At what point does the claim of religious practice become valid? If a handful of people claim that their sabbath prohibits them from working on Wednesday, what is the standing of any business that refuses to hire a member of this group ? It seems to me that the claims of religious organization is becoming ridiculous. This is one situation, but so too the idiot in Florida with a “religion” claiming 50 members. At what point does society have the right to deny “religious practices” in a public setting?
Well, you have to outline your goals. If your goal is to be ‘accepting of the traditions of all religions’, well, you can’t, because shit like this will happen.* Any coherent society that can actually sustain itself is ultimately going to be communitarian in nature, which means it’s going to be full of taboos and restrictions that exist for no reason other than “Yeah, we all thought that was stupid and gross, so you’re not allowed.” That’s a part of culture as much as anything.
Case in point, ‘shit like this’ happens specifically because we’re trying to operate society in a non-communitarian fashion. The girl in question didn’t know that nose rings are nasty in North Carolina, or else knew but didn’t see why she should care. There’s other things, like say, picking her nose and eating it in public, that she doesn’t NEED to be told (anymore) not to do in public, and she’d never join a religion advocating it because the religion would be as gross as the activity.
I guess I’m questioning how we resolve the law that we cannot discriminate on the basis of religion. Businesses are compelled to hire people who can’t work on Saturdays. Muslim adherents have to be allowed their prayer breaks and wear their head scarves. Woe to the company that asks people to leave their religion at home in privacy. They are breaking the law! Is it really asking too much to expect people to assimilate the “normal” standards of public life that even heathens like me are expected to abide by? I could accept the notion of religious enclaves where religious traditions can be followed. The Amish have managed that without getting in everyone’s face claiming discrimination. But in our zeal to protect religion, (I’m for that) have we not bent over a little too far? Do we really need to protect some idiot who tries to blackmail us by threats to burn the Koran? Is there a line in the sand?
People of the Jewish faith (more of the orthodox nature) are highly admonished not to work on their recognized Sabbath. For people of the Christian faith there is somewhat less stringent code to follow. Jesus was asked about this very thing. He replied that sometimes there were exceptions which would preclude the act of showing reverence to the Sabbath. Such as trying to rescue a farm animal from distress or even helping someone who might need help. This falls into the “God knows your heart” category.
Sunday for Christian people is set aside for worship time. Even in this 24/7/365 society we live in many people follow this initiative. Prayer time for the people of the Muslim faith breaks the mold of a time honored tradition. It does seem somewhat of a burden for employers to acquiesce to prayer times which interrupt production. If this is finally made a requirement across the board, it would seem only fair that people who do not have those beliefs be allowed to use that time as they see fit during those periods. Assimilation then would have to fall to the employer. Should this be looked upon as a fair situation to work forces in countries who are not predominantly viewed a muslim nation? Do those nations that follow those tenets stop everything to accomadate those rituals? Certainly they have excpeptions which would excuse them to miss some prayer routines. It could be dangerous in some lines of work that have to follow schedules such as airlines, public servant positions (i.e. firemen, police and the military) and the like in societies such as the US to facilitate these type of religious activities. There are a lot of things to take into account.
.this is a joke . You know members of the so called traditional religions get to wear all kind of things to make a statement but this girl doesn’t get to wear nose ring. why ?
Fine no one gets to wear a cross or cover their hair .
besides a nose ring is make up here where I’m at . you know like lip stick and and that stuff women put on their eyes and what have you.
we also put a large nose ring on cows . cow noses are very sensitive . when the cow doesn’t listen you just crap the ring and drag her back to the barn.
that’s just for cows. for women it make them look nice. that’s the purpose. so god is nice and he likes nice things.
A young man was dragged into the Army at the time of the Vietnam war and he was feeling very rebellious. Under Religion he wrote, „Druid-Reformed“ and sure enough, it was stamped onto his dog-tags.
Later, after basic training, all leave was cancelled due to a large protest against the war. The young man supposed that the commanding officers were worried about soldiers taking part in the demonstration. He had been looking forward to a weekend with his girl and was really sick at the cancellation.
He noticed that the was to be a full moon on the Saturday and it was the last one before the solstice, so he applied for leave to celebrate a religious holiday. His Topkick ordered him into his office to question his request and asked, „What goddamn religion do you belong to?“
The young man said, „I’m a Druid“.
The Topkick stared at him, then called for his dog-tags, which he also stared at. His eyes went from the dog-tags to the soldier and back again. With a huff he signed the permission.
Elated, the young man turned and was about to leave the room when the Topkick said, „Hey, don’t you people kill goats?“
„No sir,“ the young man replied, „We’re reformed!“
Yay to reformed! We could use a BUNCH of that. When I was in college, a couple of my drunken friends and I (I was sober, of course ) decided to form a new religion with the purpose of selling mail order ordination just to prove that any scam is doable if cloaked in religion. We went so far as to obtain non-profit tax status, prepared testimonials from several other less than reliable students, designed and printed the obligatory “diploma” and were ready to start advertising. Fortunately, none of us had money to pay for advertising, so like many college pranks, the venture withered away. But I know we would have managed to sell a few diplomas had we carried through with the stupidity. And that is the problem: How do we sort out the genuine from scammers and idiots who have “seen the light”? In a society where religious freedom is guaranteed, what is the test of “religion”?
Our country and our Constitution are founded on religious freedom, among other things, are they not?
Maybe a better question would be to ask "At what point does the claim of religious practice become invalid? For me, the only real moment would be when that religious practice leads to the destruction and death of people, of human life.
Everything else perhaps is simply bias, bigotry and control.
The only resolution, (and it's not a great one) is that the people who said that were, really, only imagining a narrow range of religions when they said that, and just assumed without writing it down that any gentleman of good sense would know what to do with people who made up what they would think of as stupid crap and called it a religion to screw the IRS or as a justification for women to wear long pants or other such nonsense.
The reason they were able to get away with what seems like such a huge omission to us, is that they were all 'basically on the same page'. Mill does the same thing- declares that hedonism is great, while quietly assuming that no proper Englishman would truly explore it's limits.
Well, you know the reception I receive when I try to apply "the normal standards of public life" to the issue of homosexuality. Have YOU ever been the one to tell somebody else that the concept of 'normalcy' is oppressive? Because I've sure been told so often enough.
But that aside, yeah, of course I agree with you that people should assimilate to normal standards and keep their private life private. Surprised to hear YOU say something like that. So then…now that we’re here in the 21st century and things are what they are, would you like to make the attempt at defining what these normal standards are? Obviously they’re different from one country to the next, probably one state to the next in cases. So…where are you? What are the normal standards where you are? In various districts of various U.S. cities, not working on Saturday or doing the whole prayer-break thing is probably the norm. Is that ok?
For once, I think the issue is bigger than religion. There’s all SORTS of private or cultural activities one could say this about. I have the same bugaboo about trannies and people in their gothic/emo/whatever subculture costumes that you seem to have about religious accommodation.
thing is the civil liberty guy is talking freedom of expression and parental rights .so the issue is a secular rights issue . that’s what he is saying and he is right on the money. keep it secular .
I think that the major difference between the genuine and fake enlightenment is generally the difference between humility and arrogance. The emptiest vessels make the greatest noise and it seems to be the same with human-beings in a society that has lost (or not found) its ability to discern. I find it difficult to comment when societies have no mutual idea of what is sacred. Originally meaning something consecrated or devoted, that is set apart or dedicated to some ideal, higher goal or deity, anyone with his own idea of what is sacred can see a fake. There are just too few people who have this and they become insecure when confronted with a claim, however idiotic.
The other thing is that people seem to be continually looking for things to blame for their behaviour. “I do this because my religion tells me to”, or “I wear this because my religion tells me to” is really intellectual poverty. I do or I wear things because I identify with a group that does or wears these things, not because they tell me to.
I tried to tell this to the people I worked as an executive with and for, but they told me wearing suits was proper, period. Like it was an objective value. They had the money, and/or could make my life hell, so I went along. Me, I think they were religious kooks.
Good one. I realize that attempting to standardize conformity is it’s own problem, but it just seems that there needs to be some sort of consensus understanding so that communities can function without too much interruption. Ucc has it right. It isn’t just a religious issue, there are plenty of secular examples of the same problems. If there is a difference, it is that making religious claims bring high emotions. The Koran burning nut case in Florida received so many death threats, that the city and county governments spent around 200 grand “protecting” this dumbass fanatic. All in the name of religion. If this sort of crap continues, John Q is going to start asking how much of this can we afford? Then ALL religions need to start looking over their shoulder…
Good one. I realize that attempting to standardize conformity is it’s own problem, but it just seems that there needs to be some sort of consensus understanding so that communities can function without too much interruption. Ucc has it right. It isn’t just a religious issue, there are plenty of secular examples of the same problems. If there is a difference, it is that making religious claims bring high emotions. The Koran burning nut case in Florida received so many death threats, that the city and county governments spent around 200 grand “protecting” this dumbass fanatic. All in the name of religion. If this sort of crap continues, John Q is going to start asking how much of this can we afford? Then ALL religions need to start looking over their shoulder…
[/quote]
POint taken. I have to mull it over to see if I agree. I know that foreign policy can for perfectly secular reasons spend unbelievable amounts of money based on the odd interests of a few (generally wealthy) people. I have to see what I think about domestic stuff. My own sense is that a God that gives a shit about some of this detail stuff is not one worth worshipping, but then I hesitate to support enforcing that idea.
Your god is too petty, sorry, no excemption.
Doesn’t sit well.
Nor does
‘Get 889 more followers and you qualify for the right to wear fluorescent gold bowties regardless of employer policies’
Though that one bothers me less. At least it is a kind of utilitarian approach rather than the value laden evaluation necessary in the first.
A last take on why this would be strange.
I believe Rape is wrong
would actually mean
I believe rape is wrong and I believe that rape is neither right nor wrong.
We are all contributing to a society which is getting hysterical and believes that we always have to do or say something rather than to stop doing or saying things. The same applies to all religions and cultures, although we all have examples of the sage who advises us to calm down and reflect upon what is necessary NOW, and whether our contribution is actually driving madness along.
I keep on returning to Elijah, the prophet who was so ecstatic that he performed miracles and killed all of the false prophets in a fit. He ran so fast that his enemy became afraid, and his gaze was so intent that it reared the horses. He ran and he ran until he collapsed in exhaustion and fear, and he realized that, for all of his fanaticism, he was no better than his fathers or any other man.
He made his way to the holy mountain, the only place he could find assurance and God. But when he got there a voice asked him, “What are you doing here?” He was called out onto the mountain to be confronted by God and a fierce storm came, but God wasn’t in the storm. The an earthquake shook the earth and split rock, but God wasn’t in the earthquake. Then came a huge fire, but God wasn’t in the fire …. then came a whisper ….
When I was in college, a couple of my drunken friends and I (I was sober, of course 
) decided to form a new religion with the purpose of selling mail order ordination just to prove that any scam is doable if cloaked in religion. We went so far as to obtain non-profit tax status, prepared testimonials from several other less than reliable students, designed and printed the obligatory “diploma” and were ready to start advertising. Fortunately, none of us had money to pay for advertising, so like many college pranks, the venture withered away. But I know we would have managed to sell a few diplomas had we carried through with the stupidity. And that is the problem: How do we sort out the genuine from scammers and idiots who have “seen the light”? In a society where religious freedom is guaranteed, what is the test of “religion”?