danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Tell me your opinion, Owen. I would love to hear it.

my opinion is that no, we should not tolerate anything simply because it is founded in religion. And banning women from driving, using their kid's education as a pawn in that ban, does affect the rights of the women to their own religious opinion, and of children to get education uninterrupted.

Your opinion?

I would have to agree with DF here. A woman can drive if she chooses. That being said, if she drives and her husband beats her; that man should be tried for his crime. The woman has the right to do that. If she chooses to not actualize that right, it is nobody's fault but her own.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Now, should we as a society tolerate the religious wish to discriminate in this way? Should a government agency - as has happened - suggest that this is illegal and so potentially take action? Or should they butt out of the free choice of the religious community?

Yes, you should tolerate it.

There is nothing so egregious here that violates human rights. We're not talking slavery or some heinous crime, or even a crime at all.

Well, no. Similarly the case that started this thread, or cases of anti-austerity anti-gay bakeries who are sanctioned by the state, are not slavery or a heinous crime either. Does not mean that there are not claims of rights to be looked at.

Furthermore, the woman could leave the religion whenever she chooses.

In theory, yes. In practice, not so easily because generally people are in the same religion as their families, and often there are tenets that suggest once in you are in for life. Also, this concerns not just the women but their children. In some religious sects, the social pressures are very strong (the threat of Hell can be compelling, as can the threat of social retaliation for abandoning the true faith). These women may not be in a position to make a free choice to simply leave.

More to the point, why can't the sect allow women to make their own choices about how to travel? Why do they have to involve the school and children in this? And how is this different from the famous Saudi ban on women driving?

Now, is this a real-life example (as I suspect)?

Yes, it is.

Earlier today I saw that the school had retracted the ban, and are saying the head did not act with the consent of governors. Although oddly they only say this now, after a report from an agency, despite it having been discussed publicly for weeks.

I have not linked to the story so as to make it a neutral question in terms of which religion it may be - imagine it could be any.

bbauska wrote:
I would have to agree with DF here. A woman can drive if she chooses. That being said, if she drives and her husband beats her; that man should be tried for his crime. The woman has the right to do that. If she chooses to not actualize that right, it is nobody's fault but her own.

So it is not her being physically assaulted to toe the line, but simply having her child's schooling removed is fine by you?

Where do you draw the line between those?

Fine? No.
Not a legal issue. Yes.

She has a right to do as she wishes. If she has a complaint against another person she should legally sue and attempt to redress her grievances. It is not a government issue until then.

Is it a private school? Can the father drive the student? Is there bus to school? Many questions...

Tell me why it is a government issue. She has the right already to drive. Why is it not before a court if she wants her life situation changed?

bbauska wrote:Fine? No.
Not a legal issue. Yes.

She has a right to do as she wishes. If she has a complaint against another person she should legally sue and attempt to redress her grievances. It is not a government issue until then.

What about the rights of her children? Are they at all material?

Is it a private school? Can the father drive the student? Is there bus to school? Many questions...

Yes, the two schools are private. The complaints are not from a specified individual, so I don't know if it is one woman, or several who are complaining. They may be widowed, or the father may not be able to drive.

There may be buses, but perhaps they fall foul of some religious strictures (female drivers, unsegregated, full of heretics)...

Tell me why it is a government issue. She has the right already to drive. Why is it not before a court if she wants her life situation changed?

I presume because they wanted to bring this to public attention and get the ban removed without litigation. Because the courts can take a long time. It also allows her/them to remain anonymous so as to avoid recriminations from their hardline community?

As yet, no actual legal action has been taken, just a report into whether there may be a case.

Children have a right to go to school, and the school is not prohibiting them.

This sounds like a personal matter, not one of discrimination.

What is the background that you appear to be cryptically avoiding?

bbauska wrote:Children have a right to go to school, and the school is not prohibiting them.

This sounds like a personal matter, not one of discrimination.

What is the background that you appear to be cryptically avoiding?

The school WAS saying it would prohibit children from the school if they were brought by a woman driving.

There is not much more to the background, other than which religion (and which particular strand of it) is involved.

A letter from the school was sent to parents. Someone complained to a newspaper (one associated with the religion) and a debate ensued.

Ahhh, I understand the situation a little better. The school is not prohibiting a child, but the mother from coming there in a car.

Why is the child in a school that the mother cannot bring them to school in a car? It is a private school, right?

The mother has school choice, and can put her child anywhere she wants. She is making the choice to stay there. If it is so much of a problem, then pull the child. If there are enough people who pull their children, then the school will fail.

Sounds easy to me...

The rule change was recent, due to a pronouncement made by the seat's leader. When the school started, no such prohibition was in place. Yes it is private, but that does not mean that it can suddenly change the rules.

The school was banning women drivers by saying it would prohibit a child from entering on a day it was driven in by a woman.

Changing schools in the Middle of the year, or worse towards the end and exam season, can be very disruptive.

danivon wrote:Well, no. Similarly the case that started this thread, or cases of anti-austerity anti-gay bakeries who are sanctioned by the state, are not slavery or a heinous crime either. Does not mean that there are not claims of rights to be looked at.

Apples and oranges. The bakery case was about the potential restriction of religious liberty. Your case is not about restricting religious liberty.

Furthermore, the woman could leave the religion whenever she chooses.

In theory, yes. In practice, not so easily because generally people are in the same religion as their families, and often there are tenets that suggest once in you are in for life.

Any religion you belong to simply because your family does is not your religion.

However, what you are putting forth is the State intervening because it wants to protect a woman from living out what she believes--even though it causes no direct harm. I'm against that. The State is too involved in our lives, imposing what it believes "ought" to be done too often.

Also, this concerns not just the women but their children. In some religious sects, the social pressures are very strong (the threat of Hell can be compelling, as can the threat of social retaliation for abandoning the true faith). These women may not be in a position to make a free choice to simply leave.

That's just not the world I've lived in my entire life--in two religions.

More to the point, why can't the sect allow women to make their own choices about how to travel? Why do they have to involve the school and children in this? And how is this different from the famous Saudi ban on women driving?

The Saudi ban is the government in action.

What you are proposing is the State interfering with a religion. You are welcome to that, but I would oppose it in the US. Thankfully, we have rights here.

Now, is this a real-life example (as I suspect)?

Yes, it is.

Earlier today I saw that the school had retracted the ban, and are saying the head did not act with the consent of governors. Although oddly they only say this now, after a report from an agency, despite it having been discussed publicly for weeks.

I have not linked to the story so as to make it a neutral question in terms of which religion it may be - imagine it could be any.

I don't imagine it could be. As I've said, I've been a part of two religions during my lifetime. In neither one would anything like what you've described have been accepted.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Well, no. Similarly the case that started this thread, or cases of anti-austerity anti-gay bakeries who are sanctioned by the state, are not slavery or a heinous crime either. Does not mean that there are not claims of rights to be looked at.

Apples and oranges. The bakery case was about the potential restriction of religious liberty. Your case is not about restricting religious liberty.

Liberty is liberty. Or are you saying religious liberty trumps other freedoms of action and expression? Given that until recently women driving was not forbidden, could them wanting toncontinue not be considered part of their religious freedom to interpret the tenets as they always had until the leader decided to change it?

Furthermore, the woman could leave the religion whenever she chooses.

In theory, yes. In practice, not so easily because generally people are in the same religion as their families, and often there are tenets that suggest once in you are in for life.

Any religion you belong to simply because your family does is not your religion.

That may be your religious belief, but it is not everyone's. I would agree myself, but I don't presume to project my beliefs on my choices and the reasons behind it on to others. Some people fervently believe that they are born into their faith. Some religions are based on heredity - in that you apparently cannot chose it unless you have the correct parentage. Which also produces another pressure on people to stay in.

However, what you are putting forth is the State intervening because it wants to protect a woman from living out what she believes--even though it causes no direct harm. I'm against that. The State is too involved in our lives, imposing what it believes "ought" to be done too often.

No. It is to protect a woman who wants to live out what she believes from her co-religionists who want her live a different way, and will punish her by stopping her kids from entering school.

If the state were forcing women to drive, that would go too far. If all women freely decided not to drive, then fine (a bit repressed, but their choice), but that is not the situation - the woman/women complaining want to be able to drive without being penalised due to the religious beliefs of others.

Also, this concerns not just the women but their children. In some religious sects, the social pressures are very strong (the threat of Hell can be compelling, as can the threat of social retaliation for abandoning the true faith). These women may not be in a position to make a free choice to simply leave.

That's just not the world I've lived in my entire life--in two religions.

Are those the only two religious traditions? Are they even the only two which involve Christ?

More to the point, why can't the sect allow women to make their own choices about how to travel? Why do they have to involve the school and children in this? And how is this different from the famous Saudi ban on women driving?

The Saudi ban is the government in action.

So to you it is not the restriction of freedom, but who is doing it?

What you are proposing is the State interfering with a religion. You are welcome to that, but I would oppose it in the US. Thankfully, we have rights here.

So the state should not interfere in any religious practices? I disagree. FGM, for example. Or the polygamy of hardline Mormons. Or any other religious practice that falls outside normal laws. The question then becomes what laws are and are not acceptable to have for all. And whether service providers (like a school) can change the rules like these have tried to.

Now, is this a real-life example (as I suspect)?

Yes, it is.

Earlier today I saw that the school had retracted the ban, and are saying the head did not act with the consent of governors. Although oddly they only say this now, after a report from an agency, despite it having been discussed publicly for weeks.

I have not linked to the story so as to make it a neutral question in terms of which religion it may be - imagine it could be any.

I don't imagine it could be. As I've said, I've been a part of two religions during my lifetime. In neither one would anything like what you've described have been accepted.

Well, maybe your direct experience of two religions is not comprehensive enough to count for all sects of all religions.

This is a real example, and it is a particular sect of a well known religion. One of the ones that claims an Abrahamic tradition (again, which of those it is is not the issue). Remember that a hardline sect is not necessarily representative of the whole religion. They will claim they are the only true XXXs and the rest are deviating. The rest of the religion may acknowledge them as members but just over zealous, or declare them to be heretical, but still - they believe it.

In the US, if it were a private school not receiving federal money, then nothing could be done. Well , a state could pass a law prohibiting the practice I suppose. (Then you would have to examine whether the law infringed religion).

My view almost certainly doesn't need to be stated, but I'll do it anyway.

My view is that it's high time we stopped pandering to grotesquely backwards belief systems that impose medieval standards of behaviour upon women, and to hell with 'tolerance' if it means we have to put up with that.I don't actually know what faith Dan is obliquely referring to here. The kneejerk assumption would be that it has to be an Islamic school, but I seem to recall seeing some headlines recently about women being banned from driving by certain ultra-orthodox Jewish sects and I suspect this story may have been what prompted them (I didn't read into it unfortunately, so I can't say for sure). Either way, I'll be damned if I'm willing to tolerate such backwards and repressive policies whether they're enacted in the name of Allah or Yahweh. We live in a society which permits women to drive and the school governors need to accommodate themselves to this fact, not try to hold children to ransom in a doomed attempt to impose their backwards ideology.

Should I be expected to tolerate the quaint tradition of female genital mutilation in the Somali community ? I realise that the two situations are not directly comparable, but nevertheless tolerance has its limits.

danivon wrote:Liberty is liberty. Or are you saying religious liberty trumps other freedoms of action and expression?

No, but clearly you Brits don't much value religious freedom--unless it's Muslim.

How do I know that? Our country was founded by people fleeing Britain for religious reasons. You have never had the kind of freedom of religion we have.

Given that until recently women driving was not forbidden, could them wanting toncontinue not be considered part of their religious freedom to interpret the tenets as they always had until the leader decided to change it?

Stop the charade. It's tiresome.

What religious group is this?

In any event, if a religion changes doctrine, some people leave it. Happens all the time. In fact, wars are fought over such things.

Any religion you belong to simply because your family does is not your religion.

That may be your religious belief, but it is not everyone's.

No, no one believes that. Countries may mandate it, but so what? If a country mandates my belief system, all they've done is establish themselves as totalitarian. They cannot force me to believe anything.

I would agree myself, but I don't presume to project my beliefs on my choices and the reasons behind it on to others. Some people fervently believe that they are born into their faith. Some religions are based on heredity - in that you apparently cannot chose it unless you have the correct parentage. Which also produces another pressure on people to stay in.

That is not a religion; it is a social construct. You can call it Benedict Cumberbatch, but it won't be any more accurate.

However, what you are putting forth is the State intervening because it wants to protect a woman from living out what she believes--even though it causes no direct harm. I'm against that. The State is too involved in our lives, imposing what it believes "ought" to be done too often.

No. It is to protect a woman who wants to live out what she believes from her co-religionists who want her live a different way, and will punish her by stopping her kids from entering school.

No, it is the State determining what a religion may/may not teach. It would not pass muster here. Well, maybe it will--another liberal justice or two and the whole Bill of Rights will be gone.

If the state were forcing women to drive, that would go too far. If all women freely decided not to drive, then fine (a bit repressed, but their choice), but that is not the situation - the woman/women complaining want to be able to drive without being penalised due to the religious beliefs of others.

Rubbish. It's still a matter of choice.

Many churches forbid adultery. If one knows this and belongs to said church, should it be the State's business to step in? Suppose they actually kick the adulterer out? Is the State now justified in interfering?

If the church is violating no statute, then the State has no business regulating the church. Period.

That's just not the world I've lived in my entire life--in two religions.

Are those the only two religious traditions? Are they even the only two which involve Christ?

Nope.

But, if you're not going to ID this sect, it's kinda pointless.

The Saudi ban is the government in action.

So to you it is not the restriction of freedom, but who is doing it?

Of course, that's not what I said. You know that and are simply falling into your favorite bad habit.

The government in that case IS the religion. I don't approve of that, but it certainly is not analogous to what you're describing.

What you are proposing is the State interfering with a religion. You are welcome to that, but I would oppose it in the US. Thankfully, we have rights here.

So the state should not interfere in any religious practices? I disagree.

Again, please do try to restrain yourself from putting words in my keyboard. I'm against human sacrifice, for example, even though some religions have done it.

FGM, for example. Or the polygamy of hardline Mormons. Or any other religious practice that falls outside normal laws. The question then becomes what laws are and are not acceptable to have for all. And whether service providers (like a school) can change the rules like these have tried to.

Sorry, but those practices are not the same as the rather petty situation you're describing.

Well, maybe your direct experience of two religions is not comprehensive enough to count for all sects of all religions.

Tiresome. Identify the group or be done with it.

This really is, I suspect, a poorly-laid trap.

freeman3 wrote:In the US, if it were a private school not receiving federal money, then nothing could be done. Well , a state could pass a law prohibiting the practice I suppose. (Then you would have to examine whether the law infringed religion).

Exactly.