Because I enjoy staring aghast at my computer screen, I wandered over to Glenn Beck's new blog, TheBlaze.com, just to see what was going on. The major complaint of the day seemed to be that some folks in Illinois were protesting the Republican candidate's campaign with signs, one of which depicted Beck with a Hitler mustache. *snort*
Elsewhere on the page was a story covering the shocking news that a middle school class had visited a mosque. Apparently to study it's architecture. There was a video of the kids bowing or some such. Scandal! Indoctrination! And the tour guide was recorded telling the kids that "jihad" means "struggle" not "holy war", and that women could vote under Mohammed. Lies! Brainwashing! Somebody think of the children!
Except that "jihad" does mean "stuggle" - often an inner struggle to be a better Muslim. And Mohammed did improve conditions for women at the time. And I think it would be a great idea for religion to be taught in public schools...
I went to a Catholic high school. Religion class was mandatory from grade nine to OAC (what grade 13 was known as in Ontario before it was scrapped). In grade nine we studied the gospels, including the broader context in which they were written, the literary and persuasive goals of the authors, and why Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were the ones chosen to be canonized. In grade ten we learned about the sacraments. The grade twelve class was known as "Building A Christian Lifestyle" which was basically, "these are the values we want you to have!" - which was somewhat undermined by the hippie-ish nun who taught the class. The OAC religion requirement was philosophy.
The grade eleven religion class was the best. The text books were dated, and the teacher was a bit of a lazy jerk, but the content of the course was interesting, enlightening, and practically applicable: World Religions.
Specifically: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, and First Nations spirituality. We learned about beliefs, practices, and traditions; but we also learned about the historical context and development of each religion, and the divisions that exist within them, and followed current events related to religion. We visited a Reform Jewish Temple, an Islamic centre, and a Mahayana Buddhist temple. Each unit ended with a comparison to Christianity, emphasizing the beliefs and values that are shared across religions.
Even though the class only provided an introduction to each religion, having that basis of knowledge is helpful in real life. For one thing, it means that you're not tempted to ask individuals to act as representatives of their entire religion and explain themselves to you. It means it occurs to you to wish your classmate a good Diwali. It means that you're prepared if employees ask for a later break time during Ramadan.
It also means that you start to get annoyed reading internet comments that say, "You need to educate your self on Islamist expansionism! Go to w-w-w-dot-the-Koran-is-the-devil's-handbook-dot-com!"
Over the past week or so, just perusing the internet, I've come across people claiming that if Muslims follow the Koran correctly, then they burn the US flag; that violence against women, political violence, and political domination are central to the Islamic faith (first link on the page contains graphic imagery); that Islam is an ideology rather than a religion (whatever that's supposed to mean); that winning the "war on terror" requires barring Muslim immigrants and preventing the construction of mosques in the United States; that all they need to know about Islam, they learned on 9/11.
It makes me wonder what would happen if these people were in an environment where they had the opportunity to get to know Muslim people, and had to work with them and get along with them every day. If such people were forced to deal with the reality that Muslim folks are just like anybody else; that they are not one monolithic group; and that Islam, like any other religion, can be practiced liberally or conservatively.
Of course, those opportunities don't exist for a lot of non-Muslims. Which is why I think World Religions, reworked for a public schools so as not to assume the class is all Catholic, would be a great addition to the high school curriculum as a social studies elective. Students would get a bit of world history, a bit of an introduction to other cultures, a better understanding of the contexts that other people live in.They would feel more familiar with different religions, and less susceptible to fear and misinformation.
But can you imagine how apoplectic the wingnuts would get if it were actually introduced?
I have only recently begun reading this blog - I got directed to the entry about bathroom signs from somewhere else and have been coming back. It is the most well-written and thought-provoking blog I have read in a long time. I look forward to coming back again and again and, eventually, having a comment that is relevant to the entry!! Meanwhile I just wanted to say thank you and please don't stop.
ReplyDeleteRainbows, kittens and hugs!
The main thing I don't like about the idea is the classes that will be in the hands of an ignorant or bigoted teacher. I shudder to think of the idiotic remarks that would go on around in it passed as fact.
ReplyDeleteThat, and I think we could use a little less tolerance of ALL religions in schools since we supposedly have a secular government. It's people's private business and shouldn't be be used an excuse to skip work or to keep kids from studying more useful things.
@Gem
ReplyDeleteThanks so much! You make my day! :D
@pokemontaco
The main thing I don't like about the idea is the classes that will be in the hands of an ignorant or bigoted teacher.
I considered that, but ignorant and bigoted teachers have the opportunity to spout off no matter what they teach. If they have to stick to a lesson plan and follow a text book, it would mitigate any negative influence the teacher might have.
I don't think a class about the religions of the world, not advocating for any of them, would violate secularism. And as I mentioned, it is useful to know about other religions. I've used what I learned in that class a lot more in the non-academic world than what I learned in, for example, history class, or calculus.
I don't know what you're referring to when you say, "an excuse to skip work." Are you saying that people shouldn't get religious holidays off? Would you include Christmas holidays in that? I don't think a few days off a year is that big a deal.
I had a high school history class that covered some world religions in a historical context. We talked about the Abrahamic faiths, and Buddhism, and that was about the extent of it. But I found it valuable to have an understanding of the pillars of Islam when terrorists flew planes into the world trade center when I was a high school senior. It was easier to keep my head about me.
ReplyDeleteAs a college freshman, I took a comparative religions class that changed my life. Having had a background as an evangelical Christian, that class was the first time I heard the word "atheist" spoken with respect. And that was just the beginning.
I agree that young people NEED to learn about the religions of the world in order to be effective citizens.
Religion is and should remain private, as a secular, non-religious person (who was raised Catholic)I wouldn't trust anyone to teach my children correctly about the VAST religions of the World, for it has been proven time and time again, one's personal choice of their set, one-sky-g-d religion outweighs all others and it will show even if they have a set curriculum.
ReplyDeleteAlso look at what the Texas school board is trying to do. they are purposely indoctrinating christianity into history. Were as anyone who is aware of the smallest bit of knowledge in American history, knows religion has played a big part, but it's part has cause more harm and non-acceptance, then teaching any one anything good.
The main issue would be our children, it isn't until you are way older, like 18-20 that a full understanding and the comprehension of the brain becomes prevalent, as to why most college's offer some kind of universal religion classes, not grade school or high school.
Lastly, this is America and to get most of those who say they are proud to be such will not go for an all religion class to be taught, since the majority think somehow our country was founded on christianity and would love to include christian laws into our governmental laws. They wouldn't want their child taught about Islam or Judaism, as to why it should and always should have been, kept private.
It is sad to know my children, who are being raised as free-thinkers, know more about all the religions of the World, because they were taught openly from home, to what I knew at their age, being raised a strict Irish Catholic, in a very religious neighborhood, in Philadelphia.
@Botyfltiger
ReplyDeleteYou come across the same issues with the teaching of history, surely?
I live in Germany which is an environment where you actually get to know lots of Muslim people. There are of course integrated Muslims, mostly from whelthier families from bigger cities like Istambul but then there is a kind of Muslim you can't ignore: young extremely aggressive males with the most racist and sexistic attitude you may imagine who define themselves as nationalists and above all Muslims. They mostly come from poorer families that have their roots in rural areas of their home contries. Germans see this kind of Muslims every day and the islamophobic discourse goes the same ugly way like in your examples above (without the flag-burning)even though Religion is thaught at many German schools (in a similar way as described in your post). The question would be how to address the problems that bring about Islamism and the problem of Islamism itself without sounding islamophobic or getting applause from too many members of the islamophobic bloc.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteOf course I wasn't talking about the problem of radical muslim youths in my post. I'm not German, so I don't have a full understanding of the problem, but from what I know, it sounds like the problem has more to do with unemployment and lack of opportunity than with Islam itself.
You could also say that the problem of Islamic terrorism has more to do with globalization than with Islam itself. - (Some of those who planned 9/11 used to meet at the now closed Al-Quds mosque in Hamburg) three generations of non-integrated German Muslims and terrorism are still two of many problems *worldwide* Islam has somehow become connected to, althogh the religion itself is certainly not the source of them all as islamophobics like to put it.
ReplyDeleteThank you, your post(s)turned out to be quite inspiring and got me thinking (about beliefs, cultural power struggle, racism and human territorial behaviour)again... :o)
You could also say that the problem of Islamic terrorism has more to do with globalization than with Islam itself
ReplyDeleteI would say exactly that, actually. This is where I get rather Marxist, in that I don't think things like religion and culture are nearly as important as underlying power relations, and that when people fight over religion they're really fighting over more fundamental changes.
Thanks for your comment. :)
"Are you saying that people shouldn't get religious holidays off? Would you include Christmas holidays in that? I don't think a few days off a year is that big a deal."
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what I'm saying. Why should people get religious holidays off? Do atheists get to pick a couple special days for themselves too? Business owners and schools can choose whenever they want to schedule holidays, but why should their be an adjustment because some people hold irrational significance for a certain day? People can schedule things like Christmas or Diwali celebrations for the weekend, or summer vacation.
@none of your
ReplyDeleteWhy should people get religious holidays off?
For one, I'm fairly certain that forcing people to work on their religious holidays would violate freedom of religion.
Do atheists get to pick a couple special days for themselves too?
The point of religious holidays is not just to have random days off, but because those specific days are sacred to people of those religions. So unless atheists have days that are sacred to them, then no.
... but why should their be an adjustment because some people hold irrational significance for a certain day?
How about, because giving people a handful of days off a year is a small price to pay to make people feel like they are valued and respected by society as a whole?
People can schedule things like Christmas or Diwali celebrations for the weekend, or summer vacation.
So, how would you schedule Easter Monday for a weekend?
@noneofyour: As a Jew, I take issue with your comment. In Judaism, the concepts of "work" and "rest" have sacred meaning. Putting aside one's tools for one day (and High Holidays) is an integral part of a Jewish life; one commits to resting with the same seriousness and diligence with which one commits to an employer. Time spent in repose with family, in prayer, in contemplation is not worthless wasted time. The act of observing days of rest is the realization that all time is valuable, and that a responsible person allots time to all aspects of their life, even those that don't involve making money or producing for another person. "Man doth not live by bread only", as it says in the Torah. Human beings need rest in order to be whole.
ReplyDeleteNo one is violating religious freedom by not letting you take days off for religious reasons; you are not *forced* to stay at any job. Find one that has a schedule that corresponds with your personal religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteMarissa, what determines what is "sacred"? I'm sure many atheists have a day that is significant for them, that they'd like to celebrate at home. But nope, only people that buy into a cult of choice gets days off. it's practically discrimination.
@em-fish- Of course people need days off and rest. Most people get them. However, you choose to work a certain schedule or time period. Your free to take all the sacred rest periods you like-why should you be free to demand them of your employer though?
@ pokemontaco
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you're from or what kinds of human rights protections you have, but in Ontario individuals are protected from discrimination in employment on the basis of religion. Forcing potential employees to choose between their job and practicing their religion is constructive discrimination.
I mis-spoke when I said freedom of religion would be violated if people were not allowed to take religious holidays off. What would be violated would be the right to equal treatment regardless of religion.
what determines what is "sacred"?
There is a legal standard in Canada, that I don't feel like looking up right now. It has some rather subjective elements, such as determining whether the practice is based on a "sincerely held belief".
I'm sure many atheists have a day that is significant for them, that they'd like to celebrate at home.
I see both sides on this point. What you say is true, and I think it would be appropriate if all employees got a set number of days that they could take off at any point in the year for religious reasons - like sick days and vacations.
On the other hand, what kind of significant days are you referring to? Like, birthdays and anniversaries? Because religious people don't get time off to celebrate those things either.
The goal of religious accommodation is not to get time off. The goal is to allow people to practice their religion. The measure of equality is not a tally of days off, but whether individuals are forced to choose between their employment and their religion.
Your free to take all the sacred rest periods you like-why should you be free to demand them of your employer though?
Because employers have an obligation to not discriminate based on religion.
Any student in Ontario can take world religion though it's not mandatory in public schools. I think it's a good course though I took too much science to have time to take it.
ReplyDeleteSurely the point is that employers should be flexible enough to make all their employees feel valued and well-treated, not just the ones who have specifically religious reasons to back their requests up? A good employer will allow both religious and non-religious employees to fit their work into their lives in a way that makes them fulfilled and happy.
ReplyDeleteWhile arguing these points, it's important to remember that non-religious beliefs, ideals and needs can be just as strong as religious ones, and just as powerful a part of your identity. Any defence of worker's rights should acknowledge that, rather than privileging the specific class of ideas we call "religious".
Well, yes, that's a valid argument. But the original question was why should workers be allowed religious holidays off, specifically.
ReplyDeleteAnd religious requirements are "privileged" as you put it, so as to prevent discrimination. There's a difference between not giving employees enough time off, and effectively categorically excluding a minority group from employment by refusing to accommodate.
Indeed, but there's much less difference between categorically excluding a religious group from employment by refusing to accommodate and categorically refusing a non-religious group - say, carers - in the same way. Further, if an individual is being excluded from employment it ought not to matter whether that exclusion is because of membership of a group or personal circumstance. Landlords, gas companies and debt collection agencies rarely trouble themselves with the distinction.
ReplyDeleteYour response to the original question was "because those specific days are sacred to people of those religions", which seems to assume an innate value in the idea of "sacredness". I was just suggesting that we shouldn't be giving days off because of "sacredness", but because it is right to have an attitude to employment that doesn't force people to choose between their jobs and their ideals, needs and beliefs.* Religious workers shouldn't be allowed religious holidays off specifically - they should be allowed religious holidays off as a consequence of a more robustly fair and sympathetic approach to employment.
It seems to me that if your approach is based on protecting certain kinds of groups rather than protecting everybody, you're going to leave an awful lot of gaps for people to slip through.
*Clearly this isn't always as easy as we'd like, as in the case of a creationist biology teacher, but it's a good starting point.
Indeed, but there's much less difference between categorically excluding a religious group from employment by refusing to accommodate and categorically refusing a non-religious group - say, carers - in the same way.
ReplyDeleteI believe that family status is also a protected category under human rights legislation.
Further, if an individual is being excluded from employment it ought not to matter whether that exclusion is because of membership of a group or personal circumstance.
What kind of personal circumstances are you referring to? There are various justifications for allowing employees time off work (parental leave, compassionate leave, etc.); Pokemontaco/none of your was asking specifically about the justification for giving religious holidays off.
And group membership does matter. One of the aims of human rights legislation is to remedy the structural discrimination and resulting inequality experienced by certain groups.
For example, say an employer has a policy that employees must work on Friday evenings without providing an opportunity to trade shifts. If an employee happened to have guitar lessons on Friday evenings, it is not a great burden to expect that employee to reschedule them. However, such a policy would indicate either a total lack of awareness of the needs of Jewish employees, or a deliberate effort to create a work environment hostile to Jews. Requiring the employer to accommodate religious practices addresses and remedies the marginalization typically experienced by minority groups.
Landlords, gas companies and debt collection agencies rarely trouble themselves with the distinction.
Are you comparing a lack of leniency in collecting payments to the failure to accommodate an employee? I don't know what you're trying to say with this point.
Your response to the original question was "because those specific days are sacred to people of those religions", which seems to assume an innate value in the idea of "sacredness".
As I mentioned above, human rights protections are not about privileging religious people, but about mitigating the disadvantage experienced by religious minorities, who do not have the luxury of having weekends and statutory holidays organized around their religious practices.
It is discriminatory to force people to work on their religious holidays. It is discriminatory to force women who are eight months into pregnancy to come to work, and it is discriminatory to force someone who is permenantly impaired by a leg injury to perform tasks that require hir to stand for hours when other arrangements can be made. They are not discriminatory for the same reasons.
People should get days off for a variety of reasons as a matter of labour regulations. Labour regulations may vary and still be fair.
There is "an innate value in the idea of sacredness" to the extent that in many countries, including the one where I live, people are guaranteed the right to practice their religion without being discriminated against because of it. It is not just a matter of fairness and good policy, but a human right.
It's not relevant to what I'm saying what is and isn't a protected category: my point is that while protected characteristics are practically useful, they're not enough to protect everybody and they're not a good philosophical approach to equality.
ReplyDeleteAre you comparing a lack of leniency in collecting payments to the failure to accommodate an employee?
No, I was saying that if your employer screws you over you're just as screwed over whether or not you can draw a neat little line around the social group they're discriminating against. This is the point: in my view, the struggle for equality is about giving everyone the same chances, human dignity and other abstract good stuff I won't enumerate here. I can't reconcile that with the idea that we should give religious holidays off because religious people's faith is important; I think we have to do it because a person's human dignity etc. are important.
This is particularly important for me because I don't value sacredness or holiness or religious faith. I don't think Jews have a particularly good reason to observe Shabbat, or that Christians have a particularly good reason to take time off at Easter. But I do think that these things matter, deeply and vitally, to those people, and that those people matter and shouldn't be expected to reconfigure their entire identity just to get by in the world.
Can you explain to me how my view could possibly benefit from differentiating between those ideas we call "religious" and those we do not?
I think that's the heart of what I'm saying, but I'll just tidy up a few points. Firstly, I'm astounded that you couldn't come up with anything more important than guitar classes for a non-religious person to be doing of a Friday evening.
Let's say I work for your imaginary employer and I'm a Scout leader. Our meetings are every Friday evening. I've poured my life into Scouting and I care about the kids who come along like they're my own children. My colleague Andy, well, his mother's Jewish, but he hasn't really practised since he moved out. Still, he'd rather not work Friday evenings: he'd have to explain it to his mum, and he doesn't need the stress right now.
Andy can make a pretty good case for this being religious discrimination, so maybe he can avoid having an argument with his mother. I'm less likely to convince the boss that particularly dedicated Scout leaders are a protected group, so that's a major part of my identity down the toilet if I want to keep the paychecks coming in.
A philosophy that would make Andy's ability to avoid an argument with his mother a human right, while I must just deal with it, seems to me like a bad one.
They are not discriminatory for the same reasons.
True, but not because there's anything special about religion. Transferring a Muslim to the pork-packing warehouse and transferring a strict vegetarian to the pork-packing warehouse are both discriminatory for the same reason.
There is "an innate value in the idea of sacredness" to the extent that in many countries... people are guaranteed the right to practice their religion without being discriminated against
You can't give something innate value through legislation.
Finally, I'm quite astounded that you would say this:
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned above, human rights protections are not about privileging religious people...
Where did I ever suggest that they were? At most I suggested that they could do, that it would be better if they did not, and that we should be careful about how we think about equality to avoid excluding people we haven't considered closely enough. Oh, and to be picky, I said "religious ideas", not "religious people" (and certainly nothing about "minority religious groups"). If you think it's misguided to suggest that religious ideas are often privileged, I'd like to point out that where I live we have reserved seats for bishops in parliament, "faith schools" that can reject pupils because of their lack of religion and a mandated "daily act of collected worship" in all state schools.
I can't reconcile that with the idea that we should give religious holidays off because religious people's faith is important; I think we have to do it because a person's human dignity etc. are important.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how those two things are substantively different.
Boy scout leaders have not, as a group, historically or currently, been systemically barred from participation in broader society. Religious minorities have, as have women, disabled people, etc. Being a boy scout leader, in fact, is the opposite of being excluded from mainstream society.
It's facetious to suggest as you do that, "Andy's ability to avoid an argument with his mother" is enshrined as a human right. His freedom to practice his religion if he so chooses is what's protected. His individual motivations for exercising that right have no bearing.
True, but not because there's anything special about religion.
The original argument was whether religious practices should be accommodated at all, not over what kinds of practices ought to be accommodated more generally.
You can't give something innate value through legislation
Human rights legislation is a reflection of values that we hold to be universal, and which exist outside of the legislation itself.
Where did I ever suggest that they were?
It was inmplicit in what you wrote:
Further, if an individual is being excluded from employment it ought not to matter whether that exclusion is because of membership of a group or personal circumstance.[Human rights protections against discrimination operate based on group membership]...
Your response to the original question was "because those specific days are sacred to people of those religions", which seems to assume an innate value in the idea of "sacredness". [You suggest that religious practices are unfairly assigned special value - ie. they are privileged; the rest of the paragraph continues in this vein.]
Oh, and to be picky, I said "religious ideas", not "religious people" (and certainly nothing about "minority religious groups").
That's exactly the problem with this discussion - I'm talking about protections that are in place for the benefit of minority religious groups. I'm not talking about measures taken by members of a majority religion to assert their ascendancy.
We probably are
I don't see how those two things are substantively different.
ReplyDeleteOf course they're substantively different. There's a massive difference between valuing someone's faith and valuing someone as a person. I don't value faith at all; quite the opposite, if I was forced to choose. But I do value people.
Boy scout leaders have not, as a group, historically or currently, been systemically barred from participation in broader society.
This is a practical issue. Whether a group has been systemically discriminated against or not doesn't affect that group's right to be valued and treated equally (the latter in particular wouldn't even make sense). Just because it's all but impossible and almost certainly undesirable to legislate on this basis doesn't make it any less true.
And I know I was being a little facetious, but so were you with your guitar class example. I know perfectly well what is being protected; the question is 'why?'. What makes Andy's ability to obey a belief system he hardly cares about more important than my ability to participate in a community activity that I care about very deeply? I can't think of anything, and while practicality and context make it almost impossible and probably undesirable to legislate for situations like this, I think it's important to keep them in mind when thinking about equality.
The original argument was whether religious practices should be accommodated at all
I think it's pretty clear that this is a different line of discussion, given how many times I've said I agree that they should.
Human rights legislation is a reflection of values that we hold to be universal, and which exist outside of the legislation itself.
No, human rights legislation ought to be an effective means to put into practice values we hold to be universal. I'll quote you again: 'There is "an innate value in the idea of sacredness" to the extent that in many countries... people are guaranteed the right to practice their religion without being discriminated against'. You're putting the cart before the horse here. An innate value in the idea of sacredness would be a good reason to include faith in human rights legislation, but its inclusion in that legislation does not imply an innate value. To begin with, for that to be the case you would have to assume that human rights legislation is, as it stands, flawless. Even then, legislation is a tool to do a job. If your values say that religious ideas aren't special, you can still support legislation that specifically protects religious groups because that's a good, practical way to act against injustice. Similarly, legislation about race doesn't reflect a belief that skin colour is innately more important than, say, eye colour: it reflects the fact that discrimination based on skin colour is a huge problem and discrimination based on eye colour practically doesn't exist. Legislation is about getting stuff done; it's a terrible bedrock for a worldview.
It was inmplicit in what you wrote
ReplyDeleteNo, it wasn't. I certainly suggested that religious ideas are privileged. You could extend that to saying that religious people are to some extent privileged, and even that legislation protecting minority religious groups also tends to privilege religious groups of all kinds. But I never, ever said that's what that legislation is about. All legislation has imperfections and side-effects. I think of it like designing a map projection. You simply can't draw an accurate map of the world on a flat piece of paper; you have to sacrifice scale, or direction, or shape. And once you've got a projection that works, it's a fool's errand to try and fix the imperfections, because you just can't do it. But you'd better recognise that they're there. Thinking that equality and human rights operate at the group level, or distinguish between religious ideas and practices and non-religious ones, seems to me like thinking that the map on you wall is what the world really looks like. Those are just the tools we use to make the job of achieving equality easier.
That's exactly the problem with this discussion - I'm talking about protections that are in place for the benefit of minority religious groups. I'm not talking about measures taken by members of a majority religion to assert their ascendancy.
Yes, I agree that we're talking somewhat at cross purposes, but I think you've misidentified the problem. You're talking about protections that are in place for the benefit of minority religious groups. I'm talking about the ideas underpinning those protections.
Of course they're substantively different.
ReplyDeleteOne can be subsumed within the other. Respecting someone's faith is part of valuing them as a person. You're arguing as though the two are exclusive when they're not.
Whether a group has been systemically discriminated against or not doesn't affect that group's right to be valued and treated equally
But it has a huge effect on what ensuring equality requires.
I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing about here or why.
Respecting someone's faith is part of valuing them as a person.
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't. I have very little respect for faith generally, and quite the opposite for beliefs like "it's OK to cut bits off my child's genitalia" or "it is immoral to give blood". I still value the people who hold those beliefs.
Do you consider religion special in this regard? Do you have to respect someone's politics to value them as a person? Their taste in music? Their choice of romantic partner?
But it has a huge effect on what ensuring equality requires.
I made this exact point. I'm arguing that it's dangerous not to distinguish between what your values are and how they can be practically brought about, or to do one and not the other.
I may also be arguing against some of the values you hold, but I'm increasingly unsure of that because I'm finding it very difficult to pin them down - unless you genuinely believe that the idea of sacredness is innately valuable because human rights legislation protects religious freedom.
As for why: partly because I think it's important question and I was a little troubled by how you were approaching it, but mainly because it's an interesting question and you're an interesting person to discuss it with. Oh, and partly because when you claim that I said human rights legislation is "about privileging religious people" I can hardly leave it unchallenged.
Respecting someone's faith is part of valuing them as a person.
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't.
Yes, it is. Treating individuals as thinking beings with inner lives means respecting their beliefs - with the limitation that their beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others. Yes, I would extend that to politics, musical tastes, and love lives. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them, or that you can't respectfully raise a critique of those beliefs in discussion.
I find the discussion of "innate value" somewhat meaningless, to be honest. Religion is a hugely important part of many people's lives; it is a major element in individual and community identities, cultures and histories. People value it - therefore it is valuable. That's enough. That's the only source of value that matters.
Regardless of my opinion of the value of religion, the ability to practice one's religion deserves the protection of law, because people have and do face structural discrimination based on their religion. What's important is the existence of discrimination, not the value of religion.
I think the example that you raised, with the boyscout leader, should be dealt with under a framework of worker's rights, and quality of life, not an anti-discrimination framework.
I think we mean different things by the word "respect". That's fair enough.
ReplyDeletePeople value it - therefore it is valuable.
This is true, but it's a truism. It's no no way to determine what I should consider valuable, or what a society should consider valuable (if that's even a meaningful question). Alcoholics value alcohol. White supremacists value white supremacy.
The rest of your post I can't really disagree with - we have never disagreed about practicalities, and I haven't argued about what "deserves the protection of the law" or what should be dealt with under what legal framework.