Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]The point is that, if you allow slavery, people could be (legally) coereced into selling themselves into slavery because of, say, adverse financial burdens, and then woulkd have a difficult time getting out of it. Under what conditions do you think allowing slavery would lead to a freer society generally?
...
That was only the case [i]because[/i ess he agrees to commit actions that are against the tenets of his religion/conscience?
[/b][/i]
The point on fascist parties (before you digressed to slavery) was to show that even democracies have "dogma" that are not up for debate.
Yep: that democracy itself (in various forms) as a better form of government generally than the known alternatives.* (Note the word “generally” there, please—there may be a despotic government that has a better record on some one issue than a given democracy; e.g. Mussolini’s trains probably ran more on time than the ones in the US at the time. There may also have been, say, pure monarchies that served the populace better
generally than a given democracy at a given time. Note also that I did not say “perfect.” )
If that is a “dogma” that you dispute, please either insert another form of government than “democracy,” or take a position of
a priori “governance relativism.”
* Because of your next comment, I want to add the qualifier “for human beings.” BTW, I also assume we’re using “dogma” in a sense similar to dogmas of the church—that is, not as something that has no basis at all for its assertion, but has been tested, at least to the satisfaction of those accepting it, by reason and history (and “revelation” in terms of the church).
The universal suffrage point was brought up to show that merely the fact that something crosses "more" lines is insufficient to make it better (presumably off-ing the Jews crossed "more" lines in pre-WWII Europe than letting them remain, for instance. Also, "opening up" lines is hardly a factor -- you could always open more lines by giving children and chimpanzees votes.)
You are once again lifting my arguments totally out of their context and trying to force them into some pure “syllogistic” form, in order to refute that “syllogistic” construct...
“Hardly a factor”?! So, opening up the lines by allowing women to vote is logically equivalent to allowing children and chimpanzee to vote? I say, “Free the chimps!” Do I really need to explain why suffrage for women is different from suffrage for armadillos?
If you really are saying there is no logical difference, then you’d also have to accept the inverse argument, which would be something like: “Since it makes no more sense* to open up the lines for women than for children and chimpanzees, there is no reason why we should open up the lines for women—at least not before we may do so for the kids and the chimps.”
Or, perhaps: “Since opening up lines of participation in the political process is not, of itself, necessarily a good thing, there is no reason for us to open up the lines anywhere.”
Enough of that. I believe you knew full-well what I meant, without my having to add a string of qualifiers such as “human beings beyond a certain age of competency, which age to be determined by Congress subject to rulings by the judicial branch on its constitutionality, which human beings must also be citizens, in order that a broader group of such human beings may participate in the political process...” and so on. If I were writing an academic paper (e.g., my master’s thesis), I would well take care to note all such qualifiers—but if that is your requirement for discourse here, I will simply refrain.
If “crossing the lines” or “opening the lines” are euphemisms that you do not understand, ask, and I’ll pick a better and less clumsy one. I assume from the nature of your responses that there is no confusion on that score however.
* Or, “society is no more enhanced by.”
AFAICS, even if they were to explicitly condone violence, current US law would not prevent them from participation in the democratic process. Is that something you would like to change, if you could?
I haven’t thought about it, and need to. My guess it, No, I would not—that does not mean that, say, police action to prevent actual violence from taking place is precluded (depending on how it’s done: constitutionality, etc.). I’ll reflect on it some more.
Does it matter which sector? Should a Catholic, or a Jew be told by the Government that it will not employ him unless he agrees to commit actions that are against the tenets of his religion/conscience?
Yes, it matters. The public sector has a larger obligation here (in the US) on this matter. For example, the C church may have an employment policy to employ only members of C for certain positions. The government cannot refuse to hire someone simply because they are or are not a member of any religion R.
But I don’t think a blanket statement can be made, which is why I mentioned specific cases as well. For example, suppose that there is a government agency that provides a particular good or service that a person P of religion R objects to on religious (or other moral) grounds.* Why would that agency employ P (indeed how could they, practically), if P says at the outset that she will refuse to provide that good or service? Why should that agency be obligated to employ P? And why would P apply for such a job? I don’t know how this goes to religious freedom.
That is logically equivalent to my saying that I refuse to divide numbers, but I want to be employed as an accountant, and the employer has some obligation to hire me as such.
* An example might be those states in which liquor is sold strictly through “state stores.”