Religion in the Public Square

[Leela]

Hi all,

When religious traditionalist lament that they are being handicapped by the demand that they restructure their political arguments in secular terms before they can be aired in the public square, they blame something called secularism while it is in fact religious liberty that requires this restructuring. Since the various religions can’t agree on religious premises, such premises cannot be presupposed in political arguments.

Secularist atheists wrongly take credit for the secularization of political discourse and reinforce the idea that atheism is something for believers to fear. Atheists should not identify as secularists, since imposing any limits on what sorts of arguments can made in the public sphere is as anti-democratic as the theocratic vision that secularists seek to oppose. While we should see the process of secularization as a positive consequence of religious liberty toward a more inclusive society, we should not justify the bigotry we experience by posing as though we are somehow responsible for the secularization of political discourse.

Atheists have never had such political power and numbers to be able to enforce a moratorium of religious language in political arguments. It is not because an external imposition by secularists that religious traditionalists must do such restructuring of their arguments. It is because religious traditionalists hope to be convincing to those who don’t share their premises and not just to those who already agree with their narrow interpretation of what fidelity to God means. Even among Christians there is much disagreement about the authority and interpretation of the Bible. It is that fact in addition to the fact that there are more and more members of non-Christian religions that religious traditionalists can no longer rely on the authority of Bible quotes or the Church to argue for their political positions. Nothing prevents them from doing so other than the rhetorical disadvantages of pursuing such a strategy of presuming the agreement on premises upon which there is such a diversity of opinion.

Best,
Leela

 

[JohnDamian]

There is no prevention of people using Christian dialogue in their Political discussions. Living in democracies with free speach we are entitled to do so. The fact that this will “put off” some voters is not the fault of any institution or system but a failure on behalf of Christian politicians to stand up for what they believe in. It is the individual politicians right; as well as responsibility – to stand up for what they believe in.

If Christian politicians don’t stand up for what they believe in; and Christian voters don’t vote sensibly; then is it any wonder the world is secularising? Theists have no one to blame but themselves for the lack of religion in politics.

 

[antroji]

I like this statement:

“On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.” ~Barry Goldwater

 

[Leela]

There is no prevention of people using Christian dialogue in their Political discussions.

True, and there ought to be no such limits on discourse.

The fact that this will “put off” some voters is not the fault of any institution or system but a failure on behalf of Christian politicians to stand up for what they believe in. It is the individual politicians right; as well as responsibility – to stand up for what they believe in.

I don’t think this is the issue. The issue is whether or not religious-based arguments convince in a pluralistic society such as ours. No one is forcing politicians to check their religious convictions at the door. Religious politicians generally do not try to justify legislation on religious grounds because such grounds are not commonly accepted by those they want to sway. Such arguments do not persuade. Even though the vast majority of us are religious, we are extremely diverse in our beliefs about religion. To make arguments that presuppose a specific religious position isn’t practical. There is no gag rule being imposed. There is a pragmatic strategy in the part of religious people who recognize the diversity at work. That diversity and religious freedom rather than a secularist conspiracy explains the secularization of political discourse. Don’t blame the atheists!

If Christian politicians don’t stand up for what they believe in; and Christian voters don’t vote sensibly; then is it any wonder the world is secularising? Theists have no one to blame but themselves for the lack of religion in politics.

Is the world secularizing? I was only talking about the secularization of political discourse. This is the only sort of “lack of religion in politics” I was referring to. It sounds like you mean something else?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

I like this statement:

“On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.” ~Barry Goldwater

So interesting that this comes from the godfather of modern conservatism.

He is opposing the theocratic wind that swept George W (who claimed that God wants him to be President) into the White House. There seem to be large numbers of voters today who have given up on democracy and would like to be ruled by God’s chosen representatives on earth.

Goldwater is right that the problem with such theocrats is that there can be no rational disagreement. If one does not recognize what another claims as a divine right, that person gets demonized rather than argued with since who else but satan or some evil force at work could prevent someone from failing to recognize divine authority. We saw it in response to the Iraq War, dissenters were regarded as disloyal rather than simply wrong.

When Bush was asked if you asked his father who must have had some expertise on the Iraq situation for advice given his involvement there, Bush responded that his earthy father was “the wrong father to appeal to for advice … there is a higher father that I appeal to”.

The theocrats must have been quite comforted to think of Bush getting advice directly from God, but it just sounds scary to anyone who doubts that he had such a direct line of communication that would give him better advice than a human being privy to classified information on the subject.

On the other hand, If the likes of MLK or Bishop Tutu says that he was inspired by Jesus and was moved in prayer to work for justice for the disenfranchised, I’m all for that. I wouldn’t think of such people as theocrats at all but rather people committed to democracy and justice.

Maybe you can help me out here, what’s the difference other than working for better causes? Are you aware of a theocratic rising tide in this country that is a threat to democracy? Given that I am for imposing no limitations on religious reason giving as the militant secularists want to do, how would the theocratic within the Christian Right movement be distinguished as anti-democratic and theocratic while other religious reason-giving of the Abolitionist side of the slavery debate and the civil rights movement is good democratic participation?

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

I like this statement:

“On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.” ~Barry Goldwater

What do you like about it?

 

[Betterave]

So interesting that this comes from the godfather of modern conservatism.

He is opposing the theocratic wind that swept George W (who claimed that God wants him to be President) into the White House. There seem to be large numbers of voters today who have given up on democracy and would like to be ruled by God’s chosen representatives on earth.

How is voting for who you percieve as “God’s chosen” giving up on democracy??

Goldwater is right that the problem with such theocrats is that there can be no rational disagreement. If one does not recognize what another claims as a divine right, that person gets demonized rather than argued with since who else but satan or some evil force at work could prevent someone from failing to recognize divine authority. We saw it in response to the Iraq War, dissenters were regarded as disloyal rather than simply wrong.

When Bush was asked if you asked his father who must have had some expertise on the Iraq situation for advice given his involvement there, Bush responded that his earthy father was “the wrong father to appeal to for advice … there is a higher father that I appeal to”.

The theocrats must have been quite comforted to think of Bush getting advice directly from God, but it just sounds scary to anyone who doubts that he had such a direct line of communication that would give him better advice than a human being privy to classified information on the subject.

On the other hand, If the likes of MLK or Bishop Tutu says that he was inspired by Jesus and was moved in prayer to work for justice for the disenfranchised, I’m all for that. I wouldn’t think of such people as theocrats at all but rather people committed to democracy and justice.

Maybe you can help me out here, what’s the difference other than working for better causes? Are you aware of a theocratic rising tide in this country that is a threat to democracy? Given that I am for imposing no limitations on religious reason giving as the militant secularists want to do, how would the theocratic within the Christian Right movement be distinguished as anti-democratic and theocratic while other religious reason-giving of the Abolitionist side of the slavery debate and the civil rights movement is good democratic participation?

Best,
Leela

The elephant in the room that you’re apparently not noticing is that you have provided no evidence (and I suspect you have no good reason to believe) that so-called secularists, or ‘people committed to democracy and justice,’ are just as recalcitrant to reason as so-called ‘theocrats’ (who in fact appear to be nothing of the sort).

 

[Betterave]

The elephant in the room that you’re apparently not noticing is that you have provided no evidence (and I suspect you have no good reason to believe) that so-called secularists, or ‘people committed to democracy and justice,’ are NOT just as recalcitrant to reason as so-called ‘theocrats’ (who in fact appear to be nothing of the sort).

(oops, forgot the NOT first time round )

 

[antroji]

What I like about it, Betterave, is that it keeps at least religious belief out of government to some degree. I personally don’t want any form of government from city to federal to become a debating ground for theological points of order. It is already too much of that. and I don’t want to play “Whose God Is It?” with my tax money.

Yes, I know we get into controversial areas when it come to marriage and abortion. But the religious Founding Fathers nevertheless initiated a secular form of government for precisely the reason that Senator Goldwater stated. This provides for civil order without impinging or supporting the views of a particular faith. That means if you are gay or wish an abortion, it is on your conscience what you do. My belief in the matter comes into play only if I am asked my (name removed by moderator)ut.

Historically the differences in religious opinions have caused only embattlements. And we can only support and embellish entrenched opposition to our way by insisting on conformity to our view. And as hard as that might seem to be as far as the abortion issue is concerned, I am sorry, but beyond my vote, financial support of any cause, or stating my belief, I cannot influence the agency of another person. The laws we make and live under don’t always conform to what our interpretation of Divine Law is, though that is higher. I have no desire to make this country into a Catholic state, I’m not quite sure, given history, that such a thing would be useful anyway.

So I feel it is best to leave civil matters to the government and moral matters to the Church. If there is a discrepancy, then the differences need to be settled in another area than our government itself. We nor anyone else have had good results with attempting to legislate morality, pro or con in any issue.

Definitions of what is moral and what is civil are debatable, and not necessarily from our own standpoint, as far as the general public is concerned. And that is what government is about: the whole of the public, not just the religious who are controverted with each other anyway.

 

[Betterave]

What I like about it, Betterave, is that it keeps at least religious belief out of government to some degree. I personally don’t want any form of government from city to federal to become a debating ground for theological points of order. It is already too much of that. and I don’t want to play “Whose God Is It?” with my tax money.

Yes, I know we get into controversial areas when it come to marriage and abortion. But the religious Founding Fathers nevertheless initiated a secular form of government for precisely the reason that Senator Goldwater stated. This provides for civil order without impinging or supporting the views of a particular faith. That means if you are gay or wish an abortion, it is on your conscience what you do. My belief in the matter comes into play only if I am asked my (name removed by moderator)ut.

Historically the differences in religious opinions have caused only embattlements. And we can only support and embellish entrenched opposition to our way by insisting on conformity to our view. And as hard as that might seem to be as far as the abortion issue is concerned, I am sorry, but beyond my vote, financial support of any cause, or stating my belief, I cannot influence the agency of another person. The laws we make and live under don’t always conform to what our interpretation of Divine Law is, though that is higher. I have no desire to make this country into a Catholic state, I’m not quite sure, given history, that such a thing would be useful anyway.

So I feel it is best to leave civil matters to the government and moral matters to the Church. If there is a discrepancy, then the differences need to be settled in another area than our government itself. We nor anyone else have had good results with attempting to legislate morality, pro or con in any issue.

Definitions of what is moral and what is civil are debatable, and not necessarily from our own standpoint, as far as the general public is concerned. ] And that is what government is about: the whole of the public, not just the religious who are controverted with each other anyway.

Moral issues are not “theological points of order.” No one wants wants governments debating the latter (at least no one worth mentioning), so you and Goldwater are attacking a strawman here. You can’t get beyond embattlements by using rhetoric about how embattlements are to be avoided, and all the while hypocritically entrenching one’s advocacy on one side of the embattled issue (you can, but it’s dishonest and wrong - even if you’re a smooth-talker and have a Kenyan father ).

 

[sedonaman]

I like this statement:

“…I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.” ~Barry Goldwater

Today, the breakdown would look something like this:

A = Relativism
B = Radical Individualism
C = Pluralism
D = Multiculturalism
E = Diversity
F = Affirmative Action
G = Global Warming
Thus is the religion of liberalism.*

 

[colmcille1]

Hi all True believers,
Well, I just KNEW it! I knew that if I stuck around long enough, the author of the OP would show up again and…BING! Here she is!
There’s one MIGHTY hang-up for all to see here, folks. “Bible quotes”. Thats it. Check out (if you have the stamina) the thirteen mile-long thread on homosexuality and natural law. See how ALL pro-gay “arguments” were systematically taken apart and tossed into cyber-space.
This post, btw, is not off topic. It’s very much on because it is pointing (as another poster has done already) to the big bouncing strawman that we are now facing.
Good luck to all and sundry True believers on this one. I’ll pop in from time to time to check on progress…or lack thereof.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Leela]

How is voting for who you percieve as “God’s chosen” giving up on democracy??

Wanting to be ruled by God’s representatives on earth is what is meant by theocracy. Are you suggesting that democracy and theocracy are compatible?

Let me give you an idea of what I am talking about. As Pat Robertson, Leader of the Christian Coalition put it, “Our aim is to gain dominion over society.” Exactly how that was to be accomplished was revealed when he told the Denver Post in 1992 that his goal was to “take working control of the Republican Party.” Robertson’s Christian Coalition has 1.7 million members and his television program, 700 Club, boasts 7 million viewers each week. He wields a $27 million annual budget with which to work to try elect “Christian candidates” to public office (though he would lose his tax-exempt status if he were to explicitly endorse any particular candidates.)

D. James Kennedy, pastor of the 9,000 member Coral Ridge Ministries until he died of a heart attack in 2007, reached a weekly viewing and listening audience of over 3 million people every Sunday. At a “Reclaiming America for Christ” conference in February, 2005, Kennedy stated the duty of every Christian as follows:

“Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors – in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”

Kennedy preached a theocratic vision where Christians dominate everyone else as God’s representatives on earth. In his 1994 book, Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, Kennedy specifically attacks the notion of secularism and its church-state separation:

“If we are committed and involved in taking back the nation for Christian moral values, and if we are willing to risk the scorn of the secular media and the bureaucracy that stand against us, there is no doubt we can witness the dismantling of not just the Berlin Wall but the even more diabolical ‘wall of separation’ that has led to increasing secularization, godlessness, immorality, and corruption in our country.”

Note the implicit claim of victim status in the Kenedy quote above. Christians are risking “scorn” from “those who stand against us” for being committed to “Christian moral values.” In a country where the vast majority of Americans are Christians, it is a wonder that anyone would try take the tack of playing the persecuted martyr, but it is too-common maneuver. In a speech for a gathering of Roman Catholic legal professionals in Darien, Connecticut in 2005 Bush’s controversial Federal Judicial nominee (later confirmed) Janice Rogers Brown said:

“These are perilous times for people of faith, not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud.”

Who are the persecutors? Why the subscribers to “atheistic humanism,” of course, who have “handed human destiny over to the great god, autonomy, and this is quite a different idea of freedom. Freedom then becomes willfulness."

The elephant in the room that you’re apparently not noticing is that you have provided no evidence (and I suspect you have no good reason to believe) that so-called secularists, or ‘people committed to democracy and justice,’ are just as recalcitrant to reason as so-called ‘theocrats’ (who in fact appear to be nothing of the sort).

The issue hear isn’t that some people just won’t listen to reason. I always assume that whoever I am talking to is interested in the exchange of reasons or it would be pointless to talk with them.

The issue is about religious-reason giving in politics. For example, would we like to Supreme Court Justices defend their decisions with Bible quotes? I should think not.

 

[Leela]

Hi all,

Here are a few more examples of the theocratic movement.

Former Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay helped raise money for an organization called the Traditional Values Coalition to fight back against the “war on Christianity” and "stop the all-out assault on Christians being waged by our government, by America’s educational institutions, by the media and throughout popular culture and, according to a fundraising letter, “to help [TVC founder Reverend Lou Sheldon] show America how the liberal Democrat have hijacked America’s courts to push a radical anti-God, anti-family agenda on America.”

Delay’s home state is Texas, where the State of Texas GOP platform of 2004 stated that, “The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation.” Lest anyone think that theocracy is merely an extremist concern that we need not worry about, let’s read on:

“Our Founders expected that Christianity–and no other religion–would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples’ consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference.”

I think that last sentence is probably true and that the one preceding it then is probably false for that very reason. The Founding Father’s would not have sought any governmental favor for Christianity, if only because no other religion was on their radar any more than radars were on their radar. They didn’t imagine a country where Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and atheists resided together any more than the could fathom blacks and whites on equal social footing. That last sentence is only true in the way that it is true that most of the Founding Fathers apparently thought of “all men are created equal” as applying only to land-owning white males. Nevertheless, we now take the Constitution as ensuring that all people regardless of sex, race, or land-owning status are all deserving of the same protection under the law, and of course we all agree that we should. Likewise, we ought to regard all religions and the lack of religious belief as equally respected and equally not respected in terms of the establishment clause.

Of greatest concern all to democracy in the Texas Republican Party’s platform is its resolution that “Our party pledges to exert its influence to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and to dispel the ‘myth’ of the separation of church and state.” The myth of the myth of separation of church and state seem so be gaining traction, and we therefore ought to be prepared to argue for secularism as a way of ensuring religious freedom.

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 filed by Republicans Richard Shelby and Robert Aderholt sought to make explicit, in the words of Roy Moore, a drafter of the bill,
“the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government…contained within the Declaration of Independence which is cited as the ‘organic law’ of our Country by United States Code Annotated. The constitution of every state of the Union acknowledges God and His sovereignty, as do three branches of the federal government. The acknowledgment of God is not a legitimate subject of review by federal courts.”

The bill was originally introduced in 2004 and them was reintroduced in 2005. On both occasions in stalled in committee. That last sentence refers to part of the intent of the bill as to protect Christmas nativity displays in the so-called “war on Christmas.” I don’t think it ever had any chance to make it to the floor for a vote. The point of mentioning it and the Texas GOP platform is to point out that the theocratic movement is no straw man. It has some real state and national level appeal and is a real danger to furthering the cause of secularism. But it also enough of an extremist view that liberal and moderate Christians can be enlisted to help fight it alongside atheists so long as the defeat of the new theocrats is not allowed to be painted as an atheistic campaign.

To the atheists out there, we need to fight theocracy not in the name of atheism but in the name of democracy. Fighting theocracy in the name of atheism will only result in more theocrats.

Best,
Leela

 

[zdon011]

The theocrats must have been quite comforted to think of Bush getting advice directly from God, but it just sounds scary to anyone who doubts that he had such a direct line of communication that would give him better advice than a human being privy to classified information on the subject.

On the other hand, If the likes of MLK or Archbishop Tutu says that he was inspired by Jesus and was moved in prayer to work for justice for the disenfranchised, I’m all for that.

Leela, your approach is inconsistent. If, as a secularist, you consider ‘God told me to’ an invalid argument in the case of Pres. Bush’s decisions, then Dr King’s and Archbishop Tutu’s motivations must be considered equally invalid. Their arguments for social justice were just as deeply rooted in their particular religious traditions as GWB’s: the fact that you (or anyone else) happen to agree with them is irrelevant to their logical validity, if the ‘secularist’ principles in your OP were applied.

 

[Betterave]

Wanting to be ruled by God’s representatives on earth is what is meant by theocracy. Are you suggesting that democracy and theocracy are compatible?

lol! Okay, so your definition of theocracy is obviously incorrect, but that aside, what do you think is meant by ‘democracy’?

The issue hear isn’t that some people just won’t listen to reason. I always assume that whoever I am talking to is interested in the exchange of reasons or it would be pointless to talk with them.

Well, hem hem… Maybe that is the issue and you’re just not ‘listening’?

 

[Leela]

lol! Okay, so your definition of theocracy is obviously incorrect, but that aside, what do you think is meant by ‘democracy’?

Would you mind first offering your better definition of theocracy?

Well, hem hem… Maybe that is the issue and you’re just not ‘listening’?

Well, if you think I am impervious to reason it would seem unreasonable for you to converse with me.

 

[Leela]

Leela, your approach is inconsistent. If, as a secularist, you consider ‘God told me to’ an invalid argument in the case of Pres. Bush’s decisions, then Dr King’s and Archbishop Tutu’s motivations must be considered equally invalid. Their arguments for social justice were just as deeply rooted in their particular religious traditions as GWB’s: the fact that you (or anyone else) happen to agree with them is irrelevant to their logical validity, if the ‘secularist’ principles in your OP were applied.

The difference is that King and Tutu were not elected officials and that they made arguments that those not subbing to their particular religion could find convincing. The is no \argument at all in “God wants me to be President.” There is something scary about his claim that e would nominate judges who understand that our rights come from God." What exactly is that supposed to mean ? How is believing that or not believing that supposed to affect their judicial decisions?

 

[antroji]

Ditto Leela; she speaks rightly. Bush and God? Bush and money? Here’s a guy whose grandad aided and abetted the Nazis!

 

[Betterave]

Would you mind first offering your better definition of theocracy?

Sure. Theocracy is rule by religious authorities.

Well, if you think I am impervious to reason it would seem unreasonable for you to converse with me.

Only if I thought that your imperviousness to reason was global, necessary, and unchangeable, rather than a local contingent fact that was possibly liable to change.