08 Feb 09
In a trial in California, Navajo defendants argue that using the hallucinogen peyote to achieve spiritual exaltation is protected by the Constitution's free exercise of religion clause, trumping the states' right to regulate them.
An Ibo man from Nigeria sues Pan American World Airways for transporting his mother's corpse in a cloth sack. Her arrival for the funeral facedown in a burlap bag signifies death by suicide according to the customs of her Ibo kin, and brings great shame to the son.
In Los Angeles, two Cambodian men are prosecuted for attempting to eat a four month-old puppy. The immigrants' lawyers argue that the men were following their own "national customs" and do not realize their conduct is offensive to "American sensibilities."
What is the just decision in each case? When cultural practices come into conflict with the law is it legitimate to take culture into account? Is there room in modern legal systems for a cultural defense?
Originally posted by FMFIdeally, based on the non-initiation of force principle:
In a trial in California, Navajo defendants argue that using the hallucinogen peyote to achieve spiritual exaltation is protected by the Constitution's free exercise of religion clause, trumping the states' right to regulate them.
An Ibo man from Nigeria sues Pan American World Airways for transporting his mother's corpse in a cloth sack. Her arrival for the take culture into account? Is there room in modern legal systems for a cultural defense?
1/ The Navajo and anyone else should be able to take any drugs they like for what ever reason they like.
2/ The airline sets the conditions. If those conditions are unacceptable he must find some other means of transportation.
3/ Dog, fish, cow, sheep, kangaroo, rabbit. Can't see why this is the business of anyone other than the two cambodian men
No there is no room for, or need for a cultural defence if the law is confined to it's legitimate role i.e. protecting you from me, and protecting me from you.
08 Feb 09
Originally posted by WajomaWord.
Ideally, based on the non-initiation of force principle:
1/ The Navajo and anyone else should be able to take any drugs they like for what ever reason they like.
2/ The airline sets the conditions. If those conditions are unacceptable he must find some other means of transportation.
3/ Dog, fish, cow, sheep, kangaroo, rabbit. Can't see why this i ...[text shortened]... w is confined to it's legitimate role i.e. protecting you from me, and protecting me from you.
08 Feb 09
Originally posted by WajomaHmmmmm, this is interesting. You don't believe any nonhuman animal species should have the right to not be killed, but yet you believe that a wealthy human should have the right to not be taxed even if such taxation only has a very minor impact on their livelihood.
Ideally, based on the non-initiation of force principle:
1/ The Navajo and anyone else should be able to take any drugs they like for what ever reason they like.
2/ The airline sets the conditions. If those conditions are unacceptable he must find some other means of transportation.
3/ Dog, fish, cow, sheep, kangaroo, rabbit. Can't see why this i ...[text shortened]... w is confined to it's legitimate role i.e. protecting you from me, and protecting me from you.
Do I understand you correctly? If so, how do you justify giving lots of rights to humans but apparently no rights to any other species?
08 Feb 09
Originally posted by FMF1. People should be able to use drugs if they like. The argument given to be able to do so is poor, however, as it implies discrimination against nonbelievers.
In a trial in California, Navajo defendants argue that using the hallucinogen peyote to achieve spiritual exaltation is protected by the Constitution's free exercise of religion clause, trumping the states' right to regulate them.
An Ibo man from Nigeria sues Pan American World Airways for transporting his mother's corpse in a cloth sack. Her arrival for the ...[text shortened]... take culture into account? Is there room in modern legal systems for a cultural defense?
2. It would have been decent of the airline to ask how the corpse should be transported.
3. If eating cows, chickens and pigs is alright, then surely eating puppies is alright.
08 Feb 09
Originally posted by karnachzWhy should humans care about the wellbeing of other animals other than for their own interests?
Hmmmmm, this is interesting. You don't believe any nonhuman animal species should have the right to not be killed, but yet you believe that a wealthy human should have the right to not be taxed even if such taxation only has a very minor impact on their livelihood.
Do I understand you correctly? If so, how do you justify giving lots of rights to humans but apparently no rights to any other species?
08 Feb 09
Originally posted by WajomaI agree with 1 and 2, however I don't think we should allow weird practices (3), eating puppies is one of those.
Ideally, based on the non-initiation of force principle:
1/ The Navajo and anyone else should be able to take any drugs they like for what ever reason they like.
2/ The airline sets the conditions. If those conditions are unacceptable he must find some other means of transportation.
3/ Dog, fish, cow, sheep, kangaroo, rabbit. Can't see why this i ...[text shortened]... w is confined to it's legitimate role i.e. protecting you from me, and protecting me from you.
08 Feb 09
Originally posted by generalissimoWhat's a "weird practice"? One in which you haven't indulged?
I don't think we should allow weird practices
Is eating a puppy (presumably with the understanding that it is just a piece of dead puppy-meat) weirder than eating a cracker, with the understanding that it is part of the body of a person who died nearly 2 millenia ago?
08 Feb 09
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyyeah, I guess you're right.
What's a "weird practice"? One in which you haven't indulged?
Is eating a puppy (presumably with the understanding that it is just a piece of dead puppy-meat) weirder than eating a cracker, with the understanding that it is part of the body of a person who died nearly 2 millenia ago?
08 Feb 09
Originally posted by FMF1) We all have an inalienable right to pursue happiness. The Navajo should be left alone.
In a trial in California, Navajo defendants argue that using the hallucinogen peyote to achieve spiritual exaltation is protected by the Constitution's free exercise of religion clause, trumping the states' right to regulate them.
An Ibo man from Nigeria sues Pan American World Airways for transporting his mother's corpse in a cloth sack. Her arrival for the ...[text shortened]... take culture into account? Is there room in modern legal systems for a cultural defense?
2) I don't know.
3) Screw "American sensibilities". People should be able to eat dogs just as they can pigs or cows. Now, maybe it's against the law to slaughter your own foodstuffs in city limits or something...but the fact that it's dog meat should not matter.
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by Wajoma1 rec
Ideally, based on the non-initiation of force principle:
1/ The Navajo and anyone else should be able to take any drugs they like for what ever reason they like.
2/ The airline sets the conditions. If those conditions are unacceptable he must find some other means of transportation.
3/ Dog, fish, cow, sheep, kangaroo, rabbit. Can't see why this i ...[text shortened]... w is confined to it's legitimate role i.e. protecting you from me, and protecting me from you.