Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Zoupa]

Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.

In the USA you don't have to, because the Constitution guarantees free exercise.  So if the Amish want to drive their horse drawn-buggies, or if the Mormons want to wear their special undergarments, or the Sikhs their turbans, or if the Catholics want to erect huge statutes of a classical-era Jew on a Roman torture device, then they get to do all those things even if others think it is gauche and terribly out of fashion.

I would have thought that religious freedom counted for more in the Netherlands but perhaps not.

Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.

[Slargos]

Keep this up, and Wags will never be able to return, you filthy anti-semites. 

[Barrister]

Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.

In the USA you don't have to, because the Constitution guarantees free exercise.  So if the Amish want to drive their horse drawn-buggies, or if the Mormons want to wear their special undergarments, or the Sikhs their turbans, or if the Catholics want to erect huge statutes of a classical-era Jew on a Roman torture device, then they get to do all those things even if others think it is gauche and terribly out of fashion.

I would have thought that religious freedom counted for more in the Netherlands but perhaps not.

Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.

Religious freedom means that we make reasonable accomodations to the religious concerns of our citizens.   The classic example are the various accomodations made for sikhs - they are allowed to carry a ceremonial kirpan in a variety of areas where you or I would not be allowed to carry a pocket knife.

Religion is not given carte blanche, but it is certainly given serious consideration.

[The Minsky Moment]

It doesn't seem odd to you that the Dutch require everyone else to stun animals before slaughter but Jews and Muslims get a religious exception? I don't really think that's what freedom of religion is supposed to mean.

This issue came up in Lukumi Babalu case and the Supreme Court ruled that a local government could not pass an animal welfare ordinance that failed to exempt the Santeria practice of ritual animal sacrifice.

[The Minsky Moment]

Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.

Iron age.   

[Neil]

The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher.  So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.

Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.

But that's not really the issue here.  The issue is that the Dutch are racist.

It's the issue in SF where there is going to be a ballot measure to ban circumcision.

SF is a pretty racist place.

[Neil]

Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.

No, it doesn't, but killing animals is something that is not considered unacceptable.  Unless you're some sort of faggot like Martinus or Slargos.

[garbon]

The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher.  So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.

Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.

But that's not really the issue here.  The issue is that the Dutch are racist.

It's the issue in SF where there is going to be a ballot measure to ban circumcision.

SF is a pretty racist place.

Against blacks, not Jews.

[garbon]

It doesn't seem odd to you that the Dutch require everyone else to stun animals before slaughter but Jews and Muslims get a religious exception? I don't really think that's what freedom of religion is supposed to mean.

This issue came up in Lukumi Babalu case and the Supreme Court ruled that a local government could not pass an animal welfare ordinance that failed to exempt the Santeria practice of ritual animal sacrifice.

This isn't about a local gov't...and I guess then that's what you think religious freedom should be?

[garbon]

Religious freedom means that we make reasonable accomodations to the religious concerns of our citizens.   The classic example are the various accomodations made for sikhs - they are allowed to carry a ceremonial kirpan in a variety of areas where you or I would not be allowed to carry a pocket knife.

Religion is not given carte blanche, but it is certainly given serious consideration.

Detestable. Religious freedom shouldn't mean that you get favors because you have a religion.

[Viking]

It doesn't seem odd to you that the Dutch require everyone else to stun animals before slaughter but Jews and Muslims get a religious exception? I don't really think that's what freedom of religion is supposed to mean.

This issue came up in Lukumi Babalu case and the Supreme Court ruled that a local government could not pass an animal welfare ordinance that failed to exempt the Santeria practice of ritual animal sacrifice.

Wouldn't an automatic exemption from animal welfare ordinance conflict with the establishment clause?

[Neil]

The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher.  So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.

Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.

But that's not really the issue here.  The issue is that the Dutch are racist.

It's the issue in SF where there is going to be a ballot measure to ban circumcision.

SF is a pretty racist place.

Against blacks, not Jews.

No, they hate Jews too.  Israel, and all that.

[Zoupa]

Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.

In the USA you don't have to, because the Constitution guarantees free exercise.  So if the Amish want to drive their horse drawn-buggies, or if the Mormons want to wear their special undergarments, or the Sikhs their turbans, or if the Catholics want to erect huge statutes of a classical-era Jew on a Roman torture device, then they get to do all those things even if others think it is gauche and terribly out of fashion.

I would have thought that religious freedom counted for more in the Netherlands but perhaps not.

Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.

Religious freedom means that we make reasonable accomodations to the religious concerns of our citizens.   The classic example are the various accomodations made for sikhs - they are allowed to carry a ceremonial kirpan in a variety of areas where you or I would not be allowed to carry a pocket knife.

Religion is not given carte blanche, but it is certainly given serious consideration.

That is a terrible example, since that accomodation was not reasonable at all.

[garbon]

The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher.  So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.

Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.

But that's not really the issue here.  The issue is that the Dutch are racist.

It's the issue in SF where there is going to be a ballot measure to ban circumcision.

SF is a pretty racist place.

Against blacks, not Jews.

No, they hate Jews too.  Israel, and all that.

You're right there are a lot of those nuts. I used to glare at the people at the end of my block wanting me to sign petitions against Israeli actions in Palestine.

[Neil]

It doesn't seem odd to you that the Dutch require everyone else to stun animals before slaughter but Jews and Muslims get a religious exception? I don't really think that's what freedom of religion is supposed to mean.

This issue came up in Lukumi Babalu case and the Supreme Court ruled that a local government could not pass an animal welfare ordinance that failed to exempt the Santeria practice of ritual animal sacrifice.

Wouldn't an automatic exemption from animal welfare ordinance conflict with the establishment clause?

No.  They're both creatures of the First Amendment.  The issue isn't that you're exempt from the ordinance, but rather that the state doesn't have the power to pass it.