In regards to my previous OP.

[and-justice-for-all]

Here is what I replied with:

As I have re-read the below policy, I have not violated the policy as stated nor do I see the "broadness" of the policy.

My reply was not religious in context nor was it discrimatory or harassment; if anyone has been harassed, it has been myself.

Also, Atheism is not a religion, but a lack of belief in religious doctrines and god(s). Therefore, stating I am an Atheist is not in violation of the terms in the policy as is mentioned below. I do not send out mass emails with Atheist content as does people here in the field have done and do with their religious ideologies. In order to have violated the policy, Atheism would have to be a religion, which it is not.

I was also thanking Day and Zimmerman of implementing this policy, something Parsons should also look into doing.

I received an email response from someone else out here, who agreed with my response and stated that "You are not alone."

If you find Atheism offensive, I am sorry to hear that.

After giving them the correct definition for Atheism, here is the response I got:

"Atheism is an ideology, as is any religiously based philosophy, with or without deities. You expressed your ideology in a mass e-mail message, which pretty much violates the policy below. My suggestion is that you should not have hit the reply to all button. Hey, no pending reprimands here, just advice."

He could not sound anymore ignorant about atheism if he tried.


Now I have composed another reply, with the assistance of Freethoughtpedia, it is as follows:

You could not be anymore wrong: "Atheism is an ideology, as is any religiously based philosophy". Calling Atheism a "religiously based philosophy" is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby; If you no longer believe in Santa Claus, do you call yourself an "Anti-Santa-Clausian?" Is there some doctrine you follow pursuant with your non-belief in the existence of the tooth fairy? Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).

I am not trying to be difficult, I just think that you are not clear about what exactly Atheism is, as a lot of people have misconceptions about it. So I am trying to explain it to you, please do not take offense.

It takes no faith to not believe in something. Do you know what the definition of faith is? It is believing in something in the absence of evidence. In other words, it's the opposite of coming to a conclusion based on something real and tangible. The non-existence of something is not a belief. It's merely a base or fallback position one naturally comes to in the absence of contrary evidence.

Atheism is a lack of belief, which theists often compare in the same terms as they do their beliefs, which do constitute a World view. The problem is, atheism is not a "world view". It's not a set of rules, regulations, dogma, scripture, beliefs or any other idea that is universally accepted among people. There is no atheist bible. There are no rules which all atheists are expected to follow. The lack of belief is not indicative of a recommended way of living ones' life.

Atheists do have world views; they do have a sense of morality; they do have ideas on what is and isn't acceptable and moral behavior. However, these "beliefs" are not derived from theology, nor are they derived from any atheist manifesto, nor are they consistent among all those who choose not to subscribe to religious mythology. There are many other sources for world views and morality, not the least of which is Humanism which is typically embraced to one extent or another by all people regardless of their faith or lack thereof.

Again, I am not attempting to be difficult or rude. I just want you to have the correct definition and meaning of Atheism. This is good to have this dialogue about this with you, I do not think of this as an argument and I hope you think the same.

Kindest Regards,

[lizerdbits]

1. Do you think

he might be trying to 'egg you on' to send an email arguing for atheism so he can complain about you? He can't with your responses since you did a good job of defining and explaining, but if he's a victim-wanna-be he might try.

[and-justice-for-all]

5. No, I dont think he is like that...

I sent that email, he replied and I did not even read it or reply to him. So I ended the conversation.

[Lost-in-FL]

2. This is a great post.

I am bookmarking in case I need it.

I hope everything goes well and this situation ends with this last e-mail.

[Synnical]

3. As the HR Director at my office - my two cents

Hi,

I'm not a certified HR professional, but I do have some years of experience in this area.

1) I don't think you initially violated Company policy, however by "replying to all" you in effect did made a formal written complaint that your HR department might feel obligated to investigate. OTOH, the case could be made that the new policy is expected to stop this sort of behavior.

2) By continuing to type to co-workers on this issue, assuming you are using company resources, I do think that you are now verging on violating policy and abusing company resources.

3) Posting company communication on the internet could also be considered an infraction. Most internal communication is considered confidential.

Just throwing my thoughts out there.

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

Edit to add: I'm thinking larger picture here in regards to #3. I know you didn't name the company you work for, but these days, it's better to be careful and never be careless. There is no longer anything called "privacy" in the US.

[and-justice-for-all]

4. WellI replied to all, once..

after that I kept it between him and I.

I posted the communication without any indication as to where it originated from.