Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[Iormlund]

It ensures that the power of the state cannot be used to restrict people from practicing their religion freely and without state interference.

This is beneficial to society because it helps to avoid religious strife, and the inevitable battles (both rehtorical and real) over deciding what religious flavor should be favored by the State.

Quite the contrary. Arbitrarily accommodating this or that doctrine, often after a long trial and public debate only inflames religious strife.

[Barrister]

Only women are given maternity leave.

Only smart people can get into university.

Those 2 aren't true in the states.

Well, technically, only women are given maternity leave, but new fathers are legally allowed to take up to 12 weeks of paternity leave as well if they choose to do so.  But since, in most places of employment, both maternity and paternity leave is unpaid, few fathers take any paternity leave (and unless there is a good medical reason to take that much time, most mothers don't take the 12 weeks of maternity leave they are legally entitled to, either--most take about 6 weeks).

I'm aware of paternity leave.  I even took some.

But in most places, there is specific "maternity" leave that men can not take.

[Iormlund]

But in most places, there is specific "maternity" leave that men can not take.

I would think that probably has something to do with them having just given birth, which is a fairly easy thing to ascertain.

Whether Odin requires you to prostrate yourself five times a day looking at Uppsala is, however, far more difficult to prove.

[Neil]

It ensures that the power of the state cannot be used to restrict people from practicing their religion freely and without state interference.

This is beneficial to society because it helps to avoid religious strife, and the inevitable battles (both rehtorical and real) over deciding what religious flavor should be favored by the State.

Quite the contrary. Arbitrarily accommodating this or that doctrine, often after a long trial and public debate only inflames religious strife.

Not at all.  You only think so because you're too young to have experienced the alternative.

[The Minsky Moment]

If a law infringes on essential freedoms then it should be ruled unconstitutional, not made to apply differently to different groups.

But that just begs the question of whether the ability to exercise one's faith freely is an essential freedom.  You claim not, but hundreds of years of political theory and practice say otherwise.

Formally speaking, a right to practice religious belief free from uncessary government interference is a general right that applies to all equally.  No particular belief system is treated differently; all are entitled to same principle of accomodation.  Your objection is that in practice, not everyone can take equal advantage of that right - specifically persons with no religious belief.  But so what?  that doesn't alter the general nature of the principle.  Every law, and every exemption to law, applies to different categories of people differently.  People without owner-occupied housing can't deduct home interest from their taxes, people without oil & gas leases can't get depletion allowances, people without dependent children can't get a child tax credit. 

Society benefits greatly from having the press as a check on government, so it has deemed special protection on the exercise of that trade..

And ther are social benefits in a pluralistic society when religious minorities are not compelled to abide by the standards of the majority.  It permits the members of those groups to fully participate in the society without surrendering their autonomy and core beliefs. 

[Barrister]

But in most places, there is specific "maternity" leave that men can not take.

I would think that probably has something to do with them having just given birth, which is a fairly easy thing to ascertain.

Whether Odin requires you to prostrate yourself five times a day looking at Uppsala is, however, far more difficult to prove.

The fact that millions of people believe that they must pray five times per day is however trivially easy to prove.

[Malthus]

Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.

I assume you feel the same way about conciencious objectors in wartime?

Yes.

And the benefits of throwing (say) the Amish and Quakers en mass in jail as cowards are ... to preserve equality above all?

Reminds me of an Emerson Quote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". 

[The Brain]

free from uncessary government interference

There is a school of thought that this should apply to whatever the hell a person wants to do. This school has gained ground the latest centuries, and this is one of the reasons that having special rights for religions is seen by some as being fairly archaic.

[The Brain]

Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.

I assume you feel the same way about conciencious objectors in wartime?

Yes.

And the benefits of throwing (say) the Amish and Quakers en mass in jail as cowards are ... to preserve equality above all?

[Iormlund]

But in most places, there is specific "maternity" leave that men can not take.

I would think that probably has something to do with them having just given birth, which is a fairly easy thing to ascertain.

Whether Odin requires you to prostrate yourself five times a day looking at Uppsala is, however, far more difficult to prove.

The fact that millions of people believe that they must pray five times per day is however trivially easy to prove.

If someone tells you in court that he believes he had to rape and kill a 2 year old would you drop charges?

[The Brain]

But in most places, there is specific "maternity" leave that men can not take.

I would think that probably has something to do with them having just given birth, which is a fairly easy thing to ascertain.

Whether Odin requires you to prostrate yourself five times a day looking at Uppsala is, however, far more difficult to prove.

The fact that millions of people believe that they must pray five times per day is however trivially easy to prove.

If someone tells you in court that he believes he had to rape and kill a 2 year old would you drop charges?

[Iormlund]

Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.

I assume you feel the same way about conciencious objectors in wartime?

Yes.

And the benefits of throwing (say) the Amish and Quakers en mass in jail as cowards are ... to preserve equality above all?

Reminds me of an Emerson Quote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". 

You do know that a fairly low percentage of draftees end up at the front lines, don't you? If a draft is necessary at all there would surely be somewhere they can serve.

[Neil]

Maybe it's a cultural thing.  The Anglosphere, even Britain, does have a stronger attachment to freedom as a concept than the Euros do.

[The Brain]

Maybe it's a cultural thing.  The Anglosphere, even Britain, does have a stronger attachment to freedom as a concept than the Euros do.

Then how do you explain me? Hmm??

[Barrister]

But in most places, there is specific "maternity" leave that men can not take.

I would think that probably has something to do with them having just given birth, which is a fairly easy thing to ascertain.

Whether Odin requires you to prostrate yourself five times a day looking at Uppsala is, however, far more difficult to prove.

The fact that millions of people believe that they must pray five times per day is however trivially easy to prove.

If someone tells you in court that he believes he had to rape and kill a 2 year old would you drop charges?

What the fuck are you talking about?  How is that possibly a response to what I said?