We don't need freedom of religion

Re:We don't need freedom of religion by raganwald on Thursday December 23, 2010 @01:38AM (#2033731)

I think the turban example is perfectly consistent with what the author said. You ask "how would rules such as the uniform rule for the police ever evolve?" The answer is: in much the same way! Under this author's understanding of that example, the rule under scrutiny would be: "Every policeman must wear a uniform cap." The Sikhs, wishing to wear dastaars, would petition the chief of police to be able to wear a dastaar instead. The chief of police (or whoever), would then think to herself, "Well, is it all that important that our police officers wear matching CAPS, or is the important part merely that they wear headgear that matches the rest of the outfit and contains a badge?" She would then conclude that the more appropriate rule, which should apply to /everyone/, regardless of his religion, should be that every police officer must wear a hat of the appropriate color and that the hat must contain a badge. A Sikh could wear a dastaar; an atheist could wear a baseball cap or a turban--or a dastaar. The point is that /anyone/, not just a Sikh, can wear /any/ hat he chooses, so long as it meets those standards that /are/ considered too important to change, such as matching color and a badge.

You have an enormously optimistic view of police chiefs. Or perhaps police chiefs where you live are reasonable, inclusive people who are always looking for ways to broaden their force's recruiting.

Whereas up here in Toronto, the opposite was true. The police force remained staunchly Euro-centric until forced by rule to reconsider rules like the requirement that officers wear the prescribed hat. Left to their own devices, police chiefs saw no reason to change their rules about headgear or the minimum height required to be a police officer.

The changes didn't come because Sikhs petitioned the chiefs of police, the changes came because Sikhs petitioned the courts. And that is why we have constitutional democracies: Some portions of our rules and regulations cannot be left up to the "free market" or an executive branch that is concerned with obtaining a plurality of votes in the next election.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We don't need freedom of religion by slammdunc23 on Thursday December 23, 2010 @09:52AM (#2034526)

Good point--I should have said that the Sikhs would go to the courts when the police chief (almost undoubtedly) said no. Still, the point is the same: under this author's conception of the issue, the courts /should/ come to the same conclusion about uniform color and badges being the only important parts of the police cap. The difference is that this decision should free /everyone/ to wear such hats, not just Sikhs or just the religious.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We don't need freedom of religion by forensic on Thursday December 23, 2010 @03:17AM (#2033888)

the courts should defend atheist headgear too

[ Parent | on HN ]