Prefer to hire 3A?

[Pharaoh Cat]

3A = Atheist and/or Agnostic and/or Apatheist

This may be a delicate topic, but here goes:

If it weren't illegal, and -

If you were in a position to hire, and had two applicants, all else being equal, one a professed born again Christian, the other a professed 3A, would you at least consider preferring the 3A on the basis of 3A-hood?

Not as crazy as it might sound, I think, since 3A-hood implies certain attributes you might deem desirable, such as skepticism, independent thinking, logical consistency, objectivity, and realism.

- but of course you wouldn't actually do it, because it's illegal.

(Edited to add the "if it weren't" clause and the "but of course you wouldn't" clause.)

[OldGit]

I'd take the 3A every time, and would always reject a born-again christian- if I could get away with it under the ludicrous EU equality laws.

A born-again would most likely be annoying the rest of the staff by their very attitude, let alone proselytzing.  They're not usually easy to get on with.  An ordinary, mild Church-of-England type would probably be fine.

[Pharaoh Cat]

I'd take the 3A every time, and would always reject a born-again christian- if I could get away with it under the ludicrous EU equality laws.

As I was doing my calisthenics it occurred to me that I'd better edit the OP, so I did.

A born-again would most likely be annoying the rest of the staff by their very attitude, let alone proselytzing.  They're not usually easy to get on with.  An ordinary, mild Church-of-England type would probably be fine.

Interesting point!  Let me play devil's advocate.  Is there such a thing as a "born again" 3A?  Fervent, fired up, proselytizing - annoying?

[OldGit]

Interesting point!  Let me play devil's advocate.  Is there such a thing as a "born again" 3A?  Fervent, fired up, proselytizing - annoying?

Yes - I'm one.  But in this case I'm the boss.

[Siz]

As an employer myself (in the UK) it really isn't that difficult to get away with discriminating an any way I choose. There's always a valid reason not to employ anyone. And, yes, I would go for the Atheist every time (all other things being equal) as it demonstrates a certain integrity. But that's not to say I would only employ the non-religious - we place value on our drones here too.

And I never employ unlucky people - I throw half the CVs away before reading them

[Asmodean]

I would give the atheist a small plus in the margin for his three As, and a huge minus in the born-again's margin for... The opposite, really.

However, my final selection would largely depend on qualifications.

[DeterminedJuliet]

On a case-by-case basis, really.

What are the odds that you'll actually be able to tell someone is a born-again through the process of interviewing them? I mean, yeah, if they can't talk about their qualifications without bringing Jesus into it, I'd probably be reluctant to hire them, but I'd also be reluctant to hire someone who can't get through an interview without talking about their favourite celebrity gossip or sports team; I think it speaks more to someone's inability to gauge the appropriateness of a topic of conversation rather than what they actually believe.

Actually, I think born-again Christians could be very good when it comes to some jobs. They'd be great in sales because they spend 24 hours a day trying to "sell" to people, they have polished people skills and they usually aren't phased by rejection.

That being said, I did start a thread here once about turning down a child care applicant because I read her blog and it turned out that she was a bathshit fucking crazy Jesus freak. But that was because the job would entail leaving her alone for extended periods of time with my helpless offspring.

So yeah, case-by-case basis.

[Whitney]

If all other things truly were equal, then I'm not sure if I'd really care...but the personality and thinking traits that sent them on separate paths would be the same traits critical to job performance.  If both were preachy, I'd want neither as it would be disruptive.

[xSilverPhinx]

I wouldn't make that decisions solely on whether they're 3A or born again Christians. Qualifications and competence speak more loudly than beliefs to me. I'm more of a pragmatical person...

[xm1]

For me this would only come up as a 'weight' in making the decision.

Because my office is small and I want the people here to fit my lifestyle I favor people who can go out and drink once a week or so.  If i can't count on them to be at the bar now and then and enjoy a few rounds I would be more inclined toward other candidates. Around here there are the occasional people who won't do this because of religion.  But there are just as many who won't because of a difficult spouse or children or some similar bs.

[Sgtmackenzie]

Why so touchy about the legality?   From attending a Christian school, I know that Christians themselves have no qualms about supporting the hiring of Christian workers when filling a position within a "Kingdom" business.

Kingdom business is defined as a for profit business that is run in a way that supports Christian morals, ethics, and objectives.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The OP asks us to assume that all other things are equal.  To me, this means that both applicants are qualified for the job and will essentially do equally acceptable work.  That being the case, if atheist employers think that it is acceptable to choose on the basis of belief/non-belief, they are giving tacit approval for theist employers to do the same.  So, if theist employers choose believers over non-believers, you can't disagree with that, correct?  That may not bode well for atheist applicants in the US.

It's better not to even be allowed to ask about these things.  In the final analysis, if you have two equally qualified applicants, it boils down to intangibles like "who will fit in better with the current employees" or "who will be more likely to thrive in the corporate culture of this particular company."  Religion/non-religion by itself is a pretty poor indicator of how a person will do at a job.

[Whitney]

It's better not to even be allowed to ask about these things. 

I'm pretty sure that an employer is not allowed to ask in the US because it would open them up for suit over illegal hiring practices.

So, I wouldn't expect the situation to come up (at least not for any law abiding employer) unless the two prospective employees in question both happened to have freely decided to mention their views about god and religion.

But hypotheticals can be interesting.

[Crow]

Depends what type of employee I would be looking for. For example if I wanted a cog I would most likely choose the christian, if I wanted someone rebellious I would hire an Atheist. Most importantly though I would go for the one that keeps their mouth shut about what they believe.

[Pharaoh Cat]

I want to press a little harder and see if I hit the sweet spot.  Hey, you know me.  Turgidly erotic. 

Are there any jobs for which a willingness to believe because it feels good could actually be dangerous to self or others?  Cop?  Soldier?  Secret agent?  Diplomat?  Food inspector?  Drug inspector?  Water quality inspector?  Skyscraper window washer?  Limo driver?  Taxi driver?  Bus driver?  Chef?  Air Traffic Controller?  President of the United States?

The assumption inherent in the OP is that a willingness to believe because it feels good is a character flaw and one that might actually matter in some livelihoods.

The other assumption inherent in the OP is this: there is only one reason to believe in Jesus and that reason is, because it feels good.

Illegal to ask about and illegal to act upon but data that might predict future performance, perhaps?

If I believe I could take a cobra in my hands and be protected by God, might I also believe God will protect me if I do something stupid on the job?  Might I believe God will protect my co-workers also because they're with me and I believe, regardless what stupid course of action I or they might embark upon?   Might I act on this belief and get myself or others killed or maimed?