women to death for minor "transgressions" against their husbands. And,
were I to have any influence with individuals, I would most certainly
argue against following such tenets. However, I also believe that it's
a very slippery slope one walks, when one begins to mix government
with religion. And, I'd prefer a "keep government out of religion"
approach. Now, if it is against the govt. law for someone to stone
another person, then I think that those that choose to practice
shariah by stoning someone should be punished via the govt. laws.
So, I guess what I was saying was that if civil matters can be handled
within someone's cultural context, without the government being
involved and without govt. law being broken, then so be it. How is
that different than if you and I had a fender bender and shook hands
and agreed to handle it between the two of us? I don't need the
government to give its stamp of approval that it's okay for us to do
that, though. Nor would we be breaking any laws (provided we didn't
have more than $500 worth of damage in Wisconsin - not sure of traffic
laws elsewhere).
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:09:43 -0500, G wrote:
> Some would argue that you are an intelligent organism, capable of arguing in favor of certain objective moral truths. For instance, unprovoked murder might be unethical across ALL cultures.
>
> If you believe there are no objective moral truths, then you are a cultural relativist.....which can be a dangerous position.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Deanna Schneider
> <snip>
> I also think that if people choose to live
> by those religious tenets, then who am I to oppose them?
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
