I Say We Duke It Out!

For those that know me (in these threads) you know how much I hate it when someone demeans God or anyone for their belief in God.

Habibi's argument is a non-starter. When i was in the army, no adherent of any religion was ever required to stand duty on a day sacred to their religion. I and all the Jews always worked on christian holidays, and got other days off, usually with a pass as well, in compensation. I managed to get "Druid" put in my personnel file, with the result that i was always able to insist that i have Saturday night off duty, and to be allowed to go alone to a pine grove, if one were available. What did they know? They went along with it because it was easier than dealing with an appeal to higher authority.

nimh,

The problem would then be (if there were freedom from religion) that my right would be taken away. The way it is now is everyone has the right to either practice their religion or not even have one if they choose.

What is an acceptable compromise?

Freedom from religion means no one is forced to accept any religion. It does not mean no one can practice a religion.

Churches close for Christmas
By RACHEL ZOLL AP religion writer
December 7, 2005

This Christmas, no prayers will be said in several megachurches around the country.

Even though the holiday falls this year on a Sunday, when churches normally host thousands for worship, pastors are canceling services, anticipating low attendance on what they call a family day. ...

Setanta,

I am talking about freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. Freedom from religion does take away my right to religious freedom.

Yes, in an army - an army of a diverse nation, to boot - you will always be able to find enough people to fill in for those who celebrate, and thus you will have the best of both worlds; the army keeps functioning, unhampered by religion, and those who are religious, get to celebrate. No dilemma between freedom from and freedom of religion presents itself.

Unfortunately, the supermarket or diner around the corner doesn't quite have the same human resources, which means it'll either

- have to close; leading to what Parados criticised as forcing the minority in a way to celebrate too, by taking away their chance of shopping or dining out on that day

- or force people of the majority religion to work on their holy day, which I think would offend the freedom of religion, as the freedom of religion includes the freedom to practice one's religion too - and since most religions are practiced through rituals and celebrations, thus the freedom to partake in such rituals and celebrations as well.

If my argument was a non-starter, you have failed to outline any reason why...

nimh wrote:

Yes, in an army - an army of a diverse nation, to boot - you will always be able to find enough people to fill in for those who celebrate, and thus you will have the best of both worlds; the army keeps functioning, unhampered by religion, and those who are religious, get to celebrate. No dilemma between freedom from and freedom of religion presents itself.

Unfortunately, the supermarket or diner around the corner doesn't quite have the same human resources, which means it'll either

- have to close; leading to what Parados criticised as forcing the minority in a way to celebrate too, by taking away their chance of shopping or dining out on that day

- or force people of the majority religion to work on their holy day, which I think would offend the freedom of religion, as the freedom of religion includes the freedom to practice one's religion too - and since most religions are practiced through rituals and celebrations, thus the freedom to partake in such rituals and celebrations as well.

If my argument was a non-starter, you have failed to outline any reason why...

Nonsense. You are adducing examples from private enterprise. No capitalist operating within the law is required to serve the convenience of anyone else, although they may wish to do so for their own profit. But in a matter of private enterprise, no one else has any right to contend that the operation of the private enterprise must serve their personal convience. The same concept applies to the employees of a private enterprise operation--they accept the conditions of employment, and have no case against their employer unless and until they can show that they were not apprised in advance of an obligation which might conflict with their religious scruples.

In the Columbus, Ohio area there is a large and successful chain of discount department stores named for the founder--Schottenstein's. The founder was a Jew, and so are his descendants who still own that chain, and the Value City Furniture chain. They close on Saturday, and they are open on Sunday. They close on Jewish holidays, and they are open on christian holidays. Anyone who takes employment with them knows this in advance, or are informed during the interview process. No one is obliged to work there knowing those conditions despite personal scruple, and Schottenstein's is not obliged to keep operating hours to suit the convenience of someone else's religious scruples.

This is one of the silliest arguments you've ever advanced here. It is pure sophistry--a demonstration of the abiltiy to argue without having a valid argument.

Setanta,

I am not foisting my religion on you or anyone else. If you put constraints on me as to where to practice my religion, or tell me I can practice it but keep it to myself, then of course it diminishes my freedom of religion.