Does that mean you're okay with any discrimination against atheists by forcing them to engage in some religious practice?
Or is atheism not a choice?
Quit if you don't like it.
Well, one of the freedoms of religion in the USA is that we don't have a religious test for office. We get rid of freedom of religion and... that's not "discrimination" right?
Is religion a choice?
I ask because some religions forbid conversions "out", a few with rather serious penalties. Since most adherents of those religions are entered into them by their parents (that is, without their consent) ....
People born into certain religions with certain kinds of parents and communities often don't have a psychological choice because of the nature of their environment. Just because some INTPs slip through the cracks does not mean that your typical ESFJ has a choice.
> Just because some INTPs slip through the cracks does not mean that your typical ESFJ has a choice.
Yes it does, they just didn't assert it.
I think the answer depends on who you are. It is a choice if you don't believe in religion. Its not a choice if you are religious.
Children can and do break with their parents religion as they grow up (and do so /often/), so clearly it's a choice. Sometimes it's a hard choice. But it's still a choice that's frequently made.
But if you've got amputated legs, you can't choose to just hop up out of your wheelchair and go for a run like pretty much anyone else can.
Perhaps I can make it a bit more black and white. A few suburbs away from me there was a Turkish man who killed his daughter for 'dishonouring' his family (had premarital sex). Now, I am in Australia, and this kind of thing is seen by us as murder, but it's seen by folks where this man came from as honourable.
Should we be saying "It's just cultural, he didn't have a choice" or should we be saying "we're striving to create an egalitarian society, where everyone is treated as equals"?
This man had a choice and to argue that "it's just cultural" (of which "it's just religious" is a subset) deprives others of their freedom to be. Laws need to cover people equally or as said elsewhere you simply create another form of discrimination. This doesn't mean that laws don't need to change, but instead that they should be worded to allow everyone the same flexibility, not having to pass some sort of highly subjecting 'faithness' test.
For the record, the Turkish government has started handing out harsh punishment in an attempt to knock out "honour" killings.
Since honor killings happen in countries such as the UK....
Even if you're going to argue "it's a choice because it's not civil-legal to kill apostates", it's certainly "civil-legal" to shun them.
Tons of people reject the religion of their parents and are estranged from them for life, while still having a great - and in many cases markedly improved - quality of life.
And tons don't, and other tons do, but have a miserable life as a result.
They'll be glad to know that you belittle their situation.
You can study more and educate yourself and find your opinions changing as you learn, and maybe there are beliefs that you hold which you only hold because you've never spent the time to analyse them. But the number of people who analyse their own beliefs is small, as is the number of people whose beliefs will change when they are proven incorrect or when the evidence supporting those beliefs (if there is any) is cast into doubt. I think a person's religion is up to external factors and gut feeling - i.e. the subconscious.
If I wanted to become a Sikh or a Christian or a Muslim, I couldn't, any more than a Christian could voluntarily literally cease to believe in Jesus. And that's if I saw a benefit in converting at all, which is unlikely. Sikhs aren't Sikhs because they choose to be, nor Christians Christians, nor atheists atheists.