Comments on Hallowed Secularism: For the Establishment of Religion

Sure the government endorses values but it doesn't...

2009-05-24T23:37:39.108-04:00

Sure the government endorses values but it doesn't proclaim them as Eternal Truths as you seem to propose when you say "these ideas include the objectivity of values."

As to your notion that:
Government should be allowed to endorse a set of related ideas that constitute the common core of all the world's religions. and also allowd to utilize traditional religious imagery and symbols. Exactly what does it take to qualify for inclusion in your select list of religions and their traditional symbols and who gets to decide who makes the cut?

Anyhow, I suspect what you really mean by "common elements" are those that have their counterpart in Greek and Judeo-Christian culture.

The government endorses values all the time. Ther...

2009-05-24T18:05:34.804-04:00

The government endorses values all the time. There is even a legal doctrine that upholds this, called "government speech". Usually these government messages are merely implied, such as truth telling in elementary school. Often they are omnipresent and as dangerous as Antonio Manetti says, such as anti-communism in the 50's and 60's. Sometimes these messages are invisible, as in materialism today. (The consumer must resume spending, says the government).

The government never fails to endorse values. I would like this to be done consciously and expressly. But however it is done, those who disagree with government speech have never had the right to limit it. They have the right under free speech to disagree with it.

These ideas are by no means universally held. T...

2009-05-22T14:26:30.882-04:00
These ideas are by no means universally held. They are opposed by materialists, humanists, relativists and nihilists. Government should be allowed to disagree with these persons and to say so.I.e. The scum of the earth and hence beneath notice.

This notion of delegitimizing those whose ideas might challenge such a notion is profoundly anti-democratic and hence dangerous.

That aside, this idea strikes me as the equivalent of Papal infallibility, with the same inherent dangers. As Lord Acton, said in that regard: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

To me, this notion of a secular religion with its own profession of faith, doctrinal rigidity and magisteria is profoundly disturbing. What you seem to want is a kind of secular theocracy, where some set of fundamental dogmas are declared to be objectively true by fiat. To me, that prospect is not a comforting one.