For instance, a married Jewish woman must cover her hair to show to outsiders that she is no longer single. In overall, there is a law that governs covering the body, but it is more strict with women than men. Another interesting fact is that women cannot wear pants because they are strictly prohibited. Instead, they can wear long skirts, but it is prohibited to wear tights even if the legs are seen. All these aspects depends on what Jewish group Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform the Jew belongs to.
Cultural relativist theory is not a strong enough theory to protect human rights. That is because it maintains that human values are not universal, and vary a great deal according to different cultural perspectives. Thus, it ignores, and indeed approves of, human rights violations because it has replaced dominant concepts like race, culture, religion, class, and ethnicity or nationality. Activists of human rights must work together to change and stop such harmful and discriminatory practices in many cultures against human rights by promoting their universal nature. In the second part, I argued that Islam (the Qur’an and Sunnah) is not oppressive to women.
The French government is willing to observe the first part which is to allow for religion to be practiced alone or in private, but not the second part which is to allow the same religious rights and freedoms to be observed publicly. According to the case study, proponents of the ban cite female oppression as one of the arguments to support the ban. They say that the wearing of headscarves is a symbol of
I think the arguments made by McBryer are invalid because I believe that there is nothing like objective morality. However, reasonable individuals can agree on what is moral or not. The main problem with the arguments made by McBryer is they fail to take into consideration the fact that reason counts for little when morality is inspired by religion. Morality based on religion usually diverts from what most people would consider moral. For example, how can one convince a devout Muslim that it is wrong to deny girls education?
Religion discrimination involves treating an individual adversely because of their religious beliefs. When it comes to religious beliefs, people tend to discriminate other people. Sadly, there are people going through harassment for not believing what others believe. It occurs to be illegal to harass a person who has a different opinion than another. Although, the law does not forbid teasing, or curt comments, harassment actually becomes illegal when it happens constantly to the point where it creates an unfriendly work environment.
Flag protection, or making it a federal crime to deface the American flag, is the very definition of hypocrisy. It is by no means acceptable to deface the flag – in the same way it would be unacceptable to call other people names or insult religions – but freedom of speech must extend to the freedom to offend others, lest it no longer be freedom of speech, but only freedom to speak what the government wants to be spoken. This may start with a protection of the flag, but it will eventually result in a society of censorship. If the government is able to censor what is thought, spoken, or believed, then we are no better than countries who censor everything, and the experiment of America – that a society can be formed based on equal freedom for all – has failed.
In order to be a social problem, the issue must affect a group of people. People who are pro-life, believe abortion should not be legal, while some people believe that the fetus is not a living person therefore it should be legal. There are also people who are in the middle, they are neutral, they are neither for or against abortions. If abortion is illegal then it will still happen. Women would still find a way to still have abortions but, they will be taking a greater risk in having them done.
A consensus along the side of banning speech is that we are to civil to have hate speech. “this issue has already been decided; impugning someone because of their race, gender or orientation is not acceptable in a civil society”(McElwee). Because of this people shouldn 't be up to someone 's genetics to decide how they should be treated modern society. The consensus from the other side is all speech should be protected, but only blatant offensive actions should be banned. Speech is a fundamental right and should be protected.
The second piece of literature, “Silent Protest” by Shadi Eskandani is about the fight for women’s rights in the Muslim religion and culture. The women are protesting for freedom of choice, they want to be able to make their own decisions on what they can do and wear without being scolded for their actions by the men. The author uses symbolism, stereotypes, exposition, irony, and conflict in the short story to develop a well-rounded approach to the issue. The two works of literature are connected by the common theme of freedom and the want for all creatures to have it. Freedom should not be a privilege, freedom should be a right.
Many people argue that non-conformists only join these groups for their own self gain, however, when Muslim people in America who dress non-conventionally to those around them are they being selfish or are they just expressing their culture and religion. Head scarfs are religious articles of clothing that Muslim women wear, they challenge what is normal attire for people in America. Since this isn’t a usual article of clothing, some mainstream Americans think of it as weird or ugly. Obviously these women are only expressing their culture and religion, they aren’t being selfish. Other opponents say that some people consider it popular to be unique in a specific way, and are just setting up and joining these groups as a way of showing how cool they are.
The aspect most concerning in this question is, is it reasonable to limit certain religious articles. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Equality Rights, in Section 15. (1), shows us that this is not a reasonable request as it is unacceptable to discriminate against someone because of their religion. Some may question that it is a safety reason, so they want to prohibit certain religious articles, for instance the burqa. Using the same logic, the society must also consider catholic nuns; they could also be considered a safety concern because they are covered in the same
The case was, in a brief summary, a decision as to whether or not polygamy could be allowed or dismissed if one was filling their “religious duty.” The ruling was that religious beliefs are not supposed to be governed, as the government reaches actions, not opinions. The government cannot make laws regarding religion, but can reach actions when the principles are a violation of “social duties or subversive of good order.” Seeing as polygamy has always been treated as a crime against humanity and marriage is considered the most important factor of social life, one can see as to why this case was such an important encounter with the
All freedoms should have a restriction somewhere, and this limitation should happen when one breaks a law for the purpose of a religion. Americans should have their freedoms, but safety is even more important. Harming others for the purpose of a religion is a threat to society, and can bring down the nation. It is not fair for the purpose of people to break the law just because of a religious belief, while other people get punished for breaking the law. The first amendment is a controversial topic that still gets debated today.
Would it be alright for the government to infringe these rights to protect us as citizens? There are two sides to this coin, on the first we have the violation of this right set down to protect us. On the other, we have the government’s interest of public safety. Our forefathers had predicted this type of issue. Another founding father, Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I believe if we let the government encroach on these rights we will not get them back.