Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The difference between hating religious opinions and hating people identified with religions
The London police have issued a citation to a teenager who demonstrated against the Scientologists, declaring their religion to be a "cult."
A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word "cult" to describe the Church of Scientology.
The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion.
Officers confiscated a placard with the word "cult" on it from the youth, who is under 18, and a case file has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.
A date has not yet been set for him to appear in court.
The decision to issue the summons has angered human rights activists and support groups for the victims of cults.
The incident happened during a protest against the Church of Scientology on May 10. Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, who were outside the church's £23m headquarters near St Paul's cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology as a cult by police because it was "abusive and insulting".
Unfortunately, the sensitive people of the world -- both "secular" and religious -- have so confused the question of criticizing religion in general or religions in particular with the mistreatment of religious people that we are left with an untenable assymetry: people who cloak their opinions in religious rhetoric are free to say just about anything, but those who attack those opinions in secular rhetoric incur oprobrium, from disapproval to discipline to citation or even arrest. Let me clarify the situation with a few basic points which ought to be supported by the law, at least in civilized countries:
1. Religious faith ought to be regarded as another form of opinion, no more or less protected then any other opinion. Religious speech ought to be protected to the same extent -- no more or no less -- than other speech. Religious practices, including ceremonies and gatherings, ought to be protected to the same extent as other public assembly. Religious political protest ought to be protected to the same extent as other political protest. The right to engage in religious speech, writing, and practice ought to be regarded a subset of freedom of speech, the press, and peaceable assembly, all of which are fully guaranteed by the United States Constitution and ought to be fully guaranteed by every other government on the planet.
2. Similarly, a person should be free to criticize, denounce, or mock religious opinion, speech, or practice to precisely the same degree that one can criticize, denounce, or mock any other opinion, speech, or practice. I should be equally as free to say "Catholicism is a cult" as I am to say "Scientology is a cult," or "the Republican party" or "Communism" is a cult. Moreover, I should be as free to insult religious figures from history as I am any other dead person. If I want to say that "Jesus was a fraud" or "Mohammed was a liar," the law should not only permit me to do so but should protect me from torts or crimes against me by people I enrage.
3. We should carefully distinguish between discrimination or other abuse of a person because of his status instead of his beliefs. For example, I should not be able to mock a Jewish or Muslim person because his ancestors were Jews or Muslims or he has a Jewish or Muslim-sounding name. I should be able to mock a Jewish person for not eating cheeseburgers just as I am free to mock a vegan for not eating cheeseburgers or a Japanese for not eating garlic. Similarly, if a Muslim wants to walk around in a burka we should feel free to comment on her poor fashion sense just as we would if we encountered any other poorly dressed person. What's the difference? None. She has her opinions about dress, and we have ours. It should be as lawful and socially acceptable to criticize her burka as it is to mock a harvest gold liesure suit.
4. I should be able to discriminate against somebody for their religious beliefs, just as I am allowed to discriminate against them for other opinions. If, for example, one man does not allow his wife to drive a car or see other men or have a job because he is Muslim, and another imposes the same rules because he simply holds that women are subservient, I should be able to avoid doing business with either man because I hold his views to be repugnant.
5. However, I should not be able to discriminate against somebody because I believe him to hold certain opinions merely because he identifies himself consciously or by conditions of birth as of a particular religious faith. So, for example, I should not be allowed to discriminate against somebody with the name of Ali because I have lept to the conclusion that somebody with such a name must believe that women are subservient. Maybe that is an opinion he does not have, and I should not imagine that he holds to an idea because of his name or even his representation that he is a "Muslim".
Is this not a much better way to define the respective rights of religious people and those who disagree with them than the asymmetrical approach, which holds that a hideous and offensive opinion is legally protected because it is couched in religious rather than non-religious thinking or tradition?
Release the hounds.
15 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue May 20, 10:18:00 PM:
Alas England is doomed to be the first Old World power to fall to the Islamic's, due to the use of their PC laws. The first perhaps but not the last European Nation to go under. It's really a bad joke but the English Nation is allowing the Islamic's to take over their Country due to the laws that the English themselves have made. What will the future hold for all the English since their own folly has doomed their Nation?
By 
Escort81, at
Tue May 20, 11:21:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By Escort81, at
Tue May 20, 11:26:00 PM:
I should be able to discriminate against somebody for their religious beliefs, just as I am allowed to discriminate against them for other opinions.
You might want to re-word this. There is a difference between how religious beliefs can influence the way someone lives, and how expressed opinions can adversely effect things like job performance.
Can you mean that you are justified in not hiring, say, an Orthodox Jew, because they won't work past sundown on a Friday afternoon? You have previously posted that you worked for Orthodox Jews, so you are no doubt familiar with their practices. Assume for purposes of this question that the prospective hire is for a job in the metro Boston area for a subsidiary that your company has there, and that sundown during the winter months occurs before 4:00 PM, and the last few hours of the regular work week happen to be fairly important for the position you are hiring (perhaps clinical data gets reported then), and that the Orthodox Jewish candidate is clearly the most qualified candidate overall.
Now, I happen to think a great many religious practices with respect to diet and mandatory prayer times are not particularly pragmatic, but I would make that hire because: a) it is the best thing for my company to hire the strongest candidate, and those few hours on Friday afternoon can be worked around and accommodated; and b) I would avoid an employment discrimination law suit I would probably lose in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.
If, on the other hand, you are a hiring for an NGO that is working to minimize the spread of AIDS in Africa (I happen to know a woman who was PU '78 who has such a job in Africa), you probably would not consider hiring Rev. Wright, who has well-known erroneous beliefs and opinions regarding the origin and spread of AIDS that would clearly be counterproductive to the mission of the NGO. That Rev. Wright's "religious beliefs" might inform his expressed opinions regarding AIDS is irrelevant.
On the other hand, I can think of a hypothetical of hiring a devout Muslim to be a bank lending officer, when his faith does not permit the charging or payment of interest. If he simply does not philosophically believe in the basic function of the institution as a result of his religious beliefs (query why he is interviewing in the first place, though), I suppose you would be rightly discriminating against him as a prospective job hire because of his religious beliefs.
Anyway, mock all you want. Discrimination is another matter, especially when it is unlawful and self-defeating.
By davod, at
Wed May 21, 06:01:00 AM:
I don't know whether to be relieved or upset. Relieved that this could well be members or friends of the church using the law to prosecute protestors, just a common variety form of intimidation (Something that even the Crown might take it upon itself to investigate). Or upset that once again the police have found ways to prosecute the peaceful, all the while, protecting the ratbags (not the Church of Scientology) who threaten (And some of whose followers actually commit) murder and mayhem on the world.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed May 21, 06:52:00 AM:
Well, Escort81, in part I am arguing for a change in the laws around employment discrimination.
In your case, I would certainly hire the Orthodox Jew in no small part because I am actually prejudiced in their favor -- never have I worked with such broadly capable employees at every level as I did during my years with an Orthodox company. But, that said, my actual opinion is that the law should not make me accomodate an Orthodox Jew's need to leave early on Friday any more than I should accomodate some guy who believes it is uncivilized not to go fishing every Friday afternoon. I might choose to regard the religious man's reasons as more legitimate, but I should be equally free to regard them as less legitimate.
That said, I am a very accomodating boss on work hours. My theory is that if I am going to bug you outside of regular work hours -- which I do fairly constantly -- I am not going to be a churl if you take a morning or afternoon off.
By Pax Federatica, at
Wed May 21, 08:53:00 AM:
[T]he sensitive people of the world -- both "secular" and religious -- have so confused the question of criticizing religion in general or religions in particular with the mistreatment of religious people[.]
A large part of the problem is that religion is so bound up in some people's self-image and identity that, from their perspective, the above becomes a distinction without a difference - that is, if you criticize their religion you are, by definition, criticizing them for believing and practicing that religion.
The prevalence of this mindset is a function of the nature of the religion itself and the degree of the believer's devoutness, which complicates matters even further. Confronting this mindset is tantamount to saying that one shouldn't take one's own religious beliefs too seriously, which the very people who harbor that mindset are likely to regard as utter nonsense at best, and another offense to their faith at worst.
By , at
Wed May 21, 09:43:00 AM:
A free market will tend to correct discrimination that is self-defeating. But only Big Brother can correct discrimination that is merely “unlawful.” And if he can forbid you from mocking the prophet of Islam he can forbid you from mocking the prophet of Environmentalism or any other set of faith-based opinions that humans can be led to worship.
By ScurvyOaks, at
Wed May 21, 11:25:00 AM:
Overall, I strongly agree with you, TH. I have a slight textualist bone to pick, though. You say: "The right to engage in religious speech, writing, and practice ought to be regarded a subset of freedom of speech, the press, and peaceable assembly, all of which are fully guaranteed by the United States Constitution." Because free exercise is separately enumerated in the First Amendment, it is not properly viewed as a subset of the other freedoms you list. The framers of the First Amendment saw fit to identify free exercise of religion separately -- perhaps for emphasis, perhaps to add a gloss on the adjacent establishment clause -- so we should not relegate free exercise to the subsidiary position that your analysis suggests.
(It's not clear to me that the distinction I'm drawing makes a lot of practical difference in the examples you cite, however.)
By Escort81, at
Wed May 21, 12:01:00 PM:
OK, TH, excellent and fair-minded answer. You want the ability or liberty to say no under the law. That restaurant owners in the 1950s in the South wanted that same liberty to serve whom they pleased does not detract from your thesis (this is always the problem with a "slippery slope" argument), since you have specifically excluded "status instead of beliefs" and "conditions of birth" as a basis for discrimination.
Next hypothetical: you own an older wood-framed garage apartment, and a Shaolin Preist of Chinese descent wants to rent it from you, but he likes to light dozens of candles at a time (like on the original "Kung Fu" TV show), and you are worried about the fire hazard, even though the unit comes equipped with two recently inspected extinguishers and two smoke detectors. He would be an ideal tenant otherwise, and has an impeccable credit history and references. Are you saying you would like the ability to reject him without being subject to a fair housing lawsuit? Isn't a more pragmatic solution for you to come to an agreement with him regarding the number of candles he can light at once? Doesn't a court essentially try to balance out costs and rights and remedies, and aren't we better off if fair-minded people can do that without litigating?
As an aside, the township I live in has recently had a case about a group of Buddhists co-habitating in a large home that happens to be zoned for a single family dwelling (a discussion of zoning law being a whole 'nother tangent). The township is saying they can't live collectively in that house, but could in theory do so in another structure in another part of the Township with different zoning. They are otherwise ideal neighbors and maintain the property well, and there are not many cars coming and going because they do not drive very much. I have to side with the Buddhists on this one. As a practical matter, anyway, what business is it of the township what the familial relationships are of people living together under one roof? What if three Victoria's Secret models decide that they really want to live in my house with me? Am I going to say, "Sorry, ladies, I don't want to get in trouble with the Zoning Hearing Board?" I think Cottage Club would retroactively rescind my bid!
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed May 21, 07:03:00 PM:
"Are you saying you would like the ability to reject him without being subject to a fair housing lawsuit?"
A what? Since when can you not rent or not rent to whomever you choose? It's your property.
Perhaps 20 years in Texas spoiled me...
By Escort81, at
Wed May 21, 09:33:00 PM:
DF82 -
You were supposed to focus on the Victoria's Secret aspect of the post.
Anyway, here is the link for a summary of the law from the HUD website:
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).
Pretty sure it applies in Texas. Hopefully it hasn't been an issue for people you know, either landlords or tenants. I've spent a fair amount of time in different parts of Texas, and the landlords I knew only cared about one color -- green, the color of your money. If you were thinking about being a raucous tenant, they let you know up front that they had a concealed carry permit!
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu May 22, 11:27:00 AM:
Ah. Well then if I understand properly, "I won't rent to you because you're a Buddhist" is illegal, but "I won't rent to you because you light candles all the damn time and it's a fire hazard, but if you stop then everything is fine" seems perfectly rational.
The Army, for instance, makes it very clear that they will tolerate any and all religious beliefs, but they will not tolerate any and all religious activities. It's a reasonable compromise.
By Escort81, at
Thu May 22, 12:25:00 PM:
DF82 -
That's pretty much it -- drawing a line between religious beliefs and the actual physical manifestations of those beliefs, to the extent they are problematic in some way. It sounds like the Army has it about right, and of course, it is an all volunteer force, so presumably you know going in what the deal is.
In the civilian world, the complaint will be, essentially, "you are preventing me from practicing my religion as I see fit and therefore violating my First Amendment rights," versus "certain of your practices cannot reasonably be accommodated."
There was a scene in "The Devil's Advocate" -- what I thought was kind of a decent allegorical movie with Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino (as Satan) -- where Reeves defends a man practicing Santeria who has performed animal sacrifice at his home, citing kosher or Kashrut laws. His argument is that if observant Jews and their kosher butchers can go through certain procedures, then his client should be permitted to do the same (ignoring where the slaughter was done and the fact that the kosher meat is consumed and the sacrificed animal was not).
There was the real life case of the Muslim woman in Florida a few years ago who did not want to remove her burqa for her driver's license photo ID -- which raises the obvious question of what's the point of it (it would almost be like a SNL comedy skit where you have 1,000 photo IDs looking exactly the same) -- and even if it was taken, didn't want to have to remove her burqa if she was stopped, so that the police could confirm her ID.
By , at
Thu May 22, 03:54:00 PM:
I can't really say that this article left me with a good taste in my mouth. Quite a bit was said that goes beyond my personal boundaries of what I think is acceptable and makes for good law for "civilized countries". Is that because religion really is something which ought to be specially protected by its very nature, or is it because I am indoctrinated to feel sensitive about religion? Beats me.
But hopefully, it is apparent to all that this specific issue—Church of Scientology vs. 15-year-old with "cult" sign—falls nowhere near any of the rest of this stuff about being able to discriminate based upon religious beliefs. I would expect someone to be irate about this teenager's summons into court even if they disagreed with every single statement in this blog post following the quotation of the Guardian article.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri May 23, 01:54:00 PM:
Anonymous 3:54 - I'm curious, which statements left you with a bad taste in your mouth?
