Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

California gun control laws challenged on religious freedom grounds

Need to keep an eye on this one.  The Sikh religion, in addition to mandating harm to no creature, also mandates that its members must be fully prepared to defend themselves and others from harm at any time.  The lawsuit says CA's overly restrictive gun laws (some of the worst in the country) prevent Sikh's from free exercise of their faith.

When the defense isn't allowed to haggle over the finer points of the 2nd amendment, and must instead address the first, how will they fight this one?  (especially keeping in mind the massacre at a Sikh temple last year by racist assholes who thought they were Muslims)

Answer Question
 
NotPanicking

Asked by NotPanicking at 3:04 PM on Mar. 17, 2013 in Politics & Current Events

Level 51 (420,415 Credits)
Answers (11)
  • There's an inconsistency here. If the religion mandates no harm to any creature, then guns are forbidden... but if they are also mandated to defend themselves, guns are allowed.

    Seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't paradox.
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 3:59 PM on Mar. 17, 2013

  • Seriously, I'm not sure how those two rules can co-exist. Sikhs are against harming living creatures to the point that they go out of their way to avoid stepping on ants or killing worms when they are diggin, yet guns are mandated to defend themselves. Not that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves, but to make this a religious rule and argue against gun control laws seems contradictory.
    Ballad

    Answer by Ballad at 4:19 PM on Mar. 17, 2013

  • I believe the religion indicates that you are to initiate no harm but are to defend your home and family with as much force as is necessary. I see no conflict.
    Dardenella

    Answer by Dardenella at 4:29 PM on Mar. 17, 2013

  • I think it's walking a fine line to use this as a grounds to avoid gun control, but the rules are not mutually exclusive. I'm not a violent person. I won't go out and punch someone on the street for no reason. But if you try to hurt me or my kids, you better believe I'm going to lay your butt out on the ground. I don't believe in hurting others, but if the choice is hurting them or letting them hurt me - I'm not the one getting hurt.
    wendythewriter

    Answer by wendythewriter at 5:13 PM on Mar. 17, 2013

  • I believe the religion indicates that you are to initiate no harm but are to defend your home and family with as much force as is necessary.

    This precisely
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 5:37 PM on Mar. 17, 2013

  • Also, it's not just home and family, they have a duty to defend ANYONE from harm, whether it's their child or the random homeless guy being beat down by a bunch of bored teenagers.
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 5:38 PM on Mar. 17, 2013

  • I guess I'll have to read California's gun control laws, because I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to have a gun?
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 5:56 PM on Mar. 17, 2013

  • because I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to have a gun?

    Because California purposely words its gun laws in such a ways to make it harder for anyone who isn't incredibly rich or in a career which requires a gun to get one.
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 6:14 PM on Mar. 17, 2013

  • Everyone, regardless of faith who is a United States Citizen, has the right to bear arms.
    The Sikhs have especially had it hard since 911 because they wear turbans. It's just a shame they have to go to court to get an order to allow them to defend themselves and their loved ones!

    PMSMom10

    Answer by PMSMom10 at 12:19 AM on Mar. 18, 2013

  • can they only defend themselves or others with a gun? isnt this aspect of their faith the reason the men (and the women?) must carry a knife at all times? i think any mentally sane, non-criminal American citizen should be legally allowed to have a gun, but this angle seems far reaching.
    okmanders

    Answer by okmanders at 12:25 AM on Mar. 18, 2013

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN