Normally, the separation of church and state is a basis of modern state and modern democracy. In France, you call this the "principe de la laïcité". However, to separate strictly between religion and state does not give the right to the state to intervene in religious affairs. And this, can lead to contradictions or, at least, conflictual situations between different "communities" living together in one state (there are many examples) ...

There is a very good and famous book of Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan about the historical development of political cleavages. One of these is the cleavage state vs. church, meaning that in the enlightenment period, the new liberal nation states were founded in contrast to the old empires which were legitimated by religion (with emperors of god's grace). That's the basis of laïcité and secularism. Political parties were built along this cleavage. Still, conservative parties do not have a strict separation of church and state on mind, while liberal and socialist parties prefer a strict separation. In reality, however, only a few countries live a strict separation, e. g. the US-president still has to swear on the bible...

Markus, thank you for this insightful comment. Your mention of the U.S. president swearing on the bible is certainly germane to the issue being discussed in this question string. Indeed, I might add that the U.S. Supreme Court opens its sessions with prayers (as does the NJ Supreme Court which alternates between Imams, Rabbis, Priests, Ministers, etc. as leaders of the opening prayer). Moreover, our nation celebrates a "National Day of Prayer" with a launching service held at Washington National Cathedral; our currency bears the motto, "In God We Trust"; and our school children regularly recite a pledge of allegiance that includes the phrase, "one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." And, most telling, Easter one of the holiest days on the Christian calendar along with Christmas have been held by our highest court to be "secular holidays." So, one could mount quite a case against the U.S. being a truly secular state; that is, if one were inclined to be vicious :>)

And, I am so vicious, so see "Not Christian, But Nonetheless Qualified" among my RG Contributions. "PUBLIC Religion" is legendary in the U.S. especially at sports events.

Gwen

Very interesting! In Austria, there are crucifix in the public classrooms and the Austrian state has a Konkordat (international contract of cooperation) with the Vatican.

Wow, Lluis, have you actually seen a credible written source (one that I can use in my "Global Management" course and even in my scholarship) that there is an ORGANIZED, FORMAL AND OVERT opposition to Turkey's entrance into the EU -- an opposition clearly based on non-economic grounds? It would be even better if you possess concrete evidence of an organized opposition based upon "European culture" being tantamount to "Christian culture" and thus unwelcoming to non-Christian European nations (in addition to excluding Turkey, this would seem to mean Sarajevo, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Albania could also be disqualified because of large Muslim populations).

I have been buying the bit about humanism and love for democracy being the dominant unifying forces in the newly integrated Europe - 'cause that's what it says in the European Convention on Human Rights, a document to which all COE member states are bound. Am I being naive? Please send me any citations you have to legitimate sources that would support a claim that there is a surreptitious agenda with respect to the qualifying criteria for EU admission of economically qualified candidate nations.

Thanks,

Gwen

Thank you so much, Lluis. I have my reading cut out for me and I will be especially on the look out for euphemisms such as “differences of values and life standards”.

Gwen

Gwen,

Turkey's restrictions on wearing overtly religious-oriented attire are rooted in the founding of the modern, secular Turkish state, when the republic's founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, introduced a series of clothing regulations designed to keep religious symbolism out of the civil service.

Recently the Turkish government has relaxed the band of the headscarf vovering the head and hair, but not the face for civil service jobs and government offices but not for the judiciairy and the military.

In my native province of Quebec, there is a public debate going on for one month now about adopting a charter of values ; the center of the debate is on the band of overtly religious-oriented attire for civil servants , nurses, educators and public daycares. The headscarf is monopolizing most of the debate. Presently the public is really divided on this question. Even the feminists are divided on the question: some thinks that religious freedom should prevail and some thinks that the headscarf is an intolerable symbol of the man domination of women.

I would like to get your opinion on this difficult question both in Turkey and in Quebec which are totally different contexts.

Hi Louis,

I first confronted this difficult issue while doing my field research in Sweden in 2001. My best friend there, Inger Kullgraf, a Swede who was deeply immersed in the Muslim academic community at Lund University (she was a sort of social secretary for the Islamic Scholars Association in terms of scheduling the lectures, special seminars, and even arranged our field trips across the bridge to Copenhagen for dinner meetings at the best Turkish restaurants). Suffice it to say, I was highly influenced by Inger's ideas on most subjects dealing with Muslims in the Diaspora. However, we differed greatly on whether overtly religious attire should be worn by females. I view it as a matter of religious liberty in that religious attire is a "religious practice" and shouldn't be tampered with under the guise of promoting secularism. I speak of this extensively in an article on RG, "Not Christian; But Nonetheless Qualified". Note that in that article I discuss the battle that Jews had in the U.S. getting permission to wear the Yarmulke while in uniform in the U.S. military. In this vein, I should mention that in Los Angeles (where I was born), Sikh policemen ARE allowed to wear their turbans underneath their police caps -- a very amusing sight for tourists visiting the City.

At any rate, my friend Inger felt strongly that the wearing of religious attire by Muslim women contributed to their oppression and "treatment as property". She could point to the "honor deaths" that had been occurring in Scandinavia. At the time, there was a highly publicized murder of a young Kurdish female who had appeared on Swedish TV to speak of her fear of reprisals because she refused to enter into an arranged marriage. See page 89 of my doctoral dissertation, LEGISLATIVE TERRORISM, where I fit this event into my Tripartite Theoretical Model, by discussing the tension between individual rights and group rights. Of course, I come out in each case in favor of individual rights, which is one of the criticisms that Chris Jeynes lodges in his RG review of my doctoral dissertation.

With respect to Turkey, I lump it together with France and Switzerland in that all seek to prioritize the right of the state to establish "official" policies over the right of the citizenry to enjoy religious liberty. (Yes, Louis, just like the U.S. Constitution can't shut me up about my opposition to ordinary citizens going around armed, the constitutions of these three countries can't stop me from being opposed to governmental trampling on religious liberty.) For members of the Council of Europe (COE) this stance is a violation of their commitment to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Indeed, Louis, I am just warming up to my diatribe about discarding the "Margin of Appreciation" accorded to the domestic laws of COE member states where those laws fly in the face of the Convention's Article 9 guarantee of religious liberty to all citizens of the newly integrated Europe. See the abstract on RG of a paper I presented earlier this year at a workshop at the University of Tartu (Estonia) entitled, "A European 14th Amendment: From 'Margin of Appreciation' to Equal Rights".

Finally, as to Quebec. Your countrymen can learn a lesson from Sarajevo, which I visited last month to attend a conference. In this multi-religious society, whether or not to wear the hijab is truly a matter of individual choice with devout Muslim women going without the hijab and seemingly aggressively secularized devout Muslim women (who want to make a political statement) wearing the hijab in a rainbow of colors and materials. Sarajevo is truly the most religiously diverse place that I have ever visited and it works because individual autonomy and religious liberty are on an equal footing.

Now, are you sorry you asked?

Gwen

L

Hi Gwen,

I am sure I will not be sorry. I will get back to you after reading the material you pointed out. I am sensitive to this question which is a perfect case of a symbolic conflict central to multiculturalist societies . I am not certain yet where I stand but I have a feeling that the question is important. Recently I have been searching for viewpoints which I think go to the core of the question. I have order two books from Alain Touraine: Can We Live Together?: Equality and Difference , La Fin des sociétés.

I think I will find relevant hints in these two books. I am looking at the question from the point of view of the evolution of humanity in the long term, what brought us here and what is our more pressing problems.

Dear Gwen,

I am not sure that anyone should be sorry they asked a question. I am sure much of the questions one raises are subject to the amount of information at the disposal of the person asking the question(s). As Brassad's reply has indicated, more information is needed to comprehend your position (understanding and appreciation) on the issue. However, I am unable to understand why 'secularism' is a condition for religious freedom.

A scholar I have come to respect for his views on this matter (Prof. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim) makes the point indeed that 'secular' USA has remained the best place for the practise of ALL religions. His book 'Towards An Islmaic Reformation' followed upon the heels of his mentors 'Second Message of Islam' (which An-Naim translated). Yet, do we have to be secular to give what we all term 'human rights'?

Here lies my confusion. I hope I will not be sorry I seek knowledge.

Bello

P.S:

Gwen, what does it mean to 'separate' (i.e. separation of) church (religion) and state (government)? Are theocracies a government? Should all governments 'discard' religion? When political leaders make claims to their 'personal' religious beliefs not impacting on their 'governmental' decisions, one has to wonder if in fact all the information one has can be discarded in the determiantion of how to act in relation to issues within the same environment.

A mentor of mine placed a comment on his facebook page and I responded. It was President Kennedy's purported 'distancing' of himself from his catholic upbringing during his campaign for president. President Kennedy is reported to have said he should be judged according to his personal intentions, not his religious belief. I wondered: how could an individual say his religious beliefs cannot and will not infleunce his daily interactions?

When scholars of Americal legal jurisprudence take up US Supreme decisions for review, they often refer to some inherent personal orientation of one or the other Justice. Why?

Anyway, secularism (the separation of church and state) is not preferrable in any context whatsover. I hold that religion (church) is defined by the belief of the individual.

Hello Lluis, I feel you. However, there are some modern states that have enacted 'religious' constitutions (or something akin to it) and make no pretensions whatsoever to be having a state religion. In Nigeria, the recently enacted Sharia Penal Code laws purport to restrict jurisdiction over persons to ONLY MUSLIMS or any other person who willingly submits to it jurisdiction. Should we say those states have incorporated a 'state religion'?

There is no valid reason, except for academic argumentations, that we can insist that states MUST separate church (religion) from state (government)!

Bello and Lluis,

I cannot miss this opportunity to promote my worldview (and my publications on RG). Start with "Not Christian; But Nonetheless Qualified" so you know where I am coming from. Briefly stated, my argument is that the U.S. has secularized Christianity; i.e., it is not a secular state. Moreover, I argue that our "so-called secular laws have religious claws"; that is to say, laws such as the law against polygamy are grounded in the Christian heritage of our country.

Additionally, I argue (see, for example, "Sorry But Its the Law; the Westernization of Islam") that the U.S. earned its vaulted status as "home of religious freedom" the easy way -- by putting down the welcome mat for different sects of Christianity (some versions of course were more welcome than others -- Catholicism had a hard row to hoe because it entailed allegiance to a foreign Pope sitting in "the Old Country"). However, now our pedigreed status as "home of religious freedom" has been challenged by the arrival of non-Western, non-Christian immigrants in a post-1965 surge brought on by a change in U.S. immigration law. Since 1965, the preference for European emigrants has been dropped and the U.S. now has "immigration equality" in terms of welcoming migrating peoples from all continents. This has led to an influx of people adhering to non-Christian religions such as Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.

Of course, if you are interested enough to want to read the laborious development of my thesis, you must read my doctoral dissertation "Legislative Terrorism; a Primer for the Non-Islamic State" also on RG. (For a dissertation, it is mercifully short -- no literature review section). Incidentally, recognizing the radical nature of my thesis, I have uploaded a critical review of my doctoral dissertation by noted RG Scholar Chris Jeynes.

Gwen

Like Luis - if I have well understood all his arguments - personnally, II prefer a clear separation between Church and State. And this is not a statement that advocates eo ispo any negative or hostile attitude with respect to one specific or any form of religion.

I think that this separation is one important heritage of European modernity. However, I also think that - as Gwendolyn argues - every State, every "country" in a political sense has a cultural heritage - not only its traditions and narratives, but more basically, its specific cultural configuration of values, norms, believes, sign systems, and so on.

And in this sense it is not at all false to argue that an important part of actual secularised European identity and self-understanding has been fashoned by Christianity (by Catholicism and by Protestantism in all its varieties). There are, naturally, other "influences" that have shaped Euope but it is impossible to ignore the tremendous impact of Christianity on Europe and - through emigration and colonialism - on many other parts of the world (North America, Latin America, parts of Africa, Australia, ...). And this "heritage" is present in a secularised form in our laws, the constitution of many countries and also, as I believe, in our - "European" - interpretation of universal human rights, of "universal values", etc. Naturally, too, this specific "heritage" changes through intercultural contacts, cultural metissage, migration & globalisation, and so on.

This is the "descriptive stance" which, as I would argue, contributes to the understanding why, for instance, there are so intense debates concerning the integration of Turkey in the EC, why there are - in France and elsewhere - so hot debates concerning even the hijab (not to mention the niqab or the burqa), why (in order to take an example from Gwendolyn) we have - like in the USA - a law against polygamy, why "Islamic finance" is so suspicious to many Europeans, and so on and so forth.

The (so to speak) "evaluative" stance is different: this - mainly Christian - heritage can be accepted or rejected, considered as a necessary "a-historical" ground for the identity of a country or a community of countries or, contrarily, as something we have to overcomme as quickly as possible, and so on.

This evaluative stance presupposes obligatorily a specific viewpoint which possesses (for the evaluating person or group) a sort of universal validity: it can be developed by "religious people" as well as non-religious people, by people who defend more or less overtly Christianity or by people who defend an other religion, and so on. All these point of views are, in my opinion important and have to be listened with attention.

But, as I believe too, this can only be done in a State (in a public space - an "agora" in the Greek sense) which has the liberty to stage those debates: therefore in a State which is not "under the control" of one religion - no matter which religion.

No. It is not preferable. This is because "strict" separation is not actually possible, even where it is supposed , as Gwen Alexis has shown in her dissertation "LEGISLATIVE TERRORISM".

Much better to recognise that the churches have secular interests and the state has sacred interests and then try to harmonise the interests of all stakeholders. I hope that Gwen will come up with some coherent proposals herself!

@Chris,

Coherent? That seems a little demanding to me. What if I can come up with interesting and novel proposals that are easily understood by the layperson. Will you let me slide?

Gwen

"But, as I believe too, this can only be done in a State (in a public space - an "agora" in the Greek sense) which has the liberty to stage those debates: therefore in a State which is not "under the control" of one religion - no matter which religion." Peter Stockinger

Yes. And No. Certainly Gwen can come up with 'interesting and novel proposals that are easily understood by the layperson', but would still leave gaping holes in what I think has become a romance with "TRADITIONAL RELIGIONS". Definitions are always necessary, but how much of behevioural EVALUATION or DESCRIPTION can we accept in the theory of religion to make us appreciate the position that spirituaity does not constitute religion much as mere adherence cannot be said to be the basis for religiosity.

Waiting on Gwen for the interesting and novel proposal. I am also attempting mine.

Bello

Hi Bello,

Please elaborate on whether you meant to state that "spirituality does not constitute ORGANIZED religion". And, one way or the other, did you mean to cast "mere" spirituality in a negative light? I ask because I need to know if you are flexible enough to accept "Sheilaism" either as a non-traditional religion or as non-traditional spirituality. Or, do you have certain unstated parameters for religion/spirituality that disqualify Sheilaism (making it therefore just an American idiosyncrasy - the product of our individualistic culture)?

What about Voodoo -- is that a religion or just spirituality or neither? And, Capoeira (loosely connected to candomblé) -- does it qualify as a "non-traditional religion"?

Bello, I must tease out your unstated parameters before I write my magnum opus only to have you reject my hard work out-of-hand.

In case you are not a sociologist, Sheilaism was introduced by Robert Bellah in HABITS OF THE HEART. He tells the story of a nurse that he interviewed, named Sheila Larson, who described her religion thus:

"I believe in God. I'm not a religious fanatic. I can't remember the last time I went to church. My faith has carried me a long way. It's Sheilaism. Just my own little voice...It's just try to love yourself and be gentle with yourself. You know, I guess, take care of each other. I think He would want us to take care of each other."

Bello, assume that the "He" in the last sentence is referring to "God". So, how does Sheilaism fit into your nomenclature?

Incidentally, I am not writing a single word of my magnum opus until you have answered these questions.

Gwen

Jose,

There are some weirdo religious sects out there that have very scary ideas that have to be banned. There are some sub-religious groups who may have some very scary ideas that have to be condemned. The umbrella: religious ideas is very wide and some so-called religious ideas are totally inaceptable. We cannot accept all kind of weirdo ideas only because the weido proposing it is religious. I am a religious in my own way and defend religions from weido atheist and defend atheist from religious weirdo.

Example: Roch "Moïse" Thériault was a self-proclaimed prophet, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roch_Th%C3%A9riault

You see, Peter (Stockinger), Gwen didn't ask whether a "clear separation" is "preferable", but whether this separation should be "strict". Even for Sweden and the US, which her dissertation was on, I think she would agree that the separation was "clear": the problem is that it was not "strict" and consequently the overlaps (which were tacit and unrecognised) had baleful results. What to do? I say that strictness is impossible, and other methods must be used.

Gwen: interesting and novel is good to me. But don't underestimate the layman! In my view incoherence is either an error or a form of contempt.

And on Sheilaism, I think this issue of "coherence" is significant. We are talking of the overlap of "church and state", and Bello correctly points out that this can be debated only in an "agora" - a public space. If public debate is not coherent then it is worthless - or worse! Sheila makes a virtue of being incoherent. Hmmm. Well, God looks on the heart and may well be pleased with her (and we have only a hearsay account of her from Robert Bellah), but she would be entirely unable to speak in the agora.

We are not speaking about personal spiritualities, for which (since they are not public) coherence is not the issue. We are speaking of public spiritualities, which (to be public) have to be systematic.

Any group of people with certain interests can argue for protection of those interests publicly. But they will not succeed if they cannot argue persuasively, and to be persuasive you must be at least coherent (a necessary but not sufficient condition)!

Folks,

Can we agree to leave modern charismatic leaders (although I know Jesus of Nazareth was an ancient charismatic) out of this discussion? Otherwise, I will have to check out on my own question because try-as-I-might, I cannot integrate modern charismatic leaders like Father Divine, Daddy Grace, Reverend Moon, Reverend Jones of the Jonestown Massacre, Amma the Indian Guru (the hugging saint) into a COHERENT theory. Perhaps Chris or Bello can; but this is beyond my intellectual capacity. So, can we just ignore the fact that Jose Gros is trying to elevate this discussion to another level entirely? Thanks,

Gwen

Can someone cite Max Weber on charisma as just one stage in leadership to prove I am right on trying to duck this charismatic leadership discussion? Please; because it wrecks havoc with my theory development. Thanks, Gwen

Hi Gwendolyn, I did not read all the contributions, so I risk being redundant, but nevertheless: Max Weber defined a charismatic leadership as "resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him." In fact, it's a kind of tyranny (no matter if the charismatic leader is "enlightened" or not). The opposite is a legal leadership, resting on laws and the rule of law. And the third way is traditional leadership resting on traditional norms and rules (monarchy).

Yes, thank you, Marcus. That was it -- the tripartite typology that allows me to imply that charismatic leadership is just a phase and will eventually be routinized or institutionalized (after the death of the charismatic leader?) and become part of the established social order. This means I don't have to deal with the tyrannical phase of charismatic leadership in developing a theory of the optimal relationship of church and state (at least within the disciplinary realm of the Sociology of Religion) given that charismatic leadership is not a long-standing phenomenon -- unless history keeps repeating itself, as it seems it has. Oh well,

Gwen

Quite to the contrary, Jose, I know your point is right on topic; that is why it complicates my theory development. Alas, theory is always challenged by the reality of everyday life, as Chris Jeynes points out in his review of my dissertation! So, I am not really serious about excluding you from this discussion; that would be a loss. Indeed, as I indicated, you have elevated it to a higher plane -- one that I find too challenging to deal with so wish to leave to greater minds than my own :>)

Gwen

TO JOSE GROS:

No apology necessary, Jose.

However, while you are in a good mood -- Can you come up with a theory of church/state separation that allows the state to interfere with religious liberty to the extent that is necessary to "save" people from charismatic leadership such as that which resulted in "Heavens Gate" and the Jonestown Massacre in Guyana?

So far, it seems one possible "coherent" (thanks, Chris Jeynes) theory would be to hold fast on my insistence that the state stay out of the religious lives of the populace, while softening my position sufficiently to recognize a valid and justifiable state interest in using "selective" taxation to discourage dangerous sects -- a strategy you mentioned in an earlier post , Jose: "there have been occasions in history when this was attempted, with some success, just by applying different taxations according to the religion endorsed by persons". (The U.S. might be viewed as applying this strategy in that some "churches" like the Church of Scientology are not deemed to be entitled to the tax exemptions accorded to eleemosynary organizations -- not because The Church of Scientology is a "dangerous" sect, rather on the basis that the U.S. Tax Court determined that it is a commercial enterprise rather than a non-profit organization.)

TO CHRIS JEYNES:

Under the Tripartite Theoretical Model, recognizing a justifiable state interest in protecting the public welfare by imposing selective taxes would make this fall under UNL (universal norm legislation) rather than RFL (religion friendly legislation), which I have railed against so strongly on the basis of the chilling effect it has on religious pluralism. So, Chris, do you think this might evolve into a coherent theory of church/state separation in the event that Jose doesn't have a better idea?

Gwen

You see, Gwen, a theory of "church/state separation" has to take account of the inescapable "fact" that a strict separation is impossible in principle. The state (that is, society) always and necessarily has sacred interests, and the "church" (however this is defined) always and necessarily has a deep interest in justice and judgement.

The idea that a separation is possible (and indeed desirable) arose in the "Enlightenment" in Europe as a reaction to the bloodthirstyness of the Thirty Years War (and the corresponding Civil War in England.

In your TTT you classify types of legislation as UNL, RFL DML. This is helpful, just as the physicists classify colours into primary colours. But no-one in their right minds would think that any particular real colour was pure primary! No law will be pure UNL/RFL/DML : on the contrary, all laws will be mixtures - they are expected to have components of all three types. So your proposal to reclassify what was thought to be RFL under UFL is unnecessary.

TTT=Tripartite Theoretical Model

UNL=universal norm legislation

RFL=religion friendly legislation

DML=De Minimis legislation

On charismatic leadership, I liked the contribution of Markus Pausch : "Max Weber defined a charismatic leadership as "resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him." In fact, it's a kind of tyranny (no matter if the charismatic leader is "enlightened" or not). The opposite is a legal leadership, resting on laws and the rule of law. And the third way is traditional leadership resting on traditional norms and rules (monarchy)."

Weber is wrong as usual, but as usual he is also interesting and fruitful : all leadership is charismatic, unless it has been institutionalised into boredom, and charisma (a very nice Greek word meaning "gift") is only rarely transmogrified into the pathological form referred to in previous posts. Leadership is often tyrannical (Jesus Christ would have said that is the way of this world), but this is emphatically not necessary (and Jesus Christ showed a different way). We need to get a handle on how to rightly direct charisma - current charismatic leaders (I am thinking of the bankers, and ok, they are not very charismatic ...) are leading us into chaos and destruction.

I think it would be a very interesting exercise to apply the TTT to the first century, to suggest a better way for the Romans to have handled the deeply subversive new Christian religion. The Christians behaved in a thoroughly counter-intuitive way, directly challenging the authorities at the level of "atheism", the charge they regularly attracted. But they were otherwise model citizens. Gwen??

Oh, by the way, I meant to add that no theory is complete - this is a statement of logic. Every theory will have a limited realm of applicability - this is just another way of saying the same thing. So you should not be dismayed by finding counter-examples to TTT, Gwen! That is not a reason for giving up, merely a spur to articulate the theory better (which includes describing its limitations better).

Jose: The UK government has just passed the "Same sex marriage act", with all sorts of interesting exceptions for the Church of England, whose canon law of course is incompatible with such an act. It remains to be seen if the Act will be struck down by the Supreme Court - I guess not, and there will be consequent changes in the church instead.

I regard this Act as nonsensical, especially since it is only the pro-gay lobby (not the gay lobby itself!) that has pushed for it. It remains to be seen how much damage one lobby's hijacking of the language will do to me personally. Not much, probably. But some people are likely to get mauled by this.

These sorts of negotiations always seem to be messy, as we limp from one status quo to the next.

You are quite right Jose, formally in the UK the Queen is the "Supreme Governor under God of the Church of England" (not the "Head of the church", a terminology that conflates at least two errors). It would be quite interesting to see how this fits into Gwen's "TTT" framework. The English have maintained their pre-Enlightenment attitude dating from the 16th century, and notice that Elizabeth I specifically excluded "making windows into men's souls", which is one of the first explicit expressions of the separation of church and state I think. Constitutionally, it is the settlement from 1688 (the "Glorious Revolution") still current today, and of course which maintained the position of the King as temporal governor of the church. The new Marriage Act is bound to cause constitutional problems, problems the British have been adept at avoiding up to now.

Shame on you, Jose, I am trying to enlighten with TTT (sic); it is not "subliminal advertising". My hope is that because the Tripartite Theoretical Model (TTM) "focuses on laws and human interaction, it does not allow for prejudicial application based upon a state's geopolitical region" (LEGISLATIVE TERRORISM, p. 85). Jose, cut me some slack and read the first chapter (pp. 1-21), of my dissertation, LEGISLATIVE TERRORISM, in which I construct the model, define the three parts, and set forth the methodology of my field research.

My absolute innocence of the MARKETING crime of which you accuse me is demonstrated by the "Structuring the Exploration" section of Chapter 1 in which I explain:

"The theoretical model uses individual moral autonomy as a barometer for gauging the theocratic bent of the state. In other words, the relationship is inverse; i.e., the more theocratic the state, the less likely it is that individuals living within its domain possess moral autonomy" (p. 3).

In short, TTM is a quest for knowledge -- not an attempt at mass hypnosis. I am pleased that by exposing my dissertation to the critical eye of Chris Jeynes, I have seen that my emphasis on individual moral autonomy (with the implied disregard for an individual's duties to the community) may be too extreme. Likewise, your drawing my attention to the problem of tyrannical charismatic leaders has made me realize that I have got to do some tinkering with my position that STRICT separation of church and state is the ideal. KNOWLEDGE, Jose, I AM SEEKING KNOWLEDGE -- not automaton subjects.

Gwen

Chris,

I am still working through your earlier post in which you blaspheme Weber (and, Chris, know that I am keeping track of your disregard for the "fathers of Sociology," by adding your disdain for Weber to an earlier disparaging remark about Durkheim when you were dealing with one of Bill's questions on RG).

Generally, I must ponder your posts for a bit because they are so rich with content and intellectual rigor that they merit slow mastication. However, with respect to your query as to how The Church of England fits into TTM, I remind you that my dissertation starts on page 1 with the following quote from a visiting Muslim Cleric IN A BRITISH PRISON:

"Christian prisoners aren't expected to pay for chapel chairs, so why should Muslim prisoners be expected to buy their own prayer mats?"

So, of course, TTM applies equally to Britain, Sweden, and the U.S. in that it supports my theoretical argument that all three countries have DE FACTO establishment religion.

Gwen

Re: "not be put in places that have differential features that make it 'minorities'" .

Jose,

Does this mean you wouldn't allow white couples to adopt black children and vice versa? Also, assuming that a lesbian couple is already married and one of the women has children from a prior marriage to a male (I actually have a few friends in just this situation as it is not unusual for females to discover later in life that they chose the wrong gender as the object of their affections), would you be against the female partner who did not bear the children adopting the natural--or products of sperm donation-- children of her female spouse? Incidentally, the ability of homosexuals to adopt children is increasingly getting legal backing in the U.S. (by statute or by judicial interpretation,) perhaps because discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is becoming indistinguishable from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, disability, etc., and thus deemed to be logically indefensible.

I ask this, Jose, because I am curious as to just how far you'll go in "trusting" the opinion of your Church, rather than actually becoming actively engaged intellectually with the issues.

Gwen

Chris,

All the large scale religions that exist today and their offsprings were created a long time ago, at a time of patriarcal societies. This is true in the east and in the west. When there is a god representation, it is invariably masculin and when there is a prophet or a saint, it is almost all the time a man. Christianity has a few important exceptions. The domination of man in the family and in society is a very important value that all these religions tries to maintain,to cultivate, and to justify. In the west, homo sexuality was accepted in the classical greek society. It was a type of homo sexuality in a patriarchal society were men stay with men most of the time they stay in public life. At home they had a wife and children. Classical greeks were exceptional. The non acceptation of public homosexuality in most patriarchal societies is intimatly tighted to the necessity to maintain the integrity of the bipolar sexual categories given that power is based on it. Threatening this bipolar classification is threathening a foundation of power. In all patriarchal societies, it is very important to train the young adolescent man for them to become '' real man''. A real man is a man that do not cry like infants and wowen do. A real man has to be physically strong and can imposed his will using physical strenght. A real man will not tolerate other man that are not real man, man that act like infants and women. I can go on and on with the real man education that you and me were subjected as teenager. Even though I grew up as a catholic, we have to get rid of these patriarchal enforcement practices from these religions in order to make them compatible with a new world that is not patriarchal.

Gwen, I am always careful in what I say about Weber and Durkheim. I read them in my youth and was very impressed. Saying they are wrong does not detract from their acheivement, which was precisely that they set the tone of the debate not for one but for the two (or even three) generations following. One can say the same about Marx. All massively important, but not actually correct. But their errors are subtle and fruitful, just like Newton's errors.

Further to the comments of both Louis and Jose on my provocative comments about the recent UK Marriage Act (this is really off the point of this thread, Gwen, but bear with me), I brought this up as an counter-example of the generally amicable settlement in the UK between church and state. And I hadn't forgotten your initial vignette on the UK in your dissertation, Gwen: I regarded this as the sort of relatively minor problem that the British are rather good at finding ways round (once they have recognised the problem exists!). The comment of Esther some 2500 years ago is germane here: "If we had merely been sold into slavery I would have kept quiet for such [minor] things would not justify disturbing the king" (Est.7:4)! I don't think your TTM does cover the UK settlement very well for the reasons I have already given, although it is a good tool to winkle out the tacit assumptions, as you say.

By the way, Jose and Louis, you claim to have grown up as "catholics", but this is not precisely correct. You grew up as Romans (properly, in the "Episcopal church of Rome"). The title "catholic" (meaning "universal") is pure propaganda by the Romans. Properly, Wyclif, Hus and Luther were catholics, and the Popes at their times were heretics. Vatican II has gone some way to recognising this bit of Reformed counter-propaganda (and Constance emphasises it!): I mention this because it is also the position of the Church of England, which claims to be "reformed catholic". Henry VIII pushed his reforms through because he seriously thought that the Pope was not properly entitled to temporal power.

Now, Louis on patriarchy. You are correct to imply that throughout the Biblical period and beyond patriarchy was almost ubiquitous. (But we should comment that the exceptions are important: the Israelites occupied Canaan at a time when the earth religions of the Hittites and others were dominant, and one can read much of the Jewish patriarchy as a reaction to these.) But you are not correct to imply that prophesy and leadership (and even divinity!) were structurally male. This may be more or less true for the pagans (Greeks & Romans), but certainly not for the Israelites. What about Deborah (Judges 5)? What about Miriam, the second "prophet" mentioned in the Tanakh (Exodus 15:20) and the first psalmist (ibid)? And God is emphatically NOT male! Jesus was male of course - he could not have operated otherwise! But he was not then thought of as "God" but as "son of God", a completely different category even for the Romans. The recognition and articulation of the Trinity took 400 years to settle, and this was because the difference between the ideas is very substantial, even though we now habitually and lazily elide these differences. Parenthetically, I think that the reason for our unwillingness to grapple with them is due to the bafflement usually caused by Augustine's big and brilliant book on the Trinity, a book where he didn't take the easy route to explain God's unity in diversity; he didn't take the route through marriage, the original Creation covenant, he took it through a very difficult discussion of the will. Correct, but obscure.

It is a surprising fact that the Bible consistently maintains the equal regard God has between man and woman. There is not a misogynistic verse in it, contrary to much modern propaganda.

Chris,

Your last post made be certain that I had better move this string away from arguments grounded in knowledge of Christian doctrinal history -- not because it lacks probative value in terms of staking out positions on the burning moral issues of the day (same-sex marriage/adoption, stem cell research, cloning, etc.), rather because I feel I am wading in over my head. Although I have a degree from a (Christian) Divinity School, it is an Ethics Degree--not a theology degree, meaning I earned my degree without becoming a Biblical scholar (and without ever having taken a course in the Old Testament).

Nonetheless, this brief surrey into the first century brings me back to your comment in an earlier post; to wit: “I think it would be a very interesting exercise to apply the TTT to the first century, to suggest a better way for the Romans to have handled the DEEPLY SUBVERSIVE new Christian religion.” (Emphasis mine.) I now realize why your suggestion that I consider how the state should deal with subversive religious sects (such as the ragamuffin band of followers of Jesus of Nazareth) threw me for a loop.

It is because as a practicing Christian, I find it difficult to develop a theoretical model that deals with Charismatics as committing acts of tyranny AGAINST THE STATE. I have too much Christian baggage to separate Jesus of Nazareth (the man) from Jesus Christ (the son of God) who – like the Blues Brothers – was ON A MISSION when he started siphoning off Jews from the Synagogue to join his movement/sect. Thus, for me, a more accurate portrayal of early Christianity would be as an act of secession from the Jewish religion – not an act of tyranny against the Roman state. So, Chris, I am operating with a “Christian handicap” in trying to develop an abstract academic theory that couches charismatics as enemies of the State and thus justifies State interference with religious freedom (or, more succinctly, with the personal moral autonomy that is represented by DML in my theoretical model).

My personal dilemma brings us right back to the question at the top of this string; to-wit: “Is strict separation of church and state preferable in today's multicultural and religiously diverse societies?”

Gwen

Thank you, Jose, for the additional Biblical knowledge. Now, can we get back on subject? Unless, you wish to answer the questions I posed directly to you in my post regarding your stand on adoption by same-sex couples.

Gwen

Gwen,

I read Chris review of your dissertation. I do not have a resume of your dissertation from you but I tend to agree with a lot of what Chris said:

''Do we share values or not? A negative answer here precludes the existence of society.''

The world is changing rapidly which includes the values. The Values are western societies have been created in the history of west societies but they are not passive elements of this creation but major actors in the creation of these societies. Any change to these values have profound impact on these socieites. Even before the flow of new values through the immigration flow, there was a struggle of values within western societies and the development of capitalist, the trememdous increase in the importance of money and commercial activities, the gradual concentration of power in the financial sector, the de-localization of production, the offshorization of capital, the emptying of national power for enforcing global economy under the control of a small elite in the finacial sector, the creation by marketing department of consumption values, all that form the background that is forging the new values and the destruction of the ancient centers of value production.

Thank you Louis and Jose for expounding on what Chris detected as being a major problem with my thesis (when one attempts to apply it to the real world); namely an overemphasis on individual rights to the neglect of community obligations. In short, in his review, Chris requests that I give attention to the "societal glue" which Durkheim found to be an essential element of living together with other people (rather than alone in a cave). As an admirer of Durkehim, I can appreciate this "touchy, feely" stuff; but as an attorney, my head doesn't necessarily follow my heart; thus, I am perhaps swayed more by fears of the "tyranny of the majority" as expressed by Tocqueville (DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA) and James Madison (THE FEDERALIST PAPERS).

N.B. Although your posts have similar themes to Chris Jeynes' review; I feel that RG scholars who have downloaded my dissertation (and thus may use it as a source in their own work) would benefit from additional reviews of same. So, Louis and Jose, please know that if your interest is sufficient for you to actually read my dissertation and then write your own reviews, I will gratefully post your reviews as supplementary information about my dissertation (as I have done with Chris's review).

Louis, the full text of my dissertation is on RG for you to download, it is called "LEGISLATIVE TERRORISM: A Primer for the Non-Islamic State; Secularism and DIFFERENT Believers." It is not onerous reading as there is no Literature Review Section and the entire dissertation consists of only 97 pages including the Bibliography. So, gentlemen, start downloading and then generously share your thoughts on my thesis with other RG scholars!

Gwen

Gwen,

I will read it and make some comments.

To Louis:

Thank you, Louis, for your generous offer of your time.

Gwen

Hi Jose,

Is your comment a reaction to the title of my dissertation (Chris didn't like it either)?

Anyway, If you want a good laugh, look up the meaning of "Thanks to you" -- the "s" on "thanks" along with the "to" means that you are blaming me and Louis for the violence influencing politics. I can understand your blaming me -- but Louis?

Gwen

Religion, religiosity, spirituality: here is my take. I do not run away from conventional defintions - like the one that would assume religion has to be 'formal' even if indeed I would accept that what must have 'universal' appeal (remember again the universe can be limited) must be accepteable to a large proportion of the 'public'. Interesting because I do know that what one may consider religion may not constitute religion to another. I do believe that being religious does not mean one is 'spiritually' inclined to a doctrinal understanding of the forms and rituals of a certain act to be a believer in the act as constituting his or her religion. So, should 'religion' be separated from the acts or actions of individual (state) when acting in official capacity? No, yes, maybe!

No, - because my religion enjoins my acts in public (as public trust) to reflect my understanding and appreciation of what I call my 'religion'. I cannot pretend I am not "religious" so long as what I believe assists me understand and reflects in what I do.

Yes, - because 'religion' has acquired a deceptive status that individuals pretend to be religious to 'cheat' and 'decieve'.

Maybe, - because the philosophy of religion will always give us a way out of any quagmire. Maybe there should be a 'strict separation of church and state' if only to make government (governance) nonsentimental and totally non-emotional.

Bello,

Thank you for your level-headed comments. In this regard, I know you are reading my dissertation and wonder if, once you are finished, you would be willing to post your comments on RG?

Thanks,

Gwen

Dear Gwen,

Your dissertation (and other papers on the subject) is/are quite intersting. I should be through shortly, and I promise to post my comments on RG. What has held my attention most is the oft repeated concept of secularism which has to be another religious form, but is touted as non-religious.

Secularists believe religions should not interfere in public affairs. Your dissertation charts an introspective course. You can be sure 'multiculture' and 'religious diversity' will speak for me when I do post.

Bello

How interesting, Jose -- can you scan in your contribution to the Handbook and make it available on RG? Thanks, Gwen

N.B. This does NOT constitute legal advice -- just a suggestion from one RG scholar to another. You should seek independent legal advice as to whether by scanning in and posting your work on RG you will be in violation of copyright laws, for which the editors of the Handbook for Foreign Medical Graduates might take you to court (thus depriving you and your family of a portion of your wealth). The likelihood of lawsuit is especially high if the editors are Americans.

Thanks, Jose!

Gwen

Gwen,

From the 16th century, from the time of the creation of the modern scientific revolution in Europe the secularization process has been a gradual process where overt christian religion went underground into a covert religion with two overt faces: objectivism (scientism) and moral perfectionism. Michael Polanyi has located the root of the rise of the totalitarian regimes in in the 20th century Europe: Maxism, Nazism, Fascism, etc to what he called the phenomena of moral inversion which is based on the combination of the scientific objectivism (scientism) and moral perfectionism (a secularized Christian value):

PERSONAL PARTICIPATION :Michael Polanyi, Eric Voegelin,

and the Indispensability of Faith

Mark T. Mitchell

http://webprint.cairn.edu/upload/User_2596AB54-494E-4D16-B11B-207870FA963C/6C86FFBD-12CA-1CC8-D939-FDC98BF04DF0_Mitchell.pdf

The combination of Cartesian doubt

and Lockean empiricism produced a theory of knowledge that precluded

any truth claims that did not admit explicit rational justification. Thus,

religious and moral claims were a priori ruled out-of-bounds by a theory

of knowledge that was construed in such a manner that its boundaries

did not admit of such claims (Polanyi 1969, 46). This effectively produced

a skepticism about all claims to knowledge not grounded in empirical

investigation. Thus, the authority of religion—specifically Christianity,

which had held a dominant position for fifteen centuries—was undercut

at its foundations. Scientism became the new religion, and its priests,

the scientists and modern philosophers, employed epistemological objectivism

as their instrument of worship.

Polanyi describes this situation as follows:

In such men the traditional forms for holding moral ideals had been shattered

and their moral passions diverted into the only channels which a

strictly mechanistic conception of man and society left open to them. We

may describe this as a process of moral inversion. The morally inverted

person has not merely performed a philosophical substitution of material

purposes for moral aims; he is acting with the whole force of his homeless

moral passions within a purely materialistic framework of purposes

[Polanyi and Prosch 1975, 18].

…

Moral inversion, then, is the combination of skeptical rationalism and

moral perfectionism, which is nothing more than the “secularized fervour

of Christianity” (Polanyi 1969, 10; see also 1966a, 57–60, 85–87).

But, whereas moral perfectionism within a Christian context is moderated

by the doctrine of original sin and the consequent need for divine

grace (which spawns humility), the perfectionism of a post-Christian

world provides no such moderating counterbalance. Thus, the moral perfectionism

of Christianity persists despite the rejection of the doctrines

which, in times of belief, prevented it from wreaking havoc on the society

committed to its ideal. Furthermore, skeptical rationalism prevents

any adequate justification for the moral impulses that course through

the veins of Western man. This seemingly contradictory marriage of incompatible

elements allows individuals and societies to commit acts of

horrifying immorality. The skeptic, of course, denies the very category of

morality while at the same time being driven by a quest for perfection

rooted in a Christian longing that is no longer tenable. Thus, the ideal

of moral perfection, which in Christianity was rooted in the transcendent,

was immanentized due to the parameters established by modern

epistemology. This immanentization occurred so that scientific methods

could be brought to bear on what were heretofore moral and religious affairs.

Thus, the objectivity of science was allowed to sanction what were

previously moral impulses in an attempt to bring about a purely immanent

perfection without the hindrance of moral limitations on the means

to that end.

Excellent, Louis! I knew that Polanyi's "Personal Knowledge" made the same conclusions necessary, but I didn't know that he had gone to the trouble of dotting the i's and crossing the t's with respect to Enlightenment philosophy.

Gwen, I am not a Biblical scholar either - I just take an interest. But I absolutely do not accept that knowledge can be a "handicap" (and especially not Christian knowledge!). All leadership is charismatic to at least some extent - "charismatics" like "Reverend" Moon may present significant problems politically, but they are philosophically marginal.

The first century Christians were not tyrannical (even in Weber's terms!). Weber falls into the same Enlightenment error that Louis outlines above, when he (Weber) classifies leadership patterns as 1) tyrannical (charismatic), 2) legal and 3) monarchical (or traditional) :-

[Charismatic leadership rests "on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him." In fact, it's a kind of tyranny (no matter if the charismatic leader is "enlightened" or not).

The opposite is a legal leadership, resting on laws and the rule of law.

And the third way is traditional leadership resting on traditional norms and rules (monarchy).] (thanks, Markus Pausch)

Reasonable, and reasonably dispassionate, justice is definitely what we want, but we cannot get it by algorithmic methods. This is true in principle, as Polanyi showed long ago. Consider the archetypal judgement of Solomon between the two women arguing over the surviving child. Solomon revealed the true mother when he brought a sword and proposed to divide the living child between them. And the people "saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgement" (1Kings 3:28). Which article of the Law did he use? The law is a means, not an end. The judge stands on the law, but the Judge stands behind the Law. This is why our (English) criminal courts turn on the judgement of the jury, who can (and occasionally do) refuse to convict even where the breach of the law is clear. Conscience trumps law. This is because we must "obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Atheists are capable of taking a comparable view.

To return to your Question, Gwen, my answer remains the same. No. A "strict" separation is not preferable. This is because it is not even possible in principle! To ask for strictness in the separation is to make a category error. The state always necessarily has sacred interests, and where individuals are bulldozed by the state they have to argue in a principled way for their sacred interests.

Your TTM categories are useful and fruitful, but they are not hard-edged. RFL is inescapable, and your theory must be extended to show in what circumstances RFL is constructive and good, and when it is destructive and bad.

All the Ism and all the ist shoulld be banned.

Jose,

Thank you for not holding anything back! In light of your “take no prisoners” stamina, I wonder if you will comment on my most recent question regarding legislative prayer and the oral arguments heard yesterday by the U.S. Supreme Court in Town of Greece vs. Galloway? The issue is the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and some very insightful responses have already been posted by Charles Herrman, Louis Brassard and Chris Jeynes. Here is the link for the question:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_inconsistent_with_the_principle_of_Secularism_to_allow_public_bodies_to_open_their_public_meetings_with_prayers

Thanks,

Gwen

I am sympathetic to Gwen's assertion that Christianity has "snuck into" the US public square under the cloak of neutrality, a point I have argued as well. However, while I agree with the importance of separation of church, I think the crucial point is to understand the religion cannot be successfully isolated -- nor should it.

When scholars look at free speech, the John Stuart Mills "free marketplace of ideas" cohort focus not only on the value of exposing all perspectives to the light of free debate but also the dangers of repressing undesirable speech. I think the same applies to religious speech and religious engagement in the public square.

The problem that we face in the West is we conflate religious freedom and non-establishment with strict secularism. There is the suspicion that religious discourse necessarily violates religious freedom which, ironically stiffles liberal voices and thereby heightens the profile of conservative religious voices who refuse to follow the dictates of this type of political correctness. What we should have learned is that we live in a religiously/culturally pluralistic world in which our public square should be equally pluralistic -- enouraging all types of conversations, each according to the values that a particular group finds meaningful. Thus, encouraging a religious discourse between liberal and conservative religious voices offers more promise for effective dialogue than attempting to either impose a purely secular dialogue (that the religious may not find convincing -- or in which they may simply refuse to participate) or a mismatched conversation in which one party speaks in terms of faith while the other attempts to speak in the language of secular values. It is highly unlikely that either will convince the other.

Ultimately, separation between church and state can be maintained by the simple device of acknowledging our pluralism and recognizing that public decisions will and must be taken according to Rawls overlapping consensus -- not because everyone agrees on the values supporting that decision but because everyone agrees on the virtues of the decision as being in the public interest. If the values driving the decision are strictly religious -- then it would fail the public interest test. Not an easy line to draw, but one that we will draw in some fashion whether we admit that we are doing so or not.

Hi David,

Thank you for your rich contribution to this question string. You should know, however, that I am not in favor of excluding any voices from the debate in the public square. Such a position is untenable for a black American who lived through the Civil Rights Struggle of the 1960s and thus is fully aware that it was the public square voices of the morally outraged (largely theologically fueled outrage) that brought down Jim Crow.

So, I would like to make sure that you are not confusing my position in a closely related question I have on RG in which I challenge the wisdom of public officials OPENING meetings in the public square with a prayer (a religious entreaty). There, I question whether the implied need to have the imprimatur of God, "the Savior" (Christian) or a higher being (non-denominational prayer) needlessly "taints" the ensuing meeting (whether it be a town hall meeting or a session of a legislative or judicial body) with a bias towards religious members and thus is detrimental to the irreligious members of society. That issue with respect to America's "civil religion"-- on display at many major U.S. sports events as well – arises because of the coercive impact of the state lending its imprimatur (under the color of "official business") to religious worldviews vis-à-vis non-religious mindsets. I have succinctly stated my concerns with respect to displays of “civil religion” in my doctoral dissertation (LEGISLATIVE TERRORISM: A Primer for the Non-Islamic State....) posted on RG:

“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” (p. 87).

Gwen

Gwen,

One argument for advocates of a secular state is the religious neutrality of the state. You justly pointed out that the so called secular values where biaised towards christian values and so are not religiously neutral. I do not think it is possible to define really neutral or unbiased secular values. The first version of secular values were already a compromised among different christian denominations. You cannot find a neutral position that is both for monogam marriage and polygam marriage; to be neutral means to be indifferent; Neutrality to thousand of religious values would end up to be indifferent to almost everything with a few exceptions but the result would be quite meaningless. Traditionally the state is an agent for promoting social value that promote the harmonious living together. Religion have been invented to promote such values and it is why relitions have been very usefull for nation building, civilisation building. We teach religions values through an oral culture to children. We do not teach the constitution and the civil laws that way. If value teaching become only the affair of families, where is the common nation, and civilisation building? Civilisation are not simply build by building material infrastructures. They are primarily built on ideals. Where is the ideal building of our civilisation?

Hi Gwen,

I'm afraid that while you say that you are open to all voices in the public square, you assert a limitation in terms of the legislative prayer issue (sports arena, etc.). I have reservations about that.

First, I agree that the content of the legislative prayer should be of concern. To adequately represent the will of the people we should work to assure that the idea of the solemn invocation is truly inclusive of all of the world views of that community (not just theistic or sectarian religious.) However, the fact of diversity and pluralism does not mean that the government must sterilize the public square. There is nothing wrong with recognizing the religious faith of the majority so long as all other perspectives are also given an opportunity to participate fairly and equitibly. The fact that one does not have a traditional religious view does not mean that they cannot or would not appreciate the value of taking a moment of reflection prior to undertaking a solemn task. The issue would be to avoid the coercive or oppressive use of this moment of invocation to promote a particular religion or religious worldview.

Second, I disgree with your position, citing Wuthnow, that religious identity arises from the religious institution. In reality, we all have a "religious identity" and our own forms of "religious" belief. As you found necessary, to identify your victims of the legislative prayer, you identify the "irreligious" as being coerced. Indeed, the people who are most likely to be offended by public prayer are those who have a "religious" world view that another person's religion in some way affects them. I subscribe to Jefferson's view that your belief or non-belief "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." However, let us agree that those who do have an irreligious world view may be offended by public invocations of faith. Why should they have primacy in the public square? Their religious view is that traditional religions should be excluded from the public square (or at least the governmental public square.) Many people of traditional religious faith are equally offended by the idea of excluding God or their faith understanding from the public domain. While you might not find such an exclusion troubling -- they do. So who is to choose between these two waring camps?

A legislative prayer, you might suggest, is special because it is an action of the government. However, in a democracy, the government is constituted by citizens and reflects its people. Thus, there are two dimensions of faith: that of the governmental official and that of the citizenry. Each dimension may have religious concerns in play. What cannot be affirmed is that they do not exist or that religion can be ignored. To include or exclude religious expression is not neutral -- it is an affirmative decision with particular meanings as understood within the worldview of the constituent communities within that polity. Again, on what basis should the state favor the perspective of the irreligious - those who find religous faith uncomfortable/offensive/oppresive - over that of the person of faith who believes it important to publicly acknowledge their faith?

I again revert to the position that what we need to do is focus on welcoming all to the public arena rather than trying to clense it of religious voices with which we might disagree -- or simply not be a part of. I would also add that if this were not framed as a conflict between the religious and the irreligious in which each views the outcome as an existential threat, then people of faith might also be more open to arguments that as people of faith they should also be concerned about the content of the legislative prayer and its potential threat to their individual faiths. The more narrow the prayer, the greater the risk of a governmental theology being invoked. The more inclusive the prayer is of all world views, the greater protection offered for their individual understanding of their faith.

David

Hi David,

We are certainly at an impasse. Part of the problem is that you are commenting on this string on another of my RG questions ("Is it inconsistent with the principle of Secularism to allow public bodies to open their public meetings with prayers?"). That question is based upon the Supreme Court case of Greece v. Galloway on which oral arguments were presented to SCOTUS on November 6, 2013. You would benefit by reviewing the string of comments posted under that question and also from reading the background of the case. The Co-Plaintiffs in that action are an atheist and a Jew which means that the question is raised in the context of actual conflict not mere academic speculation. This also means that the following comment in your post has been rendered moot: "The fact that one does not have a traditional religious view does not mean that they cannot or would not appreciate the value of taking a moment of reflection prior to undertaking a solemn task."

The fact that the Co-Plaintiffs are suing means that they DO NOT appreciate "the value of taking a moment of reflection". In this regard, read Justice Kagan's comment which is included in my explanation of that question.

Despite the fact that this discussion is taking place on the wrong string and thus is a disservice to all of those who have posted their responses under the correct question, I will respond to the comments in your post here:

My strongly held view is that public meetings should be opened by simply saying, "This meeting is now called to order" or "Our session is now open." There is no need for public officials to take advantage of their official positions to open public meetings with a prayer. Indeed, if it is truly a matter of religious conviction and not just to show off their piousness, then let the saintly public officials say silent prayers to themselves. That is what I do when I silently bless my food before eating if I am dining with others who would be uncomfortable with me “blessing the food” out loud.

Moreover, David, I think it is intellectual cowardice on your part to intentionally mis-state my position by saying I am trying to keep religious voices out of the public square. Good grief, I am a black American – a descendant of slaves who had nothing but the weapon of using the white man’s religion against him to battle the “sinful institution” of slavery. Slaves could not claim rights under the U.S. Constitution or under the local laws in their states of enslavement; religion was their only weapon against the immorality of slavery. So, don't insult me by putting anti-religion arguments in my mouth. As an RG scholar, you are obliged to deal with my positions as I state them with no effort to twist my words so that you can parrot a canned spiel. That is a waste of my time and yours. Either engage my arguments as I have stated them or simply post your personal essay, elucidating your “pet” thesis without reference to my position. Do not attempt to use me as a foil!

Again, my position is that there are two separate questions involved; the first being what protocol is to be followed in opening a debate in the public square; and the second question being what voices shall be heard in the actual debate that takes place in the public square.

My answer to the first question is that the protocol to be followed should be neutral; i.e., the opening should not indicate that the officials involved favor one worldview over another. Hence, the public official should just open the meeting in a neutral non-committal manner. Example: At the beginning of a trial, the bailiff calls the courtroom audience to order PERIOD. The bailiff may ask those present to stand as the judge enters the courtroom; however, he does not ask them to bow their heads in prayer. A citizen has the right to expect this same type of impartiality when she goes before the Zoning Board to ask for a variance (especially if the citizen is seeking a variance to construct a Wiccan temple in the town); she should not have to participate in a moment of silence while the Zoning officials complete a Christian prayer or any other type of entreaty to a higher power or while members of the Zoning Board take the Lotus position or some other Yoga position to engage in meditation prior to getting on with the public business for which the meeting is being held.

And, as to the second question – namely, what voices should be heard in the actual debate in the public square (whether it be a Piccadilly Circus type oratory event, a public sit-in or protest, or a Town Hall meeting) -- I say EVERYBODY AND ANYBODY should be heard. Of course, this is what I succinctly stated in my prior post, specifically pointing out the importance of hearing religious voices in the public square during the Civil Rights Movement. I resent that you have chosen to ignore my comments in an attempt to “muddy the water”. That is beneath you and it certainly is beneath me.

David, nothing upsets me more than having someone attempt to “put words into my mouth.” I am perfectly capable of stating my position on any issue without the need for you or anyone else to state “what I actually meant”. So, reread my last post on this string and respond to that or be brave enough to post your comments as a personal essay that is germane to the issues in this string (or more accurately to the issues raised by my other RG question about opening public meetings with a prayer). However, post your essay as your independent position on the issues having absolutely nothing to do with addressing my position or any of my comments on the issues.

Gwen

Thank you, Jose. You have given me much to ponder; and I understand that pondering these important concepts is a more productive use of my time than continuing to simmer over David's unmitigated gall.

Gwen

A quick answer to your question is an unequivocal YES! Based on my life experiences. I do intend to read some of your comments and retort when possible.

"strict separation of church and state" is preferable in any pluralistic system of government. Religion is a breeding ground for intolerance and discrimination and has no place in government other than in the hearts of the participants. Nothing can expel God from the hearts of the faithful. Not even the inability to invoke God's name in public policy or procedural matters.

My reasons include:

1. Historically the concoction of religion and government has been disastrous.

2. Once anyone invokes "God" in a debate on their side, the other side automatically looses. How can anyone argue or debate against the "Almighty"? Impossible to debate matters of faith. It creates an unfair advantage to the "God-mongers". I'd prefer the "good-mongers".

3. In Egypt the democratically elected government was dislodged precisely for such collusions of Mosque & State by the majority "Akhwan Muslimeen" ("The Muslim Brotherhood").

4. I hear, in Pakistan a democratically elected majority government is still using an antiquated British Law regarding Blasphemy to persecute minority Christians and others (Shias, Hindus and Sikhs - surprising they still let these folks live there). They'll find a way to silence Malala with laws as they failed with bullets. You think lawyers are no good here, wait till you get a load of this.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/july-dec13/christians_09-30.html

5. When Hillary Clinton & Barak Obama put out Pakistani TV commercials about the blasphemous videos made by a Copt (?) around the time of the Libyan embassy attacks, they created an incendiary mix of religion & politics. The repercussions were felt by the Coptic community in Egypt and by the Christian communities in Pakistan and elsewhere as well in the form of Church burning and wanton killing.

6. More later.........

We got it made in the "free world". We have the freedom to believe what we want, while arguing whether we pray before public events or gatherings. Over there you become a target unless you tow the majority line. I hope that will help the "non-separationists" empathize with my PoV (point of view).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/july-dec13/christians_09-30.html

I have a few bones to pick with you David Guinn. (Only in jest!). Hope you read and retort my previous post. Gwen's denied you. But not I. Do you see my PoV?

I'm sure you will come up with some zingers for answers to my comments. However, you also ought to look at this discussion regarding the public prayer bit:

Q. Is it inconsistent with the principle of Secularism to allow public bodies to open their public meetings with prayers? https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_inconsistent_with_the_principle_of_Secularism_to_allow_public_bodies_to_open_their_public_meetings_with_prayers

Since this discussion is non-governmental, I don't mind sharing this sort of information. Warning! If you are weak in your own faith, please resist this discussion. This may be deleterious to your belief system. This discussion is Rated PG (Pastoral Guidance suggested).

Me personally, I'm not an extremist. I see an important place for prayer and communing with the deity. But, in my opinion, not for public display of one's personal faith in a governmental setting which should be for all the people, of all the people, by all the people. I'll even allow it if the folks who descent don't object. Kind of like, smokers out of courtesy for the non-smokers ask their permission. That is a more civil way to handle this issue than any global unilateral approach which may be considered insensitive by one party or the other. The religious folk need a strong prescription of "Dale Carnegie". Several weeks alone with Dale. This would dramatically enhance their ability for getting folks to prayer on Sabbath or Mass on Sunday at the appointed venue rather than promote such activities in Government. It may actually be considered sacrilegious by some among the Orthodox. I am aware of Mahatma Gandhi (no relative of Indira Gandhi) using Napoleon Hill and Dale Carnegie as tools, besides the Bible, against the British during the freedom struggle. Perhaps if the various factions in that puzzle study these books along with their holy books, they may be able to settle disputes with a lot less pain & suffering. Jesus, Buddha and others have not fully succeeded yet. Dale's the man!

The wonderful "Christian" British were brutal in India and China. They had so much of their Military deployed in India & China, plundering the area, that they were unable to leverage those assets on the American front. In my opinion only, the Britt's let go the less fruitful & lucrative asset, America. In those days we were a bunch of slave owning, pot growing (GW's hemp farm), head scalping, "red neck", Hill Billie's that wanted to show the rest of the world how to get free of the Britt's. Boy! I'm grateful!

Thank goodness for English, propagated by the Britt's. My strongest and preferred language to communicate. The language with the greatest access to the world of 6+ Billion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJr6FknZhpM

In terms of our founding fathers, I see the use of the word "creator" in the Bill of Rights but no other mention of the word God. I realize they may have erred by not including the Negro slave in these rights when they envisioned and scribed the constitution. I'm not sure of the motives or circumstances for such neglect clearly yet. I'm not sure how prevalent the slave trade was at the time of George Washington. But the concept in our founding principles was noble and way ahead of the times.

Oh Boy! My minds' eye is open. Google! I thought I knew a little American history. Now I realize, I know even less. Good news is that there is a lot of room to improve.

It is flabbergasting to realize that extremely erudite, super-intelligent "Christians" like GW and Ben Franklin who read the exact same Bible that we are reading today came to the conclusion that enslaving other humans was OK. Did they have no concept of the "Old Testament"? Were they "learning impaired"? Unbelievable dichotomy! At least the conquistadors were declared mercenaries, certainly not adherent to the teachings of Christ as these other founding gentlemen appear to have been. I hope I'm wrong and someone corrects me. For, my family and I are enjoying the fruits of freedom sown by the selfless sacrifice of the American Slaves. What is more amazing is that these very same folks like Abe Lincoln shed their blood and warred with brothers to "set things right". I'm grateful! Thanks, both "Slave, Master/Emancipator", for paving the path of freedom for my descendants! It must have been tough to let go of the wealth that the "slave" represented. I wonder what the colonial "slave master" women were thinking? What did these moms tell their kids about such un-Christian insidious practices? I guess if one could believe in "Genesis" verbatim, then you would be gullible enough to "swallow any pill". I'll dig it up!

While I'm at it this is the history of slavery in India: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_India

I was definitely sleeping (or Day Dreaming) in history class. Sorry Teach!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery

We ought to start a Wiki University, Wikiversity? We could offer an Honorary BS, MS or PiledhD in various disciplines. Any suggestions?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/85210325@N04/10221987094/lightbox/

I would say absolutely that a strict separation of church and state is preferable. I agree with Louis Brassard that many countries that frame themselves (or are framed by others) as 'secular" states are in reality not.

In Canada, where I live, Christian values are woven into the legal system, the health system, and many other facets of government. We wouldn't have universalized healthcare here without Christianity. That said, when I go to a hospital or am charged with a crime, or want to access government services, I don't want my religion (or lack thereof) to determine my freedoms, rights, and power. While I believe that a secular state offers the best freedom for people of all (or no) religions, I also see secularity used as a smokescreen for what is really xenophobia, as in the case of Quebec's "charter of values" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Charter_of_Values).

Hi Margaret,

Thank you so much for the link to the Canadian Charter of Values. It is amazing that I had to be made aware of this piece of "Universal Norm Legislation (UNL)" as it is SPOT-ON in terms of the Tripartite Theoretical Model (developed in my doctoral thesis) that drives my research. I have just recently started incorporating Canada into my comparative work on "Secularism" because it is such a rich source of data on religious pluralism; and, moreover, (as I have come to appreciate) provides more germane comparisons with what is happening in the U.S. than do Great Britain and Israel -- countries recently added to my research agenda in Migration Studies.

Aside from the link to the Charter, the following comment in your post has started me drafting two new articles in my head: "Christian values are woven into the legal system, the health system, and many other facets of government. We wouldn't have universalized healthcare here without Christianity".

Happy Holidays to you, Margaret, and thank you for giving me this early Xmas present!

Gwen

Thank you, Jose, for your well thought out insightful response.  Gwen

Stefan,

It is not evident.  This would amount to create a state which would itself be a autocratic cultural enforcer, exactly like old religious authority.  Right now, cultural practices are tolerated if they stay within the limits of the law.  There is a village in the north of British Columbia that has been founded by fundamentalist mormonts.  It is ruled by a few aging males , each one have about 20 wifes and exchange their young daugters for marriage.  Most male teenager are evicted from the village so that these dominant males could continue their practices.  The states have not stopped this way of life even though it is most likeley that they have sexual relations with minors which is against the laws.  But the whole community stick together and none will testify in courts. So it continues.  The bigger canadian cities (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg) received a lot of immigrants and are becoming multicultural.  Some cultural groups managed to continue their traditional religions and ways of life: marriage only within the community, restriction of liberty of teenager girls, special food, clothes, etc).  The vast majority of these practices do not contrevene to any canadian laws although some of them do not conform to a modern westerner mind set. Remember that the west has decided to secularize the public sphere and to adopt a liberal stand.  This liberal laissez faire in a era of immigration from cultures were family members are attached the traditional family customs have lead to our current situation. Deviating from the custom and family authority has very deep repercussions from an individuals.  Liberalism and individualism has created the social conditions of its own eradication.  I do not know of any magic bullet out of this social situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism

Journalist Ed West argued in his 2013 book, The Diversity Illusion, that the British political establishment had uncritically embraced multiculturalism without proper consideration of the downsides of ethnic diversity. He wrote:

Everyone in a position of power held the same opinion. Diversity was a good in itself, so making Britain truly diverse would enrich it and bring 'significant cultural contributions', reflecting a widespread belief among the ruling classes that multiculturalism and cultural, racial and religious diversity were morally positive things whatever the consequences. This is the unthinking assumption held by almost the entire political, media and education establishment. It is the diversity illusion.

West has also argued:

Advocates of multiculturalism argue that immigrants prefer to stick together because of racism and the fear of racial violence, as well as the bonds of community. This is perfectly reasonable, but if this is the case, why not the same for natives too? If multiculturalism is right because minorities feel better among themselves, why have mass immigration at all, since it must obviously make everyone miserable? (And if diversity 'enriches' and strengthens, why integrate, since that will only reduce diversity?) All the arguments for multiculturalism—that people feel safer, more comfortable among people of the same group, and that they need their own cultural identity—are arguments against immigration, since English people must also feel the same. If people categorised as "white Britons" are not afforded that indulgence because they are a majority, do they attain it when they become a minority?

Stefan,

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria patriarch at the time previous to the muslim conquest would not have accepted this separatin speech.  It is given by a patriarch representing a tiny minority and now it is the  grand imam of al-Azhar, Egypt's highest Islamic authority which has taken the place of the ancient Coptic patriarch and that is very close to the political power.  In this new circumstance the best deal for the patriarch would be to hope a separation. 

In the west the first phase of the so-called separation has taken place in the reformation.  Many sustpect that protestantist type of piety prepared the way for a totally amoral capitalistic consumerism based society where the new value/religion is money.  There is even less separation, that a complete union of all the power: politic, finantial, consumerism .  It was separted before now it is a total union.