The French firmly believe in the separation of church and state, which has led to fear of organized religion influencing the actions of its people. When you combine this with the recent terrorist attacks blamed on fundamental Islamism the French have a distrust of their own Islamic citizens and immigrants. Many government officials who are also elitist within France fuel this distrust. What Giry is suggesting is that Islam has very little
A Critique of William Bennett’s “Against Gay Marriage” The issue of homosexuals in our society is becoming more of a debate. The debate is no longer whether we should accept them, but rather, should they be legally recognized. Gay marriage should not be legalized because of its effect it would have on society. William Bennett’s article “Against Gay Marriage” was originally published in the Washington Post and highlights the negative effects of gay marriage on our society. Bennett wrongfully believes that homosexual and heterosexual unions are not comparable; however, if we change the definition of marriage, our society’s understanding of marriage would be irreconcilably ruined.
Federal v. State Government To this day the relationship between federal and state governments in respect to the constitution still effect the everyday person. Many people feel that it is unfair that a state government can null and void a federal law. But on the reverse side, people feel that it is unfair that the federal government can make a law legal without knowing the feelings and ideas of the people. Throughout history, there have been events that test the limits of federal and state governments. A recent event that proves federal and state governments are separate is the topic of gay marriage.
Cultural and religious symbols are banned from being shown in public. This ban took place back in 2004 and includes Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps, and Christian crosses; however the government in France mainly focuses on the Muslim hijabs and headscarves. There was a widespread support for the ban of religious symbols in France because many felt it was necessary to separate religion and government from each other. Many believe that having religious symbols banned from being shown in public will help with the integration of France’s people and help prevent any future divisions because there is not many physical differences. However, there are arguments against the ban of these symbols.
The result of this moral compass is an unstable platform for truth; as a result secular humanism supports gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia. Socially unacceptable behaviors such as murder, rape, and robbery are not accepted by secular
English 1302 WS7 05 April 2010 Individuality and the Law Today there are many laws that are written for the people of the United States. Within these laws are issues that some may find morally unjust, and not want to follow. In Sophocles’ play Antigone, written in 441 B.C.E., these same issues existed. Antigone felt that even though she was breaking the law to bury her brother she had a religious right to uphold. To her, the religious laws were more important than the governmental laws she was being asked to follow.
Labeling a particular crime as special or different does not deter criminals from their true intention. If we place a "special" label on certain types of murder, rape or vandalism we are not preventing the hate that is the motive for such crimes. This is not the true goal of society. Helen Dodge makes a compelling argument to shun the members of such hateful communities in her article "Special Crimes Need Special Laws", when she says that the public should band together against such forces (Dodge 140). However, even she had to admit that these special laws won't deter the criminals who practice these violent acts.
The law against polygamy is a law based on morals. Countless people believe gay marriage is morally wrong however it is not illegal. It is merely frowned upon, nevertheless laws were not made on morals or things people do not approve of. Polygamy is something people believe is morally incorrect; even so it should not be against the
Well as in any issue there are two sides. For the people who support the ban feel it's oppressive to women, basically erasing their identity. Most say it violates France's secularism which is known to be important there. Also come at the issue saying its a security threat because they make it hard for the authorities to identify people at crime scenes or during investigations. It's an issue of security, gender equality and individual rights so they say.
Many people believe that racial profiling should be prohibited because it is offensive to American values. Malkin disputes this and insists that, “…the ethnic activists and civil-liberties groups who object most strenuously to the use of racial, ethnic, religious, and nationality classifications during war support the use of similar classifications to ensure ‘diversity’ or ‘parity’ in peacetime.” (493). However, Iftikhar strongly disagrees and believes that, “the most disturbing legal trend in America has been the growing disparity in how American Muslims are treated under the law.” She explains how the reports of civil rights cases, a majority of which were Muslim hate crimes, have increased tremendously since the 9/11 attacks due to racial profiling. Many Muslims were accused of crimes they didn’t do and were treated awful. While Iftikhar understands that America is focused on keeping everyone happy and winning over people abroad, she strongly states in her piece that, “it is high time that the Bush administration try spreading a little American democracy here---while winning the hearts and minds of Americans by treating all people equally under the law.” (497).