Then you'd have to hope the Moslem parents were aware of the rules of their own religion, which allow such contact when necessary. Perhaps the parents don't have such a cartoon image of Islam as outsiders....Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
Then you'd have to hope the Moslem parents were aware of the rules of their own religion, which allow such contact when necessary. Perhaps the parents don't have such a cartoon image of Islam as outsiders....
No, I meant, "generally". It was an observation of what happens in the majority of cultures - "social services" taking the shape of a variety of entities. Not my personal preference.
i am not including cultural situations in which there would be no issue because the victim's beliefs would be those of the dominant culture and therefor no one would be attempting to act counter to them.
I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the Qur'an which would prohibit a child from displaying respect for a teacher with a handshake. It is the fundamentalist cultural and societal practices that are enforcing that.
Would it be agreeable if the child's parents said, I don't want my child shaking hands with an African-American? Because in the blue-collar neighborhood where I grew up there were plenty of parents who would want to enforce that, and try to quote bible verses to "prove" it.
Where does it end? Should there be separate school buses because a Muslim parent doesn't want their son to have to sit next to a girl and potentially touch knees? Or can a Muslim parent insist that their son not have a female lab partner in science class because their hands could possibly touch when exchanging a lab beaker?
What is practiced in private homes is one thing, but the public sphere is different.
Is proportionality a rationalization? It seems to me that what is impermissible in the classroom might be necessary in the emergency room. I suspect that if it became possible to sue an EMT for saving lives without permission, the supply of EMTs would decline. Using force to assert cultural dominance seems to me different enough from forcefully preserving life that we can make a reasonable distinction.
That's not to say that there isn't plenty of gray area where we can reasonably argue about when state power should be used to enforce norms. Abortion rights, gun rights or the the question of whether the rights of same-sex couples to marry outweighs the right of bakers to refuse to bake a wedding cake comes to mind.
Are some cultures or societies better than others? I think so, although I doubt we will ever reach unanimity on the proper measure of "better". There are many indexes out there purporting to rank (generally for tendentious reasons) societies by how prosperous, free or happy they are. I think that's generally nonsense, and that the best ultimate criteria of success is survival. I also think the best arena for competition between cultures is how attractive others find that culture and adapt it's features.
I think a person has the rights refuse to touch or be touched by anyone. for any reason.
i also think that actions have consequences, so before you ask me if an emt should have the right to refuse to touch someone because of race, religion, gender, etc - absolutely. And they should also be replaced by someone who is able to actually do the job - asap.
when I was in college, I tried to get a barbershop to cut my hair. They cut my friend Randy's hair, and he had the same haircut - shoulder length blunt cut. The barber said no. "We do not cut women's hair." I said, but I just want (reference Randy) and he said "we don't cut women's hair." And I left and found a girl in my dorm who cut my hair for free. I did not sue the barbershop. Because I do not see any way in which that guy was harming anyone but himself - and if he had so many customers he didn't want any more, he wasn't hurting anybody. If the whole town had no one who would cut women's hair, that's a business opportunity, not a problem. Now, if the town starts formally or informally obstructing the ability of people to cut women's hair, THAT is a problem.
I think, too, that if one were looking for a new home, then one would be wise to select a new location that welcomed one's culture and provided the freedom to worship and live as one chose, or else to select a new home that fit one's requirements, culturally speaking.
Thus is going to high school and college was important to me, culturally, then I would not go to live among the Amish.
If I felt strongly that my child should not shake hands with a teacher of the opposite sex, then I would not go to live in Switzerland, apparently.
Much like if I disliked military culture, I would not chose to go live on Parris Island.
Of course, I'd have to get a pass to even visit Parris Island, so living there is out for me at this time.
I don't think it's reasonable to impose an inflexible prescriptive rule in that regard. If the person in question represents a threat to themselves or others, I have no problem with them being touched, sometimes even lethally.
In general, however, I think we should err on the side of individual rights over the collective interest.
Fair enough LDAHL. Because, actions have consequences.
my dad used to tell me that "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. and the entire history of social legislation has been an attempt to define the words in that sentence."
So what if they were? If this was a cultural norm, why shouldn't that be enforced? You may regard a handshake as "simple", and hugs and kisses as not - but other people may have other views, in either direction. How do we differentiate between "this is how things should be" and "this is how I think things should be"?
I am not a cultural relativist. I happen to think that some cultures are better than others.
Switzerland's culture vs. Saudi Arabian culture?
The Swiss culture wins.
Any dissenters?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote