It is more complex than that. There is a spectrum between necessity and frippery. Many religious desires are necessarily towards the necessity end of the spectrum whereas many other desires are towards the frippery end. Consequently, more serious desires will include a greater proportion of religious claimants than non-religious claimants.
I am quite happy that Halal Meals are served, but do not expect a special diet because of it as I have no strong feelings
I am happy that religious people are able to celebrate their special day because I do not need to and would not claim it.
I am happy that young women (as misguided as they may actually be about its effect) should be allowed to cover their face but that I should not be free to wear a balaclava in hot weather without attracting suspicion.
It is a matter of tolerance and understanding rather than legalistic pedantry.
The arrangement with Faith schools has always been that no more is spent on them per pupil than on non-religious schools. The State provides the money to educate children to the required national standard and the Catholic Church does it within a Catholic structure. The alternative would be something like vouchers which should be avoided at all costs to stop middle class flight from local schools (especially in England.)
I do not agree with Faith schools, but given where we are starting from, I cannot see an easy way to overcome the expectations of the parents and pupils now. I do object to current policies which actually encourage more of them.
I went to a CofE School in England in the sixties and as with most CofE structures, it was little different from a non-religious one- mere lip service was paid to the status.
But does your suggestion take into account that beliefs and desires of religious origin are likely to have a far higher necessity quotient than mere desires of the average person. To many religious people, to be forced to not observe the tenets of their religion would be personally disastrous, whereas the wishes of non-religious origin tend to be less valent.
I don’t really know anything about the traditions and beliefs of judaism but I have long since stopped expecting the major religions to make sense.
Yes, I’m all for extending options unless a very strong case can be made otherwise and a purely religious argument doesn’t cut it for me.
Gay marriage is an obvious equality that is a benefit for individuals specifically and society in general. Face-coverings? 99% of the time wear what the heck you want but the price you pay for that degree of liberty is that you have to give up that right under certain, well defined circumstances. However, this needs to apply equally to the nutter in a chewbacca mask as it does to the devout female adherent of islam.
But be careful, it isn’t necessarily bigoted to be critical of islamic practices and beliefs. Any belief system needs to be open to criticism and able to be criticised on the basis of what they themselves believe to be true.
Some religions have a doctrine of heaven and hell. I find that abhorrent. Some are vehemently opposed to homosexuality, that is anathema to me. Some are institutionally misogynistic and I reserve the right to point that out when relevant.
The boldened part of the text is an unquantifiable assumption on your part. Almost unconsciously you accept the fact that, just because a request comes from a religious standpoint, it carries more weight than a “mere desire”.
This reminds me of the Douglas Adams “it just is!” quote. Society does lean towards giving religious beliefs precedent but I’ve yet to come across a cogent argument that doesn’t descend into an appeal to tradition or a supernatural authority that I don’t recognise.
I was not claiming that all criticism was bigoted, but this is a stick used by fascists to beat Islam with.
You seem not to get the point about valency. If someone has very strong and defensible feelings about, say, face covering, then that should count for more than the fascist scum who claim the right to wear a balaclava just to be bloody awkward and to make a bigoted point.
If the police see a woman walking down the street with a simple face covering, they would not give it a second glance in Birmingham, Manchester or London. However if the saw a muscled, tattooed skinhead with a scarf wrapped round his face on a non-blizzard day, they would have probable cause to stop and question someone. All is context, but the fascist would claim and equal right and say that they were being unfairly discriminated against.
All Morals end up with the statement that “It just is”. There are no cogent arguments for one set of morals over another, save for pointing out internal inconsistency.
My point is that religious people tend to be somewhat more dedicated to their practices than non-religious people through deep training and experience; a liberal society should take notice of such matters.
Sorry, but it goes both ways. A feminist could (and do) make the claim that the full islamic covering is offensive and threatening to them and would be fully backed up by their deeply held political and moral views.
Unless the scum are directly threatening anyone I’d let them carry on until such time as the police chose to step in. If they threaten a disturbance of the peace then existing laws are available to use. The face-covering itself is not sufficient.
But it is possible to trace the practical outcome of adhering to one moral view over another and at least make a personal judgement on good/better/best. That is easier though if you aren’t bound to a supernaturally mandated morality and code of ethics.
Most people remain in the religion of their parents because it is all they know. Religions know this and are set up to keep it that way. Children are immersed in it before they have any opportunity to critically assess what they do belief and so the cycle continues (back to faith schools again).
I don’t doubt the deep-seated nature of religious practice but I don’t give it any greater worth than similar cultural expression through supporting Sunderland vs Newcastle or voting Labour vs Tory. All views can be held equally strongly, all can require equally important activities and liberal society should indeed take note of these.
There is nothing at all necessary about adherence to any religious canon – it is as simple a choice as any other in life – do, or don’t, that is up to you. Simply by repeating this notion as if it is trivially true does not bolster your argument, a point that to me simply boils down to " If you really, really believe it, then you should be treated as a special case.” You have not demonstrated any reason why this should, in fact, be so.
So; the intensity of a belief, however ignorant or misguided, should be the sole arbiter of whether the advocate’s requests are valid? And this intensity carries with it a great validation to you than any other person’s opinion on the same matter? If so, would you also defend those same fascists/racists when they expound their incredibly deep seeded hatred for blacks/muslims/gays/others, as they really, really believe in it? Would they get an exemption to only work in an all-WASP office to ensure their sensibilities on this strogly held belief are not infringed?
Or, more interestingly, if a scholarly secular professor with many years of detailed research and publication in the field, wishes to make a cogent and profound stand against state surveillance and invasion of personal privacy, chooses to wear a balaclava in public at all times (against existing laws), would this would be okay with you as he has strong commitment to the reasons behind his actions? Yes or no?
If yes, then it is not religious exemption you are supporting, but a depth of feeling exemption. (which looks like very weak ground to be on, to me).
If no, then you are seeking a special pedestal for religion that has no real place in a society of equals.
Final point for me for a while, must work, (that balaclava is not going to knit itself)
I agree completely here. The fascist scum and those with hidden hateful agendas make it almost impossible to have an honest debate about religious practices. Such is the poisonous world we live in.
I think we’ve not done too shabbily though. We’ve batted back and forth and disagreed but I’ve found it illuminating and thought-provoking. Regardless of the different stances we’d take on reasonableness I sense overall that we are closer on most issues than the thread would at first suggest.
I agree as well. However, I do think people could put a little more effort into their discernment of true bigotry from legitimate criticism. If you suspect someone is using this stick to beat Muslims with instead of Islam (what is wrong with beating Islam with a stick, it’s just a bunch of make believe?), then just tell them you met a nice, successful atheist man from Sri Lanka that you are sure their sister would fawn over. You know, because of his beautiful brown skin and stuff. And then sit back and wait for the face to turn red, it’s like a fucking racism barometer, very useful for calling the bluff of those “I don’t really have a problem with X race/ethnicity, I just happen to hate everything about them” types.
That sounds like me with a suspected closet racist/sexist/homophobe at a party. I’m not a fan of those dos anyway so I need a game to keep me amused.
I’ll be looking for buttons to push while my wife glares at me from behind a flagon of Pimms.
It can be dangerous though. If you are careful with your responses and language you can sometimes goad them on to reveal more than they were intending whilst never actually agreeing with them at all. Trouble with that is anyone overhearing might lump you together.
I like stringing them along but I have to make sure they realise they are rather more alone than they think.
The final coup-de-grace is always best delivered with sincere flat finality. “Actually no I can’t agree, I’ve found the German’s/Japanese/Pakistani to be delightful people, just the same as most of us” (emphasis on the most). The enjoy the uncomfortable silence that follows
No. Personal beliefs, no matter how firmly held, do not control what OTHERS do. However strongly a feminist was offended by a veil gives no right to ban it without cause IMHO. Now if the state was stopping a feminist doing something because she was a feminist, then that is another matter.
I think that maybe you need to study a little psychology about the matter. Religion is a very deep influence on people in many facets of life. Sunderland/Newcastle, Labour/Tory are a different ballpark. One is cultural, broad and deep, the other is constructed, narrow and shallow.
No. Where belief is very deep and is neither illegal, immoral or disruptive, it should be respected. There are other beliefs that are more a matter of choice.
I would suggest that my diagnosis is what society currently does anyway- religion is given particular value even by a supposedly non-religious United States of America!
I would point out that I am a strong atheist who has never had any religious leanings, but I am also somewhat liberal in matters of personal expression and adherence.
I think we actually agree a lot more than we disagree, with the most obvious difference being your higher reverence for religious belief or faith. I just don’t accept that a stated religious belief is necessarily any more important, deep or profound than any other chosen opinion or personal alliance, regardless of how those who are religious would like us to.
For me, what you are mostly talking about is an accommodation, not a legal exemption. This is where we may be talking at crossed purposes. An accommodation is absolutely fine and, as far as humanly possible, should be forwarded to all such reasonable requests as a standard reflection of human decency. But garnering specific exemptions to existing laws solely on points of personal belief is built on very different, and very shaky, ground.
I believe the law of the land is the law of the land, and it applies fully and equally to all citizens of this land. I object to any suggestion that claiming an adherence to any particular belief should somehow make you exempt to laws that otherwise all other citizens of the country are subject to. Everyone is free to follow any belief system they choose, and behave precisely as they wish, but solely within the boundaries of existing laws. Anything other creates a society of unequals, with some being bestowed with undue privileges simply as an accident of birth or a personal lifestyle choice – and this is the sticking point for me.
On a practical level, I’m fully aware that this ‘positive prejudice’ towards faith has existed in society for a long time, no doubt as long as society has existed, and what I have to say on the matter is fundamentally irrelevant. But ultimately, recognised or not, it is still a prejudice. True equality will continue to elude us until we stop making special cases.
Maybe at Buckingham @ Abrams in Richardson, but you’re right, not Parker and Independence.
There’s actually a pretty large Muslim community in the area- I’ve noticed that the women with headscarves or burqas get a lot less weird looks than the men with the stereotypical crazy beards.
I’m sorry but those descriptions can apply equally to religion, political viewpoints or even sporting affiliations. I’ve met many people for whom politics is a more influential worldview than than their religion. Deeper and more profound.
The assumption that religion is automatically the former is flat out wrong.
And then sit back and wait for the face to turn red, it’s like a fucking racism barometer, very useful for calling the bluff of those “I don’t really have a problem with X race/ethnicity, I just happen to hate everything about them” types.