[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[david buchanan]

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 Rorty, 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. To characterize guys like Harris as "militants" only gives aid and comfort to ignorant clowns like whatshername.