry, but I never cared enough to memorize chapter and verse so you’ll have to find that on your own.

        • #3262002

          Jesus was a socialist ?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Right!

          A damn commie ?
          Picture a big grin with me behind it.
          ROTFLMAO
          You are seriously in danger of being reported the the committee for unamerican activities.

        • #3260672

          Christian??

          by gunship ·

          In reply to Jesus was a socialist ?

          It has been asumed that the emails are from a christian and that he/she is right wing. Anyone remember that there are radical left wing christians? Oh, I forgot that the news doesn’t cover them. How about Jewish or Muslim. Maybe they’re Hindu or Shinto. To all of those groups the message from another MAY be considered offensive. TO the best of my knowledge, Buddah and the American Indian Tecumsah are the only ones to say that all religions have something of value.

          BTW, I’m American Indian (and it’s NOT a religion, it’s a spiritual belief system).

        • #3241269

          Well in the main

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Christian??

          I agree with Buddah and Tecumsah. I’m sure they are both relieved at having garnered my support.

          I must also confess that to me Right-wing Christian is an oxymoron, and that by most definitions was Jesus was a socialist.

          Heresy on two counts, if I was american.

        • #3260628

          Yeah, I think He was

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Jesus was a socialist ?

          And a damn good one, too! Ya know, if we were all that type of socialist, the world would be a much better place. I’m not bible-thumpin’, just thinking out loud.

          But back to the topic – In a situation like this, I think the choice is to either make a big deal over this and risk totally alienating the mgt, or mostly ignoring it and letting it make you nuts. It’s up to OneShoe what he/she wants to do. It sucks that there probably is not much middle ground here.

          Maybe he should become OneSandal and join the boss’ group. 🙂

        • #3260778

          way off base…

          by lostmage ·

          In reply to Right!

          Just because you are a Christian doesn’t mean you have to be poor! Get your facts straight – read the book!

        • #3260741

          Ignorant

          by redgranite ·

          In reply to Right!

          Dude, thine keyboard really shouldn’t comment on things you don’t understandeth. Thou really tooketh the quote out of context. Your ignorance doth shine forth brightly.

        • #3260712

          Not exactly right…

          by larfx ·

          In reply to Right!

          In the first church, they did share amongst themselves and those in need. However, Christians have never been required to get rid of what they own. In the example of Ananias and Saphira, The apostles specifically told them that the property was theres and they did not have to sell it.

          Christians can be quite wealthy, everything is God’s and we should use it for him, that never implies that we can’t have a good life, just that we have to take God’s will in account in our use of property.

          Where in the world did you get such a skewed view of Christianity???

        • #3241265

          Was probably

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Not exactly right…

          one of the Borgias.
          It’s along time since I’ve read the bible which passage did it say you will safe guard my church by tacitly ignoring the death of four million fellow human beings ?
          The greatest good of the greatest number perhaps ?

        • #3245973

          YES PLEASE GIVE IT A REST AND HELP.

          by synthetic ·

          In reply to I’M PRETTY SURE THIS COMPANY IS IN ONE OF THEM “RED STATES”

          This is being made an issue by the CFO oneshoe is dealing with. I’m so very sick and tired of both side ranting about how this is a Blue, or Red, or Lib, or Dem, etc etc etc. If you really have to fracture yourself among idealist lines I’m sure you can’t live up to, then please, go do it on a yahoo blogg, where the vitriol and venom is so think, no possible honest and sensible discussion is possible. I say this as an independent, who voted green for years. Problems aren’t solved by name calling, or taking a stance that gives no room for compromise. Hijacking with hate, there is enough name calling, anger and bogus crap to go around TO ALL POLITICIANS AND VOTERS RED OR BLUE. Those who continue to add to the fracture are a part of the problem. You’ve provided no help, when you say “this is a red state issue”. How about something that will do some good?

        • #3260733

          Help him setup a mailing list.

          by jeremys ·

          In reply to YES PLEASE GIVE IT A REST AND HELP.

          Help your boss setup a mailing list. Make sure you?re not on it. You can say you’ve had complaints from others as justification.
          I?ve setup a Joke Group on our Exchange Server for the same reason.
          I for one, don?t mind getting e-mailed jokes, but others find it annoying.

        • #3260682

          LOL

          by redcell ·

          In reply to I’M PRETTY SURE THIS COMPANY IS IN ONE OF THEM “RED STATES”

          Hmmm. Now you are making religion and politics the same issue. So I am to assume that you feel the same way about discussing politics in the workplace too?

        • #3260642

          Broad statement

          by tunnelvision ·

          In reply to I’M PRETTY SURE THIS COMPANY IS IN ONE OF THEM “RED STATES”

          I live in one of those “Red States” and in 5 years of e-mail administration have never had one “Jesus” or “Bible” e-mail. My biggest problem is the never ending barrage of spam, porn, online pharmacy’s, etc. BTW, the “Red States” won, not to get political or anything.

        • #3260618

          Get over it.

          by glastron ·

          In reply to I’M PRETTY SURE THIS COMPANY IS IN ONE OF THEM “RED STATES”

          You lost, deal with it. Instead of whining about politics come up with real ideas to help this person.

        • #3260596

          Amazing prejudice

          by eric.p ·

          In reply to I’M PRETTY SURE THIS COMPANY IS IN ONE OF THEM “RED STATES”

          Does everyone in blue states shout their headings? Of course not, just as this nonsense about red states is based completely on nonsensical prejudice.

        • #3260532

          Red States?

          by joe ·

          In reply to I’M PRETTY SURE THIS COMPANY IS IN ONE OF THEM “RED STATES”

          How many red state companies have you worked for? A blanket all-inclusive statement like that must have come from a vast amount of experience.

        • #3261809

          None and I hope never

          by why me worry? ·

          In reply to Red States?

          The idea of going to work and feeling like I am in some southern redneck church listening to bible babble and jeebus this jeebus that makes me sick to the stomach

      • #3246066

        WHY WOUL;D ANYONE WANT TO WORK IN THIS KIND OF COMPANY?

        by why me worry? ·

        In reply to Reply To: Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

        I would be glad if they fired me or I would end up leaving, but I would definitely enlighten them as to what labor laws are all about. For god’s sake, this is the U.S.A., not Saudi Arabia where religion is in every aspect of daily life.

        • #3245964

          Maybe with a tight job market…

          by synthetic ·

          In reply to WHY WOUL;D ANYONE WANT TO WORK IN THIS KIND OF COMPANY?

          and few aspects, someone might put up with this because they need to support themselves and their family. Instead of running from an issue, help to balance it. The firm I work for, well, the local partnership, is Southern, and the TV in the lunch room is always tuned to FOX, biased corporate lies and slander. I work on systems with God bless the GOP screen savers, and deal with some serious religious and idealogical conservatives. I am very far from these modes of thinking, and very well informed on the issues. Ind=stead of getting angry, I speak up. Not confrontational, not from a “better than you, holier than thou” point of view. When we stop respecting the thoughts, and views, and begin to dismiss out of hand those around us, are we any better, and can we ask for the consideration we are unwilling to provide? When I can, I turn the TV off, depending on the person, I take whatever the appropriate tact is, and ask they refrain from politics with me. I do it in a way that is non confrontational, and explain that I respect their right and views, but I have my own and do not feel the work place the best forum for such debates. Where they have GOP backgrounds, I keep up a large ACLU background. Instead of being angry and reactive, I try to find some neutral ground that allows all parities to leave with their humility and face intact. I won’t go my further, oneshoe, as a number of people have already posted labor law info, which should certainly be a consideration if your attempts to calm the crisis fail, and you remain in a hostile environment. Good luck, in whatever you do, sound frustrating. Remember, your ability to act in a way more human, less like an ideologue, will serve a more powerful example, than stupid canned, Look to Jesus, BS chain mailings.

        • #3262094

          I agree with Most

          by fieldse ·

          In reply to Maybe with a tight job market…

          I like the stance and tone. I just don’t think it’s a “crisis”.

        • #3262468

          Go Easy there Mr. Aggressive

          by oneshoe ·

          In reply to WHY WOUL;D ANYONE WANT TO WORK IN THIS KIND OF COMPANY?

          Your workplace must be a lot of fun. Do all your coworkers have the same attitude? Do they all run around threatening legal action when they don’t like something at work?

          I believe everyone has the right to believe what they wish to believe, and they have the right to share their beliefs, even at work. However, I am not a believer of shoving your opinion down other people’s throats on a regular basis. This goes for religion, politics and even team sports.

          I am not interested in attacking them or filing suit or using the term “labor law” in any way at this point. I am also not interested in ending my employment here just yet. I am not that offended.

          What I am interested in is some CONSTRUCTIVE, POSITIVE advise on how to reduce or eliminate the sending of group emails containing religious or other content that may be offensive to the employees in this organization.

        • #3260793

          If your not that offended

          by techmail.cmccubbin ·

          In reply to Go Easy there Mr. Aggressive

          then why did you bring it up in the first place. I think you a rehiding your true feelings (for whatever reason). Moreover the “I beleive…” is a matter of degrees and that means opinion. What you find acceptable may be shoving it down the throat to your neighbor!

          You can talk, youcan ask, and you can set your spam filters. Those who have fervent beliefs will not stop just because you ask them to do so. If you are unwilling to talk to them directly and take a stand in this situation then be quiet and sit down because your not going to helpsolve the problem, only raise the temperatures of everyone else! BTW did you know that your deciding what is
          “offensive to the employees in this organization.” is cencorship, and that is banned by the first amendment? If there is a policy enforce it; if there is no policy get one in place then enforce it; if you can’t do that set the spam filters and move on to the next task, your no more likely to resolve this situation than you are to negitiate a Mideast peace accord. After all your a technician not the guradian of the company’s moral and religious balance.

        • #3260713

          The First Amendment…

          by underground_in_tn ·

          In reply to If your not that offended

          … only restricts the Federal government from infringing on free speech and the free press.

          It DOES NOT restrict private citizens, companies or organizations from censoring the speech or press on and within their own property.

          If only people actually paid attention in those boring high school civics classes…

        • #3260611

          From one Zealot to the rest…

          by jmd10k ·

          In reply to If your not that offended

          I do not consider myself a Christian as it brings along many negative connotations. I am however a born again believer. I am as much a “Zealot” as the next guy. If someone “wants” to hear about my faith I will talk to them. I will even say “God bless you” and many of the other phrases. The difference is, when I speak to someone, I show them respect and if they don’t want to talk, I don’t say a word.

          What I think Oneshoe is saying is that upper management is lacking in the respect area and he would like to provide a way to enforce respect. It is a shame when people take their “Faith” and push it on others when according to their “Faith” they are to respect others.

          No matter if you have “Faith” in God, you are a member of another religion, you believe in Science, or you don’t know what to have faith in, you have the right to your faith, and so do others. I have never saw in the Bible where it says to make converts, especially by sending blast emails; I have, however, saw where it says make disciples. You make disciples by relationship, not by forcing something on someone. If you have a friendship with someone that believes something else, you shouldn’t have to force it; your life should have an impact on them so that they come to you. If you say the occasional God bless you, then they will know that it is because you care about them as a person, not that they care enough to drag you kicking and screaming to church.

          Every last time I have brought someone from work to my church, I have been friends for years and built a relationship with them and they ask me to come to church, afterwards, I am there to help mentor them. It’s like anything that you know and someone else wants to know, they don’t want to know until they are interested in it. Once they want to know, it is easy to share. Until then, don’t force your beliefs on others, and let’s help Oneshoe figure out how to help his management learn to respect other’s beliefs, faith and time. He has asked our help on filtering emails that “could be deemed offensive” and, unless his company has a religious affiliation, in not “business critical.”

          I agree with an earlier post that the corporate distribution group would be a great idea. Even go so far as to suggest that anyone who would like to be on the group simply send you or whoever runs your email server a message to be added to the list. Tell your management that you will even take his distribution and send out an invitation to the list. Tell everyone that their will be two lists, a Forwards list for religious material or other miscellaneous forwards and another for jokes. Set your mail server to only keep one copy of the message. The last step is to keep your name off the member’s list unless you want to receive any of the messages. If you show that you are willing to help, they will be more willing to change. This will show that you have a solution to a problem they might not see, rather than dismissing their forwards. Some people don’t understand that it is a waste of resources and by offering a solution they will be more likely to listen to your concerns.

        • #3260770

          Delete buttons work well try it out.

          by james.w.polk ·

          In reply to Go Easy there Mr. Aggressive

          It seems the content of the email is more worrisome, than the fact that it is spam or misuse of a company asset. I asked around our company and phrased it like this if you got alot of Religous emails from your boss how would you feel… Well I got alot of pointed replies. Then I asked what if you got alot of jokes from your boss… Then I got alot of chuckles and mostly I don’t cares. Then I asked about religous jokes and I got, a huh what are you trying to say. I explained that it doesn’t matter where or what the email is it is a matter of this is all spam whether it comes from your boss, co workers or your significant other. This is misuse of a company asset. I however wouldn’t want to live in that world I have total control of my delete button and use it with my own filtering in mind.
          you can set up auto rules with key phrases or words in them to help if you can’t temper your own delete button. It sounds like you have the right approach though this isn’t a big deal if you apply your own brand of common sense to it.
          Now if you work for the Seven Hundred club I would expect to get this type of email regularly. but if not auto rule and delete button work just fine. Oh yeah is there anyway to delete a Billboard on the side of the road because they really piss me off. LOL
          Goodluck with your job and your dilemma.

        • #3260718

          Filter?

          by underground_in_tn ·

          In reply to Go Easy there Mr. Aggressive

          Here’s my constructive, positive advice:

          Could you create a spam filter in your email server that triggers on various Xian keywords, like Jesus and Christ and drops them into the spam bucket?

          And now for my non-constructive, but positive advice:

          Personally, I’d be tempted to reply to each one of their Xian spams with some quotes from the disproofs at the Jews for Judaism (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/mainpages/reference.html) or Messiah Truth (http://www.messiahtruth.org/) web sites, but then I’m a counter-missionary…

        • #3261081

          For amusement…

          by chaz chance# ·

          In reply to Filter?

          I can see from the tone of many of the responses here, that this subject causes stress to many of us. If you actively choose to feel amusement instead of stress, you will feel so much better, and may see this all in a diferent light.

          I would deal with the situation in a similar manner to Underground_In_TN, and another poster, whose posting I can’t find right now. Set up an auto-responder that is triggered by the more obvious spams – the ones that you can filter out. Send back a message that makes it clear that this is an automatic response (that way nobody thinks that you are picking on them). Make the message very patronising, suggesting that sending spams is childish, without actually saying it. Suggest also that spams are automatically reported to a higher authority – put the fear of the CEO into them!

          This should be enough to gradually embarrass them into stopping.

          Finally, if you have a really wicked sense of humour, include a religious quote at the bottom – but from a different religion. I usually like to quote from the “Religion of The Wheel of Life”, something like “what goes around, comes around”, or “there’s nothing you can do when your number is up”. You will be surprised how many people “discover” that they are promoting a religion with their everyday speech.

          Have fun!
          Chaz
          =====
          “Such is life” : Sun Worshipers of the Basque Region in Southern France

        • #3241336

          Nice.

          by synthetic ·

          In reply to For amusement…

          Your first sentence says a great deal. How we choose to react determines both the power given to the issue, and therefore the issuer, and our own response. Getting hot about small things is a quick step to an early grave. There is so much suffering in the world, so much to get worked up about (and then help, in some small or grand way) that shouting over a slow driver, or someone with 15 items in the 10 item lane, is only going to spoils ones own day, and lead to bad interactions with others. The posting tone is good, but some of the venom and intolerance from either side is just ugly vitriol.

        • #3260681

          For god’s sake, this is the U.S.A.!

          by redcell ·

          In reply to WHY WOUL;D ANYONE WANT TO WORK IN THIS KIND OF COMPANY?

          So cut the cr@p! And learn to deal with it.

        • #3260579

          And Allah loves you to

          by why me worry? ·

          In reply to For god’s sake, this is the U.S.A.!

          If you want to “deal” with this crap..I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia where you will have no choice but to “deal with it”

          I choose to live and work in an environment free from religious brainwashing

        • #3260569

          One question

          by mdbarnett ·

          In reply to And Allah loves you to

          You seem to have some very strong feelings against any kind of organized religion. But do you actually understand what any of these religions are about? You continue to call those who believe in something different from yourself stupid. But do you even know why these people believe?

          I would ask you to try and understand something of what these people believe before you dismiss it as stupid and as a form of brainwashing.

          Or better yet. Lets focus on the problem at hand. I have read all of your posts and I don’t believe that you have posted one useful comment. OneShoe came here looking for a way to stop spam, not to have everyone engage in a pointless religious bash-fest.

        • #3260535

          I have!

          by frodo3 ·

          In reply to One question

          >I would ask you to try and understand something of what these people believe before you dismiss it as stupid and as a form of brainwashing.

          I WAS a christian, did nothing for me, I am much happier after throwing away the crutches of religion.

        • #3260979

          LOL! That’s great!

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to I have!

          “I WAS a christian *did nothing for me*”…..

          LMAO…that is classic

          😉

        • #3241263

          I must confess

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to I have!

          He did a ppear to miss what christianity is meant to be about.
          Course so do a shed load of others most of whom would claim to be one.
          Perhaps it’s easier to see from the outside.

          If he had put ME in capitals would it have been funnier?
          LOL

        • #3260982

          He’s a zealot mdbarnett…don’t waste your keystrokes

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to One question

          Mdbarnett,

          I hear you. Don’t waste your keystrokes on R.Z.’s comments in this particular post — he’s one of those zealot types….you know how they are. 😉

        • #3260584

          Watch out for the egg

          by eric.p ·

          In reply to WHY WOUL;D ANYONE WANT TO WORK IN THIS KIND OF COMPANY?

          You can always quit if it bothers you so much. You don’t have to work there. And before you rant at them about labor laws, it might help if you familiarize yourself with them first, as I would be surprised if what you’re experiencing at this company is addressed by any such laws. You know, you don’t want to end up with too much egg on your face.

      • #3262689

        Hope you forwarded it!

        by dr dij ·

        In reply to Reply To: Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

        to ten people or you will burn in he dbl hockeystix.

        I think tho if you did forward it you could be prosecuted, aren’t chain letters illegal? or is that just pyramid ponzi scheme letters?

        If so I’m sure your boss would put up the funds to defend you.

    • #3246062

      Need to raise it as an official issue

      by gralfus ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      How large is your company? If they have an HR dept, you should raise this as an issue to them. No company wants to be outside its own acceptable use policy, nor outside the law. Most people send emails like that because they are clueless as opposed to malicious. Make them aware of the possible repercussions of continuing the behavior.

      By the way, save as many as you can in either electronic (PST format if Outlook) or printed form, and keep these at your home or in a safe deposit box. This way you have evidence of the issue, as well as the extent of it. If someone were to get snippy and terminate you, you will have grounds for pursuing them (if you want to). You will also need the printed information when you go to HR, because they will want documentation of the issue. 20-30 pages should do the trick.

      • #3262460

        No HR and No Policies

        by oneshoe ·

        In reply to Need to raise it as an official issue

        Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, we are a fairly small organization with no HR department. They use an outside consultant for their HR. There are also no policies in place for many areas of the organization including IT.

        One of my initial responsibilities when I started here (about three months ago) was to create policies and procedures. I have created a policy that specifically addresses this very issue, but it has not yet been approved or implimented. The same goes for all the other policies I have created. They are sitting on a desk awaiting review and approval from management and the board of directors.

        As for evidence, I keep everything. Good advice.

        • #3260794

          consider the meaning

          by rogbirk ·

          In reply to No HR and No Policies

          Are these threatening or are these folks think they are sharing a cute message or web site? Supposedly we have freedom of speach in this country but that is going the way of the Dodo. If it is a cute message or joke I sometimes send it to select friends without the “send to 10 people in 10 min and something good/bad will happen if you do/don’t” crap.

    • #3246052

      Please check your religion at the door

      by why me worry? ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      although some christians may have a problem with this request

      • #3262114

        Not Really

        by fieldse ·

        In reply to Please check your religion at the door

        There’s no problem with the request. I think it’s funny that many people have no problem cursing, and doing things that offend me…and when I say something I can hear “why don’t I just leave”! I believe in respecting peoples choices in life…Do you?

      • #3260697

        Can’t, in good conscience.

        by paymeister ·

        In reply to Please check your religion at the door

        [Expecting a flame war, but really not trying to incite one: this note is primarily a slam on pretend Christians]

        I am serious about my Christianity, and if Christ indeed has “all authority” as Scripture says, real Christians *cannot* check their religion at the door – to do so would be in defiance of our Lord. And in fact, it is a good thing that I keep my religion with me, as I have access to names, DOB, SSN, etc. of perhaps 30,000 people for example, and could booger up payroll well beyond recognition (or send everything to my account, etc.) should I so desire. Well, I do NOT desire, partly out of well-placed loyalty and a desire to stay out of jail, etc., but my value judgements are grounded in my commitment to Christ.

        SO… what about this chain mail nonsense? If the sender’s behavior at work and in the community is exemplary, he’s still with his first wife, and his kids are turning out well, he can speak in a mere whisper and people will hang on his every word. If not, his emails will only serve to annoy folks. A more effective email (which I would love to see sometime) would be for him to send out something like “This is from [first and last name]: I am serious about my Christianity, and if you are in the least bit interested in chatting, about it, please let me buy you lunch and tell you about it. My life backs up my claim – I encourage you to chat about my conduct with my family, my pastor, my boss, my staff, my neighbors, the waiters at local restaurants and the checkers at the local grocery stores.”

        As a Christian brother to the guy who is sending this stuff out – feel free to give this note to him:

        Brother, it would be easy to jump on a hand-grenade to protect your wife, but it is a lot harder to live every day in a sacrificial manner to properly provide materially and spiritually for your family. In the same way, talk (=email) is cheap. SHOW your faith by your works, and quietly be available for discussions over lunch. I question whether the “forward to 10 people” emails really honor our Lord; I *do* know that a godly life does.

        Respectfully (to all TechRepublic readers, and to the sender of the email),

        Tim

        • #3261094

          Why is your point of view so rare?

          by joel ·

          In reply to Can’t, in good conscience.

          As someone outside your faith, I’d love to know why your point of view seems so rare today. It certainly isn’t exemplified by the Christians we see in the media, be they politicians or television preachers. Why don’t we hear from folks like you shaming the pretenders?

        • #3260963

          Key word: Media

          by underdog966 ·

          In reply to Why is your point of view so rare?

          You see what the media wants you to see…the worst of everything. I’m sure when you open your eyes, you’ll see that the folks who send these types of messages are well meaning. Those folks are not resposible for anyone’s reaction to their good wishes.

          At least they aren’t prostletizing to all of us infidels with IED’s!

        • #3239738

          Man-centered vs God-centered Christianity

          by paymeister ·

          In reply to Why is your point of view so rare?

          This will get a bit theological, but might be interesting even to non-Christians. This does contain a short gospel statement, but it is given in the context of answering the question. (I’m not ashamed of it – just wanted to warn you.)

          I think that most preaching today is along the lines of “Try Jesus”, “This will give you something nice for your life”, and “Jesus is waiting for you to ‘make a decision for Him'”. The critical point (on which all else hangs) is the individual making a ‘decision’. In its simplest form, this means that man saves himself, with a bit of help from Jesus, and Christ’s death on the cross accomplished nothing in and of itself. In fact, Scripture clearly states that those who would be saved were on God’s list from before the beginning of the world, and that Christ’s death on the cross secured that salvation for those individuals. The ‘list’ is God’s business, not mine. My job is to preach the good news – IF you come to Christ, He’ll save you. Those not saved won’t be interested (or they’ll be hostile); any who ARE interested feel that way BECAUSE they’ve been given a new heart already. The ‘decision’ I read about on bumper stickers doesn’t *accomplish* salvation but rather is the point at which the truth of the prior true salvation is made public (similar to a judge recording his decision, then later announcing it in court). This is a God-centered Christianity, in which God saves sinners. When a fellow believes that the individual holds the keys, the issue becomes salesmanship. When God holds the keys, the issue becomes obedience to Him – and I’m supposed to preach, knowing that some will respond and some won’t, based on God’s good pleasure rather than my salesmanship. This is the solid religion of the Scriptures, and it would be refreshing if more lived it instead of the shallow Christianity I see in most Americans today (I call them “churchians”.)

          Application: I am to be ready to preach on all occasions, and not shy away from the issues. I do NOT have to use cheesy emails that present a weakling Christ whimpering “at the door of your life”, and imply that the cost of becoming a Christian is cheap. (aside: Hey, folks, if you want this deal, it WILL cost you your life. You’ll have to give up living for yourself, and you’ll have to admit that you’re worthless in and of yourself. This is too much of a price for many to pay, yet to those being saved is merely an obvious and reasonable response.)

          So why don’t you hear this from more folks like me? I can speak best for my own behavior. For starters, I’ve been badly flamed here before, probably in part because of my truly clumsy words and in part because the flamers had bosses like poor Oneshoe’s and I’m just taking hits on their behalf. Secondly, I’m busy… I’m trying to be a good husband and father and farmer and computer driver, and that doesn’t leave much time for me to rub elbows with you at the gym or the pub – I wish I could! Thirldy, I’m scared of rejection… which is silly, considering that it is God who wants me to speak and the worst I would be likely to get from you is a punch in the nose. But I would guess that this IS a real problem for most Christians. That may also be a reason for Oneshoe’s boss hiding behind an email instead of laying bare his life.

          Why haven’t we trashed the folks who play their skin-deep religion for their own gain? No opportunity for publicity, I would guess. You’ll hear this sort of thing preached against at my church, but we don’t make the news. And I’m afraid to get between some of these characters and the camera… I’m afraid I’ll get run over! Besides, Christ talked about the Pharisees and the way they loved to be seen praying on the streetcorners. Seems to apply here, too.

          Thanks for your patience, and your words. Hope I haven’t stepped on too many toes.

        • #3241150

          More religious bias?

          by chaz chance# ·

          In reply to Can’t, in good conscience.

          A really great suggestion from Paymeister for dealing with the religious aspect of the chain mail problem.

          However, the first paragraph is somewhat ambiguous; either Paymeister is suggesting that only christians can be trusted in positions of resposibility, or s/he is giving the credit for her/his own strong moral backbone to her/his own religion. I don’t think it is the first, because it would be difficult to explain all the non-christians who don’t run off with the cash. Therefore I believe that Paymeister is unable to accept the plain fact of her/his own innate goodness.

          Come on, Paymeister, take the credit that is due. If you did not have the morality within you, no amount of religious indoctrination would make you the good person that your comments show you to be. I think we are all familiar with the image of the mafia killer who regularly goes to church. It is you who chooses the influence that your religion has in your life, therefore the credit for your moral choices in life is yours and yours alone.

          I bet that if you did something that was unkind to someone else, accidentally or otherwise, you would not give your religion credit for that, would you?

          I bet that if you examine the texts of your religion you would find something that says that real goodness starts in the heart, or very similar. I know, because all the religions I have researched have something like that. Be proud of your heart, and the brain that it guides, trust your instincts, and some of those around you will follow your example. In this way you will help create a world were religion may florish.

          (Sorry to be so off-topic.)

        • #3239703

          More off-topic…maybe

          by paymeister ·

          In reply to More religious bias?

          Off-topic? Not sure. If one understands a Christian’s motivations and values, one might be able to show him how he is better likely to get what he wants… without beating you to death with spam or little booklets.

          Thanks for your kind words, Chaz. I *greatly* appreciate your addressing me as a person rather than as a punching bag as I’ve had in the past.

          My reply is theological and personal in nature. Dear reader – Please don’t let me bore or annoy you if you’re not interested.

          In one sense, the “only Christians can be trusted” is true, though that’s certainly not what I was trying to present. IF (a *big* “IF”) a person knows solidly that he is working for the God of the Universe, Who is always watching ones actions and one’s thoughts, one is far more likely to conduct one’s life in a proper manner. For example, I probably COULD mess with folks’ paychecks and get away with it… but God is watching and I don’t want to mess with HIM! The problem is that 1) in the business environment, you can’t ask religious questions when you’re hiring, and 2) the answers would be worthless if you got them. You’ll note my “IF”, above… *Nobody* can see inside a person to tell if they’re really sincere about their faith, and so as a predictive tool or a hiring/promotion tool, you’re back to your best guess.

          But I in fact DO attribute any good character (start to finish) to God’s work in my life. And any bad behavior I attribute to my ‘old character’ still acting like it is in charge. Why do I do this? 1) Scripture tells us that is how we’re built, and 2) that’s what it sure feels like inside. And the ‘innate good’ that has been in me since my childhood I also attribute to God’s work in my life. I have been “under construction” by Him all my life, though I ‘made my decision’ to become a Christian at 18 or so. See my post on Man-Centered vs. God-Centered, above, for more detail. And I certainly agree that the scoundrel can happily masquerade in a church, sit under good teaching for decades, and still commit atrocities. [Political figure’s name omitted] is still a member in good standing in his church, for example… which also suggests that his church doesn’t have brass ones like it should.

          But I would take issue with the statement that *I* chooses the influence and *I* who should receive the credit. ALL that I have of value has been given to me by Christ – the very desire to let the teaching sink in was itself given to me by God (Scripture references on request – that means I can’t remember them but could find them). Truly, that’s the key difference between a true Christian and play-christian: see who they give credit to for their salvation, for their successes, and for their failures.

          Real evil starts in the heart… unless it is regenerated by Christ. (Side note; the “good thing” done by non-Christians does not contradict my point – they’re doing ‘good things’ from ‘bad motives’, and it is not counted to their credit on God’s books, though it makes it nicer for all of the folks they’re around.) Regenerated, you’re quite right – my changed heart overflows into all areas of my life. And I’m thrilled to pieces about it – a good kind of pride! But I do NOT trust my instincts – they seem to be largely holdovers from my pre-Christian days. My instincts, for example, tell me what to do with the immodestly-dressed girl that just walked by, while Scripture tells me that’s adultery – I’ll go with Scripture as my guide, thank-you-very-much! (Besides, I taught my wife to shoot. Best thing in the world for our marriage.)

          So there you have it, everyone. Far more detail than you wanted about what is in the head of a guy that is trying to be a real Christian.

          How does this apply to the topic? I’ll bet that the boss that sent out the email is probably pretty much like me – I’ll bet he WANTS to do the right thing, but has no clue how to go about it. Email hits lots of people, so he thinks that is a good thing. His theology is probably pretty poor, and he thinks that by sending the words “Jesus loves you” he is actually accomplishing something. NEWS FLASH! Christ said “YOU will be my witnesses”, not “Your EMAIL…”.

          Want to know the best way to get this guy to stop? Find out where he goes to church, and have lunch with the guy’s pastor. Explain that you would be a lot more interested in the gospel if the fellow lived the life he should, rather than just sending spam, and ask the pastor to pass on your concerns. And if you want to *really* be brave, tell the pastor that if the fellow’s life is in order, you’ll sit down and listen for a half-hour. Your boss KNOWS he can’t use religion for hire/fire/promote decisions, and he’s probably unlikely to do it. He just wants to get the message out, and this would give him a really warm feeling, knowing that a real person listened (regardless of your response). BUT if the fellow’s life is NOT in order, tell the pastor to tell him to work on THAT instead of sending out hypocritical email… and come talk to you after a year or two of having his life together. You’ll wind up investing an hour or two, and should probably pay for the pastor’s lunch, but you’ll probably meet a nice person and have a nice lunch… and might just stop the spam.

        • #3171613

          well, well said

          by dakid ·

          In reply to Can’t, in good conscience.

          Paymeister……..couldn’t have said it better!

      • #3260686

        I disagree

        by placidair ·

        In reply to Please check your religion at the door

        People don’t need to “check their religion at the door” they simply need to not try to foist it upon others in the workplace. If one of my coworkers wants to sit and read the Bible (or any other religious text for that matter) on their breaks, it’s not a problem. But when they start trying to pull me into it, then it’s a problem. I’ve been down this road with a co-worker who kept trying to “save” me. I finally had to file a complaint with HR. Not at all shockingly, she’d had multiple other complaints for the same thing already. Even after they spoke to her, she tried to “sneak” it in. I finally found the Wiccan Rede online (I’m not Wiccan, but she didn’t know that) printed it out and put it on the cork board in my office — every time she mentioned religion, I simply pointed at it and she’d fly out of my office so fast it made my head almost spin. She finally just plain stopped coming into my office (since to her it had become the den of “evil” and all…lol) unless she HAD to … meaning for business purposes. That worked just fine for me.

      • #3261776

        Some?

        by joe ·

        In reply to Please check your religion at the door

        *ALL* Christians *should* have a problem with this. As should Muslims, Hindus, et.al. You are asking people to set aside what fundamentaly defines them at their core.

      • #3172387

        I disagree

        by placidair ·

        In reply to Please check your religion at the door

        Oops! duplicate post — removed it. Sorry all!

    • #3246039

      Reply To: Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      “Thou shalt not steal” company resources.

    • #3246032

      Attention Walmart Shoppers!! Jesus Juice is on sale 40% off

      by why me worry? ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Please pass this email along

      LOL

    • #3246023

      Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964

      by why me worry? ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

      ——————————————————————————–

      Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
      EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), as amended, as it appears in volume 42 of the United States Code, beginning at section 2000e. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166) (CRA) amends several sections of Title VII. These amendments appear in boldface type. In addition, section 102 of the CRA (which is printed elsewhere in this publication) amends the Revised Statutes by adding a new section following section 1977 (42 U.S.C. 1981), to provide for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional violations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Cross references to Title VII as enacted appear in italics following each section heading. Editor’s notes also appear in italics.

      ——————————————————————————–

      An Act

      To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon
      the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief
      against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney
      General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public
      facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights,
      to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a
      Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
      States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the
      “Civil Rights Act of 1964″.

      * * *

      DEFINITIONS

      SEC. 2000e. [Section 701]

      For the purposes of this subchapter-

      (a) The term “person” includes one or more individuals, governments,
      governmental agencies, political subdivisions, labor unions, partnerships,
      associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual companies,
      joint?stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations,
      trustees, trustees in cases under title 11 [bankruptcy], or
      receivers.

      (b) The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting
      commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of
      twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year,
      and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the
      United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United
      States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of
      Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive service (as
      defined in section 2102 of title 5 [of the United States Code]), or
      (2) a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization)
      which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of title 26 [the
      Internal Revenue Code of 1954], except that during the first year
      after March 24, 1972 [the date of enactment of the Equal Employment
      Opportunity Act of 1972], persons having fewer than twenty?five
      employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers.

      (c) The term “employment agency” means any person regularly undertaking
      with or without compensation to procure employees for an employer or to
      procure for employees opportunities to work for an employer and includes
      an agent of such a person.

      (d) The term “labor organization” means a labor organization engaged in
      an industry affecting commerce, and any agent of such an organization, and
      includes any organization of any kind, any agency, or employee
      representation committee, group, association, or plan so engaged in which
      employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in
      part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes,
      wages, rates of pay, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment,
      and any conference, general committee, joint or system board, or joint
      council so engaged which is subordinate to a national or international
      labor organization.

      (e) A labor organization shall be deemed to be engaged in an industry
      affecting commerce if (1) it maintains or operates a hiring hall or hiring
      office which procures employees for an employer or procures for employees
      opportunities to work for an employer, or (2) the number of its members
      (or, where it is a labor organization composed of other labor
      organizations or their representatives, if the aggregate number of the
      members of such other labor organization) is (A) twenty?five or more
      during the first year after March 24, 1972 [the date of enactment of
      the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972], or (B) fifteen or more
      thereafter, and such labor organization-

      (1) is the certified representative of employees under the
      provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended [29 U.S.C.
      151 et seq.], or the Railway Labor Act, as amended [45 U.S.C. 151
      et seq.];

      (2) although not certified, is a national or international labor
      organization or a local labor organization recognized or acting as the
      representative of employees of an employer or employers engaged in an
      industry affecting commerce; or

      (3) has chartered a local labor organization or subsidiary body
      which is representing or actively seeking to represent employees of
      employers within the meaning of paragraph (1) or (2); or

      (4) has been chartered by a labor organization representing or
      actively seeking to represent employees within the meaning of paragraph
      (1) or (2) as the local or subordinate body through which such employees
      may enjoy membership or become affiliated with such labor organization; or

      (5) is a conference, general committee, joint or system board, or
      joint council subordinate to a national or international labor
      organization, which includes a labor organization engaged in an industry
      affecting commerce within the meaning of any of the preceding paragraphs
      of this subsection.

      (f) The term “employee” means an individual employed by an employer,
      except that the term “employee” shall not include any person elected to
      public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the
      qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be on
      such officer’s personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making level
      or an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional
      or legal powers of the office. The exemption set forth in the preceding
      sentence shall not include employees subject to the civil service laws of
      a State government, governmental agency or political subdivision. With
      respect to employment in a foreign country, such term includes an
      individual who is a citizen of the United States.

      (g) The term “commerce” means trade, traffic, commerce,
      transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States;
      or between a State and any place outside thereof; or within the District
      of Columbia, or a possession of the United States; or between points in
      the same State but through a point outside thereof.

      (h) The term “industry affecting commerce” means any activity, business,
      or industry in commerce or in which a labor dispute would hinder or
      obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce and includes any activity
      or industry “affecting commerce” within the meaning of the
      Labor?Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 [29 U.S.C.
      401 et seq.], and further includes any governmental industry,
      business, or activity.

      (i) The term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District
      of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Wake
      Island, the Canal Zone, and Outer Continental Shelf lands defined in the
      Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.].

      (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.

      (k) The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but
      are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth,
      or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy,
      childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for
      all employment?related purposes, including receipt of benefits under
      fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in
      their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of
      this title [section 703(h)] shall be interpreted to permit
      otherwise. This subsection shall not require an employer to pay for health
      insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would
      be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where medical
      complications have arisen from an abortion: Provided, That nothing herein
      shall preclude an employer from providing abortion benefits or otherwise
      affect bargaining agreements in regard to abortion.

      (l) The term “complaining party” means the Commission, the Attorney
      General, or a person who may bring an action or proceeding under this
      subchapter.

      (m) The term “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of production and
      persuasion.

      (n) The term “respondent” means an employer, employment agency, labor
      organization, joint labor?management committee controlling
      apprenticeship or other training or retraining program, including an
      on?the?job training program, or Federal entity subject to
      section 2000e-16 of this title .

      EXEMPTION

      SEC. 2000e-1. [Section 702]

      (a) This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect
      to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious
      corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect
      to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work
      connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association,
      educational institution, or society of its activities.

      (b) It shall not be unlawful under section 2000e-2 or 2000e-3 of
      this title [section 703 or 704] for an employer (or a corporation
      controlled by an employer), labor organization, employment agency, or
      joint labor?management committee controlling apprenticeship or other
      training or retraining (including on?the?job training programs)
      to take any action otherwise prohibited by such section, with respect to
      an employee in a workplace in a foreign country if compliance with such
      section would cause such employer (or such corporation), such
      organization, such agency, or such committee to violate the law of the
      foreign country in which such workplace is located.

      (c) (1) If an employer controls a corporation whose place of incorporation
      is a foreign country, any practice prohibited by section 2000e-2 or
      2000e-3 of this title [section 703 or 704] engaged in by such
      corporation shall be presumed to be engaged in by such employer.

      (2) Sections 2000e-2 and 2000e-3 of this title [sections 703 and
      704] shall not apply with respect to the foreign operations of an
      employer that is a foreign person not controlled by an American employer.

      (3) For purposes of this subsection, the determination of whether
      an employer controls a corporation shall be based on-

      (A) the interrelation of operations;

      (B) the common management;

      (C) the centralized control of labor relations; and

      (D) the common ownership or financial control, of the employer and the
      corporation.

      UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

      SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

      (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

      (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
      otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
      compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
      such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

      (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants
      for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
      individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his
      status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion,
      sex, or national origin.

      (b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency
      to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate
      against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or
      national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on
      the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

      (c) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization-

      (1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to
      discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion,
      sex, or national origin;

      (2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership or applicants
      for membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment
      any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
      individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment
      opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or
      as an applicant for employment, because of such individual’s race, color,
      religion, sex, or national origin; or

      (3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate
      against an individual in violation of this section.

      (d) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor
      organization, or joint labor?management committee controlling
      apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including
      on?the?job training programs to discriminate against any
      individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
      in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide
      apprenticeship or other training.

      (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, (1) it shall
      not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ
      employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment
      any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to
      classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor
      organization, or joint labor?management committee controlling
      apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ
      any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or
      national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or
      national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably
      necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or
      enterprise, and (2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a
      school, college, university, or other educational institution or
      institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular
      religion if such school, college, university, or other educational
      institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial
      part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or
      by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the
      curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational
      institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation
      of a particular religion.

      (f) As used in this subchapter, the phrase “unlawful employment
      practice” shall not be deemed to include any action or measure taken by
      an employer, labor organization, joint labor?management committee, or
      employment agency with respect to an individual who is a member of the
      Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required
      to register as a Communist?action or Communist?front
      organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board
      pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 [50 U.S.C.
      781 et seq.].

      (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, it shall not
      be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to
      hire and employ any individual for any position, for an employer to
      discharge any individual from any position, or for an employment agency to
      fail or refuse to refer any individual for employment in any position, or
      for a labor organization to fail or refuse to refer any individual for
      employment in any position, if-

      (1) the occupancy of such position, or access to the premises in or
      upon which any part of the duties of such position is performed or is to
      be performed, is subject to any requirement imposed in the interest of the
      national security of the United States under any security program in
      effect pursuant to or administered under any statute of the United States
      or any Executive order of the President; and

      (2) such individual has not fulfilled or has ceased to fulfill that
      requirement.

      (h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, it shall not
      be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different
      standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges
      of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system, or a
      system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production or to
      employees who work in different locations, provided that such differences
      are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color,
      religion, sex, or national origin, nor shall it be an unlawful employment
      practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any
      professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its
      administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or
      used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national
      origin. It shall not be an unlawful employment practice under this
      subchapter for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex in
      determining the amount of the wages or compensation paid or to be paid to
      employees of such employer if such differentiation is authorized by the
      provisions of section 206(d) of title 29 [section 6(d) of the Fair
      Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended].

      (i) Nothing contained in this subchapter shall apply to any business or
      enterprise on or near an Indian reservation with respect to any publicly
      announced employment practice of such business or enterprise under which a
      preferential treatment is given to any individual because he is an Indian
      living on or near a reservation.

      (j) Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require
      any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint
      labor?management committee subject to this subchapter to grant
      preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the
      race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group
      on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total
      number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or
      national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for
      employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to
      membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or
      employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison
      with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color,
      religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or
      other area, or in the available work force in any community, State,
      section, or other area.

      (k) (1) (A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact
      is established under this title only if-

      (i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a
      particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis
      of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails
      to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the
      position in question and consistent with business necessity; or

      (ii) the complaining party makes the demonstration described in
      subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment practice and
      the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative employment practice.

      (B) (i) With respect to demonstrating that a particular employment
      practice causes a disparate impact as described in subparagraph (A)(i),
      the complaining party shall demonstrate that each particular challenged
      employment practice causes a disparate impact, except that if the
      complaining party can demonstrate to the court that the elements of a
      respondent’s decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for
      analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as one employment
      practice.

      (ii) If the respondent demonstrates that a specific employment
      practice does not cause the disparate impact, the respondent shall not be
      required to demonstrate that such practice is required by business
      necessity.

      (C) The demonstration referred to by subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be
      in accordance with the law as it existed on June 4, 1989, with respect to
      the concept of “alternative employment practice”.

      (2) A demonstration that an employment practice is required by
      business necessity may not be used as a defense against a claim of
      intentional discrimination under this title.

      (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a rule
      barring the employment of an individual who currently and knowingly uses
      or possesses a controlled substance, as defined in schedules I and II of
      section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)), other
      than the use or possession of a drug taken under the supervision of a
      licensed health care professional, or any other use or possession
      authorized by the Controlled Substances Act [21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.]
      or any other provision of Federal law, shall be considered an
      unlawful employment practice under this title only if such rule is adopted
      or applied with an intent to discriminate because of race, color,
      religion, sex, or national origin.

      (l) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a respondent, in
      connection with the selection or referral of applicants or candidates for
      employment or promotion, to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff
      scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on
      the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

      (m) Except as otherwise provided in this title, an unlawful employment
      practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race,
      color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any
      employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the
      practice.

      (n) (1) (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as
      provided in paragraph (2), an employment practice that implements and is
      within the scope of a litigated or consent judgment or order that resolves
      a claim of employment discrimination under the Constitution or Federal
      civil rights laws may not be challenged under the circumstances described
      in subparagraph (B).

      (B) A practice described in subparagraph (A) may not be challenged
      in a claim under the Constitution or Federal civil rights laws-

      (i) by a person who, prior to the entry of the judgment or order
      described in subparagraph (A), had-

      (I) actual notice of the proposed judgment or order sufficient to
      apprise such person that such judgment or order might adversely affect the
      interests and legal rights of such person and that an opportunity was
      available to present objections to such judgment or order by a future date
      certain; and

      (II) a reasonable opportunity to present objections to such
      judgment or order; or

      (ii) by a person whose interests were adequately represented by
      another person who had previously challenged the judgment or order on the
      same legal grounds and with a similar factual situation, unless there has
      been an intervening change in law or fact.

      (2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to-

      (A) alter the standards for intervention under rule 24 of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or apply to the rights of parties who
      have successfully intervened pursuant to such rule in the proceeding in
      which the parties intervened;

      (B) apply to the rights of parties to the action in which a
      litigated or consent judgment or order was entered, or of members of a
      class represented or sought to be represented in such action, or of
      members of a group on whose behalf relief was sought in such action by the
      Federal Government;

      (C) prevent challenges to a litigated or consent judgment or order
      on the ground that such judgment or order was obtained through collusion
      or fraud, or is transparently invalid or was entered by a court lacking
      subject matter jurisdiction; or

      (D) authorize or permit the denial to any person of the due process
      of law required by the Constitution.

      (3) Any action not precluded under this subsection that challenges
      an employment consent judgment or order described in paragraph (1) shall
      be brought in the court, and if possible before the judge, that entered
      such judgment or order. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude a
      transfer of such action pursuant to section 1404 of title 28, United
      States Code.

      OTHER UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

      SEC. 2000e-3. [Section 704]

      (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to
      discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment,
      for an employment agency, or joint labor?management committee
      controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including
      on?the?job training programs, to discriminate against any
      individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member
      thereof or applicant for membership, because he has opposed any practice
      made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has
      made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an
      investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.

      (b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, labor
      organization, employment agency, or joint labor?management committee
      controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including
      on?the?job training programs, to print or publish or cause to be
      printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment by
      such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for
      employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any classification
      or referral for employment by such an employment agency, or relating to
      admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide
      apprenticeship or other training by such a joint labor?management
      committee, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or
      discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,
      except that such a notice or advertisement may indicate a preference,
      limitation, specification, or discrimination based on religion, sex, or
      national origin when religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide
      occupational qualification for employment.

      EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

      SEC. 2000e-4. [Section 705]

      (a) There is hereby created a Commission to be known as the Equal
      Employment Opportunity Commission, which shall be composed of five
      members, not more than three of whom shall be members of the same
      political party. Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the
      President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate for a term of
      five years. Any individual chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed
      only for the unexpired term of the member whom he shall succeed, and all
      members of the Commission shall continue to serve until their successors
      are appointed and qualified, except that no such member of the Commission
      shall continue to serve (1) for more than sixty days when the Congress is
      in session unless a nomination to fill such vacancy shall have been
      submitted to the Senate, or (2) after the adjournment sine die of the
      session of the Senate in which such nomination was submitted. The
      President shall designate one member to serve as Chairman of the
      Commission, and one member to serve as Vice Chairman. The Chairman shall
      be responsible on behalf of the Commission for the administrative
      operations of the Commission, and, except as provided in subsection (b) of
      this section, shall appoint, in accordance with the provisions of title 5
      [United States Code] governing appointments in the competitive
      service, such officers, agents, attorneys, administrative law judges
      [hearing examiners], and employees as he deems necessary to assist
      it in the performance of its functions and to fix their compensation in
      accordance with the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter
      53 of title 5 [United States Code], relating to classification and
      General Schedule pay rates: Provided, That assignment, removal, and
      compensation of administrative law judges [hearing examiners] shall
      be in accordance with sections 3105, 3344, 5372, and 7521 of title 5
      [United States Code].

      (b) (1) There shall be a General Counsel of the Commission appointed by
      the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a
      term of four years. The General Counsel shall have responsibility for the
      conduct of litigation as provided in sections 2000e-5 and 2000e-6 of this
      title [sections 706 and 707]. The General Counsel shall have such
      other duties as the Commission may prescribe or as may be provided by law
      and shall concur with the Chairman of the Commission on the appointment
      and supervision of regional attorneys. The General Counsel of the
      Commission on the effective date of this Act shall continue in such
      position and perform the functions specified in this subsection until a
      successor is appointed and qualified.

      (2) Attorneys appointed under this section may, at the direction of
      the Commission, appear for and represent the Commission in any case in
      court, provided that the Attorney General shall conduct all litigation to
      which the Commission is a party in the Supreme Court pursuant to this
      subchapter.

      (c) A vacancy in the Commission shall not impair the right of the
      remaining members to exercise all the powers of the Commission and three
      members thereof shall constitute a quorum.

      (d) The Commission shall have an official seal which shall be judicially
      noticed.

      (e) The Commission shall at the close of each fiscal year report to the
      Congress and to the President concerning the action it has taken [the
      names, salaries, and duties of all individuals in its employ] and the
      moneys it has disbursed. It shall make such further reports on the cause
      of and means of eliminating discrimination and such recommendations for
      further legislation as may appear desirable.

      (f) The principal office of the Commission shall be in or near the
      District of Columbia, but it may meet or exercise any or all its powers at
      any other place. The Commission may establish such regional or State
      offices as it deems necessary to accomplish the purpose of this
      subchapter.

      (g) The Commission shall have power-

      (1) to cooperate with and, with their consent, utilize regional,
      State, local, and other agencies, both public and private, and
      individuals;

      (2) to pay to witnesses whose depositions are taken or who are
      summoned before the Commission or any of its agents the same witness and
      mileage fees as are paid to witnesses in the courts of the United States;

      (3) to furnish to persons subject to this subchapter such technical
      assistance as they may request to further their compliance with this
      subchapter or an order issued thereunder;

      (4) upon the request of (i) any employer, whose employees or some
      of them, or (ii) any labor organization, whose members or some of them,
      refuse or threaten to refuse to cooperate in effectuating the provisions
      of this subchapter, to assist in such effectuation by conciliation or such
      other remedial action as is provided by this subchapter;

      (5) to make such technical studies as are appropriate to effectuate
      the purposes and policies of this subchapter and to make the results of
      such studies available to the public;

      (6) to intervene in a civil action brought under section 2000e-5 of
      this title [section 706] by an aggrieved party against a respondent
      other than a government, governmental agency or political subdivision.

      (h) (1) The Commission shall, in any of its educational or
      promotional activities, cooperate with other departments and agencies in
      the performance of such educational and promotional activities.

      (2) In exercising its powers under this title, the Commission shall
      carry out educational and outreach activities (including dissemination of
      information in languages other than English) targeted to-

      (A) individuals who historically have been victims of employment
      discrimination and have not been equitably served by the Commission; and

      (B) individuals on whose behalf the Commission has authority to
      enforce any other law prohibiting employment discrimination, concerning
      rights and obligations under this title or such law, as the case may be.

      (i) All officers, agents, attorneys, and employees of the Commission
      shall be subject to the provisions of section 7324 of title 5 [section
      9 of the Act of August 2, 1939, as amended (the Hatch Act)],
      notwithstanding any exemption contained in such section.

      (j) (1) The Commission shall establish a Technical Assistance Training
      Institute, through which the Commission shall provide technical assistance
      and training regarding the laws and regulations enforced by the
      Commission.

      (2) An employer or other entity covered under this title shall not
      be excused from compliance with the requirements of this title because of
      any failure to receive technical assistance under this subsection.

      (3) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
      subsection such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1992.

      ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

      SEC. 2000e-5. [Section 706]

      (a) The Commission is empowered, as hereinafter provided, to prevent
      any person from engaging in any unlawful employment practice as set forth
      in section 2000e-2 or 2000e-3 of this title [section 703 or 704].

      (b) Whenever a charge is filed by or on behalf of a person claiming to be
      aggrieved, or by a member of the Commission, alleging that an employer,
      employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor?management
      committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining,
      including on?the?job training programs, has engaged in an
      unlawful employment practice, the Commission shall serve a notice of the
      charge (including the date, place and circumstances of the alleged
      unlawful employment practice) on such employer, employment agency, labor
      organization, or joint labor?management committee (hereinafter
      referred to as the “respondent”) within ten days, and shall make an
      investigation thereof. Charges shall be in writing under oath or
      affirmation and shall contain such information and be in such form as the
      Commission requires. Charges shall not be made public by the Commission.
      If the Commission determines after such investigation that there is not
      reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true, it shall dismiss the
      charge and promptly notify the person claiming to be aggrieved and the
      respondent of its action. In determining whether reasonable cause exists,
      the Commission shall accord substantial weight to final findings and
      orders made by State or local authorities in proceedings commenced under
      State or local law pursuant to the requirements of subsections (c) and (d)
      of this section. If the Commission determines after such investigation
      that there is reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true, the
      Commission shall endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful
      employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and
      persuasion. Nothing said or done during and as a part of such informal
      endeavors may be made public by the Commission, its officers or employees,
      or used as evidence in a subsequent proceeding without the written consent
      of the persons concerned. Any person who makes public information in
      violation of this subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000 or
      imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. The Commission shall make
      its determination on reasonable cause as promptly as possible and, so far
      as practicable, not later than one hundred and twenty days from the filing
      of the charge or, where applicable under subsection (c) or (d) of this
      section, from the date upon which the Commission is authorized to take
      action with respect to the charge.

      (c) In the case of an alleged unlawful employment practice occurring in a
      State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local law
      prohibiting the unlawful employment practice alleged and establishing or
      authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such
      practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon
      receiving notice thereof, no charge may be filed under subsection (a) of
      this section by the person aggrieved before the expiration of sixty days
      after proceedings have been commenced under the State or local law, unless
      such proceedings have been earlier terminated, provided that such
      sixty?day period shall be extended to one hundred and twenty days
      during the first year after the effective date of such State or local law.
      If any requirement for the commencement of such proceedings is imposed by
      a State or local authority other than a requirement of the filing of a
      written and signed statement of the facts upon which the proceeding is
      based, the proceeding shall be deemed to have been commenced for the
      purposes of this subsection at the time such statement is sent by
      registered mail to the appropriate State or local authority.

      (d) In the case of any charge filed by a member of the Commission alleging
      an unlawful employment practice occurring in a State or political
      subdivision of a State which has a State or local law prohibiting the
      practice alleged and establishing or authorizing a State or local
      authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute
      criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof,
      the Commission shall, before taking any action with respect to such
      charge, notify the appropriate State or local officials and, upon request,
      afford them a reasonable time, but not less than sixty days (provided that
      such sixty?day period shall be extended to one hundred and twenty
      days during the first year after the effective day of such State or local
      law), unless a shorter period is requested, to act under such State or
      local law to remedy the practice alleged.

      (e) (1) A charge under this section shall be filed within one
      hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice
      occurred and notice of the charge (including the date, place and
      circumstances of the alleged unlawful employment practice) shall be served
      upon the person against whom such charge is made within ten days
      thereafter, except that in a case of an unlawful employment practice with
      respect to which the person aggrieved has initially instituted proceedings
      with a State or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief from
      such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto
      upon receiving notice thereof, such charge shall be filed by or on behalf
      of the person aggrieved within three hundred days after the alleged
      unlawful employment practice occurred, or within thirty days after
      receiving notice that the State or local agency has terminated the
      proceedings under the State or local law, whichever is earlier, and a copy
      of such charge shall be filed by the Commission with the State or local
      agency.

      (2) For purposes of this section, an unlawful employment practice
      occurs, with respect to a seniority system that has been adopted for an
      intentionally discriminatory purpose in violation of this title (whether
      or not that discriminatory purpose is apparent on the face of the
      seniority provision), when the seniority system is adopted, when an
      individual becomes subject to the seniority system, or when a person
      aggrieved is injured by the application of the seniority system or
      provision of the system.

      (f) (1) If within thirty days after a charge is filed with the
      Commission or within thirty days after expiration of any period of
      reference under subsection (c) or (d) of this section, the Commission has
      been unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation agreement
      acceptable to the Commission, the Commission may bring a civil action
      against any respondent not a government, governmental agency, or political
      subdivision named in the charge. In the case of a respondent which is a
      government, governmental agency, or political subdivision, if the
      Commission has been unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation
      agreement acceptable to the Commission, the Commission shall take no
      further action and shall refer the case to the Attorney General who may
      bring a civil action against such respondent in the appropriate United
      States district court. The person or persons aggrieved shall have the
      right to intervene in a civil action brought by the Commission or the
      Attorney General in a case involving a government, governmental agency, or
      political subdivision. If a charge filed with the Commission pursuant to
      subsection (b) of this section, is dismissed by the Commission, or if
      within one hundred and eighty days from the filing of such charge or the
      expiration of any period of reference under subsection (c) or (d) of this
      section, whichever is later, the Commission has not filed a civil action
      under this section or the Attorney General has not filed a civil action in
      a case involving a government, governmental agency, or political
      subdivision, or the Commission has not entered into a conciliation
      agreement to which the person aggrieved is a party, the Commission, or the
      Attorney General in a case involving a government, governmental agency, or
      political subdivision, shall so notify the person aggrieved and within
      ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought
      against the respondent named in the charge (A) by the person claiming to
      be aggrieved or (B) if such charge was filed by a member of the
      Commission, by any person whom the charge alleges was aggrieved by the
      alleged unlawful employment practice. Upon application by the complainant
      and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may
      appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the
      commencement of the action without the payment of fees, costs, or
      security. Upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion,
      permit the Commission, or the Attorney General in a case involving a
      government, governmental agency, or political subdivision, to intervene in
      such civil action upon certification that the case is of general public
      importance. Upon request, the court may, in its discretion, stay further
      proceedings for not more than sixty days pending the termination of State
      or local proceedings described in subsection (c) or (d) of this section or
      further efforts of the Commission to obtain voluntary compliance.

      (2) Whenever a charge is filed with the Commission and the
      Commission concludes on the basis of a preliminary investigation that
      prompt judicial action is necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act,
      the Commission, or the Attorney General in a case involving a government,
      governmental agency, or political subdivision, may bring an action for
      appropriate temporary or preliminary relief pending final disposition of
      such charge. Any temporary restraining order or other order granting
      preliminary or temporary relief shall be issued in accordance with rule 65
      of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It shall be the duty of a court
      having jurisdiction over proceedings under this section to assign cases
      for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause such cases to be
      in every way expedited.

      (3) Each United States district court and each United States court
      of a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have
      jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter. Such an action may
      be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful
      employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in the judicial
      district in which the employment records relevant to such practice are
      maintained and administered, or in the judicial district in which the
      aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment
      practice, but if the respondent is not found within any such district,
      such an action may be brought within the judicial district in which the
      respondent has his principal office. For purposes of sections 1404 and
      1406 of title 28 [of the United States Code], the judicial district
      in which the respondent has his principal office shall in all cases be
      considered a district in which the action might have been brought.

      (4) It shall be the duty of the chief judge of the district (or in
      his absence, the acting chief judge) in which the case is pending
      immediately to designate a judge in such district to hear and determine
      the case. In the event that no judge in the district is available to hear
      and determine the case, the chief judge of the district, or the acting
      chief judge, as the case may be, shall certify this fact to the chief
      judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) who shall
      then designate a district or circuit judge of the circuit to hear and
      determine the case.

      (5) It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this
      subsection to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date
      and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. If such judge has not
      scheduled the case for trial within one hundred and twenty days after
      issue has been joined, that judge may appoint a master pursuant to rule 53
      of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

      (g) (1) If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally
      engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice
      charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from
      engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative
      action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to,
      reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay (payable by
      the employer, employment agency, or labor organization, as the case may
      be, responsible for the unlawful employment practice), or any other
      equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. Back pay liability shall
      not accrue from a date more than two years prior to the filing of a charge
      with the Commission. Interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable
      diligence by the person or persons discriminated against shall operate to
      reduce the back pay otherwise allowable.

      (2) (A) No order of the court shall require the admission or
      reinstatement of an individual as a member of a union, or the hiring,
      reinstatement, or promotion of an individual as an employee, or the
      payment to him of any back pay, if such individual was refused admission,
      suspended, or expelled, or was refused employment or advancement or was
      suspended or discharged for any reason other than discrimination on
      account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin or in violation
      of section 2000e-3(a) of this title [section 704(a)].

      (B) On a claim in which an individual proves a violation under section
      2000e-2(m) of this title [section 703(m)] and a respondent
      demonstrates that the respondent would have taken the same action in the
      absence of the impermissible motivating factor, the court-

      (i) may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief (except as
      provided in clause (ii)), and attorney’s fees and costs demonstrated to be
      directly attributable only to the pursuit of a claim under section
      2000e-2(m) of this title [section 703(m)]; and

      (ii) shall not award damages or issue an order requiring any
      admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or payment, described in
      subparagraph (A).

      (h) The provisions of chapter 6 of title 29 [the Act entitled
      “An Act to amend the Judicial Code and to define and limit the
      jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity, and for other purposes,”
      approved March 23, 1932 (29 U.S.C. 105-115)] shall not apply with
      respect to civil actions brought under this section.

      (i) In any case in which an employer, employment agency, or labor
      organization fails to comply with an order of a court issued in a civil
      action brought under this section, the Commission may commence proceedings
      to compel compliance with such order.

      (j) Any civil action brought under this section and any proceedings
      brought under subsection (i) of this section shall be subject to appeal as
      provided in sections 1291 and 1292, title 28 [United States Code].

      (k) In any action or proceeding under this subchapter the court, in its
      discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the Commission or
      the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee (including expert fees)
      as part of the costs, and the Commission and the United States shall
      be liable for costs the same as a private person.

      CIVIL ACTIONS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

      SEC. 2000e-6. [Section 707]

      (a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that
      any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of
      resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this
      subchapter, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is
      intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the
      Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district
      court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him
      (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts
      pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such relief,
      including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction,
      restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible
      for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full
      enjoyment of the rights herein described.

      (b) The district courts of the United States shall have and shall exercise
      jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section, and in
      any such proceeding the Attorney General may file with the clerk of such
      court a request that a court of three judges be convened to hear and
      determine the case. Such request by the Attorney General shall be
      accompanied by a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general
      public importance. A copy of the certificate and request for a
      three?judge court shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to the
      chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the presiding circuit judge
      of the circuit) in which the case is pending. Upon receipt of such request
      it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding
      circuit judge, as the case may be, to designate immediately three judges
      in such circuit, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge and another
      of whom shall be a district judge of the court in which the proceeding was
      instituted, to hear and determine such case, and it shall be the duty of
      the judges so designated to assign the case for hearing at the earliest
      practicable date, to participate in the hearing and determination thereof,
      and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. An appeal from the
      final judgment of such court will lie to the Supreme Court.

      In the event the Attorney General fails to file such a request in any such
      proceeding, it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the district (or in
      his absence, the acting chief judge) in which the case is pending
      immediately to designate a judge in such district to hear and determine
      the case. In the event that no judge in the district is available to hear
      and determine the case, the chief judge of the district, or the acting
      chief judge, as the case may be, shall certify this fact to the chief
      judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) who shall
      then designate a district or circuit judge of the circuit to hear and
      determine the case.

      It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this section to
      assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause
      the case to be in every way expedited.

      (c) Effective two years after March 24, 1972 [the date of enactment of
      the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972], the functions of the
      Attorney General under this section shall be transferred to the
      Commission, together with such personnel, property, records, and
      unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds
      employed, used, held, available, or to be made available in connection
      with such functions unless the President submits, and neither House of
      Congress vetoes, a reorganization plan pursuant to chapter 9 of title 5
      [United States Code], inconsistent with the provisions of this
      subsection. The Commission shall carry out such functions in accordance
      with subsections (d) and (e) of this section.

      (d) Upon the transfer of functions provided for in subsection (c) of this
      section, in all suits commenced pursuant to this section prior to the date
      of such transfer, proceedings shall continue without abatement, all court
      orders and decrees shall remain in effect, and the Commission shall be
      substituted as a party for the United States of America, the Attorney
      General, or the Acting Attorney General, as appropriate.

      (e) Subsequent to March 24, 1972 [the date of enactment of the Equal
      Employment Opportunity Act of 1972], the Commission shall have
      authority to investigate and act on a charge of a pattern or practice of
      discrimination, whether filed by or on behalf of a person claiming to be
      aggrieved or by a member of the Commission. All such actions shall be
      conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 2000e-5
      of this title [section 706].

      EFFECT ON STATE LAWS

      SEC. 2000e-7. [Section 708]

      Nothing in this subchapter shall be deemed to exempt or relieve any
      person from any liability, duty, penalty, or punishment provided by any
      present or future law of any State or political subdivision of a State,
      other than any such law which purports to require or permit the doing of
      any act which would be an unlawful employment practice under this
      subchapter.

      INVESTIGATIONS, INSPECTIONS, RECORDS, STATE AGENCIES

      SEC. 2000e-8. [Section 709]

      (a) In connection with any investigation of a charge filed under
      section 2000e-5 of this title [section 706], the Commission or its
      designated representative shall at all reasonable times have access to,
      for the purposes of examination, and the right to copy any evidence of any
      person being investigated or proceeded against that relates to unlawful
      employment practices covered by this subchapter and is relevant to the
      charge under investigation.

      (b) The Commission may cooperate with State and local agencies charged
      with the administration of State fair employment practices laws and, with
      the consent of such agencies, may, for the purpose of carrying out its
      functions and duties under this subchapter and within the limitation of
      funds appropriated specifically for such purpose, engage in and contribute
      to the cost of research and other projects of mutual interest undertaken
      by such agencies, and utilize the services of such agencies and their
      employees, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, pay by advance
      or reimbursement such agencies and their employees for services rendered
      to assist the Commission in carrying out this subchapter. In furtherance
      of such cooperative efforts, the Commission may enter into written
      agreements with such State or local agencies and such agreements may
      include provisions under which the Commission shall refrain from
      processing a charge in any cases or class of cases specified in such
      agreements or under which the Commission shall relieve any person or class
      of persons in such State or locality from requirements imposed under this
      section. The Commission shall rescind any such agreement whenever it
      determines that the agreement no longer serves the interest of effective
      enforcement of this subchapter.

      (c) Every employer, employment agency, and labor organization subject to
      this subchapter shall (1) make and keep such records relevant to the
      determinations of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are
      being committed, (2) preserve such records for such periods, and (3) make
      such reports therefrom as the Commission shall prescribe by regulation or
      order, after public hearing, as reasonable, necessary, or appropriate for
      the enforcement of this subchapter or the regulations or orders
      thereunder. The Commission shall, by regulation, require each employer,
      labor organization, and joint labor?management committee subject to
      this subchapter which controls an apprenticeship or other training program
      to maintain such records as are reasonably necessary to carry out the
      purposes of this subchapter, including, but not limited to, a list of
      applicants who wish to participate in such program, including the
      chronological order in which applications were received, and to furnish to
      the Commission upon request, a detailed description of the manner in which
      persons are selected to participate in the apprenticeship or other
      training program. Any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or
      joint labor?management committee which believes that the application
      to it of any regulation or order issued under this section would result in
      undue hardship may apply to the Commission for an exemption from the
      application of such regulation or order, and, if such application for an
      exemption is denied, bring a civil action in the United States district
      court for the district where such records are kept. If the Commission or
      the court, as the case may be, finds that the application of the
      regulation or order to the employer, employment agency, or labor
      organization in question would impose an undue hardship, the Commission or
      the court, as the case may be, may grant appropriate relief. If any person
      required to comply with the provisions of this subsection fails or refuses
      to do so, the United States district court for the district in which such
      person is found, resides, or transacts business, shall, upon application
      of the Commission, or the Attorney General in a case involving a
      government, governmental agency or political subdivision, have
      jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring him to comply.

      (d) In prescribing requirements pursuant to subsection (c) of this
      section, the Commission shall consult with other interested State and
      Federal agencies and shall endeavor to coordinate its requirements with
      those adopted by such agencies. The Commission shall furnish upon request
      and without cost to any State or local agency charged with the
      administration of a fair employment practice law information obtained
      pursuant to subsection (c) of this section from any employer, employment
      agency, labor organization, or joint labor?management committee
      subject to the jurisdiction of such agency. Such information shall be
      furnished on condition that it not be made public by the recipient agency
      prior to the institution of a proceeding under State or local law
      involving such information. If this condition is violated by a recipient
      agency, the Commission may decline to honor subsequent requests pursuant
      to this subsection.

      (e) It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the Commission to
      make public in any manner whatever any information obtained by the
      Commission pursuant to its authority under this section prior to the
      institution of any proceeding under this subchapter involving such
      information. Any officer or employee of the Commission who shall make
      public in any manner whatever any information in violation of this
      subsection shall be guilty, of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof,
      shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year.

      INVESTIGATORY POWERS

      SEC. 2000e-9. [Section 710]

      For the purpose of all hearings and investigations conducted by the
      Commission or its duly authorized agents or agencies, section 161 of title
      29 [section 11 of the National Labor Relations Act] shall apply.

      POSTING OF NOTICES; PENALTIES

      SEC. 2000e-10. [Section 711]

      (a) Every employer, employment agency, and labor organization, as the
      case may be, shall post and keep posted in conspicuous places upon its
      premises where notices to employees, applicants for employment, and
      members are customarily posted a notice to be prepared or approved by the
      Commission setting forth excerpts, from or, summaries of, the pertinent
      provisions of this subchapter and information pertinent to the filing of a
      complaint.

      (b) A willful violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of
      not more than $100 for each separate offense.

      VETERANS’ SPECIAL RIGHTS OR PREFERENCE

      SEC. 2000e-11. [Section 712]

      Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to repeal or
      modify any Federal, State, territorial, or local law creating special
      rights or preference for veterans.

      RULES AND REGULATIONS

      SEC. 2000e-12. [Section 713]

      (a) The Commission shall have authority from time to time to issue,
      amend, or rescind suitable procedural regulations to carry out the
      provisions of this subchapter. Regulations issued under this section shall
      be in conformity with the standards and limitations of subchapter II of
      chapter 5 of title 5 [the Administrative Procedure Act].

      (b) In any action or proceeding based on any alleged unlawful employment
      practice, no person shall be subject to any liability or punishment for or
      on account of (1) the commission by such person of an unlawful employment
      practice if he pleads and proves that the act or omission complained of
      was in good faith, in conformity with, and in reliance on any written
      interpretation or opinion of the Commission, or (2) the failure of such
      person to publish and file any information required by any provision of
      this subchapter if he pleads and proves that he failed to publish and file
      such information in good faith, in conformity with the instructions of the
      Commission issued under this subchapter regarding the filing of such
      information. Such a defense, if established, shall be a bar to the action
      or proceeding, notwithstanding that (A) after such act or omission, such
      interpretation or opinion is modified or rescinded or is determined by
      judicial authority to be invalid or of no legal effect, or (B) after
      publishing or filing the description and annual reports, such publication
      or filing is determined by judicial authority not to be in conformity with
      the requirements of this subchapter.

      FORCIBLY RESISTING THE COMMISSION OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES

      SEC. 2000e-13. [Section 714]

      The provisions of sections 111 and 1114, title 18 [United States
      Code], shall apply to officers, agents, and employees of the
      Commission in the performance of their official duties. Notwithstanding
      the provisions of sections 111 and 1114 of title 18 [United States
      Code], whoever in violation of the provisions of section 1114 of such
      title kills a person while engaged in or on account of the performance of
      his official functions under this Act shall be punished by imprisonment
      for any term of years or for life.

      TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY

      [Administration of the duties of the Equal Employment Opportunity
      Coordinating Council was transferred to the Equal Employment Opportunity
      Commission effective July 1, 1978, under the President’s Reorganization
      Plan of 1978.]

      EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COORDINATING COUNCIL

      SEC. 2000e-14. [Section 715]

      [There shall be established an Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinating
      Council (hereinafter referred to in this section as the Counc

      • #3262458

        If some actually reads this…

        by oneshoe ·

        In reply to Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964

        …let me know what it says in a nutshell.

        • #3260756

          not entirely helpful

          by sr10 ·

          In reply to If some actually reads this…

          Essentially, for any of the Civil Rights Act to come into play, the employer would have to be stupid enough to impose adverse consequences on you and admit that these were a result of your having complained about the sermonettes.

          It’s not sufficient to be subjected to these mails you find objectionable. You have to have actual bad things happen to you, such as dismissal or being passed over for promotion, for not going along with the program. Then you get to try and prove it.

          If you complain, it’s plenty easy to bury the reprisal in some other garb. For example, it would be simple for two managers to give you conflicting direction and then ping you for performance. Or there is always the evergreeen subject of “judgement.”

          Also remember that the company can only fire you once, but they can make your life a living hell for as long as you allow it.

      • #3260567

        this act is irrelevant to the situation.

        by dryflies ·

        In reply to Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964

        Nobody is discriminating or being discriminated against based on religious beliefs. This guy is concerned about use of company resources, and offending people that may be offended by the christian ramblings. (How would a devout buddist or Muslim view these e-mails) Neither is it a free speech issue as free speech does not extend to private property (Utah V LDS church)

        If you really want to put a stop to it and want to spend $100 or so to do so, contact a lawyer to write a letter on your behalf, leaving you anonymous stating that these e-mails are offensive to you because of your religious beliefs and that you just want them to stop and you have no desire to pursue further action unless they continue. To do it on the cheap, write the letter yourself and have it vetted by your attorney.

    • #3245945

      consult an attorney

      by jck ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      on grounds of religious persecution and how to handle reporting it. If it doesn’t stop, then get the group of angry employees together and sue.

      • #3245916

        This can easily turn into class action lawsuit

        by why me worry? ·

        In reply to consult an attorney

        if employees of other faiths (jews, hindus, muslims, catholics, etc etc) band together and file a lawsuit on the grounds of religious discrimination because the workplace is being used to promote religion, whichever religion it may be

        • #3245803

          How?

          by jbaker ·

          In reply to This can easily turn into class action lawsuit

          I love your overreactions.

          How is it religious discrimination to get “I love Jesus” emails? It does not constitute a “hostile work environment” and any civil rights attorney would laugh at it. Of course, All Crazy Lunatics Unite might pick it up, since they have nothing better to do. Personally, I have too many other things to do to worry about what emails management is sending out about Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, or any other religion. And since this is still the US, they have the right to send those emails out (free speech and all that). Yeah, it is a waste of company resources, but there are much worse wastes that could be happening. I am sure that you are not still reading this, and are busy preparing a flame for me….so God belss you! Oops, that was religious discrimination against you… 🙂

        • #3260658

          What planet do you live on?

          by redgranite ·

          In reply to This can easily turn into class action lawsuit

          How do you know his boss isn’t catholic? Last time I heard catholics were Christians. You ALL CAPS godless heathen!

      • #3243937

        Not that it’s important , but…

        by jakaiju ·

        In reply to consult an attorney

        religious “persecution” is not the issue here, it’s the attempt at proselytizing, which is still unacceptable in the general work place. Although I am Christian (and therefore would argue against the actual message as being “crap”), I have to agree with many of the posts here that this kind of activity by the company superiors is illegal AND socially unacceptable.

        Before one considers suing, make sure that everything is carefully documented and that all practical steps of rectifying the situation are taken with HR. A law suit is definately not fun to be involved in no matter what the case is!

        • #3260703

          However..

          by larfx ·

          In reply to Not that it’s important , but…

          People need to keep in mind that everyone, religious, non-religious, cause oriented, etc… are continually proselytizing, that is the nature of life. We will always promote what we belief in. In the Christian, case we are tasked with spreading the gospel of Christ and to not be afraid, there is not any limitation of where it should be done.

          Of course, everyone, no matter what they believe should be considerate of others and understand that others believe differently. People should not be required to “respect” or “honor” beliefs that they disagree with, they should simply tolerate the fact that the beliefs are there. Each person should be honest about their believes and stop being “offended” if others disagree. Our lives should be the same, no matter where we are, with no pressure on anyone, just honesty in the marketplace of ideas.

        • #3261721

          I would agree to most

          by jakaiju ·

          In reply to However..

          of your points here, especially the assertion that Christians are to boldy proclaim the Gospel of Christ (being the Great Commission). However, in the U.S. at least (that I know of), the time that an employee or executive is expected to devote to accomplish a certain defined job task is to keep it strictly to that job and not waste company time and resources on personal issues and beliefs.

          I realize that the higher-ups of OneSoe’s company probably think that their e-mails are innocent and unoffensive, but they need to understand that the e-mails can be PERCEIVED as an annoyance or an offense and thus straining good company/employee relations. Personally, I know I would be annoyed with anyone who practiced to share their personal beliefs with me while we were on the job no matter what those beliefs were (with the exception of Biblical scripture, and even then in a limited amount). The more often that kind of things happens, the less productive other employees become. It’s simply seen as an interference in the course of someone’s normal job duties. That is the nature of PEOPLE and not of “the nature of life.”

          Granted that company policies aren’t always followed and employees are going to idlely chit chat with personal matters while at work, it’s the responsibility of better company leaders to try to keep this stuff to a minimum through meetings, then warnings and then to disciplinary actions if necessary.

          The company leaders are able to keep this stuff under control and should take a stance on that, but instead they’re apparently actively participating in this behavior. Let them share their personal beliefs in their off-hours!

          If OneShoe was not told that he would encounter this sort of thing during his hiring interview then what would he expect if he objects to it? I also disagree with some of the replies to this thread which state that there will be a swift and automatic reprisal from the management if OneShoe complains directly to the responsible party(ies). How do they know this will happen? Is this true in every case? I would suggest that he take the middle ground and send the managers an anonymous letter rationally stating his dilemma and kindly request that all of these internal letters stop. If they don’t stop that means he’s generally ignored and likely thought of as unimportant. He could then consider finding a new job, or send the matter to an employment attorney. I’m no attorney, but this guy would have a harassment case against the company if the e-mails were PERSONALLY directed at him and not just broadcasted spam. The matter would be ENTIRELY different if OneShoe’s company were actually Christian based (or other) related. Then he could expect that sort of message and then just ignore it or find a new job because any legal action he takes will force him out of the company anyway!

        • #3241201

          Nicely put..

          by larfx ·

          In reply to I would agree to most

          Tact should be used, no one should make others uncomfortable or create a harassing environment. The whole thing is to be true to your beliefs, within reason, of course 🙂

    • #3245851

      Spam is spam

      by robert.hill ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      However many people send non business related emails every day. I suggest you examine your heart and come to Jesus.

      • #3245806

        Crappy advice

        by james.mesa ·

        In reply to Spam is spam

        If he were interested in coming to Jesus, then he never would have started this thread. Personally, the last thing I would want is to have somebody else’s religion shoved down my throat. Christians don’t realize just how annoying, obnoxious and arrogant they are to people that rely on logic and rationality instead of ancient dogma and superstition. I don’t really have an answer to the dilemma in question but at least I’m not compounding the foolishness like the post that I’m replying to.

        • #3262234

          Dude!

          by pgm554 ·

          In reply to Crappy advice

          And you live in the Bible Belt…
          Must be interesting.

        • #3260699

          Logic???

          by larfx ·

          In reply to Crappy advice

          Ha, the non-religious use unproven twisted science on a daily basis to create an alternate religion based on faulty theories that are not based on actual facts. The anti-religous activist is just as annoying as anyone else, the difference is that the anti-religous types won’t stop until religion is eliminated in all of its forms. Christians understand that not everyone is going to be saved, just that they must be told.

          I am not implying that jmesa is an anti-religous nut job, just that you have to look at the truth behind the statements. Christians simply spread the word and rely on free will choice, anti-religous folks tend to want to squash individual choice and force others to meet their perspective of Politically Correct Tolerance.

          Really, results can vary, but there are wackos of all stripes.

        • #3260683

          Bravo!

          by paymeister ·

          In reply to Logic???

          It is high time that someone made this point – and Tech Republic is in fact the MOST religious forums I’ve ever encountered, to see the flames visited on anyone who dares to voice his or her Christian beliefs. Call it what it is, folks – many of the folks on this forum are religiously anti-religious, often to the point of fanaticism, and the veneer of civility wears awfully thin at times.

          Another point – the statement “your religion is for you and mine is for me” is illogical to the point of being laughable. Contradictions CAN’T happen – if I say God exists and Jesus is the only way, and you say, “there are many ways”, then there are three possibilities from a logical perspective. 1) either I am right and you are wrong, OR 2) you are right and I am wrong, OR 3)we are both wrong. We cannot both be right at the same time – that isn’t possible.

          So tell it straight and quit with the patronizing: if you think I’m a nutcase, so be it (Jesus said to expect this, and you probably already know what He has said about you). But don’t kid yourself, claiming that what you are saying follows logic.

        • #3241253

          You’re a nutcase

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Bravo!

          Course that’s coming from me who’s also known as one though with a very different viewpoint.
          LOL
          There are many, in fact probably all situations involving humans where there is more than one right answer. To say your answer is more right than theirs does not make theirs wrong, it is simply different.

          Do not apply logic to faith, it is irrational. That does not make it not real, in fact by many definitions faith is more real than logic which is a useful mathematical abstract.

        • #3241200

          To be fair..

          by larfx ·

          In reply to You’re a nutcase

          Hey Tony, I hear you, there is thought to relativism where nothing is all wrong. However, when a person believes that they are right, in their mind the other ideas are errant or wrong. In truth, there are people who are wrong, that is a simple fact of life.

          Yes, it is possible that even though a person believes that they are strongly in the right, whether religious or non-religious, it is highly possible that they are dead wrong. No matter how you slice it, if we disagree, it is possible that one of us is wrong, in many ways being less right is being wrong. Two ideas can be good, but they aren’t always good and tend to be mutually exclusive in many cases.

        • #3241085

          To be even fairer

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to To be fair..

          when discussing science and religion you should be very careful with right and wrong. In science that’s correct and incorrect. In religion/etchics/morals/philosophy it’s agrees with me doesn’t agree me.
          Say to a scientist I am right God exists and they will ask for proof which you cannot provide in terms of their belief structure. If a scientist says there is no proof that god exists he’s saying he can’t prove scientifically the correctness of your belief not that you are wrong.

          Good and bad are equally slippery, stick to us and them they are much less open to misinterpretation.

          So two contradicatory belief systems can both be right, it is less likely that they are both correct though.

        • #3239696

          Use a clean example

          by paymeister ·

          In reply to To be fair..

          I am indeed speaking logically, and am amazed at the depth of relativism that I’m reading.

          Regarding getting to heaven, Christ said, “I am the only way”. Others say “This other way works”. Either Christ was right and the other way won’t work… or the other way DOES work and Christ was wrong. Both CANNOT be right – they truly are contradictory.

          Lots of other examples could be made, but they pale by comparison.

        • #3240959

          That’s clean ?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to To be fair..

          Both can’t be right according to their internal logic.
          They can definitely both be wrong though.

          After all your premise pre-supposes the existance of a heaven to have a way to go to.

        • #3242313

          Sure – read what I said earlier!

          by paymeister ·

          In reply to To be fair..

          Sorry to have been incomplete. My earlier post said that both might be wrong. In my “clean” note, I was illustrating the point of contradiction – both CANNOT be right if one denies the other.

        • #3242115

          Thank the Deity for that

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to To be fair..

          I thought my logic circuits had broken down.

          I was in a cheap Robot’s “Does Not compute” loop

        • #3240325

          Bravo! Right Backatcha!

          by alankuehnau ·

          In reply to Bravo!

          Preach It, Brother! Very eloquent Paymeister.

        • #3260524

          Yes, logical.

          by gawiman ·

          In reply to Logic???

          No one wants to squash your right to be a Christian, and your religion dominates this society. Who is “logical?” Science is the opposite of faith – the scientist says, “prove it” while the religionist says, “Blessed is he who has not seen, and yet believes.”

          I don’t expect you to keep your religion to yourself, because I know it commands prosyletizing. Just recognize, please, that it can be annoying when you won’t ever let up and you are one of legion who try to make us believe in something for which there isn’t any evidence. (“Faith is the evidence of things not seen.”)

          Trust me, we have been exposed to your gospel.
          After a while it does. get. old. If I want to hear about it, there’s a church on every corner, or I can listen to any politician because they sure like to talk about it. Apparently God is on their side – how fortunate for them.

        • #3261780

          Presuppositions

          by paymeister ·

          In reply to Yes, logical.

          Non-Christians presuppose that there is no God, and “party-line” science does the same. As such, by definition and design, it is inappropriate for use in such matters. On the other hand, you might consider judicial proof as a model for investigating the issues. And I would encourage you to look at the historical documents rather than individuals you might know (or might have met here)… I’m not much impressed with what passes for Christianity today, either.

          I greatly appreciate your remark about me (and others) not keeping our faith to ourselves – it indeed shows that you do understand the depth of commitment true Christianity demands. And I also appreciate your manner in asking that I remember that I can be annoying… Hope I’m not doing it now.

          But I’m not sure that prostelytizing is indeed our job. I believe my responsibility is to proclaim the message, and let God do the work of “saving souls”. Once the message has been presented, it would seem that to continue to harass someone would be trying to do the Holy Spirit’s job for Him. (I’ve tried it with my wife – it doesn’t work.) Sorry you’ve been beat up by my brothers. They probably mean well, but I can understand how it must feel.

          -Tim

          And please don’t get your gospel from the politicians. Scripture suggests that Christ has words for them… out behind the woodshed!

        • #3240948

          Hmm

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Presuppositions

          I should nake it very clear there is nothing in science that proves or disproves the existance of any Deity. In fact lack of existance is unprovable scientifically.
          Course whether any such deity wants to be worshipped and have a hierarch of humans to interpret his wishes for the masses, is a very different question.

          You should never have to hide your belief system, as long as you are prepared to accept that it is not an excuse to persecute someone else.

          Politicians
          That would be a good proof of the existance of Deity. A big booming voice at party conference, saying “No I’m not”.
          Knowing politicans though they’d just knock one vote off the last poll.
          LOL

        • #3242287

          Back to presuppositions

          by paymeister ·

          In reply to Hmm

          You’re quite right about negative proof – I’m an Epidemiologist by training, and am familiar with the nature of the scientific method. It requires repeatability, for example, so it is useless for historical events. That’s why I suggest investigating the whole Christian thing from a judicial standpoint (witness statements, evidence, etc.) instead. But one’s presuppositions come into play in a big way: if one has one’s mind made up, all the evidence in the world won’t be convincing.
          On presuppositions: one viewpoint that I see in a lot of the posts here is that religion is “personal” – that it is “good for you but not for me” and such. The presupposition to this is that religion is a mere code of ethics that an individual chooses to adopt, rather than having ANY basis outside of the individual. [Brace yourself – I’m speaking as a Christian.] Quite to the contrary, God DOES exist, and will continue to do so regardless of what we do or think. He said “do this, and don’t do that”, and it is our job to obey Him (see the 10 Commandments, for starters). Sure, we can get into all sorts of interesting debates (and do) about whether He really said this-or-that, and what His words here meant in light of His words there, do we have accurate translations, blah, blah, blah… but the understanding is that there REALLY IS a reality outside of us, and we REALLY ARE responsible to live in that world. As such, the concept of “good for you and not good for me” is ludicrous – and the “personal” aspect of religion is merely a secondary effect of the relationship (or lack) one has with the true God who really exists.

          Given THOSE presuppositions, which should be held by all Christians, I can understand your mistrust of them – by your rules they are nutcases… but they don’t play by your rules (and have a rough time understanding you, for that matter). For example, your remark about not persecuting others is interesting – historically, God had His people kill off whole groups of people. This was horrible, viewed from one standpoint – but quite reasonable from another – IF the God of the Universe wants you to do something, do it! Before you go ballistic, 1) I’m not talking about Manson et al. – I mean if a God REALLY exists, and He REALLY REALLY did tell you to; and 2) the focus since ‘way before Christ seems to be on the heart of the individual (see, for example, Micah 6:8, “…do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God”) – my battleground is between my ears, as it were, rather than this-group-against-that-group. But one’s presuppositions are key: IF God is REALLY like [fill in characteristic], then anyone who says different REALLY is wrong. The issue is for me to be sure I know what He said about an issue (in an earlier post, for example, Christ as the only way to get out from under true guilt before a holy God), and then be willing to die on that hill (to mix metaphors, perhaps).

          Regarding politicians: I wish fewer politicians would mouth “christiany” words to fool the churchians into voting for them (the American public is pretty stupid that way). But you know who offends me worse? The preachers who pretend to be Christians and proceed to lead their flocks into error. Lucky I’m not God – there would be a spate of thunderstorms on Sunday mornings, and a lot of empty pulpits afterwards.

        • #3242073

          A reasoned argument

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Hmm

          However it falls down badly for me.
          First all because I don’t believe, your contention that the bible is a statement of witnesses, means I also have to accept the existence of every other god on the same basis.
          Of course to be true believer in your faith and several others I must discount all the other witnesses and take only one as fact. But where is the evidence for that ?

          Please don’t say the bible !

          As to Deity and religion, I operate on the principle that the two concepts have been asscociated, but there is no proof that they are linked.

          If a deity exists then indeed his/her/it existance does not depend on my belief. Equally I have no need to cite my own existance as proof of a deity’s. Could be the responsible party that caused the conditions that allowed me to exist I will admit.

          My big problem with religion though, is I can’t see any need a deity would have for my belief, and I can see every need for an organised religion’s need for my belief.

          Well those of any organised religion are going to have to work much harder to gain my belief, because the belief does not provide answers but requires me to stop asking questions.

          I aren’t trying to offend you, but because you do believe you have limits as to what questions you are prepared to ask. I do not.
          That’s not a scientific approach but a philosophical one.

        • #3240324

          Logic? Who Says?

          by alankuehnau ·

          In reply to Yes, logical.

          Everyday, people everywhere live by faith without even thinking about it. Do we not walk into a building without ever know who put it together? I know that I cannot see every nail, every beam, yet I walk into the room and under the roof having faith that it won’t fall on me. I drive on highways and overpasses that were built without my supervision, and yet I have faith that they won’t collaspe.

          Faith, my friends, still drives our lives. Why not have faith in someone that will really take you somewhere great? OOPS! Sorry! I hope I wasn’t oppressing anyone.

        • #3256381

          Question about faith…

          by jmd10k ·

          In reply to Logic? Who Says?

          If one believes something even though one hasn’t seen it, isn’t that considered faith? If I experienced something and someone disagrees with it then where is the logic? Lets say I am an astronaut in training. They would tell me that I have to be prepared for weightlessness. I’ve never experienced weightlessness so I tell them that weightlessness makes no sence since I have never experienced it and I don’t believe there is such a thing. They look at me like I am crazy because my trainers HAVE experienced it.

          Just because you haven’t experienced something doesn’t mean it is not real, it only means that it isn’t real to you…yet. One day everyone experiences death, and only at death can those who choose not to have faith in God will know if they were right or wrong. If when they die there is no God then Oh well, they didn’t loose a thing. However, if there is a God then they will deffinitly experience Him. I just wonder how their experience will be.

        • #3256366

          More pseudo logic

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Question about faith…

          You should remember, you’re understanding of deity is different to anyone elses.
          Still if you are right you’ll be in good company up there.
          Torqemada
          Lucretia Borgia
          Queen Mary
          King Phillip II
          A lot of rich TV evangelists
          A large number of holy pederasts.
          Personally based on that sort of membership, I’ve no desire to join up.

        • #3241256

          What a vastly stupid generalisation

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Logic???

          You are as guilty as those you protest against.

          How can the non-religious create a religion ?
          Why would they want to ?

          In the main your posts have been quite reasonable, but you lost it big time with this one.

      • #3244036

        Obvious

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Spam is spam

        he’ll be able to ask him to get these damn religious nuts to stop bugging him then won’t he.

      • #3262193

        Are you joking or are you tripping?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Spam is spam

        Did you notice that you just asserted that since other people are hypocrites, it’s OK to be the same way in the name of Jesus?

        Look closely at what you wrote: “Spam is Spam. However many people send non business related emails every day.” Since you wrote that, I assume you mean that you think it’s pertinent to the discussion of appropriate use of company computing resources. Is that correct? Is it also correct that you believe that the existence of some SPAM justifies other SPAM, specifically gospel SPAM?

        YOU HYPOCRITE!

        • #3260729

          Fear grips you. . .

          by redgranite ·

          In reply to Are you joking or are you tripping?

          What are you afraid of? Do you fear being held accountable? Do you fear actually caring about something; or do you fear actually caring about other people?

          Release your fear; and accept the peace.

        • #3237744

          No, it does not.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Fear grips you. . .

          I asked whether the fact that other people are sending SPAM makes it OK for xians to send SPAM about their superstition. Admittedly I did it vehemently, and with SHOUTING, but what makes you think that I am afraid, specifically of accountability or caring?

          In fact, after the demand for faith, the xian expectation of forgiveness on Earth for their sins against real people and the demand to receive mercy from their fellow citizens–atheists included!–is the most offensive aspect of xianity. It is because I care about the real world that primary concern for a non-existant afterlife baffles and offends me.

          Sorry I’m late, I forgot about this thread. I’ll make sure I’m subscribed.

      • #3260706

        OMG, please tell me that was a joke!

        by underground_in_tn ·

        In reply to Spam is spam

        If so, that was hillarious.

    • #3245837

      re: what to do

      by afram ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      I would start by sending a company notice out to remind EVERYONE about the company policy on email use regarding chain email (leave out the religious part).

      If it continues, you can claim the email server crashed and bring it down for a while during the day. Be sure to tell everyone who complains that the problem appears to be related to chain mail. Be creative. Usually the brass doesn’t like it when email dies and they might stop.

      If that doesn’t work, I’d mention it quietly to HR and express your concern of the breach of policy/waste of resources/time etc. As an afterthought, you can mention that some non Christian employee might be offended and could sue the company.

      If you don’t want to start a lawsuit, you can gossip about your fear that someone might sue the company…someone else might want to try to cash in.

      As always, document everything.

      • #3262463

        That’s it… Lie to your boss…

        by thevirtualone ·

        In reply to re: what to do

        Do you really think that lying to your boss is a good idea. We’re talking about right from wrong. Not 2 wrongs to make it right.

        My take… if you don’t like it, don’t participate. Block the email. I’m sorry that you can’t figure out a way to do this by yourself without receiving the important corporate email… maybe you should ask your “superior power” for help, and when that doesn’t work try the Technical Q&A. Here’s the link. http://techrepublic.com.com/5221-6239-0.html

      • #3262455

        Lie? Gossip? Come on now…

        by oneshoe ·

        In reply to re: what to do

        Sedning a notice is a good idea but I’ll pass on the rest of your advice. Thanks.

    • #3244046

      There’s only one way to stop

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      the religious bugging you if you have stay in close proximity make them doubt. They can’t tolerate it, respond with a logical critique for every message they send. Contradictory passages from the bible are always good. Different / older versions are brilliant, scholarly disserations on a scientific theory of creation, the psychosocial implications begind the growth of religion at a push.

      Even quicker though send them a link to “The Evolution Lie” thread on this site, they won’t have time to bug you then.

      • #3243762

        I’m sure that

        by salamander ·

        In reply to There’s only one way to stop

        …sacrificing more souls to “The Evolution Lie” would solve the problem AND feed that beast. Good solution! Once consumed by the “Evolution Lie,” they’d have to attend a twelve-step program to end the addiction to that discussion, and be far too busy to send spam.

        • #3261392

          Well they’ve obviously got a lot of spare time

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to I’m sure that

          and the creationists, have been badly out numbered on the thread.

    • #3243986

      Important question

      by roger99a ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Is this a private or public company?

      • #3262472

        Private, of course

        by oneshoe ·

        In reply to Important question

        It is a private company, of course. The people here are cool, they just go a little overboard with this “Jesus Saves” stuff.

        • #3262257

          private is as private does

          by rliechty ·

          In reply to Private, of course

          Then I don’t think there is much that you can do. There are very few details in your post, however, it doesn’t sound like you are experiencing any discrimination other than your own personal irritation. People have talked about this being a violation of corporate policy, but you don’t have one. In one of your earlier posts you state that you have submitted a policy for review and it has not been approved or implemented. In a private company the management can pretty much use company resources as they see fit. It also sounds like these messages are not so much proselytizing than they are of the “God Bless You” and “Chicken Soup for the Soul” variety.

          I’ve really enjoyed the SHOUTING responses to begin legal action. But then, I’m not a legal expert either. ;~)

        • #3261311

          Personal Rights

          by roger99a ·

          In reply to Private, of course

          It’s his company, I think he should be free to encourage the company culture to suit his tastes. If he’s not concerned about the load on the mail server or the time wasted by employees reading or deleting these emails the you shouldn’t be either. If a little Jesus Saves email is the worst thing you have to complain about then you’re way ahead of the game.

    • #3243889

      I find this . . .

      by ewriggs9 ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      . . . terribly offensive – and I’m a dedicated Christian, myself. I am able to enforce a “no spam” policy since mine is a very small company. With more people, however, it would become more difficult.

      You say your company has an acceptable use policy. Who is supposed to enforce it? The person who is sending these? Or someone else? Try bringing it up in a departmental meeting. You might want to do some “lobbying” to get a bunch of people (as high up as possible) on your side and committed to supporting you at the meeting.

      Can you “slyly” disable his computer? 🙂

      Elizabeth

    • #3243858

      New Actions

      by j.w.1l50n ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      1)Get servalliance camreas! Find someone that you know, that is sending this crap! Then iether fire his\hers asses right then and there or get horses head and put in there automobile>kick thier ass!!!

    • #3243848

      One shoe tottally screwed

      by j.w.1l50n ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      If you can’t burn the letters burn down the building!? I used to have two companies: Think>
      how to deal with people in a certain kind of; “HEY,Your Doing A GOOD JOB”or How’s Life Kind of attitude one way for sure is to get a giant shredder and blowit off Or invite every one down to the bar?!

      • #3262450

        This post makes no sense to me

        by oneshoe ·

        In reply to One shoe tottally screwed

        Burn down the building? Get a giant shredder? Go to a bar?

        What is your point here?

    • #3243849

      One shoe tottally screwed

      by j.w.1l50n ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      If you can’t burn the letters burn down the building!? I used to have two companies: Think>
      how to deal with people in a certain kind of; “HEY,Your Doing A GOOD JOB”or How’s Life Kind of attitude one way for sure is to get a giant shredder and blowit off Or invite every one down to the bar?!

    • #3262345

      It’s all been said at this point

      by jdgretz ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      This discussion has begun (?) to take on the fervor of a religious discussion.

      Look, here’s the deal. The company may very well be in violation of civil rights laws and maybe some labor laws as well. On the other hand, Oneshoe has a job that he likes (I think) and really has no one to complain to, other than possibly the CEO. If he choosed to go that route, the political realities of the situation need to be considered. Is the CFO a close friend or relative of the CEO? What is the CEO’s position on this?

      From a networking standpoint, I’m not sure there is much more you can do. You might try an evaluation copy of SPAM COP, Mail Marshal, or one of the other exchange level products and see if you can set reasonable/realistic rules that would tag such messages as SPAM. That could produce an inducement to slow down the CFO and others.

      Other than that you realistically have two options – 1) live with the problem the best you can, or 2) find another job, either by suing or just going out and getting one.

      Best of luck on this one.

      jdg

      • #3262221

        Disagree!

        by synthetic ·

        In reply to It’s all been said at this point

        I do agree, that their is one zealot inpaticular here, and a couple of statements that just leave me confused. I also agreer that the two options you have laid out are viable, yet there is still at least one more option. Compromise, trying to find some middle ground with this person. If they (offending party, CFO?) could understand that it is creating a hostile environment, MAYBE they could find the space to let up a little, and remove oneshoe from these mailings. From there, if they just flat out refuse (which I have seen the type before that would go out of their way to forward even more mailing at that point) then consider a different tact. Set up a filter that automatically trashes EVERY email this cat sends. When the important stuff is trashed along with the spam, this might make him reconsider what is more important, his job, everyone at this companies job, or proselytizing. Can this guy fire you, is he the bosses brother? If not, when he takes it up with his sup, and you have to answer, show the emails you have sent (I didn’t mention this, but you probably already have this part down, document, document, document!) where you have politely asked not to be included in these mailings, as they make you uncomfortable. Take a positive tone, not that you have a problem with religion, any religion, but you feel politics and religion are better left to outside the work place, it leads to spam build-up and decreased productivity, and leaves you feeling uncomfortable, and definitely not at your best. Part of your job, a big part, is customer service, and if this activity is going to affect you, and you ability to help EVERYONE in the office, then you had to do something. Show the head honcho that after you had repeatedly asked in a non-threating and intelligent manner, not to be included in these, and once they did not stop, you found it pertinent, so you could do your job to the best of your abilities for EVERYONE in the office, that you had to make the sacrifice of filtering all email from this guy. I bet at that point your going to stop receiving these, and your office might just develop a policy after the incident. Remeber, always act with grace and understanding. Make the point your acting for the greater good, and that you respect the person, and poitn of veiw, and wish to be treated in kind. Take the high road, it just makes the other look worse, even if it is not how you truely feel.

        • #3262189

          OMG!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Disagree!

          Paragraphs, please! I got dizzy just reading three lines of that!

        • #3260635

          Well, Yes and No

          by jdgretz ·

          In reply to Disagree!

          Synthetic –

          You may be right in that the CFO MAY ease up a bit, but I doubt it. Usually (and I know I am speaking in generalities), folks who send out these messages do not think they are doing anything wrong, in fact they believe quite passionately that they are doing at they are directed to by their higher power. Since the CDO is his boss, his options are realistically very limited. He cannot very well dump everything coming form his boss – that would and should get him fired. Can he set a filter that looks for “God … ” in the body of the message? Doubt it – the boss may use that as a sig.

          Again, is it politically astute to go to his bosses boss (CEO?)? What is the real chain of command here?

          I agree with taking the high road. Getting into a pissing contest with your boss is very seldom a good thing ™.

          jdg

    • #3262705

      Reply To: Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      by hcetrepus ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      How many emails do you get a day that would be considered “bad taste” that you didn’t mention? Those are ok, I guess?

      • #3262197

        Big Difference

        by oneshoe ·

        In reply to Reply To: Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

        I think we can all agree that there is a difference between forwarding a bad joke than forwarding religious messages that are intended to instill fear and guilt in the hearts of your staff.

        Though many of the messages are of the general “god is love and love is good” variety (which are annoying but do not cross my line), others are more of the “Go with Jesus or you are doomed” variety. In my opinion, these emails cross the line.

        Different people have different lines that they do not want crossed and those lines should be respected.

        • #3260639

          Personal Problem. . .

          by redgranite ·

          In reply to Big Difference

          If the “…you are doomed” messages “…instill fear and guilt…” in you, then you need some deep personal reflection and maybe even some counseling.

          It sounds like you are taking it very personally. Do you take the off-color jokes personally? Then why would you take the other stuff personally? If you don’t believe it, then just consider it a joke.

        • #3191231

          question for oneshoe

          by dakid ·

          In reply to Big Difference

          Oneshoe, just a question..
          Other than your CFO sending these emails that bother you, how does he/she treat you?

      • #3260556

        Internal vs. external

        by ravey ·

        In reply to Reply To: Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

        To me, the difference is that the spam oneshoe is referring to is being generated within his own organization. I presume that viagra and valium ads and cheap home loans are not.

    • #3262702

      Win-Win Solutions

      by tuibguy1 ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      People are addicted to forwarding that crap because then they can pretend that they are evangelizing without having to put any thought or work into it. Threatening legal action, while within your rights and perhaps a good strategy for long-run changes in the corporate culture, would also have the effect of isolating you from many of your co-workers.

      If the people in your company have web access, create a policy in which people setup webmail accounts for personal communications (such as this crap) and restrict the usage of company e-mail accounts to work-related missives. You can spin this situation as positive with a memo to your boss on how to save on network traffic (or something like that.)

    • #3262608

      What’s good for the goose…

      by franktech ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Why don’t you send them a reply back with Satanic rituals and links to devil worshippers. They will soon get the message.

    • #3262598

      don’t get mad get even

      by black panther ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      start telling all employees to send chain letters around for a day or too and when the boss gets sick of them then discuss putting in a company policy!

      • #3262575

        QUOTE PHRASES FROM THE TALMUD OR THE KORAN

        by why me worry? ·

        In reply to don’t get mad get even

        I’m pretty sure they will shut up or get annoyed if judaism or islam is shoved down their throats, just like they are shoving christianity down everyone elses

        • #3261997

          Say OneShoe

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to QUOTE PHRASES FROM THE TALMUD OR THE KORAN

          This religious stuff you are getting, do they shout or what ?
          God’s navel sir, stop wiv da CAPITALS.

        • #3239839

          I resent being shouted at. BE MORE DISCRIMINATING IN YOUR USE OF CAPITALS!!

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to QUOTE PHRASES FROM THE TALMUD OR THE KORAN

          Your constant use of capitals is the equivalent of shouting and aside from being unpleasant and offensive, is indicative of a computer newby who is ignorant of courtesy protocols. These people are invariably ignored by more experienced users, no matter the validity of their message. Your choice; learn manners or risk being ignored.

          Dawg 🙁

    • #3262566

      Is your boss one of the toothless rednecks that dances with snakes…

      by why me worry? ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      and drinks cobra venom? I hear it’s pretty popular in the south among some of the most devoted christians. I wonder how many of them actually live to tell about their snake dancing and venom drinking ordeals? they shouldn’t worry, ole jeebus will protect them from being poisoned

      • #3260735

        Ever been out of your home county?

        by redgranite ·

        In reply to Is your boss one of the toothless rednecks that dances with snakes…

        You are obviously someone who has never been to the south. You are a biggot who has taken a caricature and made it a set-in-stone stereotype that you subscribe to.

        I’ve been around the world including Saudi Arabia, Honk Kong, Thailand, Mexico, New York, and even lived in California, New Mexico, Missouri, Montana, and Utah. One thing I’ve observed is that racial and religious bigots usually seem to be those who don’t know anything about those whom they flame.

        • #3260684

          Reply To: Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

          by john.f.sullivan ·

          In reply to Ever been out of your home county?

          It?s considered harassment, cramming your beliefs down someone else?s throat. This type of e-mail has no place in a work environment. If users feel that this is important, they should send it to themselves at home and forward it to whom ever they like from there.
          There are many people that aren?t Christians and shouldn?t have to be subject to this type of intimidation from superiors.

        • #3260647

          Hmmm. . .

          by redgranite ·

          In reply to Reply To: Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

          So is advertising harrassment? Is stating that a product is good cramming it down someone’s throat? Although I agree that this type of email that the recipient does not want is not appropriate since it clogs up the email box, it’s no different than advertising spam?

          Why is it that posters are suddenly vitriolic about spam that is Christian-based but not so angry about advertising spam? Is it because these posters ARE THE SPAMMERS and want to continue to annoy us with their junk?

      • #3260550

        What a hate-filled ignoramus

        by mudpuppy1 ·

        In reply to Is your boss one of the toothless rednecks that dances with snakes…

        Obviously, someone pissed in your porridge. BY the way, I agree it is inappropriate. Most Christians I know would not do that sort of thing, or would stop when asked. You must be ignorant of the ways of Christianity to spew such hatred. I know, there are always some bad ones in any group, so don’t go there. The original poster hasn’t talked to the guy yet and you are ready to throw him to the lions. Typical of the anti-Christian crowd. Nobody has died from this. The same cannot be said for followers of the “religion of peace.” Be glad he’s not one of those.

    • #3262182

      “clogging up my servers”

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Whose servers? You said the CFO is among the consistent offenders, what about the big cheese at your little company? You did say it was small…

      If he/she/it is not with you in this issue, then I see a small number of choices. For one, you could set your SPAM blocker to keep out anything containing the word Jesus in the subject line. Unless you work for a religious non-profit, you shouldn’t lose any business-related mail that way, right? Another option, I like the idea of returning messages with contrary passages, but the abundance of those and the length of the Bible could make that very time-consuming. A variation of that would be to search for records of similar situations resulting in litigation.

      My personal recommendation and preference would be to simply return every unsolicited expression of faith with an equally unsolicited expression of your own beliefs, or just of quotes of famous historical figures expressing contrary beliefs. Mark Twain is decent for taking the illusion of dignity away from religion.

    • #3262173

      Thread Ending Post

      by oneshoe ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Well, thank you all for the sometimes constructive and always creative feedback. Here is what I have learned and decided:

      1. Religious nuts and people who threaten legal action over every little thing have a lot in common in my book.

      2. Managing computer users is a lot like raising children. To get them to stop doing something, you have to redirect their focus as opposed to confronting them head on.

      3. I am not going to waste any more of my time worrying about these emails. I have plenty of other things than annoy me much more than this that I can focus my energy on.

      Time for some tunes and a fresh cup o’ joe. It’s Friday!

      • #3262104

        Just one more note

        by fieldse ·

        In reply to Thread Ending Post

        I’ve noticed something too:
        No one has made any reference to the jokes, pictures, and other email threads that flow through the mail servers.

        The characterization of Nuts, kooks,and the rest is probably just as offensive to some as those characterizations.

        Lastly: I too have much too much on my plate to worry about any of this. When people send them to me, I take it as a compliment that they were thinking of me…whether I found it offensive or not. I can always delete the message and go on with my life:)

        • #3262080

          Okay. What about Amway?

          by oneshoe ·

          In reply to Just one more note

          How about if I continually received emails from my boss asking me to join Amway? Would that be okay?

        • #3262070

          No it would’nt

          by fieldse ·

          In reply to Okay. What about Amway?

          If an “individual” is continually sending out unsolicated non-work related messages it would have to be addressed…preferably on a individual level. I’d probably ask someone in authority to approach him/her offline. But in terms of just recieving general in-house spam. I’d delete it. That’s what my reply was addressing.
          In todays world, if you single out religious emails, and not others you’re already asking for trouble. As a company we send out reminders of the email and web browsing policies regularly. The IT director handles all compliance issues. And I must add, does a pretty good job. He approaches individuals offline, and will then send out a general email regarding the infraction without naming the person. It’s enforced across the board though. not according to what may or may not offend someone.

        • #3261278

          Amway !

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Okay. What about Amway?

          I thought that was a religion.

        • #3261748

          That’s an evil cult

          by why me worry? ·

          In reply to Amway !

          I think it has been declared as a Terrorist Organization by the Justice Dept

        • #3241248

          Be a lot easier

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to That’s an evil cult

          than finding Bin Laden. I mean if you are looking for someone who preys upon gullible greedy dumbasses, just set your trap at a political convention.
          If they get some lobbyists by mistake, I’m sure we could all live with that.

          A guy at work tried that one with me, from the lack of subsequent attempts I assume he became aware of my displeasure at being mistaken for a politician.

        • #3241203

          I’ve been to them Amway meetings

          by why me worry? ·

          In reply to Be a lot easier

          This is the biggest bullsh*t pyramid scheme there is and I am surprised that the DOJ has not shut them down for defrauding and cheating people out of money. The ones who were already on the top of the pyramid are really making the money, everyone else below is getting a good ass-raping while trying to sell overpriced detergent and other useless crap that can be bought in any supermarket or Walmart. I swear to god, I felt like I was attending some religous cult gathering when a friend of mine tried to sucker me into this garbage. All them fools applauded and cheered like mindless sheep when people came up and claimed they made such and such money a month, even showing their pathetic video of how successfull Amway members flew on Amway’s corporate jet and took lavish vacations and such. I ran out of there as quickly as I could and to make a long story short, that so called “friend” was forever on my ignore list. Anynow, Amway and their bullcrap can seriously damage personal relationships between friends, family, married couples, and even those dating. The pressure to sell that useless garbage takes over and these lowly fools lose all sense of humanity and compassion.

      • #3260690

        Good observances…

        by larfx ·

        In reply to Thread Ending Post

        Ditto 🙂

      • #3260602

        Religious distraction…

        by jmason ·

        In reply to Thread Ending Post

        OneShoe,
        I read your original post – and whimsically thought this discussion would yield a resolution to the problem (as I saw it), but instead it became a religious insult & lawsuit fest…
        Our CFO (the mother of the owning family) regularly sends multi-megabyte videos to everyone in the company, despite written company policy prohibiting it, and both of us in IS repeatedly asking her not to.
        If you find a way to change corporate culture in places where management thinks they are above the rules, please let me know!!!

        • #3261668

          Maybe I can help you

          by roger99a ·

          In reply to Religious distraction…

          Our Marketing director used to send very large files over email to all employees, that’s 400 mailboxes of which about half are connected by T1. We set her up with her own intranet site and she now has us post them for her there. It really helps.

        • #3242011

          Great idea!

          by jmason ·

          In reply to Maybe I can help you

          Thanks for the suggestion! I never thought of that!

    • #3262008

      Some things are not RIGHT or WRONG, they just ARE

      by dc_guy ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      At some point you just have to deal with the universe you live in. Obviously most of your co-workers are not offended or somebody would have put a stop to this by now. If you’re uncomfortable being a member of that community, perhaps there’s nothing to do but leave. Bringing legal action won’t make the workplace more pleasant for anybody, including yourself.

      There is plenty of offensive stuff out there, and a lot of it is worse than this. I was really upset last week when I stumbled into a bunch of racist, sexist jokes posted right here on TR. Stuff that was old and offensive the first time I heard it in the seventh grade locker room fifty years ago.

      I expect to have to be careful opening my incoming e-mail, but I really don’t expect to have to prepare myself for that kind of assault on TR. Still, freedom of speech and all that. I’d rather put up with this problem than live in a place that used the draconian methods that would be required to prevent it.

    • #3261493

      Do you like your job?

      by fredkc ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      That is the real question you need to answer.

      I worked for a world-famous religiously owned hospital for several years. They were never “too obvious” about it, but it was very clear:

      If you were “of the faith” you had a carreer, if you weren’t, you had a job.

      Fortunately, they were paying me what I considered, at the time, incredible money, to occupy a nice desk, and air conditioned office, and mess with a lot of nice toys. No, I was never going to be president of the company, but what “religious advances” I put up with, never outweighed my opinion of the job.

      In all probability, you won’t get anywhere with the idea of stopping the emails. That one you’re just going to have to put into perspective. IS deleting an email, even once a day, worth changing jobs?

      As long as I was happy with what I was doing, and the boss didn’t stop by and sit on the corner of my desk once a week, wanting to have a nice religious chat, I’d just let it go.

      IF they become too obnoxious with it, eventually they’ll have problems keeping employees, so it’s really a self-limiting “hobby”.

      Minor Carreer Hint: As to the suggestions about “threatening them with legal action”…. yeah, right! IF that’s how ya feel then I suggest you clean out your machine, pack your desk, and call your 401K guy, first.

      You gotta remember, no matter how inapropriate his actions are, his religion is still something he holds dear. As long as you’re in his office, you might as well poison his dog, and call his children mutants too, cuz he’s not going to thank you for challenging him about this.

      IF and when it becomes a problem, I’d just find another place to work, and then on you’re last day tell the CFO’s boss why you decided to leave.

      • #3261398

        good for one……

        by sbrooks ·

        In reply to Do you like your job?

        Try starting an email chain letter of your own……inviting all your fellow workers to join your monthly coven for devil worshipping to find out “what the other sides like”. If they jump on you for innapropiate emails then suggest a blanket ban on all religious because legally you can’t ban one “religion” and allow another more acceptible one, (but to who)free access. If you balk at Devil Worshipping then try buddhism chain letters, even shintoism maybe etc.

      • #3260786

        I agree…

        by timmycb ·

        In reply to Do you like your job?

        If you like the job and want to remain employed, keep your mouth shut. Virtually all email clients have filtering capability – filter on keywords and delete.

        If you don’t particularly like the job, find another and like fredk says, educate them on your last day. Good luck…

    • #3261396

      Who is the boss?

      by seanwestgate ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      If the executives are doing this then they are making a statement that it is not in violation of the acceptable use policy. If you have brought it up with your direct supervisor and they have not done anything about it then it is out of you hands now. “somepassage ?:?, God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change” 😉 But seriously you cannot change it.

      We all hate spam but this is not spam if it is coming from company directors. I would either let it go or quit. And just remember that jesus loves you, just kidding, having never met him I have no idea who he loves.

    • #3260792

      “No win” situation

      by graeme ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      You can’t win – and if you go to war – you might win a battle in court but you will lose the war (your job).

      Keep evidence
      Find another job (even if difficult)
      If all else fails and you are out of work – use the evidence.

    • #3260790

      Jesus Loves You Too!!

      by thinckerman ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      I was the CEO of a major company where this kind of thing was happening — I had employees from lowere levels coming to me to make it stop.

      This was a tough situation for me as I did n ot want to get in the middle — managing a team is difficult enough without adding religious decension to the mix — so I came up with a round-a-bout solution to preserve the peace.

      I instructed employees to forward all such e-mails to the HR VP and “ask” him if they were a violation of HR policy — which of course they are!

      The VP of HR had a fit and sent out a notice to all executives (at his level) and all employees to cease and desist such mailings as they could become legal problems which would cause all of us pain….

      After that, the mailings slowed down dramatically to a “tolerable” level of one or so per month.

      Not a great solution but one that preserved everyone’s dignity and made the HR person act like the HR person everyone expects them to be.

      Good luck…

    • #3260787

      If you don’t want to make a major issue . . .

      by martin_ternouth ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      If you don’t want to make a major issue about this then the best
      answer might be subversion rather than confrontation. You
      could print out enough copies of every email to put them under
      the windscreen wipers of every car in the company car park or
      scotch-tape them to the corridor walls or on the windows in
      reception. When someone complains (they will!) you can
      innocently say that you thought that’s what your boss wanted
      you to do . . .

    • #3260782

      This might work…

      by marketis ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      I have parents who have strong religious and they used to constantly exhort me to “try it”.

      I wrote them and explained that i do not expect them to like the same music or read the same books or go to see the same movies as me as I believe these, like religious inclination, are personal matters.

      Good luck,
      John

      PS – If that doesn’t work – send them a reply headed “These are some of my favourites” and include links to unsavoury website URL’s. They may get the point then. 😉

    • #3260765

      Make it all about the benjamins!

      by dmm96452 ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Put it in terms the boss will understand.

      Money! If these emails are 5k in size and they are going out to 100 employees your exchange database size is taking a 500k hit with each spam. That means you’ll have to compact them more often causing more down time for your email servers and more man hours or your part then would otherwise be necessary.

    • #3260750

      a business approach

      by sr10 ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      One avenue you could try hinges on the company policy and your job responsibilities. You do your homework by computing the size of these monstrosities, including all the cutesy attachments, and multiplying by the number of names in the distribution list. You then determine how many of these you can store at once before you need to add disk space.

      You approach your boss with the financial consequences of this action and, in a reasoned, dispassionate tone, explain the utility of the acceptable use policy. Go in assuming ignorance (he doesn’t know the technical consequences of what he’s doing), not maliciousness (he thinks he’s above the rules and is on a mission from God).

      If it turns out that it would take 57 billion messages like this to consume the disk space, then you still go in with that information. That might mean that the acceptable use policy is, in fact, anal. Let the executive do his job.

      If the CFO says that the acceptable use policy is valid, but he can write himself an exception because he’s the CFO and his motives are pure, c’est la guerre. Disengage at once. Run, don’t walk, to the bookstore and get a copy of “Who Really Matters: The Core Group Theory of Power, Privilege, and Success” by Art Kleiner for your own sanity.

    • #3260745

      Delete it and move on…

      by mikefromco ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      I would find it irritating, but it’s hardly an issue to make a major stand on, especially if you like your job otherwise.
      You’ve already asked to not receive it and I’m not sure of the legal issues, it’s their computers and though freedom of speech doesn’t apply to privately owned systems, you’d have to consider this as creating a hostile environment for you to take legal action as far as I’m aware. There doesn’t seem to be any threat of loss of job if you don’t join them.
      I would do what you do with all the rest of the junk mail, delete it and move on.

    • #3260723

      Use Rule-Based Filtering

      by mhasf ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Look at the e-mails and see if there is a common thread. If so, you could use Rules in Outlook to get rid of them. Unfortunately, even though this is illegal, raising the issue with too much verve could cost you your job.

    • #3260716

      What is the real issue?

      by mdbarnett ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      I have read through this entire thread and it is interesting to see that the majority of the posts are about religion and not the spam email situation. Let me make a comment on the religion issue first.

      I don’t understand how someone can leave their religious/political views at the door. The people who ask us to do such things do so because they find our practices (whatever they may be) offensive. But isn’t it also true that we may find their practices offensive? Every person has their beliefs. Regardless of whether they practice organized religion. Personally I find it offensive when people tell or send crude jokes. I don’t enjoy it when people swear around me. But am I allowed to ask them to stop? Not likely. They cite their “freedom of speech”. But does that mean that I am not afforded the same right?

      I don’t understand why religion bothers people so much. If this thread had been solely based on spam emails the problem would have been a simple one to solve. But as soon as they are qualified as religious emails everyone is immediatly offended. Please understand that your beliefs may be equally as offensive to someone else.

      And in regards to some of the comments that label those who practice religion as stupid or nutjobs…some of the brightest people in the world practice religion. Religion has no bearing on how smart you are. Flaming “religious nuts” is equally as “stupid” as “religious nuts” trying to force things down their throats.

      Anyways, to the issue at hand. I definetly do not agree with your co-workers sending non-company related emails at work. I am not sure of your relationship with those that are sending the emails or the size of your company, but if those that are sending you the emails are truly Christians then they “should” respect your wish to stop receiving these emails. I cannot speak for all Christians, but if I was the sort to send those emails and someone just came to me and flat out told me they didn’t like it I would remove them from the list immediatly.

      Other than that, try and get an acceptable email policy passed so that you can enforce the rules against spam.

      Good luck, and I hope you are able to resolve this with little or no trouble.

      • #3260700

        Well Stated

        by stillowens ·

        In reply to What is the real issue?

        It is always a slippery slope when religion comes into the workplace. I agree with earlier comments that in privately held companies (if it is), there’s not much you can do. Grin and bear it.

        We have several religious folks at work here that will receive a real nasty porn spam that slips through the system, but they don’t raise hell about that.

      • #3260631

        Agreed. All email and HR policy is spam unless otherwise noted.

        by marcal ·

        In reply to What is the real issue?

        Spam is old hat, an no one cares. But bring up Jesus and it’s SHUT UP YOU JEEBUS LOVIN’ RELIGIOUS WHACK JOB!!!!!! I somehow imagine that jokes forwarded from co-workers don’t raise the same amount of ire. That says much more about the recipient than the sender.

        Anyway. The original post noted that these emails are in violation of the company’s “acceptable use” policy, but I note a later post from OneShoe says that he actually wrote the policy, and it hasn’t even been accepted yet. I also note that all that has been traded is email Xtian spam and email requests to the sender that he not send anymore emails like them.

        Here’s the problem: email is cheap, and HR/IT policies are cheaper.

        First, to the Christian Glurge Forwarders: to hope that anyone could be convicted of the Truth of Christ by the glurge that passes for inspiration in “Christian” chain mail is just pathetic. Witness this thread. You are only annoying people, and such impersonal, firehose methods are probably the antithesis of good evangelization. Instead witness with your life. Defend your faith in charity when attacked, because you have a right and responsibility to do so. Do something with chutzpah and maybe you’ll gain some respect. If you can’t even bow your head or cross yourself in prayer over your food at lunch with coworkers present, then you really need to rethink your motives for using email in the first place.

        To the offended recipients: respond in person, unless you are afraid of the discussion that might follow. Your email will have no effect for the same reason the original had no effect on you. It’s email. It’s flying electrons in the aether that haven’t even bothered to attach themselves something as concrete as a flimsy sheet of paper. It takes more effort not to ignore it than to ignore it, and so it will be ignored, especially if your nemesis believes she is sending the Glurge Of Jehovah That Will Convert All Nations. ™.

        “But surely my boss will bow to the will of the Almighty Human Resourc–” BZZZZZT! Wrong. Unless some form of (highly) illegal harassment is occurring, HR and IT policies are only for bosses trying to quell annoying disagreements between underlings (“See? There’s the policy. Now both of you shut up”) and/or widespread abuse of company resources. You’ll have more success pelting your boss with Nerf balls than citing some pointless Draconian policy that everyone just knows is meant to be ignored. “Heehee! It tickles! Okay, enough of that… *CRUNCH*”

        In sum: if you want it to stop, then you’ll have to start a conversation. This means you’ll probably have to do some listening yourself. If you aren’t prepared for that, then just keep pressing the delete button. Really, is it that hard?

      • #3260583

        Very nice and professional response

        by christineeve ·

        In reply to What is the real issue?

        I like what you said. You’re so right that some people have totally gone off point in the posts.

        I have to say, that crude and off color jokes create a hostile working environment. You’re entitled to complain.

        I’m guessing your the type of person who just decides to not be offended and get on with your work day. That’s probably a good course of action.

        I also agreed and posted later that she/he should just approach the person and ask them directly to stop. I hope he/she does, and they do. 🙂

      • #3260502

        Email Etiquette

        by little-b ·

        In reply to What is the real issue?

        This was a great post and very well put.

        The truth is people can get very angry about issues that affect their beliefs. The ironic thing I find is that “Oneshoe” used a public forum to vent his frustrations and to categorize religious “emailers” as nuts. He was very degrading of people he classified himself in a singular group. That is prejudice.

        I can understand his anger, but he now is guilty of a similar crime—expressing his innermost beliefs and opinions in a public manner. Then he uses the forum to flame religious people. “Oneshoe” as a person that is in a position of responsibility now has degraded himself to the same level as the person(s) he has resented so much.

        If everyone would follow the traditional lines of email etiquette, we’d have a lot less spam and anger in the workplace.

        Then, as I have stated in other situations—have a Corporate policy that has clear guidelines of how enforcement of these policies are to take place. Offenses should have procedures spelled out and consequences explained—even to the point of company termination if they are not followed. If a policy doesn’t have “teeth” it is no good.

        I’m sure the CFO doesn’t intend to cause anger, but if he was confronted with the issue by someone in authority (like HR) he’d either stop or pay the piper.

      • #3182520

        I applaud you

        by vnovako1 ·

        In reply to What is the real issue?

        Very well said.

        Your post definitely proves that being a Christian does not mean you are stupid! There is more to being smart than being able to learn or solve mathematical or programming problems. Unfortunately, not many people understand that and that’s why very intelligent people can make very stupid decisions and later blame others for bad things that happen to them, smart ones. Please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t mean that Christians are smart and non-Christians are stupid. I just want to point out that intelligence does not equal smart and Christian does not equal stupid.

        Whetehr you are a Christian or not , I think this should be interesting to you, if you liek to know what some of teh smartest people in teh world think. I recently found out that top world scientists started getting together on topics on world creation. The latest things they found using the advanced technology tell them that world as we see it has been designed. I am not going to try to write here what they found. If anyone is interested, they published DVDs in which they explain what puzzles them and why they gathered about this from all over the world. They don’t try to answer the question who created the world, but they started to believe that it has been designed.

        I used to be an atheist and became Christian in my 40’s. I found that the laws of faith (not necessarily religious practices) truly exist because they work for me, too, if I don’t ignore them. All areas of my life improved because I recognize these laws. That is just my experience that I can SHARE and I don’t think it should offend anyone. I can’t share a different experience – sorry – this is the only one I have… I am glad that I was smart enough to believe people who had fruits on thier tree that I wanted (both material and non-material), and that I explored what they told helped them to be where they are.

        Cheers!

    • #3260710

      Simple solution

      by wwwebster ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      I’ve had a lot of success with forwarding 10 copies as requested – back to the individual who sent me the message.

    • #3260687

      Clear Company Policy

      by oscaro ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      It has to be very clear in the company policy that only business related eMail will circulate in the office. This verified, send an eMail to all, all meaning from the very top to the very bottom, reminding them of the policy. It doesn’t matter if it’s your boss. You have a responsibility to the company as a whole; and so does he. It is not a major issue, you’re just doing your job.

    • #3260676

      The content or the chain letters

      by coremantle ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Its not illegal about expressing religious beleifs at work. There is no separation of church and work. You can argue hostile work environment. Then you could argue that with all chain letters.
      I believe all chain letters are bogus no matter what the content and the use of the forward should be password protected. There is no effort in a chain letter and most people will treat it as such. If this is the extent of your problem at work is deleting email. It seems pretty trivial.

    • #3260670

      Junk Email

      by tmcal ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Why don’t you just mark it as spam and get on with your work.

    • #3260668

      Try this

      by tekdoc ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      First, put your resume on the street. If your not down with these folks, you’ll be out eventually.

      Next time you meet one of the executives, mention that you’d like to send some email to the company list about important things in your life. Find a newsletter that deals with music, maybe something satanic, grunge, or heavy metal would be interesting to them.

    • #3260659

      If you don’t like it there is a delete key

      by forresto ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Perhaps you are trying too hard to look for the bad instead of the good in this matter. Free expression is an important element in any orginization and personal beliefs fall into that catagory. Lighten up and read one or two of them. Maybe you will learn something. God Bless

      • #3260506

        Re: If you don’t like it there is a delete key

        by bluelinecms ·

        In reply to If you don’t like it there is a delete key

        The same can be said about spam: If you don’t like spam, delete it. It can also be said about telemarketers: If you don’t like them, hang up on them.

        The issue at hand here isn’t that you can just delete the email. It’s a matter of using company time and resources for activities that, if left unchecked, could bring legal action against the company.

    • #3260622

      Where do you work?

      by seanh ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      I work at a Catholic School Board and emails of this type are received daily from the Board’s priest. We have had a few complaints but these emails are seen as a part of building a faith community. I’m not Catholic so I have a rule marking them as read and putting them in a folder where they won’t bother me (I do go to the folder once in a while and peruse them)…Point being is that there are some work environments where those emails would be tolerated. Of course, in a more secular workplace, like a corporation selling widgets those emails are totally inappropriate. The option of setting up a rule to automatically trash any messages with Jesus in the body is still there though (tongue firmly in cheek on that last comment!)

      Good luck,

      Sean

    • #3260615

      religious spam

      by therealbeadweaver2002 ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      oneshoe, you may want to point out that there is religious freedom in the United States and that if yoru company gets ANY federal grants, it is illegal to send religion-related documents using company property. I believe that is also an unethical practice in any business, anyway. I know that all the people that work within my environment have their own religions and no one attempts to coerce anyone to change that.

    • #3260603

      Tell them to stop, ask for descriptive email subject lines

      by christineeve ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Hi,
      Nothing is more frustrating than chain e-mails. I don’t care what the subject. Then, to be dumped on at work, it’s worse. Compounding that it’s a taboo subject.

      I have personally told every person that spams me with chain mails, to please stop. I have limited email space, and limited time to sort through spam.

      My suggestion to you is to sit down with the offending person(s) and ask them to stop. If this was a sexual harrassment issue, you’d have to do the same thing. You must first go in, sit down and say, “I am offended by this, despite your intentions. Please stop.” Remember it’s not how it’s meant, it’s how it’s perceived.

      Next, determine how much time you spend opening, reading, and discarding useless emails. Take a one-day log, and just log your time. Multiply that with your salary and do a cost projection on how much it costs the company for you to read spam. Present this dollar figure to your boss along with your other loss of productivity figures for wasting the company bandwidth.

      Christians are still business people and maybe dollars and cents in black and white might make sense.

      The next thing is to read only emails that have good descriptions, i.e., if it says, “Hi, thinking of you today…” “Feel the love today…” Or whatver, don’t read it–delete it.

      If the person comes to you and claims that they buried something work related and meaningful into the email, you tell them, “I get so much junk, unless the subject is meaningful and descriptive, I don’t read the email until the end of my day…” And so on.

      You aren’t going to change people who feel it is their mission to send out crap or inspiration (lol). They honestly think they’re doing the right thing. The only person you can change is you. So, you can leave your employer or work around the problem.

      You sound like a decent person. You’re not litigious or vengful, you just want to get your work done and not have someone’s ideals crammed down your throat. I think that’s admirable.

      I hope that just telling them to stop works. I assure you, delete a few emails because of the nonsense, and I’m pretty sure that will work.

      Good luck.

    • #3260593

      Hmmmm………………

      by biginjin ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      You could get another job in some evil hell-hole where everybody is of the same spiritual state that you are in, oh wait – that is HELL!

      Actually, you have my sympathy. I am a Christian and I do believe it is every Christian’s responsibility to spread the “Good News” of Christ’s scarifice and the redemption it has afforded us through God’s Grace.

      On the other hand, there are right ways and wrong ways to do everything. Sending people unsolicted e-mail about Jesus is not a “right way” of reaching someone as you have attested to. Most of these e-mails end with the typical “If you love Jesus, forward this to everyone in your address book”. Unfortunately, most Christians are sensitive about their love for Christ and feel compelled to do what the message says. I for one, know that I don’t have to express my love for Christ with chain-mail. I generally read, when time permits, and then delete them. I also know that forwarding such messages to unsaved people will have the very effect they are having on you.

      I usually have around 140 SPAM messages every day ranging from Viagra, to Home Mortgages, to Free Credit Reports, etc. I’d much rather get 140 unsolicited messages from Christians about Christ than the ones I get. You know the common denominator in SPAM and messages like these is that they are all trying to get you to “try” something. I can’t speak for Viagra, or Free Credit Reports, but you really should “try” Christ. After all, when was the last time you were in “church” to hear His message. Perhaps these e-mails are His “last ditch effort” to reach you. Do you know what tomorrow has in store for you? Unsolicited e-mail might be the least of your worries!
      God bless you and may He continue to persue you! I’m not just saying that, I am praying that!

      Just try to imagine; what if everything you’ve heard about God, Jesus Christ, Satan, Heaven and Hell is true, your soul is lost and God stops persuing you! That would be like a father losing a son to an abductor only to stop looking for him when he didn’t answer his call from the door of his house.

    • #3260588

      Don’t Let Your Religion-Phobia Effect Your Professionalism

      by tdoran ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Your obvious offense at the content of the messages seems to be overriding your professionalism and any possible objectivity with the real issues of acceptable email usage and possible hostile work environments.

      As far as the legality of the situation, Lawyers can prove anything regardless of truth or facts. All you need to do is prove the written mention of someone else’s religious beliefs in an email creates a hostile work environment for a reasonable person of your ?firmly held beliefs?. I think that would be a hard case to win, but harder ones have been won in the past.

      The arguments of ‘acceptable use’ of email is meaningless without a formal company policy to cite; and even then senior members of management has some leeway in interpreting the policy or making exceptions.
      Since your only recourse for this path is within the company, this may not be a productive route to take without a high-placed champion for your cause.

      The argument that the distribution of these types of messages is causing a noticeable drain on server or network performance is specious without actual facts to back it up. Since you don?t present these, I assume that you are just making assertions to support your position.
      The assertions may be true, but the way you present them leads one to believe that they are not the reason you are offended by the emails.

      The root of problem seems to be religion, or specifically your offense at the mention or promotion of other beliefs.

      And there is no point in discussing religion. Anti-religion beliefs are typically as firmly ingrained a dogma as any cult. The very word ‘God’ invokes an immediate, negative reaction in many otherwise rational professionals, based usually on guilt and insecurity.

      If the practice of someone else?s religion requires them to ?spread the word?, and the practice of your beliefs require you to be sheltered from everyone else?s beliefs, then you have a conflict with no clear solution other than to remain confident in your beliefs and professional at all times.

      The only thing I can suggest is, before you start putting your professional opinions on the line with your boss, make sure that your real objections are professionally based.

    • #3260586

      Reply To: Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      by melbmarx ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Bit difficult to get action on this without making a major issue of it don’t you think? Who cares about company acceptable use policies, you are perfectly entitled to have your OWN acceptable use policy for your email account.

      Take a 3 step approach to an offender.

      1. Explain nicely that your email account is a working tool that you try to keep in good working condition, and they can assist with that by not cluttering it up with inappropriate junk.

      2 A continuing offender should be notifed that as they have already been informed by you about acceptable use of your email account and failed to take action, you may be forced to implement filtering measures that will require them to put a keyword in their subject headers or their emails will be automatically bounced. Explain that you will be required to do this to maintain an efficent working email account and that they can avoid this by limiting emails to appropriate content only. Wish them a nice day if you must.

      3. If they persist, set up an email filter that accepts email from that person only if the subject matter contains particular keyword/s like ‘work related’, and if it does not have the keyword it automatically returns the email and includes the message ‘Returned unopened. Please resend and include the keywords ‘work related’ in the subject if you wish the recipient to view this email.’

      While this might seem to be making an issue of it, it is really the offender who is doing the escalating. If you ask someone not to push you and they continue to, you may justifiably take action.

      I can assure you that the few times I’ve got as far as step three I was unconcerned if I never got another email from that person no matter how work related it might be. However the usual result has been an apology from the offender, the removal of the filter, and a clean mail account, except of course for all the penis enlargement offers.

    • #3260581

      Boss Sends Email

      by gbig@customerselects.com ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      At work, your boss is your boss. If you dont have the level of communication basic to this issue, you have other bigger problems. Meantime, if there are mail distribution lists, you need to get permission from your boss to be removed from any of them he/she wants you to be on. If you are still tense about this,and your boss insists you recieve them you only other choice is to quit your job and move on, or to complain to your bosses boss which may get you fired in any case.

    • #3260580

      Holy smoke!… no pun intended

      by blueknight ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      Are any of the religious messages coming from the top dog in the company – the CEO? If so, I’d start looking for a new job.

      If not, you need to meet with the CEO and show him several of those inappropriate e-mails and tell him that if they don’t stop, the company can face legal action from the Feds.

      What about setting up a spam filter at the router level… how about a Barracuda?

      If they don’t stop, send copies of the offensive messages to the EEOC with your complaint. Since the e-mails create a hostile work environment (even though not intended by the sender) they are in violation of regulations regarding harrassment. That’s what I’d do.

      If anyone wants to know something about my religious beliefs, they can ask me during NON-work hours. These “pushy” type Christians give all the rest of us a bad image. What they’re doing is offensive and illegal, and only serves to alienate people which runs counter to what they are trying to do. If the CEO won’t do anything, I’d turn them in. You then need to decide whether to look for another place to work.
      That kind of crap drives me wild. Good luck.

      Check out the following:
      http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_4_49/ai_n5994724

      A quick search found the following:
      “Religious Speech: If some complainants make these claims, some fact-finders may well agree. A state court has in fact found that it was religious harassment for an employer to put religious articles in its employee newsletter and Christian-themed verses on its paychecks. 26 The EEOC likewise found that a claim that an employer ‘permitted the daily broadcast of prayers over the public address system’ over the span of a year was ‘sufficient to allege the existence of a hostile working environment predicated on religious discrimination.’ 27 A recent article by two employment lawyers gives ‘repeated, unwanted `preaching? episodes [by a fundamentalist Christian employee] that offend coworkers and adversely affect their working conditions’ as a ‘bright-line example[]’ of actionable harassment; an employer in such a situation would be ‘well advised to take swift remedial action.’ 28″ Found at URL” http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/harass/breadth.htm#I

    • #3260545

      Check your company policy for guidance.

      by odongojuliuspeter ·

      In reply to Religious Chain Letters from the Boss

      I am a born again Christian and I want the whole world to be evangelized but this practice in you work place is unacceptable.

      Either the policy for your organisation gives room to this practice or you are a weak System Admin leaving the company resources to be abused.

      Find out the root of the problem and put in place an appropriate remedy.

      As a System Admin avoid taking official matters personally; just be professional.

      • #3261819

        What is a “Born Again Christian”

        by why me worry? ·

        In reply to Check your company policy for guidance.

        Does that mean that if I pop a cap into your head, you will be reborn and simply won’t die? damn..you guys are like borgs..”resistance is futile..you will be assimilated”

        • #3261805

          Ignorance

          by mdbarnett ·

          In reply to What is a “Born Again Christian”

          Your ignorance is appalling. I always find it hard to understand what flamers get out of coming to forums. I really wish that you would do some research on this topic before bashing it. You don’t even know what these terms mean! How can you have an educated opinion on them?

          I respect the others on these forums that at least have a working knowledge of what Christianity is all about, even if they don’t fully understand. You have not even made an attempt to understand those you are bashing.

          I await your response. And please try to understand Christianity before you make any more unqualified statements.

        • #3261787