[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Matt,

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Matt Kundert
<pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> Matt said:
> Should we not promote limits on what is acceptable in political
> reason-giving?
>
> Steve said:
> Yes, but the question is, should we limit religious reason giving in
> particular.  Militant secularists say yes. What do you think?
>
> Matt:
> Sure, why not?  At the theoretically abstract level of demarcating a
> reason as "religious" or "philosophical" or "literary," or any other
> number of abstract categories we might make up, why shouldn't all
> of those demarcated kinds be open to limitations _simply by virtue of
> being abstract_: all of the action takes place in the particulars, in the
> actual measures/suggestions taking place.  It seems to me that the
> notion of "militant secularism" you are using is factitious, because it
> isolates a _problem area_ not a position: as if Rorty thought it was
> okay to justify your beliefs about universal health care with
> reference to Proust, but just not God.


Steve:
I think the issue is just what is it about religious reason-giving
that someone finds objectionable.The rest of your post makes Stout's
point that the reason that religious people don't give religious
reasons in public is because they don't convince rather than because
the militant secularists have been successful in opposing a gag rule.
The militant secularists finds religious reasons not merely
unconvincing but somehow objectionable to her liberal sensibilities.
Religious reasons, in the militant secularists view, should not be
given in public not because they are unconvincing given that we don't
have shared premises about religion to rest on in making a religion
backed case.  It shouldn't be done because religion is stupid or
because we have a right not to have religion thrown in our faces or
because it is rude to use religious terms when so many of us are sick
of hearing them. The religious right has bought into the militant
secularists notion of secularism as being about cleansing the world of
religion. They think that such secularists have gotten their way and
have been able to control the terms of debate in a way that favors
their morally permissive agenda. Some militant secularists may even
think that they really have gotten their way in working toward a
secularizing of political discourse. They may think that
secularization is a response to a post enlightenment idea of modernity
where religion is thought to have less and less of an influence on our
lives. But militant secularists haven't achieved secularization by
grabbing enough political power to enforce a gag rule. Instead
secularization of political discourse is a result of religious freedom
and diversity and the fact that a particular notion of what God wants
can not be presumed in reason-giving as you described.

Saying that religious reason-giving which is currently only attempted
for conservative positions ought not need to be done because it
doesn't convince isn't something that any liberal like Rorty or Rawls
should feel motivated to say. Simply letting conservatives pursue such
a flawed strategy is no skin off our backs. Instead it seems that
Rorty and many others (including me when I first read The End of
Faith) must have some other problem with religion in political
discourse besides that it is unconvincing. Freedom of religion which
is consistent with 1st amendment secularism is taken by the militant
secularist to an extreme of freedom _from_ religion. We ought not have
to listen to religious talk in politics. We have a right not to have
to hear it. A couple of years ago I would have agreed. Now I am not so
sure.

Best,
Steve