The Enlightenment Culture and Creative Reason

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Let's hear more about this present ideology of freedom that the Pope assumes. As far as I can tell, people are free to do as they please within the limits of the law. Hasn't that always been the case? What am I missing?

Are his comments confined to Europe?

Let's hear more about this present ideology of freedom that the Pope assumes. As far as I can tell, people are free to do as they please within the limits of the law. Hasn't that always been the case? What am I missing?

I think it's not so much the issue of people transgressing the laws as the laws themselves that the Pope is referring to. Two examples of laws that have been framed in terms of "freedoms" come to mind:

(1) The striking down of anti-abortion laws (C.f. Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton) to protect the reproductive and health rights of the mother. From the Catholic perspective, of course, this has come at the cost of the right to life of the unborn child itself.

(2) The passing of laws that permit adoption by same-sex couples. Once again, this has been framed in terms of the rights of the couples; but again, this comes at the cost of the right of the child itself to a normal family life.

Are his comments confined to Europe?

No. I think his comments are directed to the Western world in general.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

I think it's not so much the issue of people transgressing the laws as the laws themselves that the Pope is referring to. [e.g.] (1) anti-abortion laws
(2) The passing of laws that permit adoption by same-sex couples. Once again, this has been framed in terms of the rights of the couples; but again, this comes at the cost of the right of the child itself to a normal family life.

Is the Pope's address merely a veiled reference to these specific laws? What other laws might he find problematic?

Would the antidote to cultural relativism be cultural absolutism do you think?

What is your understanding of "creative reason"?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Is the Pope's address merely a veiled reference to these specific laws? What other laws might he find problematic?

Would the antidote to cultural relativism be cultural absolutism do you think?

What is your understanding of "creative reason"?

Is the Pope's address merely a veiled reference to these specific laws?

You're clearly smart enough to realise that the Pope is not "merely" referring to a specific set of laws, so I'm surprised you ask the question.

The Pope is clearly referring to the ideology behind these laws, rather than the laws themselves.

Would the antidote to cultural relativism be cultural absolutism do you think?

It already is. Even the relativists hold relativism to be absolute.

What is your understanding of "creative reason"?

Don't know what context this appears in.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

The Pope is clearly referring to the ideology behind these laws, rather than the laws themselves.

[b]Would the antidote to cultural relativism be cultural absolutism do you think?

It already is. Even the relativists hold relativism to be absolute.

What is your understanding of "creative reason"?

Don't know what context this appears in.[/b]

Lol, I'm Monday-morning smart. OK, this ideology--I'm not sure if cultural relativism is an ideology or a sort of chaos resulting from abandonment of former ideology. What do you think?

Can you pinpoint a few more symptoms of this ideological malaise? I'm wondering if "economic sins" can be added to the basket (unfair/ usurious trade and so on). Maybe an example or two from the UK? Just to keep things concrete.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Is the Pope's address merely a veiled reference to these specific laws?

You're clearly smart enough to realise that the Pope is not "merely" referring to a specific set of laws, so I'm surprised you ask the question.

The Pope is clearly referring to the ideology behind these laws, rather than the laws themselves.

Would t ...[text shortened]... t is your understanding of "creative reason"?

Don't know what context this appears in.[/b]

Bosse de Nagge: Would the antidote to cultural relativism be cultural absolutism do you think?

lucifershammer: It already is. Even the relativists hold relativism to be absolute.

Nah, that’s just semantic games, LH. To say that, since a relativist claims that everything is relative, s/he is really an absolutist….somehow that conceptual/linguistic logic does not address BdN’s very real question, I think. Cultural absolutism would refer to the imposition of one set of cultural norms for thinking and behavior, to the exclusion of others. Such an absolutism could be secular (Soviet-style communism) or religious (a theocracy).

Now, I’m not sure that an “absolute” relativism is even socially tenable (from a practical viewpoint)—or philosophically tenable, for that matter (since we all have rankings of preferences and priorities, norms for behavior, etc.)*—but that does not mean that I want to live under a regime of cultural absolutism, nor impose one on others. I don’t know how one could impose “relativism;” that would be tantamount to forcing everyone to hold no beliefs at all, which seems absurd.

I think the real-world question may be one of “impositionism.” Who decides what cultural norms are generally imposed, how, on whom, and under what (relative) circumstances—e.g., what are the exceptions, how much tolerance for those who hold to other norms, etc.?

The following quotes in bold from Benedict's essay:

The same is true for the reference to God: It is not the mention of God that offends those who belong to other religions, but rather the attempt to build the human community absolutely without God. (Italics mine.)

I don’t understand this statement. Does he mean a community that everywhere excludes religious expression? Or one that does not accept some form of “divine command” (or "divine recognition" ) in its normative architecture?

This Enlightenment culture is essentially defined by the rights of freedom; it stems from freedom as a fundamental value that measures everything: the freedom of religious choice, which includes the religious neutrality of the state; freedom to express one's own opinion, as long as it does not cast doubt specifically on this canon; the democratic ordering of the state, that is, parliamentary control on state organisms; the free formation of parties; the independence of the judiciary; and, finally, the safeguarding of the rights of man and the prohibition of discriminations. (Italics mine.)

How far, in a pluralistic society, should my freedom to “cast doubt specifically on this canon” be tolerated? Suppose I advocate the complete overthrow of a pluralistic society in favor of rule by an aryan supremacy? How about a renewal of the Holy Roman Empire? How about a Christian, or Muslim, or whatever, theocracy? The problem here is not that the Pope is advocating such silliness, but that there are practical limits to the challenge of “the canon of freedom,” as long as one wants to be free. This might be paradoxical, but I prefer to live under a canon of freedom than some canon of autocracy or theocracy.

In the end, I see no way to “philosophize” around the nitty-gritty practical problems of maintaining a pluralistic society—concerns about imposing a canon of freedom, or “relativistic absolutism” or whatever notwithstanding. We cannot escape tussling with practical questions of limiting certain freedoms, protecting minority views, requirements versus rights, etc. by retreating into dogmatic solutions, without risking very real (and not just philosophic) tyranny.

Also, Benedict refers to “rationalist (positivist) philosophy.” Does he mean “logical positivism” (which I thought had become currently a kind of backwater in philosophy)? Does he mean all non-theistic philosophy?


*Okay, I just read bbarr’s reference to an “intellectually indefensible relativism,” which is probably what I’m stumbling around about here.

EDIT: Given the broad expressions in the article, I’m not sure entirely what the Pope’s ultimate purpose is. Is he implicitly advocating—

1. the imposition of at least certain moral norms, under the rubric of “divine command,” on all of society (regardless of religion, non-religion, reason, moral philosophy, etc.)?

2. that societies self-impose such norms under his “as if” proposal?

3. a kind of general “divine command” (or “divine recognition&rdquo😉 limitation on the so-called “canon of freedom”?

I’m not at all clear on this.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Is the Pope's address merely a veiled reference to these specific laws? What other laws might he find problematic?

Would the antidote to cultural relativism be cultural absolutism do you think?

What is your understanding of "creative reason"?

After a bit of Googling yesterday, it seems we've been misusing the term 'cultural relativism':

Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities make sense in terms of his or her own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research in by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century, and then popularized in the 1940s by Boas's students. (1)

What we (and Cardinal Ratzinger) (2) are talking about is really moral relativism:

In philosophy, Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths but instead emerge from social customs and personal preferences, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. (3)

Would the antidote to [moral] relativism be [moral] absolutism do you think? (Term in [] mine)

The problem is that, in reality, moral relativism eventually (and, to some extent, already has) becomes moral absolutism:

The concept of discrimination is ever more extended, and so the prohibition of discrimination can be increasingly transformed into a limitation of the freedom of opinion and religious liberty. Very soon it will not be possible to state that homosexuality, as the Catholic Church teaches, is an objective disorder in the structuring of human existence. And the fact that the Church is convinced of not having the right to confer priestly ordination on women is considered by some up to now as something irreconcilable with the spirit of the European Constitution.

(vistesd - I hope this is answering your question to some extent.)

As I understand it, so-called "hate laws" that are effectively gag orders on the Church have already been passed in Canada (though I could be wrong about it). I truly wonder if these laws would be applied to, say, a rabbi who teaches in a synagogue that fornication is wrong in God's eyes.

And, if the Church should refuse to ordain women? Will priests be thrown in jail for breaking the law?

No society can survive without moral absolutes (against murder, theft, perjury etc.) Without some sort of moral absolutes, you cannot have laws in a society - unless you leave it to the whims of the majority.

Without moral absolutes, you cannot fight existing evils in society (as slavery was at one time.)

So, yes, I do think moral absolutism is the solution to moral relativism - especially considering that relativism becomes absolutist, in turn.

The question is - what set of moral absolutes do we choose? And on what basis?

What is your understanding of "creative reason"?

Let's see the context in which Ratzinger mentions 'creative reason':

However, a reason that springs from the irrational, and that is, in the final analysis, itself irrational, does not constitute a solution for our problems. Only creative reason, which in the crucified God is manifested as love, can really show us the way. In the so necessary dialogue between secularists and Catholics, we Christians must be very careful to remain faithful to this fundamental line: to live a faith that comes from the "Logos," from creative reason, and that, because of this, is also open to all that is truly rational.

The concept of 'creative reason' appears to be an old one, philosophically:

But the problem that overshadowed all others in Arabian philosophy was the problem of knowing. Aristotle is both indefinite and unsatisfactory in his treatment of this problem. How does reason, which is immaterial, think the material? Where is the, bond of connection? Aristotle places it in the creative reason. He tells us that reason is a becoming of all things -- tô panta ginesthai -- and a making of all things -- ho de tô panta poiein. He further explains the difference between this creative reason and the receptive reason: the creative reason is never at rest; it is eternally active; it does not at one time think and at another time not think; it alone is immortal and eternal; it leaves us no memory of this unceasing work of thought because it is unaffected by its object; the receptive, passive reason is perishable, and can really think nothing without the support of the creative intellect. (4)

As I understand it, the concept of 'creative reason' is based on the idea that the Universe is based on rational foundations (if it were not, the quest of science to understand those foundations rationally would be meaningless). And the rational nature of the Universe cannot come about from non-rational matter - there must be a rational Mind behind it - a Mind with the capacity to create the Universe as we know it. In other words, a 'Creative Reason':

Natural science studies things which move {"move" being used in the classical metaphysical sense of "change" - LH}: particles and photons, liquids and light waves. We want to know whether they move purely at random or for a reason; in other words, we want to know why things happen and what their cause is. If things do not just move at random in any unpredictable way but for a reason, because they have a cause, the universe is a rational one and has been made by an Intelligence. (5)

---
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism
(2) He wasn't elected Pope yet!
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
(4) http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/aatcc06.htm#n_19. Also C.f. Aristotle, De Anima, n.1-2.
(5) Selman, From Physics to Metaphysics, p.4.
---

Cheers,

LH

Originally posted by vistesd
Bosse de Nagge: [b]Would the antidote to cultural relativism be cultural absolutism do you think?

lucifershammer: It already is. Even the relativists hold relativism to be absolute.

Nah, that’s just semantic games, LH. To say that, since a relativist claims that everything is relative, s/he is really an absolutist….somehow that conceptua ...[text shortened]... e recognition&rdquo😉 limitation on the so-called “canon of freedom”?

I’m not at all clear on this.[/b]

EDIT: Given the broad expressions in the article, I’m not sure entirely what the Pope’s ultimate purpose is. Is he implicitly advocating—

1. the imposition of at least certain moral norms, under the rubric of “divine command,” on all of society (regardless of religion, non-religion, reason, moral philosophy, etc.)?

2. that societies self-impose such norms under his “as if” proposal?

3. a kind of general “divine command” (or “divine recognition&rdquo😉 limitation on the so-called “canon of freedom”?

I’m not at all clear on this.

I think the main purpose of Cardinal Ratzinger's speech is to make a comment about the present moral and spiritual state of Europe. Has the Enlightenment truly delivered on its promise of "liberty, equality, fraternity"? It is a call for Europe to reclaim its Christian roots - to learn from the mistakes of the past (including those of Christendom), no doubt, but also to accept that past as its own. It also makes a point about moral relativism as seen in the political and public sphere - that it is trying to have it both ways (and failing) in trying to appeal to the broadest possible base of morality but without sacrificing basic moral norms altogether.

The final point about veluti si Deus daretur is a call to each individual secularist or atheist to re-examine his/her own life and moral views.

Originally posted by vistesd
Bosse de Nagge: [b]Would the antidote to cultural relativism be cultural absolutism do you think?

lucifershammer: It already is. Even the relativists hold relativism to be absolute.

Nah, that’s just semantic games, LH. To say that, since a relativist claims that everything is relative, s/he is really an absolutist….somehow that conceptua ...[text shortened]... e recognition&rdquo😉 limitation on the so-called “canon of freedom”?

I’m not at all clear on this.[/b]

Does he mean a community that everywhere excludes religious expression? Or one that does not accept some form of “divine command” (or "divine recognition" ) in its normative architecture?

Both (there is an implicit appeal to Divine Command as the only possible theistic moral theory in your post - I assume you're using the term in a wide enough sense to include others).

For Europe, in particular, rejecting religious expression (particularly Christian expression) everywhere amounts to rejecting its own cultural expression (in no other continent is Christianity so integrally tied in to its culture and history) and identity.

How far, in a pluralistic society, should my freedom to “cast doubt specifically on this canon” be tolerated?

The "canon" being spoken about here is the canon of secularism - of complete separation of religion and state. Hence, the Christian (or Muslim or Jew) who wishes to be part of the public sphere must check his/her beliefs at the door; indeed, he/she must publicly repudiate his/her beliefs if he/she is to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Does he mean a community that everywhere excludes religious expression? Or one that does not accept some form of “divine command” (or "divine recognition" ) in its normative architecture?

Both (there is an implicit appeal to Divine Command as the only possible theistic moral theory in your post - I assume you're using the term in ...[text shortened]... door; indeed, he/she must publicly repudiate his/her beliefs if he/she is to be taken seriously.[/b]

You've given me a lot to read and consider: thanks for your patient thoroughness! Unfortunately, I'm too tired tonight to say more than this:

My idea is not that religous people check their beliefs at the door of public discourse, but that no one religion gets to insert itself into the cultural architecture, so to speak. I want to live in a society where one religion does not, and cannot, impose its moral doctrine on me or others. I cannot consider myself a "moral relativist," in the sense that I hold definite moral convictions (which are, however, always subject to further questioning, etc.)--but I disagree with, say, the Catholic Church's view on homosexuality, no matter that the church considers that to be a moral absolute (See the thread in the Debates Forum on gay marriage started by Ivanhoe--I forget the exact title, but a really good thread--and look at BdN's post there about Native Americans and my affirming response).

I'll look more thoroughly at your cultural/moral relativism posts when I'm a bit more focussed.

BTW, sorry for the sharp-sounding "semantic games" comment; I think I may be confused myself on these "relativism versus absolutism" questions, in terms of logical form. The notion that relativism eventually becomes an absolutism seems to me to be somewhat an empty statement as regards the issues we grapple with in the real world. But let me take a better look at your posts.

Originally posted by vistesd
You've given me a lot to read and consider: thanks for your patient thoroughness! Unfortunately, I'm too tired tonight to say more than this:

My idea is not that religous people check their beliefs at the door of public discourse, but that no one religion gets to insert itself into the cultural architecture, so to speak. I want to live in a society w ...[text shortened]... the issues we grapple with in the real world.[/i] But let me take a better look at your posts.

My idea is not that religous people check their beliefs at the door of public discourse, but that no one religion gets to insert itself into the cultural architecture, so to speak.

Do you mean cultural architecture or legal architecture? Because Christianity is already part of the "cultural architecture" of the Western world; it would be silly to deny that.

I want to live in a society where one religion does not, and cannot, impose its moral doctrine on me or others.

I understand your concern to some extent. The Catholic Church (funny how these conversations always revolve around the Catholic Church - I sometimes wonder if this idea is exclusively directed at the Church) teaches that it would be sinful for a Catholic not to attend Mass on Sundays without good cause - but you wouldn't want to see that imposed as a state law on all residents (or even all Catholics).

But, as I argued earlier, the State must have some form of moral doctrine. And it would be naive to say that the doctrine would receive a universal mandate - that 100% of the population would agree to it.

I cannot consider myself a "moral relativist," in the sense that I hold definite moral convictions (which are, however, always subject to further questioning, etc.)--but I disagree with, say, the Catholic Church's view on homosexuality, no matter that the church considers that to be a moral absolute

Interestingly enough, are your moral convictions on murder, theft, perjury etc. "subject to further questioning"?

Also, isn't your disagreement with the Church a moral absolute in itself?

Whether homosexuality is an objective evil or not, it is, ultimately, an act involving two consenting adults. But what about abortion?

Originally posted by lucifershammer

To continue my response, I am taking the following points in a different order than that in which you presented them:

Both (there is an implicit appeal to Divine Command as the only possible theistic moral theory in your post - I assume you're using the term in a wide enough sense to include others).

Yes, which is why I added the (clumsy) phrase “or divine recognition.”

The question is - what set of moral absolutes do we choose? And on what basis?

Exactly. And who chooses, for whom?

For Europe, in particular, rejecting religious expression (particularly Christian expression) everywhere amounts to rejecting its own cultural expression (in no other continent is Christianity so integrally tied in to its culture and history) and identity.

Would you argue that, similarly, for India to reject Hinduism amounts to rejecting its own cultural expression and identity; and that, if Europe should not go that route re Christianity, that India should also not go that route re Hinduism (recognizing, of course, that India, like Europe, also has a plurality of religious expressions)? For example, that it would be “wrong” for India to embrace a Christian cultural architecture?

And, if the Church should refuse to ordain women? Will priests be thrown in jail for breaking the law?

That would seem far less likely in a society that erects a wall between church and state than one which is governed by a non-Catholic theocratic government, say. Has that ever happened? If so, under what kind of governance structure?

No society can survive without moral absolutes (against murder, theft, perjury etc.) Without some sort of moral absolutes, you cannot have laws in a society - unless you leave it to the whims of the majority.

Why would you call rule by the majority (through whatever democratic mechanisms—e.g. a parliamentary system, a republic, etc.—with appropriate protections for minorities, such as anti-discrimination laws) “whim?” Are you assuming that the majority do not have moral convictions, whether derived from religion or some other moral philosophy? Both Rwingett and No.1 Marauder, for example, have argued that laws against murder, theft, etc. can derive from the very recognition that societies cannot survive without such laws.

The problem is that, in reality, moral relativism eventually (and, to some extent, already has) becomes moral absolutism.

My problem with this kind of language is that I find it to be rhetorically dangerous. Take the following constructions just as simple examples—the phrase in parenthesis in each one indicates the kind of hidden or unspoken agenda that can lie behind such broad rhetorical statements (and I am not accusing either you or the Pontiff of having such agendas):

Moral relativism becomes moral absolutism (because it absolutely prohibits us from imposing our moral absolutes on society as a whole).

Democracy is just tyranny by the majority (instead of a tyranny by those of us who deserve to rule).

Individual freedom is slavery (because, absent obedience to a higher authority, the individual is a slave to her passions).

I always view such broad constructions (as the non-parenthetical portions above) with suspicion, whether they are formally justifiable or not. At the very least, they can become doctrinaire pseudo-substitutes for grappling with real issues.

Originally posted by vistesd
To continue my response, I am taking the following points in a different order than that in which you presented them:

[b]Both (there is an implicit appeal to Divine Command as the only possible theistic moral theory in your post - I assume you're using the term in a wide enough sense to include others).

Yes, which is why I added the (clumsy) phras ...[text shortened]... t the very least, they can become doctrinaire pseudo-substitutes for grappling with real issues.[/b]

Would you argue that, similarly, for India to reject Hinduism amounts to rejecting its own cultural expression and identity; and that, if Europe should not go that route re Christianity, that India should also not go that route re Hinduism (recognizing, of course, that India, like Europe, also has a plurality of religious expressions)?

Naturally. If the Govt. of India were to prohibit the use of Sanskrit shlokas (couplets) from the Vedas in public documents and/or public bodies on the grounds of being non-secular, then I would argue that amounts to rejecting its own cultural expression and identity.

For example, that it would be “wrong” for India to embrace a Christian cultural architecture?

Incidentally, I should remind you that the history of Christianity in India is as old as the history of the Church itself. 🙂

I think India should be free to embrace any cultural architecture it wants, but not at the expense of its own. In other words, I see nothing wrong with synthesis, only substitution.

That would seem far less likely in a society that erects a wall between church and state than one which is governed by a non-Catholic theocratic government, say. Has that ever happened? If so, under what kind of governance structure?

Curiously enough, this already happens in at least one non-theocratic state - China.

What is your opinion on the paragraph I cited from Cardinal Ratzinger's speech on laws that could prohibit the Church from teaching that homosexuality is an objective sin? Or about legislators who think that the Church's inability to ordain women is in contradiction with the European Constitution?

IIRC, you're from Canada - which is an interesting test case. As I understand it, so-called "hate speech" legislation is being proposed (or has already been passed) that would make this a reality. Also, the legislation on same-sex marriages prohibits a marrying officer from refusing to marry a same-sex couple and, since priests are also marriage officers (not sure what the technical term is), it effectively means that priests are forced by law to act in opposition to their religious beliefs.

A bit like forcing a Jew to eat meat that is not kosher.

Why would you call rule by the majority (through whatever democratic mechanisms—e.g. a parliamentary system, a republic, etc.—with appropriate protections for minorities, such as anti-discrimination laws) “whim?” Are you assuming that the majority do not have moral convictions, whether derived from religion or some other moral philosophy?

Naturally, every person has moral convictions (whether they accord with the majority view or not).

Human history teaches us that leaving morality to a majority vote often leads to gross injustices - slavery in the West, caste system in India etc. Did the majority in these cases not have moral convictions?

Anti-discrimination laws do not come about in society until a minority becomes too vocal to be ignored - or a society changes its moral views.

I always view such broad constructions (as the non-parenthetical portions above) with suspicion, whether they are formally justifiable or not. At the very least, they can become doctrinaire pseudo-substitutes for grappling with real issues.

The point I (and Cardinal Ratzinger) have been trying to make is that these are real issues. "Hate speech" laws are real. Applying anti-discrimination laws to religious bodies is real. Abortion is very much real. All of these cases are very real examples of post-Enlightenment moral relativism performing in the real world.

Originally posted by vistesd
To continue my response, I am taking the following points in a different order than that in which you presented them:

[b]Both (there is an implicit appeal to Divine Command as the only possible theistic moral theory in your post - I assume you're using the term in a wide enough sense to include others).

Yes, which is why I added the (clumsy) phras ...[text shortened]... t the very least, they can become doctrinaire pseudo-substitutes for grappling with real issues.[/b]

what the heck is wrong with not forcing moral values on the population , anyway.
Yeah , the pope knows democracy is tyranny by the majority is true or the RCC wouldn't be trying to force Catholic lawmakers to toe the line. It's also why the RCC and the fundamentalists have joined forces to undermine what few protections a minority has, by gaining control of the US Supreme Court.

The slavery one is reductio ad absurdum

Originally posted by frogstomp
what the heck is wrong with not forcing moral values on the population , anyway.
Yeah , the pope knows democracy is tyranny by the majority is true or the RCC wouldn't be trying to force Catholic lawmakers to toe the line. It's also why the RCC and the fundamentalists have joined forces to undermine what few protecti ...[text shortened]... gaining control of the US Supreme Court.

The slavery one is reductio ad absurdum

what the heck is wrong with not forcing moral values on the population , anyway

Suppose I held that it is OK to kill my neighbour and steal his house and his wife. What would you (or the Government) do that would not be a forcing of moral values on me?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]what the heck is wrong with not forcing moral values on the population , anyway

Suppose I held that it is OK to kill my neighbour and steal his house and his wife. What would you (or the Government) do that would not be a forcing of moral values on me?[/b]

Just how idiotic do you plan on getting?
That actually would be a case of you forcing you own "moral" value i.e. that you had some right to do that.
Since you dont have that right for perfectly good societal reasons, I suggest you don't use a 4-term fallacy to construct your argument.

Oh and BTW the Pope aint a US citizen so he shouldnt have any say in US politics.