Jürgen Habermas and Post-Secular Societies

[Kire]

This topic has been moved by the owner to the Philosophy forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=322&topic_id=73&mesg_id=73

[trotsky]

1. Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

[Kire]

2. "Toleration" is always a two-way street.

From the article:

Not only must believers tolerate others' beliefs, including the credos and convictions of nonbelievers; it falls due to disbelieving secularists, similarly, to appreciate the convictions of religiously motivated fellow citizens. From the standpoint of Habermas's "theory of communicative action," this stipulation suggests that we assume the standpoint of the other. It would be unrealistic and prejudicial to expect that religiously oriented citizens wholly abandon their most deeply held convictions upon entering the public sphere where, as a rule and justifiably, secular reasoning has become our default discursive mode. If we think back, for instance, to the religious idealism that infused the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, we find an admirable example of the way in which a biblical sense of justice can be fruitfully brought to bear on contemporary social problems.

[trotsky]

3. When has that ever happened?

It would be unrealistic and prejudicial to expect that religiously oriented citizens wholly abandon their most deeply held convictions upon entering the public sphere

I call bullshit. This simply has never happened. What *has* happened, for example, is people being told they can't force women to carry fetuses to term. In other words, believers are told they can't just make all tenets of their religion into law for everyone.

No one is asking religionists to totally give up their convictions and beliefs, but it's a very common spin coming from fundamentalists in order to gain the upper hand as society continues to evolve and progress.

Secular = religion-neutral.

[Kire]

4. religion-neutral = abandoned beliefs

"This simply has never happened" is a very common spin coming from revisionists who are not omniscient in order to gain the upper hand as society continues to diverge and progress.

[trotsky]

6. It would be quite easy to prove me wrong.

Show me an instance in which a believer entering the political realm was forced to abandon all their core beliefs.

That's what your article is claiming. So prove it.

[Kire]

7. not forced, "expected"

I submit any time a Christian tries to post in this forum as an example.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=25776

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x27546#27551

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=25687

The fact that you're debating this is another example.

[trotsky]

8. So now "disagreeing" = "expecting Christians to abandon their beliefs."

OK, gotcha. :eyes:

[Kire]

9. "I call bullshit' is not simple disagreement.

Rolling eyes isn't either.

It is simple intolerance.

[beam me up scottie]

10. "I call bullshit" is intolerant ???

Of what?

Cows ?

[Kire]

11. of the other point of view

meaning, that you are not even going to consider the other point of view , therefore you are expecting "religiously oriented citizens wholly abandon their most deeply held convictions upon entering the public sphere"

you are not allowing religious points of view in the public sphere

it is intimidation

[beam me up scottie]

12. Is it really?

Better get busy then.

Alerting on the hundreds of other posters on DU who use that exact same phrase could take some time.

[Kire]

13. "Is it really?" is a villainous thing to say.

[beam me up scottie]

15. What can I say?

I'm a card carrying member of the E.A.C.

:evilgrin:

[Kire]

16. Election Assistance Commission?

East Arizona College?
Eastern African Community?
Education Assistance Corporation?

Whatever the EAC means, your dogged intolerance does not prove that tolerance is not necessary for a civil debate in the public sphere.

[beam me up scottie]

18. So now "Is it really?" is intolerant ?

You were fucking serious?

How about the word "fucking" ?

Is that intolerant?

Is.

Is "is" intolerant?

I doubt it's the words or phrases.

We're just not supposed to question the holier-than-us believers.

[Kire]

19. you're not questioning the believers

you're ridiculing them

it was more than just intolerant (which is never really simple), it was vilainous, as in get-the-fuck-off-the-planet-you're-breathing-my-air kind of villainous

as in All You Religion & Theology Forum Are Belong to US

[beam me up scottie]

24. All that oppression and persecution from the words "Is it really?" ?

Wow.

Oops!

I asked ANOTHER question! :spank:

Bad BMUS!

[Kire]

25. Yes

Are you going to make a point, or are you just going to keep poking me with a stick?

[beam me up scottie]

27. You asked ,me a question!

I call intolerance!

You are VILLAINOUS.

Okay, we're even.

[Kire]

28. could you explain how asking questions is intolerance?

you are just being sarcastic

now THAT is villainous

[beam me up scottie]

30. No.

It is intolerant to question non-believers.

In fact, it's downright VILLAINOUS.

[Kire]

31. just because you say so

all for BMUS, none for anybody else

the slave WILL rebel against the master

[beam me up scottie]

37. Hey, they're your roooools.

According to you, asking "Is it really?" is considered intolerant and VILLAINOUS.

I'm simply following your lead.
:evilgrin:

[Kire]

39. spelling it "roooools" is intimidation, too

asking questions, by definition, is not intimidation

you betray your villainousness by using the evil grin smilie

I never said you couldn't be villainous. I'm just pointing out that that 's what you are, and my opinion is that it's a bad idea.

I'm still not trying to use ridiculing, villainous, imperialistic tactics to force you to do it.

[beam me up scottie]

40. .

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[onager]

43. Imperialistic?

:wtf:

Do you actually read this stuff before you post it?

[trotsky]

14. So what would you call a "post-and-run"?

Which is something you do quite frequently. Rile up the atheists and run away. Only on this thread have you chosen to stay and bash.

Who's showing simple intolerance and lack of respect?

[Kire]

17. "post and run" or "stay and bash"

there you go having it both ways again

it doesn't matter what I do here, it is clear you don't want me to post on this board at all

that's what I call intolerance, and it is not simple, it is very complicated

tolerance, live and let live, is simple - maybe if there were more of it , I would stay and we could have friendly debates here

[trotsky]

23. How can you expect a friendly debate...

when you post inflammatory articles that bash non-believers, directly or indirectly?

I didn't attack you first. You want friendly debate, why don't you start out with something friendly?

[Kire]

26. appealing for toleration is not something friendly?

directly, or indirectly?

could you give an example of an indirect bash?

when did I even attack you?

I posted an article, you denied that what I posted was even possible and you stuck to it without tolerating any disagreement with what YOU believe.

That, my friend, is intolerance - and is what the whole point of the original post was about.

How do you expect me not to reply, unless you want another excuse to say that I have posted and run.

You and BMUS are enjoying this. And people who enjoy arguing with other people and take every side of the argument for themselves: are VILLAINOUS.

[trotsky]

32. You didn't appeal for toleration.

You posted an article which puts Christianity on a pedestal as some kind of foundation for western-style government, and then bemoans current secular tradition by claiming that Christians are being "expected" to abandon their core beliefs.

Again, it's more self-martyrdom and whining from the majority religion, at the expense of religious neutrality and sensitivity towards those with no religion.

Not being allowed to legislate your religious beliefs on everyone isn't intolerance. This echoes the cries of the far right that moan about liberals being intolerant - yeah, of intolerance itself.

Just because Christians don't get their way with EVERYTHING - yet - doesn't mean the rest of society is intolerant.

You bet I'm enjoying this - I always enjoy a lively discussion of the merits of religion in politics.

[Kire]

34. you didn't reply to the article, you replied to the appeal for toleration

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=27546&mesg_id=27548

toleration in "public life", not government

it doesn't sound like you read the whole article:

He believes that, in their political language, there is little room for an open and direct appeal to nonsecular reasons, which, in light of the manifest diversity of religious beliefs, would prove extremely divisive. As Habermas affirms, echoing Rawls: "This stringent demand can only be laid at the door of politicians, who within state institutions are subject to the obligation to remain neutral in the face of competing worldviews." But if that stringent demand is on the politician, Habermas argues, "every citizen must know that only secular reasons count beyond the institutional threshold that divides the informal public sphere from parliaments, courts, ministries, and administrations."

[trotsky]

36. And again, this is portrayed by your article as a very bad thing.

The reason why we can't have "an open and direct appeal to nonsecular reasons" is because the nonsecular CAN'T AGREE ON THOSE REASONS.

You and Pat Robertson have vastly different ideas on what it means to be a Christian. (I hope!)

If it's OK for you to interject your liberal Christianity into political debate, why can't Robertson use his conservative brand? And then with you two fighting it out, how does anything get resolved? Is Pat gonna all of a sudden say, "Oh, I see the light! Jesus was a liberal!"?

This is why government needs to be secular. I can't believe I have to explain this, 200+ years after a group of educated folks had it pretty well figured out and built their new nation on a foundation of religious neutrality.

[Kire]

38. I do have a vastly different idea of Christianity than Pat Roberson.

But I do think it is ok for Pat Robertson to use his brand in debate, in the sense of freedom of speech.

It's just not okay for it to be written into legislation, and I pray that there are people out there who can counter what he says with sensible alternatives. Restricting Mr. Robertson's freedom of speech is just not sensible.

[trotsky]

41. What Robertson has to say doesn't bother me

as much as his ability to influence my government with what he says.

The separation of church and state is a two-way street. Churches get left alone, but they must also leave government alone. People are free, and should be free, to hold whatever religious opinion they wish so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights... their SECULAR rights.

And since religion offers no way to resolve religious disputes, religious motivations in politics can only bring problems. One side "losing" (as politics usually results in - we can't all win all the time) is equated to defeat at the hands of Satan or whatever.

[BiggJawn]

42. Can you do any OTHER debating style besides "Echo Chamber"?

maybe "Drunken Monkey"? "Crane style"?
Oh, sorry, those are from a DIFERENT Martial Art...

I for one do not expect people to "check their beliefs at the door" as you seem to be insisting that non-believers do.

All I ask is that they DO NOT incorporate those religious beliefs into law that is binding upon me.

What, may I ask, is so damned "intolerant" of THAT?
And if you're going to cut-and-paste a line from this for the subject of your reply, then write a variation on a theme of "I know you are, but what am *I*?", please spare yourself the effort.

From most of what I've seen you post in this thread, you're acting like the 9-y-o preacher's kid who throws spitwads then says "Not ME! My dad's the PASTOR!"

[beam me up scottie]

5. "biblical sense of justice" ?

Why did I just pee my pants a little when I read that?

Oh, that's right.

Because of all of what happened all of the other times the "biblical sense of justice (was) fruitfully brought to bear on contemporary social problems".

[onager]

20. Oh the Humanity! We found ANOTHER Oppressed Xian!

Maybe we should let them have, say, one TV show on Sunday morning to counter the tidal wave of atheism in modern America.

Whaddya think?

[beam me up scottie]

21. I can't say anything.

It could be construed as being intolerant.

[Kire]

22. Neither can I.

It would be construed as Xian.

[beam me up scottie]

29. Christian according to the Free Dictionary:

Chris·tian Pronunciation (krschn)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian

Yeah, that would be rough.:eyes:

[Kire]

33. The DU R&T Forum Dictionary adds something to that definition.

It adds a big fat value judgement against Christians.

[beam me up scottie]

35. Really?

Can you give me the link to that dictionary?
I'd love to see for myself.

I'd hate to call bullshit.