3 ms·
For the sake of productive discussion, let's narrow 'modern societies' to the United States since 1964 (when Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed). In 1
by wgjordan 8y ago
For the sake of productive discussion, let's narrow 'modern societies' to the United States since 1964 (when Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed). In 1965, the Supreme court held (in United States v. Seeger) that:
'The test of religious belief [...] is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the exemption.'
So a non-religious person like yourself can have their 'ideology' legally protected from discrimination, as long as it passes the same 'sincere and meaningful' test that other protected religious beliefs do.
So the key to answering your good-faith question is in the definition/scope of 'religious' belief. A 'religious' belief (in this narrow context of US Title VII law) must meet a higher standard than a more general 'ideological' belief in that it must be both sincere and meaningful, and I would argue that a sincere belief meeting this higher standard is, by definition, not 'something that a person can readily change'.
- Inconel 8y agoThis is a pretty great explanation for me, your last point is something I hadn't considered before and definitely gives me a lot to think about. I wish I was able to more meaningfully engage with you and the other posters here but I feel I'm always so far out of my element.
- lostmsu 8y agoBut why can't I make religious jokes at my workplace, if my ideology requires fighting religion, and the most acceptable place for it is lunches at work?
- wgjordan 8y agoReligious accommodations are not required by law if the employer can demonstrate that granting them would impose an 'undue hardship' on the conduct of the employer's business, which in this case would be liability for claims of religious harassment.
- lostmsu 8y agoStumbling by prayer rooms in tech companies is an insult on my world view, but I doubt courts would let me call it harassment. Not to mention me having to pay for them indirectly.
- paulddraper 8y agoLet us apply the standard to mentioned example: Nazism. > it must be both sincere Yes. > and meaningful Most certainly yes, considering the millions that fought for and against it. > a place parallel to that filled by the God Ultimate goal of purification. Charismatic and visionary leader. Integrated New Testament and writings by Martin Luther as holy texts. John 8:44, Cleansing of the Temple, Luther's On Jews and Their Lies Aryan/Nordic chosen race. (Compare: Jewish chosen race.) "Sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the 'common good'" (Compare golden rule, and religious communes.) > not 'something that a person can readily change' Often yes. (Though I do take issue with this one, given that conversion is the most talked about religious experience there is.)
- wgjordan 8y agoThe courts don't disagree in general principle. In Peterson v. Wilmur Communications [1], the courts held that "a follower of the World Church of the Creator, an organization that preaches a system of beliefs called Creativity, the central tenet of which is white supremacy" (more or less a 'religion for Nazism') was protected from religious discrimination because the "Creativity functions as religion in his life; thus, Creativity is for him a religion regardless of whether it espouses goodness or ill." [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/205/1014/2332160/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/...