News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Protection of religious views and behaviours

Started by Martinus, February 28, 2015, 03:34:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ancient Demon

Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 01:43:57 AM
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.

If the pasta colander doesn't obscure his face, why shouldn't he be allowed to wear it for the ID photo?
Ancient Demon, formerly known as Zagys.

Valmy

Quote from: Ancient Demon on March 03, 2015, 08:49:25 AM
I understand Martinus' reasoning and agree completely. If it causes no harm for a religious person to be able to do something, then what is the harm in allowing everyone to do that same thing?

I think it is a bit of a strawman that we are allowing vast concessions to religious people.  Right now freedom of religion is being used as a last ditch defense to fight against new laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.  There is no big tradition of having concessions for religious people getting special rights beyond what would be reasonable for anybody.  I do not think it is an issue at all.  At least here, but then we don't have big battles over veils.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Valmy

Quote from: Ancient Demon on March 03, 2015, 08:53:19 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 01:43:57 AM
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.

If the pasta colander doesn't obscure his face, why shouldn't he be allowed to wear it for the ID photo?

Indeed.  So he has a stupid ID photo?  Who doesn't?
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Martinus

It's funny how the Canucks seem to be always the group I find myself in disagreements with over values on this forum.

Valmy

Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 08:58:42 AM
It's funny how the Canucks seem to be always the group I find myself in disagreements with over values on this forum.

They are a kind bleeding heart sort of people, unless you speak French.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Grey Fox

Colonel Caliga is Awesome.

Martinus

Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 09:01:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 08:58:42 AM
It's funny how the Canucks seem to be always the group I find myself in disagreements with over values on this forum.

They are a kind bleeding heart sort of people, unless you speak French.

I think they may be the opposite of Poles. That is to say Poles have an attitude that is considered the mix of Europeans and Americans, and Canucks are the same, only in the opposite aspects. :P

Valmy

By the way I loved your video about the people worshipping the picture of the horse.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Ed Anger

Quote from: Grey Fox on March 03, 2015, 08:51:25 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2015, 09:28:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2015, 09:25:41 PM
Can you decode his post for me?

He's been sniping at me for months.

I think he is saying I'm the grandest douchebag of them all.

That's because you need tough love.

I laugh derisively at your feeble Plebian attempts.
Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive

grumbler

Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 01:22:43 AM
I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the religious motive should be ignored under the law. So if someone commits a honour killing, they should be punished equally, for example, whether they were motivated by religion or non-religious cultural bigotry.

So, for instance, killing someone in a fit of rage, or through negligence, should be punished identically with premeditated murder?  An accidental overdraft should be punished the same as deliberate fraud?  Or is it only religious motives which should be ignored under the law in your scheme?
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Malthus

Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 08:55:19 AM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on March 03, 2015, 08:53:19 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 01:43:57 AM
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.

If the pasta colander doesn't obscure his face, why shouldn't he be allowed to wear it for the ID photo?

Indeed.  So he has a stupid ID photo?  Who doesn't?

It's a fair point. There may be no reason at all for a "no hats" rule.

On the other hand, there may be a reason, only a not very important reason - perhaps the bureaucrats simply want a certain uniformity of appearance in such photos.

The issue then becomes whether there is any compelling reason to allow specific exemptions to that rule. This of necessity requires a balancing of interests, which (again, of necessity) involves weighing of the interests to be balanced. Or at least, that's how it works in Canadian law (maybe why Canuck lawyers are at odds with Marty on this issue  ;) ).

So to take the hat in the photo example: to a Canadian, there are the following possible outcomes:

1. The government cannot argue an interest in having a "no hats" rule. Hats for everyone!

2. The government can argue an interest, but it is not utterly compelling. Hats for those capable of arguing a more-compelling intererest in an excemption, no hats for the rest.

3. The government can argue a compelling interest (say, in safety, or for ID, or whatever). No hats for anyone.

It is only in scenario 2 that the issue of a "religious exemption" comes into play, and a Sikh is treated differently than (say) a Pastafarian. This scenario has, for example, played out when Sikhs wanted to wear a funny hat playing soccer (the soccer authorities were able to argue a minor interest in having a uniform "look"); and example of scenario 3 is where a Sikh tried to argue he should be allowed to wear his funny hat rather than a motorcycle helmet (the court said tough luck - wear the helmet or don't ride).
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Barrister

Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2015, 10:19:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 01:22:43 AM
I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the religious motive should be ignored under the law. So if someone commits a honour killing, they should be punished equally, for example, whether they were motivated by religion or non-religious cultural bigotry.

So, for instance, killing someone in a fit of rage, or through negligence, should be punished identically with premeditated murder?  An accidental overdraft should be punished the same as deliberate fraud?  Or is it only religious motives which should be ignored under the law in your scheme?

As much as I hate to defend Marty in a religion thread, at least at law "motive" has a separate meaning from "intent".
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Barrister

Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 08:58:42 AM
It's funny how the Canucks seem to be always the group I find myself in disagreements with over values on this forum.

It's because we have values, and you apparently do not. -_-
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

grumbler

Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 01:43:57 AM
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.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Valmy

Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 10:28:07 AM
It is only in scenario 2 that the issue of a "religious exemption" comes into play, and a Sikh is treated differently than (say) a Pastafarian.

Why?
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."