BlogsBasket.Com – Create Unlimited Blogs Create your own blog and let us promote your post. We arranged blogs and its categories for you to submit post the the releavent blog and its category. http://www.blogsbasket.com

Your gun example follows the polygamy example. And you can argue from a relativist point all you like, but if we were relativists in practice, the idea of a justice system itself would be redundant.

Thank you for being such a respectful debater! It’s been fun.

Cheers,

a.

Once again, who is defines a “religion” ? That itself is up for debate. Jim Jones and David Korresh claimed to be following a religion. The Heaven’s Gate members also claimed to be following a religion. What seems to be a cult to you could be a religion to others. The right to bear arms is a constitutionally guaranteed right (in the US atleast). But you will see many private (and government) institutions explicitly prohibiting the carrying a gun on their premises. So just because something is “constitutionally guaranteed” doesn’t mean that even the government will allow a citizen to exercise that right in all contexts.

You are imposing your view of what is “acceptable” in terms of marital unions. There are several functioning societies where various forms of unions both polygamous and polyandrous, are perfectly acceptable and productive. So when you come down to it, it is actually a matter of what you define discrimination to be, based on your background and society. And you are comfortable in the thought that you are not racist.

Actually, I wasn’t imposing my view on anyone. I was trying to explain the nuances of the legal system. But since you brought it up, I don’t really think polygamous unions are inherently oppressive. However, enough coercive situations have happened for the State to outlaw the practice. Mostly, I am still unconvinced, but let’s not argue about polygamy.

My point more generally was, given the history of law-making in this country ie. ‘background and society’, religious freedom can only be restricted on legitimate grounds. And yes, it is a matter of how you define discrimination, and generally religious discrimination without sufficient ground against ANY group is still considered discrimination in the United States. Now if you mean to say that this is subjective or unique to the United States, you should know better, it’s not. Religious Freedom is a fundamental part of most constitutions (not all).

blockquote>Ok, so if you were fired for eating “smelly Indian curry” at your place of work that would be fine it looks, since it has nothing to do with religion.

When i have leftovers, my co workers always seem to LOVEE the smell and ask me how do i cook it?

So all the women in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who are in a polygamous union are being “harmed” ? Now isn’t that a bigoted view in itself ? You are imposing your view of what is “acceptable” in terms of marital unions. There are several functioning societies where various forms of unions both polygamous and polyandrous, are perfectly acceptable and productive. So when you come down to it, it is actually a matter of what you define discrimination to be, based on your background and society. And you are comfortable in the thought that you are not racist. To give an over the top counter example to the scarf story, what would you say if a Digamber Jain monk was fired from Alamo for practicing the clothing codes of his faith ?

“You could say that polygamy has religious and social approval and sanction in some religions/cultures. But they are not allowed to (legally) practice that aspect of their religion/culture here in the US by law. So it is a case of the government “imposing” their moral/religious/civil rules on a minority religious group that follows such a system. And nobody screams “religious/cultural discrimination”

Again, if you are attempting to draw a parallel to this case, it doesn’t work. Polygamy is outlawed because it is considered to disadvantage women since it has traditionally been restricted to men. Thus, the ‘harm principle’ would apply here in terms protecting women rights. Thus, an imposition on religious freedom is considered legitimate if the practice is likely to incur harm to an individual, or a group of individuals. You can’t really argue that in the case at hand. Wearing a scarf, by choice, during the month of Ramadan is not harming the individual who chose to wear it, or others around her.

Note that harm cannot be interpreted as offending a racist person’s sensibilies.

The bottom line that “religious discrimination” and “discrimation” in general is whatever the government and the prevailing legal system define it to be. You could say that polygamy has religious and social approval and sanction in some religions/cultures. But they are not allowed to (legally) practice that aspect of their religion/culture here in the US by law. So it is a case of the government “imposing” their moral/religious/civil rules on a minority religious group that follows such a system. And nobody screams “religious/cultural discrimination” .