A Muslim, a Hindu, and a Christian Walk into a Lunchroom

That sounds like the start of a bad joke, but it’s actually the start of a lawsuit I was asked to provide expert testimony for by the Rocke Law Group here in Seattle. The three religious adherents worked for a manufacturing firm that provided lunch for employees in order to maintain plant security and production efficiency since the building was isolated. Each of the men’s religions included dietary restrictions, and they petitioned to have them accommodated since lunch on site was required.

By the time I was contacted, things had become personal.  The company’s attorneys somehow discovered that the employees were not perfect devotees of their Faith. Since the men had sometimes compromised their convictions, the argument went, their complaint was invalid.   The Rocke Law Group reached out to me for help which I was glad to offer, for a fee. Hey, I watch legal docs on Netflix, and these poor guys weren’t in my church. 

There were other benefits, too. The exercise forced me to think about faith, conscience, and integrity in the context of the broader human religious condition as well as the current zeitgeist of skepticism so many have about religious people. The latter was certainly at play in the company’s defense. 

This series will explore the 5 questions I was asked to answer in writing for the case record and in preparation for testimony. The 6 parts of the series includes my introduction to the court (below) and the questions I was asked to testify about in the case.

To the Court:

The conscience is at the center of human spirituality and its expression in religious community, but it is not only a religious phenomenon. As C. S. Lewis, the author of The Chronicles of Narnia, wrote, “Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.” (Mere Christianity).

In broad terms, the conscience is the soul or mind’s guiding voice on matters of values or morality in relation to our thoughts and actions. Although culture, worldview, and nurture clearly inform it, most religious traditions, including Christianity, teach that our sense of conscience is inherent to human nature. Other perspectives believe its origin is not created in the strict sense but formed by social forces over ages and ages. Still, it is the rare soul, religious or otherwise, who is not thankful that something in their neighbor guides them to be kind and polite and keep their music at respectable levels.

In this capacity, the conscience is almost universally seen as a necessary component of a healthy person. And as such, it often seems to offer its approval or disapproval of our actions without being asked. Who among us, after all, goes looking for things to regret saying or doing? Still, regardless of a person’s religious sentiment or rejection of theism altogether, we do regret saying and doing things all too frequently.

For those who do not profess a traditional faith, or perhaps any faith, that dissonance might be addressed by careful examination of issues and personal reflection without religious categories or oversight. Religious adherents do the same. However, they commonly use the teachings of their faith, the guidance of their religious community, and various spiritual practices as framework for examination and reflection. It is altogether common to reflect on whether our behavior affirms or challenges who we want to be, regardless of our religious views. Religious or not, human imperfection and the desire to live up to our values appear to be givens.

These observations bring us to issues raised by this lawsuit. In this submission to the court, we will explore answers to the following questions from a religious and pastoral perspective.

• Do adherents ever have religious or sincerely held beliefs that are different from or in addition to those beliefs established by the religious community that they profess to belong to?
• Assuming a person has a religious or sincerely held belief, should one view a violation of that belief as proof that the person is insincere?
• Without religious training or guidance, would you expect the person to figure out on his or her own all of the practical ways in which he or she might violate that belief or guard against its violation?
• Assuming a person violates a religious or sincerely held belief, can you explain emotional experiences that are common, even though the person may appear to continue to function normally, such as going to work?
• Assuming all that is required, under the person’s religious or sincerely held belief, is to pray for forgiveness, does that mean there is no offense and no emotional impact on the person?

The case was settled the night before I was scheduled to testify. Like my preaching ministry, it’s hard to say whether all these words made the difference.