Associate
Im sure actual Sikhs have good reason for the ceremonial knife - I think most peoples concern is actually people who *want* to carry knives pretending to be Sikhs so hey can get away with carrying a concelaed weapon.
Sikhs allowed to wear ceremonial dagger to school
- Thread starter adriano_8
- Start date
Caporegime
I look forward to seeing all the yobs with uncut hair and turbans and ceremonial daggers.
Commissario
Especially when the officers ask them a few simple questions about being a Sikh, then throw the book at them
Soldato
It's Pagan and "wooden stick" would be called a staff!
Most forms of paganism only require such items to be used a specific rituals anyway. Anyway, as a pagan I wouldn't want the rules to be modified just so I can bring my athamé or even a staff into school (or wherever) as school should be secular.
So why does the rule you just quoted not apply to christian children in schools where the cross is banned ?
Your basically saying that human right rules should only be used when it comes to certain religions and not for everybody else.
Wearing a cross is not in any way a requirement of Christianity. Indeed scripture often goes against wearing symbols, as well as preaching and various other things that many Christians do.
No, I'm saying you need to learn about religions and how their symbols fit in before comparing apples with concrete.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
And I'm saying it's irrelevent.
Are knives or daggers allowed in school? If yes, anyone can bring one in. If no, nobody can bring one in. No special exemptions if your CHOICE of religion says you should carry one.
You are free to choose whichever religion you like, but the religion should never grant exemption from rules put in place for peoples safety.
[TW]Fox;17810568 said:
The law as it stands disagrees with you, in that the state has a responsibility to respect the beliefs of its people and only infringe on them when it is unavoidable.
Religion isn't a choice in the classical sense though, and to treat it like it is really misses the point. To treat it as purely a choice thing puts a severe risk of committing a psychologist's fallacy into the situation.
When there is evidence that the exemption for Kirpans creates additional risk, then it can easily be revoked, until that evidence exists, the obligations of the state to individual freedom override the want for blanket fairness.
I'm aware of what the law is - this is a discussion involving personal opinion. It is my opinion that the law is wrong. It is completely right that people should not be discriminated against as a result of the religion they choose but they should not gain additional rights - such as that of carrying a dagger when other people would be unable to do so. If daggers have been deemed an unacceptable item to carry in certain areas then really thats that - no ifs, no buts. No daggers.
Of course its a choice, otherwise people wouldn't convert to other religions. I am completely free to follow whichever religion I choose. Nothing is stopping me from doing this. I have complete freedom of choice over which religion I choose to follow, or if I choose to follow one.
[TW]Fox;17810666 said:
There are loads of exemptions around carrying knives, fundamentally the religion reason is just another on the long list of valid purposes and exemptions (this is the law, rather than the schools issue).
With the schools issue, it is a little bit more complicated, and it would be much easier if schools were free, but as the state has involved itself heavily in the schools system, to the point where it pretty much dictates where your kids have to go unless you can afford to buy something else, and tries to dictate rules and regulations from above on a regular basis, it seems only right that the exemptions apply unless there is a good, evidence based reason for them not to. I'm looking to see if I can find some statistics regarding kirpans being used in crime, but so far haven't been able to find much, I can't find an example of a Kirpan being used to stab someone in the UK, and only one example in Canada. Given that, it would seem there is absolutely no public safety risk in allowing Sikhs to carry them.
Like I said, psychologist's fallacy. You are essentially saying that because you feel you have complete freedom in your mind to choose your religion, (and which parts you would follow, If I may add the implication) that everyone feels exactly the same as you. They don't, and that's the problem. To someone who just 'knows' that Sikhism (for example) is the right choice for them, believes it strongly and so on, following the central tenants of the religion is not a choice, nor is just changing to another one. This is the basis of protection in law from the state.
It's nothing about 'feeling' I have freedom - I do have the freedom. Anyone in this country does. You can go and become a Hindu right now if you want Dolph. Nothing to stop you at all.
Peoples misdguided perceptions dont change that. You can practice whichever religion you like, and many people DO change religions in this country*.
*Though they may find themselves stoned to death in some countries for such a terrible crime.
Peoples misdguided perceptions dont change that. You can practice whichever religion you like, and many people DO change religions in this country*.
*Though they may find themselves stoned to death in some countries for such a terrible crime.
[TW]Fox;17810858 said:
I'm not talking about freedom from the state point of view, I'm talking about internally.
I have the choice to hold whatever religious beliefs I choose, that doesn't mean my views are necessarily going to change, or that they will change just because others want them to. Likewise a Sikh's conviction doesn't change if we try and restrict their practices, they just either move underground or become unconfortable, for no real reason. (Again, please note that the laws governing this do not allow a blanket exemption if there is evidence that banning something will actually improve public safety).
Should laws be evidence based or not? Should we apply laws blindly, even when they are unnecessary, serve no purpose and provide no benefit?
Laws about carrying daggers to school don't serve no purpose.
In an ideal world we'd move beyond backwards beleifs about which man-like form rules the world the best and whose book is the best but in absence of that we could at least not have different rules depending on which book you beleive in.
In an ideal world we'd move beyond backwards beleifs about which man-like form rules the world the best and whose book is the best but in absence of that we could at least not have different rules depending on which book you beleive in.
[TW]Fox;17810951 said:
It isn't about the law, it's about the exemption. What is the difference in reducing harm between a law banning all knives, and a law banning all knives with the exception of the kirpan from schools?
Surely if the outcome is the same, the law is fine?
Even if it provides no actual benefit and just serves to upset people?
You are saying not letting people take daggers to school serves no actual benefit?
What?
All kids are equal. You are not more special and have special privilages if you choose to beleive in a certain god. Everyone is the same at school. Thats partly the reason we have school uniforms so kids dont judge each other based on what they wear etc - although obviously if you beleive in God W you can wear random item of clothing Y to school I would imagine.
What?
All kids are equal. You are not more special and have special privilages if you choose to beleive in a certain god. Everyone is the same at school. Thats partly the reason we have school uniforms so kids dont judge each other based on what they wear etc - although obviously if you beleive in God W you can wear random item of clothing Y to school I would imagine.
[TW]Fox;17810991 said:
No, I'm asking, specifically, what the harm prevention value of removing the current exemption is.
You appear to be arguing that the exemption should not be in place, even if the exemption provides absolutely no increase in risk. You are, in effect, asking for a law to be broader than necessary, and to impact people it does not need to.
Should we ban something for absolutely no benefit, if we have an easy means of identifying the split?
Can I just clarify you don't beleive there is a risk in allowing children to carry daggers?
In my religion, I like speed. Having to do 70mph on the Motorway is against my religion when 75mph offers no real extra risk. Can I have an exemption please? Or do I need a certain number of people in my club first?
In my religion, I like speed. Having to do 70mph on the Motorway is against my religion when 75mph offers no real extra risk. Can I have an exemption please? Or do I need a certain number of people in my club first?
[TW]Fox;17811018 said:
I believe, based on evidence, that there is little risk from allowing Sikh children to carry a Kirpan, which is a different argument to allowing all children to carry daggers, which evidence suggests is dangerous.
Sorry for not answering your loaded question with a simple yes or no.
Generally, you need a certain amount of historical evidence (at least of religious practice) and a certain number of adherents to move from cult to religion with a protected status under the EUCHR.
The fact that current speeding laws are stupid is also not a good argument for creating an equally stupid knife law
