<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: You Are Not a Religion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/01/you-are-not-a-religion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/01/you-are-not-a-religion/</link>
	<description>A First Things Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Hoskins</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/01/you-are-not-a-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-92393</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Hoskins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=58457#comment-92393</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Even without the Constitutional question her claim is ridiculous. Being a religion protected by the first amendment doesn&#039;t exempt one from all laws and regulations. Churches still have to follow zoning laws, building codes, health codes, etc.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even without the Constitutional question her claim is ridiculous. Being a religion protected by the first amendment doesn&#8217;t exempt one from all laws and regulations. Churches still have to follow zoning laws, building codes, health codes, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mere Links 03.04.13 - Mere Comments</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/01/you-are-not-a-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-92067</link>
		<dc:creator>Mere Links 03.04.13 - Mere Comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:02:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=58457#comment-92067</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] You Are Not a Religion Mark Movsesian, First Things [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] You Are Not a Religion Mark Movsesian, First Things [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc O. DeGirolami</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/01/you-are-not-a-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-92037</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc O. DeGirolami</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 01:30:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=58457#comment-92037</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yikes, sorry Anna.  I see that you raised the very case I did in your earlier comment.  Sorry for missing that.  Marc]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yikes, sorry Anna.  I see that you raised the very case I did in your earlier comment.  Sorry for missing that.  Marc</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlieford</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/01/you-are-not-a-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-92036</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlieford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 01:26:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=58457#comment-92036</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How do we square these sentiments with the demand by for-profit private employers that their consciences should not be coerced by legislation they object to on religious grounds, as in the HHS rulings?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How do we square these sentiments with the demand by for-profit private employers that their consciences should not be coerced by legislation they object to on religious grounds, as in the HHS rulings?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anna Williams</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/01/you-are-not-a-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-92033</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:01:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=58457#comment-92033</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for clarifying that, Mark and Mark! It&#039;ll be interesting to see how the case law develops.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for clarifying that, Mark and Mark! It&#8217;ll be interesting to see how the case law develops.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc O. DeGirolami</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/01/you-are-not-a-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-92031</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc O. DeGirolami</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Mar 2013 22:52:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=58457#comment-92031</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anna and Mark, here is an Ohio district court decision from December of last year involving a hospital that fired a customer service representative, who in turn claimed that she was fired because of her religion -- veganism -- when she refused to be vaccinated for the flu (animal products in the vaccine).  http://www.employmentandlaborinsider.com/Blog.1.4.13.chenzira%5B1%5D.pdf 

The hospital moved to dismiss the employee&#039;s complaint (based on Title VII), but the court denied the motion because of the deferential standard to the plaintiff.  The opinion relies not only on the traditionally religious grounding which the plaintiff gave to veganism, but also, as Mark notes above, on the fact that she is &quot;not alone.&quot; The court said:

&quot;The Court finds it plausible that Plaintiff could subscribe to veganism with a sincerity equating that of traditional religious views. The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Spies in no way bars such conclusion. In Spies, the Court found that a Buddhist inmate’s dietary request was adequately met by the provision of a vegetarian diet, as the inmate himself conceded that a more restrictive vegan diet was not a religious requirement of his faith. 173 F.3d 398, 407. The Court’s conclusion is further bolstered by Plaintiff’s citation to essays and Biblical excerpts.  Although the Code makes it clear that it is not necessary that a religious group espouse a belief before it can qualify as religious, 29 C.F.R. 1605.1, the fact here that Plaintiff is not alone in articulating her view lends credence to her position. Accordingly, at this early stage of the litigation, the Court finds it inappropriate to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for religious discrimination based on her adherence to veganism.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anna and Mark, here is an Ohio district court decision from December of last year involving a hospital that fired a customer service representative, who in turn claimed that she was fired because of her religion &#8212; veganism &#8212; when she refused to be vaccinated for the flu (animal products in the vaccine).  <a href="http://www.employmentandlaborinsider.com/Blog.1.4.13.chenzira%5B1%5D.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.employmentandlaborinsider.com/Blog.1.4.13.chenzira%5B1%5D.pdf</a> </p>
<p>The hospital moved to dismiss the employee&#8217;s complaint (based on Title VII), but the court denied the motion because of the deferential standard to the plaintiff.  The opinion relies not only on the traditionally religious grounding which the plaintiff gave to veganism, but also, as Mark notes above, on the fact that she is &#8220;not alone.&#8221; The court said:</p>
<p>&#8220;The Court finds it plausible that Plaintiff could subscribe to veganism with a sincerity equating that of traditional religious views. The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Spies in no way bars such conclusion. In Spies, the Court found that a Buddhist inmate’s dietary request was adequately met by the provision of a vegetarian diet, as the inmate himself conceded that a more restrictive vegan diet was not a religious requirement of his faith. 173 F.3d 398, 407. The Court’s conclusion is further bolstered by Plaintiff’s citation to essays and Biblical excerpts.  Although the Code makes it clear that it is not necessary that a religious group espouse a belief before it can qualify as religious, 29 C.F.R. 1605.1, the fact here that Plaintiff is not alone in articulating her view lends credence to her position. Accordingly, at this early stage of the litigation, the Court finds it inappropriate to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for religious discrimination based on her adherence to veganism.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Nickol</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/01/you-are-not-a-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-91968</link>
		<dc:creator>David Nickol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 19:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=58457#comment-91968</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I hope the idea here is not that all those who identify with some religious tradition—&lt;i&gt;any at all&lt;/i&gt;—are somehow superior to all those who identify with none. I am sure there are many among the &quot;nones&quot; who can articulate a religious, philosophical, or moral position more knowledgeably than many who call themselves Catholics, Evangelicals, Muslims, etc. I think there is no reason for any particular individual who identifies himself or herself by a specific religious affiliation to be smug when it comes to others who are classified among the &quot;nones.&quot; I am reminded of the old public-service announcements that urged people to go to the church or synagogue of their choice, as if it really made no difference what religion you belonged to, just so long as you chose one.  The court&#039;s decision seems correct to me, but that does not mean that a &quot;none&quot; may not have deeply held &quot;religious&quot; positions and a highly developed conscience. It is one of the ironies of First Amendment freedom of religion that those with religious positions that make no sense have their freedoms more securely guaranteed than &quot;nones&quot; who can make a rational, compelling argument for their positions of conscience.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope the idea here is not that all those who identify with some religious tradition—<i>any at all</i>—are somehow superior to all those who identify with none. I am sure there are many among the &#8220;nones&#8221; who can articulate a religious, philosophical, or moral position more knowledgeably than many who call themselves Catholics, Evangelicals, Muslims, etc. I think there is no reason for any particular individual who identifies himself or herself by a specific religious affiliation to be smug when it comes to others who are classified among the &#8220;nones.&#8221; I am reminded of the old public-service announcements that urged people to go to the church or synagogue of their choice, as if it really made no difference what religion you belonged to, just so long as you chose one.  The court&#8217;s decision seems correct to me, but that does not mean that a &#8220;none&#8221; may not have deeply held &#8220;religious&#8221; positions and a highly developed conscience. It is one of the ironies of First Amendment freedom of religion that those with religious positions that make no sense have their freedoms more securely guaranteed than &#8220;nones&#8221; who can make a rational, compelling argument for their positions of conscience.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Movsesian</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/01/you-are-not-a-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-91954</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Movsesian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 15:20:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=58457#comment-91954</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anna, yes, there are diverging trends in the caselaw. There&#039;s no categorical test for what qualifies as a religion for First Amendment purposes. Courts have different approaches and the Supreme Court hasn&#039;t conclusively resolved the question. But, typically, people claiming a &quot;religion&quot; can point to some outside source or objective set of principles to which they adhere. Even veganism is a set of beliefs and dietary practices that exists outside the mind of the particular vegan. Psychic Sophie asserted that she didn&#039;t subscribe to any outside source--she just went with her inner flow. It was that radically subjective definition of religion that the court rejected as unworkable.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anna, yes, there are diverging trends in the caselaw. There&#8217;s no categorical test for what qualifies as a religion for First Amendment purposes. Courts have different approaches and the Supreme Court hasn&#8217;t conclusively resolved the question. But, typically, people claiming a &#8220;religion&#8221; can point to some outside source or objective set of principles to which they adhere. Even veganism is a set of beliefs and dietary practices that exists outside the mind of the particular vegan. Psychic Sophie asserted that she didn&#8217;t subscribe to any outside source&#8211;she just went with her inner flow. It was that radically subjective definition of religion that the court rejected as unworkable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nobody.really</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/01/you-are-not-a-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-91884</link>
		<dc:creator>nobody.really</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 23:35:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=58457#comment-91884</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;blockquote&gt;What really is the difference between no God, and the claim of 7 billion different one, true Gods?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Check my math, but I think the answer is 7 billion.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>What really is the difference between no God, and the claim of 7 billion different one, true Gods?</p></blockquote>
<p>Check my math, but I think the answer is 7 billion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anna Williams</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/01/you-are-not-a-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-91878</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 21:15:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=58457#comment-91878</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mark, do you think the Psychic Sophie case goes against the grain of recent conscience rulings? The court&#039;s reasoning that &quot;for constitutional purposes . . . religion means some organizing principle or authority other than oneself&quot; seems to take a more institutionalized view of religion/conscience than courts in other recent religious liberty cases that I&#039;ve read about. 

For example, though veganism is not a religion, courts seem willing to entertain vegans&#039; conscience claims on the grounds that their convictions closely resemble religious beliefs or other ethical convictions. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dc93c540-5fe6-4aa4-860f-c116265abf08&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&#039;s one relevant case&lt;/a&gt; where the court &quot;found it plausible that [an] employee could hold to veganism with a sincerity equivalent to traditional religious views.&quot; Are there divergent trends in this area in different courts, with some courts prioritizing individual conscience and others prioritizing an authority outside the individual?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark, do you think the Psychic Sophie case goes against the grain of recent conscience rulings? The court&#8217;s reasoning that &#8220;for constitutional purposes . . . religion means some organizing principle or authority other than oneself&#8221; seems to take a more institutionalized view of religion/conscience than courts in other recent religious liberty cases that I&#8217;ve read about. </p>
<p>For example, though veganism is not a religion, courts seem willing to entertain vegans&#8217; conscience claims on the grounds that their convictions closely resemble religious beliefs or other ethical convictions. <a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dc93c540-5fe6-4aa4-860f-c116265abf08" rel="nofollow">Here&#8217;s one relevant case</a> where the court &#8220;found it plausible that [an] employee could hold to veganism with a sincerity equivalent to traditional religious views.&#8221; Are there divergent trends in this area in different courts, with some courts prioritizing individual conscience and others prioritizing an authority outside the individual?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
