We don't need freedom of religion

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/need+freedom+religion/4002627/story.html

by sorbus • 16 years ago

77 92 16 years ago

pjscott• 16 years ago

That's one hell of a linkbait headline that the Ottowa Citizen came up with. A more accurate description of the article's thesis would be "freedom of religion can be derived from other rights which are explicitly recognized, like freedom of speech and association, and does not need to be explicitly protected as long as those other rights are genuinely protected." Put like that, it sounds a lot less controversial.

kj12345• 16 years ago

Definitely. Mortgages are loans, but we have special laws for them anyway. There might be benefits to eliminating mortgage-specific laws, but it would be odd to term that argument as "mortgages don't need to be regulated".

angstrom• 16 years ago

I agree, but isn't half of journalism the catchy headline that raises your article above the noise and into the spotlight?

irrelative• 16 years ago

I started to think that it's part of the internet age of journalism, but quickly realized I was just being naïve. The sensationalism of headlines is as old as the headline.

diiq• 16 years ago

I agree that that headline is awfully dramatic --- but your summary misses what is, to me, the most interesting part of the article: that enforcing freedom of religion has led to inconsistencies in the way we maintain those other rights. The fact that we do have explicit protections of the freedom of religion means we are failing to genuinely protect speech, association, etc. That seems like a conclusion worthy of at least a little drama.

Semiapies22• 16 years ago

I absolutely agree with that premise.

However, I'd only buy that as the writer's real message if he wasn't going for a subtext of Gee, look at all the unreasonable privileges people get on the grounds of religion!

I'm reminded of the argument that we shouldn't support gay marriage, but instead should support getting government entirely out of marriage and letting any consenting adults form any arrangement they want. I absolutely agree with that ideal, but it's not happening anytime soon - so I support gay marriage. However, there are people who make this argument and use it as a reason to oppose gay marriage as a "privilege" we should not be establishing.

I can't help noticing that people giving that objection are uniformly straight.

cal5k• 16 years ago

To be fair... how often is the Ottawa Citizen linked to from Hacker News? I'd say it worked splendidly!

Semiapies22• 16 years ago

Well, it's a bit of a stealth piece, as he's claiming to argue that while really arguing the reverse. He's not arguing for greater freedom, he's arguing against religious freedom.

Look at the examples he chooses. He's not really arguing that anyone should be able to wear veils, not have pictures on their IDs, carry sheathed knives, etc. He's arguing that if voters wouldn't see any random person as needing/deserving to be able to do something, then nobody should be able to do it based on religion.

Myself, I'd say sure, let kids carry knives, whether pocketknives (as people in my neck of the woods happily let kids in prior generations) or kirpans. On the other hand, the writer's dog-whistling, saying that we should only do something as crazy as let Sikh kids carry kirpans if we'd be willing to have a stabby bloodbath in our (well, Canadian) schools.

While I'd love to be able to skip legal protection of enumerated rights, knowing that the government would respect my freedoms in every conceivable formulation, it ain't gonna happen. The best-case situation in Western society is that the government remains leery of obviously stepping on the rights that people most object to having abridged - free speech, religion, etc.

ETA: And yes, that means that some people will have a "privilege" - ie, they'll be exempted from some stupid law that would harm or impair them even more than it does everyone else. In that case, the answer isn't to attack the privilege, it's to attack the thing the privilege protects against.

a-priori• 16 years ago

If kids want to go all stabby stabby in a school, they don't need ceremonial daggers to do it. It happened at my high school, in Canada, using a cooking knife stolen from the cafeteria kitchen.

pkulak4• 16 years ago

That's the worst headline I've ever read. I didn't even read the whole thing and it was part of a paragraph.

mingdingo5• 16 years ago

Here's a good article by Christopher Hitchens on freedom of religion: http://www.slate.com/id/2266154. Some examples of where he thinks religion oversteps its bounds:

- Mormon polygamy

- Christian sects that disapprove of medicine

- Ritual circumcision (especially when the mohel sucks off the debris from the penis with his mouth)

I would also add to that list the ritual slaughter of animals. Kosher and Halal both mandate that an animal cannot be stunned with a captive-bolt stunner before having their throats cut, and must be fully conscious. Needless to say, this cruelty only persists because of "freedom of religion".

If you ever want to get away with things you otherwise couldn't get away with, freedom of religion is probably the most potent argument you could unleash.

avdempsey2• 16 years ago

Even Hitchens' examples reflect some basic rights a civil libertarian should want to protect.

Mormon polygamy: the government shouldn't be telling you who you can or can't marry.

Christian sects that disapprove of medicine: the government shouldn't be forcing you to make changes to your body.

Ritual circumcision (especially when the mohel sucks off the debris from the penis with his mouth): sounds gross to me, but the government shouldn't tell you what changes you can't make to your body, or how you provide care for a member of your tribe.

Can government intervention in these areas bring about greater human well-being? Possibly, but I think the above are relatively self-regulating. Christian sects that disapprove of medicine (Christian Scientists for example) must contend with proliferating evidence of the benefits of scientific medicine. As long as scientists have freedom of speech too I suspect their membership will continue to decline in the US.

Can government intervention in these areas bring about greater suffering? Absolutely. The US government currently intervenes in gay marriages, and recently intervened in abortions (and many in Congress would love to intervene here again!).

patrickyeon• 16 years ago

As fodder for discussion, where should the government's influence stand on issues of medicine or circumcision, as practiced by children's parents? At what point can the government say "your freedoms matter less to us than taking care of _your_ child the way _we_ believe it should be done"?

slammdunc234• 16 years ago

The government certainly /can/ tell you "how to care for a member of your tribe" if that member is a minor. The ritual circumcision Hitchens references led to a small but deadly outbreak of herpes among recently circumcised babies. The government should let /adults/ practice their religion as they choose, but there would certainly be a rational basis for concluding that this particular practice unnecessarily endangers a third party: children who lack the ability to say, "No, thank you! I'm Buddhist." The same goes for Christian sects that disapprove of medicine. Sure, adults can turn down medical treatment for /themselves/, but if they do so for their children they could (and should) go to jail for child endangerment. A civil libertarian should want to protect everyone's right to liberty, the right to do whatever they wish /without harming others./ In these cases, the religious parents' choices often do harm their children, who are too young to object.

firemanx• 16 years ago

As a counter point to your first item - the government now doesn't really tell you who you can and can't marry, at least from a religious perspective. However, in the US at least, marriage is often done both religiously and legally, which imparts a whole slew of rights, obligations, and benefits. From the legal and governmental perspective, polygamy is an abuse of this (see the documented cases of welfare abuse in Utah, for instance).

Back to the point though - you could get married to 10 spouses in front of God and your friends and never tell the government about it, and I doubt they would care (unless your cohabitation violated some health code or something).

vacri6• 16 years ago

<i>but the government shouldn't tell you what changes you can't make to your body, or how you provide care for a member of your tribe.</i>

Talk to a social worker and see whether or not you still believe that a government should still be able to step in and tell you how to treat a member of your "tribe"

I remember reading one social worker's long diatribe about why they burned out and quit. Out of several truly horrible things (black and blue children are ten a penny), the one that really stuck in my mind was the description of finding genital warts on the anus of a 7-year-old because his mother repeatedly whored him out.

"Self regulating"? Bollocks.

Semiapies22• 16 years ago

Kosher, at least, is not a standard for "ritual slaughter of animals", but a dietary standard. Kosher meat rules require fairly humane methods of animal slaughter, whereas captive-bolt stunners are the rug under which many factory-farms try to sweep their treatment of animals at slaughter-time.

As for halal, I'm not as familiar, but due to the level of ignorance you've shown on kosher, I'm going to have to call shenanigans and say "citation needed".

mingdingo5• 16 years ago

Just answer one thing:

Do Jewish slaughter laws call for the animal to be conscious when having its throat cut, and do you think this is preferable to being stunned?

That is, if you HAD to kill your pet dog by cutting its throat, would you want it to be stunned or not?

I probably used Kosher and Halal incorrectly, but suffice it to say that slaughter of conscious animals is widely practiced in the Jewish and Muslim faiths. To ask another question: Do you think western slaughterhouses adopted captive-bolt stunning because they were bored, or because it granted a small reprieve at the end of the farming cycle?

nkurz3• 16 years ago

I think you are more wrong than right. While 'kosher' is a dietary standard, there are certain conditions that must be met before meat can be considered kosher. These ritual slaughter techniques fall under 'shechita', which traditionally requires that the animal be unharmed (hence unstunned) before its throat is sliced with a knife in a very particular manner. If this is not done, the meat is not eligible to be considered kosher.

Various countries currently have exemptions to their humane slaughter rules explicitly for Jewish and Muslim traditional practices. Here are some citations:

http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=docum...

http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/21457/controversy-...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2977086.stm

tvorryn• 16 years ago

I'd just like to point out that "Mormon" polygamy is currently only practiced by Mormon fundamentalists, which make up only .07% of Mormons today.

raganwald2• 16 years ago

His examples are very carefully cherry-picked to support his claims. I'm to going to agree or disagree with his conclusions here, but an example that is useful for the purpose of discussion is the subject of turbans, such as the dastaars worn by the Sikhs he discusses.

At one time the uniform for a police officer in Toronto (and I'm sure everywhere else in Canada) included a cap that was quite inconsistent with the Sikh practice for men to wear a dastaar.

The law prohibiting discrimination against persons by reason of their religion is defined to include directly passing over someone because of their beliefs. But it is also held to include indirectly passing them over by way of rules and regulations that are inconsistent with their beliefs and practices unless there are strong reasons to enforce them.

The rules about uniforms were in a grey area. There are good reasons for police officers to wear a consistent uniform. But would a Sikh in a dastaar really violate those good reasons? The police changed its rules and regulations to include the dastaar as an option, with its colour and the inclusion of a badge on the head just as the original cap holds a badge.

Kirpans are a very contentious subject and reasonable people can and do disagree on how they should be handled. But dastaars are an example of places where a failure to provide legal protection for people to practice their religion could create an indirect discrimination that is inconsistent with Canadian values.

The author points out that if there's no good reason for a rule, it should be abolished for everyone. One interesting point of discussion is this: If there is no specific rule protecting the freedom to practice one's religion, how would rules such as the uniform rule for the police ever evolve?

pkulak4• 16 years ago

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

anamax8• 16 years ago

> People in wheelchairs aren't there because they choose to be.

Is religion a choice?

I ask because some religions forbid conversions "out", a few with rather serious penalties. Since most adherents of those religions are entered into them by their parents (that is, without their consent) ....

Natsu2• 16 years ago

> I don't think it's possible to wrongfully discriminate against someone based on their choices.

Does that mean you're okay with any discrimination against atheists by forcing them to engage in some religious practice?

Or is atheism not a choice?

slammdunc234• 16 years ago

I think the turban example is perfectly consistent with what the author said. You ask "how would rules such as the uniform rule for the police ever evolve?" The answer is: in much the same way! Under this author's understanding of that example, the rule under scrutiny would be: "Every policeman must wear a uniform cap." The Sikhs, wishing to wear dastaars, would petition the chief of police to be able to wear a dastaar instead. The chief of police (or whoever), would then think to herself, "Well, is it all that important that our police officers wear matching CAPS, or is the important part merely that they wear headgear that matches the rest of the outfit and contains a badge?" She would then conclude that the more appropriate rule, which should apply to /everyone/, regardless of his religion, should be that every police officer must wear a hat of the appropriate color and that the hat must contain a badge. A Sikh could wear a dastaar; an atheist could wear a baseball cap or a turban--or a dastaar. The point is that /anyone/, not just a Sikh, can wear /any/ hat he chooses, so long as it meets those standards that /are/ considered too important to change, such as matching color and a badge.

I think another example might be more clear. Back in the 1990s, there was a big hullaballoo about Native Americans out West using peyote, a hallucinogenic, as part of a religious ceremony. Using peyote, however, was illegal in the state of Oregon, so a few members of the Native American Church were fired from their jobs and denied unemployment benefits after they were found using peyote. The Native Americans argued that they should be exempt from this law due to their religious beliefs, and many agreed. I don't, and neither did the Supreme Court (check out Employment Division v. Smith [1990]). And here's the reason: if peyote is "not that bad," i.e., if it's fine for /some/ people to use it (here, the Native Americans), then it should be fine for /all/ people to use it. If peyote is actually /too dangerous/, if it really /must/ be outlawed, then it should be outlawed for /everyone./ What someone believes about peyote should have no bearing on his right to use it. (This is the same reason we wouldn't allow ritualized murder of children even if someone claimed it was central to his religion--it's simply too dangerous!) It's /discrimination based on religion/ (or lack thereof) to say that Tom, who believes that peyote helps him communicate with a higher power, should be able to use peyote, but that Bob, who simply feels that using peyote helps him relax and to paint, should not. Why should Tom's belief be worth more than Bob's simply because a higher power is involved? And what kind of law should involve litigating someone's religious beliefs? Imagine: Q: "Isn't it true that you don't REALLY believe that peyote helps you commune with God?" A: "No, I swear I believe! I pray every day!" Q: "But I have a witness who says he saw you at Catholic mass last week! And here's a Bible we found in your house!" What a horrible mess that would be!

To get back to the dastaar example, then, all the author is saying is this: If a Sikh should be able to wear a dastaar, then an atheist should be able to wear a dastaar on the job, too. In fact, an atheist should be able to wear any hat of the proper color with a badge on it. His beliefs or lack thereof should have no bearing on his right to do something that everyone else can do.

Semiapies22• 16 years ago

What the author is trying to imply is closer to, "Come on, people need to wear the right hats on the job. Sikhs can wear dastaars on their own time, let's not exempt them based on 'freedom of religion'."

fleitz• 16 years ago

Agreed, these exemptions CREATE discrimination based on religion by providing different rules for people depending on their religious beliefs.

raganwald2• 16 years ago

You have an enormously optimistic view of police chiefs. Or perhaps police chiefs where you live are reasonable, inclusive people who are always looking for ways to broaden their force's recruiting.

Whereas up here in Toronto, the opposite was true. The police force remained staunchly Euro-centric until forced by rule to reconsider rules like the requirement that officers wear the prescribed hat. Left to their own devices, police chiefs saw no reason to change their rules about headgear or the minimum height required to be a police officer.

The changes didn't come because Sikhs petitioned the chiefs of police, the changes came because Sikhs petitioned the courts. And that is why we have constitutional democracies: Some portions of our rules and regulations cannot be left up to the "free market" or an executive branch that is concerned with obtaining a plurality of votes in the next election.

uvdiv• 16 years ago

>The law prohibiting discrimination against persons by reason of their religion is defined to include directly passing over someone because of their beliefs.

Actually I would guess the author supports religious discrimination, although he doesn't make a clear statement either away. If the discriminator is a private citizen, then a freedom to discriminate follows directly from the basic freedoms he lists, particularly freedom of association.

He evaded this issue by only giving examples of public discrimination (by public schools, courts, and government employers).

andreyf• 16 years ago

That's silly. Many laws are meant to minimize people harming each other. For example, the point of laws that control whether a child may bring a dagger to school is for the safety of minors, who don't have the neurobiological facilities to make good decisions (e.g. whether or not to bring a knife to school, or whether or not to use it). I imagine it's easily demonstrable that enforcement of those rules yields less stabbings than an "everyone bring your knives" policy.

Now, before you think it, nobody is saying that such restrictions on freedom are the proper long term solution to stopping kids stabbing each other, and better solutions should be put in place, but in the meantime, lives are literally at stake. Of course, it's also easily demonstrable that Sikh children don't really ever kill each other with their ceremonial daggers.

So frankly, I don't see a good argument as to why the law should never use race as a metric to optimize safety for minors while not infringing on the ceremonial customs of certain groups.

charlesju• 16 years ago

I've come to realize that no moral issues can be boiled down into black and white. All moral debates have strong examples on either side.

The goal of government, however, is not to take a stance on moral debates. It's to create laws that are amenable to both situations.

I believe with this professor is trying to say is that the constitution, or written law, should not include laws that are categorically protective of civil liberties that may not be culturally acceptable. We need to break down civil liberties in this particular arena into more granular cases and judge based on those cases as opposed to an overarching blank check for religion.

known2• 16 years ago

Your religion must be private.

If you intend to make religion public via pony tails, emblems, beards, burkah, turbans etc, you're advertising your religion viz http://goo.gl/dHSA8 Govt will regulate every advertisement.

splat• 16 years ago

And you also must keep your political opinions private. If you intend to make your political opinions public via pamphlets, opinion editorials, posters, books, protests, etc. you're advertising your political opinions and the government can regulate your advertisement.

known2• 16 years ago

God != Religion != Politics

yycom• 16 years ago

The problem with laws and regulations kowtowing to religion is who is the arbiter of authentic religions vs. other arbitrary mumbo jumbo? What stops me (or L. Ron Hubbard) from inventing a religion specifically contrary the law so I can evade responsibility for paying tax, enslavement, or eating babies?

zupatol• 16 years ago

Freedom of religion is something else than making exceptions to other laws because of religion.

Freedom of religion is the right to believe whatever you want and not be discriminated because of it. There needs to be a freedom of religion because there is such a strong tendency to discriminate against minority religions.

Similarly the law needs to be the same for men and women, but the tendency to discriminate is so strong that there needs to be a law against discrimination based on gender.

dkarl• 16 years ago

Let's leave aside the fact that it's no business of the government whether we are disrespectful to each other's religions, as well as Justice Charron's call for schools to indoctrinate children.

Schools have to indoctrinate children. They're freaking _children_. It's normal childish behavior to lie when they're afraid of getting in trouble, hit other children or destroy their property when they get angry, disrupt lessons when they're bored, and ridicule others when they sense weakness. Discipline and indoctrination about proper behavior can't stop when parents drop their children off at school. If you don't want your kid indoctrinated by someone else, if you can't handle the idea of your kid being partly raised by people who may have different ideas from you, then school just isn't going to work. Forget about school, and forget about tee ball, summer camp, piano lessons, hell, forget about church, because you don't know the exact behavioral standards the Sunday school teachers might enforce. Just keep your child at home and you never have to worry about anyone indoctrinating your kid except you.

Semiapies22• 16 years ago

You know, I get the funny feeling that some of my fellow atheists believe that if we got rid of "freedom of religion", it'd only be those crazy religionists who'd be affected or restricted, while we could gloat on the sidelines.

Considering that those of us in the US had to have a Supreme Court case to protect us from being forced to take part in group prayers in school, the far more likely case is that without a protected freedom of religion, the majority merrily pushes around various minorities on a religious basis.

Look at how poorly Muslims poll and how they're demonized by many in the US - and then recall that polls say Americans regard atheists even more negatively.

(And no, Canada is no utopia devoid of religious bullying.)

We don't need freedom of religion

Related Stories