What an unseemly state of affairs that would be! There is one policy, however, with respect to which the ban may have bite: Many states refuse to recognize—they refuse to extend the benefit of law to—same-sex unions. Is there a plausible secular rationale that could account for that policy—that is, a plausible secular rationale we can realistically assume the lawmakers accept, whether or not their support for the policy is actually based of that rationale?
If the latter, then this becomes the determinative question: May government affirm the premise that same-sex sexual conduct is contrary to the will of God? Again, the answer to that question, in my judgment, is yes. So let me explain why they should resist that thought. First, laws for which the only discernible rationale depends on a religious premise government may affirm are not subject to the ban. Second, although laws for which the only discernible rationale is an offending religious rationale are subject to the ban, in the United States today there are, and in the foreseeable future there will be, as I just remarked, few if indeed any actual or proposed laws that fit that profile.
And, as it happens, the vast majority of religious believers in the United States offer nonreligious rationales for their political positions on controversial moral issues. The serious question, then, is not whether the non-establishment ban on laws for which the only discernible rationale is an offending religious rationale is unduly restrictive, but whether as a practical matter the ban has much if any bite.
The answer for which I have contended in this paper is: Yes, but only if the rationale depends on a religious premise that under the non- establishment norm government may not affirm. The free exercise norm is the principal constitutional provision protecting religious freedom. Nonetheless, one of the basic functions of the non-establishment norm is to provide additional support for religious freedom, thereby making religious freedom even more secure.
Baer John W. Carter Stephen L. Choper Jesse H. Cuneo Terence, ed. Davis Derek H. Eberle Christopher J. Gey Steven G. John's Journal of Legal Commentary , 22, pp.
Leech Kenneth, ed. McConnell Michael W. Neuhaus Richard J. Perry Michael J. Smith Steven D. Weithman Paul J. See Perry M. Indeed, given a recent paper by Gerald Gaus, in which he agrees with Eberle that citizens and their elected representatives may rely solely on religious reasons in making political choices, I am inclined to think that the debate is largely over.
The two papers just cited, by Eberle and Gaus, were presented at the annual meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division, December , Washington See also Habermas ; Nemoianu : In a clear and unmistakable manner Habermas condemns all those who keep trying to sentence the religious discourse in the public square to silence, to eliminate and liquidate it all together.
Communicativeness implies necessarily and by its very definition the effort of mutual understanding. The religion clauses have long been held to apply—it is constitutional bedrock that they apply—not just to Congress but to the entire national government, and not just to the national government but to state government as well.
In effect, then, the clauses provide that government may neither establish religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. For Michael W. As I have explained elsewhere, a constitutional doctrine is constitutional bedrock if the doctrine is well-settled and there is no significant support—in particular, among the political elites—for abandoning the doctrine Perry, b. For a sketch of different kinds of religious establishment, from strong to weak, see Durham Jr.
Marsh v. Chambers, U. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia, U. Many constitutional scholars have said much the same thing. See, e. See id. Vitale, U. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett, U. But the Indian traditions all agree it is the ultimate horror — their aim is to escape from it. They do, however, differ radically in their views of the destiny of the soul beyond the eternal cycle of birth, death, and rebirth.
Within Hinduism, we can distinguish four different schools of thought on this. In the first of these, known as Samkhya-Yoga , the aim is to realise the essential separateness of the soul from its material body, thus enabling us to live in the here and now without attachment to the things of the world. At death, the liberated soul will exist eternally beyond any further entanglements with the world.
Modern Western postural yoga derives from this, although it is intended, not so much to remove us from the world, as to enable us the better to function within it. This is the dominant philosophy underlying the Hare Krishna movement and of all the Indian traditions, most closely resembles Christianity. The third view is that of the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta school. Here, liberation occurs when the soul enters into the oneness of God, rather as a drop of water merges into the ocean, while paradoxically maintaining its individual identity.
The final view of the destiny of the soul within Hinduism is that of the Advaita Vedanta school. Liberation is attained when the soul realises its essential identity with Brahman — the impersonal Godhead beyond the gods.
Although there are divinities galore in Buddhism, the gods are not essential for liberation. So, it is possible to be a Buddhist atheist. Liberation from endless rebirth comes from our realisation that all is suffering and nothing is permanent, including the self. In Mahayana Buddhism in Japan, Vietnam and China, including Tibet , liberation is attained when the world is seen as it really is, with the veil of ignorance removed — as having no ultimate reality.
This means that, although at one level the many gods, goddesses, Buddhas, and Bodhisattvas can assist us on the path to liberation, they too, like us, have never really existed.
At the everyday level, we can distinguish between truth and falsity. But from the perspective of what is ultimately real, there is only Emptiness or Pure Consciousness. Liberation consists of coming to know that the idea of the individual soul was always an illusory one. In short, the individual soul never really was. It was part of the grand illusion that is the realm of Samsara.
Within the Christian tradition, the idea that each individual was both mortal body and immortal soul distinguished humans from other creatures. It made humanity qualitatively unique; ensuring the life of each individual soul had an ultimate meaning within the grand, divine scheme.
However, even without a belief in the transcendent, atheistic humanists and existentialists still affirm the distinct value of each human person. We might think of the a-theist in terms not of one spectrum theist-atheist but of two related spectrums: the first one concerning the degree of resistance to religious theism, and the second concerning the degree of resistance to making the reasonableness of a religious point of view a question of reason and science.
Taking the two spectrums together, the opposite extremes would be, on the one hand, believers who are never inclined to make the reasonableness of religious theism a question of science, and, on the other hand, non-believers who are always attracted to making the reasonableness of religious theism a question of science. The former are authentic believers, the latter are modern atheists. Whether they found themselves already in this culture or shifted into it later in life, the central characteristic of what I am calling a-theists is that, unlike modern atheists, they do not experience their lack of religious belief as the achievement of a superior cognitive position but, like the theist, as a defining existential condition.
Serious doubts about God are no sooner entertained by modern atheists than they are completely dismissed as rationally absurd. However, as efforts to cultivate a distinctive culture of a-theism grow — distinct from but not an enemy of the old theist culture — then in a Europe beyond modernity the culture of modern atheism may… wither away.
He viewed religious faith as a way of living, and opposed rational argumentation or proofs for God. Your email address will not be published. Search for:. Simon Glendinning June 25th, A different conversation: Wittgenstein and a new type of atheism 1 comment 10 shares Estimated reading time: 4 minutes.
How can we break this cycle? Simon Glendinning has identified in the works of Ludwig Wittgenstein an intriguing passage which opens the path to a different type of atheism. Flickr, Henrik Johansson, Creative Commons The culture of atheism that is most visible in European societies today is best known for its expressions of outright hostility to, and even contempt for, religion. Or, alternatively: The atheist is sure they do mean the same.
About the author Simon Glendinning. Posted In: Europe Featured Latest. Leave a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Related Posts Europe.
0コメント