Bob's not the only one who can open a religious discussion:
The State Government announced it will make a helmet exemption for cyclists whose religion requires them to wear headress.
"Cyclists who wear religious headdress will not be required to wear a helmet under a new law the Newman government will introduce.
The State Government announced it will make a helmet exemption for cyclists whose religion requires them to wear headress.
Last month Brisbane man Jasdeep Atwal successfully challenged a fine for not wearing a helmet - because his religion requires him to wear a turban."
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/04/23/3743087.htm
"Mr Atwal said in the Sikh religion men have to wear a turban because it was mandated by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, the tenth Guru of Sikhs."
So hang on...
I understand faith and deep religious feeling and all. I understand turbans are a significant symbol of faith for the Sikhs.
I also understand a turban would afford a certain amount of protection to the head in case of an accident.
But the "tenth Guru of Sikhs" tells all the men of the Sikh faith to wear a turban and this edict holds sway over the law of the land which requires helmets to be worn whilst cycling as a safety measure?
Since when does Australian law recognise and heed the edicts of the "tenth Guru of Sikhs"
Another example of blind faith IMO.
