Should there be special rights granted to people that follow the Sikh religion?

I agree with you, Ron C.

No, they should not be given special rights. They should, however, be given the same freedom to practice their religion as anyone else. Their religion includes carrying a ceremonial sword. And if you do any research, you’ll learn that Sikhs have made many concessions to Western culture regarding this particular item. They typically carry very small swords (three inches or less), and those swords are often dulled and/or bolted into sheaths (which does not violate their religion because the swords are not meant to be drawn). Not everyone does all of these things, and I understand why there needs to be compromise here. But the sword should not be categorically banned. This specific case might be understandable, but it is not grounds for generalizing.

As for the difference between this and a “redneck Tea Party Baptist” insisting that his religion called for him to carry his rifle at all times, the difference is obvious. The Baptist would be lying. No extant religion recognized by the US government requires one to carry a rifle at all times.

Turban, yes. Sword, no.

@jca thanks for your vote. I know a couple guys that are Sikhs. They have the beard and turban but I never saw a sword. In my profession, we go into a number of firms that are security cautious. We fly a lot and pass through magnetic detectors at the airport and at customer’s sites. I never heard of a Sikh having a problem.

@SavoirFaire If weapons are banned then they are banned for everyone, regardless of their religion. Granting special access for people with daggers or women completely covered in veils make no sense at all.

@marinelife I agree.

In the name of religious freedom you are still not allowed to pose a security threat, especially a weapon in a movie theatre. That being said, I bet there were a few conceal and carry’s in there.

No.

I’m generally sympathetic with sikhs, but I think that they’re on the wrong side of this. This policy isn’t racist or discriminatory; it would be racist and discriminatory to say that if you appear South Asian and wear a turban, then you get privileges that others do not.

Many religions impose limitations on followers. There’s an element of renunciation that goes with that: it’s understood that these impositions will be inconvenient, and that they may make it impractical to do things that non-followers commonly do. So the follower has to choose. That’s been part of religious practice for a very long time. The current public safety climate has suddenly made this requirement to carry the kirpan a a lot more inconvenient than it was before, but that’s the chance one takes when committing to follow a path of renunciation.

No. Law trumps religion. Even some rules trump religion. If no weapons are allowed, no weapons are allowed.

@Ron_C My point is that most kirpans barely even count as weapons. Many are less dangerous than a pen. I see no reason to ban those simply because they are in the shape of a weapon. You might as well ban plastic lightsabers at Star Wars openings. So while I agree with @thorninmud regarding the element of renunciation that comes with many religions, we need to also remember that the US legal system includes freedom of religion as part of its highest law.

This is why claims like “law trumps religion” miss the mark here. Even if we reduce this to a purely legal issue, no US law can outrank or overrule the US Constitution. Given that freedom of religion is part of the US Constitution, then, religious protections really do trump other laws (at least, from a legal perspective). Religious protections are not absolute, but they are very strong. I see no legally sufficient case for a categorical ban on kirpans.

As I said before, this does not mean that the theater in this particular case was mistaken. Denying that there are grounds for a categorical ban in no way entails that there are no grounds for setting guidelines on what is and is not acceptable. But dulled and bolted kirpans have been allowed on airplanes, in government buildings, and various other places where there are blanket bans on weaponry. Moreover, US courts have found that categorical bans on kirpans are unconstitutional. Consistency, then, requires that we allow them in movie theaters so long as they meet certain safety criteria.

Tons of Sikhs in L.A. and I never see any them wearing a sword. Never.

What state is this in?

Edit: I see it was in No. CA. Interesting. I have never seen a Sikh wearing a sword.

@SavoirFaire “I see no reason to ban those simply because they are in the shape of a weapon.” You may understand this and I do understand this but think of the people that work in the theater. There is a good chance that most of them have been outside their county and they are likely to be completely ignorant of the Sikh religion. I don’t believe that everyone must be aware of each religion’s idiosyncrasies. The no weapons ban is simple and easy to follow and is not, nor should it be dependent upon particular religions.

If someone with a concealed carry license. shows his gun, he’s out too. Having an unconcealed weapon (even if it is not operational) shows that the person expects special handling and I just don’t believe they should.

By the way, I also hate “zero tolerance” rules. They are an indication that the company’s leadership does not trust its employees to make responsible decisions. In a movie theater this may well be the case. In other places like schools, zero tolerance should never be considered. I carried a pen knife when I was in grade school and never threatened anyone with it. It was a toy and a tool, not a weapon. Now a days, I would be expelled, that’s just stupid.

@tinyfaery They might not be very observant, or they might be carrying swords so small that they are easy to overlook. A friend of mine carried one so small it could fit in her pocket.

@Ron_C An argument that runs “X is the right thing to do; but X is difficult; therefore, we should not do X” is fallacious (not to mention self-contradictory). The theater workers might be ignorant, but that doesn’t mean that anyone’s rights should be held hostage to their ignorance.

Educate them. Put up a poster that explains what is and is not allowed (as the Department of Homeland Security does for airport inspectors). After all, we wouldn’t allow them to force people to remove band t-shirts just because they didn’t know about freedom of speech.

Maybe this sounds like idealism, but you asked us what we think should be the case. This is what I think the correct answer is, and I just don’t accept “but it’s hard” as a reason not to work towards it. From your last answer, it looks like you very well might agree.

When I’ve lived in foreign countries I obey their laws and respect their cultures. If I find these intolerable, and I have, I leave. It’s real simple. There are plenty of countries to choose from. If there is a law that one can’t carry a certain kind of concealed weapon without a permit, get a permit. If there are no permits for this, stop carrying the weapon or leave. If a private business does not want you on the premises with the weapon, don’t patronize the place. I follow the laws and customs while in other countries and I expect the same from others—whether it is against their culture, religion, their personal creed, or whatever.

So, they can carry their religious weapons according to their culture and we shall fine and jail them according to ours.

This is what happens in the UK where there are quite a lot of Sikhs.

Kirpan (Dagger). Some police officers may believe Sikhs carry the dagger as an offensive weapon. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which deals with carrying articles with points or blades, there is an exemption, if the person is carrying the item for religious reasons. There is however, no specific exemption under the Prevention of Crimes Act 1953. The person carrying the offensive weapon would have to show that they had a reasonable excuse. The inference being that the carrying of the Kirpan for religious reasons would fall into this category.

In practice, Sikhs who carry the Kirpan will often only carry a very small knife, which could be described as ornamental rather than the original version, which, therefore, complies with their religion.

Others have taken to incorporating it into the design of their Kangha (comb): therefore it is very unlikely to constitute an offensive weapon.

@SavoirFaire I agree with your logic but not your conclusion in this case. I believe the reason is that too much respect is given to religions. Many Americans believe that the 2nd amendment gives them a right to carry a gun. Those people would be stopped from entering the theater. I completely fail to see any reason to give more respect to a religious group.

@Espiritus_Corvus is right, if the person doesn’t like the theater’s policy, he has the right to go elsewhere.

There is just too much credence given to religion. By the way, I am against the religious tax exemption except to the portion actually used for charity. Tax exempted money given for church repair or missionary work should not be exempt from tax.

No. No special treatment. Obey the law like everybody else, and if they don’t like it, they can go live somewhere else. Why should they get exceptions?

@Espiritus_Corvus The United States is not necessarily a foreign country to these Sikhs. Many Sikhs are born and raised in there and call it home for their entire lives. Equating a different religion with foreignness is prejudicial and ethnocentric.

@Ron_C Believing that the US Constitution granting you a particular right and it actually granting you that right are two different things. So in the case of your Second Amendment example, the relevant issue is whether or not the person who believes they have a constitutional right to carry a gun into a theater is correct in that assessment.

I am familiar with your hostility to religion. I am not religious myself, but yours is a position I do not share. In fact, I find generalized hostility towards religion to be a form of bigotry. I will argue about religion in appropriate venues, such as this website, but I refuse to hate someone just because they believe differently than I do.

Regardless, my point was that the law, as it stands, supports the rights of Sikhs to carry kirpans so long as they adhere to certain criteria. If you don’t like the law, then your argument is not with me. It is with the US Constitution. Go get an amendment passed.

@Symbeline It isn’t an exception, though. It is part of the same freedom of religion granted to all citizens of the United States of America.

There was something similar a few years ago at a local amusement park near where I work. The rules were that no headgear/headwear were allowed on rides. Muslims rioted when they were not allowed to ride the rides with their head wraps (what ever they’re called) on. It was a safety issue, prohibited for everyone. You can bet your ass that if they wore it on a ride and were injured, they’d sue, so the park had to cover its ass. It’s ridiculous shit, in my opinion. Like @JLeslie said, law trumps religion, and I believe safety issues should trump religion as well.

@SavoirFaire What difference does it make what generation of American we are talking about? On this one point, these people are super-imposing their culture in a very arrogant way and are not in any way willing to accommodate the ambient culture. This is not wise, especially when the kangha, if truly only a symbol of faith and never really to be used as a knife, could easily be reduced to a piece of jewelry to be worn about the neck or wrist and serve the same purpose. Merely dulling the blade and bolting the knife into the sheath is not good enough, because only the person wearing the kangha knows whether or not this has been done. They still appear to be armed and still risk the attention of the law. If the difference between the Sikh kangha and a weapon cannot be determined, then the person wearing this religious symbol is rightfully inviting search and seizure. While nobody is asking these people to not observe their beliefs in general—which the first amendment guarantees—they would be smart to give this concession. This is a Public Safety issue, which trumps freedom of religion every time. Even freedom of speech, our most cherished of rights, is trumped when it is employed in an unsafe way. Call it what you want: racial profiling, religious intolerance—but it is in fact a public safety issue to a public that just saw over 20 children massacred just before Christmas and a theater in Colorado decimated by a madman soon afterwards. Only a damn fool would walk around appearing to be armed and not expect to be questioned at this time. Especially in a movie theater. (I can’t help but feel this is a set up for a test case. It is damn near identical to the Toronto Sikh discrimination suit a couple of years ago—also involving a man and his kangha .)

So, like I stated above, we should all feel free to follow our own cultures: they can follow their cultural beliefs and wear their kangha in public places and we shall follow ours and promptly arrest them.

^^^ Scratch Kangha above and make that Kirpan instead.

No one is preventing them from following their religion. The message that they can’t carry weapons into a theater doesn’t interfere with their practice of religion. It interferes with their movie viewing. And that is not a right that’s guaranteed protection.

@SavoirFaire I don’t hate religion, I disregard it. Maybe I feel this way because of the many years in which I was deeply involved in the subject. I even, briefly considered entering the Priesthood. I am just saying that the religious should concede to the law of the land rather than changing the law to accede to idiosyncratic religious machinations.

@Espiritus_Corvus is much more aligned with my way of thinking.

Of course not.

Secular laws (made by elected representatives) supersede religious laws, which means only those religious laws, rule or rituals are permitted that don’t violate secular laws. So turban yes, sword no. Secular laws differ from country to country. In France it’s scarf yes, face veil no.

@Espiritus_Corvus There are two main mistakes in your reply. The first is your claim that Sikhs arrogantly attempt to impose their culture on others and are not willing to accommodate the ambient culture. As I have already noted multiple times, this is simply false. The traditional kirpan was a fully functional weapon that was worn but not used. In order to comply with modern worries about weaponry, however, Sikhs have modified their kirpans in various ways (such as dulling the blade, reducing the size, and bolting the sword into its sheath).

As such, it very frequently is reduced to something very much like a piece of jewelry (often small enough to fit in one’s pocket). And as no religious rule prevents a Sikh from temporarily handing over a kirpan for inspection so that one can confirm that it is dull and bolted, your worry about being unable to determine the difference between a kirpan and a weapon that might be used for violence is unwarranted.

Furthermore, these compromises have largely been the result of bilateral discussions between Sikh leaders and government officials. Sikhs are quite possibly the most accommodating religious group in the US. They are certainly more accommodating than Christians (who like to pretend that they are the culture).

Note that I am excluding for the sake of this comparison groups whose beliefs do not come into conflict with US laws. As there is no conflict, there are no grounds for calling such groups accommodating or unaccommodating, and thus no grounds for calling them more or less accommodating.

Second, you have continued in your mistaken insistence that this is a conflict of cultures. As I have already pointed out, it is not. It is the United States’ own laws and culture that puts a high premium on religious freedom, and thus it is the United States’ own laws and culture that should—if consistently applied—grant Sikhs the right to carry their kirpans so long as they are willing to make accommodations for safety concerns (which, as I have already noted several times, they do).

Note also that your freedom of speech comparison doesn’t actually pass muster. The clear and present danger standard was found unconstitutional and replaced by the incitement of imminent lawless action standard. In other words, speech must be far more than vaguely unsafe to warrant restricting it. So while Sikhs should—and do—expect to be questioned regarding the kirpan, that does not mean that perfectly safe kirpans should be seized or the people carrying them refused entry to theaters.

Careful readers will have already noted that I explicitly refrained from giving my support to the Sikhs in this particular case, as they do not seem to have done their part to accommodate safety concerns. In this respect, I completely agree with @thorninmud‘s point about renunciation. If they refuse to make any compromises, then they will have to adjust their behaviors accordingly. The blanket ban suggested by @Ron_C also strikes me as unwarranted, however, thus the moderate position I have taken.

@jca How presumptuous to say what the Muslims in question would have done. Perhaps they would have been willing to sign a waiver freeing the park of liability in the event of an injury. You don’t know, and neither do I. Furthermore, this is not a case of law versus religion (as I’ve already noted). It is a case of the US Constitution versus local regulations. Are you suggesting that the latter trumps the former?

@Jeruba Burning down churches doesn’t prevent people from following their religion either. They can practice it in their homes. Less dramatically, refusing to let people wear a cross around their neck doesn’t prevent a Christian from following Christianity. There is no jewelry requirement in the New Testament. It would, however, be interfering with freedom of religion—which covers religious expression as well as religious practice—and thus is prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

@Ron_C I have seen you say many hateful and bigoted things about religion and religious people on this site. That you often do so in the name of liberalism also makes you one of those who give the left a bad name. Regardless, the law of the land here is that people get religious freedom. As such, your objection is entirely specious. This is not a matter of law versus religion, but of law versus law (or US Constitution versus local ordinance).

@mattbrowne As I’ve noted several times, the secular law in the US is that religious folk are allowed to express their religion in these ways. There is no question of religious law superseding secular law here, but only a question of which secular law trumps the other. In the US, this is very clearly defined: the US Constitution trumps movie theater managers.

@SavoirFaire: Muslims sign a waiver in order to be able to wear headgear on an amusement park ride. OK, but maybe, just maybe, it’s not just a safety issue for the ones wearing the headgear, but for other riders as well, and park attendees, if the headgear should get stuck in a moving ride. So what about the safety of the other riders and park attendees?

As far as the Sikhs practicing their religion, nobody is preventing them from practicing their religion. The theater is just saying the safety of all trumps the Sikhs demands to carry their weapon. I think someone said something similar above.

@SavoirFaire “have seen you say many hateful and bigoted things about religion and religious people ”—-Really? I will admit that I think the ultra-religious get too much of a free ride; that’s a fact not bigotry.

I cannot see any reason for the respect the U.S. gives to religion. “The law of the land” states that the government cannot support or espouse religions. Instead it drags down the economy by allowing unlimited religious deductions and expects citizens to take up the slack. I really hate that. As for the denigrating religious fundamentalists, I don’t! I simply point out their “specious” arguments and beliefs.