Legal exceptions for religious belief: why not other belief systems?

[Inky]

One of the threads on parental neglect and religious exemptions made me wonder: if a person has a longstanding and well thought-out belief system that requires or forbids a certain thing, but isn't connected to a religion, why should that be given less legal weight than a religious belief?

For instance, you could have someone who has spent years studying a certain philosophical view and considered an authority on it, but if they illegally act on that view their belief isn't considered. On the other hand, someone could be a member of an established religion for only a week, but if they sincerely believe in it, it could get them off the hook for what might otherwise be a crime. Is this right, and if not, how should it work? Could an established organization with strict rules and membership take the place of a religion in a legal context? Should it matter why someone believes something as long as they are sincerely convinced?

[Storm]

Ideally, I don't think such a difference should matter. On a pragmatic level, it's easier to verify a person's religion and its teachings.

[Riverwolf]

It should be situationally dependent, and up to the judge to decide.

[3.14]

noone is above the law, and nothing should be above the law, (exept maby me )

[darkendless]

Religion is not an excuse to disobey the law. If you don't like laws, relocate to a country more suited to your flavour of god

[Storm]

Originally Posted by darkendless

Religion is not an excuse to disobey the law. If you don't like laws, relocate to a country more suited to your flavour of god

I was thinking of more nuanced situations like exemptions from the draft.

[Luke]

m y morfar he know the Amish people i n Ontario. there are good people but there believe the babys are born in the house and not hospital. one familie have the nurse but the baby die in the house becuase they not take it to hospital. if the baby go to hospital he will live today.

[krishnakanta]

as far as my understanding of law (in the US) you can act on your belief system as long as it doesn't harm others. the moment you cross that line, you are subject to said laws. for example, you can believe it's your moral obligation to blow up abortion clinics but the moment you act on it you are subject to laws. the only exception i know of is the issues of animal sacrifice in Santaria rituals which in some places is permitted.

people should belief and act as they wish but should be prosecuted when it brings harm to others. in the case of in home births, lots of people give birth at home and if a death occurs they shouldn't be prosecuted. people have been giving birth at home for a longer than hospitals have been around and the child could have died in the hospital anyway. if however you have a child with cancer and you refuse medical treatment for him or her then you should be prosecuted because it is willful neglect

let me put it this way Luke, do you want the government tell people in your religion that they have to take psychiatric drugs to treat mental illness?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Storm

Ideally, I don't think such a difference should matter. On a pragmatic level, it's easier to verify a person's religion and its teachings.

Originally Posted by Storm

I was thinking of more nuanced situations like exemptions from the draft.

There are probably quite a number of verifiable philosophical schools of thought that could lead a person to be a conscientous objector.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Luke

m y morfar he know the Amish people i n Ontario. there are good people but there believe the babys are born in the house and not hospital. one familie have the nurse but the baby die in the house becuase they not take it to hospital. if the baby go to hospital he will live today.

There's no law in Ontario that says that babies have to be born in a hospital. Most women choose to give birth there, but not because they're legally required to do so.