[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 25 Aug 2010 at 20:00, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

[P]
I ask again, is helping the poor (welfare benefits) Christian law? If not,
what's the basis?

[Arlo]
I've never heard anyone argue that welfare laws were enacted because that was
the will of the christian god, have you? 

[P]
Not directly, but certainly "blessed are the poor" is part of Christian 
theology. But to repeat, what is the basis of law in your opinion?

[P]
I think you'll find historically that the Christian Founding Fathers
established separation of church and state.

[Arlo]
Based on secular enlightenment philosophy, not the word of the christian god.

[P]
Since most of them were Christian, it's not unreasonable to assume their faith 
influenced their deliberations. In fact, I believe some of them admitted to the 
influence of God. .  

[P]
I figured maybe you had gay marriage in mind. The difference I see is that some
Muslim states imprison and execute gays -- a rather significance difference
don't you think?

[Arlo]
Sure. But of degree, not of kind.

[P]
But, is there a difference in atheists using the state to enforce their
"morality" vs. a religion doing likewise?

[Arlo]
If you reduce everything to "faith, then its all unavoidable faith-conflict,
and the idea of separation of church and state is a fantasy.

[P]
The issue is use of government coercion whether justified by faith in God or   
faith in atheism. You said an Atheocracy would be as immoral as a Theocracy.
I agree.    

[Arlo}
Do you think there is no difference between a law that enables others (and
yourself) to do as you please, and a law that prevents others from doing as
they please because you would choose differently?

Laws for gay marriage do not force anyone to enter into relationship they do
not consent to. Laws against do force others to behave according to your views.
But the particularities of this are off this topic, I only pointed it out
because the primary foundation for opposing gay marriage is "the bible". And so
this is an encroachment on the separation of church and state by christian
politicians and activists.

[P]
There are plenty of laws that prevent people from doing what they please. So I 
don't get your point. For me, the foundation of opposing gay marriage is the 
social benefit of having families consisting of mothers and fathers as being 
the best arrangement for raising children -- a generality to be sure but one 
that has been approved and followed by humans ever since humans came on the 
scene. 

[P]
Not OK by me. I would vote to keep the Establishment Clause in our
Constitution. Wouldn't you?

[Arlo]
I don't think it should be "voted on", anymore than I think "slavery" should be
open to a vote.

[P]
Are you suggesting the Constitution should not be open to amending? I wouldn't 
vote for slavery, either. But I wouldn't imprison someone for proposing it. 

[P]
I wouldn't agree with the vote, but would abide by the law. Would you? And
again, would you vote to keep the Establishment Clause in our Constitution?

[Arlo]
I would not abide by a "law" that eliminated the separation of church and
state, no. Nor would I abide by a law that legalized slavery, or denied women
the right to vote. Again, I do not think the separation of church and state is
something to be "voted" on.

[P]
So how would you not abide by the law? What action(s) would you take? (I'm sure 
you realize that slavery, denial of women the right to vote and separation of 
church and state was voted on at one time. Also, that Islam today treats women 
as second class citizens.) 
 
[Arlo previously]
And, on what basis is the establishment clause rooted? I'd say "reason", would
you disagree?

[P]
I'd say freedom from government oppression, an unalienable right. That's 
reasonable to me. 

[Arlo]
Is that not derived from reason? I think so. Where do you think the idea came
from? Certainly not "god".

[P]
The idea came from "natural law" which has its foundations in several 
historical movements including the Prostestant Reformation. As you know, in the 
Declaration the Founders posited that unalienable rights were "endowed by their 
Creator."  

[P]
Finally, what has all this to do with the MOQ? Are you perhaps suggesting that
Pirsig's metaphysics should be the basis of American law? If so, good luck with
that. 

[Arlo]
I think Pirsig's metaphysics allow us a window into the social-intellectual
conflict, with the separation of church and state being an intellectual pattern
for improving governance (social patterns). "Laws" are primarily social
patterns, it seems to me to be about from where does the basis for these laws
derive? Intellectual patterns? God? Tradition? The whim of whoever has the
biggest gun? 

Did I answer adequately? If not, repost the questions I did not and I'll devote
my next reply to doing nothing but that.

[P]
Thanks for your answers. I agree that the MOQ gives us insights that we might 
not otherwise have. I think it supports constitutional limits on government 
power to allow 1) intellect to flourish, and 2) encourage openness to Dynamic 
Quality. As for the basis of laws, my answer stands -- the will of the people 
subject to limits as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. I would prefer the 
will of the people with all its stupidity as opposed to rule by an elite group 
of "rationalists." As William Buckley once famously remarked, "I'd rather 
entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in 
the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."  

But again, the question: What do you think should be the basis of  laws? If you 
say "reason," then whose reason? 

(Continued if you wish tomorrow.)