5 ms·

His examples are very carefully cherry-picked to support his claims. I'm to going to agree or disagree with his conclusions here, but an example that is useful

His examples are very carefully cherry-picked to support his claims. I'm to going to agree or disagree with his conclusions here, but an example that is useful for the purpose of discussion is the subject of turbans, such as the dastaars worn by the Sikhs he discusses. At one time the uniform for a police officer in Toronto (and I'm sure everywhere else in Canada) included a cap that was quite inconsistent with the Sikh practice for men to wear a dastaar. The law prohibiting discrimination against persons by reason of their religion is defined to include directly passing over someone because of their beliefs. But it is also held to include indirectly passing them over by way of rules and regulations that are inconsistent with their beliefs and practices unless there are strong reasons to enforce them. The rules about uniforms were in a grey area. There are good reasons for police officers to wear a consistent uniform. But would a Sikh in a dastaar really violate those good reasons? The police changed its rules and regulations to include the dastaar as an option, with its colour and the inclusion of a badge on the head just as the original cap holds a badge. Kirpans are a very contentious subject and reasonable people can and do disagree on how they should be handled. But dastaars are an example of places where a failure to provide legal protection for people to practice their religion could create an indirect discrimination that is inconsistent with Canadian values. The author points out that if there's no good reason for a rule, it should be abolished for everyone. One interesting point of discussion is this: If there is no specific rule protecting the freedom to practice one's religion, how would rules such as the uniform rule for the police ever evolve?

pkulak 16y ago
I don't think it's possible to wrongfully discriminate against someone based on their choices. If someone wants to be part of a religion that wears some special clothing, great, but then there may be sacrifices that go along with that choice. This isn't like not installing wheelchair ramps. People in wheelchairs aren't there because they choose to be.
- anamax 16y ago
  > People in wheelchairs aren't there because they choose to be. Is religion a choice? I ask because some religions forbid conversions "out", a few with rather serious penalties. Since most adherents of those religions are entered into them by their parents (that is, without their consent) ....
  - gnaritas 16y ago
    Since when has forbidding people from doing something ever stopped them from doing it? Yes, religion is a choice; anyone can at any time choose not to believe.
    - forensic 16y ago
      This perspective is ignorant of modern findings on mind control. People born into certain religions with certain kinds of parents and communities often don't have a psychological choice because of the nature of their environment. Just because some INTPs slip through the cracks does not mean that your typical ESFJ has a choice.
      - gnaritas 16y ago
        I simply don't believe that, choice always exists whether or not an individual is aware of it. They can choose otherwise, regardless of whether they do or not, nothing is stopping them. If you have actual scientific evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. > Just because some INTPs slip through the cracks does not mean that your typical ESFJ has a choice. Yes it does, they just didn't assert it.
  - kablamo 16y ago
    Interesting. I think the answer depends on who you are. It is a choice if you don't believe in religion. Its not a choice if you are religious.
    - sorbus 16y ago
      Sort of like being gay, then: if you support it then it's not a choice, if you dislike it than it is a choice. I wonder how many other things there are which function in the same manner ...
    - vacri 16y ago
      You've never heard of "a crisis of faith"?
- Natsu 16y ago
  > I don't think it's possible to wrongfully discriminate against someone based on their choices. Does that mean you're okay with any discrimination against atheists by forcing them to engage in some religious practice? Or is atheism not a choice?
  - pkulak 16y ago
    Who's doing the forcing? Is it a job? Is the religious practice safe? Then fine. It's part of the job. Quit if you don't like it. My atheism may prevent me from dressing up as Santa because, maybe, I don't want to lie to kids, or something like that. That doesn't mean that I get to take that job and then sit down amongst the elves at the mall in jeans and a FSM t-shirt while little kids sit on my lap to be told that Christmas was stolen from the Pagans and there's no Jesus. You're trying to call me out, but you're exactly right.
    - J3L2404 16y ago
      +1 for FSM mention. Ironically on their website a few years ago they were (mockingly) showing an inverse correlation between increasing CO2 and piracy just before the wave of Sudanese boat-jackings.
      - J3L2404 16y ago
        Oops, that should be Somali not Sudanese.
    - Confusion 16y ago
      Quit if you don't like it. Many people have that choice only in theory. Secondly, who's to say what is 'safe'? Obligatory communal prayer every morning at school or work could be considered a form of brainwashing. I certainly don't think it's safe for my kid or even myself. I'm too informed on the human psyche to not be afraid of what others could convince me to think or do under the right circumstances. But if even communal prayer isn't safe, then what is?
      - 16y ago
slammdunc23 16y ago
I think the turban example is perfectly consistent with what the author said. You ask "how would rules such as the uniform rule for the police ever evolve?" The answer is: in much the same way! Under this author's understanding of that example, the rule under scrutiny would be: "Every policeman must wear a uniform cap." The Sikhs, wishing to wear dastaars, would petition the chief of police to be able to wear a dastaar instead. The chief of police (or whoever), would then think to herself, "Well, is it all that important that our police officers wear matching CAPS, or is the important part merely that they wear headgear that matches the rest of the outfit and contains a badge?" She would then conclude that the more appropriate rule, which should apply to /everyone/, regardless of his religion, should be that every police officer must wear a hat of the appropriate color and that the hat must contain a badge. A Sikh could wear a dastaar; an atheist could wear a baseball cap or a turban--or a dastaar. The point is that /anyone/, not just a Sikh, can wear /any/ hat he chooses, so long as it meets those standards that /are/ considered too important to change, such as matching color and a badge. I think another example might be more clear. Back in the 1990s, there was a big hullaballoo about Native Americans out West using peyote, a hallucinogenic, as part of a religious ceremony. Using peyote, however, was illegal in the state of Oregon, so a few members of the Native American Church were fired from their jobs and denied unemployment benefits after they were found using peyote. The Native Americans argued that they should be exempt from this law due to their religious beliefs, and many agreed. I don't, and neither did the Supreme Court (check out Employment Division v. Smith [1990]). And here's the reason: if peyote is "not that bad," i.e., if it's fine for /some/ people to use it (here, the Native Americans), then it should be fine for /all/ people to use it. If peyote is actually /too dangerous/, if it really /must/ be outlawed, then it should be outlawed for /everyone./ What someone believes about peyote should have no bearing on his right to use it. (This is the same reason we wouldn't allow ritualized murder of children even if someone claimed it was central to his religion--it's simply too dangerous!) It's /discrimination based on religion/ (or lack thereof) to say that Tom, who believes that peyote helps him communicate with a higher power, should be able to use peyote, but that Bob, who simply feels that using peyote helps him relax and to paint, should not. Why should Tom's belief be worth more than Bob's simply because a higher power is involved? And what kind of law should involve litigating someone's religious beliefs? Imagine: Q: "Isn't it true that you don't REALLY believe that peyote helps you commune with God?" A: "No, I swear I believe! I pray every day!" Q: "But I have a witness who says he saw you at Catholic mass last week! And here's a Bible we found in your house!" What a horrible mess that would be! To get back to the dastaar example, then, all the author is saying is this: If a Sikh should be able to wear a dastaar, then an atheist should be able to wear a dastaar on the job, too. In fact, an atheist should be able to wear any hat of the proper color with a badge on it. His beliefs or lack thereof should have no bearing on his right to do something that everyone else can do.
uvdiv 16y ago
>The law prohibiting discrimination against persons by reason of their religion is defined to include directly passing over someone because of their beliefs. Actually I would guess the author supports religious discrimination, although he doesn't make a clear statement either away. If the discriminator is a private citizen, then a freedom to discriminate follows directly from the basic freedoms he lists, particularly freedom of association. He evaded this issue by only giving examples of public discrimination (by public schools, courts, and government employers).

pkulak 16y ago

I don't think it's possible to wrongfully discriminate against someone based on their choices. If someone wants to be part of a religion that wears some special clothing, great, but then there may be sacrifices that go along with that choice. This isn't like not installing wheelchair ramps. People in wheelchairs aren't there because they choose to be.

anamax 16y ago
> People in wheelchairs aren't there because they choose to be. Is religion a choice? I ask because some religions forbid conversions "out", a few with rather serious penalties. Since most adherents of those religions are entered into them by their parents (that is, without their consent) ....
- gnaritas 16y ago
  Since when has forbidding people from doing something ever stopped them from doing it? Yes, religion is a choice; anyone can at any time choose not to believe.
  - forensic 16y ago
    This perspective is ignorant of modern findings on mind control. People born into certain religions with certain kinds of parents and communities often don't have a psychological choice because of the nature of their environment. Just because some INTPs slip through the cracks does not mean that your typical ESFJ has a choice.
    - gnaritas 16y ago
      I simply don't believe that, choice always exists whether or not an individual is aware of it. They can choose otherwise, regardless of whether they do or not, nothing is stopping them. If you have actual scientific evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. > Just because some INTPs slip through the cracks does not mean that your typical ESFJ has a choice. Yes it does, they just didn't assert it.
- kablamo 16y ago
  Interesting. I think the answer depends on who you are. It is a choice if you don't believe in religion. Its not a choice if you are religious.
  - sorbus 16y ago
    Sort of like being gay, then: if you support it then it's not a choice, if you dislike it than it is a choice. I wonder how many other things there are which function in the same manner ...
  - vacri 16y ago
    You've never heard of "a crisis of faith"?
Natsu 16y ago
> I don't think it's possible to wrongfully discriminate against someone based on their choices. Does that mean you're okay with any discrimination against atheists by forcing them to engage in some religious practice? Or is atheism not a choice?
- pkulak 16y ago
  Who's doing the forcing? Is it a job? Is the religious practice safe? Then fine. It's part of the job. Quit if you don't like it. My atheism may prevent me from dressing up as Santa because, maybe, I don't want to lie to kids, or something like that. That doesn't mean that I get to take that job and then sit down amongst the elves at the mall in jeans and a FSM t-shirt while little kids sit on my lap to be told that Christmas was stolen from the Pagans and there's no Jesus. You're trying to call me out, but you're exactly right.
  - J3L2404 16y ago
    +1 for FSM mention. Ironically on their website a few years ago they were (mockingly) showing an inverse correlation between increasing CO2 and piracy just before the wave of Sudanese boat-jackings.
    - J3L2404 16y ago
      Oops, that should be Somali not Sudanese.
  - Confusion 16y ago
    Quit if you don't like it. Many people have that choice only in theory. Secondly, who's to say what is 'safe'? Obligatory communal prayer every morning at school or work could be considered a form of brainwashing. I certainly don't think it's safe for my kid or even myself. I'm too informed on the human psyche to not be afraid of what others could convince me to think or do under the right circumstances. But if even communal prayer isn't safe, then what is?
    - 16y ago

slammdunc23 16y ago

I think the turban example is perfectly consistent with what the author said. You ask "how would rules such as the uniform rule for the police ever evolve?" The answer is: in much the same way! Under this author's understanding of that example, the rule under scrutiny would be: "Every policeman must wear a uniform cap." The Sikhs, wishing to wear dastaars, would petition the chief of police to be able to wear a dastaar instead. The chief of police (or whoever), would then think to herself, "Well, is it all that important that our police officers wear matching CAPS, or is the important part merely that they wear headgear that matches the rest of the outfit and contains a badge?" She would then conclude that the more appropriate rule, which should apply to /everyone/, regardless of his religion, should be that every police officer must wear a hat of the appropriate color and that the hat must contain a badge. A Sikh could wear a dastaar; an atheist could wear a baseball cap or a turban--or a dastaar. The point is that /anyone/, not just a Sikh, can wear /any/ hat he chooses, so long as it meets those standards that /are/ considered too important to change, such as matching color and a badge. I think another example might be more clear. Back in the 1990s, there was a big hullaballoo about Native Americans out West using peyote, a hallucinogenic, as part of a religious ceremony. Using peyote, however, was illegal in the state of Oregon, so a few members of the Native American Church were fired from their jobs and denied unemployment benefits after they were found using peyote. The Native Americans argued that they should be exempt from this law due to their religious beliefs, and many agreed. I don't, and neither did the Supreme Court (check out Employment Division v. Smith [1990]). And here's the reason: if peyote is "not that bad," i.e., if it's fine for /some/ people to use it (here, the Native Americans), then it should be fine for /all/ people to use it. If peyote is actually /too dangerous/, if it really /must/ be outlawed, then it should be outlawed for /everyone./ What someone believes about peyote should have no bearing on his right to use it. (This is the same reason we wouldn't allow ritualized murder of children even if someone claimed it was central to his religion--it's simply too dangerous!) It's /discrimination based on religion/ (or lack thereof) to say that Tom, who believes that peyote helps him communicate with a higher power, should be able to use peyote, but that Bob, who simply feels that using peyote helps him relax and to paint, should not. Why should Tom's belief be worth more than Bob's simply because a higher power is involved? And what kind of law should involve litigating someone's religious beliefs? Imagine: Q: "Isn't it true that you don't REALLY believe that peyote helps you commune with God?" A: "No, I swear I believe! I pray every day!" Q: "But I have a witness who says he saw you at Catholic mass last week! And here's a Bible we found in your house!" What a horrible mess that would be! To get back to the dastaar example, then, all the author is saying is this: If a Sikh should be able to wear a dastaar, then an atheist should be able to wear a dastaar on the job, too. In fact, an atheist should be able to wear any hat of the proper color with a badge on it. His beliefs or lack thereof should have no bearing on his right to do something that everyone else can do.

uvdiv 16y ago

>The law prohibiting discrimination against persons by reason of their religion is defined to include directly passing over someone because of their beliefs. Actually I would guess the author supports religious discrimination, although he doesn't make a clear statement either away. If the discriminator is a private citizen, then a freedom to discriminate follows directly from the basic freedoms he lists, particularly freedom of association. He evaded this issue by only giving examples of public discrimination (by public schools, courts, and government employers).