• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Skepticism and the Law

Prester John

Anti-homeopathy Illuminati member
P
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
Messages
1,185
Reading the Beleiver thread just now it occured to me that the anti discrimination laws (especially Religous ones) could work against skepticism. As background i'm a UK citizen. These laws are European though so lots of us are affected.

Do religous people get protection that athiests do not ? ie is athiesm afforded the same protection as religions ?
Can i get into trouble for expressing an athiest viewpoint in work ?

Disrimination is a tricky subject. Whilst direct discrimination is well understood, indirect discrimination is big on the list as well - this is where you discriminate by more indirect means, eg banning headscarves (even for health and safety reasons ) would discriminate against Muslim women.
 
No, anti discrimination laws should protect skeptics as well as believers. If you are not allowed to discriminate people due to their religious beliefs, it follows that ANY belief is allowed, including no belief.

Hans
 
As far as I can make out the discrimination laws are specifically designed to confine discrimination to religious bodies. So a religious body can stop someone working for them if they are from a different faith (or none) yet a secular employer couldn't discriminate against a religious person.


Edited to change 'could' to 'couldn't' (rather fundamental really)
 
Yes, I suppose that is a point. Here in Denmark, a vicar has just been sacked after he has declared that he did not believe in God.

But I suppose this is inevitable. After all, any organization must have the right to not employ people who are downright against the company policy. Probably, this would apply to atheist organizations, too.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, I suppose that is a point. Here in Denmark, a vicar has just been sacked after he has declared that he did not believe in God.

But I suppose this is inevitable. After all, any organization must have the right to not employ people who are downright against the company policy. Probably, this would apply to atheist organizations, too.

Hans
Click to expand...
This law does not just apply to the clergy but also the cleaners, gardeners etc.

but

the labour party couldn't sack their cleaners if they voted Tory.
 
No, I don't think the Danish church could sack a cleaner who does not believe in God. Perhaps if he uses his position somehow to spread propaganda, but that is another story.

You cannot sack anybody based on how they vote, since voting is secret.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
No, anti discrimination laws should protect skeptics as well as believers. If you are not allowed to discriminate people due to their religious beliefs, it follows that ANY belief is allowed, including no belief.

Hans
Click to expand...

I don't see that that follows at all. That's like saying that if we aren't allowed to discrimate against people on the basis of their beliefs about chickens, then we of necessity aren't allowed to discriminate against them on the basis of their beliefs about tigers.
 
I recall seing an job advert in my local paper a couple of years ago placed by a church (or similar religious organisation) that required "A Christian bookkeeper"

At the time I wondered how a person's faith affected their accountancy skills, but realised quickly that, here in the UK at least, this advert was perfectly legal.

Irish Murdoch: I don't agree with your comparison - if a law prevents an organisation from discriminating against a person because they don't believe in a given deity, whether that person believes in another deity or not becomes superfluous.
 
Doc Dish said:
Irish Murdoch: I don't agree with your comparison - if a law prevents an organisation from discriminating against a person because they don't believe in a given deity, whether that person believes in another deity or not becomes superfluous. [/B]
Click to expand...

Hmmm, but the point seemed to be that if we couldn't discriminate against people on the basis of their belief in a particular religion, then we couldn't discriminate against them on the basis of their belief in no religion. Sure, that seems reasonable, but it certainly doesn't follow.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, I suppose that is a point. Here in Denmark, a vicar has just been sacked after he has declared that he did not believe in God.

But I suppose this is inevitable. After all, any organization must have the right to not employ people who are downright against the company policy. Probably, this would apply to atheist organizations, too.

Hans
Click to expand...

Any employer can fire an employee that does not accomplish his duties. A vicar that does not believe in God is clearly in this situation.
 
I recall seing an job advert in my local paper a couple of years ago placed by a church (or similar religious organisation) that required "A Christian bookkeeper"
Click to expand...

Thats pretty much direct Religous discrimination. The advert should be for a bookkeeper. Couldn't be done these days.
 
Irish Murdoch said:


I don't see that that follows at all. That's like saying that if we aren't allowed to discrimate against people on the basis of their beliefs about chickens, then we of necessity aren't allowed to discriminate against them on the basis of their beliefs about tigers.
Click to expand...
Right. A law against discrimination must work agains ANY discrimination, otherwise it is a farce.

You can't have an anti-discrimination law that discriminates.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Right. A law against discrimination must work agains ANY discrimination, otherwise it is a farce.

You can't have an anti-discrimination law that discriminates.

Hans
Click to expand...
This is a point I have tried to make many times, often to no avail. So-called "affirmative action" policies or quota systems are sometimes called negative racism. It seems obvious to me that any policy that gives preference on the basis of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation is just plain racism/bigotry - period.
 
Wouldn't a clergyman of the church be implicitly required to believe in their god? Not sure how that could be discrimination. Are there any promise/prayer ceremonies that vicars participate in which their utterances specify their god or are directed to their god? I would think if there were then "believe in god" is kinda a prerequisite unless you want to embrace hypocrisy.
 
DionysianSmile said:
Wouldn't a clergyman of the church be implicitly required to believe in their god? Not sure how that could be discrimination. Are there any promise/prayer ceremonies that vicars participate in which their utterances specify their god or are directed to their god? I would think if there were then "believe in god" is kinda a prerequisite unless you want to embrace hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

The Jewish & Christian religions state that:
Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.
Click to expand...
but this prohibition obviously does not apply to the clergy, who work on the Sabbath. Presumably, therefore, they are allowed to break the other commandments, too. :D
 
Prester John said:
Reading the Beleiver thread just now it occured to me that the anti discrimination laws (especially Religous ones) could work against skepticism. As background i'm a UK citizen. These laws are European though so lots of us are affected.

Do religous people get protection that athiests do not ? ie is athiesm afforded the same protection as religions ?
Can i get into trouble for expressing an athiest viewpoint in work ?

Disrimination is a tricky subject. Whilst direct discrimination is well understood, indirect discrimination is big on the list as well - this is where you discriminate by more indirect means, eg banning headscarves (even for health and safety reasons ) would discriminate against Muslim women.
Click to expand...

What about hate speech? Seems that is more of an issue.
 
Re: Re: Skepticism and the Law

Ed said:


What about hate speech? Seems that is more of an issue.
Click to expand...

Ok so you tell me that an Angel spoke to you. I say that you're either deluded or a liar.

(This is basically most of the debates that occur on this board (whooa generalisation i know))

I think i could be in trouble because i have expressed an opinion based on my athiest belief(!). It could even be classified as hate speech.
 
Re: Re: Re: Skepticism and the Law

Prester John said:


Ok so you tell me that an Angel spoke to you. I say that you're either deluded or a liar.

(This is basically most of the debates that occur on this board (whooa generalisation i know))

I think i could be in trouble because i have expressed an opinion based on my athiest belief(!). It could even be classified as hate speech.
Click to expand...

If I would say, as I believe, that their god is a psychopathic, murdering, sadistic bastard I suspect there would be grounds foor some legal action. Does not emotional distress enter into the equation?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Skepticism and the Law

Ed said:


If I would say, as I believe, that their god is a psychopathic, murdering, sadistic bastard I suspect there would be grounds foor some legal action. Does not emotional distress enter into the equation?
Click to expand...

You could back that statement up as well from the old testament :D

I'm sure it does, but it can be difficult to tell whats going to freak someone out. This varies from person to person and from day to day (minute to minute with some people know!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom