Religion as a protected class?

[icehorse]

Yeah, you subjectively do it differently than me. If we subjectively agree, it is still subjective and relative to the fact, that we agree.
So to me as long as you don't understand that, we can't agree on anything, because we have to agree that what we do, is subjective and start from there.

I proposed an arbitrary axiom. I'd consider different or additional ones. And of course I agree that some degree of subjectivity creeps into most human endeavors.

But what I won't spend my time doing is discussing the idea that we're stuck because morality is hopelessly relative. I cannot prove that it's not, but I can't see how anything productive can come from that perspective.

 

[icehorse]

I know you weren't asking me. Nevertheless...

... it begs another question: what does this kind of approach accomplish? Does stripping certain groups of humans from basic rights and dignities help them? Does it help build a more tolerant and just society?

I'm not really big on the whole "just throw mean people under some busses and not bother being nice or helping them" mentality.

I thought I'd addressed your concern earlier. To reiterate: I'm not pro-discrimination. I don't think we should discriminate against anyone. (As an aside, that stance bothers people who think meritocracies are unfair.)

Now, while I haven't said this explicitly in this thread, being nice (or kind), is central to my personal philosophy. But the reality is that it's not always easy to know what the kindest action is in a given situation. (Off topic, but for example, it might seem like enabling an addict is kind in the moment, but it's probably not kind in the long run.)

What I think might be a slippery idea here is that having protected classes isn't the only way to fight discrimination, and having protected classes brings with it it's own set of problems.

So it's simply not the case that it's an either / or. It's NOT true that EITHER you support the current set of protected classes OR you favor discrimination.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I proposed an arbitrary axiom. I'd consider different or additional ones. And of course I agree that some degree of subjectivity creeps into most human endeavors.

But what I won't spend my time doing is discussing the idea that we're stuck because morality is hopelessly relative. I cannot prove that it's not, but I can't see how anything productive can come from that perspective.

Because there are different kinds of subjectivity and that is indeed what you are doing yourself. If we use this version it would be subjectively better.

 

[Aupmanyav]

RELIGION SHOULD NO LONGER BE A PROTECTED CLASS.

People have a right to believe what they believe. Indian Constitution gives equal protection to all religions and irreligion. No one has the right to take liberties with the belief of other people. Indian constitution does not permit Charlie Hebdo in India.
India has exactly the same rights for all men, women and LGBTQ. There are 'affirmative programs' for sections that require special help. Some of what I write here could land me in Courts in India.

 

[icehorse]

People have a right to believe what they believe. Indian Constitution gives equal protection to all religions and irreligion. No one has the right to take liberties with the belief of other people. Indian constitution does not permit Charlie Hebdo in India.
India has exactly the same rights for all men, women and LGBTQ. There are 'affirmative programs' for sections that require special help. Some of what I write here could land me in Courts in India.

see my post #122

 

[Quintessence]

What I think might be a slippery idea here is that having protected classes isn't the only way to fight discrimination, and having protected classes brings with it it's own set of problems.

So it's simply not the case that it's an either / or. It's NOT true that EITHER you support the current set of protected classes OR you favor discrimination.

Protected classes isn't the only way to fight discrimination, but we know it is effective and an important tool to use for the reason I outlined earlier.

Left to their own devices, humans will employ heuristics - stereotypes, as it were - when making judgements. This means if there are not protections for classes that are frequently subjected to negative stereotyping, it is more or less inevitable that discrimination follows. So while there's not precisely a one-to-one on "either you support protected classes or you favor discrimination" it is simply the case that if you remove a protected class, we will get more discrimination. As such, if someone favors removal of a protected class, that signals they are more or less okay accepting the increased levels of discrimination that will result from that whether or not they are explicitly pro-discrimination.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what ideas someone has running around in their heads - I don't care if they believe they are pro-discrimination or anti-discrimination. I look at what the actual effects are going to be of what is proposed, and deleting a protected class will result in more discrimination on the basis of that class. I am not in support of revoking any of these:

Discrimination by Type

Types of Discrimination

www.eeoc.gov

 

[icehorse]

I'm quite familiar with non-linear pedagogy as a concept in sports training and coaching (indeed, I regularly use some of its concepts in basketball training). Not so much from my teaching background.

Based on that, I find it hard to believe you've actually been discriminated against based on this but there might be a context to which this theory is applied that I'm missing.

Any useful links, etc?

Good to meet a fellow non-linear pedagogist! Do you use any CLA or eco-d concepts in your coaching? I've coached skiing and more recently golf, and I'm following CLA and eco-d guidelines.

As for discimination: For me, this has come mostly in the domain of teaching STEM-ish topics for adults. Despite being able to provide strong evidence of success, most publishers and corporations will not consider non-linear teaching approaches. I've run into this countless times over many years.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree that up to this point morality has been substantially relative. I also think that if humans don't grow past that we're all in a heap of trouble.

So, do you think the axiom I proposed could be part of what underpins a more universal morality?

I don't think there is getting past that. It's like a Democracy and we must remain vigilant and work to preserve good morality, because things can backtrack. Nazi Germany, post-revolution Iran, we know these things aren't set in stone and we can wake up tomorrow without freedom amd severely represseds with the barbarism and prejudice as the new standard of morality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Protected classes isn't the only way to fight discrimination, but we know it is effective and an important tool to use for the reason I outlined earlier.

Except it is extremely difficult to prove and extremely easy to cover all traces of it.

 

[Quintessence]

Except it is extremely difficult to prove and extremely easy to cover all traces of it.

Yes, it is. Well, I don't know if I'd say "extremely" - that sounds like hyperbole to my mind - but there are significant challenges faced by people who are wrongfully dismissed from a job, for example, because of membership in a protected class. The burden of proof is often placed on the victim and transparency in hiring practices is often lacking. But it's still something, and in at least some cases, wrongful termination based on protected classes is rectified. It's never going to be a perfect system - that's an impossibility - and providing a reference list and having the concept of protected classes at all serves as a layer of protection for everyday folks regardless of who they are. Combine that together with something like labor unions to increase the bargaining power of employees, consumer protections and product oversight to maintain health and safety, and so forth? It does a pretty good job in spite of the predatory capitalism run rampant in the country these days.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, it is. Well, I don't know if I'd say "extremely" - that sounds like hyperbole to my mind - but there are significant challenges faced by people who are wrongfully dismissed from a job, for example, because of membership in a protected class. The burden of proof is often placed on the victim and transparency in hiring practices is often lacking. But it's still something, and in at least some cases, wrongful termination based on protected classes is rectified. It's never going to be a perfect system - that's an impossibility - and providing a reference list and having the concept of protected classes at all serves as a layer of protection for everyday folks regardless of who they are. Combine that together with something like labor unions to increase the bargaining power of employees, consumer protections and product oversight to maintain health and safety, and so forth? It does a pretty good job in spite of the predatory capitalism run rampant in the country these days.

So what does that do for the legions who know their former employer is prejudiced but just can't do it? After all, the boss being harder on you than others isn't something that works very well in court.

 

[Quintessence]

So what does that do for the legions who know their former employer is prejudiced but just can't do it? After all, the boss being harder on you than others isn't something that works very well in court.

If you are asking me for legal advice, I am not a lawyer. I couldn't even point you in the direction of a good one for that kind of case, but someone else probably can.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you are asking me for legal advice, I am not a lawyer. I couldn't even point you in the direction of a good one for that kind of case, but someone else probably can.

I didn't even ask a question. I'm pointing out this system you've put on a pedestal is essentially toothless and fails more often than it succeeds.

 

[icehorse]

Protected classes isn't the only way to fight discrimination, but we know it is effective and an important tool to use for the reason I outlined earlier.

Left to their own devices, humans will employ heuristics - stereotypes, as it were - when making judgements. This means if there are not protections for classes that are frequently subjected to negative stereotyping, it is more or less inevitable that discrimination follows. So while there's not precisely a one-to-one on "either you support protected classes or you favor discrimination" it is simply the case that if you remove a protected class, we will get more discrimination. As such, if someone favors removal of a protected class, that signals they are more or less okay accepting the increased levels of discrimination that will result from that whether or not they are explicitly pro-discrimination.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what ideas someone has running around in their heads - I don't care if they believe they are pro-discrimination or anti-discrimination. I look at what the actual effects are going to be of what is proposed, and deleting a protected class will result in more discrimination on the basis of that class. I am not in support of revoking any of these:

Discrimination by Type

Types of Discrimination

www.eeoc.gov

Okay, so why not put EVERYONE into a protected class of some sort?

(oh, and BTW, unions are awesome!)

 

[Quintessence]

I didn't even ask a question. I'm pointing out this system you've put on a pedestal is essentially toothless and fails more often than it succeeds.

Huh? I've done what now? Did... did you not... you know what? Nevermind. If that's how you (mis)interpret what I wrote, it is what it is. Carry on.

Okay, so why not put EVERYONE into a protected class of some sort?

I don't know. That's an interesting question. That said, it seems to me everyone is in a protected class of some sort. Can you think of an example of a person who doesn't have one or more of those classes? Everyone has an age and a race, for example. So aren't we all already part of one or more protected classes?

 

[Watchmen]

What about marital status or political beliefs? Those aren’t immutable characteristics, but they are protected as well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know. That's an interesting question. That said, it seems to me everyone is in a protected class of some sort. Can you think of an example of a person who doesn't have one or more of those classes? Everyone has an age and a race, for example. So aren't we all already part of one or more protected classes?

Men/dads when it comes to custody.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Huh? I've done what now? Did... did you not... you know what? Nevermind. If that's how you (mis)interpret what I wrote, it is what it is. Carry on.

No, I just pointed having this protexted status more often than not is meaningless and toothless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay, so why not put EVERYONE into a protected class of some sort?

(oh, and BTW, unions are awesome!)

You have to understand that there is no correct universal objective solution to this. There are only different versions of pros and cons and all are diferent versions of subjective good and bad.
If you use one set of axioms you get one set of results for good and bad. If you use another set, you get a different result. If you then treat your set as the universally correct one, you are doing something which is not true.

Rather if you really want one of the core axioms, that is a limited one, that you can include, here it is.
In some cases good and bad is individually and bad can happen to another human, if someone treat good and bad as based on their indidual understanding.
In other words for your method, you can accept that bad can happen to somebody, because it is overall good. In my version good and bad are different, because it is not done the same way for overall good, because I use another set of axioms.

That is it. But as long as you in effect argue as if your version is uinversally correct, then we can't explore other versions, because you always default back to your subjective ideal of objective as you do it.

Regards

BTW - everybody is in a proceted class in some systems, because we have minority rights. But you in effect argue for majority rights.

 

[SomeRandom]

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?

Whilst I actually do see where you’re coming from.
Religion can be seen as an inherited trait by religious communities.
I’m a born and raised Hindu and despite my family coming from a sect that openly embraces universalism, there is still a very strong cultural expectation that I follow Hinduism. And I live in the West, not India or my mothers homeland of Fiji, where that cultural expectation is probably even more intense.

That said, I suppose this is a rather “delicate” balance. Since religion is an incredibly easy shield to use to discriminate against other protected classes (just an observation.)

And one maybe could argue that religious status can be a very strong political force. I mean just for example, what I have constantly seen of the US evangelical movement. Like damn, they seem to have a lot of political power.

I guess without this protected class status religious folks, especially those with long histories of being discriminated against, even in modern history (like the Jewish community for instance) this can protect them in the long run. So it’s probably not a wholly bad thing to employ at the end of the day.
But I can kind of agree with you, on the whole.