It is hard to give a straight answer to this question. I am a firm believer that anyone and everyone should have the choice and the right to follow any religion of their choosing and take part in any traditions and activities in their culture so long as it does not harm anyone else. In this sense, I do think people deserve legislation and funding to ensure their rights are protected. However, I do not agree that the government should provide legislation and funding to specific parties, groups, or religions for any other purpose other than protecting their rights. If individuals, private parties, or non-profit organizations wish to put money and time towards a certain cause, then they are more than welcome to.
I believe governments should not be actively involved in protecting culture diversity for one very specific reason. The United States government is made up of individuals who have been elected by citizens, and their salaries come from tax payer dollars. To then take part in protecting someone’s cultural is in a sense supporting that belief with someone else’s money. Why would someone want to potential pay taxes to protect someone else’s cultural when perhaps they could use that money to protect their own culture? If they are passionate about something they can use their earnings to go towards that cause, rather than the cause that an elected individual supports. For example, a few years ago there was speculation that the Pledge of Allegiance would either be taken out of public school or edited to eliminate the phrase “under God”, which had been seen as offensive to those who do not believe in the Christian God. I personally feel that if someone is offended by it, then do not take part in saying it. Others, though, may completely disagree with my stance. For them, eliminating that phrase would protect someone’s personally belief and is therefore an argument they would support. I however, would never choose to support it, and I would not want my money to be going towards something I disagree with. It is a similar argument for government funded abortions. If the government put forth a program that allowed abortions to be conducted with tax payer dollars, it would deeply offend those who find abortion wrong. For women who view it as a reflection of their rights, they would more than likely be for government funded abortions. In the end, the government should be responsible for helping protect people’s right to choose, but should not be responsible for choosing what they see fit as the most important cause to fund.
Others may disagree with this argument because of how easily cultural diversity can be infringed upon. Often something that is extremely meaningful to someone can be taken away by those who have more money. For example, some cultures value nature, but large corporations may wish to use elements of nature for construction purposes. In this case, the individuals have little ability to make their voices heard. Some would argue that situations like these should have government intervention. I think a predicament of this sort is difficult to have one specific right or wrong answer.
I believe governments should not be actively involved in protecting culture diversity for one very specific reason. The United States government is made up of individuals who have been elected by citizens, and their salaries come from tax payer dollars. To then take part in protecting someone’s cultural is in a sense supporting that belief with someone else’s money. Why would someone want to potential pay taxes to protect someone else’s cultural when perhaps they could use that money to protect their own culture? If they are passionate about something they can use their earnings to go towards that cause, rather than the cause that an elected individual supports. For example, a few years ago there was speculation that the Pledge of Allegiance would either be taken out of public school or edited to eliminate the phrase “under God”, which had been seen as offensive to those who do not believe in the Christian God. I personally feel that if someone is offended by it, then do not take part in saying it. Others, though, may completely disagree with my stance. For them, eliminating that phrase would protect someone’s personally belief and is therefore an argument they would support. I however, would never choose to support it, and I would not want my money to be going towards something I disagree with. It is a similar argument for government funded abortions. If the government put forth a program that allowed abortions to be conducted with tax payer dollars, it would deeply offend those who find abortion wrong. For women who view it as a reflection of their rights, they would more than likely be for government funded abortions. In the end, the government should be responsible for helping protect people’s right to choose, but should not be responsible for choosing what they see fit as the most important cause to fund.
Others may disagree with this argument because of how easily cultural diversity can be infringed upon. Often something that is extremely meaningful to someone can be taken away by those who have more money. For example, some cultures value nature, but large corporations may wish to use elements of nature for construction purposes. In this case, the individuals have little ability to make their voices heard. Some would argue that situations like these should have government intervention. I think a predicament of this sort is difficult to have one specific right or wrong answer.
RSS Feed