Wa Po Blog: Catholic Apologist says Catholicism is responsible for US Secularism

[Synnical]

Why doesn't DU have a head exploding emoticon?


http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2009/09/catholic_secularism_vs_atheistic_secularism.html

Catholic America as Secular Model

Secularism is often considered the result of atheism, but history disproves that myth. American Secularism is a form of public neutrality about belief or unbelief. It is more about agnosticism and religious tolerance than about atheism and anti-clericalism. Pope Benedict XVI and Vatican officials are now promoting "Catholic Secularism," and that might have profound effects on Catholic America and the separation of Church and State.

. . .

In the United States, Catholics and Jews in places like 19th Century New York and Boston fought hard for secularism in the public schools. The idea was to prevent Protestantism from imposing its forms of Christian prayer and bible reading on everyone. Thus did "American exceptionalism" produce a Catholic Secularism that differs from the European "laicité," with its virulent anti-clericalism and stale rants about medievalisms.

Recently, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, a respected conservative prelate close to the Vatican, embraced the United States' model of secularism, linking it to Pope Benedict XVI's praise of "positive secularism." For the Cardinal, secularism is a necessary platform for the public forum. Catholics should not fear to be secular, said the prelate, because in its essence secularism requires only that Catholics use reason and logic to promote public policy. You don't have to be an atheist to be rational.

"The decision of whether a way of arguing is rational, or perhaps more precisely plausible and convincing, is in a democratic system entrusted, in the last analysis, solely to the assessment made of it by the citizens as a whole in the appropriate forums, above all the electoral forums."

I interpret this statement as encouragement for Catholics to vote as faithful citizens, basing their voting in a democratic society on rational arguments, not theistic ones. If I am correct in saying this is what atheists do, they now have strange bedfellows.

. . .

This promotion of American-style Catholic Secularism may be only a trial balloon; then again, it may be part of the current pope's acceptance of President Obama and the Democratic Party's agenda for Catholicism. This is important because Catholic Secularism would have much more electoral clout in the United States than atheism.

And someone tell me again that Catholism and The Vatican isn't a business!

:mad:

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[Soylent Brice]

1. here:

and to the article i have this:



and a

:wtf:

[Synnical]

4. Thanks, much!

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[immoderate]

2. Makes sense.

At the time of the founding, I don't think there was an atheist lobby. The Deists, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Washington, etc. Im sure, did not want any government divining god's will, or any such nonsense. Catholics and Baptists made some of the first separationist legal claims, because they were minority denominations.

--imm

[charlie]

3. He's talking about the 19th century, though

If he's claiming Catholics made American secularism what it is (and I'm not sure that's what he's saying -- he might be talking about the quality of "Catholic" secularism, not secularism generally. Then again, he makes contrast with French laicite, with does make it seem like he's referring to US governance), he's just a mindless church booster. Whatever Catholics have done, they surely can't claim more influence than say, the efforts of Thomas Jefferson and his Virginia constitution.

He's wrong about the intentions of his cardinal, too. Ruini doesn't say to use reason and logic in arguments about public policy. He says the ballot box is the final measure of whether a public appeal is rational. Which is different. And complete horseshit. There are no shortage of elected theocratic morons and demagogues in this country, which is probably why the cardinal and his pope are keen on the way (ostensible) secularism is done over here.

Religious phenomena, concretely all of the religions, evidently including Christianity, have no lower standing than any other social reality or phenomenon to influence the public sphere, including the specifically political dimension. This naturally takes place in respect for the rules of democracy and of the rule of law, or, to use terminology currently in vogue, of the procedures through which political decisions are formed and expressed.

There is therefore no reason to impose special conditions for religion to exercise a public role: for example, conditions concerning the rationality of its arguments. The decision of whether a way of arguing is rational, or perhaps more precisely plausible and convincing, is in a democratic system entrusted, in the last analysis, solely to the assessment made of it by the citizens as a whole in the appropriate forums, above all the electoral forums.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1340010?eng=y