oldrebel: blog 
oldrebel's blog
should the state trump religious convictions ?
Published Nov. 8, 2009Views: 440
Today I came across some of the controversy involving members of the Sikh faith and the wearing of their "Dastar" while riding a motorcycle on public highways.
A Dastar is a mandatory headgear for Sikhs. Among the Sikhs, the turban is an article of faith that represents honor, self-respect, courage, spirituality, and piety. It is party worn to cover their long, uncut hair, their Kesh.This turban is mostly identified with the Sikh males, although some Sikh women also wear turban.
Since we don't really see a lot of Sikhs around here, this was an area of contention I'd never pondered. However in the United Kingdom and certain provinces of Canada as well as most of Asia and other countries, there have been exceptions granted for those of this particular faith when it comes to not wearing the normally mandated helmet while riding a motorcyle.
Personally I don't have a problem with the mandatory helmet laws if they are applied to all equally. But then I also like the idea of the government respecting the religious convictions of it's citizens to the point that their belief will trump the governmental oversight. So there is a dilemma here...Which do we give greater weight to...The mandates of the State, or the religious convictions of it's citizens?
All laws are written by men and women and enacted in an effort to have a well ordered society. Yet when those very laws infringe on the religious (or non religious) beliefs of an individual...what is "Right" in a nation where personal liberty is supposed to guide us in formulating laws.
With this idea of some people being granted the lattitude not to wear mandated headgear based solely on their personally held religious convictions seems approprite, but then what about others who for a variety of reasons balk at wearing that same protective headgear who are not granted such a dispensation? Perhaps there should not be such a mandate and such wearing or not wearing shuld be left to the discretion of the rider.
Perhaps the law should be changed to allow personal choice.
Since this will probably provoke a response from some that I've chosen to block/iggie in the past, I will relax my self held prohibitions and open the topic to all regardless of past differences. This seems only fair since this is a topic that many may have a personal viewpoint about and would like to engage others on it.
Turban, UK Legislation Regarding its use by Sikhs
The Sing Is King (Video) Whooo Whooo Way too cool !!!
Filed under: Religion
close31 Comments
![[no avatar]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/presentation/v1/images/golo/noavatar.gif){kind=avatar}
(61 votes) man charged with death of fayetteville child
(13 votes) man charged with raping, killing nc girl, 5
(9 votes) army keeping media from palin event
(6 votes) two sought in rocky mount shooting
Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
I agree. Helmets only prolong life after an accident, when not wearing one, the rider dies right away. Prolonging a riders life increases hospitalization costs and ultimately my insurance rates go up.
Make them wear a helmet shaped like a turban.
GOLO member since September 19, 2008
November 9, 2009 8:39 a.m.
So if a church allows, or even encourages, pedophelia, state laws cannot be used to punish the offenders? I'm tired of people using religion as an excuse for breaking laws.
GOLO member since October 12, 2007
November 8, 2009 10:44 p.m.
GOLO member since April 8, 2008
November 8, 2009 10:04 p.m.
GOLO member since January 2, 2009
November 8, 2009 10:02 p.m.
GOLO member since October 18, 2007
November 8, 2009 9:19 p.m.
November 8, 2009 9:03 p.m.
GOLO member since July 21, 2009
November 8, 2009 9:03 p.m.
GOLO member since December 12, 2007
November 8, 2009 9:00 p.m.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
November 8, 2009 8:27 p.m.
Motorcycle helmets aren't required in PA, for instance.
I was surprised when I visited there last and saw hair flying, but it's the truth.
My sister said the passage of the law failed because it came to be considered a personal choice, whether to risk one's life or not, and was deemed unconstitutional to mandate it.
I don't know though if that was according to PA's constitution or US constitution, must've been PA's cause if it were against Federal law, I'm sure someone within states that mandate helmets would have taken it that far to get the state law repealed.
God bless.
RB
GOLO member since July 2, 2007
November 8, 2009 8:07 p.m.
Please log in to add comment.