Friday, February 27, 2004
Non-uniform Civil Code
>I support laws that provide freedom to me as an individual, not as a member of a particular community.
Eh? Who said you wouldn't have the right to switch communities? I don't understand how libertarian demagogues divorce the individual from the community.
> it presupposes that a person born to, say, Muslim parents, is bound by Muslim laws, unless he/she explicitly gives it up in favor of another religion. I do not see why this should be so. Can a person escape enforcement of his community's law by, say, simply declaring himself a non-believer? The answer is "No."
Why not? If you don't agree with what your community considers a fundamental law, then obviously you don't agree with that philosophy. How drastically you "defect" is upto you. For instance, if a gay Catholic can find enough people like himself (or who support his POV), then they can always form a separate sect. The don't have to make a switch to a completely different culture.
Alternatively, there can always be one standard civil code applicable to anyone who wishes to be included in that sect. That was one intelligent suggestion made even in India, where any person (Muslim or otherwise) can legally choose to be included under that secular civil code. That way a Muslim woman who does not agree with triple talaq can legally get herself included under that standard cover.
The only debate is, in cases where the separate civil laws conflict (as in marriage, etc), which one predominates, or what is the compromise formula.
Note that a fluid caste-system with seperate "dharma" rules has been a standard feature of Indian society since time immemorial, and worked pretty well in certain periods, and caused problems at other times. But the concept is no new.
Comments: Post a Comment