tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post4038190313680502079..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Andrew Brown on secularismStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-10162329570821456002009-06-04T01:37:56.067+00:002009-06-04T01:37:56.067+00:00Rawls was an American.
As such his views on polit...Rawls was an American.<br /><br />As such his views on political philosophy frequently reflected the American ideal of constitution (the "veil of ignorance" not withstanding).<br /><br />His position reflected the debate at the time in the US over where the dividing line should be between free expression and non-endorsement when comes to government action.<br /><br />His final position by the way, "...that while an agent may appeal to religious reasons to justify coercive law, he may not appeal solely to these reasons", pretty closely (although not as forcefully) reflects the Lemon Test, which the Supreme Court uses as a precedent in deciding such issues.<br /><br />I tend to agree with Rawls and the Lemon test. If someone wants to enact coercive legislation and her/his only argument is that their faith tells them that it should be done, it's a weak argument and should be disregarded.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-76303162446515203422009-06-03T18:02:50.349+00:002009-06-03T18:02:50.349+00:00I have to admit that I don't have a specific q...I have to admit that I don't have a specific quote/reference at the moment. But I clearly remember reading about it from the introduction of Political Liberalism (the paperback version).<br /><br />From <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-politics/#Raw" rel="nofollow">SEP</a> "In Political Liberalism, Rawls admits that at one point he inclined toward accepting an ambitious version of the DRR according to which each citizen of a liberal democracy ought not to appeal to religious reasons when deliberating about matters of basic justice and constitutional essentials (see Rawls 1993, 247 n.36)."<br />And Audi would have been my second guy, although I am not that familiar with his work.Mats Volberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10629977827114919446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-83041669575065511362009-06-03T08:23:26.618+00:002009-06-03T08:23:26.618+00:00Maybe Rawls. Got a quote/reference? The only other...Maybe Rawls. Got a quote/reference? The only other I know of is Robert Audi.<br /><br />Point is, you have to look very hard to find this kind of secularist. They are comparatively few in number. Neither the British Humanist Association, nor it's philosophers group (which includes many notables) endorse that sort of secularism. In fact they reject it (in their pamphlet on secularism). Yet this is how secularists are endlessly portrayed by religious conservatives. When I debated Philosopher Roger Trigg at the Ox Lit Festival, he expressed surprise that I didn't want to prevent religious people from expressing religious points of view in public.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-29085736727894768932009-06-03T07:44:57.334+00:002009-06-03T07:44:57.334+00:00"incidentally, how many secularists do you kn..."incidentally, how many secularists do you know who believe people should not be allowed to publicly express a religious point of view?"<br /><br />John Rawls?Mats Volberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10629977827114919446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82643585259860864412009-06-02T21:09:23.397+00:002009-06-02T21:09:23.397+00:00There remains the issue of religions which espouse...There remains the issue of religions which espouse opinions the expression of which would otherwise be considered a crime - "Our Holy Book commands the faithful to kill all infidels wherever you find them." - or whatever the unfortunate group happens to be. It's all very well for some religious authority figure to read out the passages and the say "-but of course that's against the law so don't do it please." but how much weight will that carry? Will all copies of holy books be annotated with suitable warnings?wombatnoreply@blogger.com