A little help please

MrPudding

So I am doing a dissertation this year and I am hoping the very knowledgable and widely read regulars of this forum can help me.

Very loosely, the dissertation is about religion and it's place in making laws. The idea is to identify a law, justified religious reasons, and apply John Rawls' theory to it.

The help I am looking for is to identify laws that might be a candidate for analysis. I don't mind where the law is from, though westernised politically stable countries are probably best.

I am thinking something around gay marriage might be interesting, particularly as I can't recall any justifications for not allowing it that aren't religiously motivated.

MrP

Sonics2k

Do you mean current laws, or say laws from the past few years/decades that have since been changed?

MrPudding

Sonics2k wrote: »

Do you mean current laws, or say laws from the past few years/decades that have since been changed?

Preferably as recently as possible, ideally, current.

MrP

fitz0

MrPudding wrote: »

I am thinking something around gay marriage might be interesting, particularly as I can't recall any justifications for not allowing it that aren't religiously motivated.

MrP

I came across this that may be some help to you in regards gay marriage.

MrPudding

fitz0 wrote: »

I came across this that may be some help to you in regards gay marriage.

Very interesting, thank you.

MrP

Improbable

Don't really know what that theory is to be honest but the first thing that came to my mind was the lack of ordination of female priests as a violation of sexual equality laws.

doctoremma

Exemption of normal animals rights regulations for halal meat?
All blasphemy laws will clearly be religious in basis!
Are non-religious life philosophies protected in the workplace? At school? We don't have bacon in our canteen because a Muslim person complained about the smell - as a vegetarian, would I have received such sympathy?

Just some thoughts. I suspect the gay marriage thing is your runner though.

MrPudding

Improbable wrote: »

Don't really know what that theory is to be honest but the first thing that came to my mind was the lack of ordination of female priests as a violation of sexual equality laws.

On my phone right now, will give a fuller explanation later when I get to my laptop.

doctoremma wrote: »

Exemption of normal animals rights regulations for halal meat?
All blasphemy laws will clearly be religious in basis!
Are non-religious life philosophies protected in the workplace? At school? We don't have bacon in our canteen because a Muslim person complained about the smell - as a vegetarian, would I have received such sympathy?

Just some thoughts. I suspect the gay marriage thing is your runner though.

Some interesting points there Emma. There isnancase where a guy was successful in a discrimination case as his company tried to force him to fly. He believed flying was bad for the environment. so religious or genuinely held belief is fine.

MrP

doctoremma

MrPudding wrote: »

Some interesting points there Emma. There isnancase where a guy was successful in a discrimination case as his company tried to force him to fly. He believed flying was bad for the environment. so religious or genuinely held belief is fine.

MrP

Yep, remember it, 12-18 months ago, he argued that his philosophy should be as protected as a religious one would be. It was unfair dismissal in the end?

doctoremma

See here, another similar case: http://www.icaew.com/en/library/subject-gateways/law/equality-and-diversity/legal-alert/discrimination-could-include-less-favourable-treatment-because-of-business-differences

Very clearly at the start, 'not the same status as a religious belief'.

MrPudding

doctoremma wrote: »

Yep, remember it, 12-18 months ago, he argued that his philosophy should be as protected as a religious one would be. It was unfair dismissal in the end?

Yes, he was successful.

MrP

Zillah

The Californian ban on gay marriage sounds like a good candidate. Huge amounts of Mormon funding poured in from out of state to drive a publicity campaign.

MrPudding

Zillah wrote: »

The Californian ban on gay marriage sounds like a good candidate. Huge amounts of Mormon funding poured in from out of state to drive a publicity campaign.

Nice one. I will check that out. Although I really want to cover gay marriage I have just heard about a state in America that has made discussion of or reference to Richard Dawkins illegal. Haven't looked into it in any detail but it is unashamedly religious in origin.

MrP

MrGeneric

MrPudding wrote: »

Nice one. I will check that out. Although I really want to cover gay marriage I have just heard about a state in America that has made discussion of or reference to Richard Dawkins illegal. Haven't looked into it in any detail but it is unashamedly religious in origin.

MrP

That Dawkins article was satirical.

MrPudding

MrGeneric wrote: »

That Dawkins article was satirical.

Really? I got it from a human rights blog I subscribe to. Havent had a chance to follow it up.

EDIT: Ha. Just seen a second mail from them confirming the hoax. Duh!

MrP

MrPudding

Improbable wrote: »

Don't really know what that theory is to be honest but the first thing that came to my mind was the lack of ordination of female priests as a violation of sexual equality laws.

So the thing that got me interested in Rawls was this article and the Rawls quote it contained:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/14/is-religion-really-under-threat

The article is quite interesting, but the Rawls really stood out for me:

John Rawls wrote:

Reasonable comprehensive doctrines, religious or non-religious, may be introduced in public political discussion at any time he provided that in due course proper political reasons – and not reasons given solely by comprehensive doctrines – are presented that are sufficient to support whatever the comprehensive doctrines are said to support.

Of course the whole theory is much more complicated than this small quote might suggest, and I am currently up to my eyes in Rawls trying to get a grip of it, but I think that quote quite nicely encompasses the angle I will be coming from in the dissertation.

MrP

MrPudding

As an excellent example, check out the Obama quote in Oldwisr's post in the youth defence thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79867864&postcount=74

Classic Rawls.

MrP

oldrnwisr

MrPudding wrote: »

So I am doing a dissertation this year and I am hoping the very knowledgable and widely read regulars of this forum can help me.

Very loosely, the dissertation is about religion and it's place in making laws. The idea is to identify a law, justified religious reasons, and apply John Rawls' theory to it.

The help I am looking for is to identify laws that might be a candidate for analysis. I don't mind where the law is from, though westernised politically stable countries are probably best.

I am thinking something around gay marriage might be interesting, particularly as I can't recall any justifications for not allowing it that aren't religiously motivated.

MrP

Sorry for not getting to this sooner MrP.

I would have thought that the Employment Equality Act would be a good choice.

Section 37, in particular which says:

"A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II if—

(a) it gives more favourable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or a prospective employee over that person where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution ..."




The problem I think with using US law as a case study is the Rational Basis Review. Because this review usually applies to arguments under the 5th and 14th amendments it tends to cover most social rights issues like gay marriage. The consequence of this is that either a law will collapse under such a review or will be justified on the basis of something other than religion. Take DOMA for example. Although it's clear that this law was introduced for religious reasons, the justification given for introducing it was an increase in state powers with regard to Article 4 (full faith and credit clause) of the constitution.

MrPudding

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Sorry for not getting to this sooner MrP.

I would have thought that the Employment Equality Act would be a good choice.

Section 37, in particular which says:

"A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II if—

(a) it gives more favourable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or a prospective employee over that person where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution ..."

I thought about this and mentioned it briefly to our supervisor. He is not sure it would be a good candidate and it is something potentially "allowed" by Rawls' theory. I have not had a chance to discus it in any great detail with him, nor am I yet a level to make that determination myself. I will need to read more and have a chat with him.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The problem I think with using US law as a case study is the Rational Basis Review. Because this review usually applies to arguments under the 5th and 14th amendments it tends to cover most social rights issues like gay marriage. The consequence of this is that either a law will collapse under such a review or will be justified on the basis of something other than religion. Take DOMA for example. Although it's clear that this law was introduced for religious reasons, the justification given for introducing it was an increase in state powers with regard to Article 4 (full faith and credit clause) of the constitution.

I am only at the very early stage of this piece of work, so I have not completed nearly enough research just yet, but was part of DOMA not held to be unconstitutional? My understanding is the part that says the government will not recognise same sex unions is not acceptable, section 3 I think.

I presume then it was the rational basis review that killed the Californian ban on same sex marriage...?

Leaving all that aside, I don't think ration basis review would necessarily be fatal to me using a particular law. I could use a law that has not yet been subject to judicial review, or I could select one that had and compare the results of that to the results we would expect after applying the Rawls test.

Either way, I am open to laws from most countries...

MrP

the culture of deference

MrPudding wrote: »

Nice one. I will check that out. Although I really want to cover gay marriage I have just heard about a state in America that has made discussion of or reference to Richard Dawkins illegal. Haven't looked into it in any detail but it is unashamedly religious in origin.

MrP

Although that's a funny hoax I just can't help thinking that it's not far off in some states

oldrnwisr

MrPudding wrote: »

I am only at the very early stage of this piece of work, so I have not completed nearly enough research just yet, but was part of DOMA not held to be unconstitutional? My understanding is the part that says the government will not recognise same sex unions is not acceptable, section 3 I think.

I presume then it was the rational basis review that killed the Californian ban on same sex marriage...?

Leaving all that aside, I don't think ration basis review would necessarily be fatal to me using a particular law. I could use a law that has not yet been subject to judicial review, or I could select one that had and compare the results of that to the results we would expect after applying the Rawls test.

Either way, I am open to laws from most countries...

MrP

Yes, section 3 of DOMA was found to be unconstitutional in a Californian bankruptcy case. It was found in that case to be a violation of the 5th amendment.

Prop 8 in California failed a rational basis review as well, however, as in similar cases regarding same-sex marriage and adoption, the proposition was found to violate the 14th amendment.

If candidate laws are on the table, I would recommend a trawl through Pharyngula (SB, fTB). PZ usually keeps a track of some of the more wacky religious based laws in America. Most of them relate to creationism or abortion in some way but you may find something worthwhile. I've included links to the ScienceBlogs and FreeThoughtBlogs sites in case the archives aren't the same.

Doctor DooM

On mobile right now but what about that recent us law which allows for state funding of religious schools- that one politician then complained about because it wouldn't just fund Christian schools after voting it in?

MrPudding

Zillah wrote: »

The Californian ban on gay marriage sounds like a good candidate. Huge amounts of Mormon funding poured in from out of state to drive a publicity campaign.

So this is what I have gone with in the end.

California's attempts to block same sex marriage is an absolute goldmine for what I am doing. Cheers for the pointer Zillah.

I just need to think of a catchy title now... A & A title competition?

MrP

eyescreamcone

What about Irish equality law where denominational schools are allowed to discriminate against potential employees on the basis of their religion.

MrPudding

eyescreamcone wrote: »

What about Irish equality law where denominational schools are allowed to discriminate against potential employees on the basis of their religion.

My dissertation is about John Rawls, or more specifically, his theory of political liberalism. This kind of legislation is not a particularly good candidate for this as it could be, potentially, justified from a Rawlsian perspective.

The proposition 8 stuff, on the other hand, is perfect.

MrP

doctoremma

MrPudding wrote: »

I just need to think of a catchy title now... A & A title competition?

MrP

Queer And Loathing In Los Angeles?

Might need a little work...

MrPudding

doctoremma wrote: »

Queer And Loathing In Los Angeles?

Might need a little work...

Queer and loathed in Los Angeles... Though, LA did not support proposition 8. Check out the Wikipedia page for proposition 8. There is a nice map that shows which areas votes yes and which no.

MrP

doctoremma

MrPudding wrote: »

Queer and loathed in Los Angeles... Though, LA did not support proposition 8. Check out the Wikipedia page for proposition 8. There is a nice map that shows which areas votes yes and which no.

MrP

Unsurprising!

I wonder what map of the UK/gay marriage support looks like...
*off to meander through t'interweb*

DB21

If you want to go scientific as well, I'd say any current laws blocking stem cell research/gene therapies would fill out a dissertation pretty quick.

Peregrinus

You could consider the rule, found in many countries, that the advancement of religion is considered to be a charitable purpose, alongside the relief of poverty, advancement of education, etc. That has a fairly clear religious motivation.

And, in the Irish context, there is a further legislative provision to the effect that a body whose purpose is for the advancement of religion is presumed to be for the public benefit. That has a fairly clear denominational justification; it was enacted to avoid an English precedent in which a gift to an enclosed convent was held not to be eligible for tax relief because, although the convent undoubtedly existed to advance religion, it did so privately, and so conferred no public benefit.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

You could consider the rule, found in many countries, that the advancement of religion is considered to be a charitable purpose, alongside the relief of poverty, advancement of education, etc. That has a fairly clear religious motivation.

And, in the Irish context, there is a further legislative provision to the effect that a body whose purpose is for the advancement of religion is presumed to be for the public benefit. That has a fairly clear denominational justification; it was enacted to avoid an English precedent in which a gift to an enclosed convent was held not to be eligible for tax relief because, although the convent undoubtedly existed to advance religion, it did so privately, and so conferred no public benefit.

I have settled on the proposition 8 idea, though I need a snappy title.

The charity angle is interesting all right. I am not sure what Rawls thinks about such things, but it probably would be interesting trying to work it out. perhaps for an LLM.

MrP