View Single Post
  #1 (permalink)   [ ]
Old 03-24-2007, 10:42 AM
Emperor Mateus Emperor Mateus is a male Emperor Mateus is offline
The fruit of their lions
Join Date: Jan 2007
View Posts: 1,752
Religious rights vs. Governmental law

In light of the Niqab debate/Muslims and Western Culture thread, I'm curious to ask but I'm not really sure if it should be asked in the relative threads, or if it should be in it's own thread itself. I apologize to the mods beforehand though, and my apologies for any inconvience caused.

I'm curious as to know why we allow or think it's more reasonable to allow religious people certain rights to do or say things that we normally wouldn't appreciate from others who aren't. For example, as I mentioned before in the Niqab thread, a motorcyclist must remove his helmet before entering a shop as it poses a inconvenience to facial recognition. Yet, it's deemed perfectly acceptable for a muslim woman to completely cover up and enter that same shop, even though she's doing the exact same thing as the motorcyclist by covering her face up. The only reason for such exemption is simply on the grounds for religious purposes only, but personally, I find this unacceptable, as if a law is passed by the Government, then everybody should follow it, religious or not and no special cases allowed.

Is that really so repulsive and unacceptable to ask? I'm sure most people would agree it's unacceptable to allow somebody to be let off from paying taxes if it was considered 'against a person's religious rights' to pay taxes, so why are other situations thought upon so differently? This is only one example I've used for one question, and I'm happy to discuss with anyone for any debate, but this is my personal opinion so please don't attack me for it.

My only question is this:

If a country passes a law that may conflict with a person's religion, should they be exempt from the law simply on the grounds of religion only?
Reply With Quote