Religious freedom vs. freedom of conscience

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the discussion about the "don't serve gays" bills, there has been quite a bit of talk about freedom of religion. This got me to thinking about whether people consider freedom of religion to be something over and above freedom of conscience, or whether they see the two things as equal.

Those of you who value freedom of religion: why do you value it? If you value it because religious beliefs are deeply held, shouldn't deeply held non-religious beliefs be protected just as strongly? If you value freedom of religion for some other reason, what's your reason?

In the discussion about these Kansas and Arizona bills, my normal response to "religious freedom" arguments is to point out that the employees are free to quit, so their religious freedom is being preserved: if a Muslim is serving alcohol or a Christian is sewing wedding gowns for same-sex couples, we can be assured that this doesn't violate their freedom of religion because they are free to remove themselves from the situation at any time.

Evidently, this type of freedom isn't enough for those that decided the Arizona and Kansas bills were necessary... which brings me to a story from my own life:

Several years ago, I was working for a Canadian engineering firm that was bought by a large US company. When looking into who my new employer would be, I discovered that the company had a division that was a contractor to the US armed forces, doing warplane refueling and rearming in Kuwait to support the Iraq War (which was going on at the time). I had major ethical objections to the Iraq War and didn't want to work for a company that was directly involved, so I found another job and quit.

At the time, it didn't even occur to me that I should have any recourse against my employer. They weren't doing anything illegal, so my moral objections were my problem, not theirs. However, the rhetoric surrounding these recent "religious freedom" bills suggests that some people here may think that my moral issues SHOULD have been my employer's problem.

Thoughts?

 

[Quintessence]

Could you explain "freedom of conscience?" I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.

For me, it really isn't about religion per se, but accommodating and respecting the diverse ways of life people have. This is especially important in the case of minorities, whose way of life can easily be compromised by the thoughtlessness of the majority. The example you gave about "freedom to quit" reminds me of this: it is essentially saying "either give up something sacred or central to your way of life and who you area as a person... or impoverish yourself by walking away from what puts food on your table and a roof over your head." That's not cool. In most cases, it really isn't all that difficult for us to get along with each other by respecting differences and diversity.

The specific case that was being discussed in that other thread, granted, is not one of those simpler cases. It is a case where one is being asked to tolerate intolerance, and that gets difficult.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Could you explain "freedom of conscience?" I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.

"The right to follow one's own beliefs on matters of religion or morality." It's related to religious freedom in that it includes an individual's religious beliefs and practice, but freedom of religion includes aspects that go beyond freedom of conscience (the right to establish churches, for instance).

For me, it really isn't about religion per se, but accommodating and respecting the diverse ways of life people have. This is especially important in the case of minorities, whose way of life can easily be compromised by the thoughtlessness of the majority. The example you gave about "freedom to quit" reminds me of this: it is essentially saying "either give up something sacred or central to your way of life and who you area as a person... or impoverish yourself by walking away from what puts food on your table and a roof over your head." That's not cool. In most cases, it really isn't all that difficult for us to get along with each other by respecting differences and diversity.

Does quitting one particular job necessarily mean impoverishment? I agree that it might mean having to take a job for lower pay, or having to move for work, but IMO, religious freedom doesn't include the right to a particular salary or to having one's job of choice in a particular town. Sometimes people with strong beliefs will have to choose between those beliefs and their other desires.

Also it seems to me that your argument applies to much more than religion. For instance, we generally uphold an employer's right to schedule employees when they're needed, even if this means taking a parent away from time they would spend with their kids. Is religion more important than family?

There are many reasons why a person's job duties could put them in a difficult position. Which issues should we consider so critical that we should use the force of law to make them their employer's problem to deal with? Is religious obligation at the top of this list?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

At the time, it didn't even occur to me that I should have any recourse against my employer. They weren't doing anything illegal, so my moral objections were my problem, not theirs. However, the rhetoric surrounding these recent "religious freedom" bills suggests that some people here may think that my moral issues SHOULD have been my employer's problem.

I think this is part of it. Some conservative Christians are of the opinion that since this is a Christian nation (arguing from their point of view, I know it's not), that everyone should be Christian, and think and believe and act the way they do. This is why we see such bills as in Arizona. They see anything that doesn't agree with their point of view as an attack on them, personally, which is obvious to all but them that this isn't the case. If we allow some homosexual couple to be married, they think it's because we're attacking them. There's no logic to it, but this is the mentality they have.

 

[Tristengarde]

In the discussion about the "don't serve gays" bills, there has been quite a bit of talk about freedom of religion.

This got me to thinking about whether people consider freedom of religion to be something over and above freedom of conscience, or whether they see the two things as equal.

Very interesting question. I've been following the KS and AZ bills (neither of which will become law), and I see them as "faith-based acts of war."

When employed providing service to people of other/different religions (such as Muslims refusing to haul alcohol for their employer) or lifestyle (providing hospitality service to paying customers who happen to be "gay") or ethnicity or race, a worker must allow the employer to call the shots on with whom to do business. That doesn't mean the employer is always RIGHT, however.

Refusal to be tolerant seems to be, in my opinion, a major problem in our societies.

Christianity is the religion I know most about. I know some about Islam, less about Judaism. But "Christians" are 'bade to serve all comers', are they not?, because "you never know when the person you have before you is an angel." Paraphrasing.

I think a case-by-case judgment is necessary when one decides to engage in a business transaction. "Why not?" would be a reasonable question to ask a reluctant/refusing employEE; this also seems applicable to employERS.

If a worker's reasons are based on hatred it's different than refusal on grounds of conscience. I have protested job-duties due to my conscience (refusing to write out and sign company checks that I knew would bounce; refusing to 'promote' HR policy that I thought was dangerous for the laborers) - but never due to my "religion" (I don't have one, actually). I can think of several other times I was 'recalcitrant', but that's not your question.

WHAT is it the employers are 'standing for'? Serving a LBGT guest does not 'condemn' a Christian server/business, to my knowledge. Muslims feel/believe that delivering/handling packaged alcohol does, however, 'condemn' the trucker. Two different 'motives' for refusal. But both are 'self-serving', while both religions are heavy on 'service to others' and justice. Strange, indeed.

Those of you who value freedom of religion: why do you value it?

Because "forced" or "compelled" religion is nonsensical.

If you value it because religious beliefs are deeply held, shouldn't deeply held non-religious beliefs be protected just as strongly?

Such as what?

Homosexual/bisexual behavior:
It isn't bothering me, or contagious, so I don't care. I'm heterosexual; but not everyone is, and no one is forcing me to be. I would think a 'true Christian' would be ashamed of themselves for refusing to serve "the lepers" - even if they think the "leper" is going to hell for whatever reason - why treat them like garbage?

Unscrupulous business practices are different:
If the "profit and shareholder satisfaction" is the most deeply held 'belief system' of a company, over and above the general well-being of either customers or employees (mental or physical), I DO care.

If the reason is simple dislike of a person/lifestyle - well, that's just a personal 'vendetta', isn't it?

And if it's simple fear of punishment (by God OR by employer), then one has to pick and choose, I guess: certain punishment in the form of loss of this earthly job vs hypothetical punishment by a "judge" after death.

What righteous and merciful God would toss a soul in hell for serving a person who has different tastes? (Or for earning a living hauling whatever load one must haul)?

If you value freedom of religion for some other reason, what's your reason?

Because I don't trust that any other HUMAN BEING has "the real truth". I have a profound and unsolvable problem with "revealed" religion - and have since I was small child.

Good topic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I may not have been clear when I created the thread. What I wanted to get to is the reasoning behind freedom of religion and whether it pointed toward freedom of conscience as well.

Quintessence, you argued that we shouldn't put people in the position of having to choose between "something sacred or central" and their job... but many things outside religion can be "sacred or central" to a person. Should they all be protected? Right now, many aren't.

 

[Quintessence]

Does quitting one particular job necessarily mean impoverishment?

For some people in certain cases, yes - which is why I have problem with it.

I agree that it might mean having to take a job for lower pay, or having to move for work, but IMO, religious freedom doesn't include the right to a particular salary or to having one's job of choice in a particular town.

That's not quite what I mean to suggest. Turn your optimism dial down a few notches. Remember that right now the economy is still crap and recognize that for some people, quitting a job means being out of work for a lengthy period of time. They might have very limited options, and they can't just take a job with lower pay, nor do they have the means or ability to relocate. To not make an effort to accommodate people is just cold-hearted and hits minorities (or really anybody who doesn't "fit in" with the culture of the company) especially hard.

Also it seems to me that your argument applies to much more than religion. For instance, we generally uphold an employer's right to schedule employees when they're needed, even if this means taking a parent away from time they would spend with their kids. Is religion more important than family?

This was somewhat deliberate on my part, because I don't think these issues apply to just religion. Really, it would be nice if companies could be bothered to treat their employees as actual human beings. Certainly there are many places that do, but it is quite distressing to see so many cases where workers are treated as expendable and not given much respect or consideration. What can I say... I'm a fan of manners and respectfulness. Especially for the "lower" tiers of the work force, because frankly, they do all the hard work and get little appreciation. Labor laws in general in this country could do with some revision. But this is probably getting outside the intended scope of your thread.

As an aside, the specific anti-gay legislation being proposed I have serious problems with. We don't accommodate bigotry and discrimination in this country... period. Nor should we.

 

[ChristineES]

I've been doing a lot of thinking about this bill. First off, I don't support it since I think that is against not only my personal beliefs but against Jesus' teachings as well.

Second, I don't see how serving someone in a business would affect another person. And not doing so is not a good practice and also it can spread to all sorts of things (maybe) such as "I don't want to serve that guy because he's ugly" (a rather inane example, but you never know what it could lead to).

And, to answer the question, I believe that my religious beliefs don't contradict my own personal conscience. If it did, I wouldn't follow my faith.

 

[idav]

I may not have been clear when I created the thread. What I wanted to get to is the reasoning behind freedom of religion and whether it pointed toward freedom of conscience as well.

I would think that within every religion a person is free to go by their conscience. The problem becomes a battle for a superior conscience that some would like imposed on people. Ultimately people want to be free to practice religion based on their own moral code, when it goes against someone elses moral code we can't really choose favorites, so long as no harms is being done their is no reason to choose someone's moral code over another.

 

[mystic64]

In the discussion about the "don't serve gays" bills, there has been quite a bit of talk about freedom of religion. This got me to thinking about whether people consider freedom of religion to be something over and above freedom of conscience, or whether they see the two things as equal.

Those of you who value freedom of religion: why do you value it? If you value it because religious beliefs are deeply held, shouldn't deeply held non-religious beliefs be protected just as strongly? If you value freedom of religion for some other reason, what's your reason?

In the discussion about these Kansas and Arizona bills, my normal response to "religious freedom" arguments is to point out that the employees are free to quit, so their religious freedom is being preserved: if a Muslim is serving alcohol or a Christian is sewing wedding gowns for same-sex couples, we can be assured that this doesn't violate their freedom of religion because they are free to remove themselves from the situation at any time.

Evidently, this type of freedom isn't enough for those that decided the Arizona and Kansas bills were necessary... which brings me to a story from my own life:

Several years ago, I was working for a Canadian engineering firm that was bought by a large US company. When looking into who my new employer would be, I discovered that the company had a division that was a contractor to the US armed forces, doing warplane refueling and rearming in Kuwait to support the Iraq War (which was going on at the time). I had major ethical objections to the Iraq War and didn't want to work for a company that was directly involved, so I found another job and quit.

At the time, it didn't even occur to me that I should have any recourse against my employer. They weren't doing anything illegal, so my moral objections were my problem, not theirs. However, the rhetoric surrounding these recent "religious freedom" bills suggests that some people here may think that my moral issues SHOULD have been my employer's problem.

Thoughts?

After reading the comments so far, which I found interesting, this topic seems to be about, "moral beliefs freedom" should have the same protection under the law as "religious beliefs freedon" does even though those "moral beliefs" have nothing to do with religion. Boy 9-10s_Penguin, what you seem to be presenting would open a whole new can of worms .

In the US an employer can not refuse to hire you because of your religios beliefs. But they can fire you afterwords for creating conflict in the work place. Employers also can not refuse to hire you because of your moral beliefs. But they can fire you if these beliefs create conflict in the work place. Also a business can refuse service to anyone as long as it has nothing to do with race . Freedom of religion in the US just means that you can go to any church or religious gathering that you wish to without fearing persecution. It does not mean that you can force your religion on others in any way. The laws from federal to local mandate the conduct of the permitted actions of the moral beliefs of the citizans that those laws apply to. An extreme example would be that some folks consider it morally wrong for anyone to tell them no for any reason what so ever. From there the list of what is "no" becomes whatever is considered legal and moral.

Laws protecting "moral beliefs" in the work place would be a case by case study some of which has already been done and some moral beliefs are protected. One example is that you have a moral obligation to report any possible illegal activity, even if it is your employer unless your employer is certain parts of the US govenment. Homosexual behavior is another example of a "moral belief" that has become changed to now legal. With some folks it is a religious belief and with some folks it is a moral belief that has nothing to do with religion.

"At the time, it didn't even occur to me that I should have any recourse against my employer. They weren't doing anything illegal, so my moral objections were my problem, not theirs. However, the rhetoric surrounding these recent "religious freedom" bills suggests that some people here may think that my moral issues SHOULD have been my employer's problem."

Your moral issues actually should have been your employer's problem . You should have at least recieved economic compensation to help you with your employment transition because the change in what you signed up for was forced up on you as an employee .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

After reading the comments so far, which I found interesting, this topic seems to be about, "moral beliefs freedom" should have the same protection under the law as "religious beliefs freedon" does even though those "moral beliefs" have nothing to do with religion. Boy 9-10s_Penguin, what you seem to be presenting would open a whole new can of worms .

Depending where you are, it's not so new. In Canada, "freedom of conscience and religion" has been in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms since it was enacted in 1982.

In the US an employer can not refuse to hire you because of your religios beliefs. But they can fire you afterwords for creating conflict in the work place.

Doesn't that depend where you are? IIRC, employers in some states can dismiss employees without giving any reason at all.

Freedom of religion in the US just means that you can go to any church or religious gathering that you wish to without fearing persecution. It does not mean that you can force your religion on others in any way.

Again, this depends where you are. For instance, some states have laws that allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense "Plan B" pills, contraceptives, and abortifacients on religious grounds, and protect their jobs while doing so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If a worker's reasons are based on hatred it's different than refusal on grounds of conscience.

Is it? Can hatred never be a matter of conscience? Beliefs based on hatred can certainly be deeply held, which is my main criterion. Why do you exclude them?

Such as what?

Such as religious pacifism vs. pacifism for non-religious reasons, or religious prohibitions on certain foods vs. non-religiously motivated veganism, for example.

 

[Willamena]

Those of you who value freedom of religion: why do you value it? If you value it because religious beliefs are deeply held, shouldn't deeply held non-religious beliefs be protected just as strongly? If you value freedom of religion for some other reason, what's your reason?

I value it because freedom of religion is a specific application of freedom of thought (conscience), and the latter is formalized human dignity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not quite what I mean to suggest. Turn your optimism dial down a few notches.

No need for snide comments. I'm not being excessively optimistic.

Remember that right now the economy is still crap and recognize that for some people, quitting a job means being out of work for a lengthy period of time. They might have very limited options, and they can't just take a job with lower pay, nor do they have the means or ability to relocate.

I'm quite aware of this. My girlfriend lost her job a year ago and has been making do with a couple of part-time jobs.

To not make an effort to accommodate people is just cold-hearted and hits minorities (or really anybody who doesn't "fit in" with the culture of the company) especially hard.

I'm not arguing against reasonable accommodation (allowing a meeting room to be used for prayers, for instance). I'm arguing against "accommodation" that goes directly against the interests of the company, or that amounts to forcing companies to pay and retain employees who refuse to do critical parts of their job.

IMO, when a pharmacist refuses to dispense medications that he or she personally disagrees with, or when a banquet hall employee refuses to do business with same-sex or interracial couples, this goes quite a bit beyond "making an effort to accommodate people". In these cases, I think the most reasonable response is for the employee to find another job that's more in line with their views, and if they don't do this, I don't think it should be the employer's responsibility to put up with the expense and business interference the employee creates.

This was somewhat deliberate on my part, because I don't think these issues apply to just religion. Really, it would be nice if companies could be bothered to treat their employees as actual human beings. Certainly there are many places that do, but it is quite distressing to see so many cases where workers are treated as expendable and not given much respect or consideration. What can I say... I'm a fan of manners and respectfulness. Especially for the "lower" tiers of the work force, because frankly, they do all the hard work and get little appreciation.

The same could be said for same-sex couples or women seeking "Plan B" pills.

As an aside, the specific anti-gay legislation being proposed I have serious problems with. We don't accommodate bigotry and discrimination in this country... period. Nor should we.

Setting that particular legislation aside, what sort of legal protection would you want to see for religious beliefs? How do you think the Catholic pharmacist who doesn't want to dispense contraception or the Muslim waiter who doesn't want to serve alcohol should be treated?

 

[Quintessence]

No need for snide comments. I'm not being excessively optimistic.

It... wasn't a snide comment and that is not what I meant to imply at all. XD
Which would have been obvious if this wasn't the internet and there was voice and tone present. Stupid internet! :slap:

I'm not arguing against reasonable accommodation (allowing a meeting room to be used for prayers, for instance). I'm arguing against "accommodation" that goes directly against the interests of the company, or that amounts to forcing companies to pay and retain employees who refuse to do critical parts of their job.

Sure. And I don't mean to suggest employers should cowtow to every single demand an employee makes either. Determining things like this is tricksy. Abuses can (and do) happen on both sides of the relationship. It is the abuses I would like to see prevented.

Setting that particular legislation aside, what sort of legal protection would you want to see for religious beliefs? How do you think the Catholic pharmacist who doesn't want to dispense contraception or the Muslim waiter who doesn't want to serve alcohol should be treated?

I'm not sure. Honestly, it's my preference that these things are not turned into a legal matter. Instead I'd prefer we simply cultivate a culture of cooperation, respectfulness, and kindness where folks are understanding of each other and appreciate our country's pluralism. I realize this sounds idealistic - probably naively so. I do not believe there is any solution to the dilemmas here. As long as there are differences, conflicts are inevitable. It'd be nice if we'd all help each other find a comfortable place in life peaceably. It seems to me that the laws we currently have to an okay job of things. It's not flawless, but I would not expect it to be.

 

[Ingledsva]

Could you explain "freedom of conscience?" I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.

For me, it really isn't about religion per se, but accommodating and respecting the diverse ways of life people have. This is especially important in the case of minorities, whose way of life can easily be compromised by the thoughtlessness of the majority. The example you gave about "freedom to quit" reminds me of this: it is essentially saying "either give up something sacred or central to your way of life and who you area as a person... or impoverish yourself by walking away from what puts food on your table and a roof over your head." That's not cool. In most cases, it really isn't all that difficult for us to get along with each other by respecting differences and diversity.

The specific case that was being discussed in that other thread, granted, is not one of those simpler cases. It is a case where one is being asked to tolerate intolerance, and that gets difficult.

That fragment in red goes back to what we were saying in the other threads.


They ARE NOT giving up anything sacred, or holy, or holy law, etc, when they serve gay people, in their normal jobs.


Jesus was out among so-called "sinners."


The Bible doesn't say - don't bake big fancy cakes for Gay people.


They literally believe gay people are not married in the eyes of God, - SO, - that wedding dress is just a white dress. That wedding cake is just a big cake they baked for a customer.


How is that forcing them to break any religious law?


They just want to be able to discriminate against a whole group that they don't like.


That is all it is, discrimination.



*

 

[psychoslice]

Hi 9-10ths_Penguin, your opening post was very intelligently stated, but sadly most believes are not like you, but just ignorant.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I value it because freedom of religion is a specific application of freedom of thought (conscience), and the latter is formalized human dignity.

I'm sorry, could you clarify why conscience doesn't fit both categories?
I recently read an article of sometime refused citizenship, because they stated they were not willing to take up arms if needed'

In the reply they received, they were told had it been a religious complaint against killing, it would have been accepted.. But As the applicant started they were secular, it was grounds for rejection.

Why are the same moral objections only protected when non secular?
Why is one dignity, and the same feeling, when religious "conscience"?

 

[Willamena]

I'm sorry, could you clarify why conscience doesn't fit both categories?

....

Why is one dignity, and the same feeling, when religious "conscience"?

Dignity is formalized as freedom of thought, and in turn informs freedom of religion.

In other words, self-worth lends itself to valuing thoughts, and some of those thoughts are religious.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Dignity is formalized as freedom of thought, and in turn informs freedom of religion.

In other words, self-worth lends itself to valuing thoughts, and some of those thoughts are religious.

Some of those thoughts are religious, sure.
And some are opinion, or culinary preference, or superstitious, or aesthetic.

(to anyone, not calling you pout on this Willamena)
Where is the line between "someone being protected from picking up plastic wrapped meatbecause it will condemn them", "someone baking a cake for a couple they don't want to picture having sex" and say, sometime refusing to work in a room painted royal purple, because they believe that specific color, when viewed long enough, causes negativity to build?

In youropinion, where do we fit the line of "protected" vs "not protected"