Accommodationism vs. Non-accommodationism

gargleblaster

Where do your views line up on this issue?

There are a couple of recent threads that make for convenient examples. In one, professor Brian Cox shares his opinion as an accommodationist, stating that since clearly no reasonable religious person would take religious texts seriously, that we can accommodate those reasonable religious people.

Non-accommodationists say that it is counterproductive to put religion in a separate category and allow it to have some kind of authority, except where science is concerned. The thread about the woman claiming that somehow the rule about not wearing pants is more sacred than the rules about not eating shellfish or wearing blended fibers shows the pitfalls of giving religious views special consideration simply because they are based on religion.

Do you think both types of atheism are necessary? Or is one a hindrance and the other more helpful?

As for myself, I think both types are necessary. For instance, if I was dealing with a child who was raised in a religious household, I wouldn't go all non-accommodationist on them. However if we're talking about a school board which considers teaching half-baked theories as if they were grounded in science, then IMO that defnitely calls for a far less accommodating stance.


on edit: I'm already changing my answer, because I'm not sure that my having tact when it comes to approaching children has any real bearing on my stance. I doubt it, so I'm counting myself as a non-accommodationist.

MrPudding

I am going to have to go with non I'm afraid. I like Brian Cox, bit I am slightly disappointed by his stance.

I see no reason to accommodate religion beyond protecting a persons right to hold a belief.

MrP

MagicMarker

Non, religion is stupid, I don't like accommodating stupid things.

liamw

There's no excuse to hold bronze age religious beliefs in this day and age. Keep them to yourself fine - bring them into the public sphere to influence policy or debate and I will accomodate them as much as I would accomodate talk of a flying spagetti monster.

gargleblaster wrote: »

For instance, if I was dealing with a child who was raised in a religious household, I wouldn't go all non-accommodationist on them.

Keeping your mouth shut doesn't mean you are accomodating.

Turtwig

*Takes a deep breath*

Accomodationist.

liamw

Malty_T wrote: »

*Takes a deep breath*

Accomodationist.

BAN:mad:

philologos

gargleblaster wrote: »

There are a couple of recent threads that make for convenient examples. In one, professor Brian Cox shares his opinion as an accommodationist, stating that since clearly no reasonable religious person would take religious texts seriously, that we can accommodate those reasonable religious people.

If you can't accommodate others that's your loss as far as I can see it. Do you expect believers to somehow be taken aback by the decision that you won't "accommodate" them? What real tangible impact do you actually expect your position to have on overall society?

Brian Cox seems sensible in that he seems to accept the general notion that there will always be believers in society and that there will always be non-believers and as a result we have to try and get on in as good a way as is practicable.

AhSureTisGrand

The State should be non-accomodationist in that it's rules and regulations make no exceptions for religion (or the likes of culture and tradition for that matter). If religious practice gets in the way of decent laws, well tough fùcking titties for religious practice.

In my everyday dealings, I'm more of an accomodationist, because I'm selfish and I see it as the best option for me

robindch

I believe that it's a good idea to have both views, since -- following the strategies of the world's religions -- people will choose whatever makes them feel comfortable.

Dawkins isn't everybody's cup of tea and he's certainly not mine. But while I disagree with Cox's apparent view that one shouldn't call bullshit if one wants to when one sees it, I believe that both views are necessary from a political or social point of view.

.

strobe

It's all situation dependent for me. If a vegetarian was coming over to my house for dinner I'd probably accommodate them by making them up a vegetarian dish. Similarly if I invited them out to a restaurant for a meal I probably wouldn't bring them to 'Carnivorous Carl's All Animal Abattoir and Steak Specialist'. But if a vegetarian was to stop me on the street and tell me to stop eating my doner kebab they'd probably get a smack upside the head.

I pretty much treat religion the way I treat any other belief or view people hold that I don't. We've all got to try and live together somehow and there are a million opposing beliefs and views out there, we have to try and accommodate each other to some degree in order to live our lives without trying to rip each others heads off every couple of hours. It's either that or dress everyone in government issued matching grey overalls and hand out the Newspeak dictionaries.

I don't think religion should be given any kind of special place in this awkward unordered system of give and take and compromise, any more than I think veganism or 'feminism' should be.

But fair's fair. Can't we all just get along like.

aidan24326

robindch wrote: »

I believe that it's a good idea to have both views, since -- following the strategies of the world's religions -- people will choose whatever makes them feel comfortable.

Dawkins isn't everybody's cup of tea and he's certainly not mine. But while I disagree with Cox's apparent view that one shouldn't call bullshit if one wants to when one sees it, I believe that both views are necessary from a political or social point of view.

.

Bullsh1t is bullsh1t howver it gets dressed up. One area where I hugely agree with the much-maligned Dawkins is that a person's beliefs/views etc shouldn't be afforded any more respect just because they happen to be religious. So I agree with you entirely that bullsh1t should be called what it is.

But why does the world need both views? Wouldn't it be great if we could move on from superstitious nonsnese? It may be an unrealistic ideal I know, but I honestly don't think we 'need' that other viewpoint, that mystical, superstitious, nonsensical viewpoint.

Having two sides to any argument is great, but where one side is so obviously, stupidly wrong I'm not so sure. Better that we all could just grow up and stop believing in fairytales.

robindch

aidan24326 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great if we could move on from superstitious nonsnese?

Well, yes, I think it'd be great if people would grow up and stop believing stuff which is self-evidently rubbish.

However, my argument was based not upon reality, but upon politics. There's a lot of people who might have some residual sympathy for some silly belief and who will get turned off by somebody continually point out that the silly belief is just that. Having an accommodationist like Cox is useful because he's acting as an, er, gateway skeptic, so that the person can acquire the rational belief without feeling threatened by it. Before they go off and engage with the implications of the rational belief.

Mena

I don't know how to vote... I consider myself non, but also feel both views are necessary.

I declare the poll non-accomodationist to be frank!

Penn

Non. I have no problem with people who, as Brian Cox said, don't take the religious texts all that seriously. Trouble is, there is such a wide variety of people who read the same thing and interpret it in so many different ways, that overall, I'm a non-accommodationist.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Do you expect believers to somehow be taken aback by the decision that you won't "accommodate" them? What real tangible impact do you actually expect your position to have on overall society?

It seems there isn't a day goes by without some religious group screaming that their special exception is no longer accommodated in society, be it crosses in schools or police with turbins.

gargleblaster

philologos wrote: »

If you can't accommodate others that's your loss as far as I can see it. Do you expect believers to somehow be taken aback by the decision that you won't "accommodate" them?

Eh, no. Why on earth do you ask? I'm addressing this to other atheists. Whatever believers think about it is quite frankly of very little concern to me.

What real tangible impact do you actually expect your position to have on overall society?

Are you addressing those questions to me personally? As in, do I think my position, and only mine, will somehow affect society? If that's the case I'm just going to ignore this because it's silly.

If you mean atheists as a group, I think that having more non-accommodationists is rather necessary. As we saw in the story about the woman who wanted to pick and choose which parts of her chosen holy book she could force others to allow her to adhere to, cherrypicked religious rules are used for all kinds of reasons. This one involved someone trying to get a cash award for not being allowed to wear a skirt. If you can't see why resisting the urge demonstrated by so many to bend over backwards to accommodate religious demands then I'm not sure how I can explain it really.

Brian Cox seems sensible in that he seems to accept the general notion that there will always be believers in society and that there will always be non-believers and as a result we have to try and get on in as good a way as is practicable.

There will always be people who choose to believe in irrational things. There will not always be religion as such. That being the case, IMO, the sooner we stop pretending that these types of beliefs in particular deserve some kind of special treatment, the better.

We don't give special credence to any other brand of irrational thinking. It seems to me that it's only due to the behavior of accommodationists that it still holds this privileged position, and I think that really needs to change.

philologos

I find it more amusing that you as non-believers are talking about accommodating us as believers. In reality society as a whole including believers and non-believers accommodates / tolerates as many people as is practicable, save for when such causes detriment to others. It's not about you tolerating / accommodating us. Even if you decided not to, society ticks on whether or not you wish to accept it.

The same also applies to Wicknight's example. The assumption is that non-believers accommodate believers. In reality we aim to accommodate each other as far as is practicable and reasonable.

Pygmalion

I went for non-accommodation.

I'd draw a distinction between tolerating and accommodation though.
I'll tolerate any kind of crazy belief as long as I don't believe it to be harmful, or if I believe I'm not in a position to do anything about it.
Accommodation, by my understanding of the word, requires actively going out of your way for the person's convenience, not simply taking a neutral stance.

Just saying where I draw the distinction since the words were being used interchangeably in the previous post, and I wouldn't like people to assume that no accommodation implies no tolerance.
Though on second reading I'm not sure if that was equating the two or simply stating an argument that could apply to both.

gargleblaster

strobe wrote: »

It's all situation dependent for me. If a vegetarian was coming over to my house for dinner I'd probably accommodate them by making them up a vegetarian dish. Similarly if I invited them out to a restaurant for a meal I probably wouldn't bring them to 'Carnivorous Carl's All Animal Abattoir and Steak Specialist'. But if a vegetarian was to stop me on the street and tell me to stop eating my doner kebab they'd probably get a smack upside the head.

I pretty much treat religion the way I treat any other belief or view people hold that I don't. We've all got to try and live together somehow and there are a million opposing beliefs and views out there, we have to try and accommodate each other to some degree in order to live our lives without trying to rip each others heads off every couple of hours. It's either that or dress everyone in government issued matching grey overalls and hand out the Newspeak dictionaries.

I don't think religion should be given any kind of special place in this awkward unordered system of give and take and compromise, any more than I think veganism or 'feminism' should be.

But fair's fair. Can't we all just get along like.

Here's the thing though, vegetarians and 'feminists' (?) aren't suing people because they feel their beliefs are infringed upon. I'm not aware of any vegetarian lawsuits, and lawsuits based on sexism usually deal with unfair treatment due to actual issues rather than rules from holy books which are for whatever reason given special treatment.

I do agree with what you're saying with respect to individual interactions. I wish I hadn't brought that aspect up, actually. In my attempt to find any way in which I am actually accommodationist, I only muddied the waters. Individual interactions are one thing, but it's the institutionalized default to respecting religious beliefs that would seem to me to be the most meaningful issue where this debate is concerned.

strobe

gargleblaster wrote: »

Here's the thing though, vegetarians and 'feminists' (?) aren't suing people...

I bet they are. I so super definitely bet that a vegan and a 'feminist' (?) have tried to sue someone for the same kind of reasons.

I double super mega bet that that has happened.

iguana

Question for the people who consider themselves non-accomodationist. If you are the manager to staff member who is Sikh or Hindu and they want to take a week's holidays in November to celebrate Diwali and it was doable to grant them that week but a slight pain in the ass as someone else is already off that week, would you give them the time off?

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

I see no reason to accommodate religion beyond protecting a persons right to hold a belief.

What about accomodating a persons right to work to shape society in whatever direction they would like it to go (which might mean a lessening of secularity)?

Not just holding (thanks for granting this right btw ), but attempting to apply their belief .. in other words.

bnt

This ties in with the late Stephen Jay Gould's proposal of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). It's all very nice in theory, and could work if the magisteria didn't overlap. However: as soon as the religious claim any kind of secular authority, or e.g. teach religion instead of science, then we have an overlap, and NOMA stops working. We still have to defend science against creeping theocracy.

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

What about accomodating a persons right to work to shape society in whatever direction they would like it to go (which might mean a lessening of secularity)?

That is the crux of the issue in the McFarlane case, for example. Have a read of it, if you have not already, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/B1.html.

The idea that a person should be able to shape society based on rules, ideas or concepts that are not rational to other people is not really a good idea.

Allow me to quote Lord Justice Law, he sums up my feeling on this subject very well, and much more eloquently than I could ever hope to. From paragraph 22 in the judgement linked to above.

Laws LJ wrote:

1. In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn between the law's protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law's protection of that belief's substance or content. The common law and ECHR Article 9 offer vigorous protection of the Christian's right (and every other person's right) to hold and express his or her beliefs. And so they should. By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts. These are twin conditions of a free society.
2. The first of these conditions is largely uncontentious. I should say a little more, however, about the second. The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves. So it is with core provisions of the criminal law: the prohibition of violence and dishonesty. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of lawmakers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy. And the liturgy and practice of the established Church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled. It imposes compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.
3. The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
4. So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious belief; equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not just holding (thanks for granting this right btw ), but attempting to apply their belief .. in other words.

I wouldn't bother thanking me, if I were you. I would grant that right only so people have the right not to believe. I think religion is a cancer on the human race and wish it were gone, but without giving the right to believe in religion I can't see how we can fairly have a right to not believe.

MrP

robindch

Laws LJ wrote:

The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.

Excellent

ShooterSF

I'm in with the nons. I'm reapplying for my passport as my old one has accidentally been washed in my pockets once too often and I'm going to Germany at the end of next month. It was sickening to see that only religious head gear can be worn in photos but no other type. Either head gear is allowed or not imo.

(Also I may be setting up a site next year when I wont need to travel for a few months to raise the funds to reapply with my pasta strainer)

iguana wrote: »

Question for the people who consider themselves non-accomodationist. If you are the manager to staff member who is Sikh or Hindu and they want to take a week's holidays in November to celebrate Diwali and it was doable to grant them that week but a slight pain in the ass as someone else is already off that week, would you give them the time off?

I would if they had helped me out previously or seemed flexible but I would do the same if someone wanted to go the Vegas. I would try to help them get the time off. Now if both your hypothetical guy (or gal) and mine approached me at the same time neither would have preference based on why they wanted the time off. I'm as accommodating of someone who wanted to celebrate their religion as I am someone who wants to go to Vegas, is that not fair?

robindch

ShooterSF wrote: »

It was sickening to see that only religious head gear can be worn in photos but no other type. Either head gear is allowed or not imo.

They'd a funny one out in the Middle East a few years back during the issuing of some chip cards.

The cards had limited space for storing user-related data and the card issuers wanted the cards to store a digitally-signed picture of the cardholder. The application was written and tested in Europe somewhere, but when it was rolled out in the ME, the pictures were around 50% larger than the European equivalents and wouldn't fit on the cards. So the issuer turned down the image quality (they were using JPG's) until the images fit, but then they couldn't identify the person in the picture.

Turned out, after some investigation, that the cardholders were wearing their keffiyehs (tea-towel-like headdress with the white+color square pattern) and rapidly-changing orthogonal patterns are something that the Wavelet transform algorithm that JPG uses can't compress very well. Hence the larger images.

Can't remember what they decided on eventually. Probably cards with more memory. Or perhaps pics without keffiyehs.

liamw

ShooterSF wrote: »

It was sickening to see that only religious head gear can be worn in photos but no other type.

gargleblaster

iguana wrote: »

Question for the people who consider themselves non-accomodationist. If you are the manager to staff member who is Sikh or Hindu and they want to take a week's holidays in November to celebrate Diwali and it was doable to grant them that week but a slight pain in the ass as someone else is already off that week, would you give them the time off?

You'd have to define 'slight pain in the ass' really.

Would other employees be inconvenienced? Also, is this a new employee who wouldn't have had time to ask well in advance? If so I would think they'd deserve some work-around for sure. If not, then it would be their poor planning at fault, and I'd expect them to try to work out a schedule swap with coworkers that would allow them to have the time off without putting an unfair burden on the other employees.

ShooterSF

liamw wrote: »

*PICS*

Oh when I have the time to fight my case I fully intend to join him. Pointing out the absurdity of the special treatment which religions get is important imo. If I weren't going to Germany in 6 weeks I'd have done it myself but I can't risk the delay I expect unfortunately.

gargleblaster

The first of these conditions is largely uncontentious. I should say a little more, however, about the second. The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves. So it is with core provisions of the criminal law: the prohibition of violence and dishonesty. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of lawmakers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy. And the liturgy and practice of the established Church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled. It imposes compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.

Here we have the substantive difference between accommodationism with respect to religious beliefs and accommodating people with dietary restrictions or female genitalia.

iguana

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'm as accommodating of someone who wanted to celebrate their religion as I am someone who wants to go to Vegas, is that not fair?

gargleblaster wrote:

Would other employees be inconvenienced? Also, is this a new employee who wouldn't have had time to ask well in advance? If so I would think they'd deserve some work-around for sure. If not, then it would be their poor planning at fault, and I'd expect them to try to work out a schedule swap with coworkers that would allow them to have the time off without putting an unfair burden on the other employees.

I guess it depends on why they were going to Vegas. Diwali is a massive cultural holiday as well as religious celebration, it's their most important holiday of the year. I wouldn't equate someone just feeling like going to Vegas with someone wanting to be with their family at Christmas time and out on New Years Eve. I've always been happy to give people time off for holidays like Diwali as long as they are willing to pick up the slack for me and the other staff at Christmas.

I have however managed a muslim staff member who had to go pray to the east at certain times in the day. I was only managing him for a few weeks as cover for a colleague who was happy with the arrangement, but if it had been my call at the start I'm not sure I would have agreed with it. To be fair to the guy he did take shorter breaks to make up for the time (and he never took lunch in Ramadan). But I got the impression it made other people uncomfortable because his praying spot was too near where other people worked and they used to seem a bit paralysed by it.

ShooterSF

iguana wrote: »

I guess it depends on why they were going to Vegas. Diwali is a massive cultural holiday as well as religious celebration, it's their most important holiday of the year. I wouldn't equate someone just feeling like going to Vegas with someone wanting to be with their family at Christmas time and out on New Years Eve.

That's where we differ then. I will never try and judge whose plans for their time off are better than others. That includes going to vegas versus getting drunk in the gutter for the week. The lifestyle people chose to live outside of work is no concern of mine. If it's important and you know when it is get your request in early.

I've always been happy to give people time off for holidays like Diwali as long as they are willing to pick up the slack for me and the other staff at Christmas.

Now that seems much fairer. As I mentioned before if the person was able to help me out I'd try my best to help them.

I have however managed a muslim staff member who had to go pray to the east at certain times in the day. I was only managing him for a few weeks as cover for a colleague who was happy with the arrangement, but if it had been my call at the start I'm not sure I would have agreed with it. To be fair to the guy he did take shorter breaks to make up for the time (and he never took lunch in Ramadan). But I got the impression it made other people uncomfortable because his praying spot was too near where other people worked and they used to seem a bit paralysed by it.

No see there's the problem. That's not accommodating it's preferential treatment and it's what people usually mean when they say accommodate peoples religious beliefs. What would your colleague's reaction be if a worker asked to use 10 minutes of their lunchbreak early in the day to listen (even with headphones) to their favourite radio segment? I'd say they'd be stunned at the audacity of such a request.
I know you're not defending this situation but it's a perfect example of the problem. (I refer back to my passport application as another real life one)