I even think that in situations in which it causes economic or physical harm it should be illegal when practiced by private individuals…
If nothing else, it heads off any future issues with people who want to claim that they can freely discriminate against Atheists and the like under the claim that “They don’t have a religion, so this isn’t about Religion.”
I am aware of the sort you have in mind. This is not one of those. It is a level of experience obtainable by anyone but rarely attempted for various not very complicated reasons. Depth of experience informs proportionately.
No. All types of discrimination should be legal. 99.9% of types of discrimination are legal. Outlawing discrimination against Christians is even sillier than outlawing discrimination based on physical characteristics, why double down on silliness?
1A says no establishment of religion, or prohibition of religion. That first part protects atheists, as it prevents an establishment of religion.
the rest of it, freedom of assembly, speech, press, and redress of grievances apply to everyone.
Are you claiming that Buddhists do not believe in the supernatural or afterlife? 1A doesn’t say anything about theism vs atheism, but about religion.
They could be, but they shouldn’t have to be.the point of 1a was not really to protect religion, it was specifically to protect people from religion. You could not impose your religion on me. That applies whether or not I have a religion of my own.
That has nothing to do with it. the point was that there is quite a bit of public interest in discriminating against people for being atheist, not that they are not allowed to do so.
Believing in a supernatural or afterlife doesn’t make you theist, if your beliefs include no God’s you are atheist.
The word is athiest not aspritualis
Hey look, we are in agreement. I did not say that believing in supernatural or the afterlife makes you a theist, I said it makes you religious.
Why does it sound like you were trying to argue with me there? Did you misunderstand something?
the word is religious, not areligious.
AND, my bold: nitpick, the word is atheist, not athiest.
I know.
The point of that was that many anti- descrimimation laws refer to religion, In a manner that isn’t really clear on lack of religion, so while a religious atheist like a Buddhist might be protected, I’m not so sure that atheists lacking a religion are necessarily protected.
I know several people have said they are but it seems to me like it’s actually a little ambiguous in some cases.
While there is definitely potential for descrimimation against atheists, I don’t know of any legal cases, I imagine if it were currently prevalent enough we would see cases.
Nothing wrong with being proactive though.
I certainly think the laws should apply, I see no reason to classify beliefs and lack of beliefs as different, and saying it is okay to descrimimate against non religious atheists would be tanamount to endorsing religion.
Damn, does your spellcheck not work? The word is “discrimination”, not “descrimimation”. It is annoying.
I think it’s actually decided after enough typos that the “m” Is correct.
Fat fingers and phones…
If you absolutely have to “correct” someone on nitpicky stuff, please do it with an attitude resembling humor. Otherwise, take it to The BBQ Pit.
EVERYONE, for goodness sake, drop all the pointless bickering over spelling. This is supposed to be Great Debates, not Whiny Kvetching.
[ /Moderating ]
what about when protestant or catholic school says you have to Christian to work?
Inappropriate. It causes economic harm to the candidates, and can deprive the students of a teacher who’s a perfectly good one.
One of my teachers in a Jesuit HS was a married ex-Jesuit priest. While that specific detail was irrelevant to his teaching Spanish Grammar and Literature, it gave us a chance to talk with someone whose experiences were different from what we could get elsewhere. Many of us could talk more freely about life paths and life choices with our teachers than we could at home; the parents of some of my classmates were still in denial about their little baby being about to go to college when said little baby was in 12th grade. And he was a dang good teacher, the kind who kindles students’ love for the subject.
My 6th-grade Religion class was Comparative Religion: is there any reason it can’t be taught by a Buddhist, an atheist or a Hindu? None I can come up with. While schools are supposed to teach certain principles along with the official course materials, stuff such as “say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’”, “help your neighbor” and “if you can’t be helpful, at least don’t be a jerk” isn’t linked to a specific religion.
That was back when in Spain the choices of religion were pretty much “Catholic” and “non-practicing Catholic”. Nowadays both that same HS and the Nuns I attended K-8 would be perfectly happy to get a Muslim teacher: they’d like to be able to offer Arabic as a second language but can’t find qualified teachers for it anywhere.