One of the major alleged positive points put forward by secularists for a secular civil society is that secularism is religiously neutral. Once that's established, they usually go on to tell you why you're wrong and they're right about how civil government should be done.
I hope you caught the irony in that. The fact is that religious- or worldview-neutrality is impossible, because any system of laws and public policies will inevitably reflect some people's worldview assumptions over those of others. Ethics is nothing other than applied worldviews, and civil law is nothing other than publicly applied social ethics. So long as there are multiple worldviews represented by those who live in the society (which will be the case in any society that contains more than a handful of people), the law will reflect some views and reject others. Secularism is nothing other than the establishment of Agnosticism/Atheism as the official religion of the society, to the exclusion of other worldviews (other worldviews may be tolerated to some extent, but only at the sufferance of the values of the established worldview).
This basic argument for the impossibility of religious neutrality in civil law has been made lots of times and by many different kinds of people, though it has failed to gain a strong foothold in the general American psyche at least partly because the entire American project of "religious equality" is rooted in the idea of religious neutrality. To admit that the latter is impossible is to give up on the mainstream idea of the former and thus to give up on something that is seen to be a part of America's core, unique identity.
Below I have provided links to an array of articles making the argument against the possibility of neutrality. The articles represent the thinking of very different people with very different worldviews but who are united in having come to admit that neutrality is impossible and in their choice to speak out about that fact. These articles can provide a place to dive in for those who wish to think about this issue with greater depth.
First of all, one the best mainstream academic authors I have come across in the modern day who points out the impossibility of neutrality is Steven D. Smith. Smith is a University of San Diego law professor.
Here is a list of his books on amazon.com. They are all excellent.
Here is an excellent article he has written entitled "The Paralyzing Paradox of Religious Neutrality."
Here are some more great articles on this subject:
Is Secularism Unprincipled? - by Ian Polluck. Polluck is an Atheist, but one who recognizes the inherent hypocrisy of the secular project so often favored by modern American Atheists (though he advocates for it anyway even while recognizing its hypocrisy).
Down with Secularism! - by Richard Smyth, another Atheist who recognizes the non-neutrality of secularism.
Is God Unconstitutional? - by Phillip E. Johnson of Intelligent Design fame. Johnson provides a very perceptive analysis of modern popular, legal, and academic cultures and how they are influenced by Naturalism (Agnosticism/Atheism) despite their claims to be worldview-neutral. His book Reason in the Balance is a fantastic work along these lines as well.
I'll also add a couple of articles I have written on the subject on my blog:
The Impossibility of Neutrality
The Impossibility of Governmental Neutrality in Religious Matters
As I continue to think of more articles and books on this subject, I'll add them periodically to this list as updates.
Showing posts with label The Myth of Neutrality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Myth of Neutrality. Show all posts
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Fighting the Battle While Throwing the War?
This article was originally published last May, but the issues remain current. In fact, they are more current now than they were a year ago.
This past March saw the United States focused on the issue of same-sex marriage, as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two important cases having to do with the subject. The first focused on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. The second dealt with the constitutionality of the federal act DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which also defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
To a great extent, the US is divided on the issue of civil recognition of same-sex marriages along the predictable liberal vs. conservative line (although a few noteworthy Republicans and conservatives have recently embraced the legality of same-sex marriage as well, as the cause rapidly gains cultural popularity). The liberal arguments tend to focus on the demand for equality and the protection of civil rights. To grant legal recognition to heterosexual but not same-sex marriage, they say, is discriminatory against the LGBT community and denies them full access to all the rights they are entitled to as equal citizens.
Conservative arguments have tended, especially recently, to focus on the need to preserve a traditional two-parent two-gender family structure for the raising of children, arguing that same-sex relationships are incapable of providing children all the resources they need for a proper upbringing.
What is notably absent on both sides to a great extent is an explicit appeal to any higher standard than that of human need and desire. Although liberals typically claim that opposition to legal recognition of same-sex marriages is driven by "religious concerns"--by which they mean any concerns that aren't rooted in an Agnostic worldview--you would not know this from listening to how conservatives typically argue their position, particularly when you get to the level of courtroom arguments. Conservatives act as if they are just as much committed to a secular government, where the established religion is Agnosticism, as their liberal counterparts.
Why is this? No doubt a good deal of it stems from pragmatic motivations. You can just hear the thinking going on (whether consciously or subconsciously): "We have to use secular arguments. We can't refer to God and the Bible! Why, if we do, we'll be swept right out of court easily by our adversaries! If you want to win the game, you have to play by the established rules." The prevailing understanding of the nation's religious orientation these days by our leaders is that the US is a secular nation which must remain neutral on religious matters (neutrality turning out to be the rejection of how everyone but Agnostics look at everything). The feeling is that if we don't bow to that prevailing cultural trend and play by those rules, we won't possibly be able to win the battle for marriage, and therefore we must act prudently and try to win the game on secular grounds.
But there are a number of problems with this reasoning. One is that it tends to be disingenuous or at least question-begging, and it tends to gut the substance of the conservative arguments. A lot of conservatives seem clearly to be thinking about God even if they are not talking about God when they make their arguments. For example, conservatives will often argue that we cannot have same-sex marriage because "marriage has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, and you can't just go and change the traditional meanings of words!" The answer to that? Sure, you can! We do it all the time. We've changed legal definitions of marriage in the past. Marriage used to involve, legally, the idea that the husband is the head of the household, but now that has been legally removed from the definition. In many states up until the 1960s, there were legal definitions of marriage which precluded interracial marriages of various sorts. And beyond marriage, we have redefined all sorts of words and concepts throughout human history. Words are invented by people, right? So people can change them whenever they need to, right? Makes sense to me, IF (big, gigantic IF here) we assume the Agnostic rather than the Christian worldview. So why are conservatives putting forward this silly claim that we can't redefine words and concepts when it suits us? Could it be, perhaps, that lurking under their argument is the assumption that the real reason we can't just change marriage is because God, not man, has defined it for us? If that were the case, as it is if we assume a Christian rather than an Agnostic worldview, I think they've got a knock-down argument. The problem is, the conservatives are smuggling in their Christian assumptions without explicitly expressing them in an attempt to avoid alarming the "separation of church and state" gatekeepers who watch all our language for any tiny hint of non-Agnosticism and are ready to pounce on anything they find and rule it out of bounds in political discussions on the grounds of the First Amendment. But by concealing their Christian assumptions, they end up masking their real motives as well as vitiating their argument.
And I would argue that this is the case with pretty much all the conservative arguments. They simply aren't very good arguments, from a secular point of view. From an Agnostic point of view, I think the conservatives deserve to lose this battle, and this is evident to many people watching this controversy drag on. The secularists simply have a better case on secularist grounds. (For a more full analysis of how this is so, and also a point-by-point exposure of how both sides in this debate stake their position on the principles of a secular worldview, see my two-part blog article examining in some detail the arguments that were presented by both sides in the California Proposition 8 court case back in 2010.)
But the most important problem with the strategy of playing on secular grounds for pragmatic reasons is that it is a betrayal of our calling as Christians to stand up for God and his truth in all areas of life. Our job is not to try to win individual battles in the culture wars by pandering to Agnostics and reinforcing their conviction that God has no place in the laws and policies of society. Even if we win such a battle in that way (and I would argue that we are far more likely to lose over time, for reasons mentioned earlier), we've only won the battle by throwing the war. It would be far better, and more honest and principled, to risk losing this one battle in order to engage in confrontation with the culture over the larger, ultimately fundamental, questions--What is the ultimate standard of morality? Is it human opinions and desires, or God's moral law? Who is the ultimate moral authority over all men? What are we meant to be as a society? Just a large group of people making stuff up and doing whatever we want until we die, or created in God's image to glorify him and find our joy in him and in conformity to his Word? In an ultimate sense, who really cares if we end up succeeding in getting a Godless culture to put off same-sex marriage for fallacious or at least weak reasons, while they continue on overall dishonoring God and on the path to destruction? Sure, in itself it's better for the society to not recognize same-sex marriage than to recognize it, but far, far more important is that our society learn to embrace the full truth that is the Christian worldview. For the sake of our calling as Christians, for the sake of honesty, for the sake of the welfare of our culture, and ultimately for the glory of God, let's fight the real ultimate battle and confront our culture with the full claims of the crown rights of King Jesus on this issue and on every issue!
This past March saw the United States focused on the issue of same-sex marriage, as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two important cases having to do with the subject. The first focused on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. The second dealt with the constitutionality of the federal act DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which also defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
To a great extent, the US is divided on the issue of civil recognition of same-sex marriages along the predictable liberal vs. conservative line (although a few noteworthy Republicans and conservatives have recently embraced the legality of same-sex marriage as well, as the cause rapidly gains cultural popularity). The liberal arguments tend to focus on the demand for equality and the protection of civil rights. To grant legal recognition to heterosexual but not same-sex marriage, they say, is discriminatory against the LGBT community and denies them full access to all the rights they are entitled to as equal citizens.
Conservative arguments have tended, especially recently, to focus on the need to preserve a traditional two-parent two-gender family structure for the raising of children, arguing that same-sex relationships are incapable of providing children all the resources they need for a proper upbringing.
What is notably absent on both sides to a great extent is an explicit appeal to any higher standard than that of human need and desire. Although liberals typically claim that opposition to legal recognition of same-sex marriages is driven by "religious concerns"--by which they mean any concerns that aren't rooted in an Agnostic worldview--you would not know this from listening to how conservatives typically argue their position, particularly when you get to the level of courtroom arguments. Conservatives act as if they are just as much committed to a secular government, where the established religion is Agnosticism, as their liberal counterparts.
Why is this? No doubt a good deal of it stems from pragmatic motivations. You can just hear the thinking going on (whether consciously or subconsciously): "We have to use secular arguments. We can't refer to God and the Bible! Why, if we do, we'll be swept right out of court easily by our adversaries! If you want to win the game, you have to play by the established rules." The prevailing understanding of the nation's religious orientation these days by our leaders is that the US is a secular nation which must remain neutral on religious matters (neutrality turning out to be the rejection of how everyone but Agnostics look at everything). The feeling is that if we don't bow to that prevailing cultural trend and play by those rules, we won't possibly be able to win the battle for marriage, and therefore we must act prudently and try to win the game on secular grounds.
But there are a number of problems with this reasoning. One is that it tends to be disingenuous or at least question-begging, and it tends to gut the substance of the conservative arguments. A lot of conservatives seem clearly to be thinking about God even if they are not talking about God when they make their arguments. For example, conservatives will often argue that we cannot have same-sex marriage because "marriage has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, and you can't just go and change the traditional meanings of words!" The answer to that? Sure, you can! We do it all the time. We've changed legal definitions of marriage in the past. Marriage used to involve, legally, the idea that the husband is the head of the household, but now that has been legally removed from the definition. In many states up until the 1960s, there were legal definitions of marriage which precluded interracial marriages of various sorts. And beyond marriage, we have redefined all sorts of words and concepts throughout human history. Words are invented by people, right? So people can change them whenever they need to, right? Makes sense to me, IF (big, gigantic IF here) we assume the Agnostic rather than the Christian worldview. So why are conservatives putting forward this silly claim that we can't redefine words and concepts when it suits us? Could it be, perhaps, that lurking under their argument is the assumption that the real reason we can't just change marriage is because God, not man, has defined it for us? If that were the case, as it is if we assume a Christian rather than an Agnostic worldview, I think they've got a knock-down argument. The problem is, the conservatives are smuggling in their Christian assumptions without explicitly expressing them in an attempt to avoid alarming the "separation of church and state" gatekeepers who watch all our language for any tiny hint of non-Agnosticism and are ready to pounce on anything they find and rule it out of bounds in political discussions on the grounds of the First Amendment. But by concealing their Christian assumptions, they end up masking their real motives as well as vitiating their argument.
And I would argue that this is the case with pretty much all the conservative arguments. They simply aren't very good arguments, from a secular point of view. From an Agnostic point of view, I think the conservatives deserve to lose this battle, and this is evident to many people watching this controversy drag on. The secularists simply have a better case on secularist grounds. (For a more full analysis of how this is so, and also a point-by-point exposure of how both sides in this debate stake their position on the principles of a secular worldview, see my two-part blog article examining in some detail the arguments that were presented by both sides in the California Proposition 8 court case back in 2010.)
But the most important problem with the strategy of playing on secular grounds for pragmatic reasons is that it is a betrayal of our calling as Christians to stand up for God and his truth in all areas of life. Our job is not to try to win individual battles in the culture wars by pandering to Agnostics and reinforcing their conviction that God has no place in the laws and policies of society. Even if we win such a battle in that way (and I would argue that we are far more likely to lose over time, for reasons mentioned earlier), we've only won the battle by throwing the war. It would be far better, and more honest and principled, to risk losing this one battle in order to engage in confrontation with the culture over the larger, ultimately fundamental, questions--What is the ultimate standard of morality? Is it human opinions and desires, or God's moral law? Who is the ultimate moral authority over all men? What are we meant to be as a society? Just a large group of people making stuff up and doing whatever we want until we die, or created in God's image to glorify him and find our joy in him and in conformity to his Word? In an ultimate sense, who really cares if we end up succeeding in getting a Godless culture to put off same-sex marriage for fallacious or at least weak reasons, while they continue on overall dishonoring God and on the path to destruction? Sure, in itself it's better for the society to not recognize same-sex marriage than to recognize it, but far, far more important is that our society learn to embrace the full truth that is the Christian worldview. For the sake of our calling as Christians, for the sake of honesty, for the sake of the welfare of our culture, and ultimately for the glory of God, let's fight the real ultimate battle and confront our culture with the full claims of the crown rights of King Jesus on this issue and on every issue!
The Social Contract Isn't Worth the Paper It Isn't Written On
What do you get when you have a society that doesn't want to base its
laws and policies on God's law? Well, you can get all sorts of things:
You can get Islamic republics, societies based on the divine right of
kings or the ultimate will of a dictator, or any number of things the
creative mind of man can invent to try to fill the gap.
In the western world right now, and especially in the United States of America, the gap-filler currently in vogue is the "social contract." Examining it carefully provides a beautiful case study revealing the depths of absurdity and emptiness societies plunge themselves into when they try to abandon God.
Let's take a look at the basic idea: The whole things starts with a Naturalistic point of view, in which there is no objective moral law--that is, there is no absolute moral law that transcends the particular desires and goals various finite beings tend to have. Since there is no objective moral law, there is no basis for any idea of objective authority. Morality reduces to nothing other than "What do I want and how can I get it?", and it follows from this that nobody is the boss of anybody else. My ultimate boss is my own desires, and your ultimate boss is your own desires. It would seem to be a difficult prospect to get a set of laws to govern an entire society out of this sort of ethical philosophy. Basically, you can go two ways: 1. You could go what I call the "dicatatorship" route--basically, that would be when one person or a group of people come up with a set of laws and then tell everyone else that they have to follow them or they will beat them up. 2. You can go the choice way of the modern west, the "social contract" route, which goes like this: I'm my own boss and you're your own boss, but I want to respect your "autonomy" and I want you to respect mine (perhaps for reasons of self-interest mixed with feelings of compassion, etc.). That means I don't want to impose laws on you and I don't want you to impose laws on me. So what we do instead is come up with a set of laws that we all can agree on. Then we can unite into a common society without having anything being imposed upon anyone. Governing authority can be based on the "consent of the governed." "We the people" will ordain our own laws and be the ultimate source of governing authority.
At this point, things start to get interesting. It sounds really cool to base laws on the "consent of all the governed." The problems start when we realize an important fact--the governed don't agree on nearly anything at all. That would seem to pose a bit of a problem. So what are we going to do about it? At this stage, we get to watch the creativity of the fallen human mind go into full gear. One possibility is that we can go with the majority point of view. We have some kind of a vote on everything, and then we do whatever the most people want to do. That's basically how John Locke, the great political philosopher of the seventeenth century, seems to look at it:
The problem with this approach is that it only preserves the consent of the majority and not that of all the governed, which was the whole point of the social contract in the first place. Why should the majority be able to tell me what to do? What gives them that authority? If we say they have that authority intrinsically, without my consent, then we've abandoned the whole "consent of the governed" idea for something entirely different, and we then will have to provide a justification for why the majority, merely by being such, gets to have authority over other people. If we want to stick to the social contract, we have to say, as Locke does above, that it is the consent of each and every one of the governed that gives the majority the right to rule. But then that returns us to the original problem: What if I don't consent? What if I say that I don't want to do what the majority wants me to do, because I'd rather do something else instead?
This is where things start to get amusing. The typical next move the social contract advocate makes, in response to the uncooperative pestering of its critic, is to explain to the critic that although he may not think he consents to a certain law, he really does. For example, take this dialogue between a Social Contract Advocate (in this case a police officer) and his Uncooperative Critic:
And so on. Where this approach gets really interesting is when it is used to impose laws or policies that are extremely controversial, such as policies allowing civil recognition of same-sex marriages. Political theorists have spent a lot of time and energy over the past few decades trying to justify imposing controversial laws and policies on entire populations while still claiming to be preserving the consent of all the governed. Perhaps the most famous of those political theorists was John Rawls. Here is Rawls's formula for how we can be sure our laws and policies are legitimately based on the consent of all the people:
Well, there you go! Just base your laws on things that all people can reasonably be expected to endorse, and you'll be fine! The trouble is--once again--that the list of things that all people will endorse is very small. "Don't be pessimistic," say the social contract advocates, "There are a lot of things that all people can reasonable be expected to endorse, such as policies allowing civil recognition of same-sex marriages! You see, opposition to same-sex marriage is based simply on religious beliefs, and everyone knows that you can't expect everyone to endorse those. So, unless you want to be an unreasonable bigoted dictator, which we know you don't, you won't want to make laws limiting people's freedoms based on your religious beliefs, and so you will be in favor of same-sex marriage! You see how easy it is?" At this point, the dialogue between the Social Contract Advocate and the Uncooperative Critic may go something like this:
It should be plain to any objective (dare I say any "reasonable"?) observer that the social contract idea is in deep trouble if its advocates have to resort to these sorts of bizarre contortions in order to maintain its validity. The obvious fact of the matter is that you can't claim to have the consent of all the governed for any particular law if in fact all the governed don't consent to that law, and no amount of game-playing or fancy rhetoric can change that. The social contract is a sham. It doesn't work. It isn't worth the paper it isn't written on. It is simply a way for Naturalists who don't want to think of themselves as dictators to feel better about themselves when they tell other people what to do and punish them for not doing what they want. The fact is, our modern Naturalistic societies, on their own principles, have absolutely no moral authority whatsoever to make anybody do anything. We have thrown out God, the true ultimate moral authority of the universe, and in his place we have nothing but a gaping, empty hole. We can try to cover up this hole by placing over it the rotted covering of fancy political rhetoric and hand-waving, but the hole remains. In fact, nothing can fill it except the God whose law we have rejected, the God who created us and owns us, and whose will is the true objective standard of morality for all the universe, whether particular beings in that universe consent or not.
In the western world right now, and especially in the United States of America, the gap-filler currently in vogue is the "social contract." Examining it carefully provides a beautiful case study revealing the depths of absurdity and emptiness societies plunge themselves into when they try to abandon God.
Let's take a look at the basic idea: The whole things starts with a Naturalistic point of view, in which there is no objective moral law--that is, there is no absolute moral law that transcends the particular desires and goals various finite beings tend to have. Since there is no objective moral law, there is no basis for any idea of objective authority. Morality reduces to nothing other than "What do I want and how can I get it?", and it follows from this that nobody is the boss of anybody else. My ultimate boss is my own desires, and your ultimate boss is your own desires. It would seem to be a difficult prospect to get a set of laws to govern an entire society out of this sort of ethical philosophy. Basically, you can go two ways: 1. You could go what I call the "dicatatorship" route--basically, that would be when one person or a group of people come up with a set of laws and then tell everyone else that they have to follow them or they will beat them up. 2. You can go the choice way of the modern west, the "social contract" route, which goes like this: I'm my own boss and you're your own boss, but I want to respect your "autonomy" and I want you to respect mine (perhaps for reasons of self-interest mixed with feelings of compassion, etc.). That means I don't want to impose laws on you and I don't want you to impose laws on me. So what we do instead is come up with a set of laws that we all can agree on. Then we can unite into a common society without having anything being imposed upon anyone. Governing authority can be based on the "consent of the governed." "We the people" will ordain our own laws and be the ultimate source of governing authority.
At this point, things start to get interesting. It sounds really cool to base laws on the "consent of all the governed." The problems start when we realize an important fact--the governed don't agree on nearly anything at all. That would seem to pose a bit of a problem. So what are we going to do about it? At this stage, we get to watch the creativity of the fallen human mind go into full gear. One possibility is that we can go with the majority point of view. We have some kind of a vote on everything, and then we do whatever the most people want to do. That's basically how John Locke, the great political philosopher of the seventeenth century, seems to look at it:
MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest (http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr08.htm).
The problem with this approach is that it only preserves the consent of the majority and not that of all the governed, which was the whole point of the social contract in the first place. Why should the majority be able to tell me what to do? What gives them that authority? If we say they have that authority intrinsically, without my consent, then we've abandoned the whole "consent of the governed" idea for something entirely different, and we then will have to provide a justification for why the majority, merely by being such, gets to have authority over other people. If we want to stick to the social contract, we have to say, as Locke does above, that it is the consent of each and every one of the governed that gives the majority the right to rule. But then that returns us to the original problem: What if I don't consent? What if I say that I don't want to do what the majority wants me to do, because I'd rather do something else instead?
This is where things start to get amusing. The typical next move the social contract advocate makes, in response to the uncooperative pestering of its critic, is to explain to the critic that although he may not think he consents to a certain law, he really does. For example, take this dialogue between a Social Contract Advocate (in this case a police officer) and his Uncooperative Critic:
SCA: You were driving 100 mph in a 65 mph zone. I'm giving you a ticket.
UC: But I don't want a ticket.
SCA: Well, of course you don't want a ticket. But you're going to get one anyway, because you broke the law.
UC: But I don't consent to the law that says I can't drive 100 mph in 65 mph zones.
SCA: Yes, you do.
UC: No, I don't.
SCA: You chose to live in this country, didn't you?
UC: Well, I was born here and didn't have much say in that. But I suppose I could have moved someplace else, so yes, I guess I have chosen to live here.
SCA: Well then, you see, by choosing to live in this country, you implicitly consented to obey the laws of the land.
UC: No, I didn't.
SCA: Yes, you did.
UC: Look, you say that merely by living in a place one consents to its laws. But I don't consent to that principle, and so you can't impose it on me. According to my principles, I chose to live here without consenting to agree to any of the particular laws.
SCA: You can't do that.
UC: Why not?
SCA: Look, we can't just let you go around breaking laws.
UC: Are the laws of this country based on the "consent of the governed," or not?
SCA: They are.
UC: Well, I don't consent to this one! You can use force to make me do what you want me to do, but you can't claim to have my personal consent as the basis for your authority to do so when in fact you do not have my personal consent!
SCA: But you chose to live here, and that means you consented to obey the laws--implicitly.
UC: No, I didn't!
SCA: Yes, you did!
And so on. Where this approach gets really interesting is when it is used to impose laws or policies that are extremely controversial, such as policies allowing civil recognition of same-sex marriages. Political theorists have spent a lot of time and energy over the past few decades trying to justify imposing controversial laws and policies on entire populations while still claiming to be preserving the consent of all the governed. Perhaps the most famous of those political theorists was John Rawls. Here is Rawls's formula for how we can be sure our laws and policies are legitimately based on the consent of all the people:
Our exercise of political power is fully proper only when it is exercised in accordance with a constitution the essentials of which all citizens as free and equal may reasonably be expected to endorse in the light of principles and ideals acceptable to their common human reason (John Rawls, Political Liberalism [New York: Columbia University Press, 1996], 137).
Well, there you go! Just base your laws on things that all people can reasonably be expected to endorse, and you'll be fine! The trouble is--once again--that the list of things that all people will endorse is very small. "Don't be pessimistic," say the social contract advocates, "There are a lot of things that all people can reasonable be expected to endorse, such as policies allowing civil recognition of same-sex marriages! You see, opposition to same-sex marriage is based simply on religious beliefs, and everyone knows that you can't expect everyone to endorse those. So, unless you want to be an unreasonable bigoted dictator, which we know you don't, you won't want to make laws limiting people's freedoms based on your religious beliefs, and so you will be in favor of same-sex marriage! You see how easy it is?" At this point, the dialogue between the Social Contract Advocate and the Uncooperative Critic may go something like this:
UC: But I don't consent to allowing civil recognition of same-sex marriages.
SCA: Yes, you do.
UC: No, I don't.
SCA: Why are you--or, excuse me, why do you think you are against this?
UC: Same-sex marriage is a violation of the laws of God, which I believe that the civil government should uphold.
SCA: But you don't want to impose your religious beliefs into law, do you?
UC: Well, yes, actually, I do. They are not simply my religious beliefs. They are what I believe to be the truth. God wants civil rulers to base their laws and policies on his moral law, and so that is what they should do. All laws impose some set of beliefs and values into law. I just think we should impose true beliefs and values instead of false ones.
SCA: But it is unreasonable to impose one's religious beliefs into law!
UC: No, it isn't, not if they are true.
SCA: But people disagree with your religious beliefs, so you'd be imposing them on people who disagree with them! And that's unreasonable!
UC: All laws impose beliefs and values on people who disagree with them. Hence the need for law enforcement, prisons, etc. For example, you want to impose on me a civil policy of recognizing same-sex marriage, even though I disagree with the idea of having the sort of society that kind of policy will help to create.
SCA: You're comparing apples to oranges! It's not the same thing, because what I am trying to do is reasonable while what you are trying to do is unreasonable.
UC: Perhaps you see it that way, but I see it differently. I think that I am being reasonable and you are being unreasonable. And anyway, whichever of us is actually reasonable, I don't consent to your same-sex marriage policy, and so you can't impose it on me according to your own rules.
SCA: No, I am preserving your consent. You're just being too literalistic and superficial. You see, because what I want to do is reasonable, all reasonable people will agree with it. Therefore, I can reasonably expect all people to agree with it. If someone says he doesn't, it is simply because he is ignorant and uninformed. If he were more reasonable, he would see that he really wants what I want. So while he may protest that he does not consent, in a deeper sense he really does consent, even though he doesn't realize it. So, for example, you may think that you don't consent to civil recognition of same-sex marriages, but that is only because you are confused and ignorant. The deepest and best part of you, if adequately educated and trained in good thinking habits, and perhaps given some lessons in compassion, would recognize that I am right and fully support my position on this. Therefore, in the deepest and most important sense, you really do consent to what I want, even though you say otherwise.
It should be plain to any objective (dare I say any "reasonable"?) observer that the social contract idea is in deep trouble if its advocates have to resort to these sorts of bizarre contortions in order to maintain its validity. The obvious fact of the matter is that you can't claim to have the consent of all the governed for any particular law if in fact all the governed don't consent to that law, and no amount of game-playing or fancy rhetoric can change that. The social contract is a sham. It doesn't work. It isn't worth the paper it isn't written on. It is simply a way for Naturalists who don't want to think of themselves as dictators to feel better about themselves when they tell other people what to do and punish them for not doing what they want. The fact is, our modern Naturalistic societies, on their own principles, have absolutely no moral authority whatsoever to make anybody do anything. We have thrown out God, the true ultimate moral authority of the universe, and in his place we have nothing but a gaping, empty hole. We can try to cover up this hole by placing over it the rotted covering of fancy political rhetoric and hand-waving, but the hole remains. In fact, nothing can fill it except the God whose law we have rejected, the God who created us and owns us, and whose will is the true objective standard of morality for all the universe, whether particular beings in that universe consent or not.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Pluralism, Secularism, and Societal Peace and Stability
It is commonly alleged by those in favor of "secularism" that one of its
great selling points is that it can bring peace and stability to
society, while non-secular societies are going to be rife with conflict
and strife. Let's take a look at this idea just a little more closely
and see if it holds up in theory.
For our purposes, secularism refers to the idea that civil government should avoid taking sides in worldview/religious disputes. Secularism implies a state that refuses to endorse or reject any particular worldview or set of beliefs that belongs to any worldview. In other words, secularism implies a religiously neutral civil government.
Let's consider the various kinds of societies, in broad outline, that can exist, and see if we have any reason to believe that secularism's claim to be the ultimate producer of peace and stability can withstand scrutiny.
1. First of all, we can imagine what I will call a pluralistic, pietistic, tolerant, non-secular society. What I mean by this is a society full of citizens/residents where there is a large amount of significant worldview-diversity (pluralism) among the citizens/residents, but where the citizens/residents (can I just call them "citizens" for short from now on to save space?) have no real concern to have their own ideals, beliefs, values, or goals reflected in the actions and policies of the governing institutions (pietism). The society is non-secular, and so the civil government does not claim to be neutral but straightforwardly and honestly adopts a disputed set of beliefs and values and bases its laws and policies on them. However, it also displays a great deal of tolerance towards those who do not share the official government worldview.
It would seem that such a society is likely to be very peaceful and stable, at least with regard to disputes that might originate from differing worldviews. Since the citizens in the society are allowed to live their own private lives in accordance with their own beliefs and values due to a policy of broad toleration, while they have no desire to have their views reflected in government policies, there is no recipe here for significant conflict. (Of course, one can raise the question of whether an entire population in the real world is likely to be pietistic to this extent.)
2. Secondly, we can consider a society that is pluralistic, non-pietistic, tolerant, and non-secular. The key difference between this society and the first one is that the citizens are not content merely to live out their private lives in accordance with their own beliefs and values. They also have a strong desire that the civil government follow their own beliefs and values in policy-making and law-making. They hold their values and beliefs to be important not just to themselves but to the general good and the well-being of society, and they want society's policies and laws to be wise and just (as they count wisdom and justice).
This society is going to be prone to conflict and will lack stability. It is full of people who have completely different ideas of the true and the good, all of whom wish their ideas to be reflected in official law and policy. The problem, of course, is that there can only be one set of laws and policies for a unified society, and those laws cannot reflect everyone's conflicting viewpoints. As the state is non-secular, it will have a straightforwardly-acknowledged official worldview guiding its public policy. The citizens whose views coincide with this official public worldview will be likely to be satisfied with this state of affairs, while those whose views are at odds with the reigning paradigm are likely to be dissatisfied with the situation, even if the state tolerates their dissident views in private life. Conflict may be significantly diffused if the state allows some kind of legal processes, however long-term, by which dissidents can work within the system to try to alter the overarching constitutional order and thus the reigning paradigm of the society (such as by allowing amendments to the Constitution to be made by a certain number of votes). However, this will be unlikely to resolve all societal tension. Even with a legal process for change in place and available, it will be difficult in a pluralistic society to get the society to permanently and with stability endorse anyone's particular point of view. As all sides of a particular dispute can use the same legal channels, it will be hard for one group to establish any kind of permanent dominance for its views over other existing views. A pluralistic society of this sort is thus likely to forever be like a see-saw, constantly going back and forth between conflicting views and policies. If the disputed matters are highly important to the parties (think of something like abortion, where both sides feel crucial, fundamental rights are at stake), there will likely be an increasing frustration as the parties realize they will never really be able to make the society what they want it to be so long as it remains non-pietistically pluralistic. This seems likely to eventually lead either to the breaking up of the society or to serious and even violent conflict, assuming the pluralism remains in place.
3. Now let's imagine a society that is pluralistic, pietistic, tolerant, and secular. This society is like the first society except that it is secular--that is, it claims not to have an established official worldview but to be neutral between contested worldview beliefs in the society.
This society, like the first, will likely be prone to peace and stability, for the same reasons as the first society was. If secularism vs. non-secularism has any effect at all, it will likely be towards slightly decreasing the amount of peace and stability. A secular society claims to be neutral between viewpoints and to treat all viewpoints equally. However, it is actually impossible for a state to be neutral in this way (especially in a pluralistic society). Different worldview beliefs lead to different values, and different values lead to different ideas as to what is good, worthwhile, beneficial, etc., both at an individual level and on a societal level. Therefore, a pluralistic society will have differing ideas as to what laws and policies in a society are truly good and wise. The state, in embracing some particular set of values, priorities, goals, policies, etc., will of necessity end up endorsing the ideals of one or some groups of people over others'. Especially in a deeply pluralistic society (like the modern USA), there simply will not be enough items agreed upon between those with differing worldviews to provide a sufficient foundation for governmental law and policy without the government having to add to those items other controverted ideas and ideals. So religious or worldview neutrality is really impossible for a single society. (For more argumentation on this point, see here, here, and here.) Therefore, any promise of neutrality made by a secular civil government will be necessarily deceptive. It will promise a kind of equality to all the citizens and their views that it can't really deliver. The society, as it must go on and make laws and policies in order to survive, will in fact adopt some set of controversial ideas and ideals anyway, all the while claiming it is not doing so. It will encourage citizens who don't share the concealed official viewpoint to think that their views are equally honored in the society when they truly are not. This situation is likely to bring resentment, as citizens with minority worldviews come to expect society to be more congenial to themselves and their values than is really the case. There would be less resentment, and thus less tension, if the society would simply come out and declare honestly and straightforwardly what its official viewpoint is and thus encourage its pietistic minority citizens to remain pietistic and not get their hopes raised too high.
4. Next, we can imagine a society that is pluralistic, non-pietistic, tolerant, and secular. This society is like society #2, except that it is secular.
This society is going to be prone to conflict and instability, for the same reasons as society #2 was. Will the society's being secular help? I don't really see how. In society #2, the civil government adopted a contested point of view as the basis upon which to make law and policy. The conflict arose because the non-pietistic population was not content to let views contrary to their own dominate political policy. The same situation will be in play here, the only difference being that the civil government will be pretending not to have a controversial official worldview while in reality it does. I suppose this might appease a few very stupid people who also don't really care all that much about what is true and good, and it also might make those with a majority viewpoint who don't think too deeply feel better about themselves, as if their views aren't being favored any more than anyone else's (though they really are). But it is more likely to exacerbate the problems had by society #2 for the reasons I mentioned when discussing society #3: A non-secular government might take views at odds with your beliefs and values, but at least it is honest and straightforward about it. A secular society, on the other hand, may just as much hold views contrary to yours, but it will disingenuously try to make you think that it is not doing so, that it is treating your views fully equally with all other views. This is likely to increase rather than decrease tensions among those with minority viewpoints. Also, a non-secular government, because it is fully aware and up-front about its controversial positions, is likely to be more aware than a naive or disingenuous non-secular government will be about the possible desirability of allowing societal tension to be diffused by means of putting in place legal processes towards change that minorities can avail themselves of. A secular government, on the other hand, may be less likely to consider carefully such an idea, since it denies outright that there are any minority views in the society (after all, how can there be views that are out of accord with the official viewpoint of the civil government--which is what I mean by "minority views"--if the civil government is neutral?). Thus, I must conclude that the secularism of this society is likely to make it less rather than more stable and peaceful than the otherwise comparable non-secular society #2.
5. OK, now let's consider a society that is pluralistic, pietistic, non-tolerant, and non-secular.
This society, for obvious reasons, is going to be prone to strife and instability. Even though the citizens are pietistic, yet they still hold beliefs and values that they consider important to their private lives. Insofar as the state refuses to allow them to hold and practice these beliefs and values, there is likely to be conflict. Of course, toleration comes in degrees. We can think of a society that allows dissident beliefs and values to be held and practiced in private life, but not in public view. (Imagine, for example, if Jews were allowed to be Jews and live as Jews in their private lives, but were not allowed to go outside in Jewish dress, erect publicly-visible synagogues, etc.) We can think of a society that goes further than this and outlaws even private beliefs and practice (insofar as such things can be witnessed enough to come to government attention). And we could imagine other forms of non-toleration as well. I think we can say, generally, that the less tolerant a pluralistic society is, the less peaceful and the more unstable it is likely to be, all other things being equal. A pluralistic society is a society full of people with different worldviews, different beliefs and values. If we make the way of life of a large group of people illegal in a society, we are courting serious resistance and thus conflict. For example, some people in Germany and the USA, and probably other western countries, want to outlaw male infant circumcision, including for religious reasons. What baffles me is how they never seem to realize just how impractical that idea is. Jews, and those who would sympathize with Jews if persecuted, make up a significantly large part of the populations of these countries. To ban an essential practice of Judaism (and apparently Islam as well, or so I'm told) would result in mass unrest and chaos.
6. Now, a society that is pluralistic, non-pietistic, non-tolerant, and non-secular.
Need we say much here? Obviously, this society is going to be significantly more unstable and chaotic than society #5.
7. What if we make the society pluralistic, pietistic, non-tolerant, and secular?
It's hard to see how making the society secular is going to have any influence to make the society more stable or peaceful. Again, as we saw earlier, a secular society is one that is disingenuous towards those with minority views, and thus, if anything, is simply going to increase rather than decrease tension. Secularism might even possibly have the effect of encouraging a society towards more non-toleration: A non-secular society knows and acknowledges that it disfavors certain views, and thus it is likely to consider how those holding such views should be treated. On the other hand, a secular society denies that it disfavors anyone's views (while doing so anyway), so it might be less inclined to consciously consider how tolerant its policies are towards dissidents in some cases. It might be less tolerant in some cases without noticing, due to a naivete arising from its secular philosophy. On the other hand, perhaps secularism might be more likely in some ways to be tolerant than a non-secular society, in that a society can only go so far in terms of discriminating against minorities before the illusion of neutrality comes to be in grave danger of bursting.
8. How about pluralistic, non-pietistic, non-tolerant, and secular?
Again, I don't see how secularism would make this society any more stable than society #6.
9. Now, let's imagine some non-pluralistic societies. I'm going to look at these more briefly and in a single point, because once we've gotten rid of pluralism, we've removed the basic cause of worldview conflict, as is evident from what we've seen.
Obviously, a tolerant, pietistic, non-pluralistic society is going to be prone to peace and stability. But a non-tolerant, non-pietistic, non-pluralistic society will also preserve overall peace and stability, because there will only be a very few people in it with minority views. All societies are intolerant towards some ideas and actions of some members of the society. For example, in the modern USA, we are intolerant towards theft and human sacrifice. Are there people in our society who want to steal, think it's OK to steal, and actually steal? Obviously. Are there people in our society who think it is good thing, or even a religious virtue, to practice human sacrifice? I would be surprised if there weren't. However, these ideas and ideals are enough of a minority that those who have and practice them do not make up a significant portion of the population--or, to put it another way, the society is not really significantly pluralistic with regard to these ideas and practices. Therefore, we can be intolerant towards them (by making them illegal) without undermining our overall peace and stability as a society. And this will be the case generally with such uncommon views. In a biblical theocracy, for example, where the public expression of idolatrous worship would be outlawed, so long as the population does not become significantly pluralistic regarding such matters, the outlawing of these things will not tend to decrease peace and stability. More likely, it will increase peace and stability, as it will discourage pluralism in these areas from developing and reinforce publicly-shared values. (Of course, throughout this whole examination, I've been looking at these things from a purely human point of view, not taking into account how God would bless a society favorable to his will and curse a society non-favorable.)
It seems to me it would make little difference whether a non-pluralistic society were secular or non-secular. It would have little practical reason to be secular, as there would be little point in pretending to be neutral.
So let's consider what we've learned through this little exercise. Our goal was to examine more closely the theoretical claim that secularism will tend to make human societies more peaceful and stable. We have not seen any reason at all to think that that is the case. If anything, secularism might, in some circumstances, make a society somewhat less stable and peaceful, but it's hard to see how it would be at all likely to make it more so. I think we can conclude that if it is peace and stability we are after, secularism is a useless dead-end. Getting rid of pluralism, on the other hand, would seem to be a very good move, if it could be done in a peaceful way (such as through large amounts of voluntary conversions to a single worldview ideology).
Some accuse those of us who hold to the Establishment Principle--the idea that all societies ought to be explicitly Christian (and even embrace some specific form of Christianity and some specific church) and base laws and policies on the revealed will of God--as promoting a political philosophy that will tend to produce chaos, unrest, instability, and violence in a society. However, our investigation showed no reason, humanly speaking, to think that the promotion of the Establishment Principle will do any such thing. Certainly, much depends on how biblical law will be promoted in a society. If we attempt to use violence and civil coercion to suddenly enforce an entire Christian societal moral code on a population like the modern USA, yes, that will be highly likely to lead to serious chaos and conflict. However, if we work in more peaceful, moderate, and long-term ways to influence people in the broader society to share our point of view, and/or if we engage in creating our own distinct societies populated by Christians and based on Christian values (such as is envisioned in the New Plymouth Project of the Reformation Party), there is no reason to think that the pursuit or attainment of these goals will produce chaos and unrest in society. On the contrary, insofar as we succeed in reducing pluralism and shaping a society in which the vast majority of the population agree on the same basic beliefs and values and see those values enshrined in the common laws, we are most likely to create a society that is much less prone to conflict and chaos and that is much more stable than anything we see today in the secular western world.
For our purposes, secularism refers to the idea that civil government should avoid taking sides in worldview/religious disputes. Secularism implies a state that refuses to endorse or reject any particular worldview or set of beliefs that belongs to any worldview. In other words, secularism implies a religiously neutral civil government.
Let's consider the various kinds of societies, in broad outline, that can exist, and see if we have any reason to believe that secularism's claim to be the ultimate producer of peace and stability can withstand scrutiny.
1. First of all, we can imagine what I will call a pluralistic, pietistic, tolerant, non-secular society. What I mean by this is a society full of citizens/residents where there is a large amount of significant worldview-diversity (pluralism) among the citizens/residents, but where the citizens/residents (can I just call them "citizens" for short from now on to save space?) have no real concern to have their own ideals, beliefs, values, or goals reflected in the actions and policies of the governing institutions (pietism). The society is non-secular, and so the civil government does not claim to be neutral but straightforwardly and honestly adopts a disputed set of beliefs and values and bases its laws and policies on them. However, it also displays a great deal of tolerance towards those who do not share the official government worldview.
It would seem that such a society is likely to be very peaceful and stable, at least with regard to disputes that might originate from differing worldviews. Since the citizens in the society are allowed to live their own private lives in accordance with their own beliefs and values due to a policy of broad toleration, while they have no desire to have their views reflected in government policies, there is no recipe here for significant conflict. (Of course, one can raise the question of whether an entire population in the real world is likely to be pietistic to this extent.)
2. Secondly, we can consider a society that is pluralistic, non-pietistic, tolerant, and non-secular. The key difference between this society and the first one is that the citizens are not content merely to live out their private lives in accordance with their own beliefs and values. They also have a strong desire that the civil government follow their own beliefs and values in policy-making and law-making. They hold their values and beliefs to be important not just to themselves but to the general good and the well-being of society, and they want society's policies and laws to be wise and just (as they count wisdom and justice).
This society is going to be prone to conflict and will lack stability. It is full of people who have completely different ideas of the true and the good, all of whom wish their ideas to be reflected in official law and policy. The problem, of course, is that there can only be one set of laws and policies for a unified society, and those laws cannot reflect everyone's conflicting viewpoints. As the state is non-secular, it will have a straightforwardly-acknowledged official worldview guiding its public policy. The citizens whose views coincide with this official public worldview will be likely to be satisfied with this state of affairs, while those whose views are at odds with the reigning paradigm are likely to be dissatisfied with the situation, even if the state tolerates their dissident views in private life. Conflict may be significantly diffused if the state allows some kind of legal processes, however long-term, by which dissidents can work within the system to try to alter the overarching constitutional order and thus the reigning paradigm of the society (such as by allowing amendments to the Constitution to be made by a certain number of votes). However, this will be unlikely to resolve all societal tension. Even with a legal process for change in place and available, it will be difficult in a pluralistic society to get the society to permanently and with stability endorse anyone's particular point of view. As all sides of a particular dispute can use the same legal channels, it will be hard for one group to establish any kind of permanent dominance for its views over other existing views. A pluralistic society of this sort is thus likely to forever be like a see-saw, constantly going back and forth between conflicting views and policies. If the disputed matters are highly important to the parties (think of something like abortion, where both sides feel crucial, fundamental rights are at stake), there will likely be an increasing frustration as the parties realize they will never really be able to make the society what they want it to be so long as it remains non-pietistically pluralistic. This seems likely to eventually lead either to the breaking up of the society or to serious and even violent conflict, assuming the pluralism remains in place.
3. Now let's imagine a society that is pluralistic, pietistic, tolerant, and secular. This society is like the first society except that it is secular--that is, it claims not to have an established official worldview but to be neutral between contested worldview beliefs in the society.
This society, like the first, will likely be prone to peace and stability, for the same reasons as the first society was. If secularism vs. non-secularism has any effect at all, it will likely be towards slightly decreasing the amount of peace and stability. A secular society claims to be neutral between viewpoints and to treat all viewpoints equally. However, it is actually impossible for a state to be neutral in this way (especially in a pluralistic society). Different worldview beliefs lead to different values, and different values lead to different ideas as to what is good, worthwhile, beneficial, etc., both at an individual level and on a societal level. Therefore, a pluralistic society will have differing ideas as to what laws and policies in a society are truly good and wise. The state, in embracing some particular set of values, priorities, goals, policies, etc., will of necessity end up endorsing the ideals of one or some groups of people over others'. Especially in a deeply pluralistic society (like the modern USA), there simply will not be enough items agreed upon between those with differing worldviews to provide a sufficient foundation for governmental law and policy without the government having to add to those items other controverted ideas and ideals. So religious or worldview neutrality is really impossible for a single society. (For more argumentation on this point, see here, here, and here.) Therefore, any promise of neutrality made by a secular civil government will be necessarily deceptive. It will promise a kind of equality to all the citizens and their views that it can't really deliver. The society, as it must go on and make laws and policies in order to survive, will in fact adopt some set of controversial ideas and ideals anyway, all the while claiming it is not doing so. It will encourage citizens who don't share the concealed official viewpoint to think that their views are equally honored in the society when they truly are not. This situation is likely to bring resentment, as citizens with minority worldviews come to expect society to be more congenial to themselves and their values than is really the case. There would be less resentment, and thus less tension, if the society would simply come out and declare honestly and straightforwardly what its official viewpoint is and thus encourage its pietistic minority citizens to remain pietistic and not get their hopes raised too high.
4. Next, we can imagine a society that is pluralistic, non-pietistic, tolerant, and secular. This society is like society #2, except that it is secular.
This society is going to be prone to conflict and instability, for the same reasons as society #2 was. Will the society's being secular help? I don't really see how. In society #2, the civil government adopted a contested point of view as the basis upon which to make law and policy. The conflict arose because the non-pietistic population was not content to let views contrary to their own dominate political policy. The same situation will be in play here, the only difference being that the civil government will be pretending not to have a controversial official worldview while in reality it does. I suppose this might appease a few very stupid people who also don't really care all that much about what is true and good, and it also might make those with a majority viewpoint who don't think too deeply feel better about themselves, as if their views aren't being favored any more than anyone else's (though they really are). But it is more likely to exacerbate the problems had by society #2 for the reasons I mentioned when discussing society #3: A non-secular government might take views at odds with your beliefs and values, but at least it is honest and straightforward about it. A secular society, on the other hand, may just as much hold views contrary to yours, but it will disingenuously try to make you think that it is not doing so, that it is treating your views fully equally with all other views. This is likely to increase rather than decrease tensions among those with minority viewpoints. Also, a non-secular government, because it is fully aware and up-front about its controversial positions, is likely to be more aware than a naive or disingenuous non-secular government will be about the possible desirability of allowing societal tension to be diffused by means of putting in place legal processes towards change that minorities can avail themselves of. A secular government, on the other hand, may be less likely to consider carefully such an idea, since it denies outright that there are any minority views in the society (after all, how can there be views that are out of accord with the official viewpoint of the civil government--which is what I mean by "minority views"--if the civil government is neutral?). Thus, I must conclude that the secularism of this society is likely to make it less rather than more stable and peaceful than the otherwise comparable non-secular society #2.
5. OK, now let's consider a society that is pluralistic, pietistic, non-tolerant, and non-secular.
This society, for obvious reasons, is going to be prone to strife and instability. Even though the citizens are pietistic, yet they still hold beliefs and values that they consider important to their private lives. Insofar as the state refuses to allow them to hold and practice these beliefs and values, there is likely to be conflict. Of course, toleration comes in degrees. We can think of a society that allows dissident beliefs and values to be held and practiced in private life, but not in public view. (Imagine, for example, if Jews were allowed to be Jews and live as Jews in their private lives, but were not allowed to go outside in Jewish dress, erect publicly-visible synagogues, etc.) We can think of a society that goes further than this and outlaws even private beliefs and practice (insofar as such things can be witnessed enough to come to government attention). And we could imagine other forms of non-toleration as well. I think we can say, generally, that the less tolerant a pluralistic society is, the less peaceful and the more unstable it is likely to be, all other things being equal. A pluralistic society is a society full of people with different worldviews, different beliefs and values. If we make the way of life of a large group of people illegal in a society, we are courting serious resistance and thus conflict. For example, some people in Germany and the USA, and probably other western countries, want to outlaw male infant circumcision, including for religious reasons. What baffles me is how they never seem to realize just how impractical that idea is. Jews, and those who would sympathize with Jews if persecuted, make up a significantly large part of the populations of these countries. To ban an essential practice of Judaism (and apparently Islam as well, or so I'm told) would result in mass unrest and chaos.
6. Now, a society that is pluralistic, non-pietistic, non-tolerant, and non-secular.
Need we say much here? Obviously, this society is going to be significantly more unstable and chaotic than society #5.
7. What if we make the society pluralistic, pietistic, non-tolerant, and secular?
It's hard to see how making the society secular is going to have any influence to make the society more stable or peaceful. Again, as we saw earlier, a secular society is one that is disingenuous towards those with minority views, and thus, if anything, is simply going to increase rather than decrease tension. Secularism might even possibly have the effect of encouraging a society towards more non-toleration: A non-secular society knows and acknowledges that it disfavors certain views, and thus it is likely to consider how those holding such views should be treated. On the other hand, a secular society denies that it disfavors anyone's views (while doing so anyway), so it might be less inclined to consciously consider how tolerant its policies are towards dissidents in some cases. It might be less tolerant in some cases without noticing, due to a naivete arising from its secular philosophy. On the other hand, perhaps secularism might be more likely in some ways to be tolerant than a non-secular society, in that a society can only go so far in terms of discriminating against minorities before the illusion of neutrality comes to be in grave danger of bursting.
8. How about pluralistic, non-pietistic, non-tolerant, and secular?
Again, I don't see how secularism would make this society any more stable than society #6.
9. Now, let's imagine some non-pluralistic societies. I'm going to look at these more briefly and in a single point, because once we've gotten rid of pluralism, we've removed the basic cause of worldview conflict, as is evident from what we've seen.
Obviously, a tolerant, pietistic, non-pluralistic society is going to be prone to peace and stability. But a non-tolerant, non-pietistic, non-pluralistic society will also preserve overall peace and stability, because there will only be a very few people in it with minority views. All societies are intolerant towards some ideas and actions of some members of the society. For example, in the modern USA, we are intolerant towards theft and human sacrifice. Are there people in our society who want to steal, think it's OK to steal, and actually steal? Obviously. Are there people in our society who think it is good thing, or even a religious virtue, to practice human sacrifice? I would be surprised if there weren't. However, these ideas and ideals are enough of a minority that those who have and practice them do not make up a significant portion of the population--or, to put it another way, the society is not really significantly pluralistic with regard to these ideas and practices. Therefore, we can be intolerant towards them (by making them illegal) without undermining our overall peace and stability as a society. And this will be the case generally with such uncommon views. In a biblical theocracy, for example, where the public expression of idolatrous worship would be outlawed, so long as the population does not become significantly pluralistic regarding such matters, the outlawing of these things will not tend to decrease peace and stability. More likely, it will increase peace and stability, as it will discourage pluralism in these areas from developing and reinforce publicly-shared values. (Of course, throughout this whole examination, I've been looking at these things from a purely human point of view, not taking into account how God would bless a society favorable to his will and curse a society non-favorable.)
It seems to me it would make little difference whether a non-pluralistic society were secular or non-secular. It would have little practical reason to be secular, as there would be little point in pretending to be neutral.
So let's consider what we've learned through this little exercise. Our goal was to examine more closely the theoretical claim that secularism will tend to make human societies more peaceful and stable. We have not seen any reason at all to think that that is the case. If anything, secularism might, in some circumstances, make a society somewhat less stable and peaceful, but it's hard to see how it would be at all likely to make it more so. I think we can conclude that if it is peace and stability we are after, secularism is a useless dead-end. Getting rid of pluralism, on the other hand, would seem to be a very good move, if it could be done in a peaceful way (such as through large amounts of voluntary conversions to a single worldview ideology).
Some accuse those of us who hold to the Establishment Principle--the idea that all societies ought to be explicitly Christian (and even embrace some specific form of Christianity and some specific church) and base laws and policies on the revealed will of God--as promoting a political philosophy that will tend to produce chaos, unrest, instability, and violence in a society. However, our investigation showed no reason, humanly speaking, to think that the promotion of the Establishment Principle will do any such thing. Certainly, much depends on how biblical law will be promoted in a society. If we attempt to use violence and civil coercion to suddenly enforce an entire Christian societal moral code on a population like the modern USA, yes, that will be highly likely to lead to serious chaos and conflict. However, if we work in more peaceful, moderate, and long-term ways to influence people in the broader society to share our point of view, and/or if we engage in creating our own distinct societies populated by Christians and based on Christian values (such as is envisioned in the New Plymouth Project of the Reformation Party), there is no reason to think that the pursuit or attainment of these goals will produce chaos and unrest in society. On the contrary, insofar as we succeed in reducing pluralism and shaping a society in which the vast majority of the population agree on the same basic beliefs and values and see those values enshrined in the common laws, we are most likely to create a society that is much less prone to conflict and chaos and that is much more stable than anything we see today in the secular western world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)