Stanek weekend question: Is it ok for pro-life activists to assume false identities online?
A good friend of mine is a college-educated professional by day and pro-life sidewalk counselor on weekends.
Recently, my friend was told prospects for a new job looked good, pending a background check.
When the job offer never came, my friend, a prolific pro-life writer, suspected his/her pro-life activism showed up online and frightened the employer off.
My friend asked me what I thought about assuming a more vague online identity.
How would you respond?
I’ll relay my response Sunday night.
Mar.26, 2011 5:00 pm |
Weekend question |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The moment you decide to become a pro-life activist, you also become a pariah, an outcast. Society views you as an extremist or a lunatic, if not an outright criminal. I would begrudge no one from using a false (nickname) or partial (first or last name only) identity while involved in pro-life activism online.
I think it’s almost essential for some pro-life activists to use a nom de plume, like many authors do, when they write about pro-life things. There are crazy people out there who will do any insane thing just because they don’t like what you say. You’re not going to do the pro-life cause any good if you are dead.
At my current place of employment there are many rabid lefties whose beliefs on politics, religion, evolution, abortion, and so on I totally disagree with. I have been discriminated against in the past because of this, but this time I have been much more cautious in revealing my views. I do my work with little mention of my views (unless it is necessary), but have a strong presence on the web under other names as I fight for pro-life and other good causes.
If I worked in a pro-life environment I would have no hesitation in using my real name, but working among the enemy calls for other strategies.
It’s not not okay. It’s not good or bad, I would think. It just is. Some people choose to use online identities, and some don’t. And the reasons aren’t always that they’re ashamed of their allegiances as a pro-life person, or that they’re trying to hide it, or they aren’t pro-life IRL. Maybe they’re cautious about what personal info they put on the web (a very reasonable caution since the internet is a scary, scary place).
User names and avatars are a staple of the internet. Why wouldn’t it be okay? When in Rome, and all that.
If someone won’t hire you because you engage in pro-life activism off the job, then they’re not worth working for anyway.
I too am a professional and the victim of workplace discrimination due to my prolife conservative views and affiliations. I recently made some changes in my work life and I am now able to “come out” even more for my pro-life views. However, many of my colleagues in my profession have been targeted by local press and left wing activist groups with “hit” pieces in the press, etc…The lefties and death culturalists have created blogs and websites which track the names of donors to prolife causes, etc…to specifically target them for their views. For this reason, I say go for the nom de plume and whatever other subterfuge may be necessary to protect the innocent.
I use a nom-de-plume online mostly because members of my family that aren’t comfortable discussing my experiences deserve their privacy to remain intact. But when sidewalk counseling, which I don’t do as often as I like, I use my real name. In the Walks for Life, I don’t wear a wig or dark glasses. At pro-life fundraisers or activities, I use my real name and give people my real email address. You could say I am both out there in person and still discreet online.
At my place of employment, I feel outnumbered. Yet, how can I know if some of my other co-workers feel the same as I do? I’ve slyly brought up the subject and every now and then, I’m pleasantly surprised to find a fellow pro-lifer. However one of my coworkers is so pro-choice that when I told her I was pro-life, her hands literally shook with rage.
There’s nothing wrong with being anonymous. It’s when you pass yourself off as something that you’re not that it becomes wrong.
I agree with Alice – heck, if you want to do it, go for it. You can be who you want to be, online.
I sometimes have a hard time with monikers that some hide behind to spew venom at prolifers. And vice versa.
I am unafraid to share my name, my story and my passion for the lives of preborn children and women affected by abortion.
Whatever you are comfortable with is fine. I do not blog from work but I do no not hide my pro-life leaaning. I have a red Choose Life baseball cap on the shelf at my desk and also a crucifix. On judgement day Jesus will remember those who are persecuted in his name.
I agree with JoAnna but I’d add come out swinging….in love, of course. Don’t ever back down from who you are and what your ethical and moral stance is. To compromise these virtues for money AKA a job is cowardly. Just sayin….
If you use an alias online, you can poke your political opponents and have a little fun, without having some humorless leftist analyzing every word you ever spoke or wrote in a heated debate.
I like to give lefties a hard time, so I sometimes use a different nic for that. It also allows me to debate other issues without having the opposition obsessing over my pro-life activity. If anyone wishes to form an IRL relationship when I’m in that mode, I tell them that I’m an internet personality and to enjoy the debate.
If you check the above pen name, it leads easily to my real name, so it’s of a different nature than the one I use for debate fun. That which is published under this name is at my real life level of obnoxiousness ;-) .
Your employers will access the internet activity which can be traced to your name, so you will pay for any pro-life online activity. I am “excused” from many health care employment opportunities, and from jury duty on account of being a pro-life activist. Nevertheless, there are still a few employers who tolerate health care professionals who refuse to kill humans, and I remain a practicing pharmacist.
Keep your facebook account clean !!
If someone won’t hire you because you engage in pro-life activism off the job, then they’re not worth working for anyway.
JoAnna, I agree with this to a point. I didn’t let my employer know I was prolife at first because I’m pretty sure I would have never been offered the job. After a couple years, I let others know my stance (I am the only prolife bumper sticker in the lot).
A few coworkers have made it very uncomfortable for me and I came close to quitting but after some time I only became stronger. Had I not been hired in the first place, I would never have the influence on fence riders that I do now. It is easy to be surrounded by those who love you back and agree with your stance but much more difficult to stay where many hate you for defending the Truth.
There is a court order that prohibits me from openly speaking out about the father of my children (who pressured me to abort and abused me for years). He denies abusing me other than the times there was a police report and proof of bruises (even with this proof, he stated he was trying to stop me from hurting myself!). I think much of his anger and alcoholism is directly related to two of his previous girlfriends who aborted after pressure by him.
I have recently questioned the legalities of things that happened in my divorce case by those in positions of authority and am waiting to hear what may happen. I have spoken to other abused women about my history and my story has been printed in a local paper with my name and identifying details changed. My children have been victims of abuse by their father as well but love him in spite of it. I don’t think it would be fair to them to have me discuss all of his sins online but still want to use my story to try to help others. I pray that someday my ex will face the Truth and feel comfortable talking about our history with the hopes of helping other men realize how abortion hurts all of us.
Last week, I committed to wearing the little feet prolife pin to work everyday. So far, no comments or questions but some looks.
Fr. Pavone recently said as prolifers we must be willing to accept the consequences.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/03/15/are-we-willing-to-suffer-the-consequences-of-being-pro-life/
Whatever you do, don’t lie about it. I worked in a Human Resources Office. I ended up firing a guy, who had been arrested a couple times at Rescues, but lied about every having been arrested. He was fired not for the arrests, but for the lies. Most employers figure that people can make choices, good or bad. However, you can never trust a liar.
There are multiple people here claiming “discrimination” for their views about abortion. I find these claims to be questionable. I wonder if, instead, perhaps those putative victims of “discrimination” obliviously crossed the line from “being open about one’s beliefs” to “shoving one’s beliefs down the throats of others”. There are some pushy personalities here.
Pharmer makes a very important point about Facebook. Facebook in particular is where an employer may look to check up on you, and with your photograph right there next to your thoughts for all the world to see, they can easily prove that it’s your Facebook profile. An employer probably won’t do a Google search for you, especially since more than one person may have the same name as you. But a Facebook search… all I can do is echo Pharmer and say, keep your Facebook clean.
Joan, if something as innocuous as putting signs in your yard showing your support for a pro-life political candidate amounts to “shoving one’s beliefs down the throats of others”, then you might be right. Unfortunately, as ninek said, just telling a pro-abort that you are pro-life can make them instantly hate you. I live in a conservative neighborhood, and even here, signs for conservative pro-life candidates are stolen and vandalized. One of the signs that was stolen in my neighborhood was a “McCain for President” sign stolen from the yard of a Gold Star Family.
These people are unreasonable and have no regard for the law, except when they can abuse it to their own ends.
If a person’s activism is to a point where it would be a distraction and possibly get them fired, sure, they should assume a false identify online.
I find it pretty tough to believe that a business working to make a profit would fire a good employee over their beliefs unless they were either obnoxious about it, or not as good of an employee as that employee thought. Businesses work to make money, and if somebody is an asset, they will be kept. If somebody is a liability, or just the first part of asset…well, then they won’t. That is business. If you don’t like it, join a union – tougher to get fired that way.
Considering that there are a number of people here who think carrying around 8-foot tall pictures of aborted fetuses in front of schools and churches is a great way to promote their cause, I’m willing to go out on a limb and suggest that maybe some of these same people are more proactive about their beliefs than simply putting up yard signs for anti-abortion politicians. I think the fact that some of these “discrimination victims” seem to have taken inventory of their coworkers’ attitudes toward abortion speaks for itself. Why would anyone feel that this is an appropriate topic of discussion at work?
Nothing is wrong with abortion joan so why is it not an appropriate topic of discussion at work?
Teachers can talk about abortion in health class. Counselors can take children to kill mills but adult employees should be careful about “shoving one’s beliefs down the throats of others”?
What constitutes crossing the line to you?
“If you don’t like it, join a union – tougher to get fired that way.”
Unless you don’t have tenure; then they would throw you under the bus. I read today that the city of Los Angeles fired half of their public employees because of budget problems. Here in Wisconsin Scott Walker found a way to balance the budget without layoffs. If the union had there way thousands of bright young teachers would be fired instead. And the fact that the public employees unions can no longer FORCE people to join in order to be a teacher in Wisconsin is another great accomplishment. If the public unions had their way in Wisconsin we would be in for the same financial train wreck that California is going through.
“Here in Wisconsin Scott Walker found a way to balance the budget without layoffs. ”
You mean the budget that was already balanced before he decided to hand out 100 million dollars in corporate tax cuts?
“Why would anyone feel that this is an appropriate topic of discussion at work?”
I’m sure employees of state Right to Life organizations feel otherwise. :)
Joan, is it your contention that a newspaper should not be kept in the employee breakroom or anywhere else in a place of business? A newspaper that could easily have an article about abortion in it which could just as easily result in a conversation between two or more employees over said article?
Odds are that if you talk with your fellow employees about anything other than your work, the weather, and Lady Gaga, current events will be among the discussion. How about if you, say, went to the March for Life, and your co-worker asks you “What did you do on Monday?” Should you just say “None of your business” since abortion talk is not acceptable at work?
Apparently Joan thinks that some of you take 8 foot bloody abortion signs to work and parade them around the premises.
Ooops! Too late for me, Jill.
I see nothing wrong with using a pen name. It all depends on the degree of one’s commitment and their faith formation. We have several proabort trolls here who all use monikers that do not identify themselves, including one proponent of turkey baster abortions who is on her third or fourth moniker (if you keep track of them as they go by). So I guess a pro-lifer with one moniker is okay.
There is a cost to discipleship, and it can be steep. Just ask the martyrs.
Joan – don’t forget the money to the crime lab that didn’t need the money, and the millions to the law firm for redistricting.
Truth – your last sentence is simply laughable. Law won’t stick anyways – the backlash looks like it has a chance of being pretty strong, which is going to flip the state back in Democratic hands.
Considering that I had a pro-life bumper sticker on my car and was ran off the road and cussed and screamed at and flipped off by some stupid pro-abortion college dude… yeah. Pro-choicers are crazy. Look at the death threats Jill has received. Sydney is not my real name. Its my moniker on here because I feel much more comfortable sharing about my life when the Joans of the world can’t get to me.
At work I was the boss. When abortion came up (an employee sharing about her pain from a past abortion) I told my views. No shame. No fear. Open and honest discussion. I talked this employee out of a second abortion. Today her little girl is 3. I also changed the views of another employee from pro-abortion to pro-life. Proud of it too!
Those kinds of situations only happen if you let them happen, John. Millions of people of varying political or social persuasions defer on such occasions and refrain from getting into a discussion about weighty political topics. Others, including the kind of people who are drawn to a site like this, would, I suspect, instead relish the opportunity to make strident remarks about such issues. If they end up alienating coworkers because of it, they have only themselves to blame. There are certain unwritten rules of etiquette that most people abide by in professional settings, and avoiding unnecessary discussions about politics is usually one of the big ones.
Sydney – would you have fired a good employee if they were pro-choice but it wasn’t a distraction?
What if they were pro-choice and talked a lot about it to the point that it made others uncomfortable, or interfered with work?
There are certain unwritten rules of etiquette that most people abide by in professional settings, and avoiding unnecessary discussions about politics is usually one of the big ones.
I’m guessing you don’t work in a public school joan!
I talked this employee out of a second abortion. Today her little girl is 3. I also changed the views of another employee from pro-abortion to pro-life. Proud of it too!
Yah!! Sydney!! I bet joan would love to know what I discuss one on one with teenagers at my job! If she knew where I worked, I have no doubt she’d try to stop me.
Lots of people use cute, funny nick names when they’re online, like Cranky Granny, or Already Here, etc. You know those aren’t their real names. That stuff is everywhere. It’s not judged harshly when non-pro-lifers do it. So why should it be judged so when we do it.
With pro-life stuff, there’s more of a reason to want privacy. The hard core pro-aborts do everything in their power to paint us as monsters, and push evil stereotypes of us. They don’t want society to look at our ideas and take them seriously. In a democratic society that could threaten Roe v Wade. Portraying people with pro-life views as monsters is a good way to prevent that.
Unfortunately, there is the occaissional nut among us (rarely one that belongs to any group) who does violent acts, in the name of pro-life ideas. This helps the pro-aborts in their quest to demonize us all. Also very unfortunate is the fact that some people believe the nonsense that every one of us is somehow responsible for, or reflected in, the actions of said nuts. Or they believe the equally untrue canard that we hate women or want them to suffer.
Knowing the deliberate slander that goes around in some circes about pro-life people, it makes sense that some people wouldn’t want their pro-life views known to employers or potential employers. It was the same way back in the 60’s and 70’s for people who were anti-war. Many people who disapproved of the war in Vietnam wisely left their views at home and didn’t discus them at work, for fear of being associated with rioters.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using a cute nick name to hide your identity, as long as you aren’t impersonating anyone.
Now that this issue has come up, I may Google my name, just to see what comes up, and change to a real cute, and off beat nick name if it’s too connected with pro-life things. But I doubt it is, or I’d have gotten a death threat from the weirdo nick named Operation Counterstrike who is currently in a federal prison for making threats against pro-life people he met online.
Ex-RINO, Democrats love to run up unsustainable public pension deficits till they bankrupt the state. It is happening now in California. And it will be happening soon in Illinois where all the Wisconsin DemocRATs scurried in order to avoid voting on governor Walkers budget amendment. All because of public unions. RINO, what was the reason Illinois gave for raising the state sales tax by 66% last year? Answer; to put towards the public employees pensions. What people see is that Scott Walker saved them and the Democrats that left the state are more likely to lose then the Republicans who saved the Wisconsin taxpayers from the unquenchable Democratic thirst for taxpayers money. Looking forward to 2012 so we can finish the job we started in 2010.
It all depends on the degree of one’s commitment and their faith formation.
I think it depends on whether an individual is able to do more for our unborn brothers and sisters using a moniker or using their given name.
Pope Pius XII had his reasons for not speaking out directly and condemning Hitler but was called to work for Jesus in a different way.
First of all, kudos to your friend for helping protect unborn babies!
As for your question, it depends on what your friend means by ‘a more vague identity.’ It’s always important to be honest, especially as being honest glorifies the Lord and tends to make others respect you more. So if they just want to use a nickname instead of their full name (like I’m doing in this reply), that’s fine. Just nothing that will make people think your friend is someone they aren’t.
Encourage your friend, if they are a Christian, to check the scriptures and ask the Lord what to do. Tell them to face the decision with courage. It’s obvious from their service to the unborn that they have plenty of that!
Unfortunately… pro-lifers do suffer the white martyrdom, if not the red. Those who work full time in the pro-life movement face the very real prospect they will never work anywhere else.
It is, and will be, next to impossible to erase your friend’s name from the places where his/her name is already posted.
All of the above is not fair. And unfortunate. And it doesn’t help to say that we are not meant for this world, nor that perhaps your friend’s job situation was not “in God’s time.”
I don’t have any real advice to offer, other than that in this specific instance, it won’t make much of a difference, given Google cache, etc.
joan says: March 26, 2011 at 8:59 pm
1. “There are multiple people here claiming “discrimination” for their views about abortion. I find these claims to be questionable.”
2. “There are some pushy personalities here.”
====================================================================
Joan of arsenic,
1. Well of course you do. [No surprise there!]
2. Suggest you take as long a look in your mirror as it can stand.
Ex-GOP Voter says: March 26, 2011 at 9:42 pm
“I find it pretty tough to believe that a business working to make a profit would fire a good employee over their beliefs unless they were either obnoxious about it, or not as good of an employee as that employee thought.”
=====================================================================
Ex-RINO,
Well of course you do.
Suggest talk to Juan Williams or the execs that just got fired over at NPR about how view based discrimination.
And NPR is bastion of opened mindedness and tolerance for dissenting viewpoints.
Is it ok for pro-life activists to assume false identities online?
Discretion is advised.
‘Be as wise as a serpent and as gentle as a [heavily armed] dove.’
JPII said, “Be not afraid”. Pro-lifers worry too much. If we do what Christ wants us to do, our lives will work out well. We must be courageous. This is a real battle for real lives. I think some employers would show partiality towards pro-lifers. I know I would. “Be not afraid”!
truth – in Wisconsin, the share of costs from the Public employees did not increase $3.2 billion – they were not the cause of the deficit. Nor did the schools increase $3.2 billion in costs. Spending was up overall, tax revenue was down. Tax revenue with the financial collapse over the last few years is the major fault of the deficit – not an increase of costs from public employees resulting in $3.2 billion.
Some interesting elections coming in just a few weeks though in the state – will be fun to see what happens.
x-GOP, no I would not fire an employee for being pro-choice. One of my employees was VERY pro-choice. I have no problem with it. When the one employee was debating having an abortion co-workers were talking about it around customers (I was the manager of a retail store) I let them know we can’t talk about things like this in front of customers. I certainly didn’t want to rile up any customers or offend them.
My former employee “friended” me on facebook then told me she was dropping me for being pro-life. Which made me chuckle. I have no problem with hearing the views of pro-choicers but funny how they are so sensitive they can’t stand to see pro-life updates from a friend. If your position is unshakable then why do friends with opposing views rile you up so much, I asked her. She told me she is pro-choice and that is that and thinking about abortion makes her very uncomfortable. Interesting…
At my current place of employment there are many rabid lefties whose beliefs on politics, religion, evolution, abortion, and so on I totally disagree with
Same here. Remember I work for an agency where its policy to pay for late-term abortions for girls in out of home care. Most of these abortions are performed on viable babies because the girl just didn’t want to have the baby. Most of the people I work with are pro-abortion hard-core Democrats, so its best to keep my dislike of Obama to myself, which I do. There are a few people I’ve shared my beielfs with — I even found a few prolifers — but you have to pick your battles.
This is also a union shop. I really dislike the way my dues go to candidates I don’t support, but there’s not much I can do about it. As for the name of this union — DON’T ASK ME! ;-)
I am currently writing a memoir about my experiences as a caseworker and have an agent interested. The publishing, entertainment, industries etc., are EXTREMELY pro-choice and to admit one is prolife would be a liability, to say the least! Another agent I was working with and who actually did sell a book for me asked me if I had ever done any public speaking, which I did — at prolife events. When I told her this she was completely aghast and said “no one intelligent is prolife,” among other things. As it turned out, she and her partner had had an abortion, as did many of her friends,and she was pretty cavalier about it because “it” wasn’t human, and she wanted to remain childfree. I’m sorry but some women DO “waltz” into abortion clinics.
I am proudly pro-life, on my facebook page I “like” many pro-life causes. Out in the “bigger internet” I am afraid of what a crazy pro-abort might do to my family or me.
I don’t mind a potential employer finding out, but for personal safety reasons, I only comment with a fake name.
Health care professionals can and have been fired for refusing to participate in killing humans.
Some of the pro-aborts will probably claim that killing humans is an expected “health care” function, and that refusing to do so is pushing one’s views on others. Others might try the alternate path of claiming that sexually reproducing organisms change species during development.
Before they start into this, there should be a reminder that two separate surveys from the New England Journal of Medicine and the Investors Business Daily obtained very similar results. 45-46 percent of physicians plan to retire early in the event of Obamacare.
A third study by Merritt-Hawkins survey done for the Physicians Foundation confirmed the above results.
A good deal of this planned exodus is due to the fact that death panels and abortions are not attractive, and normal physicians do not wish to be involved in those practices.
I have to laugh at Joan referring to OTHER’S “extremism.” And, I don’t see him/her giving a last name.
Ex-RINO said:
“truth – in Wisconsin, the share of costs from the Public employees did not increase $3.2 billion – they were not the cause of the deficit.”
RINO, your ability to sy that in the face of the evidence I stated about California and Illinois is remarkable. Wean yourself off the kool-aid cause you have gone past illogical and into a state of denial.
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4608866/calif-city-lays-off-nearly-half-of-city-workers-to-balance-budget/?playlist_id=87093
Ex-RINO,
In Wisconsin paying public employees amounts to 60% of the total budget. The average person in Wisconsin is struggling to stay afloat without putting anything into retirement. Teachers in Wisconsin contribute nothing into their own health insurance or pensions. During that time they only work 190 days a year and after twenty years they can get 40k a year pension and continued free health insurance for fifty years or the rest of their lives?
I agree with Joanna, who said “If someone won’t hire you because you engage in pro-life activism off the job, then they’re not worth working for anyway.” I’m currently a student, but I’d love to have a full-time job in the pro-life movement someday. So having my real name out there is a plus, as far as jobs are concerned.
As to safety, SecularProLife.org is still a pretty young organization and hasn’t gotten much attention from the other side. If a violent pro-abortion nutjob wanted a target, there are many, many more prominent ones ahead of me in line.
I worked in a large office with several very pro-life folks. (They were a distinct minority). One worker had pro life stuff in his cubicle. As he didn’t interact with the public, that was OK. The other worker interviewed clients in her area. As there was a policy about not having political or religious iconography that expressed a view, she didn’t have any pro-life ”visuals” for her decoration. She was, however, quite vociferous in her pro-life position (only with co-workers, not clients – which would have been a problem); but nobody felt harassed or threatened about it. She was also a very good worker. If one can link being pro-life with a religious orientation, shouldn’t any dismissal or denial of promotion be appealed on the basis of the First Amendment – or violation of state equal employment statutes (no discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color and (said proudly) in a number of states, including mine, sexual orientation.) If pro-life is defined as political, I don’t think that there is protection.
As there was a policy about not having political or religious iconography that expressed a view, she didn’t have any pro-life ”visuals” for her decoration.
Ultrasound photos and pictures of joyful pregnant women are great additions to desks, cubicles and walls. They show the humanity of the both the mother and child. Framed photos of your children, grandchildren or neighbor children playing the part of Mary, Jesus or a Wiseman during the Christmas play make great work wall art as well.
Yes, its OK. You don’t owe ANYONE online your personal info. Any of it.
I live in an incredibly liberal city, but when I have mentioned my beliefs (in passing) at work, I have never run up against actively vicious reactions. I think it makes a difference that I simply AM pro-life. I don’t feel the need to convert my coworkers (I am a strong believer that converting hearts is the work of years of prayer and witness rather than the work of argumentation, generally), and they know that I am firm in my belief. Recently, I mentioned the new movement to choose something for fasting until abortion ends, and I got a snarky comment from a coworker, but it was no big deal. She indicated that I was never going to enjoy that ‘treat’ again, and I answered, “I’m in it for the long haul” and the topic moved on.
I think it is important that we be witnesses to truth, and since the pro-life cause is a big part of my life, I don’t ‘make bones’ about letting people know that I am active in the movement. But I also don’t bring it up out of nowhere, and I don’t try or expect to change minds over the course of a conversation.
As for monikers, I don’t see the harm.
Or instead of cowering down to political uncorrectness we can start believing that life opens more doors than death. On my walk to one of my classes I encountered a coat hanger hung on a fence. I think that opposition to ones opinion is probably healthy as long as it doesn’t cross the line to violence. Unfornately people whose conscience is not bothered by killing pre-borns usually think nothing of using people to do their dirty work. These are their victims it starts with the mom who is told abortion is of course the best solution to her problem(?) and then theres the pre-born who almost needs armor and then theres the pawns who are almost like zombies. Thus my prayer Queen of zombies when thou fallest from thy exalted throne may thy cushion be a lot softer than the one you provided to the pre-born. May the lives you sought to extinquish be much kinder to you than you deserve.
Discrimination in the workplace is much more subtle than simply firing (or refusing to hire) someone for their religious beliefs. Job descriptions are changed, budgets are adjusted, workloads are redistributed until you are shuffled out and others find their way to the top of the organization with their political manipulations. Just as liberal choicers always depict prolifers as whacky right wing zealots, your prolife religious views may be used against you in the work place.
To all those anti-union folks commenting on this Weekend Question:
Please remember that the concepts of Weekends and 40-Hour Work Weeks did not exist until Labor Unions and their members fought, and in some cases, died for those rights.
mom4ever
I’m pretty much a zealot because God has been really good to me. Had I not been rescued from the road I was on I don’t think I’d be here. I’ve noticed that as well, how subtle discrimination against Christians can be and the mentally challenged card is usually the card of choice. I’m sure though a person who advocates for the killing of the pre-born must fit some type of profile in the mental health journals. Maybe for those who have no God a low keyed observation of this fact would help them to do a little heart and mental inventory. What are your thoughts? I think there obsession with death goes beyond narcissism.
@a parent: I don’t know why any anti union comments would be in this topic?
@Myrtle
I agree. Prolife Christians are depicted as red necked mental simpletons by the dinosaur media and the liberal abortion choicers. As for the psych profile of those who choose the culture of death to perpetuate their secular hedonist lifestyle, I suppose a case could be made that they exhibit certain narcissistic proclivities –could it be added to the DSM ?
I’m suspicious of Jill’s friend’s claim, frankly. The bottom line in most businesses is money. Firing people costs money, training time costs money, not having someone in a necessary position costs money. Unless you’re working in an office that actively promotes a certain religious or partisan view as part of its central mission (think ProLife Non-Profit groups, ect.), it really shouldn’t be a problem.
Am I saying that discrimination upon racial, religious, sexual or partisan grounds doesn’t happen? Not at all–it most certainly does, particularly since employers themselves aren’t always rational, and there is a psychological tendency for people to feel most comfortable with others who resemble themselves. Perceived discrimination, though, can also be a convenient excuse to make yourself feel better for a missed job opportunity or, at the extreme end, a way of trying to secure additional money.
Additionally, being vocal about perceived ‘discrimination’ doesn’t actually mean that one has been discriminated against, or is discriminated against more than other groups. In order for people to be vocal about perceived discrimination, two things are necessary–the perception that one is being discriminated against, and a critical mass of like-minded, well-connected (well-connected in the sense that they are well connected to each other, not well connected to prominent figures in government or business) people. For this reason I am highly skeptical of discrimination claims perpetuated by either majority or large, affluent and cohesive groups, unless actual evidence of a systematic bias rather than a collection of atypical and infrequent examples can be provided.
mom4ever
I guess I’ve always viewed narcissim as something that although not something to be proud of wasn’t anything serious because I believe to some extent we’re all guilty of. I think though that the real proponents of death whether it be fighting for the right to kill the unborn or euthanizing the infirmed or disabled do suffer from some type of mental health impairment because if the foundation of mental health is sincere the very definition of health lends itself to life. The exception would be natural death but the hard core proponents of death whether it be by aborting the pre-born or killing the infirmed or disabled have very little regard for natural death. What are your thoughts? I think if pro-lifers spent as much time doing arm-chair psycholigical assessments as their side does our assessments would be a tad bit more accurate.
MaryRose, I don’t know if that was a dig at me. I converted co-workers (employees) to pro-life by simply BEING pro-life and being friendly and approachable. When they brought the subject up I wasn’t afraid to tell them the truth. Some saw the truth, some didn’t. They were horrified when I educated them to how abortions are done, the risks, facts about fetal development. Most people when presented with the facts immediately become pro-life. Most people are “pro-choice” simply because they are ignorant.
The lie that it takes “years” to become pro-life is why many pro-lifers don’t even bother. The apostle Paul went from being a murderer to being pro-life and it didn’t take years! It happened in an instant.
Maybe we have too many people who say “i AM pro-life” and don’t take the time (or are too fearful) to stick their necks out a little and educate others to life issues? I am not talking about SHOVING it down people’s throats, obviously, but just “being” pro-life is not enough in this culture of death.
@Enigma: Your whole comment is, to be frank, not really very reasonable. Rather than address the fact that workplace discrimination does occur (which you admit, but then immediately shoot past to being skeptical and dismissive because you seem to believe the pro-life movement isn’t constantly dismissed and belittled in the public arena), you’ve made up a bunch of reasons that it can’t possibly be actually occurring and decided, based on your made up reasons, that anyone claiming that it does must be either lying to us in a bid for attention or lying to themselves in order to feel special. Which is the classic method that has always been used to deny that workplace discrimination exists against any group, be they racial, religious, or sex: admit that it happens, but then claim that it couldn’t possibly be happening in this case and therefore isn’t real.
Furthermore, the accusation that someone is deliberately seeking to experience prejudice that does not really exist is insulting on its face. This is, in essence, the You Just Enjoy Being Offended line straight out of Derailing for Dummies. As they put it, “…you are being obnoxious and hurtful enough to tell them outright that they enjoy facing discrimination and prejudice. Enjoy it so much, in fact, that they ‘look’ for reasons to be hurt and offended! Wow. This one is almost breathtakingly perfect as a derailment tactic.”
Alice
None of that actually addresses anything that I said. Apart from my comment at the top, nothing in my post singles out pro-lifers in particular.
Does workplace discrimination happen? Absolutely. Is every cry of “discrimination” justified? No. In our society, at least at the colloquial level, there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction of anyone who either cries discrimination or gets offended. That is a fallacy. I’m sure, for instance, that you remember the case of a black exotic dancer accusing three white Duke lacrosse players of rape? Everyone rushed to vilify the players and defend the perceived victim. What happened? The men were charged, the case fell apart and the prosecutor was disbarred. I’m not trying to take sides on this particular case, but am using it to illustrate the fallacy of instantly assuming that another who claims to be a victim automatically is.
Without further evidence, it is impossible to definitively say whether one’s pro-life/pro-choice, religious, ect. affiliations actually had an affect on the hiring process. Speculation without evidence is pointless.
Sydney,
Not a dig. I don’t think that we need to clam up about the issues. I think that we need to not be aggressive in expecting an immediate change. I think it’s great that you answered your coworkers appropriately and I am all about honest and up-front answers to questions. My circumstances have not yet warranted a full discussion about my reasoning but I trust that my simple but constant witness will make a difference, and that some day the subject will be broached in a manner that does not close the ears of my friends and coworkers.
Your example about Paul is lovely, and legitimate, but involved the active intervention of Christ in a circumstance so unique that it is an instantly recognizable scripture passage for nearly ever Christian I’ve ever met. For this reason, I pray for Christ’s intervention, trust that my prayers are heard, and intervene in what ways I am able. :)
Honestly, I wasn’t attacking anyone. I was only giving my experience/thoughts, which I admit are limited. If I disagree with you, I will probably call you out by moniker ;)
I will point out that there are a number of people talking about the costs of training, etc. and expressing doubt over the claim made by Jill’s friend, but the post clearly states that Jill’s friend was never hired and therefore cannot be fired. Choosing not to hire someone based on the concern that their activism will become an issue at work is a greatly different circumstance than firing that person because they are an activist. Reading comprehension, folks. ;)
Speculation without evidence is pointless.
Enigma,
Ridiculous. How is one to expect to improve his or her likelihood of attaining employment if he or she does not analyze the job applications and interviews he or she has already had? If we didn’t speculate (and use what information we have to make informed and carefully reasoned decisions), we would never improve! In this scenario, the individual in question is wondering whether a moniker would be morally permissible. I think that is a perfectly reasonable speculation/query combination.
On a (kind-of) sidenote, Sydney, I think that rather I see a lot of prolifers burn out of talking to people quickly for precisely the opposite reason: they expect immediate gratification and are disappointed when the other side doesn’t change his/her mind. They figure, ‘oh well, I guess it’s pointless’ after a few different confrontations of this nature, and they decide to let the subject drop altogether. My point was merely, yes sometimes you get that awesome and gratifying conversion but more often you’re merely planting seeds and waiting for them to grow, slowly and gradually. Water, weed, and tend them, and God will work His Awesome Will. :)
I think this question has 2 answers, because it depends upon WHY you are doing what you are. If you are a Christian and are trying to conseal your identity I think that’s tantamount to denying your religion (and thus Christ), Christians do not have the luxury to hide our beliefs just because it might mean persecution. But if you are not a Christian, then there isn’t anything morally wrong with seeking to protect yourself from persecution (I might find it personally repugnant because I think ALL people should stand up for what they believe, but I’m sure other’s have well meaning intentions), and certainly being pro-life in today’s age singles one out for persecution.
That being said the fact of using a moniker online isn’t necessarily hiding one’s identity. Sure, it might be, if you change names frequently, don’t link back to identifiable sources, or intentially lie about identifying sources. But lots of people use handles online to be distinct. My real name is Jessica, there are about 400,000,000 of us running around, but I’ve never ran into another Jespren, which is a handle I’ve used for years. My normal ‘rl’ friends know I’ll respond if they call out ‘Jespren’ in a crowded room (because there’s ALWAYS more than one Jessica about). I’ve used 2 handles online, tigaseren and jespren, both link back to the other, both link back to my blog or profile pages that list identifying information about me, and I’m more than happy to provide contact info to anyone who wants it. Now I’m not stupid, my address isn’t online, but my everyday email is, and I’ve given out my cell # before.
Bottom line, you shouldn’t hide that which you aren’t ashamed of, and Christ said if you deny Him before man then He will deny you before the Father. But using other-than-your-birth-name online doesn’t mean you’re hiding.
Parent,
I can’t think of one PUBLIC union employee who ever died fighting for their workers rights. Name me ONE. If they died the who killed them because they never negotiated with anyone except a corrupt Democrat.
I never talked about PUBLIC unions. I talked about Unions being responsible for the concept of Weekends and the 40-hour week. However, many PUBLIC unions protected good employees from corrupt politicians, of either party.
No it is completely inacceptable for pro-lifers to assume a false identity online. Take some responsibility and stand up for what you believe in. Why is it wrong? I can’t believe this question is seriously being asked. Because it’s dishonest. Don’t try get around it by calling it ‘taking on a more vague identity ‘.
Parent, PUBLIC employee unions have been taking the taxpayers to the cleaners for decades and it is unsustainable. With private unions at least you have an option to hire somebody else :<}
I think in this day and age employers definitely google prospective employees. They check facebook and the internet. And it does make a difference.
I have an interesting story to relate from a much more innocent time when it was still ok to have one’s own views about abortion, war, homosexuality etc.
A relative of mine applied for a government job after finishing an advanced degree. He was very active in the prolife group on his university campus and included this work on his CV. Turns out that the supervisor for the branch of government he was applying for was an older man who was strongly prolife but not open about it. He was so impressed that my relative had included his prolife work on his CV that it worked in his favor. He was hired. The supervisor hired this relative because he felt that he had a great deal of integrity – his prolife work meant he saw the human dignity in others and that he had moral courage (which he did).
I believe doing this today would be risky. I was unable to get a job until I took all religious and religious affiliated references off my resume. Everything. In fact, some interviewers were downright hostile and one interview I’m certain was a complete setup based on the type of questions (largely irrelevant and ones which asked my beliefs in certain situations) I was given. :(
If I were to experience such an interview again, I would walk out.
Aoife, so are you saying that people on here who use internet nicknames are somehow being dishonest? I know that “truthseeker” is not a real name. I know that “Alice” is a first name without a last. What is wrong with that? You might have a case if someone used a false name, like if instead of “Jill Stanek” she called herself “Syl Vanek” or whatever. But we all know what constitutes a nickname or a first name without a last. It’s hardly “dishonest”.
March 27, please let me clarify: if you use different internet nicknames/aliases for pro-life online activism and are not upfront about it, then you are most certainly being disingenuous at the least by default. The same applies if you establish a misleading website name, such as the website: http://www.prochoice.com. The very least women deserve is complete honesty from pro-life. Don’t think anti-life isn’t aware of this and pro-life has been rightly called out by them for doing so on many occasions. It does nothing but earn the pro-life movement a reputation for lying and dishonesty. We don’t need to resort to underhand tactics like this. Stop trying to skirt around the issue and justify it.
On the internet, you usually do take on a handle, or don’t give out your full name. The internet can be a frightening place, where predators can seek you out if you give your information. Therefore, most people use a handle, or a first name. Public service announcements are always saying: “Don’t give out any identifying information on the internet.” Why anyone would question this is beyond me.
Using a handle is not dishonest, nor does it equate denying God, your religion, or what you stand for. It is a protection against those who would hurt you. If you are known for something online, then you don’t want them tracing your online identity back to your real life identity. Similarly, if you are known for something in real life, you wouldn’t want someone who has it out for you to find your information online, which would lead to them harassing you online, or might even give them the information they need to find you in real life.
I know that there are some celebrities who use false identities online to talk to their friends on sites like Facebook and MySpace. Two particular celebs I know of, one being a friend of a friend of mine, were being harassed by the press and by stalker fans, had to change the names they use online, and make their profiles completely private, so they can’t even converse with non-stalker fans, and have to seek out their friends. I’m not going to say who these celebrities are, but this was an ordeal that actually made the news. Needless to say, they don’t seem to have that problem anymore.
In other words, you might want to use a handle to keep yourself safe.
On whether it is legal to fire someone based on political views, if you’re a public employee, you cannot be fired for your political beliefs, as that would be the government limiting the freedom of speech. If you work for a private company, unless you live in California, New York, or Washington D.C., you can be fired from a for your political views. Colorado and North Dakota prohibit discrimination on the basis of “lawful conduct outside of work.” Some cities, such as Seattle, WA, Lansing, MI, and Madison, WI, also bar political discrimination.
However, in California, I’m not sure about anywhere else that has political protection, the “at will employment” clause allows for a person to be fired without cause. So, an employer could use that line of reasoning if you can’t prove that they fired you on politically motivated grounds.
” if you use different internet nicknames/aliases for pro-life online activism and are not upfront about it, then you are most certainly being disingenuous at the least by default.”
Are you talking about sockpuppets (i.e., pretending to be multiple people)? Because that’s definitely deceptive.
People should always be honest in their pro-life work, but I do think one can use a nickname or a pseudonym and still be honest.
Anytime I interact online, ANYWHERE, I use a screen name. Sometimes I use this screen name, sometimes i use a different screen name. It depends, oftentimes, on whether someone else who comments has the same screen name I’ve chosen.
This is for my and my family’s privacy. And to be honest, I don’t really care if someone else thinks it’s “ok” or not.
Masquerading as something you’re not, or using multiple monikers on the same site makes it hard for others to interact with you. Also, using multiple monikers to make it appear that others “support your opinion” – well, that’s just childish, if you ask me. And strange. :D
Aoife,
I see nothing deceptive about prochoice.com other than the fact that the pro-abortion community has shanghai-ed the term “choice” as a euphemism for the death of babies.
When I click on the link, I see 3 choices listed immediately. Under the choices is information about each. Involved pro-lifers and abortion advocates will recognize the bias pretty quickly, but the fact of the matter is that I see no actual deceit.
You are allowing a term which has been used to cover up the genocide of over 53 million human beings to control the argument here. In so doing, you are allowing the abortion advocates to control the game.
(That said, I personally think that some of the wording & font on that site could be altered to be not so intentionally “catchy”. I find the wording (“Imagine feeling safe and the next moment someone is killing you and you can’t get away or cry for help”) tasteless/sensationalist but not necessarily wrong/deceptive for any particular reason.)
Alice, you always have the most entertaining links. :D
http://www.gargaro.com/kmart/papers.html < — yes this is the real thing – why I was fired from my pharmacy position on Dec 19, 1996.
After this, Enigma will likely say that it is a pharmacist’s job to dispense a drug which causes the death of human embryos at the blastocyst stage of development, (while depriving the patients of this information).
Below is one of the issues PFLI worked on, in the state of Illinois, regarding a pill with the same mechanistic problem as the one mentioned above. This affected many pharmacists, and lawsuits were eventually filed and won. This was a two pronged effort: pharmacists litigated against employers, and a number of small pharmacies and chains litigated against former Gov. Rod Blajojevich.
http://www.jewsonfirst.org/05a/repro022.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1177525.html
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/145459004.html
Another legal battleground is in the state of Washington.Update yourself on the conscience issues affecting health care professionals at http://www.consciencelaws.org
We live in a world in which economies are being destroyed and people are being starved on account of the fraudulent ideology of global warming. How is it so difficult to believe that individual companies are able to make equally stupid decisions?
There are sufficient numbers of post-abortive people in denial to make and carry out discriminatory decisions against pro-lifers. It is common and ubiquitous.
@Marauder: The legacy of spending entirely too much time on the internet. ;)
I don’t see the problem here. In light of proabort terrorists, I think a moniker can be a wise precaution. And I’ve never considered posting comments under a pseudonym or first name only to be dishonest. Using someone else’s name or repeatedly switching names for no real reason is dishonest. But using monikers has been standard practice.
I would like to hear Jill’s perspective, though.
Others, including the kind of people who are drawn to a site like this, would, I suspect, instead relish the opportunity to make strident remarks about such issues.
Physician, diagnose thyself!!