Moore, Particular Religions and Tolerance (fwd)

[Vance R. Koven]

At 09:39 AM 11/6/01 -0500, Michael deHaven Newsom wrote:
>"Vance R. Koven" wrote:
>
> >
> > Religion, while addressing matters of utmost profundity, is mostly
> > intended to be grasped by people with limited educational, or even
> > intellectual, attainments.
>
>What is your authority for this claim?  Is it anything other than the
>elitist/secular/liberal critique of religion?

Quite the contrary, it's the religious critique of elitist/secular/liberal
arrogance.


> > My own take is that educated elites have
> > more often than not screwed things up by piling notion on concept on
> > doctrine on theory, leaving it for the occasional upheaval by simple
> > people to undo the mess, e.g. the Waldensians and Franciscans.
>
>Some of us think that St. Thomas Aquinas contributed something of value.

He and Erasmus and Luther and Tillich certainly gave people a lot to talk
and write about. Whether it amounts to more *religious* value than what
others have contributed is a matter of conjecture. Jesus was conspicuously
contemptuous of the illuminati of his day, and chose his disciples
accordingly. Still, one imagines him responding to an intellectual much the
way he responded to the rich kid: park your hairsplitting urges and just
serve humbly. Or maybe, more charitably, tapping a forefinger on his lip,
"Yes, we'll find something for you to do....something..."

> >
> >  From the standpoint of a democratic polity trying to grapple with
> > religions that seek to compel actions incompatible with the
> > maintenance of civil order, the solution, though perhaps not ideal,
> > is fairly straightforward: think and say as you please, but conform
> > your conduct to the law, especially including the law that says all
> > persons have the same rights and responsibilities as you do. It is
> > therefore possible for society to be tolerant of intolerant religions
> > and for everyone to criticize, in whatever terms, everyone else,
> > while nobody need fear anything more than the occasional bruised ego.
> > I've said it before here, but the source of a lot of the confusion
> > and turmoil over this has been the blurring of the distinctions
> > between expression and conduct. A bright line may not be fully
> > intellectually satisfying, but it works a lot better than the
> > alternatives.
>
>You assume that democracy requires something other than religion as its
>central
>organizing or normative principle.  Some of us think otherwise.

I confess that this rather takes my breath away. Yes, I certainly do
believe that democracy requires something other than (that is, in addition
to) religion, for the goals of religion are in large part to transcend the
material and physical conditions of existence, whereas government, and
especially democratic government, is designed to enhance the conditions of
this world only (partly to create a fertile ground for pursuing those other
matters). While religion and government have obvious areas of overlapping
concern, a focus on religion as the sole source of political values has
never failed to create catastrophe in the here and now (current events
furnishing ample evidence). One can say, of course, that "true" religion
will provide the "right" values that will promote universal harmony, but
that has always begged the biggest and least tractable questions in human
history. Too much baggage to add when you're just trying to carry the
groceries.



*********************************************************
*Vance R. Koven                   Counselor at Law  *
*              Law Offices of Vance R. Koven           *
*20 Park Plaza, Suite 633     Boston, MA 02116 *
*tel: 617-482-3852                  fax: 617-482-4972 *
*              net: vrkoven at world.std.com               *
*********************************************************