8 ms·

Religious exemptions shouldn't be a thing though. I should not get more protections or rights in any way than another citizen because I happen to have or claim

• williamtrask 5y ago
  Think of a religion more like a union
  • throwawaylinux 5y ago
    My point would still stand. Nobody should be given additional rights and protections under the law by virtue of being a member of a union (or political party or corporation or anything else).
    • mensetmanusman 5y ago
      Because democracy is not a tyranny of the majority, this will likely not happen, since life has so many shades of gray.
  • seattle_spring 5y ago
    Corrupt and thoroughly outdated?
• throwthere 5y ago
  I agree with you on principal but the courts have kind of interpreted the free exercise clause of the first amendment broadly by 2021 standards and there's not really any going back.
  • ithacaman 5y ago
    Sure there is. That's what amendments are for.
    • NoNotTheDuo 5y ago
      And in today’s political climate in the US, the chance of getting an amendment passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress AND 38/50 states is basically nil.
      • ithacaman 5y ago
        That is not exactly true. Legislation like the Patriot Act or anti-child trafficking measures get bilateral support.
  • adrianba 5y ago
    I'm not sure it's that bad. It's still the law in the United States that you cannot claim a religious exemption to a (state) law of general applicability. If the law applies to everyone regardless of religion and was not intended to impact a particular religious practice, then you cannot challenge it you because you claim that it affects your right to exercise your religion. See City of Boerne v. Flores, which affirmed Employment Division v. Smith despite Congress's attempt to legislate it away.
    • User23 5y ago
      Would a state law banning infant male circumcision as genital mutilation without consent stand? How about a state law against branding or tattooing infants or any other irreversible body modification? Clearly these are both rhetorical questions with obvious answers. Whether or not those obvious answers are morally correct is another matter.
      • adrianba 5y ago
        I'm not sure what point you are making here. Presumably your obvious answer is "yes"? For example, there are indeed some states that outlaw tattooing minors (although many states do permit it with parental consent).
• TeeMassive 5y ago
  Religious exemptions are not limited to "official religions". Deep moral and philosophical exemptions can and have been made.
  • modzu 5y ago
    in canada i think the phrase is "conscience", but that doesn't mean objections of conscience are treated equally
  • dodobirdlord 5y ago
    Sure, but if an exception is made for anyone based on their beliefs, it should be available to everyone universally regardless of their beliefs. Otherwise, people de facto have a different set of rights based on their beliefs. These sorts of exceptions have historically been made in deference to pragmatism, an example being not drafting bona fide pacifists into the military due to the pointlessness thereof. But deferring to pragmatism when dealing with the topic of human rights is offensive.
    • TeeMassive 5y ago
      > Sure, but if an exception is made for anyone based on their beliefs, it should be available to everyone universally regardless of their beliefs. In the US it is, the government doesn't act as a priest determining who is or isn't part of the Faith. In Canada it is similar, the only requirement is one of sincerity and good faith. > Otherwise, people de facto have a different set of rights based on their beliefs. It only becomes a question or rights when a a restriction is applied in the first place. Religious exemptions always come up when some kind of government policy is mandated (state education, vaccines, taxes, etc.). The "additional" rights only appear as a consequence of personal agency in the first place. Which is why it was called "the canary in the coal mine of rights". > But deferring to pragmatism when dealing with the topic of human rights is offensive. Hugh? It seems to me that pragmatism has a well deserved place in every aspects of political life.
• loceng 5y ago
  Replace religious exemption with phrase deep conviction; relation to religion is only in use in policy as mass religion played a role to counter government, requiring at least some compromise for government to gain the most popular religions/organizations as allies, to align with.
  • Blikkentrekker 5y ago
    That is the Dutch standard, “deep conviction”, but I see no merit in that either. One should not be given special privileges because one's convictions be “deep” which is, if anything, symptomatic of not basing them on prudence but on hysteria and emotion. It's also irrelevant for the company itself; if a company can reasonably accommodate a man whose convictions are deep, it can do so the same with anyone else for the same reason.
    • avs733 5y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree. Where is the line in deep conviction? can I steal if I had a deeply held religious conviction that it is appropriate?
      • dotancohen 5y ago
        The Roma believe themselves descended from the thief who stole Jesus' nail. Therefore, not only do they permit themselves to steal, but their stealing has widely been tolerated by authorities (even if not by the populations that they steal from). That's been changing since the early twentieth century, but for decades the Roma were known as thieves. Unfortunately the stigma still lives until today. EDIT: To the downvoters: Your social justice crusade is ridiculous. I'm not passing judgement on this group, I'm stating the facts. You'll notice that I called them Roma, like they call themselves today, and not the more common name associated with them in English which they decided themselves to avoid. Hm, there is even no mention of the nail myth on the Roma Wikipedia page. But there is a separate page, not linked from the main Roma page, that explains it and even mentions that Roma are permitted to steal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_crucifixion_legend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_crucifixion_legend
• Lammy 5y ago
  > I'm talking about the right to do or refuse something (e.g., refuse a fingerprint or, or refuse to serve alcohol) and protection of those choices. I hope you're not fond of "the weekend" considering it used to take a religious exemption to get a day off work at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat "Oop, gotta go — it's Buchwuch!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg58j-MoFic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg58j-MoFic
  • throwawaylinux 5y ago
    That's not an argument.
    • Lammy 5y ago
      Anything I don't like is an invalid argument "The present-day concept of the relatively longer 'week-end' first arose in the industrial north of Britain in the early 19th century and was originally a voluntary arrangement between factory owners and workers allowing Saturday afternoon off from 2 pm on the basis that staff would be available for work sober and refreshed on Monday morning."
      • throwawaylinux 5y ago
        Your post did not even attempt to address anything I wrote. It was not an argument. Hoping I'm not fond of weekends is not an argument.
        • ironmagma 5y ago
          It’s a challenge — poster is asking if you also oppose weekends, since that would be presumably required to make your argument consistent with other things unmentioned.
          • throwawaylinux 5y ago
            A vague rhetorical question is not an argument even if the person who wrote it may have had some logic or data behind what they said that could be formed into a proper argument. It's just a lazy, way overused tool that is more often than not employed when no such sound argument exists. They can't type out of logical coherent opposition, so they throw out some vague snide kind of question that's supposed to look like a gotcha but really doesn't mean anything when you look at it. It's lazy and underhanded because it puts some of the burden back on the other person to refute it, at least on internet forums like this. The irony of the poster getting upset when I gave an equal-effort response! And if you think I would need to "oppose weekends" (whatever that means) to be consistent, then you are wrong about that too. What exactly is it you think I am trying to argue, and how would failing to "oppose weekends" make my argument inconsistent?
• mbg721 5y ago
  Even if you don't personally believe in any religion, it's useful for a society to formally acknowledge an authority that's greater than the individuals to whom it gives political power.
  • avs733 5y ago
    > it's useful for a society to formally acknowledge an authority that's greater than the individuals to whom it gives political power. yes, as you noted...that higher authority is society not god. The concept of god is an attempt to impute one's/a group's morals on a society
    • ironmagma 5y ago
      The problem is, you can’t poll society every time you need to decide the correct moral that applies. So you have to use your judgment, or in other words, ask yourself (aka be creative, effectively what asking God would accomplish assuming God doesn’t really exist).
    • mbg721 5y ago
      But societies that deny God end up with a god anyway, and impute their morals on society anyway. I'd much rather have the higher authority be explicitly contemptuous of the head of state.
    • williamtrask 5y ago
      So is voting
  • anigbrowl 5y ago
    That just gives political power to people who purport to speak on behalf of this 'authority', some of whose motives or reasoning are highly questionable.
    • mbg721 5y ago
      People with highly-questionable motives and reasoning inevitably show up anyway. If they have to concede that God is somebody besides themselves, then their armor has instant cracks.
• amateurICEguy 5y ago
  Religious exemption is a proxy for an exemption of conscience. Which is something you should care about, unless you're perfectly tuned with the social zeitgeist. And it's an excellent proxy since most people's consciences are formed by their religious beliefs (maybe not most HNers, but that's observational bias)
  • TOMDM 5y ago
    I think the person you're replying to is arguing all exemptions of conscience should be ubiquitous. That we shouldn't have to rely on religion to fight that proxy battle for us.
    • programmarchy 5y ago
      For military service the term conscientious objector comes to mind which Wikipedia defines as “ [refusal] on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion” which seems appropriate to me.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • jobigoud 5y ago
        "Refusal on the ground of freedom of thought" is enough to convey exactly the same without loss of meaning. No need to mention religion, no need for religion-specific exemptions.
    • ironmagma 5y ago
      Thinking about it practically… should we need to rely on it? Ideally no. But the reality seems to be, religion is getting us something we otherwise wouldn’t get. So why get rid of the good thing? If anything this is evidence of religion’s value.
      • leeoniya 5y ago
        > If anything this is evidence of religion’s value. that's an odd take. a bit like saying "our founders loved X, so they carved out favorable laws for X, which is evidence that X is good."
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• pyuser583 5y ago
  Disagree. There’s a big difference between an Orthodox Jew being required to work on Saturday, and someone who just likes college football. Accommodations that come from deepseated beliefs need to be treated with utmost respect.
  • trainsplanes 5y ago
    Disagree. There's no reason the state should say one person's personal choice to follow a religion allows them to forever be exempt from Saturday work, but someone who chooses to follow football has no right or guarantee to ever enjoy a Saturday. They deserve equal protections. There are many people out there far more passionate about their hobbies than many people who use their religion to excuse them from various expectations. They shouldn't be denied enjoyment.
    • TakuYam 5y ago
      >There's no reason the state should say one person's personal choice to follow a religion Religious people don’t see practicing their faith as a choice though, they see it as an obligation. Watching college ball is as tedious as religion but never an obligation
      • trainsplanes 5y ago
        Football fanatics don't see missing a game as a choice either.
        • ARandomerDude 5y ago
          There's a massive difference between I like football a lot and I am accountable to God to keep the 4th Commandment. Ezekiel 22:8,31 ESV "You have despised my holy things and profaned my Sabbaths... [31] Therefore I have poured out my indignation upon them. I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath. I have returned their way upon their heads, declares the Lord GOD." Ultimately freedom of religion prevents the situation in which a person is forced to come to the conclusion that a lower authority (government) is attempting to usurp the highest authority (God). At that point, any religious person has three bad alternatives: 1. Disobey God. 2. Suffer persecution from the government. 3. Rebel against the government.
• badrabbit 5y ago
  Telling people they can have a religion but they can't practice it is as laughabaly silly as telling them they have freedom of speech so long as they don't say undesirable things. The entire point of a religion is implementation and execution of beliefs as a practice, without that it's just belief or philosophy which I don't believe is protected specifically as you noted. I think people who ride your train of thought just don't like religion and disagree with it being a fundamental right. To which I would vehementely disagree because most of the other important rights modern societies enjoy became a thing in a very religious time and religious reasoning was used (of course I have many more reasons as well). I think it boils down to what may seem like a false dichotomy but is very true -- you either take the route of regulating people's ability to live according to their belief or you don't. Don't be surprised when this is used against you either. If you live in America or even some european countries (see poland and hungary) your irreligious practices become also regulated. If the state can regulate belief then it can for example force kids to pray at school or punish kids who pray at school. It took millenia of wars and conflict to finally decide, let's not tell other people how to believe and how to practice said belief. Let's not forget the past and even the present?
  • SilverRed 5y ago
    The OP point is still clear. If the law says "You must do x unless you have a religious exemption" then why should anyone at all be expected to do x if clearly it isn't important enough to enforce on all people. If your religion includes killing people, it is still illegal regardless of your religion. So it seems reasonable that any law which can be overridden by a religious exemption should be dropped for all people.
    • adinisom 5y ago
      As an atheist that's one thing I like about religion: preserving religious freedoms helps preserve the freedom of all people. That said it's not a pure good. Religions can push for oppressive laws that match their beliefs.
      • elzbardico 5y ago
• motohagiography 5y ago
  This begs the question around "more," as though rights were a scalar measure of something fungible granted by a state, like allocating food between children. You probably wouldn't argue against the principle of rights of a minority to protections of their interest, and in the case of this exemption, the individual is the ultimate minority.
• suifbwish 5y ago
  You saying there shouldn’t be religious exceptions is a religious statement. “Should” or “should not” implies that there is an objective best way or morally just way that goes above and beyond the scientific method, any such path of reasoning unless a part of a social contract or agreed upon definitions of such, it is religious in nature and thus unable to be proven beyond the echo chamber of people who already believe it.
• williamtrask 5y ago
  Many (most) governments throughout history didn’t respect religious diversity and unless Ik mistaken such intolerance tended to lead to worse outcomes. You’re fundamentally making an argument against institutional pluralism.