Comments on: Trucker demands religious accommodation for refusal to haul alcohol, tobacco

By: Religion As An Excuse For Laziness | Bitchspot

Religion As An Excuse For Laziness | Bitchspot — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 15:58:20 +0000

[…] now we have religious truck drivers trying the same thing. A Muslim driver working for Schneider National told his employers that his Islamic faith […]

By: Trucker demands religious accommodation for refusal to haul alcohol, tobacco · Secular Right

Sun, 31 Oct 2010 16:30:51 +0000

[…] [cross-posted from Overlawyered] […]

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:19:48 +0000

Malcolm Smith: Your analysis would be valid if they people had the freedom to choose whether to adopt Islam or not. However, given the severe penalties for failure to conform, I think sincere belief actually was self-serving. At best your choices were sincere belief or faked belief. The former seems more pleasant, at least to me.

In any case where a judge is deciding if an idea is self-serving or not, someone is asking for an accommodation based that belief. The Court’s reasoning assumes that it is at least somewhat difficult to acquire, and sincerely hold, self-serving beliefs. In fact, for many people, it is quite easy. People who seek a religious education with an eye to a job in the clergy do it every day.

By: Malcolm Smith

Malcolm Smith — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:30:29 +0000

It might be easier to sincerely acquire/i> a self-serving belief, but a belief which goes against a person’s self-interest is highly likely to be sincere. Thus, the requirement that a person abstain from both food and water from dawn to dusk during a hot Arabian sun suggests that that people didn’t adopt Islam because it was easy. For that matter, it probably wasn’t the half-hearted Christians who got thrown to the lions.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:13:15 +0000

gasman: The Court's skepticism is over whether or not the beliefs are sincerely held, not over the motivation for acquiring them. The Court's argument is that beliefs with benefits are less likely to be sincerely held, which is the reverse of the truth. People very easily acquire religious beliefs which benefit them and show no difficulty sincerely holding them. The Court's argument is basically an argument from personal incredulity.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:05:37 +0000

I found it both somewhat amusing and bemusing in the one SCOTUS case quoted, the Court said “Thomas drew a line, and it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one.”

If it is not for the Court to say, why bring the issue to them at all?

By: bradley13

bradley13 — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:15:53 +0000

Volohk writes: “Maybe it’s bad for federal law to impose such an obligation on employers”. Why? The establishment clause applies to the federal government, not to States and certainly not to private employers.

An employment contract is a private matter, and accomodation of religious beliefs should simply be part of the negotiations. If an employee cannot in good conscience carry out his assigned duties, he should not have accept the job. If the job changes in a substantial manner, then perhaps a new employment contract should be negotiated.

By: Roy B

Roy B — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:03:08 +0000

Keep in mind that if the individual stated at the timeof his job interview that he would not carry either alcohol or tobacco and thecompany refused to hire him on that basis, he could sue for discrimination. Once again, the company cannot win.

By: gasman

gasman — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:15:45 +0000

Mr. Schwartz has managed to convince me of this: religious beliefs are largely personal delusion created by the individual to justify their personal biases that they are worth more or owed more than would be justified by cold hard objective analysis.
By successfully arguing that folk’s beliefs stem from personal bias you have reinforced the Court’s skepticism regarding beliefs with benefits.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:07:37 +0000

I cannot understand why this does not violate the establishment clause. Religious beliefs compete with each other, and the belief that one should never eat peanut butter competes with the belief that one should stop work to pray at home when one feels the need. By conveying secular benefits on those who hold the latter belief but not the former, laws like RFRA burden religious beliefs like the former.

How can “you may get secular benefit X if you sincerely hold religious belief Y but not if you sincerely hold competing and contradictory religious belief Z” not violate the establishment clause?

Also, courts tend to be very reluctant to find a religious belief sincerely held where the belief advances the petitioner’s pecuniary interest, sometimes explicitly saying that this is an appropriate reason to be suspicious. That is nonsense. People are much *more* likely to sincerely hold beliefs that benefit them than those that do not — the barriers to adoption are lower.

For example, this is why there is no mainstream religion that holds that members of all other religions go to heaven while their adherents all go to Hell. This is why it’s much easier to convince someone that you owe them $10 than that they owe you $10.

Most people have no difficulty acquiring, and then sincerely holding, religious beliefs that provide them a pecuniary benefit. Those who go to religious schools, for example, do so daily.