A simple question really - should a view or behaviour be given greater protection under law if it is rooted in religion - as opposed to other deeply seated beliefs.
Because it does, constantly, in our society, and to me any historical justification for it has long evaporated. With the exception of certain insular communities, people in the West no longer identify or segregate solely or mainly by their creed. And then, with a growing number of non-religious people, it leads to glaring unequality under law.
This sounds it will be a boring thread, so I will post in it. :)
Short answer: no.
Longer answer: Yes.
Even longer answer: religious people are more stupider than regular folks and why reinforce failure? Rhetorical.
Quote from: The Brain on February 28, 2015, 03:47:02 AM
Short answer: no.
But you agree that it does? Like, right now there is a case pending before SCOTUS where a fashion store is sued for refusing to hire a Muslim women who could not comply with the store's dress code. She is expected to win - if she simply believed deeply that women should wear headscarfs for aesthetic or health reasons, this would not even make it to the first instance court.
Quote from: Martinus on February 28, 2015, 03:55:38 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 28, 2015, 03:47:02 AM
Short answer: no.
But you agree that it does? Like, right now there is a case pending before SCOTUS where a fashion store is sued for refusing to hire a Muslim women who could not comply with the store's dress code. She is expected to win - if she simply believed deeply that women should wear headscarfs for aesthetic or health reasons, this would not even make it to the first instance court.
Wait wait wait. You're asking me a law question, Mr. Lawyer?
Yes. If I had to provide a limit I'd say that we should provide for reasonable accommodation of sincerely held religious views.
I feel like the persecution of Martinus is probably a good idea, so we should cut whatever corners are required to make it happen.
Mind you, the law is poisoned by the existance of lawyers, so it really doesn't matter.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2015, 04:31:08 AM
Yes. If I had to provide a limit I'd say that we should provide for reasonable accommodation of sincerely held religious views.
What about other sincerely held views? I just don't get why religious people should get this special treatment? Unless this is because we assume they are mentally retarded so we give them wider berth - but then we should also treat them like mentally handicapped in other things.
Quote from: Martinus on February 28, 2015, 03:34:33 AM
A simple question really - should a view or behaviour be given greater protection under law if it is rooted in religion - as opposed to other deeply seated beliefs.
Because it does, constantly, in our society, and to me any historical justification for it has long evaporated. With the exception of certain insular communities, people in the West no longer identify or segregate solely or mainly by their creed. And then, with a growing number of non-religious people, it leads to glaring unequality under law.
I mainly identify myself as a Christian. :)
I don't really have an issue with that, which I believe is the position in UK employment law.
I can't think of when it would come up very often outside of a religious context because very few other views can be interpreted as requiring certain actions. But I see no problem with requiring reasonable accommodation be made for, for example, vegetarians.
No special accommodations should be given.
Freedom of religion is a basic human right, so it's not a question of making special accommodations, it's a question of respecting people's rights or not.
Keep in mind that freedom of religion includes the freedom to be a non-believer.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2015, 04:31:08 AM
Yes. If I had to provide a limit I'd say that we should provide for reasonable accommodation of sincerely held religious views.
seems to me you can use this to enable human sacrifice, assuming the sacrifice has it as a sincerely held religious view.
Anyways, given the explosion of mental defects identified in the last few decades it's about time someone identifies religious belief as a mental defect. The only way to make sure everyone is considered insane and in need of medication. and the only way to boost pharma-stock in a big way.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 28, 2015, 02:42:46 PM
seems to me you can use this to enable human sacrifice, assuming the sacrifice has it as a sincerely held religious view.
Not really. I don't think anyone would consider that a reasonable accommodation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2015, 02:47:07 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 28, 2015, 02:42:46 PM
seems to me you can use this to enable human sacrifice, assuming the sacrifice has it as a sincerely held religious view.
Not really. I don't think anyone would consider that a reasonable accommodation.
all involved are consenting adults and not being able to fulfill this religious obligation/ritual would result in unbearable psychological suffering for the faithfull.
Freedom from religion is something all children should be given the chance to sample at a few points in their childhood.
No. Equality before the Law should be paramount.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 28, 2015, 03:25:29 PM
all involved are consenting adults and not being able to fulfill this religious obligation/ritual would result in unbearable psychological suffering for the faithfull.
So? I don't think any of that makes allowing a human sacrifice any more reasonable.
As I say I think what I've described is roughly the situation in the UK and it's not allowed for religious people to discriminate against gays in their work, for example a Christian registrar can't opt out of performing gay marriages, because that's not reasonable. I think that balance is about right.
Quote from: Martinus on February 28, 2015, 10:11:20 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2015, 04:31:08 AM
Yes. If I had to provide a limit I'd say that we should provide for reasonable accommodation of sincerely held religious views.
What about other sincerely held views? I just don't get why religious people should get this special treatment? Unless this is because we assume they are mentally retarded so we give them wider berth - but then we should also treat them like mentally handicapped in other things.
Funny how you use the same language as anti-gay marriage crowd.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2015, 02:47:07 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 28, 2015, 02:42:46 PM
seems to me you can use this to enable human sacrifice, assuming the sacrifice has it as a sincerely held religious view.
Not really. I don't think anyone would consider that a reasonable accommodation.
Many US states are now adopting legislation allowing to deny service to gay people due to "sincerely held religious belief". Similarly, businesses in the US are now allowed to deny medical coverage to women on the same grounds. The slope is quite slippery...
Giving beliefs greater protection just because they happen to be false doesn't strike me as being the way forward.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2015, 03:36:06 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 28, 2015, 03:25:29 PM
all involved are consenting adults and not being able to fulfill this religious obligation/ritual would result in unbearable psychological suffering for the faithfull.
So? I don't think any of that makes allowing a human sacrifice any more reasonable.
given that it's already possible to have people (in certain cases minors even) refuse simple and lifesaving bloodtransfusions because of "deeply held religious beliefs" I don't see why it would be unreasonable to let other consenting adults die in the way they please because of such beliefs. It is their life and their choice.
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2015, 10:23:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 28, 2015, 03:34:33 AM
A simple question really - should a view or behaviour be given greater protection under law if it is rooted in religion - as opposed to other deeply seated beliefs.
Because it does, constantly, in our society, and to me any historical justification for it has long evaporated. With the exception of certain insular communities, people in the West no longer identify or segregate solely or mainly by their creed. And then, with a growing number of non-religious people, it leads to glaring unequality under law.
I mainly identify myself as a Christian. :)
and if/when your work conflict with your beliefs, you choose work or religion?
This is the real question, imho, in regard to the state.
Quote from: The Brain on February 28, 2015, 05:44:09 PM
Giving beliefs greater protection just because they happen to be false doesn't strike me as being the way forward.
While part of me tends to agree, the better part of me forgives atheists for their false beliefs. :)
Quote from: The Brain on February 28, 2015, 05:44:09 PM
Giving beliefs greater protection just because they happen to be false doesn't strike me as being the way forward.
If the cost of tolerance and inclusion is not being a moribund European state, then I am willing to shoulder that burden.
Quote from: Martinus on February 28, 2015, 05:42:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2015, 02:47:07 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 28, 2015, 02:42:46 PM
seems to me you can use this to enable human sacrifice, assuming the sacrifice has it as a sincerely held religious view.
Not really. I don't think anyone would consider that a reasonable accommodation.
Many US states are now adopting legislation allowing to deny service to gay people due to "sincerely held religious belief". Similarly, businesses in the US are now allowed to deny medical coverage to women on the same grounds. The slope is quite slippery...
Which states? If this is about the Michigan thing you have it backwards.
But if States are passing legislation that is because it has political support. The slippery slope here being that stuff that has popular support will have laws passed?
Quote from: Martinus on February 28, 2015, 03:34:33 AM
And then, with a growing number of non-religious people, it leads to glaring unequality under law.
Nonsense. Non religious people can use the same sorts of protections, and have indeed done so.
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2015, 06:22:55 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 28, 2015, 05:44:09 PM
Giving beliefs greater protection just because they happen to be false doesn't strike me as being the way forward.
While part of me tends to agree, the better part of me forgives atheists for their false beliefs. :)
I don't forgive them of their raging douchebaggery.
Like if we even come close to your ankles when it comes to that.
:unsure:
Can you decode his post for me?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2015, 09:25:41 PM
Can you decode his post for me?
He's been sniping at me for months.
I think he is saying I'm the grandest douchebag of them all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2015, 09:25:41 PM
Can you decode his post for me?
Assuming douchebaggery correlates with height, and that the height of atheists and religious people (or possibly just Christians, since GF was responding to a Christian talking about being right) can be expressed collectively - GF is saying that atheists only barely reach to the ankles of religious people/ Christians.
The magnitude of atheist douchebaggery is insignificant compared to that of religious people/ Christians.
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2015, 01:05:43 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2015, 09:25:41 PM
Can you decode his post for me?
Assuming douchebaggery correlates with height, and that the height of atheists and religious people (or possibly just Christians, since GF was responding to a Christian talking about being right) can be expressed collectively - GF is saying that atheists only barely reach to the ankles of religious people/ Christians.
The magnitude of atheist douchebaggery is insignificant compared to that of religious people/ Christians.
That's incorrect. Even the worst Bible-thumping, snake-charming Southern Baptist isn't nearly as douchebaggy as your average snot-nosed, pretentiously I'm-too-clever-for-my-shirt, condescending atheist or European.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2015, 01:09:42 AM
That's incorrect. Even the worst Bible-thumping, snake-charming Southern Baptist isn't nearly as douchebaggy as your average snot-nosed, pretentiously I'm-too-clever-for-my-shirt, condescending atheist or European.
That's something you'll have to take up with GF. I was merely translating.
For my part, as a humanist universalist I recognize the potential for unlimited douchebaggery in all of humanity regardless of colour, creed, sexual preference, identity, or other such attributes.
I'm leaning toward the MB-centric interpretation. GF doesn't typically go all Viking on us.
Quote from: The Brain on February 28, 2015, 05:44:09 PM
Giving beliefs greater protection just because they happen to be false doesn't strike me as being the way forward.
I think atheists have just been too nice. We should just start saying more loudly that religious people are simply stupid.
Quote from: Martinus on February 28, 2015, 05:42:07 PMMany US states are now adopting legislation allowing to deny service to gay people due to "sincerely held religious belief". Similarly, businesses in the US are now allowed to deny medical coverage to women on the same grounds. The slope is quite slippery...
Well obviously I disagree with the first law.
The second I think is a little more complicated, but my solution to it would be to nationalise healthcare not worry about convents not wanting to pay for contraception :P
Quotegiven that it's already possible to have people (in certain cases minors even) refuse simple and lifesaving bloodtransfusions because of "deeply held religious beliefs" I don't see why it would be unreasonable to let other consenting adults die in the way they please because of such beliefs. It is their life and their choice.
It's legal for Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse a blood transfusion. In the UK it's generally considered a right of an adult of sound mind to refuse medical treatment even if it's necessary to save their life. But doctors (and the courts) will overrule the parents in the case of children who need a blood transfusion.
Again there is a balance that can be struck here.
QuoteThat's incorrect. Even the worst Bible-thumping, snake-charming Southern Baptist isn't nearly as douchebaggy as your average snot-nosed, pretentiously I'm-too-clever-for-my-shirt, condescending atheist or European.
Agreed. The whole new atheists are the most obnoxious people around. All the attitude of the elect and none of the basic human charm <_<
This is such a bullshit and offensive thing to say, Sheilbh, no different than complaining about "uppity negroes".
:lol:
A new bar has been set.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2015, 01:36:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 28, 2015, 05:44:09 PM
Giving beliefs greater protection just because they happen to be false doesn't strike me as being the way forward.
I think atheists have just been too nice. We should just start saying more loudly that religious people are simply stupid.
Does that mean you would be stupid if you were religious?
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2015, 03:23:28 AM
This is such a bullshit and offensive thing to say, Sheilbh, no different than complaining about "uppity negroes".
:lol:
Bit different.
Not really. :P
It's about a hitherto oppressed group that finally stands up and is given a voice only to be poo-pooed for being obnoxious, in-your-face and breaking the decorum.
Same happened to blacks, women, working classes, gays etc.
If the worst blacks, gays and women had to face was to be poo-pooed for being obnoxious the world would've been a far better place.
Alternatively they had to fight actual oppression rather than a distaste for Dawkins.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2015, 03:47:21 AM
If the worst blacks, gays and women had to face was to be poo-pooed for being obnoxious the world would've been a far better place.
Alternatively they had to fight actual oppression rather than a distaste for Dawkins.
Had to?
This is especially funny considering Marty comes from a formerly communist country that is now in the EU. Those poor Polish atheists have had it so rough. :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2015, 03:47:21 AM
If the worst blacks, gays and women had to face was to be poo-pooed for being obnoxious the world would've been a far better place.
Alternatively they had to fight actual oppression rather than a distaste for Dawkins.
There is a blogger now in Saudi Arabia getting the punishment of 1000 lashes for writing an atheist blog. Another just got hacked to pieces in Pakistan. Until recently in the West atheists faced prison charges under blasphemy laws.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 01, 2015, 04:01:48 AM
This is especially funny considering Marty comes from a formerly communist country that is now in the EU. Those poor Polish atheists have had it so rough. :(
Poland has anti-blasphemy laws on the books and these laws are regularly invoked.
Well you are insufferable.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2015, 05:18:21 AM
There is a blogger now in Saudi Arabia getting the punishment of 1000 lashes for writing an atheist blog. Another just got hacked to pieces in Pakistan. Until recently in the West atheists faced prison charges under blasphemy laws.
Which is obviously monstrous but, it seems to me, little to do with the protection of religious views and behaviour in 'our society'. Saying I think religious and other sincerely held views (the best example I can think of is vegetarianism) should be reasonably accommodated seems quite a distance away from Saudi theocracy.
The answer I think is liberty of conscience and freedom from religion. However I'm totally opposed to the new atheist position that's emerging in the West which is freedom from religion because that's illiberal and intolerant. I don't see why an employer should be able to discriminate against a Muslim woman who wears a headscarf unless being able to see her hair is some essential part of the job.
The whole 'protection of religious views and behaviour' also makes me think of the UKIP agriculture spokesman speaking to the Jewish Chronicle about their proposed policy to ban ritual slaughter, 'this isn't aimed at you - it's aimed elsewhere - it's aimed at others. You've been caught in the crossfire; collateral damage. You know what I mean.'
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2015, 11:51:14 AM
I don't see why an employer should be able to discriminate against a Muslim woman who wears a headscarf unless being able to see her hair is some essential part of the job.
What does that question have to do with the issue at hand?
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2015, 11:53:07 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2015, 11:51:14 AM
I don't see why an employer should be able to discriminate against a Muslim woman who wears a headscarf unless being able to see her hair is some essential part of the job.
What does that question have to do with the issue at hand?
It's the example Marti used earlier about some pending SCOTUS case.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2015, 11:53:55 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2015, 11:53:07 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2015, 11:51:14 AM
I don't see why an employer should be able to discriminate against a Muslim woman who wears a headscarf unless being able to see her hair is some essential part of the job.
What does that question have to do with the issue at hand?
It's the example Marti used earlier about some pending SCOTUS case.
Sigh. The thread question is whether religious views should be more protected than other views. Not whether religious views should be protected or not.
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2015, 01:22:05 AM
For my part, as a humanist universalist I recognize the potential for unlimited douchebaggery in all of humanity regardless of colour, creed, sexual preference, identity, or other such attributes.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FAThjlGSEZGVS8%2Fgiphy.gif&hash=0ad5bd4c4db4e7101de814648f6e8493b940ed97)
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2015, 01:36:01 AM
We should just start saying more loudly that religious people are simply stupid.
I think atheists and religious people should focus more on their shared belief that 99.99999% of all religious beliefs people have held at various times in human history are incredibly stupid, and just gloss over the 0.00001% of the religious beliefs whose stupidity they disagree about.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2015, 11:51:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2015, 05:18:21 AM
There is a blogger now in Saudi Arabia getting the punishment of 1000 lashes for writing an atheist blog. Another just got hacked to pieces in Pakistan. Until recently in the West atheists faced prison charges under blasphemy laws.
Which is obviously monstrous but, it seems to me, little to do with the protection of religious views and behaviour in 'our society'. Saying I think religious and other sincerely held views (the best example I can think of is vegetarianism) should be reasonably accommodated seems quite a distance away from Saudi theocracy.
The answer I think is liberty of conscience and freedom from religion. However I'm totally opposed to the new atheist position that's emerging in the West which is freedom from religion because that's illiberal and intolerant. I don't see why an employer should be able to discriminate against a Muslim woman who wears a headscarf unless being able to see her hair is some essential part of the job.
The whole 'protection of religious views and behaviour' also makes me think of the UKIP agriculture spokesman speaking to the Jewish Chronicle about their proposed policy to ban ritual slaughter, 'this isn't aimed at you - it's aimed elsewhere - it's aimed at others. You've been caught in the crossfire; collateral damage. You know what I mean.'
If Poland and Saudi Arabia had U.S.-style freedom of religion, the problems he mentioned there wouldn't exist. As I said before, freedom of religion includes the freedom to reject all forms of religious belief.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2015, 03:23:28 AM
This is such a bullshit and offensive thing to say, Sheilbh, no different than complaining about "uppity negroes".
Really? Huh I don't recall too many uppity negros calling everybody who was not a negro stupid. I mean I am sure there are some...
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2015, 05:18:21 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2015, 03:47:21 AM
If the worst blacks, gays and women had to face was to be poo-pooed for being obnoxious the world would've been a far better place.
Alternatively they had to fight actual oppression rather than a distaste for Dawkins.
There is a blogger now in Saudi Arabia getting the punishment of 1000 lashes for writing an atheist blog. Another just got hacked to pieces in Pakistan. Until recently in the West atheists faced prison charges under blasphemy laws.
Weird. Openly Deist and Atheist people have been operating in the West with no problem for hundreds of years. I guess it depends on your definition of 'recently'.
And are we just going to sweep under the rug all the things the Communists did in the 20th century in regards to religion? I also find it a bit distasteful that you are using crackdowns on beliefs as an excuse to call for crackdowns on beliefs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 01, 2015, 01:00:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 01, 2015, 01:22:05 AM
For my part, as a humanist universalist I recognize the potential for unlimited douchebaggery in all of humanity regardless of colour, creed, sexual preference, identity, or other such attributes.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FAThjlGSEZGVS8%2Fgiphy.gif&hash=0ad5bd4c4db4e7101de814648f6e8493b940ed97)
I laughed. Hard.
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2015, 06:45:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2015, 05:18:21 AM
There is a blogger now in Saudi Arabia getting the punishment of 1000 lashes for writing an atheist blog. Another just got hacked to pieces in Pakistan. Until recently in the West atheists faced prison charges under blasphemy laws.
Weird. Openly Deist and Atheist people have been operating in the West with no problem for hundreds of years. I guess it depends on your definition of 'recently'.
I think it is his definition of "the West" that's whacked. I believe he is under the delusion that he is "Western" and that his ideas, therefore, are Western as well.
Quote from: Martinus on February 28, 2015, 03:34:33 AM
A simple question really - should a view or behaviour be given greater protection under law if it is rooted in religion - as opposed to other deeply seated beliefs.
Should a behavior be given greater protection if rooted in religion. No, but that isn't the proper question. The real question is are there appropriate circumstances in which religious beliefs should be accommodated. The answer to that is most certainly yes.
Two simple fact patterns.
1) A child brings a knife to school contrary to school safety policies. The child is told they cannot have the knife. I think we would all agree the school is acting reasonably.
2) A Sikh child brings a Kirpan to school. The school is advised that wearing the Kirpan is of great significance to the child's religious belief. The child is told they cannot come to school with the Kirpan because the school considers it to be the same as the child in fact pattern 1.
The analysis turns on three things. First, is there a bona fide connection between the act and the religious belief. Unfortunately for most of this thread this is where most of the analysis stops. Second, is there a serious interference with the religious belief. Third, is the infringement of the religious belief justified.
In the fact pattern above the SCC found there was a connection between the act of wearing the Kirpan and practicing the Sikh religion and that it was the belief of this child. The child would not be permitted to attend school and practice their religious beliefs and so it was a significant interference. The most important part of the decision was whether the restriction was justified. In this case the court found it was not. The evidence was that within the Sikh religion the Kirpan was a symbol of peace and there was no evidence it would ever be used as a weapon. All of the evidence was to the contrary. Therefore there was no harm in allowing the Kirpan and the restriction was not in furtherance of the school policy - which was related to the safety of students.
Here is a link to the case if you are interested in how the Canadian Courts resolve situations where the Freedom of Religion conflicts with other interests.
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15/index.do?r=AAAAAQBVTXVsdGFuaSB2IENvbW1pc3Npb24gc2NvbGFpcmUgTWFyZ3Vlcml0ZeKAkUJvdXJnZW95cywgWzIwMDZdIDEgUy5DLlIuIDI1NiwgMjAwNiBTQ0MgNgAAAAAB
Why did you change the question?
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2015, 02:47:16 PM
Why did you change the question?
Because the question created a false premise which most of the people posting in this thread seemed to accept.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2015, 02:49:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2015, 02:47:16 PM
Why did you change the question?
Because the question created a false premise which most of the people posting in this thread seemed to accept.
Which false premise?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2015, 02:10:41 AM
It's legal for Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse a blood transfusion. In the UK it's generally considered a right of an adult of sound mind to refuse medical treatment even if it's necessary to save their life. But doctors (and the courts) will overrule the parents in the case of children who need a blood transfusion.
Again there is a balance that can be struck here.
and that balance clearly involves supposedly sane people dying (when they shouldn't) because their religion says so. So why allow the supposedly sane people in group A to die while the supposedly sane people in B have their right to do as their religion commands denied? Cause clearly the balance you mention that dying out of faith is allowed for supposedly sane people.
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2015, 02:57:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2015, 02:49:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2015, 02:47:16 PM
Why did you change the question?
Because the question created a false premise which most of the people posting in this thread seemed to accept.
Which false premise?
That "greater" protection is given. Freedom of religion is not an absolute right which trumps other rights as the OP suggests.
I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.
So if you can tell a fashionista he can't wear a headscarf if he wants to work for you, you should be able to tell the same to a muslim woman if she insists on wearing a head scarf to work.
Quote from: Martinus on March 02, 2015, 03:12:12 PM
I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.
Ok lets test that a bit.
The term freedom of religion was first used in British North America when French Catholics were permitted to worship according to the Catholic faith rather than the Protestant faith of the Empire. You would say bad move?
Same reason we allow adults to have sex and vote but not children.
Adults of sound mind should be able to refuse even essential medical treatment if they want to for whatever reason, including religion. That's not a protection of religious values issue.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2015, 03:28:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2015, 01:36:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 28, 2015, 05:44:09 PM
Giving beliefs greater protection just because they happen to be false doesn't strike me as being the way forward.
I think atheists have just been too nice. We should just start saying more loudly that religious people are simply stupid.
Does that mean you would be stupid if you were religious?
Marty, you gonna answer this one?
Quote from: Martinus on March 02, 2015, 03:12:12 PM
I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.
So if you can tell a fashionista he can't wear a headscarf if he wants to work for you, you should be able to tell the same to a muslim woman if she insists on wearing a head scarf to work.
That's kind of a "the law prevents both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges" kind of dilemma though.
Look, living in the West the law has been shaped in numerous ways to reflect the religious sensibilities of Christians. You don't have to worry about getting Christmas Day off, it already is a national holiday. Plus of course Christianity as a whole doesn't demand a lot of individual acts.
It's only the religious minorities requirements that run into problems with the law. I'm sure there's no law in Saudi Arabia against covering up your face for precisely this reason.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2015, 03:20:53 PM
Same reason we allow adults to have sex and vote but not children.
Adults of sound mind should be able to refuse even essential medical treatment if they want to for whatever reason, including religion. That's not a protection of religious values issue.
This is a different question than the one I was asking.
I am all for letting people do what they want to their bodies for whatever reason. What I oppose is being allowed to do something that another people cannot do, only because one motivation is religious and another isn't.
Quote from: Barrister on March 02, 2015, 03:24:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 02, 2015, 03:12:12 PM
I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.
So if you can tell a fashionista he can't wear a headscarf if he wants to work for you, you should be able to tell the same to a muslim woman if she insists on wearing a head scarf to work.
That's kind of a "the law prevents both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges" kind of dilemma though.
Look, living in the West the law has been shaped in numerous ways to reflect the religious sensibilities of Christians. You don't have to worry about getting Christmas Day off, it already is a national holiday. Plus of course Christianity as a whole doesn't demand a lot of individual acts.
It's only the religious minorities requirements that run into problems with the law. I'm sure there's no law in Saudi Arabia against covering up your face for precisely this reason.
Again, I'm for the broadest possible freedom for everyone. But all should be equal under law as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2015, 03:21:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2015, 03:28:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2015, 01:36:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 28, 2015, 05:44:09 PM
Giving beliefs greater protection just because they happen to be false doesn't strike me as being the way forward.
I think atheists have just been too nice. We should just start saying more loudly that religious people are simply stupid.
Does that mean you would be stupid if you were religious?
Marty, you gonna answer this one?
Why would I answe a troll? But yes, if I were religious I would be stupid.
Quote from: Martinus on March 02, 2015, 03:24:44 PM
This is a different question than the one I was asking.
I am all for letting people do what they want to their bodies for whatever reason. What I oppose is being allowed to do something that another people cannot do, only because one motivation is religious and another isn't.
Sorry I was replying to Ivan.
Quote from: Martinus on March 02, 2015, 03:12:12 PM
I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.
So if you can tell a fashionista he can't wear a headscarf if he wants to work for you, you should be able to tell the same to a muslim woman if she insists on wearing a head scarf to work.
I think anyone should be free to wear a headscarf (or dye their hair <_<) for whatever reason and maintain their employment.
garbon, I agree.
Quote from: Martinus on March 02, 2015, 03:26:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2015, 03:21:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2015, 03:28:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2015, 01:36:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 28, 2015, 05:44:09 PM
Giving beliefs greater protection just because they happen to be false doesn't strike me as being the way forward.
I think atheists have just been too nice. We should just start saying more loudly that religious people are simply stupid.
Does that mean you would be stupid if you were religious?
Marty, you gonna answer this one?
Why would I answe a troll? But yes, if I were religious I would be stupid.
This is not a troll, but an attempt to establish motive. You want to be smart, to be smart in your mind requires you to be an atheist. Atheism is a crutch to hold up your ego. Realistically you wouldn't be any dumber if you were religious. You wouldn't forget how to add sums or be unable to find where you put your keys or forget how to do your job. Don't worry, a lot of atheists become atheists because they want to convince themselves and others they are smart. In fact, I would say that is a primary motive for atheism. That's why a lot of people become atheists in their teens, when they are at their most insecure about themselves.
:D
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2015, 03:11:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2015, 02:57:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2015, 02:49:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2015, 02:47:16 PM
Why did you change the question?
Because the question created a false premise which most of the people posting in this thread seemed to accept.
Which false premise?
That "greater" protection is given. Freedom of religion is not an absolute right which trumps other rights as the OP suggests.
:unsure:
Actually I was very religious in my teens. I planned go become a Catholic priest. I was about 22 when I turned atheist. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2015, 03:21:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2015, 03:28:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2015, 01:36:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 28, 2015, 05:44:09 PM
Giving beliefs greater protection just because they happen to be false doesn't strike me as being the way forward.
I think atheists have just been too nice. We should just start saying more loudly that religious people are simply stupid.
Does that mean you would be stupid if you were religious?
Marty, you gonna answer this one?
What a bigoted question.
I am religious and I am not stupid.
I find it interesting that it is a lawyer who argues that motive should be ignored under the law. I think that all right-minded people disagree with that position, and some lawyers do as well.
Quote from: Martinus on March 02, 2015, 03:12:12 PM
I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.
So if you can tell a fashionista he can't wear a headscarf if he wants to work for you, you should be able to tell the same to a muslim woman if she insists on wearing a head scarf to work.
I don't agree with that at all.
Wow, I thought I was an atheist because I didn't believe in god...curious.
Secularism v laicite, round 278 :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2015, 03:59:37 PM
Wow, I thought I was an atheist because I didn't believe in god...curious.
That's because you didn't have Raz to tell you why you do what you do.
Of course, he is atheistic regarding the 99.9999+% of the gods that people have believed in, so he is 99.9999+% (but only 99.9999+%) motivated by his desire to convince himself and others that he is smart.
Quote from: Martinus on March 02, 2015, 03:12:12 PM
I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.
You didn't answer my last question so lets try it a different way.
Lets take as an example a law which required that everyone can only marry someone of the opposite sex? According to your analysis the reason people become married is irrelevant. Therefore there is no reason to consider whether the rule makes any sense for gay or lesbian couples. The important thing, according to you, is that the same rule applies to everyone.
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2015, 04:05:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2015, 03:59:37 PM
Wow, I thought I was an atheist because I didn't believe in god...curious.
That's because you didn't have Raz to tell you why you do what you do.
Of course, he is atheistic regarding the 99.9999+% of the gods that people have believed in, so he is 99.9999+% (but only 99.9999+%) motivated by his desire to convince himself and others that he is smart.
Heh. We actually did this before when you were still talking to me. And you made the same mistake then as you did now. I never said "all". I do put you in that category though. People who regurgitate canned talking points like "Bronze age book", "Sky fairies" and "You are already atheist regarding all the other gods", are typical of that category of Atheism.
Quote from: Martinus on March 02, 2015, 03:49:52 PM
Actually I was very religious in my teens. I planned go become a Catholic priest. I was about 22 when I turned atheist. ;)
Late bloomer.
He was too stupid to realize he was gay. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2015, 04:17:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 02, 2015, 03:12:12 PM
I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.
You didn't answer my last question so lets try it a different way.
Lets take as an example a law which required that everyone can only marry someone of the opposite sex? According to your analysis the reason people become married is irrelevant. Therefore there is no reason to consider whether the rule makes any sense for gay or lesbian couples. The important thing, according to you, is that the same rule applies to everyone.
:D
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 02, 2015, 04:29:59 PM
He was too stupid to realize he was gay. :P
Obviously, he knew he was gay (he wanted to be a priest, didn't he?). He just was too stupid to realize that gays had career options other than being pedophiles.
Hey now!
Quote from: Martinus on February 28, 2015, 10:11:20 AM
I just don't get why religious people should get this special treatment? Unless this is because we assume they are mentally retarded so we give them wider berth - but then we should also treat them like mentally handicapped in other things.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2015, 01:36:01 AM
We should just start saying more loudly that religious people are simply stupid.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2015, 03:23:28 AM
This is such a bullshit and offensive thing to say, Sheilbh,
Hmm
we give legal protection to protect minorities, marty. we want people to live however they like. laws protecting religion are no different than laws protecting homosexuality. provided legal protection is within reason (no blood libels or sacrifices), do we really want to allow society to potentially persecute those groups?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2015, 03:42:02 PMDon't worry, a lot of atheists become atheists because they want to convince themselves and others they are smart. In fact, I would say that is a primary motive for atheism.
why would it be the primary motive?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2015, 04:17:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 02, 2015, 03:12:12 PM
I just don't think there should be any "reasonable accomodation" for religious people. Everyone should be allowed to do the same irrespective of the reason they do it.
You didn't answer my last question so lets try it a different way.
Lets take as an example a law which required that everyone can only marry someone of the opposite sex? According to your analysis the reason people become married is irrelevant. Therefore there is no reason to consider whether the rule makes any sense for gay or lesbian couples. The important thing, according to you, is that the same rule applies to everyone.
Well I answered it indirectly in my response to BB. I also believe that there should be the broadest freedom possible. So you should be able to marry people of either sex, you should be able to wear what you want, you should be able to sleep under bridges and you should have the broadest choice of food available to you, if you so desire.
But that is not my argument at all.
My argument is that we should not allow a situation where something is forbidden, except when it is allowed on religious grounds (and religious grounds only). Like - you cannot not remove headgear when going through airport security - unless you are a sikh; you cannot slaughter animals in a way that is painful and unnecessary cruel - unless you are jewish or muslim; you cannot have your ID photo taken with a veil on your face - unless you are a muslim; you cannot refuse compulsory military service - unless you do so on religious grounds, etc.
The rule should be the same for everyone and the society should decide whether in each particular case it allows for greater freedom (which should be the default choice) or whether it thinks that, for example, animal cruelty concerns should prevail - in which case everybody should be required to comply with such law, irrespective of the reason they want to cruelly slaughter animals.
Your example about marriage would be comparable to what I am talking about if you had to prove you are gay before you are allowed to marry a person of the same sex as you - that would also be something I would be against.
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2015, 03:54:07 PM
I find it interesting that it is a lawyer who argues that motive should be ignored under the law. I think that all right-minded people disagree with that position, and some lawyers do as well.
I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the religious motive should be ignored under the law. So if someone commits a honour killing, they should be punished equally, for example, whether they were motivated by religion or non-religious cultural bigotry.
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 01:22:43 AM
I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the religious motive should be ignored under the law.
Why?
It's clear that religion is of immense importance to a number of people around the world. Why should that be ignored, even though you personally don't believe?
You don't talk about "reasonable accommodation", or anything of the sort. You say it should be "ignored". Why is that?
Quote from: LaCroix on March 02, 2015, 06:48:38 PM
we give legal protection to protect minorities, marty. we want people to live however they like. laws protecting religion are no different than laws protecting homosexuality. provided legal protection is within reason (no blood libels or sacrifices), do we really want to allow society to potentially persecute those groups?
Well, I am talking more about a situation when something is only available to some person because of that person's quality (like religion, or sexuality) but is not available to the public at large. There are many examples of something like this happening on religious grounds but not many of this happening on sexuality grounds (the only example I can think of right now is how same sex couples in Britain are the only ones who, currently, have civil partnerships available to them - and there are straight couples sueing Britain for discrimination over this - and I hope they will win as they are right).
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 01:30:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 01:22:43 AM
I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the religious motive should be ignored under the law.
Why?
It's clear that religion is of immense importance to a number of people around the world. Why should that be ignored, even though you personally don't believe?
You don't talk about "reasonable accommodation", or anything of the sort. You say it should be "ignored". Why is that?
Nice one that you only respond to half of my post.
But to answer you (again), I think it should be treated as any other "strongly held belief", whether it is moral, cultural or ideological.
Ok, BB, a straight-up question to you: do you think law should allow a situation in which a person can do something because he or she is doing that for religious reasons, but a person with no motive like that is not allowed to do the same thing?
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 01:32:19 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 01:30:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 01:22:43 AM
I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the religious motive should be ignored under the law.
Why?
It's clear that religion is of immense importance to a number of people around the world. Why should that be ignored, even though you personally don't believe?
You don't talk about "reasonable accommodation", or anything of the sort. You say it should be "ignored". Why is that?
Nice one that you only respond to half of my post.
But to answer you (again), I think it should be treated as any other "strongly held belief", whether it is moral, cultural or ideological.
I responded to the key point of your post.
Yes, I don't have a problem saying there can be certain rights for "strongly held beliefs".
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 01:38:12 AM
Ok, BB, a straight-up question to you: do you think law should allow a situation in which a person can do something because he or she is doing that for religious reasons, but a person with no motive like that is not allowed to do the same thing?
Yes. Absolutely.
There was a story in the Canadian news recently about some idiot who is fighting to be allowed to have his ID picture taken with a pasta colander on his head, because he believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I have no problem saying this fellow has no real "strongly held belief" in the need for pasta-based headware other than to poke religions in the eye, and that he should noe be allowed to wear one for his driver's license.
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 01:43:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 01:38:12 AM
Ok, BB, a straight-up question to you: do you think law should allow a situation in which a person can do something because he or she is doing that for religious reasons, but a person with no motive like that is not allowed to do the same thing?
Yes. Absolutely.
There was a story in the Canadian news recently about some idiot who is fighting to be allowed to have his ID picture taken with a pasta colander on his head, because he believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I have no problem saying this fellow has no real "strongly held belief" in the need for pasta-based headware other than to poke religions in the eye, and that he should noe be allowed to wear one for his driver's license.
See? This is exactly what I have a problem with (and thanks for saying this explicitly - because I was starting to think I may be arguing a straw man position since noone would seem to know what I am talking about) - because then you have the government telling people that one belief is more "worthy" than another. I think this is unacceptable in a free, pluralistic, liberal society.
Or to put my position in clear terms - imagine you have four people employed at a company, A, B, C and D.
A is a member of a minority religion. Every year he wants to have a day off to commemorate the feast of the birth of prophet of that religion. This is how he finds solace and a sense of community and this is what "recharges" his batteries, psychologically.
B is non-religious but she lost her grandmother, whom she loved very much, few years ago. Ever year she wants to have a day off, on the date of her grandmother's death, to go to her grandmother's grave, and spend the day in quiet contemplation. This is how she finds solace and a sense of communion with her ancestors and her family and this is what "recharges" her batteries, psychologically.
C is a gay man. Every year he wants to have a day off on the anniversary of Stonewall riots, to go to a gay pride parade and spend the day in celebration of his sexuality. This is how he finds solace and a sense of community and this is what "recharges" his batteries, psychologically.
D is a nerd. Every year he wants to have a day off to go to a gaming convention and spend the day geeking out with other nerds. This is how he finds solace and a sense of community and this is what "recharges" his batteries, psychologically.
I am all for reasonable accommodation, but I see no reason why person A should be accommodated more than persons B, C and D. Their needs are different but they are, to me, on the same level - and the government has no business telling people that one is more worthy than another. Of course, this is more difficult, and a system should be put in place so this is not abused, but that is the role of the lawmakers.
So, if I were the lawmaker, rather than making the law that says "the employer cannot refuse an employee to take a day off on a day that is religiously or culturally important for them", I would make the law that says "the employee has up to 4 (or some other number deemed reasonable) days each year which they can use as a day off and the employer cannot refuse that (note: this is different from normal vacation, as the employer and employee have to agree when the employee can take time off from his or her normal vacation allowance); the employee has to let the employer know about such days in advance not to disturb the work too much (say, before the beginning of each year)".
Quote from: LaCroix on March 02, 2015, 06:51:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2015, 03:42:02 PMDon't worry, a lot of atheists become atheists because they want to convince themselves and others they are smart. In fact, I would say that is a primary motive for atheism.
why would it be the primary motive?
You have confused the word "a", with "the". I would say it's a primary motive because a lot of people who adopt Athiesm are seem to enjoy condescending and insulting people.
You know, there are certain cultural mores that simply assumed here, Marty. For instance, the veil thing is often trotted out as both a security concern and a way to "liberate" these women from the oppressive culture. However, in our culture we expect women to wear some sort of clothing. We don't require women to be photographed nude for the driver license, nor do we ban all clothing. That would certainly make it easier to identify people and it's harder to hide something when you are naked. Some folks have noted that things like dresses and bras are forms of cultural oppression, perhaps everyone should be required to walk around nude all the time. That would certainly be more "equal", less likely to be oppressive culturally and safer (from a terrorism standpoint).
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2015, 03:17:07 AM
You know, there are certain cultural mores that simply assumed here, Marty. For instance, the veil thing is often trotted out as both a security concern and a way to "liberate" these women from the oppressive culture. However, in our culture we expect women to wear some sort of clothing. We don't require women to be photographed nude for the driver license, nor do we ban all clothing. That would certainly make it easier to identify people and it's harder to hide something when you are naked. Some folks have noted that things like dresses and bras are forms of cultural oppression, perhaps everyone should be required to walk around nude all the time. That would certainly be more "equal", less likely to be oppressive culturally and safer (from a terrorism standpoint).
You are once again building a strawman rather than arguing against the point I made (or you do not understand the point I made, which would be singular, given that I explained it extensively).
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 06:57:21 AM
(or you do not understand the point I made, which would be singular, given that I explained it extensively).
Actually, the more verbiage you use explaining it, the easier it becomes to miss your point. Not saying that's what happened here, but you have posted at least a dozen times in this thread.
Verily, I believe in using plain verbiage and attempt to eschew obfuscation in my reasoning.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2015, 03:17:07 AM
You know, there are certain cultural mores that simply assumed here, Marty. For instance, the veil thing is often trotted out as both a security concern and a way to "liberate" these women from the oppressive culture. However, in our culture we expect women to wear some sort of clothing. We don't require women to be photographed nude for the driver license, nor do we ban all clothing. That would certainly make it easier to identify people and it's harder to hide something when you are naked. Some folks have noted that things like dresses and bras are forms of cultural oppression, perhaps everyone should be required to walk around nude all the time. That would certainly be more "equal", less likely to be oppressive culturally and safer (from a terrorism standpoint).
Why are you saying 'our culture' and 'we'? Are there any moves in the US to ban the veil? Strikes me as unconstitutional.
I understand Martinus' reasoning and agree completely. If it causes no harm for a religious person to be able to do something, then what is the harm in allowing everyone to do that same thing?
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2015, 09:28:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2015, 09:25:41 PM
Can you decode his post for me?
He's been sniping at me for months.
I think he is saying I'm the grandest douchebag of them all.
That's because you need tough love.
When the loving gets tough, the tough get loving.
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 01:43:57 AM
There was a story in the Canadian news recently about some idiot who is fighting to be allowed to have his ID picture taken with a pasta colander on his head, because he believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I have no problem saying this fellow has no real "strongly held belief" in the need for pasta-based headware other than to poke religions in the eye, and that he should noe be allowed to wear one for his driver's license.
If the pasta colander doesn't obscure his face, why shouldn't he be allowed to wear it for the ID photo?
Quote from: Ancient Demon on March 03, 2015, 08:49:25 AM
I understand Martinus' reasoning and agree completely. If it causes no harm for a religious person to be able to do something, then what is the harm in allowing everyone to do that same thing?
I think it is a bit of a strawman that we are allowing vast concessions to religious people. Right now freedom of religion is being used as a last ditch defense to fight against new laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is no big tradition of having concessions for religious people getting special rights beyond what would be reasonable for anybody. I do not think it is an issue at all. At least here, but then we don't have big battles over veils.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on March 03, 2015, 08:53:19 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 01:43:57 AM
There was a story in the Canadian news recently about some idiot who is fighting to be allowed to have his ID picture taken with a pasta colander on his head, because he believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I have no problem saying this fellow has no real "strongly held belief" in the need for pasta-based headware other than to poke religions in the eye, and that he should noe be allowed to wear one for his driver's license.
If the pasta colander doesn't obscure his face, why shouldn't he be allowed to wear it for the ID photo?
Indeed. So he has a stupid ID photo? Who doesn't?
It's funny how the Canucks seem to be always the group I find myself in disagreements with over values on this forum.
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 08:58:42 AM
It's funny how the Canucks seem to be always the group I find myself in disagreements with over values on this forum.
They are a kind bleeding heart sort of people, unless you speak French.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 09:01:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 08:58:42 AM
It's funny how the Canucks seem to be always the group I find myself in disagreements with over values on this forum.
They are a kind bleeding heart sort of people, unless you speak French.
I think they may be the opposite of Poles. That is to say Poles have an attitude that is considered the mix of Europeans and Americans, and Canucks are the same, only in the opposite aspects. :P
By the way I loved your video about the people worshipping the picture of the horse.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 03, 2015, 08:51:25 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2015, 09:28:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2015, 09:25:41 PM
Can you decode his post for me?
He's been sniping at me for months.
I think he is saying I'm the grandest douchebag of them all.
That's because you need tough love.
I laugh derisively at your feeble Plebian attempts.
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 01:22:43 AM
I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the religious motive should be ignored under the law. So if someone commits a honour killing, they should be punished equally, for example, whether they were motivated by religion or non-religious cultural bigotry.
So, for instance, killing someone in a fit of rage, or through negligence, should be punished identically with premeditated murder? An accidental overdraft should be punished the same as deliberate fraud? Or is it
only religious motives which should be ignored under the law in your scheme?
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 08:55:19 AM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on March 03, 2015, 08:53:19 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 01:43:57 AM
There was a story in the Canadian news recently about some idiot who is fighting to be allowed to have his ID picture taken with a pasta colander on his head, because he believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I have no problem saying this fellow has no real "strongly held belief" in the need for pasta-based headware other than to poke religions in the eye, and that he should noe be allowed to wear one for his driver's license.
If the pasta colander doesn't obscure his face, why shouldn't he be allowed to wear it for the ID photo?
Indeed. So he has a stupid ID photo? Who doesn't?
It's a fair point. There may be no reason at all for a "no hats" rule.
On the other hand, there may be a reason, only a not very important reason - perhaps the bureaucrats simply want a certain uniformity of appearance in such photos.
The issue then becomes whether there is any compelling reason to allow specific exemptions to that rule. This of necessity requires a balancing of interests, which (again, of necessity) involves weighing of the interests to be balanced. Or at least, that's how it works in Canadian law (maybe why Canuck lawyers are at odds with Marty on this issue ;) ).
So to take the hat in the photo example: to a Canadian, there are the following possible outcomes:
1. The government cannot argue an interest in having a "no hats" rule. Hats for everyone!
2. The government can argue an interest, but it is not utterly compelling. Hats for those capable of arguing a more-compelling intererest in an excemption, no hats for the rest.
3. The government can argue a compelling interest (say, in safety, or for ID, or whatever). No hats for anyone.
It is only in scenario 2 that the issue of a "religious exemption" comes into play, and a Sikh is treated differently than (say) a Pastafarian. This scenario has, for example, played out when Sikhs wanted to wear a funny hat playing soccer (the soccer authorities were able to argue a minor interest in having a uniform "look"); and example of scenario 3 is where a Sikh tried to argue he should be allowed to wear his funny hat rather than a motorcycle helmet (the court said tough luck - wear the helmet or don't ride).
Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2015, 10:19:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 01:22:43 AM
I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the religious motive should be ignored under the law. So if someone commits a honour killing, they should be punished equally, for example, whether they were motivated by religion or non-religious cultural bigotry.
So, for instance, killing someone in a fit of rage, or through negligence, should be punished identically with premeditated murder? An accidental overdraft should be punished the same as deliberate fraud? Or is it only religious motives which should be ignored under the law in your scheme?
As much as I hate to defend Marty in a religion thread, at least at law "motive" has a separate meaning from "intent".
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 08:58:42 AM
It's funny how the Canucks seem to be always the group I find myself in disagreements with over values on this forum.
It's because we have values, and you apparently do not. -_-
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 01:43:57 AM
Yes. Absolutely.
There was a story in the Canadian news recently about some idiot who is fighting to be allowed to have his ID picture taken with a pasta colander on his head, because he believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I have no problem saying this fellow has no real "strongly held belief" in the need for pasta-based headware other than to poke religions in the eye, and that he should noe be allowed to wear one for his driver's license.
BB illustrates the problem perfectly. While he is opposed to Marti's dumb idea, he opposes it by producing his own dumb idea; that he gets to decide what "strongly held beliefs" are, in fact, strongly held (and thus protected) and which he rejects and so are unprotected.
If one wants an exemption to the "no hats in pictures" rule on religious grounds, then it should be automatically granted. Government employees will want to declare their judgements to be definitive, but they lie. No one can truly judge the sincerity of someone else's beliefs.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 10:28:07 AM
It is only in scenario 2 that the issue of a "religious exemption" comes into play, and a Sikh is treated differently than (say) a Pastafarian.
Why?
Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2015, 10:36:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 01:43:57 AM
Yes. Absolutely.
There was a story in the Canadian news recently about some idiot who is fighting to be allowed to have his ID picture taken with a pasta colander on his head, because he believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I have no problem saying this fellow has no real "strongly held belief" in the need for pasta-based headware other than to poke religions in the eye, and that he should noe be allowed to wear one for his driver's license.
BB illustrates the problem perfectly. While he is opposed to Marti's dumb idea, he opposes it by producing his own dumb idea; that he gets to decide what "strongly held beliefs" are, in fact, strongly held (and thus protected) and which he rejects and so are unprotected.
If one wants an exemption to the "no hats in pictures" rule on religious grounds, then it should be automatically granted. Government employees will want to declare their judgements to be definitive, but they lie. No one can truly judge the sincerity of someone else's beliefs.
It is true - it is far easier to go to an absolute - either say "there are no rules", so that religious (or other) beliefs can never be infringed, or to simply ignore religion as being worthy of accomodation in any case.
Easier, but not better.
I don't know about others, but I like having a regulated, well-ordered society. I am not a libertarian.
And I think that looking at all of human history, and the number of wars and strife caused by religion, that we have learned the best way to avoid them is to grant religious liberty and respect for all faiths.
So then we're stuck with the more difficult, but not impossible, role of trying to reconcile both the rule of law, and religious freedom.
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 01:20:21 AM
My argument is that we should not allow a situation where something is forbidden, except when it is allowed on religious grounds (and religious grounds only). Like - you cannot not remove headgear when going through airport security - unless you are a sikh; you cannot slaughter animals in a way that is painful and unnecessary cruel - unless you are jewish or muslim; you cannot have your ID photo taken with a veil on your face - unless you are a muslim; you cannot refuse compulsory military service - unless you do so on religious grounds, etc.
The problem with your argument is that there is a difference between someone who brings a knife to school to use as a weapon and someone who brings a ceremonial knife to school as a religious object signifying peace. Your argument works for propositions you endorse but not for those you do not support. In order to respond to my question about a law which requires same sex law you proposed changing the law. That is exactly what happened because of legal challenges in this country on thebasis that the law interfered with Charter values. But you don't want those same constitutional challenges to be brought by people who do not share your particular beliefs.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 10:42:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 10:28:07 AM
It is only in scenario 2 that the issue of a "religious exemption" comes into play, and a Sikh is treated differently than (say) a Pastafarian.
Why?
It's how interest-balancing works: the trier of fact has to determine whether the interest of the person wanting the exemption weighs more heavily than the interest of the government in maintaining the integrity of the rule.
A Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.
How is this determined? By the "reasonable person" test, which is often used in Canadian law to determine things that cannot easily be measured by scientific evidence.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:14:53 AM
A Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.
How is this determined? By the "reasonable person" test, which is often used in Canadian law to determine things that cannot easily be measured by scientific evidence.
Sounds like nobody's damn business to me. Is there a big public concern with Pastafarians nefariously putting colanders on their heads?
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 11:18:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:14:53 AM
A Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.
How is this determined? By the "reasonable person" test, which is often used in Canadian law to determine things that cannot easily be measured by scientific evidence.
Sounds like nobody's damn business to me. Is there a big public concern with Pastafarians nefariously putting colanders on their heads?
There is a reason for the "no hats in photo ID" rule. A hat can obscure hair, eyes, shape of the head, and the forehead, all of which have some value in identifying a person. It's not an overwhelming benefit, so I can see that rule being put aside in some circumstances (e.g. sikh turbans), but it's enough of a benefit that I think it should prevail in other circumstances (e.g. a pastafarian collander).
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:14:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 10:42:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 10:28:07 AM
It is only in scenario 2 that the issue of a "religious exemption" comes into play, and a Sikh is treated differently than (say) a Pastafarian.
Why?
It's how interest-balancing works: the trier of fact has to determine whether the interest of the person wanting the exemption weighs more heavily than the interest of the government in maintaining the integrity of the rule.
A Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.
How is this determined? By the "reasonable person" test, which is often used in Canadian law to determine things that cannot easily be measured by scientific evidence.
Not quite. you are combining different parts of the legal test.
First, is the question of whether the religious belief is bona fide. This is a low threshold to cross as it turns of the subjective believes of the person in question. (ie not a reasonable person test). The SCC expressly rejected the reasonable person test in the Kirpan case. The defence called evidence that most Sikhs carry wooden not metal Kirpans and so it was argued it was unreasonable for this family to insist on a metal Kirpan. The Court rejected that argument and focused on whether the belief was held by the person in question and whether it was connected to their religion. In short a very low standard.
The pastafarian would likely fail at this stage because he acknowledged it was a stunt to mock religious beliefs. ie he did actually belief in a past god.
Second is whether the restriction on the religious freedom results in a significant depravation. The Pastafarian would likely fail this test because he did not normally wear a pasta strainer on his head
Third if the first two tests are passed then the analysis is whether the restriction on religious freedom is justified. That is where the balancing of societal interests occurs. But, as noted above, I doubt very much the pastafarian gets to this stage.
If the colander ws permanently strapped to the Pastafarian's head would the hair, (a) grow out through the holes or, (b) form a bouffant mass underneath the colander pushing against it, tightening the straps and slowly strangling the Pastafarian :hmm: ?
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 11:18:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:14:53 AM
A Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.
How is this determined? By the "reasonable person" test, which is often used in Canadian law to determine things that cannot easily be measured by scientific evidence.
Sounds like nobody's damn business to me. Is there a big public concern with Pastafarians nefariously putting colanders on their heads?
No ... no concern at all.
The issue, as I said, is whether the Pastafarian's interests in wearing a colleander outweigh the government's interests (whatever they may be, and assuming they have any) in the integrity of the rule against wearing hats.
It is not the case that there is a positive public interest against the wearing of colleanders generally.
The Pastafarian is making it someone's business specifically by challenging the government's rule. Otherwise it would be, as you say, "nobody's damn business".
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 11:24:00 AM
There is a reason for the "no hats in photo ID" rule. A hat can obscure hair, eyes, shape of the head, and the forehead, all of which have some value in identifying a person. It's not an overwhelming benefit, so I can see that rule being put aside in some circumstances (e.g. sikh turbans), but it's enough of a benefit that I think it should prevail in other circumstances (e.g. a pastafarian collander).
I don't know how things are over in Canada but we have more funky cults and obscure religions than one can shake a sacred Witch staff at. It seems unreasonable to start judging the motives and 'realness' of each one. If one accommodation under certain circumstances would be allowed for some religions, than it must be allowed for all of them.
Canucks are fascists who decide whose god is "real". Film at 11.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 11:24:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:14:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 10:42:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 10:28:07 AM
It is only in scenario 2 that the issue of a "religious exemption" comes into play, and a Sikh is treated differently than (say) a Pastafarian.
Why?
It's how interest-balancing works: the trier of fact has to determine whether the interest of the person wanting the exemption weighs more heavily than the interest of the government in maintaining the integrity of the rule.
A Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.
How is this determined? By the "reasonable person" test, which is often used in Canadian law to determine things that cannot easily be measured by scientific evidence.
Not quite. you are combining different parts of the legal test.
First, is the question of whether the religious belief is bona fide. This is a low threshold to cross as it turns of the subjective believes of the person in question. (ie not a reasonable person test). The SCC expressly rejected the reasonable person test in the Kirpan case. The defence called evidence that most Sikhs carry wooden not metal Kirpans and so it was argued it was unreasonable for this family to insist on a metal Kirpan. The Court rejected that argument and focused on whether the belief was held by the person in question and whether it was connected to their religion. In short a very low standard.
The pastafarian would likely fail at this stage because he acknowledged it was a stunt to mock religious beliefs. ie he did actually belief in a past god.
Second is whether the restriction on the religious freedom results in a significant depravation. The Pastafarian would likely fail this test because he did not normally wear a pasta strainer on his head
Third if the first two tests are passed then the analysis is whether the restriction on religious freedom is justified. That is where the balancing of societal interests occurs. But, as noted above, I doubt very much the pastafarian gets to this stage.
I'm not stating the actual legal test here - I'm attempting to simplify the argument down to its very basics.
I would be more worried by a person who is actually deranged and believes in Sky Santa who wants to circumvent security measures than someone who may be doing it for the lols.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 11:27:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 11:24:00 AM
There is a reason for the "no hats in photo ID" rule. A hat can obscure hair, eyes, shape of the head, and the forehead, all of which have some value in identifying a person. It's not an overwhelming benefit, so I can see that rule being put aside in some circumstances (e.g. sikh turbans), but it's enough of a benefit that I think it should prevail in other circumstances (e.g. a pastafarian collander).
I don't know how things are over in Canada but we have more funky cults and obscure religions than one can shake a sacred Witch staff at. It seems unreasonable to start judging the motives and 'realness' of each one. If one accommodation under certain circumstances would be allowed for some religions, than it must be allowed for all of them.
Here's where the "reasonableness" test comes in handy.
There are tons of situations in which it is factually difficult to determine if something is one category or another (is something "art" or "hardcore kiddie porn?"). The solution is not to either ban everything, or accept everything, but to make nuanced decisions ... or at least, that's a *better* solution, one more workable for society as a whole.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:29:04 AM
I'm not stating the actual legal test here - I'm attempting to simplify the argument down to its very basics.
Yes but in doing that you have caused Valmy to think that Canadian courts make a judgment about the validity of the religious belief. That is definitely not what occurs. Nobody suggests that a person should not believe in a Pasta God. What our courts require is, as stated by our SCC:
Quotethe claimant must demonstrate (1) that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion, and (2) that the impugned conduct of a third party interferes, in a manner that is non‑trivial or not insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:32:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 11:27:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 11:24:00 AM
There is a reason for the "no hats in photo ID" rule. A hat can obscure hair, eyes, shape of the head, and the forehead, all of which have some value in identifying a person. It's not an overwhelming benefit, so I can see that rule being put aside in some circumstances (e.g. sikh turbans), but it's enough of a benefit that I think it should prevail in other circumstances (e.g. a pastafarian collander).
I don't know how things are over in Canada but we have more funky cults and obscure religions than one can shake a sacred Witch staff at. It seems unreasonable to start judging the motives and 'realness' of each one. If one accommodation under certain circumstances would be allowed for some religions, than it must be allowed for all of them.
Here's where the "reasonableness" test comes in handy.
There are tons of situations in which it is factually difficult to determine if something is one category or another (is something "art" or "hardcore kiddie porn?"). The solution is not to either ban everything, or accept everything, but to make nuanced decisions ... or at least, that's a *better* solution, one more workable for society as a whole.
What's the contradiction between art and hardcore kiddie porn?
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 11:27:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 11:24:00 AM
There is a reason for the "no hats in photo ID" rule. A hat can obscure hair, eyes, shape of the head, and the forehead, all of which have some value in identifying a person. It's not an overwhelming benefit, so I can see that rule being put aside in some circumstances (e.g. sikh turbans), but it's enough of a benefit that I think it should prevail in other circumstances (e.g. a pastafarian collander).
I don't know how things are over in Canada but we have more funky cults and obscure religions than one can shake a sacred Witch staff at. It seems unreasonable to start judging the motives and 'realness' of each one. If one accommodation under certain circumstances would be allowed for some religions, than it must be allowed for all of them.
As we do in Canada. Malthus has led you off the path a bit when he suggested the test is whether the religious belief is reasonable. That is definitely not the test.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 11:35:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 11:27:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 11:24:00 AM
There is a reason for the "no hats in photo ID" rule. A hat can obscure hair, eyes, shape of the head, and the forehead, all of which have some value in identifying a person. It's not an overwhelming benefit, so I can see that rule being put aside in some circumstances (e.g. sikh turbans), but it's enough of a benefit that I think it should prevail in other circumstances (e.g. a pastafarian collander).
I don't know how things are over in Canada but we have more funky cults and obscure religions than one can shake a sacred Witch staff at. It seems unreasonable to start judging the motives and 'realness' of each one. If one accommodation under certain circumstances would be allowed for some religions, than it must be allowed for all of them.
As we do in Canada. Malthus has led you off the path a bit when he suggested the test is whether the religious belief is reasonable. That is definitely not the test.
I didn't suggest that. :huh:
I said a Pastafarian's interests in wearing a coleander were not of the same weight and value as a Sikh's interests in wearing a turban, Not that one religious belief is reasonable and the other isn't.
The entire discussion, imo, illustrates the fallacy of the special accomodations for religions argument. There are several pitfalls.
1. Is the religion "real"? Even if you accept that this is not an insane question (I think it is), then there is no objective test to ascertain that. So what if Pastafarianism is the "mock" religion? It can be real to another person - after all some religions (like Jedi, or, as some claim, Scientology) started as bona fide fiction.
2. If you get past the first hurdle, then you have to decide what is a religion - is Buddhism a religion? What about Confucianism? New Age? Belief in Cosmic Force? If someone believes they have to wear a tin foil hat in a photo to protect themselves against cosmic rays, why is his belief less worthy of protection than someone who believes they have to wear a hijab because some dead guy said so 1500 years ago?
3. So let's assume you accomodate people falling under group 1 and 2 - so, essentially, lunatics. I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that once you have accomodated lunatics, there is really no reason why you should only discriminate against rational people, who may want to wear a hat in the picture for lols or because they look better in a hat.
Ergo: everybody should be allowed to wear a hat. Only an idiot thinks otherwise. :P
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 11:35:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 11:27:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 11:24:00 AM
There is a reason for the "no hats in photo ID" rule. A hat can obscure hair, eyes, shape of the head, and the forehead, all of which have some value in identifying a person. It's not an overwhelming benefit, so I can see that rule being put aside in some circumstances (e.g. sikh turbans), but it's enough of a benefit that I think it should prevail in other circumstances (e.g. a pastafarian collander).
I don't know how things are over in Canada but we have more funky cults and obscure religions than one can shake a sacred Witch staff at. It seems unreasonable to start judging the motives and 'realness' of each one. If one accommodation under certain circumstances would be allowed for some religions, than it must be allowed for all of them.
As we do in Canada. Malthus has led you off the path a bit when he suggested the test is whether the religious belief is reasonable. That is definitely not the test.
I didn't suggest that. :huh:
I said a Pastafarian's interests in wearing a coleander were not of the same weight and value as a Sikh's interests in wearing a turban, Not that one religious belief is reasonable and the other isn't.
Sure you did. In your example you preferred one religious belief over another. That simply does not occur in the legal analysis. You have conflated and mischaracterized important separate parts of the analysis.
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 11:39:13 AM
The entire discussion, imo, illustrates the fallacy of the special accomodations for religions argument. There are several pitfalls.
1. Is the religion "real"? Even if you accept that this is not an insane question (I think it is), then there is no objective test to ascertain that. So what if Pastafarianism is the "mock" religion? It can be real to another person - after all some religions (like Jedi, or, as some claim, Scientology) started as bona fide fiction.
2. If you get past the first hurdle, then you have to decide what is a religion - is Buddhism a religion? What about Confucianism? New Age? Belief in Cosmic Force? If someone believes they have to wear a tin foil hat in a photo to protect themselves against cosmic rays, why is his belief less worthy of protection than someone who believes they have to wear a hijab because some dead guy said so 1500 years ago?
3. So let's assume you accomodate people falling under group 1 and 2 - so, essentially, lunatics. I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that once you have accomodated lunatics, there is really no reason why you should only discriminate against rational people, who may want to wear a hat in the picture for lols or because they look better in a hat.
Ergo: everybody should be allowed to wear a hat. Only an idiot thinks otherwise. :P
In Canada at least we don't engage in your first or second steps. It is unfortunate Malthus led the discussion down that path.
Your third step doesn't make sense when the first two are stripped away.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 11:45:29 AM
Sure you did. In your example you preferred one religious belief over another. That simply does not occur in the legal analysis. You have conflated and mischaracterized important separate parts of the analysis.
I
deliberately ommitted steps of a legal analysis ... the end result of which is, in effect, an interest-balancing exercise. In the interests of not turning a forum discussion with non-lawyers participating into a legal debate concerning the laws of a country they don't belong to. :huh:
Nowhere did I say that I preferred one religion over another. I simply didn't. My focus was solely on the "interest" of Sikhs vs. Pastafarians in wearing a particular hat. I said exactly
nothing about the validity or otherwise of any religion, and challenge you to quote me saying anything of the sort.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 11:47:10 AM
In Canada at least we don't engage in your first or second steps. It is unfortunate Malthus led the discussion down that path.
:hmm:
Okay, I get it - you are trolling me. Well done. :D
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 11:39:13 AM
The entire discussion, imo, illustrates the fallacy of the special accomodations for religions argument. There are several pitfalls.
1. Is the religion "real"? Even if you accept that this is not an insane question (I think it is), then there is no objective test to ascertain that. So what if Pastafarianism is the "mock" religion? It can be real to another person - after all some religions (like Jedi, or, as some claim, Scientology) started as bona fide fiction.
2. If you get past the first hurdle, then you have to decide what is a religion - is Buddhism a religion? What about Confucianism? New Age? Belief in Cosmic Force? If someone believes they have to wear a tin foil hat in a photo to protect themselves against cosmic rays, why is his belief less worthy of protection than someone who believes they have to wear a hijab because some dead guy said so 1500 years ago?
3. So let's assume you accomodate people falling under group 1 and 2 - so, essentially, lunatics. I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that once you have accomodated lunatics, there is really no reason why you should only discriminate against rational people, who may want to wear a hat in the picture for lols or because they look better in a hat.
Ergo: everybody should be allowed to wear a hat. Only an idiot thinks otherwise. :P
You don't determine whether a religion is real (since OBVIOUSLY Jesus is the only and only Messiah, and all other religions are patently false).
What you try to determine is whether a purported religious belief is sincerely held or not.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 11:47:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 11:39:13 AM
The entire discussion, imo, illustrates the fallacy of the special accomodations for religions argument. There are several pitfalls.
1. Is the religion "real"? Even if you accept that this is not an insane question (I think it is), then there is no objective test to ascertain that. So what if Pastafarianism is the "mock" religion? It can be real to another person - after all some religions (like Jedi, or, as some claim, Scientology) started as bona fide fiction.
2. If you get past the first hurdle, then you have to decide what is a religion - is Buddhism a religion? What about Confucianism? New Age? Belief in Cosmic Force? If someone believes they have to wear a tin foil hat in a photo to protect themselves against cosmic rays, why is his belief less worthy of protection than someone who believes they have to wear a hijab because some dead guy said so 1500 years ago?
3. So let's assume you accomodate people falling under group 1 and 2 - so, essentially, lunatics. I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that once you have accomodated lunatics, there is really no reason why you should only discriminate against rational people, who may want to wear a hat in the picture for lols or because they look better in a hat.
Ergo: everybody should be allowed to wear a hat. Only an idiot thinks otherwise. :P
In Canada at least we don't engage in your first or second steps. It is unfortunate Malthus led the discussion down that path.
Your third step doesn't make sense when the first two are stripped away.
If you don't engage in the second step, how do you determine if the belief in question is religious?
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:54:44 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 11:47:10 AM
In Canada at least we don't engage in your first or second steps. It is unfortunate Malthus led the discussion down that path.
:hmm:
Okay, I get it - you are trolling me. Well done. :D
Its not a troll. Go back and read the Kirpan case. It is not a question of weighing the religious belief at all. The only questions are whether the belief is sincerely held and whether there is a significant infringement of that belief. There is no analysis of the importance of the belief.
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 12:03:39 PM
If you don't engage in the second step, how do you determine if the belief in question is religious?
By the evidence. The pastafarian was quite open about the fact that is religion was not real and was created to mock religion. The evidentiary test is very low.
So it encourages people who lie (or are insane) and discourages people who are honest (and are sane).
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 12:09:21 PM
So it encourages people who lie (or are insane) and discourages people who are honest (and are sane).
?
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 11:39:13 AM
The entire discussion, imo, illustrates the fallacy of the special accomodations for religions argument. There are several pitfalls.
1. Is the religion "real"? Even if you accept that this is not an insane question (I think it is), then there is no objective test to ascertain that. So what if Pastafarianism is the "mock" religion? It can be real to another person - after all some religions (like Jedi, or, as some claim, Scientology) started as bona fide fiction.
Just because a test is not strictly objective doesn't mean it has no value. This is a common complaint that is really annoying.
You cannot objectively show that people don't like the taste of rat shit, for example, and yet we can still very reasonably conclude that in fact most people don't care for the taste of rat shit, even if it is not "objective".
The goal is to come to the most reasonable possible outcome - not create a perfectly objective criteria.
Quote
2. If you get past the first hurdle, then you have to decide what is a religion - is Buddhism a religion? What about Confucianism? New Age? Belief in Cosmic Force? If someone believes they have to wear a tin foil hat in a photo to protect themselves against cosmic rays, why is his belief less worthy of protection than someone who believes they have to wear a hijab because some dead guy said so 1500 years ago?
We have pretty well understood and defined ideas about what religion is, and this is a "fake" problem. There isn't any great injustice happening because we aren't sure if wearing tinfoil hats is a religion or not.
Quote
3. So let's assume you accomodate people falling under group 1 and 2 - so, essentially, lunatics.
Most people who reasonable people would define as lunatics would fail those tests. So the opposite of your conclusion here.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:53:27 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 11:45:29 AM
Sure you did. In your example you preferred one religious belief over another. That simply does not occur in the legal analysis. You have conflated and mischaracterized important separate parts of the analysis.
I deliberately ommitted steps of a legal analysis ... the end result of which is, in effect, an interest-balancing exercise.
Your conclusion is wrong. That is what led Valmy to correctly question your view and most problematically led Marty (who apparently knows nothing about the legal concept of freedom of religion) to come up with his three step analysis.
By the time we get to the Balancing of interests the Court assumes the religious belief is important to the person professing the belief. The balancing actually has very little to do with the religious belief. Instead the analysis turns on an analysis of the thing which interferes with the religious belief such as identifying the objective, determining whether the objective is met by the interference (the step the Kirpan case failed to establish) whether there is minimal impairment to obtain the objective, etc.
Passport Canada won't even let you smile. No Colander or hats or anything if we can't smile.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 12:04:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:54:44 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 11:47:10 AM
In Canada at least we don't engage in your first or second steps. It is unfortunate Malthus led the discussion down that path.
:hmm:
Okay, I get it - you are trolling me. Well done. :D
Its not a troll. Go back and read the Kirpan case. It is not a question of weighing the religious belief at all. The only questions are whether the belief is sincerely held and whether there is a significant infringement of that belief. There is no analysis of the importance of the belief.
I am not questioning the Kirpan case - I am questioning your repeated assertion about what
I said.
Well he is right as to the impression it gave me, for what its worth.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:14:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 10:42:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 10:28:07 AM
It is only in scenario 2 that the issue of a "religious exemption" comes into play, and a Sikh is treated differently than (say) a Pastafarian.
Why?
It's how interest-balancing works: the trier of fact has to determine whether the interest of the person wanting the exemption weighs more heavily than the interest of the government in maintaining the integrity of the rule.
A Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.
How is this determined? By the "reasonable person" test, which is often used in Canadian law to determine things that cannot easily be measured by scientific evidence.
Yes but he did not make that clear why that would be.
And hey sbr, how is it going?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 12:09:21 PM
So it encourages people who lie (or are insane) and discourages people who are honest (and are sane).
?
If a person wants to do something that the gov't could reasonably accommodate then it would make sense for a person to call on sincerely held religious belief to support an application for an allowance.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 12:09:21 PM
So it encourages people who lie (or are insane) and discourages people who are honest (and are sane).
?
Well, if I wanted to wear a hat in my license picture I would be better off if I lied and said this is because of my sincerely held religious belief than if I told the truth and said I just want to have a license picture wearing a hat. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 09:44:54 AM
By the way I loved your video about the people worshipping the picture of the horse.
Yes, it was Onion/Clickhole at its best. :D
http://www.clickhole.com/video/all-religions-are-beautiful-1543
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 12:52:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 11:53:27 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 11:45:29 AM
Sure you did. In your example you preferred one religious belief over another. That simply does not occur in the legal analysis. You have conflated and mischaracterized important separate parts of the analysis.
I deliberately ommitted steps of a legal analysis ... the end result of which is, in effect, an interest-balancing exercise.
Your conclusion is wrong. That is what led Valmy to correctly question your view and most problematically led Marty (who apparently knows nothing about the legal concept of freedom of religion) to come up with his three step analysis.
By the time we get to the Balancing of interests the Court assumes the religious belief is important to the person professing the belief. The balancing actually has very little to do with the religious belief. Instead the analysis turns on an analysis of the thing which interferes with the religious belief such as identifying the objective, determining whether the objective is met by the interference (the step the Kirpan case failed to establish) whether there is minimal impairment to obtain the objective, etc.
Gah. The "interests" I was talking about where the interests in wearing a particular hat. Yes, conceded, the case breaks the analysis down differently, into stages. But ultimately it is an "interest balancing" test!
The first two stages simply establish that there is a violation of a Charter right, as per this individual. Then, once that is established, the balancing takes place. The Pastafarian has no "interest" to "balance" because the first two stages of the test would establish pretty conclusively that there has been no Charter violation in his or her case, and so
no need for a Sec. 1 analysis.
We do not actually disagree on this!
I take it you are conceding the point about claiming I "preferred one religious belief over another"? :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2015, 01:42:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 12:09:21 PM
So it encourages people who lie (or are insane) and discourages people who are honest (and are sane).
?
If a person wants to do something that the gov't could reasonably accommodate then it would make sense for a person to call on sincerely held religious belief to support an application for an allowance.
I suppose that could be attempted but that is the very thing the legal test is designed to weed out. As a lawyer I would have expected Marti to understand the importance of evidence.
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 01:42:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 12:09:21 PM
So it encourages people who lie (or are insane) and discourages people who are honest (and are sane).
?
Well, if I wanted to wear a hat in my license picture I would be better off if I lied and said this is because of my sincerely held religious belief than if I told the truth and said I just want to have a license picture wearing a hat. ;)
And it would take very little effort to find the evidence that your assertion was not sincere.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 01:44:42 PM
And it would take very little effort to find the evidence that your assertion was not sincere.
How would one go about proving that?
What evidence would you easily find, CC?
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 01:44:10 PM
Gah. The "interests" I was talking about where the interests in wearing a particular hat. Yes, conceded, the case breaks the analysis down differently, into stages. But ultimately it is an "interest balancing" test!
Double Gah
It isn't ultimately a question of balancing. The pastafarian never gets to the question of whether the infringement is justifiable because there is no sincere belief and therefore there is no need to then inquire whether the restriction put on him is justified.
And you certainly did suggest that there is a judgment about whether some religious beliefs are more defensible than others.
QuoteA Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 01:34:47 PM
Yes but he did not make that clear why that would be.
And hey sbr, how is it going?
My mistake. Next time, I will quote Supreme Court cases. :lol:
The point is that, ultimately, the Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a coleander carries no weight. CC claims I said this was because Pastafarianism is inferior to Sikhism or some such invention. I did not say that, and that isn't the test.
Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2015, 01:46:34 PM
What evidence would you easily find, CC?
The fact that he is often proclaims himself to be an atheist. The fact that the only religion he has believed in has no religious requirement that he wear a hat.
You and Marti seem to think that a court will simply take the word of the person claiming the religious belief in the absence of any supporting evidence. That isn't how it works.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 01:51:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 01:34:47 PM
Yes but he did not make that clear why that would be.
And hey sbr, how is it going?
My mistake. Next time, I will quote Supreme Court cases. :lol:
The point is that, ultimately, the Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a coleander carries no weight. CC claims I said this was because Pastafarianism is inferior to Sikhism or some such invention. I did not say that, and that isn't the test.
:frusty:
QuoteA Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.
I applaud you from backing away from that statement. But don't pretend you didn't make it.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 01:51:11 PM
My mistake. Next time, I will quote Supreme Court cases. :lol:
The point is that, ultimately, the Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a coleander carries no weight. CC claims I said this was because Pastafarianism is inferior to Sikhism or some such invention. I did not say that, and that isn't the test.
Next time explain what "interest" means. Because it kind of sounded like it was Pastafarianism that carried no weight compared to Sikhism. And I was not the only one who made that mistake so I do not get the Supreme Court smack. Neither Marty nor CC are Americans.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 01:48:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 01:44:10 PM
Gah. The "interests" I was talking about where the interests in wearing a particular hat. Yes, conceded, the case breaks the analysis down differently, into stages. But ultimately it is an "interest balancing" test!
Double Gah
It isn't ultimately a question of balancing. The pastafarian never gets to the question of whether the infringement is justifiable because there is no sincere belief and therefore there is no need to then inquire whether the restriction put on him is justified.
And you certainly did suggest that there is a judgment about whether some religious beliefs are more defensible than others.
QuoteA Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.
You quoted what I said all right, but it does not in any way support your point. :huh:
What you quoted was that a Pastafarian's interest in wearing a particular hat doesn't have the same weight and value as a Sikhs.
This happens to be true. The part I did not explain - because I was wrting a post and not a factum - was that the mechanism by which the courts in Canada determine this is to establish the reality of the belief and the impairment.
For some odd reason you have yet to explain, you filled that gap with the (incorrect) notion that the courts weigh the respective value of the religions - something I did not say. Yet you refuse to concede the point, even though it is there in black and white.
Nice speech, eh?
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 06:57:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2015, 03:17:07 AM
You know, there are certain cultural mores that simply assumed here, Marty. For instance, the veil thing is often trotted out as both a security concern and a way to "liberate" these women from the oppressive culture. However, in our culture we expect women to wear some sort of clothing. We don't require women to be photographed nude for the driver license, nor do we ban all clothing. That would certainly make it easier to identify people and it's harder to hide something when you are naked. Some folks have noted that things like dresses and bras are forms of cultural oppression, perhaps everyone should be required to walk around nude all the time. That would certainly be more "equal", less likely to be oppressive culturally and safer (from a terrorism standpoint).
You are once again building a strawman rather than arguing against the point I made (or you do not understand the point I made, which would be singular, given that I explained it extensively).
I have not directly argued against what you said until this point, so you must be thinking of something else. Also, since you demonstrated you don't know the difference between cultural and moral relativism there is a decent chance you don't understand my point. What I am suggesting is that you are not promoting actual equality but rather enforcing a preferred version of culture over other cultures you don't like.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 01:54:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 01:51:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 01:34:47 PM
Yes but he did not make that clear why that would be.
And hey sbr, how is it going?
My mistake. Next time, I will quote Supreme Court cases. :lol:
The point is that, ultimately, the Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a coleander carries no weight. CC claims I said this was because Pastafarianism is inferior to Sikhism or some such invention. I did not say that, and that isn't the test.
:frusty:
QuoteA Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.
I applaud you from backing away from that statement. But don't pretend you didn't make it.
:frusty:
I am not "backing away" from it. It simply does not say what you seem to think it does. It just doesn't.
Not you, Malthus.
You suck.
I was talking about Bibi at Congress.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 01:58:27 PM
:frusty:
I am not "backing away" from it. It simply does not say what you seem to think it does. It just doesn't.
It was a misunderstanding. Chill.
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2015, 01:58:38 PM
Not you, Malthus.
You suck.
I was talking about Bibi at Congress.
Did he talk about the singularity?
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 01:58:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 01:54:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 01:51:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 01:34:47 PM
Yes but he did not make that clear why that would be.
And hey sbr, how is it going?
My mistake. Next time, I will quote Supreme Court cases. :lol:
The point is that, ultimately, the Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a coleander carries no weight. CC claims I said this was because Pastafarianism is inferior to Sikhism or some such invention. I did not say that, and that isn't the test.
:frusty:
QuoteA Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.
I applaud you from backing away from that statement. But don't pretend you didn't make it.
:frusty:
I am not "backing away" from it. It simply does not say what you seem to think it does. It just doesn't.
This is nonsense.
you also said.
QuoteHow is this determined? By the "reasonable person" test, which is often used in Canadian law to determine things that cannot easily be measured by scientific evidence.
You might have found a way to backtrack on what you meant by "interest" but I am not buying because you then said the interest is determined by the reasonable person test.
This is a bit dry for others but you must know you are completely wrong about that. As I have stated numerous times now the issue is not whether the religious belief is reasonable. The only question is if it is sincerely held.
You were wrong about what is considered. It led the thread astray. It was nonsense. If you didn't mean to suggest this then at least have the grace to admit you misspoke.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 01:55:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 01:51:11 PM
My mistake. Next time, I will quote Supreme Court cases. :lol:
The point is that, ultimately, the Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a coleander carries no weight. CC claims I said this was because Pastafarianism is inferior to Sikhism or some such invention. I did not say that, and that isn't the test.
Next time explain what "interest" means. Because it kind of sounded like it was Pastafarianism that carried no weight compared to Sikhism. And I was not the only one who made that mistake so I do not get the Supreme Court smack. Neither Marty nor CC are Americans.
I was referring to our, Canadian, Supreme Court - the case which CC brought up.
Basically, I summarized the law in a sentence. CC then interjected, saying 'you got it wrong - here's the correct three-part constitutional test'. I said 'yes, I know that test, I did not want to quote it, I was summarizing'. Then CC went off on a tangent about what he claims I said.
My point was that, next time, I'll short-circut this process and write a damn factum, rather than simply having a discussion.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 02:02:08 PM
My point was that, next time, I'll short-circut this process and write a damn factum, rather than simply having a discussion.
Maybe you should just stop sucking at explaining things?
Just kidding.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 02:00:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 01:58:27 PM
:frusty:
I am not "backing away" from it. It simply does not say what you seem to think it does. It just doesn't.
It was a misunderstanding. Chill.
Fine then, this hijack is at an end as far as I'm concerned.
I think I understand what both Malthus and CC are saying and have said. CC made a very cogent, organized and point by point post that laid out the specifics of what Malthus said in general. Both points were useful, and I didn't see anything that Malthus said that was significantly "wrong" at all, just a 10,000ft view instead of CCs 1000ft. explanation.
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 02:02:08 PM
Basically, I summarized the law in a sentence.
And mangled it badly.
No court applies a reasonable person standard in any freedom of religion case. That is the main point you got badly wrong.
If it was the case that a reasonable person standard applied then every point Marti made would be valid.
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2015, 02:04:51 PM
I think I understand what both Malthus and CC are saying and have said. CC made a very cogent, organized and point by point post that laid out the specifics of what Malthus said in general. Both points were useful, and I didn't see anything that Malthus said that was significantly "wrong" at all, just a 10,000ft view instead of CCs 1000ft. explanation.
Yep when CC explained it, I understood what Malthus was saying. No biggie, sorry for misunderstanding.
Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2015, 01:46:34 PM
What evidence would you easily find, CC?
What would happen I imagine for the pasta collander guy is he would ask the registrar of motor vehicles for an exemption to allow him to wear a pasta collander on his head for his driver's license. They would probably talk to him on the phone and ask him some questions about his religion, where does it come from, what else does it require. They'd presumably ask him about his choice of headware - how often does he wear it, in what kinds of circumstances, etc.
If he gets told no, he could then file a Judicial Review application where some of the same questions would be asked, but this time under oath.
Actually, I have no idea if a judicial review is a trial de novo, or just a review based on the same evidence.
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 10:58:43 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2015, 10:36:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 01:43:57 AM
Yes. Absolutely.
There was a story in the Canadian news recently about some idiot who is fighting to be allowed to have his ID picture taken with a pasta colander on his head, because he believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I have no problem saying this fellow has no real "strongly held belief" in the need for pasta-based headware other than to poke religions in the eye, and that he should noe be allowed to wear one for his driver's license.
BB illustrates the problem perfectly. While he is opposed to Marti's dumb idea, he opposes it by producing his own dumb idea; that he gets to decide what "strongly held beliefs" are, in fact, strongly held (and thus protected) and which he rejects and so are unprotected.
If one wants an exemption to the "no hats in pictures" rule on religious grounds, then it should be automatically granted. Government employees will want to declare their judgements to be definitive, but they lie. No one can truly judge the sincerity of someone else's beliefs.
It is true - it is far easier to go to an absolute - either say "there are no rules", so that religious (or other) beliefs can never be infringed, or to simply ignore religion as being worthy of accomodation in any case.
Easier, but not better.
I don't know about others, but I like having a regulated, well-ordered society. I am not a libertarian.
And I think that looking at all of human history, and the number of wars and strife caused by religion, that we have learned the best way to avoid them is to grant religious liberty and respect for all faiths.
So then we're stuck with the more difficult, but not impossible, role of trying to reconcile both the rule of law, and religious freedom.
Indeed. Glad to see you have abandoned your "this fellow has no real "strongly held belief"" stance for my "we cannot distinguish between beliefs" stance. Normally you squawk more before conceding my point. :thumbsup:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 01:53:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2015, 01:46:34 PM
What evidence would you easily find, CC?
The fact that he is often proclaims himself to be an atheist. The fact that the only religion he has believed in has no religious requirement that he wear a hat.
You and Marti seem to think that a court will simply take the word of the person claiming the religious belief in the absence of any supporting evidence. That isn't how it works.
Sorry I didn't mean this case specifically. And ah, does this protection only get afforded to organized religions?
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2015, 02:04:51 PM
I think I understand what both Malthus and CC are saying and have said. CC made a very cogent, organized and point by point post that laid out the specifics of what Malthus said in general. Both points were useful, and I didn't see anything that Malthus said that was significantly "wrong" at all, just a 10,000ft view instead of CCs 1000ft. explanation.
Thanks. You get it. :)
Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2015, 02:08:38 PM
Indeed. Glad to see you have abandoned your "this fellow has no real "strongly held belief"" stance for my "we cannot distinguish between beliefs" stance. Normally you squawk more before conceding my point. :thumbsup:
You may score your points whoever you so which my dear grumbler. :hug:
I for one am here to discuss and exchange viewpoints, not score points.
Personally I am only here to score "res ipsa loquitur" points. You have been really stingy with those the past 10 years or so.
Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2015, 02:09:20 PMAnd ah, does this protection only get afforded to organized religions?
This
Max! How have you guys been?
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 02:29:01 PM
Max! How have you guys been?
We're getting by. I'm doing the grad school thing, so less time than usual. You?
Quote from: Maximus on March 03, 2015, 02:32:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 02:29:01 PM
Max! How have you guys been?
We're getting by. I'm doing the grad school thing, so less time than usual. You?
Working at staying sane at new job where I read massive legal briefs. Just noticed you and Merithyn were not here much after December and wondered what was up.
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 02:16:55 PM
You may score your points whoever you so which my dear grumbler. :hug:
I for one am here to discuss and exchange viewpoints, not score points.
:lol: Not very good with the ol' English comprehension, are you? The word "point" doesn't always refer to a score. See: dictionary.
In any case, what is important is that you have conceded. That you are so graceless about it isn't at all significant - I'd expect nothing better..
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
Working at staying sane at new job where I read massive legal briefs.
My condolences.
It is interesting that, in the actual case where this went to court (which was in Austria, not Canada), the court sided with the Pastafarian:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14135523 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14135523)
Insofar as I know, the BC case has never seen the inside of a court. If someone has facts that say differently, I'd appreciate a link. OTOH, some officials in the US and the Czech Republic decided not to contest the wearing of pasta strainers since doing so would force them to take unconstitutional stands on the relative merit of different religious beliefs.
If my understanding is correct and this hasn't seen a court ruling yet, I'll be curious to see if the predictions of our three Canadian lawyers (all of whom appear to predict hat the Canadian courts will rule against the Pastafarian, though may they disagree on exactly why) are accurate.
*pops popcorn*
Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2015, 02:33:49 PM
In any case, what is important is that you have conceded. That you are so graceless about it isn't at all significant - I'd expect nothing better..
Indeed. It is quite shocking, given the level of grace we're accustomed to here on languish.
Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2015, 02:09:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2015, 01:53:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2015, 01:46:34 PM
What evidence would you easily find, CC?
The fact that he is often proclaims himself to be an atheist. The fact that the only religion he has believed in has no religious requirement that he wear a hat.
You and Marti seem to think that a court will simply take the word of the person claiming the religious belief in the absence of any supporting evidence. That isn't how it works.
Sorry I didn't mean this case specifically. And ah, does this protection only get afforded to organized religions?
no
Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2015, 02:49:14 PM
It is interesting that, in the actual case where this went to court (which was in Austria, not Canada), the court sided with the Pastafarian:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14135523 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14135523)
Insofar as I know, the BC case has never seen the inside of a court. If someone has facts that say differently, I'd appreciate a link. OTOH, some officials in the US and the Czech Republic decided not to contest the wearing of pasta strainers since doing so would force them to take unconstitutional stands on the relative merit of different religious beliefs.
If my understanding is correct and this hasn't seen a court ruling yet, I'll be curious to see if the predictions of our three Canadian lawyers (all of whom appear to predict hat the Canadian courts will rule against the Pastafarian, though may they disagree on exactly why) are accurate.
*pops popcorn*
I think the one thing that Malthus and I agree on is that Canadian law is superior.
No big surprise there.
Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2015, 02:33:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 02:16:55 PM
You may score your points whoever you so which my dear grumbler. :hug:
I for one am here to discuss and exchange viewpoints, not score points.
:lol: Not very good with the ol' English comprehension, are you? The word "point" doesn't always refer to a score. See: dictionary.
In any case, what is important is that you have conceded. That you are so graceless about it isn't at all significant - I'd expect nothing better..
I'm just grateful I can meet your expectations grumbler. :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2015, 02:49:14 PM
It is interesting that, in the actual case where this went to court (which was in Austria, not Canada), the court sided with the Pastafarian:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14135523 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14135523)
And even there, it never went to court. At least, according to your link. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on March 03, 2015, 03:39:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2015, 02:49:14 PM
It is interesting that, in the actual case where this went to court (which was in Austria, not Canada), the court sided with the Pastafarian:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14135523 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14135523)
And even there, it never went to court. At least, according to your link. :hmm:
Correction noted. It was indeed an administrative, not legal, procedure. So we don't even have the one case yet. It will be interesting to see how this sort of thing goes in a court.
Since we talked about him, here's a story about the BC pastafarian.
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-pastafarian-officially-loses-driver-s-licence-over-holy-colander-1.2041499
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 04:49:05 PM
Since we talked about him, here's a story about the BC pastafarian.
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-pastafarian-officially-loses-driver-s-licence-over-holy-colander-1.2041499
I'm surprised you (of all people) linked to that article, given the amount of puns and strained metaphors it contains.
The issue of religious freedom is hard to noodle through.
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2015, 01:56:06 AM
Or to put my position in clear terms - imagine you have four people employed at a company, A, B, C and D.
A is a member of a minority religion. Every year he wants to have a day off to commemorate the feast of the birth of prophet of that religion. This is how he finds solace and a sense of community and this is what "recharges" his batteries, psychologically.
B is non-religious but she lost her grandmother, whom she loved very much, few years ago. Ever year she wants to have a day off, on the date of her grandmother's death, to go to her grandmother's grave, and spend the day in quiet contemplation. This is how she finds solace and a sense of communion with her ancestors and her family and this is what "recharges" her batteries, psychologically.
C is a gay man. Every year he wants to have a day off on the anniversary of Stonewall riots, to go to a gay pride parade and spend the day in celebration of his sexuality. This is how he finds solace and a sense of community and this is what "recharges" his batteries, psychologically.
D is a nerd. Every year he wants to have a day off to go to a gaming convention and spend the day geeking out with other nerds. This is how he finds solace and a sense of community and this is what "recharges" his batteries, psychologically.
I am all for reasonable accommodation, but I see no reason why person A should be accommodated more than persons B, C and D. Their needs are different but they are, to me, on the same level - and the government has no business telling people that one is more worthy than another. Of course, this is more difficult, and a system should be put in place so this is not abused, but that is the role of the lawmakers.
It might interest you to know, that under American law, private employers would be under no legal obligation to give any of those employees their desired days off. Generally speaking, our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion protects us against government action, not action by private individuals or companies. In fact, a few years back, a state law (in Missouri?) requiring employers to allow employees days off on days their religious views designated as days on which one should not work was struck down on the grounds that it violated the establishment of religion clause, even though the law didn't favor any religion over another.
I'd might give C the day off for Stonewall Jackson's birthday.
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2015, 08:31:10 PM
It might interest you to know, that under American law, private employers would be under no legal obligation to give any of those employees their desired days off. Generally speaking, our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion protects us against government action, not action by private individuals or companies. In fact, a few years back, a state law (in Missouri?) requiring employers to allow employees days off on days their religious views designated as days on which one should not work was struck down on the grounds that it violated the establishment of religion clause, even though the law didn't favor any religion over another.
Which is fine to me as well - I have already established that Canadians are the real enemy here.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 03, 2015, 08:38:58 PM
I'd might give C the day off for Stonewall Jackson's birthday.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2015, 01:34:47 PM
And hey sbr, how is it going?
Meh, not bad thanks. :)
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2015, 04:49:05 PM
Since we talked about him, here's a story about the BC pastafarian.
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-pastafarian-officially-loses-driver-s-licence-over-holy-colander-1.2041499
What a goof.
We had a similar story in Poland (although here the government refused to register pastafarianism as a religion - religious organisations can apply to receive special tax breaks and similar benefits from the government). I stood squarely on the side of pastafarians.