Reading the thread on France banning the burqa got me thinking a bit, and led to the question of, how much can be excused under the reasoning of "religious freedom", even when it comes into conflict with the laws of a land?
The obvious answer, I think most would agree on, would be when those religious freedoms might interfere with the freedoms of somebody else. But then, what about a situation where the religious belief did not interfere with somebody else's rights directly, but was still in conflict with a law?
Something that came right to my mind, which the more I think about it, the more I believe this will become an issue sometime in the future... has to do with Islamic beliefs when it comes to banking and finance.
Islamic law, as it comes from the Koran, has pretty strict laws when it comes to finance, banking, interest, loans, etc. Muslims cannot charge or accept interest payments on loans, and are expressly prohibited from investments that aren't "kosher" in terms of Islamic beliefs (gambling, alcohol, etc).
This in itself does not really cause any conflicts with the law, as nobody is forcing them to participate in these activities, but the spin off is this, which I think could be a big problem:
Muslims are prohibited from gambling, or basically engaging in anything that could be even considered a game of chance. The Koran *expressly* prohibits insuring ones' health or property, since this is basically considered "gambling".
So, while it is pretty clear that not every Muslim in the world follows these Islamic laws, what about the ones that do? Would the government be able to force them to buy health insurance, since that would conflict with their religious beliefs?
I'm not trying to make any statements about anything else, I just think this would be an interesting conversation, and I would not be surprised at all if it became a real problem in some time.
The obvious answer, I think most would agree on, would be when those religious freedoms might interfere with the freedoms of somebody else. But then, what about a situation where the religious belief did not interfere with somebody else's rights directly, but was still in conflict with a law?
Something that came right to my mind, which the more I think about it, the more I believe this will become an issue sometime in the future... has to do with Islamic beliefs when it comes to banking and finance.
Islamic law, as it comes from the Koran, has pretty strict laws when it comes to finance, banking, interest, loans, etc. Muslims cannot charge or accept interest payments on loans, and are expressly prohibited from investments that aren't "kosher" in terms of Islamic beliefs (gambling, alcohol, etc).
This in itself does not really cause any conflicts with the law, as nobody is forcing them to participate in these activities, but the spin off is this, which I think could be a big problem:
Muslims are prohibited from gambling, or basically engaging in anything that could be even considered a game of chance. The Koran *expressly* prohibits insuring ones' health or property, since this is basically considered "gambling".
So, while it is pretty clear that not every Muslim in the world follows these Islamic laws, what about the ones that do? Would the government be able to force them to buy health insurance, since that would conflict with their religious beliefs?
I'm not trying to make any statements about anything else, I just think this would be an interesting conversation, and I would not be surprised at all if it became a real problem in some time.
Facebook
Twitter