[quote]orion wrote:
Because we have nicely bundled up some forms of insanity and called it religion because there are just too many people indulging in it to lock them all up.
Unfortunately that is a unsatisfying solution as it nudges them to congregate and reinforce their unhealthy superstitions but, given that there is quite a number of them, what r u gonna do?
Anyhow, we are talking about people who believe in crazy stuff, are not afraid to act on it and there is strenght in numbers.
Do you get why religious reasons are more “valid” than others?
Hint: They will fuck you up.[/quote]
By the way, I’m neither Muslim nor religious.
Look, if anything, I would say that denying her admission without reasonable accommodations will only (in the long term) fuel her country/faith’s propaganda machine and be used against the Western:
“Look at these Western infidels who don’t think we belong to the world community!”
I say: Don’t give them that opportunity if you can help it.
If anything, let her compete (again, if reasonable accommodations can be made that do not impair judging of her lifts) so that the world can say, “See? We have nothing against you guys. You’re making all this shit up.” Yes, they will make MORE shit up about many other things, but don’t give them a reason to add this to the list.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
Agreed. Why is “religion” a more valid reason than whatever secular reason a person comes up with for why they want to cover their head?[/quote]
Because of a disparity in consequence. There is a disparity even though you are stretching the definition to prove PARITY (there isn’t) between the two events.
A terminally ill grandpa is staying with his family. It is the dead of a cold winter. The family hasn’t paid the utility bill on time because times are very tough, and it’s now 1 month past due.
The family has also told the utility company that they have a terminally ill patient living at home and they have requested that the utility company NOT shut off the heat as the company normally would if the bill is X days past due.
The company decides to shut off the heat because they can’t reach the family to collect on the balance. The lack of heat and electricity kills the grandfather, who was also on a respirator.
Is the company at fault for killing the grandfather? Or were they just complying with their own policy?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]bcingu wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If it’s okay to wear some form of head covering, it’s okay for anyone. [/quote]
…It’s not about “head covering” being an inclusive definition to allow anyone to cover their heads with anything. For this particular lifter, her head covering is a part of her faith…[/quote]
Why should more value be placed on a faith-based preference than any other? What if a woman doesn’t want to abide by the rules because she believes the costume is immodest, but is coming from a secular perspective?[/quote]
Please take your reductionist ball of logic and go home; leave the debate to the grownups who possess (marginally) more intellectual capacity.
You are ignoring context. Someone’s religious head dress has more value–can you believe it?!–than your World Series cap. [/quote]
He actually made a sound point. A lucky cap can be as significant to a person as a religious piece of clothing. What if I’m a bald guy that always wears a hat and am embarrassed to take it off to the point I can’t compete without it.
What if my world series cap is from my last memory of my going to a game father and he died not long after?
You cannot conclude what is more valuable to anyone. I know several people who, for them, baseball is a religion.
But my point is, if covering your head and neck doesn’t interfere with judging for her, why would others not be allowed to do similar?[/quote]
I don’t have to conclude anything. It is self-evident. It is no more or less evident to me than it is to you or to any other non-Muslim.
How many of those baseball fans do you think would be shunned by their peers if they went a single day without their lucky hat? Would their quality of life suffer? Please don’t tell me that some casual ribbing by fellow fans constitutes what I’m talking about it. Come on, you are making a joke of the issue at this point. You are way to intelligent for that. The cap being of the last memory of your father? Sucks, but we are NOT talking about people saying, “Hey, DoubleDuce! Forgot your lucky hate today that daddy gave ya, huh? Well, asshole, no promotion for you! Wait, you’re now a lesser human being for it as well!” The consequences are NOT the same.
If others want to petition to have provisions made for them, they should go for it. That’s the point of a democratic process: allow your peers to speak up. The system should self regulate, in theory.
Although, I personally don’t think there would be many such petitions for non-religious/non-critical reasons, because the petitioner won’t want to come off as a spoil sport making a mockery of the system. I think lifters wouldn’t want the potentially negative PR that could ensue from that: “Look at this asshole making a joke of the system instead of just worrying about his/her lifts!” That’s what I personally think, not that a slew of Eastern Bloc lifters will come forward wanting to wear their Justin Beiber World Tour beanies (I personally sold mine and donated
proceeds to charity).
She’s not covering her head because it has sentimental value (like a baseball cap). It’s part of her daily life. Your baseball cap, while it might be very significant, is not so profound that you likely won’t leave home without it or that your quality of life would suffer (e.g. peer judgment that influences your daily life). They are not the same.
If I take your watch and then, when accused of stealing, argue that I was going to borrow it but “forgot to ask,” did I steal or did I “borrow” (without asking) your belonging?
If you sleep with a girl who wouldn’t have otherwise slept with you had you not lied to get in her pants, did you “rape” her?
I have a toddler. I feed him Jolly Ranchers every day, several times a day. He eventually dies of malnutrition. Wait, but I “fed” him, right? I did my duty as a parent, right?
What you did was akin to lying by omission. It’s not LYING per se (letter of the law), but it sure as hell falls in that realm. Again, it is intellectually dishonest and you’re just stretching a definition to argue your point. It does not hold at all. I cannot possibly be the only person who sees it that way and there’s no way you can’t possibly see where I’m going with this. I’m not attacking YOU (so please don’t retaliate in such a manner), but I’m saying that your argument is empty.
We can’t always rely on language to cover every dimension of an event. There’s a finite resolution by which we can determine the accuracy of the ‘fit’ (with respect to letter of the law), and then there’s ambiguity due to insufficient resolution afforded by language, such that we have to rely on judgment and the spirit of the law. Sometimes, deep down, something doesn’t sit right with us, even though by strict interpretation of a rule, that thing is “just fine.”
This argument has turned juvenile. I’m out.
