Protection of religious views and behaviours

[Valmy]

I think I understand what both Malthus and CC are saying and have said. CC made a very cogent, organized and point by point post that laid out the specifics of what Malthus said in general. Both points were useful, and I didn't see anything that Malthus said that was significantly "wrong" at all, just a 10,000ft view instead of CCs 1000ft. explanation.

Yep when CC explained it, I understood what Malthus was saying.  No biggie, sorry for misunderstanding.

[Barrister]

What evidence would you easily find, CC?

What would happen I imagine for the pasta collander guy is he would ask the registrar of motor vehicles for an exemption to allow him to wear a pasta collander on his head for his driver's license.  They would probably talk to him on the phone and ask him some questions about his religion, where does it come from, what else does it require.  They'd presumably ask him about his choice of headware - how often does he wear it, in what kinds of circumstances, etc.

If he gets told no, he could then file a Judicial Review application where some of the same questions would be asked, but this time under oath.

Actually, I have no idea if a judicial review is a trial de novo, or just a review based on the same evidence.

[grumbler]

Yes.  Absolutely.

There was a story in the Canadian news recently about some idiot who is fighting to be allowed to have his ID picture taken with a pasta colander on his head, because he believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I have no problem saying this fellow has no real "strongly held belief" in the need for pasta-based headware other than to poke religions in the eye, and that he should noe be allowed to wear one for his driver's license.

BB illustrates the problem perfectly.  While he is opposed to Marti's dumb idea, he opposes it by producing his own dumb idea;  that he gets to decide what "strongly held beliefs" are, in fact, strongly held (and thus protected) and which he rejects and so are unprotected.

If one wants an exemption to the "no hats in pictures" rule on religious grounds, then it should be automatically granted.  Government employees will want to declare their judgements to be definitive, but they lie.  No one can truly judge the sincerity of someone else's beliefs.

It is true - it is far easier to go to an absolute - either say "there are no rules", so that religious (or other) beliefs can never be infringed, or to simply ignore religion as being worthy of accomodation in any case.

Easier, but not better.

I don't know about others, but I like having a regulated, well-ordered society.  I am not a libertarian.

And I think that looking at all of human history, and the number of wars and strife caused by religion, that we have learned the best way to avoid them is to grant religious liberty and respect for all faiths.

So then we're stuck with the more difficult, but not impossible, role of trying to reconcile both the rule of law, and religious freedom.

Indeed.  Glad to see you have abandoned your "this fellow has no real "strongly held belief"" stance for my "we cannot distinguish between beliefs" stance.  Normally you squawk more before conceding my point. 

[garbon]

What evidence would you easily find, CC?

The fact that he is often proclaims himself to be an atheist.  The fact that the only religion he has believed in has no religious requirement that he wear a hat. 
You and Marti seem to think that a court will simply take the word of the person claiming the religious belief in the absence of any supporting evidence.  That isn't how it works.

Sorry I didn't mean this case specifically. And ah, does this protection only get afforded to organized religions?

[Malthus]

I think I understand what both Malthus and CC are saying and have said. CC made a very cogent, organized and point by point post that laid out the specifics of what Malthus said in general. Both points were useful, and I didn't see anything that Malthus said that was significantly "wrong" at all, just a 10,000ft view instead of CCs 1000ft. explanation.

Thanks. You get it. 

[Barrister]

Indeed.  Glad to see you have abandoned your "this fellow has no real "strongly held belief"" stance for my "we cannot distinguish between beliefs" stance.  Normally you squawk more before conceding my point. 

You may score your points whoever you so which my dear grumbler. 

I for one am here to discuss and exchange viewpoints, not score points.

[Valmy]

Personally I am only here to score "res ipsa loquitur" points.  You have been really stingy with those the past 10 years or so.

[Maximus]

And ah, does this protection only get afforded to organized religions?

This

[Valmy]

Max!  How have you guys been?

[Maximus]

Max!  How have you guys been?

We're getting by. I'm doing the grad school thing, so less time than usual. You?

[Valmy]

Max!  How have you guys been?

We're getting by. I'm doing the grad school thing, so less time than usual. You?

Working at staying sane at new job where I read massive legal briefs.  Just noticed you and Merithyn were not here much after December and wondered what was up.

[grumbler]

You may score your points whoever you so which my dear grumbler. 

I for one am here to discuss and exchange viewpoints, not score points.

  Not very good with the ol' English comprehension, are you?  The word "point" doesn't always refer to a score.  See:  dictionary.

In any case, what is important is that you have conceded.  That you are so graceless about it isn't at all significant - I'd expect nothing better..

[Maximus]

Working at staying sane at new job where I read massive legal briefs. 

My condolences.

[grumbler]

It is interesting that, in the actual case where this went to court (which was in Austria, not Canada), the court sided with the Pastafarian:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14135523

Insofar as I know, the BC case has never seen the inside of a court.  If someone has facts that say differently, I'd appreciate a link.  OTOH, some officials in the US and the Czech Republic decided not to contest the wearing of pasta strainers since doing so would force them to take unconstitutional stands on the relative merit of different religious beliefs.

If my understanding is correct and this hasn't seen a court ruling yet, I'll be curious to see if the predictions of our three Canadian lawyers (all of whom appear to predict hat the Canadian courts will rule against the Pastafarian, though may they disagree on exactly why) are accurate.

*pops popcorn*

[Jacob]

In any case, what is important is that you have conceded.  That you are so graceless about it isn't at all significant - I'd expect nothing better..

Indeed. It is quite shocking, given the level of grace we're accustomed to here on languish.