How do secular societies strike a balance between religious and other rights?

[rug]

Daphne Bramham
Published on: May 7, 2017 | Last Updated: May 7, 2017 4:33 PM PDT

Where religious freedom begins and ends is increasingly bedevilling secular, pluralistic societies, including ours.

Despite constitutions and charters of rights, no single freedom is absolute. Rights frequently overlap, and then jostle for supremacy.

Determining which is more deserving falls to judges, who weigh the harms of one against the harms of another.

That balancing is happening around the world, from the United States to the Indian Supreme Court to a trial in southeastern British Columbia.

In B.C., the issue once again centres on polygamy even though some assumed that question was settled after a lengthy constitutional reference case. In that 2011 judgment, it was determined that polygamy’s inherent harms to women, children and society at large warranted limits to religious freedom. Therefore, the Criminal Code’s sanction against polygamy was found to be valid.

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/daphne-bramham-how-do-secular-societies-strike-a-balance-between-religious-and-other-rights

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. Here's my opinion.

If you're going to live in a secular society, the rules of that society supersede the rules of your religion. Where there is no conflict, go ahead and do what your religion requires.

But you may be required, to live in this secular society, to give up certain types of clothing. You'll need to confirm to the secular norms about marriage, bodily mutation, the role of each gender.

If you want to live otherwise, return to the country that values your religion above the secular life.

[rug]

2. Most of the conflicts are arising from home-grown groups.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

3. What do you mean by home-grown groups?

I can tell I'm missing something here.

[rug]

6. The article refers to Mormons.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are responsible for many Supreme Court precedents. There are many pending cases brought by or against Evangelicals.

This is not a matter of telling people to adapt or go back where they came from. That was tried in the nineteenth century with ugly results.

[BeekeeperInVermont]

11. I absolutely agree with you!

Furthermore, people - any people - who have to dress differently because of religion while living in the US are telling me that they do not want to be a full part of our culture. They want to be seen as different, closer to God, more obedient to God, even better than the rest of us ("If you were as close to God as I am, you'd dress like this, too.&quot . They want this to be the very first thing I learn about them when I meet them. Since I am not a follower of any of the monotheistic Middle Eastern religions, I avoid people who publicly advertise their adherence to any of them.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

12. What a wonderful post.

You've expressed this very well.

To dress so differently is a rejection of the culture. And if they've come here from elsewhere, they need to think very closely what their different dress means.

Most of the time that different dress applies only to women. Not always. Sikh men dress differently, and I've come across that difference in the secular world. And even though I (being very honest here) find that form of dress to be a bit off-putting, it really is quite different from the hijab or the full veil. And those two latter things separate women quit profoundly.

Like you, I am not a follower of any of the monotheistic religions, and when I can I avoid such people.

[Jim__]

4. '... Islamic law provision that allows men to divorce their wives simply by repeating the word talaq

... three times.'

I would think if 2 people are married both in the eyes of their religion and in the eyes of the state, then a religious divorce may not suffice as a divorce in the eyes of the state. So, the Islamic man who repeats “talaq” 3 times can be divorced in the eyes of Islam; but any obligations that are imposed on him by the state marriage would remain in force until he gets a valid state divorce.

I realize that the legal issues are probably more complicated than that.

[TexasProgresive]

5. Conversely if an Orthodox Jewish woman civilly divorces her husband

She cannot remarry unless he gives her a get.

A get or gett (/ɡɛt/; Hebrew: גט‎‎, plural gittin גיטין is a divorce document in Jewish religious law, which must be presented by a husband to his wife to effectuate their divorce. The essential part of the get is very short: the text is "You are hereby permitted to all men", which means that the woman is no longer married and that the laws of adultery no longer apply. The get also returns to the wife the legal rights that a husband holds in regard to her in a Jewish marriage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_%28divorce_document%29

[rug]

8. That's the first thing I thought of.

In New York divorce decrees have language requiring each party do all in his or her power to remove any obstacle in his or her power to remove any obstacle to the other's remarriage. Often husbands would withhold consent to a get until the wife gave concessions to the husband on property, custody or support issues, all of which are governed by the State. With this language the wife could take the husband to Court to prevent that.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

9. Ah, yes. I'm aware of a case where the ex husband was

being difficult about granting the get. Frankly, he was being an asshole. Although at the time I wondered why the ex wife would give a flying fuck. But then, I'm a totally secular person who has no use of this sort of crap.

[rug]

7. That is basically it.

Religious marriages and civil marriages are not always synonymous. The French model of requiring a civil marriage in all cases makes sense. It is the state that is responsible for enforcing the civil rights and obligations of a marriage.

[TexasProgresive]

10. I once thought that the state should drop the word marriage as being quasi religious

and replace it with civil union which is licensed and done before a magistrate. Then if the couple wants to celebrate a religious ceremony with family and friend then go for it. This would separate church and state on the issue. However many in the LGBTQ community took issue with the phrase civil union. I think that was because the state was recognizing some unions as marriages and some as civil unions. Ah well that time has past.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

14. In reality, even though clergy often preside at marriages,

marriage in our culture is essentially a civil union. You get the license from the state. You file it back with them after the ceremony. If you don't do the civil stuff, you're not married. The state has never made a difference between marriage and civil unions. You're either married or you're not. People who blithely dismiss marriage as "a piece of paper" often live to rue that dismissal when they learn they don't get the real benefits of marriage, such as claiming social security benefits

I've more than once told people who dismiss marriage as "a piece of paper" that they need to look into such things a bit more closely Especially when I tell them about long term couples who, after the death of one, are left destitute. Because that "piece of paper" has rel world implications.

Oh, and don't make any assumptions that you're now in a common law marriage Do check on the laws of your state. Chances are you'll find out that you are not in a common law marriage. You're just living together, with absolutely no legal benefits whatsoever.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

13. Notice that it is a one way street.

Men can divorce their wives, but women cannot divorce their husbands.

Think about it.


Now think about it a bit longer. What if women could divorce their husbands, just by saying some particular word or phrase, but men had no such recourse.

This is the basis of the inequality of men and women, and why all such things need to be eliminated. Or at least made equal.