The allowing of ceremonial knives on school grounds

[Nyoibo]

Wait, what other religions are being forbidden from carrying weapons that thier faith requires?

[s_stabeler]

Originally Posted by wolfie

Also, who defines whether or not a religion whose tenets require bearing of arms is a legitimate faith?

simple: what are the beliefs of the religion? if there are more beliefs than " we wear a weapon all the time" then it is more or less fine. If the sole belief of the religion is bearing arms, then it is likely fake.

[Hyena Dandy]

Also, who defines whether or not a religion whose tenets require bearing of arms is a legitimate faith? A few hypotheticals:

I would guess that from United States v. Ballard, the choice would be that if it's a sincerely held belief, you can be allowed to. Sikhs in the army are given an exemption for facial hair and turbans. I don't know about construction sites, but I would think the answer is that they SHOULD be allowed to, as the only person endangered in a construction site would be the Sikh.

As for your hypotheticals.

If Church of Jesus Christ (Crusader) actually exists, then I think a religious exemption may be made. Though they may be asked to do the same thing Sikhs are, and render the sword inoperable.

H. Beam Piper and David Drake are fiction writers, and thus, beliefs that fictional characters hold are not protected, because those aren't real people. But since Wenzil doesn't exist, he can't take his gun anywhere anyway.

[otakuneko]

Originally Posted by wolfie

How about construction sites (must wear hard hat) where Sikhs refuse to wear a hard hat because it can't be worn at the same time as a turban? Or the military, where being clean-shaven is mandatory so that a gas mask will fit properly?

Two options:

a) Have the Sikh applicant sign a waiver, indemnifying his employer from any liability should he suffer an injury that could've been prevented by a hardhat or gas mask.
b) Refuse to hire the Sikh on grounds that wearing a hardhat is a bona-fide job requirement. Anti-discrimination/Equal Employment laws have exceptions, and this is one. If Steven Hawking applied for a job as a forklift operator, no one would bat an eye when he was refused.

[wolfie]

a) In a number of cases, waivers (though I haven't heard of one on this issue getting to court) have been judged to have no legal standing. Also, in the military case, someone being incapacitated will put their co-workers in danger. If the incapacitation is unnecessary (i.e. if they'd shaved, their gas mask would have worked properly), allowing a waiver would put their religious beliefs ahead of their co-workers' safety.

b) I was living in B.C. at the time this went to court. A construction company had refused to hire Sikhs because they couldn't/wouldn't wear hard hats due to incompatibility with turbans. The court ruled that their religious freedom trumped the "hard hats must be worn" safety rule. Of course, in the event of an injury that a hard hat would have prevented, the employer would still have been penalized by Worker's Comp as a result of the injury.

[HYHYBT]

So get a hard hat big enough to fit over the turban, problem solved.

[SongsOfDragons]

I swear I've heard of Sikh head protection that fits under the turban. The turban itself isn't the thing - iirc it's their long long hair which they're not allowed to cut...

[s_stabeler]

Originally Posted by wolfie

a) In a number of cases, waivers (though I haven't heard of one on this issue getting to court) have been judged to have no legal standing. Also, in the military case, someone being incapacitated will put their co-workers in danger. If the incapacitation is unnecessary (i.e. if they'd shaved, their gas mask would have worked properly), allowing a waiver would put their religious beliefs ahead of their co-workers' safety.

b) I was living in B.C. at the time this went to court. A construction company had refused to hire Sikhs because they couldn't/wouldn't wear hard hats due to incompatibility with turbans. The court ruled that their religious freedom trumped the "hard hats must be worn" safety rule. Of course, in the event of an injury that a hard hat would have prevented, the employer would still have been penalized by Worker's Comp as a result of the injury.

with waivers, it isn't that they have no legal standing, IIRC- it is that they are interpreted as narrowly as possible- in other words, the waiver protects against reasonably foreseeable risks, but not if the employer got careless.(for example, if you do extreme sports, a waiver won't help if the operator doesn't bother with safety gear. In the case of the Sikhs, there is a reasonable accomodation- there are less risky jobs that a Sikh can do, while still being employed by the company ( I'm sure there are office-=based positions)

[Seshat]

In many religions (all that I know of, but I don't know every single religion out there!); the religious leaders will consult with safety experts and come up with a compromise accomodation that suits both the religious requirements and the safety issues.

So in the case of the sikh turbans and hard hats, I expect (might be wrong, but expect) that there is some sort of hard hat that fits under or over a turban; or that there is an exemption in the religious law that says a hard hat is a suitable head covering when it's needed for safety reasons, or .. I dunno. Something.

Again, I may be wrong. But few religions actually would prefer their people having their brains bleeding out their ears, rather than wearing something safety orange on their head.