Freedom of religion vs. equality and justice

[ruggerson]

How do we reconcile these two sometimes opposing values in a pluralistic democratic republic?

[supernova]

1. You mean, how do you

reconcile having in our midst those sects that are more closed off, elitist and exclusionary *as a matter of principle* in a pluralistic democratic republic?

[jonnyblitz]

3. i took his post to mean that some religionists view not being

able to discriminate against gays as infringing on their "freedom of religion" to be bigots and how do we reconcile this.

[ruggerson]

4. Not just gays

women, ethnic minorities, anyone they choose under the penumbra of "freedom of religion"

[jonnyblitz]

6. you are correct, I shouldn't have stopped at just gay's as an

example.

[msongs]

10. gay bashing brings in tons of $$$$$$$$...that's what the bigots really

want. $$$$$ it's no longer allowed to gas jews or lynch negroes so attacking gays is the only thing left that generates the $$$$ and whips up the hyesteria.

Jesus says divorce = adultery but you never see these fascists whipping up frenzy against divorced people because most of them
are divorced people (fundies are alleged to have the highest divorce rate, guess they cannot stand each other).

Msongs
www.msongs.com
batik & digital art
mugs & shirts

[Warpy]

11. Much better statement

because as it stands now, those narrow sects are free to eliminate gays, lesbians, women who use birth control, childless couples, and anybody else they don't like from their churches and their homes with impunity as a part of their relgious belief.

What they are NOT allowed to do is attack people in the larger society, something that falls under the heading of OUR religious freedom.

It's always been amazing to me why such people who think those of us who desire nothing more than to be left alone to live our lives as we see fit as such a threat to their religion.

They are allowed to isolate themselves. Perhaps we should encourage them to do so.

[MindPilot]

2. case-by-case, one at a time, tediously and pedantically

There is no one easy answer and that's what our courts are for--at least would be if our system wasn't broken and being run by morAns.

On Edit, I think I answered what you meant to ask. What you actually asked doesn't make sense. Freedom of/from religion is not in opposition to equality and justice; they are all intrinsic parts of the other.

[ruggerson]

5. Well let's look at a hypothetical

Religion A believe women should be seen and not heard. They think women are subservient and believe that they should stay home raising children. Jessica, a member of religion A from birth, wants to take a paid job directing Religion A's choir and membership Committee. Not a place in the clergy, but just a paid, lay church position. Religion A refuses to hire Jessica, citing its religious beliefs that women cannot be in the workforce. Jessica sues religion A based on gender discrimination and Title VII.

Which right trumps the other?

[Ino]

7. Jessica's right trumps

Aside from the odd fact that Jessica belongs to a religion whose beliefs are so at odds with her own inclinations, Jessica's right trumps the religion's both morally and legally, IMO. It's no different from any other organization that wants to exclude women/minorities because of its "beliefs."

Points go to Religion A for being upfront about its reasons rather than hiding behind the usual BS ...like Jessica is unqualified or whatever.

[Solon]

14. Churches are EXEMPT from such laws. n/t

[MindPilot]

9. A tough one fer sure.. but if I can play judge for a moment...

I would rule in favor of the church. Generally, the rights of a religious organization do not extend to allowing it to break the law of the land and in this case the law is well-established against gender discrimination in the workplace.

However, there are other hiring situations where what is perceived as gender discrimination is acceptable because of the job requirements. For example there is a case pending (IIRC it's still pending) at a restaurant in LA where traditionally they have only hired female wait staff. Would it be acceptable to force Hooters to hire a male server? I think there can be legitimate situations--although they should be very rare--where discrimination may be permitted.

Additionally since the woman is effectively suing her own religion in this case, I would have to question why she would want to be involved with a church that would not allow her to work for them.

[Solon]

13. The Religion triumphs...

I can't believe people still debate this, OK, first things first, Churches are EXEMPT, explicitly, from ALL civil rights laws. The only exceptions to this is when they run charities that accept federal or state funds, and also when they have affiliated FOR PROFIT businesses. Pretty simple and clear cut there.

[BattyDem]

8. I've said it before and I'll say it again ...

Freedom of religion means you are free to practice your religion without government interference of fear of persecution ... period. It DOES NOT mean that you can use your religion as an excuse to ignore the laws of society. It DOES NOT mean that you can use your religion as an excuse to harm other people, limit their civil rights or make their lives difficult in any way because that same freedom of religion gives them the freedom NOT to practice YOUR religion. One group's religious beliefs should not determine the laws for everyone else.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. By seperating church and state

and not allowing any religious organization to engage in politics.

The most any religious organization should be able to do is to preach to its followers its concepts of right and wrong and perhaps act upon these beliefs through non-violent action. So a church may hold a peace vigil, but it cannot hand out leaflets telling its congregants to vote for Candidate X. It cannot offer the church van to be used by a political party to make sure congregants get to the polling places. It cannot give money to a particular political party or cause.

[TahitiNut]

15. Sacrificing the freedoms of others on the altar of one's own dogmas

... is not a morally legitimate sacrament in ANY religion. :shrug: That's a perversion, not faith - malice, not holiness.