No "Religious Free" Zones

Illicit Distortions Of  Church and State

In his book A History of the American People, Paul Johnson confronts a modern fallacy.  In the United States it has become increasingly the case that the separation of church and state means that the state must be a thoroughly secular institution. 

This misconstruction has been eagerly picked up and "run" in most secular states in the West.  Philosophers like Jurgen Habermas in Germany has argued strongly for a secular (that is, atheistic) public square where all philosophies and views can be discussed and debated on neutral ground.  Most folk today who are interested in the debates over church vs. state accept a fundamental premise of this view which is that the doctrines of the separation of church and state necessarily mean that the state is a secular referee--and, therefore, neutral and indifferent towards religious belief. 

The effect of this has been to shove religious beliefs and doctrines out of the public square and chain them to the kitchen table.  Paul Johnson argues that this is a radical distortion of what originally was meant by the "separation of church and state". 

The First Amendment . . . has been widely, almost wilfully, misunderstood in recent years, and interpreted as meaning that the federal government is forbidden by the Constitution to countenance or subsidize even indirectly the practice of religion.  That would have astonished and angered the Founding Fathers.

Habermas Versus Merkel

Why "Europism" is a Very Bad Idea

Taken as a whole, European intellectuals are not known for their clarity, nor even their ability to reason logically.  Rather, they take refuge in generalisations couched in vague polysyllabic terms.  From Kant to Heidegger to Sartre and to Jergen Habermas the trail of confused obfuscation is well marked.

Habermas has been grandly described as "one of the most influential contemporary European intellectuals" [The Guardian] which probably arises out of most people struggling to understand what he is saying.  One thing is clear, however.  Like most continental philosophers, Habermas is decidedly anti-democractic and elitist.  The common people are not to be trusted.  The intellectuals know best.

Habermas has argued for a new kind of politics which needs to play out in a different kind of arena.  There is such a thing as "the public square" where political debates and discussions need to take place where all accept certain fundamental constructions that limit and direct the discussion.  Self, private opinions, individual identities--all need to be laid aside in this more neutral "public sphere".  This had all led Habermas to advocate for an undemocratic, imperial Europe.  He is sure that everyone who enters and participates in his "public sphere" will end up thinking the same way he does.  Such a sentiment is elitist at its core.

Like many post-war German intellectuals there is a strong streak of guilt over the spectre of Nazism.

Choosing Whom to Believe

Mutiny Not Just on the Bounty

One of the more pernicious lies abroad is the that there is a demarcation between the secular and the spiritual.  For the Unbeliever, the secular is the real.  The spiritual realm is either an imaginary weird construct or an unassailable realm of private, personal identity.  Either way, it is irrelevant to the real business of life.

Many Christians have either bought the lie or fallen under its sway.  They have come to accept Jurgen Habermas's distinction between the private and the public spheres.  The private sphere is, well, private. Personal.  Soul stuff.  That's where religion is believed and practised.  At most it should influence no more than a family household--and even that is contentious.  Church is where people who have the same private beliefs about God gather and encourage each other in their private religion.  Such religion is tolerable to Habermas.  He cares not whether the religion is true or not, as long as it is kept private--or irrelevant.

The Religion of Secularism

Circumcision Cut Off

Jurgen Habermas has famously argued for a secular public square, where all religions and irreligions can participate inclusively. The idea is that each religion will check its religious convictions, beliefs, and practices in at the door, and will enter into discussion and debate using reason and argument that is equally valid to all people--that is, they will deploy secular reasoning. Only secular reasoning has validity in the public square.  Religious convictions are private matters--and must be kept private.  They have no currency or place in public issues. 

Habermas at this point is naive.