Why religion deserves special protection?

[Garbarsardar]

I was reading TWC's ToS earlier (a favourite passtime) and I noticed that on this site, as in many countries around the globe, religion enjoys a special protection:

Using race, religion, sexual orientation, culture, ethnicity, handicap, nationality, or gender as a means of insult, either directly or implied

You will surely notice that religion is the only attribute protected while being a matter of choice, contrary to all the other enumerated attributes.

I also had enough with this or that member being "offended" and this or that group being offended, enraged, apoplectic, ballistic etc, because his religion was under attack.

At the same time, I see no special protection and no corresponding offense taken by Nazis, Socialists, Communists, Neo-Cons, Anarchists, Atheists when their set of ideological beliefs are ridiculed or under attack.

So, the simple claim that one's ideology is based on some revelation, spiritual awakening, or bearded thing in the sky seems sufficient to grant to this person an enhanced degree of protection.

Why?

One answer is that if all religions are not equally protected, big religions will eat up the small ones. Christian Churches will dig up Native Indian cemeteries and Mosques will obliterate Zoroastrian Temples. However there is nothing that explains why this situation cannot be dealt by laws protecting cultural heritage and in any case it does not account for the protection religion enjoys against attacks which do not threaten their historical possessions.

Just considering that I can defraud people as long as I state that I was "believing" in the nonsense I was peddling, is to say the least infuriating:

As the case of United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), demonstrates, the Supreme Court must look to the sincerity of a person's beliefs to help decide if those beliefs constitute a religion that deserves constitutional protection. The Ballard case involved the conviction of organizers of the I Am movement on grounds that they defrauded people by falsely representing that their members had supernatural powers to heal people with incurable illnesses. The Supreme Court held that the jury, in determining the line between the free exercise of religion and the punishable offense of obtaining property under False Pretenses, should not decide whether the claims of the I Am members were actually true, only whether the members honestly believed them to be true, thus qualifying the group as a religion under the Supreme Court's broad definition.

I really wonder what Madoff's lawyers were doing. They could claim that Bernie had a "belief" in the supernatural powers of his Ponzi scheme and he would be free now. Damn amateurs.

So, I ask again: why?

[PointOfViewGun]

There are other things in that list that you can choose. Religion itself is not a protected thing there as well. What's protected is the member and the ToS simply tells you that you can't use religion among other things as a tool to insult someone.

[Garbarsardar]

There are other things in that list that you can choose. Religion itself is not a protected thing there as well. What's protected is the member and the ToS simply tells you that you can't use religion among other things as a tool to insult someone.

Really? What exactly can you choose from the list apart from religion?

Religion itself is not a protected thing there as well.

Religion itself is never a protected thing. Should I be pedantic and say "religious individuals" to spare you the misunderstanding?

What's protected is the member and the ToS simply tells you that you can't use religion among other things as a tool to insult someone.

My point is that religion is the only thing "among other things" that is not a matter of choice.

And anyway, I used that as an example to start the OP.

The topic of the thread is why religion (or religious people) deserve a different degree of protection than any other ideology. Do you have anything to say about this?

[Hazzard]

There are other things in that list that you can choose. Religion itself is not a protected thing there as well. What's protected is the member and the ToS simply tells you that you can't use religion among other things as a tool to insult someone.

What else in there could you choose? Because the only other one someone might view as something you choose is sexual orientation, which I don't think you do. I like women, no matter how much I want to I will never find a man attractive to the point where we would shag.

And if I want to call the Muslim in school I really don't get on with I don't think it's wrong for me to get in trouble for mentioning that he doesn't eat bacon when I insult him when it's perfectly ok for him to say something offensive about my Atheism.

[Bolkonsky]

Like everything else, it's twisted, dragged through the mud, and abused. Attacking someone based on their religion is not ok. Attacking someone for any reason but defense isn't ok.

Orchestrating a ponzi scheme and saying it's your religion is complete bs. If your religion's doctrine tells you to hurt people, then your religion does not deserve protection. Protection of religion is being abused.

Also, you can choose your culture, and your gender, and sexual orientation, if you want to get technical about it. Saying you can't is like telling a religious person they can choose their religion. It means as much to them as culture does to some people, and gender and sexual orientation do to other people.

[PointOfViewGun]

What else in there could you choose? Because the only other one someone might view as something you choose is sexual orientation, which I don't think you do. I like women, no matter how much I want to I will never find a man attractive to the point where we would shag.

And if I want to call the Muslim in school I really don't get on with I don't think it's wrong for me to get in trouble for mentioning that he doesn't eat bacon when I insult him when it's perfectly ok for him to say something offensive about my Atheism.

Really? What exactly can you choose from the list apart from religion?

Your nationality and to some extent your gender. On second though, your culture as well.

Religion itself is never a protected thing. Should I be pedantic and say "religious individuals" to spare you the misunderstanding?

Religious individuals? No. There is a difference between ridiculing religion and ridiculing a person through his or her religion.

My point is that religion is the only thing "among other things" that is not a matter of choice.

And anyway, I used that as an example to start the OP.

The topic of the thread is why religion (or religious people) deserve a different degree of protection than any other ideology. Do you have anything to say about this?

Only that people need to make sure not to misunderstand nor use it incorrectly. It creates people who are either over-protective or over-reacting.

[Sir Adrian]

Religion is the only attribute protected while being a matter of choice, contrary to all the other enumerated attributes.

FALSE

Nationality is very much a matter of choice. Just like religion, one ca easily ditch the citizenship he was born with and go trough the process of acquiring a new one. Or get a second citizenship. This process has been made even easier with the appearance of the various supra-national organizations such as the EU.
Culture is completely a matter of choice too. There is nothing stopping you from adopting a different culture than your own. Just look at any immigrant or any minority in any country. More often than not changing one's citizenship also leads to a voluntary change of one's culture.
Gender has also become a matter of choice in recent years, via the use of plastic and general surgery. And some psychologists would also claim that sexuality is a matter of choice.
Pretty soon race and ethnicity will become optional too.

Furthermore atheists are just as insulted as religious people, it depends on the individual, not the group. The reason why atheists appear not be insulted is that most of the times atheists (I'm only referring to the small group that actively engages in these types of debates, not all atheists) are the ones taking the aggressive stance in any debate not religious people.
I fail to see how politics really compare with any of the categories mentioned in the ToS.


I don't know where you are trying to go with this, but your hypotheses are entirely erroneous.

[Sogdog]

It shouldn't get any special protection at all! It is a social movement that has let its collective ego get ahead of itself! We don't give communism nor facism any special preference. Religion is just a reworked version of these social movements, take away its priviledges! The Netherlands has the right idea by removing religion from its protected pedestal! Go Holland!

[The Despondent Mind]

I also had enough with this or that member being "offended" and this or that group being offended, enraged, apoplectic, ballistic etc, because his religion was under attack.

At the same time, I see no special protection and no corresponding offense taken by Nazis, Socialists, Communists, Neo-Cons, Anarchists, Atheists when their set of ideological beliefs are ridiculed or under attack.

So, the simple claim that one's ideology is based on some revelation, spiritual awakening, or bearded thing in the sky seems sufficient to grant to this person an enhanced degree of protection.

Why?

I have also a frustration about this , it's simply ridiculous and is the bane of free speaking .

[Dr. Croccer]

Religion doesn't have 'special protection', the ToS clearly states that you can't insult other members using their personal beliefs, which seems entirely acceptabel to me. There's hardly a shortage of people willing to insult them or religion so the supply side of this 'problem' has been dealt with

Unless you're unable to express yourself without insulting the people you're supposed to have a discussion you won't have a problem and I don't understand why this is a topic and why people are complaining about nonexistant infringements on freedom of speech.

And I'm pretty sure that they use 'religion' to refer to any beliefs, including Atheism. If I started insulting someone with remarks about his beliefs then I'd be warned as much as anyone else would.

The Netherlands has the right idea by removing religion from its protected pedestal! Go Holland!

Eh? Our country is probably more protective of religious sensibilities than any other country in Western Europe except maybe Ireland.

[sumskilz]

We don't give communism nor facism any special preference. Religion is just a reworked version of these social movements

I think you got it backwards. Political social movements seem like reworked versions of religion, even including faith in spite of contrary evidence.

[The Dude]

In a broader scope not just limited to this forum, religion gets special status in society simply because there are so damn many believers. It's a sad fact that we atheists of the 21st century were not born in a few centuries later, and that we're still made to inhabit a world where over 80% of human adults (probably even more) believe in some kind of magical sky wizard who weaves his mighty spell of life. Once the balance starts to tip, we stop taking these childish beliefs seriously, or even pretend to have any form of respect for them. Look at Scientology. There's only a few of them, so people seem to have very little trouble coming to the concensus that Scientologists are somehow loons. They are, of course, but no more than members of any other religion. Because what happens if I go to St. Peter's Square in Rome and ask the people there why they've gone to such lengths to visit what is essentially a huge shrine to a cosmic sorceror? Then suddenly I am offensive and should show respect.

Should I? Really? Far be it for me to tell you to drop your faith in your great wizard (though I would prefer if you did), but I don't have to take it seriously.

[Habelo]

The difference that you are missing is that you can have a good childhood while still being a little christian, while scientology will never produce any good childhoods.

[In3x]

The difference that you are missing is that you can have a good childhood while still being a little christian, while scientology will never produce any good childhoods.

The only scientologist I have ever met was well adjusted and clearly had a perfectly good childhood, I think you'll have to try harder.

Orchestrating a ponzi scheme and saying it's your religion is complete bs. If your religion's doctrine tells you to hurt people, then your religion does not deserve protection. Protection of religion is being abused.

Quite a few religions seem to encourage harm to others; genital mutilation, holy wars and religious punishments.

[Valden]

Religion doesn't have 'special protection', the ToS clearly states that you can't insult other members using their personal beliefs, which seems entirely acceptabel to me. There's hardly a shortage of people willing to insult them or religion so the supply side of this 'problem' has been dealt with

Unless you're unable to express yourself without insulting the people you're supposed to have a discussion you won't have a problem and I don't understand why this is a topic and why people are complaining about nonexistant infringements on freedom of speech.

And I'm pretty sure that they use 'religion' to refer to any beliefs, including Atheism. If I started insulting someone with remarks about his beliefs then I'd be warned as much as anyone else would.

Eh? Our country is probably more protective of religious sensibilities than any other country in Western Europe except maybe Ireland.

Exactly, everything you have said is bang on right. The rule is not against criticising religious beliefs, but against ad hominem attacks in general; an ad hominem attack may manifest in the form of insulting a person based on their beliefs. Special protection is not granted to the truth of religious beliefs by the forum rules, but to the right of individual members to come here and freely debate in an open forum without being insulted for their beliefs/ideology. By all means present rational arguments in favour or against the validity of X belief, but to insult someone with a derogatory remark about their beliefs should be and is prohibited in the forum rules. Indeed, the OP's "bearded thing in the sky" line is in my opinion one such remark; opposition to religious belief worded in a deliberately derogative way.

[frozenprince]

Like everything else, it's twisted, dragged through the mud, and abused. Attacking someone based on their religion is not ok. Attacking someone for any reason but defense isn't ok.

Orchestrating a ponzi scheme and saying it's your religion is complete bs. If your religion's doctrine tells you to hurt people, then your religion does not deserve protection. Protection of religion is being abused.

Also, you can choose your culture, and your gender, and sexual orientation, if you want to get technical about it. Saying you can't is like telling a religious person they can choose their religion. It means as much to them as culture does to some people, and gender and sexual orientation do to other people.

*sighs* No. You. Can't.

Not to derail this thread, but you can't. Pure and simple. Nobody wakes up and "chooses" to like someone of the same sex.

And I don't see a problem with the rules, it prevents attacking or insulting someone using their beliefs, not insulting the religion itself.

[Dr. Croccer]

I see alot of people have entirely missed the point of the ToS so they can rant about how horrible it is to be an Atheist in 2013 and how the utopia will be there once everyone is enlightened.

If you seriously believe that a shift in the population who believe in a y/n to an essentially philosophical question is going to usher in a sudden golden age then you're just as deluded than the religious fanatics you oppose.

I hope the Earth gets inherited by the areligious rather than people with an unwarranted sense of self-importance because they deny the existence of something that shouldn't interest them in the first place anyway.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Religion shouldn't have special protection, especially when the TOS doesn't state anything about political affliliations receiving the same protection. I value polical ideologies higher than I do to some organized belief in a fairy tale.

[Garbarsardar]

FALSE
Nationality is very much a matter of choice. Just like religion, one ca easily ditch the citizenship he was born with and go trough the process of acquiring a new one. Or get a second citizenship. This process has been made even easier with the appearance of the various supra-national organizations such as the EU.

You overlook some essential legal and practical differences. First, one can simply state his religion and there is no possible way to verify his saying, this is not the case with nationality. Second no one has "no nationality" except in case of refugees or people in need of some protection. Third one should be adopted in a new nationality before ditching the old one, or one can have two nationalities at the same time: both are not the case with religion. Finally, changing nationality is a legal process which may or may not be typically successful, while officially there is no failed applicant for Christianity, for example.

Culture is completely a matter of choice too. There is nothing stopping you from adopting a different culture than your own. Just look at any immigrant or any minority in any country. More often than not changing one's citizenship also leads to a voluntary change of one's culture.

Considering that your memory is part of your cultural identity, then, except if you live in some Sci-Fi epic, no, you cannot change culture.

Gender has also become a matter of choice in recent years, via the use of plastic and general surgery.

You need again to take into account the long, painful and not always successful process that entails a gender changing surgery. It takes more than a statement of intent.

And some psychologists would also claim that sexuality is a matter of choice.

Those must be very bad psychologists who live in a cave and have not read a paper since 1988.

Pretty soon race and ethnicity will become optional too.

Soon. Until then, you don't really have an argument.

But as I said before, the topic was not really the ToS, or this would be in Q&S. TWC is not the sole body from which protection of religion emanates. The US Supreme court has also decided on the issue while I cannot find any ruling protecting for example Liberal Ideology from attacks.

[Ummagumma]

I suppose it is more related to historical precedent, then. Race, culture and religion (and greed, but that does not really apply to the TOS comparison - unless Hex now take bribes?? hahaha) have been causes of hatred, war and genocide. Still are, in some regards.
It (religion) is something personal that, in the eyes of the believers, surpasses the mundane - and as such can be felt as a personal attack, or even held in a 'cultural memory' of sorts - such as anti-Semitism. One discrimination/hatred used so much there is even a word for it.