Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[crazy canuck]

Any delay in one station affects all others in the line. In addition many lines require a long ramp up to full speed. Any interruption can cost tens of thousands in a decently sized plant. There's a whole area of engineering dedicated to minimize these kinds of occurrences.

And in those circumstances it would likely to be found that a prayer break is an unreasonable accomodation.  But I find it very hard to believe the other employees on that line dont also take any breaks for other purposes.

[Malthus]

Any delay in one station affects all others in the line. In addition many lines require a long ramp up to full speed. Any interruption can cost tens of thousands in a decently sized plant. There's a whole area of engineering dedicated to minimize these kinds of occurrences.

And in those circumstances it would likely to be found that a prayer break is an unreasonable accomodation.  But I find it very hard to believe the other employees on that line dont also take any breaks for other purposes.

Though if they aren't allowed breaks, that does tend to explain the occasional feces in my Pringles ... 

[dps]

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.

But so what?  Why should that change what we consider to be reasonable accomodations of their religion?

Canada has had all the same debates regarding the turban and kirpan, and some of them have been quite contentious back in the day (anyone remember the RCMP / turban debate).  But we've generally come to a consensus - Sikhs can wear a small, ceremonial kirpan in almost any place (including an airplane).  They can wear a turban and be exempt from "no hats" policies, and even accomodations to standard uniforms.  However, I believe they are still required to wear safety helmets / hard hats where required.

And you know what?  Sikhs have become tremendously well integrated into Canadian society.

Actually, I doubt many Euros would know that.  Among other things, many Euros seem to think that minorities can't be integrated into a society.

[grumbler]

There is no contention that this is a real religious belief.  The whole point of the exercise is to mock religion and the manner in which genuine religious belief is accomodated under the law.

Precisely.  The manner in which genuine religious belief is accommodated under the law is absurd.  Rather than relaxing the law so that people with certain religious beliefs can meet it, by, say, saying that headgear must not obscure the face, it says that the law simply does not apply to certain persons who "genunely" hold a religious belief, but applies to everyone else, including those who hold the belief but not "genuinely."  Absolutely absurd, and unnecessary.

I see no value in this stunt but I do see harm.

I see no harm in this stunt but great value.  It is the not the person who demonstrates the absurdity of a law that is a dick; the dick is the person who sees that the law has been demonstrated to be absurd, and attacks the demonstrator.

The emperor has no clothes, and Mr. Alm simply pointed this out.

[mongers]

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

So they - the individuals Sikhs (and not Sikhs as an abstract collective) - are hypocrites. 
So what?

[Jacob]

So they - the individuals Sikhs (and not Sikhs as an abstract collective) - are hypocrites. 
So what?

I agree with you, mongers, that individual Sikhs who argue hard for the various exceptions they deem necessary for their religion while going off their rockers when they feel someone else's freedom of expression should be shut down for offending them are a bunch of jackasses.

But that's no reason to punish Sikhs collectively by withholding reasonable accomodations for their religious beliefs.

It's reasonable to let them wear their turbans, for example. It's not reasonable to let them shut down artistic performances because they deem the performance blasphemous.

Similarly, Iormlund, it's reasonable to let Muslims observe their prayers. It's not reasonable to let them kill people who draw cartoons they find offensive.

[Razgovory]

There is no contention that this is a real religious belief.  The whole point of the exercise is to mock religion and the manner in which genuine religious belief is accomodated under the law.

Precisely.  The manner in which genuine religious belief is accommodated under the law is absurd.  Rather than relaxing the law so that people with certain religious beliefs can meet it, by, say, saying that headgear must not obscure the face, it says that the law simply does not apply to certain persons who "genunely" hold a religious belief, but applies to everyone else, including those who hold the belief but not "genuinely."  Absolutely absurd, and unnecessary.

I see no value in this stunt but I do see harm.

I see no harm in this stunt but great value.  It is the not the person who demonstrates the absurdity of a law that is a dick; the dick is the person who sees that the law has been demonstrated to be absurd, and attacks the demonstrator.

The emperor has no clothes, and Mr. Alm simply pointed this out.

What of value has done now?  If he was trying to get the government to prevent him from wearing a pasta strainer on his head, he failed.  All he managed to accomplish is to get a driver license photo that is even worse then a normal person's.  Now when has to produce said card, people will laugh at him.

[Iormlund]

Any delay in one station affects all others in the line. In addition many lines require a long ramp up to full speed. Any interruption can cost tens of thousands in a decently sized plant. There's a whole area of engineering dedicated to minimize these kinds of occurrences.

And in those circumstances it would likely to be found that a prayer break is an unreasonable accomodation.  But I find it very hard to believe the other employees on that line dont also take any breaks for other purposes.

You are allowed breaks. But it is one thing to have a single worker take an occasional bathroom break, which will be easily covered by his supervisor, and another to have entire groups of your workforce leave the line to pray 5 times a day.

And yes, it has been found an unreasonable accommodation ... after long and costly trials. So the end result is that if you own an assembly line you will take great care not to hire anyone you suspect of being Muslim. How's that for promoting Freedom of Religion?

[grumbler]

It's reasonable to let them wear their turbans, for example.

Is it reasonable to let anyone wear turbans?

[Barrister]

It's reasonable to let them wear their turbans, for example.

Is it reasonable to let anyone wear turbans?

Turbans become an issue when:

-the rule is no headgear (like in court)
-identity cards (as discussed)
-when your job mandates a uniform with a hat
-when mandated to wear safety helmets

Clearly a turban isn't an issue when walking down the street (or at least shouldn't be - given some of the nuttier euro efforts against the Burkha maybe I shouldn't make that assumption).

[The Brain]

[Viking]

It's reasonable to let them wear their turbans, for example.

Is it reasonable to let anyone wear turbans?

Turbans become an issue when:

-the rule is no headgear (like in court)
-identity cards (as discussed)
-when your job mandates a uniform with a hat
-when mandated to wear safety helmets

Clearly a turban isn't an issue when walking down the street (or at least shouldn't be - given some of the nuttier euro efforts against the Burkha maybe I shouldn't make that assumption).

Sikhs do have problems in the oil industry with safety helmets and their beards. I've worked with and for Sikhs and it seems when when an exemption is just ludicrous, e.g. in areas with high H2S and all personnel must be clean shaven to be able to use gas-masks or unworkable, e.g. trying to fit a turban under a hard had while wearing the hardhat safely. In my line of work they always submit to safety rules over religious ones.

Reasonably accommodation cannot be that that rules are modified with different outcomes for one group because of religious reasons, but rather that rules should not be made in such a manner that the person has to choose between religious compliance and non-compliance when identical outcomes can be achieved with a different set of rules applying to all.

Comparing passport photos to Crash helmets for Sikhs. You can accommodate Sikh religious rules regarding headgear for passport photos because the objective (a photo suitable for identification purposes) can be reached while accommodating the religious rules. You cannot accommodate Sikh religion on crash helmets. Turbans are not crash helmet and will never be. Much pseudoscience has gone into trying to show that a turban is just as good as a crash helmet, but it is not factual to claim that they are either equally as good or nearly as good.

The reason that I and other skepitcs do react to claims to special privilege, and I don't think we have really discussed this outside of Raz's "Atheists hate religious people" schtick, is that we object in principle to the identity politics angle to each and every such claim which results in the individual finding himself being defined as belonging to a religious group rather than as a citizen and that we, in principle, oppose the view that religious arguments can be used to argue anything vis-a-vis the secular state.

[grumbler]

It's reasonable to let them wear their turbans, for example.

Is it reasonable to let anyone wear turbans?

Turbans become an issue when:

-the rule is no headgear (like in court)
-identity cards (as discussed)
-when your job mandates a uniform with a hat
-when mandated to wear safety helmets

Thank you, Captain Obvious.  Turbans, or any headgear, become an issue when the rule is (1) no headgear, or (2) other headgear.

The question was whether other people should be allowed to wear turbans under the same conditions as the Sikhs.

[mongers]

It's reasonable to let them wear their turbans, for example.

Is it reasonable to let anyone wear turbans?

Turbans become an issue when:

-the rule is no headgear (like in court)
-identity cards (as discussed)
-when your job mandates a uniform with a hat
-when mandated to wear safety helmets

Thank you, Captain Obvious.  Turbans, or any headgear, become an issue when the rule is (1) no headgear, or (2) other headgear.

The question was whether other people should be allowed to wear turbans under the same conditions as the Sikhs.

This is a key point, if people self identify as a member of a group which has special legal privileges, should they not also accept that they have some explicit social obligations, for instance as I pointed out earlier, not attempting to curtail the freedom of expression of other citizens ?

[Neil]

This is a key point, if people self identify as a member of a group which has special legal privileges, should they not also accept that they have some explicit social obligations, for instance as I pointed out earlier, not attempting to curtail the freedom of expression of other citizens ?

No.  That's pretty unrealistic.