Should Freedom of Religion include Freedom from Religion?

[Bowser]

What if you don't believe in medicine (prayer only) should you be allowed to withhold medical services from your employees?

The bigger question, should you be required to offer medical insurance?

 

[Michael 345]

Spoiler: Lots of people who claim to be Christians lie anyway

No? Surely not? No? What is the world coming to?

Should employers be forced to support something they do not agree?

Yes. If it's the law of the land. If you are a member of society (and really you don't have ANY choice in that matter) you don't get to pick and choose the laws you will obey because you agree with them and ignore those you don't believe in

But when the question involves the death of a black child, shouldn't they have a choice? Abortion might be legal, but you shouldn't be forced to provide abortion services.

Now you have confused the issue and are in effect quibbling over definitions

Nobody is forcing you to kill a child
As much as you disagree it has been declared a fetus is not a child

If you are in a job which provides abortion but you refuses because it affects your religious sensibilities you are breaking the law.
You can't whine about "oh I really like the job but I don't like that bit"

I really like working at Walmart when I'm on the cash register but I refuses to mop the floor because it affects my religious beliefs about the dignity of man

Thats the most sinister aspect of religion. You can literally make ANY rule you wish, tie on the RELIGIOUS BELIEF tag and suddenly it's untouchable???????

 

[Jeeves]

What if you don't believe in medicine (prayer only) should you be allowed to withhold medical services from your employees?

If you are religious, you have probably sworn to abide by the tenets of your faith. If you are a doctor, you have sworn an oath to your professional calling. If you are a naturalized American citizen, you have sworn to obey the law. (Apparently, born citizens are exempt.) If those three oaths are in conflict, you should either drop one of your beliefs or one of your memberships.

If you are an employer, nobody's expecting you to perform an abortion. All they're asking for is insurance premiums of the same kind all other employers, regardless of what medical procedures your religion approves of. If you can't live with that, don't hire people - or don't read the insurance policy.
If you don't believe anyone should have medical care, don't live in a civilized country.

That's the answer to all these conundra: if any two or more duties conflict, opt out of the optional one(s).

 

[billvon]

But when the question involves the death of a black child, shouldn't they have a choice?

?? Of course. They are free to choose whether to get abortions themselves. They are not free to dictate such choices to their employees.

Abortion might be legal, but you shouldn't be forced to provide abortion services.

No one is. Everyone is free to not take on employees; then they will not be forced to provide abortion services. However, when you employ people you have to follow certain laws, since you are in a position of power over them - and that position of power has often been abused.

Imagine if employers decided that their religion prohibited providing of healthcare to premature babies, or handicapped people, or blacks, or Republicans who voted a certain way, or people who were injured playing a risky sport.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you are religious, you have probably sworn to abide by the tenets of your faith. If you are a doctor, you have sworn an oath to your professional calling. If you are a naturalized American citizen, you have sworn to obey the law. (Apparently, born citizens are exempt.) If those three oaths are in conflict, you should either drop one of your beliefs or one of your memberships.

Arguably they should not come into conflict. Because if there is a potential conflict from taking the doctor's oath, you should not be able to swear on it in the first place.

i.e. presumably, your citizenship would apply first. The tenets of your faith are not always explicitly laid out, so conflicts are not necessarily obvious., But when you go to take your doctor's oath, you'd be disqualified if your religion contradicted it.

 

[Jeeves]

[to their religion]
And what vow would that be?

Didn't I say: confirmation. The ceremony differs with the religion, but there is usually a rite of passage where a young person is required to accept the tenets of their faith before the whole congregation and take responsibility to abide by them.

[inauguration of political office, swearing in]
And what laws would they be?

They would be all the laws of the country in which you are serving as a representative of the people. I'm sure I did say: to uphold a constitution.[/quote]

I think you are creating a strawman that, 99.999% of the time, is a complete illusion, just to have a good punching bag.

It's not my fault if Americans keep electing men of straw that they end up punching.

You do understand ? that this was a conflict specifically affecting the seekers of public office - not users of money or employees in a factory.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think you are creating a strawman that, 99.999% of the time, is a complete illusion, just to have a good punching bag.

If it were true that this essentially never happens, it wouldn't be in the news, and we wouldn't be here discussing it.

It is, and we are; thus, it is not illusory.

 

[billvon]

The ceremony differs with the religion, but there is usually a rite of passage where a young person is required to accept the tenets of their faith before the whole congregation and take responsibility to abide by them.

Sometimes there is. I have never seen such a ceremony where allegiance to religion over country is required. Perhaps you have; if you have, then by all means describe it, rather than make unfounded accusations.

. . .They would be all the laws of the country in which you are serving as a representative of the people.

Yep. And the two generally do not conflict.

It's not my fault if Americans keep electing men of straw that they end up punching.

No. YOU are creating a strawman. You cannot comprehend how someone who believes in a religion can also be a politician. Rather than try to understand this, you create a strawman religious believer who cannot possibly reconcile their beliefs with religious duties, thereby "proving" your point.

I would suggest that the failure to reconcile those two lies with you, not an imaginary religious believer you've created.

 

[billvon]

If it were true that this essentially never happens, it wouldn't be in the news.

It is in the news because it is the exception; the .001% of the time where people refuse to do their jobs for whatever reason (in this case, religion.) I can think of one case in the past few years. I am sure there are a few more.

There are 22 million government workers in the US; there are about a million elected officials at all levels. Most (around 90%) believe in some sort of religion. Let's say there are five people over the past few years who have refused to do their jobs based on their religion. I'll let you do the math there on what the actual percentage is.

If it happened all the time it would not be news.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sometimes there is. I have never seen such a ceremony where allegiance to religion over country is required. Perhaps you have; if you have, then by all means describe it, rather than make unfounded accusations.

Well, there are a lot of problems currently arising where traditional cultural (if not explicitly religious) practices are in direct conflict with the law (i.e. illegal). Honour killings, poisonings, mutilations, etc. OK, it;s not necessarily their religions that are dictating these things, but I think there's a lot of grey area. Except maybe animal sacrifices - chickens and goats.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is in the news because it is the exception; the .001% of the time

Does that mean it goes away?

It's a problem. Even if relatively rare.

It's certainly not rare for those being refused service. For them, the .0001 probability becomes 1.0.

 

[Jeeves]

Arguably they should not come into conflict. Because if there is a potential conflict from taking the doctor's oath, you should not be able to swear on it in the first place.

People who don't believe in doing their best for the patient probably shouldn't become doctors, but there is nothing in law to stop them; there is nobody qualified to tell whether they made a choice and swore sincerely.
There is potential conflict between the rules of any two commitments, and a responsible adult would choose wisely which ones they join, but there is no outside agency to stop them being irresponsible or dishonest.

i.e. presumably, your citizenship would apply first. The tenets of your faith are not always explicitly laid out, so conflicts are not necessarily obvious., But when you go to take your doctor's oath, you'd be disqualified if your religion contradicted it.

The citizenship oath requires obedience to the law of the land; it doesn't rule out having any particular religion or profession and it doesn't require that you practice either. It allows you choose when you discover a conflict.
A doctor should know which are obvious. If his faith forbids abortion, he knows that OBGYN will result in conflict; he can choose dermatology or podiatry or radiology and still practice medicine with a clear slate before his god. Nobody disqualifies you entering the profession, because they don't know that someday you'll refuse treatment to a patient - but you know. The professional body can strike you off only after you've broken its laws - like withholding treatment from a Muslim traffic casualty or an AIDS victim. The AMA can't lock you out for being baptized in a lunatic fringe cult, but they can expel you for practicing some its rites, and you can choose loyalties; you can choose which one to opt out of.

 

[Goldtop]

I don't think I would leave it to the minority of whites to do the right thing - given their record.
Or financial gain to determine justice.
Does this have any bearing on the separation of church and state?
Or is it that government should not be allowed to regulate business, just as it can't regulate religion?
Before stripping government of all its regulatory, legislative and tax-collecting powers, you might be wise to consider the consequences to citizens.


They're free to lobby anyway, though they don't pay taxes. What they're not free to do - in theory - is dictate the morality according to which laws will be drafted. All that's guaranteed under the separation of church and state is that there can't be an official state religion that outlaws the practice of other religions.

Whether any citizens are discriminated against, for any reason, by business, police, other government agencies, private or paramilitary organizations, depends on what specific laws governments enact and enforce.
The first fifteen administrations were complaisant about the institution of slavery; nineteen more permitted systemic mistreatment of the 'liberated' slaves; twenty-seven denied the vote to women. Only a few have actively protected minorities, more than a few actively persecuted minorities.

I think almost 60% of Americans view racism as a big problem, there would probably be public outrage at such a display of discrimination. Most likely, an army of high profile black celebrities, politicians and business people would go down and visit that store and protest. Surely, something like that kind of discrimination wouldn't last very long. If so, then there would be an opportunity to open another store.

 

[DaveC426913]

but there is no outside agency to stop them being irresponsible or dishonest.

Well, there is...
Their case would be brought before the (shoot what's the doctor's overseeing body? AMA), and they would be accused of violating their oath. The possible outcome being that they could be stripped of their license.

 

[Goldtop]

Certainly they work within the law; otherwise, they would be out of work.


Should employers be forced to support something they do not agree?

I don't know of any employers who don't agree with healthcare. Do you?

 

[DaveC426913]

Surely, something like that kind of discrimination wouldn't last very long. If so, then there would be an opportunity to open another store.

That's not the way we do things though.
We don't say discrimination is kept in check by free market economy and capitalism.
It is the government's job to step in and uphold the rights of citizens under the law.

 

[DaveC426913]

Should employers be forced to support something they do not agree?

Of course they should.
What if they didn't agree with, say, minimum wage?

Employers are not islands, operating in a vacuum of government.

mixing my metaphors...

 

[Michael 345]

That's the answer to all these conundra:

Secular law trumps religious beliefs everytime

 

[Goldtop]

That's not the way we do things though.
We don't say discrimination is kept in check by free market economy and capitalism.
It is the government's job to step in and uphold the rights of citizens under the law.

Has that ever happened?

 

[DaveC426913]

Has that ever happened?

Have laws prohibiting discrimination ever stopped people from discriminating to further their businesses?
Well, yes.

It's the difference between a pre-1960s, segregated world and today's world, writ large.

You don't see a lot of "For Whites Only" signs on shops, bathroom doors and drinking fountains these days.