A religious sikh sued the Warsaw airport security guard for asking him to take his headgear off for routine security checks (Polish rules require everyone to take off their hat/headgear). When he refused, they refused to let him on the plane.
He lost.
I agree with the ruling but I was wondering if someone would defend his side of this.
What if a Muslim guy refuses to take off his suicide belt, because his religion requires him to wear it? Should we allow him to get on the plane?
The deal with Sikhism and turbans is a little difficult to understand. But frankly I find both Sikhism and Hinduism very hard to comprehend religions in general.
They are an important symbol but it is not like Sikh's never take their turbans off. They do when in mourning or when they sleep correct? So why every once in a while you will see a story of a Sikh who will not take it off even temporarily for some practical purpose confuses me. There is no religious requirement to wear it 24/7 correct?
As I understand it, for baptized Sikhs the hair is considered very intimate and private, so asking a devout Sikh to take his turban off is roughly in the same ballpark as asking you to strip down to your underwear.
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2011, 11:51:57 AM
A religious sikh sued the Warsaw airport security guard for asking him to take his headgear off for routine security checks (Polish rules require everyone to take off their hat/headgear). When he refused, they refused to let him on the plane.
He lost.
I agree with the ruling but I was wondering if someone would defend his side of this.
The sikh turban is an important part of the sikh religion. It's not optional, or cultural - an observant sikh must wear a turban.
I've always said that reasonable accomodations must be made for religious observations. In this case the individual has already gone through the metal detector. Unless there is some reason to require further investigation I see no need to deny this man access to his flight because it is policy to make people remove their headwear.
Yeah, pretty much what BB said.
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 12:04:46 PM
The sikh turban is an important part of the sikh religion. It's not optional, or cultural - an observant sikh must wear a turban.
It is optional for women though I think.
I also do not think it is quite as cut and dry as that. The turban is part of the '5 K's' they are required to do but it is not like they believe if you take the Turban off for a few seconds you have failed as a Sikh or something. They take them off to bathe for example.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 12:17:26 PM
They take them off to bathe for example.
I take my clothes off to bathe too, but I wouldn't want to do it in an airport unless there was a very serious reason for doing so.
i think,l but i might be wrong, that taking off the turban is against their religion, but showing thing their hair to starngers is. So at home to sleep, shower, etc while they're alone it's fine, it's the act of doing it in front of other that goes against their religion.
He might have been smuggling out the Polish national treasure, the potato.
Quote from: HVC on December 21, 2011, 12:19:59 PM
i think,l but i might be wrong, that taking off the turban is against their religion, but showing thing their hair to starngers is. So at home to sleep, shower, etc while they're alone it's fine, it's the act of doing it in front of other that goes against their religion.
There are videos on Youtube of Sikh's demonstrating the ways to put on your turban. That seems like showing your hair to strangers to me :P
As I said the matter is hard for me to get my head around, like so many parts of the Sikh religion.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 21, 2011, 12:18:45 PM
I take my clothes off to bathe too, but I wouldn't want to do it in an airport unless there was a very serious reason for doing so.
But you do not wear your clothes as an unbreakable, non-optional aspect of your religious faith.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 12:17:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 12:04:46 PM
The sikh turban is an important part of the sikh religion. It's not optional, or cultural - an observant sikh must wear a turban.
It is optional for women though I think.
I also do not think it is quite as cut and dry as that. The turban is part of the '5 K's' they are required to do but it is not like they believe if you take the Turban off for a few seconds you have failed as a Sikh or something. They take them off to bathe for example.
Well obviously they take them off at times. But I believe that's only done in private.
As for youtube videos - well not all sikhs are as observant as others. I've known sikhs who cut their hear and only wear turbans on special occasions. But that doesn't mean it isn't part of the sikh religion - it means that they aren't very good sikhs.
Just because Malthus eats bacon doesn't mean that keeping kosher isn't important to the Jewish faith. It just means Malthus isn't a very good jew. :p
More religious claptrap creeping up in the public sphere where it doesn't belong. <_<
I applaud the Polish authorities' decision.
G.
The tougher question for sikhs is when it comes to helmets.
Should a sikh motorcyclist be required to wear a safety helmet? Should a sikh be refused employment on a job site that requires wearing a safety helmet?
They only Sikh I know is a colleague in UK who wears short hair, no beard and likes his beer and wine. He said, "Yeah, my family are Sikhs, but we don't do that beard and turban thing."
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 12:17:26 PMIt is optional for women though I think.
Not quite. As I understand it, it's mandatory for baptized Sikhs. Most baptized Sikhs are men, but some women are as well and for them the turban is just as mandatory. I've seen a few of those around in Vancouver.
QuoteI also do not think it is quite as cut and dry as that. The turban is part of the '5 K's' they are required to do but it is not like they believe if you take the Turban off for a few seconds you have failed as a Sikh or something. They take them off to bathe for example.
And, I believe, they take them off in other very private contexts as well. Hence my comparison to asking people to strip down to their underwear.
I'm sikh and tired.
Quote from: Syt on December 21, 2011, 12:34:17 PM
They only Sikh I know is a colleague in UK who wears short hair, no beard and likes his beer and wine. He said, "Yeah, my family are Sikhs, but we don't do that beard and turban thing."
Well that is the thing. The requirements were supposed to only remind Sikh's of the lessons taught to them by their gurus. But they were not supposed to be the religion itself the lessons were. So opinions certainly vary on this point...or not. Maybe I have that completely wrong.
I used to wonder why I found Indian religions, outside of Buddism and Islam, so confusing but was reassured by the BBC series 'Goodness Gracious Me' that the Indians themselves find them baffling.
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 12:33:20 PM
The tougher question for sikhs is when it comes to helmets.
Should a sikh motorcyclist be required to wear a safety helmet? Should a sikh be refused employment on a job site that requires wearing a safety helmet?
yes, and yes. They aren't obligated to drive a motorcycle or work at a contruction site. Flights are different becasue it's very inconvenient to go but land o water over long distances.
Oddly enough you see plenty Indians with turban and beard in Vienna's streets. They're the primary newspaper vendors.
Quote from: Syt on December 21, 2011, 12:42:12 PM
Oddly enough you see plenty Indians with turban and beard in Vienna's streets. They're the primary newspaper vendors.
Over hear they drive taxis. Probably half of all cabs are driven by sikhs.
Of course they do other things. We have a sikh prosecutor. :)
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 12:44:47 PM
Quote from: Syt on December 21, 2011, 12:42:12 PM
Oddly enough you see plenty Indians with turban and beard in Vienna's streets. They're the primary newspaper vendors.
Over hear they drive taxis. Probably half of all cabs are driven by sikhs.
Of course they do other things. We have a sikh prosecutor. :)
A Dark Lord of the Sikh? :P
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 12:44:47 PM
Quote from: Syt on December 21, 2011, 12:42:12 PM
Oddly enough you see plenty Indians with turban and beard in Vienna's streets. They're the primary newspaper vendors.
Over hear they drive taxis. Probably half of all cabs are driven by sikhs.
Of course they do other things. We have a sikh prosecutor. :)
cool. How does one exactly become a prosecutor solely of Sikhs?
:P
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 12:44:47 PM
Of course they do other things. We have a sikh prosecutor. :)
Considering their reputation I would be terrified to be prosecuted by a Sikh :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 12:46:53 PM
Considering their reputation I would be terrified to be prosecuted by a Sikh :ph34r:
i'd be more worried about the gurkha's. There is no escape, only jail time or death by assassination :ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 12:33:20 PM
The tougher question for sikhs is when it comes to helmets.
Should a sikh motorcyclist be required to wear a safety helmet? Should a sikh be refused employment on a job site that requires wearing a safety helmet?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_IZuAivI6OT0%2FR78bludLLHI%2FAAAAAAAAAFM%2F8sOHkY9MX-A%2Fs400%2FBrampton%252Bangles&hash=4608ca218fe6b41ef9e4dbd7989dbaff3c03ea53)
I got to admit that Sikh bikers look pretty awesome.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 12:17:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 12:04:46 PM
The sikh turban is an important part of the sikh religion. It's not optional, or cultural - an observant sikh must wear a turban.
It is optional for women though I think.
I also do not think it is quite as cut and dry as that. The turban is part of the '5 K's' they are required to do but it is not like they believe if you take the Turban off for a few seconds you have failed as a Sikh or something. They take them off to bathe for example.
The hair itself is part of the 5 Ks. I don't think the turban is. Could be wrong. Sikhism has some nice points (reincarnation, for example, sure seems a lot fairer than eternal judgment with no do-overs), but between the magic underwear, the also-magic comb, the forbidden haircut, mandatory bracelet, and the knife, its practice seems a little batty.
I feel bad when they're mistaken for Muslims by stupid people, though, given that the religion and culture were shaped in response to Muslim oppression.
I have no problem with minor inconveniences for security purposes.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 12:40:50 PMWell that is the thing. The requirements were supposed to only remind Sikh's of the lessons taught to them by their gurus. But they were not supposed to be the religion itself the lessons were. So opinions certainly vary on this point...or not. Maybe I have that completely wrong.
You may be completely right, but it's probably best to leave the "this is what the religion really is about" to the people who follow it.
Sikhs do magic under garments as well? Didn't know that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2011, 01:27:36 PM
Sikhs do magic under garments as well? Didn't know that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kachera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kachera)
Quote from: Jacob on December 21, 2011, 01:27:10 PM
You may be completely right, but it's probably best to leave the "this is what the religion really is about" to the people who follow it.
Um sorry? I find religions interesting and I enjoy trying to find out what they are about.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 21, 2011, 01:25:23 PM
The hair itself is part of the 5 Ks. I don't think the turban is. Could be wrong. Sikhism has some nice points (reincarnation, for example, sure seems a lot fairer than eternal judgment with no do-overs), but between the magic underwear, the also-magic comb, the forbidden haircut, mandatory bracelet, and the knife, its practice seems a little batty.
I feel bad when they're mistaken for Muslims by stupid people, though, given that the religion and culture were shaped in response to Muslim oppression.
I have no problem with minor inconveniences for security purposes.
Did you know there is such a thing as sikhiwiki.org where you can learn everything you ever wanted to know about sikhism? :lol:
The hair hair is called kesh, it must be both uncut and protected. So the turban is part and parcel with that requirement.
Yep, I did, I've seen it before, but didn't memorize everything, and didn't bother to look it up now, I'm afraid. :P
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 01:32:34 PM
Did you know there is such a thing as sikhiwiki.org where you can learn everything you ever wanted to know about sikhism? :lol:
The hair hair is called kesh, it must be both uncut and protected. So the turban is part and parcel with that requirement.
I used to go to Sikhnet myself :P
But thanks for the heads up.
I just liked the name. :lol: I actually thought it might be a prank, but the articles are full of deadly earnestness about the virtues of the sikhs. :(
It should be called Sikhipedia.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 01:29:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 21, 2011, 01:27:10 PM
You may be completely right, but it's probably best to leave the "this is what the religion really is about" to the people who follow it.
Um sorry? I find religions interesting and I enjoy trying to find out what they are about.
Depends on what you are sikhing for.
;)
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 01:40:16 PM
Depends on what you are sikhing for.
:lol:
Really it is just sikh how many puns about Sikhs you can do.
I like to play hide and Sikh.
Given Marti's views regarding people not exactly like him it is not surprising to me that he supports this ruling. BB did a good job summing up the other side (which iirc is the way the courts in all other civilizalized countries have dealt with the issue) so I wont go over that ground. But in answer to BB question about requiring a Sikh to take off their head gear to wear a saftey helmet or somethings similiar the answer is very much fact driven and turns on the question of whether wearing the helmet etc is a "bona fide occupational requirment". If it is then if the employee refuses to wear the required gear then they can be refused work and ultimately terminated in most cases.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 01:41:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 01:40:16 PM
Depends on what you are sikhing for.
:lol:
Really it is just sikh how many puns about Sikhs you can do.
The best part is, somewhere BB is bashing his forehead into his computer keys. ;)
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2011, 01:43:32 PM
I like to play hide and Sikh.
Not as much as you like to play hide the baloney.
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 01:48:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 01:41:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 01:40:16 PM
Depends on what you are sikhing for.
:lol:
Really it is just sikh how many puns about Sikhs you can do.
The best part is, somewhere BB is bashing his forehead into his computer keys. ;)
If I respond, I will only prompt more terrible puns.
<_<
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 01:48:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 01:41:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 01:40:16 PM
Depends on what you are sikhing for.
:lol:
Really it is just sikh how many puns about Sikhs you can do.
The best part is, somewhere BB is bashing his forehead into his computer keys. ;)
If I respond, I will only prompt more terrible puns.
<_<
Sikh out your feelings.
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 01:48:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2011, 01:41:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 21, 2011, 01:40:16 PM
Depends on what you are sikhing for.
:lol:
Really it is just sikh how many puns about Sikhs you can do.
The best part is, somewhere BB is bashing his forehead into his computer keys. ;)
If I respond, I will only prompt more terrible puns.
<_<
Indeed. You must find the whole situation sikhining. :D
Poor BB. Punsters always sikh him out.
These puns are turban-worthy.
I think this whole pun thing is a sikhlical phenomenon.
I find this dis-turban.
Quote from: Jacob on December 21, 2011, 12:02:44 PM
As I understand it, for baptized Sikhs the hair is considered very intimate and private, so asking a devout Sikh to take his turban off is roughly in the same ballpark as asking you to strip down to your underwear.
Which might be necessary on occasion as part of a security check. I don't have a problem with that when there's some cause for it, but it's unnecessary and excessive as standard procedure.
QuoteThe tougher question for sikhs is when it comes to helmets.
Should a sikh motorcyclist be required to wear a safety helmet? Should a sikh be refused employment on a job site that requires wearing a safety helmet?
I'm opposed to mandatory helmet laws in the first place, so obviously my answer to the first question is "no". I agree with CC on the second one.
Quote from: dps on December 21, 2011, 05:26:41 PMWhich might be necessary on occasion as part of a security check. I don't have a problem with that when there's some cause for it, but it's unnecessary and excessive as standard procedure.
Yeah, that seems reasonable to me too, though I'd add the caveat that the turban-removal be done in private and with as much respect given to the dignity of the individual in question; i.e. do it away from view of the public and with courteous professionalism.
Seriously, enough with the punjabs. :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2011, 05:47:46 PM
Seriously, enough with the punjabs. :rolleyes:
I don't know. I think it's been a pretty sikhcessful thread so far.
Quote from: Martinus on December 21, 2011, 11:51:57 AM
A religious sikh sued the Warsaw airport security guard for asking him to take his headgear off for routine security checks (Polish rules require everyone to take off their hat/headgear). When he refused, they refused to let him on the plane.
He lost.
I agree with the ruling but I was wondering if someone would defend his side of this.
If reasonable steps were taken to inform him of the security rules when he bought the ticket then where would the problem be?
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 12:04:46 PMThe sikh turban is an important part of the sikh religion. It's not optional, or cultural - an observant sikh must wear a turban.
I've always said that reasonable accomodations must be made for religious observations. In this case the individual has already gone through the metal detector. Unless there is some reason to require further investigation I see no need to deny this man access to his flight because it is policy to make people remove their headwear.
Why must you accommodate all religions?
Why would you accommodate some but not all?
Quote from: Maximus on December 21, 2011, 07:15:07 PM
Why would you accommodate some but not all?
Because some are more easily accommodated than others.
Quote from: Jacob on December 21, 2011, 06:00:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2011, 05:47:46 PM
Seriously, enough with the punjabs. :rolleyes:
I don't know. I think it's been a pretty sikhcessful thread so far.
Extra credit to Guller for expanding the scope of the punning. [No puns present in this post.]
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 21, 2011, 07:14:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 12:04:46 PMThe sikh turban is an important part of the sikh religion. It's not optional, or cultural - an observant sikh must wear a turban.
I've always said that reasonable accomodations must be made for religious observations. In this case the individual has already gone through the metal detector. Unless there is some reason to require further investigation I see no need to deny this man access to his flight because it is policy to make people remove their headwear.
Why must you accommodate all religions?
Yeah, I have never understood why we should allow people carry crosses in the guise of necklaces onto airplanes. Those suckers have sharp edges. Someone could lose an eye.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 21, 2011, 07:21:41 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 21, 2011, 07:15:07 PM
Why would you accommodate some but not all?
Because some are more easily accommodated than others.
Then perhaps we could make reasonable accommodations, while refusing unreasonable accommodations, for all religions?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 21, 2011, 07:24:40 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 21, 2011, 06:00:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2011, 05:47:46 PM
Seriously, enough with the punjabs. :rolleyes:
I don't know. I think it's been a pretty sikhcessful thread so far.
Extra credit to Guller for expanding the scope of the punning. [No puns present in this post.]
I'd like to sikh a dog on Dorsey.
Quote from: ulmont on December 21, 2011, 08:10:49 PM
Then perhaps we could make reasonable accommodations, while refusing unreasonable accommodations, for all religions?
Quit being so reasonable.
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 12:33:20 PM
The tougher question for sikhs is when it comes to helmets.
Should a sikh motorcyclist be required to wear a safety helmet? Should a sikh be refused employment on a job site that requires wearing a safety helmet?
What is tough about that? Yes and yes.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 21, 2011, 07:21:41 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 21, 2011, 07:15:07 PM
Why would you accommodate some but not all?
Because some are more easily accommodated than others.
This does make sense, but we are used to accommodating some religions which makes it easier. For instance, offering a child sacramental wine, is technically giving alcohol to a minor. But nobody thinks it a big deal. We've done it for a long time. I think letting the guy on the plane with his stupid hat is not much of a problem. Those daggers are bit more troublesome, but perhaps they can arrive at some accommodation.
If it is deemed necessary in the US to put me randomly through a scanner that lets security personnel see my image naked, then how can you allow someone with an uninspected turban on a plane? For that matter, as we discussed before, in the US I can't even get on a plane without taking off my flip flops, to mitigate a security risk I have not yet figured out.
We also fingerprint and photograph foreigners. I find that stuff offensive to my admittedly non religious belief system, but that doesn't mean security will accomodate my beliefs and skip the fingerprinting of people when I'm in the room.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 24, 2011, 07:47:53 PM
We've done it for a long time. I think letting the guy on the plane with his stupid hat is not much of a problem.
Um they are not taking their turbans from them, they just have to take them off to make sure they are not sneaking something onto the plane in them.
Quote from: Valmy on December 24, 2011, 11:32:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 24, 2011, 07:47:53 PM
We've done it for a long time. I think letting the guy on the plane with his stupid hat is not much of a problem.
Um they are not taking their turbans from them, they just have to take them off to make sure they are not sneaking something onto the plane in them.
Yes, but I thought the problem was they wouldn't take them off in public. The could just say "Fine, we'll x-ray your skull, if means so much to you. Now I'm going to stand behind this lead shield".
Quote from: Maximus on December 21, 2011, 07:15:07 PM
Why would you accommodate some but not all?
The thing for me is again: why do religions get a special pass on the insanity train? If someone had an irrational fear of removing their shoes, or believed that by going through a metal detector, his or her soul is being stolen, surely special measures would not be taken to accommodate a lunatic like this at the airport security checks. So why should we take an exception for a lunatic who believes the hair on his head is a private part that must not be showed to strangers?
Once again, I full applaud the French model of approaching these things. Sure, you have a right to be insane and do all kinds of crazy stuff your lunatic belief system tells you to do (as long as you are not harming anyone). But we won't move a millimeter to accommodate your insanity when it comes to the standards set by our laws. If it means you won't get a driver's license, won't get on a plane or won't be able to get a public job, so be it. The Republic prevails over your idiocy.
I wonder; were they demanding he do it in the standard security check room in front of dozens of other passengers and security staff?
I'd imagine they may be willing to do it in extreme occasions in a private room with another person of the same gender- like stripping down to your pants for other folk.
QuoteThe thing for me is again: why do religions get a special pass on the insanity train? If someone had an irrational fear of removing their shoes, or believed that by going through a metal detector, his or her soul is being stolen, surely special measures would not be taken to accommodate a lunatic like this at the airport security checks. So why should we take an exception for a lunatic who believes the hair on his head is a private part that must not be showed to strangers?
It is a bit arbitrary. When is enough people believing the same thing enough to make it a religion?
Just when the census says so?
Quote from: Iormlund on December 24, 2011, 06:58:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2011, 12:33:20 PM
The tougher question for sikhs is when it comes to helmets.
Should a sikh motorcyclist be required to wear a safety helmet? Should a sikh be refused employment on a job site that requires wearing a safety helmet?
What is tough about that? Yes and yes.
Yeah. The fact that this is even a dilemma shows you how fucked up Canada is.
Quote from: Tyr on December 25, 2011, 06:36:17 AM
It is a bit arbitrary. When is enough people believing the same thing enough to make it a religion?
Just when the census says so?
Exactly. "You have a right to get a special exception for your insanity that other people do not enjoy, if you get enough people to believe in your insanity with you." If that's not discriminatory I don't know what is.
Quote from: Tyr on December 25, 2011, 06:36:17 AM
I wonder; were they demanding he do it in the standard security check room in front of dozens of other passengers and security staff?
I'd imagine they may be willing to do it in extreme occasions in a private room with another person of the same gender- like stripping down to your pants for other folk.
But that requires extra resources, e.g time spent, additional officers/staff, delay of routine checks. Again, I ask: why all of this for a lunatic?
A few years ago there was a furor here in Poland over some mentally challenged Polish guy who went to Canada to reunite with his mother. Something apparently spooked him at the Toronto airport, and he started to act weird (but apparently not violently) and got tased multiple times, which led to his death. My question: what makes both lunatics different? Surely, there is a middle ground between both extremes?
Besides, in statistical terms, a sikh probably travels through a Polish airport once in a blue moon, and usually much more rarely than someone who e.g. has deep psychological issues with having a stranger go through his or her personal luggage. Should we skip that if someone is carrying a psychiatrist's certificate that they feel awfully embarrassed when a security guard goes through their unmentionables?
Quote
But that requires extra resources, e.g time spent, additional officers/staff, delay of routine checks. Again, I ask: why all of this for a lunatic?
I'd imagine having special reason to want to check under someones hat would go with also wanting to check beneath their other clothes.
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2011, 06:28:51 AM
Quote from: Maximus on December 21, 2011, 07:15:07 PM
Why would you accommodate some but not all?
The thing for me is again: why do religions get a special pass on the insanity train?
I'm not sure why you bother posting when you start with this. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on December 25, 2011, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2011, 06:28:51 AM
Quote from: Maximus on December 21, 2011, 07:15:07 PM
Why would you accommodate some but not all?
The thing for me is again: why do religions get a special pass on the insanity train?
I'm not sure why you bother posting when you start with this. :rolleyes:
Well, he's convinced me. Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married. To much extra hassle and paperwork.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2011, 11:05:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 25, 2011, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2011, 06:28:51 AM
Quote from: Maximus on December 21, 2011, 07:15:07 PM
Why would you accommodate some but not all?
The thing for me is again: why do religions get a special pass on the insanity train?
I'm not sure why you bother posting when you start with this. :rolleyes:
Well, he's convinced me. Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married. To much extra hassle and paperwork.
I wonder if he realizes that if there's no freedom of religion, the first thing to be outlawed in Poland would likely be atheism?
I suspect that Marty realizes very little.
Quote from: dps on December 25, 2011, 11:12:48 AM
I wonder if he realizes that if there's no freedom of religion, the first thing to be outlawed in Poland would likely be atheism?
What does freedom of religion have to do with handing out privileges to followers of certain religions? Marti is not arguing Sikhs should be banned from airports or their temples shut down. He's asking why shouldn't we apply the law equally to everyone regardless of beliefs. And he's right.
I have to agree with Marty on this one. Personal freedom of religion is fine, but it doesn't mean religion should get special rights under laws that apply to everybody. Liberalism doesn't mean everybody gets to do whatever the fuck they want.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 25, 2011, 01:06:44 PM
What does freedom of religion have to do with handing out privileges to followers of certain religions? Marti is not arguing Sikhs should be banned from airports or their temples shut down. He's asking why shouldn't we apply the law equally to everyone regardless of beliefs. And he's right.
The concept that should apply here is "reasonable accommodations." If there really is a reason why everyone has to take off their headgear (I'm not sure just what that reason is, but if it is justifiable, then it should apply), then the security procedures should take into account people who don't want to do so publicly, just as they take into account, say, people with wheelchairs. If the religious dictates of a person cannot be met with a reasonable accommodation, then they have to eschew whatever service the security is protecting.
It isn't a black and white issue, and making reasonable accommodations doesn't grant anyone special rights under the law nor does it say a law doesn't apply because of someone's beliefs.
Not that security procedures are a matter of law in any case.
If there's no compelling reason why Sikhs should have to take off their headgear, then there's no compelling reason why anyone should.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on December 25, 2011, 02:57:08 PM
If there's no compelling reason why Sikhs should have to take off their headgear, then there's no compelling reason why anyone should.
It's impolite to wear hats indoors.
I agreed with Marty's point back when we had the thread about the Austrian spaghetti strainer dude.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on December 25, 2011, 02:57:08 PM
If there's no compelling reason why Sikhs should have to take off their headgear, then there's no compelling reason why anyone should.
Precisely. I'd go further and say that if a spacious turban does not create a potential security risk as a matter of course, surely people's shoes (including flip flops) don't.
All flip flop wearers should be barred from breathing.
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2011, 03:43:31 PM
Precisely. I'd go further and say that if a spacious turban does not create a potential security risk as a matter of course, surely people's shoes (including flip flops) don't.
Surely you know, shirley, that the shoe requirement was implemented much later than the rest of the tests, because someone named Richard Reed took advantage of the fact that shoes aren't scanned by the walk-through metal detectors. :huh:
Taking off hats makes as much sense as taking off pants or skirts, as far as I can tell.
Now, if there are special reasons why security forces have reason to suspect what is under the hat as opposed to under the pants or skirt, then the requirement to remove hats is reasonable, and Sikhs (and others) have to live with it (though, again, there can be a reasonable accommodation made that it not be public, any more than it is public when, as happens, people are required to remove pants or skirts).
Quote from: Ancient Demon on December 25, 2011, 02:57:08 PM
If there's no compelling reason why Sikhs should have to take off their headgear, then there's no compelling reason why anyone should.
True. I don't know of a compelling reason why anyone should remove headgear.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 25, 2011, 02:27:06 PM
I have to agree with Marty on this one. Personal freedom of religion is fine, but it doesn't mean religion should get special rights under laws that apply to everybody. Liberalism doesn't mean everybody gets to do whatever the fuck they want.
Except you have the benefit of being in the majority and having the laws reflect your own cultural bias. If one article of clothing has to removed why not another? Why not say, pants? I'm much more likely to be hiding something in my pants then in my hat. Would you object to a law that required to you remove your pants in public every time you get on a plane?
Goddamn it Grumbler!
It does amuse me that Marty is using the exact line of reasoning that people who want to prevent gay marriage use. "Special Rights". :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on December 25, 2011, 02:37:40 PM
The concept that should apply here is "reasonable accommodations."
I'm all for reasonable accommodations as long as they fall within certain objective criteria: for example, if I have to fly and stay away for a couple weeks I have to take my medication with me. In order to be allowed to board the plane with it, I need to get a medical form signed by a registered specialist. I can't just go: 'hey, I've got magic underwear, let me in!'.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 25, 2011, 04:06:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 25, 2011, 02:37:40 PM
The concept that should apply here is "reasonable accommodations."
I'm all for reasonable accommodations as long as they fall within certain objective criteria: for example, if I have to fly and stay away for a couple weeks I have to take my medication with me. In order to be allowed to board the plane with it, I need to get a medical form signed by a registered specialist. I can't just go: 'hey, I've got magic underwear, let me in!'.
Except it's not objective criteria. It's criteria rooted in your culture. What one culture considers decent another may not. These guys don't want to take off their hats. It's indecent. You may not want to stand in line naked. Everyone riding naked would maximize safety wouldn't it? Yet I imagine people would complain if we made everyone stand naked.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2011, 04:10:42 PM
These guys don't want to take off their hats. It's indecent. You may not want to stand in line naked. Everyone riding naked would maximize safety wouldn't it? Yet I imagine people would complain if we made everyone stand naked.
We already make people stand naked. Look up backscatter X-ray imaging.
If we don't make people stand naked, the terrorists would win.
Quote from: DGuller on December 25, 2011, 04:41:10 PM
If we don't make people stand naked, the terrorists would win.
It is all about achieving the right number of security screens. Terrorists have demonstrated an ability to attack both passenger aircraft and subway systems. But security screens to subway systems would make rush hours even more hellish than they already are, so that can't be done. So stupid screens such as removing flip flops and standing naked need to be added to air travel, to make sure we don't have a security screen gap.
A simple albedo test should suffice.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 25, 2011, 04:06:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 25, 2011, 02:37:40 PM
The concept that should apply here is "reasonable accommodations."
I'm all for reasonable accommodations as long as they fall within certain objective criteria: for example, if I have to fly and stay away for a couple weeks I have to take my medication with me. In order to be allowed to board the plane with it, I need to get a medical form signed by a registered specialist. I can't just go: 'hey, I've got magic underwear, let me in!'.
You can't take medicine of an airliner without a note from your doctor? That's retarded. What, they think you're going to hide a Saturday Night Special in your Zocor?
Quote from: dps on December 25, 2011, 05:04:32 PM
You can't take medicine of an airliner without a note from your doctor? That's retarded. What, they think you're going to hide a Saturday Night Special in your Zocor?
It's one of those big intramuscular injectors. I guess it falls under the liquids ban.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 25, 2011, 05:14:43 PM
It's one of those big intramuscular injectors. I guess it falls under the liquids ban.
My guess is the ice pick in the pilot's brain ban.
Maybe. It's not a especially good weapon though. It takes a good couple of seconds to get the stuff into you and you have to remain still. It's not easily concealable either.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 25, 2011, 05:14:43 PM
Quote from: dps on December 25, 2011, 05:04:32 PM
You can't take medicine of an airliner without a note from your doctor? That's retarded. What, they think you're going to hide a Saturday Night Special in your Zocor?
It's one of those big intramuscular injectors. I guess it falls under the liquids ban.
Do they check the integrity of your doctor's note? How do they know an Al Qaeda operative didn't forge the note for you?
Also, even if you have a legitimate doctor's note, if a person with your medical condition has been recruited as a suicide bomber, what keeps them from replacing the medicine with explosives?
For safety purposes, perhaps we should keep people with muscular dystrophy from flying until the war on terror is won.
The sikh don't make for good plane passengers, with all that coughing and stuff.
Maybe they could put their turbans in airplane sikh bags?
Quote from: Iormlund on December 25, 2011, 04:23:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2011, 04:10:42 PM
These guys don't want to take off their hats. It's indecent. You may not want to stand in line naked. Everyone riding naked would maximize safety wouldn't it? Yet I imagine people would complain if we made everyone stand naked.
We already make people stand naked. Look up backscatter X-ray imaging.
Nice try. No Cigar.
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2011, 07:15:06 PM
Maybe they could put their turbans in airplane sikh bags?
The puns don't work well when we know they come from a bigoted place.
Quote from: garbon on December 25, 2011, 07:21:36 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2011, 07:15:06 PM
Maybe they could put their turbans in airplane sikh bags?
The puns don't work well when we know they come from a bigoted place.
I thought that was funny.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2011, 04:10:42 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on December 25, 2011, 04:06:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 25, 2011, 02:37:40 PM
The concept that should apply here is "reasonable accommodations."
I'm all for reasonable accommodations as long as they fall within certain objective criteria: for example, if I have to fly and stay away for a couple weeks I have to take my medication with me. In order to be allowed to board the plane with it, I need to get a medical form signed by a registered specialist. I can't just go: 'hey, I've got magic underwear, let me in!'.
Except it's not objective criteria. It's criteria rooted in your culture. What one culture considers decent another may not. These guys don't want to take off their hats. It's indecent. You may not want to stand in line naked. Everyone riding naked would maximize safety wouldn't it? Yet I imagine people would complain if we made everyone stand naked.
Everything we do is rooted in our culture.
Quote from: garbon on December 25, 2011, 07:21:36 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2011, 07:15:06 PM
Maybe they could put their turbans in airplane sikh bags?
The puns don't work well when we know they come from a bigoted place.
The jabs don't work well when they come from a NF.
I've no idea what that means. Besides it is just the truth to call you a bigot. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2011, 05:00:17 AM
Everything we do is rooted in our culture.
What's your point?
Quote from: garbon on December 26, 2011, 11:56:59 AM
I've no idea what that means. Besides it is just the truth to call you a bigot. :huh:
Nigger Faggot
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2011, 01:29:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2011, 05:00:17 AM
Everything we do is rooted in our culture.
What's your point?
I guess it means that Marti can't see that it's bigoted to not have some tolerance for other cultures, faiths, and point-of-views.
I mean, he's right to a certain extent. Look at how the forum is split on the whole issue of making accomodations based of a person's religion. The divide isn't so much between posters who have some religious beliefs themselves and those who don't; rather, the divide is mostly based on where a poster lives--those who live in the English-speaking parts of North America generally favor allowing a lot of accomodation, those who live in non-English speaking areas favor very little if any accomodation, and those in the UK are split or fall somewhere in between. That's not 100% true, but there is a good correlation.
I noticed that with Solmyr's description of what liberalism isn't roughly according with my idea of what it is. I wonder if, at least with Poland, it's due to the influence of French rather than English liberalism. Maybe more rooted in anti-clericalism, which doesn't have any strong, real influence in English thought?
Quote from: dps on December 26, 2011, 01:56:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2011, 01:29:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 26, 2011, 05:00:17 AM
Everything we do is rooted in our culture.
What's your point?
I guess it means that Marti can't see that it's bigoted to not have some tolerance for other cultures, faiths, and point-of-views.
I mean, he's right to a certain extent. Look at how the forum is split on the whole issue of making accomodations based of a person's religion. The divide isn't so much between posters who have some religious beliefs themselves and those who don't; rather, the divide is mostly based on where a poster lives--those who live in the English-speaking parts of North America generally favor allowing a lot of accomodation, those who live in non-English speaking areas favor very little if any accomodation, and those in the UK are split or fall somewhere in between. That's not 100% true, but there is a good correlation.
To be fair, English is the language of civilization.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 26, 2011, 02:16:43 PM
I noticed that with Solmyr's description of what liberalism isn't roughly according with my idea of what it is. I wonder if, at least with Poland, it's due to the influence of French rather than English liberalism. Maybe more rooted in anti-clericalism, which doesn't have any strong, real influence in English thought?
Possibly. Historically, anti-clericalism seems pretty closely tied to liberalism in Catholic countries, much less so in England, and not at all in the US. I'm not sure about the situation in the Anglo parts of Canada, or in other non-Catholic countries.
The European idea of liberalism espoused by some people on this board is at odds with both classical liberalism and modern American liberalism. There doesn't seem to be much actual "Freedom" involved. It's more like some people have decided what is "Free" and expect everyone else to act in accordance to it. For instance on the issue of veils it seems some posters idea of "freedom' is to "free" these people from themselves and the way they wish to live.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 26, 2011, 02:16:43 PM
I noticed that with Solmyr's description of what liberalism isn't roughly according with my idea of what it is. I wonder if, at least with Poland, it's due to the influence of French rather than English liberalism. Maybe more rooted in anti-clericalism, which doesn't have any strong, real influence in English thought?
Maybe. Rousseau's idea that "freedom" consisted of conforming to the General Will, and it's corollary that some people had to be forced to be "free," is right up Marti's alley, I would think.
Did the polish court reject his case on the issue of civil liberties or security regulations ?
My understanding is concealed bombs in headdresses are now a real security concern, more so that shoe bombers, so I think the Poles are right to insist on everyone being subject to such searches, but that they could accommodate Sikhs and fellow travellers by allowing their turbans to be examined in a non-public space.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 26, 2011, 02:16:43 PM
I noticed that with Solmyr's description of what liberalism isn't roughly according with my idea of what it is. I wonder if, at least with Poland, it's due to the influence of French rather than English liberalism. Maybe more rooted in anti-clericalism, which doesn't have any strong, real influence in English thought?
To be fair, I am somewhat ambivalent on this or similar issues. My view has more to do with the idea that religion should be a private matter without any ability to influence state politics or legal procedures. Religion can be taken into consideration and special arrangements made, if they are convenient to everyone involved.
Ah so it's a hostility to religion as oppose to a hostility to hats. Religion as a dirty habit that if you must practice it do so in private.
Secularism doesn't equal hostility to religion. :huh: Just don't think it should be dictating politics and laws.
Sheilbh is right. In this part of Europe, the political thought has been influenced by the French enlightenment (secular liberalism) and German romanticism (patriotic conservatism) with some French Catholic integrism/ultramontanism thrown in for a mix. Anglosaxon philosophy didn't really take root except perhaps as a fad (in fact to many philosophers/theorists of state and law, Anglosaxon school of thought has been for long regarded as an example of "how not to develop a scientifc method", since it is more inductive than deductive, hence anathema to our Germanic scholastics).
When people talk about philosophers of liberalism/Englightenment, they mean Montesquie, Voltaire or de Tocqueville first, and Locke and Mill distant second. Our liberalism is heavily influenced by an opposition to and from a culturally dominant religion.
Quote from: grumbler on December 26, 2011, 02:43:14 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 26, 2011, 02:16:43 PM
I noticed that with Solmyr's description of what liberalism isn't roughly according with my idea of what it is. I wonder if, at least with Poland, it's due to the influence of French rather than English liberalism. Maybe more rooted in anti-clericalism, which doesn't have any strong, real influence in English thought?
Maybe. Rousseau's idea that "freedom" consisted of conforming to the General Will, and it's corollary that some people had to be forced to be "free," is right up Marti's alley, I would think.
Well, Rousseau was not a liberal, but yeah I agree with a lot of his theses. I also thought Plato had good ideas about governance.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 27, 2011, 06:37:45 AM
Secularism doesn't equal hostility to religion. :huh: Just don't think it should be dictating politics and laws.
This case isn't dealing with politics or laws. It is dealing with regulations or procedures, which are neither.
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2011, 07:53:49 AM
Well, Rousseau was not a liberal, but yeah I agree with a lot of his theses. I also thought Plato had good ideas about governance.
I would have thought you guys had gotten that out of your system.
Quote from: grumbler on December 27, 2011, 08:58:12 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 27, 2011, 06:37:45 AM
Secularism doesn't equal hostility to religion. :huh: Just don't think it should be dictating politics and laws.
This case isn't dealing with politics or laws. It is dealing with regulations or procedures, which are neither.
Airport security guards are part of the state apparatus, at least in Poland (they are a sub-type of police and/or military forces). As such, they have to operate according to procedures established by law.
Does the state apparatus not have to operate according to procedures established by law?
I also have no idea what grumbler's saying when he says a reg isn't a law. Regulations aren't legislation, but they are most certainly law. Unless it's internal regulations promulgated and enforced solely by a private airport facility, but I somewhat suspect that anti-terrorism measures in Poland are not left to private actors to determine.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 01:25:27 PM
Does the state apparatus not have to operate according to procedures established by law?
I also have no idea what grumbler's saying when he says a reg isn't a law. Regulations aren't legislation, but they are most certainly law. Unless it's internal regulations promulgated and enforced solely by a private airport facility, but I somewhat suspect that anti-terrorism measures in Poland are not left to private actors to determine.
Yeah that's my point. I was making sure this is not so in the US, as in Poland such regulations are almost certainly law (even if they are not always legislation).
I misread a "not" in there when there wasn't one. My bad.
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2011, 07:53:49 AM
Well, Rousseau was not a liberal, but yeah I agree with a lot of his theses.
Given that you are not a liberal, either, this is understandable.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 01:25:27 PM
I also have no idea what grumbler's saying when he says a reg isn't a law. Regulations aren't legislation, but they are most certainly law.
What I am saying is that regulations are not laws. Dunno how much clearer that could be.
Regulations and procedures are made to enforce laws, and are backed by law to the extent that laws make violations of regulations/procedures (just "regulations" from here on out, with "procedures" being understood to apply where applicable) a violation of the law the regulation was designed to enforce, but they are distinct from laws. Regulations are made by executive authority, not legislatures, and they can be changed without recourse to the legislature. Thus, an appeal against a regulation is an appeal against an administrative determination, not against a law. Regulations can be overturned without impugning the law they are designed to help enforce, and can, indeed, be overturned
because they violate the intent of law they are designed to help enforce. In fact, the authorities that can overturn a regulation do not, at the lowest levels, have any power to overturn the law in question.
When one is charged with a crime, one is charged with violating the underlying law, not the regulation. Regulations are not laws.
I think you're confusing "law" with "statute." Law can come from several sources aside from legislation--in the U.S., the constitution (which I guess is somewhat legislative, but whatever), acts of legislature, the executive employing its rulemaking power, and judicial decisions/common law.
Regs have exactly the force of law. That they arise from the borrowed power of legislation, and that they are subordinate to statutory law, such that they may be held ultra vires in regards to their authorizing statute and stricken or limited, does not make them not law. It just makes them not statutes.
Three non-lawyers argue about what is a law. Who wins?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 05:30:58 PM
Three non-lawyers argue about what is a law. Who wins?
:XD: :XD: :XD:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 05:30:58 PM
Three non-lawyers argue about what is a law. Who wins?
You throw a lot of stones from that glass house, Raz. Not making a judgment on it. Just saying.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 27, 2011, 05:41:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 05:30:58 PM
Three non-lawyers argue about what is a law. Who wins?
You throw a lot of stones from that glass house, Raz. Not making a judgment on it. Just saying.
I never try to portray myself as anything but a uneducated lunatic.
Whereas I'm educated. So fuck you!
(I thought your joke was funny, though. :P )
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 05:50:23 PM
I never try to portray myself as anything but a uneducated lunatic.
What I mean is that you seem to have no trouble arguing endlessly about topics you - by your own standards - shouldn't get to weigh in on.
You missed the point of my crack.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 06:04:36 PM
You missed the point of my crack.
That's just like me, forever missing crack.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 04:08:24 PM
I think you're confusing "law" with "statute." Law can come from several sources aside from legislation--in the U.S., the constitution (which I guess is somewhat legislative, but whatever), acts of legislature, the executive employing its rulemaking power, and judicial decisions/common law.
Common ("case") law is not statute law. The executive does not have lawmaking power, only the power to make regulations to enforce laws. I don't think you quite grasp the concept of law, Mr. Law-degree-holder.
QuoteRegs have exactly the force of law. That they arise from the borrowed power of legislation, and that they are subordinate to statutory law, such that they may be held ultra vires in regards to their authorizing statute and stricken or limited, does not make them not law. It just makes them not statutes.
Regulations only have the force of the law which authorizes them. If the law fails in some challenge, all regulations based on it fail, as well. Not so for regulations. Further, some regulations aren't based in law at all; if CdM, back when he was with the Balmer PoPo, showed up in summer uniform after whatever date the uniform regulations said he should have switched to the winter uniform, he would not be in violation of "the law," just the regulation. Regs don't have the force of law in and of themselves.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 27, 2011, 06:37:45 AM
Secularism doesn't equal hostility to religion. :huh: Just don't think it should be dictating politics and laws.
It's not about religion dictating politics and laws--from an American perspective, it's that laws shouldn't force people to behave in a manner that goes against their religious beliefs, unless the state has an compelling state interest to restrict such action--and the bar is set pretty high as to what the courts will accept as a compelling interest. That's why we allowed people to be conscientious objectors when we had a military draft--even the nation's defense isn't viewed as a compelling enough interest in that case. (Note that this extends to not forcing people who
don't have any religious beliefs to act in a manner that goes against their lack of belief as well--that's why an athiest who object to the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance can't be compelled to recite the pledge in school--or elsewhere--nor can members of certain faiths that object to swearing allegiance to any earthly government. [Whether or not it's appropriate for the phrase to be in the Pledge in the first place is a separate issue.])
In short, to many Americans, saying that freedom of religion is OK, but should be limited to what one does in private is akin to saying that freedom of speech is OK, but it should be limited to private conversations.
Quote from: grumblerCommon law is not statute law. The executive does not have lawmaking power, only the power to make regulations to enforce laws. I don't think you quite grasp the concept of law, Mr. Law-degree-holder.
The legislature may delegate non-essential lawmaking powers to the executive, what is termed quasi-legislative powers, to make regulations that fill the gaps often left by statutes, or almost as often make concrete their vague directives.
Regulatory law is subordinate to statutory law, yes. Statutory law is just as subordinate to constitutional law. I see no reason to not to call it law simply because of this, and most people (which is to say, all minus you) agree that the CFR and state codes of regulations are "sources of law." They establish citizens' legal rights and duties, can involve substantial penalties and authorize remedies, and acts adjudicating cases involving regulations can be appealed into courts.
Why don't you tell me what your idiosyncratic definition of "law" is. Maybe regulations don't meet
that definition, even if regs do in fact meet the definition of every other observer.
In the CdM example, Money would be subject to whatever penalty a properly promulgated and established reg named. His redress, if any, would involve the legal process (quasi-judicial process) set up by the BPD or the City of Baltimore or whatever to adjudicate disputes involving agency action.
In another example, if the FDA establishes a limit of 1 part mercury per million in fish, and some fishmonger sells fish with 10 parts per million, they have "violated the law" even if the authorizing statute says something along the lines of "no excessive amounts of heavy metals in food." That reg couldn't exist without the statute, but the reg need not have taken that particular form once the statute authorized the FDA to regulate heavy metals. It has life in its own right.
If you think federal regs have no force of law, why not go violate an agency order and explain your position clearly to intra-agency appeals personnel and eventually the district court judge, and see what happens. :)
Quote from: fahdiz on December 27, 2011, 06:05:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 06:04:36 PM
You missed the point of my crack.
That's just like me, forever missing crack.
See it's funny because Marty claims to be a lawyer but many of us question it, Ide has a law degree but won't take the bar, and Grumbler is just Grumbler.
Incidentally, I do respect Ide's intelligence. I think that he would make a better fit as an engineer then a lawyer though. I think he wants to be the next John Edwards.
Eh, I'm taking the bar in July.
I think my original plan gets unfairly criticized simply because it failed.
And there can only be one John Edwards. :wub:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 04:08:24 PM
I think you're confusing "law" with "statute." Law can come from several sources aside from legislation--in the U.S., the constitution (which I guess is somewhat legislative, but whatever), acts of legislature, the executive employing its rulemaking power, and judicial decisions/common law.
Regs have exactly the force of law. That they arise from the borrowed power of legislation, and that they are subordinate to statutory law, such that they may be held ultra vires in regards to their authorizing statute and stricken or limited, does not make them not law. It just makes them not statutes.
Yeah, exactly. A lot of law is made by executive orders - it is always made on the basis of an authorization included in the primary legislation (such as an act of the parliament), though. It does not mean this is not law.
grumbler, read this discussion of sources of law for example: http://jurisonline.in/2010/03/sources-of-law/
The relevant discussion of both primary and subordinate (or delegated) legislation is under the heading "Legislation".
Oh god, grumbler has been engaged. Time to eject.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 07:37:13 PM
Regulatory law is subordinate to statutory law, yes. Statutory law is just as subordinate to constitutional law. I see no reason to not to call it law simply because of this, and most people (which is to say, all minus you) agree that the CFR and state codes of regulations are "sources of law." They establish citizens' legal rights and duties, can involve substantial penalties and authorize remedies, and acts adjudicating cases involving regulations can be appealed into courts.
What's funny to me is that I could see an Englishman arguing the incorrect position grumbler takes - because with no written constitution there, all acts of parliament are indeed, technically, unable to be repealed by the judicature and consequently have a distinct quality from secondary or delegated legislation. But for an American, this is bizarre, considering the very hierarchy of sources of law is evident from the fact that you already have a constitution.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 27, 2011, 05:41:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 05:30:58 PM
Three non-lawyers argue about what is a law. Who wins?
You throw a lot of stones from that glass house, Raz. Not making a judgment on it. Just saying.
While I generally agree with the comment about Raz, I think this time he should be absolved, as his pun/jab (Punjab?) was funny because two out of three people were actually lawyers and it is a running joke to question their competence.
Quote from: dps on December 27, 2011, 06:58:41 PM
In short, to many Americans, saying that freedom of religion is OK, but should be limited to what one does in private is akin to saying that freedom of speech is OK, but it should be limited to private conversations.
However, when freedom of religion starts requiring people not of that religion to take (or not take) certain actions which would otherwise be entirely normal, it starts going a bit beyond freedom of speech (which does not require anyone else to do anything they wouldn't have to do otherwise). Certainly, state apparatus can offer certain accomodations to religious practitioners, but this should be at the state's discretion and without any demands placed on citizens who don't practice said religion. So, while airport security could offer that sikh a private room to take off his turban if conditions permitted, if there were, say, 5000 other people waiting in line and this would significantly slow them down, then a case exists for not offering special accomodations.
Why should it be at the state's discretion? It's not our job to serve the state, it's the job of the state to serve us. Other basic freedoms can inconvenience others as well, but I'm not comfortable putting their practice at the state's discretion.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 06:43:22 AM
Why should it be at the state's discretion? It's not our job to serve the state, it's the job of the state to serve us. Other basic freedoms can inconvenience others as well, but I'm not comfortable putting their practice at the state's discretion.
Because the state government is elected by us, thus we put trust in it to make such decisions.
We may elect the government but we don't allow it to curtail our rights at it's own discretion. That's a recipe for Tyranny of the Majority.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 07:12:29 AM
We may elect the government but we don't allow it to curtail our rights at it's own discretion. That's a recipe for Tyranny of the Majority.
Nobody is curtailing anyone's rights in the example given though, because getting special treatment that nobody else is getting is not a right.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 28, 2011, 06:30:35 AM
Quote from: dps on December 27, 2011, 06:58:41 PM
In short, to many Americans, saying that freedom of religion is OK, but should be limited to what one does in private is akin to saying that freedom of speech is OK, but it should be limited to private conversations.
However, when freedom of religion starts requiring people not of that religion to take (or not take) certain actions which would otherwise be entirely normal, it starts going a bit beyond freedom of speech (which does not require anyone else to do anything they wouldn't have to do otherwise). Certainly, state apparatus can offer certain accomodations to religious practitioners, but this should be at the state's discretion and without any demands placed on citizens who don't practice said religion. So, while airport security could offer that sikh a private room to take off his turban if conditions permitted, if there were, say, 5000 other people waiting in line and this would significantly slow them down, then a case exists for not offering special accomodations.
I agree. Freedom of religion is no different from a more general freedom of expression which essentially means people are free to do what they want, as long as it does not harm others (or, more practically, there is no compelling reason to restrict this freedom in some way - e.g. by telling them to drive on one side of the road).
If we think there is a compelling reason for some rule to restrict personal freedom (e.g. "remove your hat during security checks", "do not slaughter animals in some particular way" etc.) then such rule should apply to everyone equally. Likewise, if we think someone's religious beliefs are a good enough reason to override such rule, then everyone should have a right not to obey that rule on other grounds, and not just because of their religion.
A good example is military service in countries that practice conscription. One person may object to it based on their religion. Another person may object to it based on their non-religious pacifistic worldview. If we create an exemption for the former but not for the latter, then this is discrimination pure and simple and the most glaring inequality under law imaginable - certainly nothing that can even remotely be described as a "freedom" of any kind.
Quote from: sbr on December 28, 2011, 03:30:00 AM
Oh god, grumbler has been engaged. Time to eject.
Negative Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 28, 2011, 06:30:35 AM
However, when freedom of religion starts requiring people not of that religion to take (or not take) certain actions which would otherwise be entirely normal, it starts going a bit beyond freedom of speech (which does not require anyone else to do anything they wouldn't have to do otherwise). Certainly, state apparatus can offer certain accomodations to religious practitioners, but this should be at the state's discretion and without any demands placed on citizens who don't practice said religion. So, while airport security could offer that sikh a private room to take off his turban if conditions permitted, if there were, say, 5000 other people waiting in line and this would significantly slow them down, then a case exists for not offering special accomodations.
:huh: Obviously freedom of religion can go beyond freedom of speech. They are different concepts.
Anyway, don't private rooms already exist for more intrusive manners of screening? I don't see where the hypothetical thousand comes in at all. Now when a person refuses reasonable accommodations than they choose to give up access to the service that security is protecting (e.g. flying in a plane).
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 12:35:25 PM
Anyway, don't private rooms already exist for more intrusive manners of screening? I don't see where the hypothetical thousand comes in at all. Now when a person refuses reasonable accommodations than they choose to give up access to the service that security is protecting (e.g. flying in a plane).
Isn't that basically what I've said? Of course, there may also be insufficient manpower to accomodate special needs, in which case also tough shit.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 28, 2011, 01:06:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 12:35:25 PM
Anyway, don't private rooms already exist for more intrusive manners of screening? I don't see where the hypothetical thousand comes in at all. Now when a person refuses reasonable accommodations than they choose to give up access to the service that security is protecting (e.g. flying in a plane).
Isn't that basically what I've said? Of course, there may also be insufficient manpower to accomodate special needs, in which case also tough shit.
I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.
Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 01:31:00 PM
I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.
Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.
Indeed. In this case I think it would be entirely fair to ask him to step into a private room and take off his turban - if it was necessary - much as I'd think it was right for a Muslim woman or a nun.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 01:38:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 01:31:00 PM
I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.
Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.
Indeed. In this case I think it would be entirely fair to ask him to step into a private room and take off his turban - if it was necessary - much as I'd think it was right for a Muslim woman or a nun.
If such accommodations were available and used for nuns and muslim women (which I am not sure whether they exist at Polish airports) then yes. Otherwise no.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 01:43:16 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 01:38:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 01:31:00 PM
I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.
Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.
Indeed. In this case I think it would be entirely fair to ask him to step into a private room and take off his turban - if it was necessary - much as I'd think it was right for a Muslim woman or a nun.
If such accommodations were available and used for nuns and muslim women (which I am not sure whether they exist at Polish airports) then yes. Otherwise no.
Then such speaks to the backwardness of your state.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 07:23:15 AM
I agree. Freedom of religion is no different from a more general freedom of expression which essentially means people are free to do what they want, as long as it does not harm others (or, more practically, there is no compelling reason to restrict this freedom in some way - e.g. by telling them to drive on one side of the road).
If we think there is a compelling reason for some rule to restrict personal freedom (e.g. "remove your hat during security checks", "do not slaughter animals in some particular way" etc.) then such rule should apply to everyone equally. Likewise, if we think someone's religious beliefs are a good enough reason to override such rule, then everyone should have a right not to obey that rule on other grounds, and not just because of their religion.
A good example is military service in countries that practice conscription. One person may object to it based on their religion. Another person may object to it based on their non-religious pacifistic worldview. If we create an exemption for the former but not for the latter, then this is discrimination pure and simple and the most glaring inequality under law imaginable - certainly nothing that can even remotely be described as a "freedom" of any kind.
I thought I already showed your "Do not slaughter animals in some particular way", to be hypocritical self righteousness.
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 01:45:55 PMThen such speaks to the backwardness of your state.
No, just the fact that not many muslims or sikhs travel through the Warsaw airport, so arranging for such accommodations would be a misuse of resources.
I also do not want my state to spend taxpayer money on accommodating religious manias.
I searched for the article about the sikh guy and it seems they did ask him to go to a private room to remove his turban. He thought they should have used a metal detector instead.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 01:43:16 PM
If such accommodations were available and used for nuns and muslim women (which I am not sure whether they exist at Polish airports) then yes. Otherwise no.
If such accommodations could reasonably be offered then they should be. I cannot imagine that there's an airport in the world without private rooms for different sorts of interviews or security purposes. But even if there was just a screen - say he's travelling in a cowshed airport.
QuoteI searched for the article about the sikh guy and it seems they did ask him to go to a private room to remove his turban. He thought they should have used a metal detector instead.
Then it's probably fair that it went against him. Though I'm still on his side because I hate the generally meaningless misery of airport security now. I hear it's even worse in the US.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 01:55:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 01:45:55 PMThen such speaks to the backwardness of your state.
No, just the fact that not many muslims or sikhs travel through the Warsaw airport, so arranging for such accommodations would be a misuse of resources.
I also do not want my state to spend taxpayer money on accommodating religious manias.
:huh: Do you not have private rooms in Poland where more invasive searches can be performed? Here you can request private space if you are to receive a pat down. Do then basically everything that Sheilbh said in his reply. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 07:37:13 PM
The legislature may delegate non-essential lawmaking powers to the executive, what is termed quasi-legislative powers, to make regulations that fill the gaps often left by statutes, or almost as often make concrete their vague directives.
Yes, exactly. Quasi-legislative powers, not legislative powers. The regulations only give the guidelines to enforce the statutes. They cannot exist without the statutes, and if the statutes are repealed or overturned, so are the regulations, automatically. The statutes are the laws that can be violated by violating the regulations.
Not sure how your argument works against mine at all. Polish airport authorities could alter the regulations regarding religious headgear removal without affecting the law involved at all.
QuoteRegulatory law is subordinate to statutory law, yes.
Exactly. Now you understand.
QuoteIn another example, if the FDA establishes a limit of 1 part mercury per million in fish, and some fishmonger sells fish with 10 parts per million, they have "violated the law" even if the authorizing statute says something along the lines of "no excessive amounts of heavy metals in food." That reg couldn't exist without the statute, but the reg need not have taken that particular form once the statute authorized the FDA to regulate heavy metals. It has life in its own right.
That is my point exactly. If science shows that the safe limit is one part in ten million, then the EPA could modify the regulations without consulting the legislature (though the legislature could overturn the regulation if they desired). In effect, the law would not be different, just the regulation.
QuoteIf you think federal regs have no force of law, why not go violate an agency order and explain your position clearly to intra-agency appeals personnel and eventually the district court judge, and see what happens. :)
Name some agency orders that are not backed by statute, case law, or the Constitution, and I'll consider it.
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 01:31:00 PM
I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.
Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.
Exactly. Now, the "reasonable accommodation" may take a bit longer than the standard procedures, but, again, the authorities have to be reasonable about that, as well - no "go wait int he room and we will get to you when there are no other passengers trying to board planes" routine because they think Sikhs desiring privacy for this is a religious attempt to "influence state politics or legal procedures."
But, then, I've never heard of elected airport security inspectors before, either.
Quote from: grumbler on December 28, 2011, 04:49:56 PMBut, then, I've never heard of elected airport security inspectors before, either.
Why would they be elected? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on December 28, 2011, 04:35:35 PM
Name some agency orders that are not backed by statute, case law, or the Constitution, and I'll consider it.
Federal statutes are also backed by the Constitution - the Congress can only pass such laws as authorized to do so by the Constitution. That does not make such statutes non-laws. :huh:
Btw
http://www.krakowpost.com/article/2640
QuoteChanges to EU airport security regulations in 2010 caused controversy because they allowed for hand searching of religious headgear. New regulations issued by the British Department for Transport in February 2011 allow individuals to refuse hand searches of religious headgear as long as they submit to screening by security technology. Last summer Italian courts decided Sikhs would no longer be asked to remove their turbans during airport security checks.
Quote from: grumbler on December 28, 2011, 04:35:35 PMThat is my point exactly. If science shows that the safe limit is one part in ten million, then the EPA could modify the regulations without consulting the legislature (though the legislature could overturn the regulation if they desired). In effect, the law would not be different, just the regulation.
The regulation is still the law. It's the so-called secondary legislation which is a source of law (as explained by the link you ignored). Seriously, in your absolute inability to ever admit you are wrong, you say the dumbest things sometimes.
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:43:03 PM
Btw
http://www.krakowpost.com/article/2640
QuoteChanges to EU airport security regulations in 2010 caused controversy because they allowed for hand searching of religious headgear. New regulations issued by the British Department for Transport in February 2011 allow individuals to refuse hand searches of religious headgear as long as they submit to screening by security technology. Last summer Italian courts decided Sikhs would no longer be asked to remove their turbans during airport security checks.
We are not British or Italian, thank God. If we were, we would have a recession or be on the verge of bankruptcy, respectively.
Also per this audio - there is a lot more that is reprehensible in what the border guard is supposedly doing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-16318914
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:44:29 PM
We are not British or Italian, thank God. If we were, we would have a recession or be on the verge of bankruptcy, respectively.
Yes, clearly recession is linked to not having security guards waste time hand-checking sikh headgear. :)
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:47:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:44:29 PM
We are not British or Italian, thank God. If we were, we would have a recession or be on the verge of bankruptcy, respectively.
Yes, clearly recession is linked to not having security guards waste time hand-checking sikh headgear. :)
Well, we don't waste money on idiocy, as I have already pointed out. :)
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:48:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:47:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:44:29 PM
We are not British or Italian, thank God. If we were, we would have a recession or be on the verge of bankruptcy, respectively.
Yes, clearly recession is linked to not having security guards waste time hand-checking sikh headgear. :)
Well, we don't waste money on idiocy, as I have already pointed out. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Frw%2Fnypost%2F2010%2F11%2F06%2Fnews%2Fphotos_stories%2FJesus164621--300x450.jpg&hash=703b8cca5021e580a51bf538961e9cad0ba81de7)
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:48:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:47:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:44:29 PM
We are not British or Italian, thank God. If we were, we would have a recession or be on the verge of bankruptcy, respectively.
Yes, clearly recession is linked to not having security guards waste time hand-checking sikh headgear. :)
Well, we don't waste money on idiocy, as I have already pointed out. :)
Apparently you do though. Those countries have decided to let Sikhs through the metal detector - Poland is busy wasting time hand-checking the head garments. :)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 28, 2011, 06:50:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:48:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:47:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:44:29 PM
We are not British or Italian, thank God. If we were, we would have a recession or be on the verge of bankruptcy, respectively.
Yes, clearly recession is linked to not having security guards waste time hand-checking sikh headgear. :)
Well, we don't waste money on idiocy, as I have already pointed out. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Frw%2Fnypost%2F2010%2F11%2F06%2Fnews%2Fphotos_stories%2FJesus164621--300x450.jpg&hash=703b8cca5021e580a51bf538961e9cad0ba81de7)
Dammit, we have a Jesus statue gap!
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 28, 2011, 06:50:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:48:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:47:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:44:29 PM
We are not British or Italian, thank God. If we were, we would have a recession or be on the verge of bankruptcy, respectively.
Yes, clearly recession is linked to not having security guards waste time hand-checking sikh headgear. :)
Well, we don't waste money on idiocy, as I have already pointed out. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Frw%2Fnypost%2F2010%2F11%2F06%2Fnews%2Fphotos_stories%2FJesus164621--300x450.jpg&hash=703b8cca5021e580a51bf538961e9cad0ba81de7)
Touche. But that monstrosity was built from private donations, not taxpayer money. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 28, 2011, 06:52:46 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 28, 2011, 06:50:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:48:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 06:47:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:44:29 PM
We are not British or Italian, thank God. If we were, we would have a recession or be on the verge of bankruptcy, respectively.
Yes, clearly recession is linked to not having security guards waste time hand-checking sikh headgear. :)
Well, we don't waste money on idiocy, as I have already pointed out. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Frw%2Fnypost%2F2010%2F11%2F06%2Fnews%2Fphotos_stories%2FJesus164621--300x450.jpg&hash=703b8cca5021e580a51bf538961e9cad0ba81de7)
Dammit, we have a Jesus statue gap!
Stop stealing from Stephen Colbert. :P
And seriously, if you guys are going to attack my alleged bigotry by pointing out idiocy of Polish catholics, you really should stop already. I'm the last person to defend the "freedom of religion" of these retards.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:54:35 PM
And seriously, if you guys are going to attack my alleged bigotry by pointing out idiocy of Polish catholics, you really should stop already. I'm the last person to defend the "freedom of religion" of these retards.
Actually I think it might stem from you trying to play up Poland's common sense when you just recently beat back against by British and Italian examples.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:53:27 PM
Stop stealing from Stephen Colbert. :P
I would, if I watched his unfunny show.
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 01:31:00 PM
I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.
Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.
We respect your religion but it's your own and nobody else's business, is the freedom of religion I'd want to have.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 28, 2011, 08:01:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 01:31:00 PM
I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.
Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.
We respect your religion but it's your own and nobody else's business, is the freedom of religion I'd want to have.
Actually, do you really respect other people's religion?
I do.
"Respect" in this context means "do not actively use violence to change," right?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 28, 2011, 08:12:09 PM
I do.
"Respect" in this context means "do not actively use violence to change," right?
I would use "tolerate" for that context. Other basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly can be terribly inconvenient, as many people found with the "occupy" protests. However, I don't think people would be keen on saying that we respect your freedom to protest the government so long as you do it in your home away from the public.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 28, 2011, 08:01:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 01:31:00 PM
I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.
Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.
We respect your religion but it's your own and nobody else's business, is the freedom of religion I'd want to have.
That sounds like you can say whatever you want as long as you keep it to yourself.
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 08:48:45 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 28, 2011, 08:01:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 01:31:00 PM
I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.
Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.
We respect your religion but it's your own and nobody else's business, is the freedom of religion I'd want to have.
That sounds like you can say whatever you want as long as you keep it to yourself.
Don't ask, don't tell.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 08:16:29 PM
I would use "tolerate" for that context. Other basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly can be terribly inconvenient, as many people found with the "occupy" protests. However, I don't think people would be keen on saying that we respect your freedom to protest the government so long as you do it in your home away from the public.
If you add a bullet-pointed agenda that's the Yi corollary :P
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 08:16:29 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 28, 2011, 08:12:09 PM
I do.
"Respect" in this context means "do not actively use violence to change," right?
I would use "tolerate" for that context. Other basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly can be terribly inconvenient, as many people found with the "occupy" protests. However, I don't think people would be keen on saying that we respect your freedom to protest the government so long as you do it in your home away from the public.
Wow, you are really horrible with these analogies.
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 08:48:45 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 28, 2011, 08:01:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 28, 2011, 01:31:00 PM
I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.
Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.
We respect your religion but it's your own and nobody else's business, is the freedom of religion I'd want to have.
That sounds like you can say whatever you want as long as you keep it to yourself.
Not really. The freedoms of speech and assembly are important parts of the political process and must be exercised in public to be effective. Freedom of religion does not. If people stopped exercising their freedom of religion tomorrow and everybody became faithless, this would not affect the democratic process - if everyone suddenly stopped to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, this would severely harm the democratic process. So comparing both makes no sense.
Religion is a private part of life and there really is no compelling reason for it to invade public life.
Edit: And for the record, I don't think anyone argues that people should enjoy unrestricted freedom of speech and assembly at the security check points at airports either. I bet if Ide was wearing his red army hat they would tell him to take it off, too. If he started calling for a proletariat revolution and organizing workers' committees he would probably get arrested.
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 03:10:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 08:16:29 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 28, 2011, 08:12:09 PM
I do.
"Respect" in this context means "do not actively use violence to change," right?
I would use "tolerate" for that context. Other basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly can be terribly inconvenient, as many people found with the "occupy" protests. However, I don't think people would be keen on saying that we respect your freedom to protest the government so long as you do it in your home away from the public.
Wow, you are really horrible with these analogies.
You wouldn't know a good analogue if it bit you in the ass.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2011, 05:03:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 03:10:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 08:16:29 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 28, 2011, 08:12:09 PM
I do.
"Respect" in this context means "do not actively use violence to change," right?
I would use "tolerate" for that context. Other basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly can be terribly inconvenient, as many people found with the "occupy" protests. However, I don't think people would be keen on saying that we respect your freedom to protest the government so long as you do it in your home away from the public.
Wow, you are really horrible with these analogies.
You wouldn't know a good analogue if it bit you in the ass.
The singular of "analogies" is "analogy", not "analogue".
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 03:14:41 AM
Not really. The freedoms of speech and assembly are important parts of the political process and must be exercised in public to be effective. Freedom of religion does not. If people stopped exercising their freedom of religion tomorrow and everybody became faithless, this would not affect the democratic process - if everyone suddenly stopped to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, this would severely harm the democratic process. So comparing both makes no sense.
Religion is a private part of life and there really is no compelling reason for it to invade public life.
Edit: And for the record, I don't think anyone argues that people should enjoy unrestricted freedom of speech and assembly at the security check points at airports either. I bet if Ide was wearing his red army hat they would tell him to take it off, too. If he started calling for a proletariat revolution and organizing workers' committees he would probably get arrested.
Surely you know that
evangelizing is a major aspect of many religions? The question is not "Is there a compelling reason to have religion invade public life", the question is "Is there a compelling reason for government to prevent it".
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2011, 01:42:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 08:16:29 PM
I would use "tolerate" for that context. Other basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly can be terribly inconvenient, as many people found with the "occupy" protests. However, I don't think people would be keen on saying that we respect your freedom to protest the government so long as you do it in your home away from the public.
If you add a bullet-pointed agenda that's the Yi corollary :P
Yi and I are of one mind on these type of things. We differ wildly on the political spectrum of the US, but I think we regard the rights espoused in the Bill of Rights as sacrosanct.
I meant that Yi's freedom of assembly and protest is doing it in your home, with a set agenda and time for any other business at the end.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 08:16:29 PM
I would use "tolerate" for that context. Other basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly can be terribly inconvenient, as many people found with the "occupy" protests. However, I don't think people would be keen on saying that we respect your freedom to protest the government so long as you do it in your home away from the public.
Tolerance is exactly what freedom of religion should be, no more. You should not be required to like every religion out there, as long as you don't suppress it or use violence against its members. They are free to practice their religion at home or in public, as long as it does not hinder anyone else. You are once again equating freedom of religion and freedom of speech, which are different things. But even with freedom of speech you are not required to agree with or like everything everyone says.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2011, 05:11:23 AM
Surely you know that evangelizing is a major aspect of many religions? The question is not "Is there a compelling reason to have religion invade public life", the question is "Is there a compelling reason for government to prevent it".
There isn't, as long as such evangelizing is not intruding on the freedom of those wanting to be free of it. And by this I don't mean preaching on the street, but things like being able to stop evangelists coming into your house or talking to you personally.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2011, 06:55:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2011, 05:11:23 AM
Surely you know that evangelizing is a major aspect of many religions? The question is not "Is there a compelling reason to have religion invade public life", the question is "Is there a compelling reason for government to prevent it".
There isn't, as long as such evangelizing is not intruding on the freedom of those wanting to be free of it. And by this I don't mean preaching on the street, but things like being able to stop evangelists coming into your house or talking to you personally.
There Isn't what? Do you think that people have the right to be "free" of speech, or "free" of political protest?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2011, 06:58:26 AM
There Isn't what? Do you think that people have the right to be "free" of speech, or "free" of political protest?
Both, the latter covering locations such as homes and other private property, including places of business.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2011, 07:02:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2011, 06:58:26 AM
There Isn't what? Do you think that people have the right to be "free" of speech, or "free" of political protest?
Both, the latter covering locations such as homes and other private property, including places of business.
Okay, should someone have the "right" to be free of people they don't like at their place of business. Say be free of Jews in their restaurant?
Do you think that freedom of religion, speech and assembly should be applied equally in the public sphere?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2011, 08:17:19 AM
Okay, should someone have the "right" to be free of people they don't like at their place of business. Say be free of Jews in their restaurant?
:rolleyes: No, because being a Jew does not harm or hinder anyone else. Being free of someone actively trying to convert you to Judaism is another story.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2011, 08:17:19 AM
Do you think that freedom of religion, speech and assembly should be applied equally in the public sphere?
Again, freedom of religion and freedom of speech cannot be compared. They each have their place in the public sphere but you cannot treat them the same way.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2011, 08:59:36 AM:rolleyes: No, because being a Jew does not harm or hinder anyone else. Being free of someone actively trying to convert you to Judaism is another story.
So you'd just ban Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?
QuoteAgain, freedom of religion and freedom of speech cannot be compared. They each have their place in the public sphere but you cannot treat them the same way.
Why not?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2011, 09:10:50 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2011, 08:59:36 AM:rolleyes: No, because being a Jew does not harm or hinder anyone else. Being free of someone actively trying to convert you to Judaism is another story.
So you'd just ban Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?
Can you read?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2011, 09:10:50 AMQuoteAgain, freedom of religion and freedom of speech cannot be compared. They each have their place in the public sphere but you cannot treat them the same way.
Why not?
Why not what?
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2011, 09:14:17 AM
Can you read?
They're aggressively evangelical faiths. Is it okay for restaurants to be able to ban them?
QuoteWhy not what?
Why can't freedom of speech and religion be compared?
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2011, 08:59:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2011, 08:17:19 AM
Okay, should someone have the "right" to be free of people they don't like at their place of business. Say be free of Jews in their restaurant?
:rolleyes: No, because being a Jew does not harm or hinder anyone else. Being free of someone actively trying to convert you to Judaism is another story.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2011, 08:17:19 AM
Do you think that freedom of religion, speech and assembly should be applied equally in the public sphere?
Again, freedom of religion and freedom of speech cannot be compared. They each have their place in the public sphere but you cannot treat them the same way.
Someone proselytizing at the door of your residence isn't harming or hindering you either. Why should you be free to tell protesters or religious types to get off your premises but not say Jews or Blacks?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2011, 09:16:26 AM
They're aggressively evangelical faiths. Is it okay for restaurants to be able to ban them?
It is okay for restaurants to ban their proselytizing, yes.
Quote
Why can't freedom of speech and religion be compared?
They cannot be compared in the context of giving them equal rights, because they are different things.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2011, 09:19:59 AM
Someone proselytizing at the door of your residence isn't harming or hindering you either. Why should you be free to tell protesters or religious types to get off your premises but not say Jews or Blacks?
They totally are, if you have other plans for using your front yard. And yes, you can tell anyone to get off, including Jews and Blacks. Or do you routinely allow total strangers to walk into your apartment?
Quote from: Jacob on December 21, 2011, 12:02:44 PM
As I understand it, for baptized Sikhs the hair is considered very intimate and private, so asking a devout Sikh to take his turban off is roughly in the same ballpark as asking you to strip down to your underwear.
I know someone who has stripped down to less than that at a ballpark :)
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2011, 06:38:55 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 28, 2011, 04:49:56 PMBut, then, I've never heard of elected airport security inspectors before, either.
Why would they be elected? :huh:
Dunno. Maybe because Poles are just weird, I guess. Solmyr argued that
QuoteSo, while airport security could offer that sikh a private room to take off his turban if conditions permitted, if there were, say, 5000 other people waiting in line and this would significantly slow them down, then a case exists for not offering special accomodations.
When challenged by Raz as to
QuoteWhy should it be at the state's discretion?
he responded
QuoteBecause the state government is elected by us, thus we put trust in it to make such decisions.
Now, since "the state government" being trusted to make such decision here is the security guards at the airport, this sounds like they are elected, since the fact that they are elected is the reason why they are being trusted. :cool:
Or not. :cool:
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2011, 09:58:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2011, 09:19:59 AM
Someone proselytizing at the door of your residence isn't harming or hindering you either. Why should you be free to tell protesters or religious types to get off your premises but not say Jews or Blacks?
They totally are, if you have other plans for using your front yard. And yes, you can tell anyone to get off, including Jews and Blacks. Or do you routinely allow total strangers to walk into your apartment?
Okay, lets clear this up. I'm talking about door-to-door proselytizing. I have no problem with you telling them leave. Do you think they have the right to knock on your door and ask you though? the Blacks and Jews thing, I was thinking more along the lines of a business owner.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2011, 09:54:19 AM
They cannot be compared in the context of giving them equal rights, because they are different things.
Explain how one right is different then another.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2011, 09:54:19 AM
It is okay for restaurants to ban their proselytizing, yes.
Can a restaurant ban one kind of proselytizing and not another? Say, allow proselytizing for a sports team or one set religion, but not for a political party or any religion but that one?
This flexible right to free speech thing of yours is interesting. It appears to ban speech you, specifically, find annoying, while allowing any speech you don't personally find annoying.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2011, 09:54:19 AM
They cannot be compared in the context of giving them equal rights, because they are different things.
Actually, they cannot be compared because they are extremely difficult to distinguish from one another... as your examples show.
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 03:14:41 AM
Not really. The freedoms of speech and assembly are important parts of the political process and must be exercised in public to be effective. Freedom of religion does not. If people stopped exercising their freedom of religion tomorrow and everybody became faithless, this would not affect the democratic process - if everyone suddenly stopped to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, this would severely harm the democratic process. So comparing both makes no sense.
What? So personal freedoms that might inconvenience others should only be exercised in public if they can also be used to further the political process (with the actual freedom being a fringe benefit)? Why should everything be subordinate to the government? We should probably ban homosexual acts in public and bring back don't ask, don't tell. Those don't serve any legitimate purpose for the gov and could be very inconvenient for citizens who find such things repulsive.
I was going to wait a bit till I trotted out that argument, but go ahead. It does seem somewhat odd the different way Americans and Europeans view government.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2011, 01:05:18 PM
I was going to wait a bit till I trotted out that argument, but go ahead. It does seem somewhat odd the different way Americans and Europeans view government.
I'm sure he'll have a logically inconsistent argument to rebut it. Besides, I wouldn't judge Europe by the beliefs of Mart and Sol, anymore than I'd judge America based on the beliefs of Habbaku or Dps.
Quote from: grumbler on December 29, 2011, 12:05:22 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2011, 09:54:19 AM
They cannot be compared in the context of giving them equal rights, because they are different things.
Actually, they cannot be compared because they are extremely difficult to distinguish from one another... as your examples show.
Yeah I don't understand this distinction at all. Marti seems to suggest that because certain rights serve a certain social purpose they should be more difficult to restrict, while others aren't socially useful so we should be more sanguine about restricting them. It seems a rather dangerous position.
I can't work out Solmyr's basis for his hierarchy of rights, so I can't judge. But his attitude seems like a secularist version of a right not to be offended.
Surely the best option is to treat all rights equally? They should only be restricted if they harm others' liberties (and I'd use 'harm' more restrictively than freedom from being hassled) or if there's an overwhelming public need.
Quote from: garbon on December 29, 2011, 12:56:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 03:14:41 AM
Not really. The freedoms of speech and assembly are important parts of the political process and must be exercised in public to be effective. Freedom of religion does not. If people stopped exercising their freedom of religion tomorrow and everybody became faithless, this would not affect the democratic process - if everyone suddenly stopped to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, this would severely harm the democratic process. So comparing both makes no sense.
What? So personal freedoms that might inconvenience others should only be exercised in public if they can also be used to further the political process (with the actual freedom being a fringe benefit)? Why should everything be subordinate to the government? We should probably ban homosexual acts in public and bring back don't ask, don't tell. Those don't serve any legitimate purpose for the gov and could be very inconvenient for citizens who find such things repulsive.
Homosexual acts (as well as heterosexual acts) are already banned in public - you can't fuck or give someone a blow job in a public place with other people looking. And remember that we are arguing for a restriction of public exercise of freedom of religion here in the context of a compelling security reason - there is no such compelling reason in onlookers "not being repulsed" (but as I said, we already restrict a lot of freedoms in terms of their public display because of public decency and public morality).
So again, the principle I described stands: people may be annoyed by public exercise of freedom of speech, but this freedom is so important to the democratic process that we do not restrict it or restrict it only in a very slight manner (e.g. by banning public vulgarities/obscenities, or "shouting fire in a crowded theatre"). On the other hand, we are quite happy to ban public displays of artistic expression (such as porn) or sexual freedom on grounds of public decency.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2011, 01:18:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 29, 2011, 12:05:22 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2011, 09:54:19 AM
They cannot be compared in the context of giving them equal rights, because they are different things.
Actually, they cannot be compared because they are extremely difficult to distinguish from one another... as your examples show.
Yeah I don't understand this distinction at all. Marti seems to suggest that because certain rights serve a certain social purpose they should be more difficult to restrict, while others aren't socially useful so we should be more sanguine about restricting them. It seems a rather dangerous position.
I can't work out Solmyr's basis for his hierarchy of rights, so I can't judge. But his attitude seems like a secularist version of a right not to be offended.
Surely the best option is to treat all rights equally? They should only be restricted if they harm others' liberties (and I'd use 'harm' more restrictively than freedom from being hassled) or if there's an overwhelming public need.
But we do not treat all rights equally. Just look at all restrictions of freedom of speech and freedom of expression based on public decency.
So once again this boils down to all of you Anglosaxons insisting on religion (and religion-related rights) getting a special treatment, not an equal treatment.
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 01:38:40 PM
But we do not treat all rights equally. Just look at all restrictions of freedom of speech and freedom of expression based on public decency.
So I know what we're talking about, what examples do you have for modern restrictions based on public decency?
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 01:35:29 PMOn the other hand, we are quite happy to ban public displays of artistic expression (such as porn) or sexual freedom on grounds of public decency.
No we're not. Every time that's done we have a moral angst session over it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2011, 09:10:50 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 29, 2011, 08:59:36 AM:rolleyes: No, because being a Jew does not harm or hinder anyone else. Being free of someone actively trying to convert you to Judaism is another story.
So you'd just ban Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?
No, but the question here is not to ban members of a given religion, but whether special accommodations should be made for members of certain religions.
Btw, as a general remark, I don't agree with insisting on treating equally immutable, in-born traits (gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity) and acquired, chosen traits (religion, political views).
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2011, 01:40:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 01:38:40 PM
But we do not treat all rights equally. Just look at all restrictions of freedom of speech and freedom of expression based on public decency.
So I know what we're talking about, what examples do you have for modern restrictions based on public decency?
Can I buy a billboard space on the Oxford Circus and display there a giant picture of penis and balls?
Can I advertise a book arguing that David Cameron is really a cross-dressing serial killer?
Can I have an artistic installation in a public street in front of the St. Paul Cathedral involving a group of naked people fucking?
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 01:43:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2011, 01:40:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 01:38:40 PM
But we do not treat all rights equally. Just look at all restrictions of freedom of speech and freedom of expression based on public decency.
So I know what we're talking about, what examples do you have for modern restrictions based on public decency?
Can I buy a billboard space on the Oxford Circus and display there a giant picture of penis and balls?
Can I advertise a book arguing that David Cameron is really a cross-dressing serial killer?
Can I have an artistic installation in a public street in front of the St. Paul Cathedral involving a group of naked people fucking?
Christmas is over, freak. You'll have to wait a year. And is please a dirty word?
I can't be arsed to split hairs over every silly example people have given me, so I'll just summarize my views. I'm not arguing that religion should be banished to private locales only. And I recognize that some religions have ways of practicing them that are highly visible. However, when such practices infringe on someone else's freedoms, either by forcing them to involuntarily participate or physically intruding into their course of daily life, restrictions may be called for. Freedom of speech is different because as a general rule, nobody has ever died or gotten hurt (extreme examples of hate speech notwithstanding), so there is much less need to restrict it. And for the record, I support allowing almost any kind of speech. As well as removing the restrictions on "public decency", which is based on morals not everyone may share. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 01:43:59 PM
Can I advertise a book arguing that David Cameron is really a cross-dressing serial killer?
There isn't such a book already?
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 01:43:59 PM
Can I have an artistic installation in a public street in front of the St. Paul Cathedral involving a group of naked people fucking?
This is, in fact, an entirely possible scenario in Germany and the Scandinavian countries, as long as you excuse it as a "work of art". :P
You can't do certain things on the property of others as free speech if the owner doesn't let you, naturally.
Quote from: garbon on December 29, 2011, 01:14:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2011, 01:05:18 PM
I was going to wait a bit till I trotted out that argument, but go ahead. It does seem somewhat odd the different way Americans and Europeans view government.
I'm sure he'll have a logically inconsistent argument to rebut it. Besides, I wouldn't judge Europe by the beliefs of Mart and Sol, anymore than I'd judge America based on the beliefs of Habbaku or Dps.
That's an interesting own goal. :P
Anyway, I really don't understand what everyone else is having a hard time understanding about freedom of worship. Shit is like the easiest freedom to explain there is. "[The legislature] shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion.]" Unless that expression violates other rights or public policy.
Like Santeria. OH WAIT. Stupid Supreme Court.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 29, 2011, 03:19:37 PM
Anyway, I really don't understand what everyone else is having a hard time understanding about freedom of worship. Shit is like the easiest freedom to explain there is. "[The legislature] shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion.]" Unless that expression violates other rights or public policy.
I don't get it.
:(
It sounds just like the generic catch-all freedom.
As a 'free speech activist' , I'd like to say listening is also important. :)
What's important?
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 01:35:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 29, 2011, 12:56:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 03:14:41 AM
Not really. The freedoms of speech and assembly are important parts of the political process and must be exercised in public to be effective. Freedom of religion does not. If people stopped exercising their freedom of religion tomorrow and everybody became faithless, this would not affect the democratic process - if everyone suddenly stopped to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, this would severely harm the democratic process. So comparing both makes no sense.
What? So personal freedoms that might inconvenience others should only be exercised in public if they can also be used to further the political process (with the actual freedom being a fringe benefit)? Why should everything be subordinate to the government? We should probably ban homosexual acts in public and bring back don't ask, don't tell. Those don't serve any legitimate purpose for the gov and could be very inconvenient for citizens who find such things repulsive.
Homosexual acts (as well as heterosexual acts) are already banned in public - you can't fuck or give someone a blow job in a public place with other people looking. And remember that we are arguing for a restriction of public exercise of freedom of religion here in the context of a compelling security reason - there is no such compelling reason in onlookers "not being repulsed" (but as I said, we already restrict a lot of freedoms in terms of their public display because of public decency and public morality).
So again, the principle I described stands: people may be annoyed by public exercise of freedom of speech, but this freedom is so important to the democratic process that we do not restrict it or restrict it only in a very slight manner (e.g. by banning public vulgarities/obscenities, or "shouting fire in a crowded theatre"). On the other hand, we are quite happy to ban public displays of artistic expression (such as porn) or sexual freedom on grounds of public decency.
I'm talking about handholding and kissing. I could find many people who feel such displays of homosexual affection are against public decency.
And then of course, I've lived places where the types of acts you've described have been legally permitted in public.
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2011, 03:14:41 AM
Not really. The freedoms of speech and assembly are important parts of the political process and must be exercised in public to be effective. Freedom of religion does not. If people stopped exercising their freedom of religion tomorrow and everybody became faithless, this would not affect the democratic process - if everyone suddenly stopped to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, this would severely harm the democratic process. So comparing both makes no sense.
Are you really so dense that you don't realize that freedom of religion includes the right to be faithless?
Quote
Religion is a private part of life and there really is no compelling reason for it to invade public life.
Again, this is the opposite of the way Americans tend to look at it. There has to be a compelling reason for the state to interfere in one's religious beliefs or practices (again, including the right to not hold any religious belief).
Quote from: garbon on December 29, 2011, 04:16:33 PMI'm talking about handholding and kissing. I could find many people who feel such displays of homosexual affection are against public decency.
Ok but that does not mean that the freedom is absolute just that restrictions must be reasonable.
The right "not to be offended" is relatively low on the hierarchy of importance, and as such it cannot restrict freedoms of others, except in most extreme circumstances. The needs associated with airport security are more important than that.
Quote from: dps on December 29, 2011, 11:47:10 PMAre you really so dense that you don't realize that freedom of religion includes the right to be faithless?
We were talking here about freedom of religion, meaning public worship/public observance of religious rituals and commandments. Atheists do not have such issues/needs so it is a moot point. There is no impediment of freedom to be faithless if, e.g., there was a general ban on public displays of one's religion or lack thereof.
This assumes, of course, that there is no official religion and no obligation to participate in official religious ceremonies - but this is about the separation of church and state, and not freedom of religion per se - which is something we take very seriously in Europe or at least the civilized parts of it.
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2011, 03:58:54 AM
Quote from: dps on December 29, 2011, 11:47:10 PMAre you really so dense that you don't realize that freedom of religion includes the right to be faithless?
We were talking here about freedom of religion, meaning public worship/public observance of religious rituals and commandments. Atheists do not have such issues/needs so it is a moot point. There is no impediment of freedom to be faithless if, e.g., there was a general ban on public displays of one's religion or lack thereof.
This assumes, of course, that there is no official religion and no obligation to participate in official religious ceremonies - but this is about the separation of church and state, and not freedom of religion per se - which is something we take very seriously in Europe or at least the civilized parts of it.
That would carrying more weight if Atheists didn't feel the need to proselytize. Actually, I wish you guys would take Freedom of Religion seriously, and realize that it doesn't mean only Freedom from religion.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2011, 04:04:21 AM
That would carrying more weight if Atheists didn't feel the need to proselytize. Actually, I wish you guys would take Freedom of Religion seriously, and realize that it doesn't mean only Freedom from religion.
As I said, you are confusing two things - freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
The separation of church and state means (or at least should mean according to the school of thought I subscribe to, and which is implemented e.g. in France) that religious ceremonies, symbols and references should have no presence in the official doings of the state, including its laws, actions, ceremonies, events or public places (such as courthouses, government buildings and the like) and public officials should not make any religious utterances or references (whether express or implied, e.g. by wearing religious symbols) when acting in their official capacity.
In such a state, freedom of religion can be, by its nature, exercised mainly in private (which does not necessarily mean "in the privacy of your bedroom", but rather in the private part of one's life), since the public sphere (understood as the sphere of the state) is religion-free.
Yes, but my clothing is not an official domain of the state. I am not an organ of the state. I'm just me, a private individual, who happens to go to state buildings to do my business. Yet I see in places like France the government making judgments on religious choices of clothing.
Quote from: dps on December 29, 2011, 11:47:10 PM
Again, this is the opposite of the way Americans tend to look at it. There has to be a compelling reason for the state to interfere in one's religious beliefs or practices (again, including the right to not hold any religious belief).
I find this sort of outlook honestly creepy. I hope we never get to the point where we go from justifying government interference in someone's personal life to private individuals having to justify the government staying out.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2011, 05:16:41 AM
Yes, but my clothing is not an official domain of the state. I am not an organ of the state. I'm just me, a private individual, who happens to go to state buildings to do my business. Yet I see in places like France the government making judgments on religious choices of clothing.
But the state already regulates your clothing - for example there are laws against indecent exposure in a public place, or laws that require you to wear a helmet while riding a bike or a hard hat while entering a construction site. So there isn't really any new quality in the state telling you that you cannot enter a university wearing a religious veil - it's just that the religious idiots are so used to their special privileges (and the rest of the society is so used to giving these privileges to them) that this sounds like something extraordinary.
Wait, you think that wearing clothing is a "special privilege"? :wacko:
I actually disagree with French handling of the religious clothing issue. One should be free to wear (or not wear) whatever clothing one wants - but again, if this interferes with important legal procedures (e.g. id photos/checks), then such things take precedence.
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2011, 03:56:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 29, 2011, 04:16:33 PMI'm talking about handholding and kissing. I could find many people who feel such displays of homosexual affection are against public decency.
Ok but that does not mean that the freedom is absolute just that restrictions must be reasonable.
The right "not to be offended" is relatively low on the hierarchy of importance, and as such it cannot restrict freedoms of others, except in most extreme circumstances. The needs associated with airport security are more important than that.
But you just cited pornography in public as an aspect of free speech/expression that should be banned in public. How does homosexual expression not fit along there except that you and I don't find it disgusting?