Commentary: Religious relativity

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- Sometimes the purveyors of worthy ideas are so annoying, the worth of their message is obscured.

Environmentalists come to mind. Who actually favors the despoliation of nature? But how many have been put off by the single-minded sanctimony of environmentalists who lack a sense of proportion?

A similar mindset was in evidence Tuesday at the panel "Impact of Diverse Religions in the Government" at the National Press Club. It was one of three morning "breakout sessions" at the 7th Annual Conversation on Race, Ethnicity, and Culture, sponsored by the National Conference for Community and Justice, formerly the National Conference of Christians and Jews.

On one hand, no one could object to government officials developing an awareness of the religious sensibilities of their constituents. Moderator Michael Rogers, executive director of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, related a learning experience he had when he worked for the New York City mayor's office. Rogers said that as part of an effort to reform New York's procurement system, he held a citywide conference in the month of April.

However, many people said that they could not come.

"I was trying to avoid Good Friday ... but the date of the conference was right up against Passover."

New York has a high percentage of Jews, and 80 percent of Rogers' staff was Jewish. "We picked this date together," he said. "Doesn't anyone go to synagogue here?" he asked them.

Public officials have to know the environment they are in, Rogers said.

Fair enough. But then a foolish consistency -- which Emerson called "the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines" -- reared its head. ("Bureaucrats" seems a fair translation of "little statesmen.")

For we learn that there are no Christmas parties at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments anymore.

"It's a HOLIDAY celebration," Rogers announced. "We don't do Christmas trees. We're respectful of everyone. We try to come down the middle."

As you might expect, things are worse at the Maryland Commission on Human Relations. Glendora Hughes, general counsel, said many issues of "religious discrimination" come up around the holidays.

The question in her agency has become, "How do we accommodate having an office party and not offending anyone?" So the commission came up with a "generic" gathering. Hughes said that to avoid having the party near the date of Christmas, it was held earlier in the year.

"It evolved from being a harvest fest to a winter fest -- whatever else they could come up with."

At the last party, "which was fun," birthday decorations were used and guests sang into a karaoke machine (presumably not "Silent Night").

"That way people felt comfortable," Hughes said.

But wait. Trouble arose in this secular Arcadia.

Hughes said a "crisis situation" developed "at one of the parties that we had." Following tradition, the responsibility to plan the event fell to new employees. These hapless neophytes hired a disc jockey who, at mealtime, had the bad manners to say grace! And he uttered Jesus' name!

This "foolish consistency" might be harmless but for the pernicious double standard at work in the diversity industry. Two years ago, Dominos Pizza dropped a longstanding ban on beards that had been challenged in 1988 by a Sikh, Prabhjot Singh Kohli. He had filed suit with the Maryland Human Relations Commission on the grounds that Dominos' policy violated state law against religious discrimination.

Hughes said Dominos reversed its policy to accommodate black men whose skins were irritated by shaving. From this she reached the questionable conclusion that the company's original objection to beards (that facial hair is undesirable in the food-preparation industry) was a pretext for discrimination. She attributed this to the fact that the company's owner was "a very conservative Catholic," a remark that was greeted with knowing nods around the room.

Later the attorney, who identified herself as a Catholic, did not give a satisfactory reply to the question of why conservative Catholicism as she understands it explains discrimination as she understands it. General references to "ignorance" and the belief in "one true religion" was the best she could do.

The tenor of the panel seemed to be: The more religious diversity the better -- except for traditional Christians and Jews who take their faiths seriously and don't see them as interchangeable with other denominations.

Avtar Hari Singh Khalsa, former president of Time-Life Television, was born into the Jewish faith in America and converted to the Sikh religion 15 years ago. He told the panel that he looked forward to the day when religious differences were not just tolerated but "positively appreciated."

This is neither realistic nor desirable. I do not question Khalsa's sincerity, and there's nothing wrong with converting according to one's conscience. But by the same token, why bother to leave one religion to "positively appreciate" all the others? Don't people adhere to creeds because they believe them to be true? And they can't all be equally true. Even in America.