thabet
-
06:24:46 am on May 27, 2008 | # | |
Following Razib’s example of how the law in secular states inevitably support one ‘interpretation’ of religion as ‘essential’ to that identity, compared to other interpretations, here is a brief description of a German court ruling from the mid-90s:
Brandeis University’s Jytte Klausen, in her book “The Islamic Challenge,” provided the perfect example of this quandary. A German court ruled in 1995 that while Jews could be exempted from the strict laws governing animal slaughter, Muslims could not.
The rules governing Kosher slaughter and Muslim customs are similar. The Jewish authorities, when consulted by the court, were adamant that their religion absolutely required ritual slaughter. When it came to the Muslims, however, the court consulted Islamic authorities in Cairo, who told them that, in an emergency, Muslims could do without ritual slaughter.
Muslims in Germany were furious. “We are not lost in the desert, there is no emergency here,” a German Muslim told me as he gestured at the well-stocked Berlin cafĂ in which we were sitting. “If Jews can be allowed their religious customs, why not us?”
-
Tag this post
Comments
Join the Discussion
razib 8:11 am on May 27, 2008 | #
i don’t think it is a problem with *secular* states either. any power which enforces its fiat by force will get into the business of determining what is normative and what is not normative. because of the admitted importance of religion it will be approached with more care & respect usually than other non-state institutions, but it will be addressed nonetheless. even if the state is a theocracy it will decide for its then what is appropriate and not appropriate as the normative established religion. e.g., ask the shia of saudi arabia if it is an islamic state
i believe most people, religious and non-religious, tend to be less than conscious about this reality because their norms fall within the bounds which the state establishes as permissible. consciousness is only raised when all of a sudden the state declares what you feel to be sacred as verboten. then you see how it *really* is.
thabet 2:50 pm on May 27, 2008 | #
Yes, but secular states are, popularly, thought to be disinterested in questions of religion. As you have shown in previous posts (and as I do, infact, believe) this is not possible. I think there needs to be greater awareness of this, especially by religious believers.
razib 6:31 pm on May 27, 2008 | #
sure. i guess one can say there’s really no such thing as a “secular” state. even the french laicist state has relations with various religions which it sponsors. the indian gov. is very secular…except that controls hindu temples (who serve a dual function as civic institutions in many regions).