9 ms·

Rules; Reverence for Religion

28 points by luu 4y ago

tuatoru 4y ago
> But when we discuss matters of religious discrimination, atheists are a group against which there is discrimination on the basis of religion. Citation needed. Specifically, show: atheists as a group have lower life expectancy and/or lower lifetime earnings than non-atheists when confounders are controlled. People over-use "discrimination". Edit: interesting points made about ethics, though. Worth reading.
- bborud 4y ago
  Easy: Look at atheists running for office and their chances of being elected. Also, your definition of discrimination is oddly specific.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >Easy: Look at atheists running for office and their chances of being elected. That's just democracy. People get to vote for people whose politics and beliefs they like.
    - bborud 4y ago
      No, it isn't "just democracy". Whether atheists should even be allowed to hold public office is a question that turns up regularly in public discourse. Now substitute "atheist" with "people of color", "jewish", "muslim", "gay" or "left handed" and see if you still think it is okay.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        It's still just democracy if the majority wishes so. Democracy (in the actual, direct demoracy sense) is not about ensuring inclusivity in public position offices and representation, it's about each person having one vote and then majority ruling. If those groups have the right to vote and get elected, but don't because most don't want to elect them, that's still a democracy. It's even a democracy if the majority decides to stiffle a minority (it might not be ethical or decent to do, and the majority might have decided so for racist or sexist reasons, but that's still democratic).
        bborud 4y ago
        Goodness. If you think the western concept of democracy is merely about voting I think your educational system has served you poorly. A good way to learn what a democracy is may be to learn a bit more about what it takes to safeguard a democracy. Timothy Snyder has written a few books that might be useful.
        coldtea 4y ago
        If you think the western concept and practice of democracy is actual democracy, then your educational system has failed you. Which in the US it's not that difficult to happen...
- fppasq 4y ago
  There are a number of countries where atheism (as apostasy or blasphemy) is punishable by death: Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    And nobody argued that there aren't. The charitable interpretation (and the obvious one to me) is that the parent is speaking about the US/West.
    - trasz 4y ago
      In many western countries you can be prosecuted for not following certain religious dogmas, like Catholic views on sexuality and reproductive rights.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        In some western countries you can be prosecuted for not following the law, which might be inspired by "Catholic views on sexuality and reproductive rights" (e.g. if you do X and X is forbidden) but which is a different thing.
        trasz 4y ago
        It’s exactly the same thing: penalizing people in the name of religion. There are no examples in the other direction, ie penalizing people in the name of atheism.
        coldtea 4y ago
        >ie penalizing people in the name of atheism. You'd be surprised. It has happened in revolutionary France, up to and including civil war Spain, USSR, China, and several other times and places besides...
- Barrin92 4y ago
  In the US (which I think is where the author hails from) there's fewer atheists represented in congress than Muslims. (in fact technically none, only one or two members identify as 'non-observant'. That's fairly astonishing given that atheism or some form of secularism is probably the pluralistic, if not majority position among people with the kind of education status who get elected to that representative body.
  - natch 4y ago
    fewer admitted* atheists
    - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
      It's an important distinction to make; plenty of politicians do things like following a religion as a box ticking exercise.
  - fmajid 4y ago
    And opinion surveys also consistently show American voters are even less likely to trust an avowed atheist politician than a muslim one. I wish they had also asked survey participants about LaVey Satanism :-) I personally suspect the majority cult among politicians is actually Mammon (love of money) or Moloch-Baal (love of violence).
- throw_m239339 4y ago
  > People over-use "discrimination". People are murdered just for being atheists all over the world. Seems discriminatory enough to be deemed discrimination.
- jrajav 4y ago
  There's no citation needed, there's some education needed. It's a simple fact that discrimination occurs against atheists in many contexts - political, social, professional. You're setting a very odd, nonsensical definition of what discrimination is to try to make a gotcha. Maybe if you tried to speak to the degree or effect of that discrimination you might have something interesting to add to the conversation.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >There's no citation needed, there's some education needed. It's a simple fact that discrimination occurs against atheists in many contexts - political, social, professional. Any more than there's discrimination against religious people? (e.g. in progressive media, art circles, academia, and so on). Or just each team favoring their own, but none having systemic support, legal support, or any great power over the other? Can this still be called discrimination? Perhaps. But if we overblow some words, they lose their meaning. Atheists do face serious discrimination in some countries, for example, but in general, e.g. it's not something that will hold you back in your career in America. One might argue it can hold you back in rural Alabama, and that I'd accept. But then again, try being a card-carrying Christian in Silicon Valley and see the looks you get, and whether you'll likely to get any promotion in a liberal news organization... Sure, it might hold you back in your chances for political election. But that's democracy. People get to pick someone whose politics and beliefs they like. That's more like complaining "there's discrimination against punk or hip hop fans", because they wouldn't accept you or your views at a prog rock group.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > it's not something that will hold you back in your career in America. For tech workers in US cities? I don't think it will hold you back. But there are still wide swaths of American society were self-describing as an atheist will make people distrust you. It may even be regarded as antagonistic, like you're teeing up to pick a fight with them. I've found that self-describing as 'not religious' gets a warmer reception, even though it's the same thing.
- rocqua 4y ago
  Discrimination literally means "being able to tell two things apart". In social contexts, it generally means "treating a group of people disadvantageously because of some trait that should not be relevant". Showing that atheists are treated disadvantageously in the US is easy. Political representation is an obvious one. Showing that this disadvantage also takes the form of life expectancy and lifetime earnings after controlling for confounders is not easy. But that ask isn't asking for proof of discrimination. It is asking for extremely strong proof of discrimination that would only be possible through monumental effort, and would require a really strong effect, depending on the manner of discrimination, it might not be measurable through life expectancy or lifetime earnings. Discrimination that makes you less happy whithout shortening your life or impoverishing you is still bad!
onos 4y ago
My hot take: eating the icecream purchased for the observant Jews does make him a jerk. If he wants a special icecream for himself he should ask for one. Edit: adding some further thoughts. this was an action that subverted another’s intended action — here the company trying to do something “nice” for a particular subset of employees. However, I also don’t like it when a business or institution shows favoritism. So maybe it was a valid tit for tat.
- red_trumpet 4y ago
  > here the company trying to do something “nice” for a particular subset of employees. Or the company is trying to be more inclusive to folks that do not want to eat regular icecream, and would not eat any otherwise. Then his action might have been in harmony with the intention. Also, I don't see this as favoritism: While it is a special treatment, the ones eating kosher icecream do not have a better outcome than everyone else.
  - onos 4y ago
    I would consider it favoritism if they were only trying to accommodate the special needs of a certain group, here the religious Jews, perhaps out of deference to religion… which seems to be a point of concern of the op since he goes on about his atheism. I wouldn’t consider it favoritism if a general rule applied to which groups get special treatment, provided the rule itself did not show favoritism a priori and had reasonable motivation. A la “we want to accommodate as many people as possible but it’s too costly to get a special solution for any group with fewer than X people”. So… yeah maybe you’re right and the latter applied here. In this case he followed the spirit of the law as a worthy tag along of the explicitly labeled intended recipient group.
- bborud 4y ago
  When eating ice cream turns into an identity conflict there is something wrong with people. Surely, people with a positive attitude would see this as something that can be enjoyed by a bigger group and thus some common ground. It takes ill will to turn an opportunity for enjoying something together into a basis for conflict.
gwd 4y ago
I'm having trouble evaluating his example (having kosher ice cream available on free ice cream days). The logic seems to be: * The company offers free ice cream on some days * Some employees, due to being Jewish, can't eat the normal ice cream; so the company offers kosher ice cream instead * The author is not Jewish, but also can't eat the normal ice cream, since he's lactose intolerant, but he can eat the kosher ice cream. So he figures that since the point of offering the kosher ice cream is to accommodate employees who can't eat the normal ice cream, it's OK for him to take some. I mean, I don't see anything wrong with that argument? But I'm having trouble constructing a similar scenario that matches my own religion, so it's difficult to be sure. Kosher just means that it's prepared in a specific way; it doesn't mean that it's supposed to be somehow more holy, or imbued with some special religious significance (as far as I know). By contrast, say that you worked for an explicitly Christian charity, which offered employees daily communion at 10am. You're an atheist, so don't want to celebrate the sacrificial death of Jesus, but you are a bit peckish at 10am -- is it OK for you to have a light snack? In that instance I'd say no -- the bread and wine are imbued with special religious significance, and so it's more respectful to abstain, even if you don't think there's anything special about them. Suppose, on the other hand, that Ramadan was occurring at a place and time when the sun set at 3:30pm; and so they provided some snacks for Muslims who'd been fasting all day. You happen to do IF, so normally have been fasting longer by that point than your Muslim colleagues (who would typically have eaten before dawn at least, while you haven't eaten anything since yesterday evening). Is it OK if you break your fast with them? My own guess is that C's issue has less to do with religion, and more to do with the idea of "cultural appropriation".
- hourago 4y ago
  > "cultural appropriation" I think that you are into something there. That is a term invented by the far-right to create a straw-man to attack as "cultural appropriation" negates the reality of how culture works. Should Americans stop eating spaghetti because it is Italian? Should Italians stop eating pasta because it is Asian? Should everybody stop using Arabic numerals? Should Arabs stop using Arabic numerals because are based in Indian numerals? "Cultural appropriation" is easy to discredit and to label as too much "correctness". The real question is "did you wanted to hurt another person?". Did you eat the ice cream to mock Jews? Did you wear a kimono to mock the Japanese? Did you listen Flamenco to mock Spain? The same act can be done out of admiration as much as despise it all depends on context. And context and intention is difficult to asses. So, is C's attacking a straw man to ridicule religion? Is C's offended because things that the author intended to mock Jews? What is the history with this kind of events at the company? What was what really happened as the ice cream is not what was really shared? More context would help to create a reasonable picture, from the author description I will conclude that there was not bad intention. But that is just one side of the story.
alllow 4y ago
Interesting read. It sort of touches on the idea that, just as people of religious faith have a particular concept of God in mind when they assert that God exists, most atheists have a particular concept of God in mind when they state that God does not exist. In particular, this essay concerns itself with atheism of the 'supreme being' type of God, with commandments and instructions laid down by a authority figure. Just as the family courts decreed a Saturday-only custody arrangement for Frank, Yahweh states a Saturday-only prohibition on work for Michael. This essay may have been quite different if the author's atheism was focused against panentheistic gods, or other god-like concepts. But culturally in the Western world, atheism, at least as a reaction to existing religious structures, isn't so concerned about these.
- EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
  I normally agree that western athiests over-focus on rejecting a monotheistic abrahamic god, but how do you see this particular article being different if the author had a more global worldview? For instance the analogy could easily be adjusted with Buddhists instead of Jews. The company offers a vegetarian option for Buddhists at some meal, and the athiest author takes the vegetarian option because he just happens to be a vegetarian. I don't think this observation is overly western
- padjo 4y ago
  Atheism only exists in opposition so it is necessarily defined in terms of whatever theism is knocking about in the local environment. If I’m not dealing with a religious person I’m just going about my day. I’m not constantly thinking about what I don’t believe in. “Atheism” has no impact on my life whatsoever.
andrewclunn 4y ago
When we ask if a government should allow a company to use religion as a basis for discrimination, we've reached a level of abstraction that defies any intuitive moral reasoning. Now if one thinks morality exists in an absolute metaphysical sense, then this isn't an issue. The author however is an atheist, and so has no possible moral justification argument that would be convincing to their religious coworkers. The belief that notions like equality and anti-discrimination would hold any weight in a society of secular thought has now become about as laughable as Communist economics after the fall of the USSR. Now "discrimination" is merely a line used by each tribe in turn to justify why they should be owed special treatment for their victimhood. The weight of each group and individual "getting theirs" will not be bore for long. So I guess the author should enjoy his "ice cream" while he can. After all, it's not like (he thinks) there's any one to judge him for it anyway.
fmajid 4y ago
To quote Voltaire: "The populace considers all religions as equally true, the philosophers consider them equally false, and the legislator considers them all equally respectable". Then again he is also the one who said "Let my tailor believe in God. He is less likely to steal from me this way".
- microtherion 4y ago
  H.L. Mencken: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
compsciphd 4y ago
as a kippa wearing orthodox jew(tm). who while working in the USA had to get used to telling managers how he had to leave early on fridays in the winter months, I have zero problem with this. At the end of the day, there's little reason to accommodate orthodox jews and not want to accommodate lactose intolerant individuals as well and if one can kill two birds with one stone, the better. (though in the US it seems that the vast majority of retail ice cream is kosher supervised, and is part of the reason oreos are kosher supervised, as nabisco wanted to get them in as a mixin for ice creams, though then can get into more complicated milk based issues which are beyond scope). as an aside, I find non dairy kosher ice cream to be meh, dairy kosher ice cream is significantly better.
santimoller66 4y ago
[flagged]
rntz 4y ago
It seems to me the author misses a purely practical reason to have respect for a variety of religions: peaceful and happy coexistence. Historically a lot of blood has been spilt over religious differences and a lot of people have suffered oppression because of their religion. This was straightforwardly bad, and we are not free of these conflicts or their causes yet; so it's wise to try to keep things smooth and tolerate a variety of religious practices (dietary restrictions, days off, prayer times, etc). Obviously the exact level to which this respect ought to be enshrined in law is up for debate. But "respect for religion" can be an instrumental rather than a terminal value.
- LadyCailin 4y ago
  Why does that only apply to the big three? Why doesn’t my religion, which states that I can only eat kosher ice cream on Thursdays deserve respect? And before you question my religious sincerity, am I allowed to question anyone else’s sincerity also? Am I allowed to question how you are interpreting your religious doctrine? Am I allowed to criticize how closely you are or are not following your religion? If not, then I would say that the respect must go both ways, as otherwise we get to an extremely slippery slope extremely fast.
dustincoates 4y ago
> For example, I have read that no non-Christian group has ever won a free exercise clause... That's not true. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah is the first to come to mind, if you consider Santeria as a separate religion from Christianity. But there's also Torcaso v. Watkins and many other Establishment Clause cases, so I'm not sure it makes sense to separate them out anyway.
Beltalowda 4y ago
I don't quite understand the dilemma in this specific situation in the first place. "I'm lactose intolerant, do you happen to have anything without (or with less) milk?" "Oh, these kosher ones are, want that one?" "Sure, cheers mate" Seems simple enough, no?
- simonh 4y ago
  Except that wasn't the actual case, it's a substitute and probably a deliberately trivialised on, so I don't think we can draw any conclusions about the actual case from it.
simonh 4y ago
I'm fine with accommodating religious observance as long as it's part of a culture of more generally recognising needs due to individual circumstances. As with the example given, companies should be willing to make exceptions or accommodating compromises with employees with particular child care or visiting needs. I don't think that would have been a problem at any of the companies I've worked for in my whole career. If you think you feel the need to game the system, the real problem is with the system. The reason we respect religious beliefs should be because we respect people.
cortic 4y ago
Why can't i just be Jewish for ten minutes to get some ice cream? I can't think of a reason that is not also antisemitic. Motivation; We don't tell Jews they can only be Jewish if they have a reason we approve of. Time; no matter where you put the line, from a minute to generations, it would be intensely antisemitic to actually measure this and tell some subset of Jews they are not proper Jews. Synagogue attendance, circumcision, bloodline, race, all of these would be antisemitic some prejudice to actually test for or require. I'm left with the authors suggestion that the answer lies in the 'spirit of the law'. Which is just a nice way of saying 'what i think other people thought one time'. And about as subjective as it gets.
varajelle 4y ago
If a lactose intolerant person eat a normal ice cream, he or she is going to have symptoms. But why can't a Jew eat a normal ice cream? what will happen exactly?
- compsciphd 4y ago
  lets rephrase it differently. why does a gay person have to have the ability to marry someone of the same sex. "what will happen?" the answer is generally they won't be true to themselves (the whole concept of living in the closet). I generally try to relate tolerance in these contexts back and forth to different groups. The conservative religious person might think that the gay person is doing something fundamentally wrong (and in their opinion bad for society), but tolerance would be allowing, (which doesn't require the religious person to condone), them to do what one finds to be wrong, as the cost of intolerance can be viewed as worse for society. Vice versa, the secular person might think someone restricting themselves for "religious reasons" what food they are willing to consume is stupid (and even say arguably bad for society for various reasons), but the cost of being intolerant is worse than the cost to society of enabling people to have food / providing it to them in situations. yes, one can try to nit pick this analogy, but I think its an effective way for trying to frame the problem and understanding tolerance. There are times where intolerance might justified, but one really has to be honest about what the cost to society of being "intolerant" in this situation is (and if you can't be honest about, you don't have the right to be intolerant) as well as the why that is outweighed by the societal benefit of being "intolerant". As it relates to this ice cream situation, the cost of being "intolerant" to the kosher eater is that they will be isolated from their peers. These events are about bringing everyone together. So, even if providing kosher ice cream is a little bit more expensive, it can still be viewed as a net win for the company to be tolerant of different peoples self imposed food restrictions. The same would apply to someone who is lactose intolerant, I would assume any company that buys dairy free desserts for one segment of their population to be able to fully participate, would be just as willing to include lactose intolerant people within that population for the purpose of this activity.

28 points by luu 4y ago

> But when we discuss matters of religious discrimination, atheists are a group against which there is discrimination on the basis of religion. Citation needed. Specifically, show: atheists as a group have lower life expectancy and/or lower lifetime earnings than non-atheists when confounders are controlled. People over-use "discrimination". Edit: interesting points made about ethics, though. Worth reading.

bborud 4y ago
Easy: Look at atheists running for office and their chances of being elected. Also, your definition of discrimination is oddly specific.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >Easy: Look at atheists running for office and their chances of being elected. That's just democracy. People get to vote for people whose politics and beliefs they like.
  - bborud 4y ago
    No, it isn't "just democracy". Whether atheists should even be allowed to hold public office is a question that turns up regularly in public discourse. Now substitute "atheist" with "people of color", "jewish", "muslim", "gay" or "left handed" and see if you still think it is okay.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      It's still just democracy if the majority wishes so. Democracy (in the actual, direct demoracy sense) is not about ensuring inclusivity in public position offices and representation, it's about each person having one vote and then majority ruling. If those groups have the right to vote and get elected, but don't because most don't want to elect them, that's still a democracy. It's even a democracy if the majority decides to stiffle a minority (it might not be ethical or decent to do, and the majority might have decided so for racist or sexist reasons, but that's still democratic).
      - bborud 4y ago
        Goodness. If you think the western concept of democracy is merely about voting I think your educational system has served you poorly. A good way to learn what a democracy is may be to learn a bit more about what it takes to safeguard a democracy. Timothy Snyder has written a few books that might be useful.
        coldtea 4y ago
        If you think the western concept and practice of democracy is actual democracy, then your educational system has failed you. Which in the US it's not that difficult to happen...
fppasq 4y ago
There are a number of countries where atheism (as apostasy or blasphemy) is punishable by death: Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
- coldtea 4y ago
  And nobody argued that there aren't. The charitable interpretation (and the obvious one to me) is that the parent is speaking about the US/West.
  - trasz 4y ago
    In many western countries you can be prosecuted for not following certain religious dogmas, like Catholic views on sexuality and reproductive rights.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      In some western countries you can be prosecuted for not following the law, which might be inspired by "Catholic views on sexuality and reproductive rights" (e.g. if you do X and X is forbidden) but which is a different thing.
      - trasz 4y ago
        It’s exactly the same thing: penalizing people in the name of religion. There are no examples in the other direction, ie penalizing people in the name of atheism.
        coldtea 4y ago
        >ie penalizing people in the name of atheism. You'd be surprised. It has happened in revolutionary France, up to and including civil war Spain, USSR, China, and several other times and places besides...
Barrin92 4y ago
In the US (which I think is where the author hails from) there's fewer atheists represented in congress than Muslims. (in fact technically none, only one or two members identify as 'non-observant'. That's fairly astonishing given that atheism or some form of secularism is probably the pluralistic, if not majority position among people with the kind of education status who get elected to that representative body.
- natch 4y ago
  fewer admitted* atheists
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    It's an important distinction to make; plenty of politicians do things like following a religion as a box ticking exercise.
- fmajid 4y ago
  And opinion surveys also consistently show American voters are even less likely to trust an avowed atheist politician than a muslim one. I wish they had also asked survey participants about LaVey Satanism :-) I personally suspect the majority cult among politicians is actually Mammon (love of money) or Moloch-Baal (love of violence).
throw_m239339 4y ago
> People over-use "discrimination". People are murdered just for being atheists all over the world. Seems discriminatory enough to be deemed discrimination.
jrajav 4y ago
There's no citation needed, there's some education needed. It's a simple fact that discrimination occurs against atheists in many contexts - political, social, professional. You're setting a very odd, nonsensical definition of what discrimination is to try to make a gotcha. Maybe if you tried to speak to the degree or effect of that discrimination you might have something interesting to add to the conversation.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >There's no citation needed, there's some education needed. It's a simple fact that discrimination occurs against atheists in many contexts - political, social, professional. Any more than there's discrimination against religious people? (e.g. in progressive media, art circles, academia, and so on). Or just each team favoring their own, but none having systemic support, legal support, or any great power over the other? Can this still be called discrimination? Perhaps. But if we overblow some words, they lose their meaning. Atheists do face serious discrimination in some countries, for example, but in general, e.g. it's not something that will hold you back in your career in America. One might argue it can hold you back in rural Alabama, and that I'd accept. But then again, try being a card-carrying Christian in Silicon Valley and see the looks you get, and whether you'll likely to get any promotion in a liberal news organization... Sure, it might hold you back in your chances for political election. But that's democracy. People get to pick someone whose politics and beliefs they like. That's more like complaining "there's discrimination against punk or hip hop fans", because they wouldn't accept you or your views at a prog rock group.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > it's not something that will hold you back in your career in America. For tech workers in US cities? I don't think it will hold you back. But there are still wide swaths of American society were self-describing as an atheist will make people distrust you. It may even be regarded as antagonistic, like you're teeing up to pick a fight with them. I've found that self-describing as 'not religious' gets a warmer reception, even though it's the same thing.
rocqua 4y ago
Discrimination literally means "being able to tell two things apart". In social contexts, it generally means "treating a group of people disadvantageously because of some trait that should not be relevant". Showing that atheists are treated disadvantageously in the US is easy. Political representation is an obvious one. Showing that this disadvantage also takes the form of life expectancy and lifetime earnings after controlling for confounders is not easy. But that ask isn't asking for proof of discrimination. It is asking for extremely strong proof of discrimination that would only be possible through monumental effort, and would require a really strong effect, depending on the manner of discrimination, it might not be measurable through life expectancy or lifetime earnings. Discrimination that makes you less happy whithout shortening your life or impoverishing you is still bad!

onos 4y ago

My hot take: eating the icecream purchased for the observant Jews does make him a jerk. If he wants a special icecream for himself he should ask for one. Edit: adding some further thoughts. this was an action that subverted another’s intended action — here the company trying to do something “nice” for a particular subset of employees. However, I also don’t like it when a business or institution shows favoritism. So maybe it was a valid tit for tat.

red_trumpet 4y ago
> here the company trying to do something “nice” for a particular subset of employees. Or the company is trying to be more inclusive to folks that do not want to eat regular icecream, and would not eat any otherwise. Then his action might have been in harmony with the intention. Also, I don't see this as favoritism: While it is a special treatment, the ones eating kosher icecream do not have a better outcome than everyone else.
- onos 4y ago
  I would consider it favoritism if they were only trying to accommodate the special needs of a certain group, here the religious Jews, perhaps out of deference to religion… which seems to be a point of concern of the op since he goes on about his atheism. I wouldn’t consider it favoritism if a general rule applied to which groups get special treatment, provided the rule itself did not show favoritism a priori and had reasonable motivation. A la “we want to accommodate as many people as possible but it’s too costly to get a special solution for any group with fewer than X people”. So… yeah maybe you’re right and the latter applied here. In this case he followed the spirit of the law as a worthy tag along of the explicitly labeled intended recipient group.
bborud 4y ago
When eating ice cream turns into an identity conflict there is something wrong with people. Surely, people with a positive attitude would see this as something that can be enjoyed by a bigger group and thus some common ground. It takes ill will to turn an opportunity for enjoying something together into a basis for conflict.

gwd 4y ago

I'm having trouble evaluating his example (having kosher ice cream available on free ice cream days). The logic seems to be: * The company offers free ice cream on some days * Some employees, due to being Jewish, can't eat the normal ice cream; so the company offers kosher ice cream instead * The author is not Jewish, but also can't eat the normal ice cream, since he's lactose intolerant, but he can eat the kosher ice cream. So he figures that since the point of offering the kosher ice cream is to accommodate employees who can't eat the normal ice cream, it's OK for him to take some. I mean, I don't see anything wrong with that argument? But I'm having trouble constructing a similar scenario that matches my own religion, so it's difficult to be sure. Kosher just means that it's prepared in a specific way; it doesn't mean that it's supposed to be somehow more holy, or imbued with some special religious significance (as far as I know). By contrast, say that you worked for an explicitly Christian charity, which offered employees daily communion at 10am. You're an atheist, so don't want to celebrate the sacrificial death of Jesus, but you are a bit peckish at 10am -- is it OK for you to have a light snack? In that instance I'd say no -- the bread and wine are imbued with special religious significance, and so it's more respectful to abstain, even if you don't think there's anything special about them. Suppose, on the other hand, that Ramadan was occurring at a place and time when the sun set at 3:30pm; and so they provided some snacks for Muslims who'd been fasting all day. You happen to do IF, so normally have been fasting longer by that point than your Muslim colleagues (who would typically have eaten before dawn at least, while you haven't eaten anything since yesterday evening). Is it OK if you break your fast with them? My own guess is that C's issue has less to do with religion, and more to do with the idea of "cultural appropriation".

hourago 4y ago
> "cultural appropriation" I think that you are into something there. That is a term invented by the far-right to create a straw-man to attack as "cultural appropriation" negates the reality of how culture works. Should Americans stop eating spaghetti because it is Italian? Should Italians stop eating pasta because it is Asian? Should everybody stop using Arabic numerals? Should Arabs stop using Arabic numerals because are based in Indian numerals? "Cultural appropriation" is easy to discredit and to label as too much "correctness". The real question is "did you wanted to hurt another person?". Did you eat the ice cream to mock Jews? Did you wear a kimono to mock the Japanese? Did you listen Flamenco to mock Spain? The same act can be done out of admiration as much as despise it all depends on context. And context and intention is difficult to asses. So, is C's attacking a straw man to ridicule religion? Is C's offended because things that the author intended to mock Jews? What is the history with this kind of events at the company? What was what really happened as the ice cream is not what was really shared? More context would help to create a reasonable picture, from the author description I will conclude that there was not bad intention. But that is just one side of the story.

alllow 4y ago

Interesting read. It sort of touches on the idea that, just as people of religious faith have a particular concept of God in mind when they assert that God exists, most atheists have a particular concept of God in mind when they state that God does not exist. In particular, this essay concerns itself with atheism of the 'supreme being' type of God, with commandments and instructions laid down by a authority figure. Just as the family courts decreed a Saturday-only custody arrangement for Frank, Yahweh states a Saturday-only prohibition on work for Michael. This essay may have been quite different if the author's atheism was focused against panentheistic gods, or other god-like concepts. But culturally in the Western world, atheism, at least as a reaction to existing religious structures, isn't so concerned about these.

EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
I normally agree that western athiests over-focus on rejecting a monotheistic abrahamic god, but how do you see this particular article being different if the author had a more global worldview? For instance the analogy could easily be adjusted with Buddhists instead of Jews. The company offers a vegetarian option for Buddhists at some meal, and the athiest author takes the vegetarian option because he just happens to be a vegetarian. I don't think this observation is overly western
padjo 4y ago
Atheism only exists in opposition so it is necessarily defined in terms of whatever theism is knocking about in the local environment. If I’m not dealing with a religious person I’m just going about my day. I’m not constantly thinking about what I don’t believe in. “Atheism” has no impact on my life whatsoever.

andrewclunn 4y ago

When we ask if a government should allow a company to use religion as a basis for discrimination, we've reached a level of abstraction that defies any intuitive moral reasoning. Now if one thinks morality exists in an absolute metaphysical sense, then this isn't an issue. The author however is an atheist, and so has no possible moral justification argument that would be convincing to their religious coworkers. The belief that notions like equality and anti-discrimination would hold any weight in a society of secular thought has now become about as laughable as Communist economics after the fall of the USSR. Now "discrimination" is merely a line used by each tribe in turn to justify why they should be owed special treatment for their victimhood. The weight of each group and individual "getting theirs" will not be bore for long. So I guess the author should enjoy his "ice cream" while he can. After all, it's not like (he thinks) there's any one to judge him for it anyway.

fmajid 4y ago

To quote Voltaire: "The populace considers all religions as equally true, the philosophers consider them equally false, and the legislator considers them all equally respectable". Then again he is also the one who said "Let my tailor believe in God. He is less likely to steal from me this way".

microtherion 4y ago
H.L. Mencken: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

compsciphd 4y ago

as a kippa wearing orthodox jew(tm). who while working in the USA had to get used to telling managers how he had to leave early on fridays in the winter months, I have zero problem with this. At the end of the day, there's little reason to accommodate orthodox jews and not want to accommodate lactose intolerant individuals as well and if one can kill two birds with one stone, the better. (though in the US it seems that the vast majority of retail ice cream is kosher supervised, and is part of the reason oreos are kosher supervised, as nabisco wanted to get them in as a mixin for ice creams, though then can get into more complicated milk based issues which are beyond scope). as an aside, I find non dairy kosher ice cream to be meh, dairy kosher ice cream is significantly better.

santimoller66 4y ago

[flagged]

rntz 4y ago

It seems to me the author misses a purely practical reason to have respect for a variety of religions: peaceful and happy coexistence. Historically a lot of blood has been spilt over religious differences and a lot of people have suffered oppression because of their religion. This was straightforwardly bad, and we are not free of these conflicts or their causes yet; so it's wise to try to keep things smooth and tolerate a variety of religious practices (dietary restrictions, days off, prayer times, etc). Obviously the exact level to which this respect ought to be enshrined in law is up for debate. But "respect for religion" can be an instrumental rather than a terminal value.

LadyCailin 4y ago
Why does that only apply to the big three? Why doesn’t my religion, which states that I can only eat kosher ice cream on Thursdays deserve respect? And before you question my religious sincerity, am I allowed to question anyone else’s sincerity also? Am I allowed to question how you are interpreting your religious doctrine? Am I allowed to criticize how closely you are or are not following your religion? If not, then I would say that the respect must go both ways, as otherwise we get to an extremely slippery slope extremely fast.

dustincoates 4y ago

> For example, I have read that no non-Christian group has ever won a free exercise clause... That's not true. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah is the first to come to mind, if you consider Santeria as a separate religion from Christianity. But there's also Torcaso v. Watkins and many other Establishment Clause cases, so I'm not sure it makes sense to separate them out anyway.

Beltalowda 4y ago

I don't quite understand the dilemma in this specific situation in the first place. "I'm lactose intolerant, do you happen to have anything without (or with less) milk?" "Oh, these kosher ones are, want that one?" "Sure, cheers mate" Seems simple enough, no?

simonh 4y ago
Except that wasn't the actual case, it's a substitute and probably a deliberately trivialised on, so I don't think we can draw any conclusions about the actual case from it.

simonh 4y ago

I'm fine with accommodating religious observance as long as it's part of a culture of more generally recognising needs due to individual circumstances. As with the example given, companies should be willing to make exceptions or accommodating compromises with employees with particular child care or visiting needs. I don't think that would have been a problem at any of the companies I've worked for in my whole career. If you think you feel the need to game the system, the real problem is with the system. The reason we respect religious beliefs should be because we respect people.

cortic 4y ago

Why can't i just be Jewish for ten minutes to get some ice cream? I can't think of a reason that is not also antisemitic. Motivation; We don't tell Jews they can only be Jewish if they have a reason we approve of. Time; no matter where you put the line, from a minute to generations, it would be intensely antisemitic to actually measure this and tell some subset of Jews they are not proper Jews. Synagogue attendance, circumcision, bloodline, race, all of these would be antisemitic some prejudice to actually test for or require. I'm left with the authors suggestion that the answer lies in the 'spirit of the law'. Which is just a nice way of saying 'what i think other people thought one time'. And about as subjective as it gets.

varajelle 4y ago

If a lactose intolerant person eat a normal ice cream, he or she is going to have symptoms. But why can't a Jew eat a normal ice cream? what will happen exactly?

compsciphd 4y ago
lets rephrase it differently. why does a gay person have to have the ability to marry someone of the same sex. "what will happen?" the answer is generally they won't be true to themselves (the whole concept of living in the closet). I generally try to relate tolerance in these contexts back and forth to different groups. The conservative religious person might think that the gay person is doing something fundamentally wrong (and in their opinion bad for society), but tolerance would be allowing, (which doesn't require the religious person to condone), them to do what one finds to be wrong, as the cost of intolerance can be viewed as worse for society. Vice versa, the secular person might think someone restricting themselves for "religious reasons" what food they are willing to consume is stupid (and even say arguably bad for society for various reasons), but the cost of being intolerant is worse than the cost to society of enabling people to have food / providing it to them in situations. yes, one can try to nit pick this analogy, but I think its an effective way for trying to frame the problem and understanding tolerance. There are times where intolerance might justified, but one really has to be honest about what the cost to society of being "intolerant" in this situation is (and if you can't be honest about, you don't have the right to be intolerant) as well as the why that is outweighed by the societal benefit of being "intolerant". As it relates to this ice cream situation, the cost of being "intolerant" to the kosher eater is that they will be isolated from their peers. These events are about bringing everyone together. So, even if providing kosher ice cream is a little bit more expensive, it can still be viewed as a net win for the company to be tolerant of different peoples self imposed food restrictions. The same would apply to someone who is lactose intolerant, I would assume any company that buys dairy free desserts for one segment of their population to be able to fully participate, would be just as willing to include lactose intolerant people within that population for the purpose of this activity.