This is, as ever, really wonderful. I do think the site of public contestation is growing ever fiercer, and it is not that Rawlsian liberalism cannot meet the challenge; it is that those who genuinely believe in that form of politics have not expressed, clearly enough, at least, the reasons why they want it. It strikes me that we are in a transformational moment that Obama's rhetoric matched, but policies did not. There is a broader coalitional failure politically, across the West, where liberal progressives have not fought hard enough to defend their values. The slow march of regressive views is now speeding up, and with AI threatening core democratic principles this is even more dangerous.
“The natural state of politics is much more tribal and apocalyptic,” is a tremendously depressing assertion. My observation is that a significant proportion of the population is enthralled with the drama and perceived meaningfulness of belonging to a political constituency and vigorously and publicly defending it.
Overwhelmingly, the people who participate in these overly-theatrical tribes consider themselves to be motivated by common sense and common good. They believe that it’s those OTHER people who are arbitrarily tribal and apocalyptic.
Au contraire, I think Catholics have spent a thousand years making faith reasonable. St Thomas Aquinas being the prime example, adapting Aristotle's philosophy. All men are created equal is the secular version of we are all created in he image of God. From that flows what Martin Luther King Jnr fought for in the political field. Ditto candidate Talarico.
What’s your explanation for the Inquisition, and the Thirty Years War?
I’m not well acquainted with Rawls, so perhaps I’m projecting my own beliefs. My thinking when I read the reference to him is that the trouble with a religious-based governmental system is twofold: 1) it is arbitrary, and 2) it tends to denigrate to extremism. At least as far back as Constantine, Christianity has been through countless periods not just of oppression and violence against outsiders, but of internecine conflict the source of which seems pretty obscure to outsiders. Likewise, as soon as Mohammed died, Islam split into two violently opposed factions, which appear virtually identical from the outside.
Religion-based political systems have rarely, if ever, been totally open to discussion and cooperation. When people believe that they know the word of God, and are hewing to it more precisely than everyone else, they have a natural tendency towards arrogance and stubbornness. All of our major religious traditions have had sects that practiced tolerance and cooperation, but those groups generally avoided politics, recognizing that it was a domain that easily led to moral corruption.
People of faith are never going to agree on all aspects of morality and behavior. That shouldn’t be an issue for a liberal democracy, which is predicated on the concept of live and let live. But if any particular faith is too thoroughly wired into the state, then it tends toward a narrow interpretation of that faith, and increasingly coercive enforcement.
The separation of church and state protects the church as well as the state and the people. It is the most peaceful and non-contentious starting point, allowing individuals and groups to follow their own creeds, without forcing the nation into the impossible challenge of agreeing not just on the basic creed, but on myriad contentious details.
Wonderfully written Shadi, thanks for getting WoC essays back into my feed!
I know you and I both have Obama reservations but man, I miss those last dying breaths of the old guard, and especially their speech-writers.
This is, as ever, really wonderful. I do think the site of public contestation is growing ever fiercer, and it is not that Rawlsian liberalism cannot meet the challenge; it is that those who genuinely believe in that form of politics have not expressed, clearly enough, at least, the reasons why they want it. It strikes me that we are in a transformational moment that Obama's rhetoric matched, but policies did not. There is a broader coalitional failure politically, across the West, where liberal progressives have not fought hard enough to defend their values. The slow march of regressive views is now speeding up, and with AI threatening core democratic principles this is even more dangerous.
“The natural state of politics is much more tribal and apocalyptic,” is a tremendously depressing assertion. My observation is that a significant proportion of the population is enthralled with the drama and perceived meaningfulness of belonging to a political constituency and vigorously and publicly defending it.
Overwhelmingly, the people who participate in these overly-theatrical tribes consider themselves to be motivated by common sense and common good. They believe that it’s those OTHER people who are arbitrarily tribal and apocalyptic.
Au contraire, I think Catholics have spent a thousand years making faith reasonable. St Thomas Aquinas being the prime example, adapting Aristotle's philosophy. All men are created equal is the secular version of we are all created in he image of God. From that flows what Martin Luther King Jnr fought for in the political field. Ditto candidate Talarico.
What’s your explanation for the Inquisition, and the Thirty Years War?
I’m not well acquainted with Rawls, so perhaps I’m projecting my own beliefs. My thinking when I read the reference to him is that the trouble with a religious-based governmental system is twofold: 1) it is arbitrary, and 2) it tends to denigrate to extremism. At least as far back as Constantine, Christianity has been through countless periods not just of oppression and violence against outsiders, but of internecine conflict the source of which seems pretty obscure to outsiders. Likewise, as soon as Mohammed died, Islam split into two violently opposed factions, which appear virtually identical from the outside.
Religion-based political systems have rarely, if ever, been totally open to discussion and cooperation. When people believe that they know the word of God, and are hewing to it more precisely than everyone else, they have a natural tendency towards arrogance and stubbornness. All of our major religious traditions have had sects that practiced tolerance and cooperation, but those groups generally avoided politics, recognizing that it was a domain that easily led to moral corruption.
People of faith are never going to agree on all aspects of morality and behavior. That shouldn’t be an issue for a liberal democracy, which is predicated on the concept of live and let live. But if any particular faith is too thoroughly wired into the state, then it tends toward a narrow interpretation of that faith, and increasingly coercive enforcement.
The separation of church and state protects the church as well as the state and the people. It is the most peaceful and non-contentious starting point, allowing individuals and groups to follow their own creeds, without forcing the nation into the impossible challenge of agreeing not just on the basic creed, but on myriad contentious details.
Great read.