Intolerance on the "progressive" continent
No, no, NO!
The Netherlands is seeking to forbid Muslim women from wearing veils. How many European countries have we heard contemplating these ridiculous laws of late? I thought Europeans were supposed to be "progressive".
Someone needs to let the Europeans in on a little secret: true progressivism means choice. Certainly, many would consider the veils to be symbolic of female oppression. Some may consider covering the face in public rude. But these are not our decisions to make. What a person wears must be left to the individual. The true oppression stems from attempting to regulate such things. Doing so under the guise of anti-terrorism is even more deplorable.
Which brings me to a side point: recently, during an argument about homosexual rights which I started but then mostly stayed silent, one party remarked, "Oh, so we should just tolerate everything?" to make the apparent point that homosexuality was something reprehensible that we should not tolerate. I let it slide at the moment, but now would like to comment on it.
The answer is yes. We should tolerate everything, at least from a legal perspective. It is not the government's job to legislate morality, because then the government would have to define what morality is. And how do they do that? Many use the Holy Bible (Torah, Koran, et cetera) to define their own morality, or perhaps even (from their perspective) a universal morality. However, no government of a free country, certainly not one with our Constitution, can adopt any one of these books in particular as doctrine. We have to allow people to choose their own moral perspective, insofar as it does not impede the rights of others to choose theirs. There may well be universal morality, but how can we legislate that without violating someone's freedom of choice? And then of course, there is the paradoxical issue of whether we can tolerate intolerance, and to what extent? Blarg, it's all too confusing.
Forgive the unintended rant. It was written by a pillar of salt.
Song lyric of the day:
"And it is true what you said
That I live like a hermit in my own head
But when the sun shines again
I'll pull the curtains and blinds to let the light in"
- Death Cab for Cutie, Marching Bands of Manhattan
The Netherlands is seeking to forbid Muslim women from wearing veils. How many European countries have we heard contemplating these ridiculous laws of late? I thought Europeans were supposed to be "progressive".
Someone needs to let the Europeans in on a little secret: true progressivism means choice. Certainly, many would consider the veils to be symbolic of female oppression. Some may consider covering the face in public rude. But these are not our decisions to make. What a person wears must be left to the individual. The true oppression stems from attempting to regulate such things. Doing so under the guise of anti-terrorism is even more deplorable.
Which brings me to a side point: recently, during an argument about homosexual rights which I started but then mostly stayed silent, one party remarked, "Oh, so we should just tolerate everything?" to make the apparent point that homosexuality was something reprehensible that we should not tolerate. I let it slide at the moment, but now would like to comment on it.
The answer is yes. We should tolerate everything, at least from a legal perspective. It is not the government's job to legislate morality, because then the government would have to define what morality is. And how do they do that? Many use the Holy Bible (Torah, Koran, et cetera) to define their own morality, or perhaps even (from their perspective) a universal morality. However, no government of a free country, certainly not one with our Constitution, can adopt any one of these books in particular as doctrine. We have to allow people to choose their own moral perspective, insofar as it does not impede the rights of others to choose theirs. There may well be universal morality, but how can we legislate that without violating someone's freedom of choice? And then of course, there is the paradoxical issue of whether we can tolerate intolerance, and to what extent? Blarg, it's all too confusing.
Forgive the unintended rant. It was written by a pillar of salt.
Song lyric of the day:
"And it is true what you said
That I live like a hermit in my own head
But when the sun shines again
I'll pull the curtains and blinds to let the light in"
- Death Cab for Cutie, Marching Bands of Manhattan
2 Comments:
Yeah, Europe is ...shall we say....aggressively secular.
THIS, my friend, is the difference between the oft-confused concepts secularism and freedom of religion.
Concurrence with Mr. Stark. I would like to also point out that French schoolkids are already not allowed to wear the veil or any other religious symbol - meaning Ben's cross would have gotten him into deep doodoo there.
Those who bitch about America being too secular should look at Europe. They're crazy over there.
And yes, if you want true freedom, you must tolerate intolerance, at least from a legal perspective. One has to differentiate between that which in their view is immoral and that which should be banned. Too many people are unable to make that distinction.
Post a Comment
<< Home