Religion as a protected class?

[icehorse]

Did you read my post at all?

Edit: You know what, why am I even asking that. You aren't worth engaging, clearly.

Too bad, just when we were getting to some interesting points.

So, in good faith, I'll followup with a few more thoughts.. You paint a picture of a religious person who claims to be "of a religion", and also for whom we can assume nothing? Nice work if you can get it. That sounds like a "get out of jail free" card. "I'm of religion X so I need protection AND just because I proactively claim my religion, I won't stand up for it?"

Sounds dodgy to me!

 

[icehorse]

So you want to discriminate/harass Catholics, Muslims, Jews?

Or do you just want to insist they all think like you?

I'm don't think it is that easy to choose our beliefs. I didn't wake up one day and decide to be an atheist.
I didn't choose to believe in God prior. It was just a part of who I was.

Sigh... As I said, I'm BOTH anti-discrimination AND anti-excessive-protected classes.

And far as easy.. life is hard! We 8 BILLION humans need to learn to live together and lazy thinking isn't helping. I would say that most successful people understand that they have to update their thinking sometimes.

And finally, being religious is NOT the same in believing in a god.

 

[icehorse]

I do not care about "goalposts."

I did not say "the religious were somehow squeaky clean victims." In fact I said precisely the opposite - that humanity in general has a "checkered" past. All of humanity. All of it.

I get how many would rather scapegoat some group of humans to avoid dealing with the complex realities of humanity's "checkered" past. That is, after all, how discrimination and bigotry is born - undiscerning prejudice that paints entire groups of humans as "all the same" and "bad" therefore it's okay to be a jerk to "those people." Any consideration of a human as an individual is discarded to make snap judgements. Easy peasy, and requires a lot less thinking; that's part of what makes bigotry attractive. Heuristics gone awry. If a human society wants to claim it is more "rational" then it needs to put a cork in that. Enter: protected classes... a safeguard against cognitive shorthands that produce undiscerning prejudice and discrimination.

I'm inferring here that you think I'm advocating for scapegoating and discrimination? Come on man..

And think about what you just said, protected classes do exactly what you're concerned about - they promote cognitive shorthands and undiscerning prejudice, correct?

But if a person proactively declares they are of a religion, shouldn't that have some meaning? Or it is just "I want protections, but I don't actually stand for anything" ?

Sounds like trying to eat your cake and have it too

 

[icehorse]

That would open the door to a lot of ideological discrimination in employment and various other areas. I think it would be a huge can of worms, and we can see what such discrimination leads to in theocratic countries.

Tricky stuff indeed. But should we be required to hire misogynists or supremacists?

 

[icehorse]

Neither gives cover to the other; it's just that one can't assume a religious person's beliefs based on a general identity like merely being Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc., due to the diversity within each religion.

Partly answered in my response #64. And partly why I proactively claim to everyone on this forum that I'll stand by being a secular humanist. I won't dodge what that means - because it means something when you declare yourself to be a member of a group.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Tricky stuff indeed. But should we be required to hire misogynists or supremacists?

Nobody is required to hire anyone, so no. They just can't reject a religious person based on beliefs that don't affect the workplace or have any relevance to their qualification for the job.

Partly answered in my response #64. And partly why I proactively claim to everyone on this forum that I'll stand by being a secular humanist. I won't dodge what that means - because it means something when you declare yourself to be a member of a group.

You can stand by any label you want, but it's illegal to reject job applicants on the basis of their religious label, just as it's illegal for them to do the same to you.

 

[icehorse]

Nobody is required to hire anyone, so no. They just can't reject a religious person based on beliefs that don't affect the workplace or have any relevance to their qualification for the job.



You can stand by any label you want, but it's illegal to reject job applicants on the basis of their religious label, just as it's illegal for them to do the same to you.

I'm not arguing current law, I'm sure you're correct.

I'm arguing that such protections for the religious are bad laws, and should be changed.

 

[Quintessence]

Sounds like trying to eat your cake and have it too

No, I don't want to deal with workplace discrimination and being denied essential services because of my religion. Which, if things went your way, folks would absolutely be able to do. It happens enough as it is because I'm a religious minority, and you want to make this problem worse? Yeah, no.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Too bad, just when we were getting to some interesting points.

So, in good faith, I'll followup with a few more thoughts.. You paint a picture of a religious person who claims to be "of a religion", and also for whom we can assume nothing? Nice work if you can get it. That sounds like a "get out of jail free" card. "I'm of religion X so I need protection AND just because I proactively claim my religion, I won't stand up for it?"

Sounds dodgy to me!

Well, what is religion to you?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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. At least if that human bothers being actually religious about their religion. For those who just wear the label as a superficiality, sure, it's more or less mutable. But for many of us - myself included I might add - it is absolutely not.

It's still not a concrete facts of existence like race, disability, national origin or age. You can't change any of those and they just happen. Religion can be changed and dropped altogether.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wikipedia: Protected Group > United States begins:

US federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity[3]), race/color, age, disability, national origin, religion/creed, or genetic information (added in 2008).​

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.

That strikes me as more than a little sophomoric.

It should depend on the religion. Like those that promote racism. If someone is known to belong to such a religious group why should anyone think it deserving of protection?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I could (but won't) have a sex change.
But no way could I ever stop being an atheist.
Well...perhaps with a lobotomy.
Religion isn't always immutable, but because
it sometimes is, that makes it useful that the
law treats it thus.

Is this you saying atheism is a religion?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is this you saying atheism is a religion?

Under the law here, it is indeed.
We're a protected group, just like believers.
But of course, that's just for legal purposes.
Otherwise it's simply rational thinking.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It turns out that the COVID pandemic, when run by the Biden Administration, also became a Lefty censorship scam, with black box medical science; CDC, a big part of the collusion problem; cover up.

Truly, a wonder of the modern world is how anyone can be so misinformed and believe it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It should depend on the religion. Like those that promote racism. If someone is known to belong to such a religious group why should anyone think it deserving of protection?

What tribunal will make the determination?

 

[Quintessence]

It's still not a concrete facts of existence like race, disability, national origin or age. You can't change any of those and they just happen. Religion can be changed and dropped altogether.

An odd perspective. Saying it doesn't make it so. Right now, change your religion. Right now. RIGHT now. Can you do it?

No.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What tribunal will make the determination?

It's usually not too hard to tell. Of course this would include some mainstream denominations like the Southern Baptists, but why should hate and bigotry get to have a legal shield that protects it (the same shield that protects the obviously fake and abusive "religion" Scientology)?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

An odd perspective. Saying it doesn't make it so. Right now, change your religion. Right now. RIGHT now. Can you do it?

No.

I've done it before, and more than once. Valuing critical thought and reason will do that when you start out as religious.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Under the law here, it is indeed.
We're a protected group, just like believers.
But of course, that's just for legal purposes.
Otherwise it's simply rational thinking.

That does make sense. That's like how most therapist don't consider being trans a mental illness, but see a positive in it because with that label it opens up routes for insurance coverage for those with gender dysphoria that's profound enough to warrant a medical transition.
It's unfortunate it works, because it only is needed because too many religious people and people running insurance have a mother with a baby butt smooth forehead.

 

[Revoltingest]

That does make sense. That's like how most therapist don't consider being trans a mental illness, but see a positive in it because with that label it opens up routes for insurance coverage for those with gender dysphoria that's profound enough to warrant a medical transition.
It's unfortunate it works, because it only is needed because too many religious people and people running insurance have a mother with a baby butt smooth forehead.

I see being trans as an illness. "Mental" fits better
than "physical". The problem is that "mental illness"
is seen by too many with disdain. It should be no
more looked down upon than a broken leg.