http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/01/29/inclusion-and-accountability-in-the-public-sphere/ Secularism, religion, and the public sphere Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:11:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/01/29/inclusion-and-accountability-in-the-public-sphere/#comment-563 Daniel Steinmetz Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:20:54 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/01/29/inclusion-and-accountability-in-the-public-sphere/#comment-563 In terms of Habermas's argument, the question need be asked: Why should secular citizens take seriously religious reasoning and not deny its possible truth from the outset? It clearly seems here that Habermas deems it absolutely necessary to rely on the 'conceptual riches' of religious discourse so as to extract from it the content necessary to facilitate a healthy democracy (since he believes democracy is imperil). In other words, Habermas seems to be implying that the resources of secular discourse are currently unable to instill hope in democracy or involvement in democratic processes and religion must for the moment be relied on to get things "back on track". Of course, this is an insult to both religious citizens and secular citizens. The former must succumb to a functionalism that will (if everything goes as planned) later tell them that they are no longer needed. The latter, though, are told they currently are lacking in their conceptual abilities, and must allow the 'cognitively dissonant' to pinch hit. Strangely, in order to survive, democracy bestows upon itself the right to adjudicate whose discourse sustains it and, therefore, who should remain silent. In terms of Habermas’s argument, the question need be asked: Why should secular citizens take seriously religious reasoning and not deny its possible truth from the outset? It clearly seems here that Habermas deems it absolutely necessary to rely on the ‘conceptual riches’ of religious discourse so as to extract from it the content necessary to facilitate a healthy democracy (since he believes democracy is imperil). In other words, Habermas seems to be implying that the resources of secular discourse are currently unable to instill hope in democracy or involvement in democratic processes and religion must for the moment be relied on to get things “back on track”. Of course, this is an insult to both religious citizens and secular citizens. The former must succumb to a functionalism that will (if everything goes as planned) later tell them that they are no longer needed. The latter, though, are told they currently are lacking in their conceptual abilities, and must allow the ‘cognitively dissonant’ to pinch hit. Strangely, in order to survive, democracy bestows upon itself the right to adjudicate whose discourse sustains it and, therefore, who should remain silent.

]]>