Part 2 - What does freedom of religion mean to you?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There were several things I forgot for the first poll and several ideas that were mentioned in my original thread that I think warrant a second poll. So here goes: which of the options in this new poll do you think are elements of freedom of religion as you appreciate the term?

Hang tight while I post the poll. Hopefully this will be the last one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay - a bit more about the one poll option. It came to mind because there was a story in the media about this recently:

CBC News - Quebec students must take ethics-religion course

Short version, public schools in Quebec have a "religion and ethics" course in their curriculum in most years of elementary and high school. It doesn't indoctrinate students in any of the religions covered or advocate one religion ahead of any others, but it does provide an overview of what various world religions believe. The course is mandatory for all students.

Recently, a religious couple whose child was enrolled in a Quebec public school (and therefore was taking these classes) launched a legal challenge, arguing that teaching their child about other religions as well as presenting the material in a way that put their own religion on an equal standing with all the others was a violation of their freedom of religion guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So... that's kinda what I was thinking when I included the last option in the poll.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh... a bit more about my thinking behind a couple of options:

When I talk about "religious accommodation", I don't just mean protection against discrimination on the basis of religion but actual modification of practices to make them compatible with various religious beliefs and practices. For example:

- religious accommodation in government services: allowing people who have a religious objection to oaths to give an affirmation instead when testifying in court, or accommodating the desire of Muslim women wearing burqas/niqabs to have their identity verified by a female polling officer when voting.

- religious accommodation in employment: a right to get time off for religious holidays, or at certain times of day for prayer/etc.

- religious accommodation by businesses: this is probably best explained by an example...

The Royal Canadian Legion (kinda like the VFW in the States) has a "no hats" policy: anyone coming in is supposed to remove their hats out of respect for fallen soldiers. A number of years ago now (late 80s, I think?) a controversy arose when several Legion branches kicked out Sikhs for not removing their turbans. They've changed their policy since then, but in your view, would a business or private organization acting in a similar fashion violate freedom of religion as you understand it?

 

[Circle_One]

Okay - a bit more about the one poll option. It came to mind because there was a story in the media about this recently:

CBC News - Quebec students must take ethics-religion course

Short version, public schools in Quebec have a "religion and ethics" course in their curriculum in most years of elementary and high school. It doesn't indoctrinate students in any of the religions covered or advocate one religion ahead of any others, but it does provide an overview of what various world religions believe. The course is mandatory for all students.

Recently, a religious couple whose child was enrolled in a Quebec public school (and therefore was taking these classes) launched a legal challenge, arguing that teaching their child about other religions as well as presenting the material in a way that put their own religion on an equal standing with all the others was a violation of their freedom of religion guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So... that's kinda what I was thinking when I included the last option in the poll.

Per the bold, as someone with a child who was in a Quebec elementary school and is now in a Quebec high school: the phrase "various world religions" is VERY loosely used. They cover Christianity, Judaism and a wee bit about Islam. In grade 4 my son came home from school and said he had decided he wanted to be Hindu because he learned in school that they believe in reincarnation, and that he wanted to come back as a tiger. That was their only day learning anything about Hinduism.

Also while they SAY they don't indoctrinate the children into any one religion, they very much push Christianity on them as being the "right" religion.

 

[Sgloom]

sweet, looks like i voted with the majority again. lol

 

[Mister Emu]

Religious accommodation in public/government services

For this one, I voted yes with a caveat in my head of "reasonable" preceding it.

 

[Sgloom]

For this one, I voted yes with a caveat in my head of "reasonable" preceding it.

i voted yes on that one too with the same thing in mind

 

[Splarnst]

You need a "none of the above" option. I only chose two myself:

Freedom to leave a religion once a member (freedom to be apostate)
Freedom to proselytize

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Freedom to leave a religion once a member (freedom to be apostate)
The rest just seems to open a can or worms IMHO

 

[Kerr]

I voted for:
Freedom to wear or carry obligatory religious items (e.g. kippah, hijab)
Freedom to wear or carry non-obligatory religious items (e.g. crucifixes)
Refusal of medical care for onesself on religious grounds
The right to raise one's child in one's religion
Freedom to leave a religion once a member (freedom to be apostate)
Freedom to proselytize

Voted for freedom to wear and carry religious items because I dont like to tell people how to dress. I think you can refuse medical care for yourself, but not for others. As much as I dislike when people raise children into a religion I dont like the alternative either. Dont think anyone has the right to "protect" their children against other religions or ways to live, though. Anyone should be free to leave a religion, just as they should be free to join a religion. Those two kind of comes hand in hand. Freedom to proselytize... not a matter of freedom of religion, tbh, but a matter of freedom of speech.

 

[Quintessence]

Voted for everything except "Taxpayer funding for religious schools" and "Protection against teaching one's child about other religions (see below for explanation)"

The first, at least in America, would violate separation of church and state.

The second, I've been a longstanding supporter of teaching basic world religions, philosophies, and theologies in public schools to help combat religious ignorance (and consequently the nasty things that often accompany it like prejudice and discrimination). I also value education far too much to not support this kind of thing. Lastly, if your faith is so weak that being educated about other religions breaks it, you seriously need to shore up your reasons for following your religious path. Blind faith is undesirable in my book.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just a note about why I included "taxpayer funding of religious schools" in there:

Here in Canada, there's been a fair bit of debate over this issue. In most parts of the country, Catholic schools (and no other religious schools) receive taxpayer funding. In the debate over what to do about this issue, one thing I've heard argued a couple of times from religious school advocates is that if members of all religions don't have a religious alternative to the secular public school system, similarly funded by the state, then their religious freedom is being violated. IOW, they argue that the "make all the public schools secular" option is a violation of their rights.

I don't agree with it personally, but since I've heard it as a viewpoint, I thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[9Westy9]

All except for

Refusal of medical care for one's child on religious grounds
Taxpayer funding for religious schools
Protection against teaching one's child about other religions

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All except for

Refusal of medical care for one's child on religious grounds
Taxpayer funding for religious schools
Protection against teaching one's child about other religions

Same here.

I'm genuinely surprised at how few votes the religious accommodation options got, especially accommodation for guests & customers of a business.

 

[Quintessence]

I think we need more than an n = 14 before we start interpreting the data too much, though. Even with a decent n, this still isn't a scientific poll; interpret with caution.

I curious on the few votes for "refusal of medical care for one's child on religious grounds." I understand it, I guess, but I voted for it because it really bothers me when modern medicine attempts to force particular courses of action on people, regardless of their ability (or lack thereof) to consent. I'd take this kind of thing largely on a case-by-case basis.

For example, if you're part of a culture that values traditional medicinal practices and finds modern medical practices objectionable, it seems completely reasonable to me for a third party who is legally qualified to make decisions on that person's behalf to reject modern medical treatments. I think life support, for example, is something of a perversion; it sometimes prolongs lives that ought to end and promotes needless suffering.

 

[9Westy9]

Same here.

I'm genuinely surprised at how few votes the religious accommodation options got, especially accommodation for guests & customers of a business.

Maybe people took it as special accommodation because they're religious?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think we need more than an n = 14 before we start interpreting the data too much, though. Even with a decent n, this still isn't a scientific poll; interpret with caution.

I never said that this was scientific. I just hoped it'd spark some interesting discussion.

Maybe people took it as special accommodation because they're religious?

Maybe. I think also it might have something to do with attitudes toward property rights that are common in the US. I've noticed that phrases like "if it's privately owned, they can do whatever they want" get thrown around fairly often.

 

[Quintessence]

It definitely sparks interesting discussion!

Gosh, I didn't even think of that property rights thing. That way of thinking is somewhat alien to me; "owning" typically gives me a 404 error, particularly when it comes to "owning" things like land. People do not "own" the land. They are part of the land. They are borrowing it and should treat it well, lest it not be around for their children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It definitely sparks interesting discussion!

Gosh, I didn't even think of that property rights thing. That way of thinking is somewhat alien to me; "owning" typically gives me a 404 error, particularly when it comes to "owning" things like land. People do not "own" the land. They are part of the land. They are borrowing it and should treat it well, lest it not be around for their children.

At the risk of pulling the thread off-topic, I think it's interesting how this attitude has persisted as society has changed.

It used to be that the kiosks in the marketplace (as in a literal market) would be privately owned, but market itself wouldn't be. These days, the market has been largely replaced by the mall; the public square has become private. When the things we depend on are privately owned, absolute rights to property have a much larger effect on the rights of other individuals just to live their lives than they ever did. I think it's changed the balance of society to a certain degree.

 

[Drolefille]

I never said that this was scientific. I just hoped it'd spark some interesting discussion.


Maybe. I think also it might have something to do with attitudes toward property rights that are common in the US. I've noticed that phrases like "if it's privately owned, they can do whatever they want" get thrown around fairly often.

The reason I didn't select those is that I think it's too vague- accommodation for all religions, some, one, etc. Is it mandated by law, etc. I think some accommodations are needed, but that there's a level of reasonableness as far as time off, etc. And it's not something we really have the framework for in the US right now for me to say it's part of the definition as included in the question.

Some of the examples you gave - which to be fair I didn't read that far down before voting - make sense but there are some that wouldn't to me, and some that could be abused - or just lead to religious discrimination in hiring as a result.

Other than that mine agreed with Westy's. If I'd read your later posts Pengu I might have voted differently - put all that stuff in the OP