Hi Han

Sorry I couldn't get back to you earlier. I'll post comments as I go along.

I agree with you that Thio sets up a false dichotomy, but not for exactly the reason you stated. This is what she said:

At one end of the spectrum are theocracies, where a religion's divine text is the basis for the state's general law. At the other extreme are atheistic systems like communist regimes which uphold 'secular fundamentalism' by demanding a strict separation of state and religion.

You seems to be disagreeing with her on the issue of the 'atheist-ness' of the communist regimes--an issue of political history. Actually, the mistake as I see it is more conceptual rather than historical.

One would have thought that a separation between state and religion occurs just in case the state does not have authority to decide on (and base policy upon) religious matters qua religious matters.

Even if it is true that the communist regimes uphold some sort of 'secular fundamentalism' (the historians of these regimes will have to tell us)--in fact, especially if what Thio said were correct--it would be wrong to call them examples of the "strict separation of state and religion". By her own recounting, these regimes are based upon the doctrine that god does not exist--a doctrine about which no state built upon liberal principles will find itself competent to pass judgment either way insofar as it passes judgment upon the matter qua religion.

(I'll continue reading...)

(con't)

re: the sections "The Inheritance" and "Law and secularism".

I was a bit surprised at your remarks since her "moral conservatism" wasn't obvious from the article itself. The notion of neutrality, however appears to play a big role. (That's not to say that I am satisfied with the way she puts the matter--but it's also possible that ST messed up the editing.)

In any case, her point that "religious and secular values may overlap" is neither here nor there. If we are serious about this "framework to promote the co-existence of different religions and belief systems, towards which the government is neutral and even-handed" then the mere fact that value X happens also to be grounded in some religious doctrine or other does not in itself make X better or worse as something upon which the laws can be based. Whether or not X is the right sort of thing upon which the laws can be based will, presumably depend upon whether there are reasons ("public reasons") that can in principle be appreciated by people from different religions and belief systems, or no religion at all.

Hi Huichieh,

Thank you for your comments.

"Separation of religion and state"

Yes, you are right, I did not realise this, thank you for pointing it out to me. =) Oppression and control of religion is certainly not a 'strict separation of religion and state'.

If we take the US model as an example, the Framers of their Constitution wanted a separation of religion and state, not out of any desire to prevent religion from encroaching on public life, but rather the other way round. They wanted to prevent government from controlling religious affairs. A true separation of religion and state would require a fence that cuts both ways: the state being constrained from interfering with religious affairs and vice versa.

"Moral conservatism"

I have to admit upon re-reading what I wrote, I had perhaps let her other expressed views outside of that article itself colour my reading of what she wrote.

"Overlap of religious and secular values"

I suspect that Dr Thio tried to ground her argument with this statement:

'All views, whether religious and secular or a hybrid, should be welcomed in openly debating morally controversial questions, each assessed on its merits. The persuasiveness of any view turns on its cogency.'

Since the law applies to ALL people, regardless of belief, it cannot, and should not be, a matter of 'if the majority are religious and the minority is not, then the minority can just go to hell and let us make laws based on the religious preference of the majority'.

I believe that the only way any government can be neutral and even-handed towards all people, regardless of religious or not, is to actually discount the views of specific religions, and look towards universal values.

On the last point about "overlap"--I guess a lot will (as usual) depend on what she exactly meant and what exactly you mean...

Take the bit from her that you quoted. If the "merits" or "cogency" of a view--"whether religious and secular or a hybrid"--is intended to be suitably neutral, then she will be stating a version of your own position. That is, for all we care, the view might well be (from the perspective of the person holding it) grounded in God's Law, or the thesis that there is no God; but any assessment of the view consistent with neutrality will have to set those connections aside as so many distractions. Seen from this perspective, a view that was originally grounded in a specific religious doctrine might well be such that it can be appreciated by people of other religions or people of no religion because suitably neutral grounds for that view exist (or it might not). And vice versa. It all depends on the possibility of those neutral grounds that determine the "merits" and "cogency" of the view under question.

Likewise your own statement--"discount the views of specific religions, and look towards universal values". I'm quite sure you don't mean "discount the views of religious people". Or for that matter, "discount views that happened to be grounded in specific religions" (for instance, an injunction against murder does happened to be grounded in the Decalogue). Rather, I suppose you mean something like: "discount views that are grounded only in specific religions". The implied contrast is presumably: "accept views only if there are good neutral (perhaps what you mean by "universal") reasons for them".

The example of the Framers is a good one.

Just thought the below link 'relevant'

From NYTimes Blog : http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/monkey-business/

Han,

A very interesting article. I too disagree with issue of the 'atheist-ness' of the communist regimes as Thio has proposed. In addition, the notion of communism is not problematized (granted that this was a short article but still!) The empirical evidences suggest otherwise. For example, in recent years, tens of thousands of high officials in the CCP have been found to be ardent Falungong members, which frightened the leadership enough to purge these members.

Latest research by historians of the Cultural Revolution have been busting numerous historical myths - mainly the one that the state and its agents were so fanatical about the C.R. that they destroyed artifacts and anything associated with religion (from Confucianism to Buddhism). Joseph Esherick Paul G. Pickowicz, and Andrew G. Walder (eds)(2006) have argued in their volume on "The Chinese Cultural Revolution as History" with recently open archival materials that in fact, many of these artifacts, idols, statues, precious religious manucripts were not destroyed by the Red Guards but hidden away. Many were hidden away by officials even as they denounced these materials! Much of the materials in Qufu were even hidden at the local Communist Party Headquarters! Some were hidden in local ovens, communal rice baskets etc. So I don't know if the everyday experience of the Chinese even at the height of "atheist movements" had experienced complete atheism. When I was in China last summer, it was interesting that the catalogue were being prepared for this period of C.R. across archives in China from the national level to the county level, so that's much potential for research between religion and politics.

Moving on, I attended a Church service last week and the pastor was talking about world problems caused by social problems today. He called abortionist "murderers", condemned prostitution, telling single mothers to repent of their previous sins and to embrace God now and implicitly argued that homosexuality is a choice and they [the lobby] are very powerful now. I was speechless at the lack of nuances, very unhappy that many people laughed at his examples of transgender people and wonder why he did not mention that the root of many of these problems were not simply moral but economic and sociological. In addition, how do single mothers cause world problems by their existence? He is entitled to his views (he didn't quote any verses from the bible at that time which was troubling for me) but I had to leave because I didn't agree with the lack of nuances in the message.

Wayne,

Thank you, I'm glad you found the post interesting.

My personal experience with people who express a kind of prejudice or even hatred against those who they disagree with is that they usually try to justify their innate prejudices by invoking some external authority.

Of course, I may not agree with what they think or say, but I would defend their right to think or say whatever they want. Where I draw the line however, is when they attempt to legislate their opinions into law. This is an example of "hijack".

I've never believed that religion itself is a problem. The real problem is when fallible humans cloak themselves with the authority of religion for their own purposes.

On a related note, I just found a very interesting post comparing Communism to other religions. Here:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/12/supercritical-u.html

The most interesting section for me was:

'Communism was a complex catastrophe, and there may be no single why, no single critical link in the chain of causality. But if I had to suggest an ur-mistake, it would be... well, I'll let God say it for me:

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God." (Deuteronomy 13:7-11, emphasis added)

This was likewise the rule which Stalin set for Communism, and Hitler for Nazism: if your brother tries to tell you why Marx is wrong, if your son tries to tell you the Jews are not planning world conquest, then do not debate him or set forth your own evidence; do not perform replicable experiments or examine history; but turn him in at once to the secret police.'

On a side note, one can also imagine theocracy and Atheist systems co-existing together so to say that one is left and the other is right is a bit off. There are for example, Christian Atheists (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml)

"The reason why we condemn murder is because a person's life has been taken without their consent. We prohibit theft because a person's property has been taken without their consent. We forbid fraudulent acts because people who are mislead are not able to give meaningful consent. We punish rapists because they infringe on the life and body of another without their consent."

Speak for yourself.

We don't condemn killing when the consent of the victim is sought prior to the act?

Is consent vitiated by duress?

Did you draft the penal code? I just happen to live here.

Tal:

How can it be consent if there was duress? I speak of the individuals will, which means consent must be freely and voluntarily given.

Can you think of a scenario in which you approach a random stranger and ask to kill him or her, and they say yes? Is that realistic?

Let us imagine another scenario. A person does not want to live any longer. They wish to die. For some reason or another, they are disabled from finishing themselves off. They approach you for help. Would you say yes?

At this point, you receive further facts. The person wishes to die because they have a terminal illness. They see no point in prolonging the pain, and dragging their families into financial ruin. They are lucid, logical and they have explored all possible options. They still choose to die. They ask you for help. Would you say yes?

Further facts. The person now tells you that they are in intolerable pain. Every single day, they feel like killing themself. However, that person is unable to move at all. They can only scream in pain, sometimes even silently, as they are unable to speak at times. They beg you for help. Would you say yes?

The progressive scenario is meant for you to consider your moral position. Ask yourself this question: who does your body belong to? Does the state have the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your body?

If you wish the government to tell you what you can or cannot do with yourself, then speak for yourself. Do not involve the rest of us with your desire for paternalistic nannying.