Pluralism

[essentialsaltes]

Do you like the idea of pluralism? If so, how do you think it is supposed to work?

We've known for centuries how it works.

The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
...
May [anyone] who dwell[s...] in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.

As for myself, I have been enjoying my time off at Xmaholisolstizaah. Mainly by eating. Kushiyaki, pizza (homemade), tlayuda, grilled teriyaki chicken (homemade). Neighbors are celebrating Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and who knows what else? And who cares? As long as we greet each other with cheers at this festive season. Houses have different candles and lights. We have laser dots on the house, but the red laser seems to have died so now we're only green. May Great Cthulhu be Praised!

 

[ViaCrucis]

May Great Cthulhu be Praised!

May he eat you last.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Resha Caner]

May Great Cthulhu be Praised!

Do I detect sarcasm?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do I detect sarcasm?

No. That is frivolity.

 

[Resha Caner]

No. That is frivolity.

OK. So a lack of seriousness about cultural symbolism, then.

 

[mathinspiration]

Jesus said he was the only way to salvation.

 

[essentialsaltes]

OK. So a lack of seriousness about cultural symbolism, then.

No, a lack of seriousness about a creation of HP Lovecraft.

I was in earnest in quoting Washington and in describing my multicultural holiday and culinary enjoyment of the past week, to which can be added empanadas and Wurst.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, a lack of seriousness about a creation of HP Lovecraft.

Yes, how silly of me to infer you were placing it on the same level as all the other things you mentioned. I must have failed to notice the manner in which you distinguished your earnestness from your lack of seriousness.

I was in earnest in quoting Washington and in describing my multicultural holiday and culinary enjoyment of the past week, to which can be added empanadas and Wurst.

Well, let me suggest something, and then I'm sure you'll correct me.

In terms of cultural appropriation, I'll use the cross and vampires as an example. The Bible doesn't deal in vampires. The creature as we now think of it appears to have originated from Balkan folklore. The idea that vampires are scared off by crosses is a merger of medieval Christian mysticism with this folklore. Note, however, the key point being (though I may disagree with it), that during the appropriation the symbols from both traditions retained symbolic meaning.

They weren't stripped of meaning to make your party buffet more tasty. Using flags as bedsheets because they're cheap or because you like striped patterns - eating teriyaki chicken because it tastes good - singing Silent Night because you like a melancholy tune - IMO is not a multicultural holiday.

If you had pizza and teriyaki chicken in the same meal recently, and enjoyed it ... great. That's fine. If you shared that with your family and friends and they enjoyed it. Good for you. I'm glad it's going well for you.

But I don't see how that's a multicultural holiday. Did you choose those foods for their meaning? I doubt it. In fact, the term 'multicultural' is probably an oxymoron. At best it is, as Quid et Veritas suggested, some new hybrid American cultural norm. However, it feels more like ignorance of the importance of cultural symbols - a mere caricature of culture. At worst it could be seen as an intentional mockery of them.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Yes, I do like and greatly prefer pluralism, for obvious reasons. For example, political pluralism like ours: pluralistic multi-party parliament of nine political parties and pluralistic coalition governments make our democracy the strongest in the world instead of the one- or two-party tyranny.

Our media pluralism makes our press the freest in the world.

A small country, small domestic economy, our economy and trade greatly benefits from pluralism; otherwise, we would be monist North Korea or just another corporatist resources colony.

Our linguistic pluralism, diversity and multilingualism are obvious global advantages, and not just for those enhanced cognitivity abilities.

And while we are a predominately Lutheran country, we are also Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, and indigenous Shamanist and have always been, to give us the ability to interact with the world outside our borders.

I would hate to be stuck with these single-minded lemmings and their misogynist ideology as the only option:

 

[Dave-W]

And if it continues, in 3 or 4 centuries, pluralism might no longer be an issue. Everyone will be of mixed heritage.

Homogenized. That would be a crying shame. Can you imagine a salad of only lettuce leaves? Or a bouquet of only dandelions?

In Rev 5 it says the multitude before God's throne was of every nation, tribe and language. It would be rather bland if everyone was of the same tribe and nation and language.

 

[essentialsaltes]

In terms of cultural appropriation, I'll use the cross and vampires as an example.

Why?

This thread is about pluralism. Your link in your OP defines pluralism as "the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which permits the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles."

This has very little to do with whether it is beneficial and/or frowned upon to enjoy and/or appropriate cultural differences in a respectful and/or disrespectful manner.

Since America is founded on pluralism, that makes it easy for me (well, my spouse, whose idea it was) to find ingredients for spam musubi, which was a big hit at Xmaholisolstizaah this year. And for this, I am grateful. But pluralism is good for other reasons in the body politic.

eating teriyaki chicken because it tastes good - singing Silent Night because you like a melancholy tune - IMO is not a multicultural holiday.

That's fine, I'm just eating it because it tastes good. I'm just singing it, because it's familiar at this time of year, and I know some of the lyrics in German. Don't get me started on Adeste Fideles.

If you had pizza and teriyaki chicken in the same meal recently, and enjoyed it ... great. That's fine. If you shared that with your family and friends and they enjoyed it. Good for you. I'm glad it's going well for you.

In the same meal? Not sure I'd go for that. But yes I enjoyed them sequentially. Thanks.

At worst it could be seen as an intentional mockery of them.

If anyone ever has any complaints, I'll be happy to address them.

 

[Resha Caner]

Since America is founded on pluralism ...

Yes, well, I've come to think that is and always has been a myth. Hence the reason for the thread. As I said, many different political systems across the millenia have tolerated diverse beliefs within their borders as long as they followed certain rules. The reasons for that tolerance have varied.

So, again, if anything, the American idea was to find a way to assimilate the new into the old - but not really to preserve either intact. Hence the reference to appropriation.

But, you're welcome to state why you think otherwise.

That's fine, I'm just eating it because it tastes good.

As I said, fine. I don't really care about your meal choices. I'm surprised, though, that you see your ignorance - indifference - whatever it is, as "multicultural" (isn't that the point of your repeated use of "Xmaholisolstizaah"?

This thread is about pluralism.

It is.

Your link in your OP defines pluralism as "the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which permits the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles."

It did.

This has very little to do with whether it is beneficial and/or frowned upon to enjoy and/or appropriate cultural differences in a respectful and/or disrespectful manner.

But how you think this follows is a head scratcher. How does "peaceful coexistence" have nothing to do with behaving respectfully toward other cultures? (which, I would think, includes appropriation)

 

[jayem]

Homogenized. That would be a crying shame. Can you imagine a salad of only lettuce leaves? Or a bouquet of only dandelions?

In Rev 5 it says the multitude before God's throne was of every nation, tribe and language. It would be rather bland if everyone was of the same tribe and nation and language.

I was just speculating. I really doubt it will happen in just several centuries. But even if it did, people will still differ in other ways. As in different personalities, interests, abilities, beliefs, and many other factors. We will find plenty of reasons besides ethnicity to dislike each other.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes, well, I've come to think that is and always has been a myth. Hence the reason for the thread.

So make your case. How are we to understand the founders and the Constitution, who set no cultural or religious barriers, and spoke quite plainly of peaceful coexistence with others and equality for all (as they understood it at the time)? How were they not in favor of pluralism as an American ideal?

On the list of Notable Pluralists from your link are people like Hume & James Madison. An important political influence on the founders and the guy who drafted the Constitution.

So, again, if anything, the American idea was to find a way to assimilate the new into the old - but not really to preserve either intact.

Whether the "American idea" is a 'melting pot' or a 'salad bowl', or 60/40, any of these can produce a situation of peaceful coexistence.

But how you think this follows is a head scratcher. How does "peaceful coexistence" have nothing to do with behaving respectfully toward other cultures? (which, I would think, includes appropriation)

Oh, you mean civil politeness?! Yes, certainly that helps to keep the peace, but that's setting a pretty low bar. I mean, everyone should be polite, regardless of the political philosophy underlying their society. And as I said, if anyone wishes to lodge complaints, I'll consider my actions with respect to their feelings with solicitude. So far, people have seemed relatively eager to exchange their empanadas for my hard currency, or to advise me to remove my shoes before entering their holy building, or to provide the name by which they prefer to be called. It's quite easy to be polite in these situations.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, well, I've come to think that is and always has been a myth. Hence the reason for the thread. As I said, many different political systems across the millenia have tolerated diverse beliefs within their borders as long as they followed certain rules. The reasons for that tolerance have varied.

So, again, if anything, the American idea was to find a way to assimilate the new into the old - but not really to preserve either intact. Hence the reference to appropriation.

But, you're welcome to state why you think otherwise.



As I said, fine. I don't really care about your meal choices. I'm surprised, though, that you see your ignorance - indifference - whatever it is, as "multicultural" (isn't that the point of your repeated use of "Xmaholisolstizaah"?



It is.



It did.



But how you think this follows is a head scratcher. How does "peaceful coexistence" have nothing to do with behaving respectfully toward other cultures? (which, I would think, includes appropriation)

OK, so how do the rules you mentioned, impact pluralism in the United States?

 

[Resha Caner]

Whether the "American idea" is a 'melting pot' or a 'salad bowl', or 60/40, any of these can produce a situation of peaceful coexistence.

Maybe in time, but not without some friction along the way. I don't know of an example where it has come off without a hitch ...

... and I would never expect it to. In fact, I consider those who think all will flow smoothly to be naive. I hear all kinds of great plans for peace that begin with, "If people would just [insert action here]." Well, they don't. Maybe most in the U.S. have crossed over and now watch with indifference as their cultural symbols are pushed down. I'm not one of those, so I guess I'm one of the bad guys.

I know I can't stop people from using Christian symbols whenever and however they please, and I'm not really interested in trying. Just don't expect me to hold your hand and agree we're sharing a Xmaholisolstizaah moment - cuz we ain't.

So make your case.

A fair enough request given it's my OP, but I'm never really that interested anymore in trotting out my ideas to let people shoot at them. I sincerely want to hear what others think, and I appreciate that you're always game for that. So, all I've got the energy for is to give just enough to keep the conversation going.

It's just fresh in my mind because my final class before my I got my history MA this past December was the legal history of the U.S.

How are we to understand the founders and the Constitution, who set no cultural or religious barriers, and spoke quite plainly of peaceful coexistence with others and equality for all (as they understood it at the time)? How were they not in favor of pluralism as an American ideal?

Not quite true. The Constitution (or, more appropriately, the Bill of Rights) was only meant as a check on the national government. As the SCOTUS ruling in Barron v. Baltimore made clear, the Bill of Rights did not apply to state or local governments or business. As such, it was only the national government that was prevented from establishing churches. State governments were free to do so if they chose.

That changed with the Civil War and the passage of the 14th amendment. Lincoln, as a Republican, was pushing the idea that the U.S. should be a single republic, not a federation in the sense that he believed the national government had the power to enforce rights on the states. It's probably hard for a modern American to understand we're not a federation anymore because we still call our national government a "federal" government. But it's not really.

The best analogies I've found for the modern American are these: 1) Prior to the Civil War, for the national government to interfere in state business would be like the United Nations interfering in internal U.S. affairs. The Civil War would be like the U.N. sending in troops to force us to merge with the EU. 2) Under the original terms of pluralism, states had to endure activity in a bordering state that they found offensive. If the people of Mississippi wanted slavery, the national government wasn't supposed to interfere. Today, it would mean that if Nebraska wants to allow bakers to refuse cakes to gay couples, the national government isn't supposed to interfere.

However, all those interpretations have gone by the wayside.

On the list of Notable Pluralists from your link are people like Hume & James Madison. An important political influence on the founders and the guy who drafted the Constitution.

Mmm. Yeah. Kinda. I think of Hume (as well as Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, etc.) as a peacock crowing from an ivory tower. No doubt they were influential, but Ana the 1st was right in his post that their ideas were never suited to reality.

James Madison walked an interesting road. He started off as a Federalist (allied with Hamilton, Washington, etc.). The "Federalist" label is a misnomer. That tribe was actually in favor of a republic with a strong centralized national government that nearly imitated Britain. They appropriated the "federalist" label because Washington was a war hero. The true radicals of the Revolution (such as Sam Adams and Patrick Henry) got sidelined.

Despite starting off as a Federalist, it's painfully evident in Madison's writings how afraid he was of the corrupting influence of power. He was continually seeking a means of setting the proper checks and balances to keep power from coalescing. I don't know what finally flipped the switch, but he jumped horses from the Federalists to the Democratic-Republicans. Apparently he was swayed by Jefferson's rhetoric. Funny thing is, I think Jefferson was swayed by his own rhetoric ... until he became President. Then he became the first near-tyrant President because people wouldn't listen to him. Oddly enough, that has happened to a lot of liberal Presidents: Jackson, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Obama. It's become an accepted theme of Presidential history that each new President goes through an "awakening" process to how ugly it really is to be at the top.

Anyway, Madison took his turn and ended up making history because he overstepped his powers. We did get a landmark case out of it, though: Marbury v. Madison.

My point is, maybe Madison did believe in pluralism at some point, but what did he believe in when it was all done? That's a tougher thing to know.

I haven't thought pluralism is workable for a long time. My "awakening" of recent months is that I'm not sure many of the FFs ever believed it either. Of those who did, it seems they were either pushed aside or had their minds changed by taking a turn at holding the reigns of power.

That should be enough fodder for you.

OK, so how do the rules you mentioned, impact pluralism in the United States?

And hopefully it answers your question as well.

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe in time, but not without some friction along the way. I don't know of an example where it has come off without a hitch ...

... and I would never expect it to. In fact, I consider those who think all will flow smoothly to be naive. I hear all kinds of great plans for peace that begin with, "If people would just [insert action here]." Well, they don't. Maybe most in the U.S. have crossed over and now watch with indifference as their cultural symbols are pushed down. I'm not one of those, so I guess I'm one of the bad guys.

I know I can't stop people from using Christian symbols whenever and however they please, and I'm not really interested in trying. Just don't expect me to hold your hand and agree we're sharing a Xmaholisolstizaah moment - cuz we ain't.



A fair enough request given it's my OP, but I'm never really that interested anymore in trotting out my ideas to let people shoot at them. I sincerely want to hear what others think, and I appreciate that you're always game for that. So, all I've got the energy for is to give just enough to keep the conversation going.

It's just fresh in my mind because my final class before my I got my history MA this past December was the legal history of the U.S.



Not quite true. The Constitution (or, more appropriately, the Bill of Rights) was only meant as a check on the national government. As the SCOTUS ruling in Barron v. Baltimore made clear, the Bill of Rights did not apply to state or local governments or business. As such, it was only the national government that was prevented from establishing churches. State governments were free to do so if they chose.

That changed with the Civil War and the passage of the 14th amendment. Lincoln, as a Republican, was pushing the idea that the U.S. should be a single republic, not a federation in the sense that he believed the national government had the power to enforce rights on the states. It's probably hard for a modern American to understand we're not a federation anymore because we still call our national government a "federal" government. But it's not really.

The best analogies I've found for the modern American are these: 1) Prior to the Civil War, for the national government to interfere in state business would be like the United Nations interfering in internal U.S. affairs. The Civil War would be like the U.N. sending in troops to force us to merge with the EU. 2) Under the original terms of pluralism, states had to endure activity in a bordering state that they found offensive. If the people of Mississippi wanted slavery, the national government wasn't supposed to interfere. Today, it would mean that if Nebraska wants to allow bakers to refuse cakes to gay couples, the national government isn't supposed to interfere.

However, all those interpretations have gone by the wayside.



Mmm. Yeah. Kinda. I think of Hume (as well as Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, etc.) as a peacock crowing from an ivory tower. No doubt they were influential, but Ana the 1st was right in his post that their ideas were never suited to reality.

James Madison walked an interesting road. He started off as a Federalist (allied with Hamilton, Washington, etc.). The "Federalist" label is a misnomer. That tribe was actually in favor of a republic with a strong centralized national government that nearly imitated Britain. They appropriated the "federalist" label because Washington was a war hero. The true radicals of the Revolution (such as Sam Adams and Patrick Henry) got sidelined.

Despite starting off as a Federalist, it's painfully evident in Madison's writings how afraid he was of the corrupting influence of power. He was continually seeking a means of setting the proper checks and balances to keep power from coalescing. I don't know what finally flipped the switch, but he jumped horses from the Federalists to the Democratic-Republicans. Apparently he was swayed by Jefferson's rhetoric. Funny thing is, I think Jefferson was swayed by his own rhetoric ... until he became President. Then he became the first near-tyrant President because people wouldn't listen to him. Oddly enough, that has happened to a lot of liberal Presidents: Jackson, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Obama. It's become an accepted theme of Presidential history that each new President goes through an "awakening" process to how ugly it really is to be at the top.

Anyway, Madison took his turn and ended up making history because he overstepped his powers. We did get a landmark case out of it, though: Marbury v. Madison.

My point is, maybe Madison did believe in pluralism at some point, but what did he believe in when it was all done? That's a tougher thing to know.

I haven't thought pluralism is workable for a long time. My "awakening" of recent months is that I'm not sure many of the FFs ever believed it either. Of those who did, it seems they were either pushed aside or had their minds changed by taking a turn at holding the reigns of power.

That should be enough fodder for you.



And hopefully it answers your question as well.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that states should be able to form state churches?

 

[Resha Caner]

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that states should be able to form state churches?

I'm not in favor of it. I'm saying that per the original intent of the federation they were allowed to form state churches and did so.

This is the quickest reference I could find - just something to get you started. A lot of what you'll find on the web use the sources to try to argue the U.S. is, always was, and always should be a "Christian nation". That's not a view I subscribe to. It would be better stated to say the U.S. has been a nation whose citizens are (or were?) primarily Christian.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not in favor of it. I'm saying that per the original intent of the federation they were allowed to form state churches and did so.

This is the quickest reference I could find - just something to get you started. A lot of what you'll find on the web use the sources to try to argue the U.S. is, always was, and always should be a "Christian nation". That's not a view I subscribe to. It would be better stated to say the U.S. has been a nation whose citizens are (or were?) primarily Christian.

Sure, most citizens were Christians, no question. It would appear, the founders went out of their way though, to allow free exercise of any religion, so not sure why that is important.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that states should be able to form state churches?

Some states did have state churches at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. I believe they were all dissolved by the early 1800s, but the Civil War Amendments made such a thing no longer constitutional (though I'm pretty sure none existed by that point in time).