30/08: Religion and Public Policy, part 2
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
A Waco Farmer and Tocqueville have been going at it hammer-and-tongs over the issue of same-sex marriage: in part their disagreement involves the issue of the proper relationship between religion and public policy. Read here. In an attempt to be helpful ( or perhaps to commit an act of hubris), and to help me clarify my own thoughts, I am attempting to suggest some points I think are valid regarding the use of religious rhetoric and reasoning in the public square. Since the topic is huge, I am breaking it down into various angles of approach. My first posting looked at the issue historically. Read here.
This post looks at the issue from the angle of philosophy and oberservation. (Read below)
The political, and religious, discourse of this nation has been influenced by several important schools of philosphy including Common Sense, Idealism, Pragmatism, and Post Modernisms. I will skip over the long and messy history of the relationship between American politics and various schools of philosophy, and attempt to make some points I think are valid.
First, as can be inferred from the list above, part of the tension within American politics has come from conflict between different philosophical ideas. It should be remembered that a philosophy is not simply a collection of abstact ideas to be debated academically. Different philosophies lead to different views of the world, of ethics (indeed to even the possibility or impossibility of ethics), and of political action. For example, Richard Rorty, probably the most important reviver of American Pragmatism today, argues that it is futile to seek to ground our beliefs on anything outside our own "cultural conversation." On the other hand, most religiously motivated Americans continue to insist that there are absolutes that exist independently of any "cultural conversation," a kind of Idealism. Political discourse, and public policy, proceeds from the World-Views of the participants. These World-Views are shaped by various philosophies (whether the participant realizes it or not). When engaging in political discourse, it is helpful to make these World-Views explicit. Furthermore, religions considered as belief systems are themselves philosophies in an important sense. Observation would indicate that many Americans have developed their World-Views from religion rather than from academic philosophies. Point--There is no good way, therefore, to exclude Religion from public policy debates or formulation. Indeed, if we are going to hold up for examination the World-Views from which we operate, then we must bring religious discourse onto the public square.
Second, some advocate that we dismiss metaphysics, philosophical or religious, from the public square and engage in reasoning concerning the facts. (I wil ignore at this time the metaphysical assumptions underlying belief in objective reason and objective facts.) As most of us learned at some point in our education, an argument consists of premises or assertions linked by reasoned argument leading to a conclusion. Even assuming an agreed-upon system of objective reasoning for the public square, reason needs something to work with like fire needs fuel: the premises or assertions, the facts-in-evidence. But, deciding which facts are to be in evidence is not necessarily self-evident; and deciding which assertions are facts can take us beyond mere reason once more into World-View. For example: should society put to death all terminally ill patients regardless of patient or family wishes. Facts in evidence for this argument would include the costs of medical care, the limited nature of resources, and the needs of the third-world for vaccinations and medical care. Ultimately, however long and rational the argument, some assertions will be brought in that will rest on World-Views, on philosophies/religions: what is the relationship between the individual and society? does a life have value even when terminal? Point--there is no way to exclude religion from political discourse or from the making of public policy. Another example is the argument against abortion I presented in an earlier post. I constructed a rational agrument, but it was based on what I take to be a cultural consensus. Here.
Third, it seems to me that citizens gain their world-views largely from religion; and, it seems that most citizens do not arrive at conclusions through abstract logic, but rather that men and women find some arguments persuasive and others not. The persuasiveness of an argument seems to rest on how closely it agrees with the world-view held by the person listening. This is not necessarily bad. We are more like Captain Kirk than Spock. Point--citizens will not function in the public square completely apart from their religious views.
Fourth, it seems to me that a civil society can engage in the peaceful resolution of differences only if a majority of citizens agree to some basic assumptions about the nation and its life together. These basic assumptions must come from some even more basic assumptions about what makes life good. (The American Civil War is a case of irreconcilable assuptions leading to conflict rather than peaceful resolution.) I fear a loss of adequate consensue for cohesion.
This post looks at the issue from the angle of philosophy and oberservation. (Read below)
The political, and religious, discourse of this nation has been influenced by several important schools of philosphy including Common Sense, Idealism, Pragmatism, and Post Modernisms. I will skip over the long and messy history of the relationship between American politics and various schools of philosophy, and attempt to make some points I think are valid.
First, as can be inferred from the list above, part of the tension within American politics has come from conflict between different philosophical ideas. It should be remembered that a philosophy is not simply a collection of abstact ideas to be debated academically. Different philosophies lead to different views of the world, of ethics (indeed to even the possibility or impossibility of ethics), and of political action. For example, Richard Rorty, probably the most important reviver of American Pragmatism today, argues that it is futile to seek to ground our beliefs on anything outside our own "cultural conversation." On the other hand, most religiously motivated Americans continue to insist that there are absolutes that exist independently of any "cultural conversation," a kind of Idealism. Political discourse, and public policy, proceeds from the World-Views of the participants. These World-Views are shaped by various philosophies (whether the participant realizes it or not). When engaging in political discourse, it is helpful to make these World-Views explicit. Furthermore, religions considered as belief systems are themselves philosophies in an important sense. Observation would indicate that many Americans have developed their World-Views from religion rather than from academic philosophies. Point--There is no good way, therefore, to exclude Religion from public policy debates or formulation. Indeed, if we are going to hold up for examination the World-Views from which we operate, then we must bring religious discourse onto the public square.
Second, some advocate that we dismiss metaphysics, philosophical or religious, from the public square and engage in reasoning concerning the facts. (I wil ignore at this time the metaphysical assumptions underlying belief in objective reason and objective facts.) As most of us learned at some point in our education, an argument consists of premises or assertions linked by reasoned argument leading to a conclusion. Even assuming an agreed-upon system of objective reasoning for the public square, reason needs something to work with like fire needs fuel: the premises or assertions, the facts-in-evidence. But, deciding which facts are to be in evidence is not necessarily self-evident; and deciding which assertions are facts can take us beyond mere reason once more into World-View. For example: should society put to death all terminally ill patients regardless of patient or family wishes. Facts in evidence for this argument would include the costs of medical care, the limited nature of resources, and the needs of the third-world for vaccinations and medical care. Ultimately, however long and rational the argument, some assertions will be brought in that will rest on World-Views, on philosophies/religions: what is the relationship between the individual and society? does a life have value even when terminal? Point--there is no way to exclude religion from political discourse or from the making of public policy. Another example is the argument against abortion I presented in an earlier post. I constructed a rational agrument, but it was based on what I take to be a cultural consensus. Here.
Third, it seems to me that citizens gain their world-views largely from religion; and, it seems that most citizens do not arrive at conclusions through abstract logic, but rather that men and women find some arguments persuasive and others not. The persuasiveness of an argument seems to rest on how closely it agrees with the world-view held by the person listening. This is not necessarily bad. We are more like Captain Kirk than Spock. Point--citizens will not function in the public square completely apart from their religious views.
Fourth, it seems to me that a civil society can engage in the peaceful resolution of differences only if a majority of citizens agree to some basic assumptions about the nation and its life together. These basic assumptions must come from some even more basic assumptions about what makes life good. (The American Civil War is a case of irreconcilable assuptions leading to conflict rather than peaceful resolution.) I fear a loss of adequate consensue for cohesion.
Tocqueville wrote:
Let's take the matter of marriage to show how this liberal “neutrality” works, and at the same time to demonstrate its limits. Many people say that they personally believe marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Many such people are married to persons of the opposite sex, and cannot really imagine the attraction some persons have for others of the same sex. They would be vastly disappointed if one of their children decided that he or she wanted to marry someone of the same sex. They often also say, however, that it would be wrong, perhaps even a grave injustice, for the state to base its law of marriage on a controversial moral judgment, including the judgment (in fact, theirs and that of most people) that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The thought is that the state ought to be neutral between competing understandings of what marriage is. It would be wrong, these persons say, for the state to impose anyone’s moral code for marriage by making it the template all must follow.
This way of looking at marriage, and the public debate surrounding it, suffers from a fatal case of “transparency.” People do not really mean that the warrant for their view about marriage (or almost any other moral question) is the fact that the view is theirs. They mean that they hold a certain view on the basis of reasons that they credit and affirm. So far considered, then, the neutrality doctrine acquires whatever validity it has by piggybacking on the transparency problem. Once one sees through “transparency,” though, there is no reason to adopt the neutrality doctrine. Sometimes the classic liberal viewpoint is elaborated along the following lines: Marriage is in truth the union of a man and a woman. Marriage is a sacrament (or an analogous sacred relationship) in many religions. But, though it is the truth about marriage, the religious provenance of this definition makes it an inappropriate basis for civil law.