syo
Well-Known Member
8.000.000.000 people believe the dead will resurrect.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sikh Queenslanders allowed to carry ceremonial knives in schools after court ruling
- Thread starter danieldemol
- Start date
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
While I agree with the religious accommodation in this case based on what I've read about it so far, most objections to it that I've seen (generally, not just talking about RF) also don't seem to me rooted in disrespecting anyone else's cultures and traditions but rather in understandable concern about the potential extent of religious exemptions from secular law.
I don't find negative implications about others' intentions just because they have such concerns to be helpful in a discussion like this, but I'm also not sure what you meant to imply in your post and whether you were talking about most objections to the ruling or only a minority thereof. If the latter, then my comments in this post don't apply to what you said.
Then you are potentially discriminating against religions based on which ones are time honoured, which i see as a form of special pleading.
In my view the whole point of this case is to be opposed to religious discrimination so I see how your special pleading because it is time honoured could create problems.
And again it is not the role of the court in an Australian context to favour established religions in my view.
That is a case of the courts favouring established religions and if special pleading not be allowed in the courts, I would think that is a much stronger case for religious discrimination than simply banning all religious practices deemed to have harmful consequences in my view.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
It is not that one could simply make up a religious to bypass the law.
It is that there is no real sensible difference between someone that truly wants to live their lives in a certain way due to their religion of choice and someone that truly wants to live their lives in a certain way due to their culture/sub-culture/ideology/personal choice.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Personally, I do not like these exceptions. It makes the Sikhs bullish. It makes them to overlook the commandments of their own religion. Not all Sikhs go by what Guru Nanak or Guru Gobind Singh said about being humble. Look at their 'Nihangs*' or the Naga ascetics in Hinduism. They carry swords and tridents, and are involved in skirmishes.
Nihang = Nih + Sang = Nissang = Not attached
No, make it 7,999,999,999. I will not resurrect. I have no birth or death. I am Brahman. I am eternal. I follow Adviata Hinduism.
Last edited:
Viker
Häxan
If that had been a real robbery, like the one's in my city, there would have been two or more perpetrators with pistols. Thugs would have had a sweet knife, a killer hat and some pocket change (of course).
I wonder about polygamy. There's some well established religions that have practised that. I wonder if they could now it is a religious freedom issue?
I oppose cosmetic circumcision. I don't think circumcision should be permitted unless a genuine medical reason or a sincere and established religious obligation requires it. (Be it Jewish or Islamic). In the case of Judaism specifically, circumcision has been a requirement of its religious practice for thousands of years. To outlaw it without a religious exemption would be tantamount to anti-religious oppression.
It's not special pleading at all. A religion's antiquity is relevant. Anyone can claim to be a Neo-Pagan and contrive 'obligations'. You can't so easily fake being a Sikh (simply to carry around a dagger) unless you're really committed to your facade.
Last edited:
so if you had of been alive when the Guru gave the initial decree and it wasn't time honoured you would have denied Sikhs the right to carry a kirpan but today you would allow them because time and you think that's logical
precisely why we shouldn't give a religious exemption if the law is to be fairly applied
So if I carry the 5 Ks and declare myself a Sikh how would you know im not one? (And thanks for raising an objection i hadn't thought of).
If there were a medical reason to outlaw circumcision, it seems to me that the reason would exist whether or not any religion mandated the practice. In my own country, one of the main reasons there was initially strong pushback on outlawing FGM was that some imams insisted on calling it a "sunnah," a recommended action per Muhammad's teachings. It took many years for the practice to significantly fall out of favor compared to before, after religious authorities publicly denounced it and deemed it a crime against girls and women.
This is one reason I'm quite cautious about religious exemptions from secular law: if not handled carefully and ensured to be reasonable and harmless, they could result in immense unfairness and enabling of damaging practices under the banner of "religious freedom." I'm against denying followers of any given religion reasonable accommodations—the keyword being "reasonable," which, in my opinion, the accommodation outlined in the OP is—but I'm also against denying everyone else fair treatment by exempting something harmful from state law just because it is part of a religious practice for a given group or a subset of that religion's followers.
I think this potentially minimizes the significance of Neopaganism to many of its practitioners. No, not anyone can or will claim to be a Neopagan to contrive "obligations," at least not in a way that would convince a reasonable court. For many Neopagans, their practice takes a significant amount of dedication, genuine belief, and engagement. This is another reason I believe such accommodations should be considered on a case-by-case basis: such a basis would give judges more room to filter out insincere claims and posturing, and generalizations and blanket assumptions about entire religions or religious movements (e.g., Neopaganism) can be both unfair and inaccurate.
Treks
Well-Known Member
The Sikhs have demonstrated a reason to have it. They've earned it.
What is the reason for having it in Queensland and is earning it open to *all* religions, not just the time honoured ones?
Whilst I’m generally against religious exemptions in public spaces and value freedom from religion
I also very much value freedom of religion.
It’s why, despite my own personal feelings of circumcision, for example, I am against banning it (even with medical exemptions.)
I might not like it, I might even prefer to keep it off limits to minors with exceptions for medical necessity. I can’t in good conscious support a ban, because I know that it’s done for religious and cultural reasons.
Though maybe folks can try to claim it’s medicinal in order to scoot around such a ban lol
Idk. If the religious community can be convinced to dump the practice, then I think that’s far better. Otherwise you get a community feeling persecuted and that will only get them to double down out of just instinct (for lack of a better word.)
I might prefer maybe plastic ceremonial knives in places such as schools as a compromise for safety reasons. But as has been pointed out, this exemption applies more to adults visiting the school and they are free to express their culture and religion the same as anyone else.
Perhaps working with Sikh leaders for compromise for their children attending is in order. But apart from that, I can’t disagree with the ruling
As a society we claim to value freedom. We need to put that into practice for all, even if we dislike it personally. Otherwise we are hypocrites, imo
Sure, I suppose some folks (trolls usually) can claim X is in their religious teachings to try to gain any number of exemptions. But come on, such a claim isn’t exactly as robust as actual established world religions. Sorry it just isn’t.
Though I’ve no doubt someone will try, sooner or later. Maybe even as a joke
I also very much value freedom of religion.
It’s why, despite my own personal feelings of circumcision, for example, I am against banning it (even with medical exemptions.)
I might not like it, I might even prefer to keep it off limits to minors with exceptions for medical necessity. I can’t in good conscious support a ban, because I know that it’s done for religious and cultural reasons.
Though maybe folks can try to claim it’s medicinal in order to scoot around such a ban lol
Idk. If the religious community can be convinced to dump the practice, then I think that’s far better. Otherwise you get a community feeling persecuted and that will only get them to double down out of just instinct (for lack of a better word.)
I might prefer maybe plastic ceremonial knives in places such as schools as a compromise for safety reasons. But as has been pointed out, this exemption applies more to adults visiting the school and they are free to express their culture and religion the same as anyone else.
Perhaps working with Sikh leaders for compromise for their children attending is in order. But apart from that, I can’t disagree with the ruling
As a society we claim to value freedom. We need to put that into practice for all, even if we dislike it personally. Otherwise we are hypocrites, imo
Sure, I suppose some folks (trolls usually) can claim X is in their religious teachings to try to gain any number of exemptions. But come on, such a claim isn’t exactly as robust as actual established world religions. Sorry it just isn’t.
Though I’ve no doubt someone will try, sooner or later. Maybe even as a joke
Last edited:
Which is?
But surely all deserve equal opportunity to prove themselves worthy over time? Again, put yourself back 300 years to when the guru of Sikhs hadn't had 300 years for his decree to have proven worthy over time, would you have denied the Sikhs kirpan rights had you lived back then?
Treks
Well-Known Member
I pasted resources about the kirpan earlier in the thread.
And of course, all deserve equal opportunity to prove themselves worthy over time. I didn't say they don't.
There were lots of people killing each other when the Sikhs took up arms. It was also a different time period and different place entirely. I'm sure many people did try to stop them. By sawing them in half and such.
I don't think I have anything else to make this any clearer, sorry.
And of course, all deserve equal opportunity to prove themselves worthy over time. I didn't say they don't.
There were lots of people killing each other when the Sikhs took up arms. It was also a different time period and different place entirely. I'm sure many people did try to stop them. By sawing them in half and such.
I don't think I have anything else to make this any clearer, sorry.
Only due to unfair privilege given to established religions in my view