A Review Of Are Organizations Religious Exemptions Democratically Defensible By Stephanie Collins

Title: Review of "Are Organizations’ Religious Exemptions Democratically Defensible?” by Stephanie Collins
INTRODUCTION
This review examines the article titled "Are Organizations’ Religious Exemptions Democratically Defensible" by Stephanie Collins. The article was published in Daedalus, Vol. 149, No. 3, Religion & Democracy (Summer 2020), pp. 105-118 (14 pages). Stephanie explores the topic of religious exemptions for organizations and their compatibility with democratic societies. The author investigates four arguments for granting such exemptions and evaluates their validity.

The article's primary objective is to critically analyse the various strategies proposed to justify religious exemptions for organizations. The author challenges

This test acknowledges the temporal dimension of organizational abilities and emphasizes the potential moral duties of individual members to influence the organization's ability to abide by the law.
The article highlights that the granting of religious exemptions should be limited and infrequent. While some cases may initially justify religious exemptions based on an organization's procedures or foundational goals, the author argues that such exemptions are likely to be temporary. Organizations often possess the long-term capacity to abide by the law, and members may have moral obligations to foster this ability within the organization.

Overall, the article provides a comprehensive framework for analysing religious exemptions within organizational contexts, challenging traditional perspectives and offering a nuanced understanding of the complex considerations involved. It emphasizes the importance of balancing individual claims and responsibilities while cautioning against the broad application of religious exemptions, particularly when they conflict with fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination.

The author's use of evidence and logical reasoning is commendable, contributing to a well-supported argument. The article also sheds light on the moral considerations surrounding religious exemptions, emphasizing the need to balance the rights of individuals affected by discrimination.

However, the critique of the article reveals several areas that could be improved. Engaging with alternative viewpoints and addressing potential criticisms would have added depth and strengthened the overall argument. Additionally, a more comprehensive analysis of the practical implications, comparative perspectives, temporal dimension, and intersectionality of religious exemptions would have enriched the article's analysis.

Despite these limitations, the article makes valuable contributions to the discourse on religious exemptions in organizational settings. It highlights the need to carefully consider the justifications and implications of religious exemptions while balancing the rights and protections of all individuals involved. The article serves as a starting point for further exploration and dialogue on this complex and contentious