|
May 25, 2007
In his influential 1984 book, The Naked Public Square Richard John Neuhaus argued that the American "experiment in ordered liberty" is premised on religious assumptions about the freedom and dignity of the human person. In his view, freedom of religion is the first freedom, and the effort by liberal elites to strip the public square of religious language and advocacy is an assault on every American's freedom of conscience. According to Neuhaus, government, because it must inevitably order aspects of our common life that touch on our ultimate moral concerns, cannot turn a deaf ear to the religious aspirations of the governed. Nor, he argues, can the fundamental values of democracy be sustained outside of a larger religious context. Divorced from its religious foundations, Neuhaus warns, democracy is doomed.
This is the argument of the First Things crowd. The public square from which religion is banished is a naked one. Has the public square become more or less open to the expression of religiously grounded moral viewpoints?
It looks increasingly that way as men and women of faith make themselves heard in setting the conditions of debate on some issues, eg., the value ones. Faith-based organizations has made considerable headway in delivering welfare services more cheaply, effectively, and humanely through the mediating institutions of civil society, than directly by the state. Religious voices are stronger and more confident in public debates.
Are they more adept at translating their values into terms that are persuasive to their fellow citizens, so that citizens in a pluralistic republic are in conversation with each other about the conditions under which we are to live, work, and raise our children? I'm not persuaded. I see dogmatism and hostility from the religious Right that engages in a culture war against the Left, not a conversation.
If there is a rationality therein it can be found in the argument about Australian culture. Although it includes many non-Europeans, Australian culture is in the main an extension and reconfiguration of European culture, which is to say it is part of the culture of the West. And today it is the strongest and most vibrant part of the cultural tradition of the West. The challenge of Islam in its militant form of Jihadism powerfully reinforces our awareness that we are part of the West and, however ambiguously so, the Christian West. There fore we are a Christian nation and Australian democracy is grounded on Judaic-Christian values.
Rationality can be found in the argument in the argument that liberalism ceases to be liberal when it not only dismisses [many Australians] most cherished beliefs from the public sphere but even tries, through the device of public education, to make it harder for these beliefs to function in the private sphere. Thus the right to withdraw one's children from government-controlled education can be exercised only by parents determined and capable enough to undertake home-schooling, or wealthy enough to afford private education after paying taxes to support government schools.
t is liberalism that is deemed to be the problem. It argues that as there are limits in a pluralistic society to the degree to which public education can accommodate the religious diversity of the families it serves, the simplest solution is to keep religion out of the public schools. This development is often presented as "neutral" and respectful of pluralism.
However, this form of secularism in public schools is seen, by the religious Right, as the government in control of, and religion banned from, the majority of our country's chief institutions for teaching and transmitting culture. It is nothing less than a program for formation of persons, and thus a program for cultural transformation, if not indoctrinating persons to serve the needs of the state.
|
I know I get a bit pedantic about this but here I go again.
Unfortunately the FT crowd is part of the multi-faceted movement to turn the USA into a theocratic state. The book by Dinesh that you referred to the other day is part of that movement.
Earlier this year FT had an essay which argued that the catholic church was the ONLY place where "truth" could be found and that all other religious expressions and understanding were/are inherently false and that they lead to all kinds of "relativistic" perversions/consequences. The article even argued that protestantism was false too and that ALL attempts at ecumenical understanding and dialogue were misguided and a waste of time, and hence should be resisted.
Other writers and "theologians" associated with FT have also written elsewhere that the "catholic" church is the only place where "truth" can be found.
FT is also closely associated with the so called intelligent design movement and its parent body the "Discovery" Institute. The ID movement is really just a political movement in "religious" drag. Its goal and purpose is power. One capitalist world world under the christian patriarchal "god". Father knows best!
Black Adder knew what to say about such delusions: Utter Crapp.
We know what is right because we have "god" and the "total truth" of/and the inerrant "authority" of "scripture" on our side.
Similar and related outfits are Touchstone magazine and Crux. There are many inter-related outfits/organizations.
And then there is the close nexus with the Heritage Foundation (lies, lies,lies and more lies), the AEI etc etc. Propaganda machines for the Pentagon death machine.
The "culture" of death literally rules! Seriously.
On a lighter note I quite like and prefer the book Culture of Disbelief by Stephen Carter.
Neuhaus also wrote a book titled Meditations on the Last Words of Jesus From the Cross. Which is bullshit, because contrary to all the pious belief nobody really knows what the "last words" of "jesus" were---because there were no "last words".
My favourite "philosopher" points out that the entire "jesus" "persona" was/is a creation of religious literary fiction and the cruci-FICTION just did not happen. A literary creation in similar vein to Krishna of the Bhagavad Gits and Rama from the Ramayana. No serious scholar of religion suggests or believes that either Krishna or Rama were actual real live breathing/shitting human beings. So too, with "jesus".
In this day and age "jesus" is on the same par with childhood teaching characters such as the tooth fairy, santa claus, and the easter rabbit. Perhaps they are/were useful as childhood teaching devices but they are a totally unsuitable base on which to create a Wisdom Culture which values and creates true human maturity.
A Wisdom Culture being by self definition an initiatory culture of testing and demand. A culture of inspiration and expectation.