Tolerance of different religions vs. equal treatment

[galdre]

If we are to be respectful of peoples legitimate belief systems, then why shouldnt we give exemptions to something as harmless as wearing a beanie for your driver's license?

Just because some clerk bought into his faux reason isnt cause for celebration. I mean, what are you winning here? Acknowledge that (some) athiests are so anal that some jewish guy getting to wear a kippah makes them filled with rage? Good job!!!



My point is why do you care at all if a jewish guy gets to wear his little beanie? Its simply not that big a deal to get upset over.



Sigh, is that the best you can offer? Legitimizing murder for religious reasons? Is getting to wear a beanie for your drivers license equative of human sacrifice?

Amazing.

If a law is important to have, then it is important for everyone.

Personally, as I stated earlier, the easiest answer for the headgear question is to let everyone wear headgear (with certain restrictions regarding obstructing the face), since I don't think it's important enough to deny religious people their headgear.

I see absolutely no justification to create double standards. We should all be treated equally under the law. It's not about protection of religious beliefs, it's about not creating another set of standards based on belief (or lack of).

So where do you draw the line? You don't like my extreme example of human sacrifice; what about drug use? Denial of children to health care? Physical abuse of others? Polygamy? How many exemptions do you want to create?

 

[NovaKart]

If you change the law so people can wear a yarmulke, turban or hijab in their DL photo is it really making the law unequal for everyone? I mean, presumably everyone can wear a yarmulke, turban or hijab in their DL photo, regardless of if they follow those religions.

 

[Farm Boy]

So where do you draw the line? You don't like my extreme example of human sacrifice; what about drug use? Denial of children to health care? Physical abuse of others? Polygamy? How many exemptions do you want to create?

Glad we can agree protections of law are important for everyone. All of these issues are important enough to warrant individual considerations as to the public good. Would you agree, or would you be more inclined to blanket-rule the entire issue?

 

[MobBoss]

How about different education for religious reasons?

Define 'different'. Is a catholic school really that 'different'? Is that what are you referring to?

How about ritual slaughter of animals?

I'd say not.

How about institution's right to declare people married or collect taxes?

Said insitution has to meet specific state criteria in order to have marriages performed regonized by the state. As to collecting taxes, I dont get what you are saying. Is it a reference to church's tax exemptions?

How about mutilation of newborn babies?

Define mutilation.

How about exclusion from military draft?

The military has what it calls 'conscientous objector' status, which is indeed a military exemption based upon religious reasons, however, the criteria for receiving this status are fairly restrictive.

I see absolutely no justification to create double standards.

And I see no reason to not allow for certain exemptions given for certain reasons.

 

[galdre]

Glad we can agree protections of law are important for everyone. All of these issues are important enough to warrant individual considerations as to the public good. Would you agree, or would you be more inclined to blanket-rule the entire issue?

I believe in setting a single standard.

 

[Farm Boy]

I believe in setting a single standard.

We will have to disagree on that. The world is a fairly complicated place with reasonably complicated problems. From what I can tell, simple unbending answers are generally worse problems in and of themselves than the harm they would seek to prevent.

 

[Atticus]

...

Actually, never mind, I was trying to steer the thread to the direction it was supposed to be, not about specific example (a head gear), but the general idea. I also thought it was better done without mod tags, since otherwise I'd be giving my arguments the authority of a moderator.

Much of the examples were non-US specific, other countries have it different, but I'll just not take part to this discussion anymore.

 

[galdre]

We will have to disagree on that. The world is a fairly complicated place with reasonably complicated problems. From what I can tell, simple unbending answers are generally worse problems in and of themselves than the harm they would seek to prevent.

Do you have any examples of when you think a double standard would be justified?

 

[MobBoss]

I believe in setting a single standard.

Except there already is a single standard, i.e. you dont get to wear headgear unless you have a religious reason to do so, and said headgear cant cover up your face. Thats still a single standard, and even if you alter it to say anyone can wear headgear there are still going to be exemptions for that as well because thats how things work in reality.

The real question is are people somehow being harmed by allowing the wear of religous headgear on drivers license photos? No? Then get over it. But opening the floodgates for anyone to wear headgear is going to open a crap load of argument because there is such a wide variety of possible options for people to try and justify.

I see a small exemption for a few religious types as far more appealing than trying to meet the demand of everyone wanting to have their drivers license wearing their favorite teams oversized foam hat. Doing that actually detracts from the actual purpose of the ID in question anyway - allowing a small beanie to be worn - not so much.

I mean seriously, Galdre, if push came to shove, even under your 'single standard', the guy in Austria should be out of luck since a kitchen utensil isnt a hat, and he shouldnt/wouldnt be allowed to wear that even under your 'single standard' plan.

Actually, never mind, I was trying to steer the thread to the direction it was supposed to be, not about specific example (a head gear), but the general idea. I also thought it was better done without mod tags, since otherwise I'd be giving my arguments the authority of a moderator.

Much of the examples were non-US specific, other countries have it different, but I'll just not take part to this discussion anymore.

I think you can certainly find examples of religious practices in third world nations that would be seen as criminal in more 'civilized' nations. Ergo, the earlier example of human sacrifice notwithstanding.

But I think thats a given, and far less debatable than say, getting to wear a spagetti strainer on your head for your DL. I mean, even by Galdres 'single standard' that shouldnt be allowed for the simple reason its not even a hat!!

 

[galdre]

Except there already is a single standard, i.e. you dont get to wear headgear unless you have a religious reason to do so, and said headgear cant cover up your face. Thats still a single standard, and even if you alter it to say anyone can wear headgear there are still going to be exemptions for that as well because thats how things work in reality.

The real question is are people somehow being harmed by allowing the wear of religous headgear on drivers license photos? No? Then get over it. But opening the floodgates for anyone to wear headgear is going to open a crap load of argument because there is such a wide variety of possible options for people to try and justify.

I see a small exemption for a few religious types as far more appealing than trying to meet the demand of everyone wanting to have their drivers license wearing their favorite teams oversized foam hat. Doing that actually detracts from the actual purpose of the ID in question anyway - allowing a small beanie to be worn - not so much.

So, change it to say that anyone can wear headgear as long as it does not obstruct the face... simple solution and a single standard for everyone that is not based on a person's beliefs.

 

[MobBoss]

So, change it to say that anyone can wear headgear as long as it does not obstruct the face... simple solution and a single standard for everyone that is not based on a person's beliefs.

Should kitchen utensils be considered actual 'headgear' under your 'single standard'? Or is anything allowable on your head barring that it doesnt cover your face?

My point being if you are going to have a law about 'headgear' wouldnt it be appropriate to define what 'headgear' actually is? If I come in with a cardboard cutout, with a hole for my face, should I be allowed to take my photo in that? Why not? It doesnt obstruct my face.

Is it worth it to have to spend huge amounts of manpower/time/energy and dollars to change something just because someone gets butthurt over an exemption for religious headgear?

In my opinion: nope.

 

[galdre]

Should kitchen utensils be considered actual 'headgear' under your 'single standard'? Or is anything allowable on your head barring that it doesnt cover your face?

My point being if you are going to have a law about 'headgear' wouldnt it be appropriate to define what 'headgear' actually is? If I come in with a cardboard cutout, with a hole for my face, should I be allowed to take my photo in that? Why not? It doesnt obstruct my face.

The law would definitely need to define what is counted as acceptable headgear, and then everyone would have to obey that law. Single standard.

and btw, I would not include kitchen utensils

 

[MobBoss]

The law would definitely need to define what is counted as acceptable headgear, and then everyone would have to obey that law. Single standard.

and btw, I would not include kitchen utensils

If you dont include things like kitchen utensils then your're right back at square one with people complaining you are being restrictive of their right to wear what they want and the social injustice involved.

Point being, no matter what your 'single standard' is you simply arent going to make everyone happy. Ever.

 

[Farm Boy]

Do you have any examples of when you think a double standard would be justified?

I probably agree with single standards more than you would think. They serve as a good baseline from which deviations need to be justified.

I don't have any terrific examples off the top of my head. The only things coming to mind are Catholic communion wine and possibly hunting of whales by indigenous american tribals(I'm just not certain if this is religious or strictly cultural).

Both of these situations have what I think is a sensible base rule. I.e. minors not consuming alcohol and the conservation of a relatively scarce animal resource. In these specific situations the amount of alcohol consumed in an occasional sip of low percentage wine is not a harm significant enough to warrant barring minors from participating in communion. If communion involved emptying an entire minikeg at age 14, I would be inclined to reevaluate. Not everybody should be allowed to harpoon species of whale that are no longer abundant, but if such an activity is central to the lifestyle of a tribe and their take can be regulated to allow for adequate conservation of said species, again I think that is appropriate. The burden is largely on the exempted organization to prove that they warrant the exception, but it is entirely reasonable that they can be allowed to do so.

 

[galdre]

If you dont include things like kitchen utensils then your're right back at square one with people complaining you are being restrictive of their right to wear what they want and the social injustice involved.

Point being, no matter what your 'single standard' is you simply arent going to make everyone happy. Ever.

I know we won't make everyone happy, all the more reason to create a single standard that applies to all, so no one can complain about certain groups being treated differently under the law.

I probably agree with single standards more than you would think. They serve as a good baseline from which deviations need to be justified.

I don't have any terrific examples off the top of my head. The only things coming to mind are Catholic communion wine and possibly hunting of whales by indigenous american tribals(I'm just not certain if this is religious or strictly cultural).

Both of these situations have what I think is a sensible base rule. I.e. minors not consuming alcohol and the conservation of a relatively scarce animal resource. In these specific situations the amount of alcohol consumed in an occasional sip of low percentage wine is not a harm significant enough to warrant barring minors from participating in communion. If communion involved emptying an entire minikeg at age 14, I would be inclined to reevaluate. Not everybody should be allowed to harpoon species of whale that are no longer abundant, but if such an activity is central to the lifestyle of a tribe and their take can be regulated to allow for adequate conservation of said species, again I think that is appropriate. The burden is largely on the exempted organization to prove that they warrant the exception, but it is entirely reasonable that they can be allowed to do so.

For the communion wine, a single standard could easily be created that said only a certain amount of alcohol can be served children, if it's deemed so important to let Catholics use wine.

The natives hunting whales is a much more interesting problem. Of course it does not effect the general population since whale hunting isn't exactly a weekend sport, it's more of a regulation of an industry. I still have a problem with it since I don't think we should allow a group to do an act that would not be sustainable for the majority to do, but then to deny it would force a change in lifestyle in a material way. If the whales are depended upon for their existence, to deny the whales is to deny their life. I'd have to think about this one more.

 

[MobBoss]

I know we won't make everyone happy, all the more reason to create a single standard that applies to all, so no one can complain about certain groups being treated differently under the law.

There already is a single standard that applies to all.

What you fail to realize is that even if you shift the current 'single standard' to one you think is 'more fair' its not going to change anything, and in fact, could affect the actual process of getting ones license problematic.

I mean, if you allowed head gear for everyone, realistically how much additional time would be involved in determining which headgear is allowable, is the headgear being worn properly, does it meet with the standard criteria; does it really obsure the face or not....etc. etc.

The unintended consequence of your personal 'good idea' could mean far longer lines and far more bureaucracy at the DMV. Have you considered that?

 

[galdre]

There already is a single standard that applies to all.

What you fail to realize is that even if you shift the current 'single standard' to one you think is 'more fair' its not going to change anything, and in fact, could affect the actual process of getting ones license problematic.

I mean, if you allowed head gear for everyone, realistically how much additional time would be involved in determining which headgear is allowable, is the headgear being worn properly, does it meet with the standard criteria; does it really obsure the face or not....etc. etc.

The unintended consequence of your personal 'good idea' could mean far longer lines and far more bureaucracy at the DMV. Have you considered that?

Yes, I have, but I think a little bureaucracy is better than a double standard.

I'm not sure why you are stating that the current law is a single standard. A law that says x is illegal except for those who follow a religion is by nature a double standard - one for non-members of a religion, and one for members.

 

[MobBoss]

Yes, I have, but I think a little bureaucracy is better than a double standard.

I think it would be more than just a little and again, allowing certain legitimate exemptions isnt a double standard....its simply how things work in order to account for the myriad of situations that can come up in these situations.

I'm not sure why you are stating that the current law is a single standard. A law that says x is illegal except for those who follow a religion is by nature a double standard - one for non-members of a religion, and one for members.

Actually, it covers members of all relgions as well since the Jewish guy in question could wear his little religious beanie, but not a ballcap or cowboy hat or whatever.

How about we standardize it to where everyone can wear a jewish beanie if they want and thats it? Satisfied? I mean that makes about as much sense as your own recommendation since religious types can only wear a very limited number of caps. So why not have the single standard to say that if you want to wear a hat, you have to limit it to this kind of hat? Thats fair to all and indeed a single standard isnt it?

 

[phoenix_sprite]

Just force everyone to not wear headgear for their driver's license photo, regardless of religion. That would make everyone equal, no?

Beyond popular belief, driving is not a right, it is a privilege.

To enforce equal treatment would mean to force religious factions at the same level as everyone else, to set a balance. I'm all for equality.

 

[MobBoss]

Just force everyone to not wear headgear for their driver's license photo, regardless of religion. That would make everyone equal, no?

Beyond popular belief, driving is not a right, it is a privilege.

Then your engaging in religious persecution without good reason. I mean I can see the argument to prevent an ID wearing a full head covering like a burkha for example, but is a yarmaluka even visible in a DL photo? Hardly, if at all.