Any theory that suggests that every view is partially right (although I reject this and think some views are totally wrong) is pluralism. The best political model for pluralism is a constitutional democracy that guarantees certain rights and has checks and balances to prevent the domination of any one group or ideology. Such a society cannot tolerate intolerance or privilege any one ideology. The problem with religion is that it harbours extremists who ‘believe’ they are right and place political pressure on the system to privilege and impose their ideology.
The danger in any society is that enough pressure from a motivated minority (say over 30%) can create a totalitarian revolution. The biggest danger is not the minority but a passive majority who do nothing to stop this.
The danger in any society is that enough pressure from a motivated minority (say over 30%) can create a totalitarian revolution. The biggest danger is not the minority but a passive majority who do nothing to stop this.
As long as totalitarians exist they must be resisted. It’s a constant process that only stops when the totalitarian ideology (which includes religion) has disappeared or been fatally wounded.
The US is at a tipping point with many small rights and conditions having already been eroded from the political pressure of religious totalitarians. It is hanging in the balance because of the constitution. It’s biggest problem is an apathetic majority, many of whom can’t even be bothered voting. This entry was posted on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 at 8:35 pm and is filed under Ray's Integral Blog, Politics trackback. 3 Responses to “Integral pluralism”
The US is at a tipping point with many small rights and conditions having already been eroded from the political pressure of religious totalitarians. It is hanging in the balance because of the constitution. It’s biggest problem is an apathetic majority, many of whom can’t even be bothered voting. This entry was posted on Saturday, June 9th, 2007 at 8:35 pm and is filed under Ray's Integral Blog, Politics trackback. 3 Responses to “Integral pluralism”
ray harris Says: June 9th, 2007 at 9:33 pm I should add that this is all about power. It doesn’t matter what type of political system you have it is always at risk from either external or internal threat and as the famous maxim goes - the price of democracy is eternal vigilance, and that’s why apathy is always the biggest threat. Unfortunately the US myth of individualism is also a threat - because so many Americans have been taught to treat government as an imposition they put this into effect by trying to ignore it. What the individualists do not understand is that it is the government that protects their rights to be pseudo-individualists. As much as they might think they can defend themselves with their guns they are actually helpless against a well armed and determined foe. The collective is always stronger than the individual. I’m surprised that some Americans still hold onto the myth of the rugged individualist. As I recall isolated farmers were fair pickings for bands of Native Americans. They NA’s were only defeated by a military campaign funded by the federal government (particularly under Jackson). The West wasn’t won by settlers, but by the military force behind the settlers.
Tusar N. Mohapatra Says: June 10th, 2007 at 7:54 am The most causal and fundamental of your observations cited below also applies to all the socio-political interrogations that you are attempting.
[ray harris Says: April 24th, 2007 at 7:40 pm There’s something frustrating about all this. Most of it is assertion. There is no agreed system of arbitration and no agreed arbiters.]
So, the point is “who decides?” Perhaps “the Great Ideas” line of thought advocated by Matthew Dallman is of help.
[ray harris Says: April 24th, 2007 at 7:40 pm There’s something frustrating about all this. Most of it is assertion. There is no agreed system of arbitration and no agreed arbiters.]
So, the point is “who decides?” Perhaps “the Great Ideas” line of thought advocated by Matthew Dallman is of help.
ray harris Says: June 10th, 2007 at 3:25 pm Throughout history it has been those with power who decide. Wiser minds have developed a system of checks and balances, but they have only been able to put these in place after they got the power to do so.
There are two models for this, the revolutionary and the evolutionary. In terms of democracy the revolutionary model is exemplified by the French and American revolutions and evolutionary by the development of the parliamentary system in England (which only recently made a radical change to the House of Lords).
Fanatical religious groups are a threat to democracy because they are totalitarian by nature. That’s why so many were persecuted in Europe and fled to America. The balance in America is accidently achieved because there are so many competing religious sects and no one group can dominate.
There are two models for this, the revolutionary and the evolutionary. In terms of democracy the revolutionary model is exemplified by the French and American revolutions and evolutionary by the development of the parliamentary system in England (which only recently made a radical change to the House of Lords).
Fanatical religious groups are a threat to democracy because they are totalitarian by nature. That’s why so many were persecuted in Europe and fled to America. The balance in America is accidently achieved because there are so many competing religious sects and no one group can dominate.
No comments:
Post a Comment