Thanks for the reply, Peter Plato!
I think you’re correct in that there is an aspect of moral relativism that haunts in the background of this question.
For me, though, it’s also about what kinds of truths / propositions / ideas should be entertained in a secular, democratic system. Yes, there are religious beliefs that I hold are true, and are true regardless of any other individual’s acceptance of those beliefs. God is real: therefore, atheism is untrue. Jesus Christ suffered and died in order to save humanity: any proposition contrary to this statement is therefore false.
But the question is, what aspects of my religious life should be kept “private” (in the sense that I, and my community of religious believers, can live out fully and personally) and what aspects should be pressed publicly. I should clarify here that by “public,” I don’t simply mean, “Out loud,” or, “Around other people who can see me.” By “espousing a belief publicly” I mean, “Attempting to use tools of government, particularly law, to impose that belief on others.”
Obviously, I believe that we should be MORE free to live and profess our faith “privately” than we should be free to espouse that belief “publicly.” I would never (and I doubt even the most devout Catholic could ever) seek to impose a law saying that every citizen in America must be Catholic, or they cannot vote.
But if I do believe that Catholicism is the one, true faith (and I do), how can I justify my belief that imposing Baptism on the populace in exchange for the franchise is inappropriate? What distinguishes, say, my belief in the Trinity from my belief, say, in the sacred life of the fetus? From my personal perspective, the truth of either is indistinguishable. So, why is the former somehow NOT appropriate for “public” dialogue, but the latter IS?
So, I think there’s something else going on aside from mere moral relativism. I think the wedge between certain kinds of religious beliefs and others, and that this wedge is important for coming to a fruitful understanding of how political / legal discussion intersects with religious belief.
But I’m not sure exactly where that wedge lies (lays?). You suggested something interesting:
This would seem to lead to the undermining of the authority of all governments to impose laws upon citizens, except as a function of power. Legitimate authority would seem to require a determination of the truth value of ethical standards in order that citizens be expected to respect judicial authority.
If I’m interpreting your comments correctly, you’re suggesting that government requires a moral basis in order to justifiably restrain the liberty of individuals. And further, that in order to do so, the laws which provide the basis for restraint must therefore themselves be moral. Thus, natural law has to be at the foundation of government.
At the root of this argument is the (very Liberal, and I think correct) idea that government must justify coercion: the presumption should be in favor of individual liberty.
Taking that for granted, maybe the “wedge” I talked about above lies within the type of proposition that a citizen must use in order to justify his / her public profession. If one lobbies for government coercion, one should be able to justify that lobbying. I think the wedge lies in what kind of justification one must give.
I think it should be a rational one. Which I guess brings us back to your discussion of relativism: can religious propositions be rationally justified? Obviously, yes. Some can. But some are mysteries, right? And while I agree with you that perhaps we have become lazy in demanding only empirical proofs, instead of attempting to think deeply and use our reason in addition to the senses, there is something more easily universalized about empirical evidence.
