Is "refusing to work alone with women" a protected religious right?
A heating and air conditioning technician in upstate New York is alleging just that, after he was let go by his employer after repeated complaints about working alone with a female colleague.
The technician, Paul Ostapa, observes the “Billy Graham Rule” – a belief which prevents him from being alone in a room with any woman other than his wife. Ostapa argues this is federally protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Now, he’s suing his employer over the matter. Should the case proceed to trial, it’s believed to be the first time in which the courts will rule on the controversial practice.
What is the Billy Graham Rule?
The Billy Graham Rule is a code of conduct followed by famed evangelist Billy Graham, which has since been adopted by many male evangelical leaders.
The self-imposed rule prevents adherents from being alone in a room with women who aren’t their wife. It was originally adopted by Graham early in his career as a safeguard against temptation and scandal – both real and perceived.
Perhaps the most well known adherent of the Billy Graham Rule – outside its namesake, of course – is former Vice President Mike Pence. Pence, an Evangelical Christian, made headlines in 2017 after revealing he never dines alone with women other than his wife, Karen, and avoids attending events where alcohol is served without her present.
He said the practice is meant to prevent even the appearance of impropriety. Critics, however, argued that Pence’s approach could unfairly limit professional opportunities for women in politics and business, effectively excluding them from key conversations and networking settings.
Supporters countered that it simply reflects a man’s right to live by his convictions. That cultural debate, between personal morality and professional equality, sits squarely at the heart of this new case.
The Lawsuit
According to the lawsuit, in 2022, Ostapa was working on a routine HVAC job in with two colleagues – one male, one female. When the male colleague had to leave, Ostapa suddenly found himself alone with the female colleague, causing him “great inner conflict and emotional turmoil.”
In his 16 years in HVAC, it was the first time Ostapa’s adherence to the “Billy Graham Rule” had truly been put to the test.
Ostapa says his belief in the rule is deeply rooted in his Christian faith as a Southern Baptist. Although the Southern Baptist Convention does not require members to observe it, he feels a "strong conviction" it is the right thing to do. Ostapa says his belief is based on the biblical story of Potiphar’s wife, who falsely accused Joseph of rape after he rejected her sexual advances in the Book of Genesis.
Per the lawsuit, Ostapa says he contacted dispatch to complain about being left alone with the female coworker, alleging that his supervisor had previously informally agreed to accommodate his beliefs.
When he was asked to work alone with the woman a few months later, Ostapa again complained – and was fired for “insubordination” thereafter.
What Accommodations are Reasonable?
According to Ostapa’s complaint, his employer didn’t make an attempt to accommodate his religious beliefs.
The Civil Rights Act requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for religious requests unless they create an undue hardship for the employer.
Ostapa's lawyers say that his workplace had some 25-30 technicians on staff, and that scheduling another man to work the female technician wouldn’t have caused anyone any undue hardship.
But is refusing to work alone with women a serious religious principle that requires accommodation?
The Bigger Question
Should the case proceed, the courts will decide. And the implications extend far beyond one HVAC shop. If Ostapa prevails, employers across the country could face new questions about how far they must go to accommodate individual expressions of faith, even when they clash with workplace norms or gender equality standards.
What do you think? Should religious employees have the right to refuse being alone with colleagues of the opposite sex? Or does that cross a line into workplace discrimination? Share your thoughts — where should the balance between faith and fairness lie?
104 comments
-
Rev Nolan
I agree with Ostapa, whether it is a tenant of his “religion” or not. His religious “convictions” are just as equally protected and valid under the Civil Rights Act. Then again, I’ve been in a compromising situation when I was alone with a married woman. She got touchy-feely with me and flirted irresistibly with me. I did everything in my power to avoid physical contact with her. Like Potifer’s wife, when our boss came in, she was all over me and I was pushing her away. I got fired for sexual misconduct. I was the victim and got canned. Even after retirement, I still live by the Potifer’s wife impropriety rule… and I’m not even a Christian nor Jewish and don’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but the wisdom of avoiding situations of impropriety still stands in my life.
-
Jlawson
It is not that he does not want to work with women, he does not want to be alone with women, its that he does not trust women and for this I agree with him, women are great but you do have the ones that you cannot trust in any way all she has to say he touched my boob and bam he is fired a lawsuit and his life is ruined, now she has a better paying job because she took his thats just my 2 cents
-
Michael Henry Brayshaw
Comment removed by user.
-
Michael Henry Brayshaw
I have to ask if you are a man or a woman (Jlawson).
Because if you are a man, you seem to agree that women are not to be trusted which is a quite misogynistic, sweeping statement. The phrases "Women are great" & "the ONES that..." are very patronising and belittling of women. And why assume he's better paid? Why would her pay automatically be less? Even if junior and qualified, that stretches the imagination as a promotion strategy!
Or are you a woman, praising the majority but decrying your sisterhood's minority?
-
-
Gary Leu
This practice should not be protected as a serious religious practice. It is not a tenant of his faith. The rationale for this practice is based on avoiding compromising situations. Religion isn't necessarily a part of it just because the Venn diagram of people that practice it might overlap substantially with a certain sector of the religious community. Just because this practice seems to have come from Billy Graham doesn't change things. I'm a minister too. I say a lot of stuff that would be a good idea for people to do. Like, don't use the handicapped stall in the bathroom if you don't really need to; it's some people's only option. Framing it as a religious requirement doesn't help anyone. This guy should be able to cope in such situations without a fuss. Making it a religious requirment is what causes the fuss for himself and others.
-
Laurence D. Cooper
I find most of the comments on here are totally missing the point. His decision has nothing to do with his self control or attitude towards women. It is totally the avoidance of impropriety. The company has already set the presidence by honoring his beliefs in previous occurrences. I believe it is an infringement of his religious beliefs and he will win in court.
-
Michael Henry Brayshaw
You're right, but commonplace CCTV in the workplace deters (and records) any accusations of impropriety. So what's his problem?
If he feels he can't work with a lone woman for some alleged 'belief' based on men's inability to control their libido, he should excuse himself, not insist that the employer meets his needs, nor certainly that women change their arrangements to suit him.
As an confirmed atheist, can I insist that my employer doesn't expose me to any religious references?
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Yes, you can. I have a friend (a professor) who is fighting the U of Arkansas tooth and nail for requiring the posting of the 10 commandments in every classroom.
-
-
DAG of Hamburg
Are you the Cooper who jumped out of an airplane and landed on your head? Makes sense now. 😉
-
Michael Henry Brayshaw
Comment removed by user.
-
-
KING JAMES I of The Empire of Dunlap
Just do your *&^%$#! JOB, Honestly, Don't pay any attention to your co-workers if they don't need any help, and if you're not the boss. You aren't doing anything wrong, and your co-worker needs help, they'll say something. No matter if it's a man or a woman, Honestly. MAKE YOUR LIVING, who cares how they feel working around you if you're not in the wrong.
HHEME'J.
BLESSED ALL WELL
-
William David Allen
There is an old saying, "If you have a drinking problem, don't take a job as a bar tender" the same theory would apply here, "if you're a womanizer or have sinful thoughts or uncomfortable when alone with women, stay out of the one-on-one situations". This should have been addressed up front at the job interview.
On the other hand, there are some women that are aggressive on their end, especially when alone with a man and even vindictive or accusatory of the man if they don't make advances. We don't know anything about the particulars here or what the beliefs of the woman are. There is not enough information here to fairly judge the situation.
You cannot mandate morality or force a solution that is right for every circumstance
-
Haskel Darryl Hayes
The way you live your life should be your testimony. If working alone with a woman causes "inner turmoil," then the problem is his. I'm now 65 and retired, but I've worked with women for my entire adult life. Never once have I surrendered to temptation, nor have I ever been accused of impropriety. If this man had entered into an agreement with his employer upon being hired, then he could possibly have a case. Otherwise, I think he's out of luck.
-
Charles Leroy Good II
If a man knows that he has no self control around women then he needs to be upfront with it. Tell all his family, friends neighbors. Write this it on his resume, social media pages, business website. This way everyone knows his conditions upfront. It is his choice. It is also the choice of anyone including his employer not to have anything to do with him. This has nothing to do with religion, and all to do with not recognizing men as equals to women.
-
Jessica Andrews David
They would be wise too work alone or on teams of three. Avoiding impropriety is the only safe strategy. Then spouses can defend one another. Avoiding the shadow of doubt. It works!
-
Traci S LaVeck
We all have choices to make, I do not feel that this is a legal issue but a good opportunity for evolution on his part. This is a matter of self control, integrity, respecting boundaries as well as respecting the other people involved (his wife and the female workers). If the above are part of his character then there is no issue and he wouldn’t need a Billy Graham rule to hide behind. If he suffers with “great inner conflict and emotional turmoil” when faced with these situations he could explore why this is an issue for him. It’s about taking responsibility for our choices, behavior and the consequences that might follow.
-
Michael Henry Brayshaw
His problem and decision, not the company's nor hers; and the company could easily accommodate his beliefs by sending him home unpaid until the men/women staffing ratios suit him.
-
Honor Elizabeth Gray
This also the rule in churches I grew up in (as well as my christian schools & Bible college) as well. I have since seen that it is a necessity in this modern world. My ex husband & I always followed it. It saved him from being in the accusation list when our teen babysitter accused half of the men in our church one time.
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
It's called the Billy Graham rule, not something from the Bible. If he worships Billy Graham, that's not an established religion. We don't get to just make stuff up and call it religion.
And if being alone with a female co-worker causes "great inner conflict and emotional turmoil", he needs a therapist. What a thing to admit in public.
-
Cyril R. VanKeirsbelk
As it's not a tenant of his religion, it's a personal choice not to work with women. And now he doesn't. Problem solved!
If in the hiring interview a candidate informs the employer that he can't work alone with women, due to actual religious doctrine, that would be something that could be accommodated in most situations. Preference does not have to be accommodated. If he can't work with women because he can't control himself, he shouldn't be out in public at all.
He could have requested that he not be assigned to work alone with women because it makes him uncomfortable, the employer could consider that for future assignments.
-
Warren Calvin Wall
Nonsense. Brief and simple. Control yourself. I've worked with women all of my life and never had an issue with the women. I'm 62 now. I've been accused of many things from working with them but, never by any of the women themselves. Always by others that were outside of the situation. Jealousy is a massive driver of these things. Grow a spine and put such fools in their place.
-
Lynnea Urania Kaylor
A man not wanting to work with a woman... not a bad general rule for a man who understands his weakness and/or vulnerability. But this can go into other directions as well.
Let's say the co-worker is intersex such as has been estimated as high as 1.7% of the population according to some. Some intersectionalities exist with transgender people. The question arises as to the gender the man perceives. Does this man assert these sensitivities with respect to one in whom a sexual in-betweenness may present a temptation of its own? Does this man recognize such a person as male or female specifically? Or does this man reject anyone "in-between" either as a matter of perceived prudence or as a matter of a perceived abomination? If the latter, then this may enter the territory of discrimination.
Let's take this issue even further. Would such a man have such negative feelings toward someone of another ethnicity or race, and therefore refuse to work with that person out of fear that he would act unfairly or even sense a sexual vulnerability out of his own desires for dominance that could lead to rape?
The last case may be the least defensible. But it underscores the need for an HR person to consider that there may be more than just a "Billy Graham Rule" afoot. It reaches into the psychology of the male worker. A deeper, more troubling issue may lurk beneath the rule, requiring some psychological counsel.
-
Jack Anthony Wilson
This rule was made for men and women who can’t be trusted to remain faithful to their partners. What does it say if so called christians can’t control their carnal impulses?
-
Rev. Donut
Well I don't work in an office, but have in the past. That said, the "rule" is a good one but not only for the reasons you may think.
These days a man and woman working in the same office is not usually the issue.
It's the A wholes trying to worm their way into a better position or does not like one of the people working in the office that is the problem.
They are the pot stirrers and will drop "hint's" something is happening that isn't or outright lie to get trouble started.
And, like it or not, usually it is a woman that is angry about everything all the time and is offended by everything all the time.
But, not always.
Sometimes it's the local "Cutie" or Gay or DEI person that does it. I think there are pot stirrers in every office in every business.
If it is so worrisome, I say put a camera in the office, every office and make sure everyone knows they are there.
-
Bond Wright
You are wrong.We have the government stats that it is the male that is responsible for sexual harassment. Is your misogeny showing?
-
-
-
Leslie Cox
In order to avoid any potential issues self control/false accusations, have it arranged to video the work assignment in a situation where the man is not comfortable with working alone with a woman.
-
Roy S. Thorpe
Considering the sue happy world of today with lying male and female coworkers its probably safer to use the Rule! The sensationalism required by the news reporting makes sex sell in papers ,magazines, and online! Two innocent people working alone together is almost always warped into something else!
-
Cheryl Pettijohn
It is not a religious right. He doesn't trust himself alone with a woman so he has imposed this rule. I have no problem with the rule, it's the throwing a fit because he can't use critical thinking to solve his problem. Don't close a door, make sure you are in an environment that anyone could walk into.
-
Lisa Tate
I know! Since these men know that they are potential sexual predators (and/or believe women to be untrustworthy and ready to falsely accuse them of assault at the first opportunity), to accommodate their “religion”, and at their own expense (they can’t expect an employer to purchase their prayer mat, etc.), they should wear a body cam. Possibly at all times. You never know when temptation may present itself or someone may be trying to frame you!
-
Elizabeth Susan Cosgrove
He has the right to ask for that "accomodation". A company can decide it presents an undue hardship. The tech is welcome to find work elsewhere. Wild that a field tech is asking for that, as he's likely interacting with company receptionists, a role that skews heavily toward women. Sounds like those folks saying he's worried about being shown up by a competent female technician are right.
-
Johnny Dale Crawley
I always , just left the door open to my office. No problem. I think the lawsuit is ridiculous.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
The problem I have with the "Billy Graham Rule" is that it assumes that a man cannot control his sexuality. If we use this as a starting point, then everything sexual starts with the man, and the woman is only an object for him to use for that purpose. To be fair, I have also seen women who also cannot control their sexuality and will come on to any human in the room. This whole problem has led to strict policy orders in organizations around men and women to avoid claims of sexual harassment, which in a closed room devolves to a he-said/she-said situation, and the more credible or powerful one wins. While I don't like his religious angle to this lawsuit, I believe that a policy that he work alone with a woman can be detrimental. Is he required to be locked in a closed office? If not, move the work area to an open area and leave the door open. Since this man works in HVAC maintenance, it seems petty, because even though there is the appearance or feeling that they are working together "alone," it is doubtful that there aren't other people in the immediate area. If this causes this man this much angst, he needs some serious help. I think he's just trying to make a wad of cash for being fired. if the woman "came on" to him while they were alone, he would have a better chance with a sexual harassment claim. If he came on to her, he is trying to blame it on the company rather than take accountablity for his own actions.
-
Steven Ferrell
It is wise to try and avoid working alone with a female to avoid want false accusations being made against you.
Unless you know that woman very well.
-
Michael S. Russell
Any man that is so weak willed he admittedly cannot control himself sexually while alone with a woman should be considered a Sex Predator. While he has not done anything wrong YET, he admits he HAS THAT URGE. No lawsuit should be allowed in court and he needs mental counseling.
-
Steven Ferrell
It is not a sign of weakness. It can however be a sign of self protection against false accusations being made against a male. Because no matter if it is not true, once a female coworker makes an accusation, it is always there and can create problems for the male.
-
Amber Fry
This wasn't about false accusations. This was about the inability of men to keep their hands to themselves in such a situation often blaming the woman about it. But since you did bring that up, false accusations can go both ways, and has. If a person finds that either is a concern then reporting it should be an option. as should finding another job.
-
-
-
Joseph Grieco
If this guy was certain in his faith and in his loyalty to his wife, he should have no problem working with a woman. During my time in the USN, in civilian employment, and on some volunteer projects, I often found myself working alongside women in environments where there was no one else. The Civil Rights act calls for "Reasonable Accommodations", not complete concession to one person's personal problems. Maybe instead of continuously complaining about this, he should find a job with another company. HVAC technicians are among the highest paid of the trades (along with welders and diesel mechanics) and should have no problem finding a job with another company who can meet his religious needs.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Joseph,
While I agree with everything you said, the Supreme Court has upheld the notion that the company gets to decide what is reasonable and what is not. This man does not want to work with women. Period. He can make sure that others are around when he has to, or else he can learn to control his "urges." Whichever, the man needs serious help, not a fat paycheck on the company's dime and a hit to everyone's liability policy premiums. Good luck with him finding an HVAC maintenance company that does not hire women or would be willing to guarantee he is only teamed up with them.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Also, "Reasonable Accommodations" apply to the American Disabilities Act (ADA) not the Civil Rights act.
-
-
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
As a woman, I believe, fully, that a man should be allowed to refuse to work, ALONE, with a woman, just as a woman should be allowed to refuse to work, ALONE, with a man. This is due, sadly, to how many frivolous workplace harassment charges are made these days.
I've heard of more than a few women who've been accused of touching men and saying inappropriate things to them, and then getting fired because "She's getting handsy with them" or "She's trying to seduce him" etc. Or women being accused of "sleeping their way to the top", if it's a woman who's been able to get promotions through hard work.
On the flip side, I've seen men who've been accused of SA'ing coworkers, or being harassers when they've done nothing wrong. I even counseled, as a friend and coworker, a man who was being accused of touching a female coworker inappropriately. I asked what she was calling inappropriate. According to him, she'd twisted her ankle due to her heeled shoes and fell, and he put his hand out and offered his shoulder to get her to a chair and then went to get help. Apparently, she was saying he grabbed her chest and backside. I learned, later, that the CCTV at the workplace showed he did not, in fact, touch her body save for her hand and her leaning heavily on his arm to get to a chair. So he was exonerated.
But the fact is, he was alone with her, and had not the CCTV cameras been there, it'd've been she said / he said and, the way this world is set up, "she said" is usually the one believed even if he did not do anything to her.
Now those aside... if it's life-or-death and it's only the other gender there? Don't care if they're male or female, they need to give care. To stand there and let a person die because "I refuse to work on / with the opposite sex" is the absolute wrong thing to say, and in some areas, illegal because if they die and you could've prevented it, you could be on the hook for negligent homicide. Especially if you are a medical professional and you could stop that person from dying and refused to simply due to their gender.
-
Religion as a Weapon is Wrong
Women aren't that crazy about you either, sir. Bring your wife with you to work. Get a work-at-home job. Find something else to do. Billy made something up and if you feel compelled to follow it, it is not the problem of your employer.
-
James Riggle-Johnson
I can’t believe any man is so weak that he can’t resist temptation simply by working near a woman. According to the article, this only happened twice — and he was fired after the second time for insubordination. What exactly did he do that was so insubordinate?
This “rule” is self-imposed and has nothing to do with religion. Just because Billy Graham made it up doesn’t make it holy.
Yes, companies should make reasonable accommodations for employees, but that doesn’t mean they can rewrite the modern workplace. If he can’t handle working alongside women, that’s his problem, not theirs. Women are part of the workforce, and it’s long past time some men learned to deal with it.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Yes, I agree, especially the part about there not being anything reasonable about making sure that he is only paired with men. What if the man was openly gay? Would he make the same objection?
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Probably. :(
-
-
-
Cyndi McReynolds
I'm just wondering how closely these men adhere to this rule. Do they ever shop at a convenience store or eat lunch at a diner where the cashier or waitress is the only one on duty? Have they ever been to a library on a slow day? If the only doctor in the ER was a woman would they rather die than be treated by her alone in a room? It seems to me that this is just a way to avoid the temptation that most men are able to resist without going to this extreme. And while I'm on the subject of temptation, why are they not complaining about being alone with another man, or better yet, why not add children to the list of people who should not be alone in a room with someone who has such poor impulse control? Does this rule apply to their adult daughters, sisters, or grandmother's? This makes as much sense as not allowing women to buy cucumbers (Yes. It's a thing. Look it up.)
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
As a Minister of Yeshua the Messiah I understand and believe it is a wise practice... In theory. However, for "Christians" to claim this as Christian they are saying Christ is not a Christian as several times in scriptures Yeshua the Messiah was alone with women; unless they are claiming those women were His wives (plural) even the 12 year old girl He rose from the dead He was alone with. The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints I knew have the rule of two; two males and two females work genders separate for those same "Appearance" reason and that is Biblical as Messiah sent them out in twos like that. Even while the Messiah was with them a couple of the guys had issues with the women and the Messiah had to tell them to chill out. Point is it's a personal religious beliefs choice and should only effect those that follow those choices. I noticed that the primary issue is not actually religious freedom but corporate money.
-
Geoffrey C. Olive
If you believe that nonsense you’ll believe anything! Get a mind of your own instead of 2000 year old mythology!
-
Jacqueline Hayes
Christ was not a Christian; he was Jewish. Christianity began when people put their belief in Jesus as the Messiah.
-
-
Dorothy Hawkins
It's a personal choice situation, in my opinion. I'm not sure any employer should be forced to comply with a personal choice situation - "I believe in unicorns, and I've declared a personal rule that every month with 31 days in it is a holy day of obligation for me- therefore, I cannot work on those days..." It comes down to the word "reasonable".
-
Geoffrey C. Olive
Typical religious indoctrination! Question - when will religious humans emerge from the dark ages? Answer- when ALL religions disappear from society! They exist to govern other human ways of life! Imagine how advanced the world might be without 2000+ years of christianity and other oppressive religions!🤔 The Spanish Inquisition, crusades, religious wars and what currently happens in the Middle East and Israel comes to mind!👎 Another question to answer is what has religion actually done for human society other than division of the human race? They can’t all be right so it’s better to think they are ALL wrong!👍
-
Rev. Miche'al Yosef Dixon
I'm sure the Jews of Germany and Russia who were exterminated for simply existing even if they did practice the religion would disagree. Those two countries in 1936 decided to eliminate religion from the country and if you believe in a higher being executed them. You call that any more civilized than the religious abuses you mentioned? It's Human nature that's the problem not religions.
-
Geoffrey C. Olive
Of course it’s human nature, with religion added! How can you even think that religion hasn’t been a problem when you consider all the bigotry and wars in the name of one religion or another that have plagued humanity since prehistoric times! Seems you are like the three “wise” monkeys - see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil!
-
Maureen Hebert Heartwood
Siiiiggghh. The Nazi Party required everyone to belong to either the Lutheran Church or the Catholic one (Hitler was Catholic). They never executed anyone for believing in a higher power. The bulk of those exterminated were simply seen as undesirables, whether by race, ability, sexual orientation or political leanings.
In addition, the Soviet Union never actually banned religion, and enacted no measures against it between 1929 (separation of church and state) and 1965. If you're going to bring up history, learn it first.
-
Joseph Grieco
In Germany, it wasn't just the Jews. They also specifically banned Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, due to those religions' non-conformist natures. Not sure what their attitude was to the Mormons, but probably wasn't "favorable".
-
Pastor George Day
Joseph Grieco
This isn’t entirely true. You’re missing some specifications.
Jews (targeted solely for their ethnicity), Jehovah's Witnesses (who were not Protestants), and male homosexuals (but not female) were placed in concentration camps simply for being who they were, with no hope of redemption.
Jehovah's Witnesses could either abandon their faith or convert to Protestantism or Catholicism. Homosexual women and prostitutes were labeled as loose women, with the hope of redemption if they changed their ways.
All the others were either political prisoners or people considered harmful to society, such as radical Catholic priests (like Maximilian Kolbe), radical Protestant pastors (like Bonhoeffer), or even radical SDAs.
Gypsies who were not integrated, along with people with disabilities, were considered harmful to society and were therefore interned in concentration camps.
Each of them had their own identification badge.
I would be labeled by a Star of David featuring a pink triangle.
-
-
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
The real question Geoffrey, is how far would we be without the Atheist's WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War 1 and 2, and the current bloodbath known as the Ukraine Russian war? I didn't mention all the wars Atheist get busy with because we have a letter limit on our posts. You get the idea I'm sure. I think last century the Atheist China ate 50 million souls and the Russians ate 30 million souls. No wars just Atheist being animals to their own animals.
Oh, without Christianity we wouldn't be here probably, we'd not have any penicillin or universities. We wouldn't have flight or even the theory of gravity. Kiss your cellphones goodbye for sure.
No, I don't think the Atheist can stand very tall at all. That said, they are the the only god they know. It shows.
-
Joseph Grieco
You are using a fairly broad brush there in painting folks as Atheists in starting wars. - The original declaration that led to what we call "World War I" or "The Great War" was the Roman Catholic Emperor of Austria declaring war against the Eastern Orthodox secular republic of Serbia in retaliation for a Serb assassinating the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. - World War II was started by Roman Catholic Hitler ordering an invasion of Roman Catholic Poland. - Vietnam was started by Buddhist Vietnamese rejection of Roman Catholic French colonialism. - The first Gulf War was the result of Sunni Muslim Saddam Hussein invading Sunni Muslim Kuwait. - The second Gulf War was Baptist George W. Bush invading Muslim Iraq. - Ukraine was started by Russian Orthodox Putin ordering the invasion of Roman Catholic Ukraine. The only one of the wars you mentioned specifically started by an Atheist was the Korean war, where Atheist North Korea invaded Buddhist South Korea.
-
Geoffrey C. Olive
Maybe any wars that were started by atheists were actually wars against the oppression of religion!🤔
-
-
Rev. Deborah L. Halstead
Of all the things you mention, "without Christianity we wouldn't be here probably, we'd not have any ..." none are dependent upon the discoverer and/or inventor being Christian.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Ahh, untrue Deborah.
With God all things are possible.
Thousands of years passed with untold attempts at controlled human flight. The planet's greatest and most educated (godless) minds all failed one by one.
Then came those two uneducated Christian boys from Dayton Ohio. They showed mankind how to fly the right way just over 100 years ago.
When man knows all things are possible, man will exercise the image he was made in.
No true atheist can ever claim all things are possible.
-
Rev. BH
SoJ, "educated (godless) minds" - the inverse of that would be "uneducated (god-fearing minds). Since you presume yourself to god-fearing, that would equate with uneducated. Logic.
-
-
-
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
Do you really think that if religion wasn't the excuse for some wars, they simply wouldn't happen? You are underestimating people's ability to rationalize anything at all. Religion makes a handy excuse, sure, but being bluntly honest would simply rename the motivation for wars as financial or territorial. Atheists are just as greedy and controlling as religious people; they just come up with different excuses rather than blaming things on gods. Wars come from groups of people wanting something, plain and simple, and religion is only the lowest-hanging fruit of excuses for it.
-
ServantOfJudgement
I'm in full agreement Ari.
My point seems to be your point. Religion is not needed for war and neither is atheism. Man is the common denominator and man will find a way to war if his heart wants to war.
I'm trying to raise awareness to those who strictly point blame on any given religion.
God help the world oif Christianity let's wicked men of power wave their flag and wage war.
In no way does the bible support the invasion of other nations beyond a response to an attack by that nation. Such an invasion ends with the destruction of the agitator or peace and no ground gained by either side.
-
-
Pastor George Day
Geoffrey C. Olive—brace yourself, because we’ve officially swung to the far side of the sanity spectrum!
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Today women must work to make ends meet, even in a marriage. If a man is easily tempted by working with a cute chick then it's his responsibility to move on and find a different job. Companies don't always have the size or sales for multiple teams. You can't just assign a different job to someone, it doesn't work that way.
Stay professional brother or go find yourself a different job if you can't. Be a man about it, not a crybaby.
-
Rev. BH
I almost agree with you for once, SoJ. Except for the sexist "cute chick" part. Was degree of cuteness specified anywhere? If so, I suggest burkas for the females and blinders for the uncontrolled male. Sharia law could be the workplace answer.
Possibly female competency is the embarrassing part for such a man.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Your last point is a big one. If the gal is better at the job or he's afraid she will be and he's got an ego to protect, well, he'd not want to risk shaming himself.
The burkas might make it worse, leaves too much to the imagination. Chicks in burkas are super hot underneath or at least I imagine they are. :).
Blinders for the dude that can't help but look is the answer, don't punish the rest of us please. I like working with ladies, they bring a different perspective to the table than just an all dude team. If she's got nice pants it's a bonus. Cute plus nice pants. That's a win.
Ahhhh, the curse of being Turbo Genda!
-
Rev. BH
Worked with ladies all my life. To my benefit.
Graham's Rule is a solution without a problem.
-
Bond Wright
Sexist insults should not be allowed on this blog. Comments like "chicks" or a referral to (her) "cute pants" have no place here. Neither does references to skin color, hair curliness, eye shape, age, sexual orientation. You know, ageism, sexism, racism, homophobia and classism. These males are funny to me..oh gee he is not a grown man and poor dear he can't control himself--all he can think about is women's private part. The psychological/sexual tension is SO intense inside hm. Ho hum. So he trumps up a B.S.campaign to violate their civil rights to "save" him from his own lust. Ho hum. I ask you: Isn't this the epitome of existential cowardice? The actual male adults in the community are not capable of such cowardice. Since he can't handle it--stay home or join a monastery. Only adult men are welcomed.
-
-
-
-
Merlin
The Roman-devised Christian Church, reinforced by Paul’s injunctions to submit to governing authorities (as seen in Romans 13) and by the four anonymous gospel authors, established a patriarchal orthodoxy designed to instill fear and equate love with obedience. This framework laid the foundation for enduring systems of authoritarian control over the populace. Historical evidence also suggests that without the financial patronage of Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ ministry might not have been sustainable. Over time, men were drawn to the Roman Church as a means to suppress feminine influence within spiritual life.
-
Dr Rohn
I believe that anyone can request to not have to work in a situation that they feel is compromising. I don't think this is a religious thing or at least not based on the reasoning given. I do, however I understand the psychopathy behind him, not wanting to be in that room alone. In the present times of "The Politically Correct Epoch”, mass media, feeding hype, and fear, as well as everyone looking for a reason to focus on someone else's life and create misery, it would be easy for a mere accusation to unravel a person's life. Do I think that based on his argument, this is a religious situation? No. But I do think he has a right to explain his concerns to management who ideally would be empathetic and make appropriate arrangements to keep that situation from transpiring. However, should management not be able to accommodate this without undo Intervention than the employee either works it or takes the consequences of not doing what he's told.
-
Robert Gagnon
This is a self imposed rule, as such it is a choice one individual made for what ever reason. This is more a Muslim, Hebraic or Hindi belief than Christian. Catholic priests would have quite the problem living up to the same rule, or religious counselors. As mentioned earlier what about when alone with a female customer or does he call dispatch in a panic causing loss of time and/or work. Insubordination is a legitimate reason for termination, unless there is proof in writing that accommodations would be made for his personal beliefs. The Graham family is a poor example to follow since they didn't have a problem with pool boy in Jr's room, but maybe that was OK since it involved a witness, wink, wink. If he's good at his job there's plenty of opportunity in the HVAC field, unless he's burned all the other bridges. This is not a reasonable accommodation, his weakness of temptation or fear of accusation is most unlikely on a service call. The story infers that it was the same woman in both instances, if there's a problem with this one woman, what's the problem? She too attractive stirring deep unnatural desires? No one on this forum can claim this is common, normal or reasonable in any context. Were I the business owner I would counter sue and teach him a lesson, then black ball him in the industry.
-
Nicholas J Page
Oh good grief now I have heard it all.So if the man a d woman is working in an office How about leaving the office door open or better still the lady can ask for a chaperone into the office until the work is complete. I live in England and I have never encountered this problem ever I have worked with all semester and all race's and creeds no bother from anyone.
-
Joseph Grieco
Except they are not in an office environment, but are field technicians.
-
Amber Fry
If a man is so weak as to not be able to keep his hands to himself perhaps he should walk away from a situation where he is alone with a woman or find a job that he won't be alone with them. It is entirely ridiculous that a grown man can not control himself. Worse, blame that lack of control on someone else.
-
-
-
Robert Hauck, MD, FAAP
Radical Christianity again raises its ugly head with yet another departure from the teachings of their religion's savior Jesus. Practically speaking, imagine the innumerable situations in everyday life when a man might be alone with a woman in a taxi, a bus, a store, almost anywhere, an office, almost anywhere.
-
Joseph Grieco
Radical Christianity, as you refer to it, always pays more attention to their temporal leaders than to the words of Yeheshua bar Miriam.
-
-
Colleen McAllister
Billy Graham might have had a good reason to impose this rule on himself, but nobody can claim that it is biblically based. If being alone with a woman causes this man to stumble then he needs help to understand why. No reason for the employer to deal with his employees personal issues.
-
Joseph Grieco
That's the excuse Jim Bakker used about Jessica Hahn. He claimed working alone with her was too much temptation for him, leading to his "infidelity". Per Ms. Hahn, it was more like repeatedly being sexually violated by him.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Yes, Billy Graham imposed this on himself for his own protection against accusations, but also suggested it as a best practice for men because they might not only get accused, but submit to their own urges.
-
-
Elvin St. James
I am in agreement with the personal choice selection. This option would apply to both women and known homosexuals. To put a certain stigma on people because of religion is, in my opinion, religious bondage. People with a strong spiritual foundation do not worry about such temptations. Following biblical guidelines is the best route to maintaining spiritual safety. (smile)
-
Reverend Paula Copp
What? Which option applies to both “women and known homosexuals”? I’m a little lost … please explain which “option” is applicable to both “women and known homosexuals”?
-
Religion as a Weapon is Wrong
What biblical guidelines? Billy made this up.
-
-
Rev. BH
Can Christian Men Refuse to Work With Women? - Sure. If they refuse to live with them too.
-
Merlin
The Roman-devised Christian Church, reinforced by Paul’s injunctions to submit to governing authorities (as seen in Romans 13) and by the four anonymous gospel authors, established a patriarchal orthodoxy designed to instill fear and equate love with obedience. This framework laid the foundation for enduring systems of authoritarian control over the populace. Historical evidence also suggests that without the financial patronage of Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ ministry might not have been sustainable. Over time, men were drawn to the Roman Church as a means to suppress feminine influence within spiritual life.
-
Joseph Grieco
Modern Bible Scholarship point out that the Epistles were Paul demands this (the Pastoral Epistles) were NOT written by Paul, but were written around one-hundred years after his death. His Community Epistles welcomed and celebrated the involvement and leadership of women in the Church. So he may not have been the misogynist he has been painted as.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
So true. The churches with the "clobber verses" for female leadership were to specific churches whose leadership (which happened to be women) had gone off the rails. His admonsishments were to those specific churches and never intended to become church doctrine (whch happened in the fourth century when Constantine gathered the "bishops" [all of which were male]) in Nicaea for a Council to establish what would and would not be canonized into scripture.
-
-
Joseph Grieco
Comment removed by user.
-
-
Lisa Waskom
Our personal choices to adhere to our individual faiths does NOT give an inherent right to then force those believes upon others of other faiths.
-
Dr Rohn
Or demand policy leniency.
-
Joseph Grieco
Lemme tell you about a Seventh Day Adventist community in Ohio that tried to demand the USPS NOT deliver to their neighborhoods on Saturdays because it was against THEIR religion, and demanded the Post Office make deliveries on Sundays. Not only did the Post Office laugh at this request, so did the local US District Court. The judge, citing similar situations in Hassidic Communities, said no one was forcing them to go to their mail boxes on Saturday, and what was in there could wait until Sunday.
-
Pastor George Day
Joseph Grieco
Some people are taking their applications for religious rights to absurd extremes.
Believe me, we are not all alike.
-
-
-
Chris
It's a self-imposed guideline. It's not a part of any religion. Yes, the company could have scheduled someone else to work with her so she wouldn't have to deal with his problem. Regardless, it's something he imposed on himself, so the company wasn't required to put up with it. After all, what would happen if he were alone with a female customer? Would he refuse to work? Would he force her to leave the room?
I would say he doesn't have a case, but given how ridiculous this country has gotten in destroying the First Amendment he'll probably win.
-
Carrie Hatfield
A lot of folks are forgetting that yichud is a very common thing in Orthodox Judaism. Billy Graham didn't just make this up out of nowhere. It's extremely common for men to not be alone with or touch women not their wife or immediate family. Jews just don't make this big a deal about it if places in this situation. They just work around it, fix it and move on. Easy. 🤷♀️
-
Donald G Magel
The nuts are loose once again!
-
-
Dennis
As a religious accommodation I don't object to it within a system that allows for exemptions for companies below a certain size and potentially for certain types of work.
Trane is a massive company with adequate resources to handle this. In this case, the attorneys claim, "Ostapa worked in a unit with 15 other technicians and in a location with about 25-30 technicians in total, so accommodating his request would not have placed an undue burden on the company." https://lc.org/newsroom/details/101625-christian-man-fired-for-religious-beliefs-sues-employer
In the U.S. followers of Islam may receive accommodation to avoid working with pork (even in a meat inspection field) under these types of laws. I wouldn't want a Muslim to be forced to quit a job over this on short notice, however, I would also only require companies to know of such issues, restrict hiring of individuals that would likely not be able to do the work (fully informed, consent required), and to help anyone inside the company today find other positions or give them a long runway to exit and find another job.
If an organization is large enough, funded appropriately (which can be argued with the government), it can be a useful protection. Very small companies, by virtue merely of "being a business and forced to collect/pay taxes" should not be strong-armed into economic burdens that have significant impact.
I wouldn't want it enforced on a small bakery where the owner was a woman and a prosecutor or judge entertained a lawsuit against her by her only male employee. That's the extreme case where a man could sue and force the business to bear unreasonable costs for surveillance equipment, building structure, etc. so the man was never in alone with the woman. That man should find other work rather than force a small (solo) entrepreneur to accommodate their religion at the costs.
As a counter example, if a pilot can't work with a female co-pilot where he would be in a small closed in cockpick for many hours, the specialization of the role might warrant exceptions for the airlines. Pilots are NOT easily replaceable and the work-place is unique characteristics that require close proximity.
Is this a sincere religious belief? Does it meet the same standard of belief held by a Muslim?
I don't know and hope the courts have reliable standards for that.It's an unfortunate reality that people from all sides abuse the law when it suit them, don't apply the same standards to others. I am in favor of uniform application of the laws as written. Truth be told, I'm a little more Libertarian leaning and am also in favor of far fewer laws in the first place, but that is a different can of worms.
-
Lionheart
What part of the 1st Amendment are you referring to that you think is being destroyed?
🦁❤️
-
Patricia Ann Gross
LH,
Try freedom of speach, freedom of the press, freedom to peacibly assemble without having troops in riot gear stir up trouble.... for three. This is NOT a freedom of religion issue. It is a personal choice "cloaked" in something a religious figure said. There is nothing in any church doctrine that I am aware of that would support this.
-
Lionheart
We still have frequent of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to peaceably assemble.
We also have the importance of law and order, especially when people do not peaceably, assemble. Other than that, I totally agree with your comments.
🦁❤️
-
-
James Riggle-Johnson
I think he means the Freedom of Religion part.
-
Joseph Grieco
Except the "Freedom of Religion" refers to the Government not establishing a religion and them respecting an individual's religious rights. As this is a private employer, there is no obligation on that employers part respect the employee's religious belief. They can, of their own accord, make accommodations for it, as long as they do not impact the operation of the company. However, this guy, if he is a good HVAC Tech, has another option. There are more jobs available for qualified HVAC Techs than there are techs to fill them. All he has to do is tell his boss he has an offer to work for another company that will meet his requirements. The boss then has the option of making a change to keep him, or letting him leave. Speaking from a business perspective, if he does leave he's going to carry a reputation of someone willing to bail, so why should a company invest in him if he's going to threaten to leave if he's forced to deal with a woman? Here's a good example of how this could work against him. Let's say the company he goes to has no women as technicians, but does have a woman as operations manager. That means for his annual review he would have to sit in a private office (often with blinds closed) with this woman. Would he consider that a violation of his religious beliefs? Someone else mentioned what would happen if he was alone in a room with a woman customer? Would he refuse to service the system until they brought a man over? All this would identify him as a problem in the industry.
-
Lionheart
Ohhh ok! The last time i looked at the Bill of Rights, 1st Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” it still exists.
I don’t see anyone “destroying the 1st Amendment”, do you? I hear rumour mongering from the left all the time but that’s what we can expect when people have TDS. I think they are panicking seeing their party crumbling before their eyes and so they look for anything to justify supporting what is left of it. If they don’t see anything they’ll create something….anything. Even members of their own party are defecting and voting to open the Government. I wonder how long Schumer will last. Even Pelosi sees the writing on the wall. She’s getting out while she can. 🤭
🦁❤️
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Lionheart, what does left vs. right have anything to do with this? This is a religious zealot who cannot trust his own character enough to work with a woman without being tempted to have sex with her. He calls it part of his religious doctrine, but it has nothing to do with Christianity. It has nothing to do with Pelosi or Schumer?
-
Lionheart
My reply was to Chris, who referenced the destroying of the first amendment. It’s a typical false narrative often used by the left.
Other than that, I totally agree with you.
🦁❤️
-
Bond Wright
Right on, James, If he doesn't want to work with women--he should stay home. They probably found him to be very unappealing anyway and creepy, too. When sexual harassment increased in Israel. Someone said make a law wherein women have to be off the streets after 6:00 o'clock at night. Prime Minister Golda Meir said:"It's the males with the problem, make a law to keep THEM off the streets. " Right on, Golda! Just my opinion......
-
-
-
-
Dr Rohn
Good question!
-
-
What’s religion got to do with this anyway? It’s just a male female thing! It seems that religious “workers” like priests, etc already have a reputation for preferring the same sex, preferably underage!🤔