Hmmm. The British would say that if it has always been done this way, that in itself establishes a prima-facie case for continuing. (Actually, we have had a similar case in Devon I think.) For example, church bells are rung at the discretion of the Rector of the Church (provided the church is Anglican). Such behaviour would normally be prohibited as noise pollution! Also, Parliament has daily "prayers", I think. Very few bat an eyelid at this. The British would tend to put this court case down to the litigious nature of the Americans.

However, what is the substance? I think that it turns on precisely how the "prayers" are being conducted. Being consistent with what I have said on other threads, the state has a necessary interest in the sacred. It cannot therefore necessarily be exceptional per se if particular public bodies choose to express this interest explicitly. I think it is mistaken to call this the "tyranny of the majority", unless of course there is an element of coercion to particular modes of belief for the dissenting minority.

We all have an interest in supporting the value of ethical behaviour, even if we would justify, or even express, this in different ways. Therefore the dissenters should allow the majority to make their expression with good humour. Unless they are really being coerced.

I think that Gwen makes at least two mistakes. Officials do not lose all their values by virtue of being "representatives"! The British say this explicitly. Parliamentarians are "representatives" not "delegates". People elect them to represent them, not to tell them how to vote. They are supposed to retain their own individuality. They must express their own beliefs even where these are not shared by those they represent.

Moreover, what is the "principle of secularism"? Is this another religion? Why should it have priority in the discussion? I distrust all "ism"s - they are all debatable, and some are highly debatable (especially this one!!).

I think that Justice Scalia's defence of people's right to "invoke their deity" (which of course applies to the atheist just as much as to anyone else since the atheists also justify ethical behaviour in principle) is correct on the face of it. But it all depends on the details of course.

Gwen,

One party (the town of Greece) want the right to continue the tradition of the legislative prayer at town meetings with a christian prayer.

Galloway and Stephens sued their town in February 2008 with the claim that “the town’s practices violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by preferring Christianity over other faiths.” The other party in the case is against the right to continue the tradition of the legislative prayer.

The Establishment Clause “forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another… [or] from undulling[?] religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion”

Personally I hate the two solutions. The secular solution is an eradication of religious tradition in the public sphere. What is next: the christmass tree, halloween? The only christian prayer is making christianity the official religion of this town and side the town admistration with christianity while the town admistration belong to all citizens of the town. What I hate in the judiciary process is that it is intrinsically adverserial. Two positions are put forward and they compete and then the judges decides. Why not trying a compromise, a third way. Maybe a plurarity of prayers and also meetings without prayer, and other with prayers that a multi-faith, or new type of invented poetic prayers.

Bello, Calling Bello,

Chris Jeynes has brought up a point that you made in a post elsewhere about Secularism itself being a form of religion. Do you care to expound on your thesis that "Secularism is itself a religion," noting whether what you had in mind is the same (challenge to my worldview) as Chris is alluding to? I need more light before I can comment further on this issue.

Thanks,

Gwen

Gwen, you simply must stop asking such good questions. If you would lower the bar I could answer in sweet cliches and escape with a silver tongue. But no, you would make me work for a living. Outrageous, I say... So now you pay the price :)

At issue here is, as I see it, the lawfulness of transitive speech that permits or offers the appearance of repressing rights or otherwise injuring principles recognized and protected at law. Freedom of conscience and religion are favorite candidates, as in this instance. Conscience targets primarily intransitive speech, from the voices within one’s mind, to those between consenting conversants who meet without adverse reliance, whereas for religion, the law targets primarily the transitive variety.

Much, if not all, of the rationale behind the ‘wall of separation’ was not the religious component per se but the legal/political one in which speech is rendered transitive not merely by voice but by vote, as when a majority of the electorate puts into office someone who campaigned on introducing prayer into some one or another public sphere. That this position was campaigned upon presupposes the desire to effectuate it via legal means, which will constitute a very immediate and direct contravention of the ‘wall of separation’.

Thus Jefferson memorably intoned (18th art. Summary View) the peremptory democratic notion that one can hardly claim to be harmed in virtue of one’s neighbor not sharing your own religion. As Jefferson was a lawyer and handled a good bit of legal drafting, one is forgiven for assuming that his word “harm” was intended primarily from the legal side as opposed to the strictly moral.

In the case Gwen introduces, the first question to be addressed is, is the speech transitive? The second question is whether the speech, if transitive, is likely to be seen as conflicting with rights. But apart from clear textual verbiage (which is rarely present, for obvious reasons – lest we emulate Napoleon’s follies) we are left to our own devices, one of which is the understanding we are expected to comprehend regarding our various and sundry offices.

Speech from an office can be defined, by that very fact, as transitive, for offices exist for transitive objectives, thus official language counts as a part of that. Were this not the case a good share of the law of agency would be down the drain. Most offices are institutional or ad hoc. The former can and should be defined (absent consensus in the literature or elsewhere) as a collective in which 1) tradition recognizes the group as continuous and legitimate, and 2) the speech devoted to purpose is reliably grounded in fidelity to that purpose such that the agreements effectuated are amalgamated with respect to the aggregate creating them (e.g., ‘e pluribus unum’).

As such, the results must logically, and politically of necessity, express that which represents all equally in regard of purpose, and in which the officer(s) accordingly may not act so as to promote a private goal or do what is otherwise able to be viewed as a conversion of the trust placed in the officer into something other than what equally represents all (Scott Walker’s antics cannot appeal to tradition for excuses that would ever survive a democratic litmus test).

Ad hoc offices are created when anyone or a group makes a presence mediating between a private concentration of power and a public market of clients, consumers, etc. Corporations, both private and public, are ancient examples that may or may not become institutions by my definition.

If I sell products online, for example, I have created an ad hoc office. Regardless whether the law recognizes such, the jural principles of law assuredly do, and so I shall rely on them here. If I am not (or do not represent) an institution, Plato will require that I stay around long enough for the customer to complain if there is negligence. Plato was correct, of course, whether modern American law thinks so or not.

At issue are public offices in which religious speech is offered. But public offices are of different sorts in respect of composition, and thus of type. A legislative body (as also professional bodies) creates an amalgam, for example, whereas a group convening (actually or constructively) in order to be polled results in an aggregate (10% said X, 90% said Y). Decisions of the Supreme Court are likewise aggregate (separate votes and opinions noted as contrasted with civil law in Europe, in which high court decisions are amalgamated).

From a brief overview, it seems that all of the various offices that could be cited as running parallel to the actual case were all amalgamated. Now a religious observance means something slightly different as between the amalgamated and aggregated results. If the amalgamated is a private group and does not discriminate participants despite a religious test (private denominational schools) the school can be allowed the luxury of presuming that a religious invocation offers a spiritual assistance toward the common purposes and as such is scarcely different from any other transitive legitimate speech.

Religious speech in the aggregated unit cannot be permitted in the same way to speak for all equally. There are parallels with other rights sharing the same contexts, and they will set the stage. A gathering may be intended to serve a given constituency yet allow or even invite spectators, reporters and so on. Political rallies are an interesting example of ad hoc offices one subtype being notable, that in which party faithful gather as if in a private conversation in a restaurant. Howard Dean addressed his crew in the front of the restaurant, meeting his fate when a reporter taped (and his network broadcast) what could easily have been known to be both transitive and problematical speech (not problematical in context, but very much so out of it). In the event no harm was done except Dr. Dean was compelled to withdraw from the race (details). A more recent example of the same type came when Mitt Romney spoke in a back room of the restaurant to faithful sorts and was outed by a guest with a video cam.

In each case the rights of the candidates were seriously abridged for no reason other than a perfidious desire to communicate every piece of gossip able to maximize ratings or serve a partisan agenda. The Romney camp could have restricted video cams, but where this is typically messy they should have been allowed to issue a written notice to all visitors as to the policies of communicating any proceedings. In the Dean case it was a professional journalist (if I am not mistaken), and the ethics committee of that profession should have taken the matter up. Yeah, right. Were our legal system not so skewed to capitalist sensibilities, I’d have said Dean had a valid suit to address to reporter, outlet and profession. Certain kinds of courtesies matter, and when they are also stewardship obligations of an office, they should matter VERY much.

And how does anything just said relate to religious invocations? If a political rally features a candidate who espouses religiously-inspired ‘family values’, and a strong majority of the faithful agree to a type of religious invocation at their meetings, rallies, etc., there can be no objection brought by the unlikely atheist Republican or the atheist visitor or Wiccan reporter. This is an example of the principle that the ‘wall of separation’ is not intended to exclude the equally important doctrine of all the Founding Fathers that religion be considered an important feature in the citizenry, a doctrine that has to acknowledge the reality that mixed religious sorts will convene, with odd majorities and what have you, and that withal the complexities the core of the given group that sets purpose and effectuates it can haggle and determine for such and so religious invocation as they will, and the remainder need not feel harmed thereby.

In short, groups that are aggregate because the present constituency consists of normative stakeholders as well as a hodgepodge of onlookers or lower level participants, must accept decrees of the leadership of a democratically arranged policy via stakeholder consensus, which shall pertain to all transitive speech activities, of which religious speech obviously can be one.

Thus when a board meeting includes members of the public for a private function, this is an aggregate group even though the public be asked for its input, and the religious invocation follows the rule set above. When the board is public, however, we are dealing with an institutional office the representation of which is amalgamated, and any religious speech that is transitive must be agreed to by the relevant populace at a certain higher than majority level (if 80% was good enough for ratification it is probably good here as well).

What such a vote communicates to the non-religious is that the religious component has been shown not to be offensive (no religious test for showing up or joining, and so on) by so large a majority that the likelihood of harm coming to anybody is reasonably minimized. Consider it as a modified version of Jefferson: what harm does it do me if a hundred of my neighbors do not share my religion? As long as there is no evidence of intent to compel your conscience or legislate your values, the community, having for so long held firm to the importance of religion, should feel free to exercise that in a transitive manner properly constrained to avoid problems.

The actual issue brought forth here is a legislative body. Because legislative officers represent the traditions of society as well as their constituents, they are at liberty to decide amongst themselves, preferably by an 80% majority, to offer non-denominational transitive speech invocations with the intended spiritual boon to the resulting deliberations. If the electorate is unhappy with that they can make it known, as is their right.

A corollary question came up as to committees, which are generally private, and occasionally categorically so. But these are only agency extensions of the general body and what applies to the body need not be repeated with every convening of a committee. By the same token, there can hardly be a rule against adding their own invocations however redundant, if the committee membership believes a transitive speech expression of a religious type be thought advantageous to purpose.

Thank you, Charles; you are amazing!

Gwen

Hello, this is Bello calling in.

An intersting thing I read on this thread is this: that "the secular solution (to the problem of prayers at public gatherings) is an eradication of religious tradition in the public sphere". It is not! And yes Gwen, Chris Jeynes probably appreciates my reasoning on the issue of secularism itself being a religion. You do recall I was talking about what one believes, what one accepts as a means of knowing 'something' greater than oneself. Yes secularism is a religion that rejects 'conventional', 'formal' religion as typified by what we choose to call divinely revelaed religions or variations of those. Or even the religions that are self-made (including that 'S' person's belief in herself that you mentioned elswhere) and secularism is self-made such that whoever elects NOT TO BELIEVE IN ANY FORMAL RELIGION is a believer in secular tenents - believes in no religion, yet accepting the existence of religions and religious forms. Secularism is indeed a religion.

Alert, Jose, there is a fresh new opportunity for you to attack my ideas -- and this one comes without the need to read my entire dissertation! I have just now uploaded a conference presentation from 2009 that contains a synopsis of my dissertation (admittedly, at a time my ideas were not quite as well developed -- read "hardened" -- as now). Look for "An American Dream Unfulfilled" among my Contributions. This will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about my position on RFL.

Gwen

Ah yes, we have now seemingly arrived at a point where everyone has something to disagree with everyone else. For I must ledger my disapproval at the notion that secularism is a religion. Like stewardship, secularism -- even as an 'ism' -- does not rise to a religion but the 'ism' does probably barely allow religion as a metaphorical construct for colloquial, but not exacting, discourse. Here is how I define stewardship in this context:

"Stewardship is a faith; a humanistic way of life and living [humanism not a religion any more than secularism though they are at least cousins, as note the locution 'secular humanism'], with an Enlightenment emphasis upon the dignity of man." (The Office and its Stewardship, DVM, 2009, 339 - good luck finding it, and when found, affording it).

As for faith v. religion, see my essay on RG (or SSRN), "When is Faith a Religion?"

I should hazard this redundancy: Why should faith be a religion anyway? How can faith be developed without first existing at some level to be believed? Yet, as much as existing concepts allow, why can we not talk of beliefs, faiths, concerns, understandings, perceptions and so on; all of them grounded in human frailties that allow us to engage in dialogue with ourselves and between ourselves as to the best method of worship(ing) something beneficial to 'us' both in the singular and the plural.

Charles Herman would allow that 'ism' does probably "barely" allow religion as a metaphorical construct for colloquial, but not exacting, discourse.' What he must of necessity add really is an exposition on belief systems even within 'secular humanism' for that will be a basis for deconstructing the 'ism' in the human that should explain the secular characteristics of the Enlightenment. Also, why should colloquialism (another 'ism') fail to serve as a vehicle for comveying understanding? How much colloquial(ism) did the Enlightenment discard to produce the influence it had in all the cultures (traditions) it caused to be 'redefined'?

Well, I said, a redundancy I would hazard. Yet, I see secularism as a religion. It only has to be defined prbably emphirically. But that has already been done since we say a religion is a belief system and one that has adherrents.

Cool, Charles! I really needed this because Secularism as just a didactic foil was wrecking havoc with my thesis. I mean, seriously, how can I advocate for separation of church and state as the ideal if the entire concept is a farce? Charles, I love your mind; you should try to take out a patent on it. (It is too bad I'm not a patent attorney or I could do the paperwork.)

Gwen

Didactic? I think the foil may have it's use eventually. By Gwen's admission, The separation of religion and state is an ideal akin to the idealism which probably propelled the Enlightenment. Is Secularism then the New Enlightenment that must be understood absent any reference to 'religions' to support an ideal construct which a separation of state and religion entails? No, I do not think so. Also, this apparently didactic foil has only raised an issue from within your dissertation to the level of discussion (even if colloquial) especially with your kind posting of those early reviews.

I find this engagement quite interesting. This should make for attempts at reaching some kind of understanding of the relationships between 1) religions and state, 2) religious persons and state, 3) religious entities and state, as well as 4) state and amalgamation of religion, religious person and religious entities. You can be rest assured that each of these relationships holds some bearing on the eventual manifestation of the nature of the state.

I was hoping my 'review' with multiculturalism and diversity speaking for me will assist explain why and how I perceive religion and secular(ism) as a form of religion. Here, I rest my case!

Charles,

Any form of secularism is an informal religion form. Any mode of conceiving the world and our relation in societies is implicitly intergrated into our schyche and these integration have their dynamic, and these dynamic are informal religion. Formal religion are integrated in the same way. All form of cultural mythologies are integrated in the same way. Your religion is the dynamic of your will. Someone that says that he is totally materialist and atheist has a culture and conception of the world which will create a certain dynamic of its will that is its religion. The god of that religion is against all gods and the person having that god is not aware of it except in his hate of religion. We cannot escape a religious dynamic. This is central to our psyche.

Bello, are you saying that you would accept defining/describing secularism as an "ideal construct" and NOT a religion?

Louis and Chris, would you also accept this modification (if that is indeed what Bello is saying)?

Jose, I am sure there is some contrarian position you can take on this issue so let's hear it: Is secularism a religion, an ideal construct, or merely an unattainable but worthwhile goal -- like "democracy"?

Gwen

No, unless we meal ALL ideal constructs are religion! I refer to your advocacy to wit: "separation of church and state as an ideal"! Or may that thought is simply idealistic and indeed "a farce"!

Well, now, this discussion has taken an interesting turn. I apparently was offering too little too late, but as I am a party-crasher by inclination, an opportunity arises to present a fresh view without sacrificing what I said above.

Secularism will appear to be the stumbling block in my estimation more than either faith or religion. And here is why I suggest this: to a confirmed religionist secularism appears as contra religion on the steroids I bloviatingly call '-ism'. But, for starters, secularism is far more neutral a term than so many these days allow. In earlier times it merely referred to all those who were not of the clergy, yet that hardly meant that they cared nothing for religion.

Even after being pilloried by Francis Schafer (A Christian Manifesto), his son (A Time for Anger), Tim Lahey (Secular Humanism's Threat to Your Children) and others, the word still fails to inspire in reasonable people the presumed antithesis to religion (expounded upon by such as Hitchcock, What is Secular Humanism?).

The inevitable tie with the Enlightenment era seems usually to be the proof text for this view that secularism is 1) against religion and the corollary 2) that those espousing secularism or humanism (equally evil to those of this persuasion) are by projection and extension at 'war' with religion, as if any secularist or humanist were so calloused from the womb forward as to deny the dignity to anyone possessing a belief system normatively termed 'religion'.

But the Enlightenment movement (for which see the quintessential authority, Peter Gay's two volume masterpiece) was not against religion per se but against the unstewarded use of authority that denied science and curious laity of of their yearning for truth by decreeing who territories as off-limits for investigation. And by the way, dear ones, this is not negotiable, do not bother thinking to offer evidence. I am a little too well read to be one-upped by those who allow mere recent abuse of a word to serve as their ammunition here. Please recall that Enlightenment (which the movement was self-aware known of at the time) implies a positive addition to the mind, not a means to take away from it. And for those unfamiliar with philosophy, there is the Kantian lapidary "dare to think" when asked to summarize the movement of which he was so much a part.

So where do we go to learn what real secularism or humanism are or can be? From an honest search for truth and with a backbone, that's where. I had read Charles Hartshorne's book Humanism, which he wrote at the very time that the word "secular" was coming to be a pejorative. When staying with him for three months during the summer of 1997, I confronted him with his views from his own book, giving him essentially the argument I am delivering here. He relented and said in effect, would that the anti-secularists of my day had you to deal with! And with that he entirely agreed that humanism was never the real problem, not secularism, but those who wrongly abused these otherwise innocent words.

Paul Tillich is useful (What Is Religion) and wherein he also carefully distinguishes faith from religion. John Dewey wrote the little masterpiece on the topic (A Common Faith) in order to highlight the Houston Smith (every religion beautiful) approach to religion from the vantage of faith and that as an ethical system. Bravo!! (Hartshorne, an avowed elitist, hated Dewey's popularity with the public.) And then there is the very thoughtful and scholarly approach of Corliss Lamont (The philosophy of Humanism). And for the Muslim readers let me add Nasr (Knowledge and the Sacred), Corbin (Spiritual Body and Celestial Earth) and Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed), and most anything by Coomaraswami -- understanding of course that Islam borrowed heavily.

In political science, the accepted (almost worldwide) interpretation of secularism restates the American locution "separation of church and state" with less or more governmental allowance for favoritism. Even here the term cannot except forcibly be made to mean that a person believing in the separation doctrine must be at war with religion.

Thus most all of this recent turn of the thread is premised on faulty use of otherwise perfectly good words. For I cannot believe that the intelligent commentators on this thread will seriously consider that secularism or humanism are so inherently bad or false as they have been wrongly led to believe.

While it is true that there are, as there have always been, anti-religious fanatics and thus willing to claim any authoritative mantra for their own, let us not be ridiculous in how far we generalize this in order to demonstrate support for religiosity or the belief system common thereto.

YEAH, what Charles said!

Gwen

More support for giving words their commonly understood meanings:

"CHRISTIAN COLLEGES VS. SECULAR COLLEGES: What's the Difference?

"Choosing a college is one of the most significant choices a person makes in life. Underlying that statement is my belief that a college environment can have a profound influence that lasts a lifetime.

"The intention of this article is to offer what I hope will provide a fresh perspective regarding the choice between a Christian college and a secular college."

The above debate as well as many of the current debates in everyday life (occurring outside of the academy) would make no sense if "secular" and "religious" are used interchangeably. Such a state of affairs would leave academics talking only to themselves (if that has not already happened because of our willingness to "deconstruct" ad infinitum). So, let us not invent a language that cannot be understood in the real world which is the target of my scholarship.

Please,

Gwen

And here I was hoping and wishing that scholarship is not restricted to regogitating!

Humanist Manifesto I (1933)

http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

This is absurd. You quote from the document that Christian rightists went to (and a few crazed members of the Supreme Court if I remember correctly) for a proof text, kind of like they went to the Bible for proof texts against gays, women and etc.

The excerpt has four sentences. The first as a stand alone can be viewed straightaway as absurd or, more generously, as intended to suggest only that religion has an impact upon the named elements, which is of course correct.

The second and third offer evidence to the generous interpretation of the first.

The fourth puts the lie to what otherwise looked so pleasant and reasonable. It is essentially stating that religion is everything, ergo secularism, heart attacks and natural disasters are also equally religious, hearkening back to all that Voltaire argued against (all's well with a god-centered world = all's well when everything is religious; BUT: as with the sagacious adage 'if everything is art then art is nothing', so when religion is everything, religion means nothing and we are left with an entirely secular world). Logically, the idiotic attempt to identify secularism with humanism is the worst conceivable thing religionists can do in their attempt to raise it to an august status. It gives the rational people in this world a difficult pill to contemplate, namely, your seeming desire to compel an actual or figurative worldwide theocratic regime. Please get your acts together and stop the insipidity.

Now Louis, if you present this excerpt as a point of information, you owed us a comment upon your impression of it. If you entered this as evidence that secularism and religion are synonymous, I expected better of you than that. Nor can you use the excuse that it was a 'secular' organization adopting this view. The implication remains the same only arrived at by a still more idiotic means. It does not add weight to the argument just because counter-intuitive, and the High Court was embarrassing itself with intelligent people when buying into this (admittedly as a side-bar of no official import).

Scholarship is defined in part - to the extent it is a stewardship activity - of enforcing the dictum to rise above human dispositions when these risk truth. The Humanist Manifest specialized in just about everything that scholarship avoids like the plague. It may seem only natural to identify the most important thing i your life as religiously involved, but it is not okay, logically, rationally - and never ever scholarly - to proceed then to warp words and logical, both together, in order to force a point that cannot be made in reason, logic or rationality.

Or, to put a religious look upon the matter. St. Augustine offers that he rescued the word philosophy from desuetude - a state that Romans (doubtless Greeks as well were implied) had reduced it to. He even argued if I mistake not that the word was itself innocent, merely a messenger if you will. But then look what Augustine did - all but denominated philosophy as a handmaiden to religion, the same position Calvin likewise constrained it to in his extended version of the Institutes.

Abusing words is not the ideal way to avoid the worst of my intemperate comments.

Charles,

Notice that John Dewey signed this manifesto. And if you read the manifesto item 14, you will see that they are not rightists.

'' If you entered this as evidence that secularism and religion are synonymous, ''

It is evidence only that 35 humanists in 1933 though that :

'' The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.''

The manifesto is not a document for arguments, but just affirmation of beliefs.

I will provide some arguments later.

Thanks for the expected reply, Louis. Dewey should never have been talked into this posture after what he put forth on the matter of faith as distinguished from religion.

Let's also recall the time at which the manifesto was generated. It was the era of scientism, where even the stock market was thought to reflect the machine-like drone of absolutism care of the so-called 'scientific method'. It bred a line of intellectuals at the head of whom ranked William James, who offered the Gifford Lectures as his position on the religious-secular matter.

My guess is that the ballast of signatories were in that mindset and thus sore tempted to overlook details in favor of an overall sentiment rephrased as actual philosophy (owing to their collective stature). Problem: it is not philosophy in the scholarly sense.

It reads as badly to me now as it did when shortly afterwords I did my level best to forget about it. Now why am I so opposed to something so pleasingly perfect on the surface? Because I happen to live when objectivity on the topic is possible, when offering philosophical insights need not be compelled to square with what other eminent minds had thought in a whirlwind.

Most of the document reads like the first three sentences of the Seventh article that you excerpted. But there is far and away too much that plagues common sense and redoubles all that is incorrect in the fourth sentence of that excerpt.

Apart from the absurdity of equating secularism with religion with humanism as an interloper (I mis-stated the words you quote above, naturally the context suggests that I meant that humanism and secularism could not be miscegenated with religion by the flip of a thumb or the signatures of thirty-some worthies.

What is the direct implication for organized religion as this document appears willing to state it? What will our Muslim friends say to this? Were I them, I would not have a whole lot good to say of it. The institutionalized character that assists in defining what we mean by the word religion IS a vital and necessary part of the religion's existence. It is not that that goes sideways but what people do with it.

A true humanist has no quarrel with religion or with atheists and doesn't have to fall to knees genuflecting to the gods of re-vamped religiosity care of our best and stupidist a century ago. And as humanists hardly required these worthies to remind them or us that capitalism has its problems. But we would prefer to fix it rather than scrap it, as the manifesto seems to threaten or (if not in so many words) to promise.

Humanists, true humanists, do not mince, dice or mix words solely in order to display an agenda - for that is what the document should read to any member of an institutional religion. Or to any corporation. True humanism needs no such agenda, for it respects reality but reserves the right to question and improve upon it. It is hard to respect reality when you can't respect the words to describe your endeavors.

Little things can mean a lot. Little mistakes in philosophy are akin to misdemeanors in high office that, because able to cause more harm, are elevated to a felony. Philosophy's job should be to resolve such problems, not create them.

The worthies of last century knew they were going to face a firestorm of religious opposition. Perhaps they added religion in order to deflect criticism. Needless to say, the Christian right was not exactly bowled over. Nor was I, and nor should you be.

What the general trend of the manifesto says at the surface is what any high-schooler knows and probably wants to see effectuated. What we need for that is stewardship, not a re-definition of religion. Just because it sounds nice does not mean that it is worth the credentials behind it. There were Nobel laureates supporting the HIV denialist.

Part of the problem of treating words incorrectly is that others may find the result a way to evade a difficult problem of their own. The Supreme Court is forever dealing with religious-secular issues. Along comes a distinguished group equating religion with humanism (which the Christian right identified as and with secularism). How were they going to deal with atheists and the right they were clamoring for? Well, if atheists are de facto religionists, problem solved!! Well, not so fast. The real issue with the atheist rested squarely upon the church-state, or religious-secular problematic. For the High Court to risk a reliance on flim-flam philosophy would have been as or more embarrassing than establishing corporations as actual persons.

Aude sapiere, bellowed Kant. Dare to think -- think as in defy authority when the truth on your heart feels it must be questioned. That was the Enlightenment spirit. I don;t mind people arguing with me. I expect and welcome that. What sets me to depressive musing is the specter of those who are paid and respected to know better doing what others will for long be paying for, if metaphorically.

Had I been there at that time I'd have agreed with the general drift. But I would have refused to be a signatory and I'll be willing t bet I could have argued Dewey out of so dubious a proposition.

Dear Gwen,

I just took notes. Believe me. I am really educated by the level of conviction in CS Herrman's discourse. I just took notes so my own reading will improve. He was responding to Luise Brassad on the position in the Humanist Manifesto.

"Dewey should never have been talked into this posture after what he put forth on the matter of faith as distinguished from religion!. BUT HE DID!

"My guess is that the ballast of signatories were in that mindset (era of scientism, where even the stock market was thought to reflect the machine-like drone of absolutism care of the so-called 'scientific method') and thus sore tempted to overlook details in favor of an overall sentiment rephrased as actual philosophy (owing to their collective stature). Problem: it is not philosophy in the scholarly sense!. IS GUESSING NOW SCHOLARLY?

"What is the direct implication for organized religion as this document appears willing to state it? What will our Muslim friends say to this?" ISLAM HAS ITS OWN REACTION TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION (remember GHAZALI (for Islam's point of departure from three philosophical holdings)?)

"The institutionalized character that assists in defining what we mean by the word religion IS a vital and necessary part of the religion's existence. It is not that that goes sideways but what people do with it." VITAL, yes, BUT NOT THE ONLY NECESSARY 'PART'! IT ONLY ASSISTS IN DEFINING (an act that could as well be assisted in and by other means).

"Little mistakes in philosophy are akin to misdemeanors in high office that, because able to cause more harm, are elevated to a felony. Philosophy's job should be to resolve such problems, not create them." WOW! AND YET THOSE EARLY PHILOSOPHERS PURPORTED TO CHALLENGE EACH OTHER ON LITTLE 'MISTAKES' FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE DISCIPLINE. ARE WE NOW INCLINED TO READ THEIR LIPS, ONLY?

(AN ASIDE) "There were Nobel laureates supporting the HIV denialist." YES, FOR THE LACK OF SUFFICIENT INFORMATION/KNOWLEDGE!

". . . if atheists are de facto religionists, problem solved!! Well, not so fast." OK, WHAT? BUT ATHEISTS ARE ORGANISED ARE THEY NOT? OR SORRY, THEY ARE NOT INSTITUTIONAL!

"What sets me to depressive musing is the specter of those who are paid and respected to know better doing what others will for long be paying for, if metaphorically." ??????????

I have read When is Faith a Religion? Part 1: The Four Criteria and I accept the reasoning. However, is it not possible that I may disagree?

Bello.

Well, Bello, of course you can, and, as I said, that is to be expected. But you are speaking as if an ideological fundamental were abridged somewhere. I am not about to go point for point through your litany. But they are not entirely logical and not entirely reasonable, and in one instance violate scholarship's first rule - for blindly bowing to authority for its own sake.

Bello. Chill. Calm down. I happen to be your friend, Bello. Even if I don't especially like your religion (and there are plenty of reasons why not to like any given institutionalized religion) I am, like Voltaire, categorically dedicated to your full rights in having and practicing your faith.

Get your notepad out and write this down and then repeat it a hundred times until you wake up: 'Different words mean different things. Humanism is far closer to secularism than secularism ever was to religion. Humanism is not religion even when religion practices humanism'.

One can attempt to rest on a metaphor, but in this case the principles at stake are too high to go so close to the edge (a good enough reason to pity the temporary insanity of those worthies back then). Ergo stay away from metaphors here and duke it out in the open. Today's equivalent if not so dangerous (for avoiding religion) is the notion of the cosmos being 'conscious'. It seem to be a New Age mantra. The metaphor is permissible for the undereducated, not for the philosopher. Let the words alone, Bello. They are not your enemy until you abuse them. And that is the issue here, the only issue, however much anyone wants to turn it into a religious controversy. Find better ways to put your thoughts across or stop the enterprise entirely.

Philosophy 101 has been grievously trampled over by those who should know better. Do I have to ask you to 'grow up'? Words mean what they mean or philosophy is dead. And you actually think to know enough about philosophy to assume that I am overly lacking here and there? Duh. Bello, not your best moment. If you wish desperately to genuflect to authority, start here, with the principles of philosophy, which begin and end with how words are used and abused. That isn't the sum and substance of philosophy, but it takes up the ballast where philosophy falls short and where it has to help resolve human problems, which are in the main predicated ultimately on false usages. The very same that has occurred here.

All religion carries the potential to influence nearly every human activity. It is up to the religionist to carry it that far, and so long as others' rights are not conflicted I am your greatest supporter. But again, humanism is not religion. Period. Point blank. Not negotiable. Period. Get over this irrational and knee-jerk reaction. If you can't come up with better reasons to disagree. I have no idea how to read the mind of someone who takes homage to authority over common decency to simple words that carry critical meanings that dare not be toyed with like a child' erector set. That is what causes problems, Bello, not the logic of a philosopher who actually believes in practicing like one.

But thank you for offering the regard to read that essay on faith and religion, where doubtless you noticed my profound respect for religion and also Islam (in parts).

" . . . so long as others' rights are not conflicted" and that is where I hope to be a good student (?). I thought one could 'cite' in order to 'disagree'!

Anyway, thanks. I am learning. "But again, humanism is not religion. Period. Point blank. Not negotiable. Period. Get over this irrational and knee-jerk reaction". Well, ok. Thanks. I am forced to 're-read' my philosophy of religion.

Anyway, is it inconsistent with the principle of Secularism to allow public bodies to open their public meetings with prayers?' I don't think so. I do not indulge in this even though I do not insist that others should not.

I do believe unless 'other's rights' are conflicted, one may not be heard to complian about public bodies offering prayers to open their public meetings.

Thank Heavens, Bello, that you have decided to move back to the original question. I feared that this question was going the way of many of my questions on RG which -- as Charles can verify-- soon go “over my head” intellectually causing me to abandon my own posted question and subsequent responses because I have become too confused to continue to enjoy the intellectual jousting. However, since America’s “civil religion” is back on the table, I refer everyone to page 87 of my dissertation:

“Getting back to the U.S. civil religion, there is no doubt that non-believers and DIFFERENT believers alike have cause for concern over its vitality. Indeed, the intransigency of the current White House Administration in promoting monotheistic religion [contrast, for example, Hinduism] is evident in the ongoing battle over whether ‘under God’ is to be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. …

“One implication of the state asserting other than a neutral position on the subject of religion is that this implies that citizens of the state are expected to have some type of religious identity. Sociologist Robert Wuthnow [“CHRISTIANITY IN THE 21st CENTURY”] has pointed out that it is religious institutions that convey religious identity upon the individual. Hence, a non-neutral stance toward religion on the part of the state constitutes RELIGIOUS ADVOCACY because, by coercive effect on the citizenry, it gives religious groups a competitive edge over secular voluntary associations within the private sector.”

And, I would like to add that the coercive effect is achieved by the reward or denial of tax breaks dependent upon whether a particular voluntary association qualifies as religious. And, in order to kill two birds with one stone – (i) to make clear the odious discriminatory effect, and (ii) to end the silliness about secularism being “a religious movement” -- I quote from the Humanist Association in Sweden (translation from Swedish to English mine):

“The Humanist Association feels its activities should be subsidized by the State

for the same reason that was given to justify State subsidies for the independent

[non-Lutheran] congregations; namely that the Association 'assists in the ongoing

development of norms, a process that is necessary to uphold and strengthen the

basic values that are essential to our society.' The Association is the only

secular organization fulfilling this role. If the Swedish State truly desires to be

neutral in terms of letting the citizens choose between a religious and a nonreligious

worldview, then it is self-evident that the present situation is completely

unsatisfactory in light of the obvious requirement of equal treatment” (Gwen’s Dissertation, pp. 88-89).

There you have it, my friends, the unequivocal opinion of a well-established and politically savvy secular humanist group speaking from the standpoint of a marginalized worldview in a pedigreed democratic state on March 9, 2001 – over one year after the purported dis-establishment of The Church of Sweden (Evangelical-Lutheran) by that democratic state.

Gwen

As a subject for dissertation, does a state cease to exhibit religous inclinations simply because it has dis-established The Church which it had hitherto recognised? Here comes my allegiance to the concept of religion being an understanding of a force greater than oneself and why then it is that I see Secularism as a religion (protect me the wrath of Herrman)!

The quotation from your dissertation being "the unequivocal opinion of a well-established and politically savvy secular humanist group speaking from the standpoint of a marginalized worldview in a pedigreed democratic state" only helps to make the point that the state asserting other than a neutral position on the subject of religion implies that citizens of the state are expected to have some type of religious identity. ... Hence, a non-neutral stance toward religion on the part of the state constitutes RELIGIOUS ADVOCACY." Does the dis-establishment of The Church of Sweden change the 'pedigreed democratic' status of the state of Sweden? No, I do not think so. However, I am not through reading the dissertation.

Religion is not Everything and Everything is not Religion. A Secular state purports NOT to support any religion WHILE also giving ALL existing religions EQUAL treatment. It does stand to reason that the State therefore cannot ENFORCE the doctrines of a particular religion. Dis-establishing The Church of Sweden probably (and I chose the word carefully) indicates realisation that the christain faith should not predominate. The Humanist Association has a basis to present its greivance as it did.

But is this inconsistent with secular principles? The dis-establishment is consistent with secular principles. The neglect of the Humanist Association while catering for other 'religious' entities is not.

Käre Bello,

Re: " Does the dis-establishment of The Church of Sweden change the 'pedigreed democratic' status of the state of Sweden? No, I do not think so. However, I am not through reading the dissertation"

Actually, the point that I meant to make is that because of its pedigreed democratic status, Sweden must needs dis-establish The Church of Sweden. Keep reading my dissertation, Bello, and you will see that my thesis is that Sweden--like the U.S.--still has an establishment religion. In both nations, the established religion is a "secularized Christianity."

Moreover, you give Sweden more credit than it is due. As a member of the Council of Europe (COE) and the European Union; and as a nation that is no longer homogeneously Nordic Lutheran (indeed with sizable Muslim and Catholic minorities), Sweden had no choice but to discontinue collecting a mandatory Church Tax (kyrkoavgift) that was imposed on all of its taxpayers to support The Church of Sweden (Evangelical-Lutheran). For more on the European Convention on Human Rights and what it entails for the newly integrated nations of Europe in terms of obligatory compliance with democratic principles, see either of the following 2013 conference presentations under my RG "Contributions": (1) "A European 14th Amendment: Pre-empting Prejudicial Local Regulations with Strict Construction of Article 9" or (2) "The Post-Secular State and Religious Liberty: The FBOization of Immigrant Integration".

Bello, soon you will have time for nothing else besides reading my stuff on RG.

Gwen

It is one thing to speak of understanding "something" greater than oneself, and rather another to understand a "force" greater than oneself. Common acceptation will presume that "force" presupposes a god (standard establishment religion), a spirit-centered collective (paganism and polytheism) or a contructive/projective deus ex machina (Harsthorne's panentheism). And therein lies the rub, since the atheist, while very possibly in full support of religion's ideal role in the world, nonetheless rejects these suprahuman agencies as grounds for categorizing what right(s) one shall enjoy in a democratic moiety. Theocracies need pay no heed to this last statement, nor autocratic regimes.

When Christians speak of stewardship, they do it in one or both of two ways: 1) Metaphorically, as respecting the grantor of one's office, giving money to the church, or 2) Respecting what authority the grantor places in your hands in accord with the rules establishing the office. The secular variant is that of Thorstein Veblen who in his "Workmanship" is speaking of understanding a particular type of "something" greater than oneself. In Christian stewardship the same can be said. In neither case does that permit the use of the word "religion".

I didn't spend 350 pages of a book on the concepts of office and stewardship, where near the end I saw fit to allow stewardship as a "humanistic faith" only to have a whipper-snapper religionist tell me that I was somehow grievously mistaken. So Bello, maybe you just need to get out more?

And by the way, surely you recall that I never denied in this thread the (properly delimited) right of specific groups of religious character to put forth invocations, benedictions, and etc. in public spheres. One must balance rights with tradition and two pinches of common sense and decency. When in Rome, do as the Romans. What do you suppose is intended by that? One thing it suggests is for religious groups within a society to tolerate one another when trespassing over mutual territory (odd verbiage but I hope you get the point), whence all but the Christians do as the Christians at Christmas, for example, and Christians do as the others with alternating religious forms at benedictions in public functions, and as atheists do for those favoring non-denominational modes of public prayer.

Now purists will not approve what I just said. But what I just said is in homage to folks just like you, Bello. While I can determine a strict legal (juristic to be precise) formulation covering my tracks, my real inspiration here comes from "secular spirituality" in which I profoundly believe in equity, fairness, common sense and decency.

A non-prayer example will of course demonstrate equally well (at least by the reasoning I favor). There has been quite a scrap over Muslim women in democratic moieties wearing certain garbs, and of any of that faith compelling the state to make amends for prayer times while at the workplace. Those entering from outside are, from the vantage of culturally off-setting practices, obliged to obey some courtesies if problems are to be avoided, and this applies regardless the laws or rights involved. Again, it's While in Rome... This is essentially the Golden Rule for travelers across cultural spheres. Law, as it has developed, has usually incorporated most all of these courtesies since it has long since realized that doing so is a stabilizing force in society. You may or may not know that the whole collection of duties and courtesies and regulations of the business community was adopted en mass, in one fell swoop, one Parliamentary enactment, hundreds of years ago in England.

My point, Bello, and please do continue the practice of note taking: You do not have to shout from the top of the tallest building in order to get respect from a secularist or humanist in particular. You do not have to claim untoward rights that make native groups feel beleaguered. And you do not have to warp language in order to claim your religious place in the firmament.

Bello, all that I have had to put up with from your rantings has comparatively little to do with scholarship (except for feigned hiding therein) and everything to do with commanding and demanding respect as an honor-based person of great talents who will add measurably to the world to the extent he learns to button his mouth as and when appropriate. When in Rome...

Gwen,

You will have to forgive me. English is my second language ( and I should soon learn to button up my mouth - as and when appropriate). I am still reading - and excitedly too!

Bello

Secularism was born in Christian societies. It is an attempt to reduce Christian values to a subset which is supposed to be universal and compatible with the new scientific cosmology as it was conceived in the enlightment period. It is trying to extend to morality an objectivistic scientific approach. This approach is supposed to not rely on human authority but to rely on nature. There are many problems with this; it tried to establish what is intrinsically subjective by an supposedly objective method, neglecting the effect of picking up certain value and leaving some other wile the Christian traditions had balance them, even denying the Christian import of these values masquaradating them into universal values. The biggest problem is that the enlightment scientific epistemology is totally closed to creation in nature and the enlightment scientific cosmology is a totally platonistic construct that although empirically validated has a pretence to replace reality and force people to think they live in this constructed world and then get puzzled by strange questions such: what is the connection between my mind and my body, how can have a will in this constructed world, how can creation be possible in this constructed world. The enlightment has created an amazing scientific cosmology, the only problem is that it tends to substitute itself for the world through our natural tendency to reify our conceptions as if they are concrete realities.

Louis, I am going to make an object lesson of your post.

You act as if secularism was destined to be birthed in a Christian setting. Ridiculous. Read some Eliade. Every society with a theistic enterprise comprehends what Eliade and most others refer generally to the sacred and the profane. In the early Christian world, where Latin and Greek served as the repository for technical terms, Latin was pegged for the word that signified the profane -- look it up in any Unabridged English dictionary. Therein was birth secular. Secularism is dealt with later.

In the beginning, far from being the seeming enemy of religion, the word was actually taken up by the Church to designate those in the establishment of the Church who did official functions but not those mediating the hand of God. A secular priest could preach, probably not baptize. A secular abbot would have a financial function but little else. At another level the secular were distinguished from the monks.

A sentence or two down you seem to suggest that this worrisome capacity of secularism to be a helpmate in the Church itself was magically transmogrified into a monster reacting angrily to everything religious (esp. Christian) in the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment only elevated the existing meaning of the word into an organized pattern of thought and/or conduct - secular-ism.

As I have elsewhere made clear, the effort was drastically weighted toward the need to reclaim inner authority to challenge outer authority. The problem was that religion offered a crusty and unforgiving authority that refused room for even (what we would accept today as) innocent investigation. This problem was not birthed by the Enlightenment, only the solution to it. A century earlier...

"You will find that by the simpleness of certain divines, access to any philosophy, however pure, is well-nigh closed." - Bacon, New Organon LXXXIX If anything, Bacon is more embracing than the philosophes would have dared. And the latter's poor feeling for the religions themselves was indirect, the result of ill feeling for institutions that would rob the human mind of its sweetest deserts. Kinda sorta really hard to blame their attitude, frankly.

If you don't know how to use the words 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity' leave them off and use different words that will enable auditors to comprehend your meaning. The paragraph in which these occur is impossible to fathom with any certainty. You then get your religious credentials polished for your next, utterly nonsensical absurdity. Bacon dissolved much both of Aristotelian and Platonic thinking wherever absolutistic theistic edicts were sacrosanct. He rightfully did away with them, and while at it makes your propositikon of the current schema as overly Platonic absurd unless you are speaking of Plato's non-theistic impressions - which, however, your fail to state.

So you have, like so many others, a terrific insecurity against a science that holds religion in abeyance. First, the business of creationism, where even potentially true, is far down the evolutionary chain and of no recourse as a synecdoche for the original forces. The epigenome has illustrated that Darwin's chief antagonist made correct observations that went entirely unexplained until these recent discoveries. As for the creationist aspect of the universe, that argument is for theology, not science. No one is telling you you can't hold that view via theology. We are telling you theists to mind your godammed business where it comes to science, where you evidently have no clue as to what is what or why. All the available evidence dictates against a creationist view and as long as that holds, the only admonition fit to saddle scientists with is to maintain always an open mind, and that means that it be open to any overt evidence for creationism. Now I will grant you that this admonition is something they ought to, but rarely do, listen to. As a final note, my own work in the metaphysics of numbers digs a couple additional feet into the grave of creationism. I, however, maintain an open mind.

Then you move on plaintively to modern questions that are inherently very difficult regardless the methodology. These are issues that the Enlightenment (and Bacon) never forsook, but in which religionists tried as usual to insert themselves into every discussion, this time through the spirit-mind-brain intercalations. Again, this is a religious issue, not a scientific one. Again, scientists are severely reminded to work with an open mind (again, a difficult thing to do - else I would not be the one making major contributions in their normative bailiwick). Attitude truly does matter a very great deal. Which is also why stewardship matters a very great deal.

Finally, the Enlightenment did not create, even indirectly, the current schema. It created the requisite attitudes and methodologies. People put these to work. Absent people they are just ideas. People make them good, bad or indifferent, and the people who made science what you disapprove of are completely beyond the Enlightenment. But your abuse of words entitles you to blame the Enlightenment. Get a grip, Louis, you are better than that.

If anything, the Enlightenment concepts and ideals have been ignored where convenient and feared (the legal reliance upon dignity - as Peter Gay was unapologetically instructing law types at a colloquium (see Is the Law Dead). People project what they dislike upon the Enlightenment period who have also chosen not to study the movement. It is held responsible for irreligosity. Nonsense. They themselves broadly illustrated that trait but that hardly entitles us to believe that their direct and other influence had that massive an effect. It did not. What happened was that the religionists, gradually realizing the extent to which they were defeated, were not willing to take their instruction as a learning effort, but chose to fight back.

Fight against a period that worshiped dignity? But Christianity is the dignity-based religion par excellence!! Christianity has the Enlightenment to thank for building the appreciation for that which Christians can rightfully hold out to humanity as perhaps its greatest gift.

So Louis, you have been extremely busy, and just as activist in the agenda that arises when one takes religion too seriously. As Bacon warned, it is a recipe for ignorance and stultification. You claim to deserve to impart yourself to ReseachGATE? Calm down the religious fervor, fella, or you will win more of these barbs and the future ones will sting a whole lot harder than this one did. You have a lot of promise. Grow up and be a true scholar. Understand where the limits are in discussions of science and religion. I like you very much Louis, but I have to withhold much embrace when you cannot meet me in the middle of a scholar's road.

Charles,

I am not as confused as some of my texts may sudgest to you. I took this scientific-religious path in my youth so it is not something I can part from but keep working on it. Exchange with a scholar like you allow me to know how coherent I am. I can see that this exchange is not going to succeed and would derail the thread if we continue this dialogue. Thank again Charles.

. . . .and thank YOU Brassard!

Louis, I was raised a Republican and am now a devoted liberal, a secular who so respects the role of religion that he can respect Cooaraswami and Gilson, whose impressions of a god's powers well exceed any capacity I have to stomach determinism. In short, what is learned in youth can be overturned, Louis, while yet retaining respect for those not sharing your religious tenets. The point for both you and Bello is to respect those who disagree with you, and to respect the boundaries between science and religion. The latter has variance of posture according to preferences of the faithful; the former has zero tolerance, only the advised posture of an open mind. It has zero tolerance for a reason. It has to as a default, a posture only abrogated with overt evidence that such a move is necessary by the evidence of nature in correctly formulated methodologies. If either of you cannot settle yourselves to that, you are beyond me.

What is somewhat more worrisome to me is the specter these recent remarks bear to Huntington's thesis, correct in effect if not so much in theoretical grounding. His point: taking religion too seriously is ultimately a worldwide calamity. It is caused not by IQ low or high, but by attitudes not developed through stewarding what IQ one is granted coming into the world.

When Jefferson wisely asked, "What harm does it do me if my neighbor shares not my faith (paraphrased)" he was saying the same thing, and it was this aspect of the effects of taking religion too seriously that straightaway led to the doctrine of the separation of church and state - secularism for political science. It is the attitude you two seem keen to hold on to that threatens world peace, and all you can do is throw mud in the face of those willing to go a thousand yards toward you for every inch you backtrack from intransigence. Most serious observers would call that opportunistic. Huntington saw it as fomenting violence. Again, he was right.

So keep your religion as you see fit, but keep an open eye. Because your attitudes will come back to bite you, and few firms in the world will accept you as an employee if you start parroting that attitude aggressively. Academe should not, but doubtless will, accept you, which is a pity. They should in this day and age know better.

You can always change. Change need not be bad. But tolerance is neither good nor bad. It is a categorical necessity. I question how tolerant you two are capable of being based on your intransigence to comprehend the concepts aback science and the generosity that many secularists hold toward your religions. I feel I have been slapped in the face for all my efforts.

But I will still strive to improve the attitudes within and without science, and continue to demonstrate the highest levels such as exemplify tolerance to others of different faiths. But on a site devoted to science, my friends, my tolerance stops where science is travestized by religion. You will accordingly find a way to get along or I will find a way to depart from your company. I am not as gracious as Gwen. I am rather hard-nosed when it comes to the raw basics without which we can hardly hope to value a peaceful future. I do not suffer the present for the sake of the present when the basics are at stake, and with them, the future

If I mistake the seriousness of the matter or if I appear over the top, you will please let me know.

To Jose -

I saw Zelig eons ago and don't recall enough to catch your parallel. Can you state it in fuller terms (or if you prefer not to be brutal in public send me a private message)?

Charles,

I was borned catholic but since my teenage years I open myself to a lot of religions, especially induism, taoism, budhism, muslim. I am also interested in aboriginal religions of the world. I am pluri-religious. I have practice meditation since the age of 15. I do not subscribe tHuntington's thesis.

So, let's see. You are an adept of religion qua religion qua faiths qua spirits, qua universal and complete influence, qua... And because religion, any religion (except Catholicism?) is the world's savior, ergo it is innocent of any and all accusations of meddling in science or in politics, ergo science is wrong and Huntington is wrong and rationality, reason and logic are wrong. And since religion and faith are what you and your ilk choose to define them as, no one can argue with your logic.

Way to go Louis. You are on your way to earning the dunce of the year award. You have some explaining to do if you expect to gain my ear. Good luck with either of those two. And if you should ever take up these specious arguments for a Ph.D. thesis, and were your adviser to be found reading these posts, good luck also on that thesis being accepted. People of common sense and experience do not abide pseudo-intellectuals, which in my estimation you are until you can suggest to me evidence to the contrary.

That was Pope's meaning in penning "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" which boils down to this: when some knowledge leads to the notion that you hold more of it than you in fact do, protestations and acts pursuant thereto can cause problems - as they are doing here, Louis. If you can't arrive at the basics understood to all of modernity you are under-served by your vaunted knowledge, and you as well as your knowledge, are dangerous. Here they are dangerous for egging on uber-religionists like Bello. And where not dangerous they count as an addiction for vicarious control as you exercise real scholars to help you, all to no avail, for you were never here for any of that, were you? If you were, you would by now have given enough evidence that my fears should not seem so real.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing.html

So you see, Louis how you come across is not so good, regardless how you think of the matter. If you can't come across better than that I recommend you go elsewhere for intellectual fulfillment, because you are not getting any here; rather, you are using this as a platform for your nonsense. So, Louis, this is it. Get life figured out, show evidence that I am mistaken, upon which I will come right back, or leave us be. For while none of this is personal, still it IS very serious. Words mean what they mean, and you don't get brownie points for denying that just because you happen to have a scientific forum at your disposal.

Oh, something I forgot. While you're being so selective in choice of authorities (those thirty-something who violated common sense in the forlorn attempt to prove to religionists that the scientific community isn't so bad after all) you should know that THIS is the reason why I appeared so over-the-top opposed to your citing them. Their silliness led in part to this degree of craziness we are experiencing here.

The same is why I am vehement against what I call high-IQ morons. And as I have said before there are some today attempting to repeat the errors of those humanists. A dude from England won a Rhodes scholarship for promising work in math. So far so good. But he got himself into philosophy and starting bandying about the notion that the universe is 'conscious'. Which is plainly inane. There obviously are properties in common, to be sure. Not only are we derived from the universe, but some of the most advanced organized structures best highlight certain elemental simplicities of the universe. Consciousness is not one of those, however.

So what does this dude do but come to America and found a fan club, a loyal community of New Age devotees (not a problem in and of itself, mind you), and proceed to scare American academic philosophers. Shook them up so much a couple did the outrageous thing of criticizing him in public. Ordinarily that is as declasse as it gets for academe. He managed to quickly discover his way back home. And if you wonder at my integrity, I will have you know that I was forever banned from his cite when I sent him a private note telling him to grow up, and while he was at it he cut out the cutsie hippie-genius hirsutism; and start by lowering the ears rather a bit (well, after dropping the 'consciousness' crap). Who knows but a later collection of RG folks will return, citing him and his buddies as you, Louis, did the humanists.

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with long hair, mind you, but when it serves a dead-end purpose completely antithetical to good academic practice (yeah, words actually do mean what they mean) you had better know I will be on top of anyone who tramples the basics. So I will talk back to high and low without discrimination. People who have come to nourish a profound dislike for me will begrudgingly admit that they hold me in high respect for standing up for scholarship.

So if ya don't know how to be a scholar but would like to be, I am taking students. If ya don't give a crap, leave. Having strong religious opinions is not what anyone here means by scholarship. It need not even be what any rational person identifies with integrity (excess might be better given today's climate). Leave your petty imbecilities at home when you talk to scientists. They are NOT at war with you, regardless how much your crass behavior suggests to all of us that you are at war with them. Get a grip or get out of here.

If you can't be a scholar, or understand what the basics are in science, you really have no earthly business being here other than that you can. I, however, can make your visits distinctly unpleasant. Improve your arguments and sources as also your manners, and you will be fully redeemed and welcomed with open arms and open minds. Otherwise, please dismiss yourselves post haste.

Charlre,

You seem to be in good mood today.

Wit, Louis, is a great start forward :)

Dear Gwen,

Still very anxious to please. Anxious to advance my point that Secularism IS a religion per se:

“Separatist critics draw unwarranted distinctions between the religious and the secular, in large part by assuming that the secular is religiously neutral. However, as noted by thinkers such as McConnell, the secular is not neutral – it is competitive with religion, reflecting a particular world-view of a particular group of people. Indeed, in many instances secular world views function in religion-like ways, including serving as ideological goads towards violence and conflict. This has led separationists to attempt to repress religion by finding a single, common (i.e. secular) belief system that all citizens can share freed from deep emotional commitments to particularist communities” David E. Guinn, JD, PhD 'Religion in the Public Square: The Debate'.

Yours truely, Bello

As I say to my students, Bello, "Great Find; you are engaging in the kind of research necessary to make a critical contribution to the ongoing academic debate."

Nonetheless, the essential point of my doctoral thesis is that "the secular is not neutral". You are preaching to the choir. I agree that "secular" is not neutral in predominantly Christian lands because it is "secularized Christianity". Indeed, the problem is "secular laws with religious claws". It is because of the ability of law to ossify a certain religious worldview (e.g., no polygamy; Sunday Closing Laws, degrees of kinship constituting incest, age of emancipation, etc..) that the U.S. is having its mettle tested with the post-1965 immigration of non-Christians who regularly point out that this and that law are not secular at all (in that the particular law interferes with their ability to freely practice their respective non-Christian religions).

But, Bello, functioning in "religion-like ways" or being "competitive with religion" does not mean "secular = religion" which is as ridiculous as saying "oleomargarine is used like butter and pricewise it is competitive with butter so oleomargarine = butter." Or, if you aren't familiar with oleomargarine, substitute tofu for oleomargarine, Many vegetarians use tofu to replace the protein lost in their diets by not eating meat. While this substitution is economically advantageous as well as healthy, it is rare to find a vegetarian who will claim that tofu=meat"; and invariably when vegetarians invite meateaters to dinner, the latter ask "Where's the beef?"

That is my feeling about your citation of Guinn, Bello -- Where's the beef?

Gwen

Really, Gwen, a brilliant answer. This whole business of cross-over practices violating normative semantics is depressing as well as cutting both ways. Thus while your marvelous “secular laws with religious claws” perfectly encapsulates your thesis, the quasi-contrapuntal is also valid, and as or more harmful both to people and to concepts (church state separation): “religious claws drive secular laws”.

Taking both together, we are reminded of a part of ‘what is secular’ that is often overlooked. In a church-state separated society, secular is not only a frame of mind but a fall-out process, and the process necessarily muddies semantic waters. Religionists legally enter the political ‘process’ and create secular laws (what law is by definition in a church-state separation culture) that do the bidding of the religionists, and in fact appear as if sponsoring the religious ideas.

The fact that the religionists are able to sell their religion to enough voters can come by a cross-over with ‘family values’ that a block of voters approve of and solidly identify with – as it were, ‘religiously’ (a plainly correct use of a metaphor). Thus seculars with anti-gay or anti-abortion core values can respond to these as wedge issues and vote other than their secularist status (Democratic party which, like any normative party in such a culture, is by definition secular) would otherwise have voted, The Republicans stand behind the ‘party-as-secular’ to justify their right to advance religion in this way.

What to do?

Well, one can play metaphysics. If nothing else it demonstrates a logical way in which such cross-overs can happen, and offers a way to symbolically denote them. So the case of ‘secular laws with religious claws’ is expressed paradigmatically as “secular laws/religious claws” (the ‘/’ reads ‘in terms of’). This establishes an affiliative relation between numerator and denominator rather than an essentialist one. It says that, though tethered to one another, the phenomenological numerator is reflecting a ‘steerage’ factor in the existential denominator, the laws are by definition secular but are driven, steered, by an objective with religion as a referent.

For ‘religious claws that drive secular laws’ the paradigmatic relation is “religious claws – secular laws” (where ‘ – ‘ reads “as”). Here the value of the religion becomes essentialist with the law that, on being passed, assures legitimate status and pervasive force.

Dear Gwen,

I wish I had some beef, but I don't! (wry smile). However, you will pardon me my overzealousness seeing as it were that I am seeking knowledge and your dissertation is quite an interesting read in this area I so love. Philosophy is interesting; so are the relevant philosophies of law and of religion ( I pray I am making some sense). As a lawyer and one interested in the sociology of law and indeed the philosophy of law, I have differed severally from early researchers and have acquired personal taste as to interpretive tools to assist in my own research work.

You will recall I alluded to secularism being a religion for want of a better definition given its characteristics (not any criteria I have elected to establish, yet) especially since, as you noticed, there are references in the literature to secularism being 'religion-like'. Why not call it religion then? Yes, why not when what it only requires is that it should be defined accordingly!

For the uptenth time (and I hope no more) the following may serve to explain my 'beef' indeed and show why and how I elect to proceed in further inquiry.

“Much of the conflict and reluctance associated with establishing a working definition of religion stems from the important ramifications such a definition would have on First Amendment jurisprudence. Defining religion would unavoidably determine what the First Amendment will prohibit and what it will protect. On one hand, a set definition by defining what a religion must be, may violate [the First Amendment] by establishing a distinctive notion of religion that excludes some legitimate forms of religions. On the other hand, a truly comprehensive definition may be so broad as to be unhelpful. . . It is worth noting that in 1987 more than 1300 recognised religions existed in the United States.” Michael R. O’Neil, Government Denigration of Religion: Is God the Victim of Discrimination in Our Public Schools?, Pepperdine Law Report, Volume 21, Issue 2, 1994, p.488 (internal citations omitted).

Be that as it may, 'Is it inconsistent with the principle of Secularism to allow public bodies to open their public meetings with prayers?' Whether secularism were (was) a religion or not (even though I see it as one), I believe that it is not inconsistent with its principles to allow public bodies to open their meetings with prayers.

In Nigeria, almost all federal and state public functions are started by the offering of prayers by (hold it) priests of the christian churches of the Anglican, Catholic and Protestant denominations as well as a Muslim cleric. Each 1st day of October presents this show of religiosity in Nigeria - yet there are several indigenous religions (recognised by the country's constitution including recognition of their respective personal laws). Recall also that Nigeria has a National Mosque (Masjid) and a Non-denominational National Cathedral both located in the Federal Capital City of Abuja. Almost all residences of the heads of the executive arm have masjids and churches built using public funds. The three tiers of government in my country Nigeria subsidize religious pilgrimages for adherents of Islam and Christianity. Is Nigeria secular? Maybe. The country's constitution does not say so even though it has constitutional provisions similar to the First Amendment!

So what is my beef citing Guinn? Guinn presents a position that begins the process of identifying what O'Neil has rightly termed the 'conflict and reluctance' in defining religion. So, if that is so, it means I do have the right to offer a definition relevant to my appreciation of the subject matter of this thread.

Yes, that indeed is my beef. I hope it tastes good (smiling still).

Bello

Re: "On one hand, a set definition by defining what a religion must be, may violate [the First Amendment] by establishing a distinctive notion of religion that excludes some legitimate forms of religions."

OK, Bello; I surrender. You got me with this one since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not define "discrimination" for the very same reason. This has been a good thing because our activist Supreme Court has expanded the definition as needed to include previously unrecognized forms of discrimination. We now have both "disparate treatment" and "disparate impact" discrimination, with the latter form of discrimination including UNINTENTIONAL discrimination that has a disparate impact upon minorities. See attached chart comparing the two types of discrimination - (1) traditional and (2) disparate impact.

So, Bello, you delivered the beef; but don't get overconfident since I am very unpredictable and there is no telling what I will come up with tomorrow after I have had a good night's sleep.

Gwen

Thanks. I am the student I am, always.

I think you are right, when public bodies assembly they do so as representatives, not as citizens. This confusion needs to be clarified in the United States: the bill of rights protects individuals (citizens) from abuse of power. Public bodies and public officers when they are acting as representatives or officers, cannot invoke, at the same time, the privileges of their position and the rights of a citizen.

“I shall refer to these roles as citizen representatives – a form of representation that is increasingly common in practice, but almost untheorized in democratic theory. To be sure, the idea that citizens are best represented by other lay citizens serving as representatives is an old democratic ideal. It justified early notions that elected representatives should be salaried so as to enable ordinary citizens – not just the rich – to serve in public office, as well as the more recent idea that term limits will prevent elected representatives from becoming professional political elites. These and other devices are based on the presumption that when citizens represent other citizens, the representative relationship is secured through common experience.”

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/dcc/documents/CitizenRepresentatives.pdf

Americans have never done metaphysics at all well. They, much like a recent commenter, presume that upon nomination or election to representative posts they, the ‘representatives, stop being citizens. Yet they still keep their religion, they still dine out and go to movies, they still maintain all Constitutional freedoms, including freedom of conscience.

What freedoms are in any way restricted are required by their offices in order to preserve the integrity of said institutions. The chief aspect of which was the guiding principle in older bailment law. One’s duty in office is to represent all alike with something attempting to approach impartiality. That doesn’t mean there can’t be a political components, for, after all, it is political parties that proffer those whom we vote into office. Having said that, however…

The classic charge brought about in bailment law was the ‘conversion’, in which what was entrusted to the care and keeping of a bailee was by the latter taken to his private use, thus denying to the owner the expected function, and denying to the office its integrity, viewed as offering contempt to rights and law. Had the evidence surrounding Scott Walker’s fun and games with unions and such been delivered to an equity court that actually knew something about equity (good luck with that one) the good Governor would have been side-lined from his duties pending resolution of an investigation.

The evidence seriously pointed to conversion of the public trust, which he (and several northern tier industrial states governed by rabid Republicans) put to private use -- private as in strictly partial political ends that not only attempted to deny the rights of others but in would have caused or encouraged to cause general and specific harms upon the public. But hey, who gives a crap about bailment law? It hurts only the powerful and defends the weak. Two very good reasons not to abide such silly notions…

In a country governed by a separation of church and state we thus have a ground rule test for the application of the bailment concept, and the prayer matter, when improperly handled, constitutes, by the implied or explicit favoritism, a conversion of that trust to private privilege. The author of the excerpt may sincerely believe that the ‘citizen representative’ is poorly born out in theory, but it is rather the case that he is rather poorly instructed in the excellent theory that has been around for 500 years of Anglo-English legal tradition.

"Freedom of religion is not the ability to invoking my religion at will without concern for the other in a Governmental setting." Which was precisely my point, with minor provisos (being , for example, consideration for others in the setting).

The appeal to Anglo-English tradition was clearly limited to the law pertaining to the conversion idea, and to nothing else, whence your opening remark is both out of place and inappropriate.

I am curious to know to whom your 'freedom' remark was directed. But don't bother responding if that comment reflects getting something off the chest as opposed to a serious scholarly issue pertinent to the topic.

Ok, Ravi, you've made your point (I think - it seems to have several dozen permutations). Now let's try some actual reality for a change, rather than a mere personal opinion from an admittedly sincere vantage. Sincere and upright people are not in the business and not in the position to dictate policy, and public philosophy must attend to certain realities over personal opinion or belief. As a philosopher, my personal belief is categorical atheism. Dust to dust, just as the Good Book saith. Or, as a belligerent atheist once remarked of her own future, dinner for ants...

As a philosopher I cannot advocate public policy unless certain elements of reality are accounted for. Some of these are not negotiable until a very substantial portion of the public declares a desire to see a sea change. As that is not happening everywhere (but is well on its way here and there, as in Egypt), there remain cultural realities that are not negotiable. For the United States, public displays of religion are pretty much unanimously EXPECTED and universally tolerated even by folks like me who are diehard atheists, so long as considerations for variations in faith are tastefully allowed for. That being the case, it is unseemly without good cause for ANY public venue to refuse a public expression of faith to a god, ergo for everyone to identify with their own god through a non-denonminational benediction, for example. Not that such instances could not in principle occur, I know of none, at least that I can think of. Law, no more than opinion, has the god-given or self-presupposed prerogative to violate cultural dicta without supremely good reason.

Thus, Ravi, you give me the impression of specializing in blanket statements, blanket judgments, and in so doing revealing an absence of mature judgment necessary for cross-cultural study -- which of all disciplines requires sensitivity as well as an appreciation for ethical systems, jural norms, and outlooks whose variations do not readily abide one-size fits all dicta.

Oh, almost forgot. Ravi, you noted my dyslexic disposition. I think Anglo-American might fare better. I have done far worse: "Mother's tales", "Front seat driver", and , oh dear, "Urethra Franklin". My apologies to one and all. Not likely the first time, assuredly not the last.

There are numerous subliminall, even some blatant examples in which the majority faith lords it over, as we might say. Gwen knows a lot more of the specifics than do I. But you are beating a dead horse. If you immigrated here you know as well as I that the vast majority of Americans have no quarrel with benedictions and invocations, because they are aware that, tastefully done, the only people in any way apt to be unnerved are atheists, and frankly only the idiots among them are that vapid or radical. Ergo, your point that such displays necessarily result in one-upmanship or lording, are simply not born out, and that covers a couple hundred years of history.

Just because there is a majority and a minority view it doesn't follow that the world must collapse in order to rescue the delicate egos of a minority. The law has a marvelous handle on that, and Jefferson was peculiar in the sagacious way he put it. "What (legal) harm does it do me if my neighbor holds a different faith from mine?" Once the law detects a rational HARM (violation of freedom of conscience, what have you) there is grist. Apart from that, people get along by getting along. Marvel of marvels. The law doesn't admit taking someone to court for stealing bubble gum. Your argument in principle approaches that in kind if not totally in degree.

Again. LOWER the volume. You've made your point, stop overpowering the issue. Keep the discussion vibrant and to the point. I enjoyed your observations of the situation in Pakistan, for example.

Anyway, if you are into T-Day, have a merry one. I am still slobbering over Gwen's desert .

On the question of prayer and a lot of other social questions the answer comes from a dialogue and thus comes from those interested in dialogue. Those that have the impression to hold the truth are not really interested in dialogue. The majority of atheists and of most religious group is open to dialogue in spite of the fact that those who are the most vocal and pretend to defend these groups are not in a majority interested in dialogue. They are polititians, they are interested in convincing. The extremists of each group in the name of opposing the extremists of other groups in fact collaborated with each others. So on a question of the prayer, the most extremists will be attracted to this question as an opportunity to demonstrated the impossibility of dialogue.

I like the 'confession' part but question its utility. Call me a cynic. Politicians will say anything...

Your observations of a secularizing America are, if true, the natural antidote to public prayers. Absent support, those in opposition will feel their voice gain power and the choice will be made painlessly without the encroaching long arm of the law. We have enough laws. Time for folks to get along by getting along. I think for the issue of public prayer Americans can be rational, not so much for many of the matters that Gwen will bring up, for which public awareness and proactive stances can help. The gays earned their rights by being out there. Any faith being crudely ignored should not only be out there but find friendly voices from authority figures to give gravitas, for example.

Dear Gwen,

I missed the last road sign. Are we on course?

Bello

Type I traits -- which also overlap considerably with Scales H, N, B and T in order listed (Handbook of Psychological Assessment, 3rd ed.) and Herrman's Assessment Tool (the most exhaustive listing available, at ssrn.com/author=510356, tags bipolar, spectrum, research) -- include the following (from Valentine, Ethnology (2)4, 441, 457):

Energetic, self-assertive, playful, active, animated, expressive, impulsive, explosive, humorous, teasing, talkative, self-displaying, unashamed, inconstant, unsteady, dramatizing, restless, scattered, inter-personal contact, leadership, involvement, manipulation of material/immaterial interests.

Many of these show up in composite behaviors (multi-plexed traits) such as vicarious control in which an activity brings attention to self, focuses others on self-objectives and/or attempts to influence direction or orientation of a discussion.

Folks who do not live in a fetishistic world of Type I reality will be seen AVOIDING the following:

Seriatim (unpunctuated by others) answers to questions in order to ensure completeness (often with vicarious control as subconscious objective) of thoughts that diffuse and expand variously; attachment of superfluous, exaggerative additions reminiscent a child requiring to tag every chair in a row despite the people sitting there, and reminiscent as well of vicarious control -- if you didn't get me the first time here is more and more and more and more and more and more and, all of it is invaluable and you absolutely MUST see all of this marvelousness that comes from my striving to be a good teacher of the world, and etc., etc., etc.

Over-reliance on off-brand humor, cuteness, punning, clever asides -- some of display of which, if necessary to enliven discussions, become too much when characterizing Type I behavior, and also suggests vicarious control (yes, you must understand that I am not forcing you, for all of my brutal opinions are all in good-natured fun, don't you see...). Ditto with showing improper or unjustified opposition to other viewpoints by couching such in humor.

Type I folks tend to be vivacious, charming, alluring, bright and generally knowledgeable -- traits perfect for parties, high school speech class, chit-chat with clients at restaurants or sales jobs, and when MCing a radio or television broadcast. What they are NOT so good for are scientific discussion forums. Of, yeah, that would mean ResearGATE. Damn.

Many of these typify yours truly (by way of fairness and honesty). I, however, both for reasons of long practice at self-control and medications (I am certifiable) keep these traits within perspective; and when appearing otherwise will be found to have justifiable premises. As for instance the present good-natured fun, which is not intended as personal but as instruction for those in need of such and for whom less invasive measures are found by experience inadequate or ineffective.

Note to others (M.A.Ahmed e.g.) -- please do not abet such behavior. That you find it helpful only means that you can search u-tube videos on your own. You can even become a groupie of their authors. This site is not intended to be a card catalog for u-tube adventurism regardless the seeming utility to life-on-the-street perspectives. Scholarship takes these as granted and examines their content using different tools and techniques. The Type I approach is thus at some risk of turning an entire discussion into a variation of the u-tube thematic. Not good.

Not that u-tube is necessarily out of order entirely, but that it requires perspective. Example: I will be presenting a T.E.D. presentation on original research that will compel a revised look at methods for studying cosmology. It will, because ultimately appearing on u-tube, constitute reasonable material suitable for a RG theme at some point. It will not be relevant if, however interesting, it is independent of an in-depth discussion of theory or cause-effect relations.

I rest my case. Also, I will not be addressing further comments from Ravi until she learns some manners, cuts down the supercilious barbs and exaggerations upon reasonable admonitions. Ravi has a lot to offer, but not in the format she has elected, and not with the ebuliously condescending and self-serving quarrelsomely manneristic "I am never at fault" humor. Good luck convincing anyone of your scholarly pretensions with idiocy like that. Last time I had to dismiss myself from a participation was because of a dude at RG who likewise had to self-deprecate with "In my humble opinion" while quoting Aristotle for every answer to every question in God's creation, and none to humbly at that...Nonsense like that gets old really fast for anyone with real intelligence, and even faster for anyone with a predilection for scholarship.

I am an atheist. I have NO EARTHLY idea why people feel so stubbornly about such public displays of religiosity. For what answers SEEM rational, I cannot understand why they would work as hoped. My position on public prayer is based on a philosophical analysis only, not on any personal feelings I have one way or another. Over all, it obviously doesn't do noticeable harm, the vast majority are in favor, and only a tiny minority of atheists get stupidly bent out of shape. In a free country, those particulars weigh far more heavily that my opinion, or any other single opinion, humble or otherwise. And a legal system that doesn't abide such basic principles risks becoming an embarrassment.

In short, personal opinion not scientifically/scholarly applied are of no account here and are in fact off base and frankly unhelpful for redirecting the discussion away from the basics. Now if that makes me seem a boor, just try offering actual evidence and see how I react. I am going to win this point regardless because I keep the basics carefully and securely on my side of the highway. That's why I am a very successful philosopher. Basics ARE important, NOT opinions.

Can religion alter mental processes? Absolutely, for those inclined or otherwise disposed to be so influenced. I was asked to comment on psychopathology on a radio program after being asked what I thought of a bipolar who lost most of her worst symptoms after a sudden conversion. Question posed to me: Did I think this possible without medications? My answer. If not exactly a common observation, there is no reason not to support the reality, but under great stress one can also expect the protective influence of religion to suddenly and seriously fade.

Apologies for the gender flop. I actually went to your bio page for the very reason that I wasn't sure (and I am pathologically dyslexic). What led me to assume "she" I know not. Don't make quite so much of it as all that, dude. All that does is offer me more ammo to ignore you like the plague. Gloating over something like that to a diehard liberal is only added evidence to the litany I offered above.

Further, it appears that you consider manners as if a legal matter. They aren't, at least in democracies. Feeling on top of the world for your freedom is a quaint and quite lovely thing for us to hear. Acting like a rube is not quite so quaint or lovely.

If Gwen was right that you should downplay the links, you evidently have a short memory. I will guess she hasn't changed her opinion with the wind of a gapbag, and I happen to agree with her opinion. Further, you suddenly respond to my post with a plea to return to the theme, which I did (against my better judgement for the very reason that what followed was entirely expected, been there done that with a fellow named Bello).

And Bello, while you are on the mind, does the antic of this guy (not gal) make him a celebrity for your imagination? Or do you question his judgment and maturity as I do? Does it not seem that when an honest post is followed by more attacks (which surely should have happened much much earlier, for my mistake was forever) that he is not here for the right reasons? I am VERY interested in your opinion. If you don't want to actually comment, you can vote this response up.

Right. Deciding against my own opinion in favor of a philosophical position is 'emotional'. That position is as emotional as requiring a legal harm be done before assuming that a law has been violated. Many instances that Gwen would cite fall into that purportedly illegal (because purportedly unconstitutional) category; prayer in public places, which was always my focus, is not one of them (though a cadre of lawyers anxious to make a mark might suppose that their credentials defeat reason, experience, tradition and plain logic).

Stop assuming that I refer to other elements. You are being quarrelsome for the sake of your manic wizardry, which is not only unimpressive (though you might convince others that because I can be harsh, that this is a 'he said she said' matter - it is not) but also intrusive, impudent and imprudent. You have all the sizzle to superficially impress and the smarts to actually convince, were it not for this over-the-top behavior.

And making yourself look adequate by saying all the right things, oh the Founding Fathers could compromise and why oh why can't bad bad Charles do likewise. ..

Jefferson discovered what the animosity and ultimate agreement out of the Constitutional Convention amounted to. He was reduced to making the elections of 1800 and 1804 a referendum on democracy as against aristocracy (the favored posture of the Federalists). When Lincoln freed the slaves he was reduced to relying on the Declaration and preamble, and not on some magical heaven-sent compromise -- yeah, the compromise that gave southerners slave-holding rights. Duh. Lincoln called for us to grow up to the stature of the Declaration. Smart guy. He also read the Bible EVERT day (Jefferson wrote a book worth of sayings and commentary on Jesus). Were this what religion always brought I would deem myself a religionist despite my atheism.

The compromise of which you speak was deemed necessary to secure ratification, just as allowing Jefferson's Declaration was likewise. Not everyone there was so sanguine over democratic principles except as they themselves stood to benefit. And the Supreme Court, almost from the start, held that the Declaration and preamble would not be fit "sources".

Intelligent people, such as philosophers like Mortimer Adler (We Hold These Truths) demand that the High Court officially recognize the three documents together as the official Constitution. As long as lawyers think they know best because of being in part mis-educated in law school, we are going to have a hard time giving rights to all who deserve them. That's the voice of a liberal, btw.

So this matter of compromise that is so easy a word to throw out, especially when you are abysmally ignorant, requires some recalibrating based on circumstances. Likewise your assumption that I am unable or unwilling to compromise requires the same.

Frankly, this is stressful and depressing. I do not suffer fools gladly. Impress someone else, I'm outta here.

I was interested to see that Charles Herman's long reply 23 days ago supported and developed my initial reply on this thread. Thanks Charles!

And what sort of post is that, Ravi Ananth? You rant at length but beg the question of what "secularism" is supposed to be and whether one can be "principled" about it (and what relevance it has for the issue).

Ravi,

First you bombard my questions with irrelevant YouTube videos. Now you are insulting the very scholars that I am seeking to attract to my questions. Please immediately discontinue these assaults on Charles and Chris who are my friends and scholars whom I highly respect. I consistently invite Charles (not "Chuckie") to post responses to questions I have posed because I admire his intellect and ability to cut to the chase on any variety of subjects. And as for Chris, a highly respected scholar and intellect, I am always honored when I can pose a question that he will take time out from his demanding post to respond to.

Ravi, have you not read anything on my RG site other than the questions I invited you to comment on? (As previously called to your attention, my questions are generally posed with respect to an article or paper I am seeking input on; so you should at least have the courtesy to read the underlying article before you start posting comments -- this is NEITHER FACEBOOK NOR TWITTER.)

Ravi, I am just outraged by the comments you addressed to Chris and would like for you to apologize to Chris IN A PUBLIC POST TO THIS QUESTION before making another post on any of my questions. It could be that Chris's skin is not "as thick" as Charles' (for whom your comments are just like water running off a duck's back) and thus Chris (rather than you) will abandon my questions, which for me would represent a tragedy. Please note, Ravi, that I have posted the Chris Jeynes Review of my doctoral dissertation on my RG site (and, as expected, it is being downloaded at the same rate as my dissertation). In short, Chris is a highly respected scholar from whom you could learn a lot as soon as you discontinue your practice of one-way conversations in which you just spout out irrelevancies in an attempt at one-upmanship that has no place on a site like this.

In summary, Ravi; if your next post is not an apology to Chris, that post should NOT OCCUR. Leave us in peace and go torture some other scholar by answering his/her RG questions.

Sincerely,

Gwen

Just a tempest in a tea pot. Now you folks can "Pray" in peace again. My apologies to Charles & Chris. And Louis. Please continue embellishing Gwen's theme.:-)

Just to note, I am a bit embarrassed by the warmth of Gwen's comments. I am sure that my review is being downloaded only because it is relatively brief ... (and I wasn't actually aware of being insulted ... anyway, don't worry, I have a pretty thick skin too!)

Oh, and Gwen, is your Question answered? Charles seems to have made a lot of effort being properly scholarly. But the discussion seems to have got sidetracked and I can't see where it has got to.

Hi Chris,

Thank you for asking about the status of this question. All of the responses have given me new insight into why a strictly legalistic approach – i.e., arguing this strictly from the standpoint of the “religious liberty” provided for under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – is futile. Nevertheless, because the question I posed regarding “religion in the public square” was motivated by oral arguments made last month before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway (“GALLOWAY”), I had subconsciously hoped that the legal basis for strict separation of church and state would be crystallized and thus support a purely legalistic approach to the requirements of “secularism”.

The fact that a Jew and an Atheist filed suit in GALLOWAY (in my opinion) serves to highlight the legal basis for the First Amendment protections. Namely, where a division of the state (here, the Town of Greece) condones a religious worldview, it disadvantages citizens who either (a) do not share that particular religious worldview – the Jew; or (b) completely lack a religious worldview—the Atheist. Yet, even the questions posed by the two Supreme Court Justices quoted in the explanatory part of my question indicated that the GALLOWAY case is not just about the law; it is about the kind of society in which we wish to live. Whereas, Justice Kagan answers this question from the standpoint of the marginalized; Justice Scalia answers the question from the standpoint of the Christian majority in the U.S. population. Interestingly enough, Charles (a respected mentor) seems to side with Scalia’s take on the type of society in which Americans wish to live:

“The actual issue brought forth here is a legislative body. Because legislative officers represent the traditions of society as well as their constituents, they are at liberty to decide amongst themselves, preferably by an 80% majority, to offer non-denominational transitive speech invocations with the intended spiritual boon to the resulting deliberations. If the electorate is unhappy with that they can make it known, as is their right” (Charles’ first response to question).

The foregoing toleration for “the tyranny of the majority” (my view) is consistent with Charles’ view on a related question I have on RG; i.e., whether “transplanted Islam, coerced or not, should be expected to change in the western socio-cultural environment.” Charles feels it should; and consistent with my legalistic interpretation of “religious liberty,” I feel it shouldn’t. (Here, strangely enough, Bello –a self-professed “Conservative Muslim” sides with Charles.)

So, Chris, my question has been answered but not at all to my liking. For one thing, there was the annoyance of several responders complicating the issue by posing the question of “What is meant by secularism?” NOT FAIR and certainly not productive since many suggested (you included) that secularism itself is a religion. Suffice it to say, to honestly deal with my question about religion in the public square, one has to accept that SECULARISM IS AN ABSENCE OF RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE. DUH!

For another, I have been frustrated by the seeming inability of responders to this question to treat it as an isolated question separate and apart from my RG question, “Is strict separation of church and state preferable in today’s multicultural and religiously diverse societies?” This blending of the questions by responders has made it difficult for me to discern to what extent responders are actually grappling with the fact of a denial of First Amendment protections to minorities – a legal issue – and deciding that this is OK as long as there is a political process in place under which all have the franchise (Charles makes this point more succinctly than others in his first response to the question so I know he has considered the issue of minority rights). Of course, thinking that the right to vote for representatives of one’s choice makes everything all right is pure nonsense:

“For stigmatized groups permanently banished to the rim of society, political activism is unlikely to be effective. They lack the political and social clout to harm the dominant forces in society. Their numbers are too small to vote anyone out of office and their stigmatized status makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to form coalitions with larger groups. As to them, the political process is defective in terms of enabling them to strike a fair bargain.” (Gwen in “Individual Liberties, Vulnerable Minorities, and Constitutional Minorities,” p. 17, available on RG.)

So, Chris, I am still awaiting responses to my question that directly engage the issue of minority rights in the context of religion in the public square, as the U.S. Supreme Court is being forced to do in the GALLOWAY case.

Gwen

A very helpful overview, Gwen. Maybe this should be a part of every question...

"For stigmatized groups permanently banished...." Total agree. My point throughout, however, is specifically legal in that the law (juridical, not statute) must, barring extreme circumstances, interfere only a) in response to a wrong (either in equity- in response to injury to a protectable interest - or at law, via 'concrete injury in fact'; and I hold that Constitutional actions are in the equitable category), or b) in response to a special or overpowering need, established as justifiable through equity, as Brown, for example (interfering with statutory prerogative), whether or not covered by the 'general welfare' clause, whether or not covered by accepted interpretations of the amendments). Apart from the expected disagreements over the schema just offered...

The legal basis for interference boils down to a definition of 'marginialization' (not all instances call for remedy, nor as presenting overpowering need) and the definition of 'stigma', which again, of itself, qualifies in neither instance. I am stigmatized as mentally ill, but don't expect me to argue the case before a court. There is just no legal basis despite the obvious possible 'injury' that I may suffer. Admiddedly this is not how Justice Kagan would see it, but I am totally confounded at her attempt to create a legal cause from whole cloth, as her statement seemed to me to do.

Marginalization must be raised to the level of a recognized injury at equity or at law. Traditionally (it has been changing here and there) neither stigma nor marginalization have qualified as 'concrete injuries in fact' except by the old English expedient of the legal fiction or as grist Constitutional challenges. They needn't have relied on the fiction, since equity quite easily handles all such, as for example, a woman's right to be safe from a marauding husband (the fact of risk constitutes violation of a protected interest at equity). You are excused at equity from suffering the concrete injury - a nice and effective way of distinguishing the two. It fogs me that so many jurists (to say nothing of lawyers) act as if this distinction did not exist or, if existing, made no sense.

Marginalization, as of gays, for example, came to Constitutional level not because anybody started out viewing it that way but because the public gradually (and statute law, then state Constitutional law) saw this as a discrimination such as violated a protectable interest, as in civil equality, marriage, etc. To this day I have yet to read a legal opinion admitting that this discrimination came to juridical focus as a result of the public creating the requisite interest at equity which was then translated into amendment terms. And given that much of this progress was hingent on the scientific evidence that gays are born such, it could be seen as a fulcrum for adverse reliance, whence opportunism, whence raising the equitable interest(s). Apologize if I am torturous here. Don't normally have to explicate all this.

So now we come to the issue raised by the question. I simply cannot fathom how or why public benedictions appropriately muffled, constitute marginalization or stigmatization. Just don't see it, for all the reasons I first brought up. If I feel stigmatized as mentally ill, it will be because the law allows dangerous bipolars to freely roam untreated and with guns, thus allowing the public to still further stigmatize me. And even still I don;t bring suit for marginalization or stigma, but on strictly legal terms to remedy the problem. Public benedictions are not only not intended to marginalize, they are fashioned so that off-brands and no-brands can pray to their own god concurrently (part of the assumption to begin with) or observe a moment of silence or thanksgiving in the case of the no-brands. How any of this can constitute marginalization rather distorts the meaning of several common words and concepts, at least as I can make sense of them.

While I respect the angst of those who want to have a 'clean cut' or 'clean slate' of religious principle, I fail to see that the Constitution, or the church-state separation, or principles of secularism can be taken to extremities as if other legal considerations did not exist, as I clearly believe they do exist. These include meeting traditional requirements for juridical procedures, or 'standing'.

Take another example: marginalized immigrants. The strict application of law does them worse than no justice (with some few exceptions from the Supreme Court t hat also inflamed the public). Statute law is no kinder for the most part. Public marginalization and stigmatizing has been less obnoxious, but hardly inspiring. What to do? How to take a legal action on behalf of the undocumented souls? Again the rational answer is at equity, and this comes from simple facts on the ground.

We basically told immigrants they would be welcomed if only they could get here, and it mattered not how. We thus created adverse reliance that, but for our willing participation, would not have existed. Immigrants naturally felt it worth the costs to arrive in the land of milk and honey. And while there the businesses frequently maltreated them. By failing to intelligently monitor borders, coupled with tacit allowance of a situation that quickly enough became a fait accompli, we effectively created a violation of immigrant rights to expect proper treatment where their actions were tolerated over time. The proper response at law (should have been legislated, of course) is total amnesty. As this is not possible legislatively it is grist for an equitable decision by the High Court -- which won't happen.

Now it seems absurd to me that we should all but consider those required to pray to themselves under different religious assumptions from what a benediction provides in roughly the same 'legal' category as undocumented immigrants. In either case (as also with gays) the issue is raising a putative harm to a valid violation of protectable interest at equity. Good luck convincing me that the prayer issue belongs in the actual class of legally marginalized. Might as well go to court for stealing bubble gum. It's almost, in principle as bad as that. No sufficient standing for presenting no recognized harm or injury worthy of standing, constitutional or otherwise. In short, law is not clear and clean cut, but criss-crosses. That is a reality that the law avoids to its peril. Clean cut absolutes corrupt just as surely as does power itself. A law preventing public prayer would place quite a chill on things and I can't but believe that the public would treat this pretty much as a modern example of Prohibition.

Finally, I also do not agree that secularism is a knife-edge sharp concept. Traditionally it has been considered in light of the church-state separation, But as the latter is not absolutistic neither is what depends thereon. As I earlier mentioned, the career of this word was actually clerical(!) in the beginning. In time is was associated with avoiding official sanction of specific religious worship. Today's rendition doesn't vary that much from recent tradition. There are examples of 'secular' governments (Sadam Hussein's prior government), Turkey, etc, where I would faint on being told there was no allowance of public benedictions or related calls to prayer (one powerful reason for Bello to take my side).

To define secularism to protect an absolute religious principle would not appear wise. In short, here as in most spheres in which philosophy concerns itself, concepts are fuzzy, not exacting. As a general rule, exacting large-scale principles does more harm than good despite a well-meaning conscience. Thus the faith-based stuff undertaken by governments violates most everything I can believe in. Public prayer doesn't rise to that level, not by a long shot.

As much as I am mortified to be on the side of Scalia, I will guess he has ulterior motives I do not possess. And thank you again, Gwen for a great question. I hope we continue to discuss it here and there. I would love to encounter arguments that will compel me to rethink my stance. And I apologize for other than pristine explanations, but hope the basic ideas got through.

Great! Now one can breath and smoothly too. And then take notes some!

"So, Chris, my question has been answered but not at all to my liking."

Gwen

I am at a loss. The fact (or is it) that the question has not been answered to your (Gwen's) liking does not really mean it has not been answered. It would appear that you (Gwen) may have to 'rethink' your hypothesis/formulation given that you actually expected a particular outcome. But, I am relieved that I have something to learn here.

"Suffice it to say, to honestly deal with my question about religion in the public square, one has to accept that SECULARISM IS AN ABSENCE OF RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE. DUH!."

Gwen

My Prof., I do not have to accept that (?) 'is the absence of religion in the public sphere' to HONESTLY answer this question. I think I can contribute knowing as it were that I hold this or that view. It is left to further analysis to say what probably influenced my opinion.

"To define secularism to protect an absolute religious principle would not appear wise. In short, here as in most spheres in which philosophy concerns itself, concepts are fuzzy, not exacting."

CS Herrman

Yet somehow, definitions are necessary for an understanding of 'concepts', are they not.? My position coincides with that of CS Herrman probably because I am a conservative muslim indeed. The tenets of Islam allow me to do just that - not my personal opinion. I repeat, NOT my personal opinion but my understanding of the tenets of Islam. Point must be made to the fact that ARABISM and ISLAM do not really/actually mean the same thing. Islam (and this does not admit of Islamism as defined by Daniel Pipes et al) would not 'disallow' prayer at public gatherings.

Bello

You see, Gwen, I feel that your "legal" approach is something of a Procrustean bed. I know, I know, it's what are you supposed to do - you're a lawyer! But I am impressed by Solomon, whose archetypically "wise" judgement did not involve legal codes at all (two women, one baby and a sword - story in 1Kings 3:16ff). And note that the Supreme Court is in a position to look at the intentions of laws as well as their precise wording.

You offer a "definition" of "Secularism" as being "the absence of religion in the public square". I cannot accept this, and the framers of the First Amendment for sure would not have accepted this either! A religion expresses a worldview (and that is why I treat "secularism" and "atheism" as religions!). It is true that in many contexts a much more restrictive view of "religion" is helpful, but you framed your Question in the broadest terms! The public square is necessarily a reflection of the religions of the citizens. It is neither possible nor desirable to exclude religion from it. How will value be established in the public sphere if the deepest convictions of the citizens are excluded from it?

I now notice that your other correspondents seem to be in broad agreement with me. It seems to me that your RG colleagues are inviting you to revise your categories?

"Yet somehow, definitions are necessary for an understanding of 'concepts', are they not.?" -- Bello

For those in a mood to take notes: As a metaphysician not only am I interested in definitions, but in the analytics modalities by which that process is achieved. So also was Charles Sander Peirce, the greatest metaphysician of the nineteenth century, whose definitions, hundreds of them, wound up in the at-the-time cat's meow of popular dictionaries, the Columbia (if I mistake not with due regard to dyslexia).

Yet even this great man had problems with the analytical side, for his own methodology; his purist sense of his Thirdness required that there never be a perfect, clean-cut definition of a word if only because there were always chances the word would be altered; but from a rescue challenge forced upon him he had to acknowledge Thirdness as a collaborative answer to the purist, such that by consensus a workable definition could be extracted and relied upon.

Altogether a shaky methodological proposition!! But it does go to my point that clear-cut concept/principles are by-and-large bad moves even while we recognize just as clearly that perfectly clear definitions of common WORDS are available. I might note that my own system independently arrived at does not have this internal flaw, whence definitions, local or grand, are no problem.

Clear definitions, as in the Cartesian "clear and distinct" are available for all notions save those whose foundations are so unclear as to force alternative solutions. If anyone is interested I can work up a crystal clear definition of marginalized, stigmatized, secular, religion (pretty much already done in my When is Faith a Religion?"). But should I be not charging for these services? No academy is paying me for the contributions I have already demonstrated to be valid and useful...

Hi Chris, Charles, and Bello,

No, No, No!

1. Charles, The plaintiffs in GALLOWAY have standing because their First Amendment Rights have been affected. "Standing" is a legal concept and the Atheist and the Jew would not have made it to the Supreme Court if they did not have Standing to file suit. Of course the Court's decision is not expected until next year so we will not know until then whether it is decided on the basis of interpreting the law or kowtowing to prevailing societal norms; however, I am fairly certain that the case won't be thrown out of court on the basis of a lack of standing by the plaintiffs to bring the action.

2. Chris, it is too bad that I used a shorthand phrase "absence of religion from the public square" in place of the more specific "church/state separation" which is my point -- a point repeatedly made in all of my work. The reason it is too bad is because it allowed you to cloud the issue. Let me state it again; as a Black American, a descendant, of slaves, I do not want to silence the voice of religion IN the public square. (Of course, the Civil Rights Movement was all about raising a religious voice in the public square and the peaceful protests were based upon moral principles rooted in theological teachings.) This question is not about what goes on IN the public square; it is about action taken by a supposedly impartial tribunal BEFORE the debate in the public square begins -- at the point that the Hindu appears before the Zoning Board seeking a variance to build a Hindu Temple in a residential neighborhood and where the Zoning Board opens the meeting with a Christian prayer. There is no doubt that such "Christian grandstanding" is coercive in nature. Therefore, I stand by my position that what should be done is that town meetings (like courtroom sessions) should be called to order by a simple statement (equivalent to "the court is now in session") which for the Town of Greece in the GALLOWAY case translates to, "This meeting is now called to order." (Incidentally, this also serves the purpose of making what happens subsequently accessible under the Open Meetings Law.) Anything beyond calling a public meeting to order without religious fanfare amounts to "just showing off" by the least religious element of American society; namely, our politicians. And, if I hadn't chased Ravi away, I am sure he could have supplied you with politician jokes that match his lawyer jokes in terms of maligning a profession.

3. Bello, please spare me your "lessons"; I really resent your implying that I want my questions answered a certain way. What I want is to have all of the issues raised by my questions addressed. As a lawyer -- a proponent for justice -- I cannot be satisfied with answers that totally disregard the interests of some stakeholders in the debate. This is done when minorities are told that simply because they are outnumbered, their interests and viewpoints are to be disregarded. And, frankly Bello, you as an attorney should feel the same way. Moreover, it is insulting and extremely irritating that you continue to "play with words" to make ridiculous points in answer to my questions.

I can feel my blood pressure rising so I will stop and take my blood pressure medicine now before I have a stroke.

As usual, thank you all for your input.

Gwen

Ok. Thanks. As the Court pleases!

"at the point that the Hindu appears before the Zoning Board seeking a variance to build a Hindu Temple in a residential neighborhood and where the Zoning Board opens the meeting with a Christian prayer. There is no doubt that such "Christian grandstanding" is coercive in nature." - Gwen

As my good buddy Scalia pointed out, the legitimacy of such benedictions presupposes avoiding precisely what came to be of issue. But you are asking to terminate the baby with the bath water. That is Scalia's complaint and it is mine as well.

Let me start with 'standing', which has a jural and juridical component (admittedly this is more theoretical than accepted in practice, so here you will win the actual argument). When the court refuses to hear from the relative of a killed railroad worker of times past, the widow was not allowed standing because only the injured could represent the injured. That appears clearly juridical, but relied entirely on a jural foundation that was later addressed, and guess what, standing was now allowed to relatives but because the jural standing was re-adressed intelligently.

So again I come back to the necessity of defining a legitimate legal cause of action, and jural standing has to be considered for a correct appraisal. Again, it is hard to see what that amounts to here. I can sort of understand how it is a 'bad faith' start to what should be a secular approach even to a religious issue, for what is secular must obey all laws. In contract law, bad faith can take innumerable forms and degrees for being essentially a matter at equity, driven by circumstance and detail as much as by principle.

To find a constitutional warrant requires more than a cute or smart lawyer begging the indulgence of the court that someone's bubble gum was stolen, which is damn near what this amounts to. But supposing that we take a more generous view (which I am not opposed to), we would tender a requirement on the nature of the bad faith transgression and ensure that further cases of the sort receive standing and that the city or civic body allowing the poor judgment be fined or punished. But forcing purist notions of religion is not the answer. To the extent that the original law presumed a proper good faith attempt to be ecumenical, and provided that be allowed as a basis for standing (I won't much argue that though I am hardly certain I agree with it).

Fact is, when something like this happens, either someone wasn't thinking clearly (it really would have been better, though not perfect, to have a Hindu offer the benediction, where an effort towards ecumencalism could actually make friends) -- or the off-putting benediction reflects what the community/board was going to do regardless the bad faith benediction. Ergo, in the overall context, I repeat: there is pitifully little to go on here in regard of (jural) standing.

The far better suit is the obvious one of a board rejecting a reasonable request for a temple. If there was no reason to maintain zoning against the temple, the case has automatic standing on clear constitutional grounds and has, as such, little or nothing to do with the equally clear bad faith benediction -- which would itself have become viable evidence in the proper suit. I can't recall if a call for a mosque at or near the towers was allowed or not, but had it not have been, I would have counseled a suit on the same basis. And god only knows what the Court would have said, given the horrific lack on common grounding in the basics, regurgitated in nine different which-ways.

My question would be why the suit wasn't brought on the basis of dis-allowance of protected rights to freely worship one's religion, which perforce suggests structural elements like temples. Something is, legally speaking, fishy to say nothing of ridiculous in all of this process. It started with a typically and stupidly skewed notion of standing and ended in the wrong cause, and all for the wrong reasons and objectives. In other words, a Supreme Court travesty of embarrassing proportions.

And now consider the result of your purist view, or Kagan's view. What happens after a mass killing when someone decides on a few moments of silence (read prayer)? There is, in principle, very little difference between this and a board speaking on behalf of those attending. It is a public official calling for the silence in most cases. Something so innocent is now trapped in your purist vision. Think twice and thrice of forcing blanket solutions. They rarely do justice to the best of intentions. IF the case at hand was brought on a cause of bad faith made into a mountain rather than the actual issue of denying religious practice, I fear what will next come from this Court.

This case illustrates why I have serious problems with our legal system, as well as with the training lawyers fail to get in the legal basics.

All of this reminds me what little I have in common with Scalia. He is a minimalist and wants things relatively simple and straightforward. Philosophy counsels the same. Even his 'originalism' is predicated on the same ideal, and here again it has some truth if not taken to extremes, which for political causes he often does, and so loses whatever credibility his lean and trim principles might have provided.

The present case presents to me the morass of intermingling of ideals and principles and legal tradition that happens when nine smart people get together in order to muddle what could have been reasonably clear. And I will bet my sweet bippies that 80% of Americans and lots of folks around the world agree with this estimation.

Thank you for that interesting romp, Jose. You mention societies (honor-based) where failure to attend religious services could result in marginalisation. You are so correct, and we had that happen here in our colonial period and beyond. What struck me, though, as I was reading your post, was that the 'open prayer' (where one person offers an ecumenical benediction for all) actually resolves the problem of paying a price for inattendence, for here you can be present without participating in the slightest. Far from being a slight, it offers an escape. The problem is just that some folks see this through different lenses and treat it as an affront. An affront to precisely what? I am a devoted atheist and I have no earthly problem with any of this. So attitude and faith, however defined, do assuredly count for much, so again, thank you for all of that, Jose.

Don't get too het up, Gwen. After all, we are not trying to solve legal problems, we are mulling over questions of principle related to what is proper in the public sphere. I rather liked Charles Herrman's intervention, even though his legal niceties go largely over my head! I suspect that he has said (probably better) what I would have said.

You said: " ... the Hindu appears before the Zoning Board seeking a variance to build a Hindu Temple in a residential neighborhood and where the Zoning Board opens the meeting with a Christian prayer. There is no doubt that such "Christian grandstanding" is coercive in nature. "

You also reiterate that you are interested in "church/state separation".

I am sorry that you feel we don't address your question, but we can only address what you say, not being mind readers. You haven't addressed my point about "secularism" being ill-defined, and therefore a poor tool in this context. You also haven't addressed my point that, since "value" must permeate the public sphere, and since "religion" properly is to do with the expression of ultimate value, the issue of "church/state separation" is more practical than principled. You cannot exclude value from political judgements, and consequently "church/state separation" is not a trivial problem. Certainly I do not want theocrats running our affairs - at a practical level I am sure we entirely agree! - but precisely how you draw the lines is not at all obvious to me. I think that Charles has the right approach to this. Where is the good faith, and where the bad? The question is not some synthetic "principle" (which after all turns out to be remarkably plastic) but what is right and proper.

I was arrested recently for peaceful picketting in a trade union action, and my lawyer told me not to say that "I was going about my lawful business" but that "I was doing what I considered to be right and reasonable". (But the way, the police seemed to change their mind about who was right, since they released me without charge.) The point is that the legal argument in the end is decided by the argument for what is right. Value is central.

I am hoping that what Chris is getting at is that the law was intended to be reasonable and decent (back when equity meant something and positive law wasn't the fastidiously crazed fad it now is). The King's mercy and all that rot...

The legal rationale for the reasonable and decent locution was just as basic, just as simple, and just as disagreeable to the ears of modern lawyers, namely, that law was never to reflect other than what society and legal myth/tradition deemed right and proper, to give it the English spin, since they were the first in our own tradition to state the reality (but which they, like us, eventually relinquished to the greed of unregulated cupidity).

In short, law's purpose is to reflect and express JURAL norms as society and its tradition define them, NOT how superficial and ignorant students of 'law-as-scripture' as lieralistic legalists find it convenient in pursuit of the pleasure of their masters. To put it differently, real law requires judgment, not a recipe book approach. American law is worse than the recipe book, for this book is written by business' influence on legislation and the courts. And that is one reason why principle and common sense suddenly travel different paths. It isn't that we aren't all good liberals, but that loose norms of language and loose professional doctrines have not done their jobs at all well.

I would dearly love to have an opportunity to deliver Gifford lectures on this topic and to so shame the profession as to wake it from a comatose slumber into or rather back to, its earlier stewardship fundamentals, back when Selden's lapidary "ignorance of the law is no excuse" referred to offices and their stewardship, concerning which over 80 percent of the law is devoted to protecting. Minor details - anathema to folks with crude and/or cruel agendas.

I do want to wish Merry X-mas to my Christian friends and equivalent sentiments for all other faiths frequenting our discussions.

Peace and good will in the worldl!

Hello Chris and Charles,

I am tied up giving final exams, grading term papers, etc. all week so do not have time to post (or read your posts with the attention they certainly deserve). Then, at the end of the week I leave for my annual Xmas vacation and will have only periodic access to internet. So, please carry on the discussion without me. I'll catch up when I return from vacation the second week in January and then put in my two cents.

Happy Holidays to you both,

Gwen

Yes, Happy Holidays to you all!

'Bashful' Bello

Hi Charles: exactly so. Recall my little piece on Solomon, the women, the live and dead babies and the sword as an archetypal example of "judgement" (not "law", which anyway meant something much wider then, see Psalm 119).

You also mention "superficial and ignorant students of 'law-as-scripture' as literalistic legalists find it convenient". Any theological students of mine who wanted to take a literalistic 'law-as-scripture' line would attract my ire also! (Not that I have theological students, being a physicist! Gwen is the closest I get!) Judgement and Justice are a continuously recurring theme in both the Hebrew and the Greek scriptures. Look at my book on Psalms (you can download this from RG) where I go into details

"X-mas", by the way is eruditely Christian, not suitable for atheists. The "X" stands for "χριστος". You talk like a Christian! Happy X-mas!

Chris,

I quickly browsed your text on the Psalm. I will have to get more into it but it parallel with my own romantic views. I recently came accross an interesting theologian:

Wolfhart Pannenberg.

An interesting question and quite a lot of views, Gwen. Though much has been said, may I share my thoughts?

Let us leave religion out of the discussion on secularism, for the time being. Let us substitute 'religion' with 'belief', 'faith' or even 'principle'. And for an example, let us take the Olympic games opening ceremony. Picture this: The contingents are lined up and as is customary, the national anthem of the host country is played.

Scene 1: Other than the host country contingent, other contingents get busy talking among themselves, exchanging greetings with other teams, stomp and yawn for the anthem to be over. After all, it is not their national anthem. Who cares, what they mean by all their noise and crackle?

Scene 2: All contingents stand respectfully, bow their heads perhaps or even place their hands on their heart. They may not understand a word of what is sung. But it is somebody's national anthem and we believe that irrespective of their size and shape, every nation is entitled the respect for its sovereignty.

The example that I have tried to give is not from judicial parlance. But the underlying principle is what we call as 'secularism'. Secularism is not about 'our' religious belief alone. It is about respect for each others belief in every walk of our life. Tolerance and respect for others belief is the bottom line of secularism. If I were to walk into my child's school run by Missionaries when the morning Prayer is on, it does not matter whether I am a christian, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Muslim or Jew. Common decency demands that I stand respectfully till the prayers are over and then get to my business for going there. Nor should I feel infringed if I was asked to follow certain norms at the school as is customary in Missionary schools. If I feel that they are infringing on my religious belief by expecting me to stand during their prayer, then I must take my child out of that school and go where my way of looking at things will be honored.

When we want to be part of the society, we must concede as much space to others as we want for ourselves. Secularism is that foundation which helps to bind diversities into unity.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate. Have a great day.

What can I say. Admirable in every way. Please participate more! And your lack of legalese is not held against you here. In fact, your simple grace carries more understanding of the actual law than what law schools teach in common law countries, where the precedent marshaled by each side is taken as a black and white proposition under the peculiar notion that justice is mid-line gray. That is what I call 'dirty justice' or better still, 'muddy justice'. This black-white curiosity also frames our understanding of peremptory principles and rights. I have rarely, working in six fields, every come upon a logic so clear-cut and tidy as the distinction of day and night. Nor do I expect to find any.

The law was intended to reflect common sense and decency. These require only the cultural considerations and the rules governing civility. It is essentially why ignorance of the law is no excuse (when clever lawyers cite John Selden they have rarely bothered to study him). But that logic is nowhere to be found in any American law school. That logic is left to folks such as you, my good fellow. You do John Selden proud.

Srinivasan,

What do you think about the French conception of secularism ?

Dear Louis,

Your are going to making me read before I attempt to say anything about 'French Conception of Secularism' and thank you for that.

At this juncture all I can say is that the three conceptual cornerstones of democracy viz., liberty, fraternity and equality, were born on French soil. Tolerance, secularism, minority rights, gender equality, human rights, et al, are merely further expansions of the conceptual domain of each of these three principles. None of these could mean one in French conception and something else in other societies. I do not think there is any dualism in our belief on the matter. If that were so, Secularism must mean the same what it means everywhere else in the world.

Thanks again for putting me onto to a thought process. Merry Christmas!!

Dear Louis,

I managed some reading on 'French Conception of Secularism' or shall we say, Laicism?

I suppose your question is not about the concept per se but about the concept as a State practice. Either way, let me share my thoughts with you.

First, Secular governance normally denotes a passive role played by a State thus providing space to religious symbols in public domain. Laicism does not allow public visibility thus confining religion to the private domain.

Second, Secular practices therefore do not distinguish between majority or minority religions (in terms of population) and permit all religious groups to practice their faith in open, form associations, promote religious activities (to the extent that these activities do not infringe on shall we say, internal security, law & order, etc?), manage religious institutions, religious schools and endowments, form political parties on religious lines, etc. Laicism would not give space to these activities as a State. The banning of scarves in France perhaps became the most debated issues vis a vis Laicism in recent times.

In India, we have a Secular Constitution. In fact the Preamble to the Constitution reads:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

All those 'spaces' in public domain are permitted to religious groups in India, which I feel has helped people preserve their unique cultures and practices, yet remaining the part of the composite whole. This is not to say that Laicism is not a good concept. In fact, Mahatma Gandhi, the founding father of this nation said:

“If I were a dictator, religion and state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody's personal concern!”

He sounds "laicist', doesn't he? But that is not what he meant. He meant SECULARISM and advocated for impartiality in dealing with religions as a State, while permitting the people to practice their religion the way they felt about it. Perhaps the Jacobins also meant the same. Therefore, as a concept I do not see any difference between SECULARISM and LAICISM.

As a state practice, officially permitting all religions their symbols in the public domain like India, or relegating religious symbols to strictly private domain will always remain under debate. After all, we need something to differ about also!

Thank you for helping me to indulge!

Have a great day!

Dear Louis,

On further reflection, I would like to submit a 'postscript' to my comment above.

Since my understanding of political science is less than rudimentary, I would like to take a leaf out of Hindu Philosophy to explain.

The first prescription to a seeker of spiritual knowledge (aspirant) in Hindu Philosophy is to ask him to believe that the world around him is a myth. (The word in Sanskrit is 'Mythya', a surprising similarity!) By believing that the world around him is a myth (Sanskrit term is - Jagat mythya), he becomes detached from the world and attains what we may call equanimity. At that state, the aspirant knows that the happenings in the world around him are a reality but is not affected by them. He remains in other words neutral, neither happy nor sad; neither in love nor in hate. Thus unaffected, he is able to perform his 'karma' (duties) towards his family, society and country while remaining rooted in the secure knowledge of his true self. This is the final stage or destination in the journey of the aspirant. That is what we call as 'mukthi', 'nirvana' or 'bliss'.

Secularism is precisely what we can equate to the state of EQUANIMITY that the aspirant reaches. Religions may remain in the public domain (world) but the State remains unaffected by them. The State therefore concerns only with statecraft or well, governance. Religion though in public domain, does not colour the States function. Therefore, I remain with Secularism than Laicism.

Having thought over this, I must withdraw my earlier statement that I do not see any difference between SECULARISM and LAICISM. The difference is: in Secularism the State is neutral. In Laicism, the State takes a side. Everything else that I said, remains.

You have done me a great favour prompting me to read. Thank you.

Merry Christmas!