Most of us in what is called the West have agreed that a religion has the right to demand a code of conduct and behavior by its followers. For about five centuries we have also agreed that a religion does not have the right to impose its code of conduct and behavior on those who do not follow that religion. In this country this is enshrined in the first amendment to the US Constitution.
Suppose we have a religion that is outside of this tradition and in certain foreign countries has (in varying degrees) merged itself with the power of the state which it uses to force all persons in those counties to abide by the code of that religion.
As long as these two principles are operating in different areas of the world, then the problems are resolvable.
What happens if some of this other religion’s practitioners decide that they have the right to demand that nonbelievers “respect their religion”? What if “respect their religion” means following a part of their code? What if they decide that this applies to Americans? What if that part of their code is in conflict with another part (speech) of that first amendment?
Even without going any further it seems to me that there is a real problem here.
But there is more. What if there is an element in that religion that is prepared to enforce that part of the code by assassination?
Does that religion have the same rights as other religions?
Do the adherents of that religion have a responsibility vis-a-vis the new Assassins?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yeah! Dealing with multiple and conflicting belief systems is tuff. The bottom line is that a faction (however small) wants to kill me because I do not have the same religious beliefs that they have. Over reaction to this fact is, in my opinion, an error exceeded only by ignoring it.
ReplyDelete