Michael Gersh had some pretty thoughtful comments about the Ten Commandments controversy that had me saying "right on!" As a non-religious man, I'm bloody well sick of this obsessive intolerance toward traditions and history based in religion. (His link seems broken at the moment, so you'll have to go to his front page and search for "ten commandments" unless and until he fixes the direct link.)
But earlier, he had some things to say about Bush being a statist whose anti-liberty agenda is "heavy on prayer in schools, restricting a woman's freedom over her bodily functions, and military strength as a route to world domination," and how this would turn off most of the young people who voted for the Republicans this year. To which I can only say, "Oh, balls."
If you can find anywhere in the Bush (or the broad Republican) agenda any requirement that people be required to pray in the schools, I'll happily post one message a day for an entire week that says "Bush is evil, Republicans hate liberty, please never vote for another one again."
The Republican position is pretty much identical to the Clinton administration's stated position: that the Supreme Court decision which banned school prayer was a case of judicial arrogance, a power-grab based on "liberal" bigotry against religion, and should be undone.
As a non-religious, small "L" libertarian who is highly suspicious of all political parties, I am sick of this paranoia over prayer in the schools. It is not a threat to anyone's liberties, and it most certainly is not inconsistent with the 1st amendment. Arguably, in fact, the ban on voluntary school prayer was based on no small amount of religious bigotry and a fundamental contempt for the 1st amendment.
You don't want prayer in your local public school? Fine. Run for the school board on that platform, and try to get elected. Or just go to the school board meeting with a bunch of your like-minded friends and holler about it. In fact, I'll probably join you, since I'd rather they not have prayers in my local public school either.
That's right, I said I'd rather they not pray in my local public school. But please, let's stop this endless cramming of our personal views of religion down everyone else's throats, and using "religious liberty" as the rationale for it.
What the hell do you care, Michael, if some school district in Burnt Tongue, Idaho, decides by democratic process that it wants to open school each day with voluntary moments of silence or even prayers? For that matter, what if a group of Orthodox Jews wants to do something like that in their neighborhood public school?
If the people of another community, the folks who run that school and pay most of the bills that keep it open, want to make such choices, let them. In fact, I say those who would deny this are petty little tyrants who are spitting on liberty and spitting on the first amendment.
I'm bloody well tired of people acting like having some teacher saying "Please god help us study well today and be good citizens" is the next bloody step toward the bloody dark ages. Or pompously telling us that the "founders would never intend" for their to be any prayers at any government-funded institution. This is a lie, and it's in keeping with neither the spirit nor the letter of the 1st amendment.
On the matter of "women's bodies": as a man who is pro-choice on abortion, I'm tired of hearing pontifications about "a woman's right to control her own bodily functions." No one is talking about limiting a woman's ability to urinate, spit, eat, defacate, douche, pick her nose, use birth control, or have sex with whoever she wants. Nor is there a "slippery slope" leading from putting a limitation on abortions to shackling women to the ovens in their kitchens. (And by the way, "slippery slope" is a classic logical fallacy.)
There is only one bodily function at issue here, so why not be intellectually honest enough to say which function in particular we're talking about? These dark allusions that sinister forces are about to come down and throw women into chains are not just foolish, they're hysterical (pun intended).
Fact of the matter is that if you look at any scientirfic polling on the matter, most women do not take the radical libertarian position on abortion. And the younger the woman is, the less likely she is to take that position.
If you had a national referendum and only allowed women to decide what the laws should be on abortion, damn few of them would take the radical position taken by the Roe v. Wade decision. Most women support limitations past the first trimester, favor allowing doctors and hospitals to decide whether or not to offer abortion services, want limits on government funding for abortion, and support tough parental notification laws for minors.
So can we, as sane, civilized people, just acknowledge that abortion is a complicated subject? Can we stop slandering pro-lifers with dark insinuations about their "desire to oppress women," and simply admit that some very thoughtful, reasonable, liberty-loving people might just think there are two people (or even three) involved in the abortion decision? And that for them it is therefore not a simple question of "choice vs. force?"
Most people want some limitations on abortion. Including most young people. Indeed, the Gen-X and Gen-Y women Michael talks about are far more likely to be pro-lifers than Boomer women--probably stemming from the fact that they've grown up in an era where it's increasingly common to see photographic evidence of what a child looks like in utero. Damn few of us who've heard our child's heartbeat in the womb and seen him moving around--have you had that experience, Michael?--are so easily moved by shibboleths about "a woman's right to choose." It's damn well more complicated than that--even for a fundamentally pro-choice man like myself, and as any sane libertarian should acknowledge.
Indeed, I've gotta wonder how a guy who can be so clear-minded and non-bigoted about the 10 commandments can talk about the abortion issue as if it's a simple matter of control freaks wanting to run our lives. Even atheists often have problems with abortion, and it's got nothing to do with a dark, sinister need to step on women's faces.
As for Bush wanting to extend world domination by military force: well, perhaps that should be an argument for another day. But let's just say this much:
As a citizen of the World Hegemon, I sure wish we'd start collecting more taxes from the provinces.
OK, here's what we do. Let's start a betting pool.
How high will the thread count go on this article?
30?
40?
50?
60?
I'm betting 74. That's a big number (breaks another record in another sport).
Anyone?
Hoo boy. This'll be hot.
I must have failed to communicate properly. I decry the coming of the social conservative groundswell. Personally I can think of nothing better than a return to states rights, so I can find a state to live in. That's why I moved to the Pacific Northwest in the first place. My own children go to religious school. That is my choice. I support Bush to keep my country and my people free.
I believe that Roe v. Wade was a mistake, and the federal government has no business meddling in the abortion debate. States should be free to pass laws that range fron allowing infanticide to a total abortion ban. I wouldn't want to live in either place, but you should be allowed to if you want.
But anyone who believes that those who espouse social or Christian conservativism will not be pushing their agenda hard as a result of the recent election missed something crucial that happened during the Reagan years. When the Sharks thrive, the Remora also grow strong. Reagan's popularity was reflected in boldness of action by those who would bring back the 1950s.
Don't get me wrong. I am a reactionary conservative, but I want to bring back the 1850s, with its more constitutional rendering of freedom and states rights, not the 1950s, with Eisenhower, HUAC, and the government testing people with nuclear fallout and LSD without consent.
But Dean, I never said, as you put it, "Bush is evil, Republicans hate liberty," because I believe that Democrats are even more evil, and truly hate liberty. What I do believe is that Bush is a politician, and a fundamentalist Christian one at that. We must expect him to use his power, and attempt to amass more of it, as well as to appease his base. Lovers of liberty face a Hobson's choice: vote for Republicans, or vote for losers. Either way, freedom loses. But the Democrats are no choice at all. Just imagine where we would be if Gore, Clinton, Mondale, Dukakis, Gephardt, or Daschle had been in charge on 9-11-2001. We would still be studying the "root causes of terrorism" and asking the Taliban for permission to investigate the "cowardly criminals" who had attacked us. And attacked us. And attacked us again.
I've long felt that the right's cause would be better served by forgetting about private prayer in public schools and concentrating on public prayer for private schools.
Ara,
I think it's going to be hard to get the thread count cranked up in this one.
Michael,
Let's go back to having the state legislatures appoint Senators, while we're at it.
Gary: Damn straight.
There is no doubt in my mind that we must keep organized religion out of the public schools and end this farce of our nation being founded on "Christian Principles"...how's manifest destiny sound to the native americans?
The church yesterday or today hardly adheres to the teachings of Christ and are just a gaggle of modern pharisees. There are actually religious groups that believe the earth is only 12,000 years old!! Give me a break!!
We've got to evolve past this infantial belief that there is a God who created the universe and is involved in our silly little lives.
I once believed that God existed, but deep inside there existed this utter gut-wrenching fear that there is nothing after this short life of ours. "Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die." Why? Because that's it...we will cease to exist....this drama that we play out each day, deluding ourselves to God's existence only hinders real human evolution and progress.
And please don't use the Bible as an argument to God's existence. That is old and weak.
I love life, my family, my nation, and my fellow man (and woman)....live to improve our lives on this planet and if there is a God, let him grab a shovel and get to work.
Tim....crank it up
Ara: The traffic on weekends is usually low, and holiday weekends are lower still.
Tim: Anti-religioius bigotry is just as ugly as any other form of bigotry.
Gary: Ya know, when the state legislatures picked the Senators, friction was hot and heavy and states sometimes went without Senators because the legislatures were hung.
Direct-election of Senators has its problems, I'll admit, but I'm not sure the old system was really better.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the state's governor always nominated a candidate, and the legislatures just had to confirm him? :-)
Michael: If the only evidence of a social conservative groundswell you can come up with are forwarding the notion of voluntary school prayer and moderate restrictions on abortion that most women support, I dunno where the concern is.
Will there be attempts to make homosexuality illegal? I doubt it. Premarital sex? Ditto. Attempts to ban porn? Unlikely in the extreme.
Maybe a few more programs on abstinence in the public schools? Goodness me, I'm so frightened. %-)
Tim,
What do you care if someone else beleives in God? It doesn't hurt YOU.
And you should consider that atheism is a religion in itself. There is no proof that God does not exist. If you beleive this, you must believe it as a matter of faith, which, of course, is what the relgious are doing.
You're a bad man, Tim, trying to impose your religious beliefs on others.
Dean, you've touched on something I've been thinking about for a while, and expressed it the same way I have: "small 'l' libertarian".
I have realized for a while that I don't agree with many of the (official, anyway) positions of the Libertarian party. But I do agree with many of the positions published by sources such as Reason Magazine and Jerry Pournelle that are based upon individual liberty.
Then it hit me: I'm a Federalist! That is, the Federal Government is, and should be, supreme within its sphere, but that sphere is and should be severely limited...
And, that outside of that sphere the individual States are sovereign.
Which, I think, is what Dean is saying above. True, Dean?
Michael, did you mean to say "Now, I'm not a conservative reactionary"?
Also, do you really want the 1850's back? Black people are property, and women are second-class citizens? I'm not talking about social standards, else I'd bring up the treatment of Irish and Chinese immigrants, organized labor, and other goodies. I'm talking about the political enviornment. Don't you want to fast-forward at least to 1865? And maybe up to (say) 1920 or so when women got the vote?
Definitely stop before Prohibition. [grin]
One way I in (reluctant) disagreement with Libertarians is on the Income Tax: sorry, guys, we need it. This isn't 1850 anymore! (thanks, Michael!) The oceans don't protect us anymore, there's newfangled things called aeroplanes, satellites, and the World Wide Web. The secret's out: the rest of the world wants to emigrate or emulate, except for that tiny minority that wants to eliminate.
And those are the ones we have to worry about. And we can't deal with them without armed forces. And we can't get those without a Federal Income Tax. Not enough revenue otherwise. For those who advocate a national income tax or some such silliness: look at Britain and Europe to see what happens when you start using VAT's, which is what a national income tax would become in about, oh, two seconds...
Even now, I see hope: before 9/11 Bush was pushing through the biggest income tax cut in decades (against the opposition of the Democrats), the armed forces were shrinking, and people were beginning to ask: "Just why do we have all those troops in Korea, Germany, and the Balkans, anyway?" Even afterwards, if you follow many of the key decisions handed down, many of the major courts are rediscovering States Rights.
Oh, and if you want to see what the US would be like without Marines, Special Forces, etc, hark back to the last time we had trouble with Arabs about 200 years ago. We couldn't even rescue our own citizens from slavery (shades of "Desert One") under some two-bit hustler on the North African coast. I'm with Decatur & Jefferson on this:"millions for defense, not one cent for tribute!"
>>"Also, do you really want the 1850's back? Black people are property, and women are second-class citizens?"
This is just annoying. I hear it more often about the 1950s than the 1850s, but it's annoying either way.
We can favor the political values of a decade wihtout wanting to reimpose the laws of the decade.
Those values do not REQUIRE slavery, or even Jim Crow. They do not REQUIRE that women be unable to vote, or own property, or what have you.
The suggestion that the bad is inextricable from the good is sophomoric.
I suppose then that the fact that the Supreme Court of the time (Dredd Scott) ruled that blacks had no rights as citizens, and that Congress felt compelled to add an amendment to the Constitution specifically prohibiting slavery were, what, fashion statements?
No, I must disagree with you: the political values (your term) of the decade do include slavery and male-only sufferage. They are as much part of the climate of that decade as anti-facism was in the 1940's and anti-communism was in the following decade.
I'm not going to call your approach sophomoric, but I will say that it is nearly impossible to separate political values from the society that endgered them. Abstract political concepts have little value when separated from the underlying social structure.
Casey, beyond what Gary has posted above (go Gary!), reread the bit in my post about states rights. Part of freedom is allowing others to have private practices that we might find abhorrent. There might well be states where women don't have the vote, alcohol is banned, polygamy is allowed, and, yes, slavery is extant. I don't know if anybody would live there, and the rights of slaves would have to be respected, but who are you to tell someone how to live their life. (There is evidence that convicts being released from decades of incarceration, of whom we are expecting a bumper crop in the future, would willingly accept such a living arrangement.) If I wanted to get a job from which I could not be fired, where my master pays all of the bills, in an ideal society, I should be allowed to do so. This may be far fetched, but as a matter of philosophy, I support the right of humans to pursue their own happiness in ways I may not agree with. You think I should be grateful that you will allow us to keep alcohol. I believe that citizens should have the right to their own life; to live it as they choose, including the right to end it when, where, and how they choose, given that they don't interfere with someone else's right to do the same.
What I admire about 1850s America is that the government left the people pretty much to themselves. You could build a house according to your own standards of construction. Grow whatever crops you wished. Buy whatever you wanted. Hire whomever you felt was qualified. Fire whomever you felt like firing. Rent your house to whomever you liked. Tell your secretary that she looks pretty today without giving her ammunition for blackmail against you.
The truth is that the world I want to live in is not the 1850s or the 1950s, but the very best 2050s that we can fashion for my children and grandchildren to live in. I am a reactionary, not a time traveller. I want to bring back the good old days in the context of tomorrow.
Now, why can't we all just get along?
Dean, "Burnt Tongue, Idaho"? LOL!
Local option on prayer in the public schools? Leave the decision up to the local school board? That'll never work, it makes too much sense.
Over here in rural Iowa, where I live and serve as an oldline Protestant pastor, I can't imagine there'd be any stampede to reinstitute prayer in the public schools, even if it were left up to local choice. But if it were left up to us, and if it did come to putting a brief daily prayer into the public schools, I can't imagine that anyone around here would feel too bent out of shape over it.
There are various churches around here, and most of them get along pretty well with one another, and if there's a religious minority in this neck of the woods, it probably consists of those who prefer to sleep late on Sunday morning.
A few months ago I was invited to co-officiate at a wedding in a nearby Catholic church. Everything went just fine until the priest was interrupted in mid-prayer by the sudden blaring of the fire alarm. (A little girl had gone wandering out into the narthex and saw this bright red handle. Which she then pulled.) The priest turned to me and said, "I've got to go turn this fire alarm off quick. You finish up the service!"
Such is the state of ecumenical cooperation in my corner of the world.
Of course, I freely recognize that the situation may vary widely in other locales. That's why I would have no interest whatsoever in imposing our local solution on them. Prayer in the public schools? Let them decide for themselves, in New York City, or in Detroit, or in Chattanooga, or in Lodge Pole, Montana. I assume your local school board knows more about conditions in your neighborhood than I do, anyhow.
Note, oh Tim, what a fire-breathing threat to civil liberties I am! I would let people freely decide for themselves. Oh, and the age of the earth? Speaking as a mainline Protestant cleric, I'd say about 4.5 billion years. Deal with it.
Paul Burgess, I have a question, and I ask it out of genuine respect for, and some ignorance of, the issues here.
Better minds than mine have thought about this and many of them are readers of this blog.
That said, my question is this:
If we let people freely decide for themselves, for example, whether or not to allow public prayer, or a moment of silence or whatever we call it...
...if we let people decide that for themselves, how do we operationalize that?
I understood your comment ("decide for themselves") to imply that the decision would be kept "local" and not be "federalized". Is that correct?
If so, to how high a court might the local decision be appealed? In Michigan, for example, there are a number of courts that might hear a case like this:
Municipal Court
Circuit Court
District Court
Court of Appeals
State Supreme Court
etc.
Where do we draw the line?
Ara Rubyan, you read me correctly. By letting the people "decide for themselves" about a moment of silence or prayer in the public schools, I mean let it be decided "locally" on a community by community or school district by school district basis. In the United States today, communities can vary so widely one from another, that I honestly can't envision a satisfactory one-size-fits-all solution to this issue. Which is what we have now, by judicial fiat.
So why not let a thousand flowers bloom, and let it be decided locally?
Of course you're right, the difficulty arises when someone decides to take it to court. And the case gets appealed, and sooner or later some such case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, and it breaks 5 to 4 or whatever, and voila! We're right back to a one-size-fits-all nationwide ruling by judicial fiat. Which may or may not be better than the one-size-fits-all ruling we had before.
Of course, time was when the church-and-state aspect of the First Amendment would not have been taken to apply to decisions made on a state or local level. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...") I believe at least one state in New England had an established state church until something like 1840?
Perhaps the key question is, how can one foster or protect the principle of subsidiarity? There has been an erosion. How might it be arrested or reversed?
I'm in a radical mood at the moment, so here's my legislative proposal for the new Republican Congress: "Local decisions regarding a moment of silence or prayer in a public school are hereby excepted from the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court, under Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution."
I'm no lawyer, but something along those lines might be a good (albeit radical) start.
To be truthful, Michael, I think we are about 90% in agreement, but it's the other 10% we are fussing about here ("the Devil is in the details").
I think a couple of your examples are a tad far-fetched, especially slavery. The country as a whole needs to hold a concensus on certain topics and slavery is one of them. But to an extent, I can see your point. Even Lincoln felt that the Federal Government could not legally interfere with slavery within state boundaries. This is why an Amendment was finally passed after the war.
I do fully agree (please go back and read my first post on this) that the States should be sovereign within their sphere. This way we would have 50 different approaches, with each State watched by the other 49 for an advantage.
Of course, there may be states that (to use one of your examples) that makes assisted suicide illegal. Do you feel that this would invade someone's personal rights?
I'm not trying to push a point on this one, I'm just curious. You (generally) sound like a "States-rights" type, but you then seem to interleave an anarcho-radical libertarian twist:
"I believe that citizens should have the right to their own life; to live it as they choose, including the right to end it when, where, and how they choose".
Do you believe that they should do as they please, without regard to standards of society? Please don't think I'm criticizing, nor that I'm pushing a particular POV here; I'm just trying to get a better grasp of where you are coming from. Surely an individual State is sovereign within it's own territory, yes?
I think part of my confusion was your phrasing:
"I want to bring back the 1850s".
Now, to me the minimalist interpretation of that is literally bringing back the 1850's, with all of the politcal and societal baggage involved. I've already brought up some of the major defects of the 1850's, so I won't go over that again.
Now, if you want to (say) "bring back (or return to) the local level of sovereignty of the 1850's", that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. One that I am much more comfortable with.
"And you should consider that atheism is a religion in itself. There is no proof that God does not exist. If you beleive this, you must believe it as a matter of faith, which, of course, is what the relgious are doing.
You're a bad man, Tim, trying to impose your religious beliefs on others."
Gary,
Although many theists consider atheism to be a religion, that simply is not true. And, yes my post did seem to have a railing tone, it is not my sentiment. I think many people need a belief system to get through life without losing their sanity. People need hope. However, there is not a single day that goes by when some religious group or person doesn't try to impose their beliefs on me. So, by your own argument, the disciples were bad men....going around imposing their views on others...I don't wish for organized religion to suffer censorship in the private sector or lose its tax exempt status because they usually do good things in the community. (I hear the alter-boy program is working out just fine nowadays.) OK church, say you're sorry and all will be forgiven.
My frustration is that so many believers don't actually follow their own supposed beliefs.
How many people have been slaughtered in the name of God? Can't count that high, huh?
Tim
Um, Timmy, just cuz you say "it simply isn't true", that don't make it so. :)
I would suggest something radical like, say, proof, or at least a convincing line of reasoning.
What Gary said makes excellent sense and is perfectly good logic. You didn't do anything to refute that. To reiterate: to commit to the atheist claim that there is no God is itself an expression of faith, since the claim is not subject to proof. This is by definition a question then of religion, not reason.
Paul Burgess,
If we followed your proposal (not likely) would that not mean that the cases would go the State Supreme Court for a final say?
That's not local either, is it?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, I'd like to know how we work this out.
[Shameless plug for blog]
My blog is called E Pluribus Unum because I think that is perhaps the most inspiring thing about America -- we're one people even though we come from many different places, traditions, etc.
How do we continue to implement that? We're getting more minority-ized over time.
Do we just say majority rules at the local level and leave it at that?
I look forward to your answer.
I think to make it local all these decisions should be put to ballot and voted on. Once something has been voted on and approved its law.
Keep the courts out of it - courts and the appeals process by their design take power from the people. Someone doesn't like that it passed can petition that its reversal be put on the ballot.
Keeps all decisions for the people - done by the people.
So, by your own argument, the disciples were bad men....going around imposing their views on others
No, not true. The disciples didn't force people to listen or force them not to listen.
You are suggesting use of force to make your will imposed on others. You said, "There is no doubt in my mind that we must keep organized religion out of the public schools and end this farce of our nation being founded on 'Christian Principles'"
Nobody here is suggesting that we must allow religion in schools or even prayer. What we are saying here is that it should be our decision not yours. If you don't want it where you live fine. Why should I have to put up with your will in my community without any say or vice versa?
Now regarding this farce of Christian Principles, have you ever actually read the Constitution or Declaration of Independence (just the Preamble would suffice)?
Rose:
If a majority of the people decide to outlaw Bhuddism, by referendum, would that be OK?
What if the vote were unanimous? Would that be more OK?
> Paul Burgess,
>
> If we followed your proposal (not likely)
> would that not mean that the cases would
> go the State Supreme Court for a
> final say?
>
> That's not local either, is it?
Ara Rubyan, no, that's not local. But it would be a step in the right direction, and it would be about 50 times better than the situation we've got right now.
I agree with Rosemary that when the courts get involved, the result tends to be power taken out of the hands of the people. Without some effective check on the power of the courts, our judicial system works strongly against the principle of subsidiarity-- the notion that decisions should be made as close to the local level as is practicable.
And as I said before, perhaps the real key question here is, How can we foster and protect the principle of subsidiarity?
My modest proposal, of course, won't actually fly. The clause in the Constitution which grants Congress authority to limit and tweak the domain of the Supreme Court is probably a dead letter, due to long disuse. And other formal and informal checks on the power of the U.S. Supreme Court have long been eroding away, dating back at least to the 1930's.
> perhaps the most inspiring thing about America
> -- we're one people even though we come from
> many different places, traditions, etc.
>
> How do we continue to implement that? We're
> getting more minority-ized over time.
The balkanization and ideological polarization in this country over the past generation or two are a real tragedy. It seems to me that our society has been growing more and more dysfunctional-- not unlike a dysfunctional family. A community or a society, like a family, can be more or less functional or dysfunctional. I know these are slippery terms, and can be easily abused, but I think there's something to them. I've lived before in a dysfunctional community. I have the good fortune to be living now in a community which is healthy and functional. It's like the difference between night and day.
In a functional society (or community, or family) there is a measure of flexibility, of give and take, of the ability to deal with conflict constructively. Members are able to choose their fights. Sometimes they stand firm, sometimes they can negotiate a trade-off, sometimes they can decide to live and let live, or even to agree to disagree.
In a dysfunctional society (or community, or family) relations among people are hamstrung by an endless cycle of rigidity, oneupmanship, scapegoating, demonization, captious hairsplitting, rigid angry "objective" logic, willful misunderstanding of the other person's point of view, and the perpetual need to have the last word on everything. It's all or nothing, everyone or no one, win/lose, us/them. In such a society, as Lenin put it, the only two real questions are "Kto?" ("Who?") and "Kovo?" ("Whom?")
It seems to me that several factors conduce to the fostering and maintenance of a healthy, functional community (or society, or family):
Culture All the practices and beliefs and traditions that contribute to our sense of identity-- "This is who we are." Though culture also runs far deeper than this, and it is from those deep wells of the soul that our society has forgotten how to draw water. Those deep wells of the soul are nothing to trifle with-- it is one of our astonishing accomplishments that we managed in America to build a solid, flesh-and-blood culture rooted in ideals, rather than in blood, folk, and soil. And concrete, relatively functional ideals, rather than the abstract, thoroughly dysfunctional ideals which drove Marxism to cut a bloody swath through the twentieth century.
Political culture Laws won't work without the backdrop of a tacit, informal, more or less flexible sense of how they are to be interpreted and implemented. There needs to be a sense of proportion. There also needs to be a sense of limits. Thus far and no farther: "Yes, we could do that to gain momentary partisan advantage, but it would be against our constitution and/or our political traditions."
Intermediate institutions Community service organizations: Lions, Kiwanis, Rotary. Churches, synagogues, temples. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Local schools, with all their activities and events. For that matter, bowling leagues, food pantries, and ham radio clubs. I've lived in a number of small-town and rural settings, and in my experience there's been a strong correlation between whether a community is healthy and functional, and whether that community has a Community Center. Note, I'm not claiming cause-and-effect, only a strong correlation.
A strong and compassionate shared sense of right and wrong I'm sorry I have to use this roundabout paraphrase, instead of simply saying "morality," because many people (especially on the Left), when they hear the word "morality," think of anything but "compassionate"; and when they hear "compassionate," they think of anything but a "strong sense of right and wrong." (Unless it's their own strong sense of right and wrong.) It is a sign of our culture's polarization (and dysfunction) that these terms taken together sound to many like an oxymoron. People don't have to agree on every point of morality; indeed in a healthy, functional community, they can agree to live and let live on many questions of right and wrong. But if people are going to live side by side, they do need some measure of common moral ground. Plus, some things are just plain wrong!
Building up these factors and keeping them healthy is far easier said than done. I have some hands-on idea of how it is done at the local level. I have only cloud-castle ideas of how it is done on a wider scale. And you can easily tell that I am not a political scientist, only a country parson who has read a little political science (along with a good deal else) in his spare time.
If a majority of the people decide to outlaw Bhuddism, by referendum, would that be OK?
What if the vote were unanimous? Would that be more OK?
Yeah it would. If the Buddists didn't like it they would be free to move to an area that hasn't outlawed it.
Actually, the Bhuddists probably would do exactly that.
Now the Zoroastrians, that's a horse of a different color.
:-)
Don't know much more about Zoroastrians than the name, eh? :)
I know everything!
The Zoroastrians of Iran (pre-Islamic) were members of the Indo-European family known as the Aryans. They called themselves Zoroastrians because they believed in the teachings of the first Aryan prophet, Zarathushtra.