France has outlawed wearing Burka (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8442993/First-arrests-made-hours-after-French-Burka-ban-comes-into-force.html). Sure enough there will be a furore about it.
Now the questions is:
Is this a basic right that a person has? To dress as he wills? To cover his face as he wills? Is France violating a person's rights?
Where is the line between personal right and state decrees/rule/ordnance?
Does a person have right to carry a knife as Sikh men do? Inside aircrafts also?
Does a person have a right to cover her face? Even at an immigration counter in an airport?
Does a person have a right to smoke a cigarette? Even in public, in a non smoking zone?
There is a whole bunch of things we can do in the privacy of our homes. We could drive a car on the left side inside the house (while everyone drives on the right side on the highways).
But when it comes to being in public there is a restraint imposed by the state on various things from how much dress (not too little like walking in the nude) we ought to wear to other stuff like parking / tailgating / drinking / smoking etc.
The idea of a religion being an obstacle to implementing or overruling the laws of the state seems very strange. And inappropriate.
Of course, had a religious institution stood in the way of implementation of the third Reich's rules it would have been great. As an exception.
The reason being that the state's lawmakers (hopefully) look at reason to set what is appropriate. How often do religion's lawmakers look at reason to do the same thing?
The question that remains unanswered in my mind is:
Additional reading:
Of course, had a religious institution stood in the way of implementation of the third Reich's rules it would have been great. As an exception.
The reason being that the state's lawmakers (hopefully) look at reason to set what is appropriate. How often do religion's lawmakers look at reason to do the same thing?
The question that remains unanswered in my mind is:
What is that thing in Jews, Muslims and Catholics that make them rally together no matter which country a person resides in? How did these 3 religious forge such a strong bond? The bond that these religions have engendered is at least as strong as the bond that a person has towards his country.The thought that my religion is the best and people following other religions are barbarians/infidels is no different from Hitler's belief about Aryans vis-a-vis Jews and Slavs. I find the words "We are the chosen people" in whatever form amazing.
Additional reading:
- http://terrorism.about.com/od/causes/a/causes_terror.htm
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_fanaticism
- http://www.mgr.org/terrorist.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_violence: Quote: "Some critics of religion such as Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer argue that all monotheistic religions are inherently violent. For example, Nelson-Pallmeyer writes that "Judaism, Christianity and Islam will continue to contribute to the destruction of the world until and unless each challenges violence in "sacred texts" and until each affirms nonviolent power of God". The reason attributed in point above is exactly what a friend of mine and her husband said as the cause for such fanaticism. Interesting.
- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071205072140AAAQ5cT: Look at the answer by Andrew.
They all (jews, christians, muslims) believe in ONE god, and the prophets are also the same! So the bond is there and will always be there. These are branches of the same root.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do agree, that reason/logic may not be the basis on which they (religious leaders) make decisions. This also has a reason, most followers are believers because of the very fact, that there is no reason in religion! After all, if there was reason, where would the magic in religion be?
ONE god? Having one god is the secret behind this bond? Hmmm
ReplyDelete