Religion as a protected class?

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I read through the SCOTUS, web designer thread in the NA Politics forum, it seems a number of spin off threads are worthy..

The idea of protected classes is now common in the law. Here's a typical list of protected classes:



It strikes me that "one of these is not like the others". All of these classes of people (except one), are based on immutable aspects of a person's identity that they are born with... except religion (and perhaps gender identity, but that's for a separate thread?)

So for this thread, I'm going to argue that - despite the fact that religious people have suffered enormous persecution historically - RELIGION SHOULD NO LONGER BE A PROTECTED CLASS.

A religion is just a set of ideas. A person can change the ideas they believe. Why should a religion be a protected class?

Okay, there are several understandings of religion and not just the standard Western culture one of supernatural in the end:
"Try to define religion and you invite an argument."
"Religion is what an individual does with his solitariness."
"The very fact that they are so many and so different from one another is enough to prove that the word 'religion' cannot stand for any single principle or essence, but is rather a collective name."
"Religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary and which itself contains the answer to the question of the meaning of life."
"Religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggle with the ultimate problem of human life."
"Wherever people live, whenever they live, they find themselves faced with three inescapable problems: how to win food and shelter from their natural environment (the problem nature poses), how to get along with one another (the social problem), and how to relate themselves to the total scheme of things (the religious problem). If this third issue seems less important than the other two, we should remind ourselves that religious artifacts are the oldest that archaeologists have discovered."

Definitions of Religion

web.pdx.edu

Religion is the most intensive and comprehensive method of valuing that is experienced by humankind.

The Definition of Religion

Now notice something and I will be honest. I have chosen those who are objective in some sense, namely that they all descibe for religion subjectivity and inter-subjectivity as shared subjectivity.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Because for the relevant intents and purposes, religion is an immutable aspect of who and what a human is. It's hardly "just a set of ideas" - it's a person's culture, identity, and way of life.

One could argue that sexual identity is also a matter of culture, identity, and way of life. Why is it acceptable to discriminate against LGBTQ but not religious folks?

 

[Quintessence]

But it's not an innate quality like the other things mentioned are.

Debatable, but if granted as true for the sake of discussion, so what? See:

Why would an innate quality be the reason you should be a protected class? And not discrimination?

To add, who here is okay being discriminated against because of their (ir)religion? Denied housing? Medical care? Employment? Education? Maybe even food?

Anyone?

Anyone?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Debatable, but if granted as true for the sake of discussion, so what? See:

To add, who here is okay being discriminated against because of their (ir)religion? Denied housing? Medical care? Employment? Education? Maybe even food?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Who here is okay being discriminated against because of sexual identity? Denied housing? Medical care? Employment? Education? Maybe even food?

 

[icehorse]

So, protected class is a legal construct employed to characterize classes of people that require protection against discrimination and harassment. You would exclude religion/creed because a person can change it (i.e., it's their fault), as if the ability to change one's beliefs (presumably under duress) makes protection less deserving, and despite acknowledging that the most vicious forms of religious discrimination and harassment have plagued mankind throughout history.

Religion has been at both ends of those swords, correct? Even today religious inspired violence is a huge issue all over the world. Religion tends to be a divisive force, not a uniting one. E.g., if we were to list the most probable ways that the world could end, we'd have to put the religious dispute between Israel and its enemies high on the list.

That strikes me as more than a little sophomoric.

<yawn> This is the type of sanctimonious nonsense you're famous for </yawn>

 

[icehorse]

Sure, about as much as having particular genitalia is a choice a person makes over and over again - that is, it's not really something someone actually thinks about or "chooses" in any meaningful way on a day-to-day basis. In spite of people's ways of life (aka, religions) changing and evolving over time (as they should - because life itself changes over time) in that moment where someone is being fired because of their religion? Yeah, no - one's way of life isn't some article of clothing one can pick and choose on notice.


Again, religion is not just "a set of ideas." It just isn't. I don't know why you keep insisting that it is. Even dogmatic religions - for which adhering to the "right beliefs" is of central importance - are not solely about ideas.

Then what else are they? What aspects are immutable?

 

[icehorse]

What? It's about not being allowed to discriminate against people for religious reasons. You think it should be okay to discriminate against religious people in employment or housing?

Of course I'm not "pro discrimination". I just don't think religion - given its extremely checkered past and present - warrants any special protections. E.g., do Wahhabi's ideas deserve to be protected? If so, that strikes me as an incredibly misogynistic opinion.

 

[icehorse]

Like am I missing something @icehorse? You seem to miss the point of protected classes if you think innate qualities is the reason they protected

You can choose to hold whatever opinions you want to. But why should I be forced to accept your bad ideas? And religion is frequently the source of horrendously bad ideas.

 

[Quintessence]

Who here is okay being discriminated against because of sexual identity? Denied housing? Medical care? Employment? Education? Maybe even food?

Hopefully, no one - just as hopefully no one here is okay with discrimination on the basis of (ir)religion either. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case in both instances.

 

[Quintessence]

Of course I'm not "pro discrimination". I just don't think religion - given its extremely checkered past and present - warrants any special protections. E.g., do Wahhabi's ideas deserve to be protected? If so, that strikes me as an incredibly misogynistic opinion.

"Religion" (whatever you mean by that) doesn't have any more of a "checkered" past and present than humanity just in general. So by this logic, no humans warrant any special protection.

 

[VoidCat]

You can choose to hold whatever opinions you want to. But why should I be forced to accept your bad ideas? And religion is frequently the source of horrendously bad ideas.

I never said agree with their religion. Just dont discriminate based on it

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Religion has been at both ends of those swords, correct?

And African participation in the slave trade is well documented, therefore ?

Did I mention being a big fan of relevance?

 

[icehorse]

I never said agree with their religion. Just dont discriminate based on it

So do you want to be forced to hire a Wahhabi?

 

[icehorse]

Hopefully, no one - just as hopefully no one here is okay with discrimination on the basis of (ir)religion either. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case in both instances.

I an both anti-discrimination AND anti-excessive-protections.

 

[icehorse]

"Religion" (whatever you mean by that) doesn't have any more of a "checkered" past and present than humanity just in general. So by this logic, no humans warrant any special protection.

This seems to me to be a subtle - but understandable - slight shifting of the goalposts:

The claim I was pushing back against was that historically there has been a lot of religious discrimination. As if the religious were somehow squeaky clean victims.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Of course I'm not "pro discrimination". I just don't think religion - given its extremely checkered past and present - warrants any special protections. E.g., do Wahhabi's ideas deserve to be protected? If so, that strikes me as an incredibly misogynistic opinion.

Yes, their beliefs are protected by the First Amendment. So are yours, as an atheist.

 

[icehorse]

Religion is the most intensive and comprehensive method of valuing that is experienced by humankind.

I agree with most of your post, but this claim seems a bit self serving

 

[icehorse]

Yes, their beliefs are protected by the First Amendment. So are yours, as an atheist.

Yes. But do you want to be forced to hire one?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree with most of your post, but this claim seems a bit self serving

Well, as long as you forget the Westen cultural biases towards theism and against it and understand it sociologically in general terms.

 

[JDMS]

Yes. But do you want to be forced to hire one?

You aren't forced to hire anyone based on their beliefs. You are just not supposed to discriminate against them based on them being within a protected class. You can't walk up to someone and say, "I'm not hiring you unless you denounce your atheism." You can, however, hire a more qualified candidate or one that will fit into your work environment better.