I am often amazed at the claims that so-called experts make, even in a court of law. For example, the government of Ontario recently defended its policy that Sikhs riding motorcycles should wear helmets (not a requirement in BC or Manitoba) by claming that turbans would unravel in the breeze, thus posing a risk to other motorists.
 |
|
Born to be wild |
… the Crown declared that an expert it had hired proved that turbans unravel rapidly in 100 km/h winds. The Crown’s test had been carried out by a professional engineer who purchased a mannequin head, mounted it on a stick and then placed the assemblage in a wind tunnel. [Link]
<
p>Say what? Turbans unravel at 60 mph? Have they ever seen a Sardar riding a motorcycle? Or riding a roller coaster? Or even sticking his head out of a moving vehicle? The paag stays on tight my friend.
<
p>To test this claim, the plaintiff, Baljinder Badesha of Brampton (can you say that 10 times fast?), tried to replicate the study. He drove down the Cayuga Speedway at … gasp, 110 kmh. Did his turban unravel and flutter into the wind like a wayward plastic bag? Ummm … no. It was fit to be tied.
Mr. Hutchison [Baljinder Singh’s lawyer] was unable to find a documented case anywhere in the world where a Sikh motorcyclist’s turban had unravelled. Skeptical, he persuaded the OHRC to authorize its own test. After he confronted the Crown with the dramatically different test result, prosecutors conceded that their engineer had grossly miscalculated the force of the wind he had generated to batter the imitation head, Mr. Hutchison said.
In fact, the device had been subjected to a 300 km/h wind. [Link]
<
p>That’s right – they used 180 mph winds in their test, more of a gale than the stiff breeze you get at 60mph. And even so, I’m not entirely convinced. I’ll bet if they used a real person with a real turban going 180 mph, it might still stay on. But in any case, given that driving at 300 kmh is illegal, the point is moot.
<
p>So now the Crown is switching arguments. Instead of defending this policy in terms of the danger to others that turbans pose (those huge swooping turbans flying around the freeway, covering up windshields!) they’re arguing that helmetless motorcycle riders will cost the taxpayers more:
… its main argument is now based on increased costs to the health system, should helmetless Sikh motorcycle riders end up suffering head injuries. [Link]
<
p>The problem is that if you accept this argument, why are they allowing anybody to ride on a motorcycle at all, given that it’s far riskier than driving a car. In fact, they should only allow people to drive safe, slow, sober sedans like the Ambassador.
…a study … concluded that, assuming half of all Sikh motorcyclists wear turbans, the increase in serious injuries would be between .43 and 2.83 Sikh riders a year.
The study also projected that medical treatment for traumatic brain injuries would … [lead to] a .00005-per-cent overall increase in the province’s annual health-care budget.
Mr. Hutchison told the court that the province already licenses motorcycle riders in spite of the fact that they have far more accidents than automobile drivers. “Clearly, the decision to allow motorcycles to be used at all recognizes and accepts a significant degree of risk and concomitant social cost,” he said. [Link]
<
p>I realize that Canada is not a very libertarian country, but where they draw the line between acceptable risk (riding a motorcycle vs. riding in a car) and unacceptable risk (riding a motorcycle with a turban vs. riding a motorcycle with a helmet) is clearly determined by social preferences rather than public health. You can’t be penny wise and pound foolish and then say you’re acting out of frugality, it wont wash.
rob, I think the misunderstanding is that I am restricting myself primarily to the impact of sincerely held beliefs on purely personal choices (at least, to a first order approximation): should X be forced to wear a helmet instead of a turban if it is guaranteed to reduce the chance of his being seriously injured? (as opposed to the unraveling turban argument that affects not just X but the ability of other motorists to ride the roads at reasonable risk too). Gay marriage and abortion legalization are instances where religious proscriptions interact negatively with non-believers’ rights, and many states in the West favor rights over the religious proscription (although the US seems to be stuck in a time warp as compared to some of Western Europe).
I do think that there is a general (but by no means, absolute) trend towards secularization when it comes to favoring individual rights over religious beliefs, but the same is not true when weighing religious beliefs and societal costs (for example, productivity losses). In the latter case, the bar for the serious consideration of a belief and the proof that it is deeply held are definitely far lower if its provenance is religious than otherwise (sorry to keep harping on my example: do you seriously think that people would really be equivalently outraged if this ban violated my enjoyment of biking helmet-free – a belief inculcated from my childhood? Or if I had genuinely desired to nap for a couple of hours every day – assuming that this time is equivalent to the daily prayer accommodation for a certain religious group? Or if long hair was essential to my self-esteem and I wanted to be allowed to wear it even when I operated a machine?)
As far as I can see, the only logical explanation for this is a numbers-based argument, or a special sanctioning of religion. Clearly, the former argument means that religious (or any other) minorities will have to accept that their beliefs will not be respected unless they reach some critical mass – certainly not a desirable state, nor I think the state of the world we live in. As for the latter, is that not a violation of my rights as an atheist, or at the very least an excessive burden? (I am not talking about my belief system being violated by people wandering about in habits or hijabs – to me, these are in a similar category to the abortion/gay marriage debate where one person’s beliefs should not limit another person’s rights.)
(As for what young people in Iran do, covert social practices do not equate to legal sanction. And Lebanon is an example of a society which has historically been socially liberal – although, politically, they still very actively acknowledge religion in the make-up of their government, so it is not a particularly new trend, whereas Turkey is in fact definitely going in the opposite direction.)
portmanteau, from a quick skim, it seems like this is exactly the kind of analysis or decision framework I was asking about. Thank you very much for the reference. I will read it in greater detail over the next few days.
Rahul, Look, we’re not really disagreeing on the fundamentals as much as on the details. You’re discounting my Iranian youth example b/c their activities aren’t legal, but you’re taking seriously the latest political move in Turkey because it’s pro-religion. Well, ok, fair enough. But, I bet you that in 20 years Iran is a lot wealthier and more liberal than Turkey, because the Persians are a hella lot more cosmopolitan and sophisticated than the Turks, and so will throw off these crazy Mullahs and prosper, while the Turks will increasingly stultify under their Central Asian/non-Zoroastrian/Islamic roots.
But, seriously–this is fun as a parlour game, who really knows?? I’m (mostly) kidding with my analysis above.
More seriously, though, I disagree that the trend in terms of trading off “religious beliefs and societal costs” is in any way trending in the direction of religion. You’ve got some really successful countries that are pretty irreligious, and a lot of basket cases that are totally religious. What are the counter-examples? I guess S. Korea is kind of religious (but–not in a wholesale way, just a fraction of Christian evangelicals), and Saudi is kind of rich and religious, but–seriously, how religious are the rich ones, and how wealthy are the religious ones (not very–see GNP per capita figures)–and–how long is that regime going to last, anyway??
rahul:
what’s wrong with the framework Rob’s put forward? it has a long tradition in the US and is engraved in our constitution and solves the current dilemma nicely. govt would not be allowed to protect us from ourselves. helmet wearing cannot be regulated b/c an individual has autonomy over his own body. religious and secular dispositions are given equal protection under the law in this tradition. in other words, it solves your dilemma.
and of course this does not preclude the govt from legistlating behaviour that effects others, such as regulating the pollution of cars or bumper standards for example. why the need for a new paradigm?
manju, I am asking about a larger question than this specific helmet situation. What about exceptions for some individuals to have prayer breaks, or require teaching of intelligent design in schools, because the religious beliefs of some people require this? What is the framework that regulates these?
And even more than religion: why do we as a society allow people to smoke, drink or have uncontrolled eating habits and impose productivity costs (not even medical costs) on all of society? Surely the right answer is not to discriminate against (at least some) of these categories?
I am not claiming that I have an answer, but the current system seems to have at least some level of arbitrariness or condoning of certain categories of belief, prima facie.
liberalism would leave it up to the employer, end of story. govt employers would have to offer a reasonable accommodation to anyone…ie as long as it doesnt interfere with work, the employee is allowed to do it.
violates the establishment clause, but a voluntary bible study group would be allowed, especially if secular groups have access to the school. however, liberalism would encourage private schools over public so the govt does not have to be involved in such decisions in the 1st place.
all allowed under liberalism, but the smoker, drinker, eater cannot demand society pick up the cost. if society decides to pick up the cost, say with universal health care, it gives society a reason to legislate personal behavior…which is why excessive entanglement of govt and private business is frowned upon under classic liberalism. yes, reconciling individual freedoms with socialism is problematic.
Man, do you live in a Heritage Front compound? This and similar issues do end up creating some general anti-immigrant/multiculturalism resentment but to call it a backlash, particularly against any one group, is really overstating things. It fuels the accomodation debate but i’ve yet to see it become anything specifically anti-sikh or anti-brown.
Well the last few months in Vancouver you had the issue with Radio talk show host Bruce Allen and some comments he made, and the sikh community overreacted. And then there was the case of Laibar Singh who was to be deported but stoped at the airport by an angry mob. Both there cases made the community look bad,and I’m not just talking about the white community, but among other minority’s groups.
HMF: it the free speech and free excercise clause of the 1st ammendment. the govt can’t ban words like “merry christmas” in the workplace, with the narrow exception if the words interfere with work.
Complete misrepresentation of the context in which free speech was ratified in the first place, as to make sure no voices were suppressed in debate. Somehow I think, we’ll all still remember what Christmas is.
I’d assume that if Merry Christmas was banned, so would Happy Hanukah, or Happy Diwali, or Happy Eid, or Happy Satan’s Birthday… It’s called equal treatment for equal religion, another clause in the first amendment.
ente, thanks for your responses, a few comments:
Re: an “atheistic” world I’m pretty sure I excluded proselytization, so your argument that someone wearing a religious article (a yarmulke, a cross, a turban, a hijab) affronts an “atheist’s right to live free from symbols of delusion” seems just as limiting as arguments against theocracies that adopt strict mono-religious requirements. I’m with rob (#150) on this one.
With respect to my qualifier re: a “(large)” minority community (placed in parentheticals because I do not think it should be the only, or even driving, factor in accommodation), who decides what numerically large is? Who decides what “fair” is? It does not make sense for the majority to make policies that substantially burden the minority without any sense of how it plays out.
To continue on the numbers theme: most Jews in the U.S. are not Hasidic or Orthodox Jews, so does this mean that we should disallow any exemptions someone requires to practice their faith? Should employers threaten to fire their employees if they require Friday off for the Sabbath? I would argue that the “numbers” case is similar for kesdari and amritdari Sikhs in the U.S. and Canada. And to clarify, in the context of minority communities in Canada the Sikh community is not “tiny.”
Example 2: In the U.K., ethnic minorities (including the Irish) make up somewhere around 9% of the total population. About half of that (so 4.5% of the total population) is desi, and somewhere around one-quarter of that subgroup (so now we’re at 1-2%) are Sikh, and we can safely assume that an even smaller percentage are kesdari/amritdari. If the United Kingdom, who has a state health care system also, can see the value and sensibility in creating accommodations for the turban in many different venues of public life — including driving on the public road on a motorcycle or scooter –, then I don’t see why a similar request in Canada is seen as unreasonable.
sidebar: that is a very Landes-like (and Huntingtonesque) prediction, and these predictions based on some kind of overarching ‘national character’ are dubious. It maybe that the Turks mover toward their Islamic roots, but that may happen due to global+European political circumstances, rather than a ‘ less sophisticated and/or less-cosmopolitan national character.’ Imagine such an explanation pre-world war 2 Germany – Germans prone to national socialism because of their intrinsic character rather than due to the economic and political climate of the Weimar Republic. I do not think this is a trifling point either – such characterizations of ethnic/national are pernicious. They cloud better explanations of what is happening on the ground, and even become self-fulfilling prophecies since many countries than adopt a contrarian/recalcitrant stance.
You are right–that’s why I called it a “parlour game”! 馃槈
.
how can i misrepresent the context in which free speech was ratifued if i did not speak about how it was ratified in the fist place?
your assuming incocorectly. nonetheless, even if one banned all religious speech you’d still have a violation of the free speech and free excercise clause of the 1st ammendment (with athe narrow exception that religious speech was disrupting the workplace environment). in other words, the govt can’t ban a communist press then justify it by saying their banig all ideolocal newspapers and thus treating all speech equally.
It is not just universal health care, if I have a co-worker who falls ill more frequently (say, 2 additional weeks a year) because he has chosen certain habits or predilections, why should I bear the brunt of the added work? This is a real concern, not just imagined or hypothetical. What about pure moral luck – a certain chronic or congenital illness that a person has for no fault of their own? What if genetic testing becomes cheap, and the classically liberal insurance companies disqualify anybody with a slightly higher risk of illness? What if these people are too poor to afford the significantly higher rates of coverage of the companies that will automatically crop up to serve their needs in the perfect market?
I will take the interference of socialism that ended slavery, and provided some measure of equal rights and protection against discrimination (although very far from perfect) to minorities, over the unfettered liberalism that promotes individual rights only when they align with the interests of the powerful. There are many historical examples that show that an unfettered interpretation of allowing individual freedoms suppresses basic rights for many.
In any case, the point of my question is not to get into the tired old debate of libertarian utopias because I think there is an excellent empirical and moral basis for state accommodation of certain minority interests, even when the market itself will not naturally encourage them. The fact that the decision calculus is complicated is not an argument against it. However, I do think that the system could do with a better articulation of the overarching principles and reasoning that guides which accommodations are considered reasonable, and importantly, which accommodations aren’t.
nonetheless, even if one banned all religious speech you’d still have a violation of the free speech and free excercise clause of the 1st ammendment (with athe narrow exception that religious speech was disrupting the workplace environment). in other words, the govt can’t ban a communist press then justify it by saying their banig all ideolocal newspapers and thus treating all speech equally.
true.
you’d negotiate additional compensation from your employer.
or you could say that slavery itself was a form of “socialism”…govt interfeing with the inalienable rights of blacks, as MLK tirelessly argued. liberal philosphers have long argued that preserving individual freedom is govts prime responsibility.
well liberalism, as opposed to its more strident offspring libertarianism, offers some leeway. for example, the founders did not include the phrase “separation of church and state” in the constitution b/c they knew it was too idealistic and would only work in an extreme libertarian paradise. what happens when the govt builds a public road, for example. church busses can’t use it? so a certain entanglement with religion was allowed, despite the fact that this veers from the liberal utopia.
thus accommodations are made within the liberal framework for the exceptions you want, such as non-discrimination laws, or regulating the economy, or providing healthcare if the market or private charity fails…though it is frowned upon. by arguing against the libertarian utopia your missing the practicality and realism of locke and the enlightenment thinkers. there’s a reason their revolution has lasted so long while more sophisticated ideologies have long ceased to matter.
but hard cases notwithstanding, the liberal framework works quite well. we’d allow anyone to ride w/o a helmet thus protecting the religious freedom of sikhs w/o privileging the religion. ditto for peyote.
Therein lies the rub. There are good arguments stemming from rights for the state to provide healthcare. In which case, even a purely cost-based perspective justifies these “nanny laws” (although there are very interesting rights-based arguments against other nanny laws, for example, the laws preventing assisted suicide), and so does a debate about reasonable or acceptable exceptions.
Alright, I’m done now 馃檪
I personally think that the Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, etc. all need to obey the laws. Moreover, the Canadians should not come up with 3 different legal systems to make each minority happy. Pretty soon, the Muslims will want their own Sharia law, and public execution and group rape will be common place, like it is in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. The Sikhs should not have their own legal system as well. They should NOT be allowed to bring their knives on board a plane. Pretty soon, all an Arab has to do to hijack a plane is dress up as a Sikh and change their surname to “Singh”.
rahul:
they way most classic liberals try to reconcile the conundrum of encroaching socialism is (besides resisting it) to say if the govt gets involved in an activity, it cannot use its involvement as an excuse to limit personal freedom. so if the govt builds a public road, it must allow religious busses to use them. if it finances the arts, it must be viewpoint neutral. if it decides to finance healthcare, it cannot outlaw smoking, drinking, motorcycle riding. public universities cannot ban david horowitz from speaking, and so on. at least that’s the general paradigm. if you’re afraid that you’ll be forced to pick up the cost of heathcare to smokers or art you consider offensive, then the only solution is to not support the program in the first place.
actually, in the usa at least, having your own legal system is a constitutional right…ie the right to contract. think arbitrations, prenupts, etc. you can agree to have your disputes resolved under whatever legal rules you choose and the courts would then enforce the decision.
now not everything is enforceable, such as beheadings (and i’m not sure how politcal philosophers reconcile the right to contract with unfair provisions, but as i said earlier liberalism is not libertarianism and doesn’t look for philosophical purity) but that doesn’t change the basic right to contract. sharia law included.
Good point–there’s nothing wrong in principle with people “opting in” to sharia law to govern, e.g., their marriage contract. There are concerns in the UK about how free the choice to opt in would be for some parties, but you are right that there’s no principled reason for hysteria about the topic, nor any real sense in which it’s “new.”
rahul: I know Rob and I selling you on classic liberalism is a tough task especially when we have the flirtatious Ms. Portmanteau seducing you with newfangled and glamorous philosophises. Liberalism is not the youngest candidate. But it is the most experienced. Rob an I will fight every moment of every day in this blog to make sure Mutineers are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people. Our purpose is to keep this blessed country free, safe, prosperous and proud. And the changes we offer to the institutions and policies of government will reflect and rely upon the strength, industry, aspirations and decency of the people we serve.
actually, in the usa at least, having your own legal system is a constitutional right…ie the right to contract. think arbitrations, prenupts, etc. you can agree to have your disputes resolved under whatever legal rules you choose and the courts would then enforce the decision. now not everything is enforceable, such as beheadings (and i’m not sure how politcal philosophers reconcile the right to contract with unfair provisions, but as i said earlier liberalism is not libertarianism and doesn’t look for philosophical purity) but that doesn’t change the basic right to contract. sharia law included.
FDR took care of that mythical right.
171 脗路 Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said
i guess i’m referring to the constitution-in-exile then, PAfD.
actually, in the usa at least, having your own legal system is a constitutional right…ie the right to contract. think arbitrations, prenupts, etc. you can agree to have your disputes resolved under whatever legal rules you choose and the courts would then enforce the decision.
Generally yes but there are tons of exceptions. In an employment contract you cannot contract your way out of FMLA, FLSA, Title VII, no contract can violate public policy, you cant will your wife out of getting her elective share, children custody issues are decided by whats in the best interest of the child, cannot have unconscionable terms in the contract etc. etc.
i guess i’m referring to the constitution-in-exile then, PAfD.
First we will have Obama sweep the nation with 48 states. Then we do a modern day court packing at all federal levels and we banish the other pesky constitutional provisions to another 50 year exile.
174 脗路 Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said
crap. i knew that che guevara flag was no accident. clinton was right, unvetted stealth manchurian candidate indeed.
This is the only Che-referencing item I own.
160 脗路 rob said
oops – I missed that. Yeah, now the absurdity makes sense.
What new-fangled philosophies have I been offering, Manju? Read your conservative friend Tim Scanlon on accommodation/health care 馃檪
boston_mahesh, aside from your generally dismissive and offensive characterization of religious minorities and Arabs, to date, NO ONE has used the kirpan in the U.S. in an offense-driven way for at least the last 60 years (i.e., as an attacker as opposed to a defendant). I can’t say the same thing with certainty for the UK/Canada, but I’m pretty sure it’s similar. Maybe this is something non-Sikhs simply can’t understand, but there is a STRINGENT disciplining aspect within the Sikh community as well. It’s not like ANYONE can take up the kirpan. But, we’re not talking about the kirpan, we’re talking about the turban, and your argument doesn’t hold.
177 脗路 portmanteau said
No true blue conservative actually reads, Poetmanteau. Stop seducing me.
how can i misrepresent the context in which free speech was ratifued if i did not speak about how it was ratified in the fist place?
By quoting the 1st amendment to defend the usage of phrases such as “Merry Christmas” in public forums/gov’t communities, you make it seem that the 1st amendment’s purpose is to allow individuals to say whatever they want, which in fact is not true, rather the context of it was to allow criticism and free-flowing debate even if the govt was the target of said debate. In fact, true deriliction of the first amendment occurred in via the Sedition Act of 1918, where it criminalized “disloyal” speech.
Either way, it doesn’t even apply at the state level, what the 1st amendment really says is “Congress shall make no law…” Ie.. federal. So a state gov’t believing in separation of church and state can do whatever the hell it wants, and it wouldn’t contravene the first amendment.
in other words, the govt can’t ban a communist press then justify it by saying their banig all ideolocal newspapers and thus treating all speech equally.
its a little different, because speech is something one does with just your body, the “free speech bans” as you call them are only applicable when on govt property and in public forums. It’s called Separation of Church and State. I guess, in the unlikely event that someone hauls a printing press and starts running off copies of the communist newsletter during their post office working hours, then yes I’d support curtailing that as well.
What people don’t realize is that separation of church and state isn’t a “war on” anything really, rather its for the protection of the holiday as a true religious holiday, and not a secularized one where all kinds of people are saying “Merry christmas” to each other.
Err–no–see, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut.
They said this day would never come.
But seriously, I think the claim that an argument to reducing healthcare costs is purely an encroachment on personal liberties misses the fact that the limitation of personally destructive choices might actually expand rights (for example access to medical care) for the majority. There is a legitimate trade-off involved.
i didn’t say anything about the first amendment allowing individuals to say anything they want.
that was one context. the founding fathers where certainly concerned about political debate (because it was central to a democracy) but their concern was not limited to it, as is obvious from looking at the text of the constitution where prohibiting the free exercise of religion is specifically banned. free speech was not restricted to debates, and has subsequently not been interpreted to be that restrictive.
.
it was, as are the many example of a war on christians. the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
i’m not sure if you’re trying to say it shouldn’t be applied to the states or that its not. surely you know that the first amendment has been applied to all state actors for some time now as “congress” has been interpreted broadly. the 14th amendment also specifically bring the states into the bill of rights if there is any confusion. this is pretty basic long standing law.
separation of church and state is not in the constitution. the first amendment bans an establishment of religion and people saying merry christmas at work does not constitute an establishment. that’s why christians have generally been winning these cases in the courts.
the govt protecting a “true religious holiday” would also be unconstitutional and violate the establishment clause, as govt is not allowed to enforce their interpretation of religion. if people choose to use christmas to celebrate american capitalism, it is thier constitutional right ot do so.
I really think it is ridiculous if there are bans on employees saying “Merry Christmas” etc. because there are some over-sensitive folks who take offense. But if a government spends taxpayer money on a nativity display, then other folks can legitimately request a Diwali fireworks show, Iftaar feasts, Chinese dragon boat shows, and so on, and so forth, and there is absolutely no basis to refuse any of these, as far as I can see.
i’m not sure if you’re trying to say it shouldn’t be applied to the states or that its not. surely you know that the first amendment has been applied to all state actors for some time now as “congress” has been interpreted broadly. the 14th amendment also specifically bring the states into the bill of rights if there is any confusion. this is pretty basic long standing law.
Not all Bill of Rights were incorporated against the state by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment fulls incorporates the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendment against the state while partially incorporates 5th and 8th Amendment against the state.
i didn’t say anything about the first amendment allowing individuals to say anything they want.
Thats the implication when you use it to defend a persons right to say Merry Christmas. (of course barring the harm)
as is obvious from looking at the text of the constitution where prohibiting the free exercise of religion is specifically banned.
wrong o again. the constitution says that congress shall pass no law establishing one religion. it says nothing about free exercise of relgion on govt property.
surely you know that the first amendment has been applied to all state actors for some time now as “congress” has been interpreted broadly.
show me a case where “congress” was interpreted broadly. Congress should be interpreted what it says.. Congress. because it elucidates the true context in which this amendment was put forth in the first place.
separation of church and state is not in the constitution. the first amendment bans an establishment of religion and people saying merry christmas at work does not constitute an establishment.
Separation of church and state is a, state based issue. If certain states wish to adhere to it more strictly, then they may do so. However, they do so across the board. Personally, I believe it. And I lose no sleep over some christian conservative whining about not being able to say “christmas” in a public/govt forum, as it’s clear that no one is trying to suppress his voice in a debate, or his point of view on an issue, rather to reinforce the founding father’s notion that no one religion should be given any kind of importance or signifance moreso than another, which is why I wouldnt want someone saying Happy Diwali either.
the govt protecting a “true religious holiday” would also be unconstitutional
I’m not talking about the gov’t exclusively, nor am I even saying that the gov’t is willfully doing it for that reason. I’m just pointing out the irony how the very “Christians” that bark about the war on christmas are likely to be waging an even more heinous war on the holiday themselves, by diluting it.
That’s rich. Saying that Christmas should celebrate the birth of Christ as “an interpretation”
184 脗路 Rahul said
i think as constitutional law stands now, they can request and can’t be denied due to viewpoint, not unlike publicly financed art museums as Giuliani discovered.
Dude, see post 181. You are badly wrong on this–that’s ok, we all make mistakes, but no need to dig yourself in deeper.
HMF: I think you did not completely understand what Manju was saying. Manju was suggesting that its illegal for the Government to ban the saying of ‘Merry Christmas’ under the Free Exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment and not under the ‘free speech’ clause of the First Amendment which you thought Manju was referring to. When Manju mentioned the First Amendment in the ‘Merry Christmas’ case, he was not referring to the free speech part of the First Amendment but the ‘free exercise of religion’ part of the First Amendment.
Err–no–see, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut.
Umm, this is a supreme court brief, last I checked they were in washington, dc.
HMF: Drop it bro! You are dead wrong. Congress in the First Amendment for the last 100 years plus has been interpreted to include all state actors (federal gov, state gov, city gov, public univ/school)
What do you mean by that? You’ve lost me.
HMF:
i going to bow out of this debate with you b/c either you’re completely ignorant about const law and you’re just trying to fake it, or you’re not ignorant and just weird. i mean, “congress” does not apply to the states, the first ammedment says nothing about free expression on govt property? this is just basic stuff which i’d be happy to elaborate on but you don’t seem to really want to learn, as your weird exchange with rob demonstrates.