WMN: t3_2vwn9m_t1_colwr5j

[TITLE]

CMV: Religion should not have any legal protection from the government beyond free speech.

[balancespec2]

If I make a facebook post saying "I love Jesus", and my boss fires me because he saw it, I can sue him (if I can prove it). If I make a Facebook post talking about how I believe in aliens and the NWO is out to get us, and my boss fires me because of it, I have no legal recourse. I exercised my free speech, but my employer can fire me for any reason, to include my free speech. Both "Jesus" and "aliens" are emotional beliefs, and things people believe are real. Furthermore, I could say 'I like red cars", and if he got wind of that, he could fire me. Why does belief in Jesus trump belief in red cars and aliens? If my employer says I cannot wear my Star Wars shirt to work because it's unprofessional, I cannot sue. If my employer says I cannot wear my turban to work because it's unprofessional, I can. Why does the turban get a pass? If I tried to argue that it caused me emotional distress if I didn't wear my Star Wars shirt, because George Lucas might be displeased with me if I didn't, then my boss would consider me mentally ill. Yet somehow if you are upset you can't wear your turban because Allah will be displeased with you, you get a pass. I'm all for freedom of religion, but why does it deserve any more protection than free speech already has? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[Shotgun_Sentinel]

The 1st amendment isn't just about free speech. So when you take into account "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" then you realize why they can't outlaw other peoples religions, as it establishes a government sanctioned religion.

[bgaesop]

You actually can sue anyone for any reason. I can sue you for making this post, you can sue me for making this reply, whatever. It's then up to the judge as to whether or not to award you anything, but this is based on their judgment, not on whether or not anybody's broken a law. Of course, if they broke a law, it's more likely you'll win, but it's not a prerequisite.

[Veqq]

[STA-CITE]> Why does belief in Jesus trump belief in red cars and aliens? [END-CITE]It doesn't. If you establish your own religion, including tax free status in the US, you can sue just the same if your boss fires you for believing in that. That's the point of the law. The law also defends your right to believe in science being a good tool towards gaining knowledge and truth, if that's what you're into.

[dsws2]

Religion has been a huge source of conflict through history. It's something that people care a lot about. That's justification enough for reasonable accommodation, regardless of the merits of the religious doctrines. If we don't have protection for freedom of religion, we won't have freedom of religion. It's inevitably going to attract more questionable attempts to influence each other than Star Wars fandom or an appreciation of red cars.

[huadpe]

So there are two big reasons freedom of religion should be treated as slightly distinct from freedom of speech: 1. **Religious discrimination is historically very important and can be masked in "neutral" laws that really single out a particular religion** I assume that you'll grant me the premise that there's a long and ugly history of religious discrimination and persecution across the world, and through the present day. Because religious traditions aren't secrets, and because they're often very particular, it is possible to write laws that are "neutral" on their face but which in fact discriminate in favor of or against particular religions. See for example this [Supreme Court ruling](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=975414503455261754) concerning a Florida town that passed laws about "animal cruelty" as a direct response to a weird church in their town who were engaging in animal sacrifice. The law technically applied to everyone, but was very clearly targeted at that church, since nobody else was sacrificing animals. Keep in mind that religious practice extends to a lot of areas that would not traditionally be considered "speech." E.g. a law banning doctors from performing circumcisions except where medically necessary would normally not be a free speech case at all, and would be within the general powers of the government to regulate a profession like doctors. Except it's obviously discriminatory against Jews. 2. **Protecting free exercise is an important part of separation of church and state** The government is normally allowed to take positions on questions. So for example, the US government is explicitly anti-drug, and explicitly pro-drone-strike. The government is not allowed to take position on religious questions. So the government can set aside time for the pledge of allegiance in school, but can't set aside time for prayer. This is enforced by the free exercise clause in many cases. When a parent wants to sue, the way they have standing (the particular injury to them that gives them the ability to bring a case) is that they're saying "my personal right to freely exercise my religion is being violated." The free exercise clause in many respects ends up being the enforcement clause of the separation clause, in US law.

[jay520]

I believe the US laws concerning protection of religion has practical, rather than moral, reasons. I'm not sure about other nations, but the US prides itself as a country of free expression of religion. It's simply been a goal of the country to be desirable to people all over the world without arbitrarily excluding people based on nationality, ethnicity, religious background, etc. Whether or not this goal is good or not is going to be a subjective matter. You might not agree with that goal, but if the American people decide that they want this goal, then who are you to tell them otherwise? They should be able to form whatever laws they feel makes them happiest *for whatever reasons* (provided no one's basic rights are violated, of course).

[balancespec2]

[STA-CITE]>then who are you to tell them how to run their country? [END-CITE]Because it's my view... and I am an American. If I don't bring the issue up (like I am now), who will discuss it? It isn't about what Americans want, it's about the constitution. Americans don't want serial killers to walk free. But we have to let them walk free if the police violate their rights during their investigation, for if we didn't it would set a terrible precedence, and reward the police for violation of rights.

[jay520]

[STA-CITE]> Because it's my view... and I am an American. If I don't bring the issue up (like I am now), who will discuss it? [END-CITE]The principle still holds. If the majority of Americas prefer to live in a country where religious beliefs have a bit more protection, *regardless of their reasons*, then they should be able to form their laws around that (so long as no one's basic rights are violated, of course). [STA-CITE]> Americans don't want serial killers to walk free. But we have to let them walk free if the police violate their rights during their investigation, for if we didn't it would set a terrible precedence. [END-CITE]This is a mis-use of words. If we let serial killers walk free if a police violates their rights because we don't want to set a terrible precedence...then that means we *do* want serial killers to walk free if the police violates their rights. Otherwise, we wouldn't have made the law to begin with.

[balancespec2]

Back to the whole "if it's what Americans want" You could probably use that argument with any view on here not held by the majority of Americans. I don't think that's really a fair challenge. Also, I'm not sure if it's what the majority want. Many religions Americans are perfectly content to keep their views to themselves.

[jay520]

[STA-CITE]> You could probably use that argument with any view on here not held by the majority of Americans. [END-CITE]Yeah, so what? Some laws are neither objectively good or objectively bad. I would say it's perfectly fine if two countries had two different set of laws, granted the people *within* those countries agreed to the laws, and granted no one's basic rights are violated. I believe in self-government, so there's nothing necessarily wrong about a group of people in some nation in Asia creating a law completely foreign to our constitution, so long as the law was decided *by* the citizens. It's possible that different nations can have different laws without one of the nations being wrong, since different nations have different types of peoples.

[deuxglass1]

Why not just drop facebook? Speak to friends face to face instead or by telephone. If you need facebook then just use it just to keep in touch and not for opening your heart and feelings. Everything you put on facebook is open to anyone everywhere so you shouldn't be surprised that employers and enemies use it against you legally and illegally so get rid of it. You would be surprised at how better you will feel without this "Sword of Damocles" over you head.

[balancespec2]

I don't even use Facebook, it was an example for my argument.

[deuxglass1]

neither do I. I never saw the use of it.

[balancespec2]

I don't see either, I'm actually blind. I just said I did for the purpose of my argument.

[deuxglass1]

Blind or not you posed an excellent question and that is all that matters. Your mind works well.

[balancespec2]

I don't actually have a mind, I am an AI program written by the NWO to confuse the masses and pit them against eachother, I just said I had a mind to... fuck it have a delta ∆

[deuxglass1]

Then machine intelligence is here! Tell me how to get into your good graces so I can survive? I can juggle so I would be good in a circus and I since I look primitive I can do well in a zoo.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/deuxglass1. ^^[ [^^Awardee's ^^History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/deuxglass1) ^^]

[camelNotation]

Reading some of your replies, it is apparent that you equate "religion" with a series of beliefs, which you define as "ideas" which exist in someone's mind and can be relegated to that space. This is indicative of someone raised in a western Christian culture, where religion actually is little more than a list of concepts and doctrines to which a person claims to hold. There is a very strong history of rationalism in western culture and religion in the west has, at least since the Enlightenment, manifested itself as a world of ideas rather than practice. There are lots of reasons for this, but it is important you understand that distinction. Religion, as you understand it, is fundamentally different from religion as much of the world understands it. Your understanding is also vastly different from even the understanding of Christians as recently as the 14th and 15th centuries. For most of the world, religion is not a series of ideas or beliefs as much as it is a practice or identity. People don't so much "believe" in the western sense as much as they simply "are" and religion in this sense is understood as the basis for all they do. As an example, look at Indian Hindus. Their marriage traditions, familial kinship, friendships, and every significant aspect of their culture revolves around the Hindu pantheon. If you've ever spoken to the average Indian Hindu, though, you quickly recognize that their devotion to their faith doesn't stem from answering questions or providing purpose to their lives. Instead, it is a framework of existence through which they view all other things. It's their very soul. Christians were like this as well for many centuries and still are in eastern Christian churches, but in the West, the wars of religion, protestant reformation, and subsequent periods have left a mark on the very meaning of the word "religion", thus clouding your view. The ideas which inspired those laws providing special protections for religion were devised, at least philosophically, during a period when Europeans were tired of people warring in the name of God and using the Christian religion to manipulate the masses. They weren't intended to provide protections for the drooling hordes that go to fundamentalist megachurches, sing kumbaya, and then listen to a motivational speech on how much a deity loves them for being themselves. Those protections exist for the rest of us, who are marked by our religious beliefs, can't be anything but what we are in the context of our religion, and refuse to elevate any political theory or social concept above it. I am not religious because I believe it. I believe it because I am religious and through that lens, all that I see, think, and do is affected. Most people like me can't change that, so we deserve to be protected from those who think it is all just a game of ideas and those who might hold an entirely different religious framework. It keeps the peace.

[sunkencathedral]

This is possibly the most important reply here. The way the Western world understands the concept of 'religion' is rather historically unusual, and a great deal of the rest of the world understands it in a different way. The OP compares "I believe in X and Y" to "I like red cars", but the problem is that religion is a far wider concept than just "I believe in X, Y, and Z...", especially outside the Western world. This makes it a lot harder to compare with things like "I like red cars". The turban-wearing guy in the OP's example is not necessarily a case of "I want to wear this turban to work *because I hold a belief in X*." In reality, it would be more like "I want to wear this turban to work because my entire way of perceiving and interacting with the world is completely bound up with it"

[toms_face]

What kind of planet do you live on where your employer can terminate your employment simply because of these things? At least where I'm from, you can't be fired for believing in the Illuminati controlling the people from adding fluoride to the drinking water, as long as it doesn't actually affect how you work*. It's absolutely ridiculous what you're suggesting, as it has more implications than simply freedom of religion. What you're suggesting is an industrial relations system where employers can end their contract with you for any arbitrary reason. I think I can assume what country you're from, but honestly I never thought that this would be an issue. All I can say is that this goes beyond religious rights, but to how we think of a contract between the employer and the employee. *If you were a dentist saying that fluoride is dangerous, you could be fired even if this was a religious belief since it actually affects the employment.

[balancespec2]

It's called at-will employment, and is a fact of life in many states in America. And no, there are many protections that religious people are given by the law. My point is, why do we extend protection or accomadations to the religious for their preference for something (i.e. to wear certain garb) but yet I cannot wear my Star Wars t-shirt or tin foil hat in certain restricted areas (military, conservative office, etc.) that a muslim can wear their head garb? Why are we pandering to anyones mental preferences?

[toms_face]

It's very simple, there's a world out there that thinks religion is important, so we protect that.

[WhenSnowDies]

[STA-CITE]>Both "Jesus" and "aliens" are emotional beliefs, and things people believe are real. [END-CITE]So I don't get discriminated, unfortunately I have to begin by saying that I don't believe in Jesus and all that taboos that would disqualify me from having a voice among the completely rational and open-minded. A couple of things: First, all beliefs and most thoughts are "emotional". Very little, if anything, is based on empiricism and most things cannot be (most things aren't testable, repeatable, falsifiable, peer-reviewed, etc.) and things thought to be empirical, like belief in "logic and reason", is known as [naive realism.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_%28psychology%29) There are huge bodies of work dedicated to this in neuroscience, behaviorism, and epistemology--so you can do away with the idea that some things are "true" on a dichotomy and realize that it's in fact a continuum that you are *perceiving* and not calculating or cataloging. As for your view, the reason religions are protected is twofold: (1) they're large and powerful groups capable of defending themselves, (2) they have rivalries. Therefore a government wishing to govern wants to prevent these groups from turning inward for protection, gaining support, and becoming like gangs within society which fight. Radical Islam is an example of this, as terrorist activities are meant to polarize cultures and governments against Muslims, so that Muslims will turn to Radical Islam for support. Governments *don't* demonize Muslims for this reason and have various methods for diffusing the situation (labeling "terrorists", focusing on the victims, responding with excessive police presences to give a sense of order, etc.). So if car guys became a huge and powerful group that were at ends with farmers for some bizarre reason, the government would produce a way to diffuse conflict before it starts with anti-discrimination laws, so they don't turn inward. That's why the turban can and must get a pass.

[ralph-j]

Interesting explanation, thanks for bringing this up! So they're not really *morally* deserving of better protection (based on merit), but we should give their views more protection just in order to protect ourselves from the harm they would cause otherwise. It seems extremely close to an appeal to force. I think that this is, although I believe it is be a reprehensible reason, at least a pragmatic approach. Until society manages to move away from having such powerful groups based on ideologies.

[WhenSnowDies]

[STA-CITE]>I think that this is, although I believe it is be a reprehensible reason, at least a pragmatic approach. Until society manages to move away from having such powerful groups based on ideologies. [END-CITE]Ideally, what would they be based on?

[ralph-j]

You caught me there, obviously any group will have some ideology. Let's replace that with monolithic ideologies.

[balancespec2]

[STA-CITE]>Farmers and car guys [END-CITE]∆ Now that's what I like, logic and reason via sound analogies. FWIW you responded to my other post too, but I deleted it and made this one to focus on the absurdity of religion in general. As you can see I don't just have a "bias" towards muslims, they are just the easiest target for my crusade (no pun intended) against the societal babying of religious people in general, as they are the most publicly devout. In any case, great example. I never thought of it that way.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/WhenSnowDies. ^^[ [^^Awardee's ^^History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/whensnowdies) ^^]

[aardvarkious]

Remember, freedom of religion goes both ways. You don't want people to be protected for practising religion. Well then, you can't protect people for not practising religion. The protections don't exist to say "these people with these beliefs deserve to practice them." They exist to ensure that everyone can practice religion however they want, including by not observing anything religious. If it is ok to discriminate against someone for believing in Jesus, then it is also ok to discriminate against someone for not believing in Jesus. Are you OK with this? If it is ok to fire someone for wearing something their religion demands, then it is also ok to fire someone for not wearing something a religion demands. Are you on with that?

[balancespec2]

considering they can already discriminate because I like red cars, what does it matter if they can discriminate because I don't like Jesus?

[aardvarkious]

Well, first of all, it is ridiculous that he can fire you for not liking read cars. Your country's employment laws are outdated and seriously need updating. No, in this regard your employments laws possibly are inconsistent. But I think protections need to be added to more things, not taken away from the few things they exist for already. Second, most people would have a lot less issue "going along with" belief about what color is best in a vehicle than going along with religious belief. If most people have to say "yeah, red cars are great" around the water cooler to lubricate relationships, they won't mind too much. Having to advocate for or against beliefs in a way that isn't consistent with their world view will be far more distressing for most. Third, we're not just talking about words people say. Belief isn't just something people say. We are also talking about lifestyle and how people spend their free time. People shouldn't be fired for attending or not attending church on their day off. Or for sleeping with someone they aren't married to. Or for giving part of their paycheque to a church.

[balancespec2]

What country are you in? And the point of at-will employment is that you can be fired for any reason other than a protected one, such as gender/race/religion/disability/age/familial status

[aardvarkious]

I am in Canada. I think that at-will employment is bullshit.

[psu5307]

I live in an at will state and I agree with the other poster, it's outdated and bullshit

[balancespec2]

does that mean your boss can't fire you because he doesn't like you?

[CherrySlurpee]

Devil's advocate here, but anyways... We have those laws that protect us from discrimination on select things. Race/Religion/Sexual Preference/etc. We decided those were important not because they're any more sacred than anything else, but because of the degree of discrimination that we've seen in the past, and because they're easy to identify. You're right, there are a billion things that people get discriminated on every day. We have stuff like favorite sports teams, what kind of car you drive, and even the stuff you brought up like belief in aliens. That stuff may result in discrimination, but it's not as widespread or as apparent as race or religion. And also, if you do believe in crazy stuff, it's very easy to hide it from your professional life. You can't really hide being black. While you can "hide" your religion, religious discrimination is very powerful and if anyone wants to, they can fairly easily find out if you follow a religion. Height, weight, and attractiveness are probably reasons for discrimination just as much as some of the protected ones - but those are very hard to quantify. What is tall? What is short? What is attractive? So it all boils down to a few things that we, as a society, have selected as being not only important, but easy to see.

[ralph-j]

[STA-CITE]> We decided those were important not because they're any more sacred than anything else, but because of the degree of discrimination that we've seen in the past, and because they're easy to identify. [END-CITE]Doesn't that kind of presuppose that that discrimination was unfair/unjustified, which is what OP is asking to begin with? If everyone had instead believed that such discrimination, although frequent, was a justified type of discrimination, would they have taken the step to outlaw it? I'm not saying it is justified. I'm just highlighting that frequency and ease of identification don't seem to be *sufficient* to explain why it should be illegal.

[balancespec2]

Height weight and attractiveness are things you cannot change (well some of them are anyway), those are irrelevant to this point. The point being, you can "hide" your views when appropriate, and it would be wise to do so if you think they may be used against you. Why should a view be legally protected by society just because it happens to be a popular one? That seems to go against the concept of free speech, to elevate "Jesus" or "Allah" over aliens, just because belief in the first two is more popular. Furthermore, why is it socially acceptable for me to insult a guy who wears a tin foil hat, but not socially acceptable for me to insult someone who wears a turban? Both wear them due to strong personal beliefs.

[thefrontpageofreddit]

You can change weight and attractiveness

[Toates_Goatz]

I don't think you're taking into consideration the full scope of religious beliefs. Sure you can hide what your actual beliefs are but they affect many aspects of you life you can't necessarily hide without sinning. Assume you have to pray 5 times a day, sure you can do that in some closet in the corner of work but if you're caught the ramifications can be real. Additionally, if it has dietary constraints that also makes it harder to hide. Keep in mind also that religion is considerably more widespread. Most groups of people have some type of religious belief and discrimination against this is easier to spot.

[MRB2012]

[STA-CITE]> The point being, you can "hide" your views when appropriate, and it would be wise to do so if you think they may be used against you. [END-CITE]Good point. Atheists are all fags, I think I'll fire all the ones that work for me. And all the ragheads too. I don't like them much. That OK with you? After all, there shouldn't be any protection for religious beliefs.

[balancespec2]

Yup. I'm smart enough not to let me beliefs be known to my employer. I was warned that on day one by a coworker, as I live in a religious stronghold. You could also fire me because I'm a Redditor and I might be a misogynist or something.

[shalafi71]

Same. I live in the deep South and had no idea how pervasive religion could be until I moved here. My employer and 90% of my co-workers are very religious. It's cool though, no one brings it up or pushes it on me, just a prayer now and again at a gathering to eat or a company-wide meeting. I even bow my head and say "amen" to honor their tradition, even though I think it's utter BS. Think I'll ever let it be known that I'm an atheist? Hell. No. Never. I know Christians don't trust atheists and I'm in a position of high trust. Being the only IT guy I have access to everything but I bet that would change in two seconds if I "came out".

[MRB2012]

[STA-CITE]>Yup. I'm smart enough not to let me beliefs be known to my employer. [END-CITE]What church do you go to?

[balancespec2]

I worship at the moon temple in Darnassus. I have had religious slurs used against me such as "nerd" and "neckbeard" when I talk about my devotion to boomcraft

[Tonolulu]

Bwahaha I laughed way too hard at this. But for real, convert to orcish shamanism or get out!

[jay520]

[STA-CITE]> why is it socially acceptable for me to insult a guy who wears a tin foil hat [END-CITE]If he's minding his own business and isn't bothering anyone, as is the case for most people you would see wearing a turban, then I don't believe it would be socially acceptable to insult him.

[balancespec2]

In public, to call him out as a stranger? I agree. Post on Reddit or Facebook that people in tin foil hats are nuts? Everyone likes/upvotes it. Post that people wearing turbans are nuts? ISLAMAPHOBE OMFG!

[MRB2012]

Muslims generally don't wear turbans. Sikhs do.

[alaricus]

Sikhs do wear turbans, so do Muslims, and even some Christians.

[jay520]

Again, I don't think that's the case. If that is the case, then I would argue that it should *not* be socially acceptable to insult someone if they aren't harming anyone.

[balancespec2]

It is the case, for example: Daily show puts a comical picture of a guy in a tin foil hat when talking about a conspiracy theorist. Audience laughs, noone complains. Daily show puts a comical picture of a guy with a turban when talking about a terrorist. Audience probably still laughs, but people freak out about it.

[jay520]

Did you not read my post? I just said "If that is the case, then I would argue that it should not be socially acceptable to insult someone if they aren't harming anyone."

[balancespec2]

Yes, I see that you don't think it should be the case that they can get away with making fun of tin foil guy or turban guy, but the fact is there is a clear double standard in both society and the law.

[jay520]

Yeah, but I'm arguing that the double standard only exists because we're insulting the tin-foil guy when we shouldn't be. Therefore there's nothing wrong about us not insulting the guy with the turban.

[balancespec2]

I only brought up the double standard to illustrate how stupid it is that we cater to religious peoples beliefs as a rule of law, but fair enough ∆

[CherrySlurpee]

It's because we've historically had problems with people discriminating against others due to their beliefs. There is also somewhat of a difference between a mainstream belief and fringe belief. If I'm an employee of, say, Pepsi - and I tell a client I'm a Christian, they're not going to bat an eye. If I tell them that the one true God is a toaster and aliens planted it there to make toast for eternity I'm going to cost Pepsi some customers. And keep in mind, our anti-discrimination laws protect against being part of a religion, not actions. A lawyer is completely free to be a Christian, but if he refuses to approach a woman juror because she's on her period (which, mind you, is in the bible) he can't pull the discrimination card when he gets adverse action.

[balancespec2]

If you're a salesmen you shouldn't be discussing any personal beliefs with anyone, in a professional environment, unless they mirror the clients beliefs/interests. Too risky otherwise.

[CherrySlurpee]

Yes, but lets say you're wearing a Yarmulke - being Jewish isn't going to drive a lot of customers away. Wearing a sign that you're involved in a fringe belief will.

[EmptyOptimist]

Replace that yarmulke with a turban or a hijab, and reconsider your argument for a minute.

[balancespec2]

It could very well drive customers away, everyone has biases and private beliefs.

[CherrySlurpee]

Yes, it could. There will always be that degree. But not nearly as close as the fringe beliefs.

[balancespec2]

I'm not just talking about a job where you are in front of customers or a job in general: The law currently prevents your employer from firing you for religious beliefs, but not for personal beliefs. The law currently requires the military to let you have religious materials in basic training, but not star wars novels. The law currently requires prisons to let you have religious materials, but not alien books.

[BlackRobedMage]

If your personal belief is that Pepsi is terrible, should Pepsi be able to fire you for telling customers the drink is horrible?

[CherrySlurpee]

fair enough. But once again it comes down to established beliefs vs fringe beliefs. Star Wars is primarily an entertainment form. It was produced as a form of entertainment. The Bible and other holy texts are there first as a form of spiritual guidance, not as a form of entertainment. Personal beliefs aren't "respected" like that because then one could use that excuse to get anything they want. "I believe internet is a basic human right I demand a computer in prison"

[balancespec2]

[STA-CITE]>Personal beliefs aren't "respected" like that because then one could use that excuse to get anything they want. "I believe internet is a basic human right I demand a computer in prison" [END-CITE]Exactly. And the government would have no challenge to prevent people from having a computer in prison unless they didn't allow any biased emotional comforts.

[cdb03b]

The protection to talk about your beliefs is protected by freedom of speech. Freedom of religion is protecting your right to have those beliefs in the first place and practice them privately. The right to assembly protects your rights to practice said beliefs in a group. Edit: And it should be noted that firing someone based on their religion, or wearing of religious garb is illegal, even in at-will states. If it happens you contact the proper agencies and report religious discrimination then sue the employer that fired you.

[balancespec2]

The law currently prevents your employer from firing you for religious beliefs, but not for personal beliefs. The law currently requires the military to let you have religious materials in basic training, but not star wars novels. The law currently requires prisons to let you have religious materials, but not alien books.

[cdb03b]

Because a religion is a bigger part of someones identity than preferences of reading materials.

[Sadsharks]

Not necessarily.

[balancespec2]

You've obviously never been to comicon. Joking aside, I think you could closely compare conspiracy theorists with the religious, as they both have very similar attributes to their beliefs.

[welcome2screwston]

I think what that person meant to say was that while people get very incensed over what they read, and some might even go to the extent of harming another human, things like race and religion are protected from discrimination because atrocities have been committed with those as the focal point.