:smack: illegal This act is even illegal in the countries where it may be practiced.
Any individual has freedom to act within the law of the land; for the most part, this allows immigrants and natives alike to exercise their religious and cultural preferences, but the boundaries are (or should be) the same for everyone.
Given that we’re most unlikely here in the West to rewrite the law to permit anyone and everyone to arbitrarily kill members of their family, it is just tough titty toenails if you live here and feel that you should be allowed to do it - you can’t (or if you do, you face the consequences).
Of course there are probably other laws that we could/should rewrite, but not those that would cause or permit an increase of individual violation of consent or harm.
Cite?
This was my impression too.
Guys, guys… DanBlather and even sven got it: bri1600bv is posing to us a caricature of “cultural relativism”. However I don’t think you’ll find any American or British liberals rushing to defend “honor killing” as a valid cultural practice. But the thing is, multiculturalism is NOT an all-or-nothing proposition. As mentioned above, judgement is to be made on specific issues, not in-general. On “honor killing” our “Western” ways ARE superior. Doesn’t mean that every part of South Asian/North African culture is inferior.
In any case, as to the title question: if a law is applied uniformly, universally, fairly, and for a secular social purpose, you can’t use ‘freedom of religion’ as an excuse.
I have my suspicions that the OP does not really believe in his own argument, and is simply attempting to paint Muslims as mysoginistic murderers and rapists…
Religious beliefs are personal. You can have any particular belief you want. You can even voice you own opinion/beliefs in public so long as you do not advocate hate or public mischief.
The instant you act on you beliefs you must be constrained by the laws of the land. The freedom of belief ends the moment it compels someone to act against another party. What’s the classic phrase “The right to swing my fist ends at the start of your nose”? Something like that.
My impression, too.
Cultural relativism carried to this extreme is indefensible. After all, if we are to accept “honor killings” as legitimate cultural expressions, then we have to accept punishing “honor killings” as legitimate cultural expressions as well.
Although I knew a couple of pot-addled students in my college days who would make such silly arguments (one person went so far as to defend an author’s lies and misrepresentations by claiming that, as an Indian, she shouldn’t be held up to the standards of white academia), most folks who advocate multiculturalism aren’t stupid about it.
Multiculturalism suggests that we shouldn’t get freaked out about the little stuff. Does the culture believe in not eating pork, in covering themselves in ashes at funerals, in smoking weed in their own homes, in polyamory? Let them do whatever weird thing they want, none of my business; I got my own weird cultural things to attend to.
Multiculturalism, however, properly respects human rights, and it’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise. A woman’s right not to be burnt to death by her husband obviously trumps any cultural tradition of “kitchen fires.” A child’s right not to be coerced into foreign religious practices obviously trumps any cultural tradition of “prayer in school.”
Daniel
And just in case you were wondering…
Only the most extreme interpretation of Shari’a law allows these murders. As noted, freedom of religion schmidgen, it’s murder unless you have a Shari’a judge that agrees with you.
Bibliovore, that brings up another point: as often as not, people crying “multiculturalism!” have a twisted understanding of the culture they’re talking about. Strange as it may seem, Muslims AREN’T generally creepy daughter-murdering bastards: they’re people like you and like me.
And as I explained to the person in my college class, honesty and integrity are NOT values specific to white academia: Indian kids are taught to be honest and forthright just like white kids are.
It actually suggests a fair amount of cultural arrogance when people believe their own culture has a monopoly on telling the truth and not killing their daughters. These are universal values, not white-guy values.
Daniel
Ah, but then the question becomes more complicated.
Why should the ritual circumcision of male Jewish infants be allowed? There’s no medical reason for it, and it would be considered mutilation if it wasn’t culturally accepted.
Couldn’t agree more, and strangely enough, I am a Muslim, and I haven’t killed anyone recently. Guess I’m falling back on my Jihad quota, eh? 
Seriously though, I linked to that article because I felt it was important to show how these crimes are condemned by The Muslim Community. Whenever something like this happens, Muslim-bashers are quick to ask why the “so-called moderate Muslims” never condemn these atrocities, as if to imply that there are no moderate Muslims, and that this sort of thing is acceptable in Islam. I just wanted to show that we are here, and that we do speak out against it.
Frankly, Muslims like myself are getting a little damn tired of having to rush to disassociate ourselves from every rapist and murderer with a Muslim name, but we know that if we don’t do it, we’ll be tarred with the same brush…
Mutilation is a pretty strong word: I don’t think it applies here. If male Jewish infants had one eye put out at birth, or if their right hands were cut off in order not to offend the Lord, that’d be different. But an operation that changes a child’s sexual experience (for the better, according to Dan Savage) doesn’t qualify as mutilation.
The question is in any case already complicated. Specifically, the question is, what constitutes a human right?
The uncomplicated part of the question is whether culture should be factored in. I submit that it shouldn’t be: either it’s okay for the Jewish family AND the Protestant family to circumcise their male children, or it’s not okay for either family. There’s no cultural “get out of mutilation free” card.
Daniel
If male Jewish infants had their right hands cut off, or a significant fraction of the nerve endings cut off in order not to offend the Lord, that’d be different. But an operation that changes a child’s visual experience (for the better, according to Plog the Elder) doesn’t qualify as mutilation, so putting out one eye is allowable.
Sorry, Daniel, but that argument cuts both ways.
Drat. That ruined the whole point. Let’s try that again:
“…or a significant fraction of the nerve endings in their penis cut off…”
There we go.
TVAA, that doesn’t make any sense to me at all. How does putting out one eye not change the visual experience for the worse?
More importantly, let’s quit with the hypothetical hijacks. My major point is that culture don’t enter into it. If it’s okay for Jews to circumcise their kids, it’s also okay for Protestants to do so; if Protestants aren’t allowed to do so, neither should Jews be.
The complicated question is whether circumcision is a violation of human rights. That question is tangential to the issue at hand, however, which is whether human rights can be violated by resorting to claims of cultural traditions. I say no: an act is a human right violation irrespective of whether a culture tolerates it.
Daniel
How does cutting off a third of the penile skin not change the sexual experience for the worse?
I apologize for the partial hijack, but when these discussions have come up on the boards before, there have been several individuals who have claimed that outlawing circumcisions performed for non-medical reasons would be an act of hate against Judaism. The topics do converge.
TVAA, Dan Savage suggests that guys with no foreskins get a lot more oral sex than guys with foreskins.
You wanna talk about it more, start another thread on it. It’s a hijack here: you’re arguing that circumcision should illegal for everyone regardless of cultural background, which doesn’t bear at all on the topic, AFAICT.
Daniel
No, I’m trying to point out that circumcision is often cited as an action specifically justifed by cultural tradition. Similar procedures not backed by tradition would be considered child abuse.