Korean Job Discussion Forums

[kermo]

I agree that society is not obligated to accommodate the needs of religious people. However, I would argue that it's in society's best interests to do so, to prevent segregation, which leads to dangerous divisions.

Re: the "restricting" of gym access seems like a misnomer because other gyms are available.

Actually, I just thought of another analogy which might be a bit inflammatory but I'll throw it out there just for fun because it's kind of interesting.

Right now, Western society does adapt itself to minorities such as physically handicapped people, putting pressure and even enacting laws to change the design of elevators, bathrooms, doors, traffic signals, etc. If the city landscape were not as physically accessible, then people in wheelchairs would be restricted and virtually segregated.

This doesn't infringe on the rights of the average pedestrian but it is an expense for people who run buildings with public access. Why does society do this? So that everyone can participate in public life, even if they have restricted mobility.

Religious people, especially those from conservative Muslim families, have their own restrictions, often involve diet and dress. In some cases, these restrictions are self-imposed. However, violating those regulations can have implications beyond the spiritual, such as family and community ostracization or even violent retribution.

This isn't an easy call, especially when a religious or cultural practise violates the mores of the larger society (e.g., female ritual circumcision.) Nevertheless, in many cases, it's far less repugnant to accommodate religious minorities (though the word "minority" is becoming less apt, particularly in urban Britain.) Inconvenient, at worst.

Society isn't obliged to recognize the needs of these people, but by refusing to do so, it might be creating a larger problem.