Religious tolerance or safety?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Kontiki
MY main question was/is, is it ok for some cultural/religious groups to be exempt from certain laws and if so, where do you draw the line?

Problem was, there isn't anybody to defend the Sikhs, even to play devil's advocate. Don't look at it as a threadjack, look it as "extending the life of the thread."

[MrFun]

Thanks Boris for the thread bump.

Originally posted by loinburger


No, I'm saying that we should regulate everything in the same fashion unless there's a non-arbitrary justification for regulating something differently. It would be fine, f'rinstance, to draw a distinction such as "tobacco can cause harm to others through second-hand smoke while soda has no second-hand effects, therefore it behooves us to regulate tobacco in the interest of non-smokers while it would not behoove us to regulate soda in a similar fashion." That's an objective distinction between tobacco and soda that does not require an arbitrary "danger line" to be drawn. The fact that both are dangerous to their users is irrelevant, because tobacco is being regulated for a property it possesses that soda does not possess.



No, firearms and soda have the same difference as tobacco and soda--firearms users endanger others besides themselves, soda consumers do not. If use of a product will endanger others besides the user, then the product requires regulation. Somebody's right to use a product does not trump somebody else's right to not be endangered by a jackass.

However, I see no real distinction between soda and bicycle helmets, only that one falls below an arbitrary danger line while the other does not.

Ok, so you vouch for regulations on products only in those that consumers can use to endanger other people.

If the cost for insurance and health care expenses is higher every year due to bike accidents without helmets more so than yearly soda consumption, then this could be a non-arbitrary line for distinction.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
If the cost for insurance and health care expenses is higher every year due to bike accidents without helmets more so than yearly soda consumption, then this could be a non-arbitrary line for distinction.

I granted at the thread's beginning that the government can pass regulations like bike helmet laws without passing soda restriction laws in a socialized health care system, since business decisions don't necessarily need to be absolutely consistent (only profitable). However, in a system in which health care is privately run, it would be up to the insurance companies to make the business decisions by creating exemptions or whatever have you (such as, "medical bills will not be paid for victims of bicycle accidents who were not wearing helmets," or "medical bills will not be paid for victims of car accidents who were not wearing seat belts," or whatever). If the government isn't controlling a business, then it ought not to make business decisions--it ought to stick to legal decisions.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Holy threadjack, Batman.....

I guess I should have seen this coming, but I really didn't intend for this to get into a debate over the merits of helmet laws. MY main question was/is, is it ok for some cultural/religious groups to be exempt from certain laws and if so, where do you draw the line?

Yes, freedom of religion is a fudamental right. Helmet laws should not receive greater weight than a fundamental human right. There is no such thing as a fundamental right to have everyone's head protected from injuries.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I imagine that 3 feet of thick, bunched hair and 20 feet of tightly-wrapped turban silk make helmets pretty unnecessary.

[Sava]

Helmet laws are bad... down with them.... wear your turbans with pride!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
I imagine that 3 feet of thick, bunched hair and 20 feet of tightly-wrapped turban silk make helmets pretty unnecessary.

I've always believed that the afro I had in high school provided far more shock absorption than my football helmet ever could have on its own.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Sikhs aren't thick, and they're notoriously hard. One of the reasons why they wear their hair up like that is the protection it gives- it can stop a sword. Few things protect against a blade slash better than thick hair (or fur), and it's pretty good protection against impacts too.

This isn't careful application of protective laws. It's "Thou shalt conform" bureaucracy and it's ignorant.

[Sava]

It can stop a sword? WOW.... care to demostrate?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Sure. Just bend your head over this way and let me sharpen this baby up.

[Pavlov]

That avatar....those words....

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dissident
Tooth decay is the only thing soda causes.

Even this can be stopped by proper oral hygiene. Soda doesn't make people fat any more then bread makes people fat. Consuming to many calores and not excersing enough is what makes people fat.

[MrFun]

Only on Apolyton can something as incospicuous as soda, become central to a broader issue.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
I imagine that 3 feet of thick, bunched hair and 20 feet of tightly-wrapped turban silk make helmets pretty unnecessary.

3 feet of thick bunched hair? Are you sure you aren't thinking of rastafarians?

[KrazyHorse]

If that's not a joke of some kind:

Sikh men cannot cut their hair for religious reasons (facial hair too, IIRC).