Religious vs disability accommodations

[Razzle]

First, people with PTSD and anxiety disorders aren't just imagining things, nor is it "all in their head".  People with mental disabilities have been fighting that particularly stubborn bit of stigma for ages. There is, in most cases, either a chemical or physical (damage) reason for these sorts of disorders.  For instance, recent studies show that people suffering PTSD have a smaller region of their brain regulating fear responses. Comparing people's religious beliefs to someone who suffered severe trauma and has a mental disorder is seriously just insulting to people with mental disorders. So no, we cannot make the same types of allowances for things that really are made up (and differ from person to person BTW, not just religion to religion), as we do for people who are suffering from a LEGITIMATE ILLNESS!

Here's where I think the misunderstanding lies: to say somebody's problem is "in the imagination" is usually done in a trivialising or dismissive way. That's also the spirit in which Jeff Dee meant it. However, I was not saying the problem is in anyone's imagination and therefore not real - people with an anxiety disorder or any other mental disorder are not imagining that they have a problem. If that were what I meant or what I believe, how do you explain my agreeing to take a cocktail of three different classes of psychiatric medication at once? I was saying that the aversion to otherwise harmless stimuli (which can be driven not just by anxiety or fear but also disgust, tension, discomfort or guilt) results from mental sensations (images, abstract concepts, narratives etc.) that in turn are caused by the underlying problem. The problem is not imaginary, but it causes disturbing things to arise in the imagination.

I hope that makes sense. 

I had two reasons for bringing this up and making the arguments I've made.

One is thinking that the unemployment rate and all the bad things that does to people at the lowest socio-economic strata, who already struggle to find work in many countries right now, would be even worse if we refused to make reasonable accommodations (e.g., one worker never doing one particular chore but taking on sole responsibility for another chore, to compensate) for people who have any kind of objection or inability to certain tasks. Whether that's a temporary or permanent disability, external commitments (e.g. caring for children or disabled/elderly people and being allowed to leave unexpectedly for them if needed and make up the time later, or being allowed to work from home if there's no reason that would be detrimental), religious, or ethical (e.g. not working in the fur department of a clothing outlet if you're against skinning animals alive for luxurious clothes). OK such places probably don't have whole departments dedicated to fur, it's just a hypothetical example, made in a rush, of a non-religious ethical objection that most people here can probably relate to and sympathise with more than the religious objections. 

Secondly, I feared that Jeff and others were expressing an attitude that is bad for people with mental illnesses, i.e. that if you're afraid of something that it's not rational to be afraid of - as is the very definition of certain mental illnesses, e.g. phobias, as well as applying to religious taboos - then accommodations shouldn't have to be made and we should have no sympathy. This was the concern that motivated me sufficiently to start the thread. I was doing the very opposite of trying to trivialise mental illness.   

---

I find it telling that the Muslim worker wouldn't assist a customer purchasing pork and alcohol, you was willing to accept a paycheck from an establishment that sold  pork and alcohol.  That smacks more than a little bit of hypocrisy.

A few years ago, I was in an upscale men's clothier purchasing a Christmas gift for a friend.  The store advertised free gift wrapping.  The clerk who assisted me was very helpful.  However, when I mentioned that I'd like the gloves gift wrapped, he told me he'd have to get me another assistant, as he was a Jehovah's Witness.  I didn't have an issue with it until I got my sales receipt - the sale was credited to the first assistant, the JW.  So, effectively, the man was willing to take a sales commission on an item he knew all along was a Christmas gift, even though celebrating - or even recognizing - Christmas was against his religion.

It seems as if religious principles crumble like a week old bread crust in a high wind when money gets involved.

Boru

Personally, I'm vegan.  By your logic here, I'd be hypocritical to work for any business that bought products made from or tested on animals in ways I believe are wrong, which includes honey, wool, leather and almost all of the most popular soaps and household products. Where exactly would I work, then? Every kind of business out there buys at least soaps, detergents etc. that aren't vegan, or use vehicles with leather interiors. I can avoid the worst offenders, and I can suggest alternative products, but other than that, I simply wouldn't have a job at all if I boycotted everything. I could also be called a hypocrite for paying for any kind of drug approved as a medicine, because they're all, without exception, tested on animals. Therein lies the problem - it's the law that all medicines have to be tested on animals before they're approved, so a boycott is useless. Boycotting all medicines won't have any impact at all on how drug research is done, because it's written into the law right now, it's not up to market forces. All it would achieve is that most of the few vegans in the world would die young of treatable conditions, and then what difference could we make once dead?

People who are getting minimum wage jobs like retail, are generally in a far worse position than me, in terms of the range of jobs available to them. When I wasn't qualified for the career I have now, most of the jobs available to me in my area were retail, cleaning (again, wouldn't be vegan), and food factories. In the end I got another kind of job which was closer to being vegan but they still used non-vegan soap in the toilets. That's also true of where I work now. Those were the only ones around and I couldn't afford to move. So I don't accept the argument made by some here that if these people really cared as much as they say, they wouldn't work in such a place or accept a paycheck. Sometimes there are no alternatives, and if you're a poor Muslim trying to pay your rent, maybe with dependents to take care of, with no qualifications and already significant odds against you due to racial/cultural prejudice against the very name on your CV, it might be very hard to find a job anywhere other than the large supermarkets, in some areas, and pork and alcohol are going to be sold there.