Who wants to argue about pink and purple unicorns?

[Brian2]

I'm dubious, as I thought you were from the US? If so your rights are protected by a written constitution. What rights are you saying have been suppressed? Also this is not "democracy" as everyone should have the same legal rights in a democracy. Although in practice it is often harder to ensure they are applied equally, even when they are enshrined in law.

I'm from Australia where we do not have a constitution but do have common law. Rights for religions in law are slowly being eroded imo.
The law I was thinking of is one which forces religious schools to not hire based on the religion of the person.
Great for the individual who wants a job at the school but bad for the religious parents who want a distinctly religious education for their children.

[/QUOTE]Well naturally, democracy is a continuous fight to freedom, you don't achieve it really merely fight for the ideal in order to preserve freedom.[/QUOTE]

True.

What religious rights are being suppressed, and where?

I did not say religious rights are being suppressed, I said that religious ideas (meaning morals) are being suppressed and pushed aside in Western society. Morals derived from religion are no doubt seen as needing reform to morals derived from reason. This is OK in most areas, as religious morals conform with reason mainly.

 

[Brian2]

Can you give an example?

The example I was thinking of is a recently passed law where I live which stops religious schools employing on the basis of the religion of the employee. This is against the freedom of the school and parents to give their children the education they want and is hypocritical in that the people who made the law can hire people based on their political affiliations.

How is religion being suppressed? As opposed to other viewpoints simply being given equal consideration? Some people seem to think that it is suppression to question whether reason religious ideals should be adopted in a secular society and to require laws and such to have a secular purpose and not to institute a particular religious agenda.

I did not say that the religion is being suppressed, however recently with regard to gay rights it seems that it can be illegal these days for religions to teach the religion's position of homosexuality to their children or from the pulpit or other ways.
Gay rights is a good thing imo but other aspects have caused sections of the Christian community to fear a creeping Government suppression of religious freedom.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did not say that it suppressed the rights of Christians to practise their religion, I said it suppressed their rights.

Obviously it doesn't. If anything, it PROTECTS rights.
Being disqualified for a job because you have religion X, Y, Z or none instead of religion A, would be a suppression of those people's rights. It's called discrimination.

The thing about the law is that it is hypocritical since politicians can still choose their staff depending on their politics.

No, that is not at all the same.

It is a law aimed at religions and the rights of religious schools to choose employees based on their religion.

No. It is a law aimed at anti-discrimination.
When that school looks for someone to teach IT, that teacher's religion is irrelevant.

In a place that has nothing to do with religion, it might be considered discriminatory to hire someone based on their religion. In a religious organisation where parents pay for their children to be taught in a religious atmosphere and have the influence of people of their own religion, it is discriminatory.

Religious schools are NOT religious organizations. They are schools.
Their first job is to teach. The "religious" part is about which religious classes will be offered / mandatory, and likely also general guidelines concerning dress code etc.

They may as well say that a minister cannot be hired conditional on their religion.

No. A school and a church are not the same thing.

It all depends on those who make the laws. The principle of anti discrimination in this case is used to discriminate against the rights of the parents and religion.

No, it's not. Repeating it won't make it true.
Again, it matters not what the religion is of the IT or science teacher.
IT and science are religion agnostic.

One only has to be qualified for the job one must do.
And ones religion plays no part in the required credentials to teach english or it or science.

You should speak for yourself and not say what you think Sheldon was talking about.

When I express what "I think" @Sheldon was about, am I then not speaking for myself?

Kings and politicians should not be above the law. Good theory. Kings and politicians should be forced to comply with the law. Good theory. But the practice is not the same as the theory it would be utopia.

Only because we let them.
If those in power act against the constitution, there certainly are paths to be followed to take them to justice.
That people don't is the people's fault. The instruments are there.

Off course the complaint needs to be in line with the constitution....
It won't do you any good to say that that law you were talking about "suppresses the rights of the religious" while that isn't true at all and it, in fact, protects the rights of people in general.