Protection of religious views and behaviours

[Ancient Demon]

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?

[Valmy]

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.

[Valmy]

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?

[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]

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.

[Grey Fox]

[Martinus]

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.

[Valmy]

By the way I loved your video about the people worshipping the picture of the horse.

[Ed Anger]

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.

[grumbler]

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?

[Malthus]

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).

[Barrister]

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".

[Barrister]

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.

[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.

[Valmy]

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?