HOT TAKE: Prove it goes against your religion.

[Thomasi]

Damn title character limit.

If someone has a religious exemption they should be required to show the passage in the book that they are claiming exempts them from X/Y/Z. For example if a Christians claimed getting vaccinated violated their religion they should be required to 1. Find the passage in the bible that says they are not supposed to get vaccinated, and 2, that it must predate the social security administrations creation (because they exempted some sects from needing to pay SS tax that predated the bill).

For most laws I would be willing to make exemptions (the laws that shouldn't be allowed to be exempt being violent crimes like murder or rape) if they meet 3 criteria.

1. The person is devout in their faith- This means that they follow as much as legally and safely possible (if you need to take a prohibited medicine to survive I'm not going to count that against someone), and adhere to the laws of their religion without exception.

If you are Muslim or Jewish and eat pork you fail this test (sorry don't have any other concrete example)

2. There is text to back up your claim- This means you can point to a passage in your holy book that could be reasonably interpreted to prohibit doing that the law requires. This would generally require the governing body of your religion to also hold the same view point.

If the pope when speaking for the Vatican says something that contradicts the attempted exemption then they lose it.

3. It must have existed before 1940 or be a global religion- This means that it can't just have been made up a few years (or days) ago to get around a law, and if it is new it must have been widely established and adopted world wide.

If Bob tries to claim they are part of a Religion founded in 2000 that is present in 5 countries they lose the exemption.

[Ifreann]

Sounds like a lot of effort to go to when you could just not have religious exemptions.

[Paintings that come alive]

This gives license to fundamentalists to oppress moderates. Not a good idea.

[Thomasi]

Sounds like a lot of effort to go to when you could just not have religious exemptions.

While I agree that is easier, I do have respect for those people who follow their religion to the T since they are sincere in their exemption vs people just trying to use it because they don't like said law.

This gives license to fundamentalists to oppress moderates. Not a good idea.

I think the number of people that would qualify would be so low that this wouldn't be much or a risk.

[Esternial]

Depending on how liberally you interpret your holy book you could get away with a lot, I reckon.

[Rusozak]

Some places have already started doing that specifically for covid vaccination. My college for example, fact checks any religious exemption claims and asks for proof. But I agree it should be stuck down or at least be tightly regulated. Too many people use religious exemption as a free pass to not have to do anything they don't want to do.

[Ifreann]

Sounds like a lot of effort to go to when you could just not have religious exemptions.

While I agree that is easier, I do have respect for those people who follow their religion to the T since they are sincere in their exemption vs people just trying to use it because they don't like said law.

Yet your conditions would exclude many people from exemptions based on their sincere beliefs. What about religions that don't have holy texts? What about religions that don't have governing bodies? And if someone's sincere beliefs diverge from their holy texts or governing body, why should they not be granted an exemption? And why should novel religious beliefs need to be widespread?

You seem very concerned with preventing people from making up religious beliefs to get around the law, but if the laws are that important then why allow religious exemptions at all? If the law isn't that important, why should anyone need to follow it?

[Paintings that come alive]

This gives license to fundamentalists to oppress moderates. Not a good idea.

I think the number of people that would qualify would be so low that this wouldn't be much or a risk.

Disagree.

If "following the precepts of a religion" becomes a condition for the exercising of a legal right to an exemption, then the question becomes "who determines that the precepts are followed?"

And I suspect that this is where the fundamentalists would start hijacking the religious standards.

[Ethel mermania]

Depending on how liberally you interpret your holy book you could get away with a lot, I reckon.

Say jehovah and get hit by a rock

[Ethel mermania]

What about adherents to non abrahamic churches? Like the church of the subgenius

[Salus Maior]

The problem with this is that you don't really understand religion.

Not everything Christians believe is in the Bible, only Sola Scriptura Reformed types believe that they should believe nothing else aside from what's in the Bible. There are broader traditions that exist and inform what most Christians believe.

Furthermore, just because the Pope says it doesn't mean it's automatically binding on the whole church.

[Nimzonia]

If a law is actually important, then nobody should be exempt from it. If it isn't, then it shouldn't exist.

[Vassenor]

Depending on how liberally you interpret your holy book you could get away with a lot, I reckon.

Say jehovah and get hit by a rock

I'll get the whistle.

[The Alma Mater]

Sounds like a lot of effort to go to when you could just not have religious exemptions.

While I agree that is easier, I do have respect for those people who follow their religion to the T since they are sincere in their exemption vs people just trying to use it because they don't like said law.

Why only religious exemptions?
Suppose I have genuine non-religious objections against something. Why should that be dismissed out of hand unless it is also written in a religious text?

[The Alma Mater]

If a law is actually important, then nobody should be exempt from it. If it isn't, then it shouldn't exist.

Let us use unsedated slaughter as an example. In various countries this way of slaughter is illegal due to animal welfare concerns - but exemptions exist for Jews and Muslims.

Should the exemption or the ban go ?

[Nimzonia]

If a law is actually important, then nobody should be exempt from it. If it isn't, then it shouldn't exist.

Let us use unsedated slaughter as an example. In various countries this way of slaughter is illegal due to animal welfare concerns - but exemptions exist for Jews and Muslims.

Should the exemption or the ban go ?

That depends. Are the animal welfare concerns valid?

[Paintings that come alive]

Let us use unsedated slaughter as an example. In various countries this way of slaughter is illegal due to animal welfare concerns - but exemptions exist for Jews and Muslims.

Should the exemption or the ban go ?

That depends. Are the animal welfare concerns valid?

Such validity is always weighed against the validity of other concerns, for instance religious tradition.

[The Alma Mater]

Let us use unsedated slaughter as an example. In various countries this way of slaughter is illegal due to animal welfare concerns - but exemptions exist for Jews and Muslims.

Should the exemption or the ban go ?

That depends. Are the animal welfare concerns valid?

Yes and no.
Yes, the allowed methods of slaughter are more animal friendly than the Jewish and Muslim way and far more friendly than certain other traditional non-religious methods of unsedated slaughter,
No, since being all concerned about the final moments of an animal while allowing it to be mistreated for most of its life is a pretty hollow gesture.

But let us assume for the sake of the debate the answer is "yes".

[Nimzonia]

That depends. Are the animal welfare concerns valid?

Such validity is always weighed against the validity of other concerns, for instance religious tradition.

Frankly I don't see what religious traditions have to do with the validity of animal welfare concerns. If the concerns are not valid enough to apply to Jews and Muslims then I don't see why they should apply to anyone else.

[Ethel mermania]

That depends. Are the animal welfare concerns valid?

Yes and no.
Yes, the allowed methods of slaughter are more animal friendly than the Jewish and Muslim way.
No, since being all concerned about the final moments of an animal while allowing it to be mistreated for most of its life is a pretty hollow gesture.

But let us assume for the sake of the debate the answer is "yes".

It use to be kosher and halal slaughter were the most pain free to the animal.. Over the past 60 years or so that has changed.

Farming conditions are a valid but different topic.

[Nimzonia]

That depends. Are the animal welfare concerns valid?

Yes and no.
Yes, the allowed methods of slaughter are more animal friendly than the Jewish and Muslim way and far more friendly than certain other traditional non-religious methods of unsedated slaughter,
No, since being all concerned about the final moments of an animal while allowing it to be mistreated for most of its life is a pretty hollow gesture.

But let us assume for the sake of the debate the answer is "yes".

In that case the exemption should go.

[Page]

This kind of sounds like punishing non-extremists and/or rewarding extremists. Like you'd grant a religious exemption to a raging Salafist but not to a Muslim who was the best man at his gay friend's wedding, even though the former is a threat to society while the latter is a regular decent person.

[Paintings that come alive]

Such validity is always weighed against the validity of other concerns, for instance religious tradition.

Frankly I don't see what religious traditions have to do with the validity of animal welfare concerns. If the concerns are not valid enough to apply to Jews and Muslims then I don't see why they should apply to anyone else.

The general rule is that "my freedoms stop where they interfere with your freedoms"
So on the one hand we have people who strongly believe that animals deserve to be slaughtered while sedated.
On the other hand we have the crowd that says "we have always done it that way" and who feel strongly about keeping it that way, because it is connected to their dietary precepts.

These two convictions are then weighed, and the compromise is that the animal-welbeing-crowd get their way with almost all people, except for the slaughterhouses that catered to two specific groups with dietary precepts.

The freedom to slaughter animals any way you want has been reduced, to cater to the sentiments of the animal welbeing
crowd. But the reduction has an escape clause for groups who´s convictions go back a lot further in time. And that compromise is how this is all connected.

[Fourth Jellian Republic]

Just change it to “philosophical exemptions” and your set.

[The Alma Mater]

Frankly I don't see what religious traditions have to do with the validity of animal welfare concerns. If the concerns are not valid enough to apply to Jews and Muslims then I don't see why they should apply to anyone else.

The general rule is that "my freedoms stop where they interfere with your freedoms"
So on the one hand we have people who strongly believe that animals deserve to be slaughtered while sedated.
On the other hand we have the crowd that says "we have always done it that way" and who feel strongly about keeping it that way, because it is connected to their dietary precepts.

These two convictions are then weighed, and the compromise is that the animal-welbeing-crowd get their way with almost all people, except for the slaughterhouses that catered to two specific groups with dietary precepts.

The freedom to slaughter animals any way you want has been reduced, to cater to the sentiments of the animal welbeing
crowd. But the reduction has an escape clause for groups who´s convictions go back a lot further in time. And that compromise is how this is all connected.

Now complicate the issue futher and add another religious group, for instance Hindus, who also have religious traditions involving unsedated slaughter.
Should those be honoured because you already made exemptions for two other religions?