I’m not sure here but I think the knife issue is probably not a good example.
In fact as described it might be perfect of example of where religion and culture are given exactly the same weight as a secular personal desire and subject to the same rules. As such I’d have no problem leaving it as it is.
Let us take another example- should Moslems have special diets in prisons, hospitals, schools etc?
As to your two questions, I do not think religious beliefs are different from other deeply held beliefs.
I do not think that state schools should have any religious management.
In my view it is an excellent example equating strong belief and liberty with both religious and non-religious desires.
A further question- should Moslem parents be allowed to educate their children in Islamic schools?
Should local authorities allow eruvs to be erected?
Should Christians be allowed to refuse to work on the Sabbath?
On both the supply and demand side, the government has an obligation not to discriminate on the basis of religion. On the demand side, a Muslim should be able to select non-pork dishes, but so should anyone else. But on the supply side the government should not discriminate against non-Muslim butchers just to supply Halal meat.
Halal means more than no pork. Some non-Muslims will object to eating meat slaughtered using Halal methods. Not as simple as you imply.
Private? yes they can do what they want with their own money.
State? A school should be free to set itself up as Islamic but to set any religious criteria on entry should be as illegal as setting entry criteria on skin colour or political affiliation of the parents. Even then, should they choose to continue I’d want careful auditing of the curriculum. Same goes for Catholic, Jewish or any religion and belief system.
Of course, as long as others are extended the same courtesy, vegetarians, people that don’t eat fish. If Moslems were the only ones allowed a different diet then yes, I’d have a problem with that.
Are you in the US or UK? Or elsewhere? AFAIK both places allow religious foundation schools to set entry criteria. For cause. They are private institutions set up to provide education for people of a single faith- should religious education not be allowed?
In the UK Catholic Schools may admit all Cathlics in the area that wish to go and after that must admit non Catholics to its limit- and these are publicly funded schools!
That’s new one on me. Had to google it and, though I’m still not sure exactly what they are trying to accomplish, it seems to be an attempt to circumvent the tenets of the religion. Are they trying to fool god? is it the jewish equivalent of crossing your fingers when promising?
Anyway, silly but harmless. And again I believe I am consistent in all my answers. As long as what they do doesn’t materially harm anyone else I can’t see an objection. If the local morris-dancing group wanted to put up bunting and were refused by the same council then…again…I’d have a problem.
As long as the same flexible options are open to non-christians and other workers yes. That would be an arrangement to be made within contract negotiations.
*Only *allowing religious people to make flexible working demands would be wrong.
But here we get the question of reasonableness. What if someone only wanted quality food.
I am trying to point out that most laws and regulations have reasonableness clauses that allow flexibility, and these should be applied to religion as well as to other exceptions.
To be rigid especially with religious desires and requests would be bigotry of the worst kind.
The current law differs from that somewhat in both the UK and US. Should it be tightened to meet your more oppressive criteria?
Erecting Eruvs in Manchester and London caused major anti Semitic complaints. You obviously know nothing of the intricacies of Rabbinical interpretation if you find the concept of an Eruv strange!
SO then, as long as what people ask for does not harm others to any extent, then such special considerations may be made- I would tend to agree. Which is why I am considerably more relaxed about face coverings than many posters here.
It is a bit like Gay Marriage- Gays getting married does not harm Straights, even bigoted straights. Similalry, someone using a face covering does not harm people who wish people to see their faces, except in circumstances where face coverings are necessarily banned.
If you visit sub-fascist web sites in the UK you will find many bigots using Islamic practices to stir up anti-Islamic feeling by using the same arguments displayed by some above.
I’m UK. so can’t speak on US policy. As I understand it, private schools in the UK are free to do what the heck they want. I wouldn’t ban them but I’d make sure they had no state funding at all.
And it is precisely that issue that I find impossible to defend. A state school, using public money, sets up entry criteria that discriminates on the grounds of religion (parent’s religion in fact, seeing as the children haven’t offered any informed opinion).
In any other public institution such behaviour would see the board hauled up in court.
Under no circumstances should any state school be able to take religion into consideration. Never.
That is another topic but certainly forcing non-halal meat on Muslims is just as bad as forcing halal meat on those who consider the ritual slaughter used as unnecessarily cruel.
I don’t think we actually disagree on this. I’m not suggesting (and have not done in any of our discussions) that we don’t take religious desire into account, merely that the exemptions it demands are also available to others.
You misread my post. I’m in favour of *loosening *the law, making it less oppressive (rather poisonous choice of words there).
Flexible working for all religious persuasions and none.