Religious Headgear in Austria

[Revoltingest]

I do not think that religious accomodation was any issue in this case. If I encounter such a man, I will be a bit circumspect. That i why I asked whether Revolingest would take him as tenant or not?

Actually, under fair housing laws, I am legally bound to not consider his religion or its expression, so long as it does no harm.
So, yes, I'd rent to him...providing he qualifies.
I'd have more leeway if he were a non-residential tenant, but I'd still lease to him. You'd be amazed at some of the odd ducks who become my tenants.

 

[Breathe]

So you want the government to engage in the business of deciding the hierarchy of authority among the various leaders of a religion?

Not quite: important members of the religious community aren't picked by the government, are they?

So you think that any Muslim who believes that a niqab is a religious requirement is just plain wrong?

In a word, yes.

However, correct me if I'm wrong, but they're not strictly a religious obligation, are they? AFAIK, the obligation isn't to wear a turban; it's to leave one's hair uncut, and the turban is just a way to keep long hair neat and out of the way, right?

The turban is a requirement amongst those who keep kesh.

Who are you to say that this expression is worthless?

Someone using his freedom of expression to say I disagree.

Does someone else get to judge your forms of expression?

People can and do. I don't mind. I could not care any less than I do what people think or say about my religious beliefs.

The strainer on that guy's head in the photo wouldn't prevent a cop from determining whether he's driving under someone else's licence when he gets pulled over, and wouldn't allow his ID to be used to let someone else vote in his name.

I couldn't care about how he wears a strainer on his head. If he wishes to appear as an idiot, that is his prerogative. However, claiming it is for religious reasons is childish and pathetic, and not something I expect from an adult any more than I expect an adult to pull his eyes and say "Ching chong ching" at a person of East Asian descent.

I don't see any legitimate reason to demand that a Sikh remove his turban in these sorts of cases. However, I also don't see any legitimate reason to demand that someone remove any sort of headgear in those sorts of cases, so long as it doesn't obscure a person's identity.

Good.

If there is a clear, beneficial purpose to society in making people in general wear helmets on motorcycles, then there's a clear, beneficial purpose to society in making Siks wear them, too, I think.

It's impossible to fit a helmet over a turban. For a Sikh to use a motorcycle if he had to wear a helmet, it would take him a lot of time to re-tie his turban.

Now... I recognize that the kirpan is also meaningful to observant Sikhs. So, as long as your kirpan and my knife are treated the same under the law, and as long as they're only prohibited in cases where it's objectively justified, I'm fine with the rules. I realize that there are some situations where weapons are inappropriate... even ineffective, symbolic and personally significant weapons.

However, I do object to situations where a Sikh is allowed to carry his kirpan but I'm not allowed to carry my knife.

But the kirpān is NOT just "a symbol" to Sikhs. It's an important part of the Sikh identity and costume. ALL Amritdharis are required to keep the panjkake at all times, that is part of the Amritdhari vow. It's not just a case of it being something personal and meaningful to them.

 

[Breathe]

I beg to differ, Odion. Your suggestion still puts the government in the rather unpleasant (and IMO unnecessary) position of having to decide which religions are true or important enough to deserve recognition, as well as who should be allowed to speak for them.

I have no idea where this idea comes from, because it wasn't really my intention to say that the government should decide which religions are true or not. It was to suggest the government organising a get-together of high ranking, important and well respected sheikhs from across the nation to decide on a scholarly consensus on what the hijab is considered as within that country.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no idea where this idea comes from, because it wasn't really my intention to say that the government should decide which religions are true or not. It was to suggest the government organising a get-together of high ranking, important and well respected sheikhs from across the nation to decide on a scholarly consensus on what the hijab is considered as within that country.

How would the government decide whom to exclude?
Yer giving the government an awful lot of authority here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I couldn't care about how he wears a strainer on his head. If he wishes to appear as an idiot, that is his prerogative. However, claiming it is for religious reasons is childish and pathetic, and not something I expect from an adult any more than I expect an adult to pull his eyes and say "Ching chong ching" at a person of East Asian descent.

I disagree.

It's impossible to fit a helmet over a turban. For a Sikh to use a motorcycle if he had to wear a helmet, it would take him a lot of time to re-tie his turban.

Nobody has to ride a motorcycle. Freedom of religion does not include the obligation of the world around you to adjust to your religious beliefs. If a Sikh finds it too onerous to wear a helmet while riding his motorcycle, he can trade his motorcycle in for a car.

But the kirpān is NOT just "a symbol" to Sikhs. It's an important part of the Sikh identity and costume. ALL Amritdharis are required to keep the panjkake at all times, that is part of the Amritdhari vow. It's not just a case of it being something personal and meaningful to them.

It sounds like it's a good description of the situation to me, but regardless, a few things occur to me:

- if we were talking about a religious obligation interfering with a secular obligation (for instance, when a child is legally obligated to attend school and religiously obligated to do something that goes against the school's rules, such as carry a weapon), then I agree that we'd have to find some way to resolve the conflict. However, from what I gather, since there's no set age for the Amrit ceremony, a Sikh youth could simply wait until he's done school to go through the ceremony. No conflict need occur.

- outside of these cases where a person is legally obligated to do something, a person can always resolve the conflict by not participating in whatever it is that generates the conflict: if elementary schools don't allow weapons (including your kirpan), don't get a job as a teacher; if your turban prevents you from wearing a hard hat, don't get a job in construction. There are other options open, so to a certain extent, any conflict is self-created.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not quite: important members of the religious community aren't picked by the government, are they?

But that's the situation you'd set up.

Say you get all the local imams in a room to decide whether the hijab really is necessary. They don't come to an agreement. What do you do now?

The views are in conflict, so one must prevail over the other. Whichever one you choose, you're implicitly endorsing one religious view and dismissing another.

Not to mention this, but with the approach you suggested, you're also implicitly saying that the local imams have legitimate religious authority over the local average Muslims.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no idea where this idea comes from, because it wasn't really my intention to say that the government should decide which religions are true or not. It was to suggest the government organising a get-together of high ranking, important and well respected sheikhs from across the nation to decide on a scholarly consensus on what the hijab is considered as within that country.

But in doing so:

- by deciding which sheiks to invite and which ones not to invite, you endorse the legitimacy of some but not others.
- by endorsing the finding of the get-together and using it as the basis for your interpretation of secular law, you implicitly uphold these people as authorities.
- by deciding that their decision should be applicable to all Muslims within that country, you implicitly declare that they have legitimate authority over the Muslims there.

This approach effectively declares a number of religious approaches to be invalid, or at least less legitimate. For instance, what about a Muslim who arrives at her decisions about practice by earnest study of the Quran and prayer, not recognizing any sheik or imam as an authority? Say she comes to the decision that a hijab is necessary; who are you to say that her decision based on her own personal religious convictions should be overruled by some group of Muslim scholars?

 

[Falvlun]

But the kirpān is NOT just "a symbol" to Sikhs. It's an important part of the Sikh identity and costume. ALL Amritdharis are required to keep the panjkake at all times, that is part of the Amritdhari vow. It's not just a case of it being something personal and meaningful to them.

I do not understand why religious beliefs and practices should be given such deferential treatment, that is not extended to other beliefs and practices. What if Penguin promised his father that he would carry that army knife with him everywhere? Why should he have to break his vow, but you get to keep yours?

 

[Breathe]

Why should he have to break his vow, but you get to keep yours?

Personal obligation counts for less than it does for religious obligation in the real world.

Got a problem? Take it up with the government, and not with us.

 

[Breathe]

How would the government decide whom to exclude?
Yer giving the government an awful lot of authority here.

Not at all - that is your assumption that I am giving the government that much authority.

I suppose you could go by power, or number of worshippers, or something like that, or you could have them all together for a big meet-up to discuss such things.

 

[Breathe]

I disagree.

I disagree with your disagreement. I don't feel this discussion will be productive, which is why I haven't replied.

Nobody has to ride a motorcycle. Freedom of religion does not include the obligation of the world around you to adjust to your religious beliefs. If a Sikh finds it too onerous to wear a helmet while riding his motorcycle, he can trade his motorcycle in for a car.

In short, you have said:ban turbaned Sikhs from motorcycles.

I don't feel comfortable with that.

No conflict need occur.

Sounds good. Most Sikhs do not.

- outside of these cases where a person is legally obligated to do something, a person can always resolve the conflict by not participating in whatever it is that generates the conflict: if elementary schools don't allow weapons (including your kirpan), don't get a job as a teacher; if your turban prevents you from wearing a hard hat, don't get a job in construction. There are other options open, so to a certain extent, any conflict is self-created.

IOW: make life difficult for religious Sikhs.

I know this wasn't your plan, but you have come across as rather, mmm, nasty, you know?

What do you do now?

Go with the bigger vote? Do I look like a politician?

- by deciding that their decision should be applicable to all Muslims within that country, you implicitly declare that they have legitimate authority over the Muslims there.

That's the reason for a fatwa - so it's from the Muslims themselves.

Say she comes to the decision that a hijab is necessary; who are you to say that her decision based on her own personal religious convictions should be overruled by some group of Muslim scholars?

I never said it was, so please don't put words in my mouth.




I think we are done here.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not quite: important members of the religious community aren't picked by the government, are they?

Yes in the UK ,Anglican Bishops are selected by the Prime minister from a prepared list.

It's impossible to fit a helmet over a turban. For a Sikh to use a motorcycle if he had to wear a helmet, it would take him a lot of time to re-tie his turban.

They can be taken on and off like a hat... as demonstrated to me by one of our Sikh college professors, when I suggested it must take ages to fold a turban in the morning... They play games with out the Turban and their hair tied in a cloth topnot.

Cricketers wear their helmet over this.
[/quote]

 

[Kathryn]

Too many laws, TOO MANY LAWS! I have two words for this mentality - "Nanny State."

If people don't want to wear helmets on motorcycles, let them take their own life into their own hands. If people don't want to wear seatbelts, same thing. Now - minors are a different matter. I don't believe that parents should have the right to be irresponsible with their childrens' health and wellbeing, but adults should have the right to be make their own decisions about their own health and wellbeing.

Here are some good quotes, by people much smarter than me, which sum up my feelings:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers." Ayn Rand

"Many laws as certainly make bad men, as bad men make many laws." ~Walter Savage Landor​

"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice." ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.​

​

"Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves." ~Author Unknown

"Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government." ~Pierre Joseph Proudhon​

"The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation." ~Emma Goldman​

The only time headgear should be outlawed is when the safety or rights of others are compromised by the person wearing the headgear.​

Keep the religious question out of it. The state has no right determining the legitimacy of religious expression.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Too many laws, TOO MANY LAWS! I have two words for this mentality - "Nanny State."

If people don't want to wear helmets on motorcycles, let them take their own life into their own hands. If people don't want to wear seatbelts, same thing. Now - minors are a different matter. I don't believe that parents should have the right to be irresponsible with their childrens' health and wellbeing, but adults should have the right to be make their own decisions about their own health and wellbeing.

I recognize this viewpoint (though I disagree with it, at least when it comes to motorcycle helmets), but it doesn't really deal with the issue at hand: you're arguing for no mandatory helmets for anyone, not that helmets should be mandatory for some but not others, which is what we're talking about with these religious exemptions.

IMO, if a religious exemption is reasonable, then it indicates that the law in question probably isn't reasonable. If it really is okay for a Sikh to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, then it should be okay for anyone to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. OTOH, if it's not okay for anyone else to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, then it's probably not okay for a Sikh, either. A Sikh will get just as dead or injured in a crash as a non-Sikh. It doesn't cost the taxpayers any less to treat a Sikh than anyone else, and a Sikh with a severe brain injury doesn't create any less of a burden on his family than a non-Sikh in the same condition.

 

[Breathe]

Yes in the UK ,Anglican Bishops are selected by the Prime minister from a prepared list.

True, but I was thinking more along the lines of a republic or something.

They can be taken on and off like a hat... as demonstrated to me by one of our Sikh college professors, when I suggested it must take ages to fold a turban in the morning...

That sounds more like a quick invention and not the actual tying turban, considering most turbans have to be re-tied to be worn. A turban is also supposed to be tied every day.

Removing the turban, even if possible for a turban that seems to be wearable like a hat as opposed to being tied, is considered inappropriate and very offensive and should not to be removed. Bhai Randir Singh went on hunger strike for the freedom to wear a turban in prison. Many Sikhs have refused to remove their turbans. What you have described does not fit into my experience with the dastār, either from having one tied and worn, or from experience with almost all turban wearing Sikhs.

This may be worth reading:

Q: Is a turban a kind of hat?
A: No, unlike a hat – a turban cannot be casually put on or taken off. It has to be retied, one turn at a time, each time it is taken off.

Q: Do Sikhs take off their turbans in public?
A: It is considered very disgraceful to take off a turban in public. Sikhs feel very offended if somebody takes off their turban or asks them to remove it.

Q: Is a turban a religious requirement or a social custom?
A: Sikhs don’t cut their hair, because they like to live the way God has created them. The turban is to cover the hair – so it is also a religious requirement. It is not a social custom.

http://www.infoaboutsikhs.com/faqs1.htm

 

[Revoltingest]

Q: Is a turban a religious requirement or a social custom?
A: Sikhs don’t cut their hair, because they like to live the way God has created them. The turban is to cover the hair – so it is also a religious requirement. It is not a social custom.FAQs

Every Sikh I've worked with had trimmed finger nails. (They never showed me their toenails though.) So they
make concessions to practicality. The line between religious & social customs is blurry & flexible when needed.

I'd prefer that any accommodation offered to believers of one religion should be offered to all.
It ain't a perfect solution, but it's simple & fair, with less potential for government mischief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In short, you have said:ban turbaned Sikhs from motorcycles.

I don't feel comfortable with that.

No, I'm saying that because of the laws of physics and the physiology of human beings, it's not safe to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and it's within the purview of responsible government to demand that all motorcyclists conduct themselves safely, whether they're Sikh or not.

Sounds good. Most Sikhs do not.

Okay - so you agree that elementary and high school weapons bans don't infringe on any religious obligations of Sikhs, even if kirpans are covered under the ban?

IOW: make life difficult for religious Sikhs.

I know this wasn't your plan, but you have come across as rather, mmm, nasty, you know?

I'm not trying to be nasty; I'm just trying to look at things rationally.

Look at it this way: do you think that it's reasonable to require hard hats on construction sites in general? If so, doesn't this make it unreasonable to exempt Sikhs?

And if you think the rule isn't reasonable, then why wouldn't you ask for hard hats to be made optional for everyone? If a Sikh doesn't really need one, then why would anyone?

And just to bring this back on topic a bit: I'm not just thinking about Sikhs; I'm thinking of religious exemptions in general.

For instance, there was a case in Toronto recently involving the Church of the Universe, a religious group that considers marijuana to be a sacrament. They were fighting the fact that there are no religious exemptions for marijuana use in Canadian law... they lost.

Now... if the legal standard is that Church of the Universe members don't get to smoke pot (despite believing that they are religiously obliged to do so), why should we grant an exemption to workplace safety rules for Sikhs... a measure that probably has more potential for harm associated with it than letting Church of the Universe members smoke their marijuana?

Edit: we're still left with the problem of figuring out how to handle religious exemptions. AFAICT, there are three general options:

1. give religious exemptions to all, including not only Sikhs, Jews and Muslims, but also the Church of the Universe and the guy with the colander on his head.
2. give religious exemptions to some, placing the government in the position of being the judge of what is or isn't a "valid" religion.
3. give religious exemptions to none.

You've voiced your objection to options 1 and 3. Option 2 gives my inner libertarian the screaming heebie-jeebies. What's left?

That's the reason for a fatwa - so it's from the Muslims themselves.

You say that as if "the Muslims" are one homogenous group who all think and act the same. Don't you think that room should be provided for different Muslims to have different views?

I never said it was, so please don't put words in my mouth.

That wasn't my intent; I'm just trying to figure out what your argument is.

 

[Breathe]

Every Sikh I've worked with had trimmed finger nails. (They never showed me their toenails though.) So they
make concessions to practicality. The line between religious & social customs is blurry & flexible when needed.

Hair =/= Fingernails. Baptised Sikhs keep unshorn hair, not fingernails.

I could explain why, but it'd be time consuming, and frankly I don't see a point in explaining something which will take me a long time and will be ignored.

 

[Breathe]

Okay - so you agree that elementary and high school weapons bans don't infringe on any religious obligations of Sikhs, even if kirpans are covered under the ban?

I don't feel comfortable with people being told they cannot take a religious ceremony until they are of a certain age - plus, at what age should they be permitted? Should they be allowed them in college?

I do NOT agree with the idea of forbidding Sikhs from becoming teachers.

Let the Sikhs keep their kirpāns, that is my belief.

Now... if the legal standard is that Church of the Universe members don't get to smoke pot (despite believing that they are religiously obliged to do so), why should we grant an exemption to workplace safety rules for Sikhs... a measure that probably has more potential for harm associated with it than letting Church of the Universe members smoke their marijuana?

The Sikh turban affect others. The smell of marijuana can be felt by others.

You've voiced your objection to options 1 and 3. Option 2 gives my inner libertarian the screaming heebie-jeebies. What's left?

Personally, I prefer 2.

Otherwise, you can have people making religions to gain exemption from the law for pretty much anything.

You say that as if "the Muslims" are one homogenous group who all think and act the same.

Please don't claim that is what I have said. It is not, nor was that implied by what I wrote. As I live in an area with a large Muslim population and have spoken to many Muslims, I know this is not the case.

If I am honest, I found the way you wrote this to be quite offensive, not to mention in the previous post you mentioned Sikhs should be prohibited from working as teachers.


I don't feel comfortable discussing this further, with anyone, so I will withdraw from this thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't feel comfortable with people being told they cannot take a religious ceremony until they are of a certain age - plus, at what age should they be permitted? Should they be allowed them in college?

I was allowed to carry my Swiss Army knife in college, so I don't see why a Sikh wouldn't be allowed to carry his kirpan in college as well.

I do NOT agree with the idea of forbidding Sikhs from becoming teachers.

Let the Sikhs keep their kirpāns, that is my belief.

So... do you disagree with "no weapons" policies for schools generally?

The Sikh turban affect others. The smell of marijuana can be felt by others.

The smell of marijuana on someone's clothes as they walk out of a Church of the Universe service would no more affect me than the smell of incense on the clothes of a Catholic as they walk out of a Mass where it was used. If that's where you set the bar for where religious accommodation becomes unreasonable, then most of what you're asking for would be far, far above it.

And Sikh turbans can affect others. For instance, if I'm the owner of a construction company, if my Sikh employee, not wearing a hard hat, gets hit in the head by a falling wrench and has to make a WSIB claim, then it will affect my rates. It will mean real money - potentially quite a bit of money - out of pocket for me.

Or for the Sikh motorcyclist... here's an example of how his turban can affect others: earlier this year, I was one of the first on the scene for a motorcycle collision on the freeway. The bike was destroyed, but the rider was wearing the proper safety gear (including a helmet) and actually walked away with only a few bruises. He and his friends quickly grabbed his bike and pulled it onto the shoulder so it was out of the way of traffic.

OTOH, if he hadn't been wearing a helmet, I have no doubt that he would have been seriously injured or killed. If that happened, nobody would have been clearing anything out of the way for hours as emergency crews responded and blocked off several lanes of the highway.

This would have created significant potential for secondary collisions as the traffic behind came to a stop.

So... the things you're asking for have the potential to affect the pocketbook and the life and limb of others. Are they really reasonable exemptions to ask for?

Personally, I prefer 2.

Otherwise, you can have people making religions to gain exemption from the law for pretty much anything.

You get rid of that problem with option 3, too.

But option 2 doesn't work unless you have some way of telling the "valid" religions apart from the "invalid" ones. What are your criteria for whether a religious belief is "valid" to the point where it should be accommodated with exemptions from normal laws?

Please don't claim that is what I have said. It is not, nor was that implied by what I wrote. As I live in an area with a large Muslim population and have spoken to many Muslims, I know this is not the case.

Then what does the opinion of the local imams have to do with anything?

If I am honest, I found the way you wrote this to be quite offensive, not to mention in the previous post you mentioned Sikhs should be prohibited from working as teachers.

I never said that Sikhs should be prohibited from working as teachers. My position is that any person (provided they're qualified, of course) should be able to work as a teacher on an equal basis. IMO, Sikhs - just like anyone else - are welcome as teachers provided they meet some basic requirements, such as leaving weapons at home.

There are companies and industries where I wouldn't be able to work because my conscience conflicts with the requirements of the job. I don't ask that those businesses change to suit me; I just accept it and work where I feel comfortable. I don't see this as unreasonable.