Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (30248)	9/29/2001 1:50:49 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Part 2 of 2. 8. Three common misunderstandings of the public philosophy There are many obstacles in the way of reforging a civil public square--not least that many of the culture-warrior activists have a vested interest in continuing the culture wars. But beneath an understandable caution, if not skepticism, are three common misunderstandings of what is in mind. * Civil religion: First used by Jean-Jacques Rousseau as part of his theory of social contract, "civil religion" has come to be used of a nation's faith in itself through which it expresses its self-awareness, cements its solidarity, celebrates its unity, and actually worships itself. It is therefore quite incongruous with Judaism and the Christian faith, both of which severely condemn idolatry, nationalistic or otherwise. In spite of this fact, however, it is clear that "Protestant-Catholic-Jew" has been at the heart of the rise of an American civil religion in the twentieth century. The reforged public philosophy must therefore be distinguished from civil religion. Civil religion is essentially religious, and therefore discriminatory to those who are not religious as well as idolatrous to many who are. The reforged public philosophy is not in itself religious. It provides a framework for both religious and non-religious citizens to enter public life, but the framework itself is the expression of cons titutional first principles, not religious beliefs. * Lowest-common-denominator ecumenism: A second misunderstanding is that the public philosophy is achieved through dialogue in search of the common core of diverse religious beliefs. While strongly espoused in some circles, this approach has insuperable problems. For one thing, however ecumenically inclusive, it still excludes the non-religious who have no interest in what unites religious believers. For another, it holds out the promise of a core unity that is a mirage. For all the talk of a "common core" to world religions, no one has ever been able to agree what the common core is. Equally importantly, globalization and the dramatic awareness of cultural diversity are underscoring an important lesson: Differences make a difference. Respect for human life and human rights, for instance, are quite simply not a matter of universal agreement. The "universal rights" of the United Nations' Charter are anything but. Many of the world's religions and ideologies have no basis for or interest in such rights. It is important to know what we prize as inalienable--and why. * Indifferentism: The third common misunderstanding is that the public philosophy requires such a neutering of religious beliefs that the resulting civility is another word for inoffensiveness and indifference. To be sure, some forms of "tolerance" have led to indifference. Infinitely preferable to intolerance, tolerance can become so vacuous that it topples over into intolerance--when it disallows the particularities of beliefs. "Respect" is a stronger notion, but it too needs rescuing from confusion. There is a difference, for example, between the notion of "the right to believe anything" and the notion that "anything anyone believes is right." The former is freedom of conscience, the latter nonsense. Put differently, there are no constitutional limits to what a person may believe, but there are definite philosophical, moral, and sociological limits. Certain things follow from this tough view of the civil public square. Religion in the civil public square is not a religion of civility. Nor is civility to be equated with niceness. In democratic debates there are always winners and losers. Disagreement itself is an achievement. Civility is neither for faint hearts nor weak faiths. It is a framework within which important differences can be debated and decided robustly and persuasively, but not coercively. Can we rebuild such a public philosophy today? Is such a common vision of the common good the best way to "unite America's religions" (and secular worldviews)? Or is the search for a just and commonly acceptable solution as futile as squaring the circle or searching for esperanto? Clearly the way forward requires not only a sound vision but courageous leadership and the patient, costly application of the vision to the festering sore spots of our current controversies. Yet neither leadership nor courage of that kind are in plentiful supply in America today. But if these eight considerations point in the right direction, American leaders cannot continue to treat religion in America as a non-issue or a nuisance factor. The religious issue is much more than a question of the rights of religious believers in modern society. Culture-warring over religion means that an essential part of American heritage is being called into question and with it the vitality and viability of the American republic itself. Both religion and religious liberty are fundamental to the Great Experiment itself as the framers devised it, and therefore to the future of liberty itself. Alexis de Tocqueville, a far greater foreign visitor to America, said of the two great revolutions of his time: "In a rebellion, as in a novel, the most difficult part to invent is the end."

To: Lane3 who wrote (30248)	9/29/2001 2:21:58 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Barf virtue requires religion? Well-the writer of this argument assumed the premise on that one. I agree with him about some elements, but he isn't what I'd call logical. Just because a framer or historical figure said it (whatever it is), doesn't make it true. And of course the framers said all sorts of things- it's a little like the Bible, you can find what you like, and worship it. Looking at the big picture is more troubling, and doesn't lend itself to men on a mission.