Take Your Jesus To Work Day
It's becoming a daily thing for some -- except that the boss now brings Jesus in for the workers.
I can't believe how increasingly religious (or, rather, increasingly servile to the already religious) America is becoming -- just as Europe is continuing along in the opposite direction.
Here's an article in The New York Times by Neela Banerjee about chaplains on the payroll. Banerjee writes:
At the Tyson poultry plant here, Fred L. Mason Jr. hangs live chickens by their feet before they move down a belt toward slaughter. A few months ago, Mr. Mason told his boss that he had a drug problem.People urged him to see the plant’s chaplain, but he was skeptical. “What could he do? Offer me prayer?” Mr. Mason said. “I was getting that at church. I was getting that from family, when all the while I was going out of my mind.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Mason, 35 and a cocaine user for 20 years, went to the small office of the Rev. Ken Willis, the plant’s chaplain. Over the next few months, Mr. Willis helped him enroll in a drug rehabilitation program, find a counselor and Narcotics Anonymous meetings to attend.
Mr. Mason said he has not used drugs since Aug. 21, and he credits the chaplaincy program. “It’s saved my life,” he said.
From car parts makers to fast food chains to financial service companies, corporations across the country are bringing chaplains into the workplace. At most companies, the chaplaincy resembles the military model, which calls for chaplains to serve the religiously diverse community before them, not to evangelize.
“Someone who has never thought about this might assume they pray with people, but the majority of the job is listening to people, helping them with very human problems, not one big intensive religious discussion,” said David Miller, executive director of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture and the author of the book “God at Work.”
The spread of corporate chaplaincy programs, especially out of the Bible Belt to the North, is part of a growing trend among businesses to embrace religion rather than reject it, Mr. Miller said. Executives now look for ways to build a company that adheres to certain Christian values. Some businesses offer Muslim employees a place and the time to pray during work.
How sweet. Commensurately, do they give atheists time off to sit around thinking rationally?
Oh, and FYI, using religion as a Band-Aid for a drug problem doesn't mean you've solved your drug problem -- what's at the root of it -- it just means you've put a big Jesus Band-Aid over it.
Thanks, Melissa W.
Band-aids are excellent, responsibile, proportionate treatments for many wounds. When you put one on a little girls' finger, it doesn't mean she's *really* healed, has she? *Has she?* IJS.
If there's some meaningful "solution" to drug problems --some cleansing burst of insight from the rational mind that would make them go away-- you should write a book about it. You'll be the healer of the century. Salk'll have nothin' on you.
Dr Drew says addicts in recovery need a dose of humility, and most take this from religion: We are not in control of our lives. (Poysonally, I tend to agree with Paglia: Nature is in the Big Chair.)
Crid at December 6, 2006 4:28 AM
I lean toward Crid's position here. It's really not all that clear yet what IS at the root of substance abuse anyway. Cognitive psychologists say it's the way we think, neurologists say it's the PET scan, junkies say it's the high, plain and simple. If a Jesus bandaid is keeping someone clean and sober, bringing home a paycheck and sweeping the sidewalk in front of his building, that's quite fine by me. Let's all get on with our lives.
Lena at December 6, 2006 7:54 AM
Didn't the article say that he went to rehab, counseling, and NA, sent by the chaplain? How is that a Jesus band-aid?
christina at December 6, 2006 9:11 AM
What's atheism have to do with rationality?
No, seriously. I'm an atheist, I don't see the connection. Enough atheists are completely irrational about religion and atheism that I'm not going to buy the association at that level, just as enough thoroughly intelligent, rational people have been sincerely and equally thoroughly religios that I can't point and laugh at them as "irrational".
(Non-rational as to their core assumptions, yes. But that's endemic to the human condition, and I haven't seen Atheists do noticeably better.)
Religion is, at its core, non-rational (though as any Catholic could tell you, you can pile a lot of reason on top of the basic assumptions). But it also seems to work for people, in a way that Pure Reason also doesn't seem to work for them.
Sigivald at December 6, 2006 4:09 PM
> What's atheism have to do with rationality?
You're kidding, aren't you?
> No, seriously. I'm an atheist, I don't see the
> connection.
Really? Ok, for starters, it doesn't treat folklore about a supreme being as a non-negotiable fact. If you can't see this connection, don't bother to read the rest of my answer. ;-)
> Religion is, at its core, non-rational
True.
> (though as any Catholic could tell you, you
> can pile a lot of reason on top of the basic
> assumptions).
True in a certain way, but misleading: As logic dictates, you can draw each and every conclusion (and its negation, of course) from any basic assumption or premise that defies investigation. The more reason you pile up on top of questionable assumptions, the less you can see that you are producing esotericism or pseudo-science.
> But it also seems to work for people, in a way
> that Pure Reason also doesn't seem to work for
> them.
Define "works for people". If your point is: "Some people just ache to believe in a higher authority that tells them what to do", well, I agree that it works for certain personality types in a way reason couldn't ever work for them at all: If they'd be reasonable about their drug problem they'd have to take responsibility.
Their way only "works" when "Jesus saved them". If he didn't, the chaplain will tell them that they Must Not Question His Ways. On the other hand, reasonable people only have themselves to blame. But a reasonable approach at least doesn't fool them into thanking someone who - very probably - doesn't even exist.
Does that sound reasonable? (At least I hope it does.)
Rainer at December 7, 2006 10:58 AM
Never had a drug problem (or, more honestly, remain unscathed despite considerable youthful experimentation), I'm a cradle atheist and I have a little piece of hatred in my heart for a clumsy cancer hospital chaplain who managed to further distress my late sister...BUT...why on earth sneer at a "Jesus bandaid" if it helped crack this guy's problem?
Definitely with Lena and Christina.
Jody Tresidder at December 7, 2006 12:42 PM
Sorry if my answer sounded like I wanted to sneer at the guy with the drug problem. That wasn't my intention. Actually, I just tried to give an answer to the question whether atheism has anything to do with rationality. (Yes, it does.)
I also think that this thread has gotten away from Amy's original point, which wasn't "Mr. Mason should be sneered at for accepting the chaplain's help."
I think her point was more like: "Mr. Mason's boss hired a chaplain for the job of, let's say, a social worker. This smells of anticipatory obedience towards the religious right."
Amy, I'm paraphrasing here, so please correct me if I got it wrong.
Rainer at December 7, 2006 2:38 PM
From the comments posted in this forum there appears, to me, to be a misperception about what rationalism's utility is in investigation and problem-solving. Modern rationalist thought has origins in both the Enlightenment and Positivim from the 18th-19th century. Both eras stressed the use of reason and the scientific method to study problems of the natural world (ex. disease) and how man could use what he learned in order to fashion material solutions (ex. sanitation). Rationalism was never perceived to have any value for answering either non-naturalistic or non-material questions (ex. why do people pursue self-destructive paths). Consequently, rationalism is limited in what questions it can ask and answer. Religion is as widespread and durable as it is because it provides guidance, if not answers, about human frailites and how they affect relationships and social cohesion. With regards to drug addiction, rationalism can propose treatments for psychological and physical addictions that have been previously diagnosed. But, it cannot provide answers for why men and women chose to take drugs in the first place. Bottom line, both rationism and religion have value and have greater value still if used in tandem to solve the myriad physical, psychological, spiritual, and moral plagues of the human animal.
Matt at December 8, 2006 7:03 PM
From the comments posted in this forum there appears, to me, to be a misperception about what rationalism's utility is in investigation and problem-solving. Modern rationalist thought has origins in both the Enlightenment and Positivim from the 18th-19th century. Both eras stressed the use of reason and the scientific method to study problems of the natural world (ex. disease) and how man could use what he learned in order to fashion material solutions (ex. sanitation). Rationalism was never perceived to have any value for answering either non-naturalistic or non-material questions (ex. why do people pursue self-destructive paths). Consequently, rationalism is limited in what questions it can ask and answer. Religion is as widespread and durable as it is because it provides guidance, if not answers, about human frailites and how they affect relationships and social cohesion. With regards to drug addiction, rationalism can propose treatments for psychological and physical addictions that have been previously diagnosed. But, it cannot provide answers for why men and women chose to take drugs in the first place. Bottom line, both rationism and religion have value and have greater value still if used in tandem to solve the myriad physical, psychological, spiritual, and moral plagues of the human animal.
Matt at December 8, 2006 7:04 PM
> Rationalism was never perceived to have any
> value for answering either non-naturalistic or
> non-material questions
True, maybe, for the 18th and 19th century. Since the 20th century scientists have started doing a lot of research on topics that were supposed to be "non-material", like the previously unknown chemical processes within the human brain when it's exercising its free will (or "free will", depending on who you ask).
At the bottom line, today we really don't know whether there exists anything at all, that can legitimately be described as a non-naturalistic or non-material question.
> But, it [rationalism] cannot provide answers
> for why men and women chose to take drugs in
> the first place.
Though I am not familiar with research on drug issues, I find that extremely hard to believe. Do you really mean to say there was never any kind of scientific study on this topic? No scientist ever took the time to ask a couple of thousand people a few obvious questions? ("1. When did you start taking drugs and why? 2. When did you quit and why? 3. If you answered question 2. with 'No': Why didn't you quit?" Etc.)
This kind of research should be quite easy to do, actually. It's not the fault of rationalism, though, if some people give answers like "1. The devil made me do it. 2. Jesus saved me."
Back to the original question: I still think it is a stupid move to hire a chaplain for the job of a social worker.
Rainer at December 9, 2006 5:38 AM
"Rationalism was never perceived to have any value for answering either non-naturalistic or non-material questions (ex. why do people pursue self-destructive paths)."
What is "non-naturalistic"?
Something happened in the 20th century, Matt, called "abnormal psychology." Its technology and applications are positivistic insofar as they are meant to ameliorate the effects of cognitive and behavioral impairment. In the last fifth of the same century, medications operating on two neurotransmitters in particular, serotonin and dopamine, have demonstrated great benefit in this regard.
"No scientist ever took the time to ask a couple of thousand people a few obvious questions? ("1. When did you start taking drugs and why? 2. When did you quit and why? 3. If you answered question 2. with 'No': Why didn't you quit?" Etc.)"
That's assuming, Rainer, that people could actually answer those questions accurately. Don't forget some other great products of 20th century thought: Mood disorders and the unconscious. They regularly fuck us up as we attempt to construct truths from experience.
"I am not familiar with research on drug issues"
Two of my favorite recent books in this area are:
Cognitive Therapy of Substance Abuse by Aaron Beck
Brain Mechanisms and Psychotropic Drugs by Andrius Baskys
It's fascinating stuff. Be good to your brain, by the way. Get a good night's sleep, break a sweat on the treadmill, watch yer booze.
Lena at December 9, 2006 11:28 PM
Leave a comment