Comment on February 17th, 2008.
What he actually said in his lecture (the only sentence with the word ‘unavoidable’):
“It is uncomfortably true that this introduces into our thinking about law what some would see as a ‘market’ element, a competition for loyalty… But if what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of divers and overlapping affiliations work for a common good, and in which groups of serious and profound conviction are not systematically faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty, it seems unavoidable.”
Comment on February 20th, 2008.
Lots of stuff to think about here. I could write a long essay on this subject. One point: I think we can say that our law is superior, without saying that we are superior. If an Islamic woman is about to be beaten, or raped, or genitally mutilated, then she must be protected by our western, secular, superior in this regard, law. If this woman is told to handle it within her community, where she will not be protected, then this is outrageous, and a denial of the gospel of Christ.
Lots to think about.
Comments can contain some xhtml. Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.
