[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[Steven Peterson]

Hi DMB,

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:23 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> dmb said to Steve:
> .... 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 replied:
> 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?
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Not at all. I'm saying that you have a very distrorted idea of secularism, that it simply does not mean what you say it means. I'm saying that you have invented a straw man. You are doing battle with a position held by no one.

Steve:


Definition from diction at Amswers.com:

   1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
   2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from
civil affairs or public education.


 encarta says:
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

Merriam-webster.com
: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious
considerations


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. The establishment clause is
secularist in opposing some limit yet also promotes religious freedom
by clearing a space where a diversity of religions can flourish and
compete for adherents where no single religion gets favored status
from the state.  While religious freedom is not necessarily in
opposition to some level of secularism and even benefits from a degree
of secularism, secularism is not simply religious freedom. They are
two different concepts.



It is about putting clear boundaries on religious control of
government and governmental control of religion. What I call a
theocrat is someone who is not happy with the current understanding of
how the establishment clause balance for limiting religious influence
and ensuring religious freedom and wants to push that equation in one
direction to allow religious control of government while preserving
religious freedom while what I call a _militant_ secularist is one is
also not satisfied with the current location of the boundary and wants
to push it in the opposite direction to further minimize the influence
of of religion on society by preventing people from using religious
reasons in political discourse. Militant secularists (like Rawls and
Rorty and probably lots of people you know) want to further the
secularization of government at the expense of religious freedom (and
freedom of speech) by promoting limits on what is acceptable in
political reason-giving.



> Steve said:
> ... 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.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> 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:
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:
Not to mention the fact that you've slandered Sam Harris, who very far
from being a militant anything. I think he's a perfectly reasonable
man who has no intention of picking up a gun. Like I said, the
definition you've used as a premise is actually quite biased. It is
not really a definition so much as a paranoid distortion and a
slanderous attack.


Steve:
I really wish you would consult a dictionary before accusing me of
misusing terms.

mil·i·tant
   /ˈmɪlɪtənt/ Show Spelled[mil-i-tuhnt]
–adjective
1.
vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant
reformers.
2.
engaged in warfare; fighting.


No one needs to pick up a gun to be militant in holding a position,
and I already said that I don't think Harris is this sort of militant.



>
> Steve said:
> 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. ... 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.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> If the perception of persecution is delusional - and I definitely think it is delusional - then why should we be concerned? Why buy into a view that simply doesn't comport with reality?

Steve:
If it is what people think, then 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:
Sorry, Steve, but I think your position on this is unhelpful and even
a bit irrational. I think Sam Harris has it right. He wants us to put
conversational pressure on religious people. He wants them to be held
to the same standard as everyone else because, as he sees it, they
have been given preferential treatment for too long already. It's
simply not fair to cut them so much slack as if there views were
automatically above reproach. Accommodating their paranoid delusions
is probably the worst way to respond, for example. If they're talking
nonsense, why in the world is it wrong to say so?


Steve:
I agree with Sam Harris on that point, and that is one reason why
atheists should not think that we would be better off if religious
reasons could not be voiced in politics. If those are the reasons that
someone has, then we ought to get to argue about them.





> Steve said:
>
> 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?
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> The leap from wanting conversation to the eradication of all religion is fairly ridiculous and we ought not calculate our rhetoric to meet the demands of such a ridiculous interpreter.

Steve:
I don't think it is much of a stretch at all to take him for a
militant secularist in those quotes. Recall also that in the end of
faith, Harris raised the issue of preemptive nuclear strike on a
hypothetical Islamic regime that gets nuclear capabilities.

Best,
Steve


Harris:
"What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the
mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?
If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending
warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be
unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In
such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be
a nuclear first strike of our own. "