Should religious people be subject to different laws to the rest of us?

Scroll to see replies

n00

Which just seems like a workaround to me to allow for the assumption of guilt. Either carrying a knife is illegal, which is clearly ridiculous, or carrying a knife with the intent to use it as a weapon is illegal.

Which made me wonder, do juries still have the right to nullify in this country?

Its more the latter. Its illegal to carry a weapon without a valid, legal reason to do so. The interpretation of that is largely up to the jury.

Juries aren't meant to really. They are only there to say if they did or did not do what they are accused of, leaving the rest up to the judge. That said I remember a case of several protesters breaking an aircraft and leaving a tape of them doing so, yet the jury finding them not guilty, which is perhaps one of the largest miscarriages of justice I have ever heard of, as though there cause may have been good, they did still obviously break the law. The judge does not have to use a literal interpretation remember, so it does have a degree of common sense.

Reply 61

JamesF87

The Kirpan is a small knife that is a ceremonial part of some orthodox sects within Sikhism. It is not a weapon like a flick knife that is carried by thugs to "defend themselves innit". I myself carry a swiss army knife in one of the pockets of my cargo trousers almost everyday. I use to peel apples/salami, cut paper, remove corks from wine bottles, open bottle caps, pick my teeth, remove wood splinters, cut my nails, file my nails, strip wire, scale fish. In addition it also has a screwdriver, a pair of pliers, a ballpoint pen and other things as well.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/511-I9nN-JL._AA280_.jpg

If it was down to people like you I wouldn't be allowed to lawfully carry my swiss army knife. People like you hate freedom. You don't trust others to behave themselves.
As to the original question. I think the Law should apply equally. However, I believe that some faiths must be given some leeway on matters of morality or conscience. For example some Catholic adoption agencies were forced to close because they refused to allow homosexuals to adopt children in their care. If I was a devout Christian or Muslim Doctor then I would refuse to perform abortions except in extreme cases (ie the mother has been raped, she is mentally retarded or physically handicapped and cannot look after herself or if she had cervical or overian cancer).

Reply 62

Psyk

JamesF87

I think most people have a problem with it not because they think no one can be trusted with knives, but because it's unfair that it being part of your religion is automatically considered a legitimate reason for carrying one. The thing is people may have their own symbolic reasons for carrying around a knife, but it would be so much harder to prove that is a legitimate reason if you don't follow a major religion.

I partly agree with you about allowing people to follow their religious "morals". If an adoption agency is run by the Catholic church, then I don't see why they should be forced to let gay couples adopt. After all, the biological parent has already agreed to those terms when they put them up for adoption.

It's basically the same with the doctor thing. If a muslim or a christian has their own private practice then it's up to them if they don't want to perform abortions. But if they're hired by the NHS or a private hospital, they should do what they're paid to do by their employer, and if that goes against their religious preferences then they should find another job.

Should religious people be subject to different laws to the rest of us?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you