Tweet
It occurred to me recently that given our current cultural norms, there really isn't anything wrong with (private) discrimination or prejudice on religious grounds. This, of course, does not apply to the state, in whose eyes all are to be held equal, but only to the morality of an individual in a suitable setting (i.e., when he is not acting as an agent of the state) discriminating against or being prejudiced either in favour of or against a man of some religion, because of his religion.
It may sound preposterous now, but before commenting, please hear me out.
A religion is not something that we are "born" with, any more than we are "born" with a political affiliation. Both are things we pick up during the course of our life. It just so happens that religion is often a little more closely tied up with our self-identity, but anyone who has seen ardent supporters of some party knows that a political position, too, can be equally central to identity. So religious beliefs aren't "special" in that sense.
Furthermore, a religion is not something we cannot change. The same way that a man may change their political affiliation, style of dress, philosophical positions, and so on, so may he change his religious beliefs. In fact, there is nothing inherently "special" about religious beliefs. When you take them apart, you realise that they are a mixture of philosophical positions and claims about the nature of the world.
The funny thing about these beliefs is that there are contexts in which open discrimination against holders of such positions is not only accepted, it is the norm. In philosophy, for instance, a group of people holding a certain position may not include among themselves others who do not hold that position. In different universities, philosophy departments have different criteria for selecting who may join them, and many can and do discriminate based on the philosophical positions held by the applicant. Yet none would deny them this right – it is, after all, what keeps different traditions and different points of view alive.
In a political context, this is even more true. A man may discriminate all he wishes on the basis of political affiliation. A Republican may not be welcome at a gathering of Democrats, or vice versa. Further, none would fault an employer for rejecting a job-seeker for being a supporter of the National Socialists. Nor is condemnation of such National Socialists – and mind you, this is condemnation of them just because of their beliefs – looked down upon in modern society. It is, in fact, the norm, and anyone who does not do so is putting himself at risk of facing the same censure.
Both of these instances of discrimination and prejudice (the National Socialist is judged purely on the basis of his subscription of National Socialism) are acceptable to us because we know that when a man says that he holds a certain philosophical position, or is a supporter of some ideology, it tells us something about him. We assume that a philosopher holding a certain position on the issue of, say, free will, will either fit or not fit well within our group. We assume that the National Socialist is a supporter of racist behaviour, that he considers entire demographic groups as inferior and fit for extermination, and so on.
Thus, in neither case do we think the discrimination and prejudice inappropriate. Why, then, is religious discrimination and prejudice so looked-down upon? I fail to see any real difference between discriminating against a man because he hold some position or be partisan to some ideology, and discriminating against him because he hold some religious position. What is a religious position, after all, but a mixture of philosophical positions and some political and empirical claims?
It's not as if someone is born with a religion which is encoded in their genes and forever unchangeable, like race. Race is a characteristic which a person has no control over, and further, which does not change enough about a person to use as a basis for discrimination. It can thus be said that racial discrimination is an immoral thing to do. This is not the case with religious discrimination – a person can change his beliefs as and when he chooses to, and like all other beliefs, religious beliefs, too, are acquired, not inborn.
What, then, is wrong with discriminating and being prejudiced – as a private citizen, NOT an agent of the state – on religious grounds?
It may sound preposterous now, but before commenting, please hear me out.
A religion is not something that we are "born" with, any more than we are "born" with a political affiliation. Both are things we pick up during the course of our life. It just so happens that religion is often a little more closely tied up with our self-identity, but anyone who has seen ardent supporters of some party knows that a political position, too, can be equally central to identity. So religious beliefs aren't "special" in that sense.
Furthermore, a religion is not something we cannot change. The same way that a man may change their political affiliation, style of dress, philosophical positions, and so on, so may he change his religious beliefs. In fact, there is nothing inherently "special" about religious beliefs. When you take them apart, you realise that they are a mixture of philosophical positions and claims about the nature of the world.
The funny thing about these beliefs is that there are contexts in which open discrimination against holders of such positions is not only accepted, it is the norm. In philosophy, for instance, a group of people holding a certain position may not include among themselves others who do not hold that position. In different universities, philosophy departments have different criteria for selecting who may join them, and many can and do discriminate based on the philosophical positions held by the applicant. Yet none would deny them this right – it is, after all, what keeps different traditions and different points of view alive.
In a political context, this is even more true. A man may discriminate all he wishes on the basis of political affiliation. A Republican may not be welcome at a gathering of Democrats, or vice versa. Further, none would fault an employer for rejecting a job-seeker for being a supporter of the National Socialists. Nor is condemnation of such National Socialists – and mind you, this is condemnation of them just because of their beliefs – looked down upon in modern society. It is, in fact, the norm, and anyone who does not do so is putting himself at risk of facing the same censure.
Both of these instances of discrimination and prejudice (the National Socialist is judged purely on the basis of his subscription of National Socialism) are acceptable to us because we know that when a man says that he holds a certain philosophical position, or is a supporter of some ideology, it tells us something about him. We assume that a philosopher holding a certain position on the issue of, say, free will, will either fit or not fit well within our group. We assume that the National Socialist is a supporter of racist behaviour, that he considers entire demographic groups as inferior and fit for extermination, and so on.
Thus, in neither case do we think the discrimination and prejudice inappropriate. Why, then, is religious discrimination and prejudice so looked-down upon? I fail to see any real difference between discriminating against a man because he hold some position or be partisan to some ideology, and discriminating against him because he hold some religious position. What is a religious position, after all, but a mixture of philosophical positions and some political and empirical claims?
It's not as if someone is born with a religion which is encoded in their genes and forever unchangeable, like race. Race is a characteristic which a person has no control over, and further, which does not change enough about a person to use as a basis for discrimination. It can thus be said that racial discrimination is an immoral thing to do. This is not the case with religious discrimination – a person can change his beliefs as and when he chooses to, and like all other beliefs, religious beliefs, too, are acquired, not inborn.
What, then, is wrong with discriminating and being prejudiced – as a private citizen, NOT an agent of the state – on religious grounds?
.
Comment