Religious Discrimination: What Do You Think?
Where do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable discrimination on the grounds of religion?
Clearly there is a line. Even if you think there should never be any religious discrimination, or that there always should be, that’s still making a choice, and drawing a line.
I’m thinking that it’s ok to discriminate religiously when employing (or whatever) a minister of religion if you are yourself a religious organisation.
I also think that some types of religious discrimination are ok when employing (or whatever) a minister of religion if you are not a religious organisation e.g. a hospital, prison or armed force. Not nearly as many though, and more based on factors caused by that religion, for example I’m guessing the Army may not want to employ a Quaker chaplain, since Quakers are typically non-violent. One of the abiding qualities of a chaplain in a non-religious organisation should be being able to provide support for everybody in the organisation regardless of religious belief - there may be some faiths or denominations for whom that is not possible.
I think it may be ok to discriminate on the grounds of religion in a religiously based organisation, like a Catholic school, or an Islamic charity. But I think this discrimination should be limited only to the places that it is strictly relevant, being a teacher of religious studies - probably, being a secretary - not so much. This is less discrimination than is currently normally allowed. Most religiously based organisations strongly prefer their employees to share the religious beliefs of the organisation, but I don’t think that’s good unless the position really demands religious belief and couldn’t be done by a non-believer. I imagine that my criteria for religion being necessary are stricter than many religious people.
I think it’s fundamentally not ok to discriminate on the grounds of religion in a non-religiously based organisation. The grey area here is when people’s religious beliefs mean that they cannot perform some of the requirements of the job in question. An evangelical Christian should be able to take up employment at an evolutionary biology lab. Any belief in young earth creationism should not affect your ability to mop floors, it may not even affect your ability to carry out research (although I might question your choices). I think that in all cases, it isn’t what you think but what you do that should be discriminated on.
Naturally non-religion should no more be discriminated against than religion. I see no reason why an atheist couldn’t be a prison chaplain, a Catholic school teacher, or an accountant, just as I see no reason why a Buddhist, Baptist, Muslim, Mormon or Sikh can’t.
What do you think?
Popularity: 19% [?]
Comments
10 Responses to “Religious Discrimination: What Do You Think?”
Got something to say?
I think the only criteria should be whether the applicant is able to do the job they’ve applied for. If an atheist could do the job of being a minister of religion, then they shouldn’t be discriminated against on that basis. Of course, the likelihood of an atheist being able to do that job is slim - unless it’s the Church of England, I suppose (sorry, kidding). If the job involved “seeking God’s will for x congregation”, I doubt an atheist could with integrity do that because surely you have to believe in someone to seek their will!
As for being an RE teacher in a religious school (ignoring for a moment that fact that I don’t think religious schools should exist), providing you’re willing to teach the syllabus I don’t think there should be an issue with an atheist doing that role (though again, would anyone really want to!).
Another example of where religion might affect ability to do the job could be where an organisation felt they needed someone to adequately represent the beliefs of a particular religion where their market/membership was not represented on their board/committee.
The principle is unwavering - if you can do a job and your beliefs aren’t going to get in the way of you doing it to the best of your ability, then you shouldn’t be discriminated against. The best candidate should get the job.
You don’t phrase your opening question in terms of discrimination [i]in employment[/i], but all your examples relate to that.
And I think this means we need to think a bit more about the concept of employment. We can view it as a simple transaction – performance of specific services in return for an agreed payment – but the truth is that there is usually a good deal more to it than that.
Employment in a school in particular is a multi-dimensional relationship. We have a community which includes the governors, the teaching staff, the pupils and, to some extent, the parents and the wider community. The pupils are not simply consumers of educational services provided by the school, or the recipients of information handed out. The school is an organic community.
The question arises, is it a legitimate aspiration for a religious group to wish to establish a school community which embodies and reflects their views and values? This is not simply, or even primarily, a matter of teaching the students the specific things that the particular religious group believes; it involves treating the students in every respect in a way which reflects the views of that group about the human person, human development, human values, etc. It involves building a community with a commitment not just to informing people about those values, but to living them out. This implies that values are important and relevant so far as all the teachers are concerned, not just the RE teacher.
Note that the issue here is not whether the state or the public should pay for or support such a school community; it is whether it should be allowed to exist at all.
It seems extraordinarily intolerant to say that such a community should not be allowed to form, or to exist. Yet if we insist on seeing the relationship between the school and its teachers as simply one of employment, and we prohibit discrimination on religious grounds, we are effectively banning the formation of such a community, which if not constrained by law would tend to be made up of people with a commitment to the values the school seeks to realise.
There is a real tension here between the right of people to the free exercise of their religion communally as well as individually, and the undoubted importance of free and fair access to employment for all. There has to be some pragmatic resolution which balances the right of a school or similar community to foster and maintain its ethos, and the rights of teachers and prospective teachers to freedom of conscience. I don;’t think, though, this can be reduced to asking “is the candidate willing to teach the syllabus?”
ok, I’ll go further. I also don’t think adoption agencies should be able to select prospective parents according to their religion. I don’t think schools should be able to select students according to their religion (or the wealth or social status of their parents, etc). I think that although it’s a good thing if Muslim workers get given regular breaks throughout the day to pray, to avoid discriminating all workers should get those breaks.
And I am “intolerant” enough that I don’t want religious schools to exist at all. Given a choice I wouldn’t want private education to exist either, just state education. The very existence of private education damages the state sector and reinforces an archaic class system. Kids should be treated equally and given the same quality of resources and opportunities (that doesn’t mean they should all be treated the same; obviously no two kids are the same).
If we remember that religion is an individual’s choice, there is no line to be drawn.
Let’s look at the church as a business - because it is a business. No employer is going to hire someone who denies that the business should even exist. Should an employee speak out against the business, he will likely be fired.
That about covers it for religious organizations of any type - if you’re willing to toe the party line, you are eligible for employment.
Now, let’s flip it around and cover the biology lab argument. We have a business, we have an employer, and we have an employee. Now, this single employee starts talking about how everything the business is doing is wrong, and the employer should completely abandon the business. That employee should be fired.
It is never ok to discriminate based on religion. It is ALWAYS ok to discriminate based on an individual’s actions.
This one popped up recently - medics and nurses refusing to wash their hands any farther up their arms than the wrist. The rules require personnel to scrub up to the elbow. These rules were put in place for the benefit of this business’s customers - these guidelines are quite possibly life-saving measures, protecting patients from infection. They existed long before the above mentioned nurses and medics sought employment.
In my idealistic world, these people would be fired immediately, and I would consider pressing criminal charges if they had treated patients in that condition. Criminal negligence, depraved indifference… there are thousands of deadly and dangerous infections floating around, and refusing to take even basic sanitary precautions in these environments has got to be a criminal act.
In the real world, these medics and nurses demanded preferential treatment at British hospitals based on their religious principles. They believed that their right to cover their arms with their sleeves was more important than performing their duties.
Can you link to the story about doctors and nurses refusing to wash their arms in British hospitals? I never heard about this - sounds like Daily Mail scaremongering but happy to be proved wrong if there’s a credible source.
This is from the Telegraph, so not perfect, but it seems ok. It doesn’t actually sound like anyone has refused to do it yet, but that they’re pointing out a potential problem.
I agree that hygiene is more important to me but would be happy to accept an alternative if one could be found.
Well. the article itself reports a suggestion of elbow-length surgical gloves as an alternative to those with an objection to baring their arms.
I don’;t know, obviously, whether this does provide the required degree of hygiene but, assuming it does, and assuming that the cost difference between standard wrist-length gloves and elbow-length gloves is not material, then the “problem” is easily solved.
Suppose, however, that there was no quick and easy solution. If the particular practice to which there is a relgious objection is a genuine and appropriate requirement of the job, then someone’s religious beliefs may prevent them from doing the job. That is not an unacceptable discrimination against them. \
But it is right to scrutiinise the practice in question and ask whether it really is a genuine rwquirement, or whether it is just a habit, a tradition or even an indirect way of discouraging people not quite like us. For example, height requirements for certain jobs have historically excluded many women from consideration. In some instances these height requirements have been reappraised and altered or dropped entirely, precisley because there was no pressing justification for them, and they were in practice impeding access by women. A refusal to scrutinise the justification for a job requirement which does in fact impede access by any group would be discriminatory, I think, even if the job requirement itself makes no reference to religion.
I agree with the basic principle you’re raising, Peregrinus. In this case it does seem like it is new guidance (so it was not in the job description when they started training), that no-one has refused to do it yet and that alternatives are being looked at. So the way it has been reported does seem like scaremongering to me.
You mentioned the cost difference between normal gloves and arm-length gloves. You’re right to factor in cost to an assessment of the public interest, but in this case it seems like many people would resign or not take up the course if they were forced to carry out the new guidance with no alternatives. And we can still guarantee a job to every qualified doctor, so it is not the case that reducing the pool from which doctors can be employed would cause no problems. Having more doctors is more in the public interest than saving a few thousand quid on extra gloves, in my view.
But again, I think you are right if what you are suggesting is that the paradigm we should view this through is one of workers’ rights, not religious rights. If workers want to do something that does not detract from their job performance, management should not prevent it. If it does detract then it may be different, depending on the issue. But to think of the issue as primarily a religious one gives religious people more rights than everyone else.
@tim f:
I think you make a good point. It’s not so much about religious rights, as workers’ rights, but on the other hand, religious beliefs are things that usually demand certain practices that may affect existing working arrangements.
“But again, I think you are right if what you are suggesting is that the paradigm we should view this through is one of workers’ rights, not religious rights. If workers want to do something that does not detract from their job performance, management should not prevent it. If it does detract then it may be different, depending on the issue. But to think of the issue as primarily a religious one gives religious people more rights than everyone else.”
I gotta disagree on this point. The right to freedom of religious expression and freedom of religious practice extends to all beliefs and practices on religious questions – including atheistic and agnostic beliefs and practices.
It’s because of the right to freedom of religious expression that it is wrong, for instance, to require members of parliament to take a theistic oath, as was required until late in the nineteenth century. The belief that there is no God, or that we cannot or do not know whether there is a God, is as much a belief on a religious question as the belief that there is a God, and it should enjoy the same protection.
I think it’s wrong, then, to say that recognizing and protecting the freedom of religious expression or the freedom of religious practice privileges religious people over non-religious people. These freedoms are important safeguards to non-religious people, especially in a society, or at a time, when their views are unpopular or resented.