razib
-
01:02:55 pm on May 15, 2008 | # | |
The Impossibility of Religious Freedom. sample chapter.
-
Tag this post
Talk Islam
-
Would you like your own blog hosted at Talk Islam? Email the admin at "salaam at talk islam dot info" !
Talk Islam uses Wordpress MU and the Prologue theme by Automattic
-
traffic stats
aziz 3:57 pm on May 19, 2008 | #
I don’t buy this argument. The excerpt invokes that case where the city was removing religious symbols from graves, but why are such icons an excercize in religion? How does their presence inhibit anyone else from their practice of religion? Removing them is tantamount to denying the freedom of faith, not the other way around.
Much like the nonsensical debates about posting the 10 Commandments publically, most of the perceived tension between religion and the state amounts to this: small, local polities enacting draconian interpretations of the Wall between Church and State to mean “there shall be No Religion” rather than “people may practice religion freely”. As some wag put it, this is the Freedom From Religion interpretation rather than the Freedom Of Religion (the latter being the correct one).
razib 5:40 pm on May 19, 2008 | #
aziz, no, that’s not the history of church-state relations in the united states. as a point of note, for many decades the protestant established waged a culture war against the catholic church, which itself was attempting to establish a european-style relationship with the government. the years of “catholic-protestant-jew” which peaked around 1960 with kennedy’s election are atypical, and the age of greater religious pluralism is going to bring about the same conflicts….
small, local polities enacting draconian interpretations of the Wall between Church and State to mean “there shall be No Religion” rather than “people may practice religion freely”.
that specific case was actually one where it seems clear that a particular protestant conception of religious action shaped the court’s decision. the judge was a graduate of calvin college and had very particular ideas of what religion consisted of. the key is that to give special accommodation to a religion the government has always decided what is, and isn’t, a legitimate religious practice. as a matter of reality the people within the religion have a voice, and various disonant voices quite often, but the author’s thesis is that the matter of interpretation is always going to have a lot of subjectivity in it. during the mid-20th century many theorists of assimilation from white ethnic (jewish and catholic) backgrounds happily went along with the “protestantization” of their religious traditions, keeping the core beliefs, but accommodating protestant mores. latin catholics and more “traditionalist” jews are now challenging this tendency from within, while new religionists and muslims, buddhists and hindus are also forcing some changes.
look at it this way, you as a muslim know what you think islam means. as a non-muslim i just basically go along with what muslims say; when muslims disagree i remain agnostic. but i’m not a prison warden who has to define what is, and isn’t, halal. at our multi-ethnic masjid as a child i remember arguments about what was and wasn’t halal, so there is obviously disagreemant on the margins among muslims. the same issue has cropped up with jews with regards to kosher and the government has gotten itself into trouble getting involved with these disputes because they can’t win because there’s no god to come down and arbitrate among the dissonant voices.
aziz 6:25 pm on May 19, 2008 | #
the author’s thesis is that the matter of interpretation is always going to have a lot of subjectivity in it.
well, I agree with that entirely. But I think it’s a feature, not a bug. That subjectivity is what permits the freedom of expression. Sometimes it cuts against you but on the whole its th eminor stuff that gets litigated in the US, rather than the big stuff like building masjids etc.
razib 7:18 pm on May 19, 2008 | #
Sometimes it cuts against you but on the whole its the minor stuff that gets litigated in the US
well, what you consider minor, others might not. obviously there’s a lot of freedom in terms of organizing and worshipping in this country. the main issue is that we’re really into accommodation, so if you give some slack to group X, why shouldn’t all the rest get accommodation??? but really that slack for groups which are very orthopraxic are conditional are pragmatic constraints. e.g., if amish were 10% of america’s population there’s no way that people would let them ride their buggies on public roads, they’re a traffic hazard (my fam lived in an amish area, and the buggies are slow, you need to be alert). similarly, some hasidic jews purposely do not teach their children english (so when they do learn english as adults they will still have very strong accents). since these are less than 0.1% of america’s population that is something that public services can accommodate, but it would be a bigger issue if 10% of america’s population was hasidic.
thabet 11:21 pm on May 19, 2008 | #
I’ve only skim read the chapter — looks like a book worth pursuing.
Basically, she seems to be saying that ‘religion’ is a changing category and state and law are, inevitably, heavily involved in supporting one or other ‘interpretation’.
razib 2:29 am on May 20, 2008 | #
Basically, she seems to be saying that ‘religion’ is a changing category and state and law are, inevitably, heavily involved in supporting one or other ‘interpretation’.
basically. she has a historical angle in arguing that america has a ‘protestant-normative’ idea of religion. i am pretty sure this is correct insofar as american judaism and catholicism are rather peculiar compared to the world wide practice of these religions (though catholics abroad are resembling american catholics more and more).
thabet 8:18 am on May 20, 2008 | #
Personally, I don’t think what she says is so surprising (e.g. see Asad).
Is there ever really a separation of church and state? In my view, ultimately there is only the dominance of one over the other. Sovereign liberal states are just as interested in ‘imposing values’ on people as theocratic states.