13 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerLH: where I feel religious freedoms are not being respected.
[b]Your question is logically equivalent to asking “But if you free the slaves, and pass a law against slavery, does this not limit the freedom of people who want to own slaves?”
No, it isn't. But it is equivalent to asking "But if you free the slaves, and pass a law against slavery, does this not limit the freedom of people who want to [i/]be[ but then secularist/'Secularist' democracy's only been around a few centuries.[/b]
How are "religious freedoms" not being "respected" in the US?
13 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWell actually at that time, if you were english you could shot dead an indian but were in trouble if you killed a dog. Pretty sure he would have done the same.
Oh, Gandhi. I wonder how he would have fared in Nazi Germany?
And Mandela did a conference where the torturer were sitting beside the tortured one for mutual forgiveness.
Can't get more extrem than those. And you know what? The english left India.
13 Sep 06
Originally posted by JeeIt's somewhat off-topic; but the mutiny of large parts of the Indian armed forces in 1946-47 and the threat of open armed rebellion probably had a lot more to do with the English leaving India than Gandhi's actions.
Well actually at that time, if you were english you could shot dead an indian but were in trouble if you killed a dog. Pretty sure he would have done the same.
And Mandela did a conference where the torturer were sitting beside the tortured one for mutual forgiveness.
Can't get more extrem than those. And you know what? The english left India.
13 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNot necessarily. There was a growing faction of soldiers who feared that--- if he got hungry enough--- Ghandi may start eating them.
It's somewhat off-topic; but the mutiny of large parts of the Indian armed forces in 1946-47 and the threat of open armed rebellion probably had a lot more to do with the English leaving India than Gandhi's actions.
13 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI guess thats the point where spirituality separate itself from History.
It's somewhat off-topic; but the mutiny of large parts of the Indian armed forces in 1946-47 and the threat of open armed rebellion probably had a lot more to do with the English leaving India than Gandhi's actions.
What the historian will write and what the people will believe...
13 Sep 06
I don't mean to denigrate Gandhi or the idea of nonviolent resistance to oppression; I've had dealing with Quakers who are utterly devoted to such ideals. I do not think, however, that these ideas are efficient when facing a certain level of oppression or a certain level of ruthlessness to maintain the status quo.
13 Sep 06
Originally posted by JeeMost people will believe the best story. It's a better story to say the British left India because of Gandhi's non-violent movement. It's also a story that the elites in power throughout the world are more comfortable with
I guess thats the point where spirituality separate itself from History.
What the historian will write and what the people will believe...
i.e. the British choose to leave because of the moral force of a nonviolent resistance rather than that they were forced to leave by threat of widespread armed resistance.
13 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWell all the others have failed and lead to more violence that will lead to more violence.
I do not think, however, that these ideas are efficient when facing a certain level of oppression or a certain level of ruthlessness to maintain the status quo.
It's not about winning it's about living together. Dont really see a way out through violence.
14 Sep 06
4 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammer[/i]Why single me out in this discussion?
[b]Your question is logically equivalent to asking “But if you free the slaves, and pass a law against slavery, does this not limit the freedom of people who want to own slaves?”
No, it isn't. But it is equivalent to asking "But if you free the slaves, and pass a law against slavery, does this not limit the freedom of people who want to [i]be[ but then secularist/'Secularist' democracy's only been around a few centuries.[/b]
Okay, at one level, I plead guilty as charged. At another level, my examples were aimed at particular possibilites (and, in some cases historical actualities) that represent religious “persecution” (please note the scare quotes there), rather than broad querstions like murder.
You have spoken about withdrawing protection for ideologies that advocate violence. What about those that are neutral to violence (i.e. explicitly neither support nor condemn it)?
I would not preclude them fromparticipation in the democratic proceess. (Note No.1’s point in his post on this.)
Now, in a State that advocates separation of church and state, what replaces the "church" ideology?
The ideology of protection of religious diversity, without one religious group imposing their beliefs—qua beliefs— on another (i.e., the First Amendment). I have never argued for a state based on a srictly atheist ideology either.
How is religious freedom maintained in an atmosphere where a pharmacist or an adoption agency can be forced to act against his/her/their religious beliefs and consciences?
Depends here whether you’re talking about public sector or private sector. I’d have to know what specifically you’re talking about.
Do you think such a party should be prevented from contesting elections?
No, assuming they’re doing so within the democratic/constitutional process. I would oppose their trying to limit that process so that only members of their group could participate in the process.
No, it isn't. But it is equivalent to asking "But if you free the slaves, and pass a law against slavery, does this not limit the freedom of people who want to be slaves?"
Yep. And it could also be said: “But if you pass a law against rape, does this not limit the freedom of people who want to be raped?” The point is that, if you allow slavery, people could be (legally) coereced into selling themselves into slavery because of, say, adverse financial burdens, and then woulkd have a difficult time getting out of it. Under what conditions do you think allowing slavery would lead to a freer society generally?
But, even then, one cannot argue that something that "crosses more lines" is better than something else that doesn't. Presumably, at some point in the past, denying women the vote "crossed more lines", for instance.
If you’re simply saying that, for some time the majority of those who were already franchised opposed franchising women, then you are correct. But it makes my point. That was only the case because women were disenfranchised from the process, simply because they were women. Giving them the vote “opened” up the lines, so to speak.
It depends on what the group's principles are. A multi-religious group that is simply pressing for the inclusion of "God" (but without reference to a particular religion) would still continue to be pluralistic, I believe.
But, in this case, it might only be “religously” pluralistic. I have not excluded the nonreligious from any of my arguments. Their rights are to be protected as well.
In the end, this is never going to be a question of “either-or,” but of effecting the most just possible balanmce, which, in a democracy, is likely to be dynamic.
Nevertheless, I can think of a few major democracies (the US, India, France) where I feel religious freedoms are not being respected.
To echo No.1, could you give an example of this in the US? Do you think that the original pledge, without the words “under God,” would somehow disrespect your religious freedoms?
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaWell said. rec'd.
A theocracy wouldn't work in exactly the same way that a secular state wouldn't. It would privilige one religion (atheism for a secular state) in favour of the others.
I'd argue that, in terms of governance, there is no perfectly 'laicist' state in the world and as you've been arguing morality in a democracy is also determined by religious beliefs (or ...[text shortened]... only that sometimes it is inevitable and therefore it should be decided democratically.[/b]
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree with you. It's nice that you can state your position so succinctly.
A theocracy wouldn't work in exactly the same way that a secular state wouldn't. It would privilige one religion (atheism for a secular state) in favour of the others.
I'd argue that, in terms of governance, there is no perfectly 'laicist' state in the world and as you've been arguing morality in a democracy is also determined by religious beliefs (or ...[text shortened]... only that sometimes it is inevitable and therefore it should be decided democratically.[/b]
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderOn the same level, you could say that it's pretty much the non-violent protest in the US that ends the Vietnam war. And I know there were fight and strategical positions, army forces balance, but still...
I don't mean to denigrate Gandhi or the idea of nonviolent resistance to oppression; I've had dealing with Quakers who are utterly devoted to such ideals. I do not think, however, that these ideas are efficient when facing a certain level of oppression or a certain level of ruthlessness to maintain the status quo.