Tolerance of different religions vs. equal treatment

[Tani Coyote]

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.

It is apparent that banning headgear would inherently take away the rights of many.

As such, allow any headgear that is not intrusive or obstructive.

I have the right to wear my Sonic Colors hat as part of my belief in the Great Hedgehog and his all-male pantheon. No one gets offended through a general allowing of headgear.

 

[Farm Boy]

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

Any particular take on the line of reasoning that allowing perpetually worn headgear actually increases the usefulness of a photo ID?

 

[galdre]

Any particular take on the line of reasoning that allowing perpetually worn headgear actually increases the usefulness of a photo ID?

The same could be said for non-religious headgear. If I always wear the same hat then by your reasoning I should have it on in the photo ID. It is a legitimate argument for changing that particular law IMO, but not for only letting religious people wear headgear.

 

[Farm Boy]

The same could be said for non-religious headgear. If I always wear the same hat then by your reasoning I should have it on in the photo ID. It is a legitimate argument for changing that particular law IMO, but not for only letting religious people wear headgear.

I would assume if you have some sort of proof that you always wear very much the same thing, it would be allowable. I would be amazed if medical headgear is not an acceptable exception.

Unfortunately, just saying "I always wear the same ball cap" and actually always wearing the same ball cap is not the same thing. People who wear a particular garment in public due to religious faith tend to be consistent enough to warrant an exception. If you feel strongly enough about your ball cap or psgetti strainer go jump through the hoops to prove your dedication, the initial posting behind this thread would indicate there is a mechanism for that.

 

[MobBoss]

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

I think your're wrong. Giving the same credence to some made up religion that no one believes in to say the Catholic Church is just inane and certainly harmful to people who actually take their beliefs and faiths seriously.

It is indeed the governments role to quantify what is or is not legitimate under these circumstances. Please bear in mind this isnt the government dictating what you can believe or not, this is simply the government recognizing the legitimate. FSM simply isnt legitimate, nor should it ever be, given that its nothing more than farce and confirmed as much by its own 'followers'.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think your're wrong. Giving the same credence to some made up religion that no one believes in to say the Catholic Church is just inane and certainly harmful to people who actually take their beliefs and faiths seriously.

It is indeed the governments role to quantify what is or is not legitimate under these circumstances. Please bear in mind this isnt the government dictating what you can believe or not, this is simply the government recognizing the legitimate. FSM simply isnt legitimate, nor should it ever be, given that its nothing more than farce and confirmed as much by its own 'followers'.

I agree, to a point. I mean, where do you draw the line? For instance, are the Jehovah's Witnesses a religion? I mean, they're a SERIOUS minority, but there's still a recognizable group that believes in it. Or Scientology? Pardon me for being mean, but it is kind of ridiculous to most people, in fact, it SEEMS like somebody made it up, yet a lot of people believe in it.

I'd say Pastafarianism shouldn't count simply because... nobody genuinely believes in it. But I don't really care, its not like it harms anyone...

 

[MobBoss]

I agree, to a point. I mean, where do you draw the line? For instance, are the Jehovah's Witnesses a religion? I mean, they're a SERIOUS minority, but there's still a recognizable group that believes in it. Or Scientology? Pardon me for being mean, but it is kind of ridiculous to most people, in fact, it SEEMS like somebody made it up, yet a lot of people believe in it.

I'd say Pastafarianism shouldn't count simply because... nobody genuinely believes in it. But I don't really care, its not like it harms anyone...

Well, I believe both of the ones you bring up are indeed viewed as 'relgions' by the USA. They both are organized, have regular congregations, bylaws and standards of membership, etc. etc.

I didnt say that the requirements to qualify as a legitimate 'religion' needed to be necessarily stringent, but at least existent and consistent under the law.

Also, if I recall correctly, Scientology has been refused by Germany to be acknowledge as a legit religion. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

 

[Ajidica]

I think your're wrong. Giving the same credence to some made up religion that no one believes in to say the Catholic Church is just inane and certainly harmful to people who actually take their beliefs and faiths seriously.

If your religous beliefs are so vulnerable that you feel harmed by a bunch of real life trolls, that says something about your religous beliefs. They are your beliefs, not their beliefs.

 

[Defiant47]

So what about Scientology? I would put it about on par with FSM in terms of wackiness... but Scientology has managed to actually gain some followers. (if you reject the idea of FSM followers)

Does that make it "more true" than FSM?

 

[Lillefix]

Also, if I recall correctly, Scientology has been refused by Germany to be acknowledge as a legit religion. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

I thought it was France. In any case, I disagree with them. It's just as much a religion as any of the more mainstream religions.

 

[galdre]

How can we judge whether or not someone truly believes something? Are you telling me there are not people who call themselves Christians (or Muslims, Buddhists, etc) who don't really believe the religion? Does it matter?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, I believe both of the ones you bring up are indeed viewed as 'relgions' by the USA. They both are organized, have regular congregations, bylaws and standards of membership, etc. etc.

I didnt say that the requirements to qualify as a legitimate 'religion' needed to be necessarily stringent, but at least existent and consistent under the law.

Well yeah, I'm following, I'm just seeing a logical extreme that your point could be taken too. I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with what was said, so much as how it could be taken. For instance, Scientology, as you say below, is not even recognized everywhere, and yeah, Scientology is ridiculous. By *My* standards, it shouldn't really count, however, a lot of people believe in it, and so it kind of needs to be counted even though its crazy.

Now, Pastafarianism, nobody really believes in. If you draw the line at "There's no genuine believers" then I'd be OK with that. But I don't want to see real religions (Even though they are ridiculous) discounted because we wouldn't want that done to our religion.

If your religous beliefs are so vulnerable that you feel harmed by a bunch of real life trolls, that says something about your religous beliefs. They are your beliefs, not their beliefs.

I don't feel "Harmed" I just feel like its really stupid...

How can we judge whether or not someone truly believes something? Are you telling me there are not people who call themselves Christians (or Muslims, Buddhists, etc) who don't really believe the religion? Does it matter?

Kind of. Again, I don't see this as a big deal, but I mean, Pastafarianism isn't a real religion and shouldn't really count as one... It won't change my life though.

 

[Defiant47]

I thought it was France. In any case, I disagree with them. It's just as much a religion as any of the more mainstream religions.

I was always amused at how everyone got butthurt over Scientology... guys, it's like every other religion out there - why are you singling it out? Cause it's new?

 

[Lillefix]

I was always amused at how everyone got butthurt over Scientology... guys, it's like every other religion out there - why are you singling it out? Cause it's new?

It's kind of the missing link between nonsense and religion.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Because Scientology sounds more like a fiction book than a religion

 

[Defiant47]

It's kind of the missing link between nonsense and religion.

Faith is the missing link between nonsense and religion.

In order to believe magical stories you need to forgo your sense of reasoning, and "take it on faith" or "take a leap of faith".

 

[Lillefix]

Because Scientology sounds more like a fiction book than a religion

Why is a religion founded by a carpenter less fiction than one founded by a writer?

 

[galdre]

Because Scientology sounds more like a fiction book than a religion

That could be said about every religion. Not that I'm defending Scientology...

 

[MobBoss]

If your religous beliefs are so vulnerable that you feel harmed by a bunch of real life trolls, that says something about your religous beliefs. They are your beliefs, not their beliefs.

If religion is just as important in this country as race or sex, then why should religion be treated differently? For example, no one is going to doubt that your race or sex should be protected from those real life trolls, so why shouldnt your religion be as well since it is indeed one of our protected rights in this nation?

 

[galdre]

If religion is just as important in this country as race or sex, then why should religion be treated differently? For example, no one is going to doubt that your race or sex should be protected from those real life trolls, so why shouldnt your religion be as well since it is indeed one of our protected rights in this nation?

Your gender and ethnicity are not matters of choice. Your beliefs are.