[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[Matt Kundert]

Hi Steve,

Stout's what I would call a "heavy"; definitely a thinker to take 
seriously.  He reads some of the biggest intellectuals surrounding 
religion and political philosophy in the last 50 years very, very closely 
and takes discussion and explication of the them very seriously.  I've 
always profited from reading him.  When you see someone like Rorty 
and Stout tangle, though, it makes you wonder whether you're 
missing something if you disagree with the outcome of the 
entanglement.

It was a good discussion.  It forced me to think through some of 
these issues a lot more, and particularly about just what is being 
said.  I'm not sure I've identified precisely enough yet what "public 
political discourse" means, and I think a lot of Stout's complaints 
about Rorty revolve around not having specified and distinguished 
enough of the different layers of discourse that happens between 
different communities in our culture, from one-on-one between 
friends, or around the watercooler, to at a church Sunday School 
Class or in a University seminar, or on TV between pundits or 
between Congresspersons on the Floor taped on C-SPAN.  It's a 
tangled web that I think requires more nuanced unweaving (more 
nuanced than Rorty ever gave it in writing).

Matt

> Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:56:00 -0400
> From: peterson.steve at gmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy
> 
> Hi Matt,
> 
> I've defended Stout as well as I can, but I find your arguments pretty
> convincing. I also reread Religion as a Conversation Stopper and have
> a hard time finding much wrong with his arguments. I'll work on
> rethinking the issue and get back to you.
> 
> Best,
> Steve