6 ms·

Religious acceptance is a two-way street. Demanding that other religions accept your religious tenants is bigotry. As a world with diverse conflicting religions

Religious acceptance is a two-way street. Demanding that other religions accept your religious tenants is bigotry. As a world with diverse conflicting religions we have to remember that our relationship with a higher power (or lack thereof) is a personal issue: we ought to apply our standards to ourselves, attempts to force them on others end with catastrophe. The typical response to my statement is "What if their religion supports eating babies?" This is what secular government is for, it formulates these things called laws which trump religious preference. The response to that response is "there is no truly secular government." Imperfection is one of the few realities we can count on, condemning a solution for its lack of perfection is insincere. Remember that we're all using operating systems built the Wrong Way.

amichail 19y ago
There are two issues here. If indeed most Muslims don't like being around dogs, then there is definitely a problem with Google's policy. The other issue is that some people -- like me -- simply don't like being around dogs even though this has nothing to do with religious beliefs.
- willarson 19y ago
  First, just because most Muslims don't like being around dogs doesn't automatically indicate that there is a problem with Google's policy. People that don't like being around dogs will place a lower value upon working at Google. People who do like dogs will place a higher value upon working at Google. If more people like dogs than don't like dogs, Google will benefit from their policy, and those who dislike dogs will suffer for their intolerance. If the opposite is true then they will suffer from their policy and people who dislike dogs will benefit. Regardless of your policy someone is being discriminated against, so moral arguments will be irresolute. As such, economic reasoning seems as good as standard to judge by as any other. The claims of discrimination by allowing dogs in the workplace suffer from assuming that the status quo is some how more just than an alternative: don't worry, someone gets screwed no matter what.
  - amichail 19y ago
    You could make the claim that Google is actually discriminating against Muslims because allowing dogs at work is not critical to its business. It's against the law to discriminate based on religion.
    - willarson 19y ago
      The Muslims would be the ones religiously discriminating against Google. Allowing dogs at the workplace is a secular decision, viewing them as profane is a religious ones. This argument is without legal grounds. Restaurants serve food that is not kosher, they are not being shut down for discriminating against Jews. Restaurants serve beef, despite offending those of the Hindu faith. Legally these are not grounds for religious discrimination. Neither is allow dogs in the workplace... and other companies have done the same for decades.

amichail 19y ago

There are two issues here. If indeed most Muslims don't like being around dogs, then there is definitely a problem with Google's policy. The other issue is that some people -- like me -- simply don't like being around dogs even though this has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

willarson 19y ago
First, just because most Muslims don't like being around dogs doesn't automatically indicate that there is a problem with Google's policy. People that don't like being around dogs will place a lower value upon working at Google. People who do like dogs will place a higher value upon working at Google. If more people like dogs than don't like dogs, Google will benefit from their policy, and those who dislike dogs will suffer for their intolerance. If the opposite is true then they will suffer from their policy and people who dislike dogs will benefit. Regardless of your policy someone is being discriminated against, so moral arguments will be irresolute. As such, economic reasoning seems as good as standard to judge by as any other. The claims of discrimination by allowing dogs in the workplace suffer from assuming that the status quo is some how more just than an alternative: don't worry, someone gets screwed no matter what.
- amichail 19y ago
  You could make the claim that Google is actually discriminating against Muslims because allowing dogs at work is not critical to its business. It's against the law to discriminate based on religion.
  - willarson 19y ago
    The Muslims would be the ones religiously discriminating against Google. Allowing dogs at the workplace is a secular decision, viewing them as profane is a religious ones. This argument is without legal grounds. Restaurants serve food that is not kosher, they are not being shut down for discriminating against Jews. Restaurants serve beef, despite offending those of the Hindu faith. Legally these are not grounds for religious discrimination. Neither is allow dogs in the workplace... and other companies have done the same for decades.