E Pluribus Unum

[Ted King]

out of many, one


The United States is obviously a society of many. Many different kinds of ethnicities. Many kinds of nations of origin. Many kinds of religious beliefs. Many kinds of mutts.

We clash over resources. We clash over our prejudices. We clash over rights. We are not far enough away from building nests in trees to not have clashes of many kinds. Yet, we cannot build a stable democratic society if the clashes become too great.

As happens quite often, a group of like-minded people in the U.S. have decided to try to extend a Constitutionally guaranteed right into activities that have not clearly been established previously as legally permitted. This group wants to extend freedom of religion farther into the public sphere.

Freedom of religion is very important and rightly belongs in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. But no freedoms or rights are absolute. They must be balanced with other freedoms (perhaps the most important thing the Supreme Court undertakes to do).

There are many religious views in the United States. A balance needs to be made with respect to all of those religious views in the public sphere - including open public market places. If each individual had an absolute right to impose their religious views on exchanges in the public market places, that would cause clashes. The property rights of owners would inevitably clash with the religious rights of their employees. Markets would not be places of equal opportunity. The free market could become much less free.

We are a pluralistic country. If we are to make one out of many, it is crucial that there be equal opportunity in markets. Someone using their religion in a way that reduces the equal opportunity in public markets is putting on another brick to heighten the walls that make us many rather than one.

I think religious freedom is a precious thing, but I also think using freedom of religion to reduce the freedom of free markets works too much against what it takes to make one from many.

[hal]

Nice post... and I certainly agree. I honestly believe that one of the greatest things about this country is that freedom of religion is written in the basic laws of the land. Interpreting the laws is a challenge, but it seems to me that we are going in the right direction as a whole.

[Ted King]

Thanks hal.

I want to mention that I think social walls are not necessarily bad. I just prefer them to be low enough to sit on and have a chat with someone from the "other side" of the wall. Or at least where the walls aren't so high that we can't easily communicate over them. Or too high for young lovers to leap over.

Also, I thought about making a post with addenda of things that I said in the OP that probably should be more heavily nuanced than I expressed them; e.g., about "equal opportunity". I can do that if anyone is interested (oh noes!).

[cbelt3]

While technically the initial meaning was "out of many states, one nation", the interpretation at an individual level is most certainly a valid one. Our nation, in our lifetimes, has gone from a Republic of states with their differences into a more monolithic nation. With enhanced mobility of population and even more with mobility and diffusion of thought at light speed, the melding of local culture and thought processes is more significant.

The organic "America" is no longer the Normal Rockwell small town midwest existence. It is now the urban America, where cultures and tribes merge together into an amorphous whole.

Politicians that neglect this truth have been on the losing trend for years, and don't seem to understand it.

[swampy]

The whole idea of "making one out of many" rubs me the wrong way. If we are asked to give up our unique foibles (religion, ethnic traditions, ability to produce etc.) we no longer come out as a pot of stew with identifiable ingredients of peas, carrots, potatoes and meat. You are asking the chefs to puree the parts and dish out mush.

[DeusxMac]

swampy wrote:
The whole idea of "making one out of many" rubs me the wrong way. If we are asked to give up our unique foibles (religion, ethnic traditions, ability to produce etc.) we no longer come out as a pot of stew with identifiable ingredients of peas, carrots, potatoes and meat. You are asking the chefs to puree the parts and dish out mush.

The problem is when the peas want to have nothing to do with the carrots, potatoes and meat, and form an isolated lump that is set on excluding any trace of flavor from the other ingredients because "they're not like us peas".

[Acer]

swampy, I don't think there's any country in the post-Columbus era that has experienced significant immigration that has attained a pureed mush, so I don't see that as a credible threat. Even if they look monolithic from the outside, as soon as there's instability all the factions come back out of the woodwork, e.g. Russia.

The threat of pureed mush comes from conservative (small "c") religion (Christian, Muslim--or even political "religion" like communism). They aren't interested in coexistence...they REQUIRE conformity to survive. They demand it of themselves, and they demand it of others because the "others" represent a vector of corruption undermining the conservatives.

[decay]

people often forget that their right to extend their fist ends before it touches my body.

so it goes with other rights.

another forgotten rule: with every right comes a corresponding responsibility.

[cbelt3]

swampy-

Let's take this to a local and personal level. In an allegorical neighborhood, you can either have a controlling tribalism or a more open collaborative environment.

Which neighborhood functions better ? The one where those who 'do not belong' are driven out or forced to become a member of the tribe ? Or the one where everyone is neighborly and cooperative regardless of tribal elements ?

In my personal experience, the cooperative environment is better. I've lived in a tribal neighborhood. Those people were jerks. I hated it. My wife hated it. My children hated it. Even though we *were* members of their 'tribe', we chafed under the imposed limits and petty dictatorships of the tribal 'councils' (HOA, PTA, etc..)

"Freedom" in society is not the freedom to be a complete ass to others in the society. It's the freedom to interact with everyone in the manner of your choosing, as long as it's polite and respectful.

Freedom to be an ass is anarchy. Society breaks down. Politeness and mutual respect are the glues that hold societies together at a meta level.

[Ted King]

swampy wrote:
The whole idea of "making one out of many" rubs me the wrong way. If we are asked to give up our unique foibles (religion, ethnic traditions, ability to produce etc.) we no longer come out as a pot of stew with identifiable ingredients of peas, carrots, potatoes and meat. You are asking the chefs to puree the parts and dish out mush.

So you have never worked to accomplish a goal with other people who are not completely of like mind with you about everything? If you have, did you have to give up your unique foibles to accomplish the goal or were you able to keep your self identity and find a way to accommodate the differences in foibles amongst those you were working with to accomplish the goal?