Well, not me; I don’t have a religion.
But a lot of people do.
And a lot of them think that means they should get special consideration from the law.
They shouldn’t.
Today’s example: California bill would allow Sikh motorcyclists to ride without helmets.
Now, I don’t know much about the Sikh religion, but what I’ve heard is very complimentary.
They value the ability to support and defend yourself and your community and have taken on a responsibility to feed anyone in need.
This is all very commendable.
But it has nothing to do with motorcycles or helmets.
(Though I’m open to changing that opinion if they can cite some studies demonstrating that Sikh belief lowers the rate of major head trauma in motorcycle accidents.)
I am not fan of mandatory helmet laws.
The State should not have to power to compel behavior for any reason other than to prevent (immediate and direct) harm (or risk of harm) to another person; self-destructive risk-taking is not that.
But that has nothing to do with religion.
(Though I’m open to changing that opinion if they can cite some studies demonstrating that wearing a motorcycle helmet lowers the rate or severity of injury to non-riders in motorcycle accidents..)
The State should not be accepting get-out-of-law-free cards from anyone’s imaginary friend.
A fair State cannot have exceptions to the law, and a State that’s not fair does not deserve to exist.
