commentonthis

About CommentOnThis.com

This is a site designed to make it easier to take the core of large published reports and allow anyone to comment on them.

More...

To put the question like that is already to see where an answer might lie, though it is not an answer that will remove the possibility of some conflict. If any kind of plural jurisdiction is recognised, it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights. This is in effect to mirror what a minority might themselves be requesting — that the situation should not arise where membership of one group restricted the freedom to live also as a member of an overlapping group, that (in this case) citizenship in a secular society should not necessitate the abandoning of religious discipline, any more than religious discipline should deprive one of access to liberties secured by the law of the land, to the common benefits of secular citizenship — or, better, to recognise that citizenship itself is a complex phenomenon not bound up with any one level of communal belonging but involving them all.

Email this to a friend.
Previous itemNext item.


Comment


(You must give a valid email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)


We only allow the following html tags em strong blockquote p br. After posting, there may be a short delay before your comment appears on the site