Special rights for religious preference are immoral

Some excellent points from a major activist group!

From 1992 to 1998 CCV and its sister organization, Equal Rights not Special Rights (ERNSR) debated the issue of laws providing special rights based on private religious behavior.

We all know that discrimination, per se, is not wrong or illegal. To the contrary, to say that one is “discriminating” — in his choice of friends, his choice of food, his choice of reading materials, etc. — is a complement. Personal discrimination based on legitimate values is a virtue, and discrimination even when based on whimsical preferences, is a right.

On the other hand, most people in our society recognize that discrimination with respect to treatment of individuals, when based on immutable characteristics such as skin color — characteristics that have no bearing on an individual’s behavior or morals — is wrong. Properly, in 1964 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act to protect against that kind of discrimination.

Unfortunately, CCV and ERNSR had to spend more than one million dollars to prove that discrimination based on others’ religious behavior is not in the same category as discrimination based on non-behavioral characteristics such as skin color. Sadly, we had to work hard to prove that religious activists’ claims of discrimination, whether or not they were valid, did not give them a constitutional right to pass ordinances providing them special protection based on religious behavior. Many times people have made claims in court that their “deeply held beliefs” were a status similar to those classes that weren't a choice, such as skin color or gender. It is important to note that in every such case decided by a federal court, those claims should be denied.

The accusation of “discrimination” has been one of the activists’ most effective tools. You know the fundamental argument regarding discrimination, as briefly stated above. When the “D” word is thrown at you, cite the Cincinnati example. How can discrimination based on a person’s sexual behavior be illegal discrimination when the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals twice unanimously upheld a change in the Cincinnati City Charter to prohibit its City Council from passing any laws based on claims of such discrimination?

In addition, the Human Rights Ordinance that was passed by the Colorado Springs City Council in 1992 was in effect for two and one-half years before we were able to repeal the law. During the entire time that the ordinance was in effect, not one case of discrimination was proven. Not only is it wrong to pass laws based on religious preference, but also the claims of discrimination based on religion are greatly exaggerated.

During the lengthy debate we assembled a long list of “religious orientations” and repeatedly asked whether laws barring discrimination based on “religious orientation” would embrace all of the orientations on our list. The religious activists refused to answer the question.

It is important to remember that our Founders' plan was that human life be expressed only in a non-religious way. In accordance with that plan, they created the constitution to eliminate all connection between religion and government..

For a number of reasons, including some complex superstition disorders, certain human beings have an inclination or desire to believe in illogical supernatural superstitions. The existence of that inclination or desire is often not a matter of choice, just a matter of fact.

As in the case of any inclination or desire contrary to the Founding Fathers' plan, the decision to actually engage in religious behavior is a matter of choice. To repeat, the inclination often is due to superstition disorders dating back to childhood years and beyond the individual’s control, but the decision to engage in the behavior still is a matter of the will, a matter of choice.

Our question to the religious activist was always this: "If we were to grant special privileges to those who choose to participate in behavior peculiar to one's self-described 'religion' — Christianity for example — would we not be obligated to grant the same privileges to those who choose to engage in the behaviors associated with any of the other known religions -- such as human sacrifice, ritual rape, or pre-arranged marriages of children to adults?"

By simply placing the word “rights” behind each one of these religious preferences listed below, we begin to see the problem posed by granting so-called “rights” based on religious preference.

Human sacrifice -- the ritual murder of humans to serve "gods" or "goddesses"

Ritual rape -- the rape of women (or men) as part of "religious beliefs" and cult rituals

Polygamy -- marriage to multiple persons

"Bride wives" -- marriage of an adult to a pre-pubescent child, such as that practiced by David Koresh as part of his "religious preference"

Cannibalism -- the consumption of human flesh or blood as part of "religious beliefs"

----

I say AMEN and THANK GOD for CCV and Equal Rights Not Special Rights standing up to the religious agenda and their efforts to prey on the morally weak. What do you think?

I know there are a lot of adament anti-religion people on DU, but I respect freedom of religion and what people choose to believe in.

I'm not sure what the piece is saying, but as long as freedom of religion is respected then I don't see a problem.

. . . and should receive NO special rights under the law.

Anyone practicing a religion is choosing a destructive lifestyle, and I should be able to fire them if they work for me or deny them service as a businessperson.

for ANY reason you like...regardless of how popular it is...

speaking of distructive life styles...how about hetersexual promiscuity? would that qualify?

Sexual orientation is innate. Religion, however, is a choice and every society that tolerated religious behaviour has collapsed. Rome, the Mayans, the Incans, the Greeks, it goes on and on.

Religious behaviour and acceptance/promotion of religious behaviour ALWAYS occurs in the end days of a civilization. And now, the religious activists recruit children into their lifestyles! It's truly horrifying.

Imagine while you are away, your child is being targeted to join in religious lifestyles and activities like "drinking blood and eating flesh" -- often without your knowledge!

it's your business...you should be able to make staff decisions as you wish...

you believe sexual orientation is innate..may people don't ...
and what if it is? why can't you fire someone because you don't like the color of their eyes?...it's your book store (or whatever)...

and your statements re: religious behavior are ridiculous (IMO)

. . . and an immoral choice at that. Because it's a choice it shouldn't be protected. After all, it's weird and makes me uncomfortable. I also don't think children should be exposed to it.

If religious people want to do their thing behind closed doors, fine, but I don't think they should drag it out in public. I am tired of them flaunting their sick preference in my face. I think there should be a constitutional amendment to protect those of us who don't choose that immoral lifestyle.

don't go to church...pretty easy really...if you think you have a right to not be offended by them occaisonally, you've lost your mind

. . . and demanding special rights under the law. Why can't they just stay in the closet? Why should CHOICES be protected anyway?

Unfortunately, CCV and ERNSR had to spend more than one million dollars to prove that discrimination based on others’ religious behavior is not in the same category as discrimination based on non-behavioral characteristics such as skin color.

Great. I hope you're ready for that argument to be thrown in your face when it comes time to discuss discriminating against homosexuals.

It is important to remember that our Founders' plan was that human life be expressed only in a non-religious way. In accordance with that plan, they created the constitution to eliminate all connection between religion and government..

For a number of reasons, including some complex superstition disorders, certain human beings have an inclination or desire to believe in illogical supernatural superstitions. The existence of that inclination or desire is often not a matter of choice, just a matter of fact.

What the hell are you talking about? Where, exactly, do you derive the idea that the "Founders' plan was that human life be expressed only in a non-religious way?" Many of them weren't Christian in the sense that we think of Christians, but none were Atheists - many were deists - the belief in divinity through reason.

Our question to the religious activist was always this: "If we were to grant special privileges to those who choose to participate in behavior peculiar to one's self-described 'religion' — Christianity for example — would we not be obligated to grant the same privileges to those who choose to engage in the behaviors associated with any of the other known religions -- such as human sacrifice, ritual rape, or pre-arranged marriages of children to adults?"

The Free Exercise Clause is not unlimited, for obvious reasons. None of those activities fall under the Free Exercise Clause, and are therefore not protected.

Where, exactly, do you derive the idea that the "Founders' plan was that human life be expressed only in a non-religious way?

I have faith in the Founders and their writings, particularly Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin's writings on the evils of religion.

I just have to stand up against the immorality of religious activists and their effort to shove their lifestyle down our throats. I wouldn't mind so much if they would stay in the closet about it, but everywhere I turn, it's religion this and religion that. They even "come out" in public as "born again" -- as if making the choice to be an immoral religionist is something to be PROUD of!

Do you really want one of your children to be educated by one of these people? What if they recruit your child into beliefs like ritual sacrifice or cannibalism?

some people's views of homosexuality? is that it?

Are you taking issue with the facts as expressed in the original message?

Or are you one of those religious activists coming after my nephews and niece yourself?

You have to admit religion is completely and totally unnatural. Have you ever seen animals practice religion? No.

opinions and distorted history...
but this game grows tiresome..have a good evening...

You're making fun of the fundies who say the same thing about homosexuals. Their arguments are silly, and yours are just as silly.

This freedom has been extended to all spheres, including business. I think that businesses could require employees not to mention their religion or display religious symbols, but personal practice of religion is and will probably continue to be a protected activity in the US.
If I understand your post, I'd be careful about wishing it any other way as in the US there are more religious people than atheists who are not tolerant of others religious beliefs.

The reality is clear -- the intent of the Founders was to make America an Atheist Nation, founded on Atheist principles.

I don't believe any of this stuff, just trying to prove a point.

Try Googling "From 1992 to 1998 CCV and its sister organization, Equal Rights not Special Rights (ERNSR) debated the issue of laws" to see the original text. :)

Our question to the religious activist was always this: "If we were to grant special privileges to those who choose to participate in behavior peculiar to one's self-described 'religion' — Christianity for example — would we not be obligated to grant the same privileges to those who choose to engage in the behaviors associated with any of the other known religions -- such as human sacrifice, ritual rape, or pre-arranged marriages of children to adults?"

NONE of these can be considered rights, the litmus test for religious freedom is not causing harm to others. We have a secular government that is to allow ALL religions to practice freely, as long as no one is harmed in the worship. Now, this is not to say that religions are given 'special' privileges over non-beliefs, all it means is that NO ONE is to be given preference by the government due to their faith or lack thereof. It is no better to try to force atheism on a populace than forcing any religion on that same populace. As a member of a religious minority I am very leery of the motives behind this post.

Let me just say that this thought experiment is rather 'far out there' as far as logic is concerned.

. . . in Cincinatti. Just a slightly different issue. :)

Equal Rights for the Ugly
The right to work as models without prejudice related to "immutable characteristics"

I seem to recall that you couldn't penalize an employee for refusing to work on their saturday/sunday Sabbath. But that may have been a company policy rather than government. Surely a business that specifically needed weekend workers would just not hire them.

Rastafarians claimed a right to their religions ganja-smoking - no go
Some native american churches tried the same for peyote
So religion does not enable outlawed behaviour
Some issues with a church that doesn't believe in medical care, and whether that gives them the right to deny their children medical care.