The accepted wisdom about Islam is that it has to accept pluralism to become a good citizen of the modern world. “Pluralism,” as a practical matter, is the view that the only public truth about religion is that no religion is better than any other and all religion ought to be kept private. Christianity, it is said, has already accepted pluralism, or at least its legitimate forms have. If the West wants to tell Islam to reform, the least the West can do (it is said) is crack down on its own anti-pluralists. So opponents of “gay marriage” or abortion can’t be distinguished from the Taleban, and it’s hypocritical to oppose the one without taking a stand against the other.
The essence of “pluralism,” then, is that liberalism comes first, and within the limits of liberalism you can be anything you want. As long as you agree it’s obligatory to honor equally all preferences that accept liberal equality you are perfectly free to have and pursue your own preferences. You can, for example, admire and love the scriptures, teachings, rituals and personages of Christianity or Islam as long as that admiration and love is wholly subordinate to liberalism. Your religious preference must be understood as a purely personal matter, and the true value of your preferred religion must be understood as its adumbration and poetic presentation of liberal teachings. Further, you must be willing to keep quiet about your religious beliefs, at least if there’s some risk they might be understood to be meant as authoritative. It’s against pluralism, for example, to say “Merry Christmas” in a Western society in which Christianity has historically (until a few years ago) had a privileged position.
The basic argument in favor of “pluralism” is that in a world in which beliefs do in fact differ it is the only way to achieve peace. The advantage of that argument, from the standpoint of those making it, is that it does away with the need to argue the truth, goodness or rationality of liberalism itself. It makes the unquestioned supremacy of liberalism a brute practical necessity that all other views must bow to as a precondition for avoiding the war of all against all and so being able to achieve any good whatever. For liberals, it’s a shortcut to total victory.
It’s not clear that the argument makes sense, though. It’s no doubt true that things will be peaceful if everybody strictly subordinates all interests to liberalism, but it’s equally true that things will be peaceful if everyone strictly subordinates all interests to Catholicism. One could, for example, have a Catholic pluralism in which you’re allowed to be liberal or Islamic, and admire John Stuart Mill and the concept of freedom or Mohammed and the Koran, as long as you strictly subordinate those things to the discipline and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, view them as valuable strictly to the extent they can be understood as parables of Catholic truth, and keep quiet about them if there’s a risk they might be taken literally, so that in Egypt you’d have to keep quiet about Islam and in America about liberalism.
That kind of pluralism would have the same logical structure, and the same effect with regard to peace, as the kind deep thinkers want to enforce on Christianity and Islam. Would liberals be willing to render it the same submission they demand from Christians or Muslims with respect to their own version of pluralism? The fact of the matter is that if there are differences in belief there will be conflicts. It’s often possible to avert or moderate the practical consequences of conflicts, but the claim that there’s some principled way to dissolve conflicts altogether while leaving the conflicting beliefs as they are is obviously phoney. It’s an attempt to make a particular belief dominant by stealth, and no-one is required to accept it. Life, and the issues life presents, are real. It follows that when the good, beautiful and true come into question there’s no substitute for dealing with the issues actually presented.
THis may interest
THis may interest you:
http://www.newpantagruel.com/issues/1.1/stps.html#thesituation
jj
Plurality
Turnabout has a
Plurality
Turnabout has a good post about liberalism’s bid to defeat the Islamic threat through cultural and religious plurality: The basic argument in favor of “pluralism” is that in a world in which beliefs do in fact differ it is the
It did, and thanks for the
It did, and thanks for the reference. A very helpful discussion.
“Tolerance” is a
“Tolerance” is a Weapon.
Turnabout has some interesting comments. In this entry, he makes the following suggestion: In particular, it’s crucial to confront notions like “inclusiveness” and “tolerance.” What those ideas mean is that every social institution other than b
Frank Exchange of Views
I
Frank Exchange of Views
I came across this critique of pluralism on Turnabout (via 2blowhards). I don’t want to start anything personal, so rather than saying it’s a load of pus-filled bollocks, I’ll just say that I see some very glaring flaws in its…
This may interest you as
This may interest you as well:
http://metastasis.popagandhi.com/archives/000062.html
Watch The Straw Men Burn
I
Watch The Straw Men Burn
I ran into this via Nick’s page. Now, Nick has already thoroughly destroyed it, I want to rip apart the fake definition this guy threw together. “Pluralism,” as a practical matter, is the view that the only public truth about…
To Ben: if your friend wants
To Ben: if your friend wants an exchange of views he should learn the difference between frankness and abuse.
Boo hoo.
Boo hoo.
Nicholas Liu’s entire
Nicholas Liu’s entire detailed critique (linked by Ben, above) does nothing but make apparent over and over again his ignorance of the extent to which pluralism is taken to an extreme in the U.S. and Europe, with the resulting displacement/replacement/gradual destruction of centuries and millennia of traditional culture and social arrangements that had grown up which the people still loved but the ruling classes wished done away with. Nothing like what’s been going on here in pluralism’s name has been seen by the inhabitants of Mr. Liu’s Singapore, long known—certainly since the sixties when Prime Minister Lee first took the reins of power—as a society governed in authoritarian fashion where nothing is permitted to “rock the boat” of the stability of longstanding social customs, institutions, and arrangements. I do not think Mr. Liu even comes close to appreciating the socially catastrophic situation that has arisen in the West because of “pluralism” and related post-modern socio-political “movements” (actually, more properly referred to as pathologies). I hope what’s happening here never happens to Singapore, a pretty decent place from all I’ve heard. Singaporeans can be thankful that Lee Kwan Yew, no dupe, never would have permitted the sort of nonsense we’ve seen here these past thirty-five years or so to get within a million miles of Singapore.
Here’s a happy fun link for
Here’s a happy fun link for you: http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/adhom.html
To the extent Mr. Liu has
To the extent Mr. Liu has anything coherent to say on his linked blog, it is to distinguish between keeping one’s religion purely personal and keeping one’s _expression_ of his religion purely personal. The entire structure of his substantive objection, to the extent he has one, hinges on this distinction. Translating Mr. Kalb’s basic contention into Mr. Liu’s language might be to say that the only religious view that is allowed to express itself in the form of public authority is liberalism; whereas other religious views must express themselves only personally, to wit:
“The only thing about it that must be kept personal, to an extent, is your expression of it. Thus, you can evangelise to your bowling buddies, but you can’t make it company policy that all your employees must convert or be fired.”
Precisely. In any instance in which one’s religion says something _authoritative_ that authority must be interpreted as applying only to onesself and only in those very few dealings that do not involve authority over other people. It must be understood that no religion has authority over any other who has not voluntarily accepted it. And since authority is exactly that which binds us irrespective of our will, no religious view (other than liberalism itself) is permitted to have authority, period.
However it is that Mr. Liu wants to express it, the substantive point is that there is only one religious view that is allowed, in the postmodern West, to have binding public authority: liberalism. Any religious view that does not acknowledge liberalism as the only legitimate binding public authority is viewed as invalid. Mr Kalb expressed this succinctly this way:
“…the true value of your preferred religion must be understood as its adumbration and poetic presentation of liberal teaching.”
Quite. All legitimate authority is liberal authority. Those who do not bow low before her will not be tolerated (I think the remarkably candid and quite popular bumper sticker is “educate, communicate, eradicate”).
Indeed.
Hello there,
I just found
Hello there,
I just found this blog as a consequence of its being linked from 2blowhards. I must admit I was previously unfamiliar with Jim Kalb, but from what I’ve seen I look forward to the 2blowhards interview.
I was interested to read this particular entry, as rather similar ideas occurred to me when discussing the recent French proposal to ban religious expression, in particular the wearing of Hijab, in public schools. I consider myself to be a liberal, in the sense of that word that is closer to “libertarian” than to “social democrat”, and found the ban to be counter-intuitive and unnecessary, but it seems to represent a conception of liberalism, different from mine and closer to that Jim describes, which considers the overt expression of religion to be a threat to the authority of the state. A clear case of religion only being OK if it conforms to liberal requirements, I think.
Historically there is an Islamic parallel to this kind of liberalism in the form of the limited toleration granted to “peoples of the book” under the millet system.
My conception of liberalism has always been that the state should not interfere with individual lives unless there is a clear conflict. Which is not to say that there should not be a clear community structure – just that it should not depend on state control. From this perspective relgious pluralism means freedom to practice religion – in both public and private spheres – provided it does not contravene anyone else’s right to do likewise. So headscarves are fine, but (one understanding of) jihad is not. From this understanding, liberalism is not superior to religious ways of life, because it has no commitments of its own about how life should be lived: it merely wishes to maintain the balance between different faiths.
So, Jim, a question for you: do you think this kind of liberalism makes sense ? Or is the only real choice between conservatism and the kind of liberalism you (rightly, I think) seem to be criticising ?
I don’t think that classical
I don’t think that classical liberalism of the type you favor works in the long run. I agree with the basic impulse to restrict the social role of government, but it nonetheless seems to me that government should ally itself with the moral institutions that make the life of the society what it is. Otherwise it’ll generate its own moral institutions and force them on everyone, as in the hijab situation.
In classical liberal society the work of social order is done by informal moral understandings and habits that the people treat as authoritative. As a result the state doesn’t have to do much. The messy and contentious issues have already been answered outside politics. There’s a problem though. The political order tends to undermine those informal habits and understandings because its ultimate ethical commitment is arbitrary freedom—the goodness of doing what one feels like doing. That kind of commitment tells in the long run. The political order decides questions of life and death and so necessarily demands profound moral adherence. Its fundamental standards can’t possibly remain bottled up. They tend to become authoritative in private life as well.
Things get worse of course when the political order becomes as active and intrusive as our own is. It seems to me the very active PC social services state we have now is a natural outcome of the basic liberal tendency to identify what is good with what is wanted. The tendency leads to the conclusion that all wants are equally good (hence PC), and all wants should be advanced as effectively as possible by all possible means (hence social services).
Here’s some stuff that seems relevant from a long piece I’m working on:
“Liberalism hopes to eliminate the need to choose substantive goods by putting its principles of social order at the level of procedure and turning government into a rational system for advancing each man’s goals. The effort must fail. Since man is social, social order is human. It participates in all the levels of being in which man participates, from the material to the spiritual and metaphysical …
“Nor can questions of final goals be avoided. An answer is implicit in any wide-ranging scheme of action, including any coherent scheme of government. To say something is good is simply to say that it is rationally worth pursuing as a goal. The ultimate purpose of an action is part of what makes it reasonable. To claim, as liberalism does, that something as comprehensive and enduring as a political order should take no position on ultimate goods is either to embrace political irrationalism—the view that we should live together socially in a certain way with no idea why—or to impose an unstated ultimate good while denying doing so …
“Further the advanced liberal state is everywhere. It educates the young, confers honor, disgrace and punishment, and intervenes to reform public attitudes on things as close to home as relations between the sexes and the rearing of children. As a state it demands a loyalty that extends to life and death decisions. How can anyone possibly claim that the public/private distinction enables it to avoid the need to take a comprehensive moral stance?”
Unadorned’s point is that in
Unadorned’s point is that in America, and Western countries generally, extreme anti-religious (“anti-fundamentalist”) views are really quite common. It’s not an argumentum ad hominem. He just mentioned as an aside that the situation might not be evident to someone in Singapore. Otherwise a statement like “the idea that pluralism entails thought-policing to weed out unliberal beliefs is simply ludicrous” becomes difficult to comprehend.
Even though the view that opponents of abortion and “gay marriage” are in principle equivalent to the Taleban is no doubt odd, many educated, respectable and well-positioned people think there’s a great deal to it and aren’t afraid to say so. To see for yourself try sticking “gop taliban,” “republicans taliban” and so on into Google. For some relevant polling date see the section on the anti-fundamentalist voter in the piece on the Democratic Party at http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2002fall/article1.html .
As to the relation to pluralism and liberalism, it’s evidently very close. Philosophers often say liberalism is basically an attempt to organize society without reference to ultimate religious or philosophical commitments and giving as much play as possible to individual views on such things. See for example Rawls’ Political Liberalism. Such views make the two basically equivalent.
At bottom the issue, of course, is the nature of “pluralism,” whether it’s simply a code of conduct that doesn’t pick sides or whether it’s a comprehensive understanding of human life that claims the right to shut down other perspectives. To me it seems odd to claim that pluralism as it actually exists in the West, which says that ideological liberals can insist that their doctrine be taught in schools, forced on employees and made the point of all public celebrations, doesn’t pick sides between ideological liberals and people with opposing views.
I find it amusing that
I find it amusing that you’re putting all this effort into writing these “essays,” and have no conception of the difference between moral obligations and contractucal oblingations. The democratic state is not an entity that mandates moral systems, but an entity that exists as a compromise between the citizens who live under its laws – the constitution outlining the agreed terms under which these citizens occupy the same land and subject themselves to the governing of the state.
The state does not punish murder because it’s “wrong,” but because its citizens do not want to be murdered. It does not punish theft because it is “wrong,” but because its citizens do now want to be stolen from.
You would do well to catch up on the last 400 years of social and political theory.
Also, I don’t know how you theocrats have managed to control the dialogue on this, but no one is banning the “religious instruction” in schools. The state is taking a neutral position by not providing religious instruction in the schools it provides. You’re certainly welcome to withdraw your children and send them to a religious institutions. If liberalism were so prevalent, forcings its moral mandates upon you as it claimed you would, you certainly wouldn’t have that right.
“Pluralism” only takes one side – it takes the principle of “my right to move my hand only extends to where your face begins” and applies it to religion. Under that system, it’s not right for the state to restrict homosexual marriage because it harms no one. It makes it unlawful to kill children because your religion mandates so because it harms others.
Beyond that, this country was founded on the idea that restricting rights without just cause is wrong, and as freedom of religion is guaranteed (by the contractual agreement which currently stands), forcing others to practice your religion goes against everything which we the citizens of the US have gotten ourselves into.
I mean, seriously.
I mean, seriously. Political Science 101 here. The government doesn’t judge things by whether they’re immoral or moral, but whether they’re legal or illegal. It’s contractual. The government is not forcing anyone to accept a certain “moral perspective,” but to abide by the laws. You can think things are wrong or right to your heart’s content, and the government can’t change your mind, nor say, “No, consider this wrong.” Even murder. All the government can say is, “We will punish actions like murder because they violate the laws of this country.”
You can have different feelings about what is legal and what is moral.
Ben: let me get this
Ben: let me get this straight, the government’s prohibition of murder is contractual? where’s the contract? As for “we will punish actions because they violate the laws”, this amounts to “it’s against the law because it’s against the law”. I mean seriously, Political Science 101 here….
The legal order does not
The legal order does not influence the moral order? Laws are not ever created by people trying to advocate a certain moral order?
My Political Science 101 teacher seems to have been somehow defective.
The last was in reply to Ben
The last was in reply to Ben and not to Paul.
Did I say “laws are not ever
Did I say “laws are not ever created by people trying to advocate a certain moral order?”
Look at the Roe v. Wade court decision:
Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.
Where does morality come up? The case was decided on issues of balancing the interests of multiple parties.
Murder is against the law because the state is appointed the role of the protector of its citizens. Thus the whole “The state versus…” title of court cases.
You could get “it’s against the law because it’s against the law if you failed to read the beginning section of my argument”
The democratic state is not an entity that mandates moral systems, but an entity that exists as a compromise between the citizens who live under its laws – the constitution outlining the agreed terms under which these citizens occupy the same land and subject themselves to the governing of the state.
Under which it’s quite simple to see that I was talking about two separate parts, the first in which laws are made through the compromises citizens with different beliefs and backgrounds come together in order to live at peace with one another, and the second having been about the state’s role in forcing a legal order, as opposed to a moral order. Of course, reading within context seems to be beyond you people.
Pluralism exists as a compromise. Not because it’s morally right or wrong (nor does the government enforce it as so) but because those of the terms under which I, an borderline agnostic-pantheist, and you, whatever fundamentalist type religion you are, can live together. I wouldn’t want fundamentalism shoved down my throat, just as you wouldn’t want my brand of skeptical curiosity shoved down yours. Back to the “my right to move my hand ends where you face begins” argument, which you also so cleverly ignored in your reponse.
Also, notice how you completely neglected the whole point of my comparison between the enforcement in demonstrating that your second grade reading comprehension or raised on television attention span (whichever was in control at the moment) couldn’t handle following the gist of my argument – namely, that the government doesn’t force a moral order, but a legal order.
Laws are often created by people trying to advocate a certain moral order, sure. Did I say they weren’t? This does not mean, however, they they necessarily do, that they should, that they always do, etc. In fact, I think laws that are implicitly moral rather than contractual should be off the books. Why the hell should the government tell gay couples they can’t be married? What possible interest could it have in doing so? What interest do others have in keeping them from being married?
Perserving the sanctity of marriage? What about the sanctity of the wine of communion? Why don’t we end this stupid Protestant Welch’s grape juice fad. What about the sanctity of the Torah? Why should we let this mockery called the “New Testament” masquerade as truth?
The options are either start a reign of religious cleansing and persecution, or set up the government as a neutral ground through which other parties can act. Not because it’s right, or wrong, but because we are a society of many beliefs, races, and values, and to legislate a value that is not a matter of enforcing people’s rights to material and automony – that which they demand in return for allowing other citizens the same right, it’s got no business being a law.
Your argument gets a bit
Your argument gets a bit confusing, Ben, because it is not clear whether you are defending a government that does exist, that should exist, or whether you mean America or nations in general.
Ben needs to know that,
Ben needs to know that, believe it or not, many Americans don’t see the United States as merely an amusement park devoted to satisfying the mindless thrills of a certain kind of brainwashed twenty-something college graduate who’s been taught moreover by the Marxists to get a tingle up and down his spine from the feeling that he’s overthrowing big important things in life (overthrowing only certain ones, mind—his Marxist professors have made clear which others are strictly off limits as regards any sort of opposition). On the contrary, many Americans view the United States as a country—a nation in the Brimelovian sense having its own distinct ethno-culture, this last entailing transcendant elements which are not, it’s perfectly true, sensed by everyone.
The term ethno-culture, by the way, refers in part to a nation’s predominant genetic patrimony, such that a reason many of us strenuously oppose massive incompatible immigration (while not objecting to reasonable immigration) is we don’t want to live in an ethno-culture different from the traditional U.S. one, especially if the new one promises to be worse instead of equivalent or better.
In this whole conversation we’re not talking about reasonable pluralism but the extreme variety. No one is against pluralism which is not taken to a Marxist extreme, an extreme whereof the intent is to weaken society in preparation for the imposition of a Marxist dictatorship (see here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1880 )
To paraphrase Dan Seligman writing in the pages of the old (pre-purge) “National Review” something like a decade ago, no country is morally obliged to commit ethno-cultural suicide merely in order to show how pluralistic it is.
Can Ben see that?
Ben’s friend Nicholas Liu chiming in with the pro-pluralism position (again, in this discussion we’re talking about extreme pluralism, not the reasonable kind) from Singapore, which Lee Kwan Yew explicitly kept extreme pluralism out of for decades, is like someone playing a war board game at their kitchen table at home chiming into a discussion about war between actual soldiers in a real battle zone.
Ben mentions the Hebrew Bible. Must Israel also shed its ethno-cultural particularity in favor of extreme pluralism?( * ) Or is that only incumbent upon the United States and Europe to do?
( * ) This is the policy for Israel which is favored by Prof. Noam Chomsky, Joe Sobran, George Soros, Justin Raimondo and, ironically, Pat Buchanan, Charlie Reese, and many paleos—I say ironically because paleos generally do not want extreme pluralism for the U.S.
So let me get this straight:
So let me get this straight: because someone claims to be educated, you immediately dismiss them as a Marxist, and invoke that as further proof of some wacko conspiracy theory by which all pluralism is part of an elaborate plot through which America will be weakened, being enacted by Marxists who want to stage a revolution? And all this while pretending that you’re only talking about extreme forms of pluralism while the original argument makes no such claim?
Not worth your time, Ben.
Part of the dark beauty of
Part of the dark beauty of the whole pluralism/liberalism shibboleth is its ultimately suicidal nature. It will make a great deal of self-righteous noise as it slits its own throat; but slit its own throat it will. It will ruthlessly legislate the moral proposition that morality can’t be legislated, it will arbitrarily force people to live under the bootheel of arbitrary freedoms, it will with despotic exactitude stamp out despotisms, until its embrace of Death is complete: until it devours itself completely.
The really interesting thing to think about isn’t the self-delusions of the current crop of liberals busily conforming to liberalism’s insistence on nonconformism and imposing her ruthless regime of comprehensive tolerance. No. What is interesting is what things will look like after liberalism completes its self-destruction. That I think is just about anybody’s guess.
Matt’s having some fun! Been
Matt’s having some fun! Been reading Chesterton lately?
I’m not a Marxist, nor is
I’m not a Marxist, nor is anyone I’ve been “taught” by. In fact, my first political science professor was a devout Catholic and chair of religious studies who was something of a moderate. Nice try, though.
It is worth saying that the assertion that morality can’t be legislated is either pragmatic or semantic, depending on whether your quibble is with what the government does, or what people call morality. Moral systems function psychologically and socially through implicit means, while legislative systems function contractually through explicit means. They may coincide at times, but they do not line up. All I see here is basic confusion over terms and issues.
As to this: again, in this discussion we’re talking about extreme pluralism, not the reasonable kind
Nope, sorry, start over again, please. Notice how the position isn’t outlined that way in the entry above? You can’t pretend that my position (that freedom of religion and the plurality that happens because of it are good) is the position you’d prefer to argue against (that people should go out of their way to create diversity at all costs), because quite simply, it’s not. Nor can you pretend that all pluralists fight for the latter stance, as the majority stand in the lot of the former.
And with the Israel bit – I actually think Israel’s openly racist propositions such as the Law of Return are rather pathetic, though I will say the equally racist and ethnocentric nonsense coming from the Palestinian side is similarly pathetic.
Oh, and it would probably be best if you’d stop implying things that are blatantly false, like the “ethno-cultural identity” of America being weakened by genetics. I mean, do you know what genetics are, or ethnicity and ethno-cultural identities, or are you just sort of winging it here? Because it doesn’t take much critical thought to see that “ethno-cultural identities” are constructed socially, not biologically, and whatever relations they have to biological factors are completely arbitrary.
Matt: If you would have bothered to read, you’d already have noticed that I already made a case for “tolerance” not being a moral agenda, but a pragmatic agenda in relation to the great compromise we call society. The best choices are:
1) Read. Agree.
2) Read. Disagree. Respond to the salient points.
Your choice of: “Don’t read, or read and completely ignore, and then put together two paragraphs of complete rhetorical nonsense about social collapse, suicide, death, and whatever particularly nasty words you can put together to form a sentence” was completely off the map.
Kind Regards,
Benjamin, Benjamin…..I’m
Benjamin, Benjamin…..I’m still waiting to hear about how our laws are “contractual”. The example you gave was the law against murder. Where’s the contract?
Ah, but what makes a
Ah, but what makes a pragmatic agenda the right thing to do in a particular time and place? What are the goods it advances?
Mr. Kalb: no fair peeking.
For Ben: My academic
For Ben: My academic training was mostly in mathematics, physics, biology (biology, biochemistry, physical and organic chemistry, gross anatomy, histology, histopathology, physiology and pathophysiology, and many other related studies including, yes, molecular biology and genetics), and medicine. My B.S. degree was in mathematics. My profession is in the medical field. I also happen to take an ongoing interest in genetics. Yes, I know something about genetics. Now, don’t bore me to death.
Unadorned, at least you got
Unadorned, at least you got Ben to reveal himself as an orthodox liberal. Ben is hostile to the idea that biology might influence our ethno-cultural self-identity; he dismisses the biological connection as “arbitrary”. This is a case of Ben following through liberal first principles consistently. Liberals want to be self-created by individual reason and will, not by things they haven’t chosen for themselves (ie not by “arbitrary” things). Hence, the concern to dismiss the influence of “biology” in forming our self-identity. I expect that Ben would similarly reject the idea that our sex gives a positive direction to our roles in family life and the wider community.
Benjamin, Benjamin…..I’m
Benjamin, Benjamin…..I’m still waiting to hear about how our laws are “contractual”. The example you gave was the law against murder. Where’s the contract?
State laws, federal laws, the constitution, etc. A law is a contract.
Ah, but what makes a pragmatic agenda the right thing to do in a particular time and place? What are the goods it advances?
It has nothing to do with being the “wrong” or “right” thing. The argument was a refutation of the assertion that governments legislate morality. Even if a government says it does, even if the legislators intend to legislate morality, morality cannot be legislated. It must be socialized. In fact, many moral values often go into direct conflict with the law, even in moral systems which value lawful behavior.
For Ben: My academic training was mostly in mathematics, physics, biology (biology, biochemistry, physical and organic chemistry, gross anatomy, histology, histopathology, physiology and pathophysiology, and many other related studies including, yes, molecular biology and genetics), and medicine. My B.S. degree was in mathematics. My profession is in the medical field. I also happen to take an ongoing interest in genetics. Yes, I know something about genetics. Now, don’t bore me to death.
I’m sorry that with all this education you still made the bullshit assertion you made.
Unadorned, at least you got Ben to reveal himself as an orthodox liberal. Ben is hostile to the idea that biology might influence our ethno-cultural self-identity; he dismisses the biological connection as “arbitrary”.
The biological connection is arbitrary – the group says “Well, having big noses and dark hair makes you look Jewish, Jew!” And “skin color makes you black… but wait, here is someone from India with darker skin, so I guess we need to accent different biological characteristics.” Ethno-cultural identity is all about group inclusiveness and exclusiveness based on perceptions of kinship.
I am not hostile to the idea that biology influences behavior. It does. People are not born with ethno-cultural identites – these things are socialized, not genetically coded for.
This is a case of Ben following through liberal first principles consistently. Liberals want to be self-created by individual reason and will, not by things they haven’t chosen for themselves (ie not by “arbitrary” things).
On the contrary. People are not biologically disposed towards culture. This is “duh” type science. If someone is raised in a specific culture, they’ll be socialized into that culture, regardless of their genetic background. Genetics don’t determine culture.
Hence, the concern to dismiss the influence of “biology” in forming our self-identity.
See how you drop out the “ethno-cultural” from self-identity here? It’s because you realize the argument doesn’t hold water.
I expect that Ben would similarly reject the idea that our sex gives a positive direction to our roles in family life and the wider community.
That’s because you and your ethnic agenda akin to Hitler’s friends have been playing the make an ASS out of U and ME game this whole time. On the contrary, I think that sex does play a role in family roles, though for direct physiological reasons. Men can build more muscle mass. Men are expendable in terms of reproduction – ie, their role in reproduction is non-commital, while a woman’s requires 9 months of carrying the child and then from a few months to 2 years of breastfeeding the child, depending on how long the culture deems breast-feeding appropriate. This has to have an effect on family relationships. Does this mean that Mom’s need to stay at home, avoid working their entire life, and that men can’t do any child care? No, of course not.
But culture, by definition, is learned or socialized behavior. It is not created by genetics.
And whoever runs this thing
And whoever runs this thing should turn on the html tags. It’s hard to keep responses straight without italics or some other formatting option.
WOW, gotta hand it to that
WOW, gotta hand it to that prodigy Ben—talk about a guy having all the answers! He’s a GENIUS! I mean, BRILLIANT is the only word that can possibly describe the guy! Ben is such a formidable opponent, I’m too intimidated to respond. I’ll just sit this one out, if nobody minds—I never can think straight when I’m shivering in my boots from fright. Good thing Ben’s pal Nicholas Liu didn’t show up as threatened or we’d REALLY have gotten demolished! I’m thanking my lucky stars!
“It has nothing to do with
“It has nothing to do with being the ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ thing. The argument was a refutation of the assertion that governments legislate morality.”
There seems to be some equivocation over what is meant by “legislate morality”. It is true of course as a practical matter that the law cannot comprehensively impose a moral code in such a way that everyone’s interior state is brought into complete alignment with that moral code (although it is untrue that the law has no influence whatsoever on interior moral states and external manifestation of moral behavior).
It is also true, however, that every single law that ever exists is based in some conception of moral good. The reason any law exists is that someone(s) thought that some good(s) would be advanced or protected by that law. So in reality not only _can_ morality be legislated; morality is in fact the _only_ thing that can be legislated.
Besides the fact that your
Besides the fact that your argument defines the legislation of morality in such a loose way that it’s a truism and completely removes it from having any relevance to any point that’s ever come up, you really botch this part up:
“It is also true, however, that every single law that ever exists is based in some conception of moral good.”
That’s a real oversimplification that destroys anything of meaning in the sentence. While you could argue that the statement is true, it does nothing for your argument, “that governments legislate morality,” because in fact, the government’s positions is a compromise between multiple moralities, and that is its connection to morality. Not the position that it should super-impose moral values on a society, but the position that it should super-impose a code of conduct under which people’s basic interests are protected.
The Government out of necessity has to legislate a position that is a compromise acceptable to the majority of its citizens. If it doesn’t, due to either violence, revolution, or the ignoring of its laws, it won’t continue to exist. It’s not a matter of ‘it’s moral to do this,” it’s a matter of “this has to be done.” True, beneath the government people have moral values, and these moral values affect what eventually happens in the laws of the government, but the government doesn’t legislate these moral values – just the terms under which the people who hold these moral values can live.
Also, if a congressmen votes for a law because he wants to hold his constituency, is that a moral decision? If someone throws a rock at you and you duck, is that a moral decision?
You’ve redefined morality, it seems, to everything that goes into making a decision, hell, to every element of culture. If you don’t eat chicken because you don’t like the taste, is it because you hold a moral value that you shouldn’t eat things you don’t like the taste of? If I doze off while reading is it because I hold the moral value that that’s an appropriate action? Or are there indeed motivations outside the moral realm?
DAMFINO
DAMFINO
Ben, I’ll try again from a
Ben, I’ll try again from a different angle. You say that “Ethno-cultural identity is all about group inclusiveness and exclusiveness based on perceptions of kinship.”
Now obviously this perception of kinship is not directly “arbitrary” but based on a fact of history: that human communities which have grown up together, and share a longstanding tradition, have physiological differences from other human communities, precisely because of their shared ancestry.
For most people, this shared kinship is a positive part of their self-identity. It’s something to be proud of, to contribute to and to uphold. But for liberals it’s something to deny and deconstruct. Why?
I believe the answer is that liberals think that “freedom” means being unimpeded to act according to individual will and reason. Liberals don’t like a traditional ethnic nationalism because it’s something unchosen that we’re simply born into – “arbitrary” in the sense of being “arbitrarily” imposed on the individual.
Ben, you say also that people are not born with ethno-cultural self-identities – these things are socialized, not genetically coded for.
It’s true that socialisation does play a major role in forming such self-identities. Nonetheless, it’s important to be able to admit, firstly, that we are born with part of an ethno-cultural self-identity: the part of having a shared kinship.
Secondly, in the broader sense, if we’re not born entirely _with_ such self-identities, we’re certainly born _into_ them: into a certain tradition which might encompass not only physical kinship, but culture, religion, language and a host of imperceptible influences on our beliefs and behaviour.
“Or are there indeed
“Or are there indeed motivations outside the moral realm?”
No. As Aristotle said in the opening sentence of the Nichomachean Ethics, “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good.”
The modern who attempts to avoid this manifestly clear fact, presumably in order to emancipate himself from the moral law, can only do so only in sham and only by speaking nonsense.
Dave asks if “pluralism is
Dave asks if “pluralism is part of an elaborate plot through which America will be weakened, being enacted by Marxists who want to stage a revolution.” Yes, that’s a very significant part of what’s going on. Does Dave think an intense, overwhelming desire for extreme suicidal “pluralism,” “multi-culti,” and “diversity”—this toxic ethno-cultural-killing juggernaut—suddenly just sprang up spontaneously in the hearts and minds of the broad populations of Europe, North America, and the Anglosphere who then raised a shout demanding more and more of it, a shout that was so irresistable their governments were forced to accede despite grave misgivings?
Marxism didn’t die in 1989. Communism was only Phase I. Phase I fell through. We’re now fifteen years into Phase II, far more pernicious than Phase I ever was. Just as in the days of the communist menace, the other side does not lack for throngs and throngs of “useful idiots,” some of whom happen to be contributing to this very thread.
Poor Ben is already
Poor Ben is already outnumbered, but let me jump in and say that his definition of legislation seems narrow to the point of sophistry. Was Moses a legislator when he brought down God’s commandments from Sinai? J-J Rousseau certainly thinks so in his On the Government of Poland:
“[Moses] founded the body of a nation from a swarm of wretched fugitives who possessed no skills, no arms, no talents, no virtues, and no courage, and who, without an inch of territory to call their own, were truly a troop of outcasts upon the face of the earth. Moses made bold to transform this errant and servile troupe into a political society, into a free people; at a moment when it was still wandering about in the wilderness and had not so much as a stone to rest its head on, he bestowed upon it the enduring legislation—proof against time, fortune, and conquest—that five thousand years have not sufficed to destroy or even alter. Even today, when that nation no longer exists as a body, its legislation endures and is as strong as ever.”
If Ben wishes to controvert Rousseau and say that this was not legislation, properly understood, he is free to; but that leaves him in the precarious position of declaring that the Ten Commandments are not manifestations of morality.
Ben asks, “Also, if a congressmen votes for a law because he wants to hold his constituency, is that a moral decision?” Yes, it is indeed. First, it may be moral in the plain sense that said congressman believes that representing his constituency is his duty, that is, his _moral_ responsibility. Secondly, even if his action one of pure interest, it is still end-directed: the end in question being said congressman’s happiness. And following Matt, I will quote Aristotle as defining _happiness_ as prosperity combined with virtue.
Finally, I fail to see how the consensual nature of republican government effaces its moral grounding. “The Government,” Ben writes, “out of necessity has to legislate a position that is a compromise acceptable to the majority of its citizens.” Indeed, and that consensus is a moral project, a fact which Ben admits obliquely in his very next sentence by noting the quite undesireable consequences of its failure to do this.
Unadorned: it is not clear
Unadorned: it is not clear that you’re completely off your rocker.
Mark: You’re wrong. Kinship itself is arbitrary. We honor the nuclear family. Children in the Hawaiian kinship system don’t even have a linguistic way to distinguish between their real father and mother – every male and every female in the generation is given the same name. Children from other tribes taken in adopt this system, as do their children. Their is no instinctive impulse to accept one time of kinship over another.
One of the biggest areas of study on cultural practices being related to genetics was violence, and the conclusion was pretty solid – this cultural pattern isn’t genetically caused. Sure, people instinctively fight in some situations, but how do you compare the Vikings to the Danes and Swedes of today? The change was far too rapid to be genetic. What about the Romans and the fascists in Italy who know just ride around on mopeds saying “Ciao.” Genetics explains instinctive behavior, maybe that people try to form groups, and try to look for identities, but it doesn’t explain which identities they look for and what groups they form. Sorry. You’re just wrong. Look at every goddamned study on the subject.
So, you’re taking Aristotles position that everything is moral? Jesus, I’ve got a bunch of classical philosophers on my hands. Were you all raised in private Christian schools? I bet they omitted Aristophanes and all of his dildo jokes.
I don’t care whether you want to invoke a classical philosopher to prove your point. There is a tangible difference in how people perceive the actions that people in the social sciences call moral and the ones they don’t. There aren’t moral repurcussions for choosing to walk around a table that’s in your way around by the right or the left route.
Besides, your redefining morality to just mean culture completely neuters your arguments – ie, that if the Government is already legislating morality, it might as well legislate your morality. Well, sorry, you just reduced that position to “IF the government is legislating anything, it might as well legislate something else.” A sentence with no meaning, as you’ve defined every single goddamned thing as being moral.
And yes, Moses was a legislator when he brought down the law – in the Old Testament Israel was a nation – that is, if you concede that it happens that way. I, however, tend to mistrust things written as a matter of ethnic rediscovery a thosuand years later. Regardless, since you’re all about defining morality as every single action a human being takes, the argument has now been reduced to nothing on both sides because it’s a stupid little meaningless truism.
Can’t you see that? “I define morality as everything a person does. Therefore, everytime a person does something, it’s moral. The government is moral.” You is called bending the terms.
Why, because taken to that extreme, the argument says NOTHING. Your position is “it’s just about whose morality you enforce, there’s no sort of compromise, but everyone is made into a liberal, so there’s no difference in legislating liberalism and legislating any other kind of morality when it comes to “freedom.””
BUT THERE IS. If there’s a moral decision involved in walking would the government be equally right in
The way things in our Republic system work is that people have different ideas of what is and is not moral, and the government doesn’t say, “Well, this is the morality we will press on you because it’s the morality of the majority,” or like in a monarchy, such as with Mary and then Elizabeth, “All be Catholic… no wait, all be Protestant.”
Instead, we have a COMPROMISE, best stated at the end of the tenth amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Of course, the “to the States” bit changed after the 14th amendment.
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
That is, we decide NOT TO LEGISLATE SOME THINGS, and we leave them to the people. We recognize a fundamental difference in what should and should not be legislated that flies in the face of your “everything is moral” argument. Hell, morality is learned, so coughing and sneezing, as basic instinctive behaviors, are not moral. The founding fathers thought of it as moral, sure, but a moral explanation doesn’t work, because it only explains the process by which it came into being, not the process by which it is executed and which it has provided the groundwork for a strong nation that values “liberty.” To look at the moral aspect, under a decent definition of morality, that is:
“1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior” “d : sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment”
Gives you a different perspective on the whole thing. I think of only useful to a certain extent. It explains human action, at one time, but it doesn’t explain why these moral systems exist, or how these moral systems change, or why these moral systems change – and it doesn’t explain how despite moral change our government has persisted, while others who were tied to elaborate moral positions either changed, or had to resort to an authoritarian position in which all resistance to the moral order is crushed, a la the Middle East.
I do find it amusing, though, that throughout the course of this argument most of you have found it fruitful to stereotype me, and then dismiss me based on the stereotype. It gives real insight into your problems with our government. Ooh, I’m college educated – therefore I’m a Marxist and all my professors were Marxists and god-dammit, we should just burn those universities to the ground, huh? End the forthcoming revolution which is now such a huge threat to you?
Oh wait, no, I’m just a traditional liberal, kind of stupid, doesn’t question his views, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
The real problem here, is that you guys need stereotypes to live, breathe, to feed you. It really bothers you that you can’t look at someone and tell they’re American because they’re white, and how they dress, and because they speak English perfectly. You can’t operate without it.
That’s pretty fucking pathetic.
Have a nice day,
DAMFINO
Ben, your frustration has
Ben, your frustration has made you insensible to reason. To point out just one example: how can the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a act of legislation if ever their was one, be construed as repudiation of the very idea of legislation. This is pure dreary unreason. I am reminded of the Canadian rock band Rush, whose song “Freewill” is more reasonable: “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
Analogously, the idea of pure pluralism, the ideal of the Open Society, where all questions are open questions, is an equally tiresome contradiction. “All questions are open questions” really means, “all questions are open questions, EXCEPT for the question of whether all questions are open.” Even J. S. Mill recognized this solid fact, and thus candid about enforcing the open society with . . . that’s right, _legislation_. His principle was: all is permitted except one man forcing his views on another. But he was honest enough to see that force would probably have to be used to keep men from trying to force their views on one another. In short we have willing to deploy force to protect his negation. His anti-orthodoxy was a (rather severe) orthodoxy.
“The real problem here, is
“The real problem here, is that you guys need stereotypes to live, breathe, to feed you.”
See, that’s the problem with liberal trolls, they all look alike. 8^]
Give stereotypes a chance, anyway. They’ve been fiercely maligned over the past 50 years or so, but really most of them aren’t so bad. I realize that some of them are mean-spirited and have ended up spoiling everything for the rest. But most of them, if you take them home, introduce them to your wife, have dinner with them—you’ll find out that they are downright decent.
OK, I’ll bite, why not? I
OK, I’ll bite, why not? I didn’t define morality as “everything a person does”. I said this:
“…every single law that ever exists is based in some conception of moral good. The reason any law exists is that someone(s) thought that some good(s) would be advanced or protected by that law. So in reality not only _can_ morality be legislated; morality is in fact the _only_ thing that can be legislated.”
A law is an authoritative discrimination between people, backed up by instruments of violence, oriented toward some (putative) good. There are no exceptions. There is nothing at all that is legislated other than morality.
Ben the Courteous seems to think that because legislation is a human process, and that because it doesn’t comprehensively cover every possible action that every human being ever performs, that it is categorically divorced from its moral foundation. I wonder why he thinks that?
Yes, Matt, you did with
Yes, Matt, you did with this:
“No. As Aristotle said in the opening sentence of the Nichomachean Ethics, “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good.”
“Ben, your frustration has made you insensible to reason. To point out just one example: how can the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a act of legislation if ever their was one, be construed as repudiation of the very idea of legislation.”
No, it’s you seem to be incapable of critical thought unless I spell everything out for you to the nth degree. The 10th amendment (the same as all the other admendments), as an act of legislation, binds the legislative bodies of the US, not the general populace, to its terms, and that’s the critical difference.
“Ben the Courteous seems to think that because legislation is a human process, and that because it doesn’t comprehensively cover every possible action that every human being ever performs, that it is categorically divorced from its moral foundation. I wonder why he thinks that?”
No, that’s not how I have outlined my position. The acts by which laws are formed and maintained are fundamentally different from the manner in which morals are formed and maintained. I’ve already defined why several times, but instead everyone has ignored my earlier statements and decided to leap on the, “Well, Aristotle says every action is about good, so everything is moral” bandwagon.
Besides, this just seems like a semantic game to you all. There are multiple ways in which the “legislate morality” can be understood, depending on how specifically you take the phrase “morality.” If not specifically at all, you wind up with your position. Of course legislative bodies legislate morality, because morality is anything and everything, as per Aristotle.
Under my understanding, it’s different. Legislative bodies cannot legislate morality, because morality is determined by other factors than legislation and the punishment / reward system. It can be influenced by such a system to a degree, but it’s an infinite minner, in which morals and legislation can be reflected in each other. That doesn’t change the fact that the two are seperate systems that function differently.
Then, there’s another way to deal with it, that defines morality and ethics as two different types of “good” and “bad” – morality is that aspect of human conduct which deals with one’s own character and personality, and the standards one holds oneself to, whereas ethics governs all aspects of human behavior in which other human beings are directly impacted by the actions of the human being.
Under this system, not keeping clean is an immoral act, whereas murdering someone is an unethical act.
Only the latter two understandings make any worthwhile sense. No one says “Don’t legislate morality,” because they mean, “Don’t legislate anything,” but because they either mean, “Don’t use the government as a system which determines the moral blueprint of our society” or “Don’t legislate things I do that don’t hurt anyone else,” which fall under the latter two categories.
All of your arguments take the second or the latter argument (probably the most common), which means “don’t legiuslate things I do that don’t hurt anyone else,” and say, “Everything the government does is a human action aimed at achieving good ends.”
See how when you break the definitions down you’re talking past the other side?
Ben writes,
“Unadorned: it
Ben writes,
“Unadorned: it is now clear that you’re completely off your rocker,”
which comes as a big relief to read—had a leftist written anything else about me I’d start to worry about where I could possibly have gone so drastically wrong …
By the way, I agree completely with Matt’s post of 03:27 PM: most “stereotypes” are actually quite true and those who rely on them will not be led astray, by and large.
“By the way, I agree
“By the way, I agree completely with Matt’s post of 03:27 PM: most “stereotypes” are actually quite true and those who rely on them will not be led astray, by and large.”
Some stereotypes apply to the majority of people they stereoptype. Stereotyping is not an accurate sources of information, however, as the idiocy you invoked with your accusation of my being a Marxist demonstrated. In the words of Steinbeck:
“I don’t like Communists. I mean, as people. I imagine the disciplies had the same waspish qualities and the New Testament is proof enough of their equally bad manners.”
Moreover, being a Marxist and being a Pluralist are essentially mutually exclusive, Marxists generally being of the idea that you should squash rebellious discourse, a la Mao, Lenin, and Stalin, and you won’t find many Marxist countries too friendly to the idea of pluralism.
So, in other words, you completely ignored the proof to the contrary lying on your doorstep and decided to stereotype me as a college Marxist. Amusing, yes, but certainly not accurate.
Either way, I think this has
Either way, I think this has degenerated to a shouting match and a two-sided desire to have the last word. I’m certainly tired of it, and don’t have the time to continue, so this is me checking out. Not a “haha, I had the last word, I’m not reading anything else.” On the contrary, you can say whatever you will in response and I’ll read it, consider it, and maybe even lose my temper over it.
Ben sez:
“The acts by which
Ben sez:
“The acts by which laws are formed and maintained are fundamentally different from the manner in which morals are formed and maintained.”
Nobody has claimed otherwise, as far as I can tell. In fact I specifically mentioned that the process of making laws is a human process and is not itself morality. When someone says “you can’t legislate morality” he isn’t saying that laws are not the same as morals, though; he is saying that laws cannot or should not be enacted to enforce moral precepts. In actual fact, though, laws are always without exception enacted for (putative) moral purposes in each and every case (whether Ben agrees with Aristotle about the full scope of morality or not). Nobody enacts a law unless he thinks that enacting it will produce some good result. The fact that enacting laws can be messy and involve compromises (a human process) does not change the fundamental reason and justification for enacting a law: that it does some good to enact it; that it makes and enforces a discrimination between a good state of affairs and a bad (or not-as-good) one.
There are Marxists and there
There are Marxists and there are Marxist dupes.
I don’t see the value in
I don’t see the value in wasting time with those manifestly unwilling to communicate. The intention of Ben’s comments were immediately apparent: “I find it amusing that you’re putting all this effort into writing these ‘essays’”; “You would do well to catch up on the last 400 years of social and political theory”; “I don’t know how you theocrats”; “It makes it unlawful to kill children because your religion mandates so because it harms others.” Awful stuff right off the bat.
Mr. Kalb and the usual commentators state so many intriguing ideas that I can’t figure what made the above more provocative than an idea from one of the usual commentators or a better new commentator. Pluralism: what an interesting and relevant topic. Just an idea, but maybe one of the communicators could have rephrased the provocative ideas and then everyone could have ignored the noise that was almost certain to devolve and did devolve. The nanny will now shut up. I nominate Matt to restate and restart the discussion; no obligation of course.
By George, I think I’ve got
By George, I think I’ve got it! All of us commentators on this topic are men, and we enjoy being thrown onto a muddy field or pit and go at it (even if some of us are now too rotund to do it in real life). How about my Tigers! I watched the Sugar Bowl replay with almost as much enthusiasm as the live broadcast.
Well yes, the irony of
Well yes, the irony of “degenerate into a shouting match” applied to comment thread that started with a shout of outrage wasn’t lost on me.
Pluralism is a sad thing. The distinction between host and guest is a large part of what keeps things civilized. The Christian host properly feels some obligation to be gracious to the stranger on the doorstep. The stranger on the doorstep feels some obligation to be respectful of the host, to not out-stay his welcome, etc. Pluralism, like much of modern liberalism, attempts to take the form of Christian charity without its substance. Pluralism is taxidermy applied to charity: we are left with a dry, dead husk stuffed with filler staring back at us with cold dead eyes, and we are supposed to believe that if we oppose the dead thing we are opposed to that dreadful, glorious, living, breathing thing Charity.
I see now that pluralism is
I see now that pluralism is not charity, which is perhaps grace bestowed by a human. Pluralism is similar to a bargain, a quid pro quo. Liberal pluralism is not even a quid pro quo because it does not exist. Liberals grace only those that are liberal when push comes to shove.
I wonder if liberals even realize they are intolerant. I suppose they just endlessly invoke the unprincipled exception and presto, they are 99% tolerant again. They endlessly rationalize their behavior, not that I don’t.
I’ve just found out about
I’ve just found out about this thread and think the subject of pluralism is a facinating one. There’s been a lot of heat along with the light so far but still interesting.
Let me add my two cents’ worth: I support a pluralistic society for all the reasons that Ben mentioned plus a few of my own. They are;
1. The lessons of history-Every non-pluralistic society began existence as or degenerated into a tyranny. Non-pluralistic societies like Soviet Russia and Communist China, most Middle Eastern Islamic theocracies and Medieval Europe are/were characterized by organized state terror directed against those perceived by the ruling elite as dissidents-religious, political, primarily. These tyrannies, ruled by elites answerable to no one but themselves, in turn, become corrupt to the point where the moral norms around which these societies were organized become nothing more than legitimizations for theft and the acquisition of personal power.This may subject me to the charge of injecting morality into this discussion. So be it. I think tyrannies are bad, immoral if you will and I’d like to hear the moral justification for the alternative.
2. Self-preservation-I am amazed to find Catholics in the USA attack pluralism. America is a predominately Protestant country. How would you Catholics like it if the Protestant majority had the power in a non-pluralistic America to suppress your faith? Indeed, Catholics were the subject of such majoritaran oppression and discrimination in the not-too-distant past. It was only because America remained faithful to its pluralistic origins that Catholicism exists freely in America today.
3. I am willing to admit that as a pluralist, I would support suppression of those who, if given the power, would destroy pluralism itself. As one Supreme Court Justice whose name escapes me for the moment said: The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I would insist, though,as a supporter of the Constitution, that this suppression should be exercised only against those who use violent, unlawful means to advance their cause. I am confident that ideas supporting non-pluralism would be defeated in a free marketplace of ideas.
4. Pluralistic societies are the best place for the truth to be discovered, if it can be at all, particularly when it comes to religion. In a pluralistic society, all religions can put forth what whey claim to be true and every individual can read and hear these claims. If one decides that a particular religion is true then that belief would be honest and deep, a genuine conversion, not one forced and inauthentic. If any adherents of a religion seek to abolish pluralism and have their truth claims be given monopoly status, immune from criticism or competition, then I wonder how secure these adherents think their religion is.
Well, that’s it for now. I’d like to hear replies.
What past societies have
What past societies have been pluralistic in the current sense? I can’t think of any. Remember that “Roy’s Rock” was supposed to be a serious violation of pluralism.
The claim that America is more pro-Catholic today than in the past seems odd to me. If you’re an actual Catholic you can’t get confirmed as a federal judge. If you work in any large bureaucratic organization you’re likely to be subjected to “diversity training” designed to bring you around to the view that some of your fundamental moral beliefs are wrong and shameful. You can’t even say “Merry Christmas” to people.
If pluralists suppress non-pluralists, where’s the pluralism? It seems to me the problem shows that the pluralist approach to things simply doesn’t make sense. There always has to be some view of things people think is right and one way or another opposing views will put their holders at a disadvantage. In order to establish and secure itself pluralism has to become antipluralist. So why bother?
I don’t see why truth is likely to be discovered in a society that doesn’t take truth seriously.
Why bother? Because first
Why bother? Because first pluralist societies reserve suppression only for those who VIOLENTLY threaten its existence, unlike non-pluralist societies which tyrannically suppress everything not in agreement with their core values. Secondly, because pluralist societies, with the diversity of opinions permitted, is self-correcting. If it goes off the rails, concerned citizens have the power to right it, unlike non-pluralist societies where the dictator or elite’s word is law and can’t be challenged, no matter how disastrous the policies are. Thirdly, it’s only in a pluralist society that truth can be found. What if the defining authority is wrong? Without the ability to find truth on your own, you would never know what it is. In China the defining authority is the Communist Party which claims there is no God. Is that the truth? If you’re in China, a non-pluralist society, it would be difficult to come across a differing point of view so you might never be able to explore the existence of God issue on your own. There may be plenty of secularists in America, some with a lot of power but they can’t stop you from checking out the existence of God issue on your own.
Can you name one non-pluralist society which has discovered the truth?
Catholics can serve as judges, along with everyone else, as long as they acknowledge their responsibilty to follow the law. If a Catholic, or a conservative Protestant or Orthodox Jew, for that matter, said he couldn’t apply the Roe v. Wade precedent in an abortion case, then he shouldn’t serve as a judge because,like it or not, Roe is the law. Would you want someone on the bench who wouldn’t apply the 1st Amendment and hold that Catholics couldn’t practice their faith in a Protestant majority community because it would be “disruptive”? Besides, I thought that you conservatives were against judicial activists, you want judges to interpret, not make the law.
As to diversity training, what’s the problem? My God, you might be exposed to someone or some ideas that you are not familiar with? How horrible! Look, you know what you believe, you’re sure of what’s right, so what’s wrong with hearing a different view?
“pluralist societies reserve
“pluralist societies reserve suppression only for those who VIOLENTLY threaten their existence”—Hal
Yeah, Hal, that little kindergarten child whose behavior was suppressed by her teacher and school principal when she bowed her head to say grace before having her snack—that little girl was VIOLENTLY threatening pluralism’s existence. Right. I see it now. It took me a while, but you’re right—you’ve convinced me, Hal.
Hal confuses constitutional rights and protections with pluralism. He thinks pluralism is the collection of things like the guarantees of freedom of speech and of religion which the Founders bequeathed to us. He doesn’t understand that pluralism is totalitarianism. He says such things as that new discoveries and understandings can only flourish where there’s pluralism. Yeah, just think of all the major discoveries and new understandings that pluralism promises to shower on us in areas related to the social benefits of preserving traditional marriage, the psychopathologies underlying homosexuality, the genetic basis of sex differences and of racial differences, and so many other subjects of inquiry, Hal! It’ll be a scientific renaissance! I can’t WAIT!
“like it or not, Roe is the law.”
Roe was imposed through non-legal, immoral means by radical leftists who were morally equivalent to thugs mounting a coup painstakingly planned out years in advance—exactly as we saw done in Vermont and Massachusetts with homosexual “marriage.” Whether or not Roe is actually the law is debatable. I’d say it isn’t. We are temporarily obliged to kow-tow before it because Hal’s side is ascendant. But might doesn’t make right and Hal doesn’t seem to grasp that two can play the left’s game. His side may be ascendant now but the wheel turns, Hal. When it’s the other side’s turn and Hal and his friends suddenly start demanding that the rules be respected for a change it may be too late. He may want to think about that.
“Would you want someone on the bench who wouldn’t apply the 1st Amendment and who’d hold that Catholics couldn’t practice their faith in a Protestant majority community because it would be ‘disruptive’?”
Neo-Marxist pluralism was not what moved society beyond Queen Elizabeth I’s day as regards freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers who accomplished that never heard or in their wildest nightmares conceived of the disease of modern leftist pluralism. As for the Ist Amendment, Hal’s side has already made that into a dead letter. Hate crimes laws amount to thought control let alone speech control, and as for the free exercise of religion, our left-liberal government is in the process of squelching that right ever more drastically and with an iron fist.
“As to diversity training, what’s the problem?”
For starters, Hal, it’s mandatory. The non-mandatory kind of genuine, legitimate diversity training used to be known as broadening your outlook through travel, getting a liberal college education, learning foreign languages, etc. This stuff we’re talking about here is mandatory Marxist clap-trap and brainwashing exactly like the “re-education camps” the Reds set up in Vietnam after the communist take-over. Let Hal say whether or not he wants to be subjected, or have his kids subjected, to mandatory “diversity training” by the other side—the side he hates. Let’s hear his answer to that.
“My God, you might be exposed to someone or some ideas that you are not familiar with? […] what’s wrong with hearing a different view?”
But we’re quite familiar with the “different views” that diversity training rams down our throats, Hal, and we don’t like them. Since we already ARE familiar with them and already KNOW we dislike them, why do government, private industry, schools and colleges, the military, etc., ram them down our throats? They do because they’re totalitarians, and people like Hal foist them on us.
I’d be extremely interested
I’d be extremely interested to know Hal’s opinion of the following two articles. The first is Ann Coulter’s review of a book by David Limbaugh, here ,
and the second an article detailing the true nature of much of the “diversity training” our society is obliged more and more to put up with, here .
Are these situations Hal’s cup of tea, I wonder?
I’ll check out those
I’ll check out those references. In the meantime, here’s my reply to Undadorned:
I would like to invite Undadorned to visit the planet earth and in particular, the United States of America so he could get in touch with reality. The fantasy world he is living in has distorted his ability to apply logic. How else can one view his assertion that pluralism is totalitarian? Pluralism permits a wide diversity of views and answers to ultimate questions; totalitarianism is its logical opposite since it allows only one view or answer and suppresses all others.
A visit to America would also cure his delusion that freedom of religious expression is in danger. While there may be problems with this freedom in certain other liberal societies like France, which had a long tradition of an established church, in the USA this freedom is doing very well. Need proof? Fine. Answer this question: Must a parent comply with state laws that require a child to be schooled until age 16 or until completion of high school? Not if that parent is Amish, whose faith holds that education isn’t necessary beyond the 8th grade. So say that cabal of leftist thugs that make up the Supreme Court. Must one serve the USA in the military if called up by the draft in time of war? Not if one claims conscientious objector status and is a member of a church like the Society of Friends which practices pacifism as a religious doctrine. Could parents be prosecuted for child abuse if they don’t provide up-to-date medical care for their sick child? Not necessarily if the parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists. These are but a few examples of behavior permitted to religious believers that is not permitted to atheists or believers in other doctrines. Must be that damn totalitarian pluralism at work!
These advantages are far more indicative of the true status of religious expression in the USA than the conduct of an extremist kindergarten teacher, just like the behavior of the ovwewhelming majority of Catholic priests is far more indicative of what priests do than the behavior of a few aberrant priests who have abused their position of trust. Would you not consider it outrageous if I claimed that Catholicism practices child abuse because of the behavior of a few bad priests? I think that Undadorned is not upset at the loss of religious freedom because it’s not being lost; he’s upset, IMHO, because his religious beliefs are not given preference over others’ or those who don’t have any.
When I read Undadorned comments on Roe v. Wade, I thought of the TV show “The X-Files” because his opinion is positively unearthly. The Roe decision was written by Harry Blackmun, a Republican, nominated to the Court by that well-known ultra-liberal Neo-Marxist thug Richard Nixon. Only an alien would think otherwise.
What planet is Unadorned from? (s there something “odd” about the back of Unadorned’s neck?) There was no conspiracy, the Court did what it’s supposed to do, resolve Constitutional issues presented to it in a case. Now if you disagree with Roe, you can elect enough politicians who will place anti-abortionists on the Court and Roe could be reversed. No conspiracy required. And as for the painstakingly planned coup to enforce gay rights,wow! Where are Mulder and Scully now that we need them?
Here’s a clue for Unadorned: The truth is out there and that truth is that there is no THEM there. No alien shape-shifters plotting to take over the world, no international Jewish conspiracy to rule the earth, no secret plot to establish gay sex and do away with Catholicism and heterosexuality. It’s just people reacting to change. You may not like it; I don’t like everything going on in the world, but it’s not because of some conspiracy. Life is a little more complex than that.
As to diversity training, it’s mandatory, in my experience, only in a work situation where an employee’s conduct is patently offensive and disruptive to the workplace. If Unadorned were in an office and a co-worker placed obscene cartoons of the Pope, Jesus or priests in Unadorned’s work station, told dirty priest-nun jokes loudly in Unadorned’s presence, and tried to get other co-workers to refuse to cooperate with a “Catholic bigot” such a co-worker could be required to attend diversity training. Unadorned would probably prefer a more manly expression of disapproval such as a punch in the nose but as the offender could bring in a knife or worse the next day to continue the battle and as an office couldn’t function with brawling employees, diversity training exists as a more civilized alternative.
Hate crimes punish acts, not thoughts or speech only and they are victim-neutral. Someone who bashes a Catholic over the head because he worships the “whore of Babylon” will be prosecuted for a hate crime just as would a gay-basher. This is not hypothetical. There was a recent rash of disfigurements of Catholic statues in New York City. The police regarded this activity as a bias crime and assigned more personnel to solve the crimes than for a simple vandalism charge. I am opposed to hate speech codes, particularly at universities since that is where free speech should be paramount. Hate speech codes conflict with pluralism and should be abolished. I’m with Unadorned on this one.
I agree that the Founding Fathers would not take the substantive positions on extension of pluralism that is now advocated. Most of the Founders would have regarded homosexuality as a sin or disease and would have opposed its legitimation. Many of these Founders also owned slaves and did oppose their freedom and granting of full citizenship status. They certainly would have opposed granting blacks voting rights. So what? Times change. The genius of the Founders was in setting up a political system based on pluralism, among other things, and flexible enough to handle change since the Founders had enough humility to know that they themselves would not have the answers for everything.
It became time to review what race relations were like in America, to deal with issues unadressed by the Civil War and see if it really was all right to deny citizens basic rights just because of their race. Many now believe its time to review homosexuality. Should it be legitimized? Maybe so, maybe not. The system must work this issue out.
Finally, what is this obssession about Marxism? Is it Unadorned’s practice to label everything he doesn’t like “Marxist” even if what he doesn’t like has nothing to do with Marxism? I suppose it saves mental energy to label things; you don’t have to think about them that way. But it’s hardly a truthful way to deal with issues. You don’t see me calling everyone who disagrees with me a “fascist”, do you?
Well, that’s all for now. Peace and love.
Hal writes,
“I’ll check out
Hal writes,
“I’ll check out those references. …”
I kinda wish Hal had read them—they have a way of taking the wind out of liberal sails…
“Pluralism permits a wide diversity of views and answers to ultimate questions; totalitarianism is its logical opposite since it allows only one view or answer and suppresses all others.”
Hal may not have understood Mr. Kalb’s discussions of pluralism. Hal confuses the sort of pluralism under discussion with the democracy framed in our founding documents. Freedom of speech, religion, and the press and other elements of traditional Anglo-Saxon democracy not only don’t emanate from extreme pluralism but are not respected under it and are antithetical to it. Furthermore, our democracy can’t exist in a vacuum: in order for the founding democratic framework spelled out in our documents to be able to function, certain surrounding or “precursor” ethno-cultural understandings, traditions, and arrangements must also be alive and well. Such understandings never got spelled out because no one doubted their presence any more than they doubted there’d be air to breathe: they weren’t under attack. Well-intentioned but shallow-thinking sympathisers with today’s extreme pluralism don’t understand what pluralism’s hard-left backers grasp all too well, that in throttling these foundational understandings necessary to our society—for example, by means of the forceful marginalizing and draconian suppression of all official influence of and public expression of the majority’s religion; by means of attacks on marriage and the family; and so on—extreme pluralism threatens to bring society crashing down about our ears completely apart from its distortions of and outright disregarding of our society’s actual bedrock written documents.
“[T]he conduct of [the] extremist kindergarten teacher” mentioned in the Coulter book review I referenced was not an aberration. Far from freelancing or improvising, that teacher and her principal were obeying the spirit and letter of directives in force all over the country, ultimately of federal provenance. A week never goes by but we hear of some new horror story along these lines and we’re growing more and more alarmed by the situation.
“Would you not consider it outrageous if I claimed that Catholicism practices child abuse because of the behavior of a few bad priests?”
I wouldn’t consider it outageous if the Catholics made homosexual child molestation by priests their official policy. The federal government’s official policy is the suppression of all discernable public expression of, and official influence by, the majority’s traditional religion-entwined customs and mores.
“I think that Unadorned is not upset at the loss of religious freedom, because it’s not being lost; he’s upset, IMHO, because his religious beliefs are not given preference over others’ or those who don’t have any.”
Hal is right in an oblique way: in the name of “equality of all religions” the government is suppressing public community-wide expressions of the majority’s religion. Religion however is by nature a community-wide thing such that forcing it to remain strictly within the confines of the home, forbidding it to ever show itself in the street or the public square, is intolerable tyranny and OF COURSE never was intended by the Founders. When Hal couches this in terms of “not giving preference to one religion over others” he’s referring to the existence of minorities. Minorities must adapt themselves to the majority and not vice-versa. Minorities may chafe under that fact of life, and majorities are morally obliged to make it as unburdensome for minorities as possible. But they are not obliged to commit ethno-cultural suicide in furtherance of that end.
“When I read Unadorned comments on Roe v. Wade, I thought of the TV show “The X-Files” because his opinion is positively unearthly. The Roe decision was written by Harry Blackmun, a Republican, [etc.]. … There was no conspiracy [etc.] …”
I stand by what I wrote.
“And as for the painstakingly planned coup to enforce gay rights, wow!”
I live in Vermont, Hal, where it is well-known how much planning, starting years in advance, went into that judicial coup d’etat. By the way, “gay rights”? Homosexuals have the same rights as everone. What they want is additional ones that no one else has—among other things they can’t have.
“You may not like it; I don’t like everything going on in the world, but it’s not because of some conspiracy.”
What happened in Hawaii (later reversed there, thank God!), in Vermont, and now in Massachusetts was in each case the result of a homosexualist conspiracy—that’s CONSPIRACY, Hal—aimed at specially-targeted states and carefully planned, beginning years in advance, with leftist allies. What happened in Vermont with the Civil Unions bill was NOT spontaneous. Neither was Roe vs. Wade: such principal participants as Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Norma McCorvey I think her name was (the woman referred to as “Roe”), and many others who were right in the thick of the plan, have detailed exactly how that victory was dishonestly, connivingly pulled off with the help of radical left-wing allies.
“As to diversity training, it’s mandatory, in my experience, only in a work situation where an employee’s conduct is patently offensive and disruptive to the workplace. [etc.]…”
Read the second article I linked, Hal, and we’ll talk. You wanna see neo-Marxist brainwashing?
“Hate crimes punish acts, not thoughts […]”
If the penalty is heavier depending on certain of the perpetrator’s thoughts, the statutes punish those thoughts, thoughts which in the case of hate-crimes statutes the government has no business punishing—thoughts which are none of the government’s business. Only the actual crime is the government’s business. Hate crimes are thought control. So much for the First Amendment.
“I am opposed to hate speech codes … . Hate speech codes conflict with pluralism …”
Where Hal said “pluralism” I would have said “the Bill of Rights.”
“The genius of the Founders was in setting up a political system based on pluralism [etc.].”
The Bill of Rights the Founders gave us was one thing. The extreme pluralism we see being enforced now is totalitarianism.
“Finally, what is this obssession about Marxism?”
Marxism didn’t die in 1989. Communism was only Phase I. Phase I fell through. We’re fifteen years into Phase II, Hal, a phase more pernicious than communism ever was.
Unadorned, I haven’t had
Unadorned, I haven’t had time yet to read those references, so I will withhold further comments until then. But I’d like to know why you say that Communism isn’t dead but is in some Phase II plan. Frankly, that sounds very X-Files to me. Got proof?
“Got proof?”Yeah, Hal, I
“Got proof?”
Yeah, Hal, I do—it’s called two eyes, to be frank about it. (I mean, what’s NOT proof nowadays?)
The hopelessly near-sighted can try starting with this and this (among about a billion trillion others).
I did check out these
I did check out these references and my question still stands: Got proof?
I found it ironic that one of these references was from Reason, a libertarian magazine. There is no one more opposed to the Catholic traditionalism you espouse than libertarians who believe precisely that society should be organized around the principle of satisfying individual desires.
Substantively, the article does do a good job of debunking the witchdoctory practiced by some of these “diversity” trainers. But the article provides no proof that diversity training is some sort of Communist-Marxist plot. The article doesn’t even accuse the trainers of being Marxists! And it would if it were true since it’s written by a libertarian who presumably hates Marxism as much as you do.
The gist of the article is that the PC diverity training promotes group identification instead of individual, that the trainers teach unscientific nonsense that whites are “ice people” and that culture is totally based on ethnicity and even genetics.What these people teach sounds like some of the stuff on Jim Kalbe’s website. Indeed it seems the only difference between you traditionalists and the PC types is that you value different ethnic groups and cultures. You both practice the same methodology and Reason magazine would slam you just like it slammed the PC’ers. Did you read this article?
As to the Front Page article,it’s junk. It reminds me of the crap I used to read years ago from right-wing fanatics that claimed the civil rights movement against the Jin Crow legally segregated South was part of a Communist plot because Communists believed in legal racial equality. Since, I presume, Communists accept the Copernican theory of the solar system, then the teaching of this theory in science classes must also be a Communist plot?
Communism as a world-changing force is dead so move on already. I know it must be painful to have to give up that wondeful Commie bogeyman to explain everything bad in the world, but wake up and smell the coffee! The CPUSA is a bunch of tired, powerless old men. They have no real influence. You certainly can’t expect any rational person to believe that George Bush was influenced even indirectly by Commies when he pushed through immigration reform. If you want a real culprit, look to the “cheap labor” employers’ lobby. Also, Commies believe in the necessity of labor being organized but massive immigration breaks up unionization. Workers have suffered a drop in their living standards but it has little to do with immigration except at the lowest skill levels. Look to corporate globalization if you need a villain, not a bunch of toothless old Marxists. Besides, Hispanic immigrants are by and large Catholic and traditionalist. Many are ardently pro-life and anti-gay. You should welcome their immigration since if they do become citizens they could vote conservative.
Sorry, Unadorned, you’ll have to do better. Need Mulder’s & Scully’s phone numbers?