The New York Times' double standard on democracy

[reality_hammer]

While whining that waging war on terrorism is anti-Democratic the New York Times has also made sure to promote radical theocracies as "democracies". This double standard on democracy should come as no surprise to anyone who realizes that the New York Times is trying to reposition itself from a city/national paper into an international news source

Comments

[politikitty]

I would agree with you that Iran is not particularly democratic. But isn't democracy one of degrees? Most European nations have very limited primary systems, and America has very few legislative issues decided by referendum. To arrive at the argument that Iran is not both theocratic and democratic, you have to concede that secularism is critical to a democratic state.

The religious party in Iran holds all the powers as political parties in other countries. At what point does religiosity act as a bar to the democratic process?

It's an interesting question.

[dlombard]

Really?

[politikitty]

Actually looking back on the case, you may be right. It depends on whether the overturning relied on Planned Parenthood v Casey (9th Amendment) or 14th amendenment guarenteeing non-discrimination based on gender.

They agree that the real reason behind sodomy laws were not against homosexuality, but rather non-procreative sex of which homosexuality would be simply one segment, so homosexual-only sodomy laws are unconstitutional. But then they (very) breifly touch down on the privacy between sexual contact.

When it first came out, I remember reading that it only applied to the few states that had gender-biased sodomy laws, but the only copies left that Google has kept around say things like "many legal scholars believe" it overturns all sodomy laws. So perhaps a second look made them correct themselves, or perhaps it's simply a question for the ages since the likelihood of people getting arrested on sodomy charges are almost non-existant. The Texas case was actually fairly set-up, much like the Scopes trial.

[luprand]

Heyo, actual Mormon here. I should mention that the Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) church outlawed polygamy nearly a century and a half ago, in order for Utah to become a state. Even when it was considered proper practice, the standards required for a husband to take a second wife were so stringent that few people even bothered. In fact, for the past century or so, polygamy has been an excommunicable offense.

[politikitty]

I apologize for not knowing the religious history behind polygamy, but that doesn't acutally change the fact that back in the day the United States felt pefectly fine outlawing a fairly harmless but immoral practice that alienated a significant religious minority

[luprand]

Oddly, for the church, it was mostly a matter of setting aside one doctrine in order to follow another

[politikitty]

Um, exactly?

Because the laws of the United States denied polygamy, Mormoms were forced to either follow one doctrine or the other, being denied a right to follow both (despite the fact that, had polygamy been legal, both could be followed without conflict).

Sure, polygamist societies might not always treat women well. Neither do a lot of monogamist men. Should we criminalize drunks or criminals from marriage? Ultimately it was a moral call based on the majority of religious views at the time.

Simply because one religion values secularism does not mean that all religions have to. Fundamentalist Christians, a la Ralph Reed or Jerry Falwell, believe that it is important to mix religion and politics. They are constrained not by their religion, or even democratic principles, but rather a constitutional amendment that was decided upon in a democratic process.

[luprand]

Here's the problems, though: polygamy was never, and I mean never, a majority thing with Latter-Day Saints. Like I said above, there were a number of hoops to jump through, including worthiness, wife's consent, etc. And frankly, nowadays, we don't really care about polygamy, other than wishing people would finally shut up about it.

Granted, most people's knowledge of Mormon polygamy is as follows: "Oooh, those Moremans used to have a lot of wives! Silly Moremans! Hahaha let's go tease the Moreman kid again." So I'm glad that at least you recognize that it was outlawed. But really ... the Church is doing its best to do away with any images of being hapless, maligned victims, and complaining that the poor, defenseless Mormons had their sacred practice of polygamy stripped from them ... well, go ahead and do it, but don't expect much appreciation.

[politikitty]

I can understand that digging up history that's over 150 years old wouldn't have much relevance on today's Church population, but that doesn't negate it.

My point is that Church doctrine was changed at the behest of political pressures.

Certainly, we can believe that had the US government not interfered, polygamy would have still quietly exited Mormon culture. But the question is whether it should have been a decision made solely by the practitioners of that faith or by the U.S. government?

All governments have felt the need to make moral policy decisions on behalf of citizens. They make religious choices for its people all the time. Even democracies.

What extent does that religiosity become a bar to the democratic process? Is two percent of population that can't hold office, but gain the other rights and priveleges of citizenship, really enough to call Iran undemocratic?

[reality_hammer]

It is not necessary, but I would consider it optimal.

A state isn't truly democratic if the rights one one group are inferior to the rights of another group. When a society agrees as a whole to outlaw something (whether it is immoral or not) then those are the rules that society has chosen to live with. A small group making decrees from above is not consistent with democracy.

I wouldn't consider illegal immigration immoral, just illegal.

I've said it before: the Mormans were just ahead of their time.