I never said that one type of belief was “more important” to individuals than another.
What Is aid was that, historically, one type of belief was more commonly associated with group or ethnic-type identity than another.
Atheism isn’t a very good example of something that has historically been associated with a strong group identity.
Now, it may be that this is changing, and in the future it will be - complete with atheist meeting halls, atheist symbols, and (yes) special atheist garments; that atheists will marry only within their community, and pass atheism down to their children with special rituals; that atheists will form a community that considers itself seperate - and is considered seperate by others. To the extent this happens, it would make sense to treat atheism as religions are treated.
But right now, it is more of an individual belief - a simple lack of belief in any gods. However strongly one believes this, it isn’t typically of the type to form a strong group identity.
But over here, Human Action cites the RFRA as having no requirement for any group identity or group affiliation, which in fact serves to reinforce my assertion about the logical parallel between religious belief without evidence and the delusions of mental illness. I don’t say this in some gratuitous effort to disparage religion, but simply as a logical parallel and an argument against the granting of special legal status to religious belief.
I note also from that RFRA link that the federal legislation (a) specifically opposes government neutrality on matters of religion on the grounds that it’s bound to burden some religion, despite the fact I just showed it’s not true in a country like Sweden that has a high regard for civil liberties, and despite the fact that this position results in religion-inspired discriminatory bullshit like we just saw in Indiana, and (b) has a “definitions” section to define various terms, in which any definition of religion itself is notably absent.
It’s not a zero-sum game, where if religious practice is protected, others can’t be. I’m not opposed to “creed” in Civil Rights legislation being extended to cover more secular ideologies, for instance.
With regard to religion, it’s the specific practices that are protected, hence free exercise of religion. Irreligious belief systems generally don’t have rituals, observances, and so forth connected to them.
The other portions of the First Amendment give protection to non-religious ideologies. For example, prosecutions under the Smith Act of members of the Communist Party of the United States were stopped on free-speech grounds by Yates v. United States.
Lastly, there is a lengthy history of oppression of minority religions, and religious wars. The Age of Ideology as we know it is much younger, so there’s much less history to draw upon when designing laws to ensure a free and orderly society.
Can you give me an example or something? I’m having a hard time imagining a scenario where the criteria for accommodation would be wildly different.
It’d be “medieval” to equate religious belief to membership in an orthodox, mainstream religion. Protecting all beliefs equally is the progressive, morally right thing to do.
That simply doesn’t occur. Again, if the law is narrowly tailored and related to a compelling government interest, then the law trumps. Period.
I’m failing to grasp your point here - we should eliminate religion to be more like Sweden? Or that Sweden somehow achieved freedom of religion without legal protections for religious practice?
So, when we talk about religious protections, what we’re really talking about it protections for philosophical groups with strong group identity as indicated by outward, nigh-universal to common signs of reference? Why?
I have to say, when I look at those people who would be most in need of legal protection, I would tend to look to those who* don’t* have that strong community backing them up rather than the ones who do.
Sounds good to me. I’m not saying “Get rid of religious protections because atheists don’t have them!”. I just want it to be fair. And, of course, it’s worth pointing out in the nature of it not being a zero-sum game that secular protections would be very useful for religious people, too, given that not all their philosophical positions would be based in their faith.
Of course they do. I give to charity; I read so as to educate myself; I try to be a good and kind person; I celebrate events so as to bring happiness to others and myself. The specific actions that I take within those more general boundaries may be specific to me, but a creed of one is still a creed.
It being 10-8 in favour of religion is not bad, but I’d much prefer it to be 10-10.
The 13th Amendment was drawn up in order to address slavery of, for the vast most part, black people. Yet it does not declare freedom from slavery only for blacks; it declares that all slavery is outlawed. The 19th Amendment was drawn up in order to address the voting rights of women; again, though, it says that people can’t be denied the right to vote on account of “sex”, not “being a woman”.
Lawmakers seem perfectly capable of understanding that the oppression of one group, today, does not mean that protections established should not be stated so as to protect even those not currently under threat.
Another person thinking Ontario = Canada. BC and Manitoba allow Sikhs to ride without helmets trusting in their god (and some fabric) to keep their heads safe. In this case, though, Ontario has taken the correct stance.
Sure. Paranoid schizophrenic believes he is being pursued by agents of Beelzebub disguised as human beings. Very sincere belief, though no evidence exists. Are you following the parallel so far?
So said schizophrenic claims the equivalent of religious exemption to be allowed to own restricted handguns and automatic weapons in support of his beliefs, and to carry them in public to protect himself from the imaginary demons. Is there a basic logical difference from assertion of religious beliefs, especially a closely related issue like the kirpan?
Sure it occurs. The blatantly anti-gay Indiana RFRA. The refusal by wingnut pharmacists to fill legal medical prescriptions that they claim their religions don’t agree with. The refusal by lunatic religious cab drivers to transport seeing-eye service dogs or alcohol because it offends their religious freedoms. Most of the whole anti-abortion and anti-gay fiascos. Really, could you possibly be serious that it “simply does not occur”? Not only does it occur, it occurs – as per my previous numbers – more or less in inverse proportion to the progressiveness of the society.
The point is that we should not allow religions to trample civil law as in the reprehensible examples cited above.
Indeed they have. Ontario also took the correct stance against a recommendation that Muslims should be able to settle matters of family law under traditional Sharia law tribunals like they’re used to doing back in the home country where they stone women to death, rather than the silly civil laws we have here in Canada that apply to everybody else because it’s the law of the land. But it’s astounding and frightening that these kinds of religion-versus-reason disputes ever even come up in the first place, let alone the fact that they’re often decided in favor of religionists.
I’ve argued previously that our constitution (in Canada) shouldn’t have any mention of religion in it at all. I think that is why it keeps happening. I’m baffled why they allow schools based upon religious organization. That worries me more than some idjit who prefers to trust his god over a helmet.
I agree, with the stipulation that attacking religious protections isn’t likely to advance secular ones.
But if a person wished to suppress your creed, could they? I don’t see how, based on what you’ve described. Conversely, it’s very possible to suppress various religious observances: banning ritual animal sacrifice, for instance.
Agreed.
Not sure that’s the most apt analogy; maybe if slavery was banned but indentured servitude was overlooked? In any case, the law as it exists isn’t perfect, but it’s pretty good, and it needs more protections, not fewer. I think we agree on the main points, though.
Following you, but as I said, I don’t see where the level of accommodation needs to be different. In this case, there’s a compelling government interest in restricting access to firearms, especially certain classes of firearms, so the claim would fail, same as if it were The Church of the Holy Gun demanding automatic weapons without going through the background check process involved.
Which is a result of the Civil Rights Act not covering sexual orientation. We evidently don’t hold it to be a compelling government interest, religion notwithstanding. In my home state of Kentucky, seven cities prohibit discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation. In every other city, you’re free to discriminate, no religious belief or anything else required.
Edit: What Indiana’s law is about, in part, is getting around similar local anti-discrimination and fairness laws. It’s the state legislature overriding the tolerance of municipalities. Until there’s a federal law on the matter, there’s not much to be done.
Per this source, some states have laws specifically requiring that prescriptions be filled, some have laws specifically allowing pharmacists to refuse, and others have neither, allowing pharmacists to refuse if they wish to do so. So, again, the law trumps: you simply disagree with what the law is.
The most recent cite I could find about this was this one from 2007, which states:
The state agency that licenses cab drivers prohibits discrimination against passengers unless the driver feels his life is in danger.
…
But, under the new proposal, drivers who decline to provide service would face a 30-day suspension of their license. Second offenders would have their licenses revoked.
It’s unclear whether that proposal passed, and if the lack of more recent cites means that it was successful. Note that what the cabbies were doing was unlawful; the issue was the lack of a mechanism to discipline them. Again, the law trumped.
Those are too broad to comment on, was there a specific aspect which was enabled by the free-exercise clause?
As I have shown, the law prevails. Sometimes the law isn’t on your side.
Does Sweden have no laws or procedures to deal with acts of government that infringe on religious practice? The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provides for free-exercise rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Surely ‘thought’ covers both ‘conscience and religion’? And ‘thought and conscience’ would definitely cover ‘religion’. Why add religion? Unless religion precludes thought and conscience, that is.
Yeah, the religious school thing (in Ontario, Quebec, and other provinces) is yet another religious fiasco. I mentioned before the anti-gay Indiana RFRA, the refusal by wingnut pharmacists to fill legal medical prescriptions that they claim their religions don’t agree with, the refusal by lunatic religious cab drivers to transport seeing-eye service dogs or alcohol because it offends their religious freedoms, the whole anti-abortion and anti-gay fiascos. The school thing is another one. There’s always another one. The list goes on forever.
I was involved in a long, long discussion once about the so-called gay-straight alliance club that some students wanted to set up at a Toronto Catholic school to combat the bullying of gays by trying to create an inclusive social environment for them. The gay-straight alliance idea became a thing, until word got out to the Catholic school board. Well! The homophobic religionists on the board, aided by Bible-thumping thundering Catholic bishops, outright forbid any such clubs as contrary to the teaching of Our Lord and Savior. It got so bad that the Ontario government stepped in and, for once, showed some integrity and kicked their ass and basically told them that discrimination was against the law. Most of the Catholic board acceded to the government ruling but a few stalwarts continued to whine about religious rights, and the church hierarchy certainly did. One quote I have on hand is Toronto Archbishop Thomas Cardinal Collins saying that people of all faiths “should consider the implications of provincial legislation which overrides deeply held religious beliefs.” “If it happens to us,” he said, “it can happen to you, on this and other issues. When religious freedom becomes a second-class right, you also will eventually be affected.”
Translation: “When secular reason starts interfering with my Bible-thumping dogma so that it’s impossible for me to preach my homophobia, then homosexuals, Sodomites, and wickedness will reign o’er the land.” OK. So says the Archbish. But what does that have to do with running a school system in a fair-minded, secular, reason-based society?
What does an Archbishop have to do with running a secular school? Nothing, nor should he have. I’m pretty safe in saying ‘he’ in this case, aren’t I?
My main concern is that religious schools indoctrinate and isolate. They reinforce the belief at an early age that separation is the best way to organize society rather than pointing out that myth based separation isn’t rational. It doesn’t give kids a chance to be with other people to see that they aren’t different from each other.
I don’t feel as though that’s what I’m doing, so I’ll agree with that stipulation. To the extent I’m asking about the basis for religious protections and questioning them it’s only to show that they seem to work just as well for providing support for non-religious ones.
I don’t see any reason that a secular animal sacrifice wouldn’t be suppressed, too. So let’s pick an example where it seems currently religious protections actually do work. If I start a family-run company and I, out of my non-religious beliefs, decide that I do not want to provide the morning after pill to my employees through their health insurance, that seems like something that I would not be allowed to do. Where, if those were religious beliefs, it’s fine.
Indentured servitude was also a problem at the time and had been in the past, though. I think it’s an apt analogy for showing that lawmakers are capable of looking at instances where protection is needed and providing those protections to* all*, not only those currently requiring help. And sure, I don’t want to get rid of it, just make it fairer.
Not correct. You are mistaking what the question was.
The question was what happens when a religious freedom comes into conflict with a secular law, what would the courts in Canada do about it under present-day law?
This doesn’t arise in BC, as BC has specific legislation exempting Sikhs from wearing helmets. So there is no conflict in BC between the practice and the legislation.
However, if it did not, it is unlikely that under current Canadian jurisprudence a court would rule in favour of Sikhs refusing helmets. See the Multani case (a SCC decision, and as far as I know, it applies in BC): Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys - SCC Cases
I assume “religion” also includes specific observances and rituals, which “thought” & “conscience” wouldn’t, necessarily. That is, under the EU Charter, you couldn’t make it illegal to be a Communist, nor could you make it illegal to attend church on Sundays. But, I’m no scholar of the EU charter, nor the UN declaration it’s modeled on, so this is just speculation.
Why? For purely practical and historical reasons - because a majority self-identity group attempting to impose its will on minority self-identity groups has proven very troublesome and caused much grief, that’s why.
This isn’t, as others have remarked, a zero-sum game, in which having religious freedoms prevents having other sorts of freedoms (should they prove compelling). The narrow question is whether stripping away religious freedoms would be a good thing, or a bad thing.
