The big issue on the ballot this year in Utah is referendum 1 in regards to vouchers for students attending private schools. Both sides of the issue have been quite heated. Salt Lake City is voting for a new mayor, but the voucher debate has been more publicized and more contentious. I don't want to use this venue to discuss the pro's or con's of the issue, but rather to discuss the proper forum for the discussion of such topics.
One of my friends works at a large local business. The owner of the business sent out an email to all the employees stating his position on the referendum and reasons for his position. He invited whomever wished to "reply to all" if they wanted to support his position or offer a counter position. He opened debate for all without work repercussions. Many employees responded back on both sides of the debate. Feelings were hurt and contention was high, creating an atmosphere that was not very agreeable. My friend that works at the business felt that it was inappropriate for the owner to send out the email. She referred to the employee handbook that states that work email can only be used for work purposes. She also expressed the feeling of uneasiness at work for the remainder of the day.
My opinion on the matter differs from my friend's. I'm actually ok with the owner of this business stating his opinion and inviting an open discussion at work. Its his company. He can do with it as he pleases. I think it would be inappropriate for an employee to use work property for the debate without the owners consent, but I think it shows some civic and social responsibility to allow public policy to be debated where we work. There might be legal ramifications if this were a publicly traded company or if pay or advancement in the company is influenced by a persons opinion. But a private business can be a good forum for public debate.
In regards to the ill-feeling at work, people need more debate in their lives and the chance to stand up for what they believe in. Many people are too easily offended if someone else doesn't agree. If the debate is rational, focused on the topic at hand, and does not include personal attacks or labels, then it is good for the people involved. More debate could influence the way people handle controversy and facilitate more open discussions on minor issues, ones where people usually stay silent to "avoid confrontation". This George McFly like change could be a good thing.
Related to this discussion is the question 'Where are the proper forums for debate?' In the LDS culture, every election a letter is sent by the first presidency and read to the congregation that encourages its members to vote for who they think is right. It explicitly states that the church does not advocate any candidate over another. Occasionally the church will speak out against certain issues, but the congregation is at liberty to vote for whomever or whatever they want. An example of this is President Heber J. Grant, who was was a strong advocate of the 18th amendment, but despite his urging, Utah helped ratify the 21st amendment repealing prohibition. Many times in public fast and testimony meetings or the occasional Sunday school class, a member of the congregation will introduce public policy/controversial topics into the lesson or talk. And while I agree that is inappropriate to use testimony meeting for something other than testimony, I don't thing its inappropriate to discuss politics in church. Maybe a fireside or a ward activity would be appropriate. But I think discussing politics with people who have the same values and beliefs as you is a good idea. The United States has demonstrated over and over that is more of a Republic than a Democracy. Protecting the rights of the minority takes precedence over the ruling of the majority. A church group is a powerful special interest group and should be united in its political stance.
This is an odd choice for a first discussion considering I have never much cared for politics. But please share your ideas or thoughts.
- Locke
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I am currently living in Nauvoo where there has obviously been a history of religious and political differences that have led to violence and suffering. The current Nauvoo is very different. We have a Nauvoo Minesterial association which organizes a symposium on otherwise heated religious topics. The Catholic priest here chose the topic "The one true church" and each minister had some time to make a statement on the subject. The most tense moment was when the Lutherin minster explained some of the reasons they don't consider us to be Christians. But everyone calmly sat and listened and we all learned more about each other's religion. We had a chance to write down questions and after a short break each minister answered one or more questions. The most interesting for me was the baptist preacher saying in no uncertain terms that people who had no opportunity to hear about the gospel go to hell. I was very eye opening and it couldn't have happened if any of the minsters got offended or upset.
The discussion of politics are often very similar to the discussion of religion. I agree with Rhett that anyone who felt uncomfortable about the email discussion at work should get over it and learn to accept differences of opinion and belief without making it personal.
Who would have thought that I would make the first comment. (:
I hear it's okay to throw in annoucements in the closing prayer.... right?
The great thing about email is you can always delete them with out reading them.
as for the work email, i consider it sort of like the dunder-mifflin olympics. it's great to do things at work other than work. yeah, maybe it's not great in china, but it's awesome here. it has the potential to build morale and keeps us at our jobs because our jobs become more than simple drudgery. like the dunder-mifflin olympics, however people can be hurt or be jerks about the games and the opposite effect can happen. in this situation it's still responsible behavior to get involved, but not emotionally involved. also, it's one thing to invite debate, but another to demand it. from what i can tell of the situation you described, participatin was optional. of course i might choose not to participate. i totally suck at debate or arguing or stating things.
so what do we think about vouchers anyway?
I guess people want to think of every organization they belong to as being free from undue pressures, for example, at work you shouldn't have to worry about people harrassing you about religion or politics, and at church the other members should shy away from work issues, etc. I can see that way of thinking, especially since we have very obnowiously overt people who work here with me, always pushing their unfounded, biased opinions on anyone weak enough not to send them away.
However, while I can see where that feeling might come from, I can't respect anyone who thinks of themselves as such a victim that they can't say "Hey, bugger off. I don't care if you don't like [add an organization of your choice], you could always MOVE AWAY!
If I get an email I don't agree with I delete it. Not that hard.
Let's talk about things more. Let's fight more! Let's find out just what makes us uncomfortable and figure out why. If I'm too busy to care...oh well! But in the end we may just find out who our friends and co-workers really are.
And that guy who may someday walk in with a sawed-off shotgun and wreak havoc...maybe we can spot him early enough to divert. Maybe..
Maybe I'm a Japanese jet pilot.
Post a Comment