Sunday, October 22, 2006

Should religion get special privileges in court?


Ginnah Muhammad is a god addict. She is not in recovery but is addicted quite badly. She thinks some deity has told her to cover her face. Well, and good if she wants. But where are the limits?

She wanted to sue a car rental agency which charged her $2,750 for repairs to a vehicle in her possession which was broken into. Now I personally think any car agency that rents a car to a woman who is going to drive while looking through tiny slits is daft. Almost as daft as this woman. Sadly this woman was not even born into this faith from the Dark Ages. She converted.

So she has accused the rental agency of ripping her off. She goes to court. But she wants to testify on the stand with her face covered. Remember that we have a right to face our accusers in court. We have the right to look right at them and see them when they make accusations against us or testify against us.

The judge in the case actually tried to accommodate this Allah addict but she was not to be accommodated. He said she could sit there looking like a rumpled pile of sheets all she wanted but when it came time to take the stand she needed to remove the veil. He said that his job is to try to figure out who is telling the truth and watching people’s faces while they testify is an important part of his job. That makes a lot of sense to me. But the religiously addled had hissy fits whining that they are being persecuted.

Now remember these lunatic Muslims argue that if a Westerner visits one of their sand hills called a nation that they, the Westerner, must respect Islamic customs. So Western woman have to wear whatever silly head covering the local women wear. There are no civil liberties for Westerners in Muslim countries. It’s toe the line, get out or perhaps be stoned to death.

So if we go to the hellholes created by their theology we must respect their customs. Fair enough. But then they say that if they live in the West we must also respect their customs. Their religious fantasies are supposed to govern their nations and rule in our nations as well.

Now another the president of the American Judges Association said: “If it’s a person’s legitimate religious belief, we have a duty to try to reconcile these competing interests.” Once again the only beliefs offered these sorts of special privileges are the religious fantasies of people.

Now when it comes to religion the whole thing is rather easy. You can make up what you believe, claim that some prophet or deity whispered it into your ears. You can’t tell when someone is a schizophrenic or when they are just being inspired by god. They both hear voices and do strange things. So what if they are sincere? From what we can tell many a nut case sincerely believes he is Jesus Christ.

So I ask why it is that the legal system must bend over backward for the fantasies of people when it comes to gods but no other sincere belief gets this sort of respect? Why is there one set of rules if you belief in the divine tooth fairy and another set of rules if you don’t? Do we, or do we not, believe in equality before the law?

Some cults are very protective of their own members. If there is a conflict between a cult member and an outsider other cult members are expected to do anything they can to protect their own. And sometimes that includes lying. They believe quite sincerely that the are the true followers of God and they are obligated to defend one another. They are very, very, very sincere. Does this sincere belief give them the right to lie in court just because it is religious fantasy mixed with sincerity? If we can suspend the right to face our accuser in court for religion why not that little bit about the “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”? There certainly have been sincere religious groups that practiced nudism as part of their faith. Should they be allowed in court unclothed? Should a sincere Nazi have the right to lie in court about Jews? Exactly why are legal obligations exempted for religious beliefs but no other form of beliefs?

Of course Muslim groups are screaming this prejudice. Not a one of them raises a voice of protest when Western women are forced to cover their heads in Muslim countries. Then if the woman doesn’t want to do it they again scream that we aren’t respecting their religion. Well here’s news for you. I don’t respect your religion. I’m not singling you out I don’t respect any fantasy that people simply make up. There is no reason I ought to respect it unless it is earned and simply claiming that Jehovah, Jesus or Allah told you what to do doesn’t amount to much in my eyes. For all I know some anti-psychotic drugs and a few years on the couch is all you need to be cured of this problem.

I think the judge was fair. He allowed this woman to drag her 11th century theology into 21st century court room. But there is no reason to allow her to drag it into the witness box. He did not deny her the right to a fair trial. She denied it to herself. Or maybe we should say that Allah kept her from testifying.

This is similar to the case I discussed about the bus driver who wanted the right to pick and choose which buses she would drive based on the advertisements and how they coincided with her faith. But this is far more serious. This is asking the legal system to grant exemptions to special classes of people based on what they make up to believe.

And to top it off, for your amusement, here a video of some of the absurd lengtht that god addicts will go to in order to practice their fantasies.

1 Comments:

Blogger The Knight Who Says Nee said...

This video is funny, sad and scary all at once.

October 25, 2006

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Web Counters Religion Blog Top Sites