Jonathan Malesic and I debated the value of secularism for Christians on Radio Free Acton. You can hear it here.
Jonathan thinks the church should go private for our own sake. Get his book here. And, I, of course, see things a bit differently since I’m the author of a book arguing the exact opposite course.
If you prefer to see us duel in print (a separate debate with different content), you have to subscribe to the Journal of Markets and Morality or at least wait until the current issue goes into the free archive.
January 19th, 2011 | 4:57 pm | #1
Secular in the sense of the world outside the church = an unavoidable reality.
Secular in the sense of a world where Christians must cease to speak and act like Christians = a fully avoidable evil.
Secular in the sense of a neutral middle ground where Christians and non-Christians can live in perfect harmony by leaving their religions at the door = a lie. There is no such middle ground, and it will always be to our spiritual detriment, even if politically expedient.
January 19th, 2011 | 5:33 pm | #2
I’d say I agree with that, Anthony.
January 21st, 2011 | 10:51 pm | #3
Anthony, there will always be a middle ground between people of different beliefs.
Even if everyone in the world became a Christian, there would be some dispute that would divide Christians – and there would then be a need for that middle ground.
The question is whether it is to be a public square ruled by civility, or a no man’s land in a war zone. That is, what is necessary is not to reject the idea of the middle ground, but to examine what we want such a middle ground to look like.
Those who say religious people should leave their beliefs out of the neutral zone are playing a trick. It is by now obvious that such people are really hoping that their own beliefs will enjoy a monopoly and will end up “owning” the formerly-neutral zone.
What is really necessary is a definition of neutrality where all people enjoy roughly equal levels of whatever it is people are supposed to enjoy in the neutral area. (Equality? Feeling welcome? A right to participate in the processes involved in decision-making?)
Humanists have managed to use the sophist’s argument “your beliefs are religious, so they’re not appropriate here/my beliefs are not religious, so they are appropriate here”. The key hinges on the definition of “religious”; we must accept that a question like “is there a God?” can have both answers that are – and are not – religious in nature (even though the same group of beliefs that humanists call “not religious” is recognized as a religion – Unitarian Universalism – in a different context).
What is needed is true reciprocity – for the humanist to be held to the same standards of tolerance toward others that he demands from others.
January 22nd, 2011 | 11:54 am | #4
Very insightful, Blake. I agree wholeheartedly.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact