Pluralism

[Resha Caner]

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).

Basically correct. Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish it's state church (Congregationalist) in 1833. The Civil War amendments didn't directly prevent it, but later the amendments were given a more liberal reading that expanded national power to enforce the Bill of Rights at all levels.

That's fairly typical - that the intent of the original text broadens over time. One of the cornerstones of English law that was codified by Blackstone was the idea of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. It was an idea supposedly carried over into American law, with the innovation that law has to be written - it can't be accepted tradition as in the English Common Law. However, Justice Marshall made the point that texts don't interpret themselves. Men have to interpret. In Marbury he declared SCOTUS to be the legal body that interpreted national law and the Constitution.

The scary part is that the Warren Court expanded this with something called the "Marbury Doctrine" supposedly based on Marshall's original ruling, but actually no where near Marshall's intent. Since the Warren Court, SCOTUS is not the interpreter of law, but the determiner of law.

So, we've come full circle. Rule of law is out the window and the rule of men is back in ... oh, but we've added women so it's OK.

I understand that pragmatically it's always been rule of men, but to so callously discard the principle is IMO very dangerous. Liberals may be cheering their ascendancy at the moment, but if history is a guide, it won't last.

So, while I think rights such as speech, religion, etc. should be extended, I think the 14th amendment was a mistake (or at least how it's now interpreted) - not the right way to go about it.

 

[bhsmte]

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).

Correct, i was asking if the OP thought it was a good idea today.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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.

What down-pushing is this? Are you not sitting in safety underneath your own vine and fig tree? And others are doing the same under their own vines and fig trees?

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.

The question was not whether pluralism is right, or good, or suited to reality. The question was whether or not America is founded on pluralism. With Madison (and those from whom he learned) on the list of Prominent pluralists, it seems pretty clear to me.

You can (and have) pooh-poohed pluralism, but that is not the same as demonstrating that it is a myth that pluralism was part of the American idea.

 

[Resha Caner]

What down-pushing is this? Are you not sitting in safety underneath your own vine and fig tree? And others are doing the same under their own vines and fig trees?

I've not had safety issues that were related to religion. But that's only one means of pushing religion down. I've got a list of experiences I could relate where people have gone out of their way to attempt to belittle, shame, or ridicule me because I'm Christian. It happens when they notice the cross hanging from my rear-view mirror, or hear me greeting a Christian friend at a store. An atheist once sent a scathing letter to my home because somehow he found out a Christian lived there. It happened in classes when I was in high school and college, and once someone even came into our church and I was the lucky random recipient of their anger.

I don't knowingly do anything to provoke such responses. I don't preach on street corners or participate in abortion parades. Outside of my home and church, this website is really the only place where I talk about Christianity. I just go abut my life ... even though I sometimes think I should do more.

You can (and have) pooh-poohed pluralism, but that is not the same as demonstrating that it is a myth that pluralism was part of the American idea.

Hmm. OK. Let's try this. Since The Greatest Showman is in theaters right now, P.T. Barnum comes to mind. He showcased many "magical" creatures (the Feejee Mermaid, etc.). People came to see those things. Did they experience magic? You can wax poetic about the joy his show brought and call that magic, but it wasn't really magic.

The point: Sayin' it don't make it so.

The U.S. does and always has talked big about religious freedom, but I can recommend some books to you. Palatines, Liberty, and Property by A.G. Roeber discusses how shocked Germans were when they came to the U.S. expecting religious liberty and basically finding none. It led to a full scale protest in St. Louis in the 1850s.

Then there is Whose America? Culture Wars in the Public Schools by Jonathan Zimmerman. Public schools weren't so much a way to benevolently provide education to the poor, but were often a means of enforcing and indoctrinating Calvinist theology. That is one reason that Catholics, Jews, and Lutherans worked so hard to set up extensive private school systems.

And it can't really be argued that, yeah, well it was better here than elsewhere. In some cases, sure. But The Act of Toleration was passed in Britain in 1689, and since that time religious freedom in the U.S. hasn't really been any different than throughout the British Empire, which was pretty extensive. If there's a shining example of religious freedom, it's probably more Holland than the U.S. And Britain definitely has a better track record with slavery than the U.S. does. The British Navy was enforcing anti-slave trade regulations on the world's oceans at a time when Americans were trying to overthrow Central-American governments to gain territory for new slave states.

Were there people who believed in pluralism? Sure. Did their rhetoric have an impact? Sure. But as I said, most of them were pushed aside by the Constitution in favor of continuing legal slavery, state churches, censored (i.e. "gentlemanly" speech), etc. Take a look at the way they were politically out-maneuvered in The Antifederalists by Jackson Turner Main.

So, yeah, I don't like the idea of pluralism. I'm not trying to hide that. But it's not my reason for this thread. My reason was my surprise that it seems pluralism never really took hold in the first place. I would have maintained that pluralism is disappearing in the U.S. to be dominated by secularism, but I now believe I was wrong. I'm no longer convinced pluralism ever existed in the U.S. I still think we're heading toward secularism, but we came from Calvinism - not pluralism.

I'm not sure what more you're looking for. You've done next to nothing - a lot less than what I've given you - to support any idea the U.S. was ever pluralistic beyond a few talking heads saying it was. If you're not interested - shrug - OK.

Eating chicken teriyaki won't prove it. Europe has long been fascinated with foreign food, foreign clothing, etc. and imported it. Many kingdoms have had queens and we're yet to sport a female President. The U.S. was one of the last countries to abolish legal slavery. Spanish culture is rooted in the mixture of Caucasian and African peoples. China has a long tradition of a pageant of ethnicities.

There are things the U.S. has contributed to the world that I could articulate. However, I'm not sure anymore that I could produce a good example of pluralism that was birthed in the U.S. Rather, whatever I might point to seems to have come from overseas and burrowed its way in through long, hard, fighting.

If you're not interested in giving what you think are good examples, I guess we're ready to conclude.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I would have maintained that pluralism is disappearing in the U.S. to be dominated by secularism

Those are not opposites. Indeed, the pluralist idea to reduce extremism is epitomized by secularism (at least in the religious sphere).

You've done next to nothing

If so, it's still better than you who when asked to make your own case, just said that you are "never really that interested anymore in trotting out my ideas"

 

[Resha Caner]

If so, it's still better than you who when asked to make your own case, just said that you are "never really that interested anymore in trotting out my ideas"

You truncated my statement. My experience has been that discussion here is rare. Rather, what I am typically asked for is to lay out a complete school of thought on a particular topic. What then proceeds is an attempt to tear down what I just stated without any offer from the other side regarding their own view. It is that approach of which I have grown weary.

But in this case I have no straw man to joust. I apologize if my tone retains the crustiness of those past experiences.

I tried to provide you some examples to frame a discussion. I could give more, but since you haven't really responded to what I said I don't see the point.

As I said, this is a new thought for me - a new discovery. I'm still learning about it, so I have more questions than answers - more impressions than conclusions. In summary, those impressions are:
* If the federation ever encoded ideas of pluralism, it was in the Articles of Confederation, which were discarded with the Constitution. Therefore, our structure has not been formally pluralistic since 1789.
* The Bill of Rights was tacked on as an afterthought to pacify vocal Antifederalists. It was never expected to be a significant or efficacious part of our Constitution. The intent was a strong central government in the British mode. (FYI, I just read a paper yesterday that said by the mid 1900s political theorists began to concede the U.S. wasn't really much different than a Constitutional Monarchy)
* Many Federalists (such as Hamilton) adopted pluralistic language as a political expediency and never believed in it.
* Of those who did believe in pluralism, most were pushed out by 1789.
* OF those who believed in pluralism and remained politically viable, most came to accept pluralism wasn't working once they actually tried to govern.
* As a result, Enlightened ideas were largely just rhetoric after 1789. However, due to the success of Populists like Jackson (which is not Pluralism), the Calvinist uniformity of the electorate, the commercial success and rapid expansion of the U.S., and the successful silencing of minority voices, people were able to delude themselves into thinking Pluralism had been a success.

I've never really liked Hamilton. To me he seemed an arrogant elitist hungry for power. Given the above impressions I had questions like: Did Hamilton win? Did he get what he wanted? Was it all just a ruse to make Washington de facto king (Hamilton was really angry when Washington retired after 2 terms)?

So, I've been reading about Hamilton over the last few days, and at this point I would say the answer to all those questions is largely no. My opinion of him has risen a bit as well. It was Hamilton's view that all the Enlightenment/Pluralism pontificating was nonsense and useless for the purposes of good government. But he also believed the Colonies were being exploited by Britain, that independence was necessary, and that it was an opportunity to fix what was broken. His view, though, was that any theory of government was useless. That the way to secure freedom was to make the U.S. successful, and that meant establishing a solid, workable foundation for finance and administration.

At the moment I don't have an argument against that.

Those are not opposites. Indeed, the pluralist idea to reduce extremism is epitomized by secularism (at least in the religious sphere).

I disagree ... or at least it appears our ideas of what constitutes pluralism are very different. Per the way you express it, anytime cultures interact that's pluralism. If so, pluralism has existed ever since Cain decided to be a farmer and Abel decided to be a shepherd. As such, my impression would be correct that there's nothing new, unique, or innovative about the U.S. that fosters pluralism.

As I understand it, secularism is not pluralism. I've always thought of pluralism as a desire to tolerate all views and allow people to pursue them as they please. As indicated by the link, secularism, "is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs or practices."

If you're going to tolerate my religious views, that would include tolerating the influence they have on politics. The above definition of secularism means an attempt would be made to implement laws preventing it. And I know people who are actively trying to do that. In fact, you can add to the list the college class where I was told that Christians should never be allowed to serve in the U.S. government.

Your reply might be: Sure, there are always extremist nuts. You still have your religious freedoms and you're not going to be barred from government. That always brings to mind a similar comment I made to my father-in-law (born & raised in Nazi Germany) who replied to my comment, "Yeah, people used to say the Nazis were just a small group of extremist nuts." If you need examples from U.S. history of people being barred, I can provide a few.

So, yeah, at this moment some of things Christians are fighting for are small. But I'm not willing to give them up. Because, unfortunately, this is now a country where Trump can win the Presidency. Further, I expect the Colorado cake baker is going to lose his SCOTUS case. If he wins I'll be surprised.

- - -

I'm sorry that was so long. Maybe it was unnecessary. However, at this point all you've given me is that everything I've said is wrong. So, could you please explain to me what you think Pluralism is. Apparently I'm not getting it.

 

[bhsmte]

Basically correct. Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish it's state church (Congregationalist) in 1833. The Civil War amendments didn't directly prevent it, but later the amendments were given a more liberal reading that expanded national power to enforce the Bill of Rights at all levels.

That's fairly typical - that the intent of the original text broadens over time. One of the cornerstones of English law that was codified by Blackstone was the idea of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. It was an idea supposedly carried over into American law, with the innovation that law has to be written - it can't be accepted tradition as in the English Common Law. However, Justice Marshall made the point that texts don't interpret themselves. Men have to interpret. In Marbury he declared SCOTUS to be the legal body that interpreted national law and the Constitution.

The scary part is that the Warren Court expanded this with something called the "Marbury Doctrine" supposedly based on Marshall's original ruling, but actually no where near Marshall's intent. Since the Warren Court, SCOTUS is not the interpreter of law, but the determiner of law.

So, we've come full circle. Rule of law is out the window and the rule of men is back in ... oh, but we've added women so it's OK.

I understand that pragmatically it's always been rule of men, but to so callously discard the principle is IMO very dangerous. Liberals may be cheering their ascendancy at the moment, but if history is a guide, it won't last.

So, while I think rights such as speech, religion, etc. should be extended, I think the 14th amendment was a mistake (or at least how it's now interpreted) - not the right way to go about it.

What specifically would you change about the 14th amendment?

 

[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.

You appear a bit miffed, that human culture has changed over the centuries. The one constant history has taught us, is cultures will change.

The good news is, regarding people's own personal life, they have great freedoms, to believe as they choose and to live their personal lives as they choose. The culture change has impacted; how people interact with others in more public settings.

 

[Resha Caner]

You appear a bit miffed, that human culture has changed over the centuries.

No. I have a history degree. I'm well aware things change.

I think what you're sensing is that at the moment I'm fascinated. It appears I may have been wrong about certain aspects of American history. So, I was curious to see what view others had of that period - of the part that idea plays in American life. I get the impression most have a similar view to what mine was. If so, how do they justify it?

Any negativity in my comments probably stems from my dislike of pluralism. I tried to keep it in check. If I've done a poor job, I've done a poor job. But it is also possible people don't like that their view of pluralism in American history is wrong and that dislike is coloring the conversation.

What specifically would you change about the 14th amendment?

Your question is tempting, but honesty forces me to concede that whatever alternative I might offer has its own problems. All I can say is that I'm not convinced the 14th amendment really aided the century-long battle against Jim Crow that followed the already bloody road to end legal slavery. There's a good chance the U.S. would have followed a very similar path with or without it. What I don't like is the expanded usage.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I disagree ... or at least it appears our ideas of what constitutes pluralism are very different. Per the way you express it, anytime cultures interact that's pluralism.

No, I quoted your link in the OP: "the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which permits the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles."

You just seemed more interested in talking about my dietary habits, which have been enabled by American pluralism, and a great source of personal enjoyment for me.

As I understand it, secularism is not pluralism. I've always thought of pluralism as a desire to tolerate all views and allow people to pursue them as they please. As indicated by the link, secularism, "is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs or practices."

Come now, that is "Another" definition of secularism in the link. If that's the only way you understand secularism, you should pay more attention to the first definitions given: "Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institution and religious dignitaries (the attainment of such is termed secularity). One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people."

So, could you please explain to me what you think Pluralism is. Apparently I'm not getting it.

"the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which permits the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles."

The founders were worried about 'factions', as Madison describes in Federalist #10: "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

The goal was to implement something to minimize the adverse effects of factions on minorities or the state as a whole.

If the extreme faction is in a minority, democracy wins and all is safe.

If the extreme faction is a majority, direct democracy leads to mobocracy. And the plural voices can be squashed or kicked out or made to toe the line if that is the whim of the mob. The opposite of pluralism is the institution of a monoculture.

Thus, the Constitutional implementation of a representative republican government is political pluralism. Hopefully the cooler heads will win elected office as representatives rather than The Mob. And they represent all the constituents of their locality.

Of course, representatives aren't the only members of Congress, there are also the Senators, wisely chosen by the state legislatures, to again moderate any adverse effects of the unwashed masses. Just think how Alabama's recent election would have turned out differently if we had stuck to the Founders' plan.

Of course, there could be geographic factions as well. This is why representatives are tied to particular locales, rather than elected at large across the nation. This is why the Senate numbers are chosen differently to weaken the power of more popular states. Why the electoral college does the same for presidential elections. (Don't get me wrong. Going to the popular vote in 2016 would have made me happier, but that's what the Founders were trying to guard against with these pluralistic mechanisms.)

The concern about individual rights that led to the development of the Bill of Rights is again to avoid the dangers of an autocratic monoculture and support every individual's right to peaceful coexistence as members of the body politic.

The No Religious Test clause.

These are all deeply thought out elements of the Constitution meant to foster political pluralism.

 

[Resha Caner]

You just seemed more interested in talking about my dietary habits, which have been enabled by American pluralism, and a great source of personal enjoyment for me.

It's the only substantive example I have of what you think pluralism means so far. I just went with what I had.

Come now, that is "Another" definition of secularism in the link. If that's the only way you understand secularism, you should pay more attention to the first definitions given: "Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institution and religious dignitaries (the attainment of such is termed secularity). One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people."

Is the definition I quoted wrong for some reason?

I don't see how the two versions would be different in practice. The first is just loftier rhetoric, but the same thing. I was cutting to the chase.

Again, how do you think this works? So John is prevented from doing X because the majority voted it is law that X shall not be done. If SCOTUS determines they voted that way for religious reasons, they throw out the law. If SCOTUS determines they voted that way for other reasons, don't throw out the law. Is that how it works?

If so, that makes it easy. I'll just say my moral views have nothing to do with my religion and I vote we implement them all.

The founders were worried about 'factions', as Madison describes in Federalist #10 ...

Yes, I know. Yet Marbury became a case because Madison wouldn't honor a commitment made (legally) by another faction. He failed to implement his own ideas. I believe he meant them when he wrote them, but becoming President changed his mind. And Marbury never did get the job he had been promised, so the idea failed him and the faction won.

The goal was to implement something to minimize the adverse effects of factions on minorities or the state as a whole.

If the extreme faction is in a minority, democracy wins and all is safe.

If the extreme faction is a majority, direct democracy leads to mobocracy. And the plural voices can be squashed or kicked out or made to toe the line if that is the whim of the mob. The opposite of pluralism is the institution of a monoculture.

Thus, the Constitutional implementation of a representative republican government is political pluralism. Hopefully the cooler heads will win elected office as representatives rather than The Mob. And they represent all the constituents of their locality.

Of course, representatives aren't the only members of Congress, there are also the Senators, wisely chosen by the state legislatures, to again moderate any adverse effects of the unwashed masses. Just think how Alabama's recent election would have turned out differently if we had stuck to the Founders' plan.

Of course, there could be geographic factions as well. This is why representatives are tied to particular locales, rather than elected at large across the nation. This is why the Senate numbers are chosen differently to weaken the power of more popular states. Why the electoral college does the same for presidential elections. (Don't get me wrong. Going to the popular vote in 2016 would have made me happier, but that's what the Founders were trying to guard against with these pluralistic mechanisms.)

The concern about individual rights that led to the development of the Bill of Rights is again to avoid the dangers of an autocratic monoculture and support every individual's right to peaceful coexistence as members of the body politic.

The No Religious Test clause.

These are all deeply thought out elements of the Constitution meant to foster political pluralism.

OK. So that's how you think pluralism has been codified to move toward that peaceful coexistence. And you think it works better here than elsewhere? How do we determine whether it's working better or not? Further, how do we segment how much of the result is due to:
* The Constitution
* The character of American leaders
* The character of the American electorate
* The commercial success of the U.S.

I'm basically saying that in cases where American leaders didn't want to follow pluralism, 'the system' didn't do much to stop them (and I gave a few examples). So, what's the counter argument?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is the definition I quoted wrong for some reason?

It is not the meaning of secular that applies to our secular government in the US, which would seem to be the playing field for this discussion.

If SCOTUS determines they voted that way for religious reasons, they throw out the law. If SCOTUS determines they voted that way for other reasons, don't throw out the law. Is that how it works?

No. As far as I know, SCOTUS doesn't care about any individual legislator's feelings or motivations, but about the law. Currently, laws are subject to the Lemon Test:

1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
2. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
3. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)

OK. So that's how you think pluralism has been codified to move toward that peaceful coexistence. And you think it works better here than elsewhere?

I don't know. I hadn't considered it. The topic on the table was whether the founders incorporated pluralism into the American idea.

Looking at just the US Congress, I think the game theory of it tends to converge on two equal 'factions' if you will. Countries with party proportional representation have more diverse blocs. I couldn't say offhand how that affects pluralism broadly (i.e. whether individuals are better off and more able to peacefully pursue their own thing.).

On the whole, I think the US does about a good a job at pluralism as other Western democracies.

How do we determine whether it's working better or not? Further, how do we segment how much of the result is due to:
* The Constitution
* The character of American leaders
* The character of the American electorate
* The commercial success of the U.S.

No doubt those would be worthy thesis topics for someone.

I'm basically saying that in cases where American leaders didn't want to follow pluralism, 'the system' didn't do much to stop them (and I gave a few examples). So, what's the counter argument?

I guess that in the long run, the system initially set up has slowly ratcheted its way toward greater pluralism. Abolition, Enfranchisement, civil rights, womens rights, gay rights... the system has moved to allow many different cultures and lifestyles to live peaceably and openly alongside others. Historical barriers that once separated Catholic from Protestant, the races, the sexes, have become smaller. It's hard to believe JFK's Catholicism was a political issue not that long ago; Much less fuss about Lieberman or Romney recently, despite being from very minority religious backgrounds.

To quote the founders, e pluribus unum.

 

[tulc]

The Jews have lived under the rule of European monarchies and Islamic theocracies alike. Were those pluralistic?

It depended on who the King was at the time under the monarchies didn't it? I will say coming from an Anabaptist background they found it (much like the Jews) easier to live in the Ottoman Empire then in most European countries back in the 16th-17th centuries.
tulc(is just sayn')

 

[Resha Caner]

It depended on who the King was at the time under the monarchies didn't it? I will say coming from an Anabaptist background they found it (much like the Jews) easier to live in the Ottoman Empire then in most European countries back in the 16th-17th centuries.

Your "it depends" is probably as good a summary of what I've been asking as any. If it depends on the leader, the system of government is not an effective intermediary for pluralism.

 

[Resha Caner]

No. As far as I know, SCOTUS doesn't care about any individual legislator's feelings or motivations, but about the law.

Yes, but I was trying to emphasize that laws are made and judged by people. The way SCOTUS manages it's case load has changed over time. Initially they dealt almost exclusively in commercial cases - arguments over property, money, right-of-way, etc. It is a late development (facilitiated by various acts of Congress) that their case load has come to primarily involve moral and social issues.

The Court has always telegraphed their interest. Marshall made it known he wanted to hear a case regarding applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states. Warren made it known he wanted to hear a case about school segregation. In that way, the court can appear to be acting only within it's power, but it is signaling Congress about what laws it will uphold and what laws it won't, thereby influencing the legislative agenda. Judicial activism is a reality of American government.

Currently, laws are subject to the Lemon Test:

1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
2. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
3. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)

So, in deciding cases on moral and social issues, what determines the law has a "secular" purpose?

Are the three tests ranked such that if #1 and #2 come into conflict, the court chooses #1?

In the cake baker case, if he loses, he will believe the court has restricted his religious freedom. If he is mistaken, and the court has not restricted his religious freedom, doesn't that mean the court has defined what constitutes his religious freedom?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes, but I was trying to emphasize that laws are made and judged by people.

No, you were trying to shoehorn your preferred definition of secularism (one that forbids people from using their own religious beliefs to influence their own decisions) into the debate where it doesn't belong.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, but I was trying to emphasize that laws are made and judged by people. The way SCOTUS manages it's case load has changed over time. Initially they dealt almost exclusively in commercial cases - arguments over property, money, right-of-way, etc. It is a late development (facilitiated by various acts of Congress) that their case load has come to primarily involve moral and social issues.

The Court has always telegraphed their interest. Marshall made it known he wanted to hear a case regarding applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states. Warren made it known he wanted to hear a case about school segregation. In that way, the court can appear to be acting only within it's power, but it is signaling Congress about what laws it will uphold and what laws it won't, thereby influencing the legislative agenda. Judicial activism is a reality of American government.


So, in deciding cases on moral and social issues, what determines the law has a "secular" purpose?

Are the three tests ranked such that if #1 and #2 come into conflict, the court chooses #1?

In the cake baker case, if he loses, he will believe the court has restricted his religious freedom. If he is mistaken, and the court has not restricted his religious freedom, doesn't that mean the court has defined what constitutes his religious freedom?

At the end of the day, that is what SCOTUS is for, to make these calls. Is SCOTUS political, sure it is, we are dealing with human beings, not robots. In fact, SCOTUS has become more political over the last few decades, because the legislative branch, simply hasn't been able to get as much legislation passed, so that pushes more disputes to be settled by SCOTUS. The other reality is, SCOTUS has had a conservative majority, for over 30 years.

And when it comes to religious freedom or rights, no rights are limitless and they tend to reach their limits, when they begin to infringe on the rights of others and especially so, in public accommodating situations. In private life, people can discriminate against others all they like.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, you were trying to shoehorn your preferred definition of secularism (one that forbids people from using their own religious beliefs to influence their own decisions) into the debate where it doesn't belong.

Your reply indicates you're miffed, and I don't know why. I believe I was the first to mention secularism, and since we seemed to disagree, I linked to a reference and quoted from that reference to clarify my use of the term. Why is that wrong?

I realize you're trying to explain a different view, so I'm asking questions about it. I also thought an example might help, and the cake baker is current. If you prefer a different example, that's fine.

But I guess maybe we've reached an end of some kind.

 

[Resha Caner]

And when it comes to religious freedom or rights, no rights are limitless and they tend to reach their limits, when they begin to infringe on the rights of others and especially so, in public accommodating situations.

Yes, I get that from a practical perspective government has to put limits on rights. And sometimes it is forced to uphold one right over another.

For cases involving claims of religious right, if the judgement is made using principles that differ from the religious claimant, it is inevitable that the court will eventually restrict a religious claimant. I don't see any way a government can say it will remain "unentangled" in such situations. Further, I don't believe government in the U.S. has ever been unentangled from religion, despite not having a national church. Nor am I sure the people who framed those precepts were so naive as to mean them to be interpreted to such an extreme extent. I think they had a much more modest goal in mind.

But, what advice would you give to the religious claimant who will eventually find his judgement impossible to accept?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Your reply indicates you're miffed, and I don't know why.

Because your original statement on that part of the thread was so absurd:

"If SCOTUS determines they voted that way for religious reasons, they throw out the law. If SCOTUS determines they voted that way for other reasons, don't throw out the law. Is that how it works?"

I don't think it works that way. You don't think it works that way. No one thinks it works that way. It doesn't in fact work that way.

I also thought an example might help, and the cake baker is current.

As I said recently on one of the umpteen threads on it, the court will decide which party is the swinging arm, and which party is the nose. Or if you like, which party is sitting under his vine, and which party is harassing him. Or who is part of an extremist faction, united by a common impulse of passion, adverse to the rights of other citizens, and who isn't.

Conflicts in rights arise all the time, and the court settles them. Freedom of speech does not prevent the government from curtailing it in certain situations. Similarly for other individual rights. I don't see that the details of this particular case shed much light on pluralism in general.