[lit-ideas] Re: Religion & Public Reason
- From: Eric <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:12:20 -0400
On 8/12/2010 4:57 PM, Phil Enns wrote:
It is at this point that I would raise the question of whether liberal
democracies should punish people on the basis of there being the mere
possibility that their beliefs may lead to acts of terror? Here we
approach something like the Cheney doctrine, or the 1% doctrine, which
can be paraphrased as 'If there is a 1% chance that radical Muslims
will use the wearing of the niqab to engage in acts of terror, then
the government should treat it as a certainty in terms of its
response.
The Cheney Doctrine concerns loose nukes or loose bioweapons, where the
destructive potential of their use -- even at 1 percent chance -- is
civilization-ending, and consequently an unacceptable risk. Not entirely
apropos.
Perhaps a good analogy here is wearing a swastika in public. There are
many circumstances in the US -- if you are in the military, in public
school, etc. -- where this would be illegal. Hence a female Aryan Nation
member covering all of her textbooks in public school with large red
swastikas would probably be suspended at the least, if not referred to
counseling and the parents assigned social service interviews as to
their suitability as parents.
E
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
