Religion and Politics

I agree, but this is the task of legislation. Nobody said it would be easy, but that is the challenge of the job and quite obviously why, despite the views of the 45th, politics is always a question of compromise. It isn’t just a case of morality or ethics, because that can be varied according to where I come from. It must also be clear to everybody entering the country with intentions to stay, that this is how it is, but it must also be clear to politicians that this is their task.

Unfortunately, vested interests seem to be played out more than is healthy. Democracy isn’t a weapon to undermine the difficult task of representative legislation, although some view it that way, but a way of getting a representation of varying views to the table. The fact that different parties represent different sides of the argument is one thing, but to totally underrepresent a minority is a failure if it has a far reaching effect on society – which obviously has happened many times.

Well, you can label me anyway you want but it won’t stick. It seems you have the same attitude as I do. Whenever you have the task of legislating a country as diverse as America is, the task is daunting. The freedom that was envisioned in the constitution clearly couldn’t imagine our times and what people would come up against. It has duly been misused to grant freedoms that have had dramatically adverse effects with all of the consequences.

I think the biggest problem is a lack of diversity amongst the political parties, which also has its dangers, obviously. But a two party system virtually represents a vote of “Yes” or “No” or “I don’t care”. And as long as the vested interests dominate the candidates agenda, nothing short of a revolution could change that. However, it seems to me that the 45th is doing his best to break it, but the perspectives that could follow are not particularly hopeful.

What I was trying to say is that marriage isn’t per se a religious issue. It can be, obviously, but it is more of a legal issue. It can be “any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities“.

Perhaps I was unclear.

I don’t know about that. If we take any moment in a country’s history, it’s legislation is not a compromise or set of compromises but distinct demarcations. We can’t tell Rosa Park’s and her lawyers that segregation is a compromise between slavery and complete equality and this is politics. She will view it as purely wrong and not as a compromise, though at an earlier time she might have viewed it as an improvment.

And then before a compromise is reached there’s no reason not to go for what you think is right.

To compromise? I am not sure if that is their task, but compromise is certainly going to be a frequent reality of their work.

Sure. But I am not sure what I wrote that goes against this.

I’m not defending Trump, him being a complicated set of phenomena and issues, if there every was one. I was reacting to what seemed to me a blanket condemnation of people trying to bring about legislation that would be based on their religious principles. (and note: I am not saying you had this blanket condemnation. But my post that was reaction to other posts in the thread was reacting to this, so the issue carries forward since you are responding to my response. Gets tricky with the various in contexts. You do not seem to be saying this, but I am defending my response to other posts in that context.)

I agree about the 2 party system and don’t really see it as even two parties anymore. I think we have an oligarchy. (And oddly, I think the oligarchy was not really pleased with Trump, which doesn’t make me like him, but I find it tragically ironic, not ha ha ironic. He is not fundamentally a free trade guy. He more Ross Perotish, with added instabilities, though we never got to see Perot live out whatever his full range of instabilities might have been. But heck, they got him on line with their continued desire to destabilize Syria and menacing Putin, we’ll see if they get him to back off from messing with GATT and the new GATTs and future GATTs. It’s like the idiot brother got to be king and all the nobles and the rest of the family are trying to keep him from messing with their interests. With Bernie Sanders, they’d probably just have had him put down.)

The problem is that demarcations, which are a very important part of life, also tend to marginalize and fail to seek ways in which to include minorities. Demarcate a metaphorical square with a metaphorical circle, for example, and you have four areas that can cause you problems if you fail to find some method of inclusion. “Square” societies (which are in fact reality) have often seen themselves as “circles” (some ideal that doesn’t represent reality), and pushed groups outside of the margin.

The example you gave of Rosa Parks is an example of this. Rosa Parks and those like her were part of the “square” society (reality) but there were a lot of people who were convinced that they were “circles” (imagined). Overcoming segregation was an act of inclusion, which had to overcome the perception of the imagined homogeneous (white) society with the reality of a diverse, heterogeneous society which included people of colour. The same can be said of any group that people don’t want to be a part of society.

Of course, you have to change behaviour, but the best way is to promote a consensus within society for laws that you intend to legislate if it doesn’t already represent the views of a majority. Of course, you are sometimes going to have to say, “this is how it is going to be, no discussions.” However, if you don’t want to just exchange the group that was excluded with another group, you have to find ways to include them. You have to make sure that the constituents are going to follow if you want them to support your policy, and coercion is not the best way.

If it is part of their work, then it is their job. To me, it is obvious that the compromise will follow a plan to change things more completely for the common good, and the compromise may be one step. However, I am aware that the vested interests of politicians often don’t work that way. Which is why I wrote:

I didn’t intend to put you in that box, but mentioned Trump as the way it is (or they are trying to make it) at the present, but religious principles have to be translated into real political policies, which must represent the best for all (however it may be seen) and not just a one-to-one quote, for example, out of the Bible.

Trump is Instability! He has hidden and more obvious agendas that are very damaging for millions of people, which is quite normal for a narcissist, and should never have been put in this position. In some ways he acts like a Greek god, petty and vengeful, full of his own importance, with no vision of serving the public. He probably wishes he had the powers of the gods.

I don’t disagree. But there is an implicit disembodied ‘you’ in the above. The best way [for you] is to promote a consensus…

If we look at Rosa Parks and the movement around her, they opted to be rather rigid and did not look for a compromise, whatever that would have been. They tried to eliminate segregation, period. They might accept compromises along the way as realists. Of course on the side they are making moral arguments to achieve perhaps not consensus, but enough support.

My point being that there is nothing wrong, per se, with aiming for what one wants and not the compromise. One direct practical reason for this is that the other side will use your aiming directly for compromise against you in the negotiation. And while one may later accept compromises, these will be seen as temporary and this is not per se bad.

I mentioned the disembodied you as an issue because then it is as if we are talking about everyone. But we are individual yous and those particular yous need, often, to go in with a not compromised goal.

It seems to me their job is more complicated. To represent their constituants. To remove or minimize pernicious aspect of legislation, even if this means NOT compromising. If one of the common occurrances is compromise this does not make it THE JOB. Just as disagreeing with their opponents and even allies will be a part of their work, it is not THE JOB. And sometimes their role entails, includes a duty, to NOT compromise.

Are you willing to compromise on the inclusion of minorities? Like we include some of them or only in some ways? would you go to the table with the intent to find a middle ground or with the goal or including them, period? I understand that for practical reasons you might accept a temporary less than ideal inclusion, but your goal and what seems to what you would consider your responsibility would in the long run be inclusion, period.

You have a morality of inclusion and you struggle to make the world match that.
Others have different ones.
We can’t make our own personal shoulds metashoulds.

Your morality is X.
Mine is Y.

But mine is actually right because it does Z, which supercedes your morals.

It’s the same when the right says liberals have no values. That conservatives are the only ones with values. Mine are values, yours are not. So my values are the ones we must go with.

Same in the sense that it is trying to create a meta-position to deny the validity of the other person’s morals being truly morals.

Oh, you got your belief from a line in the Bible, that is not best for all, in my estimation, so it is invalid.

One can certainly argue that there are problems with determining morals through scripture and so on.

But this thread, it seemed to me, seemed to be implying that ‘their’ values should not be part of the process because they come from religion. That this is Sharia - but Sharia would be going against the principles of the constitution around exclusion and freedom to practice. While individuals, be they politicians or citizens just, having their morals based on religion does not go against the constitution.

And much of the law is about exclusion. This person is allowed to do this because of X. All others are not.

I suspect the reason we cannot synthesize B12 and are not efficient at synthesizing A or K2 from plant material is testament to the extent to which animals have taken up the slack by doing this work for us. We’ve been freed from lugging large guts around while spending most of our days eating rather than having available time to concentrate on science and art. This would seem to be a benefit from our perspective. I think human slavery had similar parallels, though it may be more difficult to pin them down. The IQ divergence between the jews and slavs suggests, like animals, each has their own unique abilities that can be harnessed through chore-delegation for the betterment of the group. In other words, the jews could not have developed their verbal acumen without the slaves doing the menial. Shared responsibility doesn’t lead to specialization and it’s why men and women having opposite strengths yield a more effective relationship: you do what I cannot and I’ll do what you cannot and together we can be complementary.

What IQ divergence?

I didn’t even know they had IQ tests back then.

It’s today. Jews have the highest verbal IQ of any group. Slavics have a better mechanical mind. I’m not sure how Asians fit into the picture.

During the same period, laws barred Ashkenazi Jews from most jobs, including farming and crafts, and forced them into finance, management, and international trade. Wealthy Jews had several more children per family than poor Jews. So, genes for cognitive traits such as verbal and mathematical talent, which make a person successful in the few fields where Jews could work, were favored; genes for irrelevant traits, such as spatio-visual abilities, were supported by less selective pressure than in the general population. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi … elligence#“Natural_History_of_Ashkenazi_Intelligence”

So you just suddenly jumped from ‘slavery’ to the ‘Slavic’ ethnic group.

I thought that you had just misspelled “slave” when you wrote “slav”, cause there where no other clues about your process of thinking.

The English word slave comes from Old French sclave, from the Medieval Latin sclavus, from the Byzantine Greek σκλάβος, which, in turn, comes from the ethnonym Slav, because in some early Medieval wars many Slavs were captured and enslaved.[8][9] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Well, not all Slavs were slaves and they certainly were not slaves of the Jews. So the connection or pattern in terms of IQ seems pretty sketchy.

Well if the jews were not allowed to do menial labor, then who did it? Whoever did it is responsible for the development of the jews’ IQ. I have a hunch that those people were slaves and if nothing else, wage-slaves like what we have today. Almost no one works today as a free choice, but they slave to make someone else rich in order to survive. Slavery has not gone away, but the slaves are simply paid better.

So to clarify : you don’t mean ‘Jews’ , you mean Ashkenazi Jews. And you don’t mean 'slaves" or “Slavs”, you mean anybody who does the menial labor in a society.

And you’re saying that one group benefits because another group takes on menial work … which frees up the former group to better themselves.

And then what? This can be taken to the point of justifying or rationalizing slavery?

Wasn’t KT making an ethical statement about slavery?

Wage-slavery isn’t actually slavery.

An employee has significantly more control over his life than a slave.

Yes, I suppose so.

Yes exactly.

Well yeah, that’s where I was heading. Not that I necessarily agree with it, but the capitalists do and they make good arguments for the benefits of profit (which is stolen productivity).

I don’t know.

You’re arguing the degree of slavery and degree of control. As long as you’re compelled to do some work that you don’t want to do, then you’re a slave to it, right? Nevermind that said work benefits the employer just like slavery benefits the master.

The master used to house his slaves and provide medical care, food, whatnot and now the employer simply issues money so that the slaves can care for themselves. The point remains that it’s the job of the employee to make the employer money.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNrVaJJfHA[/youtube]

Transcript

so to keep the game going he has to
39:03
replace the tools and equipment and he
39:05
has to pay the workers, but he has to pay
39:09
the workers… here we go folks:
39:11
less than the value added by the workers
39:14
when they work. Or to use the technical
39:17
term economists like: he has to rip the
39:20
workers off, he has to steal from them
39:25
part of what their labor added. You know
39:29
what the lesson here is for those of you
39:32
who imagined that when you graduate from
39:34
here you will get a job, in fact, the only
39:37
job you will accept is
39:38
one that pays you what you’re worth. Ah
39:42
never gonna happen! The condition of your
39:46
employment is that you produce more by
39:50
your labor than you get paid
39:52
welcome to the capitalist system that’s
39:57
how it works

Those are strictly your opinions about what capitalists think and how one ought to characterize profit.

One is compelled to eat and sleep but should we call it slavery? I don’t think so.

I had to paint my kid’s bedroom. I hate painting but I wouldn’t call it slavery.

I call it a part of the mix of life.

The work benefits the employee as well.

Yeah, it’s a question of degree. Slaves got something out of it and they lost something. The general evaluation became that the slaves lost too much and that there were better options.

We’re still looking for the better option to paid employment. Right?

Fact is a matter of opinion.

Why not?

Why not?

Yes, slaves have benefits.

Instead of forcing the slaves to live on site for fear that they may escape, it was found to be easier to simply pay the slaves slightly better so they would return to work of their own volition.

Partnerships or what Richard Wolff calls “worker co-ops”.

Not really.

Because it trivializes slavery and the suffering of slaves.

That’s a significant difference.

But if I don’t want to work in a co-op or otherwise, then by your own definition, it’s still slavery.

And since you seem not to want to grade it by degrees, all slavery is the same. Right?

Yes really

No it doesn’t. Does a first degree burn trivialize a third degree burn because they’re both called burns?

Not significant enough to remove it from the category of “slavery”.

Slavery is being forced to work for the benefit of someone else. If you’re not forced, then it’s not slavery.

Are all burns the same even though graded by degrees? They’re still burns.

Sorry, I must have missed the post where you made a distinction between first-degree slavery and third-degree slavery.

It appeared that you went out of your way to make slavery and employment seem as similar as possible.

Well, if I don’t want to work but I have to work to put food on the table, then I’m being forced to work and therefore I’m a slave.

Maybe I don’t want to work in some particular co-op but I have no choice because there are only a limited number of available jobs. I’m being forced once again.

Those kinds of issues are going to arise whether I’m an employee of a capitalist or a partner in a co-op.

So you’re admitting that capitalist wage-slavery is significantly better than real slavery?

I didn’t. You did. I’m just playing along. Slavery is slavery and I don’t condone any variety, although you see condemning the one as somehow trivializing the other, presumably because you support capitalism???

Yes they are similar, but I didn’t go out of my way to show it.

CEOs are compensated 400x the salary of their average employee, but did masters live 400x better than their slaves? What did it cost to own a slave back then and what % is that of the income generated on the plantation? I suspect the ratio isn’t all that different and perhaps it’s worse today than in the slave-days. Wouldn’t that be ironic lol

Right.

The only way you can choose to work is if you do not have to work. If you have to work to live, then working is not a choice, but a compulsion. What you are talking about is having the choice about what type of work you might want to do, which is irrelevant to the slavery status.

Sure, why wouldn’t I? Being a well-paid prostitute is better than being a crack-whore, but still isn’t anything to brag about.