Stupid Old Men

The Economist is running an article on the ongoing debate of how much accommodation should be given to religions that wish to regulate the lives of their faithful -- especially when they conflict with the laws of the land. This isn't a debate just about Islam and Sharia law -- although that's where the noise has been coming from recently. Religious law and its practice has had a long and rich history in the world's preeminent democracies -- and it has always been a fine line in the court of civic society. As the article points out, the Jews, the Amish, the Christians -- they've all had their share of making binding pronoucements from their respective pulpits. But where does it end?

In my opinion, it should have ended before it began. Compromises should not be made to the law of the land, and religion should definitely not play a role in the determining or application of law -- including the ritual swearing on holy books. It is an increasing global state we live in and the dictates of one's beliefs should not be binding on even the believers. Laws should be applied equally to everyone. I realize there are opposite ends of the spectrum involved here, but I'm not for compromising on this score. The article cites as an example, Sikhs in BC, who are allowed to ride motorcycles without helmets. That's wrong, and is a perversion of our collective social agreement to compromise on that account. Should Sikhs in motorcycle accidents be given the same medical attention for head injuries? Their religious beliefs represent a financial burden to society. Simply put, the Sikh religion doesn't allow its adherents to ride motorcycles -- at least in Canada.

If you follow the trail of relgious law, you'll eventually get back to some old guy, in a white beard, most likely wearing a costume that includes a really ugly hat. I'm sorry, but I don't think we want society under the dictate of their whims.