Protection of religious views and behaviours

[Martinus]

Ok, BB, a straight-up question to you: do you think law should allow a situation in which a person can do something because he or she is doing that for religious reasons, but a person with no motive like that is not allowed to do the same thing?

[Barrister]

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the religious motive should be ignored under the law.

Why?

It's clear that religion is of immense importance to a number of people around the world.  Why should that be ignored, even though you personally don't believe?

You don't talk about "reasonable accommodation", or anything of the sort.  You say it should be "ignored".  Why is that?

Nice one that you only respond to half of my post.

But to answer you (again), I think it should be treated as any other "strongly held belief", whether it is moral, cultural or ideological.

I responded to the key point of your post.

Yes, I don't have a problem saying there can be certain rights for "strongly held beliefs".

[Barrister]

Ok, BB, a straight-up question to you: do you think law should allow a situation in which a person can do something because he or she is doing that for religious reasons, but a person with no motive like that is not allowed to do the same thing?

Yes.  Absolutely.

There was a story in the Canadian news recently about some idiot who is fighting to be allowed to have his ID picture taken with a pasta colander on his head, because he believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I have no problem saying this fellow has no real "strongly held belief" in the need for pasta-based headware other than to poke religions in the eye, and that he should noe be allowed to wear one for his driver's license.

[Martinus]

Ok, BB, a straight-up question to you: do you think law should allow a situation in which a person can do something because he or she is doing that for religious reasons, but a person with no motive like that is not allowed to do the same thing?

Yes.  Absolutely.

There was a story in the Canadian news recently about some idiot who is fighting to be allowed to have his ID picture taken with a pasta colander on his head, because he believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I have no problem saying this fellow has no real "strongly held belief" in the need for pasta-based headware other than to poke religions in the eye, and that he should noe be allowed to wear one for his driver's license.

See? This is exactly what I have a problem with (and thanks for saying this explicitly - because I was starting to think I may be arguing a straw man position since noone would seem to know what I am talking about) - because then you have the government telling people that one belief is more "worthy" than another. I think this is unacceptable in a free, pluralistic, liberal society.

[Martinus]

Or to put my position in clear terms - imagine you have four people employed at a company, A, B, C and D.

A is a member of a minority religion. Every year he wants to have a day off to commemorate the feast of the birth of prophet of that religion. This is how he finds solace and a sense of community and this is what "recharges" his batteries, psychologically.

B is non-religious but she lost her grandmother, whom she loved very much, few years ago. Ever year she wants to have a day off, on the date of her grandmother's death, to go to her grandmother's grave, and spend the day in quiet contemplation. This is how she finds solace and a sense of communion with her ancestors and her family and this is what "recharges" her batteries, psychologically.

C is a gay man. Every year he wants to have a day off on the anniversary of Stonewall riots, to go to a gay pride parade and spend the day in celebration of his sexuality. This is how he finds solace and a sense of community and this is what "recharges" his batteries, psychologically.

D is a nerd. Every year he wants to have a day off to go to a gaming convention and spend the day geeking out with other nerds. This is how he finds solace and a sense of community and this is what "recharges" his batteries, psychologically.

I am all for reasonable accommodation, but I see no reason why person A should be accommodated more than persons B, C and D. Their needs are different but they are, to me, on the same level - and the government has no business telling people that one is more worthy than another. Of course, this is more difficult, and a system should be put in place so this is not abused, but that is the role of the lawmakers.

[Martinus]

So, if I were the lawmaker, rather than making the law that says "the employer cannot refuse an employee to take a day off on a day that is religiously or culturally important for them", I would make the law that says "the employee has up to 4 (or some other number deemed reasonable) days each year which they can use as a day off and the employer cannot refuse that (note: this is different from normal vacation, as the employer and employee have to agree when the employee can take time off from his or her normal vacation allowance);  the employee has to let the employer know about such days in advance not to disturb the work too much (say, before the beginning of each year)".

[Razgovory]

Don't worry, a lot of atheists become atheists because they want to convince themselves and others they are smart.  In fact, I would say that is a primary motive for atheism.

why would it be the primary motive?

You have confused the word "a", with "the".  I would say it's a primary motive because a lot of people who adopt Athiesm are seem to enjoy condescending and insulting people.

[Razgovory]

You know, there are certain cultural mores that simply assumed here, Marty.  For instance, the veil thing is often trotted out as both a security concern and a way to "liberate" these women from the oppressive culture.  However, in our culture we expect women to wear some sort of clothing.  We don't require women to be photographed nude for the driver license, nor do we ban all clothing.  That would certainly make it easier to identify people and it's harder to hide something when you are naked.  Some folks have noted that things like dresses and bras are forms of cultural oppression, perhaps everyone should be required to walk around nude all the time.  That would certainly be more "equal", less likely to be oppressive culturally and safer (from a terrorism standpoint).

[Martinus]

You know, there are certain cultural mores that simply assumed here, Marty.  For instance, the veil thing is often trotted out as both a security concern and a way to "liberate" these women from the oppressive culture.  However, in our culture we expect women to wear some sort of clothing.  We don't require women to be photographed nude for the driver license, nor do we ban all clothing.  That would certainly make it easier to identify people and it's harder to hide something when you are naked.  Some folks have noted that things like dresses and bras are forms of cultural oppression, perhaps everyone should be required to walk around nude all the time.  That would certainly be more "equal", less likely to be oppressive culturally and safer (from a terrorism standpoint).

You are once again building a strawman rather than arguing against the point I made (or you do not understand the point I made, which would be singular, given that I explained it extensively).

[Eddie Teach]

(or you do not understand the point I made, which would be singular, given that I explained it extensively).

Actually, the more verbiage you use explaining it, the easier it becomes to miss your point. Not saying that's what happened here, but you have posted at least a dozen times in this thread.

[Martinus]

Verily, I believe in using plain verbiage and attempt to eschew obfuscation in my reasoning.

[Valmy]

You know, there are certain cultural mores that simply assumed here, Marty.  For instance, the veil thing is often trotted out as both a security concern and a way to "liberate" these women from the oppressive culture.  However, in our culture we expect women to wear some sort of clothing.  We don't require women to be photographed nude for the driver license, nor do we ban all clothing.  That would certainly make it easier to identify people and it's harder to hide something when you are naked.  Some folks have noted that things like dresses and bras are forms of cultural oppression, perhaps everyone should be required to walk around nude all the time.  That would certainly be more "equal", less likely to be oppressive culturally and safer (from a terrorism standpoint).

Why are you saying 'our culture' and 'we'?  Are there any moves in the US to ban the veil?  Strikes me as unconstitutional.

[Ancient Demon]

I understand Martinus' reasoning and agree completely. If it causes no harm for a religious person to be able to do something, then what is the harm in allowing everyone to do that same thing?

[Grey Fox]

Can you decode his post for me?

He's been sniping at me for months.

I think he is saying I'm the grandest douchebag of them all.

That's because you need tough love.

[Syt]

When the loving gets tough, the tough get loving.