Social Freedom of religion: Too far or not enough?

[Islam Imamate]

In this hypothetical, I would make it clear that I don't care to discuss religion.

Conversations are dynamic and people's values influence their concepts of what is appropriate to discuss or how to approach certain discussions. For instance, if you find out its your coworker's birthday but they seem uninterested in celebrating to which you ask why where they then might cite their religion(Jehovah Witnesses do not celebrate birthdays for instance). That's not a discussion on religion but that person's religious values figured into it.

And hypothetically if society were to move in the other direction, becoming more overtly religious, do you think it is incumbent on the state to set limits on public religiosity?

 

[nac386]

Very few restrictions. These are the only two that jumped out at me:

Restrictions on religious arbitration: We need to have one set of laws, as we are one society. When a crime is committed, it needs to go through the proper court system. Without that, we end up with situations like what happened within the Catholic Church, where they decided to handle horrific crimes "internally" instead of through the court system. If you abuse a child, it's not up to your boss what happens, it's up to the court system.

Restrictions on freedom of association: Again, you have to obey the law of the land. We have protections in place to prevent mass discrimination that applies across the country, and I do not believe a company should be able to use religion as an excuse to skirt those laws.

Edit: I would add anything that endangers the well-being of a child. For example, refusing proper medical care.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

That's a good one, yeah religious exemption might be the best fit. Maybe I should've created a category for religious parenting to cover stuff like that as well as home schooling and whatnot. Don't be too hung up on the poll though, wanted to use it as a launch pad for discussion.

So let's say at a hypothetical place of work one of your coworkers, one of many, is overtly religious. They wear a cross and make frequent references to their religion and values and how it informs their way of life. Should this person be actively ignored? Or just ignore them when they speak of religion?

That would fall under a religious exemption. Also Sikhs have a belief similar to your hypothetical, something about always carrying a knife.

Yeah the stuff I think of is pretty specific and deals with kids since for the most part I don't care what adults do as long as they aren't hurting other people.

So if your kid has 104 F fever you need to take him to licensed doctor and if he's diagnosed with meningitis you need to administer whatever the doctor prescribes.

And on the Education front I'm fine with religious schools teaching their faith but they also have to teach the basics in science including evolution.

 

[BEER]

Conversations are dynamic and people's values influence their concepts of what is appropriate to discuss or how to approach certain discussions. For instance, if you find out its your coworker's birthday but they seem uninterested in celebrating to which you ask why where they then might cite their religion(Jehovah Witnesses do not celebrate birthdays for instance). That's not a discussion on religion but that person's religious values figured into it.

And hypothetically if society were to move in the other direction, becoming more overtly religious, do you think it is incumbent on the state to set limits on public religiosity?

I'm a very straight-forward person. I say what's on my mind and if there is a conversation (no matter the topic, but in these hypothetical situations, let's say religion specifically), I will respectfully make it clear that I don't wish to discuss it, and if it continues, I will just walk away from the discussion. I also generally don't bother interfering with someone's personal life. If it's a coworker's birthday and they didn't mention it to me, I won't bring it up. I never bring up my birthday. Some people remember, most don't. I don't really care.

If society were to somehow start becoming more religious, I would just be a black sheep. I don't think the state should jump in.

 

[zebby23]

Restrictions on slicing off part of babies penises

 

[Islam Imamate]

Very few restrictions. These are the only two that jumped out at me:

Restrictions on religious arbitration: We need to have one set of laws, as we are one society. When a crime is committed, it needs to go through the proper court system. Without that, we end up with situations like what happened within the Catholic Church, where they decided to handle horrific crimes "internally" instead of through the court system. If you abuse a child, it's not up to your boss what happens, it's up to the court system.

Religious arbitration doesn't mean people are asking to break the laws of the land, it means they want to arbitrate private disputes with religious guidance. So I am asking if religious arbitration should be restricted beyond what secular arbitration courts face. For instance, in Islam female heirs are entitled to only half the share of a male heir and this offends some people. Should Muslims be disallowed from dividing their inheritance in this or some other way that offends the sensibilities of others?

Restrictions on freedom of association: Again, you have to obey the law of the land. We have protections in place to prevent mass discrimination that applies across the country, and I do not believe a company should be able to use religion as an excuse to skirt those laws.

Reread the poll option, I specify discriminating in hiring religious functionaries. A church refusing to hire openly gay priests is different from like an autoshop refusing service to a gay client.

 

[Lead]

Picked arbitration but was on the fence about the last three overall (association and exemption).

 

[Blake_UK]

Freedom of religion is a common right in modern liberal democracies but in practice it differs from country to country. On one end you have America where the state is ostensibly secular but the society has broad freedom to express its religiosity and organize along those lines and even influence government to an extent so long as it doesn't violate the Establishment Clause. On the other end there's France which not only has a secular state but also a generally secular public sphere where there exist more restrictions, both legal and social, on expressions of religiosity.

What restrictions on freedom of religion do you think are reasonable? Should expressions of religiosity in the public sphere be restricted, legally or otherwise?

The only restrictions should be on their ability to avoid taxes.

I have no problem with genuine charitable works dressed in religion but some churches (eg Scientology) are little more than businesses.

 

[nac386]

Religious arbitration doesn't mean people are asking to break the laws of the land, it means they want to arbitrate private disputes with religious guidance. So I am asking if religious arbitration should be restricted beyond what secular arbitration courts face. For instance, in Islam female heirs are entitled to only half the share of a male heir and this offends some people. Should Muslims be disallowed from dividing their inheritance in this or some other way that offends the sensibilities of others?

Religious arbitration opens the door for the type of closed door decisions I just described. Especially if the people are coerced by their religious community into participating in this religious arbitration instead of going through the legal courts.

In the case you're describing, I still have concerns. A female Muslim may be coerced into allowing this religious arbitration to take place instead of the normal court system, essentially robbing her of half the money the legal court may provide. Religious pressures can be great, because failure to play along may mean being ostracized from your entire community and support system.

One society, one set of laws, one court system.

Reread the poll option, I specify discriminating in hiring religious functionaries. A church refusing to hire openly gay priests is different from like an autoshop refusing service to a gay client.

"Freedom of association" is not limited to the example that you gave. Freedom of association would include a place of worship reserving the right not allow people for any reason they choose. I believe they should follow the same set of standards that everybody else follows.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Religious arbitration opens the door for the type of closed door decisions I just described. Especially if the people are coerced by their religious community into participating in this religious arbitration instead of going through the legal courts.

In the case you're describing, I still have concerns. A female Muslim may be coerced into allowing this religious arbitration to take place instead of the normal court system, essentially robbing her of half the money the legal court may provide. Religious pressures can be great, because failure to play along may mean being ostracized from your entire community and support system.

One society, one set of laws, one court system.

So you're against private religious arbitration outright. Does that include non-religious private arbitration? Can I get my divorce arbitrated by a lawyer if not a rabbi or imam?

"Freedom of association" is not limited to the example that you gave. Freedom of association would include a place of worship reserving the right not allow people for any reason they choose. I believe they should follow the same set of standards that everybody else follows.

I mean freedom to associate on the basis of their religious values which in practice means excluding people who openly commit fornication and adultery or are openly gay or (in the case of Catholics) divorcees and so on.

 

[nostradumbass]

I just chose restrictions on wearing religious symbols, but even that is minimal. Pretty much just not covering your face for ID photos and possibly going into banks or wherever else your face needs to be visible.

I'm not religious at all, but it's a fundamental right to practice religion, which should at least personally for religious people, be pretty near the top of the list in importance.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

So would religious arbitration on matters of inheritance be illegitimate since that deals with property?

If they override state law, definitely.

So a person can use religious custom or law to make his/her inheritance decision, but then it should only be enforceable if it's filed (not sure if "filed" is the best term here but you get my drift) through the state.

 

[djacobox372]

Religion should be treated like any other political or social ideology. The fact that a minister can buy a 50 million dollar jet tax free on tax free income is ridiculous. They need to be held to the same standard as any other non-profit.

 

[nac386]

So you're against private religious arbitration outright. Does that include non-religious private arbitration? Can I get my divorce arbitrated by a lawyer if not a rabbi or imam?

The difference is that other forms of private arbitration do not carry the same potential for coercion. You can each have your own lawyer, each of whom studied the law of the land, not the law of your religion. Both parties have to agree to the arbitration, and have the opportunity to opt out. But with religious arbitration, I think there's too many examples where one of the participants feels that they have no choice but to participate, or face being ostracized from their community. They are also more likely to get a raw deal that does not align with the laws of the country.

I think there is too much room for pressure and coercion when it comes to handling legal disputes through your house of worship, and I do believe it often opens the door for the law of the land to be ignored for increasingly serious matters. I think that is what happened in the Catholic church.

I mean freedom to associate on the basis of their religious values which in practice means excluding people who openly commit fornication and adultery or are openly gay or (in the case of Catholics) divorcees and so on.

That's difficult for me to say. I'm open to some level of this, but I think the laws need to be very carefully crafted.

Lots of jobs have behavioral clauses. For example, there are people who get fired for posting pictures of themselves getting drunk or smoking pot, or ranting about something that their place of work declares off limits for their employees. I do not have an issue with behavioral clauses being written into job descriptions.

But if you are simply putting a clause into the job description about somebody's identity, that is violating the law. For example, openly committing adultery or posting pornography online are very different than being black or white.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

I think they should pay taxes if they are running a megachurch type thing where the pastor is a millionaire etc.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I just chose restrictions on wearing religious symbols, but even that is minimal. Pretty much just not covering your face for ID photos and possibly going into banks or wherever else your face needs to be visible.

When I say restrictions mean extra ones that specifically apply to religion. If people in general aren't allowed to cover their face in banks and jewelry stores then applying that same standard to a religious face veil isn't a religious restriction.

In this case what I'd cite as a religious restriction would be, for instance, if an institution allowed people to wear hats and jewelry but specifically banned religious head coverings and accessories.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The difference is that other forms of private arbitration do not carry the same potential for coercion. You can each have your own lawyer, each of whom studied the law of the land, not the law of your religion. Both parties have to agree to the arbitration, and have the opportunity to opt out. But with religious arbitration, I think there's too many examples where one of the participants feels that they have no choice but to participate, or face being ostracized from their community. They are also more likely to get a raw deal that does not align with the laws of the country.

I think there is too much room for pressure and coercion when it comes to handling legal disputes through your house of worship, and I do believe it often opens the door for the law of the land to be ignored for increasingly serious matters. I think that is what happened in the Catholic church.

So private arbitration is fine, just not private religious arbitration.

That's difficult for me to say. I'm open to some level of this, but I think the laws need to be very carefully crafted.

Lots of jobs have behavioral clauses. For example, there are people who get fired for posting pictures of themselves getting drunk or smoking pot, or ranting about something that their place of work declares off limits for their employees. I do not have an issue with behavioral clauses being written into job descriptions.

But if you are simply putting a clause into the job description about somebody's identity, that is violating the law. For example, openly committing adultery or posting pornography online are very different than being black or white.

Should a church be allowed to explicitly bar openly gay individuals?

 

[nac386]

So private arbitration is fine, just not private religious arbitration.

If a legal matter is being disputed, lawyers who actually understand the laws of this country should be representing the participants. People should not feel pressure to participate in a religious arbitration, in which they know they will be screwed, for fear of being ostracized from their community.

Should a church be allowed to explicitly bar openly gay individuals?

No, your sexuality should not bar you from walking into any building in this country.

 

[Islam Imamate]

If a legal matter is being disputed, lawyers who actually understand the laws of this country should be representing the participants. People should not feel pressure to participate in a religious arbitration, in which they know they will be screwed, for fear of being ostracized from their community.

So because of these concerns people should not be allowed to seek legally recognized religious arbitration?

No, your sexuality should not bar you from walking into any building in this country.

I meant from employment or affiliation with the religious institution.

 

[nac386]

So because of these concerns people should not be allowed to seek legally recognized religious arbitration?

Restrictions on the reach of religious arbitration should absolutely be in place.

For example, a judge sent this young guy to a Christian drug treatment camp. But while he was there, they had him "pray the gay away" and he came home, ended up overdosing on drugs, and died. The family wanted to sue the camp to determine what had actually happened while he was there, but this is what they discovered:

But when his family sued Teen Challenge in 2012 hoping to uncover what had happened, they quickly hit a wall. When he was admitted to the program, at age 20, Mr. Ellison signed a contract that prevented him and his family from taking the Christian group to court.

Instead, his claim had to be resolved through a mediation or arbitration process that would be bound not by state or federal law, but by the Bible. “The Holy Scripture shall be the supreme authority,” the rules of the proceedings state.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/...arbitration-scripture-is-the-rule-of-law.html

Considering the vulnerability of so many people who are seeking guidance from religion, especially a drug addict who is being sent into rehabilitation by a judge, I do not believe they should be able to be provided paperwork that forces religious arbitration if something goes terribly wrong. To me, that's asinine.

Scientology is famous for that type of thing.