I think you are misreading Rawls. Rawls had zero problem with people living their faith in public.
However, he thought that comprehensive doctrines like religion should not form the basis of public reason when utilized to determine anything that involves the coercive apparatus of the state.
It's obvious why--because this would be arbitrary exercise of power of some private doctrines over people who don't share them and therefore impede their liberty. The same goes for moral views. A vegan judge should not be able to enforce his private moral doctrine to outlaw meat eating on people who don't share that private moral doctrine.
It's not opposed to religion per se but instead holds that in a society there's a shared pool of values, an overlapping consensus of values that we draw from in a liberal society whereby we can shape the society. So of course they involve lots of things religious people care about, but only the ones that are part of public morality can legitimately be enforced on people.
Any religious person can try to convince people of their views publicly but obviously if they don't share the religion, they have to orient the argument to values people outside the religion care about.
This makes sense for liberal society I think because we don't force people to believe or follow specific comprehensive doctrines. We don't have a state religion.
Religious people can do anything in public life except force people to abide by rules that only make sense within their private value system, and hold no meaning for those outside their value system. They can use any type of persuasion they want, tie their religious views to ideas in the overlapping consensus, convert people, etc.
They did. Why did John Paul II forbid priests from holding political office? And of course many Catholic public officials were easily able to set aside the religious aspect of their views and draw only on the overlapping consensus of values they shared with everyone else.
What you are saying here implies it would be legitimate to oppose a Catholic for any position because they could not be fair and would overreach in the interest of their faith.
Is that an implication you want?
It would just come down to'Catholics v. Protestants v. whomever' etc. This is precisely the problem liberal democracies want to avoid, based on hundreds of years of religious wars.
Our system was designed in response to that brutal history.
"This makes sense for liberal society I think because we don't force people to believe or follow specific comprehensive doctrines. We don't have a state religion."
Much to like in your comment. However, I would be curious how you would respond to the criticism that our society is perilously close to having a "secular" state religion...via installation of the "woke" agenda (e.g., DEI) across many of our key institutions. Is the administrative state (e.g., through the Department of Education) forcing people to abide by rules that represent some "public" value system upon which there is a shared consensus by the governed?
What you call the woke agenda others call equality before the law.
This is what the whole debate was about. If the law cannot effect equality for individuals without addressing various climates of discrimination, then some argue those climates must be created.
Others argue that this is not necessary because the law can be applied in each case to ensure people are equal (e.g., you can punish discrimination).
The DEI is an attempt to avoid discrimination by institutions who would rather prevent it than have it prosecuted after the fact. Also, it ensures they can't be accused of enabling discrimination.
But this is a debate about the value of equality before the law and how it is to be protected. It would be a departure from our values in the overlapping consensus to say people AREN'T equal before the law.
Obviously people are not going to agree on all facts. A factual disagreement exists here about whether institutions are racist and this requires remedies. Most of the disagreements will be factual kinds of this nature but the stakes are very high in the public discourse because of recent objections that read claims of institutional racism as insulting to white people.White people didn't seem to feel insulted by these claims in the past but now they do.
You can find documents from the American bishops discussing institutional racism from probably as far back as the 1980s. Nobody felt insulted by these claims, and they were not intended to be insulting, merely thought of as a problem for fairness, which is a universal value.
Yes, there are discrimination laws in place that promote equality of opportunity. DEI, focuses, instead, on pursuing "equity" (a form of equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunity) that can only be achieved by, in fact, engaging in discrimination. DEI is underpinned by a deep belief in the existence of systemic racism within our society's culture and institutions. From the standpoint of the woke, systemic racism is largely viewed as an absolute truth that must not be challenged. I agree with you that legitimate disagreements exist pertaining to this stance and that there should be public discourse regarding the issue. Try to raise the issue, however, and representatives of the secular religion will treat you like a heretic that must be silenced...there is no room for debate or dialogue. Clearly, there are some significant concerns here regarding how "fairness" is operationalized.
Your listed credentials, "retired history/language teacher (1980-2020) Translator, editor, writer," seem impressive and not in keeping with the facile comments you typically post. Talk about "cant"...
Intellectually everything you say here is true but I fear there is a different reality on the ground. Post-Vatican II Catholicism and Liberalism SHOULD find common ground based on universal human dignity.
BUT Liberalism remains just as hostile to Catholicism as it ever has been since the Enlightenment.
And Catholicism for its part is orbiting closer and closer to illiberal authoritarianism around the world--- except in the Vatican of course where a single man is laboring, probably to the point of exhaustion and ill health, to retrieve the Post-Vatican II vision of the Church and the world. (Make "Gaudium et Spes" Great Again!)
In America there is a goodly number of the laity, some clergy and even a few hierarchs who are aligning themselves with the MAGA movement, Donald Trump and are about as equally hateful (and untruthful) of Pope Francis as they are of Joe Biden. They are using the pulpit and opinion pages to align themselves with Christian Nationalism.
I think you are misreading Rawls. Rawls had zero problem with people living their faith in public.
However, he thought that comprehensive doctrines like religion should not form the basis of public reason when utilized to determine anything that involves the coercive apparatus of the state.
It's obvious why--because this would be arbitrary exercise of power of some private doctrines over people who don't share them and therefore impede their liberty. The same goes for moral views. A vegan judge should not be able to enforce his private moral doctrine to outlaw meat eating on people who don't share that private moral doctrine.
It's not opposed to religion per se but instead holds that in a society there's a shared pool of values, an overlapping consensus of values that we draw from in a liberal society whereby we can shape the society. So of course they involve lots of things religious people care about, but only the ones that are part of public morality can legitimately be enforced on people.
Any religious person can try to convince people of their views publicly but obviously if they don't share the religion, they have to orient the argument to values people outside the religion care about.
This makes sense for liberal society I think because we don't force people to believe or follow specific comprehensive doctrines. We don't have a state religion.
Religious people can do anything in public life except force people to abide by rules that only make sense within their private value system, and hold no meaning for those outside their value system. They can use any type of persuasion they want, tie their religious views to ideas in the overlapping consensus, convert people, etc.
Catholics do not see doctrine as private and do not see reason as outside of religion.
They did. Why did John Paul II forbid priests from holding political office? And of course many Catholic public officials were easily able to set aside the religious aspect of their views and draw only on the overlapping consensus of values they shared with everyone else.
What you are saying here implies it would be legitimate to oppose a Catholic for any position because they could not be fair and would overreach in the interest of their faith.
Is that an implication you want?
It would just come down to'Catholics v. Protestants v. whomever' etc. This is precisely the problem liberal democracies want to avoid, based on hundreds of years of religious wars.
Our system was designed in response to that brutal history.
"This makes sense for liberal society I think because we don't force people to believe or follow specific comprehensive doctrines. We don't have a state religion."
Much to like in your comment. However, I would be curious how you would respond to the criticism that our society is perilously close to having a "secular" state religion...via installation of the "woke" agenda (e.g., DEI) across many of our key institutions. Is the administrative state (e.g., through the Department of Education) forcing people to abide by rules that represent some "public" value system upon which there is a shared consensus by the governed?
What you call the woke agenda others call equality before the law.
This is what the whole debate was about. If the law cannot effect equality for individuals without addressing various climates of discrimination, then some argue those climates must be created.
Others argue that this is not necessary because the law can be applied in each case to ensure people are equal (e.g., you can punish discrimination).
The DEI is an attempt to avoid discrimination by institutions who would rather prevent it than have it prosecuted after the fact. Also, it ensures they can't be accused of enabling discrimination.
But this is a debate about the value of equality before the law and how it is to be protected. It would be a departure from our values in the overlapping consensus to say people AREN'T equal before the law.
Obviously people are not going to agree on all facts. A factual disagreement exists here about whether institutions are racist and this requires remedies. Most of the disagreements will be factual kinds of this nature but the stakes are very high in the public discourse because of recent objections that read claims of institutional racism as insulting to white people.White people didn't seem to feel insulted by these claims in the past but now they do.
You can find documents from the American bishops discussing institutional racism from probably as far back as the 1980s. Nobody felt insulted by these claims, and they were not intended to be insulting, merely thought of as a problem for fairness, which is a universal value.
Yes, there are discrimination laws in place that promote equality of opportunity. DEI, focuses, instead, on pursuing "equity" (a form of equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunity) that can only be achieved by, in fact, engaging in discrimination. DEI is underpinned by a deep belief in the existence of systemic racism within our society's culture and institutions. From the standpoint of the woke, systemic racism is largely viewed as an absolute truth that must not be challenged. I agree with you that legitimate disagreements exist pertaining to this stance and that there should be public discourse regarding the issue. Try to raise the issue, however, and representatives of the secular religion will treat you like a heretic that must be silenced...there is no room for debate or dialogue. Clearly, there are some significant concerns here regarding how "fairness" is operationalized.
Curious about the same issues. But I'm not holding my breath expecting a substantive answer. Some cant, perhaps; nothing more. . . .
Your listed credentials, "retired history/language teacher (1980-2020) Translator, editor, writer," seem impressive and not in keeping with the facile comments you typically post. Talk about "cant"...
Love this series!
Intellectually everything you say here is true but I fear there is a different reality on the ground. Post-Vatican II Catholicism and Liberalism SHOULD find common ground based on universal human dignity.
BUT Liberalism remains just as hostile to Catholicism as it ever has been since the Enlightenment.
And Catholicism for its part is orbiting closer and closer to illiberal authoritarianism around the world--- except in the Vatican of course where a single man is laboring, probably to the point of exhaustion and ill health, to retrieve the Post-Vatican II vision of the Church and the world. (Make "Gaudium et Spes" Great Again!)
In America there is a goodly number of the laity, some clergy and even a few hierarchs who are aligning themselves with the MAGA movement, Donald Trump and are about as equally hateful (and untruthful) of Pope Francis as they are of Joe Biden. They are using the pulpit and opinion pages to align themselves with Christian Nationalism.