Tolerance of different religions vs. equal treatment

[Junius]

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.

Well i wouldn't so much say that it is a higher belief (though it is clearly higher than something like sports fandom with no effect on most of life) than a clearly different one. Aelf and illram have already posted some very good points. I would add that religion tends to be far more encompassing in ones life than a political ideology or favorite band or whatever you want to pay tribute to. Also, this is not exclusive to religions, but more common in them, is the use of symbols. Wearing a kippah is not much in and of itself, but it is a symbol of the wearer's devotion and faith. What would wearing a cheesehat symbolize for a packers fan? That they really love the packers. Not really something the government needs to go out of their way to accommodate imo. Another reason of course if the unique history of religion, especially in the US, and the 1st amendment that protects it legally (i speak of the US only here though other countries may have similiar laws). One common reason for immigrating here was freedom to worship however you want. I'd also like to point out again most, though not all, are more zealous about religion than other philosophies or systems of beliefs.

I also don't think it is special treatment. It is simply allowing a person to practice their faith. It harms nobody else. It does something on some level for the practicer. Being able to wear kitchen gadgets on your head to draw attention to yourself makes a mockery of the process and does nothing else.

I would still like to know two things. Who is being harmed by allowing the religious to practice their faith and why do you feel a religion and a political party (or whatever you would like to compare it to) are the same?

 

[Tani Coyote]

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.

If science was democratic, it wouldn't be science.

Teach intelligent design at home.

Science must teach things that follow the scientific method. If you want intelligent design, show us something in favor of it.

I can give you vestigial structures, diversification between landmasses, convergent evolution, etc. Let's use some simple logic: your body adapts over time. Why can't entire species and generations do it too?

51% of the population says fire won't roast you. That makes no sense to put in science class since repeated analysis shows it will indeed roast you!

 

[timtofly]

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.

I guess we agree, I just thought you were saying we should just make it a law to do so. Schools should be allowed to teach anything that they like, that falls into what is morally safe. Teaching creationism along side of evolution has nothing to do with keeping religion out of schools. Evolution is not a worse or better explanation, it is just another one. If there was a church that followed evolutionary thought, I do not see why it could not bring it up in its teachings.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I guess we agree, I just thought you were saying we should just make it a law to do so.

I suppose evolution can be optional(just make it optional like sex ed even!), but intelligent design, with no scientific backing, should certainly NOT be included in a curriculum.

Schools should be allowed to teach anything that they like, that falls into what is morally safe.

What's the judge of that?

Teaching creationism along side of evolution has nothing to do with keeping religion out of schools. Evolution is not a worse or better explanation, it is just another one. If there was a church that followed evolutionary thought, I do not see why it could not bring it up in its teachings.

Evolution has some support, but not enough to become a law rather than a theory. Creationism has none.

 

[Lillefix]

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.

There ARE no alternatives.

 

[wolfigor]

the 1st amendment that protects it legally

Ok, finally I decided to look-up the text of the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is nothing at all that say the government has to make exceptions to accommodate specific religious practice.
For example in 1990, the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

In this specific case the supreme court decreed that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition (use of peyote) even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual.
Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.

This is the same interpretation since the very first case in 1878 when the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause of 1st amendment.
The Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."


Coming back to the case from the OP, there is no ground according to USA constitution to create exceptions for wearing headgears in ID photos.

Well i wouldn't so much say that it is a higher belief (though it is clearly higher than something like sports fandom with no effect on most of life) than a clearly different one. Aelf and illram have already posted some very good points. I would add that religion tends to be far more encompassing in ones life than a political ideology or favorite band or whatever you want to pay tribute to.

One can easily make the point that the behaviour of any hard core otaku has the same depth of religious feeling.
At the same time can be argued that not all the people that label themselves as follower of a specific religion live it with the same intensity as you described.

In short, this is very subjective, not objective.

If you allow exceptions for religious reasons, why not for cultural/ethnic reasons.

And to what limit we draw the line between beliefs that are deemed worth protection and which are not.

Should we allow, for example, genital mutilation in children (e.g. infibulation) on religious or cultural ground?
People practicing it, strongly believe it's part of their religion/culture, is it discrimination to forbid such practice?
The USA Supreme Court has a very clear opinion on similar cases.

Also, this is not exclusive to religions, but more common in them, is the use of symbols. Wearing a kippah is not much in and of itself, but it is a symbol of the wearer's devotion and faith. What would wearing a cheesehat symbolize for a packers fan?

It demonstrate devotion, respect, and alliance to the packers and what they represent in terms of spirit, loyalty, will to win, and whatever else.
Exactly the same as wearing a kippah: it's all subjective.
If the state allows exception for one should do for the other too.

I also don't think it is special treatment. It is simply allowing a person to practice their faith.

if their faith is so important they can make some sacrifices for it... like do not get a driving license because they cannot remove their headgear for the few seconds needed for the photo.

It harms nobody else.

It harms the concept that everybody is equal in front of the law.
One claim to be religious and get away with something that is not allowed to somebody that does not claim to belong to a specific cult.

Being able to wear kitchen gadgets on your head to draw attention to yourself makes a mockery of the process and does nothing else.

That's exactly the point: show how unjust is to allow exceptions to the law on belief reasons.

Who is being harmed by allowing the religious to practice their faith

In the context of the thread I don't think that religious practice is harmed by not allowing photos with headgears: one can continue to believe whatever he wants... just without a driving license.
Allowing exceptions harms justice and the euality of all people in front of the law.

and why do you feel a religion and a political party (or whatever you would like to compare it to) are the same?

They both are deep "feelings" that contribute to shape your morality and behaviour.
Just to make an example: being a (convinced) communist shapes your morality and behaviour to an extent consistent to a religion.
How intensely such belief (religious, political, ethnic, cultural, trekkie, sport fan, etc.) is lived is strongly subjective.
You assume that all people labeling themselves with a religion live such belief more deeply and more all-encompassing than any other type of personal identification.
I don't make such assumption, and I this that law should as objective and equal to all as possible.

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.

Evolution may have some flaws (which ones btw) but much less than any other alternative.
More importantly the theory of evolution is not an opinion based on books: it's based on scientific method and its "predictions" have been proven over and over again.
While most if not all of the points of creationism have been debunked over and over again.

 

[Brighteye]

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.

Well i wouldn't so much say that it is a higher belief (though it is clearly higher than something like sports fandom with no effect on most of life) than a clearly different one. Aelf and illram have already posted some very good points. I would add that religion tends to be far more encompassing in ones life than a political ideology or favorite band or whatever you want to pay tribute to. Also, this is not exclusive to religions, but more common in them, is the use of symbols. Wearing a kippah is not much in and of itself, but it is a symbol of the wearer's devotion and faith. Another reason of course if the unique history of religion, especially in the US, and the 1st amendment that protects it legally (i speak of the US only here though other countries may have similiar laws). One common reason for immigrating here was freedom to worship however you want. I'd also like to point out again most, though not all, are more zealous about religion than other philosophies or systems of beliefs.

I also don't think it is special treatment. It is simply allowing a person to practice their faith. It harms nobody else. It does something on some level for the practicer. Being able to wear kitchen gadgets on your head to draw attention to yourself makes a mockery of the process and does nothing else.

I would still like to know two things. Who is being harmed by allowing the religious to practice their faith and why do you feel a religion and a political party (or whatever you would like to compare it to) are the same?

I remember lending someone £1 to buy some sweets when I was young. He never paid me back because it was such a small amount. It didn't really matter, apparently.
I protested that it wasn't his decision to make, and that it had seemed to matter at the time when I'd loaned him the money.

It was only £1. In the context of the whole world he's right that £1 here or there won't change the way that the whole of life plays out. But would anyone here suggest that he hadn't stolen from me in some way? If £1 isn't worth bothering about, and taking it isn't theft, then I'm certainly not going to carry small coins around any more.
Or what if you do it twice? Add a small thing to a small thing enough times and you get everything. It's how calculus works. Infinitessimal slivers add up to totality. If you want to prevent lawbreaking, you enforce the law ('without fear or favour').

So what if wearing headgear in official photos doesn't hurt anyone directly? There's a wonderful, incredible thing called 'a principle' to which I'd like to introduce people. A principle decrees that something is wrong. It doesn't say, in some sort of wishy-washy, vague way that something is mostly wrong except when you don't like the outcome.
If you want a society based solely on Utilitarian concerns of greater good, in which every action must be judged on the good coming from it, then you've avoided the need to follow principles rigidly, because you've specifically stated that there is only one, and it's an all-encompassing one.
But there are problems. It's quite possible that the greater good is served by enforcing laws even when breaking them in a specific instance might directly be better, because it encourages less lawbreaking, or because it stops people trying to conflate the greater good with their own good. How do you judge the greater good? On what authority? Why is this the highest moral purpose? Why should one person sacrifice himself for others? Do you need principles defining what greater good is? What if they're imperfect? Do you break those principles?
If 'greater good' is simply personal judgement, where is the morality?

We have principles that we have clearly defined. Not wearing headgear in photos is one such principle, and another is the equal applicability of the law to all citizens. If a subjective belief entitles me to be an exception to the law, then I thank you for the licence to kill.

But that's suddenly important, unlike headgear? Says who? If we have established a principle that belief trumps law, why does it not any more? The only reason for it to do so in one instance and not another is if we accept your assumption of a utilitarian basis for law, and accept your assumptions about greater good.

I might argue that it is for the greater good of a country to eliminate religious delusion, not to pander to pointless beliefs.

 

[Jehoshua]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

-

This could be easily interpreted into meaning simply that the State shall not declare a single religion a state religion and that all religious groups are permitted to freely practice their religion. This would in no way preclude exemptions for religious items of headgear such as a sikh turban or hijab in certain circumstances as such exemptions are permissible under the guarantee of free exercise of religion and such exemptions do not concern the establishment of a state religion. I don't see any real problem as long as the headgear doesn't obscure identity (like say a Niqab) especially considering I doubt the US constitution has in its writ that exemptions for religious groups to wear religious headgear in certain situations are forbidden.

 

[wolfigor]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This would in no way preclude exemptions for religious items of headgear such as a sikh turban or hijab in certain circumstances

At the same time the text doesn't say that the congress should make exceptions to the law to accommodate arbitrary beliefs.

 

[El_Machinae]

I like the ruling. Firstly, hijinks. Secondly, we broaden religious freedoms with his advocacy. Plus, his continued exposure does a big favour for Christianity by encouraging its improvement. Finally, hijinks.

 

[aelf]

One can easily make the point that the behaviour of any hard core otaku has the same depth of religious feeling.

Maybe. But it doesn't have the kind of tradition and widespread following that religious beliefs as a distinctly recognised class of beliefs tend to rely on. At most they can only be considered 'cults'. Like it or not, tradition and ubiquity often constitute conditions for acceptance.

Another way to look at it is through the notion of mysticism. Is there anything mystical to otaku beliefs? I'm thinking here of Wittgenstein's notion of something (to put it simply) that cannot be substituted nor described by words. This could be where the quality of the subjective experience differs, and it's going to be very difficult for someone with no experience that he/she would describe as religious to know what that difference is. And since we're talking here about subjective experience, you can't tell religious people that they are wrong when they assert that there is a difference.

At the same time can be argued that not all the people that label themselves as follower of a specific religion live it with the same intensity as you described.

Sure, but the 'genuineness' of the religious lends the religion a legitimacy that even the not-so-religious can call on.

In short, this is very subjective, not objective.

Precisely.

 

[wolfigor]

Precisely.

We agree that's something subjective... and in my opinion the law has to be objective and not subjective.
The law has to treat everybody as equal, independently from their personal belief.
Else the law will be subjective and treat some category of people as different.
Apartheid was based on having different law for different categories of people... the same values for a lot of laws discriminating various religious groups (e.g. special laws for Jews): the principle of "special laws" can be a danger for democracy and equality in the country.

 

[Junius]

Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.

Sometimes that is true yes, but the SCOTUS has not been entirely consistent. For example this case allowing the slaughter of animals for religious purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah
Either way that doesn't say they can't accommodate those people if they choose. Just they are not always required to. It depends on the situation. For example they a person can be fired for being high on peyote at work. Makes sense. At the same time peyote use by members of certain native american religious groups is allowed.

And to what limit we draw the line between beliefs that are deemed worth protection and which are not.

Should we allow, for example, genital mutilation in children (e.g. infibulation) on religious or cultural ground?
People practicing it, strongly believe it's part of their religion/culture, is it discrimination to forbid such practice?
The USA Supreme Court has a very clear opinion on similar cases.

I would say the test should be: What is the harm to other people and is what they are being asked to do (or not do) a compelling state interest worth depriving them of their right to worship. I would say infibulation is out since it can be quite severe, but not circumscision for example which is minor and fairly common.

It demonstrate devotion, respect, and alliance to the packers and what they represent in terms of spirit, loyalty, will to win, and whatever else.
Exactly the same as wearing a kippah: it's all subjective.
If the state allows exception for one should do for the other too.

This and the Otaku reference are where we will most strongly disagree. Devotion to the Packers (or any other team, band, movie, book, etc) is not the same as devotion to God (buddha, great spirit, nature, brahman etc). Simply because something is important to you does not mean it is spiritual at all. Aelf again had a good post on this idea. I would agree that not all the faithful are as pious or observant as other. The ones who are not will not ask for the exemption.

It harms the concept that everybody is equal in front of the law.
One claim to be religious and get away with something that is not allowed to somebody that does not claim to belong to a specific cult.

Again, it harms no individual unlike the broad restriction. You are saying equality before the law is more important than individual rights. I disagree strongly. I must say that they are not "getting away" with anything either. Why would you want to wear a kippah in a ID photo without a sincere belief it is important? The FSM guy was preaching to the converted. He only amused those like yourself who already agreed with him. It wasn't good satire at all (for one thing it took years, meaning he was taking it far far too seriously to be funny). My belief that God exists and someone's belief that Zeppelin rules (though they do) is not the same thing.

We have principles that we have clearly defined. Not wearing headgear in photos is one such principle, and another is the equal applicability of the law to all citizens. If a subjective belief entitles me to be an exception to the law, then I thank you for the licence to kill.

It's not entirely fair for me to cherry pick this quote perhaps, but yours was a long post and i think this sums up the argument you made that was distinct from wolfigor's. Common sense can and will be used. Headgear is harmless. Murder is not. Once more the test i suggested earlier is a good way to think about it. Who is harmed and what is the compelling state interest? Headwear may meet that criteria, but human sacrifice obviously would not. I don't buy your principle idea. I would suggest the principle that individual rights are something worth protecting and harming them without a good reason shouldn't be done in a free country.

I might argue that it is for the greater good of a country to eliminate religious delusion, not to pander to pointless beliefs.

Attitudes like that are one of the reason it is protected in our bill of rights in the first place.

 

[aelf]

We agree that's something subjective... and in my opinion the law has to be objective and not subjective.
The law has to treat everybody as equal, independently from their personal belief.
Else the law will be subjective and treat some category of people as different.

That's not what the difference between subjective and objective entails. You can be objective and treat different groups of people differently. Objectivity connotes (maybe denotes?) universality, but you can hold some kind of inequality as an objective truth/fact and thus treat people unequally.

Apartheid was based on having different law for different categories of people... the same values for a lot of laws discriminating various religious groups (e.g. special laws for Jews): the principle of "special laws" can be a danger for democracy and equality in the country.

Not the same, clearly. The spirit of the law is completely different, so much so that any comparison is meaningless.

 

[wolfigor]

Sometimes that is true yes, but the SCOTUS has not been entirely consistent. For example this case allowing the slaughter of animals for religious purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah

Superficially yes, but in this case they allowed the exception because the city of Hialeah was providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter.
If the city of Hialeah would have removed all exceptions to ritual slaughter of animals then the result would have been very different.
Actually this is an example of consistency and the fact that equality before the law is very important in USA too.

For example they a person can be fired for being high on peyote at work. Makes sense. At the same time peyote use by members of certain native american religious groups is allowed.

I think there was a sentence of Supreme Court regarding this case.
I really hope they don't allow exceptions here... you don't want people high on peyote handling heavy equipment.

I would say the test should be: What is the harm to other people and is what they are being asked to do (or not do) a compelling state interest worth depriving them of their right to worship.

Nobody deprive them of the right to worship!!!
If you want to wear a headgear at all time, feel free to do, nobody forbid it.
Just take public transportation.

I would say infibulation is out since it can be quite severe, but not circumcision for example which is minor and fairly common.

Here in Norway there is discussion about allowing or not circumcision in public hospitals.
Allowing it will mean that more resources (my taxes) will be used for it instead of something useful for curing people.

This and the Otaku reference are where we will most strongly disagree. Devotion to the Packers (or any other team, band, movie, book, etc) is not the same as devotion to God (buddha, great spirit, nature, brahman etc).

It's subjective, there is no objective (scientifically) way to measure devotion.
Until we have such system, then we are in the realm of subjective opinions, that have the same weight as leaves in autumn.

Simply because something is important to you does not mean it is spiritual at all. Aelf again had a good post on this idea. I would agree that not all the faithful are as pious or observant as other. The ones who are not will not ask for the exemption.

but it can happen that a packer's fan wants to get his ID photo with the packer's cap.
Why do you want to consider them second class citizens denying the importance of their belief... Belief is subjective. it's all opinion.

Again, it harms no individual unlike the broad restriction.

Apart the harm to the principle of equality in front of the law.

You are saying equality before the law is more important than individual rights.
I disagree strongly.

Yes, this is the main point from which everything else come as consequence.

I must say that they are not "getting away" with anything either. Why would you want to wear a kippah in a ID photo without a sincere belief it is important?

I may want to have my sport club cap or pirate bandana or viking helm (cultural-ethnic).
If it's allowed for people of specific religion, it should be allowed for all: they have "more rights" or better less legal limitations than me.

The FSM guy was preaching to the converted. He only amused those like yourself who already agreed with him.

I agree that what he did was quite pointless.
I rather prefer the vote in the Dutch parliament to remove exceptions to ritual slaughter of animal.

Who is harmed and what is the compelling state interest? Headwear may meet that criteria, but human sacrifice obviously would not.

This is a healhty principle... the problems come when you have cases on the limit between harm and not harm (where the harm or the absence of it is questionable).
One can argue that it's much "cleaner" and equitable to have one law for everybody without exceptions.
Once a legislation allows for exceptions, we get on a slippery slope that can lead too far.

Not the same, clearly. The spirit of the law is completely different, so much so that any comparison is meaningless.

Allowing exceptions even for noble reasons, you open the door for evil use of exceptions.

Spoiler :

In the 40's the Nazi had huge problems to round-up Jews in Denmark because there was no way to distinguish them from the rest of the population (*).
The Danish had one law for everybody and no exception based on faith or ethnic.

(*) the Nazi had to rely on Jewish sounding names... however Danish population, despite huge Nazi efforts, were able to save 99% of Denmark's Jewish population.

 

[Junius]

There appear to be two main sources of disagreement.

One, how important is equality before the law and is it more important than individual rights? My personal opinion is that individual rights should be the top concern. I don't imagine not being able to wear a hat in an ID photo is a burden for most, though for some it is and that is why reasonable religious headgear is accommodated. It seems fair and reasonable to make room for those requests. You disagree and think it more fair to hold everyone to the same standard. We can agree to disagree.

Second, the idea that other ideologies or philosophies are just as worthy of protection as religions. They should certainly be protected from a free speech perspective. I will also agree that for some people those concepts are more important (sometimes much more so) than a religion. That they can be similiar though doesn't mean there aren't important differences. The spiritual angle, mentioned by Aelf, is worth considering. Some philosophies have this as well, but no political ideologies or sports, nationalistic ideas, etc, do. There is the tradition element. Religions tend to be older and therefore more ingrained in people than other ideas. They tend to permeate a persons (the most pious or traditional) life more than other ideas. There is the tendency of people throughout history to be intolerant toward other religions or religion in general.

Whether these are good reasons or not is a separate discussion. These differences do exist though. It doesn't make sense to me to treat it as if they don't for the sake of simple consistency. They make up a special category of belief and that's why i believe in situations where it is reasonable to make concessions, meaning the rights of other people are not violated and the interest the government has in enforcing them is not so great, it is only right to do so. We can agree to disagree here as well.

 

[aelf]

Allowing exceptions even for noble reasons, you open the door for evil use of exceptions.

Spoiler :

In the 40's the Nazi had huge problems to round-up Jews in Denmark because there was no way to distinguish them from the rest of the population (*).
The Danish had one law for everybody and no exception based on faith or ethnic.

(*) the Nazi had to rely on Jewish sounding names... however Danish population, despite huge Nazi efforts, were able to save 99% of Denmark's Jewish population.

To see all exceptions as essentially the same is fallacious, probably as much as treating all instances of causing hurt to other people as essentially the same. If some people would claim that the justification for apartheid is similar to the justification for, say, letting religious people wear the headgear required of them in official photographs, then the fault is not with the notion of making exceptions but with the reasoning of that group of people.