Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[crazy canuck]

Having special laws for people based on their religions worked out great in Germany in the 30s, but of course YMMV.

Are you telling us that there is no notion of accomodation anywhere within Swedish law.  If so I find that very surprising.

I haven't mentioned Swedish law AFAIK.

You seemed to suggest that the only society that had "special" laws dealing with religious beliefs was nazi Germany.  I find that observation very surprising given the fact that every jurisdiction I know of has laws requiring the reasonable accomodation of religious beliefs but I am not entirely familiar with the Swedish system and so I wondered whether your observation was based on the fact that Sweden lacks this concept.

[The Minsky Moment]

Having special laws for people based on their religions worked out great in Germany in the 30s, but of course YMMV.

IIRC correctly, the problem in Nazi Germany did not relate to that regime's punctilious respect for the rights of religious minorities to practice their faiths with minimal governmental interference.  But please educate me if I am mistaken.

[The Brain]

Having special laws for people based on their religions worked out great in Germany in the 30s, but of course YMMV.

Are you telling us that there is no notion of accomodation anywhere within Swedish law.  If so I find that very surprising.

I haven't mentioned Swedish law AFAIK.

You seemed to suggest that the only society that had "special" laws dealing with religious beliefs was nazi Germany.  I find that observation very surprising given the fact that every jurisdiction I know of has laws requiring the reasonable accomodation of religious beliefs but I am not entirely familiar with the Swedish system and so I wondered whether your observation was based on the fact that Sweden lacks this concept.

It was a simple jab at a person who is notorious for becoming extremely defensive whenever anything Jewish is being discussed.

[crazy canuck]

It was a simple jab at a person who is notorious for becoming extremely defensive whenever anything Jewish is being discussed.

I was simply pointing out that your jab made no sense in the context of this thread.

[The Minsky Moment]

It was a simple jab at a person who is notorious for becoming extremely defensive whenever anything Jewish is being discussed.

I hadn't seen Siege in this thread.   

[The Brain]

Having special laws for people based on their religions worked out great in Germany in the 30s, but of course YMMV.

Are you telling us that there is no notion of accomodation anywhere within Swedish law.  If so I find that very surprising.

I haven't mentioned Swedish law AFAIK.

You seemed to suggest that the only society that had "special" laws dealing with religious beliefs was nazi Germany.  I find that observation very surprising given the fact that every jurisdiction I know of has laws requiring the reasonable accomodation of religious beliefs but I am not entirely familiar with the Swedish system and so I wondered whether your observation was based on the fact that Sweden lacks this concept.

It was a simple jab at a person who is notorious for becoming extremely defensive whenever anything Jewish is being discussed.

Yes, and I was simply pointing out that your jab made no sense in the context of this thread.

*shrug* You could easily have a law/rule regarding driver licenses that avoided the question instead of making a law/rule that's unnecessarily restrictive and then make special rules for religious people.

[The Brain]

It was a simple jab at a person who is notorious for becoming extremely defensive whenever anything Jewish is being discussed.

I hadn't seen Siege in this thread.   

More's the pity. Siege rules.

[crazy canuck]

*shrug* You could easily have a law/rule regarding driver licenses that avoided the question instead of making a law/rule that's unnecessarily restrictive and then make special rules for religious people.

Feel free to suggest the wording of a law of general application that prevents the mischief this law was designed to prevent.  Remember to ensure the wording of your law does not impinge in any way on religious practices so that there is no need for, as you put it, special rules to accomodate those beliefs.  It is after all apparently an easy thing to do.

[The Brain]

*shrug* You could easily have a law/rule regarding driver licenses that avoided the question instead of making a law/rule that's unnecessarily restrictive and then make special rules for religious people.

Feel free to suggest the wording of a law of general application that prevents the mischief this law was designed to prevent.  Remember to ensure the wording of your law does not impinge in any way on religious practices so that there is no need for, as you put it, special rules to accomodate those beliefs.  It is after all apparently an easy thing to do.

Why would it have to avoid impinging in any way on religious practices?

[crazy canuck]

*shrug* You could easily have a law/rule regarding driver licenses that avoided the question instead of making a law/rule that's unnecessarily restrictive and then make special rules for religious people.

Feel free to suggest the wording of a law of general application that prevents the mischief this law was designed to prevent.  Remember to ensure the wording of your law does not impinge in any way on religious practices so that there is no need for, as you put it, special rules to accomodate those beliefs.  It is after all apparently an easy thing to do.

Why would it have to avoid impinging in any way on religious practices?

Because of the legal obligation to reasonably accomodate them.  I guess I have to ask you again - do you not have this concept in Sweden?  More to the point, if all you are saying is that your solution is to ignore that obligation then it isnt really a solution is it.

[Iormlund]

Joan, this is a relevant point in a world where muslims are tying to let women use faceveils on photos. He's not just being a dick.

Are women being allowed to use face veils on photos?  The only case I am aware of in the States denied this.  Perhaps Austria differs.  But if preventing that outcome really was his objective, he actually moved the ball backwards.

This is only one of many instances of religious followers calling for exemptions. A few local examples: calls for segregated public swimming pools, exemption for girls from sport classes, the niqab school issue, refusal to let male doctors see female patients, disruption on factory production due to prayer ...

The thin-skinned schmucks are not the ones pointing out how fucked up it is that you have two different standards depending on whether you still believe in Santa or not. They are the ones asking for them in the first place.

[The Brain]

*shrug* You could easily have a law/rule regarding driver licenses that avoided the question instead of making a law/rule that's unnecessarily restrictive and then make special rules for religious people.

Feel free to suggest the wording of a law of general application that prevents the mischief this law was designed to prevent.  Remember to ensure the wording of your law does not impinge in any way on religious practices so that there is no need for, as you put it, special rules to accomodate those beliefs.  It is after all apparently an easy thing to do.

Why would it have to avoid impinging in any way on religious practices?

Because of the legal obligation to reasonably accomodate them.  I guess I have to ask you again - do you not have this concept in Sweden?  More to the point, if all you are saying is that your solution is to ignore that obligation then it isnt really a solution is it.

I'll try to walk you through it.

If you limit your rules to ensuring what's actually important for the photo to serve its purpose as an aid to identification then any religious objection can be met with "sorry take it or leave it, we find it reasonable to demand ID photos on driver's licenses".

[LaCroix]

if, for example, a non-jew can appeal to wear a yarmulke for the simple reason that he wants to wear a yarmulke (dirty lawyer??) in his id picture, and be allowed it, then i don't see how it is an issue that this guy cannot wear a pasta strainer through equally disingenuous means. it may raise the question, "where does it stop," but wasn't that box opened when yarmulkes were allowed to be worn for the photos in the first place?

[Valmy]

Isn't a Yarmulke like a tiny thing on the back on your head?  Isn't that like caring what kind of shoes one is wearing in an ID photo?  I mean you cannot see the Yarmulke right?

[Capetan Mihali]