Revaluing Secularity
The so-called culture war in America is expressed as a conflict between a secular mindset and traditional religious values. What would this tension look like if secularity was seen as a particular religion, rather than a neutral space that permits all religion without being a religion? If the differences on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and public religious monuments were simply the differences of different particular religions, what would become of the arguments that appeal to the diversity of American society? Wouldn't they just beg the question? It seems that secularity must rely on the notion that it is indeed an all-embracing view of the world and its particularities without any commitment to an unchanging metaphysic or epistemic standard. How long can it sustain this unstable illusion?
posted by Quincy Magoo at
6:47 PM
6 Comments:
The problem is they (conservative Xtians)essentially label many of us who are religious/traditional as secularist because we neither subscribe to their dogma and do not want it imposed on ourselves/our children. The whole point to the requested limits of religion in public is that those limits only apply to actions which are (or could legitimately be perceived as) a state sponsorship of religion and/or subjugate an unwilling audience (or captive one, especially those unable to consent or refuse). Any other expression is permissible (or not) depending on the particular rules (your home, the home of another, the mall, a park, a privately owned place, etc.) of the place in which you choose to express yourself. Is that really so difficult to understand?
By
Ol Cranky, at 10:50 AM
Cranky,
Is that really so difficult to understand?
Apparently it is since you missed the entire point. How do you distinguish between "religious dogma" and "public value"? The notion of a neutral set of public values is often presupposed and rarely understood critically.
By
Quincy Magoo, at 11:11 AM
I look at the intent and, when I can, result to determine the difference. I see no public value in trying to impose a specific belief in G-d and/or a specific view of what that G-d is as religious dogma. I, frankly, think making a stink about some folks saying happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas and the intentional addition of the words "under G-d" to the pledge of allegiance (and the reason it was done) as devaluing religion/religious belief. I think trying to legislate based on scripture to ensure all behavior is in accordance with a specific interpretation to be almost as disrespectful to that religion and those who live in accordance to that religion as forced conversion.
Legislation that prevents people from engaging in activities that are not harmful to those engaged in them and do not directly negatively injure those not involved adds no value (IMO it is punitive with the sole purpose of preventing someone's moral sensibilities from being offended).
Preventing people from violating the civil rights of another and stealing something earned by another is of public value.
To justify application of something across the board, you need a reason more compelling than "G-d said No" as evidence of public value.
By
Ol Cranky, at 5:23 PM
Cranky - we just don't seem to be able to understand one another. What is a public value? Is it your interpretation of some utilitarian calculus of harm and happiness? Is it the terms of that old hypostatization the "social contract"? What is it? How is it realized? How do you judge?
You're focusing on particular policies and positions. My question is much broader than that.
By
Quincy Magoo, at 6:59 PM
I'm trying to give examples. As I said above, to make a claim something is right because some being said so renders right and worng arbitrary.
Personally, I do work on the equation of harm and beneficience (which is not necessarily happiness).
You reference a concern of the secular lack of committment to unchanging standards as if there always is one right decision on X regardless of the circumstances. This world is not a vacuum, similar situations are not exactly the same and a small nuance may actually make a difference between what is and isn't right. I get the impression that you see the world as solid and I see a gradient that includes different states. Life isn't that pat.
By
Ol Cranky, at 8:35 PM
Cranky - you're cranking out old threadbare party-line arguments that just don't apply to this discussion. We all know the world is complicated, not pat. We can all appreciate nuance. The argument has moved on, move with it.
The point is: how do you, on a purely secular basis, objectively establish the most basic principle or axiom whereby you can perform a moral calculus of harm and beneficence. How do you rise above your subjective and perhaps arbitrary feelings about right and wrong?
By
Quincy Magoo, at 6:22 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home