Brisbane Atheists Message Board Brisbane Atheists Meetup Group (BAMG) Discussion Forum › Religious Privileges and Athiests

Religious Privileges and Athiests

MattyP
user 10572749
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 4
And the other thing we're ignoring is "Liberty", and Liberty is important, even when (especially when) the majority do not agree with it.
MattyP
user 10572749
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 5
Anyway, on topic with the Church of my pink unicorn, the trip to work went well on Friday, will try again tomorrow.
I ride past the police headquarters on tank street and the brisbane courthouse to get to work, so this should be interesting.
Marcus
freakvent
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 36
@AlexS
"This is not the sort of special treatment for religious adherents which is concerning."
Maybe not to you, but it is to me. Allowing these sort of things, little by little, is exactly what creeping sharia is about. Go figure.

"At some point, we have to be cognizant of religious points of view, even if they are crazy."
And, at some point we have to be cognizant of bank robbers, murderers, pedophiles and everyone else that chose to do things outside the law. No, we should NOT amend laws to accommodate these sort of things, and religion should not get special treatment.

"Fact is, if you required all people including sikhs to wear helmets rather than their own headwear, then they would break the law (and then you would have martyr-like cases, which are usually better for the religion than others)."
Too much political correctness today. Draw a line, called the law, and what people do is either within the law or not. If it's not, punishment should follow. Martyrs or not.

"Accordingly, chill."
I chill or don't chill depending on what I want, not according to what you or anyone else says.
Marcus
freakvent
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 37
@MattyP

"the research is not really in favour of helmets"
That's beside the point. The point here is that religion, as usual, gets special treatment. Sure, if the research shows it would be better if we don't wear helmets, the law should be changed, for EVERYONE, but it shouldn't be changed to give special privileges to people who happen to come from a different culture. If you chose to live here, you should accept and follow the laws and traditions we have here. It's as simple as that.

Good luck with your religion. Mocking is an excellent way of pointing out how ridiculous even the most established religions are.
AlexS
user 6983727
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 1,142
@Marcus

seems like a bit of overkill in the response:

"This is not the sort of special treatment for religious adherents which is concerning."
Maybe not to you, but it is to me. Allowing these sort of things, little by little, is exactly what creeping sharia is about. Go figure.
Umm, really, allowing exemption from fines for people that are bound by their religious orders to not wear helmets is akin to creeping sharia? Seems a bit extreme.

"At some point, we have to be cognizant of religious points of view, even if they are crazy."
And, at some point we have to be cognizant of bank robbers, murderers, pedophiles and everyone else that chose to do things outside the law. No, we should NOT amend laws to accommodate these sort of things, and religion should not get special treatment.
Good law does not reside in a vacuum. Good law relies on understanding the nature of the people that are governed by it. If a fine was imposed for bike riding sikhs, then we would just end up with a lot of fined sikhs, and public sympathy for their religion at the persecution being leveled by the State.

"Fact is, if you required all people including sikhs to wear helmets rather than their own headwear, then they would break the law (and then you would have martyr-like cases, which are usually better for the religion than others)."
Too much political correctness today. Draw a line, called the law, and what people do is either within the law or not. If it's not, punishment should follow. Martyrs or not.
Really, after examining the history of religion and when it creates the greatest damage to society, you think that allowing martyrdom to occur will be good for the secular? I am not an apologist for religion, but I do recognise that the greater goal of undoing the evils of religion are not served by taking the hardest line against it. In fact, taking the hardest line against religion is when the religious draw the most power and followers.

"Accordingly, chill."
I chill or don't chill depending on what I want, not according to what you or anyone else says.


Do as you wish, I am just pointing out the obvious flaws in taking a hard line on religion. For instance, take the strict legalistic approach of the US Supreme Court towards interpretation of religion and state under the Constitution. Because of that hard line, there is a large group of people that feel completely disenfranchised and ultimately cocoon themselves outside the broader reactions of the state. This is what happens when you are strict and isolate, you get the tea party.


Young T.
user 31738792
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 168
Well played Alex
Marcus
freakvent
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 38
akin to creeping sharia? Seems a bit extreme
That IS of course the whole point of creeping these sort of religious privileges in - keeping you and others in a state of "oh well, it's not that bad, they just want [insert yet another "little" privilege here]", until it's so common that no one questions it. Modify a law here, another law there, yet another bit of legislation here, and so on, all to accommodate religious demands, and, if you haven't realised it, treat you and me as second class citizens - not equal under the law of the land. I don't believe in imaginary creatures, and I don't feel obligated to wear a cloth on my head, and therefore I miss out on certain privileges under the law??! And, in the bigger picture, I pay more in taxes to accommodate privileges I'm not entitled to?!!? That is very offending to me!

If a fine was imposed for bike riding sikhs
That makes it sound like they'd be fined for being sikhs. A fine should be imposed for riding a bike without a helmet, of course. Sikh or not. Black/brown/white/yellow/red or not. And it's not discrimination. In fact, allowing this minority to legally do things I can't legally do, is discrimination against me (and others).

I'm not convinced at all that taking a harder line against this sort of religious non-sense would make things worse from a secular point of view. I think the west in general is way too naive, "turns the other cheek" way too much, and bends over way too much in order to accommodate insane religious ideas and norms that have zero base in our history. I can see that it makes some sense to accommodate aboriginal traditions given the history of the land, and the people who occupied it first, but even so, I wouldn't agree that altering the law to allow aboriginal people to ride bikes without a helmet because the helmet might ruin their traditional face paint would be fair.

Still, I see your point and I understand that you think that a tougher line would just make things worse. Fair point.

well played
I like his answer too.
Heraklitus
user 5709480
Newcastle, AU
Post #: 1,260
I kinda go along with Marcus on what he has to say. And he does so at length thank goodness. Perhaps he's recently read Infidel by Ayaan Hersi Ali who manages to dash of a great deal more (as Marcus does) than mere simple-minded fatuous one-line posts on this site (like I do at times.) Ahem...

Like Marcus (and Ayaan and Hitcho) I don't see why we should compromise our ideals of fairness and decency and safety and bend over backwards to accomodate those that we welcome into our home - so to speak - when they wish to do stuff that doesn't fit into our society's mores (like being compelled by law to wear helments etc. when riding push-biles and motorcycles.)

(What about obeying speed limits?)

As Ayaan has intimated, this attitude of 'supposed fairness and understanding' on the part of those who go to bat for 'offended new-family-members' (in this case) amounts to cowardice rationalised as 'understanding/appreciating' cultural differences. It looks like cowardness. It walks like cowardice. It smells like cowardice. It sounds like cowardice. It is just that. Why are some of us so frightened to stand up for what we deep-down know is fair and decent? Why do some of us go to such ingenious measures to argue for the coward's position? Shame on you. Bright you may be. Brave you are not.

Well, at least that's more than a simple-minded & single one-line post! H
A former member
Post #: 22
When doctors complained of the many head injuries sustained by two wheel riders, pollies introduced the idea of compulsory helmets to placate medicos. But, faced with the protests of minority ragheads to protect their religious beliefs, they came up with a very cunning plan (thanks, Baldrick). Keep the explosion of weird religious types, mainly men, under control by letting them enjoy their bareheadedness while pushing injury stats up. Don`t hear the docs complaining about that arrangement. Praise (insert god of choice)
Yeah, don't use the term "Rag head" please...

In regards to the rest of the stuff, the research is not really in favour of helmets.
Sure, if you're going to have an accident in any particular scenario you may fare better in a helmet...
However that particular statistic ignores the following:
-the same is true for cars. Where is the mandatory car helmet law? the majority of injuries while driving are to the head.
- cars are more likely to HIT a person wearing a helmet, as drivers go about a foot closer to riders with a helmet on because of perceived protection.
- 50% of our society are too fat for their own good, and being fat is about as dangerous as drinking too often.
- cycling reduced by 30% when helmet laws were introduced and has not yet recovered. We are faced with a massive ammount of traffic hazard and delays caused by cars.
- you're more likely to get skin cancer riding sans hat/sunscreen than you are to be struck by a car and have a helmet help you.


Yeah, um...where did you get these 'statistics' from? I remember doing some research about a year ago and the statistics I came up with were very different to this. '50% of our population are too fat for their own good' doesn't sound like an ABS publication (it's not even grammatically correct). Cycling has risen by about 60% since helmet laws were introduced, not decreased by 30%. But I welcome a correction.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy