Hi DMB, On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:49 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve said to all: > ... Jeffrey Stout agrees with Sam Harris that theocracy is a threat to > democracy, but he sees secularism, the notion that religion needs to be > stamped out and has no place in political discourse, as equally > anti-democratic as are any imposed limits on the sorts of justifications that > are permissable in politics. > > dmb says; > I have to stop you right there. Secularism is the notion that religion needs > to be stamped out? According to my dictionary, that's just not what the word > means. "secular, adjective 1 denoting attitudes, activities, or other things > that have no religious or spiritual basis : secular buildings | secular moral > theory. Contrasted with sacred .2 Christian Church (of clergy) not subject to > or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other > order. Contrasted with regular."
Steve: Looking up "secular" because you want to understand what it means to be a secularist is something like looking up "material" because you want to know what it is to be a materialist, isn't it? "Secular" is an innocuous term used to distinguish religious and nonreligious activities and things. SecularISM is the notion that all activities and things _ought_ to be nonreligious or at least ought to have no place in affairs of state. Look it up for yourself if you want. To be charitable toward your sensibilities I will discuss the issue as "militant secularism" to distinguish it from whatever more innocuous version of secularism you may have in mind. By militant secularism I am referring to the worst possible implications of Sam Harris's claim that we have lost the right to our myths. I am not sure that it is what Harris intends, but a militant secularist would be willing to use the coersive power of the government to enforce limits on political discourse. The theocrats think that the secularists have already been fairly successful in doing so. My point in the original post in the subject was that secularists have never had that kind of power. DMB: The definition you've used as a premise for all that follows is actually quite biased. It is not really a definition so much as a paranoid distortion and a slanderous attack. I'm guessing Jeffery Stout is a religious man and you're getting this distorted view from him. Steve: Wrong. Jeffrey Stout is a professor at Princeton. He is an atheist who identifies as a pragmatist. DMB: Further, democracy is portrayed as the reasonable middle ground between theocrats and secularist. But take a look at the obvious similarity between the actual definition of "secularism" and your description of democracy: Y > ou said that "democracy holds that political power ought to be shared > equally among all citizens and not denied based on religious affilitiation or > the lack of religious affiliation" and my dictionary says secularism denotes > activities "that have no religious or spiritual basis" and are "not subject > to or bound by religious rule". > In other words, in politics secularism simply means the separation of church > and state, NOT the view that religion needs to be stamped out. In fact, the > notion that secularism is somehow at odds with democracy will seem fairly > ridiculous the moment you recall the first amendment to the U.S. > Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom > of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, > and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Notice how > nicely that basic right comports with the actual definition of secularism? > For all practical purposes the first amendment defines our government as a > secular government. Steve: The question is, is that enough? Is the establishment clause all that is needed to protect government and religion from one another? Both the militant secularists and the theocrats say, "no." The militant secularist thinks that religion itself is a grave threat to democracy. It is not enough to have no public endorsement of a _particular_ religion, there should be no accommodation of religion, period. The law should be used to diminish the effects of religion on society. Meanwhile, the modern theocrats think that the establishment clause has been taken too far already, that it was never intended to drive all religion out of politics but only intended so that the government would not favor one Christian denomination over the others. They argue, incorrectly for sure, that the US was always intended to be a _Christian_ nation and that a merely _secular_ democracy is self-deating because it cannot sustain its own values. It undermines itself because it claims no transcendent basis for the rights it purports to be protecting and is doomed to crumble for lack of such a foundation. These are the extremes of the debate. Both sides think that democracy will not be safe until the other side is erradicated. Both exist in part as a response to the other. While militant secularists think we must see an end to theism, we atheists ought to make a more targeted attack in cooperation with other freedom loving theists against theocracy. > > Steve said: > ... But there has certainly been an upsurge in the sentiment (or at least > public awareness of the sentiment) that Christians ought to dominate > non-Christians. ...It seems to me then that the way to attack theocracy is by > promoting liberal democracy rather than secularism. We Pirsigian anti-theists > have to be wary of the appearance that we represent a threat to religious > ways of life in general and seek to impose a secular worldview on all. Since > we are anti-essentialists we don't think that religion is _essentially_ > anything. It isn't essentially good or bad any more than technology is. > Both can certainly be used for evil as well as for good. > > > dmb says: > Since secularism and liberal democracy both mean freedom of religion, it > doesn't really make much sense to say secularism is a "threat" to religion. > In effect, the claim would be that freedom of religion is a threat to > religion. That could only be perceived as threat to a theocrat, who doesn't > agree with such freedom, who thinks church and state ought not be separate. > By definition, the theocrat wants "a system of government in which priests > rule in the name of God or a god". That's not consistent with democracy or > religious freedom. Steve: I think you pretty much got it here. It is no wonder that atheists are seen as a threat to theocrats since what they want is the dominance of nonChristians by Christians, but if atheists see them selves as a threat to religion as such--as militant secularists--it is no wonder that religious folks who are not theocrats and who are in fact committed to democracy will also see us as a threat. I'm saying that any religious person committed to democracy shouldn't see us as a threat. We shouldn't let ourselves be perceived as a threat. Rather than forging political alliances with the Reverend Kings and Bishop Tutus of the world, the militant secularist sees religion rather than theocracy as the problem whereas we atheists ought to see theocracy and plutocracy as the problems and form political alliances with _anyone_ committed to democracy to help us oppose them. > Steve said: > When religious traditionalist complain that they are being handicapped by the > demand that they restructure their political arguments in secular terms > before they can be aired in the public square, they blame secularism while it > is in fact religious liberty that requires this restructuring. ... Atheists > have never had such political power and numbers to be able to enforce a > moratorium of religious language in political arguments. It is not because an > external imposition by secularists that religious traditionalists must do > such restructuring of their arguments. ... > > dmb says: > Handicapped by the demand that they make their political arguments in secular > terms? Are you kidding? The opposite has always been true, actually. Instead > of there being anything like "a moratorium on religious language", American > politicians can never talk like an atheist. Never. Politicians, for all > practical purposes, have to pay some kind of lip service at the very least. > Hell, go on Youtube and listen to a couple of George Bush's speeches. He > stood on the Capitol steps and defined freedom as a gift from God and told a > national TV audience that Jesus is his favorite philosopher. What President > ever failed to end a speech without saying "God Bless America"? The USA is by > far the most religious nation in the West. Can you think of a single atheist > who was ever elected in this country? I can't. If there ever was such a > creature, he was real good at keeping it under wraps. I think the notion that > the vast Christian majority is somehow being persecuted by secularists is > quite > a grotesque distortion of our political reality. The religious right has > totally dominated American politics for as long as I can remember. In that > context, the demand has always been FOR religious language. Steve: I agree completely. I think the new theocrats are delusional when they paint Christians as a persecuted minority. Nevertheless, there it is, and we feed into this delusion when we atheists complain about the prez saying "God Bless America" and take credit for the degree of secularization of political discourse that has occurred. The theocrats believe us when we say that our complaining is working--that the Enlightenment has fostered a march toward the erradication of all religion and that we, so small in numbers and as unorganized as we actually are, are a grave threat to their ways of life. I am saying that it is far better to point to religious pluralism as a far more plausible explanation for why there is little if any exchanging of Bible quotations in debate on the Senate floor. It isn't because we atheists have gained enough political clout to shout down such text-swappings. It is because there is no longer any broad consensus on what those texts are even supposed to mean. If atheists are seen as militant secularists, as seeking to actively oppose religion as such, is it any wonder that an atheist who is honest about her lack of belief cannot be elected? Why would a broadly religious populace want to elect someone who will work on their behalf to destroy all religion? Do you see why we can't be seen in that light? I am saying that we need to concern ourselves with the perception of being militant secularists if we can hope for an honest atheist in high office. > Steve said: > ... I have become convinced by Stout that atheists and Pirsigian anti-theists > should not identify as secularists, since imposing any limits on what sorts > of arguments can made in the public sphere is as anti-democratic as the > theocratic vision that secularists seek to oppose. While we should see the > process of secularization as a positive consequence of religious liberty > toward a more inclusive society, we should not justify the bigotry we > experience by posing as though we are somehow responsible for the > secularization of political discourse. Also, by lumping all religion as a > theocratic threat to democracy we lose the allies we need among the American > religious people who are committed to democratic ideals and identify more > with the democratic reform of Martin Luther King than with the theocratic > vision of Pat Robertson. > > > dmb says: > > I think there is no call for the change you're calling for (secularization as > a positive consequence of religious liberty), not least of all because that's > already what secularism means. The first amendment separated church and state > and established religious freedom a couple of centuries ago. Secularism > doesn't mean imposing limits on speech. Quite the opposite. It says any such > limits are illegal. Again, I think the idea that secularism means > anti-democratic constraints on speech or religion (or the imposition of a > vision) is not much more than a paranoid delusion and it amount to baseless > slander. Being opposed to theocracy is to oppose bigotry and oppression and > yet you're construing the secularist as the bigoted oppressor. That's pretty > warped, my friend. Steve: DMB, you must be aware of bigotry toward nonbelievers? We often call them irrational and delusional, weak minded and cowardly, no? Dawkins has said all those things and more. Haven't some of us delighted in Voltaire's imagine of the last king being strangled by the entrails of the last priest? As for anti-democratic leanings, Sam Harris is viewed by many as the poster child for religious intolerance. Quotes from the End of Faith: Sam wrote "Intolerance is...intrinsic to every creed." If _all_ religion is intolerant, ought it not be erradicated? "Should Mulsims really be _free_ to believe that the Creator of the universe is concerned about hemlines?" "We have simply lost the _right_ to our myths?" Now, I don't think that Harris means that anything coercive ought to be done.I'm a huge fan of Sam Harris. I am convinced that all Harris wants is conversation. But can you not see how he and others can often be read as proposing something more? > Steve said: > What do you think? Do you see a theocratic movement gaining momentum in the > US? How is it manifested? How can it best be opposed? Hasn't anyone noticed > that while the politics of difference, identity, recognition of the > disenfranchised has dominated public debates in recent decades the plutocrats > have seized the opportunity to consolidate even more wealth and power? Don't > the friends of democracy whether religious or secular need to enlist one > another's help to confront the plutocrats? If so, an agenda of secularism is > not at all what is needed in the US. > dmb continues: > As I see it, the Plutocrats and the bible-thumpers have been in bed together > for a long time now. Even here in our little MOQ world, the people who defend > free-market capitalism and the people who defend theism are mostly the same > people. Steve: That is mostly true, but are they _natural_ bed-fellows? Is there something inherent in religion that makes it supportive of plutocracy over democracy? Does religion as such need to be opposed to protect democracy from theocracy and plutocracy? There is something very unpragmatic about the notion that religion is _essentially_ bad. As pragmatists, we don't think that religion is _essentially_ anything. Militant secularism comes in when we start to think that religion as such is the problem rather than some particular ways of being religious. Stout thinks that rather than opposing theism, we would do better to oppose theocracy. He also thinks, and you and I probably agree, that the gravest threat to democracy is not even theocracy but plutocracy. And without a coalition between democratic theists and atheists, we have no hope against the plutocrats. Best, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
