Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[Iormlund]

It is a cultural thing, though I don't think it is down to a Continental-Anglo divide.

Catholicism had a fairly tight grasp on Spain for quite a while. The Church still benefits from a lot of exemptions and privileges.

[mongers]

Might I suggest we take a look at the Sikh community in Britain to see how some of the issues in this thread play out.

I should point out that I don't bear any grudges against Sikhs or their religion, on paper it seems to have many socially and egalitarian positive values.

In the 1970s the Sikh community fought a long successful legal battle to exempt them from the compulsory motorcycle helmet requirement and if iirc smaller actions, including some industrial desputes, to allow them to wear a turban in jobs that require a uniform.  I'm of the opinion this was a socially acceptable trade-off, the probable increase serious injury, hospital costs and deaths resulting from unprotected Sikh motorcyclists, is most likely outweighed by social conservative characteristics of the community that will likely mean less drunk driving, criminality and reckless behaviour.

Sikh Kirpan knives are exempt from the tightened up UK knife laws, were any blade of 3 inches is banned and those under, eg a pocket knife, can be the subject of questioning depending on the situation.
However some Sikh wish to be able to carry their knives in most places and not be the subject of challenge:

Sikhs protest against knife rules

Sikhs say they are not being allowed to wear a kirpan - or ceremonial knife - in public places even though the law says they can.

Some have been refused entry to amusement parks and even government buildings because of fears the blade poses a security or safety threat.

The confusion has prompted the Department of Communities and Local Government to draw up guidelines for officials and employers on the rights of Sikhs to wear the kirpan. They are expected to be published later this year.

Sukhbir Kaur, 23, a Phd student, was one of a group of six Sikhs who were refused entry to a theme park in Staffordshire because they were wearing kirpans.

"We were waiting to pay and buy our tickets and then a security guard just came over and said we weren't allowed to go in," she said.

"When we said 'why?' He goes: 'because you're carrying knives.' I just felt like that's kind of wrong."

In 1983 Gurinder Singh Mandla made history after the Law Lords backed his right to wear a turban at school.

That ruling gave Sikhs considerable protection under British law. Twenty five years on though he says he is still facing problems practising his religion. This time it is over the kirpan.

"When you go into court you are asked what it is and you tell them it's a kirpan. On occasions I can remember at Wolverhampton Crown Court, I was then flanked by two police officers until they were able to sort out from the Lord Chancellor's Office what they should be doing about this issue," he said.

The Courts Service said Sikhs are allowed to wear the kirpan in court even though knives are banned. A spokesman said Sikhs were given special dispensation because of their religion.

The kirpan is a small ceremonial knife which usually has a 3in (7.6cm) blade. It symbolises the spiritual struggle over evil and is one of five articles of faith which baptised Sikhs are expected to wear at all times.
.....

rest of item here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7989108.stm

And yet we've also seen an instance where a substantial number of local Sikhs have sought through protest and illegal activity to restrict others freedom of expression, successfully so:

Theatre stormed in Sikh protest

Hundreds of Sikh demonstrators protested outside a Birmingham theatre against a play depicting sex abuse and murder in a temple.

Five police officers were hurt during struggles at Birmingham's Repertory Theatre on Saturday night.

Two men were arrested and the theatre said some demonstrators stormed the building before the performance of Behzti (Dishonour) was cancelled.

The theatre and the Sikh community will meet police on Monday.

The theatre has been the scene of several protests by members of the Sikh community, angered by author Gurpreet Bhatti's depiction of murder and sex abuse.

The protesters claim the play, which centres around two characters and is set in a gurdwara, a Sikh temple, mocks their faith.

The play's author has revealed threats had been made against her and she has been advised by police not to say anything in public.

Saturday night's protest turned violent at 1845 GMT as around 400 people gathered outside the theatre.
....

rest of item here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm

details on the play's closure here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1479519/Play-seeks-new-venue-after-Sikh-protests-closed-show.html

IMHO the Sikh community is trying to have its cake and eat it, on the one hand seeking special exemption from laws because of their faith and then going on to demand their faith be 'respected', necessitating that others tradition of freedom of expression be curtailed. 

Which is why I'm against making special provision for peoples religious beliefs, except in fairly trivial matters and at the same time is should be pointed out that the wider society expects some quid pro quo, in terms of tolerance of others viewpoints or descenting opinions.

[Iormlund]

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

Belief has no objective value for others. It makes no difference in how you should be treated. Having just crapped a 3 kg baby, OTOH, is a fairly objective fact.

In fact Freedom of Religion was born because your beliefs were having an effect on how you were treated. A negative effect. But according to you guys it is somehow endangered if it is not used to claim privileges over others instead.

[LaCroix]

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.

they would still be contributing to the war effort, even if they never fired a gun. i think that is where their objection lies, not simply violence. though i could be wrong

[Barrister]

Mongers, just because we value religious expression, doesn't mean we value it absolutely.

Some muslims (and sikhs, and Christians) have amde demands for things I don't agree with.  TThat doesn't mean we shouldn't still grant reasonable accomodations.

Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.

[Iormlund]

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.

they would still be contributing to the war effort, even if they never fired a gun. i think that is where their objection lies, not simply violence. though i could be wrong

Even if they tended for the wounded or some such?

Well, if society determines that a draft is necessary (not my cup of tea) and they don't want to contribute in ANY way, the can go fuck themselves for all I care. Defense is to a state as a keystone is to an arch.

[Barrister]

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

Belief has no objective value for others. It makes no difference in how you should be treated. Having just crapped a 3 kg baby, OTOH, is a fairly objective fact.

In fact Freedom of Religion was born because your beliefs were having an effect on how you were treated. A negative effect. But according to you guys it is somehow endangered if it is not used to claim privileges over others instead.

You don't treat people differently based on what they think or believe?  What kind of unthinking asshole are you?

No - seriously.  If a gues doesn't like fish, I won't serve them fish, even though there's nothing objectively wrong with eating fish.  If someone doesn't like horror movies I won't insist on them watching a horror movie.

Muslims believe they need to pray 5 times a day.  Unless there's a good reason, why shouldn't we let them?  It's just simple courtesy.

[Iormlund]

Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.

You give a hand, they take an arm. It's better to draw the line in the sand.

[Barrister]

Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.

You give a hand, they take an arm. It's better to draw the line in the sand.

And a stitch in time saves nine.

[Razgovory]

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

Belief has no objective value for others. It makes no difference in how you should be treated. Having just crapped a 3 kg baby, OTOH, is a fairly objective fact.

In fact Freedom of Religion was born because your beliefs were having an effect on how you were treated. A negative effect. But according to you guys it is somehow endangered if it is not used to claim privileges over others instead.

Of course it's very, very simple to enact laws that are applied to everyone, but only effect a religious group.  Say the outlaw of the public ringing of bells would only really effect religious groups that use bells (like a church), or outlaw shouting from towers (effecting Muslims).  Then people could sit back and say, "this isn't discriminatory, I can't can't shout from towers or ring big bells.  I just want the law to apply to every one why should these bill ringers and tower shouters have extra rights?"

[Malthus]

Might I suggest we take a look at the Sikh community in Britain to see how some of the issues in this thread play out.

I should point out that I don't bear any grudges against Sikhs or their religion, on paper it seems to have many socially and egalitarian positive values.

In the 1970s the Sikh community fought a long successful legal battle to exempt them from the compulsory motorcycle helmet requirement and if iirc smaller actions, including some industrial desputes, to allow them to wear a turban in jobs that require a uniform.  I'm of the opinion this was a socially acceptable trade-off, the probable increase serious injury, hospital costs and deaths resulting from unprotected Sikh motorcyclists, is most likely outweighed by social conservative characteristics of the community that will likely mean less drunk driving, criminality and reckless behaviour.

Sikh Kirpan knives are exempt from the tightened up UK knife laws, were any blade of 3 inches is banned and those under, eg a pocket knife, can be the subject of questioning depending on the situation.
However some Sikh wish to be able to carry their knives in most places and not be the subject of challenge:

Sikhs protest against knife rules

Sikhs say they are not being allowed to wear a kirpan - or ceremonial knife - in public places even though the law says they can.

Some have been refused entry to amusement parks and even government buildings because of fears the blade poses a security or safety threat.

The confusion has prompted the Department of Communities and Local Government to draw up guidelines for officials and employers on the rights of Sikhs to wear the kirpan. They are expected to be published later this year.

Sukhbir Kaur, 23, a Phd student, was one of a group of six Sikhs who were refused entry to a theme park in Staffordshire because they were wearing kirpans.

"We were waiting to pay and buy our tickets and then a security guard just came over and said we weren't allowed to go in," she said.

"When we said 'why?' He goes: 'because you're carrying knives.' I just felt like that's kind of wrong."

In 1983 Gurinder Singh Mandla made history after the Law Lords backed his right to wear a turban at school.

That ruling gave Sikhs considerable protection under British law. Twenty five years on though he says he is still facing problems practising his religion. This time it is over the kirpan.

"When you go into court you are asked what it is and you tell them it's a kirpan. On occasions I can remember at Wolverhampton Crown Court, I was then flanked by two police officers until they were able to sort out from the Lord Chancellor's Office what they should be doing about this issue," he said.

The Courts Service said Sikhs are allowed to wear the kirpan in court even though knives are banned. A spokesman said Sikhs were given special dispensation because of their religion.

The kirpan is a small ceremonial knife which usually has a 3in (7.6cm) blade. It symbolises the spiritual struggle over evil and is one of five articles of faith which baptised Sikhs are expected to wear at all times.
.....

rest of item here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7989108.stm

And yet we've also seen an instance where a substantial number of local Sikhs have sought through protest and illegal activity to restrict others freedom of expression, successfully so:

Theatre stormed in Sikh protest

Hundreds of Sikh demonstrators protested outside a Birmingham theatre against a play depicting sex abuse and murder in a temple.

Five police officers were hurt during struggles at Birmingham's Repertory Theatre on Saturday night.

Two men were arrested and the theatre said some demonstrators stormed the building before the performance of Behzti (Dishonour) was cancelled.

The theatre and the Sikh community will meet police on Monday.

The theatre has been the scene of several protests by members of the Sikh community, angered by author Gurpreet Bhatti's depiction of murder and sex abuse.

The protesters claim the play, which centres around two characters and is set in a gurdwara, a Sikh temple, mocks their faith.

The play's author has revealed threats had been made against her and she has been advised by police not to say anything in public.

Saturday night's protest turned violent at 1845 GMT as around 400 people gathered outside the theatre.
....

rest of item here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm

details on the play's closure here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1479519/Play-seeks-new-venue-after-Sikh-protests-closed-show.html

IMHO the Sikh community is trying to have its cake and eat it, on the one hand seeking special exemption from laws because of their faith and then going on to demand their faith be 'respected', necessitating that others tradition of freedom of expression be curtailed. 

Which is why I'm against making special provision for peoples religious beliefs, except in fairly trivial matters and at the same time is should be pointed out that the wider society expects some quid pro quo, in terms of tolerance of others viewpoints or descenting opinions.

People do this sort of thing all the time - demand rights for themselves, but resist extending rights to others.

It should affect *our* judgment of what rights are reasonable not at all.

[mongers]

Mongers, just because we value religious expression, doesn't mean we value it absolutely.

Some muslims (and sikhs, and Christians) have amde demands for things I don't agree with.  TThat doesn't mean we shouldn't still grant reasonable accomodations.

Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.

But in the example I gave they weren't demanding too much, but were taking action to curtail the rights of other because it offended their own faith.

[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". 

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.

Aren't you now doing just what you are complaining about - making special accomodation for those with different beliefs?

[mongers]

Might I suggest we take a look at the Sikh community in Britain to see how some of the issues in this thread play out.

I should point out that I don't bear any grudges against Sikhs or their religion, on paper it seems to have many socially and egalitarian positive values.

In the 1970s the Sikh community fought a long successful legal battle to exempt them from the compulsory motorcycle helmet requirement and if iirc smaller actions, including some industrial desputes, to allow them to wear a turban in jobs that require a uniform.  I'm of the opinion this was a socially acceptable trade-off, the probable increase serious injury, hospital costs and deaths resulting from unprotected Sikh motorcyclists, is most likely outweighed by social conservative characteristics of the community that will likely mean less drunk driving, criminality and reckless behaviour.

Sikh Kirpan knives are exempt from the tightened up UK knife laws, were any blade of 3 inches is banned and those under, eg a pocket knife, can be the subject of questioning depending on the situation.
However some Sikh wish to be able to carry their knives in most places and not be the subject of challenge:

Sikhs protest against knife rules

Sikhs say they are not being allowed to wear a kirpan - or ceremonial knife - in public places even though the law says they can.

Some have been refused entry to amusement parks and even government buildings because of fears the blade poses a security or safety threat.

The confusion has prompted the Department of Communities and Local Government to draw up guidelines for officials and employers on the rights of Sikhs to wear the kirpan. They are expected to be published later this year.

Sukhbir Kaur, 23, a Phd student, was one of a group of six Sikhs who were refused entry to a theme park in Staffordshire because they were wearing kirpans.

"We were waiting to pay and buy our tickets and then a security guard just came over and said we weren't allowed to go in," she said.

"When we said 'why?' He goes: 'because you're carrying knives.' I just felt like that's kind of wrong."

In 1983 Gurinder Singh Mandla made history after the Law Lords backed his right to wear a turban at school.

That ruling gave Sikhs considerable protection under British law. Twenty five years on though he says he is still facing problems practising his religion. This time it is over the kirpan.

"When you go into court you are asked what it is and you tell them it's a kirpan. On occasions I can remember at Wolverhampton Crown Court, I was then flanked by two police officers until they were able to sort out from the Lord Chancellor's Office what they should be doing about this issue," he said.

The Courts Service said Sikhs are allowed to wear the kirpan in court even though knives are banned. A spokesman said Sikhs were given special dispensation because of their religion.

The kirpan is a small ceremonial knife which usually has a 3in (7.6cm) blade. It symbolises the spiritual struggle over evil and is one of five articles of faith which baptised Sikhs are expected to wear at all times.
.....

rest of item here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7989108.stm

And yet we've also seen an instance where a substantial number of local Sikhs have sought through protest and illegal activity to restrict others freedom of expression, successfully so:

Theatre stormed in Sikh protest

Hundreds of Sikh demonstrators protested outside a Birmingham theatre against a play depicting sex abuse and murder in a temple.

Five police officers were hurt during struggles at Birmingham's Repertory Theatre on Saturday night.

Two men were arrested and the theatre said some demonstrators stormed the building before the performance of Behzti (Dishonour) was cancelled.

The theatre and the Sikh community will meet police on Monday.

The theatre has been the scene of several protests by members of the Sikh community, angered by author Gurpreet Bhatti's depiction of murder and sex abuse.

The protesters claim the play, which centres around two characters and is set in a gurdwara, a Sikh temple, mocks their faith.

The play's author has revealed threats had been made against her and she has been advised by police not to say anything in public.

Saturday night's protest turned violent at 1845 GMT as around 400 people gathered outside the theatre.
....

rest of item here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm

details on the play's closure here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1479519/Play-seeks-new-venue-after-Sikh-protests-closed-show.html

IMHO the Sikh community is trying to have its cake and eat it, on the one hand seeking special exemption from laws because of their faith and then going on to demand their faith be 'respected', necessitating that others tradition of freedom of expression be curtailed. 

Which is why I'm against making special provision for peoples religious beliefs, except in fairly trivial matters and at the same time is should be pointed out that the wider society expects some quid pro quo, in terms of tolerance of others viewpoints or descenting opinions.

People do this sort of thing all the time - demand rights for themselves, but resist extending rights to others.

It should affect *our* judgment of what rights are reasonable not at all.

Do they, all the time ?

In the example given Sikh weren't "resisting extending rights to others" buy actually attempting to curtail the universal traditional rights of others. 

[Slargos]

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

Belief has no objective value for others. It makes no difference in how you should be treated. Having just crapped a 3 kg baby, OTOH, is a fairly objective fact.

In fact Freedom of Religion was born because your beliefs were having an effect on how you were treated. A negative effect. But according to you guys it is somehow endangered if it is not used to claim privileges over others instead.

You don't treat people differently based on what they think or believe?  What kind of unthinking asshole are you?

No - seriously.  If a gues doesn't like fish, I won't serve them fish, even though there's nothing objectively wrong with eating fish.  If someone doesn't like horror movies I won't insist on them watching a horror movie.

Muslims believe they need to pray 5 times a day.  Unless there's a good reason, why shouldn't we let them?  It's just simple courtesy.

Wearing clothing in IDs that may make positive identification harder is objectively a negative effect.

If a guy doesn't like to eat fish, and the only foodstuff available is fish, is it unreasonable to tell him to fuck off if he demands something else?