"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:497### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 25-Jan-09 16:54, somebody wrote:
> > "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> > news:497### [at] hotmailcom...
> >
> >> - There is a distinction between culture and faith. I think that this
is
> >> more culture than faith (although not having studied this particular
> >> religion it is hard for me to judge). Even so, in this case culture
> >> should prevail over arbitrary school rules. I have probably written
> >> about this before, but for me this is a very fundamental discussion.
Too
> >> often cultural expressions (head scarfs, female genital mutilation) are
> >> claimed to be religious in order to have them accepted in a host
> >> culture. We even had a religious 'leader' who claimed that he as a
> >> muslim was not allowed to shake hands with females and 'therefore'
> >> refused the hand of a minister. As long as we don't make the
distinction
> >> between culture and religion anybody can make such things up to annoy
> >> others and get away with it because the others are not allowed to
> >> discriminate against a 'religion'.
> >
> > You have some points about "abuse" of religious freedom, but I don't
think
> > it's very productive for courts to go into long winded arguments of
what's
> > culture and what's religion, and how old the religions/customs might be.
And
> > fundamentally, I agree with your claim of distinction between faith and
> > culture. Much (in fact, all) of the practices of Abrahamic religions are
> > based on culture. Ultimately, there's no such thing as religion distinct
> > from culture - at least from this atheist's perspective - since all
> > religions are invented by men, and culture is just that - whatever
lifestyle
> > man invents. So instead of wasting time and money trying to sort all the
> > silliness, I say that the principle be adopted where so long as there
are no
> > adverse effects (health, safety... etc), let them wear what they want,
and
> > be consistent/evenhanded. Braids, long, free flowing hair is a no-no in
a
> > machine shop, food preparation.... etc, but it's hard to justfiy it as a
> > risk at a school.

> I disagree. The refusal of jews and muslims to eat pork or obeying
> Ramadan or sabbath is firmly established in the books. Your point that
> the books were written by humans may be true but is irrelevant. For the
> believers it is *provably* part of their religion.
> OTOH you have things like women to have to wear hats on sunday when
> going to church as is the practice in some circles in the Netherlands.
> This has no basis in the script but rests on an interpretation of (IIRC)
> Timothy 2:9-10 (no don't ask me how they do that). The common cultural
> idea that women have to wear headscarfs or worse also rests on such an
> interpretation of similar words by Mohamed.

It's also written in the "books" that it's just dandy to kill infidels,
homosexuals... etc. And that headscarves may not be in the books doesn't
mean Muslims don't feel as strongly about it as pork. Either way, granting
rights, priviledges and exceptions based on certain view that some people
wrote or did not write in some books, and inconsistenly at that, at some
point in history, is a bad, bad idea.

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:497cdd31@news.povray.org...
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message

> > I disagree. The refusal of jews and muslims to eat pork or obeying
> > Ramadan or sabbath is firmly established in the books. Your point that
> > the books were written by humans may be true but is irrelevant. For the
> > believers it is *provably* part of their religion.
> > OTOH you have things like women to have to wear hats on sunday when
> > going to church as is the practice in some circles in the Netherlands.
> > This has no basis in the script but rests on an interpretation of (IIRC)
> > Timothy 2:9-10 (no don't ask me how they do that). The common cultural
> > idea that women have to wear headscarfs or worse also rests on such an
> > interpretation of similar words by Mohamed.

> It's also written in the "books" that it's just dandy to kill infidels,
> homosexuals... etc. And that headscarves may not be in the books doesn't
> mean Muslims don't feel as strongly about it as pork. Either way, granting
> rights, priviledges and exceptions based on certain view that some people
> wrote or did not write in some books, and inconsistenly at that, at some
> point in history, is a bad, bad idea.

Also, of course, such a "book based" policy would arbitrarily discriminate
against cultures whose traditions are more oral than written. The judicial
system should not be in the business of deciding which religions are more
legitimate than others, or which parts of a religion (pork) are from god,
which parts (headscarves) from man.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> That's easy.  If the safety rules conflict with one's religious rules, 
> then there are two options:

> 1.  You go by the food safety rules
> 2.  You find a different job

  Tell that to the politically-correct multicultural-friendly courts of
law of western Europe...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 25-Jan-09 22:51, somebody wrote:
> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:497cdd31@news.povray.org...
>> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> 
>>> I disagree. The refusal of jews and muslims to eat pork or obeying
>>> Ramadan or sabbath is firmly established in the books. Your point that
>>> the books were written by humans may be true but is irrelevant. For the
>>> believers it is *provably* part of their religion.
>>> OTOH you have things like women to have to wear hats on sunday when
>>> going to church as is the practice in some circles in the Netherlands.
>>> This has no basis in the script but rests on an interpretation of (IIRC)
>>> Timothy 2:9-10 (no don't ask me how they do that). The common cultural
>>> idea that women have to wear headscarfs or worse also rests on such an
>>> interpretation of similar words by Mohamed.
> 
>> It's also written in the "books" that it's just dandy to kill infidels,
>> homosexuals... etc. And that headscarves may not be in the books doesn't
>> mean Muslims don't feel as strongly about it as pork.

If you add 'many' between 'mean' and 'Muslims' you have exactly the 
reason why I choose the example.

>> Either way, granting
>> rights, priviledges and exceptions based on certain view that some people
>> wrote or did not write in some books, and inconsistenly at that, at some
>> point in history, is a bad, bad idea.
> 
> Also, of course, such a "book based" policy would arbitrarily discriminate
> against cultures whose traditions are more oral than written. The judicial
> system should not be in the business of deciding which religions are more
> legitimate than others, or which parts of a religion (pork) are from god,
> which parts (headscarves) from man.

But they do already. Everytime a woman complains that she is 
discriminated against because she has to wear that scarf, the judge when 
ruling in her favor effectively rules that a scarf is a religious and 
not a cultural phenomenon. I don't think any judge or politician has 
enough guts to rule or pass a law recognizing the fact that the lady in 
question was lied to and naively believed what she was told.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:08:25 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>>   For example, if in some kind of food preparation establishment there's
>> a rule, related to food hygiene and safety, that all workers handling
>> the food must not wear long-sleeved shirts (because long sleeves may
>> touch the food products, increasing risk of contamination), and someone
>> has the religious conviction that he must wear long-sleeved shirts (I
>> suppose I don't have to mention such religion by name), which one in
>> this case should be imposed, the freedom of religious expression, or the
>> safety rule?
> 
> That's easy.  If the safety rules conflict with one's religious rules, 
> then there are two options:
> 
> 1.  You go by the food safety rules
> 2.  You find a different job
> 
> This is like someone working to become a pharmacist and then deciding 
> they don't want to dispense legally prescribed medications.  The 
> pharmacist's job isn't to impose their moral beliefs on their customers.  
> Their job is to fill legally prescribed medications.
> 
> If they want to "act on their conscience", then they shouldn't have put 
> themselves into a job where that conflict would exist.
> 
> Jim
Got some wacko that took this to an extreme and now has her company on 
the verge of being embroiled in a lawsuit. She was a nurse and had been 
"accidentally" tugging out IUD (Inter-Uteran Devices) from female 
patients, and explaining it as "accidental", never mind that a) they are 
hard to remove, b) painful to put in, never mind remove, and c) if done 
wrong can threaten the patient with infection or sterility. But, in her 
mind, despite being also ignorant to the point of stupidity about their 
actual function, they "prevented impregnation", therefor where "morally 
unacceptable".

This is the future people. Its only a matter of time with this kind of 
BS being passed for some court case to crop up some place, where the law 
is vague about "what" they can deny, and some bozo refusing to put in a 
pace maker, or taking one out, on the same grounds, or any of a long 
list of other stupid things, all based on their "religious" conviction 
that you shouldn't "prevent pregnancy", "sustain life artificially", 
"over eat", "under eat", smoke, not smoke, or who the hell knows what 
their "conscience" would make them object to on the grounds of some 
personal "faith".

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:497### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 25-Jan-09 22:51, somebody wrote:
> > "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:497cdd31@news.povray.org...

> > Also, of course, such a "book based" policy would arbitrarily
discriminate
> > against cultures whose traditions are more oral than written. The
judicial
> > system should not be in the business of deciding which religions are
more
> > legitimate than others, or which parts of a religion (pork) are from
god,
> > which parts (headscarves) from man.

> But they do already. Everytime a woman complains that she is
> discriminated against because she has to wear that scarf, the judge when
> ruling in her favor effectively rules that a scarf is a religious and
> not a cultural phenomenon. I don't think any judge or politician has
> enough guts to rule or pass a law recognizing the fact that the lady in
> question was lied to and naively believed what she was told.

What if it's cultural? Does it make it any less important for the wearer? If
a headscarf poses a risk, rule against her. If it does not, let her wear it,
regardles of whether she is mistaken in her belief that it is god who
ordered her (she is, but so are all those who believe they are pleasing or
angering god/s by their actions) to wear it or not. Trying to find that
nonexistant fine line between culture and religion is a hopeless task and a
waste of taxpayer resources. Moreover, religion should not ever be a source
of freedom, a source of priviledge to those who profess to be religious over
those who are not. If a headscarf is not a risk, why discriminate against
someone who wishes to wear it as a fashion statement and only allow those
who claim religious motivation?

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 25-Jan-09 22:51, somebody wrote:
>> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:497cdd31@news.povray.org...
>>> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
>>
>>>> I disagree. The refusal of jews and muslims to eat pork or obeying
>>>> Ramadan or sabbath is firmly established in the books. Your point that
>>>> the books were written by humans may be true but is irrelevant. For the
>>>> believers it is *provably* part of their religion.
>>>> OTOH you have things like women to have to wear hats on sunday when
>>>> going to church as is the practice in some circles in the Netherlands.
>>>> This has no basis in the script but rests on an interpretation of 
>>>> (IIRC)
>>>> Timothy 2:9-10 (no don't ask me how they do that). The common cultural
>>>> idea that women have to wear headscarfs or worse also rests on such an
>>>> interpretation of similar words by Mohamed.
>>
>>> It's also written in the "books" that it's just dandy to kill infidels,
>>> homosexuals... etc. And that headscarves may not be in the books doesn't
>>> mean Muslims don't feel as strongly about it as pork.
> 
> If you add 'many' between 'mean' and 'Muslims' you have exactly the 
> reason why I choose the example.
> 
>>> Either way, granting
>>> rights, priviledges and exceptions based on certain view that some 
>>> people
>>> wrote or did not write in some books, and inconsistenly at that, at some
>>> point in history, is a bad, bad idea.
>>
>> Also, of course, such a "book based" policy would arbitrarily 
>> discriminate
>> against cultures whose traditions are more oral than written. The 
>> judicial
>> system should not be in the business of deciding which religions are more
>> legitimate than others, or which parts of a religion (pork) are from god,
>> which parts (headscarves) from man.
> 
> But they do already. Everytime a woman complains that she is 
> discriminated against because she has to wear that scarf, the judge when 
> ruling in her favor effectively rules that a scarf is a religious and 
> not a cultural phenomenon. I don't think any judge or politician has 
> enough guts to rule or pass a law recognizing the fact that the lady in 
> question was lied to and naively believed what she was told.

Actually, in the US, the basic rule, due to the same establishment 
clause that protects the rest of us, in theory, "from" them, is that, 
"If they say its religious, it is, since the courts **may not** make any 
distinction as to what is and isn't "religious" for any group." The 
determining factor then becomes if the behavior can be presented as so 
egregious as to constitute a recognizable threat to someone, and thus 
not protected, even "if" it is religious, i.e., something like human 
sacrifice, or what some groups *call* polygamy, when what they are 
"actually" doing is little better than brainwashing, combined with 
slavery, and often child molestation. But, its a stupidly fine line, in 
which, for example, courts have ruled that some old man that got sick 
could be: a) deprived of retirement pension, b) thrown out of his home, 
c) fired from his position and d) denied return to his prior position. 
All of this on the basis that he got really sick for a few months, and
the "church" decided, as a matter of internal operations, to throw him 
out in the gutter, rather than wait for him to recover, or pay him 
retirement. And, this was one of their own priests they did it to. The 
courts where "forced" by law and precedent, to deny his claims, on the 
grounds that they could not interfere with internal church matters, 
despite the fact that if it had been "any other" organization, they 
could have ordered payment of the retirement, all legal fees, and 
possibly even penalties for being such assholes.

Basically, unless its either a) currently seen as some terrible 
injustice that most of society "thinks" needs to be fought (real or 
imagined), or b) people are dying, churches can do pretty much any damn 
thing they like, including things they would also sue other 
non-religious groups for doing, and win. Makes me sick some days.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:

> A happy ending to a sad story. (It always seems to take some unfortunate
> person or persons, who have been denied rights and freedoms, or worse, to
> bring such things to a head and force a change. It's a shame that in most
> cases, change can't be effected otherwise.)
>
> Ken W.

I guess I didn't pick up on the 'religious' overtones in the school story,
thinking it was more of a capricious school policy, instituting an illogical
ban. I'm definitely not one to accept purely religious views influencing the
intrinsic 'right or wrong' of a situation. (I guess that comes from growing up
in the Southern part of the US, where fundamentalist religion all-too-often
influences laws and such, often to the detriment of non-believers.)

I zero-ed in on the more fundamental aspects of the story; the actions of the
school *did* seem heavy-handed. Which made me think about the great positive
changes that only a personal sacrifice by someone can bring about--Martin
Luther King, Ghandi, etc. Both of *them* were quite religious people; but their
fight was for secular change. Of course, I'm not comparing the school situation
to such far greater battles; but most battles for change do start at the small
end of the scale, as very personal ones.

Sad to say, here in Virginia practically no one protests about *anything.* Such
'fear of change' or whatever seems to be part of the culture here. So I'm
always interested to see someone standing up for himself, in the face of a
stupid situation that needs changing.

KW

Post a reply to this message

> The family are close friends.
>
> Court Prohibits School from Punishing American Indian Student for His Long 
> Braids
> http://www.aclutx.org/article.php?aid=672

What would have happened if the boy had just said that he *liked* wearing 
his hair long, and would be really offended if he had to cut it or wear it 
hidden away?  Once the magic R word is brought in though, suddenly entire 
organisations are forced to change by law-makers scared of making decisions 
against religion.

Anyway, has the school dropped the rule now, or will lots of other kids 
suddenly be joining his religion too?

Oh well, maybe someone will turn up at the school next week, claiming that 
his religion states his chest must be visible at all times.  Would certainly 
have made hot summer days more comfortable at my school :-)

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:05:23 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> That's easy.  If the safety rules conflict with one's religious rules,
>> then there are two options:
> 
>> 1.  You go by the food safety rules
>> 2.  You find a different job
> 
>   Tell that to the politically-correct multicultural-friendly courts of
> law of western Europe...

I think you'll find that food safety will trump.  People getting sick is 
*bad*.

Jim

Post a reply to this message