'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.

Why does it ALWAYS have to be about 'religious freedoms?'

Check out the shorts on the left.

This American-made, 'Bermuda style' swim shorts are the standard swimming uniform for bathers across the United States. It's practically impossible to find any other style of swimwear in America - and believe me, I've tried.

But, funnily enough, these standard-issue swim shorts are actually illegal in France.

In public pools in France, strict health and safety laws ban any form of swimwear that could also be worn as 'streetwear.'

"Clothes used in public can contain molecules, viruses, et cetera, which will go in the water and could be transmitted to other bathers," explained regional swimming pool official Daniel Guillaume. "All pool-goers must don appropriate attire — swimsuits for women and tight, swim-specific briefs for men."

It's the law, believe it or not. If you attempted to wear those baggy, American-style shorts to a public swimming pool, you'd be turned away at the door. Don't believe me? I've seen it happen to literally dozens of American students visiting Aquaboulevard in Paris.

So the law's the law, right? And the reasons for implementing it, although arguable, seem clear.

Not according to 'Carole,' a 35-year-old Frenchwoman who recently converted to Islam. When she wanted to go swimming at her local pool in Emerainville, she refused to wear a traditional one-piece swimsuit as this exposed too much of her body. Therefore, she decided to wear a 'Burquini' instead - an absurd head-to-toe covering that looks like a tightly fitting tracksuit.

Bathing belles in their Burquinis

Unsurprisingly - since they get their knickers in a twist over even Bermuda shorts - the pool officials weren't happy about 'Carole' and her choice of swimwear. The forbid her from entering the pool, citing the health and hygiene laws I mentioned above.

Perhaps to a rational person, this might have been the end of the situation. Not so for 'Carole.' Enraged at the reaction, she proceeded to her local police station and tried to file a discrimination charge with the Police Nationale (it was dismissed as 'groundless.')

"For me, this is nothing but segregation," an angry 'Carole' told Le Parisien. She cited the recent laws banning the Burqha and other overtly religious outfits. As far as she was concerned, not allowing her to use her 'Burquini' was religious discrimination. She's vowed to take the matter to the courts with the help of various anti-discrimination groups.

I find this both laughable and offensive, all at once.

Personally, I'm SICK of people taking totally secular situations, in which they refuse to conform to a perfectly reasonable standard of behavior, and manipulating them to make it appear like they're the victims of 'religious discrimination.'

The swimming costume law in France is an old one - and it effects hundreds of unsuspecting American tourists every year, when they try to take a dip in their baggy swim shorts. The issue isn't about religion at all. It's about not wearing stupid baggy clothing to the public swimming pool.

'Carole' is totally abusing the concept of 'religious discrimination' by pursuing this baseless crusade of hers. She's just the latest in a long line of idiots who confuse 'expected standards of behavior' with 'religious freedom.'

Want another example? How about the Muslims in London hospitals, who refuse to use hand sanitizer because it contains alcohol, which is 'forbidden' according to the Quran. Exercising their 'religious freedom' exposes the hospital and it's patients to MRSA infections (which kill thousands yearly.)

There are dozens of other examples, like the Christian parents who refused to treat their son's cancer because it was against their holistic beliefs, or a Christian counselor who refused to treat unmarried, cohabiting couples even though she knew it would be part of her job before she applied for it.

The case can even be made that refusing to serve gay and same-sex couples, under the claim of exercising one's 'religious freedom,' is another example of religion trumping basic standards of human behavior.

It disgusts me.

I'm totally behind religious freedom - the right to follow and practice any religion you want. I'm even supportive of reasonable requests to accommodate different religions into secular life - like giving Jewish employees certain religious holidays (like Passover) off.

But when it comes to violating basic standards of behaviour, or refusing to abide to secular laws that the rest of the country must obey, I get a very bad taste in my mouth when I hear the words 'religious freedom' being used as an excuse.

To the 'Caroles' of the world, I say this: It's not all about religion, and it's not all about you.

If you want to be part of civilized society, there are certain standards of behavior you have to abide by. If your religious beliefs contradict those, I think it's your religious beliefs that you should be criticizing - not society itself

[This is especially valid in the case of Christianity, which covers this very topic in the first verse of Romans - Editorial Bear]

Militant Ginger

Now I'm living in civilisation, I'd almost forgotten one of the major driving forces behind this blog - my intense annoyance at the ridiculous prejudice British people have about redheads.

But word of this prejudice seems to have followed me across the Atlantic. On Yahoo this morning, the Americans were reporting on what they dubbed 'Ginger Phobia.'

You can see the ABC news story about it here.

One of their most amazing claims was that Prince Harry got bullied at school for his red hair. His comrades in the army apparently call him The Ginger Bullet Magnet and his girlfriend refers to him affectionately as: The Big Ginger.

I mean, this is the guy who's forth in line for the throne! Show some bloody respect!

The American reporters on this item seem incredulous. I can't blame them. Picking on somebody for the colour of their hair is crazy enough - but for the Brits to do it?

But the British reporter, who actually narrates the piece, has that same, snide, snotty lilt to his voice that we've all heard when exploring this particular issue. As Dan Wright, presenter of F*** Off, I'm Ginger, told me: We don't want to make it too serious.

That's why all reports about ginger prejudice are littered with puns, jokes and references to 'ginger nuts.' It's a serious issue that nobody in Britain is willing to take seriously. Why? Most likely because it reveals a nasty streak about British culture that loves to pick on people who are different.

As Charlotte Rushton says in the news item: A redhead stands out; and a nail that stands out gets hammered down.