Steve posted some definitions of "secularism":
1. Religious skepticism or indifference. 2. The view that religious
considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education. 1.
exclusion of religion from public affairs: the belief that religion and
religious bodies should have no part in political or civic affairs or in
running public institutions, especially schools 2. rejection of religion: the
rejection of religion or its exclusion from a philosophical or moral system:
indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious
considerations
Steve said to dmb:
For all you might like secularism to equate to religious freedom and religious
diversity, secularism is generally defined as opposition to the influence of
religion on society. Secularism holds that the effect of religion needs to be
limited. ..., secularism is not simply religious freedom. They are two
different concepts.
dmb says:
I still think you're distorting the standard definition of the word. The ones
you provided say secularism limits the role of religion in CIVIL AFFAIRS and
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, in POLITICAL AFFAIRS and PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS. But you
summarized these definitions so that secularism becomes an opponent of
religious influence on SOCIETY. I mean, putting these limits on the political
influence of religion is just what the separation of church and state means in
practical terms. But you construe secularism as opposition to religion as such
and you've said that their goal is to stamp it out. There is a very big
difference between the eradication of religious influence on the culture and
defining the limits of its political power. And of course the whole point of
limiting such civic authority is to protect religious freedom. In our context,
secularism and the separation of church and state are the means by which we
protect religious freedom.
By the way, I do not take that to simply mean we are free to join any church or
profess any creed, but also the freedom to think and talk about ultimate issues
openly. The principles that protect this freedom are themselves sacred things,
not to mention the freedom itself. This is why I'm concerned about your
characterizations of this principle as something militant and undemocratic.
(Your momma is militant and undemocratic!)
dmb said:
There's the straw man again. Can you think of an example of an actual "militant
secularist"? I can't. And I suspect that there is no such person.
Steve replied:
As examples Stout cites Richard Rorty and John Rawls who have both argued that
religious reason-giving ought not be condoned in politics. He also cites Sam
Harris who I already said I think does not oppose such religious reason giving.
I think he would welcome it and the embarrassment that would entail for the
politician who cites Leviticus. But come on, you must have met lots of people
who think that religious reasons should not be allowed to be voiced in politics
under the banner of "separation of Church and State."
dmb says:
Rorty and Rawls are "militant" too? C'mon, you don't think that's just a bit
overblown? The connotation of the word is warfare and violence and we are
talking about politics. In that context, militants really do use guns on their
opponents. Anyway, now I see that your "militant secularists" are not a
political movement or a counterpart to the religious right but rather a handful
of public intellectuals who are aggressive in their criticisms of religion. I
honestly wondered what the hell you talking about. Naturally, I realize that
"no one needs to pick up a gun to be militant in holding a position", but it
does share a striking resemblance to the word "military" AND there has been
some public discussion about the role of Islamic militants in recent years. Not
to mention the abortion doctors that have died at the hands of pro-life
advocates and Sharon Engle's call for 2nd Amendment solutions to our problems.
But you still think it's appropriate and plausible to characterize Ro
rty, Rawls or Harris as "militants" in the context of American politics? Okay.
Well, I think my charge still sticks. I think your framing and rhetoric are
misleading and inappropriate. Or maybe they are Stout's.
I thought Rorty was only talking about conversation too, but from a
philosophical point of view. Is he actually advocating some kind of policy or
law that would prohibit certain kinds of speech or is he trying to explain the
needs and demands of a conversational community. I only took him to be doing
that latter. And I don't see how the basic point (that all participants
basically need to agree what a qualifies a person for participation) can be
disputed. As Sam Harris put it, "I wouldn't want to be a member of any string
theory club that would have me as a member." He said that because he knows his
opinion is worthless in a conversation about the value and meaning of string
theory. By the same token, I think it's alright if we have some basic standards
for participating in the public discourse on the nature of democracy and
theocracy. For example:
Steve said:
... we should make arguments against it rather than dismiss such people as
irrational. When we stop exchanging reasons we have given up on democracy.
dmb says:
Well, if we dismiss people for being irrational, it is because THEY have
stopped exchanging reasons. THEY aren't meeting the basic standards for
participation. Dismissing irrational voices is NOT giving up on democracy nor
is it an undemocratic restriction of their free speech rights. We are simply
excluding those who refuse to play by the same rules as everyone else, namely
the basic demand that they be rational and reasonable. We have no obligation to
take irrational views seriously. I'd even say we have a duty to reject any kind
of nonsense as such, religious or otherwise. And in the case of theocracy,
every reasonable person knows that it would be a profoundly anti-democratic
violation of the Constitution.
Steve said:
... 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? ... I don't
think it is much of a stretch at all to take him for a militant secularist in
those quotes. ...
dmb says:
Again, I think these concerns about "militant" secularism are wildly overblown.
It seems calculated only to evoke sympathy for poor persecuted religious
majority and to demonize secularism itself. This at the very same moment that a
Senate candidate is out there saying Thomas Jefferson was misquoted. She is out
there saying that the separation of church and state is actually
unconstitutional. There is no equivalent to this on the other side. There is no
Senate candidate out there saying the separation of church and state should be
broadened or hardened. The new Atheists aren't really approaching the issue
that way and their readers haven't tried to press it that way either, as far as
I know. I mean, if anything don't we need a couple million more "militant"
secularists, by which I mean aggressive defenders of the separation clause?
Isn't part of the process to defend our principles from these ignorant clowns?
I think your definitions and framing only makes that task harder. T
o characterize guys like Harris as "militants" only gives aid and comfort to
ignorant clowns like whatshername.
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
