[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 26 Aug 2010 at 20:27, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

[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]
I didn't say "reason" was objective either. You seem to be trying to force
reason to be either subjective or objective, and I think this is a metaphysical
split I disagree with.

This is like asking if social patterns are objective or subjective, or if
biological patterns are objective or subjective. These are invalid questions,
IMO.

[P]
I don't think subjective and objective have been repealed as valid concepts. In 
fact, they're the basis of the contemporary worldview. So, your saying they're 
invalid puzzles me, especially since Pirsig said his first two value levels 
could be considered objective and the upper two subjective.  

[Platt]
That's what I want, to keep the system we have...

[Arlo]
I think the system is a good one, one that is not beyond improving, but also
one that could easily be degraded... we can't be so static out of fear of
dissolution, but nor can we move every which way the wind blows.

[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.

[Arlo]
I don't think Pirsig would have though any better about those who
use/manipulate religion to demand legislation.

[P]
Agree

Do you not think the constitution of the US is an intellectually guided
document? I do. 

In fact, I think the "Establishment Clause" is itself a great example of the
moral dominance of intellect over social patterns.

I think the history of the U.S. Constitution shows it was document drafted and 
approved by a mixture of social, intellectual and religious values -- imperfect 
to be sure but one that reflected the various interests of the citizenry at 
that time whose primary motivation was to prevent the establishment of an 
authoritarian national government. So while intellect played a role, perhaps 
even a dominant role, other factors were in play. When it comes to governing I 
think this is as it should be -- many views considered, none banned from the 
marketplace of ideas.                 .