In the past couple of years there have been several examples in which events took place where the 'freedom of religion' was invoked. And not in a good way. Don't get me wrong. I'm fully in favor of the freedom of religion. But, as it goes with rights, when one persons rights infringe on the rights of another, then compromises have to be made. Then the question becomes. How do we weigh which rights are more important than others?
Freedom of religion does not provide immunity
So, where do we to draw the line? I would say right down the middle, as all of it depends on the circumstaces. Look at what is happening and look at which act has what kind of impact on any of the parties involved in the situation, then a compromise can be made. Unfortunately there seems to be a tendency to unjustly favor religious culture over other cultures, instead of compromising to accommodate all cultures. We should look at why that is and how to get to a state of equality, without infringing on religious rights. have rights, that doesn't mean that they can use them to infringe upon other peoples rights.
So, where do we to draw the line? I would say right down the middle, as all of it depends on the circumstaces. Look at what is happening and look at which act has what kind of impact on any of the parties involved in the situation, then a compromise can be made. Unfortunately there seems to be a tendency to unjustly favor religious culture over other cultures, instead of compromising to accommodate all cultures. We should look at why that is and how to get to a state of equality, without infringing on religious rights.
Have your cake and eat it
We all know the stories about the religious bakers in the USA who were sued for their refusal to sell weddingcakes to members of the lgbtqia community. They refuse to sell them these cakes because they consider homosexuality to be a sin and thus they feel that, based on their religious values, they shouldn't be forced to participate in that sin or to celebrate that sin.
Personally I think that argument isn't all that bad, as I do think that no one shoud be forced to do something they do not want to do. But there are some critical issues with the argument that basically renders it moot. A great deal of the issues with it, is based on a blatant hypocrisy and inconsistency.
Marriage, in the religiious sense, is a union, ordained by God, between one man and one woman. But I haven't seen any cases of religious bakers refusing to bake a weddingcake for an atheist couple who do not believe any god to exist. Are they not sinners? I also haven't seen any cases where a religious baker refused to bake a cake for people who got married again, after having been divorced. Even when the bible clearly states that "whoever divorces their partner and marries another commits adultery".
Clearly these bakers don't mind celebrating that kind of sin. If they did, then they would have to refuse a lot more customers than they do. For some reason they only cherrypick one sin they choose to reject. The others all seem to be fine and they have no problem celebrating it. These bakers want to have their cake and eat it. They'd be better off selling it, but they refuse to do that. Kinda weird thing to do for a baker, though... The lack of inconsistency to the applicaion of their own argument, shows the hypocrisy.
Taking responsibility for your actions
Besdes the refusal to sell people weddingcakes, there have also been several reports of people working for a pharmacies refusing to fill birthcontrol prescriptions, based on a religious objection. Again the objection seems to be 'participating in sin'. This objection however seems to be fully out of place, as it ignores the responsibility of the religious person.
When accepting the employment at the pharmacy, the employee could have notified the employer of their religious objection to selling birthcontrol and asked if the pharmacy sells it. When it does, the religious person could have refused the employment in order for them to not haver their religious values infringed upon.
It's anyones right to use birthcontrol. If you do not want to sell anyone birthcontrol then you shouldn't seek employment at a business that sells it It is upon the religious person to avoid infringing on other persons rights, as much as it is upon others to avoid to infringe on the religious persons rights.
Besides that, it is upon the religious person to avoid putting other people in a situation where they may infringe upon the religious persons rights. The relgiious person can't expect everyone to accommodate their right to reigious freedom, while the religious person themselves fully ignores the rights of the others. This has to work both ways. Just as anyone who has sex has to take responsibility when they don't want a pregnancy to follow from it, religious people also need to take a responsibility when they don't want their values to be infringed upon. A compromise needs be.
Peek-a-boohoohoo
As said before, it's not just religious people themselves who abuse the freedom of religion and infringe on other people's rights. Governing bodies also abuse it, in order to, unjustly, accommodate the rights of religious people, over the rights of other people.
In 2016 the 400 members of a 111 year old nudist campsite in Germany were banned from skinny dipping in the lake next to the campsite because it would upset the residents of a nearby refugee camp that was buit across the lake. The refugee camp was built to house 112 male asylum seekers from the middle east. As they're not familiar with the elements of western European culture, such as the nudist culture, the choice was made to ban the nudist from skinny dipping.
This seems to be the exact opposite of what should have been done. The rights of the nudists were infringed upon, in order to accommodate those of the religious. By simply finding a different location to house the refugees, this whole situation could have been avoided. Instead the governing body decided differently. They sacrificed the rights of the citizens in order to accommodate the rights of the refugees. This seems to have been an act of what is know as 'positive discrimination'. Which still is discrimination.
When one moves to another country, with another culture, one can'tt reasonably expect the citizens of the new country to change their culture. A compromise needs to be made. The citizens of the country need to be able to stay true to their culture, while trying not to offend the newcomers. The newcomers however need to adapt to the new culture, while trying to also stay true to their own culture.
You can't go and cry about all the things you see and don't like in the new country and expect it to be changed, just for you, because of "your rights". What about the rights of the other people who live there? Don't the citizens of your new country have any rights? Do they have to surrender their rights, just for to accommodate yours? How is that reasonable? A compromise needs be.
How do we weigh the freedom of religion?
If we're going to look at equality, then all rights should weigh equally. This means we can not hold any right of any person to weigh any more than any ight of any other person. This includes the freedom of religion. You can't use the freedom of religion as a trump card, just to get what you want any time you want it and people have an objection.
People seem to think that theiir rights are absolute and that others must always accommodate these rights. What they forget is that those other people have the same rights, which would then also be absolute. Then you'd have an infinte force hitting an unmovable object. So, what would you then expect to happen?
What people do not seem to realize is that their rights are are limited by design. They can't be absolute. Everyone has a duty towards others in their society, to accommodate other peoples rights as much as their own. We're forced to compromise. This is clearly mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
Here it clearly states that ones rights and freedoms are limited for the purpose of respecting the rights and freedoms of others. In short. Everyone has a duty to compromise. So, how do we weight the freedom of religion? We don't. We don't have to.
All rights, including the freedom of religion, are weighed equally and in every situation a compromise needs to be made, to equally accommodate the rights of everyone involved, to the highest level of satisfaction possible for all involved.
Comments