 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <sha### [at] none none> wrote:
> 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
>
> -Shay
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kenneth <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> (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.)
On the other hand, it's a fine line between freedom of religious
expression and, sometimes, safety regulations.
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?
Now guess if this has been a real case, and guess what the court of
law (in a western European country) ruled.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-Jan-09 14:08, Warp wrote:
> Kenneth <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>> (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.)
>
> On the other hand, it's a fine line between freedom of religious
> expression and, sometimes, safety regulations.
>
> 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?
>
> Now guess if this has been a real case, and guess what the court of
> law (in a western European country) ruled.
>
I would hope that the court ruled that if your religion prohibits you to
work at some place you seek another job. Otherwise any jew or muslim
could apply for a job in a pig farm and force the company to change over
to sheep. I am not entirely sure however if common sense prevailed in
this case.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-Jan-09 3:02, Shay wrote:
> 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
I do think that in this case the court did the right thing. But, this
being p.o-t, I think I am allowed to make some remarks.
- I am not at all surprised by: After months of procedural maneuvers
that the court viewed as "designed to make Plaintiffs' abandon their
[exemption] request, or leave the district, rather than to seriously
consider [the boy’s] religious beliefs"
- 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'.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> which one in this case should
> be imposed, the freedom of religious expression, or the safety rule?
Unfortunately, in the USA, you don't really have a whole lot of choice about
going to school or which one you go to. Those who feel they must wear long
sleeves should get a job where short sleeves aren't a requirement. The child
in this case didn't have that choice.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Otherwise any jew or muslim
> could apply for a job in a pig farm and force the company to change over
> to sheep.
My favorite was the guy hired to do microbiology research who complained
when they fired him for refusing to read/write/review papers that mentioned
evolution. At least in that case he stayed fired.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
NB I don't have a recipe to distinguish culture from religion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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
One should not impose their religious beliefs on others. Period. Of
course this goes well beyond that ...
It is OK for you to tell me you believe in the majesty of the great and
powerful flying spaghetti monster. But it ends there. I do not want to
be told that I will boil in a vat of hot marinara sauce because I do not
believe the same, nor should you insist on attempting to recruit me to
your particular brand of religion. If I show an interest and ask
questions, answer those questions. But if I say, "That's nice" and begin
to walk off, this is not a cue for you to start shoving pamphlets at me
to go on lecturing me about the grace of His noodley appendage. I'm not
interested and I'm not listening.
Quite honestly, I believe it is rude for someone to go advertising their
religion as if it were a product.
What you described is exceptionally, unacceptable and intrusive. What
people decide to do with their own body is their decision and their
decision alone.
Anyway... I'll go back to my usually nerdy self playing with numbers,
and computers and the like.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Now guess if this has been a real case, and guess what the court of
> law (in a western European country) ruled.
>
Sounds plausible. They sided with the long-sleeve wearing religious
didn't they?
I have images of sleeves dipping into dripping raw meat, then into the
special sauce. Hope no one gets sick.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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".
>
A fine argument against public medicine.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> On the other hand, it's a fine line between freedom of religious
> expression and, sometimes, safety regulations.
>
> 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?
Here's another interesting one:
Apparently in the UK, if you're unemployed, you can obtain unemployment
benefits. But if you get offered a job and you turn it down, they can
cut off your benefits.
Now suppose you get offered a job in a porn shop, and you morally don't
approve of porn. Do they have the right to take away your benefits?
OTOH, you could try to make up any flimsy excuse that *any* job you're
offered conflicts with your "morals", so you never have to actually get
a job and can just sit taking benefits...
That's an interesting balancing act to get right.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Now suppose you get offered a job in a porn shop, and you morally don't
> approve of porn. Do they have the right to take away your benefits?
Simple, don't apply at the porn shop in the first place ..
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:08:52 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>Now suppose you get offered a job in a porn shop, and you morally don't
>approve of porn. Do they have the right to take away your benefits?
"They" can't offer you a job in a porn shop. The sex industry is not allowed to
advertise at the dole, or what ever it's called this week.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-Jan-09 1:08, somebody wrote:
> "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?
Not to the wearer, but it does (sorry, should do IMHO) to the system.
There is freedom of religion but not freedom of culture. One of the
major (again IMHO) problems that we have here in the Netherlands with
some groups with a certain background is that foreign cultures have been
introduced that run contrary to the main stream culture in many
different and vital aspects. The introduction was possible and is still
defended because the pretext was used that they were religious customs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-Jan-09 1:19, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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.
>
I understand the US court point of view. Sort of. I think there are two
major holes in this theory. 1) what to do if someone claims that
something is not religious, do you have to believe him too? 2) what to
do with atheists, can they make up there own religious statements or is
on the contrary their statement less worthy than of someone that says he
does believe in god?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-Jan-09 20:08, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, it's a fine line between freedom of religious
>> expression and, sometimes, safety regulations.
>>
>> 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?
>
> Here's another interesting one:
>
> Apparently in the UK, if you're unemployed, you can obtain unemployment
> benefits. But if you get offered a job and you turn it down, they can
> cut off your benefits.
>
> Now suppose you get offered a job in a porn shop, and you morally don't
> approve of porn. Do they have the right to take away your benefits?
>
> OTOH, you could try to make up any flimsy excuse that *any* job you're
> offered conflicts with your "morals", so you never have to actually get
> a job and can just sit taking benefits...
>
> That's an interesting balancing act to get right.
It has happened here in the netherlands, although as I remember it was
by mistake. Someone got offered a job in a brothel (just after they
became legal again) because that fitted her educational level. Refusal
to accept would by law indeed have cut her benefits. The rule is
apparently that these jobs should go in a special file and should never
be offered to random unemployed ladies. I assume the same goes for jobs
in e.g. the slaughterhouse. I think the sane way out is that not only
the education is used to see if a job fits but also psychological
factors are taken into account. I assume they do normally.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Now suppose you get offered a job in a porn shop, and you morally
>> don't approve of porn. Do they have the right to take away your benefits?
>
> Simple, don't apply at the porn shop in the first place ..
As I understand it, the idea is that a case worker is assigned to you
who finds jobs from their database that you might be suited to.
One would assume that some sanity is applied while searching it though...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> "They" can't offer you a job in a porn shop. The sex industry is not allowed to
> advertise at the dole, or what ever it's called this week.
Well OK, but how about a slaughterhouse if you're a vegan or something?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-Jan-09 9:22, scott wrote:
>> 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 :-)
Would you than change religion if you moved to e.g. Finland?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Well OK, but how about a slaughterhouse if you're a vegan or something?
>
Depends are you the "Meat is Unhealthy" variety, or the "Please don't
kill teh fuzzy animals, they have dreams and aspirations, too!" variety?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:41:33 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> "They" can't offer you a job in a porn shop. The sex industry is not allowed to
>> advertise at the dole, or what ever it's called this week.
>
>Well OK, but how about a slaughterhouse if you're a vegan or something?
I don't know.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Occasionally, sanity does prevail.
Date: 26 Jan 2009 23:45:12
Message: <497e9158@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:41:07 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> As I understand it, the idea is that a case worker is assigned to you
> who finds jobs from their database that you might be suited to.
But the case worker doesn't apply for the job or force you to. That's
left up to the individual who is looking for the job.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Occasionally, sanity does prevail.
Date: 26 Jan 2009 23:51:45
Message: <497e92e1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Now suppose you get offered a job in a porn shop, and you morally
>>> don't approve of porn. Do they have the right to take away your
>>> benefits?
>>
>> Simple, don't apply at the porn shop in the first place ..
>
> As I understand it, the idea is that a case worker is assigned to you
> who finds jobs from their database that you might be suited to.
>
> One would assume that some sanity is applied while searching it though...
>
Never assume.. ;) lol Something similar in the US, but not quite as
stupid. You have to, "take an active interest in finding work", or
something like that, which usually means looking through books filled
with crap that you are either not qualified for, or which pays worse
than anything on the planet and would give the guy from Dirty Jobs
serious pause. In other words, jobs that are either not worth your time,
not viable, or no one in their mind would take. Its like they want any
excuse possible to declare you, "unwilling to look", so they can stop
paying out. :p
--
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 wrote:
> I understand the US court point of view. Sort of. I think there are two
> major holes in this theory. 1) what to do if someone claims that
> something is not religious, do you have to believe him too? 2) what to
> do with atheists, can they make up there own religious statements or is
> on the contrary their statement less worthy than of someone that says he
> does believe in god?
Functionally.. The later, since while their right to not believe is
protected, their lack of an "organized religion" (which is what the
founders feared and distrusted in the first place, ironically), means
they function as "secular" entities, without the those protections.
I.e., as though they, even if they had a group, building, etc., would be
the equivalent of any other secular non-profit, not the equivalent of a
church.
As for #1, no, they have to take the word of the person claiming it "is"
religious, since the state cannot determine, based on the words or
anyone other than the religions adherents, what is and isn't. Mind, if
someone of authority in the church "said" is wasn't, then... it would
come down to how high the authority was, and maybe how many people in
the church agreed with that determination.
Personally, I think the only "valid" way to handle it is to either a)
treat them exactly like any other organization, thus taking away the
"special" protections they get, or b) if that isn't possible (and its
not in the US), require that they provide clear specifics on the matter
as to what they views and policies "are", such that only in cases
sufficiently dissimilar as to require a new rule, do they get to, "make
shit up", oh sorry, "make a such a new rule", for that case. Let the
courts deal with each church on the basis of that churches "stated"
rules, and require that those rules must change "prior" to a case, not
in the middle of it. If they decide "after" someone is sent to prison
for refusing the pay the plumber, or some similar BS, that they can set
some rule that states that plumbers must "choose" to do the work for
free, as part of their service to the church (yeah, there was another
idiot case like this too, and the plumber lost), *after* the ruling and
what ever results. Not just invent one in the middle, whole cloth,
because they don't want to pay it.
In other words, if they have rules, make them follow those rules, by
having them clearly posted "before" they make choices about who to hire,
fire, pay, not pay, throw out, invite in, and so on. If they break their
own rules, then they should be judged "by" those rules, not on the basis
of something that pull out of their backsides at the last minute, and
all the clergy nod and say, "Yep, its all been that way forever, the
smell is just from us serving beans last night!"
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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 :-)
>
> Would you than change religion if you moved to e.g. Finland?
That's the point though, how does the school/court know how serious your
religion is. How do they tell between someone like me who just says it for
the sake of it to get something their way, or for other people who really
are serious about it?
I'm not saying the boy in the OP is not serious about his religion, but
suppose he wasn't and just wanted to wear his long hair to school to be
cool? He's managed to get a court to order a school to change its rules
just by mentioning the R word. Should that be allowed?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> One would assume that some sanity is applied while searching it though...
>>
> Never assume.. ;) lol Something similar in the US, but not quite as
> stupid. You have to, "take an active interest in finding work", or
> something like that, which usually means looking through books filled
> with crap that you are either not qualified for, or which pays worse
> than anything on the planet and would give the guy from Dirty Jobs
> serious pause. In other words, jobs that are either not worth your time,
> not viable, or no one in their mind would take. Its like they want any
> excuse possible to declare you, "unwilling to look", so they can stop
> paying out. :p
Yeah, sounds like what I had when I graduated. The caseworker is all
like "ah, I see you have some experience cleaning fridges. We have
*lots* of cleaning jobs."
Apparently her job isn't to help me find meaningful employment. Her job
is to get me off benefits as fast as humanly possible so they can stop
paying me.
At this point, my mum kinda went all HULK-SHASH on her ass. (She does
that sometimes.) And it's true - I didn't spent 6 years (and tens of
thousands of pounds) in higher education so I could wash fridges.
*looks around*
...damn, I fail! :-/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
