The liberal tradition that arose in the 1960's in professional philosophy held that tolerance of the practices inside another culture is paramount and if a group chooses to engage is a practice we don't care for, we shouldn't interfere. But notice the flaw in the word "group." If that's how we're going to approach the problem then it follows that "group" rights hold priority over "individual" rights, and that spells big trouble. Today's thinking has taken an approach called Cosmopolitanism (which is where I get my nick-name). Cosmopolitanism holds that human rights are, in principle, for every human being on earth without exception. National boundaries are not moral boundaries. We don't cross over the border and then change our moral values. Nevermind that Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility exists, cosmopolitans are furious about that problem because it shows than in practice, our government has one attitude about human rights within our national boundaries and another when abroad. Our values can't justify this. Cosmopolitanism is, in this sense, a universal moral principle, in contrast to the view that group "rights" are what we must observe in priority, which was prominent in the latter part of the 20th Century. Many people still practice this view that group tolerance is paramount, and thus we hear people proclaiming that we must allow groups like the FLDS to practice polygamy.
The values we proclaim in the Constitution are the values to which we should be adhering when we come into contact with people of other cultures. The lines on the map that divide nations from one another are not there to designate areas where our moral values should change.. That is called Moral Relativism and it's not justifiable under cosmopolitan principles. Cosmopolitanism is a philosophy of Moral Universalism. But this is not to say that everyone must follow a universal religion. Cosmopolitanism is neutral toward religiously-based morality up to the point where someone tries to use their right to freedom of religion to harm the rights of anyone else.
Part of the Cosmopolitan tradition is in making a distinction that is much more flexible than the traditional dichotomy between moral relativism and moral universalism. Someone who argues for moral relativism might wrongfully claim that moral universalism amounts to forcing one's values on someone else. In their critique of 1960's liberalism, cosmopolitans have been very sensitive to this concern and have proposed a very neat solution. Cosmopolitan values are based upon the equally-shared priorities of justice and human rights. These are public universal values that we will not deny to any human being, regardless of the place on earth where they happen to live. Political regimes that violate individual human rights must not be tolerated. The individual is the priority when it comes to justice, and it must be the same for everyone. But most people will also have an additional supplement of moral values that come from their personal, private beliefs. This is where religion comes in. It is there for our private moral value whereas justice and human rights are public moral values that we cannot deny to anyone, regardless of their individual situated-ness.
Let us be fully aware of these thought traditions. The tolerance-as-priority world-view is obsolete. It sidetracks us from the real priority we've had all along, which is individual rights. So don't let anyone fool you into thinking that tolerance of group rights has priority over ensuring individual rights. When group rights are the priority, it allows tyranny of the majority, or a mob-rules kind of anarchy. When that happens, society's least powerful individuals suffer and they always have to forfeit their rights to the more powerful members of a population.
Lastly, I'll sum it up by suggesting that we adapt a common policy that morality goes beyond national boundaries, and moral offenses decidedly cannot do the same. "Tolerance" can never take priority over individual human rights. Moral relativism in the public sphere leads to group rights. Moral universalism in that sphere prioritizes individual rights. Religion is relative. Our moral values should never be.
Unrelated but in the news. If you would like to check out