quote:Sharia is one particular piece of religious dogma, am I right? So it should have as much a place, by your statement, as any other basis of opinion. Now then, how do you propose to do this without people observing Sharia? And you should note that I am still not talking about government enforcement, here, but purely voluntary submission.
Are you referring to some people (edit: who choose to do so) observing sharia in a manner consistent with the laws of the country? I have no problem with that.
If you are referring to more than that, then you missed the part where I said the place should be the same as other sources of opinion.
posted
Ah, yes, 'consistent with the laws of the country'. The thing is, sharia claims pre-eminence over secular law. So it is not, in fact, possible to follow both sharia and whatever the local law is.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough, but I do think this is a very weak definition of 'having a place in secular society'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You think that only because it's a religious form of dogma. You have no other basis for labeling it "weak".
As Dagonee has said, many secular philosophies come into conflict with local law. In America, for instance, I dare say you couldn't find even one tax payer who was philosophically happy with the way all tax dollars are spent.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fair enough, but I do think this is a very weak definition of 'having a place in secular society'.
I think it's the strongest and most important definition of having a place in secular society.
The French quote suggests that it is wrong to express a religious opinion in public. That's what I oppose.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The newspaper's [France Soir] front-page headline declared: "Yes, We Have the Right to Caricature God," accompanied by a new cartoon depicting religious figures from the Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Christian faiths on a cloud. The Christian is shown saying, "Don't complain, Muhammad, we've all been caricatured here."
France Soir paired its story and caricatures with a column by French theologian Sohaib Bencheikh, who admonished: "One must find the borders between freedom of expression and freedom to protect the sacred." He added, "Unfortunately, the West has lost its sense of the sacred."
from my link, a Washington Post story--no signup.
"...the West has lost its sense of the sacred." He's got that right. But at least we think human rights (freedoms of speech and press) are more important than a cartoon that offends some. Or some of us do, anyway.
I'll take freedom over sacred taboos anyday.
quote: Germany's Die Welt daily newspaper published one of the drawings on its front page and said the "right to blasphemy" is one of the freedoms of democracy.
Papers in Italy and Spain also reprinted the cartoons, or some of them.
I wonder if Muslims will now try to boycott Europe in general? They'll miss more than Danish dairy products if they try.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This situation has now blown into a crisis pitting the western civil rights value of freedom of expression against Islamic religious values. While I am all for being respectful and tolerant of other peoples religious beliefs, in this case it is just that, other peoples religous values. What about Christian, Jewish, or Hindi religious values? What about the religious values of the coutless other religions in the world whether worshiped by billions or just a few? Should we in western society give up our freedom of expression because someones value system is in conflict with it? What about when two or more different religious value systems clash, which should be prioritized in our treading lightly in order to not offend? What about values based on belief in lack of a god? What about value systems not based on religious values at all? My point is that there are many groups with many value systems some of which coexist nicely, and some which do not, and our freedom of expression allows us to express our values and criticize them, and discuss them, and share them for good or ill. Censoring someone for doing exactly that even if they did do it in a non-tolerant way cannot be allowed if we are to remain a society which respects all peoples rights to have their own beliefs and live their lives in accordance with them.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
