Culture & Religion
March Thu 06, 2014
All the articles in Culture & Religion
In the course of the conversations, debates, arguments, etc., about the recently vetoed Arizona RFRA proposal specifically, and exemptions from antidiscrimination laws generally, the questions are sometimes posed (a) whether a particular action reflects or is motivated by "bigotry" or by "sincerely held religious belief" and (b) whether there's really a clear line between the two. We could say, I suppose that "bigotry" is just the word we attach to motivating premises and beliefs that seem particularly offensive or insufficiently rational or connected with reality. If we say this, then the line separating "bigotry" from "sincerely held religious belief" is not clear at all. Or, we could simply declare that an otherwise "bigoted" (under definition) action will *not* be labelled as "bigoted" if it reflects a certain kind of insufficiently rational belief, i.e., "sincerely held religious belief." But, this would simply be a declaration, an ipse dixit of sorts. I'm not sure we should invest too much time or energy in trying to distinguish sharply -- for purposes of the typical liberal political community's antidiscrimination laws -- between conduct that is motivated by "sincerely held religious belief" and conduct that is motivated by "bigotry." It seems to me a better approach might be to start with this question: "When, if ever, should we accommodate or tolerate conduct that (i) the political community has decided, for reasons that it thinks sufficient and appropriate, to prohibit and (ii) is motivated by sincerely held religious belief?" Of course, we could say "never", but I don't think we should (because we are committed, for now, to some form of religious liberty. We could say, "we should accommodate, unless the conduct is motivated by 'bigotry.'" Instead, maybe we should just say "we should tolerate or accommodate otherwise prohibited conduct that is motivated by sincerely held religious belief if it is possible to do so reasonably efficiently and without undermining the policies or values that underlie the prohibition or regulation." The "without undermining" inquiry is hardly cut-and-dried, but I think it could be done without trying to cull through "religious" motivations and separate them from "bigoted" ones. Originally appeared in Mirror of Justice
Calciomercato Milan/ News, Bertone: Menez, futuro incerto. Witsel? A fine agosto... (esclusiva)
BIODIVERSITÀ/ Un “Bioblitz” sul Gran Sasso per conoscere meglio gli ecosistemi
Calciomercato Juventus/ News, Mossio: Draxler? Non sono convinto. Isla partirà ancora ...
Calciomercato Inter/ News, Ciotola: Jovetic ago della bilancia. Shaqiri bocciato troppo presto ...
Calciomercato Napoli/ News, Ciotola: Hysaj? Meglio Vrsaljko. Higuain, precedenti negativi ...
Calciomercato Roma/ News, Mossio: Dzeko prima di tutto. Con Salah Gervinho che fa? (esclusiva)
Read all News