Protection of religious views and behaviours

[Valmy]

If the worst blacks, gays and women had to face was to be poo-pooed for being obnoxious the world would've been a far better place.

Alternatively they had to fight actual oppression rather than a distaste for Dawkins.

There is a blogger now in Saudi Arabia getting the punishment of 1000 lashes for writing an atheist blog. Another just got hacked to pieces in Pakistan. Until recently in the West atheists faced prison charges under blasphemy laws.

Weird.  Openly Deist and Atheist people have been operating in the West with no problem for hundreds of years.  I guess it depends on your definition of 'recently'.

And are we just going to sweep under the rug all the things the Communists did in the 20th century in regards to religion?  I also find it a bit distasteful that you are using crackdowns on beliefs as an excuse to call for crackdowns on beliefs.

[Ed Anger]

For my part, as a humanist universalist I recognize the potential for unlimited douchebaggery in all of humanity regardless of colour, creed, sexual preference, identity, or other such attributes.

I laughed. Hard.

[grumbler]

There is a blogger now in Saudi Arabia getting the punishment of 1000 lashes for writing an atheist blog. Another just got hacked to pieces in Pakistan. Until recently in the West atheists faced prison charges under blasphemy laws.

Weird.  Openly Deist and Atheist people have been operating in the West with no problem for hundreds of years.  I guess it depends on your definition of 'recently'.

I think it is his definition of "the West" that's whacked.  I believe he is under the delusion that he is "Western" and that his ideas, therefore, are Western as well.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Should a behavior be given greater protection if rooted in religion.  No, but that isn't the proper question.  The real question is are there appropriate circumstances in which religious beliefs should be accommodated.   The answer to that is most certainly yes.

Two simple fact patterns.

1) A child brings a knife to school contrary to school safety policies. The child is told they cannot have the knife.  I think we would all agree the school is acting reasonably.

2) A Sikh child brings a Kirpan  to school.  The school is advised that wearing the Kirpan is of great significance to the child's religious belief.  The child is told they cannot come to school with the Kirpan because the school considers it to be the same as the child in fact pattern 1.

The analysis turns on three things.  First, is there a bona fide connection between the act and the religious belief.  Unfortunately for most of this thread this is where most of the analysis stops.  Second, is there a serious interference with the religious belief.  Third, is the infringement of the religious belief justified.

In the fact pattern above the SCC found there was a connection between the act of wearing the Kirpan and practicing the Sikh religion and that it was the belief of this child.  The child would not be permitted to attend school and practice their religious beliefs and so it was a significant interference.  The most important part of the decision was whether the restriction was justified.  In this case the court found it was not.  The evidence was that within the Sikh religion the Kirpan was a symbol of peace and there was no evidence it would ever be used as a weapon.  All of the evidence was to the contrary.  Therefore there was no harm in allowing the Kirpan and the restriction was not in furtherance of the school policy - which was related to the safety of students.

Here is a link to the case if you are interested in how the Canadian Courts resolve situations where the Freedom of Religion conflicts with other interests.

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15/index.do?r=AAAAAQBVTXVsdGFuaSB2IENvbW1pc3Npb24gc2NvbGFpcmUgTWFyZ3Vlcml0ZeKAkUJvdXJnZW95cywgWzIwMDZdIDEgUy5DLlIuIDI1NiwgMjAwNiBTQ0MgNgAAAAAB

[The Brain]

Why did you change the question?

[crazy canuck]

Why did you change the question?

Because the question created a false premise which most of the people posting in this thread seemed to accept.

[The Brain]

Why did you change the question?

Because the question created a false premise which most of the people posting in this thread seemed to accept.

Which false premise?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

It's legal for Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse a blood transfusion. In the UK it's generally considered a right of an adult of sound mind to refuse medical treatment even if it's necessary to save their life. But doctors (and the courts) will overrule the parents in the case of children who need a blood transfusion.

Again there is a balance that can be struck here.

and that balance clearly involves supposedly sane people dying (when they shouldn't) because their religion says so. So why allow the supposedly sane people in group A to die while the supposedly sane people in B have their right to do as their religion commands denied? Cause clearly the balance you mention that dying out of faith is allowed for supposedly sane people.

[crazy canuck]

Why did you change the question?

Because the question created a false premise which most of the people posting in this thread seemed to accept.

Which false premise?

That "greater" protection is given.  Freedom of religion is not an absolute right which trumps other rights as the OP suggests.

[Martinus]

I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.

So if you can tell a fashionista he can't wear a headscarf if he wants to work for you, you should be able to tell the same to a muslim woman if she insists on wearing a head scarf to work.

[crazy canuck]

I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.

Ok lets test that a bit.

The term freedom of religion was first used in British North America when French Catholics were permitted to worship according to the Catholic faith rather than the Protestant faith of the Empire.  You would say bad move?

[Sheilbh]

Same reason we allow adults to have sex and vote but not children.

Adults of sound mind should be able to refuse even essential medical treatment if they want to for whatever reason, including religion. That's not a protection of religious values issue.

[Razgovory]

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

I think atheists have just been too nice. We should just start saying more loudly that religious people are simply stupid.

Does that mean you would be stupid if you were religious?

Marty, you gonna answer this one?

[Barrister]

I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.

So if you can tell a fashionista he can't wear a headscarf if he wants to work for you, you should be able to tell the same to a muslim woman if she insists on wearing a head scarf to work.

That's kind of a "the law prevents both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges" kind of dilemma though.

Look, living in the West the law has been shaped in numerous ways to reflect the religious sensibilities of Christians.  You don't have to worry about getting Christmas Day off, it already is a national holiday.  Plus of course Christianity as a whole doesn't demand a lot of individual acts.

It's only the religious minorities requirements that run into problems with the law.  I'm sure there's no law in Saudi Arabia against covering up your face for precisely this reason.

[Martinus]

Same reason we allow adults to have sex and vote but not children.

Adults of sound mind should be able to refuse even essential medical treatment if they want to for whatever reason, including religion. That's not a protection of religious values issue.

This is a different question than the one I was asking.

I am all for letting people do what they want to their bodies for whatever reason. What I oppose is being allowed to do something that another people cannot do, only because one motivation is religious and another isn't.