You are right, there is not, I am letting my own bias or dislike for religion complicate the discussion.
I see this as an expression of another important legal principle: the universal applicability of law. (In this case apparently the pregnancy discrimination act, as Human Action has kindly pointed out.) The state must ensure that the benefits of that law are given to all of its citizens.
Oh, yes, we have the same concept here (Not sure what the legal term is) and I, like you, think it is a fundamental aspect of a good democracy.
What I thought you were missing is that the law isn’t always a neutral proscription on harmful behavior; it can be, and has been, a weapon used by the powerful to batter the weak and the different. The same free-exercise clause you see as a means for the religious to assert a privilege and flaunt the law, I see as a shield against bigotry and discrimination.
OK, and I ask you this honestly, and I’m not eve sure if it is what you are implying but I will make my point… If I have a harsh anti religious bias, and I think they are idiots, and I don’t have much concern if their ideals are fading out of favor… well that makes me a jerk, I admit… but how does that make me a weapon of bigotry and discrimination (you mentioned people needing a shield against bigotry and discrimination). Were you trying to correct my position, in a nice way, or did I get that part messed up?
He has not called you a weapon of bigotry and discrimination.
The free-exercise clause prevents the passing of laws that could otherwise be used to discriminate against religious minorities, something that would otherwise be in danger of happening, especially if a government is dominated by members of one majority religion. In that sense it is indeed a shield against bigotry and discrimination. Human Action has pointed out that the clause is useful and valuable, because you seemed to be looking only at its downside (which is that the religious may attempt to use it in order to secure privileges for themselves that they otherwise should not be entitled to.)
Thinking all religious people are idiots might make you a jerk (though really it just makes you incorrect); not being concerned if people in general are less religious in the future doesn’t.
To your question: let’s say that Constitution was amended, to remove the free-exercise clause. Simultaneous, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and all state-level equivalents, were repealed.
What would the result be? I can tell you that it wouldn’t be a decline in religious influence on the law. To the contrary, it’d be a parade of laws that are favorable to Christianity (and specifically Catholicism, mainline Protestantism, and evangelical Protestantism), and detrimental to the 30% of Americans that practice other faiths, or none.
This would represent a mix of deliberate attacks on other faiths (like France banning the hijab), and simple status-quo bias (such as regulations, written by Christians, that require uniform hats for police officers, with no thought that some officers would be Jewish or Sikh). Attacks on the Other are a reliable vote-getter, and majorities won’t attempt to respect minority rights if they have the option not to. Look at the history of free-exercise cases, and note how many are connected to minority faiths. This is not a coincidence. The rest of us need protection from the Christian supermajority in this country, and even that Christian supermajority has rights that can occasionally be burdened by the law.
So, I don’t think you personally are trying to facilitate discrimination or the marginalization of religious minorities; I think that’d be an unintended consequence of your beliefs being given the force of law.
Oh, ok, well see, I have two perspectives for this, South Georgia (deep south) and NYC. IN NYC it was great. The idea that one group could “bully” the other didn’t really happen. IN NYC there is so much diversity of every kind, political, religious, economic… my point Hasidic Jews and Observant Muslims and Hindu’s and Sikhs, Atheists, Protestants, Catholics… all of that was so common and so well blended together that after a while it all just faded into the background. So I am not against the idea of people of different persuasions living side by side, in fact I much enjoyed it. Maybe I’m really just trying to defend myself here and say it’s not that I’m hostile to all religion, when it’s in an open cooperative environment I actually welcome the diversity. When it’s clannish and small minded like it is in my hometown now… I’m not a fan of religion, at all.
That was actually a good explanation. Read my response right above this because as you were typing I was typing and I think the response above works pretty well to your comments also…
My have been pretty blunt and “black and white” but without sounding too grandiose I can tell from your comments now and before that I was oversimplifying or overlooking some important aspects of this discussion.
Thanks for taking the time to read and consider my points. Like I said, as an atheist I have a personal stake in religious liberty and minority rights, and limiting the extent to which the law can interfere with religious practices is a big part of that. Beyond that, I consider the freedom of religion to be a human right, irrespective of whether I think religion itself has any value (I don’t); other people plainly do, to the extent of trying to quash other peoples’ religions.
Oh, yes, I used to be real big into the New Atheist movement… then finally got bored with it. I think it started to kick up about 2004 or 2005… that was when Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins (books and lectures/debates for both) and YouTube were all getting popular at the same time. Also The Atheist Experience out of Austin was on YouTube in a big way too… and a couple of years prior to that Dover Delaware and Intelligent Design and some text books in Texas maybe… yeah, I remember seeing stats several times that Atheists are the least trusted group.
Wow - that poll you linked is quite striking. I had no idea that atheists are that unpopular in the US. Exploring that would almost be worthy of a thread of its own.
Now, I do not want to derail this one too much, but out of curiosity: Do you know how many Americans identify themselves as atheists or agnostics?
Therefore, in the absence of Constitutional protections, anti-atheist laws are likely to become a problem.
It varies, based on what choices are offered:
Gallup has it at 16% (specifically, those who answered “none” to “What is your religious preference?”).
Pew counts 22.8% as being unaffiliated/no religion, which is further broken down into 3.1% atheist, 4% agnostic, and 15.8% “nothing in particular”.
About 2.4% atheist, and 3.3% agnostic. However -
Cite. So the figures are unreliable, to say the least.
Regards,
Shodan
Hemant Mehta - The Friendly Atheist/The Atheist Voice
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistVoice/videos?view=0&flow=grid&sort=p
Atheist Experience - Clips
(better, show itself is an hour long, lots of boring parts sometimes)
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=athiest+expereince+clips
If you’re ever bored and want to watch some videos… about life in the USA as an Atheist. The first from a “pleasant” Atheist and the second from a call in show hosted by more critical Atheists.
So 14% of those who call themselves atheists have no idea what an atheist is? Ok, that is funny. :smack:
Thanks for the cites. They are very interesting. I promise not to derail this thread any further.
Well… it is not really that exactly. I could be wrong, even completely wrong in that it extends to other Atheists but my experience is that even though I am not technically an Atheist, I am technically an Agnostic, but I just tell people Atheist because it gets the point across automatically… skeptical of any/all religious claims and distrusting of Christianity specifically… almost “I am anti-religious”. The point being most Americans, well, many of them, hear “Agnostic” and they think “Spiritual” like Deepock Chopra or some hippy tree hugger (not that I have anything against hippies per se). That’s why I call myself an Atheist, to set myself apart from the “spiritual new age agnostics”. I will repeat again that maybe I am completely misrepresenting or over-blowing this situation but this is how it has worked out for me thus far.
I think the hierarchy of disbelief is thus:
A) Strong Atheist: There is no God/god/gods.
B) Weak Atheist: I don’t believe in the existence of God/god/gods.
C) Agnostic: I do not, and cannot know if there is such thing as God/god/gods.
Sounds like you’re one of these with a good helping of disliking religion thrown in. That aside, do you feel closer to A, B or C?
An agnostic is an atheist who makes a special exception for politeness towards the thing he doesn’t believe in.
We know there isn’t an invisible unicorn in the room right now, or a teapot orbiting on the other side of the sun, or an army of zombies secretly running the government of Guyana…but for this one thing we “can’t know,” for some reason.
Never mind, tangent of a tangent.