Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employers cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. Later other characteristics were added such as gender, disability and sexual orientation.
With the array of opinions surrounding the views of current presidential nominees and Muslims, I still do not understand why we can't discriminate against people based on religion?
People change religions all the time. A religion is simply a statement of beliefs. If you publicly state that your beliefs include doing harm to others, or allowing a God to supercede the laws of a country, then why do we protect those people from negative consequences?
As an example, if you are part of Religion X, and Religion X dictate in its holy book that adherents are to enter foreign countries and rape a six-year old in order to enter heaven. Why is it wrong to say to that person, 'Yeah, you're not welcome here, thanks.'?
I mean, it seems the only characteristic that doesn't fit with the others. From a common sense point of view, it sticks out like a sore thumb. When you become an adult, you get to freely choose what you believe and I think that what you choose to believe should affect you, positively or negatively.
The only reasoning I can think of is that we don't consider religious labels to be binding and labels such as Christian, Muslim, Jewish are completely arbitrary and can mean anything anyone wants them to be.
Because religion is part of one's culture. And part of one's self. Atheism is protected too, I cannot force you to engage in a religious ceremony.
For instance, in some cultures (Jews for instance), it is not only one's personal belief. Being Jewish is part of their race, even if they are secular. So again, it is not the place of government to discriminate based on religion. Unless you want another Holocaust for the Jews, I don't think that's up for debate.
Religion is a protected status, illegal actions are not protected. You cannot, for instance, burn a widow with her husband (Hindu custom), or jihad/honor killing.
You cannot discriminate disallowing people from voluntarily worshiping how they want. But neither can you force other people to visit a religious site (giving sanctions like "sensitivity training" if they refuse to go) nor enforce a religious dress code, especially one that is sexist.
You know, some time it might be helpful to actually read the laws you are trying so hard to undermine. They protect you too.
Why is it wrong to say to that person, 'Yeah, you're not welcome here, thanks.'
I believe it's down to some dumb belief that one's 'religious beliefs' need to be 'respected'. Can't think why. I go with Mencken on this one.....
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
— H L Mencken
We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
— H L Mencken
The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge....
- H L Mencken
Thanks to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employers cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. Later other characteristics were added such as gender, disability and sexual orientation. With the array of opinions surrounding the views of current presidential nominees and Muslims, I still do not understand why we can't discriminate against people based on religion?
Effectively, because (right or wrong) the US Constitution singled religion out for special status. Your point is well-taken, though. Of all the aspects where anti-discrimination provisions apply - race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender, disability and sexual orientation - religion is the only one that is a personal choice that is protected.
And politics (as i noted in my time in the works Union) is the only one that is not. You have to leave it open to discriminate against anyone who is a Nazi.
I think the quotes from Menkin made by Rafius are apropos but I took the OP to be asking in a deniable way why we can't for example prohibit Muslims from living in our country. Correct me if I'm wrong JJ.
I think the wrongness of that is in otherizing Muslims as an entire entity when the actual problem is a small subset. It would be like expelling all chess players because the latest solo gunman who murdered a bunch of people was a chess enthusiast.
We can argue perhaps (mostly wrongly IMO) that the Muslim faith is currently more prone to fundamentalist ideology but even if that were true it would still not explain why a law abiding American citizen who happens to practice moderate Islam should not be allowed to return home from vacation.
It would be a different story for a faith where its mainstream adherents as well as its nutjobs was obligated by its dogma to kill all who oppose them and acted regularly on it. But life seldom presents villains to us wrapped up in such a tidy package.
Thanks to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employers cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. Later other characteristics were added such as gender, disability and sexual orientation.
With the array of opinions surrounding the views of current presidential nominees and Muslims, I still do not understand why we can't discriminate against people based on religion?
People change religions all the time. A religion is simply a statement of beliefs. If you publicly state that your beliefs include doing harm to others, or allowing a God to supercede the laws of a country, then why do we protect those people from negative consequences?
As an example, if you are part of Religion X, and Religion X dictate in its holy book that adherents are to enter foreign countries and rape a six-year old in order to enter heaven. Why is it wrong to say to that person, 'Yeah, you're not welcome here, thanks.'?
I mean, it seems the only characteristic that doesn't fit with the others. From a common sense point of view, it sticks out like a sore thumb. When you become an adult, you get to freely choose what you believe and I think that what you choose to believe should affect you, positively or negatively.
The only reasoning I can think of is that we don't consider religious labels to be binding and labels such as Christian, Muslim, Jewish are completely arbitrary and can mean anything anyone wants them to be.
Thoughts?
As a practical matter, we tend to legislate on actions we've observed. Religious discrimination has been an observable issue at times throughout history....whether its different sects of a religion discriminating against each other, one religion against another, or religion against no religion.
But it works quite well to consider religion to be immutable and your post gets at the edges of those reasons. We legislate against "actions", not "thoughts". And essentially that's what we're talking about here is that your beliefs are a subset of your thoughts...and we (collectively) have deemed it wrong to penalize people for thinking even when they do not think precisely the same as you.
So even believing some hideous ideology of human sacrifice isn't grounds enough to say "you aren't welcome here" if you don't act on those beliefs. If you do however act on those beliefs, and they violate other laws, then you may be discriminated against for those actions. But again, you aren't being discriminated against for having beliefs...you are being discriminated against for your actions regardless of whether you used belief in (ir)religion to rationalize them.
Much like the county clerk lady who believed that gay marriage is a sin & shouldn't be allowed. She was not arrested for her beliefs...she was arrested for her actions, which were discriminatory & against the law.
Thats precisely why the Trump halt on Muslim immigration is a practical absurdity. If you discriminate against people who say they are Muslim, then you are banning their beliefs as "not welcome" when it is their actions which matter. And conversely, those radical Muslims which may be inclined to do harm, can just as easily say they aren't Muslim in order to bypass the "thought police".
While I agree that religion doesn't fit with the other protected classes, and is not immutable, I don't accept the false premise that it is the only one that doesn't fit. Sexual orientation and certainly gender identity is as much a vague, anectdotal, personal decision as religion. The only difference is that one protected class is sanctioned by a healthy majority of practitioners of the soft-sciences. But that wasn't always so either. Either way, I dont think anyone else should be discriminated against unless their beliefs or lifestyle poses an immediate physical threat to others. This is where I can agree with discrimination against present day religions that routinely and consistently practice widespread violence against others in the name of their religion.
As a practical matter, we tend to legislate on actions we've observed.
Sorry, but that doesn't really reflect the reality very well. Religious discrimination has been an observable issue at times throughout history - that much is true - but our society's anti-discrimination has not been prompted (principally) by that, and there are myriad cases where our society has not only allowed such discrimination but practiced it. It is chilling to be reminded of examples within which society was aggressively fighting discrimination against certain minorities of an aspect while practicing discrimination against certain other minorities of that same aspect. The Chinese Exclusion Act and the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII are perhaps the most notable examples, both being with regard to the national origin aspect of discrimination. With regard to the religion aspect of discrimination, our society has committed such offenses pretty much consistently throughout its history. There has always been certain religious minorities grievously discriminated against by Protestant-driven Christian Dominionism.
So, as a practical matter, yes, we tend to legislate on actions we've observed, but we also tend to legislate as a reflection of the majority's intractable biases. Anti-discrimination is mostly the heart-and-mind work of highlighting the immorality of the biases rather than the logistical work of raising awareness of where a new law is needed.
Sorry, but that doesn't really reflect the reality very well. Religious discrimination has been an observable issue at times throughout history - that much is true - but our society's anti-discrimination has not been prompted (principally) by that, and there are myriad cases where our society has not only allowed such discrimination but practiced it. It is chilling to be reminded of examples within which society was aggressively fighting discrimination against certain minorities of an aspect while practicing discrimination against certain other minorities of that same aspect. The Chinese Exclusion Act and the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII are perhaps the most notable examples, both being with regard to the national origin aspect of discrimination. With regard to the religion aspect of discrimination, our society has committed such offenses pretty much consistently throughout its history. There has always been certain religious minorities grievously discriminated against by Protestant-driven Christian Dominionism.
So, as a practical matter, yes, we tend to legislate on actions we've observed, but we also tend to legislate as a reflection of the majority's intractable biases. Anti-discrimination is mostly the heart-and-mind work of highlighting the immorality of the biases rather than the logistical work of raising awareness of where a new law is needed.
I'd say you are making a distinction without difference.
It seems to me you are suggesting that we don't legislate until after we've collectively (socially, culturally, etc.) determined a wrong which requires legislation. That's pretty consistent with what I wrote. In order to declare a wrong, we observe it first. Whether we take 200 years or 2 minutes to gain consensus is immaterial to the legislative process.
The point I was implying is that we aren't terribly good at projecting wrongs that we haven't observed in advance, from a legislative standpoint.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
