No, because I don’t agree that it’s objectively indistinguishable from the Catholic Church’s stance.
You seem to think that claims cannot be evaluated in any way – that one claim is as good as another, with no mechanism to weigh the credibility of the claim. What you’ve described is almost certainly a case of Acme trying to dodge discrimination claims by falsely claiming a religious motive, and you seem to think the courts would be powerless to weign and evaluate their claim.
This was also the plan of Kimberly Cloutier, who wished to work at Costco and retain her facial piercings, notwithstanding Costco’s employee appearance policy. Ms. Cloutier announced that she belonged to the Church of Body Modification, and thus her religion required those facial piercings, confident that she was making an unassailable claim because, after all, who can say what’s genuine in these matters?
So an analysis of Acme’s mission statement would similarly have to survive scrutiny of seriousness. What you’ve described is a dodge that would not.
But if, bizarrely, Acme was serious, and all their actions showed it – if they were genuinely selling the idea of supersalesman Smith and not simply trying to dodge employment law – yes, they should be permitted to hire only men.
Actually, I’m trying to show that claims can and should be evaluated, and that upon evaluation the only thing which separates hypothetical Acme and the Catholic Church is that one is not religious while the other is(not a particularly solid difference IMHO), and that you’re holding religious claims to be above and beyond other, extremely similar claims. Your statement “…you’ve described is almost certainly a case of Acme trying to dodge discrimination claims by falsely claiming a religious motive…” shows that you are in fact doing so since you assume that if Acme could genuinely claim religious motives, it would then no longer be ‘dodging’ but in fact entitled to discriminate. Please tell me, in the spirit of the OP, * why * religion should be permitted such respect? (or instead of religion, put strong belief, since later you extend the special pleading for religion)
And here you go on to say that not only should special pleading for religion be allowed, but as long as someone else is actually ‘serious enough’ about their beliefs, even if such beliefs run counter to something that we’re beginning to take as one of the fundamental morals of modern society (non-discrimination against women), then they should be allowed to act upon those beliefs! Brings to mind the quote “Good people will do good things and bad people bad things, but to get good people to do(in this case - allow?) bad things, you need religion”
So, no Monty Python then? The life of Brian (where they make fun of the Jewish prohibition on saying “YHWH”) and The meaning of life (where they make fun of the Catholic Church’s position on birth control) are a detriment to civilization?
If I say that young earth creationism is utter idiocy or make fun of it, this is reprehensible?
If a man believes Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a man as he does with a woman, that is an abomination. They shall be killed, their blood is unto them.”
Or if a man believes this:
1 Timothy:
2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
I am to respect his belief, am I? What does that entail? Otherwise I’m not civilized?
Also, it’s a bit rich of you to say that respecting religious beliefs is the mark of being civilized when you said:
I’m no expert. But I don’t think you automatically get a job along with the sacrament, any more than a kid does when they takes the sacrament of Baptism, or Confirmation, or any of the other sacraments. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s more analagous to a privately awarded qualification than a position of employment.
Agreed, a requisite for being a working priest is to have taken said sacrament.
No idea on the employment status there (The Vatican is a state, not a company; I’m not sure what “The Catholic Church” is, and clearly it operates in a lot of countries).
There are many religious things that I think are complete and utter baloney. It doesn’t mean I can’t be respectful to people who practice such things (to a degree - some things will always be outside of my realm of grace). Note that I was talking to a person about Judaism (my faith) – not talking to a Christian about theirs and making fun of it.
There’s a difference between saying on a message board, ‘Oh, I think a belief in a human-God is nonsensical and a rather unfair requirement’ while still being known for defending theists against assault versus being the type of person who posts constantly that religions are stupid, people who take their children to church are child abusers, anyone who believes in God or follows a religion in a mindless sheep, etc. etc. We have plenty of those on SDMB.
On the OP though, I try my best to judge people on an individual basis, certainly not their faith or lack of. I’ve met plenty of both types of individuals that made the biggest asshole list. Some thoughts:
I’ll respect a priest or reverend on his personality. But I will not respect his religion. Even a nun (shudders) deserves my respect as a person. I’m still jilted if they tell me “God bless” or “I’ll pray for you” to which I’d usually reply “No thank you” or “I"ll think for you” as a response… but it’s always with a smile.
People deserve respect, and as a non-believer, I feel I can be more open to people. As a young catholic, it was common for me and many of my friends to not “hang” with those of other faiths. This was mainly because of our parents influence, not the schools or churches we attended. But it is damn well supported in the TEXTS of the religions that have been mentioned thus far.
Religion segregates waaaaay too much. If it’s not supposed to help people do that so easily, where does it really benefit society?
If you’re an atheist, or even rational, IMO it’s impossible to respect the religious beliefs of others. The best you can hope for is to either keep your mouth shut altogether, or keep the tone of your voice neutral. I’ve gotten into a few discussion when I ended up just laughing out loud at the crazy. I really didn’t intend it, it turns out to be a pretty spontaneous and natural reaction for me. But I was sorry that in a couple of cases it truly hurt their feelings or angered them, which wasn’t my intent either. Other times I wasn’t sorry at all, because they were pricks with or without religion.
There are religious people I respect, but not their faith.
I don’t even know if you can respect a religion. I can respect a person’ for being kind, intelligent, a fast runner, funny etc. When I first meet someone I might give them the benefit of the doubt and respect them because they are probably a wonderful person, then I might lose some of my respect for them, perhaps when it turns out they believe something that is not true, or when it turns out they are mean or have no sense of humour. Doesn’t mean I have no respect for them, just less.
For religions I think it is important to be tolerant. That means you allow people to believe what they want and practice their beliefs to the extent that it does no harm and does not break any laws. This is clearly an entirely different thing to respecting the fact that they believe something that isn’t true, as that would obviously be dishonest. How can I possibly respect something I fundamentally think is silly? I can only tolerate it.
Someone once asked me to stop swearing because they were a Christian and I should respect that (“damn it”, was the offense). I asked if he were willing to say that the bible’s position on women is wrong, which he was not. I explained that I did not respect his religion and was inherently offended by his beliefs, just as he was by my swearing. I suggested we would not respect each others ways & beliefs, but instead tolerate them. It worked just fine Of course, I could still respect many other aspects about this person.
It’s a complex question, as to me many atheists hold irrational beliefs just like religious folk, just when you are surrounded by a like mind set you don’t notice the irrationalities of your beliefs (or disbeliefs if you prefer).
But it is good that we have them, including atheism because it shows there are other ways, and other ways work. So that can allow people to think outside their local culture of beliefs. In a very like sense it is the growth one can experience while traveling to forien lands.
The OP is coming from the point that is commonly expressed as the ‘ugly American’, the type that believes that their way is right and every other culture is wrong. It is a local culture group think mentality. In traveling, or respecting others beliefs, a person starts to learn that the way they know is not the only way, and over time learn that some thing work better in the different mindset.
From this point it is personal growth, being able to chose what to accept and what to reject, to question authority and learn to operate your own mind.
By not respecting the other beliefs you limit your chance for growth and limit the possibility to see your own indoctrination.
NB: I didn’t mean “I don’t know if you can respect a religion” as in “religion should be disrespected”. What I meant is: I think people should be respected for their good qualities, I don’t think you can respect things, like religion, logical positivism and lampposts. Just to clear that up…
What’s it cost to be respectful of someone else’s beliefs? You can disagree with them, certainly. Hold a different view, also okay. None of that requires you be disrespectful. So why would you?
Because it gives unearned respect and therefore encouragement to extremely destructive beliefs. And because the believers certainly won’t return the favor, and it becomes tiresome playing punching bag.
I never sent any missionaries anywhere. I do know some that were invited, though.
I don’t think your understanding of specific theological interpretations represents my faith. Of course you may consider that I am not a Christian, because of it. It doesn’t change my faith. I believe only one opinion on that matter has any significance at all.
And when He was asked, He said, “I condemn no one.” I prefer to follow that example.
SOME believers won’t. Not all of them.
(I’ve said it before – I don’t give a shit generally what people believe, or don’t believe, as long as they’re not a dick about it. Otherwise, you can worship a can of tomato soup if you want)
Enough insist on pushing their beliefs down the throats of others that they are constantly and often successfully getting laws passed pushing their religious dogma. The few who are willing to leave everyone else alone are just that; a few. And I’ve seldom seen any great effort from them to criticize the believers who want to force themselves on others.
Ah, I see, it is the inconsistancy of not being critical of your belief system, and at the same time not criticizing the belief systems of someone you object to that you find hypocrital.
I’m not one to argue with anyone about how they self-identify. I am interested in how you came to your faith, and how you relate it to what is in the Bible, always remembering that at least some of the Bible has to be divinely inspired. How do you determine that the parts of the Bible you are rejecting are not divinely inspired.
I agree that you are free to choose any faith you wish - but you do understand that your position more or less puts religion on the same footing as choice of ice cream flavors. Not that this wouldn’t be a better world if this were recognized - Dairy Queen and Carvel seldom go to war, after all.
Of course, I could still respect many other aspects about this person.