“…the goal is to keep religious people from making public arguments that have any force”

12 Responses to “…the goal is to keep religious people from making public arguments that have any force”

1. Steel Phoenix says:

   December 8, 2008 at 10:53 pm

   The goal isn’t to keep religious people from making public arguments, it is to keep people from publicly making religious arguments. The author seems to think that his faith is based on reason, but that we are tying his hands by taking away the faith. This makes me think it isn’t reason he is relying on, but more faith. ‘Because God says so’ isn’t reason. Your invisible friends don’t get a vote. If social conservatives think ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is a good solution for gays, maybe they should try it with their own lifestyle.
2. David Hume says:

   December 8, 2008 at 11:11 pm

   The issue I would have with Larison’s argument is the secular vs. religious dichotomy; American is structurally a religiously pluralist nation. The vast majority (on the order of 80-90%) of Americans have a religion. But, they do not agree on a host of topics, and using sectarian language isn’t going to result in productive general discussion. What does “sectarian” mean? Basically it is an empirically defined “public reason” which encompasses the basic values which most Americans agree with. If particular religious flavored arguments that many conservatives made passed the test of being amenable to majority agreement then Karl Rove’s new Republican majority would still be with us. As it is, many non-evangelical Christians, along with secularists, have an aversion to the particular sectarian style which some conservatives cultivate.
3. ◄Dave► says:

   December 9, 2008 at 12:41 am

   I have to agree with Cole on this one. As a Jacksonian, I probably share most of the traditional values that Larison considers Piously Correct and wishes to conserve. Yet, I have zero interest in imposing them on those who do not, anymore than I would permit the Politically Correct moralists to impose their egalitarian values on me. Will no one rid our body politic of PC dogma, which has little to do with good government? I don’t care if your hero is Robin Hood or Jesus, mine is John Galt, and I just wish to be left alone to live my life as I choose to live.

   Do right, and leave others be… is the gospel according to ◄Dave►
4. Panopaea says:

   December 9, 2008 at 1:43 am

   There is a doctrine in classical Protestant theology that should probably be learned here on this site. It is the doctrine of two kingdoms:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_Two_Kingdoms
5. Michael B says:

   December 9, 2008 at 2:08 am

   A sketch of some basic conceptions.

   Power, force, the coercive power of the state and its varied mechanisms, however one chooses to characterize it, is a fact of life. Ideality is not reality; ideational activity is not contingency; we think abstractedly but we live in the real world. Politics is the arena wherein freedom is maintained, “freedom,” that is, in its better conceived sense; if politics is something other than that – first and foremost, primarily, most fundamentally – then it inherently becomes deleterious and misconceived, it will turn in on itself. Secondarily it can be other things, but absent that primacy, responsibly and properly conceived, its foundation will begin to evidence fissures, then worse.

   Essentially, I’m a secularist in the manner and mold of Locke and Montesquieu, but am not a pious or presumptive or naive ideological “secularist” according to a current, general fashion, a fashion that includes large “L” Libertarianism, an outlook that is fine in the abstract but has little cache in the real, contingent, power-driven world. One may as well imagine a large “P” Pacifism is viable as imagine a large “L” ideological Libertarianism is viable. Within very localized communities, perhaps, but not in the world at large; it is deluded to imagine otherwise.

   Once government’s inherently and inextricablly coercive nature is owned up to, it will then be acknowledged that the choice is not between coercion or imposition vs. a lack thereof – rather the choice will rightly be acknowledged as between 1) what moral/ethical values to impose (to criminalize or otherwise codify, etc.), 2) what moral/ethical values to not impose via coercion but to exercise societal suasion in favor of (e.g., some minimal but critical level of “patriotism”) and 3) what to leave to a purely libertarian lack of constraint (everything else that society decides does not fall with #1 or #2).

   A few John Galts can thrive in a society as large as the U.S., but the Washingtons, the Jeffersons, the Jacksons, the Lincolns, et al. cannot be John Galts qua their political lives. Such a person, qua politician, won’t exist for very long in a dynamic political arena because some other political actor will simply take advantage of their naivete, their ideality, their abstracted persona. Lenin won’t abide Kerensky, but that’s merely a particularly dramatic, real-world example from the 20th century; most examples are not so dramatic or historic.

   In general, no one truly wishes to impose or coerce, but absent a recognition of some basic, foundational moral/ethical underpinnings, a society is arguably not a society, a nation is arguably not a nation, a community is not a community within any very coherent if still loosely conceived sense. We all – again speaking in general terms – want to “do right, and leave others be,” but such a formula does not make for a healthy constitutional order wherein the rule of law is likewise responsibly prescribed; on a personal/individual scale, as analogy, liberty is not synonymous with libertine excesses.
6. Ivan Karamazov says:

   December 9, 2008 at 5:33 am

   In my personal experience, people of faith really, really don’t get it when it comes to understanding how truly off-putting it is, to people not of their faith, when they bring God into their arguments.

   To help them get it, I’ve tried suggesting that they mentally substitute the word “Santa” for God or Jesus, and try that sentence out in their head first, before they decide to verbalize it. Because often that is how the non- or un-believer “hears” what they are saying.

   But even then they often can’t bring themselves to stop doing it. Since I had 18 years of Irish Catholic upbringing, I do understand their dogma. Maybe what’s driving them is that they think themselves echoing Peter’s denial in Gethsemane, and feel they’ll lose points or something, if they “chicken out” on testifying.

   Very frustrating.
7. Panopaea says:

   December 9, 2008 at 5:45 am

   In case anyone glanced at my link to a Wikipedia article above and didn’t bother to go there, or did and didn’t bother to read it all (it’s very short) it contains the names Luther, Calvin, Jefferson, Madison, and Locke, and they are all on the same page (that is, not just the same web page).

   There is a reason American historian George Bancroft wrote that John Calvin is the founding father of the United States.

   And, as conservatives we aren’t like liberals who are content to mock and disparage or just disagree or dismiss while operating in a state of ignorance. So knowing about and understanding classical Protestant doctrine such as the two kingdoms is something secular cons should strive for.

   Obviously I’m not a secular con, I’m a Calvinist mystic con, but understanding the doctrine of the two kingdoms (which doesn’t solve all the problems brought up here, I understand) means those and similar categories are not so at odds. (And by the way, I think even dumb evangelicals understand this in their blood and bones more than anyone here would give them credit for. Evangelicals know separation of church and state protects Christians, and that is how it was seen at the founding.
8. Polichinello says:

   December 9, 2008 at 6:20 am

   Steel Phoenix:
   The goal isn’t to keep religious people from making public arguments, it is to keep people from publicly making religious arguments.

   Put that way, neither goal is really desirable. If someone has a belief-inspired viewpoint, he should be encouraged to make it, as long as we make it clear that his viewpoint is based solely on belief. At that point, non-believers are free to accept or reject it. If we somehow make it unacceptable to ever make a religious arguments, then we’re going to only further widen a divide as resentment and alienation will grow. If you’re coming from the right, that’s not a good thing as it will means losing a good share of your base.

   Now, if that same belief can be argued on secular grounds, then a believer should be further encouraged to make those points.

   David Hume:
   If particular religious flavored arguments that many conservatives made passed the test of being amenable to majority agreement then Karl Rove’s new Republican majority would still be with us.

   Let’s remember that Obama campaigned with his own religious themes, and he actively courted evangelicals. He wound up agree with Karl Rove in away, as he felt that’s where the votes were.

   What killed Rove’s Republican majority, more than anything, was a foolish and unnecessary war managed, until very recently, in the most incompetent manner. The economic breakdown put the final seal of doom on the GOP. The religious themes, however, were being poached and liberalized by the other side. A bit deviously, perhaps, given Obama’s chilling views on abortion, but poached nonetheless.
9. A-Bax says:

   December 9, 2008 at 8:19 am

   Panopaea: Regarding your Protestant Theology link:

   But what if a different tribe sings a different chant? We would both be unhappy if Muslims argued in favor Sharia law, citing Mohammed and his most perfect rendering of the word of the God of Abraham for the justification of their preferred public policy. We would both, I think, be unpersuaded about such things as honor killings, jihad, and polygamy, regardless of the theology of Muslims.

   The whole point is to get theology OUT of the picture in terms of public arguments for policy prescriptions, not harken back to it. That goes for your theology too.

   Sorry, that’s just how it is.
10. Polichinello says:

    December 9, 2008 at 9:11 am

    Another reason I’m uncomfortable with forcing religious arguments out of the public debate is that it inhibits real criticism of religion. We see this with all sorts of issues, from Islam to creationism, where people shield loony beliefs from criticism by saying “It’s a private matter, so it’s none of your business.” If a good number of my neighbors believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, it will become my business as it will affect the culture my kid lives in.
11. Panopaea says:

    December 9, 2008 at 4:10 pm

    >But what if a different tribe sings a different chant?

    Let them chant, whether they be atheists or theonomists. There is a reason there are few people in such groups.

    >We would both be unhappy if Muslims argued in favor Sharia law

    Appeal to the Constitution. It’s against Sharia. This nation has already been founded, and has even already had its revolution.
12. JM Hanes says:

    December 9, 2008 at 4:11 pm

    Panopaea:

    Thanks for the Two Kingdoms link. I was particularly interested in the role Madison assigned to Luther as “the theorist who ‘led the way’ in providing the proper distinction between the civil and the ecclesiastical spheres.”

    Jefferson’s assertion that, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others,” is not unproblematic. Religious conservatives might say that anything other than abstinence only sex education, for example, is injurious to both individuals and to society as a whole, and thus to us all.

    Steel Phoenix:

    “The goal isn’t to keep religious people from making public arguments, it is to keep people from publicly making religious arguments.”

    While I don’t think religious arguments are an appropriate basis for public policy, I’m not sure I see the wisdom of insisting that positions which spring from religious conviction ought to be put into secular terms for public consumption. In the sex education example above, social/religious conservatives have, in fact, been working secular arguments pretty hard. In the end, it makes addressing fundamental issues more difficult, because you essentially end up confronting an agenda that you, yourself, have actually insisted be hidden.

    What really offends me the most are people like Daniel Larison who lay claim to the conservative tent and suggest that anyone who enters ought to be willing to acknowledge “that respect for a transcendent moral order is an integral part of the conservative mind” and recoginize “that such an order would have to have been established by God.” What he refuses to recognize is that the Republican party and conservatism itself are both coalitions which are damaged as a whole when factions fight for dominance instead of consensus. The gains made by one at the expense of the others are likely to prove temporary, and I for one am tired of compromising on social issues only to be told that I’m in the tent on sufferance. Religious conservatives aren’t the only ones looking for a little respect. I wouldn’t choose Kathleen Parker’s terms, but I often share her exasperation. Ditto for the RINO thing no matter where it comes from.

Comments are closed.