I think it is more accurate to say that we all care about beliefs,
especially those we do not share, when they stand to affect our lives--when
they are brought into the "political arena," which can be any public space.
Singling out "religious beliefs" as particularly problematic indicates a
special prejudice against them.
Someone arguing policy from some basis in a religious anthropology, for
instance, is liable to be differentiated from someone arguing from a
non-religious--maybe a materialist--anthropology. The only neutral
description of the situation is that there are competing first principles
and conflicted rationalities in play. They are structurally identical,
however, and it is only the foreignness or provenance of one that concerns
me, or inclines me to consider it suspect or harmful. If I label it
"religious" or "irreligious" I have committed myself to a position in the
conflict. Often this commitment is made against the "religious" position
while one's neutrality is also averred (usually sincerely) by upholding a
"separate but equal" doctrine.
But the presumption that religion and politics can be separated cleanly or
that there is some legal basis for this--and that they have separate arenas
(the private and the public)--is a myth and a very useful one (to some more
than others) for certain purposes. But if it is mystified as a point of
quasi-religious doctrine itself, it can be demystified--and is has been, to
a good extent. The myth of a public sphere and a political rationality shorn
of religion belongs to an age that may well be passing and is looking rather
shopworn.
I am surprised that this is not recognized and discussed with intelligence
more among scholars of early modern Europe. But if Ralph Reed strikes a
person as a horribly disturbing or merely loathsome toad, I have to wonder
how well they can possibly understand political actors and the common person
during the bloody confessionalization of Europe. Our nation states and the
rational, neutral public square were in part coping mechanisms and reactions
to religious, political, ethnic, and linguistic pluralism in Europe that
could not be held together once competing factions went to war with each
other. And of course individual ethno-national blocs were never completely
politically stable or homogeneous, thereby preserving the potential for new
ruptures and reconfigurations.
-----Original Message-----
From: David L. Miller [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Olive Branch
Fine with me. But you're wrong about what I really mean when it comes to
Ralph Reed. I only care about his religious beliefs when he brings them
into the political arena. And I'm quite willing to tell any Jew or Muslim
who uses his politics to hateful ends that he's abusing the dignity of a
religous tradition that deserves a far different kind of respect.
>>> [log in to unmask] 6/19/2005 4:24:01 PM >>>
In a message dated 6/19/2005 9:09:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Having got that off my chest, I will offer an olive branch, knowing it
may not satisfy you. I do see and hear anti-Christian bias in the
academy, especially in literary study. I wouldn't say it's prevalent or
endemic, but it's there, and it isn't called out the way less fashionable
kinds of prejudice are.
OK. I accept. Your points about the PTA and school prayers are also
on
the mark.
I also acknowledge that the ivory tower crack was not helpful.
Actually, it really was not my goal to go off on an angry tangent.
I
would really rather talk about Shakespeare or something.
MRS
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed
2689 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their
emails. Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.8/22 - Release Date: 6/17/2005
