What does religious freedom mean?

[SparklyUnicorn]

It's a bit of an aside, but why not just make employee health plans some sort of co-op model.  Really, the coverage is paid for by the employees, not the employer, who just administers it.  If they don't want to administer it for any reason, make it work some other way.

 

In Germany health insurance is not tied to employers (with some exceptions..some companies offer some extras as a perk).  But it's all done on a free market like here with those who don't have insurance through an employer.  There is also a national plan that must take everyone and stuff is subsidized for those who can't pay. 

 

Certainly solves the issue of individual companies having any sort of objections in that department. 

[Crimson Wife]

It's a bit of an aside, but why not just make employee health plans some sort of co-op model.  Really, the coverage is paid for by the employees, not the employer, who just administers it.  If they don't want to administer it for any reason, make it work some other way.

 

I don't know about your family, but my husband's employer pays the overwhelming majority of our family's health insurance premium. I think it's something like an 80/20 split.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yes, I do and that is why I support harsher penalties for rape. But the solution to rape isn't birth control but rather punishing criminals who force themselves on unwilling victims. A rape victim needs law enforcement help and proper counseling/therapy, not co-pay free contraception.

 

Then again no woman should be forced to be pregnant.  I don't care what kind of punishment a rapist might get for raping and impregnating me.  That doesn't solve the issue of me being pregnant unwillingly. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't know about your family, but my husband's employer pays the overwhelming majority of our family's health insurance premium. I think it's something like an 80/20 split.

 

That is how ours works as well.

[Bluegoat]

I don't know about your family, but my husband's employer pays the overwhelming majority of our family's health insurance premium. I think it's something like an 80/20 split.

 

No, it doesn't.  Your husband pays for it, with his work.  It is part of his remuneration for his labour, it isn't a gift  The employer only administers it.

[Amira]

Yes, I do and that is why I support harsher penalties for rape. But the solution to rape isn't birth control but rather punishing criminals who force themselves on unwilling victims. A rape victim needs law enforcement help and proper counseling/therapy, not co-pay free contraception.

I completely agree that we need harsher penalties for rape and more support for rape victims, but I wasn't just referring to rape. Lots of women don't have as much control as they ought to over when/if they have sex with their romantic partners, but they probably don't consider themselves victims of rape in need of law enforcement. Birth control is a good way to help reduce unplanned (or unwanted) pregnancies and that seems like a good thing to me.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I completely agree that we need harsher penalties for rape and more support for rape victims, but I wasn't just referring to rape. Lots of women don't have as much control as they ought to over when/if they have sex with their romantic partners, but they probably don't consider themselves victims of rape in need of law enforcement. Birth control is a good way to help reduce unplanned (or unwanted) pregnancies and that seems like a good thing to me.

 

Well according to some religions, women are merely the property of their husband's so apparently that's not the same thing.  The husband has the right and we don't have the right to refuse.  I know blah blah some people will say and have said that no the husband is supposed to be nice and fair and good, but that's not always how it plays out and it's a lot more difficult for a married woman to say I was forced and didn't want to do this.

[Scarlett]

How I wish that were true. I'm forced to pay for things that violate my religion every time I pay taxes. :(

 

I agree with you in principle, however.

This is what I was thinking. I obey the laws and what people do with the money I give is up to them.

[MercyA]

Before hearing this story on the radio today, I had never heard the anti-Muslim view presented by one of the Baptist ministers. To paraphrase, he said he couldn't support their religious freedom because it would be like condemning them all to he** because he believes his religion is the only true one. I find this stance very sad and frightening.

 

I just don't see any basis in the New Testament for restricting other people's freedom of religion. I think of Paul's sermon on Mars Hill in Athens. He was bothered by the idols there, but rather than focusing on that, he simply used them as a catalyst for discussion.

 

I have clear instructions as a Christian:

• If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. (Romans 12:18)
• Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. (Luke 6:31)
• Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands. (1 Thessalonians 4:11A)

I do believe, regarding Jesus, that "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). I think the Gospel should be shared and should be lived. I fail to see how forbidding other people to build their own buildings with their own money accomplishes that.

[Caroline]

I don't know about your family, but my husband's employer pays the overwhelming majority of our family's health insurance premium. I think it's something like an 80/20 split.

My husband's employer pays all of ours. They are paying it as part of my husband's compensation package, not out of the goodness of their hearts.

[Leav97]

I don't know about your family, but my husband's employer pays the overwhelming majority of our family's health insurance premium. I think it's something like an 80/20 split.

 

 

If that's the objection, give the employees a raise to cover the company's portion.  It's all part of the employees compensation anyway.  

[SporkUK]

Because the person who doesn't receive a blood transfusion in an emergency situation will die. Sterilization and contraception are not emergency situations. People who don't have insurance coverage for the latter things can choose to either not engage in activities that could result in pregnancy or they can choose to pay out-of-pocket for the procedures/medications. There's no time crunch life-or-death situation.

 

ETA: Or the person can go get a new job at a secular employer where the insurance DOES cover the desired items. People change jobs for insurance coverage reasons all the time. I know a lot of families who have done this to get coverage for Applied Behavioral Analysis therapy for their autistic child.

 

Not everyone can job jump and plenty of secular appearing jobs have religious employers. Hobby Lobby is an obvious example, an arts and crafts corporation, that's fought to restrict its employees access to medical care on religious grounds.

 

There are several conditions that are managed with hormonal replacement therapy - most commonly prescribed as birth control. It's not a matter of not engaging in sex especially when some of these conditions can be life limiting and some are life threatening and never a choice. We can't frame it all as choices when both the conditions and costs are out of people's hands. I can't even take hormonal medication due to a contradicting condition and since dealing with ovarian failure, my doctor and I are desperately leap frogging and constantly testing to get ahead of further dangerous complications that come from that. One pill/device versus years of medical testing and worrying and sky high risk factors to life limiting and threatening conditions - and ovarian failure is one of the 'easier' problems in this area. It's more complicated than preventing pregnancy and just not shagging for good health. 

 

And, I've had multiple blood transfusion - at one time - and I was told afterwards that while I most likely would have survived without them [and my partner's Jehovah Witness grandmother did survive a similar ordeal without any], the risks to me during the recovery were significant enough that the blood transfusions - and all their risks - was viewed as the best option for my health. I would not want anyone to get between my doctor doing their job in using evidence to provide what is best for me rather than skirting around someone else's religion even when death is not on the table. 

 

Corporation health care insurance is compensation for work and just as they have no rights to tell someone how to spend their money within the law, they should have no rights to prevent using full insurance within the law. Compensation in many areas are pitiful enough compared to the money the employees make corporations for this. 

[KarenNC]

I find this view shocking. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to wear my head covering in public? What about praying in public? What about reading Scripture aloud in public, as I saw someone doing a few years ago? 

 

Can you elaborate on this? 

 

To me, private vs public in this instance is in relation to the government. So, for instance, a person who is a member of a particular religion and also a government official is free to preach, read scriptures aloud, pray aloud in public, lead services, proselytize, etc when acting as a private citizen. When acting as a government official, the person in question is not allowed to use their religious tenets as a test to bar other people from the participating fully and freely in government or receiving protections and benefits granted under the law to all citizens, whether that bar is by direct denial, requiring participation in acts of religious worship (including participatory prayer or prayer "on behalf of" others), or other means.

 

I do think the tax exemption for religious institutions for any activities beyond specifically charitable services unnecessarily muddies the water and that those laws would benefit from reform. Give exemptions for supplies/facilities used in running a soup kitchen, etc but not just for religious activities such as proselytization or religious services. Disclaimer: yes, I belong to a religious organization that benefits from these tax exemptions.

Edited June 30, 2016 by KarenNC

[Greta]

I am a religious person myself, the dominant religion in this country:  Christian.  I do not feel that my religious freedom is in any danger in the US whatsoever.  And in fact, I believe we take the concept of religious freedom too far, and we actually use it as an excuse to infringe upon the rights of others, meaning people who may not share our religion, and/or children who are too young to have made a choice about religion of their own free will.  

 

The first of three examples that come to my mind is already being discussed in this thread.  I think it is absolutely appalling that part of the compensation that has been earned by an employee is still under the control of the employer in the name of "religious freedom".  The issue is really about the rights of individuals versus the rights of corporations, but we call it "religious freedom" to make individuals feel like we won the fight when we actually lost.  My husband earns our healthcare by providing his experience, expertise, and hard work to his employer in exchange for that healthcare and his salary.  What we do with that salary and health insurance is none of their  business, it is OURS.  But this is actually the least egregious of the three examples.

 

The second is "Let Them Marry" and the like, and the third is minor children being denied access to life-saving healthcare.  Both of these have the same problem, they are infringing on the basic human rights of children in the name of the religious freedom of the adults.

 

"Let Them Marry" and similar practices that marry off young teenage girls/women against their will or without their full and free consent in the name of "religious freedom" are dangerously close to being human trafficking or slavery (or maybe they are beyond "close"!).  That organization needs to be shut down, like yesterday.  And if an adult chooses to belong to a religion that requires them to die rather than receive certain types of health care, then that's their choice.  But forcing that choice on children who are too young to give full and free consent is criminal.  If 14 is too young to vote, too young to enter into a contract, too young to enlist, too young to buy alcohol, then it sure as hell is too young to make life and death choices, and we wouldn't even need to have this conversation if those choices were motivated by anything but religion.  

 

I was unaware of the issue in the OP's link, but that's a pretty obvious one to add to the list.  "Religious freedom" doesn't mean that I get to tell other people they can't worship in a way that's not in accordance with my beliefs.  I mean, how is this even a thing???? 

 

[Ravin]

 

& specifically we try hard to accommodate those intersections of private & public where conflicts may arise. 

 

This is where a lot of states (and the Federal government) have a shitty track record, especially when it comes to sacred places.

[UmmIbrahim]

There is no situation where a person will die if she doesn't get her tubes tied or birth control pills. There are ways to 100% avoid the chance of pregnancy that do not involve using sterilization or contraception. The individual may not LIKE that option, in which case she is free to use her own money on elective procedures/medications. Again, the convenience of the individual does not trump the right of the religious person to not fund something that violates his/her religious beliefs.

 

Just wanted to mention (don't know if it came up further down thread) that hormonal birth control is often used as a treatment for other conditions like menorrhagia (heavy periods). When things go wrong with your period it can be really hard to stop bleeding and taking away the option of things like hormonal treatment and things like endometrial ablations (could be considered a form of sterilization) severely compromises your health care.

 

I have a rare blood condition that results in very low platelets and while I haven't had to result to hormonal birth control yet (I don't want to for many other reasons!), in scary situations where bleeding just won't stop I want to have all options open to try to manage the condition. At the time of a medical crisis, I don't want to have to be thinking, "if only I had a different employer I would have more options now."

 

Anyway, a very interesting discussion with lots of good things to think about. Just wanted to throw out the idea that there are really many medical conditions that use things like BCP or sterilization for reasons other than non-emergency pregnancy prevention.

Edited June 30, 2016 by UmmIbrahim

[hornblower]

In the past couple years, there have been a number of instances of 'religious freedom' as code for Christianity wrt prayer at municipal and county meetings. 

When a Christian leads a prayer, they call it religious freedom. If someone from another religion tries to lead a prayer, or an atheist tries to lead a secular invocation, they go crazy - because that's not religious freedom to them. Why we suddenly need a prayer at these meeting is the second important point of course.


There's a group that is loud & frankly, obviously theocratic. They don't want religious freedom. They only want Christian freedom. They like to tell everyone that the US is a 'Christian' nation, that the founders were Christian (though that apparently is in debate wrt USA?) and in Canada, I've also heard the argument made that separation of church and state was a response that had to be understood in the historical context and referred to the Catholic church & the Papacy's political over-reach and that it didn't mean we weren't still a Christian nation. 

I'd like to think this was isolated but frankly it's not.

 

When a police force decides to decorate their cars with messages about god & stickers from Knights of Columbus, they're definitely not acting like a secular force and they're not respectful of the beliefs of the diverse community they serve. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

although why would an atheist lead an invocation?

 

LOL

 

sorry...just nit picking here... :laugh:

[SparklyUnicorn]

That's a good point regarding benefits earned.  These are not freebies. 

 

I am a religious person myself, the dominant religion in this country:  Christian.  I do not feel that my religious freedom is in any danger in the US whatsoever.  And in fact, I believe we take the concept of religious freedom too far, and we actually use it as an excuse to infringe upon the rights of others, meaning people who may not share our religion, and/or children who are too young to have made a choice about religion of their own free will.  

 

The first of three examples that come to my mind is already being discussed in this thread.  I think it is absolutely appalling that part of the compensation that has been earned by an employee is still under the control of the employer in the name of "religious freedom".  The issue is really about the rights of individuals versus the rights of corporations, but we call it "religious freedom" to make individuals feel like we won the fight when we actually lost.  My husband earns our healthcare by providing his experience, expertise, and hard work to his employer in exchange for that healthcare and his salary.  What we do with that salary and health insurance is none of their  business, it is OURS.  But this is actually the least egregious of the three examples.

 

The second is "Let Them Marry" and the like, and the third is minor children being denied access to life-saving healthcare.  Both of these have the same problem, they are infringing on the basic human rights of children in the name of the religious freedom of the adults.

 

"Let Them Marry" and similar practices that marry off young teenage girls/women against their will or without their full and free consent in the name of "religious freedom" are dangerously close to being human trafficking or slavery (or maybe they are beyond "close"!).  That organization needs to be shut down, like yesterday.  And if an adult chooses to belong to a religion that requires them to die rather than receive certain types of health care, then that's their choice.  But forcing that choice on children who are too young to give full and free consent is criminal.  If 14 is too young to vote, too young to enter into a contract, too young to enlist, too young to buy alcohol, then it sure as hell is too young to make life and death choices, and we wouldn't even need to have this conversation if those choices were motivated by anything but religion.  

 

I was unaware of the issue in the OP's link, but that's a pretty obvious one to add to the list.  "Religious freedom" doesn't mean that I get to tell other people they can't worship in a way that's not in accordance with my beliefs.  I mean, how is this even a thing???? 

 

[hornblower]

although why would an atheist lead an invocation?

 

LOL

 

sorry...just nit picking here... :laugh:

 

well, why not? Atheists do have ceremonies & they should be represented.

 

 

At one of them it was a Pastafarian......   :D 

[SparklyUnicorn]

well, why not? Atheists do have ceremonies & they should be represented.

 

 

At one of them it was a Pastafarian......   :D

 

calling upon spirits kinda flies in the face of the definition of an atheist though

[hornblower]

calling upon spirits kinda flies in the face of the definition of an atheist though

 

ah, I see what you're saying. I guess I've heard the word invocation used more generically in lieu of the word prayer which is definitely religious.  I don't think they're invoking spirits. 

 

Not sure what else you call a thing like that. "Let reason guide us. Let us assume the best of each other. Let us work collegially and serve our community to the best of our ability." 

[MercyA]

well, why not? Atheists do have ceremonies & they should be represented.

 

At one of them it was a Pastafarian......   :D

 

I don't have a problem with an atheist exercising their freedom of speech. I do think it's hypocritical when I hear people complaining about Christian prayer being "taken out of school" and then later complaining in shocked voices about Muslim children being allowed to pray privately there.

 

The Pastafarian thing, though, is intended to be mocking and rude. I'm not a fan. Obviously all of that still falls under the right to free speech, but they're not winning any points for respectful dialogue. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

ah, I see what you're saying. I guess I've heard the word invocation used more generically in lieu of the word prayer which is definitely religious.  I don't think they're invoking spirits. 

 

Not sure what else you call a thing like that. "Let reason guide us. Let us assume the best of each other. Let us work collegially and serve our community to the best of our ability." 

 

I call it thinking.

[TechWife]

There is no situation where a person will die if she doesn't get her tubes tied or birth control pills. There are ways to 100% avoid the chance of pregnancy that do not involve using sterilization or contraception. The individual may not LIKE that option, in which case she is free to use her own money on elective procedures/medications. Again, the convenience of the individual does not trump the right of the religious person to not fund something that violates his/her religious beliefs.

What about my niece who risks heart failure if she becomes pregnant? It happened after she delivered her las child and is highly likely to happen again should she deliver another one. Really, I'm not making this up.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't have a problem with an atheist exercising their freedom of speech. I do think it's hypocritical when I hear people complaining about Christian prayer being "taken out of school" and then later complaining in shocked voices about Muslim children being allowed to pray privately there.

 

The Pastafarian thing, though, is intended to be mocking and rude. I'm not a fan. Obviously all of that still falls under the right to free speech, but they're not winning any points for respectful dialogue. 

 

I don't know what the Pastafarian thing is about.

 

But anyhow, I mostly agree on your first point.  I have never seen it taken so far as to say Christians can't pray in school, but Muslims can, but yes often religions other than Christianity are treated with a sense of "let's learn about this to be tolerant".  Although in a way I think that's equally insulting because what are we saying?  Christianity is too serious to discuss or question, but let's talk about Muslims so we can learn about their cute ways? 

 

What's further REALLY interesting to me as an atheist is that a lot of atheists defend Muslims (but slam Christians).  I don't believe in slamming either btw.  Just saying I don't understand why one religion should be defended over another by people who say they aren't religions at all and don't believe in the concept.  So this gets weird in all sorts of ways. 

[Carol in Cal.]

There are two phrases to the law:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

The establishment part goes to the issue of the government establishing a specific religious denomination.

The free exercise part goes to the issue of the government preventing people from exercising their faiths in religious observances but also in their public and private lives.

 

Both are crucial.

[hornblower]

I call it thinking.

But what's it called when you say it out loud in a group to guide them?  I guess you could call it 'guidance'...

 

Similarly, what's it called when an atheist marriage attendant gives the 'blessing' to the couple at a secular ceremony?  

[hornblower]

There are two phrases to the law:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

The establishment part goes to the issue of the government establishing a specific religious denomination.

The free exercise part goes to the issue of the government preventing people from exercising their faiths in religious observances but also in their public and private lives.

 

Both are crucial.

 

I find these legalistic answers a bit baffling - obv partly because I'm not in your country so your laws are not relevant - but more generally, because I think the concept should be bigger the law and should therefore be explained without referring to the law, kwim?  The law should reflect the bigger concepts, not the other way around. 

 

I'm also not convinced a document drawn up several hundred years ago is the best way to lead our lives now. 

 

But then I also don't believe in books written thousands of years ago as being prescriptive life guides either. 

 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

I find these legalistic answers a bit baffling - obv partly because I'm not in your country so your laws are not relevant - but more generally, because I think the concept should be bigger the law and should therefore be explained without referring to the law, kwim?  The law should reflect the bigger concepts, not the other way around. 

 

I'm also not convinced a document drawn up several hundred years ago is the best way to lead our lives now. 

 

But then I also don't believe in books written thousands of years ago as being prescriptive life guides either. 

 

 

This 'law' though is the US Constitution, as amended, so it's the highest law of the land.  It reflects our most deeply held values as a nation, those that we consider foundational.  It is extremely difficult to change, and it's a point of reference for all other, lesser law.  It's not just a little bylaw in a handbook.  So it carries a weight, and quoting it carries an authority, that is quite high.

[hornblower]

I don't know what the Pastafarian thing is about.

It arose when Kansas Board of Education wanted to put ID in the curriculum to give it 'equal' time to evolution. The argument made by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was that if you want to give Christian ID same time, you'll need to give other faiths equal time, including the tenets of the Church of the FSM (Pastafarianism) which the guy wrote out in detail. 

 

It's a satirical religion I guess whose adherents are usually atheists pointing out that religions get special treatment in our society. Like you can get a photo in a turban for your driver's licence but head coverings which are deemed not religious are not allowed.  Is that a reasonable accommodation for religion and why shouldn't someone else get a photo in a toque? 

 

 

 

 

[hornblower]

This 'law' though is the US Constitution, as amended, so it's the highest law of the land.  It reflects our most deeply held values as a nation, those that we consider foundational.  It is extremely difficult to change, and it's a point of reference for all other, lesser law.  It's not just a little bylaw in a handbook.  So it carries a weight, and quoting it carries an authority, that is quite high.

I know what a constitution is. I'm a Political Science grad & the Cdn constitution was repatriated only in 1982 so it's not ancient history for us. 

 

That wasn't my point. 

[Carol in Cal.]

The OP asked what religious freedom means. 

 

My first post in this thread explains that, and my second explains the place of the US constitution in our way of thinking.  To elaborate further, in this country we generally don't see the constitution as ancient history.  It's directly relevant and is the primary norm for our entire political system and our body of law and custom.  It is not taught merely historically; rather, it is taught as foundational and still central.  That seems to distinguish it from how this is viewed in other countries.

 

Knowing what a constitution is generally is not the same as knowing what *our* constitution is to *us*.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[SparklyUnicorn]

But what's it called when you say it out loud in a group to guide them?  I guess you could call it 'guidance'...

 

Similarly, what's it called when an atheist marriage attendant gives the 'blessing' to the couple at a secular ceremony?  

 

collaborating...talking it out

 

Nobody gave me any blessings during my wedding.  I wouldn't have appreciated that.

[SparklyUnicorn]

It arose when Kansas Board of Education wanted to put ID in the curriculum to give it 'equal' time to evolution. The argument made by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was that if you want to give Christian ID same time, you'll need to give other faiths equal time, including the tenets of the Church of the FSM (Pastafarianism) which the guy wrote out in detail. 

 

It's a satirical religion I guess whose adherents are usually atheists pointing out that religions get special treatment in our society. Like you can get a photo in a turban for your driver's licence but head coverings which are deemed not religious are not allowed.  Is that a reasonable accommodation for religion and why shouldn't someone else get a photo in a toque? 

 

 

 

 

 

Well that seems fair.  That if you give time to one religious view in school then you should give time to others.  Either way, religion should not be taught in a class called science.  This doesn't make the details of religion false, they just don't fall within the definition of what science is. 

 

If there is a compelling reason why a head covering should not be allowed in a photo then that rule should be applied across the board.  Otherwise I don't know what kind of argument anyone has. 

[Guest]

To me, religious freedom seems unequally applied in the US- to the point of many others in this thread. Although Christianity in general often gets the benefit of this in many people's views, the problem is there is no General Christianity. I mean, considering that the Jehovah's Witnesses (who are Christian) had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to not be persecuted and have their children expelled for not saying the pledge. They were persecuted for their "lack of patriotism" by both other Christiam denomations and non-religious people alike. The school district in question made it a hill to die on. Were they persecuted? Absolutely. They won, but are still met with a lot of skepticism in many circles, being insulted as "not true Chrisitans" and in some cases considered a cult. None of which I believe is true. But that doesn't stop a general perception. Catholics faced a different, but nonetheless discriminatory force not so long ago. There are still people who, much to my irritation, don't consider Catholics Christian. Why? I don't know except to say those people are ignorant. These are all definite cases of ongoing discrimination.

 

But then we have people who call discrimination over the Starbucks Red Holiday cup. Or freak out about Happy Holidays. Which then makes us look as a whole like a bunch of petty jerks. I'm sorry. I don't look to Starbucks or Christmas card wording to validate me as a Christian and I don't personally know anyone who was up in arms about it, yet judging by the news coverage you would think that 90% of Chrisitans in the country were reasy to go to war over it.

So it seems there are many facets to it. Is religous freedom at risk for some? Definitely. But the us vs them coverage the mainstream media often offers gives a very skewed perception, allowing people to by into general stereotypes controlled often by the most vocal and perpetually outraged people they can find.

[SparklyUnicorn]

To me, religious freedom seems unequally applied in the US- to the point of many others in this thread. Although Christianity in general often gets the benefit of this in many people's views, the problem is there is no General Christianity. I mean, considering that the Jehovah's Witnesses (who are Christian) had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to not be persecuted and have their children expelled for not saying the pledge. They were persecuted for their "lack of patriotism" by both other Christiam denomations and non-religious people alike. The school district in question made it a hill to die on. Were they persecuted? Absolutely. They won, but are still met with a lot of skepticism in many circles, being insulted as "not true Chrisitans" and in some cases considered a cult. None of which I believe is true. But that doesn't stop a general perception. Catholics faced a different, but nonetheless discriminatory force not so long ago. There are still people who, much to my irritation, don't consider Catholics Christian. Why? I don't know except to say those people are ignorant. These are all definite cases of ongoing discrimination.

 

But then we have people who call discrimination over the Starbucks Red Holiday cup. Or freak out about Happy Holidays. Which then makes us look as a whole like a bunch of petty jerks. I'm sorry. I don't look to Starbucks or Christmas card wording to validate me as a Christian and I don't personally know anyone who was up in arms about it, yet judging by the news coverage you would think that 90% of Chrisitans in the country were reasy to go to war over it.

So it seems there are many facets to it. Is religous freedom at risk for some? Definitely. But the us vs them coverage the mainstream media often offers gives a very skewed perception, allowing people to by into general stereotypes controlled often by the most vocal and perpetually outraged people they can find.

 

Yes and the non religious experience discrimination as well.  I have not had too many issues in my own life, but I talk to atheists in other parts of the country and they are quite miserable sometimes with the way they are treated.  And it's not even good enough that they keep to themselves about it.  They aren't necessarily the types looking to change anything.  They just don't want to be forced into anything. 

 

I often wonder if the hype around some of that stuff (Starbucks) isn't just that. Hype.  Because I do not encounter that attitude often.  Most people I know don't really care about those details.

 

 

[Guest]

Yes and the non religious experience discrimination as well. I have not had too many issues in my own life, but I talk to atheists in other parts of the country and they are quite miserable sometimes with the way they are treated. And it's not even good enough that they keep to themselves about it. They aren't necessarily the types looking to change anything. They just don't want to be forced into anything.

 

I often wonder if the hype around some of that stuff (Starbucks) isn't just that. Hype. Because I do not encounter that attitude often. Most people I know don't really care about those details.

 

 

I would love to see the reaction to Ramadan cups if plain Red cups were so distressing. Or some symbol for atheism if there were such a thing. People get worked up over the oddest things sometimes.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I would love to see the reaction to Ramadan cups if plain Red cups were so distressing. Or some symbol for atheism if there were such a thing. People get worked up over the oddest things sometimes.

 

Although admittedly I'd prefer not to see those symbols used in that way.  Even the atheist symbols.  Mostly because it's well known that stuff is contentious. 

[Guest]

Although admittedly I'd prefer not to see those symbols used in that way. Even the atheist symbols. Mostly because it's well known that stuff is contentious.

Well that's a good point. It's sad it has to be that way anymore.

[Bluegoat]

well, why not? Atheists do have ceremonies & they should be represented.

 

 

At one of them it was a Pastafarian......   :D

 

 

calling upon spirits kinda flies in the face of the definition of an atheist though

 

 

ah, I see what you're saying. I guess I've heard the word invocation used more generically in lieu of the word prayer which is definitely religious.  I don't think they're invoking spirits. 

 

Not sure what else you call a thing like that. "Let reason guide us. Let us assume the best of each other. Let us work collegially and serve our community to the best of our ability." 

 

You might remember, Hornblower, I doubt Sparkly would have heard of it, there was a group in Quebec a number of years ago that wanted to have atheism given status as a religion for the purposes of protections.  I can't remember the specific issue, but is was a matter of wanting a protection or right normally offered to religious organizations, for their organization.  (They may have been a secular humanist organization, but I wouldn't swear to that.)

 

I tend to think there is some real sense to that - religious rites aren't limited to invoking spirits, you can also have meditation in religious traditions, (and not all believe in spiritual beings anyway.) There could easily be atheistic religions, or theistic beliefs that aren't organized or institutionalized, not to mention a number of views that seem to fall between atheism and theism (pantheism can be found using both labels, for example.) Even prayer is often more about a person's mind than some sort of spiritual invocation. 

 

As I said above, I don't think "religion" as traditionally understood is wide enough to serve our needs now.  I think other worldviews also need to be protected, and also limited.  However, despite the Quebec folks, I'm not sure that view would go over with many people who consider themselves non-religious.

[SparklyUnicorn]

You might remember, Hornblower, I doubt Sparkly would have heard of it, there was a group in Quebec a number of years ago that wanted to have atheism given status as a religion for the purposes of protections.  I can't remember the specific issue, but is was a matter of wanting a protection or right normally offered to religious organizations, for their organization.  (They may have been a secular humanist organization, but I wouldn't swear to that.)

 

I tend to think there is some real sense to that - religious rites aren't limited to invoking spirits, you can also have meditation in religious traditions, (and not all believe in spiritual beings anyway.) There could easily be atheistic religions, or theistic beliefs that aren't organized or institutionalized, not to mention a number of views that seem to fall between atheism and theism (pantheism can be found using both labels, for example.) Even prayer is often more about a person's mind than some sort of spiritual invocation. 

 

As I said above, I don't think "religion" as traditionally understood is wide enough to serve our needs now.  I think other worldviews also need to be protected, and also limited.  However, despite the Quebec folks, I'm not sure that view would go over with many people who consider themselves non-religious.

 

Oh I do understand the desire of some atheists to organize and try to gain representation (and rights).  Even though it's not a religion it has a context that exists because of religion.  I would rather see no special rights given to religious organizations.  No tax breaks.  None of that. 

[Bluegoat]

To me, religious freedom seems unequally applied in the US- to the point of many others in this thread. Although Christianity in general often gets the benefit of this in many people's views, the problem is there is no General Christianity. I mean, considering that the Jehovah's Witnesses (who are Christian) had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to not be persecuted and have their children expelled for not saying the pledge. They were persecuted for their "lack of patriotism" by both other Christiam denomations and non-religious people alike. The school district in question made it a hill to die on. Were they persecuted? Absolutely. They won, but are still met with a lot of skepticism in many circles, being insulted as "not true Chrisitans" and in some cases considered a cult. None of which I believe is true. But that doesn't stop a general perception. Catholics faced a different, but nonetheless discriminatory force not so long ago. There are still people who, much to my irritation, don't consider Catholics Christian. Why? I don't know except to say those people are ignorant. These are all definite cases of ongoing discrimination.

 

But then we have people who call discrimination over the Starbucks Red Holiday cup. Or freak out about Happy Holidays. Which then makes us look as a whole like a bunch of petty jerks. I'm sorry. I don't look to Starbucks or Christmas card wording to validate me as a Christian and I don't personally know anyone who was up in arms about it, yet judging by the news coverage you would think that 90% of Chrisitans in the country were reasy to go to war over it.

So it seems there are many facets to it. Is religous freedom at risk for some? Definitely. But the us vs them coverage the mainstream media often offers gives a very skewed perception, allowing people to by into general stereotypes controlled often by the most vocal and perpetually outraged people they can find.

 

Media coverage of religion in general is the pits.  I think it's a bit like reporters with no science knowledge reporting on science topics - it's generally, at best, incomplete, more often misleading or actually wrong.  You can't really report on science topics without some knowledge, how do you know what questions to ask, what flags to look out for?

 

I think with religion, the limitations of the know-nothing are often even less understood than with science, because a lot of people don't seem to realize that there are things an educated observer should know to understand what they are reporting about religious topics.

 

There used to be reporters on staff in some places who had religion, or specific religions, as an area of expertise, but that seems to have gone the way of the dodo.

[Guest]

Oh I do understand the desire of some atheists to organize and try to gain representation (and rights). Even though it's not a religion it has a context that exists because of religion. I would rather see no special rights given to religious organizations. No tax breaks. None of that.

Tax breaks are so abused. Talk about a system that needs reform but will never get it. I'm not going to name them though lest they will hunt me down and audit me. :(

[Bluegoat]

Oh I do understand the desire of some atheists to organize and try to gain representation (and rights).  Even though it's not a religion it has a context that exists because of religion.  I would rather see no special rights given to religious organizations.  No tax breaks.  None of that. 

 

I wasn't even thinking of those things, so much as things like protection for beliefs and expression of them.  There are a lot of very common worldviews now that don't fit the traditional view of religion, but they are what people believe about the nature of reality. 

 

But I think the real difficulty is that there is a confusion between what is atheism, what is religion, what is a spiritual belief, what is theism.  Many have a very hard definition - religion is theism, or some institutional version of theism.  It isn't that simple though - theism, and atheism, are both abstractions, categories. They aren't in themselves coherent, or even really incoherent, worldviews.  There are all kinds of theists, some very different.  Someone who thinks there is a physical guy in the sky is pretty dissimilar to someone who thinks God is a sort of mathematical structure, either outside of or inhering in physical reality.  And atheists, unless they don't care to think about it at all, also generally have some ideas about the nature of reality, and there are different groups that have different ideas.  Secular humanists have one set of ideas, scientific materialists another, Marxists another. 

 

So, should Zoroastrians have their worldview protected, and also limited from being established as a state religion, while  Marxist should not have his worldview protected?  Or it is ok to set up one as the belief system of the state, but not the other?

[Ravin]

I find these legalistic answers a bit baffling - obv partly because I'm not in your country so your laws are not relevant - but more generally, because I think the concept should be bigger the law and should therefore be explained without referring to the law, kwim?  The law should reflect the bigger concepts, not the other way around. 

 

I'm also not convinced a document drawn up several hundred years ago is the best way to lead our lives now. 

 

But then I also don't believe in books written thousands of years ago as being prescriptive life guides either. 

 

 

 

The language of a law always matters, because that is how the concept is applied in the real world.

 

For comparison to the language in the U.S. Constitution:

 

 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

 

[Carrie12345]

The Presbyterian Church appears to advocate for birth control "asserting that contraceptive services are part of basic health care and warned that

unintended pregnancies

can lead to higher rates of infant mortality and maternal morbidity, and threaten the economic viability of families."

What if Presbyterian-owned businesses decided they shouldn't be forced to cover more than 2 pregnancies per family?  Or give more than 2 maternity leaves?  Or contribute to disability funds that some states use for those who don't have paid maternity leave?

[hornblower]

The language of a law always matters, because that is how the concept is applied in the real world.

 

For comparison to the language in the U.S. Constitution:

 

oh I agree with this. 

 

I just think that 'the law says _____' isn't an answer to 'what does this _____ mean' 

 

I think I'm not explaining myself very well this morning. 

 

Laws vary from place to place & time to time. What the law is is obviously relevant but it isn't the answer.  The law can be completely and utterly wrong.

 

I think there's a word for this concept but my old brain can't remember. 

[Ravin]

For further comparison:

 

 

 

• CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

   Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

  Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms Marginal note:Rights and freedoms in Canada

  1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

• Fundamental freedoms  

  2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

  • (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

  • (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

  • (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

  • (d) freedom of association.

• Limitation

  (3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to

  • (a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and

  • (b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

• Marginal note:Affirmative action programs

  (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.

 

[Ravin]

oh I agree with this. 

 

I just think that 'the law says _____' isn't an answer to 'what does this _____ mean' 

 

I think I'm not explaining myself very well this morning. 

 

Laws vary from place to place & time to time. What the law is is obviously relevant but it isn't the answer.  The law can be completely and utterly wrong.

 

I think there's a word for this concept but my old brain can't remember. 

 

The very basics of what we think are right or wrong also change over time.