Peter Singer has written a piece in which he argues that your freedom of religion has not been violated unless the state enacts a law that effectively prohibits you from doing something which is required by your religion.
...
Complete entry
Posted by
Pastor_Alex on 07/05 at 01:17 PM
Let’s see if I follow your argument. Peter Singer has suggested that banning a practice is OK as long as that practice isn’t mandatory for religion. I read you saying that this is not necessarily so as the banning of the practice is specifically aimed at the religious practice.
I get that part, I think.
On exemptions to general law on the basis of religion, would it not depend on the nature of the law? For instance, there is discussion on the merits of requiring that voters show their faces before they vote. For some women in some faiths this is contrary to how they understand their faith, since only men who are members of their family are allowed to see their face. Forcing them to remove their veils to vote to be identified where a man who is not family will see their face would mean that their religious freedom is being abused. Telling them not to vote means their civil liberties are being abused. Failing to identify voters leaves the integrity of the vote in question.
Some have suggested that women could do the identifying apart from any men. Others have suggested that veils are cultural rather than religious and there is no conflict with religious freedom.
Would this be a case for exemption?
Posted by
hdufort on 07/05 at 01:46 PM
We should be free to believe in some irrational things, because many things that make us human ARE irrational: hope against all odds, the sense of adventure, creativity in arts, scientific intuition, etc. Sadly, if we accept and embrace the irrational part of our human mind, instead of trying to eradicate it, we’ll have to accept that some people will be more irrational than others. Some may truly believe in “luck” and will go gambling (sometimes in excess), some will develop addictions, some will adopt strange rituals (either through the fashion industry, spirituality, or by-the-book organized religions).
Believing in String Theory, in the Big Bang, in a multiverse, or in some pre-universe state IS irrational, given our current understanding. But since it’s fueling scientific research, unproven hypothesis are generally accepted until proven false. Even though String Theory cannot currently be proven wrong, right, possibly right given the correct parameters, or anything else!
Banning religion usually creates extremists; it’s been like that for centuries. Only the ones with the strongest beliefs will go underground and cultivate their religious rituals and beliefs. How many Catholic/Papist plots in Anglican England? How many massacres of Protestants in France and Italy through the Religion Wars? As a society, we have to handle religious groups softly, but firmly. Choose where it’s okay to wear religious signs, and where it’s not. And even the state’s “laïcité” (French word describing strict state secularity) can be turned against itself by religious lobbies, who will use it to fight the other religious groups’ visibility.
In the US, “freedom of religion” has been used during the 20th century to fight what was seen as Communism’s secular threat. In France, “laïcité” is mostly used to contain a perceived Islamic threat; by restricting religious rights for all religious groups, they’re trying to keep militan islamism under control. In the end, perhaps France will become what it was supposed to be after its 1789 Révolution: a truly secular state. These things take time. And the US should remove “In God We Trust” from their money, and revert to the good old “E Pluribus Unum” (they changed it in 1956… y’know, Communism Scare and all).
In a society, religious neutrality comes in two main flavors: “freedom of (personal) religion”, and “laïcité”. The latter adopts a more restrictive approach, pushing the separation of church and state a bit further: no religious signs in public areas or buildings, no religion in courts of justice, restrictions for civil servants, etc. The goal is to push religion away from the spotlights, so that it becomes something more private, that you live alone, or with your family, or with a group, in a privately-owned space.
I live in Canada and we’ve had all kinds of problems trying to define the level of secularity in our society; so far we’ve had the Bouchard-Taylor Commission drama and people trying to figure out how to implement “reasonable accommodations” without pouring more oil in the fire.
Posted by
Guy on 07/06 at 02:46 PM
Perhaps this has already been stated in other words, but I don’t think Singer’s position is meant to be taken as fundamental i.e law itself, but rather as a guideline to test hypothetical laws which otherwise must pass the rigours of commonsense, liberalism, social well being and other concerns.
Hdufort I really enjoyed your comment and I think it frames the issue very pragmatically. Considering pragmatics, well personally I wouldn’t mind if singing xmas carols WAS banned in certain public places, but I would never agree to a ban in private residences. More pragmatically, I only find xmas carols tedious and annoying, but not intolerable, so let the m sing away if its keeps the peace. But full face veils are not tolerable in many cases - they are against the tenets of the open society and work against the legal requirements and smooth running of various institutions (police, healthcare, schools etc) Not incidentally, a rule to ban them from public places does not actually violate Singer’s proposal. Not because the wearers have the option of staying at home (which would be a terrible but potential effect), but because full face veils are a cultural practice and not prescribed in core Islamic texts. However, even if they were, such a prescription could not outweigh a universally applied law. Its tricky though, because as hdufort points out, bans tend to produce extreme reactions, in this case in the form of playing identity politics for factional power, but at some point one must take an informed stand based on reasons of pragmatics and principles which are, as I said concerns like commonsense, liberalism, social wellbeing etc.
IEET Blog