Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[grumbler]

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.

This has always been my argument.  If the state can find that an accommodation works for a given person, that accommodation should be allowed for all persons.  No one should be forced to justify, or even divulge, their religious beliefs in order to claim a privilege or exemption from the government.  The separation of church and state should be such that the government doesn't even need know the creed of the persons using the alternative method or rule.

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 incentive for wearing a crash helmet shouldn't be "because the law says so" in any case.   There should be incentives for doing so (cheaper licensing for a motorcycle with the "helmet required" tags, for instance) and people should be able to decide which side of the tradeoff that want to take, informed as necessary by their religion.

[grumbler]

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 ?

I don't accept either inherent premise here; (1) that groups should have special legal privileges, and (2) that to refrain from attempting to curtail the freedom of expression of others is a social obligation that is only undertaken in exchange for special legal status.  I think that no group should have special privileges (that is, that accommodations should be available to anyone who wants to enjoy them), and that everyone is obliged to refrain from infringing on the rights of others.

[mongers]

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 ?

I don't accept either inherent premise here; (1) that groups should have special legal privileges, and (2) that to refrain from attempting to curtail the freedom of expression of others is a social obligation that is only undertaken in exchange for special legal status.  I think that no group should have special privileges (that is, that accommodations should be available to anyone who wants to enjoy them), and that everyone is obliged to refrain from infringing on the rights of others.

Well I largely agree with you, that's my position, but J.R said it didn't matter that people who had special privileges attacked the rights of others as people tend towards hypocrisy, something Malthus agreed on. 

My point was if people like us, those that don't have special religious exemption, but live in a society that grants these rights to others special interest groups, might expect there should be some social quid pro quo, for instance maybe an explicit oath to respect the rights of other in return for society granting you these special rights.

[Jacob]

The incentive for wearing a crash helmet shouldn't be "because the law says so" in any case.   There should be incentives for doing so (cheaper licensing for a motorcycle with the "helmet required" tags, for instance) and people should be able to decide which side of the tradeoff that want to take, informed as necessary by their religion.

I agree that this is the ideal approach, and believe I would support any move in that direction. However, absent that ideal I prefer "reasonable accomodation" to allow people to express their faith.

[mongers]

The incentive for wearing a crash helmet shouldn't be "because the law says so" in any case.   There should be incentives for doing so (cheaper licensing for a motorcycle with the "helmet required" tags, for instance) and people should be able to decide which side of the tradeoff that want to take, informed as necessary by their religion.

I agree that this is the ideal approach, and believe I would support any move in that direction. However, absent that ideal I prefer "reasonable accomodation" to allow people to express their faith.

This raises an interesting question, why do people need to "express their faith" ?

[Berkut]

The incentive for wearing a crash helmet shouldn't be "because the law says so" in any case.   There should be incentives for doing so (cheaper licensing for a motorcycle with the "helmet required" tags, for instance) and people should be able to decide which side of the tradeoff that want to take, informed as necessary by their religion.

I agree with this idea in theory, but in a world where medical costs are more and more born by society as a group, I think there is something of a problem with individuals deciding that they don't need to wear a helmet, but we are still going to rely on society (to one extent or another) picking up the bill for trying to put their head back together when they get in an accident.

[grumbler]

I agree with this idea in theory, but in a world where medical costs are more and more born by society as a group, I think there is something of a problem with individuals deciding that they don't need to wear a helmet, but we are still going to rely on society (to one extent or another) picking up the bill for trying to put their head back together when they get in an accident.

Why couldn't those costs be paid for by the delta in licensing/registration fees (or insurance, where medical care is covered by insurance) between motorcycles with "helmet required" tags and those without?

Going without a helmet imposes a cost on society, agreed.  And one should have to pay one's share of that cost in order to ride without a helmet.  Whether one does this because once worships the movie easy Rider or because one worships a given god should have no bearing on what one pays for the privilege.  If one cannot afford the privilege, one can go without motorcycle riding completely.

[grumbler]

This raises an interesting question, why do people need to "express their faith" ?

I cannot think of a less interesting question, except maybe "why do people feel the need to breathe?"

[mongers]

This raises an interesting question, why do people need to "express their faith" ?

I cannot think of a less interesting question, except maybe "why do people feel the need to breathe?"

Or why do people respond to posts that are clearly only a statement of personal opinion. 

[Viking]

Not using crash helmets have costs and benefits to the health care system. On one side the not using the helmet costs the system due to increased violence of injury, but, on the other side not using crash helmets are organ donor machines par-excellence.

[Jacob]

Not using crash helmets have costs and benefits to the health care system. On one side the not using the helmet costs the system due to increased violence of injury, but, on the other side not using crash helmets are organ donor machines par-excellence.

Yeah, I think it'd only be fair that if the people who get the helmet exceptions pay increased insurance premiums, they get a bit of a reduction for signing up as organ donors.

[grumbler]

Or why do people respond to posts that are clearly only a statement of personal opinion. 

Or "why do people post statements of personal opinion if they are going to get upset when people respond to their statements of personal opinion?" 

[Admiral Yi]

This raises an interesting question, why do people need to "express their faith" ?

Why do people need to express anything at all?

[mongers]

Or why do people respond to posts that are clearly only a statement of personal opinion. 

Or "why do people post statements of personal opinion if they are going to get upset when people respond to their statements of personal opinion?" 

Good grief man, you really are out of touch, if you think anything you say to me bothers me in the slightest.