From: ccav38@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ("I.Ballouz")
Subject: Re: pluralism
Organization: University of Strathclyde
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:14:08 GMT


In article <1992Nov18.115230.3975@ulrik.uio.no> eliedw@hedda.uio.no (Elie Dib Wardini) writes:
>
[  ....  ]
>
>My principle is the following: Pluralism (real pluralism that is)
>
>I am against a religious state, becuase this goes against my belief in
>pluralism.

Yes, I can see the difficulties that a religious state can create in Lebanon.
There are some people who have other opinions but I think there will be many
who see problems with a religious state in Lebanon.

>
>I have accepted the formula of 1943 since I believed (note the past tense) that
>this formula was one that was agreed upon by the different communities.
>
>Now this formula, if it did its job orot, is not wanted by very many Lebanese.
>Thefore, I will not work to keep it, since againg it goes against my
>understanding of Pluralism.
>
There are many opinions about the 1943 formula. I think at that time and with
the circumstances they had, one can accept such formula but with the all the
difficulties that have been surfacing since, a change is really required in
order to accommodate the new "realities".

>Let us find a solution:
>
>My suggestion is the following:
>
>deep rooted pluralism!
>
>this means that we learn with our mother's milk that we should tolerate those
>who are not like us. We need not understand them, but we can befriend them and
>live hapilly with them.
>THis principle be written in our constitution, and give every community (todauy
>religious, but later on maybe other types of communities) a veto right on any
>MAJOR changes in the status of individuals or the country as a whole.
>
>If we get to do this, then what form of government we have, who is president
>and who prime minster, is irrelevant as long as they are competent persons.
>
I agree with what you had said about the need for tolerance. I don't think
however that we did not have enough of it. People have lived together for ages.
There are and there were difficulties but this is a problem all pluralistic
societies have. I don't think the problem is with our moral values, rather it
is with the political system. The system has its negative influence on us.

I would like a system that is fair to everybody and I'd like a system that can
promote trust rather than suspicions but I am not sure that what you had said
about the VETO right of some communities is a good idea really.
I think that this prevents a good democratic system. This might lead to chaos.
This does not mean that I'd like to see the largest sects to have their own 
ways and the rest have to live with that.
I don't have any desire to see any lebanese becoming
underpriviledged and his voiced is unheard. I like a just and a fair system.

The MAJOR issues you talked about above is a vague term. What is MAJOR? I can
see some issues as essential and you may not share my opinion. I think you need
to be more specific.

>>I. Ballouz
>
>
I. Ballouz

-- 
*******************************************************************************
* IBRAHIM BALLOUZ            **           DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE          *
* ccav38@uk.ac.strath.ccsun  **  STRATHCLYDE UNIVERSITY GLASGOW SCOTLAND U.K. *
*******************************************************************************