- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The proposed right:
No person shall be prohibited from declaring any peaceful religious belief, or from peacefully supporting any religious facility or group, or from participating in peaceful religious rituals or activities, or from any other peaceful exercise or practice of religion.
No person shall be compelled to declare any religious belief, or to support any religious facility or group, or to participate in any religious rituals or activities, or to any other exercise or practice of religion.
No government shall establish or promote any religion, or fund the construction or maintenance or operation of any religious facilities, or purchase or display any religious artifacts or beliefs, or fund any religious activities.
Note: an alternative name could be “right to personal belief”
Intent:
The right to religion, which is also a right to non-religion, applies to government-person and person-person relations.
This right prevents interference with the practice of a religion or non-religion, so long as that practice is peaceful, meaning it does not violate any rights or laws or regulations or ordinances and does not disrupt any official government proceedings.
“No person shall be prohibited from…” protects everyone’s freedom to believe and practice a religion in the sense that they cannot be prevented from doing a peaceful activity of their choice.
“No person shall be compelled…” protects everyone’s freedom to believe and practice a religion. in the sense that they cannot be forced to participate in a religious activity that is not of their choice.
“No government shall establish or promote…” prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or supporting any religious activities, whether or not it prohibits people from practicing any other religion or compels people to practice the government established religion.
The peaceful limitation is important. If a person’s religious practice involves a violation of rights or unlawful behavior, such as calling for violence, making threats of violence, or actual violence against people or property, that non-peaceful practice is not protected by the right. That means laws prohibiting violence or threats of violence or incitement of violence would not be violating this right and can be enforced.
Laws, regulations, and policies affecting the peaceful practice of religion must be limited to specific conditions such as times, places, or activities, such that they do not prohibit people from the peaceful practice of religion. This is important as it means the government and also people and corporations are not required to accommodate religious people in every way, and neither can they prohibit it as long as it complies with all secular laws and regulations.
Discussion:
The right to religion and non-religion specifically protects a person’s religious liberty with some limitations. It is a complement to the right to civil government which protects people from having religious beliefs imposed on them via the state.
The right to religion only means that the government, and other people, cannot prohibit or compel a person’s peaceful religious practice. It does not mean that the government or other people are required to accommodate a person’s religious practices. If a person’s religious practices are incompatible with the rules of a facility or an organization, that person must make a choice if they want to be there and participate or not. If a person’s religious practices limit the activities in which the person can participate, intentionally or unintentionally, that does not constitute a prohibition on the person’s activities.
The United States government’s practice of printing “In God We Trust” on currency or or documents or displaying it on government buildings must end. The statement “In God We Trust” is a religious statement and by promoting it in all those places, the government is establishing and promoting Christianity. This practice must end. It cannot be the official motto of a country that supposedly has a separation between religion and the state. Christians would be free to place that motto on their churches and bibles.
The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States contains the phrase “under God”, and requiring anyone to say it in school or in any public ceremony is part of the government establishing and promoting Christianity. This practice must end.
Some organizations might make an effort to accommodate certain religious practices, but they are not required to accommodate any religious practices. However, to avoid violating the right to equal opportunity, organizations that choose to accommodate some religious practices should do it as a broad rule so that any similar practices in other religions would also be accommodated, or that certain accommodations could be swapped for something similar. For example, if a job requires working 12 hours a day 7 days a week but makes an exception for Christians to attend religious services on Sunday morning for 4 hours, the rule should not be “Christians can go to church on Sunday”, it should be “everyone gets 4 hours off on a day of their choice” (not only on Sunday which would be advantageous only to Christians), or “everyone gets 4 hours time off in 1 hour increments on any day”, or even “everyone gets 4 hours time off in 15 minute increments” so that the same rule could allow Jews to take their 4 hours in two parts, 2 hours on Friday evening and 2 hours on Saturday morning, and for Muslims to take their 4 hours in 15-minute prayer breaks to accommodate the daily prayer times that coincide with work hours — although 4 hours would not be enough time for 5 daily prayers of 15 minutes each, but 9 hours would be enough. There might be a question then of why is it 4 hours and not 9 or 12 hours. An atheist, or a non-practicing Christian, Muslim, or Jew, could just take their 4 hours whenever they want and do whatever they want during that time. The organization could require people to schedule their personal breaks for the entire week in advance.
Another consequence of the right to religion is that the government must not regulate religious marriage. In the United States, a couple must obtain a “marriage license” to be married and the couple then receives a “marriage certificate”. However, marriage is a religious term with a religious ceremony. It should not be regulated by the government at all. If the government needs to know who is living together and who are the members of a family, the government needs to get that information in a secular way. If the government chooses to give any benefits or incentives for people to reproduce, or if the government chooses to tax or disincentivize reproduction, that needs to be done in a secular way and not related to marriage. The terms husband and wife are religious terms related to marriage. The government needs to use terminology like “head of household” to indicate the person primarily responsible for financial reporting or the primary contact for the household, and “adult” or “partner” instead of husband and wife or instead of spouse to indicate all adults in the house, and “minors” or “dependents” to indicate any children in the house.
Examples:
The military has regulations on hair styles for males. That regulation is not religious in nature. If a certain religion has a requirement for adhering males to have a hairstyle which is not compatible with the military’s regulations, the male must make a choice of either being in the military and conforming to regulations, or not being in the military. The military would not be required to amend its rules because they are limited in time (only while on active duty and wearing the uniform), and also because military service is voluntary.
If there is a need to mobilize for war, people with religious restrictions must find ways to serve that are compatible with their religion, or temporarily stop adhering to them and join the fight to protect the country and protect their right to religion. Conversely, if there is a need to mobilize for war, the military might temporarily suspend certain policies, or make exceptions, in order to be more inclusive and recruit more soldiers. In any case, the government is not required to accommodate anyone’s religious preference — the government is merely required to not deprive someone of their peaceful religious practice. But if the government conscripts a person to the military, and that person’s peaceful religious practice involves a certain hair style such as not cutting it, or a commitment to non-violence, the government has an obligation to find a military job for that person which is compatible with their peaceful religious practice to protect that person’s right to religion. One possible solution is to place all such conscripts into the same unit so that within that unit they have the same standards and assign missions to that unit compatible with any religious limitations. Conscripted soldiers practicing that religion could then join that unit. But if they want to serve under a regular unit, then they would have to waive their right to religion because the other units have their own rules and are not required to accommodate anyone who won’t follow those rules. Such a system of choices provides everyone a path which protects the right to religion.
A public school has a policy that students are not allowed to wear hats. This could include a Jewish kippah or Muslim taqiyah. To avoid depriving a religious student of peacefully practicing their religion which requires wearing a kind of hat, the policy should be limited wherever possible. The policy could include a limitation that it applies only indoors and students are allowed to wear hats outdoors because hats help students avoid sunburn and heat stroke. The policy could include a limitation that head-wear is allowed indoors only if it does not have a bill and it is one solid color and does not cover the face or the ears. That would allow a kippah or taqiyah to be worn, and also beanies. If the school’s intent for the policy can be achieved with such limitations, then it should be so limited to avoid violating rights. But if the school’s intent cannot be achieved with such limitations, and the intent is not discriminatory, then the school would not need be required to accommodate any exceptions to the policy. That’s because a public school has a responsibility to educate students and keep them safe, not to provide a place for them to practice a religion. That’s what private religious schools are for, and if the government allows these to operate then it is protecting the right to religion.
A bacon-themed restaurant has a policy that every food dish on the menu must include bacon. All the food is prepared in advance and the restaurant always denies customer requests to modify a menu item. The restaurant does not need to accommodate Jewish and Muslim customers with bacon-free items because such customers can eat at another restaurant that does not have the same policies. Jewish and Muslim people are not deprived because other restaurants are available that serve bacon-free food, and also because this particular restaurant does not allow any customers to request no-bacon modifications and there’s a simple reason, because it’s a bacon-themed restaurant. People who don’t want to eat bacon a choice to eat somewhere else and it has nothing to do with religion. The restaurant is not required to accommodate anyone’s religious preferences.
A clothing store has a sign that says “no Jews allowed” or “no Muslims allowed”. Other clothing stores don’t have such a sign. The store with the sign seeks to prevent Jews or Muslims specifically from being customers or using a bathroom. This is clearly a violation of the right to equal opportunity because the prohibition is targeted at a religion and attempts to deprive people who peacefully practice that religion of something. Furthermore, if no alternative facility is available, this can also be reasonably interpreted as an attempt to deprive such people of their ability to peacefully practice their religion by causing an unnecessary hardship and in that case it would also be a violation of the right to religion.
A private religious school or daycare promotes Jewish beliefs and practices. Such a religious school cannot be a public school due to the right to civil government. The school requires all students to wear a kippah as a Jewish practice. A parent enrolls their Christian child. The child is not Jewish, and therefore doesn’t wear a kippah. The school could amend its policy that all students wear a kippah to say instead that all Jewish students must wear a kippah as part of their Jewish education, and leave it as optional for the Christian student. However, as in the bacon restaurant example, the standard for private organizations is different than the standard for a government operated facility such as a public school. The school could keep a strict policy that all students wear a kippah, and because that policy is not targeted at any religion in particular but all students, and because the kippah is a Jewish practice and the school is a private Jewish religious school, it makes sense to have a rule that is in alignment with Jewish practices. And because there are public schools available and other private schools available, including Christian public schools, the school’s strict policy would not deprive the Christian student of the peaceful practice of Christianity.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.