The other day the originator of the neutral-inclusive Norm was talking about the role of the state with a friend living in an area below sea level. They agreed that, given its existence, the state should do certain things for society as a whole which individuals or small groups are not able to do on their own. Thus, in very low-lying land the state should take care of the construction and maintenance of dikes to protect the population against floods, provided the occupation of the land is not controversial. In a democracy it is the majority which will decide where the dikes are to be built, what material they are to be made of, how high and wide they are going to be, and --not to forget-- what contributions are required from the citizens to make this possible.

But then the originator's friend asked 'im: "If this can be a task of the state and if a democratic majority can decide on this, why can't such a majority decide to establish or promote religion or a particular religion in the same way?"

The beginning of the answer the originator gave was: "You shouldn't confuse dikes and damns". At that moment the originator's friend thought 'e said "dams" and as a native of the polders the friend was familiar enough with the difference between dikes and dams. However, it would soon become clear to 'im that the originator had meant "damns".

"When the state builds and maintains dikes", the originator explained, "this is done to prevent the sea from transgressing the coast, the rivers from transgressing the shores. Such barriers are considered necessary to save the inhabitants from drowning, to protect human and nonhuman bodies, their houses and the land against the violence of the water. The measures taken are clearly physical plans carried out in view of a possible bodily danger to life. It may be assumed that a person in possession of, among other things, a physical body who's prepared to live in such an area will, in principle, not be opposed to deciding such a natural matter by a majority of votes."

"Similarly, it may be assumed that a person won't be opposed to deciding by a majority of votes how the state should deal with human individuals or groups that go about killing or wounding or assaulting others, because these, too, are bodily transgressions serious enough to have to be dealt with in a physical way, or in a physical way as well. And also here the citizens must decide together what these measures should consist of. (Should the perpretrators be sent to prison, and if so, for how long? Should they be forced to pay compensation, and if so, how much?)"

"But when the state starts to promote the supernaturalist ideology of one specific group, and to damn, that is, to implicitly or explicitly condemn, those people who don't belong to that group, because they don't believe in and live by its theocentrist tenets, this is a fundamentally different matter. In that case there is no basis whatsoever for the assumption that all people would be equally willing to leave the approval of such a measure to the majority. Those persons who believe in the primacy of norms and values over any gods or demons and who live by normistic tenets will, then, most certainly have to be counted out. Therefore the state has no right, even not in a fully democratic polity (if such a thing exists), to put up a social or political barrier in society by treating a denominational ideology or idea as worthless and untrustworthy when it is norm-centered and by treating it as valuable and trustworthy when it is god-centered. It is not for the state to stem the tide of a certain form of denominationalism or to dam the free flow of nonviolent ideas, whether religious or nonreligious."

And this the originator of the Norm added: "Dikes, my friend, concern the body but denominational freedom in equality concerns the person 'imself".

57.SML-60.NEY