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.
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.
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?
Quit if you don't like it.
Well, one of the freedoms of religion in the USA is that we don't have a religious test for office. We get rid of freedom of religion and... that's not "discrimination" right?
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) ....
You can study more and educate yourself and find your opinions changing as you learn, and maybe there are beliefs that you hold which you only hold because you've never spent the time to analyse them. But the number of people who analyse their own beliefs is small, as is the number of people whose beliefs will change when they are proven incorrect or when the evidence supporting those beliefs (if there is any) is cast into doubt. I think a person's religion is up to external factors and gut feeling - i.e. the subconscious.
If I wanted to become a Sikh or a Christian or a Muslim, I couldn't, any more than a Christian could voluntarily literally cease to believe in Jesus. And that's if I saw a benefit in converting at all, which is unlikely. Sikhs aren't Sikhs because they choose to be, nor Christians Christians, nor atheists atheists.
Children can and do break with their parents religion as they grow up (and do so /often/), so clearly it's a choice. Sometimes it's a hard choice. But it's still a choice that's frequently made.
But if you've got amputated legs, you can't choose to just hop up out of your wheelchair and go for a run like pretty much anyone else can.
Perhaps I can make it a bit more black and white. A few suburbs away from me there was a Turkish man who killed his daughter for 'dishonouring' his family (had premarital sex). Now, I am in Australia, and this kind of thing is seen by us as murder, but it's seen by folks where this man came from as honourable.
Should we be saying "It's just cultural, he didn't have a choice" or should we be saying "we're striving to create an egalitarian society, where everyone is treated as equals"?
This man had a choice and to argue that "it's just cultural" (of which "it's just religious" is a subset) deprives others of their freedom to be. Laws need to cover people equally or as said elsewhere you simply create another form of discrimination. This doesn't mean that laws don't need to change, but instead that they should be worded to allow everyone the same flexibility, not having to pass some sort of highly subjecting 'faithness' test.
For the record, the Turkish government has started handing out harsh punishment in an attempt to knock out "honour" killings.
Since honor killings happen in countries such as the UK....
Even if you're going to argue "it's a choice because it's not civil-legal to kill apostates", it's certainly "civil-legal" to shun them.
Tons of people reject the religion of their parents and are estranged from them for life, while still having a great - and in many cases markedly improved - quality of life.
And tons don't, and other tons do, but have a miserable life as a result.
They'll be glad to know that you belittle their situation.
People born into certain religions with certain kinds of parents and communities often don't have a psychological choice because of the nature of their environment. Just because some INTPs slip through the cracks does not mean that your typical ESFJ has a choice.
> Just because some INTPs slip through the cracks does not mean that your typical ESFJ has a choice.
Yes it does, they just didn't assert it.
I think the answer depends on who you are. It is a choice if you don't believe in religion. Its not a choice if you are religious.
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).
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?