Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Chongara wrote:


If this were a different question: What's the higher priority? Keeping people alive and their hearts in their chest or making sure that people feel like their beliefs are being respected, I'm probably gonna go with the hearts not being ripped out thing. The government is inclined to agree and that's why any practicing ancient Aztecs would likely find that police would cramp their style.

You nailed it here. The "test" is does allowing the person to honor their expressed religious belief system place an undue burden on society; if the answer is no, they get a pass.

Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?

 agnosto wrote:

Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?

That was basically my point. A drivers license is a government ID. It is used to "prove" that you are who you say you are. It is NOT a profession of faith or anything other than identification.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.

It's kind of hard to talk about how ridiculous one religion is if we're not allowed to talk about the cognitive dissonance presented by facets of other religions. Or is this a case of it being OK to make fun of other peoples' sincerely held beliefs but don't talk about mine?

 agnosto wrote:

 Chongara wrote:


If this were a different question: What's the higher priority? Keeping people alive and their hearts in their chest or making sure that people feel like their beliefs are being respected, I'm probably gonna go with the hearts not being ripped out thing. The government is inclined to agree and that's why any practicing ancient Aztecs would likely find that police would cramp their style.

You nailed it here. The "test" is does allowing the person to honor their expressed religious belief system place an undue burden on society; if the answer is no, they get a pass.

Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?

They should be mandatory for everyone, that way the states don't need to keep passing laws to force people to pull their pants up and it keeps people from obsessing over yoga pants.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?

That was basically my point. A drivers license is a government ID. It is used to "prove" that you are who you say you are. It is NOT a profession of faith or anything other than identification.

I can see both sides of that though. Since they wear the burqa whenever they're outside the home and that's likely the only time someone will ask to see their ID, the burqa would be a truthful representation of their appearance... slippery slope there.


middle school mode:
What about a woman in a burqa that has to wear an eyepatch? Then you only get to see one eye in the picture.

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread got serious. How does a thread about someone wearing a strainer for a hat get serious?

Because I COMMAND IT!

Hats is serious bizniz

For instance, I strongly disagree with the recent court cases awarding several (IIRC, a couple hundred) thousands of dollars to people who are Muslim truck drivers working for an alcoholic beverage distributor, based on their "religious belief" against alcohol.

Agree. If the Muslim driver had issue with transporting alcohol (or the possibility), he should have negotiated higher pay before taking the job/after learning, or not taken the job at all/quit.

But, I disagree with allowing "prayer breaks" because the majority of people's work involved economics

Except jobs already largely allow smoke breaks, bathroom breaks, or fifteen minutes off. If we make an allowance for someone to huff a cig, why not an allowance for someone to pray for a few minutes? Of course, someone could just saying "gonna go smoke" and grab their prayer mat and come back ten minutes later saying "good smoke" with a really cocky grin on their face Anyway, my point is that many jobs already make exceptions that allow people to walk away for a few minutes to do certain things and honestly no business will ever convince me that losing Ali for ten minutes is going to hurt business. That's outlandish on its face when businesses can already cope with maternity leave, sick days, and vacation time.

Now for a serious one, how about the Kirpan? There have already been a number of court cases with schools and Airplanes concerning the practice of carrying the Kirpan, which is actually commanded in the Sikh faith. The New York education system reached a compromise allowing the Kirpan to be carried so long as the blade cannot be drawn, but the TSA has been steadfast in "no carry on Kirpans, sorry." Some Sihks have argued that a literal knife is no longer necessary and that the spirit of their faith can be fulfilled by something like a necklace or key chain item in the shape of a Kirpan.

Honestly arguing about whether a person can wear a hat is kind of silly to me. Some kinds of Turbans and head coverings can meet the religious needs of Muslims/Sikhs without obscuring the face at all, and it's not like we ban beards in photos or anything. Obviously a Muslim woman can't wear a Burqa. It would completely obscure her face and render the license moot.

 agnosto wrote:

 Chongara wrote:


If this were a different question: What's the higher priority? Keeping people alive and their hearts in their chest or making sure that people feel like their beliefs are being respected, I'm probably gonna go with the hearts not being ripped out thing. The government is inclined to agree and that's why any practicing ancient Aztecs would likely find that police would cramp their style.

You nailed it here. The "test" is does allowing the person to honor their expressed religious belief system place an undue burden on society; if the answer is no, they get a pass.

Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?

This is a bit tougher since total concealment is inherently at odds with any kind of identification both at the time you're trying to check (even if an ID card wasn't involved) and for record keeping purposes. In this case I'd be of the opinion that this cannot be reasonably accommodated under the current system, since "Totally exempt from any kind of identity verification" is an undue burden on society.

That said a more flexible system might find a compromise. For example granting two ID's. One with the total concealment that can be used for everyday non-security purposes like driving or buying cigs. One non-concealed ID used for security purposes, say at the airport that they can ask to have verified in private by a female officer when one is available. This might not be ideal for either side but it'd be better imo than than taking a hard-line stance either way.

 Chongara wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Chongara wrote:


If this were a different question: What's the higher priority? Keeping people alive and their hearts in their chest or making sure that people feel like their beliefs are being respected, I'm probably gonna go with the hearts not being ripped out thing. The government is inclined to agree and that's why any practicing ancient Aztecs would likely find that police would cramp their style.

You nailed it here. The "test" is does allowing the person to honor their expressed religious belief system place an undue burden on society; if the answer is no, they get a pass.

Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?

This is a bit tougher since total concealment is inherently at odds with any kind of identification both at the time you're trying to check (even if an ID card wasn't involved) and for record keeping purposes. In this case I'd be of the opinion that this cannot be reasonably accommodated under the current system, since "Totally exempt from any kind of identity verification" is an undue burden on society.

That said a more flexible system might find a compromise. For example granting two ID's. One with the total concealment that can be used for everyday non-security purposes like driving or buying cigs. One non-concealed ID used for security purposes, say at the airport that they can ask to have verified in private by a female officer when one is available. This might not be ideal for either side but it'd be better imo than than taking a hard-line stance either way.

This is actually a smart idea... Too bad nobody in the Higher-Ups has ideas like this...

 LordofHats wrote:

Except jobs already largely allow smoke breaks, bathroom breaks, or fifteen minutes off. If we make an allowance for someone to huff a cig, why not an allowance for someone to pray for a few minutes? Of course, someone could just saying "gonna go smoke" and grab their prayer mat and come back ten minutes later saying "good smoke" with a really cocky grin on their face Anyway, my point is that many jobs already make exceptions that allow people to walk away for a few minutes to do certain things and honestly no business will ever convince me that losing Ali for ten minutes is going to hurt business. That's outlandish on its face when businesses can already cope with maternity leave, sick days, and vacation time.

Now for a serious one, how about the Kirpan? There have already been a number of court cases with schools and Airplanes concerning the practice of carrying the Kirpan, which is actually commanded in the Sikh faith. The New York education system reached a compromise allowing the Kirpan to be carried so long as the blade cannot be drawn, but the TSA has been steadfast in "no carry on Kirpans, sorry." Some Sihks have argued that a literal knife is no longer necessary and that the spirit of their faith can be fulfilled by something like a necklace or key chain item in the shape of a Kirpan.

Honestly arguing about whether a person can wear a hat is kind of silly to me. Some kinds of Turbans and head coverings can meet the religious needs of Muslims/Sikhs without obscuring the face at all, and it's not like we ban beards in photos or anything. Obviously a Muslim woman can't wear a Burqa. It would completely obscure her face and render the license moot.

1. That's kind of what I'm saying... if your job follows federal and state laws (at least in the US), you already get your 10 minute breaks, plus 30 minute lunches. What you do on those 10 minutes is on you the individual. I disagree with the notion that if a person is a smoker, and a Muslim/Jew/Christian whatever, that they should get their 10 minute smoke break AND a 10 minute prayer break.


2. Having known a handful of Sikhs, this is a tough argument to me. While I cannot think of a situation in which a Sikh would use their Kirpan in a terrorist act on an airplane or anything like that, there is some very tiny chance that someone else could. Is that tiny chance enough reason to keep them off planes? I don't know, but TSA thinks so. The other Sikh argument of having a "spiritual knife" or something in the shape of the Kirpan that isn't actually a knife is an intersting one, and not an argument that I've seen before.


3. Arguing from the government's stand point, I kind of see it as an all or nothing sort of thing. I agree that head gear that doesn't obscure, distort or otherwise alter the visibility of the face shouldn't be an issue. But I think that should extend to "regular" people as well. A good friend of my family's, whose DL that I saw, hilariously it was when he was still in HS... Now, he's a huuuuuge 49ers fan (we don't hold it against him, much), and in this photo was wearing his favorite adjustable 9ers hat, backwards in the photo... I dont know when it changed in Oregon, but by the time I got my license around 02, 03... I couldn't wear a hat at all.

So, while I personally dislike the wear of headgear for much of any reason, that the government does make some exceptions for religious beliefs, to me, means that the lady in the OP was rightly allowed to wear cooking utensils.

 agnosto wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.

It's kind of hard to talk about how ridiculous one religion is if we're not allowed to talk about the cognitive dissonance presented by facets of other religions. Or is this a case of it being OK to make fun of other peoples' sincerely held beliefs but don't talk about mine?

If youh sincerely believe in the FSM when the creator of it has admitted to it being a farce, there isn't much hope for you. Pretty cut and dried.

"You", of course, being in general. People jokingly praying to it...yeah, I get that. People serious? Um...no. I think they've been out in the sun too long.

1. That's kind of what I'm saying... if your job follows federal and state laws (at least in the US), you already get your 10 minute breaks, plus 30 minute lunches. What you do on those 10 minutes is on you the individual. I disagree with the notion that if a person is a smoker, and a Muslim/Jew/Christian whatever, that they should get their 10 minute smoke break AND a 10 minute prayer break.

Yeah sorry. I'm not saying religious person get "ten more minutes than anyone else." Just that with all the breaks people have and are allowed by businesses and law, who cares if someone uses them to pray?

Definitely agree about Sikhs. Their spirit of duty to others is incredibly noble, and I admire it. The Kirpan is a symbol of that duty that I can respect, but a knife is a knife.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.

It's kind of hard to talk about how ridiculous one religion is if we're not allowed to talk about the cognitive dissonance presented by facets of other religions. Or is this a case of it being OK to make fun of other peoples' sincerely held beliefs but don't talk about mine?

If youh sincerely believe in the FSM when the creator of it has admitted to it being a farce, there isn't much hope for you. Pretty cut and dried.

"You", of course, being in general. People jokingly praying to it...yeah, I get that. People serious? Um...no. I think they've been out in the sun too long.

How the religion is formed is really irrelevant. If proof emerged from the vatican that Jesus & the new testament was just made up and none of it is real, that christians would just stop being christians? of course not, jesus himself could come down and tell them that Islam is the true religion and christians still wouldn't give up their beliefs. Religions don't need a creator, again back to Buddhism, a religion of man, based on human understanding is as real, if not more real, than any religion claiming some god figure.

You know what other fun religion that people take seriously has come about in the last few decades? Jedi, and it's officially recognized in some countries.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.

It's kind of hard to talk about how ridiculous one religion is if we're not allowed to talk about the cognitive dissonance presented by facets of other religions. Or is this a case of it being OK to make fun of other peoples' sincerely held beliefs but don't talk about mine?

If youh sincerely believe in the FSM when the creator of it has admitted to it being a farce, there isn't much hope for you. Pretty cut and dried.

"You", of course, being in general. People jokingly praying to it...yeah, I get that. People serious? Um...no. I think they've been out in the sun too long.

How the religion is formed is really irrelevant. If proof emerged from the vatican that Jesus & the new testament was just made up and none of it is real, that christians would just stop being christians? of course not, jesus himself could come down and tell them that Islam is the true religion and christians still wouldn't give up their beliefs. Religions don't need a creator, again back to Buddhism, a religion of man, based on human understanding is as real, if not more real, than any religion claiming some god figure.

You know what other fun religion that people take seriously has come about in the last few decades? Jedi, and it's officially recognized in some countries.

If the Vatican? Catholicism is borderline Heresy.

If Jesus came down, he wouldn't say Islam is the true religion trust me.

I think we all know the answer to this question;




PS. It's really annoying finding good South Park clips...

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.

It's kind of hard to talk about how ridiculous one religion is if we're not allowed to talk about the cognitive dissonance presented by facets of other religions. Or is this a case of it being OK to make fun of other peoples' sincerely held beliefs but don't talk about mine?

If youh sincerely believe in the FSM when the creator of it has admitted to it being a farce, there isn't much hope for you. Pretty cut and dried.

"You", of course, being in general. People jokingly praying to it...yeah, I get that. People serious? Um...no. I think they've been out in the sun too long.

How the religion is formed is really irrelevant. If proof emerged from the vatican that Jesus & the new testament was just made up and none of it is real, that christians would just stop being christians? of course not, jesus himself could come down and tell them that Islam is the true religion and christians still wouldn't give up their beliefs. Religions don't need a creator, again back to Buddhism, a religion of man, based on human understanding is as real, if not more real, than any religion claiming some god figure.

You know what other fun religion that people take seriously has come about in the last few decades? Jedi, and it's officially recognized in some countries.

If the Vatican? Catholicism is borderline Heresy.

If Jesus came down, he wouldn't say Islam is the true religion trust me.

You seem way too attached to your beliefs to even consider a fictional postulate, which can be the first step of an intelligent discussion.

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread got serious. How does a thread about someone wearing a strainer for a hat get serious?

Something something easily offended SJWs?

Or maybe there's another group with super thin skin and a persecution complex?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?

That was basically my point. A drivers license is a government ID. It is used to "prove" that you are who you say you are. It is NOT a profession of faith or anything other than identification.

There is case law now in at least one state you have to show your face for the ID itself. This was held up under appeal IIRC.

 LethalShade wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.

It's kind of hard to talk about how ridiculous one religion is if we're not allowed to talk about the cognitive dissonance presented by facets of other religions. Or is this a case of it being OK to make fun of other peoples' sincerely held beliefs but don't talk about mine?

If youh sincerely believe in the FSM when the creator of it has admitted to it being a farce, there isn't much hope for you. Pretty cut and dried.

"You", of course, being in general. People jokingly praying to it...yeah, I get that. People serious? Um...no. I think they've been out in the sun too long.

How the religion is formed is really irrelevant. If proof emerged from the vatican that Jesus & the new testament was just made up and none of it is real, that christians would just stop being christians? of course not, jesus himself could come down and tell them that Islam is the true religion and christians still wouldn't give up their beliefs. Religions don't need a creator, again back to Buddhism, a religion of man, based on human understanding is as real, if not more real, than any religion claiming some god figure.

You know what other fun religion that people take seriously has come about in the last few decades? Jedi, and it's officially recognized in some countries.

If the Vatican? Catholicism is borderline Heresy.

If Jesus came down, he wouldn't say Islam is the true religion trust me.

You seem way too attached to your beliefs to even consider a fictional postulate, which can be the first step of an intelligent discussion.

In the context of Christianity, Catholicism is borderline heresy. They have idols and practice rituals which God didn't want because Christianity was never about a religion but a relationship. Anyone can go into a Catholic Church, stand up and down when they tell you, mumble along to the prayers they say every week, get my little ritual cookie and leave, not remembering any significance about why they praise God.

I'll take "you seem way too attached to your beliefs" as a compliment. You can probably look at every argument I've joined and say "This guy doesn't get the fictional postulate" because I don't really even consider it, although I'll listen to whatever you put out.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?

That was basically my point. A drivers license is a government ID. It is used to "prove" that you are who you say you are. It is NOT a profession of faith or anything other than identification.

There is case law now in at least one state you have to show your face for the ID itself. This was held up under appeal IIRC.

I had a quick look online at the US Passport photo requirements. They don't forbid religious headgear, but they do force the wearer to move the headgear high enough so that the hairline is unobscured and creates no shadows across the face within the picture.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread got serious. How does a thread about someone wearing a strainer for a hat get serious?

Something something easily offended SJWs?

Or maybe there's another group with super thin skin and a persecution complex?

I don't know, sounds like the whole thing is boiling over. If you ask me, they need to run their noodles under some cold fresh water.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

In the context of Christianity, Catholicism is borderline heresy. They have idols and practice rituals which God didn't want because Christianity was never about a religion but a relationship. Anyone can go into a Catholic Church, stand up and down when they tell you, mumble along to the prayers they say every week, get my little ritual cookie and leave, not remembering any significance about why they praise God.

I'll take "you seem way too attached to your beliefs" as a compliment. You can probably look at every argument I've joined and say "This guy doesn't get the fictional postulate" because I don't really even consider it, although I'll listen to whatever you put out.

So, no point in even discussing ?

 LethalShade wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

In the context of Christianity, Catholicism is borderline heresy. They have idols and practice rituals which God didn't want because Christianity was never about a religion but a relationship. Anyone can go into a Catholic Church, stand up and down when they tell you, mumble along to the prayers they say every week, get my little ritual cookie and leave, not remembering any significance about why they praise God.

I'll take "you seem way too attached to your beliefs" as a compliment. You can probably look at every argument I've joined and say "This guy doesn't get the fictional postulate" because I don't really even consider it, although I'll listen to whatever you put out.

So, no point in even discussing ?

No no, you can discuss

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


In the context of Christianity, Catholicism is borderline heresy. They have idols and practice rituals which God didn't want because Christianity was never about a religion but a relationship. Anyone can go into a Catholic Church, stand up and down when they tell you, mumble along to the prayers they say every week, get my little ritual cookie and leave, not remembering any significance about why they praise God.

I'll take "you seem way too attached to your beliefs" as a compliment. You can probably look at every argument I've joined and say "This guy doesn't get the fictional postulate" because I don't really even consider it, although I'll listen to whatever you put out.

Isn't that interesting, of all the religions of the world, you were lucky enough to be born in the right area and to the right parents to be brought up in the right version of christianity. So now you can sit in judgement of all those other religions from your high horse.

Given that Catholics make up more than half of all Christians on this planet, we might want to back away from some of this Sith like absolutism

Most non-Catholics don't consider Catholics heretical. There was a popular trend, especially among American Protestants in the late 19th and early 20th century to demean and bemoan Catholics as 'not Christian enough' but that trend has largely died out save for the most hard core Fundamentalists.

 LordofHats wrote:
Their spirit of duty to others is incredibly noble, and I admire it.

Like when that guy had his daughter tortured and assassinated. So noble. Such duty. Much wow.

Hey no religion is perfect XD

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


In the context of Christianity, Catholicism is borderline heresy. They have idols and practice rituals which God didn't want because Christianity was never about a religion but a relationship. Anyone can go into a Catholic Church, stand up and down when they tell you, mumble along to the prayers they say every week, get my little ritual cookie and leave, not remembering any significance about why they praise God.

I'll take "you seem way too attached to your beliefs" as a compliment. You can probably look at every argument I've joined and say "This guy doesn't get the fictional postulate" because I don't really even consider it, although I'll listen to whatever you put out.

Isn't that interesting, of all the religions of the world, you were lucky enough to be born in the right area and to the right parents to be brought up in the right version of christianity. So now you can sit in judgement of all those other religions from your high horse.

No I just said that Catholicism is borderline heresy. I didn't go off and say anything about the others.

Luck is a human construct. I don't believe in luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Their spirit of duty to others is incredibly noble, and I admire it.

Like when that guy had his daughter tortured and assassinated. So noble. Such duty. Much wow.

But hey

-sip-

Thats none of my business

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Luck is a human construct. I don't believe in luck.

Yet you are religious....

I have one question. A legitimate one. Why do you think your religion is more legitimate than the thousands of religions that ever existed ?

I mean, most of these religions had one or several gods, practices, traditions, and they all believed that they were the legitimate ones.

(Or you can be a troll ignoring any argument presented to you. It is a possibility.)

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Luck is a human construct. I don't believe in luck.

Yet you are religious....

Those two things are inequatable. God determines everything that happens and how everything plays out. I am not but a pawn in his game