Holy Cow!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I'm well aware of those, thank you, and also think they're tantamount to "putting oneself above the law."

They're certainly bad, and deserve criticism.

I didnt say they dont deserve criticism. Thats not really what "putting oneself above the law" means, though. It least its not the way its normally used.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I didnt say they dont deserve criticism. Thats not really what "putting oneself above the law" means, though. It least its not the way its normally used.

Well, it certainly shouldn't be treated like some kind of 'tax loophole'. There is no reason why they should be excused from complying with health regulations on religious grounds. That opens a Pandora's box of exceptions.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Well, it certainly shouldn't be treated like some kind of 'tax loophole'. There is no reason why they should be excused from complying with health regulations on religious grounds. That opens a Pandora's box of exceptions.

tax loopholes also open pandoras boxes of exceptions. If its possible for our democratic insitutions to deal with requests for tax loopholes, they can also deal with requests for adaptations of policies to religious sensitivities - including dealing with such requests by denying them, which, IIUC, was what happened here.

[Cort Haus]

So why not introduce Sharia Law for Muslim households and majority Muslim areas?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
So why not introduce Sharia Law for Muslim households and majority Muslim areas?

Cause the introduction of sharia law on muslims who DONT want to be bound by it, or by a particular interpretation of it, would severely restrict their freedom, in ways that would make our society profoundly illiberal.

Whereas, say, allowing churches and synagogues the use of wine in states that otherwise ban alcoholic beverages, does not.

Or allowing Sikhs to carry tiny, symbolic daggers, in places were carrying weapons is otherwise banned. People of goodwill can weigh the value of accommodating a minority, against the value of state neutrality, and the original public policy goal of the regulation.

Just as we can accept a tax credit for oil and gas exploration, or, for that matter, an exemption for the value of housing services provided to clery living in rectories, without creating a hereditary class of 100% tax exempt noblemen.

[Cort Haus]

Clearly a ritual sip of wine is not going to open the floodgates to drunken, riotous disorder, but I'd still be inclined to say tough bananas if that was the law of the land. Rastafarians are not allowed to smoke cannabis despite their interpretation, AIUI, of it as a religious sacrement.

While these examples would not, as you say, affect other people's liberty, wheras Sharia would, surely the public health principles in the cow case do have a wider impact, potentially. There is a risk of a wider impact (as the carrying of ritual daggers might carry a risk) which ultimately affects people's freedom from bovine TB.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Clearly a ritual sip of wine is not going to open the floodgates to drunken, riotous disorder, but I'd still be inclined to say tough bananas if that was the law of the land. Rastafarians are not allowed to smoke cannabis despite their interpretation, AIUI, of it as a religious sacrement.

While these examples would not, as you say, affect other people's liberty, wheras Sharia would, surely the public health principles in the cow case do have a wider impact, potentially. There is a risk of a wider impact (as the carrying of ritual daggers might carry a risk) which ultimately affects people's freedom from bovine TB.

the law of the land here, since prohibition, has been that the state has the right to make religious exceptions to restrictions on alcohol consumption. Some folks thought that was a constitutional protection. When SCOTUS began to say it was not, such protection was extended by statute - The law of the land, now, is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which states that the Federal govt should make reasonable accommodations to religious groups. SCOTUS has declared that RFRA does not apply to the states on federalism grounds (its a Federal statute) but many states have their own equivalent.

I tend to agree that the changing the regs on bovine TB is probably a poor idea. What I dont agree, is that the folks who asked for it (and who naturally focused on their own ways of preventing contagion, and not on what would happen if others were granted a similar exemption) are "nutters", or that the fact that they made the request, or protested, is a threat to religious liberty, public health, or the essentially secular nature of the state (BTW, shouldnt you be busy pushing for the complete disestablishment of the COE?)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Clearly a ritual sip of wine is not going to open the floodgates to drunken, riotous disorder, but I'd still be inclined to say tough bananas if that was the law of the land.

Your inclination is fine. Kuci, forex, doesnt like RFRA. He is free to write his congressman, lobby against it, etc. In this case, Im not sure whats wrong with the "majoritarian" solution, IE, let the political marketplace play out.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Should have gone in with the riot police on horses

Sacred cows against police horses - could be an interesting fight!