On Minority Rights and on Beliefs | 546 comments (546 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

You're expressing a very Enlightenment-inspired view of the nature of power, when you (implicitly) insist that the exercise of power is confined to the formal bureaucracy of the state.

On most subjects, espousing Enlightenment ideology would win points with me. Unfortunately on the subject of power, Enlightenment philosophy is incredibly naive. Naive in some ultimately very destructive ways.

I object to a political discourse excluding contributions of churches (all religious organisations) and of of individuals who take a religious point of view in their argument.

The problem with that is that in a society which observes freedom of religion, arguments couched in religious assumptions carry no universal validity. Because religious freedom means that the underlying religious assumptions carry no claim to universal validity.

Rule of law requires the law to be universal. That's the whole point of rule of law, a concept of which I personally am quite fond.

Which means that from the perspective of political discourse in a free society, religious discourse has no valid arguments, only a series of ad hoc demands.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 04:20:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

JakeS:

The problem with that is that in a society which observes freedom of religion, arguments couched in religious assumptions carry no universal validity. Because religious freedom means that the underlying religious assumptions carry no claim to universal validity.

So what? I can, from my underlying ethics, come to the same conclusion as you, from your underlying ethics, which is not the same. In that case we can agree on a law, though for different reasons. If our respective conclusions are not the same, we would have to talk about the underlying ethics. If we cannot do that, because I am excluded, you can hope that my position is too exotic to be strong or else prepare for something nasty. Was that really necessary to point out that democratic procedures serve to maintain peaceful relations in a state?

by Katrin on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 04:48:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

So what? So nothing, unless you aspire to a political culture which is more than a shifting set of ad hoc coalitions between more or less ghettoized special interest groups, which only need to justify their actions internally and not in terms recognized by any common language of public reason.

That is one possible version of democracy, but it is not one I find very attractive.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 05:10:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Nice word, "ad hoc coalition". Doesn't interest me though, and has nothing to do with what I said. "ghettoized special interest groups" comes a bit nearer to my point: I reject your notion that I belonged to a "special interest group", but I am consistently arguing against a process of ghettoization or marginalisation. So far you have denied that groups are becoming excluded (or marginalised or ghettoised). There is a spark of hope if you now concede it. It would be even better if you deplored that exclusion and wanted to reverse it.

My point was not about universal law or not. My point is how we decide if we need a certain law at all, and what for. In short, what direction we want our society to take.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 05:57:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 2)

I reject your notion that I belonged to a "special interest group", but I am consistently arguing against a process of ghettoization or marginalisation. So far you have denied that groups are becoming excluded (or marginalised or ghettoised).

You're going to have to dig out quotes to that effect.

What I have pointed out, repeatedly, is that under freedom of religion, religious rhetoric cannot be a language of public reason. Because under freedom of religion, religious doctrine is not a valid standard of lawmaking or jurisprudence.

People who advance religious rhetoric in the public debate are therefore either erecting a ghetto around themselves wholly of their own making, or they are objecting against freedom of religion.

Neither is a wholesome and desirable way to influence the direction we want our society to take.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 03:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 2)

My own application of the above to a practical example: if a Christian group objects to GMOs on the basis that it violates God's monopoly on creation, then they can form one part of a coalition against GMO, but their argument is restricted to religionists of their own stripe, and thus it means nothing to other members of the anti-GMO coalition or to proponents, and won't be useful as basis for public debate. But, if this Christian group understands the logic of marching under one flag, I'm not sure this amounts to an objection against freedom of religion, though.

Is that how you see it too or are you more restrictive?

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 06:04:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

In principle, I find it troubling when a political faction mobilizes large numbers of adherents using their own parallel language. In the same way I find it troubling that well over two thirds of all Fortune 500 CEOs are McKinsey alumni, and five of the last five US Treasury Secretaries are Goldman alumni.

In practice, any successful change coalition needs to be a big tent, so as long as they don't start trying to boot people out of the big tent I'm not going to start trying to boot them out.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 04:00:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Oh, and please quit insinuating that secular society is excluding you from political discourse by not crediting your religious talking points with any merit. You are excluding yourself by advancing arguments which are based on premises which nobody has any obligation to accept in a society which practices freedom of religion.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 05:15:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On Minority Rights and on Beliefs | 546 comments (546 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Of Childless Cat Ladies and other matters...

Lest we forget: How extreme violence and division have been...

A blog policeman's lot is not a happy one

The Amazing thing that's happening in the US Presidential...

Hoover's FBI: Patriotism, Nationalism, MAGA, Fascism

Net Zero Energy - August 24, 2024

Recent Diaries

Post WWII: Building a Terror State Inside Europe

Tampered AP-900 Pagers Explode Across Lebanon

Of Childless Cat Ladies and other matters...

Hasbara Content U.S. State Dep't Briefing

Trump's Loomer Agent Provocateur

Dominique De Villepin Se Rend Immortel

Al Jazeera Documentary Egyptian Icon Inji

Jewish Terror and Genocide - Israel Firster

Impunity the New Judeo-Evangelical Coalition

Lest we forget: How extreme violence and division have been...

The EU In Inevitable Economic Backslide

Incoherent On Morals and Law & Order

Dutch Cabinet and Israeli Threats to ICC Prosecutors

Alan Dershowitz the Closet Republican

Israel Murders Peace Activists

GS: MAGA Policy Hits EU Economy Hard

Hoover's FBI: Patriotism, Nationalism, MAGA, Fascism

Trump Victory, Communism, Divine Intervention

City Agriculture - September 4, 2024

President Sees US NATO Policy Succeed in UA

Occasional Series