Religious Discrimination Lawsuits

Encyclopedias define religious discrimination as ‘valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe.‘ That seems like a pretty fair and broad definition, but I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding out there as to what this means.

Most claims of religious discrimination are claims of violation of the first amendment statement that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. I think the first thing that is important to understand here is that the government doesn’t give us our rights, it just hasn’t managed to take all of them away yet. The Constitution isn’t a document granting us rights, it’s a document restricting the actions of government. The thing to note here is that it isn’t the job of Congress to prevent discrimination, but rather to not cause it.

Claims of religious discrimination range from legitimate to ridiculous, and resolving them is difficult in the sense that the ones seemingly being wronged are often the ones asking for the discrimination. Some examples that are already happening:

An Orthodox Jewish couple in Bournemouth have issued a county court writ claiming religious discrimination. Why? This couple contends that they are being held hostage on Shabbat because walking out their door triggers their neighbor’s motion light, and thus their prohibition of ‘making fire’, one of many things they aren’t allowed to do on the Sabbath. Lets say Jehovah’s Witnesses were afraid of motion lights too. Would putting outdoor motion lighting on your front door be a hate crime? This  highlights the problem of the government getting involved in private affairs. What happens when one religion requires motion lights on their door while another forbids it? There is no way to please everyone.

What I find disturbing about this kind of case is that looking at the above definition for religious discrimination, it is the couple who is doing the discriminating by demanding special treatment because of their beliefs. No one else can sue their neighbors for having motion lighting unless they also subscribe to this belief.

Another example is that of the burkha. A girl in Florida tried to get her drivers license photo taken with her burkha on. Obviously the state shot this down. The same goes for being identified before boarding airplanes. It is an interesting dilemma because, while it is the burkha wearers who want the special treatment, denying it is essentially preventing Islamic women from travelling. I would also note that if you are an identical twin, they don’t force you to come up with additional identification to prove you aren’t your sibling. An airline could hire a woman to take the burkha wearers into a private room for identification, but if the airline were small enough to only have one ID checker, then they would be forced to be discriminatory in their hiring practices by only hiring a woman. It is the FAA that requires such checks, so it is a government matter, just as it would be if they were carded at a liquor store. The ACLU thinks it is disallowed because of religious discrimination caused by 9-11, rather than the obvious security reasons of identifying passengers. I’d challenge them to try to go buy some liquor one night wearing a ski mask and see how far they get.

The intent of the constitution as it relates to religious discrimination should be interpreted as a sort of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. Those in government should not commit religious acts while on the job, or add them or their terminology into policy, and the government shouldn’t take religion into account when making decisions. Where the lines of discrimination law should be drawn for businesses and individuals, I admit I don’t know. Anyone have any opinions?

Mad as Hell

 

Have you ever wondered what the young angry rednecks of the country would have to say about the state of the nation if they quit watching FOX and Rush long enough to educate themselves? Now we know. You tube likes to ban this guy (warning, easily offended need not watch), but I’ll try to keep something up here. The man clearly wants to be heard.

Unnecessary Censorship, 2008 Election Edition

This still cracks me up. I get so sick of excessive censorship. It is nice to see someone so competently illustrating the idiocy of it all. It reminds me of reverse graffiti.

Does freedom of speech work both ways?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Traditionally the first amendment is thought of as the right to express yourself without being arrested for your viewpoint, but does it also protect you from being forced to express a viewpoint you don’t agree with? Some examples.

Could the government force you to:

1. Do a public service announcement telling kids not to smoke?
2. Take wedding photos for a gay marriage? Paint their portrait? Does it have to look good?
3. Decry the holocaust in your blog post about the SS?
4. Swear on a bible to tell the truth?
5. Pledge allegiance to the flag? Complete with Under God?
6. Photograph an equal number of women and men for your book on sumo wrestlers?

The constitution was drafted as a document to protect the few from the majority and the weak from the powerful. If the government can force you express yourself in one way, chances are good that they will claim the right to do so in the others. For speech to be truly free, it cannot be coerced, however it would make our legal system more difficult if no one could be forced into incriminating others. The problem with the grey area in between is that those in power inexorably pull the greyscale towards their own desired ends, and the will of the people to defend the rights of those they disagree with often falters, especially in light of the uphill battle fighting the powers that be always entails.