On 26-Jan-09 1:08, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:497### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 25-Jan-09 22:51, somebody wrote:
>>> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:497cdd31@news.povray.org...
> 
>>> Also, of course, such a "book based" policy would arbitrarily
> discriminate
>>> against cultures whose traditions are more oral than written. The
> judicial
>>> system should not be in the business of deciding which religions are
> more
>>> legitimate than others, or which parts of a religion (pork) are from
> god,
>>> which parts (headscarves) from man.
> 
>> But they do already. Everytime a woman complains that she is
>> discriminated against because she has to wear that scarf, the judge when
>> ruling in her favor effectively rules that a scarf is a religious and
>> not a cultural phenomenon. I don't think any judge or politician has
>> enough guts to rule or pass a law recognizing the fact that the lady in
>> question was lied to and naively believed what she was told.
> 
> What if it's cultural? Does it make it any less important for the wearer? 

Not to the wearer, but it does (sorry, should do IMHO) to the system. 
There is freedom of religion but not freedom of culture. One of the 
major (again IMHO) problems that we have here in the Netherlands with 
some groups with a certain background is that foreign cultures have been 
introduced that run contrary to the main stream culture in many 
different and vital aspects. The introduction was possible and is still 
defended because the pretext was used that they were religious customs.

Post a reply to this message