Should beliefs be protected by law, and if so - to what extent.

Jul 2011
3,777
5,625
UK/Australia
#1
Allow me to clarify. By 'beliefs' I do not refer to conclusions arrived at by means of the study of empirical evidence - e.g: the theory of gravity, or the mechanics of our solar system, or even anthropogenic climate change. I am obviously referring to beliefs not thus substantiated, and while I mean no disrespect to religious people (which include my mother) these must - for the purpose of discussion - include religious beliefs.

Per example: In the event that one might believe that there are extraterrestrial beings circulating amongst the human population; should that belief - and the proselytisation thereof - be protected by law?

My point is not to prevent anyone entertaining any belief his or her intellect is capable of sustaining, but to examine the extent to which such beliefs may be imposed upon others.

The conservatives in Australia are currently discussing legislation which would allow certain partly-government-funded religious schools to militate against gay students and teachers - to the extent of permanent exclusion and dismissal.

Religious schools would be guaranteed the right to turn away gay students and teachers under changes to federal anti-discrimination laws recommended by the government’s long-awaited review into religious freedom.
Religious freedom review enshrines right of schools to turn away gay children and teachers

My position remains that one should hold the right to entertain any belief one's intellect may sustain, but the ability to impose those beliefs upon others should not be enabled by the law of the land.

Any thoughts?
 
Jan 2014
16,291
6,211
south
#2
Allow me to clarify. By 'beliefs' I do not refer to conclusions arrived at by means of the study of empirical evidence - e.g: the theory of gravity, or the mechanics of our solar system, or even anthropogenic climate change. I am obviously referring to beliefs not thus substantiated, and while I mean no disrespect to religious people (which include my mother) these must - for the purpose of discussion - include religious beliefs.

Per example: In the event that one might believe that there are extraterrestrial beings circulating amongst the human population; should that belief - and the proselytisation thereof - be protected by law?

My point is not to prevent anyone entertaining any belief his or her intellect is capable of sustaining, but to examine the extent to which such beliefs may be imposed upon others.

The conservatives in Australia are currently discussing legislation which would allow certain partly-government-funded religious schools to militate against gay students and teachers - to the extent of permanent exclusion and dismissal.

Religious freedom review enshrines right of schools to turn away gay children and teachers

My position remains that one should hold the right to entertain any belief one's intellect may sustain, but the ability to impose those beliefs upon others should not be enabled by the law of the land.

Any thoughts?
while I agree with your position on this, I would ask what the Australian constitution states about such freedoms - and to what extent?
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,446
6,394
#3
In the US, religious expression is a civil right that is balanced against other civil rights. To fully answer your question would require a lengthy thesis, so I will limit myself to a current area of dispute in the US and quite thoroughly debated in the "Thanks Hobby Lobby" thread. It is also relevant to your issue in your own country.

Many liberals like the idea of a separation of religion and business.

In the case of a publicly held corporation, stockholders cannot impose religious standards and generally do not express religion within the company.

However, in a closely held corporation, religious expression of the owners is both limited and protected.

1) The owners can hold prayer meetings and worship services. They cannot require employees to attend.

2) The owners can restrict benefits plans to exclude benefits that violate the conscience of the owners (an abortion drug is an example).
They cannot fire or demote or discriminate against an employee who gets an abortion.

3) Discrimination against any protected class is not allowed. However, they can turn down customer requests for any kind of public messaging that would violate the conscience of the owners.

4) The owners can express their religion, but cannot create a hostile environment toward those who disagree with it.

Thank You, Hobby Lobby

A few quotes....

it is not possible for a corporation to have a religion.
This just demonstrates that the real issue is allowing employers to control the sexual behavior of the employees, such that it conforms to the employer's religious beliefs rather than the employees'. It's not about "religious freedom" at all, but rather seeking the power to use economic means to control other people's behavior according to religious precepts of the controller rather than the controlled.
Interesting case. It's really about whether government can impose a law on people , fine them for not compromising and now not observing religious rights. Lately religious rights has taken a back seat to other rights, so not sure how this will turn out.
Liberals want to make it an issue over strictly contraception, but what they fail to realize is that it is about more than just that. No private company should be forced to offer specific coverage to employees if they choose not to. Because of overbearing government interference, we may see a lot of companies simply canceling all employee insurance and telling them to sign up for Obamacare instead. Which is what liberals want anyways, so this actually works in their favor. Those lefties are crafty little SOBs.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2014
16,291
6,211
south
#4
In the US, religious expression is a civil right that is balanced against other civil rights. To fully answer your question would require a lengthy thesis, so I will limit myself to a current area of dispute in the US and quite thoroughly debated in the "Thanks Hobby Lobby" thread. It is also relevant to your issue in your own country.

Many liberals like the idea of a separation of religion and business.

In the case of a publicly held corporation, stockholders cannot impose religious standards and generally do not express religion within the company.

However, in a closely held corporation, religious expression of the owners is both limited and protected.

1) The owners can hold prayer meetings and worship services. They cannot require employees to attend.

2) The owners can restrict benefits plans to exclude benefits that violate the conscience of the owners (an abortion drug is an example).
They cannot fire or demote or discriminate against an employee who gets an abortion.

3) Discrimination against any protected class is not allowed. However, they can turn down customer requests for any kind of public messaging that would violate the conscience of the owners.

4) The owners can express their religion, but cannot create a hostile environment toward those who disagree with it.

Thank You, Hobby Lobby

A few quotes....
understand and agree. in the specific case mentioned in the OP, the schools are partially supported by government funds. that's why I asked the question I did.
 
Apr 2012
58,515
43,344
Englewood,Ohio
#5
Allow me to clarify. By 'beliefs' I do not refer to conclusions arrived at by means of the study of empirical evidence - e.g: the theory of gravity, or the mechanics of our solar system, or even anthropogenic climate change. I am obviously referring to beliefs not thus substantiated, and while I mean no disrespect to religious people (which include my mother) these must - for the purpose of discussion - include religious beliefs.

Per example: In the event that one might believe that there are extraterrestrial beings circulating amongst the human population; should that belief - and the proselytisation thereof - be protected by law?

My point is not to prevent anyone entertaining any belief his or her intellect is capable of sustaining, but to examine the extent to which such beliefs may be imposed upon others.

The conservatives in Australia are currently discussing legislation which would allow certain partly-government-funded religious schools to militate against gay students and teachers - to the extent of permanent exclusion and dismissal.

Religious freedom review enshrines right of schools to turn away gay children and teachers

My position remains that one should hold the right to entertain any belief one's intellect may sustain, but the ability to impose those beliefs upon others should not be enabled by the law of the land.

Any thoughts?
Yes, your position states what we have in the US under our Constitution. The ignorance of the article is a great example of trying to inflict your beliefs on other’s. Some Religious people will try to tell you the opposite of what I say.

And, as you posted they should not infringe on others.
 
Likes: Friday13
Sep 2012
14,227
18,115
SoCal
#6
Allow me to clarify. By 'beliefs' I do not refer to conclusions arrived at by means of the study of empirical evidence - e.g: the theory of gravity, or the mechanics of our solar system, or even anthropogenic climate change. I am obviously referring to beliefs not thus substantiated, and while I mean no disrespect to religious people (which include my mother) these must - for the purpose of discussion - include religious beliefs.

Per example: In the event that one might believe that there are extraterrestrial beings circulating amongst the human population; should that belief - and the proselytisation thereof - be protected by law?

My point is not to prevent anyone entertaining any belief his or her intellect is capable of sustaining, but to examine the extent to which such beliefs may be imposed upon others.

The conservatives in Australia are currently discussing legislation which would allow certain partly-government-funded religious schools to militate against gay students and teachers - to the extent of permanent exclusion and dismissal.

Religious freedom review enshrines right of schools to turn away gay children and teachers

My position remains that one should hold the right to entertain any belief one's intellect may sustain, but the ability to impose those beliefs upon others should not be enabled by the law of the land.

Any thoughts?
I completely agree with your position. Beliefs, in themselves, are not dangerous … but actions perpetrated due to those beliefs certainly can be. Laws should protect the right to 'believe', but not allow those beliefs bring harm to others.
 
Nov 2006
54,375
20,301
#7
Allow me to clarify. By 'beliefs' I do not refer to conclusions arrived at by means of the study of empirical evidence - e.g: the theory of gravity, or the mechanics of our solar system, or even anthropogenic climate change. I am obviously referring to beliefs not thus substantiated, and while I mean no disrespect to religious people (which include my mother) these must - for the purpose of discussion - include religious beliefs.

Per example: In the event that one might believe that there are extraterrestrial beings circulating amongst the human population; should that belief - and the proselytisation thereof - be protected by law?

My point is not to prevent anyone entertaining any belief his or her intellect is capable of sustaining, but to examine the extent to which such beliefs may be imposed upon others.

The conservatives in Australia are currently discussing legislation which would allow certain partly-government-funded religious schools to militate against gay students and teachers - to the extent of permanent exclusion and dismissal.

Religious freedom review enshrines right of schools to turn away gay children and teachers

My position remains that one should hold the right to entertain any belief one's intellect may sustain, but the ability to impose those beliefs upon others should not be enabled by the law of the land.

Any thoughts?
Private religious schools have always been able to refuse entrance to students for any number of reasons but then they should not be "govt funded" in any way if they do. The taxpayer should not be forced to support their bigotry.
 
Nov 2006
54,375
20,301
#8
In the US, religious expression is a civil right that is balanced against other civil rights. To fully answer your question would require a lengthy thesis, so I will limit myself to a current area of dispute in the US and quite thoroughly debated in the "Thanks Hobby Lobby" thread. It is also relevant to your issue in your own country.

Many liberals like the idea of a separation of religion and business.

In the case of a publicly held corporation, stockholders cannot impose religious standards and generally do not express religion within the company.

However, in a closely held corporation, religious expression of the owners is both limited and protected.

1) The owners can hold prayer meetings and worship services. They cannot require employees to attend.

2) The owners can restrict benefits plans to exclude benefits that violate the conscience of the owners (an abortion drug is an example).
They cannot fire or demote or discriminate against an employee who gets an abortion.

3) Discrimination against any protected class is not allowed. However, they can turn down customer requests for any kind of public messaging that would violate the conscience of the owners.

4) The owners can express their religion, but cannot create a hostile environment toward those who disagree with it.

Thank You, Hobby Lobby

A few quotes....
You should try answering a question once in awhile instead of resorting to meaningless babble. The question was should the taxpayer be forced to fund a school that denies entrance to a student because he happens to be gay? Yes or no will do.
 
Likes: NightSwimmer
Apr 2012
10,688
4,390
East coast USA
#9
No, Goverment funds should not be used in any way to support religion. There should be no laws to protect religion from ridicule.
I'm so sick of politicians pandering to the great white fairy.
 
Likes: Devil505
Apr 2012
58,515
43,344
Englewood,Ohio
#10
You should try answering a question once in awhile instead of resorting to meaningless babble. The question was should the taxpayer be forced to fund a school that denies entrance to a student because he happens to be gay? Yes or no will do.
No!