Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's a serious question for liberals. You like diversity. You respect different cultures. You profess tolerance. To what extent are you willing to tolerate conservative or traditionalist sub-cultures in your midst?
A couple of scenarios:
1. Let's say there was a county in far northern Wisconsin that was majority Catholic and wanted to provide for its residents the full experience of social, cultural, and public Catholicism. The Catholic faith would influence its laws, its civic holidays and festivals, and the education of its youth. The enclave would be willing to pay federal taxes but wishes to be exempt from certain federal laws that infringe on its ability to provide a fully Catholic environment. For instance - developers may want to advertise new homes for sale in exclusively Catholic venues, which is illegal under federal law. The jurisdiction may want to limit its public safety personnel - fire and police services - to men only. The county may want to provide Catholic education to its youth via public schools funded by local taxes. Etc.
Is that something you would tolerate?
2. Suppose the county outlined above somehow managed to do all of this in formal compliance with federal law by setting up what really amounts to a "shadow government". Kind of like the Amish do, very quietly, while paying their taxes and everything.
Is that something you can tolerate?
The problem is that it runs afoul of several key Constitutional issues. The first is the establishment clause and the extension of that to the states via incorporation and the 14th amendment. You cannot use a state government actor to establish a religion and state subdivisions by their very nature receive all of their law making authority from the state. So that would not fly.
The second major Constitutional issue is the article 6 Surpremacy clause. A local jurisdiction cannot nullify federal laws, the federal government can make some exceptions, but that is the federal government's business. A state entity cannot unilaterally exempt themselves from federal law since that would be unconstitutional.
While I am a liberal I do in fact believe in the Constitution.
The problem is that it runs afoul of the establishment clause. You cannot use a government actor to establish a religion. So No and no with any religion.
First, I'm really trying to abstract the liberal attitude from the legal particulars. Suppose it didn't run afoul the establishment clause. Just pretend. For the sake of diversity, respect for different cultures, and tolerance, would you be OK with this? Or would you insist on imposing a total separation of faith and government on that level because keeping religious values out of government is more important to you?
Second, scenario #2 doesn't run afoul of the establishment clause (strictly speaking). The religious culture is so strong in that place that people just do what comes naturally. Are you OK with that?
That isn't true. Some religious conservatives have "made their peace" with the liberal culture around them and just want to be left alone.
The Amish get away with a lot of political incorrectness for some reason, at least liberals seldom go after them. Is that because they don't try to change anything in the liberal culture around them? I always thought it was because of their pacificism which liberals think is cool.
Other groups have also withdrawn, such as ultra-orthodox Jews, though they have run-ins with secular laws from time to time.
I suspect that liberals are less hostile to these groups because, historically, they have never been dominant or numerically powerful. So they sort of get a "minority" pass. I'm wondering if that tolerance will hold when evangelicals or Catholics decide to "go Amish".
I think the groups you mention aren't bothered because they don't bother. Unless something is obviously out of line, bigamy, underage marriage, life-endangering rituals, hate crimes, etc. they are left alone.
Making your peace is another way of saying you're giving up and getting out of the way. Societal rules call for letting up when someone calls "uncle".
First, I'm really trying to abstract the liberal attitude from the legal particulars. Suppose it didn't run afoul the establishment clause. Just pretend. For the sake of diversity, respect for different cultures, and tolerance, would you be OK with this? Or would you insist on imposing a total separation of faith and government on that level because keeping religious values out of government is more important to you?
Second, scenario #2 doesn't run afoul of the establishment clause (strictly speaking). The religious culture is so strong in that place that people just do what comes naturally. Are you OK with that?
I don't see how it is possible to not run afoul of the establishment clause so long as you are using a state subdivision, with state powers, like a town or county, you cannot simply get around the Constitution no matter what your views on religion, liberalism or tolerance are. Now if you wanted to do something by private contract I think they should be free to try it hypothetically speaking, but enforceability might be an issue.
The scenario in American has always been and always should be "live and let live." This is not a last resort, it's what our country was built upon. Sure there are exceptions, you can't tell a child molester to "live and let live," but on matters of thought, peaceful religion and basic choices, there's nothing more American than letting people do their own thing. We're all different, but it doesn't mean we can't be united.
I'm progressive and I've tolerated a hard right conservative culture all my life. All my neighbors had McCain signs in 2008. Sure it annoyed me, but it was within their right. If they moved to a neighborhood filled with Obama signs I would expect them to deal with it too.
The problem I have (and this is purely my perspective) is that many Conservatives only pay lip service to pluralism and tolerance, but reject it when they feel like their beliefs are being threatened. Like the many cases of community mosques being planned in conservative Christian communities. Suddenly the idea of religious freedom is thrown out the window. Why is this?
Here's a serious question for liberals. You like diversity. You respect different cultures. You profess tolerance. To what extent are you willing to tolerate conservative or traditionalist sub-cultures in your midst?
A couple of scenarios:
1. Let's say there was a county in far northern Wisconsin that was majority Catholic and wanted to provide for its residents the full experience of social, cultural, and public Catholicism. The Catholic faith would influence its laws, its civic holidays and festivals, and the education of its youth. The enclave would be willing to pay federal taxes but wishes to be exempt from certain federal laws that infringe on its ability to provide a fully Catholic environment. For instance - developers may want to advertise new homes for sale in exclusively Catholic venues, which is illegal under federal law. The jurisdiction may want to limit its public safety personnel - fire and police services - to men only. The county may want to provide Catholic education to its youth via public schools funded by local taxes. Etc.
Is that something you would tolerate?
2. Suppose the county outlined above somehow managed to do all of this in formal compliance with federal law by setting up what really amounts to a "shadow government". Kind of like the Amish do, very quietly, while paying their taxes and everything.
Is that something you can tolerate?
If they own the land (i.e., purchased all previously public land from the government at a reasonable rate), they built all the roads to the land and paid for maintenance without any government money, don't break any major US laws (i.e., no gun or drug running to and from the compound, no slavery, no statutory rape, no child abuse, etc.), pay all required US taxes, follow all Federal laws, and get certified as a religion, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Employment advertising would be legal because churches cannot be forced to hire employees who do not adhere to their faith. If property is for sale, I don't think even a church can discriminate on who buys it, but if the church owns all the property and calls them member residences (not apartments or such) it CAN restrict who lives there.
Incidentally, it happens all the time, but the groups wouldn't normally associate with such a mainstream church as the RCC. The ones who obey the rules as you stated are happily going about their lives and no one outside their group ever hears of them. It's the ones who do NOT obey the rules that make the news. Think Waco, famous because of illegal gun running and killing the US Marshals attempting to serve a search warrant.
Yes, if they want to keep strictly to themselves the way the Amish do, that's fine with me. In fact, I wish they would. I also am opposed to harassment of FLDS on that basis.
But the FDLS don't keep strictly to themselves. They get foodstamps, SSI, WIC....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
