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?

I agree because it’s a choice. You’re born a certain race or sexuality and you can’t change disabilities but religion is a choice.

I don't think anyone has an issue in any of those things where someone is actively discriminated against simple because they follow a specific religion. I think the problems arise when someone's 'rights' to follow their religious practices clash with say employers needs. Recently there was a thread where the work 'rules' were broken so one additional employee could have Eid? off. Normally only X amount of employees could be off atvanyonevtime but they made an exception as they had a high proportion of Muslim employees.....but when several people all want BH Monday off that's not allowed. That's what I have an issue with. It's saying that believe in some imaginary diety is more important than my family time....no, it's not, and it's unfair.

People are born gay or straight? Their experiences have no effect on their sexuality?

Erm, ever heard of the holocaust? Or the ongoing persecution of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar? Religion absolutely must be a protected characteristic as it has been a primary reason for inequality, hate, and genocide for hundreds of years.

Yes of course they are

I'm not believing in what I'm comfortable with - I'd much rather live forever! The very point is that I'm not believing in anything. My disbelief is not on strong ground - it is on no ground It's an absence of belief. The list of things that I don't believe in is infinite - I can't speak for you.

(And it is exactly how Occam's Razor works, so ya boo sucks to you .)

"It's a bit odd that two protected characteristics are the opposite of each other."

Not really. Isn't that part of the purpose of the Act, to balance competing rights? Because there will always be situations where that happens - the bakery who wouldn't write a pro-homosexuality message on a cake on religious grounds springs to mind.

Besides, whatever your personal beliefs, would you discriminate on that basis? Would you treat someone less favourably because they were religious? Refuse to serve them in a shop, refuse to employ them, pay them less, fire them? That's what the protection is about, not about hearing someone say they think their beliefs are tosh. As long as your actions did not constitute harrassment etc.

Personally, coming from the west coast of Scotland and growing up in the sectarian society it was then (Catholic and Protestant) I absolutely believe religion should be a protected characteristic.

Ah, so are you saying that you neither believe there is life after death nor that there isn't life after death?

And that's not how Occam's Razor works. The Razor tells us to prefer (in a sense) explanations for phenomena which don't 'multiply entities unnecessarily'. It doesn't mean 'assume things don't exist until proven otherwise'.

Thank you for saying this 🙂

Throughout history across the world, people of one religion have persecuted people of another. The legislation isn't anything to do with theology / atheism, it's protecting people from being denied a job or a rented house, or bullied out of university or refused service in a restaurant due to their religion.

Though I'm not sure how Lewes bonfire societies are still allowed to burn an effigy of the Pope!

@Elmo22 I am GC though!

I do believe that vulnerable groups (and I feel women and girls are the most vulnerable from attack in our society, especially if they have an extra characteristic like race or disability) need protection.
If their rights to safe spaces and opportunities was respected then the world would be a better place (my opinion).

I genuinely don’t understand the ridicule/hate for religion. My husband is an atheist and fits very well into my religious family. I hate the constant defence of my religion because people like to tell me it is bizarre, absurd, a load of nonsense etc or that I am stupid for having a certain belief. I’d never judge someone - particularly publicly - for having no belief or a different belief. We would all benefit from being more tolerant of one another.

Anyway, I am glad that religion is protected in the way that it is. Let us hope that it continues.

I'm an atheist. I believe that religion can be a tool to oppress people, I also see how some people get great comfort from it.
I get how a company should not discriminate on religious grounds but jutst wondering if I wanted to employ someone to work as a nanny, would I be 'allowed' to discriminate, as I wouldn't want them to be imparting their beliefs to my children? Or would I have to say they were unsuitable for some other reason.
This is hypothetical, it could also be an opportunity to show my children that other people believe different things. But as so many religions discriminate against women, I actually don't know how comfortable I would be with someone very religious in my home with my children. I don't care if they're my accountant or dentist or whatever.

I'm from NI, enough said.😒

The protection should be for ones to be able to freely practice their faith without opposition and or persecution, but not from opposing opinions.
But there is a time and place. First of all, the workplace isn't a place for religious debates between people who hold very sensitive and divisive views.

Why would an atheist want to debate with - or even ridicule a religious person anyway? Why do they care what one believes in? Does it personally affect your life if someone else believes in God and has a faith and you don't? There isn't gonna be any changing of minds or beliefs between them, especially if they have to resort to insults and ridicule, what would be the point?

I really don't think there should be ANY need for protection for ANY group if people learn to respect each other regardless of their beliefs - or just agree to disagree. But it seems too much to ask for these days, maybe I'm just too naive to expect it. People are so triggered by what other people are saying or doing with their lives. Unless it directly impacts one's life, family, job, mental health etc, one should just mind one's own own business.

Interesting. If you wanted to employ a nanny, how would their faith come up in the interview? Would you ask them if they have a religious belief, or do you think they'd bring it up? Like if they said they'd like time off for some religious holiday, would you think twice about employing them because of that? And should you even need to ask them not to talk to your children about their beliefs? Unless they're really fanatical, they probably wouldn't, they just want a job. I'd think the same principle would apply if you didn't want a gay person looking after your kids in case they start talking about their same-sex relationship to them, or if a black person started going on about Black Lives Matter to them lol

And I would’ve thought you need to have your rights to religion protected just as your rights to politics protected. Always amazes me that certain atheists think that you can have your rights to politics protected but not your rights to what you believe religiously

😂

Shame though

You could claim similar abput nationality, pregnancy, marriage, and gender reassignment.

Most likely yes.

This is just not how religious discrimination has worked in the UK. People absolutely can be identified as having been born into and brought up in a particular religion and then discriminated against on that basis regardless of whether they continue to practice it or not. Talk to some people who've been victims of sectarianism, for example. This sort of sweeping statement shows that you don't actually understand how religious discrimination operates.

We also clearly don't require a protected characteristic to be something an individual can do nothing about, and nor should we. There would go all our maternity protections, for example.

This is a daft argument though. I mean, I wouldn't want someone to sack me because I wear a yellow t-shirt, but I don't think the want to wear yellow t-shirts should be a protected characteristic.

It's not a daft argument, the reason you can't be sacked just for being an atheist if someone doesn't like atheism is the same reason you can't just be sacked for being a Jew/Christian/Muslim etc.

Absolutely, which is just as it should be.

The point is the OPE appears to be a quite aggressive and evangelical atheist in their opinion. Interesting than atheists appear to desire freedom to spread their point of view while wanting to deny the same freedom to other points of view

Evangelical atheist 🤔