I am pleased to see that Mr. Syed Mustafa Zaidi of Manchester, UK has been found guilty of child abuse. Zaidi, a Shi'a muslim, forced two young boys to participate in a ritual self-flogging exercise during the holy month of...
the question is simply whether the actions violated Law.
what about sikhs and helmet laws? in the *ideal* i agree with this, but, as a matter of practicality there are cases where i think accommodation should and will always be made. that being said, this isn't a black-white dichotomy; when it comes to the rights of women and children i doubt there will be much accommodation. when it comes to something like helmet laws the impact on other people is less important (though the public arguably will have to pay for medical bills in cases of injury in many states).
Aziz
August 27, 2008 9:00 PM
with regard to helmet laws, there are other arguments besides religious ones as to why a helmet should not be mandatory - this gets into the whole nanny-state debate, essentially. If such shades of gray exist then it's hardly an "accomodation" - it is more of an acknowledgement that the Law is more an attempt at social engineering than a flat moral principle. Laws themselves are not black and white entities and also have a range from outright moral dictates to utterly asinine whims. As such, the sikh-helmet issue fits neatly into the gray area.
razib
August 28, 2008 2:53 AM
this gets into the whole nanny-state debate
nations with universal health care are de facto nanny-states. the medical argument is a common one given for why sikhs should have to abide by them (though usually they end up not having to).
razib
August 28, 2008 2:58 AM
but more relevant to your point, some scandinavian countries (i believe sweden) have thought about banning infant male circumcision as child abuse since the the infant can't give consent and obviously reconstruction is a rather difficult process. obviously this intersects with the religious dictates of many muslims* and jews, and the non-religious customs of many africans.
* i know in some muslim countries males do not get circumcised traditionally until around puberty, like in turkey. so that might not be banned.
thabet
August 31, 2008 7:28 PM
As you know, I firmly put these sorts of questions in the 'freedom of religion' debate because the defendents frame them that way and the state is required to consider whether such acts (cicumcision, ritual flogging, avoidance of wearing helmets, etc) are an integral feature of a 'religious tradition', and thus deserving of the state's protection.
pagansister
September 6, 2008 3:06 PM
Zaidi was properly charged, IMO. Forcing anyone for religious reasons (or any other so called "reason") to "torture" themselves is abuse. I'm not even sure a 16 year old should be beating on himself, but at least he can perhaps refuse. The younger children didn't have an option according to the charges.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.
City of Brass by Aziz Poonawalla approaches issues from the perspective of a Muslim of the West. Aziz, a member of the Dawoodi Bohra Muslim community, has been blogging since early 2003. His other major Islamsphere projects include the group weblog Talk Islam and the annual Brass
Crescent Awards. Aziz currently resides near Madison, WI with his wife and children.
the question is simply whether the actions violated Law.
what about sikhs and helmet laws? in the *ideal* i agree with this, but, as a matter of practicality there are cases where i think accommodation should and will always be made. that being said, this isn't a black-white dichotomy; when it comes to the rights of women and children i doubt there will be much accommodation. when it comes to something like helmet laws the impact on other people is less important (though the public arguably will have to pay for medical bills in cases of injury in many states).
with regard to helmet laws, there are other arguments besides religious ones as to why a helmet should not be mandatory - this gets into the whole nanny-state debate, essentially. If such shades of gray exist then it's hardly an "accomodation" - it is more of an acknowledgement that the Law is more an attempt at social engineering than a flat moral principle. Laws themselves are not black and white entities and also have a range from outright moral dictates to utterly asinine whims. As such, the sikh-helmet issue fits neatly into the gray area.
this gets into the whole nanny-state debate
nations with universal health care are de facto nanny-states. the medical argument is a common one given for why sikhs should have to abide by them (though usually they end up not having to).
but more relevant to your point, some scandinavian countries (i believe sweden) have thought about banning infant male circumcision as child abuse since the the infant can't give consent and obviously reconstruction is a rather difficult process. obviously this intersects with the religious dictates of many muslims* and jews, and the non-religious customs of many africans.
* i know in some muslim countries males do not get circumcised traditionally until around puberty, like in turkey. so that might not be banned.
As you know, I firmly put these sorts of questions in the 'freedom of religion' debate because the defendents frame them that way and the state is required to consider whether such acts (cicumcision, ritual flogging, avoidance of wearing helmets, etc) are an integral feature of a 'religious tradition', and thus deserving of the state's protection.
Zaidi was properly charged, IMO. Forcing anyone for religious reasons (or any other so called "reason") to "torture" themselves is abuse. I'm not even sure a 16 year old should be beating on himself, but at least he can perhaps refuse. The younger children didn't have an option according to the charges.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.