Tuesday, July 1, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

It can be right to discriminate against the religious

by Johann Hari

Reposted from:
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/07/it-can-be-right.html#more

There is a surprising - and encouraging - gap in the government's new Equality Bill, which I columnized on yesterday. Discrimination on the basis of age, race, gender and sexuality will be outlawed - but not discrimination on the basis of religion. When I saw this, I gave a loud atheist cheer. A religion is a set of man-made superstitions, and I reserve my right to discriminate against anybody silly enough to choose to believe them.

You don't choose your race, sexuality, or gender, and they don't affect how well you do your job. But you do choose your religion - and there are instances in which it will make it impossible for you to do a job properly. If you are a burqua-wearing Muslim, you can't enter Miss Great Britain. If you are an Orthodox Jew who refuses to look women in the eye or make physical contact with them, you can't be a beautician. If you are an evangelical Christian, you can't work in a gay club. Go work somewhere else, or change your silly beliefs.

Recently a 19 year old Muslim girl called Bushra Noah applied for a job at a hairdressers where the staff showed off their hairstyles, for obvious reasons. She refused to - she wears a headscarf - so she was told the job just wasn't for her. She sued, and was rewarded �4000. This is ridiculous. If you choose to wear a headscarf, that's absolutely your right - but it means you are choosing not to work in a trendy salon.

Of course there are instances of much uglier discrimination. In July 2004, the BBC conducted an experiment: they sent out nearly identical job applications to over fifty British employers. The applicants with Anglo-Saxon names were twice as likely to be asked to interview as those with Muslim names. This obviously repels me. But is this religious discrimination - or racial? If those application had Hindu names, would they have been accepted? Are there all these bigots out there saying, "I hate those Muslims ' but I love Sikhs?" Of course not. This is anti-Asian prejudice irrespective of faith, and it should be dealt with by laws banning racial discrimination.

Besides, granting "religious rights" would actually undercut all the other rights in the Equality Bill, because religions often command discrimination against women and gay people. I gave an example last year in a column about the police:

Last year the Labour government introduced new equality legislation making it a crime to discriminate against gay people in the workplace [but] the government simultaneously introduced laws guaranteeing "religious rights." These have been pounced upon by religious homophobes, who insist that their "right to religious belief" includes their right to loudly hate gay people who happen to work alongside them� Whenever homophobia is exposed in a police station, the offending officers now plead that they are just following their religion and that is the end of that. Religion has become a get-out-of-jail-free card for homophobic officers� While obviously individuals have to be free to be homophobic in their homes in their spare time, when they are working for us, they have to treat us all equally.

If you are for human rights, then you have to be against amorphous and toxic "religious rights."

For more articles by Johann Hari go to:
http://indyblogs.typepad.com/openhouse/johann_hari/index.html

Posted: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 175 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #202307 by gr8hands on July 1, 2008 at 9:21 am

Here, here!

Other Comments by gr8hands

2. Comment #202308 by Dhamma on July 1, 2008 at 9:24 am

This is hopefully a great move. I'm all for it, but I'm afraid it might backfire.

Do the law use reason all of a sudden?

Other Comments by Dhamma

3. Comment #202309 by Ian Bamlett on July 1, 2008 at 9:26 am

You don't choose your race, sexuality, or gender.....But you do choose your religion

Quite right. I use the same argument to justify my prejudice against really fat people.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

4. Comment #202312 by Damien Trotter on July 1, 2008 at 9:30 am

I advertised for a new job at my company and so in the advert I politely put, "Muslims and Jews need not apply." Muslims are generally cool about it, Jews don't care - but those pc nutters from the council came round straight away threatening me with a court summons for active racial discimination. Stupid, dopey bastards. I'm a pork butcher, for christ's sake.

DT

Other Comments by Damien Trotter

5. Comment #202314 by hungarianelephant on July 1, 2008 at 9:34 am

If you are for human rights, then you have to be against amorphous and toxic "religious rights."

Except at the UN.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

6. Comment #202315 by Tyler Durden on July 1, 2008 at 9:38 am

You don't choose your race, sexuality, or gender.....But you do choose your religion.

Eh... don't most parents choose the religion for their children? Perhaps Johann Hari is referring to adults who decide one religion over another when the are old enough to decide?

Otherwise, an excellent article.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

7. Comment #202317 by Opisthokont on July 1, 2008 at 9:39 am

This is fantastic -- we need more of it!!

Other Comments by Opisthokont

8. Comment #202318 by kkelly on July 1, 2008 at 9:39 am

Well technically, belief is largely involuntary (you can't choose to beleve the sky is green), so I wouldn't use that distinction to disqualify religion from this bill. The relevant difference is that all those other characteristics are immutable, and religion isn't. Not to say that you have NO control over your religious beliefs; you just have to not be, or aspire to not be, retarded.

Other Comments by kkelly

9. Comment #202319 by Stoned_Roses on July 1, 2008 at 9:40 am

If I discriminate against someone one the basis that they follow a religion, e.g. Islam, will people not just think I'm a racist anyway? Just a thought and I might be wrong, although that's never happened before.

Other Comments by Stoned_Roses

10. Comment #202321 by clodhopper on July 1, 2008 at 9:41 am

....."She sued, and was rewarded £4000"

Well, is there legislation I could use to successfully sue a school for discriminating against my childs application for a place because his family hold to no religion?

Other Comments by clodhopper

11. Comment #202323 by Barbara on July 1, 2008 at 9:45 am

This is excellent news. However,...

I'm not so sure the girl who wasn't hired at the salon was wrong in suing the employer. Wearing a headscarf wouldn't impede her ability to perform as a hairdresser. If it's required that her hairdressing abilities be on display, she could keep a portfolio of her work at her work station. On the other hand, if the girl were refusing to perform a task that was essential to the job, of course, she should not be hired.

Other Comments by Barbara

12. Comment #202325 by bamboospitfire on July 1, 2008 at 9:56 am

My posted comment on the Indy site:

Sasha and Sean - the issue is whether a prospective employee's religion (or lack of it) affects their ability to undertake a certain sort of work. This is made clear in Johann's article with reference to Miss Great Britain, beauticians and staff employed in gay clubs.

Atheism does not prevent one from doing any job save those which require religious faith. The Church of England would be entitled to refuse employment to an outspoken atheist who wanted to join the clergy, although the very concept is obviously absurd. However, atheism does not disqualify one from any other type of employment and it would be wrong for a Christian employer to refuse to hire an atheist simply because of his or her atheism, just as it would have been wrong for the salon to refuse Ms Noah employment simply because she is a Muslim.

Importantly, the salon evidently did not refuse Ms Noah employment on religious grounds, but rather because she covers her hair - it just happens to be the case that Ms Noah covers her hair for religious reasons. That may be a fine distinction, but it is an important one which should be recognised. Ms Noah remains at liberty to uncover her hair but chooses not to do so, and thereby disqualifies herself from employment at that salon.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

13. Comment #202327 by Cartomancer on July 1, 2008 at 10:00 am

"Religious discrimination" is terribly hard to pin down. It usually means "discrimination based on participation in the practices of a recognised major cult group", such as christianity, islam or sikhism. Independently-minded theistic people who have dreamed up their own pantheon of spirits and cobbled together their own hedge religion by themselves almost never come under the spotlight in these cases - they're generally written off as nutters alongside the tinfoil helmet crew and the flat earth society. Technically anything could be the subject of "religious" belief or practice, from a mild superstition that makes you queasy about putting shoes on tables (and hence prevents you working in a shoe shop) to a deep-seated psychological compulsion to conduct cannibalistic blood rites every full moon (which makes you an ideal candidate for the catholic priesthood).

Where does "personal conviction" end and "religion" begin? Answer, it doesn't. All religion is nothing more than acting on personal conviction. But it's not the convictions we legislate about, it's the acts they lead to.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

14. Comment #202328 by Border Collie on July 1, 2008 at 10:01 am

OK, we can't hate this group any longer so let's invent or choose a group we can hate. Political correctness, the new sanctimony.

Other Comments by Border Collie

15. Comment #202329 by Darwin's badger on July 1, 2008 at 10:05 am

Comment #202323 by Barbara on July 1, 2008 at 9:45 am
This is excellent news. However,...

I'm not so sure the girl who wasn't hired at the salon was wrong in suing the employer. Wearing a headscarf wouldn't impede her ability to perform as a hairdresser.

Barbara, my wife and I own a hair/beauty salon, and I can tell you for a fact that people don't just come in because of the quality of the haircuts. The staff are an extension of the salon, inasmuch as their appearance goes a long way toward the public's perception of the salon. I'm quite sure that people who aren't as attractive as supermodels could wear the clothes and walk up and down a catwalk, but the model is an extension of the fashion house, and by pairing beauty with the clothes, there is a psychological bond created; a form of classical conditioning, if you like.

If it's required that her hairdressing abilities be on display, she could keep a portfolio of her work at her work station.

With all due respect, most hairdressers don't cut their own hair anyway. :)

On the other hand, if the girl were refusing to perform a task that was essential to the job, of course, she should not be hired.

As I said above, "looking the part" is a task that's an essential part of the job, if one wishes to work in a trendy salon.

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

16. Comment #202331 by decius on July 1, 2008 at 10:06 am

Why does the salon owner have put up with the constant view of a symbol of chauvinism and female oppression, apart from its sheer ugliness and incompatibility with the job description?
It's like being asked to hire a shackled person for the sake of fucking multiculturalism.

It's incredible that people aren't free to run their business as they see fit and they get punished for not pandering to medieval nonsense.

Other Comments by decius

17. Comment #202333 by Nova on July 1, 2008 at 10:14 am

In the instance where the BBC sent out nearly identical job applications the discrimination may have not been very racial or racial at all. It may have been cultural which can hinder working ability. It seems many liberals are too quick to label something as racial discrimination yet we see in settings where a racial minority is within the majority culture discrimination almost never occurs and the racial difference is ignored. The difference in race may inflame cultural differences, but I think in many instances of 'racial' discrimination it is really cultural. For example if that experiment was repeated and some of the applicants had Polish looking names and the others had Anglo-Saxon names as in the original experiment I bet you would see the same discrimination even though the Polish racial majority is white like the British one because the discrimination is based mainly on culture and not race.

Other Comments by Nova

18. Comment #202335 by Darwin's badger on July 1, 2008 at 10:26 am

Oh, I forgot to mention: Bushra Noah had applied to 25 salons and been rejected every time, before she decided to sue, which suggests that it wasn't merely about her appearance. The owner of the salon, Sarah Desrosiers, is not some multi-national chain. She's an independent businesswoman who runs on a tight margin, and this has cost her nearly £6k with legal fees. If the court had awarded Noah the full amount she wanted (£15k), Desrosiers would have gone bankrupt.

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

19. Comment #202336 by gr8hands on July 1, 2008 at 10:32 am

Now Nova, there you go making a rational suggestion. Where will that get you?

I'm reminded of when I attended a white (I'm white) fundamentalist church service Sunday morning in a nice suit. I was utterly ignored. I enjoyed the music, so I went back for the Sunday evening service, in the same suit, and was politely acknowledged and greeted. What was the difference? A tie. In the morning, I didn't have one, wearing the shirt collar outside the jacket in a business casual fashion, and in the evening I wore the tie as traditional.

It appears the lack of a tie branded me as a dangerous outsider to be scorned and ignored, yet a traditional tie enabled me to be welcomed as one of the group. Nothing to do with my name, gender, background, color, race, creed, orientation. Just the tie.

If someone or some group wants to discriminate, they will manufacture a reason.

As for the resumes, where did they send them? Locally focused businesses typically have a different clientele and cadre than international businesses.

Other Comments by gr8hands

20. Comment #202337 by vanwall on July 1, 2008 at 10:37 am

I don't see why people are so excited that, in one instance, the government actually allows employers to make their own employment decisions. Why should the government have any say in how one chooses their friends, lovers employees, employers etc? I know people think its OK to abuse employers because they are seen as somehow a quasi-public entity who should be obliged to serve the public interest. I think they should be free to choose their own associates without having to justify their choice to anyone, least of all the idiot government.

Other Comments by vanwall

21. Comment #202340 by clodhopper on July 1, 2008 at 10:49 am

vanwall: because we have agreed that it is at least right to try, through legislation, to end various forms of discrimination in our society, no?

Other Comments by clodhopper

22. Comment #202344 by AdrianB on July 1, 2008 at 11:01 am

16. Comment #202331 by decius on July 1, 2008 at 10:06 am

Why does the salon owner have put up with the constant view of a symbol of chauvinism and female oppression, apart from its sheer ugliness and incompatibility with the job description?
It's like being asked to hire a shackled person for the sake of fucking multiculturalism.

It's incredible that people aren't free to run their business as they see fit and they get punished for not pandering to medieval nonsense.

The problem with your last sentance is where do we draw the line? Remember the fuss from the Christians when new laws came in that meant we cannot discriminate against homosexuals? There was the hotel owner that maintained it was his right to refuse entry to gays. There is an argument I suppose that if a business wants to refuse custom, we should allow them????

.

Other Comments by AdrianB

23. Comment #202345 by DalaiDrivel on July 1, 2008 at 11:06 am

Hmmm... Religions seem to me like bad unions in the workplace.

They seem to attempt to present workers with rights they shouldn't have.

i.e. "I want this job, decreeing that my physical appearance is not open to criticism nor can it disqualify me from employment."

Now to paraphrase one Douglas Adams here:

"Why not?"

"Because its not!"

The legitimacy of religious rights seems to me to rest on the legitimacy of religions themselves. Arguments for religion's utility are made constantly by the religious, although with their constant groping for evidence to support their insupportable "faith," it can be generally agreed that verifiable truth trumps considerations of utility and the benefits of illusion. Having read Sam Harris' account of Pragmatism in the End of Faith is particularly enlightening here I find.

I must say, the Supreme Courts of countries beleaguered by attempts to politicise sexual, racial and other forms of discrimination (scientific?) at the hands of the religious impress me in their resistance to the viral corruption inherent in religious influence.

There is no evidence for religious metaphysical truths, and (thankfully) therefore none for the morals derived in tandem. That a Supreme Court (or perhaps simply the government, as Johann Hari mentions) here has clearly denied criminalisation of religious discrimination warmly reminds me that a) the dubious philosophical and scientific implications of religion are not lost on its members, and b) with so many stupid people eager to jump into a nation's driver's seat, there are smart individuals already there to kick them out.

To finish esoterically....

Yes indeed, I delight in seeing another light appearing to fend off the ever-encroaching darkness. :)

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

24. Comment #202347 by HeyBishop on July 1, 2008 at 11:07 am

I agree with every word in this article.

Other Comments by HeyBishop

25. Comment #202350 by ilchymis on July 1, 2008 at 11:16 am

Comment #202307 by gr8hands on July 1, 2008 at 9:21 am
Here, here!

Where, where? :)

But yes, I agree.

Other Comments by ilchymis

26. Comment #202354 by EvidenceOnly on July 1, 2008 at 11:18 am

The article states: "You don't choose your race, sexuality, or gender, and they don't affect how well you do your job. But you do choose your religion."

While in theory you can choose your religion, in reality your religion is mostly determined by the religion of your parents and/or where in the world you were born.

All religions know that they need to control your mind from when you are very young and there is an enormous pressure to keep you from choosing a different religion or no religion at all.

Add to that the constant push to eliminate evidence-based education (evolutionary biology) that limits the number of people who can escape this religious stranglehold on society.

Society is way too accommodating to religious nonsense.

- if you don't want a picture taken of your face, you have decided that you will not drive a car.
- if you believe that the bible is a science book, you have decided not to be a science teacher.
- if you don't want to prescribe or sell birth control pills, you have decided not to be a doctor or a pharmacist.
- if you don't want to learn how to fly a plane, you have decided not to become a pilot.

It is really obvious when something is discrimination versus common sense.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

27. Comment #202357 by DalaiDrivel on July 1, 2008 at 11:25 am

It just occurred to me to add one justification, if any further could possibly be needed for this Equality Bill:

All of humanity is equal, but all humanisms are NOT created equal.

It is Canada Day today, and with the above statement I raise an especially extended two-fingered salute to dogmatism and superstition, and my beloved country's resistance (thus far...) to it!

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

28. Comment #202358 by DalaiDrivel on July 1, 2008 at 11:29 am

EvidenceOnly,

"- if you don't want to learn how to fly a plane, you have decided not to become a pilot."

No- the 9/11 hijackers certainly wanted to learn how to fly a plane. Sadly, what nobody figured out in time was why they didn't bother to learn how to take off and land it...

Your other points are superb, and eminently rational.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

29. Comment #202362 by encephalloyd on July 1, 2008 at 11:34 am

i do not believe that discrimination based on religion should be legal or that it is moral. discrimination should be allowed based on ability and willingness to perform the job, so long as it is not based on the forbidden criteria - age, gender, race, sexuality - and is relevant to the task at hand. examples follow:

- STRIPPER WANTED - must be willing to dance exotically for patrons while au naturel; climb poles and hang upside down; drop it like it's hot; allow patrons to hurl filthy lucre at you while you perform on stage and slip dingy one-dollar bills in your thong; give lap dances to patrons; id est, SEXUAL PRUDES NEED NOT APPLY
- BOUNCER AT TRANSSEXUAL CLUB NEEDED - must be willing to treat patrons with respect, administer first aide to patrons, including mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, should they need it; perform pat downs and searches for security purposes; id est, HOMOPHOBES NEED NOT APPLY
- COIFFEUR / COIFFEUSE WANTED - must be willing to be coiffed by co-coiffeurs; display coiffure to clients during business hours; participate in fashion shows ...

i think that the above types of discrimination are fair in all obvious cases, and that they are not discrimination is based on religion. i'm sure that there are many (legal) porn stars and strippers who are avowedly christians.

some care has to be taken to make sure that the requirements are reasonable. for example, an invidious form of gender discrimination might take the form of "must be able to bench press 150 pounds" for a computer programmer position (not that i could bench 150 pounds, but what does that have to do with hacking C?).

Other Comments by encephalloyd

30. Comment #202363 by encephalloyd on July 1, 2008 at 11:36 am

p.s. the (arguably) most important rule of web two point O development is being broken by this site (which i otherwise love): "DON'T BREAK THE BACK BUTTON!"

:(

Other Comments by encephalloyd

31. Comment #202367 by Barry Pearson on July 1, 2008 at 11:43 am

From my page "Religions are hobbies":
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/hobby.htm

Employment

To what extent should employers have to cater for any special needs of practitioners of particular hobbies? Should photographers automatically be permitted to carry a camera at all times? Should flower arrangers automatically be permitted to wear a lapel bouquet in their uniform? Should employees be allowed to discriminate against customers who have a different hobby from theirs? Typically, the answer is no. (However much I may want to make an exception for photographers!)

There are good reasons for requiring employers not to discriminate against people because of factors that are not under the control of the (prospective) employees which don't interfere with their performance in the job. (Race, sex, and sexual orientation are obvious examples of such factors, and disability is deserving of special consideration in a compassionate society). But hobbies (hence religious practices) do not deserve automatic special consideration.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

32. Comment #202372 by decius on July 1, 2008 at 11:56 am

AdrianB,

it's very simple to draw a line.

One should be free to choose whom to hire according to one's taste and business strategy, but not to refuse services to anyone . Employment is a long-term arrangement between parts, both have to fulfil a mutual commitment toward a common goal and not everyone is equally suited for a position.

Discrimination toward the clientèle belongs to an entirely different category, has no rational justification, and isn't in anyway implied in what I said earlier.

Other Comments by decius

33. Comment #202377 by Gregg Townsend on July 1, 2008 at 12:07 pm

I once had a business partner who used the term "fitness for purpose" in hiring. It's a good rule of thumb and leaves no logical room for bigotry.

If a religion forbids handling of material that is essential to the business, the religious adherent isn't fit for the job.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

34. Comment #202379 by al-rawandi on July 1, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Gregg Townsend,

That is discrimination. The appropriate thing to do to appease these people is to change your entire business model and go into debt. This way they won't get their burqas caught in the machinery.

The only job a Muslim woman would be fit for is bee keeper.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

35. Comment #202382 by al-rawandi on July 1, 2008 at 12:13 pm

BEE KEEPER

Other Comments by al-rawandi

36. Comment #202389 by Henri Bergson on July 1, 2008 at 12:25 pm

That's all good and well Hari, but be mindful of your grammar: 'gender' only refers to grammatical differences ('le', 'la'), not differences of biological sex.

So it should read, '...age, race, sex and sexuality'.

Call me a pedant, but your messiah Dawkins complained about it in 'Unweaving the Rainbow', calling the mistake an ironic form of western imperialism.

(I've got too much time on my hands...)

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

37. Comment #202390 by Meritocracy on July 1, 2008 at 12:25 pm

I wish Mr Hari were correct in his conclusions that religion could be legally sidelined - nothing could be more poignant to the secularist cause.

Unfortunately, it seems he is reading completely different legislation to me. I have looked at the detail contained within the Equality Bill. It does make provision for discrimination on the grounds of religion:

"The Equality Bill will contain a new streamlined Equality Duty to replace the race, disability and gender equality duties, which will also cover gender reassignment, age, sexual orientation and religion or belief."

Page 13 'Framework for a Fairer Future - The Equality Bill.' (Government leaflet)

The leaflet goes on to give examples of what the specific duties of the new legislation might encompass. For example, "... a local authority looking for a provider of 'meals on wheels' that delivers culturally diverse food, including kosher and halal meals."

The actual legislation document points out that it will be "... a bill to to make provision about discrimination on grounds of religion or belief." (amongst other things).

(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/072/05072.1-7.html#j339)

The recent crop of media hype around the issue should have made the point quite clear. An excerpt from the Guardian said the following:
"The white paper promised to replace "a thicket of legislation" on different types of discrimination with a single equality duty covering race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion and belief."

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/27/equality.constitution)

I'm not sure where Mr Hari is getting his information from but it seems to differ entirely from mine - much as I'd prefer his to be correct!

I must conclude, I'm deeply opposed to this legislation. It officially espouses so-called 'Affirmative Action' or 'Positive Discrimination' - discrimination against a majority group may be well intentioned but it remains discrimination nonetheless. This only serves to increase division and resentment across the various demographics in society. Society should advocate the best person for the job regardless of their racial, sexual or pietistical leanings. Anything less is a betrayal of the concept that all men are created equal.

Meritocracy

Other Comments by Meritocracy

38. Comment #202391 by bitbutter on July 1, 2008 at 12:26 pm

You don't choose your race, sexuality, or gender, and they don't affect how well you do your job. But you do choose your religion - and there are instances in which it will make it impossible for you to do a job properly. If you are a burqua-wearing Muslim, you can't enter Miss Great Britain.

A bit sloppy. Gender can also be an important impediment to entering Miss Great Britain.

Other Comments by bitbutter

39. Comment #202397 by Henri Bergson on July 1, 2008 at 12:37 pm

More importantly, discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, age, etc, is perfectly acceptable at times anyway, unless you want a mediocre society.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=slcyLhliX24

We're run by degenerates who dress up mediocrity as morality, thereby degenerating society itself.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

40. Comment #202402 by Henri Bergson on July 1, 2008 at 12:41 pm

To believe that all are equal is a socialist belief taken directly from Christianity. Show me the proof.

All men are not equal.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

41. Comment #202405 by al-rawandi on July 1, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Henri,

You are right, all people are not equal. If that were true, Asian engineers could play in the NBA just the same as anyone else.

And socialism wasn't about people being equal, it was about forcing them to all be equally poor.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

42. Comment #202407 by Henri Bergson on July 1, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I don't think that was their avowed intention...

Point is - by trying to make people equal one makes society mediocre.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

43. Comment #202409 by Simonw on July 1, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I don't see how wearing a head scarf impacts your ability to cut anyones hair but your own. I'd far rather people espousing medieval religious opinions were cutting people's hair, than say repairing nuclear power stations (don't worry about the leaks - god will take care of us).

I personally find the current religious discrimination in the UK very offensive. With state schools (none of them secular!), able, if they choose, to discriminate against pupils on the basis of their parents religion (religious guilt by association?) or lack of.

As such I think folks need to be careful for what they wish.

Pick people for their ability to do the job. Beliefs irrelevant to the task at hand aren't appropriate criteria for selecting employees, and insisting anyone with different beliefs to yours is wrong is the height of arrogance. Most people have some pretty wacky, even blatantly incorrect beliefs, including most atheists.

There is a proverb about the wise man surrounding himself with other intelligent folk who disagree with him, whose details I've forgotten, and it was probably some religious text anyway....

Other Comments by Simonw

44. Comment #202410 by clodhopper on July 1, 2008 at 1:04 pm

The notion of equality exists in a social context. It is self evident that people are not equal in terms of intellect, ability, attributes and so on. If we use the notion of equality to pigeonhole people then I feel that is wrong. If the idea is used (it seldom is) to try to ensure equality in provision of say, health care or education or so on, then should we not at least aim for that?

Other Comments by clodhopper

45. Comment #202411 by al-rawandi on July 1, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Henri,

That was the result. Screw their intentions. Only idiots persist and refuse to learn from failure. Any how, there won't be equality, if everyone where equal, how would we excel as a species?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

46. Comment #202413 by Don_Quix on July 1, 2008 at 1:07 pm

I think the only true equality we will ever have is that we're all equally SCREWED.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

47. Comment #202417 by Henri Bergson on July 1, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Al,

so you're saying that socialism retards evolution? I'd agree. If you're being sarcastic, it doesn't work.

Clodhopper,

why should we aim for mediocrity? In education, say, if all are taught equally the best do not reach their potential.

Aiming for equality is Christian. The ancient Greeks never strived for equality but for individual excellence. That was the classical purpose of society.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

48. Comment #202421 by bugaboo on July 1, 2008 at 1:22 pm

40. Comment #202402 by Henri Bergson

All men are not equal

Absolutley. But not grounds for discrimination.

Other Comments by bugaboo

49. Comment #202423 by al-rawandi on July 1, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Henri,

No sarcasm. I detest socialism as something that does nothing but hinder human progress. I doubt a socialist country will cure AIDS. Or make the next revolution in space travel.

Equality (in the sense we are using it) is a terrible thing. People need to hop off that band wagon.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

50. Comment #202426 by decius on July 1, 2008 at 1:26 pm

al

the first man in space was from the USSR and the next manned mission to the moon will probably be chinese. I don't see that particular correlation as correct.

Other Comments by decius

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 | Next | Last