'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]

Tolerance in America

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among human creatures.

Abraham Lincoln

In the past few months, I've witnessed an awful lot of people bleating about their rights, claiming persecution and donning the mantle of victimhood. I've stood up for quite a few positions during this time - some of which I was right about, others that I might not have been.

I've come think the secret to a happy society is tolerance. But what is tolerance?

I've been thinking about this a lot and I think tolerance is actually easy. Tolerance is the subtle art of not getting up off your arse to meddle in somebody else's business.

For example, if my evangelical Christian next-door-neighbor wants to home school his kids, (teaching creationism and other delightful fairy tales) my natural instinct it to leap up and do something about it. But do you know what? Maybe it's none of my business. Maybe I should let him do whatever he wants and confine my opinions to how I live my life.

Likewise, if the two young men next door want to get married, the idea might be sickening and disturbing to you - but their union isn't going to affect you at all. In fact, to propagate a popular stereotype, their house renovations might raise the property value of the entire street. Maybe you should leave them to do whatever they want to do and confine your opinions to how you live your life.

The best thing about tolerance is that it's that easy. You don't have to do anything.

To protest religious homeschooling, you have to write an angry letter to the school board ("Dear Sir, teaching creationism is akin to child abuse!")

To protest gay marriage, you have to campaign for legislative reform and paint placards (God Hates Fags! Mal 1:3!)

To do the right thing - and be tolerant and respectful of other people's rights to live how they want to - the only thing you have to do is settle back into your chair and take a sip of your Plym and Tonic.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to support it. All you have to do is recognize that it's none of your Goddamned business (and therefore, your opinion on the matter is completely insignificant.)

Here endeth the sermon - but I think it's just as valid a lesson for liberty-lovin' liberals like me as the right wing people I'm always attacking. Looking back, I realise there's no ideological right or wrong. When it comes to Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, the Conservatives have been right on some issues, the Liberals have been right on others - and they've both been wrong on things a number of times!)

As long as they don't infringe on anybody else's freedom and nobody gets hurt, we've no right to prevent people making their own choices in life. It's called progress, Baby, and you'd best not stand in the way of it.

Freedoms?

Over on Coffee Bean's blog, 'An Uneducated Housewife's Guide to Politics' she's discussing a fascinating issue - so-called 'religious freedom.'

Borrowed from 'Slap Upside the Head'

Normally, when I hear the words 'religious freedom' they make me shudder, because they're normally used in the concept of denying somebody their freedoms. Such as a Christian business demanding their 'religious freedom' to refuse service to a homosexual couple.

But as she often does, Coffee Bean's raised the stakes on the issue. I'd recommend going to have a peek at her blog.

So what is religious freedom? What does it mean, and it is just a misnomer like I've claimed?

Advocates of 'religious freedom' claim that being forced to do things that conflict with their religion violates their constitutional 'freedom of religion.' For example, a hospital forcing a Catholic doctor to perform abortions or distribute contraceptives.

Opponents of religious freedom claim it's just an excuse to get away with bigotry, citing churches who refuse to rent out their halls to same-sex couples holding commitment ceremonies.

By and large, I think the whole concept of 'religious freedom' is anything but 'free.'

I can understand Catholic doctors fighting to stop their employer (sometimes even the federal government) forcing them to perform things that conflict with their religion... to a degree.

For example, I agree that doctors shouldn't be forced to perform abortions if it conflicts with their religion...

But distributing contraceptives? That's not nearly on the same level as abortion. Hell, it's part of the job.

I think when you start getting to the point in which nurses and doctors can pick and choose what medical services they offer depending on their religious beliefs, you start to have an environment in which everybody can 'pick and choose' their work responsibilities by hiding behind claims of 'religious freedom.'

[Yes, that environment's called 'Great Britain' - Editorial Bear]

If somebody's religious convictions prevent them being able to adequately fulfill the responsibilities of their job, shouldn't the solution be simple? Fire them.

Face it, if we don't draw the line in the sand somewhere, we'll end up in an environment in which (for example) Muslim garbage men can refuse to collect the trash cans if they contain leftover pork or empty beer cans.

Religion should not dictate the practices of government!

But then there's the other side of the argument, in which private individuals defend their questionable actions by hiding behind claims of 'religious freedom.'

Coffee Bean gave a good example - a New Mexico photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex couple at their commitment ceremony was fined $6,000 for 'discrimination.'

Homosexual relationships conflict with his religion. Does that give him the 'religious freedom' to refuse to serve his homosexual customers?

Consider where a man with a similar religious background might have found himself sixty years ago, when evangelical Christianity defined interracial marriage as a sin. Would the shield of 'religious freedom' have allowed the photographer to refuse to take pictures at the marriage of a white woman to a black man?

The irony is that those two situations are largely the same, but most people's responses to them would be different. Ask many Christians and they'll say the real-life photographer who refused to photograph the same-sex couple was well within his rights and protected by his 'religious freedom.' Yet these same people will argue that the hypothetical photographer who refused to photograph an interracial couple was in the wrong and should be punished.

It's that hypocrisy and double standard which makes 'religious freedom' such a dangerous and untenable concept.

The indomitable Two Dogs explained the reality: As a private businessman, this photographer should have the right to refuse service to anybody, for whatever reason. Black or white, gay or straight, the photographer is under no obligation to provide service to anybody - and the constitution protects him from prosecution if he chooses not to.

I see the irrefutable logic behind Two Dog's assessment, but I'm not sure I like it.

As a fluffy liberal, I think the photographer shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against anybody. He can go to hell with his 'religious freedoms' (and probably will.) Although it's not in the constitution, there are enough people with enough funny ideas to make a world in which we can pick-or-choose who we want to do business with a rather unpleasant one.

It would be like legitimizing the concept of segregation all over again. I wouldn't want to live in an America in which shops can hang signs out of their windows saying "No Gays!" or "No Blacks!" depending on which version of the Bible they read.

That being said, I have to agree with Two Dog's assessment. If we were really free, we wouldn't have to have such things mandated by law in the first place.

Which is better? To live in the ugly reality of a truly 'free' society, or to live in a fantasy of freedom in which our 'liberties' are decided by the government?