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.
Imagine I am asked by my employer to plan a company picnic. I inform my employer that I am a vegetarian, and have been for years due to ethical objections to meat. My employer then tells me that he wants barbecue at the picnic, and if I don't arrange for it I'll be fired. In this case, I have no legal recourse (as far as I know) because my belief is not a religious belief. However, had I been unwilling to arrange for barbecue at the picnic due to a religious objection, my employer would have been required by law to make a reasonable accommodation.
Why should religious beliefs get special treatment? I am not asking for a legal explanation, as I'm well aware that the bill of rights affords us freedom of religion. I am rather asking if this distinction is justified, and if so, why? I highly doubt that most religious folks hold their beliefs more dearly than I hold my own ethical beliefs -- why should their beliefs get more protection?
In broader society, there is a tendency to be more polite about religious eccentricities than non-religious eccentricities. For example, if I were to wear a funny hat simply because I think such hats look good, some people would possibly feel comfortable laughing at me, and in a somewhat lighthearted manner, tell me I'm an idiot. If I wear a funny hat because I believe some person a thousand years ago was the son of a deity (I'm making this up, not intending a particular religion) and commanded his followers to wear a funny hat, suddenly my belief is beyond reproach, and it doesn't seem to matter whether I have any warrant for holding such an absurd religious belief.
There really is no valid reason for religious beliefs to get special pleading (pun intended) in the marketplace of ideas.
Ridicule is often perfectly fine....except when it applies to religious beliefs. Then it is considered disrespectful and mean by those holding such beliefs. Even though they'd typically have no problems mocking and ridiculing an effeminate boy in their son's class who appears to be a bit different than the rest of the boys.
No....religious belief not only ought to be held to the same standard of any other belief or opinion one may have....but it ought to be scrutinized moreso given the potential for abuse of using "faith". The sooner we start requiring better reasons than faith (believing something despite evidence) for accommodation, the more egalitarian society will actually become.
Imagine I am asked by my employer to plan a company picnic. I inform my employer that I am a vegetarian, and have been for years due to ethical objections to meat. My employer then tells me that he wants barbecue at the picnic, and if I don't arrange for it I'll be fired. In this case, I have no legal recourse (as far as I know) because my belief is not a religious belief. However, had I been unwilling to arrange for barbecue at the picnic due to a religious objection, my employer would have been required by law to make a reasonable accommodation.
I don't care what the chef's reason for objecting to the meal is. Religious or not, if he can't do the job he should be fired.
Quote:
Why should religious beliefs get special treatment? I am not asking for a legal explanation, as I'm well aware that the bill of rights affords us freedom of religion. I am rather asking if this distinction is justified, and if so, why? I highly doubt that most religious folks hold their beliefs more dearly than I hold my own ethical beliefs -- why should their beliefs get more protection?
Because ultimately beliefs based on what God says is more important than beliefs based on our own personal opinions.
I don't care what the chef's reason for objecting to the meal is. Religious or not, if he can't do the job he should be fired.
So you oppose religious accommodations in the workplace? That is an interesting view, and I think it might be problematic, but that is at least consistent.
You really don't think employers should be required to make reasonable accommodations for an employee's religious beliefs, though?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Because ultimately beliefs based on what God says is more important than beliefs based on our own personal opinions.
There almost certainly is no god, and if there is a god, it almost certainly is not a personal god such as the god of the Bible. However, that point isn't really very relevant to my question here. Society at large, which in the US still refers mostly to Christian folks, treats even non-Christian religious beliefs more sensitively than they treat non-religious beliefs. In my hat example, I imagine that even Christians would be more hesitant to ridicule a person for wearing such a hat if it was due to religious conviction, even if it was conviction about a religion other than Christianity.
These examples are widespread in society. Religion is often offer a buffer of courteousness that is not afforded to other deeply-held beliefs.
Your belief about what a god is saying is nothing more than your personal opinion.
As intuitively obvious as that should be....it's not just a semantic argument or inconsequential sidebar.
We are a society that is permitted to be wrong about things. We can even be vulgar, rude, hypocritical, and flat stupid about all sorts of things that we believe without penalty....where such beliefs are not impeding or overstepping the boundaries of others.
But when it comes to wearing a hat for your or face covering for your DMV photo....you are overstepping in my view. And if you wish for accommodation to be made for you....such as disguising your face....you ought to have a demonstrable reason for why you deserve special privacy above what others have. No different than wishing to restrict the rights of others.
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
Imagine I am asked by my employer to plan a company picnic. I inform my employer that I am a vegetarian, and have been for years due to ethical objections to meat. My employer then tells me that he wants barbecue at the picnic, and if I don't arrange for it I'll be fired. In this case, I have no legal recourse (as far as I know) because my belief is not a religious belief. However, had I been unwilling to arrange for barbecue at the picnic due to a religious objection, my employer would have been required by law to make a reasonable accommodation.
Why should religious beliefs get special treatment? I am not asking for a legal explanation, as I'm well aware that the bill of rights affords us freedom of religion. I am rather asking if this distinction is justified, and if so, why? I highly doubt that most religious folks hold their beliefs more dearly than I hold my own ethical beliefs -- why should their beliefs get more protection?
In broader society, there is a tendency to be more polite about religious eccentricities than non-religious eccentricities. For example, if I were to wear a funny hat simply because I think such hats look good, some people would possibly feel comfortable laughing at me, and in a somewhat lighthearted manner, tell me I'm an idiot. If I wear a funny hat because I believe some person a thousand years ago was the son of a deity (I'm making this up, not intending a particular religion) and commanded his followers to wear a funny hat, suddenly my belief is beyond reproach, and it doesn't seem to matter whether I have any warrant for holding such an absurd religious belief.
Religions are a special lobby and a special (often focused/powerful) minority group, you by yourself and and a secular partaking in vegetarianism are not as unyielding nor complaining.
Most people understand (or have a vague, almost instinctual grasp) that religious beliefs are tied to (Death-)Terror Management psychology of individuals and that attacking their religious practices is either feels like or causes a similar reaction from them as if though you are threatening or actually attacking their personal safety.
Does that include baking a cake for a gay wedding?
Of course it doesn't in Vizio's mind, because their religious beliefs are more important than gay people.
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.
