[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 26 Aug 2010 at 16:49, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

[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.

[P]
Disagree. I'm with Ben Franklin: "So convenient a thing it is to be a rational 
creature, since it enables us to find or make a reason for everything one has a 
mind to do." In other words, there's no such thing as pure objectivity.  

[Arlo]
 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?

[P]
As I've repeatedly said, I think the best basis for law is the will of the 
people within the U.S. Constitutional framework which includes the courts. 
That's what I want, to keep the system we have.  .  

[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.

[P]
We basically agree, but I don't see the threat from religious zealots that you 
see. Rather, I see the threat coming from those who use reason (intellect) that 
thwarts our constitutional methods of establishing and enforcing laws. I think 
we are less likely to succumb to Islam, the Pope or Christian fundamentalists 
than we are to communism/socialism. We know what Pirsig thinks of such 
intellectually-guided societies. I agree with him.