Why only religious beliefs protected?

[FrustratedFool]

Kosher and halal are diet choices also.
Veganism is often based on sincerely held ethical beliefs.
The other two on sincerely held religious beliefs.

Why should diet choices derived from religious beliefs be given legal protections but diet choices derived from ethical beliefs not?  It makes no sense.  It is not consistent nor fair.  It is not conducive to weening society away from religion.  It is bad law.

Lol......because, religious beliefs are a codified set of tenets, while ethical beliefs are just personal opinions. You think the people in charge want to ween society away from religion? Not sure why you would think that, because it isn't true at all.

Normative ethical frameworks, like negative preference utilitarianism or Kantian deontological system or Thomistic natural law theory, are as codified (probably more so) than some vague collection of holy writings.

Oh, I'm not sure what the powers that be want. That's not the point here.
I'm saying what it is - unfair, inconsistent, doesn't ween society off religion, and is bad law. Agree?

[FrustratedFool]

I suspect religious beliefs are protected for the combination of evidence-free, dogmatically based nature of the beliefs and that they are instilled through indoctrination of children. It's sort of a reverse recognition of the exploitation of children's vulnerability in exposing them to these kinds of beliefs.

Wouldn't that apply, at least in theory, to ethical beliefs or cultural and family beliefs/practices? If I had communism beaten into me as a child (or vegetarianism, or belief in Santa, or whatever) why should that not be protected, but a recent adult convert to Sikhism receive legal safety?

Also, if that can be used to explain why religious beliefs are protected, it doesn't explain why more reasoned beliefs are excluded. Surely it would be best to protect both?

[Ahriman]

Lol......because, religious beliefs are a codified set of tenets, while ethical beliefs are just personal opinions. You think the people in charge want to ween society away from religion? Not sure why you would think that, because it isn't true at all.

Normative ethical frameworks, like negative preference utilitarianism or Kantian deontological system or Thomistic natural law theory, are as codified (probably more so) than some vague collection of holy writings.

Oh, I'm not sure what the powers that be want.  That's not the point here.
I'm saying what it is - unfair, inconsistent, doesn't ween society off religion, and is bad law.  Agree?

Why does this matter.

[FrustratedFool]

It matters to me.
Like consistency and fairness do.

But would you agree that laws that treat religion differently to other ideologies do exactly what I listed, regardless of what it is you personally desire or care about?

[Ahriman]

It matters to me.
Like consistency and fairness do.

But would you agree that laws that treat religion differently to other ideologies do exactly what I listed, regardless of what it is you personally desire or care about?

It makes sense that the religious stuff would be given more consideration than other ideological frameworks. Religion has proven to be a far more reliable tool for societal cohesion than anything else.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It matters to me.
Like consistency and fairness do.

But would you agree that laws that treat religion differently to other ideologies do exactly what I listed, regardless of what it is you personally desire or care about?

It makes sense that the religious stuff would be given more consideration than other ideological frameworks. Religion has proven to be a far more reliable tool for societal cohesion than anything else.

And God told you to say that.

[Ahriman]

It makes sense that the religious stuff would be given more consideration than other ideological frameworks. Religion has proven to be a far more reliable tool for societal cohesion than anything else.

And God told you to say that.

If there was anything God told me to say, I wouldn't say it.

[Mister Agenda]

In practice, what we call freedom of religionand freedom of speech in the USA is interpreted as freedom of conscience by the courts. An imprisoned atheist can't be compelled to attend religious services and is allowed to have 'sessions' to talk about atheism with other inmates.

[FrustratedFool]

It matters to me.
Like consistency and fairness do.

But would you agree that laws that treat religion differently to other ideologies do exactly what I listed, regardless of what it is you personally desire or care about?

It makes sense that the religious stuff would be given more consideration than other ideological frameworks. Religion has proven to be a far more reliable tool for societal cohesion than anything else.

It seems far less cohesive, given the history of religious conflict, than other ideologies. I don't think religious positive discrimination can be defended on that basis.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And God told you to say that.

If there was anything God told me to say, I wouldn't say it.

Praise God! We've found something you won't say.