The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
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?
That is one possible version of democracy, but it is not one I find very attractive.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
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.
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).
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.
Is that how you see it too or are you more restrictive? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
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.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 17
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 10 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 32 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by Oui - Sep 196 comments
by Oui - Sep 19
by Oui - Sep 18
by Oui - Sep 1728 comments
by Oui - Sep 154 comments
by Oui - Sep 151 comment
by Oui - Sep 1315 comments
by Oui - Sep 13
by Oui - Sep 124 comments
by Oui - Sep 1010 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 103 comments
by Oui - Sep 10
by Oui - Sep 92 comments
by Oui - Sep 84 comments
by Oui - Sep 715 comments
by Oui - Sep 72 comments
by Oui - Sep 63 comments