Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then?

quote:

---

extreme example I know, but makes the point nonetheless.

---

Providing an extreme analogy is a standard method of investigating legal and moral claims.For example:

quote:

---

If I start a 'church' with a 'creed' that preaches child abuse. Should I be allowed preach/practise this?

---

If the "creed" is sincerely held and held by a large number of people, then why should anyone outside that particular community be allowed to prevent this?

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

quote:

---

do you think that a same sex couple would be unsuitable as adoptive parents based purel on their sexual orientation?

---

Actually, that isn't the question, either. The problem is that there is a group of people who don't feel that it would be moral (or in the best interests of the children) to place children in a certain environment, but the law is compelling them to do so. The question is should, in this particular instance, the people providing a service be compelled to perform this service in a way that they sincerely believe to be detrimental to the welfare of the children or be force to cease providing this service?

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

By the way, that was also used as an argument against miscegenation. Mixed race marriages are bad since the children produced wouldn't fit into either group and suffer discrimination from both parents' peoples.

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

In PNT, happy_atheist asks:

quote:

---

My question is do people think that the Catholic church should have the right to opt out of a law? Discuss...

---

Sure? Why not? Religious institutions and people with religious convictions are given a pass on various obligations all the time due to their religious beliefs. Quakers, for example, have traditionally been excused from military conscription, and Jehovah's Witnesses were excused from saying the Pledge of Allegiance when it was still required for other people.I guess the question is what exactly is the law from which they are being excused, and whether the state has a compelling reason to force them to comply with the law.-

quote:

---

The Catholic church does not feel that the law should apply to it, and is seeking to gain an exemption.

---

Sounds reasonable to me. The Catholic Church seems to be providing a service that others feel is valuable; the proposed law will require them to provide the service in a way that the Catholic Church finds objectionable. It seems reasonable that they would ask to be excused from the objectionable provisions of the law.-

quote:

---

It isn't expected to succeed.

---

So the state is expected to decide that there is a compelling reason to force the Church to abide by the law as proposed with no restrictions.-From what I understand (and someone can correct me if I am wrong), the Church will then cease to provide adoption services. So, the state will succeed in having adoption services performed according to the standards it sees necessary, and the Church will not be forced to perform actions that it deems morally repugnant.So far, the process seems to be working out as it should. Do you see a problem, ha?

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

quote:

---

Well why should Quakers get preferential treatment over non-Quaker pacifists who were presumably forced to conscript?

---

Let's go further: why allow anyone to be exempt from a universal conscription law just because they find war immoral? Isn't that what you are asking here? Why should anyone be exempt from a law just because they find it morally objectionable? Why should any pacifist be excused from the general military obligations that the rest of society is supposed to follow?-

quote:

---

I imagine someone on an interview panel with deeply held racist views would find this law very objectionable. Should they be allowed to opt out?

---

That's a good question. What is the difference between a racist who, based on deeply held convictions, wishes to to avoid a general anti-discrimination law and a pacifist who, based on deeply held convictions, wishes to avoid a general military duty?-

quote:

---

What use is an anti-discrimination law if "But I want to discriminate" is a valid reason for exemption?

---

What use is a military conscription law if "But I don't want to serve" is a valid reason for exemption?-But perhaps you are against conscientious objector status for this very reason. Well, the reason we allow conscientious objector status is that in this country (partly due to the experiences of our ancestors in your country) we still place great value on individual conscience, and we are still sensitive to the deeply held moral beliefs of individual people.This has always created tension between those who simply cannot perform a general obligation due to deeply held religious beliefs (and will even go to jail for it) and those who insist that the particular obligation must be equally met by all. So on the one hand we allow people to claim conscientious objector status and potentially opt out of a general military conscription duty (should the draft ever be reinstated), on the other hand parents cannot generally use their religious beliefs as an excuse to deny their children medical care.In this country, we try to make a determination whether we, as a society, really have the right to force people to obey a law against their deeply held beliefs, or whether we, as a society, have the right to expect people to obey a commonly held standard of behavior.

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

quote:

---

I also gather from your analogy that a non-Quaker would not have the right to conscientiously object for the same reason (being a pacifist). Why allow the the Quaker to have a conscience but not the non-Quaker?

---

No, now anyone can register as a conscientious objector as long as they have a sincere belief that war in general is wrong.-

quote:

---

Why should deeply held religious beliefs be more important/worthy of objector status than deeply held non-religous beliefs?

---

Nobody is saying this. Deeply held moral beliefs are being taken into account before some totalitarian dumbass decides to pass a "one-size fits all" law. It's just that (1) for religious people, moral beliefs are expressed in religious terms, (2) some moral tenets are more or less restricted to sects so a law that allows exemptions seems to be making an exemption for a particular religion, and (3) it sometimes requires evidence that the moral beliefs are sincere and not just the result of trying to duck an inconvenient obligation, and being a member of a religious sect where the moral belief is a tenet is evidence that the belief is sincere.

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

It's making the web page inconveniently wide.