Originally posted by lucifershammerIt's just a modern version of what heresy was in the 12th-13th centuries.
The question was not whether you would oppose it; but whether you would consider it a crime. Or, to be more open-ended, how far would such an Al Qaeda agent need to go before you would consider it a crime? How far before you consider it at least dangerous for your country and your principles?
It's just a modern version of what heresy ...[text shortened]... olutely no problems punishing this Al Qaeda operative for what is substantially the same crime.
So, if in that period of time, in that culture, I were to publicly state (verbally or in writing) something like, “I do not believe in the Holy Trinity or the divinity of Jesus; I think there are many gods; but I do not in any way oppose the current church-state political system, nor advocate any kind of protest, violent or not, against the Roman Catholic Church”—that I could not/would not have been tried and found guilty of the crime of heresy?
Are you deliberately picking violent examples for emotional impact? Or to set up a straw man? Or to make it seem as if objection to heresy being a state crime is ipso facto advocacy or acceptance of terrorism? Is that what your al Qaeda example is about? I could be in favor of having the US become an Islamic state governed by Shariah, and be opposed to al Qaeda’s terrorist violence. Just as I can be in favor of maximal religious freedom, and be opposed to murder.
The issue in the examples you cite would be murder and violence, not whether or not they have a "religious" source. If there is a religion (or a nonreligious ideology) whose very doctrinal tenets command murder and terrorism, then, yes, I would oppose that religion/ideology, and eliminate it from consideration for protection--is there such a religion?
Originally posted by lucifershammer[/b]A society where every religion has a more or less equal population and/or power would be "fully" pluralistic.
Originally posted by vistesd
[b]LH: Yes, I agree that a theocracy designed to promote religious pluralism is counterintuitive. But why is religious pluralism a particular good to be aspired for?
vistesd: I’m not sure I understand the question. What I am promoting is maximal religious freedom within a pluralistic society. I think the clear to be aspired for. I wasn't asking for a restriction of religious pluralism or freedom.
Ah. I see the confusion. In one sense, I appreciate living in a country with multiple religions. But I am not thinking simply statistically. I am arguing for support and protections for the multiple religions in a pluralist society—in that sense, I am using “religious pluralism” as something to be encouraged and protected in an already religiously diverse society, via separation of church and state. I think we agree on the goal—I just don’t think merging the sate and any religion can reasonably be expected to achieve that to the same degree; and I think it is naive to expect any group advocating such a merger to do so in the interests of that goal, rather than politically empowering their own religion vis-à-vis others, including the nonreligious, in order to change the shape of society.*
I would not advocate sending in Baptist missionaries to convert people in a state that was, say, 100% Catholic, for the sake of achieving religious pluralism. On the other hand, if I lived in a country that was, say, 90% Anglican, I would not want any part of Anglican doctrine to be imposed on the non-Anglican populace—e.g., I would oppose a requirement for a Muslim to learn the Anglican catechism as part of a public education (I have never opposed “religion classes,” either as cultural or historical studies, as you know, any more than I would oppose classes in philosophy), and I would oppose Hindus having to distinctive clothing, and Jews being forced work on Shabbos, and Wiccans being required to swear an oath on the Bible.
I like living in a religiously plural society. I do not want to see any majority religion in that society achieve enough political power to make sure that children of other faiths receive a “religion-X” education. If you have not already heard some of rhetoric about turning the US into a “Christian nation” (and not just a nation in which Christianity happened to be the majority religion from early on—not the only religion: Jews started arriving here in the 17th century, with considerable immigration in the 19th, for example—not to mention Africans cargoed as slaves, forcibly “converted” in mass conversions, and prohibited from practicing any semblance of their religion), then you haven’t been listening to the vibes across the ocean. And this rhetoric does not come from some “fringe” group.
I wasn't asking for a restriction of religious pluralism or freedom.
I didn’t think you were, but I don’t know why anyone would think that a functioning theocracy would achieve that better than an already existing system of church-state separation. Can you give some historical examples of functioning theocracies that did not restrict religious pluralism or freedom—or restricted it less than in the US?
I am losing my ability to write a coherent sentence now...
* EDIT: Again, I have not argued for politically dis-enfranchising anyone on acount of their religious beliefs; I argued along with you contra froggy on that probably a year ago.
Late addendum re the Bill of Rights.
The amendments were ratified by 3/4ths of the states. This is the text of the First Amendment:
“First Amendment – Freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, anmd to petition the government.
Congress shall make no law restricting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The interpretation, scope and application is tested in the courts—No1. will be far more familiar with that history and process than I am.
Originally posted by vistesdLet me change the particular commandment: suppose they imposed kosher dietary laws on everyone, Jews and non-Jews alike (which I suspect they did in biblical times), because that is commanded in the Torah—would they be imposing their religious beliefs?
I have literally been up all night, and have to get some sleep; so I’ll reply to your posts, then I’m gone.
[b]If a theocracy makes laws based on religious principles, are they trying to impose particular religious beliefs?
That was an over-generalized statement on my part, I admit.
If a Jewish nation prohibited murder on the basis of the Te itted in the “structural framework” of a democracy before it ceases to be a democracy?)[/b]
Yes, they would. But if the Torah did not command such kosher dietary laws for everyone, then wouldn't they simply be going beyond the remit of their own religion?
In any case, I want to distinguish between laws based on religious beliefs and religious freedom (you seem to think that there is no way we can have one without the other and keep mixing the two). Nowhere have I argued against religious freedom in general.
No such principles are likely to cut across all ideological lines, religious or not; just as any particular set of religious commandments may well cut across lines. How is that an argument?
But that was precisely what you were arguing for in your previous post -- that the fact that "fundamental" principles cut across religious lines somehow makes it more favourable.
If we can’t totally protect religious freedom for all people all the time, we shouldn’t bother to try to achieve the best we can. That seems to be pretty absolutist.
For what seems like the 100th time -- I am not talking about restricting, or failing to protect, religious freedom. I am challenging the notion that it can only happen when state and religion are separated. To pick examples from my nation's history, most princely states in Indian history in the last 2000-odd years were Hindu states with a pluralistic population (different variants of Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and Muslims) -- and the majority of these had little problems with religious freedoms. Much of this changed with the rise of Muslim states, but even there there are tolerant rulers like Akbar and some of the Delhi rulers. When the British took over most of India, religious freedoms were still largely maintained despite the fact that Britain was (and continues to be, at least nominally) a theocracy. BdN has also provided examples of Bhutan and Tibet.
Note: religious freedom and religious harmony are not one and the same thing. Just because there is religious conflict in a country/region does not mean that the governments in question suspended religious freedom.
Why you would pick “fascism” for your argument is beyond me.
Precisely to show that even democracies have "dogma" that cannot (or, at any rate, should not) be challenged.
And if the body politic does not approve of the Supreme Court’s decisions, the avenues of redress are legislative or amending the constitution.
Setting aside some of the "entry barriers" (to borrow a management term) to such avenues of redress generally, it would be untrue to say that a body politic cannot change the decisions of the ruling body even in a theocracy (but not in a monarchy). Ultimately, some forms of theocracy (say, a Christian one like the Vatican; or a Muslim one like Iran) are headed by people drawn from the body politic. Driving change "from within" may not be as convenient as walking into a polling booth every 5-6 years or so; but it is not more radical than people volunteering for the armed forces with the full knowledge that they may be asked to lay down their lives for their nation.
In that sense, a partial, [b]politically functioning theocratic structure would be a limit on democracy—to the extent, say, that the body-politic could not choose to not add religious language to their national pledge; or that the body-politic could not amend Shariah. [/b]
But how is this any different from limits that the body-politic has in adopting fascism or communism in a democracy?
My point is simple -- both theocracy and democracy place limits to the extent of political dialogue and change within them. To argue that theocracy is inferior simply on the basis that it places limits is disingenuous.
EDIT: If that isn't what you're arguing, but that the limits placed by theocracy are more unjust than those placed by democracy, then clearly we need to look at specifics.
Originally posted by lucifershammer[/i]I’m too tired—I shouldn’t have taken one last glance before I go to bed. I’m going to take these out of order.
[b]Let me change the particular commandment: suppose they imposed kosher dietary laws on everyone, Jews and non-Jews alike (which I suspect they did in biblical times), because that is commanded in the Torah—would they be imposing their religious beliefs?
Yes, they would. But if the Torah did not command such kosher dietary laws for [i] re unjust than those placed by democracy, then clearly we need to look at specifics.[/b]
But how is this any different from limits that the body-politic has in adopting fascism or communism in a democracy?
I think you’re applying totally binary reasoning, or attempting to create a “syllogism” into which you can plug anything and still have it make sense. Your question is logically equivalent to asking “But if you free the slaves, and pass a law against slavery, does this not limit the freedom of people who want to own slaves?”
Precisely to show that even democracies have "dogma" that cannot (or, at any rate, should not) be challenged.
Of course—a “dogma” that prohibits slavery is as much a “dogma” that promotes it, in that sense. So is a “dogma” that says the state shall establish no religious “dogma,” and a “dogma” that establishes one. You certainly wouldn’t argue that their effect is the same.
If you want to say that I’m “dogmatic” about not wanting to live under the “dogma” of, say, a fascist state, fine.
But that was precisely what you were arguing for in your previous post -- that the fact that "fundamental" principles cut across religious lines somehow makes it more favourable.
I did not say “all” lines. To use your example, moral opposition to murder will cross more lines (obtain agreement across a greater and multivariate population) than will advocacy for a communist state. That’s exactly the kind of difference I’m trying to articulate (and I’m deliberately using non-religious examples to avoid further accusation).
Yes, they would. But if the Torah did not command such kosher dietary laws for everyone, then wouldn't they simply be going beyond the remit of their own religion?
Torah required that non-Jews living in the Jewish society observe the seventh day of Sabbath; good thing or bad thing, the point is established. (I’m not as sure about kosher: I thought so, but I might be wrong.)
In any case, I want to distinguish between laws based on religious beliefs and religious freedom (you seem to think that there is no way we can have one without the other and keep mixing the two).
Just as I did not use the word “all” in my first statement on crossing lines, I did not use the phrase “no way” anywhere in my argument. You are the one who keeps introducing these “absolutist” terms. As for “mixing the two,” since you already conceded that a theocracy designed to promote religious pluralism is “counterintuitive”—unless you want to argue that, given an already pluralist society with separation of church and state, one should have no reason to believe that a group pressing for a merger of church and state is as likely to continue to protect that pluralism. In which case, I think you are being naive.
I am challenging the notion that it can only happen when state and religion are separated. To pick examples from my nation's history, most princely states in Indian history in the last 2000-odd years were Hindu states with a pluralistic population (different variants of Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and Muslims) -- and the majority of these had little problems with religious freedoms. Much of this changed with the rise of Muslim states, but even there there are tolerant rulers like Akbar and some of the Delhi rulers. When the British took over most of India, religious freedoms were still largely maintained despite the fact that Britain was (and continues to be, at least nominally) a theocracy. BdN has also provided examples of Bhutan and Tibet.
Thank you for the example that I requested. Acknowledged. But, just as I did not use “all” or “no way,” I did not use the word “only.” I have argued likelihood, in the context that I have already delineated.
EDIT: If that isn't what you're arguing, but that the limits placed by theocracy are more unjust than those placed by democracy, then clearly we need to look at specifics.
I haven’t argued that any limits placed in any given theocracy would be necessarily more unjust than those placed by any democracy. I am, and have been, arguing that the limits on religious freedom imposed by a theocracy are likely to be more unjust than limits on religious freedom imposed by a democracy, because the principles of democracy (e.g., political enfranchisement of all citizens) militate in that direction (in fact, that’s what the First Amendment is about—and, in fact, the example you provided taken as a valid exception, I do not believe that it has been the historical rule that functioning theocracies preserved religious freedom better that democracy with church-state separation..
EDIT: I'm going to say this once (though I already did previously): I am not accusing you of being against religious pluralism or religious freedom. I am arguing with you about the better way (perhaps not the best, certainly not perfect) to ensure that they are protected. This example is extreme, I grant--it's just to set it in bold relief--to expect a theocracy to better preserve those principles than a democracy with church-state separation is about like expecting that an oligarchy will better preserve the political enfranchisement of the general populace; the former case just by "nature" so to speak, the latter perhaps by definition. You know, it is possible that someone who says, "Elect me President-for-Life, and I promise I'll voluntarily step down in four years" both intends to do so, and in fact will--but I wouldn't cast my vote counting on it. I would ask, "Why then does he want us to vote him President-for-Life?"
Setting aside some of the "entry barriers" (to borrow a management term) to such avenues of redress generally, it would be untrue to say that a body politic cannot change the decisions of the ruling body even in a theocracy (but not in a monarchy). Ultimately, some forms of theocracy (say, a Christian one like the Vatican; or a Muslim one like Iran) are headed by people drawn from the body politic. Driving change "from within" may not be as convenient as walking into a polling booth every 5-6 years or so; but it is not more radical than people volunteering for the armed forces with the full knowledge that they may be asked to lay down their lives for their nation.
Actually, they can change it vis-à-vis a monarchy—but it would be more of a revolutionary action, and elimination of the monarchy is not necessary.
In terms of those who head the Vatican, what is the body-politic from which they are drawn, and how? I really don’t know. Does the Vatican State have non-clerical citizens?
Driving change from within is what happens in a constitutional democracy. It’s not so much convenience but efficiency, in terms of maintaining the system at all—the broader the political enfranchisement, generally, and the perception of the populace that they are effectively influencing the decisions of government, the less likely you are to foment revolution (bloodless or otherwise). There are limits here, too, of course—California comes to mind. It is when people feel politically disenfranchised, or want to limit the franchise enjoyed by others relative to their own, that the system itself may become endangered. That may be a present danger, given the harsh level of political discourse here lately; it’s like business negotiations—when one side is simply viewed as invalid, guns (at least metaphorically) are likely to replace negotiated contracts.
Originally posted by PalynkaHelp? 😕
A small aside, do English speakers separate the concept of 'laicity' and secularism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laicite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
If yes, I would say that neither a secular nor a theocratical state respect religious freedom, while a 'laicist' state is the only form of government (anarchy excluded) that respects it.
These may not be the best sites, but they might convey the possibility that the “theocratic framework,” as you put it, in the US, limited as it might have been, may have had some negative impact on Native Americans in the attempt at forced assimilation, including, to some extent, assimilation into Christianity...
When I hear talk of “making us a Christian nation again, “ I can’t help but think that might not be all good.
http://www.humboldt.edu/~go1/kellogg/boardingschools2.html
In short, these federally-financed boarding schools would remove Indians from the reservation where their cultural, lingual, and spiritual traditions were reinforced; "civilize" Indians by teaching them English and Christianity; and most importantly, forcibly assimilate them into American society by showing them how to become productive laborers within a capitalistic economic system.
While school attendance was initially voluntary, the federal government soon took steps that required attendance. Beginning in 1880, the Secretary of Interior issued "Civilization Regulations" making it an Indian offense with imprisonment and starvation penalties for a "so-called" medicine man to interfer with Indian children being taken away to boarding schools. These regulations remained in force until their withdrawal in 1936. By 1891, Indian attendance at school became mandatory when Congress authorized the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to make and enforce rules and regulations that would guarantee attendance at either a reservation or non-reservation school. In 1893, Congress authorized the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to withhold annuities and rations from parents who refused to send their children to school. Some children were forcible hauled off to school by Indian police or Army soldiers.
Under the tutelage of Thomas J. Morgan, Commissioner of Indian Affairs from 1889 to 1893, Indian education was believed to be "...a cheap method of converting aliens, enemies, savages into citizens, friends, and honorable intelligent men and women." (As quoted in Trennert, 1988:22.) To that end, forced assimilation and conversion to Christianity were the two guiding tenants of this first generation of boarding schools, exemplified by the experience at Carlisle Indian Industrial School discussed below.
Under the leadership of a new Commissioner of Indian Affairs, William A. Jones (1897-1904), these schools were shaped by a different philosophy than that of Carlisle. Commissioner Jones and his colleagues doubted that Indians could fully assimilate into white society or that they could compete with whites in commercial and mechanical skills. Instead, they believed Indians were better suited for a life of manual labor. Thus, in western non-reservation boarding schools:
• Religious assimilation and education became de-emphasized at the same time that vocational education received greater emphasis. All religious instruction that remained was to be strictly non-denominational.
In 1926, Collier and Wisconsin Congressman James A. Frear took an auto tour of the western Indian schools, both reservation and non-reservation. After the tour, they issued a stinging critique that Indian schools kidnapped children, operated in overcrowded and unhealthy facilities, and destroyed the heritage of Indian children.
The truth of this statement was apparent in the restrictions and corporal punishment the children experienced at Carlisle. Students were forbidden
• to speak their tribal language;
• to use their Indian names instead of their newly-assigned Euro-American name;
• to practice any traditional cultural or spiritual beliefs; and
• to resist becoming devout Christians.
With the opening of Carlisle Indian Industrial School in 1879, a more formal method of assimilation was adopted. For the next 55 years, boarding schools became one of the federal governmentís chief agents of forced assimilation. During this time, Indian children were forced to attend schools - some of which were boarding schools - where they were forcibly subjected to rigid assimilationist rules, especially the destruction of their traditional clothing and hair styles which were replaced by military uniforms and Victorian-style tight-fitting clothes; the prohibition of Native languages, as well as the exercise of cultural and spiritual traditions; and punishment if such alien new rules were broken.
_______________________
http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejournal/indianed/29632.html
t"The motto of the boarding school was: "Kill the Indian, save the man," said Loew, a member of the Bad River band of Lake Superior Ojibwe. "The idea was to wipe out (Indian) culture, wipe out the language, wipe out the religion and wipe out the artistic expression."
David Beaulieu, a UW-Milwaukee professor who studies Indian education, agreed that the destructive influence of government boarding schools can't be overemphasized. The heyday of Indian boarding schools was from the 1880s through the 1930s.
indent
"Think of taking a child off the reservation in South Dakota at the age of 5 or 6, and putting him on a train across the country, and sending him to a school where they shaved his head, and put him in a military uniform and made him march around," Beaulieu said.
Often children weren't allowed to go home at all until they became adults - severing ties between the students, their families and their culture.
____________________________
http://people.uncw.edu/sherrilld/edn200/Schooling_Native_Americans.htm
Ideology
• The idea of manifest destiny (the notion that domination of North American soil was a manifest, a God given duty) was often used as justification for subduing all native cultures
• Growing nationalism resulted in an inevitable clash of ideological perspectives:
Christianity vs. tribal religions
Capitalism vs. communal property
Representative democracy vs. consensual decision making
Schooling
A. Richard Henry Pratt and the Carlisle Indian School (founded 1879) Click to view pictures and history of the Carlisle School
1. Template for future schools
2. Isolated children from their tribe, forced children to speak English, compelled them to adopt white customs
3. Removed children from control of parents, in order (as one reformer put it) to keep them from growing up like their parents, “a race of barbarians and semi-savages.”
B. Rules for Indian Schools, 1890
1. Schools were monuments to regimentation
2. Children organized into companies; wore uniforms, had short hair, and were force fed a diet emphasizing patriotism, obedience, courtesy, and punctuality
3. Sabbath must be observed, only English could be spoken, parents had limited visiting rights, clothing must be uniform, the flag must be honored, industrial training must be provided, white recreation should be encouraged
__________________________
This is a lousy site, with no real attribution, but might give you the flavor of at least some of the “theocratic” sentiment that became, at least to some extent, manifest in the mandatory Indian school system they are talking about, apparently circa 1880...
http://www.memoriallibrary.com/NA/IndianWhite/ch15.htm
To make the Indian schools non-sectarian is to eliminate Christianity from the education of the Indian; and to eliminate Christianity from the Indian education is to exclude from it the most essential element for success. Without Christianity the task is wretchedly hopeless. Material means are certainly necessary; enthusiasm and philanthropy may assist, but that which is to render material resources a means of genuine civilization, Christianity alone can supply. Enthusiasm soon cools off before the undreamed-of difficulties to be met with at every step in the work. Philanthropy of the true kind is only of the few; whereas to the many belong selfishness and greed.
Experience has amply proven that the Indian cannot be civilized except on Christian principles, through Christian methods, in Christian schools, by Christian teachers; or in very words of U. S. Senator Davis: "The education of the Indian cannot be accomplished but by a Sunday school which will last seven days in the week!"
"I assert," said the same Honorable gentleman on the floor of the U. s. Senate, "that history records with a pen which knows no faltering, that from the beginning of time, so far as the intercourse of white men with these barbarians is concerned, it is only where the influence of Christianity has been brought to bear upon them that they have made any progress toward civilization." * * * "The civilization of the American Indian has been the work of the Christian Church. The ministers of Christianity have been the forerunners of all that has been done in the way of their reclamation from barbarism." "I believe," said another United States Senator, the Hon, Mr. Jones, of
________________________________
Originally posted by vistesdAre you deliberately picking violent examples for emotional impact?
[b]It's just a modern version of what heresy was in the 12th-13th centuries.
So, if in that period of time, in that culture, I were to publicly state (verbally or in writing) something like, “I do not believe in the Holy Trinity or the divinity of Jesus; I think there are many gods; but I do not in any way oppose the current church-state political s ...[text shortened]... igion/ideology, and eliminate it from consideration for protection--is there such a religion?[/b]
Isn't everyone here (including you) picking examples for emotional impact? When you speak of Jews wearing distinctive clothing, Catholic kids being taught about "depraved Papists", "religion-X education" etc. aren't you doing the same thing? Elsewhere, the Salem witch-trials were brought up. Why single me out in this discussion?
My point of the Al Qaeda man is simple - with respect to the "dogma" of democracy, he is a "heretic". Even without the advocacy of violence, his ideas represent a challenge to the very foundations of the State (in this case, a democracy). In this case, it is also foreseeable that, even if he does not advocate violence himself (note: not-advocating violence is not the same as advocating non-violence!), it's only a short step from his ideology and there are listeners/readers who would take that step. If you were the government, would you react? If so, how?
You have spoken about withdrawing protection for ideologies that advocate violence. What about those that are neutral to violence (i.e. explicitly neither support nor condemn it)?
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo far in the US, one still cannot be punished by the criminal law for merely espousing political views even if those views support overthrowing the present system of government. The step between an ideology stating that violence will be necessary to overthrow the present unjust system and acts to accomplish that end is far more than the "short" one you so cavalierly assume.
[b]Are you deliberately picking violent examples for emotional impact?
Isn't everyone here (including you) picking examples for emotional impact? When you speak of Jews wearing distinctive clothing, Catholic kids being taught about "depraved Papists", "religion-X education" etc. aren't you doing the same thing? Elsewhere, the Salem witch-trials that are neutral to violence (i.e. explicitly neither support nor condemn it)?[/b]
So far as I know, virtually all political ideologies accept the use of violence and, indeed, advocate it in many circumstances. Please name one mainstream movement that doesn't.
Originally posted by vistesdI'm going to refer back to the distinction between 'Laicite' and 'Secularism' (which is slightly different from the one we have been talking about and hence presented in quotes when used below) that Palynka brought up earlier.
A society where every religion has a more or less equal population and/or power would be "fully" pluralistic.
Ah. I see the confusion. In one sense, I appreciate living in a country with multiple religions. But I am not thinking simply statistically. I am arguing for support and protections for the multiple religions in a pluralist society— ...[text shortened]... religious beliefs; I argued along with you contra froggy on that probably a year ago.[/b]
I contend (and I think you agree), that every form of government will have certain fundamental ideological underpinnings. Now, in a State that advocates separation of church and state, what replaces the "church" ideology? If it is an ideology that prevents schools from holding Nativity plays, valedictorians from mentioning "Jesus" in their addresses, historical crosses remaining on public grounds etc. -- then how is your vision of religious pluralism and diversity satisfied? Why do you think that all of the reasons you've cited for preventing a particular religious group from gaining political control do not apply to this 'Secular' group/ideology? Who prevents this group from, say, portraying religious people as "depraved, idol-worshipping illiterates" (a variant of something you said earlier) in classrooms? How is religious freedom maintained in an atmosphere where a pharmacist or an adoption agency can be forced to act against his/her/their religious beliefs and consciences?
Now, Palynka concedes that 'Secularism' does not promote religious pluralism (I've shifted over to using your definition -- in which case I will have to rescind some of my statements, especially the one about theocracies promoting religious pluralism being counter-intuitive); but argues that 'Laicite' does. I'm not sure -- the examples provided in the Wiki article are not that clearly 'Laicite' (especially France). At this point, I could turn the tables on you and ask for historical examples of functioning democracies that did not restrict religious pluralism or freedom!
An existing system of church-state separation works only if the ideology replacing "church" is one that is tolerant of religious beliefs and practices; a prospective functioning theocracy works only if the "church" is one that is similarly tolerant. Mere church-state separation (as present in the US) does not guarantee tolerance.
Again, I have not argued for politically dis-enfranchising anyone on acount of their religious beliefs
Whenever you've made statements like that, I've presented you with "stress cases" that I think would test these convictions. Here's another:
Let's suppose a new political party, the "Christian Party", is formed in the US with the explicit aim of supporting and enforcing (where possible) Christian values in public policy. Do you think such a party should be prevented from contesting elections? If your answer is "yes", then how is that not disenfranchising their prospective voters? If your answer is "no", then should they be permitted to follow through with their assertions?
Originally posted by vistesdYour question is logically equivalent to asking “But if you free the slaves, and pass a law against slavery, does this not limit the freedom of people who want to own slaves?”
[/i]I’m too tired—I shouldn’t have taken one last glance before I go to bed. I’m going to take these out of order.
[b]But how is this any different from limits that the body-politic has in adopting fascism or communism in a democracy?
I think you’re applying totally binary reasoning, or attempting to create a “syllogism” into which you can ...[text shortened]... guns (at least metaphorically) are likely to replace negotiated contracts.[/b]
No, it isn't. But it is equivalent to asking "But if you free the slaves, and pass a law against slavery, does this not limit the freedom of people who want to be slaves?"
To use your example, moral opposition to murder will cross more lines (obtain agreement across a greater and multivariate population) than will advocacy for a communist state. That’s exactly the kind of difference I’m trying to articulate (and I’m deliberately using non-religious examples to avoid further accusation).
But, even then, one cannot argue that something that "crosses more lines" is better than something else that doesn't. Presumably, at some point in the past, denying women the vote "crossed more lines", for instance.
As for “mixing the two,” since you already conceded that a theocracy designed to promote religious pluralism is “counterintuitive”—unless you want to argue that, given an already pluralist society with separation of church and state, one should have no reason to believe that a group pressing for a merger of church and state is as likely to continue to protect that pluralism. In which case, I think you are being naive.
It depends on what the group's principles are. A multi-religious group that is simply pressing for the inclusion of "God" (but without reference to a particular religion) would still continue to be pluralistic, I believe. (Btw, the statement you cited applied to my definition of "pluralism", not yours). Would I be naive then?
I am, and have been, arguing that the limits on religious freedom imposed by a theocracy are likely to be more unjust than limits on religious freedom imposed by a democracy, because the principles of democracy ... militate in that direction ... I do not believe that it has been the historical rule that functioning theocracies preserved religious freedom better that democracy with church-state separation.
Given that history is biased towards theocracies, it's quite easy to pick up more instances of theocracies where religious freedoms were not protected. Nevertheless, I can think of a few major democracies (the US, India, France) where I feel religious freedoms are not being respected. Sure, it's hardly at the heretic-burning levels yet (unless you include abortion, euthanasia etc.) -- but then secularist/'Secularist' democracy's only been around a few centuries.
Originally posted by lucifershammer[/b]A theocracy wouldn't work in exactly the same way that a secular state wouldn't. It would privilige one religion (atheism for a secular state) in favour of the others.
An existing system of church-state separation works only if the ideology replacing "church" is one that is tolerant of religious beliefs and practices; a prospective functioning theocracy works only if the "church" is one that is similarly tolerant. Mere church-state separation (as present in the US) does not guarantee tolerance.
[b]Again, I have n is "no", then should they be permitted to follow through with their assertions?
I'd argue that, in terms of governance, there is no perfectly 'laicist' state in the world and as you've been arguing morality in a democracy is also determined by religious beliefs (or lack of).
However, there are 'laicist' countries constitutionally. This is where I draw the line on religious tolerance and the influence of churches in state government. It may pass laws (democratically, obviously) influenced by religious beliefs, but it may not endanger the neutrality of the state by introducing religious or secular elements in the constitution.
That, I believe, would endanger the democratic process and therefore irrevocably endanger the respect for religious freedom.
Edit - Note that I don't agree with targeting religions or secularism through governance, only that sometimes it is inevitable and therefore it should be decided democratically.
Originally posted by lucifershammerNever heard of it - the request was for a "mainstream" one. I see you didn't bother to respond.
Brilliant! LOL.
EDIT: Oh, Gandhi. I wonder how he would have fared in Nazi Germany? Anyway, almost all political movements do not advocate such extreme non-violence. They are not allowed for this reason.