Sikh Queenslanders allowed to carry ceremonial knives in schools after court ruling

[Treks]

Hi Esteban. You're understanding is close! Khalsa Sikhs are supposed to defend anyone who can't defend themselves. Sikh or non-Sikh.

Here's more about the kirpan specifically What is a Kirpan? - Blog Post

 

[Glaurung]

So what about Christian sects that claim guns are part of their culture, ceremonial guns? It will be interesting to see how it all plays out i guess

Such a claim would be disingenuous and thus rejected out of hand.

I think all they would need is for a declaration from a religious leader that it is a mandatory aspect of their religion. I don't know of any, but I dont see anything stopping pro-gun religious leaders from retrospectively making such a declaration in light of this new interpretation of the law.

It's called acting in good faith. Such a declaration would be silly and not taken seriously.

Anyone can claim anything, sure... But that is not a good argument against religious exemption laws.

 

[Koldo]

Wasn't sure if this belongs in religious news or political debates, but I suppose the mods can move it if necessary;

'Sikh Queenslanders allowed to carry ceremonial knives in schools after court ruling​

The Kirpan resembles a small, blunt sword that is usually worn beneath clothing...
...Carrying knives in public places and schools in Queensland was subject to a blanket ban — until this week.'

Source: A Queensland court just allowed some people to carry knives in schools. Here's why

So basically from what I gather as a student you are only allowed to carry a knife in queensland schools for religious reasons after the courts overturned an earlier decision.

The article notes that the Sikh kirpan is blunt, but if it mentioned that there is a requirement for religious weapons to be blunt I must have missed it.

Since I am opposed to religious exemptions of any kind, shape or form, I most certainly do not approve this.

 

[danieldemol]

Such a claim would be disingenuous and thus rejected out of hand.

But who are you to say which parts of another sects teachings are disingenuous? It is religious leaders who make rulings on which teachings are authentic parts of their sect's teaching by religious decree, that is all that happened with the Sikhs 300 years ago, their religious leader (Guru) made a teaching that that was part of sikh teaching and it became so in my opinion.

The government can rule on whether it wishes to respect such religious requirements or not, but to rule whether such religious requirements are disingenous seems to amount to the government concerning itself with establishing or disestablishing religious teaching - which I understand would be outside of it's role in Australia.

 

[Koldo]

Such a claim would be disingenuous and thus rejected out of hand.


It's called acting in good faith. Such a declaration would be silly and not taken seriously.

Anyone can claim anything, sure... But that is not a good argument against religious exemption laws.

But the declaration that one must always carry a knife for religious reasons is silly and yet taken seriously. People tend to respect silly declarations much more when they become the tradition of some group though.

 

[Glaurung]

But who are you to say which parts of another sects teachings are disingenuous?

Common sense and reason.

It is religious leaders who make rulings on which teachings are authentic parts of their sect's teaching by religious decree, that is all that happened with the Sikhs 300 years ago, their religious leader (Guru) made a teaching that that was part of sikh teaching and it became so in my opinion.

Sikhism is an established religious tradition. Their desire to wear the Kirpan as an obligation of their faith is clearly sincere and historically established.

The government can rule on whether it wishes to respect such religious requirements or not, but to rule whether such religious requirements are disingenous seems to amount to the government concerning itself with establishing or disestablishing religious teaching - which I understand would be outside of it's role in Australia.

If the Sikhs suddenly pushed for talwar swords, I would object on the grounds that Sikhs have long traded it for the dagger. Likewise, if a Christian group claimed that wielding AR-15s was a religious obligation I would laugh it out of the court room because such a claim would be absurd on its face. This idea that allowing reasonable accommodations for bona fide religious commitments somehow opens us up to any and all claims no matter how absurd is being ridiculous.

 

[Glaurung]

But the declaration that one must always carry a knife for religious reasons is silly and yet taken seriously. People tend to respect silly declarations much more when they become the tradition of some group though.

I agree it's silly. So is circumcision and ritually slaughtered meat. But Sikhism and Judaism are well established religious traditions. They have the right to exist. Jews and Sikhs are not 'making it up' as they go along.

 

[Treks]

Ironically, Sikhs do not practise circumcision, and initiated Sikhs are forbidden from eating meat that is slaughtered according to Islamic ritual.

 

[Treks]

Also, initiated Sikhs carrying kirpan is not silly when you consider where the tradition came from.

Go learn something about Sikh history and get back to me, Koldo.

 

[Koldo]

I agree it's silly. So is circumcision and ritually slaughtered meat. But Sikhism and Judaism are well established religious traditions.

And that's the root of the problem: People often readily excuse tradition just because it is... tradition.

Why shouldn't a guy that wants to create a new religion or a new branch in any given religion be entitled to the same rights?

There is no actual reason. And since this would allow for the most outlandish things, we are better off not making room for religious exemptions.

They have the right to exist. Jews and Sikhs are not 'making it up' as they go along.

Banishing certain practices does not threaten the entire existence of Judaism and Sikhism.

 

[Koldo]

Also, initiated Sikhs carrying kirpan is not silly when you consider where the tradition came from.

Go learn something about Sikh history and get back to me, Koldo.

I am well aware of this tradition's history. Carrying the kirpan is not silly. Likewise, it is not silly to carry a gun. What I have called silly is the requirement to always carry the kirpan.

 

[Treks]

Fair enough.

 

[Glaurung]

And that's the root of the problem: People often readily excuse tradition just because it is... tradition.

Why shouldn't a guy that wants to create a new religion or a new branch in any given religion be entitled to the same rights?

There is no actual reason. And since this would allow for the most outlandish things, we are better off not making room for religious exemptions.

You may not like it, but tradition is a valid reason to maintain a practice. Unless a tradition is manifestly evil (like FGM) then I am content to allow reasonable accommodations for good faith religious observance. As for allowing people to just make up new 'religious obligations' that would lead to absurdity.

Banishing certain practices does not threaten the entire existence of Judaism and Sikhism.

To ban circumcision (without a religious exemption) would be a functional outlawing of non-negotiable Jewish practice. Whether or not the Kirpan is as non-negotiable to Sikhs as circumcision is to Jews is not a question I care about either way, but I'm not going to resent the concession of allowing them to wear it in public.

 

[syo]

I did when I lived in Papua New Guinea.

Excellent!!!

 

[Koldo]

You may not like it, but tradition is a valid reason to maintain a practice. Unless a tradition is manifestly evil (like FGM) then I am content to allow reasonable accommodations for good faith religious observance.

A valid reason in whose book? Not in mine.

As for allowing people to just make up new 'religious obligations' that would lead to absurdity.

Too late. It already got absurd.

To ban circumcision (without a religious exemption) would be a functional outlawing of non-negotiable Jewish practice. Whether or not the Kirpan is as non-negotiable to Sikhs as circumcision is to Jews is not a question I don't care about either way, but I'm not going to resent the concession of allowing them to wear it in public.

If I call one of my practices non-negotiable, am I also entitled to it?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Wasn't sure if this belongs in religious news or political debates, but I suppose the mods can move it if necessary;

'Sikh Queenslanders allowed to carry ceremonial knives in schools after court ruling​

The Kirpan resembles a small, blunt sword that is usually worn beneath clothing...
...Carrying knives in public places and schools in Queensland was subject to a blanket ban — until this week.'

Source: A Queensland court just allowed some people to carry knives in schools. Here's why

So basically from what I gather as a student you are only allowed to carry a knife in queensland schools for religious reasons after the courts overturned an earlier decision.

The article notes that the Sikh kirpan is blunt, but if it mentioned that there is a requirement for religious weapons to be blunt I must have missed it.

I'm strongly cautious of religiously based exceptions to established laws in a secular country. This seems to be a reasonable accomodation, from what I have read, but it will be interesting to see what the court decides are ramifications of this ruling.

Some countries have considered banning medically unnecessary circumcision of infants (a proposal I'm ambivalent about for multiple reasons). Should people whose religions mandate circumcision be exempted from such a law if it passed? What about exempting the adhan (Islamic call to prayer) from laws that limit public noise?

Granted, this is much less consequential than allowing or banning infant circumcision, but I'm looking forward to seeing what the court has to say about the ramifications of the ruling.

 

[Audie]

Such a claim would be disingenuous and thus rejected out of hand.


It's called acting in good faith. Such a declaration would be silly and not taken seriously.

Anyone can claim anything, sure... But that is not a good argument against religious exemption laws.

Winner frubal

 

[Audie]

I'm strongly cautious of religiously based exceptions to established laws in a secular country. This seems to be a reasonable accomodation, from what I have read, but it will be interesting to see what the court decides are ramifications of this ruling.

Some countries ban circumcision of infants, and I agree with that. Should people whose religions mandate circumcision be exempted from the law? What about exempting the adhan (Islamic call to prayer) from laws that limit public noise?

Granted, this is much less consequential than allowing infant circumcision, but I'm looking forward to seeing what the court has to say about the ramifications of the ruling.

Tough to separate religion from cultural tradition.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Tough to separate religion from cultural tradition.

I agree, and I think reasonable accommodation of harmless religious practices is an essential part of any secular democracy. The extent of the exemptions seems to me a complicated issue to settle, though, and I suspect that it needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. I don't think anyone should be exempted on a religious basis from a ban on medically unnecessary infant circumcision if such a ban passed, for example, or from bans on certain slaughter methods. But in this situation, the exemption seems to be highly conditional (since it applies to a small minority of Sikhs) and also highly specific because, from what I gather from the article, students can still be forbidden from carrying knives, so this exemption sounds like it applies mostly or exclusively to adults.

One thing I will say is that I trust Australian courts to be much more consistent about this than the current SCOTUS. I have little doubt that Australian courts would grant reasonable accommodation to, say, Satanists or Neopagans if a need arose, but I can't say I would trust the current SCOTUS to do the same if a case involving either group were put before them.

 

[Secret Chief]

What??? Why???

Godnose. What's wrong with carrying a weapon around? Crazy.