"
The controversy around the concept of religious liberty — whether in the form of birth control mandates resulting from the Affordable Care Act, or nondiscrimination lawsuits related to same-sex marriage — can seem like a straightforward conflict between retrograde religion and the progressive state."
But in truth the battle over religious liberty is a conflict within liberalism itself. In one corner are the liberal values of pluralism and tolerance. In the other are the liberal projects of egalitarianism and administrative efficiency. The quick and decisive defeat of Arizona's attempt to clarify its state version of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is evidence that our increasingly monocultural elite class is inclined to resolve these conflicts in favor of its egalitarian goals. But, it should tread carefully. Read more
Skipping down to the last three paragraphs.
There may yet be legislative compromises that satisfy the demands of both sets of values. Perhaps RFRA-style laws can be worded to assure egalitarians that religious objections are limited to certain events and actions, and not directed at entire classes of fellow citizens. And health-care mandates can be recrafted to use public institutions, rather than religious ones, as the guarantor of egalitarian goals.
But let me enter a suggestion as a conclusion. Liberalism should have the confidence to tolerate institutions, even large ones, that have competing and contrary missions to those of the state. The very liberality of the managerial state is guaranteed by real diversity, not just of skin color and sexual preference, but of religion and values, too.
Real pluralism preserves the possibility of critique emerging within a liberal state. The interplay of individuals and diverse institutions encourages liberality and understanding at the ground level of citizenship — the gratitude for people very different from you who are still very solicitous of your needs. Whereas the strict ideological hen-pecking of the state creates a kind of existential dread, and intensifies the panic of the culture war — the fear that a loss on principle in one case is the loss of all power and recourse in the future. Legislators and jurists would do best to retain these two essential liberal values, by finding solutions that deftly avoid setting them against each other.
The Week via Hot Air
45 comments:
Religious liberty should be a liberal value, too.
Maybe so, but it isn't.
The answer to the attempts by government to suppress freedom of association will be black markets.
It's a war by the government on its own citizens. The only answer to that is secrecy and attempting to find a way to withhold your money from your enemy.
If you want to understand what's happening here on a deep unconscious level read The Gentleman from Cracow by Isaac Bashevis Singer.
Militant hedonists are not satisfied until everybody is disgraced and reduced to wallowing in the shit and mud with them.
Evil does exist. Religion holds that as a central principle. This makes it an enemy of the left, which has embraced government sponsored hedonism.
Note, I said "government sponsored."
@Ritmo
Watch in amazement as "thinking people" take their biz to the black market.
I think the Charles Manson thing deserves a Godwin's Law award.
Let's set up a few rules before you blabber again, Ritmo:
1. Claiming that you alone read books is stupid.
2. Claiming that you represent the future is just vanity. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Only the future will tell.
3. Paraphrasing another person's thinking and putting words in their mouths is foolish and dishonest.
I await your response.
If someone can't translate his beliefs into a secular moral language that the voters would agree with then he's free to apply them to himself.
Societies that don't have a religious moral language to buttress their existence are ultimately destroyed by external societies that have such a language.
I think if someone can't translate his beliefs into a secular moral language that voters agree with then he's free to apply them to himself.
It's possible to use a belief to claim an exemption to anything, as many cult leaders do.
This puts the government in the absurd position of deciding what is and is not a proper religion, which it shouldn't have any business doing.
The appropriate response is to just say that a belief is a belief, regardless of who endorses it, and that if you want it to be politically subsidized then you have to have a non-religious reason for asking for that on behalf of all the other, supposedly heretical voters.
After all, not believing something is also a belief.
Your 11:54 contains all the predictable ad hominems, Sir Thomas, so they need no dignifying by me or anyone else. They're just personally directed anger, so any "truth" to them was never intended anyway. I don't take your anger personally any more -- it just amuses me as occasionally do some of your other expressions.
And the 11:56 is simply an expression of the alleged triumph of irrationality over rationality. Suffice it to say, the U.S. has been going strong and stronger and more influential than ever as time goes on these last 238 years on completely rational and relatively secular values and I don't see "Islamofascists" or whomever overtaking us in that simply because they breed more ignorant bastards more quickly with more emotional and linguistic tripe to feed to their minds than we do. What a ridiculous way to choose to model our society and compete with others - in a race to the bottom to see how powerfully we can put irrationality to use! Lol.
In shorter terms, what's the endgame of your 11:56, Thomas? A proclamation to the world of "Our irrationality is more powerful than your irrationality!"? Is that how you envision American global power asserting and indefinitely securing itself?
I don't see "American global power asserting and indefinitely securing itself."
I see it failing.
And probably deservedly so.
The future will be increasing conflict and warfare between the traditionally religious societies and government sponsored hedonism.
I don't have a crystal ball as to how this will turn out, but my best guess is that the traditionally religious societies will ultimately prevail.
Affluence leads ultimately to moral decadence and failure.
Why should the U.S. be any different than any other society that went through this transition?
I don't see "American global power asserting and indefinitely securing itself."
I see it failing.
Well, you give no evidence for what you claim to see so again, you're back to arguing a belief. And beliefs can't be argued against each other. One can try, but almost never successfully so.
You would honestly go to Riyadh (or did you have another competitor in mind?) and claim that what you observe there "deserves" to prevail, socially, over America?
That's kind of strange and somewhat lamentable. You should also think of what it says about your own beliefs.
Affluence leads ultimately to moral decadence and failure.
I don't see poverty leading to the opposite. I do, however, see that people who are over-worked enough might not have as much time to "be decadent", but that's not because their needs or shifting priorities made them better people. It did coat over things, though.
I visited London twice in 2013. You should see the Maseratis and Lamborghinis that those sons of sheikhs are revving up on the city streets. I can't imagine it would be much better, morally, in their parents' castles back home. Hence, overthrow.
Moralizing policing doesn't seem to be a growth industry - and the governments authoritarian enough to make them happen are clearly not in an upswing.
I said nothing about "deserving."
Once again, you are employing one of your favorite devices, which is to attribute ideas to your opponent that your opponent never stated.
Nor did I say that Islam will prevail. Expect to see a broad reawakening of Christianity in the West.
The Catholic and Mormon churches are, and will continue to be, the leaders of the opposition to the society of government sponsored hedonism.
My best guess is that those churches will prevail.
That was certainly the case with totalitarian communism and the Catholic Church.
I apologize for allegedly misinterpreting you, Stephen. Please let me know how I should have interpreted the second to last word in this comment of yours:
I don't see "American global power asserting and indefinitely securing itself."
I see it failing.
And probably deservedly so.
You seem to be saying I'm interpreting your use of the word "deservedly" differently than I should have done, so some correction to that effect would be appreciated. Thanks.
By deservedly, I meant surrendering to weakness and decadence.
The machinations of politics and national survival are irrational, not rational.
Bigger, stronger, more pragmatic, more in line with the realities of human nature, and more powerful wins.
Christianity is the bigger, stronger and more powerful moral philosophy. Christianity takes note of the realities of irrational human nature, as well as offering a moral theology.
Christianity is, after all the religion of enlightenment. It is stronger than Islam.
This might be inherent in its beliefs, but "enlightenment" as is commonly understood was not how one referred to Christendom prior to a series of political processes that were actually, generally antagonistic to its leadership structure over several hundreds of years. Watch The Tudors. Great show.
A similar process might occur in Islam. Or not. But what's indisputable is that the Catholic Church controlling Christendom prior to 1500 was not in control of it. It was provoked, insulted and challenged into ultimately, and usually somewhat resistantly "going along with" events that brought about any of the actual political enlightenment that we see now. Back then it could just pit one king against the other, or ally with any number of a series of them, and this was more often used to control the populations than to mount a serious moral or physical challenge to the ruling elite.
Christianity is the bigger, stronger and more powerful moral philosophy. Christianity takes note of the realities of irrational human nature, as well as offering a moral theology.
Even if this were so, or even if acknowledging this were somehow a necessary action for America to take to preserve itself, that's not going to happen outwardly. The Catholic Church is not going to be the political power it was 500 years ago, nor will America emulate Vatican spirituality. So the only option is for non-Christian/anti-Christian challengers to reform. Not to revert to emulating their own, unreformed theocratic establishments.
I know you can't imagine Riyadh looking like D.C., but that's more likely than D.C. looking like Rome -- (which it ironically already does somewhat today, only moreso the pre-Constantine structures). ;-)
Rhythm and Balls said...
Your 11:54 contains all the predictable ad hominems, Sir Thomas, so they need no dignifying by me or anyone else. They're just personally directed anger, so any "truth" to them was never intended anyway. I don't take your anger personally any more -- it just amuses me as occasionally do some of your other expressions.
Unfortunately, you deleted your own comment which prompted ST's and so only you and he really know whether your subsequent response was measured.
It is amusing to see how progressive government apparatchiks demand conformity with the fervor not seen since the days of the Spanish Inquisition.
They demand that nuns offer birth control and abortion services or pay enormous fines. Soon they will demand that churches, temples and mosques perform same sex sacraments in the their places of worship in direct violation of their doctrine. Now the Sandinista Mayor of New York has declared a jihad against Charter Schools which will nominally not religious they are still a slap in the face to the religion of the progressive: government and more government control over every aspect of your life.
People of all faiths must join together to fight these horrible people. Murphy and Rizzo and Bernstein and Goldberg and Aziz and Mohamed have to unite in opposition to the pernicious practices of the Barack Obama and Bill de Blasio and their ilk.
The "anger" argument of leftists is pretty bewildering.
Anger seems to equal persistent disagreement. And, in a white hetero man, it is assumed to be a disqualifier.
Check out leftist websites if you want to see some anger.
Leftist anger is, however, righteous and just. Or, so it seems. Anger from leftist blacks, women and gays is thought to be sacred and unanswerable.
I rephrased it, Chickie before I saw his initial response but did want to go back and save for myself first to re-analyze what I liked and thought worked and what didn't. I think I said the same things, only more stridently, and also included Manson as a cult leader. Thomas, predictably, perhaps even somewhat rightly, took that as inflammatory, but can anyone really disagree that Manson was a cultish figure, no matter how small, strange or distractible the cult?
My only real, morally provocative inclination in this thread is that I think all religions have potentially cult-like qualities, even if some of them may have more developed, practical or successful moral philosophies to which Thomas alludes. And I don't see how it's the government's business to say one religion is legitimate enough to subsidize its discriminations and the other, isn't. I mean, I know we've allowed the government that discretion, but I think we might end up painfully regretting it.
Leftist anger is, however, righteous and just. Or, so it seems. Anger from leftist blacks, women and gays is thought to be sacred and unanswerable.
Lol. To my mind the leftwing angry excesses were the big paper mache heads and screeds of 2003 - 2006 over Bushitler. But I found those displays as ridiculous as I find some of yours amusing. I see the un-hingedness as more humanly humorous than anything else. ;-)
Chickie - I couldn't retrieve the comment I described to you. I thought it was worthy of re-analyzing for myself even if it wasn't as effective, but had moved too quickly and unfortunately lost it first.
But no, I don't think the content was too dissimilar from what I posted. I just sanitized the roughness out of it.
I think charter schools are fine and/or dandy but as long as the government demonstrates that it doesn't discriminate between different charter philosophies or between charters and public per-pupil funds then I have no problem with them.
I think charters are one of the few ideas endorsed by Republican de-regulation zealots that made sense and would hopefully work well.
Even as big a liberal as Randy Andy Cuomo realizes that charter schools are an important part of the effort to educate children in New York State.
De Blasio was recently on a radio show where he noted that the problem with charter schools were that they were often funded by "rich people on Wall Street." You see the idea of rich people giving back and funding education for underprivileged minority children is anathema to him. Why? Because it is not under governmental control and undermines the teachers unions who are show to be the incompetent child abusing pieces of shit that they really are.
Here is a report on this subject from a very unreliable source but I know Ritmo likes them so there.
Republican de-regulation zealots...
Say Ritmo in light of the recent passage of a healthcare law that is over 2000 pages long, which even the authors conceded not reading, and over 10,000 attendant regulations.
You'd have to be a "zealot" to be concerned with that!
Charter schools along with home schooling have something in common with religion. The progressives want to control it. They want to either control it or destroy it. Why? Because it offers a chance for people to live their lives without being under the thumb of government bureaucrats.
I think the NYT's done a pisspoor job (at least so far) at improving their internet site but getting better and their reporting is still provocative enough to be occasionally interesting if even increasingly predictably and unhelpfully so.
But if Blasio has any point at all I do think it's up for debate how much control local parents should have to improve their own charter at the expense of other districts' charters. I'm not in favor of pushing inequality to the point where a fully privatized system returns to becoming the only real game in town. I think the parents/local community should have the discretion to say who sets up, admissions criteria, etc. But if there's going to be unequal funding the extra funds should probably go to extra-curriculars or balance out by geographical availability of donations, donors and enrollment residence. Or something like that. Or so I'd guess. (Again, don't know or have too much invested in it yet).
If Manhattan or each borough wanted to have "at-large" charter districts that would have equally applied admissions standards regardless of where the kids live and no need for extra tuition funding by the parents, I think that's fine if certain charters end up getting extra donations, etc., than do others.
Mayor de Blasi perfectly illustrates why progressives should never be trusted with the reigns of government.
He campaigned on a promise to tax the "rich" New Yorkers to provide pre-K to every child in New York. Now we don't have to argue about why children need to go to pre-k. We don't even have to argue about why only the richest 5% have to pay for it. The state government stepped in and said they would pay for it and NYC didn't have to raise taxes. De Blasio refused to accept this. He just wants to raise taxes to "punish" rich people for being rich. He is getting what he wants without taxes but he demands that they be raised anyway. You see he doesn't see the money as belonging to the people who earned it. He sees it as belonging to the government and he has to have it to spend. Now he argues that he has to be in control because the state can always withdraw the funding. Well he could raise the taxes then if that comes to pass. There is no reason that he has to do it now except to confiscate the wealth of his class enemies.
@Trooper
A very smart lawyer explained once to me what is behind this process.
Regulation of everything is very good for the super rich and for big corporations. They can afford to absorb the cost.
New and small businesses cannot afford to absorb the costs.
Regulation of everything is good for business within the confines of crony capitalism because it drives out potential competitors.
Charter schools are the same deal. Currently certain charter schools share space with public schools in unused space. They pay rent to the City. So the City is making money on the deal. The problem is that Charter schools so out perform the Teacher Union Mismanaged schools that it is a bad joke. Parents that see how the Charters are so much better and are justifiably outraged. The difference? Non-union teachers and rules of discipline for the students that eliminate the nonsense that stops the children who want to learn from learning. When a teacher is incompetent or a molester they get fired instead of going to the "rubber room" at the Board of Ed to get full pay and a pension. When a kid acts out he gets suspended or expelled.
Now you may say what happens to kids who act that way and who are not able to conform to the rules of decorum that allow children to learn? What happens to the disruptive violent abusive types who are a nightmare to try to teach? There is of course a place for them.
Jail.
I was in a coffee shop owned by a gentleman who immigrated from Iran. We commiserated over what the various businesses have to endure from the city. His business much, much more than mine in that the board of health is so intrusive and ridiculous. He told me that it is much better to do business in Iran than Brooklyn.
Except for the fact that they would cut off his wife's head for not wearing a burka. There is that.
The Teacher's Union is a corrupt political body. Their first priority is NOT the children, it's the feeding the beast. Themselves.
Abolish the Teacher's Union and watch as our children finally receive a chance. Change you can believe in.
I agree but what we need to do is abolish public education altogether. Give parents vouchers to go to the schools of their choice. If it is a religious school that is fine. Even a madrassa if that is their choice. The role of public schools in assimilating immigrants into the American way is over. Now it is only indoctrinating them into the rigid beliefs of the ultra-liberal progressive agenda. Let parents decide what their children should learn and who they should learn it from. It could be Father Flanagan or AL Sharpton. Either one is a valid choice because it is the parents choice not the governments.
Choice should not just be for killing babies.
Religious liberty should be a liberal value, too.
*Liberty* should be a liberal value.
There should be no special carve-outs based on one's belief system.
Post a Comment