Religious Freedom

[Occams Barber]

Religious Freedom

Should the concept of freedom of religion be used to justify a religion, or its adherents, acting in ways which are considered socially unacceptable, or illegal, for other institutions in society?

What, if any, are the boundaries on freedom of religion?

OB

 

[Sketcher]

Depends on the situation.

Something like this should not happen. He can make up his prayers later, Islam lets you do that.
Sweden: Muslim Bus Driver Stops Service for Call to Prayer

On the other hand, Sikhs in the US military are given exemptions from the regulations that require them to shave, cutting their beards is against their religion. I believe this is reasonable.

 

[Occams Barber]

Depends on the situation.

Something like this should not happen. He can make up his prayers later, Islam lets you do that.
Sweden: Muslim Bus Driver Stops Service for Call to Prayer

On the other hand, Sikhs in the US military are given exemptions from the regulations that require them to shave, cutting their beards is against their religion. I believe this is reasonable.

Why is one example acceptable and the other is not?
OB

 

[Sketcher]

Why is one example acceptable and the other is not?
OB

The bus driver could have reasonably performed his job within the tenets of his professed religion. He could have tried to schedule his breaks around the prayers, or failing that, made up the prayers later.

It's generally good to give religious exemptions to devout people, if you can. It demonstrates tolerance for them. Also, if you give them that little bit, and they'll tend to do what they can to make it worth it for you.

 

[Occams Barber]

The bus driver could have reasonably performed his job within the tenets of his professed religion. He could have tried to schedule his breaks around the prayers, or failing that, made up the prayers later.

Perhaps he could have done this but why should he have done this? Isn't this asking him to compromise his religious freedom?
OB

 

[Sketcher]

Perhaps he could have done this but why should he have done this? Isn't this asking him to compromise his religious freedom?
OB

His choice in this case was neglectful of his duties to keep the bus moving on schedule, and to let in a would-be passenger, in from the rain no less.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Religious Freedom

Should the concept of freedom of religion be used to justify a religion, or its adherents, acting in ways which are considered socially unacceptable, or illegal, for other institutions in society?

What, if any, are the boundaries on freedom of religion?

OB

That's not cut and dried. "Socially unacceptable" includes telling some people that they are sinners in my part of the world. At present, it is the homosexual lobby that gets upset. Other religions get upset when you say that Jesus is the only way to God. Just about everyone finds a reason to get upset with something. Obviously, some religious practices are unacceptable. Killing in the name of a god comes to mind. It's a minefield. Christians at least should obey the law of the land, unless there is a really good reason to disobey. I do not believe that shutting down a city to save a lesser spotted swamp termite qualifies. Not being permitted to call people sinners is unacceptable to Christians. If it is made illegal (that's the case in our education system) then we must live with the consequences of disobeying the civil authorities. Most religious people just get on with their lives. If they are not happy with the society (Muslims, for example) they should consider going somewhere more amenable to their beliefs.

 

[Occams Barber]

His choice in this case was neglectful of his duties to keep the bus moving on schedule, and to let in a would-be passenger, in from the rain no less.

Would it be fair to say that you're describing a boundary of sorts? I.e.,

Freedom of religion can be granted providing it does not negatively impact on others

(BTW - I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm seriously trying to establish where the boundaries to F of R might lie )
OB

 

[Robban]

Perhaps he could have done this but why should he have done this? Isn't this asking him to compromise his religious freedom?
OB

It is not clear from the article what the circumstamces were.
Busdrivers do not drive eight hours non-stop,
they have rest time too, also they drive from one starting point to the end station where they usually wait for five, ten minutes before continuing.

There does not seem to be any other passengers mentioned either, so if the bus was empty and was idle at the time,

I take a bus very often and have never come across anything like that.

I think the story is a little twisted.

But life is full of suprises, haha.

 

[Sketcher]

Would it be fair to say that you're describing a boundary of sorts? I.e.,

Freedom of religion can be granted providing it does not negatively impact on others

(BTW - I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm seriously trying to establish where the boundaries to F of R might lie )
OB

Impact on others is a consideration, but not the only part of it. Back to the Sikh example, the default in the military is that your face is shaved, or facial hair is kept trimmed to within regulations. I assume there is a reason for this, and that not sticking to this negatively impacts others in some way that I cannot quantify. But it is considered important to tolerate the religious observance of Sikhs within the military, which outweighs those other considerations, whatever they may be.

People of some faiths and sects may require a certain day off, a day that you could use their talents at the office. On the day they're not there, that impact may be felt. But generally, that should be worked into their permanent schedule just like the other people on payroll. They should not be singled out or harassed because of this, even though they would be useful to the company on that day.

 

[Occams Barber]

That's not cut and dried. "Socially unacceptable" includes telling some people that they are sinners in my part of the world. At present, it is the homosexual lobby that gets upset. Other religions get upset when you say that Jesus is the only way to God. Just about everyone finds a reason to get upset with something. Obviously, some religious practices are unacceptable. Killing in the name of a god comes to mind. It's a minefield. Christians at least should obey the law of the land, unless there is a really good reason to disobey. I do not believe that shutting down a city to save a lesser spotted swamp termite qualifies. Not being permitted to call people sinners is unacceptable to Christians. If it is made illegal (that's the case in our education system) then we must live with the consequences of disobeying the civil authorities. Most religious people just get on with their lives. If they are not happy with the society (Muslims, for example) they should consider going somewhere more amenable to their beliefs.

You seem to be saying that telling people they are 'sinners' and insisting that your religion is the only way to God are things which should be socially acceptable but you're willing to concede that killing in the name of God is taking things a bit too far. I suspect that there's something in here about how and under what circumstances you express these opinions. Perhaps the issue isn't what you say but how you express it.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

It is not clear from the article what the circumstamces were.
Busdrivers do not drive eight hours non-stop,
they have rest time too, also they drive from one starting point to the end station where they usually wait for five, ten minutes before continuing.

There does not seem to be any other passengers mentioned either, so if the bus was empty and was idle at the time,

I take a bus very often and have never come across anything like that.

I think the story is a little twisted.

But life is full of suprises, haha.

I suspect your scepticism is well founded.

The article came from Breitbart - the flag bearer for the tabloid right.
OB

 

[SkyWriting]

Religious Freedom

Should the concept of freedom of religion be used to justify a religion, or its adherents, acting in ways which are considered socially unacceptable, or illegal, for other institutions in society?

What, if any, are the boundaries on freedom of religion?

OB

No, it cannot be used that way.

Romans 13
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

 

[Occams Barber]

No, it cannot be used that way.

Unfortunately it can be used that way and often is. Consider for instance that religions are often excused from being discriminatory where other institutions are not.
OB

 

[SkyWriting]

Unfortunately it can be used that way and often is. Consider for instance that religions are often excused from being discriminatory where other institutions are not.
OB

Oh, you were asking for a legal opinion in this forum?
I'm not sure you can get that here.
I thought you were looking for a christian view.

 

[Occams Barber]

Impact on others is a consideration, but not the only part of it. Back to the Sikh example, the default in the military is that your face is shaved, or facial hair is kept trimmed to within regulations. I assume there is a reason for this, and that not sticking to this negatively impacts others in some way that I cannot quantify. But it is considered important to tolerate the religious observance of Sikhs within the military, which outweighs those other considerations, whatever they may be.

People of some faiths and sects may require a certain day off, a day that you could use their talents at the office. On the day they're not there, that impact may be felt. But generally, that should be worked into their permanent schedule just like the other people on payroll. They should not be singled out or harassed because of this, even though they would be useful to the company on that day.

We may be getting a little off track. The Sikh example is one where both religion and secular society and the military would all tend to agree with each other. Similarly for the day off thing we have society and religion agreeing that it's OK.

I'm interested in exploring why we should give religion privileges we do not extend to secular institutions or society in general.
OB

 

[dzheremi]

Didn't you make one of these "why can't religions be treated like secular businesses"-type threads a while ago? I don't see why there needs to be another. As I remember, the other one went rather badly in a very short amount of time.

Are you trying to perfect some idea of how things should be, or...?

 

[Occams Barber]

Oh, you were asking for a legal opinion in this forum?
I'm not sure you can get that here.
I thought you were looking for a christian view.

No. I'm not looking for a legal opinion.

In the real world religious institutions are often given legal and/or social leeway to do things which are not normally acceptable for non-religious institutions. This is normally justified under the heading of 'religious freedom'. I used discrimination as an example of this.

I'm looking for opinion, Christian or otherwise, on where the boundaries to religious freedom might lie. This question is one of ethics - not legality.
OB

 

[Aussie Pete]

You seem to be saying that telling people they are 'sinners' and insisting that your religion is the only way to God are things which should be socially acceptable but you're willing to concede that killing in the name of God is taking things a bit too far. I suspect that there's something in here about how and under what circumstances you express these opinions. Perhaps the issue isn't what you say but how you express it.

OB

If a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Jew wants to proselytise, who can object? Not me, even though (obviously) I think that they are wrong. I reserve the right to explain why. It's a big issue in Aus, as you probably know. Why should a personal face book post bring down the wrath of a sporting organisation? The woman in charge of said organisation stated that the Bible contains hate speech. It will be interesting to see where that ends up. Nowhere, we hope. Funny how the Quran seems exempt from examination. Possibly because critics of the Quran tend to have very short life spans.

 

[Occams Barber]

Didn't you make one of these "why can't religions be treated like secular businesses"-type threads a while ago? I don't see why there needs to be another. As I remember, the other one went rather badly in a very short amount of time.

Are you trying to perfect some idea of how things should be, or...?

Well spotted dzheremi. Sometimes approaching a similar question from a different direction provides insight.

I wasn't unhappy with the last thread given it went on for 10 pages or so.

It eventually got bogged down in US legal/constitutional issues. Unfortunately some posters had difficulty in seeing the forest for the trees and differentiating between legal and ethical.
OB