'Religious Freedom' or just abusing the system?

Yesterday, I discussed the absurd situation in France, in which an Islamic woman is suing her local swimming pool for 'religious discrimination' after they refused to allow her to go swimming in a Quran-approved 'Burquini.'

As far as I was concerned, it was just the latest in a line of frivolous claims of 'religious discrimination' that have more to do with the plaintiff's lousy attitude than anything approaching a real infringement of their 'religious freedoms.'

But, not everybody agrees with me. Long time contributor CK argued:

"So, religious freedom is OK until it disagrees with your opinion?"

Well, interesting point. Personally, I think 'religious freedom' is okay until it contradicts the rule of law, or actively interferes with somebody else's freedoms. For example, if my next door neighbor said his religion demanded that he burn a bonfire in my backyard, I'd tell him exactly where to get off. His 'religious freedoms' shouldn't curb any of my actual freedoms.

But CK's right (as he often is.) To a certain extent, whatever line I draw in the sand will be subjective. So, instead of bleating further about it, I thought I'd put my understanding of 'religious freedom' - and it's limitations - to a practical test.

Here are some recent, real-life clashes between the exercise of 'religious freedom' and the law. How would you rule on them?

A social worker in a county prison sued after she was fired for using Bible readings, prayer and the 'casting out of demons' to 'treat' patient's lawbreaking behavior.

Aside from contravening the First Amendment (the separation of Church and state) this social worker's activities were totally irresponsible and broke the law. That county had a legal requirement to provide secular, certified mental health counseling - not religious claptrap. I think the state was right to fire this employee - and her 'religious freedoms' infringed the 'freedom' of county inmates to receive real counselling.

A hotel worker sued to be allowed to display his tattoo at work - a tattoo of a Ku Klux Klansman standing in front of a burning cross.

This is just frivolous. Most employees are requested to cover up their tattoos, whether they're religious or not. There's certainly no 'religious discrimination' going on by ordering this employee to do the same.

A state-employed sign language interpreter sued after her request to preach the Bible and pray aloud for her assigned mental health patients was refused.

Again, state employees shouldn't practice overtly religious 'treatments' in a state-run institution. It's a clear violation of the First Amendment - and, arguably, ineffective when compared to secular, scientifically-certified counselling and treatment.

A retail employee sued after he was given an 'official warning' for starting all spoken statements with the words "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth."

As a customer, I'd find this intensely creepy and offensive, so I can understand a retail organization's motives in punishing him. However, this is a more difficult topic. As a private employer, there's no 'separation of church and state' to worry about - and the First Amendment arguably protects the employee's 'freedom of speech.' I think it's fair to argue that this employee shouldn't be fired for starting all statements that way - but he should certainly be transferred to the stockroom, or something, so he doesn't have to deal with the customers.

A male emergency medical technician refused to perform overnight shifts (as was required in his job description) because female employees would sleep in the same 'crash room' as he did - which contravened his 'religious beliefs' about non-married men and women sharing a room.

If exercising an employee's 'religious freedoms' interferes with their ability to perform the job for which they was hired, I totally support a company's right to fire them. It's unfair and unrealistic to expect companies to acquiesce to unreasonable demands to accommodate them.

A police officer refused to protect an abortion clinic from violent protesters, arguing that he was religiously opposed to abortion.

I nearly caved on this one. I sympathise with the officer in question - I can understand how people consider abortion to be murder. However, in the line of his duties, a police officer is expected to risk their lives to protect many 'criminals.' Muggers, rapists, murders and pedophiles, both before they're convicted and afterwards. Even if a police officer thinks that person isn't worthy of protection, it's still their duty to uphold the law and if they're not willing to do that, they're not capable of fulfilling the duties expected of them and should be fired.

A state-employed nurse told a patient with AIDS, and their same-sex partner, that the reason they were sick was because 'God doesn't like the homosexual lifestyle' and that they needed to pray for salvation.

Again, First Amendment demands separation of church and state, so no state-employee should be preaching like this. Secondly, what she said was judgemental and offensive, and I totally support the hospital's decision to fire her.

Another police officer refused to arrest protesters outside an abortion clinic, as he argued that his 'religious beliefs' supported what they were doing.

Again, I sympathize for this officer. I really do. But officers in the field don't get to 'pick and choose' which lawbreakers they arrest or not. They don't make the law, they simply enforce it - and if they're not willing to enforce the law, they're incapable of fulfilling their duties and should be fired. It's as simple as that.

In a hospital in London, Muslim patients and visitors protested when they were asked to use alcohol-based hand sanitizer, arguing that it was forbidden in the Quran. This exercise of their 'religious freedoms' exposed the patient - and many others in the same hospital - to contagious and potentially lethal MRSA infections.

I think this is disgusting. Religious freedoms are one thing, but in this instance, the exercise of some bullshit religious doctrine puts the lives of hundreds of patients at risk. I personally think the Muslims should have been forbidden from the hospital until they complied (but, being Britain, they were still let in.)

Catholic parents, who believed in holistic medicine, refused to give their cancer-stricken son chemotherapy, which would have given him a 90% change of recovery. Instead, he had a 100% prognosis of death.

Again, respect for 'religious freedoms' is one thing, but when it condemns a child to death, it's got to be stopped. Parents who'd risk the life of their child for a billion-to-one miracle (which, doctors had confirmed, hadn't happened) are either terrible parents or mentally ill - so I totally support the court in ordering the child undergo treatment.

In New Mexico, a wedding photographer was sued after refusing to photograph a same-sex couple during their commitment ceremony.

As a private citizen, running their own business, it's arguable that this photographer can choose to photograph whoever the hell he wants. On the one hand, I totally support that right. On the other, it wasn't that long ago that Baptists and Fundamentalist Christians hung signs on their businesses saying 'No Coloreds.' Is this any different? Well, discrimination might be legal in this instance, but it doesn't make it right. Nevertheless, I think this photographer should still have been allowed to make that decision, even though I find it offensive. Instead, he was fined $7,000.

As I said yesterday, I support any reasonable request to support somebody's 'religious freedoms' - but when they interfere with the rule of law, the Constitution or basic standards of human behavior, you've got to start asking if those 'freedoms' the religion is touting are really freedoms at all.

CK reminded me: "There's a reason we had that war with your ancestors... and religion was the starting point."

That's true. Religious fundamentalists, like the Quakers and Baptists, fled to America and founded much of this great nation.

But it's a misnomer that they escaped to practice their 'religious freedom.' In fact, these hard-line Christians came to America to found societies in which they could implement brutally strict religious doctrines - creating a repressive society that wouldn't have been tolerated in more open-minded England.

Their 'religious freedoms' denied the freedoms of other people - which is why I get a bad taste in my mouth whenever I hear the term 'religious freedom' used as the justification for anything.