Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
34. That's incorrect.
Sat Aug 17, 2013, 08:58 PM
Aug 2013

Unlike some countries, the US does not register official religions. That is a good thing.

The application of its laws to a religion is addressed as cases arise.

1. What is “religion” under Title VII?

Title VII protects all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief and defines religion very broadly for purposes of determining what the law covers. For purposes of Title VII, religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others. An employee’s belief or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it. Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs (i.e. those that include a belief in God) as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious, beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.” Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII.

Religious observances or practices include, for example, attending worship services, praying, wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying religious objects, adhering to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious expression, or refraining from certain activities. Whether a practice is religious depends on the employee’s motivation. The same practice might be engaged in by one person for religious reasons and by another person for purely secular reasons (e.g., dietary restrictions, tattoos, etc.).

Discrimination based on religion within the meaning of Title VII could include, for example: not hiring an otherwise qualified applicant because he is a self-described evangelical Christian; a Jewish supervisor denying a promotion to a qualified non-Jewish employee because the supervisor wishes to give a preference based on religion to a fellow Jewish employee; or, terminating an employee because he told the employer that he recently converted to the Baha’i Faith.

Similarly, requests for accommodation of a “religious” belief or practice could include, for example: a Catholic employee requesting a schedule change so that he can attend church services on Good Friday; a Muslim employee requesting an exception to the company’s dress and grooming code allowing her to wear her headscarf, or a Hindu employee requesting an exception allowing her to wear her bindi (religious forehead marking); an atheist asking to be excused from the religious invocation offered at the beginning of staff meetings; an adherent to Native American spiritual beliefs seeking unpaid leave to attend a ritual ceremony; or an employee who identifies as Christian but is not affiliated with a particular sect or denomination requests accommodation of his religious belief that working on his Sabbath is prohibited.


http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

Assuming you're referring to your earlier post, you are confusing caselaw in a specific case in the Ninth Circuit with a general lack of legal recognition. You should know that caselaw is based on applying law to specific facts brought in a specific case.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

If something is "legal" for a religious purpose, then it is "legal" for all purposes. cleanhippie Aug 2013 #1
Why? rug Aug 2013 #4
Muriel nails it below. cleanhippie Aug 2013 #5
He didn't. Perhaps you can explain why communion wine should have been outlawed during Prohibition. rug Aug 2013 #7
Perhaps you can explain why a substance that is illegal for everyone should be legal for cleanhippie Aug 2013 #17
The claim in the first reply was yours, after all. Feel free to prove it. rug Aug 2013 #19
And from your link, THIS is why it is nonsense. cleanhippie Aug 2013 #21
You do understand what the First Amendment is, don't you? rug Aug 2013 #25
And what does any of that have to do with special pleading? Lordquinton Aug 2013 #35
Special pleading doesn't have the legs some think it has outside a dorm room. rug Aug 2013 #38
Ok, that's funny, lol. cbayer Aug 2013 #39
I heard an NPR piece of some religion where the people get together cbayer Aug 2013 #2
What are "legitimate religious purposes"? muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #3
This question was answered in the US during Prohibition. rug Aug 2013 #6
Someone tried starting a religion that required the sale of alcohol? They were allowed to? muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #8
Cute but disingenuous. rug Aug 2013 #9
No, it's not disingenuous muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #15
The criteria for what is or is not a legitimate religious purposes, old or new, is well-established. rug Aug 2013 #18
The summary seems to be: muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #29
The measure is more objective than you suggest. rug Aug 2013 #31
And yet Rastafarians, although obviously not a religion just created for marijuana use, muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #33
That's incorrect. rug Aug 2013 #34
If it hasn't been applied in a specific case, then it's not been generally applied muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #36
The First Amendment protects and applies it. rug Aug 2013 #37
The 1st Amendment does not talk about 'legitimate religious purposes' muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #40
No, the enabling lesgislation does, hundreds of statutes in dozen of areas of substanttive law. rug Aug 2013 #41
Take your "obtuseness" and shove it muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #42
How civil. rug Aug 2013 #43
What's new? cleanhippie Aug 2013 #44
What's the matter? You couldn't find a cartoon? rug Aug 2013 #45
I would think that this covers sacramental use. okasha Aug 2013 #28
Marijuana should be legal for adults period! ... spin Aug 2013 #10
The War on Drugs is going the way of The War on Afghanistan. rug Aug 2013 #11
I hope so. (n/t) spin Aug 2013 #14
I think marijuana should be legal for both religious and secular uses. ZombieHorde Aug 2013 #12
Get a pen and line out the last three words, and you're onto something jmowreader Aug 2013 #13
cannabis should just be legal, period.... mike_c Aug 2013 #16
Of course. That's a no-brainer, lol. It's far safer than alcohol anyway. kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #20
Legal for all purposes on point Aug 2013 #22
+1 hrmjustin Aug 2013 #23
It should be legal period. Leontius Aug 2013 #24
Yes. pinto Aug 2013 #26
Cannabis SamKnause Aug 2013 #27
Well, why the Hell not? After all, they are exempt from paying any juajen Aug 2013 #30
Before I answer, what's your position on Bingo? rug Aug 2013 #32
It should be legal period gopiscrap Aug 2013 #46
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Should Marijuana Be Legal...»Reply #34