Religion in the Workplace document debated

Religion in the Workplace document debated

Business people and those involved in church public issues gathered recently to consider a discussion document from the Human Rights Commission that plans to launch Religion in the Workplace guidelines late in 2010 or early in 2011.

The forum, run jointly by New Zealand Christian Network (visionnetwork) and the Fountain Institute, opened with a debate that “all faiths should have full and equal freedom of expression in word and lifestyle in the workplace”.

Some of the arguments in favour included that such freedom is required for a happy workplace, good society, the law, and our faith.

Against this, the assumption that government needs to be involved in this issue is problematic, and ignores fundamental contradictions between faiths at the deep culture level, failing to take into account the unique and positive impact of Christianity on New Zealand’s history. It was also commented that some other religions do not accept some basic tenets of our society, such as the equality of all human beings, including gender equality.

The forum agreed that a document which includes terms such as religion, faith position, belief system, etc., does raise questions and fails to take into account other comprehensive view positions, such as secularism, secular humanism, and rationalist humanism. These are also belief systems and should be treated as such.

This means that secularism cannot then be the default position for arbitrating between other comprehensive views such as Christianity or Buddhism. The Human Rights Commission’s discussion document covers five main areas: holidays; dress and style; religious provision, e.g., prayer times and prayer rooms; public display, e.g., crucifixes; and work or activities prohibited by faith, e.g., transporting alcohol.

Religious public holidays are coming under a lot of pressure, but the group said it is discriminatory to question only religious holidays.

There are people who disagree with the original basis for non-religious public holidays, too, such as Anzac Day, Labour Day or Waitangi Day. To challenge only the basis of religious holidays is itself discriminatory.

The group agreed that Christians would not want to impose their sacred days on others. It was suggested that the three Christian holy days could be scrapped as public holidays, everyone’s annual holiday entitlement be increased by three days, and all people could then take off by right, in negotiation with their employers, whichever days are sacred for them.

The group felt that apart from requirements of decency, safety and OSH – and corporate uniforms – people should be free to wear whatever they want. Employers should be encouraged to be as creative as possible in these areas, and make provision for the special religious needs of their employees.

Regarding public display, the forum agreed that a person who feels offended should not automatically require the other person to stop whatever behaviour supposedly caused the offence. There needs to be a test of “reasonableness”, or common sense.

The Human Rights Commission hopes to have a revised draft document ready for public consultation in July or August this year.

ENDS

© Scoop Media