An omitted final remark:
Even if pluralism, in some societies, tolerates groups not of
equal status, that shows the connection between pluralism and toleration,
not the reverse. So even given Doug's historical point, one can readily say
pluralism and toleration not only coexist, but
I thought this was what
Jim's distinction between pluralism and tolerance amounted to, but wasn't
sure. Unfortunately, current dictionary usage is ambiguous about the
status of "toleration." Many dictionary entries stress putting up
with or suffering something. But even here the o
Thanks for the clarification, Jim. This is a technical use of the terms of which I was not aware.It seems to me that a pluralistic system (in the more formal sense Jim is using the term) requires tolerance (in a colloquial sense) by all groups concerned.In a non-technical sense the US is pluralist
In a message dated 7/29/2005 7:26:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
England passed an Act of
Toleration in the late 17th century. It coexisted with an
established church and test oaths. The Americans a century later
substituted "free exercise" for toleratio
In a message dated 7/29/2005 8:05:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, are
you seriously saying that pluralistic and tolerant are not able to mutually
exclusive? A society cannot be both pluralistic and tolerant? I've
never heard tolerance offered in contras
In a message dated 7/29/2005 7:46:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, most cookie recipes use both salt and sugar. A pinch of salt
removes bitterness in other ingredients, and makes the sugar seem sweeter --
in the end, requiring less sugar for better taste.
OOPS. I meant mutually exist. An editing problem. Sorry.SteveOn Jul 29, 2005, at 8:04 PM, Steven Jamar wrote:Jim, are you seriously saying that pluralistic and tolerant are not able to mutually exclusive? A society cannot be both pluralistic and tolerant? I've never heard tolerance offered in
Jim, are you seriously saying that pluralistic and tolerant are not able to mutually exclusive? A society cannot be both pluralistic and tolerant? I've never heard tolerance offered in contrast to pluralistic. I've only ever seen them hand in hand -- we are pluralistic and tolerant of difference
No, most cookie recipes use both salt and sugar. A pinch of salt removes bitterness in other ingredients, and makes the sugar seem sweeter -- in the end, requiring less sugar for better taste.
Sometimes a bright line just doesn't do the job.
Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviou
41
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Fri 7/29/2005 5:54 PMTo:
religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: John
Lofton/Oaths
Jim writes:
"But the development of trials from battle and fire to oath and jury
suggests that some kind of meaning attac
Jim writes:
"But the development of trials from battle and fire to oath and jury
suggests that some kind of meaning attaches to an oath above and beyond the bare
power of the court to punish perjury."
I think this unjustifiably
conflates the origination of X with X's
present char
In a message dated 7/29/2005 5:22:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Haven’t we left the
Lockean theory regarding the evidentiary value of oaths far behind?
Don’t most jurisdictions permit a witness to “affirm” an obligation to tell
the truth, and to do so witho
I do not recall Locke's
views on this matter. But we do accept affirmation; and I think the
word "infidel," is to contemporary American sensibility,
offensive. Typically, its used to denigrate someone else's religious
belief as irreligious because the belief is incompatible with th
In a message dated 7/29/2005 6:53:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I doubt that most people,
even religious people, are more ready to tell the truth only if the swear an
oath to God rather than simply being informed that the perjury rules
apply. But
punishments? Jim, are you arguing
that we should return to the Lockean view?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 6:37
AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: John Lofton/Oaths
In a
message dated 7/29/2005 6:23:28 A.M
, FAX (419) 530-4732
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M Pardee
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 1:35
PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: John Lofton/Oaths
My starting point was
different. If someone was devoted to religion, not simply out of fear or
prudential concerns, but because he or she believed God to be the source of
moral law, then unless secular law was impoverished, I can't imagine that person
not truthfully testifying merel
The primary difference between the two
potentially motivating fears is that the legal system can be deceived
as to whether or not one is telling the truth, so John Q. Witness might
believe that he could perjure himself and get away with it. An omniscient
supreme being, on the other hand, would bo
Different things were happening on some levels, but not on others. Jefferson and Madison started their remarkable collaboration in 1776, when the young Madison was appointed to the legislature in Virginia and showed up just after George Mason had decided the work on the Virginia bill-of-rights-to-
Or, because religion is meaningless if coerced, the Establishment Clause
means exactly what it says and is in play when "religion" is injected into
any requirement by government in respect to an oath or affirmation or into
any law respecting an establishment of religion; therefore, since govern
I doubt that most people,
even religious people, are more ready to tell the truth only if the swear an
oath to God rather than simply being informed that the perjury rules
apply. But that aside, Jim presses the question, do we accept variances
because "we are a pluralistic society o
In a message dated 7/29/2005 6:33:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any
alternative argument must have Madison flip-flopping on religious
freedom, and I don't think there is any evidence to support such a
claim. From his first success persuading Mason to put re
In a message dated 7/29/2005 6:23:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
we might
simply say to a witness, your testimony is subject to the laws of perjury, and
you're legally required to tell the truth whether you swear an oath or not.
Bobby, the problem is that b
Madison's lifelong obsession with religious liberty produced a constant refinement in what he wrote and in the laws he passed. The First Amendment is much shorter than the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. It benefits from four years of thought about how to edit it, and from the Constitutio
In a message dated 7/29/2005 4:31:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Everybody's included, in Jefferson's view. Not
toleration
Okay. Now that evidences the possibility that Virginia was pluralist
rather than tolerant. But the Virginia Statute is not part of the
Con
Historically, one might draw a direct line from Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, through the passage of Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom, in Virginia, through the writing of the Constitution a few months later, and to the First Amendment. Madison and Jefferson were much in agreement o
In a message dated 7/28/2005 9:22:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think
we are both pluralist and tolerant or at least aspire to be, especially for
constitutional and legal purposes. But I'm not sure how they both play
out. It can't be that we're exhibitin
In a message dated 7/28/2005 9:08:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For
constitutional and legal purposes, do you distinguish between pluralistic and
tolerant societies?
I think we are both
pluralist and tolerant or at least aspire to be, especially for c
In a message dated 7/28/2005 7:43:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not
sure why it is implied that one's oath to God is false or rather to a false
God unless one's hand is on the Bible. How can a pluralist society take a
stand on which God is the true God?
I'm not sure why it is
implied that one's oath to God is false or rather to a false God unless one's
hand is on the Bible. How can a pluralist society take a stand on which God is
the true God? But more important, isn't the purpose of swearing an oath to
God, to discipline the oath-
Mr. Lofton wrote in relevant part: "Interesting what happens when you
de-abstractionize discussions by being specific, by, for example, simply
quoting God's Word. In any event, let me take a swing at the questions
asked below. My point was that, as God says, there's only one God --- Him.
You either
I Mr. Pardee wasn't, I am. What difference does it make when swearing to any god at all? If one believes in that god and in consequences of making a false oath to or in the name of the god, then one may be more likely to actually follow through with telling the truth or performing the functions,
Interesting what happens when you de-abstractionize discussions by being
specific, by, for example, simply quoting God's Word. In any event, let me take
a swing at the questions asked below. My point was that, as God says, there's
only one God --- Him. You either take an oath to Him or a false g
33 matches
Mail list logo
