Does anyone else think that religion is a bit of an odd protected characteristic?

[ADHDPI]

I may be way off the mark here as it is only a thought that has popped into my head just now.

As an atheist, I have quite strong feelings about religion and find it all quite bizarre and absurd. However, if I said that to someone religious in my office I could potentially be sacked due to criticism of their protected characteristic.

I just don't feel it is the same as saying a similar comment about disability, ethnicity, sex etc. Of course I don't think anyone should be actively discriminated against because of their religion, but no more so than because of the colour of someone's eyes. It doesn't effect anyone else. It's more the fact that I as an atheist cannot voice my opinion about religion without insulting a protected characteristic and vice versa.... Yet its generally OK to believe that God doesn't exist. Odd!

Thoughts? Have I missed something? Am I being far too black and white here?

@Crabo CosmicVaginaBiscuit said I wouldn't want my nanny teaching DC about god(s) or saying grace before meals or telling them that God is everywhere or whatever. That was the only reference to saying grace. I assumed when you responded to her comment about saying grace in that context, calling the poster jumpy and talking about hackles rising, you were responding to what was actually written. If you had switched subject and were referring to saying grace at a mums and tots group, then you should have said so. It's an entirely different context. As is school, though I think that's closer to the nanny situation if trusted adults are teaching children to follow religious practices in loco parentis. This is why people sometimes prefer to send their kids to faith schools that match their own religious beliefs.

By the way, I think you need to go and find out what "secular" means (outside the clerical meaning, obviously). It doesn't mean atheistic or irreligious. It just means not connected with religion, or in a more specifically political sense, it refers to a view that religion should be separate to the state and public institutions, so that things which are for all of us like, say, the courts, or roads, or GP surgeries, should leave out religious aspects or at least not allow one religion to dominate, so that everyone can participate equally. But I've a feeling when you said "secular views" you meant something quite different.

Most teaching in schools is de facto atheistic. Or at least Epicurean / deistic. I can assure you in our society that one religion doesn’t dominate.
Secularism is king! You have nothing to fear from society. But as CS Lewis said the young atheist cannot be too careful as God sets traps everywhere! He knew from experience, of course!

It protects belief but also lack of belief in a religion.

So it protects atheists too.

No one can force you to believe.

Schools in England and Wales have to have collective worship by law. I've never heard of a school in the UK teaching pupils that god does not exist.

I think it is a lot safer to say someone has a soul than to say they have an inner gender identity and have been in the wrong body.

It's interesting to read what you think you know about me, Crabo, but probably more telling than you think.

That shifting, dodging argument style won't work here, so back to the topic: the sub-discussion we were having was about whether, in the context of anti-discrimination legislation, it would be okay for people to decline to employ a nanny who intended to actively instruct a child in a religion different to that of the child's parents, including teaching them the Christian practice of routinely praying to give thanks to the Christian god before meals. I've known many Christians, of various denominations and varying levels of strictness, and if any of them said grace at meals I shared with them, it must've been quietly in their own heads, which is presumably sufficient. So if the nanny is saying grace out loud with the children, she's not simply following her own religion, she's teaching it to the children. Which is obviously fine if the parents want that, but many wouldn't.

I suspect you'd like to be able to choose whether or not to employ a nanny who intended to teach your child to follow a different religion.

Very few people “choose” a religion unless it’s some hippy phase or a cult. It’s a process of how you’re brought up, the culture you’re raised in, etc. You can theoretically change your personality as well but people generally don’t.

first I would not employ a nanny as it is the parents job to bring up kids not farm them out. However, one does expect professionalism in the workplace and one would certainly not expect a nanny to go against the wishes of parents. Incidentally you might be interested that Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury had a brutal and uncaring father but a loving nanny who prayed with him and taught him the basics of the Christian faith. Later in life it was the Christian faith that drove Shaftesbury to become a major force in factory reform for children and women, as well as freeing then from the mines and chimneys. So some good can come of teaching a kid to pray!

one would certainly not expect a nanny to go against the wishes of parents

There we go. That was like getting blood from a stone.

No, I'm not interested in your proselytising.

first I would not employ a nanny as it is the parents job to bring up kids not farm them out.

Congratulations on not having to work to pay your bills. No need to be so smug about it.

Religion is a choice, the choice to believe in something, despite having no evidence, literally that's faith. Sex, sexuality, race are not a choice. Do to me, yes, religion is a poor 'protected' characteristic as the 'protection' needs to be reserved for the victims of religious coercion, which is swept under the carpet, yet it happens.

Arguing that this should not apply because people choose their religion is a bit misguided (it's not the same sort of choice as choosing to drive a blue car or a red one but rather for many people one which is intimately connected with their cultural and ethnic heritage) and a violation of the principle of religious freedom (which includes your own freedom not to believe).

I am an atheist as are by DBs and as were my late DPs. We are however Orthodox Jews by heritage. I had a DNA kit bought as a present a few years ago and the result came back as 100% European Jewish. If Jewishness is something that is detectable on a DNA test then that suggests it is a racial characteristic and therefore also a protected characteristic ? My DGPs and DGGPs on both sides were all Orthodox Jews from Lithuania. I wasn’t expecting Jewishness to be in my DNA and was very surprised at the result and the implication that some religions encompass more than belief systems.

Belief is not just a matter of choice though. However much I want to believe I will live for ever, I don't believe it.

I agree. People can wake up tomorrow and make a choice not to follow the religion they are. It may have cultural implications but it is still possible. People can’t choose not to be gay, disabled, black, etc

Are you sure? I dare you to try it tomorrow. For a whole day, genuinely believe something entirely different about the way the world works. Whatever religious status you know the most about, outside your own beliefs — so if, for example, you're a non-religious person with a culturally Christian heritage, that might involve spending a day believing that Jesus existed died for your sins and was resurrected, and that you can talk inside your head to an all-powerful god who is listening and may well respond in some way. I bet you can't choose to actually, genuinely believe those things are literally true for a day. I know I wouldn't be able to change what I believe to be true and real through a simple act of choice.

MichaelFabricantWig · Today 22:59
+I agree. People can wake up tomorrow and make a choice not to follow the religion they are. It may have cultural implications but it is still possible. People can’t choose not to be gay, disabled, black, etc*

People who are religious are following a belief in something greater than themselves, beyond the material world, on a spiritual plane. It is like an inner search and need pursued through a religion to give it structure, form and ritual. For some humans it is a primary need. It is an orientation.

It is just as important not to be discriminated against at work simply for having a religion, as it is to be discriminated against for any of the other characteristics like sexual orientation.

Religion isn’t something you choose of can’t just change. It isn’t a lifestyle (though I get for some it is more of a culture). If you believe in a religion then that can be a total conviction. Just as much as an atheist can be sure there is no god, a religious person can be certain there is. Do you think it is ok to sack people because they are atheist not Muslim? Or Christian not humanist? Or pay someone less because they are Jewish?

I know I wouldn't be able to change what I believe to be true and real through a simple act of choice.

Not a simple one. I went from being a Christian to being an atheist, the "choice" I suppose was to examine the basis of my belief. I didn't choose where evidence and logic would lead. Once I'd stopped believing there was a god, I couldn't just choose to believe again, and certainly couldn't continue participating in a religion I now believed to be untrue, even though I missed the church (though not god).

This is so ignorant, narrow minded and just lacking in a basic understanding of religion and faith and how it affects a persons identity. Only an atheist could say that someone can just ‘change’ their religion. Actually, no, they can’t. It’s not a hobby. It’s not a fad. People who are truly religious KNOW their God with as much certainty as you know, say, your next door neighbour. Sure, some people might, at a later time lose their faith for whatever reason, but for a huge number of people, their faith is an essential part of their identity for their whole lives. It is who they are. Of COURSE you shouldn’t be able to discriminate against people based on nothing other than their religion? What happened to freedom of religious belief? I don’t care if you’re an atheist, but if you, say, refuse to allow my child to study at your school because of their religion, or refuse to hire me into a position I’m well qualified for purely because of my religion then yes, that is wrong. I couldn’t change my religion any more than I could my ethnicity, nor would I want to. My religious beliefs aren’t harming you so why should you be legally allowed to discriminate against me for them?

There you go. I was right. You are is jumpy is anything. Simple history lesson of fact is taken as proselytising. So Anthony Ashley Cooper should be cancelled from history because his Christianity does not agree with your views?

My professional background means I work a lot with employment law. My understanding is that the EA2010 and the protected characteristic of Religion or Belief is primarily about protecting individuals from discrimination and harassment on the basis of being a member of a religious group. For example, you cannot refuse services, or refuse to employ, or sack someone because they are Muslim or Jewish etc. It's not about protecting the expression of religious belief per se, and the guidance from ACAS is that prosletysing in the workplace can in itself be a form of harassment (e.g. telling work colleagues that gay marriage is 'wrong'). I think most of us would agree that refusing to employ someone because they are, say, a Muslim woman is wrong and harassing that woman for wearing a headscarf is wrong and that 'well you don't have to be Muslim' isn't a good response to addressing that discrimination.

Similarly, an employer couldn't refuse to employ the OP because they are an atheist. However, if the OP were to go around their workplace telling people their religion is ridiculous, those employees may well have a case for saying they are being harassed in the workplace on the basis of their religion. If an evangelical Christian colleague kept trying to convert the OP, they would have a similar case. If an employer refused a Muslim employee a 5 minute break to say their prayers, but allows other employee cigarette breaks, they would have a case etc etc.

Only read the op but I agree,the right not to believe should also be protected

Which it is and which no-one is disputing.

I would have thought that in our secular society one thing that is protected is the right not to believe!

It is. The right not to have a religious belief and the right to have 'comparable' beliefs such as atheism, humanism etc has always been included under this protected characteristic. More recently case law has established that being 'gender critical' - not believing in gender or that people can literally change sex - is a 'comparable' protected belief. The overall point of the legislation is that you shouldn't be treated less favourably in the workplace or in the provision of good or services because of your religion or belief.