i can understand concerns about carrying around knives, but this is pretty dumb. then again, as you said, it's kanada.

so this is a dumb question, but can't sikhs who wear the turban wear anything underneath it to absorb shocks if they do crash?

The crown has messed up its argument. The G&M editorial makes a better case. The law is there to protect adults from poor decisions.

Adults are usually seen to have the right to make decisions that put themselves at risk. Not always, however; mandatory seatbelt laws and laws barring the non-prescription use of mind-altering drugs are examples where they do not have that right. Why is this so? Not, primarily, because the medical costs are high; lowering medical costs is a side benefit of seatbelt laws. Where the law insists that adults protect themselves, it does so because there is public revulsion at needless brain injury and death. The lifesaving principle at stake is worth defending.

btw - i may be wrong, but why are turbans being equated with kesh. a practising sikh may keep the kesh, but why does he need to wear a large turban. Why cant he tie a do-rag like the english spinner.

p.s. Canadians are not libertarian. it's a nanny state.

See the need, fill the need!I think there might be a bussiness opportunity for an enterprising engineer to make Pagadi compatible helmets.

I was a bit unsure about this at first but the more i've read, the more I think believe the government should change the law to allow the exemption for the helmetless, be they sikh, sgnostic or atheist.

They should allow it but require special insurance to cover the additional health costs. The practical reality is that most who ride motorcycles (including me) wouldn't dream of riding without a helmet; insurance companies (who already generally already hate covering motorcyclists in Canada) wouldn't bother or would charge excessive premiums (another disincentive to go helmetless) and whoever still wants to go sans helmet after all of that can do so.

By the way, in the G&M article the guy is riding with zero protective gear in the winter. I feel bad for his kids.

wow i should proofread...or not stay up late

anyway, are there strict rules about the turbans look? i've seen different forms and always assumed the head just had to be covered (as a helmet does).

3 · Upbhransh said

there might be a bussiness opportunity for an enterprising engineer to make Pagadi compatible helmets.

Sorry to poo-poo you, but as someone who knows a thing about both motorcycle helmets and Sikh turbans (and all the attendant "respect" issues), I cannot conceive of any such possibility--not if you're going to make a truly effective, full-face helmet. I suppose there's a possibility that you might be able to come up with something comparable to the glorified-yarmulke brain buckets you see some Harley riders sporting, but those are just a cosmetic way to skirt the law--not real protection.

I think the real issue here is that the Canadian goborment has failed to have testing done by certifiable profesionals.

Surely this is an old problem that has been tackled before? Not to mention historical solutions. Did the Ontario government not read the literature before they started playing with their wind tunnel?

Also, would it be considered acceptable from a religious viewpoint to keep the long hair without the turban (i.e., tied up or knotted but not bunched up)? I'm not advocating it or anything, just thinking that if the physical turban is not required as much as the kesh itself, one could accommodate both the long hair and a helmet if desired.

I realize that Canada is not a very libertarian country

No,its a very PC country that bends over backwards to newcomers and there customs.

Knowing anything about Canada and the way it works, Mr.Badesha has a 99% chance of winning this case. None of the political parties here want to risk losing the sikh vote[which can affect the results of several elections for both MLA's and MP's in the Ontario area],so it would not surprise me to see politicans reach out to Mr.Badesha.

But...I cant imagine a turban protects against head injuries? If non-Sikhs are compelled to wear a helmet why shouldn't Sikhs do it as well?

Interesting post!

Evidence of Sikhs wearing helmets in India and Britannia; this must be Canadian problem.

I agree with Meena, assuming there is a helmet law, I don't see the argument here - everyone needs to wear a helmet.

Evidence of Sikhs wearing helmets in India and Britannia; this must be Canadian problem.

Actually, in the other two countries turbans aren't required for motorcycle riding at all

But...I cant imagine a turban protects against head injuries? If non-Sikhs are compelled to wear a helmet why shouldn't Sikhs do it as well?

If you want to prevent head injuries, you should keep people off a motorcycle period. The cost-ben payoff from that is far far greater.

Helmets have interesting effects - they create a greater risk of neck injuries, they also create far more risky behavior on the parts of the drivers nearby (there was an interesting study showing this with bicycles, drivers rode far closer when the driver was wearing a helmet).

To ask the theological question - a plurality of observant Sikhs believe that they are religiously required to wear their turban and no helmet. The whys and wherefores of this get complicated to explain and for the purposes of the law are irrelevant. The point is that this is a sincere belief.

The next question is what are the costs of allowing such a belief? The point being made in this post is that once you're thrown the barn door open by letting people choose to ride a motorcycle - which has huge costs associated - you can't say that your decision to regulate a bit on the margins is due purely to rationality. It's clearly a cultural line being drawn. Riding a motorcycle and associated risks are fine, but riding one without a helmet is not.

a plurality of observant Sikhs believe that they are religiously required to wear their turban and no helmet.

Wouldn't it be OK if they wore the smaller Patka that Bhajji and Monty wear when they are fielding? The helmet could then easily fit over it. I ask this in earnestness as I know that Bhajji at least, is not very religious and wouldn't care about having to wear a helmet or a Patka. Also, in most Junior Leagues (Cricket), it is mandatory to wear helmets when you are facing Fast Bowlers.

I don't think such things should be legislated at all. Nobody should be required to wear a helmet. I believe Tamil Nadu rejected this law outright. There are some areas where grandmothers lay down the law and it works infinitely better than some sorry piece of legislation. Nobody's really looking to get hit after all, and the young and invincible are reckless anyway.

As much as this is a very important topic, Can i say i love the picture! It's brilliant!

Ennis:

The next question is what are the costs of allowing such a belief? The point being made in this post is that once you're thrown the barn door open by letting people choose to ride a motorcycle - which has huge costs associated - you can't say that your decision to regulate a bit on the margins is due purely to rationality. It's clearly a cultural line being drawn. Riding a motorcycle and associated risks are fine, but riding one without a helmet is not.

Why should helmets be required by law? Because they say it is slightly safer to ride with than without. However, given how unsafe motorcycle riding is, if you're really concerned with safety, you should ban motorcycling. If you accept that people will take risks sensibly, then you should encourage but not mandate helmets.

Furthermore, the plaintiff is a motorcycle and automobile dealer. The law bans him from demonstrating the use of motorcycles at low speeds in his own dealership. That's not about safety there.

Meena - your argument makes sense if you never allow any religious exemptions for anything. Perhaps the Dutch do that, but I doubt it. Christmas is a national holiday, no?

I thought a turban was a helmet.

Helmets have interesting effects - they create a greater risk of neck injuries, they also create far more risky behavior on the parts of the drivers nearby (there was an interesting study showing this with bicycles, drivers rode far closer when the driver was wearing a helmet).

Nothing can guarantee 100% safety. Using seatbelts and airbags have killed people too, but I daresay in the majority of cases they have saved more lives than when not used.

It is not often that somebody like Gary Busey says anything worth listening to, but here's one instance:

Before his crash on Dec. 4, 1988, Busey was known for his staunch opposition to helmet laws. He was traveling at a relatively slow speed on a street in Culver City, Calif., when he hit a patch of gravel and lost control of his motorcycle. He was thrown into a curb headfirst, luckily at the feet of a policeman who was scouting the area for a marathon race.

A year later, fully recovered, Busey announced that he had changed his views on helmets and helmet laws, stating during an interview on The Arsenio Hall Show, "Next time you're doing 45 mph, look at the curb, and think about slam-dancing with it once."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0630Actor0630.html

I was wondering how the guy got his driver's license if he didnt wear a helmet for the roadtest... well ... it turns out, he did NOT need to go for a road test.

If this goes through it may impact the insurance company which currently assumes that all motorocycle drivers wear helmets because it's the law (and is the smart thing to do).

for a crown body that is perpetually stretched for money and for resources, I feel the human rights commission should pick its battles. I know this is important for Badisha but really... if there is a case to be made for the insignificant bump to provincial healthcare costs, there is a parallel case to be made for the insignificant number of people who are being represented in this case [sikh motorcyclists who do not want to wear a helmet]. I am a little cheesed off at the HRC actually. In Ontario we got enough going on around native land rights, accessible transit for seniors and disabled etc. without needing to indulge this one guy.

Ennis -- your first argument -- "why should helmets be required by law?" is coming from the wrong place. Ontarians, as noted above, tend to be very nanny-statish. We're not crazy about letting people take risks sensibly.

Your second argument -- that since motorcycles are dangerous, any safety restrictions when riding motorcycles are useless -- is also not sound. Driving is dangerous, but we require seatbelts. Swimming can be dangerous, but the government pays for lifeguards. Drawing a line is difficult and sometimes arbitrary at the margins, but we still draw the line.

Lastly, the defence's argument that the line should be drawn based on the # of dead Sikhs is also no good. Under that rule, the Sikhs could ride without a helmet in Chicoutimi (noSikhs), but not in Brampton (lotsaSikhs). The better test would be he line should be based on the increased risk to the individual Sikh man from not wearing a helmet.

Anyway, in this particular case, an exemption for dealers demontrating bikes for sale would probably be the most accomodating, and least inflammatory, way to address the issue.

(Question for Ennis: Should Sikh children be allowed to ride a motorcylce without a helmet? Does the state have an interest in protecting minors? Are Sikh parents who let their kids ride motorcycles without helmets total morons...)

All these cases are just a preliminary lead up to the day a Sikh child asks to play hockey without a helmet. Then we'll have a real national crisis.

where on earth did you find such a fitting picture for this story? how does one even begin to find a picture of a guy in a turban on a kick ass motorcycle and on top of all of that... he looks really bad ass

i'm in awe.

All these cases are just a preliminary lead up to the day a Sikh child asks to play hockey without a helmet. Then we'll have a real national crisis.

I could only image the backlash for that.

All these cases are just a preliminary lead up to the day a Sikh child asks to play hockey without a helmet. Then we'll have a real national crisis

so this is a dumb question, but can't sikhs who wear the turban wear anything underneath it to absorb shocks if they do crash?

btw - i may be wrong, but why are turbans being equated with kesh. a practising sikh may keep the kesh, but why does he need to wear a large turban. Why cant he tie a do-rag like the english spinner.

Also, would it be considered acceptable from a religious viewpoint to keep the long hair without the turban (i.e., tied up or knotted but not bunched up)?

Meena, within the U.S. laws generally apply unless they are burdensome from a religious standpoint or for a religious group. Once a secular exemption is made, a religious exemption is almost always permissible as well. This comes from our concept of free exercise of religion (which is certainly different from most of the concepts of "secular" law in continental European countries). I don't know if Canada has a similar concept -- it sounds like their legal system evolved in a much closer way to the UK system --, but I think they're going to have a hard time defending this policy.

To reiterate, the requirements for children differ slightly from adults. The helmet for hockey argument is not legit, imo.

Can a patka be worn under a generic motorcycle helmet? And would this allow both sides in this case to get what they want?

In the US, Sikhs with turbans don't need to wear helmets on construction sites. They can get a pass from OSHA and seems like the same excemption could be made for motorcycle helmets.

Meena, within the U.S. laws generally apply unless they are burdensome from a religious standpoint or for a religious group. Once a secular exemption is made, a religious exemption is almost always permissible as well. This comes from our concept of free exercise of religion (which is certainly different from most of the concepts of "secular" law in continental European countries). I don't know if Canada has a similar concept -- it sounds like their legal system evolved in a much closer way to the UK system --, but I think they're going to have a hard time defending this policy.

Under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, religious groups can get an exception from laws which burden religious exercise unless the State has a compelling interest in enforcing the law. The current conservative Roberts Supreme Court of course takes a rather narrow/restrictive view of the state ‘compelling interest’ and last year in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, the US Supreme Court stopped the Federal Government from enforcing the laws on a hallucinogenic tea (a controlled substance) which was used by a Native American sect in religious ceremonies.

One could argue that the state has a compelling interest in enforcing safety laws of wearing a helmet. I disagree with Ennis that if the state has the option of doing away with the risk altogether but decides to lower the risk instead of eliminating the risk then the state somehow should not be allowed to lower the risk.

A patka can't be worn underneath a regular helment. It won't fit properly but if anyone wants to start a business that makes a helment that looks like a turban, you might be able to make some money.

From what I've seen, the little league brampton hockey teams seem to have no problem with helmets, and teams are often majority sikh. sikh kids don't have to wear those large turbans that adults wear.

There are a lot of activities that cause death, injury and cost the people and government money to provide care for people indulging in these activities. Take smoking for one thing. Being in a unique position of having worn a turban, having ridden (is that a word?) a motorcycle while wearing a turban, without a turban and a helmet and being an emergency physician, I will say this: The helmet best protects one at low speeds. All the high speed wrecks-helmet or not-all dead OR going to a ventilator farm for the rest of their life. Low to moderate speeds is where helmets are best; one might argue that a properly tied turban is fairly good at this speed although clearly not as good as a helmet. In the end however, we must make our own decisions. The sheer exhilaration of riding without a helmet cannot be unexplained to the non-rider. I am not advocating to remove helmets altogether, just that individuals need to make their own decisions.

The 'cost to the state' arguement is one I used to think of when I first started practicing emergency medicine. Over time, I have come to realize that the money spent on motorcycle wrecks pales in comparison to the money spent on ICU care for 90 year olds in vegetative states. If you were not aware, 3/4th ( some sources say 90%) of the US health care dollar is spent during the last six months a persons life-prolonging inevitable death with tubefeeds and countless hours of ICU care. Let the Khalsa ride with their turbans on-adds an interesting sight on the highway.

Oh, and the same 'crown' had no problem letting the Sikhs have their heads blown off wearing turbans during the great wars!

Ennis are you actually saying that riding without a helmet is only slightly safer than riding without? Besides being a ridiculous angle from which to argue this, do you have any evidence?

Also, this debate isn't happening within a vacuum. We have public healthcare and a policy of official multiculturalism. Not to channel pearljamfan, but a person asking for a religious exemption that will result in higher costs to the system will create public tension. The debate about reasonable accomodation has reached uncomfortable levels in Quebec, this case risks inflaming the same thing in Ontario. Ikram's point about setting boundaries, even if they seem arbitrary at the margins, is a good one.

Camille, thank you for the explanation. I feel this is one of those wedge issues that might be debated among sikhs on whether they want to observe the word or the spirit of the edict. i believe the latter is more important - in that a large turban is not essential headgear because that would be excessively restrictive in contemporary lifestyles and living. For instance, it would automatically disadvantage keshdhari sikhs from active participation in competitive swimming. A rather facetious application of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms [see excerpts below] might have someone challenge competitive swimmers for their streamlining because it unfairly disadvantages sikh youth.

EQUALITY BEFORE AND UNDER LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND BENEFIT OF LAW / Affirmative action programs. 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

while I support immigrant/minority rights and am vocal about it at the grassroots level, this issue is taking up more bandwidht than it is worth. there are bigger issues to fight over.

The best resolution i see is that they pull up on the law that mandates helmets for all and that necessitates a change to insurance rules. let the meatheads look after themselves.

All these cases are just a preliminary lead up to the day a Sikh child asks to play hockey without a helmet. Then we'll have a real national crisis.

There was a Sikh who played college football at Oreagon and he wore a helmet, so you dont have to worry about that. By the way what is "hockey" anyway? Is that the one where you slide a disk and people in front of that disk use brooms to clean the ice so that the disk doesnt get any dirt on it?

People always use the "Sikhs get special treatment" phrase when it comes to issue's like this, but all you have to do is wear a turban and get spit on every other day, get dirty looks from almost everyone, and have people physically attack you on a weekly bases and you to can have the "special treatment".

Ennis are you actually saying that riding without a helmet is only slightly safer than riding without? Besides being a ridiculous angle from which to argue this, do you have any evidence?

I also raised questions about the law of unintended consequences. SUVs are safer in a passive crash than are small cars. However, it is not always safer to drive an SUV b/c small cars can react and maneuver faster. And it is most definitely not the case that if we all drove SUVs that we would all be safer.

It turns out that wearing a bicycle helmet puts you at greater risk because drivers will behave more aggressively(maybe I should put this in the main post):

He rigged his bicycle with an ultrasonic sensor that could detect how close each car was that passed him. Then he hit the roads, alternately riding with a helmet and without for two months, until he had been passed by 2,500 cars. Examining the data, he found that when he wore his helmet, motorists passed by 8.5 centimeters (3.35 inches) closer than when his head was bare. He had increased his risk of an accident by donning safety gear.
Why? You might suspect that cyclists wearing helmets are more prone to take risks. But studies have found otherwise. The real answer, Walker theorizes, is that helmets change the behavior of drivers. Motorists regard a helmet as a signal that the cyclist is experienced and thus can be approached with less caution. “They see the helmet and think, Oh, there’s a serious, skilful person,” Walker says. “And you get hit.” [Link]

As such, I'd like to see a holistic analysis of whether wearing a helmet is net safer for motorcyclists. I haven't seen one yet.

One could argue that the state has a compelling interest in enforcing safety laws of wearing a helmet. I disagree with Ennis that if the state has the option of doing away with the risk altogether but decides to lower the risk instead of eliminating the risk then the state somehow should not be allowed to lower the risk.

As you well know, the issue is always a matter of trade off between personal liberty and cost to the state. My point is simply this - it is inconsistent and hypocritical for the state to argue that their actions are driven by a desire to reduce public cost given these two claims:
1. Banning motorcycle riding, even though it would save a huge amount of money, is not worth the reduction in personal freedom
2. Banning motorcycle riding without a helmet, even though it would save a tiny amount of money, is definitely worth a reduction in personal freedom.

The reason why they can argue for #2 and not #1 is not about protecting the public purse, but rather is about whose freedom gets restricted.

As you well know, the issue is always a matter of trade off between personal liberty and cost to the state. My point is simply this - it is inconsistent and hypocritical for the state to argue that their actions are driven by a desire to reduce public cost given these two claims: 1. Banning motorcycle riding, even though it would save a huge amount of money, is not worth the reduction in personal freedom 2. Banning motorcycle riding without a helmet, even though it would save a tiny amount of money, is definitely worth a reduction in personal freedom.

The above might be relevant in the Canadian context (I dont know the Canadian laws) if the argument is about what it will cost the state.

In the US, they dont have to make a cost to the state argument. Public safety and health is a cause onto itself.

In the US context, the state will have to meet the burden of showing that a helmet versus a patka does indeed lead to a lowering of the severity of injuries and the state interest in promoting safety will then have to be balanced with the religious interest of Sikhs in wearing a turban.

My point is simply this - it is inconsistent and hypocritical for the state to argue that their actions are driven by a desire to reduce public cost given these two claims

Yes and the state can also argue that the reason is not due to reduction in costs but public safety.

Ennis -- Here is a link to the Canada Safety Council.

"In the late 1990s, Kentucky and Louisiana repealed their universal motorcycle helmet laws. Statewide observational surveys showed that helmet use decreased from nearly full compliance to the 50 per cent range without the laws. The rate of motorcyclist fatalities per 10,000 registered motorcycles increased by 37 per cent in Kentucky and 75 per cent in Louisiana."

The issue seems to be unsettled -- many US states repealed their helmet laws in the 90s. But Americans are more freedom-minded than Canadians.

Camille:

Meena, within the U.S. laws generally apply unless they are burdensome from a religious standpoint or for a religious group. Once a secular exemption is made, a religious exemption is almost always permissible as well. This comes from our concept of free exercise of religion (which is certainly different from most of the concepts of "secular" law in continental European countries). I don't know if Canada has a similar concept -- it sounds like their legal system evolved in a much closer way to the UK system --, but I think they're going to have a hard time defending this policy.

This is similar in my country as well. I'd like to add, off-topically, that you can't generalise about "continental Europe" - there are a dozen different countries with a dozen different laws and cultural practices. For instance although in most countries you're an adult at 18 Sweden(I don't know about the rest of Scandinavia) is an exception. To get back to the topic at hand, but here you can get religious exemptions - up to a certain point. I'm sure the turban vs helmet thing won't fly though. The government is looking to ban burkas in public and religious attire in public office as well. I'd say the British system is much more tolerant of religious differences actually.

Ennis - you're picking wrong analogies. Driving a car is dangerous as well, does that mean that wearing a seatbelt shouldn't be mandatory? After all, plenty of people die in road accidents while wearing a seatbelt. (They're obligatory in my country as well - even in the backseat. You'll get a fine if they catch you without wearing one.)

The government doesn't lose its right to legislate aspects of behaviour because it hasn't chosen to outlaw the behaviour itself. Think about the logical consequences of what would happen if that were in fact the case. The government allows people to smoke--does that mean it can't regulate substances that are not allowed in cigarettes? The government allows people to skydive--does that mean it can't stipulate operational standards that the parachutes have to meet? The government is more than allowed to legislate activities that mitigate the risk of the behaviour, while ensuring that it does not infringe on constitutionally guaranteed rights(yes, Canada has a constitution as well, albeit very different in form and content from the U.S.) or other statutory rights which have primacy. And yes, costs most definitely factor into that risk mitigation analysis. If, to use the skydiving example, the public costs associated with skydiving can do down due to the use of certain equipment, then that information is relevant and germane in deciding whether or not to require such equipment.

In this particular context, the question to ask is the rationale behind the law--is it designed to discriminate against Sikhs? In this case I think it would be fairly easy to prove that the government, responding to a great deal of lobbying from concerned groups (including medical professionals) and after reviewing studies felt that requiring people to wear a helmet was a risk mitigation issue and this is a law of general application. The next question is whether it serves its purpose. Again, I think the government would be able to show that there is general widespread support for the idea that the wearing of a helmet mitigates against (not eliminates) some of the risks associated with riding a motor-cycle. The third question is whether the law has the effect of discriminating against Sikhs. I'm going to assume for the purposes that it does (I believe the government has made a good point in stating that the claimant can need not participate in this activity, but if he chooses to, then he is subject to the same laws as everyone else. You do not need to become a taxi-cab driver, but if you do, you better be sure that you aren't going to refuse to pick up female passengers because your sincerely held interpretation of your religion tells you be "modest"). The question then becomes whether the discrimination is justified--the assessment and balancing of risks v. rewards. If the claimant can show that his turban is as protective as a helmet he has a good chance. If he can't then it becomes more complicated--does the state have a duty to accomodate this in light of its objectives of public safety and risk mitigation and is reasonable accomodation (e.g. the burkini) even possible?

Again, a sincerely held religious belief is not enough--the context, including the nature of the activities, the purpose of the law in question and the impact of the claimed discrimination and possible remedies need to be assessed and weighed-one might sincerely believe that God believes a woman should never have authority over a man but lo and behold, I'm pretty sure that these days one will be held for contempt if they give that reason for not obeying the female U.S. judge.

The risks that the government thinks are acceptable and the ones they think are not are highly culturally determined. That they wish to allow smoking while banning motorcycle riding without a helmet again shows they're more interested in protecting the liberties of your "average" (i.e. non-Sikh) Canadian than they are in optimizing health spending.

khoof, the spirit of the edict is to wear a turban. Even a turban that is "conservative" in size (and turban != patka) is not going to fit under a motorcycle helmet. As I mentioned, folks have different understandings of how this plays out in the world of sports, but not really in other avenues of life. I understand your point, but it gets into the larger debates around whether the Sikh Rehit Maryada should be refined, amended, etc., which is a bit off-topic, I think.

Meena, I understand. I was just trying to speak to common concepts of "secularism," which differ greatly both among continental European nations and between Europe (taken as a whole) and the U.S. I understand that the region is diverse and that it may not be instructive to paint it with broad brush strokes.

The risks that ANY government thinks are acceptable vs. non-acceptable are always cultural (especially in a democracy) as are the underlying laws. I don't think its a bad thing at all--I would hope that the government/laws would reflect the culture of the governed, which in this case includes a recognition that "reasonable accomodation" of religious beliefs is desired. The question is whether it is reasonable to ask for such accomodation in this particular context and whether the claimant also has other options that will allow the claimant to meet the spirit of the legislation, so I guess we'll see and hear various arguments (some of which may not have strong supporting evidence and will be weighed accordingly). I guess we'll find out. I will say that its my understanding that public safety risk mitigation is usually seen as a strong reason for supporting a law.

One's religion does not give one an automatic pass do whatever one wants.

Ennis wrote:

The risks that the government thinks are acceptable and the ones they think are not are highly culturally determined

Yep. So what. France allows the sale of dangerous unpasteurized cheese. Ontario doesn't. Our Ontario culture doesn't embrace cheese-eating with the same gusto. It limits the freedom of stink-cheese-loving Frenchmen who are willing to take the additional risk of unpasteurized cheese.

The fact that government paternalism -- the risks the society deems unacceptable for an individual to take -- has cultural component is not in itself an argument against that paternalism.

France allows the sale of dangerous unpasteurized cheese. Ontario doesn't.

I'm so happy to learn that.

Hold your horses, it'S a little more complicated than that ..

While the Eastern Ontario Health Unit strongly recommends the consumption of only pasteurized milk products, in Ontario, people who make unpasteurized cheese on their farms can possess and eat what they make. However, selling or distributing such cheese - which includes even giving it away - is illegal under provincial legislation.

The story notes that unlike raw milk itself, which has been illegal to distribute in Canada since 1991, cheese made from raw milk - as far as Health Canada is concerned - is "allowed for sale and considered safe because the manufacturing process for cheese helps to eliminate many pathogens found in raw milk."

So sistributing unpasteurized cheese is provincially illegal (but not criminal), but feds have no law on the topic. No suprise that the raw-milk-cheese problem in Ontario is localizes to eastern Ontario, on the Quebec border. The clandestine mobile-cheese-maker? She comes from Quebec. I've known her a long time, she's qualified and she knows what she's doing," Chartrand said .. She's also discreet, and Mr. Chartrand did not want to disclose her identity to a reporter....

Franco-Anglo culture clash?

When some helmetless bozo inevitably finds his head pasted to a windshield i bet the court will find contributory negligence, exemption or no exemption. I'm sure insurance premiums will go up for those who ride helmetless as well. In that context, i'd support the choice. Hopefully higher premiums would be enough of a disincentive.

And again, sort of an aside, just because I think it's absolutely ridiculous, look at the picture in the globe & mail. The guy is riding in a business suit in the winter! That's asking for a lot of lost skin.

When some helmetless bozo inevitably finds his head pasted to a windshield i bet the court will find contributory negligence, exemption or no exemption.

Interesting point. To draw an analogy with accident victims who do not wear a seat belt, the state law in the US is split on whether the non-use can be taken into consideration at all or as contributory negligence or as a mitigation of damages principle.

Please folks. Respect other readers by keeping your handle names short.

39 · ShallowThinker said

By the way what is "hockey" anyway? Is that the one where you slide a disk and people in front of that disk use brooms to clean the ice so that the disk doesnt get any dirt on it?

ShallowThinker, i'm going off the assumption you weren't joking around.... if you were please understand that i have no sense of humor...
There are two types of hockey: ice hockey and field hockey. Both are played with sticks but ice hockey has a puck which is a small black disk about the size of your palm and players wear skates. That's the one that was referred to in the thread. Field hockey is played on grass with sticks and a ball.

The thing you're referring to is called curling. Its sort of like shuffle board but the brooms aren't used to make sure there's no dirt; rather they're used to make the rock slide farther.

Please folks. Respect other readers by keeping your handle names short.

Its disrespectful to other readers if the id is too long aka Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery (formerly Al_Chutiya/Mujahid_for_debauchery)
Are you being facetious?

yes, it forms an eyesore on the sidebar and it is kind of diva-ish.

By the way what is "hockey" anyway? Is that the one where you slide a disk and people in front of that disk use brooms to clean the ice so that the disk doesnt get any dirt on it?

No, beta. When papa loves mommy very much, it is the game that his tonsils play with her tonsils. And because papa really, really loves mommy, he can't help but suck while playing hockey and give mommy a hickey.

Ikram the cheese-hatah sez

So sistributing unpasteurized cheese is provincially illegal (but not criminal), but feds have no law on the topic. No suprise that the raw-milk-cheese problem in Ontario is localizes to eastern Ontario, on the Quebec border.

moral of the story: You dont need a helmet to ride the paneer wheel.

47 · Ennis said

The risks that the government thinks are acceptable and the ones they think are not are highly culturally determined. That they wish to allow smoking while banning motorcycle riding without a helmet again shows they're more interested in protecting the liberties of your "average" (i.e. non-Sikh) Canadian than they are in optimizing health spending.

I think you are conflating two separate issues:

1) Is the law requiring helmet usage sensible?

and

2) Should Sikhs be given an exemption from this law because of their religious beliefs?

If the law is not sensible and then it should be repealed. If it is sensible then it should apply to everyone.

I believe helmets do save lives but I would prefer to let the individual decide. Then again I would prefer not to pay for a national health service that forces me to subsidize other people's foolishness. I generally don't like these paternalistic laws but I am also leery of making special exemptions from the law for certain religious groups.

I am also leery of making special exemptions from the law for certain religious groups.

Yet that's commonplace. Take school holidays, for example. Everybody gets Christmas off, whether they want it or not. Yet Jewish kids can also take off the high holy days even though other students cannot simply absent themselves on those same days for non-religious reasons.

yes, it forms an eyesore on the sidebar and it is kind of diva-ish.

the diva and eye-sore exclusion clause would make at least three-quarters of us ineligible to mutiny.
myself included, of course.

[this is portmanteau]

64 · where is the love? said

[this is portmanteau]

Port, it's not the usual suspects so much as the more "creative" entrants we've seen and addressed today, i.e. entire sentences for handles. I assure you "Portmanteau" is both elegant and eligible, just like the holder of that handle is, IRL.

Port, it's not the usual suspects so much as the more "creative" entrants we've seen and addressed today, i.e. entire sentences for handles

I dont believe Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery(formerly Al_Chutiya/Mujahid_for_debauchery) is a sentence. The other day someone was asking me about whether I was Chutiya. The ID is an upfront disclaimer about past ids and not disrespectful or diva-ish as the SM Intern has suggested. In fact I have posted with a similar id for a while sometime back. Oh well!

Peace.

63 · Ennis said

Yet that's commonplace.

But context matters. Missing a day of school for religious observance doesn't carry the risk of severe injury. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet does. Would that not be a sensible place for the boundaries of religious exception to be placed?

Well, Al pagal admi mujahid, I actually consider you one of the "usual suspects". :) I really think it's handles that were created (and removed) today which were problematic (though if I'm wrong, I know the intern will let us know...I haven't been here all day). I appreciate that you try and clue people in to your past incarnations, to make sure it's all less confusing! It's nice of you.

Let's not get side-tracked, this isn't personal, we love you all, especially those of you who have been with us for years. Back on track, mutineers-who-need-not-worry-about-this one.

But context matters. Missing a day of school for religious observance doesn't carry the risk of severe injury. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet does. Would that not be a sensible place for the boundaries of religious exception to be placed?

So you do agree for the need for exemptions rather than uniform rules, just with a boundary based on "common sense"

Why is it OK for the state to burden the cost of smoking, in the name of personal freedom, but it wont absorb the cost of a non-smoker riding without a helmet, in the name of that same freedom? Answer, look at who smokes and who rides without helmets.

Your notion of reasonableness has to do with what you would do. That's a dicey standard. I'm sure many people don't think it's reasonable for a student to cut school, perhaps missing exams, and fast all day. Yet you're willing to create an exemption for that.

What we think is reasonable often reveals a huge cultural blind spot.

69 · Ennis said

Why is it OK for the state to burden the cost of smoking, in the name of personal freedom, but it wont absorb the cost of a non-smoker riding without a helmet, in the name of that same freedom? Answer, look at who smokes and who rides without helmets.

Smokers are regulated as to where they can smoke and pay heavy taxes for each packet of cigarettes they buy to offset the burden their smoking places on society. Obviously standards such as reasonableness, are

oops hit the post button to soon, continued...

Obviously standards such as reasonableness and common sense are often arbitrary and have no clear bright lines. In the US the standards for religious exemptions are constantly changing. Typically officials consider whether the burden of the law on the religious group ouweighs the harm to the greater public interest in granting said religious group an exemption. Using this criteria the Supreme Court has given the Amish the right to disenroll their children from schools at the age of 14 (Yoder) but also denied Native Americans exemptions to smoke illegal drugs for religious purposes (Smith). Religious groups are constantly asking for exemptions and pushing the boundaries to get even more exemptions. Unsurprisingly decisions are made on a case by case basis and the law gets very fuzzy at the edges. Even the judges admit that there really is no clear jurisprudence in this area

The case law is such a mishmash anyone can point out the inconsistencies and claim discrimination if their demand for exemption is denied. But this doesn't mean that the government is obligated to give in to whatever demands are made. Clearly there is a line somewhere that marks the boundaries of what is reasonable. We all can think of demands for religious exemptions which should be denied. To point out inconsistencies in how exemptions are given and then claim that entitles you to an exemption is not very persuasive.

Reasonableness is an often arbitray criteria but in the end the government (whether through courts or officials) has to make the call. The alternatives are granting all demands for exemptions which is anarchy or granting no exemptions (which in my opinion is more ideal).

FYI - the province introduces evidence that sikhs consider the turban to be optional - while swimming, through war and while serving in the army.

However, Mr. Doi introduced historical evidence that shows Sikhs have worn helmets "throughout their history," pointing to a Sikh turban helmet on display in the Royal Ontario Museum. He said Sikhs currently serving in the Canadian Forces also wear helmets, "over smaller turbans or other cloth head coverings during operational activities and training."

There are two ways to look at it.
1. This is a sikh guy who is fighting for a fundamental right for his community.
2. This is a guy who is fighting for his right to ride without a helmet and is using the religion as an excuse.

I fall in the second camp. It REALLY pisses me off he is using the OHRC and the charter of rights and freedoms to get his rocks off.

There are two ways to look at it. 1. This is a sikh guy who is fighting for a fundamental right for his community. 2. This is a guy who is fighting for his right to ride without a helmet and is using the religion as an excuse.

The crown has backed off the latter argument. There is a disagreement within the Sikh community on this issue, and there is a sizable group within who argue that their interpretation of scripture is correct on this and are consistent in their behavior. We don't expect all Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists or Christians to agree on what are the rules governing their religious behavior, why would you expect that from Sikhs?

That said, if you ask any Sikh, they'll tell you that this isn't some spurious argument without a theological or historical premise. Sikh soldiers in many wars, including those fought for the UK, eschewed helmets. This is not new.

Let's not get side-tracked, this isn't personal, we love you all, especially those of you who have been with us for years.

We love you too and that is why we refuse to leave :)

There is a disagreement within the Sikh community on this issue

the most rational proposition is to dismantle the mandatory helmet law and I do not see how that is a net positive for the province. also the hrc is publicly funded and i do not appreciate them investing this much time and effort into this.

the lower court has already judged that regardless of whether this guy wins or not, this will not constitute a change in the law. the next guy driving without a helmet will get slapped with a fine anyway.

btw - there are precedents. recently there was a kerfuffle about extending public funding to all religious schools. that was a merry pickle and the cons lost that argument. to date only the catholic school board received public funding and that's likely to get pulled. i know it seems discriminatory but the catholic schools offer some of the best education around here - and it isnt just because of the money. it seems like a dog in the manger situation. then there was the sharia law. the premier had to personally intervene when it seemed like it would go through. listen! i am immensely proud of where i live and the fundamental sense of fairplay among ontarians - but this issue just bugs the heck out of me.

The HRC's involvement will probably get more attention after the main issue dies down/is resolved. Coming so soon after the Levant/Mohammed cartoons fiasco, HRC's might be under evern more scrutiny now.

I think it's ridiculous too. It does technically fall within their broad mandate, but you're right, this has to be near the bottom of the list in terms of importance.

Ennis, I'm not sure your smoking analogy question is quite fair. I think the appropriate analogy would be why do we allow the public health costs of smoking vs. the public health costs of riding motorcycles. In both cases the government does in fact agree to absorb many of these costs. In both cases, it also passes laws of general application to try to mitigate against certain undesired risks and associated costs (controlling second-hand smoke issues with prohibitions against smoking in certain areas; banning certain types of tobacco; motorcyclists must posess a special license, helmets must be worn to minimize head injury, which is considered far more devastating in long-term impact than road rash or broken bones).

Let's use another example. If safety regs specify that you cannot wear loose long hair when working with or near a certain piece of industrial equipment (to avoid the somewhat unsavoury effects when the hair gets caught in the operating machinery and physics decides to take matters into its own hands) is that because the government decided a) to pick on women, because many women have long(er) hair and see it as an integral part of their gender identity or b) because it didn't really think women were important in the manufacturing workplace context so it was culturally predisposed towards making such recommendations? I'm guessing that a large number of people would say that it was c) the government was pursuing a sensible course in mitigating the risks of using the equipment without outright banning the equipment itself because it felt that by doing so it could significantly reduce the potential risk of harm.

I think something more has to be shown on the part of the government before these types of allegations are supported by a decision-maker. I agree with suggestions that the HRCs appear to have been on a roll regarding really stretching the elasticity of their mandate and I agree (and hope) that there will be some general public backlash (but hope it isn't so large as to cause them to be disbanded alltogether). Regardless, I think this was a great topic to raise and I appreciate hearing the varied viewpoints and I thank you for raising this issue.

I have ridden motorcycles both with and without helmets. Have had a crash at a low speed- the helmet saved my life. Dont plan to have one at a high speed. Helmets can be worn under a patka - ask any number of Sardar Cricketers. As to whether it is safe, I dont know.
In any case I dont think this is a fight worth having.

The government is looking to ban burkas in public and religious attire in public office as well.

Its simple really-ban all religion from public ANYthing. Keep it home. Everywhere else we should all wear the same clothes, behave the same way, follow the rules that really smart people made up and there will be no trouble.

79 · baingandabhartha said

Its simple really-ban all religion from public ANYthing. Keep it home. Everywhere else we should all wear the same clothes, behave the same way, follow the rules that really smart people made up and there will be no trouble.

Bienvenue en France.

79 · baingandabhartha said

Its simple really-ban all religion from public ANYthing. Keep it home. Everywhere else we should all wear the same clothes, behave the same way, follow the rules that really smart people made up and there will be no trouble.

Louis Riel, btw, was a Metis revolutionary who rebelled against the federal government, saw spirits in the dark, was put in an asylum, escaped, led an armed rebellion, was deemed a traitor, had the government build a railway line so they could send in armed troops to put the Metis uprising down, and was hanged at the end. Yet, today they have named a holiday after him in Manitoba.

Yo Khoof! I'm going to threadjack for a second to thank you for this. For a while, I had been seriously considering no longer posting since the mass exodus of some of my favorite bloggers and commenters (Manish, ADS, Siddharta, Mr. Kobayashi, Shruti, DesiDancer, Neha, Cheap Ass Desi, and, of course, hairy_d. *cough*) I still gots mad love for the rest of y'all who still frequent my favorite diveblog, but with my crew gone, it just hasn't been the same. Thanks for the respek knuckles, means a lot and feeling's mutual. I'm sticking around for now.

One more thing: I've a got secret for you. That story you love? I totally pulled a James Frey and made up about 90 percent of it. My mom's nothing like that- she hardly even speaks English with a desi accent. We did happen to be watching that show together and the ensuing awkwardness was truly glorious, but just like A Million Little Pieces and the moon landing, it's mostly fiction.

(And, for the record, I've never walked in on the 'rents but I'm sure your video would be an apt metaphor.)

Back on topic. Though I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this issue, one thing is for sure: Baljinder looks like a badass.

I find all this discussion of Baljinder's sincerity and whether this is a minor debate really presumptuous. My father never once wore a hard hat on a construction site. Probably 95% of Amritdhari Sikhs and a plurality of Keshdahari sikhs would agree with Baljinder Singh. There are reasons why there are no helmet laws applying to Sikhs in the UK, India, and BC. Sikhs in many countries doing construction are exempt and Sikhs in many armed forces as well.

Yes, there are some Sikhs who would wear a patka and a helmet. That doesn't mean that a sizeable chunk of Sikhs, perhaps a majority, strenuously object on deeply held religious grounds.

If you are so concerned with the safety of motorcyclists, here's a simple suggestion - make sure all motorcyclists drive only stone cold sober, not a single drink. That would save many lives and much public money. But that's an unacceptable infringement on public freedom. But turbans, that's a fringe issue.

What's ticking me off is the way in which people are being totally dismissive of other people's religious beliefs, and making assertions about their sincerity, despite the predominant weight of evidence which says otherwise.

Disagree sure, but show a little bit of respect. This is why I usually bite my tongue about such issues, I get tired of dismissive remarks from people who aren't listening. While I was pleased that this discussion was very polite, I really can't say I'm encouraged.

What's ticking me off is the way in which people are being totally dismissive of other people's religious beliefs, and making assertions about their sincerity, despite the predominant weight of evidence which says otherwise.

I think, Ennis, there are two issues here... one is specifically regarding SIKHS...and many desis (I perhaps naively hope) support Sikh rights and respect Sikh religious beliefs...unfortunately many don't and that can come through in the comments sometimes. But overall I think most SM readers do.

The other issue, I think, that is clouding this and which people on this thread seem to be struggling with, is people from ANY religion, asking for special privileges based on their religious beliefs. And this is where I can understand where some people are coming from. If "Joe Smith" starts a religion and his followers demand X,Y,and Z privileges based on their sincerely-held beliefs, that could still be deemed a problem by society.

But I do agree that there are all sorts of cultural biases in these rules. But then that goes back to my first point, about supporting SIKH rights (as opposed to Joe Smith followers' rights).

But context matters. Missing a day of school for religious observance doesn't carry the risk of severe injury. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet does. Would that not be a sensible place for the boundaries of religious exception to be placed?

of course there is disagrement among the sikh community. because a lot of people see the unreasonableness of it all. this dilutes the effort and passion a lot of us invest in fighting for the rights for ALL ontarians. to use the charter as a catch-all dilutes its import. it was meant for situations like meher arar's deportation, for disabled people to travel comfortably through canada, not for such situations.

Its simple really-ban all religion from public ANYthing. Keep it home. Everywhere else we should all wear the same clothes, behave the same way, follow the rules that really smart people made up and there will be no trouble.

The other issue, I think, that is clouding this and which people on this thread seem to be struggling with, is people from ANY religion, asking for special privileges based on their religious beliefs. And this is where I can understand where some people are coming from. If "Joe Smith" starts a religion and his followers demand X,Y,and Z privileges based on their sincerely-held beliefs, that could still be deemed a problem by society.

But I do agree that there are all sorts of cultural biases in these rules. But then that goes back to my first point, about supporting SIKH rights (as opposed to Joe Smith followers' rights).

Camille - the comparison with Jehova's witnesses doesn't fly. It's not as though once a Jehova's witness can refuse a life-saving blood transfusion, other people will demand the same right. Unlike the case with motorcycles.

Meena, with all respect, I don't buy that argument. Other people DO refuse life-saving blood transfusions and access to specific treatments for a variety of religious and non-religious reasons. If someone says, "but that Sikh guy says he CANNOT wear a helmet, so I don't wanna!" then that's their problem. In my view, it doesn't reduce the need for working either towards compromise or towards collaborative solutions. Like I said before, I don't think Sikhs are unreasonable. If someone wanted to collaborate on a policy or on a product that would meet the needs of both groups, I think folks would welcome that. Part of the issue (and this is also related to how many courts operate in general, so it may be an institutional limitation) is that people pass "all or nothing" legislation and then pick combative black-or-white stances.

Meena Jee, I agree with you on one thing; nothing makes Sikhism any more valid than any other made-up set of rules and called "x" religion. Most of the time I waver between agnosticism and atheism-however, being born into a Sikh family gave me a good perspective and hence belief into its non-deity aspects-particularly their devotion to the principles of 'charhdi kala (optimism), sarbat da bhala (wanting the best for all of creation/mankind) wand chakna (share what you earn). They are no different than most other religions in a broad sense. Most atheists fall into a similar category-they want to do the right thing, just dont want to be told to beleive in God. However, they want that right protected at all costs, innit? All religions want the same thing-'rights protected'. Some of those 'rights' logically speaking might be unreasonable in a modern or post modern socienty. Thats where it gets tricky, hence all the discussion. There is no easy answer.

Camille, yes I was being sarcastic. The implication being that then we are destined to live in a dull, monochromatic, conforming world.

The argument (among Sikhs) is not over whether or not the requirement is unreasonable, but rather, how to accommodate religious observance while participating in other activities... The areas of negotiation among Sikhs are VERY similar. Again, the disagreement is not on whether the turban is required; it's about how to preserve wearing the turban while also engaging

btw, your words have deep significance in the canadian context. fyi - take a look at the background on 'reasonable accomodation'.

Reasonable accommodation is a term used in Canada to refer to the theory that equality rights set out in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms demands that accommodation be made to various ethnic minorities. The concept is especially applied with reference to the anti-discrimination laws in Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. (The origin of the term "reasonable accommodation" is found in labour law jurisprudence, specifically Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud and is argued to be the obligation of employers to change some general rules for certain employees, under the condition that this does not cause "undue hardship".)

I think the laws for religious accomodation might have to be revisited in the United States and maybe the West in general. It is becoming more and more burdensome for businesses and the government to accomodate the ever increasing demands of religious groups. My parents are devout Muslims and I have no problems with Muslims but the current religious accomodation laws are being severely tested by the demands of Muslims in the US. Raised platforms for practising ablution in restrooms, 2-3 prayer breaks in a 8 hour work day, covering the face, ears or head for license/passport pictures, not touching pork at a check out counter, not taking dogs in cabs as cab drivers, wanting days off for Muslim holidays, gender segregation in various places and situations, seperate lunch break hours during Ramadan, hijab where no head covering is allowed, beard where no facial hair is allowed, halal meat in prisons, vacation for Hajj and so on....

Add to this demands of all other religious groups like Christians being against sex education and evolution in public schools, Sikhs wanting to carry lethal daggers, to Jews wanting Kosher food in prisons and not working on Saturday to Native Americans demanding to smoke weed, to Amish not sending their kids to school, to Jehova Witnesses not wanting to give medicines to their kids....

....its enough for an atheist like me to scream out and say ENOUGH!

^exactly. Society will fall apart at the seams if all laws are made such as to accomodate all religious groups that possibly exist.

But then all you're doing is imposing atheism on others. You're just as intolerant as any religious bigot.

The communists did a good job of suppressing religion and religious practise as part of their groovy rationalist atheist ideology.

If the key to a balanced society is reciprocal and reasonable accomodation of all people including minorities, then atheist commie-fascist bigots squealing about society coming apart at the seams if too many Orthodox Jews or observant Muslims do this or that are not part of the solution. If minorities have to be reasonable in their requests, and be flexible and tolerant in their practise, then so do atheists bigots and other intolerant people who'd have religious minorities herded into the shadows and ghetto so they can have their pristine athetist society.

Society will fall apart at the seams if all laws are made such as to accommodate all religious groups that possibly exist.

The reverse argument is that society is falling apart *because* we are mushing everyone together and not giving people the opportunity or time to explore/express/practice/honor their own faith and culture.

Many of the traditions and beliefs listed by Pagal Aadmi developed for specific reasons -- reasons which are often beneficial to the people involved, and not just on a religious level. Rules about diet? Developed as a response to moral codes, but also as a response to "what can we eat that won't make us sick?" And in the age where tainted meat is sent out to prisons and schools, insisting on a particular diet seems more than reasonable.

Keeping sex ed out of schools isn't necessarily a bad thing (my high school sex ed was abysmal). Nor is occasionally smoking marijuana. Nor is carrying a kirpan, symbolic or actual (we regularly carry guns, after all). It isn't even necessarily bad to keep kids off of antibiotics, though I have to admit that's a slippery slope -- but even in that case there's something to be said for letting life be life and not trying to manipulate it, if that's what you believe.

And there's nothing wrong with taking time to pray/rest/go to services, except that it's inconvenient to other people.

I agree whole-heartedly with Pagal Admi at #90. Society will not start to fall apart if people are not allowed to light fires for their havan ceremonies, or wear a giant tilak to work or some such thing. Neither can it be considered an atheist takeover because many people who support and participate in religious traditions do not agree with such demands. A sincere person can find solutions without expecting to be accommodated. Call me a cynic, but I'm convinced that it is usually the mischief makers that look for accomodations and not the sincere practitioners.

I don't think that anyone expressed a desire for an atheist-ruled utopia...

not taking dogs in cabs as cab drivers

Blue, I think your comment misses the point. Everybody would agree that reading books or taking an afternoon siesta is good for your mental development, but somehow it is not considered reasonable to expect workplaces to give me an hour long break after lunch to indulge in either. Make this a dictate of Rahooliganism, however, and it is a whole 'nother ballgame. I agree with PAfD, I don't read his comment as a blanket ban on all things religious, but more that things do not become automatically acceptable merely because they are mandated by religion. That attitude, while it might have been appropriate for a tribal or monocultural society, does not work in a world where it would be impossible to have a society that satisfies the lowest common denominator of all its constituent elements.

That said, I don't think there is an epidemic of turbandits roaming the highways of Canadia, so I don't see why the state does need to make such a point of this particular exception (and this could of course be revisited if there is evidence to the contrary, or if it implies more problematic accommodation for Sikhs or followers of other religions in the future). What next? I am sure there is a non-zero risk of beard hair being blown up into your nostrils when driving at high speeds, thereby causing uncontrolled tickling, and manic laughter induced crashes, which also affect others on the highway. So, should all Sikh males post puberty need to report to the nearest police station every 3 days to ensure that mustache hair does not exceed the width of the upper lip area, and any beard hair that can inch up towards the nostrils is snipped?

Everybody would agree that reading books or taking an afternoon siesta is good for your mental development, but somehow it is not considered reasonable to expect workplaces to give me an hour long break after lunch to indulge in either.

But they don't mind if you eat lunch in your cube while working and take care of the book/siesta during your afternoon "free" (formerly "lunch") hour. Companies have even installed napping pods for this purpose. ^__^

Yo Khoof! I'm going to threadjack for a second to thank you for this.

(And, for the record, I've never walked in on the 'rents but I'm sure your video would be an apt metaphor.)

Here's another vid for you. And that's a metaphor for the love life this side of the 49th.

Companies have even installed napping pods for this purpose. ^__^

And that's fine. But that's a discretionary accommodation, not something companies are expected to give.

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that religious people should not given any accomodations. I am however pointing out the fact that as religions proliferate in the United States, it might not be possible to accomodate all sincerely held beliefs. I have worked in this area and it can get very problematic.

For example: A workplace has 100 employees. 5 of them are Muslims.
- The Muslims want to get prayer breaks during their 12-8 shifts and in the summer, you have 3 prayers which fall in those 8 hours so then they want 3 breaks for their prayers.
- 2 of the Muslim employees also believe that they should pray immediately when its time to pray (which moves from 1-2 minutes everyday) so they want rolling breaks which change every day.
- Its also the month of Ramadan and they want to eat when its time to break their fast which itself moves by around 2 minutes everyday. So they want rolling eating breaks to cover the time.
- 2 of the 5 Muslims are women. One of them wears a long flowing jilbab (burqa) and believes that the jilbab is mandatory even though the loose fitting and flowing jilbab violates the OSHA standards as she works on the assembly line.
- Plus she will not pray with the other men in the same room so she cant pray in the lunch room.
- Also they have now petitioned the Union to include a request for setting up footpaths in the restrooom where they can perform ablution (wuzu) 3 times a day. That cannot be accomodated without tearing down the restrooms.
- Once Ramadan ends, its the day of Eid and all 5 Muslim employees want the day off. However 2 of the Muslims are Somali Muslims who celebrate Eid the day Saudi Arabia does while 2 other Muslims want to do it the day the Eid is performed in their native countries while the American Born Muslim wants to do it the day his local Mosque celebrates Eid. This might lead to the 5 Muslims being given 3 different days off for Eid in a span of 3 days.

The other employees are pissed off because of the above accomodations given to Muslims and they are raising hell. The HR will have to become experts on the Sharia to figure out these demands.

The last comment was not based on a hypothetical scenario. In areas where you have large numbers of non-professionals Muslims immigrating and working in factories/warehouses, they have to deal with the above on a daily basis.

If we're going to do that kind of calculus (the "how much accommodation is too much?" question), then we need to examine the default. The default is either a) atheistic, or b) Christian in the U.S. I don't really want to open a debate on whether the U.S. is a Christian nation or how many people from religion X you need to tip the scales in favor of an inclusive policy. If you have workers who want to pray 5x/day, let 'em. I know for most of my jobs they add my breaks to my workday (so I don't work 8 hours + breaks, I am at work for 9 hours, 8 of which are devoted to work and 1 of which is for lunch + two 15-minute breaks). I just think people are eager to throw up their hands and say, "Oh it's so hard! You minorities make things so hard!" instead of practical alternative solutions.

Slightly unrelated, but I had an employer once who worked us for exactly seven hours and 45 minutes so that he didn't have to give us breaks and only required us to take 1/2 hr lunch.

Actually, this was a great system for me, because I never cared for the mandatory "you have to stand somewhere, not working, for 15 minutes" break game.

I disagree Camille. I think there is a third route, which is "secular". It would be disingenuous to conflate it with atheist (not that I think you were doing that). It recognizes that people have different religious beliefs but assumes that those beliefs will be relegated to the private sphere without unreasonable demand for accomodation for all "sincerely held" practices in the public sphere, especially where there is an genuine, demonstrated public purpose to the laws in question.

Admittedly the lines aren't always clear (and admittedly cultural mores play a role) but I certainly don't think the answer is to say "oh, okay as long as you personally belive XYZ, you set the rules for what you will and won't do". It leads to confusion and also conflict when two sets of sincerely held beliefs conflict (including sincerely held "beliefs" in one area, such as sexual orientation and sincerely held beliefs in another area, such as religion. As another example, atheism is at the extreme end of the spectrum of religious belief in that it rejects any form of divinity. If an atheist sincerely believes (and a number do) that she shouldn't have to put up with or be exposed to any "voodoo" or "quackery", how will that conflict be settled? Atheists are obviously a minority compared to the religious--presumably they have the right to impose their "no recognition whatsoever for delusions" beliefs?). The sincerity of the belief goes to establishing whether the claimant is being a frivolous git--not whether society as a whole has to defer to that belief.

I have no doubt that many adherents of religions hold sincere beliefs but there are situations when it is not desirable to accomodate them in a particular society no matter how sincere. And as mentioned before, the reasonable accomodation implies movement by both sides and both sides better be proposing practicable workable solutions--if the claimant in question suggests that its a "my belief's way or the highway", (a zero-sum game rather than a win win approach) I think majority resentment and resulting retrenchment will probably carry the day. And yes, while "tyranny of the majority" is undesirable (hence the need for reasonable accomodation of minorities), in my view it's a hell of a lot MORE desirable than "tyranny of the minority" or "everyone just do their thing as long as they sincerely believe they need to do so". That perverts the idea of "rule of law" which tries, as much as possible to keep people bound by the same standards, so that there is some certainty that no matter who you are, you will have the same rights AND obligations. Because, as I'm sure we're all aware, if we really let people do everything they wanted and avoid doing what they didn't want because of sincerely held beliefs, things would probably get nasty very quickly and I suspect that "minorities" (using what ever classification criteria you desire) would bear the immediate and most lasting brunt of that nastiness.

For crystal clarity, my comments are not coming from a place of lack of respect for Sikhs and are not dependant on the fact that the claimant in question is Sikh.

102 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that religious people should not given any accomodations. I am however pointing out the fact that as religions proliferate in the United States, it might not be possible to accomodate all sincerely held beliefs. I have worked in this area and it can get very problematic.

yaar Paagal, this scenario would make me pagal. I think rituals of religion should be left out of the workplace period-for everyone!. The ultrareligious sometimes get bent way out shape over these issues. Is allah or waheguru or bhagwan gonna be upset if you just prayed in yo'head. I think not! I know, I have a direct line ;)

82 · DJ Drrrty Poonjabi said

For a while, I had been seriously considering no longer posting since the mass exodus of some of my favorite bloggers and commenters (Manish, ADS, Siddharta, Mr. Kobayashi, Shruti, DesiDancer, Neha, Cheap Ass Desi, and, of course, hairy_d. *cough*) I still gots mad love for the rest of y'all who still frequent my favorite diveblog, but with my crew gone, it just hasn't been the same.

You're right. It isn't the same. But if it affects you, consider how someone who has spent four years doing this feels. I've spent just as many hours (if not more) at SM as I have at work since we started during the Summer of '04. No longer seeing comments from mutineers I became real life friends with sucks. But I want to address something; it wasn't a "mass exodus". It was life. People graduate, change jobs, get married, have kids, fall ill. There have been babies, weddings and illnesses in the bunker as well, over the last 43 months.

I miss Siddhartha and DesiDancer as much as anyone does, but a lot of us are still here and sometimes these comments about "I almost stopped coming here, since everyone great has left"...grate. I didn't stop blogging because a few of my most beloved commenters left, and I wish that it wouldn't even cross your minds to stop posting because of it. I know, you said you have mad love for those who are still here. I do, too, since their longevity is extra-amazing, all things considered. That's why the "It isn't the same"-refrain bothers me. It will never be the same, but that doesn't mean it can't be wonderful.

/James

Nobody really said anything here about the backlash against the sikh community everytime the turban or kirpan issues comes up. All I can say that the sikh's are not the favorite minority in Canada right now.

Being a religous minority in Canada or the United States in the year 2008 is alot better, then in many other parts of the world.

Here in Vancouver, everytime it's Diwali or Vaisakhi you will see ad's in the newspaper from both major polictical parties wishing them happy Diwali or Vaisakhi. Yet when it's Christmas they instead say happy holidays. Last year I saw story on the News about women was upset that her daughter school would celebrate Diwali but would not celebrate Christmas.

Stuff like cause a backlash against the desi community.

Stuff like cause a backlash against the desi community.

Man, do you live in a Heritage Front compound? This and similar issues do end up creating some general anti-immigrant/multiculturalism resentment but to call it a backlash, particularly against any one group, is really overstating things. It fuels the accomodation debate but i've yet to see it become anything specifically anti-sikh or anti-brown.

Also, there is no war on christmas. I can't believe you're from Canada. We don't even get Fox News, where are you coming up with this stuff?

I think rituals of religion should be left out of the workplace period-for everyone!

When schools and universities stop organizing their schedules around the Christmas and Easter holidays, then we'll talk. Christian traditions get seen as "normal" while other groups get seen as demanding "extra".

What about the weekend? It's organized around a Christian notion of worship and the need for a sabbath. Why do I have to pay overtime to make people work then? As an employer, I'm discriminated against by Christians!

Also, there is no war on christmas.

Stop providing aid and comfort to the terrorists already, will ya?

112 · Ennis What about the weekend? It's organized around a Christian notion of worship and the need for a sabbath. Why do I have to pay overtime to make people work then? As an employer, I'm discriminated against by Christians!

Ennis,
I hope you're just having fun with this argument--while I can see the logic, if you really bear this as a grievance, it's the perfect prescription for leading an increasingly miserable life--please, take a deep breath and let it go. . . .

I hope you're just having fun with this argument--while I can see the logic, if you really bear this as a grievance, it's the perfect prescription for leading an increasingly miserable life--please, take a deep breath and let it go. . . .

My point is simple - people's secular solution is plenty religious as is, but they're unwilling to accommodate a tiny minority largely on symbolic grounds of equity. I find that laughable.

But no, I'm not pissed off at the status quo, just unwilling to take it as somehow fair and equitable and unrelated to its historical antecedents.

Yet when it's Christmas they instead say happy holidays.

It's funny how that works isn't it? I agree with your observation and think it is relevant to this discussion. Also, Ennis, there can never be a logical solution to the problem you point out in #112. The idea of secularism is conceptually flawed since is based on the notion that there is a divine world and a mundane world. The truth of this assumption has by no means been established. Instead what has been happening since the notion of secularism was developed, is that people have been drawing the line between religious and mundane in different places at different times through history depending on the power struture. In actual fact it is not easy to establish what properties distinguish the religious from the political or the secular. Since the idea of secularism is conceptually flawed and cannot be relied upon to perfectly resolve the problems it attempts to, i think it is only fair and natural that we go along with the local tradition, which just happens to consist of Sundays and Christmas, etc. It can only lead to chaos if everybody started wanting equal recognition.

115 · Ennis

people's secular solution is plenty religious as is

That is a solid point, and important to keep in mind--I agree that too many of the anti-Badesha comments on this thread ignore this point. I was warning against spending one's life trying to de-throne, e.g., Christmas as a national holiday--ain't gonna happen in our lifetime, anymore than if you moved to Morocco and started agitating against Eid. So some things it's healthier to accept.

but they're unwilling to accommodate a tiny minority largely on symbolic grounds of equity. I find that laughable.

Well, this is where we need to do some difficult line-drawing, since we can't accomodate all religious demands all the time. I'm close to the line on the helmet issue, but I would certainly think it reasonable to require Sikh soldiers to wear helmets if they're in combat--you don't want some guy in your platoon to be easily shot-down if you're depending on him! And I definitely think female Muslim surgeons should be required to wash/disinfect their forearms before operating! (This latter is apparently now an issue in the UK.)

I disagree Camille. I think there is a third route, which is "secular". It would be disingenuous to conflate it with atheist (not that I think you were doing that). It recognizes that people have different religious beliefs but assumes that those beliefs will be relegated to the private sphere without unreasonable demand for accomodation for all "sincerely held" practices in the public sphere, especially where there is an genuine, demonstrated public purpose to the laws in question.

While things are certainly better today than 50 years ago for non-Christians in the U.S./Canada, we live in a world that is not normatively "default secular" or even "default atheistic." You argue that religious minorities sticking to their guns breeds contempt -- do you really think it doesn't go the other way as well? By the state adopting rigidity and failing to account for religious minorities when they form legislation, it reifies a sense of unfair standards as well as the "position of faith" among minorities.

Atheists are obviously a minority compared to the religious--presumably they have the right to impose their "no recognition whatsoever for delusions" beliefs?

I think Amitabh really divided the question well -- there are two issues at hand: 1) The case per se, and 2) The role of religious exemptions to laws. I'll restate my opinion -- I think the slippery slope argument, as applied to religion, is misguided. I also think the hyperbole that occasional or specific exemptions somehow undermine the rule of law as a whole are oversimplified and inaccurate. We see plenty of legitimate cases where it works out and society (and the rule of law) are doing just fine.

118 · Camille I ask because France claims that it's secular, but that's certainly not what my view of secularism is.

I basically agree with your points, but cut France some slack. They're basically in a state of low-grade civil war (Muslim v. Catholic), and only didn't send in the army to quell the insurrection in the Parisian banlieus b/c they didn't want to admit, for PR purposes, that they were in a state of civil war. But when you have thousands of attacks on police by Muslim youths, you have to start thinking "outside the box" in terms of how to quell future violence, and "de-religion-ing" public spaces like schools might be a good idea--it might not be--but it should be an option--at the end of the day, saving lives trumps religious expression for most people (me included).

To the social scientists out there: what is the social/political theory or justification for accommodating "sincerely held beliefs" (I'd be happy to get readable references)? Is it to protect rights/guarantee happiness of individuals, or is it to preserve social harmony etc.? Or is to protect rights/guarantee happiness of individuals while simultaneously maximizing some social productivity function? If it is purely to protect rights, why is religion granted special status? Why can't I, as an atheist, expect my sincerely held beliefs (held by a minority of one - me) to automatically and naturally have equal status in the eyes of the law as far as accommodation? And if it is to protect rights while guaranteeing social productivity, why is it unreasonable to assume that the majority norm will, at the end of the day, guide decisions as to what is acceptable in society, and that you need to achieve some minimum size before your unhappiness affects society detrimentally?

Maybe I am thinking about this all wrong, so I am happy to be corrected.

Here is a link to a credible UK newspaper that says 2500 French police wounded in attacks in the first half of 2006.

I just don't think banning religious items is an "outside the box" initiative or venture. There are a thousand reasons for why there's been religious and ethnically slanted violence in Paris, and I think it's easy to pick the most obvious (religion, color) and then use that as justification for state-sponsored repression.

i think it is only fair and natural that we go along with the local tradition, which just happens to consist of Sundays and Christmas, etc. It can only lead to chaos if everybody started wanting equal recognition.

How is it "fair" and "natural"?
The US doesn't look like chaos to me, even though there is a good deal of religious recognition. Historically, people were afraid of accommodating Catholics because they were so foreign and America was a Protestant country, but that worked out fine. And the Mormons? Have you looked at the LDS? And how about the Jews, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses?

You look at that and see chaos, I look at that and see what makes America great.

120 · Rahul

what is the social/political theory or justification for accommodating "sincerely held beliefs" (I'd be happy to get readable references)?

It's the basic (classical) liberal notion that individuals, rather than the state/majority, should be able to have a wide sphere of autonomy, b/c autonomy is valuable/good/rationally non-rejectable. I don't have specific references at hand at the moment, but see, e.g., Locke, Mill, Rawls, Nozick--for all their differences, they pretty much agree on that.

It's the basic (classical) liberal notion that individuals, rather than the state/majority, should be able to have a wide sphere of autonomy, b/c autonomy is valuable/good/rationally non-rejectable.

Yeah, so if it flows from what I describe as preserving rights of individuals, why are some "deeply held beliefs" more important than others?

125 · Rahul Yeah, so if it flows from what I describe as preserving rights of individuals, why are some "deeply held beliefs" more important than others?

They aren't!! So, for example, I should, in a liberal state, be able to drink alcohol and eat pork during the day during Ramadan even though 95% of the population is Muslim, and my interest in eating and drinking is utterly secular.

They aren't!! So, for example, I should, in a liberal state, be able to drink alcohol and eat pork during the day during Ramadan even though 95% of the population is Muslim, and my interest in eating and drinking is utterly secular.

That's not true in the least. Why can't I drink peyote just because I deeply hold that belief? Why can't I ride without a helmet because I like the wind in my hair?

And, to reiterate, I am not quoting the helmet example because I think that Mr. Badesha shouldn't ride helmetless, I really think that this is not a serious enough problem for the state to ride roughshod over his personal preferences, but rather mention "the wind in the hair" as an example of an argument that the court would completely brush off as ridiculous.

Also, there is no war on christmas. I can't believe you're from Canada. We don't even get Fox News, where are you coming up with this stuff?

I guess this women was not happy that her kid school in the Vancouver about having a day for diwali, but not christmas.
http://www.canada.com/surreynow/news/letters/story.html?id=721d9016-832a-4dc6-b214-b9796da24d60

122 · Camille on February 19, 2008 07:21 PM · Direct link · “Quote”(?)

I just don't think banning religious items is an "outside the box" initiative or venture. There are a thousand reasons for why there's been religious and ethnically slanted violence in Paris, and I think it's easy to pick the most obvious (religion, color) and then use that as justification for state-sponsored repression.

Camille, you may well be right--I'm suggesting it's an empirical question--if we want to be fair to the French, they seem to operating on the empirical guess (I doubt there's any real evidence) that de-religion-ing the public schools will lead to less religious violence (and I don't think you can deny that what went on in the banlieus was basically religious violence--you didn't see many poor Catholics or Jews or animists attacking the French police or burning cars). If you accept that religious expression, while an important value, is not an absolute right and can be trumped in some circumstances, then you might want to give the French the benefit of the doubt here. They could have been far nastier, and sent in the army (like the US did in the 60's, when the National Guard was sent into Detroit, etc. when we had a low-grade civil war going on).

127 · Rahul That's not true in the least. Why can't I drink peyote just because I deeply hold that belief? Why can't I ride without a helmet because I like the wind in my hair?

No, no--you are conflating classical liberal theory and the actual US/Canada. Locke, Mill, Rawls & Nozick would, I am confident, allow the peyote-drinking! The US and Canada are, on a global scale, pretty liberal (and damn wealthy and pleasant (on a global scale) b/c of it!), but they in practice have numerous deviations from the theoretical classical liberal state--look at, e.g., the tariffs on rice, oranges, etc. to benefit US farmers, to take one obvious example!

No, no--you are conflating classical liberal theory and the actual US/Canada.

Ok, maybe I wasn't clear. My original question was about the decision framework for the tradeoffs that do happen in the non-ideal world we live in, and that does not seem to be the classical liberal theory. It is definitely the case that people are inclined to give a wide berth to deeply held beliefs if their provenance is religious, but that is not the case when it isn't. And as far as I can see, the only rationale is critical mass of a minority.

(and I don't think you can deny that what went on in the banlieus was basically religious violence--you didn't see many poor Catholics or Jews or animists attacking the French police or burning cars)

This is like saying that because there were riots in Chicago we should create a different set of rules that limits expression and encumbers people of color without asking "Why were there riots in Chicago?" I hear what you're saying, but from an empirical standpoint it is hard to quantify how much of state-citizen conflict in France among ethnic/religious communities is driven by poverty, how much by state policy, how much by identification, etc.

132 · Rahul It is definitely the case that people are inclined to give a wide berth to deeply held beliefs if their provenance is religious, but that is not the case when it isn't.

I just don't think that's true. One is perfectly free (today) to, for example, have gay sex, eat meat on Fridays during Lent, blaspheme Jesus, get divorced, practice Buddhism, etc., even though that's anathema to (large sectors of) the Christian super-majority. That's the sense in which the US/Canada are actually pretty liberal. I don't feel particularly impinged-upon in my day-to-day life by Christianity, even though I'm a Hindu.

if we want to be fair to the French, they seem to operating on the empirical guess (I doubt there's any real evidence) that de-religion-ing the public schools will lead to less religious violence (and I don't think you can deny that what went on in the banlieus was basically religious violence--you didn't see many poor Catholics or Jews or animists attacking the French police or burning cars).

I dont think that Muslim and some non-Muslim African violence in France was religiously motivated. Also the French banning of religious gear in school had nothing to do with the riots and was not really a part of the French debate on the display of religious gear in school.

Its a fact that the majority of rioters were Muslims. However there is no evidence to suggest that the rioting was religiously motivated.

133 · Camille

rob, if you default to religion then you would have to ignore the history of colonialism, immigration policy, the French state's difficulty in coming up with a coherent and equal naturalization and integration process, etc. For example, you also didn't see many white Muslims out on the streets. There were many factors at play. . . . from an empirical standpoint it is hard to quantify how much of state-citizen conflict in France among ethnic/religious communities is driven by poverty, how much by state policy, how much by identification, etc.

Yes, yes, but these things are intertwined. I.e., why it's Muslim youths attacking the police has fundamentally a lot to do with colonialism and immigration policy and racism--it's not just Islam--of course!! But, at the end of the day, we have to realize that France has a huge problem going forward, and if we realize that some of the ideal solutions aren't politically feasible, we should consider some other possibilities. I guess at the end of the day I'm just not as offended by their crackdown on religious objects in school as you are--I see the religious divide as fostering the violence, and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they're trying to tamp that divide down, rather than that they're being jerks by implementing the policy--remember, at the end of the day, you might have the French army going into the banlieus--if a little bit of other measures can head that off, I'm all for it.

135 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery

Its a fact that the majority of rioters were Muslims. However there is no evidence to suggest that the rioting was religiously motivated.

Yes, fair enough. I didn't say it's religiously motivated. But, if you wanted to explain to a Martian why thousands of French police were injured in attacks, and who was attacking them, you wouldn't want to say "the poor" or the "political left" or the "political right" if you wanted to be accurate--you would say "Muslim youths"--no?

I just don't think that's true. One is perfectly free (today) to, for example, have gay sex, eat meat on Fridays during Lent, blaspheme Jesus, get divorced, practice Buddhism, etc., even though that's anathema to (large sectors of) the Christian super-majority. That's the sense in which the US/Canada are actually pretty liberal. I don't feel particularly impinged-upon in my day-to-day life by Christianity, even though I'm a Hindu.

I did not at all say that all non-religious preferences are superceded by religious beliefs - I realize that the US/Canada are not theocracies (although it is just an accident that sodomy is legal, Lawrence v. Texas would likely have an entirely different result in this court, and Roe v. Wade would probably also get thrown out the window, and a lot of the animosity towards both of these are based in religion). I am talking about the outrage that accrues whenever there is a perception that there might be a limitation imposed upon a belief based in religion: for example, assuming you thought helmet laws were reasonable, would the average person sympathize with an individual who wanted an exemption purely because he deeply felt that the experience wasn't authentic unless he could feel his hair blowing in the wind?

Also, there is no war on christmas

according to John Gibson:

• In Illinois, state government workers were forbidden from saying the words “Merry Christmas” while at work
• In Rhode Island, local officials banned Christians from participating in a public project to decorate the lawn of City Hall
• A New Jersey school banned even instrumental versions of traditional Christmas carols
• Arizona school officials ruled it unconstitutional for a student to make any reference to the religious history of Christmas in a class project

138 · Rahul I am talking about the outrage that accrues whenever there is a perception that there might be a limitation imposed upon a belief based in religion: for example, assuming you thought helmet laws were reasonable, would the average person sympathize with an individual who wanted an exemption purely because he deeply felt that the experience wasn't authentic unless he could feel his hair blowing in the wind?

Rahul,
I'm sorry if I'm missing something in your comments, but--yes--there is a lot of sympathy around the world for people who want "a limitation imposed upon a belief based in religion"--look at the spread of legal abortion in the West, gay marriage being legalized in Catholic Spain, nightclubs and drinking in Lebanon, basic history of post-WW I Turkey (I realize they just repealed the anti-hijab rule, but look at the overall trend), what young people in Iran today really do, etc. I really am not seeing your point. To me, religion seem to be on the run/in a defensive crouch--just compare the world today to 1900.

In Illinois, state government workers were forbidden from saying the words “Merry Christmas” while at work

So?

In Rhode Island, local officials banned Christians from participating in a public project to decorate the lawn of City Hall

Decorate in what way? if city hall lawn is going to be decorated, it should have a christian section, a Hindu section, a Muslim section, a Bahai Section, a Wiccan section, a...

A New Jersey school banned even instrumental versions of traditional Christmas carols

So?

Arizona school officials ruled it unconstitutional for a student to make any reference to the religious history of Christmas in a class project

What are the details on this? what were the references for..

How bout the other war on christmas? The one that Bill O'Reilly doesn't talk about. The one where a religious holiday is turned into a fat man wearing a red suit and fighting to buy that last super zombie toy or whatever is selling at the time.

LOL@John Gibson. The Walter Cronkite of the Right Wing.

120 · Rahul said

To the social scientists out there: what is the social/political theory or justification for accommodating "sincerely held beliefs" (I'd be happy to get readable references)? Is it to protect rights/guarantee happiness of individuals, or is it to preserve social harmony etc.? Or is to protect rights/guarantee happiness of individuals while simultaneously maximizing some social productivity function? If it is purely to protect rights, why is religion granted special status?

see seana shffrin here, who among the new philosopher-lawyers is considered to have come up with a very good account of accommodation, and why states might choose to accommodate sincerely held beliefs as well as discusses harder cases like smokers, drinkers, and violators of helmet laws. one of her papers can be found here.
some of ayelet shachar's work is relevant too.
just giving you the references - am exhausted.

143 · portmanteau see seana shiffrin here

Good reference--she is super-smart.

144 · rob said

Good reference--she is super-smart.

i just keep on hearing about philosophy students who have massive crushes on her :) she is incredibly articulate, and also a former girl-genius apparently.

145 · portmanteau i just keep on hearing about philosophy students who have massive crushes on her :) she is incredibly articulate, and also a former girl-genius apparently.

I have met her (once) in real life, and she is crazily smart--like, an order of magnitude smarter than the limited number of people I would normally call smart. She gets an argument that takes mere smart people five minutes to lay out in about 5 seconds.

LOL@John Gibson. The Walter Cronkite of the Right Wing.

well, if the so-called civil-libertarians did their job, we wouldn't need gibsonor o'reilly. Here's another case (from FIRE...i believe nat hetcoff is on the BOD)

In a shameful attack on freedom of religion, the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire (UWEC) has banned resident assistants (RAs) from leading Bible studies in their own dormitories. The university claims the ban is necessary because some students might not feel RAs who lead Bible studies are “approachable.”

So?

HMF: it the free speech and free excercise clause of the 1st ammendment. the govt can't ban words like "merry christmas" in the workplace, with the narrow exception if the words interfere with work.

Camille re your post 118 you raise some good questions. I would suggest that secular is very different from atheist. Atheist would prohibit any accomodation, recognition or acknowledgement of religion whatsoever whether in the public or private sphere. There is no god and there is no need to accomodate or recognize any practices except as delusional quirks and to the extent they are based on some sort of mistaken belief in the supernatural, they deserve, at best, contempt. Secular recognizes that spiritiual beliefs including a belief in the supernatural can form a powerful part of people's lives and also recognizes the right to practice in accordance with those beliefs to the extent that they do not interfere with the public sphere or overarching principles upon which the society is governed. Obviously the definition of "infringing on the public sphere" or those overarching principles vary from society to society (I would hope that in the U.S. and Canada we agree that gender equality is an overarching principle and we are not keen to erode those rights because of someone's sincere belief that, for example, menstruating women should be kept secluded so that they do not pollute men by their presence "See the Year of Living Biblically").

And damn straight I believe that an atheist is impacted by the practice of religion. It is a fundamental tenet of atheism that there is no supernatural being or force guiding the universe. For some Sikhs, the requirement that Sikh men wear a turban is perceived as a fundamental tenet of their religion. For some atheists, the requirement that superstition or delusions should not be given any individual or societal respect whatsoever and are in fact dangerous and pathological traits is as fundamental a tenet (witness the accusations that Richard Dawkins is an atheist "fundamentalist"). So yes, you proselytizing in the company lunchroom or on the street corner because your religion tells you to is an infringement on their VERY sincerely held beliefs. So, however, does your demand to be able veil your face when talking to an atheist co-worker because "your religion" demands it. Their belief actively rejects that belief and you are dealing with them and forcing them to defer to your delusion, so you are impinging on their belief system. The reality is that religion is afforded much more respect and accomodation in the public sphere than atheism--secularism doesn't tell adherents that they are wrong in their beliefs of what their supernatural deity tells them--it just says that in certain circumstances, that belief is ultimately irrelevant and must defer to other objectives and purposes, including the purpose of belonging to a community where not all members share that same spiritual belief.

Again specific exemptions may indeed be fine,depending on the context in question and weighing all the factors. But simply stating that the majority always has a duty to accomodate a minorities belief is very much a slippery slope and, quite frankly a recipe for disaster, as there are a lot of incompatible yet ardently held beliefs out there. As an example, the sincere belief that one must have the right to proselytize to Muslims and convince them that they are following a false religion can run smack up against the sincere belief that any insult to Islam must be dealt with by any means necessary.

I seriously doubt that an exemption for a (large) minority community, if dealt with fairly and on a case-by-case basis, would create "tyranny" for the majority.

But I don't think anyone is saying otherwise- "case by case" (vs. individual by individual) and "fairly". Most people in disagreement are just saying that in this case, the restriction appears to be fair and reasonable in light of the stated purpose and demonstrated results and overall objectives of the society. And since you've added the further criteria a "large" minority community issue as the qualification for allowing exemptions you are making it about numbers rather than principle and are in fact arguing the government's point for them in that it is relevant to show that many Sikhs these days actually don't wear a turban or don't have a problem with not engaging in activities where the turban is an impediment. It's only a much smaller contingent of Sikhs who seem hung up about it. Sikhs are a small proportion of the overall Canadian population anyway and using this critera of "large enough" minority slices the minority into even smaller pieces makes the claimants even less justified (i.e. they just don't have the right numbers of adherents). I don't think that's how cases should be decided.

I think I've pretty much gone around in circles here making the same points so I'll bow out of the conversation, but thanks again to all for an interesting discussion.

149 · ente

So yes, you proselytizing in the company lunchroom or on the street corner because your religion tells you to is an infringement on their VERY sincerely held beliefs. So, however, does your demand to be able veil your face when talking to an atheist co-worker because "your religion" demands it. Their belief actively rejects that belief and you are dealing with them and forcing them to defer to your delusion, so you are impinging on their belief system.

No, no--this is instructively wrong, however. The "liberal" position (which is held with less than perfect fidelity by most wealthy nations, including ours) is that person A can wear no religious insignia and person B can wear religious insignia. If A finds B offensive, that is a personal matter, but in no way would A be able to claim that B is "forcing [A] to defer to [B's] delusion." A can refrain from contracting with B, but that is a personal matter. B is not to be disabled in any (beyond what A thinks) sense just b/c of what A thinks (and, vice-versa).

I'm sorry if I'm missing something in your comments, but--yes--there is a lot of sympathy around the world for people who want "a limitation imposed upon a belief based in religion"--look at the spread of legal abortion in the West, gay marriage being legalized in Catholic Spain, nightclubs and drinking in Lebanon, basic history of post-WW I Turkey (I realize they just repealed the anti-hijab rule, but look at the overall trend), what young people in Iran today really do, etc.

rob, I think the misunderstanding is that I am restricting myself primarily to the impact of sincerely held beliefs on purely personal choices (at least, to a first order approximation): should X be forced to wear a helmet instead of a turban if it is guaranteed to reduce the chance of his being seriously injured? (as opposed to the unraveling turban argument that affects not just X but the ability of other motorists to ride the roads at reasonable risk too). Gay marriage and abortion legalization are instances where religious proscriptions interact negatively with non-believers' rights, and many states in the West favor rights over the religious proscription (although the US seems to be stuck in a time warp as compared to some of Western Europe).

I do think that there is a general (but by no means, absolute) trend towards secularization when it comes to favoring individual rights over religious beliefs, but the same is not true when weighing religious beliefs and societal costs (for example, productivity losses). In the latter case, the bar for the serious consideration of a belief and the proof that it is deeply held are definitely far lower if its provenance is religious than otherwise (sorry to keep harping on my example: do you seriously think that people would really be equivalently outraged if this ban violated my enjoyment of biking helmet-free - a belief inculcated from my childhood? Or if I had genuinely desired to nap for a couple of hours every day - assuming that this time is equivalent to the daily prayer accommodation for a certain religious group? Or if long hair was essential to my self-esteem and I wanted to be allowed to wear it even when I operated a machine?)

As far as I can see, the only logical explanation for this is a numbers-based argument, or a special sanctioning of religion. Clearly, the former argument means that religious (or any other) minorities will have to accept that their beliefs will not be respected unless they reach some critical mass - certainly not a desirable state, nor I think the state of the world we live in. As for the latter, is that not a violation of my rights as an atheist, or at the very least an excessive burden? (I am not talking about my belief system being violated by people wandering about in habits or hijabs - to me, these are in a similar category to the abortion/gay marriage debate where one person's beliefs should not limit another person's rights.)

(As for what young people in Iran do, covert social practices do not equate to legal sanction. And Lebanon is an example of a society which has historically been socially liberal - although, politically, they still very actively acknowledge religion in the make-up of their government, so it is not a particularly new trend, whereas Turkey is in fact definitely going in the opposite direction.)

see seana shffrin here, who among the new philosopher-lawyers is considered to have come up with a very good account of accommodation, and why states might choose to accommodate sincerely held beliefs as well as discusses harder cases like smokers, drinkers, and violators of helmet laws. one of her papers can be found here.

portmanteau, from a quick skim, it seems like this is exactly the kind of analysis or decision framework I was asking about. Thank you very much for the reference. I will read it in greater detail over the next few days.

Rahul,
Look, we're not really disagreeing on the fundamentals as much as on the details. You're discounting my Iranian youth example b/c their activities aren't legal, but you're taking seriously the latest political move in Turkey because it's pro-religion. Well, ok, fair enough. But, I bet you that in 20 years Iran is a lot wealthier and more liberal than Turkey, because the Persians are a hella lot more cosmopolitan and sophisticated than the Turks, and so will throw off these crazy Mullahs and prosper, while the Turks will increasingly stultify under their Central Asian/non-Zoroastrian/Islamic roots.

But, seriously--this is fun as a parlour game, who really knows?? I'm (mostly) kidding with my analysis above.

More seriously, though, I disagree that the trend in terms of trading off "religious beliefs and societal costs" is in any way trending in the direction of religion. You've got some really successful countries that are pretty irreligious, and a lot of basket cases that are totally religious. What are the counter-examples? I guess S. Korea is kind of religious (but--not in a wholesale way, just a fraction of Christian evangelicals), and Saudi is kind of rich and religious, but--seriously, how religious are the rich ones, and how wealthy are the religious ones (not very--see GNP per capita figures)--and--how long is that regime going to last, anyway??

rahul:

what's wrong with the framework Rob's put forward? it has a long tradition in the US and is engraved in our constitution and solves the current dilemma nicely. govt would not be allowed to protect us from ourselves. helmet wearing cannot be regulated b/c an individual has autonomy over his own body. religious and secular dispositions are given equal protection under the law in this tradition. in other words, it solves your dilemma.

and of course this does not preclude the govt from legistlating behaviour that effects others, such as regulating the pollution of cars or bumper standards for example. why the need for a new paradigm?

manju, I am asking about a larger question than this specific helmet situation. What about exceptions for some individuals to have prayer breaks, or require teaching of intelligent design in schools, because the religious beliefs of some people require this? What is the framework that regulates these?

And even more than religion: why do we as a society allow people to smoke, drink or have uncontrolled eating habits and impose productivity costs (not even medical costs) on all of society? Surely the right answer is not to discriminate against (at least some) of these categories?

I am not claiming that I have an answer, but the current system seems to have at least some level of arbitrariness or condoning of certain categories of belief, prima facie.

What about exceptions for some individuals to have prayer breaks,

liberalism would leave it up to the employer, end of story. govt employers would have to offer a reasonable accommodation to anyone...ie as long as it doesnt interfere with work, the employee is allowed to do it.

or require teaching of intelligent design in schools, because the religious beliefs of some people require this?

violates the establishment clause, but a voluntary bible study group would be allowed, especially if secular groups have access to the school. however, liberalism would encourage private schools over public so the govt does not have to be involved in such decisions in the 1st place.

why do we as a society allow people to smoke, drink or have uncontrolled eating habits and impose productivity costs (not even medical costs) on all of society? Surely the right answer is not to discriminate against (at least some) of these categories?

all allowed under liberalism, but the smoker, drinker, eater cannot demand society pick up the cost. if society decides to pick up the cost, say with universal health care, it gives society a reason to legislate personal behavior...which is why excessive entanglement of govt and private business is frowned upon under classic liberalism. yes, reconciling individual freedoms with socialism is problematic.

Man, do you live in a Heritage Front compound? This and similar issues do end up creating some general anti-immigrant/multiculturalism resentment but to call it a backlash, particularly against any one group, is really overstating things. It fuels the accomodation debate but i've yet to see it become anything specifically anti-sikh or anti-brown.

Well the last few months in Vancouver you had the issue with Radio talk show host Bruce Allen and some comments he made, and the sikh community overreacted. And then there was the case of Laibar Singh who was to be deported but stoped at the airport by an angry mob. Both there cases made the community look bad,and I'm not just talking about the white community, but among other minority's groups.

HMF: it the free speech and free excercise clause of the 1st ammendment. the govt can't ban words like "merry christmas" in the workplace, with the narrow exception if the words interfere with work.

Complete misrepresentation of the context in which free speech was ratified in the first place, as to make sure no voices were suppressed in debate. Somehow I think, we'll all still remember what Christmas is.

I'd assume that if Merry Christmas was banned, so would Happy Hanukah, or Happy Diwali, or Happy Eid, or Happy Satan's Birthday... It's called equal treatment for equal religion, another clause in the first amendment.

ente, thanks for your responses, a few comments:

Re: an "atheistic" world
I'm pretty sure I excluded proselytization, so your argument that someone wearing a religious article (a yarmulke, a cross, a turban, a hijab) affronts an "atheist's right to live free from symbols of delusion" seems just as limiting as arguments against theocracies that adopt strict mono-religious requirements. I'm with rob (#150) on this one.

With respect to my qualifier re: a "(large)" minority community (placed in parentheticals because I do not think it should be the only, or even driving, factor in accommodation), who decides what numerically large is? Who decides what "fair" is? It does not make sense for the majority to make policies that substantially burden the minority without any sense of how it plays out.

To continue on the numbers theme: most Jews in the U.S. are not Hasidic or Orthodox Jews, so does this mean that we should disallow any exemptions someone requires to practice their faith? Should employers threaten to fire their employees if they require Friday off for the Sabbath? I would argue that the "numbers" case is similar for kesdari and amritdari Sikhs in the U.S. and Canada. And to clarify, in the context of minority communities in Canada the Sikh community is not "tiny."

Example 2: In the U.K., ethnic minorities (including the Irish) make up somewhere around 9% of the total population. About half of that (so 4.5% of the total population) is desi, and somewhere around one-quarter of that subgroup (so now we're at 1-2%) are Sikh, and we can safely assume that an even smaller percentage are kesdari/amritdari. If the United Kingdom, who has a state health care system also, can see the value and sensibility in creating accommodations for the turban in many different venues of public life -- including driving on the public road on a motorcycle or scooter --, then I don't see why a similar request in Canada is seen as unreasonable.

But, I bet you that in 20 years Iran is a lot wealthier and more liberal than Turkey, because the Persians are a hella lot more cosmopolitan and sophisticated than the Turks, and so will throw off these crazy Mullahs and prosper, while the Turks will increasingly stultify under their Central Asian/non-Zoroastrian/Islamic roots.

sidebar:
that is a very Landes-like (and Huntingtonesque) prediction, and these predictions based on some kind of overarching 'national character' are dubious. It maybe that the Turks mover toward their Islamic roots, but that may happen due to global+European political circumstances, rather than a ' less sophisticated and/or less-cosmopolitan national character.' Imagine such an explanation pre-world war 2 Germany - Germans prone to national socialism because of their intrinsic character rather than due to the economic and political climate of the Weimar Republic. I do not think this is a trifling point either - such characterizations of ethnic/national are pernicious. They cloud better explanations of what is happening on the ground, and even become self-fulfilling prophecies since many countries than adopt a contrarian/recalcitrant stance.

159 · portmanteau sidebar:

You are right--that's why I called it a "parlour game"! ;-)

Complete misrepresentation of the context in which free speech was ratified in the first place, as to make sure no voices were suppressed in debate. Somehow I think, we'll all still remember what Christmas is

how can i misrepresent the context in which free speech was ratifued if i did not speak about how it was ratified in the fist place?

I'd assume that if Merry Christmas was banned, so would Happy Hanukah, or Happy Diwali, or Happy Eid, or Happy Satan's Birthday... It's called equal treatment for equal religion, another clause in the first amendment.

your assuming incocorectly. nonetheless, even if one banned all religious speech you'd still have a violation of the free speech and free excercise clause of the 1st ammendment (with athe narrow exception that religious speech was disrupting the workplace environment). in other words, the govt can't ban a communist press then justify it by saying their banig all ideolocal newspapers and thus treating all speech equally.

all allowed under liberalism, but the smoker, drinker, eater cannot demand society pick up the cost.

It is not just universal health care, if I have a co-worker who falls ill more frequently (say, 2 additional weeks a year) because he has chosen certain habits or predilections, why should I bear the brunt of the added work? This is a real concern, not just imagined or hypothetical. What about pure moral luck - a certain chronic or congenital illness that a person has for no fault of their own? What if genetic testing becomes cheap, and the classically liberal insurance companies disqualify anybody with a slightly higher risk of illness? What if these people are too poor to afford the significantly higher rates of coverage of the companies that will automatically crop up to serve their needs in the perfect market?

which is why excessive entanglement of govt and private business is frowned upon under classic liberalism. yes, reconciling individual freedoms with socialism is problematic.

I will take the interference of socialism that ended slavery, and provided some measure of equal rights and protection against discrimination (although very far from perfect) to minorities, over the unfettered liberalism that promotes individual rights only when they align with the interests of the powerful. There are many historical examples that show that an unfettered interpretation of allowing individual freedoms suppresses basic rights for many.

In any case, the point of my question is not to get into the tired old debate of libertarian utopias because I think there is an excellent empirical and moral basis for state accommodation of certain minority interests, even when the market itself will not naturally encourage them. The fact that the decision calculus is complicated is not an argument against it. However, I do think that the system could do with a better articulation of the overarching principles and reasoning that guides which accommodations are considered reasonable, and importantly, which accommodations aren't.

nonetheless, even if one banned all religious speech you'd still have a violation of the free speech and free excercise clause of the 1st ammendment (with athe narrow exception that religious speech was disrupting the workplace environment). in other words, the govt can't ban a communist press then justify it by saying their banig all ideolocal newspapers and thus treating all speech equally.

true.

if I have a co-worker who falls ill more frequently (say, 2 additional weeks a year) because he has chosen certain habits or predilections, why should I bear the brunt of the added work?

you'd negotiate additional compensation from your employer.

I will take the interference of socialism that ended slavery,

or you could say that slavery itself was a form of "socialism"...govt interfeing with the inalienable rights of blacks, as MLK tirelessly argued. liberal philosphers have long argued that preserving individual freedom is govts prime responsibility.

In any case, the point of my question is not to get into the tired old debate of libertarian utopias

well liberalism, as opposed to its more strident offspring libertarianism, offers some leeway. for example, the founders did not include the phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution b/c they knew it was too idealistic and would only work in an extreme libertarian paradise. what happens when the govt builds a public road, for example. church busses can't use it? so a certain entanglement with religion was allowed, despite the fact that this veers from the liberal utopia.

thus accommodations are made within the liberal framework for the exceptions you want, such as non-discrimination laws, or regulating the economy, or providing healthcare if the market or private charity fails...though it is frowned upon. by arguing against the libertarian utopia your missing the practicality and realism of locke and the enlightenment thinkers. there's a reason their revolution has lasted so long while more sophisticated ideologies have long ceased to matter.

but hard cases notwithstanding, the liberal framework works quite well. we'd allow anyone to ride w/o a helmet thus protecting the religious freedom of sikhs w/o privileging the religion. ditto for peyote.

if society decides to pick up the cost, say with universal health care, it gives society a reason to legislate personal behavior...which is why excessive entanglement of govt and private business is frowned upon under classic liberalism.

thus accommodations are made within the liberal framework for the exceptions you want, such as non-discrimination laws, or regulating the economy, or providing healthcare if the market or private charity fails...

we'd allow anyone to ride w/o a helmet thus protecting the religious freedom of sikhs w/o privileging the religion.

Therein lies the rub. There are good arguments stemming from rights for the state to provide healthcare. In which case, even a purely cost-based perspective justifies these "nanny laws" (although there are very interesting rights-based arguments against other nanny laws, for example, the laws preventing assisted suicide), and so does a debate about reasonable or acceptable exceptions.

Alright, I'm done now :)

I personally think that the Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, etc. all need to obey the laws. Moreover, the Canadians should not come up with 3 different legal systems to make each minority happy. Pretty soon, the Muslims will want their own Sharia law, and public execution and group rape will be common place, like it is in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. The Sikhs should not have their own legal system as well. They should *NOT* be allowed to bring their knives on board a plane. Pretty soon, all an Arab has to do to hijack a plane is dress up as a Sikh and change their surname to "Singh".

rahul:

they way most classic liberals try to reconcile the conundrum of encroaching socialism is (besides resisting it) to say if the govt gets involved in an activity, it cannot use its involvement as an excuse to limit personal freedom. so if the govt builds a public road, it must allow religious busses to use them. if it finances the arts, it must be viewpoint neutral. if it decides to finance healthcare, it cannot outlaw smoking, drinking, motorcycle riding. public universities cannot ban david horowitz from speaking, and so on. at least that's the general paradigm. if you're afraid that you'll be forced to pick up the cost of heathcare to smokers or art you consider offensive, then the only solution is to not support the program in the first place.

Pretty soon, the Muslims will want their own Sharia law, and public execution and group rape will be common place, like it is in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. The Sikhs should not have their own legal system as well.

actually, in the usa at least, having your own legal system is a constitutional right...ie the right to contract. think arbitrations, prenupts, etc. you can agree to have your disputes resolved under whatever legal rules you choose and the courts would then enforce the decision.

now not everything is enforceable, such as beheadings (and i'm not sure how politcal philosophers reconcile the right to contract with unfair provisions, but as i said earlier liberalism is not libertarianism and doesn't look for philosophical purity) but that doesn't change the basic right to contract. sharia law included.

168 · Manju but that doesn't change the basic right to contract. sharia law included.

Good point--there's nothing wrong in principle with people "opting in" to sharia law to govern, e.g., their marriage contract. There are concerns in the UK about how free the choice to opt in would be for some parties, but you are right that there's no principled reason for hysteria about the topic, nor any real sense in which it's "new."

Alright, I'm done now :)

rahul: I know Rob and I selling you on classic liberalism is a tough task especially when we have the flirtatious Ms. Portmanteau seducing you with newfangled and glamorous philosophises. Liberalism is not the youngest candidate. But it is the most experienced. Rob an I will fight every moment of every day in this blog to make sure Mutineers are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people. Our purpose is to keep this blessed country free, safe, prosperous and proud. And the changes we offer to the institutions and policies of government will reflect and rely upon the strength, industry, aspirations and decency of the people we serve.

actually, in the usa at least, having your own legal system is a constitutional right...ie the right to contract. think arbitrations, prenupts, etc. you can agree to have your disputes resolved under whatever legal rules you choose and the courts would then enforce the decision. now not everything is enforceable, such as beheadings (and i'm not sure how politcal philosophers reconcile the right to contract with unfair provisions, but as i said earlier liberalism is not libertarianism and doesn't look for philosophical purity) but that doesn't change the basic right to contract. sharia law included.

FDR took care of that mythical right.

171 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said

FDR took care of that mythical right.

i guess i'm referring to the constitution-in-exile then, PAfD.

actually, in the usa at least, having your own legal system is a constitutional right...ie the right to contract. think arbitrations, prenupts, etc. you can agree to have your disputes resolved under whatever legal rules you choose and the courts would then enforce the decision.

Generally yes but there are tons of exceptions. In an employment contract you cannot contract your way out of FMLA, FLSA, Title VII, no contract can violate public policy, you cant will your wife out of getting her elective share, children custody issues are decided by whats in the best interest of the child, cannot have unconscionable terms in the contract etc. etc.

i guess i'm referring to the constitution-in-exile then, PAfD.

First we will have Obama sweep the nation with 48 states. Then we do a modern day court packing at all federal levels and we banish the other pesky constitutional provisions to another 50 year exile.

174 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said

First we will have Obama sweep the nation with 48 states. Then we do a modern day court packing at all federal levels and we banish the other pesky constitutional provisions to another 50 year exile.

crap. i knew that che guevara flag was no accident. clinton was right, unvetted stealth manchurian candidate indeed.

This is the only Che-referencing item I own.

160 · rob said

You are right--that's why I called it a "parlour game"! ;-)

oops - I missed that. Yeah, now the absurdity makes sense.

What new-fangled philosophies have I been offering, Manju? Read your conservative friend Tim Scanlon on accommodation/health care :)

boston_mahesh, aside from your generally dismissive and offensive characterization of religious minorities and Arabs, to date, NO ONE has used the kirpan in the U.S. in an offense-driven way for at least the last 60 years (i.e., as an attacker as opposed to a defendant). I can't say the same thing with certainty for the UK/Canada, but I'm pretty sure it's similar. Maybe this is something non-Sikhs simply can't understand, but there is a STRINGENT disciplining aspect within the Sikh community as well. It's not like ANYONE can take up the kirpan. But, we're not talking about the kirpan, we're talking about the turban, and your argument doesn't hold.

177 · portmanteau said

What new-fangled philosophies have I been offering, Manju? Read your conservative friend Tim Scanlon on accommodation/health care :)

No true blue conservative actually reads, Poetmanteau. Stop seducing me.

how can i misrepresent the context in which free speech was ratifued if i did not speak about how it was ratified in the fist place?

By quoting the 1st amendment to defend the usage of phrases such as "Merry Christmas" in public forums/gov't communities, you make it seem that the 1st amendment's purpose is to allow individuals to say whatever they want, which in fact is not true, rather the context of it was to allow criticism and free-flowing debate even if the govt was the target of said debate. In fact, true deriliction of the first amendment occurred in via the Sedition Act of 1918, where it criminalized "disloyal" speech.

Either way, it doesn't even apply at the state level, what the 1st amendment really says is "Congress shall make no law..." Ie.. federal. So a state gov't believing in separation of church and state can do whatever the hell it wants, and it wouldn't contravene the first amendment.

in other words, the govt can't ban a communist press then justify it by saying their banig all ideolocal newspapers and thus treating all speech equally.

its a little different, because speech is something one does with just your body, the "free speech bans" as you call them are only applicable when on govt property and in public forums. It's called Separation of Church and State. I guess, in the unlikely event that someone hauls a printing press and starts running off copies of the communist newsletter during their post office working hours, then yes I'd support curtailing that as well.

What people don't realize is that separation of church and state isn't a "war on" anything really, rather its for the protection of the holiday as a true religious holiday, and not a secularized one where all kinds of people are saying "Merry christmas" to each other.

180 · HMF

Either way, it doesn't even apply at the state level

Err--no--see, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut.

Rob an I will fight every moment of every day in this blog to make sure Mutineers are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people. Our purpose is to keep this blessed country free, safe, prosperous and proud. And the changes we offer to the institutions and policies of government will reflect and rely upon the strength, industry, aspirations and decency of the people we serve.

They said this day would never come.

I know Rob and I selling you on classic liberalism is a tough task especially when we have the flirtatious Ms. Portmanteau seducing you with newfangled and glamorous philosophises.

But seriously, I think the claim that an argument to reducing healthcare costs is purely an encroachment on personal liberties misses the fact that the limitation of personally destructive choices might actually expand rights (for example access to medical care) for the majority. There is a legitimate trade-off involved.

By quoting the 1st amendment to defend the usage of phrases such as "Merry Christmas" in public forums/gov't communities, you make it seem that the 1st amendment's purpose is to allow individuals to say whatever they want,

i didn't say anything about the first amendment allowing individuals to say anything they want.

which in fact is not true, rather the context of it was to allow criticism and free-flowing debate even if the govt was the target of said debate.

that was one context. the founding fathers where certainly concerned about political debate (because it was central to a democracy) but their concern was not limited to it, as is obvious from looking at the text of the constitution where prohibiting the free exercise of religion is specifically banned. free speech was not restricted to debates, and has subsequently not been interpreted to be that restrictive.

In fact, true deriliction of the first amendment occurred in via the Sedition Act of 1918, where it criminalized "disloyal" speech

it was, as are the many example of a war on christians. the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Either way, it doesn't even apply at the state level, what the 1st amendment really says is "Congress shall make no law..." Ie.. federal. So a state gov't believing in separation of church and state can do whatever the hell it wants, and it wouldn't contravene the first amendment

i'm not sure if you're trying to say it shouldn't be applied to the states or that its not. surely you know that the first amendment has been applied to all state actors for some time now as "congress" has been interpreted broadly. the 14th amendment also specifically bring the states into the bill of rights if there is any confusion. this is pretty basic long standing law.

its a little different, because speech is something one does with just your body, the "free speech bans" as you call them are only applicable when on govt property and in public forums. It's called Separation of Church and State.

separation of church and state is not in the constitution. the first amendment bans an establishment of religion and people saying merry christmas at work does not constitute an establishment. that's why christians have generally been winning these cases in the courts.

What people don't realize is that separation of church and state isn't a "war on" anything really, rather its for the protection of the holiday as a true religious holiday, and not a secularized one where all kinds of people are saying "Merry christmas" to each other.

the govt protecting a "true religious holiday" would also be unconstitutional and violate the establishment clause, as govt is not allowed to enforce their interpretation of religion. if people choose to use christmas to celebrate american capitalism, it is thier constitutional right ot do so.

I really think it is ridiculous if there are bans on employees saying "Merry Christmas" etc. because there are some over-sensitive folks who take offense. But if a government spends taxpayer money on a nativity display, then other folks can legitimately request a Diwali fireworks show, Iftaar feasts, Chinese dragon boat shows, and so on, and so forth, and there is absolutely no basis to refuse any of these, as far as I can see.

i'm not sure if you're trying to say it shouldn't be applied to the states or that its not. surely you know that the first amendment has been applied to all state actors for some time now as "congress" has been interpreted broadly. the 14th amendment also specifically bring the states into the bill of rights if there is any confusion. this is pretty basic long standing law.

Not all Bill of Rights were incorporated against the state by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment fulls incorporates the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendment against the state while partially incorporates 5th and 8th Amendment against the state.

i didn't say anything about the first amendment allowing individuals to say anything they want.

Thats the implication when you use it to defend a persons right to say Merry Christmas. (of course barring the harm)

as is obvious from looking at the text of the constitution where prohibiting the free exercise of religion is specifically banned.

wrong o again. the constitution says that congress shall pass no law establishing one religion. it says nothing about free exercise of relgion on govt property.

surely you know that the first amendment has been applied to all state actors for some time now as "congress" has been interpreted broadly.

show me a case where "congress" was interpreted broadly. Congress should be interpreted what it says.. Congress. because it elucidates the true context in which this amendment was put forth in the first place.

separation of church and state is not in the constitution. the first amendment bans an establishment of religion and people saying merry christmas at work does not constitute an establishment.

Separation of church and state is a, state based issue. If certain states wish to adhere to it more strictly, then they may do so. However, they do so across the board. Personally, I believe it. And I lose no sleep over some christian conservative whining about not being able to say "christmas" in a public/govt forum, as it's clear that no one is trying to suppress his voice in a debate, or his point of view on an issue, rather to reinforce the founding father's notion that no one religion should be given any kind of importance or signifance moreso than another, which is why I wouldnt want someone saying Happy Diwali either.

the govt protecting a "true religious holiday" would also be unconstitutional

I'm not talking about the gov't exclusively, nor am I even saying that the gov't is willfully doing it for that reason. I'm just pointing out the irony how the very "Christians" that bark about the war on christmas are likely to be waging an even more heinous war on the holiday themselves, by diluting it.

That's rich. Saying that Christmas should celebrate the birth of Christ as "an interpretation"

184 · Rahul said

But if a government spends taxpayer money on a nativity display, then other folks can legitimately request a Diwali fireworks show, Iftaar feasts, Chinese dragon boat shows, and so on, and so forth, and there is absolutely no basis to refuse any of these, as far as I can see.

i think as constitutional law stands now, they can request and can't be denied due to viewpoint, not unlike publicly financed art museums as Giuliani discovered.

186 · HMF

show me a case where "congress" was interpreted broadly. Congress should be interpreted what it says..

Dude, see post 181. You are badly wrong on this--that's ok, we all make mistakes, but no need to dig yourself in deeper.

HMF: I think you did not completely understand what Manju was saying. Manju was suggesting that its illegal for the Government to ban the saying of 'Merry Christmas' under the Free Exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment and not under the 'free speech' clause of the First Amendment which you thought Manju was referring to. When Manju mentioned the First Amendment in the 'Merry Christmas' case, he was not referring to the free speech part of the First Amendment but the 'free exercise of religion' part of the First Amendment.

Err--no--see, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut.

Umm, this is a supreme court brief, last I checked they were in washington, dc.

HMF: Drop it bro! You are dead wrong. Congress in the First Amendment for the last 100 years plus has been interpreted to include all state actors (federal gov, state gov, city gov, public univ/school)

190 · HMF

Umm, this is a supreme court brief, last I checked they were in washington, dc.

What do you mean by that? You've lost me.

HMF:

i going to bow out of this debate with you b/c either you're completely ignorant about const law and you're just trying to fake it, or you're not ignorant and just weird. i mean, "congress" does not apply to the states, the first ammedment says nothing about free expression on govt property? this is just basic stuff which i'd be happy to elaborate on but you don't seem to really want to learn, as your weird exchange with rob demonstrates.