Religious freedom and Church-State separation

[Among_Liberals]

I said gang-related clothing because the no hats rule is fairly universal, alongside other rules against gang related clothing. I am not sure if I have heard of a school that allowed hats, regardless of context. Perhaps that primarily arose from gang problems, but it is understandable for the no hat rule to arise from something else, such as hats being observed as generally a distraction or cases where the brim can be used to mask sleeping. I speak of ignorance on the subject, but I don’t think yarmulkes would generally fall under those rules.

Independent of all that, would you accept a hat ban with exceptions, but not on individual religious grounds? For example, a Christian could wear a yarmulke if they wanted, but not a baseball cap.

[Little_Nemo]

@MEBuckner

Lemon v. Kurtzman: “[a] statute must have a secular legislative purpose”.

Which is completely in agreement with what I said.

Laws do not generally need a justification.

Laws which affect religious issues need a secular justification because of the First Amendment. (This is what Lemon v. Kurtzman said. You could also check out Reynolds v. United States, Lovell v. City of Griffin, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, Sherbert v. Verner, Employment Division v. Smith, and Gonzales v. UDV which track the Supreme Court going back and forth on the Free Exercise clause.)

If the First Amendment didn’t exist (which was the hypothetical I was originally responding to) then laws which affect religious issues wouldn’t need a justification.

[Mnemnosyne]

@Among_Liberals

I said gang-related clothing because the no hats rule is fairly universal, alongside other rules against gang related clothing. I am not sure if I have heard of a school that allowed hats, regardless of context. Perhaps that primarily arose from gang problems, but it is understandable for the no hat rule to arise from something else, such as hats being observed as generally a distraction or cases where the brim can be used to mask sleeping. I speak of ignorance on the subject, but I don’t think yarmulkes would generally fall under those rules.

Independent of all that, would you accept a hat ban with exceptions, but not on individual religious grounds? For example, a Christian could wear a yarmulke if they wanted, but not a baseball cap.

That’s probably reasonable, although I might feel somewhat uncomfortable with it if the only exceptions created were for religious reasons. I’d be more comfortable with a rule that, for example, restricted any hats with brims more than a specified length, to prevent the ‘covering of eyes’ problem. I don’t like the idea of a rule that essentially grants benefits to those who follow specific religions.

Although honestly, I think the discussion about hats may present the question in somewhat of a silly light, even if those hats are important to people on religious grounds. As a matter of practicality rather than principle, I don’t care if someone is allowed to wear a yarmulke when others are prohibited from doing so, but the principle of the matter is one I don’t think should be permitted to be part of our legal system, which should always endeavor to treat all people equally.

Here’s a better example, though, that did not earlier occur to me: there has been controversy about Sikhs carrying their ceremonial kirpans in places where knives of that size are illegal. In some places, they have successfully gotten special exceptions made for their knives based entirely on religious grounds. The results have certainly varied; in some places they are still required to conform to the standard laws, while in others they have managed to acquire their exception. This, I feel, makes the application of the law unfair and uneven; some people are given special rights purely because of what religion they choose to follow. That’s a situation I’m not comfortable with, even though it is the reality of our world today.

[Little_Nemo]

@Mnemnosyne

This, I feel, makes the application of the law unfair and uneven; some people are given special rights purely because of what religion they choose to follow.

It’s not an application of the law. It’s the law itself. And it’s the Constitution, which is our most fundamental law.

The Constitution says people have the right to freely exercise their religion. Any other laws have to adapt themselves to that right. The right doesn’t have to adapt itself to other laws.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Mnemnosyne

That’s probably reasonable, although I might feel somewhat uncomfortable with it if the only exceptions created were for religious reasons. I’d be more comfortable with a rule that, for example, restricted any hats with brims more than a specified length, to prevent the ‘covering of eyes’ problem. I don’t like the idea of a rule that essentially grants benefits to those who follow specific religions.

Although honestly, I think the discussion about hats may present the question in somewhat of a silly light, even if those hats are important to people on religious grounds. As a matter of practicality rather than principle, I don’t care if someone is allowed to wear a yarmulke when others are prohibited from doing so, but the principle of the matter is one I don’t think should be permitted to be part of our legal system, which should always endeavor to treat all people equally.

Here’s a better example, though, that did not earlier occur to me: there has been controversy about Sikhs carrying their ceremonial kirpans in places where knives of that size are illegal. In some places, they have successfully gotten special exceptions made for their knives based entirely on religious grounds. The results have certainly varied; in some places they are still required to conform to the standard laws, while in others they have managed to acquire their exception. This, I feel, makes the application of the law unfair and uneven; some people are given special rights purely because of what religion they choose to follow. That’s a situation I’m not comfortable with, even though it is the reality of our world today.

Dude, have you actually seen a kirpan?

[MEBuckner]

@Little_Nemo

Which is completely in agreement with what I said.

Laws do not generally need a justification.

Laws which affect religious issues need a secular justification because of the First Amendment. (This is what Lemon v. Kurtzman said. You could also check out Reynolds v. United States, Lovell v. City of Griffin, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, Sherbert v. Verner, Employment Division v. Smith, and Gonzales v. UDV which track the Supreme Court going back and forth on the Free Exercise clause.)

If the First Amendment didn’t exist (which was the hypothetical I was originally responding to) then laws which affect religious issues wouldn’t need a justification.

I’m pretty sure that all laws require a secular purpose, not just ones which “affect religious issues”. A legislature can’t pass a law with the purpose of “bringing every citizen into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ” or “reminding the Jews of their need to repent of their having killed Our Lord and Saviour”. Of course it becomes kind of circular; if a law has no secular purpose at all, then it pretty much automatically “affects religious issues” (as the preceding examples show), so maybe we’re just talking past each other here.

A law may have a secular purpose–“to reduce crime” or even “to promote public morality”–and still run afoul of the Lemon Test’s requirements to neither advance nor inhibit religion and to avoid “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

[Mnemnosyne]

In person, no. Seen pictures of them, including size comparisons, varying in size from as big as my thumb to as big as a proper dagger. For instance, this and this. Not really saying that they’re a big deal. Again, outside of the idea that the law shouldn’t make exceptions, I don’t have a strong opinion on the matter. I’d support getting rid of laws prohibiting carrying knives. I don’t support making special exceptions to the law for them, though.

I just don’t think the law should be going ‘yeah, you can carry that knife because it’s important to your beliefs’ while prohibiting that other guy from carrying a knife because he wants to. The same applies to hats, drinking on sundays, wearing any particular style of clothes, tattoos, sacrificing chickens or paying social security tax.

[Cyros]

@Ibn_Warraq

So then if its permissible and in fact required for restaurants to allow service dogs in, does that mean I should be allowed to bring my dog in?

Many countries, including France, allow this.

If it is permissible to bring a service dog in then we need to look at the difference between the service dog and my dog that makes one a danger to public health and the other not.

Is it the level of training the service dog receives? Then make access to the restaurant dependent on the training level of the dog.

Is it certain behaviour that regular dogs exhibit but service dogs don’t? Then make access dependent on behaviour and give the boot to any dog that doesn’t live up to the standard, be it service dog or not.

Is it purely up to the owner? I am only against government enforcement of unequal treatment so I would be fine with the government saying that as a general rule dogs are allowed at the discretion of the restaurant owner with the caveat that service dogs must always be allowed due to the real physical impairment suffered by the dog’s owner (as noted this is substantially different from allowing something due to a belief as shown by the different treatment of service animals and comfort animals).

[Cyros]

@MaxTheVool

OK, suppose a school has had problems with gang activity, and makes a “everyone must wear a uniform, no hats” rule. I assume you’re basically OK with that?

So “hey, I really like wearing hats” is NOT sufficient grounds to allow a student to wear a hat. But suppose there’s a student with a gaping head wound who has to wear a special medical device to keep a bandage in place? Can that student wear the device? Can they wear a “normal” looking hat over the device so they aren’t walking around with a big unusual medical device on their head?

What about a special ed student who throws a tantrum whenever their hat is taken away?

And what about a Jewish student, where both the parent and the student believe that God requires that he wear a yamulke at all times, and they’re willing to go to jail over it?
Do you not in fact think that that final case should be viewed any differently than just “I like wearing hats”?

I have no problem with people who fight these rules and ask for their exceptions based on whatever their situation is. I just say that once Moishe receives the okay to wear a kippah then any kid can wear something that fits the same style. If Faisel fights to wear a turban to school and gets the go ahead then massive headwound Harry can certainly use that precedent to wear a turban to cover his medical device.

If the school can show that by allowing certain types of headgear that gang violence will explode and the nogoodniks will take over the school then the religious belief should not override that good.

If they can’t show that banning certain styles of headgear will have a positive effect that significantly overrides the negative effect of denying people their headgear then the rule would be ineffective and should not have been put in place at all.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Iggy

<Amish stuff>

Yeah, see, this is just messed up. I’m sorry, but “our omnipotent god (whose existence we cannot demonstrate) says we cannot participate in your laws” is not an excuse. It just isn’t. I could understand in the case of a law designed directly to target a religion (I’ll come back to this in a second), but this is a perfect case of a religion being granted special privilege. How many other people do you think want to opt out of Social Security or Medicare? I’d imagine quite a few.

@Thudlow_Boink

In that case, what’s to keep us from passing a law that bans some practice that is fundamental to a particular religion, or even bans that religion altogether? How do you guarantee any religious freedom? How do you distinguish between the religious issues that the state does have the authority to limit or regulate, and those that it does not?

(And I know some of you would be perfectly happy to do away with religious freedom altogether, but it’s one of the fundamental values this country was founded on and is still vitally important to many of its citizens. And even if you’re not a fan of religion, you should be wary of giving all power to the state.)

Easy - the supreme court verdict that every law has to have a secular reasoning behind them, and it generally being pretty straightforward to spot laws that prevent fundamental religious practices for no reason other than to fuck with the religion. I mean, everyone can see the secular purpose of drinking age laws; so preventing children from taking part in the sacrament has a clear, secular reasoning behind it. However, a law that forbid cross symbols or Allah typography in public would have no such purpose, and would be easily discarded.

@Little_Nemo

So no problem with a law against wearing a yarmulke as long as it applied to both Jews and non-Jews.

What would be the secular purpose of banning yarmulkes? Is there one? Does it make sense? Can it be defended in court? Those are the questions that need to be asked on a case-by-case basis. But as much as you can reduce this to the absurd, the alternative (allowing any religion to ignore laws that violate its moral code so long as that religion is “established”) is far more damaging to society as a whole, given the malleable nature of religion, the fact that Scientology is a legal religion, and the fact that the only thing demonstrably separating Christianity or Mormonism from, say, the Moonies is time to become established.

@Ibn_Warraq

So then if its permissible and in fact required for restaurants to allow service dogs in, does that mean I should be allowed to bring my dog in?

Many countries, including France, allow this.

Obviously, service dogs are a special case, most often not bound to religion (which you can change at will, and which cannot be demonstrated to have any actual effect on your life beyond what you want it to) but rather to disabilities (which you cannot change, and which do have rather extensive effects on your life, mostly unwanted).

[hkepotat]

@Cyros

If it is permissible to bring a service dog in then we need to look at the difference between the service dog and my dog that makes one a danger to public health and the other not.

Is it the level of training the service dog receives? Then make access to the restaurant dependent on the training level of the dog.

Is it certain behaviour that regular dogs exhibit but service dogs don’t? Then make access dependent on behaviour and give the boot to any dog that doesn’t live up to the standard, be it service dog or not.

Is it purely up to the owner? I am only against government enforcement of unequal treatment so I would be fine with the government saying that as a general rule dogs are allowed at the discretion of the restaurant owner with the caveat that service dogs must always be allowed due to the real physical impairment suffered by the dog’s owner (as noted this is substantially different from allowing something due to a belief as shown by the different treatment of service animals and comfort animals).

It is completely up to the owner what animals are allowed into their establishment. Go to your dog groomer or other pet stores that let you bring your dog.

When I say it is up to the owner, I suppose I mean it is up to what they want to pay in insurance. Dogs bite, scratch, and can transmit diseases. Your insurance rate may increase by letting them in. Liability and all that…

Service dogs are not only trained better, but are selected from the most non-hostile dogs. One aggressive act, and they are booted from the program. An establishment owner can let the service dog in because he knows that even if the dog does misbehave, he won’t be the one found liable, he wasn’t the one that made the decision to let the dog in. He didn’t try to make a judgement on whether it was a “good” dog or “bad” dog, that certification is done by another party, and the owner doesn’t actually have a choice as to whether to let it in.

I do like the idea of having a proper certification for non-service dogs that show that they are not a danger, so an owner can be comforted by the fact that they are not liable if an incident happens, that’s not likely to happen for a while, but service dogs are becoming more common for more issues than just seeing-eyes, many people would seem perfectly normal, but have a seizure or diabetic dog that needs to be with them at all times to alert them if they are about to have an imminent medical problem. Someone indicated that they could leave the dog in the car and allow employees to assist. Not sure how leaving the dog in the hot car and letting the employees of the establishment help on that.

Sorry for the derail, but to be slightly more on topic, aren’t yarmulkes, hijab and crosses all the ultimate gang signs anyway? I think more have been harmed under those symbols than any modern gang.

[Cyros]

@hkepotat

It is completely up to the owner what animals are allowed into their establishment. Go to your dog groomer or other pet stores that let you bring your dog.

I assumed from the context of a restaurant that we were speaking of some health regulations that did not permit animals in the restaurant.

Service dogs are not only trained better, but are selected from the most non-hostile dogs. One aggressive act, and they are booted from the program. An establishment owner can let the service dog in because he knows that even if the dog does misbehave, he won’t be the one found liable, he wasn’t the one that made the decision to let the dog in. He didn’t try to make a judgement on whether it was a “good” dog or “bad” dog, that certification is done by another party, and the owner doesn’t actually have a choice as to whether to let it in.

Again, my comments started by speaking of differences based on belief systems and not actual physical differences that may require accommodation. I’m speaking of service animals largely as an exercise in assisting to define my thoughts and can certainly be persuaded that there is a reason to allow only service animals and not all animals. For instance the sheer number of animals that would be in a restaurant if it was opened to non-service animals may make a significant health risk.

[hkepotat]

@Cyros

I assumed from the context of a restaurant that we were speaking of some health regulations that did not permit animals in the restaurant.

Health regulations are locally determined and enforced, so they vary wildly place to place. Around here, and I’ve asked, the health department has no problem with Dogs in customer areas, just not in food preparation areas. The big concern is if a dog bites another patron though, it is going to be your insurance they come after, not just the dog owner’s.

Again, my comments started by speaking of differences based on belief systems and not actual physical differences that may require accommodation. I’m speaking of service animals largely as an exercise in assisting to define my thoughts and can certainly be persuaded that there is a reason to allow only service animals and not all animals. For instance the sheer number of animals that would be in a restaurant if it was opened to non-service animals may make a significant health risk.

Requiring a special license that requires nearly as much training as service animals would cut the number down, and ensure that only responsible owners that take care of their dogs are allowed to bring them, no more health risk than the sheer number of people that are gathered.

To veer back onto thread… A friend of mine had severe anxiety issues, which were lessened substantially when she had her dog with her. As it was not an official service dog, there were few places she could take it. She was probably at least as uncomfortable going out into public without her dog as a Muslim would be without hijab, Jew without a yarmulke, and a Christian without their cross, probably more so. She… had to get over it, just like these people should get over their foibles.

[fumster]

Here is a hypothetical:

A school district has a “no hats” policy, but exempts yarmulkes worn for religious reasons. There is a Jewish girl that decides to wear one though it is not required in her sect of Judaism. Is she allowed to?

How about if there is only one Jewish boy and he is being teased for wearing a yarmulke. A group of gentile kids decides to wear them to show support for him. Is that allowed?

[Czarcasm]

@fumster

Here is a hypothetical:

A school district has a “no hats” policy, but exempts yarmulkes worn for religious reasons. There is a Jewish girl that decides to wear one though it is not required in her sect of Judaism. Is she allowed to?

How about if there is only one Jewish boy and he is being teased for wearing a yarmulke. A group of gentile kids decides to wear them to show support for him. Is that allowed?

Must a yarmulke be worn at all times, or are there exceptions to that rule?

[fumster]

@Czarcasm

Must a yarmulke be worn at all times, or are there exceptions to that rule?

If you ask 5 rabbis you’ll get 6 opinions.

[Czarcasm]

@fumster

If you ask 5 rabbis you’ll get 6 opinions.

You’re not kidding.

[Cyros]

@fumster

Here is a hypothetical:

A school district has a “no hats” policy, but exempts yarmulkes worn for religious reasons. There is a Jewish girl that decides to wear one though it is not required in her sect of Judaism. Is she allowed to?

How about if there is only one Jewish boy and he is being teased for wearing a yarmulke. A group of gentile kids decides to wear them to show support for him. Is that allowed?

My position is that if anyone is allowed to wear a yarmulkes then everyone should be allowed regardless of the reason.

[hkepotat]

@Czarcasm

Must a yarmulke be worn at all times, or are there exceptions to that rule?

Depends on level of orthodoxy and time of year, I believe. I have seen some that are worn year round, and some that only go on for specific religious times, or when actually in Temple.

The question becomes one less of religious exemption, and more of cultural. If I wear an outward symbol of my faith, then I am at least passively proselytizing, and I think that that is what many actually take offense to. A Hijab isn’t just saying “I’m not as good as a man.”, but it also implies “I am still better than you.” Not saying that that is what the intent is, but that is the perception that causes the visceral reaction to such outward signs of religious affiliation.

Maybe instead of basing exemptions on religious beliefs, and more on actual cultures, we would be able to more objectively evaluate the value of allowing one to keep to ones traditions that have kept the culture together and viable for generations, while not allowing real public safety concerns to be trumped by arbitrarily derived rules from the man in the sky.

Cultures are meant to adapt to changing times, religions are not. Traditions can change to accommodate new ideas and different views, while still retaining their roots, sacred scripture and religious belief cannot.

Allowing someone of Jewish descent and culture, or even someone who appreciates their culture, to wear reasonable symbols to represent his ancestors struggles during special times is no different really than school kids in the US dressing up as pilgrims for thanksgiving. As long as it is realized that neither is more sacred or objectively useful (or even representative of actual history), I see no problem with it. I look forward to the day when Muslim women would wear the Hijab on special occasions to represent the struggles and oppression they overcame. The Christian cross could be worn at Easter times to represent bunnies and eggs (that one has always puzzled me, though, had Jesus been executed by beheading, would they worship an axe? Hanging, a noose? ). If policies that do not impact public safety are exempted to help a culture maintain it’s stability, then that can be considered a public good and it makes sense to make the accommodations.

As long as we give credit to the people who claim to be speaking for the supreme ruler of the universe, we cannot have any sort of secular law. If any law can be exempted “because GOD says so”, then every law can be, and the secular legal system falls apart.

[Cyros]

@hkepotat

As long as we give credit to the people who claim to be speaking for the supreme ruler of the universe, we cannot have any sort of secular law. If any law can be exempted “because GOD says so”, then every law can be, and the secular legal system falls apart.

There is a difference between “I must be exempt because God says so!” (and this applies to me and others like me because of our beliefs) and “This law needlessly restricts the practice of my belief and thus should be modified or nullified” (and this would apply to everyone).

I have no issue with the second formulation. It is the first that is problematic.