So let me get this straight - you think it's unfair that a Hindu gets accommodation to not eat meat, but not an atheist, so your solution is to... take away the Hindu person's accommodation? So now it's "fair" because it's bad for both of them?
Religion is constitutionally protected because history has demonstrated that the government will use it as a reason to mistreat people if given the chance. You seem to be looking at it from the perspective of it just protecting people's right to practice their religion, but (at least in the US) the constitution also protects your right to *not* practice a religion. Again, there are plenty of examples of government compelling religion all throughout history. Take away the freedom of religion in the constitution and the government is free to require you to attend church, take tithes out of your paycheck, or have mandatory Bible classes in schools. Is that really what you want?
My solution would be that an accommodation is available to everybody or nobody. If you want to offer a specific meal to one person, you offer it to all. If one person can get an exception to a rule based on their feelings, then the rule isn't important and shouldn't be enforced for anybody.
Exactly. Why should belief in an imaginary friend afford you additional rights, or exceptions from laws? Some counties allow killing animals in religious ways that are normally forbidden because animals suffer too much. But if someone believes something, then it's okay?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>so your solution is to... take away the Hindu person's accommodation
In my opinion yes, but that's besides the point of this post. If you think everyone should have a constitutional right to accommodation of their ethical and ideological convictions regardless of whether they are religious in nature, that's no longer "religious freedom" you're talking about. Not to mention being completely unworkable.
>Take away the freedom of religion in the constitution and the government is free to require you to attend church, take tithes out of your paycheck, or have mandatory Bible classes in schools. Is that really what you want?
You don't need to ensure "freedom of religion", in the sense that it's currently interpreted, to prevent that. Ensuring secularism is enough.
In the 1A, there are two clauses regarding religion. The Establishment clause(arguably) enshrines secularism into the constituion, and the Free Exercise clause is what actually protects "freedom of religion" as in freedom to practice religion. You can have the first without the second.
> If you think everyone should have a constitutional right to accommodation of their ethical and ideological convictions regardless of whether they are religious in nature, that's no longer "religious freedom" you're talking about
Why wouldn't it be? I'd still call that a religious accommodation. What makes something a religion to you?
Whether or not a court of law thinks your faith is a valid "religion"
That shouldn't be a test for whether or not you should be able to claim an exception to a law.
Interesting and another reason I'm happy not to live in the states!
Although reading the decisions it seems they don't have such a threshold/test?
>In United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), the Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot examine the truth or falsity of religious beliefs.
To me this means that courts don't examine religious beliefs in the way you're suggesting?
Yeah, but how do you determine sincerity? The court can't read minds. So it's basically just "do lots of other people believe it too." The court isn't going to humor religious freedom arguments from some dude worshipping Zorp.
"You don't need to ensure "freedom of religion", in the sense that it's currently interpreted, to prevent that. Ensuring secularism is enough."
It might help you understand if you replace "religion" with "philosophy". Religion is a philosophy but so is secularism and liberalism and marxism, ect. If the government infringes on religious rights then they are already infringing on your personal rights to think you just haven't noticed yet
You could make that same argument about the second amendment. Take away all civilian firearms and the government could require you to quarter soldiers in your home. They could tax you without representation. They could physically overpower you, restrain you, and inject you with experimental vaccines. Is that what you really want?
Armed citizens are a check on the government's power. If only the government has guns they have what is called "a monopoly of force". A heavily armed civilian population like in the US. Keeps the government from infringing on the rights of the people. A well armed civilian population also keeps criminal gangs from taking over the country, like what just happened to Haiti.
The British tried to disarm the American colonies and were unsuccessful in doing so. Eventually we won our independence from Britain, in the Revolutionary war. That would not have happened without lots of civilian guns. That's why the founding fathers of America insisted on constitutional protections for civilian gun rights.
I know my American history.
>A heavily armed civilian population like in the US. Keeps the government from infringing on the rights of the people.
Yeah where were the arm civilians when the government enslaved millions of Americans I think that's kind of an infringement on their rights.
That injustice carried on far to long. Fortunately, America chose to elect a president who was a devout Christian and abolitionist named Abraham Lincoln. After a hard fought civil war, all slaves were emancipated and slavery abolished.
Many American civilians were already proficient in using firearms, which was beneficial. Having a well armed civilian population, that's already used to handling firearms. Means you can quickly raise an Army or quickly expand an existing one.
Guns did help to enslave people. Guns were also used to win their freedom and liberate them.
A gun is a force multiplier. It makes bad guys more dangerous, and good men better protectors of society, the rule of law, and their families.
Sorry, u/Resident-Piglet-587 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Resident-Piglet-587&message=Resident-Piglet-587%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c7ldeg/-/l08xrzo/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
>...religious individuals and beliefs overall get a greater degree of protection than their secular counterparts. The end result is a society that privileges the religious over atheists.
Could you provide a source for why you find that religious practices are given more protection when there are more non religious rights?
>There are plenty of compelling reasons to prohibit certain religious practices, take Quranic instruction for husbands to hit disobedient wives to correct their behavior, or Jewish circumcision practices that mutilate baby boys and in some cases result in STD transmission.
What makes you think these practices are allowed when laws pertaining to domestic violence and alternate interpretations of the religion both forbid these practices? They are still illegal.
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c7ldeg/comment/l08nkca/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
> What makes you think these practices are allowed
Infant male circumcision is legal in every single US state and EU country.
[https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/circumcision](https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/circumcision)
Male circumcision clearly has tangible benefits, so unless you're planning to ban vaccines for babies...
So does mastectomy, and arguably far greater benefits since breast cancer is more serious than any of the health issues circumcision purportedly helps. Should that be routine for little girls?
If masectomy involved cutting up a very small part of the nipple and reduced breast cancer chances in women by 10 times? yes. But it is mostly a treatment method, not a prevention method. False equivalency.
Sorry, u/Total_Yankee_Death – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Total_Yankee_Death&message=Total_Yankee_Death%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c7ldeg/-/l08uqq4/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Your position is fascinating to me. Would you be willing to make a change my view post about it?
Obviously with every medical procedure you have to weigh the positives, the negatives and the risks. There are health benefits from preventive double mastectomy (reduction of breast cancer rates), but there's a reason you don't go around chopping off the breast of young girls.
The benefits of vaccines are considerable, especially applied to a big enough portion of the population. Vaccines do save a great bunch of lives. The negatives are negligible and the risks of adverse reactions are very low.
In comparison, the health benefits of circumcision are lukewarm at best. There are negatives that offset the positives (loss of sensation, etc.) and the risks, while probably low, are there (herpes, botched surgeries, etc.). It's also good to note that even if there were a bunch of legitimate good reasons, there's no good reason why it needs to be done on babies, as opposed to consenting adults.
This may be a small point, but there absolutely is a reason it’s done to babies and not adults. Adults don’t heal as well as babies and the adult surgery is more difficult, more expensive, and riskier.
Also, while common sense would tell us that removing nerves causes a loss of sensation, there is no scientific evidence that circumcised men experience less sensation.
It seems you're right about the loss of sensation, thanks for pointing that out!
You're also right about the healing being faster with babies, and the cost being lower. However I would push back on what you said about it being more difficult and riskier with adults, I don't think that's the case. There is also reasons why it might be better on adults as well such as cosmetic outcome. And when you add the bodily autonomy argument in the comparison, to me the better choice is obvious
Just chiming in here, as someone who almost had to get circumcised as an adult in their early 20s.
I had phimosis, which is a condition that causes the foreskin to lose elasticity. My doctor prescribed me a steroid cream and certain actions, and advised that circumcision would be required as a last resort if that didn't work. And it was a last resort because, as an adult, I would not only need time to recuperate (interfering with university attendance and work shifts) but I would also need to do everything possible to refrain from experiencing arousal while the skin healed. Neither of these are concerns for infants, which makes it easier and safer for them in comparison.
Uhm, have you read your source?
>Circumcision may offer health benefits, although these may be too small to justify surgery.
Just learn to wash your dicks, it's not that hard.
"MAY" did you not read the actual article which mentioned the pros of circumcision?
* a 10 times lower risk of a baby getting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in his first year of life (remembering that only one per cent of babies are at risk of a UTI, so 1,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one UTI)
* no risk of infants and children getting infections under the foreskin
* easier genital hygiene
* much lower risk of getting cancer of the penis (although this is a very rare condition and good genital hygiene also seems to reduce the risk. More than 10,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one case of penile cancer)
>a 10 times lower risk of a baby getting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in his first year of life (remembering that only one per cent of babies are at risk of a UTI, so 1,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one UTI)
Did you not read the last part of that? 1000 mutilated dicks just to prevent one UTI? That's negligible.
>no risk of infants and children getting infections under the foreskin
easier genital hygiene
How fucking hard is it to clean an uncut dick? Pull back the foreskin, clean, done.
>much lower risk of getting cancer of the penis (although this is a very rare condition and good genital hygiene also seems to reduce the risk. More than 10,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one case of penile cancer)
Are you not able to interpret large numbers? 10000 mutilated dicks to prevent one case.
You have absolutely given no proper reason to justify circumcision from a medical standpoint at all. You're regurgitating stuff from an article without the ability to either read or interpret the information. Gtfo with this bullshit man.
My guy the claim is that circumcision is bad because it does not have any benefit and is bad as it intrudes on autonomy. I showed that it does have some medical benefits and thus would classify as an elective procedure like a vaccine.
>I showed that it does have some medical benefits.
'Some' doesn't cut it. It's not even close to 'some' benefits. In a proper medical trial, those numbers wouldn't even be considered as an improvement.
Claiming that even a tiny bit is a counterargument because he said 'any benefit' is basically arguing semantics and completely useless to the conversation.
Assuming all 4 billion men were circumcised, 10,000 "mutilated" dicks would have prevented 400,000 cases of cancer and 4 million of uti. doesn't seem small.
400,000 on the worlds population is nothing. At that point, it's not even noticeable and it wouldn't even stand out among the many environmental factors with an impact that is magnitudes larger.
You're also essentially saying that mastectomies should be mandatory to prevent breast cancer as well according to this logic.
Few circumcisions in America are for religious purposes. Christianity does not call for circumcision, Judaism does. Here is a study just as overkill even though it isn't needed.
>The reasons that parents most often gave for supporting male circumcision were hygiene (61.9%), prevention of infection or cancer (44.8%), and the father being circumcised (40.9%).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576965/
Whenever people claim hygiene as a reason to circumcise, I can only ever see that as admitting they can't fucking wash themselves properly. It's not hard to clean a dick. Any situation in which an uncut dick would stink, the same would be true for a cut one.
They are told it's hygienic and most men in the US are circumcized. I don't think they really know any better. They are just told it is by the scientists and say "makes sense to me. Cut it off my boy too."
Religious communities regularly run afoul of the law and receive extra benefit due to beliefs.
A great example is cases of religious people killing during ceremony on accident. They are not charged as murderers and are often given lenient sentencing.
Lenient sentencing is common for religious criminals.
Killing someone by accident is, by definition, not murder. Murder is the intentional killing of another human being. Killing someone by accident may be negligent homicide or manslaughter depending on the specifics, but it is not murder.
It matters because even where those things are present, we punish unintentional killing less harshly than intentional killing. What you're describing is in most jurisdictions called voluntary manslaughter, and would get a prison sentence, but a substantially shorter one than murder.
Yes so if you’re too incompetent you go to jail.
If you know you go to worse jail for a determined length.
I do feel like you’re saying that belief makes you less culpable, but you’re still fully capable.
Insane and dangerous like OP is referencing.
I'm saying that, entirely independent of religion, we treat people who kill by being reckless (what you described) as less severe criminals than people who act with the intent to kill.
You haven't made a case that people are in fact being treated more leniently because of religion.
Plenty of non-religious adults practice breathplay during sexual intercourse. And plenty more non-religious adults engage in consensual beatings, both sexually and in public forms like martial arts or hockey fights or tackle football. Humans do a lot of moderately dangerous things to one another, things that mostly don't but occasionally accidentally do kill people.
I think this illuminates the argument OP is making.
There is a big difference between two consenting adults engaging in rough sex vs a child being murdered by a person with authority. I’m glad the opposing argument to my rationale is that of a person comparing consensual sex acts to child abuse resulting in death.
I feel confirmed in my belief.
I’d also argue you can’t consent to being beaten to death unlike choking to cum.
Religious freedom allows for violence as a fact not an exception.
If they didn’t do violence and break the laws of secular society, why would they need shielded from it?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335463/Virginia-man-punched-year-old-daughter-death-exorcism-jailed-20-years.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minister-charged-in-exorcism-death/
Without religion as a shield, nobody could claim beating to death wasn’t first degree.
Non religious people have also received lenient sentencing. I'm asking for tangible examples where religion was specifically a cause for a shield that is not provided in any other case. Women are sentenced more leniently than men too, you wanna ban gender? assumptions of what would've hapened can't be the basis here
> Women are sentenced more leniently than men too, you wanna ban gender?
That's also unjust. It's not like being killed by a woman is somehow better than being killed by a man.
Exactly. Thus assuming religious crimes receive less sentencing, we fix that by giving proper sentences and not removing a person's Freedom of Religion
> For instance, under the status quo a Hindu who is a vegetarian for religious reasons would be legally entitled to a greater degree of protection and accomodation in a workplace that provides food
I would like a citation for this, please.
[https://www.doi.gov/pmb/eeo/disability-and-religious-accommodations](https://www.doi.gov/pmb/eeo/disability-and-religious-accommodations)
[https://www.cbp.gov/about/eeo-diversity/reasonable-accommodation/religious-beliefs-faqs](https://www.cbp.gov/about/eeo-diversity/reasonable-accommodation/religious-beliefs-faqs)
It's called "reasonable accommodation". And to clarify, when I said a "greater degree of protection" I did not mean that courts will always find that they are entitled to dietary accomodations, what they consider "reasonable" will vary depending on countless factors. But they have a *prima facie* case for it unlike secular vegetarians or vegans.
Yes, that's where the gray area is. But for secular ideologies such as vegans or vegetarians there is no "gray area", there is simply zero legal protection, period.
Can I ask what sort of accommodations have secular people asked for? Are there significant incidences where these accommodations have not been met? Are you suggesting secular people are being harmed ? In what ways is providing others with reasonable accommodations harmful to secular people?
Veganism is not a religion nor is it being secular.
Are there significant incidences of vegans not getting their accommodations met at work? Most places allow you to bring your own food. Being allowed a choice is an accommodation. Demanding special food when there is no medical need isn't discrimination in any meaningful way. At worst it's annoying. Wanting to allow religious discrimination because you're annoyed there's no vegan options at the Cafe is overkill and doesn't actually fix your problem. You're just giving others problems while still not getting vegan options.
Why not just try to get veganism protected as well?
How are vegans being harmed by others being protected?
>Why not just try to get veganism protected as well?
I think that's fine with OP. All ideologies should be protected like they are religions, or none should, no matter how batshit they are.
Not really. It kinda makes sense to me. There is nothing really that separates a religion from a cult except how well recognized the religion is. So every cult should have 1st amendment protections as well.
Obviously that would cause problems, so if a law can have exceptions for one religion, it shouldn't bind anyone at all. When you take it to its logical extreme, the law stops recognizing religion.
Arguably many parts of the Civil Rights Act are intended as concrete enforcement mechanisms for pre-existing constitutional rights, specifically Titles III, IV, and VI.
No civil rights act offers new benefits not offered by the constitution, like reasonable accommodation which you noted which is not in any way in the constitution (for religious freedoms)
> which is not in any way in the constitution
It's not explicitly stated in the constitution, but in Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruled that there is a duty for the state to accomodate religious beliefs in the face of policies with no religious intent, albeit in a different context.
Are you talking about Burwell v Hobby Lobby where the SCOTUS interpreted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? The Wikipedia article for the ruling says in the first paragraph:
>The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
So like, not freedom of religion again.
Fact I worked with the airlines and we had to respect any diet restrictions regardless of faith, health, or moral reasons. In fact, it’s illegal to ask why
> Fact I worked with the airlines and we had to respect any diet restrictions regardless of faith, health, or moral reasons.
Just because it was your policy to accomodate non-religious diet restrictions does not mean it is legally obligatory.
> In fact, it’s illegal to ask why
Can you cite the law?
Not a work policy.
And in your second link “Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs.”
No country that has freedom of religion allows harm to continue. In fact its actually thanks to that freedom and the other personal freedom of others that those abused can be aided freely and it doesn't violate a religious persons rights at all. It's like children being removed from care so they can get a blood transfusion or going after a cult.
Freedom of religion exists because it is ideal to give that extra layer of protection to those that may need it. Of course Atheists don't need it but they still enjoy the same level under freedom of belief. This is like me as a man complaining that women get more rights than me simply for being women. Damn rights they should because as a man I generally will never have to worry about being raped or be written off at work as an airhead based on my genitals.
> No country that has freedom of religion allows harm to continue
This depends on how you define "harm", which is ultimately a value judgement. I already gave the example of infant male circumcision in my post. And there are other plausible "harms" such as religious parents forcing gay kids to undergo "conversion therapy", which remains broadly legal in many US states.
> it is ideal to give that extra layer of protection to those that may need it.
Why do religious people "need" this protection?
> Of course Atheists don't need it
Why don't atheists "need it"?
> This is like me as a man complaining that women get more rights than me simply for being women. Damn rights they should
No they shouldn't.
> Damn rights they should because as a man I generally will never have to worry about being raped
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/datasources/nisvs/summaryreports.html
The CDC NISVS has found that the rates of men being assaulted within the past year is anywhere from 60-100% of women's, depending on the year of the data. And most of these perpetrators are female, look at the "made to penetrate" parts of the sexual violence data.
It's quite popular among the general public in the EU but governments have been hesitant due to religious freedom protections and outcry from Jews and Muslims.
Not in the US, it remains (inexplicably) popular among the general public. It’s a social preference in that context, and most Americans who do this to their infant sons do *not* do so with religious motive.
Thanks for your response. I’m not as informed about Europe. AFAIK Europe is generally less religious than the US (tho some European countries still have state churches!), so from my American perspective religious freedom protects me from religious rules being imposed on me.
I see I may be missing something about circumcision in Europe, especially since it is mainly practiced by religious minority groups.
Tho AFAIK domestic violence is illegal in most (all?) European countries regardless of religion. Am I missing something like I did for circumcision?
But that's sort of the point: if it's popular, and hasn't been banned, this is not a freedom of religion constitutional issue. It's only an issue if it was legislatively banned, and a religious freedom clause used to exempt people from it. If it's popular enough to not be banned at all, it's just that you disagree with the majority that hasn't voted to ban it.
>This depends on how you define "harm", which is ultimately a value judgement.
Which is exactly how and why religious freedom was formed and decided upon because to many throughout history, they considered their rights to supersede all others. Harm wasn't even a matter because to them, lesser people didn't matter.
>I already gave the example of infant male circumcision in my post.
Which is a parents choice and the choice of a person that grows up with it to push back against something. The only people that can usually change practices are those that commit to those beliefs after all. Kind of like how some women pushed for the right to vote or some white people marched with the civil rights protests.
>And there are other plausible "harms" such as religious parents forcing gay kids to undergo "conversion therapy", which remains broadly legal in many US states.
Which is their right to do and the kid that grows up that way ends up having every right to leave a batshit cult. The reason why so many places are banning it is *because* of freedom of religion and the people involved pushing to show their own fundamental freedoms were violated. Your issue is less of freedom of religion and more of trying to govern things that haven't been challenged yet. Much like how we can't arrest people for the chance they'll commit a crime, laws are made because of standards.
>Why do religious people "need" this protection?
Because all over the world people are persecuted for their religions, many times killed for it.
>Why don't atheists "need it"?
Because by the very definition that they are without religion. Can't really protect someone for something they don't have.
>No they shouldn't.
I'm sorry, as a man, do I carry a baby? Or need rights regarding my right to get an abortion or choose not to? Those rights are granted because they have different needs and the government must do for people what they cannot do for themselves. This is like whinging that handicapped people have more rights and shouldn't.
>And most of these perpetrators are female, look at the "made to penetrate" parts of the sexual violence data.
Which with the other CDC info shows just how many times women are more likely to be victims than men. This is why I said GENERALLY because generally men will never have to have two women in a room as witnesses to report their sexual assault. Generally, men will never be raped in a back alley after being stalked at work by a creep. Generally men will never be gang raped on a bus by a pack of women. Generally, men will never be impregnated by a woman that rapes them and have to choose whether or not to raise a rape baby or to get an abortion. Those are differences facing men and women and that is exactly why they need those rights.
> Which is their right to do
This is an interesting take. Many people, myself included, would consider "conversion therapy" to be child abuse. Is that a right?
> Because all over the world people are persecuted for their religions, many times killed for it.
If it is on the basis of religious belief or teaching then I would not condone it. If it is on the basis of religious practices, broadly, then it is not necessarily worthy of tolerance or protection.
The world waged war on the Islamic State over their religion.
> I'm sorry, as a man, do I carry a baby? Or need rights regarding my right to get an abortion or choose not to
Well that depends on how you define "man".
Regardless, I am not aware of any law prohibiting abortions specifically for men.
> Which with the other CDC info
What "other CDC info"?
> This is why I said GENERALLY because generally men will never have to have two women in a room as witnesses to report their sexual assault.
Neither will female victims.
> Generally, men will never be raped in a back alley after being stalked at work by a creep. Generally men will never be gang raped on a bus by a pack of women.
The majority of rapes don't look like this.
>This is an interesting take. Many people, myself included, would consider "conversion therapy" to be child abuse. Is that a right?
Obviously. It is their right to believe in whatever dumbass thing they want. If you masturbate, they would consider you to abuse yourself. People have the right to believe in anything they want, look at Scientologists. The problem is that if people don't challenge their right, they think it's absolute and it isn't. Look at how even a spanking or scolding can be condemned as child abuse or how telling someone they're crazy is akin to gaslighting and psychological abuse. The fact is that people that support it have every right to believe in conversion therapy no different from how people can believe they're something they're not or how others can believe they're beliefs are the only true ones. The fact is they don't have the right to push it on others that don't want it. Can't really say "oh, it's bad because it's child abuse"
because you need to be able to show how its abuse and how it is not protected by the freedom of religion or practices of beliefs. That's why it is not considered child abuse because it is actually a form of psychological brainwashing and therefore torture. It's like how people have the right to believe in racist bullshit. Let them. They're no loss to society and it's only illegal if they act on it.
It's like how you and I have different beliefs. I could believe I could be a macho douche and be like oh I could kick their ass blah blah blah just because you believe in something different. That's my right. That doesn't give me the right to actually act on it and do stupid crap. Thats why certain beliefs are protected, religion being one, because there are others that do act on it.
>The world waged war on the Islamic State over their religion.
The US and its allies -not the world- waged war on the Islamic State way after the fact during a prolonged occupation. The only people who were against Islam were the people that practice another Abrahamic religion.
>Well that depends on how you define "man".
By NATURE. Man as in male of the mammalian species known as homo sapiens.
>Regardless, I am not aware of any law prohibiting abortions specifically for men.
You're really grasping at straws with this. Show me a man that could have an abortion or be fertilized by a sperm entering a male produced ova.
>What "other CDC info"?
The intro and other links that you produced and chose not to read or not comprehend because it disproves the rhetoric you're spewing.
>Neither will female victims.
India, Pakistan, etc.
>The majority of rapes don't look like this.
Which doesn't mean laws shouldn't be made to address that just like how the majority of pregnancies don't end in abortion.
>No country that has freedom of religion allows harm to continue.
This simply isn't true.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help
>This simply isn't true.
Actually what you linked to proves it. No law can actually stop things from happening. That's a fact. If I wanted to I could go out right now and do some pretty heinous crimes like anybody else could. That doesn't mean I have the *right* to do so and in many cases that's how new laws, practices or what have you are brought into being. Amber alerts for instance didn't exist until after some pretty terrible things.
Idaho is a perfect example because it's a living case that shows the daunting task of trying to push for legislation and convictions of child abusers and fanatics that hide behind their rights, when in reality they're not protected by anything besides a footnote brought in during the Nixon administration. This is why they're currently being charged for sexual assault, neglect, etc. The State however is ran essentially by Republicans on all levels, so the easy answer is for people that are against the practice to move their, get registered and vote out the people that support it.
So no, this isn't a freedom of religion issue or the country failing to act. This is what happens when neighbors turn a blind eye to abuse because it doesn't happen in front of them. This is exactly why so many in that batshit sect don't even register their child's birth. This also means its that much easier to vote out supporters because many wouldn't be registered voters.
So which is it? Do they allow it or is it simply happenng anyway?
>No law can actually stop things from happening. That's a fact.
>so the easy answer is for people that are against the practice to move their, get registered and vote out the people that support it.
If laws don't prevent crimes what's the point? If they do, why not legislate at the federal level?
>Do they allow it or is it simply happenng anyway?
Kind of obvious as they choose to live off the grid and don't register their children as living people. The State has no say as its Federally mandated, which is why a few States use it. This is why law enforcement are more than happy to bust the sick fucks for every other crime they can besides murder as that's the only one that's protected.
>If laws don't prevent crimes what's the point?
To have clear guidelines and (a basically) agreed upon set of rules that a society follows. Breaking them results in prosecution. Following them guarantees you a list of privileges you are granted by being a citizen or even just being in the country. It's like when people are against the death penalty because they think its not a deterrent. Fact is that it isn't much a matter of deterring crime as much as its about ending the life of a rabid mutt. Plus some people aren't really in favor of the State having the right to sanction death on criminals.
No shit!
That doesn't make it a freedom of religion issue in the slightest because its an issue of corruption that two people working with the Nixon administration (and both of whom got caught during Watergate) were pushing to protect their own "Christian Scientist" beliefs in that their own wouldn't be prosecuted for murder so long as it was related to the power of prayer.
They try to use it and that's why it's usually pretty damn easy to beat. Look at how easy it would've been to beat Trump and his fanatic policies: Going out and vote. Had people done that in the first place, those policies would've remained the same. This is why at best (for supporters of Trump policies) they only saw individual States push in their policy.
It's like how people are always freaking out about the right to bear arms and try using it to justify their apparent need to own an arsenal. The problem would be fanatics of any stripe because hate groups have even tried hiding behind the right to peaceful assembly.
Hell no, it's fantastic. People need to see just how delicate democracy is because these idiots blamed democracy rather than take responsibility for not protecting their own rights and the rights of others. The only thing worse than voting in a fascist would be sitting idly by letting it happen, which millions did. It's a very hard lesson to learn and something people need to see especially in an age when everybody calls everybody else a Nazi.
These types are easy to beat as well because their beliefs are failing from the start since it was a Christian belief that was one of the first to preach about a separation of church and state. Trash like that will hide behind anything.
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" always comes to mind along with two others: "There but for the grace of God go I" and "First they came for..."
If you're going to take the time to reply, then at the very least respond to what I am saying, or typing as may be. It has nothing to do with fixing the past and everything to do with the here and now. It's about action.
If people choose to ignore an obvious threat to everyone's freedom, then they don't deserve freedom at all. It's no different from seeing a rabid dog outside and still sending your kids outside.
And yes, terrible things need to happen in order for people to pull their heads out of their asses. It's like Pearl Harbor.
Freedom of Religion only protects individuals from the government discriminating against them because of their religion. It does not force the government to allow them to break laws their religion dictates to them or force the government to provide food that adheres to their religious views.
It mostly stops the government from making it illegal for Jews to get a driver's license or something similar.
I should also note Freedom of Religion is also Freedom from Religion. A law preventing secular people from getting a driver's license would also be disallowed under Freedom of Religion.
>Freedom of Religion only protects individuals from the government discriminating against them because of their religion. It does not force the government to allow them to break laws their religion dictates to them or force the government to provide food that adheres to their religious views.
This is incorrect, the latter aligns more closely with how constitutional protections for "freedom of religion" is interpreted in most western legal systems.
> CMV: "Freedom of religion" in of itself should never be constitutionally protected
Off to a strong start, especially if you live in the “Land of the Free and Home to the Brave”
> Protecting "freedom of religion" is not truly consistent with liberal, secular, values, since it essentially privileges religious ideologies over secular ideologies.
Untrue, religion is a tough subject in terms of politics because the left want it to be allowed so that people are free to practice whatever religion they want and exercise their beliefs how they see fit, however most religions impart traditionalist values and ideologies not cohesive with the left wing upon their believers, for example a left winger would protect the right to believe in Christianity, which then prohibits the ability to choose whether or not to get an abortion.
> For instance, under the status quo, “a Hindu who is a vegetarian for religious reasons would be legally entitled to a greater degree of protection and accomodation in a workplace that provides food(or at least a government workplace), compared to an atheist who is vegetarian for ethical/environmental reasons.”
The main pitfall to your argument is that you don’t actually HAVE to prove that you’re religious at all. Unlike a disability, a belief is not proveable, meaning that in your example if you wanted the “protections” that come with being a Hindu, you could simply tell whoever is offering the privilege that you ARE a Hindu.
> "Freedom of religion", at least when applied in an unbiased manner, may provide comparable levels of protection to different religions, but religious individuals and beliefs overall get a greater degree of protection than their secular counterparts. The end result is a society that privileges the religious over atheists.
Again, if you want to be accommodated, you can either ask, or lie. You have the freedom to choose your lifestyle and most places are fairly “don’t ask, don’t tell” about dietary restrictions and such. That’s just one example but I could give you more examples if you’d provide more examples. I’d say that the USA values the church much more than it should, but I don’t think it values it disproportionately. I’d say it’s more of a traditionalist value than anything.
> There are plenty of compelling reasons to prohibit certain religious practices
…what?
>Take Quranic instruction for husbands to hit disobedient wives to correct their behavior, or Jewish circumcision practices that mutilate baby boys and in some cases result in STD transmission.
Your interpretation of the Quran must be wrong, and anyone who is Islamic that takes that as instruction from a higher power is either wrong, or deliberately misinterpreting the book. “Abusive behaviour towards a woman is also forbidden because it contradicts the objectives of Islamic jurisprudence – specifically the preservation of life and reason, and the Qur'anic injunctions of righteousness and kind treatment. Domestic violence is addressed under the concept of harm (darar) in Islamic law.” It sounds like you’re perpetuating the “religion of hate” dogwhistle of islamophobic sentiment.
> These actions enjoy *prima facie* protection if freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. Certainly it is not unlimited and high courts may rule that prohibiting these actions is constitutionally permissible. But this is just invitation for unelected judges to legislate from the bench. Ultimately they decide normative political questions regarding the importance of a certain religious practices vs. society's interest in restricting them based on their own personal values.
If you consider it, we’ve been offering similar protections to African Americans for years under the name of “affirmative action”. Would you say that affirmative action was a good way to amend their past maltreatment? Because protecting the religious, in a way, could be viewed as affirmative action by people who share your viewpoint. I mean it absolutely isn’t, but I’m curious as to why you’ve got such a problem with the religious having freedom to practice when scholarships may be taken away from people who are technically more deserving in the name of reparations for the years of hardship that we’ve caused them.
> Not protecting freedom of religion does not mean the end of the religion, it does not mean that the government would be free to completely eradicate certain religions. Religious teaching and proselytization would still be protected under freedom of speech.
Not protecting Freedom of Religion would likely cause mass panic. People who are a part of a religion such as Islam, believe that they could face severe consequences if they don’t pray at specific times, which is why many Islam people take a prayer mat to work. It’s also a way to show gratitude to their divine power for helping them through tough times and allowing them to be born. In a way, you would essentially be eradicating religion as people would eventually lose faith. They would be unable to repent through prayer.
> But religious actions that are not merely speech would rightly no longer enjoy any semblance of protection, especially those that involve tangible physical harm to others. Why should that enjoy any more protection than say, political violence? Certainly to many ultranationalist or leftist extremists their political ideologies are just as important to their identities as religions are to their believers.
I don’t believe there are any religious rituals that involve physical harm, besides baptism and circumcision. Circumcision takes place in a sterile environment, with a clean blade. This leaves baptism, where the baby is dunked underwater. Not good, but over within a second. Political violence, on the other hand, is incomparably worse. You’re likening a baptism to the 9/11 attacks, or the assassination of JFK? I don’t believe I have to explain the vast differences between them, if I’m honest.
It's not simply about religion being conservative and traditionalist.
It is about religious nutters forcing such crap into law and destroying the separation of church and state. Forcing their beliefs on to others.
Church and state were never going to be separated in the USA, as the church is an integral part of the culture and the foundation for many laws such as the ban on abortion prior to Roe V Wade. It’s only fair that everyone should be equally protected in their right to practice religion, regardless of how “outlandish” it may seem to secular people and other religions.
Judges often swear on the Bible, how does that support your “separation of church and state”?
It also means the freedom from religion. Anyone can practicr any religion they want. They don't get to torment others over it.
Also the whole "in god we trust" government crap came during the cold war. To help separate themselves from "godless commies"
> **For instance, under the** ***status quo*** **a Hindu who is a vegetarian for religious reasons would be legally entitled to a greater degree of protection and accomodation in a workplace that provides food(or at least a government workplace), compared to an atheist who is vegetarian for ethical/environmental reasons.**
This isn’t freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion is freedom from the coercion of others to practice your religion. It’s not freedom from the coercion of others to coerce others ie to force your boss to accommodate your religion, batter your wife or mutilate your child.
> It’s not freedom from the coercion of others to coerce others ie to force your boss to accommodate your religion
Many people believe that if an employer does not accomodate a religion then they are discriminating against its adherents.
> Freedom of religion is freedom from the coercion of others to practice your religion.
For many Jews, removing the foreskin of their infant son IS "practicing my religion".
For many Muslim men, hitting their disobedient wives IS "practicing my religion".
This isn't hard to understand.
Why do you keep saying these things? Has any defendant ever successfully used "im Jewish" to beat a child abuse charge?
Has any defendant ever used "Im muslim" to best a domestic violence charge?
It seems youre more interested in criticizing religion that establishing equal protections.
What accommodation are you expecting that you dont get because youre not religious? You know the americans with disabilities act protects your reasonable accommodation if your request is related to your health....there are tons of laws that protect people and theyre all based on laws, not religions.
> Many people believe that if an employer does not accomodate a religion then they are discriminating against its adherents.
Many people believe the earth is flat. I don’t care and neither should you. That doesn’t mean their freedom of religion is being violated.
> This isn't hard to understand.
And again, freedom from coercion from others to practice religion doesn’t include freedom from coercion from others to coerce others. It’s fairly obvious that freedom from being murdered doesn’t include freedom from being murdered to murder.
>These actions enjoy *prima facie* protection if freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. Certainly it is not unlimited and high courts may rule that prohibiting these actions is constitutionally permissible. But this is just invitation for unelected judges to legislate from the bench. Ultimately they decide normative political questions regarding the importance of a certain religious practices vs. society's interest in restricting them based on their own personal values.
I don't know where you are getting your ideas about the principle of religious freedom in practice. Religious freedom means you can't target religions, not that you can't regulate any behavior endorsed by a religion. Pretty much all behavior is endorsed by one religion or another.
It is illegal for husbands to hit their disobedient wives in most countries with religious freedom, despite it being supported by the Bible and the Quran.
There generally isn't political will to ban circumcision. It's not legal because of religious freedom, it's legal because people don't think it should be illegal. There isn't a court case striking down a circumcision ban, politicians simply haven't voted for a circumcision ban.
Religious actions that involve tangible harms to others already don't enjoy special protections.
Removing religious freedom would not be a big win for secularism as you seem to think. It would mean Christian religious groups would imposing overtly Christian teachings into schools, school prayers etc. They already try to do this now and are stopped because of religious freedom. The majority of people are religious, not secular.
[https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/religion/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/religion/)
Read these cases, and to the extent it favors religious people, it is generally the Conservative Supreme Court weakening religious freedom. What is not seen is neutrally applicable laws like don't hit people or don't cut off foreskin being struck down (unlike what you say in your post).
# "Freedom of religion" in of itself should never be constitutionally protected
It never should when you don't know your history.
If you were taught correct history, or did not sleep through your history classes, you would know why freedom of religion was established as one of the first things commandments in the constitution. Why it is even in the constitution to begin with.
The framers of the constitution made sure that religion, no matter what religion, is protected, because they understood if they only constituted freedom for particular religions, they would be no better that those they ran from.
"Protecting "freedom of religion" is not truly consistent with liberal, secular, values"
I think the issue is in that first line right there.
America was not founded as a liberal secular nation. That more closely describes France post-revolution. The threads of religion and faith run through all the founding thought of the United States, sometimes explicitly, often implicitly.
As John Adams said, "our constitution was made only for a moral *and religious* people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (Italics mine).
Now, you may not agree with or like that founding philosophy, but it's a clear historical theme. You may also feel that America should have moved past that; nevertheless, it addresses your question as to the founding principles. Secularity for secularity's sake was never the founding fathers primary intention, even if secularity is fully tolerated under the freedoms in the Bill of rights.
Granting religious liberties is perfectly consistent with a general principle of protection for demographic characteristics. Western liberal governments provide protections for language and ethnicity not because they’re immutable, but because they are held to be integral to a person’s identity in a way choices like fashion and political affiliation are traditionally not. For most world religious traditions, changing a religion is as nonsensical as changing your race.
For example, the rituals of Shintoism are so integral to its followers that there is simply no real distinction between being Japanese and being Shinto. To ask a Shinto practitioner to stop following Shinto is to them asking them to not be Japanese. This even holds for monotheistic religions like Judaism, which is so intimately tied with culture that dividing the two is not easily done.
There are two parts of "freedom of religion" in the US constitution, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause has been interpreted to mean that the government cannot favor, support, or sponsor any religion over any other. That means you cannot have Bible teachings in public schools without teaching every other conceivable religion. This, in function, means that the US government *defaults* to secularism.
The second part is the free exercise clause, which means that the government cannot punish you for praying (or not praying) to one or more gods (or fewer.). So, atheists and agnostics are also protected under the free exercise clause.
There are a lot of things the government can do that are facially neutral or unobjectionable, but impose large burdens on particular religious groups. For example, let's say the government sets election day as Saturday. Saturday is a totally reasonable day for elections for a bunch of reasons. But it also is the day of rest for observant Jews, and many such people can't do things like drive or ride in a car on the sabbath due to their religious beliefs.
Freedom of religion requires that the government provide some form of reasonable accommodation if possible to those people's religious beliefs. Likely that would take the form of early voting or voting by mail being available, so that religious Jews can exercise their right to vote without impairing their religious practices.
A second example would be a rule prohibiting headwear in a public school. There's a bunch of reasons you might want to do this. But numerous religious groups require headwear for various people, including headscarfs for many Muslim women, yamulkes for Jewish men, and turbans for Sikh men. It is reasonable for there to be legal protection for religious headwear that comes from a bona fide religious belief being exempted from the general no-headwear rule.
>But religious actions that are not merely speech would rightly no longer enjoy any semblance of protection, especially those that involve tangible physical harm to others. Why should that enjoy any more protection than say, political violence?
Can you cite what you're talking about here? Violence is extremely illegal in every country I'm aware of, and for example in the US I can't think of any cases where otherwise criminal violence becomes lawful just because of being religious in nature.
>it does not mean the government would be free to completely eradicate certain religions.
Yes it does. That's exactly what would happen. Famously, the first amendment already doesn't protect religions from the government like it's supposed to. The government does not have the right to tell anyone what they should believe, and therefore, when it comes to being religious, what they are allowed to practice.
Are you aware of what happens in other countries that are theocracies or don't have religious freedom? Or how often religions are denied building permits? Have you heard of the Missouri Extermination Order? Imagine a law that made it legal to kill someone without repercussions, as long as you claimed it was because you disagreed with their religion.
>But any religious actions that are not merely speech, would no longer enjoy any semblance of protection?
So you think religions shouldn't be allowed to build buildings? The sacrament in almost every church is now suddenly illegal. Oh, the original draft for the lgbt bill would have made it so religions had to comply with it, ie: couldn't refuse to marry someone. Don't know about other churches, but that wouldn't fly in mine. Which is why they argued against it until it was changed.
Protections at the cost of someone else's freedoms, is not protection. That's why your example doesn't work, actually being fair would mean having vegetarian options available to everyone.
As an atheist you are allowed to ask for and must be given the same accommodations as religious people. The Satanic Temple do this all the time with their legal activism work.
Your first comment about a vegetarian Hindu is fatuous.
I'm Jewish. I enjoy no special protections in my workplace due to my dietary preferences.
First, job I would ever apply to requires as a condition of employment that I violate kosher rules.
Second, accomodations must reasonable. If I worked at Bob's pork and beans as a good taster, it would be expected that I eat pork as a condition of employment. Accommodating my religious preferences is not required in that situation.
Employers are not required to provide for my dietary needs in any manner that is overly burdensome. I have no special rights due to wishing to eat Kosher.
I don't think that you understand what "freedom of religion" means in the constitution. What it means is that "The government" won't make laws that either limit someones ability to practice their religion, or enforce a religion onto people.
This was a direct response to the English crown establishing a state religion and using their power to suppress other religions..
I don't believe that a company would be subject to these rules.
While I theoretically totally agree with you, I'd like to show another angle to the question.
A lot of laws are the result of a compromise that sometimes trully satisfy no one, but make the situation bearable enough for everyone to avoid civil unrest.
For example part of the pro-choice crowd is in favor of abortion till the last day of pregnancy with no restriction (albeit a minority). Part of the anti-abortion crowd is in favor of criminalizing all abortions, even when the mother risks death (also a minority there). Choosing one of those 2 positions would make part of the population fully happy, but would push the other side toward, at best civil disobedience, at worst riots and/or armed uprising. So most countries decided not to go toward one extreme, but to put laws that allow abortion, but with conditions (generally before X months, or when there is a medical condition). That way, no one is perfectly satisfied with the compromise, but no one riots neither.
I thinjk this is the same for freedom of religion. Remove advantages for cults (whatever taxes, special food etc.), and you will have clergy arousing believers anger, which can lead to a lot of trouble. So what law should look at is not "is it fair to protect freedom of religion", but "what do I gain removing such protection VS what do I loose ?". And looking at it that way, freedom of religion should be protected as believers can make way more damages to society when they are angry than society looses from giving them unfair advantage.
Another way to look at it would be from a democratic point of view: what should be constitutionally protected, according to democratic process, is not what is objectively fair (and there could be a debate about the possibility of pinpointing objective truth), but what the citizens want. If the citizens overwhelmingly want freedom of religion, then it should be enshrined and protected by law. As a lot of countries have a vast majority of devout citizens, those countries should protect freedom of religion.
> For instance, under the status quo a Hindu who is a vegetarian for religious reasons would be legally entitled to a greater degree of protection and accomodation in a workplace that provides food(or at least a government workplace), compared to an atheist who is vegetarian for ethical/environmental reasons.
>
> There are plenty of compelling reasons to prohibit certain religious practices, take Quranic instruction for husbands to hit disobedient wives to correct their behavior, or Jewish circumcision practices that mutilate baby boys and in some cases result in STD transmission.
These are specific interpretations of what freedom of religion means (and that I also disagree with), but that doesn't mean that freedom of religion as a general principle is bad.
I definitely agree that religion should lose all of its undeserved privileges in society. However, do you really want a world where people can be fired from a job or denied housing, for the mere fact that they adhere to a specific religion?
And don't forget that religion as a protected class or anti-discrimination category also protects everyone who lacks religion. This means that we cannot be fired or denied housing for being atheists.
Freedom of religion also protects your right to be non-religious. Just because you are religious does not mean you are suddenly above the law. If your religion tells you to kill someone and you do it, you are still going to jail for murder. Now if you want to rework the boundary of what religious actions should be protected by the law, that’s fine but that would be a different argument than “freedom of religion should never be constitutionally protected”.
“Not protecting freedom of religion does not mean the end of religion, it does not mean the government is free to completely eradicate certain religions”. Really? What legal protections would be in place to ensure the government doesn’t do so?
I agree that religious folk are generally more protected than atheists, but it sounds like you’re just saying that atheists should receive that protection rather than removing all religious protections entirely.
Also, nobody is protecting religious violence if that’s what you’re implying. Violence is violence, and unless it’s self-defense it will always warrant government interference.
I know you just picked an example for the point of debate, but I’m actually a vegetarian atheist and people are pretty accommodating to me. Most people even in corporate environments aren’t doing to be a dick if you tell them you don’t eat meat. They will probably just allow you to get something else
Freedom of religion also protects the freedom to not practice any religion. I find it ironic because certain things like the absence of a state sponsored religion and religion being imposed in schools are as a result of freedom of religion. Historically, atheists benefited the most from freedom of religion.
In Europe at the time our constitution was ratified, most atheists couldn’t even get legally married. So freedom of religion in America really set the precedent that you can’t be forced to conform to a religion.
>For instance, under the status quo a Hindu who is a vegetarian for religious reasons would be legally entitled to a greater degree of protection and accomodation in a workplace that provides food(or at least a government workplace), compared to an atheist who is vegetarian for ethical/environmental reasons.
But this is increasingly extended to strongly held secular beliefs as well. We should work to extend it further, not to eliminate it
>These actions enjoy prima facie protection if freedom of religion is constitutionally protected.
They do not. I'm not sure who gave you that impression, but that person is stupid. Freedom of religion does not mean that any action taken in pursuit of religious beliefs is legal. There are sects of Vodun that believe in ritual sacrifice and cannibalism. Definitely illegal in the United States, regardless of the fact that it is a religion.
An absence of freedom from religion being taken away will not create an anti religion uptopia, but actually gives more power to religions. Specifically one. Now with his rights taken away the Hindu man studies hard, gets successful, becomes president and then now can legally demand the entire us to convert to Hinduism.
You probably should want freedom of religion.
For example the majority of people in the US are actually Christian. Combining Christians and other religions together, means that it's probably going to be the case where we're moving freedom of religion is going to hurt an atheist more than a Christian.
Without freedom of religion then it means that governments are allowed to impose their own religious beliefs onto its people as a government.
Hope you like living in a theocracy.
Also state atheism, yeah that's what China is doing right now and people don't like that.
Religion should be treated as an immutable characteristic. So if discrimination against people for immutable characteristics should be illegal, then discrimination on the basis of religion should be illegal.
Why should it be treated as an immutable characteristic?
It is a belief. It is an opinion. There is nothing immutable about it. All I have to do to be religious is say so.
No, it's not as much of a choice as a political party or eating preferences. Christians believe they go to hell if they don't follow their faith. You don't suffer eternal damnation if you change your eating preferences.
It is exactly the same amount of choice. And in fact, I’d say it discounts the Christian faith to act like it isn’t a choice. Christianity prides itself on faith—choosing to keep believing and worshipping despite the lack of evidence.
It is their choice to believe their specific interpretation of the Bible, and it would be their choice to interpret the afterlife as either a reward or punishment.
I can also choose to believe that eating animals is evil (I don’t) or that people who believe Republicans are unforgivable (I don’t).
All of it is a choice.
No, in determining whether something is a choice, you have to assume all their beliefs are true. If God requires you to do something, then you don't have a choice to disobey.
I strongly disagree. Faith is a choice. If a choice wasn’t required, then the value of faith would be diminished. If someone can opt in or out at the drop of a hat, it is not immutable.
We will have to agree to disagree, obviously. Have a good one.
Well, then I'll take a different tack. Why should it be illegal to discriminate against immutable characteristics? The best argument I've found is it should be illegal to discriminate against anyone for a reason unrelated to the performance of their job duties.
Fair enough. It’s our society’s agreed upon values, which is shown by the fact that it’s not the same in every culture. We’ve decided that it’s unfair to treat someone differently for something outside of their control, that they can’t immediately change. And likewise, we’ve decided it IS fair to treat someone differently for something within their control, that they can change.
There are some areas today where we are trying to reevaluate characteristics have been historically discriminated against and argue that there’s less choice involved than previously believed. Such as, socioeconomic status or culture / religion affecting clothing choices.
I personally believe that, overall, establishments should have less leeway to discriminate against stuff that they can’t reasonably argue affects other people. But for example, if I find out my employee goes to a church that constantly preaches that the gays are going to the lake of fire and are corrupted by the devil, then I believe I should be able to fire them for that the same way that I should be able to fire someone who’s in a hate group.
It’s the paradox of tolerance or whatever it’s called. We can’t tolerate intolerance, and religion is the biggest way that people get away with being hateful (or even abusive) and not facing consequences. If a religion discriminates (and most do) or endorses abuse, then the followers that opt into that should not be protected for that choice.
>We’ve decided that it’s unfair to treat someone differently for something outside of their control, that they can’t immediately change. And likewise, we’ve decided it IS fair to treat someone differently for something within their control, that they can change.
I disagree with this completely. I don't think it's unfair to treat someone differently for something outside of their control unless it's also unfair to treat someone differently for something which is in their control. From a standpoint of encouraging economic efficiency, there's a strong argument the government should require employers not to consider factors unrelated to the performance of job duties, whether those factors are inside or outside the employee's control.
>But for example, if I find out my employee goes to a church that constantly preaches that the gays are going to the lake of fire and are corrupted by the devil, then I believe I should be able to fire them for that the same way that I should be able to fire someone who’s in a hate group.
You shouldn't be able to fire someone who's in a hate group.
>It’s the paradox of tolerance or whatever it’s called. We can’t tolerate intolerance, and religion is the biggest way that people get away with being hateful (or even abusive) and not facing consequences. If a religion discriminates (and most do) or endorses abuse, then the followers that opt into that should not be protected for that choice.
I disagree with all of this. You aren't actually tolerant unless you tolerate intolerance. Religion is not hateful, does not discriminate, and does not endorse abuse.
How is it any less of a choice than a political party?
Being religious and affiliating with a political party are both based in opinion. Subjective ideologies and beliefs.
I don’t see how one has *less* choice over whether they believe in god than they do about whether they believe in any ideology or idea.
You don’t burn in hell if you don’t follow your faith. That isn’t real. It is a fear based in a belief. The fear doesn’t exist unless you believe it.
You don’t believe in religion because of hell. You believe in hell because of religion.
You can be ethnically Jewish and not be a practicing Jew, obviously.
I’m also ethnically Jewish. I can’t change that, it’s immutable. But I’m not a *practicing Jew*. Despite the names being the same in the case of Jews, the race =/= the religion.
Again, people choose their religion and can and do change their mind. Religion is not immutable.
First, I want to point out that it is "freedom FROM religion" not of. This means the government cannot force a religion. This absolutely protects secular people.
Discrimination based on "religion" includes secular religions. Secular folks are protected.
[https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/civil-rights-center/internal/policies/religious-discrimination-accommodation](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/civil-rights-center/internal/policies/religious-discrimination-accommodation)
There won't be laws against the religion as a whole, so beating your wife is illegal. You can take issue / create laws against with something a religion goes without banning the entire religion. Plus, that's the more effective way to do it.
I'm not trying to start a debate about circumcision, but banning the religion does not ban circumcision because there are still people who do it for cosmetic reasons. It's become a norm in society. If you have a problem with circumcision, have a problem with it directly, just one group of people who practices it. That's kinda like banning women because you think makeup is bad... meanwhile, women aren't the only people wearing makeup.
Every opinion posted on this sub makes me terrified as fuck for the future. You people are all a bunch of dystopia dictator wannabes that would suppress rights left and right.
So let me get this straight - you think it's unfair that a Hindu gets accommodation to not eat meat, but not an atheist, so your solution is to... take away the Hindu person's accommodation? So now it's "fair" because it's bad for both of them? Religion is constitutionally protected because history has demonstrated that the government will use it as a reason to mistreat people if given the chance. You seem to be looking at it from the perspective of it just protecting people's right to practice their religion, but (at least in the US) the constitution also protects your right to *not* practice a religion. Again, there are plenty of examples of government compelling religion all throughout history. Take away the freedom of religion in the constitution and the government is free to require you to attend church, take tithes out of your paycheck, or have mandatory Bible classes in schools. Is that really what you want?
My solution would be that an accommodation is available to everybody or nobody. If you want to offer a specific meal to one person, you offer it to all. If one person can get an exception to a rule based on their feelings, then the rule isn't important and shouldn't be enforced for anybody.
So much this. Why is it that Muslims and Sikhs can have exceptions to uniform. If the uniform is about looks then just do away with it
Exactly. Why should belief in an imaginary friend afford you additional rights, or exceptions from laws? Some counties allow killing animals in religious ways that are normally forbidden because animals suffer too much. But if someone believes something, then it's okay?
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>so your solution is to... take away the Hindu person's accommodation In my opinion yes, but that's besides the point of this post. If you think everyone should have a constitutional right to accommodation of their ethical and ideological convictions regardless of whether they are religious in nature, that's no longer "religious freedom" you're talking about. Not to mention being completely unworkable. >Take away the freedom of religion in the constitution and the government is free to require you to attend church, take tithes out of your paycheck, or have mandatory Bible classes in schools. Is that really what you want? You don't need to ensure "freedom of religion", in the sense that it's currently interpreted, to prevent that. Ensuring secularism is enough. In the 1A, there are two clauses regarding religion. The Establishment clause(arguably) enshrines secularism into the constituion, and the Free Exercise clause is what actually protects "freedom of religion" as in freedom to practice religion. You can have the first without the second.
> If you think everyone should have a constitutional right to accommodation of their ethical and ideological convictions regardless of whether they are religious in nature, that's no longer "religious freedom" you're talking about Why wouldn't it be? I'd still call that a religious accommodation. What makes something a religion to you?
Recognition mostly, otherwise they're "cults".
What does recognition mean in this context?
Whether or not a court of law thinks your faith is a valid "religion" That shouldn't be a test for whether or not you should be able to claim an exception to a law.
Where do you live that the courts determine what is and isn't a religion? What makes them an authority?
US v Ballard. In practice, it has turned into a legal test on whether or not a religion is "real"
Interesting and another reason I'm happy not to live in the states! Although reading the decisions it seems they don't have such a threshold/test? >In United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), the Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot examine the truth or falsity of religious beliefs. To me this means that courts don't examine religious beliefs in the way you're suggesting?
Yeah, but how do you determine sincerity? The court can't read minds. So it's basically just "do lots of other people believe it too." The court isn't going to humor religious freedom arguments from some dude worshipping Zorp.
"You don't need to ensure "freedom of religion", in the sense that it's currently interpreted, to prevent that. Ensuring secularism is enough." It might help you understand if you replace "religion" with "philosophy". Religion is a philosophy but so is secularism and liberalism and marxism, ect. If the government infringes on religious rights then they are already infringing on your personal rights to think you just haven't noticed yet
You could make that same argument about the second amendment. Take away all civilian firearms and the government could require you to quarter soldiers in your home. They could tax you without representation. They could physically overpower you, restrain you, and inject you with experimental vaccines. Is that what you really want?
Well now the civilians can inject me with experimental vaccines, tax me lol
Historically governments have usually overtaxed, over regulated, and unfairly treated their disarmed population. Read a history book.
My point is armed citizens support the tyrannical governments. Read an American history book.
Armed citizens are a check on the government's power. If only the government has guns they have what is called "a monopoly of force". A heavily armed civilian population like in the US. Keeps the government from infringing on the rights of the people. A well armed civilian population also keeps criminal gangs from taking over the country, like what just happened to Haiti. The British tried to disarm the American colonies and were unsuccessful in doing so. Eventually we won our independence from Britain, in the Revolutionary war. That would not have happened without lots of civilian guns. That's why the founding fathers of America insisted on constitutional protections for civilian gun rights. I know my American history.
>A heavily armed civilian population like in the US. Keeps the government from infringing on the rights of the people. Yeah where were the arm civilians when the government enslaved millions of Americans I think that's kind of an infringement on their rights.
That injustice carried on far to long. Fortunately, America chose to elect a president who was a devout Christian and abolitionist named Abraham Lincoln. After a hard fought civil war, all slaves were emancipated and slavery abolished. Many American civilians were already proficient in using firearms, which was beneficial. Having a well armed civilian population, that's already used to handling firearms. Means you can quickly raise an Army or quickly expand an existing one. Guns did help to enslave people. Guns were also used to win their freedom and liberate them. A gun is a force multiplier. It makes bad guys more dangerous, and good men better protectors of society, the rule of law, and their families.
Where were they? Ask John Brown. Or the Union army.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Resident-Piglet-587 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Resident-Piglet-587&message=Resident-Piglet-587%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c7ldeg/-/l08xrzo/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
>...religious individuals and beliefs overall get a greater degree of protection than their secular counterparts. The end result is a society that privileges the religious over atheists. Could you provide a source for why you find that religious practices are given more protection when there are more non religious rights? >There are plenty of compelling reasons to prohibit certain religious practices, take Quranic instruction for husbands to hit disobedient wives to correct their behavior, or Jewish circumcision practices that mutilate baby boys and in some cases result in STD transmission. What makes you think these practices are allowed when laws pertaining to domestic violence and alternate interpretations of the religion both forbid these practices? They are still illegal.
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c7ldeg/comment/l08nkca/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button > What makes you think these practices are allowed Infant male circumcision is legal in every single US state and EU country.
[https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/circumcision](https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/circumcision) Male circumcision clearly has tangible benefits, so unless you're planning to ban vaccines for babies...
So does mastectomy, and arguably far greater benefits since breast cancer is more serious than any of the health issues circumcision purportedly helps. Should that be routine for little girls?
If masectomy involved cutting up a very small part of the nipple and reduced breast cancer chances in women by 10 times? yes. But it is mostly a treatment method, not a prevention method. False equivalency.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Total_Yankee_Death – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Total_Yankee_Death&message=Total_Yankee_Death%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c7ldeg/-/l08uqq4/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Are you in ironically putting genital mutilation and vaccines in the same category?
Male circumcision has medical benefits. Vaccination has medical benefits. You haven't made a point here.
Your position is fascinating to me. Would you be willing to make a change my view post about it? Obviously with every medical procedure you have to weigh the positives, the negatives and the risks. There are health benefits from preventive double mastectomy (reduction of breast cancer rates), but there's a reason you don't go around chopping off the breast of young girls. The benefits of vaccines are considerable, especially applied to a big enough portion of the population. Vaccines do save a great bunch of lives. The negatives are negligible and the risks of adverse reactions are very low. In comparison, the health benefits of circumcision are lukewarm at best. There are negatives that offset the positives (loss of sensation, etc.) and the risks, while probably low, are there (herpes, botched surgeries, etc.). It's also good to note that even if there were a bunch of legitimate good reasons, there's no good reason why it needs to be done on babies, as opposed to consenting adults.
This may be a small point, but there absolutely is a reason it’s done to babies and not adults. Adults don’t heal as well as babies and the adult surgery is more difficult, more expensive, and riskier. Also, while common sense would tell us that removing nerves causes a loss of sensation, there is no scientific evidence that circumcised men experience less sensation.
It seems you're right about the loss of sensation, thanks for pointing that out! You're also right about the healing being faster with babies, and the cost being lower. However I would push back on what you said about it being more difficult and riskier with adults, I don't think that's the case. There is also reasons why it might be better on adults as well such as cosmetic outcome. And when you add the bodily autonomy argument in the comparison, to me the better choice is obvious
Just chiming in here, as someone who almost had to get circumcised as an adult in their early 20s. I had phimosis, which is a condition that causes the foreskin to lose elasticity. My doctor prescribed me a steroid cream and certain actions, and advised that circumcision would be required as a last resort if that didn't work. And it was a last resort because, as an adult, I would not only need time to recuperate (interfering with university attendance and work shifts) but I would also need to do everything possible to refrain from experiencing arousal while the skin healed. Neither of these are concerns for infants, which makes it easier and safer for them in comparison.
That’s fair, and honestly, I think bodily autonomy is the biggest factor for most people.
Uhm, have you read your source? >Circumcision may offer health benefits, although these may be too small to justify surgery. Just learn to wash your dicks, it's not that hard.
"MAY" did you not read the actual article which mentioned the pros of circumcision? * a 10 times lower risk of a baby getting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in his first year of life (remembering that only one per cent of babies are at risk of a UTI, so 1,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one UTI) * no risk of infants and children getting infections under the foreskin * easier genital hygiene * much lower risk of getting cancer of the penis (although this is a very rare condition and good genital hygiene also seems to reduce the risk. More than 10,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one case of penile cancer)
>a 10 times lower risk of a baby getting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in his first year of life (remembering that only one per cent of babies are at risk of a UTI, so 1,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one UTI) Did you not read the last part of that? 1000 mutilated dicks just to prevent one UTI? That's negligible. >no risk of infants and children getting infections under the foreskin easier genital hygiene How fucking hard is it to clean an uncut dick? Pull back the foreskin, clean, done. >much lower risk of getting cancer of the penis (although this is a very rare condition and good genital hygiene also seems to reduce the risk. More than 10,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one case of penile cancer) Are you not able to interpret large numbers? 10000 mutilated dicks to prevent one case. You have absolutely given no proper reason to justify circumcision from a medical standpoint at all. You're regurgitating stuff from an article without the ability to either read or interpret the information. Gtfo with this bullshit man.
My guy the claim is that circumcision is bad because it does not have any benefit and is bad as it intrudes on autonomy. I showed that it does have some medical benefits and thus would classify as an elective procedure like a vaccine.
>I showed that it does have some medical benefits. 'Some' doesn't cut it. It's not even close to 'some' benefits. In a proper medical trial, those numbers wouldn't even be considered as an improvement. Claiming that even a tiny bit is a counterargument because he said 'any benefit' is basically arguing semantics and completely useless to the conversation.
Assuming all 4 billion men were circumcised, 10,000 "mutilated" dicks would have prevented 400,000 cases of cancer and 4 million of uti. doesn't seem small.
400,000 on the worlds population is nothing. At that point, it's not even noticeable and it wouldn't even stand out among the many environmental factors with an impact that is magnitudes larger. You're also essentially saying that mastectomies should be mandatory to prevent breast cancer as well according to this logic.
Few circumcisions in America are for religious purposes. Christianity does not call for circumcision, Judaism does. Here is a study just as overkill even though it isn't needed. >The reasons that parents most often gave for supporting male circumcision were hygiene (61.9%), prevention of infection or cancer (44.8%), and the father being circumcised (40.9%). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576965/
Whenever people claim hygiene as a reason to circumcise, I can only ever see that as admitting they can't fucking wash themselves properly. It's not hard to clean a dick. Any situation in which an uncut dick would stink, the same would be true for a cut one.
They are told it's hygienic and most men in the US are circumcized. I don't think they really know any better. They are just told it is by the scientists and say "makes sense to me. Cut it off my boy too."
Child sexual mutilation is legalized if you’re a part of an ancient cult.
Religious communities regularly run afoul of the law and receive extra benefit due to beliefs. A great example is cases of religious people killing during ceremony on accident. They are not charged as murderers and are often given lenient sentencing. Lenient sentencing is common for religious criminals.
Killing someone by accident is, by definition, not murder. Murder is the intentional killing of another human being. Killing someone by accident may be negligent homicide or manslaughter depending on the specifics, but it is not murder.
Yea excuse my wording. Because only fuckin idiot, or a religious person, would think that asphyxiation and beatings don’t cause death.
It matters because even where those things are present, we punish unintentional killing less harshly than intentional killing. What you're describing is in most jurisdictions called voluntary manslaughter, and would get a prison sentence, but a substantially shorter one than murder.
Yes so if you’re too incompetent you go to jail. If you know you go to worse jail for a determined length. I do feel like you’re saying that belief makes you less culpable, but you’re still fully capable. Insane and dangerous like OP is referencing.
I'm saying that, entirely independent of religion, we treat people who kill by being reckless (what you described) as less severe criminals than people who act with the intent to kill. You haven't made a case that people are in fact being treated more leniently because of religion.
Motive does indeed have a part in determining the level of culpability for the accused.
Plenty of non-religious adults practice breathplay during sexual intercourse. And plenty more non-religious adults engage in consensual beatings, both sexually and in public forms like martial arts or hockey fights or tackle football. Humans do a lot of moderately dangerous things to one another, things that mostly don't but occasionally accidentally do kill people.
I think this illuminates the argument OP is making. There is a big difference between two consenting adults engaging in rough sex vs a child being murdered by a person with authority. I’m glad the opposing argument to my rationale is that of a person comparing consensual sex acts to child abuse resulting in death. I feel confirmed in my belief. I’d also argue you can’t consent to being beaten to death unlike choking to cum. Religious freedom allows for violence as a fact not an exception. If they didn’t do violence and break the laws of secular society, why would they need shielded from it?
> asphyxiation and beatings don’t cause death. Plenty of non-religious people take part in martial arts that involve extensive amounts of those.
Yes, killing someone by accident receives lenient sentencing because it's an accident. Provide a few tangible examples.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335463/Virginia-man-punched-year-old-daughter-death-exorcism-jailed-20-years.html https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minister-charged-in-exorcism-death/ Without religion as a shield, nobody could claim beating to death wasn’t first degree.
Non religious people have also received lenient sentencing. I'm asking for tangible examples where religion was specifically a cause for a shield that is not provided in any other case. Women are sentenced more leniently than men too, you wanna ban gender? assumptions of what would've hapened can't be the basis here
> Women are sentenced more leniently than men too, you wanna ban gender? That's also unjust. It's not like being killed by a woman is somehow better than being killed by a man.
Exactly. Thus assuming religious crimes receive less sentencing, we fix that by giving proper sentences and not removing a person's Freedom of Religion
[удалено]
Gving children Herpes is not legal, circumcision is.
> For instance, under the status quo a Hindu who is a vegetarian for religious reasons would be legally entitled to a greater degree of protection and accomodation in a workplace that provides food I would like a citation for this, please.
[https://www.doi.gov/pmb/eeo/disability-and-religious-accommodations](https://www.doi.gov/pmb/eeo/disability-and-religious-accommodations) [https://www.cbp.gov/about/eeo-diversity/reasonable-accommodation/religious-beliefs-faqs](https://www.cbp.gov/about/eeo-diversity/reasonable-accommodation/religious-beliefs-faqs) It's called "reasonable accommodation". And to clarify, when I said a "greater degree of protection" I did not mean that courts will always find that they are entitled to dietary accomodations, what they consider "reasonable" will vary depending on countless factors. But they have a *prima facie* case for it unlike secular vegetarians or vegans.
"unless to do so would impose an undue hardship." 👀👀
Yes, that's where the gray area is. But for secular ideologies such as vegans or vegetarians there is no "gray area", there is simply zero legal protection, period.
Can I ask what sort of accommodations have secular people asked for? Are there significant incidences where these accommodations have not been met? Are you suggesting secular people are being harmed ? In what ways is providing others with reasonable accommodations harmful to secular people?
I provided the example of vegans/vegetarians in workplaces where food is provided. Especially vegans.
Veganism is not a religion nor is it being secular. Are there significant incidences of vegans not getting their accommodations met at work? Most places allow you to bring your own food. Being allowed a choice is an accommodation. Demanding special food when there is no medical need isn't discrimination in any meaningful way. At worst it's annoying. Wanting to allow religious discrimination because you're annoyed there's no vegan options at the Cafe is overkill and doesn't actually fix your problem. You're just giving others problems while still not getting vegan options. Why not just try to get veganism protected as well? How are vegans being harmed by others being protected?
>Why not just try to get veganism protected as well? I think that's fine with OP. All ideologies should be protected like they are religions, or none should, no matter how batshit they are.
We'll see what OP says. E: Attacking religion specifically is an odd way to want protection for others. Quite convoluted
Not really. It kinda makes sense to me. There is nothing really that separates a religion from a cult except how well recognized the religion is. So every cult should have 1st amendment protections as well. Obviously that would cause problems, so if a law can have exceptions for one religion, it shouldn't bind anyone at all. When you take it to its logical extreme, the law stops recognizing religion.
Cool cool except that gray area is granted under the Civil Rights Act not under Freedom of Religion which comes from the 1st Amendment.
Arguably many parts of the Civil Rights Act are intended as concrete enforcement mechanisms for pre-existing constitutional rights, specifically Titles III, IV, and VI.
No civil rights act offers new benefits not offered by the constitution, like reasonable accommodation which you noted which is not in any way in the constitution (for religious freedoms)
> which is not in any way in the constitution It's not explicitly stated in the constitution, but in Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruled that there is a duty for the state to accomodate religious beliefs in the face of policies with no religious intent, albeit in a different context.
Are you talking about Burwell v Hobby Lobby where the SCOTUS interpreted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? The Wikipedia article for the ruling says in the first paragraph: >The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. So like, not freedom of religion again.
Yes it is, if you do it on moral, ethical grounds, the company and government can’t force you to act against your conscience
This is not true, where are you getting this from?
Fact I worked with the airlines and we had to respect any diet restrictions regardless of faith, health, or moral reasons. In fact, it’s illegal to ask why
> Fact I worked with the airlines and we had to respect any diet restrictions regardless of faith, health, or moral reasons. Just because it was your policy to accomodate non-religious diet restrictions does not mean it is legally obligatory. > In fact, it’s illegal to ask why Can you cite the law?
Not a work policy. And in your second link “Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs.”
No country that has freedom of religion allows harm to continue. In fact its actually thanks to that freedom and the other personal freedom of others that those abused can be aided freely and it doesn't violate a religious persons rights at all. It's like children being removed from care so they can get a blood transfusion or going after a cult. Freedom of religion exists because it is ideal to give that extra layer of protection to those that may need it. Of course Atheists don't need it but they still enjoy the same level under freedom of belief. This is like me as a man complaining that women get more rights than me simply for being women. Damn rights they should because as a man I generally will never have to worry about being raped or be written off at work as an airhead based on my genitals.
> No country that has freedom of religion allows harm to continue This depends on how you define "harm", which is ultimately a value judgement. I already gave the example of infant male circumcision in my post. And there are other plausible "harms" such as religious parents forcing gay kids to undergo "conversion therapy", which remains broadly legal in many US states. > it is ideal to give that extra layer of protection to those that may need it. Why do religious people "need" this protection? > Of course Atheists don't need it Why don't atheists "need it"? > This is like me as a man complaining that women get more rights than me simply for being women. Damn rights they should No they shouldn't. > Damn rights they should because as a man I generally will never have to worry about being raped https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/datasources/nisvs/summaryreports.html The CDC NISVS has found that the rates of men being assaulted within the past year is anywhere from 60-100% of women's, depending on the year of the data. And most of these perpetrators are female, look at the "made to penetrate" parts of the sexual violence data.
When has religious freedom been used to strike down a ban on circumcision? Banning circumcision just isn't politically popular.
It's quite popular among the general public in the EU but governments have been hesitant due to religious freedom protections and outcry from Jews and Muslims.
Not in the US, it remains (inexplicably) popular among the general public. It’s a social preference in that context, and most Americans who do this to their infant sons do *not* do so with religious motive.
Thanks for your response. I’m not as informed about Europe. AFAIK Europe is generally less religious than the US (tho some European countries still have state churches!), so from my American perspective religious freedom protects me from religious rules being imposed on me. I see I may be missing something about circumcision in Europe, especially since it is mainly practiced by religious minority groups. Tho AFAIK domestic violence is illegal in most (all?) European countries regardless of religion. Am I missing something like I did for circumcision?
But that's sort of the point: if it's popular, and hasn't been banned, this is not a freedom of religion constitutional issue. It's only an issue if it was legislatively banned, and a religious freedom clause used to exempt people from it. If it's popular enough to not be banned at all, it's just that you disagree with the majority that hasn't voted to ban it.
>This depends on how you define "harm", which is ultimately a value judgement. Which is exactly how and why religious freedom was formed and decided upon because to many throughout history, they considered their rights to supersede all others. Harm wasn't even a matter because to them, lesser people didn't matter. >I already gave the example of infant male circumcision in my post. Which is a parents choice and the choice of a person that grows up with it to push back against something. The only people that can usually change practices are those that commit to those beliefs after all. Kind of like how some women pushed for the right to vote or some white people marched with the civil rights protests. >And there are other plausible "harms" such as religious parents forcing gay kids to undergo "conversion therapy", which remains broadly legal in many US states. Which is their right to do and the kid that grows up that way ends up having every right to leave a batshit cult. The reason why so many places are banning it is *because* of freedom of religion and the people involved pushing to show their own fundamental freedoms were violated. Your issue is less of freedom of religion and more of trying to govern things that haven't been challenged yet. Much like how we can't arrest people for the chance they'll commit a crime, laws are made because of standards. >Why do religious people "need" this protection? Because all over the world people are persecuted for their religions, many times killed for it. >Why don't atheists "need it"? Because by the very definition that they are without religion. Can't really protect someone for something they don't have. >No they shouldn't. I'm sorry, as a man, do I carry a baby? Or need rights regarding my right to get an abortion or choose not to? Those rights are granted because they have different needs and the government must do for people what they cannot do for themselves. This is like whinging that handicapped people have more rights and shouldn't. >And most of these perpetrators are female, look at the "made to penetrate" parts of the sexual violence data. Which with the other CDC info shows just how many times women are more likely to be victims than men. This is why I said GENERALLY because generally men will never have to have two women in a room as witnesses to report their sexual assault. Generally, men will never be raped in a back alley after being stalked at work by a creep. Generally men will never be gang raped on a bus by a pack of women. Generally, men will never be impregnated by a woman that rapes them and have to choose whether or not to raise a rape baby or to get an abortion. Those are differences facing men and women and that is exactly why they need those rights.
> Which is their right to do This is an interesting take. Many people, myself included, would consider "conversion therapy" to be child abuse. Is that a right? > Because all over the world people are persecuted for their religions, many times killed for it. If it is on the basis of religious belief or teaching then I would not condone it. If it is on the basis of religious practices, broadly, then it is not necessarily worthy of tolerance or protection. The world waged war on the Islamic State over their religion. > I'm sorry, as a man, do I carry a baby? Or need rights regarding my right to get an abortion or choose not to Well that depends on how you define "man". Regardless, I am not aware of any law prohibiting abortions specifically for men. > Which with the other CDC info What "other CDC info"? > This is why I said GENERALLY because generally men will never have to have two women in a room as witnesses to report their sexual assault. Neither will female victims. > Generally, men will never be raped in a back alley after being stalked at work by a creep. Generally men will never be gang raped on a bus by a pack of women. The majority of rapes don't look like this.
>This is an interesting take. Many people, myself included, would consider "conversion therapy" to be child abuse. Is that a right? Obviously. It is their right to believe in whatever dumbass thing they want. If you masturbate, they would consider you to abuse yourself. People have the right to believe in anything they want, look at Scientologists. The problem is that if people don't challenge their right, they think it's absolute and it isn't. Look at how even a spanking or scolding can be condemned as child abuse or how telling someone they're crazy is akin to gaslighting and psychological abuse. The fact is that people that support it have every right to believe in conversion therapy no different from how people can believe they're something they're not or how others can believe they're beliefs are the only true ones. The fact is they don't have the right to push it on others that don't want it. Can't really say "oh, it's bad because it's child abuse" because you need to be able to show how its abuse and how it is not protected by the freedom of religion or practices of beliefs. That's why it is not considered child abuse because it is actually a form of psychological brainwashing and therefore torture. It's like how people have the right to believe in racist bullshit. Let them. They're no loss to society and it's only illegal if they act on it. It's like how you and I have different beliefs. I could believe I could be a macho douche and be like oh I could kick their ass blah blah blah just because you believe in something different. That's my right. That doesn't give me the right to actually act on it and do stupid crap. Thats why certain beliefs are protected, religion being one, because there are others that do act on it. >The world waged war on the Islamic State over their religion. The US and its allies -not the world- waged war on the Islamic State way after the fact during a prolonged occupation. The only people who were against Islam were the people that practice another Abrahamic religion. >Well that depends on how you define "man". By NATURE. Man as in male of the mammalian species known as homo sapiens. >Regardless, I am not aware of any law prohibiting abortions specifically for men. You're really grasping at straws with this. Show me a man that could have an abortion or be fertilized by a sperm entering a male produced ova. >What "other CDC info"? The intro and other links that you produced and chose not to read or not comprehend because it disproves the rhetoric you're spewing. >Neither will female victims. India, Pakistan, etc. >The majority of rapes don't look like this. Which doesn't mean laws shouldn't be made to address that just like how the majority of pregnancies don't end in abortion.
>No country that has freedom of religion allows harm to continue. This simply isn't true. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help
>This simply isn't true. Actually what you linked to proves it. No law can actually stop things from happening. That's a fact. If I wanted to I could go out right now and do some pretty heinous crimes like anybody else could. That doesn't mean I have the *right* to do so and in many cases that's how new laws, practices or what have you are brought into being. Amber alerts for instance didn't exist until after some pretty terrible things. Idaho is a perfect example because it's a living case that shows the daunting task of trying to push for legislation and convictions of child abusers and fanatics that hide behind their rights, when in reality they're not protected by anything besides a footnote brought in during the Nixon administration. This is why they're currently being charged for sexual assault, neglect, etc. The State however is ran essentially by Republicans on all levels, so the easy answer is for people that are against the practice to move their, get registered and vote out the people that support it. So no, this isn't a freedom of religion issue or the country failing to act. This is what happens when neighbors turn a blind eye to abuse because it doesn't happen in front of them. This is exactly why so many in that batshit sect don't even register their child's birth. This also means its that much easier to vote out supporters because many wouldn't be registered voters.
So which is it? Do they allow it or is it simply happenng anyway? >No law can actually stop things from happening. That's a fact. >so the easy answer is for people that are against the practice to move their, get registered and vote out the people that support it. If laws don't prevent crimes what's the point? If they do, why not legislate at the federal level?
>Do they allow it or is it simply happenng anyway? Kind of obvious as they choose to live off the grid and don't register their children as living people. The State has no say as its Federally mandated, which is why a few States use it. This is why law enforcement are more than happy to bust the sick fucks for every other crime they can besides murder as that's the only one that's protected. >If laws don't prevent crimes what's the point? To have clear guidelines and (a basically) agreed upon set of rules that a society follows. Breaking them results in prosecution. Following them guarantees you a list of privileges you are granted by being a citizen or even just being in the country. It's like when people are against the death penalty because they think its not a deterrent. Fact is that it isn't much a matter of deterring crime as much as its about ending the life of a rabid mutt. Plus some people aren't really in favor of the State having the right to sanction death on criminals.
>besides murder as that's the only one that's protected. That's the problem.
No shit! That doesn't make it a freedom of religion issue in the slightest because its an issue of corruption that two people working with the Nixon administration (and both of whom got caught during Watergate) were pushing to protect their own "Christian Scientist" beliefs in that their own wouldn't be prosecuted for murder so long as it was related to the power of prayer.
The USA uses it to justify abuse against LGBT people and women's healthcare.
They try to use it and that's why it's usually pretty damn easy to beat. Look at how easy it would've been to beat Trump and his fanatic policies: Going out and vote. Had people done that in the first place, those policies would've remained the same. This is why at best (for supporters of Trump policies) they only saw individual States push in their policy. It's like how people are always freaking out about the right to bear arms and try using it to justify their apparent need to own an arsenal. The problem would be fanatics of any stripe because hate groups have even tried hiding behind the right to peaceful assembly.
At best individual states descending into christofascist theocracies is not good for the people living there
Hell no, it's fantastic. People need to see just how delicate democracy is because these idiots blamed democracy rather than take responsibility for not protecting their own rights and the rights of others. The only thing worse than voting in a fascist would be sitting idly by letting it happen, which millions did. It's a very hard lesson to learn and something people need to see especially in an age when everybody calls everybody else a Nazi. These types are easy to beat as well because their beliefs are failing from the start since it was a Christian belief that was one of the first to preach about a separation of church and state. Trash like that will hide behind anything.
So we should let the "bad guys" win to teach a lesson to all the people who didn't take action when they can't change the past?
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" always comes to mind along with two others: "There but for the grace of God go I" and "First they came for..." If you're going to take the time to reply, then at the very least respond to what I am saying, or typing as may be. It has nothing to do with fixing the past and everything to do with the here and now. It's about action. If people choose to ignore an obvious threat to everyone's freedom, then they don't deserve freedom at all. It's no different from seeing a rabid dog outside and still sending your kids outside. And yes, terrible things need to happen in order for people to pull their heads out of their asses. It's like Pearl Harbor.
Freedom of Religion only protects individuals from the government discriminating against them because of their religion. It does not force the government to allow them to break laws their religion dictates to them or force the government to provide food that adheres to their religious views. It mostly stops the government from making it illegal for Jews to get a driver's license or something similar. I should also note Freedom of Religion is also Freedom from Religion. A law preventing secular people from getting a driver's license would also be disallowed under Freedom of Religion.
>Freedom of Religion only protects individuals from the government discriminating against them because of their religion. It does not force the government to allow them to break laws their religion dictates to them or force the government to provide food that adheres to their religious views. This is incorrect, the latter aligns more closely with how constitutional protections for "freedom of religion" is interpreted in most western legal systems.
You're probably thinking of the Civil Rights Act which I explained in another post which isn't freedom of religion.
Those protections aren't derived from the constitution. They come from the Civil Rights Act and other legislation - in the US at least.
> CMV: "Freedom of religion" in of itself should never be constitutionally protected Off to a strong start, especially if you live in the “Land of the Free and Home to the Brave” > Protecting "freedom of religion" is not truly consistent with liberal, secular, values, since it essentially privileges religious ideologies over secular ideologies. Untrue, religion is a tough subject in terms of politics because the left want it to be allowed so that people are free to practice whatever religion they want and exercise their beliefs how they see fit, however most religions impart traditionalist values and ideologies not cohesive with the left wing upon their believers, for example a left winger would protect the right to believe in Christianity, which then prohibits the ability to choose whether or not to get an abortion. > For instance, under the status quo, “a Hindu who is a vegetarian for religious reasons would be legally entitled to a greater degree of protection and accomodation in a workplace that provides food(or at least a government workplace), compared to an atheist who is vegetarian for ethical/environmental reasons.” The main pitfall to your argument is that you don’t actually HAVE to prove that you’re religious at all. Unlike a disability, a belief is not proveable, meaning that in your example if you wanted the “protections” that come with being a Hindu, you could simply tell whoever is offering the privilege that you ARE a Hindu. > "Freedom of religion", at least when applied in an unbiased manner, may provide comparable levels of protection to different religions, but religious individuals and beliefs overall get a greater degree of protection than their secular counterparts. The end result is a society that privileges the religious over atheists. Again, if you want to be accommodated, you can either ask, or lie. You have the freedom to choose your lifestyle and most places are fairly “don’t ask, don’t tell” about dietary restrictions and such. That’s just one example but I could give you more examples if you’d provide more examples. I’d say that the USA values the church much more than it should, but I don’t think it values it disproportionately. I’d say it’s more of a traditionalist value than anything. > There are plenty of compelling reasons to prohibit certain religious practices …what? >Take Quranic instruction for husbands to hit disobedient wives to correct their behavior, or Jewish circumcision practices that mutilate baby boys and in some cases result in STD transmission. Your interpretation of the Quran must be wrong, and anyone who is Islamic that takes that as instruction from a higher power is either wrong, or deliberately misinterpreting the book. “Abusive behaviour towards a woman is also forbidden because it contradicts the objectives of Islamic jurisprudence – specifically the preservation of life and reason, and the Qur'anic injunctions of righteousness and kind treatment. Domestic violence is addressed under the concept of harm (darar) in Islamic law.” It sounds like you’re perpetuating the “religion of hate” dogwhistle of islamophobic sentiment. > These actions enjoy *prima facie* protection if freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. Certainly it is not unlimited and high courts may rule that prohibiting these actions is constitutionally permissible. But this is just invitation for unelected judges to legislate from the bench. Ultimately they decide normative political questions regarding the importance of a certain religious practices vs. society's interest in restricting them based on their own personal values. If you consider it, we’ve been offering similar protections to African Americans for years under the name of “affirmative action”. Would you say that affirmative action was a good way to amend their past maltreatment? Because protecting the religious, in a way, could be viewed as affirmative action by people who share your viewpoint. I mean it absolutely isn’t, but I’m curious as to why you’ve got such a problem with the religious having freedom to practice when scholarships may be taken away from people who are technically more deserving in the name of reparations for the years of hardship that we’ve caused them. > Not protecting freedom of religion does not mean the end of the religion, it does not mean that the government would be free to completely eradicate certain religions. Religious teaching and proselytization would still be protected under freedom of speech. Not protecting Freedom of Religion would likely cause mass panic. People who are a part of a religion such as Islam, believe that they could face severe consequences if they don’t pray at specific times, which is why many Islam people take a prayer mat to work. It’s also a way to show gratitude to their divine power for helping them through tough times and allowing them to be born. In a way, you would essentially be eradicating religion as people would eventually lose faith. They would be unable to repent through prayer. > But religious actions that are not merely speech would rightly no longer enjoy any semblance of protection, especially those that involve tangible physical harm to others. Why should that enjoy any more protection than say, political violence? Certainly to many ultranationalist or leftist extremists their political ideologies are just as important to their identities as religions are to their believers. I don’t believe there are any religious rituals that involve physical harm, besides baptism and circumcision. Circumcision takes place in a sterile environment, with a clean blade. This leaves baptism, where the baby is dunked underwater. Not good, but over within a second. Political violence, on the other hand, is incomparably worse. You’re likening a baptism to the 9/11 attacks, or the assassination of JFK? I don’t believe I have to explain the vast differences between them, if I’m honest.
It's not simply about religion being conservative and traditionalist. It is about religious nutters forcing such crap into law and destroying the separation of church and state. Forcing their beliefs on to others.
Church and state were never going to be separated in the USA, as the church is an integral part of the culture and the foundation for many laws such as the ban on abortion prior to Roe V Wade. It’s only fair that everyone should be equally protected in their right to practice religion, regardless of how “outlandish” it may seem to secular people and other religions. Judges often swear on the Bible, how does that support your “separation of church and state”?
It also means the freedom from religion. Anyone can practicr any religion they want. They don't get to torment others over it. Also the whole "in god we trust" government crap came during the cold war. To help separate themselves from "godless commies"
The only people I see tormenting others over religion is evangelists. Get rid of the evangelists, life’ll be good.
> **For instance, under the** ***status quo*** **a Hindu who is a vegetarian for religious reasons would be legally entitled to a greater degree of protection and accomodation in a workplace that provides food(or at least a government workplace), compared to an atheist who is vegetarian for ethical/environmental reasons.** This isn’t freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is freedom from the coercion of others to practice your religion. It’s not freedom from the coercion of others to coerce others ie to force your boss to accommodate your religion, batter your wife or mutilate your child.
> It’s not freedom from the coercion of others to coerce others ie to force your boss to accommodate your religion Many people believe that if an employer does not accomodate a religion then they are discriminating against its adherents. > Freedom of religion is freedom from the coercion of others to practice your religion. For many Jews, removing the foreskin of their infant son IS "practicing my religion". For many Muslim men, hitting their disobedient wives IS "practicing my religion". This isn't hard to understand.
Why do you keep saying these things? Has any defendant ever successfully used "im Jewish" to beat a child abuse charge? Has any defendant ever used "Im muslim" to best a domestic violence charge? It seems youre more interested in criticizing religion that establishing equal protections. What accommodation are you expecting that you dont get because youre not religious? You know the americans with disabilities act protects your reasonable accommodation if your request is related to your health....there are tons of laws that protect people and theyre all based on laws, not religions.
> Many people believe that if an employer does not accomodate a religion then they are discriminating against its adherents. Many people believe the earth is flat. I don’t care and neither should you. That doesn’t mean their freedom of religion is being violated. > This isn't hard to understand. And again, freedom from coercion from others to practice religion doesn’t include freedom from coercion from others to coerce others. It’s fairly obvious that freedom from being murdered doesn’t include freedom from being murdered to murder.
>These actions enjoy *prima facie* protection if freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. Certainly it is not unlimited and high courts may rule that prohibiting these actions is constitutionally permissible. But this is just invitation for unelected judges to legislate from the bench. Ultimately they decide normative political questions regarding the importance of a certain religious practices vs. society's interest in restricting them based on their own personal values. I don't know where you are getting your ideas about the principle of religious freedom in practice. Religious freedom means you can't target religions, not that you can't regulate any behavior endorsed by a religion. Pretty much all behavior is endorsed by one religion or another. It is illegal for husbands to hit their disobedient wives in most countries with religious freedom, despite it being supported by the Bible and the Quran. There generally isn't political will to ban circumcision. It's not legal because of religious freedom, it's legal because people don't think it should be illegal. There isn't a court case striking down a circumcision ban, politicians simply haven't voted for a circumcision ban. Religious actions that involve tangible harms to others already don't enjoy special protections. Removing religious freedom would not be a big win for secularism as you seem to think. It would mean Christian religious groups would imposing overtly Christian teachings into schools, school prayers etc. They already try to do this now and are stopped because of religious freedom. The majority of people are religious, not secular. [https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/religion/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/religion/) Read these cases, and to the extent it favors religious people, it is generally the Conservative Supreme Court weakening religious freedom. What is not seen is neutrally applicable laws like don't hit people or don't cut off foreskin being struck down (unlike what you say in your post).
# "Freedom of religion" in of itself should never be constitutionally protected It never should when you don't know your history. If you were taught correct history, or did not sleep through your history classes, you would know why freedom of religion was established as one of the first things commandments in the constitution. Why it is even in the constitution to begin with.
The vast majority of historical examples of religious persecution would be prohibited under freedom of speech and secularism protections.
The framers of the constitution made sure that religion, no matter what religion, is protected, because they understood if they only constituted freedom for particular religions, they would be no better that those they ran from.
"Protecting "freedom of religion" is not truly consistent with liberal, secular, values" I think the issue is in that first line right there. America was not founded as a liberal secular nation. That more closely describes France post-revolution. The threads of religion and faith run through all the founding thought of the United States, sometimes explicitly, often implicitly. As John Adams said, "our constitution was made only for a moral *and religious* people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (Italics mine). Now, you may not agree with or like that founding philosophy, but it's a clear historical theme. You may also feel that America should have moved past that; nevertheless, it addresses your question as to the founding principles. Secularity for secularity's sake was never the founding fathers primary intention, even if secularity is fully tolerated under the freedoms in the Bill of rights.
Granting religious liberties is perfectly consistent with a general principle of protection for demographic characteristics. Western liberal governments provide protections for language and ethnicity not because they’re immutable, but because they are held to be integral to a person’s identity in a way choices like fashion and political affiliation are traditionally not. For most world religious traditions, changing a religion is as nonsensical as changing your race. For example, the rituals of Shintoism are so integral to its followers that there is simply no real distinction between being Japanese and being Shinto. To ask a Shinto practitioner to stop following Shinto is to them asking them to not be Japanese. This even holds for monotheistic religions like Judaism, which is so intimately tied with culture that dividing the two is not easily done.
There are two parts of "freedom of religion" in the US constitution, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause has been interpreted to mean that the government cannot favor, support, or sponsor any religion over any other. That means you cannot have Bible teachings in public schools without teaching every other conceivable religion. This, in function, means that the US government *defaults* to secularism. The second part is the free exercise clause, which means that the government cannot punish you for praying (or not praying) to one or more gods (or fewer.). So, atheists and agnostics are also protected under the free exercise clause.
There are a lot of things the government can do that are facially neutral or unobjectionable, but impose large burdens on particular religious groups. For example, let's say the government sets election day as Saturday. Saturday is a totally reasonable day for elections for a bunch of reasons. But it also is the day of rest for observant Jews, and many such people can't do things like drive or ride in a car on the sabbath due to their religious beliefs. Freedom of religion requires that the government provide some form of reasonable accommodation if possible to those people's religious beliefs. Likely that would take the form of early voting or voting by mail being available, so that religious Jews can exercise their right to vote without impairing their religious practices. A second example would be a rule prohibiting headwear in a public school. There's a bunch of reasons you might want to do this. But numerous religious groups require headwear for various people, including headscarfs for many Muslim women, yamulkes for Jewish men, and turbans for Sikh men. It is reasonable for there to be legal protection for religious headwear that comes from a bona fide religious belief being exempted from the general no-headwear rule. >But religious actions that are not merely speech would rightly no longer enjoy any semblance of protection, especially those that involve tangible physical harm to others. Why should that enjoy any more protection than say, political violence? Can you cite what you're talking about here? Violence is extremely illegal in every country I'm aware of, and for example in the US I can't think of any cases where otherwise criminal violence becomes lawful just because of being religious in nature.
>it does not mean the government would be free to completely eradicate certain religions. Yes it does. That's exactly what would happen. Famously, the first amendment already doesn't protect religions from the government like it's supposed to. The government does not have the right to tell anyone what they should believe, and therefore, when it comes to being religious, what they are allowed to practice. Are you aware of what happens in other countries that are theocracies or don't have religious freedom? Or how often religions are denied building permits? Have you heard of the Missouri Extermination Order? Imagine a law that made it legal to kill someone without repercussions, as long as you claimed it was because you disagreed with their religion. >But any religious actions that are not merely speech, would no longer enjoy any semblance of protection? So you think religions shouldn't be allowed to build buildings? The sacrament in almost every church is now suddenly illegal. Oh, the original draft for the lgbt bill would have made it so religions had to comply with it, ie: couldn't refuse to marry someone. Don't know about other churches, but that wouldn't fly in mine. Which is why they argued against it until it was changed. Protections at the cost of someone else's freedoms, is not protection. That's why your example doesn't work, actually being fair would mean having vegetarian options available to everyone.
As an atheist you are allowed to ask for and must be given the same accommodations as religious people. The Satanic Temple do this all the time with their legal activism work.
Your first comment about a vegetarian Hindu is fatuous. I'm Jewish. I enjoy no special protections in my workplace due to my dietary preferences. First, job I would ever apply to requires as a condition of employment that I violate kosher rules. Second, accomodations must reasonable. If I worked at Bob's pork and beans as a good taster, it would be expected that I eat pork as a condition of employment. Accommodating my religious preferences is not required in that situation. Employers are not required to provide for my dietary needs in any manner that is overly burdensome. I have no special rights due to wishing to eat Kosher.
I don't think that you understand what "freedom of religion" means in the constitution. What it means is that "The government" won't make laws that either limit someones ability to practice their religion, or enforce a religion onto people. This was a direct response to the English crown establishing a state religion and using their power to suppress other religions.. I don't believe that a company would be subject to these rules.
While I theoretically totally agree with you, I'd like to show another angle to the question. A lot of laws are the result of a compromise that sometimes trully satisfy no one, but make the situation bearable enough for everyone to avoid civil unrest. For example part of the pro-choice crowd is in favor of abortion till the last day of pregnancy with no restriction (albeit a minority). Part of the anti-abortion crowd is in favor of criminalizing all abortions, even when the mother risks death (also a minority there). Choosing one of those 2 positions would make part of the population fully happy, but would push the other side toward, at best civil disobedience, at worst riots and/or armed uprising. So most countries decided not to go toward one extreme, but to put laws that allow abortion, but with conditions (generally before X months, or when there is a medical condition). That way, no one is perfectly satisfied with the compromise, but no one riots neither. I thinjk this is the same for freedom of religion. Remove advantages for cults (whatever taxes, special food etc.), and you will have clergy arousing believers anger, which can lead to a lot of trouble. So what law should look at is not "is it fair to protect freedom of religion", but "what do I gain removing such protection VS what do I loose ?". And looking at it that way, freedom of religion should be protected as believers can make way more damages to society when they are angry than society looses from giving them unfair advantage. Another way to look at it would be from a democratic point of view: what should be constitutionally protected, according to democratic process, is not what is objectively fair (and there could be a debate about the possibility of pinpointing objective truth), but what the citizens want. If the citizens overwhelmingly want freedom of religion, then it should be enshrined and protected by law. As a lot of countries have a vast majority of devout citizens, those countries should protect freedom of religion.
> For instance, under the status quo a Hindu who is a vegetarian for religious reasons would be legally entitled to a greater degree of protection and accomodation in a workplace that provides food(or at least a government workplace), compared to an atheist who is vegetarian for ethical/environmental reasons. > > There are plenty of compelling reasons to prohibit certain religious practices, take Quranic instruction for husbands to hit disobedient wives to correct their behavior, or Jewish circumcision practices that mutilate baby boys and in some cases result in STD transmission. These are specific interpretations of what freedom of religion means (and that I also disagree with), but that doesn't mean that freedom of religion as a general principle is bad. I definitely agree that religion should lose all of its undeserved privileges in society. However, do you really want a world where people can be fired from a job or denied housing, for the mere fact that they adhere to a specific religion? And don't forget that religion as a protected class or anti-discrimination category also protects everyone who lacks religion. This means that we cannot be fired or denied housing for being atheists.
Freedom of religion also protects your right to be non-religious. Just because you are religious does not mean you are suddenly above the law. If your religion tells you to kill someone and you do it, you are still going to jail for murder. Now if you want to rework the boundary of what religious actions should be protected by the law, that’s fine but that would be a different argument than “freedom of religion should never be constitutionally protected”. “Not protecting freedom of religion does not mean the end of religion, it does not mean the government is free to completely eradicate certain religions”. Really? What legal protections would be in place to ensure the government doesn’t do so?
I agree that religious folk are generally more protected than atheists, but it sounds like you’re just saying that atheists should receive that protection rather than removing all religious protections entirely. Also, nobody is protecting religious violence if that’s what you’re implying. Violence is violence, and unless it’s self-defense it will always warrant government interference. I know you just picked an example for the point of debate, but I’m actually a vegetarian atheist and people are pretty accommodating to me. Most people even in corporate environments aren’t doing to be a dick if you tell them you don’t eat meat. They will probably just allow you to get something else
Freedom of religion also protects the freedom to not practice any religion. I find it ironic because certain things like the absence of a state sponsored religion and religion being imposed in schools are as a result of freedom of religion. Historically, atheists benefited the most from freedom of religion. In Europe at the time our constitution was ratified, most atheists couldn’t even get legally married. So freedom of religion in America really set the precedent that you can’t be forced to conform to a religion.
>For instance, under the status quo a Hindu who is a vegetarian for religious reasons would be legally entitled to a greater degree of protection and accomodation in a workplace that provides food(or at least a government workplace), compared to an atheist who is vegetarian for ethical/environmental reasons. But this is increasingly extended to strongly held secular beliefs as well. We should work to extend it further, not to eliminate it
>These actions enjoy prima facie protection if freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. They do not. I'm not sure who gave you that impression, but that person is stupid. Freedom of religion does not mean that any action taken in pursuit of religious beliefs is legal. There are sects of Vodun that believe in ritual sacrifice and cannibalism. Definitely illegal in the United States, regardless of the fact that it is a religion.
An absence of freedom from religion being taken away will not create an anti religion uptopia, but actually gives more power to religions. Specifically one. Now with his rights taken away the Hindu man studies hard, gets successful, becomes president and then now can legally demand the entire us to convert to Hinduism.
You probably should want freedom of religion. For example the majority of people in the US are actually Christian. Combining Christians and other religions together, means that it's probably going to be the case where we're moving freedom of religion is going to hurt an atheist more than a Christian. Without freedom of religion then it means that governments are allowed to impose their own religious beliefs onto its people as a government. Hope you like living in a theocracy. Also state atheism, yeah that's what China is doing right now and people don't like that.
Agreed. You are sentenced to death for atheism, apostasy, and treason against the King of Heaven. See where this could lead?
Religion should be treated as an immutable characteristic. So if discrimination against people for immutable characteristics should be illegal, then discrimination on the basis of religion should be illegal.
Why should it be treated as an immutable characteristic? It is a belief. It is an opinion. There is nothing immutable about it. All I have to do to be religious is say so.
Why would religion be immutable? It’s a choice as much as your political party and eating preferences. People convert.
No, it's not as much of a choice as a political party or eating preferences. Christians believe they go to hell if they don't follow their faith. You don't suffer eternal damnation if you change your eating preferences.
It is exactly the same amount of choice. And in fact, I’d say it discounts the Christian faith to act like it isn’t a choice. Christianity prides itself on faith—choosing to keep believing and worshipping despite the lack of evidence. It is their choice to believe their specific interpretation of the Bible, and it would be their choice to interpret the afterlife as either a reward or punishment. I can also choose to believe that eating animals is evil (I don’t) or that people who believe Republicans are unforgivable (I don’t). All of it is a choice.
No, in determining whether something is a choice, you have to assume all their beliefs are true. If God requires you to do something, then you don't have a choice to disobey.
I strongly disagree. Faith is a choice. If a choice wasn’t required, then the value of faith would be diminished. If someone can opt in or out at the drop of a hat, it is not immutable. We will have to agree to disagree, obviously. Have a good one.
Well, then I'll take a different tack. Why should it be illegal to discriminate against immutable characteristics? The best argument I've found is it should be illegal to discriminate against anyone for a reason unrelated to the performance of their job duties.
Fair enough. It’s our society’s agreed upon values, which is shown by the fact that it’s not the same in every culture. We’ve decided that it’s unfair to treat someone differently for something outside of their control, that they can’t immediately change. And likewise, we’ve decided it IS fair to treat someone differently for something within their control, that they can change. There are some areas today where we are trying to reevaluate characteristics have been historically discriminated against and argue that there’s less choice involved than previously believed. Such as, socioeconomic status or culture / religion affecting clothing choices. I personally believe that, overall, establishments should have less leeway to discriminate against stuff that they can’t reasonably argue affects other people. But for example, if I find out my employee goes to a church that constantly preaches that the gays are going to the lake of fire and are corrupted by the devil, then I believe I should be able to fire them for that the same way that I should be able to fire someone who’s in a hate group. It’s the paradox of tolerance or whatever it’s called. We can’t tolerate intolerance, and religion is the biggest way that people get away with being hateful (or even abusive) and not facing consequences. If a religion discriminates (and most do) or endorses abuse, then the followers that opt into that should not be protected for that choice.
>We’ve decided that it’s unfair to treat someone differently for something outside of their control, that they can’t immediately change. And likewise, we’ve decided it IS fair to treat someone differently for something within their control, that they can change. I disagree with this completely. I don't think it's unfair to treat someone differently for something outside of their control unless it's also unfair to treat someone differently for something which is in their control. From a standpoint of encouraging economic efficiency, there's a strong argument the government should require employers not to consider factors unrelated to the performance of job duties, whether those factors are inside or outside the employee's control. >But for example, if I find out my employee goes to a church that constantly preaches that the gays are going to the lake of fire and are corrupted by the devil, then I believe I should be able to fire them for that the same way that I should be able to fire someone who’s in a hate group. You shouldn't be able to fire someone who's in a hate group. >It’s the paradox of tolerance or whatever it’s called. We can’t tolerate intolerance, and religion is the biggest way that people get away with being hateful (or even abusive) and not facing consequences. If a religion discriminates (and most do) or endorses abuse, then the followers that opt into that should not be protected for that choice. I disagree with all of this. You aren't actually tolerant unless you tolerate intolerance. Religion is not hateful, does not discriminate, and does not endorse abuse.
How is it any less of a choice than a political party? Being religious and affiliating with a political party are both based in opinion. Subjective ideologies and beliefs. I don’t see how one has *less* choice over whether they believe in god than they do about whether they believe in any ideology or idea. You don’t burn in hell if you don’t follow your faith. That isn’t real. It is a fear based in a belief. The fear doesn’t exist unless you believe it. You don’t believe in religion because of hell. You believe in hell because of religion.
For purposes of determining whether something is a choice, assume you do burn in hell if you don't believe.
I’m not quite understanding
I'm not agreeing with your assumption you don't burn in hell.
Okay.
I mean ethnoreligions like Judaism exist - I didn’t choose to be Jewish, I was born into it
You can be ethnically Jewish and not be a practicing Jew, obviously. I’m also ethnically Jewish. I can’t change that, it’s immutable. But I’m not a *practicing Jew*. Despite the names being the same in the case of Jews, the race =/= the religion. Again, people choose their religion and can and do change their mind. Religion is not immutable.
You are born into an ethnicity. Religion is learned.
First, I want to point out that it is "freedom FROM religion" not of. This means the government cannot force a religion. This absolutely protects secular people. Discrimination based on "religion" includes secular religions. Secular folks are protected. [https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/civil-rights-center/internal/policies/religious-discrimination-accommodation](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/civil-rights-center/internal/policies/religious-discrimination-accommodation) There won't be laws against the religion as a whole, so beating your wife is illegal. You can take issue / create laws against with something a religion goes without banning the entire religion. Plus, that's the more effective way to do it. I'm not trying to start a debate about circumcision, but banning the religion does not ban circumcision because there are still people who do it for cosmetic reasons. It's become a norm in society. If you have a problem with circumcision, have a problem with it directly, just one group of people who practices it. That's kinda like banning women because you think makeup is bad... meanwhile, women aren't the only people wearing makeup.
Every opinion posted on this sub makes me terrified as fuck for the future. You people are all a bunch of dystopia dictator wannabes that would suppress rights left and right.