"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? If
a headscarf poses a risk, rule against her. If it does not, let her wear it,
regardles of whether she is mistaken in her belief that it is god who
ordered her (she is, but so are all those who believe they are pleasing or
angering god/s by their actions) to wear it or not. Trying to find that
nonexistant fine line between culture and religion is a hopeless task and a
waste of taxpayer resources. Moreover, religion should not ever be a source
of freedom, a source of priviledge to those who profess to be religious over
those who are not. If a headscarf is not a risk, why discriminate against
someone who wishes to wear it as a fashion statement and only allow those
who claim religious motivation?

Post a reply to this message