Fairness vs. Favoritism
by andyhavens (Member) - published: October 7, 2007
Word Count: 854 Word Bytes: 5479 Viewed: 478 times
Category - Opinions
© Copyright by andyhavens

0.00

(0 votes)

You must login to vote

Windchime posted an excellent opinion piece here:

http://www.lit.org/view/39839

that I wanted to follow up on.

There is an essential difference, I think, summed up in the one word "reasonable."

Lena said: "...religious accommodations that certainly go far beyond anything that has ever proceeded it..." With that, I have to disagree.

I'm Christian (Protestant), and the US government goes out of its way to accommodate me. I get most of my major holidays off, and the government shuts down on several of them (Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, etc.) My God is invoked in court, during swearings-in, in many states' marriage liscencing procedures, on our money, in the pledge of allegiance, etc.

Many people in the US equate Christianity (and often, specifically, Protestantism) with many of the founding beliefs of the country and with the creation of the mainstream culture that created America's various successes; economic, geopolitical, cultural, artistic, technical. Many people who are not part of that Protestant mainstream have benefited (some would say) from participation in a system created by those with a religion, background and culture very much unlike that of those reaping the benefits.

For example, if you come from a culture/country with none of the basic Bill of Rights freedoms (speech, religion, assembly, press, etc.), you get to have those in the US regardless (for the most part) of your background. You can come from places where being from a minority religion is going to have a huge negative impact on your life, to the US where basic tenets of plurality will allow you to live (again, for the most part) with many fewer difficulties.

Now, "fewer difficulties" doesn't necessarily mean that you get to live exactly as you'd like. Which is where we get into issues of what "reasonable" means. The famous example in US history is that Mormons do not get to practice polygamy, even though some in their religion believe it's OK. For whatever reason, this has been defined as "unreasonable" from a government-to-religion accommodation standpoint.

There are two types of protests (I believe) to the reasonableness of a religious (or, frankly, any other) belief or activity as it pertains to its relationship to the mainstream. I speak here (of course) as a US citizen, and don't know as much about Canada.

First, there is the objection of those who are biased in favor of anything that supports or enhances their own personal power, that of organizations to which they belong, or that of groups of people most like them. Sometimes those objections take the form of racism or elitism, sometimes they are based solely on the fear of any kind of change to a status quo. Regardless of motive, I would argue that these objections are, essentially, selfish and--in a country that supports pluralism--inappropriate.

Second, there are objections that changes in government policy will lead to a state of affairs less likely to maintain the general welfare of the country; including and especially with regards to those pluralistic tendencies which allow diversity themselves.

For example: in the US, some strides have been made towards effecting the equality of women and racial minorities. Should religious accommodation be made to those faiths which believe in the inherent inferiority of women and non-member races? That's a tricky, tricky question, neh?

Some see the religious requirement of covering the face of a woman as a simple, faith-based choice in clothing; similar to the wearing of a crucifix or a yarmulke. Others, however, see it as a degrading and sexist imposition on women.

Is the burqa issue one at the "yarmulke" level, or one at the "polygamy" level? Most people in the US, I think, wouldn't worry overmuch about an issue of clothing. We tend to tolerate a lot of diversity in personal apparel choices... unlike, again, some of the countries from where those folks asking for accommodation originate.

What about separate facilities for prayers in school? Some will argue that it's simply polite and respectful to give students a place to pray as they which. Others will argue that by separating children--or allowing them to separate themselves--for any time during a government-sponsored activity (public school), it puts a religious practice "above" that of a civil one. That being said, giving kids Christian holidays off could also be seen in the same light.

In the US, the government is (I believe) not supposed to favor any particular religion, yet provide a system where most people can practice religion peacefully and without pissing each other off. A religion that requires me to kill and eat your children is definitely a no-no; one that requires me to not watch MTV should be no problem.

It is a delicate balance. Some would say that we need to allow those who are very much unlike the original "us," because that's what has made America so successful; the incorporation and acceptance of diversity. Others, though, would stress that too much incorporation of that which is unlike the original may change it to the point where diversity is no longer respected.

How do you best keep and improve a system of pluralism and acceptance? That's a major challenge.

------
______________________________________________

Check out Andy's blog on subjects creative at: TinkerX
Please do drop by. Comments tolerated. Abuse welcome.
TinkerX: Creative Flux for the Age of Content.

Related Items

Jesus: not a narcissist

Art vs. Artist: Where's the Line?

More by andyhavens »

Comments

The following comments are for "Fairness vs. Favoritism"
by andyhavens

Andy's opinion piece
Thanks for distinguishing protests into two types, Andy! Certainly, this distinction speaks to whatever lobbying effects the first type may have versus whatever legislative effects the second type may have. There are the protests of the people, and then there are the protests of those whom the people have elected to represent them. Two types, yes, but also two levels. Very important. It would never have occured to me to think this into my opinion...

Here in Montreal a few months ago, "a system where most people can practice religion peacefully and without pissing each other off" was challenged by the Hassidic Jews who decided this: across from their place of gathering there was a gym where women went to exercise in scant clothing and could be seen by the (Jewish) men through the large windows. It was scandalous.

Well, the journalists ran with that for a week!!!

The Jews demanded frosted windows. The gym said no way. The Jews said they would pay for the windows. The gym said no way, these ladies like to have natural light while they exercise and they pay for that opportunity. So the gym put up opaque curtains, finally, as a compromise. The Jews coudn't see the skin. Everybody went back to doing what they were doing.

The observance of holidays is what it is. I have had days of no lectures at University because of High Holidays. And that time was never recouped.

Ramadan only means, to me, that certain mealtrays need to be served at 4 AM, and that maybe, certain coworkers will not be eating on day shift.

Neither of those examples interferes with my observance of Christmas and Easter. And this is as it should be.

But I would worry, for example, if a woman wearing a burqa were to pull up at the traffic light next to me. I would be afraid of getting sideswiped because her peripheral vision with a burqa on, does not match my peripheral vision with no burqa on... Whereas the guy with the yarmulke can see traffic on all sides...

I guess another, albeit minute, distinction lies in religious observance versus religious practice. But then, that could be a whole other arena of debate...

Thanks for opining on this, Andy, and for making such clear distinctions.

Lucie

( Posted by: windchime [Member] On: October 8, 2007 )

Tenets of religion
Great ideas Andy, in addition to Lucie's original thoughts, very current and relevant.

I would like to offer an extension of your explanation of our form of government, philosophically based in tenets of Christianity.

That is true of all governments, I would think. Islamic countries govern based on their religious values, many South American and European countries govern with predominantly Catholic religious tenets, Israel of course in Judaism, India governs following Buddhist values(I think?).

What I gather from your piece and from Lucies is that the term "reasonable" is an abstract. The basic arguments (whether or not to allow women to wear burkas while having driver's license photos taken) are sewed to the effort to define what "reasonable" really means. And in your explanation, a further interpretation of "reasonable" can be portioned as a question of fairness or favoritism.

I say it is "fair" to expect all people to abide by civil laws where they live, regardless of what religious tenets they are based. If those civil guidelines are followed then the citizen is right to expect "favoritism" be means of being allowed to vote, to register a car, to enroll in public schools, to own a business, and as you point out to expect the Bill of Rights to apply to their individual cause.

I see so much of what is reported in the news as outrageousness. I think most people of the world have a core sense of what is reasonable and what is outrageous, but the latter outsells the former by a large margin. Unfortunately, that concept applies to political capital as well. I think that is what Lucie concluded -- that governments are selling out on the reasonable among us.

Good article.

BW

( Posted by: bwoz [Member] On: October 8, 2007 )

opinion, opinion...
Out of all that was said in Lucie's opinion piece and all of the comments there after you choose to pick on one sentence of what I happen to say to disagree with? Leaving out the context that I also said I am all for religious accommodation as long as it doesn't interfere with church and state.

Oh, if only I gave as much of a damn as I once did, this could easily turn into quite a heated debate, but I don't give a damn like I once did...so I won't take it there. To each his own, and love and peace to all sentient beings is my new mantra and I have very little else to say on any matter of religious favoritism or any "isms" for that matter.

I could however, very easily, give you a very long list of things that do indeed go "far beyond anything preceding it"...there are numerous examples...and anyone interested in this subject should look it up, example after example is there, in the news;

1.)Muslim foot washing stations at public airports, and public schools and universities, 2.)cabbies refusing to pick up anyone who carrying alcohol or using dogs, 3.)Muslim women insisting that a co-ed health club to which they signed up provide them a women�s-only room for exercise. Fitness USA acquiesced under fears of litigation despite the fact that the Muslim women signed up for no such guarantee with their enrollment contract, 4.)Carver Elementary School in Oak Park, California carving a 15 minute break in classroom teaching for Muslim prayers to accommodate the Muslim majority in the school... I do not feel the need nor wish to go any further with it here.

As usual, Andy, you have created a very long, detailed and intricately written opinion to support your case, and you have supported your case from your point of view very well.

But, I do agree with Lucie, the burqa is not on the same level as the yarmakah, since the yarmakah does not get in the way of peripheral vision during driving as does the burqa.

Blessings!

( Posted by: TheRealKarmaTseringLhamo [Member] On: October 8, 2007 )

Lena: disagreeing in measure, not in kind
Lena: I do agree with you that some of the examples you give are quite... well... I would say "unreasonable." I only meant to put my comments in the context of a country that has been, for 200+ years, run by (and more than a few times "for") the majority Christian viewpoint.

I am a spiritual Christian and believe very deeply that my faith is the most correct one. But I also believe that the government's role is to stay the heck out of our religions; that means no favoritism for mine or anyone else's.

I would agree that some of the examples you give aren't reasonable accommodations. My main point was simply that, to a non-Christian, having the Federal and state governments honor Christian religious holidays might also seem unreasonable. Or that to an atheist, having any god invoked for any civic purpose might seem unreasonable.

I really didn't mean to pick on you. And I certainly agree that some groups have spent more time and effort on seeking accommodation for things that are visible and might be divisive, as opposed to helpful means of expressing diversity.

Lucie's example is a very good one; if the burqa occludes vision to the point where it endangers, then wearing it while driving should be an issue, not just during the licensing procedure.

As far as the school examples go, I must admit that I am somewhat divided myself. In the public school system where I grew up, the kids were about 1/3 Protestant, 1/3 Catholic and 1/3 Jewish. The schools gave us the "traditional Christian" holidays off, but also allowed my Jewish friends to stay home for their holy days with no penalty. They were, therefore, missing time in class when other kids were there. Is this so much different than asking for 15 minutes in the morning for prayer? I don't know.

I think the example of cabbies is interesting; taxis are run by private companies. A private cab company is entitled to have rules about what can/can't go into their cabs, as long as they're not discriminating against a protected class of people; i.e, they can't refuse to pick up women, minorities, older people, etc. I'd say that the invisible hand of the market can work that one out; a cab company that gets known for not picking up certain folks based on their packages will suffer bad brand effects and lose business. If that happens enough, the cabbie's bosses will tell 'em to pick up them that carries, regardless.

Similarly, the fitness club thing is between them and their customers. Regardless of contract, if they feel threatened by a lawsuit, and it's cheaper/easier to give in... that's one of the prices of doing business in America these days. I don't like it--and it happens with other, non-religious related issues all the time--but there you go.

I, too, would say that the yarmulke isn't the same as the burqa in terms of possible legal issues regarding driving safety. If that's an unreasonable line, it shouldn't be crossed. But as an extremist when it comes to separation of church and state, I believe that if we are going to favor any religion at all, we must give similar, reasonable levels of accommodation to others. In other words, if all our public school kids get Christmas off, there needs to be some respect for other faiths within the system.

My personal belief is that we should end ALL government/religious connections. That God should come off the money, out of the pledge, etc. That we should have civic holidays off from school, and give families a certain number of personally selected holidays to enjoy. That when you attend public school, the rule should be, "Leave all religious trappings at home." Yes, all. No crucifixes, no yarmulkes, no burqas, no prayer beads... nothing.

That would be hard. But I think, in the end, it would make parents have important talks with their kids about the difference between civic and religious respect, and might even get kids to begin respecting people for who they are rather than where/what they worship.

( Posted by: andyhavens [Member] On: October 8, 2007 )

more, Andy
I'd just like to add that here in Quebec, we have a minister responsible for the Status of Women. She is now busy studying possible amendments to the Charter of Rights, as she believes that religion stops where equality between men and women begins. In other words, she taunts, as per your text, the second type of protest. She will protect womens' rights and she will not accept that women be seen as inferior to men (and be treated as inferior to men) because of religious beliefs. It will be interesting to see how that goes, in terms of who perceives her actions as detrimental to the welfare of all...It would be, IMO, most unwise of anybody-and-their-incoming-gods to publicly state, in this province, that women are inferior to men and that the Charter of Rights must reflect this...

( Posted by: windchime [Member] On: October 8, 2007 )

Separation of Church & State.....
OK, my examples were across the board on purpose, I wanted to site both public and private sector examples for a reason. Separation of public from private should be kept separate.

I believe in complete separation of church and state, and I am completely for no prayer in school, no kippah/yarmulke wearing, no little girls wearing Muslim head shawls, no anything that smacks of religion. Public is public, private is private. If someone wants that for their children then send them to Hebrew school (as I once did for my son)or send them to an Islamic school, there are plenty of them around just like the Islamic schools...and if it is a question of money, then the Islamic schools should accommodate their poorer families as do most Hebrew schools which allow their poorer families reduced or free tuition, and the Catholic schools I believe do the same, or maybe not, I don't know for sure?

As for Christmas? Bah, humbug, it should be a WINTER BREAK and a SRING BREAK not Christmas or Easter....and right now, the Jewish kids do not get all of the ten days of awe during Rosh Hashanah off, nor Yom Kippur, and neither does the Muslim get Ramadan, but giving off all that time is just too much for the public school system to bear...if the child's parents wants to take him/her child out of school to observe, then fine, I think there is no law against that and I do not believe anyone is every prosecuted for it, right.

I see no problem and no need to accommodate any further in the matters of public schooling and public employment. You are right, about private, private business has the the right to do as they please as long as they do not violate exclusion of major protected civil liberties such as discrimination for age, sex, etc.--On a private school, private property, private business level let them accommodate all they want, it is their dime. But when it is a public school, college, university, park, court house, airport, etc.--it is on MY DIME as a taxpayer, and as a taxpayer I do not want my dime showing favorites to any religion, or supporting ANY religions at all.---So, are we are not that far off in beliefs, Andy?

( Posted by: TheRealKarmaTseringLhamo [Member] On: October 8, 2007 )

Lucie's example in point...
Perfect example, Lucie...church and state must stay separate, there should never be any blurring of the where the line is drawn --- otherwise where is the line drawn when someone's religion does consider women inferior and treats them as such, do they then demand or have the right to insist that the government reflect their personal religious beliefs in how the government should then treat ALL woman, in or to accommodate their religious beliefs?

( Posted by: TheRealKarmaTseringLhamo [Member] On: October 8, 2007 )

Lena's perceptiveness
The danger, I think, is to deny the fragility of womens' equality status with men. We barely made it to here, and we cannot afford to have even one iota of our gains removed. Because this, like anything, has the potential of becoming a slippery slope. You're absolutely right when you say that church and state must stay separate. Can you imagine what we might face, as women, if governments were to apply the rule of the lowest common denominator in terms of our status??? This threat must never be allowed to become real. Can you just see it? "Vaccine against cervical cancer now available to females age 9 to 26: you can get it on your way out after your sexual mutilation surgery." Goddess forbid!!!

Lucie

( Posted by: windchime [Member] On: October 9, 2007 )

Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Login:
Password:

Related Sites:

Buy Anything On eBay
*Buy Anything On eBay
*Modded Xbox
*MPAA
*Colorado Flags