Tolerance of different religions vs. equal treatment

[MobBoss]

But what's the harm in it? The more silliness the better!

No need for it on an official form of identification really.

 

[Junius]

I'm not american I don't care about the bill of rights. My point is that religious people think their opinions and feelings about religion, are intrinsically more worth than other people's feelings about other things. You have no idea how a dedicated football fan might feel about his team, or a dedicated communist might feel about communism. You can't just add a god in the equation and claim that your feelings about a certain subject is now more worth.

Well i am American so the Bill of Rights is kind of a big deal to me and most Americans. Religion is a bigger deal than football (and i like american football a lot). Religion is not the same as a political philosophy. Dedication is not the only thing to consider so i don't see why we should compare them. If you think that religious feelings can be equated with a favorite sport or something then you are coming at this issue from a very different place than most people. That isn't to dismiss any other philosophies or ideologies, but they simply aren't the same. What makes you think they are?

 

[Lillefix]

That isn't to dismiss any other philosophies or ideologies, but they simply aren't the same. What makes you think they are?

Here's exactly where we disagree.

 

[Junius]

Here's exactly where we disagree.

I assumed as much.

 

[wolfigor]

Well i am American so the Bill of Rights is kind of a big deal to me and most Americans. Religion is a bigger deal than football (and i like american football a lot). Religion is not the same as a political philosophy. Dedication is not the only thing to consider so i don't see why we should compare them. If you think that religious feelings can be equated with a favorite sport or something then you are coming at this issue from a very different place than most people. That isn't to dismiss any other philosophies or ideologies, but they simply aren't the same. What makes you think they are?

One could ask you the same question: why do you think religion has a higher value than any other personal belief?
You are making a very strong statement that needs to be justified somehow.

 

[wolfigor]

There should be a legal protection from ridiculing people of other religions.

if they have ridiculous belief, why not?
Let me clarify.
If one person has a strong belief that goes against logic and science, the same person would be ready to be questioned about it.

Imagine if one person really believes in Santa Claus.
Other may explain why such belief is complete non-sense.
And, more important, by questioning the plausibility of such belief even in very sarcastic way, nobody forbid this person to continue to dwell in his own ridiculous belief.

Reality is not offensive, it's just reality.

Religion should not use as an excuse, a trump card, too avoid any discussion that we feel uncomfortable with or to get exemption from the rules that everybody follows (e.g. the law).

Coming back to the case from the OP.
The law says: the photo on the driving license must be without any headgear.
By imposing it, you don't prevent people from following their religion or cult.
They can continue to follow their own personal and arbitrary rules as much as they want.
Just when there is an ID photo, they have to be good citizens and remove their headgear for a few seconds (they do remove it when they go to sleep I guess).

 

[illram]

What about a guy who is a really really big fan of a football team and feels obliged to use the cap of his team all the time. And he's just as dedicated to his team as religious people are to their god. Should he be allowed to use the cap?

I think you would have to make the distinction that "Religious devotion" to something does not necessarily make that something a spiritual or moral or religious belief and practice. Also, there should be some significant connection between practice and belief. E.g., the yarmulke or the hijab. Conscientious Objector status in the United States military is a good example of how to craft a regulation accommodating people based on their beliefs and practices. To be a Conscientious Objector you do not need to be a member of any religion, you just need a deep rooted moral, ethical or spiritual belief, manifested in your daily life and your personal history, of non-violence and pacifism. You don't have to prove you believe in a God or any of that.

But more to your point, yes, the Government would also be obliged to create some definable concept of religious, spiritual, or deep moral belief, tied to a specific practice that needs accommodation, that could trigger a potential accommodation in certain scenarios. Does Church of Greenbay Packers have a deeper moral or ethical teaching that provides significant meaning to one of its devotees? Is this spiritual or moral belief intrinsically tied to wearing a hat in a driver's license photo? Someone with a better background in spiritual or religious practice could probably come up with some better questions, but the long and the short of it is that the kinds of things a Government may accommodate would need to be definable and distinguishable from things such as being a devoted sports fan, otherwise I don't think providing accommodations would be tenable.

The Supreme Court has occasionally played the dubious game of defining religion, such as in Wisconsin v. Yoder. This was a case where the Court ruled that the Amish could not be criminally prosecuted for refusing to send their kids to high school. Although Wisconsin did not challenge the fact that the Amish way of life was a "religion," the Court did go into some detail on the pervasiveness of the Amish way of life in the daily lives of an Amish person, the fact that their beliefs were rooted in the Bible, the commonality of their practice amongst other believers, etc. etc.

All that is probably useless however as to some extent you could go on a flight of fancy and analogize Greenbay Packers fan's devotion to his team to a religious belief. All I can really say about that is that there really is not much argument beyond a common sense distinction between religion or spiritual practices and sports. I am not a religious or very spiritual person though so I probably am not the best person to really delve into that point beyond simply saying "obviously sports and religion are different."

 

[aelf]

One could ask you the same question: why do you think religion has a higher value than any other personal belief?
You are making a very strong statement that needs to be justified somehow.

Because the subjective experience associated with religion is of a very different quality from that of many other kinds of belief. This is encapsulated by the whole notion of spirituality. At the same time, it's common enough not be regarded as 'abnormal'.

Religion should not use as an excuse, a trump card, too avoid any discussion that we feel uncomfortable with

I agree.

 

[SG-17]

Then I should have a right to punch someone's teeth in if someone told me I am stupid or childish for believing in a religion or insisting that my faith is based on "fairy tales". Jesus may have said "turn the other cheek", but basic instincts of being offended and lashing out against the person who insulted my faith (I consider my beliefs and faith as part of my individuality) kind of overrules that tenant.

I could argue that if you aren't acting Christ-like then you aren't really a Christian.

There should be a legal protection from ridiculing people of other religions. Otherwise you have a big brawl bar fight and/or a huge amount of people sueing each other's pants off just because an Atheist told off a Christian by telling him or her that she just believes in fairy tales and is stupid and childish. People claim that words don't hurt, to tell the truth, that's baloney. Words DO HURT!!

How about hell no? Blasphemy laws are the worst ideas in the history of bad ideas.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Then I should have a right to punch someone's teeth in if someone told me I am stupid or childish for believing in a religion or insisting that my faith is based on "fairy tales". Jesus may have said "turn the other cheek", but basic instincts of being offended and lashing out against the person who insulted my faith (I consider my beliefs and faith as part of my individuality) kind of overrules that tenant.

You have protection from hate crimes, but protecting from getting offended is NOT a good precedent.

I get offended when people actually can say they don't believe in gay marriage; should such comments be illegal?

Likewise, they, as religious individuals, get offended when they hear I do believe in gay marriage. Who does the gov't side with?

It makes more sense to not give any protections against being offended. Either walk away, or keep enduring it. You DO have a right to walk away; you are not legally obliged to stay there.

You are within your moral right to hurt someone insulting you, but not your legal right.

There should be a legal protection from ridiculing people of other religions. Otherwise you have a big brawl bar fight and/or a huge amount of people sueing each other's pants off just because an Atheist told off a Christian by telling him or her that she just believes in fairy tales and is stupid and childish. People claim that words don't hurt, to tell the truth, that's baloney. Words DO HURT!!

Indeed they do. That's why you walk away. If they continue to pester you, it becomes harassment and you have a legal case against them.

 

[MeteorPunch]

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

Yep, people can believe absolutely anything, and why favor one religion over another?

 

[GenMarshall]

I could argue that if you aren't acting Christ-like then you aren't really a Christian.

And you risk yourself falling into the Real Scotsman Falicy.

 

[MobBoss]

I could argue that if you aren't acting Christ-like then you aren't really a Christian.

My reply to that is no one is perfect, even christians. Being Christ-like isnt about not making mistakes, its about what happens after you make them.

 

[innonimatu]

Well i am American so the Bill of Rights is kind of a big deal to me and most Americans. Religion is a bigger deal than football (and i like american football a lot). Religion is not the same as a political philosophy. Dedication is not the only thing to consider so i don't see why we should compare them. If you think that religious feelings can be equated with a favorite sport or something then you are coming at this issue from a very different place than most people. That isn't to dismiss any other philosophies or ideologies, but they simply aren't the same. What makes you think they are?

True, many people take religion extremely serious. But that still does not justify them getting special laws.
What does: Well, they get special laws because they can. It's just like with any other law: those groups which can make enough pressure to get one passed will have "special treatment". Ultimately, an application of the principle "might makes right". Religion, from that point of view, it nothing special at all!

 

[G-Max]

This was brought up on an episode of Star Trek: Voyager in which Torres was talking about freedom of religion and Janeway was like "If your religion required you to sacrifice your firstborn child to the gods, I'd tell you to STFU"

I'm basically with Janeway on this one. Crazy people do not deserve special treatment unless it involves thorazine and a straightjacket.

 

[timtofly]

In the US religions do not get special treatment. Tax breaks are not "special treatment". Tax breaks are the separation of church and state. If the state started to tax religious institutions, they would be involved. BTW stating that a religious tax free organization is not allowed to talk about legal and social issues is a load of *. Churches were doing so before the need to raise taxes, and the need to keep the church and state seperate tax wise. US citizens gave up a lot of freedom, when taxation became the be-all end-all answer to social problems.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I think churches should be free to talk about whatever issues, but shouldn't be allowed to actively lobby. The wall of separation should go both ways. It's a wall, not a one-way door.

Churches are given tax exemptions for charitable status, and no faith shall receive favor over another in the halls of government.

Likewise, churches shall not try to impose a state faith or their religious values in public institutions.

No intelligent design in school, and in turn, no evolution in the churches.

 

[timtofly]

I think churches should be free to talk about whatever issues, but shouldn't be allowed to actively lobby. The wall of separation should go both ways. It's a wall, not a one-way door.

Churches are given tax exemptions for charitable status, and no faith shall receive favor over another in the halls of government.

Likewise, churches shall not try to impose a state faith or their religious values in public institutions.

No intelligent design in school, and in turn, no evolution in the churches.

Since when does teaching something in a public setting have anything to do with the laws of the land? Now if you think teaching is a form of brainwashing, then we have a problem. It seems to me that refusal to teach all sides of any issue is cencorship and brain washing. Are people that afraid of children making up their own mind? It is the separation of church (religion) and state, not God and state? Just ask China and Russia how easy it is to brain wash people into thinking their is no God.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Since when does teaching something in a public setting have anything to do with the laws of the land? Now if you think teaching is a form of brainwashing, then we have a problem. It seems to me that refusal to teach all sides of any issue is cencorship and brain washing. Are people that afraid of children making up their own mind? It is the separation of church (religion) and state, not God and state? Just ask China and Russia how easy it is to brain wash people into thinking their is no God.

You have parents to teach alternative opinions, and private schools.

As for not teaching a wide range of opinions, that's easy: science class must teach things that are proven or have some evidence in favor. We have evidence in favor of evolution, though it's branded a theory nonetheless. What do we have for intelligent design?

Kids trust their parents more than their teacher, so if you have an issue with them learning evolution, just teach them creationism at home. THEN let them decide.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Kids trust their parents more than their teacher, so if you have an issue with them learning evolution, just teach them creationism at home. THEN let them decide.

I understand your point, but evolution has many flaws. And it is only fair, that with the numbers of people who doubt evolution, that alternatives be taught.