Why only religious beliefs protected?

[FrustratedFool]

*sigh* This is a nothing burger.

Boru

Maybe for some.

But I live in the UK, with its unfair special privileges for religion, and political power given to bishops, and a king who is head of an established church, and so on.

And religion causes harm and retards progress and we are better off without it.

So when I see religious privilege and unfair laws, I feel a little aggrieved and desire to see society become more fair, more consistent, more free, and less bound by unreasonable religious beliefs.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

[FrustratedFool]

But it's not an intrinsic or fundamental characteristic, nor religious?  

So why give special protections to single people because they are single?

At present, it seems like you're just finding ad hoc reasons to justify the status quo.

What about gender transition (same law)?

Gender transition should be protected. Primary reason being that it encourages the acceptance of transhuman values.

It seems you think it reasonable to offer legal protection to a recent convert to hari krishna because religion has been around a long time; protection to a single person because marriage is very valid; protection to a white person because race is fundamental; protection to a transperson because it encourages transhumanism; but don't think a sincere and life long Marxist Vegan should have any protection because those beliefs are dangerous.

To me that seems unreasonable, unfair, and bad for society.

Oh well.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

*sigh* This is a nothing burger.

Boru

Maybe for some.

But I live in the UK, with its unfair special privileges for religion, and political power given to bishops, and a king who is head of an established church, and so on.

And religion causes harm and retards progress and we are better off without it.

So when I see religious privilege and unfair laws, I feel a little aggrieved and desire to see society become more fair, more consistent, more free, and less bound by unreasonable religious beliefs.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

I lived in the UK for more than half my life. I never felt harmed by this imagined disparity in law (extrajudicial disparity is another matter, but that’s not the topic).

Boru

[FrustratedFool]

Why would you personally have to feel harmed by a legal inconsistency for it to matter?

Also, it's not imagined.

There's lots of bad laws and inconsistencies and such. Few affect me personally. But I don't assess the correctness of a law or political policy by how it affects my feelings alone.

[Ahriman]

Gender transition should be protected. Primary reason being that it encourages the acceptance of transhuman values.

It seems you think it reasonable to offer legal protection to a recent convert to hari krishna because religion has been around a long time; protection to a single person because marriage is very valid; protection to a white person because race is fundamental; protection to a transperson because it encourages transhumanism; but don't think a sincere and life long Marxist Vegan should have any protection because those beliefs are dangerous.

To me that seems unreasonable, unfair, and bad for society.

Oh well.

I wouldn't use the word "dangerous" to describe a Marxist Vegan, "unhealthy" would be a better word. Excluding Marxists or Vegans (or certain others) isn't "bad for society" at all.

[FrustratedFool]

Excluding?

You mean exclude from protections afforded to religious people?

And that's OK because religion has been around a long time but other views are unhealthy?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree as to what is bad for society.

[Ahriman]

Excluding?

You mean exclude from protections afforded to religious people?

And that's OK because religion has been around a long time but other views are unhealthy?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree as to what is bad for society.

The people who run this world are not risk takers in the slightest. If there is an established system that has seemed to work for a long time, it will be utilized, and its adherents cared for, perhaps for their entire lives. And on the flip side, people who hold more self righteous beliefs, will not be considered as healthy for society.

[LinuxGal]

So what is the rationale behind protecting sexual orientation ans racial identity in the same legislation?

Sexual orientation and racial identity are very much fundamental things. They are not opinions.

Racial identity is fundamental?  Tell me, what race was President Obama?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not sure why anyone takes @Ahriman this damned seriously anyway. Obvious troll is painfully, embarrassedly obvious.

[Nanny]

In the USA, the Constitution places restrictions on government concerning establishment of religion and places limits on government's ability to limit individuals (and, groan, corporate) speech.

The government can't favor one religion over another (or no religion at all). Nor can it restrict speech without legal justification (e.g. conditions of pretrial release).

On paper. In practice we have one political party infusing one religion into our three branches of government, And they get away with it because Christian Nationalism sees its moment to undo the Establishment Clause, practically if not literally. They are using the states to do this, whith gerrymandering and super majorities.

ETA - SCOTUS chooses not to assert authority over states' decisions that chip away at the establishment clause. This was the real scary part about Dobbs. If a state declares abortion (and by extension birth control, gender counseling and medicine, limits on undesirable speech (e.g. drag story time)) then the SCOTUS says, "Not our problem because state's rights." But there's a thread on the SCOTUS stench already.