A very simple example might be, a Muslim state or province could very well bar women from voting in a general election. The US constitution plainly states this kind of discrimination is not allowed. So who wins out? If they are forced to let women vote....then are they really practicing their particular brand of life????
Extending your traffic accident example, what if we existed in a subculture that stated "The victim of a traffic accident is allowed to cut off the offending person's driving leg".
Now what? Settle it without the government getting involved?
----- Original Message -----
From: Deanna Schneider
To: CF-Community
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: multiculturalism question
Well, I wasn't trying to say that I had no argument against stoning
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).
<snip>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
