Religious accommodation...how far does it go?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You should realize how passionate people are on religion. I still maintain its your responsibility to protect yourself, not another's as harsh as that may sound. I see no resolution other than one own responsibility for themselves.

Really? When was the last time you were lying in a long-term care home, unable to move, unable to fend people off -- and how exactly did you "protect yourself?"

Oh, were you ever fresh out of surgery in the recovery room? Did you have your gun with you so you could (if you were quite out of the anesthesia yet) shoot anybody who got close to you?

Can you think about people whose circumstances aren't exactly like your own?

And if you can, why don't you?

It comes back to asking if you are your brother's keeper? A bit more complicated as it turns out I think.

Odd thing, since I have no religion at all (not even "philosophical Buddhism") that my answer is, "yes, when my brother is incapacitated and unable to fend for himself, then I am his keeper."

I wish more religious people would think like that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That basically. We shouldn't have to cater to people who can't upfront perform the job due to such things. These people should know upfront the position will conflict with their beliefs, and they should understand they are not entitled to make the world change and cater to them. ESPECIALLY when it comes to a deadly virus.
It's garbage like this that gives freedom of religion a very bad name.

Exactly! What if there were a religion that demanded that you don't clean under your fingernails or wash your hands? (It's certainly possible -- no weirder than not shaving!) Do you think they should be the chefs and prep cooks in your favourite restaurants?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Really? When was the last time you were lying in a long-term care home, unable to move, unable to fend people off -- and how exactly did you "protect yourself?"

Oh, were you ever fresh out of surgery in the recovery room? Did you have your gun with you so you could (if you were quite out of the anesthesia yet) shoot anybody who got close to you?

Can you think about people whose circumstances aren't exactly like your own?

And if you can, why don't you?

Odd thing, since I have no religion at all (not even "philosophical Buddhism") that my answer is, "yes, when my brother is incapacitated and unable to fend for himself, then I am his keeper."

I wish more religious people would think like that.

Let's say in a long term care home, a Sikh was taking care of another Sikh? Both have strong religious views. Should one be forced to wear a mask? Or both?

It's funny no one sees the options either. Elective of course imv.

Like this one....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's an interesting little conundrum, happening right now in the city of Toronto.

City employees, in some situations, for the protection of the vulnerable who depend on city-delivered services, are required to wear N95 masks. Medical science has established that this can reduce the spread of viruses, and where there are vulnerable (elderly or immune-compromised) people, this is seen as important.

However, it is also well established that N95 masks lose a great deal -- or almost all -- of their protective capacity when worn on a face with facial hair, and especially with a full beard. Thus, Toronto's rules state that the N95 masks must be worn over clean-shaven faces in such circumstances.

Thus, many Sikhs in such roles in Toronto have been taken out of the roles that they were in, and either put on paid leave or assigned elsewhere, because their religious beliefs forbid them to remove their beards.

The World Sikh Organization (WSO) of Canada is lobbying for them to be returned to their jobs, regardless of their shaven status.

There is a summer wave of the virus coming, driven by a new variant, and this is well known. Unprotected, vulnerable people will die. This is also a certainty.

How do you resolve it?

A bit of context: the employees (or employees of a contractor, actually) were security guards in City-run congregate care facilities.

The "clean shaven" policy has been rescinded, but the guards with beards are required to have a cloth or latex undercovering around their beard, and close-fitting respirators are still required in any facility with an outbreak.

Toronto changes 'clean-shave' masking policy after Sikh advocacy group lodges complaint

 

[F1fan]

Here's an interesting little conundrum, happening right now in the city of Toronto.

City employees, in some situations, for the protection of the vulnerable who depend on city-delivered services, are required to wear N95 masks. Medical science has established that this can reduce the spread of viruses, and where there are vulnerable (elderly or immune-compromised) people, this is seen as important.

However, it is also well established that N95 masks lose a great deal -- or almost all -- of their protective capacity when worn on a face with facial hair, and especially with a full beard. Thus, Toronto's rules state that the N95 masks must be worn over clean-shaven faces in such circumstances.

Thus, many Sikhs in such roles in Toronto have been taken out of the roles that they were in, and either put on paid leave or assigned elsewhere, because their religious beliefs forbid them to remove their beards.

The World Sikh Organization (WSO) of Canada is lobbying for them to be returned to their jobs, regardless of their shaven status.

There is a summer wave of the virus coming, driven by a new variant, and this is well known. Unprotected, vulnerable people will die. This is also a certainty.

How do you resolve it?

If they really, really want to do the work have them test daily, so at least they can be cleared as safe.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thus, many Sikhs in such roles in Toronto have been taken out of the roles that they were in, and either put on paid leave or assigned elsewhere, because their religious beliefs forbid them to remove their beards.
The World Sikh Organization (WSO) of Canada is lobbying for them to be returned to their jobs, regardless of their shaven status.
How do you resolve it?

Nothing to resolve. They have already done that commendably. What more can Toronto do?
WSO's demand is wrong.It is political black-mail.
BTW, Are Sikhs the only unshaven people in Toronto?

 

[firedragon]

Here's an interesting little conundrum, happening right now in the city of Toronto.

City employees, in some situations, for the protection of the vulnerable who depend on city-delivered services, are required to wear N95 masks. Medical science has established that this can reduce the spread of viruses, and where there are vulnerable (elderly or immune-compromised) people, this is seen as important.

However, it is also well established that N95 masks lose a great deal -- or almost all -- of their protective capacity when worn on a face with facial hair, and especially with a full beard. Thus, Toronto's rules state that the N95 masks must be worn over clean-shaven faces in such circumstances.

Thus, many Sikhs in such roles in Toronto have been taken out of the roles that they were in, and either put on paid leave or assigned elsewhere, because their religious beliefs forbid them to remove their beards.

The World Sikh Organization (WSO) of Canada is lobbying for them to be returned to their jobs, regardless of their shaven status.

There is a summer wave of the virus coming, driven by a new variant, and this is well known. Unprotected, vulnerable people will die. This is also a certainty.

How do you resolve it?

Conundrum indeed. My take is, the country law should be abided by. Especially if it's a health hazard or what ever term is appropriate. This is not an infringement of free speech or something like that in my personal opinion so it is a fair ruling. But I am no expert on this. Just thinking.

But I feel for the Seekhs. I know how important their religious matters are to them.

 

[The Hammer]

Here's an interesting question: why would anybody think God hates cutting hair and beards, but is perfectly okay with fingernails and toenails? It's all freaking keratin, after all.

In my view hair is an extension of ones wisdom and power. Regardless of whether or not it is physically that. Aesthetically that is what it represents and it is important to me.

 

[Clara Tea]

RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION, HOW FAR DOES IT GO?

Here's an interesting little conundrum, happening right now in the city of Toronto.

City employees, in some situations, for the protection of the vulnerable who depend on city-delivered services, are required to wear N95 masks. Medical science has established that this can reduce the spread of viruses, and where there are vulnerable (elderly or immune-compromised) people, this is seen as important.

However, it is also well established that N95 masks lose a great deal -- or almost all -- of their protective capacity when worn on a face with facial hair, and especially with a full beard. Thus, Toronto's rules state that the N95 masks must be worn over clean-shaven faces in such circumstances.

Thus, many Sikhs in such roles in Toronto have been taken out of the roles that they were in, and either put on paid leave or assigned elsewhere, because their religious beliefs forbid them to remove their beards.

The World Sikh Organization (WSO) of Canada is lobbying for them to be returned to their jobs, regardless of their shaven status.

There is a summer wave of the virus coming, driven by a new variant, and this is well known. Unprotected, vulnerable people will die. This is also a certainty.

How do you resolve it?

N95 have valves that spew spit balls into the air, so must not be used for covid. Many states strictly prohibit N95. They protect the user, only, and could be used to block saw dust, etc. Covid masks are designed to prevent the infected from spewing airborne spitballs.

Health of an individual "might" take precedence over religious dogma. Example, some religions prohibit medical intervention to save the life of their sons (his time to be taken to heaven by God), so law enforcement intervenes to save an innocent life needlessly lost.

The pandemic isn't about an individual, it is about all those that covid could spread to. Tens of thousands could be infected, and hundreds killed by religious dogma. Example, many Christian sects insisted that God would protect them, so held public meetings, and many (including pastors) caught covid.

Sensible covid laws should force the bearded (even those with religious protection) from being near the public.

"Do unto others". . . God agrees.

"Thou shalt not kill". . . God agrees.

The Vatican cut off travel (the pope agrees). They lack faith in God to protect them.

The covid pandemic is God's punishment for invading Iraq (Revelation 15).

Electing a Satanic demon (the beast) to the presidency of the United States was a package deal that involved the attack of Iraq, attack of allied Taliban, attempted attack of North Korea (phony orange alerts to scare us into war), and attempted attack of Niger by "trying" to get Ambassador Joseph Wilson to lie us into a war with Niger (W. Bush and Cheney exposed his wife, Valery Plame as a CIA agent as punishment for not lying us into yet another war). Electing a Satanic demon to the presidency of the United States also failed to address the homeless issue, global warming (and allowed greed to overcome common sense about fracking and offshore drilling), and fires (especially California), and drought, and debt, etc. Satan brings a package deal when put in charge.

 

[Clara Tea]

That is probably not a feasible solution either. The workers sound like CNA's and Nurses. Those at the lower end of the medical hierarchy. They are already overworked and underpaid. A suit that covers the body has to be put on taken off and disposed of every time that someone enters and then leaves a room.. It is a big added expense and time in the care of residents. A functioning mask need not be changed all of the time since one's face is not in contact (hopefully) with a resident that needs care. If and when they need to be changed it is a matter of seconds and only a few pennies.

And they probably reversed themselves because the workers needed simply do not exist unless they rely on the Sikh community. CNA jobs are often "immigrant jobs". They are done by people that badly need the money and will work hard doing something that the average American, or in this case Canadian does not want to do.

Unfortunately this may lead to a slight spike in the death rates of the elderly. I am hoping for an updated vaccine. Just like with the flu we will need new vaccines on a regular basis for some time. The cycle of how the Corona virus works is different from that of the flu, so there is still hope for eliminating the virus totally.

We hope for an updated vaccine. We get mutated covid.

 

[Clara Tea]

Hm, perhaps that would work.

W. Bush prepared the US for a bio-war.

He had elaborate nuke and bio bomb shelters for himself. He suggested taping saran wrap to the walls of our homes. Either that would prevent us from breathing or we would breath germs.

Expensive mobile bio-labs were built and distributed throughout the US (to no avail).

No masks were stocked. So, when covid hit, no one was prepared, and the word from experts was that masks were not needed, not even by hospital workers. If the hospital workers went down, what chance did the rest of us have?

Is it a matter of not anticipating problems?

Nope, it is more like not caring about others. Much like the botched rescue (2 weeks after the fact) of the hurricane Katrina disaster. They didn't care if delays cost lives.

Barbara Bush, visiting the hurricane disaster, with bodies floating by, said "they never had it so good."

Unfeeling ivory tower fat cats should not be in charge of our health.

 

[Clara Tea]

Really? When was the last time you were lying in a long-term care home, unable to move, unable to fend people off -- and how exactly did you "protect yourself?"

Oh, were you ever fresh out of surgery in the recovery room? Did you have your gun with you so you could (if you were quite out of the anesthesia yet) shoot anybody who got close to you?

Can you think about people whose circumstances aren't exactly like your own?

And if you can, why don't you?

Odd thing, since I have no religion at all (not even "philosophical Buddhism") that my answer is, "yes, when my brother is incapacitated and unable to fend for himself, then I am his keeper."

I wish more religious people would think like that.

Hmm...handing out guns to those fresh out of anesthesia (kill them pink elephant varmints--oops, that was a nurse).

Long term care facilities are under US and state guidelines (must sit up 15 minutes per day to avoid bedsores. . . and pretty much no other guidelines).

Thus, they languish in their own feces for 24 hours, scream for nurses (to no avail), and beg for pain killers. There are no guidelines for any of this.

 

[Clara Tea]

In my view hair is an extension of ones wisdom and power. Regardless of whether or not it is physically that. Aesthetically that is what it represents and it is important to me.

And hence the worship of wabbits and hares (they are hairy). But, there are some Elmer Fudds who resent them.

 

[1213]

...
How do you resolve it?

I would resolve it so that people should be free. If they don't want to use mask, or want to use it in a wrong way, they should be free to do so. Those who fear the virus, should be free to use more own protection, or stay at home or some other place that they think is safer.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would resolve it so that people should be free. If they don't want to use mask, or want to use it in a wrong way, they should be free to do so. Those who fear the virus, should be free to use more own protection, or stay at home or some other place that they think is safer.

Like guns, eh? People should feel free to shoot them in shopping malls if they like. Those who don't like breaking out in bullet holes should be free to dress in full body armor, or stay home or some other place they think is safer.

Very well thought out, yes.

By the way, "long term care home" IS HOME to the people who live there.

 

[Truth in love]

Here's an interesting little conundrum, happening right now in the city of Toronto.

City employees, in some situations, for the protection of the vulnerable who depend on city-delivered services, are required to wear N95 masks. Medical science has established that this can reduce the spread of viruses, and where there are vulnerable (elderly or immune-compromised) people, this is seen as important.

However, it is also well established that N95 masks lose a great deal -- or almost all -- of their protective capacity when worn on a face with facial hair, and especially with a full beard. Thus, Toronto's rules state that the N95 masks must be worn over clean-shaven faces in such circumstances.

Thus, many Sikhs in such roles in Toronto have been taken out of the roles that they were in, and either put on paid leave or assigned elsewhere, because their religious beliefs forbid them to remove their beards.

The World Sikh Organization (WSO) of Canada is lobbying for them to be returned to their jobs, regardless of their shaven status.

There is a summer wave of the virus coming, driven by a new variant, and this is well known. Unprotected, vulnerable people will die. This is also a certainty.

How do you resolve it?

How about this? For the left leaning we pretend the restriction is a limit on abortions. And we extend the right to choose in religious matters that far.

For the right we pretend it’s a gun right.

the results should solve 95% of the issue.

 

[LuisDantas]

You should realize how passionate people are on religion. I still maintain its your responsibility to protect yourself, not another's as harsh as that may sound. I see no resolution other than one own responsibility for themselves.

It comes back to asking if you are your brother's keeper? A bit more complicated as it turns out I think.

How is the logical conclusion from what you say not that they should be fired and seek employment somewhere where they are not endangering others?

 

[LuisDantas]

Let's say in a long term care home, a Sikh was taking care of another Sikh? Both have strong religious views. Should one be forced to wear a mask? Or both?

It's funny no one sees the options either. Elective of course imv.

Like this one....

Are you truly suggesting that people should be allowed to endanger each other needlessly out of religious conviction?

Isn't that kind of criminal? Or rather, fully criminal?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In my view hair is an extension of ones wisdom and power. Regardless of whether or not it is physically that. Aesthetically that is what it represents and it is important to me.

Okay, I get that -- it's important to you. But then, isn't it you that should be making accomodation, rather than the other way around?

Because there is nothing that science could demonstrate to show some relationship between your hair, and either wisdom or power. In the same way, whatever Sikh's my believe about hair (made of the same stuff as finger and toe nails), there is nothing that could be demonstrated.

I have no objection to making religious accommodation where such accommodation does not have an untoward impact on others that don't happen to share similar beliefs. But when accommodating your beliefs can cause very real harm to others, then I'm afraid I need much more than just "belief" to make me wish to accommodate you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would resolve it so that people should be free. If they don't want to use mask, or want to use it in a wrong way, they should be free to do so. Those who fear the virus, should be free to use more own protection, or stay at home or some other place that they think is safer.

How exactly do you expect patients in a nursing home to do any of that? Not to mention the fact that these patients are already in their homes.