Tolerance: a question

[TallahasseeGrannie]

I am very interested in du opinion over something that has been troubling me ever since 9/11 illustrated for me (for the first time I am embarassed to say) the huge differences between Western and Islamic culture.

I just read that last week Ontario voted to not allow Sharia law be enforced in its province, even if both parties agree.

We Democrats take particular pride in diversity. I have spent most of my adult life teaching multi culturalism via the arts. We honor tolerance, even celebrate, cultural differences.

But how tolerant are we called to be when confronted with intolerance? If the woman next door to me (hypothetical) lives in a burqua and is not allowed to leave the house without her husband and appears (to my westernized mind) to be a virtual captive, what is my responsibility? Do I turn away and honor the culture? What if she were the wife of an ultra-right wing militia type and I felt the same thing? Is the answer the same?

To me this is a very difficult issue and I think it is one the RW uses against us. I have no solution and no answers, but am interested in how fellow du'ers resolve this in their minds.

[BayCityProgressive]

1. I can't tolerate

women being put into virtual slavery by any culture. i respect differing cultures but I do NOT respect sexism, homophobia, racism, or xenophobia from anyone who uses their culture or religion as an excuse. I am a gay man and I am completely denied the right to fair housing, job protection, and marriage benefits due to the "culture" in Michigan...but that does not make the culture right.

[FloridaPat]

10. Nice answer! Thanks. Good luck in Michigan.

[dsc]

2. There would be many instances where

applying Sharia law would impact third parties, such as children in a marriage. We have every right to prevent third parties from being injured by Sharia law.

[rosesaylavee]

3. If my neighbor appeared to be in a difficult

situation, I would first befriend them. If the friendship developed to a point of confidentiality and my help was welcome, I would offer assistance. If I think they are in a dangerous situation, that is different and I would look for answers from the local social worker to find out what options are available.

However, if this person doesn't feel that they are in trouble or in need, it then becomes not my business...

Each situation is different - the safety of the neighbor is the key for me.

[proud patriot]

5. I second rosesaylavee's comments

:thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

4. Tolerance of intolerance is like hugging a backstabber.

I celebrate diversity and I tolerate a wide variety of prejudice and ignorance - except that which would, under the license of 'freedom,' deprive most others of the same. Hospitality is not something one can offer an arsonist.

I don't believe, however, we should confuse this with another habit of the 'left' - which is preemptively compromising in their own values and principles under the guise of 'democracy.' While the electoral and political results of each person avowing their own values and interests would arguably be some compromise, it does not work when one abandons those values at the outset under the notion of 'accommodation.' To put it in terms of a simple paradigm, the mixture of a quart of hot water and a quart of cold water would be 2 quarts of warm water. If, however, the hot water were preemptively allowed to become tepid, then the mix is far colder. It's part of the democratic process that we fully advocate our own principles and values - it's not about "picking the winning temperature" because that's not how it works.

[Seansky]

15. hmmm, interesting. it is an argument that covers a broad, and

complex, spectrum of social, legal and moral issues. Not a clear cut one, though, and definitely not so simple. The line can be easily blurred.

[TahitiNut]

16. Perhaps this will help clear the 'line'.

There's a big difference between who we are and what we do. Intolerance is what we do. Race is part of who we are. So is gender. (And, to some degree, so is religion.) When I choose to be intolerant of behavior (intolerance itself), I'm not choosing to be intolerant of the person. If the person cannot separate themselves from that behavior, then they cease being a 'who' and become a 'what.'

Social tolerance for who people are does not mean tolerance for every kind of behavior. When behavior becomes harmful, it's tortious and not worthy of being tolerated.

Much of this, of course, is part of the old question of whether a democracy has a right to commit suicide. :shrug:

[Seansky]

17. very good food for thought

I suppose I have lots of growing to do since I haven't arrived at easily differentiating the who vs. the what. That's what I mean about it being complex, specially when it comes to people I encounter in circumstantial situations, people I don't know very well, but see them acting in ways I don't necessarily agree with...Find it hard to separate the who and the what in those cases...

But I really enjoy your comments.

[shaniqua6392]

6. I choose to respect their culture.

I may not like it, but they should be allowed to practice their religious beliefs. As long as no laws are broken by their actions, we should not interfere whether it is between a muslim couple or a right wing type person. The sanctity of privacy in the home must be preserved. We must honor the culture even if we do not think it is the right way human beings should be treated. That is something that muslim women, for example, should reject if it is offensive to them. American women have thrown off our chains and women who are suppressed under Sharia law grow weary of their chains, we would be happy to help them. But, other than that, it is none of our business. That is the true meaning of diversity to me. Acceptance of that which we do not always understand or agree with. Women under Sharia law may very well look at American women with our actions such as working outside the home and/or walking around half dressed with absolute horror. But, it is up to them to also accept our culture with tolerance. Very good question, by the way. I enjoyed thinking about my feelings on the subject. I hope this helps.

[mcscajun]

7. Tolerance of a culture does not equate to allowing different laws

to prevail in a single society.

No, we don't have a perfect system in the US; far from it, in fact. But in principle at least...there is one legal system for all.

If we were to allow any culture living and working in the US to observe their own laws by mutual agreement, then tolerance would mean allowing any culture or religion to do likewise. Sooner or later, a total breakdown of law would occur.

Abuse of women and children is not a thing I am prepared to tolerate, no matter how culturally inured the background for it.

[Toots]

20. Utah.......Polygamy

:shrug:

[mcscajun]

21. What's your point?

Polygamy is illegal in Utah, despite many pockets of resistance still in the news in recent years. Banning it was a condition of statehood, in fact.

[Toots]

23. I guess in a way I am agreeing with you

"If we were to allow any culture living and working in the US to observe their own laws by mutual agreement, then tolerance would mean allowing any culture or religion to do likewise. Sooner or later, a total breakdown of law would occur."

In a way we have allowed polygamy to exist and continue in Utah by mutual agreement. Yes you are correct it is technically illegal but not enforced. By not enforcing polygamy laws we are allowing them to observe their own laws. You are correct in that total breakdown of law is occurring through out America from the Top down. The Crooks are in Control, The Fleecing of America is in full swing.

[mcscajun]

24. Gotcha.

:)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. Thank you to all

who took their time and discussed this. I've heard some things I haven't yet thought of and I appreciate it. I often have a problem with gray areas and this is one of the grayest.

[Fescue4u]

8. Tolerance of Evil is not required to be a good person

Sharia is evil and I have no problem calling as such.

I will not be fooled by logic games of tolerating intolerence.

I am intolerant of evil. I am intolerant of intolerance.

[applegrove]

9. I am more worried about erosion of our basic laws about equality than

I am about an "optional & voluntary" tribunal. I don't like sharia law as much as the next guy - but i'll be dammed if our equal rights under the constitution is thrown away. It isn't about criminal law and all those things like "you cannot harass or stalk or assault" are not affected. It is going on anyway. Government would at least have a say in professionalism of the judges and when they go to far. Both parties would have to agree to the mediation.

Either everyone has access to the same privileges in this country or you take the privileges away.

Catholics mediation and law is not a favorite of mine either. Catholics do some things fine - others - well they are pretty reprehensible. I once walked into a site that dealt with Catholic propaganda by mistake and was horrified with all the hatred towards women who used birth control, gays, etc. Seems the only acceptable women to that cabal was a woman who had 18 children. Think of the children?

I think the government did the right thing in taking the privilege away from everyone. When you start messing with equality - you fuck up the whole place. And then the neocons step into the fray and start tribalizing.

If we are afraid of tribal laws - we should be very, very afraid of anything that makes one culture or group different under the law. When neocons had activated the portion of Canadians who are very religious and anti-gay.. after the marriage act was passed.. the Prime Minister simply said: "In Canada - all people & cultures are equal under the law".

That is the most important thing.

[StellaBlue]

11. Easy.

1) Is violence involved? 2) Is it illegal?

If you KNOW that actual violence is being committed, it is your duty as a human to speak up, act, etc.

If there is no violence or you cannot be sure of it, you should make yourself available as a real, nonjudgemental friend to the person in question.

So - is female circumcision 'okay' if it is culturally accepted in the house next door? NO!

Is forced marriage okay? NO!

Is wearing a hijab okay? YES!

[JDPriestly]

12. Civil law

We have a system of secular law. That is THE LAW under our Constitution. That is the only law that our government and courts may enforce.

The Jewish, Muslim and some Christian religions have traditions of religious law as well as rules and regulations about how their religions are organized and function. As long as the religious law does not conflict with the secular law of the United States, the states or localities, members of the various religions may follow their own law. Courts will not interfere with disputes within religions about the religious law that should be followed provided that our secular law is not violated. But, if a religious law conflicts with secular law, the court will enforce the secular law. That is required by our Constitution, which provides in the First Amendment that government may not establish religion. (To explain: If an American court were to allow a religious court to enforce of a religious law that conflicted with a secular, public law, the government would be establishing that the religious law prevailed over the secular law, and that would violate the Constitution.)

This is settled and well reasoned law. The Mormons in Utah practiced polygamy. Once Utah became a part of the United States, the people of Utah were no longer allowed to practice polygamy. Similarly, in a more recent case entitled Smith I believe, the Supreme Court (Scalia I think) held that a native American did not have the right to use controlled substances as a part of an Indian religious rite.

Therefore, the answer to your question is that as long as the Shariah law does not conflict with American law, let's say on polygamy or discrimination or the right of an adult to self-determination, then Muslims may follow Shariah. But, a religious court cannot enforce Shariah if it conflicts with American law. This is basic to our system of justice, and it is right that it is so. If we do not follow this established legal precedent, we will no longer have a rule of law. We will have chaos, and no one will know what the law is. That would seriously undermine our entire form of government which provides that the legislature is elected by the majority of the people and decides the law and that the courts enforce the law that reflects the will of the majority as long as it does not violate our Constitutions, federal and state.

Recently, Congress has passed a law that allows churches to ignore or violate certain secular laws. I disagree strongly with that concept. There is one law. It applies to all of us. If we don't like it, we should work to change within the rules of our form of government.

[StellaBlue]

13. Re: American Indians

I think they should be allowed to do whatever the f*ck they want. They're INDIGENOUS. We supposedly allowed them to retain their 'nations' as sovereign. Etc. etc. etc. I think, especially if they are doing it on 'reservations', they should be allowed to do whatever the f*ck they like.

I would put them in a separate category from Mormons, Muslims, etc.

[dsc]

14. It should be noted that your interpretation of the 1st Amendment

is hardly universal. More than a few scholars think the polygamy case was wrongly decided. The free exercise clause, which you pretty much ignore, is also in the 1st Amendment. The law you mention was passed after the peyote case where the Court stated that any generally applicable law could be applied even if it banned a religious practice. Thus Catholics could be banned from using wine in Communion in dry counties as well as places which banned Sunday distribution of wine. It is hard to argue that, that is consistent with a free exercise clause in regards to religion. An alternate standard is that of whether the practice affects people who aren't adherents of the religion. For example we wouldn't allow sacrifice of children or virgins due to the fact that innocents are involved.

[rasputin1952]

18. Having spent some time living in different countries, courtesy of the

US Army, one of the first things we were told, was that the laws of the nation we were in must be adhered to. I hold that the same goes here, for those that choose to live here. One may keep their cultural identity while living here, but the obligation to follow the laws of this nation are not an issue that can be argued with much success, you are on US soil, you adhere to to US, State and Local laws.

This individual may well step into court stating that his religion takes precedence, but that argument will not hold water. Defiling another is frowned upon almost universally, just as that individual found out after a female genital mutilation case in NJ. If my memory serves me correctly, he got 8 years for attempting the act, and the woman became a protected refugee. I could be wrong, but that is what I recall.

In any case, one need not tolerate what they find abhorrent. In fact, IMO, it is an obligation to fight for the oppressed. To stand up for those who are too weak or too timid to address the fight on their own.

[entanglement]

19. I find some aspects of Sharia law

(as enforced in Islamic countries) quite offensive; I can't tolerate practices that deny humans rights everyone should have. To be fair, it seems that some of the horrifying practices we hear about ('honor' killings, FGM) are local / tribal in origin and have nothing to do with Sharia, but even so it would be a stretch to call the code 'liberal'

Simple rule of thumb I follow: Human / individual rights should take precedence over everything else

[pepperlove]

22. To each is own

when it comes to "religion" because "God" speaks to all in His own way...and we follow in that way as we are "led".

[mcscajun]

25. To each his/her own when it come to religion, yes. Not about law.

When everyone becomes "A law unto himself" then a civilization succumbs to anarchy.