We keep getting the same conversations about various specific issues in civics. You know the ones: homosexuality, marriage for homosexuals, poor beleaguered Christian bakeries, how rotten the 'left' is, how the world is going to hell in a handbasket because Obama, legalisation of pot, why it's the fault of women, why it's the fault of black people ... and on and on.
I'd like to try something a bit different, and have a conversation about the principles that sub-groups in a pluralistic democracy might use to interact with the larger society. I would politely ask that you keep debate about particular issues out of this thread and instead focus on the overarching principles.
I think I can see a few different principles in action:
1. The 'pork' principle. Jews and Muslims do not eat pork. As far as I am aware, they abstain from eating pork, but do not advocate that all society refrain from eating pork. They do not seek legislation to outlaw pork products. This principle seems to be 'My faith requires me not to do X, therefore I don't do X, but you can do what you like'. Perhaps it could be stated: In general, society should be as free as it can be (allowing for public safety and order) but I reserve the right to place further restrictions on myself based on my beliefs.
I can discern another principle at work, which for no apparent reason, I shall label:
2. The 'Seer' principle. My faith beliefs are not only of fundamental importance to me, they are necessary for the good functioning of society as a whole. I shall therefore advocate strongly for legislative enacting of my faith beliefs for the whole of society. I shall further consider it persecution if society disengages from my faith beliefs and passes laws that require me to act like any other citizen. (That's putting it a bit strongly, I know, but what can you expect from an old leftie.
I suspect there are various intermediate principles between what may be two extremes.
My question is: What ought to be the balance here?
I'd like to try something a bit different, and have a conversation about the principles that sub-groups in a pluralistic democracy might use to interact with the larger society. I would politely ask that you keep debate about particular issues out of this thread and instead focus on the overarching principles.
I think I can see a few different principles in action:
1. The 'pork' principle. Jews and Muslims do not eat pork. As far as I am aware, they abstain from eating pork, but do not advocate that all society refrain from eating pork. They do not seek legislation to outlaw pork products. This principle seems to be 'My faith requires me not to do X, therefore I don't do X, but you can do what you like'. Perhaps it could be stated: In general, society should be as free as it can be (allowing for public safety and order) but I reserve the right to place further restrictions on myself based on my beliefs.
I can discern another principle at work, which for no apparent reason, I shall label:
2. The 'Seer' principle. My faith beliefs are not only of fundamental importance to me, they are necessary for the good functioning of society as a whole. I shall therefore advocate strongly for legislative enacting of my faith beliefs for the whole of society. I shall further consider it persecution if society disengages from my faith beliefs and passes laws that require me to act like any other citizen. (That's putting it a bit strongly, I know, but what can you expect from an old leftie.
I suspect there are various intermediate principles between what may be two extremes.
My question is: What ought to be the balance here?
Comment