Protection from discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs

[ruby sparks]

So the basic question is, should religious beliefs be an allowable category for having legal protections from discrimination?

Very vague OP I know. I have to rush off here. I will try to add more later.

I suppose the fist thought that strikes me is that we should distinguish between the (internal/private) religious beliefs themselves and the ways in which they are manifest socially, the behaviours.

And in essence, I am probably really only referring to the latter. Discrimination against someone for merely thinking something is arguably more clear cut.

There may also be issues about whether or not protected categories are a matter of choice or not, whether a list of such categories can be divided that way and whether religious beliefs are or are not a choice.

One other potentially interesting aspect may be to ask whether a lack of religious beliefs should or should not be a protected category.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So the basic question is, should religious beliefs be an allowable category for having legal protections from discrimination?

Very vague OP I know. I have to rush off here. I will try to add more later.

I suppose the fist thought that strikes me is that we should distinguish between the (internal/private) religious beliefs themselves and the ways in which they are manifest socially, the behaviours.

And in essence, I am probably really only referring to the latter. Discrimination against someone for merely thinking something is arguably more clear cut.

I know that I'll be in the minority, but I vote no. Why should religious people be protected? How about a law stating that everyone should be treated equally? "Religious" is way too broad...

 

[Keith&Co.]

Since i am told that i have made a re ligion out of Evolution, and have akso been told by people that they do not HAVE a religion, they have a relationship with Jesus, the word is becoming meaningless.
There's also a prison religion that holds steaks as sacrament, and demand porterhouse or they're being religiously discriminated against.

 

[Tigers!]

I know that I'll be in the minority, but I vote no. Why should religious people be protected? How about a law stating that everyone should be treated equally? "Religious" is way too broad...

I know that I'll be in the minority, but I vote no. Why should non-religious people be protected? How about a law stating that everyone should be treated equally?

 

[ruby sparks]

I know that I'll be in the minority, but I vote no. Why should religious people be protected? How about a law stating that everyone should be treated equally? "Religious" is way too broad...

I know that I'll be in the minority, but I vote no. Why should non-religious people be protected? How about a law stating that everyone should be treated equally?

I think that is the idea though, that people should be treated equally (that is to say not treated unequally, merely on grounds of characteristics x, y or z, one of which is generally permitted to be religion).

 

[Harry Bosch]

I know that I'll be in the minority, but I vote no. Why should religious people be protected? How about a law stating that everyone should be treated equally? "Religious" is way too broad...

I know that I'll be in the minority, but I vote no. Why should non-religious people be protected? How about a law stating that everyone should be treated equally?

I'm saying that everyone should be treated equally. You shouldn't be given special rights because you believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So the basic question is, should religious beliefs be an allowable category for having legal protections from discrimination?

Very vague OP I know. I have to rush off here. I will try to add more later.

I suppose the fist thought that strikes me is that we should distinguish between the (internal/private) religious beliefs themselves and the ways in which they are manifest socially, the behaviours.

And in essence, I am probably really only referring to the latter. Discrimination against someone for merely thinking something is arguably more clear cut.

I know that I'll be in the minority, but I vote no. Why should religious people be protected? How about a law stating that everyone should be treated equally? "Religious" is way too broad...

Why do you think this puts you in a minority? I can't think of any reason why a religious belief should entitle you to anything whatseover in a secular society. I also see no reason to distinguish from a religious belief and any other very strongly held belief. We don't normally grant civil rights based on what people believe.

I actually hope we are in the minority here (I think the opposite) because I would like to hear what these arguments for could possibly be.

 

[repoman]

Infant circumcision should be uprooted even at the cost of jailing parents. Even at the cost of destroying religions and the ethnic self image as a people loyal to "god".

Just an example.

 

[ruby sparks]

I know that I'll be in the minority, but I vote no. Why should religious people be protected? How about a law stating that everyone should be treated equally? "Religious" is way too broad...

I know that I'll be in the minority, but I vote no. Why should non-religious people be protected? How about a law stating that everyone should be treated equally?

I'm saying that everyone should be treated equally. You shouldn't be given special rights because you believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

I'm not sure that 'treating people equally' is going to get to the bottom of this. I wonder if it's not a slightly different issue, as in not being the opposite of or the only alternative to making special allowances, or that the two are mutually exclusive.

For example, to illustrate how it might not of itself be enough, consider a society where everyone has to swear on the bible before they are allowed to give evidence in court. Treating people equally in that society would entail making everyone do that.

In fact, we might call that aspiring to equality of outcome. We could also deploy the term 'treating people equally' in terms of giving them equality of opportunity or choice, which would mean that everyone would not have to swear on the bible in court.

So, in a way, the latter is treating people equally and making special allowances, both at the same time, is it not?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A idea ripe for abuse. Some religions are more equal than others. "I am not allowed to force my religion on everybody, help, help, I am being repressed."

 

[steve_bank]

Freedom from discrimination applies to all regardless of sexuality, beliefs, lack of beliefs...etc.

The problem with American Christians after long history of abuse of power are playing the victim. It is the Christian martyr narrative. The term 'war on religion' came into use in the USA by Christians. No one is saying people can't have their rituals. What we non believers want is not having public functions used for religious purposes and not having Christianity constantly in our faces. .

It is to the point when I hear one of our inept petty moraly corrupt politicians thanking god for something I want to puke.

Some have gone to NK handing out religious material knowing the penalty. Then it is turned into an American tragedy.Rescue the martyr. Same with the American Christian self anointed minister arrested in Turkey for meddling.


Obama was the antichrist to some.

 

[ruby sparks]

The hypothetical scenario I was thinking of offering as illustration was.....

A person in paid employment becomes a christian (or more of a christian) and begins to attend regular Sunday services and wishes not to have to work on Sundays (let's assume this person had previously worked Sundays, for example). Let's also assume that this person had agreed (contractually) to work Sundays previously (when accepting the job). I think we need to be that specific because similar situations (such as applying for a job that involves Sunday working or being in a job and Sunday working coming into play when it hadn't previously) might throw up slightly different issues.

So, under the laws of most 'western' countries (I believe) the employee is, given certain caveats, entitled to request and (again with certain caveats) be granted exemption from Sunday working. The rules seem to vary from country to country, but usually seem to involve the employee being genuine in their beliefs and practices and both parties being willing to reasonably accommodate the other. For example, if someone else cannot be found to work the Sunday shift, then the employer can be deemed to be reasonable not to grant the employee the exemption, etc.

In any case, no matter what way it's sliced, there is at least some accommodation or special treatment accorded to the religious person.

But (and this is where I have a problem) what if the employee is (or becomes) a fervent supporter of the local football team, who (let's say) always play on Sundays? Why is that person not (as far as I know) granted any accommodation, unless their boss is feeling generous?

I can't think of any good reason other than that football fandom does not (by and large) involve any supernatural beliefs? In other aspects, it could be said that it is culturally and socially as valid.

 

[Jobar]

A person's religious beliefs should not cause him or her to be discriminated against, nor should it cause him or her to be granted special privileges.

If we can manage to balance those two in the scales of blind justice, she smiles.

 

[ruby sparks]

I can't think of any reason why a religious belief should entitle you to anything whatseover in a secular society.

This could be turned around to read, "I can't think of any reason why an irreligious belief should entitle you to anything whatsoever in a religious society".

In other words, beware of treating others as you would not want to be treated if the situation were reversed.

 

[steve_bank]

What is meant by a secular society? Will there be religious thought police like NK and then old Soviets?

Freedom of belief and of association is protected no matter what you think of religion.

We are seeing a growing intolerance of free speech on campussues and elsewhere. We are seeing in the media where 24/7 political speech is twisted to appear negative.

If religion is suppressed then what? We are all free to join secular groups and express secular views. What about unpopular secular views? Who is the moral authority, do we have a secular pope?

Do we do what the Soviets tried, an enforced conformity beginning in primary education?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What is meant by a secular society?

Society where religion is held as irrelevant as far as the law goes, with no special rights or obligations, and no favouratism or persecution under the law. That means you don't get to carry a knife (kiirpan) or cover your face (burka) where I am not allowed to do the same (utility knife; ski mask). It means you don't get to put your 10 commandments or vedas or other holy scripture in the public courthouse. It means you don't get to ban homosexuals from getting married or ban abortion for religious reasons. If you want to ban such things, you'll have to come up with convincing secular reasoning.

Here are some more things it means, that is lacking in many western countries: It means you don't get tax exempt status to celebrate your delusion where others celebrating other ideas don't get tax free status. It means you don't cut up the genitals of your infants, unless you've got a good non-religious reason to do so that convinces us it isn't child abuse. It means the same fraud laws apply to you when you swindle old ladies out of their life savings, by selling "miracle water" or "faith healing". It also means you don't terrorize your children, beat them, or do whatever else religious cults try to get away with that nobody else would, in the name of religion.

It also means you don't special censorship rights to shut up anybody who disagrees with your religion or finds it stupid, offensives or hilarious. You don't get to chop their heads off and you don't get to pull their cartoons from magazines when somebody offends your omnipotent and yet somehow so incredibly sensitive and fragile imaginary friend.

You can pray to whoever you want in your own mind, your own home, and your own place of worship. You can chant together like zombies with your friends and sing annoying nasally prayer/songs that you think are special. What you can't do in s secular society is force any of that shit on the rest of us.

Will there be religious thought police like NK and then old Soviets?

No. Quite the opposite. You can have your silly campus prayer groups, but don't demand the rest of us pay for it through taxes or participate in it through association by making it part of a public school procedure.

Freedom of belief and of association is protected no matter what you think of religion.

Sure, you can believe whatever you want. Just don't try to make me believe it and don't try to get special rights because of it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

We are seeing a growing intolerance of free speech on campussues and elsewhere. We are seeing in the media where 24/7 political speech is twisted to appear negative.

I put this reply in a separate reply, because this is a separate matter. Yes, we have seen serious erosion to free speech, and that needs to be pushed back on. In both Trump and in the ever growing illiberal left. Both ends need to be pushed back on, but partisanship in the USA means that most people will only push against one or the other, and will cancel each other out, so little will actually be done for free speech.

"Free Speech Warrior" has now become a pejorative from the left towards the right as much as "Social Justice Warrior" is a pejorative of the left from the right. And that's ... sad.

 

[Trausti]

We are seeing a growing intolerance of free speech on campussues and elsewhere. We are seeing in the media where 24/7 political speech is twisted to appear negative.

I put this reply in a separate reply, because this is a separate matter. Yes, we have seen serious erosion to free speech, and that needs to be pushed back on. In both Trump and in the ever growing illiberal left. Both ends need to be pushed back on, but partisanship in the USA means that most people will only push against one or the other, and will cancel each other out, so little will actually be done for free speech.

"Free Speech Warrior" has now become a pejorative from the left towards the right as much as "Social Justice Warrior" is a pejorative of the left from the right. And that's ... sad.

~ Bertrand Russell

 

[steve_bank]

jolly opens the basic question. Who sets the bounds across the board. Obviously a ceremonial knife would be subject to weapons limitation's.

There was an incident in the 90s in Seattle where a dispute among Sikhs ended in a fight with ceremonial knives.

There are Christians who handle poisonous snakes as a sign of faith based on a bible passage. The list is long on religious behavior.

What about astrology or one of many things not scientific. What about philosophies? Do they need to pass a rationality test?

Religion is a subset of human behavior. Suppose I start a group that dances around naked under a full moon covering outsells with cream cheese drinking kegs of evil surged soda? How anout Asian fprms of amcestor worship?

Should views cosmology be limited to science? Even within science there are those sconce followers who deduce a number of mystical interpretations of QM.

Religion is one part of human non rational logical thinking, we are not computers we have imagination.


From a bio of Jefferson I read he would say if you see a group you thuink odd have a smile and be on your way. Jefferson himself produced a bible minus most of the supernatural Jesus.The Frechman de Toqueville after turing the USA in the 19th century said the saving grace was that the system in tye long run corrects itself. Slavery for example.

Religion has become bounded such as civil rights for gays.

Do you want to have a law forbidding parents to raise kids with religion? That would have all sorts of unintended consequences. Not the least of which being a new social tyranny far worse than religion has been.

The Star Trek Prime Directive punishable by death I recall forbade tinkering ib societies even with best intentions. It can lead to tragic long term consequences unforeseen. Religion is woven into ou culture, it can not just be excised.

We see it playing out. Consequences of removing Hussein. The Prime Directive said cultures must evolve naturally.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Do you want to have a law forbidding parents to raise kids with religion?

That depends on the religion. Does the religion entail abuse of the child physically or emotionally?

I do think that we should think about doing something about parents who torment their young children with threats of hellfire to the point that the children are terrified. I also think we should consider doing something about religious parents who would deny their children life saving blood transfusions or not take them to hospitals.

Secular law should apply to them as much as to anybody else, and they should be charged with abuse or neglect (as the given case applies).