Is religion a conversation stopper?

[greybeta]

I should be sleeping, since they say that you shouldn't do any heavy reading before you go to sleep. So true, because my head is churning after doing my honors reading. It puts this post of mine into perspective. Arguing, "my faith says so" convinces nobody except those of your faith. But heck, a lot of "Christians" today don't know what they truly believe in, nor do they read their Bible very often.

Anyways, this atheist anticlerical guy, Richard Rorty wrote a response to some Carter guy (Carter wrote something about how he felt religion was being taken out of the public sphere of debate). Rorty wrote in 1994, "The main reason religion needs to be privatized is that, in political discussion with those outside the relevant religious community, it is a conversation-stopper" (Religion as a conversation-stopper). To make a long story short, Rorty believes that religion should be privatized to preserve democracy. Institutionalized religion is a bad thing. You see, public discouse should be restricted to premises hold in common.

Of course, two other guys named Wolterstoff and Stout have criticisms. The first guy basically doesn't like the atheistic tone of Rorty and points to Martin Luther King, Jr. as an example of someone who uses religion in the public sphere (An Engagement with Rorty). Stout thinks religion does have situational use because religion isn't a conversation stopper, because religion isn't essentially anything (Religion in political argument). Stout is careful to point out that anything that somebody cares about deeply can influence the public sphere, whether it be a hobby or religion.

The Rorty response to these guys in 2003 is to remind them for the occasional King, there are multiple Jerry Falwells (Religion in the Public Square). He then brings up the same sex marriage issue to clarify why he believes religion should be pruned back to the parish level. In refernce to citing the Leviticus 18:22 or Paul, Rorty says, "Citing such passages should be deeme not just in bad taste, but as heartlessly cruel, as reckless persecution, as incitement to violence." He equates such citing as "peacetime sadism", using religion to excuse cruelty. Down the road he says "The gays and lesbians, however, persist in thinking that if the churches would stop quoting Leviticus and Paul on the subject of sodomy, would stop saying that tolerance for homosexuals is a mark of moral decline...there would be fewer gay-bashers around". Many also are "struck by the fact that religious reasons are now pretty much the only reasons brought forward in favor of treating them with contempt." Homophobia is equated with anti-Semitism because "encouraging exclusivist bigotry brings money and power to ecclesiastical organizations". Then, we have a divide in America, where "a sizable body of opinion that treats gays and lesbians as contemptible and despicable and another body of opinion that treats those who quote Leviticus 18:22 as contemptible and despicable". Christians can have their Christian reasons for supporting redistribution of wealth or opposing same sex marriage, but Rorty is not sure "it counts having such reasons if the person who finds such marriage inconceivable is unwilling or unable even to discuss, for example, the seeming tension between Leviticus 22:18 and I Corinthians 13. Rorty feels entitled to his "right to urge social ostracism of homophobic preachers as they do to abuse gays and lesbians".

Rorty concludes by saying that he should have said "that citizens of a democracy should try to put off invoking conversation-stoppers as long as possible. We should do our best to keep the conversation going without citing unarguable first principles, either philosophical or religious. If we are sometimes driven to such citation, we should see ourselves as having failed, not as having triumphed."

Yet, people do have to draw a moral line somewhere. In the end, what one argues in public will ultimately be governed by what one personally believs in. And when we reach dead ends, our democracy relies on its votes and courts to carry the day.

Comments

[happydog.livejournal.com]

that's ok, they say you shouldn't eat spicy food before you go to sleep, that's why I am awake.

I don't carry my religion into open discussion because I think that most people really don't want to hear about one's religion. And people really don't want to hear about my religion in public discourse, because it's hard to explain.

And I don't ask people to abide by the tenets of my religion. I don't ask them to do the things I do or believe the things that I believe, just as I think they should not ask me to do the things they do and believe the things that they believe.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the basis of governance and law in American society, or rather, they should be - as there have been rather egregious violations of same by the people in public office who are supposed to be protecting these things. Morality is personal; Ethics are common sense. Every religion has "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" encoded in its DNA somewhere.

however that being said, there are many people on the Right, and more correctly the Far Right Fundamentalist Christian Right, who are bringing unarguable first principles to the table. Unarguable in that they do not wish to argue about them, nor do they wish to hear any dissent. This frightens me, and the loudness of their voices in public discourse frightens me. And frightened people very often become angry, and fight back with the force they feel the Other is using toward them.

Frustration: they do not stop. Dominionist theology, which is the primary mode of thought in the far right fundamentalist christian camp, does not brook dissent, and it does not tire or waver. In being this way it demands a response of the same kind from those who do not cling to this "moral" framework; every action produces a reaction, everyone sees the flipside of themselves when they look in the mirror.

Agreeing to disagree is part of the problem; debate and, insofar as it is capable, objective decision making that takes all points of view into account is part of the solution.

These are human things, governance is or should be decided by the people. Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." He drew a sharp line between political involvement and spiritual involvement. This can be seen over and over again in the New Testament. The story of the Pharisees who asked why Jesus didn't pay taxes is an example; Jesus cared so little about their opinion that he had Peter go down to the sea and catch a fish, and in the fish's mouth was enough money to pay for both Peter and himself. By which Jesus was saying (IMHO) that he simply could not be bothered; his work was elsewhere, and if they wanted taxes then they would have them. Which is when he said the "render" line.

another example: when the soldiers came to get him in the Garden, and Peter pulled a sword and struck off a soldier's ear. Jesus told Peter in no uncertain terms to put away his sword, and promptly healed the soldier's ear.

Peter, like a modern fundamentalist, was willing to war over what he believed was right. Jesus knew more about what was going to happen, and stopped it, because Peter would have interfered with the plan.

historically, when Christians believe they know the future - when they believe they know better than God, and when they try to inflict their values (which may be erroneous; look at Cotton Mather for an example) on the society, the worst always, always happens.

Spirituality is a private matter. Rules of societal conduct are in the laws and the constitution.

Which is why Tom DeLay scares me with his talk of revenging himself on judges. The ghost of Cotton Mather looks at us over DeLay's shoulder and gives a mocking Puritan laugh as he watches the so-called witches swing from the gallows, and he hisses, "God's work is done." what God did he serve by killing crazy old ladies and grumpy old men who did not agree with the Puritans' views?

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I wonder though, if ethics are common sense would be in the relative or the absolute...

[happydog.livejournal.com]

CS Lewis would argue that morals are absolute, that they're built in. He argues in "Mere Christianity" that the very existence of the variations of "do unto others" in nearly every religion is proof that morality is an absolute.

Personally I am not sure about this. I think that morals and ethics are, or should be based on, what works for the greatest good of the individual and of the society at large, as much as possible. I suppose this makes me an ethical relativist, but I think my lines are more firmly drawn than that term would indicate.

[bonerici.livejournal.com]

i think there are three major forces today causing change in the modern life, and these three forces are like freight trains. The first is science. The second is democracy. And the third is religion.

Science and religion do not get along. One requires proof and chastises those who believe in things that can not be proved. The other requires faith and chastises those who need proof before they can believe.

Democracy is a better friend to religion than science. Why? Because despite the benefits of democracy, at base there is a driving force and that is populists politicians who are willing to do anything to get a vote. And it's quite simply a lot easier to lie about how much you love god than lie about how much you like science. Science has this nasty habit of putting facts in your way.

You can't take religion out of the public debate! It would be like taking democracy out of the public debate. Who is the one to say what is and what is not religion? From the time of ancient greece in athens, to the struggling democracy in Iraq, every time a populist wants to get some votes, he's gonna HAVE to talk about religion. That's all there is to it.

Who has the hubris to regulate about how much a politician can mix religion into his speeches? It's ridiculous. Mixing religion into your politics is the single best way to grab a few extra votes.

There's a reason nobody who is openly aetheist will ever be elected.

Checks and balances? Sure they are pretty good. But I think the reason that the common folk, the ones that the ultimate power resides in, they don't like it when religion gets too entwined with politics and democracy not because they get less religious. Nope. They start not liking it when stuff like Terri Schiavo comes up and they start thinking "Hey those politicians. . . they are lying about their faith. They don't really believe." That's the real check on religious power. It's the Jim Bakker's of this world that constrain their power.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

So it could be said, "Tell us what we want to hear, and we will not want to know the truth."

[force-of-will.livejournal.com]

Richard Rorty is one of the most well known, and controversial, current American philosophers...

(I've been spending a lot of time on philosophy and real_philosophy)

As was pointed out, belief, any sort of belief or interest that propagates into organizational status is going to have power. Religion is simply one of the oldest and most powerful of such structures.

I'm sure that Alexis de Tocqueville had something to say on this matter, but I'm afraid I can't say what that was...

Will

[thucyditron.livejournal.com]

Tocqueville attributes religous revivalism in America to a backlash against the levelling affect of American democracy and the market.

[force-of-will.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

I mean I was aware that he would see them as some group vying for power.

At some point I'm going to have to read him at length instead of the occasional online skim...

Will

[bonerici.livejournal.com]

tocqueville believed that democracy and religion go hand in hand, supporting each other and it was one of the primary reasons that the great american experiment had been such a success.

Um. . . see


HOW RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES AVAILS ITSELF OF DEMOCRATIC TENDENCIES

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/ch1_05.htm


When the religion of a people is destroyed, doubt gets hold of the higher powers of the intellect and half paralyzes all the others. Every man accustoms himself to having only confused and changing notions on the subjects most interesting to his fellow creatures and himself. His opinions are ill-defended and easily abandoned; and, in despair of ever solving by himself the hard problems respecting the destiny of man, he ignobly submits to think no more about them.

Such a condition cannot but enervate the soul, relax the springs of the will, and prepare a people for servitude. Not only does it happen in such a case that they allow their freedom to be taken from them; they frequently surrender it themselves. When there is no longer any principle of authority in religion any more than in politics, men are speedily frightened at the aspect of this unbounded independence. The constant agitation of all surrounding things alarms and exhausts them. As everything is at sea in the sphere of the mind, they determine at least that the mechanism of society shall be firm and fixed; and as they cannot resume their ancient belief, they assume a master.

For my own part, I doubt whether man can ever support at the same time complete religious independence and entire political freedom. And I am inclined to think that if faith be wanting in him, he must be subject; and if he be free, he must believe.

If nothing else Tocqueville is one of the most quotable writers ever.

[force-of-will.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the legwork...

Will

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Whoa, I had no clue the guy had his own wikipedia entry.

[wldntulk2knwwho.livejournal.com]

I think the first thing we need to look at is belief. Belief in something requires that you put your trust in it for better or for worse. To say "my faith says so" is a strong statement because it means you discount all other beliefs in favor of the one you hold to. I think the trick, however, is not to say "because my faith says so" but to say "I believe this and here is why."

So many people don't argue their points today. They just simply put their belief out into the open, and then when someone challenges it they get defensive rather than make a case for their opinion. This is what gripes me out about so many liberals today is that, when someone does something they don't agree with they simply label it as discrimination or bigotry and that's the end of the discussion. I would ask Mr. Rorty if religion is only a conversation stopper because he doesn't want to take the time to try to understand other beliefs. He specifically mentions what he feels is a contradiction between Leviticus and 1 Corinthians, but if he would think for a minute he might see that it is possible to show a person love but still refuse to condone a person's lifestyle. I wonder, would that make Mr. Rorty guilty of his own accusations?

I have more that I could say but I would end up straying from the main argument. Perhaps I'll put it in a post later. I just wish that more people out there, both liberals and conservatives, would be prepared to argue their opinion with evidence when someone challenges it.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

But if you say "I believe this because the Bible told me so", you're not likely to get much further. Which is Rorty's point, I do believe.

[wldntulk2knwwho.livejournal.com]

My point is that in cases where it is a conversation stopper, it is either that the believer is being defensive or the listener doesn't want to hear anymore.

My plea is 1. The believer should not be so defensive and simply argue the opinion and 2. The listener should not discredit an opinion that he has not given a little thought or consideration to.

[fub.livejournal.com]

In the end, what one argues in public will ultimately be governed by what one personally believs in.
True. But there is another possbility -- a path that too few people seem to take these days. Things that wouldn't work for you personally because of your religion, might very well work for other people. If there are no other arguments for allowing or not allowing something other than religious arguments, you should allow people who don't follow your religion to do as they please.

Case in point: same-sex marriages. OK, so if your religion forbids same-sex relationships, don't have a same-sex relationship. But does that necessarily mean that no-one should be allowed to have a same-sex relationship? Should a religion be a strict moral compass that everyone should follow -- should you force it onto them?

And when we reach dead ends, our democracy relies on its votes and courts to carry the day.
Democracy is a weird beast, which can work in many different ways which can all be called 'democracy'.
Suppose you are a teacher in a class of 30 pupils. Every year there's a schooltrip -- either to the beach or to the woods. You put this to the vote, and every year, 29 pupils vote for the beach and 1 votes for the woods.
You have now three options that could be described democractic:
- The majority decides, so every year you go to the beach.
- 29 times, you go to the beach, and 1 time you go to the woods -- so that every fraction in your class is represented equally.
- One year you go to the beach, the other year you go to the woods -- so that everyone gets their way an equal amount of times.
As these three examples demonstrate, saying that "the courts should decide" is a too simple representation of democracy, and defeatist in a way.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Most things in the world aren't black and white. But when we vote on something, we vote "yes" or "no".