Protection of religious views and behaviours

[Sheilbh]

seems to me you can use this to enable human sacrifice, assuming the sacrifice has it as a sincerely held religious view.

Not really. I don't think anyone would consider that a reasonable accommodation.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

seems to me you can use this to enable human sacrifice, assuming the sacrifice has it as a sincerely held religious view.

Not really. I don't think anyone would consider that a reasonable accommodation.

all involved are consenting adults and not being able to fulfill this religious obligation/ritual would result in unbearable psychological suffering for the faithfull.

[mongers]

Freedom from religion is something all children should be given the chance to sample at a few points in their childhood.

[Iormlund]

No. Equality before the Law should be paramount.

[Sheilbh]

all involved are consenting adults and not being able to fulfill this religious obligation/ritual would result in unbearable psychological suffering for the faithfull.

So? I don't think any of that makes allowing a human sacrifice any more reasonable.

As I say I think what I've described is roughly the situation in the UK and it's not allowed for religious people to discriminate against gays in their work, for example a Christian registrar can't opt out of performing gay marriages, because that's not reasonable. I think that balance is about right.

[Razgovory]

Yes. If I had to provide a limit I'd say that we should provide for reasonable accommodation of sincerely held religious views.

What about other sincerely held views? I just don't get why religious people should get this special treatment? Unless this is because we assume they are mentally retarded so we give them wider berth - but then we should also treat them like mentally handicapped in other things.

Funny how you use the same language as anti-gay marriage crowd.

[Martinus]

seems to me you can use this to enable human sacrifice, assuming the sacrifice has it as a sincerely held religious view.

Not really. I don't think anyone would consider that a reasonable accommodation.

Many US states are now adopting legislation allowing to deny service to gay people due to "sincerely held religious belief". Similarly, businesses in the US are now allowed to deny medical coverage to women on the same grounds. The slope is quite slippery...

[The Brain]

Giving beliefs greater protection just because they happen to be false doesn't strike me as being the way forward.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

all involved are consenting adults and not being able to fulfill this religious obligation/ritual would result in unbearable psychological suffering for the faithfull.

So? I don't think any of that makes allowing a human sacrifice any more reasonable.

given that it's already possible to have people (in certain cases minors even) refuse simple and lifesaving bloodtransfusions because of "deeply held religious beliefs" I don't see why it would be unreasonable to let other consenting adults die in the way they please because of such beliefs. It is their life and their choice.

[viper37]

A simple question really - should a view or behaviour be given greater protection under law if it is rooted in religion - as opposed to other deeply seated beliefs.

Because it does, constantly, in our society, and to me any historical justification for it has long evaporated. With the exception of certain insular communities, people in the West no longer identify or segregate solely or mainly by their creed. And then, with a growing number of non-religious people, it leads to glaring unequality under law.

I mainly identify myself as a Christian.

and if/when your work conflict with your beliefs, you choose work or religion?

This is the real question, imho, in regard to the state.

[Barrister]

Giving beliefs greater protection just because they happen to be false doesn't strike me as being the way forward.

While part of me tends to agree, the better part of me forgives atheists for their false beliefs.

[Razgovory]

Giving beliefs greater protection just because they happen to be false doesn't strike me as being the way forward.

If the cost of tolerance and inclusion is not being a moribund European state, then I am willing to shoulder that burden.

[Valmy]

seems to me you can use this to enable human sacrifice, assuming the sacrifice has it as a sincerely held religious view.

Not really. I don't think anyone would consider that a reasonable accommodation.

Many US states are now adopting legislation allowing to deny service to gay people due to "sincerely held religious belief". Similarly, businesses in the US are now allowed to deny medical coverage to women on the same grounds. The slope is quite slippery...

Which states?  If this is about the Michigan thing you have it backwards.

But if States are passing legislation that is because it has political support.  The slippery slope here being that stuff that has popular support will have laws passed?

[Valmy]

And then, with a growing number of non-religious people, it leads to glaring unequality under law.

Nonsense.  Non religious people can use the same sorts of protections, and have indeed done so.

[Ed Anger]

Giving beliefs greater protection just because they happen to be false doesn't strike me as being the way forward.

While part of me tends to agree, the better part of me forgives atheists for their false beliefs.

I don't forgive them of their raging douchebaggery.