Why are religious beliefs treated specially?
What exactly is the difference between religious bollocks and secular bollocks? There has been plenty of debate in this thread on rational grounds, and someone putting forward views that are factually incorrect and possibly dangerous to others is quite rightly criticised. If I understand the Microsoft position correctly, someone can say any old bollocks they like to justify why they won't get vaccinated, as long as the reason is their religious belief.
As a non-religious person, I find this treatment of religious belief quite unfair. Why can't I criticise religious beliefs like I criticise any other beliefs? I have quite a few beliefs that are not based on facts in the scientific sense. Beliefs about politics, justice, and the arts generally fall into this category. However, these are matters that can be discussed rationally, rather than just taken as unassailable foundations of faith. But for some reason, we allow religious beliefs to pass without rational scrutiny. I grant that people with strong religious beliefs are unlikely to have their faith shaken by rational argument, but that does not mean they can get away with talking rubbish.
There is a difficulty with the matter of not discriminating against someone because of their faith. My opinion is that it is wrong to treat someone better or worse, based on what faith they profess. However, if someone is denied access to something because they refuse vaccination on religious grounds, this is not religious discrimination as such. They should not be able to get away with claiming religious belief as an excuse, on the same level as medical exemptions.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
