The question is more open than just being limited to the constitution. Why cater to religion at all. When the OP asks, “Why are we explicitly privileging these sorts of faith-based statuses?”, the emphasis is on privilege.
The point I’m making is that politicians made law to cater to one religion. They didn’t violate the rights of that religion, they violated them for everyone else saying in effect that if you want the ‘privilege’ of riding without a helmet, then you must become a Sikh. Hence the government promotes that religion over everyone else’s beliefs, secular or not.
I wish I could buy health insurance that only catered to healthy people and dropped people who got too sick. It would be so much cheaper for me. And I’m not too keen on mixed race couples being part of my plan as well. No gays, either. They get the aids.
Politicians cater to getting votes (limited only by constitutional and legal limitations).
Sometimes the people or causes they cater to are religious; sometimes they are not.
In this case, the fact that Sikhs vote, and want to wear turbans, is far more significant that the fact that the reason they want to wear turbans is religious. It would make absolutely no difference if all of these turban-wearing Sikhs were atheists, and wanted to wear turbans in the same manner as Black activists in the '70s wore dashikis.
You ask “why do we cater to this?” The answer is that politicians cater to voters. What you really appear to want, is to prevent them from catering to religious voters.
Anyone can wear a turban if they want to. The only people who can wear a turban, and not a helmet, when riding a motorcycle are people of a specific religion. Sikhs are enjoying a ‘freedom’ or not subject to a restriction that everyone else is required to comply with entirely due to their religion. How they vote is secondary to this even if that is the reason politicians have allowed it.
Yes, we are all in agreement, this particular exemption is only available to a member of the Sikh religion.
How, exactly, do you propose to prevent politicians from carving out exemptions for Sikhs, if the legislature, in its infinite wisdom, decides to create one - in order to pander to the Sikh community?
Claim your rights are infringed, because they have an exemption you don’t? Based on what, exactly? Here in Canada, you’d have to demonstrate some sort of significant impariment of rights; unless you were habitually in the habit of wearing a Sikh turban all the time, this may be somewhat difficult to do.
No, I don’t think you are getting the point. The government is promoting one religion at the expense of everyone else. The constitution allows for reasonable accommodation in religious practices. Yet this isn’t a parade ground where it doesn’t matter what type of hat you are wearing, but a safety issue where people’s lives are jeopardized. Safety should always trump religion. So, I suggest that if a law is put in place to keep people safe, then all people must comply except in those instances where the law itself would jeopardize someone by complying. Arguments that a magic tooth fairy expects different from you should’t be admissible unless the tooth fairy in question shows up in person to make their case.
How? In what way does allowing Sikhs to ride a motorcycle without a helmet “promote” any religion? What “expense” do non-Sikhs incur as a result of Sikhs legally riding motorcycles without helmets, even if any of them actually do so?
In any case, any concerns about unequal privileges for Sikhs in helmet requirement laws could be eliminated easily if the laws regarding helmets were removed and everyone was free to make their own decisions in the matter. It’s just like I already pointed out: the real root of all your complaints is the nanny state that tries to dictate every aspect of our lives.
Obviously by the implication that their god will protect their skulls in an accident. No one else’s god will do the same.
The idea that the government is willing to cater to certain groups at the expense of the common good. That some groups are more special than others.
Because it is clearly proven that riding without a helmet is more dangerous than without one. A law the seeks to prevent someone getting hurt unnecessarily is good for everyone. But I agree with the principle, if the law can be removed because of someone’s ‘opinion’ on what their god wants them to do, then the law should be examined to determine if everyone should be allowed to do that activity as they wish as well.
I asked what expense is incurred by letting Sikhs not wear helmets; repeating that there is such an expense doesn’t answer the question. Sikhs who ride motorcycles without wearing helmets are not removing one penny from my pocket, or yours, or any non-Sikh’ s.
I am unaware of any person who has suggested either of those things. You are the one who brought up “the implication that God will protect their skulls in an accident”. Can you cite anybody who has actually said that God will protect Sikhs’ skulls in an accident, or were you just making that up?
And yet millions of Canadians each day eat unhealthy food, smoke, fail to exercise, and do other things which might cost the public health care system extra. Nowhere does it say that any activity that costs the health care system extra must be illegal.
How many of these terrible British Columbian, motorcycle-riding, helmetless Sikhs are there, anyway? I’m guessing not a lot. How much extra gets spent on their healthcare? Is there any evidence that the amount is nonzero? This seems like a strange topic to get so worked up about; even if we grant that British Columbian, motorcycle-riding Sikhs have been given an unfair legal right to not wear a helmet, there are surely a great many issues on this planet more deserving of our attention.
Well, a helmet is going to protect my skull, what is going to protect theirs? Again, are they not worth protecting? Is a Sikh worth less than you or me that they shouldn’t be protected?
Because all that is legal to do. If one of those things was illegal except for a dispensation based upon someone’s religion, then that is wrong. I guess you have a problem with one law for everyone?
The evidence clearly says that you are less likely to sustain injury if you wear a helmet. I’m not going to spend time looking for evidence that Sikhs somehow are immune from following the trend.
None that I care about at the moment I’m writing this. I’d be doing something else otherwise. Surely there are more important things for you to do than argue with someone who says that laws should pertain to everyone equally? I’m baffled that anyone is on the other side of this argument?
Your complaint is that the government of British Columbia is promoting Sikhism at the expense of other religions?
I quite fail to see how an exemption in headgear requirements is a “promotion” of Sikhism.
See, the problem you face is that it is the law itself that contains the exemption - it is not a case of someone seeking (Sikh-ing? :p) that an existing law not apply to them (which, in other provinces, they have, and have been rejected on safety grounds).
There are no “Arguments that a magic tooth fairy expects different from you” made, or necessary - the law itself quite clearly exempts Sikhs from wearing helmets.
The burden is now on you to demonstrate why the law infringes on someone’s consitutional rights, if you wish to have the existing, secular and civil law not apply.
The notion that Sikhs believe turbans will magically protect them - well, all I can say is that this appears completely made up. In any event, it is quite unimportant what Sikhs believe, the secular, civil law is very clear - Sikhs may wear turbans and not motorcycle helmets in BC.
Equality before the law bends in lots of cases, because people are not equally situated. Equality of treatment can, in some cases, lead to inequality in application.
In fact, this is a (frequent) critique of conservatism in legal and social affairs. The phrase often associated with this (irrational) longing for formal equality is “status quo bias”.
An example of “status quo bias” in insisting on formal “equality before the law” leading to injustice: “The civil law currently defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Therefore, the law should be applied equally to gays. Nothing is stopping gays from getting married - only, a male gay must be married to a woman, as the law requires”.
The primary reason people are objecting to SSM and the reason the law was probably drafted that way originally? Religion. So, your root cause is letting religion be a guide for making law resulting in the current challenge. The next challenge will be on why only two people are allowed to get married. The objection will be based entirely upon religion.
Uh, not so. The primary objection to having legal mutiple marriages has noithing to do with religion, and everything to do with what a “legal marriage” implies.
What you are forgetting is that “legal marriage” isn’t simply a social nod of approval, but has all sorts of legal implications dealing with rights of inheritance, child support and access, powers of attorney over matters both financial and personal … all of which is set up with a single other person involved. None of which works well with groups.
Nop doubt these problems could be overcome with voluminous re-drafting of all existing laws on the subject - were there any social pressure for it. Which there isn’t, except from some religious communities like seperatist Mormons and some Muslims … generally speaking, secular society is hostile to multiple marriages.
Contrast with gay marriage, where the change could no be easier - simply a change in the definition of “spouse” from “a man and a woman” to “two adult persons”.
You far overestimate the influence of religion as opposed to other motives.
Everything you are worrying about has already been addressed.
Inheritance and power of attorney wouldn’t be any different between multiple spouses than it is between multiple siblings taking care of their parents, or simply dealt with on the marriage contract.
Child support and access? Divide by 3 or more instead of 2. Can’t see the big deal unless lawyers make is so. Plus, a better chance the kid would have a better support network.
From a previous poster:
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
How many of these terrible British Columbian, motorcycle-riding, helmetless Sikhs are there, anyway?
[/QUOTE]
Enough apparently to get the law modified for their benefit based upon religious beliefs.
I don’t think Sikhs are terrible, they are just ignorant thinking that Xenu, or whoever they pray to, requires them to wear a turban at the expense of their noggins. If a law is there to protect people, then anyone who does the activity that the law was made for should benefit from that protection. The people who are terrible are the political panderers, the ones granting them an exception because they care more for votes than lives.
That’s the problem with your argument. Religion is by its definition not secular. Only allowing religion insofar as secularists approve is tantamount to banning religion.
Such a system would be as flawed as a theocracy.
Part of the success of the American style of government is the ability to balance things like free speech, free press, and free religion with restraints that allow society to function.
At the end of the day, you’ll only reap problems if you try to control what people believe. Let people believe whatever they like so long as they don’t hurt others.
