Tolerance of different religions vs. equal treatment

[galdre]

Moderator Action: Split off from this thread.

It seems like there isn't much of a double standard in this particular case. The man went through the steps required to wear headgear in his license photo and was allowed to wear headgear in his license photo. I do not see a problem with the state's handling of this.

What is the problem then? That secular governments can allow space in civil society for religion? Should the US revoke the right for Native American tribes to use peyote? Ban communion wine? Humanity has such a shining record of suppressing the beliefs of others. Let us not walk down this well trodden path yet again.

He was only able to wear the headgear because he claimed to be part of a religion - that is a double standard. If head gear can't be worn in a license photo, then no one can wear it.

Religious people should follow the laws of the nation. So, to use your example, make peyote legal if you want some people to be able to use it for religious purposes, otherwise no one uses it. It's not about suppressing beliefs, it's about not having a society that gives preferential treatment to certain groups simply because of what they believe. It's about setting up laws that apply to all citizens, equally.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's about setting up laws that apply to all citizens, equally.

Apparently, in this instance, they do.

A society that cannot balance efficiency with civil latitude and must impose blanket regulation without exception is dysfunctional.

 

[Omega124]

It seems like there isn't much of a double standard in this particular case. The man went through the steps required to wear headgear in his license photo and was allowed to wear headgear in his license photo. I do not see a problem with the state's handling of this.

It was originally founded when one guy protested that intelligent design was going to be taught in public schools in Kansas as a counter to evolution. The theory was that if one theory backed only by a religion could be taught in school, then his theory of a Flying Spaghetti Monster creating life should likewise be taught.

And way to strawman on the second paragraph. "Religion and the state should be separated" "Oh, I see how it is. You want to kill religion". Obviously, if I support the separation of church and state, then I support a separation. Religions should be allowed to practice, but government should not teach religious dogma like intelligent design in public schools, or something as simple as allowing people to wear hats for religious purposes in pictures if you can't otherwise.

 

[galdre]

Apparently, in this instance, they do.

A society that cannot balance efficiency with civil latitude and must impose blanket regulation without exception is dysfunctional.

No, they don't, because he could not have worn anything on his head without claiming to be part of a religion.

A society that creates exceptions to its laws for certain groups is dysfunctional.

 

[madviking]

A society that creates exceptions to its laws for certain groups is dysfunctional.

And, arguably, against the notion of equal protection of the law, and, thus, unconstitutional.

Employment Division v. Smith
Reynolds v. United States

 

[aelf]

A society that creates exceptions to its laws for certain groups is dysfunctional.

Not really. They seem to work pretty well.

I guess there are two kinds of liberal democracy: One with a kind of tolerant liberalism that able to give some latitude with a view to group/minority rights and identities (which is practiced to a large extent in the Anglo-Saxon world), and the other with a kind of strictly secularist liberalism that must treat every citizen equally in every respect (which is more popular in Europe). I think the first is more likely to avoid major problems.

 

[Farm Boy]

It was originally founded when one guy protested that intelligent design was going to be taught in public schools in Kansas as a counter to evolution. The theory was that if one theory backed only by a religion could be taught in school, then his theory of a Flying Spaghetti Monster creating life should likewise be taught.

And way to strawman on the second paragraph. "Religion and the state should be separated" "Oh, I see how it is. You want to kill religion". Obviously, if I support the separation of church and state, then I support a separation. Religions should be allowed to practice, but government should not teach religious dogma like intelligent design in public schools, or something as simple as allowing people to wear hats for religious purposes in pictures if you can't otherwise.

I'll go with you on public school education, though I think criticisms of intelligent design while well founded are often overblown.

I am going to assume we are capable of evaluating issues on a case by case basis. Hard and fast rules seek to simplify issues and find a quick and easy answer, a weak solution for weak thought process or lazy mind. For hats in state ID photos, what is the point of not generally allowing them? I am guessing it allows for clear identification without obscuration, please correct me if you are aware otherwise. The harm prevented is unusable or inefficient state IDs that would be, presumably, easier to use fraudulently. The limited allowance of groups to wear relatively innocuous headgear that does not significantly obscure identification, the point of the regulation in the first place, seems like a solution that creates greater good if the required removal of said headgear would create a relatively traumatic experience for the photographed individual. "No headgear" is an easier rule to enforce, so it can be a baseline. Certain common exceptions for the sake of tolerance are not too burdensome to carve out.

You simply can't truly be arguing that all laws in all situations be applied the exact same way to everybody. Exceptions are carved out all the time based on age, gender, race, physical disability, mental ability, etc. People are not all the same. A competent society can make space for those differences, within reason.

 

[galdre]

Not really. They seem to work pretty well.

I guess there are two kinds of liberal democracy: One with a kind of tolerant liberalism that able to give some latitude with a view to group/minority rights and identities (which is practiced to a large extent in the Anglo-Saxon world), and the other with a kind of strictly secularist liberalism that must treat every citizen equally in every respect (which is more popular in Europe). I think the first is more likely to avoid major problems.

Are all people equal? If so, should they not be treated equally in every respect under the law?

 

[Lillefix]

You simply can't truly be arguing that all laws in all situations be applied the exact same way to everybody. Exceptions are carved out all the time based on age, gender, race, physical disability, mental ability, etc.

Yes, but not based on an opinion. You shouldn't get certain rights just because you hold a certain opinion.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Hmm. I'm divided. While I support equal rights for atheists and theists alike, this rubs me the wrong way.

It's one thing to be an atheist.

It's another when you just seek to mock people for their faith. His faith is not genuine, especially when he outright has confessed to being an atheist.

That said, just allow or disallow any headgear. There. No more people bickering over whether or not there's something greater than us.

 

[Lillefix]

That said, just allow or disallow any headgear. There. No more people bickering over whether or not there's something greater than us.

The problem is that some Muslim women, Sikhs and so on, would go bananas if they did that. They are too used to, to get their way.

 

[galdre]

The problem is that some Muslim women, Sikhs and so on, would go bananas if they did that. They are too used to, to get their way.

If people want to allow them to wear their headgear in license photos, change the laws so all people can wear headgear.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, but not based on an opinion. You shouldn't get certain rights just because you hold a certain opinion.

Semantics, how I loathe thee... How about "cultural norms" instead of "opinion." Most religions impact the functioning of society more than "I think mauve is prettier than burnt umber."

But whatever, if it's too hard to tolerate "opinions" that are not shared, by all means let's not make extra effort to be inclusive. Draconian enforcement of minor regulations is surely more important than the happiness of your neighbor.

 

[galdre]

Semantics, how I loathe thee... How about "cultural norms" instead of "opinion." Most religions impact the functioning of society more than "I think mauve is prettier than burnt umber."

But whatever, if it's too hard to tolerate "opinions" that are not shared, by all means let's not make extra effort to be inclusive. Draconian enforcement of minor regulations is surely more important than the happiness of your neighbor.

I'm all for considering my neighbors. In this instance, I would make headgear legal to wear in license photos (with certain restrictions regarding obstructing the face) for all people. And I would argue for that only because certain religious people consider it important to wear headgear at all times; otherwise I would stick to no headgear for those photos.

 

[Farm Boy]

Now that I think about it, I find it relatively surprising that we are 6 pages in and nobody has mentioned that allowing certain headgear in state ID photos is actually efficient.

If we go back to the basic purpose of such a photo, it would seem it is to provide a clear and concise image of the bearer to provide easy verification of identity. Is it possible the exceptions for religious headgear might have something to do with the fact that people tend to wear it, uhm, religiously? Thus making the headgear itself a consistent aide in accurate identification?

 

[timtofly]

I would like to say that if a religion is not worth dying for, it is not worth living for either. It is easy to get people to recognize your take on what is right or wrong. It is harder to stake ones life on it, albeit many do.

 

[warpus]

I don't mind having special exceptions for religious or cultural reasons in our judicial system/society/whatever, as long as they're reasonable.

Most religious headgear would fall under that category.

I would draw the line at something like "My religion forbids me from serving gays" or "working with dogs" or "cutting up bacon" or whatever.

 

[MobBoss]

I think its incumbent upon the government providing the service in question to determine if a religion is legitimate or not. AFAIK, the US government (and other nations as well) actually have defined criteria on what a 'religion' is or not.

As for the hat in a official photo thing is concerned, again, if I recall correctly, there can be religious exemptions, but are still limited..i.e. the head covering cant obscure the face or identity of the person in the picture (i.e. burkas etc.).

 

[galdre]

I think its incumbent upon the government providing the service in question to determine if a religion is legitimate or not. AFAIK, the US government (and other nations as well) actually have defined criteria on what a 'religion' is or not.

As for the hat in a official photo thing is concerned, again, if I recall correctly, there can be religious exemptions, but are still limited..i.e. the head covering cant obscure the face or identity of the person in the picture (i.e. burkas etc.).

I don't think that's the government's role. As long as you obey the law believe whatever you want.

 

[RedRalph]

No. The law should be the law should be the law. Changing it for people based on what they believe is ridiculous.