Religion and the Law.

Davey Gaga

Davey Gaga

Under you like a G.U.Y.
Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
7,134
Age
33
Location
Glasgow City Centre, Scotland.
Gil
0
The idea for this thread came to me when I was reading through my Highway Code book, revising for my theory test.

Rule #49 - Safety Equipment for Horse Riders.
Children under the age of 14 MUST wear a helmet, which complies with the Regulations. It MUST be fastened securely. Other riders should also follow these requirements. These requirement do not apply to a child who is a follower of the Sikh religion while wearing a turban.

What do you all think about the latter part of that statement? Is it fair that it is law for one person but not law for another, based on their religious beliefs? Should religious beliefs be allowed to interfere with safety compliances? What about in general - do you think there are any cases where a person should become exempt from the law based on their religious beliefs?

EDIT:
Source: The Official Highway Code [Revised 2007 Edition], Published by the Driving Standards Agency for the Department of Transport.
 
Last edited:
well i do just because our laws give them the right to practice their religion not because their religion is right i mean Jehovah's witnesses are allowed to refuse a blood transfusion
 
I think that in this case, this is a fair decision. Normally, I would be against it, but we have here a good reason: the Sikh turban provides significant cranial protection.

The only thing that may undermine this is how fastened the turban itself is. Now, I've never worn one, but I'm pretty sure it's wrapped about the head rather tightly. Now, whether it's tightly enough is debatable; I don't think it is, because I have seen people's turbans fall off during a bike ride up here.

So yes, if the turban itself is fastened well enough, then I agree. But I also say that they should be fastened very tightly before they go out.
 
phantasmor said:
well i do just because our laws give them the right to practice their religion not because their religion is right i mean Jehovah's witnesses are allowed to refuse a blood transfusion
Click to expand...
Because a blood transfusion effectively destroys their soul and they can't go to heaven. People are allowed to make irrational decisions. However it's a competely different scenario.

I agree with what Hera says. Since you cannot have wear a turban and a helmet, one has to go, since you can't tell someone to take their turban off it's the helmet that has to go.
It's not like they're saying as long as you have your rosary and say a couple of hail marys, you don't have to wear a helmet. It's a practical thing, it's not an example of extreme PC-ness.
 
Hmm...this is quite an interesting concept. On the one hand, it's unfair if people get out of something because of their religion, and they get off scott-free because they don't believe in something. On the other hand, if they're raised with different beliefs and learn different values than we do, it's not beyond reason that they were doing what they thought was right.

However, I'd have to say it's unfair to allow them to get off without being penalized, or at least with a small penalty. It's kind of unfair to be penalized for something because it was wrong, but then have the guy next to me get off because he didn't believe in it. I've been in that situation a few times, and I always complain that they shouldn't be exempt from the law because of their religion.

Now, that being said, I do believe we need to have some allowances for religious views. It's just as unfair if we don't recognize their culture as being different and having different values. Now, I'm not saying that if a guy was raised with the value that killing somebody was good, then they could get off, but some of the smaller things (though I would debate the significance of them), such as views on abortion and stem cell research, can be allowed for this stuff.

But, I reiterate: I don't think being excused from the law is a fair act when they are excused because of their religion. Perhaps a very slight mitigation, but not exemption.
 
i personally do not get mad since there are some very few things the bible does not explain like extinct animals but any other religion i don't think they should get mad either but hey, I'm not them and some people get mad easily does that mean they should? no they should get help and see a shrink
 
Decado said:
I am curious to know what everyone thinks of religions position of being beyond criticism, that "it's my religion" is a valid excuse in this day and age.

Not to mention that at one point FFF had *different* rules for debating religion than it did for debating say, economic beliefs, or belief in fairies. (This has since been rectified i believe)

Do you think it is fair that people are given carte blanche to get upset and make threats etc if their religion is insulted, or do you think that religion should be treated like any other belief, and that those people should grow up and realise that it doesn't give them the right to act like a twat?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I know quite what you mean, but in general, there is nothing that you can do about what other people choose to believe personally; it's not really any of your business, so long as they're not interfering with what you're doing. But if they are, that's a different story, and it has happened in the past. Conversely, people can have their opinions on other people's religions or even their own; there is no one that can stop people from spiting a religion if they really don't like what's implied in it. The only reason it's a concern is because you choose to voice it to certain people that do care about what you say about their religion. It doesn't matter if it's religion, belief or opinion, there will always be disagreements and conflicts in what people believe and think. I guess some people are so obsessed with their own religion, that to say anything bad about it at all makes them angry, even though not liking a religion and expressing it doesn't mean you don't like the people that believe in that religion or that you think they're stupid. If that were true, that would be the same as not liking someone because they like a particular flavor of ice cream you don't like.

I don't believe religion should be an excuse for anything. It is only something that you believe because it helps you get through the day; maybe other people don't see why it works, or it doesn't work for them, but that's not really your concern; religion shouldn't be something that people use and manipulate, or to force other people to convert to, to be used as a weapon against people that don't think like you, or to prejudice other people who don't practice the same religion as you. Because it is too personal and too subjective to be universal and apply to others, it cannot be used as an excuse.
 
oh sorry i forgot that i needed to post a lot more than that because this is the debate section i meant that i agree that it is a practical thing and now that i think of it even if it was not a practical thing like if the hat did not help in any way to protect their head they would still be allowed to wear it because it does not fit very easily under a turban and they do have a right to practice their religion as stated in my previous post
 
No system is perfect.
There may be a system in place where if someone were to create a system to get around laws, they might have to pay a tax. Also as you say, the descretion of whoever is in charge may come into play, this could lead to favouritism, but would be the better decision if unfair.

Shouldn't a government be completely void of relgious bias, and thus, treat all religions the same (as non existant)?
Click to expand...
Like I said it would probably a lot of trouble, eg, not giving Muslims halal food in prison.
Whilst treating Muslims, or any other religion differently from any other, is showing a bias. However it would be more trouble if they were treated the same.
I can see how treating everyone the same is the most 'fair' way for a government to act, by doing so, could it not be effectively not allowing people the freedom to practise any religion. If we were to use my previous example, and not giving Muslims Halal meat, we would be stopping them from doing something which is part of their religion.
So, imo, treating religions differently is the lesser of two evils.
 
Well from a gnostic - but unrelgious point of view all the same, I believe that there are some laws that should apply to all no matter what. In this case maybe the Turban provides sufficient protection, but to be honest I don't know the reasoning behind it. If it were only a religious thing and the turban did not protect his head properly, then that law needs to be enforced to them as well, not make an exception.

Sorry but religion does not give one the "higher" privelage than another. We are all the same, government should apply to all. Same goes for Upper class and Lower class, most of the time Upper class can get away with murder, while lower class sneezes and they go to jail.

Religion should not excuse one from a law.... period.
 
well that is being hypocritical we claim to be a country where you are free to practice you religion but when it endangers you, you are not free to practice it?

i say that if you want to do something that could kill you in the name of religion go for it just don't kill of endanger anyone else
 
Well, if we were free to practice religion, does that mean you can use religion as an excuse to kill or prosecute people not of the same religion as you? Can you use it as an excuse to bypass any law that was proposed by a government, which might have been made to ensure fairness and equality to people as much as possible? Do not ever expect that religion and society will never be in conflict--it can happen.

Religion should remain a personal belief--nothing more. Religious people shouldn't have extra priviledges over others, otherwise we contradict ourselves when we say we strive for equality.

If you wish to believe in the most outrageous things that no one might ever believe in, that might possibly do some damage to yourself, go ahead. It doesn't conflict with the law or society's rules. But when it does, you run the risk of interfering with the lives of other people who don't believe the same things you do, or you violate the concept of equality and fairness, which, even though unachievable, is something that advancing societies and governments should strive for.

How about a helment shaped like a turban?
 
Decado said:
Hey there, not trying to be a pain, but is there any chance you could expand on your post a little bit more?

Can you explain your reasoning behind your thoughts? Or maybe tell us how you came to that conclusion?

Any chance of some practical examples you think would help illustrate your point perhaps, or times when religious pandering is a negative influence etc?

Thanks =)
Click to expand...


Gladly.

The reasoning behind my thoughts is that Religious belief should be personal and subjective, your personal view on music, art, literature, science etc never come into law, so why should Religion be exempt? It's been given too much unwarranted respect for TOO long. Churches should NOT be given tax-exempt status in America, Muslims should NOT be allowed to have 'sanctuary' from the law in a Mosque.
I heard of an incident not long ago where in Scotland, office workers were not allowed to eat at their desks because there were muslim employees there who were fasting.
Why should the Islamists or the Christians get special treatment?
Why are there 'Muslim only' days popping up in swimming baths across the country in England?

I hope I've enlightened you a bit more to my reasoning :).
 
OK I'd just like to say this you say religion is personal i agree but our law in America gives freedom of religion it would be hypocritical to say "believe what you want but you can't practice it just because it will hurt you"

now i agree it is stupid to ask other people not to eat just because someone is fasting or have "Muslim only" signs on anything or Muslims having sanctuary from the law in a Mosque

but when it comes to churches having tax exempt status if they are running it right a church is a non profit organization and by definition it should be given tax exemption unless someone can prove the church is making a profit
 
hmm i think you need some examples of this please i am not aware of any laws that give anyone the right to do something illegal just because their religion says they can( besides Muslims having sanctuary from the law in a Mosque) so i would love to see some examples
 
Well, let's see. The bible allows slavery. Modern day society does not. The bible allows children and people to be killed for doing arbitrary things that upset God. Modern law does not allow these, at least not for the same reasons.

And the biggest one of all: Modern society allows people to practice whichever religion they wish to, and none should be condemned for their choice. The bible does not; it considers all people who don't worship a particular god sinners, and therefore, they must be tortured and killed, or converted.

There is also a law in the states that religion and state are separate. So religion, no matter what kind of ridiculous rules it may have, can have no say over what the government chooses.
 
Unless there is a way to accomodate religion without paying any sort of special attention to them or breaking the law then I thik religion should be overruled at this point. I mean, if you wish not to get blood transfusion, that's your choice, and if you wish not to wear a helmet, sure, by all means, but if you do, I believe you should be stripped of all rights to medical attention or state support, and certainly for any insurance rights. If you want to use your religion as a shield to following some acceptable law, then expect the consequences of your actions.

In other words, sure hold human sacrifices but don't shout "RELIGION!" when you get arrested and thrown in jail for a hundred years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top