An question of religious freedom... a not so easy answer

[Zebo]

Burka makes ID hard. When they let me wear a ski mask into bank I'll get down with burkas

Saudis have a solution for this tho.. just don't allow women in banks, or alone, anywhere, or to drive.

I could get down with either... not half ass.

 

[nonlnear]

Burka makes ID hard. When they let me wear a ski mask into bank I'll get down with burkas

For anyone in an ultra-fundie sect that uses the hardcore interpretation of sharia finances that the OP was referencing, the presence of FDIC insurance solves the problem of burqas in banks!

 

[Cerb]

So, while it is pretty clear that not every Muslim in the world follows these Islamic laws, what about the ones that do? Would the government be able to force them to buy health insurance, since that would conflict with their religious beliefs?

I'm not trying to make any statements about anything else, I just think this would be an interesting conversation, and I would not be surprised at all if it became a real problem in some time.

Why so?
A. Health insurance and car insurance socialize cost overwhelmingly more than they socialize risk. Minor risks are addressed in the Wikipedia article.
B. There is always the option to create Islam-friendly insurance, as addressed in a linked article,which includes policyholder owned systems, and defined profit sharing systems, both of which are clear and fair types of operations.
C. They can opt to pay a fine, instead, can they not?

 

[PeshakJang]

If anyone is curious what the SCOTUS has to say on this type of issue generally, as a matter of First Amendment doctrine, they have held, for example, that laws prohibiting the possession and use of peyote can be applied to native Americans who use it as part of a religious ritual, in spite of the First Amendment free exercise clause.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg28.htm

If I'm not mistaken, the same has also been held regarding religions which practice animal sacrifice where it runs afoul of animal cruelty laws.

- wolf

With most of the cases brought up, including those, it's pointing out a situation where the law *prevents* somebody from doing something, although it may be acceptable in the religion. In my scenario, the government is *forcing* you to do something which may be against your religious beliefs, so I think the situation is a bit different.

Like my earlier example, it would be as if the government said, "You must marry 5 wives", though your beliefs say you may only marry 1.