Would you feel comfortable giving a drunk the keys to their car?

If a religious institution requires it’s members to disregard or harass those who do not belong to that institution, wouldn’t that alone render this particular religious establishment discriminatory and or abusive by it’s very nature? 

It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion. And sufficient is Allah as Witness.
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves.
Quran 48:28-29
So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view.”
2 Corinthians 5:16
If religious authoritative instructions like the ones I listed are no longer applicable, why not amend the scripture so as to stay clear away from having it give license to those already predisposed to bigotry?  By leaving scriptures unedited, wouldn’t that be like giving a drunk driver the keys to their car?  So why give this sort of behavior a sense of supreme leverage? 

According to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
“Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.” 
So what we have here is a federal law that would prohibit a religious institution’s directive.   Meaning a secular humanist, for simplicity sake, cannot be legally discriminated against when applying for employment or functioning as an employee for any religious institution in spite of said religious instruction that would warrant the mistreatment of non-religious people.
Something isn't adding up.
The elephant in the room is pointing to the collective religious petition for double standards and has only brought a sense of ambiguity in regards to the ongoing discourse that would shed light in understanding of what freedom and equality means for US citizens.  So why are we as a nation putting up with this obvious predicament?  Our federal laws undermine unwarranted discrimination and harassment based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age and, religious affiliation.  This double standard has thus far only serve the religious and have cheapened the value of freedom and equality.  
Realistically, it doesn’t seem very likely that we will see scripture amended so I will offer an alternative.  I propose an outrageous idea; let me be so bold as to “amend” the 1st amendment in the direction I believe would be beneficial for all, save the criminally inclined.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless the establishment of said religion requires the disregard and harassment of non religious adherents; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Why would anyone want to protect the free exercise of a religious doctrine that sanctions the disregard and or harassment of non-religious adherents? 
If these edicts exist in scripture, where do we draw the line as a nation?  But we shouldn't rule out the possibility of amending religious doctrines, one can always hope.
Can something like this happen, do we want something like this to happen, or will we continue to put up with double standards that serves to protect unwarranted religious discrimination?
I know what you’re thinking, what I am asking for is for the abolishment of any organized dogmatic religion that sanctions discrimination against non-believers of that particular religious ideology; yes I am indeed.
I don’t feel comfortable giving a drunk the keys to their car for obvious reasons.


Leave a comment

Add comment