If I go to Alberta will I be able to ride while wearing a colander on my head ?

For the Sikhs, there’s a whole lot of hair under the turban. For you Pastafarians, accommodations should be made for your colanders. Please put a lot of pasta between your head and the colander. It would be best to have a sticker with FSM on display.

Big high-5 Dave.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2018 12:51PM by BYU Boner.

Lots of conversations about that up here....mostly negative regarding their "special" treatment. Sikh RCMP officers are allowed to wear a turban instead of regulation headgear. I think it's a slippery slope and a load of bullshit.

I concur

What if they couldn't ride motorcycles before the law passed
(due to a lack of skill)?

Hmm?

Bad. Religion always has to come second. Second to human rights when some believe girls shouldn't study or gays shouldn't live, second to the humane treatment of animals when some want ritual sacrifice, second to the public interest when some want noise from the muezzin at 430am, and in this case, second to safety regulations.

I don't think it too much of a simplification to say that you are glossing over the division between two different categories of activity.

Most of your examples are cases in which the religious activity clearly infringes on others rights.
-girls shouldn't study
-gays shouldn't live
-animals should be treated inhumanely
-(we could easily add) female genital mutilation

Your topical example, however, is quite different: not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle, which has little impact on others. The cost of bike accidents is tiny relative to overall healthcare spending and relative to the uniquely enormous administrative inefficiency of the US system.

Surely societies can, in deference to the individual and individual liberty, allow exemptions for "victimless" religious practices like wearing turbans. I submit that such accommodations are definitional in liberal and tolerant polities.

I hasten to add that I would put clothing that obstructs identification in the first category--behaviors that should be banned because they directly endanger others. Perhaps kirpans should also be so viewed. As for muezzins, those are on the border between the two classes and could vary from country to country based on its history and preferences.

But I think the notion that "religion always has to come second" is wrong. Surely the sanctity of the individual is the highest priority in a liberal democracy except when the behavior in question infringes on the rights of others or of society in general. Wearing a turban or carrying a ceremonial Sikh comb does not, in my mind, rise to that level.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2018 07:46PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your topical example, however, is quite different:
> not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle,
> which has little impact on others. The cost of
> bike accidents is tiny relative to overall
> healthcare spending and relative to the uniquely
> enormous administrative inefficiency of the US
> system.

Note: this was in Canada, not the "US system." You know, Canada -- where the health care is entirely publicly funded, so any additional costs of care from brain injuries are paid for by "society?"

> Surely societies can, in deference to the
> individual and individual liberty, allow
> exemptions for "victimless" religious practices
> like wearing turbans.

Surely religions can, in deference to public safety and costs, allow exemptions for wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle...

Why must society give deference to religion? Why can't religion give deference to the greater society?

Hi Hie,

I know the story is from Canada. I'm just saying that the costs of brain injuries from Sikhs crashing motorcycles is tiny compared to 1) the overall healthcare bill in most societies, and 2) especially relative to the egregious cost of inefficiencies in terrible healthcare systems like that of the US. I was anticipating disagreements from Americans (the bulk of the people in our community) and saying that the relative cost was exiguous.

Our disagreement is more significant, I believe, regarding whether religion should defer to society. We both think the answer is "yes." We differ over the degree of the deference. I believe, along with the US supreme court, that conduct that violates the laws or that endangers others should not be tolerated but that belief and actions that "just" endanger the believer should be tolerated.

My point, as I made below, is that no matter how much any of us disdain religion, it is part of a cluster of beliefs--freedom of speech, the press, association--that are critical to any non-tyrannical society. If a particular society believes in the sanctity of the individual, that society has to protect the right of people to be unusual or unique, even stupid. The Anglo-American countries (and the Anglo-American French of Canada) have a very good record of individuals standing up to tyrannical leaders and governments from time to time. I think there is great value in that.

Which means I believe society benefits from offering somewhat more tolerance for religious minorities than do more "efficient" countries. I would also venture that in many countries atheists and agnostics are "religious minorities" who are perceived as impeding social "efficiency." Those are often places where gays and minorities are also viewed as "inefficiencies." I don't think many of us want to live in a place like that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2018 11:59AM by Lot's Wife.

"... conduct that violates the laws or that endangers others should not be tolerated but that belief and actions that "just" endanger the believer should be tolerated."

This would seem a good compromise in a quest to be fair and just to as many (all?) as possible.

One proviso - when it comes to minors, the govt may be their best hope to stay safe in the face of parents with alternative views that do harm. I know that is what you are indicating, Lot's Wife.

It doesn't take religion to make stupid. There is an ongoing case in Canada involving parents who were convicted in the death of their young son for not seeking medical advice when he was critically ill from meningitis. The boy died. Imagine the horror of the process for him, fever, chills, pain, death. Parents received unimaginably light sentences (kind of a trend in Canada, unfortunately, all too often). The mother received house arrest so she could continue to care for their other children (eek); the father was sentenced to four months in jail. An outrage. That poor little boy. And the parents just got an overturn on the verdict (or the sentence, not altogether sure). I guess they're heading for a new hearing or trial. If you got only four months for allowing your child to die, would you not take it and slink away? (They only called for help when the child had stopped breathing (mercifully perhaps for him by that point - he was critically ill and suffering for many days).

In this case, it wasn't religion that caused their fanaticism - choosing to administer "natural health" products over scientifically-based medical treatment sentenced their child to prolonged suffering and death. (And the father is still hawking the stuff - I believe it's their own product line - outrageous. It may be OK for some conditions - I have no idea - but cannot possibly replace antibiotics proven to be effective in combating the condition their son died from).

Parents - do what you will for yourselves. But the good of the children must ultimately rest with the bulk of society in cases where standards of care are well established and scientifically proven as better than the alternatives. Parents do not own children. Children should be safe from quacky ideas of ill-informed parents.

I realize this is different from the original topic. But some of the principles are the same. Your comment, LW, reminded me of this case that is in the news again.

First rule of medicine: First do no harm. It should also be the first rule of parenting. Sadly, not so, in oh so many ways.

My father put a lot of time and effort into teaching us to look at things from all sides. In one way it somewhat made me indecisive but also able to at least see that there is more than one way to look at something. Didn't always stop me from leaping into a few of the more cultish belief systems out there but did help me to eventually head for the exits. (And at least I didn't go off with the "charismatic" nuns and their speaking-in-tongues ways. Not yet anyway).

Back to Sikhs on bikes. Despite living near thousands of Sikhs highly visible on streets everywhere, I have never yet, not once, seen a Sikh riding a motorcycle. They seem to walk a lot. So the point may be largely moot?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2018 12:49PM by Nightingale.

Sikhs comprise 1.4% of Canada's population.

(Assuming Canada is like the US in this regard), roughly 1/10th of adults own motorcycles. That would take us to around 0.14% of Canada's citizenry. My guess is that Sikhs are less likely to ride motorcycles than the broader population, given the different culture, so perhaps we are talking about 0.07% of Canada, or some 25,000 people.

A lot of Sikhs, furthermore, identify as such but do not wear the turban or carry the ceremonial dagger and comb. Those people would probably be comfortable wearing helmets. So we are probably talking about 10,000. Allowing substantially for the errors in my shorthand calculations, we are not talking about a lot of people who would want the accommodation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2018 01:46PM by Lot's Wife.

I wouldn't force anyone to wear a motorcycle helmet, but I would force them to be an organ donor if they crash when not wearing one.

You know how I hate to agree with you.

Wouldn’t the wind blow their turban off anyways. Sadly, I am a non helmet wearer on my bike and have lost numerous ball caps...

So I could just wrap up my long hair and skip the helmet?

And all over the world, Mormons can wear skidmark underwear with symbols of construction tools over their nipples.

The difference is, as caffiend pointed out above, that this is an example of religious freedom that impacts us all.

It's a safety issue that unnecessarily raises costs.


It's a situation that results in higher expenses for us all just to subsidize his religious choice. Religious people don't get to bitch about not wanting to pay for women's reproductive health care choices. We all pay for the choices of others.

Dave, you might want to invest in a metal colander for traveling.

At least garments usually don't cause harm. I do know of one case where garms exacerbated burns on a fire victim. Maybe they are made of flame proof fabric now like sleepwear.

Police and airport officials have to let them do it because it's considered a religious implement.

I taught school and a boy, aged seven, pulled out his dagger and said he would kill another boy over a tether ball dispute. His parents defended him, saying the dagger was not a weapon and needed to be respected. The principal suspended the child for three days because he said if the dagger was used to threaten death, it's a weapon which is not allowed at school.

Yikes. A seven year old with a dagger. What could possibly go wrong.

I'm glad the principal didn't fall for the "respect the dagger" crap.

I wasn't aware they are hidden. I see them in plain sight. Considered "ceremonial".

I live in an area of amazing diversity. All types of different clothing and head coverings. Interesting. Colourful. I often have the impulse to take photos of random people on the street for their unique style. Scared of looking like a stalker though.

As for the helmets, yeah, gives me pause.Especially having worked in hospitals, seeing head injuries. Always a tragedy if it could have been prevented.

But. I must say. I'm happy to live in a peaceful (to date) place where we intermingle with people from many nations and find a friend or two every once in a while who adds richness to our lives. I realize it's not like that everywhere. Which is why I appreciate it every day.

If not too flippant to ask, how many Sikhs ride motorbikes anyway?

I agree with this and just submitted a reply above trying to make the same points.

Vive la difference.

I just read you, Lot's Wife. Well said, as usual. I do flinch a bit at the thought of human head hitting cement at speed. But. A smaller govt footprint is more appealing than the Big Bro style favoured by all too many, some not that far away. I like the maxim to teach a person to fish rather than throwing them a tiddler. (Meaning, as far as possible let people make their own choices rather than imposing them from above. Maybe some will see, without it being forced upon them, that they should change their choices; I'm aware that's a distortion of the original meaning of that saying, maybe I'm torturing it).

Too, though, I see the argument that taxpayers pay to put Humpty together again. And we do legislate the wearing of seatbelts for all, with strict fines and long lectures for failure to do it, and the same argument as above, that accident injuries can be much worse in cases where people were unrestrained.

As you say, though, and I agree, does not freedom demand nuance rather than letter of the law?

It's a thorny issue, similar in ways to the laws in Quebec against women wearing face veils. (Maybe I shouldn't bring that up). An advanced society (which we purport to be) should surely be able to handle the inarguable facts that we aren't all the same, the world is smaller than ever and it's in our own best interests to budge over a bit and make room for others. *I* wouldn't ride a bike without a helmet (sometimes I shouldn't walk down the pavement without one) but how much should my viewpoints and choices and beliefs govern absolutely everybody else?

I know it's largely a question of safety in the motorcycle example. But it's all too easy to devolve into intolerance if not frank racism.

And so we kind of go around in circles. (In the case of Quebec and the women with the veils, my question was why did we admit them into Canada only to say they're not OK as is? Shoulda said it before. Let them make the choice rather than having to cope with a retroactive ban that so personally and seriously affects their lives and beliefs, even if we don't understand them or agree or care about them).

(Are we Off Topic yet?!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2018 08:10PM by Nightingale.

Another thoughtful post.

I'd suggest there is a difference between a helmet and a seat belt. A helmet interferes with a Sikh's religious practice whereas a seat belt does not--at least as far as I know, curtail anyone's religious freedom.

The press, speech, association, belief: they are all related, which is why they are protected in the same constitutional amendment. If someone decides that religion is subordinate to society's convenience, she paves the way for restrictions on the media, speech, and association, which can be equally bothersome to the majority.

As you intimate, we live in a time when society and the state are in the ascendant. The state is "favoured by all too many, some not that far away." It is perhaps too easy for us agnostics, atheists, and other malcontents to forget that religion is part of a cluster of rights that are as critical to us and the lives we want to live as to anyone else.

LW: Agree re difference between helmets/seatbelts. I was thinking only of the reason of "safety" given for mandating use of both. But as you say, there is more than one consideration. Not too much is only one-dimensional with laws and rights.

Absolutely agree re the "cluster of rights". Have to think of every ramification before mandating absolutes.

Sikh's are not allowed to carry a kirpan on their body or in their carry on luggage through airport security. It must be in the checked baggage.

"As of 2016, the TSA explicitly prohibits the carrying of "religious knives and swords" on one's person or in cabin baggage and requires that they be packed in checked baggage.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan

Why can't helmet manufacturers make helmets that fit over turbans? They would be expensive, but kosher hotdogs are expensive. The expense is not our problem, it's theirs.

For that matter, why can't the helmet be considered a motorcycle turban? Sikhs arbitrarily made up their rules. They can arbitrarily modify them. See polygamy, Mormon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2018 08:51AM by Brother Of Jerry.

Maybe nobody has asked? I don’t think it would work well though because it wouldn’t give a snug fit.

Polygamy hurts innocents and children. Turbans don't.

For their own safety, no matter what the law allows.

I await a court case about a dude wearing a colander claiming membership in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster giving him a free pass on the helmet law....

Funny, but they had no problem with allowing Sikh paratroopers during World War 2 being allowed to wear turbans instead of helmets.

My greatest hope is they ride motorcycles way better than they drive semi trucks...I wonder if there's an express license for bikes too