I don't think it's possible to wrongfully discriminate against someone based on their choices. If someone wants to be part of a religion that wears some special clothing, great, but then there may be sacrifices that go along with that choice. This isn't like not installing wheelchair ramps. People in wheelchairs aren't there because they choose to be.
Who's doing the forcing? Is it a job? Is the religious practice safe? Then fine. It's part of the job. Quit if you don't like it. My atheism may prevent me from dressing up as Santa because, maybe, I don't want to lie to kids, or something like that. That doesn't mean that I get to take that job and then sit down amongst the elves at the mall in jeans and a FSM t-shirt while little kids sit on my lap to be told that Christmas was stolen from the Pagans and there's no Jesus. You're trying to call me out, but you're exactly right.
Many people have that choice only in theory. Secondly, who's to say what is 'safe'? Obligatory communal prayer every morning at school or work could be considered a form of brainwashing. I certainly don't think it's safe for my kid or even myself. I'm too informed on the human psyche to not be afraid of what others could convince me to think or do under the right circumstances. But if even communal prayer isn't safe, then what is?
School is a special case. That's the government and then there's the first amendment to consider. But we already have bodies that determine what is safe at work (OSHA for example). They've been doing a fine job for years. Nothing changes.
> Who's doing the forcing? Is it a job? Is the religious practice safe?
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?
+1 for FSM mention. Ironically on their website a few years ago they were (mockingly) showing an inverse correlation between increasing CO2 and piracy just before the wave of Sudanese boat-jackings.
> People in wheelchairs aren't there because they choose to be.
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) ....
I don't think religion is a choice. While a person does have control over which religion he or she adheres to in practice, I don't think a person has conscious control over what he or she believes, and I think that that's a factor which needs more respect.
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.
Religion is definitely a choice in countries where such subtle nuances of civil rights are being debated as in the main link.
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.
Shunning is monstrously different to killing. It's silly to even compare 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.
> 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.
Since when has forbidding people from doing something ever stopped them from doing it? Yes, religion is a choice; anyone can at any time choose not to believe.
This perspective is ignorant of modern findings on mind control.
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.
I simply don't believe that, choice always exists whether or not an individual is aware of it. They can choose otherwise, regardless of whether they do or not, nothing is stopping them. If you have actual scientific evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
> Just because some INTPs slip through the cracks does not mean that your typical ESFJ has a choice.
Sort of like being gay, then: if you support it then it's not a choice, if you dislike it than it is a choice. I wonder how many other things there are which function in the same manner ...
