4 ms·

Freedom of speech is important. Freedom of association is important. As long as we respect both we won't interfere with people freely speaking to other people's

Freedom of speech is important. Freedom of association is important. As long as we respect both we won't interfere with people freely speaking to other people's employers or employers choosing to disassociate themselves from employees as a result. Sure free speech and association can have negative consequences, they just tend to be less negative than prohibited or compulsory speech or association.

rohit2412 8y ago
I'm not so sure. If an employer wants to disassociate from Islam and fires all muslims, why do we cover that under religious discrimination? Why not stop discrimination over all ideologies? Maybe somebody will start a religion for Nazism.
- geofft 8y ago
  Are you genuinely asking for an entry-level explanation of why most modern societies disapprove of discrimination on a few specific characteristics but do not generally consider "ideology" one of them? (I can provide one, but don't want to explain something basic if it's not actually at issue here.)
  - Inconel 8y ago
    I'm not the poster you're responding to, and I like to think I have a reasonably good understanding of why modern societies don't discriminate on characteristics which a person can't change, and while I personally find it unethical to discriminate against someone based on their religious views, I have a hard time discerning why religion should get that protection while "ideology" shouldn't? As a non religious person I find religion both fairly ideological and something that a person can readily change, at least in a free society. I've looked through your profile and you always seem to provide good explanations so I'd love to hear your thoughts. I hope you can believe me that this is a question asked in good faith.
    - projektir 8y ago
      Religions often run in families and have very strong sticking power, in a way that's different from a college student turning to nihilism. For many people, their religion is not very changeable because it's a major part of their identity and without it they would not be properly themselves and don't know what to do and it would cause them great alarm. Religions are often very sticky by location or by cultural subset, so if you decide to discriminate against religions, often you're not really discriminating against someone's free thought, but just where they happened to be born and what kind of culture they grew up with. > at least in a free society Lots of religious people do not come from societies one would reasonably call "free".
      - Inconel 8y ago
        The things you've said certainly make sense but I feel like much of that also applies to political ideology. It certainly seems to me like much of that ideology is at least partly subject to location and culture. In particular I feel that a large part of our individual ideologies are based on our past experiences and the way those experiences shape our perspective of the world at large. Edit: If we're going to use the logic that religious views should be protected due to their inherent "stickiness" relating to family and culture, and other aspects out of one's immediate control, I'm not convinced that other ideological views are any less "sticky" and thus not equally worthy of protection.
        projektir 8y ago
        I don't really find that ideology is anywhere near as sticky, as I've had a much easier time discussing nuances with ideologues compared to religious people, and, more importantly, ideology is just nowhere near as stand out. You can be a communist without anyone knowing. I have a set of some very odd beliefs, nobody really knows unless they ask. You can't quite do that with religion when you have days you can't eat meat or you can't work because you have to go to a special building or what not. Or often religion instructs you to talk about it. Ideology can stay in your head; religions (properly followed) tend to be disruptive to one's entire lifestyle, so if a society doesn't protect it, it can as well declare the religion invalid for what that's going to do to it. Which might be what the society wants to do, but you should understand what it is that you're doing.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    Late to the party here, sorry didn't reply earlier. So, you do support laws banning religious discrimination but support discrimination against say white supremacists? The major reason people don't support lgbt rights is because of religion. Koran and old testament explicitly speak out punishments for homosexuality. Koran also says that for apostasy. Would you protect hateful speech against lgbt rights or athiests? If not, how are you determining the "true Islam" or "true Christianity"? Should we silence only the ideas you deem undesirable? Religion is a sticking power, sure. But so does casteism, white superiority, racism etc. It is not easy to change ideologies (just like religion) and I don't think we want a government to actively ban any speech on them (if not calling for violence).

rohit2412 8y ago

I'm not so sure. If an employer wants to disassociate from Islam and fires all muslims, why do we cover that under religious discrimination? Why not stop discrimination over all ideologies? Maybe somebody will start a religion for Nazism.

geofft 8y ago
Are you genuinely asking for an entry-level explanation of why most modern societies disapprove of discrimination on a few specific characteristics but do not generally consider "ideology" one of them? (I can provide one, but don't want to explain something basic if it's not actually at issue here.)
- Inconel 8y ago
  I'm not the poster you're responding to, and I like to think I have a reasonably good understanding of why modern societies don't discriminate on characteristics which a person can't change, and while I personally find it unethical to discriminate against someone based on their religious views, I have a hard time discerning why religion should get that protection while "ideology" shouldn't? As a non religious person I find religion both fairly ideological and something that a person can readily change, at least in a free society. I've looked through your profile and you always seem to provide good explanations so I'd love to hear your thoughts. I hope you can believe me that this is a question asked in good faith.
  - projektir 8y ago
    Religions often run in families and have very strong sticking power, in a way that's different from a college student turning to nihilism. For many people, their religion is not very changeable because it's a major part of their identity and without it they would not be properly themselves and don't know what to do and it would cause them great alarm. Religions are often very sticky by location or by cultural subset, so if you decide to discriminate against religions, often you're not really discriminating against someone's free thought, but just where they happened to be born and what kind of culture they grew up with. > at least in a free society Lots of religious people do not come from societies one would reasonably call "free".
    - Inconel 8y ago
      The things you've said certainly make sense but I feel like much of that also applies to political ideology. It certainly seems to me like much of that ideology is at least partly subject to location and culture. In particular I feel that a large part of our individual ideologies are based on our past experiences and the way those experiences shape our perspective of the world at large. Edit: If we're going to use the logic that religious views should be protected due to their inherent "stickiness" relating to family and culture, and other aspects out of one's immediate control, I'm not convinced that other ideological views are any less "sticky" and thus not equally worthy of protection.
      - projektir 8y ago
        I don't really find that ideology is anywhere near as sticky, as I've had a much easier time discussing nuances with ideologues compared to religious people, and, more importantly, ideology is just nowhere near as stand out. You can be a communist without anyone knowing. I have a set of some very odd beliefs, nobody really knows unless they ask. You can't quite do that with religion when you have days you can't eat meat or you can't work because you have to go to a special building or what not. Or often religion instructs you to talk about it. Ideology can stay in your head; religions (properly followed) tend to be disruptive to one's entire lifestyle, so if a society doesn't protect it, it can as well declare the religion invalid for what that's going to do to it. Which might be what the society wants to do, but you should understand what it is that you're doing.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  Late to the party here, sorry didn't reply earlier. So, you do support laws banning religious discrimination but support discrimination against say white supremacists? The major reason people don't support lgbt rights is because of religion. Koran and old testament explicitly speak out punishments for homosexuality. Koran also says that for apostasy. Would you protect hateful speech against lgbt rights or athiests? If not, how are you determining the "true Islam" or "true Christianity"? Should we silence only the ideas you deem undesirable? Religion is a sticking power, sure. But so does casteism, white superiority, racism etc. It is not easy to change ideologies (just like religion) and I don't think we want a government to actively ban any speech on them (if not calling for violence).