> >bracketing that, however, i still see the same problem here with
> >oversimplifying the relationship between politics and religion. i
> >would prefer to go back to what you said above and have as our
> >criterion or filter that no public policy arguments can be grounded in
> >religious doctrine. that is still ambiguous (why do the things that
> >matter to us matter to us? maybe those are grounded in religion), but
> >it does not make the mistake (as it seems to me) of drawing this
> >public/private distinction and placing religion on the private side.
> >if this distinction is spurious (and i think it is), then it gets us
> >nowhere at all to try to solve the religion and politics problem by
> >making religion "private".
>
> Anything that can be done to minimize the role of religion in politics is
> all to the good. Disputes driven by material concerns can be grubby and
> rancorous, but ultimately they lend themselves to negotiated settlements
> where each side gains something. Religious disputes, however, tend to be
> zero-sum games where you either win or lose. This breeds vicious
> antagonisms with often lethal results.
this strikes me as a rather bizarre set of gross generalizations with not very much substance to back it up. additionally, it sure looks like you're making the battle over religion in the public sphere something which cannot be negotiated, a zero-sum, win-lose proposition. is that a religious attitude toward religion in the public sphere?
>
> I say put public professions of religion where they belong: in the Middle
> Ages.
and don't forget golden age greece . . . or am i mistaken that socrates' defense was essentially "i actually love the gods more than you all"?
i don't think we need to bind ourselves to medieval christendom (or islam, for that matter) as the only paradigm for religion in the public sphere. to do so is just to be lazy. as if the worst they could do 500 or 1000 years ago is clearly the only or even best possible way it could be done. it looks to me like you and some of the fundamentalists are finding some common ground, here.
j