Pluralism

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Pluralism

Post by honorentheos »

Thought I'd post a link to this article from The Atlantic's newsletter on pluralism in the US.

https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/the ... s-freedom/

From the article:

It’s been called the “oral argument that cost the Democrats the presidency.” On April 28, 2015, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. stood up in the Supreme Court and argued that the Court should recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. During that argument, Justice Samuel Alito asked him a question that voiced the concern of millions of people of faith. Here was the key exchange:

Justice Samuel Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?

Solicitor General Verrilli: You know, I—I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is—it is going to be an issue.

With that response, General Verrilli confirmed a growing sense of alarm in theologically conservative Christian circles. If they continued to maintain that marriage is a union between a man and woman, would they be treated as bigots? As the equivalent of white supremacists?

...

The proper answer to Justice Alito’s question should have been “No, it will not be an issue, Justice Alito. The government does not view the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the vast majority of the Protestant Church to be the equivalent of white supremacy, and the government has a fundamental and overriding interest in protecting the free exercise of religion.”

But because of General Verrilli’s response, when same-sex-marriage advocates have asked opponents, “What does my marriage have to do with your life?” there’s been an obvious answer from people of faith: “Changing the law could strip me of my religious freedom. It could destroy the school where I educate my kids, and it could damage the institutions that represent and advance my core values and deepest beliefs.”

This did not have to be the outcome of recognizing same-sex marriage, and so far, it has not been the outcome of recognizing same-sex marriage. Thanks to more than a decade of religious-freedom victories at the Supreme Court, people of faith enjoy more freedom from government suppression than at any time in the nation’s history.

At the same time, thanks to Obergefell v. Hodges and Bostock v. Clayton County, the latter of which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects Americans from employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, LGBTQ Americans now enjoy more rights to form their own family and greater protection from workplace discrimination than at any other time in American history.

That’s how pluralism is supposed to work. It is possible for people with profoundly different worldviews to enjoy both individual liberty and freedom from workplace discrimination. (Title VII also protects people of faith from discrimination.)


I personally view pluralism as opposite populism on the axis of additive positions that, themselves, are not political positions. But rather, they are ideological beliefs about societal organization. Populism defines the order as one divided between evil elites and a good but oppressed majority of common folk. Pluralism defines the order as divided between tribal reductionism and expansive cosmopolitanism.

How are those opposites when they both seem to be composed of defined opposing pairs? Because by definition populism is tribal, and within the populist view cosmopolitan societies are what elites force feed to the good common folk to make them change or be considered deplorable.

You'll notice that both can apply to left and right politics. Both Trump and Bernie Sanders have populist agendas and support. Pluralism is more difficult to assign to movements by nature, but moderate politicians from both major US parties have engaged in pluralist legislation. From the article:

And that brings me to the Senate version of the Respect for Marriage Act. On Wednesday, a bipartisan coalition of senators (50 Democrats and 12 Republicans) voted to block a filibuster of legislation that both protects same-sex marriage if Obergefell falls and contains religious-freedom protections for religious dissenters, including explicit protections for tax exemptions.

The bill doesn’t give either side everything, but it still contains crucial provisions that can comfort (almost) everyone. First, it states that “no person acting under color of State law” can deny “full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.”

In plain English, that means if your marriage was legal in the state where you’re married, then government officials from other states and localities can’t refuse to recognize the validity of that marriage on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.

And what of religious freedom? The bill does two important things. First, it declares that “[n]othing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.”

This is an important provision and distinctly different from the Democratic approach to the Equality Act, which limited the reach of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In other words, the bill explicitly diminished religious-freedom protections under federal law. The Respect for Marriage Act does no such thing.

...

The provisions, taken together, roughly preserve the legal status quo. At the risk of being overly simplistic, advocates for same-sex marriage are concerned that the Supreme Court could take a sledgehammer to Obergefell. Advocates of religious liberty are concerned that Congress could take a sledgehammer to religious freedom. The bill addresses both concerns.

...

The magic of the American republic is that it can create space for people who possess deeply different world views to live together, work together, and thrive together, even as they stay true to their different religious faiths and moral convictions. The Senate’s Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t solve every issue in America’s culture war (much less every issue related to marriage), but it’s a bipartisan step in the right direction. It demonstrates that compromise still works, and that pluralism has life left in it yet.


In other words, pluralism requires compromise and accepting that, while someone else may have different fundamental beliefs, there are essential beneficial reasons for respecting those beliefs.

Sound like acquiescing or weakness? Like something a politician would say to avoid taking a bold, necessary stand against an obvious evil?

There in lies the issue for folks on both sides and why extremism is intensifying, partisan divided calcifying, and democracy imperilled.

Submitted for thought.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Pluralism

Post by Gadianton »

Binger will say that Pluralism then requires compromise with populism. (and populists believe in no compromise)
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: Pluralism

Post by honorentheos »

Gadianton wrote:
Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:33 am
Binger will say that Pluralism then requires compromise with populism. (and populists believe in no compromise)
$10 says Culty would just deny having anything to say.
Post Reply