Why religious exemptions to laws are actually discriminatory

[bdf]

It sounds paradoxical. The whole purpose of a relgious exemption to a law is to prevent religious discrimination, right? But the fact is that religious exemptions are religious discrimination.

Let me give two examples of religious exemptions to British laws.

The first is that Sikhs are exempt from the law requiring all motorcyclists to wear crash helmets (provided, of course, that they are wearing a turban whilst on their motorbikes). Orthodox Sikhs are required to wear a turban, and it is not possible to wear a crash helmet over a turban. The courts created this exemption.

An aside.

I would argue that requiring motorcyclist to wear crash helmets is, itself, bad law. I am wholly in agreement with the Harm Principle espoused by John Stuart Mill in his famous essay On Liberty: that the only valid reason a society has for restricting the behaviour of an individual is to prevent harm to others; society has no right to impose restrictions on an individual causing harm (real or perceived) to himself. On those grounds, society has no right to require motorcyclists to wear crash helmets "for their own good."

Some will argue that this is justified in countries (such as the UK) which have government-funded healthcare. The motorcyclist who isn't wearing a helmet and is involved in an accident harms all of us by requiring medical treatment that comes out of our taxes (in the UK it comes out of a tax called a "National Insurance Contribution," but it's still a tax). However, what the imposition of crash helmets on motorcyclists has done is turn fatal injuries (from skull fractures) into long-term medical conditions (such as quadruplegia from a broken neck). The imposition of crash helmets upon motorcyclists has resulted in higher medical treatment costs. Under Mill's philosophy society would be justified in passing a law banning crash helmets.

The second is that followers of both Islam and Judaism are allowed to torture animals to death. Followers of other faiths are required by law to kill food animals humanely. Jews and Muslims are allowed to slit an animal's throat and let it die slowly, and in pain, as it bleeds to death.

An aside.

The meat industry (particularly in the US) has a habit of using "downers" (animals so ill that they cannot stand). Had they not, vCJD (aka "Mad Cow Disease") would not have the impact it has had. Under kosher and al helal (Judaic and Islamic) rules, which require the animal to be standing as its throat is cut, the incidence of vCJD would be lower.

However, a requirement that animals be capable of standing on their own two feet before being humanely killed would have the same effect upon the incidence of vCJD without causing unnecessary suffering. And would also be within the spirit, but not the letter of both Judaic and Islamic dietary restrictions.

There is no justification for inhumane killing.

So why do I think religious exemptions are discriminatory? Because nobody can prove which religion (or creed or sect of a religion) is correct.

Consider just the three Abrahamic Religions. Each of the three condemns the other two as vile heresy. There may be hints of ecumenicism coming from some of them, but they amount to the old joke of the Protestant telling the Catholic "We both worship the same God" and the Catholic replying "Yes we do. You in your way and I in His." At most only one of those three can be right. In Christianity (well, the trinitarian sects, which is most of them) you must believe that Jesus is the son of God, and also God himself, and is your only route to salvation. In Islam, there is no God but Allah, and Jesus was a prophet but not God. In Judaism, Jesus was a false prophet who told lies. No two of the three can be reconciled. If Christianity is correct then both Judaism and Islam are wrong. If Judaism is correct then both Christianity and Islam are wrong. If Islam is correct then both Christianity and Judaism are wrong.

It gets worse. Many of the creeds and sects of Christianity take it as an article of faith that all of the other sects of Christianity are wrong. There is a sect of Christianity confined almost exclusively to the Western Isles of Scotland (North Uist, South Uist and the island in between those two called not "middle Uist" but Benbecula) known as the "Wee wee frees." That's not their real name, but you'll have a hard time finding what the real name is. They're called the "Wee wee frees" because they're a minority offshoot of the "Wee frees" (again, not their real name, but about the only one you'll find in google). The "Wee frees" are called that because they're a minority offshoot of the Free Church of Scotland. Which itself is a minority offshoot of the Church of Scotland. Which is a minority offshoot of creeds which are themselves offshoots of Catholicism (the original creed of Pauline Christianity, which itself is an offshoot of what the disciples of Jesus believed). According to the Wee wee frees, the pope is a willing (and therefore witting) tool of Satan. When their MP (elected representative to the UK legislature) attended the funeral of a fellow MP who was a close friend, they expelled him from their church for attending a Satanic rite (the fellow MP was a Catholic). Other Protestant sects might argue that the pope means well, but because his doctrine is mistaken his followers will end up in Hell therefore the pope is doing Satan's work unwittingly. The Wee Wee Frees believe the pope is the witting and willing tool of Satan.

There is no way of establishing in a court of law which religion or creed (if any) is true. If there were we'd all be followers of that religion because it would be established fact. Well, there is a way. A way sanctioned by the Babble. Trial by magic. Moses and Aaron went up against Pharoah's best magicians and beat them. Actually, since both sides produced God-level magic, that implies that JHVH (aka Yahveh, aka Judao/Christian God, aka Allah), is merely one of many tribal Gods) but that's another story. Go to court. Say "My God is real. And He will turn this courthouse around 180 degrees, so that what before faced north now faces south." Have it actually happen like that. You've proved, in court, that your God is real. And if no other religion can go to that court and get the change undone, you've proved your God is the only God. Hasn't happened yet. And in my opinion it never will.

Therefore, under the law, all religions are equal, They have to be, because no court of law can prove one (or more) religions to be more valid than the others. So suppose I were to say to you that...

God spoke to me last night. He told me that he'd been very busy the last 10,000 years and had left the Earth to its own devices, thinking it was heading in the right direction. He wass very surprised to see all these false religions spring up while He was gone. They're pure invention. Completely wrong. This, God told me, is what we should really believe...

Insert your own deepest wishes for wealth, power, fame, and Dolly Parton giving you a titty-fuck here.

On edit: Whoops! Unintentional sexism there. It was a Fraudian Slit. Substitute your deepest sexual desires with the partner of your choice for Dolly Parton performing a sex act that is applicable only to males. My dreams are not necessarily your dreams. :)

Prove me wrong. You cannot. No more than you can prove any other recent religion, or offshoot of a religion, to be wrong. The Mormons and the Jehovah's witnesses are recent and even less plausible than their forebears. Scientology is even more recent and less plausible than any other religion (which is hard, because even the older, "mainstream" religions are highly implausible). But even though I am (currently) the only follower of my religion, you cannot legally give it any less credence than a religion with millions of followers that is 6,000 years old. All religions are equal, and all religions rely upon God (or an angel) talking to individuals.

And that is why religious exemptions are discriminatory.

God told me last night that I mustn't wear a motorcycle crash helmet, and it's not because he wants me to wear a turban instead, it's just because He morally opposes crash helmets. If I converted to Sikhism I would be able to follow God's commands but if I remain true to my faith I cannot.

God told me last night that I must torture animals to death, for fun. If I converted to Judaism or Islam I would be able to follow God's commands but if I remain true to my faith I cannot.

This is religious discrimination.

There are only two ways a law can go to not discriminate upon religion: either it is OK for everyone to do it or it is wrong for anyone to do it. Anything else is discriminatory. Really.

You want to argue otherwise? To tell me that it's wrong to torture animals to death unless you're a Muslim or a Jew? God just told me that I must torture animals to death. Why are you discriminating against my religion???

[anonymous171]

1. lol loose understanding of the law at best.

[bdf]

3. Please explain further (n/t)

[ZombieHorde]

2. You've proved, in court, that your God is real.

Maybe the person doing the proving is just a powerful wizard, and lies when he says that the courthouse was altered by a god.

[bdf]

4. Turning a courhouse 180 degrees requires God-level powers

Really.

Yeah, you can put people on a large raft and "vanish" the Statue of Liberty, but the guy who did that (Copperfield?) closed the curtains between the statue being visible and being "vanished." And while the curtains were closed, the raft was rotated so slowly that nobody would notice. With a courthouse you have maps, photographs and current reality.

And if you still don't like that example, feel free to supply your own. One that only God could achieve and which nobody could deny. That's all it takes.

Aaron and Moses turned their walking sticks into snakes. Copperfield can't do that. Penn and Teller can't do that. That's God-level magic. The Egyptian magicians turned their walking sticks into snakes first. That's also God-level magic. The Jewish God beat the Egyptian God. My dad can beat up your dad.

Ummm, but if the Egyptians had a God capable of that level of magic, even if the Jewish God could kick sand in his face. then the Jewish God is merely one tribal God amongst many. Which sort of fucks the entire premise of Christianity.

[ZombieHorde]

5. I was trying to say that literal magic powers do not prove anything other than that literal magic

powers are real.

[bdf]

6. I'll go with that

Yeah, if you show god-level magic powers then the most that one can safely deduce is that you have god-level magic powers. However, if you can exhibit such powers and attribute them to Gawd then I'd be inclined to believe you. Not because I have a predisposition to believe in Gawd but because you just did something I would normally consider impossible.

[old mark]

7. bdf, fyi :

The catholic and the various protestant bibles are quite different - they differ in the number of "books" as well as in the content and translation of those books. Neither fully resembles the Jewisn scripture.
The Koran is a separate thing altogether, written hundreds of years after the first christian scripture was codifed.

Catholics with varied minor differences in interpretation of doctrine were condemned as hetetics, hunted, tortured and killed.
Same with catholics and protestants of various stripes, and of course the muslims and of course the jews.

A attended religious schools from K through 12, and took several courses
studying religions in college.

I don't believe any of them are reality, most are just in it for the power and the money.

But the fuckers will try to kill you if you disagree with them.


mark

[bdf]

8. Thanks, but

I did already know about the differences, though. I couldn't give you specifics on any two randomly-chosen creeds, but I know of some of the major differences—such as the apocrypha.

I do know that the Catholic and Protestant versions of the "ten commandments" differ. I also know that Judaism considers all 500+ laws in Leviticus to be commandments. I also know that in some sects of Judaism consider the ten commandments handed to Moses to be exemplars and that all the other laws in Leviticus can be derived from those (I don't see it myself).

And what I also know is that just about all creeds of Christianity list the wrong ten commandments, because one of the real ten is a prohibition against boiling a young goat in its mother's milk.

A brief recap...

Moses goes up a hill and Gawd moons him. Really. Gawd's countenance is so bright it would blind Moses, so Gawd lets Moses look at his "back parts." Exodus 33:23.

Gawd gives Moses two tablets of stone with the commandments on.

Moses goes down the hill only to find that people are making golden calves to worship. In a hissy fit Moses throws the two tablets to the ground and breaks them.

Gawd tells Moses he'll give him two new tablets exactly the same as the first two. You can see the start of this tale at Exodus chapter 34. Except they're not identical. The first five commandments have somewhat different wording but pretty much the same meaning. The second five are completely different and in them is:

Thou shalt not seethe (boil) a kid (young goat) in his mother's milk. Exodus 34:26

In the very next verse, Gawd says that these tablets constitute his covenent with Moses and with Israel.

That prohibition about goat-boiling was kept in the Ark of the Covenenant. It is also the reason why orthodox Jews refuse to eat meat and dairy in the same meal (which is taking it to extremes, but religious people are delusionally insane anyway).

[TexasObserver]

9. Yes, there is a bias in favor of religion throughout society.

Everyone who has a type of faith wants to tell you about it. Many of them want to implore you to listen to them, come with them, experience their self selected attempt at Nirvana. They don't want to have you try to convince them their beliefs are illogical and based upon a myriad of ancient tales, whose original meaning was far from what it comes to represent.

No one should get any day off because it is a religious holiday unless those who don't claim a religion get a Pagan's day off several times a year.

[bdf]

11. And also be allowed to pray several times a day

My religion is the Church of the Holy Smoke, which requires me to light up a cigarette at regular intervals.

[eshfemme]

10. Yes, this is why separation of Church and State is so important.

What people tend to forget is that although the founding documents were unique and profound, the government set up needed a lot of work. The Founding Fathers laid the stonework for many things that have yet to see fruition such as "all men are created equal" and the separation of Church and State. It is an "imperfect union" but that is the point, we need to push to get it perfected. Right now, with the Bush administration's "help" that is one of the many many problems we face with the government that there is too cozy a relationship with various religions, corporations and the military who benefit at the cost of the average citizen.

[Trillo]

12. Framing: Is slitting a food-animal's throat a cruel method of slaughter?

I'm quite serious in my question. If the throat were slit quickly and cleanly, then wouldn't the brain lose blood pressure at a near-immediate rate? During those few moments of pressure loss, what happens to the brain's consciousness?

In order to answer this question, this is what I found:

Fainting due to a drop in blood pressure and a decrease of the oxygen supply to the brain is an illustration of a temporary loss of consciousness.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Loss-of-consciousness

If the brain loses consciousness as a result of quickly moving toward zero blood pressure, then how can this slaughter technique be considered 'inhumane'?

I do agree the technique 'seems' inhumane, certainly bloody, but isn't that more of our preconceived notions regarding "horror" running wild and out of rational control? Death is inevitable, or so it seems.