[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
That's why I asked, "whose reason?" should prevail as the basis for 
laws. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've answered that question.

[Arlo]
I don't think "reason" is subjective, so I think asking "whose 
reason?" is an invalid question. Regarding "law", I think our courts 
are charged with the task of determining which argument has a greater 
quality, and ideally there are enough checks and balances along the 
way that the reasonable position should be implemented. 
Realistically, however, the appeals to emotion can sway the process 
at points, and even in the end the less reasonable position is 
sometimes implemented.

I can't think of a better basis for law than reason, can you? Appeals 
to a Creator? Then "law" simply becomes the implementation of 
Yahweh's will or Allah's will or Buddha's will. Do you want that?

[Platt]
Our system for making and enforcing laws isn't perfect my any means. 
But, I know of no better one, certainly not the Islamic system.

[Arlo]
Well this gets back to the beginning of the conversation, namely that 
our system is "better" because it is secular, it has a wall that is 
supposed to keep out the legislation of religious decree. And towards 
this I think we need to be quite vigilant, because I think the 
evidence is quite abundant that many in this country would have 
little problem dismantling this wall (provided the "church" being let 
in was their own).

You mentioned Robert's Rules of Law (cited by Pirsig) as a good 
foundation for law, as it maximizes DQ in a ground of stability. I 
say... that's reason.