You miss my points entirely. People should be able to wear what they want within a work or other environment dress code. They should be able to wear on the street whatever they want within the general law- if I can wear a balaclava then why should people not wear another face covering?
Finally, Victoria Coren’s article made some excellent points. Obviously you have never met bright intelligent Islamic women who freely choose the veil and hair coverings.
No, that is exactly the same point as I made. Everyone should be subject to the same code. No exemptions.
No, I think it was very weak by her standards, the two issues are not comparable and she ties herself in knots trying to make them seem so.
As for your last point, I work alongside precisely those type of women and have done for 15 years. I don’t disagree that some are able to make that choice freely, do you disagree that greater pressure is put on Islamic women regarding their clothing than is put on secular women regarding married names?
Let’s agree to disagree over Victoria Coren; I thought she made a very interesting point about empowerment.
It is not reasonably possible to have a no exemptions policy- for instance, how do you feel about the fact that in the UK motor-cyclists with Sikh tradition of long hair and turban do not need to wear a crash helmet. Should I then be able to don a turban as an atheist and insist that I no longer need a crash helmet. If yarmulkes are allowed, why can I not wear a papal cap of similar size to work- should I be able to? In Scotland, people in kilts are allowed to carry a dagger in their stockings. Sikhs also are allowed to carry a dagger- both are excuses under the law aimed at stopping knives being carried in public.
It is complicated.But I can see no reason for erring on the draconian side rather than on the understanding side. Tolerance is the watchword.
Yes! No law should ever exist with a religious exemption. If “God says” is sufficient grounds to exempt yourself from a law, so is “because I don’t want to”, and it shouldn’t be a law at all.
No, discrimination is the watchword. You are denying non-Sikhs the right to bear arms on the basis of their religion.
fair enough, I think the subjugation of women is a major cause of worldwide strife and cultural/religious practices that contribute to that are to be criticised. I think she chickened out of criticising where clearly it is needed.
yes, either it is a suitable form of protection or it is not.
Yes, of course.
Fine, whatever size or type of knife allowable for Sikhs and our caledonian cousins should also be allowable for me. They find it culturally comforting and aesthetically pleasing, I want a knife for utilitarian purposes. Is my choice less reasonable than theirs?
Less complicated than people make out. If a reasonable case can be made against a certain practice then it should stand for all. (as in the case of uncovered faces in the witness box or jewellery in an operating theatre). If it is unreasonable (faces covered in a public place or nudity on a beach) then again, it stands for all.
Can you try to give me a basis for what you are saying- what principles your moral stance is developed from.
My stance is that in a complex society, intention and meaning can outweigh equality where necessary. Strict rules manufacture intolerance. With profoundly held beliefs (which in the UK now includes proto-political beliefs such as green issues) extra tolerance is allowed. This is particularly important in multi-cultural societies where some separate but equal (Christians get extra rights on Sunday, Jews on Saturdays and Moslems on Friday) or specific deeply held beliefs are allowed separately to people of different strong viewpoints.
Almost all states have certain laws that do provide exemptions for deeply held beliefs.
Regarding Turbans- they are not protection but the militate against wearing a crash helmet.
What you are suggesting is equivalence between deeply held beliefs and mere desires.
If we have a society where allowing Jews to wear Yarmulkes allows any headwear, then we have problems. Similarly with face coverings- would this type of ban include balaclavas in the snow, could a niqab only be allowed in cold weather. Put to the vote, Scottish people would vote to retain the dirk as a ceremonial piece, but still maintain their ban on weapons intended for violence (we are about to ban air rifles and bb guns.) Who is to tell them that that is unfair.
Strict rules make social problems. Tolerance and rationality is essential.
I can do so from two directions. One, religious belief is not more deserving of protection than secular thought. Your god does not exist, and the mandates of this fictional character are no more important than the whims of people who actually exist.
And two, the government should not have the power to declare some religions deserving of preferential treatment and others not. They should not be allowed to say that Sikhism is a real religion, so they can carry a knife, but Zoroastrianism is not, so they cannot.
But what a government can do is to legislate for tolerance. A law can be formulated that allows for many forms of deeply held belief.
Are you against this:
“Federal law requires an employer to “reasonably accommodate” an employee’s religious observances, practices and beliefs unless the employer can show that accommodation would cause an “undue hardship” to the employer’s business.”
“Employers must attempt to accommodate employees who, for religious reasons, must maintain a particular physical appearance or manner of dress in keeping with the tenets of their religion. Again, accommodation is possible if it can be made without undue hardship to the employer.”
Then extend the same courtesy to all. That means the rules become less strict…yes?
and it is discriminatory and deeply insulting to suggest that one person’s belief trumps anothers simply because it stems from religion. You say “mere desires” as if what I want to do as a secular citizen is of less worth than someone from a religious background. Why is that? How can I prove that my “mere desire” is held as strongly as any religious belief?
Why? if the Yarmulkes is valid why not my flat-cap?
I’m not suggesting a ban, I don’t want a ban. I’d be happy for practical restrictions in specific circumstances for all face coverings. Niqab or balaclava is immaterial.
My choice of knife is as much a weapon intended for violence as your dirk. Now what?
as does special pleading on religious grounds, religious discrimination in state-sponsored schools being a particularly appalling example.
And should cut both ways.
Enforcing crash helmets has saved thousands of lives over many years, and saved many brain damaged patients entering permanent care in nursing homes. If the law was changed to allow free choice again, just because people object to a religious exception, would it be worth the added deaths and disability.
Your choice- deaths or completely level playing field.
Similarly with knives (dirks and kirpans). The social policy aim is to stop knife fights in the streets. There is no evidence that Scots of Sikhs have ever abused their exemptions. Should we in the interests of a faux equality return to people being free to carry knives on the street.
Your choice- deaths or a completely level paying field.
As to strong desires- such claims can be tested in court. Green beliefs are now protected in the UK in the workplace:
Flexibility and tolerance is far more attractive than pedantic rule following.
The law does allow free choice of whether to wear a helmet or not, but only to Sikhs…why?
In that case I’d say overwhelming evidence suggests helmets are necessary and the exemption for turbans should be dropped.
Yes, of course. Those of a mind to use a knife as a weapon will do so regardless of any laws. Those who wish to carry one as a tool are not a problem and should be free to do so. If Sikhs and Scotsmen can resist the temptation to slaughter a cab-driver at the drop of a turban then the same level of trust should be extended to me.
I think you mean more deaths and a level playing field?
In any case, level playing field. Whatever knife is deemed reasonable for religious and cultural purposes should be open to me.
And the religious organisations will be quaking in their boots when they map out exactly where this thinking leads. “political views given the equivalence of religions beliefs?..how dare they!:mad:” but regardless, it is the logical extension to special religious pleading.
BTW, did you have a view of religious selection in state-funded schools? Always interesting to hear other views on that.
True. but is it not pedantic, intolerant and inflexible to say “X can do it because they are Hindu, Y can’t because he’s Catholic” ?
An African-American is four times as likely as the rest of the population to murder someone with a firearm. Should we therefore condemn the entire race and declare that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply for black people?
The idea of debating is to exchange views with supporting evidence.
All you are offering is absolute equality and pedantry. I base my ideas on the human (necessary) qualities of tolerance and understanding, whereas your views seem to be just rules because they are rules.
Different people are treated differently by the state and employers in many ways every day as a matter of tolerance and understanding. This is because legisllators are human and not pedantry machines.
Do you think that all people should be treated equally no matter what there circumstances. If not, what exceptions would you allow.
Can you apply some logic with that argument.
You are claiming that non-Sikhs should be discriminated against on the grounds that Sikhs are allegedly less likely to abuse the right to carry a knife. I don’t know whether that is true or not, but I do know that the comparable situation I mentioned is true. Hence my question: if it is just to say that only Sikhs are allowed to carry knives, is it also just to say that only non-blacks are allowed to own guns?
Are you arguing that everyone should be treated exactly equally? That no exceptions should ever be made? That is what it seems.
What I am saying is that legislating is complex and should be done in a human centred manner. The overall aim of the current British Knife Laws is that carrying knives should be discouraged. If this was universal there would be great concern over banning kirpans and dirks which are seen as religious and social symbols and are therefore excluded as to ban them would be disproportionate. There is no evidence that Scots in Kilts or Sikhs have used these exceptions to create street violence. Similarly a butcher is allowed to carry the tools of the trade even if they include many knives longer than 3.5 inches, and anyone else with reason to carry knives for their profession or hobby is rightfully excluded. If anyone in these misused the knives or seemed likely to, that would be an offence under the act- whether Scot or Sikh, Butcher or Fisherman.
Consequently we have a situation where carrying of potentially offensive knioves has been contained without causing unnecessary problems for people who would otherwise be troubled by the act.
Do you believe that Butchers and Fishermen should be disallowed from carrying knives for the same pedantic reasons that you suggest that allowing Scots or Sikhs to do so?
I’m saying that you need a damn good reason before the law should be permitted to treat people unequally, and neither race nor religion meet that standard. I don’t know how this can be so difficult for you to understand.
In your humble opinion of course.
Why is a fisherman’s desire to catch fish, or a person’s desire to do house maintenance at a friend’s house, or a woodsman carrying out field craft ( being recognised exceptions to a rule) whereas Scots tradition or Sikh tradition causing similar desires.
Please logically disentagle these desires.
If we can make an exception for hobbies, why not for belief?
That’s right, and we are doing that are we not?
Where am I being pedantic? I’m for loosening up laws in some cases and widening the exceptions whilst tightening up in others.
Nothing that I have said has been intolerant, We just draw the lines in different places. I would like a secular society that draws up laws practically with regard to all deeply held cultural beliefs and societal norms. That balancing act is difficult but religious belief should never be a guarantee of special treatment. If the laws we make incidentally contradict a religious or cultural norm then it is up the religion to bend. As they have done throughout history and continue to do to this day.
But religion should not be sufficient reason for exceptions in and of itself and to the exclusion of other sincerely held personal and cultural beliefs. Otherwise you find yourself in the position of deciding what is a “real” religion and what is a “valid” cultural belief and good luck with that.
Saying “I physically cannot comply” is the point at which we pull out all the stops to look for exceptions.
“that is against my beliefs” should not enough to guarantee the same accommodation only when applied to religions, my deeply held beliefs are the equal of any religion and deserve equal consideration. I’d like to know your reasoning as to why that isn’t the case.
Seeing as I’ve answered you fully you might dome the courtesy of answering two straight questions.
Are religious beliefs worth more than my personal deeply held beliefs?
Do you think selection on religious grounds should be allowed in state-funded schools?