How might a liberal philosopher argue for the view that it was right to grant an exemption in this case? How might a liberal philosopher argue against this view? Which side has the stronger argument?
Goldman V. Weinberger was a 1986 United States superlative court case where a Jewish officer from the air force was completely deprived of the privilege of wearing yarmulke while in military uniforms. The denial was based on the fact that the right to free clause exercise was less applied in military as compared to the ordinary United States citizens (RITTER, & HOFFMAN, 141, 2010).
In the view of the case in question my opinion is that a liberal philosopher may disagree in support of the Jewish officer by the name Goldman by utilization of unequal effects argument. A liberal philosopher may argue in favor of Goldman based on both political and religious center which has been developed around the issue (RITTER, & HOFFMAN, 141, 2010). The ground can thus be divided into two distinct sections which include particular protection of the nation from religion and special protection of the general religion by the nation. The general agreement exist which holds that religious freedom should be granted to all the liberal democracies. This is mainly because if the states nations d not have the freedom to live based on their religious beliefs then doubts would thus be developed that the state is unable to pay respect t the liberal democracies standards. All the individual citizens are entitled to holding religious beliefs of their choices in a liberal state. This therefore provides them with the rights and freedom of practicing whatever they believe is fine (RITTER, & HOFFMAN, 141, 2010). However it is not established whether religion should be uniquely protected by the nation based on religious qua.
A political liberal may therefore debate in favor of the case by focusing on religious justification as well as religious freedom. Liberalism is crucial in justifying religious freedom the protection is thus not justified specifically. This is mainly because the justification lies under several subcategory of freedom like the conscience freedom, expression freedom as well as the freedom of association (Pike, 113, 2011). The political liberal may thus argue that the client is justified to exercise his religion beliefs through the freedom of expression. He may hold that Goldman as a liberal military is for protection of his religious freedom. This is because as a liberal citizen of the United States he holds the significance to live his life based on the dictates of his religious conscience on the expression of his individual opinions and beliefs. A unique justification in favor of the case would be that religion is linked with particular goods which cannot be utilized and revealed beyond the given religion like wearing yarmulke. In this case exemption should be granted to the client based on the religious dimensions of the clashing on the conviction of the generalized laws (Pike, 114, 2011). The case can thus be given an exemption based on non discrimination and equality.
On the other hand a philosopher may argue against the case by the utilization of cultural materials argument. This argument is thus based on the view that individuals can only be real if they become a full part of a thriving group. Goldman as a military individual argues out that he has the right to exercise clause freedom. Providing him with the freedom will thus exempt him from the rest of the military group by making him special. This would thus be argued that by separating Goldman from the rest of the military individuals will be denying him the resources which he requires in order to be recognized as a part of the military community. A liberal philosopher may additionally argue against the case by holding that exempting Goldman will be differing with the constitutional belief which holds that all individuals should be treated equally regardless of their religious and cultural differences (Pike, 92, 2011). The liberal philosopher may thus argue all humans require rules to provide guidance in balancing both their impulses and their intellectual sides and this does not permit them to be exempted from the rules. By exempting Goldman this may raise issues with the military groups as all religions holds several beliefs which individuals would wish that they are also exempted (RITTER, & HOFFMAN, 141, 2010). The philosopher may therefore debate that the set restrictions of dress code is based on its suitability as a military as compared to the ordinary citizens (Pike, 111, 2011). This may be debated that if Goldman objects to the military materials understanding where the objection was raised may thus be challenging.
In my opinion I believe that the liberal philosopher argument against the present case would prove to be stronger that the argument in favor. This is because exempting Goldman to maintain his yarmulke would raise questions based on several individuals’ religious beliefs. Being a military additionally requires fitness and originality. This means that the military rules may not be adjusted based on several beliefs as this would affect its efficiency and effectiveness. Additionally the court denied the officer the right to wear yarmulke while still in military uniforms which support may opinion that the argument against the case would be stronger. I believe that the best way of treating individuals equally in all the institutions is ensuring that they are guided by the same rules as well as laws. The exemption of this cause would raise conflict among the military individuals since the military is made up of distinct religions.
References
PIKE, J. (2011). Cultural Exemptions, Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
RITTER, L. A., & HOFFMAN, N. A. (2010). Multicultural health. Sudbury, Mass, Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
