Thank-you as always Lee for digging deeper and clearly highlighting opposing points-of-views (OPoVs) and the challenges that specific OPoV pose to achieving win-win democracy. Governments can use coercion (a powerful tool) in their value propositions (e.g., pay taxes or be fined or go to jail, and in some cases death penalty) to shape interactions and outcomes. Achieving win-win over different times scales, I suspect there are "play books" for individuals, elected officials, and various types of organizations. It might be interesting to examine such playbooks, for the purpose of evaluating both the ethical foundation of specific tools and approaches as well as their effectiveness in specific historical cases. If you see any books that delve into that, please let me/us (your readers know).
Some writers use the word "faith" where "religion" might otherwise be used, and I think that is instructive. Faith basically means believing in something despite any "evidence" to the contrary ... and that is the problem (or at least one problem) with trying to find "win-win" solutions in this area. People believe different (conflicting) things based on "faith", so no amount of "evidence" will convince them to accept other views. Even if (as is usually the case) their beliefs in fact do not comport with many of the teaching of their "religion"/"faith", because their beliefs are (in their mind) "faith based" they are essentially impervious to persuasion.
If people want to follow “faith”, that’s fine with me. What’s not fine is when they want me to follow what their faith or religion tells them to do. And, it is clear that no faith (using the word in the sense you suggest) has a monopoly on truth because different religions are - duh - different. They have different notions of “god”, different origin stories, etc., etc. Again, pick your faith/religion and live your life that way if you choose. But don’t try to make me live my life that way, because I might believe only in ideas for which there is scientific evidence or I might have faith in different things/ideas. The problem I see is that some religions teach that their adherents should get the rest of us to adopt that religion, including its rules for how to live. As long as there are religions that advocate converting others (even forcibly), or forcing others to obey their practices, we’re going to have strife. The hope of the United States was to get past that. We made a lot of progress for a long time, but are now regressing.
So, my view is that I don’t have to persuade those of faith to adopt my set of truths, just to let me live my life how I want to (subject to the usual restraints on harming others). The brilliance of what the Crusaders have done is to convince some of the public and the majority of SCOTUS that allowing me to live my life as I choose somehow deprives them of freedom to practice their religion (which, in some cases, involves discriminating against others).
I was not saying you should have to "persuade those of faith to adopt" your set of truths ... only that finding "win win" solutions to conflicts is going to be very vary hard to do when people (1) disagree on basic things like the right of others to practice different religions and (2) are impervious to any fact based arguments on the topic. These are the kind of people who don't understand that their right to extend their arm with a clenched fist ends somewhere well on their side of my nose. From recent events it appears that there are more of them than I thought before the events of almost exactly one year ago.
Lee, thanks for the excellent (as usual) article. However, in this case and in the preceding articles, I am very skeptical about the idea of finding a Win-Win Solution. As I see it, such a solution is not possible in a setting like the one we have today, where there are two contending viewpoints that have too little in common to enable a solution acceptable to both (see https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-launch-house-investigations-into-fbi-china-under-new-majority for an exception). As such, I'd like to focus on legislative approaches to defend "our" viewpoint such as term limits for SCOTUS and strengthened libel and fraud laws.
Thanks Mark. Sadly, I agree with you. I tried to articulate that in the "What's Next?" section at the end of the article. Maybe I should have stated it more plainly and directly.
While I believe that there could be a few win-win solutions on relatively minor aspects of religious freedom, overall there is fundamental disagreement with little common ground.
The next two issues of the newsletter will do exactly what you are suggesting. The next issue will explore the Supreme Court's anti-democratic power over the country. Then the following issue will look at potential ways to control the Court's power.
I do believe that there are some possible win-wins with how we do that. Basically, conservatives are unhappy with what they used to call judicial activism, where the Court, in their view, has granted rights that don't exist in the Constitution, and liberals are unhappy with the way that the Court has nullified actions of Congress. Perhaps "both sides" could see the wisdom of reigning in the Court and resolving our key conflicts through a more effective political process.
Thank-you as always Lee for digging deeper and clearly highlighting opposing points-of-views (OPoVs) and the challenges that specific OPoV pose to achieving win-win democracy. Governments can use coercion (a powerful tool) in their value propositions (e.g., pay taxes or be fined or go to jail, and in some cases death penalty) to shape interactions and outcomes. Achieving win-win over different times scales, I suspect there are "play books" for individuals, elected officials, and various types of organizations. It might be interesting to examine such playbooks, for the purpose of evaluating both the ethical foundation of specific tools and approaches as well as their effectiveness in specific historical cases. If you see any books that delve into that, please let me/us (your readers know).
Interesting idea. I’m not aware of any such books.
Minor editorial: in the first sentence of the third paragraph in the Abortion Access section "Medicare" should be "Medicaid".
Thanks Josh. I've corrected the online version.
I'm just sensitive because I'm on Medicare ... not Medicaid ... just kidding. Happy New Year and thanks for doing this.
Some writers use the word "faith" where "religion" might otherwise be used, and I think that is instructive. Faith basically means believing in something despite any "evidence" to the contrary ... and that is the problem (or at least one problem) with trying to find "win-win" solutions in this area. People believe different (conflicting) things based on "faith", so no amount of "evidence" will convince them to accept other views. Even if (as is usually the case) their beliefs in fact do not comport with many of the teaching of their "religion"/"faith", because their beliefs are (in their mind) "faith based" they are essentially impervious to persuasion.
If people want to follow “faith”, that’s fine with me. What’s not fine is when they want me to follow what their faith or religion tells them to do. And, it is clear that no faith (using the word in the sense you suggest) has a monopoly on truth because different religions are - duh - different. They have different notions of “god”, different origin stories, etc., etc. Again, pick your faith/religion and live your life that way if you choose. But don’t try to make me live my life that way, because I might believe only in ideas for which there is scientific evidence or I might have faith in different things/ideas. The problem I see is that some religions teach that their adherents should get the rest of us to adopt that religion, including its rules for how to live. As long as there are religions that advocate converting others (even forcibly), or forcing others to obey their practices, we’re going to have strife. The hope of the United States was to get past that. We made a lot of progress for a long time, but are now regressing.
So, my view is that I don’t have to persuade those of faith to adopt my set of truths, just to let me live my life how I want to (subject to the usual restraints on harming others). The brilliance of what the Crusaders have done is to convince some of the public and the majority of SCOTUS that allowing me to live my life as I choose somehow deprives them of freedom to practice their religion (which, in some cases, involves discriminating against others).
I was not saying you should have to "persuade those of faith to adopt" your set of truths ... only that finding "win win" solutions to conflicts is going to be very vary hard to do when people (1) disagree on basic things like the right of others to practice different religions and (2) are impervious to any fact based arguments on the topic. These are the kind of people who don't understand that their right to extend their arm with a clenched fist ends somewhere well on their side of my nose. From recent events it appears that there are more of them than I thought before the events of almost exactly one year ago.
Yes, you’re, unfortunately, correct.
Lee, thanks for the excellent (as usual) article. However, in this case and in the preceding articles, I am very skeptical about the idea of finding a Win-Win Solution. As I see it, such a solution is not possible in a setting like the one we have today, where there are two contending viewpoints that have too little in common to enable a solution acceptable to both (see https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-launch-house-investigations-into-fbi-china-under-new-majority for an exception). As such, I'd like to focus on legislative approaches to defend "our" viewpoint such as term limits for SCOTUS and strengthened libel and fraud laws.
Thanks Mark. Sadly, I agree with you. I tried to articulate that in the "What's Next?" section at the end of the article. Maybe I should have stated it more plainly and directly.
While I believe that there could be a few win-win solutions on relatively minor aspects of religious freedom, overall there is fundamental disagreement with little common ground.
The next two issues of the newsletter will do exactly what you are suggesting. The next issue will explore the Supreme Court's anti-democratic power over the country. Then the following issue will look at potential ways to control the Court's power.
I do believe that there are some possible win-wins with how we do that. Basically, conservatives are unhappy with what they used to call judicial activism, where the Court, in their view, has granted rights that don't exist in the Constitution, and liberals are unhappy with the way that the Court has nullified actions of Congress. Perhaps "both sides" could see the wisdom of reigning in the Court and resolving our key conflicts through a more effective political process.