More Jibberish
So after having a long discussion with James and really thinking about things I wrote this...well...sorry if it rambles...ok eliminate the if. Sorry it's long...if you don't want to read...that's fine...it consists of some thoughts...that's all. I'd love to hear your opinion as long as you are only constructively critical and not downright malicious.A Peaceful World
Imagine a peaceful world. What would it be like? Surely nothing like today’s society. Democratic nations are supposedly meant to create equality and bring about peace, but really this can never happen. Equality. Equality. What does it really mean? Inherently we are all equal. A government which reinforces this would be a good government, but too perfect. If we allow everyone freedomto do as they please as long as it does not interfere with another person’s rights and freedoms, we have a problem.
A government which seeks to allow religious freedom is particularily interesting. Such a government must remain unattached from any type of religion so that all religions are held on the same level, none favored. However, this is quite impossible. By remaining indifferent to all religions, the government can actually infringe upon religious views. For example the banning of the hijab in France has caused Muslim woment to shed their headscarves (part of their moral code) in order to attend public school. Muslim women must compromise part of their religious views in order to receive free public education. The government is now infringing upon their religious views by trying to create equality among all religions and become nonsecular. As such, religion is being restricted little by little within the scope of government for the sake of “equality.”
Religion cannot be completely removed. Most laws are based upon morals, a sense of right and wrong. For example, killing is wrong because it infringes upon another person’s right to life. Many world religions teach that murder is wrong. Most religions happen to be based on the respect for other’s lives. However, not all religions consider everyone equal or consider all lives to be equally precious. As such, the world can never live in peace because there are conflicting views. Someone must be right, someone must be wrong. It can’t be both because they are in direct opposition. Everyone’s religious views cannot be respected because they conflict. Since they conflict, no law can allow for every religious view to be satisfied. As such laws are created in other countries based upon the prevalent religious views of that society. Democratic values of equality may not be cohesive in every society. Some may believe that men should hold more power than women or vice versa. Some may believe that murder is fine as long as it is done to defend someone’s honor.
So who is right and who is wrong? Must we all live under separate governments, never fully united because of our differences? Surely we can find common ground. Surely we can learn to respect one another.
posted by Elfie @ 5:33 PM
4 Comments:
I think we're all too lazy to attempt any sort of discussion or debate...
And here is where Kant comes in (Don't kick me Kara). Kant's Universal Maxim states that people cannot be used as a means to an end without being included in the ends. What Kant implies is a systemof negative obligations. Say you're walking down the street with a big, heavy box. Some may say I have an obligation to help you with the box, others say I don't. We can all agree, however, that I have an obligation not to trip you as you walk by. Here's the common ground, negative obigations. I think if a government tries to stick by a system of negative obligations, then it is doing the best it can to govern and sufficiently protect it's citizens without infringing on the right to religion. Keep in mind that my brain is fried, so if any part of this lacks logic, I apologize. (Ducks as Kara takes a swing)
Actually, that sounded about right to me, Rianna. Or you know, how much I understand Kant, which is considerably better considering how many LD rounds I've watched in the past three weeks.
I guess the question is: how free is too free? Everyone has the right to express themselves in society, but to what point? Where to draw the line? In many cases, that is a hard question. The government which protects harm while not always promoting good is probably better than one that provides too much while allowing harms to continue. Therefore, Rianna and her negative obligations from Kant sound about right.
Interestingly enough, pretty much all of the major religions have this theme in common: treat people as you would like to be treated. I read that in some book of Deebs's when I was bored.
Really, to quote another author. I believe that complete freedom is slavery. :)
Well, that would work...if you didn't happen to have an overlap in religion and government. Like the hijab mess in France. But, it maybe could work...you should call me and we could debate it for real. Hehe.
Post a Comment
<< Home