CULTURAL ENCOUNTERS

Cultural Encounters and Cultural Exemptions

Cultural Encounters and Cultural Exemptions

John Rawls' in Political Liberalism (1993) explores the problem of political stability in a democratic, pluralistic society. [1]Certain aspects of political liberalism are not considered controversial because they are based on ideas fundamental to a democratic society. "Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all." (Rawls 1993 in Vaggalis). Rawls "overlapping consensus" provides a model of politico-social relations that does raise some provocative issues. In "overlapping consensus", in order to reach consensus about principles of justice in political debate, opposing religious and philosophical doctrines are set aside. Politics is seen as a shared moral order that does not demand that citizens agree on the ultimate meaning of life. Disagreement about what the good life entails is part of the freedom of modern times. So philosophy takes a back seat to the practical side of politics. Political liberalists promote political avoidance of religious controversy. It is interesting then, that Macedo has chosen the case Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education, to demonstrate how political liberalism offers a solution to the challenges of diversity within democracy.

In 1983 the Mozert's, a fundamentalist Christian family, charged the Hawkins County Board of Education, Tennessee with undermining their children's religious beliefs in a mandatory reading class. In this class children were exposed to stories referring to diverse belief systems including Islam, Buddhism and nature worship. The Mozerts complained that their belief in the Bible as the unique source of religious truth was threatened by the school's reading program. Their request for exemption on religious grounds was upheld by a district court, then denied by a federal appeals court which included Judges Lively and Boggs. According to political liberalism, core liberal and democratic values have primacy over accommodation of diversity. Macedo questions the "politics of difference" in which he suggests, liberal values may be diminished by those who want no group to be silenced. He wonders if the defenders of nonjudgemental and indiscriminate pluralism, such as Young, include Nazis and fundamentalist as examples of cultures that are oppressed. Young promotes politics that affirms group-specific identities and avoids exclusion and marginalization of any culture. (Young (1990:7, 95)

The arguments put forward by Macedo are somewhat of a response to a provocative article by Stolzenberg. She defends fundamentalists' right to protect their culture (Stolzenberg (1993: 581 -667, pp.583, 582). Stolzenberg argues that liberal civic education, which promotes tolerance towards diversity, threatens to assimilate fundamentalists. In this article Macedo argues that an unqualified pluralism should be resisted as it is based on a mirage of perfect fairness which is unattainable. He cites the example of India where constitutional rights guarantee 'neutrality of effect' on all religions. The Indian government becomes entangled in religious antagonisms by attempting to please all of the religions equally. (Verma 1992)

Macedo then compares two forms of liberalism: comprehensive and ...