Isn't "freedom of religion" fundamentally unfair?

Question

For example, people are legally entitled to be exempt from rules in companies and schools on the basis of religion. For instance, someone religious is allowed to break the dress code by wearing a burka/crucifix/skullcap, but someone non-religious is not allowed to break it by wearing a wooly hat, long hair, or a purple suit. Doesn't this mean that religious people are given special privileges not granted to everyone else? Isn't this fundamentally unfair and unequal?

I am in favor of abolishing all "freedom of religion" legislation. This freedom is already implicit in freedom of speech, and there is no need for additional exclusive rights. People should be free to practice their religion, but only if the same freedom applies to non-religious people. Religion is no different than a hobby. It's a choice, and it's a personal matter. Wouldn't it be ridiculous if people who have certain hobbies like tennis players were given special rights?

Do you agree?

Some people seem to have misunderstood me. I am not advocating religious prosecution. Freedom of speech already protects us against religious prosecution.

All I am saying is that we should have "equal rights for everyone, regardless of religion", instead of "if you belong to religion X, you have different rights than if you belong to Y". This is what "freedom of religion" seems to mean.

I disagree that abolition of "freedom of religion" would lead to witch hunts. Enforcement of human rights legislation is enough to deter such acts without explicit "freedom of religion" laws

Answer 1

FORCING religion pon people is unfair.
If you don't like america get out,
your not taking my freedoms.

Answer 2

I think you're confusing religious freedom with special privileges for certain religions.

I agree that belief should be a strictly personal matter. And the kind of privileges you mention are probably unjustifiable, not to mention impractical -- but I don't think they should be legislated out of existence, simply because that's not likely to work.

Compromises have to be made, and that's not done in the legislature but on the street and in the workplace, as when businesses allow Jewish or Muslim employees to work around their religious holidays. That's also where unreasonable demands must be denied, as in the recent case of Somali Muslim cabdrivers in some airport who had to have the law explained to them by a judge. He told them, very firmly, that if they didn't want to transport passengers who happened to be carrying a bottle of booze then they had better start looking for another job, because the cab company was not obliged to accommodate their religious rule.

Answer 3

No I do not agree, abolish Freedom of Religion and you will once again have a witch - hunt against those that do not adhere to the majority religion. Would you like to see what happened in Salem, MA in 1692 happen again when government then becomes an outright theocracy because we have nothing in the law that would protect it from not happening?

I personally don't care if someone is allowed to wear a cross and I'm not allowed to wear a tank top. At least I can go to sleep at night knowing my rights to believe are protected by law.

Answer 4

Nontheists, atheists, and agnostics are entitled to the same freedom to express their anti- or nonreligious views as are the "faithful", or should be, thus should also be permitted to acknowledge those nontheistic concepts by their dress, jewelry, hair-styles, whatever evokes their nonbeliefs. "Freedom of religion" should, as you suggest, also include allowances for those who choose to forego religion altogether. Nontheists are generally an ostracized minority group in this country... However, rather than amending the Constitution to abolish freedom of religion, which amendment is not likely to be ratified before "hell freezes over" (!), those of us who are nonbelievers should make certain that our rights are addressed legislatively when possible; clearly, it will entail a battle as in the case of the atheist father who wished to absolve his child from having to recite the (unConstitutional) "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance and was much ridiculed and threatened for his efforts, but we must continue the fight for our own equality under the law of the land.

Answer 5

No, not really

If a person wants to wear a shirt with a Darwin fish or something of the like then that should also be covered under freedom of religion.

freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.

Answer 6

Since religious articles can't really be excluded from a dress code, no one is really breaking one. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. I have to look at girls walking around in clothes that barely cover them, which is in my opinion shows low moral character and is offensive, but no one has made a law against that yet.

Answer 7

You know as an Atheist I disagree with you. If somebody wants to take of a different holiday then me, go right ahead, means they are there to work when I don't want to. I feel people should dress how they want in a work place as long as it's not offensive. Somebody wearing a yamicah is known to be Jewish. If you just wear something goofy then people are going to look at you weird. There is a difference.

Answer 8

It is not the freedom of religion so much that is the problem; it is the company policy that is practiced with religious bias. THAT is the problem. And many times it does not even necessarily reflect the religious views of the company itself. It is an attempt to appease workers and avoid unnecessary lawsuits.

Answer 9

You really don't get it do you?

I have never heard of anyone willing to give their life for tennis. Many MANY billions of people have died for freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion does not mean children are allowed to wear religious garb to school. In fact, over and over again, children are denied religious garb in public schools. THAT is unfair!!!

The UK is looking to ban all religious garb. Not just in schools, but in jobs as well.

Freedom of religion means the freedom to be who you are, to WORSHIP as wish, without persecution.

In England, non-Anglicans were persecuted. You could be killed for treason if you refused to accept the queen's religion.

You would be dragged through the city from a rope tied to a horse. Then you would be hung by the neck at Tyburn Tree until you lost consciousness. But before you died, you would be cut down, tied to a table and then cut from throat to pelvis, then across the belly. While you still lived, your entrails would be pulled out and tossed into a cauldron. Lastly, if the executioner was "good at his job" your still beating heart would be ripped out. Then your head, arms and legs would be cut off and boiled. These would be put up around the city as a deterant for others who might believe in anything other than the queen's religion.

Read Evelyn Waugh's book "Edmund Campion" for an idea of what people endured for religious freedom in England.

How about the "death speech" of the Duke of Northumberland before his execution on the Tyburn Tree.
http://www.evergreen.loyola.edu/~cmitchell/north.htm

The Puritans jumped ship and came here to avoid death and torture. They in turn killed and tortured members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) whom they saw as heretics.

Now. Back to the whole banning of religious garb. You don't seem to realize that the minute you allow your government to begin banning this or that, very soon you have a fascist regime where the things YOU love are also banned.

You WILL lose the freedom to dress as you like.

So NO. I whole heartedly do NOT agree with you. I think you need to read a few books about this history of religious persecution. I think you need to read about Pol Pot and learn what it's like to have a dictator tell you what to wear, where to live, who to marry - in order to avoid execution.

http://www.time.com/time/daily/polpot/1.html

Answer 10

Modifying the dress code to accommodate one's traditions, swapping holidays around, and allowing time for prayer isn't that big a deal. I'm not religious, but I don't feel cheated when companies show respect for religious freedom by making little allowances like those. It makes me proud of our country.

Answer 11

this part I agree with:
(People should be free to practice their religion, but only if the same freedom applies to non-religious people)

I have never ever heard of anyone getting in trouble at work for long hair or a purple suit, but if they were to be refused that right I'd stand up with them and protest.

it's a two edge sword I think, if you take away religious groups freedom were will it stop?
next no liberal rights or no Conservative rights, or groups like atheist rights of freedom removed.
this country is "free" to believe or not "free" to voice our opions "free" to have a culture or not, take that away and we end up like Hitlers Germany.