>The post-punk Slovenian band Laibach has an interesting take on this: When
>asked about their attitude towards America they replies, "Like Americans, we
>also believe in God, but unlike them we do not trust Him." I think this is
>absolutely fascinating: Yes, I believe in the Ideals of the Enlightenment
>(freedom, democracy, happiness, autonomy, solidarity yadda yadda) but unlike
>the Enlightenment thinkers: I don't trust them! I'm not even sure I'd call
>myself an atheist. It just isn't an issue for me. Atheism seems, to me, to
beg
>for a theistic rejoinder... I'd rather not give the theists a reason to talk.
If atheism comes up, it's only as a response to theism, though, isn't it. Loud, insistent theism. One feels obliged to point out there are other ways to approach the problem. The problem of mor(t)ality.
>But this non-denominationalism is precisely the sin qua non of religious
>fundamentalism. It is the *cause* so to speak of the objet petit a of the
>religious right. If one wants to avoid religious entanglements, then just
leave
>the whole thing out. Leave freedom and religion undefined, in a sense. To
>support religious freedom *is* to lend support (legitimize) the religious
right
>/ left / centre whatever. Under the "freedom of religion" religious
>institutions are protected and preserved, probably even privileged to an
>extraordinary degree: if we are to have freedom of religion - we'd better be
>religious! Yuck.
You'll never avoid religious entanglement, but yes, there should be no mention at all of religion in the context of the law, imnsho, it's got no place in government.
cheers, Joanna
www.overlookhouse.com